Boxing & Wing Chun

[Ultimatewingchun]

Would like to continue and expand upon some of what was discussed on the "Strongest Punch" thread....

I for one believe that it is possible to successfully mix elements of boxing with wing chun - and that the end result could potentially be more than the sum total of its parts:

in other words, better than either one by itself.

But whether you agree with that last statement or not, here are three boxing clips that I invite people to look at and discuss; and from the wing chun point-of-view, describe how you might be able to add some of what you see into your wing chun game.

Some of this has already been covered on the other thread, but if those who posted there want to reiterate some of what they already said...not a problem. Do it.

I have some definite ideas about the three clips I'm posting (and I've worked with some of what's on the Marciano and the Louis clip in class) - but I'd like to hear from you guys a bit.

..........................................

Mike Tyson:

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

…………………………………..

Joe Louis:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R78hdxpRfws

…………………….

Rocky Marciano

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9b0yHvw-vW0

[SAAMAG]

You're talking about synergy. It's (in this case) when the benefits of the combined systems working together exceeds the benefits of each system working individually towards the same goal.

I don't really look at things of adding this to that. I learn different things, and they come out however they come out in fighting. I don't have the intention of "I'm going to start using that boxing stance with my wing chun punch" or "I'm going to add in the mexican hook in with my wing chun".

Everything has it's place in time, and those things come out as appropriate as deemed by the situation. If a real fight, I'm not going to be thinking about whether or not to use this style or that style, I'm just going to try and hit the guy as much as possible without being hit myself. I'm going to try and control the situation as much as possible, and to be honest probably try to get away as soon as possible (since in real life you don't "win"...you "survive").

Does that make sense? But thanks for the clips...great boxing is a thing of beauty. So many similarities in boxing and wing chun...they do mesh together so well.

[sihing]

That's a good post Van, and is the way I look at it too.

Anyone is free to do whatever they want to do with their training, all sorts of people crosstrain in various things, I have two students that train in other arts beside Wing Chun, it's no problem for me, although I have said to them that learning two striking systems at the sametime may give them some problems and I have seen some come up in their development.

The real question is why or does one need to learn boxing and combining it with their Wing Chun? Is it really that hard to learn how to throw jabs and crosses from the outside? IMO it isn't. Of course I wouldn't be able to compete with a good boxer in that deptartment, but I wouldn't box a boxer in the first place, lol. There's no problem with training with boxers and sparring with them to learn their timing and MO, but for me to actually have to take out time to train in a gym, based on what I want to do regarding MA training, it would be a definitive NO. I can see Victor's point about learning the outside striking game, but IMO it's not necessary to train in boxing. I posted a clip of Bas Rutten talking about his method of striking, and to me it looks like he's anti boxing as well, as most of stuff he talked about was very similar to what is taught in WC striking (fighting relatively square, keeping elbows in, no pivoting at the foot, using legs as a power source, etc..).

James

[SAAMAG]

Good thoughts James.

I have yet to see where doing anything in boxing could hinder my gung fu. In fact its helped me to be able to punch far stronger, and given me a more natural way of punching that I can throw from any place, any angle, no matter what the situation is.

Like you said...I wouldn't be able to handle a real boxer, but my skills combined in a fight might be able to put me ahead. Hence Victor's idea of synergy.

[HumbleWCGuy]

Wing Chun as a whole should just incooperate boxing as Muay Thai did. It is ridiculous to say to yourself that, "to be a credible Wing Chun fighter I must, learn boxing, Muay Thai, and..." Instructors need to figure out a way to bring it all together much more tightly.

[SAAMAG]

It would make too much sense from a fighting perspective, but traditionalists have a fear that the Kung Fu part will be lost, which I don't think would be the case.

[Frost]

That's a good post Van, and is the way I look at it too.

Anyone is free to do whatever they want to do with their training, all sorts of people crosstrain in various things, I have two students that train in other arts beside Wing Chun, it's no problem for me, although I have said to them that learning two striking systems at the sametime may give them some problems and I have seen some come up in their development.

The real question is why or does one need to learn boxing and combining it with their Wing Chun? Is it really that hard to learn how to throw jabs and crosses from the outside? IMO it isn't. Of course I wouldn't be able to compete with a good boxer in that deptartment, but I wouldn't box a boxer in the first place, lol. There's no problem with training with boxers and sparring with them to learn their timing and MO, but for me to actually have to take out time to train in a gym, based on what I want to do regarding MA training, it would be a definitive NO. I can see Victor's point about learning the outside striking game, but IMO it's not necessary to train in boxing. I posted a clip of Bas Rutten talking about his method of striking, and to me it looks like he's anti boxing as well, as most of stuff he talked about was very similar to what is taught in WC striking (fighting relatively square, keeping elbows in, no pivoting at the foot, using legs as a power source, etc..).

