What does Wing Chun look like from other disciplines?

[Alan Armstrong]

Tempest I won't let you get away with being the only one offending people....

So asked honest will get honest replies...

We make fun of it... a lot. The most amusing is the anti grappling we tend to see. It's really really bad- I mean really.

Now *could* wing chin have some applicable theories for real fighting? I'm sure it could but the biggest problem I see is the lack of resistance training. This is clearly seen with any and all demos where it is expected that technique "a" incapacitated the their opponent, stunned them, or whatever else.

Second is a lack of power. Chain punching doesn't develop powerful strikes when compared to say boxing. These are anatomical facts here- the narrow and square stance prevents full utilization of legs and hips for good power. There is a video floating around of a Chinese western boxer sparring a wing chin stylist. Granted this is a study of one but after about 5 seconds he puts his hands down because while fast, it means nothing with no power behind it

I've never seen it work-ever. The nail in the coffin was watching two wing chub masters fight. You could tell they've never fought a trained opponent before. For all their deadly strikes it looked like a drunken bar fight.

It really needs to adapt live training with more powerful strikes. Maybe then we could see some of its theories being applied.

Those having fun offending others only lowers their validity and credibility when opinionating.

By calling Wing Chun; "Wing Chin" and "Wing Chub" is there really such a need to be so disrespectful.

What you see is what you get; in other words perception is reality, just scratching the surface of Wing Chun via the internet, from external none Wing Chun perspectives, nothing is out of the ordinary, with the opinions expressed here.

As there are 100s of Wing Chun versions to be discovered and discredited if the internet is the only source available to you.

Misleading or not understanding something appropriately such as "chain punching compared to boxing" doesn't make it wrong, peoples interpretations depend entirely on knowledge or lack of and experience, skill and understanding; will make it work for some and not others; similar to a violin as one can play and another cannot.

How alive does a person need to be that can punch 12 times a second with Wing Chun chain punches or with only one punch hitting very hard using, the one inch punch technique.

There are many reasons why Wing Chun is the way it is, as it is a deceptive system of fighting against other Chinese styles, which worked well in China but not as successful against Western boxing methods, as Bruce Lee discovered and modified for his JKD.

Wing Chun is an open enough system, which is open to change and adaptations; as JKD is only one example of many.

How often the term master is used as derogatory term in Chinese martial arts; it's a shame really, perhaps it is better off in the Golfing world instead.

[TJ-Jitsu]

The first sentence was said in jest towards tempest.

As far as calling wing chun wing "chin" or wing "chub" it wasn't intentionally. I was posting from my phone, so you'll have to forgive me for having a little difficultly both reading and dealing with autocorrect.

But my vitriol towards wing chun stands. In the days of information, there are no more excuses. Anti-grappling for example is just really really bad. There are styles that have focused on grappling for thousands of years and here they are trying to reinvent the wheel when they need only cross train.

[Alan Armstrong]

The first sentence was said in jest towards tempest.

As far as calling wing chun wing "chin" or wing "chub" it wasn't intentionally. I was posting from my phone, so you'll have to forgive me for having a little difficultly both reading and dealing with autocorrect.

But my vitriol towards wing chun stands. In the days of information, there are no more excuses. Anti-grappling for example is just really really bad. There are styles that have focused on grappling for thousands of years and here they are trying to reinvent the wheel when they need only cross train.

Wing Chun, roughly translated from Chinese to English is "Eternal Springtime" Some that practice Wing Chun are doing just that, to retain their youth; this is a part of the connection with Tai Chi and using Yin/Yang principles.

Ving Tsun or Wing Chun no matter the spelling, are all pronounced the same; different spelling are how organizations try to differentiate themselves from each other.

Wing Chun is a close combat fighting system designed for narrow street application and while on a floating boat, that utilizes the same principles in stand up and ground fighting.

The Wing Chun system has anti grappling techniques and many other counter offensive strategies; aimed at staying vertical and mobile similar to Krave Maga; keeping open the option for making an escape on foot; perhaps to find or to introduce a weapon to the situation.

As Wing Chun is a martial art system designed for street self defence purposes, for the average working folk (that might smoke cigarettes or over eats with a swelling stomach or very thin with low muscle mass) actually fair enough to say, Wing Chun is a watered down system, that is easy to learn and fight with from day one but not against professionally trained full time individuals in peak fighting spirit and condition.

