Sparring against boxers...

[monkey man]

No doubt this subject has come up in the past, but does anyone have any advice on dealing with boxers during sparring? I find sticking to be difficult as most boxers withdraw their arms back to guard almost immediately after a punch has been thrown, as well as trying to keep up with someone who is constantly moving around on their toes.

Cheers..

[headstock]

I spar regularly with tae kwon do practitioners, a similar style of hand use but with more use of legs so it's a simalar approach i think. With the hand withdrawl it makes lap saus almost impossible which is a shame(also made hard due to cumbersome gloves). I tend to launch a strike down the centreline and if it's met then i might tan, bong whatever feels right, its surprising how many times people have kept a guard up but i've still hit their head between their raised hands. With the footwork its good practise for closing people down, sometimes cheekily steping on their front foot, especially effective against tkd people that rely on high kicks. I find my wing chun alters when fighting tkd people but the underlying principles seem to prevail, e.g. keeping a mun sau/wu sau gurad position makes people try and hook or come around the line you've created, thus enabling you to pivot and/or come straight down the centre before they know what's hit them. Anyway thats what ive noticed..

[Phil Redmond]

Try,
http://www.cheungswingchun.com

A boxer that trained in the peekaboo style of boxing, (Mike Tyson's style), made a video with William Cheung entitled "Wing Chun vs. Boxing". The tape is for sale on his site.

[jesper]

Why would you stick to his hands if he withdraws them. Punch the MF :)

[kungfu cowboy]

? I find sticking to be difficult as most boxers withdraw their arms back to guard almost immediately after a punch has been thrown, as well as trying to keep up with someone who is constantly moving around on their toes.

Who doesn't pull back their arms immediately except for grappling? Is there any style that leaves their arm out or slowly withdraws? Pulling your arms back fast sounds like a good plan to me. Are you saying wing chun leaves the arms out to be "stuck" to? I think trying to "stick" is not going to work out too well. What is that going to get you, except hit?

[monkey man]

Originally posted by kungfu cowboy


Who doesn't pull back their arms immediately except for grappling? Is there any style that leaves their arm out or slowly withdraws? Pulling your arms back fast sounds like a good plan to me. Are you saying wing chun leaves the arms out to be "stuck" to? I think trying to "stick" is not going to work out too well. What is that going to get you, except hit?

I agree that 'pulling your hands back fast' is a good idea! My problem is how to deal with an opponent that keeps their guard close to their head/body, as opposed to the Wing Chun asking hand or any other style that keeps a (relatively) outstretched arm out as a guard. My reasoning for sticking isn't to chase the hands but to know where his hands/arms are in order to utilise them (i.e. with a lap sau) or just move in and attack (- otherwise what's the point of chi sau?).



Originally posted by Jesper

Why would you stick to his hands if he withdraws them. Punch the MF

I don't stick to his hands as they are being withdrawn. 'Punching the MF' isn't quite so simple if he's withdrawing them to his guard...and moving around quickly on the balls of his feet.


Phil - Cheers for the link!

[monkey man]

Originally posted by crimsonking
Boxers are *great* to work off... just dont try to 'spar' with him.

Care to elaborate?

[Ernie]

crimsonking
Boxers are *great* to work off... just dont try to 'spar' with him.
b.i.n.g.o.
it's a matter of you are not there ot become a better boxer but a better wing chun man , work your game not his ,
work your timing for the entry '' be fore , during ,or after the jab ''
all these require different answers '' matched or mis matched leads , length of arms , size , hand speed, mobility'' all these are grat problems to solve but solve them in a wing chun way , which ever that wing chun way may be to you and your body type .
years ago when i first started to ''spar '' boxers all i worked on was my pak say and entry , biggist mistake i made early on ws i would get in but not apply any forward oressure or intent , so i would get clocked with the over hand or the hook . later i learned to enter apply pressure and moniter the second hand this made things alot easier ,
but i never tried to jab/cross/hook with any of those guys i would have been dropped much more then what i was.
work your game , you can practice 1000 entries on a multitude of boxers and really refine it and make it adaptable .
good luck and welcome to another level of senisivity and pressure. have fun...

[45degree fist]

Boxers pay real close attention to range they use their jabs as feelers. you would need to bridge at this stage because if a boxer gets to hooking or upper cut range before you can control him your done.

[foolinthedeck]

monkey man:

My reasoning for sticking isn't to chase the hands but to know where his hands/arms are in order to utilise them (i.e. with a lap sau) or just move in and attack (- otherwise what's the point of chi sau?).

see other threads for the 'point' of chi sau, i wont move this off in other directions, but there is a different 'point'.

headstock: do TKD people fight like boxers but with kicks? i dont know, i thought there were still pretty major differences between tkd and kickboxing and even kboxing isnt boxing - did you ever see boxeo cuba on discovery? VERY REVEALING!! next time it sone i'll tape it for you

[Daredevil]

Originally posted by kungfu cowboy


Who doesn't pull back their arms immediately except for grappling? Is there any style that leaves their arm out or slowly withdraws?

Bajiquan, but only kind of. Usually, strikes in Baji are initiated from wherever your hands happen to be. If after a strike your hand is right next to your opponent's face, you do it from there.

[Ng Mui]

To beat a good puncher, try kicking the knee, or closing the gap and using knees to the midsection and elbows to the temple and Jaw area.
Follow the punch just thrown at you back to his center line. If he has a good gaurd protecting himself, punch at it. Strike his wrist and his elbow.

[TenTigers]

Ithink the problem some people face when trying to lop-sao a boxer is that they don't use foward energy to jam the boxer's bridge with their bong-sao. If they did, they would be able to lop alot easier. Also lan-sao works , but basically, anything after you jam in would work. As far as their footwork is concerned-jam in! Attack, attack, attack. Fight YOUR fight, not his. Otherwise, you are playing catch-up, and will always be a step behind, trying to respond to his attack rather than entering, controling and ending the fight. I am in no way an expert, but I do see alot of Wing Chun schools lacking in aggression=especially in their defenses. Sound like an oxymoron? Depends on how you play it. My two cents

[yuanfen]

Some good points in the discussion so far.
Boxers vary in ability, style, strategy, tactics, weight, height...
a good boxing match is a chess game.

