What was Wing Chun designed for?

[LFJ]

You know, Geezer asked you a very simple question which you have avoided answering several times now. Why is that? That certainly is not very "friendly"!

Really? What question?

I didn't see him ask any question I didn't answer.

He asked if WSLVT has no hooks or uppercuts.

I already said it doesn't several dozen times.

Then he pointed to forms where he thinks he's seeing something like that, and asked if he's missing something.

I told him/you/them that these actions are not hook punches of any sort.
You all are talking about how you can use it to hit an imaginary opponent in their imaginary body.

Just look at the bent wrist. There's more risk of injury to oneself than the opponent, punching like that.
I guess if you're just fighting imaginary opponents, then it might be safe.

 

[KPM]

Really? What question?

I didn't see him ask any question I didn't answer.

He asked if WSLVT has no hooks or uppercuts.

I already said it doesn't several dozen times.

Then he pointed to forms where he thinks he's seeing something like that, and asked if he's missing something.

I told him/you/them that these actions are not hook punches of any sort.
You all are talking about how you can use it to hit an imaginary opponent in their imaginary body.

Just look at the bent wrist. There's more risk of injury to oneself than the opponent, punching like that.
I guess if you're just fighting imaginary opponents, then it might be safe.

Way back on post #500 Geezer said this:

Now, I note that in both forms, WSL keeps his arms a bit lower than in the LT forms, and especially in Biu Jee, he maintains a distinctly low elbow position when delivering the rotational punch referenced, but to me (admittedly coming from outside WSL-VT) this still looks like a hook to the body, or at least a VT/WC equivalent! Am I missing something?

Your response was essentially...."yes you are missing something!"....without any elaboration on what the movement was really about, when anyone with a little common sense can see that this is what Geezer was asking. The next post you said something about "enough crumbs for the ingrate." Then you later made some comment to the effect that this was "about movement and what is available in the movement." And, since it seemed you just ignored what Geezer was really asking, I put it to you directly.....does this represent an arcing punching to the body? After all, YOU said it was "about movement and what is available in the movement"! Is an arcing punch to the body "available in the movement"? In almost every other version of Wing Chun Chum Kiu it is! Yet, in your usual fashion you have avoided answering a very simple question. Why are you here if you are unwilling to freely discuss your Wing Chun?

 

[DaveB]

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?

No intelligible arguments?

This whole debate about whether wing chun functions is nonsense.

Do straight punches hurt people?
If yes then wing chun works.

Everything else is about the fighter and their preparation.

And no, how they train is not the fighting style. How they fight is the fighting style. The clue is in the name "fighting style", NOT "Training style".

I can train a wing chun punch only hitting air.
I can train a wing chun punch only hitting people.
I can train a wing chun punch only hitting bags.

I am still training to fight with wing chun whichever one I CHOOSE to do.

If you want to argue that the traditional training of wc is not useful that is an argument you can make. But whether or not a style works is a nonsense because the style is nothing without the person using it.

Any style can work if you train it right.

If that was unintelligible to you then there's nothing more to say until you finish school.

You will note that my actual argument (as opposed to your straw man argument), was that any style can be made to work if you train it right.

Your deeply flawed spoon/sword analogy just reinforces the lack of thought you have given your argument. A sword does not dodge a blow. It doesn't enter striking range and it doesn't hit. All of that is done by the person. How good a person is at those things is a bigger factor to victory than what weapon he is using.

 

[LFJ]

The next post you said something about "enough crumbs for the ingrate."

That would be you, by the way, if not obvious.

Then you later made some comment to the effect that this was "about movement and what is available in the movement."

I most certainly did not. That was Danny T.

And, since it seemed you just ignored what Geezer was really asking, I put it to you directly.....does this represent an arcing punching to the body? After all, YOU said it was "about movement and what is available in the movement"! Is an arcing punch to the body "available in the movement"?

I most certainly did not. That was Danny T;

It is both.
It is also about movement and what is available within the movement based upon the spatial relationships of the opponents but not about a specific application.

in your usual fashion you have avoided answering a very simple question.

I answered you immediately.

But, as Geezer was getting at....is it an arcing punch to the body or is it not?

It's not an arcing punch and there is no body.

See. If you're not going to even read the thread, and are just fishing for things to argue about, that would be what's "unfriendly" here.

 

[DaveB]

Thanks! I've seen that one and others in that collection. But why do you think that wouldn't be considered a "valid win"?? That is what I was questioning about your last post.

I don't think they are invalid at all.

I was pointing out that the likes of Knapf call videos like that invalid so that they can keep mouthing off against wing chun.

 

[KPM]

See. If you're not going to even read the thread, and are just fishing for things to argue about, that would be what's "unfriendly" here.

Then what is it? That was my point!!! You argue and deflect and never actually talk much about your Wing Chun. Obviously if you are going to state what it is not, why would you not then elaborate on what it actually represents??? That is the "unfriendly" part here. People have to draw things out of you to get you to actually share something constructive. Everything with you is an argument.

 

[LFJ]

Then what is it? That was my point!!!

Improving elbow control.

You argue and deflect and never actually talk much about your Wing Chun.

I did neither, and share plenty of information on my system.

I just gave you a free and detailed description on BJ a few days ago.

Obviously if you are going to state what it is not, why would you not then elaborate on what it actually represents??? That is the "unfriendly" part here.

I answer what is asked. Not unfriendly.

People have to draw things out of you to get you to actually share something constructive. Everything with you is an argument.

I freely shared a lot of information with you, but instead of being grateful, you argued with me about what's in my own system, of which you have no knowledge or experience.

 

[Juany118]

And what special forces are doing this training? and who is the trainer? How much of it is trained? In what combination. There are just so many questions left unanswered before any conclusion can be made.

Just a quick look and I have already found a rift within one special forces community. Suggesting there is more at play than the best system winning out.

Feature: Navy SEALs stir up controversy with MMA training

China?
I have no idea how legit or applicable this one is.
China’s Modern Military Combat: Death of Kung Fu? | TanDao

First let me specify that the bulk of my knowledge of Operators comes from the Army side, as that was my branch of service. As such the only thing I will note about the article is that it really doesn't speak to the effectiveness of anything, rather the possible issues of corruption in terms of contracts and that last part is the important thing.

In the "regular" Army you have a fellow soldier as your instructor. In terms of Special Operations they first determine who is an eligible contractor and then award contracts to these civilian instructors to train. The idea being that Specops needs instructors where that topic is "their thing." As an example on of my Sifus is "on the list" for the US NSW, US Marine Corp, and US Army Special Operations Command on top of the DOJ.

He actually just got his certification from the NSW last year so perhaps, as he teaches Wing Chun, he is benefiting from the transition at NSW your article mentioned. As for that article, Sanda looks like MMA in many ways but it is a product of various TCMAs. In the end when you strip away the forms and get to the fighting, especially when you meld various styles together there isn't much difference between styles because biomechanics are biomechanics.

 

[Grenadier]

Admin's Note:

Thread closed, pending staff review.