Wing Chun? hard style. Wing Tsun? softer than Aikido. Flipside? practically limp.

[Tonuzaba]

M1K3, you seem the have caught the Virus(TM)... ;-)

[Kamon Guy]

Centerline Theory, Forms & Wooden Dummy work, and Chi Sao are what makes every WC/VT/WT essentially the same, although they may have minor differences. ITF, WTF, whateverthefuck TKD, all pretty much the same, with minor differences. Yoshinkan, Shodokan, TreehuggingCrystalshardwearingKisociety Aikido, all the same, with minor differences. You might note, though, that all of the aforementioned have "lineage" and "system" wars from time-to-time about who has teh r34l system and who has teh f4k3. And they all pretty much suck, IMO. All are based on principles that make them fail as useful, alive systems. All practiced with compliancy and rarely with full contact. All hold forms as some holy grail of fight preparation.

You want an intelligent discussion on WC, then admit it's faults. If you think slapping a hundred times in a row will really put down a determined attacker, that's fault one. The chain punches with no hip rotation and no shoulder rotation simply don't produce enough power to affect a trained opponent.

If you think trapping range is so important that you practice chi sao for half of your training time and use it as an example of how effective your art is, that's fault 2. Trapping range is a split second range in most fights and should not warrant the hours of chi sao at that distance. The more useful ranges of punch, kick, and clinch would be so much better to train in, since they are not transitional like trapping.

I could easily coutinue with the faults of _ing _un, but why? These two alone account for nearly 100% of _ing _un supporter's claims of superiority, so debunking these ideals is tantamount to debunking 99.99% of the theories in _ing _un. And these have been debunked time and again.

I think there are numerous faults in wing chun, but there are also faults in other arts. Wing chun is definately no better than any other art. It gives you some useful tools like sensitivity, fast hands, ideas about positioning, etc.
Yet it is weak at long range and weak in grappling.

I like your point about chi sao ranges. I ensure that whenever I train I am working different ranges. As I said, long range is limited in wing chun, so I tend to either close or switch to another art. Chi sao is not a fighting tool. It helps you build sensitivity and develop structure, but you aren't going to chi sao someone to death!

I don't think the theories of wing chun are rubbish, if you are talking about the four main theories
Centre line - if you hit any point down someone's centre line, you will do more damage than hitting any other part of that persons body
Economy of motion - big movements are a waste of energy an will leave you out of breath
Tension - if you use strength, the stronger person will win (and you will use more energy)
Simultaneous attack and defence - a 'block, then punch' mentality makes it easier for your opponent to trade punches with you

This stuff is mostly common sense, but I like the fact that it is broken down to this format.

[Necroth]

Yet it is weak at long range and weak in grappling.

So, it's weak at everything but punch and trap range, you're saying? Just so we have that point locked in.

I like your point about chi sao ranges. I ensure that whenever I train I am working different ranges. As I said, long range is limited in wing chun, so I tend to either close or switch to another art. Chi sao is not a fighting tool. It helps you build sensitivity and develop structure, but you aren't going to chi sao someone to death!

Except every _ing _un proponent I've ever read, heard, or seen talks at length about chi sao, how much chi sao they do, how important it is, and how it makes one "sensitive". Problem: you could be uber sensitive at that range and it just won't matter. Again, the range of chi sao is trapping range, just outside of clinch, just inside of punch. It's transitional, at best, and at worst it's useless. Try trapping a fully committed jab from an equally trained full contact fighter sometime and tell me it's useful.

