The New Wing Chun!

[sanjuro_ronin]

If you had to create the art of Wing Chun all over again, what would you include and exclude this time around? Would you create another form with things that are currently not in the current ones? Would you add grappling, boxing or whatever? How about more weapons?

There are some glaring holes in WC, just like there are in every system.
I wouldn't have to create a "new" WC, just allow my WC to evolve to meet the demands I was imposing on it/me.

[Niersun]

At some point in time before I found my current preferences in martial arts, I studied JKD Concepts (Inosanto's way) for 4 years. Looking back, I could say if you consider forms as a method of solo practice to ingrain moves and principles then practicing forms was encouraged. We did practice a bunch of short sequences in a wooden dummy.

Inosanto teaches JKD as a style, he has stated this himself. Enough said. I respect him, but he hasnt been able to teach it as it should be taught and has muddled the water.

Simply it should be MMA training with foul tactics. Whether Wing Chun techniques is incorporated, well thats up to you.

[free2flow]

Inosanto teaches JKD as a style, he has stated this himself. Enough said. I respect him, but he hasnt been able to teach it as it should be taught and has muddled the water.

A good friend of mine whom I trained together before in Inosanto Concepts. Like me, he's now moved on and is now training MMA fighters. He's also an instructor under Tim Tacket and currently trains with one of Ted Wongs senior student. We always have lengthy conversation regarding JKD groups and his experience with Tim Tackets method and Ted Wong's. Not a single time he said Inosanto hasn't been able to teach it as it should. If your experience with Inosanto is with seminars, videos then I can understand your comment on him . As for myself, I don't feel to have enough experience in JKD to make an assessment on Inosanto's inability to teach as it should be.

[mun hung]

When I started this thread, I really meant for it to be serious. But like many other topics on this board this has somehow gone astray.

Let's start again. Knowing what you know now, if you were to create a "new art" (we don't need to give it a name) what principals and theories would you include in it, how would you teach it, would there be forms, weapons, what kind of horse, and most importantly - for what reason? Everything must be logical.

No firearms, grenades or anything stupid please. And no more JKD talk (we know that doesn't work LOL).

Let's begin with concepts and ideas for this art before we even talk about the actual training of it.

I'll start.

Efficiency - the art must be efficient so that one can accomplish the most with the least amount of effort. And for many reasons. Fast results and conservation of energy would be top factors. And because it must be efficient, I think that some of the movements need to be direct such as perhaps a linear punch with force driven by the elbow but backed up by the structural strength of the shoulder. I feel that there are advantages of having the fist in the vertical position when it is thrown. I feel that holding the fist in a vertical position feels quite natural and allows the elbow to drop and point downwards offering the ribcage some protection as the punch is thrown as well as it's return.

Anyone want to add to this one? If not, we can start on other theories.

[GlennR]

Let's begin with concepts and ideas for this art before we even talk about the actual training of it.

I'll start.

Efficiency - the art must be efficient so that one can accomplish the most with the least amount of effort. And for many reasons. Fast results and conservation of energy would be top factors. And because it must be efficient, I think that some of the movements need to be direct such as perhaps a linear punch with force driven by the elbow but backed up by the structural strength of the shoulder. I feel that there are advantages of having the fist in the vertical position when it is thrown. I feel that holding the fist in a vertical position feels quite natural and allows the elbow to drop and point downwards offering the ribcage some protection as the punch is thrown as well as it's return.

Anyone want to add to this one? If not, we can start on other theories.

Im not sure where you are going here. WC is WC, if you were to redesign it then its not WC.

And why do you need to talk "theories", efficiency, use of structure, transfer of body weight etc etc is the cornerstone of ANY martial art.
Its how they want to implement those theories that differentiates them.

Do you want a striking style, grappling style, kicking style etc?

[mun hung]

@ GlennR -

You misunderstand. I am definitely not trying to redesign Wing Chun. I was thinking in terms of how it was developed, and thought it would be interesting to reverse engineer it; so to speak. You bring up interesting points though. If these "theories, structure, etc etc" are the cornerstones of ANY martial art, what theories and implementation could you suggest are best and why?

As far as choosing a striking style, grappling, kicking style, etc. I don't want to choose a certain style. I want a style that can beat them all. I think that was probably also the thought back then.

What would be a concept or idea that you could add to this? And why? Share with us.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Efficiency - the art must be efficient so that one can accomplish the most with the least amount of effort. And for many reasons. Fast results and conservation of energy would be top factors. And because it must be efficient, I think that some of the movements need to be direct such as perhaps a linear punch with force driven by the elbow but backed up by the structural strength of the shoulder. I feel that there are advantages of having the fist in the vertical position when it is thrown. I feel that holding the fist in a vertical position feels quite natural and allows the elbow to drop and point downwards offering the ribcage some protection as the punch is thrown as well as it's return.

Anyone want to add to this one? If not, we can start on other theories.

Efficient and effective must go hand-in-hand.

Taking your example of the vertical fist:
First off any good punch (vertical fist or otherwise) is a whole body movement.
The fist being vertical is irrelevant to power really, studies have shown this over and over and we have seen the boxers have been shown to have some of the most powerful punches.

A con to the vertical fist is that it leaves you open to overhand counters such as cross, overhands and hooks, whereas the "boxer punch" covers your jaw and beck better.

As you can see, its a trade off of sorts....

[mun hung]

@ Sanjuro ronin -

Those are great points. Effectiveness is key. So this new art would have more than one kind of punch? And power is generated from the whole body. I agree. I would like to add that power from any punch should find it's power from it's root/horse. I also think that power can be generated from different ways depending on how the punch is thrown. I also feel that you brought up a very important point about the punch. It needs to cover defensively as much as possible on both it's release as well as it's return. Great points. Any comments or suggestions on these points?

