Mixing Wing Chun with a grappling style?

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Wing Chun
101

I guess when your head is filled with theoretical nonsense, you can’t really grasp simple things.

When you do chi sao you are grappling but it is not some “form of grappling.” There isn’t such a thing as a “form of grapplnig” anymore than there is a “form of striking”. You are either grappling, striking, or combining them (when you hold and hit, for example). Yes, Virginia, chi sao is grappling.

And chi sao, the exercise/drill, isn’t training you to fight, As it is an unrealistic drill/exercise - as it is not done under realistic conditions- you can’t develop fighting skills by doing it. You can LEARN to perform actions (grappling with striking thrown in), but since your partner isn’t fighting you, you can’t learn how to do those actionsin fighting. You are only learning how to do them in chi sao. Yes, Virginia, chi sai is an unrealsitic exercise.

So, chi sao is grappling, but it is grappling performed in an unrealsitic, artifical way. Yes, Virginia, chi sao is both – it is grappling and it is an artificial drill. How difficult is that to understand?

And this is precisely why I don’t want to discuss things with the HFY cultmembers – they are so brainwashed, so used to not thinking (in a rational way), so caught up in their fantasy, that they can’t grasp the simplest of things.

102

[QUOTE=duende;939747]
The context and the usage of the term in the manner that I’m referring to WAS at the time unique to HFY. As for anything you learned in 1993?? Big fricken deal. I have Sihings who learned HFY from my Sifu all the way back to 1977. Before TWC was even known in the USA.
[/QUOTE]

People can claim anything. Too bad there isn’t any evidence. :wink:

and you’re on crack if you think you learned our forms.

I saw the HFY SNT at the VTM and I already knew it. When Garrett askedme what I thought of HFY I told him then that it looked like TWC with more theory.

Gu Lao punch?? Really??? Now that is funny.

Go look a true Gu Lao punch. And then feel free to come back here and re-edit your post. Because this is silliest thing you’ve written yet.

Well, Benny goes and studies with Robert, and learns the punch. He later writes an article talking about the “HFY punch”. You say that the stuff in the article shows Robert took from HFY. I’m showing that it was the other way round – Benny took it from Robert.

Sad for you that you consider this a pile of rubbish. Truly shows what an ignorant fool you are.

I’m sure the Scientologists feel the same way.

Yes, we’ve heard you say this a million times. Appears it is the ONLY thing you learned from Robert which is too bad.

That’s not the only thing, but it may be the most important. But I can see why you don’t like it: it is the bullsh1t filter.

more so-called wisdom from a poser.

You see, that’s a personal attack. And I’m surprised you don’t like wisdom from posers – that seems to be all you listen to.

More hypocracy and back-peddling. I’m sure you’ll re-edit your prior posts to conform to this last paragraph too.

No need to – I’m sorry that your mind is so confused with theoretical nonsense that you can’t follow simple reasoning.

What other great wisdom did you learn from sitting on the sidelines and not will touching anyone’s hand??

Oh, this is an allusion to when I was at the VTM seminar. FWIW, I did participate in those parts that interested me (like Rene’s and Marty’s parts of the seminar). The one I opted out of was Benny teaching chi sao. There is nothing Benny could teach me.

Asfar as touching hands gfoes, I did chi sao with loads of people there (Jeglum, Rene, Dave, Dzu, etc.). In fact, Dave, Dzu, and I wereout of ont floor of the VTM until 2am training when wecaught Benny and his minions sneaking out to have a private lesson from Garrett. It was after that incident that I wouldn’t play with Benny’s guys anymore.

Truly sorry for re-joining this thread. Will leave if Terence is done talking smack.

Good. Then maybe next time you think twice.

103

[QUOTE=TAYLOR1;939769]Terrence,

Who are you? Your nobody. You dont know HFY. You sit in your little chair hiding behind your keyboard.

You want to test your skill? Come test it in Phoenix, you arrogant little sh1t!

Btw, why do you constantly edit your posts? You cant keep your nutty thoughts straight? Or do you constantly change your mind because you dont know what your talking about? The truth doesnt change but your words do![/QUOTE]

Yes, I don’t know HFY. Just like I don’t know Yellow Bamboo. Just like I don’t know all kinds of silly things. You don’t need to know something to recognize it is nonsense.

