Good article on Wing Chun and MMA

[LaRoux]

LaRoux,You seem to have a derisive opinion of most others approaches.

My only negative attitude is towards things of which there is no evidence.

As far as being derisive of other approaches, how is stating that the strength of WC is its quickness and ability to maintain defense derisive? How is stating that the WC guy hitting the heavy bag being a good demo of body rotation being derisive. How is posting a clip showing a WC guy dominating a Muay Thai guy being derisive?

Seems to me that you should then be able to post your own videos showing how you would apply WC and make it work against a resisting opponent.

I'm not claiming to be able to use WC against a resisting opponent. I think that should be up to the WC proponents.

Your views on Chin Na also seem to be of someone less informed with little real world applicable experience. Just my opinion but it is based on my experience.

I have some experience here. Again, all I'm asking for is some evidence that the "other" stuff works. There's plenty of evidence for what I am saying will work in this realm.

Just to give you an idea of my background I have worked as a Correctional Officer and even taught defensive tactics at the prison. After that I worked as a Philadelphia Housing Police Officer in the projects of Philly and then as a PA State Police Trooper. While I will not claim to be some sort of tuff/tough guy, I can assure you that I have had opportunity to utilize WC and Chin Na in real life situations. Oh, most of the people that I arrested did not wish to go to jail willingly. In all of these situations I can tell you that most situations did not entail me going to the ground,

Again, there doesn't seem to be evidence for this in the real world. Maybe you were some kind of law enforcement super-hero, but almost all arrests against truly resisting suspects for which there is evidence shows going to the ground and/or multiple officers doing the controlling.

Having a one-off for which there is zero evidence hardly counts for much.

So, rather than keep giving your view on how others are wrong, how about you step up and explain how to do things the right way???

Which specific things would you like to know how to do correctly? I'd be glad to explain them.

[Vajramusti]

Laroux does not know much about wing chun but he seems to be interested in arguing- a waste of time- mine anyway.

[LaRoux]

Tll me what part body rotation would be?

All power generation in this plane in which force is transferred through the arms follows the same basic principles.

Full body rotation with increased power:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cp4J45kF-mI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-5O49K0gF8



Not full body rotation with minimized power:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7shrxYLCFOM

See the difference?

[LaRoux]

Laroux does not know much about wing chun but he seems to be interested in arguing- a waste of time- mine anyway.

All I'm asking for is evidence. So far, I've given a thumbs up to all the evidence of wing chun working in live, resisting settings that has been presented so far.

The wing chun guys are the ones who have put down the evidence and claimed either that it was not wing chun or the other guy wasn't very good. Ironically (and not surprisingly) they haven't been able to provide any evidence for their opinions.

[Vajramusti]

All I'm asking for is evidence. So far, I've given a thumbs up to all the evidence of wing chun working in live, resisting settings that has been presented so far.

The wing chun guys are the ones who have put down the evidence and claimed either that it was not wing chun or the other guy wasn't very good. Ironically (and not surprisingly) they haven't been able to provide any evidence for their opinions.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What are your credentials as a judge of wing chun--you seem to be following the not uncommon pattern of sitting back and expecting evidence to come to you and then deciding what is acceptable and what is not. That is a poor research model.

[LaRoux]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What are your credentials as a judge of wing chun--you seem to be following the not uncommon pattern of sitting back and expecting evidence to come to you and then deciding what is acceptable and what is not. That is a poor research model.

I analyze the evidence of what works in a one time setting, look for evidence of it being reproducible and not just a one-off occurrence, break the evidence down into why it works and then attempt to apply those principles into later applications.

Like all logical and fact based research, you need some kind of hard evidence to begin with.

Without hard evidence, you are a simply a blind man who follows a cult and believes whatever the cult leaders tell you.

[LaRoux]

They aren't WC punches

They seemed to work pretty well, at least in that one instance. Maybe the wing chun powers that be should think about incorporating them into the system.

If something works, why wouldn't you want to incorporate that into the system?

