[QUOTE=Vankuen;996760]While i can appreciate the masturbating and copulating analogy to wing chun training, I’m not touching that with my ten-foot pole.
However, the idea that the style doesn’t work because of the gloves and becuase it doesn’t allow for maiming techniques doesn’t really float in my opinion either. Even with those rules and minimal padding there is 95% of the system left over–all of the punches, all of the kicks, all of the bridgework, clinching, chin na, and etc.–and if the majority of people can’t make the majority of the system work for them, then there’s definitely something amiss.
But what?
Sure, we could say that the reason we don’t see it is because everyone that practices wing chun today simply don’t have the desire to prove themselves in that type of environment. Or that the ones that have tried it failed because of individual deficiences.
But if it is the style itself…what about the style is causing it not to be successful?
If it’s not the style, is it the training? Could it be simply that more rigorous training that is necessary?[/QUOTE]
***AS SOMEONE who’s been doing wing chun for 35 years…(and I’ve added some boxing/kickboxing and catch wrestling into my game over the last 7-8 years)…I think Van’s post needs to be addressed.
I’ve come to believe that there are several reasons why wing chun has not made it in mma so far…and why, even without mma venues, the style has - for the most part - been on the downside of general martial art opinions/reputations for some time now:
- The training methods have traditionally been lacking in realism due to the idea (myth) that it’s simply bareknuckled brawling that will not work with gloves and rules…so the substitute is lots of chi sao, drills, wooden dummy, forms, etc…with the occasional “gor sau” (bareknuckled sparring) in some schools (but not many schools)…because it’s “too dangerous”.
This is a bad formula, to say the least.
-
Many wing chun instructors (themselves) don’t want to spar with lots of contact including headshots (I recommend gear to be used)…and therefore they don’t encourage their students to do so (or hardly ever). They’re hiding their deficiencies in this manner - while collecting nice fees for classes, uniforms, private lessons, seminars, videos, etc. So the monetary factor has, in many instances, held the style back. If your instructor can’t really fight - he doesn’t want you to know that. Period.
-
Some instructors are more interested in having new schools open within their lineage/family than in the quality of the instructors they’ve authorized to teach.
Another bad formula, to say the least.
- An unwillingness to look at the limitations of the system, regardless of what wing chun lineage you’ve studied. And while I firmly believe that some wing chun systems offer more than others (and I’ll not go into detail because it’s not important)…nonetheless…all wing chun systems have their limitations.
It’s a close quarter infight that does not cover enough long range standup, has limitations at close quarters that could benefit from some boxing hooks, uppercuts, blocking, etc…has very little-to-no clinch game (although some wing chun systems teach some nice close quarter elbow and knee strikes)…just rudimentary anti-takedown techniques (although this is an area that could be exploted nicely - and some wing chun systems use some good moves in this regard) - and no real groundgame.
But the aggressiveness of the wing chun close quarter striking style and the contact reflex training at close quarters can really bring a lot to the table in terms of striking speed, close quarter angling, and the manipulation/control of the opponents limbs and his balance.
SO THERE ARE SOME PEOPLE DOING SOME REAL GOOD THINGS IN A COMPETITIVE ATMOSPHERE WITH THEIR WING CHUN.
Because they are training realistically with pads, bags, footwork, etc…and lots of sparring…and working against people skilled in other arts.
And other wing chun people who’ve taken the next step and have also crosstrained in other systems.
Now here’s the irony: wing chun is an effective “street” style because if its emphasis on close quarter striking. But without the proper training, constant hard sparring against skilled opponents, and proper attitude about other styles - the potential “effectiveness” of the style remains largely unfulfilled.
)[/QUOTE]