228264 Bullies, 4627 online  
  • Register
Our Sponsors:

Results 11 to 20 of 167
Page 2 of 17 FirstFirst 12 345612 ... LastLast
Sponsored Links Spacer Image
  1. M1K3 is offline
    M1K3's Avatar

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Southern NJ
    Posts
    2,367

    Posted On:
    4/09/2007 1:09pm


     Style: submission grappling

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    TanPunch, I think this is a good idea for a thread, however you will see the majority of responses will fall into 4 cantigories.

    1. Wing Chun is complete, it dosn't need to change.
    2. Wing Chun sucks, changing it won't help
    3. If you change it, its not Wing Chun anymore
    and last but not least;
    4. Who are you to change Wing Chun.

    If the discussion can get beyond these 4 roadblocks it could get interesting. My background is wrestling with some bjj, BUT, I have done some Wing Chun and found it interesting.

    As to why it might change, well, times have changed, new martial arts and combative sports have appeared on the scene as well as new philosophys and methodoligies for training.

    Would it still be Wing Chun, well, I can give 2 examples as to why it would.

    1. English, as a language takes words and phrases from all over the world and absorbs them. It is still English, just not the same English as in the past.

    2. BJJ has absorbed new techniques as it runs into them, or as they are invented by bjj players. It is still jiu-jitsu.

    The bottom line for changing or not changing something is pragmatism. Does it work? This answer will be different for each Wing Chun player depending on what they are looking for. I don't have a problem with someone using Wing Chun as the foundation for their art and still calling it Wing Chun, but then again, who am I to be saying such profoundly disturbing things? :5propelle

    So folks, chime in and lets see where this goes.
  2. It is Fake is offline
    It is Fake's Avatar

    Administrator

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    34,013

    Posted On:
    4/09/2007 1:19pm

    staff
     Style: xingyi

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    The whole problem with WC is they don't absorb techniques. I only know a select few that will admit this is the case.

    Heck, the MMA WC Guru Alan Orr, in an article, is now using the excuse that WC is just fighting an doesn't have to look like WC.

    WTF??

    I'm sorry that is why WC and many styles of kung fu get a bad rap.
  3. It is Fake is offline
    It is Fake's Avatar

    Administrator

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    34,013

    Posted On:
    4/09/2007 1:36pm

    staff
     Style: xingyi

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by TanPunch
    Wing Chun deserves to be evolved.

    It was a brilliant art for its time and place. Against other forms of Chinese Gung Fu, it's absolutely amazing, but times have changed. The odds of fighting against traditional Shaolin styles is almost 0%, especially in the ring. Why train a system designed to do just that?
    Other styles were amazing against other styles depepnding on what history you choose to believe.

    Hell, Mantis supposedly defeated 10 different styles including monkey and snake in some histories/myths.

    These days, you will see no horse stances, but you will very likely see 100% ground fighting. That's a far cry from the old scene in ancient China, where almost everyone used a variation of the horse stance and there was a little Chin Na, but no pure ground fighting.
    Not true. I think you are the first to ever claim fights are grappling 100%. Grapplers don't even claim this high of a statsical probability.

    Luckily, Wing Chun was built on principles and any techniques that fit these principles, can be considered Wing Chun. What art is more disposed to practical evolution?
    Then why is it so stagnated?

    A) Add a stance for the ring --- Don't lose the traditional stances, simply borrow a boxer's footwork until it is the right time for a traditional WC stance to be used. Keep your footwork relaxed and flowing, until it's an appropriate time to root, then you may use the power of the Wing Chun stances. If any of you are fimiliar with the Water/Ice metaphor, then you will know what I'm saying.
    Why? There are other Chinese arts that actually use a stance very close to a Boxer's normal stance. Xingyi and Baji for instance.

    1. Mobility is a tactical advantage.
    2. The Ma is weak to takedowns, due the decreased depth of your base.
    3. The traditional lead stance is also weak to takedowns, due to the rearward weight distribution.
    4. Both are less mobile than the common boxer's stance.
    Again, provide evidence of this alleged rearward stance. Many books and historical documents refute this stance.


    B) Real ground work --- Simply learn the theories like anything else. Take another art to expand your knowledge of positioning and common strategy. Don't become a BJJ master, but know your enemy. Take what you learned and stylize it with the Wing Chun principles. There is no reason that Wing Chun could not have true ground fighting techniques. The results could actually be pretty interesting, if someone with a brain tried this.
    This is called cross-training. Many traditional WC kwoons/instructors frown upon this or teach the dreaded anti-grapple.

