Fight Quest (Wing Chun) Opinions?

[HumbleWCGuy]

Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89fOMZyoIYc&feature=related

Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwyuReiKxvM&feature=related

Part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Eq_Z02FQtk&feature=related

Part 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1hVevRW_48&feature=related

Part5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yB8xrbl-wZc&feature=related

[AdrianK]

Wing Chun on Fight Quest makes baby jesus cry :(

Its just about the worst showing of any of the martial arts they've put on there. It'd of been nice if they'd gone to Gulo, or hit up Alan Orr in the UK, or hit up Robert Chu or Gary Lam in southern california...

[HumbleWCGuy]

Those guys on Fight Quest are nobodies. They should be sent out on a stretcher no matter the Wing Chun school that they walked into. However, I suspect that the Fight Quest guys would fair about as well in most of the Wing Chun School that they walked into. But... When Wing Chunners insist on using training methods that aren't applicable to fighting... these are the results. It all goes out the window when the Wing Chunner realizes that he has no credible way to defend himself.

[Lee Chiang Po]

It is a TV show. Just doing a 5 day training session and then fighting a supposed champion? Ok. Some of the training is rediculous. From running through a rock strown crap ditch to wrestling a water buffalo. They end up barely able to walk with fractures to the feet and ruptured blood vessels and such. Obviously they get paid good for that.
It is like any other commercial kwoon. Or dojo. They put people to sparring or fighting before they can learn the techniques properly. You don't learn a thing while fighting. You just try to apply what you have learned previously. You don't have time to learn because you are too busy trying to keep your arse from getting kicked.

[Hebrew Hammer]

This show never really does any of the arts much justice other than some free tv time.

[AdrianK]

It is like any other commercial kwoon. Or dojo. They put people to sparring or fighting before they can learn the techniques properly.

The people who looked horrible weren't the fight quest guys, it was the wing chun guys.



You don't learn a thing while fighting.

Thats complete bull****.



You just try to apply what you have learned previously. You don't have time to learn because you are too busy trying to keep your arse from getting kicked.

The MOST learning is done through DOING. Whether it be learning to play an instrument, a sport, fighting, literally anything.

The idea that you don't learn anything while fighting, that idea is utter trash.

[LSWCTN1]

David Petersons name was mentioned on there for helping them out.

i read elsewhere that he put them in touch with some good WSL lineage guys. Fight Quest declined the offer and went to Leung Ting. the rest is history

[IRONMONK]

That was really embarrasing and it proved how just stepping in with chain punches doesn't work against boxing punches.

[dirtyrat]

The MOST learning is done through DOING. Whether it be learning to play an instrument, a sport, fighting, literally anything.

The idea that you don't learn anything while fighting, that idea is utter trash.

If that was entirely true, you could literally take a guy, put the gloves and other gear on and throw him into the ring from the get go. But I'll put my money on a guy whose coach taught him the combinations, footwork, strategy; work them with drills, pad and bag work; sparring drills. The proper foundation needs to be built. And I think that's what Lee Chiang Po is getting at. Those guys on fight quest was not being trained properly.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Only watched the first clip and the final fights in the last clip (learned that time saver by watching HUMAN WEAPON)...and was particularly intrigued when the second guy (Jimmy) "lost on style" (the first guy, Jimmy's partner, won his match)...but as I saw it, both of them WON their fights.

Jimmy's fight begins at 4:00 of the last video clip posted, btw. Even though he clearly dominates with his more horizontally thrown "boxing" type chain punches (ie.- think Vitor Belfort knocking out Wanderlai Silva a bunch of years ago)...he was penalized and "lost" the fight because he was not throwing the more conventional vertical fist "wing chun" punches.

My, my, my....

All that said, the fact is that the devastation that any kind of rapid fire, multiple chain punching while pressuring forward and dominating center from close range ("the machine gun") can wreak was apparent here, and that's a good thing; a big contribution that wing chun makes (but not the only contribution) that wing chun makes...to martial arts.

Great close range weapon.

So while ignoring all the hype, hoopla, underlying politics, and limited amounts of actual fighting technique (ie.- they were restarted everytime it went to clinch) that this Fight Quest show on wing chun brought to the table, this was worth seeing, imo.

Thumbs up from this movie critic. Not bad. :cool:

[sanjuro_ronin]

I didn't see it and don't have time to watch it, but ma i right to conclude that with a week of training they "won" their matches VS WC guys with more experience ??

[Lucas]

on that show generally the final fights are against light weight kids. depends on the culture really and how much face they are afraid of losing.....regarding chinese martial arts...you can guess how much face they want to lose.

the shaolin sanshou was the same way, some young sanshou guy to fight in the end.


now try the Kali episode where the final fights were against seasoned marines.

whole different story then.

all in all ive enjoyed the show. certain episodes are better than others, the Mexico boxing episode for example. these guys you see them training and fighting with are real pro mexican boxers. the real deal.

[Lee Chiang Po]

They might have actually won their fights, and they might have been given the fights. I rather think that they won. But in some of the cases I would be willing to bet that there were individuals watching the fight there that could have killed them. I suspect that they did not put them with anyone that was a real champion. Now, some of the styles were similar to some of the stuff they had been doing, so they were able to compete well. I just don't see where they could learn anything when most of the time was spent doing ritual and some sort of tree killing or wrestling livestock. Anyone can just stand and punch each other in the chest, but what about style and technique?
When I was a young man I used to pay young kids to fight behind a big furniture factory. People would bet on them. I would take bets and cover bets and then I paid the fighters. I paid them win or lose, but the winner got a bonus. In a short time I got to see a whole bunch of different fight styles and techniques that you will not see on fight quest. If one had collected all these techniques and put them all into one, you would have a completely different Martial Art worthy of a name of it's own. Which goes to show that you don't have to actually study a martial art to be able to fight. I think that this is exactly what was taking place with the fight quest guys. Both fighters fought by rule, so technique was pretty much ignored.

[Ultimatewingchun]

In video segment three, which I just watched for the first time, there's an interesting light sparring match going on from 4:10 - 5:33

and watch very closely what goes on at 4:40 or so.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Eq_Z02FQtk&feature=related

What do you notice?

Also pay close attention to what happens for the last 10 seconds or so of the match.

What do you see there?

[sanjuro_ronin]

First off, that multiple attacker thing was ridiculous.
What happened after the 4:40 mark is typical of what happens when WC meets western boxing/kick boxing.
The overhands and hooks tend to wreak havoc with the china punched because of the low elbows of the vertical punch which allows for the "overhanded" strikes to come through, that and the WC guy also keeps his chin up, which is also very common in WC when chain punching.
The WT guy was lucky it was light contact.

[HumbleWCGuy]

In video segment three, which I just watched for the first time, there's an interesting light sparring match going on from 4:10 - 5:33

and watch very closely what goes on at 4:40 or so.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Eq_Z02FQtk&feature=related

What do you notice?

Also pay close attention to what happens for the last 10 seconds or so of the match.

