Page 5 of 11 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 163

Thread: Why does MMA target WC?

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NW Arkansas
    Posts
    1,392
    I've said it before, but I think that there is a LOT to be gained from a cross-pollination of wing chun and boxing/kickboxing. They both have an incredible amount to offer each other.

    The problem is that most people are so bent on being "pure" wing chun or "pure boxing" etc.
    It is better to have less thunder in the mouth and more lightning in the hand. - Apache Proverb

  2. #62
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Midwestern United States
    Posts
    1,922
    Quote Originally Posted by JamesC View Post
    I've said it before, but I think that there is a LOT to be gained from a cross-pollination of wing chun and boxing/kickboxing. They both have an incredible amount to offer each other.

    The problem is that most people are so bent on being "pure" wing chun or "pure boxing" etc.
    That's true. I am not really sure what the deal is. I claim WC primarily, but the reality is that I probably rely upon my hodge podge of other stuff just as much as anything.

  3. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by HumbleWCGuy View Post
    MT also uses the Bil sao. Classical MT and WC have a lot in common if you ask me.
    Very true, Traditional Muay Thai (not the simplified Muay Thai you learn in an MMA/Kickboxing gym) is similar to WC, however in accordance to movement only, but in concept/strategy/intent.

    IMO, Duncan Leungs/Alan Lee's WC (Chris B. clips that someone posted earlier) method in many ways is specifically geared toward dealing with MT and CLF. If you know their curriculum you will notice that all their training drills train again attacks from one or the other.

    And for those who said they were sparring, no they are not "sparring" in those clips, they are simply doing their normal drills with some more movement (forward, back, side to side). They are not doing anything seriously or semi seriously, they are just playing.

    Also, for those comparing WSL/Bayer's clip with Duncan Leungs/Alan Lee's clip, there is no point. It's a matter of what type of training you prefer. It's like comparing Apples and Oranges. Their training goals are completely different and the emphasis on what concepts they are trying to master are also very different. One is not better than the other and vise versa in general. However individually both systems do certain things better. Both systems have produced fighters who have fought full contact in china, Malaysia, Thai Land and other parts of Asia. (sorry they MMA fad wasn't around during those times and still isn't around in some parts of the world.) Video? If you like video so much get a Netflix account.

    Lastly, MMA is not a style/system! MMA is a multi-art discipline (popular formula is BJJ/MT/Boxing but is not confined to just those arts). WC is one kung fu style (some would even argue that it's not a style but rather a system) so I don't see what the point of all this MMA vs. WC business is. Comparing WC to MMA is nonsensical. If you train WC as well as other martial arts and combine them then guess what!? That's MMA (maybe not by the popular definition or what people think is the standard for completing in the UFC, but it's MMA). And that/those other art/arts could be anything: BJJ, Karate, MT, Akido, Hung Gar, CLF, Tai Chi, etc...
    Last edited by nasmedicine; 08-11-2011 at 08:47 AM. Reason: addition
    Fut Hong Wing Chun Kuen (a.k.a. Invisible Buddha Fist Wing Chun), Northern New Jersey
    IBFWC @ youtube
    BBL28888 @ youtube


    "Everybody's gotta plan, until they get hit!" - Mike Tyson

    "Rule number 1: Don't get hit. Rule number 2: Remember rule number one."- Sifu Joseph Ng

    "Pure or Impure Wing Chun, whatever beats an opponent is good Wing Chun" - pg 50, Wing Chun Warrior: The True Tales of WCKF Master Duncan Leung

  4. #64
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Midwestern United States
    Posts
    1,922
    Quote Originally Posted by nasmedicine View Post

    And for those who said they were sparring, no they are not "sparring" in those clips, they are simply doing their normal drills with some more movement (forward, back, side to side). They are not doing anything seriously or semi seriously, they are just playing.
    I would call it sparring in the sense that it is relatively fluid and free flowing. But, yea, it wasn't balls to the wall nor does all sparring need to be in my opinion.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Midwestern United States
    Posts
    1,922
    Quote Originally Posted by nasmedicine View Post
    Very true, Traditional Muay Thai (not the simplified Muay Thai you learn in an MMA/Kickboxing gym) is similar to WC, however in accordance to movement only, but in concept/strategy/intent.
    .
    Krabi kabong.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4yCL...eature=related
    Last edited by HumbleWCGuy; 08-11-2011 at 08:44 AM.

