Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is It Even Possible To Define Bad Wing Chun/ Ving Tsun?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Is It Even Possible To Define Bad Wing Chun/ Ving Tsun?

    We have this revolving door of people trying to prove that _ing _un is an effective MA, sometimes posting the competition vids resembling amateur kickboxing. Then people say, well he lost, but his wingchun sucked; then others say, well he won, but his wingchun wasn't wingchun. And on it goes � (Kudos to the guys in the videos, btw.)


    I'm going to go out on a limb here and say (heaven forbid I offend someone) that it is less than likely that wingchun is an ultra-effective fighting system. So just for the purposes of this post, let's not define �good� as �effective� in fighting application. I can hear the stink already! Let's also rule out the lineage deal. So...



    How do we define �bad� wingchun now? You see a guy. He says he's done wingchun for several years. Which criteria would you use to tell if his wingchun sucks?



    You could nitpick with things like how his toes are pointing, whether he was taught the same as you, but what does that matter compared to say, someone who is doing the same way as you but has only learned for a couple of months, or someone who had done nothing but reading a couple books and practicing with his sister. What is the defining line? Is there one we could agree on?

    #2
    You are posting like it is 2007....oh.... wait...nevermind.

    Comment


      #3
      A good wing chunner beats a bad wing chunner when they chun at each other.

      Comment


        #4
        Words are unnecessary.

        Wing Chun defines itself, every time we witness it.

        Comment


          #5
          No true Scotsman would define bad wing chun.

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by Permalost View Post
            A good wing chunner beats a bad wing chunner when they chun at each other.
            Is that anything like scissoring?

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by DimmedSum View Post
              Is that anything like scissoring?
              Forearm size tells all.

              Comment


                #8
                Wait for the good ____ ____ come forward.

                Until then, there is very little to worry about.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by kalavic View Post
                  You see a guy. He says he's done wingchun for several years. Which criteria would you use to tell if his wingchun sucks?
                  Well, you see a guy, who says he's done wingchun for several years.










































                  The End
                  sigpic

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Postulate: Good martial arts teach you how to fight effectively in their respective ranges.

                    Corollary 1: Good -ing -un teaches you to fight effectively in the standing range.

                    Corollary 2: Bad -ing -un does not teach you to fight effectively in the standing range.

                    Caveat: You must actually fight (spar) in an alive manner to answer the question whether you can fight.

                    We're done here.
                    Shut the hell up and train.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      What JNP said.

                      Basically...as a martial art...I define good wing chun as the ability to win a fight against even a partially trained opponent.

                      I rarely see good wing chun.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by Southpaw View Post
                        What JNP said.

                        Basically...as a martial art...I define good wing chun as the ability to win a fight against even a partially trained opponent.

                        I rarely see good wing chun.
                        I've seen it in full contact on the leitai...occassionally.

                        Originally posted by Southpaw View Post
                        What JNP said.

                        Basically...as a martial art...I define good wing chun as the ability to win a fight against even a partially trained opponent.

                        I rarely see good wing chun.
                        I've seen it in full contact on the leitai...occassionally.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by It is Fake View Post
                          You are posting like it is 2007....oh.... wait...nevermind.
                          I see your point:) In all fairness, I have read a lot of the work on the site done by you on similar questions. I am much obliged. Here's the thing though: everyone always evades answering what wing chun is. Like you said in Southpaw's thread: it's buried in 15 threads, and I'm trying to approach it from another angle to get some productive answers.

                          There's plenty that everyone agrees on, that any martial art needs to have the martial part in it, which means aliveness in sparring to keep it real. I hear that, I got that back in 2007, and even before that. That it can't and shouldn't look like it's coming out of a demo or movie, also no news to anyone. But there has to be some kind of identity.

                          Let's take yoga as an example. This isn't a martial art, but it can have a great positive influence on your fighting. It's also full of wu. Nobody gives it a hard time though, because nobody makes claims about it as a fighting system. It can be easily defined and graded against itself as good or bad in a way that isn't directly related to fighting ability. Likewise you could have a "good" fighter who has absolutely terrible yoga.

                          I think making a similar distinction with wing chun is in order. I don't really consider it a true martial art, rather an art with martial aspects in it. That doesn't mean that you can't have a great martial artist who is a wing chun guy. And a wing chun MARTIAL ART school should teach how to fight.

                          I really value my training in wing chun. It has literally saved my ass in some self defense situations. But the thing is, I put in a lot of work beyond what was done in class to make it applicable. I also had some experience in wrestling, karate, boxing and different styles of kung fu, which, although very limited, had a big influence. I'm nothing awesome, but I was able to take what I had learned from my sifus and form it into something cohesive enough to get me at a level to have a clear advantage over your average joe. All of the chunners I respect have had to go through a similar process. I have some sambo, judo, and boxing friends who never even took an interest in self-defense but theirs works "out of the box."

                          The way I see it, it has plenty of value, but it needs to be viewed in the right perpective. If you put the fight effectivity goggles on a less than effective martial art, you essentially just erase that martial art. Anyone serious who realizes there are more effective martial arts will avoid it. Sound familiar?

                          Comment


                            #14
                            How does it have value when it needs several types of different arts to supplement it to an effective level? It's begs the question of why bother with it in the first place.
                            Ne Obliviscaris

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Originally posted by kalavic View Post
                              I see your point:) In all fairness, I have read a lot of the work on the site done by you on similar questions. I am much obliged. Here's the thing though: everyone always evades answering what wing chun is. Like you said in Southpaw's thread: it's buried in 15 threads, and I'm trying to approach it from another angle to get some productive answers.

                              There's plenty that everyone agrees on, that any martial art needs to have the martial part in it, which means aliveness in sparring to keep it real. I hear that, I got that back in 2007, and even before that. That it can't and shouldn't look like it's coming out of a demo or movie, also no news to anyone. But there has to be some kind of identity.

                              Let's take yoga as an example. This isn't a martial art, but it can have a great positive influence on your fighting. It's also full of wu. Nobody gives it a hard time though, because nobody makes claims about it as a fighting system. It can be easily defined and graded against itself as good or bad in a way that isn't directly related to fighting ability. Likewise you could have a "good" fighter who has absolutely terrible yoga.

                              I think making a similar distinction with wing chun is in order. I don't really consider it a true martial art, rather an art with martial aspects in it. That doesn't mean that you can't have a great martial artist who is a wing chun guy. And a wing chun MARTIAL ART school should teach how to fight.

                              I really value my training in wing chun. It has literally saved my ass in some self defense situations. But the thing is, I put in a lot of work beyond what was done in class to make it applicable. I also had some experience in wrestling, karate, boxing and different styles of kung fu, which, although very limited, had a big influence. I'm nothing awesome, but I was able to take what I had learned from my sifus and form it into something cohesive enough to get me at a level to have a clear advantage over your average joe. All of the chunners I respect have had to go through a similar process. I have some sambo, judo, and boxing friends who never even took an interest in self-defense but theirs works "out of the box."

                              The way I see it, it has plenty of value, but it needs to be viewed in the right perpective. If you put the fight effectivity goggles on a less than effective martial art, you essentially just erase that martial art. Anyone serious who realizes there are more effective martial arts will avoid it. Sound familiar?
                              Are essays like this symptomatic of good or bad wing chun?

                              Comment

                              Collapse

                              Edit this module to specify a template to display.

                              Working...
                              X