WC in MMA

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Wing Chun
41

i think this discussion has diverted to the legitimization of Robert Chu’s Wing Chun, which is not the intent of any critique of the video.

Even with the videos and explanations of your WC, I really do not see where in that video ANY of this stuff is used (aside from the questionable headlock and calling a Biu Jee/guillotine choke). Perhaps it is too fast to for me to see, could someone please point it out?

[QUOTE=Alan Orr;1005327]Punching Power development

Structure power - ie rooting - base - linking and delinking frame

Balance and reaction to pressure

Positioning

Angles of punching

Cutting punches - control of line of attack

Forward pressure

Don’t look for lap and pak of bong sao guys!! These are you blueprints for your own understanding of the space you use around you. They are not blocks etc

If I use a cutting punch on the outside of your arm. Ie a wing chun punch that uses your forearm to pin (trap)as you punch then I quickly punch again. that is the energy of pak and lap - Ie one hand punching and cutting then as it pulls back it draws and the second punch then cuts.

Pak and lap drills are for students to learn the angle, timing, position - then you just throw 2 punches - with good timing, good position, good line control (trapping)

You don’t need two hands on one!

best Alan[/QUOTE]

42

[QUOTE=Pacman;1005330]i think this discussion has diverted to the legitimization of Robert Chu’s Wing Chun, which is not the intent of any critique of the video.

Even with the videos and explanations of your WC, I really do not see where in that video ANY of this stuff is used (aside from the questionable headlock and calling a Biu Jee/guillotine choke). Perhaps it is too fast to for me to see, could someone please point it out?[/QUOTE]

Well the punching power development isn’t something you’re going to “see” but rather feel.

The “structure power - ie rooting - base - linking and delinking frame” should be evident with their “presenting” (i.e. placing the hips forward, keeping the back straight, and using proper structure as opposed to muscle to link power from the ground).

Balance is a byproduct of proper stance and structure

Reaction to pressure & positioning, if keeping with the principles of WC should be such that they are maintaining their space and hitting as opportunities arise, not focusing on chasing hands of course, using angled stepping to move into more advantages positions (angles of punching), and using your own attacks as simultaneous defense (cutting punches).

The forward pressure would come from–most evidently anyway–in the idea of “escort what leaves and rush in at loss of contact”. Answering an attack, sticking with the opponent, and rushing in when they retreat.

Though to be honest all of that can be seen in just about anyone doing good stand-up fighting.

43

[QUOTE=Vankuen;1005332]
Though to be honest all of that can be seen in just about anyone doing good stand-up fighting.[/QUOTE]

Bingo! And that’s why it doesn’t look that much different from other standup styles when it is done in an effective manner.

44

[QUOTE=Vankuen;1005317]That’s the thing about Orr’s guys. No one is saying they can’t fight, but what they are saying is that it’s not WC. I used to be one of those people until I did more research on what they do, took a look at their 7 DVD set and therein were the principles of wing chun being used, along with the punches, and varied use of techniques like lan sao and other things. It’s not 1800’s WC, it’s applied WC from an MMA perspective for modern day.

So now I look at it as more of an mma using WC elements type of style, because it’s got wing chun in there, just not in the traditional sense[/QUOTE]

I could not make a general claim about his guys. I can only say what I think of that video; I believe wasn’t a great expression of WC. I don’t want to make that seem like a bad thing. No one should have to apologize for winning a fight. Style points don’t really count for anything accept for in these kinds of debates.

I will check out the videos when i can to see if I change my opinion.

45

[QUOTE=HumbleWCGuy;1005336]I could not make a general claim about his guys. I can only say what I think of that video; I believe wasn’t a great expression of WC. I don’t want to make that seem like a bad thing. No one should have to apologize for winning a fight. Style points don’t really count for anything accept for in these kinds of debates.

