Page 6 of 32 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 479

Thread: Best Wing Chun KO in MMA - Iron Wolves Fighter Chu Sau Lei Wing Chun

  1. #76
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    2,252
    Quote Originally Posted by dlcox View Post
    In a nutshell that's what it really is, evolution. It's conforming to it's environment. Evolve, assimilate or die off. In this presented scenerio Wing Chun may be nothing more than a springboard, but at least they are paying hommage and saying that it is an integral part of their training.
    Yep, my point exactly........ but its evolving into something that already exist which is logical given the same influencing factors

  2. #77
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Rockville, MD
    Posts
    2,662
    Quote Originally Posted by dlcox View Post
    In a nutshell that's what it really is, evolution. It's conforming to it's environment. Evolve, assimilate or die off. In this presented scenerio Wing Chun may be nothing more than a springboard, but at least they are paying hommage and saying that it is an integral part of their training.
    No. They are saying that it IS Wing Chun! That was my point! Like I've said over and over....I have no problem with what Alan and his guys are doing in the ring. I think its great and I support them! I just don't think they should be telling people..."this is Wing Chun." Maybe its CSL Chinese Boxing. Maybe its an MMA evolution of Wing Chun or Wing Chun adapted to the ring. I said that earlier. But again, that's NOT what Alan is saying.

    Consider that clip of Vitor Belfort again. Vitor does the exact same punch that Josh used in the clip that started this thread. At about the 54 second point Vitor rushes in with chain punches. He actually looks more like Wing Chun than Josh. Alan's response was that Vitor doesn't train Wing Chun so what he is doing is not Wing Chun. But Josh trains Wing Chun so what he is doing IS Wing Chun. So Dave, going with your argument about concepts being present.....Vitor is using some Wing Chun concepts but doesn't study Wing Chun, so it isn't Wing Chun. Josh does the exact same thing and looks like a great MMA fighter and because he trains Wing Chun in addition to his MMA it IS Wing Chun? Tell me how that makes sense!

    Absolutely you can use Wing Chun concepts and training methods to supplement another art. But that other art does not immediately become Wing Chun. The concepts are very important, but the form and expression define Wing Chun as well.

  3. #78
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Rockville, MD
    Posts
    2,662
    Keith, I think your making a mountain out of a molehill.

    With my comments to you? Or overall? Because I think what I have been saying through-out this thread is important. You can't just do anything ole thing you want and call it Wing Chun. There has to be some standards of some sort.

    As far as Alan's remarks concerning Vitor, if he did say that, then he needs to take a step back and reflect, because I think he has been drinking a little too much of his own Kool-Aid.

    I went back to make sure I'm not putting words in Alan's mouth. Here is what he said that I am referring to:

    I have trained with Vitor as he is a friend of my BJJ teacher. He wasn't doing Wing Chun and has never said anything different - he just fired a one two repeated and charged. So that is a pointless reference. On the other hand Josh does train Wing Chun - Chu Sau Lei Wing Chun and we did train to land that punch. All my MMA fighters train CSL Wing Chun - is that clear for you? I am bored of explaining that just because you have a limited insight to what we do - it does not mean we do.


    As far as Vitor and his chain punching goes, just because it didn't come from Wing Chun doesn't make the principles and concept any less valid than if it did. Wing Chun's theory, principles and concepts are more universal than you are giving them credit for.

    No, no! I give them plenty of credit! My point was that just because Vitor is using some Wing Chun principles and concepts (regardless of the source) doesn't qualify him to call his fighting method "Wing Chun." So, should someone doing a fighting method that is nearly indistinguishable from Vitor's but does get similar priniciples and concepts from Wing Chun call what they are doing "Wing Chun"? Or should they say it is MMA with a strong Wing Chun influence? Or should they say "CSL Chinese Boxing?"

    It seems to me that you have bound them to "Form & Style" and cannot see them as a separate entity.

