Can you make what you do work in this?

[Wayfaring]

Can you make what you do work in this?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvN1dQPFRK8

I doubt it. I'd be more likely to cover up and evade for 1:00 and clock them right after the buzzer. Or when their mouth started hanging open and their hands dropped. OK, that might be at 40 sec.

[Wayfaring]

actually to be fair he said his wing chun has loads of tools...

Actually I would agree that his wing chun has loads of tools. Although I'd never talk about my classmates that way.

[Wayfaring]

haha Looks like the first round of any Toughman contest i've ever been to.

And the second round looks more like a couple of guys with their tongues hanging out and their hands on their knees.

[Frost]

I think one of the misconceptions of Wing Chun is that it is a style. I've been thru some reeducation over the last few years, and today my view is that Wing Chun is unique in the Martial Arts, in that it is not a style at all, it doesn't tell you what to do vs this or that attack, how to hold your hands, or stand this way or that. It has a general strategy and idea of attack, but other than that, it is free to be used in anyway shape or form. Of course if you are familiar with the system, you would recognize it in action, but it would be hard to do so. The problem with most WC out there is #1 the practitioners, they are TRYING to display or be the style when they fight. I've seen so many video's and live demos of it that you can see the unnaturalness of their actions coming out, as can be seen from a vid like this,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-PTi3SptEI, I'm not saying everyone in WC is like this but I see it alot.

The question I ask, if you look at the curriculum, how does one take what you are doing in class, chi sau, laap sau, dummy and such, as application, you can't but you can take the skills you learn, the ideas and body mechanics/structures learned and apply them easy. It's like a training regimend to get strong/fit in the gym, so you can perform better in life, maintain health and prevent injury, or like using a sharpening tool to sharpen your axe or saw, it's something that helps your natural action in combat become better, more efficient and effective, that's it. So in essence I don't believe a failure or success of someone training in WC in sparring or combat is an indication of the effectiveness of the system, rather it's an inidication of the individuals effectiveness, because true effectiveness in combat is subjective. Two factors play a role, your own skills and your opponents skills and both's persons ability to utilize them when they need to. Against some I will be easily able to handle their pressure and utilize my tools, against others it won't happen as easy, that's a fact for each of us here. Basically the way WC is taught generally is incorrect. I've seen lots, experienced lots of WC outside of my lineage, trained two lineages myself, and besides my own lineage there are a few others that teach it well, but not many. #2 problem is the teachers or leaders of these lineages are more about selling membership and keeping the sheep in line, than teaching what the system teaches and how it works, IMO of course.

BJJ works very well, for a couple of basic reasons, one it's sophisticated and well thought out, two once someone is on the ground their greatest asset is lost, their ability to be mobile and movement is taken away from them, so people panic, and BJJ teaches you to react with great effectiveness there. Even people that train in BJJ a little bit show great effectiveness when there on the ground with someone because of the limitation of movement. So it's two factors working for them on the gorund, no mobility and familiarity, against someone not trained on the ground. Stand up is much harder to be effective at, as people will always have the option of running away, backpeddling, and it's much hard to control someone's action when they are standing, they just have more ability to counter react and re position themselves while standing, since their easy of movement is still there.

James

But if it helps your natural reactions in combat become better then surely people should be winning fights with it, even if it does not look like wing chun then people should still be seen to be winning that have a wing chun back ground, in MMA sanshu etc wouldn't you agree?

And I have a hard time understanding how a style that is meant to be all about making you more efficient and effective in combat doesn't teach you the principles/strategies you talk about by using actual techniques you might use in a fight..... it seems pretty inefficient to me to teach those principles, body mechanics etc using structures that you would not use in a fight and then have the student figure out how to use them in their natural way of fighting. BJJ is principle based as well but it teaches those principles through techniques and positions/postures you actually use in a fight, surely that is more efficient?

