What is wrong with wing chun

[DaveB]

What precisely is wrong with wing chun?

I'm not posting a style bashing thread, if you don't have specifics don't post. If you can't back it up please don't post.

My aim is analytical, to see if the endless criticism of this style has something behind it other than YouTube videos.

What are the unrealistic techniques?
Which tactics don't work?
What is wrong with its body mechanics?

And most importantly, why?

If you don't know why, don't post.

I don't believe there is anything particularly wrong with wing chun. I think any maist who wants to fight other styles needs to train away from his art and spend time working out how to counter that which is unfamiliar.

The wc losses I have seen were usually down to being overly rigid and not understanding the impact of body movement. Both pretty easy mistakes That come with a lack of experience and neither are things that are style specific to my knowledge.

But it seems that there are a significant number who feel that the art is fundamentally flawed. I would like to understand this.

 

[VPT]

I personally think two things implicitly stated in much critique are 1) over-reliance of bridging and 2) insufficient amount of entropic training (the infamous "patty-cake" quip). Fortunately, both of these are issues in poor programming of training rather than inherent flaws of the system.

By over-reliance of bridging I mean training too much in chi sau and doing training that begins in an assumed position where a bridge has been established. The main question in all striking (and much of self defense when de-escalation has failed) is "how you stop the first punch?". If you have your hands crossed most of the time and only start there you are not addressing and developing enough effective skills of receiving. I also think that a chi sau situation where both hands are touching is actually very rare to occur, and the possible effects you get out of it are limited if your own skill of establishing a bridge through your own initiative are not good. No normal person will give you a bridge voluntarily unless they seek it themselves.

By entropic training I mean simply "alive" training, where you are by default reliant only on sensory identification of the attack and not any kind of prior conduct, i.e. "attacker assumes a left hook from a predefined distance". This includes sparring and any kind of tactical or technical goal-oriented testing, i.e. "attacker assumes free movement and launches unscripted lefts, rights or 1-2s towards the defender, who must attempt to ward them of with techniques A and B". This kind of training has a virtue of eliminating rigidity and faulty, unnatural or inefficient movement and technique and develop bad habits into better ones.

These are not only personal opinions towards Wing Chun per se, but rather a general line of critique that I hold towards practice regimes sustained in many traditional arts that also often applies to Wing Chun.

On a more personal level, I have two peeves. One is a memetic habit of turning your face away when you are in the position of attacker and a flurry of counter-punches are thrown at you (I say memetic since this is very probably a learned cultural habit transmitted throughout the training community very much like the hopping in Cheng Man Ching's lineage of taiji). This is likely done to represent an untrained attackers reaction in the face of such techniques, but is also a counter-productive and harmful habit that you are likely to internalize in your other conduct of training. It also fails the defender to assume such thing would always happen, but what if the original attacker shrugs them off? That is also likely to happen. No head-turning and exposing the neck, please!

The other thing I personally don't like much, coming from a Bak Mei perspective, is the power generation from a strictly squared hips and static spine. It is possible to generate power through the Wing Chun posture, but is very, very intricate and easy to misunderstand. A friend of mine likes to call out those Wing Chun practicioners who have "a dead back". (He also trains the Dan Harden aiki system so he know about how you use your spine properly.) I don't believe that simply charging your bodyweight forward with stepping is enough to power your punches, instead you need to transmit force from your whole body to the punch to get the maximum power. By comparison: in a boxing cross 40 % of power comes from legs, 40 % from the torso and only 20 % comes from the hand. How much of power comes from the legs in a Wing Chun punch, and how you transmit it?

All this said, I've trained strict Wing Chun only twice, but did sparring with a Wing Chun fella a few times and have had some chats with others on different occasions.

 

[swhitney222]

He also trains the Dan Harden aiki system so he know about how you use your spine properly

Hi VPT, nice post. I also had the opportunity to trained with Dan Harden for a few years, the power that guy can generate is supernatural. This guy is top notch and is not style specific. He works the body the way it is designed to work to generate lots of power. Using the whole body and applying soft relaxed power correctly can be applied in all styles. This guy (dan harden) definitely knows how to show it and teach it.

