Is Wing Chun being used the wrong way in fighting?

[geezer]

Have you looked at amateur boxing?

Sure, ... our group rents space at a boxing gym. It's an awesome art, but the foundation is so different from what we do that I wouldn't begin to try integrating the two. If others want to I'll sit back and watch with an open mind. As far as learning boxing, well I'll be 62 next month, and if I take up anything new it will be something a good deal more gentle. Something like a special BJJ class for geezers.

 

[anerlich]

I also get feeling there are lot of internet trolls and people starting to believe them.

You don't say.

 

[Way_of_the_Crane]

Wing Chun is not a sport. This is why the art is being used wrong. Designed to be simple, quick, and to destroy asap. Videos primary have students or Sifu's with gloves on (this alone impacts our Chi sau training). They are in a ring with a ref. A handful of our moves would be considered illegal in competitions. Therefore, with these statements, yes the ART is being used wrong, people use it as a sport.
My intention is not to offend anyone, Kung Fu gets a bad reputation because of individuals trying to use it in the ring. Stay at home, and use it for self realization, self improvement, and self defense.

 

[jobo]

Wing Chun is not a sport. This is why the art is being used wrong. Designed to be simple, quick, and to destroy asap. Videos primary have students or Sifu's with gloves on (this alone impacts our Chi sau training). They are in a ring with a ref. A handful of our moves would be considered illegal in competitions. Therefore, with these statements, yes the ART is being used wrong, people use it as a sport.
My intention is not to offend anyone, Kung Fu gets a bad reputation because of individuals trying to use it in the ring. Stay at home, and use it for self realization, self improvement, and self defense.

but its only wing chun and not kung fu in general that has a bad rep

 

[anerlich]

but its only wing chun and not kung fu in general that has a bad rep

No, most kung fu has a bad rep. That taiji guy that lost the fight in China recently didn't exactly help matters. The (some) Chinese took it as an affront to their entire martial/cultural heritage.

 

[Way_of_the_Crane]

I agree with anerlich. The general term of Kung Fu to the Western world of fighting has a bad rep. Most do not understand when/way the styles are used, or the dedication and commitment to it. People try to bring any style to the ring and it doesn't really work that way. I have seen the Shaolin monk that is rather impressive, showing the world what Kung Fu can do. With all due respect, if you can name a Kung Fu that MMA or UFC entertainers consistently use, I will be impressed. What comes to mind is Joe Rogan telling the world what a joke most eastern styles are. So not just Wing Chun, Kung Fu in general.

 

[wingchun100]

Moonhill, this question I quoted was posed by the forum member "Nobody Important", so he would have to weigh in to give you a definitive answer. Still, when he referred to WC "failing miserably" when put to the test, I took it that he was referring to matches or competition such as MMA, Sanda, or style vs. style bouts, not unrecorded self-defense applications on the street.

While WC/VT/WT may be very effective when you are jumped in some dark ally or parking lot, that remains unknowable and unquantifiable, except as regards one' personal experience. Testimonials and stories of such experiences are entirely subjective and don't provide the kind objective evidence that today's skeptical audience demands.

By "testing" most people refer to some kind of competition with resisting opponents, oft repeated, and with controlled variables so that the results can be quantified and analyzed. Many feel that though imperfect, this is the best available way to objectively test efficacy. Consider the ring as a sort of petri dish to lab-test martial arts.

Of course, as you pointed out, such controlled lab tests cannot fully duplicate field results. But it's the best we can do if we want to apply the scientific method. Or we could just go along with untested theories and personal testimonials.

Or we could start wearing button cams and purposely aggravating the college jocks getting wasted and belligerent in bars.

 

[drop bear]

I agree with anerlich. The general term of Kung Fu to the Western world of fighting has a bad rep. Most do not understand when/way the styles are used, or the dedication and commitment to it. People try to bring any style to the ring and it doesn't really work that way. I have seen the Shaolin monk that is rather impressive, showing the world what Kung Fu can do. With all due respect, if you can name a Kung Fu that MMA or UFC entertainers consistently use, I will be impressed. What comes to mind is Joe Rogan telling the world what a joke most eastern styles are. So not just Wing Chun, Kung Fu in general.

Sanda.

People who can use their style to fight. Can use their style to fight. People who can't can't.

It is not all that complicated. It is just sometimes hard to acknowledge.

 

[wingchun100]

Wing Chun is not a sport. This is why the art is being used wrong. Designed to be simple, quick, and to destroy asap. Videos primary have students or Sifu's with gloves on (this alone impacts our Chi sau training). They are in a ring with a ref. A handful of our moves would be considered illegal in competitions. Therefore, with these statements, yes the ART is being used wrong, people use it as a sport.
My intention is not to offend anyone, Kung Fu gets a bad reputation because of individuals trying to use it in the ring. Stay at home, and use it for self realization, self improvement, and self defense.

If you know the rules ahead of time, then you can train in a way that excludes the illegal techniques.

Not for nothing, but Wing Chun does not HAVE to be used in a deadly way. I mean, if my brother-in-law was drunk at a wedding, I would use my skills to handle him differently than I would some thug on the street.

 

[jobo]

No, most kung fu has a bad rep. That taiji guy that lost the fight in China recently didn't exactly help matters. The (some) Chinese took it as an affront to their entire martial/cultural heritage.

is that the one were the small old guy was beaten up by the big young MMA guy? I've made note before that tma lives in a fantasy world of out of condition middle aged men beating up young fit men, its unlikely to happen if its just some thug on the street, its just not going to happen at all if the young guy is good at mma.

there is nothing at all wrong with kung fu, if you are realistic about who you can fight.based on your age and physical condition

put some 26yo fit gung fu guy of the same weight up against him and there would at least be a,contest.

 

[TMA17]

See this is a problem I think, the idea it should look a particular way. I posted a video elsewhere of Jerry Devone in a fight where he knocked a guy out a couple times. Was it Donnie Yen movie perfect? Nope. Could you see the Wing Chun in what he did though? Yes. Maybe this is just me but I have always looked at the way we train WC as being about teaching techniques to understand the principles with which you fight. If my bil or bong isnt at a perfect angle but I adhere to the principles I am still using WC. This may also come from the way Sifu Keith Mazza teaches (as he is the Sifu of my Sifu's). At one seminar he took a picture perfect stance, and said "this is how we train but this isn't how anyone is going to fight irl. The picture perfect man and wu sau are there to program you to know/protect your center and to stay relaxed vs tense with clenched fists.

I have always found it odd how WC is called a conceptual martial art, yet at the same time people expect it to have that picture perfect appearance. /shrug

I believe Sifu Mazza is correct.

 

[TMA17]

See this is a problem I think, the idea it should look a particular way. I posted a video elsewhere of Jerry Devone in a fight where he knocked a guy out a couple times. Was it Donnie Yen movie perfect? Nope. Could you see the Wing Chun in what he did though? Yes. Maybe this is just me but I have always looked at the way we train WC as being about teaching techniques to understand the principles with which you fight. If my bil or bong isnt at a perfect angle but I adhere to the principles I am still using WC. This may also come from the way Sifu Keith Mazza teaches (as he is the Sifu of my Sifu's). At one seminar he took a picture perfect stance, and said "this is how we train but this isn't how anyone is going to fight irl. The picture perfect man and wu sau are there to program you to know/protect your center and to stay relaxed vs tense with clenched fists.

I have always found it odd how WC is called a conceptual martial art, yet at the same time people expect it to have that picture perfect appearance. /shrug

Great point about WC being a conceptual martial art. Is it important if your bong sao is 3"'s different from where it's supposed to be? I don't think so. The foundation and concepts behind WC are IMO very sound and good. How one uses it will vary and that is ok.

