# Is the wing chun punch real?



## kehcorpz (Jun 13, 2016)

I watched different videos where they showed how it's done and they all said stuff like
this punch feels way different than a normal punch and that it goes through your body
and it resonates in your body and so on.
It sounded a bit esoteric. Is this stuff really real? i am really curious about it. i wish i could
just go to a wing chun guy and have him punch me (not with full force of course) so that i can
feel if it really feels different. if it felt different then i'd know that this stuff is real. 

I ask myself if this kind of punch is so much worse for an attacker than an ordinary punch
why don't professional boxers punch this way? Why haven't they picked up on this if this is so much better?

They also said that with the wing chun punch you can punch harder compared to if you punch ordinarily and
use your muscles. is there any way to test this and see if there really is more power? since i'm rather skinny
i don't think that i have a lot of punching power which is actually scary. 
i have actually had nightmares about this! i was being attacked and i punched and nothing happened! the punch
had no effect at all. 

if there was a punch to develop a deadly punch without relying on muscles it would be really cool but i'm sceptical
somehow. i mean how are you supposed to punch hard without depending on the strength of your muscles? then
this would basically mean that a 12 year old girl could punch just as hard as a grown man if she uses the wing chun
punch.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jun 13, 2016)

No. It's not real. You're hallucinating all of it.
Better turn off your computer before you get a virus.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jun 13, 2016)

The following 3 CMA styles are famous in "power generation". May be someone can put up a WC "power generation" clip so we can compare.

If you notice, all these 3 clips that the power generation require at least 1 second. If you try to throw 6 punches in 1 second (someone claimed he could punch that fast), there is no way that you can generate power as shown in those clips.

IMO, slow "power generation" and fast "chain punch" don't go together. The machine gun is different from the grenade. Both are needed in battle field.

Baji:






Chen Taiji:






XingYi Liu He:


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 13, 2016)

Okay. Let me give you the layman's definition of the WC punch, as I have been taught.

First you have to actually think of your stance/structure. Whether you are in MA (WCs version of a horse stance), left or right side neutral or front stance, your pelvis is slightly tilted forward to align your spine with the ground/your feet.

Second, your punch launches from your center, elbow down, ideally as you step into your target, as you should always be moving into your target, even if it is using your footwork to get to a flank/blind side.

Third the focal point (mentally) of your punch is not your shoulder.  Of course the shoulder rotates BUT you are focusing on the elbows path through space.

Finally as soon as you strike, you must relax.  I mean the instant you hit.  This is the thing that imo takes the most practice.  If you keep following through, like a "normal" punch, Newton's laws of Physics kick in.  Energy rebounds through your arm disturbing your structure, plus it slows you down.

In essence WC punches work overtly on a principle of physics, that is why some people call it "the Science of Wing Chun." Force = mass * velocity.  Via the centerline theory maximum mass is placed behind the punch.  Via the idea of relaxation/suppleness in the execution of the punch you maximize repetitive speed.  If you throw multiple punches they are thrown over each other (for lack of a better term), so each punch "starts from the heart".  That way without a lot of "body English" or waist twisting, you have your punch start with the maximum amount of body mass behind it so even a small/skinny person can throw a heck of a punch as long as they commit and can get the speed/velocity.


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 13, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The following 3 CMA styles are famous in "power generation". May be someone can put up a WC "power generation" clip so we can compare.
> 
> Baji:
> 
> ...


The problem is scientific principles.  Some lunches generate great force from rotation at the waist/center and a lot of shoulder.  That kind of punch clearly looks powerful.

The problem is a WC punch does not look powerful, as the thrust I did with a foil in High School and College fencing may not have looked powerful.  The problem is Physics isn't about appearance.  In terms of a punch it is about mass * velocity.  And in an efficient, and less showy way, a WC punch does a damn good job of using that equation.

This isn't to say the punches you show don't generate power, they do indeed.  The difference lies in how each art meets the requirements of the force equation.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 13, 2016)

Have a look at a knock out compilation. And you will notice that bombs knock people out.  And precise technical strikes knock people out.

And the force equation is basically bubcus.


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 13, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Have a look at a knock out compilation. And you will notice that bombs knock people out.  And precise technical strikes knock people out.
> 
> And the force equation is basically bubcus.



So the laws of physics don't exist in your world?  Okay.  Because that is what makes every punch work.  Some use muscle rotation to bring the mass into play, all WC does is, instead of using as much muscle, they use principle of leverage/mechanical advantage instead to produce power.

Neither punch is inherently more powerful than the other, it's about the proper execution based on the underlying principles.  Fighting technique is beyond ANY doubt, whether you acknowledge it or not, applied physics in the end.  Punching, grappling, it doesn't matter it is all about the laws of physics being applied to biomechanics and this is actually the only thing that can be said to be an undisputed fact in terms of martial arts.


----------



## kehcorpz (Jun 13, 2016)

thanks for the explanations!

since i have already watched a few videos about the wc punch i already "know" how it's supposed to be done, like how to stand and how to move the arm and so on. this stuff sounds really difficult. i mean even when i watch videos and they show it and comment on it
then it's still really hard to grasp-

but my question isn't about technique and also not about chain punching. 
is a single wing chun punch still more powerful than an ordinary punch? does it really feel different
inside of the body?
the stuff which they said in the videos about how it resonates reminded me a bit of the 5 finger death punch where 
you cause internal damage without external injury.
i think i also heard this somewhere else that there are certain punches where you can damage 
internal organs cause the power of the punch goes through the body!
i thought that this only exists in movies. but if the wing chun punch really feels different then this 
would mean that this stuff is real.

what happens for example if you wing chun punch somebody in the chest where the heart is? 
could this damage the heart or stop it? that would be really scary. on the other hand it would also
be pretty helpful when somebody attacks you and you can just stop his heart with a single punch.

and does muscle mass play NO role at all in the wing chun punch according to wing chun theory?
does this mean mike tyson couldn't do a harder wing chun punch than a 12 year old girl?! i cant really
imagine that.

is the wing chun punch similar to the 1 inch punch?


----------



## drop bear (Jun 13, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> So the laws of physics don't exist in your world?  Okay.  Because that is what makes every punch work.  Some use muscle rotation to bring the mass into play, all WC does is, instead of using as much muscle, they use principle of leverage/mechanical advantage instead to produce power.
> 
> Neither punch is inherently more powerful than the other, it's about the proper execution based on the underlying principles.  Fighting technique is beyond ANY doubt, whether you acknowledge it or not, applied physics in the end.  Punching, grappling, it doesn't matter it is all about the laws of physics being applied to biomechanics and this is actually the only thing that can be said to be an undisputed fact in terms of martial arts.



No the point is the laws of physics dont mesure a punch in terms of force. 

So it is the wrong equation.

And a whole bunch of other issues that make that equation a tool used to fool idiots.


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 13, 2016)

kehcorpz said:


> thanks for the explanations!
> 
> since i have already watched a few videos about the wc punch i already know how it's supposed to be done, like how to stand and how to move the arm and so on.
> this stuff sounds difficult.
> ...



The answer is... don't ask which punch is the best unless you want to start an internet crap storm.  Explore martial arts.  Find the one that feels right, not the one someone else tells you is the most powerful because the one that feels right is the one you will excel at and that is what is important.


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 13, 2016)

drop bear said:


> No the point is the laws of physics dont mesure a punch in terms of force.
> 
> So it is the wrong equation.
> 
> And a whole bunch of other issues that make that equation a tool used to fool idiots.



What ever you say man, if you want to say physics somehow doesn't apply to human movement okay, that's cool.  Proven wrong by the entire history of science, and actual movement capture and data analysis of martial artists of all types, but clearly you believe this quite deeply, so there is no use debating with a cinder block.


----------



## kehcorpz (Jun 13, 2016)

has this never been scientifically tested? i mean they have equipment to measure how much power a punch has.
has no wing chun guy ever tried measuring how hard his punch really is?! this would settle the debate once and for all.

if nobody ever dared to try this then this makes me suspicious.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 13, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> What ever you say man, if you want to say physics somehow doesn't apply to human movement okay, that's cool.  Proven wrong by the entire history of science, and actual movement capture and data analysis of m.artial artists of all types, but clearly you believe this quite deeply, so there is no use debating with a cinder block.



Sorry going to have to go all credible Hulk on you here.

Ok. Here is the physics.
Punch Force - The Science Behind The Punch

It is. Far more complicated equation than F=m×a 


This is force as far as physics determines it. Which is pretty much useless for knocking dudes out.
Force - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And my final issue is well so what? Knowing the equations have very little relevance to knocking dudes out. I am not a physicist and you did not even know your equation was wrong and it made zero practical difference.

And just to finish with a bit of fun


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 13, 2016)

@kehcorpz 

More than a few times.  Now most of these articles don't focus directly on WC but they focus on the physics of the punch in general confirming the principle

Improve Punching Power With Physics

The physics behind a Punch

(A Penn State U PDF)
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...EJcI4p5riNaYIND3Q&sig2=q1evZWwj4SkwXG2g7pYXVQ


Punch Force - The Science Behind The Punch

Just Google the physics of a punch.  In the end they all talk about mass and velocity.  WC just uses a different method.  instead of driving forward from the ground via rotation al la boxing it achieves driving forward from the ground via what (for lack of a better term) amounts to a thrust al la fencing (without the sword of course lol).

Either way physics is achieved.


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 13, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Sorry going to have to go all credible Hulk on you here.
> 
> Ok. Here is the physics.
> Punch Force - The Science Behind The Punch
> ...



Saddly you post links without understanding the science.  I posted one of the same links.  You just are looking for something that supports a preconceived notion.  However clearly you don't understand the science, you are simply looking for those things that, you think, support a preconceived notion.

Btw I am done with you at this point so feel free to blather.  Thanks to the settings of this forum, I won't even see them.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 14, 2016)

Ok body punches are the most interesting because you expect them to be bombs. The standard idea of throwing weight behind and all that. But quite often the technical punch will create that" goes through the body" feeling that is described.

And of course achieved with good punching technique.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 14, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> @kehcorpz
> 
> More than a few times.  Now most of these articles don't focus directly on WC but they focus on the physics of the punch in general confirming the principle
> 
> ...



Might want to read your own links first.

As an example.

"The fist has its maximum velocity when it hits something. This collision causes the fist to slow down, and eventually when the fighter begins applying a force to retract his arm, the fist stops and returns to the fighter. 
    This speed is calculated using;
        Velocity = Distance  /  Time
    As you can see, there are two ways to make a fist go faster. By lengthening the distance or shortening the time. The distance can be lengthened to a maximum of the fighter’s arm length, but the time will depend on training, and the acceleration (a=v/t) of the arm. 
    But what is the advantage to a “faster” punch? We can investigate this by taking a look at the concepts of momentum and impulse. Momentum can be seen as an object’s tendency to resist change in acceleration and its formula is:

                             Momentum (P) = Mass * Velocity

An impulse is the change in momentum of a certain object, and uses the formula:
                  Impulse = Force * Time"

That was from your PDF. And it isn't really f=m×a is it.


----------



## geezer (Jun 14, 2016)

I'm the first to admit that the physics stuff is way over my head.

