On why I think Hendrik is on to something.

[KPM]

I guess the question begs to be asked:
IF ( big if of course) WC is concept based system or principle based system, then as long as you are adhering to those concepts and principles, are you not doing WC?
Regardless of what it may look like when you do it?

Something can be concept or principle based but still physically defined. Wing Chun's priniciples and concepts aren't unique. Other TCMAs use them as well. Southern Mantis shares a lot of them. JKD uses almost all of them. Now granted, which specific concepts that are brought together may make Wing Chun unique and different from other TCMAs like Southern Mantis. But in the end it is how those concepts are physically expressed that truly defines which martial art you are doing.

[Paddington]

Good to hear that dude, seriously, because you know we have a major issue with that here.

I you referring to the idea of slander here?

There is no such thing as "real WC", only versions of WC.

I agree. I tend to feel that other terms such as 'true', 'pure' and even 'traditional' are used more for marketing purposes. However, I think it different if someone were to say 'we train in a more traditional fashion'.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Something can be concept or principle based but still physically defined. Wing Chun's priniciples and concepts aren't unique. Other TCMAs use them as well. Southern Mantis shares a lot of them. JKD uses almost all of them. Now granted, which specific concepts that are brought together may make Wing Chun unique and different from other TCMAs like Southern Mantis. But in the end it is how those concepts are physically expressed that truly defines which martial art you are doing.

An excellent point.
I have found much in common with WC in the SPM I studied and the Dragon Shape boxing I am currently studying.
I recall in the beginning my SPM Shifu had to remind me every so often that "this is not WC" because I found myself flowing into it because the situation called for it, know what I mean?
He could tell that the "look" wasn't just right BUT that had to do with (according to him) not WHAT I was doing but how it was flowing.

[JPinAZ]

Yes and that is called a backhand compliment which is an insult. Do you not understand that?

My question is what makes you think you know what wing chun looks like in fighting? Idle speculation. Do you get it! You are not fighting so you don't know. You can't point to anyone who does it like you think it should be done in fighting either. Armchair idle speculation insulting some one who is doing it. Can you understand why Orr and his group might be offended by that?

I haven't been in an active 'fight' in years but I've been in plenty in the past and have been training WC steadily day in and day out out since 2003, and I still have somewhat the same opinion KPM does.
From my POV, what Alan & his guys do violates some specific WC range principles as I understand them. But if they don't violate CSL principles and Alan can show 'hey this is how we do it per my understanding and method' and he does it consistently, that's all that matters. At that point no one can fairly say 'he's not doing wing chun', which I don't believe Keith or anyone else has said. It's not a slam against Alan or his guys to have a differing view than him (even though often enough it is taken that way). Alan is pretty vocal when he feels people aren't demonstrating WC structure correctly per his standards. It's all fair and they are only opinion. I think the rub here is, people tend to read into things too much and make it into someone is saying 'Alan (or anyone else) isn't doing wing chun' when in fact they are not saying that at all.

On a side note, even if I was actively fighting (not just training/sparring), it doesn't mean I would immediatly conform to Alan's methods. I pressure test what I do often enough, and don't see a reason to stop what I am doing because Alan's guys do it a certain way in the ring - which does seem to be what you are implying here.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Alan's WC looks the way it look sin the MMA ring because that is what HIS version of WC is trained to do in the ring.
It's not that ALL WC will look that way in the MMA ring, it is that HIS looks that way ( and by extension, that of his students of course).
I have seen Alan's guys and have his dvd series and they are quite excellent and the way they train their WC principles is quite clear in how they actually fight.
In the case of Alan and his fighters: see it taught, see it fought, is spot on.

[JPinAZ]

Alan's WC looks the way it look sin the MMA ring because that is what HIS version of WC is trained to do in the ring.
It's not that ALL WC will look that way in the MMA ring, it is that HIS looks that way ( and by extension, that of his students of course).
I have seen Alan's guys and have his dvd series and they are quite excellent and the way they train their WC principles is quite clear in how they actually fight.
In the case of Alan and his fighters: see it taught, see it fought, is spot on.

Agreed. Haha, I think that is what I was trying to say as well, except I was adding in that even if you say it this way, people will often misinterpret this (purposely or not) as saying something else like Alan isn't doing Wing Chun.