 

[Martial D]

What precisely is wrong with wing chun?

I guess that depends on your perspective. For a guy like me that views all classical styles as a 'grab bag' of potentially integratable techniques, nothing is 'wrong' with it persay.



[QuoteMy aim is analytical, to see if the endless criticism of this style has something behind it other than YouTube videos.

What are the unrealistic techniques?
Which tactics don't work?
What is wrong with its body mechanics

And most importantly, why?[/quote]
The answer to these three questions is 'nothing' granted you start using it from extremely close range. Once a man is 'in your face' or has a grip on your shirt or jacket, or wants to play the shoving game.

Much the same as how BJJ is only at it's best on the ground.

I don't believe there is anything particularly wrong with wing chun. I think any maist who wants to fight other styles needs to train away from his art and spend time working out how to counter that which is unfamiliar.

However, as a 'system' or 'style'(ie that's all you have) it's problematic. No head or body movement, stiff footwork, all the strikes are short range, and the biomechanics favour speed and volume at the expense of range and power.(which is problematic unless the fight starts at breath smelling range)

Not to mention the guard pre bridge (ip man statue pose) relys on your reaction time being faster than your opponents strikes, as the arms aren't really protecting anything.

The wc losses I have seen were usually down to being overly rigid and not understanding the impact of body movement.

Because in WC the body and head are static, which is fine if you are already inside(provided the guy you are in there with isn't good at takedowns), but turns you into a living BOB from any other range.

 

[geezer]

I appreciate VPT's critical analysis and agree with much of it ...but not all.

First, his critique of "over-reliance on bridging" makes strong point. In the system of VT I train, this is absolutely the case. There is an absolute obsession with chi-sau and an excessively complex curriculum of chi-sau sections that can become a fascinating chess-game of "energy exchanges" with a like-minded partner, but at the same time is far removed from the realities of live sparring or combat. This is similarly the case with many other VT/WC/WT branches. Now there is certainly an appeal for this kind of training, especially among the over 60 crowd like myself, but if we want to train effective and well-rounded martial artist we need to be honest with ourselves regarding this. Chi-sau is not sparring, and cannot replace it.

As VPT suggested, one answer to the above is to provide a balanced with more "alive" training, including both sparring and free, or unscripted drilling. I would add that we need to work constructively competent representatives of other systems to realistically test our responses. This is not something that comes easily to WVT/WT with its traditions of exclusivity in which even training with members of other WC branches is frowned upon.

Now, I would have to disagree with what VPT described as his two "pet peeves" -- not because I support the characteristics he describes. To the contrary, I agree that they are detrimental traits, but have to add that they are not traits taught in the VT I train.

First, VPT describes the habit of turning the face away from your opponent when engaging in a close range flurry of techniques. You will also see this bad habit in some free chi-sau exchanges:

In the branches of WC/VT/WT I've trained, you are taught to face your opponent's center, chasing center and not hands according the mottos, "Fight nose to nose, not nose to fist!" and "Chase center, not hands."

Secondly, regarding power generation, I believe good Wing Chun should (and does) incorporate the entire body. This may be held back at the beginning (probably not a good idea) but by the time a student is working on Biu Tze, the steps and turns, the legs, hips, torso and spine, shoulders, elbows and wrist all work in an elastic kinetic linkage to deliver power. Alan Orr, although coming from a different branch than my own, have made some good points on this with their ideas of using the "seven bows" and a "floating kwa". Or from another perspective, check out Emin Boztepe's breakdown of the punch, especially regarding the contribution of the spine in power generation:

 

[geezer]

BTW, re the Randy Williams clip above: As a friend of mine commented upon viewing this, "Only a Butt-Head would start throwing Head-Butts in a supposedly friendly chi-sau exchange like that!"

