Cross Training

[chisauking]

Once you have reach a high comprehension of wing chun, cross training may or may not be beneficial to you.....However, to state that wing chun practitioners that chooses not to cross train is short-sighted is only a reflection on your bias and your mma 'popcorn' mentality, whereby wing chun hasn't won the UFC or K1, therefore wing chun must be weak on the ground 'attitude'.

Oh, BTW, please try to read properly before you reply......I didn't say cross training is neccesarily bad for wing chun practitioners......I merely stated that one needs to be competent with ONE style first, before trying to juggle with a host of vastly different styles.

1 more lesson for those who are genuine about wing chun: If you want to communicate using English, you must have an English mindset. If you want to apply wing chun, you must have a wing chun mindset. If you think 'kick boxing', it stands to logic\reason only kick boxing will come out.

That reminds me, Sam Kwok, Yip Ching, Yip Chun, Lam Man Hog, WSL, Yip Man, all didn't cross train........so they must be all blind!

To be honest, I expected more from a group of 'university' students.

[rosenrot]

I fail to see how cross-training would not be beneficial regardless of your level of 'comprehension' of Wing Chun? From what I have seen in lessons the style has the following weaknesses:

- No groundwork. Any which has been suggested is purely defensive and lacks practicality against good grapplers, e.g. impractical take-down defences, chi-sau defence while in mount.

- Lack of head-movement when striking. This is an essential part of boxing and I see no reason why it wouldn't be useful in WC or any real situation.

- Impractical footwork. From what I have seen the footwork in WC is limited and lets down the effective striking that the art does possess.

- Lack of clinch work. This is a very effective striking and wrestling position and also a technical one. learning to exploit this range is important.

- Lack of emphasis on physical conditioning, although it may vary from school to school. This has been discussed elsewhere so I won't elaborate.

- Dubious training methods. This is somewhat subjective, but from my experience some WC drills/exercises are flawed in that unrealistic attacks are dealt with in a very static fashion(e.g. over-committal punches, poor take-downs etc.). Furthermore, although chi-sau is useful there is no sparring or scenario training which deals with ranges outside that of chi-sau, unless you make them up yourself like we've done with the headgear etc. This leads to students not being used to taking punishment, something which will negatively affect fighting ability.

These are just some criticisms of WC that are obvious to me. This is not to say that I dislike the art - it has many practical aspects - but I feel it could be improved upon with training in other styles or using training methods which more accurately represent fighting on top of chi-sau and ordinary drills.

I know my knowledge of the system is far from expansive and so I would welcome the more experienced to share their opinions on my perceived flaws in WC and see whether there are good solutions from within the system.

P.S No I don't consider the WC masters to be 'blind' as most of them came from the generation before cross-training became popular. However I do consider their abilities limited, but concede their mastery of this system.

[kizz0]

Chisauking: First of all, there is no need to come onto this forum and throw insults around; no need for the "jack-ass" comment and no need for the comment about 'university' students.

Your argument about Jack of all trades however, is a logically valid opinion when looked at in a certain way. It is however, merely your own opinion on martial arts training, logical as it is, based on actual hard evidence it is not. You can make as many analogies as you like, but it doesn't make the point any clearer and certainly doesn't count as a form of evidence, merely a rational theoretical argument...which, ofcourse is a starting point. Had you said something like,
"I, amongst many long time martial arts friends have attempted to cross train in the past, but only to the detriment of our fighting ability" then that would be of use to this debate. What would be even better is if you had some psychological explanation as to why learning different combat systems could perhaps be confusing when attempting to utilize them at the same time in a fight. I would wager though, that if you train multiple systems of fighting at the same time(and thus gaining a good degree of competency in all) and train them together as a synthetic personal training method, you can be nothing but a better fighter for it.

Speaking of evidence, whatever way you look at it, the footage of events such as K1 UFC and Pride are all testaments to particular fighters combat prowess and to a certain extent, their styles, which are way more often then not mixed. Although I agree that the combat is limited to a degree and not EXACTLY reflective of a street fight scenario, I would argue that it is pretty close to a real 1vs1 situation (Which I am by no means saying that it is always 1vs1). Of course one can eye gouge in a real fight etc...but any normally functioning human being can do that, it's not the exclusive right of any martial art.

Our Sifu, Sifu Samuel Kwok that is, doesn't personally train in other systems so far as I am aware. He does however, train others who's system is other than wingchun, to incorporate wingchun into their practice. So you could say he is pro cross training in that regard. He's currently teaching an up and coming boxer some wingchun skills and principles and he's also done a joint seminar with Carlson Gracie, the two of them were friends and Carlson Gracie wished to train his UFC fighters in both Wingchun and BJJ. I'm guessing you know all this anyway, since you a member of the Worcester club am I right?

