You know it’s kind of funny to even argue over keeping something pure. According to several verisons of WC being developed it is said to be a conglomeration of several of the “best” Shaolin systems distilled into the most effective essence. Perhaps one could even say Wing Chun was the first MMA, although I doubt that all would agree
FWIW; I believe that Wing Chun does morph to the needs of those practicing it. Not all WC will look the same and not everyone will do it the same way. My only problem is with someone telling me that for my WC to be effective it must include this or that, My feeling is that it will depend on the environment and threats I am most likely to face.
If WC is your foundation, your core art, then it is possible to intergrate other arts and approaches into it and make it even more effective, IMHO. However, I am not going to go so far as to say this is necessary to make the art effective, perhaps more effective is the better terminology for a given situation.
[QUOTE=Ultimatewingchun;874167] ***YOU still don’t get it, do you?! :rolleyes:[/quote]
I get it alright and that was since the beginning.
Pure can mean a lot of things. What I am saying is that this art has principles and concepts that make it distinct and identify it.
So, to add anything to Wing Chun you must adapt it to the art’s concepts and principles to maintain the art’s essence and flavor which make it recognizable and give it it’s distinct character.
Previous masters have been doing this for a long time, so what I am saying is not rocket science!
When you mix this art with a mish mash of martial arts that contradict those concepts and principles then you are taking fundamental aspects out of it and therefore you cannot turn around and say you are “doing” Wing Chun, when actually a better definition would be that you are doing MMA with some Wing Chun in the mish mash.
That is because it is MMA. What make an art “pure” are its concepts and principles. When you go ‘outside’ them then it becomes something else, albeit with a Wing Chun flavor, perhaps.
I have got news for you, that day has come and gone..LOL! What you have now is a lot of people learning a “half mash” Wing Chun with new training methods that make this art only a shadow of what it was.
Many realized that there were shortcomings in what they had learnt and turned around and replaced the “half mash” with a “mish mash”, instead of looking deeper into the art and trying to find the missing parts and replacing them within the the art’s own concepts and principles which give it the distinction that is WING CHUN!
It is not wishful dreaming it is a FACT(that is, my statement above)!
Weren’t the knee and elbows of Wing Chun enough for you?
There should be at least five different elbow attacks in what you have learnt, which you should have then practiced in an ultra-close (elbow-range only) chi sao and then in contact San sa.
AND THAT IS MY POINT!
And that is the answer you will get from a lot, if not most MMA-ists. They will say that they take the MMA approach by mixing Bjj, Muay Thai and perhaps boxing. Whatever, their core art, they are STILL DOING MMA!!!
Every MMA-ist’s MMA is made out of individual parts/MAs! But, it is still MMA!
Which makes it an MMA! and it will be wrong to call what you do Wing Chun, simply because, it just ain’t!
When in doubt, then mish mash???:rolleyes:
I am sorry, but I am not the one who defined Wing Chun through its concepts and principles. It was the people, the (MASTERS!) who developed this art and gave it its distinct characteristics/logic/approach.
So I choose their definition of Wing Chun and not some modern Knucklehead definition, thank you very much!
What you just described there is a MMA fight scenario and that is because the “essence” of your approach is MMA and not Wing Chun.
Yes I know, your post was rather funny, if sad as it does reflect the sad state of kung fu in general, but let’s just laugh it off, hey?
Are you addressing me here, or all of the kung fu masters/exponents of the past who played their part in creating and evolving what was to become the style of Wing Chun, during hundreds of years?
I mean the ones who you think didn’t fathom that a fight might go to the ground, hence did not address ground fighting (in a land where wrestling arts predate even kung fu)…LOL!
[QUOTE=punchdrunk;874197]i agree with Victor, besides who cares what’s “pure” wing chun.[/quote]
The none MMA-ist may care about the pureness of his art. Otherwise why learn any particular art? Just go and mix up wrestling with kickboxing and you will be fine!
Then I would strongly suggest that you take up MMA just like our friend Victor, as I believe that you will get short term results quicker that way and of course you will be more likely to come across a good MMA based school than a good kung fu school.