 

[geezer]

...For a guy like me that views all classical styles as a 'grab bag' of potentially integratable techniques, nothing is 'wrong' with it persay.

...However, as a 'system' or 'style'(ie that's all you have) it's problematic. No head or body movement, stiff footwork, all the strikes are short range, and the biomechanics favour speed and volume at the expense of range and power...

Here's where I differ with you (and I think it is mostly a matter of semantics, not substance). If you can effectively integrate techniques, you don't have a grab bag (random bag of tricks) any more, you now have a system ...a way of moving, of defending and attacking, of generating power, in short: of fighting.

Good Wing Chun is just that. Not a collection of techniques. Those can be added or subtracted as needed. It is system, a way of moving. And, as you pointed out, one that works best as a close range stand-up, striking art favoring speed and continuous, swarming attacks.

At other ranges -- either at long range, or grappling on the ground, you better have familiarity with other systems, or other ways of moving. Merely adding more techniques to your grab bag will not make you a competent grappler, or long range fighter!

 

[DanT]

There's nothing wrong with MY Wing Chun and the Wing Chun that MY Sifu learned, there are issues with certain styles of Wing Chun that I have seen and have experienced in sparring them. They are as follows:

1. Utter lack of dynamic footwork
2. Lack of adequate take down defence
3. Lack of power and snap in strikes
4. Terrible Kicks (no power, no speed)
5. Lack of sparring
6. Horrendous body conditioning
7. Dismal body and head movement
8. Failure in developing Deun Ging
9. Failure in developing Jian Dai Lik
10. Lack of heavy bag training

 

[VPT]

I am absolutely supportive of everything that geezer has to say about my comment. I'm not part of the Wing Chun community so I don't know which exact lineage trains what and how. The Wing Chun guy I trained with had been for years at the level SLT, whereas in my Bak Mei I have learnt eight of the ten forms (one is missing since I haven't had the need to learn yet, for the other one I'm not ready yet). Also, good martial arts and artists use their full body. Bad martial arts and artists, be they Wing Chun, Bak Mei or wrestlers more often than not don't.

However, I disagree with Botztepe's use of the shoulder on the video. His spine action is also good, but I've learned from the very beginning to bend the other way. Just a different flavour, I guess.

 

[Martial D]

Here's where I differ with you (and I think it is mostly a matter of semantics, not substance). If you can effectively integrate techniques, you don't have a grab bag (random bag of tricks) any more, you now have a system ...a way of moving, of defending and attacking, of generating power, in short: of fighting.

Good Wing Chun is just that. Not a collection of techniques. Those can be added or subtracted as needed. It is system, a way of moving. And, as you pointed out, one that works best as a close range stand-up, striking art favoring speed and continuous, swarming attacks.

At other ranges -- either at long range, or grappling on the ground, you better have familiarity with other systems, or other ways of moving. Merely adding more techniques to your grab bag will not make you a competent grappler, or long range fighter!

Yes, purely semantics. When I say 'grab bag' I mean things I can potentially graft onto my 'system'(which is no system) to improve my skills at a given range. WC has given me a nice set of short range tools for a certain(extremely common) situation.

The vast majority of street altercations I have found myself in(I know I know...I was a dumb kid that fought alot...) have followed a certain, almost predictable pattern;bunch of **** talking and bravado, distance closed, sometimes shoving, sometimes not, usually a shirt grab, more **** talking. All this is at WC range.

 

[Buka]

As an observer - I think all the in fighting and anger amongst practitioners of the style, albeit from different training arenas/lineages, does nothing but stymie it.

 

[Martial D]

As an observer - I think all the in fighting and anger amongst practitioners of the style, albeit from different training arenas/lineages, does nothing but stymie it.

I know right! Back in the 90s when I trained in WC those years I didn't even know the scope of it. Sure I knew there were different schools teaching different ways, but the whole lineage thing wasn't something that was ever talked about.

