Wing Chun Critiques

[Vio]

Trained Wing Chun for 3 years. Recently doing more MMA type stuff, amongst the guys I came across most of them also did Wing Chun and jumped onto the MMA bandwagon. What surprises me I always get similar sorts of Wing Chun criticisms from most. This is a cause for concern because unlike other CMA, Wing Chun is indeed a pure fighting system. And was always being constantly 'combat' refined by the likes of Yip Man during the Hong Kong heydays.
.........

From a person who has a bit of sparring in Muay Thai, Judo, MMA, San Shou, judo and BJJ matches and trained extensively in Wing Chun, "The way Wing Chun is taught traditionally is not conducive to any sort of situation, either sport fighting or self defence.

The problems I’ve noticed are as follows: The Trapping range is an inferior substitute to either a wrestling or Thai clinch. Instead of controlling the body and the head like a clinch does, Wing Chun seeks to control the limbs, which is hazardous against any opponent who doesn't make a bridge and is competent in basic boxing and even more dangerous against any semi-competent clinch user. It’s hard to “stick” to someone who is fighting in a more boxer like style as they simply retract their fist immediately after striking instead of trying to form a “bridge” with their opponent. If you do manage to close the distance enough to use Wing Chun techniques you will probably just end up clinching and falling to the ground anyway.

On Wing Chun's method of punching , Great emphasis is placed on attacking the centreline with sun punches, but neglected are looping punches, hooking punches, and uppercuts. Also neglected is effective use of angles (not all lineages). Although many Wing Chun schools promote the use of intercepting angles to set up clean strikes, there is little actual training that creates this skill, unlike boxing slipping and footwork drills.

At the schools I trained at, Wing Chun stylist typically had a problem defending against looping punchs. The reason I think this happens is because most Wing Chun guys train with other Wing Chun guys, and since none of them train with hooks, they never really get that good at defending against them.

Additionally, the way punching is taught at the majority of Wing Chun schools I've been to leaves one open for counters. The punch is thrown with the shoulder down, as opposed to covering the face. The opposite hand is often held above the bicep to intercept a counterpunch, but as can be seen by anyone in sparring, that's hardly fool-proof. The shoulder being down prevents any kind of shoulder protection or shoulder roll. Coupled with the fact that the Wing Chun stance is taught with the chin up, in a 'neutral position' rather than ducking your chin, and this punch just does not stand up to scrutiny.Wing Chun teaches to keep hands at around chest level instead of up by their head.

My other critique is that the Wing Chun stance of many schools is not very mobile, hard to sprawl (most weight on the backfoot) and not set up well to deal with grappling. Wing Chun's reliance on footwork as a defensive tool is admirable, but is often overcomplicated and not drilled practically. The fighting range for wing chun is what would be the clinching range for most other styles, so it is a bit strange that grappling (apart from chin-na) is largely absent in traditional Wing Chun.

[aaron baum]

hello vio...

have a look at www.alanorr.com

you may it find it of some interest....youre right in many respects and IMO id say this is because wing chun is taught incorrectly due to a lack of understanding of what wing chun really is....

hope you find some answers

best

aaron

[Ultimatewingchun]

Great post, Vio...

[jesper]

Carefull to not generalise based on your limited experience.

Many schools train extensively for fighting and also invite other practicioners to come and spar.
Likewise many schools crosstrain with other styles in order to improve their skill level.
And WC is more then the straight punch, you do actually have hooks and uppercuts. If they dont train that in your school, well your a grown man so im sure you can find a way on your own.

Just to cap it off, you dont try and stick to people in WC. Chi sao is not fighting and vice versa.

[Edmund]

Great post, jesper...


:)

[Vajramusti]

Often in forum discussions- very common to generalize about ALL of wing chun.
Best to stick to what one knows.
Not everyone has their weight on the back leg, not everyone is clueless against grapplers. ETC, ETC, ETC.


joy chaudhuri

[leejunfan]

Broad generalizations seems to be the norm on internet forums.... but in person.... different entirely.

