Chu Sau Lei Wing Chun student Aaron Baum winning 10th Legion MMA title

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Wing Chun
41

[QUOTE=Pacman;936069]what is ‘technique-based thinking’ and what is WC to you?[/QUOTE]

Pacman,

I do not want to side-track this thread, so I’ll try to be brief…

Technique-based thinking is the failure to see beyond techniques and forms. Take Tan Sau for instance… some only see the actual hand gesture/shape itself, and see that as what specifically designates a “tan”. Anything outside these techniques is deemed not WC.

While others understand the physical expression of core body mechanics, concepts, and principles behind a Tan Sau… Or what we call the “nature” of a Tan Sau.

Therefore by understanding this nature, one can then see how these tools relate themselves to one another and are part of an over-all system. (ie. WC)

With this awareness and ability to physically express the body mechanics, concepts and principles of a system, one can then use whatever tool outside of the system they choose. And to varying degrees, STILL be able to apply much of the same core body mechanics, concepts, and principles of WC. Despite whether or not the actual technique itself is traditionally taught as a “WC technique”.

We refer to this as Inside-the-Box (ITB-WC tools and techniques) and Outside-the-box (OTB-MMA etc.. tools and techniques) (btw.. There’s much more to ITB/OTB in our system, but that is a whole other thread)

The important factor to understand here is however. One does not merely trade WC for “MMA” tools, but instead molds and shapes OTB tools to fit into their own fighting strategy/physical expression of WC as needed and/or when the opportunity presents itself.

The guillotine at the end was obviously not a “WC technique” but as the opponent’s structure and COG was already destroyed.. and the space/time clearly presented itself.

Then that was the best tool for the job. It would of been inefficient to loop and try and set up a so-called “traditional WC technique”.

Best,

Alex

42

hi alex

have you thought of it in this way…you can look at the guillotine at the end as WC as well…right arm lan sau with the left hand in fook applying the pressure…pure wing chun chin na…its just other systems may call it something different

best

aaron

43

[QUOTE=aaron baum;936087]hi alex

have you thought of it in this way…you can look at the guillotine at the end as WC as well…right arm lan sau with the left hand in fook applying the pressure…pure wing chun chin na…its just other systems may call it something different

best

aaron[/QUOTE]

Thanks for pointing that out Aaron, actually I totally agree… it was in fact a “WC technique” after all ha ha!

In hindsight, I guess it wasn’t the best example to use for my post. :cool:

Or maybe it was… :wink:

44

i fully agree with you on some of the points you made.

i completely agree that understanding the theory behind the movements is essential to execution and improvement.

some on this forum (mostly people who study 20 different fighting styles in 1- years and master none of them) will scoff at theory saying its useless. they love to put on some pads and gear and get into a ring with another guy and try to knock each other’s heads off thinking they are learning.

i guess in the end we dont disagree too much. its just that you have a more liberal view of what OTB can still constitute wing chun. my butterfly kick example might have sounded silly, but from what i have read it seems you and some others would have no problem with me head butting someone’s centerline, utilizing WC structure and calling it WC.

i would

congrats again, aaron.
[QUOTE=duende;936085]Pacman,

I do not want to side-track this thread, so I’ll try to be brief…

Technique-based thinking is the failure to see beyond techniques and forms. Take Tan Sau for instance… some only see the actual hand gesture/shape itself, and see that as what specifically designates a “tan”. Anything outside these techniques is deemed not WC.

While others understand the physical expression of core body mechanics, concepts, and principles behind a Tan Sau… Or what we call the “nature” of a Tan Sau.

Therefore by understanding this nature, one can then see how these tools relate themselves to one another and are part of an over-all system. (ie. WC)

With this awareness and ability to physically express the body mechanics, concepts and principles of a system, one can then use whatever tool outside of the system they choose. And to varying degrees, STILL be able to apply much of the same core body mechanics, concepts, and principles of WC. Despite whether or not the actual technique itself is traditionally taught as a “WC technique”.