You are correct in that it’s you and your opponent in a fight but the skills you both bring are developed through your martial arts training, and if one system keeps helping produce fighters and the drills they use are readily applicable and recognisable in a fight and another style has trouble producing fighters in any format then surely there is something wrong? And I know not all people want to compete or get caught on camera fighting but wing chun is meant to be the most popular Chinese system out there, so how come so few actually fight and when they do apart from a few guys they look bad or lose?

[sanjuro_ronin]

RE: WC not being a style.
Here is the thing, regardless of what WC was or should be, a style is what IT IS.
The moment you add a curriculm and forms that are :set in stone", you create an orthodox system, a style.
If WC was just a collection of principles and concepts then anything could be WC, it would be a generic name like what BL wanted for JKD.
I am sure that was probably the intent of BL when he created JKD, to get back what he may have precieved that WC "lost".
His teacher WSL was adamant that WC was all about the concepts and principles, he even argued how some would say that him wining a fight with a knee strike is not WC because there are no knee strikes in WC.
But the issue is that, the movement toy make a set series of forms and techniques and say "this is WC', then you have made it WC and made WC a style.

[sihing]

There are definetly techniques in Wing Chun, like I said in my post, someone familiar with the system would see the application of them in a fight. But I don't like the idea of teaching techniques, or that there are specific ways to defend this or that attack. Once in awhile we do drills where the partner will throw attack from a non contacted position, but this is about learning the timing of the entry, but I do show the students you can do this or that when the attack is coming at you so they can function in the drill, all of it is about hitting off the attack, and if you can't avoid it as best as possible.

The whole idea of the WC I'm learning is to shut down the other guys ability to attack, that is why we fight inclose, so if I am in the position of having to defend a whole bunch of attacks then right there I am not using the skills WC is teaching me. This is very subtle, if you are lets say 4 or 6" too far back in range everything changes, the range is too far away, the tools will not work for you very well. Of course we can function here, it is just that it will be that much harder to achieve success. So for me, I really look at WC as a method of training my body to function in that close. For e.g. part of the SNT training is to perfect your accuracy and aim. When in YJKYMA, all of the shapes we perform in SNT are done relatively down our centerline, here I am learning to aim the weapons, whether it's tan, fok, wu, biu, etc, in a direction basically right in front of me. It's like learning to shot a stationary target with a gun or bow, while I myself am stationary as well. Perfecting aim and other things of course. This translates when you learn Chum Kiu, now you are moving your horse, your center and the shapes have to follow correctly, but they are not following by moving the arms or shoulders, they move because my center facing/torso is moving, I'm also combining this with my lower body movement.

Chi sau brings it all alive with a real partner, you learn to chase a moving and reacting opponent, maintaining the facing and aim of your tools, using the legs as the power source, and continually launching attacks, one hand helping the other and alternating, while eating their space and attacking COG. So you can't IMO learn this by having someone attack you with a punch or shot over and over again, we need a prolonged contact drill, cooperative in the beginning, not so later on. It's unrealistic for application but great for tool development. This continues with Laap sau drill, which is a bit more realistic in apllication because now you are incontact with only one hand against his two hands and alternating. You learn the bong/laap sequence, how to enter and we can also spar here while staying within the limited WC frame and box. After all of this is done, there is of course the dummy work to refine our positions and angles, fix our mistakes, long pole to further strengthen our structure and moving frame. Not familiar with the Blades so I won't go there, lol.

After all this you can free spar with it, here you learn to apply the tools, without thought about them, you are not TRYING to bring about a tan, biu, and particular footwork pattern, nothing like that, you just spar, finding out what is working and what isn't, to me this isn't WC as now it is the individual doing their thing. In the class everyone is doing the samething, exactly the same, building it up from the ground up like a building. In sparring the individuality comes out, not everyone moves the same way, but the core is still there, and it can be seen.

Now why I haven't seen fighters training in WC, is probably because it really isn't meant for the ring (not because of deadlyness, rather it would be easy to counter once seen), because it takes a long time to learn, it's very precise and subtle so much so that most fighters will not take the time to learn it. But I myself have met up with people from other styles and it worked just fine, same with my students and fellow training partners. All of us combined have applied it against karate, MT, wrestlers and the such, it all worked fine, so this is proof enough for me, not that I need any, if there wasn't any proof I would still practice and teach the system, as I do it mostly for enjoyment.

