Wing Chun vs MMA

[Juany118]

Which is 4/5ths of the rest of the martial arts in the world, to be honest.

Fair enough.

That's the point of training. Even without "the right mindset" training takes over. Humans drop back to what I call "robo-droid." Robo-droid will repetitively do whatever it is he's been programmed to do. Programming robo-droid isn't hard but it takes lots of time and repetitions. If robo-droid isn't properly programmed he may sit there in an infinite loop trying to get a handle on whatever is going on around him, always a few tics behind (OODA theory). A lot of modern training theory is to take advantage of base human instincts and to help use "anger" or "survival instinct" to program robo-droid. This is particularly true of most modern military training.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

I think it has to be the right training though. To many places just teach the moves. Yes in training, at home practicing they become automatic, but then biology kicks in. If you lack the mind set and aren't conditioned to what happens when fight/flight kicks in and your heart rate climbs you start getting tunnel vision and lose fine motor skills. So your perception becomes limited and even with the muscle memory your limbs just don't move as fast as you want or even in the way you want.

The military and LE certainly use stress training (though LE no where near as much as they should due to budget stuff) but one of the reasons I ended up at my current school isn't really because I said "I want to learn Wing Chun and Kali", it was because I had been failing to find a place that taught "combative" martial arts and had a focus on training you to adapt to fight/flight dynamic. I live in the greater Philly area as well so it's not like there is a dirty of schools around here.

Of course the schools in your area may be different.

 

[drop bear]

No what I am saying is MMA competitors are training in MMA because it is optimized for that specific environment. A Wing Chun guy, in the octagon, tied to the rules of an MMA fight, would be at a disadvantage to be sure. I simply believe the jury is still out when it comes to MMA v whatever, outside of the octagon and with the rules removed in a real hostile encounter where there are no gloves, no target is out of bounds etc.

I won't lie, I could be the best Wing Chun guy on the planet, but if all I knew was Wing Chun I would be VERY hesitant to put on gloves and step into that octagon, that said running into an MMA guy on the street I wouldn't have that same hesitancy because I would have access to a lot of maneuvers I could not use under the MMA rules. Being able to go for the eye, groin, throat, small joint manipulation, the back of the head etc opens up a lot of avenues to balance the scales and make this, imo, a matter of on the street, not in the octagon, there is not enough data to overturn the old rule of its the fighter, not the art. /Shrug

Wait a sec.

If you want to get all sciencey then you need to suply enough data to support your statement that it is the individual not the art.

Not the other way round.

 

[drop bear]

hink it has to be the right training though. To many places just teach the moves. Yes in training, at home practicing they become automatic, but then biology kicks in. If you lack the mind set and aren't conditioned to what happens when fight/flight kicks in and your heart rate climbs you start getting tunnel vision and lose fine motor skills. So your perception becomes limited and even with the muscle memory your limbs just don't move as fast as you want or even in the way you want.

Didn't you just say it was the individual not the system?

 

[Juany118]

Didn't you just say it was the individual not the system?

Yes, I wasn't talking about the system itself, the manner of strikes, grappling etc., I was talking about how the instructor helps make the "warrior's mind" so to speak. It doesn't matter what Martial art you use, if you don't have the right mind set and an ability to control and/or cope with the effects of the hormonal cascade that comes from fight or flight, the art is irrelevant. One of the ways to do this involves training BUT it is not a training specific to any art.

I'll use an example a method of fire arms training. Instead of just going up and putting holes in paper; sprint for 25 yards to the 15 yard line, drop and do 15-20 push-ups as fast as possible. Stand up and wait to draw and fire until the range officer yells "threat!!!" From the call of threat you have 3 seconds to put 2 rounds on target. Now that actual skill in firearms (martial art) doesn't start until after you hear "threat"...everything else is just an exercise to get your body under stress. The first time you do this exercise, if you have no other stress training, I can almost guarantee that you will not hit the kill zone and likely not get both rounds in the silhouette.

The same, in my experience applies to the Martial Arts. Many, if not all, of the tools to help teach the student to deal with this physiological dynamic though can be used across all Martial Arts, regardless of the mechanics of them.

You can do some training wearing a Halloween mask to simulate tunnel vision (which the exercise I noted above can't create as the tunnel vision comes from a HUGE adrenaline dump brought about by legitimate fight/flight). This teaches you to use scanning techniques. While Martial Arts have done this for centuries the modern military community actually speaks to the use ofhttp://loadoutroom.com/2778/tactical-breathing/ to help moderate the impact the stress and adrenaline dump have on your heart beat and this then Moderates the degree of tunnel vision and loss of fine motor skills. While learned these are can be learned independent of any specific art and they have a measurable impact on the individual.

As for the idea of proving that it is the art and not the fighter, you are essentially asking me to prove a negative, to an extent. There is no metric on which to reasonably compare due to all of the variables that go into any fight. The combination of skill along with relative size and strength, the way the encounter starts (sudden attack or on "the bell"), confined space or open space, actual experience not simply in the Martial Art, or even competition but in "real" (for lack of a better term) fighting, there are a multitude of variables.

