# Noticing the weaknesses in Wing Chun!



## Corporal Hicks (Feb 23, 2005)

I know that this art is extremely effective and I have only just started to pratice and so far only recognise one weakness in its 'style' that being it only really focuses on fighting one opponent at a time. I recently went on a website i.e. one that can not be named due to reasons the moderators told me and all they seemed to be doing was laying into this particular style, some with the signatures that WC destroys rational thought and is useless. I noticed that the majority of these users seemed to be doing ju jitsu, is there something I'm missing between Kung Fu pratictioners and Ju jitsu ones? They also seem to be pointing out alot of weaknesses between it can self defence, I dont understand, so far this seems to be one the most effective in SD and used by law enforcement and armed forces all over the world! Are these guys just simply laying into this art because of a feud I dont understand or is there something that they have a point with?

Regards

Hope the reference to a site doesnt annoy the Mod's

---
Nick


----------



## dmax999 (Feb 23, 2005)

Wing Chun is a bit different from all other martial arts, at least in my opinion.  This is the reason for the extremely different reputations it has.  I used to do it, and I could guarntee a win against over 80% of first degree black belts (Probably a more even) in any other style when I was one year into it with a yellow sash.  When practiced correctly, with a good teacher and an almost excessive focus on sparring correctly you will be nearly unbeatable against all but the best practical fighters out there.  As for multiple opponents, doesn't need it when you can drop most opponents in about 3 seconds, just go one at a time.

Now the problem with Wing Chun, as I found out reading web sites telling how bad it is.  Most practicioners do not put forth the effort into it.  Most people I've seen do it make a poor showing and would have never survived where I was.  Most don't do sparring or reflex drills and are slow and have weak moves.

It is said that a specific style is not better then others in MA, but it is the practioncioner.  This is an extreme degree in Wing Chun, and most that you will see are on the wrong side.  Do your Wing Chun correctly, work on practical sparring drills and put more effort into it then anyone else you see and you will never doubt you are in the wrong style.  You will know that those that bash your style know nothing about it.

If the site you are talking about is an MMA or BJJ site, to them anything other then MMA and BJJ is worthless.  Not even worth the time to discuss it with them.  Not a Wing Chun fued, its a any other MA vs them fued.  Nothing wrong with MMA or BJJ, they focus on sparring to the exclusion of everthing else and are very effective against almost anything because of it.


----------



## Gray Phoenix (Feb 23, 2005)

I dont know jack about Wing Chun, except some very basic history, so take what I have to say with a grain of salt.

 I have found weakness in my own art of Jujitsu. However I also realize I have not been learning for very long. My Professor teaches us the written course material, but also throws in some other things he knows that he doesnt write down. When asked about the weaknesses he will either show me that I am wrong or tell me that I have not learned enough to learn the answer.

This may be your situation, so I would advise you not to give up, but to learn all you can. Eventually the weakness may turn out to have a purpose.


----------



## KyleShort (Feb 23, 2005)

WC does offer a good deal of multiple opponent training...BUT...this is not to say that wing chun teaches how to attack more than one opponent at a time.  More to the point, you will divide and split your opponent's, placing one of them between you and the pack...you "fight" them one at a time while dealing with the mass through positioning.  Certainly you could say that WC does not emphasize the ammount of movement (dancing around...skirmishing) as would be required in a multiple opponent situation...but alass, no art has it all.

And more to the point no one person does either. My opinion comes from 2 years of regular WC training...five years ago...which it is no where near as good as someone with say 8 years, who is still training =)


----------



## Corporal Hicks (Feb 24, 2005)

dmax999 said:
			
		

> If the site you are talking about is an MMA or BJJ site, to them anything other then MMA and BJJ is worthless. Not even worth the time to discuss it with them. Not a Wing Chun fued, its a any other MA vs them fued. Nothing wrong with MMA or BJJ, they focus on sparring to the exclusion of everthing else and are very effective against almost anything because of it.


I think it is a MMA or BJJ site. Probably why they do not see the point in learning an 'art'.


----------



## bcbernam777 (Feb 24, 2005)

To start with there are a lot of knockers of WC, there are a lot of people who say that it is an iffective and useless style of fighting, I have had many discussions with such persons, without knocking their style, the one commonality between them all, They have never studied Wing chun and if they have it was only a matter of a few months to only one person I debated with had studied a maximum of 2 years. Their knowledge of Wing Chun is a best partial and at worst non exsistant. Common sense tells you one thing, how can you knock soemthing you have never really learnt? This is why I dont knock an art that I havent studied indepth because I am not qualified too. Even JKD which I studied 12+ months does not make me qualified to look at its strengths or weaknesses, because of the limited amount of time I have studied it.