The key word there is kung fu. Just like Wing Chun’s distinct principles there are GENERAL principles that dictate what is kung fu (TCMA) and what is not. That is why you don’t see traditional kung fu exponents, no matter what style they practice, hopping around during sparring a la TKD or Boxing.
You know it’s kind of funny to even argue over keeping something pure. According to several verisons of WC being developed it is said to be a conglomeration of several of the “best” Shaolin systems distilled into the most effective essence.[/quote]
Yes, but under DISTINCT concepts and principles that identifies this art as Wing Chun. Once one messes with the these, then he is messing with the essence of this art!
This means that if techniques are introduced, then they have to fit these concepts and principles, so that the art can maitain its essence. Otherwise, you turn it into MMA.
There are other Kung fu styles that are also a “mix” of other styles, while maintaining their core essence that identify them as distinct systems. A notable example is the Norther Praying Mantis style of kung fu.
You are likely to get that advice from people who themselves have not seen the full potential of this art. Just ignore them.
Exactly. If your environment is going to be the sports arena, then you have to work on your stamina and sports sparring. Perhaps you can cross train some sports wrestling. All fair.
Again, if this is done in a manner where the style’s own distinct concepts or principles are not effected, then fine. Otherwise, one may cross train in other stuff and perhaps even become more effective, but then their art will be MMA and not Wing Chun.
Having said that, if they take the MMA approach, but cross train in other kung fu styles SEPARATELY, then at least what they do can still be classified as Kung Fu.
Many kung fu masters in the past have taken this approach.
FWIW; I believe that Wing Chun does morph to the needs of those practicing it. Not all WC will look the same and not everyone will do it the same way. My only problem is with someone telling me that for my WC to be effective it must include this or that, My feeling is that it will depend on the environment and threats I am most likely to face.
Every MA becomes tailored to the individual, though the guiding concepts and principles should remain the same.
You say that yo have a problem with people telling you that your WC should include this or that, YET you say that it depends on the environment and the threats on is most likely to face.
Which means WHAT exactly?
The WC is only applicable in a given situation? nothing else?
Or is it applicable in a broad spectrum on situations?
[QUOTE=sanjuro_ronin;874281]Every MA becomes tailored to the individual, though the guiding concepts and principles should remain the same.
You say that yo have a problem with people telling you that your WC should include this or that, YET you say that it depends on the environment and the threats on is most likely to face.
Which means WHAT exactly?
The WC is only applicable in a given situation? nothing else?
Or is it applicable in a broad spectrum on situations?[/QUOTE]
Hello,
To clarify what I mean is simply this:
WC is a system which tailors itself to the needs of its practicianers. A prime example is the variety of WC lineages stemming from Yip Mans teachings. At the core it is all WC yet each student adapted it to their own needs and thus the art expressed itself in accordance with their body types and philosophy.
What I meant is that for someone to tell me that my WC is ineffective UNLESS it includes high kicking, for example, is incorrect. Perhaps MY WC does not need to include this aspect of combat. Since I also train Pekiti Tirsia I have found what I need for the life experiences I have had, thus far, to be sufficient. Therefore, I do not accept that I need to go out and learn BJJ for my art to be effective in combat. However, should I suddenly find that I am facing or likely to face hard core grapplers, for example should my town in GA become over-run with renegade BJJ fighters, then I will explore that art more fully as I would be likely to face it.
It would be equally wrong for me to tell YOU that you needed to train Pekiti Tirsia in order to make your WC effective. While this works fine for me, it may not meet your needs or prepare you for the most likely threats you will face.
WC at its core is WC, adding anything else is just tailoring it to your specific needs. However, since everyones needs are different no one can tell anyone what they need unless they are in the same shoes.
Consider this, I may carry a P’kal or a T’Lite, both are knives which can be opened one handed by catching a lip on the edge of a pocket or other such. Someone takes me to the ground but I pluck out my knife and go to work, all I need is the one hand and not a lot of space. In this situation it may have been more prudent for my opponent to study some form of FMA which emphasized blade work. This does not detract from their ground game but depending on the situation the ground may not have been the best choice. Does not make their approach wrong, just not a good fit for that particular situation. Of course I am sure there are counters BJJ or the like can employ but this is just an example of one possible scenario.
