What's your beef? (Wing Chun Thread)

**whybother** · Posted On: 2/21/2006 9:45am

Originally Posted by Astrosmurf

I think its is mainly the claims many Chunners make about the art that is silly.

Wing Chun imo has some useful techniques, tactics and training methods in its traditional curriculum but without alive training people are just using them for dancing. It is also concerned with a rather limited range, groundfighting is not included at all and at longe range it is rather limited. At closer range its techiques are often somewhat difficult to use with boxing gloves, with small grappling gloves it is much easier. It is (for me at least) especially hard to use against a mobile and skilled defensive fighter but works much better when counter-attacking someone who is offensive.

Yes, it might be more accurate to say that it's not wing chun but the people who practice wing chun that are silly. ;)

Of course wing chun doesn't have groundfighting, but what makes you say it has "some" useful things? -- this is just another claim without any supporting evidence. How do you know they are useful? It seems to me that we can only say they are useful if people are making them work. If people are making them work, why can't we see any evidence of these "things" at work?

**whybother** · Posted On: 2/21/2006 9:55am

Originally Posted by Shawarma

And will you actually go looking for any evidence that WC is not the bullshit you believe it to be? If you don't, you're not really entitled to hold that opinion. It's like saying that you hate black people without having ever met any black people or looked for anything good in the black community.

No, it's not the same at all -- when there is no evidence supporting a claim, and in fact all the available evidence seems to refute the claim, a person is not being prejudiced or closed-minded to take the position that the claim is false. This is just being rational. As I said, it is open-minded to be open to the possiblity that our view, whatever it is, may be wrong (are you open to the possibility that wing chun may be silly? If not, then you are closed-minded!). And if I see some compelling evidence that supports the view that wing chun can produce decent fighters, then I'll change my view. Until then, I'll just go on believing that the world is indeed round and that wing chun sucks. Oh, wait, should I go on a quest to find evidence that the world is actually flat or wing chun is decent? Or is it up to the flat-worlders and wing chunners to convince me?

**garbanzo** · Posted On: 2/21/2006 12:35pm

Originally Posted by TehDeadlyDimMak

If you can post videos that show WC working effectively against a resisting opponent (sparring etc.) that'd be great.

Compliant drills and such will not help WC's reputation on this board though.

How about it?

I, for one, have gone looking for evidence that Wing Chun is not bullshit.

I have yet to find a WC clip like the hypothetical one described above.

Does such a thing exist?

Does anyone know where such a thing may be found?

:gaygay:

**Shawarma** · Posted On: 2/21/2006 12:44pm

Maybe you should try fighting some chunners rather than judging it on shittacular clips on the internet. That would actually be worthy as evidence.

**EternalRage** · Posted On: 2/21/2006 12:49pm

I've sparred/trained with a number of them. The ratio of good ones to bad ones was about like 3/20.

**Firebrand** · Posted On: 2/21/2006 1:21pm

whybother posted.

Of course wing chun doesn't have groundfighting, but what makes you say it has "some" useful things? -- this is just another claim without any supporting evidence. How do you know they are useful?

Well, Askari did post that video of chain punching used effectively in that UFC fight. There are some good techniques in there if they are practiced correctly.

**Firebrand** · Posted On: 2/21/2006 1:38pm

Bruce also used it back in the day. There is evidence out there of its effectiveness. Just not many recently and few of the NHB type caught on film.

Wing Chun is not as effective as Boxing because of the way the vast majority of its people train and because of its inherent limitations (which Omega covered pretty well in his award winning thread). But it is bullshido to say that it is all useless.

**zenturkey** · Posted On: 2/21/2006 2:58pm

Removed this post, please disregard

**Tom Kagan** · Posted On: 2/21/2006 3:35pm

Originally Posted by Firebrand

whybother posted.

Well, Askari did post that video of chain punching used effectively in that UFC fight. There are some good techniques in there if they are practiced correctly.

This would only be relevant, if at all, if Vitor Belfort were trained in the art to which you are using his performance as validation.

**Dark_Glitch** · Posted On: 2/22/2006 12:30am

Originally Posted by zenturkey

http://www.freewebs.com/authenticwin...demy/index.htm

I went by this place one evening, it was downright comical!

What
the
hell?

Did you fight anyone? If so, what did they do?

That friggin scares me. The very Idea that someone would put that song...

This has to be a joke. Tell me that was a joke, cause there is no way any sane person would put that as....

....

Stop reading this thread and go train you lazy bastards. In the time that you read this, I've done 100 crunches. :D