Wing Chun and Boxing

[Wu Wei Wu]

About two years ago a group of us agreed that we would re-examine the way we trained Wing Chun. We started exchanging ideas on, inter alia, conditioning drills and formats for pressure testing.

Recently, one of our members entered an amateur boxing fight. He is the one wearing BLUE:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=KRtSB103mG8

Suki Gosal

[AdrianK]

So your Wing Chun guy learned how to box and decently won an amateur bout? :)
Don't get me wrong, I love boxing.. but he only used boxing. Jab, cross, hook, uppercut, etc. and slip, weave, boxing stance, boxing footwork.. If you guys honestly spent a ton of time re-evaluating your training methods.. it'd have been far better to just go down to the local boxing gym :)

Your guy is a decent enough boxer... theres no wing chun in that video... I mean, he doesn't need to pak sao punch or tan sao or bong sao or whatever - But theres also no evidence of any refined abilities such as bridging, body structure, controlling the opponents center, or protecting your own...

All I saw was a boxer, boxing.

[Wu Wei Wu]

Am I to believe that mobility and effective punching methods are the exclusive domain of western boxing? And I suppose one would have you believe the forms couldn't possibly contain a blueprint for punches that have hooking and uppercut motions?

And to suggest that one couldn't 'see' body structure therefore it could not possibly exist is hardly a compelling suggestion that it wasn't being used. And of course, the cliches continue with "controlling the opponents center".

Suki

[clam61]

wing chun has jab, cross, and uppercut. no hook though--too slow thats for hung gar guys :)

[TenTigers]

aren't there hook punches in the Biu Jee form?

[Sihing73]

aren't there hook punches in the Biu Jee form?

Hello,

Yes there are and they are more akin to a true hook not the loping kind you see in movies. :D Close to the body not coming from outer space.

[Ali. R]

I don’t understand the opening of this thread considering wing chun and boxing, but Ten Tiger you are very much correct when it comes to ‘bil jee’, in fact the “hook punch” is introduce in the 8 basic punches of the system (SLT) and the lifting punch as well…


Ali Rahim.

[Phil Redmond]

wing chun has jab, cross, and uppercut. no hook though--too slow thats for hung gar guys :)
There is a hook punch in Wing Chun.

[TenTigers]

yep-thought so.
Oh, and btw-clam...I agree that a large, swinging punch is slower in comparrison to short strikes, which is why a well-trained fighter sets up his strikes, and uses proper angles and range.
In case you didn't realize, Hung-Ga was originally a short bridging system , and added the larger swinging strikes (from Wong Yun-Lum's Hop-Ga) later on in its development.
You need to understand a technique, in order to use it.
Case in point-many beginner Wing Chun students(or casual observers) try to throw chain punches from outside the proper range, fail, and then conclude that they are inneffective.
In the words of Duncan Leung-"Once I'm in your horse, you can't stop me."

[edseas2]

It might be better to say that SOME branches have a hook punch and some do not...

Ed Seas

[TenTigers]

it might be better still to say that some teachers, or practitioners have a hook punch, and some do not.;)

Years ago, while giving a seminar at a forme Sifu's school, Sifu Robert Chu was asked,"Why aren't there claws in Wing Chun?"
Sifu Chu then demonstrated the huen sao and closing of the hand section of Siu Lim Tau, but emphasized the closing, showing a distinct claw and grabbing motion, and said,"Who says there are no claws?"

I have since seen others do this, and also others who do not.

Your Gung-Fu depends on what you have been given, and where you take it.

[Vajramusti]

It might be better to say that SOME branches have a hook punch and some do not...

Ed Seas
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
True dat. Another example of why generalizations about wing chun often miss the target.
The differences often seem to outweigh the similarities.

joy chaudhuri

[edseas2]

Hook Punch -

Our teeny tiny little branch doesn't have a hook punch in its arsenal. We practice myriad defenses/offenses against said technique but our particular interpretation dictates that we don't use such a technique in practice for various reasons but we respect those who do.

FWIW, we hardly ever use pak sao and, by choice, would choose other techniques over pak dar if possible/available.

Ed Seas;)

[couch]

It might be better to say that SOME branches have a hook punch and some do not...

Ed Seas
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
True dat. Another example of why generalizations about wing chun often miss the target.
The differences often seem to outweigh the similarities.

joy chaudhuri

In this case, yup!

I don't have a hook punch, but in the BJ I have a Ginger Fist implored to fit into a 'thin' space and hit the kidney while returning to the centre.

Best,
K

[Vajramusti]

In this case, yup!

I don't have a hook punch, but in the BJ I have a Ginger Fist implored to fit into a 'thin' space and hit the kidney while returning to the centre.

Best,
K
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi K- the issues of boxing and wc have spilled over to a different thread which is zig zagging
around.

Boxing and wing chun have quite different platforms for launching things that may superficially look similar. Wing chun IMHO requires far greater control of one's mass than boxing- but when one develops the wing chun motions you can throw a hook or uppercut or a straight left or a straight right from a wing chun platform and the logic is there in the forms.
A straight wing chun punch when properly trained can beat a hook.The problem is that a lot of wing chunners I have seen have not really developed their basic wing chun punch.
Best,
J

[hunt1]

****** warning some may be offended by this post ********

To be blunt to say wing chun doesn't have a hook punch or doesn't have this or that etc shows a lack of understanding of wing chun.

Wing chun forms are not rules. They do not contain all there is to the system. They do not set out the only way of doing things.

While everyone will say wing chun is conceptual not everyone understands what a concept is and what this means. There are several places in the forms where the hook concept may be seen and derived. Chum kui has no backward step. Does this mean you can never step backward? Of course the weapons have backward steps. Does this mean you can only step back after you have learned the weapons?

When 2 students asked Yip Man who was doing the correct tan sau his answer was both. A perfect tan sau that fails to stop a punch and you lose your teeth isn't so good. A horrible looking tan sau that stops the punch would be the perfect tan sau in the instance.