Style or system, I guess it's all semantics, and it depends on how you define each term. For me a style is something that is not only changing how you move in a fight, it is telling you what to do in a mechanical preconceived way, he does this you do that. It's too fixed IMO, that's why most styles don't work in application. I can't tell you how many times I've met people from different styles and they just can't use there stuff when it comes time to use it, even when feeding them easy attacks it just doesn't come out natural. Systems are tool developers, WC is not the only system out there, but I like the idea of it developing what I already have but not limiting me on how I use it, more natural expression in my opinion. Bruce said one has to be "Unnaturally Natural, or Naturally Unnatural", moving naturally within a learned framework.

James

[sanjuro_ronin]

Long post James, but I agree with what you say and do like that quote from BL.

If there was one thing I took from boxing is that there is no need to block and where you can block, you can strike, so why bother blocking?
( Of course blocking has its merits and doing it well can work really well for you, but that isn't an issue right now).
WC should be the embodiment of simple, direct and effective.
Why block when you can hit?
Why parry when you can evade?
Why stick or trap when you can hit?
The strike is the answer to all the questions presented to a WC fighter.
An ex:
I used this example that I picked up from BL, to show simple, direct and effective -

Someone grabs your left wrist:
There are a MILLION counters to this, from a counter writ lock whilel stepping back, to a counter while stepping in, from a barrage of moves to a combination of strikes and locks, whatever.
the WC view?
Punch him in the face - simple, direct and effective.
Nothing releases a hold like getting your face smashed.

[sihing]

Yeah, I get long winded

True post Paul, good points brought up. Simply put WC is core set of skills & body mechanics, allowing one to function with the priniples you said Simple, Direct, Efficient, how you apply them is up to you.

JR

[Wayfaring]

Chi sau brings it all alive with a real partner, you learn to chase a moving and reacting opponent, maintaining the facing and aim of your tools, using the legs as the power source, and continually launching attacks, one hand helping the other and alternating, while eating their space and attacking COG. So you can't IMO learn this by having someone attack you with a punch or shot over and over again, we need a prolonged contact drill, cooperative in the beginning, not so later on. It's unrealistic for application but great for tool development. This continues with Laap sau drill, which is a bit more realistic in apllication because now you are incontact with only one hand against his two hands and alternating. You learn the bong/laap sequence, how to enter and we can also spar here while staying within the limited WC frame and box. After all of this is done, there is of course the dummy work to refine our positions and angles, fix our mistakes, long pole to further strengthen our structure and moving frame. Not familiar with the Blades so I won't go there, lol.
...
James

Picking out one thing to discuss here.

More recently my view of chi sau is that the biggest problem with it is that it does not train closing the gap. 2 people walk up to bridge contact range and practice from there.

There are tenets like "if there is no bridge strike", but that does not cover or practice the skillsets to do so. A simple boxer who trains mitts with a circling jab has a greater skillset to actually accomplish "if there is no bridge strike".

The greatest weakness practicing chi sau in the traditional fashion produces is that against a boxer or striker with footwork who can hover around and move at the edge of striking range. There is quite a variety of things you can do from there that will nullify the bridge range if people don't practice live at that range.

[Pacman]

I understand what James is saying.

Some people are having issues with the statement, "WC is not a style".

I think he is saying that WC is not a precisely defined style that dictates how exactly how to hold your hands, how exactly to stand etc.

the curriculum is teaching certain principles and ideas as opposed to a set of choreographed fight scenes (think karate kata, tkd, or choy li fut forms)

if you look at practitioners of karate, MT, they are generally going to be fighting in the same stance, holding their hands the same way, etc. their curriculum is very defined. It can be taught much more easily than WC.

The downside to the lack of definition in WC is that it can easily be misunderstood.

For example, we practice in the pigeon toed stance in training, but some people take this concept and think that is how you fight. They think if you fight with WC you must stand like a potted plant in the pigeon toed stance and walk around like an idiot.

