Is Wing Chun being used the wrong way in fighting?

[drop bear]

I agree that there are many Wing Chun practitioners that are lacking in skill and poor students being promoted creates problems. I just opposed condemning an entire system because it's poorly represented.

Where I am oposed to condemning the students if you have asked them to push a kart with square wheels.

There needs to be accountability from both sides. And this rhetoric removes the accountability from one side.

 

[drop bear]

Let's compare these 2 different MA training.

1. Style A emphasizes on footwork. During the 1st day of the new students training, the teacher will require students to do fast running. The idea is even if you may not be able to find an opening on your opponent to attack, as long as you are moving, soon or later you will find your opponent's opening. The teacher then add punches into his student's running so his students will be good to attack a moving opponent.

2. Style B emphasizes on stance. During the 1st day of the new students training, the teacher will require students to stand still. The teacher then add punches into his student's standing so his students will be good to attack a static opinion.

Since these 2 approaches are different, it will produce different kind of students.

It is backwards. We are not just inventing a completely new style and seeing what happens. We should have a fairly good idea what sort of results both methods produce.

And that could be either method is better or both methods pretty much produce the same.

What we don't do is guess and mouthbox the results. We test the results and then apply the training that creates the best outcomes.

 

[KPM]

It's not difficult to find videos of skilled Wing Chun practitioners. .

Great! Let's see their sparring vidoes! Preferably against an opponent not also doing Wing Chun. Thanks!

 

[Anarax]

Where I am oposed to condemning the students if you have asked them to push a kart with square wheels.

There needs to be accountability from both sides. And this rhetoric removes the accountability from one side.

I meant poorly trained students, I agree that the instructors should be held accountable.

 

[Nobody Important]

There is so much talk and contention surrounding the supposed condemnation of Wing Chun. To be clear, I've never condemned the art, I asked the question "Is it being used wrong?"

Such a question forces you to exam the purpose of the art before determining its efficacy, not the other way around.

I for one believe it to work great, however, I believe it's main purpose is for refinement, not fighting. Those who believe Wing Chun to be a highly advanced fighting art that addresses all aspects of combat are in my opinion out out touch with the reality of the situation. There is no empirical data to suggest that the art in its current platform of instruction or training works in the manner they so fervently believe.

As such, the question remains, "Is Wing Chun being used wrong?" "Has the real purpose of the art been distorted to fit a paradigm based on adaptations by past masters?"

 

[Juany118]

One of YM's student told me that there was a tournament in Hong Kong. One CLF guy used a right hay-maker on a WC guy. The WC guy used left Tan Shou to block it. The CLF guy's right hay-maker knocked through the WC guy's left Tan Shou and still hit on the WC guy's head. Next day the WC guy asked YM. YM told him to use the right Tan Shou to block opponent's right hay-maker instead.

If your opponent always used straight punch, you should have no problem to use your

- left arm to block a right punch,
- right arm to block a left punch.

But to use left arm to block a powerful right hay-maker, even with body turning, that powerful hay-maker can still go through.

We don't know what kind of experience that the original WC founder might have for dealing with hay-maker. IMO, to change is a must.

Yep, and we are taught exactly what you said here, right vs right, but we also learn something else as well, because over time TWC has seen evolvution (via additions to, not change of, the core bits). While it is arguably in BJ, one doesn't typically see the elbow shield used in WC, but Sifu Keith Mazza and others see it as perfectly acceptable and "part of" TWC because that structure is defensively more solid against the haymaker without turning BUT there is the trade off that your ability to then counter attack with that same hand is largely limited to a hammer fist/knife hand/side palm.

 

[Juany118]

There is so much talk and contention surrounding the supposed condemnation of Wing Chun. To be clear, I've never condemned the art, I asked the question "Is it being used wrong?"

Such a question forces you to exam the purpose of the art before determining its efficacy, not the other way around.

I for one believe it to work great, however, I believe it's main purpose is for refinement, not fighting. Those who believe Wing Chun to be a highly advanced fighting art that addresses all aspects of combat are in my opinion out out touch with the reality of the situation. There is no empirical data to suggest that the art in its current platform of instruction or training works in the manner they so fervently believe.

