Is Wing Chun being used the wrong way in fighting?

[drop bear]

The initial strategy for approach and recovery may be different, but, when contact is made both scenarios (street & ring) are quantifiably equal in mindset. At this point the idea is to survive the encounter. The idea that Wing Chun is designed for the street, therefore, unusable without significant modification in the ring, is a fallacy. There are known rules in a competition, this means one knows what they can legally do and what they can expect to defend against. There are no rules in a street altercation and the variables are unknown, making a successful outcome way more elusive. It should be easier to prepare and defend in a competition compared to a street altercation if the body and mind are trained equally. Unless the argument is that you can do whatever necessary to defend yourself in the street and you train a number of odd and arcane scenarios. If so, then you have to ask yourself, is that spontaneous reaction of grabbing, spitting, hair pulling, biting, eye gouging, testicle grabbing, screaming, running, object throwing etc. part of your Wing Chun system? Is it in the forms? Do you drill it from all positions? Do those movements adhere to Wing Chun strategy, principles, theory & biomechanics?

All of this, regardless of what street system you do requires you to be able to fight first and foremost. I put you in an eyegouge off with a boxer. You are going to have a bad day. I put you in a hair pull with a wrestler you will loose. This basic functional craft is the most important thing you can master. Well before you start training to find a brick lying around to stave someone's head in.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Well before you start training to find a brick lying around to stave someone's head in.

The brick is the best street fight weapon. In one group fight, the moment that the fight started, a guy went to find brick. When he came back with brick in his hand, the fight was already over.

 

[drop bear]

The brick is the best street fight weapon. In one group fight, the moment that the fight started, a guy went to find brick. When he came back with brick in his hand, the fight was already over.

Well it takes a while to find the right brick.

 

[geezer]

Dave -- I don't entirely agree with all of what you said, but I like that you are putting it out there! The point I was trying to make above was simply that self defense and competitive fighting have areas of overlap, but have very different objectives. Surviving and winning are very different things.

This becomes very clear if you take it to extremes. For example: I hold with the old teaching that self defense begins with awareness, avoidance, de-escalation, escape, and lastly (if all else fails) physical defense against an assailant (or multiple assailants). According to this scale, the best self defense is awareness and avoidance -- i.e. never getting into a fight, followed by de-escalation and escape -- i.e. talking your way clear or running away. I've never seen a competitive fighting art that trains avoiding competition, and failing that, advocates jumping out of the ring and running away!

Now even if you aren't in a position to run away and have to resort to physical action, the objective of the defender in an attack is not the same as that of a competitor in the ring. However, there is much in common, as you point out, including toughness and determination, and not being rattled by the first punch you take. Certainly combat sports train that very well.

 

[Nobody Important]

Dave -- I don't entirely agree with all of what you said, but I like that you are putting it out there! The point I was trying to make above was simply that self defense and competitive fighting have areas of overlap, but have very different objectives. Surviving and winning are very different things.

This becomes very clear if you take it to extremes. For example: I hold with the old teaching that self defense begins with awareness, avoidance, de-escalation, escape, and lastly (if all else fails) physical defense against an assailant (or multiple assailants). According to this scale, the best self defense is awareness and avoidance -- i.e. never getting into a fight, followed by de-escalation and escape -- i.e. talking your way clear or running away. I've never seen a competitive fighting art that trains avoiding competition, and failing that, advocates jumping out of the ring and running away!

Now even if you aren't in a position to run away and have to resort to physical action, the objective of the defender in an attack is not the same as that of a competitor in the ring. However, there is much in common, as you point out, including toughness and determination, and not being rattled by the first punch you take. Certainly combat sports train that very well.

My point is essentially that an art cannot train a mindset separately from the physical application of that mindset. They are symbiotic. I've witnessed schools do this, they discuss mindset in depth but fail to put it into action. I've seen schools focus on "what if's" while neglecting fundamentals, and I seen schools use Chi Sau as if it's the penultimate of self-defense action. I can't agree with this approach or condone the ideology of a "street defense" narrative it supports.

Wing Chun is a wonderful system, for what it was designed for. Unfortunately, I feel that many have the wrong assumptions about it. I can effectively use a wrench as a hammer, but that doesn't mean that's what it was designed for, and as a result, we have a myriad of conflicting ideologies and methods that do little to contradict my ascertations.

I don't begrudge anyone for their beliefs, but I'm a scientist, and if you want to convince me that your methodology is correct, I need proof not faith based testimony.

 

[Nobody Important]

All of this, regardless of what street system you do requires you to be able to fight first and foremost. I put you in an eyegouge off with a boxer. You are going to have a bad day. I put you in a hair pull with a wrestler you will loose. This basic functional craft is the most important thing you can master. Well before you start training to find a brick lying around to stave someone's head in.

Willingness to fight is important, without that mindset, learning how to fight will do little good. But aside from that, my point was, relying on hairpulling, eye gouging etc. As an integral part of your "arsenal" is foolish, just as is depending on low percentage applications. People need to stick to well tested fundamentals and work from there.

 

[KPM]

If it becomes a more "strategic" (meaning the testing, measuring etc) it is at a disadvantage. On the street, in the best case scenario, you knockout/cripple your opponent BUT even if your opponent is still capable of fighting BUT you've knocked him on his ***, injured him to the point they won't chase you or say "okay this isnt worth it", thus giving yourself the opportunity to escape you win, unlike a competition where you .

----I see what you're saying. But I would also point out that in a street altercation it may start as a surprise attack and you may have to go "all out" and "blitz" the attacker....but.....the second there is a pause in the action because your blitz didn't quite shut him down, you are facing off and are going to have to make some "strategic" decisions. So the question would be....how often does your initial response do the trick and how often is there a break in the action where you might have to engage again? If there is a break before another engagement, then you are in a fight my friend. And as Dave pointed out, a fight is a fight.


Think of it like Warfare. There are many types of warfare and the tactics are different as well as the tools. So to me Wing Chun is like guerrilla warfare where it's good enough to just hurt your enemy really bad and get out ASAP.

---But in the end, warfare is warfare and fighting is fighting. Too often people (not you) try to use the "Wing Chun is for self defense not sparring" argument to justify why they suck so bad at sparring or simply never do it. But a fight is a fight. If someone can't get their Wing Chun to work in sparring, how in hell do they think they are going to get it to work in a real fight on the street?

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Wing Chun is a wonderful system, for what it was designed for. Unfortunately, I feel that many have the wrong assumptions about it.

If you can do this, you don't need anything else.

 

[KPM]

I'll answer your last question first. Yes, we did have a dust up and let me explain with a question. Is Wing Chun the structure or the principles & theory?

---I don't think that quite answers my question.

They can exist seperately, so it's hard to justify the argument that it is both.

---Jeet Kune Do uses most of the principles of Wing Chun, but not the structure. So is JKD a version of Wing Chun? Some have said "yes", most JKD guys would say "no." I have yet to see Wing Chun structure without the principles and theory, since so many of those principle and theories embody the structure that is used to express them. In other words....Wing Chun structure without the principles and theories would likely not work at all.


When you speak of using boxing as the base & refining with Wing Chun, I think you've nailed what I'm speaking too and IMO a proper use of Wing Chun, ergo you are doing Wing Chun but not the instructional system of it.

----Maybe I"m too much of a purist. But I would not say I am doing Wing Chun, just like I would not say that JKD is a version of Wing Chun. I would say I am doing Wing Chun Boxing! I am doing Boxing that is heavily influenced by Wing Chun. I could the drop the Wing Chun at any point and just Box. Boxing is the base mechanic. That is why I would say it is not Wing Chun. But...on the other hand...I look at what Mark Phillips is doing and I see Wing Chun that is heavily influenced by Boxing. But I would say he is still doing Wing Chun. I think its a spectrum. Mark Phillips is on one end, Paul Rackemann is on the other and I am somewhere in between. But if Mark Phillips was to use more and more boxing mechanics.....start using jabs/crosses/hooks/ducks/weaves/etc...then I would say he is doing boxing and not Wing Chun. To me the "engine determines the art." The base mechanics...the way you move and generate power...is what defines things. You can use all the theories and concepts and refinements you want. But the engine makes the art.....the gross motor skill...the base....that is the art.

That's the difference, I don't believe the instructional (classical, traditional, formal, etc.) system of Wing Chun was meant to be used as a stand alone all inclusive fighting method. Its a tool used to refine an actual simple method, like boxing or San Da.

---Yeah I like that idea. I like what you are saying. I'm just not too sure it was true on an historical basis though. When Leung Jan taught Wing Chun in Ku Lo village, those villagers weren't refining a base art. They were learning Wing Chun from the ground up. Yuen Kay Shan, Ip Man, and Yiu Choi made their reputations fighting with Wing Chun. Not fighting with Hung Ga or some other village art that had been refined by Wing Chun.

 

[drop bear]

If it becomes a more "strategic" (meaning the testing, measuring etc) it is at a disadvantage. On the street, in the best case scenario, you knockout/cripple your opponent BUT even if your opponent is still capable of fighting BUT you've knocked him on his ***, injured him to the point they won't chase you or say "okay this isnt worth it", thus giving yourself the opportunity to escape you win, unlike a competition where you .

----I see what you're saying. But I would also point out that in a street altercation it may start as a surprise attack and you may have to go "all out" and "blitz" the attacker....but.....the second there is a pause in the action because your blitz didn't quite shut him down, you are facing off and are going to have to make some "strategic" decisions. So the question would be....how often does your initial response do the trick and how often is there a break in the action where you might have to engage again? If there is a break before another engagement, then you are in a fight my friend. And as Dave pointed out, a fight is a fight.


Think of it like Warfare. There are many types of warfare and the tactics are different as well as the tools. So to me Wing Chun is like guerrilla warfare where it's good enough to just hurt your enemy really bad and get out ASAP.

---But in the end, warfare is warfare and fighting is fighting. Too often people (not you) try to use the "Wing Chun is for self defense not sparring" argument to justify why they suck so bad at sparring or simply never do it. But a fight is a fight. If someone can't get their Wing Chun to work in sparring, how in hell do they think they are going to get it to work in a real fight on the street?

Also forcing a blitz puts you in a war of attrition. I would prefer to hang back and not get punched as much.

 

[KPM]

I hold with the old teaching that self defense begins with awareness, avoidance, de-escalation, escape, and lastly (if all else fails) physical defense against an assailant (or multiple assailants). According to this scale, the best self defense is awareness and avoidance -- i.e. never getting into a fight, followed by de-escalation and escape -- i.e. talking your way clear or running away. I've never seen a competitive fighting art that trains avoiding competition, and failing that, advocates jumping out of the ring and running away!

I agree with you Steve! But how many schools that don't spar, that say Wing Chun was not meant for competition, that say Wing Chun is for self defense....how many of them really take that seriously and emphasis the points you just outlined? If they really took the idea seriously that Wing Chun is a self defense art, then they would spend FAR more time on mental strategies, environmental awareness drills, surprise attack drills in full body armour protection, and FAR FAR less time on Chi Sau! Their classes would look more like a Krav Maga class and less like a Tai Chi class!

 

[Nobody Important]

I'll answer your last question first. Yes, we did have a dust up and let me explain with a question. Is Wing Chun the structure or the principles & theory?

---I don't think that quite answers my question.

They can exist seperately, so it's hard to justify the argument that it is both.

---Jeet Kune Do uses most of the principles of Wing Chun, but not the structure. So is JKD a version of Wing Chun? Some have said "yes", most JKD guys would say "no." I have yet to see Wing Chun structure without the principles and theory, since so many of those principle and theories embody the structure that is used to express them. In other words....Wing Chun structure without the principles and theories would likely not work at all.


When you speak of using boxing as the base & refining with Wing Chun, I think you've nailed what I'm speaking too and IMO a proper use of Wing Chun, ergo you are doing Wing Chun but not the instructional system of it.

----Maybe I"m too much of a purist. But I would not say I am doing Wing Chun, just like I would not say that JKD is a version of Wing Chun. I would say I am doing Wing Chun Boxing! I am doing Boxing that is heavily influenced by Wing Chun. I could the drop the Wing Chun at any point and just Box. Boxing is the base mechanic. That is why I would say it is not Wing Chun. But...on the other hand...I look at what Mark Phillips is doing and I see Wing Chun that is heavily influenced by Boxing. But I would say he is still doing Wing Chun. I think its a spectrum. Mark Phillips is on one end, Paul Rackemann is on the other and I am somewhere in between. But if Mark Phillips was to use more and more boxing mechanics.....start using jabs/crosses/hooks/ducks/weaves/etc...then I would say he is doing boxing and not Wing Chun. To me the "engine determines the art." The base mechanics...the way you move and generate power...is what defines things. You can use all the theories and concepts and refinements you want. But the engine makes the art.....the gross motor skill...the base....that is the art.

That's the difference, I don't believe the instructional (classical, traditional, formal, etc.) system of Wing Chun was meant to be used as a stand alone all inclusive fighting method. Its a tool used to refine an actual simple method, like boxing or San Da.

---Yeah I like that idea. I like what you are saying. I'm just not too sure it was true on an historical basis though. When Leung Jan taught Wing Chun in Ku Lo village, those villagers weren't refining a base art. They were learning Wing Chun from the ground up. Yuen Kay Shan, Ip Man, and Yiu Choi made their reputations fighting with Wing Chun. Not fighting with Hung Ga or some other village art that had been refined by Wing Chun.

What isn't well known about those old master's you mentioned is that they had foundations in other arts. And I'll disagree, there is enough difference in those master's approaches to insist that they were using blended methods. Yuen family is heavily influenced by White Crane and has a heavy emphasis on grappling, this isn't found in Yip Man's system. Some old branches are heavily influenced by Hung Gar, Pao Fa Lian for example. Wing Chun took its modern shape & approach long after its development. Much of this approach was altered to conform to popular trends of the day. We don't know what these old master's fighting looked like. And each successive generation adds their own developments and ideas to it. Many, unforunfortunately based on what's popular, not what's coherent. In a way it's coming full circle, but the lines are becoming blurred because of how minutia and semantics are interpreted, Wing Chun like Boxing has many different "engines".

 

[Gerry Seymour]

What isn't well known about those old master's you mentioned is that they had foundations in other arts. And I'll disagree, there is enough difference in those master's approaches to insist that they were using blended methods. Yuen family is heavily influenced by White Crane and has a heavy emphasis on grappling, this isn't found in Yip Man's system. Some old branches are heavily influenced by Hung Gar, Pao Fa Lian for example. Wing Chun took its modern shape & approach long after its development. Much of this approach was altered to conform to popular trends of the day. We don't know what these old master's fighting looked like. And each successive generation adds their own developments and ideas to it. Many, unforunfortunately based on what's popular, not what's coherent. In a way it's coming full circle, but the lines are becoming blurred because of how minutia and semantics are interpreted, Wing Chun like Boxing has many different "engines".

Interesting. This is starting to sound a lot like some of the discussions I've had about Ueshiba's Aikido.

 

[Juany118]

If it becomes a more "strategic" (meaning the testing, measuring etc) it is at a disadvantage. On the street, in the best case scenario, you knockout/cripple your opponent BUT even if your opponent is still capable of fighting BUT you've knocked him on his ***, injured him to the point they won't chase you or say "okay this isnt worth it", thus giving yourself the opportunity to escape you win, unlike a competition where you .

----I see what you're saying. But I would also point out that in a street altercation it may start as a surprise attack and you may have to go "all out" and "blitz" the attacker....but.....the second there is a pause in the action because your blitz didn't quite shut him down, you are facing off and are going to have to make some "strategic" decisions. So the question would be....how often does your initial response do the trick and how often is there a break in the action where you might have to engage again? If there is a break before another engagement, then you are in a fight my friend. And as Dave pointed out, a fight is a fight.


Think of it like Warfare. There are many types of warfare and the tactics are different as well as the tools. So to me Wing Chun is like guerrilla warfare where it's good enough to just hurt your enemy really bad and get out ASAP.

---But in the end, warfare is warfare and fighting is fighting. Too often people (not you) try to use the "Wing Chun is for self defense not sparring" argument to justify why they suck so bad at sparring or simply never do it. But a fight is a fight. If someone can't get their Wing Chun to work in sparring, how in hell do they think they are going to get it to work in a real fight on the street?

I agree with you completely on the last point, if you can't make it work when you pressure test, it's not working, however let's go back to my initial analogy... Warfare.

Warefare is not warfare. If I say "Guerrilla army face off against this conventional Army with armored vehicles on this open plain, no choice..." The former will get DESTROYED by the later because you are fighting on their terms. As such the type of pressure testing matters.

When I studied previously, and sometimes currently, the Sifus do NOT let you test. They have you surrounded by your classmates, yelling at you to attack. If you start doing what I am personally inclined to do while sparring, test and problem methodically, you are yelled at. If you back up you are bouncing into a fellow student who pushes you at your opponent. You are forced to blitz attack, and defend against such. So again, as I have said before, it's as much about the training as the art itself, if not more so. This is why I am always careful to qualify my opinions as my personal experience.

 

[drop bear]

I agree with you completely on the last point, if you can't make it work when you pressure test, it's not working, however let's go back to my initial analogy... Warfare.

Warefare is not warfare. If I say "Guerrilla army face off against this conventional Army with armored vehicles on this open plain, no choice..." The former will get DESTROYED by the later because you are fighting on their terms. As such the type of pressure testing matters.

When I studied previously, and sometimes currently, the Sifus do NOT let you test. They have you surrounded by your classmates, yelling at you to attack. If you start doing what I am personally inclined to do while sparring, test and problem methodically, you are yelled at. If you back up you are bouncing into a fellow student who pushes you at your opponent. You are forced to blitz attack, and defend against such. So again, as I have said before, it's as much about the training as the art itself, if not more so. This is why I am always careful to qualify my opinions as my personal experience.

But you can incorporate a drill that does anything.

When I did BJJ we butflopped every chance we got so therefore the street.

 

[Juany118]

But you can incorporate a drill that does anything.

When I did BJJ we butflopped every chance we got so therefore the street.

I am confused because I am not talking about drills, not even a little bit. Clarify please.

 

[drop bear]

I am confused because I am not talking about drills, not even a little bit. Clarify please.

You have set up a training scenario where blitzing is the only viable response.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

You have set up a training scenario where blitzing is the only viable response.

I thought that was the point he was making.

 

[drop bear]

I thought that was the point he was making.

Could be. I thought it was more an indication of how blitzing works in real time.

 

[Juany118]

You have set up a training scenario where blitzing is the only viable response.

Yes but it isn't a drill. It's at "spar" intensity, so I would say calling it a "drill" isn't quite right. To me a drill and pressure testing are two different animals. That's what confused me.