Is Wing Chun the best martial art for women?

[ed-swckf]

It depends on the indvidual woman. Wing chun is very good for women based on the concepts and theory's that lie within the art, to say any martial art is best for any large selection of people like a gender is never really going to be conclusive without a lot of experimentation that would be rather inpractical. What i feel is first and formost in martial arts for women is having a teacher who understands the female has different strengths to work on than men. Beyong that though, all teachers should recognise how each individual is different and will work in different ways. But thats all just common sense.

 

[ed-swckf]

Legends aren't always true, and best is not something that can be pinned down.

If you're looking for self defence I'd vote for Judo/boxing/submission/mma over Wing Chun. But as we all should know by now effectiveness is reduced greatly if the person doesn't like it and stop training.

Well, I'd just take a guess here, but a male assaulting a female, I'd imagine grabbing occurs more then hitting, and very often things end up with the female on her back.

Aggression needs to be there first and foremost, to keep fighting with everything you got een when you are loosing. This comes from full contact sports and hard sparring. Things like Judo, BJJ, Boxing, MMA, etc. Not from pok sau drills and chi sau...

All the stuff you are claiming about these systems is basically quoting there advertising materials for the past 50 years or so. Do you have anything to support it other then "They say so". Any references to matches where practitioners of these arts have fought other styles and done exceedingly well against them? Anything beyond "It looks good on paper"?

I have to ask, what do you think wing chun is good for? You have already said its no good in the ring for competition fighting and now you are slating its usage in a self defense situation. It seems you don't hold wing chun in very much of a high regard at all.

 

[Andrew Green]

Fighting is not the primary focus of a good many things of value.

 

[pete]

That's got nothing to do with advertising, that's a simple fact.

me thinks you confuse 'fact' with 'sport'

What i feel is first and formost in martial arts for women is having a teacher who understands the female has different strengths to work on than men. Beyong that though, all teachers should recognise how each individual is different and will work in different ways. But thats all just common sense.

well put...

pete

 

[ed-swckf]

Fighting is not the primary focus of a good many things of value.

Are you talking to me, quoting helps to keep things in order and avoids confusion. If you are talking to me, would you answer the question? And lets keep in mind the primary focus of wing chun is self defence.

Regards
Ed

 

[Andrew Green]

me thinks you confuse 'fact' with 'sport'
well put...

pete

So...

Because a sport (MMA) allows you to fight in any position you can find yourself in against another person, we should write that off as sport. Not bother training most of those position, cause they are sport. Just train one, when you are seperated and standing, is that your logic?

 

[Andrew Green]

Are you talking to me,

yup

[/QUOTE] And lets keep in mind the primary focus of wing chun is self defence.
[/QUOTE]
Define "Self-defence".

Which by the way, physical fighting is a rather small part of.

Or do you mean it's primary purpose is to defend against people who physically attack you in a certain way?

Either way, I'm sorry you can't find something more valuable in your training then being able to hurt people.

 

[7starmantis]

It seems assumptions and personal biases are running pretty rampant in this thread Remember a bias is not neccessarily intentional, it can be from one's set of experiences.

Lets see....

Aggression needs to be there first and foremost, to keep fighting with everything you got een when you are loosing. This comes from full contact sports and hard sparring. Things like Judo, BJJ, Boxing, MMA, etc. Not from pok sau drills and chi sau...

Agression is true, but we must clearly define agression, its not neccessarily anger, or brute force. There is a thin line between aggression and "balls out" swinging for the fences. Aggression must still be controled.
As for personal biases, lets not only define "full contact" as "Judo, BJJ, Boxing, MMA". Its obvious you have never seen true 7* chi sau (Jeem Lim Sau) or at least the way we do it. I would say aggression and full contact are very much a part of our advanced fighting. In fact, we have started calling our "chi sau" fighting or combat, not the normal "playing hands" in order to convey this. This is probably a discussion for a whole seperate thread though :wink:

Take a worst case scenario, like a rape attempt. Where is the bad guy gonna be trying to put the female?

That is a huge assumption to make, one that could very likely find you (the female) in a very bad situation without proper tools to use.

Not all arts are created equal, in fact some are very disconnected from what works outside there own environment, and some of those have very convincing theories on why they will.... even if they don't.