There are no set rules only concepts to be adopted to the situation.

[anerlich]

wing chun has jab, cross, and uppercut. no hook though

You really don't like those hooks, do you?

If your BJ has the circular elbow strikes, then it also has the mechanics of a hook punch.


****** warning some may be offended by this post ********

IMO it was an excellent post.

[sihing]

****** warning some may be offended by this post ********

To be blunt to say wing chun doesn't have a hook punch or doesn't have this or that etc shows a lack of understanding of wing chun.

Wing chun forms are not rules. They do not contain all there is to the system. They do not set out the only way of doing things.

While everyone will say wing chun is conceptual not everyone understands what a concept is and what this means. There are several places in the forms where the hook concept may be seen and derived. Chum kui has no backward step. Does this mean you can never step backward? Of course the weapons have backward steps. Does this mean you can only step back after you have learned the weapons?

When 2 students asked Yip Man who was doing the correct tan sau his answer was both. A perfect tan sau that fails to stop a punch and you lose your teeth isn't so good. A horrible looking tan sau that stops the punch would be the perfect tan sau in the instance.

There are no set rules only concepts to be adopted to the situation.

Probably one of the best posts in a long while here, thanks Hunt:) People will only see what they WANT to see of something. Guess why? Because it validates their wants or needs, another word one can use here is motivation. With MMA taking root in the MA world, technique has become the buzz word, so since everyone is on that band wagon, this is what they see. Of course WC has technique, this is the physical application of the concept and priniples, but it is not exactly applied the way it is practiced. Why is this? In practice we are perfecting a skill or physical attribute in a somewhat perfect environment, for the purpose of gaining efficiency, power, structure, timing, aim etc.. in our combative movements. If you do not practice something perfectly when there is little to no pressure, then how the he!! are you going to be able to use any of it effectively in application? Like Hunt said, what some may consider a lousy tan sau, may be just what is need for the situation at hand, as long as you are not getting hit and beaten, you have used the training effectively. My new definition of Economy of Motion, is using only the littlest amount of the training that you need to overcome and succeed in the situation at hand. Like Sifu Lam once told me, WC is a lazy man's Martial Art, this saying has nothing to do with the effort one is putting into his training, but rather how one uses his training when in combat.

James

[clam61]

yep-thought so.
Oh, and btw-clam...I agree that a large, swinging punch is slower in comparrison to short strikes, which is why a well-trained fighter sets up his strikes, and uses proper angles and range.
In case you didn't realize, Hung-Ga was originally a short bridging system , and added the larger swinging strikes (from Wong Yun-Lum's Hop-Ga) later on in its development.
You need to understand a technique, in order to use it.
Case in point-many beginner Wing Chun students(or casual observers) try to throw chain punches from outside the proper range, fail, and then conclude that they are inneffective.
In the words of Duncan Leung-"Once I'm in your horse, you can't stop me."

thank you for teaching me the history of hung gar. regardless, my statement was that hung gar has hook punches and that is true.

you are right that you need to set up a hook punch--i dont disagree with that.

and no, WC does not have hook punches like boxer hooks.

[clam61]

i agree with a lot of what u said, but WC is a set of movements, so you can objectively and definitively say whether a movement is or is not contained in the set of WC movements.


i do not consider WC a philosophy. perhaps you defined WC as a philosophy, and if you do i cant really argue against it i can only clarify your position and mine.

you are right WC forms are not rules, i dont mean that they are. but clearly the define a set of movements.

going by your thinking, WC could have jump spin kicks


****** warning some may be offended by this post ********

To be blunt to say wing chun doesn't have a hook punch or doesn't have this or that etc shows a lack of understanding of wing chun.

Wing chun forms are not rules. They do not contain all there is to the system. They do not set out the only way of doing things.

While everyone will say wing chun is conceptual not everyone understands what a concept is and what this means. There are several places in the forms where the hook concept may be seen and derived. Chum kui has no backward step. Does this mean you can never step backward? Of course the weapons have backward steps. Does this mean you can only step back after you have learned the weapons?

When 2 students asked Yip Man who was doing the correct tan sau his answer was both. A perfect tan sau that fails to stop a punch and you lose your teeth isn't so good. A horrible looking tan sau that stops the punch would be the perfect tan sau in the instance.

There are no set rules only concepts to be adopted to the situation.

[clam61]

You really don't like those hooks, do you?

If your BJ has the circular elbow strikes, then it also has the mechanics of a hook punch.



IMO it was an excellent post.

yes it has similar mechanics of a twisting body blah blah...but its not a hook punch. its an elbow.

[Liddel]

Its can just be a difference in terms also.

I prefer to use the name banana punch LOL ... Sifu had some funny names for actions when using english, but he aint got nothing on Eddie bravo :p.

Why 'Banana punch'...Because it conjures up an image of an arc rather than such a harsh angle of a boxing hook. This is my VT hook.

I have what some would consider hooks, but the elbow behavior is VT. its quite different to that of a boxing hook.

I think the hook discussion is also akin to footwork... when some refer to the footwork of others as not being VT because to them it looks to much like a boxing stance.

My free flowing VT footwork is very similar to other styles boxing included, the difference is in the details... ie weight, shapes and how it loads my hands and behaves towards the opponents stepping etc but its as dynamic in movement as say boxing...most form junkies see it as being less static and dont think its VT...WTF !

Good call Hunt1... i dont know why some get so staunch when it comes to not thinking outside the square of the forms....not enough experience with actual fighting i think.


WC does not have hook punches like boxer hooks

Clam61 ...boxer hooks, NO. Hooks or round punches...YES.

CK and BJ have round punches in my VT. Lok Yiu Lineage.


