Mike Brewer

Were punches to the head not allowed?

If you have it, Lib, can you post some background as to who these folks were and what the level of competition was? I mean, it's apparently an inter-school thing, so I'm not expecting to see pro-level fights, but there are some aspects that are pretty different from what we generally see as MMA. It'd be nice to know what we're looking at.

Michael Wright

The second vid is Alan Orr, and its a shooto rules style fight with no punches to the head. Alan does have a reputation in the UK for being a good Wing Chun man, but he also trains MMA and is the UK rep for the Shark Tank Gym. Just because Alan studies Wing Chun, this isn't a "Wing Chun" fight of any nature, they guy has just put his time in on the mat. I see some big right hands, some left hooks, a thigh kick, some knees and then some submission grappling. Last time I checked, that was called MMA.

I don't mean to be rude but the first fight looks like a couple of guys who have had one too many beers. I respect anyone who gets in the ring and mixes it up, but again this certainly isn't testament to any Wing Chun skill.

We're back to the same old argument that has gone round time and time again. When someone with a background in a specific art, trains in and steps into a different arena, they become a fighter of that arena. They aren't proving their original art - they are proving themselves. So the respect goes to Alan, and the Stella boys, nothing to do with Wing Chun from where I am sitting.

Mike Brewer

Well hell. I'll say it.

In the other thread about what is and isn't wing chun, we've established that the art can change and evolve without losing what it is. Granted, no one has given me any reasons for it or even examples of it, but let's go with that scenario.

If that's the case, and wing chun can adapt to the times, why is everyone so critical of Wing Chun people who do other things and incorporate it? ISn't that ALL MMA people do? There is no art called MMA, after all. It's just boxing, wrestling, BJJ, Thai Boxing, and a hodgepodge of other things combined with the specific aspects of a cage. Yet no one says "That's not MMA" when a guy goes int othe UFC, do they? Why does Wing Chun get so much flak for incorporating what's modern and effective into what they do?

I'm not defending it out of hand, but I would like to see a more intellectually honest stance on the matter. I feel like most people who criticise are almost trapping Wing Chun into a logic loop that doesn't work. They say "Wing Chun has not kept up with the times, and new arts and methods have surpassed it in terms of effectiveness" Then, when a wing chun guy does evolve with the times and tries to keep up, they lambaste him for not being a Wing Chun guy anymore.

Do we have any way to explain this in logical, rational terms, or are we really just picking on Wing Chun?

Michael Wright

Every style has at the very least a core of concepts, strategies, techniques and attributes – otherwise how can it be recognised or distinguished as a style? Looking specifically at the videos posted, and my understanding of Wing Chun which is not expert but not remedial either, I cannot see any of the afore mentioned factors that distinguish it as a style.

Now look at pretty much any MMA match and you can clearly see the concepts, strategies, techniques and attributes of Wrestling, BJJ, Boxing, Thai (depending on who is fighting). So my point was simple, I give credit to the individuals who step into their own arena, but I saw no Wing Chun in what was posted as a Wing Chun fight. Simple as really.

I have no issue with Wing Chun, but when a man gives lager and tries to tell me its Guinness – he’s gonna know about it.

jubaji

The WCers have brought their reputation on themselves. No sympathy here. If enough WCers stop saying stupid things like "everything is in WC if you just looooook deeeeeeply enough" or "I'm anti-grappling!" or "my master could beat any grappler by just doing his standup WC on the ground. After all, its all the same thing!" and other nonsense then their reputation will gradually improve.

__________________
Optional signature you may use to appear at bottom of your posts.

Mike Brewer

So it's really a matter of Wing Chun being hopeless, then? You can't update it to make up for the perceived weaknesses without changing what it is, and "what it is" doesn't work...is that it?

Kinda forces us to ask "What is MMA?" Isn't it just people stealing what they can from whatever art they can? Sort of a lop-sided stage, isn't it? MMA can adapt and change and do whatever it likes, feeling no stylistic boundaries or limitations except those regulated by their sport. Wing Chun, unfortunately, doesn't even have the ability to address criticisms or improve itself, because if it does, it isn't Wing Chun anymore?