[Ultimatewingchun]

While there are some arguments to be made against the rest of your first post, Vio....(which is not to say that you don't present valid arguments there against MOST wing chun schools/training)...

nonetheless, this part of your post was flawless in it's analysis, imo...

"The problems I’ve noticed are as follows: The Trapping range is an inferior substitute to either a wrestling or Thai clinch. Instead of controlling the body and the head like a clinch does, Wing Chun seeks to control the limbs, which is hazardous against any opponent who doesn't make a bridge and is competent in basic boxing and even more dangerous against any semi-competent clinch user. It’s hard to “stick” to someone who is fighting in a more boxer like style as they simply retract their fist immediately after striking instead of trying to form a “bridge” with their opponent. If you do manage to close the distance enough to use Wing Chun techniques you will probably just end up clinching and falling to the ground anyway."

***Btw...WENG CHUN...a brother art to wing chun...does have quite a bit of standing grappling/throwing techniques in the "clinch" range.

[JLQ]

jesper,

I have tried to get in touch with you before, but you might not have noticed it...

I am curious about some things...

Maybe you could provide an e-mail address so I can contact you, or alternatively you could reach me privately through pm on this board or this e-mail address: jesperlundqvist@hotmail.com.

Many thx in advance

:)

regards,
JLQ

[Vio]

Often in forum discussions- very common to generalize about ALL of wing chun.
Best to stick to what one knows.
Not everyone has their weight on the back leg, not everyone is clueless against grapplers. ETC, ETC, ETC.


joy chaudhuri Some lineages do use 50-50 distribution, but most are 70-30 (in the UK anyway). But doesn't invalidate my argument that the stance isn't too good for the sprawl.

Would you care to expand. Which lineage would that be that has in depth grappling syllabus?

[Vio]

Carefull to not generalise based on your limited experience. That's very vague. Would you care to expand on what you mean by generalize?

If I said Aids was an epidemic in Africa, would you call that generalising? - While it may not be true for everyone. It is an undeniable FACT it affects a broad spectrum. All too often its easy for immature people to brush things aside and bring out the old "its just generalising" without backing themselves up.


Many schools train extensively for fighting and also invite other practicioners to come and spar.
Likewise many schools crosstrain with other styles in order to improve their skill level.
And WC is more then the straight punch, you do actually have hooks and uppercuts. If they dont train that in your school, well your a grown man so im sure you can find a way on your own. For onething, I didn't say the 'straight punch' was the only punch in Wing Chun. And I certainly didn't say that Wing Chun schools don't cross train. Assuming you are a grown man you surely didn't understand what I wrote. You come across as being more overly defensive and overly emotional than anything else.

[hunt1]

Any topic that can awaken Joy from his slumber is one worth reading and commenting on.


Where did this version of wing chun come from. Where the emphasis is trapping and centerline punching where the stance never changes?

Wing chun all wing chun dont need to look to weng chun has grappling hands. pak sao,jut sao,gum sao, huen sao,lop sao. Just a few. Push pull unbalance and control the center of gravity. Control and manipulate joints. Its all there and is taught. Trapping looks good for a demo but it is just something that happens in an incidental way during combat. Also many things can be trapping for example if you move to the outside gates and cannot be struck with the far arm thus giving you 2 on 1 is a trap.

As for stance what happened to 50/50 training you spend all slt training it . 0/100 is also there and everything inbetween. The stance and footwork are supposed to be flexible and soft. Not some locked in stiff only moving in one direction. Soft and flexible allows you to be nimble and quick and teaches how to use your hips. Know how to use your hips and you know how to do a proper sprawl but that is just a small part of what using the proper stance and training it will teach.

If your not getting all this then you are not getting wing chun and should look for another school. Dont fall for the head of our system was Yip Mans best favorite greatest etc. Judge on what you see not what you are told.

[Yanjin]

I think that the major problem with Wing Chun is not the effectiveness of the Art but the lack experience. Most Wing Chun schools don’t even have sparing and they most certainly do not train to fight other types of martial arts, such as grappling, boxing, ect.

[leejunfan]

all of you please read and listen with an open mind. Empty your cup for just a sec and if afterward you think I'm an idiot then disregard.

Styles don't win battles..... people do.

Styles don't hit hard.... people do.

Style are not superior to other styles....... people are.

In the end... it is the way people train that makes them effective in fighting or not. Regardless of style.

I am a kung fu person..... who specializes in WCK. I know it is not the art I love that makes me good or bad.... it is up to me. A good couch, teacher, sensei, sifu or guru are important.... but they can't do one pushup for me.... they can't run my miles for me..... they can't spar my rounds for me..... they can not reach the devine AH HAA for me. It's all up to me.

If you trained at a school of a particular style and it didn't work for you... blame the school..... or you.... but don't blame the system. If you've trained at 20 schools of the same style and it didn't work for you then maybe you can blame the style....... or is it you? Hmmmmmm :rolleyes:

May the Schwartz Be With You! :p

[Knifefighter]

In the end... it is the way people train that makes them effective in fighting or not. Regardless of style.

Styles generally determine the way people train. Some styles have more effective training methods than others. Those with less effective training methods will also develop less effective techniques to go with those training methods.

Some perfect examples of this are some of the more esoteric, "deadly" grappling styles that do not have full force sparring. Because of the unrealistic training methods utilized by these grappling styles, these styles develop a whole host of techniques that are unworkable against those who train with more effective grappling methods. These grappling practitioners are almost always easily handled by grapplers who have more realistic training methods.

While the person is ulitmately responsible for making a style work, the style that person trains with is just as, if not more, important.

[leejunfan]

knifefighter....

isn't that what I said? Until you've trained at EVERY WCK school in the world... you can't say.... "They all train that way"

As for my school..... we actually get criticized by some WCK people because we don't "look" like WCK people :rolleyes:

But I hear ya man..... a lot of schools need a major kick in the rear.
Peace,

[Knifefighter]

isn't that what I said? Until you've trained at EVERY WCK school in the world... you can't say.... "They all train that way",

That's true... but one can still make generalizations that would be true in most cases.

For example one could make broad generalizations about BJJ that would be true in a majority of the cases such as:

BJJ sparring starts from the knees more often than not.
BJJ techniques are great on the ground, mediocre for clinch and takedowns, and suck in regards to striking.
BJJ does a lot of training from the back.
BJJ focuses less on leg locks than some other grappling styles.
BJJ emphasizes position before submission.

While these things are not true for all schools, most schools can be painted with these broad generalizations. Generally, you won't find BJJ practitioners disagreeing with these things. Nor will they try to defend the weaknesses of BJJ. Most simply cross train to make up for any perceived deficiencies that their particular training might not address.

[hunt1]

Knifefighter you have actually pointed out the problem with wing chun.

You pointed to 5 generalizations with BJJ. What would you say about a BJJ school that only did 2 or 3 of those and ignored the others. That is the wing chun problem.

For example stance,some schools only use a 30/70 stance all the time. They ignore training 50/50 for example even though 50/50 is the first basic stance they are taught. The initial post mentioned the reliance on the center line punch. lets say there are only 3 basic punches in wc. uppercut ,hook ,straight punch. A school should train each punch 1/3 of the time but instead many train 1 punch 80% of the time. You cannot paint wing chun with 1 brush until wing chun schools all train the same basics and they dont. Instead we get the wing chun fights and students that have been brainwashed into thinking wing chun is only done one way and all other ways are wrong etc.

There is no doubt you cant learn how to use your tools unless you train in a realistic way to use your tools. The first problem with wing chun is that so many schools ignore or dont understand what all is in the tool bag to begin with.

[leejunfan]

hunt1 & knifefighter,

good posts!

BJJ's proving ground is in competition...... WCK NEEDS to compete more and stop hiding behind the "too deadly" excuse.

