I was wondering though how you have a forum join date of 1970?
Did the internet even exist then???
It was all tin cans and bits of string. Or tubes 
The forum went belly up a few years back and everyone woh had joined before it went belly up ended up with that join date when it came back on line.
I was always skeptical of the argument that âtraditionalâ and âbattlefieldâ-based styles (???) didnât teach ground because in a battle between two armies, going to the ground was neither desirable nor likely; if you are talking about HTH between 2 large groups, I think a lot of peeps are going to end up on the ground: if itâs random, crazy weapons melee, sooner or later someoneâs going to slam into you and knock you over from behind or the side, or you are going to trip over someoneâs corpse, or your opponent will charge you to get inside your weaponâs range (especially if he has been somehow disarmed); also, so-called âbattlefieldâ arts are predicated more on large troop movements, using serfs with pikes as cannon fodder, that sort of thing; if you ever watch Branaghâs Henry V, while some of the HTH choreography is questionable, you get a pretty good idea of the craziness that battlefield combat involved, and a lot of it was rolling around in the muckâŚ
Gravity rules, people fall, perhaps more so in large scale combat than in 1-on-1.
The differnence would be that in a âmass combat environmentâ the primary goal is to defend and get off the ground instead of trying to fight ON the ground, though obviously that would play a huge part in it.
[QUOTE=sanjuro_ronin;927973]Gravity rules, people fall, perhaps more so in large scale combat than in 1-on-1.
The differnence would be that in a âmass combat environmentâ the primary goal is to defend and get off the ground instead of trying to fight ON the ground, though obviously that would play a huge part in it.[/QUOTE]
But the better you are at fighting on the ground, the better your skill will be at getting up off the ground should you want to. In other words, it is grappling skill that is involved in getting up (escaping holds and pins, being able to control your opponent, etc.).
[QUOTE=Knifefighter;927891]Freestyle and folkstyle wrestling are the most popular grappling systems today.[/QUOTE]
Thank you.
BJJ: im not a huge fan of. They pretty much ignore the lower half of the body. Im more fond of the Russian sambo style of leg locks position. âPosition over submissionâ- Tony Cecchine (Catch as Catch Can)
What do you all think?
I think singing the praises of wing chun ground game and then criticizing an extremely effective and extensively proven art which has in general, a much higher level of quality control, is extremely disrespectful, not to mention idiotic.
You want to criticize some arts, start with wing chun itself.
And while wing chun concepts will work on the ground, the fact of the matter is, Wing Chun does not have even close to a complete understanding of the ground fight.
[QUOTE=AdrianK;928204]I think singing the praises of wing chun ground game and then criticizing an extremely effective and extensively proven art which has in general, a much higher level of quality control, is extremely disrespectful, not to mention idiotic.[/QUOTE]
although at the same time, it does manage to encapsulate in a rather pity manner the inherent quirkiness that is the TCMA mentality!
[QUOTE=Katsu Jin Ken;927641]The title of this thread is kindof misleading. I wanted to say in MMA but the UFC isnt real mixed martial arts more like jack of all trades master of none. Sorry, back on point.
Do you all believe that WC has a ground game? How about throws? Could it rival BJJ on the ground? Whats your take on TWC being used in a combat sport setting? TWC on the street in a true NHB setting?
This has probably been asked several thousands times before but ive been viewing this forum for a few years now. It has less trolls and more info than ever before thats why i posted these questions again for the umtenith time.
My take on it:
Ground Game: You can use the same basic principles of wing chun on the ground just as if you were standing. You have to have a good base nomatter what position your in. Constant forword pressure. Dont let your self collapse, right and left defend accordingly. dont give up your center. Those can all be used on the ground. William Cheung recently wrote and article in Bla** Belt magazine about just such techniques.
Throws: I love throws having a JJ background, but its all there in the wing chun. Chum Kiu has the outside leg circles at the beginning of the form (atleast our version does) those are clearly leg reaps. The turning double lan saus can become head & arm throws like Uchi Mata or Ochi Gari variations. In Biu Gee, the Emergency bend at the waist towards the end of the form easily become hip throws like Ogoshi. Just looking at the motions looks alot like Seio Naga. If you just set down at the bend over position its a sit down throw.
BJJ: im not a huge fan of. They pretty much ignore the lower half of the body. Im more fond of the Russian sambo style of leg locks position. âPosition over submissionâ- Tony Cecchine (Catch as Catch Can)
What do you all think?[/QUOTE]
Do you know anything about martial arts? Iâll ignore the MMA attack, because its silly. WC has 0 ground techniques outside of maybe chain punching from a version of knee of belly.
