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

[Alan Orr]

Thanks for replying (I will ignore the "I know you don't understand real fighting", so we don't get into silly name calling).

We also have a waist-bending movement in the BT form (I think all YM lineages have this), but for us this is very much an emergency movement.

I don't want to misquote or misunderstand what you are saying, so is it correct for me to think that you (CSL WCK) are happy to apply this movement to punches, for example, and that the body position/structure that goes with it is not seen as a compromise?

So doing so it is a part of your system's concepts that are not exclusively for emergency use?

I mean that for us (in my lineage), this type of movement would be a last resort as we already have compromised structure; but do you mean that for you this waist bending and moving the head forward is not see as a compromise to your Wing Chun's more usual upright upper-body position?

If so, okay - and thanks.

If you or Chris have the time, how would you describe CSL WCK's optimal body structure (a basic description)? I mean in terms of alignment (knees, hips, shoulders, neck, elbows).

The 3rd is has many principles that can be used at any time.

No I am not hear to teach you our system. When I film videos I post them. I posted the fight to share the news. I'm not wasting my time with someone who will not share their name or share a clip.

[BPWT..]

While Grumblegeezer resets the clock with a new thread here's some food for thought (regarding stand-up guard positioning we were discussing earlier)

http://vk.com/video_ext.php?oid=1342...9cf3b05eb&hd=1

One of my favourite fighters, check how Jon Jones (in this fight) utilised an extended hand - often using it to set up those nasty elbows. One of the commentators said, "He's gotta stop doing that. He got his hand out with fingers out and you can't do that as the other guy can't come in as he'll get a finger in the eye."

Sounds sweet, LOL.

Now for sure, Jon Jones is no Wing Chun guy (more's the pity ), and this position was not WCK's Man Sau Wu Sau. But you could argue it was an approximation of it, and it helped control incoming attacks and led to some great bridge work once the distance was reduced. Certainly in a way that would have been much harder to do if he'd had both hands back to use as cover only.

Man, I could watch this guy's fights all day.

[tc101]

[B]
It LOOKS like it LOOKS like it LOOKS like. You are hard headed lol. That you keep talking about what it LOOKS like says you are stuck on the model trying to LOOK like the model. You think let me repeat it for emphasis think think think think that when you fight your wing chun should LOOK like the model that you are fighting with the model.

Yep! I admitted that I'm stubborn and hard-headed! So how about you take a stab at it Twen? Can you do it? Can you explain to this hard-headed "stuck on a model" guy how all those things I pointed out are all based upon and conform to Wing Chun concepts? Because I admit that things don't have to look just like they do in training and practice. I watched those other two sparring clips and they don't look like precise "drilling" Wing Chun either. But they still look like Wing Chun. So how about you help me out and explain how Wing Chun concepts are at the base of all those things I pointed out? I'm not saying they aren't! I'm not saying Alan Orr and his guys don't do Wing Chun! I'm just being honest and saying I don't personally see it in those clips. Call me hard-headed. But no amount of demeaning me by calling me "stupid" and "low level" and "clueless" without actually answering my question is going to change my mind. You're as hard-headed as I am! You don't see that?

How about anyone else that has been chiming in here? Can you do it?

Yes I know you don't get it. Here's the thing it can be explained and explained until the cows come home and you will not see it because the only way to see it is through personal experience. You think think think you understand how the concepts tools tactics and so forth work in fighting but you don't. The only only only only way to know how they work for you you you you is through finding that out for yourself through sparring and lots of it. You have yo experience lots of sparring fighting to see how things really are and they are not what you think. You also have to work out how to deal with your opponents using your wing chun. You don't want to hear that because you think you can grasp it intellectually without having to go through the labor. But you can't.

[Alan Orr]

While Grumblegeezer resets the clock with a new thread here's some food for thought (regarding stand-up guard positioning we were discussing earlier)

http://vk.com/video_ext.php?oid=1342...9cf3b05eb&hd=1

One of my favourite fighters, check how Jon Jones (in this fight) utilised an extended hand - often using it to set up those nasty elbows. One of the commentators said, "He's gotta stop doing that. He got his hand out with fingers out and you can't do that as the other guy can't come in as he'll get a finger in the eye."