  6. #66
    Quote Originally Posted by HumbleWCGuy View Post
    I would call it sparring in the sense that it is relatively fluid and free flowing. But, yea, it wasn't balls to the wall nor does all sparring need to be in my opinion.
    I know from your POV it might seems like that, but I know how they train which is why I'm stating that they are not sparring. When they do spar it is much more intense and they are usually wearing more padding (to protect the opponent, not themselves)
    Fut Hong Wing Chun Kuen (a.k.a. Invisible Buddha Fist Wing Chun), Northern New Jersey
    IBFWC @ youtube
    BBL28888 @ youtube


    "Everybody's gotta plan, until they get hit!" - Mike Tyson

    "Rule number 1: Don't get hit. Rule number 2: Remember rule number one."- Sifu Joseph Ng

    "Pure or Impure Wing Chun, whatever beats an opponent is good Wing Chun" - pg 50, Wing Chun Warrior: The True Tales of WCKF Master Duncan Leung

  7. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by HumbleWCGuy View Post
    Nice Dog Brothers clip, but this is not the traditional MT that I was speaking of (assuming that you were trying to post an example clip)
    Fut Hong Wing Chun Kuen (a.k.a. Invisible Buddha Fist Wing Chun), Northern New Jersey
    IBFWC @ youtube
    BBL28888 @ youtube


    "Everybody's gotta plan, until they get hit!" - Mike Tyson

    "Rule number 1: Don't get hit. Rule number 2: Remember rule number one."- Sifu Joseph Ng

    "Pure or Impure Wing Chun, whatever beats an opponent is good Wing Chun" - pg 50, Wing Chun Warrior: The True Tales of WCKF Master Duncan Leung

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    New Jersey/NYC
    Posts
    831
    Quote Originally Posted by JamesC View Post
    I've said it before, but I think that there is a LOT to be gained from a cross-pollination of wing chun and boxing/kickboxing. They both have an incredible amount to offer each other.

    The problem is that most people are so bent on being "pure" wing chun or "pure boxing" etc.
    its been done already..
    http://www.facebook.com/sifumcilwrath
    http://www.youtube.com/user/sifumcilwrath



    There is no REAL secrets in Wing Chun, but because the forms are conceptual you have to know how to decipher the information..That's the secret..

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NW Arkansas
    Posts
    1,392
    Quote Originally Posted by stonecrusher69 View Post
    its been done already..
    I never said it hasn't.
    It is better to have less thunder in the mouth and more lightning in the hand. - Apache Proverb

  10. #70
    Quote Originally Posted by nasmedicine View Post
    Lastly, MMA is not a style/system! MMA is a multi-art discipline (popular formula is BJJ/MT/Boxing but is not confined to just those arts). WC is one kung fu style (some would even argue that it's not a style but rather a system) so I don't see what the point of all this MMA vs. WC business is. Comparing WC to MMA is nonsensical. If you train WC as well as other martial arts and combine them then guess what!? That's MMA (maybe not by the popular definition or what people think is the standard for completing in the UFC, but it's MMA). And that/those other art/arts could be anything: BJJ, Karate, MT, Akido, Hung Gar, CLF, Tai Chi, etc...
    QFT

    It's amazing how many people lose sight of this fact. I remember seeing a video where that guy Joe Rogan was making fun of kung fu. He went on to mention a video where two guys who train kung fu end up fighting and one gets on top of the other and starts pounding on him. Rogan goes on to laugh as he says "I look at that and think...that's MMA!" As if MMA was it's own style and everything in it is unique to it. The only response I could muster up was a double facepalm .
    Everybody wants to go to heaven but nobody wants to die...