The only way to come up with an objective metric would be to run a controlled experiment. To do this you would need identical twins, have them go through the same physical training, get the same experience in their respective martial arts, throw them into the same incidents so they share the same experience in "real" fights etc. This kind of "control" is impossible.

So all we can do is gather the data we can. We have accounts of every Martial Art, including MMA, having its practitioners lose in street fights against other styles. MMA guys have been knocked out by boxers, as an example.

It's not only that though. As a simple matter of logic, if someone claims to have built a better mouse trap, it is that person's obligation to prove it is objectively better. See above however because just as I admit it's impossible to prove my theory to a 100% degree of scientific certainty, the guy who says he has the better mouse trap can't prove that either because creating the control is impossible.

 

[Juany118]

On a side note, if the art you take involves knife training like Kali you can use these to help stimulate fight or flight response. Shocknife®. My current Sifu teaches both Kali and Wing Chun and keeps hemming and hawing about getting these. When you know you will get hit with over 7000 volts if you get hit and you see and hear the sparking... yeah that gets the heart racing. I suppose any art could use it though since most teach some for of disarm.

 

[drop bear]

I'll use an example a method of fire arms training. Instead of just going up and putting holes in paper; sprint for 25 yards to the 15 yard line, drop and do 15-20 push-ups as fast as possible. Stand up and wait to draw and fire until the range officer yells "threat!!!" From the call of threat you have 3 seconds to put 2 rounds on target. Now that actual skill in firearms (martial art) doesn't start until after you hear "threat"...everything else is just an exercise to get your body under stress. The first time you do this exercise, if you have no other stress training, I can almost guarantee that you will not hit the kill zone and likely not get both rounds in the silhouette.

That is the system affecting success not the individual.

 

[drop bear]

On a side note, if the art you take involves knife training like Kali you can use these to help stimulate fight or flight response. Shocknife®. My current Sifu teaches both Kali and Wing Chun and keeps hemming and hawing about getting these. When you know you will get hit with over 7000 volts if you get hit and you see and hear the sparking... yeah that gets the heart racing. I suppose any art could use it though since most teach some for of disarm.

At $400 bucks a pop. I will just stick with the aluminium knives.

 

[drop bear]

As for the idea of proving that it is the art and not the fighter, you are essentially asking me to prove a negative, to an extent. There is no metric on which to reasonably compare due to all of the variables that go into any fight. The combination of skill along with relative size and strength, the way the encounter starts (sudden attack or on "the bell"), confined space or open space, actual experience not simply in the Martial Art, or even competition but in "real" (for lack of a better term) fighting, there are a multitude of variables

No.

If it is the fighter and not the art. Then why do you see people who have been trained in a skill better at that skill?

It would work out that training anything at the same intensity has the same benifits.

It would also remove your argument that you could beat a mma fighter on the stree due to some training you do that they don't.

So you would need to remove your paradoxicall statements to make that statement work.

 

[Juany118]

That is the system affecting success not the individual.

When you do this kind of training, and the other training aids I noted, it does effect the individual though. The mask, as an example, when used regularly scanning becomes second nature as does regularly practicing controlled breathing, both at rest and under stress. All of these things involve using your muscles and these muscles can develop muscles memory just as the limbs you use to fight do, it's simply a memory that is not specific to any particular art.

 

[drop bear]

When you do this kind of training, and the other training aids I noted, it does effect the individual though. The mask, as an example, when used regularly scanning becomes second nature as does regularly practicing controlled breathing, both at rest and under stress. All of these things involve using your muscles and these muscles can develop muscles memory just as the limbs you use to fight do, it's simply a memory that is not specific to any particular art.

So it is the system not the individual.

I am getting lost here. Which one is it?

It is specific to itself. You have picked one specific method of training.

 

[Juany118]

At $400 bucks a pop. I will just stick with the aluminium knives.

i would never buy one BUT if the Sifu wants to spend the clubs money on them, it's not my wallet lol.

 

[Juany118]

No.

If it is the fighter and not the art. Then why do you see people who have been trained in a skill better at that skill?

Doesn't this prove my point? If "Bob" and I both get the same amount of training, get into the same street fights etc and Bob is still better than me isn't heir something about him, the fighter that is the difference.

It would work out that training anything at the same intensity has the same benifits.

.

Actually not true, as an example it is proven that there are physiological differences that make people better suited than others. The differences between fast twitch and slow twitch muscles. I am also an avid cyclist. Miguel Indurain has a documented 7.8 liter lung capacity vs the 6 liter average. If strength in important you have people like me, I will never have it. In the Army I feel like a champ and was pumping iron everyday, at one point with a personal trainer, my metabolism was simply not suited to gaining muscle mass in any major way . Add to that those people that simply have a natural talent.

