wing chun effectiveness

[Poor Uke]

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

What you are postulating is the appliance of science.

I suppose I am using the word in a strict sense. For something to be 'scientific', knowledge has to have been aquired using the scientific method.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

And as such would need its various conjectures and hypothoesis validated. By validation I mean that the system would need to find some way in which to proove itself objectively 'effective'. Given WC's modern history and (in general) its reluctance to step into the ring (one avenue for validation) with any effectiveness the labelling as a 'scientific' system becomes even more tenuous.

I am not contending that WC is rubbish, far from it. Just that the use of the word 'scientific' is misleading. The implication is that the system has some sort of objective backup from the scientific communittee....it does not.

Great post btw Proff

 

[wushuguy]

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

Physically or mentally? As for the physical motions, in my opinion they are very simple and much fewer techniques and postures to learn compared to other arts, but mentally speaking, I agree, because it is very demanding learning about structure and direction of force. Very good way to learn about how our bodies move and the capabilities and limitations of human anatomy. I have known some people who can learn external/hard styles well, such as TKD, Karate, Judo, Mantis, Shaolin, etc. but they find it very difficult to do and understand Wing Chun.

An art can be effective, but it depends on how well one can put it to practice. One can pick an effective style, based on what works for the individual, don't pick a style that is effective in other people's opinion.
So, for the original poster, if you find WC doesn't seem effective for you, you can think about if you are improving in your training and also if you are understanding the principles. If not then try a few other things to see which one feels more natural and suits your personal taste and has principles which you can grasp better.

and, scientific or not, martial arts are called martial ARTs not martial sciences, so perhaps we're more artistic than scientific? :cheers:

 

[dungeonworks]

Physically or mentally?

Let me say Wing Chun wasn't physically hard in the least. We did absolutely no sparring, no cardio (aside chain punching mitts from time to time), but they did a crap load of sensitivity, form, and stance work. Mentally, the trouble was from all the "relax your shoulders" when they were relaxed. If they were relaxed any more than they were, my arms would have fallen. Then there was the "bring your elbows in more" and when I did they said to relax my shoulders again. I am kind of a bigger guy with broad shoulders. When I bring my elbows in beyond a certain point, my shoulders physically must come forward. So, to describe the "mental" part of it, I found it to be just waaaay to picky on some little details and not at all taxing physically. I like my Martial Arts to also act as physical training (gyms bore me to tears) as well and the class I took, well, I could have smoked cig's during class or packed a dip of Skoal in my lip.

As for the physical motions, in my opinion they are very simple and much fewer techniques and postures to learn compared to other arts, but mentally speaking, I agree, because it is very demanding learning about structure and direction of force.

I agree they are simple to learn, but the postures and footwork I could just never get. I felt too much like I would trip over my self had I tried to do them at full combat speed. Like I said, it was more "me" and not the art. I have seen people move well with it, but I do have a Koei-Kan-Karate-Do, Kickboxing, and Tae Kwon Do base. I stick to the boxing footwork as it has server me well in and out of the ring. Karate was too linear (generalization) and TKD was a lot of bouncing. Boxing allows me for freer movements and quicker changeups. It also allows for kicks quite nicely.

Very good way to learn about how our bodies move and the capabilities and limitations of human anatomy. I have known some people who can learn external/hard styles well, such as TKD, Karate, Judo, Mantis, Shaolin, etc. but they find it very difficult to do and understand Wing Chun.

I'm one of those people!

An art can be effective, but it depends on how well one can put it to practice. One can pick an effective style, based on what works for the individual, don't pick a style that is effective in other people's opinion.
So, for the original poster, if you find WC doesn't seem effective for you, you can think about if you are improving in your training and also if you are understanding the principles. If not then try a few other things to see which one feels more natural and suits your personal taste and has principles which you can grasp better.

and, scientific or not, martial arts are called martial ARTs not martial sciences, so perhaps we're more artistic than scientific? :cheers:

I totally agree. I think that people's physiques come into play more than anything when it comes to finding a martial art that works for the individual. I mean, a tall flexible lanky dude is likely to grow well into a TKD or Muay Thai or a former wrestler, usualy strong, quick, and good sense of base would likely do well in a Brazillian Jiujitsu or Judo...ect. Me? I felt that Classical Wing Chun was like trying to fit into shoes on the wrong feet. Now I train in JKD Concepts and the freer footwork has treated me better. I cannot wait for the day I am able to find another Wing Chun Kwoon (that spars and works out too!) just to see the differences because I do want to return to it at some point. I think there is a lot there I could use and would like to see, especially in the sensitivity and even the stances and footwork.

