Wing chun long, medium, or short range sparring?

[Hendrik]

I think, in training a system, one does need to train it on its own terms if one seeks to be expert at it.

However, I think that, in fighting, one seeks to survive. In traditional China, I'm willing to bet the originators of Wing Chun, finding themselves in a situation where they needed to fight armed people, and where there were weapons, but not butterfly knives or staffs, would adjust to the situation and not worry so much about authenticity. In fact, many of them likely trained more than one art, as was often common.

The problem with applying the "jack of all trades, master of none" paradigm to people who train martial arts is that fighting is the trade, not bjj or wing chun or longfist or what have you. The amount of common ground is far greater than the differences, especially between Chinese systems. Style is a tool of the trade, not the trade itself, imo.

It is all about the technology and level or mile stone of handling , authenticity is meaningless

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jji2LO...=youtube_gdata

[Minghequan]

authenticity is meaningless

??? So being "authentic" is meaningless but being fake, posting made up "His-Story" is okay???

[Faux Newbie]

Frankly, that statement is true in relation to fighting, imo. Authenticity is irrelevant, the only relevant things are what you are doing in the fight, what he refers to as technology. If your method of power generation generates sufficient power without messing with balance, if stance provides the ability to be mobile and the ease of being stable, etc. And if your structure and posture allow you to keep aware of your opponent's actions and able to always respond efficiently. Things like this.

This is not in reference to the history comment. Solely the martial aspect of that he said. That said, I've never hit anyone with my history.

[YouKnowWho]

the only relevant things are what you are doing in the fight,

Agree with you 100% there. Here is a perfect example.

When a fly flies in front of your face, you use both hands to slap it. When you do that, are you following the 7 bows WC principle, or do you just let your hands move and your body followed? I assume the WC 7 bows principle is the opposite of the "hand goes first, the body followed" principle.

[Hendrik]

Agree with you 100% there. Here is a perfect example.

When a fly flies in front of your face, you use both hands to slap it. When you do that, are you following the 7 bows WC principle, or do you just let your hands move and your body followed? I assume the WC 7 bows principle is the opposite of the "hand goes first, the body followed" principle.

1. 7 bows is for beginner . Advance deal with force flow and momentum direct.

Adult don't think how to put a spoon in ones mouth when eating. But if the baby not train properly, they can't do it .


2. Hand goes first the body follow is a hit. Body moves and hand doesn't have to move is issuing force flow.
Unless one knows the 7 bows handling, one is not clear in this.
However, it a fight. No one thinking seven bows. One hit or issue as needed.

[tc101]

1. 7 bows is for beginner . Advance deal with force flow and momentum direct.

Adult don't think how to put a spoon in ones mouth when eating. But if the baby not train properly, they can't do it .


2. Hand goes first the body follow is a hit. Body moves and hand doesn't have to move is issuing force flow.
Unless one knows the 7 bows handling, one is not clear in this.
However, it a fight. No one thinking seven bows. One hit or issue as needed.

Idle speculation from some one who cannot do it himself.

[tc101]

Your train of thought only holds water if you ignore WC principles. For example, WC's idea of maximum efficiency.

A person can us any technique they want. And given the POV, most any technique can be labeled as 'effective'. But, if you are fighting with WC's maximum efficiency/effectiveness & economy of motion concepts to drive what you do, then the answer is clear. Rarely do I see a roundhouse kick, spinning back fist or haymaker type of attack that fits these ideals, nor do they really fit within wing chun's centerline principle for starters.

Again, people can do whatever they want, but there comes a point where if you aren't even following even the most basic principles of wing chun, then most likely you are not really 'doing wing chun' (haha, let the flames begin on that last statement)

Here's the thing I do not think maximum efficiency exists in reality. Now it may be an ideal to strive for though I doubt that also. I do not think that way of thinking is really helpful. I think it was Bruce Lee who said efficiency is anything that scores. If your opponent is OPEN to a round house or whatever how is it not efficient or not even smart to use it to hit your opponent and instead just let that opportunity go because your ideal is not to use that type of movement?

The basic principles of wing chun as I learned them is not a rule book that you must follow forever and that limits what you can do but is a guide for a beginner to help them develop certain tools tactics and strategies or to put it another way a skill set to make you a better fighter. I think the idea that you are "doing wing chun" is the wrong way to look at it. The training helps you develop certain skills that you can use in fighting.

