Yong Chun Gong Fu

[Flynn]

Hello all,

 

After a fairly long hiatus from meditation and my studies of taoism, I've recently decided to resume a schedule of exercising and meditating daily. So far I've been at it for about three weeks, and things seem to be finding their way back into balance again. I'm very interested, however, in learning a martial art to help improve my physical, mental, and spiritual self.

 

I've been searching around a bit, and it seems that the only schools near me (I live in a fairly rural area) teach either Aikido or Wing Chun (I prefer the pinyin "yong chun," but that's just me being a snob) gong fu. I have taken a few courses in Aikido, and I really enjoyed its philosophy of nonviolence, but I have always been primarily interested in Chinese schools of gong fu. Have any of you practiced yong chun gong fu, particularly in the US? I'd love some advice about what I should do, and what other schools may be better if it is not ideal.

 

Thanks!

Flynn

[Sloppy Zhang]

Well aside from a couple of near legendary practitioners (whose tall tales of martial success are hard to believe), neither of those arts have a very good track record for producing good fighters, or realistic self defense training. But that's just me being a martial arts snob

 

In terms of just physical exercise, the Wing Chun I trained in (just a couple of months before I had to move) was pretty intense in terms of workouts and high intensity movement. A fair amount of physical conditioning, bag work, strike training, and things like that.

 

A friend of mine trains aikido, and while I haven't seen any of his practices, from what he's told me it sounds like it's a lot more about flexibility. Smooth movement, rolling, and stuff like that. Could be intense, could be less intense. I've seen more fat aikido practitioners than Wing Chun practitioners.

 

But if course it all comes down to how each school trains, the branch of it, and things like that. Some things in theory don't transfer to the mat, which don't transfer to real altercations.

 

If you're looking for exercise, I guess it would depend on what you want.

Edited May 26, 2011 by Sloppy Zhang

[doc benway]

Hello all,

 

After a fairly long hiatus from meditation and my studies of taoism, I've recently decided to resume a schedule of exercising and meditating daily. So far I've been at it for about three weeks, and things seem to be finding their way back into balance again. I'm very interested, however, in learning a martial art to help improve my physical, mental, and spiritual self.

 

I've been searching around a bit, and it seems that the only schools near me (I live in a fairly rural area) teach either Aikido or Wing Chun (I prefer the pinyin "yong chun," but that's just me being a snob) gong fu. I have taken a few courses in Aikido, and I really enjoyed its philosophy of nonviolence, but I have always been primarily interested in Chinese schools of gong fu. Have any of you practiced yong chun gong fu, particularly in the US? I'd love some advice about what I should do, and what other schools may be better if it is not ideal.

 

Thanks!

Flynn

I studied WIng Chun of the Yip Man --> William Cheung lineage in Baltimore for about 8 years. I really loved the training methods and theory. Very practical and effective in the ring. No nonsense fighting training but also the group I trained with was not completely comprehensive - not enough in the way of Qin Na and the like. It was well suited to me because I was not big or strong but I was fast and accurate.

 

I studied some Ueshiba Aikido and I've had a taste of Yoshinkan Aidido. Ueshiba Aikido, IMO, is much less practically applicable in the ring and in street fighting at least until you've spent many years in training. Yoshinkan is much more martial and within 2 -3 years you can make it work pretty well with the right teacher. But Aikido for my $1 is much more elegant and challenging and beautiful. It's a lot like a blend of Taijiquan and Baguazhang. I'm convinced that Ueshiba took elements of internal martial arts he learned while in China and used it to evolve his early, martial style (which was equivalent to Yoshinkan - Gozo Shioda simply continued to teach Ueshiba's pre-war curriculum, more or less) into what most people now think of as Aikido.

 

So it depends what you are looking for. You really should spend some time looking at each and even try both for a while and see what you resonate with.

Either way, you can't go wrong, IMO.

[Sloppy Zhang]

....Very practical and effective in the ring. No nonsense fighting training but also the group I trained with was not completely comprehensive - not enough in the way of Qin Na and the like. It was well suited to me because I was not big or strong but I was fast and accurate....

 

Ueshiba Aikido, IMO, is much less practically applicable in the ring and in street fighting at least until you've spent many years in training. Yoshinkan is much more martial and within 2 -3 years you can make it work pretty well with the right teacher.

 

I'm sorry, but I must ask: in what rings are you referring to?

 

Wing Chun doesn't have a very good track record in "the ring". The vid has been removed due to copyrights from youtube, but there was a rather brutal video showing an early UFC fight between a guy who practiced Wing Chun and some other guy. The guy came in for a takedown, and you could actually see the Wing Chun guy chain punching to the other guy's back (legal in those days). It didn't do him much good, as he got the snot beat out of him rather brutally.

 

While the average Wing Chun school is admirable in terms of upping the heart rate, building stamina, and some strength in the arms, for training in practical combat usage it comes up short in more than just Chin Na, unless when you said "and the like", you meant multiple ranges, grappling, and ground fighting.

 

There is this rhetoric floating around that since "going to the ground" in a "street fight" is a "death sentence" (because your attacker has a gang of friends, there is broken glass on the ground, and an HIV infected syringe pointed right at you), many schools just say "we train in avoiding going to the ground." But they seem to ignore the fact that for years, the best fighters who can successfully avoid going to the ground are also the best ground fighters! Because a fighter used to fighting on the ground understands the different dynamics, they are better at either getting up, or avoiding it altogether.

 

As for aikido, while some branches have tried to up the intensity with regards to combat training (like the Tomiki Aikido branch), it's fallen into the same trap that many karate styles have fallen- in attempting to work within certain rules, they've created gaps and strategies that only work within those rules, and come up with techniques that are further away from practical combat effectiveness than what people accuse MMA of being.