Which is probably why Wing Chun isn't a popular fighting style among elite cage type fighters but is very popular among street wise individuals; as in if the shoe fits, then wear it.

Hopefully the reason why Wing Chun doesn't hold up very well in a pit, cage, boxing ring or an octagon, is a little clearer now; as it was never expected or designed to be.

[TJ-Jitsu]

The first sentence was said in jest towards tempest.

As far as calling wing chun wing "chin" or wing "chub" it wasn't intentionally. I was posting from my phone, so you'll have to forgive me for having a little difficultly both reading and dealing with autocorrect.

But my vitriol towards wing chun stands. In the days of information, there are no more excuses. Anti-grappling for example is just really really bad. There are styles that have focused on grappling for thousands of years and here they are trying to reinvent the wheel when they need only cross train.

Wing Chun, roughly translated from Chinese to English is "Eternal Springtime. Some that practice Wing Chun are doing just that, to retain their youth; this is a part of the connection with Tai Chi and using Yin/Yang principles.

Ving Tsun or Wing Chun no matter the spelling, are all pronounced the same; different spelling are how organizations try to differentiate themselves from each other.

Wing Chun is a close combat fighting system designed for narrow street application and while on a floating boat, that utilizes the same principles in stand up and ground fighting.

The Wing Chun system has anti grappling techniques and many other counter offensive strategies; aimed at staying vertical and mobile similar to Krave Maga; keeping open the option for making an escape on foot; perhaps to find or to introduce a weapon to the situation.

As Wing Chun is a martial art system designed for street self defence purposes, for the average working folk (that might smoke cigarettes or over eats with a swelling stomach or very thin with low muscle mass) actually fair enough to say, Wing Chun is a watered down system, that is easy to learn and fight with from day one but not against professionally trained full time individuals in peak fighting spirit and condition.

Which is probably why Wing Chun isn't a popular fighting style among elite cage type fighters but is very popular among street wise individuals; as in if the shoe fits, then wear it.

Hopefully the reason why Wing Chun doesn't hold up very well in a pit, cage, boxing ring or an octagon, is a little clearer now; as it was never expected or designed to be.

Meh, I don't really buy it TBH.

Every stand up style has plans of staying vertical and mobile, so that's hardly a niche unique to its own. I would disagree that the goal is to find or introduce a weapon seeing as there are no weapons used... but that brings up an interesting point I'll return to later....

But on to the statement you made about it being "street defense for average folk." This statement also doesn't apply very well and I'll explain why.

When you're learning how to fight, we can say you're learning how to move efficiently or technically. Efficiency in movement has to do with your large muscle groups. A boxer throws powerful punches because hes taught how to use his largest muscle groups to throw said punches. The same can be said for grappling styles as well. Sometimes this creates the illusion of athleticism when in fact they are merely doing something smarter, not harder. As such for someone that is NOT in good shape it simply is most beneficial to learn how to optimize and maximize your movement and power. Without this, everything they are relying on is small muscle groups and now they *must* themselves be powerful in order to make it work.

Cage fighting and is a recent innovation, and even then its merely a standard of rules and not exactly a standard of fighting. No style has come about "for MMA" since its inception. People spend the same amount of time studying wing chun just as they do any other styles, so I can figure how it can make any logical sense to practice it. By minimizing efficiency and proper striking you're requiring athleticism and strength be maximized for success- which is what more people think the more "MMA styles" do. I mean if we want to meet on a common ground and you want to say "Wing chun is better than nothing at all" I can agree on this point (and I cant say the same for several styles I've seen....)

But back to finding a niche. So in my eye the biggest problem is WC is its lack of power in its strikes. It almost seems as if it sacrifices power at the expense of speed, so much so that people like me become heavy critics. So where could it find its niche? I think if you added knives everything they're doing becomes much more applicable. You don't need power with a knife, and you'd indeed be in a situation where "speed kills." All the trap fighting I could see serving a much better purpose because a knife need merely touch you, not be "punched" through you with power. Now I say take this with a grain of salt, because I'm hardly a knife fighter myself....

[Alan Armstrong]

Wing Chun is coming from a boat culture is also a knife culture; easy to do the math to see the consequences from here on...

[TJ-Jitsu]

Those having fun offending others only lowers their validity and credibility when opinionating.

.

I'll tell you the reason I do this, and its not to be a bully. The problem I have is when someone or some system claim to have knowledge or be able to teach you *how to fight* and they clearly do not. Now, I'm going to be a little broad and generalized here since the topic of "McDojo" came up in other forums so don't think that this is purely an attack on wing chun....

