Wing Chun vs MMA

[Kung Fu Wang]

John, you are the "go to" guy for Shuai Chiao, and you have knowledge of WC. Have you ever offered seminars specifically for WC guys to help them learn how do incorporate more throws? Old as I am, its something I'd sign up for!

I have had workshops for MA guys in general. I have not had workshop only for WC guys. One of my long time students was a WC instructor. He learned WC in HK (don't know who his teacher was). When he came to me, he wanted to exchange his WC knowledge with my SC knowledge. After he found out that I had already cross trained the WC system, he had been with me for the past 20 years.

 

[drop bear]

Events List - SportMartialArts.com

Pretty much any "open" tournament that allows multiple styles to compete.

If they are

Not only this. Wing Chun and other arts were not designed to also be a sport so you have to look at how it works in street fights. We know WC, and Yip Man, in the West largely because it was Bruce Lee's first Martial Art. However in Hong Kong where street fights and no glove matches between rival gangs, sorry, Martial Art Schools... were common in the Chaos of the 50's and 60's. Yip was famous there before Bruce Lee gained fame, not because of any personal exploits (the movies are fun but insanely fictionalized) but because his students regularly won these fights against the rival schools/gangs.

There is ONE major drawback to WC though and it definitely leads to it not being wide spread in terms of success in the West especially. It can be learned fairly quickly (after you get over the initial "hump") BUT it also, in my experience is more perishable than some other arts. More than a few techniques require fine vs gross motor skills you commonly find in western boxing. The problem with fine motor skills is that, while you can build just as effective muscle memory as a gross motor skills (anyone who does combat shooting training knows what I am talking about) they require far more maintenance or they degrade relatively quickly. This means you will have a lot of people pick it up saying to themselves "Ip Man!!!! Bruce Lee!!!!!" But not put in the continual work necessary, they then get frustrated and move to other arts.

I get this all the time .

How do you look at how a martial art does in street fights?

I mean even if we were just to go through YouTube and news articles there are more sport arts than street arts in street fights.

But apparently I am just supposed to accept this at face value.

Not we have to look at street fights and here is all these examples of a consistent theme.

Now the other half of this issue is that if you define success by street fight. How the hell do you grade your students?

 

[drop bear]

Sanda has a lot of catching your opponent's kicking leg and take him down. IMO, WC training in this area is not emphasized enough.

Yeah. I was hoping sanda at least would have a decent chun representation being Chinese and all.

And don't catch kicks like that if you like the shape of your head.

 

[drop bear]

No I didn't point to him as an effective Wing Chun user, only that he is associated specifically with the Art.

Here is the problem. Bruce Lee really didn't know Wing Chun completely and, it's Ip Man's fault. (Heresy time). Why Ip Man's fault?

1. He was traditional and refused out right to teach to foreigners. Lee was half Caucasian and it is not unknown that this made Ip uncomfortable.
2. Ip Man's teaching style was equally traditional. He basically showed you technique once, used few words. You got it or you didn't. He was happy to answer questions, it showed the student was engaged BUT not questions? One and done AND that was if you were lucky enough to have him teach you. Most of the teaching, when Lee joined the school, was done by senior students.

These alone would create issues. Add to the fact Lee studied Wing Chun from 1956-57 to 1959 before his parents sent him off to the US because the cops kept showing up at their door because of all the fights he was in, you have someone with incomplete training, by no fault of his own.

Lee was incredibly gifted physically but he simply didn't know enough about Wing Chun. It's even evidenced in his critique. He said Wing Chun has only one range. Not true, yes the bread and butter of many lineages is close range but it has all four ranges he said made JKD different (long/kicking, medium/punch, close/trapping, and yes grappling range, Wing Chun has Chin Na, heck it even teaches ground fighting defense it's just usually taught later once you have the first three down. Now please note this is from my experience, the Wing Chun I learn, is Ip Man lineage via the not uncontroversial Grand Master William Cheung line) . Second that Wing Chun is static and lacks mobility also not true.

This is not a critique of Jun Fan Gung Fu or JKD btw. Only that sometimes you can come up with good ideas and results from a spark born of a false premise or assumptions born of the fact you don't realize your knowledge is limited.

Of course Lee did not have to know all wing chun. Because as a gifted individual that is all that really matters.

The individual not the system.