What do you see there?
Throughout the fight I noticed that The WC man was very inexperienced. Second, Jimmy is a bad boxer (more like a street fighter with 6 months of boxing). If the WC man would have kept his chin down he might have won the fight on that alone. However, his structure was upset every time that he was hit which could have been partially due to his inability to sink his weight better too.

Towards the end of the fight the WC man started to tie-up Jimmy a little better. He initiated a "kickboxing style" clinch and began to tie-up the hooks which is good WC. The execution was just low.

If you gave the WC man a few minutes of coaching after those exchanges, he could probably go back in and win.

[sanjuro_ronin]

In video segment three, which I just watched for the first time, there's an interesting light sparring match going on from 4:10 - 5:33

and watch very closely what goes on at 4:40 or so.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Eq_Z02FQtk&feature=related

What do you notice?

Also pay close attention to what happens for the last 10 seconds or so of the match.

What do you see there?

The last 10 seconds? from 5:19 to 5:25 ?
Where the WC guy gets hammered into the wall with with some pretty bad boxing?
Imagine if the FQ guy was a good boxer?

[Lucas]

hey SJ check out the kajukenbo episode and tell me what you think of the multiple person drills on that, if you can. also check out the krav maga episode.

both have multiple person attacks. the krav maga was a cool one, that chick civ trainer in that is hard core lol

[sanjuro_ronin]

hey SJ check out the kajukenbo episode and tell me what you think of the multiple person drills on that, if you can. also check out the krav maga episode.

both have multiple person attacks. the krav maga was a cool one, that chick civ trainer in that is hard core lol

I remember those, good stuff, mulitple training without hard contact and gloves is pointless and anyone that has ever done it knows why.

[Ultimatewingchun]

What happened after the 4:40 mark is typical of what happens when WC meets western boxing/kick boxing.
The overhands and hooks tend to wreak havoc on the chain punches because of the low elbows of the vertical punch which allows for the "overhanded" strikes to come through, that and the WC guy also keeps his chin up, which is also very common in WC when chain punching.
The WT guy was lucky it was light contact.

***ALTHOUGH I basically agree with this assessment, I would give this a slightly different critique: The WT low elbows vertical chain punches works very well once you've taken his space away and you have a nice angle to work with as you pressure the guy - and it's this kind of thing that can lead to a wing chun chain punch knockout.

But you can't use the elbows low/only use chain punches approach when the opponent has the space or the distance to unload overhands and hooks around your wing chun arm positioning - which is one reason why I pointed out the last 10 seconds for special notice.

More rationale for my opinion that mixing some longer range boxing with closer range wing chun can lead to having more bases covered than either boxing or wing chun done exclusively can do.

If the Fight Quest guy worked on his wing chun - but yet didn't give up on his boxing instincts at slightly longer ranges - he could be d a m n good, albeit he needs some more boxing skills as well.

[HumbleWCGuy]

There was not a single overhand in this fight. There is a difference between throwing a punch "over the top," and throwing an overhand.

[sanjuro_ronin]

***ALTHOUGH I basically agree with this assessment, I would give this a slightly different critique: The WT low elbows vertical chain punches works very well once you've taken his space away and you have a nice angle to work with as you pressure the guy - and it's this kind of thing that can lead to a wing chun chain punch knockout.

But you can't use the elbows low/only use chain punches approach when the opponent has the space or the distance to unload overhands and hooks around your wing chun arm positioning - which is one reason why I pointed out the last 10 seconds for special notice.

More rationale for my opinion that mixing some longer range boxing with closer range wing chun can lead to having more bases covered than either boxing or wing chun done exclusively can do.

If the Fight Quest guy worked on his wing chun - but yet didn't give up on his boxing instincts at slightly longer ranges - he could be d a m n good, albeit he needs some more boxing skills as well.

Well, you do need SOME space to work the CP effectively, I mean, if YOU close the gab and your opponent stays where he is, you run out of space for CP quite quickly, if he moves back or to the side like he shoudl, the space is there from him to counter, or he can just land them in when you are coming in.
But, yes, IF the WC guy had controlled the distance and unleashed the furious wild badger attacks that are WC CP, then he would have done better.
:D

[Ultimatewingchun]

There was not a single overhand in this fight. There is a difference between throwing a punch "over the top," and throwing an overhand.

***JUST semantics. The last 10 seconds of the fight wherein the Fight Quest guy is unloading a barrage of punches were all done with the elbows in the "up" position - hence the use of the term "overhand"....(as opposed to a more looping overhand that boxing usually refers to when using the term "overhand").

[HumbleWCGuy]

***JUST semantics. The last 10 seconds of the fight wherein the Fight Quest guy is unloading a barrage of punches were all done with the elbows in the "up" position - hence the use of the term "overhand"....(as opposed to a more looping overhand that boxing usually refers to when using the term "overhand").
It is a semantic distinction with a particular accepted meaning that implies a set of strategies and defenses.

I think that his word choice is improper and his distiction has no real value in this situation but... whatever.

[Wayfaring]

***JUST semantics. The last 10 seconds of the fight wherein the Fight Quest guy is unloading a barrage of punches were all done with the elbows in the "up" position - hence the use of the term "overhand"....(as opposed to a more looping overhand that boxing usually refers to when using the term "overhand").

I don't know - to me punching with an elbow up as opposed to down is quite a bit different from an overhand right or wide hook. The overhand right is what Fedor knocked Arlovski out with. It has a specific strategy and comes in at a different angle.

I'll comment on the clips in a bit.

[JPinAZ]

IMO, that FQ video shows low level wing chun sparring from the WC guy (particularly starting at the 4:40 mark). The LT/WC guy is simply chain punching his way in from outside contact range. It's no small wonder he gets caught with hooks - there is no gate theory, no angulation, no proper bridging, and no control of the opponent's COG prior to striking - just straight down CL blasting. imo, this is not what WC is, nor what a ‘chain punch’ is.

In WC, we don't punch our way in from non-contact, and we don’t hit simply because we 'choose too'. We punch because we have opened the line, obtained the advantageous position, controlled our opponent and the opportunity is there (or our opponent did those things for us). I.e., we punch because we CAN. This is why I disagree with those trying to mix long range boxing techniques into WC from what some term as ‘long range’. This is lucky strike/technique vs technique thinking and gives you no advantage or control over your opponent. It’s not much different than what the wc guy did in the video.

FWIW, I see a chain punch as a sudden burst that happens once you have neutralized your opponent’s attacking abilities, took away their structure, are in proper range and opened a clear line of attack. It’s a quick beat of 2 or 3 or even 4 punches that happens spontaneously once you have the above things and follows the first punch after it has already landed – not a continuous barrage of punches as you try to work you way in.

[Edmund]

Sorry Jimmy. You lose due to beating the guy up! :)



This is why I disagree with those trying to mix long range boxing techniques into WC from what some term as ‘long range’. This is lucky strike/technique vs technique thinking and gives you no advantage or control over your opponent. It’s not much different than what the wc guy did in the video.


It wasn't luck though. I think Jimmy consistently hit the WC guy. The reason being he was the one with the open target.

