Ownership of a technique.

Does it matter as far as fighting, no. Does it matter as far as training yes. There comes a point where something has deviated so sharply from the core principles of an art that it merits categorical disinclusion in that art. If I start adding muay Thai kicks to judo it's still not judo.

While the knee and headbutt may not be wing chun techniques per se they are within the same range and can be done within the principles of the art. So even though they are not wing chun they can be used in a wing chun manner. A spinning kick to the head however can never be part of wing chun.

As for it being an improvement of your art, yes. YOUR art. Your personal art. It is anaddition to your fighting skill. That's the idea of JKD and MMA but even if I start teaching my students jujitsu in with the wing chun it doen't make it wing chun. If integrated it would make it an entirely different system even if it's following the wing chun principles. If taught separately then it's still jujitsu.

That said alter the structural basis of an art in terms of principles, power generation, basic structures, stance, footwork, proper ranges, and what do you have left of the art? Not much if anything.

This is the difference between variation, which is a minor difference, and deviation which is making changes to the very foundation of the art.

If it works add it to your skillset but don't try to claim that a spinning heel kick is wing chun, or judo, or wrestling. There are distinctions for a reason.

 

I'd have to agree Simon. Aside from those who train strictly to keep the historical aspects alive I see no reason why martial artists shouldn't constantly improve and adapt their own personal style based off of the doctrine of their art. I personally think this elitist style of thinking tends to dwell only in mindsets that do not routinely pressure test their training. If you're pressure testing and something works for you it can't be considered "wrong". How can it be wrong if it just worked for you?

 

My point was that it must follow the principles or the art in question. Orr's stuff does not.

For example his basic structres are wrong and if he weren't quite so muscled they'd never support any kind of force. He's using muscle instead of structure.
Or his chi Sao. He does it at a range where you can already hit and be hit. The point of chi sao is dealing with distance and angle to find a way to enter to that point in a structurally dominant position and should also be done while moving not standing still. Being in range to hit already removes any value from doing chi sao. It's an unfortunate but commonly seen mistake.

Other trapping stuff he does he takes more steps to do things than necessary. The idea for wing chun is to control. Just like grappling is position before submission wing chun is position before strike. There are many times where he just strikes without controlling his opponent by trapping or use of distance. Agains just firing off from static chi sao at the wrong distance is fruitless training.
Or where I've seen him knock the opponent's arm aside and lose contact altogether and strike back with the same hand. He breaks contact and does in two moves what could be done in one. With wing chun the idea is using one hand to control their two hands or using two hands to control their one. He doesn't get this.

Add to that his stance which creates issues with the wing chun kicking which I won't go into detail on.

Like I said if it works for him great but he's not following the principles of wing chun. Just because some of the techniques look the same n the outside doesn't mean they are. If you do pak da with a one-two timing instead of doing the pak and strike together it is no longer pak da.

 

Hey fine with me. I wouldn't mind even if it was. MAP's been a little dead so I may even play devil's advocate here on a few points I might not agree with if only for some stimulating discussion.

 

How can we be sure ANYTHING that we're studying today is strictly from our own chosen system?

It can't just be the same technique but with broken timing? What if you are attempting to do the technique but at the last second you realize your strike won't be as effective than if you wait a heartbeat later then strike so it becomes effective? Is it really no longer the same technique even though that was your original intention? Why can there not be variations of established techniques?

 

there are only so many ways to re invent the wheel .....and it will always be a wheel ....

different names different entries different emphasis

Thats what makes Martial Arts so damn interesting and addictive....

Sharing idea;s and techniques does work and can only enhance ones skills

Keep on rolling that wheel

Smurf

 

The traditional approach to this would be
I do technique X
I do Wing Chun
Therefore technique X is Wing Chun
This massive technocentricity is NOT traditional in any way, and is a post 1950 phenomenon in CMA.

 

Because then it's a pak sau and strike instead of pak da. Now you're right in that it's fine to do that in a non-ideal situation and it's still a valid wing chun technique, though not ideal. My point was when you change certain bits of things they are no longer that technique or that structure. It had nothing to do with that technique specifically. There is pak da, and pak sau with a strike following. There is no "kind of pak sau." So yes it is a different technique.
Just like grabbing and pulling toward you is not and will never be lap sau.

And some techniques you cannot do differently without violating the principles and having it be not wing chun. Kicking high would be an example of that. It's not wing chun and cannot be. It's a valid fighting technique but not a wing chun technique.

For example there is a specific angle for bong sau. There is bong sau and not bong sau. If the structure is wrong the arm cannot hold a force without resorting to excessive muscle power.

 

An example from aikido would be that if done with the principles of aikido a hook can be an aikido technique, but just hitting someone will never be aikido.

 

I don't think that's a very good analogy. Morihei Ueshiba (the founder of Aikido) was once quoted as saying in a real fight atemi (striking) is 70% and technique is 30%. Often by striking someone you can upset their balance thus making it much easier to use said joint locks/throws/etc.

 

All well and good in theory but realistically if you only have WC training and manage to defend yourself with WC training does it really matter if what you used is textbook WC? Of course not.

 

Dogmatists will always insist on a certain "way" - and as a way of looking after museum pieces that is fine.

But if the end goal is the efficacy of the technique then clinging rigidly to such definitions is patently absurd. One of the reasons an art such as Wing Chun has such a patchy reputation is this dogmatic "rote" style learning and repetition. Too many try and force the situation to their style rather than their style to the situation. This kind of thinking is counterintuitive to growth and development of us as fighters and as martial artists.

Taking the pak sao as an example, what is it for? Slapping the hand out of the way so you can hit someone! Saying it has to be done "X" fashion to be considered "proper" is wrong - it is the mindset of the beginner clinging to the direction of the instructor without looking at the ethos behind it.

Timing the pak sao can be before, during or after - each requiring a subtle shift in the mechanics - so which is right? All of them of course, thy each fit their purpose.

I see pak sao variants in FMA, boxing and ju Jitsu - the principle is far more important than any nonsense conception of "purity". Do you really think Ng Mui did things the same as WC guys today? Hell, BOXERS don't even fight the same way they used to in the last 70 years or so and they only have a handful of techniques

No art owns a technique - at best each art has its own flavor, but the ingredients remain constant

 

I doubt you ever see ANY art looking textbook perfect in a ruck - its folly to believe otherwise and may actually get you beat

 

Jet Lag obviously not as bad as I thought!