As such, the question remains, "Is Wing Chun being used wrong?" "Has the real purpose of the art been distorted to fit a paradigm based on adaptations by past masters?"

I have been giving the OP a lot of thought and I think part of the issue may be "what do we mean by 'used'?" The way I look at WC is that it really is designed for the "street". By this I mean that it is designed for very fast, sudden, close in, fighting where things are decided in a very compressed time frame. That is what happens on the street and there I think WC is VERY good, regardless of the art that it faces. However if you are looking at it as a competition art, what often becomes a "war of attrition" I don't think it would perform as well on it's own.

So if used in the first case it is used properly, in the second, not so much.

 

[Nobody Important]

I have been giving the OP a lot of thought and I think part of the issue may be "what do we mean by 'used'?" The way I look at WC is that it really is designed for the "street". By this I mean that it is designed for very fast, sudden, close in, fighting where things are decided in a very compressed time frame. That is what happens on the street and there I think WC is VERY good, regardless of the art that it faces. However if you are looking at it as a competition art, what often becomes a "war of attrition" I don't think it would perform as well on it's own.

So if used in the first case it is used properly, in the second, not so much.

Hi Juany,

I'm all honesty I feel that to be a straw man argument, a fight is a fight. Adaptation to environment is something all fighters contend with, plus, there is the fact that fist fighting is a perishable skill. There are so many factors to be taken into consideration it's impossible to train for them all, especially in a street scenario. Competitions are regulated, structured, and officiated to ensure consistency, thus results are more predictable, effective, & consistent . Believing that a system is designed purely for the street, ergo it is "unrestricted" and "too deadly" for competition that's why it fails in such venues, is a lie that protects one from the truth of a reality that contradicts a wanted belief.

Fights in the ring can be very quick also, it's about the strategy employed. The bottom line is this, the only individuals having competitive success with Wing Chun are the ones who've modified their Wing Chun, to the point where many argue, "is it still Wing Chun?". Observable competition is the litmus test of the arts effectiveness, not personal testimony. That's approaching the conversation from a scientific approach and not a faith based perspective, "what can be proven based on observable results and not personal belief?".

Sadly this has fallen short, because there are too many that want their cake and to be able to eat it too. It becomes all encompassing, building a foundation upon fallacious statements that don't hold up under scrutiny.

Personally, I feel Wing Chun to be a method of refinement, not a stand alone fighting method. "Can I prove it?" No, not as easily as the reverse belief. My use is more subtle in that it is measured in small gains that can only be recognized on a personal level and tested by measuring individual progress. Fighting on the other hand is quantifiable and can be proven, weighed, and measured at the moment of its occurance.

Assessing Wing Chun' s fighting efficacy based on accepted parameters like, strategic, and biomechanical principals shouldn't be relegated to discussion of theoretical soundness as proof of effectiveness. If it truly is the fighting art it is touted to be then there needs to be unrequited proof that it works in the manner propagated.

So far I am unconvinced that it is a stand alone all inclusive fighting art. Though I do believe, as a method to elevate a fighting method, it is quite good. I look to the likes of individuals like Alan Orr who successfully infuse Wing Chun into their fighting to elevate it. To be clear, I don't believe what they are doing is "pure" Wing Chun, but Wing Chun inspired. They may feel & state otherwise, perhaps because they truly believe so, or say so as a means of marketing & propogation, either way, that is the topic of another discussion.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Hi Juany,

I'm all honesty I feel that to be a straw man argument, a fight is a fight. Adaptation to environment is something all fighters contend with, plus, there is the fact that fist fighting is a perishable skill. There are so many factors to be taken into consideration it's impossible to train for them all, especially in a street scenario. Competitions are regulated, structured, and officiated to ensure consistency, thus results are more predictable, effective, & consistent . Believing that a system is designed purely for the street, ergo it is "unrestricted" and "too deadly" for competition that's why it fails in such venues, is a lie that protects one from the truth of a reality that contradicts a wanted belief.

Fights in the ring can be very quick also, it's about the strategy employed. The bottom line is this, the only individuals having competitive success with Wing Chun are the ones who've modified their Wing Chun, to the point where many argue, "is it still Wing Chun?". Observable competition is the litmus test of the arts effectiveness, not personal testimony. That's approaching the conversation from a scientific approach and not a faith based perspective, "what can be proven based on observable results and not personal belief?".