No one should be selling something they don't possess. To do so is a charlatan of the highest degree- bar none. I dealt with this as a child and thank god I didn't have to pay the price so many did in early UFC competitions. I've seen people who appear as if their souls have been crushed because they finally discover that what they're practicing isn't very good at all. I blame their teachers, I blame their dogma, not them. The instructors themselves them struggle for any conceivable string they can grab to say "oh look, this here works!" or "Heres one situation out of 100 that makes this applicable!" and its wrong.

If people teaching whatever martial art were a little more upfront some of these could be saved. There is however a large population of people looking for the "magic pill" of martial arts where "style x" doesn't require you to be in good shape because hit x,y, and z and WHAM! Opponent is dead! These are people who cling to dogma like a religion and wont let it go under any circumstances... and usually those who get most offended.

If it makes you feel any better I'm equally critical of Gracie Self Defense as well. I feel as if I'm doing them a favor by critiquing them, just as they were willing to critique those before them. I hope one day to have students that critique me and my techniques as well...

[sensei8]

Hopefully, we've not disrespected Wing Chun through our own observations. I believe that we've no right to do that to any style of the MA. Good and bad runs in every single MA style; no style is excluded from that.

What's my cup of tea, might not be someone's cup of tea, but my cup of tea is still my cup of tea, no matter what!!

[TJ-Jitsu]

Hopefully, we've not disrespected Wing Chun through our own observations. I believe that we've no right to do that to any style of the MA. Good and bad runs in every single MA style; no style is excluded from that.

What's my cup of tea, might not be someone's cup of tea, but my cup of tea is still my cup of tea, no matter what!!

That puts the style on a pedestal though- I don't think anyone or anything has earned the right to "not" be critiqued. Its a scientific approach you know? Put something out there and let people tear it this way and that and see if it can stand the tests of others. If you're left with something tangible afterwards, you're probably on to something.

All this provided we're all working from the first assumption: We are learning how to fight. If you interest is that, I continue with my regular (and predictable) critique and discussion. If not, then my line of thinking doesn't necessarily apply....

[sensei8]

Hopefully, we've not disrespected Wing Chun through our own observations. I believe that we've no right to do that to any style of the MA. Good and bad runs in every single MA style; no style is excluded from that.

What's my cup of tea, might not be someone's cup of tea, but my cup of tea is still my cup of tea, no matter what!!

That puts the style on a pedestal though- I don't think anyone or anything has earned the right to "not" be critiqued. Its a scientific approach you know? Put something out there and let people tear it this way and that and see if it can stand the tests of others. If you're left with something tangible afterwards, you're probably on to something.

All this provided we're all working from the first assumption: We are learning how to fight. If you interest is that, I continue with my regular (and predictable) critique and discussion. If not, then my line of thinking doesn't necessarily apply....

To show common respect to others, no matter how different the other thing is, doesn't place 'it' on a pedestal. For that to happen, someone has to actively place 'it' on a pedestal.

Critiquing is one thing, and I'm for it, but at the risk of being rude in my critiquing is another.

Is my mindset wrong in this? Maybe!!

[Wado Heretic]

So long as the critique is objective, and is based on empirical observation and robust sources; it is a fair critique. From that perspective; the critique can even be constructive, and useful to the recipient.

It is when we fall into just making a negative remark, without being open to discussion, or demonstrating the virtue of our critique that we enter the realm of being "rude".

I would say I feel most people have made valid, and supported critiques about Wing Chun in this thread; I see very little to take offence at, but I am not a Wing Chun practitioner. I have a moderately positive view of Wing Chun, when compared to other Quan Fa (The majority of which I have not had positive experiences of, but that is also true of a lot of Karate I have witnessed), but I would say that TJ and Tempest have both made valid criticisms of the failings of Wing Chun. In this day and age, with numerous sources available to us, and training gear that makes isolated training much more effective, there are few excuses for not trying to evolve. Working from youtube videos on a grappling dummy is not ideal, but it will get you further than doing nothing, and there is no real excuse if you make the effort to save and make space for it. Similarly, on the training floor; there is now a lot of gear out there which makes sparring relatively safe, compared to even a few decades ago. There is no reason to rely on Chi Sao anymore as a safer way to do resistance training. If anything, I would say the greatest criticism to be made of Wing Chun, is that a lot of masters refuse to evolve, not simply fail to do so.