I will check out the videos when i can to see if I change my opinion.[/QUOTE]

They do things a bit differently, there will be things that you may not agree with, but hopefully more things that you will find helpful. Definitly not what you’ll be used to seeing with most wing chun in there. Then again my “internally” biased sifu does a lot of things in the same way. Either way I enjoyed the episodes that I saw, and found them very insightful.

46

seems that with all the talk about WC looking like / not looking like WC, people are forgetting that WC, like any MA, is a path to the top of the mountain, that mountain top being successful in combat against a skilled, resisting opponent; notice that as the mountain gets taller, it’s gets narrower, it gets less diverse, the paths start to converge and become less differentiated as they approach the goal; the ****her away you are from that mountain top, the more you can afford individual differentiation, so you have the luxury of stylistic idiosycracies; but when u reach the top, u can’t do that - you have to put all that aside to leave only the functional outcome; and that is why when u apply WC or any other art successfully, it’s going to all look very similar, because u are at the top of that mountain with someone else, and that is where our intrinsic structural make-up as individuals comes out - certain things are more biomechanically efficient / effective, and it is these techniques that will “come out” in a way that will obviate the stylistic aspects one observes in a controlled environment;

“style” is a template upon which grows and ultimately frees oneself from; to fixate / hold onto the ideal of form, because it’s what a style “should” look like, is delusion; if one can fight and it looks like a style, then either the guy u r fighting is a scrub, or there are lots of rules in place that allows one to function that way;

47

[QUOTE=Knifefighter;1005335]Bingo! And that’s why it doesn’t look that much different from other standup styles when it is done in an effective manner.[/QUOTE]

Absolutely. But here is where the discord lies with most people: they’re looking for the “style”.

Any good system will have all those prementioned attributes in it. A style however, is the distinct “flair” of doing things. That’s what people are missing and that’s what they’re looking for. They want to see the vertical punches, the tan, bong, fook in motion. They want to see wing chun footwork, and all that sort of stuff.

That’s why this discussing is going on. Though I agree with the comment above, the closer you get to the top of mountain, paths become more scarce and start to converge, I also have seen where the style is retained in the system…

48

[QUOTE=Vankuen;1005343]Absolutely. But here is where the discord lies with most people: they’re looking for the “style”.

Any good system will have all those prementioned attributes in it. A style however, is the distinct “flair” of doing things. That’s what people are missing and that’s what they’re looking for. They want to see the vertical punches, the tan, bong, fook in motion. They want to see wing chun footwork, and all that sort of stuff.

That’s why this discussing is going on. Though I agree with the comment above, the closer you get to the top of mountain, paths become more scarce and start to converge, I also have seen where the style is retained in the system…[/QUOTE]
Yes Mon . . .:slight_smile:

49

[QUOTE=Vankuen;1005343]Absolutely. But here is where the discord lies with most people: they’re looking for the “style”.

Any good system will have all those prementioned attributes in it. A style however, is the distinct “flair” of doing things. That’s what people are missing and that’s what they’re looking for. They want to see the vertical punches, the tan, bong, fook in motion. They want to see wing chun footwork, and all that sort of stuff.

That’s why this discussing is going on. Though I agree with the comment above, the closer you get to the top of mountain, paths become more scarce and start to converge, I also have seen where the style is retained in the system…[/QUOTE]

People too often judge things by shapes and techniques. If they don’t see a Tan sau in the mix, then somehow that translates for them as not being WC.

When in fact the real beauty of WC is in understanding and expressing WC’s core principles… Principles based on facing and range (TIME), occupation of space and key positioning (SPACE), and structural energy, rooting, and leverage (ENERGY)

Oddly enough, it is this same shape and technique thinking by certain “WC Experts” on this board that makes communication and sharing so difficult at times.

Anyways… nice post.

50

[QUOTE=duende;1005349]People too often judge things by shapes and techniques. If they don’t see a Tan sau in the mix, then somehow that translates for them as not being WC.

