Kung Fu Epiphany!

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Kung Fu Forum
1

I was reading some post earlier when I had a sudden realization. I have been hammering my thoughts and beliefs out on the anvil that is the KungFu Magazine Forum, on ground fighting and mixed martial arts and finally came to a conclusion…

I have been a huge proponent of traditional martial arts and training. Not a big fan of MMA, not that it doesnt work, I just dont think it is necessary, again, just my opinion but here is why. I feel that if you are going to fight, you should train to make your opponent fight your battle the way you want to fight it. I am not saying that MMA doesnt do that. I am not saying there are special circumstances out there that you just cannot avoid. If a 350 lb ape comes up behind me while I am asleep and blah blah blah, then of course I am going to get creamed. But I will always try to make my opponent fight my fight. I do believe it is possible. The more I train in WC, the bette rI become, the more capable I am at making this happen.
What do you guys think, is it possible?

2

I think any good fighter has the same aim, to not be drawn into the others game plan.

That’s why set up is important.

Knowing tendencies of a style is a big advantage. I read an article awhile ago arguoing tha the person’s style is not important, but I think it is. If you know, say Wc, you know there tendencies.

You know they will look to intecept with one hand, leaving the Wu Sau back. When the other arm gets involved, so does that Wu Sau, now, the initial hand can usually strike from where it is – if you don’t get caught up in the Chi Sau game and desire to cling more then needed.

That Wu Sau hand can also be flipped at the elbow, it that initial hand is withdrawn. Set up.

Works on most syles when you know there tendencies.

Patience is important, as well as not getting caught up in unneccessary crap, IE, I must have the top bridge. No way, under is also inside, which is quite powerful when expanding or striking.

3

redSangel,

This is coming from someone who’s on the sidelines, okay. I’m not suggesting anything about MA techniques. It’s the mindset I’m getting into, a part of what you address.

Training for and Concentrating on getting opponent to fight your fight makes me uneasy, if I understand you correctly. I translate it to: I fight this way and I’m going to force you to follow me, and go down to boot. Is this a good idea against a seasoned fighter? It might confuse a less experienced or less confident opponent. But someone who reads you, well, then it could come back at you as: I’ll play your game and beat you at it.
There’s something about structuring things as you describe, which could become restricting both practically and psychologically, in my view. Just sounds like something that could work sometimes, but could prove unreliable and inhibiting. (?)

Cody

4

Good point.

The most important trait one must have in fighting is the ability to change while maintaining a strong, sound structure.

5

the more comprehensive your game is, the more likely you’ll be able to make your opponent play your game. and the less likely your opponent will be able to make you play a game that is exclusively his.

i don’t like making generalizations about styles or their practitioners. so let me say this: if you are very comfortable at trapping, then all your efforts are going to be focused on getting him into trapping range and taking advantage of that. two things: 1) you’re counting on being able to manipulate him into that range and 2) you’re counting on him being uncomfortable in that range (or mode or whatever you want to call it). if he is also into trapping, then you haven’t coaxed him to play <i>your</i> game at all. you’ve coaxed him into playing a collective game, in which you’re both viable players.

if you had more strengths, it seems to me that you’d have more potential plays in your playbook. he’s good at trapping? fine, because kicking is your game too. and perhaps it’s not his. it is his as well? how about grappling? etc.

now, if you do want to talk about styles, think about this. your opponent is savvy enough to recognize wing chun when he sees it. you’re attached enough to the style that i imagine you look the part. so if he recognizes wing chun, presumably he’ll also draw some assumptions about your strengths. and if he’s right about the extent of your strengths, he’ll try to avoid them in favour of something else.

obviously, real life will never be this simple. you may well catch an opponent in trapping range. the reality isn’t as rigid as working equations on paper. we all know that.

so is crosstraining in every mode a necessity? to the extent that fighting at all, in this day and age, is a necessity? honestly, i don’t know. i haven’t been in enough completely open situations to say for sure. but i think it’s important to keep an open mind. for all of us.

stuart b.