Though I think you're correct to criticize the WC guy, my take would be that the show is about showcasing the style being done by participating in it. They both seemed to get some appreciation of WC in training and Doug did really well implementing what he was taught in such a short time. Jimmy didn't but still won.

[HumbleWCGuy]

IMO, that FQ video shows low level wing chun sparring from the WC guy (particularly starting at the 4:40 mark). The LT/WC guy is simply chain punching his way in from outside contact range. It's no small wonder he gets caught with hooks - there is no gate theory, no angulation, no proper bridging, and no control of the opponent's COG prior to striking - just straight down CL blasting. imo, this is not what WC is, nor what a ‘chain punch’ is.

In WC, we don't punch our way in from non-contact, and we don’t hit simply because we 'choose too'. We punch because we have opened the line, obtained the advantageous position, controlled our opponent and the opportunity is there (or our opponent did those things for us). I.e., we punch because we CAN. This is why I disagree with those trying to mix long range boxing techniques into WC from what some term as ‘long range’. This is lucky strike/technique vs technique thinking and gives you no advantage or control over your opponent. It’s not much different than what the wc guy did in the video.

FWIW, I see a chain punch as a sudden burst that happens once you have neutralized your opponent’s attacking abilities, took away their structure, are in proper range and opened a clear line of attack. It’s a quick beat of 2 or 3 or even 4 punches that happens spontaneously once you have the above things and follows the first punch after it has already landed – not a continuous barrage of punches as you try to work you way in.

Very nice post. one can have success with entering using chain punches but it can't be the only method.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Well, FWIW…JP…when you wrote this:

“FWIW, I see a chain punch as a sudden burst that happens once you have neutralized your opponent’s attacking abilities, took away their structure, are in proper range and opened a clear line of attack. It’s a quick beat of 2 or 3 or even 4 punches” (JP)…

IT REMINDED ME ALMOST EXACTLY OF WHAT I WROTE EARLIER:

“The WT low elbows vertical chain punches works very well once you've taken his space away and you have a nice angle to work with as you pressure the guy…But you can't use the elbows low/only use chain punches approach when the opponent has the space or the distance to unload overhands and hooks around your wing chun arm positioning.”

So where you and I disagree is NOT when you wrote this:

“In WC, we don't punch our way in from non-contact, and we don’t hit simply because we 'choose too'. We punch because we have opened the line, obtained the advantageous position, controlled our opponent and the opportunity is there (or our opponent did those things for us). I.e., we punch because we CAN…”

WHICH I BELIEVE IS QUITE CORRECT….

But rather, it’s when you immediately followed with this:

“This is why I disagree with those trying to mix long range boxing techniques into WC from what some term as ‘long range’. This is lucky strike/technique vs technique thinking and gives you no advantage or control over your opponent. It’s not much different than what the wc guy did in the video….” (JP)

THAT YOU AND I PARTED WAYS.

Because there’s nothing “lucky” about what I advocated at all. YOU CAN GAIN the advantage (or control) over your opponent with overhands (for lack of a better word) at the longer range because his elbows down and only using vertical wing chun punches coming from his center HAS A SHORTER REACH than what you’re doing with the overhands (assuming that he’s not like 6 inches taller than you)….AND… he can make himself vulnerable to hooks because he’s limiting his options to straight vertical punches and bridging. (And he's also vulnerable to longer range kicking in combo with the overhands and hooks).

And without the bridge, you're not going to, as you put it, "open the line, obtain the advantageous position, control our opponent...(so that)...we (then) punch because we CAN."

FROM the Fight Quest vid#5...watch what happens from 4:15 - 5:00.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yB8xrbl-wZc&feature=related

[JPinAZ]

Hi Victor,

As I see it, you can't have it both ways. How can we both agree that it's a good time to hit when you have all the above conditions (close range, angle, position, advantage, opponent's COM under copntrol, open line, etc) yet you also think it's a good time to hit when you don't (as in suggesting using long range boxing punches to bridge the gap, regardless the style of fighter you're up against)? These two philosophies totally conflict.

Using punches, like jabs/crosses at a 'longer range' to try to bridge the gap will leave you with a long/short reach problem and overextended - both of which go against WC principals and are easier to take advantage of. Why not use WC principals and strategies like gate thoery, CL, etc?

On a side note, in HFY, we start beginners with a long range kiu sau concept called Chuern Kiu Sau (the full name is Chuern Kiu Saam Jin Jeet Kiu Faat). This is a long range CL bridging strategy to accomplish something like you are suggesting, if I understand what you are describing correctly. What this initally teaches is how to engage and neutralize an attack on the CL using thier kiu sau while ending up at a range where neither opponent can reach the other with a follow up attack without moving/reaching.

This puts the WC practitioner at an advantage because not only have they engaged and neutralized the initial attack, they have also connected with the opponent's COG through the bridge while dominating the CL. This command of space with proper structure puts time on thier side and puts them one step ahead of the attacker. The attackers followup is compramised by the superior position and they can't reach the WC practitioner without giving something up.
But, unlike what I think you advocate, WC body structure, usage WC tools & structures, CL theory and bridge control are the primary focus. I can't see how this is accomplished if using jabs vs. jabs to bridge the gap as you suggest (i.e. boxing a boxer).
DO you have a video of this?

[IRONMONK]

why was my earlier post deleted :confused: ?


Anyway check out from 0.40 secs onwards as Jimmy spars a more experienced wing chun guy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1hVevRW_48&feature=related

[HumbleWCGuy]

why was my earlier post deleted :confused: ?


Anyway check out from 0.40 secs onwards as Jimmy spars a more experienced wing chun guy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1hVevRW_48&feature=related
Your post might have gotten deleted accidentally. Some guys were arguing earlier so a bunch of post got deleted.


Yea my take on the fight with the experienced guy was that the experienced guy was more used to getting hit and didn't completely lose his structure when he got hit. For being experienced the guy had not answer for Jimmy's reach with his hands other than the front kick.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I don't know - to me punching with an elbow up as opposed to down is quite a bit different from an overhand right or wide hook. The overhand right is what Fedor knocked Arlovski out with. It has a specific strategy and comes in at a different angle.

I'll comment on the clips in a bit.

There are two types of overhands, looping and straights, in a nutshell, anytime your strike goes over the hand of your opponent,it is an overhand.
Overhand is just a general term anyways, don't get to fixed on it.

[HumbleWCGuy]

There are two types of overhands, looping and straights, in a nutshell, anytime your strike goes over the hand of your opponent,it is an overhand.
Overhand is just a general term anyways, don't get to fixed on it.

Yes and no, the overhands got their name because they go over the opponents hand, but if you look up any clip on boxing with the over hand. You will usually see 1 of 2 specific techniques. To call random slop overhands is imprecise.

[Wayfaring]

There are two types of overhands, looping and straights, in a nutshell, anytime your strike goes over the hand of your opponent,it is an overhand.
Overhand is just a general term anyways, don't get to fixed on it.

I guess this would depend on which boxing / MT / fighting coach is teaching it, but in my training an overhand is thrown with your rear hand and is the looping punch. My coach has us throw it in sparring against people with good centerline protection but little lateral motion and no head motion. Kind of like against WC people.

