# wing chun effectiveness



## KUNGOPO1

Hello i have been doing wing chun for over a year and all i hear of people is wing chun isnt effective it is rubbish. It is alwayse getting bad mouthed as a martial art the only people who say it is effective is other wing chun partitoners. People say it isnt no good on the ground but aparently you cant get a good wing chun partitioner on the ground does anyone think that wing chun is a full effective fighting system or am i wasting my time in learning it THANK YOU


----------



## bully

Do a search and you will see this has been discussed over and over again.

I have faith in my art, I would not train in it if I didn't.

However I do not believe WC is the be all and end all of martial arts, I also think this of other MA's too.


----------



## jarrod

i've seen effective chunners & ineffective chunners.  the notion that you can't get a good chunner on the ground is completely false.  

if you're doubting your training, i would go spar at a couple other schools & see how it goes.  if you get utterly demolished by people around your experience level, maybe move on.  

jf


----------



## leejunfan

And not all Wing Chun 'schools' are created equal, just because people claim to know it, doesnt mean they do, then they get their butt kicked and it makes WC look bad.. my SIFU was a kickboxer before he went to WC, and 'thought' he was bad, until one day his SIFI put him to the test, and the student was defeated badly..  Its not so much the art as it is the person, fighting spirit.. WC is effective, so are alot of other MA's..  if you have fighting spirit, and are willing to give all to it, Bruce Lee was bad!  5'7, 135lbs... and early on used WC and kicked butt..  But this is one opinion.


----------



## yak sao

WT/WC/VT will give you the tools for effective fighting skills.
As already stated, some schools are better than others.
As for whether it is effective on the ground....it can be with the proper approach, but let's be realistic...it ain't BJJ, so the best approach for us chunners is not to fight on the ground, rather if we end up there, fight to get back on our feet.
WT is first and foremost a boxing style. Everyone seems to obsess about how it's no good on the ground. Do these same people gripe that western boxers don't kick?


----------



## leejunfan

Or cross train!  I know i might get verbally "backhanded" here, but Bruce Lee had the right idea, he only completed about 60% of the Wing Chun system with Yip Man!  He was effective with it, but realized the need for cross training, for defense with situations were the fight hits the ground.

Im not saying change or alter WC, just add to it!


----------



## mook jong man

Leejunfan is spot on , they're not all created equal.

I've seen some Wing Chun systems that are so different from the one that I practice that they might as well be a different martial art altogether.

Their fighting stances are different , their hand techniques are very indirect and use three moves to do the job that should be accomplished in one.

Some of them seem to lack the close range , in your face aggression and speed that is needed to overwhelm and off balance the opponent .
Some will also spend way too much time training in a very pedestrian and gentle type of chi sau.

This is not a bad thing in itself if you are working on a particular aspect like the angles of your arms , relaxation , stance etc.

But it should not be all that you do , it should not be at the expense of time spent doing  hard chi sau sparring.

 The type of sparring where you think  " If I lose concentration for just one nanosecond I'm going to get a smack in the mouth ".

As well as the contact reflexes , a decent part of training time should also be spent on drilling reflexes from out of contact range against various hand , leg and grappling attacks.

To be able to bring our tactile sensitivity to bear and close down the opponent we have to first intercept anything coming in and close the gap , and for this we have to rely on our eyes first and then touch.

This hand / eye coordination has to be developed by doing a lot of repetitions of defensive techniques in various pattern sequences against different types of attack.

 For example a simple one would be defend left round punch hi , right round punch hi , left uppercut punch low , right uppercut punch low , that is a simple four corner sequence .

 When the sequence can be defended against with speed and correctness of movement , then the partner will throw the punches at random and while being mobile.
This type of training principle can also be applied to kicking attacks etc.

I think a good test to see if your Wing Chun techniques are effective is can you handle a flurry of boxing combinations thrown at you at extreme speed and have the ability to move in and stick and control his arms.

I'm not talking about him throwing a punch and pausing so that you can do your nice simultaneous counter attack before he throws his next punch.

I'm talking about them coming in so fast and strung together from all angles that you have to stick and use your chi sau to strike through and deflect with both arms independently to stop him.

 It all comes down to what you put in and how you train , if you  choose not to train realistically then don't be too surprised the first time some bloke throws a lightening fast jab at you and you can't even see it let alone stop it.

I'm also a great believer in grappling ability , some people are of the opinion that if your stance is top notch you won't be able to be taken down.

I say those people probably also believe in the tooth fairy , whilst a great stance is important it doesn't mean you are magically immune to being thrown or grappled and  doesn't mean you can't be tackled to the ground from behind or trip over something in the environment.

Instead of living in a state of denial , why not prepare for all eventualities and do some ground based training , clinch etc.

Wing Chun is a boxing system that specializes in close range striking whilst controlling the opponent , in my opinion it was never meant to be the swiss army knife of martial arts .

There is no martial art that is totally complete in my opinion , there are always going to be deficiencies in some area.


----------



## leejunfan

I agree, its structure!  repetition??.. absolutely!   Bruce lee also said. " fight every chance you get.."    you may learn technique, but if they are honed in some kind of combat proofing,  its like having a flashlight in your car you dont know if it works or not,  you want to test that baby before you have a flat tire or something.


----------



## dungeonworks

yak sao said:


> WT/WC/VT will give you the tools for effective fighting skills.
> As already stated, some schools are better than others.
> As for whether it is effective on the ground....it can be with the proper approach, but let's be realistic...it ain't BJJ, so the best approach for us chunners is not to fight on the ground, rather if we end up there, fight to get back on our feet.
> WT is first and foremost a boxing style. Everyone seems to obsess about how it's no good on the ground.* Do these same people gripe that western boxers don't kick?*



No, but their are a TON of claims that Wing Chun works better or as good as say, BJJ on the ground.  That is where the obsessing comes from...ground fighters that know better and Wing Chunner's that have no clue about grappling.


----------



## KamonGuy2

Nice topic. Good to remind people that wing chun is an effective art and one worth doing

I have trained in martial arts for almost three decades and it is one of the better styles I have learnt

You can get bad schools within styles - I have been to terrible BJJ, karate, TKD, CKD, Escrima and MT schools/gyms/dojos, but I would not judge their arts by that. People tend to whinge about wing chun because it doesnt have much link to the cage. It is a ridiculous argument - the cage is nothing like the street. You have gloves on, mouthguards in, a set of rules you must follow, an octagon you must stay in, and you know the person you are fighting. It is still a tough envronment and most of the cage fighters could easily handle street confrontations, but it is not really streetfighting

I use wing chun with other styles but there are some extremely good 'pure' practitioners who could use just their chun to take people apart 

A great testimony to how good wing chun is, is by the following link
http://www.kamonwingchun.com/BlackBelts.aspx

This is how may black belts have come to Kamon (there were more, but some dont want to be on the website)


----------



## Laoshi77

Any style can be effective if the practitioner trains well and understands the principles.


----------



## KUNGOPO1

Thanks everyone i think im just gonna have to add more sparring to my training and try to train with more advance students


----------



## leejunfan

Kamon Guy said:


> Nice topic. Good to remind people that wing chun is an effective art and one worth doing
> 
> I have trained in martial arts for almost three decades and it is one of the better styles I have learnt
> 
> You can get bad schools within styles - I have been to terrible BJJ, karate, TKD, CKD, Escrima and MT schools/gyms/dojos, but I would not judge their arts by that. People tend to whinge about wing chun because it doesnt have much link to the cage. It is a ridiculous argument - the cage is nothing like the street. You have gloves on, mouthguards in, a set of rules you must follow, an octagon you must stay in, and you know the person you are fighting. It is still a tough envronment and most of the cage fighters could easily handle street confrontations, but it is not really streetfighting
> 
> I use wing chun with other styles but there are some extremely good 'pure' practitioners who could use just their chun to take people apart
> 
> A great testimony to how good wing chun is, is by the following link
> http://www.kamonwingchun.com/BlackBelts.aspx
> 
> This is how may black belts have come to Kamon (there were more, but some dont want to be on the website)


 
Amen brother!!


----------



## qwksilver61

Two things...your spirit and how hard you train....two cents...(oh and don't forget the most important thing understanding W.T. principles!)


----------



## leejunfan

Working constantly to build your structure, teaching you muscles to react instantly, kinda like driving a car, once you learn how, it become a 'mindless' function, an instinctive reaction to fight situations.  

"the techniques you learn are meant to be forgotton.." Bruce Lee

They are not truely forgotton, actual thought is too slow, but instinct is hard to beat..!


----------



## l_uk3y

I studyed Wing Chun for about 6 years here in Australia before the school closed. I felt it was effective although i feel the way we trained, limited our development. Too much working on block/strike drills. Not enough work on random attacks and other styles. As well as we always trained WC vs WC, which was fine at the time.

However....
Now i am training Hapkido in a school with numerous TKD students. All of a sudden i found a hole in my game with the new found idea of people shooting in fast kicks or snappy jabs then backing off. I try to close the gap but then you would run out of room (many groups on the matt, so once you close you have to reset) , compared to my old school of fire a shot then both close gap. However when they change up and close on me i generally have a much easier time as they come into my game. Very few of them seem to know how to handle the roll punch, they sort of see it coming then cover up and run off leaving lots of gaps.

Like any system it is as effective as the trainer/student. To those who say it sucks on the ground. Who says you want to always end up on the ground??? If you have 3 people attacking you on the street, i would rather be good at striking and avoiding being grabbed/ good positioning which this system and the right Sifu will teach.

Cheers. Luke


----------



## KamonGuy2

l_uk3y said:


> I studyed Wing Chun for about 6 years here in Australia before the school closed. I felt it was effective although i feel the way we trained, limited our development. Too much working on block/strike drills. Not enough work on random attacks and other styles. As well as we always trained WC vs WC, which was fine at the time.
> 
> However....
> Now i am training Hapkido in a school with numerous TKD students. All of a sudden i found a hole in my game with the new found idea of people shooting in fast kicks or snappy jabs then backing off. I try to close the gap but then you would run out of room (many groups on the matt, so once you close you have to reset) , compared to my old school of fire a shot then both close gap. However when they change up and close on me i generally have a much easier time as they come into my game. Very few of them seem to know how to handle the roll punch, they sort of see it coming then cover up and run off leaving lots of gaps.
> 
> Like any system it is as effective as the trainer/student. To those who say it sucks on the ground. Who says you want to always end up on the ground??? If you have 3 people attacking you on the street, i would rather be good at striking and avoiding being grabbed/ good positioning which this system and the right Sifu will teach.
> 
> Cheers. Luke


Sorry, Im just getting over the comment of getting caught by TKD guys lol

They might have been able to touch you but there wouldnt have been any power in it...

Some TKD guys are good but it is a sport art and basically a watered down version of Muay Thai

Before people start jumping in defending TKD - I trained extensively in TKD and CKD and had no problem taking those guys apart. As a sport art and a cardio workout it is second to none. But as a fighting art it is ridiculous

This is what I meant earlier by arts should stick to what they are good at

Chun is not a sport and it is just as ridiculous to suggest that chun should get in the cage as it is to suggest that TKD is a street based art

But you are spot on with your comment about training random attacks. This is extremely important and something a lot of London chun schools do from day one. Sparring with heavy gloves is essential for training too, even if you are a traditional based wing chun school - it develops movement and a 'shock factor' when you get hit


----------



## leejunfan

I agree also, at a certain level WC students need to spar, or at least get to defend themselves against something NON WC.. against boxing techniques, or even TKD kicks, in china WC is legendary, but think about it they were mainly fighting others with kung fu skills, WC, Hung Gar etc.. but here we have brawlers, boxers..most of it non kung fu.  

In a perfect world, there shouldnt even be sparring, my SIFU says in a fight you move in, do what damage you can quickly and once your opponant is down, you run!   Its all about speed and power!  Your advantage is a street fighter doesnt know what your trained in.. and if WC saves your life one time!!?


----------



## mook jong man

Wing Chun is a scientific method of learning to generate force and overcome force efficiently , using the least amount of muscular strength possible.

While its very worth while to have a working knowledge and have practiced against some of the delivery systems and tactics that other martial arts use , it would be near on impossible to cover them all .

Thats why I believe it is easier to break it down into either linear attacks or circular attacks.

Whether its a boxers straight right or a karate reverse punch , its still coming in straight . Whether its a boxers hook or your girlfriend trying to slap you in the face , they are both still circular , just using different delivery systems.

 The directions of the forces involved are still the same , they are just executed differently.
So it follows that the technique you use to redirect both examples of linear strikes will be the same , and although using a different technique the same principle applies to both examples of circular attacks.

This is one of the great strengths of Wing Chun , our mind isn't cluttered up with so many different responses to what is in effect the same type of attack.

 Instead we have a small repertoire of movements that can suit a variety of different applications .
Once the opponent makes contact with our arms he has now entered our world .

A force is a force and if you have practiced chi sau for a while you should have experienced them all by now . Their force can be tense and rigid , fluid and relaxed , focused on your centre , bullishly going forward, pushing down , pushing to one side , moving back etc ,etc.

You should be able to redirect whatever force is coming at you and use the appropriate technique to take advantage of their force.

Of course this takes a lot of hard training to be able to apply at a realistic speed , in particular learning to be sensitive enough to perceive  force and pivot in the appropriate direction and at the same time keeping forward force and using the correct arm movements to put the opponent in a vulnerable position.


----------



## Poor Uke

mook jong man said:


> Wing Chun is a scientific method of learning to generate force and overcome force efficiently , using the least amount of muscular strength possible.