WSL, as I have read, was well trained in western boxing and so by participating in wingchun he was infact cross-training. Although I admit that in one particular interview he said that boxing was over for him after sparring with his ex instructor. Never-the less, the only person who was able to best him when he was boxing was Yip Man. Ip Bo Ching, one of Yip Mans senior students at the time, was only able to bring wong to a stalemate, another in-experienced student was destroyed by Wong's boxing. Apparently Yip Man knew early on that Wong would cause a ruckus in the Beimo fighting scene, could this be down to not only his wingchun skill but something innate within WSL, perhaps his mental attitude to fighting and his willingness to apply?

Also, your analogy bewteen language and fighting is in my view incorrect, as they are not comparable activities. I would correct it by saying, "If you want to fight, you need a fighting mindset" whatever that fighting skills/mindset are/is made up of. I don't think there is anything wrong with collating a system together for yourself, illustrated here by the venerable historical Buddha,

"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe anything simply because it is found written in you religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, only then accept it and live up to it."

So what does this mean? This means that even if you believe that it is impossible or detrimental to cross-train in multiple systems at the same time, i'm going to test that idea out for myself as I see no real persuasive reason from you as to why that will actually hamper my training in fighting. It also means that taking what's useful from any art, that includes wingchun, and discarding what is not and incorporating it into your own personal style is a sensible, logical and rational move, but that doesn't mean I won't debate with you about it Though I fully respect your own decision not to cross train, which I hope in time will encourage you to respect those that conversely do train in other disciplines as well as wingchun. One of the rules of our club here, is to respect other martial arts, old or new.

I personally LOVE wingchun and I am desperately and avidly trying to improve my fighting through the implementation of Ip Man wingchun. To me it is natural to want to look at fighting like a science, wingchun being one scientific theory on fighting; Grappling, MMA, JKD etc are others. What state must we get to? Our own personal truth of fighting based upon our body mechanics, strengths and weaknesses and attempting to improve physically and mentally aswell. But how do we get there? Through applied theory and thus through fighting. Chisau deals with a part of combat and is not again, entirely reflective of combat as a whole, unless you practice it as such (which some of us do occasionally here as I mentioned before) but I know not everyone is keen on full on bare knuckle training, as least not all the time... and putting headgear on takes some of the reality edge off. Let me finish by saying unquestioning faith in anything, especially a martial tradition is NOT a virtue. Using the scientific method, collecting empirical data, testing and applying is the way forward and to me this includes cross-training, even if that means pitting your self and your style against others. The only thing I have a strong belief in is the progress in fighting that this methodology can offer, in fact that is the very reason I began training in wingchun over my original Bujinkan training (aka: cross-training). If I didn't believe that cross-training was a good idea, I'd have never picked up wingchun.

[rosenrot]

Nice reply Kieran, now answer my questions/queries please!

[superfoot]

Yes I think it is much more constructive if people with knowledge of the system attempt to rebuke claims of perceived weaknesses, rather than taking it as an insult and responding with vague answers. Rosenrot is by no means "trashing" wing chun or taking a mma popcorn approach, he is being critical. Something we are taught to be whether be it in relation to our studies of academia, or studies of wing chun, that is why wing chun and sifus teachings are so appealing to me, he is always critical of everything, ensuring that each action is optimal, he always has an answer, always has a reason behind an action; and that is what wing chun is about. So rosenrot simply wishes to learn, his posts all reflect this, as do the majority of the others, that is the raison d'être of this forum. There is no point in responding with generic insults or weak arguments; surely chisau king, you should respond with answers to his questions, with your interpretation as to why rosenrot may perceive such weaknesses and why you think he is wrong (i inferred from your various posts that you have a good knowledge of the system).

Phil I will attempt to answer your questions/queries later tonight when iv finished my work. I agree with several of your queries on methods of training to a certain extent (obviously specific to the university club context), but disagree to a certain extent with your critique of some of the technical aspects of the system.

[rosenrot]

Cheers Ad. Although I thought it'd for you to reply on here in case anyone else felt the same way or if anyone else had any alternate answers.

[kizz0]

rosenrot said:

- No groundwork. Any which has been suggested is purely defensive and lacks practicality against good grapplers, e.g. impractical take-down defences, chi-sau defence while in mount.