Just today I picked my son up from the local community college where he is taking physics in summer school and he asked me about the physics of punching. I told him that I don't believe in any "woo-woo" version of ki or chi. To me, all _that_ is just an old school way of visualizing and trying to explain what's happening in the MA. Useful perhaps, but I believe it can all be accounted for by the laws of physics. 

Problem is, it ain't _simple_ physics, as some people like to say. f=ma doesn't even come close. There are so many variables in the way punching power can be generated, delivered, and received. Check out those compilations that _Drop Bear_ posted and think about how two fighters actually move in the ring! Can you imagine all the factors involved? Boggles the mind. 

Ok now one the thing about WC punches is that they really work to develop _short-power_, and do a pretty good job. Bruce Lee's so-called one-inch punch was adapted from WC. And, somewhere on youtube is a video of a goofy, younger version of myself in a demo receiving safely "attenuated" inch punches from my old WT sifu. Depending on the way he released his force it could either knock you back hard or, worse by far, it would penetrate and go right through you. The later type didn't look like much but really hurt. Done full on, it could be _dangerous_.

Good boxers generate short-power differently. My original escrima instructor used similar technique (he was also a boxer) and had one of the scariest short punches I've ever seen. Truly dangerous.


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 14, 2016)

geezer said:


> I'm the first to admit that the physics stuff is way over my head.
> 
> Just today I picked my son up from the local community college where he is taking physics in summer school and he asked me about the physics of punching. I told him that I don't believe in any "woo-woo" version of ki or chi. To me, all _that_ is just an old school way of visualizing and trying to explain what's happening in the MA, but I believe it can all be accounted for by the laws of physics. Problem is, it ain't _simple_ physics, as some people like to say. f=ma doesn't even come close. There are so many variables in the way punching power can be generated, delivered, and received. Check out those compilations that Drop Bear posted and think about how two fighters actually move in the ring! Can you imagine all the factors involved? Boggles the mind.
> 
> ...



And this is kinda goes where I was going.  No art has THE punch.  They all work well, else why would people have practiced the art for hundreds of not thousands of years?  The point is the boxer, the WC dude, the FMA guy, they all learn how to punch in a way that their predecessors proved was effective and HURT, otherwise it would have died our as it was ineffective.

I think in our "more civilized" world people forget these arts started as ways to REALLY fight, even kill, in real life.  If you are not studying a "traditional" fighting art (FMA, WC, etc.) you are studying their child.  Either way, if taken to the ultimate conclusion you are studying not to beat an opponent but to eliminate a threat to your life.  They have all lasted, thus they all work.


----------



## Marnetmar (Jun 14, 2016)

OP, I think it's a bit patronizing and dubious to assume that we're all a bunch of cultists who believe in the practical viability of what is essentially a parlour trick and then ask why boxers don't punch that way, etc. as if you're trying to reason with a five year old who's dead-set on believing that Santa Claus is real.

Ultimately our end idea is to close the gap, smother, control and strike to soft spots and use elbows and knees (please don't equate this with "teh deadly" for God's sake), not to chainpunch somebody in the chest for five minutes or expect to use Bruce Lee's one-inch punch in the middle of a flurry.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jun 14, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> The problem is a WC punch does not look powerful,...


Do you have any clip that someone uses WC punch to hit into the thin air or to hit on a heavy bag?

Every time when people discuss about "power generation", I always suggest to put up such clip. IMO, clip is better than 1000 words.


----------



## KPM (Jun 14, 2016)

kehcorpz said:


> if there was a punch to develop a deadly punch without relying on muscles it would be really cool but i'm sceptical
> somehow. i mean how are you supposed to punch hard without depending on the strength of your muscles? then
> this would basically mean that a 12 year old girl could punch just as hard as a grown man if she uses the wing chun
> punch.



Yes, physics is complicated....actually we're talking about biomechanics if you are applying physics to a punch.   But the simple formula of F = M * A is useful because it helps us conceptualize what is going on.   If you what to hit hard, two basic things are needed.  Good mass, or good acceleration.   It just goes without saying that a big guy is going to hit pretty hard!  If you are a small person without much mass, then you are going to have to work harder to generate good power in a punch.  The second element is acceleration or simple speed.  So learning good technique that allows you to move your fist through the air as quickly as possible is going to add to the power you can generate.  Of course, the physics and math get more complicated than that if you really want to analyze it.  But most people aren't interested in analyzing it any deeper than this.

You cannot move the body without muscles.  The challenge is to use those muscles in the most optimal way.  If you are using a lot of excess tension you aren't using optimal biomechanics.  This would be like trying to drive your car with one foot on the brakes.  It holds you back.  If you are using poor alignment and poor punching mechanics, this also affects the speed or acceleration of your punch.  This is like trying to drive your  car straight with the tires out of alignment and pulling to one side.  So technique is important.

But different fighting systems use a different technique to do a punch.  We could argue until the cows come home as to which system has the best punching method.  But they all produce results within their way of doing things.   There is no "magic punch."

The difference between a long range punch and a short range punch is a whole other discussion.


----------



## kehcorpz (Jun 14, 2016)

If you punch and the enemy is very close to you does this mean the punch has less power cause the arm has less distance to travel and accelerate?
I watched a video of a wing chun teacher who said that when he punches he imagines his arm to be like a bullet and it doesn't matter how
close the enemy is. Does this mean he's wrong?

What's most interesting about the wc punch is this penetration stuff. But this can't be trained on your own right? I mean wether it works or not can
only be tested if you have somebody else to punch. 

I also wonder can you use the wc punch with self defense items made for punching which have a small tip and focus all the power on a very small point? Did anyone test this?


----------



## geezer (Jun 14, 2016)

kehcorpz said:


> If you punch and the enemy is very close to you does this mean the punch has less power cause the arm has less distance to travel and accelerate?
> I watched a video of a wing chun teacher who said that when he punches he imagines his arm to be like a bullet and it doesn't matter how
> close the enemy is. Does this mean he's wrong?
> 
> ...



Here's the answer to your questions:

https://cdn.meme.am/instances/60209978.jpg

Now, it's obvious WC/WT/VT interests you. So stop wasting time and get to a school. Commit to at least three months of instruction before asking any more questions like these. Otherwise you risk looking like an _*idiot*_. But do post to let us know how the training is going!


----------



## kehcorpz (Jun 14, 2016)

Yes wc looks interesting but I'm really not sure if it would work for me and the prices are really high. The schools seem to make
a lot of money. If I could join and leave at any time I'd much more likely simply try it but where I live you have to join for 12 months!
The fact that they force you to join and pay for 12 months already shows that they are interested in making lots and lots of money..
I dont like that.
I also dont like doctors which do all kinds of expensive medical tests only to make much money.


----------



## yak sao (Jun 14, 2016)

kehcorpz said:


> Yes wc looks interesting but I'm really not sure if it would work for me and the prices are really high. The schools seem to make
> a lot of money. If I could join and leave at any time I'd much more likely simply try it but where I live you have to join for 12 months!
> The fact that they force you to join and pay for 12 months already shows that they are interested in making lots and lots of money..
> I dont like that.
> I also dont like doctors which do all kinds of expensive medical tests only to make much money.



Martial arts has a very high dropout rate and wc is no exception.
many people quit before they give it a chance. By signing a contract not only are you committing to the school for 12 months but that school is committing to you for 12 months.


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 14, 2016)

yak sao said:


> Martial arts has a very high dropout rate and wc is no exception.
> many people quit they give it a chance. By signing a contract not only are you committing to the school for 12 months but that school is committing to you for 12 months.



It depends on the rationale though.  My Sifu/Guro owns his own Forensic Consulting firm that provides services to Corporate and LE organizations.  The "School" is thus not a profit seeking venture.  Obviously their are expenses but the left over money gets rolled into Charity Work like Wounded Veteran projects, LE Charities and Filipino Typhoon relief etc.  As you said we do have a drop out rate similar to other Martial Arts schools but since profit isn't part of the equation he is easier going on the contract end.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jun 14, 2016)

Does anybody have "WC power generation" clip either punching into the thin air, or punching on a heavy bag?

Here are 2 "Baji power generation" clips. It's very easy to learn and everybody can pick it up within 10 minutes.


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 15, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Does anybody have "WC power generation" clip either punching into the thin air, or punching on a heavy bag?
> 
> Here are 2 "Baji power generation" clips. It's very easy to learn and everybody can pick it up within 10 minutes.







1:25 is a really interesting part, the difference between a "normal" and a "wing chun" punch in the next one





There is also also this episode of fight quest that goes into detail about everything.  Not perfect mind you but a decent overview not only of the art but how there isn't really a single way to "Wing Chun tonight".  I may have dated myself with that last joke lol.


----------



## Callen (Jun 15, 2016)

That's a great clip of Sifu Lui Ming Fai. In my opinion, very good punching insight.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 15, 2016)

kehcorpz said:


> The fact that they force you to join



Do they drag you in off the street and make you train holding you prisoner until you are ready for grading?
I'm betting they will let you have a trial lesson but don't be greedy and expect to have weeks of free training. Bear in mind that even non business martial arts places have expenses like rent and utilities to pay for. If there is a contract read it careful, they don't make you sign it, you decide whether to or not.


----------



## Steve (Jun 15, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> And this is kinda goes where I was going.  No art has THE punch.  They all work well, else why would people have practiced the art for hundreds of not thousands of years?  The point is the boxer, the WC dude, the FMA guy, they all learn how to punch in a way that their predecessors proved was effective and HURT, otherwise it would have died our as it was ineffective.
> 
> I think in our "more civilized" world people forget these arts started as ways to REALLY fight, even kill, in real life.  If you are not studying a "traditional" fighting art (FMA, WC, etc.) you are studying their child.  Either way, if taken to the ultimate conclusion you are studying not to beat an opponent but to eliminate a threat to your life.  They have all lasted, thus they all work.


This is one common line of reasoning.  Another is that, in our "more civilized" world, the opportunity to apply technique is largely lost, and so arts that would otherwise have died out can perpetuate because they have a lot of fancy, pseudo-scientific rationale that sounds really, really cool.   And because there is no application (and in fact,, the lack of application is part of the pseudo-scientific rationale), these styles can actually thrive while effective fighting styles fade significantly or die out because often what works isn't as sexy as something that is engineered to look cool. 

Another line of reasoning is that, in our "more civilized" world, contemporary arts are better suited for a modern context, while the study of a "traditional" art is at least one or two (or more) generations from having anyone involved who has ever seen the art being used in context.  I think of Scuttle, the seagull from Disney's the Little Mermaid, where he's just basically making stuff up about using a fork to comb your hair. 

Once again, there is a lot of speculation, which it to be expected when you can't just simply demonstrate effectiveness, explaining how something works, and instead must explain how something _could_ work or _would _work.

On a completely different note, there also seems to be a questionable premise that a WC strike is technical and grounded in sound science, while other strikes are not.  Another questionable premise that seems to be underlying this conversation is that strength and technique are mutually exclusive.  Isn't it possible that a striking technique can be a function of both strength and technique?


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jun 15, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> there isn't really a single way to "Wing Chun tonight". I may have dated myself with that last joke lol.


 Yes you did. but only those around during that time know what you are talking about so it's more like,  code words lol.


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 15, 2016)

Steve said:


> This is one common line of reasoning.... ?