    Also, if you do BJJ you are still doing BJJ. No one claims BJJ is a great striking art yet, many Chinese MAs claim to be complete in both areas.

    1. Relaxation (in comparison to your opponent) can be applied to ground fighting.
    2. Economy of motion can be applied to ground fighting.
    3. Directness can be applied to ground fighting.
    4. Simplicity can be applied to ground fighting.
    5. You can utilize superior positioning to afford simultaneous attack/defense.
    6. All principles of Wing Chun can be applied to ground fighting.
    Please take a class of BJJ before saying these principle are exclusive to WC. All these principle exist in wrestling all the way to Tai Chi.

    This is due to the fact that Wing Chun was made scientifically. They took the art of stand-up fighting to a whole new level, but that's the problem. The principles were postulated in the context of stand-up fighting. For example, it is tough to apply center line theory as comprehensively on the ground as on your feet, because it was designed to be apply in a standing scenario.

    Even with that said, all you have to do is take WC to the drawing board and write an ammendment in the context of ground principles, rather than stand-up. Unfortunately, I have seen no qualified WC practicioners with experience in ground-based arts and the will/intelligence to pull it off.
    All arts were if you ask their proponents. This is silly because it is a false statement. Also, don't troll this forum.

    You are getting dangerously close to the "I have the real WC." What makes you qualified to say a particular practitioner isn't up to your unknown standards.

    Wing Chun does not have to have an achilles heel. There can be a day where you don't have any more forums roasting Wing Chun for being weak to grappling/ground-fighting. It has the advantage of being evolutionary in nature.
    Boy, you are getting dangerously close to getting this **** sent to trollshido. Speak on the merits not BS science or the invulnerability of your style.

    Does anyone have an opinion on this or suggestions for such an evolution?

    I personally think that if you can take the principles to the limit and expand the art to a whole new level, Wing Chun could cause quite an upset in modern day MMA competition.
    Train MMA and keep your striking as traditional WC then maybe people will believe. If your WC looks like MMA it isn't WC.
  4. M1K3 is offline
    M1K3's Avatar

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Southern NJ
    Posts
    2,367

    Posted On:
    4/09/2007 2:10pm


     Style: submission grappling

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Boy, you are getting dangerously close to getting this sh*t sent to trollshido. Speak on the merits not BS science or the invulnerability of your style.

    Train MMA and keep your striking as traditional WC then maybe people will believe. If your WC looks like MMA it isn't WC.
    I'm not sure this is a troll. I think it is someone who believes some of the Chun propoganda and at the same time sees flaws in the system. If TanPunch dosn't respond then I'm wrong.

    Oh, I don't agree with your last statement. Boxing dosn't look like boxing did 100 years ago but it is still boxing. If the Chun changes to fit in an MMA ring who cares if they call it wing chun or not? Other than the Chunners that is.
    Last edited by It is Fake; 4/09/2007 2:27pm at . Reason: fixed the quote tags.
  5. It is Fake is offline
    It is Fake's Avatar

    Administrator

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    34,013

    Posted On:
    4/09/2007 2:32pm

    staff
     Style: xingyi

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by M1K3
    I'm not sure this is a troll. I think it is someone who believes some of the Chun propoganda and at the same time sees flaws in the system. If TanPunch dosn't respond then I'm wrong.

    Oh, I don't agree with your last statement. Boxing dosn't look like boxing did 100 years ago but it is still boxing. If the Chun changes to fit in an MMA ring who cares if they call it wing chun or not? Other than the Chunners that is.
    See, here is your flaw. I'm not talking hundreds of years. I'm talking traditional WC taught today. Notice I brought up Alan Orr whose WC looks nothing like what is espoused by many a WC stylists.

    If you train WC do all the Saus, trapping and scientific applications why does it boil down to boxing?

    I can take picks from 100 years ago and compare them to now and see similarities betwen the present. Yet, they evolved through trail and error.

    WC can't say the same. They look exactly the same as 100 years ago. People still say it is scientifically grounded. Yet, a large percentage of evolution has come against other WC stylists.
    Last edited by It is Fake; 4/09/2007 3:01pm at .
  6. socratic is offline

    How do elenchus?

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,837

    Posted On:
    4/10/2007 2:06am


     Style: gah, transition again

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    You know, TanPunch, your 'This is a statistic, therefore I'm right' technique isn't really working.

    95% of other Chinese martial arts were highly effective against Wing Chung. See?