WC is a system which tailors itself to the needs of its practicianers. A prime example is the variety of WC lineages stemming from Yip Mans teachings. At the core it is all WC yet each student adapted it to their own needs and thus the art expressed itself in accordance with their body types and philosophy.
Agreed.
What I meant is that for someone to tell me that my WC is ineffective UNLESS it includes high kicking, for example, is incorrect. Perhaps MY WC does not need to include this aspect of combat.
Granted, though it woudln’t hurt you to include some high kicks, you stiff old SOB !
Since I also train Pekiti Tirsia
Blasphemy !! cross trainer alert !!
WC at its core is WC, adding anything else is just tailoring it to your specific needs. However, since everyones needs are different no one can tell anyone what they need unless they are in the same shoes.
Correct, everyone here would agree with you.
Regardless of how self-limiting that is
I, for one, have never been one to say that ANY given MA is NOT what a person NEEDS it to be.
Of course many people confuse NEED with Want and some see WC, for example, as what they WANT it to be, instead of what it is and what they NEED it to be.
It would be equally wrong for me to tell YOU that you needed to train Pekiti Tirsia in order to make your WC effective. While this works fine for me, it may not meet your needs or prepare you for the most likely threats you will face.
That would depend on the context of WHY you would suggest PT to me.
Originally Posted by Ultimatewingchun
“But when people ask me what I do, (ie.- when they inquire about my classes)…I say that I take an mma approach THAT MIXES WING CHUN, CATCH WRESTLING, AND BOXING…and some Muay Thai.”
Followed by this response:
“And that is the answer you will get from a lot, if not most MMA-ists. They will say that they take the MMA approach by mixing Bjj, Muay Thai and perhaps boxing. Whatever, their core art, they are STILL DOING MMA!!!” (HardWork)
***AND HERE IS WHERE I REST MY CASE…That’s right, in the final analysis I’m doing mma.
BECAUSE IT’S MORE TOTAL FIGHT EFFECTIVE THAN WING CHUN BY ITSELF.
But you wouldn’t know that - since your fight experience (including hard contact sparring against other styles)…
is obviously lacking.
…Assuming it exists at all. :p:rolleyes::eek:
…
Oh, and btw…of course I’ve learned wing chun’s elbows and knees. Good stuff. Use it alot. But the MT collar tie with elbows and knees is a great addition to the wing chun elbow and knee arsenal.
But I guess you don’t know that either.
Again, another example of how your foolish obsession with keeping one’s wing chun “pure” clouds your judgment.
i just think its a mistake to blindly think that your wing chun is the same as it was 50 yrs ago, or that no improvements have been made or were necessary. I know even the Sui nim tao changes through the generations and lineages, so why not adapt other training methods. Anyone not incorporating modern weight training, a heavy bag, progressive sparring etc, etc, is missing some very simple yet great training aids. the principles of wing chun are meant to be guides, not chains binding us to some vision of the past. Look at bui gee… how many principles does it break?? Step outside the paradigm of beginners drills or be doomed to chain punching and chi sao forever!!
And I rest my case too, because that is what I have been telling you from the beginning.
Are you saying with that statement that with your newly acquired skills you can beat any WC “purist” in a fight, because your MMA is “more total fight effective than wing chun”???
Well, if you say that your Wing Chun MMA is more fight effective than Wing Chun on its own then perhaps you can tell us about all those “purist” masters and sifus that you beat up in challenges and REAL FIGHTS!
…
I know a couple of Kung fu(none-Wing Chun) sifus here in London who would send you to the nearest hospital if you tried that with them. But then what I said is irrelevant because you won’t believe it as none of these sifus has trained in Thai Boxing…so consequently they - in your mind - will not be able to deal with MT attacks.:rolleyes:
That depends on wether you have to compromise your structure and posture to do the collar tie, that is,do you lean slightly forward?