You dont want to "spar" witha boxer in the usual sense of the word- its his game. And a good boxer wont allow himself to get hurt and will lower the boom- if you try to show him up when playing his game.

A constructive thing for testing would be--- when wing chun has been sufficiently reflexive for you is to geta friendly competent boxer(not the health club variety) to "play" with you and see if you can intercept, redirect, enter, jam and play your game. You may learn some things about yourself. Again- each boxer is different and some may know other things besides boxing.

Most TKD hands are nowhere neara good boxer's hand... you will learn zilch by havinga TJD guy pose asa boxer. Muay Thai hands are better but their hands (in punching) are nowhere neara boxers because of the role of their legs and leg power.

Interestingly Vitali Klitchko knows how to kick quite well.

[Shuul Vis]

Stay out of their range and kick them in the legs.

[headstock]

what i was trying to say was that tkd's hand techniques include jabs, punches, hooks, uppercuts, all similar to boxking, also with gloves, making open hand techniques almost impossible, i.e. lap/lop sau. But instead of just watching the hands you need to know what he's going to do with his legs, this teaches me how to close someone down because i want to get in there and use my hands. Im not saying tkd practitioners are as good at boxing as boxers, just that the approach to the use of hands seems a bit similar. Whoever said dont's spar due to the fact its a game/sport, i strongly agree, in tkd you cant grab or hit below the belt or on the back. When you have a strict set of rules you are not 'fighting' and i think it would be important to remember that when sparring otherwise you may develop a false sense of security, a lot of high kicks can be met with a sweep/grab/kick to standing leg in reality, however in sparring this wont happen. I hope i havent gone to far off the point, what do you all think?

[foolinthedeck]

i think you went too far off the point mate
:p :p :p

but i'm just the forum fool

[flaco]

when fighting a boxer with your hands only, you need timing and commitment to enter, and yes, leaving your kicks out of the game, is not you trying to box, but you developing better hands. work your kicks at other times.
when a boxer jabs or fakes a jab, what do you do? do you try to block? if so, your playing the wrong game, because if you try to block the jab, most times he fakes that jab, and gets you open, and the same hand turns to a hook to your jaw, and you hurting. and boxers have great sense of distance and timing.

one thing i learned in wt, which was effective for me, is when the opponet is within range to hit, as soon a you see the shoulder move at all, you eneter, and interupt his timing, whether he faked, or threw the jab, you crashed him, and yes, its easier said than done, but if you work it over and over, you will succeddwhat technique to enter with, cannot be explained by writing, you would need to see it. but i have watched many wc guys try to practice drills blocking a jab/cross/hook, and in my opinion, it will never work, boxers are way to fast, the punches will come high and low, fast, etc, you will not see a jab cross hook combo coming.

also, remeber the kuen kut, recieve what comes, follow what goes, if you did stop his jab, you need to follow his hand back to his body, and be as fast as he is, again, its timing, and if he is just peek a boo, you need to throw ot punches as high and low reference points,and once there is contact do your thing.
try any of the above, but the wt way works for me,intercept,and stick,try to get behind him, or to the outside, when entering, its very dangerous down the middle, with a boxer.

take your time with this, and dont give up, give it a year, and you will be doing what alot of guys dont do.working reality, then when you feel your hands can hang with a boxer, then use your feet,and see how much better you are, but be prepared to get hit alot for the first few months, when i first tried stopping grapplers in training, i got slammed over and over, like stallone getting slammed by hogan in rocky 3, but these things are better learned in the practice, than in the street

[monkey man]

Coincidentally, I've just discovered a similar question posed to Wong Kiew Kit on his website;




Question 7

I was delighted to find that you had included some information in your Q&A on how to use Wing Chun to defend against the fast jabs of a boxer, as I
cannot find a way to defend against this particular attack which has almost made me lose faith in Wing Chun.

However although the techniques you have prescribed against a boxer's jabs do work, I am loyal to my style of Wing Chun, which is Yip Man Wing Chun. My sifu teaches that 'tan sao' can be used on the inside gate of the opponent's arm to parry heavy punches, but often I find that the opponent uses a fast second punch which catches me off guard. Could you suggest any methods of countering these fast jabs from the perspective of the Yip Man Wing Chun style

Christian, England


Answer 7

Using 'tan sau' (Mirror Hand), while sitting on your typical Four-Six Stance, on the inside of a Boxer's arm to parry his heavy punches, is using your weak point against the opponent's strong point. No wonder you were often hit by his second punch.

Among many weaknesses, which are mentioned below, you use one defence action against a series of fast attacks. If you try to use another ?tan sau?
against a second attack, and then a third ?tan sau? against a third attack, and so on, you will be too slow. Moreover, you would be forced to defensive mode most of the time, which is what a Boxer would like you to do so that he can rain continuous punches on you while you only manage to cover up.

Even if you combine your 'tan sau' with a simultaneous 'phew chi' (Finger Thrust), which means you counter-attack when he attacks, your response is better, but it is still technically inferior to a Boxer's fast punches, because of the following reasons.

1.Because you use a Four-Six Stance, which means you sit back on your back leg, your reach is shorter than that of the Boxer who usually leans forward with his leading hand.
2.Moreover your 'phew chi' (finger thrust) would be hindered by his other hand which acts as a guard.
3.The jab of a Boxer curves inward from outside. Hence blocking his jab at his inner arm is going against his force.
4.Not only you go against the forceful momentum of a heavy punch, you also use a weak block. In this case of 'tan sau', you block with the inner side of your arm, with your palm facing you and your elbow inward. If youreverse the position of your block, where you use the outer side of your arm with your palm facing forward and your elbow outward, your block would be stronger, but even this is not advisable against the forceful momentum of a fast punch.

What should you do then? The following is an effective counter. Let say your opponent gives you a fast and heavy right jab. To make the sequence simple for you, it does not mater much whether his jab is real or feign, and whether his right leg or his left is in front.

Move your left leg a small step diagonally forward and sit at the left Four-Six Stance Simultaneously shoot out your right 'phew chi' or 'finger thrust'
at his eye (making sure you stop a few inches from his eye), brushing his attacking arm from the outside, so that his attacking punch is at your 'outside gate', and he is struck about the same time his punch is spent.