Sounds sweet, LOL.

Now for sure, Jon Jones is no Wing Chun guy (more's the pity ), and this position was not WCK's Man Sau Wu Sau. But you could argue it was an approximation of it, and it helped control incoming attacks and led to some great bridge work once the distance was reduced. Certainly in a way that would have been much harder to do if he'd had both hands back to use as cover only.

Man, I could watch this guy's fights all day.

The principles of wrestling are very close to CSL wing chun body structure skills.

Jon jones has great wrestling. Now a wrestling coach may or may not say where is his wrestling in mma. Base control, timing, positioning. Power etc just as we apply our wing chun

Jon jones shows great hand fighting, clinch and elbows plus distance control

This is josh working our wing chun elbows


http://youtu.be/LeOFzKmaYac

[BPWT..]

The 3rd is has many principles that can be used at any time.

I agree.

No I am not hear to teach you our system.

That's okay, because I don't want to learn it! I just wanted to understand it a bit better. I'm sorry you don't feel like explaining it.

I'm not wasting my time with someone who will not share their name or share a clip.

Fair enough. If you're uncomfortable explaining stuff in any detail because you don't know my name and haven't seen a clip of me, I find that a little strange. I'm happy to answer any Qs you have, I just don't wish to have a public profile (I have work-related reasons for this, and I can't - and don't want - to change that).

[Alan Orr]

I agree.



That's okay, because I don't want to learn it! I just wanted to understand it a bit better. I'm sorry you don't feel like explaining it.



Fair enough. If you're uncomfortable explaining stuff in any detail because you don't know my name and haven't seen a clip of me, I find that a little strange. I'm happy to answer any Qs you have, I just don't wish to have a public profile (I have work-related reasons for this, and I can't - and don't want - to change that).

No I just don't want to waste my time. To explain our structure is not a few lines

[tc101]

Hi,

You are right regarding the tennis example, in that it impossible to always hit a perfect/textbook backhand all of the time (though Roger Federer comes pretty darn close).

However, looking at a backhand: You can hit it with slice, topspin or hit it flat. Federer's topspin backhand is different to, say Nadal's... but they both follow the 'concepts' as it were. Start low, hit over the ball. And they both have the correct 'technical' attributes too: plant the foot, bend the knee, particular grip (though Nadal's is typically more exaggerated), use of the shoulder, etc. And they both have the same 'result' (the ball rapid dips down when it reaches a certain part of its path/flight). Also, typically, they are both employing the same 'strategy' too when they use the backhand.

You can tell both are playing a backhand because of the above - you wouldn't confuse it with the swing of baseball bat, or a golf club.

Even someone like McEnroe, who appeared to be the exception to the rule in terms of having really unorthodox ground stokes, was still following the same conceptual, technical and strategic "rules". Tennis players are bound by them, even if we can see differences in style and tactics when the game is played.

If you look at the tennis books the ground strokes taught with the model being stationary flat footed side facing evenly balanced stance with the racket arm drawing the racket back a bit then swinging at the ball while remaining stationary but shifting the weight slightly forward as you hit the ball and so on. In practice no one never or hardly ever looks like that. People are usually running not stationary they may be leaning one way and not evenly balanced their facing may be really off and so on. Like your complaint about the Orr fighters stance.

You see what the model teaches you is not the exterior stuff that you see that is only for beginners but the interior stuff you don't see. How to connect your weight to the ball with timing and solidity. By practicing the model action the beginner catches on to the interior stuff and becomes free of the exterior stuff. His ground strokes do not look like the books anymore. My teacher called it the substance. The form is to teach you the substance. Once you have the substance you don't need the form. Or learn the principle, abide by the principle, then dissolve the principle.