 
Please dobnt take this the wrong way, as I agree with the rest of your post re. WC.

Wing Chun *IS NOT* a scientific method!

There said it.


----------



## KamonGuy2

mook jong man said:


> Wing Chun is a scientific method of learning to generate force and overcome force efficiently , using the least amount of muscular strength possible..


 
I agree with this. I dont know what Uke's problem is with the term scientific method. In fact iof you read some of Shawn Rawcliffe's books, he goes into great detail about how wing chun works scientifically. It is just good body mechanics



mook jong man said:


> While its very worth while to have a working knowledge and have practiced against some of the delivery systems and tactics that other martial arts use , it would be near on impossible to cover them all .
> .


Definately. No matter how much you know, you can still be surprised ny techniques you havent seen before. Ive been training for just under three decades and still see stuff that blows me away

As I have mentioned before it is essential to cover certain areas which is broken down into ground work, stand up work (striking), and clinch work. As long as you know arts that can cover these, you will do well. 



mook jong man said:


> The directions of the forces involved are still the same , they are just executed differently.
> So it follows that the technique you use to redirect both examples of linear strikes will be the same , and although using a different technique the same principle applies to both examples of circular attacks.
> .


This is slightly wrong. Attacks can come in at completely different angles and attack different parts of you. Most will go for your face, but some will go for body, ribs, gut, groin, neck etc. Some people might be drunk and miss the target completely. Hence the need for random training. Training constantly for perfect attacks to the face is detrimental. Ive been taken out by shots to the gut before and it is just as relevant training that area

There is nothing better for a martial artist than to get his friend to get heavy gloves on and go at him like a bull in a china shop. You will soon realise how random attacks can be, especially in a rage


----------



## mook jong man

Poor Uke said:


> Please dobnt take this the wrong way, as I agree with the rest of your post re. WC.
> 
> Wing Chun *IS NOT* a scientific method!
> 
> There said it.


 
I have to strongly disagree there , Wing Chun does not mimic the movements of animals at all unlike a lot of styles.

Every technique is based on logical , scientific principals and these are all bound together into a system.

It contains elements of physics , mathematics , anatomy and physiology.
Indeed  at the time Wing Chun was founded and making use of these principles , a lot of these sciences were still in their infancy in the western world.


----------



## mook jong man

Kamon Guy said:


> This is slightly wrong. Attacks can come in at completely different angles and attack different parts of you. Most will go for your face, but some will go for body, ribs, gut, groin, neck etc. Some people might be drunk and miss the target completely. Hence the need for random training. Training constantly for perfect attacks to the face is detrimental. Ive been taken out by shots to the gut before and it is just as relevant training that area
> 
> There is nothing better for a martial artist than to get his friend to get heavy gloves on and go at him like a bull in a china shop. You will soon realise how random attacks can be, especially in a rage


 
I understand where you are coming from , and it is absolutely crucial to be able to defend from the top of your head to the tips of your toes and everywhere in between.

I know there is an infinite number of angles that strikes can come in at , but I still believe they can be classified as either linear or circular in nature , off the centreline or on the centreline.

Its just that I see that people try to make it really complicated when it shouldn't be with their outer gates , inner gates , lower gates , upper gates , middle gates everything but the bloody backyard gate.

You don't have time for that crap , all you've got time for is to recognise whether the punch is coming straight down your guard to the face , around your guard , under your guard to the gut etc.

One thing that helps me is to use my peripheral vision to keep an eye on the position of his elbows , if they start coming out it usually means a hook is on the way , similarly if his elbow stays in , its usually going to be a straight punch.

 Now I don't know if he's aiming for the head or the gut until the punch has travelled a little bit , but at least I know if its going to be a round one or straight and I can start to get my hands in position to meet it.

But thats why we train so we can learn to pick up on these subtle cues that our opponents give us , the position of their elbow , a slight dip of the shoulder or small weight shift etc.


----------



## Poor Uke

By profession I research human biomechanics ie I am a trained scientist. Which is why I find martial arts in general fascinating.

So let me get something absolutely straight here...

_You may be able to discribe WC in terms of the mechanics of its movements and discribe the physiological and anatomical arragments thereof_ _*BUT that doesnt not make it scientific! *The same can be done when discribing making a cake, dont make cakes scientific now does it?_

Many martial arts systems use the term 'scientific' they are all misgiuded to do so.

If WC were truley scrutinized though the scientific method, and objective falsifiable conclusions could be drawn reguarding its viability as a martial art, then it could claim to be scientific...this has not been done as far as I know.

Shaun Rawcliff presents some rudimentary (at best) mechanical principles to describe concepts etc of his version of WC. That is a far far cry from scientific analysis.


----------



## KamonGuy2

Poor Uke said:


> By profession I research human biomechanics ie I am a trained scientist. Which is why I find martial arts in general fascinating.
> 
> So let me get something absolutely straight here...
> 
> _You may be able to discribe WC in terms of the mechanics of its movements and discribe the physiological and anatomical arragments thereof_ _*BUT that doesnt not make it scientific! *The same can be done when discribing making a cake, dont make cakes scientific now does it?_
> 
> Many martial arts systems use the term 'scientific' they are all misgiuded to do so.
> 
> If WC were truley scrutinized though the scientific method, and objective falsifiable conclusions could be drawn reguarding its viability as a martial art, then it could claim to be scientific...this has not been done as far as I know.
> 
> Shaun Rawcliff presents some rudimentary (at best) mechanical principles to describe concepts etc of his version of WC. That is a far far cry from scientific analysis.


You mention baking a cake as not being scientific, others would disagree. My brother is a doctor of biochemistry (teaching out of John Hopkins) and his Professor once mentioned that cooking was science based, especially if you are experimenting!!

You seem to really be fixated on how deeply rooted wing chun is in the science world. We were all merely making the point that the mechanics applied in wing chun follow basic laws in physics. Therefore, science based.

You obviously havent been reading many Shawn rawcliffe books - the one I own goes into two chapters worth of scientific analysis


----------



## mook jong man

I don't have any fancy letters after my name , only went to high school. In fact I've worked in crappy  factories most of my adult life lugging around kitchen bench tops and breathing in saw dust.

But I have been involved in Wing Chun for 2O years and to this day I am still learning and continually amazed by the cleverness of the system .

The founder or founders of the system which ever story you believe seemed to have some insight into the characteristics of muscle , they seemed to have  recognised that muscle in a relaxed state can tolerate greater external loads than muscles in a state of contraction.

If its not a system based on sound principles of science , then it must be pretty bloody close to it.


----------



## Poor Uke

Kamon Guy said:


> You mention baking a cake as not being scientific, others would disagree. My brother is a doctor of biochemistry (teaching out of John Hopkins) and his Professor once mentioned that cooking was science based, especially if you are experimenting!!


 
Sure and a kid playing with mud can be seen as experimentation....scientific experimentation???....mmmm nahhhh



Kamon Guy said:


> You seem to really be fixated on how deeply rooted wing chun is in the science world. We were all merely making the point that the mechanics applied in wing chun follow basic laws in physics. Therefore, science based.


 
Agreed but the same can be said of anything!

I reiterate, just because something follows scientific priciples does not make it a science, as everything in the known universe follows scientific principles.



Kamon Guy said:


> You obviously havent been reading many Shawn rawcliffe books - the one I own goes into two chapters worth of scientific analysis


 
I have read Mr Rawcliff's books and I am telling you again that just because something can be discribed using scientifc terms does not mean that thing is therefore scientific.

If WC is a science then where are the controlled scientific studies on its effectiveness?

Who did these studies?

How were they verified?


----------



## Poor Uke

mook jong man said:


> I don't have any fancy letters after my name , only went to high school. In fact I've worked in crappy factories most of my adult life lugging around kitchen bench tops and breathing in saw dust.


 
Is your assertion that having _fancy letters after my name_ is somehow not as worthy as working in a factory?

Considering you know nothoing about my adult life or how I got those _fancy letters after my name_ I am assuming some sort of reverse snobbery and stereotyping that is unjustified.



mook jong man said:


> But I have been involved in Wing Chun for 2O years and to this day I am still learning and continually amazed by the cleverness of the system .


 
This does not make it science!



mook jong man said:


> The founder or founders of the system which ever story you believe seemed to have some insight into the characteristics of muscle , they seemed to have recognised that muscle in a relaxed state can tolerate greater external loads than muscles in a state of contraction.


 
This is not true. Muscle can not resist anything in its relaxed state. Also if you search a little deeper into WC's history you will find that muscular control techniques used in many many Chinese martial arts derive from body mind techniques developed in both Buddist and Doaist monasteries over the millenia. Damo is thought by many to have been a yogic adept.

The main thing is the correct use of muscular tensioning!



mook jong man said:


> If its not a system based on sound principles of science , then it must be pretty bloody close to it.


 
As mentioned before, sound mechanical principles can be used to discribe WC. That does not imply that WC is a science.

If WC is a science then find answers to the following:

Where are the controlled scientific studies on its effectiveness?

Who did these studies?

How were they verified?


----------



## mook jong man

Poor Uke said:


> Is your assertion that having _fancy letters after my name_ is somehow not as worthy as working in a factory?
> 
> Considering you know nothoing about my adult life or how I got those _fancy letters after my name_ I am assuming some sort of reverse snobbery and stereotyping that is unjustified.
> 
> 
> 
> This does not make it science!
> 
> 
> 
> This is not true. Muscle can not resist anything in its relaxed state. Also if you search a little deeper into WC's history you will find that muscular control techniques used in many many Chinese martial arts derive from body mind techniques developed in both Buddist and Doaist monasteries over the millenia. Damo is thought by many to have been a yogic adept.
> 
> The main thing is the correct use of muscular tensioning!
> 
> 
> 
> As mentioned before, sound mechanical principles can be used to discribe WC. That does not imply that WC is a science.
> 
> If WC is a science then find answers to the following:
> 
> Where are the controlled scientific studies on its effectiveness?
> 
> Who did these studies?
> 
> How were they verified?


 
I'm not going to change your opinion and your not going to change mine.
And I can't really be bothered arguing about it , so I think I will leave it at that.


----------



## Poor Uke

mook jong man said:


> I'm not going to change your opinion and your not going to change mine.
> And I can't really be bothered arguing about it , so I think I will leave it at that.


 
I come across this kind of thing alot on der interwebz its called being 'closed minded'.

I am telling you as a scientist that to use the word scientific in this sense is meaningless

The word 'scientific' used as a way to justify an arts effectiveness implies that scientific research has and/or is being used to develope the art.

I get Kamon's line about experimentation and that can be said of any skill set. I does not imply scientific exploration and scientific hypothesis-thesis methodology.


----------



## profesormental

Greetings.

While Wing Chun training itself might not be called technically scientific, for lack of direct peer reviewed research, the kinesiology and biomechanical principles that the training seems to apply seem quite sound.

It can be seen that most of Wing Chun training was developed by people with deep knowledge of how the body works, which is consistent with the way Chinese Medicine/Taoist philosophy works; there is a lot of empirical knowledge of what happens, not necessarily an explanation though.

The more knowledge about the way the body works and understand what happens as an effect of something else, the more I see the genius in the training method of Wing Chun. This knowledge can mot easily be taught by experience under guidance, the way Buddhism is taught (hence the Quan fa[mandarin], kuen fat[cantonese]), and graduate level science.

Hope that helps. Gotta keep writing my thesis...

Juan Mercado-Robles


----------



## Poor Uke

I'll actually go a step further Proff

It isnt scientific due to lack of validation!


----------



## profesormental

Validation of the physical education method or of the concepts, ideas and physical principles involved in designing the method?

I ask because I want to have a clear understanding about what it is that you want to express and discuss.

Are you being very precise about the use of the term "scientific"? What then would be an alternative, more accurate term?

Verification, validation and reproducibility are important, yet specifically about what are you refering? Results of execution of physical skills or the physical principles which the method is based of?

The thing is that there is an empirical base to much of the training, and the way it is now, much can be backed by studies in physical education, kinesiology and sciences applied to sports.

Also, when you are taught a way to do something by comparative experiments and measurements to find the one that is most effective and efficient for a specific application, and then draw conclusions from that, what would you call that?

I agree that not everyone teaches like that, and that saying something is "scientific" to justify something's effectiveness should means something specific...

like the case of the people that sell "Quantum Healing" and such without understanding the notions of Quantum mechanics... it's like saying really, REALLY small packets of discrete healing steps... what the hell do they mean by Quantum Healing? They gave Deepak Chopra an Ignoble award for that, you know...

So if you have beef with something being called "scientific", then extracting what that means exactly for the practitioners that use the term would be much more fruitful than saying that they're a bunch of fruits for saying so.

To me, what I do is the use of scientific knowledge and repeatable physiological phenomena to design and improve physical education methods to perform martial applications to get a desired result.

This I would call the martial sciences.

Just like sports sciences are used to improve physical performance for sporting purposes.

Or something like that. Haven't ironed out the whole thing. I hope you get an idea.

Juan Mercado-Robles


----------



## wushuguy

scientific or not, it is fairly easy to learn and can be effective when learned and used properly :ultracool


----------



## blindsage

How is Wing Chun more 'scientific' than Muay Thai, or Krav Maga, or Capoeira?  What does that mean?  Does it mean that Muay Thai doesn't follow the laws of physics, or physiology?

It would be one thing to say something like, "WC uses the physiology of the body more efficiently", or "WC uses an understanding of structure and relaxation to use the body more efficiently".  But saying it is 'scientific' really doesn't mean anything.


