So when did grappling get involved?

[MMAfighter]

A lot of times when i see a WC video i always see grappling involved. Just wondering, has it always been there or was it just added in recently?

 

[Andrew Green]

A lot of styles that did not traditionally have grappling have added some, or "anti-grappling" to their curriculum since MMA got kicked off.

Occasionally it is good, often it is a poor imitation or stuff made up to defend techniques they don't understand.

It's both good and bad, good that these arts are adapting and growing, but bad when they bugger it up completely.

Many had some stand up locks and a few takedowns, not sure if this is the case with wing chun though.

 

[fightingfat]

Since Wing Chunners woke up to the fact that if you get taken down you get destroyed!
So about 1993 then!!

 

[MMAfighter]

Since Wing Chunners woke up to the fact that if you get taken down you get destroyed!
So about 1993 then!!

and the many years after that that had royce mowing through everyone and having more ppl come forward and say "NOOO, I will smash royce, i'll ko him before he can take me doooooown!!!".......WHAM takedown GnP then sub

 

[Andrew Green]

Basically what it comes down to is most Martial arts are dueling arts, they are not self-defence arts despite the marketing. There may be elements of that, but it's rarely the focus, it can't be, it's untestable and largely untrainable in any effeicient way.

Not only that it is unhealthy IMO, and most people will get bored of training for an assault that will likely never happen. The ones that never do are usually pushing that paranoid line.

No, what we do is dueling arts, everything from Judo, Boxing, TKD, Wing Chun and MMA, plus all the stuff in the middle, we are dueling.

There is a set of rules, a given environment, etc.

Even Vale Tudo, it's still one on one no weapons.

Dog Brothers? One on one with weapons and minimal gear.

There is always a set of rules, even if they are fairly minimal right to very restrictive. When we train we need to protect ourselves, and to do that we need a set of guidlines.

Prior to the UFC making it's debut in North America those rules where always either grappling OR striking, not both.

The grapplers saw this, it's easier too. You can't hit, but in a real fight you would. No problem, and they didn't suddenly go "Holy Crap! You mean people can fight effectively with punches?"

The striking styles for the most part never really considered it, at least in North America. Ok, perhaps that is an exageration, but the marketing all was geared towards "real fighting" and "effectiveness" over other things, so when a take down and tapout guy started taking down and tapping out fairly good traditionalists without much trouble it came as a bit of a shock to most of us.

There was now people that dueled using things that we didn't really allow, although we thought we could and that it wouldn't really change things. If you got Knocked down, get back up. Not if you got knocked down someone was going to sit on your chest, make it near impossible for you to get up, pound your head into the ground and then choke you out.... that was new...

We also have it built into our culture, you don't hit a guy when he's down, it's "unsportsmanlike" if he is down, he is out unless he wants to get back up. An ideal that was there, even if it wasn't a reality when things really happened.

Right back to old style Pugilism, prior to the Queensbury rules. A round ended when someone hit the ground, they had 30 sec to get back up. But you could grab, throw, fight in a clinch, and other stuff not allowed in current rules.

But when someone went down, rules said you back off and see if they can get back in.

What's happened recently is that idea has changed, no longer is it expected that a downed fighter be allowed to get back up and fight. Instead a downed fighter is to be pinned and finished on the ground, at least when "school rules" are dropped.

So some people recognized that what they where doing was a form of rule based duel, and this was fine. Boxing, Judo, Wrestling, TKD, etc. All fine arts, all rule based duels. Even MMA is. Others didn't like that now people out there where fighting outside their rule base, when previously they thought they where all within it.

So, what do you do? You adapt. Seems reasonable to me, and hats off to anyone that admits there flaws and attempts to correct them. Of course it is only a flaw if you mean it to be, the old rules are fine too, no real need to change one set for another.

Problem of course lies where people don't admit that it was flawed, slap in some quickly made up nonsense and claim it was always there. Roughly equivelent to you telling me I don't have a house, me quickly cutting a door in a box and saying "yes I do, always did."

Of course it goes both ways, for as many people as there are standing around in cardboard boxes claiming they are houses, there are also MMA people trying to tell people who live in bungaloos, condos and apartments that those are not real homes, real homes must have at least 2 floors and a attached garage.

Now we all know there are some really really nice condos, apartments and bungaloos out there, as well as some really bad 2-stories with attached garages...

Just a matter of preference, until people start claiming to have and be what they aren't, or telling other people that what they got is inferior because under their personal criteria it doesn't hold up.

 

[WingChun Lawyer]

Excellent post Mr. Andrew.

When I used to do Lee Shing lineage Wing Chun, we did have a few joint locks and throws, but quite frankly, nothing to write home about. And NO groundfighting to speak of.