Sadly this has fallen short, because there are too many that want their cake and to be able to eat it too. It becomes all encompassing, building a foundation upon fallacious statements that don't hold up under scrutiny.

Personally, I feel Wing Chun to be a method of refinement, not a stand alone fighting method. "Can I prove it?" No, not as easily as the reverse belief. My use is more subtle in that it is measured in small gains that can only be recognized on a personal level and tested by measuring individual progress. Fighting on the other hand is quantifiable and can be proven, weighed, and measured at the moment of its occurance.

Assessing Wing Chun' s fighting efficacy based on accepted parameters like, strategic, and biomechanical principals shouldn't be relegated to discussion of theoretical soundness as proof of effectiveness. If it truly is the fighting art it is touted to be then there needs to be unrequited proof that it works in the manner propagated.

So far I am unconvinced that it is a stand alone all inclusive fighting art. Though I do believe, as a method to elevate a fighting method, it is quite good. I look to the likes of individuals like Alan Orr who successfully infuse Wing Chun into their fighting to elevate it. To be clear, I don't believe what they are doing is "pure" Wing Chun, but Wing Chun inspired. They may feel & state otherwise, perhaps because they truly believe so, or say so as a means of marketing & propogation, either way, that is the topic of another discussion.

Might some of the difference in view on this also be differences in how you've been exposed to the art? I've forgotten which lineage(s) you learned in, Dave - does it include TWC? If so, was the TWC you experienced taught the same way as what Juany experienced? The method of delivery (training methods) can have a significant impact on how an art is viewed, and can have an impact on how the art is used/usable.

Of course, there's also the possibility that Juany's previous training gave him a foundation that happens to fill gaps that he might otherwise perceive (even if they are only gaps in defense, rather than application of technique).

 

[Nobody Important]

Might some of the difference in view on this also be differences in how you've been exposed to the art? I've forgotten which lineage(s) you learned in, Dave - does it include TWC? If so, was the TWC you experienced taught the same way as what Juany experienced? The method of delivery (training methods) can have a significant impact on how an art is viewed, and can have an impact on how the art is used/usable.

Of course, there's also the possibility that Juany's previous training gave him a foundation that happens to fill gaps that he might otherwise perceive (even if they are only gaps in defense, rather than application of technique).

I've never studied TWC. I have been exposed to it, as well as, other branches. My opinions are based on my own analysis and do not reflect the beliefs of any instructors I've studied under. My conclusions are based on what can be repeated with similar results in real time under pressure. If it can't, despite how well it is theoretically argued, it is a non-factor. I'm a realistic minded individual, I'm open to opposing views, but only if they prove to have positive, repeatable merit. Low percentage techniques, applications, and strategies skew results. Unfortunately much of modern Wing Chun IMO is based on arcane and unproven methods, this is why branches like TWC came into being. The only branches having any semblance of success in a competitive arena are heavily modified from their original format.

 

[KPM]

Personally, I feel Wing Chun to be a method of refinement, not a stand alone fighting method. "Can I prove it?" No, not as easily as the reverse belief.

---Hi Dave! I'm copying what I posted over on the "are forms useless?" thread because it fits here and I wanted to make sure you saw it.

Just what does "formless" really mean? When you move you are still using biomechanics. So are you using the same biomechanics from your forms or not? We can talk abstractly about expressing concepts and linkages, etc all day long. But you are still moving and still using biomechanics of some sort. Is it the biomechanics taught in your forms, or is it not? And if it is the biomechanics taught in your forms....then why wouldn't we expect it to look like recognizable Wing Chun?

Now I realize that in a real exchange you aren't going to always be in a good position...you might stumble, you might get caught at an odd angle, or you might get rocked and loose your structure! But within a couple of beats someone should be back on track again....in other words....snap right back into their Wing Chun. So at times it might not look like Wing Chun because it isn't Wing Chun! But in a back and forth exchange of sparring or a real fight, those times should be minimal. If nothing in the fight looks like Wing Chun, then there is a problem!

