# Is Wing Chun the best martial art for women?



## Eric Daniel (Oct 17, 2005)

Hey everyone,
I am not sure if this would be a good idea or not, but do you think we can say that Wing Chun is a great if not the best Martial Art to have women in? After all this Martial Art was founded by a woman. There may be a lot of argument on this subject but my in my opinion I would rather have my sister and other Women family members learn Wing Chun rather than something like BJJ. I am not trying to put down BJJ or any other Martial Art so I hope this thread doesn't affend anyone. What are your thoughts on the subject?


----------



## arnisador (Oct 17, 2005)

I don't think people really believe the story that it was founded by a woman. But it is a good art for a shorter person, I understand.

Like any art, it depends on the instructor and on what you perceive as the threat. Fot self-defense against sexual assault, there's much to be said for BJJ. For standing up and againts multiple opponents and/or weapons, otehr arts may be better.


----------



## shesulsa (Oct 17, 2005)

I think women in particular need a rather diverse array of tools. Ground game is important for women, I think, since if they are attacked for obvious possibilities they are likely to find themselves down in some way. Though I do agree that locks and such are also very good for everyone to learn.  

 A woman can't be powerful unless she accesses that power so a power-less art would not suffice.


----------



## Lisa (Oct 17, 2005)

My thoughts are that it depends on the woman and what she is looking for in her MA training.  Just because it was supposedly founded by a woman doesn't mean it is best for her.  In a defence situation woulnd't you want to train to defend yourself in every way possible?  

I am curious however, is the founding member supposed being a woman the only reason you think it is better for women, or are there other reasons, please share.


----------



## mantis (Oct 17, 2005)

looking at different videos from different martial arts
 i'd say wing chun is definitely up there, Krav Maga is pretty good too, as well as hapkido. the downside i see to hapkido is that sometimes you have to fight on the ground, I dont think ladies like that..
 Oh i forgot... Chin'na is great for any self defense too


----------



## Lisa (Oct 17, 2005)

mantis said:
			
		

> looking at different videos from different martial arts
> i'd say wing chun is definitely up there, Krav Maga is pretty good too, as well as hapkido. the downside i see to hapkido is that *sometimes you have to fight on the ground, I dont think ladies like that..*
> Oh i forgot... Chin'na is great for any self defense too



so NOT true!  

but you have a point mantis, it does take some getting used to grappling with guys.  I feel, IMHO, it is all in the way it is presented to you that keeps women grappling.


----------



## mantis (Oct 17, 2005)

Lisa said:
			
		

> so NOT true!
> 
> but you have a point mantis, it does take some getting used to grappling with guys. I feel, IMHO, it is all in the way it is presented to you that keeps women grappling.


 how's that not true?
 self-defense usually is needed when you are fully dressed. I wouldnt like to go on the ground if im going to a party, or when i get robbed coming out of work or something.. u know what i mean?
 oh, but you are right.. the question is "best martial art for women".. but in my head i stupidly turned it into "best self-defense for women"... 
 hold on... let me go kick myself in the butt, brb


----------



## Tgace (Oct 17, 2005)

Sometimes you wont be choosing if the fight goes to ground or not.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 17, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Sometimes you wont be choosing if the fight goes to ground or not.


yup.  i personally wouldn't choose to take the fight to the ground in a self defense situation, but it is good to be able to deal with it if you get taken there.


----------



## Lisa (Oct 17, 2005)

mantis said:
			
		

> how's that not true?
> self-defense usually is needed when you are fully dressed. I wouldnt like to go on the ground if im going to a party, or when i get robbed coming out of work or something.. u know what i mean?
> oh, but you are right.. the question is "best martial art for women".. but in my head i stupidly turned it into "best self-defense for women"...
> *hold on... let me go kick myself in the butt, brb*



can I help?   

 :btg: oops, thats not the butt is it? my bad


----------



## Andrew Green (Oct 17, 2005)

Eric Daniel said:
			
		

> Hey everyone,
> I am not sure if this would be a good idea or not, but do you think we can say that Wing Chun is a great if not the best Martial Art to have women in? After all this Martial Art was founded by a woman. There may be a lot of argument on this subject but my in my opinion I would rather have my sister and other Women family members learn Wing Chun rather than something like BJJ. I am not trying to put down BJJ or any other Martial Art so I hope this thread doesn't affend anyone. What are your thoughts on the subject?


 Legends aren't always true, and best is not something that can be pinned down.

 If you're looking for self defence I'd vote for Judo/boxing/submission/mma over Wing Chun.  But as we all should know by now effectiveness is reduced greatly if the person doesn't like it and stop training.


----------



## pete (Oct 17, 2005)

first off, i disagree that any art is a better choice than wing chun for self-defense, man or woman.  all arts have there strengths and relative weaknesses when comparing to others, and its up to the individual to find what is right for themselves.

that said, would anybody name any particular art that would be a poor choice for women? 

pete


----------



## bcbernam777 (Oct 18, 2005)

I think Wing Chun is the besst martial art for women for the following reasons:

1) It relies on power generated from ground power generated through the correct body structure as opposed to power via the muscular strucure.

2) Its redirection and soft hands means it can be utilised by a weaker opponant to great effect

3) its effectiveeness in infighting make it perfect also for a smaller fighter.

4) because of its smoothness it requires the practicioner to learn how to loosen and relax their muscular system, men, in particular larger men have a tougher time with this.


