Wing Chun Sparring

[Juany118]

Well the first video is a bad choice in general. It is MMA after all.

---True! But the video is labeled "Shaolin Wing Chun no MMA." And this is one of those times when the question is asked "But where is the Wing Chun?" and people get all butt-hurt and come back with "but Wing Chun doesn't look like Wing Chun when you really use it! Why are you so stuck on appearances?"


The second video I saw it.

---Then it was pretty crappy Wing Chun! Is that Ok? Again, do we have a lower standard when it comes to Wing Chun when sparring compared to Wing Chun when training? Why is that?

I don't think it is crappy WC if you adhere to the principles. It's not about appearance. I will explain what I mean by principles below.

---So you're saying Wing Chun has no answer for low kicks? Again, no Wing Chun structure or mechanics there. Why did he feel the need to abandon his Wing Chun mechanics just because the other guy was throwing low kicks? He had no confidence in his Wing Chun?

Indeed it does. He didn't violate structure or principles. He simply kept a hand low. Since some of the techniques used to address low kicks involve the hand, why be a fool and waste time moving a hand from a high guard to a low deflection?

---Its more than principles. Its structure and mechanics as well. Did you have any trouble picking out the Wing Chun guys in those last videos based on appearance alone? If you are adhering to Wing Chun mechanics, it can't help but look like Wing Chun. If you are abandoning Wing Chun mechanics (not individual techniques), then it likely won't look much like Wing Chun.

By principles I mean structure and mechanics, I explained this. The purpose of structure is so that you are "grounded". In essence your attack starts from the ground and your defenses allow the energy to not simply get "stuck" in the defending limb or torso but to pass into the ground. That is what I meant when I said "feel" your stance. You can achieve that without the stereotypical stance. Example in my school our "goto" stance is not a "front" stance but a neutral stance. We only adopt a front stance when we are confident we aren't dealing with a "kicker". The only thing you would recognize as uniquely "WC" is the hand position. My With is a student of Keith Mazza, GM Cheung's closed door disciple so I would say that it is "WC."

---So is JKD actually Wing Chun? JKD uses a different core mechanics but still uses a lot of Wing Chun principles and even techniques. So is JKD the same thing as Wing Chun? IMHO, it takes more than having a handful of principles to say you are doing Wing Chun. Wing Chun has a specific biomechanics for sending and receiving force. How many times have I said that now? Does anyone disagree with that?

I would certainly consider Guro Dan's JKD concepts to be modified WC yes. He himself even says to learn JKD you need WC. At the Inosanto Academy he goes so far as to have WC Instructors come in to teach WC to his JKD students. Does it go outside classical WC with various techniques, if there is such a thing? Yes it does still...

Heck some of the principles/structure he said JKD changed is actually in the WC I study.

---Sifu Jerry kept his Wing Chun structure pretty decently through-out. He never resort to the "sloppy kickboxing" that I've been talking about. This video is not an example of what I have been asking people about. Now compare your video to the first 5 videos I posted. You honestly don't see a difference???

I didn't see real "sloppy kick boxing" in terms of effective structure in the blue shirt video (short guy) nor the TKD one. All I saw was non classic hand and arm position (though in the TKD one he starts with it, he just transitions from it when he realizes his opponent is a one trick pony) and the blue guys threw more kicks than I would like BUT Sifu Jerry likes high kicks too as you see. The kicking (blue shirts) is natural btw with many MA students and that isnt limited to WC. Most people aren't comfortable getting in so close so they often resort to kicks so they are still "attacking" but don't have to be inside someone's personal space. That isn't a WC exclusive issue though, it's a Universal one. It's one of the reasons TKD and certain other arts are so popular. They look cool and people are more comfy with it.

 

[Juany118]

Good lord man, I have stated why I think it breaks down. I'm not trying to be nasty, go back over my overly lengthy posts stating my belief why it does break down when sparring. You've consistently argued against why I believe it does.

Solo practice, even partner practice is generally choreographed, way different approach than live & spontaneous application.

I haven't given up Wing Chun & You haven't struck a nerve. I just personally don't believe Wing Chun is a stand alone method. I've stated before & I'll state again I believe Wing Chun is an art meant to augment & elevate a more gross motor skill method like Long Fist or Boxing. I believe it to be an art of refinement, an art of ideal approach.

When it comes to realistic fight application Wing Chun training is backwards. It starts with fundamentals that are predominantly fine motor movement and working up to gross motor movement. There is also a great deal of emphasis on forms that don't really contain practical body movement. Exactly opposite of loose technique arts like Wrestling & Boxing.

It's very hard to convince people to make small position adjustments & bridge when someone is trying to rip their head off, when their natural instinct is to duck, dodge or run away.

It's best to work from big movements to small movements. A big movement can be refined to become small. It's very difficult to enlarge a small movement effectively. Wing Chun is designed small to big (Siu Lim Tau to Biu Jee) where as the big isn't even that big. Even the legends state that Wing Chun is an advanced art, one refined from others. This is why I believe it to be an art of augmentation and refinement.

Why do many Wing Chun practitioners revert to sloppy kickboxing? IMO , because it is the first art that they learned. Many Tai Chi practitioners suffer from the same dilemma. Arts of refinement shouldn't be first arts learned.

Just to your last point. The legend as passed down, that I know, says that WC was actually created to be an art easier to learn. It was said that it took 15 years to train what they considered a competent Kung Fu fighter, WC was designed to allow this to be done in 1/3 the time. So it was a hybrid art taking from many styles to create a more streamlined art.

