Is Wing Chun being used the wrong way in fighting?

[Gerry Seymour]

It would make sense to me if I was not a naturally gifted swimmer to use the most efficient method of swimming.

Rather than shackle my lack of athleticism by combining it with an inefficient stroke.

If our swimmer competed against himself using both strokes then the more efficient method would win.

If your aim was to be as fast as possible in the time you were willing to commit, that’s probably the best approach.

 

[drop bear]

If your aim was to be as fast as possible in the time you were willing to commit, that’s probably the best approach.

Yeah or obviously self defence if you fall out of a boat or something. At which point even amazing breast stroke guy would probably do freestyle as well.

 

[drop bear]

Agreed. And sometimes that other stuff is why folks choose one thing over another. It’s what appeals to some. I love the challenge of working on aiki. I don’t think it is the most efficient method to learn fighting, but it has kept my interest in training for decades.

I don't even think most aiki is the most effective way to develop aiki. When you see what people can achieve in other disciplines.

Say compared say to the ability of the thais for example

 

[Steve]

Agreed. And sometimes that other stuff is why folks choose one thing over another. It’s what appeals to some. I love the challenge of working on aiki. I don’t think it is the most efficient method to learn fighting, but it has kept my interest in training for decades.

If aiki is the goal, why intentionally choose an inefficient training model? If the training is the goal, not the result, I guess I can understand.

“what are you trying to do?”
“Working on aiki.”
“How long have you been doing it?”
“Long time. Years.”
“You any good?”
“Not really. Probably never will be.”
“So working on aiki isn’t really the goal. Is it?”
“Working is the goal. Being good at it isn’t.”

if that’s the point, I get it. If actually being good at it is, you’re doing it wrong.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

choose an inefficient training model...

This is why I believe that right jab, left cross, right hook, left hook may be the best punching combo that you can find among all different MA systems. When your opponent tries to block your jab and cross, your right hook and left hook can get him from the side most of the time.

Comparing to some MA systems that you only train 1 punch, the jab, cross, hook, hook is a much better combo training IMO.

Also the combo training will force a beginner to understand the principle that when he creates an opening, he can attack through that opening. A beginner won't be able to learn this by doing single punch only.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

I love the challenge of working on aiki. I don’t think it is the most efficient method to learn fighting, but it has kept my interest in training for decades.

Here is my concern. I can only accumulate my fighting experience when I was young. When I get older, even if my MA skill have been improved, I won't have chance to test it in the ring or on the mat any more.

Our tournament testing window in our lifetime is so small, if we miss it, it will be gone forever. In other words, any MA system that I can't be good at before I was 35, it won't do me any good.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

choose an inefficient training model...

I encourage my guys to develop their own solo form (drills). The form include kick, punch, throw, footwork. The form can be trained with speed (1 step 3 punches) and with power (1 step 1 punch).

Here is one road of the 18 roads punching combo. Each road starts with a fighting stance, and end with a fighting stance.

It uses

- kicks to set up punches.
- punches to move in.
- footwork to chase opponent.
- arm contact to set up throw.

I like this kind of training method. It doesn't have to be restricted by any style boundary.

5th Road (Power)
Fight Stance
Roundhouse kick R
Side kick R
Jab R
Hook L
Hook R
Downward parry with running punch footwork
Step
Knee Seizing with Scoop kick R
Fight Stance

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Yeah or obviously self defence if you fall out of a boat or something. At which point even amazing breast stroke guy would probably do freestyle as well.

He definitely might. Wouldn't need to, though. I suppose he could survive well enough with breast stroke. For slow swimming, it's probably more efficient, but that's just the analogy falling apart at that point.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I don't even think most aiki is the most effective way to develop aiki. When you see what people can achieve in other disciplines.

Say compared say to the ability of the thais for example

I've not seen much aiki happen spontaneously in other arts. It shows up routinely in Judo at the higher levels, but is rarely used because a skilled Judoka will remove most aiki opportunities for their opponent. So not much chance to practice it.

I'm not familiar with what you're talking about with the Thais.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

If aiki is the goal, why intentionally choose an inefficient training model? If the training is the goal, not the result, I guess I can understand.

“what are you trying to do?”
“Working on aiki.”
“How long have you been doing it?”
“Long time. Years.”
“You any good?”
“Not really. Probably never will be.”
“So working on aiki isn’t really the goal. Is it?”
“Working is the goal. Being good at it isn’t.”

if that’s the point, I get it. If actually being good at it is, you’re doing it wrong.

I actually think the aiki-oriented training approach is pretty good for developing aiki. It's about as efficient as you can get, from what I've seen. It's just not as efficient for developing fighting ability. It's a matter of compromise to put goals together. I suspect the Ki-aikido folks are better at developing aiki, since they don't really need to develop fighting skills at the same time.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Here is my concern. I can only accumulate my fighting experience when I was young. When I get older, even if my MA skill have been improved, I won't have chance to test it in the ring or on the mat any more.