    No I'm not. I'm just being practical. You watched those clips and didn't see anything that was recognizable as Wing Chun. The typical person looking at those clips won't see Wing Chun. Labeling them as Wing Chun is going to be confusing to people. Alan will be the first one to tell you that he gets criticism from many directions that his cage fighting doesn't look like Wing Chun. I think that is a legitmate criticism and it isn't going to go away regardless of how many explanations he gives about using Wing Chun concepts. Like it or not, Wing Chun has a visual signature as much as it has concepts and principles. Now that visual signature or "form & style" can vary between lineages and the point at which something stops being Wing Chun can be debated ad nauseum. But the fact remains that if the average person looking in wouldn't recognize it as any different that anyone else's MMA fighting method, then its going to be hard to convince that person that it is "straight up" Wing Chun. Calling it "CSL Chinese Boxing" seems more appropriate to me. That's just my opinion. Alan can do whatever he wants. But I think he would get far less criticism if he just changed his terminology a little bit. But he likely doesn't care.

  4. #79
    Quote Originally Posted by dlcox View Post
    I just watched the video and thought I'd chime in. Though it may appear to some that this is not Wing Chun simply because it doesn't look like the stereotypical version of what many think Wing Chun is, doesn't mean it isn't. Wing Chun is way more than form, it's theory. This theory when applied under stress will take many forms. Concept and structure will invaribly change according to many factors, including but not limited to, environment, stress, athleticism, skill, comprehension etc. If Alan Orr says that what they train is Wing Chun, why can't it be believed? Is it because it doesn't fit ones preconcieved ideology or is it something deeper seated within ones own predjudices? You have to look beyond "form" and ask yourself are the principles present. Were there things I saw in the video I thought that the participant could have done that were more inline with MY understanding of Wing Chun, absolutely, but who cares. I'm sure his Sifu will address any issues he saw in order to improve his student, in the end he won and did it convincingly and thats all that really matters. For the individuals that say it wasn't solely Wing Chun, I'll agree, I personally didn't see anything different "form" wise from standard MMA. This doesn't mean that Wing Chun wasn't a vital part, besides what "art" is truely "pure" anymore. Bottom line is Wing Chun concepts were present and were used successfully. Kudos to Alan Orr and the Iron Wolves.
    Thank you. Nice to hear that my answers to people question are making sense to people with open minds and good understanding.

  5. #80
    Seriously, who cares what it looks like? If it is functional and works adhering to wing chun principles then it is wing chun. For me it is all about evolution and testing through pressure otherwise what are we doing?

    We each need to be certain about why we are doing wing chun. Do we want to imitate and follow or learn and evolve?

  6. #81
    Quote Originally Posted by KPM View Post
    Keith, I think your making a mountain out of a molehill.

    With my comments to you? Or overall? Because I think what I have been saying through-out this thread is important. You can't just do anything ole thing you want and call it Wing Chun. There has to be some standards of some sort.

    As far as Alan's remarks concerning Vitor, if he did say that, then he needs to take a step back and reflect, because I think he has been drinking a little too much of his own Kool-Aid.

    I went back to make sure I'm not putting words in Alan's mouth. Here is what he said that I am referring to:

    I have trained with Vitor as he is a friend of my BJJ teacher. He wasn't doing Wing Chun and has never said anything different - he just fired a one two repeated and charged. So that is a pointless reference. On the other hand Josh does train Wing Chun - Chu Sau Lei Wing Chun and we did train to land that punch. All my MMA fighters train CSL Wing Chun - is that clear for you? I am bored of explaining that just because you have a limited insight to what we do - it does not mean we do.


    As far as Vitor and his chain punching goes, just because it didn't come from Wing Chun doesn't make the principles and concept any less valid than if it did. Wing Chun's theory, principles and concepts are more universal than you are giving them credit for.

    No, no! I give them plenty of credit! My point was that just because Vitor is using some Wing Chun principles and concepts (regardless of the source) doesn't qualify him to call his fighting method "Wing Chun." So, should someone doing a fighting method that is nearly indistinguishable from Vitor's but does get similar priniciples and concepts from Wing Chun call what they are doing "Wing Chun"? Or should they say it is MMA with a strong Wing Chun influence? Or should they say "CSL Chinese Boxing?"

    It seems to me that you have bound them to "Form & Style" and cannot see them as a separate entity.

