Why does MMA target WC?

[desertwingchun2]

Too bad beimo matches aren't still around....

That would cool a lot of keyboard warriorism.

[k gledhill]

That would cool a lot of keyboard warriorism.

mmmm, beimo [ homer to doughnuts ]

[Phil Redmond]

. . . .Too bad beimo matches aren't still around.... every practitioner should have to do it at least once...

We have them in NYC all the time. We have two guys fighting Aug. 28th against various styles.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsS2WUlq8C0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39-unagGqPw

[HumbleWCGuy]

We have them in NYC all the time. We have two guys fighting Aug. 28th against various styles.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsS2WUlq8C0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39-unagGqPw

Phil, since you have grand students, does that make you a grand master? Don't answer just kidding.

Please get more clips of that kid, I am looking forward to seeing his improvement.

[Eric_H]

Too bad beimo matches aren't still around.... every practitioner should have to do it at least once...

I'm a fan of it being a regular part of the training diet.

[Phil Redmond]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YP05PC3ReW0
We do them regularly in NYC. If anyone wants to test their skills here let me know.

[GlennR]

Let me preface this by saying I am not (nor have been) a WC/VT (or whatever other name you prefer) practitioner. I have much respect for the style - just never seriously trained it. I've done some bits of various southern styles, but my main bread n butter is Northern Shaolin. That said...

My question for long-time practitioners of the art is this:
I've seen way too many MMA folks on this board as well as on others, youtube, etc. (including that now-famous clip of Rogan's) totally insult and dis the style. BUT you don't hear them calling out Lung Ying, CLF, White Crane, Northern Shaolin, etc. I'm not hinting that they think these styles are better, but I am dumbfounded at this - WHY? I mean are all these people to think "Kung Fu" = Wing Chun [only]?

Was there a WC individual who got into a famous MMA match and lost so they now dis the entire style? Or what is it?

Just curious why they pick on one particular style of TCMA? Why the grudge?

(Definitely not hoping to have my main style called out, but just curious why they're doing this - plain ignorance or something more)?

Well i think its fairly obvious on why WC is singled out.

Most exponents will happily tell you how its scientifically the most efficient way to fight, yet, when asked to prove it (by an MMA, MT or boxer) the usual "seek a sifu", "you wont see it in the ring as its too deadly", "it takes many years to master", "you should have seen WSL" etc etc (no dig at the WSL boys intended)

And the funny thing is, youll see a lot of WC people having a shot at otherTCMA's as being too flowery, not realistic, etc etc

In the eyes of non-WC people this puts it at the top of the heap.... to be pulled down.

[anerlich]

MMA is not a style/system! MMA is a multi-art discipline

For the purpose of this discussion and why some comparison is in fact valid, MMA is:

1) A ruleset for competive fighting

2) A conceptual view of what fighting is/should be about

MMA regards fighting as having three distinct phases

1) standup, detached fighting (mainly striking and kicking)

2)Clinch fighting (standing wrestling, throws, submissions takedowns, striking in the clinch)

3) Groundfighting (pins, sweeps, submissions, G&P)

and its competitions have specific rulesets allowing techniques in all three phases.

Few if any single martial arts at present contain the spectrum of techniques necessary to dominate in competition, or to survive a fight which could go into any of these phases. Hence boxing wrestling, jiu jitsu becoming a common mix, especially since the TCMA world mostly went into denial about such a worldview in the early days.

I think MMA being a "multi-art discipline" is a temporary thing - MMA fighting is different from striking only, clinching only, and groundfighting only. These days you need to train and approach it as a separate discipline on its own to succeed, and over time I believe "styles" and "systems" of MMA will develop.

You can't select arbitrary MAs and call it MMA - those arts have to have answers for the full spectrum of those phases. Mixing WC, aikido, and hung gar probably wouldn't get you there.

Where the disconnect and hate begins is the disparity between this worldview and that of many TCMAs in the early 90's, viz. that fighting was almost solely done on the feet with strikes, and what ground techniques there were existed mainly to create enough space to regain one's feet.