6

as a fellow WCer…

i tend to agree with RA5. If you study proprly your own “game” (in the case of WC “get in close, stay there and beat the bejebus out of the other guy”) then you can “force” the other guy into “playing” it. in WCs case this mean getting in close, staying there and beating the bejebus out of the other guy. unless the other guy spends a lot of training time practiceing close in fighting…well the bejebus thing happens and we go home.

do other people/schools/styles practice close in fighting? yes.
is getting in close difficult and dangerous? yep.

i know theses things and other variables because i train Kung fu, and I will keep training Kung fu so that my skill can somday overcome my foes musscles, speed & tricks.

7

Hey Ap, you have some good points, as always, but I would like to say that, and I have said this before, you can spread yourself to thin.
If you are a mixed guy, then you have some pretty good skills all ove rthe place right? But what happens if you are ocnfronting the guy who has been studying ground fighting exclusively for the last 15-20 years? Will he have a much better understanding of ground fighting then you? Probably, everything else being equal. Will he be able to control the fight? Who knows, comes down to the better fighter in my opinion.
I practice Wing Chun because I like what it has to offer, the close up combat. So far I have sparred a little with some TKD guys and gals, and they have a hard time dealing with me being so close. Its gone to the ground a few times and in my WC skills seem to be me more good then thier TKD skills. This tells me that WC has enough on the ground, if applied right, to help me survive.
Last week we talked about training for the ground, and I would never deny that. But I dont think it is necessary to pick up other skills from other arts.
EF, you are right in having to be familiar with your opponent and what he is doing. But if you train in a certain style all your life, and you trian all ranges, would you say you have an edge over someone who has studied many different arts?

8

If you want to talk about not playing the game, it should not be where you try and force him to play yours. You shouldn’t care whether he plays along or not, because you should be doing something he doesn’t expect or like and refusing to play along with his own game.

Most people, when they fight, fight like they are playing chess. They do something, then it’s your turn to do something, then their turn, and back and forth. But that’s not good timing.

If you must play anything, it should be poker, bluffing your way out of the situation until it becomes clear you cannot get out of it, and then you should show your hand. As soon as he moves, you move, and you strike before he has a chance to. Then, when it’s his turn to hit you, you hit him again, ten times. And when it’s your turn again, you hit him a hundred times. A bit exaggerated, but the way to go.

Never give a sucker an even break.

9

Cody -

I understand your unease, let me see if I can explain better.
If I get into a fight with a TKD person, I am going to force him, if possible, to fight at close range. TKD is longe range, mostly, a lot of long kicks and punches, and I have trained to fight close, so if I fight him at long range, I am going to get squashed. I could learn some TKD, but then thats learning in WC I have missed.
You’re correct in saying that I could get beat at my own game, that is why I am saying that you should concentrate on training in your own game. It doesnt mean I shouldnt learn to take my game to the ground or long range, more likely I would learn how to not go to the ground as well, and how to bring an opponent to me.

10

Sam, I agree, never give an opponent a break, if you are fighting like you play chess, maybe you should go back to playing chess! :slight_smile:

11

red5angel,

very well put. you represent your standpoint very convincingly, i have to say.

that said, you’ve hit on why i think progression shouldn’t necessarily focus on excellence in one mode or another, but instead on the ability to recognize and use the common concepts. if i study groundfighting, i’m willing to bet that i’m never going to be the greatest groundfighter. but i will learn what a good groundfighter NEEDS from me to do his thing. and then i can train to avoid it.

i agree with you that you need something that you’re good enough at to feel at home. something you ‘own’, in some sense. something that comes naturally enough that you can apply in different circumstances, that you can ‘lead’ your opponent into, etc. but i still believe that you need to understand different modes sufficiently well to be able to lead opponents into your game. and to expand your game. and that takes some direct experience.

but when it comes right down to it, we’re talking about belief. for every piece of anecdotal evidence i have to suggest that versatility is the key, you have one suggesting that mastery is the key. and we’re both right and both wrong, because the truth of this thing probably isn’t an overarcing truth. it’s just a series of little truths, based on how one given person fared in one given fight on one given day. i’m not sure to what degree that ‘truth’ can be extended to all others.

i suppose that’s why discussions like this are possible. because nobody ever gets an unequivocable answer.

stuart b.