 

[JowGaWolf]

On another thread, Nobody Important posed the following question:

Clearly, and feel free to argue, Wing Chun as a fighting art has failed miserably when put to the test. Perhaps Wing Chun isn't supposed to look like your doing the forms when fighting, but more importantly, about learning how to refine gross motor skill to combined motor skill and fine motor skill when under duress. Is the art of Wing Chun being used wrong?

It's an old question, but one worthy of further discussion. What are your thoughts?

I agree to a point. Fighting with kung fu doesn't look like the form, but takes the shape of the form. The form is like a perfect circle, while fighting looks like an imperfect circle. Everyone in here can draw a circle while walking, and none of the circles will be perfect, but anyone can recognize what we were trying to draw. Kung fu is like that. Fighting is like walking. How we walk changes with the terrain and affects how the circle looks and how we try to apply our method of drawing a circle.

Some people fight using Wing Chun form and not Wing Chun shape. I think this something that's common in all martial arts except for grappling systems.

 

[FighterTwister]

On another thread, Nobody Important posed the following question:

Clearly, and feel free to argue, Wing Chun as a fighting art has failed miserably when put to the test.

Perhaps Wing Chun isn't supposed to look like your doing the forms when fighting,

but more importantly, about learning how to refine gross motor skill to combined motor skill and fine motor skill when under duress. Is the art of Wing Chun being used wrong?

It's an old question, but one worthy of further discussion. What are your thoughts?

I'm going to take a chance and comment, so here I go..........

I agree with the part that I put in bold to highlight the point you are making here.

What is Wing Chun and how to use it in real application...............................

As you know Wing Chun is about the center-line theory protecting your body as the center mass however you are combining foot work like shifting movement, step to left or right or shuffling in and also the use of front kicks and other types of kicks to gain control or distance or counter or upset your opponents approach of attack where you attack the closest point of interest it might be a right lead hand then follow in to the right side body as an example or kicking the thighs so on.

As much as it is covering the triangle path its also under Chinese fighting methods taught its fighting in a circle and half circle pattern and the straight blast approach all are correct methods when the opportunity or way of entering and escaping presents its self.

Wing Chun is a simple method of fighting to reduce the gap in close quarter fighting but there is another way of thinking taken from the Shaolin fighting principles of when to expand and contract and closing the gap when the right opportunity presents it self.

Its as much as getting in close to control the fight in trapping range but taking the bite out of the attack using proper methods of covering all points of attack and counter strategy.

For example parry and wrap around one arm knee to the chest or elbow to the face then move fast over the next arm so on, if you get the point I'm making.

I hope I'm making some sense I'm no expert writer but most don't know how to translate what is taught in training from how to apply fighting application and poorly represent Wing Chun and others Martial arts as whole.

The only guy that I currently see doing things the way I see it to be done is Master Wongs methods of street fight defense using Wing Chun.

I was taught traditional Wing Chun but understood thats the form in the learning process and real life expression is more aggressive and strategic in application and its more about the person expressing it then the art itself.

I also took to learning about the approach to fighting when others simply don't study it, but just apply to learning the martial art style not the application of fighting.

Its why I posted this............ *** UFC - THE ART OF THE FIGHT *** ........but that thread was lost also in not understanding the concept of fighting and I also did not explain it properly either so read posts #1, 3, 11

But Watch Master Wong here.......

Its about applying what your learn not applying the form, does that make any sense, because the form is the process of learning.

Not like this...................

As for the above video just two guys punching each other senseless is not skilled or trained individuals expressing martial arts showing any awareness of good fighting skills but just a brutal way of attacking each other looking for a knock out. They are not relaxed but both very tense and overly focused on the fear of getting hit rather than managing distance not get hit using fakes and entry points of attack as an example.

its about correct understanding.......... "Think Street - Train Sport"!

So by training like this it could very well save your life if ever confronted with the horrid situation of attacking and defending yourself in a real confrontation that can happen anywhere anytime in an instance.