And too many with rice bowls to protect went on the defensive and resorted to criticism (which they were always good at before then even with each other) rather than taking an honest view of their art and working on what weaknesses there may have been.

I agree the animosity is pointless. Progress comes from building bridges, not walls.

[Phil Redmond]

For the purpose of this discussion and why some comparison is in fact valid, MMA is:

1) A ruleset for competive fighting

2) A conceptual view of what fighting is/should be about

MMA regards fighting as having three distinct phases

1) standup, detached fighting (mainly striking and kicking)

2)Clinch fighting (standing wrestling, throws, submissions takedowns, striking in the clinch)

3) Groundfighting (pins, sweeps, submissions, G&P)

and its competitions have specific rulesets allowing techniques in all three phases.

Few if any single martial arts at present contain the spectrum of techniques necessary to dominate in competition, or to survive a fight which could go into any of these phases. Hence boxing wrestling, jiu jitsu becoming a common mix, especially since the TCMA world mostly went into denial about such a worldview in the early days.

I think MMA being a "multi-art discipline" is a temporary thing - MMA fighting is different from striking only, clinching only, and groundfighting only. These days you need to train and approach it as a separate discipline on its own to succeed, and over time I believe "styles" and "systems" of MMA will develop.

You can't select arbitrary MAs and call it MMA - those arts have to have answers for the full spectrum of those phases. Mixing WC, aikido, and hung gar probably wouldn't get you there.

Where the disconnect and hate begins is the disparity between this worldview and that of many TCMAs in the early 90's, viz. that fighting was almost solely done on the feet with strikes, and what ground techniques there were existed mainly to create enough space to regain one's feet.

And too many with rice bowls to protect went on the defensive and resorted to criticism (which they were always good at before then even with each other) rather than taking an honest view of their art and working on what weaknesses there may have been.

I agree the animosity is pointless. Progress comes from building bridges, not walls.

Again I say. You're pretty eloquent for a martial arts jock.....

[k gledhill]

For the purpose of this discussion and why some comparison is in fact valid, MMA is:

1) A ruleset for competive
2) A conceptual view of what fighting is/should be about

MMA regards fighting as having three distinct phases

1) standup, detached fighting (mainly striking and kicking)

2)Clinch fighting (standing wrestling, throws, submissions takedowns, striking in the clinch)

3) Groundfighting (pins, sweeps, submissions, G&P)

and its competitions have specific rulesets allowing techniques in all three phases.

Few if any single martial arts at present contain the spectrum of techniques necessary to dominate in competition, or to survive a fight which could go into any of these phases. Hence boxing wrestling, jiu jitsu becoming a common mix, especially since the TCMA world mostly went into denial about such a worldview in the early days.

I think MMA being a "multi-art discipline" is a temporary thing - MMA fighting is different from striking only, clinching only, and groundfighting only. These days you need to train and approach it as a separate discipline on its own to succeed, and over time I believe "styles" and "systems" of MMA will develop.

You can't select arbitrary MAs and call it MMA - those arts have to have answers for the full spectrum of those phases. Mixing WC, aikido, and hung gar probably wouldn't get you there.

Where the disconnect and hate begins is the disparity between this worldview and that of many TCMAs in the early 90's, viz. that fighting was almost solely done on the feet with strikes, and what ground techniques there were existed mainly to create enough space to regain one's feet.

And too many with rice bowls to protect went on the defensive and resorted to criticism (which they were always good at before then even with each other) rather than taking an honest view of their art and working on what weaknesses there may have been.

I agree the animosity is pointless. Progress comes from building bridges, not walls.

Great post !

[nasmedicine]

For the purpose of this discussion and why some comparison is in fact valid, MMA is:

1) A ruleset for competive fighting

2) A conceptual view of what fighting is/should be about

MMA regards fighting as having three distinct phases

1) standup, detached fighting (mainly striking and kicking)

2)Clinch fighting (standing wrestling, throws, submissions takedowns, striking in the clinch)

3) Groundfighting (pins, sweeps, submissions, G&P)

and its competitions have specific rulesets allowing techniques in all three phases.

