Wing Chun and fighting-How to do it?

[Matrix]

Originally posted by Ultimatewingchun
So tell me, Bill…in your opinion - when should people start sparring?

I think sparring is closer to the end of a progression. In general, I am for it, since as we all agree, it is a martial art. But I don’t dismiss those who would rather not participate_ I think there’s a lot of value in training even without sparring. And I find that usually it is introduced too early in the program. Then we see the sloppiness and unneccesary damage that is done like in those video clips. For me, it’s not strictly a “time” issue. Different people may be ready at different times.

The main problem is that sparring becomes the end-game in and of itself, not skill development. Skills tend to fall to the sidelines as soon as sparring is introduced, if it is done too soon. When is too soon? That’s the million dollar question.

[sihing]

Would one rather be a “Technician” or “Fighter”? I was just discussing boxing with one of the senior students who used to box and stays up on the sport as a hobby. We were discussing Roy Jones JR, and the fight this weekend between the two guys that defeated him. I told him that IMO Jones was a natural athlete at boxing but did not have top-notch boxing skills and he agreed. He said that when Jones defeated Hopkins in a bout earlier in Jones career, Jones natural gifts overcame Hopkins at that time, but since then Hopkins keep on working the skills of boxing and has become a “Technician” at it, where as Jones has started to lose some of his natural skills and since he relied heavily on them he cannot compete like he did before, and since he didn’t work the boxing skill as hard either he will have a harder time competing today.

IMO, I’d rather be a “Technician” of Wing Chun because its always easier to up the ante and train harder and more intensely than to be a “Fighter” and have lower skills in the art as a whole and rely on physical things like one’s individual timing and speed, or strength/toughness attributes, which will dwindle as time goes by, were as skills won’t as long as there is a maintenance program in place.

James

[Ultimatewingchun]

FALSE CHOICES

I’ve always believed that the distinction between FIGHTER & TECHNICIAN is way overblown.

While it’s true that many people who have made themselves into quality fighters don’t necessarily have much varied technique in their arsenal…and they rely more upon WILL, strength, and conditioning rather than SKILL…

nonetheless, the fact still remains that most of the highest quality fighters…whether it be kung fu, boxing, karate, wrestling, BJJ, kickboxing, Muay Thai, etc…

have very good technique.

Even a brawler like Mike Tyson…especially in his early years…had very good technique (albeit a boxing system that was considered unorthodox) - nonetheless…within the confines of the peek-a-boo system - his technique was excellent. Roberto Duran is another example of the same thing.

BUT WHAT IS TRUE…is that it’s often possible for people to acquire much by way of technique…both in scope and in execution…but they aren’t very good fighters.

Because they haven’t spent enough time sparring/fighting against good fighters who are going 100% (or even 90%)…in their attempt to put a hurtin’ on them.

Then your WILL, CONDITIONING, & STRENGTH are ALSO being tested along with your technical knowledge and skill.

And that’s where the rubber really hits the road.

[sihing]

Originally posted by Ultimatewingchun
[B]I’ve always believed that the distinction between FIGHTER & TECHNICIAN is way overblown.

While it’s true that many people who have made themselves into quality fighters don’t necessarily have much varied technique in their arsenal…and they rely more upon WILL, strength, and conditioning rather than SKILL…

nonetheless, the fact still remains that most of the highest quality fighters…whether it be kung fu, boxing. karate, wrestling, BJJ, kickboxing, Muay Thai, etc…

have very good technique.

Even a brawler like Mike Tyson…especially in his early years…had very good technique (albeit a boxing system that was considered unorthodox) - nonetheless…within the confines of the peek-a-boo system - his technique was excellent. Roberto Duran is another example of the same thing.

BUT WHAT IS TRUE…is that it’s often possible for people to acquire much by way of technique…both in scope and in execution…but they aren’t very good fighters.

Because they haven’t spent enough time sparring/fighting against skilled opponents. [/B]

Anyone that has a good level of skill in their respective art is a technician IMO, so those mentioned above would be considered Fighting Technicians, but if you look at say George Foreman vs Ali, Foreman was for sure the fighter, whereas Ali was the technician (but as everyone knows Ali is a warrior also). Foreman’s game then was power and punishment, where as Ali had the skills of the game to do what he choose to do, whether it was running around the ring and stickin’ movin’ or the rope-a-dope to which he choose to do in the moment.