Similarly there is a distinction between a hook and a wide hook. The hook is an inside punch thrown tight. The wide hook is a similar punch to the overhand right and we use it in similar situations.

I guess if you train those specifics there is a reason for the distinction. If you don't, then maybe not. :D

[sanjuro_ronin]

I guess this would depend on which boxing / MT / fighting coach is teaching it, but in my training an overhand is thrown with your rear hand and is the looping punch. My coach has us throw it in sparring against people with good centerline protection but little lateral motion and no head motion. Kind of like against WC people.

Similarly there is a distinction between a hook and a wide hook. The hook is an inside punch thrown tight. The wide hook is a similar punch to the overhand right and we use it in similar situations.

I guess if you train those specifics there is a reason for the distinction. If you don't, then maybe not. :D

Typically, yes, of course VS another boxer your overhand would be more looping, but as you can see VS the WC guy in the clip, it didn't have to be.
Again, we are just splitting hairs, fact is Jimmy's ( I think that's his name) rather amateurish HB was enough, regardless of how badly he threw his punches.

[Wayfaring]

OK - finally got around to watching the clips. Saw the fights in p.5 and the sparring portion in p.3 at 4:30+ that Victor was talking about.

First of all it's good that all involved were getting the pads and headgear on, going for timed matches, and having a judge with a winner and loser. Even though I don't know what possible scoring system the judge was using especially in the second fight, the activity alone advance the art and skillsets.

Everyone's talking about the guy in the white shirt, Jimmy I guess, both in his fight and in the sparring session. What I see is that Jimmy is fighting more of a MT approach - you can see that by the wide stance and front and rear hands and feet being online and the general movement. (That's actually supposed to be the advantage of WC too - all weapons online, but here it's not and I'll explain why).

The problems with the WC approach in these clips is it's completely linear - in and out, with no head movement. The WC practitioner's head is a stationary target for the most part for whatever is thrown at it, if you get past the hands. If you notice, Jimmy is moving wide angles, and moving his head offline with his strikes. Just that movement alone keeps the WC guy always re-aligning to his target and thus a step behind most everywhere. Even the basic angle step left with the jab is getting through, then as the WC guy readjusts, the cross comes over the top as well. The lateral movement combined with the punches is completely eliminating any bridge the WC guy is trying to engage. The only effective strikes the WC guy makes are when he catches the other guy in transition laterally and punches through the center. That happens once in a while. Jimmy also would time his angle step jab to hit at the same time a punch was coming in - evade and jab. That worked too. Now on the final rooftop fight, the WC guy was playing a tighter game and not allowing Jimmy to angle off on him as much. That was a little closer but I still think any normal boxing / K1 type scoring would have had Jimmy winning.

I didn't see any overhand punches or wide hooks in any of the clips. They aren't necesssary if the movement and timing of the tighter punches are getting in.

I don't know if you can extrapolate this to all WC training, but I do see the linear back and forth only movement and the lack of head movement being a more universal issue to be worked through.

[Ultimatewingchun]

"As I see it, you can't have it both ways. How can we both agree that it's a good time to hit when you have all the above conditions (close range, angle, position, advantage, opponent's COM under copntrol, open line, etc) yet you also think it's a good time to hit when you don't (as in suggesting using long range boxing punches to bridge the gap, regardless the style of fighter you're up against)? These two philosophies totally conflict." (JP)
..................................

***I'm advocating using leads and crosses to get to close range either by hitting a hard target (yeah, I'm saying learn some boxing in order to do that)...or...by forcing a bridge. And once at the close range and in control, drop the elbows and do your wing chun work.

Furthermore, Wayfaring puts it quite well when he said this:

"I guess this would depend on which boxing / MT / fighting coach is teaching it, but in my training an overhand is thrown with your rear hand and is the looping punch. My coach has us throw it in sparring against people with good centerline protection but little lateral motion and no head motion. Kind of like against WC people… Similarly there is a distinction between a hook and a wide hook. The hook is an inside punch thrown tight. The wide hook is a similar punch to the overhand right and we use it in similar situations."
.........................

AND AGAIN, JP... you can SEE what I'm talking about: FROM the Fight Quest vid#5...watch what happens from 4:15 - 5:00.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yB8xr...eature=related

This is something of an example of what I'm talking about. The FQ guy needs some more boxing and wing chun skills, imo...but you can see how he was tooling the WT guy from longer ranges...so I'm saying that if you marry that with some quality wing chun once in close range and taking control - you're ahead of the game.

[JPinAZ]

***I'm advocating using leads and crosses to get to close range either by hitting a hard target (yeah, I'm saying learn some boxing in order to do that)...or...by forcing a bridge. And once at the close range and in control, drop the elbows and do your wing chun work.

Ok, so you view WC as a style that is 'turned on' once you have made your way into close range infighting. That's cool, but to me, WCK is a lot more than that - the concepts/principals apply ALL the time. If one undestands this, then there is no need to switch from boxing, to kickboxing to WCK and back again, and definitley not force anything.
To each his own :)


AND AGAIN, JP... you can SEE what I'm talking about: FROM the Fight Quest vid#5...watch what happens from 4:15 - 5:00.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yB8xr...eature=related

Not really. Only thing I see is a WC guy getting beat to the punch because he is only plodding straight ahead and trying to catch the other guy. As a result, the only thing he is catching is all kinds of punches, because he is only using C theory, stepping fwd and chain punching (for the most part)

** added after you edited your post **

This is somehting of an example of what I'm talking about. The FQ guy needs some more boxing and wing chun skills, imo...but you can see how he was tooling the WT guy from longer ranges...so I'm saying that if you marry that with some quality wing chun once in close range and taking control - you're ahead of the game.

And I'm saying with proper understanding of the core WC principals/concepts, there's no need to marry anything. WCK has the bridging capabilities to move from outside to inside as you say without needing anything else. Sure, what you say can work, as in the video, but again, I don't feel that was a good display of proper usage of WC by the WCK guy anyway (at least, not from my understanding and experience)

Good chat :)

Jonathan

[goju]

why was my earlier post deleted :confused: ?


Anyway check out from 0.40 secs onwards as Jimmy spars a more experienced wing chun guy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1hVevRW_48&feature=related
we were stirring the pot a bit much supposedly so........:D

[sanjuro_ronin]

And I'm saying with proper understanding of the core WC principals/concepts, there's no need to marry anything. WCK has the bridging capabilities to move from outside to inside as you say without needing anything else. Sure, what you say can work, as in the video, but again, I don't feel that was a good display of proper usage of WC by the WCK guy anyway (at least, not from my understanding and experience)

Good chat :)

Jonathan

I don;t think anyone NEEDS to "marry" anything with their chosen MA, some people do quite fine with their "****genoues" blend of MA.
However, ever MA has parts that are not as well addressed as other systems address them.
No one takes up WC to perfect their round kick do they? or work on their right cross?
Just as no one takes of TKD to work on there in-close fighting.

[goju]

um tkd has plenty of close range fighting:D

[sanjuro_ronin]

um tkd has plenty of close range fighting:D

Sure, you can call it that if you want, LOL !!

