The movements are there. You say "How it is used in practice and a curriculum of teaching can often be two VERY different things". I say why? It's contradictory to the theory of the art, simple, direct, efficient to practice a movement in one manner & apply in another.
This is true of almost all TMAs, though some, as illustrated by the Crane photo I showed, are even more obvious than WC. I also explained elsewhere why. Fighting is dynamic and under huge pressure, training (especially today) is far less so because they don't want students hospitalized regularly. That is why I say it's about learning to "feel" in the perfect structure because you can "feel" that in structures that would not be seen as obviously "WC" but that one may assume in a dynamic encounter. The later I have, regrettably, experience with
Arts are no different today, you get back what you put in. My argument is to train smarter not harder as a means of compensation.
And that is subjective. I actually find WC order to be quite smart, logical and orderly. The difference is when do you expect gratification?
You stated "To try and learn to do a proper tan or bong while also moving would actually create more headaches imo". I disagree, many of the techniques in WC are used in many arts, both north & south, who perform the actions while moving when learning them. Through practice they are perfected. They are not perfected first then practiced.
Saying, essentially, that other arts did it a different way doesn't mean that WC's method is inherently flawed, only that it is a step by step, paint by numbers method that may not "work" for you. For me it works very well. All the time at work while interviewing subjects I say "okay slow down and please answer my questions, don't elaborate, I need you do go A, B, C, D, E etc."
"It is arguably more scientific and requires a level of precision higher than some other arts". Again I disagree. Tai Chi is very profound, as is Ba Gua, Hsing Yi, Long Fist, Southern Mantis, Northern Mantis etc. WC is not unique in strategy, theory or technique but in approach. An approach that we have seen all to often fail under pressure. The question is why?
I am not talking about how it actually works. All martial arts are based on biomechanics and thus science. BUT if you look at the training method... as I elaborated on by breaking down the first three steps, it is. The others often use a more philosophical approach.
When these other arts are pressure tested, aside from Tai Chi, they do not degrade to the extent that WC does. We need to understand why. I have voiced my opinion as to why, but am countered with the same old rhetoric that doesn't stand up under scrutiny.
Well as I said elsewhere, where are our sources for the alleged breakdown? I have seen videos labeled as WC that later after research I verified were not WC at all (simply one example.) Second we are confronted with the idea of was it really a breakdown because at this point there is so much divergence between some lineages that I have seen people say "that wasn't WC..." or "their structure broke down.." only to see another reliable person say "that is what my lineage looks like." Hell I have had people say just the BJ form of my Lineage isn't WC.
You said "Thing is though if you put in the time and effort your investment is rewarded, and it is effective". Many have, yet, as the topic of this thread discusses, why do they then resort to "Sloppy Kickboxing"?
See above but refined, is it "sloppy kick boxing", or whatever, if a persons body, through a different alignment achieved the exact same "feel" of grounding and support for attack and defense? I posted earlier videos of Sifu Jerry Devone in MUSU. A LOT of people would say that wasn't WC, but sloppy kickboxing. In my Lineage it was what honest to goodness good WC can look like in a real fight.
Especially if the method of instruction is superior? My response all along, and I have been consistent, is that it isn't. Many have agreed with my assessment, or at least agreed that they were worth considering, only to later retract by spouting the same old rhetoric that the methodological approach is superior, without actually countering any point I've made.
I for one dont say WC is a superior art or that it's method of construction is superior. I just say it's different. Before I became a Soldier and then a LEO I was a History Secondary Ed Major. The number of methods of education just for academics is vast. They work better or worse often because of the student and what the goal is. If your goal is "learn to fight with only WC now" WC's method is indeed questionable. If the goal is "when I graduate I will be a dang good WC fighter" then the method works.
How is the current manner in which WC is taught, superior to the manner in which nearly all other CMAs are taught?
see above
When the majority of evidence suggests otherwise. Ex. WC straight punch taught from goat stance vs. Boxing straight right taught from fighting stance.
That isn't how I am taught. We do SLT at the beginning of class (you should also do that at home) but after that we do drills with foot work and movement. The strikes and defenses all applied from fighting stance. Heck Sifu says "be a good training partner, zone, use footwork, don't stand there like a log." SLT is to teach the principles. To teach the proper angles, breathing, etc. That is why I said when you move to the following forms it's easier, you should have already been using foot work in training before to move to the forms that follow SLT. (maybe this is limited to GM Cheungs TWC I don't know).
How is WC supposed to be a simple streamlined art that is supposed to take little time to learn, when it is proven that quicker results can be had with other methods? Ex. WC basics taught in SLT while in goat stance vs. Boxing basics. Which one are you going to be able to use right away? Both can later be refined via structure and delivery.
Because historically, hell today, you don't start sending people to war until they have completed training. In the context of WC, previously it took over a decade to turn a person into what was considered a "competent" martial artist. Typically a martial artist (as opposed to a mere soldier, soldiers amounting to cannon fodder) began training as children and were not seen as "competent" until their late teens/early 20s. WC was about taking 10-15 years and making it ~5 years. This seems odd today but it is the nature of the era and it is something that must be considered.
Is maintaining WC structure so important that people will sacrifice practical utility in order to prove effectiveness of a particular technique or method?
Well I never said that. As a matter of fact more than once to KPM I said perfect structure is a training tool so that you can learn how your body should "feel" when fighting. Once you learn to "feel" you can fight using the principles without the picture perfect structure.
Many that are successful with WC are so because it is not the first art they were trained in. Which was my point that WC is not an art for beginners and is truly an art of refinement. An art that elevates beyond "Sloppy Kickboxing", but IMO requires a firm foundation to chip and mold into something better.
Indeed but there are also students who did very well in WC because they lacked the preconceptions of other arts and managed to have an open mind as well.
The legends state that WC was developed to counter traditional Siu Lam methods. It was never mentioned how this was to be accomplished. By looking at the various lineages we can see everyone has a different approach. Which leads me to believe that "How" wasn't necessarily passed on or perhaps forgotten, as WC evolved. Training in Ku Lao is a clue as it harkens back to how the art appeared when it was first concueved.
Some legends yes but not all and that is the thing about legends, drawing the fact from the fiction.