In this situation he cannot effectively attack you with a second punch. His immediate concern is to protect his eye. He is likely to bounce slightly to his left side to avoid your 'finger thrust' or pull back his right punch to block your counter-attack, or do both. This he can accomplish in a split second. Immediately he will attack you with a second punch. Most likely he will use his left hand, but he may also use his right hand.

It does not matter mcu whether he uses his right or left hand in his second punch. All you need to do is to move your body weight forward to your left leg, lift up your hands as a feign move, and execute a frontal thrust kick at his abdomen.

As in all combat sequences, merely knowing the techniques is not enough; you must have the necessary skills (including force and speed) to implement the techniques. Practice the above sequence 50 times daily for six months, and you will probably find that using these Wing Chun techniques, which are quite typical of Yip Mann Style, to defeat a Boxer is surprisingly easy.

The techniques are reviewed here for your easy reference. Move your left foot diagonally forward slightly to your left side to sit at a left Four-Six Stance and simultaneously strike out your right 'phew chi' (finger thrust) slightly to your right side. Then move your body weight over your front left leg and execute a right frontal thrust kick slightly to your right side.

Next, from the kicking position, move your right leg diagonally forward slightly to your right side to sit at a right Four-Six Stance and simultaneously strike out your left ?phew chi? (finger thrust) slightly to your left side. Then move your body weight over your front right leg and execute a left frontal thrust kick slightly to your left side. Repeat the procedure 50 times.

When you are familiar with the above techniques, you may make appropriate adjustment in spacing and direction according to where your opponent is.
For example, before moving your body weight over your left leg, you may shift your left foot accordingly to get the best spacing advantage, and instead of kicking slightly to your right, you may turn right and kick straight in front.

If you are ready to surpass limitations imposed by your style and use a sideway Bow-Arrow Stance instead of a Four-six Stance while striking out your 'phew chi' (finger thrust), you would have certain extra advantages. Using a sideway Bow-Arrow Stance, you will be nearer in your attack on your opponent, yet further away in your defence from his attack! Moreover, you can choose to move your body weight forward or move your body weight backward for the subsequent frontal thrust kick. If you realize that, in this case for example, even when you use the same techniques, but if you just change a stance, you can have three extra advantages, you may appreciate why stances are so important in kungfu.

http://shaolin-wahnam.tripod.com/answers/ans03a/jun03-3.html



Any more thoughts? Anyone know what Wong Kiew Kit is referring to when he mentions the 'Four-six stance'? A neutral stance?

[yuanfen]

Some comments-

1. he seems to think that he knows the jab- he doesnt-
at least not very well.

2. the six four is probaly leg weighting for him- more on the back leg. But note he also advocates moving into bow stance-ugh-no!

3. he seems to be giving the far too common- if this then that-
mechanical answers.

On the other hand--

But not all boxers are good jabbers either. Until north of the border training crept in... many south of the border(not Cubans)
were not as dependent on jabs... more closing in with hooks-
that was Pipino Cuevas' undoing aginst Hearns.

[yuanfen]

One other thing- a tan sao is not necessaeily a "weak" block.

[TenTigers]

Wong Kiew Kit seems to think that the '4-6' stance is weak due to the fact that 60% of the weight is on the back leg-but does not take into account that the stance is rooted, the energy is foward, and you are in his horse, or knee to knee. His idea of tan-sao seems pretty far from any wing chun I have learned as well.
This makes all the difference in the world, and is the difference between looking at a system from the outside, and thinking you understand it, and actually studying the art. There is a world of diiference between dabbling in an art and total imersion. BTW, I think his books are great, and he is a storehouse of info, but Wing Chun is not his forte'-that's all. No offense intended.

[Merryprankster]

I won't comment on the WC vs Boxing, but I would like to point out a couple of things, primarily to back up Yuan Fen's points.

I do agree "don't spar/box with a boxer." However, that statement needs a little more rounding out.

A boxer is not necessarily going to "box" with you, as Yuan has pointed out. Some boxers are outside fighters, others WANT you to come close. Some are skilled at long distance movement and popping you from the outside and cutting off your footwork. Others are better at getting inside, taking short angles and delivering punches based on feel. Some feel out their opponent...others blast through you with a barrage of shots.

My point is only to say that as always, it depends on the individual. In all instances, play your game. But recognize that fellow is playing his too and that WILL change from person to person and will likely change your responses (feel, adapt, overcome).

I guess, at the end of it, I'm not adding anything new here, I just want to belay the misconception that you are going to work with a "boxer." When, in fact, you might be dealing with a brawler or a puncher or... etc.

[Miles Teg]

Nice thread! Im thinking of doing a little boxing myself. Nothing else available in this hick town Ive moved to.


Anyways I was wondering who Wong Kiew Kit is, as Ive never heard of him before. ThanX

[TenTigers]

Miles-if you decide to study boxing-please read Dempsey's book on Boxing-then look for a trainer. This book is a real eye-opener, a pleasant surprise for all Wing Chun people and other Southern Siu-Lum practitioners as well.

[Miles Teg]

Cool!
Eye opener in the sense that it encourages boxing or discourages?
Or none of the above?

[TenTigers]

Dempsey uses the Bottom three knuckles, all his jabs are used to HURT, not to flick, or pepper someone with-"Don't throw a punch unless you intend to hurt your opponent" his body connection is incredible-his attitude is perfect. Itis a refreshing departure from boxing as a sport-his fighting is just that-fist fighting-great stuff. Too much to mention, trust me, you'll love this book! It was also one of Bruce Lee's faves-in fact his term straight blast, was copied from Dempsey, who called it the jolt.

[Black Jack]

Whats up TenTigers,

Jack Dempsey is da man. Hands down. The book is called Championship fighting: Explosive Punching and Aggressive Defense. It was published in 1950 by Centerline Press.

Its a Ph.D course in power punching dynamics by the very best in the business. In the book he step by step takes you through every detail and even talks about boxing skills for the street.

Bareknuckle pugilist James Figg started a revolution in boxing in the 18th century when he invented the straight left jab. He created one of the ultimate offensive and defensive hand strikes ever to be seen.

Like TenTiger stated, real jabs can come out of the blue and rock you to the core, a vertical bullet exploding straight from the shoulder. With the proper body weight behind the jab as in a Dempsey falling step and coordinated with a waist twist it should never be a flicking blow.