When in fact the real beauty of WC is in understanding and expressing WC’s core principles… Principles based on facing and range (TIME), occupation of space and key positioning (SPACE), and structural energy, rooting, and leverage (ENERGY)

Oddly enough, it is this same shape and technique thinking by certain “WC Experts” on this board that makes communication and sharing so difficult at times.

Anyways… nice post.[/QUOTE]
Exactly, just like when WSL was told that the knee he used in a fight wasn’t WC. He said he used the closest weapon to the closet target. To me WC is one tool in my toolbox. I’ve studied many different arts in my career. Should I not use something that is effective because people who don’t fight make comments?

51

im not even looking for what I think is WC style at this point, im looking for examples of what they call WC in action. im not saying its a bad thing, but when a claim is made “here look at our WC in action” and i see none im just questioning things.

like ive said the first time this video was posted. congrats to everyone involved for their success.

[QUOTE=Vankuen;1005332]
Reaction to pressure & positioning, if keeping with the principles of WC should be such that they are maintaining their space and hitting as opportunities arise, not focusing on chasing hands of course, using angled stepping to move into more advantages positions (angles of punching), and using your own attacks as simultaneous defense (cutting punches). [/quote]

i did not see much angled stepping. i saw him going straight in. i also didnt see any simultaneous attack/defense. i saw him walking straight toward the guy and throwing looping punches because the other guy was sitting there tired and covering up

if you can help me see this, please let me know where in the video is a good place to look

[QUOTE=Vankuen;1005332]
The forward pressure would come from–most evidently anyway–in the idea of “escort what leaves and rush in at loss of contact”. Answering an attack, sticking with the opponent, and rushing in when they retreat. [/quote]

IMO there is a difference between the wing chun concept of keeping pressure on the opponent and simply being aggressive at times and charging in.

i saw aaron bobbing and weaving and covering up at times (putting no pressure on the opponent) and then going straight towards the guy to attack (no sticking)

i at times cover too and back away when I am caught in a bad situation, but im just saying that i saw no examples of what you stated

[QUOTE=Knifefighter;1005335]Bingo! And that’s why it doesn’t look that much different from other standup styles when it is done in an effective manner.[/QUOTE]

no, he said any style could implement these principles. he is not saying that every effective fighter does do that.

52

[QUOTE=Pacman;1005351] . . . . i did not see much angled stepping. i saw him going straight in. i also didnt see any simultaneous attack/defense. i saw him walking straight toward the guy and throwing looping punches because the other guy was sitting there tired and covering up . . . [/QUOTE]
I’ve seen boxing matches won where there was not even one uppercut used, where there were no body shots, etc. Does that disqualify it as boxing? I don’t know your history so please take no offense, but I must ask if you’ve ever competed.

53

[QUOTE=Phil Redmond;1005354]I’ve seen boxing matches won where there was not even one uppercut used, where there were no body shots, etc. Does that disqualify it as boxing? I don’t know your history so please take no offense, but I must ask if you’ve ever competed.[/QUOTE]

no offense taken. im not emotionally attached to this discussion at all. i have nothing against anyone here, im just making an observation

ur example is a bit different. im not saying he is not a WC fighter or he doesnt train in “real” WC. Im just saying I saw nothing implemented in that fight that goes along with WC tactics

what separates wing chun from other standup styles are certain tactics and movements. i personally didnt see any of these. thats all im saying. if someone can point out a point in the video where this happens (can be something general like protecting his center) then please help me out. i have an open mind.

in your example is the boxer winning the match by only throwing jump spin kicks? if so, then no hes not using any boxing. otherwise if he did something in the realm of boxing then yes he is qualified as using some boxing.

with regards to having ever competed i will send you a PM if its that important to you. my background is completely and utterly non-consequential to this discussion. if i were trying to recommend a way to train or what to do in a fight this would be relevant, but in this case it makes no difference whether i am a UFC champ or a couch potato because the facts are the facts.