Oh, another deadly internet challenge. I guess that proves you’re tough or that I’m somehow afraid to take the time,spend the money, etc.to travel thousands of miles to . . . .

Why do I keep editing my posts? Mainly to correct typing mistakes. I type fast and then send them off, and after rereading them notice that Ijoinedseveral words togeter (example). What do you care if I edit them?

You’re right – the truth doesn’t change. But fantasy sure does,

Now, if you want to continue responding to me and have me continue to tell you why HFY is silly and nonsense, and how it is not legitimate WCK, etc. please, do go on. I’m more than happy to oblige. :slight_smile:

104

[QUOTE=vingtsunplaya;939801]
As far as Terrance goes, I don’t really know you bro, but you are really off base with what you are talking about. There are alot of people out there who respect Sifu Garrett Gee as being one of the true practitioners of Wing Chun in the world. There are many in China who respect the man more than their own Sifus. On the other hand, your Sifu doesn’t exactly have the best “street cred” if you know what I mean. I say this as a bystander, but one who has seen a few things. I know a blow hard when I see one. You sir, are the hardest blower I have seen in some time (not to mention all of your hypocracy). But hey, if you want to keep spouting insults from the yellow brick road with the rest of the munchkins, go right ahead. It’s not my a$$.:rolleyes: Best of luck to you bro…[/QUOTE]

I tell you what, why don’t you prove that HFY existed prior to Garrett Gee. Show me a single HFY practitioner, show me Wang Ming, show me anyone that even knew of or heard of HFY prior to Garrett Gee. I’m waiting.

You can’t do it. No one can. Because HFY didn’t exist prior to Garrett Gee. He made it up.

Dude, I don’t care about “reputations” among TCMAists. That proves diddly-squat. Most TCMA is fantasy fu. How did these people earn their reputations? Certainly not by fighting, not using their martial arts. Not by producing fighters. No, we have people like you who believe without any real, solid evidence the nonsense they hear.

105

Sheesh. I leave a thread for a few days and look what you guys do to it. There’s some interesting things to talk about here like the live/dead hands grappling stuff, and a whole lot other more related to a train wreck.

With the stand-up grappling topics we were discussing, the aim of stand up grappling is to restrict an opponent’s movement in some fashion while not restricting your movement so you can move to a position of advantage, execute a technique like a takedown/submission, or strike. We can talk about “fully committed” attempts at this and “partially committed”, live / dead hands but when it gets to the fighting application part of it the skill involved is still in isolating a particular part of your opponent’s movement for the exact period of time necessary for you to move to a position of advantage, execute a technique, or strike. This involves technique, timing, range.

In BJJ and Judo they call this “grip fighting”, maybe wrestling too. There are different approaches in Greco and freestyle as well. Muy Thai has a unique approach to this too. When you add in striking scenarios the hardest skill to develop is where to do the grappling so as to leave you striking options or a grappling position advantage or submission that removes your opponents striking options.

From what I’ve observed this is one area of the overall fight game where WC could contribute greatly. I mean couldn’t we look at from one viewpoint the exercise of “chi sau” as training for one system of grip fighting?

These are the interesting things to me out of this thread to continue to discuss.

106

[QUOTE=t_niehoff;939862]You can’t do it. No one can. Because HFY didn’t exist prior to Garrett Gee. He made it up.[/QUOTE]

T,

One thing is for sure. HFY wasn’t taught in the US prior to Garrett Gee teaching it. But just from logical rational thought, you don’t develop that kind of high level of wing chun skill in application by making something up. Seminars are one thing and you don’t like Benny Meng - sure.

I mean I think you can even ask your own wing chun teacher Robert what his perception of Sifu Gee’s skills are if you don’t want to have personal contact yourself. And Robert’s learned from more than one source.

And on a side note, I think you’ll have a good time interacting with JP. You’ll find outside of arguing on the Internet he’s a pretty level guy. No Moonie or anything. If you have any of your group sparring guys meeting maybe you could invite him. Or just spar a little or something no death matches.