Now.....too bad Nobody Important (Dave) is not around for this discussion! Because his premise in the past was that Wing Chun was a system that taught fine motor skills to be used to refine or add to another system's gross motor skills. So....if this is really the case, then the sparring or fighting would look like the base system because it would be using those "gross skills". The Wing Chun may only show up on occasion when some of the "fine" skills it teaches come into play! I find this to be the case with my Wing Chun Boxing! Western Boxing is the base...the gross motor skill. So basic sparring and fighting looks like boxing. The Wing Chun is used to add refinements and specific useful applications. So I have found that I HAVE been using Wing Chun in the way that Dave proposed it was intended to be used! But we spend a lot of time training that "gross motor skill" from boxing. For some Wing Chun guys that end up looking like crappy kickboxing when they spar it may be because they are technically trying to use the same idea.....but they have never bothered to spend the time actually developing the "gross motor skill" that they end up using in their fighting!



I look to the likes of individuals like Alan Orr who successfully infuse Wing Chun into their fighting to elevate it. To be clear, I don't believe what they are doing is "pure" Wing Chun, but Wing Chun inspired. They may feel & state otherwise,


---Now didn't you and I have a pretty good "dust up" awhile back over on the old KFO forum when I said essentially the same thing you just said?

 

[Nobody Important]

Personally, I feel Wing Chun to be a method of refinement, not a stand alone fighting method. "Can I prove it?" No, not as easily as the reverse belief.

---Hi Dave! I'm copying what I posted over on the "are forms useless?" thread because it fits here and I wanted to make sure you saw it.

Just what does "formless" really mean? When you move you are still using biomechanics. So are you using the same biomechanics from your forms or not? We can talk abstractly about expressing concepts and linkages, etc all day long. But you are still moving and still using biomechanics of some sort. Is it the biomechanics taught in your forms, or is it not? And if it is the biomechanics taught in your forms....then why wouldn't we expect it to look like recognizable Wing Chun?

Now I realize that in a real exchange you aren't going to always be in a good position...you might stumble, you might get caught at an odd angle, or you might get rocked and loose your structure! But within a couple of beats someone should be back on track again....in other words....snap right back into their Wing Chun. So at times it might not look like Wing Chun because it isn't Wing Chun! But in a back and forth exchange of sparring or a real fight, those times should be minimal. If nothing in the fight looks like Wing Chun, then there is a problem!

Now.....too bad Nobody Important (Dave) is not around for this discussion! Because his premise in the past was that Wing Chun was a system that taught fine motor skills to be used to refine or add to another system's gross motor skills. So....if this is really the case, then the sparring or fighting would look like the base system because it would be using those "gross skills". The Wing Chun may only show up on occasion when some of the "fine" skills it teaches come into play! I find this to be the case with my Wing Chun Boxing! Western Boxing is the base...the gross motor skill. So basic sparring and fighting looks like boxing. The Wing Chun is used to add refinements and specific useful applications. So I have found that I HAVE been using Wing Chun in the way that Dave proposed it was intended to be used! But we spend a lot of time training that "gross motor skill" from boxing. For some Wing Chun guys that end up looking like crappy kickboxing when they spar it may be because they are technically trying to use the same idea.....but they have never bothered to spend the time actually developing the "gross motor skill" that they end up using in their fighting!



I look to the likes of individuals like Alan Orr who successfully infuse Wing Chun into their fighting to elevate it. To be clear, I don't believe what they are doing is "pure" Wing Chun, but Wing Chun inspired. They may feel & state otherwise,


---Now didn't you and I have a pretty good "dust up" awhile back over on the old KFO forum when I said essentially the same thing you just said?

Hi Keith,

Good post, and I agree with many of your points and perspective. I'll answer your last question first. Yes, we did have a dust up and let me explain with a question. Is Wing Chun the structure or the principles & theory? They can exist seperately, so it's hard to justify the argument that it is both. If it is both it is reasonable to assume that structure (biomechanucs) are also subject to refinement. Since both things are subject to the refinement process, neither will have a dominant presence, but appear as they are refined. My argument was about the, structure, principles & theory of refined movement using Wing Chun methodology, therefore it is Wing Chun. Now this doesn't mean it is pure Wing Chun. As you stated, structure is also important, but from my perspective, this comes as part of the refinement process. When you speak of using boxing as the base & refining with Wing Chun, I think you've nailed what I'm speaking too and IMO a proper use of Wing Chun, ergo you are doing Wing Chun but not the instructional system of it.