[goju]

Sure, you can call it that if you want, LOL !!
actually ive seen it myself my uncle was trained by a korean master namesd sung cho who was an instructor for the korean military before he migrated to america

unless its tkd thats generally geared towards competion or its americanized(see watered down) theres plenty of close range techniques like elbows .knees etcetc

ive even witnessed a form of sticky hands excercise in a really tradtional tkd taught in korea apparently alot is held back from north americans thus giving the impression that its largely long range:D

also note that tkd was influenced by karate which is a close quarter style:D

[Wayfaring]

And I'm saying with proper understanding of the core WC principals/concepts, there's no need to marry anything. WCK has the bridging capabilities to move from outside to inside as you say without needing anything else. Sure, what you say can work, as in the video, but again, I don't feel that was a good display of proper usage of WC by the WCK guy anyway (at least, not from my understanding and experience)


One thing that's completely different about the WCK community and the BJJ grappling community is this idea of "marrying" things to your art. It's a real "purist" type of viewpoint in WCK. Same thing with the "identity" concept, with people talking about building a "WCK identity".

BJJ is completely different. You show a Gracie guy a Sambo leg attack series - one month later that series will be assimilated into BJJ and now will be BJJ - if it works in live rolling. Judo throws? Assimilated. Freestyle wrestlers takedowns? Yep, that too. You'd think there'd be a huge quality control problem. And different schools / people have a little different game. But overall, it's remarkable how similar the fundamental movements of the top people are.

A BJJ guy would "marry" a baboon if it had a better guard.

[sanjuro_ronin]

actually ive seen it myself my uncle was trained by a korean master namesd sung cho who was an instructor for the korean military before he migrated to america

unless its tkd thats generally geared towards competion or its americanized(see watered down) theres plenty of close range techniques like elbows .knees etcetc

ive even witnessed a form of sticky hands excercise in a really tradtional tkd taught in korea apparently alot is held back from north americans thus giving the impression that its largely long range:D

also note that tkd was influenced by karate which is a close quarter style:D

I trained under Choi and Jong Park, the very minimal in-close fighting that was typical of TKD in the beginning was brought over from Shotokan, it wasn't very good, but it was very powerful, as most shotokan was.
The 1st and 2nd generation TKD guys add boxing and some more karate to it as they went along.
Park could demolish the 200lbs sandbag in his Dojang with his ridge hand, it was a thing of beauty.

[Lucas]

I have a friend who studied under GM Tae Hong Choi (http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1236745615165110.xml&coll=7), he told me that there is even a two handed sword style in TKD, depending on the style and traditionality I suppose. At one point he started getting fight training from a guy who was fresh from korea, and that training was quite a bit different than the regular olympic stuff.


"While in the Korean army, he fought in the Vietnam War and taught hand-to-hand combat skills to Korean and U.S. special forces. That got him his next job of instructing hand-to-hand combat for top-level U.S. security agents"

Now THATS Tae Kwon Do!

[sanjuro_ronin]

I have a friend who studied under GM Tae Hong Choi (http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1236745615165110.xml&coll=7), he told me that there is even a two handed sword style in TKD, depending on the style and traditionality I suppose. At one point he started getting fight training from a guy who was fresh from korea, and that training was quite a bit different than the regular olympic stuff.

They are short swords compared to the katana, think the Thai swords, kuk sool won has a few sword forms.
Choi never knew any if I recall correctly, neither did his son or Park so I can't speak of it personally.

[Lucas]

They are short swords compared to the katana, think the Thai swords, kuk sool won has a few sword forms.
Choi never knew any if I recall correctly, neither did his son or Park so I can't speak of it personally.

ya it was just a passing reference that it existed. i think that choi mentioned it to him, but i cant recal any more than that. i havnt seen that guy in some time.

the funny thing is that the last time i talked to him he was showing me his new gold medal and saying that part of his new training training was to get into street fights, which he was avidly persuing lol. i wonder how that guys doing these days...

[sanjuro_ronin]

ya it was just a passing reference that it existed. i think that choi mentioned it to him, but i cant recal any more than that. i havnt seen that guy in some time.

the funny thing is that the last time i talked to him he was showing me his new gold medal and saying that part of his new training training was to get into street fights, which he was avidly persuing lol. i wonder how that guys doing these days...

Maybe its a TKD thing, I know when I trained it we were "advised" that testing our MA was something that was expected...
My first job as a bouncer was given to me by my TKD instructor at the time, at the local sleazy strip club Jilly's.

[goju]

a lot of people are actually suprised who study tkd in korea how much different it is and what kept hidden i remember me uncle said that his intructor would teach the class different things "that we dont teach here usually"

and i recall him mentioning a tkd master visiting from korea who came down to chos dojang and demonstrated techniques that were never went over in class either including alot of throwing techniques that are commonly taught in korean tkd schools

[JPinAZ]

One thing that's completely different about the WCK community and the BJJ grappling community is this idea of "marrying" things to your art. It's a real "purist" type of viewpoint in WCK. Same thing with the "identity" concept, with people talking about building a "WCK identity".

BJJ is completely different. You show a Gracie guy a Sambo leg attack series - one month later that series will be assimilated into BJJ and now will be BJJ - if it works in live rolling. Judo throws? Assimilated. Freestyle wrestlers takedowns? Yep, that too. You'd think there'd be a huge quality control problem. And different schools / people have a little different game. But overall, it's remarkable how similar the fundamental movements of the top people are.

A BJJ guy would "marry" a baboon if it had a better guard.

I hear what you are saying, but it sounds like what you are just talking about are techniques now. And, I'm not really sure your point about identity and purist? Are you suggesting tht a WCK guy should start mixing in whatever they like, like high round house kicks or long rang CLF type attacks or even backfists into thier arsenal simply because it works for the other guy? What if they go against WCK concepts and principals? Of course with this type of thinking, I would agree, there would be no WC identity.

As I see it, WCK is a lot more than the techniques - taan, bong, fook, biu, etc. If you stick to concepts/principals of WC, the necessary techniques come out. There should be no reason to mix anything. Call me a purist I guess. I have no problem with that :D

This has me thinking, WC doesn't have just the elbow down punch, the 'WC punch'. For one example, there are also structured shoulder line punches in WC as well. But, you don't just throw them 'whenever' because you like them or when you feel like it. You use them when it's the best tool for that timeframe, facing, etc. Just like you don't strike when you don't have proper control of space and your opponent (as seen in the video with the chain punching, barraging your way in down CL approach of the WC guy). This is all following the concepts/principals of WCK. That's keeping to a WC identity. Otherwise you'd be doing boxing or something else

[duende]

I throw whatever techniques I like into WC whenever I "feel" like it.

Of course this "feeling" is based on years of a developing bridging awareness and sensitivity by way of training defined body mechanics. Mechanics that are founded upon heaven, human, earth structural energy, leveraging, and occupying/dominating of space.

Any techniques in my arsenal are applicable... time and space allowing of course.

(Although when employing "outside the box" techniques, we often choose to modify them so that they incorporate some of our HFY system's structural awareness.)