There is a reason for the conclusion I speak of.  Many of the traditional Chinese Martial Arts (Wing Chun, Hung Gar, White Crane, etc) were developed hundreds of years ago and existed and spread, in a time where people fought challenge matches, sometimes even with signed death waivers. So they are solidly proven in terms of real world effectiveness of their punching techniques.  No Martial art based only on "unproven" theory would survive in such an environment.

Also I never said that other arts punches aren't founded in science.  What I said is they achieve the same goal via different methods.  A simple difference in methodology does not by extension mean unscientific.  

Some rely on using (for lack of a better term) body english (rotation and/or "snapping" at the waist) to align the mass behind a straight punch,  WC simply uses body structure and elbow alignment along the centerline to achieve the same goal.  The way it was described to me was "in Western Boxing you 'throw' your weight behind a punch, in WC you 'keep' your weight behind a punch."

Some arts in order to be able to launch a series of rapid attacks end up unconsciously needing more development of fast twitch muscle fibers so you can rapidly snap jabs back and forth from the shoulder.  You may in boxing achieve this by constantly jabbing the heavy bag and working on timing with the speed bag. WC in order to accomplish the same  uses a principle of relaxation at the point of impact, and  rotating the fists one over the other to maintain the centerline.  The idea being, and a biomechanical fact actually, that a relaxed muscle requires less energy to withdraw than one still in a state of opposing tension.  You do this by punching a rice bag mounted on a wall repeatedly.  The goal being that eventually even though your fist hits full force the first then automatically recoils (equal and opposite reaction) and the bag bounces due to the instant relaxation.

I am not saying WC has THE most power punch.  Other punches can be more powerful, I won't deny that.  It's why WC also puts a premium on the speed of repetitive attacks (see battering ram analogy).  There is a reason tigers, bears and gorillas etc swing their arms in arcs, it's to rip the head off of what they are attacking.  There are a couple of factors at play though with these more rounded attacks technique is equally important when you are throwing those wide punches muscle is a greater factor, because again instead of "keeping" your weight behind a punch you are "throwing" your weight behind it.  

What WC is designed around is the following theory.  Create an art that is specifically tailored around a smaller person so that they can fight a larger opponent.  Rather than use techniques that require the parallel cultivation of muscle (more than a couple of traditional Chinese martial arts when taught in the traditional manner also had physical work out regimes along side them, such as what we now call "isometric" exercises such as  holding buckets filled with stuff and/or VERY low static stances etc) for strength WC was designed around keeping the weight behind a strike for power, vs throwing, and then speed via straight-line punching and the use of relaxation so that one can accomplish the same goal.

Neither, is universally "better" than the other but WC still being around for ~300 years now and surviving in an environment where not only hand to hand combat was THE way of combat but where even in the rare time war was not happening you had challenge matches that could result in death, shows WC, and it's fellow traditional Chinese arts, are proven in terms of theory.


----------



## Steve (Jun 15, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> There is a reason for the conclusion I speak of.  Many of the traditional Chinese Martial Arts (Wing Chun, Hung Gar, White Crane, etc) were developed hundreds of years ago and existed and spread, in a time where people fought challenge matches, sometimes even with signed death waivers. So they are solidly proven in terms of real world effectiveness of their punching techniques.  No Martial art based only on "unproven" theory would survive in such an environment.
> 
> Also I never said that other arts punches aren't founded in science.  What I said is they achieve the same goal via different methods.  A simple difference in methodology does not by extension mean unscientific.
> 
> ...


would you fly in a plane with a pilot who had never flown a plane, taught by a guy who had never flown a plane, but at a school founded buy pilots who flew planes in WWI?


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jun 15, 2016)

I thought this discussion would have had 6 pages of WC anger by now.. lol. you guys are 


Kung Fu Wang said:


> Do you have any clip that someone uses WC punch to hit into the thin air or to hit on a heavy bag?
> 
> Every time when people discuss about "power generation", I always suggest to put up such clip. IMO, clip is better than 1000 words.


----------



## geezer (Jun 15, 2016)

Steve said:


> would you fly in a plane with a pilot who had never flown a plane, taught by a guy who had never flown a plane, but at a school founded buy pilots who flew planes in WWI?



No way in hell. 

But I_ would_ fly in a plane that was an improvement on a plane designed a generation ago, whose design in turn evolved out of the best planes of a generation before that, etc. etc. all the way back to guys like Glen Curtiss and the Wright bothers.

So having a history can be a positive thing. So is evolution! ...Evolution demands that there be a big enough gene pool to have genetic variation and that there be evolutionary pressure for natural selection to occur. 

WC purists seem to think they are exempt from this process. They are more like biblical creationists, looking for some pure, original form, like Adam before the fall. The perfect, God-created version from whom we, the imperfect humans of today have descended.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jun 15, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Do you have any clip that someone uses WC punch to hit into the thin air or to hit on a heavy bag?
> 
> Every time when people discuss about "power generation", I always suggest to put up such clip. IMO, clip is better than 1000 words.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jun 15, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Do you have any clip that someone uses WC punch to hit into the thin air or to hit on a heavy bag?
> 
> Every time when people discuss about "power generation", I always suggest to put up such clip. IMO, clip is better than 1000 words.












The one thing I noticed in many of these videos is that many of the practitioners had gloves on.  Then it occurred to me that many WC practitioners probably scrape their knuckles when doing that circular motion.  I can only assume that the WC punch is supposed to be straight in and straight back.  Am I wrong?


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 16, 2016)

Steve said:


> would you fly in a plane with a pilot who had never flown a plane, taught by a guy who had never flown a plane, but at a school founded buy pilots who flew planes in WWI?



First, you just moved a goal post.  Initially you said...



> . Another is that, in our "more civilized" world, the opportunity to apply technique is largely lost, and so arts that would otherwise have died out can perpetuate because they have a lot of fancy, pseudo-scientific rationale that sounds really, really cool.



So I answered this.  WC was perpetuated up into the 20th century through war and challenge matches.  The teachers in Hong Kong in the post WWII period were trained during this earlier period and their students even used it in fights in the chaos of the Communist take over of he main land.  So it is proven to be based on sound scientific (both in physics and biomechanically) and functional.

So you move the goal post and go to the modern teacher and whether they can, in essence, teach a fighting art if they don't fight.  Well first I would hazard that 95% of all martial arts instructors have not used their Martial arts, outside of sanctioned competition

That said my Sifu's Sifu learned from one of these Hong Kong guys who put it into practice in street fights.  Then, perhaps I am lucky in this respect, my Sifu used it in practice as a Law Enforcement Operator, whether it be serving High Risk Search Warrants for illegal drugs or arresting Outlaw Motorcycle Gang members in raids on the bars and club houses they frequent.  I am also used its techniques, and the Kali he also teaches, in the course of my duties as well.

Additionally GM William Cheung worked with the Sailors and Marines of the 7th fleet in the 70's and 80's as well as teaching the Australian Royal Airforce (Cheung lives is Austrailia).  A friend of mine who was a Force Recon Marine was taught it in the 90s, and well as Kali, by James Keating.   While Paul Vunak, pissed of the Navy via advertisements that he was THE trainer for the Navy SEALS (resulting in his contract not being renewed), he was hired under government contract to teach Wing Chun to East Coast SEAL Teams in the 70s and 80s. In Germany a number of SWAT Teams study it under the Leung variation that is now under Keith Kernspecht in Germany.

Now would all of these Military and  Security Forces, and more, study an art that just looks cool and is all theory and "pseudoscience"?  No they wouldn't.  I think you may be thinking WC is static.  It's not.  It is a conceptive MA based on a foundation of principles (centerline theory, body structure etc).  Some things in it work really well and remain relatively unchanged, the punch as an example, however other things change.  Some focus almost exclusively on punching, the WC I study also has a focus on take downs and Chin Na.  Some will never kick above the waist, others will kick above the waist.  

I also think your aircraft analogy is a false one to an extent.  Aviation is technology based.  You will get more power and efficient propulsion systems, stronger airframes, better and more complex avionics etc.  Human biomechanics haven't changed since homosapiens came to be.  Someone may say they have created a better combination of techniques in a MA they perpetuate but the way the human body moves in and of itself doesn't advance the way technology does.  So a punch that worked 100 years ago will still work today.  A block or deflection that worked against a round house then will still stop a round house today.


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 16, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> The one thing I noticed in many of these videos is that many of the practitioners had gloves on.  Then it occurred to me that many WC practitioners probably scrape their knuckles when doing that circular motion.  I can only assume that the WC punch is supposed to be straight in and straight back.  Am I wrong?



You aren't wrong.  The rolling action should stop once the punch is "really" incoming on the target.  I actually purposefully punch the heavy bag, rice bag and pad on the Mook Jong, without gloves because A. it toughens the hand and B. it encourages not to have you fists simply "pin wheel".  If that happens some of your energy is wasted in what amounts to a rubbing action against the target.  The action should be pictured not as a circle.  The only place you may have a "curve" in you motion is on the "bottom" as you are withdrawing after impact and bring it back up to "launch" it, but the trajectory to impact once launched should be a straight line to the target.

What I have found as a potential issue (and this illustrates it to an extent) with WC is the following.  Many fighting systems and their techniques are gross motor function, WC has a fair amount of fine motor function.  Now you can train fine motor function into muscle memory like anything else.  Evidence of this is Military and Law Enforcement firearms training, loading, aiming and clearing weapon malfunctions is fine motor function.  However fine motor function is more perishable, meaning it degrades at a faster rate than gross motor function memory.  As such it requires more constant practice to maintain.


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 16, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> So I answered this.  WC was perpetuated up into the 20th century through war and challenge matches.  The teachers in Hong Kong in the post WWII period were trained during this earlier period and their students even used it in fights in the chaos of the Communist take over of he main land.  So it is proven to be based on sound scientific (both in physics and biomechanically) and functional...



Oh I forgot.  In terms of WC my Sifu and his Sifu have taught combatives based in WC (and yes other bits as well) to the NYPD and other Local, State and Federal Agencies.  His Sifu has also been a Subject Matter Expert to the U.S. Naval Special Warfare Command (SEALs), U.S. Marine Corps and U.S. Army Special Operations Command (they actually work for the same Consultancy Company, my Sifu is the CEO, his Sifu is a VP).  

As I said I may be lucky that I found a Sifu/Guro with such qualifications but I did, so I am pretty sure I can say it works today in real life hostile encounters with little reservation.  Does it need to be taught by the right person to the right person?  Yep.

The biggest issue I see with WC today, and there are issues, is not with the art but with some individual practitioner and/or individual instructors, but this applies to any Martial Art imo.  I will use the words of a book I am currently reading on the subject.

Sifu Danny Xuan draws an analogy between a Martial Artist and an Army.  Your limbs are your Army, the torso and head the Castle, the brain the Commander.  He then speaks of how the Art of War can be applied to WC.  The problem he, and I see, with WC, and other aggressive Martial arts is summed up as follows...



> .In the battleground, you don’t retreat every time your enemy marches or charges forward; you hold your ground and fight them off. In fact, your commander not only expects you to hold your ground, but commands his troops to charge at their enemy to gain ground. He will only call for his army to retreat when he sees that it is being overpowered. The problem with most Wing Chun practitioners today is that they are not training to strengthen their structure and balance. Thus, they’re not confident enough to hold their ground, or perhaps they are unable to do so because of not developing strength in their structure and balance.



