What was Wing Chun designed for?

[Juany118]

WC people don't train the really Hard and tough training a Karate man does. Hit the Mook Jong? Please don't make me laugh. Karate guys train by hitting each other's limb with staffs, breaking baseball bats. And they hit everywhere including the torso in the front and back. Not Like WC which just hits the wooden dummy with just arms and legs.

So that's why last Thursday while standing in a Ma I had a classmate kicking and hitting me. I thought I was studying WC that night. Weird.

You kick the Karate guy 10 times his thigh will be okay but let the Karate guy kick your thigh 3 times.......

He doesn't need to plant his legs. Just one kick forward and he can do enough damage

You miss the point. There is something in WC called chi gerk. It is basically chi sau for the legs. One of the points behind this is to realize you can use kicks, not simply to damage but to counter the kicks of others. To kick and not end up on you but you need to maintain your center. Kicking low in a solid fast way can discourage powerful damaging kicks because it disrupts the center of balance and makes you more vulnerable.

As I stated in my example of sparring my brother in law, the first few times I basically turned him into a boxer because as I entered I used my kicks not to hurt him or knock him down, simply in a manner thank made him see there was a good chance I would disturb his center of balance and force him to recover at best, fall at worst, if he really kicked me. He tried some kicks sure, but each time he didn't connect and had to "hop back" in order to recover his center. I essentially took the initiative from him. Now he has learned to adapt to this, but it took more than a few sparring sessions. Same would likely happen with the two guys in the video and the fight would thus become less one sided. That doesn't show the Karate guy is bad though, it just shows an issue with TMAs, all too often they don't fight other styles and when they encounter one in competition it's anyone's game.

 

[Juany118]

But don't you WC guys always like to make videos on Youtube showing how you can use WC to beat boxing ?Isn't that preaching about how "my art can beat up yours"?

No. Actually typically it's people showing videos trying to show WC doesn't work. As for me I don't need videos. I have fought fitter guys half my age in arrest scenarios where the other person have every incentive to lay me out so they don't go to jail. It has served me well.

 

[Knapf]

So that's why last Thursday while standing in a Ma I had a classmate kicking and hitting me. I thought I was studying WC that night. Weird.

Yup. WC people hit other's limb with staffs, break baseball bats and strike the punching bag. They also hit the upper torso with sticks. WC people train the exact same way and just as tough as Karate. I see

You miss the point. There is something in WC called chi gerk. It is basically chi sau for the legs. One of the points behind this is to realize you can use kicks, not simply to damage but to counter the kicks of others. To kick and not end up on you but you need to maintain your center. Kicking low in a solid fast way can discourage powerful damaging kicks because it disrupts the center of balance and makes you more vulnerable.

I know what that is. The other guy just needs to kick you faster and more powerfully before you wrestle legs with him

As I stated in my example of sparring my brother in law, the first few times I basically turned him into a boxer because as I entered I used my kicks not to hurt him or knock him down,

Is this for real? Taekwondo people are very good at kicks.

 

[Knapf]

Edited

 

[Martial D]

Well his analogy was a bit off but I think what he is saying is this what I hinted at. Regarding one video someone made an assumption regarding one fighter who just HAD to be better conditioned than the WC guy. That is an assumption you simply can't make. The assumption was also made that the Karate guy must suck because he didn't do kicks to the thigh, but there are a miriad of other reasons this may have been the case.

In the case of MAs it is all but impossible, imo, to say one long standing art is inherently better than another. We can say who the better/luckier fighters are, on a specific day, of course based on who is left standing but the variables that go into a fight, especially when different styles meet, are nearly countless. The skill and condition of each fighter. Does one style simply naturally exploit certain issues with the other style? Has either fighter fought styles other than there own. How well they slept the night before, what did they have for breakfast? Is the environment something they are used to? (Example on a tile floor and you are only used to fighting on a mat.) All these things, and more, pile up.

Me, I'm no hater of WC. It was the first style I ever really trained, and there are a lot of WC elements that are still a part of ...a big part of..my sparring game. With that out of the way....

Ignore the man. Ignore what he had for breakfast, what color his belt is, how many muscles he has..in fact..push him off a cliff, we won't be needing him right now. The human body only moves in so many ways, we have finite ways to attain leverage, to generate power, to close and widen distance. Of those finite ways, some are more efficient and effective than others. You'll get more power in a punch rotating on your hip than you will just extending your arm, for instance.