As for not teaching you how to fight against multiple opponants, Wing chun does teach how to fight MO through the principals and teachings of the third form Bui Jee. The reason why most people say it doesn't teach you fighting against MO's is probably becasue they have either never done the form, or where rushed so quickly through the system (a common occurence) that they never went indepth into its teaching.

You can be rest assured that Wing Chun teaches all of the above and more, take the time necessary with the system as it will yield up a lot of treasure that at first glance may not appear to be there.


----------



## brothershaw (Mar 2, 2005)

1.Everything has a weakness that is reality. 
2.For something to be the next big thing it has to be better than the last big thing.( marketing) one day ninjitsu is the stuff, next day wing chun, next day jkd, next day bjj, tomorrow sumo.
3.Does anybody in thier right mind believe you can use bjj to submit multiple oppenents at the same time? yeah okay
4. Alot of the stuff about wing chun in magazines and so forth is often either b.s or low level stuff, which if you look at the pictures they may as well be doing karate, because the picture does no justice to how the techinque would actually look, or the correct energy involved ( sometimes this may be intentional)
5.People hear or read about centerline and chain punches but actually have no or little idea what its about.
6. Is wing chun perfect of course not, but with good instruction its some very good stuff.
7. There is so much other stuff in wing chun that you can do, chain punches are actually the most basic, and the last thing I would try to use unless my mind froze up. 
8. Unfortunately bruce lee "left" wing chun so its no good, yeah okay.
9. Unfortunately no wing chun fighter has won the UFC so its no good , yeah okay.

Wing chun is complex, its description is simple.


----------



## bcbernam777 (Mar 3, 2005)

I am in total agreement with the comment of its portrayel in Magazines, who tend to portray WC at a longer range, (obviously to get the happy snaps), Wing chun can look totally different than the promotional gloss that adorns magazines and marketing material. one of its true Beuties is in its infighting, up closs and personal, the subtleties that can be played out with Wing Chun in the confined area are absolutly breath taking, if it is understood and clearly recognizable to the observer. I dont know about Wing Chuns weaknesses, wht I may consider a weakness one day may in 2-12 months time suddenly not be the weakness in the system that I once thought it was because "now I understand that principle". My own personal opinion is that people tend to be too willing to knock the art (and this does happen across the board). I also agree with the excerpt about chain punching but I do think its apllication is a little more broad than just trying to unfreeze from the situation. however this is a very relevant and powerful use of the chain punch, and I also am amazed that everyone is focused on the chain punch when Wing chun clearly goes beyond the scope of chain punching. I think the thing to understand is that the debates will always rage against the Northern V Southern, the MMA v the Cma etc etc, oh well such is life.


----------



## brothershaw (Mar 3, 2005)

One more thing....

Wing chun is often hyped as something that can be learned very quickly, however in the beginning especially the positions are uncomfortable and can seem unnatural, so like other styles people leave before they get used to it, or really learn anything.
If you come from another style long range and karate in particular it can be a big adjustment.I have noticed that beginners who come from karate and beginners who lift weights have the same feel.
Doing sil lum tao in the beginning can be pretty boring but after a couple of years its almost not boring (lol) actually you begin to enjoy doing it.And start to pick up  the things you missed when you thought it was boring.


----------



## dmax999 (Mar 3, 2005)

I want to say something about Wing Chun being quick to learn.  It is somewhat true.

When I took it, after a few months (about 4), I was extremely competent at the basics and could chain punch and do the few kicks I knew with good power.  I was probably in equal skill to a brown belt in Karate or TKD.  I would be willing to state that a WCer at 4-6 months could beat someone in just about any other MA with 4-6 months training.  This is in a full contact no rules situation, not a point sparing situation (I have yet to see WC do good in a controled sparring situation against other styles, we just never did it).

Reason I believe this is that beginning WC there are so few moves and attacks learned that you get really good at the ones you know.  In addition you train so you know which move to use in which situation.  Not like other styles where you have ten things you can do against a jab, and you suck at each of those ten things.  You know one thing and have practiced it until you have gotten really good at it.

Once you extend the time to 1 or more years of training, WC may or may not be more effective.  At this point it will have far more to do with the specific person instead of the style.

Just so you don't think you can master WC in a couple months, there is far far more to learn.  But the winner in a real fight is the one who can execute the simplest manuvers flawlessly, and I think that is what beginning WC is all about.

Of course I had a GREAT teacher, which may have made the above statement true for me, but many others may disagree completely.