Knowing myself and my partisan nature I'm kind of glad no issue was ever made of it, although for acedemic reasons and curiosity I wouldn't mind knowing exactly where MY wc came from. I'm still not totally sure.

 

[anerlich]

Most of the derision for Wing Chun is historically based.

A number of prominent practitioners claimed Wing Chun to be the deadliest style on the planet, and that they could beat just about anybody. For PR and marketing purposes, obviously.

MMA basically showed these claims to be pretty much hot air in the eyes of the public at large. Wing Chun, with a few exceptions, fared very badly in this arena. Emin Boztepe challenged the Gracies at one stage, but this went nowhere. Some observers viewed this as him creating publicity for himself but backing out before the rubber hit the road. Neither side of the argument (which was all it was) acquitted themselves well here. I've been involved in both WC and BJJ for close to 20 years and have no dog in that fight.

The lack of Wing Chun related corpses and of practitioners doing hard time for manslaughter or murder didn't help the "deadliest style on the planet" cause much either. The fight between Emin and William Cheung, allegedly two of the best practitioners in the deadliest style on earth, resulted in nothing more than a black eye and some ego damage. Emin "won" this "fight" to the adulation of some. He fared less well in a later encounter with an actual bada$$, Jon Bluming.

Most of the WC/WT/VT "anti-grappling" stuff shown most prominently by WT in the 1990s is rightly scorned by the grappling fraternity. It generally shows a lack of understanding of basic grappling techniques, tactics and strategy, and almost all the demonstrations of its "effectiveness" online were performed against people that couldn't grapple. If you are worried about being beaten by a grappler, spend a couple of nights a week at a wrestling or BJJ class for a couple of years and get to BJJ blue belt level. You'll be better at grappling and defending against it than 95-99% of the people on the planet.. It ain't that hard, unless your ego gets in the way.

Of course these criticisms can be levelled at many TCMAs. I've yet to see a really successful MMA fighter who claims a base in Bak Mei, Northern Praying Mantis, Baguazhang, or for that matter Aikido, effective use of relaxed power or no. And whether MMA success is the final arbiter of stylistic effectiveness (for what?) is debatable. There are, however, fewer more public and verifiable ways of comparing broad martial art skills that won't have you thrown in gaol.

The untrained and uninformed (which is not to say stupid) public look to the winners. And so they choose MMA, BJJ, wrestling, boxing, or Muay Thai. More obscure styles with less obvious records of success are looked at more suspiciously.

The "rules don't favour our deadly techniques" and "our style can't fight in gloves" excuses don't wash either. A number of Wing Chun practitioners have succeeded in competitive arenas despite these supposed handicaps. My own instructor had 37 pro and over 100 amateur kickboxing matches, and among my sidais are a former WKA world kickboxing champion, and successful MMA fighters. Alan Orr and others have also had successes here. But all these people cross trained in other arts, and underwent specialised competition training as well. Going to your local kwoon and doing chi sao, dummy work, forms and a bit of semicontact sparring a few times a week aren't going to prepare you for a competition match. London to a brick you will get your a$$ kicked up between your shoulder blades.

The "too deadly" excuse begs the question of where all the corpses are hidden.

The style's own internecine squabbles don't exactly give it a great reputation, either. Boztepe/Cheung, and the later long public spat and ultimate "fight" between Andrew Draheim and Keith Mazza, were immature and highly unimpressive. Both Boztepe (in an Australian martial arts magazine) and Draheim (on KFO) both later admitted that their seniors had commanded them to do this. What are you, children?

The feud between various WC substyles continues to this day, on this forum and elsewhere. People look at stuff like this and see people who never fight talking about whose approach to this non-fighting is the most conceptually sound and why everyone else is clueless. Impressive, huh?

An outsider looking in thinks, "do I want to be involved with these w@nkers?" and often goes elsewhere.

Every style has weaknesses. If you can't find any, you aren't trying. It comes down to pressure testing your art constantly, being honest with yourself, and being prepared to throw out or change stuff that doesn't work for you. Adherence to ideologies is dangerous.

