Is it Wing Chun?

[geezer]

Check out this clip by Alan Orr.

If you don't know who he is, he's a British Wing Chun guy who has adapted his system to train competitive fighters. Outwardly, what he trains looks less like WC and more like what most everyone else does who come to MMA competition with a striking background in Western boxing. Some traditionalists reject what he's doing. Others are intrigued. At any rate it brings up some good questions such as,

What is WC? Does it have to look a certain way, or is WC more conceptual?

Is Alan Orr's approach an inevitable response to the dominant fighting methods of our times? Or is "undiluted" old school WC more effective, at least outside of the ring when applied as a method of self-defense?

What do you guys think?

 

[yak sao]

To say WC has to look a certain wey, is to put in into the category of a style. If we agree that WC is not a style, but a system, then it's less important how one looks doing it. The important thing becomes, are they adhering to the principles of the system?

Not to compare WC to religion, ( although, the way people bicker and fight over it, you would think it was a religion), but in Christianity there are certain core concepts that must be adhered to if one is to be considered a Christian. Then there are lesser points that are open for debate.

So, what are the core concepts of WC that must be adhered to in order for WC to be considered WC, and which are of less importance and open for debate?

 

[K-man]

I liked his explanation and his application. :asian:

 

[geezer]

To say WC has to look a certain way, is to put in into the category of a style. If we agree that WC is not a style, but a system, then it's less important how one looks doing it. The important thing becomes, are they adhering to the principles of the system...

So, what are the core concepts of WC that must be adhered to in order for WC to be considered WC, and which are of less importance and open for debate?

#1. IMHO, Practicality and Effectiveness through Maximum Efficiency would rank up at the top.

#2. Under that I'd list Not Crashing Force, but rather Borrowing Force whenever possible.

#3. Then come the commonly held core concepts like correct structure, straight-line attacks, adhering to centerline, developing springy energy, simultaneous attack and defense, simpliciy and directness, etc. ...since all of these are our main methods of achieving the first goal listed above.

Now in the WT lineage at least, when the specific situation so dictates, we sometimes flex the rules of those concepts listed in #3 above (or as taught in some of the kuen kuit) in order to achieve the #1 objective of Practicality and Effectiveness through Maximum Efficiency.

Applying this logic broadly, Mr. Orr could be said to be doing the same thing. That is flexing the specifics as needed to achieve the more important goal, namely that of a practical, efficient, and WC inspired solution to the problem posed by modern competitive martial arts in the ring/cage.

So is it WC?

 

[J W]

Studying TKD, I would look at the execution of a technique to answer a question like that. For example, is it TKD? I would look at the mechanics of the kicks and say yes, that is how we kick in TKD; or no, that is not the proper way to throw those kicks in TKD.

Since I've been studying Wing Chun, though, I've instead thought about the principles- is it Wing Chun? The mechanics of the techniques could look like Wing Chun, but if they were ignoring those concepts you listed, then it's not Wing Chun even if it "looks" like Wing Chun.

I'm not familiar with Mr. Orr's version of WC, but my opinion would be that Wing Chun is a collection of principles rather than a collection of techniques- so those techniques could vary quite a bit as long as they stick to the principles. So it doesn't really have to "look" like Wing Chun in order to be Wing Chun, any more than simply looking like Wing Chun would actually make it Wing Chun.

 

[geezer]

...my opinion would be that Wing Chun is a collection of principles rather than a collection of techniques- so those techniques could vary quite a bit as long as they stick to the principles. So it doesn't really have to "look" like Wing Chun in order to be Wing Chun, any more than simply looking like Wing Chun would actually make it Wing Chun.

JW, you, Yak, and I all agree on this. Others would not. Many have a much narrower concept of what WC should be, often emphasizing certain theories of stance, structure and hand positions that are not even shared by other branches within the same WC/WT/VT lineage. Many seem to feel that only their interpretation is "true" and "authentic". That's where a lot of the divisiveness comes from.

One example would be stance. My old sifu, LT insisted that only a full, 100% weight-shift (resulting in a lateral shift of the vertical midline) in stance-turning is the correct and maximally efficient method of dissolving the force of a powerful attack. Similarly, he insisted in full back-weighting in the "advancing-step" position, for example when you are advancing on an opponent.

LT's famous arch-rival in the 80s, William Cheung, insisted that only the 50-50 stance was correct. Other sifus such as Augustine Fong, advocated partial weight-shifting ranging from 70-30 to 60-40. I ask, is one single approach really the best for all students in all situations? I doubt it. What matters is how effective you are in a given situation. Now considering that, take a look at the following clip. Alan's turning could be considered the opposite of what I was taught. We yield before heavy pressure shifting our mid-line and weight completely. Alan advocates not shifting your midline but maintaining 50-50 weighting and forcing your opponent to turn.

