Originally Posted by
Chop suey
So basically to sum up the two sides of this...argument...
I)One the one hand we have those who say
A)all "fighting" pretty much looks the same, regardles of what martial art has been trained.
B)Wing chun is inadequate to be used by itself. The techniques are either to complicated to be used in a real situation or are no longer applicable in a modern context.
C) while certain theories are valid, wing chun should be combined with other arts to make up for its short comings. (mma)
II) On the other hand we have those who say
A) If it doesnt look like wing chun, it probably isnt. If it doesnt look like wing chun, the person doing it hasnt trained either hard or long enough. I learn wing chun because I want to do wing chun.
B) Wing chun is logical and reasonable. The techniques can actually be used and applied. They are performed almost automatically or at least with very little thought.
C) It doesnt need to be combined with anything else. It can stand on its own.
Group I could be called the Realists and group II could be called the Purists. I for one consider myself amongst the Purists. I do not believe wing chun makes me invincible.
I would like to think that I am among group III, which I would call the Progressive Traditionalists. Combat is always going to change, as it has since forever; like the christian saying 'the Devil is always diligent so must we be as well.' However, the techniques in Wing Chun wouldn't still be around if they didn't work. So you take from it what works for you. Adhere to the nature, but change the form accordingly.
Although the changes are infinite, the principles are the same.
- Wang Tsung Yueh
To win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the highest skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the highest skill.
- Sun Tzu
Boards don't hit back.
- Bruce Lee