----------



## leejunfan

wushuguy said:


> scientific or not, it is fairly easy to learn and can be effective when learned and used properly :ultracool


 

There you go i agree with that,  i personally dont care if science validates it or not, i think WC has proven itself !!  Science isnt always right either..!!   So put that in your pipe!


----------



## dungeonworks

Gosh!  Just when you think you have seen all the internet arguments in and of Wing Chun, a thread turns the way of this one and makes one jaw drop! :uhyeah:

Seriously folks, put the beakers down and GO TRAIN ALREADY!!! :ultracool


----------



## dungeonworks

leejunfan said:


> There you go i agree with that,  i personally dont care if science validates it or not, i think WC has proven itself !!  Science isnt always right either..!!   So put that in your pipe!




So if Wing Chun is "science", then that same logic means Wing Chun is not always right either???

I hear that same anti-science argument argument each time science finds something contradictory to religion from the religious as well.

Bottom line, if it (Wing Chun) works for you, *USE IT*!  If it doesn't, find out why then improve or discard it.  Different body types will be more accustomed to speciffic stances, movements, or techniques.  I like everything that I have seen in Wing Chun except the stances and footwork.  It does not work for me and makes me slow, and not by a flaw in the style so much as it is how I learned to move for years prior to wing chun.  I feel too confined and immobile in the classical stances, and I say the same of Karate which is why I like Boxing footwork much better.  Common Wing chun argument against that is that it is not economical motion.  I say it is nothing somewhat frequent cardio cannot fix which is why I jump rope and do roadwork, which also acts as good meditation for me as well, but that is another topic of itself.  If you get tired feinting and deking, you have bigger issues than economical movement if you intend to fight in street or sport environments.


----------



## dungeonworks

wushuguy said:


> scientific or not, it is fairly easy to learn and can be effective when learned and used properly :ultracool



I highly disagree!  I found classical Wing Chun to be the hardest of any style I have trained by FAR!


----------



## KamonGuy2

blindsage said:


> How is Wing Chun more 'scientific' than Muay Thai, or Krav Maga, or Capoeira? What does that mean? Does it mean that Muay Thai doesn't follow the laws of physics, or physiology?
> 
> It would be one thing to say something like, "WC uses the physiology of the body more efficiently", or "WC uses an understanding of structure and relaxation to use the body more efficiently". But saying it is 'scientific' really doesn't mean anything.


 
A lot of Muay Thai does not rely on body mechanics to work. Muay Thai strikes are usually done from a pivot (heel) but they dont need to be. Wing chun works by utilizing good body mechanics, unlike many other arts, which have a lot of inefficiencies in them. Doesnt make those arts bad, but there is sometimes a lack of science in those kind of arts

Anyway, we have strolled way off topic...


----------



## Poor Uke

profesormental said:


> Validation of the physical education method or of the concepts, ideas and physical principles involved in designing the method?
> 
> I ask because I want to have a clear understanding about what it is that you want to express and discuss.
> 
> Are you being very precise about the use of the term "scientific"? What then would be an alternative, more accurate term?
> 
> Verification, validation and reproducibility are important, yet specifically about what are you refering? Results of execution of physical skills or the physical principles which the method is based of?
> 
> The thing is that there is an empirical base to much of the training, and the way it is now, much can be backed by studies in physical education, kinesiology and sciences applied to sports.
> 
> Also, when you are taught a way to do something by comparative experiments and measurements to find the one that is most effective and efficient for a specific application, and then draw conclusions from that, what would you call that?
> 
> I agree that not everyone teaches like that, and that saying something is "scientific" to justify something's effectiveness should means something specific...
> 
> like the case of the people that sell "Quantum Healing" and such without understanding the notions of Quantum mechanics... it's like saying really, REALLY small packets of discrete healing steps... what the hell do they mean by Quantum Healing? They gave Deepak Chopra an Ignoble award for that, you know...
> 
> So if you have beef with something being called "scientific", then extracting what that means exactly for the practitioners that use the term would be much more fruitful than saying that they're a bunch of fruits for saying so.
> 
> To me, what I do is the use of scientific knowledge and repeatable physiological phenomena to design and improve physical education methods to perform martial applications to get a desired result.
> 
> This I would call the martial sciences.
> 
> Just like sports sciences are used to improve physical performance for sporting purposes.
> 
> Or something like that. Haven't ironed out the whole thing. I hope you get an idea.
> 
> Juan Mercado-Robles


 
What you are postulating is the appliance of science.

I suppose I am using the word in a strict sense. For something to be 'scientific', knowledge has to have been aquired using the scientific method.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

And as such would need its various conjectures and hypothoesis validated. By validation I mean that the system would need to find some way in which to proove itself objectively 'effective'. Given WC's modern history and (in general) its reluctance to step into the ring (one avenue for validation) with any effectiveness the labelling as a 'scientific' system becomes even more tenuous.

I am not contending that WC is rubbish, far from it. Just that the use of the word 'scientific' is misleading. The implication is that the system has some sort of objective backup from the scientific communittee....it does not.

Great post btw Proff


----------



## wushuguy

dungeonworks said:


> I highly disagree!  I found classical Wing Chun to be the hardest of any style I have trained by FAR!



Physically or mentally? As for the physical motions, in my opinion they are very simple and much fewer techniques and postures to learn compared to other arts, but mentally speaking, I agree, because it is very demanding learning about structure and direction of force. Very good way to learn about how our bodies move and the capabilities and limitations of human anatomy. I have known some people who can learn external/hard styles well, such as TKD, Karate, Judo, Mantis, Shaolin, etc. but they find it very difficult to do and understand Wing Chun.

An art can be effective, but it depends on how well one can put it to practice. One can pick an effective style, based on what works for the individual, don't pick a style that is effective in other people's opinion. 
So, for the original poster, if you find WC doesn't seem effective for you, you can think about if you are improving in your training and also if you are understanding the principles. If not then try a few other things to see which one feels more natural and suits your personal taste and has principles which you can grasp better.

and, scientific or not, martial arts are called martial ARTs not martial sciences, so perhaps we're more artistic than scientific?  :cheers:


----------



## dungeonworks

wushuguy said:


> Physically or mentally?



Let me say Wing Chun wasn't physically hard in the least.  We did absolutely no sparring, no cardio (aside chain punching mitts from time to time), but they did a crap load of sensitivity, form, and stance work.  Mentally, the trouble was from all the "relax your shoulders" when they were relaxed.  If they were relaxed any more than they were, my arms would have fallen.  Then there was the "bring your elbows in more" and when I did they said to relax my shoulders again.  I am kind of a bigger guy with broad shoulders.  When I bring my elbows in beyond a certain point, my shoulders physically must come forward.  So, to describe the "mental" part of it, I found it to be just waaaay to picky on some little details and not at all taxing physically.  I like my Martial Arts to also act as physical training (gyms bore me to tears) as well and the class I took, well, I could have smoked cig's during class or packed a dip of Skoal in my lip.



> As for the physical motions, in my opinion they are very simple and much fewer techniques and postures to learn compared to other arts, but mentally speaking, I agree, because it is very demanding learning about structure and direction of force.



I agree they are simple to learn, but the postures and footwork I could just never get.  I felt too much like I would trip over my self had I tried to do them at full combat speed.  Like I said, it was more "me" and not the art.  I have seen people move well with it, but I do have a Koei-Kan-Karate-Do, Kickboxing, and Tae Kwon Do base.  I stick to the boxing footwork as it has server me well in and out of the ring.  Karate was too linear (generalization) and TKD was a lot of bouncing.  Boxing allows me for freer movements and quicker changeups.  It also allows for kicks quite nicely.



> Very good way to learn about how our bodies move and the capabilities and limitations of human anatomy. I have known some people who can learn external/hard styles well, such as TKD, Karate, Judo, Mantis, Shaolin, etc. but they find it very difficult to do and understand Wing Chun.



I'm one of those people! 






> An art can be effective, but it depends on how well one can put it to practice. One can pick an effective style, based on what works for the individual, don't pick a style that is effective in other people's opinion.
> So, for the original poster, if you find WC doesn't seem effective for you, you can think about if you are improving in your training and also if you are understanding the principles. If not then try a few other things to see which one feels more natural and suits your personal taste and has principles which you can grasp better.
> 
> and, scientific or not, martial arts are called martial ARTs not martial sciences, so perhaps we're more artistic than scientific?  :cheers:



I totally agree.  I think that people's physiques come into play more than anything when it comes to finding a martial art that works for the individual.  I mean, a tall flexible lanky dude is likely to grow well into a TKD or Muay Thai or a former wrestler, usualy strong, quick, and good sense of base would likely do well in a Brazillian Jiujitsu or Judo...ect.  Me?  I felt that Classical Wing Chun was like trying to fit into shoes on the wrong feet.  Now I train in JKD Concepts and the freer footwork has treated me better.  I cannot wait for the day I am able to find another Wing Chun Kwoon (that spars and works out too!) just to see the differences because I do want to return to it at some point.  I think there is a lot there I could use and would like to see, especially in the sensitivity and even the stances and footwork.


----------



## leejunfan

Well im out of this thread, its going no where and theres nothing productive i can use.... and too much argueing.

"And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand.."  

(Sorry science guys)...


----------



## geezer

leejunfan said:


> Well im out of this thread, its going no where and theres nothing productive i can use.... and too much argueing.


 
Maybe I'm just feeling agreeable today, but I though Dungeonworks made perfect sense. I love 'Chun but I physically struggle with it at times. It's a better fit for some than others. If, after giving WC/WT/VT a fair shot, you find that another art suits your physique or mentality better, I say go for it.


----------



## dungeonworks

leejunfan said:


> Well im out of this thread, its going no where and theres nothing productive i can use.... and too much argueing.
> 
> "And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand.."
> 
> (Sorry science guys)...



Arguing???  You should see the Wing Cun + BJJ thread around here somewhere....THAT's arguing! LOL  I see some point-counter point going on but not really arguing.  There are no insults and everyone is constructively getting points accross.


----------



## leejunfan

I guess, well have fun..


----------



## dungeonworks

geezer said:


> Maybe I'm just feeling agreeable today, but I though Dungeonworks made perfect sense. I love 'Chun but I physically struggle with it at times. It's a better fit for some than others. If, after giving WC/WT/VT a fair shot, you find that another art suits your physique or mentality better, I say go for it.




Thanks Geezer.  That's exactly what I was saying.  Also, I was saying I would like to try it again from another lineage, like Boztepe's EBMAS and *ESPECIALLY* Louisville Wing Chun (Woo Fai Chang system).


----------



## blindsage

Kamon Guy said:


> A lot of Muay Thai does not rely on body mechanics to work.


How does it work then?  It's still body mechanics it's just different use of body mechanics than WC.



> Muay Thai strikes are usually done from a pivot (heel) but they dont need to be.


Actually their done on a toe (ball) pivot not heel, and it order to use the body mechanics they use, yes, it needs to be done that way.



> Wing chun works by utilizing good body mechanics, unlike many other arts, which have a lot of inefficiencies in them.


Other arts may have inefficiencies in them, but this is vastly different from saying they don't know or use body mechanics, you can't walk without using body mechanics.  Most styles have highly refined body mechanics, maybe WC body mechanics is 'better', but that doesn't mean the body mechanics of other styles isn't good.



> Doesnt make those arts bad, but there is sometimes a lack of science in those kind of arts


It's not a lack of science, 'science' has nothing to do with it.  All movement is 'scientific'.  They may be less efficient, but they are still scientific.


----------



## profesormental

Greetings.

First, science guys are cool! And I'm a mathematical physicist, I don't use beakers!! I use beer mugs!! And cofee mugs!!

The Chinese version are the Daoists that created the empirical basis for the Wing Chun. So there!!! 

Second, verification and validation is supposed to be done by the teachers in the training hall. Every day.

The ring is not the be all end all of validation. It is a controlled duel. It is sport competition activity. 

Case studies of the people that have used their training in self defense type is a better evaluation. Self defense type situation simulations are even better.

Unfortunately, this is something done by individual teachers, and many here DO high level stress simulations to evaluate performance. Others don't.

Also, many trainers lack verification methods so they know how to evaluate if a way to perform something is better (more efficient and/or effective) or not. That is an important skill.

At first, training Wing Chun may feel strange... maybe you could generate more power in another way... yet after a little while, you can generate a lot of power and stability with Wing Chun methods... and then, eventaully, your body will get faster and stronger, bacause the body is better suited for optmized movement, by virtue of how it is.

What does this mean?

Many people in kicking arts, after a certain age, cannot kick anymore, because of damage done to their ligaments and tendons over the years. This is because they move in a way that is hard for the body to handle, yet because of the power of the mucles, they can move that way.

Yet you can keep your joints and maximize your martial capacity if your movements fall within certain parameters given by careful study of the body. This is the philosophy Chinese internal arts, including Wing Chun and SubLevel Kenpo.

If you execute your movements within these parameters, your movements will be VERY strong, and your joints will be protected from wear and tear. Also, the point is promoting better health.

How, I ask, do we know this?

Well, scientific knowledge and study comfirms most of my claims, if not all of them. Others, we know they happen yet neurocience is in the way to answering why.

And still, others can be demostrated by comparative study under force load. You can even find ways to measure the force and such objectively and find the same comparative results.