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Whittier, Ca
    Posts
    406
    If I was a MMA guy and saw this:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkLTx...eature=related

    I would hate on Wing Chun guys too!!
    "The ultimate nature of survival is maintaining your balance"

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    2,252
    Quote Originally Posted by Northwind View Post
    Let me preface this by saying I am not (nor have been) a WC/VT (or whatever other name you prefer) practitioner. I have much respect for the style - just never seriously trained it. I've done some bits of various southern styles, but my main bread n butter is Northern Shaolin. That said...

    My question for long-time practitioners of the art is this:
    I've seen way too many MMA folks on this board as well as on others, youtube, etc. (including that now-famous clip of Rogan's) totally insult and dis the style. BUT you don't hear them calling out Lung Ying, CLF, White Crane, Northern Shaolin, etc. I'm not hinting that they think these styles are better, but I am dumbfounded at this - WHY? I mean are all these people to think "Kung Fu" = Wing Chun [only]?

    Was there a WC individual who got into a famous MMA match and lost so they now dis the entire style? Or what is it?

    Just curious why they pick on one particular style of TCMA? Why the grudge?

    (Definitely not hoping to have my main style called out, but just curious why they're doing this - plain ignorance or something more)?
    Well i think its fairly obvious on why WC is singled out.

    Most exponents will happily tell you how its scientifically the most efficient way to fight, yet, when asked to prove it (by an MMA, MT or boxer) the usual "seek a sifu", "you wont see it in the ring as its too deadly", "it takes many years to master", "you should have seen WSL" etc etc (no dig at the WSL boys intended)

    And the funny thing is, youll see a lot of WC people having a shot at otherTCMA's as being too flowery, not realistic, etc etc

    In the eyes of non-WC people this puts it at the top of the heap.... to be pulled down.

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    5,714
    MMA is not a style/system! MMA is a multi-art discipline
    For the purpose of this discussion and why some comparison is in fact valid, MMA is:

    1) A ruleset for competive fighting

    2) A conceptual view of what fighting is/should be about

    MMA regards fighting as having three distinct phases

    1) standup, detached fighting (mainly striking and kicking)

    2)Clinch fighting (standing wrestling, throws, submissions takedowns, striking in the clinch)

    3) Groundfighting (pins, sweeps, submissions, G&P)

    and its competitions have specific rulesets allowing techniques in all three phases.

    Few if any single martial arts at present contain the spectrum of techniques necessary to dominate in competition, or to survive a fight which could go into any of these phases. Hence boxing wrestling, jiu jitsu becoming a common mix, especially since the TCMA world mostly went into denial about such a worldview in the early days.

    I think MMA being a "multi-art discipline" is a temporary thing - MMA fighting is different from striking only, clinching only, and groundfighting only. These days you need to train and approach it as a separate discipline on its own to succeed, and over time I believe "styles" and "systems" of MMA will develop.

    You can't select arbitrary MAs and call it MMA - those arts have to have answers for the full spectrum of those phases. Mixing WC, aikido, and hung gar probably wouldn't get you there.

    Where the disconnect and hate begins is the disparity between this worldview and that of many TCMAs in the early 90's, viz. that fighting was almost solely done on the feet with strikes, and what ground techniques there were existed mainly to create enough space to regain one's feet.

    And too many with rice bowls to protect went on the defensive and resorted to criticism (which they were always good at before then even with each other) rather than taking an honest view of their art and working on what weaknesses there may have been.

    I agree the animosity is pointless. Progress comes from building bridges, not walls.
    Last edited by anerlich; 08-13-2011 at 12:25 AM.
    "Once you reject experience, and begin looking for the mysterious, then you are caught!" - Krishnamurti
    "We are all one" - Genki Sudo
    "We are eternal, all this pain is an illusion" - Tool, Parabol/Parabola
    "Bro, you f***ed up a long time ago" - Kurt Osiander

    WC Academy BJJ/MMA Academy Surviving Violent Crime TCM Info
    Don't like my posts? Challenge me!

