Does WC answer the question......

[Sifu Moore]

Hello everyone, hope your training and your MA journey is progressing. I have been recieving alot of emails from WC enthusiasts regarding what seems to them to be an ever present onslaught of naysayers regarding WC effectiveness. Especially in todays world of MMA hysteria. Here is what I had to say to him . Maybe some of the younger practitioners (in terms of experience not age) might find this helpful on their personal journeys towards the truth.

Hi Sam,

Sorry it took so long for me to respond to your email below. One problem with the internet is that "everyone" has an opinion, whether its based on merit or not. Nine times out of ten, the people engaging in that type of dialog have no clue as to what they are talking about or are still immature in their MA growth. Again, as the saying goes, "There are NO bad martial arts just plenty of BAD martial artists". Every art has something to teach you potentially , if you are ready to listen,learn and most importantly, put the work in that will uncover the pearls of the "journey".

As for WC , any intelligent and mature MA familiar with WC, knows that Wing Chun itself does not need to be defended ,as it speaks for itself regarding its effectiveness. You just cant refute(yet) the laws of motion and physics. However, despite that, there are more unqualified WC people that really do lack skill and/or understanding then ones who do. The same is also true of all the arts. There was a time early in my Martial Arts experience were things like this bothered me, but that was before I truly understood what "My Truth" is. Challenging someone's art form under the context you discribed is usually engaged in by insecure or nefarious individuals who still don't get it or who are up to no good . (never argue with fools)

How you train your art goes right to the heart of what your results will be..good, bad or ugly. You have to decide what you are really trying to accomplish with the art form and then decide whether or not you have the commitment needed to achieve the reality you seek, be it in WC or any art. Always ask questions and analise all the possable answers and be diligent in giving new ideas their due process through effective training before drawing your own conclusion.

So you see, any dialog regarding WC in itself being an effective MA is germaine to what the real issue is .....the real dialog that people should be having is with themselves, regarding their own motives and their own self esteem. Always ask your self the questions....Have you trained hard enough, have you understood and trained correctly and is your current method bringing you closer to your ultimate objective of knowing yourself . If so you can defeat the true enemy (yourself). When the man in the mirror is "right" then the question becomes irrelevant. The truth is different and yet the same for all of us...know yourself first, then strive to express "yourself" honestly, everything else will work itself out.

My truth is TRADITIONAL WING CHUN, I am 1000% convinced. Yet I do not perceive, internalize or express it in the exact same way as my kung fu family does (how could I.... then I wouldn't be me). WC is a great blueprint, the archetects did a brilliant job. However, you must seek to bring your WC alive instead of being a carbon copy or an imitation of someone else's expression.
Any success I have acheived in my training is because along the way, through hard work, I found "myself" in kung fu and understand what "my" needs are in combat. Still a work in progress.

Seek your truth (who knows where that will lead) and do not let external influences make decisions for you.

All the best on your journey little brother!!

Sifu Moore

[Ultimatewingchun]

Good post, Shannon.

[Knifefighter]

Nine times out of ten, the people engaging in that type of dialog have no clue as to what they are talking about

You just cant refute(yet) the laws of motion and physics.

The laws of physics come into play in any and all activities. There is no evidence that WC somehow more effectively applies the laws of physics and motion.

WC often passed off as being scientific. WC is much more along the lines of philosophy, rather than science. The scientific approach is one of observing a specific event or events, gathering data from these events, forming hypotheses, testing these hypotheses with controlled experiments that produce more data that is then shown to be valid or invalid using statistical analysis.

A scientific approach to fighting would be to first observe what happens in a fight. Is there grappling? Clinching? Kicking? Punching? Groundfighting? What are the percentages of each of these? What types of moves are seen in fights, what kinds of damage is done with each, and how often are each done? What types of moves might be more effectively and efficiently applied in fighting? How do the mechanics of fights compare to the mechanics of other activities? Etc, etc, etc...

Once the data from the original observations are made and the data is gathered, hypotheses would then be developed and controlled experiments done to determine the validity of the various hypotheses. The data from these experiments would also be used to develop further hypotheses.

If anything, the sportive matches of MMA are closer to being scientific that the approach used in WC. MMA matches are held under relatively controlled conditions that are closer to real fighting than what most WC practitioners do in the confines of their training environments. MMA matches are recorded and statistics are available for analysis. Fighters are constantly testing out new techniques and training methods to determine whether or not they are valid in an environment which is open and available for analysis.

[t_niehoff]

Amen.

Something else to consider: why does the "question" arise in the first place? No one is writing to ask if BJJ, wrestling, boxing, muay thai, sambo, judo, etc. are effective. Perhaps because there is ample *evidence* those fighting/training methods are effective. And because there is evidence, no one needs to "explain" intellectually why they *believe* they can and will work -- anyone and everyone can see for themselves. There is no argument they don't work. Thus, the very "need" to "tell" and "explain" (especially pointing to "science" aka philosophy) indicates there already is a problem in my view. If you can't show evidence, anything you say is just conjecture.

Just stopping by to say "hello."

Terence

[Knifefighter]

No one is writing to ask if BJJ, wrestling, boxing, muay thai, sambo, judo, etc. are effective.