[TenTigers]

I've always stated that if you took two fighters and put them in a bubble with the idea to develop a close in fighting system, it would naturally develop the following characteristics:
It would have a close stance,chin tucked, elbows in to protect the vital areas.points, nerve endings, liver, groin etc.hands forward to intercept immediately, rather than simply cover, although covering skills need to be developed.
It would need to develop a short power delivery system
It would need to have reaction/sensitivity as the fighters are so close that not to would result in just standing there getting hit
vital target areas would be targeted-at close range, large movements would create too many openings, so the preference would be shorter strikes-however, there need to be finishing strikes/coup de gras
primary weapons would be punches utilizing all angles of attack-straight, hook, uppercut.
Phoenix-eye,ginger fist, leopard, fingers, claws, etc elbows, forearms, knees, short kicks
it would need evasive footwork, flanking, shifting, etc
it would need grappling
it would also need longer range tactics-not simply for closing, but to be able to attack and defend at all ranges
it would need a fighting philosophy of immediately shutting the person down, on the first beat,(intercepting opponent's intent) and continuing with pressure and multiple strikes until the person is finished.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I think that what we must NOT do is fall into the "either/or" mindset.
A classic example is the vertical punch vs horizontal.
Why choose one when you cna use both?
Why limit yourself.
TT gives me another example:

hands forward to intercept immediately, rather than simply cover, although covering skills need to be developed.

Was there a better short distance fighter than Tyson? did he ever extend his hands?
The answers is obvious BUT to avoid the "either.or" curse what do we have?
A fighter can use BOTH, hands in to cover as one slips and moves IN and "live hand" with hands forward when inside.

Using Tyson again as an example we are faced with this view:

vital target areas would be targeted-at close range, large movements would create too many openings, so the preference would be shorter strikes-however, there need to be finishing strikes/coup de gras
primary weapons would be punches utilizing all angles of attack-straight, hook, uppercut.
Phoenix-eye,ginger fist, leopard, fingers, claws, etc elbows, forearms, knees, short kicks

The kicks and specialty fists aside, this is what we saw with Tyson -
short hooks and uppercuts, short straights.

Of course as a boxer Tyson had no issues with his elbows "coming up" to add power and follow through base don HIS delivery platform, which brings us back to my original post and point of the boxers punch.

Both methods have their pros and cons, what is silly is to view either with an "either/or" mentality, what must be done is us BOTH to their best effectiveness.

[Yoshiyahu]

good luck at airport security, and in jail.

no my friend we will be traveling by bus or van

didn't we already have an system like that ... I think it's called wing chun or something like that.:d





as for weapons, you forgotten to include hookers. You're wondering why the hell would you include hookers ... Why my dear, to do your fighting for you.

ooh i rather bring some wc folks with me instead to talk to people to death about theory and training methods an skill level while i sneak behind them smack them on the back of the knee with that hammer.

I win fight over!

[lance]

[QUOTE=free2flow;1162987]Actually Bruce just popularized it but people been doing this long before him. For instance, in Mande Muda silat, my first style, late Pak Herman's dad combined many styles of Silat to come up with a more complete

Not really , bruce ' s idea was to take techniques that was useful to him and to reject techniques that was unessential to him . Which he applied the same idea to different martial arts he was researching , before he died .

The late Pak Herman ' s dad combined many styles of silat together to develop a more complete system . So bruce ' s idea is different from what the late Pak Herman s' idea was , because even though he combined many different styles of silat , he ' s still going to be using all the techniques in his silat system .

Adriano Emperado did the samething too with Kajukenbo .

I have deep respect for silat too and the other martial arts in general too , but
I ' m just saying that bruce ' s idea and what the late Herman's idea is different .
Bruce was the first person to use techniques that was useful to him and to reject what was less essential to him . And the late Herman had the same idea as Adriano Emperado , Al Dacascos . I ' m sure that the late Herman is martial arts was just like bruce in their own way , but they all have their individual ideas about their own martial arts . Bruce is dead , just like Herman .

[GlennR]

You misunderstand. I am definitely not trying to redesign Wing Chun. I was thinking in terms of how it was developed, and thought it would be interesting to reverse engineer it; so to speak. You bring up interesting points though. If these "theories, structure, etc etc" are the cornerstones of ANY martial art, what theories and implementation could you suggest are best and why?

Yes they are the cornerstone of any art, but its what and how they want to achieve that defines them..... there isnt a best

For instance, weight transfer is used in all martial arts, be it a grappling style,punching style or kicking style. The idea behind it would be to increase your applied power through the transfer of weight. Its a simple concept
So the theory is a constant in any good MA, but its how its applied that defines the art.... see my point? There isnt a "best"

As far as choosing a striking style, grappling, kicking style, etc. I don't want to choose a certain style.

Then im thinking you should be looking at MMA

I want a style that can beat them all. I think that was probably also the thought back then.

Wasnt one then and there isnt one now

What would be a concept or idea that you could add to this? And why? Share with us.

Personally, if i was to start a new MA the last thing id do would be to start with theories and concepts... id try some fighting, see what works and doesnt work, and then id break down what happened. THEN i might start talking concepts/theories

I think doing it the other way is putting the horse before the cart

[anerlich]

no my friend we will be traveling by bus or van

Not across the Pacific Ocean you won't, d0rkboy

[free2flow]

Then im thinking you should be looking at MMA

I totally agree.