    Edit: I think Is It Fake Says it best:
    Quote Originally Posted by Is It Fake
    Why? There are other Chinese arts that actually use a stance very close to a Boxer's normal stance. Xingyi and Baji for instance.
    Also, TanPunch, if you mean actually moving around as 'boxer's stance' rather than remaining in a fixed position, then again, lots of Chinese (and otherwise) martial arts have this.

    PS: Is it just me, or do attempts at 'evolving' Wing Chung just end in lineage wars? Wing Tsun, Ving Tsun, etc....
    Last edited by socratic; 4/10/2007 2:11am at .
  7. It is Fake is offline
    It is Fake's Avatar

    Administrator

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    34,013

    Posted On:
    4/10/2007 7:16am

    staff
     Style: xingyi

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by socratic
    PS: Is it just me, or do attempts at 'evolving' Wing Chung just end in lineage wars? Wing Tsun, Ving Tsun, etc....
    Yes. I also agree with mike's 4 argument theory. I'd add a few more but, I'm tired,

    Basically WC evolving irritates me because people want it to stay WC. Before any Chunners go on a rampage I'll stop with this equation.


    BJJ=/=MMA. Now, if this makes no sense then you are proving why WC will always be derided when it comes to evolution.

    Also, take a look at Chuck Lidell.
  8. M1K3 is offline
    M1K3's Avatar

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Southern NJ
    Posts
    2,367

    Posted On:
    4/10/2007 7:34am


     Style: submission grappling

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by It is Fake
    Yes. I also agree with mike's 4 argument theory. I'd add a few more but, I'm tired,

    Basically WC evolving irritates me because people want it to stay WC. Before any Chunners go on a rampage I'll stop with this equation.


    BJJ=/=MMA. Now, if this makes no sense then you are proving why WC will always be derided when it comes to evolution.

    Also, take a look at Chuck Lidell.
    I agree. As a wrestler I have grabbed some wing chun for my striking, just like I have grabbed some submissions, chokes and the guard from bjj. I like a simplified, stripped down version of the chun. My goal is not to be a power striker or a wing chun master but to use the chun as a way to close the distance to clinch range, bridging the gap so to speak. I goal isn't to knock someone out, and I don't want to bust up my hands. If I can do some damage on the way in, good, if not, no big deal.

    Also, with grappling playing a larger role in martial arts now-a-days maybe it is time to look realisticly at trapping and how effective it is against someone who wants to clinch rather than strike. That really changes the dynamic of the game.
  9. Lv1Sierpinski is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    502

    Posted On:
    4/10/2007 7:53am


     Style: BJJ

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    For any and all out there with WC experience...can someone spell out these principles?

    I'm interested to see how many of them are 'pure WC' and how many can be readily seen in other styles.
  10. Tom Kagan is offline
    Tom Kagan's Avatar

    Dark Overlord of the Bullshido Underworld

    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    New York, NY USA
    Posts
    5,602

    Posted On:
    4/10/2007 9:13am

    supporting member
     Style: Taai Si Ji Kung Fu

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Lv1Sierpinski
    I'm interested to see how many of them are 'pure WC' and how many can be readily seen in other styles.

    Any principle found solely within a system and not within other methodology (whether implicit or explicit) is probably crap.


    Truths tend to be found in many places (both MA related and otherwise).
    Calm down, it's only ones and zeros.

    "Your calm and professional manner of response is really draining all the fun out of this. Can you reply more like Dr. Fagbot or something? Call me some names, mention some sand in my vagina or something of the sort. You can't expect me to come up with reasonable arguments man!" -- MaverickZ

    "Tom Kagan spins in his grave and the fucking guy isn't even dead yet." -- Snake Plissken

    My Bullshido fan club threads:
    Tom Kagan's a big hairy...
    Tom Kagan can lick my BALLS
    Tom Kagan teaches _ing __un and bigotry?
    Tom Kagan: Serious discussion here
    Lamokio asks the burning question is Tom Kagan a ***** or just cruising for some
    I'm Dave the gay Kickboxer from Manchester and I have the hots for Tom Kagan
    TOM KAGAN, OPEN ME, THE MKT ARE COMING FOR YOU ! ARE YOU MAN ENOUGH TO MEET ?
    ATTN TOM KAGAN
    World Dominator 'Kagan' in plot to lie about real Kung Fu and Martial Arts
    Tom Kagan just gave me my third negative rep in a day
    I am infatuated with Tom Kagan
    Tom Kagan is a fat balding white guy.
Page 2 of 17 FirstFirst 12 345612 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Powered by vBulletin™© contact@vbulletin.com vBulletin Solutions, Inc. 2011 All rights reserved.