What was Wing Chun designed for?

[Martial D]

Their are not karate katas man!

What?

 

[karatejj]

Not being argumentative. That action doesn't represent the intent to punch someone with a bent wrist.



No one has been asked to believe anything.
I specifically said I don't care to convince anyone.

If interested, people have been invited to go check it out.
If not interested or unwilling to do so, don't talk about "lack of evidence".

Can you tell me why you're wing chun looks nothing like any other wing chun?

 

[karatejj]

What?

Forms not about dealing with opponent, he already said it. You're seem to think it is just step by step attack response or something. Wing chun not like that.

 

[Martial D]

Forms not about dealing with opponent, he already said it. You're seem to think it is just step by step attack response or something. Wing chun not like that.

You completely missed the point.

 

[DaveB]

It is not a weak "excuse" if it makes sense. And no.There were no swings,right hooks or sow chois. The CLF guy only did two backfists but he didn't swing. The CLF guy could have just steamrolled his way to victory.



"It's not the style it's the fighter" doesn't ring true all the time. And that's because *censored*


Heard that a thousand times before. Yet reality shows things differently.

*Censored* What I want to say cannot be stated here. No style bashing remember? I'll be willing to PM what I intended to say if you prefer.

You're not posting based on reality you are posting based on bias.

You are arguing that training in a ma style, regardless of school, personal talent, or anything else, magically wires your brain to fight with predetermined style methods.

If that were remotely true there would be no point in ever watching more than one fight from a given style regardless of fighter.

Your saying "that guy fights like Mike Tyson so he can beat anyone who fights like the people Tyson beat.

It's ridiculous. People are not robots.

Incidentally not one of the posts disagreeing with me about the baselessness of style v style arguments actually refutes any of the reasons I gave....

 

[karatejj]

You completely missed the point.

No man, you did!

 

[Knapf]

You're not posting based on reality you are posting based on bias.

Yes. I am biased.So?

You are arguing that training in a ma style, regardless of school, personal talent, or anything else, magically wires your brain to fight with predetermined style methods.

All styles are well known for having trademark characteristics

If that were remotely true there would be no point in ever watching more than one fight from a given style regardless of fighter.

Two fighters of a particular school who fight each other will win depending on who practices their own style better. But sometimes one guy may win using outside styles

Your saying "that guy fights like Mike Tyson so he can beat anyone who fights like the people Tyson beat.

Watching him and adopting his fighting methods may actually help. Who said they won't?People do that all the time by watching videos.
And if people don't learn from history and actually fight the same way as his defeated opponents ,of course they are gonna lose.

It's ridiculous. People are not robots.

Incidentally not one of the posts disagreeing with me about the baselessness of style v style arguments actually refutes any of the reasons I gave....

I can't say what I want without bashing a style. Don't wanna gain penalty points. But there's always PM.......

 

[Juany118]

Furthermore you can find lots of YouTube video of wing chun winning in fights and competitions. It's just that there's always an excuse why it's not a valid win.

Or why it's not "really" Wing Chun.

 

[DaveB]

Let's say all things are equal, who wins?

My point here is though it might be the easiest road to spare feelings and maintain an air of political correctness, the assertion that all styles are equally effective just isn't supported by the evidence or indeed, common sense.

The problem with common sense is that the common man is led easily by any number of cognitive dissonances and largely devoid of critical thought to all but the most basic level.

When have you seen a comparison of twins given proven training in combat skills and in universally agreed upon versions of distinct styles, to a universally agreed upon level of proficiency?

That could constitute evidence of something, but what you are talking about is anecdotal. Yes even though it's on film, it's worthless as evidence because you haven't controlled the variables of which there are many.

It's nothing to do with being politically correct and everything to do with critical thinking (that thing the anti-pc brigade avoids in favour of common sense).
I listed a bunch of reasons why style v style is rubbish but rather than thinking about them you took the common approach to breeze on to a deeply, deeply flawed analogy that only shows what you want it to if you don't look at it too hard or if you really want to see that something in it.

If all things were equal in your analogy you'd have a draw, because the two opponents are equally able to defend themselves against their opponent. A sword is less dangerous than an armed F22 fighter jet, but if your not a fighter pilot the sword guy wins.

There are a bunch of other ways to defeat this line of reasoning (not least is we're talking about unarmed combat) but since you haven't addressed mine i will leave it there.

 

[Knapf]

Or why it's not "really" Wing Chun.

When WC fighters see their own WC guys lose they say the same thing. "They weren't doing WC"

 

[Knapf]

A sword is less dangerous than an armed F22 fighter jet, but if your not a fighter pilot the sword guy wins.

.

What?!? Do you know how powerful a machine gun used by a jet is?

 

[Martial D]

No man, you did!

I missed my own point? Ok then.

I see your reading comprehension is on par with your command of the English language.

 

[Martial D]

The problem with common sense is that the common man is led easily by any number of cognitive dissonances and largely devoid of critical thought to all but the most basic level.

When have you seen a comparison of twins given proven training in combat skills and in universally agreed upon versions of distinct styles, to a universally agreed upon level of proficiency?

That could constitute evidence of something, but what you are talking about is anecdotal. Yes even though it's on film, it's worthless as evidence because you haven't controlled the variables of which there are many.