 

[yipman_sifu]

In Wing Chun there is a saying that states: Never box a boxer, never grapple a grappler, and of course never wrestle a wrestler. The basic Wing Chun theory says that your opponent is cut by a line from the middle, you aim for that line however your opponent moves it doesn't matter. Wheather he was a boxer, grappler and whatever. As we know that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line, hence straight punches is the fastest thing to reach your opponents. If you trained Wing Chun in a proper way and with corrdinated speed and reflex, your straight middle line aiming will allow you to have the upper hand in punching speed, bursting chain punches as much as you can. This method if applied properly, will be effective enough to finish any ecxellent mover which do slower techniques such as roundhouses and grappling, it is common sence that however good you are, you cannot be faster than punches in a straight manner towards your throat or nose. If you just get punched by 5 or 6 of them , you are in big trouble. Now Takedowns from grappler also takes more time, because the grappler will be busy trying to hold you while you burst with punches to his spinal cord area (the prohibited area in the UFC and its brothers), beleive me it's fast.

Now people who practices grappling will post to my reply saying that one punch is not a KO. Well, it could be some time a strong punch to kill a human being. Ok no problem, what about if 5 to 6 punches were applied to a vital place (note that the human center from the forehead to his groans are all sensitive).

At the same time I say that I am very frank and know how grappling is good in a case you got caught. That's why I don't beleive about Anti-grappling that much. This anti-grappling method is a contradiction of what is said by "Never grapple a grappler". It is like saying to a Wing chun guy "I have an anti-cenerline punches technique" . WT says it's effective. Well they didn't try it to say that. GM Kernspecht was a Jujitsu and wrestling teacher. At the first encounter with GM Leung Ting, he was controlled by the master easily by the theory mentioned above. I mean that Leung Ting was faster for Kernspecht to grapple him. I don't know why they went to anti-grappling, forgetting the main Wing chun concepts. Maybe because they wanted to attract people who were looking stunned at the Gracies who were winning in matches. So they said if we showed an Anti-grappling techniques, we could have more students:idunno: . I still will not say anti-grappling is bad for not causing any unfreindly debate to anyone involved from the WT. I personally trains in it and finds it great. Just another opinion from Yipman_sifu:ultracool .

 

[Andrew Green]

In Wing Chun there is a saying that states: Never box a boxer, never grapple a grappler, and of course never wrestle a wrestler.

This is definately not unique to Wing Chun, I imagine every system has this principle, in any competitive activity.

The wrestlers and boxers aren't going to play your game, they are going to try and force you into theirs as well.

This is how Royce was able to dominate those early UFC's so easily. He understood their game, and he understood how to protect himself from being forced into it, that's what he trained to do.

They, on the other hand, knew nothing about his and had no means to defend it.

If you want to defeat a wrestler, you need to know how to wrestle well enough to avoid being forced into their game.

your straight middle line aiming will allow you to have the upper hand in punching speed, bursting chain punches as much as you can.

And hear lies the problem, you see these as a way to attack me and keep me from being able to ake you down, I see someone throwing chain punches as a perfect opportunity to take them down.

Under your set of rules it works, under mine it doesn't. We are dueling under different rules, don't assume the same things will work under each.

 

[yipman_sifu]

This is definately not unique to Wing Chun, I imagine every system has this principle, in any competitive activity.

The wrestlers and boxers aren't going to play your game, they are going to try and force you into theirs as well.

This is how Royce was able to dominate those early UFC's so easily. He understood their game, and he understood how to protect himself from being forced into it, that's what he trained to do.

They, on the other hand, knew nothing about his and had no means to defend it.

If you want to defeat a wrestler, you need to know how to wrestle well enough to avoid being forced into their game.



And hear lies the problem, you see these as a way to attack me and keep me from being able to ake you down, I see someone throwing chain punches as a perfect opportunity to take them down.

Under your set of rules it works, under mine it doesn't. We are dueling under different rules, don't assume the same things will work under each.

That chain punches is for beginers who can be finished by it even before bridging the gap. If you lost track you go to contact then comes Chi Sao, Chi Sao goes by stick to what comes, and follow what it goes. Have you ever experienced Wing Chun?!. It's like a Boxing with the ability to using the whole body. Now you assume that wrestling will be effective, maybe it is, but you also realize that Wing Chun techniques clossess gaps and it likes CQC way of fighting. As long as you wrestle or a grapple, you want to contact in order to do your moves. Wing Chun trainers are the best people in feeling force and contact. So I don't have to play your game as you mentioned.

 

[7starmantis]

Great post (#5) Andrew Green. Well written and thought out. Its true, there are two distinctions when training, self defense and "dueling" as you put it. We see this alot in my system as it is really designed to fight against other kung fu guys who will be yielding, moving, sliping, unbalancing, etc. Thats the positive and also negative aspects of our fighting. A fight on the street wont last 20 minutes...at least you better hope it doesn't. Also, a fighter on the street is most likely not going to be training to the extent we are and thus wont return your attacks in place. There is a big difference and its a constant issue to keep up both aspects in your training. Alot of martial art techniques wont work the way they do in forms because of a resisting untrained opponant...that should be fine though. Adaptation is one of the most undertrained things in martial arts in my opinion.

One other point, some systems of "standup" have trained to follow opponents to the ground, sit on their chest, and pound their head into the pavement since their inception. Its just that the mentality you mentioned has changed the way these systems are trained in some places, many in America.