This isn't a problem with the Art and it's techniques however.  It's  problem with the practitioner and/or instructor.  As I said I think this also applies to many arts that have as their raison d'être "attack" as well.

And yet again none of the above is to say WC is superior to any other art in some universal way.  It is only to say that it accomplishes the same goals in a different but equally effective manner.


----------



## Steve (Jun 16, 2016)

geezer said:


> No way in hell.
> 
> But I_ would_ fly in a plane that was an improvement on a plane designed a generation ago, whose design in turn evolved out of the best planes of a generation before that, etc. etc. all the way back to guys like Glen Curtiss and the Wright bothers.
> 
> ...


Great points.   And I think I need to be clear that I'm not trying to convince anyone that wc is good or bad.   I'm really just trying to point out to Juany that we all have convenient perspectives which support our decisions.   He stated one perspective as though it was the only possible interpretation.   I'm trying to show that there are plenty of other possible perspectives that are , at least, not any more wrong than his.   

I don't have any stake in what you train or why.


----------



## Hanzou (Jun 16, 2016)

kehcorpz said:


> Yes wc looks interesting but I'm really not sure if it would work for me and the prices are really high. The schools seem to make
> a lot of money. If I could join and leave at any time I'd much more likely simply try it but where I live you have to join for 12 months!
> The fact that they force you to join and pay for 12 months already shows that they are interested in making lots and lots of money..
> I dont like that.
> I also dont like doctors which do all kinds of expensive medical tests only to make much money.



If you want to learn how to punch and fight on your feet, go to a reputable boxing gym. Boxing tends to be cheaper than martial arts programs, and frankly produce better overall results.


----------



## Steve (Jun 16, 2016)

geezer said:


> No way in hell.
> 
> But I_ would_ fly in a plane that was an improvement on a plane designed a generation ago, whose design in turn evolved out of the best planes of a generation before that, etc. etc. all the way back to guys like Glen Curtiss and the Wright bothers.
> 
> ...


just another quick point while I sit on the train. the planes are all being used in an appropriate context.   improvements can be made because there is application, and by virtue if experience ad the accumulation of ideas, the technology can be improved. but where people are concerned, the transmission of skill is not nearly so clean. practical skill can be lost in one generation of master to apprentice if the apprentice never applies the skills in context. In one generation, a master bladesmiths skills will be lost if his apprentice never gets chance to forge a blade.   there is a wealth of tacit knowledge that academic understanding just can't replicate. .


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 16, 2016)

Steve said:


> Great points.   And I think I need to be clear that I'm not trying to convince anyone that wc is good or bad.   I'm really just trying to point out to Juany that we all have convenient perspectives which support our decisions.   He stated one perspective as though it was the only possible interpretation.   I'm trying to show that there are plenty of other possible perspectives that are , at least, not any more wrong than his.
> 
> I don't have any stake in what you train or why.



I really don't see how the above is any different than the point I am making.  All I am saying is that WC and it's punch are effective, not that they are more effective than any other art.  Why do I study WC and Kali?  Yes because have both been proven to still be highly effective by modern Military and Law Enforcement Units, BUT then so have many other Arts, Krav Maga, Western Boxing, Jujutsu, Judo, Hapkido an more.  WC isn't the "One Ring" of Martial Arts, if you get the Lord of the Rings reference.

Before I settled on WC and Kail I spent almost a year calling, e-mailing and visiting various schools in my area representing various forms of Aikido, Karate and Jujutsu, Krav Maga, MMA, Hapkido, and yes different schools that teach WC (there are 3 within 20 minutes of me.  I finally settled on this school _not_ because of the Art but rather the Instructor.  He was different than the others because of the following Combination...
1. He teaches the arts in the manner of "combative" teaching.
2. He not only teaches in the school, but has taught Law Enforcement Agencies under Contract with his consultancy.
3. One of the reasons he has gotten those contracts is because he can point to having used the skills operationally in Law Enforcement.

He could have taught, Western Boxing, BJJ,  Silat, Krav Maga, MMA, I would not have cared less.  While some said (especially the Krav Instructor of course) that they taught combatives, none of them actually had a "resume" to back them up and they also didn't speak "my language", in this case speaking from a Law Enforcement perspective.

I only responded the way I did because of your inference that, WC was theory and unproven "pseudoscience" when it is in reality proven in practice, both in terms of practicality and the science, thats it.  I agree an instructor can screw up the best Martial Art, but when an instructor can point to personal experience that it works and that organizations with reputation will pay him to travel States away to instruct, I think it is not uncalled for to say what they guy (or gal) teaches works.

Maybe that makes my position a little more clear?


----------



## Steve (Jun 16, 2016)

I'd say wing chun punches might be effective. hard to know really. That's my point, and I think that's different from what you're saying, which is that everything is effective, and it's all different.  I'm not going so far as to say you're wrong.  I'm just saying that you MIGHT be wrong, and we have no really solid way to find out. 

You seem to be suggesting that a Wing Chun punch works because... theory.  I'm saying that this is not the same as saying that a boxing punch works because... application in context.

There's a big difference between talking about how something can work and showing that it works in context.  Because WC doesn't have a viable competitive application, in this "civilized world" in which we live, the application of WC is infrequent or nonexistent for many of its practitioners.  In other words, statistically, a minute fraction of the people who train WC ever use WC outside of training.

Conversely, close to 100% of people who train boxing, TKD, wrestling, judo, bjj or any other competitive art use the art in the context of the competition.  Does this mean that BJJ works in a different context?  Of course not.  But it most certainly means that BJJ works in A context.  I can't teach you to defend yourself from a dozen ninja in a dark alley.  But I can teach you to choke someone with their own jacket because I've done it hundreds of times to people who really didn't want me to.

Going back to the plane analogy, there are hundreds of patented "flying machines" which all looked really good on paper, but didn't work.  Theoretically, these guys felt like they had solved the puzzle, but when push came to shove and they tried to apply their theories, they learned they were mistaken.


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 16, 2016)

Steve said:


> I'd say wing chun punches might be effective. hard to know really. That's my point, and I think that's different from what you're saying, which is that everything is effective, and it's all different.  I'm not going so far as to say you're wrong.  I'm just saying that you MIGHT be wrong, and we have no really solid way to find out.
> 
> You seem to be suggesting that a Wing Chun punch works because... theory.  I'm saying that this is not the same as saying that a boxing punch works because... application in context.
> 
> ...



See the thing is this, whether a specific person sees it simply as "theory" or not is irrelevant IF there are proven examples that it works in practice.  It is proven, for over 300 years into today to work in practice.  Whether it was the people using it in China during the age of "death waivers", Yip Man's student's using on the streets of Hong Kong in the 50's-70s or the multitude of Special Forces and Law Enforcement Agencies using it today.  I speak nothing of theory, in the common parlance (the definition in science is different).

Maybe you don't have the experience but the Military Special Forces Units, SWAT teams and the like are NOT going to train things that don't work.  The first bit is important.  The Army, Navy and Marines like to be different thanks to inter-service rivalry.  If all three jump on board, it is a clear sign it works. So we have documented history the Art and it's "theories" work, even today.  Now does that mean every instructor teaches what works?  Nope.  Nor does every instructor of what you mentioned either.

The problem is this.  In the west, America especially, we have come into a mind set that competition is what matters, what we see on PPV or TV is the truth, a pile of verifiable evidence matters less than the remote control.  Now maybe it's because I am a member of the specific community but like you can say "In sanctioned competition I can see this works", I know from being part of the Operational Community that WC works, with the qualifier of course that it takes what any Martial Art takes, the right Instructor and the right student.  That pairing is vital in ALL martial arts imo.

What I find most interesting really is that you ignore the over 300 years of history, including modern Special Force and SWAT teams learning it.  You fail to address the totality of facts and still try to say it's unproven, yet you also say you have no opinion on the Art.  In my experience a person with no horse in the race says "Okay if it's good enough for SEALs Force Recon and SWAT it must work" if they are actually open minded on the matter.

Please again note.  I am sure that many a WC teacher, same as any MA doesnt teach the art so it can be truly effective irl but that is a matter of experience in real life fights.  How many people do you know fight irl, not competition regularly because WC is successful in competition.  Come to Maryland in July to see. U.S. International Kuo Shu Championship Tournament | USKSF


----------



## ThatVTGuy (Jun 16, 2016)

At around 16:50 till 19:00  there is a great breakdown of the punch.


----------



## Steve (Jun 16, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> See the thing is this, whether a specific person sees it simply as "theory" or not is irrelevant IF there are proven examples that it works in practice.  It is proven, for over 300 years into today to work in practice.  Whether it was the people using it in China during the age of "death waivers", Yip Man's student's using on the streets of Hong Kong in the 50's-70s or the multitude of Special Forces and Law Enforcement Agencies using it today.


I totally, totally disagree with you on this, and I think this is where we are running into some miscommunication.  To be clear, I think I understand your point and can agree that we can absolutely identify whether something can work. 

There is the macro issue of whether something CAN work, presuming that it the skills are developed in a way that makes sense.  CAN something like WC work?  Maybe.  Has it ever worked?  I don't know, but let's say probably.

Martial arts, like ANY OTHER practical skill, is individual in nature.  The salient question isn't whether it works at all.  The really important question is, can YOU make it work?

Going back to my analogy, we know that pilots can fly planes.  There are people flying planes all the time.  We can see it.  We have demonstrable evidence of it.  But if you're learning from that guy who's never actually flown a plane, who himself learned from a guy who's never actually flown a plane, who teaches at a school founded by a guy who we know could and did fly planes, how confident are you going to be that your instruction works?   Would you feel comfortable learning from these guys?  How far removed from application would you insist your instructors be?  Personally, *zero generations* is what I would demand from any instructor.

And just to be clear, there are people who have ample experience to be credible.  I think, though, that it's far more common to be learning a system from someone who's only experience is in learning the system and passing it on intact, as they were instructed.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jun 16, 2016)

ThatVTGuy said:


> At around 16:50 till 19:00  there is a great breakdown of the punch.


thanks
There were conflicting views in the video though. The ones I notice are the following
1. Wing Chun doesn't draw the arms back and a lot of systems practice drawing the arms back.
From my experience of people I've talked to, drawing the arms back is frown upon as being incorrect way to punch in a number of fighting systems including Boxing.  The reason why is simple.  Drawing back literally means that you go backwards before going forwards. To reduce this students in many styles are told not to draw back. Now as to following those instructions it's going to vary.  In forms, there maybe a draw back or a deep chamber, but that deep chamber trains the fighters ability to throw an elbow backwards.

2.  The other one was the the assumption that Wing Chun doesn't turn to deliver the strike.  But when I watched the teacher doing the punches I say exactly that and he actually talks about turning the waist.

3.  The teacher says "you don't thrust your body forward" but there is a forward thrust. It's a small thrust and you can actually see it when he hits the bag.  You have to watch the legs in order to see it. Then at 19:11 you see them actually train a thrust punch.  Either there was something lost in translation or he was referring to a different kind of thrust.