----------



## Angelusmortis (Mar 4, 2005)

Right. This annoys me in MA. I'm not having "a go" at anyone on this site, far from it, but the "my MA's better than yours" is so childish. Firstly, MMA and BJJ are simply the latest popular styles, made popular through success in a tournament like the UFC. BJJ is pretty much just ju-jitsu with the judo plonked back into it, there are shortcomings in WC, however, on the street I don't want to start grappling and rolling round on the deck. I want to have a few very effective, hard hitting, straight line whacks, and then get the hell out of there, and vanish. MMA and BJJ have their strengths, i.e being effective in a small area caged environment (UFC), but having studied jujitsu and judo for several years, I began to feel as though they were a little robotic. So took up WC some months ago, and have been impressed with it's simplicity. So what if you can't fight multiple opponents, in reality the odds are whatever MA you did, unless you were a super human/instructor level type fighter, that you'd get a kicking regardless. 

Corporal Hicks mate, I'd not listen to what other people say and just enjoy the art for what it is. I have nothing against other MA's at all, and am quite willing to discuss different ideas for different situations, but it does get me goat a bit when others slag off another style. Bigotted opinions all round. Hope no one's offended by this, no offence was intended.


----------



## Corporal Hicks (Mar 10, 2005)

Angelusmortis said:
			
		

> Right. This annoys me in MA. I'm not having "a go" at anyone on this site, far from it, but the "my MA's better than yours" is so childish. Firstly, MMA and BJJ are simply the latest popular styles, made popular through success in a tournament like the UFC. BJJ is pretty much just ju-jitsu with the judo plonked back into it, there are shortcomings in WC, however, on the street I don't want to start grappling and rolling round on the deck. I want to have a few very effective, hard hitting, straight line whacks, and then get the hell out of there, and vanish. MMA and BJJ have their strengths, i.e being effective in a small area caged environment (UFC), but having studied jujitsu and judo for several years, I began to feel as though they were a little robotic. So took up WC some months ago, and have been impressed with it's simplicity. So what if you can't fight multiple opponents, in reality the odds are whatever MA you did, unless you were a super human/instructor level type fighter, that you'd get a kicking regardless.
> 
> Corporal Hicks mate, I'd not listen to what other people say and just enjoy the art for what it is. I have nothing against other MA's at all, and am quite willing to discuss different ideas for different situations, but it does get me goat a bit when others slag off another style. Bigotted opinions all round. Hope no one's offended by this, no offence was intended.


Amen to that my friend! What annoys me is that a lot of BBJ and MMA simply regard you as lower because you dont do their style if you like and refuse to see the weaknesses in their own. Are so many of them that narrow minded as to totally disregard other styles and not see the weaknesses in their own! Its a sad sad world!


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 23, 2005)

Everybody believes their style is best, or else they wouldn't do it.  No style is best, just best for the individual.  And the individual may need to study several styles before he can decide which is best for him. When you understand your style deeply and thoroughly, then you will find that you can get it to work under most any circumstances, even tho it may have certain advantages under certain circumstances (i.e. Wing Chung being a close range style has advantages in a crowded or cramped situation).

If you enjoy the training you are doing and believe it is valuable and you are developing valuable skills, then stick with it, and don't worry about what others say, or think about it.  People bashing different styles is an unfortunate reality of the politics in the martial arts.

Michael


----------



## CuongNhuka (Sep 24, 2005)

o.k. This is the deal. Martial arts are *NOT ABOUT FIGHTING. *Since they are not about fighting now their use is not important. If you want a style that you can use to beat the crapp out of people yah Jui Jitsu is one of the more effective all in all. Wing Chun and Jui Jitsu were created with the purpose of fighting in mind, so they WILL be effective, and if they weren't would they exist, NO!!!! o.k. so then what is the power of wing chun? Will let me think... mmm... how about in just a few years you arms have probably been pounded on enough that your arms are like rebar, you've probably punched bags with what has the consistency of crushed concrete that punching you would probably knock you out. Youve done Chi Sao and other sensitivity drills to make your arms able to notice the germ crawling up them (joke). Youve probably performed Sui Nim Dao so many times your body is like a golden gods' (joke). And then theirs also the two other disarmed fours that devolved fighting technique and the eight wooden dummy forms. The double butterfly sword form that developes striking on angles, the weight also increases the speed of your hands. 



And what about Jui Jitsu. Well it was created with little in mind other then fighting and killing people. Most of the style is about dislocating/breaking bones/joints, tearing muscles, and killing people. If it couldn't do that then what do you think the odds are of anyone caring at all who the samurai are?? Does they wouldn't sound fair??? 

Most of the people that actually care if a martial art is effective do so for one of the following reasons:



1. They are looking a reason to complain about the style. Meaning they don't understand the power behind it, and so say that it is useless, and stop doing the style. And will probably tell every one they meet how useless it is, even though it probably isn't.



