Wing chun long, medium, or short range sparring?

[GlennR]

100% disagree. There is no such thing as a "sparring art". Unless maybe slap boxing. People who think Wing Chun and the core of it is some duper deadly self defense art that only kicks in because you have a "combatives mindset" as opposed to a kickboxer who has a "sportive mindset" are going to get themselves hurt.

I guess it depends on how you see WC

My favourite description of WC was by Ozzie Dave here a couple of years ago...... i really wish id copied it.

It was something along the lines of "WC is an ambush style, your assailant just wont expect whats coming" or something like that.
I think KPM's point is you cant develop all the attributes by focusing on sparring with the above outcome in mind

[Wayfaring]

I agree with SR 100%. And this is why I don't see Wing Chun as a "sparring art." What SR describes above is much more of a "combatives" mindset. Let me say again before someone gets all excited and comes after me.....I do believe sparring is valuable and has its place, but as I've said many times already it should not be the "gold standard" for Wing Chun. In a sparring scenario there IS a fight, that's why you are there. Someone has to go after the other person. You can't just stand there and stare at each other. In a sparring scenario you typically engage, disengage, re-engage, etc. through-out the sparring session. The main Wing Chun strategy that SR is describing above functions once contact is made, and once contact is made you keep going until one or the other of you can't go anymore! In a combatives/street/self-defense (whatever you want to call it) scenario an aggressor is coming after YOU. He chooses to fight and close with YOU, as SR says. Once you close in you what to finish things and not have to close again. In a sparring scenario you may have to go after or "pursue" your partner/opponent from long range to make contact. I think that's why ideas have been bouncing back and forth in this thread and people are talking past each other at times. Its a difference between a combatives mindset (which I believe is at the core of Wing Chun) and a sparring mindset.

SR was rephrasing what JP and I were talking about regarding chasing and pursuit. You are making a distinction between a "combatives" mindset and "sparring" that doesn't exist. Once contact is made you keep going until one or the other of you can't go anymore is NOT the chase and pursuit tactic at all. Two people standing in the pocket and slugging it out fits that description.

There is one sparring scenario / fight scenario that is not faced in the street - that is an opponent running away from you all fight. Outside of that, the mindset for either is the same.

You are falling into the "deadly street" vs. "sport" argument that has been done to death and proven delusional.

[Wayfaring]

I guess it depends on how you see WC

My favourite description of WC was by Ozzie Dave here a couple of years ago...... i really wish id copied it.

It was something along the lines of "WC is an ambush style, your assailant just wont expect whats coming" or something like that.
I think KPM's point is you cant develop all the attributes by focusing on sparring with the above outcome in mind

Wat?

"you can't develop all the attributes by focusing on sparring with the above outcome in mind".

And Ambush needs no style - it's a strategy.

[BPWT..]

I too don't buy the 'deadly street fight' argument - but mostly because I don't like using the word 'deadly' (in relation to the idea that WT/VT/WC is deadly and therefore can't be used in the ring). I think it is hard to make it work in the ring, but this is because of the art's strategy and method (nothing to do with deadly - any striking art or groundwork-based art can be deadly).

But most of us have probably seen more street fights than we've actually been in personally. Those that I've seen - so just my perspective - didn't involve what we'd see in a competition format or a sparring exchange. So no feeling out the opponent, no testing the water (never seen continued use of jabbing on the street, mostly just seen big, heavy punches); no consideration of time to work with (i.e. time left in a round and the time for a short breather to come - and some coaching with it too to help refocus your game plan if needed); no use of submissions; often no real skill , but nonetheless pretty dangerous.

The street fights I've seen were typically quite fast (often pretty much a single clash that had a flurry of strikes and a quick ending - not much in-and-out of ranges, more static - both people standing kinda toe-to-toe and letting fly); wild with those punches (usually quite sloppy punching, but you still wouldn't want to be hit by it); no intentional take downs (no one seemed to be looking to throw or shoot - if someone did go down/was knocked down, slipped/tripped, etc, the other guy looked to end the fight by kicking the guy who was down.) Because of the speed/duration of things, fitness is also never really as issue on the street, it seems to me (unless you're running).

People do step in to help their mate, in a street fight, but in all cases that I've seen this wasn't to add to the attack and make things 2 on 1, or 3 on 1, but rather to drag a guy off/away and to break things up.

So yes, for me, usage on the street is miles away from usage in the ring (something we all agree on, I'm sure) and sparring with a boxer, for example, means working out with someone who has a very different mindset to the process.

