WC in MMA

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Wing Chun
81

if you break it down like that, anything can be considered WC. i can say that anyone who throws a hook is using biu gee moves…anyone who grabs another persons head is using a huen sau…anyone that steps forward can be said to use biu ma.

watch I can do ths with anything:

now these guys have really taken their WC to a new level

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLz-sl1ZfBs

they use what could be called the WC hook kick, but sometimes kick to the head with it too. i also saw some front kicks and sidekicks too. they dont use their heel and thrust but that is because they are using WC in a Taekwondo context, so they have to mix it up with spinning back kicks etc. and adjust for the situation

but dont worry all the energy in spacetime is conserved according to the law of conservation of energy so that its only transformed between WC energy and TKD energy. dont worry!

notice the straight line agression? when one attacks, the other rushes in. thats a great example of “loy lau hui sung”! when they fall down over each other, thats a good example of “sinking” energy too

this is real good WC in a TKD context. awesome job guys.

this is how real WC works in a TKD context!

come on. this is sad. congrats to them, but iwth all the complaints of FANTASY from terrence and the other MMA fanboys, lets not fantasize about what is WC

[QUOTE=Vankuen;1005360]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.[/QUOTE]

82

[QUOTE=chusauli;1005478]Duende,

I write my own stuff - not play good cop or bad cop. And my stuff is not an interpretation of HFY. Your view is this.

We live in a 4-D world: height, width, depth and time, so its all slivers of reality, (perhaps this is branding, too).

Your TSE theories seem to be Wave Theory related to what Einstein postulated and a cross between Buddhist theories.[/QUOTE]

Robert,

I simply wrote… “Principles based on facing and range (TIME), occupation of space and key positioning (SPACE), and structural energy, rooting, and leverage (ENERGY)”

Does this sound like wave theory?? Or Buddhism for that matter??

It’s physics 101 and how it applies to strategy in combat. Plain and simple.

Does that sound like branding to you? Or only when others beside yourself express these understandings??

I’m not here to attack you or anything like that. I’m here to share understandings with my fellow WC practitioners.

But attacks by your student Terence (that are obviously contrary to your teachings) make this forum a drag.

83

[QUOTE=Pacman;1005481]im not saying that. ive seen it and experienced it. many others here have too, but the only way you’ll believe it is if you see it happen on spike TV.
[/QUOTE]

People can convince themselves of all kinds of things. My point is that the way to tell whether something is sound of not – whether our training or some technique or whatever – is ONLY by getting in and mixing it up against GOOD fighters.

Lots of people claim to do that, but for some mysterious reason (sarcasm alert) they can never show it. It’s like Bigfoot, they claim it exists but they just can’t seem to produce one. :wink:

i understand your skepticism of others, and thats fine, but you have to acknowledge that just because you havent seen it in UFC doesnt mean that its bull****. there are other factors

We know what works in fighting, we can see it for ourselves by just watching MMA. The evidence for that is right before your eyes.

You, however, are making the claim that there is “some other way” of fighting that works just as well as what MMA people do, right? Yet, you can’t produce ANY evidence to support your claim.

Claims that can’t be supported by evidence are bullsh1t.

if the gracies had not made their BJJ so public, we probably would not know much about it.

So, is WCK not public?

84

[QUOTE=Pacman;1005491]if you break it down like that, anything can be considered WC. i can say that anyone who throws a hook is using biu gee moves…anyone who grabs another persons head is using a huen sau…anyone that steps forward can be said to use biu ma.

watch I can do ths with anything:

come on. this is sad. congrats to them, but iwth all the complaints of FANTASY from terrence and the other MMA fanboys, lets not fantasize about what is WC[/QUOTE]

Sooo first you ask politely for someone to discuss what might be considered to be wing chun based on the CSL perspective, and then when that’s done…you tell everyone to get real.

Whether you like it or not, it is what it is. I tried to describe what I saw from their perspective based on what I know from their video series. Hell, I could be wrong too! But from my limited knowledge of what they do, and the more intimate knowledge of what I do, those were my assessments. :smiley:

As the saying goes…don’t take what you’re told as truth in your WC, go out and test it. You will find your own iteration of wing chun then. Wing chun is a tool to be mastered. It should not be your master.

85

It’s amazing to me how much “we do that too” is going on here - instead of just recognizing things for what they are: elements of wing chun crosstrained with elements of boxing, kickboxing, MT, wrestling/grappling, etc…

is the way to go.

Period.

And then there’s some people on this thread who may have said in the past that they don’t need to add any boxing type moves/footwork (or what have you) to their wing chun to make it effective in an mma/real fighting setting…

and now, not only are they on the bandwagon for an mma approach - but are doing revisionist history about how they may have felt about “how complete” their wing chun was…as recently as a week ago.

And then we hear things like “there really is no functional” pak, lop, bong, garn, etc. - within an mma (real fighting) setting. Oh, really?

Let’s just call it as it is, shall we?

What Aaron (and guys like Alan Orr) are doing is A version of wing chun that works pretty well - and it’s mixed with elements of other fighting styles, (ie.- a guillotine is a guillotine, not a bil jee move).