    No I'm not. I'm just being practical. You watched those clips and didn't see anything that was recognizable as Wing Chun. The typical person looking at those clips won't see Wing Chun. Labeling them as Wing Chun is going to be confusing to people. Alan will be the first one to tell you that he gets criticism from many directions that his cage fighting doesn't look like Wing Chun. I think that is a legitmate criticism and it isn't going to go away regardless of how many explanations he gives about using Wing Chun concepts. Like it or not, Wing Chun has a visual signature as much as it has concepts and principles. Now that visual signature or "form & style" can vary between lineages and the point at which something stops being Wing Chun can be debated ad nauseum. But the fact remains that if the average person looking in wouldn't recognize it as any different that anyone else's MMA fighting method, then its going to be hard to convince that person that it is "straight up" Wing Chun. Calling it "CSL Chinese Boxing" seems more appropriate to me. That's just my opinion. Alan can do whatever he wants. But I think he would get far less criticism if he just changed his terminology a little bit. But he likely doesn't care.
    Thank you for your concern. But your posts are all nonsense. You opinion is based on your point of view about something you can't see or understand.

    I have loads of emails from people thanking me for showing Wing Chun being applied. So you points are just not valid at all. You are one of the very few limited thinkers that hold back the development of Wing Chun by trying to label it for how you see it.

    Let me make it very clear -

    I teach Chu Sau Lei Wing Chun Kuen under my teacher Robert Chu Sifu. What my guys train and use in combat sports and normal self defence is Chu Sau Lei Wing Chun Kuen.

    CSL Chinese Boxing is CSL Wing Chun Kuen!

    My point was that Wing Chun is a Chinese Boxing system.

    So stop telling me what you think I should or should not all it or do as it has nothing to do with you.

  7. #82
    Quote Originally Posted by paulcaz View Post
    Seriously, who cares what it looks like? If it is functional and works adhering to wing chun principles then it is wing chun. For me it is all about evolution and testing through pressure otherwise what are we doing?

    We each need to be certain about why we are doing wing chun. Do we want to imitate and follow or learn and evolve?
    Correct. When your in a fight you are not trying to do a drill and look good. You are trying to win. Your training is done. Its time to dig in and get the job done using the skills you have.

  8. #83
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    ᏌᏂᎭᎢ, ᏥᎾ
    Posts
    3,257
    Quote Originally Posted by paulcaz View Post
    Seriously, who cares what it looks like? If it is functional and works adhering to wing chun principles then it is wing chun.
    Therein lies the problem. To some, probably most, that sort of punch doesn't adhere to WC principles.

  9. #84
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Rockville, MD
    Posts
    2,662
    Quote Originally Posted by paulcaz View Post
    Seriously, who cares what it looks like? If it is functional and works adhering to wing chun principles then it is wing chun. For me it is all about evolution and testing through pressure otherwise what are we doing?

    We each need to be certain about why we are doing wing chun. Do we want to imitate and follow or learn and evolve?
    So Jeet Kune Do is Wing Chun? The reason so many lineages have stayed secret for so long is to keep their teachings intact. You can't just do anything you want and call it Wing Chun. There has to be some standards. Otherwise after a few generations there is nothing left of the original. If you just want to learn to fight and be effective in the ring, then just study MMA or BJJ or boxing. Why are you doing Wing Chun?
    Last edited by KPM; 04-18-2014 at 08:15 AM.

  10. #85
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Rockville, MD
    Posts
    2,662
    Thank you for your concern. But your posts are all nonsense. You opinion is based on your point of view about something you can't see or understand.

    I see and understand just fine. I just happen to have a different opinion, that's all.

    I have loads of emails from people thanking me for showing Wing Chun being applied. So you points are just not valid at all.

    So, are you saying that you no longer get people complaining that your MMA doesn't look like Wing Chun? Isn't that why you made several of the videos you have up? Because my point was to explain why people are saying that and what you could do to change it.

    You are one of the very few limited thinkers that hold back the development of Wing Chun by trying to label it for how you see it.

    Again, I'm just being practical. If you said that your MMA was a further development of Wing Chun adapted for the cage, I'd be right there with you! My simple and direct point has been this: if you label things as Wing Chun with no further qualifiers and the typical person watching the clips is going to see pretty much the same MMA fighting everyone else is doing, then there is going to be some problems arise. You've seen that haven't you? Despite those loads of emails?



    So stop telling me what you think I should or should not all it or do as it has nothing to do with you.

    You posted a video in a public forum. I commented on what I saw and expressed an opinion. I'm sorry if you don't like what I've said.

  11. #86
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    44
    Blog Entries
    1
    Hi, I am a Chu Sau Lei instructor under Alan Orr Sifu. I don't fight in MMA, neither do my students. However, when we apply our art under pressure it looks no different to what Josh or Aaron look like in the clips my teacher has supplied. Does that mean I am not a Wing Chun practitioner? The Chu Sau Lei syllabus is a very comprehensive Wing Chun training model focussing heavily on body structure and a practical approach to the application of the art. To me, Wing Chun is a training method, the drills give you the tools and attributes for fighting.