Few if any single martial arts at present contain the spectrum of techniques necessary to dominate in competition, or to survive a fight which could go into any of these phases. Hence boxing wrestling, jiu jitsu becoming a common mix, especially since the TCMA world mostly went into denial about such a worldview in the early days.

I think MMA being a "multi-art discipline" is a temporary thing - MMA fighting is different from striking only, clinching only, and groundfighting only. These days you need to train and approach it as a separate discipline on its own to succeed, and over time I believe "styles" and "systems" of MMA will develop.

You can't select arbitrary MAs and call it MMA - those arts have to have answers for the full spectrum of those phases. Mixing WC, aikido, and hung gar probably wouldn't get you there.

Where the disconnect and hate begins is the disparity between this worldview and that of many TCMAs in the early 90's, viz. that fighting was almost solely done on the feet with strikes, and what ground techniques there were existed mainly to create enough space to regain one's feet.

And too many with rice bowls to protect went on the defensive and resorted to criticism (which they were always good at before then even with each other) rather than taking an honest view of their art and working on what weaknesses there may have been.

I agree the animosity is pointless. Progress comes from building bridges, not walls.

I agree and disagree with some thing that your saying (not that it matters). Regardless of whether one thinks MMA will eventually become a style/system onto itself or saying that mixing any martial art together is not MMA (As I mentioned in my earlier post the popular ****tail for competition is a BJJ,MT,Boxing and as you so nicely put the best set up optimized for competition has those three components) WC has a bad rep because like all things that have to many people or to many of anything the quality of the product diminishes. Without any standards as to what "real wing chun" (the reason of all the in fighting in the WC community) is suppose to be (IMO, this standard does exist anymore in one system but rather is spread through various lineages in pieces but that is another topic all together) there will always be the mocking of WC not only by MMA but by martial artists in general.

Also, if you are practicing, as you mentioned earlier "Aikido and Hungar" and cross grain them into a hybrid of both you are essentially mixing the two and practicing Mixed Martial Arts (again this is not the popular or maybe even optimal set up for MMA especially for competition or even in general).

I am a fan of MMA ( I watch it and enjoy the entertainment), I understand the limitations of WC (in particular the ground game) however I don't think it gives the right for people who are practicing multiple disciplines (usually very good at one and descent at the others, i.e. BJJ black belt, later adding MT and Boxing to become more well rounded but certainly not a master of those two) to target a single TCMA, I think it's childish.

[Faruq]

For the purpose of this discussion and why some comparison is in fact valid, MMA is:

1) A ruleset for competive fighting

2) A conceptual view of what fighting is/should be about

MMA regards fighting as having three distinct phases

1) standup, detached fighting (mainly striking and kicking)

2)Clinch fighting (standing wrestling, throws, submissions takedowns, striking in the clinch)

3) Groundfighting (pins, sweeps, submissions, G&P)

and its competitions have specific rulesets allowing techniques in all three phases.

Few if any single martial arts at present contain the spectrum of techniques necessary to dominate in competition, or to survive a fight which could go into any of these phases. Hence boxing wrestling, jiu jitsu becoming a common mix, especially since the TCMA world mostly went into denial about such a worldview in the early days.

That's necessary for sport. I mean people aren't still signing the death releases before stepping on to the lei tai anymore, right? Or if they are, kill techniques are illegal in competition anyway.

[GeneChing]

He's baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaack.

Thread: That MMA vs Taiji Fight Everyones Talking About
Thread: Why does MMA target WC?

[David Jamieson]

ok, best part of that video is obviously the ref.

He did a great job!

[PalmStriker]

Not surprised to see the Wing Chun fighter sticking to centerline " straight march into his opponent's matadorian adaptability". If there's one thing that Bruce Lee confirmed is that sportfighting using WingChun base can only be successful by adaptation.