Threads like this escalate and raise stakes in personal interaction so they don’t occur. Or get blown out of proportion. All that is kind of silly.

107

Want to weigh in on two things, here.

First, yes there are some elements of grappling in chi sao - but to simply call chi sao a form of grappling (with striking thrown in) is just plain foolish. The object of wing chun is to hit your opponent. And while it is true that chi sao teaches more than just how and when to hit, that doesn’t change the fact that hitting is the goal.

Secondly, I have long believed that both William Cheung and Garrett Gee learned from the same unidentified source - one referring to it as Traditional Wing Chun (TWC) and the other calling it Hung Fa Yi (HFY).

The fact that both systems look so amazingly alike and yet both men have always been so reticent to bad mouth the other (or accuse the other of stealing)…

says volumes.

BUT THIS IS AN OLD, DEAD HORSE…or at least it should be.

108

[QUOTE=anerlich;939831]I don’t accept that “live hand” is the sole province of WC, HFY or otherwise. Or that wrestlers can’t do it and don’t do it.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, they are among the best at it out of all the strictly grappling arts. Judo second. BJJ mostly lags behind here. I think WC can contribute here to retain the striking related aspect. Muy Thai has a good clinch system that retains striking.

… the Emerald Tablet of Hermes Trismegistus

God that was so funny I had to go look it up. I’m left with the impression that anerlich is slightly more nerdy than I previously thought, although still pretty funny.

109

[QUOTE=Ultimatewingchun;939878]First, yes there are some elements of grappling in chi sao - but to simply call chi sao a form of grappling (with striking thrown in) is just plain foolish. The object of wing chun is to hit your opponent. And while it is true that chi sao teaches more than justl how and when to hit, that doesn’t change the fact that hitting is the goal.
[/QUOTE]
If you look at it only in absolutes it is foolish. And granted openings in chi sau are responded to mostly with punches. (Although I have been neck clinched / snapped down from a chi sau opening and offbalanced by someone stepping on my foot).

But bear with me. A bridge is grappling in a very broad sense. It represents restricted movement. Books like Renzo Gracie’s talking about fight ranges speak of free movement, restricted movement, and ground. Now you can say that the object of chi sau is to strike your opponent. But if you develop skill in control of the bridge, and what presents itself is a takedown, will you take it or not? The kicks in wing chun are kind of designed to remove the supporting balance and take someone to the ground.

So what exactly would you say the difference is in grip fighting in an MMA environment and the bridge in wing chun?

Secondly, I have long believed that both William Cheung and Garrett Gee learned from the same unidentified source - one referring to it as Traditional Wing Chun (TWC) and the other calling it Hung Fa Yi (HFY).

The distant cousin theory that may make sense but will never be substantiated. They are different now. You’re right that’s a dead horse. But two distinct points of reference kind of negate the made up thing.

110

"If you look at it only in absolutes it is foolish. And granted openings in chi sau are responded to mostly with punches. (Although I have been neck clinched / snapped down from a chi sau opening and offbalanced by someone stepping on my foot).

But bear with me. A bridge is grappling in a very broad sense. It represents restricted movement. Books like Renzo Gracie’s talking about fight ranges speak of free movement, restricted movement, and ground. Now you can say that the object of chi sau is to strike your opponent. But if you develop skill in control of the bridge, and what presents itself is a takedown, will you take it or not? The kicks in wing chun are kind of designed to remove the supporting balance and take someone to the ground.

So what exactly would you say the difference is in grip fighting in an MMA environment and the bridge in wing chun?" (Wayfaring)

***OF COURSE I’ll take the neck tie or the takedown if it’s there; and you’re right, a bridge is grappling in a very broad sense.

But the fact that Terence makes his half truth statements so often requires an occasional rebuttal !!! :rolleyes: :cool:

And as to your question: I would say that the most obvious difference is the fact that the wing chun “bridge” is meant to keep you in striking (though very close quarter) range - and not to actually go deeper into a clinch or to go for a takedown.

For example, the wing chun sweeps that I’ve learned always work off some damage being done by a strike first - and not simply going for the sweep.

BUT PLEASE UNDERSTAND: .