Also what contributes to poor performance in realistic expression of fighting is that people panic instead of keeping calm relaxed and breathing or thinking, reading movement patterns as well as learning in the fight. You do this by moving around don't just walk into it allot depends on the surroundings but evading is also the tactical advantage of watching the opponent.

Its really a good discussion point and a science to learn and express it in sparring.

How Martial arts is commonly taught nowadays is more of a hobby sport not so much focused on the "Art of Fighting" which sadly completely misses the mark when its needed in reality for defensive purposes and people with good intent get hurt badly, because they have not learned to translate those skill sets over to real practical experience and you see this allot on YouTubes and people make claims that the martial art is at fault thats not entirely true or the whole account of the problem or analysis.

Its about weighing in the whole account and balances so to speak not just focusing on one side.

Well I hope I have added something to the thread for discussion keeping it concise and to the point I believe. I will always love martial arts for its many forms styles ways of thinking just the knowledge you get its fascinating how the body can do all these things.

 

[Juany118]

On another thread, Nobody Important posed the following question:

Clearly, and feel free to argue, Wing Chun as a fighting art has failed miserably when put to the test. Perhaps Wing Chun isn't supposed to look like your doing the forms when fighting, but more importantly, about learning how to refine gross motor skill to combined motor skill and fine motor skill when under duress. Is the art of Wing Chun being used wrong?

It's an old question, but one worthy of further discussion. What are your thoughts?

Well as far as I am taught in TWC, including the head of the US branch, WC as is said is NOT supposed to look like the forms while fighting. The forms teach, in essence, the principles and provide a framework which is then used in fighting.

 

[TMA17]

Well as far as I am taught in TWC, including the head of the US branch, WC as is said is NOT supposed to look like the forms while fighting. The forms teach, in essence, the principles and provide a framework which is then used in fighting.

I have heard the same thing from several WC people, one of which is very well known and respected.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Well as far as I am taught in TWC, including the head of the US branch, WC as is said is NOT supposed to look like the forms while fighting. The forms teach, in essence, the principles and provide a framework which is then used in fighting.

If this doesn't make sense, let me know, Juany. It's not meant to be an implied condemnation - I'm expecting there's an answer to this if I ask it clearly enough.

What is the principle of progression from the forms to how it ends up in application? If it doesn't look like the forms, then how does someone in TWC know how to apply the principles from the forms?

 

[KPM]

What is the principle of progression from the forms to how it ends up in application? If it doesn't look like the forms, then how does someone in TWC know how to apply the principles from the forms?

That is a great question. Of course fighting is not going to look EXACTLY like the forms! But if I see a guy sparring, shouldn't I be able to recognize that he is doing TWC? Shouldn't it look enough like TWC to be recognizable? Wouldn't applying the principles taught in the forms using the techniques taught in the forms just naturally look like TWC? And if not, then why not?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

That is a great question. Of course fighting is not going to look EXACTLY like the forms! But if I see a guy sparring, shouldn't I be able to recognize that he is doing TWC? Shouldn't it look enough like TWC to be recognizable? Wouldn't applying the principles taught in the forms using the techniques taught in the forms just naturally look like TWC? And if not, then why not?

Well, following Juany's statement, just because it doesn't look like the forms, that doesn't mean it doesn't look like TWC. There are positions in NGA forms that I teach students why they aren't wise with an attacker (resisting opponent). The technique still ends up looking like NGA, but not like that NGA form.

 

[TMA17]

My .02. I'm not really qualified to answer this but from what I've read and learned so far I'd say the bulk of it would look like WC and recognizable. For example, the kicks, blocks and defending/simultaneous attacking. What may look different is the stance. More of the 45 degree angle. No/less of the standing upright and chain punching into the guy. (seems to be something I see a lot of WC guys do and I was told from the beginning that is a common mistake.). Faster more fluid movement from better more well trained WC people. I think what you see with Phillips/Wong/Orr/Chan is more what it would look like.

This book was referred to me for WC. I have not read it but it's related to this topic.

Look Beyond the Pointing Finger: The Combat Philosophy of Wong Shun Leung