Mathematical rigor, even in science, is what argument is enough to convince you. Scientific study, is still, logical argumentation to establish truth. Daily experiements used to convince students that something works, compared to doing it another way, 

is still using observation (Hey, let's try this!! I hit you!! How does it feel? How solid is it?)...

then hypothesizing (I claim this way should provide better results.),

then experimenting (Now, I hit you!! How does it feel compared to the other time? Hey... wake up! Hey!!),

then analyzing the results and reaching a conclusion. (This way I get better results. Now let's practice it so it comes out spontaneously upon appropriate stimuli when needed.)

If we find a better way, then we compare and adopt it.

More fun!

What more could you ask for?

On another note, the way we teach is really picky about what we do, yet we can adapt it to the physique of the individual once it conforms to the geometry of the person. So that means that we train very strictly the way it is optimal for the person's geometry in particular.

The tension that many times you hear teachers say "RELAX" is what we call "frozen muscles". It doesn't mean that there is no tension. It means that you hold them rigidly in a certain place and freeze them there, without any kind of sensitivity.

They become handles to control you. You don't want that.

Anyway, hope that helps.

Juan Mercado-Robles


----------



## dungeonworks

I will say this, Wing Chun training has reaped me huge benefits in striking on the ground, more precisely from my back when someone is in my guard....and that is a spot I have been in a few times in bar fights.  It is also something we train in JKD in the form of focus mit drills and rolling with a heavy bag.

I know Geezer got my point and I hope others do not see my post as negative towards Wing Chun or my former kwoon and teachers.  "I", meaning ME, was the part that had trouble fitting the style.  That is what I was stating.


----------



## dungeonworks

...and about the ring or sparring.  Yes, it is not the be all end all of validating any martial art style for self defense, but even pilots must train on a flight simulator when learning to fly.  The ring and sparring are the safest and closest form of validation that we have this side of an actual life or death self defense situation.  There are lots of things that can be practiced in the form of ring fighting and sparring, including combat speed footwork, timing and accuracy, and the priceless experience of feeling how your thinking and reasoning is after being hit in the head.  I can tell you from both fighting and sparring experiences that your brain gets rattled effecting rational thinking and even experiencing fight or flight reactions which is an uncomfortable feeling, most speciffically to a practitioner who may not have "been there before".  For me, a blend of technical and practical training is the way to go.  If you have ever had your bell rung, you know what I am talking about.  Sparring and ringfighting enter in that dynamic of training, and I feel it is a most important aspect that must be felt and cannot be taught.


----------



## chisauking

poor guy sez: Given WC's modern history and (in general) its reluctance to step into the ring (one avenue for validation).

csk: I would question your logic, to suggest one could validate wing chun in a ring. It's akin to validating F1 cars in a RAC rallye, or validating one's snooker skills in American pool. Altough there are cross-overs between the two, it still isn't the same.

Also, to use the analogy of pilots training on flight similators is also flawed. The purpose of the flight sim is to replicate the exact actions \ environment of a particular aircraft. In the ring, one can use very little of what wing chun was conceived for, nor is the 'ring' a realistic combat environment. 

What one would do -- or try to do -- in a flight sim is exactly the same as what they would do in a real aircraft. On the other hand, a wing chun practitioner can't try to apply his skills in a ring as it was intended.

Of course, there are cross-overs between the ring & all out fighting, but it still isn't the same -- unless one believes people take of their shoes & socks before fighting!

As to the original question as to whether wing chun is effective, this question can't be properly answered unless more information is given, as there are many variables in determing whether something is effective or not. For example, is a apache war helicopter effective in combat? Well, only if you had a pilot that could command the aircraft well. Is the fastest F1 car effective? Well, only if you race it in the environment it was designed for. So, it's the same for wing chun. It's effective if one uses it for its intended purpose, in the right environment, and with a competent practitioner. If one tries to use wing chun in a boxing tournament, or in a karate competition, then no, wing chun isn't effective.


----------



## dungeonworks

chisauking said:


> poor guy sez: Given WC's modern history and (in general) its reluctance to step into the ring (one avenue for validation).
> 
> csk: I would question your logic, to suggest one could validate wing chun in a ring. It's akin to validating F1 cars in a RAC rallye, or validating one's snooker skills in American pool. Altough there are cross-overs between the two, it still isn't the same.
> 
> Also, to use the analogy of pilots training on flight similators is also flawed. The purpose of the flight sim is to replicate the exact actions \ environment of a particular aircraft. In the ring, one can use very little of what wing chun was conceived for, nor is the 'ring' a realistic combat environment.
> 
> What one would do -- or try to do -- in a flight sim is exactly the same as what they would do in a real aircraft. On the other hand, a wing chun practitioner can't try to apply his skills in a ring as it was intended.
> 
> Of course, there are cross-overs between the ring & all out fighting, but it still isn't the same -- unless one believes people take of their shoes & socks before fighting!
> 
> As to the original question as to whether wing chun is effective, this question can't be properly answered unless more information is given, as there are many variables in determing whether something is effective or not. For example, is a apache war helicopter effective in combat? Well, only if you had a pilot that could command the aircraft well. Is the fastest F1 car effective? Well, only if you race it in the environment it was designed for. So, it's the same for wing chun. It's effective if one uses it for its intended purpose, in the right environment, and with a competent practitioner. If one tries to use wing chun in a boxing tournament, or in a karate competition, then no, wing chun isn't effective.



I disagree with this post.  How is the Apache pilot or F1 racer going to cultivate the skills to be good at their respective jobs?  Practice on the track and live fire exercises I assume, and how is that respectively different than a Wing Chun stylist fighting in a ring or cage???  What in Wing Chun could you not use in a ring/cage that would take soooo much from the art itself?  Groin kicks and Biu Jee's to the eyes or throat?  The almighty neck crank that is not nearly as dramaticly resulting as most MA schools (and Chuck Norris movies) teach and that MMA has proven?  That is legal in MMA.  Kicks to the legs/knees?  Yup, legal too!  Elbows?  They are all good, so tell me what is the limiting content of Wing Chun that keeps it from a ring?  Palm strikes are legal too.  What elements does the ring/cage take away from Wing chun that leaves it so useless between the ropes or fences?

About the flight simulator comparison.  Flight simulators are not flying.  Just as the ring/sparring is to martial artists, the flight simulator gives the experience of flying without all the dangers.  Like it or not, MMA is the closest contest we have to a real fight without it being a real fight....and for the record, ring sports are not exactly like fighting and I never stated that they were.  All I am saying is they are the closest thing to a real fight where techniques can be validated against fully resisiting opponents at combat speed with penalty of pain for your mistakes.

Since you claim the ring sports take to much away from Wing Chun to be effective, what does Wing Chun offer other than myths and "Sifu says..." as a means to validate it's effectiveness?

The reason I am asking this is not to bash the art or portray it negatively.  The OP asked if it was an effective style, and I feel it is an effective style.  Now that I am doing JKD and actually full on sparring again, I see my very basic Wing Chun coming through even when just boxing, even some well timed paks, taking center, and even chain punching....with boxing gloves.  I imagine had I had more WC, maybe it would be more coming through???


----------



## chisauking

It's very simple to understand really.

In a flight sim, the objective is to emulate a particular aircraft, control, and environment as realistically as possible to the real thing. 

In the 'ring' or any other sport for the matter, the objective is NOT to emulate a FIGHT as realistically as possible. If that were the case, it would not be STAGED in the ring, since no real world fight would start in a ring. There would not be any rules, since there are no rules in a real fight. There would not be any protective measures, such as the soft floor, or wearing boxing gloves, or no hard footwear, etc., etc. Most importantly, there's no real INTENT. No matter how much one may hate their opponent, in the ring the objective is not to inflict as much damage as possible, using any means and even sacrficing one's well being in the process.

Wing chun was never concieved for sport, so to test it in that element would only yield inaccurate results. Just as testing a fly spray on fish would yield falsh results.

A lot of times, it isn't a question of whether wing chun works or not; it's a question of what one is prepared to do. Are you prepared to cripple, blind, kill your opponent? I for one can never injure another fellow human being just to prove that wing chun is effective, just to please the whims of others. However, any one that threatens my family, and I would take great pleasure in inflicting as much pain as possible and then killing the bastard.

As I'd stated before, the rules & environment of any sport determines the best training methods. Just as the requirments of a fight that last no more than 1-minute is different to a sport that may last many 3-minute rounds.

Doing well in a particular environment, under a set of rules, only means that. There's no guarantee that once the rules and\or the environment changes, you will continue to do well. Just look at Thai boxing. Thai boxers are one of the best conditioned people in the martial arts. Their kicks & elbows are very effective & powerful. However, put them in western boxing and suddenly they don't do so well after all. Only a handful of Thai boxers have made successful transitions to proffessional boxing. 

We can see from the above example that changing the rules \ environment slightly can change the outcome. So, one can only imagine the results if we change the rules to no rules under genuine combat environments.

No matter how much you love your deluxe rubber doll, it still doesn't make it real. Just as no matter how much hype you believe in the 'ring', it still isn't the real thing, and to judge a style's effectiveness based on its performence in the ring -- an artificial platform with many real world fighting variables\elements removed -- is only subscribing to the pepsi & popcorn mentality.


----------



## dungeonworks

chisauking said:


> It's very simple to understand really.
> 
> In a flight sim, the objective is to emulate a particular aircraft, control, and environment as realistically as possible to the real thing.
> 
> In the 'ring' or any other sport for the matter, the objective is NOT to emulate a FIGHT as realistically as possible. If that were the case, it would not be STAGED in the ring, since no real world fight would start in a ring. There would not be any rules, since there are no rules in a real fight. There would not be any protective measures, such as the soft floor, or wearing boxing gloves, or no hard footwear, etc., etc. Most importantly, there's no real INTENT. No matter how much one may hate their opponent, in the ring the objective is not to inflict as much damage as possible, using any means and even sacrficing one's well being in the process.
> 
> Wing chun was never concieved for sport, so to test it in that element would only yield inaccurate results. Just as testing a fly spray on fish would yield falsh results.
> 
> A lot of times, it isn't a question of whether wing chun works or not; it's a question of what one is prepared to do. Are you prepared to cripple, blind, kill your opponent? I for one can never injure another fellow human being just to prove that wing chun is effective, just to please the whims of others. However, any one that threatens my family, and I would take great pleasure in inflicting as much pain as possible and then killing the bastard.
> 
> As I'd stated before, the rules & environment of any sport determines the best training methods. Just as the requirments of a fight that last no more than 1-minute is different to a sport that may last many 3-minute rounds.
> 
> Doing well in a particular environment, under a set of rules, only means that. There's no guarantee that once the rules and\or the environment changes, you will continue to do well. Just look at Thai boxing. Thai boxers are one of the best conditioned people in the martial arts. Their kicks & elbows are very effective & powerful. However, put them in western boxing and suddenly they don't do so well after all. Only a handful of Thai boxers have made successful transitions to proffessional boxing.
> 
> We can see from the above example that changing the rules \ environment slightly can change the outcome. So, one can only imagine the results if we change the rules to no rules under genuine combat environments.
> 
> No matter how much you love your deluxe rubber doll, it still doesn't make it real. Just as no matter how much hype you believe in the 'ring', it still isn't the real thing, and to judge a style's effectiveness based on its performence in the ring -- an artificial platform with many real world fighting variables\elements removed -- is only subscribing to the pepsi & popcorn mentality.



With all due respect, you are missing my question altogether.  I am not trying to turn this into MMA vs Wing Chun argument nor am I trying to dis or insult Wing Chun, rather than I am trying to find out legitimately why it cannot be adapted for full speed trial and error against an opponent OTHER THAN another Chunner, be it sparring or in a sporting venue.  A punch is a punch, kick is a kick, elbow an elbow, clinch a clinch...ect.  You state that it wasn't what Wing Chun was made for.  Neither was Jiujitsu or most striking styles such as Karate and other Kung Fu styles that have translated well into Sanshou, kickboxing, MMA, or Vale Tudo contests.  

No real fight was staged as Chi sau either by that same token, yet Wing Chun competitions with contact start from there with rules.  I ask again, and this is a legitimate question....*HOW DOES WING CHUN VALIDATE WHAT WORKS AND WHAT DOES NOT???*  MMA is the closest simulation to a real fight, sport or not.  I have been in a few good adulthood scraps and found myself in situations that closely resemble EVERY fight I have been in during EVERY MMA bout that I have watched.  I like MMA as a sport and i like MMA rules for sparring too.  

Just as the flight simulator is not really FLYING per say, neither is MMA real fighting....but it is the closest thing to the actual application of techniques in combat.  Why would Wing Chun and it's principles not be conducive to the ring/cage?  Jiujitsu has its roots in military warfare.  It is now a huge part of a sport, and widely adapted so.  Why could Wing Chun not be tweaked a bit to see if most things really work?  Chunners obviously are not ripping eachothers throats out during class nor gouging eyeballs.  How do you practice and validate your art of Wing Chun at full speed and full resistance?  If you don't have methods for such training, how would one know it is an effective style?


----------



## Poor Uke

Am in total agreement with dungeonworks here.

Even Chi Sau is a simulated fight, all be it very controlled and restrained.

The fact remains that the best way of validating effectiveness, besides actually being in a fight, is by sparring....simple. I honestly dont get why this is even up for debate????


----------



## Poor Uke

profesormental said:


> Second, verification and validation is supposed to be done by the teachers in the training hall. Every day.


 
How?



profesormental said:


> The ring is not the be all end all of validation. It is a controlled duel. It is sport competition activity.


