lklawson
Grandmaster
I've been watching this exact debate, in particular the Wing Chun vs "grappling," since the mid-1990's, quite literally. So, call it roughly TWO BLASTED DECADES of the same stupid debate. Frankly, it was about that time that I started seeing WC "anti-grappling" techniques and they ranged anywhere from "might work sometimes if the grappler isn't too skilled" at the best, all the way down to "completely idiotic." Wing Chun at the time, at least as was popularly taught in the U.S., did not have effective ground-wrestling skills nor effective skills to prevent take-downs. It did seem to have other elements of what could be called "standing grappling," most notably the trapping stuff including pak sao, lop sao, etc. How "effective" those are for "fighting" is a different debate. However, it is my experience that, at the time, WC in the U.S. simply did not include an effective skill set to counter the skill set of BJJ, Wrestling, Judo, Shuai Jiao, and similar arts which include a strong focus on take-downs and ground-grappling. To address these "deficiencies," many people promoting WC in the U.S. included something that they thought would counter take-down attempts and it was generally labeled "anti-grappling."
At the height of the debate there were several highly published "challenge" matches, and even a few WC vs WC type matches which were video recorded. Speaking as someone with grappling, take-down, throwing, and ground-fighting experience, none of them showed any particularly notable skill. Most of them showed skills in that area which are easily exceeded by a teenage Judoka with about 1.5 years of training. Further, Internet video was becoming popular and many "big names" started uploading their "anti-grappling" solutions intended to counter take-down and throws. Again, the vast majority of them were unworkable but had the appearance of something that might work if the viewer were not an initiate to take-downs, throws, etc. The most common one was some variation of an elbow to the back or a rabbit punch to the neck during a wrestling style "shoot." A few of them were "punch him in the face, that's sure to stop anyone." There is also a problem of semantics and actual technique. By that I mean, that no one with ground-grappling training or take-down training uses what is commonly called a "tackle" as you just referred to it. It works well in American Football but not so well in grappling arts. However, the uninitiated to grappling are often simply unable to discern the difference between a "tackle" and a "shoot" while the difference between them are starkly obvious to a someone with grappling training.
So, speaking as someone who's been watching this stupid debate for 20 years now, while it does indeed seem strange that no one in WC had ever thought of how to fight a "wrastler," the available evidence does, in fact, seem to lead to that conclusion.
The "countermeasure" which I've seen being taught by WC instructors simply won't work against someone with training in an art which teaches takedowns. At best, being charitable, they might work against someone who's sole training in take-downs & grappling was watching WWE.
I don't know what you've seen, but it is my experience that anyone who is untrained in a physical art is even close to the skill level and technique of someone who is trained in it.
Or Shuai Jiao?
My experience watching this debate for 20 years is that there will now follow a debate or argument about whether or not "sophisticated grappling" is a threat "in streetfights" to be concerned with, whether grappling training is "any good for streetfights," and we may see something about gravel, broken glass, HIV infected needles, and lava.
Gads, this debate is like the martial arts version of a musical ear-worm. It just won't go away and keeps replaying itself over and over again.
Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