I think, when people go sloppy kick boxing, its no different with WC than any other art. I have seen it with certain forms of Karate and almost every other TMA style. People do not train enough period and so the devolve from the fine motor skills of WC that you see in tans, bongs etc and go instinct which = gross motor skills. I think the whole reason of small to big is actually to address this issue BUT how many people will do SLT over and over again, sometimes REAL slow to get the muscle memory? You can actually build such muscle memory, a more common example is a soldier being training to reload, aim, fire and clear malfunctions with their rifle. The thing is it takes practice, practice, practice and more practice and that is lacking in far too many Martial artists.

 

[KPM]

Good lord man, I have stated why I think it breaks down. I'm not trying to be nasty, go back over my overly lengthy posts stating my belief why it does break down when sparring. You've consistently argued against why I believe it does.

---And good lord man! I've posted videos showing where it didn't break down! So clearly it doesn't have to! So I've asked why some have such a lower standard for Wing Chun when sparring than Wing Chun when training. I've asked why people get all offended when you point out that there Wing Chun has broken down. I've asked why people would think they need to abandon core Wing Chun mechanics and structure when sparring. Because obviously not everyone does! You haven't answered those questions directly.


Solo practice, even partner practice is generally choreographed, way different approach than live & spontaneous application.

---See, here is another example. You come back with a counter-point without actually addressing the questions I have been proposing. So who has been deflecting? Just because an application is live & spontaneous, why do you think one should simple abandon core Wing Chun mechanics and structure??? If the forms and drills are teaching a Wing Chun-specific way to move, way do you think it is acceptable to then just forget all that when sparring?



I haven't given up Wing Chun & You haven't struck a nerve. I just personally don't believe Wing Chun is a stand alone method.

----Well, it seems like a long line of our Wing Chun ancestors did! And again, adding a ground-game to your fighting skills because Wing Chun doesn't have one is quite different that deciding to use a kickboxing structure with jabs, and crosses and high roundhouse kicks to the head and similar things that violate basic Wing Chun structure. Judging by your reactions on this thread, I think I have struck a nerve, even if you are not consciously admitting it to yourself. Because you seem to be the only one that has taken this discussion personally. So I apologize for that and didn't intend for the tone to degenerate.



I've stated before & I'll state again I believe Wing Chun is an art meant to augment & elevate a more gross motor skill method like Long Fist or Boxing. I believe it to be an art of refinement, an art of ideal approach.

---So you think our Wing Chun ancestors were simply doing Wing Chun to augment their Long Fist skills? That is an interesting proposal! I've never heard that Leung Jan, Yuen Kay Shan, Sum Nun, Ip Man, Wong Shun Leung, etc also did Long Fist as well as Wing Chun. Has your research shown that they did?


When it comes to realistic fight application Wing Chun training is backwards. It starts with fundamentals that are predominantly fine motor movement and working up to gross motor movement. There is also a great deal of emphasis on forms that don't really contain practical body movement. Exactly opposite of loose technique arts like Wrestling & Boxing.

---Ok. Now that is an actual answer to a few of my questions. Rather than just essentially saying..."because it does!"


It's very hard to convince people to make small position adjustments & bridge when someone is trying to rip their head off, when their natural instinct is to duck, dodge or run away.

---True!


It's best to work from big movements to small movements. A big movement can be refined to become small. It's very difficult to enlarge a small movement effectively. Wing Chun is designed small to big (Siu Lim Tau to Biu Jee) where as the big isn't even that big. Even the legends state that Wing Chun is an advanced art, one refined from others. This is why I believe it to be an art of augmentation and refinement.

---Interesting points! So it would seem the training method is at fault.


Why do many Wing Chun practitioners revert to sloppy kickboxing? IMO , because it is the first art that they learned. Many Tai Chi practitioners suffer from the same dilemma. Arts of refinement shouldn't be first arts learned.

---Ah see! Another actual answer to what I have been asking! This may very well be the case! That would make an interesting survey of people sparring that are able to maintain a Wing Chun structure or not....whether they had started in another martial art prior to Wing Chun that taught sparring like that.


---But it occurs to me, that if Wing Chun is really best as a refinement or augmentation to an art based more on gross motor skills and real fighting application.....then maybe Bruce Lee truly was on the right track. Because he essentially developed his own kickboxing method and used Wing Chun principles and techniques to "refine it" to some extent. So maybe we should all be doing JKD!

---Anyway, thanks for finally attempting to answer my questions with real feedback rather than just arguing to defend the "sloppy kickboxers."

 

[KPM]

I don't think it is crappy WC if you adhere to the principles. It's not about appearance. I will explain what I mean by principles below.

---See, that's clearly a case of having a lower standard for assessing Wing Chun sparring as compared to assessing Wing Chun training. You didn't see that as an example of crappy Wing Chun! Heck, I'll bet even the guy involved would admit that he did a crappy job!



Indeed it does. He didn't violate structure or principles. He simply kept a hand low. Since some of the techniques used to address low kicks involve the hand, why be a fool and waste time moving a hand from a high guard to a low deflection?

