Thread: Wing Chun Modifications
4/09/2007 1:09pm, #11
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.
4/09/2007 1:19pm, #12
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.
I'm sorry that is why WC and many styles of kung fu get a bad rap.
4/09/2007 1:36pm, #13Originally Posted by TanPunch
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
4/09/2007 2:10pm, #14Boy, 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.
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.
4/09/2007 2:32pm, #15Originally Posted by M1K3
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 .
4/10/2007 2:06am, #16
- Join Date
- Feb 2007
- gah, transition again
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:
Originally Posted by Is It Fake
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 .
4/10/2007 7:16am, #17Originally Posted by socratic
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.
4/10/2007 7:34am, #18Originally Posted by It is Fake
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.
4/10/2007 7:53am, #19
- Join Date
- May 2006
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.
4/10/2007 9:13am, #20
Originally Posted by Lv1Sierpinski
- Join Date
- Jan 2003
- New York, NY USA
- Taai Si Ji Kung Fu
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.