I'd agree with you here. I don't think there aren't any principals that can't help with dealing with takedowns and so I think it would be good to get some mats out one sessions and see what the system can do with this when applied properly. On the floor I think chi sau principals can help but they certainly need to be complimented with actual practice in these positions and with techniques from other systems that deal extensively with groundwork.

rosenrot said:

- Lack of head-movement when striking. This is an essential part of boxing and I see no reason why it wouldn't be useful in WC or any real situation.

I'm assuming you mean bobbing and weaving? If so an answer from a greatly respected wingchun master (since I don't consider myself advanced in wingchun) WSL is as follows,

"In boxing, the style has changed over the years from crouching to being more and more vertical. Also people used to jump around, but the modern boxer like Tyson just moves in flat footed to demolish his opponent in a scientific way. In Wing Chun a person does not bob as in boxing. When two beginners fight it doesn't matter how they fight, but against professionals it makes a difference. Even a smaller [person] is better off to keep the body vertical and step back, then to bob and weave. This is because the hand can move faster than the body. Boxing is still like a game because there are rules for how you can hit and how you can't hit. If you attack someone and they bend their head, then in Wing Chun you can still hit them with your hand even without pulling your hand back."

from en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wong_Shun_Leung

Though I don't think this is exactly an airtight reason for not bobbing and weaving, though I don't think it's a completely unreasonable stance, but I find myself sometimes naturally moving my head to avoid being hit if the situation calls for it, maybe third form has something to say on this? As for hitting someone in the manner he suggests, perhaps it won't be effective on someone who has taken a lot of punishment in fighting and is used to it, hits from the distance Wong Sifu is suggesting in this quote may not be powerful enough to do serious damage. Though I feel against less experienced opponents his reasoning may stand, especially if you can develop power over very small distances or it may even be a good time giver to do something more damaging, or why not grab them by their face haha?

Interestingly on that page, on the topic of cross training, Wong SL said the following,

"In training Biu Jee we are taught to be free . The first forms tell us about normal situations. Biu Jee is for the abnormal situations . The ideas in Biu Jee sometimes will contradict normal Ving Tsun (Wing Chun) ideas in order to allow the person to survive in a bad situation . We are told to do what is necessary to survive and so there are no limitations . Styles have different concepts and objectives . With Ving Tsun (Wing Chun) we want to attack our opponent in a very direct and savage manner . Other styles will contradict this objective by attempting non-direct tactics . If we combine them our objectives can become confused in the heat of the fight . We will be less effective ."

I think then, as long as any cross-training you do follows the mandate that it is direct and savage then WSL wouldn't have a problem with it. I think there are plenty of aspects of other martial arts that can be combined with wingchun to achieve this and cover any gaps.

- Impractical footwork. From what I have seen the footwork in WC is limited and lets down the effective striking that the art does possess.

I think this is why Bruce lee changed the footwork to that of fencing, but only for the long ranges; I don't think there is anything wrong with returning to wingchun footwork when we are very close to an opponent.

- Lack of clinch work. This is a very effective striking and wrestling position and also a technical one. learning to exploit this range is important.

Sifu in his book "path to wingchun" has a picture with him, bill wallace and some Thai Kick boxer, I'm assuming this fella used to the clinch and Sifu must have been exposed to it if they trained together. I think he wouldn't have a problem with any of us training that aspect somewhere else.

- Lack of emphasis on physical conditioning, although it may vary from school to school. This has been discussed elsewhere so I won't elaborate.

Yeah I think this should be done in our own time and then obviously conditioning in terms of getting hit should be done through head gear etc.

- Dubious training methods. This is somewhat subjective, but from my experience some WC drills/exercises are flawed in that unrealistic attacks are dealt with in a very static fashion(e.g. over-committal punches, poor take-downs etc.). Furthermore, although chi-sau is useful there is no sparring or scenario training which deals with ranges outside that of chi-sau, unless you make them up yourself like we've done with the headgear etc. This leads to students not being used to taking punishment, something which will negatively affect fighting ability.

I think again, as long as this type of training is eventually translated into headgear fighting then it's ok, because you're applying the theory in a live situation with a fully resisting opponent and then obviously as you get tougher, maybe without the headgear...lol

[rosenrot]

On the subject of head-movement:

I think Tyson may be a bad example to use as he was shorter than most heavyweights and so tended to throw big punches upwards, plus he hit like a freight train meaning bobbing for him was perhaps less important (just my observation, may be wrong). youtube.com/watch?v=ZeL2VAEaAEU&feature=related
Go to 0:37 and it shows Tyson using head-movement well against a bigger opponent when not on the inside as he usually is when delivering KO punches.

If you want to see a quality boxer who is very evasive, watch De la Hoya v. Mayweather Jr. At lighter weights the bulldozing style of Tyson is not always applicable.