---Turning your body completely sideways so that you eliminate your "Wu Sau" hand's role as a back up is something I've been taught is not good Wing Chun structure in every system of Wing Chun I've studied. And one of those Wing Chun systems is actually called "side body" (Pin Sun) Wing Chun!! This violates most principles of facing an opponent. This is done with the pole because it is such a long weapon and you only use one end of it. But when you do it empty hand you limit half of your arsenal. He didn't need to turn completely sideways to his opponent simply to deal with kicks. He DID violate Wing Chun structure and principles when he did that. And he used it through most of the exchange!


By principles I mean structure and mechanics, I explained this.

---You detail a generalized way of rooting that is common to most TCMAs. I'm talking about the structure and mechanics that are specific to Wing Chun. Wing Chun's own method for sending and receiving force.

The purpose of structure is so that you are "grounded". In essence your attack starts from the ground and your defenses allow the energy to not simply get "stuck" in the defending limb or torso but to pass into the ground. That is what I meant when I said "feel" your stance. You can achieve that without the stereotypical stance.

---I agree. And relaxing the angles and such somewhat is not what I'm talking about. I explained that I am talking about those guys that start bending forward at the waist, swinging from the shoulders, bobbing and weaving, and yes....turning completely sideways to the opponent! In all the TWC videos so far the Wing Chun guy has kept pretty good structure. A nice upright stance, gliding footwork and not dancing around on the toes, nice straight punches and no loopy haymakers, etc.




I would certainly consider Guro Dan's JKD concepts to be modified WC yes. He himself even says to learn JKD you need WC. At the Inosanto Academy he goes so far as to have WC Instructors come in to teach WC to his JKD students.

---And a lot of JKD guys would go ape-sh1t on you if you said they were simply doing a modified form of Wing Chun. But then that still begs the question.....you say you see adhering to the principles as important to still be doing Wing Chun. So why do you think it is not important to adhere to the mechanics and structure taught in the forms and drills? Because JKD does not use the same structure and mechanics as taught in the Wing Chun forms.


\

 

[Juany118]

I don't think it is crappy WC if you adhere to the principles. It's not about appearance. I will explain what I mean by principles below.

---See, that's clearly a case of having a lower standard for assessing Wing Chun sparring as compared to assessing Wing Chun training. You didn't see that as an example of crappy Wing Chun! Heck, I'll bet even the guy involved would admit that he did a crappy job!



Indeed it does. He didn't violate structure or principles. He simply kept a hand low. Since some of the techniques used to address low kicks involve the hand, why be a fool and waste time moving a hand from a high guard to a low deflection?

---Turning your body completely sideways so that you eliminate your "Wu Sau" hand's role as a back up is something I've been taught is not good Wing Chun structure in every system of Wing Chun I've studied. And one of those Wing Chun systems is actually called "side body" (Pin Sun) Wing Chun!! This violates most principles of facing an opponent. This is done with the pole because it is such a long weapon and you only use one end of it. But when you do it empty hand you limit half of your arsenal. He didn't need to turn completely sideways to his opponent simply to deal with kicks. He DID violate Wing Chun structure and principles when he did that. And he used it through most of the exchange!


By principles I mean structure and mechanics, I explained this.

---You detail a generalized way of rooting that is common to most TCMAs. I'm talking about the structure and mechanics that are specific to Wing Chun. Wing Chun's own method for sending and receiving force.

The purpose of structure is so that you are "grounded". In essence your attack starts from the ground and your defenses allow the energy to not simply get "stuck" in the defending limb or torso but to pass into the ground. That is what I meant when I said "feel" your stance. You can achieve that without the stereotypical stance.

---I agree. And relaxing the angles and such somewhat is not what I'm talking about. I explained that I am talking about those guys that start bending forward at the waist, swinging from the shoulders, bobbing and weaving, and yes....turning completely sideways to the opponent! In all the TWC videos so far the Wing Chun guy has kept pretty good structure. A nice upright stance, gliding footwork and not dancing around on the toes, nice straight punches and no loopy haymakers, etc.




I would certainly consider Guro Dan's JKD concepts to be modified WC yes. He himself even says to learn JKD you need WC. At the Inosanto Academy he goes so far as to have WC Instructors come in to teach WC to his JKD students.

---And a lot of JKD guys would go ape-sh1t on you if you said they were simply doing a modified form of Wing Chun. But then that still begs the question.....you say you see adhering to the principles as important to still be doing Wing Chun. So why do you think it is not important to adhere to the mechanics and structure taught in the forms and drills? Because JKD does not use the same structure and mechanics as taught in the Wing Chun forms.


\

I am referring to specific videos and people in them. The short kid in the one video really only has an issue with hand position (and kicking to much for my tastes) but he maintains upright structure and doesn't actually adopt a boxers stance. He does stay on the balls of his feet and step vs shuffle, but that is what I am taught under Grand Master Cheung's lineage. You can argue he is moving to much but the question needs be asked, is he doing that simply to match his opponent? However his high kicks are what I assumed you were referring to, and that is why I posted Sifu Jerry's fight.

I think we run into issues sometimes because of different Lineages (stepping vs sliding and kicking) plus in pressure sparing some stuff ends up "off" simply because you have to move to match your opponent.

The TKD guy, it actually looks like he dances between two styles tbh. He blades for defense but when he attacks he squares up and uses WC punching structure.

I dismissed the first due to MMA, and the black and white because it's "smoking and joking."

The "crashing the dojo" one I actually had issue with because he never tried to get to the blind side, which is strong in my lineage (which is why I thought it more of a demonstration fight.)

JKD concepts is a weird thing, as it was explained to me, in that the structure you use changes depending on your range. That is why I see it as modified WC because at close range it is very WC like. I can't speak to "Original" JKD as I know no one who studied it.