But this is a great topic if we can eliminate all the static - since I’ve long believed that one of the biggest reasons why wing chun can be a great addition to today’s mma scene is precisely because wing chun (when done efficiently) is comfortable in the “gray” area where it could go to clinch or to strike…or to bounce back and forth between the two.

111

God that was so funny I had to go look it up. I’m left with the impression that anerlich is slightly more nerdy than I previously thought, although still pretty funny.

I work in IT. I’m probably guilty as charged. :o

Yes, Virginia, chi sao is both

Who’s this Virginia? Does she know Hermes Trismegistus?

And this is precisely why I don’t want to discuss things with the HFY cultmembers

How about giving the rest of us a break from your lectures for a while too?

112

You put a capital I on Ignorant

[QUOTE=t_niehoff;939862]I tell you what, why don’t you prove that HFY existed prior to Garrett Gee. Show me a single HFY practitioner, show me Wang Ming, show me anyone that even knew of or heard of HFY prior to Garrett Gee. I’m waiting.

You can’t do it. No one can. Because HFY didn’t exist prior to Garrett Gee. He made it up.

Dude, I don’t care about “reputations” among TCMAists. That proves diddly-squat. Most TCMA is fantasy fu. How did these people earn their reputations? Certainly not by fighting, not using their martial arts. Not by producing fighters. No, we have people like you who believe without any real, solid evidence the nonsense they hear.[/QUOTE]

Terrance,

I’m not really sure what you think I believe or don’t believe. I was simply trying to tell you that people with some serious MA knowledge have great respect for Sifu Gee. As far as what I believe he can or cannot do, I don’t know, I’ve never seen the man operate. But, I know people who have, people whom I trust, and they say he has real skill. Now I’m sure you’ll try and say something snappy about me “trusting the wrong people” or something juvenile like that, but these are all guys whom I have seen beat alot of @$$ with little effort and they can’t touch Sifu Gee. Now, call it HFY, call it TWC, call it yourmomisafat*****, I don’t care. What it boils down to is that he is the Grandmanster of an entire system of MA which, if you did any research at all instead of wasting everybody’s time on this forum, you would find out HFY can directly trace its roots to the Boxer rebellion and beyond. The symbology present throughout the system shows, without a doubt, it was not “made up” by any one man. That is a fact, and is indisputable so don’t even try without actually doing the research and citing me your sources (come on, your a lawyer right?). Hopefully JP can teach you a thing or two (I don’t mean through violence either) about the system and it’s roots. I think if you would actually drop your unending criticism of things you don’t really know anything about, you may actually learn something through all this. Even if you think the MAs of HFY are crap, the history of Chinese culture and how it plays into the system will probably humble you.

Or you could just continue to be a douche and stay stuck within your own feeble boundaries. I suppose it’s no loss/gain to me either way. I know this though, you sound a LOT like the fox in the “sour grapes” story. You can’t hope to be able to understand or grasp something, so you might as well bash it and ruin it for everyone else. Nice. Let me know how that works out for ya little guy. You must be a real hit at parties eh? :smiley:

113

[QUOTE=vingtsunplaya;939937]Terrance,

I’m not really sure what you think I believe or don’t believe. I was simply trying to tell you that people with some serious MA knowledge have great respect for Sifu Gee
[/QUOTE]

Who? You talk about “people with serious knowledge” – gung fu or martial art isn’t about “knowlededge”, it is about SKILL, fighting skill. Most of TCMA “knowledge” is nonsense, it’s fantasy. Real knowledge only comes from doing it, from fighting. So who are the great fighters that have respect for Garrett?

As far as what I believe he can or cannot do, I don’t know, I’ve never seen the man operate. But, I know people who have, people whom I trust, and they say he has real skill.

Skill at what? You can only tell someone’s fighting skill by seeing them fight, particularly with competent fighters. Not only that, but you can only develop fighting skill by and through fighting. Since he’s never fought in his life, let alone with competent fighters, how can anyone says he has skill?

Now I’m sure you’ll try and say something snappy about me “trusting the wrong people” or something juvenile like that, but these are all guys whom I have seen beat alot of @$$ with little effort and they can’t touch Sifu Gee.