2. They were in a fight and tried, unsuccessfully, to use what they knew. And then it's the same as one.



3. They are so into their own style that they find it necessary to find each and every fault with every other style, and deny that their own has any. Every style, keep in mind has its faults. Jui Jitsus is that many of the attacks are more then easily lethal, and many are meant to.



4. They are simply a bigot. The stupid -blank- in this group are normally against all forms of Asian martial arts. They normally don't realize that boxing, wrestling, and kick boxing (which they do recognize has effective) are martial arts. Those are in my oppoin the worst. Why? Well actual martial artists well normally not make fun of actual people. I'm kinda getting tired of the idiots in my weight training class poking fun at Jet Li, Jackie Chan and Bruce Lee. Getting off topic though.



Any way sorry for the length, and getting off subject, and swearing, and rude comments. Any way bye.



Sweet Brighit Bless your Blade,



John


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Sep 24, 2005)

coungnhuka said:
			
		

> o.k. This is the deal. Martial arts are *NOT ABOUT FIGHTING. *Since they are not about fighting now their use is not important. If you want a style that you can use to beat the crapp out of people yah Jui Jitsu is one of the more effective all in all. Wing Chun and Jui Jitsu were created with the purpose of fighting in mind, so they WILL be effective, and if they weren't would they exist, NO!!!!





So, following this rationale, Wing Chun and Brazilian Jujitsu are not martial arts?  Or am I to understand that all arts currently practiced today are street lethal because if they weren't, they wouldn't exist?  You're not real clear here.



Regards,


Steve


----------



## CuongNhuka (Sep 25, 2005)

Hardheadjarhead, I don't understand what your logic is behind what you said about Brazilian Jui Jitsu and Wing Chun. I also don't think I made my self quite clear enough. I mean that martial arts aren't necessarily about fighting, though they can be used effectively in a self-defense situation. But are not truly about fighting. Many styles were created as a form of physical, mental, and spiritual training and a form of self-perfection. And some forms of Jui Jitsu are directly useless in a fight/feudal age battlefield. Such as flower arrangements and Zen calligraphy. They are termed martial arts; they were practiced then and now being aware that if you tried to use them in a fight, you would probably be killed. Not all the techniques in martial arts can be used in a fight, but many still do them. And most people in the martial arts today plan on using them as a form of self-perfection threw an art. True they're many styles that were made to be used in a fight, but few are still practiced for that purpose. Styles like Brazilian Jui Jitsu (which, I could easily be wrong about this and if I am I apologize, is mostly done now as a sport), Tae Kwon Do, Wing Chun, Jui Jitsu, Western Boxing and Wrestling. Their styles that were made as fighting technique, and are still used for that purpose, like Jeet Kune Do (If i'm wrong about hat I apologize). But any way, most styles were made without fighting being the main purpose of the style, and are practiced now with out being the main thought when you step up to the dojo floor.



Sweet Brighit Bless your Blade,



John


----------



## Andrew Green (Sep 25, 2005)

As a MMA guy I want to step in a little here...

 It's not thinking Wing Chun is useless, only BJJ and MMA are good and everything else should be eliminated.

 Some BJJ schools seem that way, but look at there history.  BJJ became popular by making that claim and then going areound and beating everyone... sort of like a Pepsi taste test that hurts...

 But no one gets anywhere in MMA with Just BJJ anymore.  Different arts have different uses, BJJ has the ability to take down and tap out a person that is not familliar with groundfighting, it does that very well.  But it is, by it self, not a complete solution.

 Wing Chun does not translate into a MMA ring.  That is not what it does, it does some neat things, but that is not one of them.

 Fighting, one on one, two failry evenly matched opponents is what MMA is about, it requires a certain set of skills, and what Wing Chun focuses on is not one of them.  So, if you go to a MMA site and start talking Wing Chun, chances are you will get told it is full of holes and not all that useful.

 But one-on-one fighting, or dueling if you like, is only one part of physical force useage.  I have used wrist locks and such outside of the gym, and they worked great.  Caused pain, got compliance, no need to fight.  Do they work in MMA?  Nope.

 Wing Chun often gets attention for it's hand trapping, does it work?  In some situations it works beautifully, in MMA? Nope.

 My personal belief is that you should know how to fight (MMA) first, cause if the other stuff fails that is where you'll end up.  But if that other stuff ends up working, it will work far nicer then the MMA stuff.

 But that is my belief in other fields too.  For example web design, I believe that a person should learn HTML and CSS before even touching Dreamweaver or some other WYSIWIG editor.  Why?  cause those editors work great, when they do what you want them too.  If they don't you need to be able to fall back to the lowest level, which is editing the code by hand.