 

People like to say that all arts are equal, just train. And I'm sorry, but I just can't find myself agreeing with that. Some arts have a better method, they have a better training process, and they have better systems of checking your progress in as close to a real manner as they can realistically, safely, and legally do.

 

I don't want to derail this thread too much. But if you are hoping to train in any martial art for anything more than strictly health and physical discipline (as in, practical combat effectiveness), look elsewhere.

 

A high level judoka knows more about aikido than someone who's practiced aikido exclusively for their entire life. Why? Because the judoka has tested their technique in very adverse conditions, and, if they are really high level, have experientially learned to enter into the space that an aikidoka hopes to enter, the space where techniques flow without resistance.

 

Look at Anderson "the spider" Silva fight. He is very graceful, relaxed, flowing, and powerful. He's spent years fighting. You can't take him down. If you do, it's because he wants to be there. He doesn't use any extraneous movements. It's just... he probably knows more about Aikido than most Aikidoka. Aikido was discovered and created by a very experienced martial artist. You can't get to that level unless you actually fight. And most martial artists in most of these styles don't actually fight.

 

Anyway, end rant. I'm sorry, I just don't want to to get it into your head that you're learning mega awesome martial techniques, and then, in the best case scenario, get your butt handed to you in a friendly sparring session with someone from another style, or, at worse, get your ass hospitalized in a fight that you thought you could handle because of your training.

 

If you're just training for health and recreation, do whatever tickles your fancy. Just... don't think it is what it isn't. Because most aren't.

Edited May 27, 2011 by Sloppy Zhang

[mewtwo]

sloppy arnt you forgetting one very impressive martial artist? by the name of Bruce Lee?

 

Both ways are accetable but i prefer the chinese way to the japanese so i would say wing chun. I pratice it right now and am loving it. Um where in the us are you located what state?

[Sloppy Zhang]

sloppy arnt you forgetting one very impressive martial artist? by the name of Bruce Lee?

 

Nope.

 

Well aside from a couple of near legendary practitioners (whose tall tales of martial success are hard to believe)

 

And even then, he departed from the style of Wing Chun. In fact, he didn't even complete the training all the way!

 

You could claim he took away the philosophy of "efficiency", but in his heyday, did he even really do Wing Chun? In his later days, he was studying grappling and ground fighting, he was willing to move in a direction even many martial artists today will not.

 

And even then, what fights was it verified that he participated in and won? Mean triad controlled streets of Hong Kong that sped his arrival to the states? A fight in China town against a master that no one is really clear on what happened?

 

Bruce Lee is as much an argument for why NOT to study Wing Chun as he is to study it.

[C T]

Hey Flynn.. thought you might find this link helpful in regards to a portion of your query: http://www.wingchunpedia.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php?n=WCP.KuenKuit#Maxims

[The Way Is Virtue]

You can't really judge the efficacy of a style based on a few matches between practitioners, as much of it really depends on the skill and level of the particular practitioners, but anyway, this wing chun practitioner did very well against two different taekwondo practitioners in what looks like pretty much full contact bouts:

Edited May 27, 2011 by The Way Is Virtue

[Mandrake]

I'm sorry, but I must ask: in what rings are you referring to?

 

Wing Chun doesn't have a very good track record in "the ring". The vid has been removed due to copyrights from youtube, but there was a rather brutal video showing an early UFC fight between a guy who practiced Wing Chun and some other guy. The guy came in for a takedown, and you could actually see the Wing Chun guy chain punching to the other guy's back (legal in those days). It didn't do him much good, as he got the snot beat out of him rather brutally.

 

Sloppy, I call bullshit on this and the later part of your post. If you insist on bringing UFC, and the so called wing chun practicioner that championed, you may as well tell about the ridiculous challenges that the Gracie's claimed real practicioners backed out of. You can continue telling about the counter challenge that Emin Bosztepe posed back to all the tops in the Gracie organization, which they chickened out of.

 

It is lame enough to bring up UFC as a yardstick in the first place, but why do you speak so confidently about Wing Chung with only a couple of months under your belt? You don't even seem to know any famous fighters in the school. It should be obvious, but the world is larger than UFC and the US, and in terms of martial arts, North America is quite a wasteland; recognized fighters couldn't care less.

 

 

Mandrake

[joeblast]

wing chun ineffective...I lol'd

[doc benway]

I'm sorry, but I must ask: in what rings are you referring to?

 

Wing Chun doesn't have a very good track record in "the ring". The vid has been removed due to copyrights from youtube, but there was a rather brutal video showing an early UFC fight between a guy who practiced Wing Chun and some other guy. The guy came in for a takedown, and you could actually see the Wing Chun guy chain punching to the other guy's back (legal in those days). It didn't do him much good, as he got the snot beat out of him rather brutally.

 

While the average Wing Chun school is admirable in terms of upping the heart rate, building stamina, and some strength in the arms, for training in practical combat usage it comes up short in more than just Chin Na, unless when you said "and the like", you meant multiple ranges, grappling, and ground fighting.

 

There is this rhetoric floating around that since "going to the ground" in a "street fight" is a "death sentence" (because your attacker has a gang of friends, there is broken glass on the ground, and an HIV infected syringe pointed right at you), many schools just say "we train in avoiding going to the ground." But they seem to ignore the fact that for years, the best fighters who can successfully avoid going to the ground are also the best ground fighters! Because a fighter used to fighting on the ground understands the different dynamics, they are better at either getting up, or avoiding it altogether.