[tc101]

I haven't been in an active 'fight' in years but I've been in plenty in the past and have been training WC steadily day in and day out out since 2003, and I still have somewhat the same opinion KPM does.
From my POV, what Alan & his guys do violates some specific WC range principles as I understand them. But if they don't violate CSL principles and Alan can show 'hey this is how we do it per my understanding and method' and he does it consistently, that's all that matters. At that point no one can fairly say 'he's not doing wing chun', which I don't believe Keith or anyone else has said. It's not a slam against Alan or his guys to have a differing view than him (even though often enough it is taken that way). Alan is pretty vocal when he feels people aren't demonstrating WC structure correctly per his standards. It's all fair and they are only opinion. I think the rub here is, people tend to read into things too much and make it into someone is saying 'Alan (or anyone else) isn't doing wing chun' when in fact they are not saying that at all.

On a side note, even if I was actively fighting (not just training/sparring), it doesn't mean I would immediatly conform to Alan's methods. I pressure test what I do often enough, and don't see a reason to stop what I am doing because Alan's guys do it a certain way in the ring - which does seem to be what you are implying here.

I have a different perspective on this. I do not think there is such a thing as violating wing chun principles. I do not think there is a wing chun rule book that you have to follow. I do not think people do any fighting art or sport or whatever based on principles or on so called understanding. That way of looking at things seems to me to be pretty much an academic armchair view. The easiest way to see the folly of that view is to spar with people who do not share your rule book and get repeatedly beaten silly. Then you see it has nothing to do with understanding principles or having the right way of thinking or whatever else but has everything to do with who can perform better. I am not trying to say that principles and concepts arent useful or helpful since they sure are only they are not the basis of performance and the fight is all about performance. If you think your principles make you perform better than someone else then ask yourself how did this guy with the wrong understanding just beat the snot out of me!

I am not saying Orr's way is THE right way. Just like in boxing there is no one right way. There are many many many right ways and many many many wrong ways. Any fighting art to be viable has to be very very adaptable to the individual. You can look at fighters from all kinds of different arts and see that for yourself. I am saying that Orr and his group train like fighters and so they produce fighters. Other people in wing chun train like fighters also guys like Rick Spain's or Obasi and I am sure there are others. I'm not saying do it like any of them. I am saying that if you go through the process of training like a fighter you will do what all fighters do and that is find your own way, the way that works best for you and that if you do not go through that process then your opinion is a purely academic armchair one about what works or doesn't work.

[KPM]

An excellent point.
I have found much in common with WC in the SPM I studied and the Dragon Shape boxing I am currently studying.
I recall in the beginning my SPM Shifu had to remind me every so often that "this is not WC" because I found myself flowing into it because the situation called for it, know what I mean?
He could tell that the "look" wasn't just right BUT that had to do with (according to him) not WHAT I was doing but how it was flowing.

I know exactly what you mean. A given martial art has its own biomechanic or "engine", regardless of how people dislike that word. It is part of the physical expression and drives how one generates power and flows from technique to technique. Your Shifu obviously recognized your Wing Chun "biomechanic". I'll bet as you got better at SPM that biomechanic or "engine" changed in subtle ways that you didn't really realize were different until later. So the concepts you are using may be the same, like the concept of defending the centerline, but the physical expression may be different.

That ability to make use of the "engine" and flow easily between various techniques is important. That is why I don't feel that sparring is the "be all and end all" that some make it out to be. I DO believe that sparring is an important part of a training program and everyone should take part at times. But, like Chi Sau, I also think sparring can be over-done and over-emphasized. Some important aspects of Wing Chun just aren't going to come out in a sparring scenario. So if someone is over-emphasizing sparring and not really training their Wing Chun as it was designed to be trained, then they are going to be missing a lot of elements.