I completely agree with you here, 100%. However, this could be said for a myriad of martial systems or training regiments. I dont think its easy to lump systems into this category, but rather fighters or regiments.

This discussion is meaningless without a common assumption of likely threats. Most people see "for women" and read into it "for sexual assault prevention" which is a reasonable assumption. Grappling makes a lot of sense there. What if it was a girl who went to a violent high school where she was concerned about getting in fights with other girls? Then stand-up arts become more relevant.

Is the question about what's best for women because of the particular threats they face, or because of their anatomy/physiology? I'd give different answers to each of these questions.

Very good point, I agree. This does give credence to Shesulsa's point. A good complete understanding of a full range of abilities and techniques is whats needed, but then I would say that applies to men as well.

So...

Because a sport (MMA) allows you to fight in any position you can find yourself in against another person, we should write that off as sport. Not bother training most of those position, cause they are sport. Just train one, when you are seperated and standing, is that your logic?

No, no, not at all, but we must realize that a sport still is confined to rules that are nonexistant in a true self defense situation. Whats become clearer to me since really getting involved in watching the UFC and helping a buddy of mine try to "break in" is that there most deffinitely are rules that make it meaningless or even a waste of time to train certain techniques and situations. For one, an upward kick from the ground is excluded in the UFC, but on the street might just save your life. If your training to compete in the UFC, you are wasting your time training that kick, but in pure SD its a great tool to train. I dont think the old arguemtn about ground vs standup is what is being discussed here.

Either way, I'm sorry you can't find something more valuable in your training then being able to hurt people.

This may open me up for a myriad of attacks, but that is about the only thing I train for. What else is there if your training for pure self defense? Oh sure, there is "mental defense", or verbal defense, or situational awareness, but in a martial arts class I'm training from the idea that those have all failed and I'm now involved in a physical altercation. In that sense, hurting the person is top of the list for me, probably only second to disabling them.
Sorry, sounds horrible I know, but at 28 (just barely) I'm not goign to be involved in any "fight" unless its life threatening....then I'm fighting for my life or someone elses life, and the attackers life or limb is pretty meaningless at that point.

Again, just my few pennies,
7sm

 

[Flying Crane]

I am going to throw out an observation here: I think Mr. Green simply enjoys argument.

For example:he makes statements meant to deny the self-defense or combat usefulness of various different systems. When another person follows with a statement supporting the self-defense or combat usefulness of one of these systems, Mr. Green likes to follow with a comment such as:

Fighting is not the primary focus of a good many things of value.

It is this attempt to change the subject and imply that other people are missing the importance of the "non-fighting" aspects of the martial arts, even tho the entire discussion is focused on the fighting aspect, and even tho Mr. Green has taken a very strong position within the discussion, that makes me suspect that he simply enjoys argument for argument's sake. I have seen Mr. Green do this in other threads, including exchanges with myself.

Mr. Green has very strong opinions about what is useful and what is not. Based on his contributions to this and other threads, it is pretty clear to me that he is highly invested in the MMA/UFC/full contact approach to training. He is not interested in anything that has a more "traditional" approach (if I am wrong, I have not seen anything to lead me to believe it). His attitudes towards training seem to prevent him from seeing any value in any approach to training that is different from his own.

Everyone has a right to his own opinion. I am sure that my own opinions are both right and wrong, depending on the circumstances. Fair enough.

 

[arnisador]

Just as an aside, my son and I tried to join a Wing Chun class last night, but the school has stopped offering the art! We're taking the 3-week trial there anyway (JKD and FMA, mostly), but I might've had more to contribute to this if they hadn't changed their curriculum. I was really curious to try WC.

 

[7starmantis]

Just as an aside, my son and I tried to join a Wing Chun class last night, but the school has stopped offering the art! We're taking the 3-week trial there anyway (JKD and FMA, mostly), but I might've had more to contribute to this if they hadn't changed their curriculum. I was really curious to try WC.

Hmm, thats interesting. Did they say why they aren't offering it anymore?

7sm

 

[Andrew Green]

I am going to throw out an observation here: I think Mr. Green simply enjoys argument.

For example:he makes statements meant to deny the self-defense or combat usefulness of various different systems. When another person follows with a statement supporting the self-defense or combat usefulness of one of these systems, Mr. Green likes to follow with a comment such as:

Not quite.