James

but if you don't have a coach how do you know what you are doing is right? its like me saying ill learn wing chun from watching youtube and sparring some guys, afterall all all i want to do is learn the bong sau and the straight punch, how hard can it be:eek:

Without a coach alot of the finer points of the straight punches gets lost, how to set them up, how to angle off, how and when to use them in combinations etc... I have watched a good coach destroy pro foghters just using the jab and nothing else, its not just about the mechanics of the punch.
do you need to become a boxer? no but if you don't get qualified instruction how on earth will you get good at it?

If you want to see what happens when people try to learn a seemingly simple technique without proper coaching go look at how many people manage to screw up the simple doubly leg:)

[Ultimatewingchun]

Good thoughts so far, and while I agree 100% that it's synergy and not "now I box and then I do wing chun", Van....as the end product...

nonetheless I've found it helpful to put on a boxing hat and work things during drills, shadow boxing, sparring...and of course put on the "wing chun only" hat and do that....in the beginning of trying to marry the two....

and then try to work with both hats unconsciously during sparring, heavy bag work, etc. later on.

[Ultimatewingchun]

....my last post, I started what we can now call (thanks, Van) the synergy thing by learning how to throw stiff straight leads, jabs, and rear crosses - and then started using them from a distance as a gap closer to get to a more close quarters wing chun range...and then literally put on the wing chun hat as - as long as I stayed in that range.

But then I started working with close quarters boxing moves, ie.- hooks, uppercuts, etc....and tried to analyze when this made sense from close quarters and when a more wing chun approach made sense...

and then later on realized during sparring that the straight leads and rear crosses (and by now I added a Fedor-like overhand punch and a hook off the jab)...could often work from long range as big moves all by themselves - and not simply as a means of getting to closer quarters...

so it became a back and forth process - and this is what leads to the synergy; and needless to say, all this has to be pressure tested with full contact sparring (including knees, elbows, clinch work, and kicking)...constantly.

Here's just some examples...as a drill on the heavy bag, we sometimes do this: a stiff straight lead followed by a very heavy rear cross - and by the time the bag flies back into you - you've dropped your elbows down-and-in and step forward with 3-4 vertical fist wing chun punches - followed by a rear knee strike or a rear horizontal elbow strike. (Or both)

And then sometimes no wing chun punches as the followup to the lead/cross...but rather, hooks and uppercuts instead.

And then maybe combinations once in close using all the moves, ie.- vertical fists, hooks, uppercuts, knees, elbows...and longer round punches as the bag starts to move away from you...or maybe a rear front kick, heel kick, or roundhouse kick from the longer distance, etc.

So the idea in the end is to let it all mesh together using different tools from different ranges without stopping to label them.

And the same with blocking, redirecting, and avoidance defensive moves - and all of the corresponding footwork.

[HumbleWCGuy]

It would make too much sense from a fighting perspective, but traditionalists have a fear that the Kung Fu part will be lost, which I don't think would be the case.

Unfortunately the most ardent traditionalists are completely clueless. Classical Wing Chun will not survive as it has. I think that the marriage is going to happen whether traditionalist want it or not. Better to be on the forefront of change to wisely guide it than to foolishly ignore it and be marginalized.

[Lee Chiang Po]

When you mix black and white you will get gray. In other words, both colors become altered. With fighting systems it is not always beneficial, especially if they work on or by certain concepts. If you add boxing to Wing Chun it will alter the concepts that drive it. If you add Wing Chun to boxing, again you will have to forget or forsake some of the driving concepts that make Wing Chun work. I personally don't see where either one would benefit from this. I have boxed as a young man, so I am fully aware of what boxing is about. On the other hand, I have done Wing Chun for a very long time, and I am fully aware of the concepts that are the driving force. I would not consider mixing the two.

[Pacman]

lets get into specifics.

what about boxing would you add to wing chun?

[HumbleWCGuy]

When you mix black and white you will get gray. In other words, both colors become altered. With fighting systems it is not always beneficial, especially if they work on or by certain concepts. If you add boxing to Wing Chun it will alter the concepts that drive it. If you add Wing Chun to boxing, again you will have to forget or forsake some of the driving concepts that make Wing Chun work. I personally don't see where either one would benefit from this. I have boxed as a young man, so I am fully aware of what boxing is about. On the other hand, I have done Wing Chun for a very long time, and I am fully aware of the concepts that are the driving force. I would not consider mixing the two.

The current sense is that Wing Chun as an art is an utter failure so how could losing it's character be bad? If one is just interested in preserving techniques and tactics as a way of preserving the past, I suppose that is okay, but I think that students have to be made aware of that when they come in the door.

[HumbleWCGuy]

lets get into specifics.

what about boxing would you add to wing chun?

The first thing that I would do is establish WC full-contact tournaments so the nonsense would get exposed.

I would also try to establish a rule system in the tournaments that encouraged trapping.