----------



## pete (Oct 18, 2005)

same 4 points would apply to arts that i train: kenpo, tai chi, and now bagua.

to take the converse, what arts would you say do not work based on these principles, or (1) generate power regardless of correct body structure, (2) ignore redirection principles and rely solely on force meeting force head-on, (3) is only effective from either close range or long range, but not both, (4) advocates constant muscular tension, choppy erratic motion, and stiffness in the joints...

pete


----------



## 7starmantis (Oct 18, 2005)

I dont think the adverse to his points are neccessarily what you posted, but in my opinion, if we are talking about generating power from the opponents "energy" or power, then an art that would be a poor choice (in my opinion) would be one that requires lots of muscle strength to generate power. Coming from a pure muscle generating punch, I dont know that the majority (or even the minority) of women could best a mans punch, but yielding and using a mans own forward movement to increase the effectiveness of their punch, a women can most assuredly "beat" a man.

 Just my 3 cents,
  7sm


----------



## Andrew Green (Oct 18, 2005)

Well, I'd just take a guess here, but a male assaulting a female, I'd imagine grabbing occurs more then hitting, and very often things end up with the female on her back.

 Aggression needs to be there first and foremost, to keep fighting with everything you got een when you are loosing.  This comes from full contact sports and hard sparring.  Things like Judo, BJJ, Boxing, MMA, etc.  Not from pok sau drills and chi sau...

 All the stuff you are claiming about these systems is basically quoting there advertising materials for the past 50 years or so.  Do you have anything to support it other then "They say so".  Any references to matches where practitioners of these arts have fought other styles and done exceedingly well against them?  Anything beyond "It looks good on paper"?


----------



## pete (Oct 18, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> ...*very often things end up with the female on her back.* ... All the stuff you are claiming about these systems is basically quoting there advertising materials for the past 50 years or so.


and whose 'advertising materials' are you pushing?  no offense, its just that everyone's got their own opinions.  

personally, i feel that all martial arts that i've been exposed to would be well suited to women, provided they receive good instruction from qualified teachers in that art and are serious about their training. hey, wouldn't that also apply to us guys?

the reason i listed those opposites of 'bcbernam777's points was to agree that wing chun would be a good choice, but that there would be many other equally good choices.  i cant think of any art that doesn't in some way follow those four points, or where the four 'opposites' would apply.  can you?

pete


----------



## Andrew Green (Oct 18, 2005)

That's got nothing to do with advertising, that's a simple fact.

 Take a worst case scenario, like a rape attempt.  Where is the bad guy gonna be trying to put the female?

 Not all arts are created equal, in fact some are very disconnected from what works outside there own environment, and some of those have very convincing theories on why they will.... even if they don't.


----------



## arnisador (Oct 18, 2005)

This discussion is meaningless without a common assumption of likely threats. Most people see "for women" and read into it "for sexual assault prevention" which is a reasonable assumption. Grappling makes a lot of sense there. What if it was a girl who went to a violent high school where she was concerned about getting in fights with other girls? Then stand-up arts become more relevant.

Is the question about what's best for women because of the particular threats they face, or because of their anatomy/physiology? I'd give different answers to each of these questions.


----------



## shesulsa (Oct 18, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> This discussion is meaningless without a common assumption of likely threats. Most people see "for women" and read into it "for sexual assault prevention" which is a reasonable assumption. Grappling makes a lot of sense there. What if it was a girl who went to a violent high school where she was concerned about getting in fights with other girls? Then stand-up arts become more relevant.
> 
> Is the question about what's best for women because of the particular threats they face, or because of their anatomy/physiology? I'd give different answers to each of these questions.


 Which brings us back to my original summation - a good battery of tools is important for all women.  Not all rape victims are raped on their back - though it is certainly one position on the ground and ground game is important, certainly.  It is NOT the only threat to women, however.


----------



## ed-swckf (Oct 18, 2005)

It depends on the indvidual woman.  Wing chun is very good for women based on the concepts and theory's that lie within the art, to say any martial art is best for any large selection of people like a gender is never really going to be conclusive without a lot of experimentation that would be rather inpractical.  What i feel is first and formost in martial arts for women is having a teacher who understands the female has different strengths to work on than men.  Beyong that though, all teachers should recognise how each individual is different and will work in different ways.  But thats all just common sense.


----------



## ed-swckf (Oct 18, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Legends aren't always true, and best is not something that can be pinned down.
> 
> If you're looking for self defence I'd vote for Judo/boxing/submission/mma over Wing Chun. But as we all should know by now effectiveness is reduced greatly if the person doesn't like it and stop training.


 


			
				Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Well, I'd just take a guess here, but a male assaulting a female, I'd imagine grabbing occurs more then hitting, and very often things end up with the female on her back.
> 
> Aggression needs to be there first and foremost, to keep fighting with everything you got een when you are loosing. This comes from full contact sports and hard sparring. Things like Judo, BJJ, Boxing, MMA, etc. Not from pok sau drills and chi sau...
> 
> All the stuff you are claiming about these systems is basically quoting there advertising materials for the past 50 years or so. Do you have anything to support it other then "They say so". Any references to matches where practitioners of these arts have fought other styles and done exceedingly well against them? Anything beyond "It looks good on paper"?


I have to ask, what do you think wing chun is good for?  You have already said its no good in the ring for competition fighting and now you are slating its usage in a self defense situation.  It seems you don't hold wing chun in very much of a high regard at all.


----------



## Andrew Green (Oct 18, 2005)

Fighting is not the primary focus of a good many things of value.


----------



## pete (Oct 18, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> That's got nothing to do with advertising, that's a simple fact.


  me thinks you confuse 'fact' with 'sport'


			
				ed-swckf said:
			
		

> What i feel is first and formost in martial arts for women is having a teacher who understands the female has different strengths to work on than men. Beyong that though, all teachers should recognise how each individual is different and will work in different ways. But thats all just common sense.


 well put...

pete


----------



## ed-swckf (Oct 18, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Fighting is not the primary focus of a good many things of value.


Are you talking to me, quoting helps to keep things in order and avoids confusion. If you are talking to me, would you answer the question? And lets keep in mind the primary focus of wing chun is self defence.