 

[leejunfan]

Well im out of this thread, its going no where and theres nothing productive i can use.... and too much argueing.

"And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand.."

(Sorry science guys)...

 

[geezer]

Well im out of this thread, its going no where and theres nothing productive i can use.... and too much argueing.

Maybe I'm just feeling agreeable today, but I though Dungeonworks made perfect sense. I love 'Chun but I physically struggle with it at times. It's a better fit for some than others. If, after giving WC/WT/VT a fair shot, you find that another art suits your physique or mentality better, I say go for it.

 

[dungeonworks]

Well im out of this thread, its going no where and theres nothing productive i can use.... and too much argueing.

"And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand.."

(Sorry science guys)...

Arguing??? You should see the Wing Cun + BJJ thread around here somewhere....THAT's arguing! LOL I see some point-counter point going on but not really arguing. There are no insults and everyone is constructively getting points accross.

 

[leejunfan]

I guess, well have fun..

 

[dungeonworks]

Maybe I'm just feeling agreeable today, but I though Dungeonworks made perfect sense. I love 'Chun but I physically struggle with it at times. It's a better fit for some than others. If, after giving WC/WT/VT a fair shot, you find that another art suits your physique or mentality better, I say go for it.

Thanks Geezer. That's exactly what I was saying. Also, I was saying I would like to try it again from another lineage, like Boztepe's EBMAS and ESPECIALLY Louisville Wing Chun (Woo Fai Chang system).

 

[blindsage]

A lot of Muay Thai does not rely on body mechanics to work.

How does it work then? It's still body mechanics it's just different use of body mechanics than WC.

Muay Thai strikes are usually done from a pivot (heel) but they dont need to be.

Actually their done on a toe (ball) pivot not heel, and it order to use the body mechanics they use, yes, it needs to be done that way.

Wing chun works by utilizing good body mechanics, unlike many other arts, which have a lot of inefficiencies in them.

Other arts may have inefficiencies in them, but this is vastly different from saying they don't know or use body mechanics, you can't walk without using body mechanics. Most styles have highly refined body mechanics, maybe WC body mechanics is 'better', but that doesn't mean the body mechanics of other styles isn't good.

Doesnt make those arts bad, but there is sometimes a lack of science in those kind of arts

It's not a lack of science, 'science' has nothing to do with it. All movement is 'scientific'. They may be less efficient, but they are still scientific.

 

[profesormental]

Greetings.

First, science guys are cool! And I'm a mathematical physicist, I don't use beakers!! I use beer mugs!! And cofee mugs!!

The Chinese version are the Daoists that created the empirical basis for the Wing Chun. So there!!!

Second, verification and validation is supposed to be done by the teachers in the training hall. Every day.

The ring is not the be all end all of validation. It is a controlled duel. It is sport competition activity.

Case studies of the people that have used their training in self defense type is a better evaluation. Self defense type situation simulations are even better.

Unfortunately, this is something done by individual teachers, and many here DO high level stress simulations to evaluate performance. Others don't.

Also, many trainers lack verification methods so they know how to evaluate if a way to perform something is better (more efficient and/or effective) or not. That is an important skill.

At first, training Wing Chun may feel strange... maybe you could generate more power in another way... yet after a little while, you can generate a lot of power and stability with Wing Chun methods... and then, eventaully, your body will get faster and stronger, bacause the body is better suited for optmized movement, by virtue of how it is.

What does this mean?

Many people in kicking arts, after a certain age, cannot kick anymore, because of damage done to their ligaments and tendons over the years. This is because they move in a way that is hard for the body to handle, yet because of the power of the mucles, they can move that way.

Yet you can keep your joints and maximize your martial capacity if your movements fall within certain parameters given by careful study of the body. This is the philosophy Chinese internal arts, including Wing Chun and SubLevel Kenpo.

If you execute your movements within these parameters, your movements will be VERY strong, and your joints will be protected from wear and tear. Also, the point is promoting better health.

How, I ask, do we know this?

Well, scientific knowledge and study comfirms most of my claims, if not all of them. Others, we know they happen yet neurocience is in the way to answering why.