[Pacman]

The first thing that I would do is establish WC full-contact tournaments so the nonsense would get exposed.

I would also try to establish a rule system in the tournaments that encouraged trapping.

but i assume you want to mix more into WC than just the sport aspect

[Lee Chiang Po]

The current sense is that Wing Chun as an art is an utter failure so how could losing it's character be bad? If one is just interested in preserving techniques and tactics as a way of preserving the past, I suppose that is okay, but I think that students have to be made aware of that when they come in the door.

Well, I certainly don't consider it a failure. I personally consider it to be the ultimate fighting system. If a person feels that Wing Chun is such a failure, then why in the world would he want to incorperate it into any fighting system. Why not just go with boxing as it is? Or even mix and match boxing with something else all together?
If a person does not believe in his fighting system he certainly has no business staying with it. It can't serve him. My theory here is that if someone suggests mixing boxing with Wing Chun they really don't have an understanding of Wing Chun principals to start with. If it can't serve you now, it certainly won't if you go mixing and matching it with boxing or some other completely different concept.

[HumbleWCGuy]

but i assume you want to mix more into WC than just the sport aspect

I would absolutely like to add some elements from boxing and kickboxing into WC but it isn't worth arguing about. I am tired of the nonsense. People just need to run their students to fights against evenly matched opponents and demonstrate that their method works or be marginalized.

[HumbleWCGuy]

Well, I certainly don't consider it a failure. I personally consider it to be the ultimate fighting system. If a person feels that Wing Chun is such a failure, then why in the world would he want to incorperate it into any fighting system. Why not just go with boxing as it is? Or even mix and match boxing with something else all together?
If a person does not believe in his fighting system he certainly has no business staying with it. It can't serve him. My theory here is that if someone suggests mixing boxing with Wing Chun they really don't have an understanding of Wing Chun principals to start with. If it can't serve you now, it certainly won't if you go mixing and matching it with boxing or some other completely different concept.

Basically people are teaching an expanded principle guided curriculum which should have boxing elements or their art is probably insufficient.

[YungChun]

Basically people are teaching an expanded principle guided curriculum which should have boxing elements or their art is probably insufficient.

So, WCK without "boxing" is insufficient?

Is "boxing" without WCK insufficient?

Is "boxing", as is, insufficient?


WCK has about a "billion" more tools and techniques and more ranges than "boxing" yet somehow it is insufficient without also using "boxing"?:o:rolleyes:

[t_niehoff]

The current sense is that Wing Chun as an art is an utter failure so how could losing it's character be bad?


It's not the art that is an "utter failure", it is the PEOPLE WHO ARE PRACTICING THE ART that are an utter failure.



If one is just interested in preserving techniques and tactics as a way of preserving the past, I suppose that is okay, but I think that students have to be made aware of that when they come in the door.

Who is it that is teaching the students when they "come in the door"? People who can't make their WCK work but nonetheless feel the need to teach others.

Maybe, just maybe, people should not try to teach things they cannot do particularly well.

To all you people talking about boxing: Have you spent some significant time training boxing with a decent coach? Have you trained boxing like a boxer, putting in hundreds of rounds of sparring with good boxers so as to develop competent boxing skills?

If not, then what makes you think that you are competent to talk about boxing? Or to teach boxing?

Guess what? If you haven't done that, then your boxing will suck just like your WCK. And, it isn't boxing's fault.

[HumbleWCGuy]

So, WCK without "boxing" is insufficient?

Is "boxing" without WCK insufficient?

Is "boxing", as is, insufficient?


WCK has about a "billion" more tools and techniques and more ranges than "boxing" yet somehow it is insufficient without also using "boxing"?:o:rolleyes:

Boxing is a sport so yes it is quite insufficient.

[Frost]

So, WCK without "boxing" is insufficient?

Is "boxing" without WCK insufficient?

Is "boxing", as is, insufficient?


WCK has about a "billion" more tools and techniques and more ranges than "boxing" yet somehow it is insufficient without also using "boxing"?:o:rolleyes:

it might have a billion more tools, but if the student can't make them work against an opponent then it is insufficent and the tools useless

[YungChun]

it might have a billion more tools, but if the student can't make them work against an opponent then it is insufficent and the tools useless

Which then means you must do boxing? Un huh...:confused:

[Frost]

Which then means you must do boxing? Un huh...:confused:

which means i have done both at various times, and have enough experience to realise that depth is sometimes better than breadth when it comes to fighting

[Lee Chiang Po]

it might have a billion more tools, but if the student can't make them work against an opponent then it is insufficent and the tools useless