If gravity, time, and space are on your side... certain techniques that may typically be considered "risky" can all of a sudden become quite effective and reliable.

The bridge, and/or occupation of space are what is key. The technique is secondary.



As for the fight quest vid.

It's a perfect example of techniques failing under pressure imo... All that WC training went out the door once it came across some real crashing energy, or what we call Chung.

Was anyone really surprized??? I don't think so.

[Wayfaring]

I hear what you are saying, but it sounds like what you are just talking about are techniques now. And, I'm not really sure your point about identity and purist? Are you suggesting tht a WCK guy should start mixing in whatever they like, like high round house kicks or long rang CLF type attacks or even backfists into thier arsenal simply because it works for the other guy? What if they go against WCK concepts and principals? Of course with this type of thinking, I would agree, there would be no WC identity.

The words "technique", "concept", and "principals" can easily become illusion outside of an application environment. You talk like it's easy to separate them out and that "technique" is inferior. In application it doesn't happen that way. BJJ assimilates, and function determines identity. It purges out the inefficient. I wish WCK were more that way in how it is trained.

People are after Victor on this thread because he is "marrying" some long distance boxing techniques to his WCK. Do you think he doesn't retain what he's learned in TWC WCK when he's doing that? W/R to timing, distance, facing, etc.? He doesn't put on two hats in sparring, or require a gear change to go from distance to WCK range. It's just application against a skilled boxer is bringing up adaptations. That's actually ideal.



As I see it, WCK is a lot more than the techniques - taan, bong, fook, biu, etc. If you stick to concepts/principals of WC, the necessary techniques come out. There should be no reason to mix anything. Call me a purist I guess. I have no problem with that :D

Is taan a technique? Or a concept or principal? Is it form of the hand from the elbow? Or a concept of dispersing force? Bong? Fook? Biu?

I learned a MT "cover" that is a fook principle. A flick of the wrist with gloves on that covers a jab. Similarly, there is an offline step movement and a strike. According to the purist thinking, that's evil and does not build a WCK identity. Yet concepts are retained and applied in an alive environment.



This has me thinking, WC doesn't have just the elbow down punch, the 'WC punch'. For one example, there are also structured shoulder line punches in WC as well. But, you don't just throw them 'whenever' because you like them or when you feel like it. You use them when it's the best tool for that timeframe, facing, etc. Just like you don't strike when you don't have proper control of space and your opponent (as seen in the video with the chain punching, barraging your way in down CL approach of the WC guy). This is all following the concepts/principals of WCK. That's keeping to a WC identity. Otherwise you'd be doing boxing or something else

My experience with good boxers is they don't just throw punches "whenever" either. They throw them when they are in the position to connect, or to control the pace or distance, or a number of other reasons. They use the best tool for the timeframe. So what's the difference between a "Boxer identity" and a "WCK Boxer identity"? Doing boxing or something else is just a style label.

Why was the Leung Ting guy in the video ineffective? He used centerline principle and facing. He was following WCK concepts and principles.

[Wayfaring]

I throw whatever techniques I like into WC whenever I "feel" like it.

Of course this "feeling" is based on years of a developing bridging awareness and sensitivity by way of training defined body mechanics. Mechanics that are founded upon heaven, human, earth structural energy, leveraging, and occupying/dominating of space.

Any techniques in my arsenal are applicable... time and space allowing of course.

I too think the fundamentals you mention are the important in WCK. Body mechanics that are real are only developed in a real testing application environment.



(Although when employing "outside the box" techniques, we often choose to modify them so that they incorporate some of our HFY system's structural awareness.)

If gravity, time, and space are on your side... certain techniques that may typically be considered "risky" can all of a sudden become quite effective and reliable.

Sure - the structural awareness is the treasure. Getting gravity, time and space on your side against a skilled fully resisting opponent is the goal - takes a lot of work.



As for the fight quest vid.

It's a perfect example of techniques failing under pressure imo... All that WC training went out the door once it came across some real crashing energy, or what we call Chung.

Was anyone really surprized??? I don't think so.
It did seem that they hadn't trained a lot of contact like that before so reverted to a couple simple responses. That's actually normal and what the body/mind does under that pressure if it's not customary. It takes consistent work doing that to relax and let your hands go in those situations.

To me the issue wasn't really the crashing energy it was angles. The guy in white shirt was moving offline a lot and moving his head and his training was to be able to do that and strike from an angle. The WC guy took time to re-target the centerline all the time, and that put him a step behind. It wasn't an overwhelming energy against energy thing, although the contact level was higher. IMO.

[JPinAZ]

The words "technique", "concept", and "principals" can easily become illusion outside of an application environment. You talk like it's easy to separate them out and that "technique" is inferior. In application it doesn't happen that way. BJJ assimilates, and function determines identity. It purges out the inefficient. I wish WCK were more that way in how it is trained.

Dave,

I never said anything was better than anything. All three are important. A smart man once said "It's all technique and no technique"
My point was, what we focus on, what drives the actions. Do we as WC fighters focus on matching technique with technique or something else? Does this sound efficient? And why would you think WC's training intent isn't to purge out the inefficent? To me, WCK is all about reaching maximum efficiency!


People are after Victor on this thread because he is "marrying" some long distance boxing techniques to his WCK. Do you think he doesn't retain what he's learned in TWC WCK when he's doing that? W/R to timing, distance, facing, etc.? He doesn't put on two hats in sparring, or require a gear change to go from distance to WCK range. It's just application against a skilled boxer is bringing up adaptations. That's actually ideal.

I appreciate your view, but maybe you should let Victor continue to speak for himself. It was Victor himself that said he'd switch from one thing to another - like wearing two hats or changing gears, unless I totally have him wrong. If it works for him, more power to him. But where I dissagree with him is when he says WCK can't handle the transition from long range to short range 'in fighting' of WC as he calls it. No matter what he says, I don't agree you have to box a boxer to get your way into close striking range.

And, fwiw, I'm not 'after' anybody here. Can you say the same? ;)



Is taan a technique? Or a concept or principal? Is it form of the hand from the elbow? Or a concept of dispersing force? Bong? Fook? Biu?

Really depends how you view things. It's all. It's none. I guess the real question is, what guides the motion.


I learned a MT "cover" that is a fook principle. A flick of the wrist with gloves on that covers a jab. Similarly, there is an offline step movement and a strike. According to the purist thinking, that's evil and does not build a WCK identity. Yet concepts are retained and applied in an alive environment.

What are you even talking about? Now you're just sounding silly. Who are these 'purists' that think what a MT guy does is evil or doesn't build an identity or anything else? If something works, I say do it. But it doesn't mean I have to do it, nor do I have to feel it's the only or 'best' method because it also work.

Look, what a MT guy does comes from his training, regardless if it looks like he's using biu, taan, fook, summersault, whatever. Same for any other art. It would be silly for anyone to say that what they do is wrong or evil because it's different than another art.
And why would what a MT guy does be building a WC identity anyway?