[GlennR]

Wat?

"you can't develop all the attributes by focusing on sparring with the above outcome in mind".

And Ambush needs no style - it's a strategy.

An ambush needs factors to help it succeed
In a war situation (proper guns and stuff etc) ,perhaps the cover of trees, higher ground/rocks and so on are those factors

The ambush, in my WC world, comes from the punch.... the WC punch to be precise.
The factors for it to be an ambush?
Thrown from the centre of the chest, no telegraphing and no change of stance. Done properly, in a SD scenario, its an ambush.... the assailant doesnt see it coming. The whole system IMO supports the delivery of that punch.

The caveat for that though is range, my WC assumes im in range to hit him (as he is trying to attack me) and i can then employ the above.
If hes not in range...... no fight, we both win

So i guess what im saying is to employ that "ambush strategy" you need factors to support it and WC IMO does it beautifully.

Sparring? For sure. But i think the drills/forms etc are what really instill those factors into you, jump in to quick (or too often) and it will end up being poor mans kick boxing

[anerlich]

The Wing Chun body count would have to be a hell of a lot higher than it is (somewhere around 0) before the style could be regarded as "deadly".

Also, while I guess there could be a "too much sparring" disease, I doubt that many WC practitioners do enough sparring to catch it.

I agree that it's not about an exchange, it's more "get in first and don't stop until the guy can't fight back".

[KPM]

100% disagree. There is no such thing as a "sparring art". Unless maybe slap boxing. People who think Wing Chun and the core of it is some duper deadly self defense art that only kicks in because you have a "combatives mindset" as opposed to a kickboxer who has a "sportive mindset" are going to get themselves hurt.

And, again, you have completely missed my point. Try reading for content rather than challenging everything that is said by someone else.

You are falling into the "deadly street" vs. "sport" argument that has been done to death and proven delusional.

No. Not at all. I said nothing about Wing Chun being "super deadly" or any such rubbish. I wrote about mindset, attitude, approach...whatever you want to call it. If you don't think there is a difference between the two mindsets I mentioned, then you haven't been reading along very closely. Again, try seeing someone else's point for a change rather than just looking for something to argue about.

[KPM]

I guess it depends on how you see WC

My favourite description of WC was by Ozzie Dave here a couple of years ago...... i really wish id copied it.

It was something along the lines of "WC is an ambush style, your assailant just wont expect whats coming" or something like that.
I think KPM's point is you cant develop all the attributes by focusing on sparring with the above outcome in mind

Yes. Thanks Glenn. I'm glad someone is actually TRYING to see someone else's viewpoint.

Sparring? For sure. But i think the drills/forms etc are what really instill those factors into you, jump in to quick (or too often) and it will end up being poor mans kick boxing

Exactly my opinion as well!

[T.D.O]

I've seen folk that compete get in a fight and you could'nt tell them from someone who had'nt trained lol and i remember my sifu saying the same thing and i was reading on mark davies (student of james a keating, runs courses for the sas) him saying the same thing, infact i remember my sifu saying that competing gave you a false sense of security.

I'm guessing all the spar crazy guy's will disagree

[KPM]

I've seen folk that compete get in a fight and you could'nt tell them from someone who had'nt trained lol and i remember my sifu saying the same thing and i was reading on mark davies (student of james a keating, runs courses for the sas) him saying the same thing, infact i remember my sifu saying that competing gave you a false sense of security.

I'm guessing all the spar crazy guy's will disagree

I agree with you TDO. To actually make your martial art work like it was designed to work one needs to drill the application over and over to "burn it in." You just don't get that opportunity in free-sparring. I think that's why so many Wing Chun guys just look like they are doing some kind of kick-boxing variant when they spar. This is because some form of "kick-boxing" variant is what works in that scenario. Unlike some, I don't see my Wing Chun as a form of "Chinese Boxing." To me this implies the sparring mindset. Instead I see my Wing Chun as a kind of "Chinese combatives." Of course, there is overlap in these two approaches or mindsets and one doesn't necessarily completely exclude the other. Its just a matter of where you put your emphasis during training and application. If you spend all your time preparing for a sparring scenario you might find yourself in trouble in a "combatives" situation and vice versa. But personally, I'd rather find myself lacking in free-sparring in the ring than when it comes down to having to defend my life or one of loved ones. In a perfect world one would be a expert in both kinds of situations. But I'm not a full-time martial artist with hours to train every day. I have a day job that keeps we working 50 hours a week. So I choose where to put my emphasis. Some may think that because I don't spar during every training session and post regular videos of it that I am somehow less of a Wing Chun guy. They can think anything they want.