Regards
Ed


----------



## Andrew Green (Oct 18, 2005)

pete said:
			
		

> me thinks you confuse 'fact' with 'sport'
> well put...
> 
> pete


 So...

 Because a sport (MMA) allows you to fight in any position you can find yourself in against another person, we should write that off as sport.  Not bother training most of those position, cause they are sport.  Just train one, when you are seperated and standing, is that your logic?


----------



## Andrew Green (Oct 18, 2005)

ed-swckf said:
			
		

> Are you talking to me,


 yup

 [/QUOTE]  And lets keep in mind the primary focus of wing chun is self defence.
  [/QUOTE] 
 Define "Self-defence".

 Which by the way, physical fighting is a rather small part of.

 Or do you mean it's primary purpose is to defend against people who physically attack you in a certain way?

 Either way, I'm sorry you can't find something more valuable in your training then being able to hurt people.


----------



## 7starmantis (Oct 18, 2005)

It seems assumptions and personal biases are running pretty rampant in this thread  Remember a bias is not neccessarily intentional, it can be from one's set of experiences.

    Lets see....


			
				Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Aggression needs to be there first and foremost, to keep fighting with everything you got een when you are loosing. This comes from full contact sports and hard sparring. Things like Judo, BJJ, Boxing, MMA, etc. Not from pok sau drills and chi sau...


 Agression is true, but we must clearly define agression, its not neccessarily anger, or brute force. There is a thin line between aggression and "balls out" swinging for the fences. Aggression must still be controled. 
 As for personal biases, lets not only define "full contact" as "Judo, BJJ, Boxing, MMA". Its obvious you have never seen true 7* chi sau (Jeem Lim Sau) or at least the way we do it. I would say aggression and full contact are very much a part of our advanced fighting. In fact, we have started calling our "chi sau" fighting or combat, not the normal "playing hands" in order to convey this. This is probably a discussion for a whole seperate thread though :wink:



			
				Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Take a worst case scenario, like a rape attempt. Where is the bad guy gonna be trying to put the female?


 That is a huge assumption to make, one that could very likely find you (the female) in a very bad situation without proper tools to use.



			
				Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Not all arts are created equal, in fact some are very disconnected from what works outside there own environment, and some of those have very convincing theories on why they will.... even if they don't.


 I completely agree with you here, 100%. However, this could be said for a myriad of martial systems or training regiments. I dont think its easy to lump systems into this category, but rather fighters or regiments.



			
				arnisador said:
			
		

> This discussion is meaningless without a common assumption of likely threats. Most people see "for women" and read into it "for sexual assault prevention" which is a reasonable assumption. Grappling makes a lot of sense there. What if it was a girl who went to a violent high school where she was concerned about getting in fights with other girls? Then stand-up arts become more relevant.
> 
> Is the question about what's best for women because of the particular threats they face, or because of their anatomy/physiology? I'd give different answers to each of these questions.


 Very good point, I agree. This does give credence to Shesulsa's point. A good complete understanding of a full range of abilities and techniques is whats needed, but then I would say that applies to men as well.



			
				Andrew Green said:
			
		

> So...
> 
> Because a sport (MMA) allows you to fight in any position you can find yourself in against another person, we should write that off as sport. Not bother training most of those position, cause they are sport. Just train one, when you are seperated and standing, is that your logic?


 No, no, not at all, but we must realize that a sport still is confined to rules that are nonexistant in a true self defense situation. Whats become clearer to me since really getting involved in watching the UFC and helping a buddy of mine try to "break in" is that there most deffinitely are rules that make it meaningless or even a waste of time to train certain techniques and situations. For one, an upward kick from the ground is excluded in the UFC, but on the street might just save your life. If your training to compete in the UFC, you are wasting your time training that kick, but in pure SD its a great tool to train. I dont think the old arguemtn about ground vs standup is what is being discussed here.



			
				Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Either way, I'm sorry you can't find something more valuable in your training then being able to hurt people.


 This may open me up for a myriad of attacks, but that is about the only thing I train for. What else is there if your training for pure self defense? Oh sure, there is "mental defense", or verbal defense, or situational awareness, but in a martial arts class I'm training from the idea that those have all failed and I'm now involved in a physical altercation. In that sense, hurting the person is top of the list for me, probably only second to disabling them. 
 Sorry, sounds horrible I know, but at 28 (just barely) I'm not goign to be involved in any "fight" unless its life threatening....then I'm fighting for my life or someone elses life, and the attackers life or limb is pretty meaningless at that point.

    Again, just my few pennies,
     7sm


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 18, 2005)

I am going to throw out an observation here:  I think Mr. Green simply enjoys argument.  

For example:he makes statements meant to deny the self-defense or combat usefulness of various different systems.  When another person follows with a statement supporting the self-defense or combat usefulness of one of these systems, Mr. Green likes to follow with a comment such as: 



			
				Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Fighting is not the primary focus of a good many things of value.


It is this attempt to change the subject and imply that other people are missing the importance of the "non-fighting" aspects of the martial arts, even tho the entire discussion is focused on the fighting aspect, and even tho Mr. Green has taken a very strong position within the discussion, that makes me suspect that he simply enjoys argument for argument's sake.  I have seen Mr. Green do this in other threads, including exchanges with myself.  

Mr. Green has very strong opinions about what is useful and what is not.  Based on his contributions to this and other threads, it is pretty clear to me that he is highly invested in the MMA/UFC/full contact approach to training.  He is not interested in anything that has a more "traditional" approach (if I am wrong, I have not seen anything to lead me to believe it).  His attitudes towards training seem to prevent him from seeing any value in any approach to training that is different from his own.

Everyone has a right to his own opinion.  I am sure that my own opinions are both right and wrong, depending on the circumstances.  Fair enough.