[Vajramusti]

I analyze the evidence of what works in a one time setting, look for evidence of it being reproducible and not just a one-off occurrence, break the evidence down into why it works and then attempt to apply those principles into later applications.

Like all logical and fact based research, you need some kind of hard evidence to begin with.

Without hard evidence, you are a simply a blind man who follows a cult and believes whatever the cult leaders tell you.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A soft piece on the nature of " research"-when the objective remains quite subjective.
At least for me my interest in wing chun is sufficiently evidence based and not based on a cult..but I don't need to prove that to you.

Your "evidence" could be fu;ll of sampling errors and is not exactly survey research.
Your posts seem fairly close to baiting

[LaRoux]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A soft piece on the nature of " research"-when the objective remains quite subjective.
At least for me my interest in wing chun is sufficiently evidence based and not based on a cult..but I don't need to prove that to you.

Most people in cults don't think their cult is a cult. It doesn't mean they aren't involved with one.

Your "evidence" could be fu;ll of sampling errors and is not exactly survey research.

Of course this could be always be true. However when the evidence points 99% one way, generally you can figure that it's probably statistically significant.

[GlennR]

They seemed to work pretty well, at least in that one instance. Maybe the wing chun powers that be should think about incorporating them into the system.

If something works, why wouldn't you want to incorporate that into the system?

You're missing the point, and my point regarding short power in reference to power.

The WC punch is built around the fact that the WC guy is looking for contact.

That is, he wants contact with his opponent, otherwise it's boxing.
His first goal is to hit the guy, failing that he should be moving into his WC range which is that 'trapping range" for want of a better description.
Because of that range, and WC always looking for the straight punch, the elbows are kept down to utilize tan, bong and fuk if required. The stance is different to support this as a conventional boxing stance just doesn't work with the WC hands.

That clip is not WC punching. It's a guy throwing fairly conventional punches, at range, having stunned the guy with the initial couple. He's a fighter, he used the by tool for the occasion which he does well.

You could argue that he ha used WC principals but this s where the arguments start.
But hey...... Welcome to the WC forum!

[anerlich]

A bit harsh this guy was someone who competed in Muy Thai professionally for 7 years. His points must be worth something...

I read that he had trained and competed in Muay Thai for 7 years, not that he had been a pro fighter for 7 years.

[LaRoux]

You're missing the point, and my point regarding short power in reference to power.

By short power, I'm assuming you are meaning not using much or any body rotation, is that correct?

That is, he wants contact with his opponent, otherwise it's boxing.

And the problem with using boxing when he doesn't have contact would be what?

His first goal is to hit the guy, failing that he should be moving into his WC range which is that 'trapping range" for want of a better description.

I'm confused. I thought you just said this would be boxing if he hit the guy without making contact first.

That clip is not WC punching. It's a guy throwing fairly conventional punches, at range, having stunned the guy with the initial couple. He's a fighter, he used the by tool for the occasion which he does well.

So, where would an example of a WC guy throwing WC punches be? Would this be it?
Wing Chun guy attempting to use wing chun punches in fight.

[anerlich]

If one can use his WC chain punches like Vitor Belfort did at 5.05 (39 second in the fight) in the following clip, he should have no problem to handle any fighters from any styles.

http://www.videosmma.com.br/ufc/wand...-i-ufc-brasil/

Belfort, Wing Chun chain punches, BULLSh!T! Belfort never had a Wing Chun lesson in his life.

So many WC guys want Belfort and Lyoto Machida to be WC poster boys, but in reality neither of them have spent ANY time doing WC.

The only people who seem to be able to use WC principles in MMA are no-WC fighters. Hooey!

[anerlich]

LaRoux,

You seem to have a derisive opinion of most others approaches.

Oh, and I guess that makes him Robinson Crusoe .... on this forum

[Robinhood]

They aren't WC punches

Close enough to get my vote, when the shoulders stay square, and the fists are vertical, elbows in natural position, structure is plenty good enough for good wc arm punches.