That's the difference, I don't believe the instructional (classical, traditional, formal, etc.) system of Wing Chun was meant to be used as a stand alone all inclusive fighting method. Its a tool used to refine an actual simple method, like boxing or San Da. That's why we see it infused in other systems like Hung Gar, White Crane, etc. The same arguments can be made for Tai Chi and Ba Gua. Used in this manner, from my perspective, it's the correct use, therefore it is Wing Chun. Does that make sense to you?

 

[Juany118]

PREFACE: let me note that my description is based on my pre-TWC Wing Chun experience. TWC is obviously different in many ways, not just in some of the functional methodology but how it is taught (Sifu Keith taking the classic, man sau /wu stance and saying "no one really fights like this..."). Also let me note this, the previous WC I took was a WSLVT under a student of Gary Lam. That had "standing grappling" but that was largely a more "firm" method of trapping so one could strike. I do think WC period is good against a dedicated striking art, so long as you can get your opponent to play "your game", in other words pray you aren't fighting a Mayweather who is so good at dancing you can't maintain the "blitz" (more on the "blitz" later). I won't get into grappling right now because this would become a novel.

THAT SAID:

In my experience there is a distinct difference in a street fight and by that I mean someone suddenly trying to rob you, someone looking to outright assault you. You can have a street fight that is a stereotypical competition, such as two drunk idiots facing off at a bar but they are both very different. Let me explain.

In a stereotypical competition (or the bar fight), for lack of a better term, you are looking to win. You win by either points in a competition or by pounding the other guy into the ground so that he can no longer fight in both. You have the sizing up phase, everybody knows it's coming, and because of that people fight typically in a more reason door controlled fashion, though you are correct in that this is not always the case. They test each other they might use a strategy of softening the other person up things like that.
_________________________________________

In the assault, robbery street fight type scenario there is no testing you need to go all in everybody goes all-in right out of the gate. It's basically a "blitz attack" art (told you I would get there ), even the defenses are not simply about protecting, or even injuring (as some arts do) but wedging your way in to attack. This method is much more suited to either A) the street attacks I noted OR B) the competition method you note.

If it becomes a more "strategic" (meaning the testing, measuring etc) it is at a disadvantage. On the street, in the best case scenario, you knockout/cripple your opponent BUT even if your opponent is still capable of fighting BUT you've knocked him on his ***, injured him to the point they won't chase you or say "okay this isnt worth it", thus giving yourself the opportunity to escape you win, unlike a competition where you .

Think of it like Warfare. There are many types of warfare and the tactics are different as well as the tools. So to me Wing Chun is like guerrilla warfare where it's good enough to just hurt your enemy really bad and get out ASAP. This is different from conventional Warfare which is about not only winning the individual battle but also winning the ground on which that battle was fought (you stay they leave). Now sometimes in guerrilla warfare you hit so hard against the opponent that you do actually manage to control the land when everything is said and done but that is the best case scenario, as I said.

Hope this explains a bit better where I am coming from.

 

[Juany118]

I've never studied TWC. I have been exposed to it, as well as, other branches. My opinions are based on my own analysis and do not reflect the beliefs of any instructors I've studied under. My conclusions are based on what can be repeated with similar results in real time under pressure. If it can't, despite how well it is theoretically argued, it is a non-factor. I'm a realistic minded individual, I'm open to opposing views, but only if they prove to have positive, repeatable merit. Low percentage techniques, applications, and strategies skew results. Unfortunately much of modern Wing Chun IMO is based on arcane and unproven methods, this is why branches like TWC came into being. The only branches having any semblance of success in a competitive arena are heavily modified from their original format.

TWC has influences though from real fighting to this day, though admittedly not in the Ring. It starts with GM Cheung in the Roof Top Fights, it then continues to people like Sifu Phil Redmond who did MUSU fights and then introduced Sifu Jerry Devone to them, or Sifu Keith Mazza and my Sifu who not only competed but did "hands on" training in "security" for some of the top clubs in LA (working the door with the bouncers), and are now a Federal LE instructors cert. instructors. My Sifu was operational in LE and Sifu Keith is also cert. for the Marines, Naval Special Warfare Command and Army Special Operations Command. Back in the day (before my time) Sifu Keith and Sifu Jerry had "open nights" for other schools to come and spar at their school but it died out due to lack of popularity. There are actually some videos of the sparring on the Bullshido forums, I'll see if I can find them.