In Jow Ga our thrust punches are longer and more exaggerated in our drills than it would be in a real fight.  I think the reason why is because this is the best way to learn how to connect the body movement, waist movement and punch correctly.


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 16, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> thanks
> There were conflicting views in the video though. The ones I notice are the following
> 1. Wing Chun doesn't draw the arms back and a lot of systems practice drawing the arms back.
> From my experience of people I've talked to, drawing the arms back is frown upon as being incorrect way to punch in a number of fighting systems including Boxing.  The reason why is simple.  Drawing back literally means that you go backwards before going forwards. To reduce this students in many styles are told not to draw back. Now as to following those instructions it's going to vary.  In forms, there maybe a draw back or a deep chamber, but that deep chamber trains the fighters ability to throw an elbow backwards.
> ...



Just regarding number 2.  Turning at the waist is done in many WC forums but only in conjunction with footwork.  Other arts do more turning, but often without the foot work to step in or to the blind side etc.  It's a subtle difference but it is important because it allows for a minimal amount of core rotation and this allows for faster repeated strikes.

When he is talking about rotation from the waist he is thinking arts like Tai Chi, etc.  Those are VERY rotational and different. 

As for the third, in terms of thrusting, I think it is a matter of semantics.  Picture an Olympic fencer (my first art).  They woukd say they don't thrust their body forward, just the arm and the blade, the body remains grounded on the foundation of your feet.  Same with WC.  Other arts however have the practitioner literally leap, or thrust, their body forward in some of the animal forms launching the entire body from a former point of static rest.


----------



## Steve (Jun 16, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> The problem is this.  In the west, America especially, we have come into a mind set that competition is what matters, what we see on PPV or TV is the truth, a pile of verifiable evidence matters less than the remote control.  Now maybe it's because I am a member of the specific community but like you can say "In sanctioned competition I can see this works", I know from being part of the Operational Community that WC works, with the qualifier of course that it takes what any Martial Art takes, the right Instructor and the right student.  That pairing is vital in ALL martial arts imo.


Just want to address this separately.  Competition isn't the end all/be all.  But, it IS application.  How do you learn to cook?  By cooking.  How do you learn to do your job?  By doing your job.  Sure, training is a component, but training has to lead to action. 

And, frankly, there is truth in competition.  Can a person who competes in MMA defend himself from 12 ninja in a dark alley?  Who knows?  Maybe.  But each person who trains in MMA will know what they personally can and cannot do, because they are expected to apply the techniques in context, which is MMA competition. 

Non-competitive martial arts are unique, I believe, in that they are the only activity I can think of that not only does not have a viable means of testing application, but actively eschews it.


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 16, 2016)

Steve said:


> Just want to address this separately.  Competition isn't the end all/be all.  But, it IS application.  How do you learn to cook?  By cooking.  How do you learn to do your job?  By doing your job.  Sure, training is a component, but training has to lead to action.
> 
> And, frankly, there is truth in competition.  Can a person who competes in MMA defend himself from 12 ninja in a dark alley?  Who knows?  Maybe.  But each person who trains in MMA will know what they personally can and cannot do, because they are expected to apply the techniques in context, which is MMA competition.
> 
> Non-competitive martial arts are unique, I believe, in that they are the only activity I can think of that not only does not have a viable means of testing application, but actively eschews it.



Sorry but the above avoids all of the points I made and focuses on the narrative you have maintained.  Sport with codified rules, down to the clothing available, is applicable to sport and sport alone. 

After that you have one of two questions, whether you actually experienced it personally or vicariously work.  Did the person engage in a situation where they would have DIED or been been maimed?  If yes it works.  If no it fails

Well with WC, Special Forces and SWAT operators came home, and because of that still train in it   Could the contract for said training whenever gone to another equally capable art?  Maybe.  But it didn't and WC still works, on a battle field and not in a ring with preset rules on everything down to the shorts you wear, so yeah, it works.

In a circumstance like this, just so you know, in terms of logic it is actually a burden on your part to prove otherwise.  I named earlier the major organizations that studied the art because they knew it worked.  SEALs, Force Recon etc.

As such you are the one who has to prove your point.  So give me evidence that indicates over 300 years up to today proves it works is wrong.  That is how fact based debate works.  I out forth facts that it works.  You said "I don't buy it" and that is it.  So call my bluff, show me evidence that 300 years in China, the SEALs and SWAT teams from here to Berlin are wrong.  Or you can keep talking in vague generalizations and avoiding that same issue. 

As I perhaps simply infered in the prior post, if you don't personally observe/understand it does not make it true or doubted.  Do you understand all the physics around how we went from the Earth being the center of the Solar system to the Sun?  How we went from circular orbit under Copernicus to eclipses under Kepler?  I would wager that would say "hope don't get the math but I know it works."

Pretty much the same here.  So, if you have facts to disprove 300 years of history please post em.  I originally studied to be. History teacher.  No such facts?  Then please remember, to question 300 years of occurrence you need actual evidence.  Just saying "I am not sold" isn't an informed opinion.

To quote a great 20th century thinker "you are not entitled to an opinion, you are entitled to an informed opinion.  No one is entitled to be ignorant."

Your entire logic revolves around the last 300 years don't matter.  What experts in violence (special forces) see as effective doesn't matter.  All hat matters is what I have personally perceived or experienced.  That is not an informed opinion.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jun 16, 2016)

kehcorpz said:


> is a single wing chun punch still more powerful than an ordinary punch?


Now we are talking about single punch and not chain punches.



Juany118 said:


>


Thanks for putting up those clips. With those clips, it's much easier to discuss the WC power generation method. If we look at this clip, we can observe 2 things.

- When he punched out, his fist, arm, shoulder, body, and back shoulder are not lining up into a straight line. In other words, his body did not turn to the maximum. If we consider the body turning as "compress" and the final punch as "release". IMO, he did not "release" fully at the end of his punch. If he can turn his body more, his punch will be more powerful.

- He did not take advantage on how to pull back his previous punch and use it to generate more power into his next punch. In other words, he did not take full advantage on his "compress". The farther that he can pull his punch back, the farther that he can send his next punch out, the more power that his punch can generate. Of course a full "compress" take extra time. But we are talking about "single punch power" and not "chain punch speed".


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jun 16, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> 1. Wing Chun doesn't draw the arms back and a lot of systems practice drawing the arms back.


I have noticed that too. The "draw back" intention is not there. IMO, the more that you draw your punch back, the more that your body can turn, the more power that your punch can generate.

Onetime someone talked about 1 inch punch. I told him that I don't even need that 1 inch.

- I put my both fists on his chest,
- kept my both arms straight.
- kept my chest and both arms in a 90 degree angle.
- I then draw my left arm back, rotate my body, step in my right foot, and sent my right arm out.

You can generate power just by "draw one arm back and send the other arm out". The energy will flow from one arm, through your back, and reach to your other arm.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jun 16, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I have noticed that too. The "draw back" intention is not there. IMO, the more that you draw your punch back, the more that your body can turn, the more power that your punch can generate.
> 
> Onetime someone talked about 1 inch punch. I told him that I don't even need that 1 inch.
> 
> ...


That's funny because I do the same demo when explaining how to generate power with the waist and how to connected it.  It doesn't seem like much when explained, but I often have to be careful when doing it so I don't hurt the student.  I use 2 kinds of drawing back, one that goes past my center as if I'm trying to attack someone behind with my elbow and the other where I draw the opposite arm back (but not past my body) for the purpose of driving the out going punch.  The arms are like a pulley system.  This technique is very powerful and on one only has to place their knuckles on the wall and only pull back with the opposite hand in order to experience "punching without punching."  

Wing Chun draws back to the body but not past it. It's still drawing the hand back, but not in the same manner like some guy street fighting draw his arm way back for a super punch.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jun 16, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> Wing Chun draws back to the body but not past it. It's still drawing the hand back, but not in the same manner like some guy street fighting draw his arm way back for a super punch.


1. You can draw your punch back with constant speed.
2. You can also draw your punch back like you are pulling a weight pulley with explosive speed.

IMO 2 > 1.

This is why if you punch out as a vertical fist, you should draw it back as a vertical fist and not as a horizontal fist. If you draw back as a horizontal fist, that extra arm twisting will cause some extra body rotation. You may not punch straight forward. You may punch 45 degree to your left or 45 degree to your right.

Both the draw speed and the draw back method can affect your punching power.


----------



## geezer (Jun 16, 2016)

Steve said:


> Just want to address this separately.  Competition isn't the end all/be all.  But, it IS application. ...And, frankly, there is truth in competition.   ...each person who trains in MMA will know what they personally can and cannot do, because they are expected to apply the techniques in context, which is MMA competition.



This is important. There is truth in competition, but it only shows who is best and what works best in a given situation. The rule set essentially frames the question. And frankly the question you ask is as important as the answer you get. Imagine a fencer competing in BJJ for example.

Personally I would like to see WC develop a meaningful standardized context for competition that addresses it's particular skill sets as a primarily close-range, stand-up striking art, with some locks and throws and a minimum of ground work. How to accomplish that, and what the rule set would be is a topic for another thread. But some format for "testing" what we do would only strengthen our art.




Juany118 said:


> See the thing is this, whether a specific person sees it simply as "theory" or not is irrelevant IF there are proven examples that it works in practice. It is proven, for over 300 years into today to work in practice. Whether it was the people using it in China during the age of "death waivers", Yip Man's student's using on the streets of Hong Kong in the 50's-70s or the multitude of Special Forces and Law Enforcement Agencies using it today.



Every martial arts has it's legends and "war-stories". Some are based on actual events, others are more like creation myths and really can't be taken literally. But as Steve points out, without a format for pressure testing each generation an art can deteriorate and become more ceremonial than functional. That's one thing I liked about Emin. Right or wrong he tested his stuff.

Still, without a controlled and uniform "laboratory" of competition to try stuff out, it is impossible to separate the value of ta particular art, it's strategies, techniques and so forth from the skills of the individuals involved. The scientific method demands replicability. You have to accumulate data or "stats", analyze them and _then_ you begin to objectively find out what works for most people.

Now I do WC, I love it, and my personal experience is that _it is functional_. And frankly, for me "testing" is out of the question. Not only am I too old to be a fighter now, I can honestly say I never was one.  Even in my prime when I "mixed it up" a bit  ...I only did that recreationally with like-minded buddies. Fighters are the hard-core elite who get out there and really test this stuff so that the rest of us amateurs can know factually that we aren't learning crap. And every system needs those guys. We also need a venue for them to test their stuff. Stories about ancient warriors or somebody claiming to train special forces troops just doesn't cut it for me. Just sayin'.


----------



## Steve (Jun 16, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> Sorry but the above avoids all of the points I made and focuses on the narrative you have maintained.  Sport with codified rules, down to the clothing available, is applicable to sport and sport alone.


Well, I mean... yeah.  I have a perspective.  "Narrative" makes it sound like I'm trying to bull **** you, and I'm not, but sure.  I have my opinions just as you have yours.  Let's avoid creating a "narrative" where either one of us has any kind of hidden agenda. 


