Hybrid Arts

[Flying Crane]

Hi Flying Crane,

I wasn't aware we ever had a "joining of ways". I'm not sure how to interpret your description of our "parting of ways", other than as a gaslighting comment about who you are putting on your ignore list. A couple others here seem to be engaging in that behavior. I'm here to discuss my primary art.

Can you clarify your meaning here? I don't want to get the wrong idea.

I offered you some honest advice that I think you would do well to consider, but whether or not you do is up to you.

I get the feeling you are not inclined to consider it.

I'm not sure what else you and i might ever need to discuss. You are not on my ignore list however, as that seems to be of some concern to you.

So I say, good luck to you.

 

[Transk53]

Yes, and they work. The wing chun way is the clinch is control the bridge without being controlled. Don't give up mobility by clinching and going to the ground.

Yeah sorry about this. And what being mobile is ever an issue. Going to the ground can be controlled. Okay so in my case that could be a little crude, but the same result nonetheless.

 

[wayfaring]

I offered you some honest advice that I think you would do well to consider, but whether or not you do is up to you.

I get the feeling you are not inclined to consider it.

I'm not sure what else you and i might ever need to discuss. You are not on my ignore list however, as that seems to be of some concern to you.

So I say, good luck to you.

Thanks for the response. I wouldn't have brought it up but you are discussing me publicly with someone else here. I did see you intended your advice as honest. I tried to explain to you that you are singling out one response in the midst of a disagreement over ideas, and you are targeting condescension in one post but giving it a pass in your perceived friends posts here on several others. It doesn't sound like you got my advice there either.

The others in this argument are the ones engaging in gaslighting behavior telling everyone about who they have on their ignore list. So I was just becoming clear that this is not you as well. Thanks for your clarification. That covers my concern regarding ignore lists. Whatever the good or bad behavior is there in your opinion w/r to ignore lists, for me it also is practical. I don't want to answer people's posts who have me on their ignore list.

As I said before, from my perspective we never had a "joining of the ways" so a "parting of the ways" is unnecessary. I'm going to discuss my primary art on this forum and that may or may not involve you. I agreed with one of your comments on hybridizing dissimilar arts. So if concepts keep getting exchanged then in all likelihood I will continue to interact with you.

 

[wayfaring]

Yeah sorry about this. And what being mobile is ever an issue. Going to the ground can be controlled. Okay so in my case that could be a little crude, but the same result nonetheless.

This is a little confusing but I think you are saying that you can control whether or not you go to the ground after the clinch. Yes this is true many times. And again, yes this option is better for LEO's. Keeps your sidearm secure.

Even from a pure grappling perspective, I really like the knee on belly position. it's much easier to choke someone there than in side control. So if whatever you're doing in the clinch ends up with you in knee on belly that's a good option.

 

[Transk53]

This is a little confusing but I think you are saying that you can control whether or not you go to the ground after the clinch. Yes this is true many times. And again, yes this option is better for LEO's. Keeps your sidearm secure.

Even from a pure grappling perspective, I really like the knee on belly position. it's much easier to choke someone there than in side control. So if whatever you're doing in the clinch ends up with you in knee on belly that's a good option.

Yes and no. I am in Britain so the above scenario would be unlikely. For me though knee on chest. But both the chest and stomach are too easy. Weight down easy to counter when not actually down and controlled.

 

[wayfaring]

Yes and no. I am in Britain so the above scenario would be unlikely. For me though knee on chest. But both the chest and stomach are too easy. Weight down easy to counter when not actually down and controlled.

Gotcha. No sidearm. Knee on belly or knee on chest offers a great position where you could proceed from there to either strike or submit. However we are getting there from the bridge is great with me. I kind of see 2 paths there, though. One would be hand fighting chin na to takedown. The other would be control of bridge, striking, pursuit, and opponent goes down through strikes or chi gerk with feet.

 

[drop bear]

Okay, I see that point. With enough time and effort in training I will concede that the right person could likely combine arts that perform the same practical function but use clearly divergent principles.

The way my brain works though I do a cost/benefit analysis. If I felt there was a major "hole" I would prefer to search out an art that shares principles. Otherwise I would need to see a clear advantage in certain circumstances to try and fit two striking methods, that operate under different principles, together to justify the time it would take to integrate because that can be more than a little bit of time away from there other training one can do.

There is a paper,sissors,rock effect in striking that gives advantage to knowing more than one set of striking principles.

 

[Transk53]

Gotcha. No sidearm. Knee on belly or knee on chest offers a great position where you could proceed from there to either strike or submit. However we are getting there from the bridge is great with me. I kind of see 2 paths there, though. One would be hand fighting chin na to takedown. The other would be control of bridge, striking, pursuit, and opponent goes down through strikes or chi gerk with feet.

That sounds really complicated. I don't quite understand those terms. Is this actual self defence that works, or just theory on that fighting aspect?

 

[drop bear]

Here is an example. The goal of my major style Shuai Chiao (Chinese wrestling) is to take my opponent down without going down with him. If I use that goal as guideline, I'll never be able to

- use a throw to obtain dominate position.
- use dominate to start the ground game.