We refer to this as Inside-the-Box (ITB-WC tools and techniques) and Outside-the-box (OTB-MMA etc.. tools and techniques) (btw.. There’s much more to ITB/OTB in our system, but that is a whole other thread)

The important factor to understand here is however. One does not merely trade WC for “MMA” tools, but instead molds and shapes OTB tools to fit into their own fighting strategy/physical expression of WC as needed and/or when the opportunity presents itself.

The guillotine at the end was obviously not a “WC technique” but as the opponent’s structure and COG was already destroyed.. and the space/time clearly presented itself.

Then that was the best tool for the job. It would of been inefficient to loop and try and set up a so-called “traditional WC technique”.

Best,

Alex[/QUOTE]

45

It all comes down to what you think wing chun is and it is not.

I don’t think wing chun is doing a bong lap in a fight. I think wing chun is about learning how to best use your body power and be able cause your opponent to not be able to use theirs. If I can keep an opponent off balance and trap
(control ) their movement, then I can strike at will.

Once you stop playing at chi sao and make it more real ie hit hard etc it then changes, as chi sai is only one part of wing chun development and can be trained in many ways. Also sparring is the same it can be light or hard it can be played or drilled. In the end when you fight it is the core of the skills that you use.

I watch Aaron and can see excellent wing chun skills. I am not looking for a tan sao punch. The movement of his weight control, the punch positions, the centre control, the cutting of angles, timing etc etc this is wing chun

SLT is training your understanding of movements that you use, its not the fight.

CK is training your turning power and more linking and delinking skills, its not the fight

How much you use will be down to the level of skill you really have. Most wing chun guys don’t fight in comps as they know they would not do very well. Whatever reasons they give don’t really matter. In the end what does matter is your personal believe in your system and training.

My guys believe and have tested it, they are happy with it and know what works and what does not. Thats the end game.

best

Alan

46

First of all, congratulations to Aaron and the Iron Wolves/Mr. Orr’s camp.

My question for Mr. Orr is this, based on reading what you wrote (note I am not a WCK player), and I agree that WCK is not just merely trying to maintain a rigid structure and doing specific techniques in a fight, but at what point does the WC start or finish? I guess maybe I should asking, does drilling WCK, in your case, improve the fighter or work on different areas of his game than drilling pure/general MMA style fighting? (I am hoping it does)

I think this may be asked better in a Chinese boxing type of sense. We see different styles represented in MMA, being a lot of Thai boxing (with clear to not clear traditional MT styles), Karate (Machida being the bext example), Boxing. These styles however do not really have the structure training, chi sao or the special training of Wing Chun.

What I am seeing is that this “WC” being used in practical environment, changes the look tremendously from say the form, playing chi sao, playing the structure? I will assume this is a simple necessity/reality of fighting, which is actually TRUE for all the styles I know, or have played with. Hung Kuen fighting, does not look like Hung Kuen forms. The bridging, techniques, and stances sometime look totally different, like . . . kickboxing! Or perhaps better, modified kickboxing. :smiley:

I am confused somewhat, however. In WCK circles, people seem to hold WCK to a higher standard, of sorts. In that they want to see the “picture perfect” WCK in a real, hard, full-contact match/street/NHB, they want to see triangle stance, bong sao, sticky hand, trapping, and whatnot. But why so prevalent in WCK circles?

You do not see CLF guys bashing on each other, for “looking” like kickboxers or western boxers at times. Actually, even the SPM guys I have talked to do not hold them to the standard of “strict adherence to a pure/static structure” in the sense they HAVE to use certain techniques, positions, postures, and they CANNOT use others!

Sorry for such a long winded post, I am very very tired and cannot formulate my thoughts very well right now. But thanks for reading. :slight_smile:

47

[QUOTE=Violent Designs;936127]First of all, congratulations to Aaron and the Iron Wolves/Mr. Orr’s camp.