Our tournament testing window in our lifetime is so small, if we miss it, it will be gone forever. In other words, any MA system that I can't be good at before I was 35, it won't do me any good.

I was never really focused on that, so it wasn't an issue for me. Combat competitions didn't appeal to me in my 20's and 30's. Oddly, they appeal more now.

 

[Flying Crane]

Here is my concern. I can only accumulate my fighting experience when I was young. When I get older, even if my MA skill have been improved, I won't have chance to test it in the ring or on the mat any more.

Our tournament testing window in our lifetime is so small, if we miss it, it will be gone forever. In other words, any MA system that I can't be good at before I was 35, it won't do me any good.

Are you unable to evaluate your training and skills without competition?

 

[Ivan]

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?

Wing Chun isn't being used the incorrect way. It is being trained in incorrect ways.

Let's omit the fact that it doesn't have sparring. Wing Chun was developed and taught in an era where being a skilled martial artist was a career, not a sport or a hobby. Many people who studied martial artists, devoted themselves to them completely. They would go on to become teachers, masters, soldiers, mercenaries and more. In China, it was also essential to be well trained for anyone who considered themselves a gentleman. This meant that people who trained in Wing Chun dedicated a lot more time, and a lot more effort than the modern, average martial artist.

In contrast to before, almost everyone who trains martial arts does so recreationally; it's their hobby, not their occupation. When people's priorities change, so does the quality of their work. Unless someone fervently dedicated years to mastering Wing Chun (a very, very technical and scientific fighting method) they won't be able to use it as it was intended.

 

[drop bear]

I actually think the aiki-oriented training approach is pretty good for developing aiki. It's about as efficient as you can get, from what I've seen. It's just not as efficient for developing fighting ability. It's a matter of compromise to put goals together. I suspect the Ki-aikido folks are better at developing aiki, since they don't really need to develop fighting skills at the same time.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Are you unable to evaluate your training and skills without competition?

Unless you travel and challenge people all the time, otherwise you won't have chance to test your skill against a total stranger.

IMO, without product testing, the product is not ready for the market.

 

[Flying Crane]

Unless you travel and challenge people all the time, otherwise you won't have chance to test your skill against a total stranger.

IMO, without product testing, the product is not ready for the market.

I guess I don’t see what I do as a product to be brought to market. It’s just what I do. If someone is interested, I might be willing to share, and I likely would ask a reasonable fee for my time and energy. If someone is not interested, no problem there either. But I definitely do not see it as a commodity.

You’ve been doing this stuff long enough, you ought to be a good judge of quality when you see it and do it.

 

[Cynik75]

.... Wing Chun was developed and taught in an era where being a skilled martial artist was a career, not a sport or a hobby

What kind of career in times of guns? Only bouncer or sportsman.

Many people who studied martial artists, devoted themselves to them completely.

Just like today.

They would go on to become teachers, masters, soldiers, mercenaries and more.

Just like today. And soldiers and mercenaries do not need to be skilled martial artists. Even in XIX century China.

In China, it was also essential to be well trained for anyone who considered themselves a gentleman.

So social elite people wanted to have scars, bruises, cauliflowers... love no, maybe part part of them wanted to be recognize as "hand-to-hand combat master" but it probably was like a BJJ garbage program for celebrities who cannot suffer any damage during traing - and they do not spar at all. (Rigan Machado Designs Jiu-Jitsu System without Sparring for Celebrities)

This meant that people who trained in Wing Chun dedicated a lot more time, and a lot more effort than the modern, average martial artist.

Small part of them probably yes. But most of them were average Lees not different from nowadays average Joes..

...Unless someone fervently dedicated years to mastering Wing Chun... they won't be able to use it as it was intended.

But the story is Wing Chun was created and designed to live people fighting ability in short period of time. Especially "soldiers" and "mercenaries" and even small women cannot wait 20 years to be able to fight. They cannot say to the enemy, attacker or rapist "please wait 20 years".

a very, very technical and scientific fighting method

No more technical than other MAs. And what is scientific in WC?

 

[Ivan]

What kind of career in times of guns? Only bouncer or sportsman.

Just like today.

Just like today. And soldiers and mercenaries do not need to be skilled martial artists. Even in XIX century China.

So social elite people wanted to have scars, bruises, cauliflowers... love no, maybe part part of them wanted to be recognize as "hand-to-hand combat master" but it probably was like a BJJ garbage program for celebrities who cannot suffer any damage during traing - and they do not spar at all. (Rigan Machado Designs Jiu-Jitsu System without Sparring for Celebrities)

Small part of them probably yes. But most of them were average Lees not different from nowadays average Joes..

But the story is Wing Chun was created and designed to live people fighting ability in short period of time. Especially "soldiers" and "mercenaries" and even small women cannot wait 20 years to be able to fight. They cannot say to the enemy, attacker or rapist "please wait 20 years".