Dempsey called his "left jab" the "left jolt" for a reason.

[yuanfen]

Dempsey was great...but IMO a sense of proportion is relevant.
Gene Tunney's jab was better.(same time period)
In their prime and later- so was Louis', Robinson's, Homes', Ali's and a host of others.

[yuanfen]

Dempsey was great...but IMO a sense of proportion is relevant.
Gene Tunney's jab was better.(same time period)
In their prime and later- so was Louis', Robinson's, Homes', Ali's and a host of others.

[Black Jack]

I don't know if his jab was better but Tunney was one of the all time greats. Tunney only lost one fight of his whole proffessional career. Unlike Dempsey he was not a power puncher because of a genetic trait towards brittle hands. Around the gym he had the nickname as "The fighter with brittle hands"

To get around this weakness he became a fighter who threw punches with great accuracy and developed his timing skills to a very high level.

Tunney is really famous for the "long count" fight with Jack Dempsey.

One of my favorite fighters of that era was Bob Fitzsimmons and of course the great John L.

[yuanfen]

Boxing is a very good martial "sport"- so is wrestling... so things like weight as variable matters more...look at Lewis coming in heaver than usual and getting low on gas. They can teach things IF good wing chun instruction is not available.

Good wing chun is not a sport...weight difference can matter---but given skill development---less so than in the sporting outings.

In sport--- things evolve with weight increases, coaching, training
improvements.

In kung fu IMO the problem is different--- a big problem is the loss of knowledge with the resultant holes being filled in with sporting techniques... and mass production.

Back to boxing--- Tunney's jabs kept Dempsey at bay. Dempsey may write about the jab- but it was not very evident in the Tunney fights- his head was (mistakenly) set on a knockout.Cost him two key losses. I wish I could get a copy of Tunney's out of print book. Bruce Lee had a copy and made notes from it.

Fitzimons had a great hit to the belly (from his footwork) but he was really a middleweight. John L was tough but Corbetts jabs
changed the equation. But all of those guys- from John L to dempsey wouldnt make it against...Holmes, Foreman, Ali, Tyson,
Lewis in their prime--- heavier, harder punchers. more mobile
and faster. But its a sport for youth... at 37 Lewis is already past his prime...though with weight loss and training he may have a couple of good fights left in him.

Wing chun can compensate for weight, strength and speed differences better than sports.

[Merryprankster]

Wing chun can compensate for weight, strength and speed differences better than sports.

Ridiculous! Skill (period) compensates for weight, strength and speed differences, not "WC" or "boxing" or "wrestling." Being good is what compensates for disparities in thos attributes.

If WC had a strong sportive component then weight classes would probably evolve. This is partly to keep things fair and partly to prevent injury. Simply put, strength and weight matter. They don't matter more or less from one art to another. They matter in a sport, and they matter in a fight. Sportive competition just bows to that reality and recognizes that an incredible 105 lbs fighter is unlikely to beat a good 205 lbs fighter. Why discourage your lighter fellows from competing when they have much to offer? The idea is that sportive competitions are a test of "who is better?" A 100 lbs weight differential often doesn't tell you that much in terms of who's the better wrestler or boxer or (insert here).

Incidentally, BJJ has its weight classes, but it also has the open class where every weight competes together. Frequently, a medium sized guy wins over several larger opponents. They also sometimes have a true "absolute" where any experience level and any weight can compete. Good stuff.

Don't get me wrong. I realize that WC isn't a sport, which is fine. I also realize that good WC skill can overcome attribute advantages. My point is to argue that good skill in any art overcomes those advantages, and that WC doesn't confer, in and of itself, anything "special" in that regard.

Anybody who believes otherwise, is pretty much just an elitist snot.

[yuanfen]

MP sez:Anybody who believes otherwise, is pretty much just an elitist snot.
-------------------------------------------------------------
MP -that I am or minimally may be.!!!

I have no issue with wcers trying out whether what they do works.
Folks I know have done just that.

Those who want to train for sporting events- no problem. But the result is very likely arrested development of their knowledge of the art. Our perspectives are different- some like yourself want to see wc in sorting events- a few including myself are interested
in avoiding the withering of a great art. Many wc organizations are already into some form of mma-not enough wing chun there.
A snob?probably.

BTW, there is no way that Oscar de la Hoya could defeat
a top ranked heavyweight keave alone a champ. If he could- he would make even more money than he does. No way Willie Pep or Sadler could have beaten Louis no matter how much more time they spent devloping their boxing skills.There are some exceptions- possibly Jones but the "heavy" that he defeated
had basically defeated an overthe hill Holyfeld. So an aging heavier guy may be a fair game for a top flight lighter guy.

[Black Jack]

Good post Merry,

Yuanfen- I found that post a bit foolhardy as well. It has the rank of snobbery. Why you think that snobbery has any merit I have no idea.

Modern Boxing was created as a old time method of self protection and combative sport. James Figg the 18th century father of modern boxing and the first heavyweight champion taught boxing street fighting/self defense skills to Engilsh gentlemen at his school as so did a number of other fighters at the time such as Donald Walker and Mendoza.

For a person seeking effective self defense, basic boxing and wrestling skills IMO are more practical and usefull in modern America than the training recieved in any number of asain ma styles which claim to prepare their practitioners for combat. The reason is simple.....boxing works.....it works in the ring and it works in the street. Most ma styles that use the word combat seem to have a pronounced tendency to emphasize the art instead of the martial.

I am not saying that you can not find good juice in Wing Chun. I know you can. Every "art" has something to offer but its just that you can find the same good juice in Boxing. Both "arts" have their limitations but in my viewpoint real life has nothing to do with "arts".

I also don't agree that those boxers of the past would be beaten by those boxers of the present. I don't make assumptions as I do not own a crystal ball but I will say that the old style of bare knuckle boxing IMO is better suited in certain regards for street dust-ups.

Cheers

[Merryprankster]

Yuan, I don't necessarily desire to see any WCers in any event that they don't desire to compete in. The only thing I have a problem with is the idea that people are doing something "special" in well-taught and practiced WC that makes it absolutely better than well-taught and practiced something else. The bottom line is good skill--regardless of style--will overcome attribute advantages. It's the exact same crap BJJers try to spout about wrestling and Judo, that BJJ is "more technical" than either wrestling and Judo. Ummm...no it's not. It's just different.