Ground Game: You can use the same basic principles of wing chun on the ground just as if you were standing.
First off you go from school to school and you find that nobody agrees on the basic âprinciplesâ and even ones that seem the same its not used in the same way. Its like saying Iâll use WC to ride a horse.. sure.. but you have to first learn how to ride a horse.
I love throws having a JJ background, but its all there in the wing chun. Chum Kiu has the outside leg circles at the beginning of the form (atleast our version does) those are clearly leg reaps.
Anyone can stretch a kung fu forms into being they are not.
BJJ ignores half of the body? WTF?? Maybe some people do, but thats pretty blind. The general mantra of every BJJ school is position over submission.
You have no idea what the heck your talking about. Donât quote Tony Checchine, like anyone cares what he thinks. How can you talk about leg locks and then say position over submission? a large amount of them put you out of position, which is why you donât see them as much in MMA. Its a gamble unless you are VERY good at them. Even then they arenât as high percentage. That doesnât mean they donât work or they arenât good. The are NASTY! But in all honesty, why gamble with getting your face smashed over a heel hook? Why not take the top and knock his teeth out? Allot of people will just let their legs get jacked up and continue to fight. How many people have a broken arm and continue fighting? I can think of only one person I have ever heard of in MMA. 
Perfect example is the recent Rafael dos Anjos fight. Great JJ guy, had a calf crush from hell on the guy. I believe the guy had surgery from it, because he probably destroyed his knee. Rafael dos Anjos lost the fight. He should have taken the guys back and finished the fight.
again you know nothing about martial arts.
[QUOTE=Katsu Jin Ken;927641]
Ground Game: You can use the same basic principles of wing chun on the ground just as if you were standing. You have to have a good base nomatter what position your in. Constant forword pressure. Dont let your self collapse, right and left defend accordingly. dont give up your center. [/QUOTE]
The principles are fine, in theory, they just have to be modified quite a bit in practice and practice in a ground fighting environment, not a WC one.
EX: the principle of constant forward pressure applied to the ground may get you subbed in more ways than one cares to imagine, even more so if applied as typiclaly done while STANDING.
I"m afraid that by introducing logic into this thread, Iâll disrupt the flow of this conversation and perhaps, e gad, end the thread :eek:
Can you take certain wing chun principles and apply them on the ground? Yes.
Unforatunately, youâll be wasting a lot of time trying to figure out what is real and what is fantasy on the ground and developing techniques.
But, more importantly, youâll then find out the end that those wing chun principles that do work on teh ground are already part of established grappling systems
YOur time might be better spent trying to invent a device with four wheels that runs on a fossil fuel and can convey people to locations
[QUOTE=lkfmdc;928331]Your time might be better spent trying to invent a device with four wheels that runs on a fossil fuel and can convey people to locations[/QUOTE]Tssk! That is so âbackwardâ looking. 
[QUOTE=CFT;928336]Tssk! That is so âbackwardâ looking. :p[/QUOTE]
that is sorta da point 
[QUOTE=lkfmdc;928331]I"m afraid that by introducing logic into this thread, Iâll disrupt the flow of this conversation and perhaps, e gad, end the thread :eek:
Can you take certain wing chun principles and apply them on the ground? Yes.
Unforatunately, youâll be wasting a lot of time trying to figure out what is real and what is fantasy on the ground and developing techniques.
But, more importantly, youâll then find out the end that those wing chun principles that do work on teh ground are already part of established grappling systems
YOur time might be better spent trying to invent a device with four wheels that runs on a fossil fuel and can convey people to locations[/QUOTE]
I donât like the idea of trying to use WC âtechniquesâ for the ground. I would say I use WC ideas, concepts, ect.. to help me learn faster, and give me ideas on how things work. I do once in a while use a literal technique but its all in context. Some people say forward pressure is a Fundamental of WC, I donât .. but ok. Thats a perfect example of how it can be misused. A perfect example of using a âWCâ concept is Push and pull. My Sifu is always talking about it in Chi sao. It comes up in ground fighting allot also. Another example is protecting yourself, and not putting yourself in harms way for the sake of attacking.
Iâm sure allot of martial arts have these ideas. I donât like saying Center .. because it means allot of things to allot of people, depending on the situation.
[QUOTE=monji112000;928482]I donât like the idea of trying to use WC âtechniquesâ for the ground. I would say I use WC ideas, concepts, ect.. to help me learn faster, and give me ideas on how things work. I do once in a while use a literal technique but its all in context. Some people say forward pressure is a Fundamental of WC, I donât .. but ok. Thats a perfect example of how it can be misused. A perfect example of using a âWCâ concept is Push and pull. My Sifu is always talking about it in Chi sao. It comes up in ground fighting allot also. Another example is protecting yourself, and not putting yourself in harms way for the sake of attacking.