There’s no shame in adding to your wing chun - it shows that your’re smart.

And there’s nothing lasting to be gained by saying that you’re not adding to your wing chun when clearly you are.

And there’s certainly no benefit (since your previous posts can easily be looked up in the archives) in saying that you believed in crosstraining your wing chun all along.

So good for Alan, Aaron, and the rest of those guys…They’re doing some good things with their version of wing chun - and what they’ve added to it.

And as time goes on, I suspect other people within the wing chun world will be doing similar things with their version of wing chun…and what they’ve added/crosstrained into it.

And it’s about time, imo.

86

Dude who are you talking about that’s changing from a purist to a cross-trainer?

87

Let’s put it this way: not you.

88

[QUOTE=Lee Chiang Po;1005485]Are you refering to you or me? I know that you are an expert on this subject since you actually had a fight, even if you got whipped. And I have seen what you consider fighting skills. Of course I must be absolutely clueless since I was not able to see any remote resemblence of Wing Chun in the video you used to make your point. Did you have someone tell you that it did, or did you actually make that assumption yourself?
I think what you are trying to do here is compare yourself with some of the top fighters of MMA, and I assume that it is supposed to in some way give your opinions credance, but you are not an MMA fighter in any sense of the word, and none of your opinions carry any more weight than mine or anyone elses. When you post videos such as this you need to except what comments are made without your usual flattery. Otherwise give up the effort or find something with a bit more convincing visuals.[/QUOTE]
I’m not comparing myself to top MMA fighters. They train full time, do that for their living, and, as a general rule are about 25 years younger than I am. However, I do have a bit of experience in that realm. You, on the other hand, attempting to compare yourself to me is 20 times more ludicrous than me attempting to compare myself to them. It is clear by every post you have ever made that you are the epitome of the theoretical, fantasy-world, pretend, non-fighter.

89

[QUOTE=Ultimatewingchun;1005500]It’s amazing to me how much “we do that too” is going on here - instead of just recognizing things for what they are: elements of wing chun crosstrained with elements of boxing, kickboxing, MT, wrestling/grappling, etc…

is the way to go.

Period.

And then there’s some people on this thread who may have said in the past that they don’t need to add any boxing type moves/footwork (or what have you) to their wing chun to make it effective in an mma/real fighting setting…

and now, not only are they on the bandwagon for an mma approach - but are doing revisionist history about how they may have felt about “how complete” their wing chun was…as recently as a week ago.

And then we hear things like “there really is no functional” pak, lop, bong, garn, etc. - within an mma (real fighting) setting. Oh, really?

Let’s just call it as it is, shall we?

What Aaron (and guys like Alan Orr) are doing is A version of wing chun that works pretty well - and it’s mixed with elements of other fighting styles, ie.- a guillotine is a guillotine, not a bil jee move).

There’s no shame in adding to your wing chun - it shows that your’re smart.

And there’s nothing lasting to be gained by saying that you’re not adding to your wing chun when clearly you are.

And there’s certainly no benefit (since your previous posts can easily be looked up in the archives) in saying that you believed in crosstraining your wing chun all along.

So good for Alan, Aaron, and the rest of those guys…They’re doing some good things with their version of wing chun - and what they’ve added to it.

And as time goes on, I suspect other people within the wing chun world will be doing similar things with their version of wing chun…and what they’ve added/crosstrained into it.

And it’s about time, imo.[/QUOTE]

Stands up and starts clapping.

90

[QUOTE=duende;1005497]Robert,

I simply wrote… “Principles based on facing and range (TIME), occupation of space and key positioning (SPACE), and structural energy, rooting, and leverage (ENERGY)”

Does this sound like wave theory?? Or Buddhism for that matter??

It’s physics 101 and how it applies to strategy in combat. Plain and simple.

Does that sound like branding to you? Or only when others beside yourself express these understandings??

I’m not here to attack you or anything like that. I’m here to share understandings with my fellow WC practitioners.

But attacks by your student Terence (that are obviously contrary to your teachings) make this forum a drag.[/QUOTE]

Alex,

I am referring to myself branding. I think you are mistaken. I have no monopoly on truth or expression.

T does his thing, I do mine. I am not responsible for his opinion, that is all I want to say.

TSE is Wave Theory and is also discussed in Taoism and Buddhism. As I said, its all 4D.

91

[QUOTE=Ultimatewingchun;1005500]It’s amazing to me how much “we do that too” is going on here - instead of just recognizing things for what they are: elements of wing chun crosstrained with elements of boxing, kickboxing, MT, wrestling/grappling, etc…

is the way to go.

Period.
[/QUOTE]

It’s really simple:

  1. If you want to be a well-rounded fighter then you need to cross-train.

  2. You are only as good as your sparring partners.

  3. Theories about what works or doesn’t work is bullsh1t.

And then there’s some people on this thread who may have said in the past that they don’t need to add any boxing type moves/footwork (or what have you) to their wing chun to make it effective in an mma/real fighting setting…

Boxing, MT, WCK, etc. are various skill sets. If you practice MT, do you also need to box or do WCK to have a decent stand-up game? No. It’s the same with WCK – it provides you a method of fighting and the skills to implement that method. You don’t NEED to supplement it with boxing or MT.