I don't think the theories of wing chun are rubbish, if you are talking about the four main theories
Centre line - if you hit any point down someone's centre line, you will do more damage than hitting any other part of that persons body

Kidney's are outside of centerline. Kneecap, outside. Ribcage, outside. Femoral and other leg arteries, outside. All of which are common targets of full contact arts, all of which can cripple if struck full force. Centerline Theory is just that, a theory. Sure, some major stuff is centralized on the body. But it's not the only place to cripple or harm an opponent, nor is it the most efficient in fact. Even using "Straightline" theory, a subset of your later "Economy of Motion" theory, you will not that striking any of thse peripheral, non-centerline targets takes less distance and less work because one or moreof them is in line and lies along any straightline path to the centerline. Ie., it's more efficient to strike these than to continue foward and into the centerline in an opponent who is even remotely angular to you.

Economy of motion - big movements are a waste of energy an will leave you out of breath

And yet, if you jab me and I take a small step in or out to slip it, then deliver a hook punch, I will have effectively countered with both a small motion and a large motion. And it totally blows the "straightline over curved path" theory, because the whole thing is built on straight punching being faster than curved punching. This would be true, if curved punches weren't primarily used as counters or follow-through to straight punches. I don't just loop a hook out there and hope it lands, I set it up with an "entry". I may roundhouse to the thigh/knee, then follow with a jab, then a high hook. Note, the kick closes range from long into mid/punch, the jab sets up an opponent's "defend, move or take it" position and the hook follows up with power and knockout force. So the entire argument made by most "economy" theorists is that there is no place for hooks because their chain punch, straight punches, or (for those truly deluded nuthuggers) One Inch Punch will always beat out ANY curved path attack, which is simply not true. Otherwise boxers would use jab/cross only and be killing people on a frequent basis, if we are to believe that straight is best and chain = death, as is purported by the vast majority of _ing _un practicioners.

Tension - if you use strength, the stronger person will win (and you will use more energy)

strength does account for much in physical exertion, though not all. Truly, efficiency counts for far more. Which will win out, statistically speaking, more times: a spinning axe kick or a roundhouse kick? Which is stronger? Which is more efficient? The spinning kick is stronger, but in the end it's the fact that the roundhouse is more efficient that wins out, regardless of "strength". A better theory would be "Efficiency, above all else, is key. The more efficient strike will deliver better odds of completion, better delivery of power, and better, more optimum, performance towards the goal."

Simultaneous attack and defence - a 'block, then punch' mentality makes it easier for your opponent to trade punches with you

Boxing called, it wants it's "slip and counterpunch" back. Muay Thai called, it wants it's "Teep to thigh against Roundhouse" back. _ing _un doesn't have the patent on counters, in fact there's not an art I know of that doesn't teach the following efficiency structure:

Slip & Counter
Parry & Counter
Block & Counter
Move with attack
Take full force

In order of efficiency, these are the goals you should set for every attack that is thrown at you. Slipping will negate an attack entirely, making the opponent's attack fully nullified with no delivery of force. Parrying will lessen the attack and redirect it's force elsewhere. Blocking will nullify the force of an attack at the cost of the blocking apparatus. Moving with the force of the attack will lessen the blow marginally. And taking a full force attack is never a good option, though it happens all too often. Regardless, one might notice that Mr. Miyagi's age-old advice "Best way to avoid punch, No be there" is strangely not mentioned in the "block, then punch" mentality you speak of. Apparently, _ing _un forgot about just not even being there. So, again, theory fails before practice from arts that do it better and harder than _ing _un.

This stuff is mostly common sense, but I like the fact that it is broken down to this format.

Common sense or no, it's common sense that for something to work on a regular basis you need to do it on a regular basis. See, I've already stated that _ing _un and arts of it's nature are like becoming a surgeon, but stopping before Residency. Arts with no full contact don't ever train surgery with another surgeon. They just "read the book" and "take the exams", ie. do forms and test for belts by repeating forms. They may "cut open cadavers", but they never "complete a surgery", ie. they may spar light contact, but they claim so many of their techniques are too deadly that they never use these techniques in a fully resistant, fully alive manner against others, both from their art and from other arts.