Now, would you say that all styles throughout time have made exactly equal use of these principles, or that maybe, just maybe, some are actually <sacrilege>better</sacrilege> than others, with regards to the job they purport to do?

 

[Juany118]

Me, I'm no hater of WC. It was the first style I ever really trained, and there are a lot of WC elements that are still a part of ...a big part of..my sparring game. With that out of the way....

Ignore the man. Ignore what he had for breakfast, what color his belt is, how many muscles he has..in fact..push him off a cliff, we won't be needing him right now. The human body only moves in so many ways, we have finite ways to attain leverage, to generate power, to close and widen distance. Of those finite ways, some are more efficient and effective than others. You'll get more power in a punch rotating on your hip than you will just extending your arm, for instance.

Now, would you say that all styles throughout time have made exactly equal use of these principles, or that maybe, just maybe, some are actually <sacrilege>better</sacrilege> than others, with regards to the job they purport to do?

But, as an example, it isn't just about extending your arm it can be about stepping and sinking as you punch (the Dempsy falling punch which is very similar to the WC straight punch). That punch is seen as very efficient and effective. When one looks at efficiency and effectiveness one has to look at each art holistically.

 

[DaveB]

Ok, so all styles are equally viable, the man with a spoon and the man with a sword fight to a draw?

LOL.

Critical thinking huh?

Because who needs a sound argument when you have sarcasm.

 

[DaveB]

Me, I'm no hater of WC. It was the first style I ever really trained, and there are a lot of WC elements that are still a part of ...a big part of..my sparring game. With that out of the way....

Ignore the man. Ignore what he had for breakfast, what color his belt is, how many muscles he has..in fact..push him off a cliff, we won't be needing him right now. The human body only moves in so many ways, we have finite ways to attain leverage, to generate power, to close and widen distance. Of those finite ways, some are more efficient and effective than others. You'll get more power in a punch rotating on your hip than you will just extending your arm, for instance.

Now, would you say that all styles throughout time have made exactly equal use of these principles, or that maybe, just maybe, some are actually <sacrilege>better</sacrilege> than others, with regards to the job they purport to do?

Nobody was disputing the idea that some movements are more efficient than others. The dispute is whether that is the be all and end all of fight effectiveness.

Again you would have got that if you actually <sacrilege>thought</sacrilege> about the counter argument being presented.

 

[Martial D]

Because who needs a sound argument when you have sarcasm.

They aren't mutually exclusive you know. My argument is sound. The idea that all styles are effective just because they happen to exist is ludicrous.

 

[Martial D]

Nobody was disputing the idea that some movements are more efficient than others. The dispute is whether that is the be all and end all of fight effectiveness.

Again you would have got that if you actually <sacrilege>thought</sacrilege> about the counter argument being presented.

The end all be all bit is something you added, then tore down. The name for that is a straw man argument. Size, speed, athleticism, fight IQ, all play a massive role, and I've never said otherwise.

Yet strip all that away to the styles themselves, and you are left with a full gammit from deadly to worthless.

 

[DaveB]

The end all be all bit is something you added, then tore down. The name for that is a straw man argument. Size, speed, athleticism, fight IQ, all play a massive role, and I've never said otherwise.

Yet strip all that away to the styles themselves, and you are left with a full gammit from deadly to worthless.

It's not a straw man, I just did you the favour of assuming you were not destroying your own argument.

You cannot strip away all the other factors. There is no universe where wing chun exists separate from the practitioner. The words have no meaning in reality. You can have the idea because as a human you are capable of abstract thought, but you cannot do it in real life.

If you want an actual straw man argument look here:

... The idea that all styles are effective just because they happen to exist is ludicrous.

I gave a detailed argument that you still have not addressed. Instead you characterise it as "because they happen to exist".

 

[Juany118]

The end all be all bit is something you added, then tore down. The name for that is a straw man argument. Size, speed, athleticism, fight IQ, all play a massive role, and I've never said otherwise.

Yet strip all that away to the styles themselves, and you are left with a full gammit from deadly to worthless.

Let me elaborate on what I meant by holistically. First you can't just look at the arch an arm takes, you must look at the whole body as in the "falling punch". Such a punch may put less mass behind it than a punch that rotates at the waist, but if practiced properly it can have great acceleration and thus still be powerful.

Next you have to look at all of the methods in the art and how they fit together. Think of a clockwork mechanism. The efficiency and effectiveness of such a mechanism isn't determined by any single gear, but how well they fit together, how smoothly each turns, how durable they are are etc. Looking at only some gears doesn't tell you much at all.