> After that you have one of two questions, whether you actually experienced it personally or vicariously work.  Did the person engage in a situation where they would have DIED or been been maimed?  If yes it works.  If no it fails


even here, I'd say this is overly simplistic.  It would be really hard to simply say, "You got mugged and survived, and you train BJJ, ergo BJJ works."   I'd never suggest that, and if I did, I guarantee you I'd be call a fanboy or a nutrider.  Yet, that's exactly what we are expected to accept for any non-competitive art.

There has to be an application that's defined in terms that are measurable, and there needs to be enough data to support the conclusions.  You can absolutely put together a study about LEO and training or Navy SEALs and their training, defining in advance what your rubric for success or failure will be, collecting relevant data and measuring against it.  But for the average Joe who trains in the local kung fu shack, or even the average instructor who teaches, there has never been any sort of scientific approach, and I do believe that it would be bad for business if there were.


> Well with WC, Special Forces and SWAT operators came home, and because of that still train in it   Could the contract for said training whenever gone to another equally capable art?  Maybe.  But it didn't and WC still works, on a battle field and not in a ring with preset rules on everything down to the shorts you wear, so yeah, it works.
> 
> In a circumstance like this, just so you know, in terms of logic it is actually a burden on your part to prove otherwise.  I named earlier the major organizations that studied the art because they knew it worked.  SEALs, Force Recon etc.


I'll just tell you right now, I have a degree in English and philosophy, and I really, truly, could give a rip about whether I'm articulating a logical, cogent argument.  I am far more interested in having a conversation with you, where at the end of it I can be sure you understand and appreciate my position, and I am able to reciprocate in kind.

I respect your right to appeal to emotion or whatever you want, and promise only to call you out on it if I think it's causing some kind of misunderstanding that is material to the discussion at hand.  





> As such you are the one who has to prove your point.  So give me evidence that indicates over 300 years up to today proves it works is wrong.  That is how fact based debate works.  I out forth facts that it works.  You said "I don't buy it" and that is it.  So call my bluff, show me evidence that 300 years in China, the SEALs and SWAT teams from here to Berlin are wrong.  Or you can keep talking in vague generalizations and avoiding that same issue.


I'll also share that I have a very well established issue with authority, and don't appreciate at all the phrase, "you are the one who has to...."  Unless you're my wife, my mom or my boss (in that order), I don't HAVE to do much of anything.

That said, I want you to know that I am not trying to prove you wrong or debate you.  Rather, I'm trying to show you that your perspective is one of many.  Yours is not wrong, but it's also not the only one that is 'right.'

And as one last thought, don't ever let Tez3 know that you approach posting in such terms.  Drop Bear said one time that posting is like sparring, and she's never forgiven him.  If she gets wind that you're view these dialogues as debates, you will rue the day.  


> To quote a great 20th century thinker "you are not entitled to an opinion, you are entitled to an informed opinion.  No one is entitled to be ignorant."


Come on.  This isn't nice.  





> Your entire logic revolves around the last 300 years don't matter.  What experts in violence (special forces) see as effective doesn't matter.  All hat matters is what I have personally perceived or experienced.  That is not an informed opinion.


Truly, this is not my position at all.  My position is that time is beneficial sometimes, neutral sometimes, and irrelevant sometimes.

Further, I would suggest that if application is removed from an kind of practical training, time is the enemy.  If we distill this down to "talking about" or "doing" anything... any skill, even one generation away from application will have a profound impact on demonstrable ability.   The more generations away from application you go, the more impact on function you will have.  So, in this case, when you say 300 years of history, I do think that matters a great deal.  I simply believe that it matters in the exact opposite manner you believe.  And that's because, as you said earlier, we llive in more civilized times.  There is not as much opportunity to apply the systems.  300 years is a long time and several iterations... plenty of opportunity to play a version of the telephone game and essentially forget all the stuff that made a system work in the first place.

Here's another example.  There was a discussion here about Damascus steel.  It was very common at one time.  Took a lot of very smart guys a very long time to figure out how to recreate this technique, even though they were skilled bladesmiths.  Why is that?  These guys knew what they were doing and were making knives and swords of high quality.  But because they were many generations removed from application, it was difficult to recreate it.  This occurred, even though there was (at least I think we can speculate) no conscious decision at any point to forget this.  Rather, times changed.  Context changed, and people just shifted.  techniques adapted to the current environment, and voila, application is lost.  It's not a perfect example, but the result is similar.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 16, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> Sorry but the above avoids all of the points I made and focuses on the narrative you have maintained. Sport with codified rules, down to the clothing available, is applicable to sport and sport alone.



Ok then. Sparring is applicable to sparring alone.

Forms are applicable to forms alone.

And drills are applicable to drills alone.

Or is there some wierd goalpost shift that makes those activities applicable to fighting.


----------



## zanaffar (Jun 16, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> Well with WC, Special Forces and SWAT operators came home, and because of that still train in it   Could the contract for said training whenever gone to another equally capable art?  Maybe.  But it didn't and WC still works, on a battle field and not in a ring with preset rules on everything down to the shorts you wear, so yeah, it works.
> 
> In a circumstance like this, just so you know, in terms of logic it is actually a burden on your part to prove otherwise.  I named earlier the major organizations that studied the art because they knew it worked.  SEALs, Force Recon etc.
> 
> As such you are the one who has to prove your point.  So give me evidence that indicates over 300 years up to today proves it works is wrong.  That is how fact based debate works.  I out forth facts that it works.  You said "I don't buy it" and that is it.  So call my bluff, show me evidence that 300 years in China, the SEALs and SWAT teams from here to Berlin are wrong.  Or you can keep talking in vague generalizations and avoiding that same issue.


Hold up. I find it incredibly difficult to believe the following:

1. That any member of SEALs, Force Recon, and SWAT would ever even get the opportunity to square off against a bad guy, and then use hand to hand combat (in the context of this thread, specifically Wing Chun punches) to subdue their opponent. I'm fairly confident guns, knives, other weapons, and, even more importantly, team oriented tactics would be used 99.9% of the time to attain their desired goals.
2. That these organizations' hand to hand combat training looks anything like what we see in the majority of Wing Chun schools and videos. I've watched videos of combat sporting competitions between military organizations. I've trained with military and LEO guys. And their base always looks like boxing, kickboxing, and wrestling. Obviously this part is anecdotal.

Shouldn't having an alleged proven record at winning in combat situations mean that the art should *at least* work in competitions which don't typically result in someone dying?


----------



## drop bear (Jun 16, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> In a circumstance like this, just so you know, in terms of logic it is actually a burden on your part to prove otherwise. I named earlier the major organizations that studied the art because they knew it worked. SEALs, Force Recon etc.
> 
> As such you are the one who has to prove your point. So give me evidence that indicates over 300 years up to today proves it works is wrong. That is how fact based debate works. I out forth facts that it works. You said "I don't buy it" and that is it. So call my bluff, show me evidence that 300 years in China, the SEALs and SWAT teams from here to Berlin are wrong. Or you can keep talking in vague generalizations and avoiding that same issue.



You have gone for this a couple of times and it is wrong. It is a logical fallacy.

Your logical fallacy is burden of proof


*"burden of proof*
*You said that the burden of proof lies not with the person making the claim, but with someone else to disprove.*
The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove. The inability, or disinclination, to disprove a claim does not render that claim valid, nor give it any credence whatsoever. However it is important to note that we can never be certain of anything, and so we must assign value to any claim based on the available evidence, and to dismiss something on the basis that it hasn't been proven beyond all doubt is also fallacious reasoning.

Example: Bertrand declares that a teapot is, at this very moment, in orbit around the Sun between the Earth and Mars, and that because no one can prove him wrong, his claim is therefore a valid one."



I did this whole thing on the celestial tea cup.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 16, 2016)

zanaffar said:


> Hold up. I find it incredibly difficult to believe the following:
> 
> 1. That any member of SEALs, Force Recon, and SWAT would ever even get the opportunity to square off against a bad guy, and then use hand to hand combat (in the context of this thread, specifically Wing Chun punches) to subdue their opponent. I'm fairly confident guns, knives, other weapons, and, even more importantly, team oriented tactics would be used 99.9% of the time to attain their desired goals.
> 2. That these organizations' hand to hand combat training looks anything like what we see in the majority of Wing Chun schools and videos. I've watched videos of combat sporting competitions between military organizations. I've trained with military and LEO guys. And their base always looks like boxing, kickboxing, and wrestling. Obviously this part is anecdotal.
> ...



If there was an actual record of swat Leo's astronauts and cowboys using a martial art in war then fine I would go with it.

As there never seems to be one I don't buy it.


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 16, 2016)

zanaffar said:


> Hold up. I find it incredibly difficult to believe the following:
> 
> 1. That any member of SEALs, Force Recon, and SWAT would ever even get the opportunity to square off against a bad guy, and then use hand to hand combat (in the context of this thread, specifically Wing Chun punches) to subdue their opponent. I'm fairly confident guns, knives, other weapons, and, even more importantly, team oriented tactics would be used 99.9% of the time to attain their desired goals.
> 2. That these organizations' hand to hand combat training looks anything like what we see in the majority of Wing Chun schools and videos. I've watched videos of combat sporting competitions between military organizations. I've trained with military and LEO guys. And their base always looks like boxing, kickboxing, and wrestling. Obviously this part is anecdotal.
> ...



Well first, let me say I joined the Army in 1991 as a Cavalry Scout and a Police Officer in 1998 so this knowledge is simply confirmed by internet sources, not created by it.

In terms of Special Operations in the military (and increasingly "regular" military), hand to hand combatives are taught to even the for two reasons.  

1. You may lose the use of your firearms for any number of reasons or they may be inappropriate for the scenario.  Special Operations forces, and "regulars" forces if in an insurgency scenario, can find themselves tasked to take people alive either for intelligence reasons or, in the insurgency scenario, if it is unclear if the subjects are actually combatants.  In that scenario, also common is Law Enforcement, you would be surprised how often the following happens.
---subject probes out at gun point.  One operator holsters/shoulders their weapon to go hands on to take the subject into custody.  The minute the Operator touches the subject and fight starts.

2. Special Operations forces will be trained in many MA.  Example my Force Recon friend learned WC, Kali, Boxing and Jujutsu on the Government's dime.  Essentially every so often the government puts training out for bid on a regular basis, sometimes multiple contracts at the same time.  They look at the applicability of the training, the qualifications of the bidder and the cost then decide.  Because of this an Operator will end up using a combination of skills.  Example here are South Korea's SEALs.  While they call their overall system MUSAT this specific part of it is pretty much all FMA, even though you don't see them wielding he classic, ratan sticks.  




2. Law Enforcement.  First, sadly, most LE gets far less hand to hand combatives training than they should due to cost.  When they do however the training is ALL over the map, there is no standard.  This PD may train Jujutsu techniques, that one Judo, that one boxing, this one WC.  They are also, usually, only taught the easiest to digest techniques not the entire system because to learn any entire MA system requires regular training every week and LE, even active SWAT teams, rarely have that kind of time.

The above all said, it's techniques are indeed taught, used and have proven effective.

3. The classic WC pose usually doesn't show itself in real fighting.  You use the principles, centerline, structure, how punches are thrown etc. however since the goal is to punch, if you are attacking, the hands will often be fists, not the neat training/theatrical open hands.