They aren’t trying to really “touch him.” They’re not fighting. Put Garrett in against a low level MT fighter and Garrett would be out in seconds. And that’s not meant as an insult – it’s just that you can’t develop the skill to deal with competent fighters, like a MT fighter, by not fighting. You only will develop the skill to beat the MT fighter by getting in and doing it, and doing loads of it.

Now, call it HFY, call it TWC, call it yourmomisafat*****, I don’t care. What it boils down to is that he is the Grandmanster of an entire system of MA which, if you did any research at all instead of wasting everybody’s time on this forum, you would find out HFY can directly trace its roots to the Boxer rebellion and beyond.

I’ve done the research. You’re just listenting to the marketing, the story they’re presenting as history. But that isn’t true. As I said, show me ONE HFY practitioner that existed prior to Garrett. ONE. You can’t. I could take any WCK practitioner on this forum at random other than a HFY person, and reliably trace theri lineage back to the Red Boats, showing real people (with proof they existed) that we could show really trained WCK. You can’t do that with Garrett. Why? Because there was no HFY prior to GG. It didn’t exist. He made it up.

The symbology present throughout the system shows, without a doubt, it was not “made up” by any one man. That is a fact, and is indisputable so don’t even try without actually doing the research and citing me your sources (come on, your a lawyer right?). Hopefully JP can teach you a thing or two (I don’t mean through violence either) about the system and it’s roots. I think if you would actually drop your unending criticism of things you don’t really know anything about, you may actually learn something through all this. Even if you think the MAs of HFY are crap, the history of Chinese culture and how it plays into the system will probably humble you.

Are you suggesting that Garrett is simply too stupid to add symbology to his system? :wink: That it would need to be done by committee?

Or you could just continue to be a douche and stay stuck within your own feeble boundaries. I suppose it’s no loss/gain to me either way. I know this though, you sound a LOT like the fox in the “sour grapes” story. You can’t hope to be able to understand or grasp something, so you might as well bash it and ruin it for everyone else. Nice. Let me know how that works out for ya little guy. You must be a real hit at parties eh? :smiley:

“Sour grapes”? “Ruin it for everyone else”? You’re funny.

All you need to do is look at what you (or HFY) offer as evidence, as proof of your claims. You talk about history but can’t offer any evidence HFY existed prior to GG. You can’t bring forward a single HFY practitioner priorto GG. You offer stories. But no evidence.

You talk about GG’s “reputation”, how some unnamed people think he’s got skil, but you can’t provide any evidence of him actually using that alleged skill or doing the things any person needs to do to develop that skill.

You believe despite the complete lack of solid, genuine evidence. Well, I don’t. For me, the lack of that evidence IS evidence. That’s not “sour grapes”, that’s not “spoiling it for everyone” (like it’s some party), that’s called being rational. It’s called being a critical thinker. Maybe you should try it.

114

[QUOTE=t_niehoff;940001]All you need to do is look at what you (or HFY) offer as evidence, as proof of your claims. You talk about history but can’t offer any evidence HFY existed prior to GG. You can’t bring forward a single HFY practitioner prior to GG. You offer stories. But no evidence.[/QUOTE]Never mind “prior to”, I’d have expected some of his contemporaries (sihing/dai) to have surfaced by now. The Qing dynasty is long dead and the Shaolin Temple is promoted by the Communist government. Surely nothing to be afraid of now?

115

[QUOTE=Wayfaring;939884]So what exactly would you say the difference is in grip fighting in an MMA environment and the bridge in wing chun?
[/QUOTE]

So I’ll answer my own question. In MMA environments the distance where short distance power is most effective is avoided. Fighters punch their way in then collapse quickly to greco wrestling range. Or stay at a longer range. Takedowns go under a punch usually by changing levels to initiate. In short distance range fighters cover up with what in Muy Thai looks a little bit like the jong sau in that it is a structured cover up that can absorb a punch. They stay covered up for as little time as possible, then either clinch or punch their way out.

In WC, if there is no bridge, strike. No difference there. The bridge itself however keeps the fight at short distance striking range. Then skills with the bridge allow a WC fighter to manipulate or sink the bridge, change facing, and remain in short distance striking range to cause the most damage.