DREW

[sihing]

WC developers did not devise the proper way to punch or block out of thin air or aesthetics. there are reasons behind the technique. so you can definitely look at a way someone does something and point out whats wrong with it and why its not going to be as good as if he did it another way

In training, this is what you do exactly, because you are learning something unnatural, foreign to how you would normally move. Training is all about isolating things, the thing is training is not application. If you see someone trained in WC free fighting and he does not apply the punch or whatever else absolutely correctly IYO, this is due to the random intense natural of the act of combat. The idea IMO is not to DO Wing Chun in a fight, but to fight naturally, with the hope that your movements, reactions and such have been improved due to WC training, so that you are more effective in physically violent situations. I fight, not Wing Chun or anyother MA.

James

[Wu Wei Wu]

Let the opponent dictate how you hit him. If for example, he is close and it requires a short arc like motion (i.e. similar to a boxer's hook), then so be it. This is Wing Chun.

In terms of mechanical movements, it is not slipping, or weaving that dictates whether it should be classified as Wing Chun or boxing. If you do something, that prevents you from being hit and enables you to set up a punch or counter, it is Wing Chun.

For Wing Chun to operate we look at the tactical aspects of the system such as; por jung (crashing the center), chui ying (forward facing), bik bo (pressing forwards with footwork). As these are tactical, they operate on a strategic level i.e. function driven, not form/appearance driven.

Performance is judged solely on effectiveness.

Conversely, it ceases to be Wing Chun at the point at which it is is proved (by way of pressure testing) to be ineffective and one has to look outside of the system for a solution.

The clip was someone who looked inside the system to fight in a boxing arena.

Suki

[anerlich]

yes it has similar mechanics of a twisting body blah blah...but its not a hook punch. its an elbow.

Move your hand out an inch or two, it's a hook punch. The forms are a framework, to be adapted.

You don't want to do hook punches, fine. Your loss. You have a bad experience or something?

Don't presume to tell me what is or is not in my forms. You've already shown your ignorance of YMWC, and made it sound likely that isaid ignorance extends well beyond that. Quit while you're ahead, or at least not too far behind, please.


WC developers did not devise the proper way to punch or block out of thin air or aesthetics. there are reasons behind the technique. so you can definitely look at a way someone does something and point out whats wrong with it and why its not going to be as good as if he did it another way

Just make sure you're not pointing it out from the floor to the guy that just knocked you down with one of those inferior hook punches.

[Wu Wei Wu]

Jack Dempsey documentary.

Pt 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZDlvZ2W3Ak

Pt 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMrUvDPVK1w&feature=related

Suki Gosal

[Phil Redmond]

although this sounds like one of those poignant and though provoking stereotypical chinese sayings/philosophies i would have to disagree.

WC developers did not devise the proper way to punch or block out of thin air or aesthetics. there are reasons behind the technique. so you can definitely look at a way someone does something and point out whats wrong with it and why its not going to be as good as if he did it another way
First you say that WC has no hook punch without having studied all versions/lineages of WC. But what gets me is that you know what the developers of WC were thinking hundreds of years ago and that is utterly impossible.

[clam61]

you're right. i was wrong in generalizing WC. that was my mistake.

and even though i cannot jump into the minds of people hundreds of years ago, i think it is fairly obvious that WC developers created the style based on something. they did not just pull these moves out of their ass



First you say that WC has no hook punch without having studied all versions/lineages of WC. But what gets me is that you know what the developers of WC were thinking hundreds of years ago and that is utterly impossible.

[clam61]

Move your hand out an inch or two, it's a hook punch. The forms are a framework, to be adapted.

You don't want to do hook punches, fine. Your loss. You have a bad experience or something?

Don't presume to tell me what is or is not in my forms. You've already shown your ignorance of YMWC, and made it sound likely that isaid ignorance extends well beyond that. Quit while you're ahead, or at least not too far behind, please.



Just make sure you're not pointing it out from the floor to the guy that just knocked you down with one of those inferior hook punches.

you're right, extend your hand out and its a hook punch. too bad they didnt do that and thus its not a hook punch.

look its very simple. this isnt subjective here. im not speaking out of emotion. its an elbow and not a hook. it could be a hook, but its not.

if there are some lineages of WC that incorporated a hook, then again, i conceded to your point that my generalization was incorrect

[clam61]

In training, this is what you do exactly, because you are learning something unnatural, foreign to how you would normally move. Training is all about isolating things, the thing is training is not application. If you see someone trained in WC free fighting and he does not apply the punch or whatever else absolutely correctly IYO, this is due to the random intense natural of the act of combat. The idea IMO is not to DO Wing Chun in a fight, but to fight naturally, with the hope that your movements, reactions and such have been improved due to WC training, so that you are more effective in physically violent situations. I fight, not Wing Chun or anyother MA.

James

i agree with what you are saying. to give an example to my point. lets say you are fighting and you have a bad habit of punching with your elbow out and you don't twist your body that much when blocking at the same time.

i think its reasonable for someone to say that your form is not as effective and you are losing potential hitting power.

this conflicts with the whole notion that two forms can both be 'right'

[Phil Redmond]

In Cantonese Chinese martial arts can generally be divided into three "types"
Pai, Do, and Kuen.
Now these are loose interpretations but here goes.
Pai means system (Fu Jow Pai or Ying Jow Pai), and implies that everything is laid out for the practitioner. Only the powers that be can make changes.

Do (Tao) means path/way. It's a more philosophical approach to an art.

Kuen means 'fist'. I know that there is a Wing Chun Do but that's a modern art. The Wing Chun I'm refering to is a kuen. Hence the name Wing Chun Kuen. Though the underlying principle is simplicity it's eclectic, open to interpretation and change. What's efficient for some may not be for others.
To say this or that is or is not can be misleading. I don't know the exact quote but Sibak WSL said something like don't be a slave to WC.
The idea of a kuen is if you knock someone out and your elbow was out he's still knocked out.

