Does wing chun work? Not again as a topic.
For me absolutely. Its a superb single style programming of reflexive action and possibilities. Others may have other opinions- they are entitled to them… dont care to argue net forum style. Opinions may vary with the kind of wing chun people do and have learned.
[QUOTE=tjwingchun;720514]More involved with fights using Wing Chun for a living but? I used to as a doorman (retired), I have a student who is a prison officer, one a detention officer and another who is a care worker with autistic adults that occasionally get quite violent, no titles, trophies or PROOF just part of their daily work.[/QUOTE]
Exactly. I think you’ve made an important distinction.
“Involved with fights” like bouncers, cops, bodyguards and asian gangsters aren’t quite at the same level of athleticism as a pro-fighter.
Everyone’s first hand experience should just be ignored.
Thousands of years of martial combat end up meaningless because the UFC came out on TV 13 years ago.
I agree with your broad thrust here, but since some of us are nitpicking about science:
Wing Chun isn’t thousands of years old. A few hundred, more like it.
First hand and anecdotal evidence are not scientific proof. And many TCMA anecdotes are the subject of monstrous exaggeration, along the lines of Bruce Lee supposedly ripping a challenger’s heart out of his chest and showing it to him before the challenger died.
One of the problems of applying “science” to fighting is that it is probabilistic, not deterministic. Technique and training can move the odds in your favour, but it all still remains a gamble. Victory is never guaranteed, and that is why fights are best avoided.
“I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.”
While sportfighting is not a perfect laboratory for comparison of the effectiveness of styles, it IS closely observed by many, many people, and thus (more) difficult to “spin”, and about as close as you can get - legally - to real hand to hand combat.
The “not real because there are rules” argument doesn’t fly. If there REALLY were no rules, all my fights are going to be victory by shotgun blast while my opponent is getting out of his car. Why *****foot around with this “honourable” sh*t?
[QUOTE=tbone;720613]Thanks Nick. I was being sarcastic BTW.[/QUOTE]
sorry didnt catch that over the net…
Just a note. For anyone not participating in the match, there is a bathroom down the hall, second door on the right. 
Saying (my) WCK “works” or that I “know” WCK “works” doesn’t make it so. Anyone can make such claims. And we see them from every corner of the MA world. But where is the evidence to back up such claims? Without evidence, claims are empty and boil down to “trust me” (faith-based martial art). Lack of good evidence should be tentatively taken as nullifying any claim (until we have good evidence to the contrary, we tentatively conclude bigfoot does not exist).
Some point to anecdotes of WCK “working on the street” or stories of our ancestors past exploits as evidence. The problem with anecdotes is that they are too nebulous to really draw conclusions from. If someone did indeed win a fight (second- or third-hand accounts aren’t always accurate), all kinds of factors could have played a role besides their WCK skills. We can’t see that fight to make our own conclusions, and so they too boil down to “trust me” (faith-based martial art).
FWIW, some WCK practitioners are beginning to move into the NHB arena and have been successful at the lower to mid-levels of MMA competitions. All of these guys have also cross-trained in ground/grappling systems (BJJ, catch, etc.) and also regularly trained with MMA trainers. So again, without more evidence it is difficult to draw conclusions with regard to how much WCK plays into their accomplishments.
But it does demonstrate that to obtain a significant level of fighting skill demands a person train like a fighter. Forms, drills, chi sao, etc. alone just won’t take you there. The evidence of that is overwhelming (even though some continue to hide behind their “faith”). Listening to people – in WCK or any martial art – who don’t or haven’t fought other skilled fighters (and so don’t know but may have strong, uninformed opinions) about how to develop as a fighter is not a good recipe for success.
Terence
PS - btw, Nick, Steve Morris is a treasure!
Hi Terence.
In light of your above post, I pose a philosophical and somewhat rhetorical question, why are people so willing to accept stories of WCK being made to work, and the ensuing idolatry of those we suppose have attained skill enough to make it work?