12

Exactly that Ap, no wrong answers! Well, most answers arent wrong anyway!

I have a question, when you are talking about modes etc…are you saying that you should crosstrain in arts that specialize in those modes?

13

Apow, great post.

As for ranges, I believe there are only TWO: The talking $hit range, and the range when someone can hit you.

Now we are getting to another area. One should focus, wprk to get into a situation where you can hit, but not be hit. How? Well, that is a matter of technology and aproach and it can be done.

As for inclose. Most styles I respect use that as a specialty. As a Wing Chun guy, you draw in a S. Mantis plaey close, BE READY. They are very conmfortable in this range and more agressive and viscious in nature than Wing Chun. Bak Mei too. Be careful if you think you can draw these guys in and beat them with some basic trapping. No way.

Which brings me to my other point. My Master always says, “Do not insist.” And I know he is right. But I believe he means when defending, do not insist, yield to a stronger position and then go. But when one does go, I do not take no for an answer. When I have the intention to go, I GO.

I view it like this. On the outside one should look like heaven, a beaitiful, calm, yielding, peaceful mass. Maintain this while bledning.

But when it comes time to go, hit that opening, be a visious SOB with He|l in your eyes.

Perhaps that’s off topic.

As for MMA. I read some good point on that today, about having more tools. Also, if you train a good style with a good teacher you should have all the tools you need. Up to you. Go fight as often as possible and you’ll see what tools are working, which need some refinement. You’ll also see how good you are at forcing your will onto others. I tend to be a counter fighter, but when I do go, I strike with the hands to draw a response and then attack with the legs (almost instantly). Give them a lot to deal with – step on the shin, attack their bridge first, ect.

I guess the answer is simply fighting.

Great analaogy with the chess. I love chess but you’re right, fighting can not be you go, then I go,then you go. That’s Bruce Lee’s mistake, counter the counter with a counter.

NO! I go. I seek to attack your attack while attacking you. If I can’t get in right away I wait that second for them to change, usaully wait for them to try to get ontop of do soemthing with the bridge, I look to maintain that strong shape, and while they chnage I go in further, hit what you can reach. Cut them like a tree, piece by piece, or, if you can, with one fell swoop.

Man, I love fighting. Just like chess. So much contained within a set of principles or rules. Beautiful.

14

of course

you cant beat a SPM or Bak Mei guy with simple traping, you beat them with your kung fu!

15

Red5angel-

More or less what Ap said.

I really think you’re missing something though. People who crosstrain, who approach it intelligently, start off with a core “something,” be it a stand-up striking style or a grappling art, or even BJJ. They then cross train to shore up any weaknesses. Don’t give me the garbage about “complete styles have no weaknesses if you train long enough.” It’s just not true. What a complete style has is various different ways of funneling your opponents attacks into your strengths. In other words, a complete style has a comprehensive fight strategy, not a “technique for every situation.” It’s up to you to apply that comprehensive fight strategy in your own personal style, and how well you do it is the difference between success and failure.

What if? Is the name of the game. I was rudely awakened this weekend when I sparred with a 6’8" 300 lb monster, who has a wrestling and boxing background, no gi. This guy is built like a reasonably athletic human, just magnified to 6’8". So he’s not the typical fat slow 300 lbs guy. He possesses slightly better than average speed, to say nothing of his strength and weight advantage.

Now, if all I had was a stand-up game, there is a good chance I would have gotten murdered, even with his lack of striking experience. Simply put, a 300 lbs person can absorb a lot of punishment, and his wrestling background would have meant an almost certain butt stomping had I attempted to keep my distance and attack with kicks and punches. Tactically “vulnerable points,” aside, it is more likely that he weathers the storm, clinches, and removes my head than it is for me to score a disabling blow in the first few seconds on somebody that size.