 

As for aikido, while some branches have tried to up the intensity with regards to combat training (like the Tomiki Aikido branch), it's fallen into the same trap that many karate styles have fallen- in attempting to work within certain rules, they've created gaps and strategies that only work within those rules, and come up with techniques that are further away from practical combat effectiveness than what people accuse MMA of being.

 

People like to say that all arts are equal, just train. And I'm sorry, but I just can't find myself agreeing with that. Some arts have a better method, they have a better training process, and they have better systems of checking your progress in as close to a real manner as they can realistically, safely, and legally do.

 

I don't want to derail this thread too much. But if you are hoping to train in any martial art for anything more than strictly health and physical discipline (as in, practical combat effectiveness), look elsewhere.

 

A high level judoka knows more about aikido than someone who's practiced aikido exclusively for their entire life. Why? Because the judoka has tested their technique in very adverse conditions, and, if they are really high level, have experientially learned to enter into the space that an aikidoka hopes to enter, the space where techniques flow without resistance.

 

Look at Anderson "the spider" Silva fight. He is very graceful, relaxed, flowing, and powerful. He's spent years fighting. You can't take him down. If you do, it's because he wants to be there. He doesn't use any extraneous movements. It's just... he probably knows more about Aikido than most Aikidoka. Aikido was discovered and created by a very experienced martial artist. You can't get to that level unless you actually fight. And most martial artists in most of these styles don't actually fight.

 

Anyway, end rant. I'm sorry, I just don't want to to get it into your head that you're learning mega awesome martial techniques, and then, in the best case scenario, get your butt handed to you in a friendly sparring session with someone from another style, or, at worse, get your ass hospitalized in a fight that you thought you could handle because of your training.

 

If you're just training for health and recreation, do whatever tickles your fancy. Just... don't think it is what it isn't. Because most aren't.

I've seen Wing Chun guys show extremely well in full contact Lei Tai competition going up against a variety of other styles where joint locks, sweeps, elbows, knees were permitted (but no ground fighting beyond the take down and a single, immediate follow up strike). Now these are amateurs, mind you. Not UFC pros.

 

IMO, it's not the art but the individual, teacher, and training methods although some training methods are certainly better than others. I agree 100% with your comments about the value of close range and ground skills.

Also, Yoshinkan style Aikido is quite a bit different than Tomiki and Ueshiba styles. I believe it's proven itself in the street in its use by Tokyo law enforcement groups although I'm not sure if that course at the Yoshinkan hasn't been watered down as it's become so popular.

I agree with your comments about Aikido and judo.

 

Here's a vid of a US Wing Chun guy fighting a Japanese Karate guy (not sure which style):

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Oi9fwWj8NU

Edited May 27, 2011 by steve f

[Sloppy Zhang]

You can't really judge the efficacy of a style based on a few matches between practitioners, as much of it really depends on the skill and level of the particular practitioners,

 

Certain styles teach certain behaviors that are more conducive to success that others. That is just a fact.

 

It's like this- there are certainly rich and success people from the U.S. And there are certainly rich and success people from third world countries.

 

Now how many people, if they had a choice between America and Uganda, or America and Mexico, would go to Uganda or Mexico over the United States if they wanted to become rich? All else being equal, I'd strongly bet that they would choose America.

 

Similarly with martial arts. Sure, an athletic, intelligent person with good instincts can make something work, and be better than only moderately good practitioners from other styles. Does it mean that their style is just the same as others? I think not.

 

I haven't been around for that long a while, but for the time that I have been here, a lot of it has been spent doing martial arts, and I've even had a few fights in my time (on and off "the streets"). And here is my opinion: this whole "all arts are equal, it's about how hard you train" is just some bullshit that a bunch of martial arts teachers started saying to avoid 1) getting into an argument about which style was better, because inevitably someone would ask for proof, and 2) none of those people ever wanted to actually prove their style was better.

 

And fyi, your average Tae Kwon Do is worse than your average Wing Chun. At least the Wing Chun guy can go right in which a TKD guy is doing some ridiculous unnecessary crap. TKD is a style that relies far more on what the individual can do than it relies on actually teaching its students how to fight. And when YOU have to make up that difference, that, to me, is a bad style.

 

Sorry mates.

 

Sloppy, I call bullshit on this and the later part of your post. If you insist on bringing UFC, and the so called wing chun practicioner that championed, you may as well tell about the ridiculous challenges that the Gracie's claimed real practicioners backed out of. You can continue telling about the counter challenge that Emin Bosztepe posed back to all the tops in the Gracie organization, which they chickened out of.

 

You can't comment about fights that don't happen. You CAN comment about fights that HAVE happened.

 

A fair amount of the Gracie Family Challenges are on youtube. Type in "gracie challeng" and you get some good hits. You see guys trying to hit them in the back, try to control the head. And in a matter of seconds, most of the wind up pretty vulnerable.

 

Everyone likes to say "will if you take someone down, their friends will attack you". Well, what if your opponent and his friends know how to take YOU down and keep you there? I'd like to know how to fight down there and get up while still maintaining control, thank you very much.

 

Futhermore, you can look up "BJJ vs *insert word of the day*" and you'll see BJJ come out on top. Now admittedly, some of them must be screened out- for instance, a guy who's done BJJ for four years vs a guy who's done Wing Chun for four months. But, interestingly, if you reverse the scenario, and have a guy who's done BJJ for four years, they beat not only most Wing Chun people, but most TMAists who've done it for far longer. Why?

 

Superior techniques, and superior METHOD.

 

How's that?

 

Full contact, 100% uncooperative training to make sure you can actually pull the technique off against someone who wants to choke you out or (for something like a mixed style) wants to punch your face in.

 

It is lame enough to bring up UFC as a yardstick in the first place,

 

UFC isn't a yard stick. Steve said "in the ring" and I asked him what ring that is. I then thought of a notable ring example that showed a pretty poor example. I didn't say, nor do I think, that the UFC is the only measure for success.

