Wing Chun vs MMA

[lklawson]

I agree with everything you say here with the exception of "robo-droid" working when you are the only guy there. (I love that term btw, stealing it ) in the Military it works because you are part of a Unit. You can afford to tunnel vision on your targets because of the rest of the unit addressing other targets. On the Street in civilian life that dynamic is rarely there so I see a difference personally. In short what works for a mass military action where casualties are acceptable, but if ourse you wish to minimize, vs how you should train for a violent individual encounter where you becoming a casualty is not acceptable to you? These appear to be different goals require a different focus of sorts. fighting tunnel vision rather than relying on the battle buddy to hit the guy you can't see is the first difference that comes to mind.

I see it most often in ex-mil. It's the training and doesn't require buddies to be with you, only the right stimulus to initiate it.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Juany118]

I'm pretty familiar with fight-or-flight adrenal stress studies and training methodologies. None of that actually supports your claim that referee calls and round breaks "lower your brains perception of danger so that adrenalin rush usually doesn't kick in until you are getting your *** handed to you."

If you'd argued that desensitization techniques can lower the likelihood of adrenal dump, I'd be right with you, but I just don't see a causal link. That's not how stimuli works. First the stimuli, then the response. If you'd claimed that a MMA trained fighter might pause or hesitate during a "real fight" if someone yelled "BREAK!!" with a referee tone (or whatever) or that they might pause or hesitate if he heard a bell ring, I'd probably agree. But your claim seems to be running off of some pretty broad assumptions.

Tuesday night while teaching Tomahawk I jammed my left thumb so bad that I had an adrenal dump on it and the queezy reaction when I eventually finally felt the pain. Had to lay down (about 5 min after the fight). When I taught grip fighting the next night at judo, I couldn't use my left hand (or even open a frigg'n twist cap). I would have had to Off Hand pistol because no way I could have gotten a solid Isosceles, never mind a Weaver, and a rifle would have been, umm... "challenging."

Are you a "dead eyes" guy? I've only hit dead eyes a couple of times. I know guys who almost can't seem to not go dead eyes.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

Sorry if you missed my edit, I actually assumed you knew what the effects were of a dump, so I added "not you" in ( )

My main point is to say that this is how it works for me. Is it because I am on the down hill slope to 50 and have worn BDU and Blue since 1991 and looking at what the body does in fight or flight and how/when it effects me? I can only say in a controlled environment I don't get the dump...UNTIL I feel actually real pain as I stated. You Jammed your thumb teaching a tomahawk I have my hand basically crushed between the middle and index finger with a training knife during sparing.

I will be honest the term "dead eyes" has many meaning to me, a good shot, a synonym for the 1000 yard stare and more so I am uncertain how to answer it.

 

[lklawson]

A video of reflexive fire...

Your sight picture, cheap well etc, all the same. The only difference is that you are in a split second challenged on what targets to shoot at. It is good training but the mechanics of shooting have not changed. This is just part of advanced marksmanship which challenges your reactions to an immediate threat.

Actually, I'd argue that it is different. This reflexive fire technique relies on the use of the holo. That allows the shooter to focus on the target. This is dramatically different from classic Sight Picture and Sight Alignment which teach to focus on the front sight. Focusing on the target instead of the front sight is a standard element of Instinctive Shooting methods, many of which not only eschewed the use of sights but sometimes even removed or obscured the sights making them impossible to use (ref. the U.S. Army "Quick Kill" method and the Col. Charles Askins pistol "point shooting" method).

The red dot/holo sight allows a perfect convergence of sighted and Instinctive methods by both allowing the shooter to focus on the target/threat (which is a natural tendency during adrenal dump) and still be able to use a "sight" because the dot appears to project on top of the threat.

So, yes, I'd argue that Reflexive Fire is different from traditional rifle shooting, closer to skeet with a shotty if you wanted to compare it to something that still has "sights," I'd say.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Juany118]

I see it most often in ex-mil. It's the training and doesn't require buddies to be with you, only the right stimulus to initiate it.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

Oh ex-mil have it and it kicks in. However I and other LEOs have had to do ourselves. It doesn't address if you are the only guy in bar fight, waiting for back up or addressing use of force. The last bit is so important.

True story, in the police academy, doing a simulated felony car stop. I am the cop on the passenger side. The right front passenger of the car bails and runs, I immediately track, shoot, return to the car which has three occupants. All the passenger did was run... Robo-droid is BAD!!!!!!!! Lol

 

[lklawson]

Sorry if you missed my edit, I actually assumed you knew what the effects were of a dump, so I added "not you" in ( )

Dang. Sorry. It's one of the dangers of keeping on top of a thread. Don't worry, I have to go do real work soon.

My main point is to say that this is how it works for me. Is it because I am on the down hill slope to 50 and have worn BDU and Blue since 1991 and looking at what the body does in fight or flight and how/when it effects me? I can only say in a controlled environment I don't get the dump...UNTIL I feel actually real pain as I stated.

I have friends who actually can't get worked up into a fight until after they've taken a good shot.

You Jammed your thumb teaching a tomahawk I have my hand basically crushed between the middle and index finger with a training knife during sparing.

Just a very recent example of understanding. Probably the best example, gone by a few years now, was when I broke my foot in judo and stayed on the mat anyway. I swore that it "didn't hurt bad enough" to be busted. Just a deep bruise or something, right? Wrong. <sigh>

I will be honest the term "dead eyes" has many meaning to me, a good shot, a synonym for the 1000 yard stare and more so I am uncertain how to answer it.

Detached robo-droid executing the "kill protocol" on autopilot. I see it commonly in ex-mil, some "natural fighters," but very rarely in "trained martial artists."

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[lklawson]

Robo-droid is BAD!!!!!!!! Lol

Well, neither good nor bad. It is incapable of doing anything other than following programming.
And it tends to follow the most reinforced programming it has.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Juany118]

Actually, I'd argue that it is different. This reflexive fire technique relies on the use of the holo. That allows the shooter to focus on the target. This is dramatically different from classic Sight Picture and Sight Alignment which teach to focus on the front sight. Focusing on the target instead of the front sight is a standard element of Instinctive Shooting methods, many of which not only eschewed the use of sights but sometimes even removed or obscured the sights making them impossible to use (ref. the U.S. Army "Quick Kill" method and the Col. Charles Askins pistol "point shooting" method).

The red dot/holo sight allows a perfect convergence of sighted and Instinctive methods by both allowing the shooter to focus on the target/threat (which is a natural tendency during adrenal dump) and still be able to use a "sight" because the dot appears to project on top of the threat.

So, yes, I'd argue that Reflexive Fire is different from traditional rifle shooting, closer to skeet with a shotty if you wanted to compare it to something that still has "sights," I'd say.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

I can see that argument, but getting a sight picture, even with iron sights if it is "your" weapon (meaning zeroed for you stock adjusted etc) is just subconscious for me and those sights were the ONLY sights when I was in. It simply becomes second nature that when that stock it at your cheek the sight is at your eye. Part of the purpose of that drill is actually to make that second nature, but the is just again, my personal experience because that is what such drills did for me.

 

[Juany118]

Well, neither good nor bad. It is incapable of doing anything other than following programming.
And it tends to follow the most reinforced programming it has.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

On Dead Eyes, I can say when I was in the service, yeah it was there but that world is different than the civilian world. When I said "robot droid is bad" I meant as a default. Robo-Droid being a default in a bonafide combat zone? That is acceptable. While enforcing laws in a free society, it isnt because while you need to act you need to be able to justify it legally so you have to go from Robo-droid, who does just what he is programmed to do to say Spock or Data who are logic/fact drive BUT still make an actual decision. Does that make sense?

 

[lklawson]

On Dead Eyes, I can say when I was in the service, yeah it was there but that world is different than the civilian world. When I said "robot droid is bad" I meant as a default. Robo-Droid being a default in a bonafide combat zone? That is acceptable. While enforcing laws in a free society, it isnt because while you need to act you need to be able to justify it legally so you have to go from Robo-droid, who does just what he is programmed to do to say Spock or Data who are logic/fact drive BUT still make an actual decision. Does that make sense?

Yup.

LEO goals are different from that of either non-LEO self defense or that of the military.

I wrote an article about it, in fact.

Why Military and Law Enforcement firearms force training may not be op

I wrote it mostly because I got tired of people telling me that they are ex-mil, ex-cop, or have trained with/to the standards of. Well, that's useful, but, as you illustrate, popping into robo-droid and peppering a fleeing vehicle isn't really a legally viable affirmative defense for a claim of "self defense."

