What was Wing Chun designed for?

[DanT]

Then is sounds like you are doing a bit of "Wing Chun Boxing" yourself!

I guess, I don't think of it as that way tho. My wing chun is just wing chun, I know other styles, but I don't need to mix.

 

[LFJ]

Plenty of styles specialise in ranges and concepts.

Yes, including VT.

There is only so much brain power one person can bring to a system. So if your system is driven by the concepts of one guy. then it is going to be limited.

Don't know what you're talking about.
Is any system not the product of many brains over generations?

Good martial arts don't have complete systems. they are good at what they do. And then let someone else be good at what they do. then they both gap fill. It stops this stagnation and isolation that has held a lot of martial arts back.

Depends on what you mean by complete and who is gap-filling.

BJJ contains a standalone street defense system that works fine as 100% BJJ.
Many street fight videos demonstrate that.

Some people use striking systems to fill out the standup portion, but often for sport fighting needs.

I mean you could ask why so many complete systems have such terrible ground work. Or you find a guy who has good ground work and gap fill.

I think the concept of a more complete Wing Chun is a red herring. You have to make your own way towards that.

VT as a striking system should not need to gap-fill for striking ideas. That's the point.

BJJ is good for knowledge of ground skill, but is not desirable in a street fight, personally.
Too many potential dangers to deliberately go to the ground.

VT can standalone for standup striking, just like MT or other KF and Karate styles.
Adding BJJ ground skill is complementing, not gap-filling like resorting to WB for striking basics.

 

[drop bear]

Yes, including VT.



Don't know what you're talking about.
Is any system not the product of many brains over generations?



Depends on what you mean by complete and who is gap-filling.

BJJ contains a standalone street defense system that works fine as 100% BJJ.
Many street fight videos demonstrate that.

Some people use striking systems to fill out the standup portion, but often for sport fighting needs.



VT as a striking system should not need to gap-fill for striking ideas. That's the point.

BJJ is good for knowledge of ground skill, but is not desirable in a street fight, personally.
Too many potential dangers to deliberately go to the ground.

VT can standalone for standup striking, just like MT or other KF and Karate styles.
Adding BJJ ground skill is complementing, not gap-filling like resorting to WB for striking basics.

Muay Thai gap fills. Karate gap fills. Most styles that are looking to improve is looking outside their own system A lot of styles will look to Western boxing for the same reason a lot of styles look to BJJ.

If you have a complete system then you are unable to grow. That is the issue with complete systems.

An incomplete system is functionally better. Because it uses many brains over generations.

 

[LFJ]

Muay Thai gap fills. Karate gap fills.

They are functional, standalone striking styles, like VT. Cross-training is not the same as gap-filling.

 

[drop bear]

They are functional, standalone striking styles, like VT. Cross-training is not the same as gap-filling.

um... what is the difference?

 

[LFJ]

um... what is the difference?

Cross-training is complementing functional methods with more functional methods to expand one's toolset.

Gap-filling is plugging holes in non-functional methods when essential parts are missing from a system, most likely due to loss in transmission for whatever reason. It's essential because without it, it doesn't work.

As an example;

When a MT practitioner cross-trains another striking style, it isn't to fill gaps in a non-functional system. It's to expand their toolset with different strategies and tactics they can make use of to improve their overall striking game.

When a WC practitioner does poorly in free sparring or fighting due to lack of long-range skills, and needs to resort to other striking styles for basic range elements common to standup fighting, that is gap-filling necessary to make their style work.

In other words, if it works standalone without cross-training, it's not gap-filling.
If it doesn't work standalone and needs cross-training to work, it's gap-filling.

 

[KPM]

When a MT practitioner cross-trains another striking style, it isn't to fill gaps in a non-functional system. It's to expand their toolset with different strategies and tactics they can make use of to improve their overall striking game.

---Good example! And when a WC practitioner cross-trains in WB, it isn't to fill gaps in a "non-functional" system either. It's to expand WC's toolset with different strategies and tactics they can make use of to improve their overall striking game. WB has tools at long range that WC doesn't have. WB has an array of punches from various angles that WC doesn't have. WB just makes a good striking system (WC) better!


When a WC practitioner does poorly in free sparring or fighting due to lack of long-range skills, and needs to resort to other striking styles for basic range elements common to standup fighting, that is gap-filling necessary to make their style work.

----What is the difference between that and saying that an MT practitioner is learning different strategies and tactics to improve their overall game?? Wouldn't learning more and better long-range skills "improve WC's overall striking game"???


In other words, if it works standalone without cross-training, it's not gap-filling.

----WC works standalone....for what it was designed for. Cross-training WB complements WC's strengths.

----If you think your version of WC can do just as well as WB at the "long range game", then please show us.

 

[LFJ]

---Good example! And when a WC practitioner cross-trains in WB, it isn't to fill gaps in a "non-functional" system either. It's to expand WC's toolset with different strategies and tactics they can make use of to improve their overall striking game. WB has tools at long range that WC doesn't have.

.....because this basic and essential part of standup fighting is entirely missing from some WC, so it needs to be gap-filled.

----What is the difference between that and saying that an MT practitioner is learning different strategies and tactics to improve their overall game??

MT wouldn't be filling gaps in striking ranges it doesn't even address.
It would simply be expanding its toolset on top of what it already does at each range.

WC gap-filling for long range is not adding to what is already there.
It's filling a void, plugging a hole... gap-filling.

Wouldn't learning more and better long-range skills "improve WC's overall striking game"???

Absolutely. That's the point of gap-filling WC that is missing those elements.

----WC works standalone....for what it was designed for. Cross-training WB complements WC's strengths.

WC (YMVT) was designed for standup striking.

You can't have a striking style that only focuses on short-range without methods of getting there or recourse to fight on the outside in case of being outclassed at short-range.