Now I know some are thinking and getting ready to type "What works in sparring is important and what counts! If it doesn't show up in sparring then its not worth training anyway!" But I don't believe that. What works in sparring is kickboxing. Its has been my experience that the more emphasis and time spent on sparring the more and more the people doing it start to look like kickboxing. This is because basic kickboxing is what works! So people begin to naturally adapt what they are doing to be more and more like kickboxing...whether they are doing it consciously or not. Their structure and technique starts to change if they are not really working to train their Wing Chun and retain it. Heck, just look at just about any classic martial art that puts on the gloves and steps into the ring. Where are all the cool techniques from their forms? Why is it you can't tell the Hung Ga guy from the TKD guy? Its because they all resort to some adaptation of kickboxing. Because THAT is what works in THAT scenario!

How many joint locks and leverage takedowns and such are going to show up in sparring? Very little! I still say that controlling and disrupting the opponent's center of balance is an important part of Wing Chun, but it typically doesn't play a large part in sparring. Does that mean these things are unimportant? No! They are very important in a self-defense situation. I've stated before and I'll say it again....realistic training is not limited to just sparring. Sparring is a relatively narrow expression of any martial art (except kickboxing!), including Wing Chun.

So, for me, whether or not something works in sparring with my buddies is NOT the gold standard. Sparring is a limited aspect of overall training, just as Chi Sau is a limited aspect of overall training. Sparring is one form of realistic training, but not the only form. Important aspects of a martial art may work very well in a self-defense scenario and never show up at all when sparring with your buddies. And I know this will sound cliché and has been said as a cop out by many before me, but there are just some aspects of what we can do that are too brutal to use on your buddies when sparring because someone would get hurt. Just an example....a foot-trap to a leverage takedown is designed to rip apart the opponent's ankle or knee. That's not something you want to do to a friend, and if your timing is not just right you are going to hurt them if you try it in sparring. You're thinking "Wing chun doesn't do foot-traps or leverage takedowns!" Well, mine does!

[JPinAZ]

How many joint locks and leverage takedowns and such are going to show up in sparring? Very little! I still say that controlling and disrupting the opponent's center of balance is an important part of Wing Chun, but it typically doesn't play a large part in sparring. Does that mean these things are unimportant? No! They are very important in a self-defense situation. I've stated before and I'll say it again....realistic training is not limited to just sparring. Sparring is a relatively narrow expression of any martial art (except kickboxing!), including Wing Chun.

While I don't really fully agree with "T's" (tc101) line of thinking in his last post regarding principle based fighting, I think some of what he says does accurately apply here. .

My thoughts are, if you can't make things work in sparring, then why would you assume they are somehow magically going to work in a live encounter as a 'self-defense' situation against a full on attacker? Do you think they will be going at you less-hard than in sparring? You 'say' these things like disrupting the opponent's center of balance are an important part of wing chun (and I'm not disagreeing with you), but also say you can't make important things work very reliably in sparring - are you just guessing they are still important? How do you prove it if you can't in sparring, in slower lesser energy drills?

And I'm not saying they are/aren't important, but to me, it sounds like you are forming your opinion on hopes and wishfull thinking and not because you've proven it to yourself. When people say things like "I can't make it work very well in sparring, but when I really need them in an encounter they will' tells me they need for further work. What I'm reading is, for the most part you've only proven your assumptions to be false. Again, I tend to agree with you on their importance, but only because I've proven these things to work, not because 'they are supposed to work, but most times when I pressure test them in sparring they don't'.

Sparring is one form of realistic training, but not the only form. Important aspects of a martial art may work very well in a self-defense scenario and never show up at all when sparring with your buddies.

Maybe this is why I'm having a hard time following your logic, what is the difference between sparring and a 'self-defense scenario'? How do the two differ and why do you think things work in the latter when they don't work in the former?

[KPM]

While I don't really fully agree with "T's" (tc101) line of thinking in his last post regarding principle based fighting, I think some of what he says does accurately apply here.

Weill, I don't know what T's line of thinking on the matter is, because I have him on "ignore." But I can guess. And I'll guess its the same thing he always says.

My thoughts are, if you can't make things work in sparring, then why would you assume they are somehow magically going to work in a live encounter as a 'self-defense' situation against a full on attacker?