Iâm sure allot of martial arts have these ideas. I donât like saying Center .. because it means allot of things to allot of people, depending on the situation.[/QUOTE]
The thing with groundfighting is that the principles change, depending on oneâs position. In certain positions you want space, while in others , you need to shut it down. In some positions you want to face the opponentâs center, while in others you want an angle.
Wing Chun and the ground
Does traditional Wing Chun have a ground game?
Does Boxing have a ground Game?
Does Tae Kwon Do have a ground Game?
Does Karate have a ground game?
Do they need a ground game? Answer in short NO!
They are standing arts. With some take downs,sweeps maybe or chin na techniques.
As for the ground game. If you are fighting ground fighters in an arena,stage,competitions I suggest studing a valid ground fighting style. An Use that. If you are fighting off an attacker on street trying to hit you in the mouth. I suggest learning Karate,TKD Wing Chun or become a golden glove boxer. These will fare better in a street fight.
Also it depends on what you interest is. Do you like ground fighting or do you like kung fu more. Which ever one is your interest that is the one you will prevail in most.
When a fight breaks out what you practice the most will aid you. Using what you practice the least could get you killed an at the very least hurt badly.
I think WC principals work best when you are inside fighting. Also medium range fighting WC principals work well. I think if you choose to fight on the outside or long range. Choy Li Fut,Tae Kwon Do or ChangQuan(Long Fist) would serve you best. This is my opinion.
How can you use WC principals while throwing high kicks?
What about WC principals when doing Aerial Kicks?
You can not. Its a different system.
But I for one love WC the most. An to me the best thing to do is learn how to defeat other fighters with out utlizing their system. In other words who ever is the best will prevail. This is the key to me. Instead of throwing high kicks or jumping in the air with an opponent I will try to move out of their flight path. Instead of trying to wrestle a grappler down to ground so I can submit him. I will attempt to counter his takedown attempt an continously strike him.
If I fail his fighting spirit prevailed. If I win my fighting spirit prevails. Who ever has the most skill an fighting with their art wins. That what it boils down too. No need to get a ground game if you can defeat an opponent before going to ground. But if your interested in learning how to fight different ranges. I suggest you do following
Study Kick Boxing and Greco Wrestling.
That way you got punches,kicks and grappling! An both are western fighting systems. No need to dedicate yourself to a bunch of chinese stuff! when you dont have too.
[QUOTE=Yoshiyahu;928525] No need to get a ground game if you can defeat an opponent before going to ground. [/QUOTE]
If you can defeat every opponent every time before going to ground? Yeah, thatâs a good betâŚgood thinkingâŚ
TWC (William Cheung) has always had techniques for fighting from the ground. But the emphasis is on keeping the guy away, hurting him or taking him down so that you can stand back up rather than any real positional game.
Yeah, we saw it in action once
[QUOTE=lkfmdc;928337]that is sorta da point ;)[/QUOTE]
Maybe this is some other kinda point?
GM/Segway co-op
Yeah, we saw it in action once
The OP asked about using WC on the ground. I detailed the TWC party line on groundfighting. If I though it was good enough, I wouldnât have trained BJJ to purple belt level over the last ten years.
You apparently have no solutions to offer regarding WCâs ground game, so why donât you just go back to practising headbutts on your wooden dummy?
When I trained with my sifu in Ving Tsun (Wing Chun) we would chi sau/ spar and when it would go to the ground we would keepgoing as a way of training VT on the ground. Wether or not VT in the art yes principles were used.
Later on I went on to cross train in BJJ and I would say that a lot of the princiles do work such as the pressue and sensitivity also works for armlocks etc at times.
As for the centerline and punching from the center isnât part of the theory itself to go in the shortest distance possible or to hit the middle of the mass so it doesnât turn out and diffuse the force?
Well using some of these same principles sometimes a hook punch might be the shortest distance due to the position of your bodies. and as for the center of the body and hitting the core is something that I also stride to do but I look at it as the centerline shifts at times as when your oponent may turn their head and also it is key to try to strike square where you make a level sandwich with your strike, the floor or wall and your oponents body which makes things different but still uses the principles of Ving Tsun.
Many times there is angling in BJJ positioning however when you shift to do for instance tan da or dip da etc. you are making an agle just the same but instead of a simple shift one might be circling a body in BJJ from side mount to reverse mount down to to knee on the belly over to taking their back based on how they are turning and still going for the path of least resistance many times but never letting up on their structure when you are crushing it also like VT.
They are different however I think the principles still can apply very much so.