----------



## arnisador (Oct 18, 2005)

Just as an aside, my son and I tried to join a Wing Chun class last night, but the school has stopped offering the art! We're taking the 3-week trial there anyway (JKD and FMA, mostly), but I might've had more to contribute to this if they hadn't changed their curriculum. I was really curious to try WC.


----------



## 7starmantis (Oct 18, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> Just as an aside, my son and I tried to join a Wing Chun class last night, but the school has stopped offering the art! We're taking the 3-week trial there anyway (JKD and FMA, mostly), but I might've had more to contribute to this if they hadn't changed their curriculum. I was really curious to try WC.


 Hmm, thats interesting. Did they say why they aren't offering it anymore?

 7sm


----------



## Andrew Green (Oct 18, 2005)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> I am going to throw out an observation here:  I think Mr. Green simply enjoys argument.












> For example:he makes statements meant to deny the self-defense or combat usefulness of various different systems. When another person follows with a statement supporting the self-defense or combat usefulness of one of these systems, Mr. Green likes to follow with a comment such as:


 
 Not quite.

 I stated that Wing Chun is not the best art for learning to fight, It was taken that I meant it had no value, that is not at all what I meant as I believe that no matter what the art any fighting skills are a secondary benefit.  In general, most people that train only for learning to fight don't last long.



> Based on his contributions to this and other threads, it is pretty clear to me that he is highly invested in the MMA/UFC/full contact approach to training.


 Yup, that's what I enjoy doing.



> He is not interested in anything that has a more "traditional" approach (if I am wrong, I have not seen anything to lead me to believe it). His attitudes towards training seem to prevent him from seeing any value in any approach to training that is different from his own.


 Wrong again, nice to be profiled though 

 Different tools have different uses.  A good number of traditional arts do some really silly things if you look at them purely from a fighting stand point.  But then again, as I stated, I believe that to be a secondary skill.

 This thread is a question of whether Wing Chun is the best art for women to learn to defend themselves, In my opinion it is not.  At least not if we take all other factors into consideration.  MMA is completely useless if someone doesn't enjoy it, because they won't do it.  

 But all of that aside as it just comes down to the individual, Wing Chun will not make the best fighters in relation to other systems.  Equally trained boxer vs Wing Chun, my money is on the boxer.

 But the big problem with self-defence is it is impossible to agree on a definition.  There is a difference between a one on one girl fight, a teacher handling a out of control student, being mugged, being raped, dealing with weapons, simply avoiding violence altogether... There is a difference between a stranger, a aquaintance and a violent spouse.

 All of those things require very different sorts of training, and looking purely at the physical side of it, very different fighting skills.  So... without aiming at anything in particular go for the general stuff, hard contact, aggression, confidence, fitness, comfort with fighting different types of people in different ways.

 But truthfully, self-defence is far more in your head and frame of mind IMO then any set of physical skills.  So focusing on only the physical is looking in the wrong place for the wrong things.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 18, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Not quite.
> 
> I stated that Wing Chun is not the best art for learning to fight, It was taken that I meant it had no value, that is not at all what I meant as I believe that no matter what the art any fighting skills are a secondary benefit. In general, most people that train only for learning to fight don't last long.
> 
> ...


well, I will inquire as to how much experience you have had either training wing chun to understand the complete system, or at least working with people who have a strong wing chun background?  Your statements are very opinionated, which is fine, but I would like to know on what your opinion is based?

I am not advocating that wing chun is the "best" martial art for women, or for anything, for that matter.  I have trained in wing chun for several years.  I am not a high-level expert in the art, but I do have an understanding of how things work.  I have found it to be easy to apply, and effective.  I also believe that it has some problems with it.  I also know some wing chun people who could be very scary and formidable adversaries.  That is my experience.  

I don't believe that any martial art is "best" in any way.  I believe they all have strong points and weak points.  In my opinion, some arts have more strong points than others.  At the same time, I have known people who practice arts that I would characterize as having fewer strong points, but who could still kick my rear.

My message is that I think in many ways any discussion over what system is "best" in any way, is somewhat pointless.  I think it really comes down to whether or not someone has found an/several art(s) that works well for them, and that they have developed the ability to use the art.

In the spirit of this thread, I would say that wing chun can be a good art for a woman (or anyone), if the woman learns the art well and develops skill with it.  The same could be said for MMA, BJJ, Shotokan, judo, kali, or any other art.


----------



## pete (Oct 18, 2005)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> well, I will inquire as to how much experience you have had either training wing chun to understand the complete system, or at least working with people who have a strong wing chun background? Your statements are very opinionated, which is fine, but I would like to know on what your opinion is based?


been there done that... here's a blast from the past with his less than knowledgeable opinion on tai chi: http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=395257&postcount=10


----------



## Andrew Green (Oct 18, 2005)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> well, I will inquire as to how much experience you have had either training wing chun to understand the complete system, or at least working with people who have a strong wing chun background? Your statements are very opinionated, which is fine, but I would like to know on what your opinion is based?


 Personal experience - Not much, read some books on it, seen some videos, played with some non-top level practitioners.  Been shown some drills, mainly hand trapping stuff, but I can't say I ever studied it seriously or in depth.  My decission not to do so wasn't because of effectiveness, just personal taste.  I do believe that for fighting MMA is most effective, (especially if you also play with weapons and ignore the competition centered rules) but that isn't why I do it.  It's purely coincidence, that's the training I have the most fun doing, so I do it.

 But mainly we need to look at training methods, results of others in mixed competition, overall experience in differet sorts of techniques and training methods.

 No one can devot 10-20 years to training every possible art.  We can only rely on the evidence that has been presented.  

 I also never said it wasnt't effective, I said it is not the most effective for fighting.  Which, all evidence would say, it is not.