It's nothing to do with being politically correct and everything to do with critical thinking (that thing the anti-pc brigade avoids in favour of common sense).
I listed a bunch of reasons why style v style is rubbish but rather than thinking about them you took the common approach to breeze on to a deeply, deeply flawed analogy that only shows what you want it to if you don't look at it too hard or if you really want to see that something in it.

If all things were equal in your analogy you'd have a draw, because the two opponents are equally able to defend themselves against their opponent. A sword is less dangerous than an armed F22 fighter jet, but if your not a fighter pilot the sword guy wins.

There are a bunch of other ways to defeat this line of reasoning (not least is we're talking about unarmed combat) but since you haven't addressed mine i will leave it there.

Ok, so all styles are equally viable, the man with a spoon and the man with a sword fight to a draw?

LOL.

Critical thinking huh?

 

[DaveB]

What?!? Do you know how powerful a bomb that is dropped from a jet is?

Reread and try again.

 

[Juany118]

I stopped at 0:17. Powerful and better conditioned Karate guy with more power not using front kicks to push WC guy away?And no kicks to the WC guy's thigh?

By what measure do you say "better conditioned?" Are you making an assumption based on the art he studies? If so you seem to also make the assumption WC/VT people don't go through a conditioning process. Those serious about it do indeed condition themselves via iron palm training and simply working the Mook Jong.

As for kicks to the thigh. Well first what we see here is a decent example of how to use WC. If you not the WC guy is entering with fast kicks. Fast kicks, hard enough to disturb balance as we see here, even if not really damaging have the effect of discouraging kicks because you can easily end up on your ***. Then the WC guy gets into a closer than normal (for the opponent) punching range.

This is exactly what I saw when I first started sparring against my Brother-in-law who is a 2nd Dan TKD guy. I would enter with fast low straight kicks to essentially force him to keep his legs planted, not to do any real damage. Then once "inside" I would be striking with hands, elbows and (if he clinched) knees. It worked really well until he became accustomed to it. Now sparring against him is more challenging as he is learning to address that methodology.

In short your entire response to any of the videos seems to be "WC doesn't work so let me find problems with the other guy to come up with an excuse as to why the WC guy won.". This is called confirmation bias.

 

[Knapf]

Reread and try again.

You mean reread the one that says a swordsman can't fight a jet?

 

[Knapf]

By what measure do you say "better conditioned?" Are you making an assumption based on the art he studies? If so you seem to also make the assumption WC/VT people don't go through a conditioning process. Those serious about it do indeed condition themselves via iron palm training and simply working the Mook Jong.

WC people don't train the really Hard and tough training a Karate man does. Hit the Mook Jong? Please don't make me laugh. Karate guys train by hitting each other's limb with staffs, breaking baseball bats and striking the punching bag. And they hit everywhere including the torso in the front and back. Not Like WC which just hits the wooden dummy with just arms and legs.

As for kicks to the thigh. Well first what we see here is a decent example of how to use WC. If you not the WC guy is entering with fast kicks. Fast kicks, hard enough to disturb balance as we see here, even if not really damaging have the effect of discouraging kicks because you can easily end up on your ***. Then the WC guy gets into a closer than normal (for the opponent) punching range.

You kick the Karate guy 10 times his thigh will be okay but let the Karate guy kick your thigh 3 times.......

This is exactly what I saw when I first started sparring against my Brother-in-law who is a 2nd Dan TKD guy. I would enter with fast low straight kicks to essentially force him to keep his legs planted, not to do any real damage. Then once "inside" I would be striking with hands, elbows and (if he clinched) knees. It worked really well until he became accustomed to it. Now sparring against him is more challenging as he is learning to address that methodology.

He doesn't need to plant his legs. Just one kick forward and he can do enough damage

In short your entire response to any of the videos seems to be "WC doesn't work so let me find problems with the other guy to come up with an excuse as to why the WC guy won.". This is called confirmation bias.

Can't say what i want cause of rules. PM?

 

[Juany118]

Ok, so all styles are equally viable, the man with a spoon and the man with a sword fight to a draw?

LOL.

Critical thinking huh?

Well his analogy was a bit off but I think what he is saying is this what I hinted at. Regarding one video someone made an assumption regarding one fighter who just HAD to be better conditioned than the WC guy. That is an assumption you simply can't make. The assumption was also made that the Karate guy must suck because he didn't do kicks to the thigh, but there are a miriad of other reasons this may have been the case.

In the case of MAs it is all but impossible, imo, to say one long standing art is inherently better than another. We can say who the better/luckier fighters are, on a specific day, of course based on who is left standing but the variables that go into a fight, especially when different styles meet, are nearly countless. The skill and condition of each fighter. Does one style simply naturally exploit certain issues with the other style? Has either fighter fought styles other than there own. How well they slept the night before, what did they have for breakfast? Is the environment something they are used to? (Example on a tile floor and you are only used to fighting on a mat.) All these things, and more, pile up.

 

[Juany118]

When WC fighters see their own WC guys lose they say the same thing. "They weren't doing WC"

Well I don't. I just say the guy lost. Don't project bias where it doesn't lie simply because you admit to it. I have studied to many MAs in my day to see any single art as the "art to beat all arts." With arts that have a history of Effectiveness it comes down to the practitioner and how they train, not the art itself.

 

[Knapf]

.it comes down to the practitioner and how they train, not the art itself.

But don't you WC guys always like to make videos on Youtube showing how you can use WC to beat boxing ?Isn't that preaching about how "my art can beat up yours"?