Does Wing Chun train to Fight?

[Yoshiyahu]

Is your WC about fighting or about Kung Fu.

Do you train for a work out or to fight?

I think people take up martial arts for different reasons. It can be same thing about boxing. You can punch the heavy bag every day, you can shadow box, You can jump rope and hit focus mitts and even Run three miles and lift Weights. But until you actually Spar your Boxing is not fighting.

When i learn WC we practice
1.Solo Punches and Kicks
2. Partner reflex drills
3. Free still Sanshou drills with a partner
4. Chi Sau (Sensitivity Training)
5. Kicking and Defending against a kick
6. Gor Sau ie structured sparring
7. Free sparring

We also practiced conditioning and strength training from simple things to pull ups, push ups, wrist rollers and some traditional stuff, As yes we practice Chi Cultivation too. In our system there are forms of Chi Kung.

How Ever the key was fighting Non-Wing Chunners. We would spar different people and learn from fighting others how to use our WC. What worked and what didn't worked. How to move. Standing still like your doing a First form will not work against an active and mobile opponent. Moving around with out intent or purpose won't work well against a counter fighter.

A teacher can teach you fight theory but you learn fighting by actually fighting. Same With the WC form. I can teach you Sim Lien Tao. But you will only learn it by doing it! Same goes with fighting. Until you fight you won't know to fight.

 

[Headhunter]

Oh boy this is gonna be interesting

 

[Deleted member 34973]

A teacher can teach you fight theory but you learn fighting by actually fighting. Same With the WC form. I can teach you Sim Lien Tao. But you will only learn it by doing it! Same goes with fighting. Until you fight you won't know to fight.

Apparently on Martialtalk, the martial Arts are not about fighting. You do not need to know how to defend yourself to be a Martial artist.

 

[Flying Crane]

Apparently on Martialtalk, the martial Arts are not about fighting. You do not need to know how to defend yourself to be a Martial artist.

Is that your oversimplified takeaway? That’s unfortunate for you.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Is your WC about fighting or about Kung Fu.

Do you train for a work out or to fight?

I think people take up martial arts for different reasons. It can be same thing about boxing. You can punch the heavy bag every day, you can shadow box, You can jump rope and hit focus mitts and even Run three miles and lift Weights. But until you actually Spar your Boxing is not fighting.

When i learn WC we practice
1.Solo Punches and Kicks
2. Partner reflex drills
3. Free still Sanshou drills with a partner
4. Chi Sau (Sensitivity Training)
5. Kicking and Defending against a kick
6. Gor Sau ie structured sparring
7. Free sparring

We also practiced conditioning and strength training from simple things to pull ups, push ups, wrist rollers and some traditional stuff, As yes we practice Chi Cultivation too. In our system there are forms of Chi Kung.

How Ever the key was fighting Non-Wing Chunners. We would spar different people and learn from fighting others how to use our WC. What worked and what didn't worked. How to move. Standing still like your doing a First form will not work against an active and mobile opponent. Moving around with out intent or purpose won't work well against a counter fighter.

A teacher can teach you fight theory but you learn fighting by actually fighting. Same With the WC form. I can teach you Sim Lien Tao. But you will only learn it by doing it! Same goes with fighting. Until you fight you won't know to fight.

Pretty much how I understand my training

 

[Deleted member 34973]

Is that your oversimplified takeaway? That’s unfortunate for you.

It's an observation. No need for meaningless self serving long comments.

 

[Flying Crane]

It's an observation. No need for meaningless self serving long comments.

Yeah, I’ll stand by my comment.

 

[Deleted member 34973]

Yeah, I’ll stand by my comment.

Great!

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

the martial Arts are not about fighting.

MA is as simple as:

fist meets face,

or, head meets ground.

 

[jobo]

Apparently on Martialtalk, the martial Arts are not about fighting. You do not need to know how to defend yourself to be a Martial artist.

