Does Wing Chun fail against boxing most of the times?

To be fair that forum died years ago so no one could be bothered to correct him

That forum had some very knowledgeable kung fu guys posting there, several coaches from the big 6 sanda schools for example, legit lineage holders in various arts, but funnily enough the wing chun forum always had the strangest people posting and the biggest arguments.... Go figure

 

Another thing I wasn’t going to comment on, but I can’t help myself.

I noticed how, in the article, he uses Mike Tyson’s uppercut to justify the Wing Chun stance. Biomechanically they are not remotely similar. Tyson bends the knees, slips the head to the side, bends deeply at the waist- literally the opposite of tucking the hips and driving the pelvis forwards- and fires straight up.

I saw something similar on another forum a few years ago. It was after a Machida fight, where a Wing Chun practioner was arguing that the way Machida fought in the cage was textbook Wing Chun. In that case not only were the body mechanics different, but the range Machida prefers to keep the fight is also completely different.

There seems to be this strange cognitive dissonance, which isn’t specific to Wing Chun but more to non pressure tested arts in general, where they use superficial similarities (Mike Tyson is an inside fighter, Lyoto Machida traps the lead hand) in proven combat arts to justify their own art despite the otherwise overwhelming differences.

 

People claimed that Lyoto Machida's stand up game resembled Wing Chun? That's...that's not a good argument. His stand-up game, from movement, to distance, to stance, to striking style, was clearly heavily influenced from the JKA Shotokan Karate he trained in since he was a little kid. You can see a lot of that fight style in the old-school JKA competitions from the 1980s (which have a very different feel from much of modern JKA Shotokan kumite):



The famous/infamous knockout photo of Rachad Evans with a textbook gyaku-zuki (which was the last nail in the coffin of the once-popular argument that Machida's stand-up game was really just Muay Thai and he only claimed he was using Shotokan Karate for marketing purposes):

 

Yeah. I remember watching a really old Machida fight. He fought Rich Franklin actually, I think it was jungle fights or something. Anyway he stood and moved more like a traditional kick boxer. In an interview later he said it took his time to find his style in the cage, which looks a lot like the even older video footage of him point fighting in a very traditional JKA way.

Anyway, point being nothing about the way he moves or fights has any relation to Wing Chun. It's as silly as comparing Mike Tyson's movement to the style.

 

Cognitive dissonance explains a lot.

 

Or the point could be if the only person who can represent how you think your style should look doesn't even train your style maybe it's either time to change your training methods or your style

 

Yeah, I went back and watched some of his early fights and it took a while for him to find his style, but when he really broke out big time, the range and movement that made him so famous was very distinctly Shotokan. Similarly, here's his brother fighting in Bellator last year, and it's as Shotokan-y (is that an adjective) as MMA gets.



I hadn't realized there were people claiming that Machida fought like Wing Chun. As someone who did Shotokan for several years and tried Wing Chun for a summer...they're about as diametrically opposite as two TMA striking arts can be. I'm not saying that in a "Wing Chun is bad" sort of way, just in a "I have no idea how someone could confuse Wing Chun and Shotokan" sort of way.

 

Thanks for all the answers, guys.

I found a video on youtube about someone talking specifically about the wing chun vs boxing issue. I don't know if he could be right or not:

 

Hint: someone standing in their garage rambling about having all the answers almost by default is completely wrong.

There should be a name for it, like the YouTube rule of inverse correlation between number of words vs competency in martial arts... or really anything that is primarily physical.

If you’re talking about X vs Y in fighting, just watch the fights. The truth tends to reveal itself.

 

Instead of watching YouTube videos of people talking about fighting, watch YouTube videos of fights, or even better go to a mma school, And take a few classes, the truth will be more then obvious.

 

That's some real insight right there. Maybe and never boxers like to hide behind real boxers, don't they.

 

MMA just isn't accessible to many people. I have a feeling a lot of the people who choose arts like Wing Chun do so specifically because it's quote a bit easier than MMA, or boxing for that matter, a whole world of difference with respect to endurance, first and foremost. It's true that videos are a problem, but they can also be the right inspiration at the right time.

 

Yeah I think that's a good point. It does seem like a lot of people want to claim effectiveness without really putting in as much hard training.

 

Its Wing CHUN! As in "rhymes with TUNE" not CHUNG! Dammit. If you're gonna do a non biased garage ramble, at least get the pronounciation of said art correctly.

 

I think this last point is actually very spot on. As someone who has trained in - though admittedly never mastered - both wing chun and boxing, my experience is that wing chun players have tremendous difficulty with the western boxing left hook simply because the left hook, thrown well, comes on quickly as a bit of a surprise and most people - again in my experience - cannot tan sau in time to block it, which can have pretty devastating results.

That is but one example, and please be warned that it is clearly only an opinion, but I personally feel very strongly that a well-trained boxer can pick apart a similarly trained wing chun player, primarily with quick, powerful jabs, the hooks, but most importantly - much better footwork. I really feel there is almost no contest. I know that makes people spit out their green tea as they read this, but that is my opinion.

I do not buy into the idea that arts like wing chun are more deadly because they train for eye gouges and throat punches, etc. In my experience, any boxer can target well enough to punch a throat in a life or death situation. I just don't think those tactics make up for fundamentally less effective foot work and strikes.

I have put a lot of thought into the application of wing chun and scenarios where it would make sense as an effective art. I actually think it makes tremendous sense for small, confined places, and particularly those that are unstable. For example, I think it might be advantageous for air marshals and Coast Guard boarding parties to study wing chun. The squared-off, center line stance and in-turned toes (specifically, yee ji kim yeung ma) would actually be phenomenal for balance in situations like that. It would be much more difficult for a boxer to keep his balance fighting in a side stance on a plane or a confined area on a rocking boat and many muay thai and certainly tae kwon do techniques would be completely useless in those kinds of situations.

So, to be diplomatic, I guess I really do think that every art has its place. However, I feel strongly that wing chun is not the best art to study for the majority of self defense applications. American boxing is such a good investment in time efficiency and practical skill for street-style self defense applications - as it relates to striking arts, that is, which is quite literally often only half the battle.

 

Stuck a Thai fighter in a confined space with a wing chin guy and I know who my money is on.

It's less about the art and way more about the training methods

 

I disagree! I've read this many times on this forum that it's the training methods...a lot of the techniques are just stupid in a lot of martial arts. A lot of techniques are effective, but thai and boxing have techniques that are MORE effective. So why bother with a technique that's less effective?

Are there better techniques than say a jab/cross/hook/uppercut for striking? enlighten me please.

 

Fair point. Hard core training matters.

But the technique really defines the art and its effectiveness.

As it relates to boxing/MT effectiveness vs Wing Chun, I think we're all in violent agreement here to some extent ...

 

I'm sort of partial to that line of thinking too. As long as your timing and distancing is good you could honestly get away with any technique.

 

I actually agree but they have more effective techniques because of their training methods, these methods have weeded out the low percentage rubbish to leave you with good techniques

So I miss worded it really sorry

I agree some arts are just populated with bad techniques this is usually down to poor training methods.

So saying wing chun is more suited to close range than Thai is in my view miss guided, both have close range techniques and the one with the better training methods will be more efficient at using them at that range