My question for Mr. Orr is this, based on reading what you wrote (note I am not a WCK player), and I agree that WCK is not just merely trying to maintain a rigid structure and doing specific techniques in a fight, but at what point does the WC start or finish? I guess maybe I should asking, does drilling WCK, in your case, improve the fighter or work on different areas of his game than drilling pure/general MMA style fighting? (I am hoping it does)

I think this may be asked better in a Chinese boxing type of sense. We see different styles represented in MMA, being a lot of Thai boxing (with clear to not clear traditional MT styles), Karate (Machida being the bext example), Boxing. These styles however do not really have the structure training, chi sao or the special training of Wing Chun.

What I am seeing is that this “WC” being used in practical environment, changes the look tremendously from say the form, playing chi sao, playing the structure? I will assume this is a simple necessity/reality of fighting, which is actually TRUE for all the styles I know, or have played with. Hung Kuen fighting, does not look like Hung Kuen forms. The bridging, techniques, and stances sometime look totally different, like . . . kickboxing! Or perhaps better, modified kickboxing. :smiley:

I am confused somewhat, however. In WCK circles, people seem to hold WCK to a higher standard, of sorts. In that they want to see the “picture perfect” WCK in a real, hard, full-contact match/street/NHB, they want to see triangle stance, bong sao, sticky hand, trapping, and whatnot. But why so prevalent in WCK circles?

You do not see CLF guys bashing on each other, for “looking” like kickboxers or western boxers at times. Actually, even the SPM guys I have talked to do not hold them to the standard of “strict adherence to a pure/static structure” in the sense they HAVE to use certain techniques, positions, postures, and they CANNOT use others!

Sorry for such a long winded post, I am very very tired and cannot formulate my thoughts very well right now. But thanks for reading. :)[/QUOTE]

Thanks for your questions.

The answer is we have a lot of people in wing chun who are more interested in making up history or wearing the right colour silk uniform. This really goes back to teachers trying to market their wing chun as the ‘best’ or ‘real’ etc etc
Then saying we can’t test it as you would be killed etc

We also have a lot of whun chun guys attached to what they where taught, but have never tested outside of the comfort zone they live in. These guys want to protect their view of the world, otherwise they may find out they could be wrong.

For me martial arts is all about learning and growing. Views change all the time.

What I like about the CSL Wing Chun system is it is based on body structure first, that from day one allows us to test, test and test again.

Now mma has pushed all types of martial arts to train towards more combat testing. Which has helped stop the crazy guys, well we still as you can see we still have a few! lol Anyway I don’t think you have to always get in a ring or cage and test it, but we can learn a lot from the guys that do. In my school only 20% of the guys fight in comps. Saying that for Chi Sao comps we had 50% wanting to fight.

All the students learn from the feedback, even me! We can look at the skills under strong pressure and gain from it. That was how martial arts was developed back in the day anyway. Not via forums LOL.

My best

Alan

48

respectfully i have to disagree

in a real fight, an MA fighter does not have to look exactly like he does practicing any of the forms. i certainly don’t.

but look at machida. you can see that he has karate roots. or look at MT or boxers. they might not look exactly like they do when they train but you can see the origins.

look at this video from someone in my WC family:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzYXUAiqAj8&feature=channel_page

they are practicing white crane takedowns. the black guy is just feeding punches (imitating someone he might meet on the street so not meant to be WC-like) on purpose. the white guy is practicing his white crane sweeps and takedowns.

the take downs don’t look exactly like the way we practice it, but you can still tell they are white crane takedowns.

you don’t see him pulling a double leg and saying “its actually just two bong saus” so its actually wing chun

i dont like it when people say “this is wing chun in a practical environment”, as if everyone developed wing chun for excercise only.

if you cant utilize a bong sau or tan sau or sticky hands in general in a real environment its not because its by nature impractical, its because you are not abble to apply it.