But if you want to change it into another "sport, non-sport" thread, be my guest.

I agree that there is no way Oscar De La Hoya could beat a top heavy weight. But I bet there are some heavy's out there--who aren't at the top of their game, that he could maul. And that is exactly my point--that greater skill can beat attribute advantages, regardless of style.

[old jong]

Yes!...There is something special in Wing Chun for those who can appreciate it as well as there is something special in say,BJJ for those who like it.
The fact that other styles or arts are good should not prevent a dedicated Wing Chun man to search and try for the best in his chosen art. You have to understand that talking good about Wing Chun does'nt = talking bad at other styles. I like it and I like it the way it is for me. I choose it because it is this way.Yes I feel it is very special and very high levels of effectiveness can be attain with it. This does'nt mean I'm negative about your preferences.

[Merryprankster]

Old Jong, I don't think you are negative about my preferences. But Yuan Fen seems to be. Or I may be misunderstanding him.

My objections are to Style X confers something "special" that makes you a better fighter than Style Y.

I don't believe this. A great WC guy is going to have a hard time with a great boxer. A great wrestler is going to have a hard time with a great BJJer. A great Judoka is going to have a hard time with a great Samboist. And vice versa--the bottom line--a great fighter is a great fighter, and all properly taught, properly practiced arts confer advantages. To argue that one of these arts is absolutely "better" than another is a bit pointless--that a great WCer is better than a boxer equally skilled in boxing, for instance is flawed.

My general objections revolve around training. Not about arts.

Of course WC helps you become a better fighter, and of course you like it--it works well for you. But arguing that WC makes you a better fighter than, say, Muay Thai is inaccurate a best. It makes you a DIFFERENT fighter, but not "better."

[Ernie]

merrypankster
--that greater skill can beat attribute advantages, regardless of style.
here is a thought why can't you have both

[old jong]

I will always believe that the person is more important than the style.Techniques and styles are tools used by an human mind or spirit and the stronger/clearer will win. (Not going tree hugger there!)

BTW, I can't speak for Joy but I have the feeling that he is a big boxing fan and a connaisseur of this sport so...;)

[old jong]

Originally posted by Ernie
[[/B]
here is a thought why can't you have both [/B]

Great champions ,whatever the sport usually have both. This is why they can last longer than the "brutus" who got there by his body mass alone.

[Ernie]

preach on brother jong,
skill alone not enough skill plus great attribute development ,
simple concept but why do most see it as skill or attributes ,
side note ever play with a good football , much raw power great physical attribites , awsome endurance and high pain tolerance , great body senstivity , and extreme commitment ,
not a walk in the park . even if you have a ton of skill ,and are in a good postions , his raw abilities will still make a wrong position for him work for his benifit .
add a little bit of street savy and hand skills makes for a hard day at the office eh.

[old jong]

Hey!...Nobody's arguing about the american way or Steeve Lombardi but; we can have different views on the value of a practice.

[Ernie]

jong
we can have different views on the value of a practice.
oh i know i just have had experience with this type of individual , and things get real physical real fast ,
i have noticed a common denominater in well balanced athletic people , the got atributes in speed power ,balance , strength and as you say deep fighting spirit from years of competing ,
then tend to pose greater problems even if your super sensitive and empty out or guide them offline , they got heart and will take the heat to prove there point , and they out endure most even if the other is higher skilled but lacking in physical conditioning .
i was thinking out load in your direction i was chi sauing with two individuals like this today and was watching others work out with them .
didn't mean anything by it

[old jong]

Life is never easy. ;)

[yuanfen]

Responses to MP in brackets:Old Jong, I don't think you are negative about my preferences. But Yuan Fen seems to be. Or I may be misunderstanding him.

((You misunderstand me MP- but that is ok. I dont object to your preferences. People can make Capoeira(sp?) work...goes for BJJ,
muay thai etc))

My objections are to Style X confers something "special" that makes you a better fighter than Style Y.

(( Understand your objections.However, If I didnt think that good wing chun wasn't in it's principles of motion and dynamics something special- I wouldnt be in it. I do think that wing chun
as an art has some inherent key advantages- but I almost always choose not to advance a brief on that. I always consistently advise people- if you have a choice between learning ch0y lee fut from a master (Tat Mau Wong or Doc Fai Wong) as opposed to an average wing chun school- opt for the former. Ditto for Gene Labelle in practical grappling etc. I judge taiji by Chen Xiao Wang- not the folks waving their hands in parks.Shotokan by Nakayama or Koyama- not by ymca folks hollering away. ))



A great WC guy is going to have a hard time with a great boxer.

((Dont know about that-no such meeting has taken place
that I know of.. but I dont spend time arguing it))


My general objections revolve around training. Not about arts.

(We differ but its ok. I am curious about the arts without minimizing the importance of top flight training in the selected art or arts. I am curious about martial arts and sports- but my informed choice of a superior fightimg art is wing chun. Training is best when it is arts and activity specific . Some skills dont automatically transfer well . Michael Jordan in his prime was/is an average baseball player. Dang- I am Casey Stengelish on names. Danny X ( yes- Danny Hodges- check web search) out of Oklahoma was
a topflight Oklahoma - Olympic wrestler- got chewed up in pro boxing. Did good for a while but got cut up by Nino Valdez.I listen to MMA talk( I always read your posts- they can help wing chun folks devlop a clear focus and some humility) but I am more interested in serious wing chun discussions. There is not enough of it- apart from chest thumping. But in wing chun as in many serious fighting arts- people dont always show all their cards.))

Old Jong sez:
BTW, I can't speak for Joy but I have the feeling that he is a big boxing fan and a connaisseur of this sport so...