Again, he gives a good explanation, tested by his students under pressure. Does that mean he's right? No, not in every case, but it sure doesn't make him wrong! I do like the way he approaches things though. More like a coach than a "Sifu". Coaches are always looking for ways to update and improve their athlete's performance. A lot of sifus are too hung up on authenticity and how great the old masters were centuries ago. You may hear a coach run down the competition, but I've never heard a coach say something like "This is the secret technique of the only authentic, original ...football, basketball, golf, etc." It would be just too ridiculous. I'm saying this, and I'm a sifu! Not a very important one, ...but still, you get the point! LOL

 

[mook jong man]

I would have to say it is , and it isn't.

When he is out of range he has something more akin to a boxing type of guard , he doesn't seem to use the classic Wing Chun guard.
But when he actually makes forearm contact and gets into range he starts to use the correct angles , and in my opinion he is now using Wing Chun.

I think it depends a lot on how fast and how good you are , sometimes my master used to use a guard where both his hands would be in close to his chin ,and he could fight perfectly well from that position.
But if I tried that against someone fast I would get hammered , because my reflexes are slower and I need that sensory information that the forward hand provides.

 

[WTchap]

Yes, principles over techniques. So keeping this in mind, I would say Alan is doing/showing Wing Chun, and training for a live situation.

However... ... some of the techniques in our system have very particular physical requirements (which are often connected to the principles). For example, the position of the elbow, the use of forward force connected to the position of a limb, etc. Sometimes in Alan's video clips (which I like and enjoy), some of those physical characteristics get lost, and, I would argue, sometimes that results in other 'requirements' being lost too.

In a martial art like Systema, the body method and movement is arguably more important than a set technique, and sometimes set techniques aren't taught at all. Just the motion that is needed. But in WC/WT, there are numerous hand shapes, supported by particular body mechanics... I don't know, I find it hard to get away from a fundamental belief I have that "Wing Tsun should look like Wing Tsun".

If it looks like I am boxing or kickboxing, is it enough to say I am following the WT principles and therefore what I am doing is WT?

 

[Danny T]

Interesting conversation.
When I first started my training in WC my first Sifu demanded we stand in a 100/0 weighted stance other than in YJKYM (50-50) and to ‘always’ yield to pressure. The 100/0 stance made yielding much easier to learn and perform. We also shifted on the balls of our feet yet from time to time he would have us practice shifting on the heels.


When starting to learn CK I began training with my second Sifu (who I have now trained with for over 20 years). He had me work shifting on the balls of the feet but using an 80/20 weight distribution and in time to a 60/40 and finally a 50/50. I have trained shifting on the balls of the feet, on the heels, and on the center of the foot. We yield, we lead the other to yield, we maintain; all depending upon the situation.


After a couple of years of Sifu ‘changing’ the way we did our movement I could no longer contain my questions as to why he keeps changing the way we were doing WC. He smiled and asked me, “Why you think I have changed anything? We are still training WC. Not all situations are the same, fighting is not static but ever changing and we must be able to adapt to survive in any situation. Sometimes we shift on the balls of the feet, sometimes on the heels, sometimes on the center. We do what we must to survive.
Dan, you have fought many times, have you done the same thing in the same way every
time? Has the opponent done the same?”


Years later when I asked about teaching a certain method of Wing Chun he said; “You are learning to become a teacher are you not? What works well for you and some students does not work the same for others. Learn to teach the individual not just a method.”


We learn the principles and to apply them. Then we must practice applying them in as many different situations as possible.


As to the Traditional or Classic WC guard; once again what is the situation?
Put a knife or maybe a machete in your opponent’s hands and what do you do with your guard? Is the structure of the guard so important in a non contact situation that when not performed as what is considered classical one is not using WC?


There is no one way or method that is always best in all situations. We individuals are not the same; we each have different abilities, different personalities, and different perspectives. These all are factors in what and how we express ourselves.


To be practical and functional is the most important thing. As one of my higher level students stated about one of my senior students; “his form isn’t the most elegant and he is a bit unorthodox, but I don’t ever want to have to fight him.”


Wing Chun is a ‘Training System’. With-in the system there are several different methods. Being a slave to a particular method limits your usage and understanding of the system.

 

[geezer]

There is no one way or method that is always best in all situations.
To be practical and functional is the most important thing.

Yep. It all comes down to this.

 

[geezer]

I would have to say it is , and it isn't.
...When he is out of range he has something more akin to a boxing type of guard , he doesn't seem to use the classic Wing Chun guard.