 

[Juany118]

Let me note I have indeed watched people go to legit bad kick boxing. My only thing is first what I noted above. Second, I am personally VERY hesitant to challenge people from other lineages. They can all have different "principles" in appearance. Example...

Here is Chum Kiu in My Lineage

Here it is in another Lineage

Are they clearly related? heck yeah. Are there profound differences as well? Also heck yeah and those differences will influence how it works in practice.

 

[Nobody Important]

--And good lord man! I've posted videos showing where it didn't break down! So clearly it doesn't have to! So I've asked why some have such a lower standard for Wing Chun when sparring than Wing Chun when training. I've asked why people get all offended when you point out that there Wing Chun has broken down. I've asked why people would think they need to abandon core Wing Chun mechanics and structure when sparring. Because obviously not everyone does! You haven't answered those questions directly.

Is it a lower standard when they find something that works better for them, something they have more success with? That's the point I've argued.

---See, here is another example. You come back with a counter-point without actually addressing the questions I have been proposing. So who has been deflecting? Just because an application is live & spontaneous, why do you think one should simple abandon core Wing Chun mechanics and structure??? If the forms and drills are teaching a Wing Chun-specific way to move, way do you think it is acceptable to then just forget all that when sparring?

They may be teaching a specific way to move, but it is generally unrealistic for actual fighting because it contains complex fine motor transitions. Simple 1,2 movements & responses are best. Most classical Wing Chun drills are not that.


----Well, it seems like a long line of our Wing Chun ancestors did! And again, adding a ground-game to your fighting skills because Wing Chun doesn't have one is quite different that deciding to use a kickboxing structure with jabs, and crosses and high roundhouse kicks to the head and similar things that violate basic Wing Chun structure. Judging by your reactions on this thread, I think I have struck a nerve, even if you are not consciously admitting it to yourself. Because you seem to be the only one that has taken this discussion personally. So I apologize for that and didn't intend for the tone to degenerate.

Think what you like, no nerve struck. I'm impartial as Wing Chun isn't my preferred method. Just simply trying to explain why it can break down. Points you've dismissed by saying it doesn't have to. The points were valid ones, even though they may not apply to all. It's not deflection when direct answers are given. I've mentioned breakdown of small movement & fine motor skill under stress multiple times as well as fear and mindset. Factors that directly link to performance. Fight or flight is directly related to response & decision making.

---So you think our Wing Chun ancestors were simply doing Wing Chun to augment their Long Fist skills? That is an interesting proposal! I've never heard that Leung Jan, Yuen Kay Shan, Sum Nun, Ip Man, Wong Shun Leung, etc also did Long Fist as well as Wing Chun. Has your research shown that they did?

Many Wing Chun ancestors were rumored to have studied other arts first. It's not until after Leung Jan's generation that we see Wing Chun being taught as a method unto itself. It was taught alongside Hung Gar in the beginning, even Cho family stated with Cho Lay Fut. The 72 arts of Siu Lim took years to master, Wing Chun was supposedly a condensation of these. An art to be learned quickly. But many forget that Siu Lim had a base art that was required learning before entering into advanced training, like the 72 arts. This was Fut Gar, supposedly an art that distilled the 5 Families into a simple method of basic training. It was rumored that some Wing Chun ancestors like Fung Siu Ching, Dai Fa Min Jam & Leung Bak Lau were actually practitioners of Fut Gar prior to learning Wing Chun.

---Ok. Now that is an actual answer to a few of my questions. Rather than just essentially saying..."because it does!"

Again nothing different than what I've been saying. Perhaps I didn't clarify enough.

---But it occurs to me, that if Wing Chun is really best as a refinement or augmentation to an art based more on gross motor skills and real fighting application.....then maybe Bruce Lee truly was on the right track. Because he essentially developed his own kickboxing method and used Wing Chun principles and techniques to "refine it" to some extent. So maybe we should all be doing JKD!

---Anyway, thanks for finally attempting to answer my questions with real feedback rather than just arguing to defend the "sloppy kickboxers.

That isn't for me to answer, I can only speak to my experience and belief. Fung Siu Ching was an expert in Sut Gow & Kam Na, methods not found in all branches of Wing Chun to such an extent as his. A mitre box is a great tool to augment a saw, but not applicable in every situation. MMA methodology is at the forefront of the fight game. The question to ask, is why? We've seen Wing Chun fall flat time & time again when put to the test despite defending it's supposed superior theory & mechanics. There are some exceptions, but the majority rules. Perhaps the training methodology is flawed & needs reevaluated, or perhaps how the art is being used needs reevaluated. Why do you train other arts if Wing Chun contains all you'll ever require? Not to long ago you questioned Wing Chun yourself.

It seems we are talking past each other & in circles. So I'll extend the olive branch & leave the conversation on this note.

 

[Juany118]

Is it a lower standard when they find something that works better for them, something they have more success with? That's the point I've argued.

I think another question is "did it break down", which implies a lack of intent, or was it intentional? WC is an great art, but if confronted by an assailant armed with a melee weapon in real life, sorry my WC isn't breaking down, I am going into Kali mode because that, for me, is simply a more natural response to someone coming at me with weapons, because it is basically purpose built for that from the first lesson.