Well, you seem to have misuderstood me. I say and I have always said that people can cross train their Wing Chun in whatever they want, BUT don’t call it Wing Chun if you train in other arts with contradicting concepts and principles which are not in turn assimilated inside Wing Chun’s own context.
Now that you have admitted that you train in MMA, then we do not have anything to argue about!
[QUOTE=punchdrunk;874429]i just think its a mistake to blindly think that your wing chun is the same as it was 50 yrs ago, or that no improvements have been made or were necessary. [/quote]
If you read my posts carefully, then you will see that I am fully aware that Wing Chun has been evolving for a long time. However, the evolution seems to have been within the art’s concepts and principles, that is until some knuckleheads got hold of Wing Chun and tried to “evolve” it!
I would be very careful with the idea and type of weight training that is deemed suitable for Wing Chun.
Heavy bag has been around in various forms for a long time, so I believe that referring to it as a “modern” training tool is not quite correct.
Many kung fu styles practice progressive sparring, that is if I am correct in assuming the meaning of the phrase.
Key word there is “PRINCIPLES”.
As many principles as the Biu Jee breaks, the art’s methodology is guided by its principles. Biu Jee just provides you with some emergency strategies. Of course the masters of the old days knew that sometimes things don’t go as planned and one would need to step “outside” the principles. This is all understood.
However, mish mashing your art left, right and center does not do your art any justice, it may provide you with some extra fighting arsenal that works but then just don’t call what you end up with, Wing Chun and be like our friend Victor and call it MMA!
I have read this before, about Bil Ji violating WC principal and of it being an emergency system for regaining whatever, but for the life of me I can not seem to grasp exactly where it violates principal.
[QUOTE=Lee Chiang Po;874508]I have read this before, about Bil Ji violating WC principal and of it being an emergency system for regaining whatever, but for the life of me I can not seem to grasp exactly where it violates principal.[/QUOTE]
SNT and CK are on centre. This means IMO that your centre is locked on your opponent’s COM with your opponent’s centre is not. If the other way is reversed, then you’re in trouble. How do you get back there?
In BJ, most of the time, you place your hands way the heck out in no where land. Why do this when we didn’t do any of this in SNT and CK? To show how to get them back to centre. Also, in BJ, you have to use your imagination because you don’t always have your centre locked and JUST your arms out in no where land. Sometimes both and sometimes one or the other.
[QUOTE=HardWork8;874276]
This means that if techniques are introduced, then they have to fit these concepts and principles, so that the art can maitain its essence. Otherwise, you turn it into MMA.
[/quote]
MMA is a buzz word, but it’s essence has been around for longer than wing chun. It’s simply a matter of using what works best for the intended goal, regardless of semantic banter.
[QUOTE=HardWork8;874276]
There are other Kung fu styles that are also a “mix” of other styles, while maintaining their core essence that identify them as distinct systems. A notable example is the Norther Praying Mantis style of kung fu.
[/quote]
Just out of curiosity, what is the core essence of preying mantis and how do the techniques distinctly follow it? Because my experience with preying mantis showed a lot of techniques that I have seen in other styles as well, kung fu and non kung fu.
[QUOTE=HardWork8;874276]
You are likely to get that advice from people who themselves have not seen the full potential of this art. Just ignore them.
[/quote]
Or perhaps these people see things in realistic ways unbound the constraints of traditionalism…perhaps these people actually engage in consistent combat and thus their perspectives have been forged from actually fighting? It’s all a matter of perspective HW8. Yours is no more correct than theirs.
[QUOTE=HardWork8;874276]
Again, if this is done in a manner where the style’s own distinct concepts or principles are not effected, then fine. Otherwise, one may cross train in other stuff and perhaps even become more effective, but then their art will be MMA and not Wing Chun.
[/quote]
It won’t necessarily be the coined phrase of MMA either. Again, that’s just a buzz word. Someone could take Karate, Jujutsu, and Archery–would this be MMA? Not in the modern day definition. But it would be Bushido.
[QUOTE=HardWork8;874276]
Having said that, if they take the MMA approach, but cross train in other kung fu styles SEPARATELY, then at least what they do can still be classified as Kung Fu.
