Hello, this is my first post and i would like to discuss about wing chun against other martial arts. My experience is 1 yr muay thai, 1yr boxing, 3 yrs wing chun. I will describe what in my opinion makes wing chun better than "ring sports" especially in no-rules, bare knuckle fights. - defense: WC uses deflections , not blocks. This makes it easier to counter attack after defending a punch and finding "gaps" in the opponent which let u connect. Also blocking is dangerous against a stronger opponent(power vs power) -learn to control the opponent. Not grapple with the opponent, but dont let him make sudden movements by controling his hands ex. punch,slap his hand, punch slap his hand, create distance from the other hand. -strategy.Learn to try always to get to the blind side of the opponent -use pressure points. If you hit the eyes, the throat, the groin, or the spine it needs less strenght to make damage. -continious attacks. By chain punching after u throw the first punch u force the opponent to defend, to defend until you find a way to connect. These are some points that make WC superior, but there are also some points that i think of as weakneses. - WC in for close range(Dont tell me otherwise, i have experiensed a lot of sparring). That makes it dificult to fight against opponents who keep a distance, who get in and out of range. -wc stance is weak to takedowns -WCs mobility is far inferior to say a boxer's who moves on his balls and can move in and out.(WCs footwork in close combat on the other hand is great)
Hello, this is my first post and i would like to discuss about wing chun against other martial arts. My experience is 1 yr muay thai, 1yr boxing, 3 yrs wing chun. I will describe what in my opinion makes wing chun better than "ring sports" especially in no-rules, bare knuckle fights. Have you had a bare knuckle fight? I'm not saying out in the "streets" but in a garage with some paper on the floor? - defense: WC uses deflections , not blocks. This makes it easier to counter attack after defending a punch and finding "gaps" in the opponent which let u connect. Also blocking is dangerous against a stronger opponent(power vs power) Why block or do anything when I can slip, parry, move in and out and open my target up -learn to control the opponent. Not grapple with the opponent, but dont let him make sudden movements by controling his hands ex. punch,slap his hand, punch slap his hand, create distance from the other hand. You can punch my hands all you like but my feet will be kicking you -strategy.Learn to try always to get to the blind side of the opponent lol -use pressure points. If you hit the eyes, the throat, the groin, or the spine it needs less strenght to make damage. I've never done WC but i know if I kick someone in the groin it will hurt -continious attacks. By chain punching after u throw the first punch u force the opponent to defend, to defend until you find a way to connect. Welcome to the real world These are some points that make WC superior NO but there are also some points that i think of as weakneses. Humor me - WC in for close range(Dont tell me otherwise, i have experiensed a lot of sparring). That makes it dificult to fight against opponents who keep a distance, who get in and out of range. I box all i do is get in close, are you saying you out class me? If I run away and keep "out of range" im sure i cant be hit and will be fine from the uber power that is WC -wc stance is weak to takedowns most are -WCs mobility is far inferior to say a boxer's who moves on his balls and can move in and out.(WCs footwork in close combat on the other hand is great) Well you said you done boxing learn, adapt and apply
didnt bruce lee do wing chun, and didn't he strip away all the stuff that didn't really work, borrow stuff from thai boxing & boxing & call it jkd? bruce lee realised that wing chun wasn't all that great in the real world
1)I havent had any serious bare knuckle fight but i have expirienced a few streetfights. But if i hadn't that wouldnt probably mean anything because u doesnt need to experience something to know the facts. If u get lessons, if u experiment in your sparring,if you learn body mechanics, and if you ve watched carefully alot of fights in say dvds u can have an idea of what works and what doesnt. Do u need to get punched to know it hurts????? 2)if u slip ,parry in close range its very likely to get in a thai clinch, a knee in the face or an elbow.Why do u think ufc fighters learn to grapple?? 3)in a no-gloves fight, a "push"-not a full punch, with the knuckles could break your nose,thats the difference (I ve been hit both ways).You cant take a hit to deliver a stronger one and you cant risk to take a weak hit in the face, while in the ring this is just routine.