In the end, _ing _un might have potential if it's practicioners can come to terms with many of their ideas being wrong, or, at the least, presented wrong. But that seems to be like asking them to stop infighting about whose nun was the true nun.

"The Nun that can be named is not the True Nun." And the Daodejing brings it all back again...

[It is Fake]

Contrary to what you are taught there really isn't a hard and soft style.
Second, Yip and Leung do what most old MAers do. They modify their shit as they get rickety and can no longer compete.

The whole OMG if it becomes softer it is better? Please. He got to old to bang and fixed the shit so it didn't hurt. Yes, that's my opinion but aikido was born from the same reasoning.

[Necroth]

Too true indeed, IIF.

[Kamon Guy]

So, it's weak at everything but punch and trap range, you're saying? Just so we have that point locked in....

Yeah, there are no sweeping kicks or long range punching in wing chun, making it pretty useless at long range. But trapping range? I wouldn't limit a range in a bracket called trapping. I could trap someone if there was about a metre between us (full stretch) or up close. Hitting range is more accurate!

Except every _ing _un proponent I've ever read, heard, or seen talks at length about chi sao, how much chi sao they do, how important it is, and how it makes one "sensitive". Problem: you could be uber sensitive at that range and it just won't matter. Again, the range of chi sao is trapping range, just outside of clinch, just inside of punch. It's transitional, at best, and at worst it's useless. Try trapping a fully committed jab from an equally trained full contact fighter sometime and tell me it's useful....

Well I don't want to speak for every art, but we do limited chi sao in Kamon and it is high tempo stuff. Kevin when doing the demo on Saturday mentioned that if you are in a fight you aren't going to wish you'd done more chi sao, you are going to wish you'd have learnt how to hit hard. Chi sao is useful but it is not going to save you in a fight
Of course its not useful against a jab- who said it was? Thats a very random comment
That's like me saying 'try telling me that press ups are useful against someone whos throwing a kick'. Chi sao is a training tool, that is all. It is not a way of fighting

Kidney's are outside of centerline. Kneecap, outside. Ribcage, outside. Femoral and other leg arteries, outside. All of which are common targets of full contact arts, all of which can cripple if struck full force. Centerline Theory is just that, a theory. Sure, some major stuff is centralized on the body. But it's not the only place to cripple or harm an opponent, nor is it the most efficient in fact. Even using "Straightline" theory, a subset of your later "Economy of Motion" theory, you will not that striking any of thse peripheral, non-centerline targets takes less distance and less work because one or moreof them is in line and lies along any straightline path to the centerline. Ie., it's more efficient to strike these than to continue foward and into the centerline in an opponent who is even remotely angular to you....

I think you are thinking of centre line as being a line going through a persons front. The centre line is a 3 dimensional line through a body. If a person is side onto me then I am striking his kidneys. If a person has his back to me, I am striking the spine etc

As you say, it is not the only way to cripple a body, but it is what does the most damage
If you hit someone on the shoulder, he will roll with it (his body will ride the punch)

I have never attacked a leg artery - I just find them hard to pull off on a moving target. If they work for you, then great.

And yet, if you jab me and I take a small step in or out to slip it, then deliver a hook punch, I will have effectively countered with both a small motion and a large motion. And it totally blows the "straightline over curved path" theory, because the whole thing is built on straight punching being faster than curved punching.
...

A good boxer who jabs will almost certainly be ready to follow through with a cross or hook. If you step to the side, he is likely to counter and you will hit him as he hits you

I don't agree that straight lie punching is faster, I think what wing chunners are trying to say is that if they throw a straight punch, it uses less energy then even a tight hook.
If you imagine a small weedy guy fighting a large brute, a hook will probably do nothing.
Whereas a stamping palm to the face/nose will have a bit more of an impact.