Because those scenarios are NOT the same thing as a sparring match. In those scenarios things often start "up close and personal" and you aren't squared off in front of an opponent in a fighting stance, each waiting to see what the other will do. Its the difference between a martial art that is "combatives" oriented, such as Krav Maga, and one that is sparring oriented, such as TKD. And in a "full on" encounter I'm not going to be worrying about whether I'm going to blow out my opponent's knee or break his ankle. How much of a martial art like Krav Maga is tested in sparring with buddies? Very little. But they DO still have realistic training methods. You can set up and practice a scenario response with your attacker in gear with gradual ramping up the intensity until you are going "full on" within the confines of what you can do without permanently injuring them. The JKD guys call this "progressive training" or "progressive sparring." It is not the same thing as having a friendly go with your buddies.


Do you think they will be going at you less-hard than in sparring? You 'say' these things like disrupting the opponent's center of balance are an important part of wing chun (and I'm not disagreeing with you), but also say you can't make important things work very reliably in sparring - are you just guessing they are still important? How do you prove it if you can't in sparring, in slower lesser energy drills?

Because you practice them progressively, gradually ramping up the intensity to something that is close to the "real deal". This does involve the partner cooperating to some extent in order to set up the scenario. And then providing increase levels of resistence so that you are "pressure testing" your technique. This just doesn't happen in free-sparring very reliably. So how are you going to learn to apply and pressure test some of the more subtle or sophisticated things if the opportunity to do them occurs so rarely in a free sparring scenario?


And I'm not saying they are/aren't important, but to me, it sounds like you are forming your opinion on hopes and wishfull thinking and not because you've proven it to yourself.

No. You do prove it to yourself. I'm saying that free sparring with your buddies is not always the best place to do that and it is NOT the only form of realistic training. Again, take Krav Maga as an example. They work to train a smaller weaker woman (compared to a big guy) how to counter an attacker when caught by surprise trying to unlock the door to her car in a parking lot. They can put that attacker in full riot gear so she can wail away on him as hard as she wants. They can have that attacker provide various levels of resistance so that she gets better at reacting to the unexpected as she defends herself. But are they going to throw her in the ring with gloves and a mouthpiece and make her spar with the same techniques?



When people say things like "I can't make it work very well in sparring, but when I really need them in an encounter they will' tells me they need for further work. What I'm reading is, for the most part you've only proven your assumptions to be false.

No. You're reading into it things that I didn't say. Does every technique that you train in your HFY forms show up in a friendly free sparring scenario with your classmates? I will guess they don't, but I will also guess there are also ways that you train them that convinces you that they will work.


Maybe this is why I'm having a hard time following your logic, what is the difference between sparring and a 'self-defense scenario'? How do the two differ and why do you think things work in the latter when they don't work in the former?

How many free sparring sessions start out with the opponents in a seated position? Yet you may very well be attacked while sitting at a bus stop and have to use your Wing Chun from there. So how are you going to convince yourself that you can make it work? Hopefully the difference I'm talking about is a little clearer in what I said above. I try to look at my Wing Chun more as a combatives system than a sparring system, although one certainly can and should do both.

[PalmStriker]

Good post, excellanto!

[KPM]

JP:

I thought of another thread where we had a similar discussion about sparring vs. other kinds of "realistic" training. Don't know whether you saw it originally or not. But maybe it will help make my viewpoint a little clearer:

http://www.kungfumagazine.com/forum/...istic+training

[tc101]

Because those scenarios are NOT the same thing as a sparring match. In those scenarios things often start "up close and personal" and you aren't squared off in front of an opponent in a fighting stance, each waiting to see what the other will do. Its the difference between a martial art that is "combatives" oriented, such as Krav Maga, and one that is sparring oriented, such as TKD. And in a "full on" encounter I'm not going to be worrying about whether I'm going to blow out my opponent's knee or break his ankle. How much of a martial art like Krav Maga is tested in sparring with buddies? Very little. But they DO still have realistic training methods. You can set up and practice a scenario response with your attacker in gear with gradual ramping up the intensity until you are going "full on" within the confines of what you can do without permanently injuring them. The JKD guys call this "progressive training" or "progressive sparring." It is not the same thing as having a friendly go with your buddies.

I think your reasoning here is a bit off. Yes there will be differences between sparring and self defense situations but focusing on the differences misses the bigger picture. Sparring is a process not just a throw you in the deep end of the pool but a progressive process where you develop your fighting skills by dealing with some one fighting you back. It's where you learn how to make your art work for you against people fighting you.