I do believe there are elements, in part or in total, of naivety, ignorance, fear (and in some cases laziness) about those who are willing to let the past deeds and the stories of their heroes do their training and fighting for them.
Andrew
[QUOTE=t_niehoff;720729]
PS - btw, Nick, Steve Morris is a treasure![/QUOTE]
He certainly is…Got a 4hr session with him on sunday and a (GI) comp tomorrow…what a weekend this will be
[QUOTE=tbone;720545]I guess what some are saying is that the only way to see what’s effective is if you watch someone do it in Pride or UFC. That’s the only time a technique can really be considered effective.[/QUOTE]
No… but it’s a good laboratory that everyone can observe, rather than relying on the overblown myths that get passed around in MA circles about who did what “back in the day.”
[QUOTE=Paul T England;720531]On the subject of science, how can any of the MMA fights be considered as reliable evidence? An MMA competition is very different from most street confrontations so how can it be used as an experiment? How can you test a Ford car going from 0-60 then compare it to a BMW? IF you are going to look at fights like that then IMHO it is seriously flawed. The gloves and floor make a huge difference never mind the rules.l[/QUOTE]
Science is all about doing controlled experiments, colllecting data and using that data to make predictions on future outcomes. MMA comps would be a great laboratory for someone to start with if he really was interested in developing a true scientific fighting system…
One’s system can contain all types of theories on angulation, economies of motion, centerline principles, and footwork, but unless one is following the scientific method, his fighting system is far from scientific.
Originally Posted by Paul T England
On the subject of science, how can any of the MMA fights be considered as reliable evidence? An MMA competition is very different from most street confrontations so how can it be used as an experiment? How can you test a Ford car going from 0-60 then compare it to a BMW? IF you are going to look at fights like that then IMHO it is seriously flawed. The gloves and floor make a huge difference never mind the rules
short of doing it for real what else represents the nearest you can possibly get to have a fight without actually having a fight?
mma/nhb IS the closest you can actually get to the experience of having someone attack you with the intention of destroying you,but in a controlled enviroment
what comes closer than that?
and re mirko cro cop
trained by milan prosenica co principal of the autodefence company headed by nick smart ,one of (if not the)the top wing chun men in this country
[QUOTE=chi sau;720765]
and re mirko cro cop
trained by milan prosenica co principal of the autodefence company headed by nick smart ,one of (if not the)the top wing chun men in this country[/QUOTE]
Interesting…
What elements of WC would you say are demonstrated in Cro-Cop’s fighting?
truthfully you are nt likely to see mirko doing a bong sau or anything like that
im just saying he (along with a few other big names) train with milan who is a highly knowledgable fighter/trainer who also in his day took alot of what he uses/used from wing chun
principles and fundamentals of wing chun are there such as footwork, centreline punching are there
my personal opinion is if you got in the ring with pure wing chun and nothing else ,against the top paid fighters the you deserve the beating you are about to be given:)
Aikido Really Works
I read a story a few years ago about an Aikido practitioner who was attacked on the street. The Aikido man punched the attacker in the face and won the fight. Later he said “Aikido really works.”
Ray
[QUOTE=Knifefighter;720758]No… but it’s a good laboratory that everyone can observe, rather than relying on the overblown myths that get passed around in MA circles about who did what “back in the day.”[/QUOTE]I’d agree. It’s a good place to observe because it’s so public ie. televised.
I’m sure you aren’t saying that the only place for an individual to learn about an effective fighting system is either through watching on TV or through listening to stories?
Personally I’ve gotten validation in class, local grappling tournaments, local MMA events, witnessing and participating in street fights etc..
I guess our differences are more a miscommunication rather than any real disagreement. I may have just understood what you were saying. If one wishes to prove to others that Wing Chun is effective then it will take a WC person doing well in UFC or Pride before that can happen. I’m cool with that.