That's not what anyone s3ad on the other thread, you set a standard that you can only call yourself a ma , when you have used ma to save your life, which is a bizarre standard to set. You could go your whole life and never have anyone try to kill you

 

[Deleted member 34973]

It is not really bizarre, what is incredibly bizarre and ridiculous, is thinking that a person who has never actually had to do that, teaches others how to defend themselves. That is incredibly weird.

And extremely dangerous for the student. Train them for sport, but fooling them into thinking that what they are being taught will help them in reality, is a con plain and simple.

We can disagree on that fact till the cows come home.

 

[drop bear]

Apparently on Martialtalk, the martial Arts are not about fighting. You do not need to know how to defend yourself to be a Martial artist.

So long as you are happy.

Same with diabetes if salads make you sad. Eat hamburgers.

 

[Flying Crane]

It is not really bizarre, what is incredibly bizarre and ridiculous, is thinking that a person who has never actually had to do that, teaches others how to defend themselves. That is incredibly weird.

And extremely dangerous for the student. Train them for sport, but fooling them into thinking that what they are being taught will help them in reality, is a con plain and simple.

We can disagree on that fact till the cows come home.

So do you feel there ought to be a credential, based on the number of “fights” you’ve had, as to whether you are qualified to teach a martial system and dare to suggest that it might be useful in defending oneself?

What kind of fight qualifies? Does the schoolyard prior to age 10 qualify?

The thing is, for most reasonable people in many parts of the world, it is pretty easy to get through life without getting into fights, especially once one leaves the blistering stupidity of adolescence behind. As an adult, if one continues to get into fights on a regular basis, the problem may be that person. For most people, there is no excuse for that. It is sheer stupidity and easily avoided. Now, I read what you posted a while back about your history and I am not pointing a finger at you. There are people who experienced circumstances that were beyond their control and I understand that and I don’t judge someone based on that. But most people do not have that background.

So I can imagine all kinds of people teaching martial arts without having had a “real fight”, at least not since youthful stupidity. And I would be nonplussed if they suggested that what they were teaching is useful in self defense. Doesn’t bother me in the least. There are all kinds of people who have no business teaching martial arts, for all kinds of reasons. But having never been in a “real fight” is at the bottom of the list for me.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

I've had plenty of "real fights", depending what you consider a real fights, when I was a teenager. Not going to go into detail on them since this is a public forum. If I didn't get into another fight for the rest of my life, I'd be happy, Two things that I think of now, thinking back on it.

First: despite my martial arts instructor not having experience in fighting (or at least not sharing it/using that experience to teach), I "won" largely due to a combination of martial arts training and aggression.

Second: Those fights would have no impact on me teaching martial arts, or self-defense, with the exception that I would try to teach people not to do that, and focus more on verbal de-escalation.

So, really, I don't think it's necessary to get into fights before you teach martial arts.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

It is not really bizarre, what is incredibly bizarre and ridiculous, is thinking that a person who has never actually had to do that, teaches others how to defend themselves. That is incredibly weird.

And extremely dangerous for the student. Train them for sport, but fooling them into thinking that what they are being taught will help them in reality, is a con plain and simple.

We can disagree on that fact till the cows come home.

Something else to add here: I'm an addictions counselor and therapist. In a previous job I worked as an addictions counselor in an outpatient setting, helping people learn to stop whatever drug they were using, and enter recovery. I was never addicted to any substance, and have not tried any hard drugs-I don't know personally what cocaine or heroin feel like, or what it's like to have withdrawals from alcohol. I also don't know what it's like personally craving them. Some of my coworkers were in recovery, and had experienced some or all of those things.

Just based on how our clients did comparatively (and compared to the other non-recovery counselors at the clinic), there didn't really seem to be a difference. And most clients would try to guess who was in recovery, based on our counsel, teachings, etc., and who wasn't. They got it wrong more often than not, so clearly that was not the important thing there.

So, things can be taught without having been personally experienced. So long as the information that the teacher got is correct.