 HTML / CSS = MMA
 GUI Editors = Traditional arts

 Both have there place, and knowing both will make your life as a programmer / fighter much easier.


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 26, 2005)

ok, thought I'd add another two cents here.

#1. Martial arts were originally developed for killing, not fighting.  They were meant for self-defense in the truest sense, and that meant killing.  They were used by both civillians, and military people.  Nowadays, our social environment has changed greatly, and most of us never have to defend ourselves in that manner.  We have laws, and we have law enforcement agencies, whose job it is to deal with the violent elements in our society, and if you use your martial training recklessly or needlessly against others, then you become the violent element that they go after.  So, brawling and killing is generally frowned upon in our society, so we do not generally need to use our arts in the ways that they were originally meant to be used.  This has enabled us to focus on other things such as enlightenment, fitness, meditation, etc., but understand that this is not what the martial arts were originally for.  What this has also done is create an environment in which the martial arts quality can suffer.  Since it is not acceptable within ours and most societies to engage in true combat, it becomes difficult to maintain an understanding of how many of the techniques are really meant to be used.  Consequently, many of us continue to practice some techniques that perhaps have lost their meaning, or have become outdated.

#2. MMA and UFC is a violent sport, and most people who engage in this sport are top athletes who have some highly developed skills.  However, keep in mind that it is a sport.  It operates under a set of rules, and those who can function best within those rules do well.  Some traditional martial arts don't tend to do well under those rules, and/or many people don't train for, or do well under those rules.  But this does not mean that traditional martial arts or artists cannot be a devastating opponent for an assailant on the street who trys to victimize them.  Traditional martial arts, when trained properly, are  very effective as a means of self defense.  MMA and UFC is not a reasonable yardstick with which to measure the effectiveness of martial arts in general.

and that concludes my two cents.

michael


----------



## Andrew Green (Sep 26, 2005)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> Traditional martial arts, when trained properly, are  very effective as a means of self defense.


 The problem though, is that if people only train for things that cannot be tested, they are relying on assumption alone that the stuff will work.  That is a slippery slope to be on as over time it will drift farther into speculation.

 And it is impossible to test it well enough to really be meaningful.  Are we to set up a double blind experiment where we get people to jump differently trained people and see who deals most effectively?

 Most people will never get in a real fight.  And if they do, how do we isolate what caused them to react in the way that they did?  Did they win purely on physical attributes?  Placebo type effect fromm thinking they would? kata?

 No way of knowing in any statistically meaningful way.

 So, because you can't really test it, and it's probably not gonna happen anyways, I think that training solely for self-defence, without mat testing what you do (cause it's not the way a "real" fight is) is a rather unhealthy way to train.  Not wing chun, not kata, not tai chi, not any specific training, but the attitude it is pursued with.

 Train to have fun, train to stay fit, train for your health.  Take comfort in knowing that as a side effect you are a good fighter and can probably defend yourself.  But don't train solely for the purpose of defending yourself from "evildoers", that is paranoia.  Same as wrapping your head in tinfoil "just in case" aliens are trying to read your mind.

 Of course this all changes if your job requires you to use physical force.  A cop, for example, might train for those reasons as part of there job.  But I would also imagine they would want to test this stuff out fully before trying it "for real".  Same as they'd want to test out a fire arm in a range before using it "for real".  Just cause someone else says, "Yeah, this gun works great" wouldn't do it for me.


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 26, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> The problem though, is that if people only train for things that cannot be tested, they are relying on assumption alone that the stuff will work. That is a slippery slope to be on as over time it will drift farther into speculation.
> 
> And it is impossible to test it well enough to really be meaningful. Are we to set up a double blind experiment where we get people to jump differently trained people and see who deals most effectively?
> 
> ...


I am not sure I quite understand what your position is.  Do you feel that without some kind of MMA/UFC type experience in one's training, that in general, any other martial arts training is not to be trusted?  If so, then what, in your opinion, has lead to the survival of these many systems over the many years in which MMA/UFC style approach did not exist?

Meantime, I will stand by my position that training in traditional martial arts, when done properly (and "properly" can mean many different things to many different people, and probably cannot be defined to everyone's satisfaction) can provide one with solid self-defense and fighting skills.


----------



## Andrew Green (Sep 26, 2005)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> I am not sure I quite understand what your position is. Do you feel that without some kind of MMA/UFC type experience in one's training, that in general, any other martial arts training is not to be trusted? If so, then what, in your opinion, has lead to the survival of these many systems over the many years in which MMA/UFC style approach did not exist?


 Do you believe that for something to have value, it has to be fighting related?