If that should never happen then it won’t really make a difference to me because I’m familiar with it’s effectiveness from first hand experience. I have no need to prove to anyone what WC can/can’t do. If others don’t believe it I can’t blame them.
[QUOTE=t_niehoff;720729]Saying (my) WCK “works” or that I “know” WCK “works” doesn’t make it so. Anyone can make such claims. And we see them from every corner of the MA world. But where is the evidence to back up such claims? Without evidence, claims are empty and boil down to “trust me” (faith-based martial art). Lack of good evidence should be tentatively taken as nullifying any claim (until we have good evidence to the contrary, we tentatively conclude bigfoot does not exist)…
…to obtain a significant level of fighting skill demands a person train like a fighter. Forms, drills, chi sao, etc. alone just won’t take you there. The evidence of that is overwhelming (even though some continue to hide behind their “faith”). Listening to people – in WCK or any martial art – who don’t or haven’t fought other skilled fighters (and so don’t know but may have strong, uninformed opinions) about how to develop as a fighter is not a good recipe for success.[/QUOTE]
[B][COLOR=“White”][COLOR=“DarkOliveGreen”][COLOR=“Navy”]Terence,
I haven’t been on the forum in a while, but it’s nice to come back here and see one of your posts… 
Something that “pure” WC apologists need to examine more closely, IMO, is the nature of anecdotal evidence vs scientific evidence (or the closest thing we have to it in this arena, competitive MMA.)
http://skepdic.com/testimon.html
-Lawrence[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR][/B]
saam mo kiu
Saying (my) WCK “works” or that I “know” WCK “works” doesn’t make it so. Anyone can make such claims.
It’s always perspective isn’t it. Wing Chun says two peope at equal distance apart dependent upon varying factors of time space and energy means a straight punch can be and most often is the more efficient and appropriate punch as opposed to using a round punch. Wing Chun’s principles, concepts, strategies and tactics for hand-to-hand combat in the example given and as studied in general are a blueprint to producing a better fighter not a guarantee. If one were to find flaws in those principles or concepts then yes one could argue that the blueprint itself is flawed and something less flawed might need to be incorporated into that person’s training.
Arguing against a particular person the way Terence does is really a waste of time. If one cannot find flaw with the principles the concepts, strategies and or tactics of wing chun then the silence to those points would suggest that Wing Chun can and does what it says it can without guarantee. So the question is not where is the particular flaw in any individuals interpretation of wing chun but where do you find wing chun itself to be flawed?
[QUOTE=canglong;721302]If one cannot find flaw with the principles the concepts, strategies and or tactics of wing chun then the silence to those points would suggest that Wing Chun can and does what it says it can without guarantee. So the question is not where is the particular flaw in any individuals interpretation of wing chun but where do you find wing chun itself to be flawed?[/QUOTE]
[B]Just because something looks good on paper (or in carefully presented presentations) doesn’t mean it won’t crumble when tested under pressure.
If I see examples of something functioning under extreme adversity, it will have much more credibility in my estimation…
[/B]
U need a control ?
If you really want to measure the effectivness of an art you need not see it in a fourum like UFC or PRIDE this is several steps down the line of potential experiemnts IMO.
Pepole seem to forget the natural factor - most, if not all proffesional fighters competing today were ‘probably’ fighters in terms of will and agression before learning a style.
Its the heart and mind of a fighter that determines ability - a style is just a device to do so… Moreover -
if i wanted to measure a styles ability / effectivness - Then i would have a person who has NEVER learnt a style or being in a fight, measure thier natural ability in a fight with someone of average skill and experience. THEN teach them a style and do the fight test again, only then will you see what the “style” has or has not done for them…
If I see examples of something functioning under extreme adversity, it will have much more credibility in my estimation…
Should that work for you lawrence, then it’s all good, how your own personal interpretations and perspectives would effect the majority of people reading this board is not as clear.
So the question is not where is the particular flaw in any individuals interpretation of wing chun but where do you find wing chun itself to be flawed?