Now maybe I am lucky and my corner of TWC is unique in this regard, but this is my TWC experience. TWC is also, in my opinion, more well rounded than some other lineages. While we may disagree on some minor points I think @KPM would concur with me on this.

 

[TMA17]

"So to me Wing Chun is like guerrilla warfare where it's good enough to just hurt your enemy really bad and get out ASAP. "

I believe this. Great point.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

The way I look at WC is that it really is designed for the "street". By this I mean that it is designed for very fast, sudden, close in, fighting where things are decided in a very compressed time frame. That is what happens on the street and there I think WC is VERY good, regardless of the art that it faces. However if you are looking at it as a competition art, what often becomes a "war of attrition" I don't think it would perform as well on it's own.

There are "challenge fight" happened in the past. The "challenge fight" is no different from today's "sport fight".

 

[geezer]

I like Juany's analogy of warfare. Take historical European fighting techniques and tactics for example. In any given time-frame the choice of weapons and manner of fighting was totally different depending on whether you were fighting a duel, a brawl, guerrilla actions, or large-scale organized warfare between armies. The same distinctions apply today. And even if you restrict your discussion to dealing with "street fighting" you may be talking about hierarchical combat between young males, gang turf-wars and reprisals, responding to urban predators such as muggers and rapists, or the far more measured and restricted behaviors of LEOs dealing with the above.

Competitive "sport" martial arts give skills ant the physical conditioning to handle some of the above, but fighters in the ring use very different strategies than what you might need for self defense. Where I live, many choose to depend upon firearms for self-defense. Knives are also very common.I believe WC also has it's place, especially in dealing with predatory attacks where an immediate and explosive offense followed by escape may be the best strategy.

 

[TMA17]

"WC also has it's place, especially in dealing with predatory attacks where an immediate and explosive offense followed by escape may be the best strategy."

So far that's where I see WC excelling. And you have to be aggressive with it. It's definitely effective in that range and when used in an explosive manner. IMO.

 

[drop bear]

PREFACE: let me note that my description is based on my pre-TWC Wing Chun experience. TWC is obviously different in many ways, not just in some of the functional methodology but how it is taught (Sifu Keith taking the classic, man sau /wu stance and saying "no one really fights like this..."). Also let me note this, the previous WC I took was a WSLVT under a student of Gary Lam. That had "standing grappling" but that was largely a more "firm" method of trapping so one could strike. I do think WC period is good against a dedicated striking art, so long as you can get your opponent to play "your game", in other words pray you aren't fighting a Mayweather who is so good at dancing you can't maintain the "blitz" (more on the "blitz" later). I won't get into grappling right now because this would become a novel.

THAT SAID:

In my experience there is a distinct difference in a street fight and by that I mean someone suddenly trying to rob you, someone looking to outright assault you. You can have a street fight that is a stereotypical competition, such as two drunk idiots facing off at a bar but they are both very different. Let me explain.

In a stereotypical competition (or the bar fight), for lack of a better term, you are looking to win. You win by either points in a competition or by pounding the other guy into the ground so that he can no longer fight in both. You have the sizing up phase, everybody knows it's coming, and because of that people fight typically in a more reason door controlled fashion, though you are correct in that this is not always the case. They test each other they might use a strategy of softening the other person up things like that.
_________________________________________

In the assault, robbery street fight type scenario there is no testing you need to go all in everybody goes all-in right out of the gate. It's basically a "blitz attack" art (told you I would get there ), even the defenses are not simply about protecting, or even injuring (as some arts do) but wedging your way in to attack. This method is much more suited to either A) the street attacks I noted OR B) the competition method you note.

If it becomes a more "strategic" (meaning the testing, measuring etc) it is at a disadvantage. On the street, in the best case scenario, you knockout/cripple your opponent BUT even if your opponent is still capable of fighting BUT you've knocked him on his ***, injured him to the point they won't chase you or say "okay this isnt worth it", thus giving yourself the opportunity to escape you win, unlike a competition where you .