 

[Ironbear24]

If they are

Well if you don't want to take my word for it, thats understandable, I gave you the places you asked so if you want more proof call them up yourself.

 

[drop bear]

Well if you don't want to take my word for it, thats understandable, I gave you the places you asked so if you want more proof call them up yourself.

That was just a messy quote. That got tacked on by accident.

The only issue that may be with those open tournaments is that they have no contact or attract meh... fighters.

Be like being an interclub champion or something.

Wako world cup for example.

That would not exactly be a vehicle forchun to show of it merits.

The Bushido open.

 

[Juany118]

Of course Lee did not have to know all wing chun. Because as a gifted individual that is all that really matters.

The individual not the system.

You are correct on the last. The issue I was addressing was the claim I was responding to. Short form "if you don't fully understand something then and criticism you have of it lacks a firm foundation." That is why I said he was a very gifted person and did not attack the two arts he developed.

 

[Ironbear24]

That was just a messy quote. That got tacked on by accident.

The only issue that may be with those open tournaments is that they have no contact or attract meh... fighters.

Be like being an interclub champion or something.

Wako world cup for example.

That would not exactly be a vehicle forchun to show of it merits.

The Bushido open.

So why are these fighters meh compared to the ones in an octagon? I get that they wear more gear but you can't say there isn't a lot of contact, they are using lots of force.

 

[lklawson]

That was UFC 4, in 1994. Groin shots have been against the rules for some time now as have 12-6 elbows actually (forgot about that change). These rules have been in place since the mid 2000s. These rules were a double edged sword for different fighters, in the eyes of some. In terms of fouls, they hurt people who leaned too hard towards striking. Small joint manipulation fouls and the imposition of short rounds, hurt the "tire em out, wait em out" style of people who leaned hard towards grappling like the Gracie's back in the day.

Don't get me wrong MMA is a dang effective Art for the people who put the time and effort into it, all I am saying is that in the Octagon with the gloves on and the rules in place it gains an advantage over other arts because MMA was designed with those rules in mind. I am actually struggling to understand why this idea is controversial tbh.

Rules and Regulations - Unified Rules and Other MMA Regulations

The point is that it didn't make any real difference. It's not a game changer.(mobile)

 

[lklawson]

Example, since really I was never speaking only bout WC but martial arts in general Jujutsu. It was developed to fight an armored opponent when either unarmed or armed with short weapons.

Um... no.

 

[Juany118]

Um... no.

So what you are saying is (summing up all 4 of your responses is)

First: So in the Octagon, unlike every other sport there are no aggregates. In this case multiple, while marginal, losses creating a disadvantage to one and consequently an advantage for the other. So if you have an MA that uses various techniques, that are outlawed, to counter an MMA technique, they don't compound on one another.

I don't know if you have ever engaged in a competitive sport at a decent level but even marginal losses/gains can be what defines a loser and winner. That's what PEDs are all about. It doesn't turn a plow horse into a thoroughbred but it will give you the edge to be the winner and turn the other into a loser when everything else is equal.

Second:Jujutsu wasn't designed to deal with armed attackers with limited striking due to the armor of say a Samurai? That flies in the face of every history written about the art I have read, as well as the history of the Art taught in classes. When I studied Aikido the Sensei was also a Jujutsu instructor. He was HUGE on the history of Aikido and that history must include the history of Jujutsu. It was even integrated into Samurai training for this very purpose.

The original arts it evolved from, whether India, China etc are indeed lost but as to how/why it evolved in Japan is pretty firmly established, namely to be an unarmed way to deal with an armored and armed opponent. But don't take my word for it or even spend money on a book, Google is our friend.

 

[drop bear]

So why are these fighters meh compared to the ones in an octagon? I get that they wear more gear but you can't say there isn't a lot of contact, they are using lots of force.

Ok. If they are the standard. There is still no wing chun representation.

 

[drop bear]

You are correct on the last. The issue I was addressing was the claim I was responding to. Short form "if you don't fully understand something then and criticism you have of it lacks a firm foundation." That is why I said he was a very gifted person and did not attack the two arts he developed.

You dont have to fully understand anything. Just be athletic.

Because it is the individual not the system.

And you may be getting an idea why it is such a non argument in this context.

 

[Juany118]

You dont have to fully understand anything. Just be athletic.