Many kung fu masters in the past have taken this approach.
[/quote]
Cross trainers trypically do learn their arts separately, because they typically will seek out the best in each field of study. When you fight however, that’s where a person can no longer be partial to a particular art–because most arts are limited in scope and thus the fighter may need to tap into another skillset several times during a fight–sport or real life.
…
Overall, this seems to be the same ol debate I see. Again, it’s all a matter of perspective Hardwork. You have yours, other people have theirs. Again, yours is no more correct than anyone else’s on how people train and whether or not what they do is wing chun. I study wing chun, amonst a couple of other things nowadays. My wing chun is no less the wing chun it was years ago. But for various reasons, I enjoy practicing other arts. When I fight, whatever comes out comes out. That Doesn’t mean I’m no longer a wing chun guy, just means I’ve come with a larger skillset.
Cross trainers trypically do learn their arts separately, because they typically will seek out the best in each field of study. When you fight however, that’s where a person can no longer be partial to a particular art–because most arts are limited in scope and thus the fighter may need to tap into another skillset several times during a fight–sport or real life.
That is how it has always been.
MMA as a “style” is a new development, one I am NOT fond of at all.
MMA as a ruleset and competition venue is fine.
I study wing chun, amonst a couple of other things nowadays. My wing chun is no less the wing chun it was years ago. But for various reasons, I enjoy practicing other arts. When I fight, whatever comes out comes out. That Doesn’t mean I’m no longer a wing chun guy, just means I’ve come with a larger skillset.
He doesn’t get that, he never will.
And if he ACTUALLY trained in the style he says he does, he would know that too.
Waste of time bro, waste of time.
[QUOTE=sanjuro_ronin;874588]That is how it has always been.
MMA as a “style” is a new development, one I am NOT fond of at all.
MMA as a ruleset and competition venue is fine.
[/quote]
That’s what I feel as well. I like the practicality aspects, but too many guys in the MMA are just thugs who learn a little of this and that and think they are martial artists. They are athletes for sure–but martial artists? No.
The most successful MMA guys (and there are exceptions to be sure) are the ones that have trained a core art, and then took that same mindset to another art, etc. It’s like high school…you learn math, english, music, geography…etc. Each piece is learnt separately, you do the best you can in each subject, and it all becomes part of a whole.
[QUOTE=sanjuro_ronin;874588]
He doesn’t get that, he never will.
And if he ACTUALLY trained in the style he says he does, he would know that too.
Waste of time bro, waste of time.[/QUOTE]
Well…everyone on here has a “signature” – something that he or she says or does over and over again. Some like to talk about how great their art is and how everyone else is not qualified to say anything. Some like to talk about how no one here has skill unless they fight, others like to post thousands of youtube videos in an attempt to gain validation for their school, etc, etc, etc.
Then there’s those that like training and discussing training methods. To each their own, right?
[QUOTE=Vankuen;874591]That’s what I feel as well. I like the practicality aspects, but too many guys in the MMA are just thugs who learn a little of this and that and think they are martial artists. They are athletes for sure–but martial artists? No.
The most successful MMA guys (and there are exceptions to be sure) are the ones that have trained a core art, and then took that same mindset to another art, etc. It’s like high school…you learn math, english, music, geography…etc. Each piece is learnt separately, you do the best you can in each subject, and it all becomes part of a whole.
Well…everyone on here has a “signature” – something that he or she says over and over again. Some like to talk about how great their art is and how everyone else is not qualified to say anything. Some like to talk about how no one here has skill unless they fight, others like to post thousands of youtube videos in an attempt to gain validation for their school, etc, etc, etc.
Then there’s those that like training and discussing training methods. To each their own, right?[/QUOTE]
Lee Chiang Po, i agree with Couch’s response. Different parts of bui gee break the center line principle, the straight line principle, the simultaneous defend and attack principle etc. etc. an easy example would be the two handed grab followed by a ginger fist in some peoples form ( i know this one changes in differing lineages.) that doesn’t really utilise the center line, thus breaking a principle. I know the form is used for emergency techiques but i also think its meant to broaden our horizon as well.