[clam61]

but what if you knocked someone out and broke your hand or wrist because your form wasn't optimal for withstanding the impact

u couldnt say its just as good, right?

although you may consider WC as completely fluid (and as a native cantonese speaker i disagree), there has to be some limit right?

going by your 'whatever works best in the situation approach is WC', i might do a jump spin kick because that was the best move in the situation and call it WC.

it might be the best thing to have done. it might have worked. i might have KOd some guys. it might be the best fighting philosophy out there. but its not WC. not that thats a bad thing.


In Cantonese Chinese martial arts can generally be divided into three "types"
Pai, Do, and Kuen.
Now these are loose interpretations but here goes.
Pai means system (Fu Jow Pai or Ying Jow Pai), and implies that everything is laid out for the practitioner. Only the powers that be can make changes.

Do (Tao) means path/way. It's a more philosophical approach to an art.

Kuen means 'fist'. I know that there is a Wing Chun Do but that's a modern art. The Wing Chun I'm refering to is a kuen. Hence the name Wing Chun Kuen. Though the underlying principle is simplicity it's eclectic, open to interpretation and change. What's efficient for some may not be for others.
To say this or that is or is not can be misleading. I don't know the exact quote but Sibak WSL said something like don't be a slave to WC.
The idea of a kuen is if you knock someone out and your elbow was out he's still knocked out.

[AdrianK]

Am I to believe that mobility and effective punching methods are the exclusive domain of western boxing?

Nope. They're not. And in the same vein, it isn't specifically wing chun, either. Its simply basic techniques that are in almost every single art. My POINT was that aside from those non-exclusive basics, there was nothing definitively wing chun in that video.



And I suppose one would have you believe the forms couldn't possibly contain a blueprint for punches that have hooking and uppercut motions?

Absolutely. Still not the point.



And to suggest that one couldn't 'see' body structure therefore it could not possibly exist

Your homeboy was losing balance and getting pushed around quite a bit by an amateur.. Compare it to some of Alan Orr's guys fighting against *professionals*. You may not outwardly see tan sao or pak sao or whatnot, but they have some definitive wing chun principles at work. I'm not saying he won't get better at it, I'm just saying I didn't see any effective implementation of it. Thats fine, its an amateur bout. You've proven that a wing chun guy can go in and just barely win an amateur boxing match. woo hoo.



And of course, the cliches continue with "controlling the opponents center".

Its an effective method that works, if you could only understand it :)

[Phil Redmond]

but what if you knocked someone out and broke your hand or wrist because your form wasn't optimal for withstanding the impact

u couldnt say its just as good, right?

although you may consider WC as completely fluid (and as a native cantonese speaker i disagree), there has to be some limit right?

going by your 'whatever works best in the situation approach is WC', i might do a jump spin kick because that was the best move in the situation and call it WC.

it might be the best thing to have done. it might have worked. i might have KOd some guys. it might be the best fighting philosophy out there. but its not WC. not that thats a bad thing.
Though not a native speaker I do speak enough Cantonese to get by. Three years in college in the 70's but I learned more hanging out in NYC Chinatown.
I did preface my statement with the words, "loose interpretation";)
Now what if you didn't break your hand? People are always saying this or that didn't look like WC. All I'm saying is that when in a real fight your form will not look like a choreographed WC drill.

[Ali. R]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The problem is that a lot of wing chunners I have seen have not really developed their basic wing chun punch.
Best,
J


That’s true, because if on can understand the true biomechanics dealing with the ideal of the basic punch, then one will understand that the first punch is nothing more then the same, as well as the precursor of the others…


Ali Rahim.

[clam61]

Though not a native speaker I do speak enough Cantonese to get by. Three years in college in the 70's but I learned more hanging out in NYC Chinatown.
I did preface my statement with the words, "loose interpretation";)
Now what if you didn't break your hand? People are always saying this or that didn't look like WC. All I'm saying is that when in a real fight your form will not look like a choreographed WC drill.


hi phil. sorry if i sounded condescending about the cantonese. props to you for learning any foreign language!

i agree with what you say. when u spar you probably wont be as precise with your movements, as you are during a drill. totally agree with that. but what i am saying is that practice doesnt make perfect. perfect practice makes perfect. when we drill we aim to do moves a certain way because there is a REASON for the move to be done in that manner (which im sure you can attest to, is sometimes very unnatural). if there were no reasons for the form, then this would be a non issue

so although you can look at someone sparring and understand why they are a bit sloppy in the heat of the moment, you can still look at it and say what they need to change and WHY its important for them to make that change.

like i said before, otherwise i can just start throwin haymakers in a fight and say "it worked, its fluid, its a fluid art, its WC, whatever works. whatever works is WC"

[Ali. R]

All I'm saying is that when in a real fight your form will not look like a choreographed WC drill.

Every art has its identification, and structure is usually the blueprint of that… Just as a “pro boxer” performs, you can easily identify which punch is thrown, then one can clearly see what type of fighter the boxer is…

One can clearly see when something is wrong with a certain strike or punch when watching two-season fighter go at it… One can see to the point; that you and the color commentator may say at the same time “Dam, that was a wild punch”…

Structure is there for a reason, and not just for show… Once one has lost structure, he has lost the system in which he has prescribe to… The more one can master his structure the more accurate one will be when under pressure, unless something is wrong with the structure to begin with…


Ali Rahim.

[anerlich]

you're right, extend your hand out and its a hook punch.

I knew that


too bad they didnt do that and thus its not a hook punch.

Who are "they"? And how would you know?


look its very simple. this isnt subjective here. im not speaking out of emotion.

No, out of ignorance.


its an elbow and not a hook. it could be a hook, but its not.

THat's your opinion, not fact. The mechanics are almost identical, as you could find out from the surprisingly highbrow discussion in the Dempsey book you seem determined to avoid at all costs for no good reason.

