wing chun effectiveness

[KamonGuy2]

Wing Chun is a scientific method of learning to generate force and overcome force efficiently , using the least amount of muscular strength possible..

I agree with this. I dont know what Uke's problem is with the term scientific method. In fact iof you read some of Shawn Rawcliffe's books, he goes into great detail about how wing chun works scientifically. It is just good body mechanics

While its very worth while to have a working knowledge and have practiced against some of the delivery systems and tactics that other martial arts use , it would be near on impossible to cover them all .
.

Definately. No matter how much you know, you can still be surprised ny techniques you havent seen before. Ive been training for just under three decades and still see stuff that blows me away

As I have mentioned before it is essential to cover certain areas which is broken down into ground work, stand up work (striking), and clinch work. As long as you know arts that can cover these, you will do well.

The directions of the forces involved are still the same , they are just executed differently.
So it follows that the technique you use to redirect both examples of linear strikes will be the same , and although using a different technique the same principle applies to both examples of circular attacks.
.

This is slightly wrong. Attacks can come in at completely different angles and attack different parts of you. Most will go for your face, but some will go for body, ribs, gut, groin, neck etc. Some people might be drunk and miss the target completely. Hence the need for random training. Training constantly for perfect attacks to the face is detrimental. Ive been taken out by shots to the gut before and it is just as relevant training that area

There is nothing better for a martial artist than to get his friend to get heavy gloves on and go at him like a bull in a china shop. You will soon realise how random attacks can be, especially in a rage

 

[mook jong man]

Please dobnt take this the wrong way, as I agree with the rest of your post re. WC.

Wing Chun IS NOT a scientific method!

There said it.

I have to strongly disagree there , Wing Chun does not mimic the movements of animals at all unlike a lot of styles.

Every technique is based on logical , scientific principals and these are all bound together into a system.

It contains elements of physics , mathematics , anatomy and physiology.
Indeed at the time Wing Chun was founded and making use of these principles , a lot of these sciences were still in their infancy in the western world.

 

[mook jong man]

This is slightly wrong. Attacks can come in at completely different angles and attack different parts of you. Most will go for your face, but some will go for body, ribs, gut, groin, neck etc. Some people might be drunk and miss the target completely. Hence the need for random training. Training constantly for perfect attacks to the face is detrimental. Ive been taken out by shots to the gut before and it is just as relevant training that area

There is nothing better for a martial artist than to get his friend to get heavy gloves on and go at him like a bull in a china shop. You will soon realise how random attacks can be, especially in a rage

I understand where you are coming from , and it is absolutely crucial to be able to defend from the top of your head to the tips of your toes and everywhere in between.

I know there is an infinite number of angles that strikes can come in at , but I still believe they can be classified as either linear or circular in nature , off the centreline or on the centreline.

Its just that I see that people try to make it really complicated when it shouldn't be with their outer gates , inner gates , lower gates , upper gates , middle gates everything but the bloody backyard gate.

You don't have time for that crap , all you've got time for is to recognise whether the punch is coming straight down your guard to the face , around your guard , under your guard to the gut etc.

One thing that helps me is to use my peripheral vision to keep an eye on the position of his elbows , if they start coming out it usually means a hook is on the way , similarly if his elbow stays in , its usually going to be a straight punch.

Now I don't know if he's aiming for the head or the gut until the punch has travelled a little bit , but at least I know if its going to be a round one or straight and I can start to get my hands in position to meet it.

But thats why we train so we can learn to pick up on these subtle cues that our opponents give us , the position of their elbow , a slight dip of the shoulder or small weight shift etc.

 

[Poor Uke]

By profession I research human biomechanics ie I am a trained scientist. Which is why I find martial arts in general fascinating.

So let me get something absolutely straight here...

You may be able to discribe WC in terms of the mechanics of its movements and discribe the physiological and anatomical arragments thereof BUT that doesnt not make it scientific! The same can be done when discribing making a cake, dont make cakes scientific now does it?

