Is Wing Chun really that ineffective?

[kenpeters8]

Cung Le won 3 Bronze Medals at the San Shou World Championships. I would say that makes him elite. He would have fought Liu Hailong, the King of Sanda, but his management didn't want to take the fight. He fought the best competition available to him for San Shou in America including Jason Yee who won a bronze medal in international competition himself.



When he fought Wanderlei Silva he was coming off a long layoff, training MMA part-time while acting in movies and wasn't in good shape. Even with all that against him he still almost knocked him out in the first Round. Cung Le was over 40 when he fought Michael Bisping. When he was active Cung Le was a talented fighter going undefeated in Kickboxing/San Shou and undefeated in MMA until he beat Frank Shamrock. Then he lost some fights and won some fights as he was not training and competing consistently while he tried to establish an acting career. He started MMA late and got old by the time he started fighting decent competition. I would say he proved the effectiveness of his discipline in competition.

Cung Le fought a bunch of scrubs and he was probably on PED back then. Wanderlei was already over the hill when he destroyed Cung Le. Wanderlei would do worst to Cung Le when both of them were in their prime. And Jason Yee is a nobody compared to everyone in the UFC roster. Even Cat Zingano would beat Jason Yee without even trying.

 

[MysticNinjaJay]

Cung Le fought a bunch of scrubs and he was probably on PED back then. Wanderlei was already over the hill when he destroyed Cung Le. Wanderlei would do worst to Cung Le when both of them were in their prime. And Jason Yee is a nobody compared to everyone in the UFC roster. Even Cat Zingano would beat Jason Yee without even trying.

I was convinced you were trolling with the Zingano comment but then I looked at your post history and see that you are a Cung Le hater. You will say anything to discredit him even claiming a female professional fighter would beat a male professional fighter. Cung Le fought some scrubs like most fighters do but he also fought good competition. The fact that he earned 3 bronze medals in international competition proves he was one of the best in the world in San Shou. In MMA he beat Frank Shamrock, Rich Franklin and Patrick Cote who are clearly not scrubs. Wanderlei Silva was a tough opponent. In their prime yeah he might still win, there is no shame in that. Wanderlei is a big Middleweight and the most successful champion at 205 in PRIDE as well as one of the best ever. Cung Le is a small Middleweight. He really should have been fighting at Welterweight in MMA. Cung Le was exonerated for the failed HGH test so you have no basis for saying that he was probably on Performance Enhancing Drugs at any point in his career. Jason Yee was not a nobody in San Shou. He was one of the top prospects in America and earned a Bronze medal in international competition. You're comparing apples and oranges by saying Jason Yee was a nobody compared to the UFC roster. He didn't compete in the UFC so that is irrelevant.

My whole point is that Cung Le was elite in San Shou and that he proved the effectiveness of his discipline in MMA. There is no shame in losing to Wanderlei Silva and certainly not Michael Bisping at this stage. Cung Le avenged his loss to Scott Smith. If you look at his career objectively he did pretty well given factors such as age, acting and fighting top competition early in his MMA career. If Cung Le had competed in MMA at a younger age and at Welterweight I think he had potential to be a UFC champion or at least Top 5. He could probably even make Top 5 or be champion at Middleweight.

 

[Fire of Youth]

This whole argument that they aren't great unless they have fought great fighters is all relativisticaly simplistic. Lets look at Floyd M, he has dominated his division over the course of his career and never lost. We could interpret that as him being truly great or we could interpret the same achievements as an absence of good opponents. The same could be said about Anderson Silva.

Then compare them to say any of the Fab Four. You could interpret any of their achievements has competing with other world-beaters thus showing how great they truly were. Or you could look at the lack of over-riding dominance over the others as evidence that they are not that great.

One interpretation minimises their accomplishments whilst the other maximises their accomplishments. How do you distinguish between the two?

There is the additional danger of the "No true Scotsman" phenomenon entering the debate. For example:
"Sanda is a crap martial art because it has not been consistently shown to be efficacious in high level MMA"
"Cung Lee does Sanda and he did alright"
"Cung Lee wasn't a truly high level Sanda fighter because of the lack of high level competition. Besides he was an MMA fighter with a background in Sanda and not a Sanda purist" [i.e. no a true sanda fighter]
The problem here is that evidence for one argument is devalued and ignored in order to support the opposing argument. Very similar to the first two arguments I highlighted in this post.

 

[freaky]

Wing Chun and all other TMA work. You just need to do real sparring with them. The techniques (hand trap etc) taught in Wing Chun works but will need constant realistic drilling. Hard to pull off IRL but so is bobbing and weaving; that's why you drill it until it's 2nd nature.

Personally, I think WC is a great addition to modern MMA with the open hand glove. MMA striking is more traditional than TMA in that it only uses boxing or MT. Add some hand trap and you will guys dominating in striking.

 

[MysticNinjaJay]

This whole argument that they aren't great unless they have fought great fighters is all relativisticaly simplistic. Lets look at Floyd M, he has dominated his division over the course of his career and never lost. We could interpret that as him being truly great or we could interpret the same achievements as an absence of good opponents. The same could be said about Anderson Silva.

Then compare them to say any of the Fab Four. You could interpret any of their achievements has competing with other world-beaters thus showing how great they truly were. Or you could look at the lack of over-riding dominance over the others as evidence that they are not that great.

One interpretation minimises their accomplishments whilst the other maximises their accomplishments. How do you distinguish between the two?

There is the additional danger of the "No true Scotsman" phenomenon entering the debate. For example:
"Sanda is a crap martial art because it has not been consistently shown to be efficacious in high level MMA"
"Cung Lee does Sanda and he did alright"
"Cung Lee wasn't a truly high level Sanda fighter because of the lack of high level competition. Besides he was an MMA fighter with a background in Sanda and not a Sanda purist" [i.e. no a true sanda fighter]
The problem here is that evidence for one argument is devalued and ignored in order to support the opposing argument. Very similar to the first two arguments I highlighted in this post.

Honestly at this point people should realize that styles are irrelevant. It's all about technique. We shouldn't be looking to see if Wing Chun works or San Shou works and instead look at what techniques from the various disciplines work. Some techniques do work better than others and some Martial Arts are limited in their usefulness. Most people agree that Boxing techniques generally work but would you go in to MMA with just Boxing? Of course not. If you are a Boxer you use Boxing as a base and then you add other useful techniques to your arsenal to become a complete fighter.

Cung Le told me that Traditional Martial Arts have useful techniques that you can add to Mixed Martial Arts. He didn't like forms he said they were a waste of time. You can see in his style that he had a wide variety of striking techniques including spinning techniques and strikes such as the side kick that he put to good use. He also had to learn BJJ even though we never saw him use it and his wrestling background meant that he had good takedown defense. So Cung Le had a complete MMA game. I really believe if he had started at a younger age and focused entirely on MMA instead of trying to have a film career that he would have gotten even further than he did.

 

[kenpeters8]

If Cung Le had competed in MMA at a younger age and at Welterweight I think he had potential to be a UFC champion or at least Top 5. He could probably even make Top 5 or be champion at Middleweight.

Wrong again, boy. Cung Le would get wrecked if he were to fight in the UFC when he was younger. When he was in his prime, he tapped to an armbar by some nobody in a Shidokan match.

And the Frank Shamrock match, Frank Shamrock was being dumb trying to stand up with Cung Le and got his arm broken. Frank Shamrock never had decent striking.

Potential to be a UFC champ or at least Top 5 in at Welterweight or Middleweight?!?!? That must be some realllllllllllllly good weed you're smoking there. LOL!!!!!!!!!!

 

[bobthebuilder]

 

[MysticNinjaJay]

Wrong again, boy. Cung Le would get wrecked if he were to fight in the UFC when he was younger. When he was in his prime, he tapped to an armbar by some nobody in a Shidokan match.

And the Frank Shamrock match, Frank Shamrock was being dumb trying to stand up with Cung Le and got his arm broken. Frank Shamrock never had decent striking.

Potential to be a UFC champ or at least Top 5 in at Welterweight or Middleweight?!?!? That must be some realllllllllllllly good weed you're smoking there. LOL!!!!!!!!!!