And still, others can be demostrated by comparative study under force load. You can even find ways to measure the force and such objectively and find the same comparative results.

Mathematical rigor, even in science, is what argument is enough to convince you. Scientific study, is still, logical argumentation to establish truth. Daily experiements used to convince students that something works, compared to doing it another way,

is still using observation (Hey, let's try this!! I hit you!! How does it feel? How solid is it?)...

then hypothesizing (I claim this way should provide better results.),

then experimenting (Now, I hit you!! How does it feel compared to the other time? Hey... wake up! Hey!!),

then analyzing the results and reaching a conclusion. (This way I get better results. Now let's practice it so it comes out spontaneously upon appropriate stimuli when needed.)

If we find a better way, then we compare and adopt it.

More fun!

What more could you ask for?

On another note, the way we teach is really picky about what we do, yet we can adapt it to the physique of the individual once it conforms to the geometry of the person. So that means that we train very strictly the way it is optimal for the person's geometry in particular.

The tension that many times you hear teachers say "RELAX" is what we call "frozen muscles". It doesn't mean that there is no tension. It means that you hold them rigidly in a certain place and freeze them there, without any kind of sensitivity.

They become handles to control you. You don't want that.

Anyway, hope that helps.

Juan Mercado-Robles

 

[dungeonworks]

I will say this, Wing Chun training has reaped me huge benefits in striking on the ground, more precisely from my back when someone is in my guard....and that is a spot I have been in a few times in bar fights. It is also something we train in JKD in the form of focus mit drills and rolling with a heavy bag.

I know Geezer got my point and I hope others do not see my post as negative towards Wing Chun or my former kwoon and teachers. "I", meaning ME, was the part that had trouble fitting the style. That is what I was stating.

 

[dungeonworks]

...and about the ring or sparring. Yes, it is not the be all end all of validating any martial art style for self defense, but even pilots must train on a flight simulator when learning to fly. The ring and sparring are the safest and closest form of validation that we have this side of an actual life or death self defense situation. There are lots of things that can be practiced in the form of ring fighting and sparring, including combat speed footwork, timing and accuracy, and the priceless experience of feeling how your thinking and reasoning is after being hit in the head. I can tell you from both fighting and sparring experiences that your brain gets rattled effecting rational thinking and even experiencing fight or flight reactions which is an uncomfortable feeling, most speciffically to a practitioner who may not have "been there before". For me, a blend of technical and practical training is the way to go. If you have ever had your bell rung, you know what I am talking about. Sparring and ringfighting enter in that dynamic of training, and I feel it is a most important aspect that must be felt and cannot be taught.

 

[chisauking]

poor guy sez: Given WC's modern history and (in general) its reluctance to step into the ring (one avenue for validation).

csk: I would question your logic, to suggest one could validate wing chun in a ring. It's akin to validating F1 cars in a RAC rallye, or validating one's snooker skills in American pool. Altough there are cross-overs between the two, it still isn't the same.

Also, to use the analogy of pilots training on flight similators is also flawed. The purpose of the flight sim is to replicate the exact actions \ environment of a particular aircraft. In the ring, one can use very little of what wing chun was conceived for, nor is the 'ring' a realistic combat environment.

What one would do -- or try to do -- in a flight sim is exactly the same as what they would do in a real aircraft. On the other hand, a wing chun practitioner can't try to apply his skills in a ring as it was intended.

Of course, there are cross-overs between the ring & all out fighting, but it still isn't the same -- unless one believes people take of their shoes & socks before fighting!

As to the original question as to whether wing chun is effective, this question can't be properly answered unless more information is given, as there are many variables in determing whether something is effective or not. For example, is a apache war helicopter effective in combat? Well, only if you had a pilot that could command the aircraft well. Is the fastest F1 car effective? Well, only if you race it in the environment it was designed for. So, it's the same for wing chun. It's effective if one uses it for its intended purpose, in the right environment, and with a competent practitioner. If one tries to use wing chun in a boxing tournament, or in a karate competition, then no, wing chun isn't effective.

 

[dungeonworks]

poor guy sez: Given WC's modern history and (in general) its reluctance to step into the ring (one avenue for validation).

csk: I would question your logic, to suggest one could validate wing chun in a ring. It's akin to validating F1 cars in a RAC rallye, or validating one's snooker skills in American pool. Altough there are cross-overs between the two, it still isn't the same.

