Yeah...to learn how to hurt someone with a WC punch takes a lot longer that 5 minutes (5 years maybe?). Dunno what WC people do if they get in a fight in that time though? Get beat up I 'spose.
I refuse to be baited so easily. But in case you want to troll for Sketco's in future we're fond of shiny things. Go fish
I just don't understand the logic. If something takes longer to learn without any noticable increase in performance, compared to something that is more readily applicable, what's the point? Given that WC is supposed to be about efficiency then that would seem a very inefficent use of time to me. Given that there isn't a credible argument or fight clip in the world that puts WC guys as better punchers than boxers where's the advantage in punching like a chunner if it takes longer to be dangerous with it?
I mean I can see the case for taking longer to learn something if the result was some sort of superiority. Handling a halberd would probably be a lot harder to learn than handling a simple staff but the end result would be a much more deadly fighter in the long run. But that's not the case here is it? Quite the opposite in some ways as the chunners seem to be inferior at punching if anything.
Oh come on, the extended time is to learn trapping. I have decent footwork and I know how to punch but having traps and covers is a huge advantage. But you cant just "incorporate it" so you'll be annoyed and next we;'ll hear is how WC is a rubbish style...
To be honest I think trapping is a complex answer to a fairly simple problem. Namely a physical barrier is between you and a target. Boxing answers the same problem by punching in combination. If you can't hit one target use another punch to a target that is open.
Because the straight punch isn't as good used a finishing shot like most chunners assume. If you watch the dvds by Sifu Gary Lam he mentions more than once that the straight punches are short, fast, and good for jamming the opponent along the centerline but not as good at being finishing punches. Consolidating what my sifu and si-hing have said: Once you have him trapped or off angle you can hit him like this even though this is not Wing Chun because in fighting when you have proper angle and control you just hit him. You can kind of see the same thing in MMA. The strikes from the ground positions have evolved because no one cares how you hit them just THAT you hit them once you have superior position to do so. So even though a hook isn't technically Wing Chun I've never been told not to use it... just that it's not technically wing chun and that while I'm training wing chun to focus more on the wing chun stuff. During sparring if I can hit them, I hit them. Wing Chun doesn't teach headbutts but I use them in sparring if I have an opening for them. Simple, direct, efficient. I've thrown in joint locks from aikido, leg trips, takedowns....
I feel the same... If you see an opening/opportunity use it effectively and w/o hesitation... If that means that you will have to use technique outside your comfort area/training experience, do it!!! Think outside the box...
I don't know. It seems many martial arts have become stuck in their ways. Take boxing. It used to include a fair amount of wrestling in its bare knuckle days. Now if you were to reintroduce that into boxing folks would say 'but that's not boxing.' For me I learn martial arts, not just Wing Chun. All learning is good.
In wing chun trapping and repositioning answers the same issue in pretty much the same way... If you can't hit one target shift to a different position so you can either strike to that target or shift to a different position so that you can strike to another target. The difference is that in wing chun the preferable way to hit someone is when you have control of them... just like the preferable way to throw a knee is generally when you have a hold of your opponent, not throwing out a flying knee.
? i was answering why boxers say that wrestling isnt boxing. because boxing has defined itself as a sport with a ruleset in which wrestling isnt allowed. WC on the other hand is largely just a system, not a sport with a ruleset. the reason WC cant be made effective as WC is because the best way to test it is against other strikers. if it does badly, you modify it and try again. if you modify it and it works however, many WC guys will tell you its no longer WC because you modified it. therefore what you're doing isnt WC, so WC cant be made effective if its defined as WC
What I was saying is that just because something is NOT a sport with ruleset, doesn't mean it's suddenly any less limited. If you don't have rules dictating that you cannot use X, Y, or Z, what's stopping you from learning X, Y, or Z if you feel the need?
as i said. This is why WC is limited. or many styles. it is limited because practitioners limit it. nothing stops you learning X Y Z like elbows ad head butts, but you cannot saying they're techniques of the sport we know as boxing because you cannot use them in the sport.