What are your excuses for Cung Le knocking out Rich Franklin a former UFC champion? Or beating Patrick Cote a former title contender? Bare in mind that Cung Le won these fights when he was around 40 years old and was undersized at Middleweight. You really have no basis for saying that Cung Le could not be a contender or champion when he has beaten former champs and contenders. You're just being a hater.

Frank Shamrock trained for years with Maurice Smith, a world class Kickboxer. When he was UFC champion his striking looked pretty sharp against John Lober and definitely looked good against Phil Baroni despite fighting injured. He has decent striking and he decided to stand with Cung Le to prove he was superior because Cung used to dominate him in sparring.

Let's say that Cung Le started MMA around 28 years old after San Shou and trained at American Kickboxing Academy or another quality gym, worked on his grappling and then competed in smaller organizations working his way up to competing in the UFC. How well do you think he would do? I have no doubt that he could make it in to the Top 10 and probably the Top 5 or become champion especially if he accepted weight cutting and fought at Welterweight.

And so what if he lost a fight by submission in Shidokan? Which fight was that again? I'm talking about Cung Le transitioning to MMA at a young age and working his way up training MMA full-time. There is no reason why he couldn't be one of the top fighters. He clearly had the talent. Going 9-3, winning a title in one of the top MMA organizations, beating two former UFC champions and a title contender while being competitive with one of the legends of the sport and a future champion trump anything negative you have to say about his fighting ability.

 

[spacetime]

Ineffective for what?

 

[rmongler]

Its not that there's no good in wc, its that what's good in wc you can also find in older more established arts.

Watching a Mayweather film reel will teach you all you need to know about hand fighting and entering the clinch off punches.

You just need to have a conscious idea of what you're looking for first.

 

[Durr T Sanchez]

I took Jun Fan Gung Fu for 2 years. The good things from Wing Chun are the eye gauge, vertical fist punch, and bon sao, which is a block. Also they utilize the hammer principle to develop rapid punches. The stance, footwork, and kicks are seriously outdated by hundreds of years, thats how bad it is. I have really good hands. Im 6ft1, 200 lbs but my hands are very fast. Ive trained my hands over 10 yrs now. Started with the Jun Fan method(which is modified WC) and learned boxing at the same time. Picked up some Filipino tricks and even some Bagua and I tell you what. A lot of kung fu is great when you already train something that has hard sparring because thats what kung fu lacks. But theres good training techniques that are great. I've learned some good leg exercises, push ups, and stretching and I have a pretty solid routine for training. Jun Fan Gung Fu is the school that Bruce Lee started and its base was Wing Chun(modified) plus bits and pieces from other styles as well as western boxing.

So long story short, I utilize immovable elbow as well as the hammer principle in some of my strikes. These are things I learned from Jun Fan and are from Wing Chun. Also chi sao(wing chun drill) came in very handy when I started taking BJJ 7 years ago. Chi sao is a sensitivity drill that actually works even better when rolling.

 

[NVSemin]

WJ sucks, however, I do believe there are WJ practitioners who are not bad.

 

[devante]

the sparring component is what impacts wc the most, cus it slows evolution and adaption of technique...cus its not being routinely pressure tested enough to dev

The central concepts of Wing Chun are pretty great. The hand trapping is all about finding offensive opportunities in defensive situations, while the tenets of attacking the center line and utilizing simple, foolproof techniques are very solid.

The quality of instruction is what holds the art back, however, and it definitely seems like the average Wing Chun school is nothing more than a McDojo. I've seen some pretty legit WC guys, though. My man Lyte Burly has a Chun background.

saamag, sherdog poster, has trained extensively in wc and is very good at applying tech and principles w/in the frame of other arts he has trained or when using other arts..

i have seen him use wing chun in mt clinches...wrestling clinches.. as well as in striking whether it be boxing kickboxing or mma type sparring.

the biggest issue is the lack of consistent pressure testing w/in the community and esp w/other stylist....that allows for dynamic growth modification and evolution of tech philosophy strategy and training.

in fact i know quite a few who apply the elements of the art, not the whole art; an are quite effective when they do so...usually using hand traps..blocks..low line kicks, and trips...elbows