 
Sparring in a ring or not IMO is an essetial way of deeming one's own effectiveness reguardless of what style. It is not just a 'sport activity' but a way of pressure testing techniques and stragies, how else do you do this?



profesormental said:


> Case studies of the people that have used their training in self defense type is a better evaluation. Self defense type situation simulations are even better.


 
Do you have any? of WC I mean?



profesormental said:


> Also, many trainers lack verification methods so they know how to evaluate if a way to perform something is better (more efficient and/or effective) or not. That is an important skill.


 
All too true



profesormental said:


> Well, scientific knowledge and study comfirms most of my claims, if not all of them. Others, we know they happen yet neurocience is in the way to answering why.


 
Which knwlegde confirms which claims?

C'mon Prof your a scientist you should know you cant get away with statements like that

 



profesormental said:


> And still, others can be demostrated by comparative study under force load. You can even find ways to measure the force and such objectively and find the same comparative results.
> 
> Mathematical rigor, even in science, is what argument is enough to convince you. Scientific study, is still, logical argumentation to establish truth. Daily experiements used to convince students that something works, compared to doing it another way,


 
Again you should know better than this Prof. Where are the scientific studies to proove that one styles mechanics are more effective than anothers?

The last information I had about punching most definitley said that the western boxing method of punching was by far the most efficient use of musclature and delivered the most force on delivery. I wish I could find that study again.



profesormental said:


> is still using observation (Hey, let's try this!! I hit you!! How does it feel? How solid is it?)...
> 
> then hypothesizing (I claim this way should provide better results.),
> 
> then experimenting (Now, I hit you!! How does it feel compared to the other time? Hey... wake up! Hey!!),
> 
> then analyzing the results and reaching a conclusion. (This way I get better results. Now let's practice it so it comes out spontaneously upon appropriate stimuli when needed.)
> 
> If we find a better way, then we compare and adopt it.
> 
> More fun!
> 
> What more could you ask for?


 
Yep an admirable approach and one that can be applied to many skill sets not just martial arts.

But when statements concerning the scientific veracity of a skill sets effcetiveness are made then that just doesnt cut it. The scientific method is far more vigrous than that, as you should know being a physicist.


----------



## jarrod

just an outsider to the WC community here...but competition always comes up in WC threads.  american kickboxing was created to give karateka a full-contact avenue of competition without have to fight boxers & others with lots of ring experience.  is there any interest among chunners in creating a WC-based combat sport?  i think sport fighting is a valuable way ot pressure test your techniques, but i can certainly understand not wanting to try & fit your game into someone else's rules.  just a thought.

jf


----------



## dungeonworks

jarrod said:


> just an outsider to the WC community here...but competition always comes up in WC threads.  american kickboxing was created to give karateka a full-contact avenue of competition without have to fight boxers & others with lots of ring experience.  is there any interest among chunners in creating a WC-based combat sport?  i think sport fighting is a valuable way ot pressure test your techniques, but i can certainly understand not wanting to try & fit your game into someone else's rules.  just a thought.
> 
> jf




At least it is not just me alone that wonders about this question.  I bet I can hold my breath until the next "Wing chun was'nt designed for sport!" comment, and miss entirely the meat and potatoes of your post. 

I've seen with my own limited WC experience how it has improved my overall martial ability (Ironically, none more than on the ground!).  I think there is a LOT of stuff in WC that could make me a better fighter or more capable at self defense which is why someday I will return to it.  

Where I am truly seeking an answer is how does Wing Chun validate its' effectiveness?  Somewhere in the world, there must be a video of Wing Chun in action that is not staged for YouTube or for demonstration only.  For me, it has been after the fact, sparring in JKD that brought me back around.  I have seen some posts on YouTube of how the Russian Chunner's spar against other styles and each other.  Then in the bottom, there are too many people saying "That's not Wing Chun!  His stance is all incorrect!" or some other nit picking critique among the comments.

Again, I am not saying WC is not effective nor a bad style, so please do not take it that way.


----------



## dungeonworks

Poor Uke said:


> Am in total agreement with dungeonworks here.
> 
> Even Chi Sau is a simulated fight, all be it very controlled and restrained.
> 
> The fact remains that the best way of validating effectiveness, besides actually being in a fight, is by sparring....simple. I honestly dont get why this is even up for debate????



With so many attributes in Wing Chun, I wonder the same thing.


----------



## jarrod

exactly, WC isn't designed for sport...so maybe design a sport for WC?

jf


----------



## bully

I wouldn't read much into the comments on the bottom of Youtube vids. We don't even know who they are.

I could comment and say "Oh that stance is wrong etc"

And what the hell do I know? What is my background and experience.

Your VT might be different to my WC. I watched a guy do a dummy set, it looked a bit different to some I have seen but he seemed to have skills.

The comments were slating him for pivoting on his heels. He still moved around the dummy very well (imo) and seemed to have all the basic shapes.

As for me validating my WC, I used it once along time ago, it worked.

Alot of guys have also used it to good effect. WSL used it plenty of times.

It may not always work though, sparring with other styles will show holes in my WC. I have not done that for a while, due to physical limitations on my part.

When I hit a bag/pad my punches are strong. If I hit someone in the face with them they will do damage. Same with palm strikes. Bil Gee? I have never hit anyone in the eyes with one but I am sure it will do damage.

Kick wise, the same. My low (thats all I can do) heel kicks will cause damage.

Whether I can use these weapons under pressure in the real world is another question these days. I would certainly try if I was in fear for my life or my families. Practicing multi opponents/hard pressure tests will help but are not the be all and end all.

Back in the day when I trained hard in my 20's, we sparred a lot, hit each other a lot and got split lips and black eyes. No way would I do that now but It did help with conditioning of learning to take a shot and not freeze. We also used to back hand each other on the chest and top of legs until we couldn't take much more. Again this toughens you up.

I hope some of my ramblings give an idea of how I think you can prove WC effectiveness.

The only true way is to go and have some street fights, in this day and age that would be pretty stupid. You could go in the cage and do a form of WC and it would help to test you. You would modify it though to conform to the rules.

Lets put it this way, the first shot I would try to get in on the street is a heel kick to the knee cap and take the guy down as fast as possible. That wouldnt be welcome in a sport enviroment. I practice my heel kicks on bags and on my dummy. I do a controlled version in "play sparring". To validate it I would need to go and actually perform this kick on a real person and pop their knee. However the fact that the knee can only withstand a certain amount of pressure and the fact that I can perform a pretty hard kick leads me to believe that a knee would pop IF I ever got the shot in in the real world.

Lets hope I dont, but the way the world is going the odds are going the wrong way that I will.

With regards to the more tech stuff, someone with far more skill than me can comment I hope.

Good debate and very hard to answer. Cheers.


----------



## chisauking

Poor guy, your going off on a tangent now.

All scientist should know that the results of any test is only meaningful when the experiment is conducted under 'truthful' conditions.

What are the truthful elements found in the ring that relates to actual combat?


----------



## chisauking

dungeonworks sez: Where I am truly seeking an answer is how does Wing Chun validate its' effectiveness?

If you are so interested in how wing chun validates its effectiveness, let me ask you 'how does any other method validate its effectiveness?'


----------



## Poor Uke

chisauking said:


> dungeonworks sez: Where I am truly seeking an answer is how does Wing Chun validate its' effectiveness?
> 
> If you are so interested in how wing chun validates its effectiveness, let me ask you 'how does any other method validate its effectiveness?'


 
Bizzare have you never done any other martial art?

Simple answer sparring-randori. Most martial arts incorporate fighting against fully resisting partners.



			
				jarrod said:
			
		

> exactly, WC isn't designed for sport...so maybe design a sport for WC?


 
I dont know why the majority of WC players get the idea that sparring is just for sport from?

It is a tried and tested (over the many millenia of MA training) method for prooving the effectivenes of your training.


----------



## Poor Uke

chisauking said:


> Poor guy, your going off on a tangent now.
> 
> All scientist should know that the results of any test is only meaningful when the experiment is conducted under 'truthful' conditions.
> 
> What are the truthful elements found in the ring that relates to actual combat?


 
Again isnt this obvious?

As has been mentioned by a number of posters, there are elements of aliveness, pressure and unpredictability. These things are all present in actual fights and so prepare you in some way for that environment. How can you say that these things arent useful???


----------



## KamonGuy2

Sparring is essential in any form of combat system. What I think people get confused over is the definition of sparring

I think it is extremely important to work against pressure. Sparring brings up the idea of two guys with gloves on tapping at each other and this is wrong. Sparring could be two guys rolling around on the floor in a clinch, or two guys standing an inch away from each other finding gaps in defences, or it could be gloving up with 14 oz gloves and going at it

In Kamon we have started working heavily on sparring with heavy gloves and there is nothing better to improve your overall game. Once you get comfortable taking a few hits and dealing with aggression, then you can start utilizing your wing chun in a more effective manner. I didnt realise how effective a fut sao was from distance until Master Chan showed us last week. He almost took an instructors head off with the power

Sparring is not the be all and end all, but like chi sao, or lok sao, or feeding techniques it is another way of helping your art grow


----------



## dungeonworks

chisauking said:


> dungeonworks sez: Where I am truly seeking an answer is how does Wing Chun validate its' effectiveness?
> 
> If you are so interested in how wing chun validates its effectiveness, let me ask you 'how does any other method validate its effectiveness?'



a QUESTION for an ANSWER??  :disgust:  

As I have already stated, by sparring and sport competition such as kickboxing, MMA, grappling tournaments depending on the style.:boxing:  I will say again because you seem to miss a lot of what I write, sport and sparring are not the the be all end all, but aside actual fighting, it is the best testing ground for techniques.  You claim that it is not and I have asked you several times, what does Wing Chun do that allows a practitioner to KNOW what works and what doesn't.


.....aaaah forget it ChiSauKing.   Just never mind.  This is about the 4th time I have reworded and put my question into a posting and you still do not get the jist of it.  :deadhorse


----------



## dungeonworks

bully said:


> I wouldn't read much into the comments on the bottom of Youtube vids. We don't even know who they are.
> 
> I could comment and say "Oh that stance is wrong etc"
> 
> And what the hell do I know? What is my background and experience.
> 
> Your VT might be different to my WC. I watched a guy do a dummy set, it looked a bit different to some I have seen but he seemed to have skills.
> 
> The comments were slating him for pivoting on his heels. He still moved around the dummy very well (imo) and seemed to have all the basic shapes.
> 
> As for me validating my WC, I used it once along time ago, it worked.
> 
> Alot of guys have also used it to good effect. WSL used it plenty of times.
> 
> It may not always work though, sparring with other styles will show holes in my WC. I have not done that for a while, due to physical limitations on my part.
> 
> When I hit a bag/pad my punches are strong. If I hit someone in the face with them they will do damage. Same with palm strikes. Bil Gee? I have never hit anyone in the eyes with one but I am sure it will do damage.
> 
> Kick wise, the same. My low (thats all I can do) heel kicks will cause damage.
> 
> Whether I can use these weapons under pressure in the real world is another question these days. I would certainly try if I was in fear for my life or my families. Practicing multi opponents/hard pressure tests will help but are not the be all and end all.
> 
> Back in the day when I trained hard in my 20's, we sparred a lot, hit each other a lot and got split lips and black eyes. No way would I do that now but It did help with conditioning of learning to take a shot and not freeze. We also used to back hand each other on the chest and top of legs until we couldn't take much more. Again this toughens you up.
> 
> I hope some of my ramblings give an idea of how I think you can prove WC effectiveness.
> 
> The only true way is to go and have some street fights, in this day and age that would be pretty stupid. You could go in the cage and do a form of WC and it would help to test you. You would modify it though to conform to the rules.
> 
> Lets put it this way, the first shot I would try to get in on the street is a heel kick to the knee cap and take the guy down as fast as possible. That wouldnt be welcome in a sport enviroment. I practice my heel kicks on bags and on my dummy. I do a controlled version in "play sparring". To validate it I would need to go and actually perform this kick on a real person and pop their knee. However the fact that the knee can only withstand a certain amount of pressure and the fact that I can perform a pretty hard kick leads me to believe that a knee would pop IF I ever got the shot in in the real world.
> 
> Lets hope I dont, but the way the world is going the odds are going the wrong way that I will.
> 
> With regards to the more tech stuff, someone with far more skill than me can comment I hope.
> 
> Good debate and very hard to answer. Cheers.



Thanks Bully.  I can relate to some of the stuff you did when younger  ! LOL

With regards to the knee kicks....sure they "can" cause fight ending damage, but it is a lower percentage that it wll than will not.  They are not always as dramatic in results as most people believe.  Watch Brandon Vera fight in the UFC.  He has done the WC heel kick (Muay Thai equivalent anyways) and it did nothing on three occasions.  Anderson Silva did the same thing to Thales Leites for three whole rounds to no avail.

This is what I am meaning by validation in a sporting environment.


----------



## dungeonworks

Poor Uke said:


> Again isnt this obvious?
> 
> As has been mentioned by a number of posters, there are elements of aliveness, pressure and unpredictability. These things are all present in actual fights and so prepare you in some way for that environment. How can you say that these things arent useful???




I feel your pain brother!   there is only so many ways to re write one thing.


----------



## Poor Uke

LOL bonkers or what?


----------



## dungeonworks

Poor Uke said:


> LOL bonkers or what?



DEFFINITELY not "...or what?"!!!


----------



## profesormental

Greetings.

I have pressing issues concerning the government here trying to regulate martial arts, thus my replies have been left in generalities.