((Old Jong- my many curiosities include first rate boxing, wrestling, football(cough, wouldnt want to be tackled by"Dirty" Dobler), soccer(I wouldnt want to be kicked in the knee by Pele.
But my amazement at the dearth of good wing chun continues unabated.
There is a lot of noise but I do think that good wing chun was rare and remains so. You can get diamonds at a store---but for the Kohinoor-
you have to wait. I grew up in the US in Oklahoma- around top flight wrestlers and football players- lived in the athletes dorm(luck) at oklahoma State... had to handle grapplers and ball players as bullies on the street- at times- "for real". John Farrell a friend at Oklahoma U was AAU judo champion. John Ross at Florida State
was national judo champ of US and Taiwan. My friend Joe Begala at kent State used to be the winningest college wrestling coach.I have learned some wisdom from each. Joe wrote the key self defense book during WW2 fir navy fliers caught behind lines.Boxing is an entirely different and long story.I wont bore you with the rest.... have had to take care of myself "for real"-promise. Am I glad that I didnt run into a Ip Man in his prime on the street!! Sorry for anytypos--- an a good speller- but keyboarding? the two fingers are still learning often in the dark.

[Merryprankster]

Yuan,

Let me try to pin you down--are you telling me that excellently taught and practiced WC would produce a BETTER fighter than excellently taught and practiced, say, Muay Thai, or merely a DIFFERENT fighter?

That's my only real interest.

Ernie--I agree that you have to maximize both.

[John Weiland]

Hi Merry,

Are you a Ken Kesey fan or a Tom Wolfe fan? :P

Originally posted by Merryprankster
Yuan,

Let me try to pin you down--are you telling me that excellently taught and practiced WC would produce a BETTER fighter than excellently taught and practiced, say, Muay Thai, or merely a DIFFERENT fighter?

Aren't you beating a dead horse? Yuanfen has often detailed his long familiarity and practice of boxing prior to when he got lucky and put in sufficient time and thought to recognize the advantages of Wing Chun.

While boxing has merit, both on the street and in the ring, Wing Chun is superior because it has more weapons and more flexibility, being applicable and adaptable to and in naturally occurring situations. A good boxer may however, beat a mediocre Wing Chun person, but the reverse is certainly true as well.

Good Wing Chun, which most would not recognize without gaining the sophistication to understand its principles, is rare. Few here have seen it. Fewer practice it. Fewer still have mastered it.

In regards to good Wing Chun, this forum is fortunate to having several knowledgeable voices including, but not limited to Yuanfen and a handful of others. These voices are not evangelists, but examples leading the way. Many choose to ignore their pearls of wisdom.

Life is short. Luck in judgement plays hard in selecting one's path.

Regards,

[Zhuge Liang]

Hi Merry,


Originally posted by Merryprankster
Yuan,

Let me try to pin you down--are you telling me that excellently taught and practiced WC would produce a BETTER fighter than excellently taught and practiced, say, Muay Thai, or merely a DIFFERENT fighter?


I'm curious to your response to the question as well Merry. In your heart of hearts, whould you give the advantage to a someone training in excellent Wing Chun or excellent Muay Thai? How about excellent Tai Chi vs excellent bjj? While it's all very pc to say that all arts are equal and that it's only the practioner and not the art at all, who amoung us don't believe that the art we're practicing is "better?"

And if you don't think it's better, why are you practicing your current art at all? And if you don't prefer some arts over the other why are you interested in bjj, mt, and boxing, as opposed to bjj, taichi, and hung gar? Or any other number of combinations? If I'm not mistaken, you have a preference toward MMA type arts. Why is that?

Not trying to knock any art or anyone, but let's get real here. As much as you hate martial arts elitist snobbery, can you honestly, truly honestly, tell me that somewhere deep inside of you, there isn't any trace of you that thinks that bjj is the shiizit? And indeed if there is some part of you that takes pride in your chosen art, is it so hard to believe that other people might believe other arts to be better?

In reality, many many factors will render these personal biases irrelevant. You need a combination of a good teacher, good student, good art, good environment, enough time, enough dedication, enough smarts, enough physicality, etc., etc. The variables are numerous enough that predicting which is the best becomes chaotic. Despite that, we're still human after all, and we'll still have our own biases. Yuanfen has his, and you have yours. We all secretly (or not so secretly for some) think we're right. Just sit back and enjoy the show.

Regards,
Zhuge Liang

[yuanfen]

MP sez:
Yuan,

Let me try to pin you down--are you telling me that excellently taught and practiced WC would produce a BETTER fighter than excellently taught and practiced, say, Muay Thai, or merely a DIFFERENT fighter?

That's my only real interest.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Actually I am fairly easy to pin down on this issue. The answer is
YES...but the context is important.

1. Initially it takes longer to learn excellent wing chun when compared to boxing, wrestling or muay thai- but eventually wing chun surpasses them... in a no rules context.
If i didnt think so, I wouldnt be doing wing chun.



2. Good kung fu- particularly wing chun and what goes on in
average establishments are nowehere near the same thing.



BTW- on the other thread to you and Blackjack and others- no subtle hints at all about you not belonging here at all.
But no subtle hint either that my clear primary interest on a forum with the title "wing chun" is in discussing wing chun and things that are relevant to wing chun.
Bt your perspective provides a good contrast for some of the discussions.
I too call em as i see em. But I pick and choose what I want to comment on.

[Merryprankster]

Actually John, I wasn't beating a dead horse. I was trying to determine if yuan believed WC was superior en toto or simply relatively--ie, somebody else might get more out of MT because it suits them better for whatever reason, than WC does.

Yuan has essentially answered that he believes that a "style" is superior in a no rules context. I agree to a certain extent. A "straight" wrestler is going to be unaware of certain things that could get him in to trouble--after all, he never had to deal with them!

A WC guy is going to be more aware of those things (hopefully).

However, take that wrestler, teach him what to do with strikes and teach him some submission stuff to avoid and you have a very effective fighting machine.

In other words, train wrestling in a free/folk/greco context and you've got a guy who has some key vulnerabilities. Train him in an NHB context and you've got the same core abilities and increased "Self-defense" skills for lack of a better term.

Zhange, in my heart of hearts, all other things being equal, I give the advantage to the better fighter. It's not a very satisfying answer, but its the truth. Each system developed because SOMEBODY was able to use it well. Whichever fighter controls the fight will very likely win (barring a little luck--puncher's chance, etc.) I mean, a decent pro boxer against an average high-school level wrestler is likely to fare quite well.

For the record, I AM interested in CMA. But I'm not going to walk into a school I think is garbage. An instructor is entitled to my hard work, but I am just as entitled to them being competant instructors.