Because it is the individual not the system.

And you may be getting an idea why it is such a non argument in this context.

You are right in general. it's cool to say "I don't like WC..."I don't like chocolate cake..." etc. because it is about the practitioner and their personal tastes.

Thats said, you do need to have a true understanding of something to criticize specific techniques in detail. If you do not know how to bake how do you criticize the method a Pastry Chef uses to make the cake batter, icing and then actually bake the cake?

Lee did something similar. He didn't just say

"I didn't like WC, I should have been able to beat Wong easily and the fight lasted over 20 minutes, me getting to finally pounce because he lost his footing. So I came to JKD by first making Jun Fan Gung Fu because it suits my physical attributes better imo."

That would be fine. Instead Lee made factually wrong statements such as "Wing Chun has only one range" and "Wing Chun is not mobile or dynamic." The last one is even more puzzling because Wong was also a WC practitioner and Lee tried to pass off the length of that challenge match to Wong being a mobile "runner."

To the critical thinker there is a difference between expressing a general dislike for something and then making factually wrong comments in an attempt to critique something.

 

[Hanzou]

Bruce Lee aside, the problem is this;

And that result isn't because of a lack of groin shots and downward elbow thrusts.

 

[crazydiamond]

About Sijo Lee's famous fight with Wong, it was my understanding it was about reforming his approach from both a martial arts stand point and a fitness standpoint. He felt it took him too long and he was too winded at the end. See video below.

The things I admire about Sijo Lee was his tremendous desire to study, learn and improve himself and his "personal" Martial arts - by studying many other marital arts - and also to improve his body and fitness. It just makes sense to me to study every thing and find things that work for you. For example you will have many many fitness people say "do this weight lifting exercise - not this one" or "my fitness system work theirs don't". I can attest personally that by studying many different types of exercise and fitness routines I learned somethings don't work - and others do. A bit from here and a bit from there. Also keeps changing as I age and study other things. I love the techquies I learn from WC, and in fact was mildly criticized by one respected JKD expert for following certain WC forms and language/terms in my training. Ah well.

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1727000127581421

 

[lklawson]

So what you are saying is (summing up all 4 of your responses is)

First: So in the Octagon, unlike every other sport there are no aggregates. In this case multiple, while marginal, losses creating a disadvantage to one and consequently an advantage for the other. So if you have an MA that uses various techniques, that are outlawed, to counter an MMA technique, they don't compound on one another.

I don't know if you have ever engaged in a competitive sport at a decent level but even marginal losses/gains can be what defines a loser and winner. That's what PEDs are all about. It doesn't turn a plow horse into a thoroughbred but it will give you the edge to be the winner and turn the other into a loser when everything else is equal.

No. What I'm saying is that your claims that groin strikes are all that important don't align with the known facts. They're not magic wands and a good number of people just ignore them.

Second:

Jujutsu wasn't designed to deal with armed attackers with limited striking due to the armor of say a Samurai?

Only partially true. Some included that but a lot did not. Heck it's utterly STUPID to try to deal with armed and armored attackers while unarmed, never mind the idea of creating an entire martial art around it. And the Japanese weren't stupid. Fighting unarmed is what you do while you try to get to a weapon, because something went horribly wrong and you were, for some reason, unprepared.

That flies in the face of every history written about the art I have read, as well as the history of the Art taught in classes.

Do more reading. There were hundreds, possibly thousands, of different styles of JuJutsu. Some were more inclusive than others. Some were more focused than others. To make such a broad statement about "JuJutsu" is, first, inaccurate, and second, implies that either all JuJutsu styles were the same or there was only one style. maybe Chris Parker will drop in and add his two-bits (It'll actually be more like a Kilobit, but whatever), but, nevertheless, it's just not accurate.

When I studied Aikido the Sensei was also a Jujutsu instructor. He was HUGE on the history of Aikido and that history must include the history of Jujutsu. It was even integrated into Samurai training for this very purpose.

That's nice. But not exactly accurate.

The original arts it evolved from, whether India, China etc are indeed lost but as to how/why it evolved in Japan is pretty firmly established,

It?

namely to be an unarmed way to deal with an armored and armed opponent.

No. At best, that only tells a very partial story. At best.

But don't take my word for it or even spend money on a book.

