Wing Chun Critiques

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Wing Chun
21

[QUOTE=Knifefighter;744324]Styles generally determine the way people train. Some styles have more effective training methods than others. Those with less effective training methods will also develop less effective techniques to go with those training methods.

Some perfect examples of this are some of the more esoteric, “deadly” grappling styles that do not have full force sparring. Because of the unrealistic training methods utilized by these grappling styles, these styles develop a whole host of techniques that are unworkable against those who train with more effective grappling methods. These grappling practitioners are almost always easily handled by grapplers who have more realistic training methods.

While the person is ulitmately responsible for making a style work, the style that person trains with is just as, if not more, important.[/QUOTE]

There is much wisdom in these words. :slight_smile:

There is an interplay between how we train and what we train: they influence each other. Some methods/techniques/etc. are self-limiting. Some training methods are less productive than others. In my view, good martial arts – and good martial artisits – are continually evolving in both aspects: trying to find better ways to train and trying to find better ways to solve combative problems.

22

“While the person is ulitmately responsible for making a style work, the style that person trains with is just as, if not more, important.” (Dale/Knife)

***GIVE that man a cigar…he sees the light. And if the training methods of the style in question are behind the times - then the style will come up short against others who train more efficiently in other styles.

And unfortunately, imo, about 90 of the wing chun world is behind the times. Of the other 10%…about 8% falls somewhere between good and very good. The other 2% is awesome.

But without getting into “who” falls into “what” percentage category - the fact is that these percentages are pretty dismal.

What’s missing from that 90% ???

  1. Serious strengthening, conditioning, and cardio regimens.

  2. Frequent hard contact sparring that includes headshots and thin gloves

  3. Frequent sparring against people skilled in other martial arts.

  4. Crosstraining based upon what one learns ABOUT WING CHUN from such frequent inter-art sparring.

  5. Giving up any erroneous ideas that 90% of one’s time should be spent doing things like forms, chi sao, drills, and wooden dummy training. No more than half of one’s time should be spent with those things..and at least 40-50% of the time you’re TESTING what you know/drilled against a talented, competitive, resisting opponent/partner.

23

Temper temper Vio

No need to get mad just because I dont agree with you. And there is certainly no reason to start attacking my person. If anything that is a very immature way to respond.

my response was merely to you using words as majority of schools, many schools etc.
Unless you have actually seen the majority of schools you cannot possibly know how they train.

Now how they train at your school might not be optimum for you, but then its your job to find out if its the school or yourself that is at fault.
Sometimes people are simply not cut out for a certain style, that doesnt mean theres anything wrong with them or the style for that matter. It just mean your not compatible. Just like some people are good at icehockey while others are good at basket. doesnt make one sport better then the other

While I do agree that some schools dont actually train for realistic combat, I dont agree that the majority dont. I have been to a good deal of schools from many different lineages. Some I thought was good, some was bad ( in my oppinion) but its not my job to judge how other people train. I can only judge how I train, and improve where needed.

24

[QUOTE=Paul T England;744375]Here’s a thought,

IMHO the wing chun mindset is to punch, its just about the first thing you learn (after stance and centreline!) Yes wing chun does focus on centreline punching compared to looping punches but there are reasons for that.
[/QUOTE]

Here’s a thought: maybe that’s so that we can learn to strike with our structure (and drive our structure into them - which you can’t do with looping punches).

When you punch you aim to control the person not just strike them. (Obviously knocking them out in one punch is fine, but how many times does that happen in competition) You will have to stick and continue attacking if you want to finish most of the time. That leads us onto trapping…you should not be trapping the arms but also trapping & controlling the body. Extend the centreline principle through the arms to control the body…

As I see it, a punch cannot by its very nature “control” an opponent (at least what I call control). It can destroy an opponent’s structure (making him easily controlled) but not control. “Trapping” is a misnomer IMO; the strategic objective is to cut off (jeet) an opponent’s offense. There are many ways to accomplish this. And I can’t even begin to grasp how anyone can “extend the centerline principle through the arms” – principles don’t go through my arms. :wink:

Oh and footwork, try speeding up basic footwork drills and see where it gets you, it will be different but it will work. The 100/0 50/50 etc. is for learning…like your abc’s

The footwork cannot be approached separately in my view since we move as a whole.