One can also see evidence of people who come from each of these backgrounds, not just entering and competing in MMA, but being elite level competitors (i.e. Minitaro, Fedor, Sakaraba, Cro-Cop, Kerr, Hughes, Yoshida, etc.) and providing concrete and convincing examples of their base systems being used effectively.

[tbone]

Alan Orr's crew seems to be effective using it in MMA. Many other WC people have used it in non MMA altercations and used it effectively. Is this evidence to be ignored?

[Knifefighter]

Alan Orr's crew seems to be effective using it in MMA. Many other WC people have used it in non MMA altercations and used it effectively. Is this evidence to be ignored?

If you want to talk in more "scientific" evidence terms, then it cannot be given much credit.

Alan's crew is not top level, at least not yet, so any compelling evidence from them remains to be seen.

Additionally, at least from what I have seen of the clips, there has been no clear delineation of WC techniques being used like you see with Minitaro's BJJ, Kerr's wrestling, Cro-Cop's kickboxing and Sakaraba's "Japanese/Catch" wrestling. Until one can show them being dominant largely as a result of their WC, you cannot consider this as evidence for the case of WC being effecitive in this environment.

As far as "altercations", you really can't credit them, one way or another, because the quality of the opponent and the environment have too many variables to make a determination in either direction.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Let me introduce Shannon Moore to some of you guys who may not know anything about him. He's a TWC sifu with a school in Maryland - and has been involved with GM William Cheung's association for many years - and I've seen him at seminars numerous times. The man can fight - and his speed is especially impressive for a guy who stands about 6'3"- 6'4" and weighs in excess of 300 lbs.

Furthermore - he's not a wing chun guy with blinders on. He knows when to use this and when to use that...if you get my drift.

[YongChun]

The people who fight with Wing Chun for a living, never ask if Wing Chun is effective in a fight. I know a few of these types of people.

Maybe the idea is how to get more people to that level. In Chinese martial arts the process was always:

1) learn the forms,
2) understand the theory,
3) go and fight.

If you skip 1) and 2) then you don't end up doing Wing Chun or whatever art you are learning but of course you can still be a top fighter.

If you do not do 3) then you will always have questions. If you do 3) too realistically then you get your self arrested or killed or crippled and there goes your art.

So the next best thing is to get sparring gear and practice to whatever level you like while keeping safety in mind. Sparring against your buddies who simulate boxing, Taekwondo or grappling is not the same thing as sparring against the real thing but could be a stepping stone. Different people are into Wing Chun for different reasons.

Ray

[Liddel]

Ive come across kickboxers in the street that have been found wanting - bigger than me, all talk...

Kickboxing has proved its effectivness in the "elite compition" we see today. but it by now way means that any and all kickboxers can beat any and all VT fighter, or any other style for that matter.

Conversly, to me because someone hasn't proved with no "clear delineation " that VT can be effective at the elite level, doesnt mean that VT isnt effective elsewhere. I have my own proof.

But then my motives for learning VT are not because i wish to 'compete' at all in MMA.

I come across many who see MMA as a base, the systems they train in military and police, teach much more effective tecniques in shorter amouts of time, why - purpose !

The first thing i ask a new student Sifu takes on - whats your purpose ?

[Edmund]

The people who fight with Wing Chun for a living, never ask if Wing Chun is effective in a fight. I know a few of these types of people.

Who fights with Wing Chun for a living?

[tjwingchun]

Who fights with Wing Chun for a living?

More involved with fights using Wing Chun for a living but? I used to as a doorman (retired), I have a student who is a prison officer, one a detention officer and another who is a care worker with autistic adults that occasionally get quite violent, no titles, trophies or PROOF just part of their daily work.

[Paul T England]

Interesting posting.

On the subject of science, how can any of the MMA fights be considered as reliable evidence? An MMA competition is very different from most street confrontations so how can it be used as an experiment? How can you test a Ford car going from 0-60 then compare it to a BMW? IF you are going to look at fights like that then IMHO it is seriously flawed. The gloves and floor make a huge difference never mind the rules.

Every martial art should be "Scientific" at a high level its just arts such as Wing Chun and BJJ hopefully save years of experiments that go completely wrong.

Martial artists experiment in a very loose scientific way but it’s the best we can do with ever changing ingredients.

Paul

[Ultimatewingchun]

I've got to disagree here, Paul. UFC and Pride fights may have rules, are fought with gloves, and on a padded floor...

but the gloves are thin - and those guys are throwing in everything but the kitchen sink. It's as close to reality fighting as you're going to get - without actually engaging in a streetfight.

All that said....yeah, if the shoes stayed on some kicks (including some low kicks with the heel of the shoe to a leg/knee/shin...not used in nhb events) could come into play and possibly be a difference maker (as well as kicking to the groin)...and a possible crash onto a hard floor would be a big factor as well.

What's not "scientifically" proven yet, imo...at least not on a big scale - as really good strikers are only a relatively new (and few) phenomenon within MMA events...are how well primarily grappling based fighters will do against high level striker/kickers with a good takedown defense (ie.- sprawls).

[tbone]

I guess what some are saying is that the only way to see what's effective is if you watch someone do it in Pride or UFC. That's the only time a technique can really be considered effective.

Everyone's first hand experience should just be ignored.

Thousands of years of martial combat end up meaningless because the UFC came out on TV 13 years ago.

To each his own I guess.