Which one? I rather enjoyed Nariama's but also have a special place for Kano's. Draeger's was interesting but the Indo's contest some of his writing about their stuff. I also liked Yerkow because he has some very fascinating connections (very important works). Uyenishi's work is considered a "must read." There seem to be a lot of really good ones, but my absolute favorite has got to be Harrison because it really captures that 19th Century context.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Juany118]

No. What I'm saying is that your claims that groin strikes are all that important don't align with the known facts. They're not magic wands and a good number of people just ignore them.

Only partially true. Some included that but a lot did not. Heck it's utterly STUPID to try to deal with armed and armored attackers while unarmed, never mind the idea of creating an entire martial art around it. And the Japanese weren't stupid. Fighting unarmed is what you do while you try to get to a weapon, because something went horribly wrong and you were, for some reason, unprepared.

Do more reading. There were hundreds, possibly thousands, of different styles of JuJutsu. Some were more inclusive than others. Some were more focused than others. To make such a broad statement about "JuJutsu" is, first, inaccurate, and second, implies that either all JuJutsu styles were the same or there was only one style. maybe Chris Parker will drop in and add his two-bits (It'll actually be more like a Kilobit, but whatever), but, nevertheless, it's just not accurate.

That's nice. But not exactly accurate.

It?

No. At best, that only tells a very partial story. At best.

Which one? I rather enjoyed Nariama's but also have a special place for Kano's. Draeger's was interesting but the Indo's contest some of his writing about their stuff. I also liked Yerkow because he has some very fascinating connections (very important works). Uyenishi's work is considered a "must read." There seem to be a lot of really good ones, but my absolute favorite has got to be Harrison because it really captures that 19th Century context.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

Regarding the first bit I am not just talking about groin strikes, or just 12 to 6 elbows, or just small joint manipulation, or just striking the spine, back of head, or just striking the throat or just the eyes etc. It is all of these in aggregate that create the issue. WC and many other traditional arts use almost all of these manuvers and more that are on the "foul" list. You are correct in that the removing of simply one or two isn't a big deal but the more you remove the greater effect it has and the art designed with these fouls in mind eventually gains a noticeable advantage. That advantage actually becomes more pronounced when you get to the highest levels as well. Why because once you are fit enough, experienced and well trained enough, the number of tools in your arsenal becomes all the more important and the more tools that get removed by the rules the more disadvantaged you become.

Now you may say "well then study the arts more suited to the Octagon" and I would say "if I wanted to fight in the Octagon I would." I have no desire to do so however and take away those rules, the gloves, the limits the Octagon itself creates, suddenly many traditional arts find themselves on far more even terms with MMA.

As for Jujutsu I would say you are right in that there are many different styles. The styles from which Aikido decended from though are the arts adopted by the Samurai and the were designed to deal with an armed and armored opponent. You may say it is stupid to attack such an opponent, and if you are just walking down the street minding your own business I would say you are correct. If however you are a Samurai, or Japanese soldier serving under a Samurai, in a battle fighting for your Lord, and you lost your weapon you could not just run away, you had to keep fighting, and that is where Jujutsu came in. We're you still at a disadvantage? Hell yes, but the purpose of Jujutsu was to minimize that disadvantage and give you a fighting chance. The only other option is to just take a knee and let the enemy take your head without a fight.

 

[lklawson]

Regarding the first bit I am not just talking about groin strikes, or just 12 to 6 elbows, or just small joint manipulation, or just striking the spine, back of head, or just striking the throat or just the eyes etc. It is all of these in aggregate that create the issue. WC and many other traditional arts use almost all of these manuvers and more that are on the "foul" list.

And all of them together, even when not on a "foul blows" list still didn't make all that big a difference. Small joint manipulation, all those special elbows (which aren't still in), and nutsmacks simply weren't "game changers."

Now you may say "well then study the arts more suited to the Octagon"

Nope. I'm going to say, "reexamine your base assumptions. I don't care if you fight octagon or not. However, it bugs me when I see someone drawing conclusions based on inaccurate base assumptions.

As for Jujutsu I would say you are right in that there are many different styles. The styles from which Aikido decended from though are the arts adopted by the Samurai and the were designed to deal with an armed and armored opponent.