"Forward pressure! No retreat!" That's how you get knocked out.

If that's all you have, it's just not a viable style and wouldn't have been designed to standalone that way, because it frankly doesn't stand alone.

You went to lengths to show through fight video that it doesn't work due to lacking long-range, and hence needs something like WB to gap-fill in order for the short-range to "possibly" work.

 

[Charlemagne]

Striking in close range is high risk. Grappling in close range isn't.

Can't agree with that. Anything at close range is high risk if you are in a real world situation. Grappling can be dangerous, particularly if the other guy is better, or significantly stronger. I am a believer in grappling, but choosing to go there in a self-defense situation or a real fight comes with its own set of risks. One obvious example of that is that you lose the ability to disengage on your terms. If you are grappling, and the other guy doesn't want to let go, you're stuck.

 

[Charlemagne]

.

 

[Charlemagne]

---Good example! And when a WC practitioner cross-trains in WB, it isn't to fill gaps in a "non-functional" system either. It's to expand WC's toolset with different strategies and tactics they can make use of to improve their overall striking game. WB has tools at long range that WC doesn't have. WB has an array of punches from various angles that WC doesn't have. WB just makes a good striking system (WC) better!]

WB has a long range that WC doesn't have? How is that possible given they are both throwing punches? The question of functionality is the issue. WB has demonstrated ability against a resisting opponent. As of yet, no one, at least that I have seen, has been able to show that WC has that level of function.

----WC works standalone....for what it was designed for. .

Does it? That really seems to be the issue. Multiple people have asked for evidence of WC working in and "alive" manner. I want it to work, but so far, no one is providing that evidence. WB and WC share the same basic range. If WC really does work, that should not be hard to show. If nothing else, the blending of WC and WB could serve to provide a training and testing methodology to accurately assess the ability of WC to be used in against someone who is trying not to get hit, and who is working to hit you back.

 

[Martial D]

WC (YMVT) was designed for standup striking.

You can't have a striking style that only focuses on short-range without methods of getting there or recourse to fight on the outside in case of being outclassed at short-range.

"Forward pressure! No retreat!" That's how you get knocked out.

If that's all you have, it's just not a viable style and wouldn't have been designed to standalone that way, because it frankly doesn't stand alone.

I've seen you make the claim, many times over a long period of time, that your style of WC offers an effective and complete striking system. Yet, in all that time you have offered no evidence to support this.

I am sure I am not alone in wondering if there is any ham in this sandwich?

 

[LFJ]

I've seen you make the claim, many times over a long period of time, that your style of WC offers an effective and complete striking system. Yet, in all that time you have offered no evidence to support this.

I am sure I am not alone in wondering if there is any ham in this sandwich?

I have described the different elements in detail here before.

As I told KPM, doors are open around the world if you want to see it firsthand.

 

[Martial D]

I have described the different elements in detail here before.

As I told KPM, doors are open around the world if you want to see it firsthand.

Of the many many times I've seen you make the claim, the best I've seen is vague allusions to having a 'long range game', but never any specifics as to just what that entails.

Do you have any video evidence of live sparring/fighting that can provide for examination? I honestly want you to be right, but I don't do faith claims, and none of those schools are in my area.

 

[drop bear]

Cross-training is complementing functional methods with more functional methods to expand one's toolset.

Gap-filling is plugging holes in non-functional methods when essential parts are missing from a system, most likely due to loss in transmission for whatever reason. It's essential because without it, it doesn't work.

As an example;

When a MT practitioner cross-trains another striking style, it isn't to fill gaps in a non-functional system. It's to expand their toolset with different strategies and tactics they can make use of to improve their overall striking game.

When a WC practitioner does poorly in free sparring or fighting due to lack of long-range skills, and needs to resort to other striking styles for basic range elements common to standup fighting, that is gap-filling necessary to make their style work.

In other words, if it works standalone without cross-training, it's not gap-filling.
If it doesn't work standalone and needs cross-training to work, it's gap-filling.

Ok. so gap filling and cross training both have the aim of searching for the best method.

MT traditionally had terrible boxing. they gap fill with western boxing.

If it works stand alone you wouldn't need to cross train or gap fill.

 

[drop bear]

Can't agree with that. Anything at close range is high risk if you are in a real world situation. Grappling can be dangerous, particularly if the other guy is better, or significantly stronger. I am a believer in grappling, but choosing to go there in a self-defense situation or a real fight comes with its own set of risks. One obvious example of that is that you lose the ability to disengage on your terms. If you are grappling, and the other guy doesn't want to let go, you're stuck.

Within its own mechanics grappling at long range is high risk. Because you have to negotiate more strikes.

 

[LFJ]

Of the many many times I've seen you make the claim, the best I've seen is vague allusions to having a 'long range game', but never any specifics as to just what that entails.

I think I have given details, too, though sure, I have not written up a fighting manual.

What would you like to know?

Do you have any video evidence of live sparring/fighting that can provide for examination? I honestly want you to be right, but I don't do faith claims, and none of those schools are in my area.

I haven't asked anyone to just believe me. I'm only saying what I know, and telling people to go experience it if interested.

If nothing is nearby and it is not within one's means to travel, then they will just have to make peace with the fact that they won't be able to learn it, can remain agnostic about it, and that's ultimately not going to affect them.

If I were in that situation, I would be focusing on whatever practical style is available near me and not worrying about something I have no chance of learning anyway.

 

[LFJ]

If it works stand alone you wouldn't need to cross train or gap fill.

Correct. Doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't necessarily.

 

[drop bear]

Correct. Doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't necessarily.

Well then they should add the boxing or BJJ or whatever.

 

[LFJ]

Well then they should add the boxing or BJJ or whatever.

Who?