Why is a circular elbow good WC, but the similar hook such a huge anathema to you? you HAVE to be speaking out of emotion.


if there are some lineages of WC that incorporated a hook, then again, i conceded to your point that my generalization was incorrect

Many of your generalisations are incorrect, props for conceding this one as a good start.


so although you can look at someone sparring and understand why they are a bit sloppy in the heat of the moment, you can still look at it and say what they need to change and WHY its important for them to make that change.


Performance overrides precision. - Scott Sonnon
Efficiency is anything that scores - Bruce Lee

[clam61]

THat's your opinion, not fact. The mechanics are almost identical, as you could find out from the surprisingly highbrow discussion in the Dempsey book you seem determined to avoid at all costs for no good reason.

Why is a circular elbow good WC, but the similar hook such a huge anathema to you? you HAVE to be speaking out of emotion.


first, i am not avoiding dempseys book. someone brought up the fact that dempsey had good things to say about the straight punch. then he started to debate about that. i said it was irrelevant. i dont know why that was brought up because this whole discussion started when i said WC has no hooks. i didnt say hooks were bad or good or inferior. all i said is that WC has no hooks.

now if some branch of wing chun has boxing style hooks then i over generalized and thats all there is to say about that.

but then you slipped up and you said elbows are hooks. you keep trying to defend that statement and honestly its a bit pathetic. its a very simple fact that an elbow is not a hook punch--even if they are similar. thats why we have two different terms.

next time watch a boxing match with your friends and say to them "wow that guy threw a crazy elbow" and see what they say.



Performance overrides precision. - Scott Sonnon
Efficiency is anything that scores - Bruce Lee


these quotes dont even apply to what we are talking about. even if it did, lee is not the ultimate authority on anything.

[Phil Redmond]

hi phil. sorry if i sounded condescending about the cantonese. props to you for learning any foreign language!

i agree with what you say. when u spar you probably wont be as precise with your movements, as you are during a drill. totally agree with that. but what i am saying is that practice doesnt make perfect. perfect practice makes perfect. when we drill we aim to do moves a certain way because there is a REASON for the move to be done in that manner (which im sure you can attest to, is sometimes very unnatural). if there were no reasons for the form, then this would be a non issue

so although you can look at someone sparring and understand why they are a bit sloppy in the heat of the moment, you can still look at it and say what they need to change and WHY its important for them to make that change.

like i said before, otherwise i can just start throwin haymakers in a fight and say "it worked, its fluid, its a fluid art, its WC, whatever works. whatever works is WC"
No problem. Some times it's hard to interpret one's true meaning or intent on a written forum. Language is one of my hobbies. I speak a few and I'm learning Mandarin now. And no, we don't want to throw wild haymakers. :)

[Ali. R]

And no, we don't want to throw wild haymakers. :)

I really believe you when you say that your wing chun doesn’t turn out the way that you trained it to be, and to say that especially around those that can apply their structure without deviation could only mean one thing, something is wrong…

The first thing and the main thing is ones stance, and how well can that stance supplement the ideal of offensive and defensive lines or bridge contact, and how well can your bridge control someone’s center of gravity, while all along fighting and defending with structure…

Using structure will take the stress and the muscles mass or tension out of the fight (wildness), while focusing on calmness, positioning and timing… But if one studies the ideal of structure and body unity and how the structure should work as clean as a watch (gear for gear), then ones wing chun would turn out the way they trained it to be…

It’s obvious something is wrong with the ideal of engagement… But to say that your wing chun doesn’t look like the way you trained it to be (wildness) is one thing, and to say that one does not throw wild punches is another…

And here’s something that you consider as good wing chun in action, and something that you should be very proud of; after all, it won you a championship… In some fashion this is how your wing chun may or could turn out in live action,

http://www.wingchunkwoon.com/movie_viewer.asp?obj_width=320&obj_height=240&filename=images/movs/misc/lei_tai07_teaser.flv&filesize=55.6MB

That clip along with this statement almost holds a double edge sword,


All I'm saying is that when in a real fight your form will not look like a choreographed WC drill.

Meaning; if it would have turned out good with focus, calmness, structure, positioning and timing, then it would have been all good and should have been that way all along, but fighting that way will never give you a chance to fight multiple opponents… But when it doesn’t look clear, then everyone’s wing chun should look that way when under pressure, NOT…

But to say that wing chun shouldn’t turn out the way that you trained it to be, gives credibility to that clip… But it’s a lot people just like the color commentator on cable that will say; “Man that was wild”…

But when one runs training session based on; if he throws this or that, I’ll do that or this, or work on technique 1, 2 through 50, only confuses the student when under pressure… These are the things that one should be working on if they want to bring their structure to life: calmness, positioning, timing and body unity, and there’s drills that can bring out everyone of those attributes that I just mention…


Ali Rahim.

[TenTigers]

perhaps elbows aren't hooks (I beg to differ)
but if anyone has seen Tyson fight,
hooks can definately be elbows!:)

[Ali. R]

perhaps elbows aren't hooks (I beg to differ)
but if anyone has seen Tyson fight,
hooks can definately be elbows!:)

Ten Tiger, I understand where’re your coming from, because I was taught to throw my hook (in boxing) and I do teach one to throw the hook leveled, as if one is throwing an elbow…

Any good trainer would know that the hook has elbow tendencies and if the elbow lands that’s good, as long as it doesn’t seems intentional... That has always been apart of the game… ;)


Ali Rahim.

[anerlich]

WWW,

thanks for the Dempsey links - good stuff!

[Wu Wei Wu]

Anerlich,

No worries. I'm glad someone picked up on the links. I was impressed by the portrayal of Gene Tunney as the well read/educated, scientific tactician, going up against Dempsey the Brawler. Despite the fixers, there seems to be something special about boxing, almost an ethereal beauty that MMA lacks.

FWIW, the recent Calzaghe fight against Roy Jones Jnr. is well worth watching.

More significantly, a few weeks ago a documentary aired on British TV, which charts the trilogy between Frazier and Ali, predominantly from Frazier's perspective. If you can get your hands on it, the documentary was beautiful, storytelling at its best.

