Well they all aren't in the BJ of my Lineage. Also at least as taught to me WC is about efficiency and directness in combat. How it is used in practice and a curriculum of teaching can often be two VERY different things. Also efficient and simple aren't synonyms.
WC is an art designed in a time where you either had the dedication, got it, or you didn't on both counts. If you didn't the master didn't care if the door hit your *** on the way out.
I think you only see half the issue. As we both acknowledge many of the techniques aren't gross motor skills, they are fine motor skills. To try and learn to do a proper tan or bong while also moving would actually create more headaches imo. So you do the art static in the form, then move on to drills with partners where you move and can more readily see when your tan or bong fails (as an example.) Once you can do these properly with consistency THEN you add movement to the forms. Because the student knows the correct hand and arms positions almost subconsciously and so integrating the footwork doesnt create a divided attention issue.
I often use Field Sobriety Testing as an example because they are all about divided attention. Keeping one foot off the ground while also counting. Walking a straight line while having to make sure your heel touches your toes, you arms remain fixed at your sides and again counting. Sober people have issues with these tests sometimes. Now make the task more complex.
Now does the art take more study, more dedication than some other arts? Sure it does. It is arguably more scientific and requires a level of precision higher than some other arts. Thing is though if you put in the time and effort your investment is rewarded, and it is effective.
The initial "hump" is yes, steeper than even some other CMAs but once over that hump it is actually, in my experience easier and faster to progress. I never even noticed the issue you mentioned. It felt natural and logical to me.
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.
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.
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.
"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?
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.
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"? 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.
How is the current manner in which WC is taught, superior to the manner in which nearly all other CMAs are taught? When the majority of evidence suggests otherwise. Ex. WC straight punch taught from goat stance vs. Boxing straight right taught from fighting stance.
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.
Is maintaining WC structure so important that people will sacrifice practical utility in order to prove effectiveness of a particular technique or method? Simply because one can show the effectiveness of a technique doesn't mean they can apply it with that same effectiveness in real time, especially if it wasn't learned with that mentality from the beginning.
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.
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.