    You then take what you have learnt and refine your skills through pressure testing until hopefully you arrive at a point where you can hold your own against someone who is trying to overwhelm you. At this point of refinement if someone who is watching me says "that doesn't look like Wing Chun" I know they haven't been through the same process and smile. These individuals have a romanticised idea of what the art should look like under pressure , they want to see people fighting using drills , not the attributes gained from them. I consider myself a Wing Chun practitioner and just because my application of the art doesn't fit in with another persons preconceived idea of what Wing Chun should look like doesn't mean I'm not doing Wing Chun...

  12. #87
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    482
    Quote Originally Posted by dlcox View Post
    ...tell him to keep his elbows in.
    No, don't! I mean, if what he's doing works, why mess with success?

    In my earlier posts, I was just wondering aloud if some of Alan's fighters look more typically "WC like" than Josh. And if so, have they also been successful in competition? Just call it a geezer's curiosity.

    Chris, perhaps you could address this. Is there considerable variety in the way different fighters from your CSL/Iron Wolves group look in the ring, or do you all have pretty much the same personal styles?
    Last edited by Grumblegeezer; 04-18-2014 at 02:09 PM.
    "No contaban con mi astucia!" --el Chapulin Colorado

    http://www.vingtsunaz.com/
    www.nationalvt.com/

  13. #88
    For me, WCK is a bridging art with an emphasis on striking and controlling at the same time. The drills we train help us to do this, based on the art's concepts and principles.

    So when I see Alan's recent clips (the instructional ones), he is often showing Chi Sau and Lap Sau and I can see that the Chu Sau Lei Wing Chun is teaching this striking and controlling. I like these clips a lot - and I think Alan is a gifted teacher, teaching a comprehensive system. The linking/delinking clip, for example, was extremely good, IMO.

    Quote Originally Posted by chris bougeard View Post
    These individuals have a romanticised idea of what the art should look like under pressure, they want to see people fighting using drills, not the attributes gained from them.
    Well, I do look to see people using the attributes gained from drills and I also agree that when people fight they won't look like they are using drills as is (no one expects to see someone fight in a MMA contest using Chi Sau and Lap Sau as they are used in a class environment).

    However... ... as so much Wing Chun training involves bridge work and, for me therefore, the art is a bridging system (an emphasis on fighting using Chi Kiu as a preference to Lei Kiu), I always watch clips of Wing Chun guys entering MMA fights and hope to see this - the use of Chi Kiu.

    Don't get me wrong - there's nothing wrong with people fighting using Lei Kiu methods as a preference - people using western boxing and Muay Thai use this to great effect. All fights, regardless of system, start from Lei Kiu... but in WCK the system looks to implement Chi Kiu as soon as possible, whenever possible - hence the various and numerous drills and training methods that work from contact.

    In Yip Man's words, from the interview with New Martial Hero in the early 70s:

    loi lau heui sung, lat sau jik chung... "the word sung in the motto is a forward movement. The word chung is also a forward movement. The word lau in the motto is stay and stick to the opponents fist (arm) and not use brute force to push it aside."

    Yip Man is talking about bridging in that quoted part, and some Wing Chun lines talk about 14 or 18 or 20 Kiu Sau methods/key words (e.g. press, swallow, slice, etc,... or lead, leak, float, etc,... or fold, sheer, pull, etc.) Some lines don't mention these things specifically, but you find them in the training drills.

    So for me these are part of the attributes you should see when WCK is applied. However, I think that when WCK guys step into the ring they seem to go with the typical Lei Kiu methods other arts use. Their WCK (in terms of the stand up game they are using) starts looking like western boxing or kickboxing or Muay Thai (arts with a Lei Kiu emphasis), which mirrors what their opponents will be using/giving them.

    So I agree with KPM on this point when he said: "Wing Chun has a visual signature as much as it has concepts and principles."

    But maybe I'd go one step further . Wing Chun's visual signature is directly tied to its concepts and principles - they are two sides of the same coin - you aren't looking to separate them. The body methods, shapes and motions tie in directly with the concepts and principles, particularly the eight key characters LL, HS, LSJC.