Suki

[Knifefighter]

Oh, and btw-clam...I agree that a large, swinging punch is slower in comparrison to short strikes, which is why a well-trained fighter sets up his strikes, and uses proper angles and range.
A correctly thrown hook punch is faster and generally travels a shorter distance than a straight punch.

[Knifefighter]

Like Sifu Lam once told me, WC is a lazy man's Martial Art, this saying has nothing to do with the effort one is putting into his training, but rather how one uses his training when in combat.

Anyone who has actually fought pretty much knows there is no such thing as being lazy during an altercation. Anyone who tells you that has either never fought or is lying and anyone who believes that has never fought.

[TenTigers]

it's a figure of speech, used to illustrate the fact that WC tries to use the least (wasted) motion, and most direct techniques. Such as,"Others walk the bow, Wing Chun walks the string"

[clam61]

A correctly thrown hook punch is faster and generally travels a shorter distance than a straight punch.

i cant generalize on whether a hook is faster or slower, because it really depends on the person who is throwing the punches to be compared.

however, a hook travels in an arc, and a straight punch travels in a straight line. and the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. thats not my opinion. thats geometry

[TenTigers]

I agree with the geometry. Straight punch is faster than the hook.
But, Tactics change things up a bit, and I think this was what Knifefighter was getting at.
Many fighters throw the hook more from a nose to nose distance, which is too close to generate straight power.
Toe to Toe, Knee to knee, I can generate straight power. Closer, I feel stronger with hooks, uppercuts, forearms, hammerfists and elbows.
I would be interested in other people's experience.

[TenTigers]

try this experiment at home, Boys and Girls!
put on some good headgear and gloves.
Stand nose to nose.
Throw a straight punch to his head.
Then
Have your friend throw a hook into your head.
When you wake up, compare the results.:D




"oh yeah, TenTigers?
why don't you try it!"

"He11 no.
My mom didn't raise any stupid children!"

[couch]

I agree with the geometry. Straight punch is faster than the hook.
But, Tactics change things up a bit, and I think this was what Knifefighter was getting at.
Many fighters throw the hook more from a nose to nose distance, which is too close to generate straight power.
Toe to Toe, Knee to knee, I can generate straight power. Closer, I feel stronger with hooks, uppercuts, forearms, hammerfists and elbows.
I would be interested in other people's experience.

Yup. Positioning has a lot to do with what you're going to pull off. While it's true that wild John Wayne haymakers are still thrown to this day, most hook punches are tight and very snappy and quick. Oh, and very dangerous.

So, yes...in geometry land a straight beats a 'round' punch, but I would go out on a limb and say that even in geometry land, a straight wouldn't beat a nice, tight hook. :)

WWW - I agree with you on the boxing thing. In my mind and how my mind's eye interprets boxing - it really seems like the Sweet Science of fighting. I've promised myself that in my next lifetime I would dedicate it to the boxing lifestyle. :)

[Knifefighter]

There are a variety of hooks in boxing. A properly thrown inside hook does not travel in an arc... the fist travels in a straight line. If your inside hook is being thrown in an arc, you don't know what you are doing.

As far as Dempsey's drop punch, that was more about setting him up to fight out of a crouched stance rather than about generating maximum power. Most of Dempsey's damaging punches came from hooks and uppercuts, where his power generation was actually the opposite of dropping the level.

[TenTigers]

good points, kf.

[t_niehoff]

There are a variety of hooks in boxing. A properly thrown inside hook does not travel in an arc... the fist travels in a straight line. If your inside hook is being thrown in an arc, you don't know what you are doing.


Yes, this is correct. It is fairly common for boxers to use hooks to beat straight punches (very common with unmatched stances). The problem is that many people *talk* boxing but have never gotten good instruction and put in the ring time so they don't really know what they are talking about. What they call "the hook" is more like a "swing".



As far as Dempsey's drop punch, that was more about setting him up to fight out of a crouched stance rather than about generating maximum power. Most of Dempsey's damaging punches came from hooks and uppercuts, where his power generation was actually the opposite of dropping the level.

IMO Dempsey's book is mainly nonsense and only nonboxers give it hype -- mainly because of Bruce's "recommendation". If you compare what Dempsey talks about in his book and contrast that to standard, good boxing instruction (as it exists today), you'll see very little in common. And, if you look at some of Dempsey's fights you'll see that even he does very little (in terms of movement) of what he talks about in his book.

[Xiao3 Meng4]

I was shown how one of Wing Chun's hook punches can be extrapolated from the double Lan Sao turning within Chum Kiu. Say you're turning to the left, then your right Lan sao, instead of having an open palm facing down, has a horizontal fist. Voila, a short, sharp, structured hook punch. I've found it to work quite well.

[Knifefighter]

I was shown how one of Wing Chun's hook punches can be extrapolated from the double Lan Sao turning within Chum Kiu. Say you're turning to the left, then your right Lan sao, instead of having an open palm facing down, has a horizontal fist. Voila, a short, sharp, structured hook punch. I've found it to work quite well.

Extrapolating(!!!??? Why not just go and learn an effective technique from someone who actually knows how to do it instead of extrapolating and probably getting it wrong?

[couch]

Extrapolating(!!!??? Why not just go and learn an effective technique from someone who actually knows how to do it instead of extrapolating and probably getting it wrong?

Because some of us look to the SYSTEM/CONCEPTS for answers. Not 'outside.'

[Liddel]

There are a variety of hooks in boxing. A properly thrown inside hook does not travel in an arc... the fist travels in a straight line.


If one uses the form as a blueprint for building on, the same type punch occurs in BJ for me.

The lower Ginger punch at the end of BJ has always been the seed for using hooks in my VT. It uses the twist/turning body and elbow behaviour to be a hook but make the fist travel in a straight line. Its quick and can be very heavy.