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    4,699
    Quote Originally Posted by anerlich View Post
    For the purpose of this discussion and why some comparison is in fact valid, MMA is:

    1) A ruleset for competive fighting

    2) A conceptual view of what fighting is/should be about

    MMA regards fighting as having three distinct phases

    1) standup, detached fighting (mainly striking and kicking)

    2)Clinch fighting (standing wrestling, throws, submissions takedowns, striking in the clinch)

    3) Groundfighting (pins, sweeps, submissions, G&P)

    and its competitions have specific rulesets allowing techniques in all three phases.

    Few if any single martial arts at present contain the spectrum of techniques necessary to dominate in competition, or to survive a fight which could go into any of these phases. Hence boxing wrestling, jiu jitsu becoming a common mix, especially since the TCMA world mostly went into denial about such a worldview in the early days.

    I think MMA being a "multi-art discipline" is a temporary thing - MMA fighting is different from striking only, clinching only, and groundfighting only. These days you need to train and approach it as a separate discipline on its own to succeed, and over time I believe "styles" and "systems" of MMA will develop.

    You can't select arbitrary MAs and call it MMA - those arts have to have answers for the full spectrum of those phases. Mixing WC, aikido, and hung gar probably wouldn't get you there.

    Where the disconnect and hate begins is the disparity between this worldview and that of many TCMAs in the early 90's, viz. that fighting was almost solely done on the feet with strikes, and what ground techniques there were existed mainly to create enough space to regain one's feet.

    And too many with rice bowls to protect went on the defensive and resorted to criticism (which they were always good at before then even with each other) rather than taking an honest view of their art and working on what weaknesses there may have been.

    I agree the animosity is pointless. Progress comes from building bridges, not walls.
    Again I say. You're pretty eloquent for a martial arts jock.....
    Sifu Phillip Redmond
    Traditional Wing Chun Academy NYC/L.A.
    菲利普雷德蒙師傅
    傳統詠春拳學院紐約市

    WCKwoon
    wck
    sifupr

  15. #75
    Quote Originally Posted by anerlich View Post
    For the purpose of this discussion and why some comparison is in fact valid, MMA is:

    1) A ruleset for competive
    2) A conceptual view of what fighting is/should be about

    MMA regards fighting as having three distinct phases

    1) standup, detached fighting (mainly striking and kicking)

    2)Clinch fighting (standing wrestling, throws, submissions takedowns, striking in the clinch)

    3) Groundfighting (pins, sweeps, submissions, G&P)

    and its competitions have specific rulesets allowing techniques in all three phases.

    Few if any single martial arts at present contain the spectrum of techniques necessary to dominate in competition, or to survive a fight which could go into any of these phases. Hence boxing wrestling, jiu jitsu becoming a common mix, especially since the TCMA world mostly went into denial about such a worldview in the early days.

    I think MMA being a "multi-art discipline" is a temporary thing - MMA fighting is different from striking only, clinching only, and groundfighting only. These days you need to train and approach it as a separate discipline on its own to succeed, and over time I believe "styles" and "systems" of MMA will develop.

    You can't select arbitrary MAs and call it MMA - those arts have to have answers for the full spectrum of those phases. Mixing WC, aikido, and hung gar probably wouldn't get you there.

    Where the disconnect and hate begins is the disparity between this worldview and that of many TCMAs in the early 90's, viz. that fighting was almost solely done on the feet with strikes, and what ground techniques there were existed mainly to create enough space to regain one's feet.

    And too many with rice bowls to protect went on the defensive and resorted to criticism (which they were always good at before then even with each other) rather than taking an honest view of their art and working on what weaknesses there may have been.

    I agree the animosity is pointless. Progress comes from building bridges, not walls.

    Great post !

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •