Wing Chun power

[Tom Yum]

That's what's wrong here. Too many people base their martial knowledge on what books they have read or what YouTube video there is to watch. There are real men who you'll never see on YouTube that would easily put foot to ass using wing chun out in the world, but when they are spoken of, you get asked where their video is.

Life is in the living, not critiquing the latest media from the comfort of a computer. And if the only evidence that you look for is on the internet, then of course you can live happily believing whatever you wish to be true due to no cyber-proof being uploaded yet.

Well said, Uke.

[Troll Virus]

Look at a typical Thai Bri arguement for a minute here.

Let's say Thai Bri gets his ass handed to him by someone who practiced Wing Chun............

.......That Bri would humbly say, what he was beaten by wasn't Wing Chun.

He'd say that what it was, was something that more resembled Boxing or some other such.

There's no real desire to help other people economise what they train in on the part of Thai Bri.
He just pans and knocks things.

Thai Bri.
The burden of proof lies with you, not only to prove that "WC doesn't work" (having made that claim so many times), but to prove that ANY system or style does.

Give us a clear and mature answer for once please.

[Uke]

Well said, Uke.

Thank you, Tom Yum

[jubaji]

In the end, the truth lies in doing a thing, not talking about it. Everyone is entitled to their opinions about whatever style, man, weapon, etc. But if that opinion isn't based on experience, or very limited experience, then that opinion is just sour grapes.

You're right. If there were someone who, just for example, claimed that carrying a knife were the solution to all problems and obviated any shortcomings in training or physical ability but that person had never so much as scratched a person with a knife in a real situation, then he would be full of hot air, right?

The credibility problem that wing chun runs into again and again is that there are so many who claim so much but so few who have actually done anything verifiable. Everyone's got a story (almost always about their instructor, or their instructor's instructor, or their instructor's instructor's instructor, etc.), but almost no one outside the WC world has been witness to the amazing abilities so often refered to. If WCers were to then say, "fine, don't believe it. we'll just keep training confident in the knowledge that we have seen and done what we say." then that would also be fine, but many WCers are pretty vocal, adamant and defensive about these claims.

Another problem lies in the "WC contains everything if you just look for it" line that many, many WCers enjoy repeating in one form or another. But perhaps that's an issue for another thread...

[jubaji]

Let's say Thai Bri gets his ass handed to him by someone who practiced Wing Chun.............

Hang on, has he? If not, then this can't really be a "typical Thai Bri argument," can it?

[Uke]

You're right. If there were someone who, just for example, claimed that carrying a knife were the solution to all problems and obviated any shortcomings in training or physical ability but that person had never so much as scratched a person with a knife in a real situation, then he would be full of hot air, right?

This could be true, if the person had never opened up someone with a blade. But the same could also be true, just for example, if someone constantly critiqued other men's knowledge of a matter, say martial arts, without demonstrating even the slightest bit of competency on the subject. After all, to critique is to review or discuss critically, right? So when that person uses flippant comments to mask the fact that they've reached the limit of where they're equipped to continue intelligently, wouldn't they be full of hot air?

[jubaji]

This could be true, if the person had never opened up someone with a blade.

I'm glad you think so because there's someone just like that around here...

[Red Rum]

Hope springs eternal.

We are back to the question of evidence. Beyond half truths and lies, where actually is it?

Like I have said before, the only "evidence" WC produces is either unsubtantiated or, worse than that, includes looking at people "play" fighting. And, of course, the old favourite of seeing "Wing Chun" guys do MMA.....

If WC can do all these great things, once again..... where is the evidence?

What you mean the people I smashed to smithereens in bar fights?

Unfortunately, I have had a few fights in my time on this earth and to be honest wing chun got me out of it. I admit that it wasn't always pure wing chun and sometimes I had to use my size and strength. But the point is that wing chun does work if you know how to use it right.

For those people who have a lack of faith or a dislike to wing chun - you should get out there and check around a few more schools.

I have encountered many people who have given wing chun a bad name. I was on the wing chun fighters forum recently and there is a guy named Blapps that you really should listen to.ThaiBri - you would make mincemeat of him. He claims that he has never lost a fight and that he fought in kung fu open championships and won them all. He also claims that the UFC is a waste of time. Link here - http://wingchunfightclub.org/joomla/...9;sa=showPosts

It's people like this guy that destroy the wing chun credibility.
I am glad to say that there are a few good wing chun schools out there.

I train in four other martial arts at the moment and the sad fact is that most of the students cannot fight at all.
At least at Kamon there is an element of realism. Kevin Chan has had fights for the majority of his life and has always faced people who wanted to challenge him. He has never said that he could beat anyone up and is a humble guy. It is always a pleasure training under him as there is no hype - what you see is what you get and he is a naturally hard guy.

I probably weigh about three times his bodyweight but he takes me apart very easily.

[Thai Bri]

Look at a typical Thai Bri arguement for a minute here.

Let's say Thai Bri gets his ass handed to him by someone who practiced Wing Chun............

.......That Bri would humbly say, what he was beaten by wasn't Wing Chun.

He'd say that what it was, was something that more resembled Boxing or some other such.

There's no real desire to help other people economise what they train in on the part of Thai Bri.
He just pans and knocks things.