4. As for the Last, WC does have such a record, in the right venues.  Example in July thehttp://usksf.org/kuo-shu-championship-tournament-2/ takes place in Maryland.  Lots of knock outs on Saturday afternoon.  Just because it's not on major cable stations in the West doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  That said many Martial Arts, perhaps wrongly, look down on competition as "just sport". /Shrug.


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 16, 2016)

geezer said:


> This is important. There is truth in competition, but it only shows who is best and what works best in a given situation. The rule set essentially frames the question. And frankly the question you ask is as important as the answer you get. Imagine a fencer competing in BJJ for example.
> 
> Personally I would like to see WC develop a meaningful standardized context for competition that addresses it's particular skill sets as a primarily close-range, stand-up striking art, with some locks and throws and a minimum of ground work. How to accomplish that, and what the rule set would be is a topic for another thread. But some format for "testing" what we do would only strengthen our art.
> 
> ...


I get the last part.  That is why I look at today as well.  If it was only stories about pre-1900 China I would be like "okay, looks good, feels good, but no objective evidence."

Thing is when you have modern Security Forces and Military training in it you have evidence of functionality.  These organizations don't perpetuate things that don't work when they are directly related to succeeding in a mission.  Then, as I said I count myself lucky in this regard, I am actually trained by one of the people who used it operationally and then to boot I have used it successfully.

Now is it like FMA where you have people in the slums of Manila using it today in street fights?  Nope I grant you that.  Could a non point based competition make it more obvious to others that it is effective?  Yeah.  At the same time, I am sure you are familiar with the fact that before we could even come up with such a system you would have to overcome a disdain for "sport" Martial Arts that those at "the top" have of many traditional MAs, including WC.  My Sifu says regularly "if you want to learn a sport we have a lot of strip mall TKD dojos around here. Here we learn to eliminate the threat." Condescending?  Sure it is but that is what we see at the top.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 16, 2016)

But people soldier and police successfully with no martial arts training.

So is that added to successful styles?

Is a weeks worth of training added to how these systems that train soldiers work?


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 16, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Now we are talking about single punch and not chain punches.
> 
> 
> Thanks for putting up those clips. With those clips, it's much easier to discuss the WC power generation method. If we look at this clip, we can observe 2 things.
> ...



The specific video regarding the rice bag was simply to teach the principle of relaxation of the punch and how it relates to being able to do the Chain punching.  Some teachers are like that, they demonstrate principles in parts.  

If you look when he is punching the bags when held, when chain punching it is definitely the "straight punch".  On the "big bag" he is too close to get full extension but the principles are still adhered to.  In Siu Lim Tao you bring the fist across to the heart and then push out to learn the principle.  In practice you simply aim to have your fist, at impact, to be centered on your structure.  He does this in the punches on the held bags at the beginning of the video.

As for your last point, I would definitely agree when the punching technique involves "throwing" your weight behind a punch.  WC however punches under the centerline theory principle of "keeping" your weight behind the punch and maximizing potential punch frequency. 

Bringing the arm further back also violates the centerline theory in terms of defense as well as being "iffy" under the concept of simultaneous attack and defense that gets pounded into your head.  When you are punching it's not simply a matter of bringing back the one fist for the benefit of a another punch.  The arm that is returning is supposed to be trapping or diverting one of your opponent's limbs, not only to defend yourself but to open the path, or simply maintain an opening, for the next punch.

As I said other punches with more waist rotation and/or rounded strikes can be more powerful,  I will never deny that WC has its punching technique designed around a host of concepts that are rooted in the Centerline and simultaneous attack and defense theories.  It's more complicated than below but I will try to sum it up as best as I can (not being an instructor myself.)
1. By using the structure and centerline theory, smaller people can still generate effective power as they are keeping their mass behind a punch, rather than throwing it.
2. As the strikes are straight from the centerline, the strikes hit quickly, the shortest distance between 2 points thing.
3. By virtue of the above, minimizing body rotation, and how far you pull back the fist, you can maximize punch frequency, which also benefits a smaller person as damage from strikes can be cumulative if striking the same area.
4. By minimizing body rotation, and the pulling back of the arm, you also keep the returning had in a position to readily protect your centerline (torso and brain) while also keeping the way open for the follow up strikes of the other fist via deflecting or traping one of the opponent's limbs.

Basically it says "okay let's maximize how hard a small person can punch by keeping the weight behind it rather than throwing it.  Also, recognizing that a smaller person can only ever punch so hard, let's maximize the frequency at which they can strike so that cumulatively they do a lot of damage and, use your limbs to not only attack but to keep a wedge between your opponent that both defends and opens the path for attack"  

It may be a poor description but that is the best I can do.


----------



## zanaffar (Jun 16, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> I get the last part.  That is why I look at today as well.  If it was only stories about pre-1900 China I would be like "okay, looks good, feels good, but no objective evidence."
> 
> Thing is when you have modern Security Forces and Military training in it you have evidence of functionality.  These organizations don't perpetuate things that don't work when they are directly related to succeeding in a mission.  Then, as I said I count myself lucky in this regard, I am actually trained by one of the people who used it operationally and then to boot I have used it successfully.
> 
> Now is it like FMA where you have people in the slums of Manila using it today in street fights?  Nope I grant you that.  Could a non point based competition make it more obvious to others that it is effective?  Yeah.  At the same time, I am sure you are familiar with the fact that before we could even come up with such a system you would have to overcome a disdain for "sport" Martial Arts that those at "the top" have of many traditional MAs, including WC.  My Sifu says regularly "if you want to learn a sport we have a lot of strip mall TKD dojos around here. Here we learn to eliminate the threat." Condescending?  Sure it is but that is what we see at the top.


I think I am approaching the topic of the effectiveness of Wing Chun through the lens of what I've seen in a majority of videos depicting the art. That is to say, compliant demonstrations. From what I'm reading from you, I get the feeling that the WC training you do involves a good bit of resistance, sparring, and actual non-compliant application. In general, would you say your school's training methodology is similar to that of the majority of Wing Chun? If someone put a gun to your head and told you you had to fight a skilled opponent in the ring, would it look like the WC demos we see on YouTube or something else? You, yourself, mentioned that the classic WC stance isn't typically used in fighting. Why do so many demonstrations feature it? Is it the case that these schools/individuals haven't properly tested their art to know that it looks and functions differently in "real life" than in theory?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jun 16, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> Bringing the arm further back also violates the centerline theory ...


A 100% committed punch with full power generation is a punch that you only consider offense and not consider any defense.


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 16, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Now we are talking about single punch and not chain punches.
> 
> 
> Thanks for putting up those clips. With those clips, it's much easier to discuss the WC power generation method. If we look at this clip, we can observe 2 things.
> ...



The specific video regarding the rice bag was simply to teach the principle of relaxation of the punch and how it relates to being able to do the Chain punching.  Some teachers are like that, they demonstrate principles in parts. 

If you look when he is punching the bags when held, when chain punching it is definitely the "straight punch".  On the "big bag" he is too close to get full extension but the principles are still adhered to.  In Siu Lim Tao you bring the fist across to the heart and then push out to learn the principle.  In practice you simply aim to have your fist, at impact, to be centered on your structure.  He does this in the punches on the held bags at the beginning of the video.

As for your last point, I would definitely agree when the punching technique involves "throwing" your weight behind a punch.  WC however punches under the centerline theory principle of "keeping" your weight behind the punch and maximizing potential punch frequency.

Bringing the arm further back also violates the centerline theory in terms of defense as well as being "iffy" under the concept of simultaneous attack and defense that gets pounded into your head.  When you are punching it's not simply a matter of bringing back the one fist for the benefit of a another punch.  The arm that is returning is supposed to be trapping or diverting one of your opponent's limbs, not only to defend yourself but to open the path, or simply maintain an opening, for the next punch.

As I said other punches with more waist rotation and/or rounded strikes can be more powerful,  I will never deny that WC has its punching technique designed around a host of concepts that are rooted in the Centerline and simultaneous attack and defense theories.  It's more complicated than below but I will try to sum it up as best as I can (not being an instructor myself.)
1. By using the structure and centerline theory, smaller people can still generate effective power as they are keeping their mass behind a punch, rather than throwing it.
2. As the strikes are straight from the centerline, the strikes hit quickly, the shortest distance between 2 points thing.
3. By virtue of the above, minimizing body rotation, and how far you pull back the fist, you can maximize punch frequency, which also benefits a smaller person as damage from strikes can be cumulative if striking the same area.
4. By minimizing body rotation, and the pulling back of the arm, you also keep the returning had in a position to readily protect your centerline (torso and brain) while also keeping the way open for the follow up strikes of the other fist via deflecting or traping one of the opponent's limbs.

Basically it says "okay let's maximize how hard a small person can punch by keeping the weight behind it rather than throwing it.  Also, recognizing that a smaller person can only ever punch so hard, let's maximize the frequency at which they can strike so that cumulatively they do a lot of damage and, use your limbs to not only attack but to keep a wedge between your opponent that both defends and opens the path for attack" 

It may be a poor description but that is the best I can


zanaffar said:


> I think I am approaching the topic of the effectiveness of Wing Chun through the lens of what I've seen in a majority of videos depicting the art. That is to say, compliant demonstrations. From what I'm reading from you, I get the feeling that the WC training you do involves a good bit of resistance, sparring, and actual non-compliant application. In general, would you say your school's training methodology is similar to that of the majority of Wing Chun? If someone put a gun to your head and told you you had to fight a skilled opponent in the ring, would it look like the WC demos we see on YouTube or something else? You, yourself, mentioned that the classic WC stance isn't typically used in fighting. Why do so many demonstrations feature it? Is it the case that these schools/individuals haven't properly tested their art to know that it looks and functions differently in "real life" than in theory?



Yes, we do a fair amount of sparring, even with newer students, though with newer students we will place limits of available targets, which get broader, as you progress. This is especially true when we swap to Kali halfway through the class, even with a mask or safety glasses you don't wasn't to risk someone losing an eye lol.  Is this typical?  I can't speak to that.  I chose my school after basically interviewing a lot of Sifus.  Out of the gate my instructor was talking about Combatives.  Of the other two WC schools in my area; one the Sifu is very skilled but he definitely sees WC from its perspective of Chinese Natural Medicine angle so I doubt he teaches this way (he also teaches Yang Style Tai Chi Chuan).  The other school simply scared the crap out of me because the head of the school is labeled "Grand Master" on the web site and they say nothing about where or from whom the WC instructor learned WC.

Now as for how it looks a WC person will see it as WC.  You will see that the structure is maintained, by structure I mean leg position, pelvis and torso position, the foot work and the arm position.  You will also often see little things as well  Say two fighters break apart for a moment, you will often see the WC guy swap positions because there is a concept sometimes called simply "same side/same side".  Also when an incoming punch comes in at the WC guy you will often see what looks like a punch being thrown in response but it if you look closely the forearm is striking the incoming arm. That wasn't a coincidence, it was a _tan_  The hands, yeah they may be fists, or they may be cupped and not the classic straight open, but if you know what to look for you see WC.


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 16, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> A 100% committed punch with full power generation is a punch that you only consider offense and not consider any defense.



Yes, I understand that, it's why I say other arts have more powerful individual punch techniques.  The that kind of attack goes against the core principles of WC, is about maximizing punching power within the confines of the core principles.  That doesn't make WC better or worse, imo, it just makes it different.


