What's your beef? (Wing Chun Thread)

**Dark_Glitch** · Posted On: 2/22/2006 12:32am

And why is this thread up to 11 pages anyways??!

Go do something else!

Seriously! This wasn't even supposed to go on this long! You guys really need to go train. I come back from class today and see this...wth? Don't you have anything better to do?

Really, just ignore me, I'm trying to be funny...haha.

**TehDeadlyDimMak** · Posted On: 2/22/2006 12:37am

Originally Posted by Firebrand

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.

Bruce Lee cannot be used as an example... he's fit enough that he can probably beat most people in his weight class with Contemporary Wushu...

Also, Bruce Lee's fighting style does not really resemble WC as his experience in the system was pretty limited. And his fights were never against decent grapplers or fighters of the caliber of the average MMA guy today. Look how he fared with Gene Lebell for example.

Unless WC guys start redeeming themselves for the stream of examples similar to the ones in the Bullshido video archives Bullshido will continue being extremely polarized against WC.

**I aint punchy!?** · Posted On: 2/22/2006 12:53am

All depends on if you have the 'real' Wing Chun...

send me $50 and I'll grade you to black sash in it.

**supercrap** · Posted On: 2/22/2006 1:37am

Wagyu is my beef and wing chun SUCKS!

**Astrosmurf** · Posted On: 2/22/2006 1:46am

Originally Posted by whybother

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?

True. But at least there is a difference in degree of sillyness between claiming that some things in it are useful compared to claiming stuff like: wing chun is a superior striking style, it is complete in itself you will not need anything else ever, it is too deadly to spar, wing chun is so fucking unique etc.

The stuff thats useful in wing chun can be found in most other styles as well. The basic stuff like: Punching somebody while keeping your other hand as a guard. Pulling down an incoming strike and striking over it yourself. Keeping your guard up and throwing a kick to the opponents leg. Stuff that is in any striking style.

**EternalRage** · Posted On: 2/22/2006 2:03am

I like the bong sao (even though it exposes your ribs like crazy) and larp sao. Aside from that, didn't really take much else from it.

**whybother** · Posted On: 2/22/2006 7:59am

Originally Posted by Astrosmurf

True. But at least there is a difference in degree of sillyness between claiming that some things in it are useful compared to claiming stuff like: wing chun is a superior striking style, it is complete in itself you will not need anything else ever, it is too deadly to spar, wing chun is so fucking unique etc.

The stuff thats useful in wing chun can be found in most other styles as well. The basic stuff like: Punching somebody while keeping your other hand as a guard. Pulling down an incoming strike and striking over it yourself. Keeping your guard up and throwing a kick to the opponents leg. Stuff that is in any striking style.

The silliness exists because people aren't sparring/fighting with good people outside of their little circle. If they were, they'd see the silliness for themselves and want to get rid of it (so as to not get their asses kicked) I'm sure If we were to go through the trashbins of silly martial arts (wing chun, aikido, and so on), we'd find a few things that might be useful. The problem is the small amount of useful stuff is mixed in with loads of ****. If the useful stuff is in other, solid styles anyway, why not practice those and avoid getting the loads of ****?

**Astrosmurf** · Posted On: 2/22/2006 8:55am

Originally Posted by whybother

The silliness exists because people aren't sparring/fighting with good people outside of their little circle. If they were, they'd see the silliness for themselves and want to get rid of it (so as to not get their asses kicked)

This is correct.

Originally Posted by whybother

If the useful stuff is in other, solid styles anyway, why not practice those and avoid getting the loads of ****?

On a functional level (for fighting), yes, choose the art with the highest ratio of solid material.

On a practical level the decision what to train will be coloured by how training is done at the particular clubs available, how you like the people there, cost, schedule etc. This is beside the discussion on the merits of a style but important when making an actual choice on what to train.