1)I havent had any serious bare knuckle fight but i have expirienced a few streetfights. But if i hadn't that wouldnt probably mean anything because u doesnt need to experience something to know the facts. If u get lessons, if u experiment in your sparring,if you learn body mechanics, and if you ve watched carefully alot of fights in say dvds u can have an idea of what works and what doesnt. Do u need to get punched to know it hurts????? LOLOLOLOLOL 2)if u slip ,parry in close range its very likely to get in a thai clinch, a knee in the face or an elbow.Why do u think ufc fighters learn to grapple?? Where in my post did i say that i done that close range? You where on about defecting punches i gave you a better alternative. If I was that close why would i be punching anyway, id be using knees, head and elbows 3)in a no-gloves fight, a "push"-not a full punch, with the knuckles could break your nose,thats the difference (I ve been hit both ways).You cant take a hit to deliver a stronger one and you cant risk to take a weak hit in the face, while in the ring this is just routine. LOLOLOLOLOL
greekMA - Please don't use "u" instead of "you" or other texting abbreviations. They're against our Terms of Service (the site rules) which you agreed to when you registered here.
"LOLOLOLOLOLOL" : when you dont have any argument its easy to play smartass.. But i didnt know i was talking to mr Bruce Lee....i m sorry..
commenty commenty comments... Just a few observations (I do WT btw, so a not an anti-WC/WT with ein agenda) "Do u need to get punched to know it hurts?????" Yes....yes you do. Sorry but a bad analogy. You can be aware that it hurts, but until you actually get hit you won't know what that pain feels like. Nothing say it like first-hand experience. WC uses deflections , not blocks Two things - firstly, when you reference defending then counter, that's mising the point. The idea should be simultaneous defense and attack.Secondly - if you look around you'll fnd that same idea in a lot of martial arts, just either not understood or not taught as a concept to a lot of students. For example, the oft-quoted 'block' in karate with a forearm across the body and parallel to the ground that goes upwards (don't know the name, sorry) is actually asimultaneous strike - it's just understood as a simple blocking movement for the first 3-5 years in most places as the concept is generically not taught immediately (i recently started training with a former karate guy who studied for 8 years or so, and he's made me aware of a lot of misunderstandings that occur crss-art) wc stance is weak to takedowns / WCs mobility is far inferior to say a boxer's who moves on his balls and can move in and out.(WCs footwork in close combat on the other hand is great For the first bit do you mean the pigeon-toed stance tha you do the forms and Chi-Sau in? If so then no wonder, that really is not a fighting stance at all. It's good for training as it strengthens your quads/adductors, but if i was getting into a fight i would never adopt that as a starting pose, same as i wouldn't try to chi-sau my opponent to death! I find the one leg forwards with 100% weight on rear foot a much better fighting pose, and actually better than a lot of stances for mobility and avoiding takedowns - they go for front leg you can remove it almost immediately, and if they go for rear lef they have to go past my hands...not perfect, but better than a lot out there. Also, the balls of the feet reference...in your footwork you should also turn on the balls of your feet, that is where the prime contact with the floor is... yes the WC stance is not as constantly mobile as a boxer or other style who moves constantly, but if you are in your stance correctly then you should be able to move very quickly - your quads should provide a lot of explosive power if they are developed well. Other things too, like the 'strike at sensitive areas' or 'go to the oppoents blind-side' concepts they're not exclusive to WC in the slightest, and i think if you spoke to most martial artists and asked them they would say they would hit someone to drop them as quickly as possible by striking in the most opportune spot, and that if they could they would always like to be behind, or to the side of the opponent rather than face-to-face...it's common sense. Don't get me wrong, i love what i do, and there are a lot of things that are good about WC, but to state that WC is better because it does this and other arts don't is a bridge too far - most of the system is taken from other arts and adapted/put together to form a style that does not rely on strength or power. Love the enthusiasm, not the one-upsmanship
First of all the "Do u need to get punched to know it hurts?????" statement means exactly what it says that you dont need to get punched to know it hurts.Of course until you actually get hit you won't know what that pain feels like but what i mean is that you dont need to get punched in the first place if you know its something you need to avoid. i mentioned deflections-and you succesfully added attack and defence- in opposition to ring sports which mostly use gloves to defend. The point is that boxing and thai-boxing techniques have developed according to the rules of the game. That means for example a boxer isnt trained to go directly to the blind side after he checks the punch. The discusion i have started is basicaly between WC and 'ring sports' and no doubt there are similar techniques in other traditional-selfdefense-arts.