I think WSL's point about moving the hand even if your opponent moves their head is fair enough, but does rely on great reactions and won't be as powerful as a properly delivered strike (i.e. where the trajectory is not altered half-way through.)

Its also worth noting that head-movement usually includes body/shoulder movement, which is useful disguising and putting power into punches.

I'll concede that head-movement (I think its a bit simplistic/old-fashioned to call it bobbing and weaving) is perhaps only really important when fighting 1-on-1 rather than street defence which WC is more appropriate for.

P.S. 'Iron' Mike's funniest moments - youtube.com/watch?v=CwFW834Mrcc&feature=related

[Togo]

It's interesting to see the different views on this, and i'm glad that a few others agree with me on the cross training thing, at first i was beginning to think i was going to be flamed every time i put in my personal view point.

Although my wing chun experience is limited i'd say that bobbing and weaving probably wouldn't be too beneficial for the wing chun style when it's used properly. From what i've been taught so far, most defensive techniques and evasions depend on pivoting the body out of the way whilst deflecting an attack from it's intended target, or in more general terms 'the centre line'. Altho sometimes a slight head movement may be required to stop a punch clipping your head, it is far from the bobbing and weaving of boxing. Also the pivoting of the body allows for the mass of the body to be put behind the return strikes. Now i know that pretty much everyone on this thread knows this, so please don't think i'm trying to patronise anyone, i'm just re-iterating some logic here. I also feel that the wing chun style of evasion is probably better suited for the street if the fight is not one on one, as ducking and dodgin can play havock with you peripheral vision and other senses, making it very easy for someone to lamp you a corker from the side whilst your sinking a solid blow into his mate.

From a boxers point of view bobbing and weaving is an extremely vital tool that is often neglected during training, and i can attest to the fact that it DOES work on the street and in self defense situations, not only does it provide extremely well co-ordinated evasion and defense, but also puts some serious crunch to your punch. I suppose the ideas of both are the same really, evading and also putting your body mass behind a counter attack or strike.

Before you start to pick my opinions and views apart here folks i remind you all that i'm still a beginner in wing chun, and although i am all up for 'constructive' criticism i don't really appreciate being treated like a tosser because i say something which you disagree with.

cheers

[Dan]

This is really good - everyone is discussing stuff on the forum and thinking and learning which is cool whatever your stance on the issue. but soo many words to read.... So i may as well throw my view out there.

Cross training for me has always been a tough decision to make basically coz there are good arguments either way. Do i get a grasp of WC first or do i pick bits up along the way?

But at the and of the day you have to learn bits from other styles even if its only to learn how to deal with them. Im gonna give my view in the form of an answer to one of Phils questions, WC footwork. When i started learning and even when i started teaching beginners i thought WC footwork was useless and avoided it completely. But what i realized after a while (and in many ways too late) was that its actually really good and clever once you learn all the footwork from the different forms. For instance basic stepping is taught first to complete beginners because they arn't expected to be good fighters and its a safe way to move and kick. however in the knife form you put weight forward which is the complete opposite of what you are taught to start with. STRAGE. well no actually its because when you are doing the knife form you have a pair of hefty swords in your hand that you can rely on. so when you are good and know what you are doing different footwork comes into play. however wing chun footwork is so different to "normal" ways of walking or even fighting that we don't feel comfortable in it and think its shite and we always will unless we devote our time in lessons to learning to step in a WC way. Somthing which i never did. WC footwork will never be usefull unless you practice it lots and lots. In China where people train hard thats not a problem in England where we are less devoted, we substitute for different styles of footwork and movement which might not be worse (they might even be better) but the point is unless you devot your time to WC footwork you cant expect to be good at it of find it practical. And some WC techniques are designed to work with WC footwork, and i fell i have lost out but not trying to make myself good at WC footwork from the start.

Ill stop there and let people reply before i rabbit on about Shit too much.

[rosenrot]

"he point is unless you devote your time to WC footwork you cant expect to be good at it of find it practical" - Dan

This is the same with any footwork style or technique for that matter. I just think that if I spend my training time on a style of footwork that I find easier from the start it will make perfecting it (not that I ever will) a more straightforward objective. I understand that this will limit my ability to perform some WC techniques but I feel this is compensated for by allowing me to use other non-WC strikes/moves.

[Togo]

I think one of the key points about wing chun or any realistic self defense style/martial art is that nothing is set in stone, for example the forms are sort of pointless and seem pretty useless until you understand why you are doing them, and it is only in application that you can fully appreciate the techniques. With this being said it is only after a certain level of experience has been reached that you can begin training in chi sau, which shows you that the forms are not meant to followed as if set in stone, and that they are only to show one example of application, it is up to the practitioner to make the art work for them.