 

[geezer]

...Adherence to ideologies is dangerous.

True that.

 

[Martial D]

Bruce Lee was once quoted as having said (and this was in the 70s) that most of the CMA that came to America is bullsh#t, and that even the vast majority of Hong Kong and mainland Chinese ma was likewise bullsh#t...but there is still a tiny fraction teaching the REAL sh#t. The deadly Kung Fu of yor.

It's hearsay of course(it was recounted by someone that knew him), but I want it to be true. I hold out a romantic hope that it exists, because I want it to.

Not that they would teach an old gwai lo like me anyway, but I prefer a world with real deadly Chinese wushu in it.

 

[Knapf]

There's nothing wrong with MY Wing Chun and the Wing Chun that MY Sifu learned, there are issues with certain styles of Wing Chun that I have seen and have experienced in sparring them. They are as follows:

1. Utter lack of dynamic footwork
2. Lack of adequate take down defence
3. Lack of power and snap in strikes
4. Terrible Kicks (no power, no speed)
5. Lack of sparring
6. Horrendous body conditioning
7. Dismal body and head movement
8. Failure in developing Deun Ging
9. Failure in developing Jian Dai Lik
10. Lack of heavy bag training

Yes.Very true. But I can bet that even in your own WC,there are limited hand strikes and leg strikes. For example no fu jow, ying jow, charp chui, pek chui, sow chui, spinning back fist, kup chui, uppercut, phoenix eye strikes. You will need to have those in your arsenal just in case the fight doesn't go as planned.

 

[DaveB]

Yes.Very true. But I can bet that even in your own WC,there are limited hand strikes and leg strikes. For example no fu jow, ying jow, charp chui, pek chui, sow chui, spinning back fist, kup chui, uppercut, phoenix eye strikes. You will need to have those in your arsenal just in case the fight doesn't go as planned.

Fighting isn't about a breadth of techniques, it's about knowing how to hit with what you've got.

 

[Knapf]

Fighting isn't about a breadth of techniques, it's about knowing how to hit with what you've got.

Having more hand moves in your arsenal makes it easier for you to face ANY situation. Let's say you chain punch or biu jee or palm strike and the guy ducks, then how do you use WC to get him?Chain punch lower?Maybe do a downward thrust and biu jee his eyes? No .You follow up with a pek chui,sow chui or a kup chui to the top of the head. Hitting with only "what you've got" is a limitation. The limitations of only having a few hand moves can be broken by having more hand strikes at your disposal.

 

[DaveB]

Having more hand moves in your arsenal makes it easier for you to face ANY situation. Let's say you chain punch or biu jee or palm strike and the guy ducks, then how do you use WC to get him?Chain punch lower?Maybe do a downward thrust and biu jee his eyes? No .You follow up with a pek chui,sow chui or a kup chui to the top of the head. Hitting with only "what you've got" is a limitation. The limitations of only having a few hand moves can be broken by having more hand strikes at your disposal.

How is the strike you said better than the wing chun options?

 

[Knapf]

How is the strike you said better than the wing chun options?

Chain punching the top of the head doesn't do damage. Try it for yourself. You will feel awkward.
Biu jiing the eyes works but you have to pull back after doing a palm strike . Crane beak doesn't penetrate the top of head unless you have iron fingers. Snake hand strike after doing a palm strike which was hangin in the air wouldn't hurt the top part of the head either. Elbowing the top of the head works but you have to curve your arm. The best few moves that would be faster after the chain or palm strike that hangs in the air(and needs to move downward) is a pek chui or a kup choi. I made a mistake here by suggesting sow chui. Sow chui requires a pulling back action so it's not fast enough here.

My point is to have varied options to use at your disposal. Somebody who is unfortunate to have learnt only limited hand techniques,say pek chui and kup choi etc and not knowing chain punching, biu jee, snake hand ,crane beak and elbow is also at a disadvantage.