[yuanfen]

MP sez:
For the record, I AM interested in CMA. But I'm not going to walk into a school I think is garbage. An instructor is entitled to my hard work, but I am just as entitled to them being competant instructors.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Competent instruction! A completely reasonable expectation.
There is no substitute for the search for excellence.

Mediocrity in instruction is not limited to wing chun.

[yuanfen]

Notes on MP's post'
A "straight" wrestler is going to be unaware of certain things that could get him in to trouble--after all, he never had to deal with them!

((Same for a "straight" boxer-through habit he may come in with his head down for close work. Good chance he won't have the instinct to defend against a short hit on the back of his head or neck))

A WC guy is going to be more aware of those things (hopefully).

((Not if he is a dummy...wing chun has them too))))

However, take that wrestler, teach him what to do with strikes and teach him some submission stuff to avoid and you have a very effective fighting machine.

((The problem is under stress- the last thing learned is the first forgotten and people revert to type. There has to be a reprogramming of the brain and that is part of the agenda of good kung fu))

[Merryprankster]

Yuan,

I think to some extent that reprogamming is present anywhere--habit of leading with your shoulders vice hips when throwing a discus, etc.

Anyhoo, while I agree you revert to "type," I don't think it has to be blindly. I will likely always "revert" to grappling. When in doubt, I'm likely to close the gap. However, that doesn't mean, especially given my BJJ training, that I'm necessarily going to revert to folkstyle wrestling. I guess what I'm saying is that while I agree to some extent, our hypothetical wrestler isn't likely to pin somebody and just lay there, any more than a hypothetical BJJer is going to flop to his butt when he gets in trouble.

[Daredevil]

Originally posted by Merryprankster


Ridiculous! Skill (period) compensates for weight, strength and speed differences, not "WC" or "boxing" or "wrestling." Being good is what compensates for disparities in thos attributes.



This comment contains the very essence of kung fu and that coming from a MMA guy and this agreement coming from a Baji player.

Not Style X is better than Style Y, not spankin' Chi Blasts, nothing else but this.

I can't help but feel that if you don't believe this, you're caught in a web of lies, thinking that there is something out there that is not available to everyone and that can mysteriously make you a better fighter.

If you like the way a certain style or sport trains, train that way. If not, then don't. That's why we have a variety of styles.

Train, train, train.

[yuanfen]

MP-
Sharing thoughts after reading your post.
Severn wrestled here in Tempe so did his brothers. One of his old teammates visited my class once. The point that comes to mind as far as reverting to type---in his first match with Royce- Severn picked up Royce and took him down- and then didnt know what do with him after his past preoccupation with pinning. Royce played his game amd kept cool.
In turn- Royce in the second match with Shamrock- got hit by a rather clumsy punch by Shamrock-
the side of his face was busted and he was not the same for the rest of the match
"Good" wing chun training smoothly flows in its trained motions between strikes, breaks, chin na, throes and counters- the mind set is control, hurt and survival once the fight/flight decision is made..Wing chun begins with char kuen punching-but not just for punching---it results in a body unity and shaping thatbecomes versatile and timing sharp both with forms and variations of chi sao and applications and experience.

Because of lack of time among other reasons I do not watch the UFC type of events anymore- though I have attended rage in the cage events just to check out things.


I know perspectives can vary.

You mentioned CMA--- many distinguish betweena general term CMA and TCMA- in order to have zero connection with modern wushu and other acrobatic non martial variants. TCMA is being overtaken by modern wushu and movie stunt work. My good!!!

Off to work obligations.

[Merryprankster]

Yuan,

On the other hand, Mark Kerr and Mark Coleman took people down and started beating the crap out of them. :D

Yuan, the qualities you outline about good WC apply to ANY well practiced art.

[yuanfen]

Different wavelengths. I dont think that Mark Coleman is a very good model of self defense.

His knees in the Smith fight ? Ouch. Standing helpless while being kicked in the knees. Little skill but great fortitude.

Smith is now an "old" man for active sports.

I think that we just have differnt views on martial arts.
But that's ok.

[Merryprankster]

Yuan,

FWIW, standing helpless=hypoglycemia according to Coleman. He had/has? some well publicized gassing problems so that could be it.


I didn't bring Coleman and Kerr up as "Self Defense Models." I brought them up to demonstrate that there are plenty of people that didn't just "revert." I could bring up others--but that's not really important. Just as one bad WCer in a UFC doesn't reflect on the whole art, one guy who isn't sure what to do doesn't mean we "revert" to "x" (just laying there for wrestlers, etc.)

Please don't change the subject from "reversion" to "How you should fight."

I might point out that being scared to move from a seemingly safe position against Royce unless you are SURE what you are doing is perfectly reasonable...

[yuanfen]

MP- Ok-
on revertment.
I have only seen Kerr's pictures. Have not watched him in a contest (note- not fight).

Coleman did a revertment of sorts. When he had Smith on the ground he couldnt choke him out or struke him out.Inability to adapt to Smith's multidimensional approach. He became just a hulk looking for a tackle of some sort again.

I saw some wing chun principles in Smith's work here and there.
(I look at many things through wing chun eyes-sic sempre).
I see a fleeting bit of wing chun in Tyson's short uppercuts up the middle- in his prime. These days his feet are frozen. But his teeth sometimes finds the center line.. and he darn near broke Botha's arm. But again with sports sooner rather than later- sic transit gloriam mundi.
Wing chun is based on a detailed and intricate set of principles of motion- it is not a collection of techniques. No revertment just adaptation. Plagiarism(from not the best of sources)- be like water my friend.

[Merryprankster]

I have only seen Kerr's pictures. Have not watched him in a contest (note- not fight).

I might argue that the IVC contests where Kerr made his mark (and his "Smashing Machine" moniker) are as close to a fight as you can get, but I certainly understand (and agree) with your point that sportive combat matches are not "fights."

I would argue that Coleman didn't "revert." He wasn't LOOKING to just pin Mo--he wanted to cause some damage, but Mo made it hard. Top level guys can make each other look helpless/stupid from time to time. Severn, on the other hand (much as I love him) does look for the "Lay and Pray." I saw him in a match live and it was one of the most boring things I've ever witnessed.


Wing chun is based on a detailed and intricate set of principles of motion- it is not a collection of techniques.

So's greco, so's judo, so's Tai Chi, so's (insert art here). Same can be said of any well practiced, well trained art. What's your point?