Many martial arts systems use the term 'scientific' they are all misgiuded to do so.

If WC were truley scrutinized though the scientific method, and objective falsifiable conclusions could be drawn reguarding its viability as a martial art, then it could claim to be scientific...this has not been done as far as I know.

Shaun Rawcliff presents some rudimentary (at best) mechanical principles to describe concepts etc of his version of WC. That is a far far cry from scientific analysis.

 

[KamonGuy2]

By profession I research human biomechanics ie I am a trained scientist. Which is why I find martial arts in general fascinating.

So let me get something absolutely straight here...

You may be able to discribe WC in terms of the mechanics of its movements and discribe the physiological and anatomical arragments thereof BUT that doesnt not make it scientific! The same can be done when discribing making a cake, dont make cakes scientific now does it?

Many martial arts systems use the term 'scientific' they are all misgiuded to do so.

If WC were truley scrutinized though the scientific method, and objective falsifiable conclusions could be drawn reguarding its viability as a martial art, then it could claim to be scientific...this has not been done as far as I know.

Shaun Rawcliff presents some rudimentary (at best) mechanical principles to describe concepts etc of his version of WC. That is a far far cry from scientific analysis.

You mention baking a cake as not being scientific, others would disagree. My brother is a doctor of biochemistry (teaching out of John Hopkins) and his Professor once mentioned that cooking was science based, especially if you are experimenting!!

You seem to really be fixated on how deeply rooted wing chun is in the science world. We were all merely making the point that the mechanics applied in wing chun follow basic laws in physics. Therefore, science based.

You obviously havent been reading many Shawn rawcliffe books - the one I own goes into two chapters worth of scientific analysis

 

[mook jong man]

I don't have any fancy letters after my name , only went to high school. In fact I've worked in crappy factories most of my adult life lugging around kitchen bench tops and breathing in saw dust.

But I have been involved in Wing Chun for 2O years and to this day I am still learning and continually amazed by the cleverness of the system .

The founder or founders of the system which ever story you believe seemed to have some insight into the characteristics of muscle , they seemed to have recognised that muscle in a relaxed state can tolerate greater external loads than muscles in a state of contraction.

If its not a system based on sound principles of science , then it must be pretty bloody close to it.

 

[Poor Uke]

You mention baking a cake as not being scientific, others would disagree. My brother is a doctor of biochemistry (teaching out of John Hopkins) and his Professor once mentioned that cooking was science based, especially if you are experimenting!!

Sure and a kid playing with mud can be seen as experimentation....scientific experimentation???....mmmm nahhhh

You seem to really be fixated on how deeply rooted wing chun is in the science world. We were all merely making the point that the mechanics applied in wing chun follow basic laws in physics. Therefore, science based.

Agreed but the same can be said of anything!

I reiterate, just because something follows scientific priciples does not make it a science, as everything in the known universe follows scientific principles.

You obviously havent been reading many Shawn rawcliffe books - the one I own goes into two chapters worth of scientific analysis

I have read Mr Rawcliff's books and I am telling you again that just because something can be discribed using scientifc terms does not mean that thing is therefore scientific.

If WC is a science then where are the controlled scientific studies on its effectiveness?

Who did these studies?

How were they verified?

 

[Poor Uke]

I don't have any fancy letters after my name , only went to high school. In fact I've worked in crappy factories most of my adult life lugging around kitchen bench tops and breathing in saw dust.

Is your assertion that having fancy letters after my name is somehow not as worthy as working in a factory?

Considering you know nothoing about my adult life or how I got those fancy letters after my name I am assuming some sort of reverse snobbery and stereotyping that is unjustified.

But I have been involved in Wing Chun for 2O years and to this day I am still learning and continually amazed by the cleverness of the system .

This does not make it science!

