Is the wing chun punch real?

[Juany118]

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

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

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

 

[Juany118]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Steve]

No way in hell.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Hanzou]

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

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

 

[Steve]

No way in hell.

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

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

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

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

 

[Juany118]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maybe that makes my position a little more clear?

 

[Steve]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Juany118]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[ThatVTGuy]

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

 

[Steve]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[JowGaWolf]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Juany118]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Steve]

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

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

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

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

 

[Juany118]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[JowGaWolf]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

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

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

IMO 2 > 1.

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

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

 

[geezer]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Steve]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Come on. This isn't nice.

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

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

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

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