I even think one of the videos he shows kinda shows that point. The TKD video shows the man in black start WC. He changes his structure when in defense but then returns to WC when he attacks (at least at .25 speed that is how it looked to me). If you have additional knowledge its silly to say, imo, "well I study WC now so I can only use WC." I had to fight a boxer once at work. He didn't know what to do with WC except try to clinch me, he just wasn't used to someone comfy trapping and punching (not clinching) that close (I didn't have a taser at the time or there would have been no fight lol). So WC is definitely good in particular circumstances, just like BJJ shines in its own particular set of circumstances but there will be places where there is a better option as well and if you have that option use it.

 

[Vajramusti]

Much that I don't relate to at all on this thread, including the two examples of chum kiu and comments about the kwan.

 

[Juany118]

Much that I don't relate to at all on this thread, including the two examples of chum kiu and comments about the kwan.

That has kinda become my point. Until I joined this forum the only WC I knew was that which I studied. Coming here made me look around at the other "schools of thought". There are so many schools of thought I am of two minds "you can break your WC" and "who am I to say anyone I don't study with has broken their WC because I can only relate to what I am taught.

 

[Nobody Important]

I think another question is "did it break down", which implies a lack of intent, or was it intentional? WC is an great art, but if confronted by an assailant armed with a melee weapon in real life, sorry my WC isn't breaking down, I am going into Kali mode because that, for me, is simply a more natural response to someone coming at me with weapons, because it is basically purpose built for that from the first lesson.

I even think one of the videos he shows kinda shows that point. The TKD video shows the man in black start WC. He changes his structure when in defense but then returns to WC when he attacks (at least at .25 speed that is how it looked to me). If you have additional knowledge its silly to say, imo, "well I study WC now so I can only use WC." I had to fight a boxer once at work. He didn't know what to do with WC except try to clinch me, he just wasn't used to someone comfy trapping and punching (not clinching) that close (I didn't have a taser at the time or there would have been no fight lol). So WC is definitely good in particular circumstances, just like BJJ shines in its own particular set of circumstances but there will be places where there is a better option as well and if you have that option use it.

And I've mentioned that. If you have a better method then why not use it. I can't disagree. I've stated multiple times Wing Chun isn't all inclusive or always the best option. When you try to force a method to respond to something that it isn't as congruent in as another it breaks down.

 

[Danny T]

Much that I don't relate to at all on this thread, including the two examples of chum kiu and comments about the kwan.

Joy I am interested in your thoughts as to what you do not relate to within the comments about the pole.
There were (if my memory serves) three maybe four comments made by different persons.

 

[KPM]

--
That isn't for me to answer, I can only speak to my experience and belief. Fung Siu Ching was an expert in Sut Gow & Kam Na, methods not found in all branches of Wing Chun to such an extent as his. A mitre box is a great tool to augment a saw, but not applicable in every situation. MMA methodology is at the forefront of the fight game. The question to ask, is why? We've seen Wing Chun fall flat time & time again when put to the test despite defending it's supposed superior theory & mechanics. There are some exceptions, but the majority rules. Perhaps the training methodology is flawed & needs reevaluated, or perhaps how the art is being used needs reevaluated. Why do you train other arts if Wing Chun contains all you'll ever require? Not to long ago you questioned Wing Chun yourself.
.

Yes, and as I said to some extent I have been playing the "devil's advocate" here. And you make a great point above. Again, this whole exercise was to really get people to think more deeply about this. Including me!

 

[Vajramusti]

Joy I am interested in your thoughts as to what you do not relate to within the comments about the pole.
There were (if my memory serves) three maybe four comments made by different persons.

------------------
Hi Danny the short end of the pole can also be used... similar to the pulling punch bridge can be \used
when sinking the kwan.

 

[Phobius]

Any traditional arts that do alive training. Judo. Sumo. Boxing. Wrestling. Fighting looks like training.

Arts that dont. Start to stray away from their fighting appearence.

Sorry more accurately where their centerpoint is alive training. So the martial art looks like the sparring because that is the martial art.

This is the whole problem with the discussion.

Judo, Sumo, Boxing, Wrestling and so on. Fighting does not look like training. Instead fighting looks like sparring but sparring is a more integrated part of training.

Boxing may have more drills focused on learning a pattern or combos that are directly used in fighting as a pre-programmed machine, this is why I have a lot of respect for boxing but even there there are a lot of drills that do not look at all like fighting or sparring. Speed bag for instance.

Problem as I see it that if you feel that drills in WC do not look like sparring then you are probably spending too much time doing drills as if a beginner. It is my belief that people in WC are terrible at advancing their drills and get stuck in some kind of passive "I punch and you react" kind of drills where emphasize is on proper techniques and making every move in order to create a feeling in your body to maintain proper structure even in a fighting context.

However a proper structure is not to stand in a static stance but rather being in a constant movement. Also if you are in long range it is not proper technique to be standing squared to your opponent just because WC trains that way. Reason is that you can not neglect distance, and there is no point standing squared if neither arm can reach. Why make yourself a larger target?

At same time you do not give your back to the opponent, as should be drilled quite clearly in the baat cham dao form. So yes you do not stand squared in long range fighting.

Now this would be called "looks like sloppy kickboxing" because it is an opinion of KPM that unless it looks like some chi sao drill or like the guy is doing a SLT form then it is sloppy kickboxing and I can not agree with such statement.