54

[QUOTE=Knifefighter;1005191]This is what Wing Chun looks like when it is trained and fought full contact in an MMA environment:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gR3beL5CWo

A good example of how WC should be used against another trained multi-discipline fighter.[/QUOTE]

awesome! so does this put an end to questions like “show me that WC works?”

55

No worries man. Well I took a look at THIS video to see if Aaron was doing what they talk about in the video series. Knowing what to look for here’s what I saw:

In terms of direct wc technique I saw their version of lan sao, I saw the square body facing, I saw what could be deemed biu ma, the hook punches could be catagorized as the hooking punch from biu gee, the huen on the neck combined with the uppercuts is indeed wc (you even see that in ip mans movie scenes).

On the flip side I also saw overhands as you stated, jabs, and pure bjj/mma type stuff as well. So all in all I’d say he used wing chun within the context of the fight, but it wasn’t completely a “wing chun” fight per say.

A pure wc stylist would fight his fight, not play into the other guys fight (I.e grapple when he could have continued the standup / wc), nor would he use bjj just because the venue is mma.

Then again…if you understand the concept…all else is just energy and motion. There’s no right or wrong…only what works and what doesn’t.

56

i think it comes down to why certain things are used. Like the hook punches, were they done for a vt reason. Ie closest distance, going around a block etc. Or was he just throwing hooks. Using vt is about using the most simple technique to make the most damage. Not doing something them justifing it by saying but they do hooks in bj. I watched the orrh video series and most was ok but alot was bjj etc justified using vt ideas. There is on gulliten in bj. Even the guy i learn shoot off said it was just bjj. Don’t get me wrong, nothing wrong with mixing stuff to be a complete fighter but don’t call a rear naked choke a vt move, way have been the best way of beating him but it wasn’t vt.

57

[QUOTE=Phil Redmond;1005350]Exactly, just like when WSL was told that the knee he used in a fight wasn’t WC. He said he used the closest weapon to the closet target. To me WC is one tool in my toolbox. I’ve studied many different arts in my career. Should I not use something that is effective because people who don’t fight make comments?[/QUOTE]

I don’t think anyone is criticizing Aaron or Allen for that matter. We are criticizing Dales erroneous assessment of Aaron’s performance. As far as I am concerned no one should have to apologize for winning a fight.

58

[QUOTE=Phil Redmond;1005350]Exactly, just like when WSL was told that the knee he used in a fight wasn’t WC. He said he used the closest weapon to the closet target. To me WC is one tool in my toolbox. I’ve studied many different arts in my career. Should I not use something that is effective because people who don’t fight make comments?[/QUOTE]

I don’t think anyone is criticizing Aaron or Allen for that matter. We are criticizing Dales erroneous assessment of Aaron’s performance. As far as I am concerned no one should have to apologize for winning a fight. I am sure that they are all competent WC men as well.

Also, I tend to take the view that classical Wing Chun is a pretty narrow set of skills that should be supported by additional training. Having said that, I believe at some point the “other stuff” can dominate over the WC. If that is someone’s ultimate expression then so be it but let’s be real about what it is.

59

[QUOTE=Knifefighter;1005313]Seems to be no evidence of any of them fighting full contact… what a surprise. :rolleyes:

[/QUOTE]

As far as I can tell, you don’t have an extensive documented record. Concerning the ranges of combat that are central to the WC forum, you have zero credentials. You fancy yourself a fighter but as far as I can tell you just had a few fights.

60

WC has a very specific skillset, one that makes it look like WC.
Of course since it is applied VS WC in training it only “looks” like WC when it is VS WC.
Other systems don’t have this issue because their skillset is more “natural” and less “distinctive”.
Aaron’s WC, ie: Roberts WC is an excellent, modern version of WC, it takes all that WC is - principles and concepts, and applies it in a modern environment.
It’s look is irrelevant because it looks like what it HAS to look like under whatever conditions it is being used.
Fact is, it is effective and get’s the job done and has the key characteristics of good WC:
Simple, Direct, Effective.