In a nutshell. This is representive of any fighting system. It is truely based upon the persons committment. You know, in most any sport fighting system like boxing for instance, It is trained in the same manner between individuals and they all require gloves and rules to fight by. It all really comes down to who is the toughest. The stronger, faster, and more committed fighter is usually going to win, if not by ko then by points. Most Gung Fu fighting systems were not created for sport, but for a more sinister purpose. You would have to remove most of the more effective techniques and thus render it practically useless. Sport is designed that 2 equally skilled opponents can match their prowess and or skills in a controlled environment. Gung Fu is designed to allow a lesser person to defend himself against possibly a stronger opponent. There have been attempts at making it into sport fighting, but somehow it just seems like some other form of sport fighting rather than gung fu.
If you are sparring against someone, say a friend or associate, your goal would not be to injure or damage him in some way, but to simply hone your skills. So from the very beginning you would have to start subtracting the elements that would possibly injure your friend, and eventually it comes down to some sort of MMA, boxing, wrestling, sort of sport. That already exists. No one seems to respect the power of the finger jabs, even though it does tend to stop fights in the ring for a while. Most anything that would give you an unfair advantage over someone would immediately be illiminated, so what you do is no longer what you wanted to do. It is like showing up at a knife fight with a pistol. You would have a clear advantage. But if you had to surrender the gun and use a knife instead, then you have to fight the same fight as the other guy.
Getting a public sanction of a no holds barred fighting tournemant is probably wishful thinking at best. The only sport that I know of that does that is pro wrestling, and everyone knows that it is fake, except for the acrobatic displays. And even they have had people maimed or killed.

[Pacman]

I would absolutely like to add some elements from boxing and kickboxing into WC but it isn't worth arguing about. I am tired of the nonsense. People just need to run their students to fights against evenly matched opponents and demonstrate that their method works or be marginalized.

im not arguing with you. you started a thread about mixing boxing with WC. im just curious what you are talking about

[Pacman]

Who is it that is teaching the students when they "come in the door"? People who can't make their WCK work but nonetheless feel the need to teach others.


have you ever fought with your sifu full contact?

[Ultimatewingchun]

im not arguing with you. you started a thread about mixing boxing with WC. im just curious what you are talking about

***I started the thread....Did you read post#9 on page 1 ???

[Pacman]

o i see. this is very good. good for you that you analyzed. you can't be pure intellectual but you need to have a brain and think and try things out. at the same time you cant just fight for hours without a brain and think that you will get better (as terrence recommends)

if your WC consists of stiff robotic arm only punches without turning the body (leads to lack of reach) then you are definitely at a disadvantage.

its good that you incorporate something that can help you from the long range or else you are toast

for some WC lineages, however, they didnt lose or perhaps added (IMO they didn't lose) the long range techniques and have jabs, crosses. turning is a big part of the way they punch.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Good points, Pacman.

[YungChun]

which means i have done both at various times, and have enough experience to realise that depth is sometimes better than breadth when it comes to fighting

Well I guess you mean the reverse of what you wrote..

I do agree that depth can be more useful than breadth, the depth of putting to use all the tools and ranges of one art, WCK, which addresses more ranges and options than does boxing..not shrugging our shoulders, blaming the art and then adding another art in the hopes of fixing what went wrong with art number 1.

Terence has it right again on this one IMO.. Bad WCK is not going to benefit from incorporating bad boxing, or even good boxing as that would just make you better at boxing not WCK..

And if folks are going to go that extra mile to make their boxing work then why not just do that with their WCK?

Adding boxing into the mix is fine but arguably training WCK is a better way to get better at WCK than is training boxing or whatever other method.

WCK has the tools and tactics to address longer and shorter ranges than does boxing... Given that why the desperate need to add something that covers less to benefit the art that covers more? Does that really make sense?

As T said it's not the art's fault no matter how you slice it.. (Though good instuction is a vital component as well)

If folks want better WCK they need to look carefully (learn) and *think* about what they are doing, what WCK offers and put it into practice..rinse, repeat...

Cross training is great but it is what it is... Folks who do BJJ will also cross train boxing but I doubt they expect the boxing to help them refine their BJJ, no, that work requires training BJJ...

[SAAMAG]

Have you given any thought to the idea that perhaps one can still be using wing chun regardless of the specific technique that's being used?

[YungChun]

Have you given any thought to the idea that perhaps one can still be using wing chun regardless of the specific technique that's being used?

Ducks and Dogs.

I would agree with that.....when using a chung choi or name your WCK element....can be thought of as BJJ...

Using BJJ or MT or WCK means using those tools, tactics and techniques of the art..

If find the idea that doing boxing = doing WCK an odd way of thinking that perhaps serves to offer false hope of attaining skill in one art by doing another, which some may see as more accessible or understandable.

We can mix and match arts, and express any way we want to.. But that doesn't mean by any stretch of the imagination that art A becomes art B or vise versa, or that doing art A means learning/doing art B, to me that's just silly.

[SAAMAG]

Then ..... you don't agree with wsl either?

[YungChun]

Then ..... you don't agree with wsl either?

On what?

Did he say that WCK = Western Boxing?

Or that one should do WB in order to learn WCK?

They call it *cross* training for a reason...................

I can't even believe we are debating if WCK = Boxing. Is that what you are suggesting?

[SAAMAG]

On what?

Did he say that WCK = Western Boxing?

Or that one should do WB in order to learn WCK?

They call it *cross* training for a reason...................

I can't even believe we are debating if WCK = Boxing. Is that what you are suggesting?

We are not debating anything. I'm simply asking you questions. First, you took things off on the deep end with my first question. I'm not saying the boxing=WCK, or BJJ = WCK, or Muay Thai = WCK. Though you can apply WCK within any one of those systems...

I'm saying that WCK transcends the individual technique. In other words, you don't have to you only use classical wing chun techniques in order to apply wing chun (both IMO as well as WSL's).

To apply that concept to the conversation...using a few boxing punches here and there isn't going to hurt and change anything in the application of wing chun (again, IMO).

[Ultimatewingchun]

Have you given any thought to the idea that perhaps one can still be using wing chun regardless of the specific technique that's being used?

***YES and no. Take the Tyson clip wherein he does the combos starting around 2:15 of the vid.

Would you call the 4 hook punches he finishes with wing chun? Or the way he moved his upper body to set it all up?

Hardly.

Could we say that throwing those hooks at the end is a way to dominate the opponent's center of mass. Yeah, I suppose we could.

Some principles in wing chun are very universal - others are not.

[Pacman]

WCK has the tools and tactics to address longer and shorter ranges than does boxing... Given that why the desperate need to add something that covers less to benefit the art that covers more? Does that really make sense?


my WC has long range options. maybe yours does too, but lots of people's WC does not. you wouldnt believe some of the stuff that is taught out there.

[YungChun]

No deep end here brother. I just don't see the point...



Though you can apply WCK techniques within any one of those systems...

And you can do a TKD kick while doing Sambo..so what?

I fail to see the significance.



I'm saying that WCK transcends the individual technique. In other words, you don't have to you only use classical wing chun techniques in order to apply wing chun (both IMO as well as WSL's).

WCK is WCK, it's in the forms, it's in the drills, it's in the method..

If you want to dance around on the outside and box, then change to WCK on the inside, and then switch to Judo great.. I call that JKD or just using whatever you want to. But I would not advertise that, nor agree with that referred to as WCK. I doubt WSL would either.



To apply that concept to the conversation...using a few boxing punches here and there isn't going to hurt and change anything in the application of wing chun (again, IMO).


Nothing is going to "hurt" WCK.. It is what it is.. However, I think that it's unfortunate that folks who want to do WCK, who train WCK feel that they need WB in order to "do" WCK...

I realize that there is very little good instruction out there... And perhaps folks will perform better doing boxing.. I doubt that they would really be doing boxing, more like foo foo boxing as has been seen around these parts, hitting the mitts, and bag, and then saying they box. Boxing means training like a boxer... And if you do that you will have your hands full.. But training like a boxer has very little to do with training another art. Even in JKD the idea is to train an art as that art was intended in order to really grasp the essence of whatever the art.. Then you express later however is needed...

A student who wants to learn WCK (hard enough as it is) is going to then be told that his WCK teacher is going to teach him boxing as part of doing WCK.. It's just goofy.. Just like if I went to a MT school and they said well, we will teach you MT but you will need some Mantis training (which we will cover) in order to be fully effective doing MT.. LOL

Again I have no problem with JKD concepts, switching between arts, doing one then doing another, making it all your own way, whatever you want to call it..but Boxing is Boxing, WCK is WCK and Judo is Judo..

WCK has it's own methods and tools, mechanics, tactics, etc... I am not sure what the point here is, other than WCK is not Boxing nor should "good" WCK need Boxing in order to do WCK, assuming we are interested in doing WCK.. Folks who purport to know WCK should be teaching THAT, not pretending to "know" and teach boxing and then say it's another "take" on WCK because it isn't.

I met WSL.. And I never saw him do WB nor talk about any need to use WB to compensate for WCK's lack of whatever. In fact WSL said Bruce needed to add "all the other stuff" because Bruce never got the whole WCK picture..

I simply see tons of tools and options in WCK and find it sad that instead of using all those options folks will drop half the art to work on WB presumably under the instruction of a WCK teacher..

Also I'd be interested in reading what WSL said that you refer to.. Can you post some of it?

[SAAMAG]

my WC has long range options. maybe yours does too, but lots of people's WC does not. you wouldnt believe some of the stuff that is taught out there.



That's the problem right there. There are so many different interpretations on the system it's mind boggling.

Two people of the same class can have two completely different ideologies as to what they were taught -- even though it was the same teacher that taught them both.

[SAAMAG]

Nothing is going to "hurt" WCK.. It is what it is.. However, I think that it's unfortunate that folks who want to do WCK, who train WCK feel that they need WB in order to "do" WCK...
What I mean by that is one's WC is not going to be watered down or any less effective just because someone wants to use boxing punches in line with the systems core concepts.



WCK has it's own methods and tools, mechanics, tactics, etc... I am not sure what the point here is, other than WCK is not Boxing nor should "good" WCK need Boxing in order to do WCK, assuming we are interested in doing WCK.. Folks who purport to know WCK should be teaching THAT, not pretending to "know" and teach boxing and then say it's another "take" on WCK because it isn't.
Unfortunately for you, it very well can be. If Victor wants to incorporate boxing styled punches in his wing chun, make it part of his curriculum, and call it wing chun...he has every right to. Especially since the system is conceptual in nature. If you believe that it can only be what's in the forms, than that's your right and you can limit yourself in any way that you wish.




I met WSL.. And I never saw him do WB nor talk about any need to use WB to compensate for WCK's lack of whatever. In fact WSL said Bruce needed to add "all the other stuff" because Bruce never got the whole WCK picture..

Also I'd be interested in reading what WSL said that you refer to.. Can you post some of it?

Well, meeting WSL and training with him are two different things and I wouldn't doubt that he didn't divulge to you all his inner thoughts in your one meeting.

But what I am referencing is David Peterson's biography of the man, and because of copyright laws, I'll paraphrase. It was the section that talked about being master of the system as opposed to its slave. Wong Sifu said that many people are confined in the ruleset of wing chun, and that is the wrong mentality. He cited a beimo match where his opponent ducked down to avoid further punches, and was subsequently knee'd in the face and knocked out. WSL's colleagues berated him saying it wasn't WCK because it wasn't in the forms. Much in the same way you stated "WCK is WCK, it's in the forms, it's in the drills, it's in the method". However WSL responded back citing the maxim of using the closest weapon to the nearest target, and that is WCK.

So I'm again, not saying that boxing = WCK, I'm saying that if you do not use a classical wing chun techqnique, or choose to utilize some other tools in your toolbox while using your WCK, it's no less WCK because the system transcends technique. I can't really say it any more simply.

[YungChun]

What I mean by that is one's WC is not going to be watered down or any less effective just because someone wants to use boxing punches in line with the systems core concepts.

WCK is watered down and nearly worthless as is, right now. And it is because of this that we are talking about doing more of the same...



Unfortunately for you, it very well can be.

Not unfortunate for me, unfortunate for the victims of the BS training. :D



If Victor wants to incorporate boxing styled punches in his wing chun, make it part of his curriculum, and call it wing chun...he has every right to.


Sure..

And I can add in thumb wrestling and hand springs and call what I do WCK too..so what?



Especially since the system is conceptual in nature. If you believe that it can only be what's in the forms, than that's your right and you can limit yourself in any way that you wish.

With a few exceptions, I use and train the art as an unbroken line of force...using the tools and tactics in the art.. Beyond that I could care less what anyone thinks WCK is..

You think it's cool to change everything and then call it by the same name?

Fine by me.

I'm sure the MT Mantis school does too..



Well, meeting WSL and training with him are two different things and I wouldn't doubt that he didn't divulge to you all his inner thoughts in your one meeting.

WSL was not known for keeping such basic thoughts to himself.

Yes, his inner most thoughts.. LMAO... Right.

It's well known how he moved and what he used, and it wasn't WB nor did he advocate adding in this kind of stuff.. as per his "Bruce never understood" comments.. Oh and that's what I'm saying too essentially................meaning you don't add more if you can use what's there...

If he was here I would wager he'd tell you so (even if it was one of his inner most feelings) :rolleyes:

But prove me wrong.. Did anyone who ever studied with him get ANY training in ANY other style?????

[SAAMAG]

WCK is watered down and nearly worthless as is, right now. And it is because of this that we are talking about doing more of the same...

Not unfortunate for me, unfortunate for the victims of the BS training. :D

Sure..

And I can add in thumb wrestling and hand springs and call what I do WCK too..so what?

With a few exceptions, I use and train the art as an unbroken line of force...using the tools and tactics in the art.. Beyond that I could care less what anyone thinks WCK is..

You think it's cool to change everything and then call it by the same name?

Fine by me.

I'm sure the MT Mantis school does too..

WSL was not known for keeping such basic thoughts to himself.

Yes, his inner most thoughts.. LMAO... Right.

It's well known how he moved and what he used, and it wasn't WB nor did he advocate adding in this kind of stuff.. as per his "Bruce never understood" comments.. Oh and that's what I'm saying too essentially................meaning you don't add more if you can use what's there...

If he was here I would wager he'd tell you so (even if it was one of his inner most feelings) :rolleyes:

But prove me wrong.. Did anyone who ever studied with him get ANY training in ANY other style?????


It's funny, the only areas of my post you didn't respond to were the two main points. Again, simply put...I'm saying that if you do not use a classical wing chun techqnique, or choose to utilize some other tools in your toolbox while using your WCK, it's no less WCK because the system transcends technique. Additionally, you disregard the fact that the referenced piece discussed directly the subject at hand--and illustrates clearly the idea that I'm advocating in the former sentences. I never said WSL TAUGHT OTHER STYLES or that he advocated adding this or that. I'm saying that he didn't see anything wrong with using something that wasn't present in the classical form sets. If you find yourself in a fight, and see an opportunity for a strike-- but don't do it because it's not in the "wing chun curriculum", then frankly you're an idiot.

So again, you're going off on the deep end here. If you take things as they are stated and not try to take them as some implication of anything more you'd do far better in these conversations. Try not to get so flustered as well. "LMAO" and snide comments do little to further your POV.

[YungChun]

It's funny, the only areas of my post you didn't respond to were the two main points. Again, simply put...I'm saying that if you do not use a classical wing chun techqnique, or choose to utilize some other tools in your toolbox while using your WCK, it's no less WCK because the system transcends technique. Additionally, you disregard the fact that the referenced piece discussed directly the subject at hand--and illustrates clearly the idea that I'm advocating in the former sentences. I never said WSL TAUGHT OTHER STYLES or that he advocated adding this or that. I'm saying that he didn't see anything wrong with using something that wasn't present in the classical form sets. If you find yourself in a fight, and see an opportunity for a strike-- but don't do it because it's not in the "wing chun curriculum", then frankly you're an idiot.

So again, you're going off on the deep end here. If you take things as they are stated and not try to take them as some impication of anything more you'd do far better in these conversations.

I am not the one going off the deep end.. At least as far as I am concerned sir.

You are on the one hand saying WSL never taught anything but WCK but he was fine with calling whatever the f$@ you want WCK... And that IMO sir is a load......

And that's really all I have to say on the matter.

[SAAMAG]

I am not the one going off the deep end.. At least as far as I am concerned sir.

You are on the one hand saying WSL never taught anything but WCK but he was fine with calling whatever the f$@ you want WCK... And that IMO sir is a load......

And that's really all I have to say on the matter.

Is that what I said? Because that's not what I typed. You should really READ what's written and understand the message before you respond to it. I didn't write explicitly or imply anything regardng the systems or techniques he did or did not teach, rather cited what was written by one of his students of a story told to him illustrating the idea of being master of the system and not slave to it. Why that's so hard to get, I don't know.

[Ultimatewingchun]

"What I mean by that is one's WC is not going to be watered down or any less effective just because someone wants to use boxing punches in line with the systems core concepts." (Vankuen)


***BINGO.

.................................................. .....


"If Victor wants to incorporate boxing styled punches in his wing chun, make it part of his curriculum, and call it wing chun...he has every right to." (Vankuen)

***ACTUALLY, I try to be very upfront about it. I tell people coming into my class that I use some boxing moves but married to some basic TWC principles.

[Frost]

Well I guess you mean the reverse of what you wrote..

I do agree that depth can be more useful than breadth, the depth of putting to use all the tools and ranges of one art, WCK, which addresses more ranges and options than does boxing..not shrugging our shoulders, blaming the art and then adding another art in the hopes of fixing what went wrong with art number 1.

Terence has it right again on this one IMO.. Bad WCK is not going to benefit from incorporating bad boxing, or even good boxing as that would just make you better at boxing not WCK..

And if folks are going to go that extra mile to make their boxing work then why not just do that with their WCK?

Adding boxing into the mix is fine but arguably training WCK is a better way to get better at WCK than is training boxing or whatever other method.

WCK has the tools and tactics to address longer and shorter ranges than does boxing... Given that why the desperate need to add something that covers less to benefit the art that covers more? Does that really make sense?

As T said it's not the art's fault no matter how you slice it.. (Though good instuction is a vital component as well)

If folks want better WCK they need to look carefully (learn) and *think* about what they are doing, what WCK offers and put it into practice..rinse, repeat...

Cross training is great but it is what it is... Folks who do BJJ will also cross train boxing but I doubt they expect the boxing to help them refine their BJJ, no, that work requires training BJJ...

nope i meant exactly what i wrote, no point having a billion things (bredth) if you can't do them well because of no depth

[HumbleWCGuy]

nope i meant exactly what i wrote, no point having a billion things (bredth) if you can't do them well because of no depth

You guys are both making solid points, but assuming that a person goes the extra mile with their WC, a few nice boxing punches and defense will go a long way in improving any WCers fighting. You evenly match two WCers, one with boxing punches and one with not, it is hard to imagine a scenario where the one without boxing punches and defense could come out on top consistently.