To answer your questions in a satisfactory way, Mr. Poor Uke, would require a book length monograph which I have scheduled for the future, hopefully near. So forgive the general statements. If you ask for specific aspects, then I can answer as best I can with the references and experiments to back it up. Fair?

Also, I think I've been misunderstood on the sparring issue.

I love simulations and sparring. They are important learning tools. I've never argued that. I love training San Da and MMA. Yet my quoted statement said that it is not the be all end all of validation. You can use it as a PERSONAL gauge of skill compared to another SPECIFIC individual.

i.e. if the opponent you have is really good, no matter who fight him, the other guys *** will be kicked, so everyone else would suck.

That is not a good validation procedure. You should know. 

Simulations and Practice Combat Scenario Training, on the other hand, better prepare you for specific instances of self defense, law enforcement and even military type situations.

The thing is that in sport type situations, it is not the same as self defense type situations, because both opponents are in a sportive mindset of offense and defense...

not a raging head ripping mental state of violence.

More later. 

Not to get off topic just to mention... I will post in general martial arts or wherever appropriate on this regulation thing... I need the help of all members... in short, they want to obligate us to pay for licensing (in our school, $50 per instructor plus $150 for the school, every year or 2), employ random drug testing (even though they are not our employers), only approved styles by the Department of Recreation and Sports can be licensed, etc. Crazy stuff...

Back on topic.

I kick *** on a regular basis, my *** doesn't get kicked on a regular basis...

STAMP OF VALIDATION. APPROVED.
P O W ! ! !   ( x_*)O--('.' Q)

\m/ (>.<) \m/ ALRIGHT!!!



Sincerely,

Juan Mercado-Robles


----------



## chisauking

I feel as despaired as you, dungeonworks.

Id spent time trying to explain to you & poor guy  supposedly a scientist  that one cant validate the effectiveness of a method conceived purely for combat in a sports arena. Its like trying to validate the fire resistance of a material without using fire! Or, testing the capabilities of an airplane underwater. Off course, just like wing chun in a sporting context, it wouldnt do well simply because it wasnt conceived for that particular purpose.

I also illustrated clearly that the results & achievements of any \ all sporting events is specific to its own rules & competition environment. Winning a kickboxing or MMA competition simply means that  you are good under those particular rules \ environment. It only validates the effectiveness of the style\methods being used within those rules & parameters. Change the rules \ environment slightly, and you would get different results. This is very easy to prove. Put the best MMA people in western boxing, and they would have trouble with any professional boxers. Put the best wrestlers in Thai boxing, and they would be beaten easily under Thai boxing rules \ conditions. Put the fastest F1 cars under conditions which doesnt allow it to exhibit its strong points, and it will lose. Its the rules & parameters of the sport which dictates the best approach \ method to be used. Unfortunately, wing chun doesnt do well under any rules. But of course, some people who buy into the pepsi & popcorn mentality and TV shows cant or refuse to accept that.

If only people bothered to conduct their own researches thoroughly, they would comprehend the profile of the wing chun combat method a little

In wing chun fighting, the objective is to inflict as much injury to your enemy as quick & as efficiently as possible, doing whatever it takes with no rules. The intent is to damage, destroy, and kill.
We attack the weakest points with our strongest weapons, not relenting & without mercy until our opponent is defeated.
Wing chun has many fighting strategies. For example, we use the surrounding environment to our advantage. If a big window were available, I would try to divert \ deflect my enemy into the glass, hoping the broken glass will slit his throat as he falls through the glass. Or, I would try to ram my opponents face into the corner of a brick wall.
Be totally ruthless once engaged in combat, being totally calm, cool and collective.
We sacrifice absolute power for speed & accuracy in our attacks.
We use the easiest methods to apply. For example, clawing out a large chunk of your face with our nails; poking into your eyes; biting; kneeing into your testicles. These tactics are so easy to apply, even a female can do it easy. Off course, people say your opponent can apply those techniques as well. Yes, they can, but unlike trying to punch someone out, or grapple them to the ground, these tactics can be applied by anybody, so its a question of who can apply it first.
Any one with a little intelligence can see from some of the key points above why wing chun can never be applied in any sporting events. We can never use what makes this method of fighting so effective. Even if all those techniques were allowed, no moral person with conscious would enter a sporting event with such intent & mindset.

Its also apparent that you have duel standards or\and bias towards kickboxing, MMA, and related events. You say other styles effectiveness can be validated by kickboxing, MMA, sparring.but you cant accept the same regarding wing chun.

Again, if you only took the effort into researching wing chun a little, you would know that wing chun adopts a large sparring syllabus into their training, starting with chisau and then progressing into gwohsau. Some people will say chisau & gwohsau isnt sparring, but thats down to their own training limitations. When I use to train intensively, my trousers use to stick to my shins from the congealed blood sustained from kick sparring. Ive lost a lot of blood from bleeding noses, mouth, etc. Ive even sent opponents to hospital from gwoh-sau practice  not intentional, but accidents happen when people spar intensively. When I was with my first teacher, Kan wah chit, people were taken away on a stretcher, from friendly demos! Wing chun gwoh-sau isnt fighting, but the intensity is what you & your partner is capable of, and its just as intensive, if not more so, than any other form of sparring methods adopted by other styles.

I will conclude by saying that in this day and age of the gun, its rather pointless to focus too much on the effectiveness  or disparity  of different styles. Just practice what you believe in, but more importantly, what you enjoy doing the most. In truth, people who invest so much time & money in obsolete fighting methods are dinosaurs anyway, who still dont realise that there are far easier & quicker ways of doing things. I dont know about the US, but here in the UK, any streetwise kid with money can arm themselves with weapons. Only a few weeks ago in my city, gang members were caught with M10s  submachine guns that would pump metal into your sorry *** regardless of whether you practiced kickboxing or wing chun. Even if we discount firearms, picking up a iron bar would more than dissuade any K1 champion from fighting with us. Further more, most fights nowadays dont start on a 1-to-1 basis, its usually multiple thugs attacking 1. So, how does your sports derived style deal with that?

For my part, I love wing chun because I dont see it purely as combat; I enjoy it because I see it as human chess. The sheer enjoyment from competing with my fellow martial arts brothers on a skill level, and to push my own personal limits to new boundaries, is the real reason for my perseverance & determination. Using it for bashing people or competing in a sporting event is the last thing on my mind.

In the meantime, perhaps you & the scientist could verify whether wing chun is effective or not in actual combat and not in the ring. Go and look for the wing chunners that has a reputation for fighting and threaten them & their families (you have to do this because they may not take you seriously otherwise and therefore have no intent on fighting you). Take your handycam to record the proof. Of course, if wing chun was as ineffective as all those ring events prove, those chunners would never be able to pull off their bs too deadly bilgee to the eyes techniques, or the silly stomp kick to the knee nonsense, as no-one has been able to execute them in the ring. Youd be able to post the proof on ********do, and expose wing chun for the fraud that its. 

All in the name of scientific research, and the ONLY way to validate a fighting methods effectiveness.

I will exit this thread now, as I feel there's nothing further to add, and hope people don't take what I'd said as an insult. My point was, and still is, that you can't validate a method's effectiveness in anything other than what that method was conceived for.


----------



## KamonGuy2

Exactly. I bash my head against the wal on other forums where they say that because wing chun does not appear in the cage it is rubbish. I have fought in the cage. In bare knuckle tournaments. In gloved up boxing matches. I will testify now that whilst it is nice understanding how pressure works, those environments are not realistic in any fashion. 

The classic example was the finale of UFC heavyweights where one of the fighters was disqualified because he used the tip of his elbow in a downward motion in the ground and pound position. It was a banned technique. The opponent was smashed to smithereens. Yet the rules of the cage didnt allow it. Therefore, cage and ringwork are limited by these kind of rules

Being in a street scenario as compared to a ring scenario is completely different. In a ring, the adrenaline still pumps but you are confined to certain techniques

Sparring with heavy gloves is a great training technique because it gets you moving, gets you used to taking impacts and your opponent can really go for you. Yet, it is still only as useful as simulated environments or chi sao. 

The true effectiveness comes from wing chun's ability comes from its efficient techniques, its close quarter environment, its ability to use minimal energy and its power/speed

Most arts do not work these, and certainly you will not find an art that works all of these areas


----------



## Poor Uke

Kamon Guy said:


> The true effectiveness comes from wing chun's ability comes from its efficient techniques, its close quarter environment, its ability to use minimal energy and its power/speed
> 
> Most arts do not work these, and *certainly you will not find an art that works all of these areas*


 
Now now thats just plain wrong!

Judo, JJ, Sambo and Arnis all train close quarter using minimal energy concepts and using speed and power.


----------



## dosk3n

I can see this thread going on and on and on. There are too many opinions on this which is not really a bad thing.

My thoughts on the subject are the same as many others though.

Sparing, competition and fighting are all different things and WC validates itself through fighting. Either through bar fights, street brawls or any other non orginised fight. These fights can and most likely have happened with people of other martial art back grounds which validates the art. 

But to go deeper into my thoughs on the subjects of validating WC or any other MA, I dont think there is one art better than another and each art has pro's and con's and in the end it is the individuals skill in using that art that is validated not the art itself.


----------



## seasoned

dosk3n said:


> I can see this thread going on and on and on. There are too many opinions on this which is not really a bad thing.
> 
> My thoughts on the subject are the same as many others though.
> 
> Sparing, competition and fighting are all different things and WC validates itself through fighting. Either through bar fights, street brawls or any other non orginised fight. These fights can and most likely have happened with people of other martial art back grounds which validates the art.
> 
> But to go deeper into my thoughs on the subjects of validating WC or any other MA, I dont think there is one art better than another and each art has pro's and con's and *in the end it is the individuals skill in using that art that is validated not the art itself.[/*quote]
> This is a very good point, and my sentiments also. In the end, even a good street fighter, could be formative. Know your art well and train from the heart would be my only criteria.


----------



## Poor Uke

dosk3n said:


> Sparing, competition and fighting are all different things and WC validates itself through fighting. Either through bar fights, street brawls or any other non orginised fight. These fights can and most likely have happened with people of other martial art back grounds which validates the art.
> 
> But to go deeper into my thoughs on the subjects of validating WC or any other MA, I dont think there is one art better than another and each art has pro's and con's and in the end it is the individuals skill in using that art that is validated not the art itself.


 
I agree. Ultimatley only a real fight is going to proove anything. The point was more along the lines of how do you know if your training works before you get into a fight.

Do you see where I'm comming from?


----------



## dungeonworks

Poor Uke said:


> I agree. Ultimatley only a real fight is going to proove anything. The point was more along the lines of how do you know if your training works before you get into a fight.
> 
> Do you see where I'm comming from?




I CERTAINLY DO!!! :duh:  LOL


----------



## dungeonworks

Kamon Guy said:


> Exactly. I bash my head against the wal on other forums where they say that because wing chun does not appear in the cage it is rubbish. I have fought in the cage. In bare knuckle tournaments. In gloved up boxing matches. I will testify now that whilst it is nice understanding how pressure works, those environments are not realistic in any fashion.
> 
> The classic example was the finale of UFC heavyweights where one of the fighters was disqualified because he used the tip of his elbow in a downward motion in the ground and pound position. It was a banned technique. The opponent was smashed to smithereens. Yet the rules of the cage didnt allow it. Therefore, cage and ringwork are limited by these kind of rules
> 
> Being in a street scenario as compared to a ring scenario is completely different. In a ring, the adrenaline still pumps but you are confined to certain techniques
> 
> Sparring with heavy gloves is a great training technique because it gets you moving, gets you used to taking impacts and your opponent can really go for you. Yet, it is still only as useful as simulated environments or chi sao.
> 
> The true effectiveness comes from wing chun's ability comes from its efficient techniques, its close quarter environment, its ability to use minimal energy and its power/speed
> 
> Most arts do not work these, and certainly you will not find an art that works all of these areas




You are an exception Kamon because you cross train in several styles!  

As I mentioned a hundred times, sparring/MMA is the closest thing that we have to an actual fight....at least relative to the fights I have experienced throughout my life.  In Koei-Kan-, we full contact sparred against multiple attackers (BALLS INCLUDED!) as well as one on one.  It will be covered in JKD from time to time as well.  I even said sparring alone or MMA alone is not the be all/end all.  The topic of this thread was on Wing Chun's effectiveness.  I posed the question of how Wing Chun validates what works and what does not work since by and large they do not spar in most kwoons.  Karate has sparring, JJ/Judo has Randori (although Judo's birth was sport oriented from the start), BJJ has rolling, Muay Thai and Kickboxing have matches and sparring, JKD has LOTS of sparring (...ironically this is where I seen my Wing Chun come out!  With heavy gloves during boxing as I mentioned before!), TKD has their sparring...ect.  
  Again, I never said sparring or MMA was a REAL FIGHT as I have said it is the closest thing we have for generally safe practice!!!  What part of that are people here having a hard time reading when I type that!!!   Since most Chun schools do not spar for the excuse that it is "too deadly" or "not designed for sport" I became curious as to how WC came to know what worked and what did not.  NONE (aside Judo) was designed speciffically for sporting purposes.  Even the root of Muay Thai (Muay Boran is it?) was designed for self defense and out of the ring combat.  You can readily Google or Youtube and instantly find footage of all of those styles in action.  Wing Chunner's say it is too deadly to do so and not what it was meant for and takes too much from the art.....ect.  Shoot, look at knee kicks, knee/elbow strikes alone.  They are not as dramatically resulting as people think most of the time.  Watch any MMA fight for proof that elbows do more cutting than knocking out, and kicks to the knees rarely stop a takedown and even rarer to stop a fight.