By the time i reached BJ i had already realised from regular sparring with VT partners and KBers that i needed this type of action at times.....

No need to look for mechanics from elbows or Lan Sao etc.


A correctly thrown hook punch is faster and generally travels a shorter distance than a straight punch

Faster, sure depending on the person. Shorter, in what dimension hawkings LOL :p
care to elaborate Dale ?

DREW

[bennyvt]

I thought that was a straight right. I thought the whole point of the hook is to go around a boxers gaurd. ( I only did boxing for a bit so I am probably wrong.)
But as to gary lam about the lazy MA. I am not from his lineage but my teacher said he was one of wong shun leung fighters and had many fights in HK so I dont think its fair to talk about people you dont know. But I have heard of that before, we dont jump around, we wait til the person moves, we use the lest amount of force needed, we dont fail we tend to make our punches count. This was more meaning that the training should be really hard so you dont have to do as much in a fight then VT doesnt do anything. Its like the old "THE MORE YOU SWEAT IN PEACE, THE LEST YOU BLEED IN WAR."

[Xiao3 Meng4]

Extrapolating(!!!??? Why not just go and learn an effective technique from someone who actually knows how to do it instead of extrapolating and probably getting it wrong?

I've been on the receiving end of a punch like this. Afterwards I tested its structure, power, speed and effective range myself. I'm happy with the results, and satisfied that it can be observed within the above mentioned chum kiu mechanics.

Regarding Chum Kiu's turning double Lan Sao upper limb mechanics and intent, what do you see? Are you allowed to look for yourself, or does someone look for you?

[t_niehoff]

If one uses the form as a blueprint for building on, the same type punch occurs in BJ for me.


I disagree with the notion of using movements from the forms as "blueprints for building on". I think that is just another way to do whatever the hell you want and call it WCK.

Besides, is it efficient to learn something that you will need to"extrapolate" or "build on" to make work when you can learn the "end product"?

What I think this process does is just produce people who are doing poor boxing and poor kickboxing -- just like the guys who extrapolate stuff to the ground: they just end up doing poor groundfighting.



The lower Ginger punch at the end of BJ has always been the seed for using hooks in my VT. It uses the twist/turning body and elbow behaviour to be a hook but make the fist travel in a straight line. Its quick and can be very heavy.


It may be quick, but it won't be "heavy", certainly not like a boxer's shovel hooks.



By the time i reached BJ i had already realised from regular sparring with VT partners and KBers that i needed this type of action at times.....


Yes, if you fight on the outside and in noncontact like boxers and kickboxers, what you do will need to "look" like what boxers and kickboxers do (that's the nature of that range).



No need to look for mechanics from elbows or Lan Sao etc.


The lan sao is not a hook punch, and as such, it won't use the same mechanics as a hook punch.



Faster, sure depending on the person. Shorter, in what dimension hawkings LOL :p
care to elaborate Dale ?


Here's an example. Put your hands up in a boxing guard. As your opponent throws a straight at your chin, slip it but *leave you lead hand fixed to the point in space it was before you slipped* (your other goes with your head). If you do this, you'll see that your elbox of your lead hand comes "out" from your body as your body moved. Now let that punch fly around/inside his straight in a direct, straight, and short line. That (the hook) is a shorter punch than a straight.

[Matrix]

Besides, is it efficient to learn something that you will need to"extrapolate" or "build on" to make work when you can learn the "end product"?.I think it depends on how you look at it. Learning any skill is a progression. You start with basics and build on them to achieve higher skill levels. You don't sit a beginner down at a piano and ask them to play a concerto. However there should be no need to "extrapolate" the end result. It should be part of a predefined path of progression. Having said that, different people learn different ways, so you may be able to refer to some dynamic that they already understand and ask them to use that skill in a slightly different way.


What I think this process does is just produce people who are doing poor boxing and poor kickboxing -- just like the guys who extrapolate stuff to the ground: they just end up doing poor groundfighting.I've not been watching the forum as closely as I used, so I am struck by the difference in the tone of your post - at least that is my perception. I see what you're saying and can see how you draw these conclusions.

BTW, your example at the end of the post seems very WC in the way you describe it. You have left the front hand out to cover, changed the line and hit.

Bill

[Liddel]

I disagree with the notion of using movements from the forms as "blueprints for building on". I think that is just another way to do whatever the hell you want and call it WCK.

I disagree also.
Others can use that as an excuse, i dont. The mechanics are the same so your point doesnt apply in this instance. The applied action has the same mechanics as when trained in the form.

when you face different opponents you take the blueprint or habbit actions of what the forms have you do and apply them to a specific opponent thus making you have to apply minor changes....from my POV this is building on the forms.

like a height change for instance. Dont make out other styles dont have this to. My KBer sparring partners complain when i hold the pads to high or to low. I mean do they expect to only fight guys at the same height or something ;) LOL



Besides, is it efficient to learn something that you will need to"extrapolate" or "build on" to make work when you can learn the "end product"?

Depends. your acting like the before and after actions are different beasts. IME Its making an action personal, to suit you. And is common in every art.

Extrapolating something so far that the end result doesnt resemble anything near the original action is silly and what i believe your focusing on. I agree not good.



It may be quick, but it won't be "heavy", certainly not like a boxer's shovel hooks.


Tell that to my sparring partners LOL. They should be lucky im no boxer then :p



Yes, if you fight on the outside and in noncontact like boxers and kickboxers, what you do will need to "look" like what boxers and kickboxers do (that's the nature of that range).

Look is not the issue. It will need to help you avoid damage while delivering your own. The idea a VT guy should work and stay in the pocket is absurd. you bridge in and out just like any other art. What you do while there is the difference IME. Your VT is mucho different to mine by the sounds T.



The lan sao is not a hook punch, and as such, it won't use the same mechanics as a hook punch.

I agree.