I'm really not even sure what you're arguing anymore


My experience with good boxers is they don't just throw punches "whenever" either. They throw them when they are in the position to connect, or to control the pace or distance, or a number of other reasons. They use the best tool for the timeframe. So what's the difference between a "Boxer identity" and a "WCK Boxer identity"? Doing boxing or something else is just a style label.

Why was the Leung Ting guy in the video ineffective? He used centerline principle and facing. He was following WCK concepts and principles.

I never said a boxer or anyone else just throws whatever whenever, I think you're just arguing to argue now. What you are saying about the boxer is also true most any art.

You're really caught up on this whole 'identity' thing :o. Are you seriously asking what's the difference between what a boxer does and what a WC does? Do you not know?
One simple difference between the two approaches to fighting is a boxer's tendency to work of a long/short reach with their hands when striking. And there are some that do it to a greater/lesser degree than others. And before you go down this road again, let me put out the disclaimer now: I'm not saying there is anything wrong with what they do, I'm not passing judgment, saying they are evil, they shot Kennedy or anything else. :)
Now, did you learn to do this same thing in your WC training? If not, why? What in WC guides the idea of keeping equal reach to your opponent with both hands and feet?
Now, does the answer to this question come from a technique POV or concept/principal POV? That is all I'm talking about.

Jonathan

Also, Alex brought up a great point about throwing 'whatever'. I think I could have worded that better :)

[duende]

To me the issue wasn't really the crashing energy it was angles. The guy in white shirt was moving offline a lot and moving his head and his training was to be able to do that and strike from an angle. The WC guy took time to re-target the centerline all the time, and that put him a step behind. It wasn't an overwhelming energy against energy thing, although the contact level was higher. IMO.

Hey Dave,

I agree with you about the angles of attack being used offline/on the outside line. However this only emphasizes how the Chunner's strategy and techniques was a poor choice and ultimately failed.

Crashing Energy, or Chung can destroys structure and allow angles of attack in one of two ways. One, by being overwhelmed by greater force, as you mention. Or two, by self-destructing by way of committing to an ill-suited structure and strategy for the time and space at hand.

My point is that the Chunners in question failed in both regards.

As the implementation of centerline footwork/chain-punch strategy had no way of surviving against a brute force/outside line attacker at engagement.

This is because the sheer one-dimensionality of that type of footwork/bridging has no structural support to keep the outside jabs/strikes in check.

Best,

[sanjuro_ronin]

Crashing energy can NOT be straight in (like they were doing in the clip) it most be from the angle GOING IN, or else you are just fighting on brute strength - force VS force type of thing, and that isn't WC.

[Ultimatewingchun]

"People are after Victor on this thread because he is "marrying" some long distance boxing techniques to his WCK. Do you think he doesn't retain what he's learned in TWC WCK when he's doing that? W/R to timing, distance, facing, etc.? He doesn't put on two hats in sparring, or require a gear change to go from distance to WCK range. It's just application against a skilled boxer is bringing up adaptations. That's actually ideal." (W)
................................

"It was Victor himself that said he'd switch from one thing to another - like wearing two hats or changing gears, unless I totally have him wrong. If it works for him, more power to him. But where I dissagree with him is when he says WCK can't handle the transition from long range to short range 'in fighting' of WC as he calls it. No matter what he says, I don't agree you have to box a boxer to get your way into close striking range." (JP)
.............................

***WHAT I'VE SAID on a number of occasions is that even from long range and when I'm using horizontally thrown boxing leads, crosses, overhands...(or even hooks and uppercuts from a closer range)...I use a variation of a universal wing chun principle - THE CENTERLINE - as my guide.

So even when I'm "boxing", the boxing itself is married to wing chun; but boxing is the "wife", if you don't mind an old analogy, who is following the lead of the "husband".

So from long range I'm dueling his right arm/punches with my left arm/punches/bridges...and dueling his left arm/punch with my right arm/punches/bridges - along two different "centerlines", if you will, that exist vertically down both my shoulder lines (and his)...

until either I've landed a big "boxing" punch that allows me to follow by simply turning my main centerline directly at his center-of-mass and do a more conventional wing chun fight - or until I "box" to a point where there's now a bridge that allows me to do the same (or possibly no bridge at all - but now close enough to go all wing chun)...

and the exception to this longer range centerline variation is when I've either manipulated him (or he made a mistake) and the result is that I can now start to take his "blindside" (the two-on-one advantage)...wherein my right arm, for example, is now controlling his right side while I blast him with my left (ie.- a lop da type situation).
.....................................

"To me the issue wasn't really the crashing energy it was angles. The guy in white shirt was moving offline a lot and moving his head and his training was to be able to do that and strike from an angle. The WC guy took time to re-target the centerline all the time, and that put him a step behind. It wasn't an overwhelming energy against energy thing, although the contact level was higher. IMO. (W)
....................................


***I agree completely with this. By having to stay inside the wing chun box (ie.- having to always re-target his centerline), this slowed the WT guy down; but with a more dynamic footwork and a willingness to throw various kinds of punches form different angles (like a boxer)...he would have done much better, imo.

[Wayfaring]

Dave,

I never said anything was better than anything. All three are important. A smart man once said "It's all technique and no technique"
My point was, what we focus on, what drives the actions. Do we as WC fighters focus on matching technique with technique or something else? Does this sound efficient? And why would you think WC's training intent isn't to purge out the inefficent? To me, WCK is all about reaching maximum efficiency!


You said I was talking about technique only. No. I was talking about a philosophy of assimilating working techniques, concepts and principles into an art. Or not.

I would think that the idea of a WC "identity" versus a boxers "identity" leads to rejecting by course examining the structural and timing elements of what a boxer does to get to being most efficient. Because it's "doing boxing or something else". Rejecting anything by course doesn't lead to purging inefficiency.



I appreciate your view, but maybe you should let Victor continue to speak for himself. It was Victor himself that said he'd switch from one thing to another - like wearing two hats or changing gears, unless I totally have him wrong. If it works for him, more power to him. But where I dissagree with him is when he says WCK can't handle the transition from long range to short range 'in fighting' of WC as he calls it. No matter what he says, I don't agree you have to box a boxer to get your way into close striking range.

Hmmm. WCK practitioners have historically been called "boxers". What is it exactly that you do if it is not a form of "boxing"? Are you not a "WCK boxer"? Can you throw a long-range punch from a 3 gate stance while maintaining structure and WCK principles? Or execute a technique that will lead to a most efficient way of moving to structure? Or will that always be "boxing a boxer"?



And, fwiw, I'm not 'after' anybody here. Can you say the same? ;)

Figure of speech. I am sharing concepts and in a discussion. I don't have anything against anyone here, especially those I've trained with.



What are you even talking about? Now you're just sounding silly. Who are these 'purists' that think what a MT guy does is evil or doesn't build an identity or anything else? If something works, I say do it. But it doesn't mean I have to do it, nor do I have to feel it's the only or 'best' method because it also work.

You really don't see the connection between my MT example and your discussion of boxers / WC "identity"? I guess calling me silly is one way of dealing with it.