The founder or founders of the system which ever story you believe seemed to have some insight into the characteristics of muscle , they seemed to have recognised that muscle in a relaxed state can tolerate greater external loads than muscles in a state of contraction.

This is not true. Muscle can not resist anything in its relaxed state. Also if you search a little deeper into WC's history you will find that muscular control techniques used in many many Chinese martial arts derive from body mind techniques developed in both Buddist and Doaist monasteries over the millenia. Damo is thought by many to have been a yogic adept.

The main thing is the correct use of muscular tensioning!

If its not a system based on sound principles of science , then it must be pretty bloody close to it.

As mentioned before, sound mechanical principles can be used to discribe WC. That does not imply that WC is a science.

If WC is a science then find answers to the following:

Where are the controlled scientific studies on its effectiveness?

Who did these studies?

How were they verified?

 

[mook jong man]

Is your assertion that having fancy letters after my name is somehow not as worthy as working in a factory?

Considering you know nothoing about my adult life or how I got those fancy letters after my name I am assuming some sort of reverse snobbery and stereotyping that is unjustified.



This does not make it science!



This is not true. Muscle can not resist anything in its relaxed state. Also if you search a little deeper into WC's history you will find that muscular control techniques used in many many Chinese martial arts derive from body mind techniques developed in both Buddist and Doaist monasteries over the millenia. Damo is thought by many to have been a yogic adept.

The main thing is the correct use of muscular tensioning!



As mentioned before, sound mechanical principles can be used to discribe WC. That does not imply that WC is a science.

If WC is a science then find answers to the following:

Where are the controlled scientific studies on its effectiveness?

Who did these studies?

How were they verified?

I'm not going to change your opinion and your not going to change mine.
And I can't really be bothered arguing about it , so I think I will leave it at that.

 

[Poor Uke]

I'm not going to change your opinion and your not going to change mine.
And I can't really be bothered arguing about it , so I think I will leave it at that.

I come across this kind of thing alot on der interwebz its called being 'closed minded'.

I am telling you as a scientist that to use the word scientific in this sense is meaningless

The word 'scientific' used as a way to justify an arts effectiveness implies that scientific research has and/or is being used to develope the art.

I get Kamon's line about experimentation and that can be said of any skill set. I does not imply scientific exploration and scientific hypothesis-thesis methodology.

 

[profesormental]

Greetings.

While Wing Chun training itself might not be called technically scientific, for lack of direct peer reviewed research, the kinesiology and biomechanical principles that the training seems to apply seem quite sound.

It can be seen that most of Wing Chun training was developed by people with deep knowledge of how the body works, which is consistent with the way Chinese Medicine/Taoist philosophy works; there is a lot of empirical knowledge of what happens, not necessarily an explanation though.

The more knowledge about the way the body works and understand what happens as an effect of something else, the more I see the genius in the training method of Wing Chun. This knowledge can mot easily be taught by experience under guidance, the way Buddhism is taught (hence the Quan fa[mandarin], kuen fat[cantonese]), and graduate level science.

Hope that helps. Gotta keep writing my thesis...

Juan Mercado-Robles

 

[Poor Uke]

I'll actually go a step further Proff

It isnt scientific due to lack of validation!

 

[profesormental]

Validation of the physical education method or of the concepts, ideas and physical principles involved in designing the method?

I ask because I want to have a clear understanding about what it is that you want to express and discuss.

Are you being very precise about the use of the term "scientific"? What then would be an alternative, more accurate term?

Verification, validation and reproducibility are important, yet specifically about what are you refering? Results of execution of physical skills or the physical principles which the method is based of?

The thing is that there is an empirical base to much of the training, and the way it is now, much can be backed by studies in physical education, kinesiology and sciences applied to sports.

Also, when you are taught a way to do something by comparative experiments and measurements to find the one that is most effective and efficient for a specific application, and then draw conclusions from that, what would you call that?

