Is Wing Chun being used the wrong way in fighting?

[Danny T]

If you can do this, you don't need anything else.

Maybe...if the situation warrants. I would not recommend a blitz as in the video if the other was holding a bladed weapon or a firearm.
It worked well against this particular opponent at this particular time. Verses another who would angle out rather than just going straight back the success of such a blitz will be reduced significantly.

 

[Juany118]

Also forcing a blitz puts you in a war of attrition. I would prefer to hang back and not get punched as much.

The thing is a "war of attrition" is not simply about shooting/punching etc. It's about endurance. So if you are constantly moving, constantly trying to use shots to keep your opponent at bay, you are using resources. Now if you goal is a delaying action until reinforcements arrive it makes sense. The thing is if you run out of fuel, you can't do it anymore.

To put this in a combative aspect variation of the delaying asspect is often a "go-to" tactic of police officers who can restrain a suspect but not successfully cuff them. You "hold on" until other units arrive.

In other circumstances however, when reinforcements are incoming, delaying actions, even if to try and find a more advantageous position, may not be a good idea because you have less endurance than the other guy.

So my main point regarding the WC Lineages being "used wrong" is that it is an art designed around efficiency. It's not about using energy to evade being hit, which also often means you can't easily hit yourself, it's about going "all in.".

Now this is not necessarily always the best strategy in a fight, just like guerilla tactics aren't suited for every battle field

 

[TMA17]

“So my main point regarding the WC Lineages being "used wrong" is that it is an art designed around efficiency. It's not about using energy to evade being hit, which also often means you can't easily hit yourself, it's about going "all in.".

Now this is not necessarily always the best strategy in a fight, just like guerilla tactics aren't suited for every battle field.”

This is a great point IMO. It really is an art about maximizing efficiency and ending a fight as quick as possible with least amount of energy.

WSL WC was an aggressive WC approach. I think maybe that is why he had such good success with it.

 

[Nobody Important]

This is a great point IMO. It really is an art about maximizing efficiency and ending a fight as quick as possible with least amount of energy.

What martial art doesn't embody such things?

 

[TMA17]

True.

 

[Juany118]

What martial art doesn't embody such things?

It depends on how you define efficiency. Let's go back to my analogy. If you have limited fuel and ammunition, but must fights. Does it make sense to delay, and avoid being hit while sniping at your enemy, while wasting precious fuel OR do you attempt a shock attack hoping that while using your limited resources in an show of force will overwhelm the opponent. While arguably I "one trick pony" I think some WC styles fall under this kind of attitude. When it works it works spectacularly, when it fails it fails in an equally spectacular fashion.

 

[drop bear]

The thing is a "war of attrition" is not simply about shooting/punching etc. It's about endurance. So if you are constantly moving, constantly trying to use shots to keep your opponent at bay, you are using resources. Now if you goal is a delaying action until reinforcements arrive it makes sense. The thing is if you run out of fuel, you can't do it anymore.

To put this in a combative aspect variation of the delaying asspect is often a "go-to" tactic of police officers who can restrain a suspect but not successfully cuff them. You "hold on" until other units arrive.

In other circumstances however, when reinforcements are incoming, delaying actions, even if to try and find a more advantageous position, may not be a good idea because you have less endurance than the other guy.

So my main point regarding the WC Lineages being "used wrong" is that it is an art designed around efficiency. It's not about using energy to evade being hit, which also often means you can't easily hit yourself, it's about going "all in.".

Now this is not necessarily always the best strategy in a fight, just like guerilla tactics aren't suited for every battle field

Delaying tactics prolong your endurance. If you have less than the other guy you really shouldn't go all in.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Delaying tactics prolong your endurance. If you have less than the other guy you really shouldn't go all in.

It depends on your age. If you are 70 and your opponent is 20, you won't have enough energy to fight him for 15 rounds. You may want to finish the fight ASAP.

Take risk? May be! You cannot afford not to.

 

[Nobody Important]

Context determines strategy which determines efficiency.

Overanalyzing "what if's" to support a narrative in attempts to justify a belief does little to address common sense and practicality.

 

[Juany118]

Delaying tactics prolong your endurance. If you have less than the other guy you really shouldn't go all in.

@Kung Fu Wang sums it up better than I can. Keeping at opponent at a distance in a fight uses fuel/energy. The smaller your "tank" the less time you have to devote to anything, whether it be running, delaying, attacking, defending etc. As such there are times where delaying is not the preferred tactic. If I have less endurance BUT better technique and/or more strength I am better served going "all in" in the hopes I overwhelm him in short order. If I delay it can actually play into his hands because I either tire and can't delay anymore, and he still has fuel in the tank to destroy me OR he just presses the attack beyond my ability to delay and again, he wins.

Of course if you have a choice one should not face an opponent with more endurance BUT if forced to fight someone with more endurance in a self defense situation, the element of shock/blitz is your best friend. It's not only what I see as a core tenent of WC but also Krav Maga and more modern fighting systems that are designed around self defense/combatives.

 

[drop bear]

@Kung Fu Wang sums it up better than I can. Keeping at opponent at a distance in a fight uses fuel/energy. The smaller your "tank" the less time you have to devote to anything, whether it be running, delaying, attacking, defending etc. As such there are times where delaying is not the preferred tactic. If I have less endurance BUT better technique and/or more strength I am better served going "all in" in the hopes I overwhelm him in short order. If I delay it can actually play into his hands because I either tire and can't delay anymore, and he still has fuel in the tank to destroy me OR he just presses the attack beyond my ability to delay and again, he wins.