If a fully trained boxer hits you on the chin there is no need for him to go to the blind spot as chances are your kissing the mat. Nothing wrong with a bit of passion for your art, but please take the blinders off
Unfortunately for you (and others) Yes, you do need to get punched to see how it hurts. Its not a simple case of taking the impact and acknowledging the pain. It can disorientate you, you lose concentration. You suddenly get "gun-shy" (meaning you flinch). This wont stop after your first punch to the face, this can go on for quite a while. Its a form of conditioning, when you have experienced it enough, you know what to expect and then adapt and deal. Much like your "Chi-sau" sparring, I bet when you first started you weren't slapping away at full speed were you? Its the mindset you need to learn. Its easy to say "expect the unexpected" when you never knew what could've been round the corner. Couple of days ago, while sparring I took a shin to the eye. Its been a while since I took a head kick and was dazed but not confused and carried on sparring. It reminded me of when I took my first head kick which was a lot weaker than this one and I cried like a baby, but it helped me to carry on as I now know how to get through the experience of stinging pain in the eye and wooziness and also to remind myself to keep my hands up!. Not necessarily but yes there is that possibility and you need to train to get out of the thai clinch. Which should be quite simple for you to learn through your chi-sau training. however once again, when you feel it straight from an expert its a whole new experience. A typical question from those which are inexperienced / ill-informed in mixed martial arts. Grapplers need to learn how to strike and strikers needed to learn how to grapple. (to over simplify) You've kind of contradicted yourself there. You state that in a bare knuckle fight you cant take a weak strike but in the ring is routine? Just to assure you (as a person who does spar heavily with gloves and is employed in a profession where I get into/observe the aftermath of scraps). Gloves are there for the protection of the hands and not to the face. So although they look "weak" they are far from "being" weak. However from your own admission that you have not taken a strike to the face in such circumstances it can be easily confused betweened the two. But just in case... for example. Professional boxers use 8-10oz gloves, which is still quite well padded, yet broken noses and knockouts are still frequent. They have to spar with up to 18oz gloves to prevent injuries to their training partners. Imagine what their "routine" and "weak" jabs will do to us when not gloved?
Not really. I do JKD and I'm more inclined to clinch up than to stick hands. As civilized Martial Artists, we inevitably must come to the conclusion that all Martial Arts are equal, and that the quality of a Martial Art boil down to the quality of training and the quality of the practitioners. This leads us to the inevitable conclusion that there is no intrinsically bad Martial Art, only bad teachers and practitioners, and that any Martial Art can be effective if it is trained in an effective manner. In addition, it leads us to the inevitable conclusion that the quality of a Martial Art as a whole is defined by the aggregate quality of the group. Arts with many groups of skilled exponents, who train and fight with skill are considered to be effective arts. Those with few groups of skilled exponents, who eat twinkies in their off time and practice without contact, effort or application are considered to be ineffective arts. Thus, Wing Chun is also defined by the aggregate skill of its groups. Thankfully, the internet has given us a viable way of sampling the skill of those various groups. For Wing Chun, that sampling has been very, very bad. Look up Wing Chun. You will see reel after reel of demos, staged fights, drills, and chi sau, all ineligible indicators of the quality of your Martial Art. Anything staged is ineligible. If you look really hard you'll even find the hard core full contact, Wing Chun fighting, in which many Wing Chun practitioners display a lack of the basic principles of fighting, like, step back when someone tries to punch you. I mean let's face it. Without further evidence, we must resort to what we have, which clearly shows that Wing Chun sucks. As Gary Shambrooke says, "Wing Chun is lazy man's Kung fu." People don't learn Wing Chun to train hard and learn how to fight. They do it for the one hour weirdo social hour. They do it so they can say they are "getting in shape." They do it so they can claim to be bad ass, which leads to the massive inferiority complex that the Wing Chun style bestows upon it's exponents. Let's see here, what was the premise of the thread? Wing Chun is better than sporting arts? What's with the inferiority complex dude? Why the need to talk about how Wing Chun is better than other arts? Could it be that you are standing around, drinking gatorade rather than training hard and learning how to fight? If Wing Chun is so much better than other arts, stop talking about how much better it is, and prove it. Let's be honest. Wing Chun is to Martial Arts what Mississippi is to Education (Mississippi has the worst public school system in the United States, for all you foreigners). There are literally no redeeming exponents who are out there busting heads (besides Alan Orr's group). Kung Fu has San Shou, Taekwondo has head-busting competitions. Silat even has some decent fights. Wing Chun doesn't have jack. You don't even have to prove that it's better than other arts. You just have to prove that it isn't worse than all the other arts. Hell, just prove it's better than Ninjutsu. Prey on the weak or whatever.