 There are many good reasons to practice traditional arts.  Tai Chi is one I'd eventually like to have a go at.  But not cause I want to learn to fight...

 Trust is also a funny word.  I believe I related it to web design up there.  Is frontpage to be trusted?  Well, yes, it can consitantly make web pages.  But I trust being able to hand code and audit the stuff that any GUI editor produces a lot more.

 My personal belief is that in order to make the most of something like Dreamweaver you need to know how to do everything it does for you in notepad.  It's there to make things easier when possible, but if it fails you need to be able to fall back on the more reliable method of coding it by hand.  If you want to later move into PHP or some other server language, you need html and css by hand.

 For some people Dreamweaver is enough.  For some piczo is enough.  But to claim a dreamweaver user is a contender against a actual web programmer is silly.

 But for many it is enough, learning is of no interest for them.  For others even that is too much and they go to the McDojo (piczo).

 I also believe that ONLY coding by hand is making your job trickier.  Dreamweaver (traditional arts) can make things easier, depending on your objective.



> Meantime, I will stand by my position that training in traditional martial arts, when done properly (and "properly" can mean many different things to many different people, and probably cannot be defined to everyone's satisfaction) can provide one with solid self-defense and fighting skills.


 Yup, as using Dreamweaver can let you create some solid websites.  But, it is no match for learning to code from scratch / MMA, then adding Dreamweaver / Traditional techniques to speed up things when possible.

 If a simple wrist restraint will do the job, use it.  If it fails you're in a fight, and that is MMA's strength.


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 26, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Do you believe that for something to have value, it has to be fighting related?
> 
> 
> Yup, as using Dreamweaver can let you create some solid websites. But, it is no match for learning to code from scratch / MMA, then adding Dreamweaver / Traditional techniques to speed up things when possible.
> ...


First, no I do not believe that something has to be fighting related to have value, I was simply putting a little historical context into the topic.  Most of us who spend a lifetime practicing the martial arts never have to actually use it to defend ourselves.  For myself, I am happier for it.  I train because I don't remember what it was like not to train.  I love the arts, I do it because it is a passion.  I don't run around looking for fights, but I try to keep the thought of the fight present in my mind when I train, to keep a sense of purpose in the movement itself.

So if I understand you correctly, in a nutshell this is what you believe: traditional martial arts, and training in a more traditional manner is all well and fine, but if some type of MMA/UFC kind of training is not part of the process, then you feel the training/material is questionable at best.  Is that pretty close to the target?


----------



## Andrew Green (Sep 26, 2005)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> So if I understand you correctly, in a nutshell this is what you believe: traditional martial arts, and training in a more traditional manner is all well and fine, but if some type of MMA/UFC kind of training is not part of the process, then you feel the training/material is questionable at best. Is that pretty close to the target?


 Nope, sounds like you are focusing too much on one area.

 I think it is fine, productive training.  How effective it is depends on the art and how it is trained.  It is not as effective as having a solid grounding in being able to fight under MMA rules.  But it can still be very effective.

 Most people will never need the skills that a MMA fighter has, most people will never need to be able to write complex HTML in notepad.  Those that can do that are better off then those that can't when it comes to fighting or web design.

 But for the vast majority of the populations self-defence needs a solid traditional system is fine.  The weaknesses of the system aren't likely to become an issue.

 In fact for some people MMA has a bigger weakness, namely that's not what they want to do.  That is the BIGGEST weakness to any system, the individual doesn't want to be doing that.  And the biggest strength of any system is that they do want to be doing it.

 But MMA is the filler, for when the weaknesses come up.  That was what it was designed for, to exploit and fill in weaknesses in fighting systems.  So if Wing Chun has a weakness, MMA is likely to have a fix.  Same for any system.

 MMA's fighting weakness, is that it lacks the simpler methods, that while they do have weaknesses are of use.  Back to my example, Dreamweaver is of great use.  But it has it's weaknesses, when those come up knowing how to code is a valuable asset.  

 Knowing how to code without knowing how to use Dreamweaver is also a weakness, it means a good chunk of your work code likely get done a lot quicker.  The person that knows both is better off.  Some jobs require one, others require the other.  Some are best done with a combination.

 Martial arts is the same.  Looking at the fighting aspect of it MMA is the safety net.  Other stuff is nice and might work better, but if it fails having that net is a nice thing


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 26, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Nope, sounds like you are focusing too much on one area.
> 
> I think it is fine, productive training. How effective it is depends on the art and how it is trained. It is not as effective as having a solid grounding in being able to fight under MMA rules. But it can still be very effective.
> 
> ...