Of course if you have a choice one should not face an opponent with more endurance BUT if forced to fight someone with more endurance in a self defense situation, the element of shock/blitz is your best friend. It's not only what I see as a core tenent of WC but also Krav Maga and more modern fighting systems that are designed around self defense/combatives.

Which makes the modern self defence/combatives kind of stupid. Kind of being a one trick pony.

 

[TMA17]

It just means one should train in multiple arts to become more well rounded IMO.

 

[Flying Crane]

It just means one should train in multiple arts to become more well rounded IMO.

Well no. It actually just just means that if you are interested in training multiple arts, then you are welcome to do so. If you are not interested in doing so, then don’t.

Either way can have positive and negative aspects and it is up to the individual to decide for himself if the positives outweigh the negatives.

Training in multiple styles is not automatically an improvement over training in one.

 

[drop bear]

It just means one should train in multiple arts to become more well rounded IMO.

Or do an art that has more than one tactic. I mean I just don't get why arts designed for people with less physical skills. Have a set of tactics geared towards the guy with more physical skills.

It doesn't take too many sparring sessions with little gloves and an aggressive dude to realize that you don't want to be squared off trading shots.

And it just goes a degree worse bare knuckle.

Why turn a fight into a competition of who has the hardest head?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Or do an art that has more than one tactic. I mean I just don't get why arts designed for people with less physical skills. Have a set of tactics geared towards the guy with more physical skills.

It doesn't take too many sparring sessions with little gloves and an aggressive dude to realize that you don't want to be squared off trading shots.

And it just goes a degree worse bare knuckle.

Why turn a fight into a competition of who has the hardest head?

If Dave is right (WC is a refinement to an existing functional base), then it makes more sense. It would be a toolset just for that situation where you need to be in relatively close (not clinch) and work strikes. In that case, it (like I've said about Ueshiba's Aikido in the past) might not be intended for those with less physical skills, but for those who already have solid basics.

 

[TMA17]

All good comments. I honestly don't know. I'm only two months into WC (Moy Yat) and I'm enjoying it. It's so new to me. My sifu talks about boxing (mentioned Tyson tonight), we spare, talk about martial intelligence and I've seen quite a few very applicable techniques and forms. We have a few former boxers, karate and taekwondo people in our school. One guy has been studying the former since he was 8 and feels WC is more effective than his prior arts. I guess it comes down to the individual and what they prefer.

 

[Juany118]

If Dave is right (WC is a refinement to an existing functional base), then it makes more sense. It would be a toolset just for that situation where you need to be in relatively close (not clinch) and work strikes. In that case, it (like I've said about Ueshiba's Aikido in the past) might not be intended for those with less physical skills, but for those who already have solid basics.

The thing is though it all depends of how the art evolved. Here are the two most popular "stories" and in either case, while Dave may be right, change the backdrop and things change.

1. A striking art designed by and for a woman to defend herself. A woman will often find themselves physically overmatched, not only in strength but endurance. If attacked it will also often be a bltiz attack. So if you are designing an art for women would you not want something similar to how many WC Lineages or Krav Maga work? Sudden "shock" to injure, disable, disorient etc. and provide an avenue of escape?

2. That the origin is with the Red Boat Opera (or similar river traveling people) themselves. Boats will have people forced to fight in very close confines, even the pigeon toed stance can be argued to provide a more firm footing on the deck of a rocking boat.

There is a lot more to either but to look at an art today without knowing when/how/how why it was developed I think is wrong. One can argue TODAY it should be supplemental, that is why some WC Lineages have changed. Grand Master William Cheung teaches differently from other YM schools. Gary Lam.and Or teach differently as well just for this reason, but to say that from it's start it was a supplemental art I think is without evidence.

I will use military tactics again. As the nature of the battle field changes the tactics change (though sometimes too slowly). So to say that because Napoleonic tactics we're I'll suited to the US Civil War and WWI would be accurate. To say such tactics never made sense on their own however would be inaccurate, they did have their time and place it's just that the Generals stubbornly held onto them for too long.

 

[TMA17]

We are taught in some sense to avoid using techniques as ends unto themselves. Use the movements as a vehicle to develop the martial attributes important to WC - balance, timing/coordination, sensitivity and being relaxed.

 

[Nobody Important]

If Dave is right (WC is a refinement to an existing functional base), then it makes more sense. It would be a toolset just for that situation where you need to be in relatively close (not clinch) and work strikes. In that case, it (like I've said about Ueshiba's Aikido in the past) might not be intended for those with less physical skills, but for those who already have solid basics.

I would be cautious to definitively label Wing Chun a striking art or exclude the clinch. As I previously stated the majority of the principles and techniques held in the forms are centered on bridging. I believe this to be the main emphasis of the art, this then allows, one permutations in striking, grappling, throwing or kicking. Personally, I think that the emphasis on striking is a relatively new emphasis based on popular trends of the times. Wing Chun has gone through many evolutions in its short existence. During the Republican era Western Boxing was very, very popular in China. Other than that, I concur with your assesment.

 

[drop bear]

If Dave is right (WC is a refinement to an existing functional base), then it makes more sense. It would be a toolset just for that situation where you need to be in relatively close (not clinch) and work strikes. In that case, it (like I've said about Ueshiba's Aikido in the past) might not be intended for those with less physical skills, but for those who already have solid basics.

It also works in a limited street fighting capacity where the other guy is throwing around, you are throwing straight and you have a bit more ticker than him.

The charlie zelenof basically.