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[lklawson]

You Jammed your thumb teaching a tomahawk

I'm beginning to think it's a minor sprain.

I'm too stubborn to go to the doc. I'll tape the fragg'n thing.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[drop bear]

Oh, I don't know about that. Some broad training methodologies intended to teach certain generalized ("universal") fighting "skills" can be applied in nearly every martial system, or even culture. There are just some things that are "universal" problems or pitfalls that fighters must somehow be able to conquer. Almost all of these are related to human adrenal dump; "fight or flight" response. Some of it is related to the fact that humans are just really really bad at making logical decisions, even simple binary decisions, when under adrenal dump. A successful "fighting" or (gads) "Combat" martial art must include methods for addressing this.

I've found that there appears to be two "solutions" to achieving these results.

First is the concept of controlling the mindset so that adrenal dump either doesn't happen or is controlled in such a way as to have minimized physiological impact. I believe that this is one of the reasons that the Japanese developed the concepts of zanshin and mushin. That relaxed, semi-meditative-like state of detached, peaceful state awareness empty of anger, fear, or, to a degree, even aggression. Learning how to enter that state takes years usually of dedicated practice and a good instructor but when it works, it works really well. Another method along these lines is a process head-shrinkers call "desensitization." This is a process where the troubling "stimulation" has occurred sooooo many times to you that it no longer bothers you at all. It's the same method used to treat people with phobias and teach Nazi death-camp guards that it's OK. When applied to a violent encounter, constant, repeated exposures to the violence, including (especially) doling out the violence, no longer creates the adrenal dump/fight-or-flight which puts you in a very narrow mental loop and often causes untrained people to freeze. With sufficient desensitization, "it's just another day at the office, breaking stuff off of people, I wonder what's for dinner? <crunch>" Desensitization also takes a great deal of time to affect, multiple, repeated exposures.

The second concept is now commonly used by many militaries of the world, including the U.S. military. Harness the adrenal dump response. This focuses on the "fight" part of "flight-or-fight." During adrenal dump, people sort of go into an automated loop. They do exactly, and often ONLY, what they've trained to do. I call this "robo-droid." I recall seeing video of a man trying to use a pistol for self defense and failing. He pulls the trigger over and over and the gun does nothing. It won't fire. Turns out he had the safety on. His training had never included flicking off the safety as part of his defensive drills so when adrenal dump hit, his robo-droid followed its programing by pointing and pressing the trigger. Robo-droid is pretty much just a set of programs, following a script which it is incapable of deviating from. Much of military combat training is now focused on programming robo-droid on how to react. Many people who enter this state report that there is sort of a run-up to it of very heightened fear or anger and then a kind of "going dead" detached feeling while their body does very violent things, outside of their control. A little like being a tourist riding along inside your body while a robot takes over. From the outside, people viewing it often report that all emotion drains from the persons face or that their eyes go dead and there's a feel of impending violence balanced on a knive's edge. This isn't an entirely new concept, of course. Fighters have been training to use the "combat rage" for as long as humans have been fighting. There's some evidence, for instance, that the semi-legendary Berzerkers operated this way. (On a side note, if you see someone in the run-up to a fight and you can almost literally see their eyes "go dead," GTFO right now! crap's about to hit the fan.)

Any of these general training methodologies for dealing with fight-or-flight can be applied to almost any martial arts training or system from boxing, to grappling, to swordfighting, all the way up through modern firearms.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

Yes there are going to be common elements that separate good training ftom bad.

Universal fighting skills is in part my point.

And these will run from black and white ideas. That some training is terrible to a grey area that some training is situational to both methods have merit

Sport of course faces the same adrenaline issues. And in general are resolved the same way.

 

[Juany118]

Oh, I don't know about that. Some broad training methodologies intended to teach certain generalized ("universal") fighting "skills" can be applied in nearly every martial system, or even culture.

This is actually my point. It may simply be my manner of thinking, I am very compartmentalized in that respect. So, as an example, I study WC and Kali, that is my Martial Art. Since I first learned scanning techniques (to counter tunnel vision) and the concept of muscle memory, both to counter the effects of an Adrenalin Dump, during firearms training at Ft. Knox many moons ago, I don't see that as part of my Martial Art, I see it as part of me.

The same with "Tactical Breathing" but what my Aikido Sensei called "Ki Breathing" when I started training after I left active duty. I use it all the time at work in the event an adrenaline dump simply MIGHT happen or to help control it upon sudden onset (you would be surprised that simply hearing a shout on the radio of "get me other units now!!!" From a familiar voice can trigger the dump). Again though since I use these techniques in some many different ways out side of martial arts (example, simply driving a car under stress) I see them as "person skills" vs "martial arts skills".

 

[Juany118]

I'm beginning to think it's a minor sprain.

I'm too stubborn to go to the doc. I'll tape the fragg'n thing.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

Oh I am too for off the job stuff, on the job I always fill out that form though just in case a week later I am still like "yeah Sgt, I can't really get my gun out of the holster" like I did two years ago when I slammed my elbow into concrete dropping to the prone like I was on grass." Yeah I was stupid. Lol

 

[Juany118]

Yup.

LEO goals are different from that of either non-LEO self defense or that of the military.

I wrote an article about it, in fact.

Why Military and Law Enforcement firearms force training may not be op

I wrote it mostly because I got tired of people telling me that they are ex-mil, ex-cop, or have trained with/to the standards of. Well, that's useful, but, as you illustrate, popping into robo-droid and peppering a fleeing vehicle isn't really a legally viable affirmative defense for a claim of "self defense."

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

Good article. You have no idea how often at work I have had to explain to someone "no you can't shoot the guy for being on your lawn, you have to be able to articulate a clear belief you were in fear of death or serious bodily injury. This is a lot easier to do if the guy is in your house BUT you better shoot him in the chest. If you shoot him in the back, just for being in your house, you are probably screwed."

Then they say "cops shoot fleeing people" and I say "Google Tennessee v Garner." We can only do that if we can articulate that the danger to the public in letting the suspect escape outweighs other concerns. So fleeing thief? No. Guy fleeing a shooting with the gun still in his hand? Yes."

 

[Tez3]

Good article. You have no idea how often at work I have had to explain to someone "no you can't shoot the guy for being on your lawn, you have to be able to articulate a clear belief you were in fear of death or serious bodily injury. This is a lot easier to do if the guy is in your house BUT you better shoot him in the chest. If you shoot him in the back, just for being in your house, you are probably screwed."

Then they say "cops shoot fleeing people" and I say "Google Tennessee v Garner." We can only do that if we can articulate that the danger to the public in letting the suspect escape outweighs other concerns. So fleeing thief? No. Guy fleeing a shooting with the gun still in his hand? Yes."

We have a rather famous case here that people like to use to say that we need guns/our justice system is wrong etc but they have failed to look at the facts of the case. The media headlines were 'man who shot and killed burglar in his house is sent to prison', cue hysteria. I've see foreign media also report this notably in the US and heard it said how we are handicapped from not being able to have guns. However the real facts, as anyone can see from the court reports was that this man had booby trapped his house and had enticed two lads to his house. When they'd entered it and sussed out it was a trap he shot one of them in the back killing him as he ran down the garden path. The householder also had illegal unregistered shotguns and had threatened to kill his brother not long before. He had a record of threatening behaviour.

 

[Juany118]

We have a rather famous case here that people like to use to say that we need guns/our justice system is wrong etc but they have failed to look at the facts of the case. The media headlines were 'man who shot and killed burglar in his house is sent to prison', cue hysteria. I've see foreign media also report this notably in the US and heard it said how we are handicapped from not being able to have guns. However the real facts, as anyone can see from the court reports was that this man had booby trapped his house and had enticed two lads to his house. When they'd entered it and sussed out it was a trap he shot one of them in the back killing him as he ran down the garden path. The householder also had illegal unregistered shotguns and had threatened to kill his brother not long before. He had a record of threatening behaviour.

Kinda like this one...

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/04/29/minnesota-homeowner-kills-teens/8480047/

 

[moonhill99]

What is better for self-defense, Wing Chun or MMA? Please no comments about how one martial is not better than another. Thanks.

Yea I read that Wing Chun can also help with boxing and kenpo karate too.

That with Wing Chun you will have really good eye to eye coordination and really fast speed striking.

And also Wing Chun will conditional you when the bad guy is punching you and or swinging at you really fast that you are not going to freak out. Like wow he is so fast what do I do.......

And last is Wing Chun will conditional you when bad guy is fighting you that he is so close to you that he is like almost at you face you not going to freak out.

 

[Juany118]

Yea I read that Wing Chun can also help with boxing and kenpo karate too.

That with Wing Chun you will have really good eye to eye coordination and really fast speed striking.

And also Wing Chun will conditional you when the bad guy is punching you and or swinging at you really fast that you are not going to freak out. Like wow he is so fast what do I do.......

And last is Wing Chun will conditional you when bad guy is fighting you that he is so close to you that he is like almost at you face you not going to freak out.

Just one thing WC does indeed require good hand eye coordination BUT there is one other thing that it teaches that is more important for that speed, imo.

It teaches touch sensitivity. You shouldn't be "chasing the hands" when you fight. Basically while you are fighting, naturally when you deflect an incoming attack you contact it. You know where that limb is and when it pulls away, if you have trained yourself to think this way, you know which way it's going.

Did they pull it back? Drop it down? Raise it? Are they still trying to push through? This is what accounts for the ability to appear so fast because once the fight starts, your eyes are concerned about the opponent's center (where we will attack) and the next attack coming, but the attacks we have already stopped, we track via feel not looking.

Plus there is an element that my Sifu refers to his this "don't be afraid to be "touched", just don't let them get a real solid hit as you close in". You basically have to be willing to hang your butt out a little bit and risk it being shot off.

When you combine these things together and you see the key thing about WC, the defenses are designed around offense. They aren't there to stop an enemy's attack, they are their to open the enemy up for your attacks. This is what makes WC so fast, the defense is simply a means to an end, the end being to aggressively attack the enemy and, tbh end the fight as quickly and brutally as possible.

I only point the last bit out because some Martial Arts do not share this attitude and I have seen it cause issues, even confusion among some students.

 

[drop bear]

Just one thing WC does indeed require good hand eye coordination BUT there is one other thing that it teaches that is more important for that speed, imo.

It teaches touch sensitivity. You shouldn't be "chasing the hands" when you fight. Basically while you are fighting, naturally when you deflect an incoming attack you contact it. You know where that limb is and when it pulls away, if you have trained yourself to think this way, you know which way it's going.

Did they pull it back? Drop it down? Raise it? Are they still trying to push through? This is what accounts for the ability to appear so fast because once the fight starts, your eyes are concerned about the opponent's center (where we will attack) and the next attack coming, but the attacks we have already stopped, we track via feel not looking.

Plus there is an element that my Sifu refers to his this "don't be afraid to be "touched", just don't let them get a real solid hit as you close in". You basically have to be willing to hang your butt out a little bit and risk it being shot off.

When you combine these things together and you see the key thing about WC, the defenses are designed around offense. They aren't there to stop an enemy's attack, they are their to open the enemy up for your attacks. This is what makes WC so fast, the defense is simply a means to an end, the end being to aggressively attack the enemy and, tbh end the fight as quickly and brutally as possible.

I only point the last bit out because some Martial Arts do not share this attitude and I have seen it cause issues, even confusion among some students.

I thought you relied on rule breaking and deadly tactics to get your system over the line.

 

[Juany118]

I thought you relied on rule breaking and deadly tactics to get your system over the line.

Hey look another strawman argument. The attitude and general rules that you may or may not recognize are independent (or should be) of what art you chose to learn, in terms of a rl self defense system.

You should pick one suited to your physical attributes and mind set. There are arts which suit the more powerful, the more flexible, the more swift. There are arts that suit the more aggressive or the more patient in a fight. There are ones that suit those who have more or less patience when it comes to the pace of instruction etc.

These things things are what my post referred to so that the poster I was responding to would have a better idea, if they were considering studying WC, if it was "right for them." The stuff you note comes into play AFTER you have picked the one right for you and started learning it.

The first step of it being "the fighter and not the art" is making sure the art and the fight "fit" with each other. Example I would not make a good boxer. My body type and metabolism make it hard, if not impossible, to gain a lot of muscle. So I pick arts that are more about speed, deflection vs hard blocks, strategy al la the centerline theory of WC and the defang the snake concept of Kali etc. Martial Arts with an over reliance on muscle for raw power I would fail at.