    In other words... Wing Chun is a Chi Kiu art, bridging is part of WCK's strategy and tactics, these are all connected to the body methods employed and these in turn all relate to the art's principles and concepts. No one part is more important than any of the others because they are all connected.

    If we think of the visual signature and the concepts and principles as being two sides of the same coin, then in application WCK is that coin being flipped in the air, spinning rapidly. When you look at the coin are you looking at the heads or tails side? You're looking at both.

    In the fight clip that Alan posted, his student did an awesome job - winning the fight in a convincing fashion. He did it largely using Lei Kiu methods.

    Did it work? Absolutely (congrats to the fighter!)
    Did it look like Wing Chun? IMO, no.
    Was it Wing Chun? IMO, I would say no (and as KPM said, that in no way detracts from the fact that the fighter got in the cage and beat his opponent)
    Does it matter either way? For the fighter, no. His aim was to win the fight and he did - so a successful day at the office For those reading that the fighter was a Wing Chun guy using Wing Chun, yes it matters in as much as the label is incorrect (which is hardly "matters" in a life or death important way ). The fighter might train the Wing Chun that Alan shows in his instructional clips, but in application I think he wasn't using it to win.
    Last edited by BPWT..; 04-18-2014 at 02:21 PM.

  14. #89
    Quote Originally Posted by chris bougeard View Post
    Hi, I am a Chu Sau Lei instructor under Alan Orr Sifu. I don't fight in MMA, neither do my students. However, when we apply our art under pressure it looks no different to what Josh or Aaron look like in the clips my teacher has supplied. Does that mean I am not a Wing Chun practitioner? The Chu Sau Lei syllabus is a very comprehensive Wing Chun training model focussing heavily on body structure and a practical approach to the application of the art. To me, Wing Chun is a training method, the drills give you the tools and attributes for fighting.

    You then take what you have learnt and refine your skills through pressure testing until hopefully you arrive at a point where you can hold your own against someone who is trying to overwhelm you. At this point of refinement if someone who is watching me says "that doesn't look like Wing Chun" I know they haven't been through the same process and smile. These individuals have a romanticised idea of what the art should look like under pressure , they want to see people fighting using drills , not the attributes gained from them. I consider myself a Wing Chun practitioner and just because my application of the art doesn't fit in with another persons preconceived idea of what Wing Chun should look like doesn't mean I'm not doing Wing Chun...
    Hey Chris nice to meet you. Of course you're a wing chun practitioner. And your coach does well teaching it adapted to MMA. Out of curiosity, what does your weekly sparring schedule look like? I'm just starting conversation - Alan has posted here plenty - seeing what his clubs are doing.

    When I look at live matches with wing chun, like the video clip, what I look for is fundamentals, like is someone holding their angles well? Are they controlling centerline? Are their techniques backed up by a wing chun body structure? Josh checks all the boxes there. wing chun usually doesn't talk about structure inside the BJJ guard, but Josh had that too - caged the hips well, 2 in or 2 out, good hip pressure that opened up GNP. Do I care that his KO punch was not an elbow down punch? No I don't. With his distancing, he needed the extra range on that punch, and he sensed it and executed well. He would not have got the KO with an elbow down punch at that distance in all likelihood.

    I would ignore all those over-focused on the tan, bong and fook hand shapes rather than a deeper sense of what those tools accomplish or their aim.

  15. #90
    Quote Originally Posted by BPWT.. View Post
    In other words... Wing Chun is a Chi Kiu art, bridging is part of WCK's strategy and tactics, these are all connected to the body methods employed and these in turn all relate to the art's principles and concepts. No one part is more important than any of the others because they are all connected.
    First, can you more precisely define Chi Kiu and Lei Kiu for me in your understanding? We have a definition of Chi Kiu in our wing chun art (HFY) that I am very sure is different than what you are talking about.

    Bridging is absolutely not part of WCK's strategy. You don't seek to bridge. It is a direct art - you go directly to the target. IF there is a bridge in the way, you sink it.

    In this fight, the only form of bridge I saw put up by Josh's opponent was a BJJ guard. (i.e. legs were obstructing the path to striking target). And as a side comment I will observe that 95% of wing chun has inadequate tools to deal with that type of a bridge (BJJ guard). There was no bridge from the feet offered by the hands. Thus the only thing happening from the feet is striking the target on centerline.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •