What if Wing Chun remained a concept...

[Nobody Important]

Sometimes so, sometimes not. VT concepts are quite specific and not that open to free creative interpretation.

That can be debated, but I understand where you are coming from and won't disagree outright.


You are talking about system understanding, i.e. concept and principle upon which the system is based- why different systems do different things, not personal understanding

Ones level of understanding leads to their interpretation, no argument to be found here. Adherence to specific structural patterns is directly related to interpretation of a concept, but this can be altered with more knowledge.

It would depend on the concept and the system. Some ideas are not assimilable into some systems because they cause contradiction with ideas already present. You can't integrate the concept of avoiding blows to the head by slipping, bobbing and weaving very effectively into VT for example because it contradicts llhs, lsjc. Likewise it would be counter productive to integrate VT ideas into BJJ.

Agree if importing a systems worth of concepts, but I'm not, only one or two key ones that may be missing or beneficial. I think you may be confusing structure with concept, perhaps not. We only have to look to MMA to see that integrating different concepts can and do work, otherwise it wouldn't be mixed martial arts. Now some purist may say that integrating something into an art changes it to where it is no longer that art. I disagree. CMA masters have a vast history of borrowing from other styles to give their respective arts an edge or specific identity. This doesn't mean because they did so that they no longer practice style X. It is because of this innovation specifically that we have family systems of specific arts, it's why there are so many branches of WC. People interpret and apply according to their understanding. This changes all the time, with knowledge comes understanding.

 

[yak sao]

So I'm curious , how have you integrated fung gar into your WC?
Did it fill some gaps that were there or just enhance some attributes that were already there.

 

[geezer]

Three core concepts of DTE (Direct Torres Escrima/ Direct Torres Extreme-MMA): 1. Establishing Advantageous Position and Range ("Get an Angle"), 2. Diamondpoint or pin-point transition from parry to attack (shortest path = maximum efficiency), 3. Continuous Forward Intent (relentless forward pressure, even when retreating).

DTE founder Martin Torres, his head-coach Jeff La Torre, and their staff help apply these concepts to boxing, grappling, Escrima, ...even to VT. He coaches people from diverse backgrounds using these concepts and helps us all become move effective in what we do. Each in our own way. It's possible because the concepts apply universally, whereas techniques are situationally specific responses.

Maybe this is the sort of thing the OP was talking about?

 

[Nobody Important]

So I'm curious , how have you integrated fung gar into your WC?
Did it fill some gaps that were there or just enhance some attributes that were already there.

No, I did not. I do not study or know Fung Gar. I used it as an example of an art of concepts that has survived until today. The question I asked was what if Wing Chun had never developed forms? Would the infighting surrounding purity be as extensive as it is today? All other comments have been supporting comments to questions asked.

 

[Nobody Important]

Three core concepts of DTE (Direct Torres Escrima/ Direct Torres Extreme-MMA): 1. Establishing Advantageous Position and Range ("Get an Angle"), 2. Diamondpoint or pin-point transition from parry to attack (shortest path = maximum efficiency), 3. Continuous Forward Intent (relentless forward pressure, even when retreating).

DTE founder Martin Torres, his head-coach Jeff La Torre, and their staff help apply these concepts to boxing, grappling, Escrima, ...even to VT. He coaches people from diverse backgrounds using these concepts and helps us all become move effective in what we do. Each in our own way. It's possible because the concepts apply universally, whereas techniques are situationally specific responses.

Maybe this is the sort of thing the OP was talking about?

Yes this type of thing exactly. I'm afraid my communication skills don't appear up to par. That and people cherry picking, baiting, etc. Lol. Thank you for providing a concise example.

 

[geezer]

Yes this type of thing exactly. I'm afraid my communication skills don't appear up to par. That and people cherry picking, baiting, etc. Lol. Thank you for providing a concise example.

No worries. There are folks who will argue with you if you say the sky is blue! Anyway, for what it's worth, I train traditional WC/VT and with the DTE guys. Sometimes the traditional guys don't like it. But they tolerate me.

 

[yak sao]

No, I did not. I do not study or know Fung Gar. I used it as an example of an art of concepts that has survived until today. The question I asked was what if Wing Chun had never developed forms? Would the infighting surrounding purity be as extensive as it is today? All other comments have been supporting comments to questions asked.

Just a simple question don't get your panties in a wad
If this is something you had done I was genuinely interested and how it worked and what it did for you.

 

[Nobody Important]

Just a simple question don't get your panties in a wad
If this is something you had done I was genuinely interested and how it worked and what it did for you.

No wad, lol. No need to be insulting, as I wasn't trying to come off as sensitive. I was just stating, for the third time now, I do not study it. Thank you for your interest.

 

[JowGaWolf]

You are looking at very poor examples. But I guess that's a good thing if my opponent knows what MA I train and makes these assumptions about how I might fight them.

Show me a video of what you think is a good example of Wing Chun.

 

[Nobody Important]

Show me a video of what you think is a good example of Wing Chun.

Rabbit hole now open! This should get interesting, lol!

 

[yak sao]

No wad, lol. No need to be insulting, as I wasn't trying to come off as sensitive. I was just stating, for the third time now, I do not study it. Thank you for your interest.

So what you're saying is you don't practice fung gar?...
And I apologize for being insulting

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

What if Wing Chun had remained a concept of loose techniques,

I have evolved Tan Da and double Tan Shou into "rhino guard". To me the WC Tan Da is like the boxing guard except that you fight in your opponent's territory instead of to fight in your own territory.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Three core concepts of DTE (Direct Torres Escrima/ Direct Torres Extreme-MMA): 1. Establishing Advantageous Position and Range ("Get an Angle"), 2. Diamondpoint or pin-point transition from parry to attack (shortest path = maximum efficiency), 3. Continuous Forward Intent (relentless forward pressure, even when retreating).

#2 doesn't apply to circular fighting systems. For Circular fighting systems it's not the shortest path that determines maximum efficiency. For circular systems it's that path that offers the least amount of resistance. You can throw a punch at my face as hard as you want and I'll be able to redirect it with less effort than it took for you to throw the punch. The more committed you are to that punch the easier it will be for me to redirect it. If I redirect your punch I can continue that movement along a circular path to build up momentum to deliver a very hard counter punch. Circular systems try to flow without stopping and starting, which is what you get from a jab that goes forward and then comes back. Not saying that # 2 is wrong and I'm right. Just pointing out different perspectives of efficiency from a different system

#3 Continuous Forward Intent (relentless forward pressure, even when retreating). This is the first time I've heard someone express it as Forward Intent instead of Always moving forward. Forward Intent which is totally different than just saying relentless forward pressure. Usually I hear Foward pressure expressed as in always moving forward continuously. You can tell when people in WC have that assumption because they always look as if they are trying to run into their opponent with a series of punches. Hopefully we'll start seeing the term Forward Intent being used more often because I think that is a more accurate description and it applies to a lot of fighting systems and not just WC.

 

[Nobody Important]

So what you're saying is you don't practice fung gar?...
And I apologize for being insulting

Lol, no problems sir. Thank you.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

#3 Continuous Forward Intent

The forward intend is a 2 edges sword. When you move in toward your opponent, you opponent doesn't have to move in toward you. You just save him some extra "footwork".

When I'm tired, I like to play defense. I just wait for my opponent to move in. The moment that my opponent moves in, the moment that I'll attack his leading leg. Since my opponent moves in that leading leg for me, it takes me no effort to get it.

 

[Nobody Important]

The forward intend is a 2 edges sword. When you move in toward your opponent, you opponent doesn't have to move in toward you. You just save him some extra "footwork".

When I'm tired, I like to play defense. I just wait for my opponent to move in. The moment that my opponent moves in, the moment that I'll attack his leading leg. Since my opponent moves in that leading leg for me, it takes me no effort to get it.

This is a fairly common strategy in the fight game. Though one that doesn't have to be used defensively. It's a go to in MMA for take downs, timed right it's very hard to defend.

 

[Nobody Important]

I have evolved Tan Da and double Tan Shou into "rhino guard". To me the WC Tan Da is like the boxing guard except that you fight in your opponent's territory instead of to fight in your own territory.

How would you define that as a concept and not as a technique? I ask to see if the concept would hold up if a different technique was used for the application.

 

[JowGaWolf]

The forward intend is a 2 edges sword. When you move in toward your opponent, you opponent doesn't have to move in toward you. You just save him some extra "footwork".

Well forward intent doesn't mean that you are always literally moving forward. This is why I like the term. I can display Forward Intent without actually punching. I can punch with Forward Intent without actually moving forward. The concept of focusing to punch then inside of the target vs punching at the surface of the target would be Forward Intent in my book. I can draw someone in, with the purpose of moving and punching forward while they are moving forward which results in a more effective punch. To me, in some cases, drawing someone in by moving backward, is forward intent. Forward Intent could mean that just the body weight moves forward even if the feet do not. It can also mean as you say and the body (feet and all) is moving forward.

I drill a technique where we punch going backwards and from the start it looks like the drill is totally useless. At first the students thought it was useless. Their opinions about the drill changed when we started using the punching pads. All of the students with the pads, including me got hit in the face with the pad because the punches came in harder than one would expect while going backwards. Form the pad holders eyes we see a person going backwards. From the puncher's eyes they know they are moving backwards but that forward intent makes it feel like you are fighting forward. For us that backwards movement is more of a re-positioning than a movement backwards. Sometimes we'll move backwards for the main purpose of moving forward. Real movement backwards often has Backwards Intent with the goal of not engaging.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

How would you define that as a concept and not as a technique? I ask to see if the concept would hold up if a different technique was used for the application.

If you draw a line between your head and your opponent's head, all straight line attack will have to go through that line. If you put both Tan Shou in that straight line, your opponent's straight line attack will have to pass your both Tan Shou before his hands can reach to your head. If you can let your opponent to feel that your arms are in his striking path and make him feel uncomfortable, you are doing the right thing.

This to me, is principle/concept/strategy and not just technique.

 

[Nobody Important]

If you draw a line between your head and your opponent's head, all straight line attack will have to go through that line. If you put both Tan Shou in that straight line, your opponent's straight line attack will have to pass your both Tan Shou before his hands can reach to your head. If you can let your opponent to feel that your arms are in his striking path and make him feel uncomfortable, you are doing the right thing.

This to me, is principle/concept/strategy and not just technique.

I understand your thinking here. The only issue I see, and this could just be the illustration, is with arms extended & hands clasped. This creates a triangle that is being attacked at its weak points. In this case the elbows. Shoulders are base, hands apex. Those are the support and power respectively, to neutralize that we are taught to attack the weak point, in this instance the elbow. Are your elbows bent or straight when doing this?