[JPinAZ]

Most of the time, your enemy may not be a WC guy. You will need to deal with what he may do to you.

I fully agree with you here!

The example that I used indicate that bridge may not be possible if your opponent using some long range entering strategy.

But I just don't feel what you described is how a principle-based WC practitioner would go about doing it (both in the clip and in your hopping scenario you described in your following post)

[JPinAZ]

I'm glad someone is actually TRYING to see someone else's viewpoint.

LOL. pot, meet kettle. I guess in KPM's world "TRYING to see someone else's viewpoint" = being in total agreement. Why does he get so bent out of shape when people simply don't agree with him?
KPM is pretty articulate most of the time, so what he's trying to say is usually pretty clear and easy to determine. I think he just can't accept that others might not see him as 'always right' by have a differing view not in-line with his.
IMO, this is a sure sign of someone 'not trying to see someone else's viewpoint'!

(WFg, can-eye gettabump? )

[JPinAZ]

I've seen folk that compete get in a fight and you could'nt tell them from someone who had'nt trained lol and i remember my sifu saying the same thing and i was reading on mark davies (student of james a keating, runs courses for the sas) him saying the same thing, infact i remember my sifu saying that competing gave you a false sense of security.

I'm guessing all the spar crazy guy's will disagree

I've seen this as well, many times, and agree with you - to a point. In just about every instance I can think of, the difference was that the 'trained' fighter was the one that usually 'won' the fight and took the least amount of damage.
Fights are ugly, chaotic things. What proper sparring and training provides is the ability to deal with these stresses when they happen more-so than your opponent. You can't get this experience by only doing forms and drills alone.

[KPM]

LOL. pot, meet kettle. I guess in KPM's world "TRYING to see someone else's viewpoint" = being in total agreement. Why does he get so bent out of shape when people simply don't agree with him?
KPM is pretty articulate most of the time, so what he's trying to say is usually pretty clear and easy to determine. I think he just can't accept that others might not see him as 'always right' by have a differing view not in-line with his.
IMO, this is a sure sign of someone 'not trying to see someone else's viewpoint'!

(WFg, can-eye gettabump? )

WF said:
You are making a distinction between a "combatives" mindset and "sparring" that doesn't exist. Once contact is made you keep going until one or the other of you can't go anymore is NOT the chase and pursuit tactic at all. Two people standing in the pocket and slugging it out fits that description.

There is one sparring scenario / fight scenario that is not faced in the street - that is an opponent running away from you all fight. Outside of that, the mindset for either is the same.

You are falling into the "deadly street" vs. "sport" argument that has been done to death and proven delusional.

1st: there is a distinction, certainly for me, and it appears for others that agreed with what I said. WF wasn't even making an effort to see that distinction.
2nd: I said nothing about any "deadly street vs. sport" argument. WF is reading into this what he wants to see.
3rd: A mindset implies a way of thinking or approaching what you do. It doesn't mean it excludes any particular aspect of training.

I don't expect WF or anyone to agree with me 100%, but I expect him and anyone else to at least consider what I have to say. It was clear that didn't happen.

4th: You remind me again why I had you on "ignore" status. My mistake for taking you off of it! You are in the same grouping as WF (and I know how you love to be told you are in a group!) which tries to find something to argue about in every thread, and can't seem to keep things on a respectful level. You guys wear that "I'm an a55hole and proud of it!" badge and try to prove it every time you post. And the ironic thing is that I was seeing your position on more of the "combatives mindset" side than the "sparring mindset" side and kind of expected that you would agree with me. But....that would mean you couldn't argue with me, and you can't have that now can you! ;-) So just carry on in typical fashion. I've said all I have to say. Thanks!

[GlennR]

LOL. pot, meet kettle. I guess in KPM's world "TRYING to see someone else's viewpoint" = being in total agreement. Why does he get so bent out of shape when people simply don't agree with him?
KPM is pretty articulate most of the time, so what he's trying to say is usually pretty clear and easy to determine. I think he just can't accept that others might not see him as 'always right' by have a differing view not in-line with his.
IMO, this is a sure sign of someone 'not trying to see someone else's viewpoint'!

(WFg, can-eye gettabump? )

No I'm not in total agreement with Keith, that was my point of view not influenced by his.

Maybe I have a point worth thinking about?