And the relevance of this post to anything else in this thread your wondering ?

Well i'm adding my own views onto the previous members comments on footwork. At the end of the day the whole point of self defense is to get the F**k out of there as quickly and as safely as possible, perhaps by physically defending yourself aginst an attacker. So my point here is that if it works then use it, who gives a toss what style you used to twat some chav in the mouth, as long as it works and you can make it work for you in a self defense situation then thats all thats important. At the end of the day a punch in the jaw is still a punch in the jaw regardless of style.

[chisauking]

Many people can read......but they can't comprehend.
Many people practice wing chun.......but they don't even know\understand simple principles and concept of wing chun.

Before you take this any further up the 'against mma' route, let me once again state that I'm NOT against cross training.....However, I do believe that you need to at least reach a credible level in wing chun before you try to juggle with another 4 styles...

Time is precious, so I'm not going to answer all the questions here....but in the hope I can help a few genuine wing chun beginers, I will try to explain why you can't mix and match wing chun in the begining...

roserot sez: I fail to see how cross-training would not be beneficial regardless of your level of 'comprehension' of Wing Chun? From what I have seen in lessons the style has the following weaknesses:

csk: Wing chun is a conceptual system. It's not a system that's based on 'technique vs technique', but rather 'expression' of our body guided by principles of the system. In the begining, wing chun training is to develop certain attributes within ourselves in order for us to apply the 'tools' of wing chun efficiently. If we were to mix and match wing chun in the begining, we are actually impeding the development of our wing chun 'mindset' and attributes because many other styles actually contravine wing chun princples. For example, wing chun trains the practitioner to hit without withdrawing the arm back first after the initial punch (chuong-kil-lik), but all the other styles advocated here does exactly the opposite. Also, wing chun teaches the practitioner to strike the nearest target with the closest weapon, but BJJ teaches the opposite. If we were to adopt the BJJ mindset in our wing chun, then we would reach down to our opponent's knees and try to punch our opponent's knee cap!
So, you can see from my examples, you can't develop wing chun attributes\mindset if you do the opposite of what wing chun principles is trying to teach you.

Wing chun is a very specialised style, just like when you choose a specialised subject at uni. Do you think it would be very clever to take on 4 different degrees at the same time? Or, do you think you can focus on ONE subject better, and then to take on another after you have completed the last?

Every thing starts with theory. Even 'rocket science' or quantum physics. Wing chun is no different. If you don't understand the concepts and princples, you don't really understand the theory of wing chun. In turn, you don't know how to train properly.

Regarding WSL and boxing. Fact: WSL took up boxing for a very short period. Once he'd discovered wing chun, he NEVER want back to boxing. Unlike UFC or K1, WSL challenged all the best fighters at the time, with no rules or weight limits.

It's quite obvious that many on here is brain washed with the 'mma' mentality. I think you should rename this forum 'Lancaster MMA (pretend wing chun) kungfu'

One last thing. roserot sez: P.S No I don't consider the WC masters to be 'blind' as most of them came from the generation before cross-training became popular. However I do consider their abilities limited, but concede their mastery of this system.

csk: Where do you think the luk-dim-boon gwan came from? Do you know who conceived Choy-lay-fut? Do you know what Cheung San Fung (taichi master) was teaching before he's conceived taichi? Cross training was edvident 100s years ago in China!

with this in mind, I bid you farewell,

happy cross training.

[chisauking]

For those that 'may' have reached a high level in wing chun: If you are against cross training at the begining of wing chun, why is it possible to cross train at a higher level?

Answer: When you have reach very high level of wing chun, rules become no rules. You don't even need structure to have the qualities of structure!

[Togo]

Hey ChisauKing, can i ask how long you have studied wing chun and under what sifu ? i apologise if this is a possibly stupid request but you write with quite a lot of conviction and come across as a very experienced practitioner of the art, so i was just curious about your abilities.

Regardless of this i think that you also write a bit to strongly, everyone is entitled to their own opinions and although a lot of yours are quite valid, that doesn't mean you are correct and everyone else is wrong. Regardless of experience and who is right or wrong, i think you tend to rub people up the wrong way with the way that you portray your views. Perhaps you should notice the best teachers of the style are actually quite open for questions, theories and are happy to return logical answers and their own theories in a polite, humble way. No disrespect intended but as a new member to the forum i feel that you tend to portray your views a bit to strongly, and dismiss others views to a certain extent, Which is up to you but half the point of a discussion forum is to share views, concepts, ideas etc., not to pick apart other people's in a disrespectful manner.

Peace