"Crap" in Wing Chun?

[LaRoux]

This was posted on the main forum:

"Of course, some styles are more crap than not. Wing Chun comes to mind.

Yeah sure, there are some good ideas in WC, but there is also a tone of crap. I have a friend who was pretty good at WC from a WC perspective, he could never stop me from tossing him on his back. Also when he connected it never hurt, and he was much bigger than I am. But he was like top of his class, had won forms comps, kicks ass in stickyhands etc...."

Comments? Agree? Disagree?

[k gledhill]

This was posted on the main forum:



Comments? Agree? Disagree?

Agree !! a huge majority of VT is complete cr*p.

[anerlich]

Comments?

OK.

Quoting a nameless poster from another forum who has an opinion, and not a particularly informed one, seems like a complete waste of time.

Do you have an opinion about Wing Chun yourself?

[Eric_H]

Agree !! a huge majority of VT is complete cr*p.

Actually the WC technology is pretty good, but the training methods are mostly garbage. You gotta wade through a lot of BS to get to the diamonds.

From my experience, modern MA's have more direct/superior methods, but fewer technical advantages.

[EternalSpring]

Every style/system/etc is crap unless you train it to actually use it. Maybe styles that seem to have "more crap than others" actually have higher numbers of practitioners who dont train to use it.

[Ozzy Dave]

Wing Chun is a challenge to apply though if you don't have a sufficient athletic and knowledge base as the narrow range in technique can lead to issues, especially with mobility IMO.

Dave

[wingchunIan]

the fact that the cited example had "won forms competitions" tells you everything that you need to know about the school of wing chun he attended. Bruce Lee made Wing Chun popular and the curse of popularity is a dilution of standards and use of the name as a marketing badge by those with little to no knowledge.

[Graham H]

This was posted on the main forum:



Comments? Agree? Disagree?

Agree! Most of it is pants.

[Paddington]

Actually the WC technology is pretty good, but the training methods are mostly garbage. You gotta wade through a lot of BS to get to the diamonds.

I found the wading very frustrating as my Sifu was inclined towards the 'traditional' approach to training students. Getting information out of him was sometimes like drawing blood from a stone!

I do agree with others here, there is a lot of crap wing chun taught out there. As for the system being effective or ineffective, well, whilst I do agree that not all Sifus are born equal, so much is down to the individual and if they wish to put in the time.

On this theme of putting in the time, unless you work or live in areas where violence occurs frequently, the probability of facing violence in one's everyday life in the affluent 'north', is so low that one has to question studying wing chun just to be able to fight. Is it really a good investment of time?

IMO it takes a very long time to master wing chun and there are many other reasons and benefits to study it, beyond just being able to fight. If you want to just study wing chun to be able to fight for that very rare occasion where you are attacked (for most once in a lifetime if at all), then you may be wasting your time.

[Vajramusti]

[QUOTE=anerlich;1208563]Comments?

OK.

Quoting a nameless poster from another forum who has an opinion, and not a particularly informed one, seems like a complete waste of time.

------------------------------------------------------

For sure

[LaRoux]

Comments?

OK.

Quoting a nameless poster from another forum who has an opinion, and not a particularly informed one, seems like a complete waste of time.

Do you have an opinion about Wing Chun yourself?

Apparently it wasn't a waste of time. I was curious if Wing Chun folks shared this opinion. Seems some do.

Looking as some of the other threads since posting this, it seems as if almost all Wing Chun people share this opinion. They seem to only think their version of Wing Chun is decent, while the other versions have a lot of crap.

Based on this, I'd have to conclude that his opinion wasn't so uninformed at all.

[Grumblegeezer]

Simple as 1-2-3:

1. Wing Chun taught for fighting, to fighters who spar and fight a lot will work.

2. Wing Chun taught by pompous theoreticians to new age kung fu groupies won't work.

3. Wing chun taught and practiced by regular guys who are dedicated hobbyists who don't get into a lot of fights will have mixed results.

I know a few in the first group, and too many in the second. I'm in the last group. Nothing great, but honestly just who I am.

[anerlich]

Apparently it wasn't a waste of time.

Your standards must be pretty low.

[anerlich]

Agree! Most of it is pants.

Boxers? Tightie whities?

[hulkout]

There is absolutely NO crap in the Wing Chun system. There are however a lot of crap instructors who don't know what the hell they're doing as well as a lot of crap students who also don't know what they're doing. If someone doesn't understand the correct use of a technique or they think that all the techniques in the form are supposed to be done exactly as seen in the forms, is that a problem with the art itself? One of the main things that people fail to understand about Wing Chun is that many of the drills (at least the ones learned early on) are developmental drills. They teach lines of attack, timing, balance, structure, and other attributes. They're not done exactly like that in a real situation. Of course, most guys quit before they understand that and then they get destroyed in a real fight. Is that a problem with the art or the person? If a boxer goes into the ring and tries to hit someone the same way he hits a speed bag and then gets knocked out, does that mean boxing is crap?