 I also did not say it can't produce good fighters, I'm sure it can.  But could they have become better fighters by shifting there training?  Probably.

 Wing Chun may very well be a superior art, but not if you only look at fighting ability.  However, there are many other ways to evaluate a system.  I do find it odd that fighting gets so much attention, especially from systems that have other aspects which are just as important as strengths.

 I know that there are things that a MMA class will never be able to match compared to many traditional schools.  I'm ok with that, I won't get defensive if someone points it out. If someone comes looking for those things I may even point them to a school that does that if I know of one I'm comfortable reccomending.

 Why everyone only focuses on fighting and ignores everything else that different systems have to offer is beyond me...


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 18, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Personal experience - Not much, read some books on it, seen some videos, played with some non-top level practitioners. Been shown some drills, mainly hand trapping stuff, but I can't say I ever studied it seriously or in depth.
> 
> Why everyone only focuses on fighting and ignores everything else that different systems have to offer is beyond me...


Ok, so your opinion is based on the barest minimum of knowledge and experience.  I appreciate your honesty.

The topic of this thread is whether or not wing chun is the best martial art for women.  I think it is safe to assume that we are discussing self-defense/fighting skills.  Given that, of course we are going to focus on fighting, and not the other things the martial arts have to offer.

Given the context of a thread like this, I don't understand why you can take a strong and opinionated stance that one art (namely the one you train) is better than wing chun in the SD/fighting arena, and then turn around and accuse others of overlooking the nebulous "other" aspects that the arts have to offer.  It comes across as haughty and somewhat holier-then-thou.

As long as we are on that topic, please explain to me what you are referring to when you state   "Why everyone only focuses on fighting and ignores everything else that different systems have to offer is beyond me..."  What are the aspects in MMA and, in your opinion, Wing Chun, that fit this category?


----------



## Andrew Green (Oct 18, 2005)

Seeing as this no longer has anything at all to do with the thread, I suggest moving over here:

http://martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=27496

 I also figure those people that do Wing Chun are better suited to answer the question of what other aspects it teaches then I am, so let's let them.


----------



## pete (Oct 18, 2005)

Anon-a-puss said:
			
		

> Irrelvant to this thread, and most people that do Tai Chi are there for health and vitality, not fighting


look who gave me negative reps for this thread... obviously from someone who likes to talk about the effectiveness and training methods of arts they don't have time to study.

hmmm....

i'm through with this one.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 18, 2005)

pete said:
			
		

> look who gave me negative reps for this thread... obviously from someone who likes to talk about the effectiveness and training methods of arts they don't have time to study.
> 
> hmmm....
> 
> i'm through with this one.


where do you see negative reps?  what's that all about?


----------



## Lisa (Oct 18, 2005)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> where do you see negative reps?  what's that all about?



click on the user cp link on the top left hand corner of the page (almost top  ) to see good and bad rep points.


----------



## 7starmantis (Oct 18, 2005)

*Mod. Note.*
 This is not the area to discuss reputation given, negative or not. If you feel you have been unfairly targeting by negative reputation points, contact a member of the Admin team, otherwise, please keep its discussion out of the thread. If your interested in reputation information please see this thread. 

 On a second note, please keep this discussion at a polite and respectful level. This is not the place to single out anyone or post personal attacks. Anyone from any background can post here and are just as welcome to make their opinions known, I expect all of us to respect them and treat them politely. If you have a problem with a specific user, please feel free to use the ignore feature and ignore their posts.

  Thank you.

* -Adam C-
  -7starmantis-
   -MT Super Moderator-*


----------



## arnisador (Oct 18, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Hmm, thats interesting. Did they say why they aren't offering it anymore?


 It looks like he's moved the parts of it that interest people into the JKD part of  his program. I gather he still teaches some of the ideas, but not the whole art. I'm going back tomorrow night and will hopefully learn more--I may try to weasal some WC out of him.

 I visited the praying mantis school near me twice but at the least they don't keep to their posted schedule of training. With so very many schools in Albuquerque (see this thread), I haven't tried to chase them down. Another praying mantis school had a big article on the front page of yesterday's paper!


----------



## SilatFan (Oct 19, 2005)

Hello all.



I just came across this thread and Id like to give my two cents.  As far as Mr. Daniels question goes about if Wing Chun is a great if not the best Martial Art to have women?  In my experience (Im a police officer) I would say no.  Let me say that I have had training experience with only two Wing Chun masters.  One was a student of Kenneth Chungs & the other was a student of Ho Kam Ming (sp?). Again both held instructors ranks and owned their own schools.  From what I felt from them and from what I felt/saw of their students I dont feel that they could adequately prepare a women to consistently have a 50/50 chance against a male attacker.  



But to be honest no 1 art seems to provide a curriculum that can do that.  What does not seem to be understood is that, depending on where you get your statistics from, in 70  90% of ALL rapes the victim knows the attacker (date rape, boyfriend, ex-boyfriend, etc, etc.).  Also alcohol and/or drugs are a factor is most of these attacks.  Being aware of where your drink is, watching when its being prepared, NEVER leaving it unattended, knowing your limits as far as alcohol/drugs goes, not allowing yourself to be isolated from other people that YOU know are some key variables that will help you increase your odds of safety - Punching from a good root not so much.  



From a physical/technical aspect I feel that women (and men) should study:  


BJJ: Many of the basic positions that rapes occur in are FIGHTING positions in BJJ (ex: guard & turtle).   
Kali:  Understanding weapons and improvised weapons.  A 115 lbs women, with a knife, can kill a 250 lbs All American Wrestler very easily if she is educated in the use of that tool.
Realistic knowledge of where, when and what situations are dangerous (Not the stereotypical Youre walking alone at 3 AM in an empty parking lot scenario).
Basic Striking methods found in systems like American Combatives.
 