I agree that one can have good technique and execution but they haven’t brought those base skills to the next level (most never go past this stage), which is how to interpret someone’s else’s movements and then control someone else’s movement so that it is at a disadvantage for them and advantageous for you.

James

[Knifefighter]

Originally posted by KPM
I have said more than once, that if I cannot make something work in a sparring situation, I am not going to toss it out as ineffective, but I am going to examine what I am doing and figure out WHY I cannot make it work.
Fighters need techniques that are effective. If a fighter cannot use it himself, or at least see it being used by another fighter in a fighting situation, he knows it is probably not effective and needs to be discarded.
Theoretical non-fighters collect far too many useless techniques.

Originally posted by KPM
I still try to keep my Wing Chun as close to how my predecessors taught it as possible.
Fighters and those who coach fighters don’t worry about whether or not they are staying true to what their predecessors taught. They only teach what they believe works the best.

Originally posted by KPM
The sparring helps me learned how to apply what I have learned, not how to alter it.
Fighters use sparring to both learn how to apply what they have learned as well as how to alter it to best suit their needs.

[KPM]

Knifefighter wrote:
Fighters need techniques that are effective. If a fighter cannot use it himself, or at least see it being used by another fighter in a fighting situation, he knows it is probably not effective and needs to be discarded. Theoretical non-fighters collect far too many useless techniques.

—So, if the boxer starting out has trouble using an uppercut effectively, he can just disgard it? If the grappler can’t seem to get the heel hook to work he can just throw it out? Shouldn’t they just train more and practice it more to get good at it and figure out why it is not working for them? I agree that there are a lot of useless techniques out there. But WCK is a system that has already been “stripped down” many generations ago. It is not nearly as elaborate as other CMA systems. So before I going tossing anything aside as ineffective, I am going to give it a fair trial and make sure that it is not just me that is the problem. KPM

Fighters and those who coach fighters don’t worry about whether or not they are staying true to what their predecessors taught. They only teach what they believe works the best.

—So why is there a distinction between BJJ and Sambo or Catch wrestling or Judo? Why is there a distinction between Gracie Jiu Jitsu and Machado Jiu Jitsu? Shouldn’t it all just be one generic “grappling”? Why is there a distinction between American Kickboxing, Thai Boxing, and Savate? Shouldn’t it all just be one generic “kickboxing”? Why is it that certain gyms produce boxers of a certain style that others can recognize in the ring and say “its obvious that Angelo Dundee (or Cus DeMato, etc) trained him!”? KPM

Keith

[Nick_Forrer]

WSL said there were plenty of techniques in Wing chun that he had no idea whether they would work in a fight or not since he never had to use them (his fights were typically over in 3 punches).

[Nick_Forrer]

Originally posted by Knifefighter
Fighters need techniques that are effective. If a fighter cannot use it himself, or at least see it being used by another fighter in a fighting situation, he knows it is probably not effective and needs to be discarded.
Theoretical non-fighters collect far too many useless techniques.

Of the 1000 plus techniques you said you learnt through BJJ how many would you characterise as useless?

[t_niehoff]

Technician is the term nonfighting theoreticians use for themselves (it sounds better, doesn’t it?). Ali and Foreman werre both fighters (they fought as part of their training).

KPM wrote:

—So why is there a distinction between BJJ and Sambo or Catch wrestling or Judo? Why is there a distinction between Gracie Jiu Jitsu and Machado Jiu Jitsu? Shouldn’t it all just be one generic “grappling”?

**All fingers pointing to one moon, all paths leading to one destination, all textbooks pertaining to one subject matter. Nonfighting theoreticians, having no clue as to the moon, the destination, or the subject matter, can only be concerned with the finger, the path, the textbook. These become all important to them because they know nothing else.

But WCK is a system that has already been “stripped down” many generations ago. It is not nearly as elaborate as other CMA systems.