The following clip may be a big no no from my SC teacher point of view. But to me, it's a big improvement.

They also tend to get back up if you haven't pinned them to the deck. which means you have wasted a bunch of time and energy putting them on the deck in the first place. If you have eaten a bunch of shots to get on top of them. Generally you stay there and pay them back.

Otherwise we tend not to hit that arm lock either because it takes us off topside control. Which is a no no for striking groundwork.

But people still do it and get away with it. so we train it.

 

[drop bear]

I think by "philosophical principles" he was referring to, for instance, the gentle harmony of most of Ueshiba's Aikido. That's not a physical principle of the art - it's not what makes the techniques work. There are also those semi-philosophical principles like "don't do x", that exist simply because "x" doesn't lead into prime technical territory for that art. There's nothing really wrong with "x" - it's just not a good thing within the range of that art. A good example of this might be, "never go to the ground". It's a good principle for arts with no ground game, but for someone in BJJ, it's certainly not a "never" principle.

You need to know why you re doing it and the risks rewards involved. There are places you can go to ground even if the other guy have a better ground game.

 

[wayfaring]

That sounds really complicated. I don't quite understand those terms. Is this actual self defence that works, or just theory on that fighting aspect?

Sorry I was just going over likely ways in a fight scenario you could get to knee on chest. Usually people don't lay down for you. I was trying to describe the first way as through a more common method of a clinch leading to a takedown. The second way would be either through a knockdown or through in wing chun when you get an opening and take someones balance you have them on the run striking and can step on or entangle their legs as you punch. That leads to them going down and to knee on chest. That's in general what I was trying to describe but I used too many jargon/internal art descriptions.

 

[drop bear]

I can relate a lot more to the detail in this type of post than in a generic YOUs responsibility generalization like the previous exchange.

Yes, I can appreciate the experience in Sanda combined with shuai chiao. This approach is actually pretty much mostly what you see in modern MMA and does combine striking / grappling. The arts combined at the MMA place I spar at are dutch muy thai, wrestling (freestyle & greco), and BJJ or nogi submission grappling. There may be a little more there as to the submission finishes, but otherwise similar approach to what you are doing and talking about.

MMA even drills great combos like you mention a bit above - I'm thinking of inside leg kick -> 2 punch -> double-leg takedown. Or even there are guys so good at seeing you start to plant your lead leg on a jab and time the double leg.

I mean maybe you are like a MMA coach and can coach your guys how to combine some striking and grappling principles.

I however, am starting to see something in my core wing chun art that I had not previously. There is a limitation to me in a primarily handfighting approach. Why punch to set up a clinch and clinch to take down? Is this most efficient? Does this preserve the best self defense position including considering the possibility of this not being a 1 on 1 encounter?

We dont clinch much. Just shoot straight on them. Then clinch if they are still standing.

 

[Transk53]

They also tend to get back up if you haven't pinned them to the deck. which means you have wasted a bunch of time and energy putting them on the deck in the first place. If you have eaten a bunch of shots to get on top of them. Generally you stay there and pay them back.

Otherwise we tend not to hit that arm lock either because it takes us off topside control. Which is a no no for striking groundwork.

But people still do it and get away with it. so we train it.

Eaten a bunch of shots?

 

[drop bear]

Because the punch is weighted to sting only, thus giving a window for the clinch/grapple for the take down and restrain.

No.
Every move exept an obvious fake should be designed to work. The punch knocks them out. If it doesn't the clinch/grapple is following up.

Short changing the move you are doing to pull off the next one in combination is a common mistake.

 

[drop bear]

Eaten a bunch of shots?

Been punched a lot.

 

[Transk53]

Sorry I was just going over likely ways in a fight scenario you could get to knee on chest. Usually people don't lay down for you. I was trying to describe the first way as through a more common method of a clinch leading to a takedown. The second way would be either through a knockdown or through in wing chun when you get an opening and take someones balance you have them on the run striking and can step on or entangle their legs as you punch. That leads to them going down and to knee on chest. That's in general what I was trying to describe but I used too many jargon/internal art descriptions.

Yes that is correct. A knock down is what it is. The opening is always what we know, but how we dictate things. I would suggest you think on that. Violence, you know that?

 

[Transk53]

Been punched a lot.

Yes. Domestic abuse, then I learnt.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

That leads to them going down and to knee on chest.

Here is an example.

 

[Transk53]

No.
Every move exept an obvious fake should be designed to work. The punch knocks them out. If it doesn't the clinch/grapple is following up.

Short changing the move you are doing to pull off the next one in combination is a common mistake.

short changing is not a common mistake, it is a tool.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

We dont clinch much. Just shoot straight on them. Then clinch if they are still standing.

I used to believe that I can use a punch to set up a take down. One day my friend said, "If I just move back when you move in, there is no way that you can get me." I tried on him many times, he was right. How to solve that problem? I have noticed that if I can establish a "hook" between his body and my body, when he moves back, he will "pull" my body with him. That "hook" is part of the "clinch". After that day, I add an extra step between punching and take down and that is to

- use a punch to set up a clinch.
- use a clinch to establish a take down.