This isn't to say WC doesn't have some issues. It certainly puts a premium on speed and accuracy vs raw power. It's strikes will not be as powerful as the most powerful strikes of say WB because it places that premium. Too many schools don't pressure test in full sparring so the student who looks picture perfect in the forms or light sparring might suddenly "lose it" in the Lei Tai. Some may find the teaching method tedious, the traditional "crawl, walk, run" of many Asian TMAs feel that way. It still works however.

Imo the biggest challenge is finding the right teacher/school. The one who will not just teach you the art but the "martial." Do they use body conditioning? Do they use full sparring? Do they reward effectiveness as much as they do "picture perfect" form?, or to quote my Sifu of a couple students "they aren't pretty but damn they can fight." Finding that teacher, imo, is the biggest challenge of TMAs today.

 

[Martial D]

You haven't made any intelligible arguments to support your idea that all styles are somehow equal.

You saying 'ya but you can't strip the man from the style' doesn't support that case one single iota.

The fact remains not all styles of combat are equal.
Since the sword/spoon example didn't seem to penetrate, let's try another thought experiment; Johnny flails forms his own style, flail fu. You basically just flail your arms at people. So now we have the style, flail fu..which is apparently just as effective as boxing?

 

[Martial D]

Let me elaborate on what I meant by holistically. First you can't just look at the arch an arm takes, you must look at the whole body as in the "falling punch". Such a punch may put less mass behind it than a punch that rotates at the waist, but if practiced properly it can have great acceleration and thus still be powerful.

Next you have to look at all of the methods in the art and how they fit together. Think of a clockwork mechanism. The efficiency and effectiveness of such a mechanism isn't determined by any single gear, but how well they fit together, how smoothly each turns, how durable they are are etc. Looking at only some gears doesn't tell you much at all.

This isn't to say WC doesn't have some issues. It certainly puts a premium on speed and accuracy vs raw power. It's strikes will not be as powerful as the most powerful strikes of say WB because it places that premium. Too many schools don't pressure test in full sparring so the student who looks picture perfect in the forms or light sparring might suddenly "lose it" in the Lei Tai. Some may find the teaching method tedious, the traditional "crawl, walk, run" of many Asian TMAs feel that way. It still works however.

Imo the biggest challenge is finding the right teacher/school. The one who will not just teach you the art but the "martial." Do they use body conditioning? Do they use full sparring? Do they reward effectiveness as much as they do "picture perfect" form?, or to quote my Sifu of a couple students "they aren't pretty but damn they can fight." Finding that teacher, imo, is the biggest challenge of TMAs today.

Can't argue with that. Yet even holistically, it's the same result. There is a reason people with mere months of boxing or BJJ training regularly wreck people that have devoted years and decades to more traditional styles, while the converse is fairly much never true.

 

[Phobius]

Can't argue with that. Yet even holistically, it's the same result. There is a reason people with mere months of boxing or BJJ training regularly wreck people that have devoted years and decades to more traditional styles, while the converse is fairly much never true.

Those people training a few months are most likely fit and young. Those training traditional arts for years are old and in some cases quite unfit for extended fighting longer than a few seconds.

 

[Juany118]

You haven't made any intelligible arguments to support your idea that all styles are somehow equal.

You saying 'ya but you can't strip the man from the style' doesn't support that case one single iota.

The fact remains not all styles of combat are equal.
Since the sword/spoon example didn't seem to penetrate, let's try another thought experiment; Johnny flails forms his own style, flail fu. You basically just flail your arms at people. So now we have the style, flail fu..which is apparently just as effective as boxing?

Actually what you are saying makes no sense. First a spoon isn't a weapon.

After that Johnny creating flail fu is not the same as Martial Arts that have been proven in history. TMAs, especially in the West, rarely get used in the civilian world. If they do it is typically only same art vs same art and civilian teaching reflects this. Thing is they wouldn't be here a hundred, or hundreds, of years later if they didn't work.

Combat/competition is very Darwinistic. Let's just focus on TCMAs. Forgetting the clear military arts they had, until 1928, the Lei Tai where those who practiced these arts, including WC, fighting HARD. The Chinese Nationalist Govt eventually outlawed it in 1928 due to the number of injuries and deaths.

Next they are tested again in the chaos of post WWII Hong Kong. There you had the roof top challenge culture where different schools matched up against one another.