Learning, training and fighting are different animals that share many elements.

Many mistake the drills, including chi sao, – which are for learning only – as a representation of how things will work in fighting.

I agree with many of the previous posts, stop bashing styles and take what works and use it. I prefer to walk the long road and develop my skills through traditional arts with a focus on what works always overlaying the style,

This begs the question of “how do you know what works” so as to focus on it? In my view, we can only know by actually making it work.

as I am not going to be an MMA star. If I was going to be am mma star I probably would go down the Thai, BJJ, Wrestling, Boxing Combo route as it seems to be a quicker route just because the training gyms are already pros at these training styles. Its going to take many years for wing chun to have the sort of experience and network of coaches to make the MMA game succesful but it will happen and its the current teachers and fighters who will pave the way for future wing chun champions.

There are some people who have made that transition and are building the experience. And I think this is the most positive thing to happen to WCK in quite some time. I hope that is the death knell for the Age of the Nonfighting Masters.

25

Oh my god…

Look im a staunch chunner - and i have to agree with some of the points of the OP.

But i say if you cant adapt your VT to deal with some of the issues raised you need to rethink where you train.

However No one art is 100 percent sound - there is an answer for every action of every style, i dont know why people get so uppity when people critique thier style, whatever it is. Why ?

Because Im happy with what i have - if i wasnt or had no confidence in MY VT then id be all defensive disagreeing with everyones critques or observations of VT

  • Some people seem to forget the most important part of it all when learning a MA - for me it is that…
    I AM A MUCH BETTER FIGHTER THAN I WAS BEFORE I LEARNT VT.
    …and thats all one can ask for, really. Too many people think they can be like Randy or chuck - style aside these guys are special - why - work ethic and mental toughness.

$hit you think VT’s got problems in todays MMA world - i wont even get started on the aikido class i visited last week or the TKD class in my area the week before…

I see two main problems with regard to VT in the MMA and wider martial art world that trickle down to affect certain attributes of what most consider VT.

  1. Every man and his dog in VT seems to want to teach (at least in my area) - regardless of experience or ability. This has resulted in a dilution of of the art IMO and would of any art given the same situation.

How many Yellow or brown belts in BJJ have thier own schools and students ?

  1. The type of person drawn to the different martial arts and in this case - specifically VT.

Naturally aggressive tough people, are for the most part not drawn to VT or most CMA’s for that matter. Too much form and not mixing it up…

They seem to go for the arts that have ‘contact right off the bat’ or are hard styles.
Muay Tai - Boxing - Kenpo Karate etc etc etc.

In my area and at the school i train in, VT has drawn people of less physicall attributes, less mental aggression… people looking to defend themselves rather than be an aggressive fighter, who if you looked at his girl wrong wound call you out for a dust up.

These in my opinion are the main reasons why VT is regarded in the way it is in the MA community.

Physical compatability aside - hypothetically do you think if a good teacher/coach taught, say someone like fedor (a born fighter) how to fight with VT he’d not be that good on his feet. I certainly think he could make it work for sure… why
Experience, mental and physical toughness.

Disagree ?
why ?

26

Liddel(not Chuck) sez

Every man and his dog in VT seems to want to teach (at least in my area) - regardless of experience or ability.

((The epidemic is there on the net and forums as well))

Back to joyful slumber…zzzzzzzzzz

joy chaudhuri

27

[QUOTE=Liddel;744617]In my area and at the school i train in, VT has drawn people of less physicall attributes, less mental aggression… people looking to defend themselves rather than be an aggressive fighter, who if you looked at his girl wrong wound call you out for a dust up.
[/QUOTE]

Herein is part of the problem – to develop fighting skills in any martial art, including WCK, we first need to think of ourselves as fighters and/or as someone training to really be a fighter. Would-be fighters look for places that train fighters, places like boxing gyms, MT academies, BJJ schools, etc. Training for “self-defense” already means that person has the wrong mindset to develop into a fighter. Those people flock to places that don’t train fighters. And guess what those places produce? Yup – nonfighters.