Look, what a MT guy does comes from his training, regardless if it looks like he's using biu, taan, fook, summersault, whatever. Same for any other art. It would be silly for anyone to say that what they do is wrong or evil because it's different than another art.
And why would what a MT guy does be building a WC identity anyway?

I am getting at fundamentals and principles that are universal in skilled fighters.
Regardless of "style".



I'm really not even sure what you're arguing anymore

I'm discussing concepts of identity, style, training methods, and universal fundmental skills and principles. I wasn't aware I was arguing. Is responding to you calling me silly arguing?



I never said a boxer or anyone else just throws whatever whenever, I think you're just arguing to argue now. What you are saying about the boxer is also true most any art.

You said:


This has me thinking, WC doesn't have just the elbow down punch, the 'WC punch'. For one example, there are also structured shoulder line punches in WC as well. But, you don't just throw them 'whenever' because you like them or when you feel like it. You use them when it's the best tool for that timeframe, facing, etc. Just like you don't strike when you don't have proper control of space and your opponent (as seen in the video with the chain punching, barraging your way in down CL approach of the WC guy). This is all following the concepts/principals of WCK. That's keeping to a WC identity. Otherwise you'd be doing boxing or something else



You're really caught up on this whole 'identity' thing :o. Are you seriously asking what's the difference between what a boxer does and what a WC does? Do you not know?

I am responding to your above quote. I don't see how that's being "really caught up on the identity thing". I train for months at a time without ever discussing that topic or concept or even thinking about it. It sounds like me responding to your quote is making you a little sensitive on the topic, not sure why.



One simple difference between the two approaches to fighting is a boxer's tendency to work of a long/short reach with their hands when striking. And there are some that do it to a greater/lesser degree than others. And before you go down this road again, let me put out the disclaimer now: I'm not saying there is anything wrong with what they do, I'm not passing judgment, saying they are evil, they shot Kennedy or anything else. :)
Now, did you learn to do this same thing in your WC training? If not, why? What in WC guides the idea of keeping equal reach to your opponent with both hands and feet?

This is pretty much the difference between a traditional boxer and a MT "boxer". The MT stance is wider and brings the rear foot and hand online. Movements also are concerned with keeping all striking weapons online. Yes I learned this first in WC. The Sup Ming Dim, or 10 bright points in HFY guides the idea of equal reach as well as all the other structural points with a fighter internally as well as in relationship to his opponent. In other WC, it's a wheel concept I believe with centerline.



Now, does the answer to this question come from a technique POV or concept/principal POV? That is all I'm talking about.

If you can fight with 2 real hands and 2 feet online in a pressure environment, who cares? Your POV is whether or not a fist is coming rapidly into your view.

[Wayfaring]

Hey Dave,

I agree with you about the angles of attack being used offline/on the outside line. However this only emphasizes how the Chunner's strategy and techniques was a poor choice and ultimately failed.

Crashing Energy, or Chung can destroys structure and allow angles of attack in one of two ways. One, by being overwhelmed by greater force, as you mention. Or two, by self-destructing by way of committing to an ill-suited structure and strategy for the time and space at hand.

So the strategy chosen caused the WC guy to crash and burn? Hadn't thought of it that way, but sure. Pretty funny.


As the implementation of centerline footwork/chain-punch strategy had no way of surviving against a brute force/outside line attacker at engagement.

This is because the sheer one-dimensionality of that type of footwork/bridging has no structural support to keep the outside jabs/strikes in check.

The guy actually did better in the competition segment than the sparring one. He was still 1D but kept his distance a little more precisely so he didn't get angled off on as much.

[Ultimatewingchun]

"I would think that the idea of a WC 'identity' versus a boxers 'identity' leads to rejecting by course examining the structural and timing elements of what a boxer does to get to being most efficient. Because it's 'doing boxing or something else'. Rejecting anything by course doesn't lead to purging inefficiency." (Wayfaring)
...........................

***BINGO

[anerlich]

One thing that's completely different about the WCK community and the BJJ grappling community is this idea of "marrying" things to your art. It's a real "purist" type of viewpoint in WCK. Same thing with the "identity" concept, with people talking about building a "WCK identity".

I started MA with a guy who started off with Karate in the early1960s basically before CMA was available to most Westerners. He took up KF in the late 60s, but as a Nidan in Goju Ryu and BB in JJJ, trained in several KF styles and has taught a highly effective blend of WC, CLF, and Northern Sil Lum for over 30 years, and also trains FMA weapons and is a keen shooter to the point of having a backyard workshop for making his own ammunition. He has beautiful technique but can also fight terrifyingly well. He was doing MMA 20 years before most of us started hearing about MMA.


I hear what you are saying, but it sounds like what you are just talking about are techniques now. And, I'm not really sure your point about identity and purist? Are you suggesting tht a WCK guy should start mixing in whatever they like, like high round house kicks or long rang CLF type attacks or even backfists into thier arsenal simply because it works for the other guy? What if they go against WCK concepts and principals? Of course with this type of thinking, I would agree, there would be no WC identity.

My current WC teacher (I moved cities so could not stick with the first guy, though I still correspond with him and visit occasionally) competed extensively in kickboxing in the late 70's/early 80's. At that time, the rules allowed no kicks BELOW the waist, so avoiding high kicks was to handicap oneself. He and his students continue to practise high kicks to this day because they develop useful attributes and qualities, though they wouldn't be a weapon of choice in a defense situation. And, contrary to the apparent conventional wisdom, they are not necessarily at odds with "WC principles" which IMO should basically be adaptable to the situation to have any value.

I can't see the issue with backfists. IMO the execution is very similar to the side palm from WC. Some people say they have no power, but since my first instructor used to regularly break eight roof tiles with one I know that assertion to be false. Yeah, tiles don't hit back but if you cop one of these in the face you won't hit back either.

When I hear about "community", "family" etc. in MA I start thinking about cults. What matters are your instructors and the groups of people you train with on a regular basis.

My instructor started with Kyokushin, took up WC, hung out with various othe instructors he knew in his home town and elsewhere, started learning BJJ with one of them, and then took up Kyokushin again a while back with some other friends he'd made and got his black belt earlier this year. One of my Sidais is a WC instructor married to a four time Australian Kyokushin karate champion. If you think you can, or even worse, want, to stay the boy in the WC bubble you are really cutting yourself off from a lot of good potential resources for no good reason.

I guess I spend more time in the BJJ community these days, though I hate the term "community", and it also includes a fair number of WC people - people from my WC org medalled in the recent Australian Machado champs, and I train BJJ with one of the late Master Jim Fung's top WC students who'll probably get his purple belt this year.

While flakes are everywhere, IMO there are far fewer in BJJ than in WC, and if someone forces me to choose, I'll take BJJ every time.

[Wayfaring]

Thx for the perspective, Andrew. IMO from the little I know Aussies tend to have a stronger sense of local community than most Americans. You develop what you can from the resources you have available. The MA community isn't huge and the resources you have available it's good to use. I'm tending to train in 3 or 4 schools lately where I live for variety and more resources. Locally the MMA amateurs and pros train together out of a few places as do the BJJ people who have been around for more than a few years. It's actually a smaller world once people start getting out.