This would be true, if curved punches weren't primarily used as counters or follow-through to straight punches. I don't just loop a hook out there and hope it lands, I set it up with an "entry". I may roundhouse to the thigh/knee, then follow with a jab, then a high hook. Note, the kick closes range from long into mid/punch, the jab sets up an opponent's "defend, move or take it" position and the hook follows up with power and knockout force. So the entire argument made by most "economy" theorists is that there is no place for hooks because their chain punch, straight punches, or (for those truly deluded nuthuggers) One Inch Punch will always beat out ANY curved path attack, which is simply not true. Otherwise boxers would use jab/cross only and be killing people on a frequent basis, if we are to believe that straight is best and chain = death, as is purported by the vast majority of _ing _un practicioners....

Hahaha. You are right. I like using hooks when I spar and they are powerful moves. If you are fighting a good boxer, there is no way that you will beat him/block him out with a straight punch. But like I said, it uses less energy and is more direct

Boxing called, it wants it's "slip and counterpunch" back. Muay Thai called, it wants it's "Teep to thigh against Roundhouse" back. _ing _un doesn't have the patent on counters, in fact there's not an art I know of that doesn't teach the following efficiency structure:

Slip & Counter
Parry & Counter
Block & Counter
Move with attack
Take full force

In order of efficiency, these are the goals you should set for every attack that is thrown at you. Slipping will negate an attack entirely, making the opponent's attack fully nullified with no delivery of force. Parrying will lessen the attack and redirect it's force elsewhere. Blocking will nullify the force of an attack at the cost of the blocking apparatus. Moving with the force of the attack will lessen the blow marginally. And taking a full force attack is never a good option, though it happens all too often. Regardless, one might notice that Mr. Miyagi's age-old advice "Best way to avoid punch, No be there" is strangely not mentioned in the "block, then punch" mentality you speak of. Apparently, _ing _un forgot about just not even being there. So, again, theory fails before practice from arts that do it better and harder than _ing _un....

No, I never said that wing chun held the patent on simultaneous attack and defence! I just said it was one of the guidelines. Wing chun did not forget about 'not being there'. In fact if you look at the way most chun schools approach circle step, the important thing is to move. ie if a brute comes charging in with a punch, you shouldn't stand there and try and block the force! As you say, this idea is not exclusive to wing chun. Just one of the principles.

Common sense or no, it's common sense that for something to work on a regular basis you need to do it on a regular basis. See, I've already stated that _ing _un and arts of it's nature are like becoming a surgeon, but stopping before Residency. Arts with no full contact don't ever train surgery with another surgeon. They just "read the book" and "take the exams", ie. do forms and test for belts by repeating forms. They may "cut open cadavers", but they never "complete a surgery", ie. they may spar light contact, but they claim so many of their techniques are too deadly that they never use these techniques in a fully resistant, fully alive manner against others, both from their art and from other arts.

In the end, _ing _un might have potential if it's practicioners can come to terms with many of their ideas being wrong, or, at the least, presented wrong. But that seems to be like asking them to stop infighting about whose nun was the true nun.

"The Nun that can be named is not the True Nun." And the Daodejing brings it all back again...

I agree 100%. I think the trouble with a lot of arts nowadays is that some people don't want to touch each other when trianing. The TKD school I train with at the moment are of a no contact mentality which is frustrating. In Kamon we do fight against resisting opponents but only really at more advanced levels. I feel that if you take a newbie and get them to fight against resistance at basic level it just becomes a mess

[M1K3]

M1K3, you seem the have caught the Virus(TM)... ;-)

Thank you. With most people it is a disfiguring disease but on me it looks good.

[Southpaw]

Contrary to what you are taught there really isn't a hard and soft style.
Second, Yip and Leung do what most old MAers do. They modify their shit as they get rickety and can no longer compete.

The whole OMG if it becomes softer it is better? Please. He got to old to bang and fixed the shit so it didn't hurt. Yes, that's my opinion but aikido was born from the same reasoning.

This is exactly the truth. Yip Man didn't decide softer was better...he just got old and frail and couldn't make harder techniques work.