Think of it like Warfare. There are many types of warfare and the tactics are different as well as the tools. So to me Wing Chun is like guerrilla warfare where it's good enough to just hurt your enemy really bad and get out ASAP. This is different from conventional Warfare which is about not only winning the individual battle but also winning the ground on which that battle was fought (you stay they leave). Now sometimes in guerrilla warfare you hit so hard against the opponent that you do actually manage to control the land when everything is said and done but that is the best case scenario, as I said.

Hope this explains a bit better where I am coming from.

Which is still a small section of ring craft. Where you might spend ten or fifteen seconds just brawling it out or trying to recover from a shot you did not see coming.

The issue you have is there are a lot of elements to being a pressure fighter, Hitting harder than the other guy, Really good cardio and a strong chin which are not really emphasized. You are basically biting off more than you can chew.

 

[Nobody Important]

I like Juany's analogy of warfare. Take historical European fighting techniques and tactics for example. In any given time-frame the choice of weapons and manner of fighting was totally different depending on whether you were fighting a duel, a brawl, guerrilla actions, or large-scale organized warfare between armies. The same distinctions apply today. And even if you restrict your discussion to dealing with "street fighting" you may be talking about hierarchical combat between young males, gang turf-wars and reprisals, responding to urban predators such as muggers and rapists, or the far more measured and restricted behaviors of LEOs dealing with the above.

Competitive "sport" martial arts give skills ant the physical conditioning to handle some of the above, but in the ring use very different strategies. Where I live, many choose to depend upon firearms for self-defense. WC also has it's place, especially in dealing with predatory attacks where an immediate and explosive offense, followed by escape may be the best strategy.

The initial strategy for approach and recovery may be different, but, when contact is made both scenarios (street & ring) are quantifiably equal in mindset. At this point the idea is to survive the encounter. The idea that Wing Chun is designed for the street, therefore, unusable without significant modification in the ring, is a fallacy. There are known rules in a competition, this means one knows what they can legally do and what they can expect to defend against. There are no rules in a street altercation and the variables are unknown, making a successful outcome way more elusive. It should be easier to prepare and defend in a competition compared to a street altercation if the body and mind are trained equally. Unless the argument is that you can do whatever necessary to defend yourself in the street and you train a number of odd and arcane scenarios. If so, then you have to ask yourself, is that spontaneous reaction of grabbing, spitting, hair pulling, biting, eye gouging, testicle grabbing, screaming, running, object throwing etc. part of your Wing Chun system? Is it in the forms? Do you drill it from all positions? Do those movements adhere to Wing Chun strategy, principles, theory & biomechanics?

It's a tired argument and a lie many tell themselves to justify a belief that they are afraid to contradict. Its nothing more than adhering to dogma for fear that the truth with destroy the comfortable fantasy they have built to protect their ego.

It doesn't bother me if people don't use Wing Chun to fight with, what does bother me, are the ones who adamantly believe they can if they so chose to without ever having done so and teach this ideology to others. All on an untested system of faith.

Again the only individuals who are testing Wing Chun on a systematic scale have systems that are heavily modified, some to the point where it cannot easily be recognized as such. This is a dilemma. It puts forward the question, "What is Wing Chun?" "What alterations & modifications can be implemented and it still be considered Wing Chun?" And, depending on your answers, "Is Wing Chun being used the wrong way in fighting?"

If you ask me, "Is Wing Chun a boxing method?" My response is No! The entire art is based on bridge movements. 95% of the techniques & principles in the forms have a primary emphasis other than striking. This tells me that it is not a striking art, but something else. Boxing methods focus on striking, like Western Boxing.

Yet because of Yip Man's popularity and modifications to the art of Wing Chun everyone assumes his interpretation that its a boxing method is the correct one. Yet there is no empirical evidence to suggest his ideas work when put to the test. I realise this is inflammatory & many will be upset over the comment, but show me the evidence that it can stand on its own as a boxing method against another method. Until then, I say it's not a boxing method but a refinement tool as evidenced by the many who have successfully used Wing Chun to elevate their competative fighting styles but don't use it as a stand alone all inclusive form of combat.