Most likely these people are the ones who have learned other styles where their forms or kata are choreographed fight scenes, so they think that all WC training is a choreographed representation of how they should fight.

there are many more examples, but i think this is what james means

[Pacman]

i think you hit the nail on the head. the biggest problem with chi sau is that people do not train how to get into that position to apply it.

just practicing chi sau is like hitting the punching bag all day. you might have a monster punch, but you dont have the other skills to make use of it

Picking out one thing to discuss here.

More recently my view of chi sau is that the biggest problem with it is that it does not train closing the gap. 2 people walk up to bridge contact range and practice from there.

[sihing]

I understand what James is saying.

Some people are having issues with the statement, "WC is not a style".

I think he is saying that WC is not a precisely defined style that dictates how exactly how to hold your hands, how exactly to stand etc.

the curriculum is teaching certain principles and ideas as opposed to a set of choreographed fight scenes (think karate kata, tkd, or choy li fut forms)

if you look at practitioners of karate, MT, they are generally going to be fighting in the same stance, holding their hands the same way, etc. their curriculum is very defined. It can be taught much more easily than WC.

The downside to the lack of definition in WC is that it can easily be misunderstood.

For example, we practice in the pigeon toed stance in training, but some people take this concept and think that is how you fight. They think if you fight with WC you must stand like a potted plant in the pigeon toed stance and walk around like an idiot.

Most likely these people are the ones who have learned other styles where their forms or kata are choreographed fight scenes, so they think that all WC training is a choreographed representation of how they should fight.

there are many more examples, but i think this is what james means

Those are good points and another way to put it. Misunderstanding is prevelant in the system, probably because it is concept based and concepts can be interpreted in a variety of ways. Alot of this also has to do with the teachers of the past, and Yip Man as well, he wasn't known as a great teacher, and from what I understand there wasn't much verbal communication of the concepts/principles of the system, you watched the seniors or Yip himself (he maybe showed you once or twice) then trained it and figured it out yourself. Luckily WSL, as well as a few others, didn't teach this way, they explained more and cared more deeply about the students they had.

When I was in TWC we were told exactly that about the YJKYMA in the "modified" version of WC, how do you fight in a stance like that. Now I know what it means and what it represents, it all depends on who you learned it from and what you do with that information.

James

[sihing]

i think you hit the nail on the head. the biggest problem with chi sau is that people do not train how to get into that position to apply it.

just practicing chi sau is like hitting the punching bag all day. you might have a monster punch, but you dont have the other skills to make use of it

I look at chi sau and all the other drills as isolation excersises. There's a unrealistic prolonged contact in the drills, that is in place to teach us a whole bunch of things. How to bridge can be added to the drills easy, since there is prolonged contact all one partner has to do is release contact and retreat, the other guy has to close the gap anyway they can and as quickly as they can to keep that gap tight. I would even venture to teach the TWC entry technique as a way to bridge the gap as I believe it has it's place and time,but generally quick adjusting shuffle steps forward is the key thing. Also is the idea of letting the other guy close the gap for you, in this case we are the counter fighters and have to respond from there.

James

[YungChun]

i think you hit the nail on the head. the biggest problem with chi sau is that people do not train how to get into that position to apply it.

ChiSao trains so many things and skills.. Despite what some folks say it takes a long time to develop decent ChiSao as evidenced by all the crap ChiSao we see.

But ChiSao was never intended to be the end of the training anymore than was the PakSao drill. If it was I could see the concern, but it isn't..

[HumbleWCGuy]

i like some of what i saw, some i didn't but as you say they are sparring and thats a good thing

former JKD guys like matt thornton, paul sharp etc all advocate sparring, and even vunaks crew(the street fighting HKE's guys) spar, and all those top guys with him have aleast a bjj purple belt so we can see how they feel about so called alive sparring and grappling

I am inclined to agree with the comments on the video which suggest that Tim Tackett is a complete hack. If you want to talk JKD terminology and listen to Bruce Lee quotes about fighting, he is your guy.