Well, I think you hit it on the head when you said that if an art is not what someone wants to do, then that is the biggest weakness because they will not do the art.  People find themselved drawn to different arts for many different reasons.  Some are combat reasons, some are asthetic reasons, stylistic reasons, personality, and body-type reasons, etc.  No one style will have the same appeal to everyone.

I think I understand your position better.  I get your message, and I will acknowledge that you have made some valid points.  I still believe that traditional training can be very effective in developing one's abilities, and that MMA type training is not necessary, but I do agree that traditional training alone, for most people, is probably not enough to be successful in a MMA/UFC type encounter.  However, I also believe that experience and success in a MMA/UFC training/competition environment is also not a _guarantee_ of success in a self-defense situation on the street.  I think that this kind of training can do a lot to build toughness, confidence in one's abilities, and a high level of technical proficiency, but anything can happen on the street, and no matter how good someone is at any art, they can still be taken down.  I think it's important to keep that in perspective, that's all.


----------



## Andrew Green (Sep 26, 2005)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> I also believe that experience and success in a MMA/UFC training/competition environment is also not a _guarantee_ of success in a self-defense situation on the street.


 For that we need Count Dante 

 But on that subject, I got this Bridge for sale, any takers?


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 26, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> For that we need Count Dante
> 
> But on that subject, I got this Bridge for sale, any takers?


I've got $14.72 burning a hole in my pocket...I could get it converted to Canadian, if that makes the offer any more attractive...


----------



## Andrew Green (Sep 26, 2005)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> I've got $14.72 burning a hole in my pocket...I could get it converted to Canadian, if that makes the offer any more attractive...


 Makes it 17.25...  no, I'll hold out for a bigger sucker...  Exchange rate isn't that big right now.


----------



## arnisador (Sep 26, 2005)

It's another Wing Chun celebrity battle!


----------



## bcbernam777 (Sep 26, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> The problem though, is that if people only train for things that cannot be tested, they are relying on assumption alone that the stuff will work. That is a slippery slope to be on as over time it will drift farther into speculation.
> 
> And it is impossible to test it well enough to really be meaningful. Are we to set up a double blind experiment where we get people to jump differently trained people and see who deals most effectively?
> 
> ...


 
which is why full contact sparring is so important in any MA.


----------



## dmax999 (Sep 27, 2005)

Mr. Green,

Your web analogies aside...  There are a couple flaws with some of your arguments, though I must admit you are far more reasonable then most MMA people I have seen.

UFC has rules, I don't know their specific rules, but I bet they outlaw half of WCs truly devistating techniques (reason they are outlawed is to prevent serious injury).  I'm not complaining about the rules, but you have to realize that rules designed to limit one art's strengths are going to severly limit its effectivness.  I really wouldn't want to be in a tournament allowing the moves outlawed.

After taking WC for a few years I switched to a Shaolin Kung-Fu school, I was more interested in Tai Chi.  Went to sparring class and guess what?  Every single WC move I had was not allowed.  Not a single one.  Guess what else?  I did horrible.  Without the rules I was given I have no doubt I would have dominated, but insurance rules were what beat me, not a lack in skill or the style.

Taking your side for a minute.  I have seen countless videos of WC guys in a MMA type fight just do horrible.  Reason is they were not used to sparring and froze up.  Most had probably never even seen an MMA fight before they entered it.

WC is actually one of the more effective MAs out there, but it does require a lot of training because the movements are different.  It also requires a lot of sparring to gain confidence that its strange moves will actually work.
Its nice to see an MMA guy with some common sense at least!


----------



## Andrew Green (Sep 27, 2005)

I don't think most of the UFC's rules are a big problem, and the ones that are often still get trained in clubs anyways.  Even things like eye gouges can be trained in sparring if you wear eye protection.

 That said, I *personally* don't see the benefits of using such techniques.  I can't use them in class without hurting my partners, If I where to compete and use them I'd get DQed and if I where to use them in a "real" situation, I'd probably have a court fight to follow...

 And truthfully, I think it is easier to fight without them, If I can set up a "dirty tactic", I can set up a "clean" one, probably easier cause it is better trained and there are more of them.

 But, just out of curiosity, what Wing Chun tactics where you not allowed to use?


----------



## dmax999 (Sep 30, 2005)

I was not allowed to kick below the waist, this eliminates EVERY kick I learned in WC (We never kicked above the waist).  I was not flexiable enough to get off high kicks without effort or with speed so it took my feet out of the equasion.

I was not allowed to trap, this is where I was getting exceeding good at this in WC.

No straight puches to the head, there goes chain punching.

No eye gouges, there goes bil-je (Probably for the best for safety reasons)

Got yelled at when I faced opponents square on as in WC, we had a turned stance with one hand farther back.  Wasn't even supposed to use my WC stance, which makes all the defense in WC not work.