Daito Ryu and Tenjin? Seriously? Still no. Both of those systems have attempted to include unarmed against armed, but to claim that those two systems were designed for for the purpose of allowing the unarmed person to successfully combat and armed and armored opponent is just not so. Did you miss where I referenced Nariyama Sensei?

You may say it is stupid to attack such an opponent,

No. I said it's stupid to decide to fight an armed and armored opponent if you are unarmed. The point of trying to do so is to live long enough to access your own weapons. Frankly, it's just stop-gap, "oh crap!" stuff. Thinking it's anything else is just, well, fantasy.

If however you are a Samurai, or Japanese soldier serving under a Samurai, in a battle fighting for your Lord, and you lost your weapon you could not just run away, you had to keep fighting, and that is where Jujutsu came in. We're you still at a disadvantage? Hell yes, but the purpose of Jujutsu was to minimize that disadvantage and give you a fighting chance. The only other option is to just take a knee and let the enemy take your head without a fight.

What? How do you think armies fought anyway? Even peasant foot-soldiers had more than one weapon. A mounted samurai had his horse, probably a lance, both swords, maybe a bow, and a whole bunch of his friends working in formation with him. Because trying to fight as individuals against an army, without a formation, is suicidal and only something they do in the movies.

I'm sorry, but your description that "JuJutsu" "was developed to fight an armored opponent when either unarmed or armed with short weapons" is unfortunately shallow.

Look, I'm not trying to bust your chops on this, but it's a little akin to saying "Jets were developed to fly faster than anything else." Well, a few of them kinda were, yeah, but to try to reduce them down to just that is unfortunately shallow.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Juany118]

And all of them together, even when not on a "foul blows" list still didn't make all that big a difference. Small joint manipulation, all those special elbows (which aren't still in), and nutsmacks simply weren't "game changers."

Nope. I'm going to say, "reexamine your base assumptions. I don't care if you fight octagon or not. However, it bugs me when I see someone drawing conclusions based on inaccurate base assumptions.

Daito Ryu and Tenjin? Seriously? Still no. Both of those systems have attempted to include unarmed against armed, but to claim that those two systems were designed for for the purpose of allowing the unarmed person to successfully combat and armed and armored opponent is just not so. Did you miss where I referenced Nariyama Sensei?

No. I said it's stupid to decide to fight an armed and armored opponent if you are unarmed. The point of trying to do so is to live long enough to access your own weapons. Frankly, it's just stop-gap, "oh crap!" stuff. Thinking it's anything else is just, well, fantasy.

What? How do you think armies fought anyway? Even peasant foot-soldiers had more than one weapon. A mounted samurai had his horse, probably a lance, both swords, maybe a bow, and a whole bunch of his friends working in formation with him. Because trying to fight as individuals against an army, without a formation, is suicidal and only something they do in the movies.

I'm sorry, but your description that "JuJutsu" "was developed to fight an armored opponent when either unarmed or armed with short weapons" is unfortunately shallow.

Look, I'm not trying to bust your chops on this, but it's a little akin to saying "Jets were developed to fly faster than anything else." Well, a few of them kinda were, yeah, but to try to reduce them down to just that is unfortunately shallow.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

Your failure to accept a universal principle of competition between humans, the aggregation of marginal losses or gains is kinda odd. Let's say the marginal losses only = 5%-10% disadvantage, when everything else is equal it is a game changer. Ask any professional athlete.

I also think the last bit kinda shows how you are simply going to stubbornly defend any position regardless of evidence. Anything can happen in warfare. Let's say I am a Samurai and my Naginata broke, I have now lost my sword, yes I have a short sword, likely a dagger as well. Thing is the Jujutsu of the Samurai included short weapons as part of the art as well. Why? Because you may find yourself out "reached" by your opponent who has the longer weapon. I need to be able to close into my effective range and hopeful remove his reach advantage because he has to but gain distance to again place me in a spot of bother.

Anything can happen in real life or death combat. The purpose of training in martial arts for real life applications is to be prepared for these worst case scenarios, vs making up excuses to try and dismiss why you shouldn't need to do it in the first place. I mean why do Soldiers and increasingly law enforcement train in hand to hand combat? They have rifles, knives, grenades, pistols, tasers, OC, batons. They train in martial arts because tools can fail, be damaged, you can lose them or be in an environment where their use is impractical and/or dangerous...so you train for the worst case scenario.