No more technical than other MAs. And what is scientific in WC?

I'll try to answer your questions as best as I can.

For starters, most people today who dedicate themselves to martial arts fully today, don't train Wing Chun. That's a fact. You are not discerning people who dedicate themselves fully to MA in this day and age, to martial artists that dedicated themselves to Wing Chun solely and completely.

Mercenaries and soldiers don't need to be skilled, but the ones that want to live, do. Also, it was an important part of the culture that those who were considered Gentlemen amongst Chinese society always carried a sword and were well instructed in forms of combat from very young ages.

Wing Chun might have been designed to be learnt quickly, but again, it failed. You can't take a martial art that doesn't have sparring, and whose training is based solely on repetition, and claim that anyone can use it. The reason there aren't many skilled practitioners of Wing Chun in these modern times compared to before is simply that there aren't as many people who are willing to dedicate as much time to Wing Chun as old practitioners did.

Even the "average joes" before had jobs, but those jobs consisted of manual labour which in itself, is training. Contrast that to today, a large portion of the population's job involves sitting down and ruining your posture by staring at a screen for 8 hours a day, while eating junky and processed food crammed with unknown hormones and obscene amounts of artificial ingredients.

Lastly, Wing Chun, is considerably more technical than many martial arts out there. Its main offensive tool, the train track punch is a very weak strike - when you compare it to the boxer's cross, or the karatekas reverse punch it pales in comparison. Yet, Wing Chun is a developed system that is based on using this punch in quick succession to cause damage. What other martial art can you think of that bases its entire curriculum on an objectively weak punch?

 

[Cynik75]

.Mercenaries and soldiers don't need to be skilled, but the ones that want to live, do.

The traceable beginings of wing chun are from about 1850. In this times soldier or mercenary who wanted to live needed to have rifle. WC was not created for soldiers in any period of time.

.Also, it was an important part of the culture that those who were considered Gentlemen amongst Chinese society always carried a sword and were well instructed in forms of combat from very young ages.

Somewhen in 4000 years of China history for sure. But not 150 years ago.

....The reason there aren't many skilled practitioners of Wing Chun in these modern times compared to before is simply that there aren't as many people who are willing to dedicate as much time to Wing Chun as old practitioners did.

Any reliable numerical data to compare? Or just your thoughts?

Even the "average joes" before had jobs, but those jobs consisted of manual labour which in itself, is training.

As we know the best fighters are plumbers and carpenters.

Contrast that to today, a large portion of the population's job involves sitting down and ruining your posture by staring at a screen for 8 hours a day, while eating junky and processed food crammed with unknown hormones and obscene amounts of artificial ingredients.

Have you ever read about general health of people from old times?

Lastly, Wing Chun, is considerably more technical than many martial arts out there.

How do you measure "technical level" of martial art?

Its main offensive tool, the train track punch is a very weak strike - when you compare it to the boxer's cross, or the karatekas reverse punch it pales in comparison. Yet, Wing Chun is a developed system that is based on using this punch in quick succession to cause damage. What other martial art can you think of that bases its entire curriculum on an objectively weak punch?

Still no answer why you think WC is scientific MA?

 

[Flying Crane]

I'll try to answer your questions as best as I can.

For starters, most people today who dedicate themselves to martial arts fully today, don't train Wing Chun. That's a fact. You are not discerning people who dedicate themselves fully to MA in this day and age, to martial artists that dedicated themselves to Wing Chun solely and completely.

Mercenaries and soldiers don't need to be skilled, but the ones that want to live, do. Also, it was an important part of the culture that those who were considered Gentlemen amongst Chinese society always carried a sword and were well instructed in forms of combat from very young ages.

Wing Chun might have been designed to be learnt quickly, but again, it failed. You can't take a martial art that doesn't have sparring, and whose training is based solely on repetition, and claim that anyone can use it. The reason there aren't many skilled practitioners of Wing Chun in these modern times compared to before is simply that there aren't as many people who are willing to dedicate as much time to Wing Chun as old practitioners did.

Even the "average joes" before had jobs, but those jobs consisted of manual labour which in itself, is training. Contrast that to today, a large portion of the population's job involves sitting down and ruining your posture by staring at a screen for 8 hours a day, while eating junky and processed food crammed with unknown hormones and obscene amounts of artificial ingredients.

Lastly, Wing Chun, is considerably more technical than many martial arts out there. Its main offensive tool, the train track punch is a very weak strike - when you compare it to the boxer's cross, or the karatekas reverse punch it pales in comparison. Yet, Wing Chun is a developed system that is based on using this punch in quick succession to cause damage. What other martial art can you think of that bases its entire curriculum on an objectively weak punch?

You are making a lot of blanket statements about wing Chun and those who practice it. On what do you base these statements?