Now on the other hand some of the example videos show terrible sparring still, not terrible in regards to guy throwing everything out the door initially but terrible because there is often a clear difference in experience between fighters and one guy simply becomes frustrated and/or flails wildly in lack of understanding that sparring should be used to train your techniques and not as a need to win. (To their defense it could be fights for honor rather than sparring)

Also the example videos from KPM some show complete lack of knowledge as to what is fighting or even sparring and yet he suggests these show good WC while I would say any sparring in WC that lacks offensive intent is clearly not WC. It may become WC with time but at the moment it is as saying a beginner does WC when doing drills. He is trying to do WC which is not really the right thing.

 

[KPM]

------------------
Hi Danny the short end of the pole can also be used... similar to the pulling punch bridge can be \used
when sinking the kwan.

That's your one gripe? Of course the butt of the pole can be used to strike downward, or even forward. But it is a minor part of the pole compared to everything else. I made the comment about sideways stance with the pole because one end of the pole is what is primarily used.....as opposed to those staff systems that flip the weapon around and strike with both ends fairly equally. Those types of systems often stand relatively "square on" to the opponent.

 

[KPM]

Judo, Sumo, Boxing, Wrestling and so on. Fighting does not look like training. Instead fighting looks like sparring but sparring is a more integrated part of training.

---What gives you that idea? Certainly Judo, Sumo, Boxing, and Wrestling look the same in training as they do in sparring/fighting! Does the Judo guy change the mechanics of his throws he practices in randori just because he is in a competition? Does the wrestler change the mechanics of his double leg takedown he has been practicing in training with his partner just because he is in a competition? Does the boxer change the mechanics of his punching developed from working on the focus mitts with his coach when he gets in the ring with an opponent? Geez! Use a little common sense here!


Boxing may have more drills focused on learning a pattern or combos that are directly used in fighting as a pre-programmed machine, this is why I have a lot of respect for boxing but even there there are a lot of drills that do not look at all like fighting or sparring. Speed bag for instance.

---Ok. So a boxer doing the speed bag does change his punching mechanics just for sake of working the speed bag. A boxer training cardio isn't going to use the same footwork with the jump rope that he will use in the ring. But those are small relatively insignificant drills compared to the entirety of a boxer's training. If the boxer loses his form in the ring that his coach has been working on in training you can bet he is going to hear about it after the fight!



Problem as I see it that if you feel that drills in WC do not look like sparring then you are probably spending too much time doing drills as if a beginner. It is my belief that people in WC are terrible at advancing their drills and get stuck in some kind of passive "I punch and you react" kind of drills where emphasize is on proper techniques and making every move in order to create a feeling in your body to maintain proper structure even in a fighting context.

---Again, it depends on who we are talking about. And, again....I never said I would expect Wing Chun in sparring to be "picture perfect" and look exactly like the forms and drills. I have simply been saying that some abandon the basic structure and mechanics of Wing Chun when sparring. And I wondered why that was, and why so many find that to be acceptable. Why do you find it acceptable? Do you agree with "Nobody Important" that Wing Chun structure and mechanics doesn't really work in fighting?


Also if you are in long range it is not proper technique to be standing squared to your opponent just because WC trains that way. Reason is that you can not neglect distance, and there is no point standing squared if neither arm can reach. Why make yourself a larger target?

---If you aren't close enough to the opponent to reach him, then he isn't close enough to reach you! So what is there to be gained by standing sideways? If he is going to be launching a projectile at you, then yeah! I could see how you might want to make yourself a narrower target! But otherwise??? From a Wing Chun perspective when it is ever advantageous to be standing perfectly sideways to an opponent?? (other than when using the long pole)



it is an opinion of KPM that unless it looks like some chi sao drill or like the guy is doing a SLT form then it is sloppy kickboxing and I can not agree with such statement.

---And again, how many times do I have to point out that I have never said that!!! Why are you putting words in my mouth? Either make a good point or don't. Don't trot out a straw man argument to make yourself feel better.

---Should I spell it out again? Geez, how many times do I need to restate this? Wing Chun has a specific core mechanics and structure for sending and receiving force. This is what is trained in the forms and drills and Chi Sau. That core mechanics is flexible enough to allow for some adaptation when needed. But when someone starts doing things like bending over at the waist bobbing and weaving, throwing wide punches by swinging the shoulders, bouncing around on their toes rather than using smooth gliding footwork, punching with their elbows flared outward, violating principles of facing by standing sideways to an opponent, etc....they have abandoned their core Wing Chun biomechanics. THAT is what I have been saying! So do you, Phobius, believe that someone can abandon those core mechanics and resort to "sloppy kickboxing" as I have just described and still be said to be doing Wing Chun???



Also the example videos from KPM some show complete lack of knowledge as to what is fighting or even sparring and yet he suggests these show good WC

---Huh? You need to explain that one a little further! As far as whether it is good Wing Chun, you'll have to take that one up with Juany118, because all of the examples I noted as pretty good were all TWC!


while I would say any sparring in WC that lacks offensive intent is clearly not WC. It may become WC with time but at the moment it is as saying a beginner does WC when doing drills. He is trying to do WC which is not really the right thing.

---So you are saying that ALL of the videos were examples of "crappy Wing Chun"????

 

[Phobius]

-What gives you that idea? Certainly Judo, Sumo, Boxing, and Wrestling look the same in training as they do in sparring/fighting! Does the Judo guy change the mechanics of his throws he practices in randori just because he is in a competition? Does the wrestler change the mechanics of his double leg takedown he has been practicing in training with his partner just because he is in a competition? Does the boxer change the mechanics of his punching developed from working on the focus mitts with his coach when he gets in the ring with an opponent? Geez! Use a little common sense here!