I stated that Wing Chun is not the best art for learning to fight, It was taken that I meant it had no value, that is not at all what I meant as I believe that no matter what the art any fighting skills are a secondary benefit. In general, most people that train only for learning to fight don't last long.

Based on his contributions to this and other threads, it is pretty clear to me that he is highly invested in the MMA/UFC/full contact approach to training.

Yup, that's what I enjoy doing.

He is not interested in anything that has a more "traditional" approach (if I am wrong, I have not seen anything to lead me to believe it). His attitudes towards training seem to prevent him from seeing any value in any approach to training that is different from his own.

Wrong again, nice to be profiled though

Different tools have different uses. A good number of traditional arts do some really silly things if you look at them purely from a fighting stand point. But then again, as I stated, I believe that to be a secondary skill.

This thread is a question of whether Wing Chun is the best art for women to learn to defend themselves, In my opinion it is not. At least not if we take all other factors into consideration. MMA is completely useless if someone doesn't enjoy it, because they won't do it.

But all of that aside as it just comes down to the individual, Wing Chun will not make the best fighters in relation to other systems. Equally trained boxer vs Wing Chun, my money is on the boxer.

But the big problem with self-defence is it is impossible to agree on a definition. There is a difference between a one on one girl fight, a teacher handling a out of control student, being mugged, being raped, dealing with weapons, simply avoiding violence altogether... There is a difference between a stranger, a aquaintance and a violent spouse.

All of those things require very different sorts of training, and looking purely at the physical side of it, very different fighting skills. So... without aiming at anything in particular go for the general stuff, hard contact, aggression, confidence, fitness, comfort with fighting different types of people in different ways.

But truthfully, self-defence is far more in your head and frame of mind IMO then any set of physical skills. So focusing on only the physical is looking in the wrong place for the wrong things.

 

[Flying Crane]

Not quite.

I stated that Wing Chun is not the best art for learning to fight, It was taken that I meant it had no value, that is not at all what I meant as I believe that no matter what the art any fighting skills are a secondary benefit. In general, most people that train only for learning to fight don't last long.


Yup, that's what I enjoy doing.


Wrong again, nice to be profiled though

Different tools have different uses. A good number of traditional arts do some really silly things if you look at them purely from a fighting stand point. But then again, as I stated, I believe that to be a secondary skill.

This thread is a question of whether Wing Chun is the best art for women to learn to defend themselves, In my opinion it is not. At least not if we take all other factors into consideration. MMA is completely useless if someone doesn't enjoy it, because they won't do it.

But all of that aside as it just comes down to the individual, Wing Chun will not make the best fighters in relation to other systems. Equally trained boxer vs Wing Chun, my money is on the boxer.

But the big problem with self-defence is it is impossible to agree on a definition. There is a difference between a one on one girl fight, a teacher handling a out of control student, being mugged, being raped, dealing with weapons, simply avoiding violence altogether... There is a difference between a stranger, a aquaintance and a violent spouse.

All of those things require very different sorts of training, and looking purely at the physical side of it, very different fighting skills. So... without aiming at anything in particular go for the general stuff, hard contact, aggression, confidence, fitness, comfort with fighting different types of people in different ways.

But truthfully, self-defence is far more in your head and frame of mind IMO then any set of physical skills. So focusing on only the physical is looking in the wrong place for the wrong things.

well, I will inquire as to how much experience you have had either training wing chun to understand the complete system, or at least working with people who have a strong wing chun background? Your statements are very opinionated, which is fine, but I would like to know on what your opinion is based?

I am not advocating that wing chun is the "best" martial art for women, or for anything, for that matter. I have trained in wing chun for several years. I am not a high-level expert in the art, but I do have an understanding of how things work. I have found it to be easy to apply, and effective. I also believe that it has some problems with it. I also know some wing chun people who could be very scary and formidable adversaries. That is my experience.

I don't believe that any martial art is "best" in any way. I believe they all have strong points and weak points. In my opinion, some arts have more strong points than others. At the same time, I have known people who practice arts that I would characterize as having fewer strong points, but who could still kick my rear.

My message is that I think in many ways any discussion over what system is "best" in any way, is somewhat pointless. I think it really comes down to whether or not someone has found an/several art(s) that works well for them, and that they have developed the ability to use the art.