Anyone who thinks that WC is a 'soft' style (whatever the fuck that means) has never felt a hacking elbow vs. a roundhouse kick.


BTW...I tried to rep IIF for his truthiness but it wouldn't let me and I got a message saying something to the effect of I'm gay and have a crush on him. Good stuff.

[Kung-Fu Joe]

I think you are thinking of centre line as being a line going through a persons front. The centre line is a 3 dimensional line through a body. If a person is side onto me then I am striking his kidneys. If a person has his back to me, I am striking the spine etc

The problem is that the temples, the kidneys, the knee, the femoral nerve and artery, and other such targets do not cease to be good targets just because your opponent's facing no longer places them along the centerline. These are all prime targets, even (and sometimes, especially) when your opponent isn't readily presenting them along his centerline.

Muay Thai and Kyokushin fighters have been demonstrating for decades how effective roundhouse kicks to the opponent's thigh can be.

As you say, it is not the only way to cripple a body, but it is what does the most damage If you hit someone on the shoulder, he will roll with it (his body will ride the punch)

...which is why you don't target the shoulder, generally. Additionally, I don't agree with the "centerline deals most damage" hypothesis in the least. I will posit that a roundhouse kick to the floating ribs is easily just as damaging as a front kick at the same level, and it's much more difficult to sidestep or parry.

I have never attacked a leg artery - I just find them hard to pull off on a moving target. If they work for you, then great.

It's definitely difficult to pull off if you haven't trained your lower-roundhouse well enough, but the best part about attacking the femoral nerve and artery is that after a few of them, you'll find your opponent is becoming less and less of a moving target.

--Joe

[Kamon Guy]

The problem is that the temples, the kidneys, the knee, the femoral nerve and artery, and other such targets do not cease to be good targets just because your opponent's facing no longer places them along the centerline. These are all prime targets, even (and sometimes, especially) when your opponent isn't readily presenting them along his centerline.

Yes they do. If I am facing you and go for a punch to my kidneys, it would involve a badly positioned punch. If you think about boxers in a clinch. They tend to hit each other other in the ribs and kidneys, and whilst I know they have gloves on, these shots do not bring a person down. Whereas a direct strike to the neck can drop a guy. A punch to the face/nose can drop a guy. A punch to the solar plexus (forgive spelling) can drop a guy. A side punch to the kidneys might cause pain, but people will carry on fighting from there.

Muay Thai and Kyokushin fighters have been demonstrating for decades how effective roundhouse kicks to the opponent's thigh can be.

Not really. When I trained kykoshinkai karate, kicks to the thigh would not drop a person (unless it was a black belt vs. a newbie). Generally speaking, there are big people out there and even the most powerful roundhouse will not drop a person. I watched a Cage rage fight on a promotional DVD and one fighter kicked his opponent over and over with hard kicks to the thigh. After a while the fighter's leg went raw, but he was still standing.
I'm not saying roundhouse kicks to thighs and legs are rubbish, its just that you seem to be under some illusion that roundhouse kicks are always good

...which is why you don't target the shoulder, generally. Additionally, I don't agree with the "centerline deals most damage" hypothesis in the least. I will posit that a roundhouse kick to the floating ribs is easily just as damaging as a front kick at the same level, and it's much more difficult to sidestep or parry.

I tell you what, you can have a free shot at my ribs with a roundhouse, and I will have a free shot anywhere along your centre line. Deal?

It's definitely difficult to pull off if you haven't trained your lower-roundhouse well enough, but the best part about attacking the femoral nerve and artery is that after a few of them, you'll find your opponent is becoming less and less of a moving target.

--Joe

Again it seems that you are trying to wear out your opponent in a long range spar. How will you do this in a kebab shop at 2am in the morning? Or in a crowded nightclub?
These are where most fights occur

[M1K3]

Kamon, do you have to write a freaking tome everytime you reply? I've read shorter novels.

[illegalusername]

I think the point here is that even if attacking "the centerline" will cause more hurt, they are also a lot easier to block/dodge/whatever.
Also, getting punched in the lower ribs hurts like a motherfucker. Let alone getting a good kick there. Don't knock it too fast.

[It is Fake]

No he Kamon is trying to be funny.

If you think an area that can make you piss blood possibly killing you, isn't as dangerous as a punch to the nose you are a fucking idiot.

[Kung-Fu Joe]

Yes they do. If I am facing you and go for a punch to my kidneys, it would involve a badly positioned punch. If you think about boxers in a clinch. They tend to hit each other other in the ribs and kidneys, and whilst I know they have gloves on, these shots do not bring a person down. Whereas a direct strike to the neck can drop a guy. A punch to the face/nose can drop a guy. A punch to the solar plexus (forgive spelling) can drop a guy. A side punch to the kidneys might cause pain, but people will carry on fighting from there.

First of all, I'm not sure how much boxing you've watched, but guys drop from body-hooks to the kidneys all the time. Furthermore, a cross or a hook to the temple is going to cause a KO much more easily than a straight to the face.

Secondly, how would it be a badly positioned punch? Say you assume a typical WC square stance against me-- if you're leading with your right, and I slip a right jab, your off-hand is still in place guarding your centerline. A shot to the solar plexus would be better defended than my left hook into your kidneys below the right arm.

Not really. When I trained kykoshinkai karate, kicks to the thigh would not drop a person (unless it was a black belt vs. a newbie). Generally speaking, there are big people out there and even the most powerful roundhouse will not drop a person. I watched a Cage rage fight on a promotional DVD and one fighter kicked his opponent over and over with hard kicks to the thigh. After a while the fighter's leg went raw, but he was still standing. I'm not saying roundhouse kicks to thighs and legs are rubbish, its just that you seem to be under some illusion that roundhouse kicks are always good

I've also seen guys get pounded in the head repeatedly from strong hits, and still remain on their feet. That doesn't mean it's impossible to cause a knockout through a strike to the head. Part of training to fight is knowing how to mitigate damage when you ARE struck.

I tell you what, you can have a free shot at my ribs with a roundhouse, and I will have a free shot anywhere along your centre line. Deal?

Heh, if geography and weight didn't differentiate us so greatly, I'd surely take you up on this one.

Again it seems that you are trying to wear out your opponent in a long range spar. How will you do this in a kebab shop at 2am in the morning? Or in a crowded nightclub? These are where most fights occur

Honestly, if I were in that small a space, striking wouldn't be my first thought, anyway. Jujutsu would minimize the risk of involving others in the fight, as well as requiring little to no maneuverability.

However, in an alley or a parking lot or out behind a pub somewhere-- or in the ring-- yes, I'd be trying to wear down my opponent. Single-strike KO's, while being considered the pinnacle of a number of martial artforms, are highly improbable in actual combat. Yes, a perfect strike to the solar plexus can drop somebody. But in a real fight, it's normally going to take quite a bit of effort before that opening arises. As a result, I want to do as much damage to the targets that I am presented as possible, instead of waiting for someone to drop their guard and let me strike them in the throat, or otherwise limiting myself to centerline targets, in the interest of attempting a quick KO.


--Joe

[Kamon Guy]

No he Kamon is trying to be funny.

If you think an area that can make you piss blood possibly killing you, isn't as dangerous as a punch to the nose you are a fucking idiot.

Are you talking about a kick to the ribs? Are you taking the piss?

Any kind of strike there will hurt and might take you out of a fight, but my point was that if you offer a martial artist the choice between a kick to their opponents ribs or a free shot at their face, they will take the shot to the face. Unless they can't hit for shit.

Have a look at the guys in the UFC. How many times has someone been taken out by a hit to the ribs? Compare that to how many times they have been taken out from a strike to the face