Is Wing Chun the same? I would say yes. No two people will move exactly the same, no one can perform something perfectly all of the time (rarely once ) and different lineages might have a different style or flavor to the system... but regardless, I would argue that whatever lineage you're from, you should be sticking to the concepts, strategy and technical requirements as much as you can (to me, all three of these things are the 'model').

If you don't follow these three things, can you say you are doing Wing Chun? Someone just scrapping in the street using whatever they can in the moment is also not following these three things - are they doing Wing Chun too? If particular concepts, strategy and technical requirements don't make Wing Chun what it is... then what does?

Here's another way to look at it. Wing chun is what a wing chun trained fighter does.

Sum Nung got into a fight on a bus against multiple opponents. He beat them by hanging from the hand straps while kicking them. Is this wing chun? It must be since that is all he knew or trained lol.

This is the point exactly. Those of us who can't see Wing Chun here are all happy to admit we are wrong if the CSL WCK guys, or others, can explain how the above 5 points fit with their Wing Chun. Every martial art has concepts and strategy, and all have some technical requirements too (if not, every style would look the same in the classroom). Alan, in his various clips, has spoken about why they do certain things as opposed to doing other things - that is an indication that their style/method does have concepts, strategy and technical requirements - and that is why Alan has talked about body mechanics and body methods, etc, positioning and timing, etc... because CSL WCK clearly has a model too, just like all arts do.

How do you (anyone reading who clearly sees Wing Chun in that sparring clip) explain the 5 points in relation to the CSL WCK or their own lineage of Wing Chun?

How is that not wing chun? Can you explain that to me?

[BPWT..]

Hi BPWT, I know you are addressing Alan and his CSL but just wanted to chime in again. Thx.

How dare you chime in, uninvited!!!

BPWT: what is or how do you and/or your lineage define an "emergency movement"?

Typically, a moment when centreline and structure have been really, really badly compromised. A time when you need to turn the tables. So times when you're out of position or maybe overpowered, etc.

Punches...yes, kicks...yes, headlock attempts...yes, ANYTIME it (a bending of the waist) will do what's required at that moment to get the job done. And what do you mean by "compromise"?

I mean that in Wing Tsun if we want to keep facing, and, say, the ability to strike and control at the same time, and we want to generate power in a certain way, and keep general body and elbow positioning in a certain way, then bending forward at the waist and extending our head forward would mean compromising some of those things.

A trainee has to wait until he learns 3rd form in order to handle "emergencies"...!?!?!?!?!?! Doesn't "BT" take several years to get to in your WT curriculum(?) That just doesn't make sense to me.

Before you get to BT in the WT system you already learning to correct positioning, etc. But BT is has some ideas for dealing with 'worse case' scenarios. But things are complicated as you will learn various BT ideas before you get to the actual form - some of its material appears much, much earlier. I was saying earlier in the thread that for us, BT is not just about emergency techniques - lots and lots of things to learn from this form.

Also, in some ways, the BT form does things very differently to how things are done in SNT and CK, so it's a learning progression. You start with certain materials and learn the concepts, strategy and tactics - and then BT puts a different spin on things. It is still all Wing Tsun of course, but... a little different. A different type of power generation, for example... and a type that you've been setting the foundation for with earlier training... so getting to it really early (in some respects), might not help you too much.

Edit: I should add that for us BT emergency work tends to be when things have already gone wrong - if I wasn't clear about it. For us, BT is really also about a different sense of timing (when compared to what you would learn from SNT and CK parts of the syllabus. The timing of BT related work is 'later'. You are dealing with things at the very last instance - which can make some of the related material quite hard to defend against - but also can make it quite hard to implement too. Another reason why it isn't learnt too early on - need to get nice regular timing right first. LOL

[BPWT..]

In practice no one never or hardly ever looks like that. People are usually running not stationary they may be leaning one way and not evenly balanced their facing may be really off and so on.