49

[QUOTE=Pacman;936166]respectfully i have to disagree

in a real fight, an MA fighter does not have to look exactly like he does practicing any of the forms. i certainly don’t.

but look at machida. you can see that he has karate roots. or look at MT or boxers. they might not look exactly like they do when they train but you can see the origins.

look at this video from someone in my WC family:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzYXUAiqAj8&feature=channel_page

they are practicing white crane takedowns. the black guy is just feeding punches (imitating someone he might meet on the street so not meant to be WC-like) on purpose. the white guy is practicing his white crane sweeps and takedowns.

the take downs don’t look exactly like the way we practice it, but you can still tell they are white crane takedowns.

you don’t see him pulling a double leg and saying “its actually just two bong saus” so its actually wing chun

i dont like it when people say “this is wing chun in a practical environment”, as if everyone developed wing chun for excercise only.

if you cant utilize a bong sau or tan sau or sticky hands in general in a real environment its not because its by nature impractical, its because you are not abble to apply it.[/QUOTE]

Not really sure what you are saying?

The point is not that whatever you do is wing chun because one says it is.

The point is that wing chun is not just tan, bong,fook as in the forms. These seem to be what a lot of people are looking for when watching a fight.

These movements are the reference of position, once you understand that you can control position because you know where you are in it. Thats the higher level of the martial arts. The start point is doing the basics until you don’t need them as they are what you do as natural movement. You become the art.

best

Alan

50

what happned between you and benny meng?

51

[QUOTE=goju;936169]what happned between you and benny meng?[/QUOTE]

Thanks for asking, but thats not really for this thread or forum.

best

Alan

52

well duh but there wasnt a ask allan orr anything thread so i asked it here lol

53

there are quite a few submissions in wing chun too wiliams cheungs version has a standing head and arm choke and his knife defense he shows a sanding americana which i believe the gracies stole from him with their street self defense

54

I saw no WC in this fight.

55

[QUOTE=duende;936015]This is technique-based thinking. Fortunately, I’ve learned that WC is much much more.[/QUOTE]
You HFY guys are completely delusional and like to pretend that everything is WC.
I saw no WC in this fight.

56

there are quite a few submissions in wing chun too wiliams cheungs version has a standing head and arm choke and his knife defense he shows a sanding americana which i believe the gracies stole from him with their street self defense

The Gracies never stole anything from him.
And ground game/submissions in TWC? Honestly??? There are a few TWC instructors I’ve seen that embrace wrestling, bjj, etc., but other than that, there is none. Concepts are applicable on the ground, but using those alone makes for a very incomplete ground game.

I saw no WC in this fight.

LOL… another one. :expressionless:

57

[QUOTE=AdrianK;936224]The Gracies never stole anything from him.
And ground game/submissions in TWC? Honestly??? There are a few TWC instructors I’ve seen that embrace wrestling, bjj, etc., but other than that, there is none. Concepts are applicable on the ground, but using those alone makes for a very incomplete ground game.

LOL… another one. :|[/QUOTE]

I agree.

LOL Submission fighting as been around from the dawn of time.

If you want to fight in MMA then you need a good stand up system ( CSL Wing Chun), you need strong wrestling and a good standard of BJJ.

BJJ is an excellent art and is always growing and changing. But its still BJJ.

All good martial arts address the basic control skills. In our Wing Chun we have a system of chin Na, but we also see the links to other movements and also know when you need to have pure Wrestling and BJJ skills ready to use. Which we have as well.

58

BJJ is also a traditional martial art . . .

Thanks for your reply Sifu Orr.

59

i didnt say ground fighting. submissioms are submissions wether they are standing or laying down and twc has them i noted two standing subissions that are in the arsenal that oddly are the exact same one the gracies teach

60

[QUOTE=Violent Designs;936233]BJJ is also a traditional martial art . . .

Thanks for your reply Sifu Orr.[/QUOTE]

You are very welcome.

Yes, you are quite right BJJ is also a TMA. Gi BJJ is a system which changes when in MMA. As does wing chun.