Let me use an example Ronda is trained in judo right? When she fights she is not "doing judo" but fighting. She brings her judo training into her fights. That training developed certain tools tactics and strategies or skill set that helps make her a better fighter.

[Minghequan]

Originally Posted by Hendrik View Post
1. 7 bows is for beginner . Advance deal with force flow and momentum direct.

Adult don't think how to put a spoon in ones mouth when eating. But if the baby not train properly, they can't do it .


2. Hand goes first the body follow is a hit. Body moves and hand doesn't have to move is issuing force flow.
Unless one knows the 7 bows handling, one is not clear in this.
However, it a fight. No one thinking seven bows. One hit or issue as needed.

TC101 wrote:

Idle speculation from some one who cannot do it himself.

Have to agree totally!

Why are people even entertaining the idea of listening to a guy who has never really used his art in any real practical way and talks nothing but endless theory?

Faux Newbie? YouKnowWho? Hendrik? Your thought on this?

[JPinAZ]

You are right! WC is your primary art. You had developed your foundation from WC. I had my foundation developed from the long fist system. WC is only one of my cross training arts. We have different feeling about WC, that's understandable.

Actually you're wrong in your assumption. I started in boxing and unfortunately defending myself in street fights when I was younger. So that would technically be my foundation. Only now, I apply wing chun theory, concept, strategy & tactic to my fighting. It's not that I've cross trained or mixed WC into what I already knew, because for me WC is a principle based system of fighting that can apply to any situation.

For example, you see wing chun as only defending from in-to-out. I see it as being applicable in all ranges, facing, positions, setups/no setups, etc and no just something I 'swtich' on an off.

[JPinAZ]

Here's the thing I do not think maximum efficiency exists in reality. Now it may be an ideal to strive for though I doubt that also.

Agree, maximum efficiency is an absolute - pretty difficult to obtain. But it is the idea I see the founders having strived for when the system was created

I do not think that way of thinking is really helpful. I think it was Bruce Lee who said efficiency is anything that scores. If your opponent is OPEN to a round house or whatever how is it not efficient or not even smart to use it to hit your opponent and instead just let that opportunity go because your ideal is not to use that type of movement?

That's fine, people find different things useful. If you ask me about the efficiency of a round house, when throwing a roundhouse (punch or kick) you tend to leave yourself open as well as turning your center away from your opponent giving up equal use of both hands & facing to a degree. While it can be 'efficient' from a certain POV, there are most likely more efficient options that also work within WC's ideas of economy of motion. If someone chooses not to work under these guidlines, that's their choice - who am I to say what other people should do.

As a counter point, in a fight, most of the time the top of a person's head is somehwhat open. I've seen in silly point sparring tourneys where people jump up and tap the head top of the head for a 'point' - but I rarely would suggest targeting that in a real fight just because it's open. Efficient doens't alway mean the best option.

The basic principles of wing chun as I learned them is not a rule book that you must follow forever and that limits what you can do but is a guide for a beginner to help them develop certain tools tactics and strategies or to put it another way a skill set to make you a better fighter. I think the idea that you are "doing wing chun" is the wrong way to look at it. The training helps you develop certain skills that you can use in fighting.

I never implied wing chun was a rule book you must follow forever and I agree with your definition of the basic principles of wing chun. And, I figured someone (most likely you) would nibble on that last bit about 'doing wing chun' which is why I mentioned 'let the flames begin'. To be honest, if someone's fighting strategy is to drop down into a turtle shell posture and then only attack by jumping in the air with spinning backfists, I would say they aren't 'doing wing chun', even if some think it's a silly term to say.

[Wayfaring]

Here's the thing I do not think maximum efficiency exists in reality.

You know what I think about maximum efficiency? It's like hiking with a partner in bear country. You don't have to be Usain Bolt. You just have to be faster than your hiking partner

[JPinAZ]

You know what I think about maximum efficiency? It's like hiking with a partner in bear country. You don't have to be Usain Bolt. You just have to be faster than your hiking partner

No no no, that's just attribute & technique-only way of thinking. If you are a principle based fighter, you would trip your partner first protecting your aft centerline, and then run!

[KPM]

You know what I think about maximum efficiency? It's like hiking with a partner in bear country. You don't have to be Usain Bolt. You just have to be faster than your hiking partner

Now that's an old one!

[Faux Newbie]

Have to agree totally!

Why are people even entertaining the idea of listening to a guy who has never really used his art in any real practical way and talks nothing but endless theory?

Faux Newbie? YouKnowWho? Hendrik? Your thought on this?

I'll be as tactful as possible on this.

I like discussing nuts and bolts and theory because sometimes it gives me ideas on my own system and on drills I can work on in my system. Of course, I don't do a style that others here do, it has a lot in common with Chen style, but when discussing theory or the nuts and bolts, it sometimes does. So, if a train of thought is productive toward this goal, or may be productive, I will pursue it and discuss it, and I am not concerned about the source, because the only testing that counts toward my training is done by me in reality, not here, so the source is not an issue.

The second half, which requires tact, is that I am not a wing chun person, so I am not focused on legitimacy or history in that field, only technical fighting matters and a reasonable amount of friendly discussion, even banter. I do not hear someone bad mouth or misuse and authority and base anything off that, I read what people say about fighting and that's about that. On that end, if I did involve myself in such matters, I would try to be selective, and, in fairness, if the Wing Chun community needs me to be involved in such disputes, they are going to need to be waaaaaaaay more selective on what constitutes a real dispute.

Not my circus, not my monkey.

There are two local teachers that always badmouth one teacher I trained under, from a distance. Coincidentally, a close friend of mine who has no affiliation with any of the three saw one of them try to get my teacher to show him how to do a particular fajin some years back. My teacher and myself do not make a big point about this. Sometimes we shake our heads, that's about it. We are not competing for the same students, what they say has no bearing on what we do. Even my teacher and I have different approaches, he uses a hybrid of shaolin and Taixuquan, I am highly focused on Taixuquan, there is not issue of the "true expression", he readily admits that in regards to Taixuquan, I make use of a lot of the style's approaches, I like that when we spar, his hybridity makes interesting challenges. We consider each other equals at this point, and I credit this to training usage, not training a need to defend the honor of our reputation or a authenticity that is always based on the viewer's own views on that authentic is.

I have yet to become a better martial artist or a more genuine expression of kung fu by these kinds of arguments, and so I don't take part in them. And that is how I feel one defends the honor of one's teacher, by seeking to know the style. Thus, discussions of theory and of practice are useful, history and lineage fights and internet statements have yet to yield anything for me.

I joined martial arts to be good at martial arts, and nothing will defend those who taught me better than being a testament to their teaching, not an advocate or an advertisement.

I look for the usefulness of the discussion over the character of those making the statements. I do not discount the character, but I will not act as the internet's quality control, because that's not why I'm here.

Outing martial dishonesty on the internet has a dismal record of actually changing a thing.

I guess that's my view, but key to that is, if the Wing Chun forum wants me to take part in the Wing Chun communities' online conflicts, and I can say "could you reduce this list to the most important fifty," this will only result in heated and angry debate on who is number 1. So I avoid the issue. If, amongst yourselves, you wish to narrow the list to five for me, I would certainly consider it.

Some people have legitimate gripes, and some people have a hobby of arguing on the internet. A lot of people. Some think they can have both, but you really can't. Either one is hurt, or one is having fun. I suppose there are masochists, but I digress.

I can't reasonably be expected to do all the legwork to determine who is who in that list, if one has a reasonable gripe, they should also recognize if they are in a forum where a ton of people like to argue and have crusades, and not place an unreasonable burden on visitors to take up arms for them.

I do not state this to pick on anyone, if you like the way the Wing Chun forum is, that's fine, I am just a visitor.

Is there a number of threads that the same argument can carry across that is too many? At what point, assuming a member was wronged and is carrying that argument across a number of threads, has the wronged member also wronged members who reasonably expected a capacity for discussion on a discussion forum about the topic of the thread? Should they then pursue that member across threads? I am not saying that argument cannot happen, I am asking if there is a limit that one should self impose in order to allow the forum to still be a forum over becoming the personal platform of very, very small factions.

[YouKnowWho]

There may be a WC principle, but there is a general TCMA principles (I call it "common sense") that should be above all styles, and that is to attack whatever that your opponent may open for you.

For example, when your opponent stands behind you, you can use your "spinning back fist" to knock him down. You can also spin your body, and use your straight punch to knock him down. Since to spin your body and throw a 'spinning back fist" can be integrated as 1 move. To spin your body and use straight punch are considered as 2 moves. The "spinning back fist" is more efficient in that situation.