Thai Bri.
The burden of proof lies with you, not only to prove that "WC doesn't work" (having made that claim so many times), but to prove that ANY system or style does.

Give us a clear and mature answer for once please.

I love this post. It is based on a premise that hasn't happened (i.e. me having my ass handed to me by a WC guy) and also manages to include the biggest logical fallacy of them all - that someone has to prove a negative.

TV, to paraphrase Bertrand Russell, if I say there is a green tea pot floating around the world, do you have to believe it unless you can prove that it is not? Do you have to prove a negative?

Of course not. I am making that positive statement. It is down to me to prove it.

You say WC "works" well for real fighting. I say it does not. The burden of proof clearly and totally lies with you.

Mind you, looking at some of the fawning acceptance of all things mythical in martial arts, I reckong that some people would believe that a green teap pot orbits the earth if William Cheung said it did.

[Red Rum]

Thai Bri - all the religious people in the world would disagree with you. I am not religious myself, but I find that people who have strong faith argue that they do not have to prove that God/Allah/Buddah, etc exist, and that's what faith is.

I have seen wing chun guys win a lot of fights in the street, but I have seen some of my karate friends lose fights. Does this mean that every karate guy cannot fight? No. It just means that they were unlucky, or hadn't trained enough or fought a more experinced opponent.

Also, does it mean that everyone who has fought in the UFC and lost a fight are bad fighters? Or that their style doesn't work?

[Troll Virus]

You say WC "works" well for real fighting.

No I didn't.
That's what you want to see.

The burden of proof clearly and totally lies with you.

It might perhaps, if I, like you, believed that fighters are made, rather than born.
It suits your purposes to oversimplify everything.

[Jim Key]

There is no way any style can be 100% superior to others for a number of reasons.
For one: The idea of "goodness" is so ambiguous that it would never make sense to say what style is better than what style

More importantly: A style is just a collection of movements, theories, smaller styles etc and will only ever be as good as the fighter that practices it. A wing chun fighter could batter the crap out of Thai boxer one day (maybe the WC guy is good, maybe the thai boxer isn't, maybe it was luck, etc), but no one would even dream of thinking that this means that either: it is definitely going to happen again or that some other wing chun fighter would definitely beat any other Thai fighter just because of how this encounter turned out.
A fight can easily go both ways any time you have trained fighters engage each other.

What is important is the fighter.

I strongly agree with the point about not needing to prove a negative. Theists find this form of non thought comforting but ultimately it is the product of indoctrination.
To further the Russell's teapot analogy, it would be stupid and most people would agree, that just because you could not disprove the existence of this celestial teapot we should just assume it exists. However, if stories about the teapots divinity were passed down through generations of people who didn't know better then a disturbingly large amount of people would probably believe in it. (This is a point that is very difficult for a lot of people to accept)

The responsibility of providing proof lies with those making the positive claims and it is the responsibility (for the sake of the advancement of collective intellect) of the skeptic to question that which does not provide proof.
However, I personally do study wing chun as well as a number of other styles, primarily Muay Thai.
Wing Chuns principles, I believe, have made me a better fighter. It hasn't improved my fighting ability anywhere near the amount that MT has but it has still contributed.
I can see why such a negative image of wing chun exists and I myself see a lot of people who are far too naive about thier style and its abilities.
There are some decent things to be learned from wing chun. It has improved my fighting style and if you see me fight it is obvious that i have trained wing chun, however you will never see me execute anything even remotely resembling a wing chun block in a real fight.
There is a lot of crap to be waded through in all martial arts in my opinion but i think that wing chun is a decent enough style if you take it (as I believe you should take all martial arts styles) with a pinch of salt.

My two cents

Hi by the way, I'm Jim, nice to meet you all. *extends hand for the shaking thereof*

[Troll Virus]

Hi by the way, I'm Jim, nice to meet you all. *extends hand for the shaking thereof*

*Shakes Jims hand.

[Thai Bri]

Hi Jim.....welcome.

Back to the arguments.

It is not wise to say "it is the man, not the style." That is one of the many illogical hiding places people jump into when they are on the verge of really scrutinising their beliefs. We've seen it before.....

"WC is great because they do X, Y and Z"
"But A,B and C is far better."
"Well, it's the man, not the style......"

Both are important. MMA training will not make anyone a champion if they do not have some natural talent as well as a courageous and rock hard attitude. But even a super suitable MA student, full of natural talent and courage, will fail if you teach him shit.

Think of a running analogy. It would certainly be possible to train someone how to run on their hands. After many years they could be great at it! But, no matter who they are, they are still going to come in way way at the back in any average Athletics meeting where everyone else uses their feet. In fact they probably will hardly ever even manage to beat the untrained.

That is why the style AND the training methods are a crucial part of the cake. WC has little eveidence that it has a good quality of either.

Red Rum - nope, losing a fight does not mean that your style doesn't work. We are all looking for any film whatsoever of someone using WC against a fully resisting non WC opponent though. Please help us.... Help us find that tea pot.

[Troll Virus]

We are all looking for any film whatsoever of someone using WC against a fully resisting non WC opponent though. Please help us.... Help us find that tea pot.

Are we?
I'm not!

You're as likely to see someone walking down the street in Horse Stance!