Strategically, I was able to cover more bases than he was, and this translated into a tactical advantage (on the ground in this case. It doesn’t have to be. I’d chose to try and keep it standing vs. a really good submission figther), which allowed me to win. That’s what cross training is about–broadening the strategies you can use to win, not about filling specific technique gaps.

16

Merry, thats a really good way of saying it, “fighting strategy” I like that.
I would never claim that a style has everything, I dont think any real martial artist would. But I do beleive that any good system has its own set of answers or as you put it so eloquently, Fighting Strategy. For example, I am confident that in if I were to get into a fight with someone who for all intents and purposes was my equal in ground fighting, I could win with Wing chun. Not because I would know how to ground fight necessarily but I would know “how to Wing Chun”.

17

thanks evolutionfist. i appreciate it.

red5angel,

that’s a good question. and the best answer i have, really, is that i would want to learn a specific mode from someone that was good at it, obviously. but also someone that is sensitive to the central idea of crosstraining. integration.

in other words, i could study taekwondo from a korean champion, eskrima from an accomplished stickfighter, and grappling from a college wrestling champion. but what i’m really looking to do is integrate these things into a cohesive whole. much of that process falls to me, the individual, to reconcile two fairly different methodologies. to decide to what degree my personal practice will focus on long-range kicking, on medium-range weapon defenses, on takedowns, etc. but it’s helpful to have teachers with a similar outlook. teachers who are also into making cognitive connections. so when i say, “well, this stance works for collegiate wrestling, but i’m worried about eating a stiff jab to the face”, my teacher will be open to saying, “okay, how about this?” and we can hash out a way to integrate initially disparate ideas.

so yes, i would put more faith in specialists, because they’ll be able to offer insights that a more casual practitioner may not have. but i want someone who understands the process i’m trying to follow as well. to smooth the gaps between to things, making them one.

in turn, i try to be an authority on something. and then the new ideas or methods that i incorporate are hinged around this central speciality. i understand new things in relation to the original thing. in my case, i look at a piece of grappling footwork and think, "that’s a bit like eskrima’s inside triangle, but with this difference… " that gives me a starting point for the integrative process.

stuart b.

18

Hey Ap, I think it sounds like a good way to go. I would go the same way, but sticking to my wing chun. For instance a wrestling friend of mine (fortunately captain of his college team) and I are getting together this summer to work out some ground fighting from a wing chun point of view. I look forward to seeing what he has to offerm and what he thinks would and owuld not work as well as being able to try different things out for ‘real’.

19

red5angel,

okay, so you’re going through a very similar process. let me ask you this: IF it appeared that you were unable to make certain things from wing chun work against your wrestler friend, what would you conclude?

i’m definitely NOT looking to hear that you’d ditch wing chun in favour of something else. what i’m wondering is whether you’re dead set against modifying or even adding to your wing chun to address any needs that MIGHT come to light through empirical testing.

in other words, would you make changes or would you conclude that you just hadn’t done what you do well enough?

stuart b.

20

Red–

Make sure you train with somebody who has a reasonable amount of submission experience. There are a lot of things that wrestlers do that get them in trouble with submission guys on the ground. I was a wrestler, so I’m not knocking them… I’m just VERY aware of certain things:

Stick their arms out straight alot,
Stick their necks out,
Tend to turn their backs to escape, etc.

A straight wrestler will also be unaware that certain things you might think “seem natural to do” from a disadvantaged position, are in fact, not sound practice.

As an overused, and somewhat ridiculous example, I know people who say that they would “attack the throat, with (insert hand technique here)” if they are mounted. It’s a good way to have your arm broken… Not that you would do it, but simply that a straight wrestler might not even know it’s a problem.

One thing you WILL want to do is ask him to simply control you while you are on the ground, while you try to get out. Wrestlers have pretty good control for obvious reasons :slight_smile: