I don't agree with anyone here, except what Yuanfen has written about real fighting. The rest seems to be a lot of empty posturing. 
Originally posted by rubthebuddha, the Rush hater
terence,
you hit a good point -- i don't think wing chun is a fighting art anymore. it's self defense.
What does that mean? Bottom line: Self defense requires fighting unless as Wong Shun Leung suggested, you've mastered the art of invisibility.
roof top fights, while typically challenge matches, often had rules too (don't crush the other guy's windpipe, for example) just like today's MMA tourneys. rooftop fights should probably be classified as MMA, because it was WC on CLF on mantis on ... just because arts from other countries weren't there doesn't mean the fight is unmixed. hung gar on wing chun is certainly a healthy mixed of flavors.
You're confusing the meanings of these match-ups. The roof top fights were useful in determining for the individuals what worked and what didn't, and no, I can't grant that they were MMA as it is usually construed. That's foggy thinking. Today's MMA competitions are about winning, usually for a purse, aren't they? Are there any well-regarded MMA competitors who don't compete exclusively for money? Well, the rooftop contestents did....
regardless of wing chun's beginnings, circumstances have changed. passing on kung fu as your part in secretly rebelling against the dynasty at hand has little purpose in the grand scheme of things these days, and it has little or no political purpose in the western world. the US or NATO or whatever doesn't give two ****s what martial art i study if any.
Crikes! The futility of a liberal arts education these days. Wing Chun skills and principles can be applied in many areas of modern life. The armed forces and police powers of the world have nothing to do with with it. It's more about holding your own in a potentially violent and unpredictable world when civilized behavior goes on hiatus in your vicinity.
as far as a lack of emphasis on fighting skills, that's your opinion. according to the legend of ng mui and yim wing chun, was wing chun developed as a fighting art, or one of defense? wing chun didn't see to desire to hurt the local bully. she just wanted him to leave her alone. so she learned to fight, but only because the issue of avoidance became a harder possibility. would she have learned to fight had that bully not been handy?
More liberal arts confused thinking. To defend herself against the bully, the legend says Yim Wing Chun learned a deadly skill set, a fighting art. If she had never met Ng Mui, how would her need for self defense have been different? How do you know she wouldn't have gravitated to martial arts eventually?
self-defense, by nature, is fighting.
This is true, but what follows is a rhetorical fallacy. 
but there's a big difference between competitive fighting in MMA and studying for self defense: i train to defend myself no matter when and where, but I would rather not fight at all. comptetitors train to fight, and sign themselves up for a fight.
MMA, as a ring sport, is not fighting. It's playing rough. I train Wing Chun. I train to fight if necessary. Disclaimer: I have not had a fight since I've studied Wing Chun.
think of the difference in active vs. passive. an MMA competitor actively engages in a fight because they wish to, for whatever reason.
Active versus passive shows more muddled thinking. If you're going to defend yourself, you better be able to do so actively. As for the motivation of MMA competitors, money and glory come to mind. The key word you posited was competitor, not fighter. 
one focused on self defense passively fights -- not intentionally but because of circumstances. that doesn't reflect on how the passive fighter fights, but how they view the act of violence in the first place -- they don't want it, but will use it if provoked. an active fighter will provoke themselves to fight even though they don't need to.
Passively fights. Spoken from deeply held tenets of ignorance and inexperience, no doubt.
to me, the apparently lack of good WC fighters has less to do with skill and more to do with intention. only a small percentage are really capable of competitive fighting on the highest level, but the same goes for any martial art. we just happen to know more WC folks who'd get romped if they entered the octagon.
Most of the people with the natural abilities and inclinations to fight professionally come from humble origins that encourage the settling of disputes by violent means. You don't see a lot of East coast preppies competing in the Octagon. 
Wing Chun though, as a TCMA, attracts (and keeps) only those with certain attributes not necessarily associated with athleticism. We long-term Wing Chun students tend to mirror some of the personality traits of our teachers, who for the lucky, are good and beneficent. A violent, impatient, and aggressive individual is unlikely to achieve the understanding of Wing Chun needed to make it work in MMA. And the rest of us don't give a **** about the competition.
Uber Field Marshall Grendel
Mm Yan Chi Dai---The Cantonese expression Mm Yan Chi Dai, translates to "Misleading other people's children." The idiom is a reference to those teachers who claim an expertise in an art that they do not have and waste the time and treasure of others.
Wing Chun---weaponized Chi (c)
Reply With Quote
