Wing Chun striking vs Muay Thai striking for street fights

If you believe they do so, please give an example of how.[/QUOTE]

It doesn't though. You're never really fighting a group of people. You line them up and fight them one at a time. Also, how specifically do you train fighting more than one person? And what rules do you use when doing this.

Cross cover, or if the kick is straight down the middle, hook and leg sweep.

 

The Problem with the whole premise of this thread is the assumption that it is the style of martial art not the person that makes you effective in what you do (be it competition or street defence etc)...

This is not about technique. MT practitioners training has a ring-based influence where the level's of fitness and the exposure to full contact competition is significant. This is obviously beneficial, but the context for self-protection is probably wrong - there is no reason someone who practices MT would not supplement with other things more related with Self-defence - This would make the individual more effective.

The same applies with practitioners of WC or any other martial art. Anecdotally I understand that WC was quite popular with doormen in the 80's 90's in the UK, because what they wanted was to control the space and sucker punch effectively. These chaps have everything to do with being pragmatic...

 

QUOTE I can kick a guy
anywhere from his calf to his head,
with either leg, from either stance, what makes you think I can't kick you
in the balls?QUOTE
Are you talking about kicking me specifically, or are we having a hypothetical discussion here?

 

Leg kick him so he can't use one of his legs very well?
Clinch him and knee him in the groin first?
Jab cross?

All sorts of reasons. Restrictive clothing, rapid distance close down, natural protective responses, adrenalin masking the effects, adrenalin being detrimental to your targetting.
Stuff like that.

 

Let's not forget the bog standard defences. The check with the shin and the step backwards.

 

Id agree with a lot of the above.

 

Some people are very violent, but lack the skills and timing to execute violence.

 

most striking MAists can kick anyone from head to shin. not all can kick effectively while there is smoething being done to them.

kick me in the groin while i kick you in the head with steel toed boots. fair trade?

sorry, but this is ALL ABOUT TECHNIQUE. more specifically: ARE YOU GETTING THE RIGHT TECHNIQUES FOR THE JOB? and the follow-up question: ARE YOU GETTING THE RIGHT TECHNIQUES FOR THOSE JOB VARIATIONS?

fighting technique, teaching technique, training technique. Screw up the first one, you screw them all. screw up the second one, you'll have the skills but you can't impart them to others. screw up the third one, you'll probably get a technique that falls apart under dire situations and/or break your body itself during the training process.

that's why WC, as a stand-alone system, sucks. and you can get better lessons in it's forte (infighting/clinch range) from other arts such as muay thai. that's why this topic is such a bad match-up (something mediocre vs. something good)

to quote marc macyoung: "You're not teaching self-defense. You're training people to operate within the parameters of self-defense. That's a subtle, but important distinction." the "parameters of self-defense" ARE RULES, more accurately, laws. if you step over its gonna be unjustified homicide. so then WC has no rules aka free for all according to you Tman?

now can you say that those moves are JUSTIFIED?


PS: THOMAS you say that WC was popular with doormans of the 80s and 90s? were they solely WC? were they effective (statistics and evidence please:their WC teachers, time of training, incident reports, etc)? where are they now?


fads may come and go, but boxing (and its variation kickboxing) endures.

 

Hi Da Lurker

I think you may be confusing a number of things here.

Self-Defence or more accurately self-Protection is based on the assumption that there is not a set of rules to which all participants have agreed to. Having a duel or street fight or a MT bout are all consensual, to a greater or lesser extent. Both parties have "agreed" to fight.

What I believe Marc's quote refers to is that you're training for a situation not training to learn the "martial art of Self Defence"... its a question of context.

Although there are criminal justice Laws and when defending yourself you should be aware of them, these are not the same as the rules agreed in a consensual fight - in fact you would be breaking the law in the UK if you had agreed to have a fight in the street. Both parties can be breaking the Law, but have agreed to a set of rules in a fight (even if it is just "we are going to fight now")

By definition in self-protection scenario's one party does not want to fight. So the fact that the other party does fight means that they are already breaking the LAW of the land (in the UK at least).. There are no rules.

Now personally I am not a big fan of WC and I recognise some of the legitimate criticisms made in this thread but this whole debate is about context. Nowadays in the UK, the Doorman/Bouncer industry is much better governed, reputable Doorman organisations would provide suitable training that is appropriate for the bouncer role. Choosing WC would have been based on real experience, I am not sure Faddiness would have had a huge role to play in the choices made then...

Back in the 80's if you wanted to suppliment your training, what did you have to choose from? The most common striking Martial Arts, Kick-boxing, Karate and Boxing are all styles designed to fit a set of rules for the ring (in the case of Shotokan for example that would be the styalised sparring ranges that were practiced in those days)... WC was one of the few that focused on dealing with close range trapping, gripping and striking. Doorman are naturally not uncomfortable with physical confrontation and maybe it could be argued that that would offset some of the challenges of classic WC training..

 

from my experience, wing chun and muay thai have great deal in common, starting with both arts possible origins in hindu india (for wing chun's possible hindu origins, research "the lion's roar kung fu" or "simhinada vajramushti" and note that ng mui is listed in their geneology), and both arts usage of close range trapping methods, in fact i remember how i used to frequent the leitai tournaments where the main events often included wing chun vs. muay thai, and both styles were very good

 

That history would be exceptionally suspect then

And the technical similarities are small indeed. Even a cursory examination reveals that. Hell, even the STANCE reveals that. The trapping and close range techniques are markedly different in strategy and approach and the mechanics or striking differ too

In essence they have virtually nothing in common at all

 

Wasn't Muay Thai a battlefield art at one time? It doesn't seem like they would have used it if it wasn't excellent for actual combat.... though I'd get rid of the high kicks in any art used in a street fight... just to risky IMO.

Edit: I know we aren't talking street, but I wouldn't want to use head kicks in general myself is my point.

 

This says not such good things about your experience.

 

again, whose definition? recently there was a female TKD instructor who was grilled on marc's fb page for adding her own definitions that ran CONTRARY to the state's LEGAL DEFINITIONS. that's why marc was always saying: there is a fine line between self-defense/justifiable homicide and assault/manslaughter/unjustified homicide. AND THAT'S ON THE SIDE OF THE GUY GETTING ATTACKED! :woo:

if you were driving in your car with your family and some goons want to pump you full of holes, you have no cellphone, you can't stop to call for help and in the process of escaping you ran over the queen herself so that authorities will converge, is that self-defense?

THE LAW DOES NOT STOP JUST BECAUSE THE OTHER SIDE BREAKS IT.

and that's what i was getting to. if WC expound that "it's not sport cuz it has groin shots, throat strikes, eye gouges" (Tman's words) and professes to teach that in order to be more "effective", when and where are you gonna use that? a drunk and heartbroken guy who swings at you because of some perceived slight?

to paraphrase marc again: "if you haven't gone through the pee-wee, high school and collegiate leagues(he's talking about 'murican football) don't expect to win the super bowl anytime soon". compared to MT, has WC been properly represented as "effective" in the lower leagues (punch and kick department at 'legal targets' aka 'combat sports')? where are the results?

NEARLY NON-EXISTENT

if WC is levels lower than MT in the lower leagues (aka lower levels in the use of force continuum), why the hell would someone spend so much time and money on it if given a choice between that and another system?

and the context is this: boxing/kickboxing/karate guys only need to be taught WHEN to punch and WHERE to punch for added effect in SD situations. you just need to take these guys from one ruleset to another. most WC guys need to be taught HOW to punch for maximum effect. the effective WC guys i've met have considerable experiences in boxing/kickboxing(and some have stared in WC, found it lacking, learned boxing). the effective boxing guys i've met wants to take bjj(then judo)in order to improve, NOT WC. why? it's because their striking skills are already formidable, not much need to supplement it.


and by the way, last time i've visited UK ('83) all doormen i've seen were "punch first ask questions later" type. all have been pugilists formally and informally. where was your sample taken again?

 

meh

 

Lol. You're just the gift that keeps on giving aren't you.

Do you actually train? Because your posts tell me you don't, or that at best, you train in a style that doesn't require any significant amount of sparring.

 

Feel the testosterone Luke

 

Are you responding to Tman or Da Lurker? The way the quoting worked on this one, it looks like Tman is saying something that Da Lurker actually said originally. And, in my humble opinion, it's Da Lurker's assertion that sounds dodgier. Kicking someone in the head is, in my view, much harder than tagging them in the jumblies.

Just curious.