Not disagreeing with our sparring rules, just making a point about a decent fighter suddenly made worthless from rules.  Same thing would happen to an MMA in a professional boxing match.  A couple years into my new system, if I had been attacked on the street I would have used WC over the new stuff, I had more confidence that WC would work in any situation.

Here is the rub:  I switched to another school in the same newer system (Old teacher left town in the middle of the night) and now I do Xing-I.  What is Xing-I you may ask, its WC done a little bit differently.  Can't wait until we spar with that, I will be back to my old ways then!


----------



## Andrew Green (Sep 30, 2005)

Well.... those rules are rather silly if you are looking for skills that carry over into anything but those rules....


----------



## ed-swckf (Oct 1, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Well.... those rules are rather silly if you are looking for skills that carry over into anything but those rules....


Yes they are silly, but its not an isolated case, we have a MMA competition locally that has grown in strength over the past few years and their rules also eliminate some of the elements mentioned in dmax999's post.  Wing chun trains you as the underdog so its understandable that you learn a lot of techniques to defeat a larger aggressor and i definitely don't think the way i would fight would be considered a fair fight by most MMA fight co-ordinators.  They obviously want to put on a fair fight but that right there is a very nonrealistic concept, what in truth is a fair fight.  I watch a lot of UFC and there are some horendous mismatches but that makes for the entertainment i guess, i love to watch that stuff.


----------



## Andrew Green (Oct 1, 2005)

ed-swckf said:
			
		

> Wing chun trains you as the underdog


 Why would you train for years to always be the underdog?  As it is supposed to be for self-defence I will assume it is also largely for fighting untrained people.  So after several years of training, you still are being trained as the underdog against someone with no training?

 Something doesn't seem right there...


----------



## dmax999 (Oct 2, 2005)

I think he meant that you train as though you would be the underdog in a fight.  Its techniques are designed to work against people that have 20 or more pounds over you and more height and reach. 
It is definatly not designed for only taking on untrained people.  Quite the opposite, I believe WC is one of the few MAs designed to take on other skilled fighters.  It doen't require strength or size to win, thus allowing you to appear as an underdog and have full confidence that you will still be able to handle yourself in a fight.


----------



## ed-swckf (Oct 5, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Why would you train for years to always be the underdog? As it is supposed to be for self-defence I will assume it is also largely for fighting untrained people. So after several years of training, you still are being trained as the underdog against someone with no training?
> 
> Something doesn't seem right there...


Well what doesn't seem right is your interpretation.  If a 6'6" wide as a brick wall guy is attacking me, a 5'7" man with slight build immediatly we are the underdog.  You train as the underdog or for the worst case scenario, to train to only come into contact with non skilled opponents is completly foolish and would breed complacency.  I have no idea what training the opponent has so if i train for worst case then i'm in less danger of finding myself in the ****.  And that worst case includes not knowing if they carry something sharp and shiny, self defense is obviously a concept that doesn't seem to get much cover if you already know your opponents backround before you fight ala MMA.  

When you are in a situation with more than one opponent you again are immediately the underdog and if you never trained that situation to a high level then the training isn't going to carry much weight.  Basically in a typical street self defense situation you will constantly find yourself as an underdog, you train so you can overcome the unfair odds and you train for the fighter to have some skill and its often the case.  It may not be a skill like a trained martial art but there is still a skill element to being a scrapper, it has a lot less depth and dimension but its also unpredictable and dangerous to ignore. 

If i am training as an underdog and contiually putting myself in challenging environment of training the bar will continually be getting raised.  It stops you underestimating your opponents ability to harm you, what works on a particular untrained attacker may be countered by another so you train for all eventualitys and you train for an unfair fight.  The cowardly nature of a mugger will gravitate them towards a weaker opponent, weather that be in size, in numbers or in the fact they carry a weapon and you don't.  Thats why you are the underdog and not sitting on a cloud of false confidence, in return we train to fight an unfair fight, one which will destroy their battle plan, keep us one step ahead and hopefully keep us safe.  We fight our fight, not theirs, if that still seems wrong to you then i really care not.


----------



## ed-swckf (Oct 5, 2005)

dmax999 said:
			
		

> I think he meant that you train as though you would be the underdog in a fight. Its techniques are designed to work against people that have 20 or more pounds over you and more height and reach.
> It is definatly not designed for only taking on untrained people. Quite the opposite, I believe WC is one of the few MAs designed to take on other skilled fighters. It doen't require strength or size to win, thus allowing you to appear as an underdog and have full confidence that you will still be able to handle yourself in a fight.


Yeah thats the jist of it, i thought it was quite renowned fact of wing chun, perhaps i just wasn't clear.


----------