7sm

 

[Andrew Green]

One other point, some systems of "standup" have trained to follow opponents to the ground, sit on their chest, and pound their head into the pavement since their inception. Its just that the mentality you mentioned has changed the way these systems are trained in some places, many in America.

7sm

Yup, I think one of the biggest shockers was Royce, pinned down and overpowered tapping out Dan Severn. All of a sudden people got this sudden shock that just because you are on top of a guy, doesn't mean you are "safe".

 

[Andrew Green]

Wing Chun trainers are the best people in feeling force and contact. So I don't have to play your game as you mentioned.

But you are trying to, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion. what you are claiming is that wing chun dueling techniques are equally effective under MMA rules.

And I will conceed that they work nicely under Wing Chun rules, but in MMA they do not, and everyone that has tried to show they do has been taken down.

Same as many boxing techniques and strategies do not work in MMA, but that does not take away their effectiveness or value in boxing. What works in MMA doesn't always work in Boxing either, even when you look at just punching.

Chain punching and Chi sau work in Wing Chun, not in MMA. Two different games, different games, don't confuse them. Now when it comes to self-defence I got no idea which is better, it can't be tested. Both have shown to be effective and that's all that I know.

Beyond that it is a matter of preferance, which do you prefer? I'm guessing that for you that is Wing Chun, which is fine, I respect that. BUT, don't assume that your stuff works under other rule sets, if it did people training under those rules would be using it.

 

[White Fox]

I say why not have striking skills and grappling skills? They both seem to have value to me.

Am I wrong?

 

[Andrew Green]

I say why not have striking skills and grappling skills? They both seem to have value to me.

Am I wrong?

No, you're right, but...

It depends entirely on your goal. Not everyone needs both, nor do both make a "complete" skill set.

You can't train everything, not all at once anyways, after 20 years maybe you might gain a decent grounding in most areas, but not all.

Striking, wrestling, Submissions, stick fighting, knife fighting, staff fighting, come along / standing pain compliance, Kata, Acrobatics, Multiple opponents, projectiles, flexible weapons, etc.

There is just too many things to be able to train everything, anyone that thinks they got it all covered is fooling themselves.

It's like going to University, sure it would be nice to take all the courses available, but not at all practical. Pick what interests you and do that, don't worry about the rest, but don't claim to have the answers to it's problems either.

 

[MJS]

Chain punching and Chi sau work in Wing Chun, not in MMA. Two different games, different games, don't confuse them.

If I recall correctly, didn't Vitor Belfort use something along these lines in his UFC debut?

Mike

 

[Andrew Green]

sort of, not at all wing chun stylistically though.

He also demonstrated his technique on his panther series, and stressed not to throw more then 3 punches or so in it or your wide open to a takedown. Only reason he pulled it off with so many against Vanderlei was because he was pretty much out and falling for most of it.

 

[MJS]

sort of, not at all wing chun stylistically though.

Agreed. I saw a tape of Burton Richardson using the method Vitor used. He referred to it as the Boxing Blast.

 

[WingChun Lawyer]

As far as I know, Vitor Belfort is first and foremost a boxer, right?

 

[Andrew Green]

As far as I know, Vitor Belfort is first and foremost a boxer, right?

He's also a BJJ blcak belt, So I imagein Silva taking him down wasn't a big worry for him

 

[yipman_sifu]

But you are trying to, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion. what you are claiming is that wing chun dueling techniques are equally effective under MMA rules.

And I will conceed that they work nicely under Wing Chun rules, but in MMA they do not, and everyone that has tried to show they do has been taken down.

Same as many boxing techniques and strategies do not work in MMA, but that does not take away their effectiveness or value in boxing. What works in MMA doesn't always work in Boxing either, even when you look at just punching.

Chain punching and Chi sau work in Wing Chun, not in MMA. Two different games, different games, don't confuse them. Now when it comes to self-defence I got no idea which is better, it can't be tested. Both have shown to be effective and that's all that I know.

Beyond that it is a matter of preferance, which do you prefer? I'm guessing that for you that is Wing Chun, which is fine, I respect that. BUT, don't assume that your stuff works under other rule sets, if it did people training under those rules would be using it.

Andrew, do you mean that it doesn't work in MMA rules in the competition?, is that what do you mean "regulated fight" in UFC, Pride, and K1. If that is your meaning I would say, that is difinitely true. Wing Chun is not made for the ring, if it were to be used there, you need to know what is a ring experience and how to deal with the time factor. Wing Chun was proved to be one of the best in streets and self-defence. I once asked my instructor about UFC. He told me that it works with specific rules and regulations that a Wing Chun trainer cannot adapt, especially when it comes to sumbission of the opponent. Wing Chun can never submit someone like BJJ or any MMA. Wing Chun is a pure self-defence fighting system.

Sorry again for misunderstanding. I always refer my opinions as if a fight occured in the streets and you are in the danger line (not fighting with rules and 100% free). Regarding competitions, it is completely something different you guys knows it more than me, but still isn't martial arts made for the sake of self-defence in the first place?.