Ultimately there are too many variables to make a 100% confirmed statement in either direction, so all we have is anecdotal evidence. There we see MMA is where to bet in the Octagon, on the street you bet on the person.

But again that is simply my subjective conclusion.

 

[drop bear]

Doesn't this prove my point? If "Bob" and I both get the same amount of training, get into the same street fights etc and Bob is still better than me isn't heir something about him, the fighter that is the difference

No. The idea that someone is naturally athletic and will take more advantage of training over someone who isn't.

Is completely different to it is not the style it is the individual.

 

[Juany118]

No. The idea that someone is naturally athletic and will take more advantage of training over someone who isn't.

Is completely different to it is not the style it is the individual.

It's the same, if you look at people holistically. Lets say we are both studying Kali and you are naturally stronger, have a slightly fast natural reaction time etc. We spend the same amount of time training. Barring bad luck chances are you will beat me Everytime. Experience + dedication to training are not, imo, the only measures of a Martial Artist. You also must + the natural physical attributes of the Martial Artist, for these are also part of what makes the individual, at least imo.

 

[lklawson]

Beating the enemy is a deeper philosophy. Because it requires you to constantly beat yourself.

My friend, I'm happy to help you with your philosophy. Stand there, don't move, and I'll take this here stick...



Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[lklawson]

You can't even use the Gracie's as an example. When they basically started MMA they invited their opponents and since part of their point was to sell BJJ they invited dang good fighters of other arts but not the best either.

I assume that means you're unfamiliar with "The Gracie Challenge."

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[drop bear]

My friend, I'm happy to help you with your philosophy. Stand there, don't move, and I'll take this here stick...



Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

Today is a good opus day.

 

[drop bear]

It's the same, if you look at people holistically. Lets say we are both studying Kali and you are naturally stronger, have a slightly fast natural reaction time etc. We spend the same amount of time training. Barring bad luck chances are you will beat me Everytime. Experience + dedication to training are not, imo, the only measures of a Martial Artist. You also must + the natural physical attributes of the Martial Artist, for these are also part of what makes the individual, at least imo.

But you are also claiming the system has no effec. Which is hoohey.

 

[Juany118]

I assume that means you're unfamiliar with "The Gracie Challenge."

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

I was referring to a specific period of time when they were personally inviting people to Matches when MMA was barely in its infancy. I purposefully committed the Gracie Challenge stuff, especially as it relates to the Pride fights, simply because they didn't involve drastically different styles facing off (example Sakuraba vs Royler). Since the conversation here is about opposing styles, it didn't seem overly relevant.

 

[Juany118]

But you are also claiming the system has no effec. Which is hoohey.

Yes but only because of the variables that the human element brings in. Even all the physicality in the world can be beaten by smarter fighting. I have come out on top more than once simply because I knew the other guy was stronger, and were trained (two boxers and an MMA guy) but I judged based on their life style (smoking, a bit of a beer gut etc) that I had more endurance, so I simply did things that minimized their strength, but kept them in my sphere of control until they tired themselves out.

In the end the individual fighter brings so much to the table that the individual style of fighting is irrelevant if relative skill in that style is equal. Because of this arguing which style is better becomes an exercise in futility.

Because of this if you want to pick a fighting style for yourself it's better to simply look at how much time you have to train (some have higher learning curves), what your body type is, some rely on muscle strength, where others are more about overall structure, speed whatever. What is your temperament, some martial arts are more outwardly aggressive than others etc. What is your purpose for learning martial arts in the first place?

Even if one style was somehow objectively quantified as superior in a general sense but it did not "fit" you as a person, you could end up being less effective as an individual than if you had chosen an "inferior" art.

Example:. I used to take Aikido with a Sensible who taught it as a fighting art. There were applicable moves and it fit my general body type BUT there were two issues but work related. Where I work I have had lots of encounters in narrow hall ways and confined spaces, Aikido often needs "room to maneuver", additionally there are times I need to be a bit more on the offensive and while Aikido can be offensive, that is only a small part of the art, a lot of it is waiting for the other guy to make the first move.

So I went looking. A lot of arts have a lot of kicking. Due to the gear I wear, that was right out. Others have a lot of ground fighting, same reason, right out.

So I chose my school because I am a naturally skinny guy. In terms of unarmed striking both Wing Chun and Kali are about using proper structure to attack, to defend it's about deflection and avoidance vs hard blocking (do not meet force with force) I am pretty quick so the principle of simultaneously attacking while defending works. They both also have various joint locks and takedowns that are work relevant as is the stick work of Kali.

I thought about MMA, it is definitely an effective art but wouldn't have fit me well. It is more strength oriented in how the strikes and defenses are applied. There is also practically a goal of the take down for submissions (at least the instructor near me), but due to all the gear I wear at work it wouldn't make a lot of sense and could even hinder me in getting to and using important tools.

So in terms of what I had available I picked the school that will make me most effective. /Shrug