BTW, someone “who if you looked at his girl wrong wound call you out for a dust up” is not an aggressive fighter – they are an @ss hole. I’ve met some really aggressive fighters and they were calm, nice, quiet people when they weren’t fighting. Put them in the mix and they turned into a Tazmanian Devil. You mention Fedor; do you think he would “call someone out for looking at his girl”?

These in my opinion are the main reasons why VT is regarded in the way it is in the MA community.

Physical compatability aside - hypothetically do you think if a good teacher/coach taught, say someone like fedor (a born fighter) how to fight with VT he’d not be that good on his feet. I certainly think he could make it work for sure… why
Experience, mental and physical toughness.

Disagree ?
why ?

You get out of WCK what you put into it. Same with boxing, MT, BJJ, sambo, etc. If a person doesn’t train like a fighter, they can’t be a good boxer or a good BJJ fighter or a good MT fighter or a good WCK fighter. That’s the bottom line. To beat a mid level MMAist you have to train at least as hard and as effectively as he does. It’s a simple formula. It applies to all forms of athletics.

28

Again

Physical compatability aside - hypothetically do you think if a good teacher/coach taught, say someone like fedor (a born fighter) how to fight with VT he’d not be that good on his feet. I certainly think he could make it work for sure… why
Experience, mental and physical toughness.

Disagree / agree ?
why ?

29

[QUOTE=Liddel;744785]Physical compatability aside - hypothetically do you think if a good teacher/coach taught, say someone like fedor (a born fighter) how to fight with VT he’d not be that good on his feet. I certainly think he could make it work for sure… why
Experience, mental and physical toughness.

Disagree / agree ?
why ?[/QUOTE]

Fedor is a product of his training in Sambo, boxing and MMA. One of the things that makes him so dominating is his striking on the ground, particularly when in the guard of his opponent. The type of punches he throws from this position are completely different than the type of strikes taught in WC. He is a master at this type of striking and it suits his attributes perfectly. Teach him a different striking style and he would be a completely different fighter.

Would be be as dominating as he is now? I doubt it. I think without the type of striking style he has from the top ground position, he would be much less effective.

30

[QUOTE=Liddel;744617]

  1. Every man and his dog in VT seems to want to teach (at least in my area) - regardless of experience or ability. This has resulted in a dilution of of the art IMO and would of any art given the same situation.

How many Yellow or brown belts in BJJ have thier own schools and students ?
[/QUOTE]

Are you kidding?

Blue belts, the next belt after white (yellow belts are kids belts, BTW), were the primary teachers of BJJ here in the states back in the 90’s because there were no higher belts around to teach. They still turned out good BJJ guys.

Why? Because the principles, techniques, tactics and training of BJJ are inherently sound. Even a relatively low-level practitioner can teach them without “diluting” the art.

As far as brown belts teaching in BJJ, there are tons of them (purple belts too) who teach.

31

Yeah ?

Interesting - i wouldnt have guessed that Dale :rolleyes:

In that situation it sounds like you believe it hasnt had a negitive effect then (you would know better than i).

IMO though the effect has been quite different on VT.

Im not sure from your post if your belieif is that VT’s - principles, techniques, tactics and training are NOT sound, hence the difference in outcomes ?

32

[QUOTE=Liddel;744964]Im not sure from your post if your belieif is that VT’s - principles, techniques, tactics and training are NOT sound, hence the difference in outcomes ?[/QUOTE]

Ha-ha… trying to set me up on that one? :slight_smile:

I have no idea what the circumstances are in WC in terms of less experienced people teaching and how that would affect whether or not the system was “watered down”. I can only speak from my exposure to that situation in BJJ.

From a theoretical standpoint, I don’t think it should have an too much of an effect if the underlying fundamentals are sound.

How long should it take before someone is qualified to teach WC?

Can you point to specific examples of experienced WC teachers turning out good WC fighters vs. less experienced instructors who have failed along these lines?