I find that Wing Chun and most other (oh, oh, here I go) traditional martial arts just were not made for the needs of women and their self-defense needs.  Nor do I think that many of these instructors fully comprehend the issues that women face.  But that really only pertains as far as self-defense against rape attacks are concerned.  The other benefits that martial arts offer still apply to women as they do men.       



Disclaimer:  I am a practitioner of BJJ and a couple of SE Asian MAs in addition to work related training.  So maybe Im also a little biased.


----------



## bcbernam777 (Oct 19, 2005)

pete said:
			
		

> and whose 'advertising materials' are you pushing?  no offense, its just that everyone's got their own opinions.
> 
> personally, i feel that all martial arts that i've been exposed to would be well suited to women, provided they receive good instruction from qualified teachers in that art and are serious about their training. hey, wouldn't that also apply to us guys?
> 
> ...


 Lets look at my post then in more detail


1) It relies on power generated from ground power generated through the correct body structure as opposed to power via the muscular strucure.

No not every martial art generates their energy in this way, and the structure in Wing Chun is still different to the structure that you mentioned in your post, in particular, Tai Chi, who use a 2 sectional body structure as opposed to a single structure, they also have a different centre of gravity than Wing Chun as they have to utilise a centre of gravity that has to deal with the 2 section body structure.

2) Its redirection and soft hands means it can be utilised by a weaker opponant to great effect

Yes this is similar to these other arts, but there are plenty of arts that utilise a more tense energy, although the angles of deflection are different in Wing Chun (note I didnt say better). As for other arts not meeting force for force, are you serious??

3) its effectiveeness in infighting make it perfect also for a smaller fighter.

In my opinion, (now to those who study these arts I mean no offense) bagua, and Tai Chi are circular in their attacks and movments, also the footwork at times cross each other, the attack/defense position of wing chun is straight, in my opinion, a straight line beats a circle, (note there are circles in Wing Chun but these are utilised differently to other circular arts)

4) because of its smoothness it requires the practicioner to learn how to loosen and relax their muscular system, men, in particular larger men have a tougher time with this.

No not all MA's are smooth, or as fluid.

To me Wing chun is the best Martial Art, this is my opinion, which comes after having already studied several different martial arts, and I still think that it contains all that is necessary for effective attack/defense for woman.


----------



## ed-swckf (Oct 19, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> yup
> 
> 
> Define "Self-defence".
> ...


Well glad to see you are able to jump to all kinds of conclusions about me personally whilst basing them on no facts whatsoever.  And all of that creates a very nice smoke screen for you to continually ignore the question asked of you, are you unable to answer the question initially asked?  I will quote the original question below if you would like another crack at it without trying to sidetrack a direct question with unfounded nonsense.

"I have to ask, what do you think wing chun is good for? You have already said its no good in the ring for competition fighting and now you are slating its usage in a self defense situation. It seems you don't hold wing chun in very much of a high regard at all."

Regards


----------



## ed-swckf (Oct 19, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Not quite.
> 
> I stated that Wing Chun is not the best art for learning to fight, It was taken that I meant it had no value, that is not at all what I meant as I believe that no matter what the art any fighting skills are a secondary benefit. In general, most people that train only for learning to fight don't last long.


Actually after you said it wasn't the best art for fighting you have also mentioned that its not really up to much in terms of self defense which you yourself have said only encompasses fighting to fill a small portion of.  The question then asked of you was asking what good can you find in wing chun, can you see any plus sides to it, particularly in its area of design, self defense.  So what skills does wing chun give you that aid in self defense in your opinion?




			
				Andrew Green said:
			
		

> But the big problem with self-defence is it is impossible to agree on a definition. There is a difference between a one on one girl fight, a teacher handling a out of control student, being mugged, being raped, dealing with weapons, simply avoiding violence altogether... There is a difference between a stranger, a aquaintance and a violent spouse.


I think its easy to accept the definition to cover all  of those and more and be generally agreed upon.



			
				Andrew Green said:
			
		

> All of those things require very different sorts of training, and looking purely at the physical side of it, very different fighting skills. So... without aiming at anything in particular go for the general stuff, hard contact, aggression, confidence, fitness, comfort with fighting different types of people in different ways.


All of these are acheived through wing chun though as well as a lot of others.



			
				Andrew Green said:
			
		

> But truthfully, self-defence is far more in your head and frame of mind IMO then any set of physical skills. So focusing on only the physical is looking in the wrong place for the wrong things.


confidence isn't really a physical skill yet you mentioned it as such, however, are you suggesting that wing chun concentrates purely on the physical?  I'd say in accordance with my training that all fighting is 10% physical and 90% mental.


----------



## ed-swckf (Oct 19, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Personal experience - Not much, read some books on it, seen some videos, played with some non-top level practitioners. Been shown some drills, mainly hand trapping stuff, but I can't say I ever studied it seriously or in depth. My decission not to do so wasn't because of effectiveness, just personal taste. I do believe that for fighting MMA is most effective, (especially if you also play with weapons and ignore the competition centered rules) but that isn't why I do it. It's purely coincidence, that's the training I have the most fun doing, so I do it.


Well wing chun won't fit everyone, like you said its often a matter of tates and you enjoy and have fun with your training.  For this reason alone you couldn't lump all women into one art, it has to be something that fits them personally.






			
				Andrew Green said:
			
		

> I also never said it wasnt't effective, I said it is not the most effective for fighting. Which, all evidence would say, it is not.


what is the most effective, how would you rate wing chun for its effectiveness in this feild and how sturdy is the evidence that supports that.



			
				Andrew Green said:
			
		

> I also did not say it can't produce good fighters, I'm sure it can. But could they have become better fighters by shifting there training? Probably.