Be like water? Rickson is an EXCELLENT source (depending on what you're talking about) :D

[yuanfen]

MP sez:
So's greco, so's judo, so's Tai Chi, so's (insert art here). Same can be said of any well practiced, well trained art. What's your point?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Top level Chen style taiji -yes. The other two in their current incarnations are defined and limited by their objectives-
pin, throw etc.... and are also more size dependent than
taiji or wing chun. Emphasis on more...relative.

Gotta go to put bread on the table.
Yes- Rickson is superb and fluid. I see some (gasp) wing chun principles in his work.

[Merryprankster]

Top level Chen style taiji -yes. The other two in their current incarnations are defined and limited by their objectives-

So what? That doesn't make them any less principle based. It just makes their emphasis not the same as WC.


also more size dependent than taiji or wing chun.

Says who? This is like me saying that BJJ relies more on leverage than wrestling. Just because there are weight classes for sportive competition doesn't make the art size-dependent or strength-reliant. Nor does it necessarily encourage development in that direction. I have taken down people MANY pounds heavier than I am who were much stronger.

Good principles are good principles. Period.

[yuanfen]

Bracketed answers to MP who sez:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Top level Chen style taiji -yes. The other two in their current incarnations are defined and limited by their objectives-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So what? That doesn't make them any less principle based. It just makes their emphasis not the same as WC.(MP)


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
also more size dependent than taiji or wing chun.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Good principles are good principles. Period(MP)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For me a colon maybe- not a period.
Yes they are lots of good principles in the activities that you mention.
But we will continue to differ I think. The crux of our differences is this-- you state good principles are good principles.
My view is that the merits of a good principle is in the specified or inherent context.
For the immensely strong Karelin?(The Russian Greco roman great.sp?)- the context is
pinning or points. My AAU judo champion friends context were the throw.
The classic wing chun context was complete self defense.
My interest was in that context. In that context I found and find the wing chun principles to be reallya system of interlocking principles.
Others view might be different...ultimately judgement calls are involved.
My secondary interest was and is- understanding the principles in sucha way that does minimal harm to the practitioner and perhaps even assist in his pursuit of or maintenace of good health.
Many combative sports fail comparatively on the latter count. One of my national judo champion friends is immobile on one side of his face, has broken collar bones, dislocated his shoulders and many many other injuries. I find that good wing chun(if not muddled by other factors) is good in three contexts- 1. self defense 2,health
and 3. self development.
Of course opinions can vary- including yours. I can live with that.
Nice chat. Cheers rather than repeating myself.

[kj]

Originally posted by yuanfen
... The classic wing chun context was complete self defense.
My interest was in that context. In that context I found and find the wing chun principles to be reallya system of interlocking principles.

...

My secondary interest was and is- understanding the principles in sucha way that does minimal harm to the practitioner and perhaps even assist in his pursuit of or maintenace of good health.

...

I find that good wing chun(if not muddled by other factors) is good in three contexts- 1. self defense 2,health
and 3. self development. ...

Excellent.

Regards,
- kj

[John Weiland]

Originally posted by yuanfen
My secondary interest was and is- understanding the principles in such a way that does minimal harm to the practitioner and perhaps even assist in his pursuit of or maintenace of good health.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but....While my octagenarian former coach Yosh Uchida still gets around pretty well, a lot of my top teammates from San Jose State's (longest NCAA record for consequecutive dual meet wins in any sport) judo team from the '70s sustained so many concussions in competition that they can no longer safely pursue the sport.


Many combative sports fail comparatively on the latter count. One of my national judo champion friends is immobile on one side of his face, has broken collar bones, dislocated his shoulders and many many other injuries.
A familiar litany of pain. :D I ended one teammate's potential career in practice by breaking his leg at the knee. (Not my fault, but his.)


I find that good wing chun(if not muddled by other factors) is good in three contexts- 1. self defense 2,health
and 3. self development.

I was looking for all three when I serendipitously found Wing Chun.

Regards,

[Merryprankster]

Oh, for christ's sake--now your talking about the difference between competition and non-competition. NOT the difference between "How 'principally' based an art is."

In competitions, INJURY HAPPENS. That's the way it goes. Now, if you happen not to like competition, or do not compete because of fear of injury, that's fine. But it does not speak to the underlying principles of an art (leverage, body structure, etc). I watched some Shuai Chiao vids, in action (against striking). It looks like wrestling. Or Judo if you prefer. Some minor variations in gripping, but that is a preference issue. The body structure and movement was the same. Why? Because good principles transcend style.

All those injuries tell you is that the principles work. (not that there aren't happier, better ways to have that demonstrated)


also more size dependent than taiji or wing chun.

Why? Because you said so? Because some other people who might validate your opinion say so? Absurd.

Here: "Wing Chun is more size dependant than Wrestling or BJJ." :rolleyes:

I've said it before, I'll say it again: I am not unusually strong or large and have out-wrestled and out-BJJed guys SIGNIFICANTLY bigger and stronger than me. Conversely, my first real ass-kicking in BJJ, barring my instructor came at the hands of somebody I outweighed by over 50 lbs.

I'm out of this thread. No use arguing with a person who sees WC principles in somebody who never did WC (Rickson) but can't say that good principles are good principles that cross stylistic (and personal) boundaries. Here's how I've figured out it works--If a fighter executes a movement well, he's embodying wing chun principles (completely independent of actually practicing wing chun). But if he executes a movement poorly, then he's serving as further evidence that his art is inferior to the principles of wing chun.

[reneritchie]

Systems are merely attempts to understand and cultivate principles. None are perfect or complete, since humans themselves aren't perfect or complete. We are, however, individualistic, with different experiences, tastes, and personal biases.

There's a wide (wider than any of us deserve) range of really great MA out there, and we're very fortunate to be able to choose from among them something that we feel best suits our needs and nature.

Makes comparison rather useless, but makes training rather kewl.

(BTW- I've been injured in almost every MA I've ever spent time in, I figure its cost of doing business, and I reckon plenty of folks get injured, or worse, outside MA).

[KenWingJitsu]

Hi peeps.

If you fight/spar/play with a boxer....he WILL use his boxing on you. The question is can YOU deal with it?

[S.Teebas]

I find kicking the cr@p out of a boxers legs useful.