So, what is it that I am asking???  *WHAT*has been taken from WC that is *NOT* taken from the other arts that would put WC at such a disadvantage?  Eye pokes?  All the other styles have them too and cannot use them...same with groin shots, small joint manipulations, shots to the back of the head, elbow from 12 oclock to 6 oclock (roof to floor) positions (a widely argued and disputed rule at that and the result of an NSAC commissioner that saw a power breaking competition during regulation meetings for MMA in Nevada, USA).  Since real fighting will eventually land you in jail, injure/kill/maim you at some point, how does Wing Chun practice for real time effectiveness at combat speed?  How does the Chunner know his techniques are gonna save his or her hyde before they fight?  Is it just faith?


Again, I ask this with all due respect.  No insults or hurt feelings intended....just good dialog.


----------



## dungeonworks

*Fight in a Hanoi Park By Antonio Graceffo  *

*A good article on the topic.
*


----------



## leejunfan

This article might shed a little light on effectiveness:

http://www.twc-kungfu.com/articles/ikf_june_1997/1.html


----------



## dosk3n

I do know what you mean and I think a lot of people say that they cant to the "dangerous techniques" just as a defence to there style when people question it. I guess this is there faith in the style. Im not being disrespectful to other chunners and I do practice WC as my main art but I am open minded to all styles.

You asked "how does Wing Chun practice for real time effectiveness at combat speed?"

The simple answer is through Chi Sau. Which to contradict myself to what I said in the post above, is sparing to an extent. If you cant do Chi Sau you wont understand it fully or at least it is hard for me to explain it fully and I would sugest trying it if you can but it is fighting at combat speed. It does look as if we are just roling arms and performing pre designed routines but correct chi sau is random. If you dont perform at combat speed you get hit. The only reason our arm are always touching is to train sensitivity but apart from that it is a real fight.

That is the best I can do to answering your question as I am still new myself and even though I question my Sifu as often as I can I am still learning and have only been for about 8 months.


----------



## dungeonworks

leejunfan said:


> This article might shed a little light on effectiveness:
> 
> http://www.twc-kungfu.com/articles/ikf_june_1997/1.html




Good read! Thanks!


----------



## Poor Uke

dosk3n said:


> The simple answer is through Chi Sau. Which to contradict myself to what I said in the post above, is sparing to an extent. If you cant do Chi Sau you wont understand it fully or at least it is hard for me to explain it fully and I would sugest trying it if you can but it is fighting at combat speed. It does look as if we are just roling arms and performing pre designed routines but correct chi sau is random. If you dont perform at combat speed you get hit. The only reason our arm are always touching is to train sensitivity but apart from that it is a real fight.



Hi dosk I trainined WC for 7 years so I get Chi Sau and it isnt the same as sparring, although it can be played pretty hard with Chi Jurk thrown into the mix. The we are getting closure to sparring agreed.


----------



## dosk3n

Poor Uke said:


> Hi dosk I trainined WC for 7 years so I get Chi Sau and it isnt the same as sparring, although it can be played pretty hard with Chi Jurk thrown into the mix. The we are getting closure to sparring agreed.


 

Hi,

 yeah I agree it isnt the same as sparing fully, that is why I said to an extent but I still think the mental aspect of sparing is there. The same ability of suprise and having to use realistic stratagy is still there.

do you agree?


----------



## Poor Uke

Not fully. Personally I think sparring ups the ante. but yes Chi Sau is a good game that teaches good postion good timing etc... but its not as full on as sparring.


----------



## mook jong man

That would really depend on who you are doing the chi sau sparring with .
One of my instructors used to be a bouncer in New Zealand , one of his favourite things to do in chi sau sparring was if a guy had long hair he would pierce through with his Tan Sau and drag them straight down to the floor by the hair.

 He also used to palm strike me so hard in the ribs that I would go home and have a shower and I would have his actual hand prints still on my rib cage .

 Also if you had an earring you would take that out as well before that got slammed into the side of your head. I remember actually getting through him once and cracking him straight in the cheek bone with a decent shot and all he did was smile and say good hit.

I was absolutely intimidated by him , but he made me what I am today.
He was very hard and brutal man inside the school but outside the school he was a very nice man who would give you the shirt off his back and treat you as an equal.


----------



## KamonGuy2

Poor Uke said:


> Now now thats just plain wrong!
> 
> Judo, JJ, Sambo and Arnis all train close quarter using minimal energy concepts and using speed and power.


 
Nope, they train CLINCHWORK which is not classed or defined as closequarter. Closequarter martial arts refer to striking arts (grappling is obviously grappling and is CLOSER than close quarter)

Arnis does not really train close quarter and to be honest is pretty poor as a striking style - before you kick off, I have trained escrima (ARNIS and KALI) for several years under various teachers

Judo is more of a concept art - I use it solely for increasing balance and stance work. To actually defeat an opponent I would never use that style. It definately does not use minimal energy and efficient movements. 

Poor Uke - you have a silly habit of nitpicking people's posts on here for irrelevant things. This is frequently leading to off topic conversations and if it continues I will simply block your messages


----------



## KamonGuy2

dungeonworks said:


> You are an exception Kamon because you cross train in several styles!
> 
> As I mentioned a hundred times, sparring/MMA is the closest thing that we have to an actual fight....at least relative to the fights I have experienced throughout my life. In Koei-Kan-, we full contact sparred against multiple attackers (BALLS INCLUDED!) as well as one on one. It will be covered in JKD from time to time as well. I even said sparring alone or MMA alone is not the be all/end all. The topic of this thread was on Wing Chun's effectiveness. I posed the question of how Wing Chun validates what works and what does not work since by and large they do not spar in most kwoons. Karate has sparring, JJ/Judo has Randori (although Judo's birth was sport oriented from the start), BJJ has rolling, Muay Thai and Kickboxing have matches and sparring, JKD has LOTS of sparring (...ironically this is where I seen my Wing Chun come out! With heavy gloves during boxing as I mentioned before!), TKD has their sparring...ect.
> Again, I never said sparring or MMA was a REAL FIGHT as I have said it is the closest thing we have for generally safe practice!!! What part of that are people here having a hard time reading when I type that!!!  Since most Chun schools do not spar for the excuse that it is "too deadly" or "not designed for sport" I became curious as to how WC came to know what worked and what did not. NONE (aside Judo) was designed speciffically for sporting purposes. Even the root of Muay Thai (Muay Boran is it?) was designed for self defense and out of the ring combat. You can readily Google or Youtube and instantly find footage of all of those styles in action. Wing Chunner's say it is too deadly to do so and not what it was meant for and takes too much from the art.....ect. Shoot, look at knee kicks, knee/elbow strikes alone. They are not as dramatically resulting as people think most of the time. Watch any MMA fight for proof that elbows do more cutting than knocking out, and kicks to the knees rarely stop a takedown and even rarer to stop a fight.
> 
> 
> So, what is it that I am asking??? *WHAT*has been taken from WC that is *NOT* taken from the other arts that would put WC at such a disadvantage? Eye pokes? All the other styles have them too and cannot use them...same with groin shots, small joint manipulations, shots to the back of the head, elbow from 12 oclock to 6 oclock (roof to floor) positions (a widely argued and disputed rule at that and the result of an NSAC commissioner that saw a power breaking competition during regulation meetings for MMA in Nevada, USA). Since real fighting will eventually land you in jail, injure/kill/maim you at some point, how does Wing Chun practice for real time effectiveness at combat speed? How does the Chunner know his techniques are gonna save his or her hyde before they fight? Is it just faith?
> 
> 
> Again, I ask this with all due respect. No insults or hurt feelings intended....just good dialog.


 Dungeonworks, as always you bring up great points. 

What people forget is that you will never truly be able to fully prove that your style works. In a fight you might be up against a weak opponent. If you beat him with your martial art, does that make your art good?

If you fight a talented opponent but he slips over and you capitalise, does that make your art good? 

I went on another art with video footage of me sparring to prove that wing chun had validity. They merely complained that I was goijng up against other chunners. So I re-did the videos with guys from other styles. They complained that these guys werent very good. So I refilmed with black belt karate guys. They said that it was due to my size that I won. You will never be able to win. There has to be a little bit of faith and common sense when you train an art. These are why foruims are good - because you can exchange ideas and concepts. Go to other schools and have a look around. Train with guys from other arts and increase your experience - that is all you can do

Of course, there is the infanous story of how Yip Man as a young man thought he was a good fighter until he met a wing chunner and found him to be better than he was. This turned out to be Leung Bik. There is always someone better out there and someone who knows more martial arts than you. Does that make what you are learning rubbish? Of course not

But I do feel very strongly that you must train in sparring. Get some gloves on and play around. It will condition you as well as get you moving better. You dont have to box - you can spar under any rules that you want, but it is good to get that kind of training in


----------



## jarrod

Kamon Guy said:


> Nope, they train CLINCHWORK which is not classed or defined as closequarter. Closequarter martial arts refer to striking arts (grappling is obviously grappling and is CLOSER than close quarter)
> 
> Arnis does not really train close quarter and to be honest is pretty poor as a striking style - before you kick off, I have trained escrima (ARNIS and KALI) for several years under various teachers
> 
> Judo is more of a concept art - I use it solely for increasing balance and stance work. To actually defeat an opponent I would never use that style. It definately does not use minimal energy and efficient movements.
> 
> Poor Uke - you have a silly habit of nitpicking people's posts on here for irrelevant things. This is frequently leading to off topic conversations and if it continues I will simply block your messages



how is clinching not close quarter?  different systems use different definitions.  in most military contexts, all hand-to-hand is called "close", relative to firing range at least.  it's all semantics anyway; i don't think most styles have a fixed measure on what constitutes close.  

i'm not sure what you mean about judo being a concept art.  anything with a list of official techniques (not that i'm saying that's a good or essential thing) is not too heavily concept based IMO.  judo is actually entirely based on efficient movement.  kano discussed this frequently.  it does take a long, long time to become proficient at throwing, though.  

not nitpicking at you, but judo is pretty commonly regarded as an efficiency-oriented style, & close is all relative.  

jf


----------



## mook jong man

I would say in the context of striking in Wing Chun with fists , close would probably be about two fists distance from my chest to their chest .

I believe that properly trained you should still be able to generate sufficient power from that distance , comes in very handy in repelling clinching types of attacks .

Any closer than that and you would probably have to use something else.


----------



## wkmark

Kamon Guy said:


> Dungeonworks, as always you bring up great points.
> 
> What people forget is that you will never truly be able to fully prove that your style works. In a fight you might be up against a weak opponent. If you beat him with your martial art, does that make your art good?
> 
> If you fight a talented opponent but he slips over and you capitalise, does that make your art good?
> 
> I went on another art with video footage of me sparring to prove that wing chun had validity. They merely complained that I was goijng up against other chunners. So I re-did the videos with guys from other styles. They complained that these guys werent very good. So I refilmed with black belt karate guys. They said that it was due to my size that I won. You will never be able to win. There has to be a little bit of faith and common sense when you train an art. These are why foruims are good - because you can exchange ideas and concepts. Go to other schools and have a look around. Train with guys from other arts and increase your experience - that is all you can do
> 
> Of course, there is the infanous story of how Yip Man as a young man thought he was a good fighter until he met a wing chunner and found him to be better than he was. This turned out to be Leung Bik. There is always someone better out there and someone who knows more martial arts than you. Does that make what you are learning rubbish? Of course not
> 
> But I do feel very strongly that you must train in sparring. Get some gloves on and play around. It will condition you as well as get you moving better. You dont have to box - you can spar under any rules that you want, but it is good to get that kind of training in



That's why it's so important to test out the skills yourself.  When I help teach the newer students certain moves and concepts, I always ask them to try it out.  Don't just listen to me but do it and see and let me know their feedbacks, test it out with different people.  

Also we have various Martial Arts exchanges locally with other styles to test out what works for us and what doesn't.  The important thing is to constantly be trying things out, because in the end what works for me may not work for you.


----------



## KamonGuy2

jarrod said:


> how is clinching not close quarter? different systems use different definitions. in most military contexts, all hand-to-hand is called "close", relative to firing range at least. it's all semantics anyway; i don't think most styles have a fixed measure on what constitutes close.
> 
> i'm not sure what you mean about judo being a concept art. anything with a list of official techniques (not that i'm saying that's a good or essential thing) is not too heavily concept based IMO. judo is actually entirely based on efficient movement. kano discussed this frequently. it does take a long, long time to become proficient at throwing, though.
> 
> not nitpicking at you, but judo is pretty commonly regarded as an efficiency-oriented style, & close is all relative.
> 
> jf


 
Clinching is not close quarter because you are conected to the guy through a grip or wrap. Therefore it is beyond close quarter

'Close quarter' refers to a striking range. 

Judo is not based on efficient movement. There are some techniques within Judo that are very efficient, but a lot involve a drawn out process of gaining position on your opponent (if you are calling a suplex an efficient technique then I give up). Wing Chun on the other hand is direct and to the point. Like I said, it doesnt make Judo a bad art - it is actually just as useful as any other art to learn


----------



## jarrod

Kamon Guy said:


> Clinching is not close quarter because you are conected to the guy through a grip or wrap. Therefore it is beyond close quarter
> 
> 'Close quarter' refers to a striking range.



do you have a source, or do i just take your word?  i've never heard of closer-than-close quarters combat.  i've always heard CQC as a general reference to hand to hand, usually including short range weapons. 