The skills and conditioning you develop you can use outside of sparring and you can use them in any situation where someone is fighting you back. A boxer can use his boxing skills outside of the ring. A bjj black belt can use his skills outside of the mat. You see just because you spar in a certain way in the gym does not mean you are stuck in that mode in a street fight. You bring the skills and conditioning to the fight and adapt it to the situation you are in.

You call sparring having a friendly go with your buddies but that's not what is happening. It is training to fight with your art with training partners. This has seemed to work for the best fighters in the world right?

You bring up Krav Maga as an example of good training. I have no problem with realistic scenario training. But are you doing that? No. So all you are saying is here is a different way of training realistic skills that I don't do but think works better. That's called academic arm chair idle speculation.

If that scenario training works so well why can't they use the skills they develop in the ring? Why is it the ring guys can use their skills anywhere but the scenario guys can't?

I will give you the answer as someone who has done both types of training. Scenario training is not very useful for good skill development but useful training once you have the skills in place. Scenario training teaches and develops tactics not skills.

[JPinAZ]

I think your reasoning here is a bit off. Yes there will be differences between sparring and self defense situations but focusing on the differences misses the bigger picture. Sparring is a process not just a throw you in the deep end of the pool but a progressive process where you develop your fighting skills by dealing with some one fighting you back. It's where you learn how to make your art work for you against people fighting you.

The skills and conditioning you develop you can use outside of sparring and you can use them in any situation where someone is fighting you back. A boxer can use his boxing skills outside of the ring. A bjj black belt can use his skills outside of the mat. You see just because you spar in a certain way in the gym does not mean you are stuck in that mode in a street fight. You bring the skills and conditioning to the fight and adapt it to the situation you are in.

You call sparring having a friendly go with your buddies but that's not what is happening. It is training to fight with your art with training partners. This has seemed to work for the best fighters in the world right?

You bring up Krav Maga as an example of good training. I have no problem with realistic scenario training. But are you doing that? No. So all you are saying is here is a different way of training realistic skills that I don't do but think works better. That's called academic arm chair idle speculation.

If that scenario training works so well why can't they use the skills they develop in the ring? Why is it the ring guys can use their skills anywhere but the scenario guys can't?

I will give you the answer as someone who has done both types of training. Scenario training is not very useful for good skill development but useful training once you have the skills in place. Scenario training teaches and develops tactics not skills.

KPM, since you have T on ignore I quoted this for you as it will save me a lot of typing time. I think you may have a very narrow & misunderstood view of what 'sparring' really is and one could assume this is because you haven't trained much or at all outside the kwoon with people that make 'sparring' a regular part of their training? I've noticed those that do, tend to see things much differently in regards to what it is and it's usefulness in skill development that translates into ALL aspects of fighting (ring, self defense, etc).

[KPM]

KPM, since you have T on ignore I quoted this for you as it will save me a lot of typing time. I think you may have a very narrow & misunderstood view of what 'sparring' really is and one could assume this is because you haven't trained much or at all outside the kwoon with people that make 'sparring' a regular part of their training? I've noticed those that do, tend to see things much differently in regards to what it is and it's usefulness in skill development that translates into ALL aspects of fighting (ring, self defense, etc).

JP I gave you a perspective from the other end of the scale from what T usually spouts from his mantra. He is always focused on "sparring, sparring, sparring!" and says the same thing in almost every thread he participates in. I talked about having an over-emphasis on sparring, not ignoring sparring. Yet you tell me I have a "very narrow and misunderstood view." But you've never told T that his sparring mantra was "very narrow and misunderstood." And here you, just like T, go assuming things about me and my training when you have no idea at all of what I actually do. So exactly who is "idling speculating" here? Sounds like you and T are best buds and you are both "idling speculating" about me. And note that I NEVER denied that sparring was valuable and had transferable skills. What I spoke out against was an over-emphasis on sparring and using it as the gold standard for everything. And weren't you the one that accused me of "cherry-picking" in another thread? Yet you ignore the points I made and to "save me a lot of typing time" simple quote the mantra man.

I find it rather insulting that I take the time to provide my own viewpoint and you and T essentially turn around and call me a liar by saying I don't actually train the way I'm talking about.