Also, to use the analogy of pilots training on flight similators is also flawed. The purpose of the flight sim is to replicate the exact actions \ environment of a particular aircraft. In the ring, one can use very little of what wing chun was conceived for, nor is the 'ring' a realistic combat environment.

What one would do -- or try to do -- in a flight sim is exactly the same as what they would do in a real aircraft. On the other hand, a wing chun practitioner can't try to apply his skills in a ring as it was intended.

Of course, there are cross-overs between the ring & all out fighting, but it still isn't the same -- unless one believes people take of their shoes & socks before fighting!

As to the original question as to whether wing chun is effective, this question can't be properly answered unless more information is given, as there are many variables in determing whether something is effective or not. For example, is a apache war helicopter effective in combat? Well, only if you had a pilot that could command the aircraft well. Is the fastest F1 car effective? Well, only if you race it in the environment it was designed for. So, it's the same for wing chun. It's effective if one uses it for its intended purpose, in the right environment, and with a competent practitioner. If one tries to use wing chun in a boxing tournament, or in a karate competition, then no, wing chun isn't effective.

I disagree with this post. How is the Apache pilot or F1 racer going to cultivate the skills to be good at their respective jobs? Practice on the track and live fire exercises I assume, and how is that respectively different than a Wing Chun stylist fighting in a ring or cage??? What in Wing Chun could you not use in a ring/cage that would take soooo much from the art itself? Groin kicks and Biu Jee's to the eyes or throat? The almighty neck crank that is not nearly as dramaticly resulting as most MA schools (and Chuck Norris movies) teach and that MMA has proven? That is legal in MMA. Kicks to the legs/knees? Yup, legal too! Elbows? They are all good, so tell me what is the limiting content of Wing Chun that keeps it from a ring? Palm strikes are legal too. What elements does the ring/cage take away from Wing chun that leaves it so useless between the ropes or fences?

About the flight simulator comparison. Flight simulators are not flying. Just as the ring/sparring is to martial artists, the flight simulator gives the experience of flying without all the dangers. Like it or not, MMA is the closest contest we have to a real fight without it being a real fight....and for the record, ring sports are not exactly like fighting and I never stated that they were. All I am saying is they are the closest thing to a real fight where techniques can be validated against fully resisiting opponents at combat speed with penalty of pain for your mistakes.

Since you claim the ring sports take to much away from Wing Chun to be effective, what does Wing Chun offer other than myths and "Sifu says..." as a means to validate it's effectiveness?

The reason I am asking this is not to bash the art or portray it negatively. The OP asked if it was an effective style, and I feel it is an effective style. Now that I am doing JKD and actually full on sparring again, I see my very basic Wing Chun coming through even when just boxing, even some well timed paks, taking center, and even chain punching....with boxing gloves. I imagine had I had more WC, maybe it would be more coming through???

 

[chisauking]

It's very simple to understand really.

In a flight sim, the objective is to emulate a particular aircraft, control, and environment as realistically as possible to the real thing.

In the 'ring' or any other sport for the matter, the objective is NOT to emulate a FIGHT as realistically as possible. If that were the case, it would not be STAGED in the ring, since no real world fight would start in a ring. There would not be any rules, since there are no rules in a real fight. There would not be any protective measures, such as the soft floor, or wearing boxing gloves, or no hard footwear, etc., etc. Most importantly, there's no real INTENT. No matter how much one may hate their opponent, in the ring the objective is not to inflict as much damage as possible, using any means and even sacrficing one's well being in the process.

Wing chun was never concieved for sport, so to test it in that element would only yield inaccurate results. Just as testing a fly spray on fish would yield falsh results.

A lot of times, it isn't a question of whether wing chun works or not; it's a question of what one is prepared to do. Are you prepared to cripple, blind, kill your opponent? I for one can never injure another fellow human being just to prove that wing chun is effective, just to please the whims of others. However, any one that threatens my family, and I would take great pleasure in inflicting as much pain as possible and then killing the bastard.

As I'd stated before, the rules & environment of any sport determines the best training methods. Just as the requirments of a fight that last no more than 1-minute is different to a sport that may last many 3-minute rounds.