Kamon Guy said:


> Judo is not based on efficient movement. There are some techniques within Judo that are very efficient, but a lot involve a drawn out process of gaining position on your opponent (if you are calling a suplex an efficient technique then I give up). Wing Chun on the other hand is direct and to the point. Like I said, it doesnt make Judo a bad art - it is actually just as useful as any other art to learn



once again, it's all relative.  ura nage (suplex) requires more work than a straight punch, but it's a very efficient way to throw someone on their shoulders/back of their head.  i've used this on guys 100lbs bigger than me, & i'm not freakishly strong.  maybe i'm doing it wrong.  

judo is very efficient _for throwing_.  if you dislike throwing because it's less efficient than striking in your mind, i can certainly understand that, but it's incorrect to say that judo is inefficient.  

jf


----------



## leejunfan

Kamon Guy said:


> Dungeonworks, as always you bring up great points.
> 
> What people forget is that you will never truly be able to fully prove that your style works. In a fight you might be up against a weak opponent. If you beat him with your martial art, does that make your art good?
> 
> If you fight a talented opponent but he slips over and you capitalise, does that make your art good?
> 
> I went on another art with video footage of me sparring to prove that wing chun had validity. They merely complained that I was goijng up against other chunners. So I re-did the videos with guys from other styles. They complained that these guys werent very good. So I refilmed with black belt karate guys. They said that it was due to my size that I won. You will never be able to win. There has to be a little bit of faith and common sense when you train an art. These are why foruims are good - because you can exchange ideas and concepts. Go to other schools and have a look around. Train with guys from other arts and increase your experience - that is all you can do
> 
> Of course, there is the infanous story of how Yip Man as a young man thought he was a good fighter until he met a wing chunner and found him to be better than he was. This turned out to be Leung Bik. There is always someone better out there and someone who knows more martial arts than you. Does that make what you are learning rubbish? Of course not
> 
> But I do feel very strongly that you must train in sparring. Get some gloves on and play around. It will condition you as well as get you moving better. You dont have to box - you can spar under any rules that you want, but it is good to get that kind of training in


 
Amen brother!!


----------



## KamonGuy2

jarrod said:


> once again, it's all relative. ura nage (suplex) requires more work than a straight punch, but it's a very efficient way to throw someone on their shoulders/back of their head. i've used this on guys 100lbs bigger than me, & i'm not freakishly strong. maybe i'm doing it wrong.
> 
> judo is very efficient _for throwing_. if you dislike throwing because it's less efficient than striking in your mind, i can certainly understand that, but it's incorrect to say that judo is inefficient.
> 
> jf


The point is not what the most efficient way for throwing someone - with regards to throwing, judo is probably the top art for that. We were discussing the most efficient martial art, and the techniques in judo for defeating a guy are extremely inefficient as compared to say a punch to the jaw or a chop to the throat. The ura nage suplex or 'Rock Bottom' as its also known (lol) is a nice move but takes a lot of effort to pull off as compared to sweeping or tripping someone.


----------



## dungeonworks

How can we even compare efficiency between a total grappling art and primarily striking art striking art?  Of course the grappling is going to be more exhausting! LOL  It's like comparing a rear naked choke to a chain punch.....you can't compare them! LOL

This ain't even like comparing apples and oranges!  More like Avocado and lamb chops!


----------



## zepedawingchun

Poor Uke said:


> Again you should know better than this Prof. *Where are the scientific studies to proove that one styles mechanics are more effective than anothers*?


 
Does this count?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRu0UaZTbVI&feature=related


----------



## geezer

zepedawingchun said:


> Does this count?
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRu0UaZTbVI&feature=related



No, that's garbage science and _the info presented is incomplete._ That's why a lot of boxers and MMA guys think we are full of it. To hit with maximum power, you need to hit with the whole body and draw force all the way down through your stance to the ground. You and I know this, and how to do it with a WC punch, Zepeda, but a non chunner would look at that clip and say "BS!" Can you blame them?


----------



## zepedawingchun

geezer said:


> No, that's garbage science and _the info presented is incomplete._ That's why a lot of boxers and MMA guys think we are full of it. To hit with maximum power, you need to hit with the whole body and draw force all the way down through your stance to the ground. You and I know this, and how to do it with a WC punch, Zepeda, but a non chunner would look at that clip and say "BS!" Can you blame them?


 
What I meant to say was does this count as scientific studies.  Yes, how the punch is demonstrated is incomplete.


----------



## dungeonworks

zepedawingchun said:


> Does this count?
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRu0UaZTbVI&feature=related



In short, *HELL NO*!  Good visuals, but it was still Bill Duff, an ex bush league American Football player explaining the intricacies of a complex art! (Sorry, could not resist the Bill Duff pun!  )

...but I did like that show!


----------



## Poor Uke

Kamon Guy said:


> Nope, they train CLINCHWORK which is not classed or defined as closequarter. Closequarter martial arts refer to striking arts (grappling is obviously grappling and is CLOSER than close quarter)



Two words - Mauy Thai



Kamon Guy said:


> Arnis does not really train close quarter and to be honest is pretty poor as a striking style - before you kick off, I have trained escrima (ARNIS and KALI) for several years under various teachers



The style I am being taught encompasses closerange even as you define it. Also doesnt hitting people with sticks count as striking?



Kamon Guy said:


> Judo is more of a concept art - I use it solely for increasing balance and stance work. To actually defeat an opponent I would never use that style. It definately does not use minimal energy and efficient movements.



I agree with Jarrod



Kamon Guy said:


> Poor Uke - you have a silly habit of nitpicking people's posts on here for irrelevant things. This is frequently leading to off topic conversations and if it continues I will simply block your messages



Why because I disagree with you?

You're the one who brought it up and I disagree...that's known as disscussion and this is a disscussion board after all!


----------



## KamonGuy2

Poor Uke said:


> Two words - Mauy Thai!


Muay Thai mostly uses inefficient striking. If you re-read my posts we were talking about the efficiency of a strike, not the end result 



Poor Uke said:


> The style I am being taught encompasses closerange even as you define it. Also doesnt hitting people with sticks count as striking?!


 Nope. That is a weapon art. You might as well start arguing that a gun is the most eficient way of dropping someone. It's probably true but off topic. As an art. escrima is very inefficient



Poor Uke said:


> I agree with Jarrod


 You would



Poor Uke said:


> Why because I disagree with you?
> You're the one who brought it up and I disagree...that's known as disscussion and this is a disscussion board after all!


Discussion and nitpicking are two seperate things. You have not contributed anything of relevance here. Instead you have just made one line statements that are nothing but argumentative. 

I think from now on, Im just going to ignore your posts as you havent really understood the concept of productive discussion. Bye


----------



## Poor Uke

Kamon Guy said:


> I think from now on, Im just going to ignore your posts as you havent really understood the concept of productive discussion. Bye


 
I think this is for the best, especially if you believe that...



Kamon Guy said:


> Muay Thai mostly uses inefficient striking.


 
I mean c'mon....


----------



## dungeonworks

Kamon Guy said:


> Muay Thai mostly uses inefficient striking. If you re-read my posts we were talking about the efficiency of a strike, not the end result...




Hey Kamon, can you expand on this thought?  I disagree that MT is inefficient striking and am curious to your thoughts on this.  I found the MT kicks far easier to learn and generate massive amounts of improved power in my kicking abilities.  I also found them easier to do overall, therefore i would argue more efficient.  In Karate and TKD, there were soooo many little intricacies and mechanics of the kicks that it took a while for myself to get full utilization of them in a sparring or combat environment.  The Muay Thai kicks were very natural to my ranges of motion and I picked them up quite quickly (Maybe from previous Karate an TKD).


----------



## KamonGuy2

dungeonworks said:


> Hey Kamon, can you expand on this thought? I disagree that MT is inefficient striking and am curious to your thoughts on this. I found the MT kicks far easier to learn and generate massive amounts of improved power in my kicking abilities. I also found them easier to do overall, therefore i would argue more efficient. In Karate and TKD, there were soooo many little intricacies and mechanics of the kicks that it took a while for myself to get full utilization of them in a sparring or combat environment. The Muay Thai kicks were very natural to my ranges of motion and I picked them up quite quickly (Maybe from previous Karate an TKD).


 
I think people are getting confused here. Efficient striking is basically economic striking that works a majority of the time. In Muay Thai, unless you are partnered with someone very good, you have to use several kicks and strikes to damage your opponent. Whereas a stamping palm to the face (nose) will cause huge damage to your opponent and is easy to pull off. The same goes for wing chun fut saos and punches. 

Muay Thai is a good art, but not efficient. Most moves require the fighter to pull back before striking. Whilst there is a lot of power in Muay Thai strikes, they are fairly inefficient

The best example is watching 'The Contender - Asia', which had some very good fighters in it. Most of the fights resulted in no knockdown, and the fights were drawn out. Whereas a lot of the basic moves, traps, energy in wing chun would finish fights quickly

Let me put it another way - when I train wing chun, I am barely out of breath after sparring. After Muay Thai or karate, I am knackered. The reason is that Muay Thai asks for bigger movement.

Trust me when I say I am not saying uay Thai is rubbish - I woudlnt train it if it was no good. I am merely pointing out the difference in training and that wing chun uses the most efficient moves around


----------



## Poor Uke

OK I get that thanks Kamon


----------



## geezer

Kamon Guy said:


> Muay Thai is a good art, but not efficient. Most moves require the fighter to pull back before striking. Whilst there is a lot of power in Muay Thai strikes, they are fairly inefficient...
> 
> Let me put it another way - when I train wing chun, I am barely out of breath after sparring. After Muay Thai or karate, I am knackered...


 
I think people were confusing "efficient" with "effective". Both MT and WC are effecive in different ways. But WC is gets really "high milage"... like a small, well-designed and efficient car. Still, a lot of people would rather drive a Hummer and watch the Monster Truck competitions on TV.


----------



## dungeonworks

Hey Kamon, after working Thai elbows for about 2 hrs today in my JKD class, I see what you are saying.  DANG am I sore....but holy keeeerist could I wreck somebody's day with those things!  I have learned elbows in karate, but the Thai's take it to a new level!  Today was the most exposure to Thai elbows I have had....or ANY style elbows.  Snap elbows to be exact.

Whilst we are still on the topic of efficiency, what makes a technique efficient in your (anyone in this topic's) opinion?  Are we talking least amount of physical exertion or most damage for spent energy on a strike or technique?  To me, I can FEEL/generate so much more power using Thai style strikes....the harder I throw, the more power that transmits through my target, sometimes at the expense of speed, or getting the strike off.  Ironically, where I feel more efficiency and effectiveness of my Wing Chun (and panatukan) is on the ground striking.  Keep in mind, i am far from being a well versed chunner by any means, so I am seeing things from different eyes here.  In my stand up fighting, I am far more comfortable with my kickboxing than anything else because that is my root, along with Koei Kan Karate Do.  In otherwords, it could be a case of my lack of WC exposure compared to Karate or Kickboxing more than anything else and why the Thai boxing is coming more naturally to me.


----------



## Tensei85

I think really what makes an effective technique, is that in Wing Chun we strive for Simplicity, Efficiency, Directness which becomes the core of the System. It's what defines Wing Chun becoming the Principles of the System and that is how we relate all our syllabus to fall back to that umbrella so to say. That being said we develop the system to meet that quota with our Gate theory which maps out our Box so to say and our range of motion is established, we then have the Centerline theory(Though not only in Wing Chun, but is a trademark that we identify with), Straightline(Again not only in Wing Chun) this is how we utilize what's shortest & most direct (Shortest distance between two points...), Then we have the Deui Ying (Facing, we always utilize facing so as to limit our own range of motions so as not to depart from Efficient usage of the body), we have Long Bridge/Short Bridge which represent how we bridge with the opponent these all stay within the Gate Theory, of course Two parts work as one (We strive to use more than one tool at the same time so as to limit the drawing out of an encounter & to maximize our results in a minimum amount of time), We then have hand replacement which correlates to our reference points thus staying in line with Wing Chun mechanics as well as covering our gates.

The list can go on, but really what I'm trying to get at is this. Wing Chun was devised as a System that smaller individuals could use(Not saying big guys/girls can't...) with the least amount of energy to provide the maximum results so that being the case everything we do is to strive for that frame of reference, and its only natural that the Wing Chun syllabus would strive just as well for that.

Hopefully some of that jargon makes sense, haha if not apologies.


----------



## Domino

Efficiency and techniques?
I got slated for posting a gif, does exactly that.

Long bridge last night Tensei


----------



## turninghorse

mook jong man said:


> That would really depend on who you are doing the chi sau sparring with .
> One of my instructors used to be a bouncer in New Zealand , one of his favourite things to do in chi sau sparring was if a guy had long hair he would pierce through with his Tan Sau and drag them straight down to the floor by the hair.
> 
> He also used to palm strike me so hard in the ribs that I would go home and have a shower and I would have his actual hand prints still on my rib cage .
> 
> Also if you had an earring you would take that out as well before that got slammed into the side of your head. I remember actually getting through him once and cracking him straight in the cheek bone with a decent shot and all he did was smile and say good hit.
> 
> I was absolutely intimidated by him , but he made me what I am today.
> He was very hard and brutal man inside the school but outside the school he was a very nice man who would give you the shirt off his back and treat you as an equal.



My Sifu is like this as well. It is hard, but nothing worth learning comes without cost.


----------

