Hey guys, I was watching a video on youtube of izzotacticalcombat who is a sifu of traditional Wing Chun and, through out the video this sifu was saying Wing Chun purely a killing and naming art. I am trying to learn Wing Chun ( Reading, Practising first form ) and this video has instilled a brutal version of Wing Chun in my mind. I viewed Wing chun as a soft but powerful martial art , not so powerful where you can kill someone. ( I know some forms can kill ) I would like to hear MAP's thoughts and what kind of art you guys think Wing Chun is. I will read every comment.
Welcome to MAP. Wing Chun is a perfectly good art. It only suffers when its practitioners try to compare it to others art such as MMA, BJJ etc. My honest opinion is that killing someone is theoretically easy, but to become a skilled martial artist is a whole lot harder. Enjoy your training and don't be concerned about an instructor on you tube. Can it be soft but powerful? Yes it can. Can it be devastating? Yes it can. The above though comes from you.
Do you mean "maiming"? Lots of arts have material in them that could theoretically, under the right circumstances, kill or maim someone. Wing chun is not particularly more brutal than many other arts. A lot of that is the image that individual teachers wish to convey. Perhaps this teacher just wants to market it as a killing and maiming art. It's certainly a time-honoured practice to play up something's effectiveness in deadly street encounters.
the same dominic izzo who is in this clip? if so and wing chun really is that deadly he died several times in this clip because the other guy was all over him lol [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1_oEeMKY6c"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1_oEeMKY6c[/ame] as for it being brutal, well it wasnt invented for sport was it, it was invented to help people defend themselves in times of civil unrest and kill their enemies, whether its actually any good for that purpose is another question, i would say from personal experience that if you want to be good in wing chun, the nature of the art iself and the people attracted to it will make that harder than some other arts, but not impossible i suppose
It always worries me when people ask questions like 'what is the most lethal form of...?'. It makes it sounds like you are planning on killing someone. Which is terrible, because there are far cheaper ways of killing someone than studying a martial art for 5 years.
I see you've been a member for awhile and , most likely have had your spelling blunders , no need to flame and troll me for my error. That having been said , have a good evening.
Well, I wasn't flaming or trolling, so I don't appreciate the accusation. It was an honest question. Hence the confused smilie. I thought it was some term I didn't know. I didn't think it was a typo since you spelled it that way two times in the same post. Typo's usually happen once. I actually have only been active on here for about 6 months. I signed up years ago and forgot. But if you bother to read my posts, you will see I don't have a history of trollling or flaming. The closest I get is that I am harsh on those who insist they want to learn from youtube or books and don't want to do what it takes to get a teacher. Other than that, I am quite respectful.
:topic: warning Lol! I thought smilies were supposed to convey the tone of a message and clarify things! BTW, If I was flaming in that post, I would really stink at it! I would hope if I DID turn to flaming or trolling, that I could do a better job than a simple question with a confused smilie!
Terrible because they are going about it in a completely inefficient way, or because they're thinking about killing somebody? It's kinda' bad when somebody jumps to conclusions with so few words and the use of a smiley. Shame on you though. Shame. . . . shaaaaammmmeee
With regards to (I now assume) maiming or killing in a martial art. My Sifu always teaches certain moves as potentially able to maim or kill, but you should never assume it does so. I.E. a throat chop CAN do really nasty things, or a head shot CAN KO someone. So one should only use that level of force if appropriate. However, one should NOT walk around assuming they have the deadly skills that will automatically maim or kill if in a real situation. That is a false sense of security that will get one in trouble.
Calm down and get some perspective As for your original question, I think Wing chun over intellectualizes combat and though it has much to offer it is also stylistically limited in scope and application. Plus the majority of the way it is trained is pretty horrible
Sifus have different philosophys. I would recommend one that fits your goals and views. We do alot of internal training, some focus more on the external. Some are more into marketing, buying clothes that match, belts etc and others are more about your training. If your looking for a place that mixes in weight lifting, excercize etc look for that or a studio that offers more. Ours we do alot of mixing it up with qigong, conditioning, chi sao, sparring, applications, etc so I like that I am never bored.
Wing Chun has not been a "killing art" since at least the 18th century, if it ever was one. Like a lot of Chinese arts, what is peddled today under the guise of Chun often ends in supreme disappointment. To understand what Wing Chun is, take into account both the Shaolin legendarium (from the Tang to the Ming dynasty) as well as the 18th century Chinese theater/riverboat culture where Wing Chun took root as an art. In the legendarium, Wing Chun is associated with a female master who created her own style based on the Shaolin animals that were effective for "her", much like the origin stories of the Praying Mantis masters, who according to traditional stories created their own techniques rather than embrace the more common temple boxing styles of their time. But the conflicting accounts of Wing Chun's origin claim that this female Buddhist nun/master was actually a male rebel fighter wanted by the Ching government who hid in the South, a common theme of the early days of that dynasty. This story makes more sense than a Shaolin nun creating her own deadly killing art...and what better way to disguise the style's true origins and master's location, than to make up a story and pass it around? Fast forward a couple hundred years to the 18th century, Wing Chun is not being used to fight the Ching, it is being used in performances and proliferating amongst the (mostly pacified) artisan classes, which by the way included Bruce Lee's father, who was a Cantonese opera singer. I have heard every Wing Chun claim there is...it's a killing art. It's great for little people. It's a floor wax and dessert topping! It defeats grappling. It defeats boxing. It defeats Hung ga because Hung ga has hooking punches and don't you know, those waste energy... It provides an endless reservoir of Chi energy. One claim I have never, ever seen proven is that Wing Chun can be useful in a fight. I can't say the same thing about many other Chinese arts for which there are historical record of success, or modern video, or competition sports that take their technique set into account. So, while not hating on Wing Chun (as a historical antiquity it is rather amazing), as a martial art it has one of the largest deluded/realistic practitioner ratios of any martial art. That's just my opinion, based on watching a million Wing Chun videos from people like Izzo, who purport to be its flag-bearers.
Hare, judging by the number of "Thanks" posted already, your perspective is pretty popular here, but aren't you going a bit far in saying that WC has never been proven useful in a fight? Personally, I've seen people use WC quite effectively. Of course I have a rather broad definition of what I consider To be WC. The "delusional" crowd tends to view WC very narrowly according to a standard dating back to the middle of the last century or earlier. I see it more as an adaptable set of concepts, where as others are locked into a very rigid, traditional mindset. To me that makes about as much sense as saying that anybody who doesn't box like John L. Sullivan isn't an authentic boxer. All arts need to adapt and evolve to remain effective. Now as for the high percentage of "delusional types" I hear ya. And as for videos, I haven't watched "a million from people like Izzo". That in itself would be deadly ...at least to me! But I some of Alan Orr's stuff makes a lot of sense to me, and his guys do test it out. There are others too. A few, anyway. Is it the best stuff out there? Maybe not, but some of it does look useful. But then I was one of the delusional types for a long time.
Geezer, I used to do Wing Chun and still check out some of the boards every now and then. One thing I found interesting is the people who could use WC to fight, usually with some heavy cross training to fill in the gaps, were the ones who got hammered on the boards because they didn't have the real WC. Heck they even banned one of the Dog Brothers because he criticized the way they trained the butterfly knife.