 

[drop bear]

Something else to add here: I'm an addictions counselor and therapist. In a previous job I worked as an addictions counselor in an outpatient setting, helping people learn to stop whatever drug they were using, and enter recovery. I was never addicted to any substance, and have not tried any hard drugs-I don't know personally what cocaine or heroin feel like, or what it's like to have withdrawals from alcohol. I also don't know what it's like personally craving them. Some of my coworkers were in recovery, and had experienced some or all of those things.

Just based on how our clients did comparatively (and compared to the other non-recovery counselors at the clinic), there didn't really seem to be a difference. And most clients would try to guess who was in recovery, based on our counsel, teachings, etc., and who wasn't. They got it wrong more often than not, so clearly that was not the important thing there.

So, things can be taught without having been personally experienced. So long as the information that the teacher got is correct.

Yeah but there is no standard on the information.

There is still probably a necessary background of study required somewhere.

I have not been to war but I was trained by the army vs I have not been to war but my mate who says he is a navy seal has trained me.

 

[Yoshiyahu]

Head Hunter why is that?

Oh boy this is gonna be interesting

Can you explain more? Do you practice WC?

Pretty much how I understand my training

I some what agree. I love Mike Tyson as a fighter. But if i was a beginner. I would want those Italians who train him to train me not Mike Tyson. Not to say his trainers were fighters per se. I dont recall any of them being boxing champions ever. But Mike Tyson is revered for his skill. Now as for him training me in his hay day. I dont think i would learn all i could from him. Plus I am sure Mike Tyson training prepared him for the fight. But it was the sparring he did that allowed him to learn how to use the conditioning, drills and training. Its the constant sparring that gave him the understanding. Not his trainers ability to fight or past fast.

It is not really bizarre, what is incredibly bizarre and ridiculous, is thinking that a person who has never actually had to do that, teaches others how to defend themselves. That is incredibly weird.

And extremely dangerous for the student. Train them for sport, but fooling them into thinking that what they are being taught will help them in reality, is a con plain and simple.

We can disagree on that fact till the cows come home.

Flying Crane. You can have muhaamd Ali train you to be fighter. But if you never spar. All of that training, from jumping rope, hitting focus mitts, hitting the heavy bag, or even shadow boxing will go out the window the moment someone is hurling attacks with you. Until you spar no level of training is adequate to use. For instance i can show you how to hold your breath, How to kick your legs, and how to float. But you won't become a good swimmer until you actually practice swimming. I can tell you how to ride a bike but you first have to get on and pedal it yourself. My ability to ride a bike has nothing to do with it.

So do you feel there ought to be a credential, based on the number of “fights” you’ve had, as to whether you are qualified to teach a martial system and dare to suggest that it might be useful in defending oneself?

What kind of fight qualifies? Does the schoolyard prior to age 10 qualify?

The thing is, for most reasonable people in many parts of the world, it is pretty easy to get through life without getting into fights, especially once one leaves the blistering stupidity of adolescence behind. As an adult, if one continues to get into fights on a regular basis, the problem may be that person. For most people, there is no excuse for that. It is sheer stupidity and easily avoided. Now, I read what you posted a while back about your history and I am not pointing a finger at you. There are people who experienced circumstances that were beyond their control and I understand that and I don’t judge someone based on that. But most people do not have that background.

So I can imagine all kinds of people teaching martial arts without having had a “real fight”, at least not since youthful stupidity. And I would be nonplussed if they suggested that what they were teaching is useful in self defense. Doesn’t bother me in the least. There are all kinds of people who have no business teaching martial arts, for all kinds of reasons. But having never been in a “real fight” is at the bottom of the list for me.

I've had plenty of "real fights", depending what you consider a real fights, when I was a teenager. Not going to go into detail on them since this is a public forum. If I didn't get into another fight for the rest of my life, I'd be happy, Two things that I think of now, thinking back on it.

First: despite my martial arts instructor not having experience in fighting (or at least not sharing it/using that experience to teach), I "won" largely due to a combination of martial arts training and aggression.