116

[QUOTE=t_niehoff;940001]

They aren’t trying to really “touch him.” They’re not fighting.

I’ve done the research.
[/QUOTE]

T, from the sounds of your research, its full of Bull. first off you talk about real fighting all the time but its only sparring with pads and limits. Before doing any research try researching real fighting first like maybe going up againist anyone you wrongly convicted with your “research” jargon. Do it without the pad and any limits, rules, legal consequences, ect. its called critical analysis.

[QUOTE=t_niehoff;940001]
You believe despite the complete lack of solid, genuine evidence. Well, I don’t. … that’s called being rational. It’s called being a critical thinker. Maybe you should try it.[/QUOTE]

go talk to youself.

117

[QUOTE=t_niehoff;940001]They aren’t trying to really “touch him.” They’re not fighting. Put Garrett in against a low level MT fighter and Garrett would be out in seconds.[/QUOTE]
From what I have personally seen I am going to respectfully disagree with you on this point. People have seen different things.

118

Originally Posted by Wayfaring
So what exactly would you say the difference is in grip fighting in an MMA environment and the bridge in wing chun?

[QUOTE=Wayfaring;940009]So I’ll answer my own question. In MMA environments the distance where short distance power is most effective is avoided. Fighters punch their way in then collapse quickly to greco wrestling range. Or stay at a longer range. Takedowns go under a punch usually by changing levels to initiate. In short distance range fighters cover up with what in Muay Thai looks a little bit like the jong sau in that it is a structured cover up that can absorb a punch. They stay covered up for as little time as possible, then either clinch or punch their way out.

In WC, if there is no bridge, strike. No difference there. The bridge itself however keeps the fight at short distance striking range. Then skills with the bridge allow a WC fighter to manipulate or sink the bridge, change facing, and remain in short distance striking range to cause the most damage.[/QUOTE]

***ACTUALLY, I did respond yesterday, but my computer locked up as I was trying to hit the “Submit reply” - and then the doorbell rang and I had to take care of something.

My take is similar to your take. The bridge in wing chun is meant to keep the fight in short range striking distance - whereas in mma, (and of course this usually means Muay Thai coverup or knee/elbow clinch work…or perhaps a wrestling/grappling clinch to shoot or takedown)…

but not the short range striking that wing chun prefers. (The overlapping styles exception to this being elbow and knee strikes from semi-clinch).

And I believe that wing chun can bring a lot to the table in this regard as far as nhb, mma is concerned.

But the truth is, from my point of view, though I try to fight my way (with long range punching, kicking, footwork) to the close quarter wing chun range (quite often using a bridge) in order to strike from there…

I’m not married to the idea that this where I have to be at all costs - and this is what I have to do at all costs.

In other words, the wing chun bridge is meant to get you in position to STRIKE, and possibly followed by a sweep takedown. It’s NOT meant to go to full clinch, or to set up a takedown or shot from full clinch.

So therefore the wing chun “bridge” idea is limited in it’s scope - too limited.

Fighting requires being ready and able to do all of the above. You can’t always control the distance to your preferred range - and then stay exactly there and finish the fight. Reality doesn’t work that way.

119

In MMA environments the distance where short distance power is most effective is avoided. Fighters punch their way in then collapse quickly to greco wrestling range. Or stay at a longer range.

Where grappling is an option, short range striking will “degrade” into clicnh work and inevitably, grappling.
Just the way things work.
Strikers prefer to stay at a “longer range” because they avoid the grappling/clinch situation and their strikes carry momentum as well, not just “short impact power”.
Striking at short range isn’t avoid in MMA, the WELL TRAINED grappling element takes lots of the “sting” out of it and unless someone has trained that short power VS the grappling techniques they will encounter, typically, the short power won’t be as effective as needed.

120

Well put, sanjuro…but what I see as potential in this regard is someone trained in wing chun and in grappling/wrestling being able to utilize short range striking with effect…

and thereby helping to change the whole dynamic of the fight.

In other words, another big, effective tool to put into the toolbox - and one (wing chun short range striking/bridging) that people aren’t expecting to have to deal with.