Feb 10
19

Is It Just Me Or Does Wing Chun Kung Fu Seem Really Dangerous?

14 Comments

Im looking at studying a martial art, checked some out, and Kung Fu sounds about the deadlyst so far. Bruce Lee studied Wing Chun, and we know how well he did.
Do you know a martial art as sick (quickly and seriously destroying your opponent) as Kung Fu??

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Blogplay

Tags: , , , , , , ,

This entry was posted on 19/02/2010 at 22:56. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Posted in wing chun by administrator 14 Comments

14 Responses to "Is It Just Me Or Does Wing Chun Kung Fu Seem Really Dangerous?"

  • coolulyb says:
    19/02/2010 at 23:26

    You wanna be great like Bruce Lee so study what he did study. But modern one will do you just good.

  • noute_so says:
    20/02/2010 at 06:10

    If you’re interested in Chinese Martial Arts, I would reccomend Shuai Chiao as it kicks ***!

  • calmman7 says:
    20/02/2010 at 10:38

    The most dangerous martial art? As said earlier, it is the artist, not always the art. I studied Kenpo Karate and met some really dangerous folks. I practiced with a Shuai Chiao with a friend and as a tournament fighter and a bar fighter the guy was not touchable…he would hurt you and control you (period). I have meet a guy that was pretty dangerous with Jeet Kun Do (sorry if I spelled that wrong). I further met a guy that studied sword fighting. Even without a sword he was a bad idead to fight. The concepts of good timing, body positioning, strength, power of hits and such translated. In short, which art is the deadliest doesn’t matter, what matters is what is in your area or what are you willing to travel to study. Then after you know what is in the area, go check it out. If they spar, you’ll get some experience. If they go fight speed some of the time for techniques, then good.
    Best of luck in finding what you are looking for.

  • Anonymous says:
    20/02/2010 at 16:16

    if danger had another meaning it would be ………… no just joking by time you will feel it is becoming easier

  • Ogelthor says:
    20/02/2010 at 20:48

    Having completely “un-vast” experience with wing chun, mostly through reading two of Bruce Lee’s books, plus a book on wing chun by a really good author, who seemed to know what he was talking about…
    Wing chun is potentially dangerous to the defender who hasn’t studied it well. The blocking and parrying techniques let the attacker get a lot closer than most of the “standard” versions of karate would.
    With that being said, it one does wing chun really well, they are blocking and parrying, and at the same time moving the attacker off his center of gravity, and then the response is really devastating.
    Remember that Bruce Lee studied more than one art, before deciding to start his own, Jeet Kune Do. So the answer to your last question is that almost any martial art, done really, really well, can destroy an opponent.

  • Salami and Orange Juice says:
    20/02/2010 at 22:59

    Wing Chun has little to no ground game.
    Bruce Lee developed Jeet Kune Do to answer the insufficiencies of Wing Chun.
    Wing Chun is taught in a traditional fashion. Lee also found a problem with this because as with any traditional martial art, much time is wasted on moves that are ineffective in street combat.
    The only effective martial arts laboratory, if you will, is no holds barred fighting such as UFC or PRIDE.
    In the past 15 years these have taught us that the most effective fighting forms are a combination of standup and ground fighting or Mixed Martial Arts.
    The ones that have been used most effectively are for standup: Mui Thai, Karate, TKD, boxing
    Ground:
    Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, Japanese Jiu Jitsu, Pankration, Greco-Roman wrestling.
    I’m sure I’m leaving some out, but Kung Fu in general has had little to no showing in these forums. Few have been successful with it.
    Maybe if they allowed eye gouges that could change.

  • Coyote says:
    21/02/2010 at 05:16

    Try Jeet Kune Do, sense you’re so interested in Bruce Lee.
    If that does not work, try Choi Kwang Do.

  • Manji says:
    21/02/2010 at 09:44

    Wing Chun has limitations, but when used properly, it’s nasty as hell.
    Use it as a tie-in or crosstraining art, Pai Lum White Dragon or Choy Li Fut work well as a mix for Wing Chun.
    Wing Chun gets a lot of flack, but I’ve done a little training in it, and I respect the principles it teaches.
    Quick, hard, to the point….IF taught correctly. Like all combat arts, make sure to train with a teacher that still remembers he’s supposed to be teaching a COMBAT art.
    Have fun enjoying good old fashioned Gung-Fu training.

  • ninedemo says:
    21/02/2010 at 15:57

    Hehe Wing Chun look so funny and they’re hella funny to fight, especially when you can punches properly. They rely on you to linger your punch, but if you don’t they’re gonna to be in world of hurting. They look like old chinese man trying to ***** slapping.
    I really doubt I would be that intimidated by someone who do Wing Chun. Especially someone like this guy who is as height as his width as seen here:http://www.wtdefense.com/montana/images_…http://www.wtdefense.com/montana/events_…
    Here’s a video two Wing Tsun grand master showing how effective their style are hmm… That’s pretty odd, they end up go to ground so that shoudl tell you something about how effective it is:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szdF1nIAf…

  • fredaman says:
    21/02/2010 at 22:23

    try Jeet-kune-do which is what he invented. Its great. but its hard to find a form like wing chun its been aroudn for along time so its been getting better and better for longer. I have learned many wing-chun techniques as i learn tiger kung-fu. Its hard to kind arts as dealy and as wicked as wing-chun or any otehr type of kung-fu.

  • shorebre says:
    22/02/2010 at 04:46

    I worked with a guy who studied Wing Chun under one of the number one experts in the US. He studied traditional Wing Chun, as opposed to the more popular “modified” Wing Chun.
    In summary, it’s straight-up combat. Fast, hard hitting, and extremely punative. The goal isn’t inner peace or finding your “chi” like other martial arts. The goal is disabling your opponent swiftly and decisively.
    The guy I worked with used to come in every week with huge black eyes, bruises to the ribs, knuckles, arms, legs, etc. Every Thursday they did a full contact, street clothes workout so that students were used to using their training for self defense if they ever needed it.

  • Windseek says:
    22/02/2010 at 05:22

    Yes, I train a Martial Art called Hapkido and it’s very brutal and potentially deadly. Ultimately it’s up to the practitioner to decide how much force to use on your attacker though with the best first defence being to remove yourself from the situation. After that with the joint locks and pressure points we learn in Hapkido you can cause you attacker intense pain to convince the person it’s not in their best interest to continue attacking you. Then failing that, break a bone or joint and so on.

  • Deuce says:
    22/02/2010 at 06:37

    I’ll be the first one to admit that I know just about sweet diddly squat about Asian martial arts. However, I am more than checked out on the European styles, especially those of the 14th and 15th centuries.
    As such, I would suggest that you pick up the treatises of Fiore Dei Liberi, Sigmund Ringeck and Hans Talhoffer. European medieval hand-to-hand combat, as opposed to armed combat, was extremely brutal and effective, and while there are very few strikes involved in making things work, they do great jobs at destroying limbs and articulations, supposedly as a precursor to a deadly dagger-blow.
    A few of the hand-to-hand techniques are lethal, but most will leave just about every opponent unable to fight you after you’ve executed the move properly.

  • Jerry L says:
    22/02/2010 at 09:20

    Any martial art, if it is used by a skilled practitioner is devestating. It’s the practitioner, not the style.

Leave a Comment