Second: Those fights would have no impact on me teaching martial arts, or self-defense, with the exception that I would try to teach people not to do that, and focus more on verbal de-escalation.

So, really, I don't think it's necessary to get into fights before you teach martial arts.

Good Point, But i think OP SA clinician counselors are is vast dichotomy on your part. The two are not mutually exclusive. Fighting is like having SEX you can only be good at by doing it. You can practice stroking the air all day. But you need a live person to practice on before you can actually become an expert.

Something else to add here: I'm an addictions counselor and therapist. In a previous job I worked as an addictions counselor in an outpatient setting, helping people learn to stop whatever drug they were using, and enter recovery. I was never addicted to any substance, and have not tried any hard drugs-I don't know personally what cocaine or heroin feel like, or what it's like to have withdrawals from alcohol. I also don't know what it's like personally craving them. Some of my coworkers were in recovery, and had experienced some or all of those things.

Just based on how our clients did comparatively (and compared to the other non-recovery counselors at the clinic), there didn't really seem to be a difference. And most clients would try to guess who was in recovery, based on our counsel, teachings, etc., and who wasn't. They got it wrong more often than not, so clearly that was not the important thing there.

So, things can be taught without having been personally experienced. So long as the information that the teacher got is correct.

I agree we can learn an art from anyone. An its up to use to learn to fight with it.

Yeah but there is no standard on the information.

There is still probably a necessary background of study required somewhere.

I have not been to war but I was trained by the army vs I have not been to war but my mate who says he is a navy seal has trained me.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

Yeah but there is no standard on the information.

There is still probably a necessary background of study required somewhere.

I agree. Just saying that fighting is not necessarily the only study for that (and it may not even be a good one. I could have fought against a bunch of idiots-just with that I shouldn't assume i know how all fighting works).

I have not been to war but I was trained by the army vs I have not been to war but my mate who says he is a navy seal has trained me.

True in terms of preparing for war. Not necessarily true for hand to hand fighting since they dont focus on it as fully. At least in the USA. I say that as a result of training with former members of the airforce and army.

If the focus is hand to hand fighting, I'd rather be trained by either a former ufc champ or a ufc champs coach, if I really had the option.

 

[Flying Crane]

Flying Crane. You can have muhaamd Ali train you to be fighter. But if you never spar. All of that training, from jumping rope, hitting focus mitts, hitting the heavy bag, or even shadow boxing will go out the window the moment someone is hurling attacks with you. Until you spar no level of training is adequate to use. For instance i can show you how to hold your breath, How to kick your legs, and how to float. But you won't become a good swimmer until you actually practice swimming. I can tell you how to ride a bike but you first have to get on and pedal it yourself. My ability to ride a bike has nothing to do with it.

I don’t buy into your position. Sparring is not fighting, I was asking if there needs to be a credential for teaching based on experience in fighting (not sparring) because that is what Guthrie seemed to be saying.

At any rate, sparring CAN be a useful tool. Not all sparring is equal, so it depends on how the sparring is done. But it is not a necessity, there are other methods to develop the application of skills. Sparring is often overrated as a training method. It can be useful, but it is far from being the pinnacle of training. Seems to me that a lot of people give it more weight than it deserves.

 

[Yoshiyahu]

I don’t buy into your position. Sparring is not fighting, I was asking if there needs to be a credential for teaching based on experience in fighting (not sparring) because that is what Guthrie seemed to be saying.

At any rate, sparring CAN be a useful tool. Not all sparring is equal, so it depends on how the sparring is done. But it is not a necessity, there are other methods to develop the application of skills. Sparring is often overrated as a training method. It can be useful, but it is far from being the pinnacle of training. Seems to me that a lot of people give it more weight than it deserves.

You have light sparring and hard sparring. Until you can do both effectively you will be a fish out of water when it comes to using your wing chun in a real fight. Until you hone using your WC at high level of intensity with a resisting opponent who is freely striking as they light. You will not be ready for actually fighting.