In the spirit of this thread, I would say that wing chun can be a good art for a woman (or anyone), if the woman learns the art well and develops skill with it. The same could be said for MMA, BJJ, Shotokan, judo, kali, or any other art.

 

[pete]

well, I will inquire as to how much experience you have had either training wing chun to understand the complete system, or at least working with people who have a strong wing chun background? Your statements are very opinionated, which is fine, but I would like to know on what your opinion is based?

been there done that... here's a blast from the past with his less than knowledgeable opinion on tai chi: http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=395257&postcount=10

 

[Andrew Green]

well, I will inquire as to how much experience you have had either training wing chun to understand the complete system, or at least working with people who have a strong wing chun background? Your statements are very opinionated, which is fine, but I would like to know on what your opinion is based?

Personal experience - Not much, read some books on it, seen some videos, played with some non-top level practitioners. Been shown some drills, mainly hand trapping stuff, but I can't say I ever studied it seriously or in depth. My decission not to do so wasn't because of effectiveness, just personal taste. I do believe that for fighting MMA is most effective, (especially if you also play with weapons and ignore the competition centered rules) but that isn't why I do it. It's purely coincidence, that's the training I have the most fun doing, so I do it.

But mainly we need to look at training methods, results of others in mixed competition, overall experience in differet sorts of techniques and training methods.

No one can devot 10-20 years to training every possible art. We can only rely on the evidence that has been presented.

I also never said it wasnt't effective, I said it is not the most effective for fighting. Which, all evidence would say, it is not.

I also did not say it can't produce good fighters, I'm sure it can. But could they have become better fighters by shifting there training? Probably.

Wing Chun may very well be a superior art, but not if you only look at fighting ability. However, there are many other ways to evaluate a system. I do find it odd that fighting gets so much attention, especially from systems that have other aspects which are just as important as strengths.

I know that there are things that a MMA class will never be able to match compared to many traditional schools. I'm ok with that, I won't get defensive if someone points it out. If someone comes looking for those things I may even point them to a school that does that if I know of one I'm comfortable reccomending.

Why everyone only focuses on fighting and ignores everything else that different systems have to offer is beyond me...

 

[Flying Crane]

Personal experience - Not much, read some books on it, seen some videos, played with some non-top level practitioners. Been shown some drills, mainly hand trapping stuff, but I can't say I ever studied it seriously or in depth.

Why everyone only focuses on fighting and ignores everything else that different systems have to offer is beyond me...

Ok, so your opinion is based on the barest minimum of knowledge and experience. I appreciate your honesty.

The topic of this thread is whether or not wing chun is the best martial art for women. I think it is safe to assume that we are discussing self-defense/fighting skills. Given that, of course we are going to focus on fighting, and not the other things the martial arts have to offer.

Given the context of a thread like this, I don't understand why you can take a strong and opinionated stance that one art (namely the one you train) is better than wing chun in the SD/fighting arena, and then turn around and accuse others of overlooking the nebulous "other" aspects that the arts have to offer. It comes across as haughty and somewhat holier-then-thou.

As long as we are on that topic, please explain to me what you are referring to when you state "Why everyone only focuses on fighting and ignores everything else that different systems have to offer is beyond me..." What are the aspects in MMA and, in your opinion, Wing Chun, that fit this category?

 

[Andrew Green]

Seeing as this no longer has anything at all to do with the thread, I suggest moving over here:

http://martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=27496

I also figure those people that do Wing Chun are better suited to answer the question of what other aspects it teaches then I am, so let's let them.

 

[pete]

Irrelvant to this thread, and most people that do Tai Chi are there for health and vitality, not fighting

look who gave me negative reps for this thread... obviously from someone who likes to talk about the effectiveness and training methods of arts they don't have time to study.

hmmm....

i'm through with this one.

 

[Flying Crane]

look who gave me negative reps for this thread... obviously from someone who likes to talk about the effectiveness and training methods of arts they don't have time to study.

hmmm....

i'm through with this one.

where do you see negative reps? what's that all about?

 

[Lisa]

where do you see negative reps? what's that all about?

click on the user cp link on the top left hand corner of the page (almost top ) to see good and bad rep points.