This is one common line of reasoning.... ?
There is a reason for the conclusion I speak of. Many of the traditional Chinese Martial Arts (Wing Chun, Hung Gar, White Crane, etc) were developed hundreds of years ago and existed and spread, in a time where people fought challenge matches, sometimes even with signed death waivers. So they are solidly proven in terms of real world effectiveness of their punching techniques. No Martial art based only on "unproven" theory would survive in such an environment.
Also I never said that other arts punches aren't founded in science. What I said is they achieve the same goal via different methods. A simple difference in methodology does not by extension mean unscientific.
Some rely on using (for lack of a better term) body english (rotation and/or "snapping" at the waist) to align the mass behind a straight punch, WC simply uses body structure and elbow alignment along the centerline to achieve the same goal. The way it was described to me was "in Western Boxing you 'throw' your weight behind a punch, in WC you 'keep' your weight behind a punch."
Some arts in order to be able to launch a series of rapid attacks end up unconsciously needing more development of fast twitch muscle fibers so you can rapidly snap jabs back and forth from the shoulder. You may in boxing achieve this by constantly jabbing the heavy bag and working on timing with the speed bag. WC in order to accomplish the same uses a principle of relaxation at the point of impact, and rotating the fists one over the other to maintain the centerline. The idea being, and a biomechanical fact actually, that a relaxed muscle requires less energy to withdraw than one still in a state of opposing tension. You do this by punching a rice bag mounted on a wall repeatedly. The goal being that eventually even though your fist hits full force the first then automatically recoils (equal and opposite reaction) and the bag bounces due to the instant relaxation.
I am not saying WC has THE most power punch. Other punches can be more powerful, I won't deny that. It's why WC also puts a premium on the speed of repetitive attacks (see battering ram analogy). There is a reason tigers, bears and gorillas etc swing their arms in arcs, it's to rip the head off of what they are attacking. There are a couple of factors at play though with these more rounded attacks technique is equally important when you are throwing those wide punches muscle is a greater factor, because again instead of "keeping" your weight behind a punch you are "throwing" your weight behind it.
What WC is designed around is the following theory. Create an art that is specifically tailored around a smaller person so that they can fight a larger opponent. Rather than use techniques that require the parallel cultivation of muscle (more than a couple of traditional Chinese martial arts when taught in the traditional manner also had physical work out regimes along side them, such as what we now call "isometric" exercises such as holding buckets filled with stuff and/or VERY low static stances etc) for strength WC was designed around keeping the weight behind a strike for power, vs throwing, and then speed via straight-line punching and the use of relaxation so that one can accomplish the same goal.
Neither, is universally "better" than the other but WC still being around for ~300 years now and surviving in an environment where not only hand to hand combat was THE way of combat but where even in the rare time war was not happening you had challenge matches that could result in death, shows WC, and it's fellow traditional Chinese arts, are proven in terms of theory.