When I am out of WC range, working against a guy with reach on me, I've been experimenting with a guard more like that. What's the point of holding a traditional guard (man-lo sau) when you can't yet cross bridges with an opponent, but he can still hit you? On the other hand, it's easy to transition from a "peek-a-boo" style boxing guard with both your hands held high and close by your head to a traditional WC guard by simply extending your arms along centerline as you close into WC range.

 

[mook jong man]

I teach a young guy that is lightning fast and doesn't telegraph one iota.
He's also taller , has reach on me and quite skilled with the feints.
Half the time I can't even see the type of strike he's throwing at me , the only thing that saves me from getting punched straight in the nose is that my front arm will feel it as it brushes past and that tells my rear hand get ready dude because somethings coming in.

 

[Xue Sheng]

I do not feel I have enough of a background in Wing Chun to be taken seriously on this but if the underlying principles are the same as “Traditional" Wing Chun then regardless of how it looks it is Wing Chun.

Beyond that I can say that in a fight, Taijiquan is not slow nor is it like push hands, but the principles are the same be it done slow or fast. Xingyiquan is still Xingyiquan if it goes at angles, turns or stands and fights, just as long as the underlying principles are the same.

 

[Eric_H]

I disagree with most everything Alan Orr does in terms of WC.

His response to most technical arguments has been "well it works in the cage, where's your cage fighter?"

Thai Boxing works well in the cage too, I ain't about to confuse it with Wing Chun, caveat emptor.

 

[chinaboxer]

Alan is a student of Hawkins Cheung, so his focus will be on developing the "body" to be able to handle pressure.

 

[geezer]

Alan is a student of Hawkins Cheung, so his focus will be on developing the "body" to be able to handle pressure.

Jin, I gather that Alan's Sifu, Robert Chu is currently studying under Hawkins Cheung, and if I'm not mistaken, You study under Cheung Sifu too. And, you've done a fair bit of cross training. So care to weigh in on how you view Alan's work adapting WC to the competitive arena? Do you see it as a positive thing? Or do you think, as some do, that it demands too much compromising of WC's core concepts?

@ Eric: Could you lay out one or too of what you see as the biggest problems with Alan's approach from a WC, and particularly from a HFY-WC perspective?

 

[chinaboxer]

Jin, I gather that Alan's Sifu, Robert Chu is currently studying under Hawkins Cheung, and if I'm not mistaken, You study under Cheung Sifu too. And, you've done a fair bit of cross training. So care to weigh in on how you view Alan's work adapting WC to the competitive arena? Do you see it as a positive thing? Or do you think, as some do, that it demands too much compromising of WC's core concepts?

i think that any wing chun practitioner that puts themselves in a competitive arena to test his ability to handle pressure from a non-compliant partner is a positive thing. because IMO that's really all wing chun boils down to...how to handle pressure problems. how you solve these pressure problems will be your personal wing chun. so stocky individuals like Alan will solve them differently than someone with a very small frame. and this is where wing chun perspectives splinter off into different lineages. because i am a different body type than Alan, i will agree with some of his solutions but others just won't work for me, that doesn't mean it isn't valid, it just means that we are two different types of individuals. i personally don't know Alan, but i would most definitely would like to train with him.

 

[Eric_H]

i will agree with some of his solutions but others just won't work for me, that doesn't mean it isn't valid

As far as I'm concerned, it does make it invalid. The reality of leverage doesn't change. Those of us who are stronger, faster, longer arm, etc can sometimes get away with stuff, but it doesn't mean those things are true to the WC system.

Alan's got a very loose interpretation of WC, look at what they call a wu sao (basically an MT block, slightly modified). It doesn't serve any of the functions of Wu nor does it have the same structure but because it's "guarding" (IMO Blocking, not guarding) they call it Wu. Having done some Muay Thai and some NHB grappling, it's not hard to see where they're borrowing from, for me the borrowing is subtracting from their WC, even if it adds to their fight skill.

 

[Steve]

As far as I'm concerned, it does make it invalid. The reality of leverage doesn't change. Those of us who are stronger, faster, longer arm, etc can sometimes get away with stuff, but it doesn't mean those things are true to the WC system.

Alan's got a very loose interpretation of WC, look at what they call a wu sao (basically an MT block, slightly modified). It doesn't serve any of the functions of Wu nor does it have the same structure but because it's "guarding" (IMO Blocking, not guarding) they call it Wu. Having done some Muay Thai and some NHB grappling, it's not hard to see where they're borrowing from, for me the borrowing is subtracting from their WC, even if it adds to their fight skill.

What is nhb grappling? Never heard those two terms used together like that.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Eric_H]

As far as I was aware, the term NHB implies a particular open rule-set for grappling comps. The teacher i had used to call what we were taught that because his base came from wrestling rather than BJJ, and it reflected a mix of different grappling styles.