 

but why do you speak so confidently about Wing Chung with only a couple of months under your belt?

 

1) I can recognize the gaps in what I was doing, as well as what the senior students were doing

2) I've been into martial arts for quite some time (since I was about 8 with my TKD- I'm 21 now), so have a fair amount of first hand experience as to what generally works, and what can be made to work (yes, some things can be made to work, and while you can make Wing Chun work, most of what you will need to use to make Wing Chun will involve not doing Wing Chun- so why even bother in the first place?

3) I do a lot of research in my free time (it's a hobby, what can I say?) and I haven't turned up much evidence, even anecdotal stories about stuff that happened in "the streets", that lend much credibility to Wing Chun or even Aikido outside of some very specific circumstances.

 

You don't even seem to know any famous fighters in the school.

 

Nope. Just some that can actually win fights reliably. The thing about famous fighters is that they tend to do just that. Not only win, but do so repeatedly and consistently. And not against schmucks- but against fit, angry, trained people who want to smash all of their teeth into their skull.

 

Tell me there's an Aikidoka who can float gently and neutralize a guy like Brock Lesnar enough times to reliably rule out the possibility of a fluke, and I'll say that that Aikidoka is pretty good.

 

Find me 5 aikidoka who can do that, and I'll say that they have all trained really well.

 

Find me 10, and I'll wonder if they're from the same school.

 

Find me 20, and I'll start to consider that Aikido has some good training.

 

Find me 50, and damn son, we're going to take that Aikido over to the MMA gym and start training up for some amateur fights.

 

You know how many successes BJJ needed to become hugely popular, AND trained by the U.S. military? UFC 1. Everyone was like "how the hell can a scrawny guy choke out these behemoths? Gracie JJ? Sign me the fuck up."

 

You can continue telling about the counter challenge that Emin Bosztepe posed back to all the tops in the Gracie organization, which they chickened out of.

 

Emin Bosztepe? You mean this guy (ignore the commentator, he's stupid).

 

 

One of the two "masters" flailing helplessly about on the ground? After showing such a stellar lack of adequate ground game against on off guard opponent, Emin should be glad they decided to save HIS reputation by not fighting him. He would have gotten destroyed.

 

And for all the skill Emin had, his opponent didn't seem like he actually got hurt at all, sooooooooo......

 

I call Bullshido on him.

 

wing chun ineffective...I lol'd

 

You know the best way to get the internet to hate you?

 

Go on to Bullshido and say Wing Chun is effective.

 

Scratch that, they won't hate you, just laugh at you.

 

There is just not much evidence to show it working.

 

And if you start hating on Bullshido, consider this: they like Tai Chi.

 

Whaaaaaaat?

 

That's right, because there are plenty of Sanshou tournaments that show people clearly using Tai Chi techniques effectively.

 

It ain't too hard to win over the guys on Bullshido. It ain't hard to win over fans of MMA. It ain't hard to win over the military (okay, it's probably a little hard to win them over). And it ain't hard to win over skeptics like me.

 

How do you do it?

 

Do what you say you can do.

 

Not only do most people (including in the martial arts biz) NOT do that, but they routinely demonstrate the OPPOSITE- they are helpless and start flailing about as soon as someone is determined to hurt them.

[Sloppy Zhang]

I believe it's proven itself in the street in its use by Tokyo law enforcement groups although I'm not sure if that course at the Yoshinkan hasn't been watered down as it's become so popular.

 

Well see the thing about police forces, military groups, and things like that, is that if they care for their lives (and most of them do) and their jobs (which most do), they tend to train their arts in a more "traditional" manner:

 

They get out on the floor, and try to beat the crap out of each other, choke each other out, or get them in a lock that it's incredibly easy to "accidentally" break something if the other guy struggles too hard (and since most guys are going at this 110%, it's pretty easy to do).

 

Which means that not only can they do the technique, but they can do it well, repeatedly, and on someone who is not only trained, but wants to hurt them.

 

If more martial arts trained like they had during the days in which they became popular, we wouldn't have so many watered down arts.

 

The problem is that lots of people train for health and wellness, and many teachers teach to that. Which is GREAT. Physical fitness is awesome. But if you teach TKD for aerobics, don't go around saying you can use it for self defense. You can teach Karate and say "historically it was used to fight samurai", and everyone will ooh and aah, but don't start spilling all this crap about gun and knife defense that, for the most part, is a great way to get your students killed!

 

All I'm asking, all I've ever asked out of anyone, is that they do what they say they can do. And not a lot of martial artists out there can do that. What's worse, many of them LIE about what they can do. Quite blatantly, despite a constant stream of evidence to the contrary!

 

And yeah, there are guys in China on the Lei Tai and in Sanshou doing some pretty good stuff with some traditional styles of Kung Fu. Which brings me to an interesting theory of mine...... (history to follow, stop reading if you dare)

 

 

 

 

In China, challenge matches were often held on Lei Tai. Yang Luchan (Yang style Tai Chi) got up on a Lei Tai and threw people off. Other Tai Chi masters did the same. In some instances, not ever hurting their opponent (so it developed a gentle, yet effective reputation).

 

But that's in contrast to the western "ring". You can't throw people out of it. In fact, in the UFC, it's actually ILLEGAL to throw your opponent out of the ring.

 

The thing is that Tai Chi developed some very good neutralization and repelling techniques. They don't always harm, but they can throw. It was suited to their environment. But a modern Tai Chi master on their lever couldn't enter the UFC and do that. They'd have to stick with Lei Tai. Now Yang Banhou, he'd be fine in the UFC, as he had a reputation of just kicking the crap out of people anyway

 

But both of those guys trained rather rigorously. I was actually surprised, because they were the first two I ever read about who trained Tai Chi, and I remember thinking "how did the work up a sweat training Tai Chi?"

 

I think most people these days would think the same, but they aren't as willing as I am to look at the evidence and learn the history

[RiverSnake]

Man...Sloppy do you ever get tired of typing? Just looking at these page long posts makes me tired. Make and effort to compress your sentiments.

Edited May 28, 2011 by Empty_Water

[Sloppy Zhang]

Man...Sloppy do you ever get tired of typing? Just looking at these page long posts makes me tired. Make and effort to compress your sentiments.

 

1) I'm a fast typist

 

2) I make a relevant response to each relevant point

2a) It takes far less space to make a statement than it does to refute a statement and provide solid evidence.

 

3) I responded to multiple people in two posts

 

4) If you don't want to read, you don't have to. But don't tell me I did or didn't say something if you aren't willing to "make an effort to expand your reading ability."

 

I can sit here and say the United States economy is the strongest economy in the world and will never fail. One sentence. It will take far more space to refute that and link to the relevant articles. What would it look like for me to say tl;dr to that?

 

It would just make me look ignorant and unwilling to accept other views.

 

kthxbai

[Cat Pillar]

I've taken a few months worth of Wing Chun, only stopping because of transportation issues. I've had a lot of fun with it, but it's a really small school, and that can sometimes make training hard. It's in the Yip Man --> Duncan Leung lineage, which has lots of great stories behind it. Also, the fighting philosophies seem like they're pretty solid and awesome...but not being an experienced martial artist, it's hard for me to really evaluate that on a practical level.

 

Wing Chun is both an external and internal art. Some of the stances and movements actually have a very close similarity to the qi gong movements I saw in BK Frantzis' "Opening the Energy Gates of the Body." As far as self-defense goes, Aikido and Wing Chun seem to have very different philosophies. The way I'm being taught Wing Chun is "take out your opponent before he takes you out." There's no caring about what happens to the "bad guy" - gouge their eyes out, crush their throat, kick them in the balls (or just rip them off o.O), whatever you need to do to protect yourself. As long as you walk away, it's all good. So if you're attracted to the philosophy of "nonviolence," Wing Chun may not be your thing because as far as I've seen it's a very violent art.

 

As far as the whole Wing Chun vs. MMA/BJJ/Whatever thing, what my Sifu has said is that Wing Chun is effective for self defense because it trains with no rules, and on the street there's no rules in a fight. This supposedly gives a general advantage to the Wing Chun fighter because they've trained to fight dirty instinctively. I can't remember if he said it explicitly, but he at least implied that's why high-level Wing Chun fighters don't do MMA, because they're too likely to slip up and fight dirty. Also, he's not really a Wing Chun elitist - he also says that the biggest factor is the individual and how much and how well they've trained their art. The things I like most about Wing Chun are the efficiency/simplicity of movement (all natural ranges of motion) and the concept of simultaneous attack and defense.

 

All that being said, lately I've been thinking about joining an MMA school in my city that looks pretty good. They teach Judo, BJJ, Muay Thai, Boxing, and Wrestling. I have multiple reasons for this; one, I want to compete, because it's the safest way I can think of for actually testing the effectiveness of what I'm learning. The only way to test your fighting skills is to fight. Secondly, a large school affords me training opportunities that a small school doesn't. With a small school, it's going to class three times a week for an hour, and if you're lucky you can find someone else who's interested in training outside of class. With a big school like the one I'm looking at, they're open pretty much all day and you can get extra training in outside of the scheduled class times. Not to mention I got a really good vibe from the instructor who called me to follow up on my query.

 

Ideally, I want a Chinese martial art to be part of my game because I've always loved the Chinese martial arts. The only question is which one (I still lean strongly towards Wing Chun because it's fun, but I'm really looking more for the internal aspect from the Chinese martial arts, so I may go with Tai Chi or Baguazhang), and whether that will be my starting point or something I develop further down the path.

[Mandrake]

Man...Sloppy do you ever get tired of typing? Just looking at these page long posts makes me tired. Make and effort to compress your sentiments.

 

Precisely. Still bringing up UFC, and incredibly enough, the bullshido forum (is this where you spend your time when your not at ttb=?)... what can I say.

You don't get it Sloppy, the world is bigger than the US and UFC. That the US don't have much at all when it comes to YC is a loss for the country.

 

You said that your few months(!) in YC was enough for you to see the gaps... well, I won't go there - this is a thread for helping Flynn, and not on discussing your intellect. The rest of your post is dishonest - you try to dismiss your ignorance of fighters with a sleight of hand and try to counter Bosztepe with and ad hominem - and just demonstrates what I said initially.

 

 

Mandrake

[Mandrake]

All that being said, lately I've been thinking about joining an MMA school in my city that looks pretty good. They teach Judo, BJJ, Muay Thai, Boxing, and Wrestling. Not to mention I got a really good vibe from the instructor who called me to follow up on my query.

 

...

 

Ideally, I want a Chinese martial art to be part of my game because I've always loved the Chinese martial arts. The only question is which one (I still lean strongly towards Wing Chun because it's fun, but I'm really looking more for the internal aspect from the Chinese martial arts, so I may go with Tai Chi or Baguazhang), and whether that will be my starting point or something I develop further down the path.

 

Cat, ultimately, all these will teach you a lot, it won't be time wasted. What's almost most important is to keep the fun in it; if you enjoy the atmosphere in the MMA club, that will keep you attending, practicing and improving. Just don't fancy that you will understand an art from dipping your toes for a couple of months:

http://www.taichimaster.com/tai-chi/digging-wells-or-dabbling/#more-1770

 

In Wing Chun, you'll learn a lot of skills that later on are transferable to Tai qi or Bagua (Bruce trained it at times when he didn't have access to internal arts). Lin Aiwei teaches some energetic aspects of it, maybe you can contact him if you're interested. If you decide to go this path, at least study until you learn the basic chi sao and begin with the biu tze. Then you will have an idea of what is to come.

 

Good luck, keep the fun, remember your goals, and keep on learning.

 

Mandrake

[Sloppy Zhang]

You said that your few months(!) in YC was enough for you to see the gaps...

 

Well I've been doing martial arts since I was 8. That's 13 years. In a variety of styles under a variety if situations.

 

I'm fairly confident in my ability to gauge a system after a few months by looking at

1) the training

2) the senior students

3) the teacher

4) whether they can do what they say they can do, which means

4a) if they claim to be able to teach self defense, they should be able to defend against an attacker

4b) if they claim to promote health, they should be healthy

 

this is a thread for helping Flynn

 

You are right, and if Flynn wants a martial art to actually fight with, chances are good that Wing Chun and Aikido won't work for him. NOTE: I have NEVER said that these things will NEVER work. I have been very careful to say there are instances in which they can work. But those usually involve things like chance, circumstance, or training above and beyond which is normally called for in the art (for instance, cross training wrestling and Wing Chun).

 

Furthermore, the list I just wrote is a good start of a checklist for how to check out a school.

 

Precisely. Still bringing up UFC, and incredibly enough, the bullshido forum (is this where you spend your time when your not at ttb=?)... what can I say.

 

Translation: Sloppy mentioned bullshido and UFC. That means sloppy knows nothing of "t3h r34l artz", I can assume that sloppy is the same type of person as is over at bullshido, even though I've never gone over there and never actually gotten to know any of the members there, so I don't know that some notable members actually train traditional martial arts. La di da, this sand sure is nice.

 

You don't get it Sloppy, the world is bigger than the US and UFC.

 

Let's play a game called "what did sloppy actually say". I quote me, and then you quote me, and we'll see who's right.

 

UFC isn't a yard stick. Steve said "in the ring" and I asked him what ring that is. I then thought of a notable ring example that showed a pretty poor example. I didn't say, nor do I think, that the UFC is the only measure for success.

 

Yay! Sloppy wins! I don't think the world is made of UFC or the US! Wow, Mandrake, where DO you get your material?

 

That the US don't have much at all when it comes to YC is a loss for the country.

 

I've seen this rhetoric before, oft used by those in the marginalized traditional martial arts camp. Every time one of their fighters gets their ass handed to them it's always "well that's not the 'real' *insert art*". And whenever their fighter wins (when it's obvious he's fighting a talentless adversary) it's always "see, *insert art* is so good, na na na na na na!"

 

Having had the misfortune of having trained in a Karate McDojo, and then to experience the training of a very old school Karate teacher, I perfectly understand the sentiment that there are a lot of lame people out there, and that there are lots of masters who just aren't in public.

 

But for some reason, that's just a point that many TMAists just won't admit- they insist that it's all about the students, they insist that it's all about the rules debilitating them, they insist it's cause they don't want to hurt the other guy, blah blah blah.

 

It's not that it's not a valid point- it's that it's used as an EXCUSE so often.

 

The rest of your post is dishonest

 

How so? Back up your claims!

 

you try to dismiss your ignorance of fighters with a sleight of hand and try to counter Bosztepe with and ad hominem - and just demonstrates what I said initially.

 

What ad hominem? I linked to a video that showed one of his fights. He went down to the ground, and BARELY managed to maintain control. The only reason he managed to do so was because he was fighting someone from Wing Chun. It's safe to say that if he had fought someone from the Gracie Family for the challenge, he would have lost.

 

I have backed up my claims with evidence. You have not. Just because you come in here and say "oh sloppy, you don't know what you're talking about, and you're wrong about Emin..."

 

Well PROVE it!

 

Point to where in my post you think demonstrates that I don't know what I'm talking about.

 

Point to some place you think shows Emin's skill.

 

Just don't fancy that you will understand an art from dipping your toes for a couple of months:

http://www.taichimaster.com/tai-chi/digging-wells-or-dabbling/#more-1770

 

You are right.

 

If you want to dig a deep well of fighting ability, it is a lifetime process. Use what you know from each art to deepen your knowledge, and make connections. For instance, recognize when standing with two feet parallel and a high guard will make you a wide open target with a wrestler with a good takedown. Also know what there is such a thing as single leg takedowns, so even if one foot is behind the other, you are at a risk.

 

Don't feel the need to train for 5 or 10 years until you feel you can safely decide if an art has holes.

Edited May 28, 2011 by Sloppy Zhang

[Cat Pillar]

Cat, ultimately, all these will teach you a lot, it won't be time wasted. What's almost most important is to keep the fun in it; if you enjoy the atmosphere in the MMA club, that will keep you attending, practicing and improving. Just don't fancy that you will understand an art from dipping your toes for a couple of months:

http://www.taichimaster.com/tai-chi/digging-wells-or-dabbling/#more-1770

 

In Wing Chun, you'll learn a lot of skills that later on are transferable to Tai qi or Bagua (Bruce trained it at times when he didn't have access to internal arts). Lin Aiwei teaches some energetic aspects of it, maybe you can contact him if you're interested. If you decide to go this path, at least study until you learn the basic chi sao and begin with the biu tze. Then you will have an idea of what is to come.

 

Good luck, keep the fun, remember your goals, and keep on learning.

 

Mandrake

 

Thanks for the tips! I admit, I really love and would prefer learning Wing Chun to start, but...I just don't feel I can get the training I'm after in the school I go to. I have a lot of respect for the sifu, but I'm looking for a more intensive atmosphere, and the MMA school has pretty much everything I could ask for. If only they taught gong fu!

[C T]

My eyes into the real world opened in 70s Malaysia. Back then, there wasn't much prosperity among folks, and the streets were quite rough. Street fights were the norm. A favorite indulgence for Malaysians is food, and people could avail of delicious grub 24/7, in cafes, restaurants, makeshift huts set up by the riverside, mobile stalls, and roadside hawker units were everywhere. Even though people were not rich, they made sure they enjoyed food!! Its a weakness of the Chinese, and so is gambling. Now, in Malaysia, where there is food being sold, there is bound to be some form of gambling happening, and where there is gambling, chancers and thugs congregate, and where these people come together, fights could not be avoided.

 

Anyway, sorry for veering off. What i want to say, from observation, is that street fights are completely unpredictable, in the sense of outcomes, like who will walk away unscathed or who ends up without an eye or perhaps being carted off to the hospital in a coma. Sometimes the 'winner' becomes the real 'loser' - he wins the fight, but two days later, dies of brain haemorrhage.

 

IMO, No matter how much MA is under your belt, its useless. I have seen big guys being floored by little guys, and i have seen MA experts taken down by punks in one-on-one combats. I think whoever can withstand more pain goes some way in determining who wins. Or in the unpredictable nature of street fights, whoever has the good fortune to grab hold of a bottle or the arm of a broken chair, and gets first hit, is often the victor. In the end, i think the person who can run fastest is the ultimate winner.

 

Having said all this, i am still biased enough to say Wing Chun is one of the better system to master in terms of training in power, agility, and super-quick reflexes, all of which provide sufficient leverage in real-life fight situations.

[Sloppy Zhang]

You know guys, I feel really silly. I found this image a long time ago for situations just like these, but forgot to use it!

[Sloppy Zhang]

My eyes into the real world opened in 70s Malaysia. Back then, there wasn't much prosperity among folks, and the streets were quite rough. Street fights were the norm. A favorite indulgence for Malaysians is food, and people could avail of delicious grub 24/7, in cafes, restaurants, makeshift huts set up by the riverside, mobile stalls, and roadside hawker units were everywhere. Even though people were not rich, they made sure they enjoyed food!! Its a weakness of the Chinese, and so is gambling. Now, in Malaysia, where there is food being sold, there is bound to be some form of gambling happening, and where there is gambling, chancers and thugs congregate, and where these people come together, fights could not be avoided.

 

Anyway, sorry for veering off. What i want to say, from observation, is that street fights are completely unpredictable, in the sense of outcomes, like who will walk away unscathed or who ends up without an eye or perhaps being carted off to the hospital in a coma. Sometimes the 'winner' becomes the real 'loser' - he wins the fight, but two days later, dies of brain haemorrhage.

 

IMO, No matter how much MA is under your belt, its useless. I have seen big guys being floored by little guys, and i have seen MA experts taken down by punks in one-on-one combats. I think whoever can withstand more pain goes some way in determining who wins. Or in the unpredictable nature of street fights, whoever has the good fortune to grab hold of a bottle or the arm of a broken chair, and gets first hit, is often the victor. In the end, i think the person who can run fastest is the ultimate winner.

 

Having said all this, i am still biased enough to say Wing Chun is one of the better system to master in terms of training in power, agility, and super-quick reflexes, all of which provide sufficient leverage in real-life fight situations.

 

True, situations like that are unpredictable and in some sense, there is almost nothing you can do to prepare.

 

But on the flip side, you shouldn't NOT prepare.

 

Personally, I'm not a ground fighter, at least I don't consider myself. There are too many scenarios in which it's not a good idea, that I wouldn't even go there.

 

But I live in America, and I have to consider what I can be facing. And someone is just as likely to football tackle you than they are to take a swing. And thanks to UFC (you may not like it, but you'd be a fool to ignore its impact), even non trained people have an idea of how to set up and execute a double or a single leg takedown. Which means that any reasonably athletic and angry individual can dump you on your ass if you aren't careful.

 

And that's why, as a matter of personal self defense, I have learned enough about it to know- how to prevent going there, what to do if I get there, how to win there, and how to get up while maintaining my control over my opponent.

 

I 100% agree that avoidance and running are the best strategies. But I also agree that training strength, speed, agility and reflexes are also good. And to that extent, Wing Chun is far from the worst. But is it the best? I'm not so sure.

 

Not only do you need the physical attributes, but you need to train them in the right context. Wing Chun, that's good for punching and your basic angry guy- standing up. On the ground?

 

Well, I've already posted a video of two Wing Chun guys on the ground. It didn't look pretty. And the sad thing? Supporters of BOTH people cite that fight as evidence for Wing Chun being able to fight on the ground! Supporters of Emin go "wow, he took them down to the ground", and supporters of Cheung go "sure he got taken down, but he used Wing Chun principles to defend himself, and when he got up, he wasn't even hurt!"

 

To me it just sounds like desperate grasping for straws from both sides. Sorry. Just calling it how I see it.

Edited May 28, 2011 by Sloppy Zhang

[C T]

True, situations like that are unpredictable and in some sense, there is almost nothing you can do to prepare.

 

But on the flip side, you shouldn't NOT prepare.

 

Personally, I'm not a ground fighter, at least I don't consider myself. There are too many scenarios in which it's not a good idea, that I wouldn't even go there.

 

But I live in America, and I have to consider what I can be facing. And someone is just as likely to football tackle you than they are to take a swing. And thanks to UFC (you may not like it, but you'd be a fool to ignore its impact), even non trained people have an idea of how to set up and execute a double or a single leg takedown. Which means that any reasonably athletic and angry individual can dump you on your ass if you aren't careful.

 

And that's why, as a matter of personal self defense, I have learned enough about it to know- how to prevent going there, what to do if I get there, how to win there, and how to get up while maintaining my control over my opponent.

 

I 100% agree that avoidance and running are the best strategies. But I also agree that training strength, speed, agility and reflexes are also good. And to that extent, Wing Chun is far from the worst. But is it the best? I'm not so sure.

 

Not only do you need the physical attributes, but you need to train them in the right context. Wing Chun, that's good for punching and your basic angry guy- standing up. On the ground?

 

Well, I've already posted a video of two Wing Chun guys on the ground. It didn't look pretty. And the sad thing? Supporters of BOTH people cite that fight as evidence for Wing Chun being able to fight on the ground! Supporters of Emin go "wow, he took them down to the ground", and supporters of Cheung go "sure he got taken down, but he used Wing Chun principles to defend himself, and when he got up, he wasn't even hurt!"

 

To me it just sounds like desperate clinging to straws from both sides. Sorry. Just calling it how I see it.

Noted. Nothing to disagree here, SZ.

 

Wing Chun is one of the better forms as mentioned. Did not say it was the best. I have seen WC guys getting no let-in at all against top Muay Thai fighters, not because MT is a more superior art, but, IMo, the main difference is the dedication level of the exponents, most of whom begin their training at 5 or 6 years of age, and also their ability to withstand pain. Not sure if its true or not, but i have been told, by a Thai friend, that most of their boxers carry some sort of talisman that aids in pain tolerance.

 

Having said this, i have witnessed a number of free-style MA contests (in South East Asia - MMA had not made inroads yet back then) where Wing Chun fighters have emerged as impressive winners, against forms such as Hung Gar, Ba Gua, Wushu, Mantis, TKD, Karate, Cheung Khuen, Fut Gar, Li Gar, etc. I think its the adaptability aspect built in to Wing Chun that gives the students a slight edge over the other styles. I could be wrong, of course.

 

If i had to pick two forms to practice, i'd go for MT and Wing Chun for sure.

[Sloppy Zhang]

Nothing to disagree with from anything you've said either, CowTao

 

Having said this, i have witnessed a number of free-style MA contests (in South East Asia - MMA had not made inroads yet back then) where Wing Chun fighters have emerged as impressive winners, against forms such as Hung Gar, Ba Gua, Wushu, Mantis, TKD, Karate, Cheung Khuen, Fut Gar, Li Gar, etc. I think its the adaptability aspect built in to Wing Chun that gives the students a slight edge over the other styles. I could be wrong, of course.

 

But see you've got to consider what you are up against. None of those listed have ground fighting. They might have some rough stand up grappling, sweeps, and throws- but which of those are going to take you down, get side control, and beat your face in before flipping over and breaking your arm? What is your risk of running into this?:

 

 

(and this is why later UFC added rules to prohibit these types of elbows)

 

I recall reading somewhere that during the development of many of these arts, rolling around on the ground was considered the activity of children and dogs- not suitable behavior for an adult, let alone a warrior. Battlefield conditions between large numbers of ground troops are also not conducive to much ground fighting- either your buddy stabs them in the back, or their buddy stabs you on the back.

 

However, just because most people don't recognize that it can be a viable tactic in other scenarios (one on one, space to do it, etc) doesn't mean that it can't be used to great effect. An easily accessible, non-anecdotal example is UFC. Gracie JuJutsu and Wrestling cleaned out, because guys coming in with stand up didn't even know you could do all that stuff.

 

Now one thing I was impressed with was when I heard that that Hong Kong flight provider would be teaching Wing Chun to the cabin crew. That is probably one of the best, if not THE best, arenas that I can think of that Wing Chun would dominate- confined quarters, narrow, your opponent is right in front of you. The only thing you have to make sure is you don't fall forwards or backwards.

 

Of course, I was disenchanted when I saw all the promo picks showing the chicks with the locked elbows Which to me said they started teaching it for the main reason many westerners start learning it- it's a cultural symbol, a "hey, I'm learning Kung Fu, it's fighting, but it's multicultural!". It's almost more about the image than it is about actually learning to fight.

 

If i had to pick two forms to practice, i'd go for MT and Wing Chun for sure.

 

The going top picks in most circles are Muay Thai and Brazilian JuJutsu Jiu Jutsu (really any mix that gives you good stand-up striking, good clinch, and good ground). So you're halfway there

 

And I should note that you don't even have to be thinking of competitive fighting, but can also be thinking of self defense, to get those three areas. Stephen K. Hayes has done some good self defense material that addresses those. For instance, in the ground fighting stuff, he and his teachers teach how not only to control the opponent, but to control them even as you get up (in case they try again), rather that just breaking it off as soon as the other guy taps as you may in a competitive sport.

 

 

Again, not saying there aren't good things you can learn from Wing Chun. But look at the Wing Chun vid that Steve posted. A lot of that stuff went to clinch fighting and grappling. The guy was throwing wide punches (not the Wing Chun economy of movement punches). So if, when you get into a fight, most of what you do is non-Wing Chun, why not start from non-Wing Chun, and do some Wing Chun on the side of that's what you're into, rather than the other way around?

 

I dunno. I like to think of it as- what if you were thrown into a situation where you had do defend yourself the next time you walk out your door? What would you rather have spent your time training? What are you most likely to need if you have no option other than to physically defend yourself? Get where you can do the basics of each range, THEN start doing the fancy stuff.

Edited May 28, 2011 by Sloppy Zhang