Probably, we'd disagree on tennis more than we would on Wing Chun. In tennis, people can be off balance, for example, but you see that technically they are still performing the backhand well, even under bad conditions. Not the same, in my opinion, as the sparring clip from Alan, where the guys were sparring well but, in my opinion, boxing rather than using Wing Chun. That is why I asked some questions, to see how in Alan's view they are still doing Wing Chun even though it doesn't seem they are (to me). Plus, regarding tennis, you must admit that even under extreme pressure, pro players are actually very often doing everything right. They are not, for example, always off balance, etc. They make their 'system' work under great pressure from the opponent.

Here's another way to look at it. Wing chun is what a wing chun trained fighter does.Sum Nung got into a fight on a bus against multiple opponents. He beat them by hanging from the hand straps while kicking them. Is this wing chun? It must be since that is all he knew or trained lol.

I do, kinda, see what you're saying but to me it produces lots of problems If all I train is Wing Tsun, and you and I get into a fight, and I spit in your face, quickly stamp on both your feet and then I run away - was I using Wing Tsun? I don't think so. Sure, I stopped you from chasing me down and I got away and you're injured and I am not... but still.

How is that not wing chun? Can you explain that to me?

I mean that in Alan's instructional clips, you can see the conceptual work, the strategy and tactics, the body position and method, the close body work, etc, etc and to me it does look like Wing Chun (again, I like the man's instructional clips - glad he makes them and shares them). But when I look at things like the sparring clip, I don't really see any of the above. I am not really talking about seeing a tan or a bong - I knows things can look different when sparring. But I really don't see any of the conceptual elements, any of the general body methods, etc. That is why I asked for Alan to describe things in more detail - so I can try and understand how all of those things are present in the sparring clip. In some cases, what I see in the sparring clip goes very much against what is in my Wing Chun, so I want to understand how that sparring fits into his Wing Chun.

That's all.

[BPWT..]

My answers:

Many thanks! You are right, I am not familiar with much (almost all) of the terminology you are using (names of forms/movements, etc), so admittedly it is a little hard to picture some of the things you're talking about.

What Wing Chun lineage is this?

[BPWT..]

It is mostly Ruan Ji Yun (Yuen Chai Wan) lineage with a smattering of Ye Kai Wen (Yip Man) and Wu Zhong Su (Ng Chung So). I'm a mutt not a purebred.

Okay, so this Yuen Kay San related WCK (his brother, I mean - so Vietnamese WCK?) and also WCK from Yip Man's senior (Ng Chung So).

I haven't been exposed to people in either system - but a lot of what you're describing is new to me. Can you point me in a direction to read more or see some of this (to get a better picture)?

[KPM]

This will probably open up another whole can of worms, but, I thought I’d at least address the 5 points that you brought up.

Now you may not be familiar with my terminology, there is nothing I can do about that, it is what it is. I think I’ve satisfied the requirements of the questions posed, but I’m sure you will re-butte my answers as you always do and counter with more questions. .

Thank you Dave! No, I am not familiar with your terminology and so did not exactly follow all that you said. Some of it did sound familiar though and made some sense because it is similar to Ku Lo Pin Sun. But I do appreciate that you made the effort to attempt an explanation, and you did it in a very civil tone. So I apologize for calling you a liar and thank you for your response!

You might also want to take a moment to reflect, as there is a very prominent theory out there that Wing Chun was developed in response to European Boxing methods that were used by the British Sailors during and after the Boxer Rebellion

Yes, I'm familiar with that theory. I believe Karl Godwin was a big proponent of it years ago. If I remember properly he even claimed to have found an old gentleman teaching "Omni Pugilism" that was supposed to be an evolution of the old boxing as a martial art. Godwin claimed it had lots of similarities to Wing Chun. But that's a topic for another discussion!