This is not what was said, I said the drill and the way it looks during drill is not how it looks during sparring or fighting. Drills are targetting specific areas to train, some may resemble sparring and others dont. For boxing a lot of it is maintained same behavior as fighting. Well at least for good schools, just punching bag workouts seem to done in a crappy non-realistic way for some schools but assuming a good class of course.

-Ok. So a boxer doing the speed bag does change his punching mechanics just for sake of working the speed bag. A boxer training cardio isn't going to use the same footwork with the jump rope that he will use in the ring. But those are small relatively insignificant drills compared to the entirety of a boxer's training. If the boxer loses his form in the ring that his coach has been working on in training you can bet he is going to hear about it after the fight!

We are not saying it is ok to lose form. I am saying it is not clear a form is lost just because you think it looks like kickboxing. The difference in that statement should be very clear to you.

A boxer has drills that are not using any techniques as they would be used in sparring or fighting, but boxing is an art that is in its core intended to be that you train exactly the way you fight. Very efficient. This is my belief that when it comes to punching itself a boxer will always become better at that part than any other art given the time investment and natural ability is somewhat identical.

-Again, it depends on who we are talking about. And, again....I never said I would expect Wing Chun in sparring to be "picture perfect" and look exactly like the forms and drills. I have simply been saying that some abandon the basic structure and mechanics of Wing Chun when sparring. And I wondered why that was, and why so many find that to be acceptable. Why do you find it acceptable? Do you agree with "Nobody Important" that Wing Chun structure and mechanics doesn't really work in fighting?

I am disagreeing that WC should look like forms or drills, because most forms or drills people refer to are those on YouTube that lack offensive intent and focuses on singular application or specific movements of body. I can move in other ways and still maintain mechanics, this is because I have been taught over and over that it is not about the techniques but rather to learn my body to move correctly.

Drilling techniques and doing forms teach me the mechanics and to follow them without thinking. It does not teach me how to move in a specific situation because the application drills usually are void of realistic offensive intent. When adding that intent the drill becomes more random in nature and my approach to it becomes something that stems from my training and the very foundation of my body seeking to maintain trained mechanics.

So once more, I am disagreeing that when it in your opinion does not look like the drills it is "sloppy kickboxing". Besides, no fighter will ever be doing WC. WC is a system you train but as for fighting we are not systems, we have a style that we maintain ourselves. It develops based on different systems we have been in contact with.

-If you aren't close enough to the opponent to reach him, then he isn't close enough to reach you! So what is there to be gained by standing sideways? If he is going to be launching a projectile at you, then yeah! I could see how you might want to make yourself a narrower target! But otherwise??? From a Wing Chun perspective when it is ever advantageous to be standing perfectly sideways to an opponent?? (other than when using the long pole)

You have never met a boxer of some kind? Or a taller guy? Believe me, range matters and a boxer will maintain a range for which he can hit you and while squared you will be unable to hit back. If we need to discuss the difference between preferred range of WC vs long range punching then I better just skip this discussion altogether because we wont be able to help each other find new things to think about.

-And again, how many times do I have to point out that I have never said that!!! Why are you putting words in my mouth? Either make a good point or don't. Don't trot out a straw man argument to make yourself feel better.

You are posting videos and stating things such as guard being incorrect, stance not being WC stance and so on. Then you have been saying that if we do not train the way we fight, why train WC at all. That sparring should look like our forms and drills otherwise we better train kickboxing if that is how we look when fighting.

So I turned the words and said the same thing but as a statement about your opinion. If you feel it is bad to train if we do not do sparring as we are doing drills and forms, then you think it is sloppy kickboxing as you call such appearance.

-Should I spell it out again? Geez, how many times do I need to restate this? Wing Chun has a specific core mechanics and structure for sending and receiving force. This is what is trained in the forms and drills and Chi Sau. That core mechanics is flexible enough to allow for some adaptation when needed. But when someone starts doing things like bending over at the waist bobbing and weaving, throwing wide punches by swinging the shoulders, bouncing around on their toes rather than using smooth gliding footwork, punching with their elbows flared outward, violating principles of facing by standing sideways to an opponent, etc....they have abandoned their core Wing Chun biomechanics. THAT is what I have been saying! So do you, Phobius, believe that someone can abandon those core mechanics and resort to "sloppy kickboxing" as I have just described and still be said to be doing Wing Chun???

First of all, bobbing and weaving or similar movement at least can be done while maintaining structure. It does however require practise. Do not assume a boxer has left his back and spine vulnerable because he is moving around. However it of course is not pure Wing Chun, pure Wing Chun is an advanced way of boxing that means you need to be master the elements such as bobbing and weaving to such a degree that you no longer need to use them. What that means to me is that if you can not control the situation you need to know how to bob and weave, and as much as possible try to maintain structure in such a way that you keep the upper hand.

You see, there is a basic knowledge of fighting required in order to be better than it. Not the other way around saying you know no fighting and can train something more advanced to beat regular fighting.

Wide punches are usually a reaction when sparring is failing. Not proper structure but a fighter that is pressured and probably hurt or beat. Usually seen done more often when a fighter is A. believing he is just about to win. or B. in pain and ready to give up, holding on to his last straw.

Swinging shoulders to some degree having a long range punching ability is part of weapon forms in WC. However it is very important to not overdo that movement, same thing applies to most martial arts. Beginners tend to often overdo it and it usually has a punishment attached to it.

Bouncing around on toes I think is a point sparring kind of habit. Often seen introduced I believe (not verified, just my personal theory) when sparring does not have enough offensive intent but becomes more a friendly game of touch. Smooth gliding footwork? Can be steps as well, as this is not a movie. It is not the movement but rather the structure and ability to change path midstep that is important.

Punching with elbows faced outwards is not the same as flared outward. If it can be avoided that is great but for long range punching it might face outward more often than not. Flaring outward however is just sloppy unless doing round punches and in that case those are techniques not taken from WC but rather something the fighter has brought into the game to mix things up.

-Huh? You need to explain that one a little further! As far as whether it is good Wing Chun, you'll have to take that one up with Juany118, because all of the examples I noted as pretty good were all TWC!

It was not the lineage that made them bad, it was the way they were done. It is not even possible to say that it was because the teacher was bad or the student. Could simply be that it was an early phase and they have now improved. Or perhaps it was simply the way they wanted to train that specific day. In some cases they also may not want to relay the proper way of doing sparring because it might be giving too much away in terms of information and rather point to some warmup session or something.

-So you are saying that ALL of the videos were examples of "crappy Wing Chun"????

There is no such possibility of saying something is "crappy Wing Chun". There are just systems people train and then they get a different level of skill based on how much and how they train. So some videos do contain quite a bit of beginners. Others contain people that have spent a lot of time in their life training other arts, leaving it unclear how long they trained Wing Chun and for what purpose they are training it. As such their style may incorporate Wing Chun in exactly the way they wish for it.

 

[KPM]

This is not what was said, I said the drill and the way it looks during drill is not how it looks during sparring or fighting.

---Huh? That's what I thought you said! To which my reply to applies!!!!: "What makes you think that? Certainly Judo, Sumo, Boxing, and Wrestling look the same in training as they do in sparring/fighting! Does the Judo guy change the mechanics of his throws he practices in randori just because he is in a competition? Does the wrestler change the mechanics of his double leg takedown he has been practicing in training with his partner just because he is in a competition? Does the boxer change the mechanics of his punching developed from working on the focus mitts with his coach when he gets in the ring with an opponent?"



We are not saying it is ok to lose form. I am saying it is not clear a form is lost just because you think it looks like kickboxing. The difference in that statement should be very clear to you.

----And my description of losing form should be very clear to you. You didn't answer my question. So let me repeat it: "So do you, Phobius, believe that someone can abandon those core mechanics and resort to "sloppy kickboxing" as I have just described and still be said to be doing Wing Chun???"




I am disagreeing that WC should look like forms or drills, because most forms or drills people refer to are those on YouTube that lack offensive intent and focuses on singular application or specific movements of body. I can move in other ways and still maintain mechanics, this is because I have been taught over and over that it is not about the techniques but rather to learn my body to move correctly.

---And why do you believe that "moving your body correctly".....according to what is taught in the Wing Chun forms and drills.....would NOT resemble Wing Chun???



Drilling techniques and doing forms teach me the mechanics and to follow them without thinking. It does not teach me how to move in a specific situation because the application drills usually are void of realistic offensive intent. When adding that intent the drill becomes more random in nature and my approach to it becomes something that stems from my training and the very foundation of my body seeking to maintain trained mechanics.

---And I have said that the core mechanics of Wing Chun, the way Wing Chun teaches to move correctly, has room for flexibility. What situation do you think would require you to abandon those core mechanics? And....as I have said multiple times now....I am not referring to ground-fighting because Wing Chun does not teach ground-fighting. Why would adding "offensive intent" alter your core Wing Chun mechanics??






You have never met a boxer of some kind? Or a taller guy? Believe me, range matters and a boxer will maintain a range for which he can hit you and while squared you will be unable to hit back.

---But standing sideways you will? I'm sorry. I'm not following your points very well. You skip answering my direct questions and aren't putting together a very good description of what you mean.



You are posting videos and stating things such as guard being incorrect, stance not being WC stance and so on. Then you have been saying that if we do not train the way we fight, why train WC at all. That sparring should look like our forms and drills otherwise we better train kickboxing if that is how we look when fighting.

So I turned the words and said the same thing but as a statement about your opinion. If you feel it is bad to train if we do not do sparring as we are doing drills and forms, then you think it is sloppy kickboxing as you call such appearance.

---I'm not even going to justify that with a rebuttal. You are simply twisting what I have been saying and the points I have been trying to make.


pure Wing Chun is an advanced way of boxing that means you need to be master the elements such as bobbing and weaving to such a degree that you no longer need to use them. What that means to me is that if you can not control the situation you need to know how to bob and weave, and as much as possible try to maintain structure in such a way that you keep the upper hand.

You see, there is a basic knowledge of fighting required in order to be better than it. Not the other way around saying you know no fighting and can train something more advanced to beat regular fighting.

---Ok. So like "Nobody Important" you see Wing Chun as a style to "augment" something else and not as a good independent style all of its own? That's ok! Why haven't you just come out and said that in the past?

 

[Danny T]

------------------
Hi Danny the short end of the pole can also be used... similar to the pulling punch bridge can be \used
when sinking the kwan.

Hi Joy,
Thank you for taking the time to respond. With the instruction and training I've had I agree with that.
Would you be willing to share a thought or two as to the relationship of the stances, structures, and movements within kwan training and other parts of the system or do you find any relationship at all?