[Paul T England]

Here's a thought,

IMHO the wing chun mindset is to punch, its just about the first thing you learn (after stance and centreline!) Yes wing chun does focus on centreline punching compared to looping punches but there are reasons for that.

When you punch you aim to control the person not just strike them. (Obviously knocking them out in one punch is fine, but how many times does that happen in competition) You will have to stick and continue attacking if you want to finish most of the time. That leads us onto trapping...you should not be trapping the arms but also trapping & controlling the body. Extend the centreline principle through the arms to control the body......

Oh and footwork, try speeding up basic footwork drills and see where it gets you, it will be different but it will work. The 100/0 50/50 etc. is for learning....like your abc's

Learning, training and fighting are different animals that share many elements.

I agree with many of the previous posts, stop bashing styles and take what works and use it. I prefer to walk the long road and develop my skills through traditional arts with a focus on what works always overlaying the style, as I am not going to be an MMA star. If I was going to be am mma star I probably would go down the Thai, BJJ, Wrestling, Boxing Combo route as it seems to be a quicker route just because the training gyms are already pros at these training styles. Its going to take many years for wing chun to have the sort of experience and network of coaches to make the MMA game succesful but it will happen and its the current teachers and fighters who will pave the way for future wing chun champions.

[t_niehoff]

Styles generally determine the way people train. Some styles have more effective training methods than others. Those with less effective training methods will also develop less effective techniques to go with those training methods.

Some perfect examples of this are some of the more esoteric, "deadly" grappling styles that do not have full force sparring. Because of the unrealistic training methods utilized by these grappling styles, these styles develop a whole host of techniques that are unworkable against those who train with more effective grappling methods. These grappling practitioners are almost always easily handled by grapplers who have more realistic training methods.

While the person is ulitmately responsible for making a style work, the style that person trains with is just as, if not more, important.

There is much wisdom in these words. :)

There is an interplay between how we train and what we train: they influence each other. Some methods/techniques/etc. are self-limiting. Some training methods are less productive than others. In my view, good martial arts -- and good martial artisits -- are continually evolving in both aspects: trying to find better ways to train and trying to find better ways to solve combative problems.

[Ultimatewingchun]

"While the person is ulitmately responsible for making a style work, the style that person trains with is just as, if not more, important." (Dale/Knife)


***GIVE that man a cigar...he sees the light. And if the training methods of the style in question are behind the times - then the style will come up short against others who train more efficiently in other styles.

And unfortunately, imo, about 90% of the wing chun world is behind the times. Of the other 10%....about 8% falls somewhere between good and very good. The other 2% is awesome.

But without getting into "who" falls into "what" percentage category - the fact is that these percentages are pretty dismal.

What's missing from that 90% ???

1) Serious strengthening, conditioning, and cardio regimens.

2) Frequent hard contact sparring that includes headshots and thin gloves

3) Frequent sparring against people skilled in other martial arts.

4) Crosstraining based upon what one learns ABOUT WING CHUN from such frequent inter-art sparring.

5) Giving up any erroneous ideas that 90% of one's time should be spent doing things like forms, chi sao, drills, and wooden dummy training. No more than half of one's time should be spent with those things..and at least 40-50% of the time you're TESTING what you know/drilled against a talented, competitive, resisting opponent/partner.

[jesper]

Temper temper Vio

No need to get mad just because I dont agree with you. And there is certainly no reason to start attacking my person. If anything that is a very immature way to respond.

my response was merely to you using words as majority of schools, many schools etc.
Unless you have actually seen the majority of schools you cannot possibly know how they train.

Now how they train at your school might not be optimum for you, but then its your job to find out if its the school or yourself that is at fault.
Sometimes people are simply not cut out for a certain style, that doesnt mean theres anything wrong with them or the style for that matter. It just mean your not compatible. Just like some people are good at icehockey while others are good at basket. doesnt make one sport better then the other

While I do agree that some schools dont actually train for realistic combat, I dont agree that the majority dont. I have been to a good deal of schools from many different lineages. Some I thought was good, some was bad ( in my oppinion) but its not my job to judge how other people train. I can only judge how I train, and improve where needed.

[t_niehoff]

Here's a thought,

IMHO the wing chun mindset is to punch, its just about the first thing you learn (after stance and centreline!) Yes wing chun does focus on centreline punching compared to looping punches but there are reasons for that.


Here's a thought: maybe that's so that we can learn to strike with our structure (and drive our structure into them - which you can't do with looping punches).



When you punch you aim to control the person not just strike them. (Obviously knocking them out in one punch is fine, but how many times does that happen in competition) You will have to stick and continue attacking if you want to finish most of the time. That leads us onto trapping...you should not be trapping the arms but also trapping & controlling the body. Extend the centreline principle through the arms to control the body......


As I see it, a punch cannot by its very nature "control" an opponent (at least what I call control). It can destroy an opponent's structure (making him easily controlled) but not control. "Trapping" is a misnomer IMO; the strategic objective is to cut off (jeet) an opponent's offense. There are many ways to accomplish this. And I can't even begin to grasp how anyone can "extend the centerline principle through the arms" -- principles don't go through my arms. ;)



Oh and footwork, try speeding up basic footwork drills and see where it gets you, it will be different but it will work. The 100/0 50/50 etc. is for learning....like your abc's


The footwork cannot be approached separately in my view since we move as a whole.



Learning, training and fighting are different animals that share many elements.


Many mistake the drills, including chi sao, -- which are for learning only -- as a representation of how things will work in fighting.



I agree with many of the previous posts, stop bashing styles and take what works and use it. I prefer to walk the long road and develop my skills through traditional arts with a focus on what works always overlaying the style,


This begs the question of "how do you know what works" so as to focus on it? In my view, we can only know by actually making it work.



as I am not going to be an MMA star. If I was going to be am mma star I probably would go down the Thai, BJJ, Wrestling, Boxing Combo route as it seems to be a quicker route just because the training gyms are already pros at these training styles. Its going to take many years for wing chun to have the sort of experience and network of coaches to make the MMA game succesful but it will happen and its the current teachers and fighters who will pave the way for future wing chun champions.

There are some people who have made that transition and are building the experience. And I think this is the most positive thing to happen to WCK in quite some time. I hope that is the death knell for the Age of the Nonfighting Masters.

[Liddel]

Look im a staunch chunner - and i have to agree with some of the points of the OP.

But i say if you cant adapt your VT to deal with some of the issues raised you need to rethink where you train.

However No one art is 100 percent sound - there is an answer for every action of every style, i dont know why people get so uppity when people critique thier style, whatever it is. Why ?

Because Im happy with what i have - if i wasnt or had no confidence in MY VT then id be all defensive disagreeing with everyones critques or observations of VT
- Some people seem to forget the most important part of it all when learning a MA - for me it is that......
I AM A MUCH BETTER FIGHTER THAN I WAS BEFORE I LEARNT VT.
....and thats all one can ask for, really. Too many people think they can be like Randy or chuck - style aside these guys are special - why - work ethic and mental toughness.

$hit you think VT's got problems in todays MMA world - i wont even get started on the aikido class i visited last week or the TKD class in my area the week before......

I see two main problems with regard to VT in the MMA and wider martial art world that trickle down to affect certain attributes of what most consider VT.

1) Every man and his dog in VT seems to want to teach (at least in my area) - regardless of experience or ability. This has resulted in a dilution of of the art IMO and would of any art given the same situation.

How many Yellow or brown belts in BJJ have thier own schools and students ?

2) The type of person drawn to the different martial arts and in this case - specifically VT.

Naturally aggressive tough people, are for the most part not drawn to VT or most CMA's for that matter. Too much form and not mixing it up.....

They seem to go for the arts that have 'contact right off the bat' or are hard styles.
Muay Tai - Boxing - Kenpo Karate etc etc etc.

In my area and at the school i train in, VT has drawn people of less physicall attributes, less mental aggression... people looking to defend themselves rather than be an aggressive fighter, who if you looked at his girl wrong wound call you out for a dust up.

These in my opinion are the main reasons why VT is regarded in the way it is in the MA community.

Physical compatability aside - hypothetically do you think if a good teacher/coach taught, say someone like fedor (a born fighter) how to fight with VT he'd not be that good on his feet. I certainly think he could make it work for sure.... why
Experience, mental and physical toughness.

Disagree ?
why ?

[Vajramusti]

Every man and his dog in VT seems to want to teach (at least in my area) - regardless of experience or ability.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

((The epidemic is there on the net and forums as well))

Back to joyful slumber...zzzzzzzzzz

joy chaudhuri

[t_niehoff]

In my area and at the school i train in, VT has drawn people of less physicall attributes, less mental aggression... people looking to defend themselves rather than be an aggressive fighter, who if you looked at his girl wrong wound call you out for a dust up.


Herein is part of the problem -- to develop fighting skills in any martial art, including WCK, we first need to think of ourselves as fighters and/or as someone training to really be a fighter. Would-be fighters look for places that train fighters, places like boxing gyms, MT academies, BJJ schools, etc. Training for "self-defense" already means that person has the wrong mindset to develop into a fighter. Those people flock to places that don't train fighters. And guess what those places produce? Yup -- nonfighters.

BTW, someone "who if you looked at his girl wrong wound call you out for a dust up" is not an aggressive fighter -- they are an @ss hole. I've met some really aggressive fighters and they were calm, nice, quiet people when they weren't fighting. Put them in the mix and they turned into a Tazmanian Devil. You mention Fedor; do you think he would "call someone out for looking at his girl"?



These in my opinion are the main reasons why VT is regarded in the way it is in the MA community.

Physical compatability aside - hypothetically do you think if a good teacher/coach taught, say someone like fedor (a born fighter) how to fight with VT he'd not be that good on his feet. I certainly think he could make it work for sure.... why
Experience, mental and physical toughness.

Disagree ?
why ?

You get out of WCK what you put into it. Same with boxing, MT, BJJ, sambo, etc. If a person doesn't train like a fighter, they can't be a good boxer or a good BJJ fighter or a good MT fighter or a good WCK fighter. That's the bottom line. To beat a mid level MMAist you have to train at least as hard and as effectively as he does. It's a simple formula. It applies to all forms of athletics.

[Liddel]

Physical compatability aside - hypothetically do you think if a good teacher/coach taught, say someone like fedor (a born fighter) how to fight with VT he'd not be that good on his feet. I certainly think he could make it work for sure.... why
Experience, mental and physical toughness.

Disagree / agree ?
why ?

[Knifefighter]

Physical compatability aside - hypothetically do you think if a good teacher/coach taught, say someone like fedor (a born fighter) how to fight with VT he'd not be that good on his feet. I certainly think he could make it work for sure.... why
Experience, mental and physical toughness.

Disagree / agree ?
why ?

Fedor is a product of his training in Sambo, boxing and MMA. One of the things that makes him so dominating is his striking on the ground, particularly when in the guard of his opponent. The type of punches he throws from this position are completely different than the type of strikes taught in WC. He is a master at this type of striking and it suits his attributes perfectly. Teach him a different striking style and he would be a completely different fighter.

Would be be as dominating as he is now? I doubt it. I think without the type of striking style he has from the top ground position, he would be much less effective.

[Knifefighter]

1) Every man and his dog in VT seems to want to teach (at least in my area) - regardless of experience or ability. This has resulted in a dilution of of the art IMO and would of any art given the same situation.

How many Yellow or brown belts in BJJ have thier own schools and students ?


Are you kidding?

Blue belts, the next belt after white (yellow belts are kids belts, BTW), were the primary teachers of BJJ here in the states back in the 90's because there were no higher belts around to teach. They still turned out good BJJ guys.

Why? Because the principles, techniques, tactics and training of BJJ are inherently sound. Even a relatively low-level practitioner can teach them without "diluting" the art.

As far as brown belts teaching in BJJ, there are tons of them (purple belts too) who teach.

[Liddel]

Interesting - i wouldnt have guessed that Dale :rolleyes:

In that situation it sounds like you believe it hasnt had a negitive effect then (you would know better than i).

IMO though the effect has been quite different on VT.

Im not sure from your post if your belieif is that VT's - principles, techniques, tactics and training are NOT sound, hence the difference in outcomes ?

[Knifefighter]

Im not sure from your post if your belieif is that VT's - principles, techniques, tactics and training are NOT sound, hence the difference in outcomes ?

Ha-ha... trying to set me up on that one? :)

I have no idea what the circumstances are in WC in terms of less experienced people teaching and how that would affect whether or not the system was "watered down". I can only speak from my exposure to that situation in BJJ.

From a theoretical standpoint, I don't think it should have an too much of an effect if the underlying fundamentals are sound.

How long should it take before someone is qualified to teach WC?

Can you point to specific examples of experienced WC teachers turning out good WC fighters vs. less experienced instructors who have failed along these lines?

[anerlich]

Liddel,

Dale is of course correct about BJJ. When I started BJJ, there were two Australian Black Belts, both in a city 1000 kilometres away from me. You had maybe five purples in each capital city. I'm glad those guys were teaching then otherwise we'd have had nobody (they are all very good black belts now).

The BB I train with now told me that he regards purple as an initial instructor level. Also, you'd take the same sort of time to get to purple in BJJ as you would to get to an instructor level in most WC systems anyway, maybe longer.


Even a relatively low-level practitioner can teach them without "diluting" the art.

I dunno. We had a guy in my school who was keen to teach people BJJ, despite the fact that he couldn't even state the sequence to take in the basic under the leg pass in the right order. My instructor (a purple) found out he was charging people more for a private lesson than our local black belt does. He told the guy not to do it any more, then found out he was still doing it and kicked him out.

In BJJ, you have people who wrestle against other people all the time teaching. Most instructors will be only to happy to demonstrate their skills by rolling with you.

In TMA's you can have theorists teaching other theorists for multiple generations. It doesn't have to be like that, but often it is.

[Liddel]

How long should it take before someone is qualified to teach WC?

In my view (which is obviously passed down from my Sifu) 8K hours approx.
Similar to an apprenticeship in a trade.



Can you point to specific examples of experienced WC teachers turning out good WC fighters vs. less experienced instructors who have failed along these lines?


No i cant, nothing documented, nothing verifiable from your POV, just my own personal experiences having visited almost every VT school in my area.

Ive just met some people with some very exaggerated ideas about whats realistic and whats not with regard to using what they teach in a realistic - preasure situation. :)

[Airdrawndagger]

Ok, I took the bait...

As far as I can tell, the "problem" with VT is not in the mechanics, techs, or forms. Its in the training curriculum. Take Boxing for example: People who learn how to box have their calistenics, punch a heavy bag, speed bag etc, and learn the techs.(how to punch) after learning the basics, they take what they learn and apply it(strap up, get into the ring and start swinging). Muay Thai Fighters train in much the same way, as do BJJ except they grapple in stead of throw punches.

A lot of VT schools get to wrapped up in the forms, drills, and techs that they neglect to apply what they have learned in the ring(spar). Its all in the application of what you learn and how it translates to more realistic circumstances. How good would a boxer be if he only punched the heavy and speed bag and worked on body mechanics in front of a mirror? He'd get his block knocked off.
Why would VT be any different? It is a fighting art, go out and fight for God sakes!
As far as the art of VT it is, in my opinion flawless, but if you can not apply what you learn under real pressure, then you are only doing half of what is required to become proficent.
It cracks me up evertime I go to class I get people that are generally nice people, but they come to a place to learn how to defend themselves using nothing but there bare hands but dont want to really punch or be punched. :D
I mean how strange is that? Its like learning everything there is to know about surfing but your affraid of the water!