"No Outside Game," or Another Thread About Hybrid Arts

[Gerry Seymour]

Steve likes to be a bit grouchy. Doubt any answer would be sufficient

Meh, he's usually reasonable, but stubborn.

 

[Transk53]

Meh, he's usually reasonable, but stubborn.

Yeah I guess Actually I quite like him, an argument is a argument, but he does see reason. IMHO of course.

 

[wingchun100]

Yeah I guess Actually I quite like him, an argument is a argument, but he does see reason. IMHO of course.

Grumpy is one thing. Insulting and immature is another.

 

[Juany118]

Bruce is said to have known up through the first section or two of the dummy. Ip Man is often quoted as saying something along the lines of if his Chum Kiu level students couldn't hold their own, then there was a problem! So while Bruce Lee was certainly no Wing Chun "master", I think he had a pretty grasp of the way the system functions. And just a note, bridging in from the outside to get to an "in-fighting" range is not the same thing as having an "outside game." That's simply skipping past the "outside game."

The thing is WC has an outside game (at least mine does). Much respect for Guro Dan but you need to remember his most formative time in terms of WC was with Bruce Lee. Much respect for Bruce but as you said he never finished the system and I think much of what he added to Jun Fan Gung Fu and then JKD was to fill not so much the gaps in WC but the gaps in his training. You can have a solid basic understanding of a system and still have a perception their are "holes" in a particular area if you haven't learned the entire system. I sometimes wonder if this is why Sigung Cheung put the kicks into TWC's Chum Kiu, so people saw the "long game" earlier. No I know there is mnore to the long game than kicks, but they are a big part of it.

Now, that all said, is the long game as developed as other arts? No, but the idea it is not there is what kinda drives me nuts.

Now this isn't to say that WC doesn't have some major holes. I think the largely linear nature of the striking limits potential angles of attack a bit. In a real fight, if your opponent is bobbing and weaving, having a more rounded (pun intended) ability to attack and defend can be useful. Most notably imo, the ground game, and ground game defense more importantly, is pretty lacking. If you are going to consider trying to hybrid anything, or as I prefer finding something that you can kinda "plug and play" in a modular fashion, I thinkl you want to start at the most notable hole and that, imo, is the ground game and ground game defense.

 

[Steve]

Grumpy is one thing. Insulting and immature is another.

Poor, poor wingchun100. Someone's always saying bad things about your style, and no one ever criticizes any other style.

Except that this isn't true. Every style is bashed around here, and for the most part, it's pretty well warranted. Even BJJ. I mean, really. You sure showed your "friend" what for. Made him look like a real dumbass. Didn't you? But that's totally different, I'm sure.

And I'm not grumpy. I just have a low threshold for bs.

 

[Juany118]

This is probably another of those circumstances where good statistics simply aren't going to be available. Given the relatively small number of multiple-attacker incidents, the relatively small number of martial artists (in the population), and the way such things are (and are not) reported, the best we can probably do is draw reasonable conclusions.

The primary reason for training against multiple attackers (at least in NGA) is to learn to navigate through and around them. If there are only 2 (as if that's an "only"), then a fighter may have a chance to defeat both if he/she outclasses each one individually or just gets lucky and finishes the first one very fast. Beyond that, if running is an option, then it's the best option. Since the defender will be fueled by the fear of death, they will probably have a larger adrenaline surge than the pursuers, which will be enough if he/she is reasonably fit, reasonably fast, and has somewhere to run to. If that "somewhere to run to" isn't an option, then fighting may be all that is left.

My take. First I think being attacked, in training, by multiple attackers, is simply to force people to fight against such odds. Even if you are going to lose, and there is no avenue of escape, it is important (imo) to try and teach someone to not simply go into metaphorical fetal position and take the beating. Then we have what you note.

In so far as statistics on MA and self defense I think it would be a largely impossible experiment. There are simply too many variables. As an example we keep VERY good track of guns when used in the commission of a crime, or self defense and the effect of a gun when a bullet hits it mark is equally well understood and there are only so many ways one can actually fire a gun. Even with all that we can't even come close to figuring out what is myth and what is real in terms of the overall effectiveness of gun ownership as it relates to self defense due to a host of issues..

Now lets look at Martial arts. Where a gun can be seen as the ultimate equalizer in terms of size/sex/strength differences, martial arts tend to exploit these rather than balance them out. You have a myriad of training methods in various schools, even if you are talking about the same MA. Then you have to come up with some way to account for the ability/experience of the practitioner (we all know the black belt who does the forms/katas like a dancer but can't spar to save their life, let alone fight) As much as we may want to quantify the world around us, some things have too many variables to allow for any substantial conclusions.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Poor, poor wingchun100. Someone's always saying bad things about your style, and no one ever criticizes any other style.

Except that this isn't true. Every style is bashed around here, and for the most part, it's pretty well warranted. Even BJJ. I mean, really. You sure showed your "friend" what for. Made him look like a real dumbass. Didn't you? But that's totally different, I'm sure.

And I'm not grumpy. I just have a low threshold for bs.

You are being a bit over-much on this one, Steve.

 

[KPM]

The thing is WC has an outside game (at least mine does). .

Ah! But "Traditional Wing Chun" is not "Ip Man Wing Chun." TWC is not what Bruce Lee learned in Hong Kong. No one ever saw TWC until after William Cheung was in Australia for several years. TWC does indeed have more of a outside game than other versions of Wing Chun. TWC has even been described at times in the past as a "long arm" version of Wing Chun. I have been around Wing Chun for a long time and I can tell you that an "outside game" is not somehow hidden in the advanced levels as you seem to be suggesting.

 

[Vajramusti]

I haven't seen a version of Wing Chun yet that demonstrated an actually effective "outside game." Would love to see it if it exists! But as far as your question....you hit on it above! Bruce Lee recognized that Wing Chun typically doesn't have a good outside game and sought to fix that. So JKD makes the perfect "hybrid" in that regard....giving Wing Chun an outside game. I think this is one of the reasons Wing Chun typically looks like crap when sparring. No real outside game.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
IMO JKD does not add anything important to wing chun. Wing chun emphasizes plum blossom footwork in the range of direct attack and defense. You can walk or run ina balanced way until you reach the plum blossom range.Extensive footwork takes over in the plum blossomrange.

 

[Juany118]

Ah! But "Traditional Wing Chun" is not "Ip Man Wing Chun." TWC is not what Bruce Lee learned in Hong Kong. No one ever saw TWC until after William Cheung was in Australia for several years. TWC does indeed have more of a outside game than other versions of Wing Chun. TWC has even been described at times in the past as a "long arm" version of Wing Chun. I have been around Wing Chun for a long time and I can tell you that an "outside game" is not somehow hidden in the advanced levels as you seem to be suggesting.

Admittedly TWC is YM WC according to my Sifus though obviously there are some differences as well. While that is what I know best but every YM WC Sifu I have even just chatted with at tournaments and the like has always been annoyed by the YM WC vs Jun Fan/JKD debate because they don't see Bruce having added anything to make JF/JKD "longer" than WC and the brush it off as Bruce being a bit cocky and thinking he filled a gap that didn't really exist. However the grappling game is another story entirely.

/Shrug

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

they don't see Bruce having added anything to make JF/JKD "longer" than WC ...

Bruce Lee brought the circular movements into WC such as:

- hay-maker, and
- spin kick.

 

[JP3]

I was thinking of a video Dan Inosanto did where he said wing chun had "no outside game." He was talking about long-range stuff, of course. Over the last few months I thought about this statement, and it made me wonder: what style with long-range attacks would make a good hybrid with wing chun?

I don't see tae kwon do being one.

Getting late to this thread. Apologies.

Just Curious, why the final statement in the quoted bit, above? Is there a fundamental stance principle difference in WingChun vs. TKD? I've no idea, having never done WC myself. I mixed in the TKD with Muay Thai really easily, and blended that into... of all things, aikido/aikijutsu (talk about opposite ends of things). So, just wondering.

 

[Juany118]

Bruce Lee brought the circular movements into WC such as:

- hay-maker, and
- spin kick.

I know that but I don't see things like that as "making" or "breaking" an outside game. Now don't get me wrong, it isn't the best outside game. It basically exists so you can get to the inside game or find yourself trapped outside so it's not a "balanced" game. I am just not a fan absolute statements unless truly necessary.

 

[KPM]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
IMO JKD does not add anything important to wing chun. Wing chun emphasizes plum blossom footwork in the range of direct attack and defense. You can walk or run ina balanced way until you reach the plum blossom range.Extensive footwork takes over in the plum blossomrange.

That's one opinion. I think JKD adds a lot to Wing Chun. Otherwise Bruce Lee wouldn't have bothered to develop it. And again, walking or running into "plum blossom range" is not the same thing as having an "outside game."

 

[KPM]

Admittedly TWC is YM WC according to my Sifus though obviously there are some differences as well. While that is what I know best but every YM WC Sifu I have even just chatted with at tournaments and the like has always been annoyed by the YM WC vs Jun Fan/JKD debate because they don't see Bruce having added anything to make JF/JKD "longer" than WC and the brush it off as Bruce being a bit cocky and thinking he filled a gap that didn't really exist. However the grappling game is another story entirely.

/Shrug

Ah! But I don't think they knew what they were talking about if they had never actually studied JKD. That would be the equivalent of talking to Ip Man Wing Chun Sifu about TWC. Do you think any of them would say it was an improvement or added anything to Ip Man Wing Chun? Bottom-line....everyone will think they are doing the best thing, otherwise they would be doing something else!

 

[drop bear]

Ah! But I don't think they knew what they were talking about if they had never actually studied JKD. That would be the equivalent of talking to Ip Man Wing Chun Sifu about TWC. Do you think any of them would say it was an improvement or added anything to Ip Man Wing Chun? Bottom-line....everyone will think they are doing the best thing, otherwise they would be doing something else!

wing chun does not exactly dominate the striking world. I can see why people would try to improve on it.

 

[wingchun100]

I can understand why people who don't practice a style would post on the board, but what I don't understand is why people who don't RESPECT a style post here. If you can't say anything other than short little jabs meant to annoy, then go post elsewhere.

Then again, the "ignore" button is always a handy little feature...so I digress. Carry on; I won't be able to see it anyway!

 

[Juany118]

Ah! But I don't think they knew what they were talking about if they had never actually studied JKD. That would be the equivalent of talking to Ip Man Wing Chun Sifu about TWC. Do you think any of them would say it was an improvement or added anything to Ip Man Wing Chun? Bottom-line....everyone will think they are doing the best thing, otherwise they would be doing something else!

Thing is I do speak to my old Sifu on occassion (WSLVT via Gary Lam) we find that most of the differences (in practical application) comes from the blind side concept. In short, while all YM WC (maybe all WC period?) Sees the opponent's centerline as something that can be accessed 360 degrees, TWC says "okay, if that is the case why charge into the fatal funnel in the first place then" and puts more emphasis on your half of the centerline plane and footwork to move out of the fatal funnel.

But I even know people who study Jun Fan and JKD and they say the curriculum is Wing Chun on steroids. (More though the Jun Fan though)

And note I am not saying Wing Chun has no room for improvement. Even the striking game can use some improvements. I am just saying focus on where the largest weakness is. Ground game and more importantly ground game defense.

Think of it like a house. Do you go about replacing floors in the living room when you find out the porch roof is about to collapse, or fix the porch?

That all said, I'll hit you up private side with some of the GL stuff that is on my first point. Don't want to bore others

 

[drop bear]

I can understand why people who don't practice a style would post on the board, but what I don't understand is why people who don't RESPECT a style post here. If you can't say anything other than short little jabs meant to annoy, then go post elsewhere.

Then again, the "ignore" button is always a handy little feature...so I digress. Carry on; I won't be able to see it anyway!

I can see why people think you are whiney.

Not a jab. An observation.

 

[Vajramusti]

Thing is I do speak to my old Sifu on occassion (WSLVT via Gary Lam) we find that most of the differences (in practical application) comes from the blind side concept. In short, while all YM WC (maybe all WC period?) Sees the opponent's centerline as something that can be accessed 360 degrees, TWC says "okay, if that is the case why charge into the fatal funnel in the first place then" and puts more emphasis on your half of the centerline plane and footwork to move out of the fatal funnel.

But I even know people who study Jun Fan and JKD and they say the curriculum is Wing Chun on steroids. (More though the Jun Fan though)

And note I am not saying Wing Chun has no room for improvement. Even the striking game can use some improvements. I am just saying focus on where the largest weakness is. Ground game and more importantly ground game defense.

Think of it like a house. Do you go about replacing floors in the living room when you find out the porch roof is about to collapse, or fix the porch?

That all said, I'll hit you up private side with some of the GL stuff that is on my first point. Don't want to bore others

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wing Chun on steroids? Nonsense. Jun Fan & JKD- Bruce Lee's play and he left Hong Kong before going deeply into wing chun.
But what he did learn gave him a good start.