For Chunners and Ninjas

**eyebeams** · Posted On: 6/07/2006 10:41am

Originally Posted by shinbushi

The only vid I currently have is from when we 1st switched over to aliveness and tey are both low Kyus so looking back it is bad.
I was disappointed that of all the dojos I invited to join (10 in all) only the one's I listed.

One thing I'd like to see more of all around in any clips is an an indication of how long the students have been around.

**Shuma-Gorath** · Posted On: 6/07/2006 10:42am

Originally Posted by eyebeams

Well, you're not particularly inclined to try, are you?

No, but I also wasn't the one complaining about it.

**Tom Kagan** · Posted On: 6/07/2006 10:43am

Originally Posted by eyebeams

Well, you're not particularly inclined to try, are you?

I have.

**Fighting Cephalopod** · Posted On: 6/07/2006 10:52am

Originally Posted by eyebeams

Well, you're not particularly inclined to try, are you?

The preponderance of evidence is that Wing Chun sucks. If someone is interested in claiming otherwise, I would say the burden of proof is on them, not us. People claiming Wing Chun sucks can point to an awful lot of video that supports their point very easily. Until people claiming Wing Chun is good and useful can point to ANY video supporting their point, I suggest they forego argument.

**eyebeams** · Posted On: 6/07/2006 10:59am

Originally Posted by fatherdog

The preponderance of evidence is that Wing Chun sucks. If someone is interested in claiming otherwise, I would say the burden of proof is on them, not us. People claiming Wing Chun sucks can point to an awful lot of video that supports their point very easily. Until people claiming Wing Chun is good and useful can point to ANY video supporting their point, I suggest they forego argument.

As "evidence," actually means "stuff on the internet," in most discussions here, my point stands. I have mixed feelings about Wing Chun after meeting practitioners, but that's not really transferrable to broad discussion.

**Shuma-Gorath** · Posted On: 6/07/2006 12:04pm

Originally Posted by eyebeams

As "evidence," actually means "stuff on the internet," in most discussions here, my point stands. I have mixed feelings about Wing Chun after meeting practitioners, but that's not really transferrable to broad discussion.

I can find positive examples of other arts on the internet. Is wing chun just unable to use a computer?

**eyebeams** · Posted On: 6/08/2006 9:01pm

Originally Posted by Shuma-Gorath

I can find positive examples of other arts on the internet. Is wing chun just unable to use a computer?

You're apparently unable to use BS' search engines to find things relevant to discussion. The other thread clearly showed that. Your choice of samples isn't really their problem then, is it?

**Phrost** · Posted On: 6/08/2006 9:16pm

Umm, eyebeams...

Originally Posted by Phrost

Why is it after:

10+ years of Internet use by the general population
10 Trillion Terrabytes of data transferred all over the world*
4+ years of us pleading for it...

...we still haven't seen Wing Chun in action that even remotely resembles the Wing Chun taught in the forms, much less Wing Chun being used successfully as a striking art against a credible kickboxer/Muay Thai guy?

Seriously, all we're getting is choreographed bullshit and chunners fighting other chunners or using BJJ and calling it Wing Chun.

**eyebeams** · Posted On: 6/08/2006 11:10pm

Yes yes, Phrost, I'm well aware of the amazing goalpost-switching, criteria-stacking saga this has become as you do, in fact, find credible clips. I remember lurking around and reading about how WC needed examples of live training to be taken seriously. Once that came out, you wanted examples of WC winning. Now that you've posted an example of *that* on your own front page you want:

...we still haven't seen Wing Chun in action that even remotely resembles the Wing Chun taught in the forms

,

I understand that your definition of CMA is "stuff from a kung fu movie" and thus, not really worth taking seriously.

much less Wing Chun being used successfully as a striking art against a credible kickboxer/Muay Thai guy?

I love the "credible" dodge, since that caveat is never applied on the numerous occasions when, say, somebody uses BJJ or Muay Thai against an obvious tomato can here. In fact, you archive those vids for the sake nutriding triumphalism. Well -- you don't archive the ones that challenge that POV, I see . . .

Anyway:

http://www.alanorr.com/htdocs/images...s%20clips.html

shows that you haven't been looking very hard, have you?

Seriously, all we're getting is choreographed bullshit

Sure. It's a legitimate problem with the art.

and chunners fighting other chunners or using BJJ and calling it Wing Chun.

Oh yeah, the one armbar = BJJ again. You're a very silly man.

This **** always boils down to the same thing: Bad analysis that fails to distinguish between the validity of the delivery system and the culture of the art. But unless there is a meeting point for people to train at and record how the delivery system works in a culture of live training, it's hard to tell which is which.