 
Well if you mean by being open to other arts, i completely agree.



			
				Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Wing Chun may very well be a superior art, but not if you only look at fighting ability. However, there are many other ways to evaluate a system. I do find it odd that fighting gets so much attention, especially from systems that have other aspects which are just as important as strengths.


What are these other aspects?   And do you find that wing chun offers them? However looking at fighting ability alone what is the superior art?  Whats the best art out there?  Or is that just completely subjective?



			
				Andrew Green said:
			
		

> I know that there are things that a MMA class will never be able to match compared to many traditional schools. I'm ok with that, I won't get defensive if someone points it out. If someone comes looking for those things I may even point them to a school that does that if I know of one I'm comfortable reccomending.


Thats ok but if you dispute that MMA has the certain weaknesses that it is being accused of then i'm sure you would retort with that dispute especially if recomennding a school isn't a viable option, right?



			
				Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Why everyone only focuses on fighting and ignores everything else that different systems have to offer is beyond me...


Well its quite funny that you ignored the question that would allow you say what other things wing chun has to offer.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 19, 2005)

Lisa said:
			
		

> click on the user cp link on the top left hand corner of the page (almost top  ) to see good and bad rep points.


gotcha.  thanks.  there's a whole world yet in this forum that apparently i hadn't discovered..


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 19, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> *Mod. Note.*
> This is not the area to discuss reputation given, negative or not. If you feel you have been unfairly targeting by negative reputation points, contact a member of the Admin team, otherwise, please keep its discussion out of the thread. If your interested in reputation information please see this thread.
> 
> On a second note, please keep this discussion at a polite and respectful level. This is not the place to single out anyone or post personal attacks. Anyone from any background can post here and are just as welcome to make their opinions known, I expect all of us to respect them and treat them politely. If you have a problem with a specific user, please feel free to use the ignore feature and ignore their posts.
> ...


my apologies.


----------



## ed-swckf (Oct 19, 2005)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> gotcha. thanks. there's a whole world yet in this forum that apparently i hadn't discovered..


Its ok, its kinda new to me to, never been on a forum with reputation points before,  I'm supprised i haven't been putin the minuses yet to be honest.


----------



## ed-swckf (Oct 19, 2005)

I appologise to anyone who feels my posts are a personal attack on them.


----------



## dmax999 (Oct 20, 2005)

Interesting debate going on, but I have a different viewpoint here.

When I took WC, it was with an EXCELLENT teacher who is basically unknown to the entire MA world (So you'll have to trust me on it).  In the school were two women, who were good friends, and they stuck around for well over a year.  After the first year in the school there were two groups of students, those who were devestating to spar against, and those that you just knew would never become good fighters.  Note: The school focused almost exclusevly on sparring and realistic drills to improve sparring, a WC version of what you might see in a boxing gym (I wish more Kung-Fu schools were like this)  Well, the two women put themselves in the "never going to make it" group.

Does this make WC bad? No.  Would they have done better with a better teacher? No.  It is my belief that they were doomed in any MA for defense, because they didn't put the effort required into it.  Without proper effort I believe WC acutally IS more worthless then no training.  With the proper effort, I also believe WC is one of the more effective systems.

It depends on the woman far more then the system.  If she wants to fight and is willing to put in the work required, you can do a lot worse then WC.  If she wants to look "cool" doing Kung-Fu, find a Contemporary WuShu school.


----------



## bcbernam777 (Oct 20, 2005)

dmax999 said:
			
		

> Does this make WC bad? No. Would they have done better with a better teacher? No. It is my belief that they were doomed in any MA for defense, because they didn't put the effort required into it. Without proper effort I believe WC acutally IS more worthless then no training. With the proper effort, I also believe WC is one of the more effective systems.
> 
> It depends on the woman far more then the system. If she wants to fight and is willing to put in the work required, you can do a lot worse then WC. If she wants to look "cool" doing Kung-Fu, find a Contemporary WuShu school.


Excellent point and one that is raised quite frequently, that there is a symbiotic relationship that goes on to create an effective fighter which is:

Effective MA + Dilligent Student = effective fighter

This relationship cannot simply be overstated. I once said to someone, if I put money on a fighter, I would be putting it on the one who trains 8 hours a day as opposed to someone who trains 1 hour every other day. As Bruce said "then baby you better train every part of your body"


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 21, 2005)

dmax999 said:
			
		

> Without proper effort I believe WC acutally IS more worthless then no training. With the proper effort, I also believe WC is one of the more effective systems.


I would go a step further than that and say that this holds true for any martial art.


----------



## 7starmantis (Oct 21, 2005)

bcbernam777 said:
			
		

> Effective MA + Dilligent Student = effective fighter


 Hmm....my take=
  Effective MA + Dilligent Student + Fighting Time + Effective Teacher = Effective Fighter

  Just my opinions,
   7sm


----------



## ed-swckf (Oct 21, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Hmm....my take=
> Effective MA + Dilligent Student + Fighting Time + Effective Teacher = Effective Fighter
> 
> Just my opinions,
> 7sm


Yeah thats a little more comprehensive for sure but i think everyone is on the same page in regards to it definitely not being about one element of the equation.


----------



## bcbernam777 (Oct 21, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Hmm....my take=
> Effective MA + Dilligent Student + Fighting Time + Effective Teacher = Effective Fighter
> 
> Just my opinions,
> 7sm


There I go over simplyfying again


----------



## dmax999 (Oct 21, 2005)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> I would go a step further than that and say that this holds true for any martial art.


While true enough, I think it holds even greater for WC then any other. I would pity the person who tried using WC who was bad at it. WC puts you in awkward positions and when done improperly can really get you beat badly and quickly.