33

Liddel,

Dale is of course correct about BJJ. When I started BJJ, there were two Australian Black Belts, both in a city 1000 kilometres away from me. You had maybe five purples in each capital city. I’m glad those guys were teaching then otherwise we’d have had nobody (they are all very good black belts now).

The BB I train with now told me that he regards purple as an initial instructor level. Also, you’d take the same sort of time to get to purple in BJJ as you would to get to an instructor level in most WC systems anyway, maybe longer.

Even a relatively low-level practitioner can teach them without “diluting” the art.

I dunno. We had a guy in my school who was keen to teach people BJJ, despite the fact that he couldn’t even state the sequence to take in the basic under the leg pass in the right order. My instructor (a purple) found out he was charging people more for a private lesson than our local black belt does. He told the guy not to do it any more, then found out he was still doing it and kicked him out.

In BJJ, you have people who wrestle against other people all the time teaching. Most instructors will be only to happy to demonstrate their skills by rolling with you.

In TMA’s you can have theorists teaching other theorists for multiple generations. It doesn’t have to be like that, but often it is.

34

[QUOTE=Knifefighter;744967]

How long should it take before someone is qualified to teach WC?[/QUOTE]

In my view (which is obviously passed down from my Sifu) 8K hours approx.
Similar to an apprenticeship in a trade.

[QUOTE=Knifefighter;744967]
Can you point to specific examples of experienced WC teachers turning out good WC fighters vs. less experienced instructors who have failed along these lines?
[/QUOTE]

No i cant, nothing documented, nothing verifiable from your POV, just my own personal experiences having visited almost every VT school in my area.

Ive just met some people with some very exaggerated ideas about whats realistic and whats not with regard to using what they teach in a realistic - preasure situation. :slight_smile:

35

Problems with VT…

Ok, I took the bait…

As far as I can tell, the “problem” with VT is not in the mechanics, techs, or forms. Its in the training curriculum. Take Boxing for example: People who learn how to box have their calistenics, punch a heavy bag, speed bag etc, and learn the techs.(how to punch) after learning the basics, they take what they learn and apply it(strap up, get into the ring and start swinging). Muay Thai Fighters train in much the same way, as do BJJ except they grapple in stead of throw punches.

A lot of VT schools get to wrapped up in the forms, drills, and techs that they neglect to apply what they have learned in the ring(spar). Its all in the application of what you learn and how it translates to more realistic circumstances. How good would a boxer be if he only punched the heavy and speed bag and worked on body mechanics in front of a mirror? He’d get his block knocked off.
Why would VT be any different? It is a fighting art, go out and fight for God sakes!
As far as the art of VT it is, in my opinion flawless, but if you can not apply what you learn under real pressure, then you are only doing half of what is required to become proficent.
It cracks me up evertime I go to class I get people that are generally nice people, but they come to a place to learn how to defend themselves using nothing but there bare hands but dont want to really punch or be punched. :smiley:
I mean how strange is that? Its like learning everything there is to know about surfing but your affraid of the water!

36

Ok, I took the bait…

As far as I can tell, the “problem” with VT is not in the mechanics, techs, or forms. Its in the training curriculum. Take Boxing for example: People who learn how to box have their calistenics, punch a heavy bag, speed bag etc, and learn the techs.(how to punch) after learning the basics, they take what they learn and apply it(strap up, get into the ring and start swinging). Muay Thai Fighters train in much the same way, as do BJJ except they grapple in stead of throw punches.

A lot of VT schools get to wrapped up in the forms, drills, and techs that they neglect to apply what they have learned in the ring(spar). Its all in the application of what you learn and how it translates to more realistic circumstances. How good would a boxer be if he only punched the heavy and speed bag and worked on body mechanics in front of a mirror? He’d get his block knocked off.
Why would VT be any different? It is a fighting art, go out and fight for God sakes!
As far as the art of VT it is, in my opinion flawless, but if you can not apply what you learn under real pressure, then you are only doing half of what is required to become proficent.
It cracks me up evertime I go to class I get people that are generally nice people, but they come to a place to learn how to defend themselves using nothing but there bare hands but dont want to really punch or be punched. :smiley:
I mean how strange is that? Its like learning everything there is to know about surfing but your affraid of the water!