Now you can say that people like Wong Shun Leung and William Cheung (both of whom are well documented as being successful in this rooftop culture) we're just such good fighters that it was they and not Yip Man's WC that deserved the credit but throughout all of that time the arts that grew, in that environment, grew because people saw it work and said "I want to fight like that."

Even today WC/VT is knowingly incorporated along with FMA, BJJ and other arts into the training of Special Operations and Security Forces/Law Enforcement across the world. If it didn't work, that wouldn't be the case.

 

[Martial D]

Those people training a few months are most likely fit and young. Those training traditional arts for years are old and in some cases quite unfit for extended fighting longer than a few seconds.

So why aren't the fit young aikidoists and Kung Fu men beating old seasoned boxers and BJJ black belts?

 

[Martial D]

Actually what you are saying makes no sense. First a spoon isn't a weapon.

After that Johnny creating flail fu is not the same as Martial Arts that have been proven in history. TMAs, especially in the West, rarely get used in the civilian world. If they do it is typically only same art vs same art and civilian teaching reflects this. Thing is they wouldn't be here a hundred, or hundreds, of years later if they didn't work.

Combat/competition is very Darwinistic. Let's just focus on TCMAs. Forgetting the clear military arts they had, until 1928, the Lei Tai where those who practiced these arts, including WC, fighting HARD. The Chinese Nationalist Govt eventually outlawed it in 1928 due to the number of injuries and deaths.

Next they are tested again in the chaos of post WWII Hong Kong. There you had the roof top challenge culture where different schools matched up against one another.

Now you can say that people like Wong Shun Leung and William Cheung (both of whom are well documented as being successful in this rooftop culture) we're just such good fighters that it was they and not Yip Man's WC that deserved the credit but throughout all of that time the arts that grew, in that environment, grew because people saw it work and said "I want to fight like that."

Even today WC/VT is knowingly incorporated along with FMA, BJJ and other arts into the training of Special Operations and Security Forces/Law Enforcement across the world. If it didn't work, that wouldn't be the case.

You know, people say that. TMA is proven to work by history, yet here we are with a full compliment of them that range from effective to...not so effective. Just because people train something doesn't legitimize it on it's own. How many people train chi balls and no touch kos? Probably more than you think. I see no reason to believe the people's of antiquity we're less gullible or subject to charlatanism than the people of today.

Now many if not most TMAs contain some useful principles and techniques, but buried under layer after layer of dogma and fluff. Take what works, and discard the rest..or you aren't really doing martial arts..you are doing religion.

 

[Juany118]

Can't argue with that. Yet even holistically, it's the same result. There is a reason people with mere months of boxing or BJJ training regularly wreck people that have devoted years and decades to more traditional styles, while the converse is fairly much never true.

But there you are not looking holistically. BJJ and boxing have people fighting/sparring, that is basically a standard part of their training. That, and the conditioning necessary for it, is less universal in many TMA school. There are schools out there that do train with those things in mind however, you just have to look for them.

As an example there are two schools in my area that teach TWC. One teaches what I will call "combatively." They condition the body by having classmates strike us, one class a week is dedicated to physical conditioning with skill funadementals (think crossfit meet Martial Arts) and they full spar. The other does none of the above. I chose the former school at it works. I spar with my TKD brother in law, two co-workers, one a BJJ practitioner and another a boxer. It works, the trick is to find the school that is first and foremost training you to fight with Wing Chun vs the first priority being to look good. Because training the former can result in injuries many schools chose not to do it. More than a couple people have left my school after going home sore and with obvious bruises. Hell my ex-wife was all bent out of shape one night when she saw the bruises I came home with. It's the lack of pressure testing, not the art itself that's the problem with WC.

 

[Juany118]

You know, people say that. TMA is proven to work by history, yet here we are with a full compliment of them that range from effective to...not so effective. Just because people train something doesn't legitimize it on it's own. How many people train chi balls and no touch kos? Probably more than you think. I see no reason to believe the people's of antiquity we're less gullible or subject to charlatanism than the people of today.

Now many if not most TMAs contain some useful principles and techniques, but buried under layer after layer of dogma and fluff. Take what works, and discard the rest..or you aren't really doing martial arts..you are doing religion.

Again it's pressure testing. The reason I mentioned Lei tai and the roof top is to ram that point home. You can't find a boxing or BJJ school that doesn't pressure test. They are much harder to find but if you find a TMA school that also pressure tests you see similar results. Imagine for a moment a boxer who only ever shadow boxed. How well do you think he would do against a baxer who regularly sparred. Same thing. Lack of pressure testing will break ANY martial arts system.