However, you do need to train against good boxers and MT fighters, to try practice using your WCK against them.

But, if someone wants to mix in boxing or MT, that’s fine – it’s like a boxer who adds MT to his game.

and now, not only are they on the bandwagon for an mma approach - but are doing revisionist history about how they may have felt about “how complete” their wing chun was…as recently as a week ago.

“Complete” is total nonsense.

What people should do instead of theorizing is get out and do it, and see for themselves. Go to a good MMA school and spar – that will show you what YOU need to do.

There are people who do that, and then there are people who don’t but theorize.

And then we hear things like “there really is no functional” pak, lop, bong, garn, etc. - within an mma (real fighting) setting. Oh, really?

Can YOU do them? Do YOU go to a good MMA school, spar, and consistently pull these things off? If not, then your opinion is bullsh1t, it is theory.

Let’s just call it as it is, shall we?

I always do.

What Aaron (and guys like Alan Orr) are doing is A version of wing chun that works pretty well - and it’s mixed with elements of other fighting styles, ie.- a guillotine is a guillotine, not a bil jee move).

There’s no shame in adding to your wing chun - it shows that your’re smart.

And there’s nothing lasting to be gained by saying that you’re not adding to your wing chun when clearly you are.

And there’s certainly no benefit (since your previous posts can easily be looked up in the archives) in saying that you believed in crosstraining your wing chun all along.

So good for Alan, Aaron, and the rest of those guys…They’re doing some good things with their version of wing chun - and what they’ve added to it.

And as time goes on, I suspect other people within the wing chun world will be doing similar things with their version of wing chun…and what they’ve added/crosstrained into it.

And it’s about time, imo.

Alan and his guys are doing what Robert tells all of his students – let application be your sifu.

92

[QUOTE=chusauli;1005509]
T does his thing, I do mine. I am not responsible for his opinion, that is all I want to say.
[/QUOTE]

Robert, I think some people are so caught up in the TMA culture of “group think”, and so used to having their views given to them by their “sifu”, that they find it difficult to understand that this is not how you (and I) approach things.

93

They don’t find it difficult, they find it monotonous and annoying that you only know how to say one thing (regardless of whether they agree or not).

94

[QUOTE=t_niehoff;1005517]Robert, I think some people are so caught up in the TMA culture of “group think”, and so used to having their views given to them by their “sifu”, that they find it difficult to understand that this is not how you (and I) approach things.[/QUOTE]

More attacks… Nice.

How about just admitting that as a student of CSL your post is clueless and contradictory to the teachings of Robert. Or at least those I quoted.

As this is a thread about CSL WC and it’s usage in MMA. It would seem logical that you would have something insightful to contribute… But obviously you do not.

95

[QUOTE=Vankuen;1005521]They don’t find it difficult, they find it monotonous and annoying that you only know how to say one thing (regardless of whether they agree or not).[/QUOTE]

When did the idea of heavy moderation stop? It seemed that Dale and T were on a one way ticket out of town, but suddenly it’s vapidity at it’s best once again.

96

What exactly do Terrence and Dale do that you believe warrants banning?
Do they lie?
Do they make false claims?
Do they harrase posters?
DO they use profanity?

97

I don’t read Terence Niehoff’s posts anymore (he’s on my IGNORE LIST)…but I can fully understand the sentiments to ban him - as he’s an endless pit of gutless mockery, redundancy, double standards, and out-and-out bull5hit…

and he’s hijacked and derailed COUNTLESS threads over the last 5 years or so.

But I suspect the moderator(s) won’t ban him unless he does start using profanity or what have you.

So imo the IGNORE LIST is the best way to go.
…

As for Dale Frank, he’s a troll, through-and-through …waaay more often than not - but one with some serious martial arts credentials. So I’ve come to believe that to ignore him (small “i”) is the best way to go when he puts on the troll hat.

98

[QUOTE=sanjuro_ronin;1005527]What exactly do Terrence and Dale do that you believe warrants banning?
Do they lie?
Do they make false claims?
Do they harrase posters?
DO they use profanity?[/QUOTE]

Terrence doesn’t use profanity. Both practice conversational terrorism to ensure that nothing worthwhile ever gets discussed. I would call that harassment. Conversational terrorism involves a number of tactics which include making a conscious decision to “misunderstand,” other posters to continue the conversation. Constantly posting the same drivel day in and day out when it is not appropriate to do so might be termed as flooding.

Dale certainly harasses posters outright and he never contributes to intelligent discussion. Most if not all of Dale’s posts devolve into senseless name calling. Dale is just here to call people clueless theoretical fighters and to drop challenges. Dale has nothing but disdain for WC and it’s practitioners and only comes here to malign and insult unless you worship him. Any attempt at reasonable discussion results in an insult from Dale.

99

Just for clarification

[QUOTE=HumbleWCGuy;1005480]And if you did borrow… no one should care.[/QUOTE]

Agreed. Unless it’s followed with "I write my own stuff " :slight_smile:

100

Hard to argue with that. I think we should shoot the both of them.

And then we can i g n o r e them.