You see, this whole long drawn out thread could have been easily avoided if Alan had simply said this 20 pages ago:

No I just don't want to waste my time. To explain our structure is not a few lines

But he didn't. When BPWT and I were honest and said we didn't see the Wing Chun in those clips Alan could have said, "yea, it may be subtle and not obvious but the Wing Chun is there. But I can't take the time to explain what we are doing right now." But he didn't. Instead he told us we were "low level" and "clueless" and "stupid." So we kept asking, and kept getting told we "just couldn't see it" and "were stuck in a model." So foolishly we asked again, and tone and the exchange just kept going downhill. Its really quite simple. Treat people with respect and you will get respect back. Tell them they are "stupid" and "clueless" and they will just stay up in your face. BPWT and I were asking what we thought was a pretty obvious question...why didn't the action in those clips look more like Wing Chun and less like boxing?" We didn't mean that as disrespectful. We weren't saying that Alan and his goes don't do Wing Chun. We were truly trying to see how THEY were seeing Wing Chun expressed that way. And both BPWT and I tried to keep asking in as a respectful way as possible. But the response we got was not at all respectful.

But that's beside the point now and I'll get off my soapbox. Thanks again Dave. You are the only one out of 28 pages of posts that truly made the effort to explain things.

[Alan Orr]

Thank you Dave! No, I am not familiar with your terminology and so did not exactly follow all that you said. Some of it did sound familiar though and made some sense because it is similar to Ku Lo Pin Sun. But I do appreciate that you made the effort to attempt an explanation, and you did it in a very civil tone. So I apologize for calling you a liar and thank you for your response!

You might also want to take a moment to reflect, as there is a very prominent theory out there that Wing Chun was developed in response to European Boxing methods that were used by the British Sailors during and after the Boxer Rebellion

Yes, I'm familiar with that theory. I believe Karl Godwin was a big proponent of it years ago. If I remember properly he even claimed to have found an old gentleman teaching "Omni Pugilism" that was supposed to be an evolution of the old boxing as a martial art. Godwin claimed it had lots of similarities to Wing Chun. But that's a topic for another discussion!

You see, this whole long drawn out thread could have been easily avoided if Alan had simply said this 20 pages ago:

No I just don't want to waste my time. To explain our structure is not a few lines

But he didn't. When BPWT and I were honest and said we didn't see the Wing Chun in those clips Alan could have said, "yea, it may be subtle and not obvious but the Wing Chun is there. But I can't take the time to explain what we are doing right now." But he didn't. Instead he told us we were "low level" and "clueless" and "stupid." So we kept asking, and kept getting told we "just couldn't see it" and "were stuck in a model." So foolishly we asked again, and tone and the exchange just kept going downhill. Its really quite simple. Treat people with respect and you will get respect back. Tell them they are "stupid" and "clueless" and they will just stay up in your face. BPWT and I were asking what we thought was a pretty obvious question...why didn't the action in those clips look more like Wing Chun and less like boxing?" We didn't mean that as disrespectful. We weren't saying that Alan and his goes don't do Wing Chun. We were truly trying to see how THEY were seeing Wing Chun expressed that way. And both BPWT and I tried to keep asking in as a respectful way as possible. But the response we got was not at all respectful.

But that's beside the point now and I'll get off my soapbox. Thanks again Dave. You are the only one out of 28 pages of posts that truly made the effort to explain things.

No you said well done, but you can't see any wing chun. Don't try and start sounding like you all hard done by now.

[LFJ]

I mean that for us (in my lineage), this type of movement would be a last resort as we already have compromised structure; but do you mean that for you this waist bending and moving the head forward is not see as a compromise to your Wing Chun's more usual upright upper-body position?

How would it be considered a compromise of position if they're knocking people out with it?

The only thing being compromised is the ability to look to you like they're doing Wing Chun. But unlike LTWT, CSLWC is not just a stylized way of getting your ass kicked.

[GlennR]

No you said well done, but you can't see any wing chun. Don't try and start sounding like you all hard done by now.

And whats wrong with them having an opinion Alan?

Your WC isnt as obvious to some people that do a different lineage..... they dont get it, accept it and move on.
Why the insults such as.....

WTF are people stupid? My team has had 100's of MMA K1 and boxing matches using CSL Wing Chun. So that's just not true at all. Our Wing Chun works on the street and in combat sports. If your doesn't not then that is fine. But stop telling me what you don't understand.

FWIW, i havent seen anyone insult you directly, they just have a different opinionon what WC is.