Here's an example. Put your hands up in a boxing guard. As your opponent throws a straight at your chin, slip it but *leave you lead hand fixed to the point in space it was before you slipped* (your other goes with your head). If you do this, you'll see that your elbox of your lead hand comes "out" from your body as your body moved. Now let that punch fly around/inside his straight in a direct, straight, and short line. That (the hook) is a shorter punch than a straight.

ok good, thanks for the example T. This is similar to the punch in my BJ only in the respect the body essentially is creating the roundness to said action but the path the weapon travels (your fist) is straight....(although i make a fist and dont use the ginger punch like in the form) thats me building on the form :) making it mine...it works better for me.

DREW

[anerlich]

I don't buy the anti-"extrapolate" argument either. There are plenty of examples in BJJ or wrestling where a technique is similar to another technique, an armbar from guard similar to one from mount, knee ride, back, top of turtle, etc. etc. If you don't make the jump to seeing techniques come in "families", your BJJ progress will be extremely slow.

Some things can be built on certain strong basic techniques, other's can't. You can't for example extrapolate an armbar into a double leg. But to suggest that everything is different and you cannot develop a wide range of effective techniques from a smaller range of basic effective stuff is disproved daily in all sorts of disciplines.

[t_niehoff]

I disagree also.
Others can use that as an excuse, i dont. The mechanics are the same so your point doesnt apply in this instance. The applied action has the same mechanics as when trained in the form.


No one trains mechanics in a form, as mechanics are learned from doing the task. What people do is take the mechanics they practice and put them into their forms (whether they are aware of it or not).



when you face different opponents you take the blueprint or habbit actions of what the forms have you do and apply them to a specific opponent thus making you have to apply minor changes....from my POV this is building on the forms.


Yes, I understood your view -- I just think it is wrong. A person can learn fundamental skills, though not from forms, and then use those skills. Open skills are by definition adaptable to the environment (like different opponents).



Depends. your acting like the before and after actions are different beasts. IME Its making an action personal, to suit you. And is common in every art.

Extrapolating something so far that the end result doesnt resemble anything near the original action is silly and what i believe your focusing on. I agree not good.


The way people learn and develop psychophysical skills, like fighting, is universal. You develop a skill by beginning with the task (what it is you are trying to do). You don't start with some generic movement and then try to extrapolate things you can use it for.



Tell that to my sparring partners LOL. They should be lucky im no boxer then :p


On the internet everyone hits like a mule.



Look is not the issue. It will need to help you avoid damage while delivering your own. The idea a VT guy should work and stay in the pocket is absurd. you bridge in and out just like any other art. What you do while there is the difference IME. Your VT is mucho different to mine by the sounds T.


No, WCK is an attached fighting method. It is not "macho" but relies on getting contact, staying in contact, and then controlling the opponent while hitting. Moving in and out is what boxers and kickboxers do, it is an outside game and WCK is an infighting method (why all of the classical WCK drills are contact drills). If you fight on the outside, you will see that you can make very little of WCK movement work and you'll end up moving like a kickboxer (because you need to). Just like if you try to make WCK work on the ground, you'll not beable to make your WCK movement work and you'll end up looking like a BJJ/wrestler.



ok good, thanks for the example T. This is similar to the punch in my BJ only in the respect the body essentially is creating the roundness to said action but the path the weapon travels (your fist) is straight....(although i make a fist and dont use the ginger punch like in the form) thats me building on the form :) making it mine...it works better for me.


This is not the movement from the form at all -- all you've done is use a boxer's hook and call it your extrapolation of the form. Your extrapolation changes the way the body moves, how you make the fist, etc., changing everything about it. Then you call it your "own". Yes, it is your own. Your own creation that has nothing really to do with the movement in the biu jee form.

[Liddel]

No one trains mechanics in a form, as mechanics are learned from doing the task.

Indeed we are different.



On the internet everyone hits like a mule.

Im humble enough to realise that i dont hit like a mule. But perhaps my sparring partners are pussies LOL because i have hurt them in sparring as they have hurt me.

Point being - a boxers Shovel hooks may be heavier like you mentioned but what ive got works for me.....so far.



No, WCK is an attached fighting method. It is not "macho" but relies on getting contact, staying in contact, and then controlling the opponent while hitting.
EDIT
Moving in and out is what boxers and kickboxers do,

No comment. :)



This is not the movement from the form at all.

really ?



-- all you've done is use a boxer's hook and call it your extrapolation of the form.


Your extrapolation changes the way the body moves, how you make the fist, etc., changing everything about it.

Youve confused me with the original poster of that comment T, go back. Im not keen on big changes but to not let actions grow from experience is stupid also. I agree with Andrews post above.

Id be more keen to hear your ideas how ever different to mine if you didnt assume what my VT does and doesnt contain. Ive mentioned what MY Chuns focus is in that sence (the BJ action ive mentioned). Take it or leave it man. :o

Good chat :rolleyes:

DREW

[sanjuro_ronin]

FWIW:
A typical counter to the jab or cross ( both straight punches) is the hook, and by counter I don't mean an "after the fact" counter punch either.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Typically, a Jab or a straight lead will travel between 2 to 3 feet, depending on the distance of the target.
Typically a hook, witch is an infighting technique, will travel between 8-10", a foot at the most.
Hooks are short and tight.
Perhaps some are confusing "roundhouse punches" or "haymakers" with properly executed hooks.

[Liddel]

Typically, a Jab or a straight lead will travel between 2 to 3 feet, depending on the distance of the target.
Typically a hook, witch is an infighting technique, will travel between 8-10", a foot at the most.
Hooks are short and tight.
Perhaps some are confusing "roundhouse punches" or "haymakers" with properly executed hooks.

I wouldnt argue with that....

I also think the confusion is coming from the fact some that some have boxing experience here on a VT forum and when they read a chunner write "straight punch" they think of a boxers jab or straight lead like you mention man, launched from further out.

All of VT is infighting techs so unless its specified otherwise i take the words "straight punch" as been the VT straight.

DREW