Non MA people are used to Western Boxing, the Karate Kid, and so on. Many MAs fight in a similar fashion where the basics can be figured out and done to some degree. Americans are not used to seeing WC used for fighting, and unless you actually are good at it, I think you are making defending yourself way harder by trying it.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 21, 2005)

dmax999 said:
			
		

> While true enough, I think it holds even greater for WC then any other.


Oh, I dunno man... bad capoeira is _REALLY_ bad!!  heh heh


----------



## brothershaw (Oct 24, 2005)

dmax999 said:
			
		

> While true enough, I think it holds even greater for WC then any other. I would pity the person who tried using WC who was bad at it. WC puts you in awkward positions and when done improperly can really get you beat badly and quickly.
> 
> Non MA people are used to Western Boxing, the Karate Kid, and so on. Many MAs fight in a similar fashion where the basics can be figured out and done to some degree. Americans are not used to seeing WC used for fighting, and unless you actually are good at it, I think you are making defending yourself way harder by trying it.


 

To a certain degree dmax has a point, trying to use the positions, strikes etc without good training you probably are doomed, however using the theories you are actually ahead of the game.
     Is wing chun the best for women? That depends on how much time they want to put in.


----------



## arnisador (Oct 30, 2005)

dmax999 said:
			
		

> While true enough, I think it holds even greater for WC then any other. I would pity the person who tried using WC who was bad at it. WC puts you in awkward positions and when done improperly can really get you beat badly and quickly.





			
				brothershaw said:
			
		

> To a certain degree dmax has a point, trying to use the positions, strikes etc without good training you probably are doomed, however using the theories you are actually ahead of the game.



Great points here. Wing Chun has simple theories about things like controlling the centerline, but sometimes uses complicated trapping methods to implement those ideas. This _is_ different from a style like boxing or Karate that depends more on a straight-forward strike than a more complicated series of moves intended to tie the other person up. It's a two-edged sword: Good basic theories that make great sense to apply, but if the techniques fail you could end up in an awkward position.

Compare arts like the FMA or Japanese Jujutsu that strongly emphasize getting off-line and to the side of an opponent. Different theory, different strategy, different degree of complexity of the actual moves, and different risks if the approach fails.

I'm getting some Wing Chun now, in little bits, in a class that covers elements of JKD, Jun Fan Gung Fu, and Wing Chun in a combined setting. I'm not very knowledgeable yet, but i do begin to see how Wing Chun trapping is rather more sophisticated than JKD trapping, for example. That's good and bad--for example, time spent "seeking" a way to slip in a snake's strike to the throat (Wing Chun) could be spent blasting through to get to a clinch-and-headbutt/elbow/knee situation (JKD); yet, if the throat strike works, it's simpler and has less risk.


----------



## bcbernam777 (Oct 30, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> Great points here. Wing Chun has simple theories about things like controlling the centerline, but sometimes uses complicated trapping methods to implement those ideas. This _is_ different from a style like boxing or Karate that depends more on a straight-forward strike than a more complicated series of moves intended to tie the other person up. It's a two-edged sword: Good basic theories that make great sense to apply, but if the techniques fail you could end up in an awkward position.
> 
> Compare arts like the FMA or Japanese Jujutsu that strongly emphasize getting off-line and to the side of an opponent. Different theory, different strategy, different degree of complexity of the actual moves, and different risks if the approach fails.
> 
> I'm getting some Wing Chun now, in little bits, in a class that covers elements of JKD, Jun Fan Gung Fu, and Wing Chun in a combined setting. I'm not very knowledgeable yet, but i do begin to see how Wing Chun trapping is rather more sophisticated than JKD trapping, for example. That's good and bad--for example, time spent "seeking" a way to slip in a snake's strike to the throat (Wing Chun) could be spent blasting through to get to a clinch-and-headbutt/elbow/knee situation (JKD); yet, if the throat strike works, it's simpler and has less risk.


 
One mistake a lot of WC players make is to concentrate on chasing hands, the only purpose for trapping is to remove obstructions from your oponant vital points for offensive purposes


----------



## brothershaw (Oct 30, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> Great points here. Wing Chun has simple theories about things like controlling the centerline, but sometimes uses complicated trapping methods to implement those ideas. This _is_ different from a style like boxing or Karate that depends more on a straight-forward strike than a more complicated series of moves intended to tie the other person up. It's a two-edged sword: Good basic theories that make great sense to apply, but if the techniques fail you could end up in an awkward position.
> 
> Compare arts like the FMA or Japanese Jujutsu that strongly emphasize getting off-line and to the side of an opponent. Different theory, different strategy, different degree of complexity of the actual moves, and different risks if the approach fails.
> 
> I'm getting some Wing Chun now, in little bits, in a class that covers elements of JKD, Jun Fan Gung Fu, and Wing Chun in a combined setting. I'm not very knowledgeable yet, but i do begin to see how Wing Chun trapping is rather more sophisticated than JKD trapping, for example. That's good and bad--for example, time spent "seeking" a way to slip in a snake's strike to the throat (Wing Chun) could be spent blasting through to get to a clinch-and-headbutt/elbow/knee situation (JKD); yet, if the throat strike works, it's simpler and has less risk.


 

I believe alot of people miss the point of "trapping" in wing chun. Unless you are doing chi sau nobody really cares about trappinng ( to speak broadly).
In application you would be/ should be more direct, trapping is only incidental compared to striking, and taking and creating openings. I think the jkd camp overemphasized a more " flashy or cool" aspect but without  all the background training behind it so from an outside perspective wing chun "trapping" might look harder and riskier to pull off, where as in the cases you might use your chi sau skills it would actually be easier but used at a more instinctive/ reactive time than you would think. 
like a boxer knowing to counterpunch at the right time, not at just any and every exchange.
         At a high level feeling the opening for the snake strike is no harder than blasting right through.


----------