Come on guys, seriously?

Would you feel better about it if a guy said, "I do Wing Chun, and I consider myself a Wing Chun man, but I have recognized some shortcomings in the older versions of my style and I've adapted some of my material using ideas from other arts. However, I'm not really a student of those other arts. I just did enough to learn some things to make my art better. Since I don't actively train all that other stuff, I figured they might be offended that I was calling myself a BJJ guy, so I just stuck with Wing Chun."

That's almost alwasy the case, isn't it? But it's an awfully P.C. way to describe what you do, and in my opinion - totally unnecessary.

fire cobra

The second fight was as bad as the first imho

Michael Wright

Mike, I think I am being pulled into a different argument here.

Just to be clear: Nothing wrong with Wing Chun, no problem with the guys in the vids, I just didn't see any Wing Chun. That is my only point.

Mike Brewer

Understood, my friend. And I'm just playing Devil's Advocate here. I've certainly got no dog in the fight, and I'm as far from being a Wing Chun guy as there ever was.

My point is only that there really seems to be a real bias against the Wing Chun folks, and not a whole lot of willingness to examine the position or what they do about it from anything remotely resempling intellectually honest footing.

Call this one of those topics that's ripe for debate, because I've seen nothing but opinion on both sides. Neither is backing much of it up with reason, logic - or even real examples for that matter.

Michael Wright

People have it in for Wing Chun because it is incredibly successful, commercially. That will always draw attack, in any walk of life.

Secondly, it isn't sport specific, it has no consistent arena or proving ground. Boxing, Thai, Wrestling, MMA guys can post a million vids showing what their art does. You say that doesn't represent an intellectually honest footing, I say unfortunately its a fact of life.

The question is, does that make Wing Chun ineffective or a waste of time? I'm not saying it does, many people on here argue the case, and leave an open challenge to be proved wrong.

Whether we like it or not, we live in a world where everything is accessible, and anything that is distant from view or immediate scrutiny, is guilty until proven innocent. I'm not saying its right, I'm just saying it is.

Liberty

On the youtube site itself, the first clip had the following attached to it:

“Notice how he withstands the takedown twice and how he keeps his opponent on the run constantly. This is Aaron Baum a Chu Sau Lei Wing Chun man dominating his opponent in a NHB championship in England. In CSL Wing Chun we actually have a MMA/NHB fight team called the Iron Wolves and UNLIKE other traditionalists we actually have PROOF that our system works and it works brilliantly. Anybody can talk about how good their system is but unless you have PROOF that it works "under fire", in real fighting against a skilled opponent who's trying his hardest to beat you, all you have is a bunch of talk, and talk is cheap.”

While the 2nd clip, “Wing Chun Fighting,” read: http://www.londonwingchun.com “The video is of Alan Orr at the 2005 Combat Sports Open National NHB championship: Finals – Hereford Nov., 2005

Ran accross this:
Wingjitsu (MMA Academy founded by Mickey Papas [Northern London]):

YouTube - Wingjitsu MMA Highlight Reel

Michael Wright

Good stuff Liberty. Those guys look like athletes, some good Boxing, Thai and Submission Grappling.

I didn't see one single second of Wing Chun.

Before you post any more would you mind if I asked you a polite question? Do you know what Wing Chun looks like?

Liberty

I'll do you one better then that - just over halfway down the page on this link you'll see some images of what Wing Chun not only looks like but what it can look like with a nice MMA mix:

http://www.sifuchowwingchun.com/whatiswc2.html

By the way, I completely agree with you regarding the clips I posted. Just thought I'd let them speak for themselves (Wing Chun fighting that is not Wing Chun).

Michael Wright

Thats cool then sir, and your posts have certainly generated some healthy debate, which is always good.

Liberty

An actual competition - guy in white is Wing Chun. It's kind of old, but they went at it. By the way, there are competitions within the Wing Chun world itself.

YouTube - Buk Sing Classics - Choi Lei Fut vs. Wing Chun