I agree that not everyone teaches like that, and that saying something is "scientific" to justify something's effectiveness should means something specific...

like the case of the people that sell "Quantum Healing" and such without understanding the notions of Quantum mechanics... it's like saying really, REALLY small packets of discrete healing steps... what the hell do they mean by Quantum Healing? They gave Deepak Chopra an Ignoble award for that, you know...

So if you have beef with something being called "scientific", then extracting what that means exactly for the practitioners that use the term would be much more fruitful than saying that they're a bunch of fruits for saying so.

To me, what I do is the use of scientific knowledge and repeatable physiological phenomena to design and improve physical education methods to perform martial applications to get a desired result.

This I would call the martial sciences.

Just like sports sciences are used to improve physical performance for sporting purposes.

Or something like that. Haven't ironed out the whole thing. I hope you get an idea.

Juan Mercado-Robles

 

[wushuguy]

scientific or not, it is fairly easy to learn and can be effective when learned and used properly :ultracool

 

[blindsage]

How is Wing Chun more 'scientific' than Muay Thai, or Krav Maga, or Capoeira? What does that mean? Does it mean that Muay Thai doesn't follow the laws of physics, or physiology?

It would be one thing to say something like, "WC uses the physiology of the body more efficiently", or "WC uses an understanding of structure and relaxation to use the body more efficiently". But saying it is 'scientific' really doesn't mean anything.

 

[leejunfan]

scientific or not, it is fairly easy to learn and can be effective when learned and used properly :ultracool

There you go i agree with that, i personally dont care if science validates it or not, i think WC has proven itself !! Science isnt always right either..!! So put that in your pipe!

 

[dungeonworks]

Gosh! Just when you think you have seen all the internet arguments in and of Wing Chun, a thread turns the way of this one and makes one jaw drop! :uhyeah:

Seriously folks, put the beakers down and GO TRAIN ALREADY!!! :ultracool

 

[dungeonworks]

There you go i agree with that, i personally dont care if science validates it or not, i think WC has proven itself !! Science isnt always right either..!! So put that in your pipe!

So if Wing Chun is "science", then that same logic means Wing Chun is not always right either???

I hear that same anti-science argument argument each time science finds something contradictory to religion from the religious as well.

Bottom line, if it (Wing Chun) works for you, USE IT! If it doesn't, find out why then improve or discard it. Different body types will be more accustomed to speciffic stances, movements, or techniques. I like everything that I have seen in Wing Chun except the stances and footwork. It does not work for me and makes me slow, and not by a flaw in the style so much as it is how I learned to move for years prior to wing chun. I feel too confined and immobile in the classical stances, and I say the same of Karate which is why I like Boxing footwork much better. Common Wing chun argument against that is that it is not economical motion. I say it is nothing somewhat frequent cardio cannot fix which is why I jump rope and do roadwork, which also acts as good meditation for me as well, but that is another topic of itself. If you get tired feinting and deking, you have bigger issues than economical movement if you intend to fight in street or sport environments.

 

[dungeonworks]

scientific or not, it is fairly easy to learn and can be effective when learned and used properly :ultracool

I highly disagree! I found classical Wing Chun to be the hardest of any style I have trained by FAR!

 

[KamonGuy2]

How is Wing Chun more 'scientific' than Muay Thai, or Krav Maga, or Capoeira? What does that mean? Does it mean that Muay Thai doesn't follow the laws of physics, or physiology?

It would be one thing to say something like, "WC uses the physiology of the body more efficiently", or "WC uses an understanding of structure and relaxation to use the body more efficiently". But saying it is 'scientific' really doesn't mean anything.

A lot of Muay Thai does not rely on body mechanics to work. Muay Thai strikes are usually done from a pivot (heel) but they dont need to be. Wing chun works by utilizing good body mechanics, unlike many other arts, which have a lot of inefficiencies in them. Doesnt make those arts bad, but there is sometimes a lack of science in those kind of arts

Anyway, we have strolled way off topic...