Doing well in a particular environment, under a set of rules, only means that. There's no guarantee that once the rules and\or the environment changes, you will continue to do well. Just look at Thai boxing. Thai boxers are one of the best conditioned people in the martial arts. Their kicks & elbows are very effective & powerful. However, put them in western boxing and suddenly they don't do so well after all. Only a handful of Thai boxers have made successful transitions to proffessional boxing.

We can see from the above example that changing the rules \ environment slightly can change the outcome. So, one can only imagine the results if we change the rules to no rules under genuine combat environments.

No matter how much you love your deluxe rubber doll, it still doesn't make it real. Just as no matter how much hype you believe in the 'ring', it still isn't the real thing, and to judge a style's effectiveness based on its performence in the ring -- an artificial platform with many real world fighting variables\elements removed -- is only subscribing to the pepsi & popcorn mentality.

 

[dungeonworks]

It's very simple to understand really.

In a flight sim, the objective is to emulate a particular aircraft, control, and environment as realistically as possible to the real thing.

In the 'ring' or any other sport for the matter, the objective is NOT to emulate a FIGHT as realistically as possible. If that were the case, it would not be STAGED in the ring, since no real world fight would start in a ring. There would not be any rules, since there are no rules in a real fight. There would not be any protective measures, such as the soft floor, or wearing boxing gloves, or no hard footwear, etc., etc. Most importantly, there's no real INTENT. No matter how much one may hate their opponent, in the ring the objective is not to inflict as much damage as possible, using any means and even sacrficing one's well being in the process.

Wing chun was never concieved for sport, so to test it in that element would only yield inaccurate results. Just as testing a fly spray on fish would yield falsh results.

A lot of times, it isn't a question of whether wing chun works or not; it's a question of what one is prepared to do. Are you prepared to cripple, blind, kill your opponent? I for one can never injure another fellow human being just to prove that wing chun is effective, just to please the whims of others. However, any one that threatens my family, and I would take great pleasure in inflicting as much pain as possible and then killing the bastard.

As I'd stated before, the rules & environment of any sport determines the best training methods. Just as the requirments of a fight that last no more than 1-minute is different to a sport that may last many 3-minute rounds.

Doing well in a particular environment, under a set of rules, only means that. There's no guarantee that once the rules and\or the environment changes, you will continue to do well. Just look at Thai boxing. Thai boxers are one of the best conditioned people in the martial arts. Their kicks & elbows are very effective & powerful. However, put them in western boxing and suddenly they don't do so well after all. Only a handful of Thai boxers have made successful transitions to proffessional boxing.

We can see from the above example that changing the rules \ environment slightly can change the outcome. So, one can only imagine the results if we change the rules to no rules under genuine combat environments.

No matter how much you love your deluxe rubber doll, it still doesn't make it real. Just as no matter how much hype you believe in the 'ring', it still isn't the real thing, and to judge a style's effectiveness based on its performence in the ring -- an artificial platform with many real world fighting variables\elements removed -- is only subscribing to the pepsi & popcorn mentality.

With all due respect, you are missing my question altogether. I am not trying to turn this into MMA vs Wing Chun argument nor am I trying to dis or insult Wing Chun, rather than I am trying to find out legitimately why it cannot be adapted for full speed trial and error against an opponent OTHER THAN another Chunner, be it sparring or in a sporting venue. A punch is a punch, kick is a kick, elbow an elbow, clinch a clinch...ect. You state that it wasn't what Wing Chun was made for. Neither was Jiujitsu or most striking styles such as Karate and other Kung Fu styles that have translated well into Sanshou, kickboxing, MMA, or Vale Tudo contests.

No real fight was staged as Chi sau either by that same token, yet Wing Chun competitions with contact start from there with rules. I ask again, and this is a legitimate question....HOW DOES WING CHUN VALIDATE WHAT WORKS AND WHAT DOES NOT??? MMA is the closest simulation to a real fight, sport or not. I have been in a few good adulthood scraps and found myself in situations that closely resemble EVERY fight I have been in during EVERY MMA bout that I have watched. I like MMA as a sport and i like MMA rules for sparring too.

Just as the flight simulator is not really FLYING per say, neither is MMA real fighting....but it is the closest thing to the actual application of techniques in combat. Why would Wing Chun and it's principles not be conducive to the ring/cage? Jiujitsu has its roots in military warfare. It is now a huge part of a sport, and widely adapted so. Why could Wing Chun not be tweaked a bit to see if most things really work? Chunners obviously are not ripping eachothers throats out during class nor gouging eyeballs. How do you practice and validate your art of Wing Chun at full speed and full resistance? If you don't have methods for such training, how would one know it is an effective style?