**Tell us more hearsay theory.

So before I going tossing anything aside as ineffective, I am going to give it a fair trial and make sure that it is not just me that is the problem. KPM

**Good idea. That “fair trial” is, btw, fighting.

[Jim_Roselando]

Hey Terence,

Will you be participating in the Video Clip event with some of us?

I hope so! I think we can learn a lot from your experience with heavy sparring and stuff like that. We will be able to see it in your body mechanics or the way you move!

Its all about learning and sharing with each other! Everyone has something that they do well or a bit different. Everyone has a different eye so they will be able to see different things that we are all doing! C’mon man! Join in the fun!

Regards,

[Knifefighter]

Originally posted by Nick Forrer
Of the 1000 plus techniques you said you learnt through BJJ how many would you characterise as useless?
I’m not sure. There are some techniques that are good for the gi only, some only for no-gi, some for grappling only, some for striking and grappling, and some for weapons. I keep the ones that are useful for me and forget about the ones that make no sense.

[Knifefighter]

Originally posted by KPM
So, if the boxer starting out has trouble using an uppercut effectively, he can just disgard it? If the grappler can’t seem to get the heel hook to work he can just throw it out?
No, because they can see that it works by watching others use those techniques in fighting situations. Eventually, if he cannot get it to work for him, a fighter will throw out techniques that don’t work for him, but work for others.

Originally posted by KPM
So why is there a distinction between BJJ and Sambo or Catch wrestling or Judo? Why is there a distinction between Gracie Jiu Jitsu and Machado Jiu Jitsu? Shouldn’t it all just be one generic “grappling”? Why is there a distinction between American Kickboxing, Thai Boxing, and Savate? Shouldn’t it all just be one generic “kickboxing”? Why is it that certain gyms produce boxers of a certain style that others can recognize in the ring and say “its obvious that Angelo Dundee (or Cus DeMato, etc) trained him!”?
These are perfect examples of people taking what works for them and their particular strategies and throwing out the rest. What you end up with is a different flavor on the same thing (i.e. grappling- BJJ, Catch, Sambo, and Judo).

A dynamic, effective, and efficient combat system should be constantly evolving, and changing. Techniques are added, taken out, and morphed to adapt to the current circumstances.

…stripped down… many generations ago…
Sticking dogmatically to something that hasn’t changed in generations is the first big mistake.

[Knifefighter]

Originally posted by Nick Forrer
WSL said there were plenty of techniques in Wing chun that he had no idea whether they would work in a fight or not since he never had to use them (his fights were typically over in 3 punches).
If he or others would have fought more against more skilled opponents, he would have had a better idea regarding what worked and didn’t work becuase those fights would have lasted longer. As it was, it sounds like he was passing on techniques that could have been useless because he had no idea whether or not they worked.

[PaulH]

I like to point out that WSL as I understand always stressed understanding WC principles and concepts behind each technique that he ever demonstrated. He did not like passing on soulless techniques. =)

[Fresh]

Good to know you guys are so much more informed and practical than WSL!

[Knifefighter]

Originally posted by PaulH
I like to point out that WSL as I understand always stressed understanding WC principles and concepts behind each technique that he ever demonstrated. He did not like passing on soulless techniques. =)
Knowing something conceptually is what the theoretical non-fighter likes to do. Just knowing the principles and theory doesn’t necessarily mean something will work.

Case in point- the umoplata shoulder lock in BJJ and MMA. Based on theory, this should be a great fight finisher. You can crank your oppoenent’s shoulder and you can control him while you punch him. In reality, however, it is very rarely able to be used as a finisher, even by the best fighters. However, one wouldn’t know this unless it had been tested out many times in competitions and fights.

[PaulH]

I always believe in testing out your understanding of “techniques” in Beimo or trial of skills. =)

[Vajramusti]

Just knowing the principles and theory doesn’t necessarily mean something will work.

Of course not. Good wing chun folks do test and make their adjustments. But not really necessary to covince trolls of anything.

[PaulH]

Joy,

I’m kind of delighted of what KF wrote on this thread. It reminds me of one of my favorite articles that I read many years ago. It’s good to be refreshed. =)

http://home.vtmuseum.org/articles/peterson/wongbeimo.php

[Vajramusti]

Good article PaulH. I have read it before.Thx.