----------



## guy b (Jun 17, 2016)

Juany118 said:
			
		

> Bringing the arm further back also violates the centerline theory



What is "the centerline theory"?


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 17, 2016)

guy b said:


> What is "the centerline theory"?



Ahh a fishing expedition like when you asked if I was a Buddhist.  That said it comes in three parts (quick and dirty definitions)

1. My centerline.  Split me down the middle.  If you follow that line all the way to the ground you have my point of of balance.  It's a little more complicated because you can use your center anywhere you can strike or defend equally with BOTH hands (hence the beginning of the first form defining it) but I use the line down the middle as it easily identifies your balance point and axis of rotation as well which is part of it.  In keeping my center in mind and only attacking from that perspective, I naturally guard my center more readily as my limbs aren't off chasing other things and, just as naturally, when I strike straight ahead I am "keeping" my weight behind my strikes rather than "throwing" it.

2. The opponent's centerline. The same as me, it identifies his center of balance and axis of rotation.

3. Then connecting the two through combat.  First I may be striking his limbs but that is only to get to the opponent's center.  I want to disrupt his center so that 
A) his structure is disturbed thus not making his attacks and defenses less effective.
B) I also want to keep in mind his axis of rotation as well in part because of
C) If I say strike him in the shoulders it MAY disrupt an attack or defense BUT the very act of being able to rotate away from an attack means that my strikes are less damaging.  So I wish to attack his center. In this way, instead of bleeding off damage by rotating with the blow, he either takes the full force of the attack, thus causing full damage, or he is moved back and his center is disrupted.  

Regardless to where we may move as we fight I must always defend my center while move to and attacking my opponent's.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 17, 2016)

Wouldn't you defend your centre while attacking off at an angle?

Which would be the same as centreline but with the idea that if he wants to maintain that then you want to deny it to him.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jun 17, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> The opponent's centerline. The same as me, it identifies his center of balance and axis of rotation.


You can attack through your opponent's side door and still get his balance. For example, if you are on the right side of your opponent's right arm (his right side door), your right hay-maker toward his right can knock him down to his right even if you are not attacking through his "center line".


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 17, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> You can attack through your opponent's side door and still get his balance. For example, if you are on the right side of your opponent's right arm (his right side door), your right hay-maker toward his right can knock him down to his right even if you are not attacking through his "center line".



It's not just about his centerline but mine as well.  If I attack his center while compromising mine, it's wrong in the context of WC because it's not just his centerline I need to be concerned about.

It's not better or THE right way, it's just how WC addresses the issue.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 17, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> The specific video regarding the rice bag was simply to teach the principle of relaxation of the punch and how it relates to being able to do the Chain punching.  Some teachers are like that, they demonstrate principles in parts.
> 
> If you look when he is punching the bags when held, when chain punching it is definitely the "straight punch".  On the "big bag" he is too close to get full extension but the principles are still adhered to.  In Siu Lim Tao you bring the fist across to the heart and then push out to learn the principle.  In practice you simply aim to have your fist, at impact, to be centered on your structure.  He does this in the punches on the held bags at the beginning of the video.
> 
> ...



I think the issue is you dont really cater for being punched back. 

So if they eat cumulative punches and nail you in that exchange it becomes really difficult to recover as advantage goes to the stronger striker.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 17, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> You can attack through your opponent's side door and still get his balance. For example, if you are on the right side of your opponent's right arm (his right side door), your right hay-maker toward his right can knock him down to his right even if you are not attacking through his "center line".



You can do the same with angles though. Get to that blind side square up and throw straight again.

Right hooks or haymakers ar theoretically low percentage.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jun 17, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> It's not just about his centerline but mine as well.  If I attack his center while compromising mine, it's wrong in the context of WC because it's not just his centerline I need to be concerned about.
> 
> It's not better or THE right way, it's just how WC addresses the issue.


If you move in through your opponent's "right side door", your own center line is well protected too. You don't need to compromise your own center line.








drop bear said:


> You can do the same with angles though. Get to that blind side square up and throw straight again.
> 
> Right hooks or haymakers ar theoretically low percentage.


The "side door" is the blind side. The hay-maker is part of the head lock (or choke).


----------



## moonhill99 (Jun 17, 2016)

kehcorpz said:


> has this never been scientifically tested? i mean they have equipment to measure how much power a punch has.
> has no wing chun guy ever tried measuring how hard his punch really is?! this would settle the debate once and for all.
> 
> if nobody ever dared to try this then this makes me suspicious.




It will not show a proper read out. Pushing a target that does not move is going to be really different than pshing a target that is always moving.


----------



## moonhill99 (Jun 17, 2016)

kehcorpz said:


> thanks for the explanations!
> 
> since i have already watched a few videos about the wc punch i already "know" how it's supposed to be done, like how to stand and how to move the arm and so on. this stuff sounds really difficult. i mean even when i watch videos and they show it and comment on it
> then it's still really hard to grasp-
> ...



Why would wing chun punch not be real? Or why do you think a wing chun punch is not real?

You now karate and kung fu fighting is different than sport fighting that can put some one in hospital or really injure the person.

You know the MMA rules of want is allowed and not allowed.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 17, 2016)

moonhill99 said:


> Why would wing chun punch not be real? Or why do you think a wing chun punch is not real?
> 
> You now karate and kung fu fighting is different than sport fighting that can put some one in hospital or really injure the person.
> 
> You know the MMA rules of want is allowed and not allowed.



No i think kung fu and karate could also put people in hospital.


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 17, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you move in through your opponent's "right side door", your own center line is well protected too. You don't need to compromise your own center line.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The thing is it is about, in theory, your center line as well.  The first video isn't to bad, I have done similar things at work BUT their my job is restrain/arrest.  "Traditional" WC guys will say "our job is to punch not take down" and punches come from our center to the opponent's. The second not so much, you NEVER put your back to an opponent, period.  

WC does use flanking, attacking from a blind side, but again its always to the center.  The easiest way I can explain it as follows in terms if the basic (note I say basic) WC theory.  
1. your center is defined by a line from your head straight down to the ground.  You keep your arms in the space where you can attack and defend  the same target or attack with both hands. 
2. when you attack, with the above "arm space" in mind, it is targeted on the same line from the head of the opponent to the ground.

That is the simplest definition of the center line theory I can come up with and that is one of the defining principles of WC.  Now you can still apply this standing to the left or right of the opponent, you need not be nose to nose, but the your center always connects to the opponent


----------



## geezer (Jun 18, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> ...The first video isn't too bad...



John has posted these (and similar videos) numerous times here and on other forums. In offering critiques, everybody consistently misses the one really _major problem_.






........_*Never*_ do a demo in hot-pink shorts!!!!


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jun 18, 2016)

geezer said:


> ........_*Never*_ do a demo in hot-pink shorts!!!!


It was red color and faded.



Juany118 said:


> you NEVER put your back to an opponent, period. ... but the your center always connects to the opponent


This will put too much restriction on yourself.

I don't mind to

- date other girls, but I won't let the new girl to tell me what I should not do.
- cross training, but I won't let the new MA style to tell me what I should not do.

You

- date multiple girls not because you want them to all cook well. You want one girl to cook well, one girl to be pretty, one girl to be good on bed, and one girl ...
- cross train different MA styles not because they all follow the same principles but because they use different principles.


----------



## geezer (Jun 18, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> It was red color and faded.



It can happen the other way around too, like when my son dumped my white underwear in with a new red sweatshirt and washed them all together in hot water! 


As far as_ turning your back to an opponent,_ that is something we always try to avoid in my lineage of WC. Of course we do have techniques to use when our opponent either surprises us from behind, or grapples and turns us around to get to our back. 

Among those techniques are using our opponent's force to spin around and hit him with a spinning back elbow, a fist or a _fak-sau _(sideways chopping motion) ...not unlike the clip you posted, just that we try not to turn our back intentionally.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 18, 2016)

These threads are killing me.....


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 19, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> - date other girls, but I won't let the new girl to tell me what I should not do.
> - cross training, but I won't let the new MA style to tell me what I should not do.



SO..... when she says she doesn't want to make love you think you're not having her tell you what to do so have sex anyway......
and when a martial arts style says you shouldn't do a technique _this_ way, you will do it that way and bust your arm/leg/whatever.
Can't see any problems there........................


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jun 19, 2016)

If you train both MA style A and MA style B,

- MA style A tells you that you need to turn your back into your opponent in order to throw him over your head.
- MA style B tells you that you NEVER put your back to an opponent.

What will you do?

IMO, you will need to make that decision for yourself and not to let your MA style to make that decision for you. You are the master, your MA styles are your slaves. It should not be the other way around.

You may follow your

- WC principle when you train in your WC school.
- Judo principle when you train in your Judo school.
- own principle when you fight in the street.


----------



## geezer (Jun 19, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> IMO, you will need to make that decision for yourself and not to let your MA style to make that decision for you. You are the master, your MA styles are your slaves. It should not be the other way around.
> 
> You may follow your
> 
> ...



I agree. If I plan to move in close and attack somebody with punches, I'd follow the strategy and concepts of my wing chun. If I saw a great opportunity for a  fight-ending throw and I knew judo or shuai chiao, I would apply the appropriate principles for that art.

You have to make the transition from one to the other. Mixing the two will just mess things up.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jun 19, 2016)

geezer said:


> You have to make the transition from one to the other. Mixing the two will just mess things up.


In wrestling, you should only turn you back into your opponent when you can "control" his arms so it won't give you any trouble at that moment. This is the beauty of the under hook and over hook. When you under hook or over hook your opponent's arm and turn, since his arm is under your control, you are safe right at that moment. Of course you have to face your opponent to apply your over hook or under hook.

So in

- striking range, you follow your striking art principle.
- grappling range, you follow your grappling art principle.

But even in striking principles, you may turn your back at your opponent for your kick.


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 19, 2016)

geezer said:


> I agree. If I plan to move in close and attack somebody with punches, I'd follow the strategy and concepts of my wing chun. If I saw a great opportunity for a  fight-ending throw and I knew judo or shuai chiao, I would apply the appropriate principles for that art.
> 
> You have to make the transition from one to the other. Mixing the two will just mess things up.



I think this the thing, and maybe that is why some arts have grown more popular in the West.  An "ex" of mine, and still best friend was born in Hong Kong.  Her Grandfather studied Kung Fu, and was a contemporary of YM, in his case Hung Ga.  However he also studied not only that but Chen Tai Chi Chuan.  I never had the chance to speak with him about it but in speaking with her, he would "dance" from one to the other.

I think you have had been teaching, or are going to teach, a similar concept to what I do.  If WC is appropriate I WC.  If Kali is appropriate I Kali. Do I "think" about the transition as it occurs in real time?  No, of course not, I simply act but afterwards if I ended up on the ground applying locks to a suspect I know that was Kali and not WC.  If I am using the baton it is sure as heck Kali.  Each art has it's own techniques and principles, that doesn't mean that in a fight in real life I need to choose one or the other, I can dance between them as needed even if each maintains their own unique identity.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 19, 2016)

By the way.  You can shoulder throw or seonagi and over rotate so you are not caught with your back exposed if you stuff it. 

Should that happened you can then follow up with a single leg.


----------