 

[Poor Uke]

Am in total agreement with dungeonworks here.

Even Chi Sau is a simulated fight, all be it very controlled and restrained.

The fact remains that the best way of validating effectiveness, besides actually being in a fight, is by sparring....simple. I honestly dont get why this is even up for debate????

 

[Poor Uke]

Second, verification and validation is supposed to be done by the teachers in the training hall. Every day.

How?

The ring is not the be all end all of validation. It is a controlled duel. It is sport competition activity.

Sparring in a ring or not IMO is an essetial way of deeming one's own effectiveness reguardless of what style. It is not just a 'sport activity' but a way of pressure testing techniques and stragies, how else do you do this?

Case studies of the people that have used their training in self defense type is a better evaluation. Self defense type situation simulations are even better.

Do you have any? of WC I mean?

Also, many trainers lack verification methods so they know how to evaluate if a way to perform something is better (more efficient and/or effective) or not. That is an important skill.

All too true

Well, scientific knowledge and study comfirms most of my claims, if not all of them. Others, we know they happen yet neurocience is in the way to answering why.

Which knwlegde confirms which claims?

C'mon Prof your a scientist you should know you cant get away with statements like that

And still, others can be demostrated by comparative study under force load. You can even find ways to measure the force and such objectively and find the same comparative results.

Mathematical rigor, even in science, is what argument is enough to convince you. Scientific study, is still, logical argumentation to establish truth. Daily experiements used to convince students that something works, compared to doing it another way,

Again you should know better than this Prof. Where are the scientific studies to proove that one styles mechanics are more effective than anothers?

The last information I had about punching most definitley said that the western boxing method of punching was by far the most efficient use of musclature and delivered the most force on delivery. I wish I could find that study again.

is still using observation (Hey, let's try this!! I hit you!! How does it feel? How solid is it?)...

then hypothesizing (I claim this way should provide better results.),

then experimenting (Now, I hit you!! How does it feel compared to the other time? Hey... wake up! Hey!!),

then analyzing the results and reaching a conclusion. (This way I get better results. Now let's practice it so it comes out spontaneously upon appropriate stimuli when needed.)

If we find a better way, then we compare and adopt it.

More fun!

What more could you ask for?

Yep an admirable approach and one that can be applied to many skill sets not just martial arts.

But when statements concerning the scientific veracity of a skill sets effcetiveness are made then that just doesnt cut it. The scientific method is far more vigrous than that, as you should know being a physicist.

 

[jarrod]

just an outsider to the WC community here...but competition always comes up in WC threads. american kickboxing was created to give karateka a full-contact avenue of competition without have to fight boxers & others with lots of ring experience. is there any interest among chunners in creating a WC-based combat sport? i think sport fighting is a valuable way ot pressure test your techniques, but i can certainly understand not wanting to try & fit your game into someone else's rules. just a thought.

jf

 

[dungeonworks]

just an outsider to the WC community here...but competition always comes up in WC threads. american kickboxing was created to give karateka a full-contact avenue of competition without have to fight boxers & others with lots of ring experience. is there any interest among chunners in creating a WC-based combat sport? i think sport fighting is a valuable way ot pressure test your techniques, but i can certainly understand not wanting to try & fit your game into someone else's rules. just a thought.

jf

At least it is not just me alone that wonders about this question. I bet I can hold my breath until the next "Wing chun was'nt designed for sport!" comment, and miss entirely the meat and potatoes of your post.

I've seen with my own limited WC experience how it has improved my overall martial ability (Ironically, none more than on the ground!). I think there is a LOT of stuff in WC that could make me a better fighter or more capable at self defense which is why someday I will return to it.

Where I am truly seeking an answer is how does Wing Chun validate its' effectiveness? Somewhere in the world, there must be a video of Wing Chun in action that is not staged for YouTube or for demonstration only. For me, it has been after the fact, sparring in JKD that brought me back around. I have seen some posts on YouTube of how the Russian Chunner's spar against other styles and each other. Then in the bottom, there are too many people saying "That's not Wing Chun! His stance is all incorrect!" or some other nit picking critique among the comments.

Again, I am not saying WC is not effective nor a bad style, so please do not take it that way.