[Frost]

You guys are both making solid points, but assuming that a person goes the extra mile with their WC, a few nice boxing punches and defense will go a long way in improving any WCers fighting. You evenly match two WCers, one with boxing punches and one with not, it is hard to imagine a scenario where the one without boxing punches and defense could come out on top consistently.

i agree with you totally, i think the point is not so much how much you know but how much you can perform under pressure, if you have put the effort in to make your wing chun work well in a fight then adding boxing can only help it, my point was that just because you know a 100 different techniques and the other guy only knows 5, it wont help you unless as you say you have gone that extra mile and put the hard work into ensure you can use those skills when it matters

More knowledge or techniques or even ranges doesn;t necessaryly make a system or a fighter better

[YungChun]

Is that what I said? Because that's not what I typed. You should really READ what's written and understand the message before you respond to it. I didn't write explicitly or imply anything regardng the systems or techniques he did or did not teach, rather cited what was written by one of his students of a story told to him illustrating the idea of being master of the system and not slave to it. Why that's so hard to get, I don't know.

Look you clearly intimated that WSL would be fine with adding whatever you want to WCK because it is concept driven, your language..

While I on the other hand don't agree that WSL would be okay with that, nor do I think that you can add whatever you like and call it WCK... Is that clear enough for you?

From here it seems you can't read because I have said several times that I have no problem with expressing however you need to, yet you came back with (see your "idiot" comment...) I mean really...

However, I would not call 'adding whatever you like' to WCK and then calling that WCK based on your use of the term concepts, acceptable.. Victor says he marries the two, fine by me..

[YungChun]

nope i meant exactly what i wrote, no point having a billion things (bredth) if you can't do them well because of no depth

Right so we need to add more stuff (boxing) to the already billion things, which somehow isn't more 'breadth', because we have not enough 'depth' of ability with the original material... okidoki LOL....

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

Sorry guys I don't see adding foo foo boxing to shallow WCK as the cure for WCK woes..

[SAAMAG]

Look you clearly intimated that WSL would be fine with adding whatever you want to WCK because it is concept driven, your language..

While I on the other hand don't agree that WSL would be okay with that, nor do I think that you can add whatever you like and call it WCK... Is that clear enough for you?

From here it seems you can't read because I have said several times that I have no problem with expressing however you need to, yet you came back with (see your "idiot" comment...) I mean really...

However, I would not call 'adding whatever you like' to WCK and then calling that WCK based on your use of the term concepts, acceptable.. Victor says he marries the two, fine by me..

Well it's clear that we both think that the other doesn't understand the message being sent, isn't it?

I simply decided to reply to the two main points that I felt you were not understanding of, and failed to cite when you replied. That's why I corrected you on the intent of my message. I am merely repeating something that he said himself as printed in a book written by a long time student of his. If you don't believe that it was said--go buy the book.

On a side note the "idiot" comment wasn't directed at "Jim Hawkins" as the use of the word "you" was a descriptor for "a person". My intention was that if someone overlooks an opportunity to strike because the strike that would be best used isn't part of the classical curriculum, that yes that person is in fact an idiot. So my apologies on the miscommunication on that one.

And...you're entitled to your opinion...just keep in mind that most people that are able to do something like this probably don't have foo foo wing chun or foo foo boxing.

This whole thing can be likened to product development in business....you can do all the market research and create a product that meets all the perceived needs of the consumer and it would seem like there's no way to make it better. Then a competing firm creates a product that provides more value for the consumer, and now--even though the original product didn't lose any of its value creating attributes, it is perceived to have a lower relative value because the competition created a product that BETTER met the needs of the market. It could easily be another factor that makes the product lose its value as well...the environment, the threats, and etc.

So basically while wing chun is a great "product" to think that there's nothing that could be done to improve the product based on market conditions is the makings of a failed product and failed business. If you don't move forward...you fall back. If you don't evolve, you go extinct.

[YungChun]

I simply decided to reply to the two main points that I felt you were not understanding of, and failed to cite when you replied. That's why I corrected you on the intent of my message. I am merely repeating something that he said himself as printed in a book written by a long time student of his. If you don't believe that it was said--go buy the book.

I know.. But I don't think he would have been ok with adding in boxing to WCK where this means that the "product" has changed "evolved" and still calling it "core" WCK, the classical WCK training 'system'....

I would be more interested in seeing folks who can apply more of WCK itself, something far more rare and interesting IMO. (And that is my pick btw for the 'better product')


And...you're entitled to your opinion...just keep in mind that most people that are able to do something like this probably don't have foo foo wing chun or foo foo boxing.

IMO most people teaching WCK, um, let me put this kindly, really suk. :o:rolleyes::D



So basically while wing chun is a great "product" to think that there's nothing that could be done to improve the product based on market conditions is the makings of a failed product and failed business. If you don't move forward...you fall back. If you don't evolve, you go extinct.

And I agree, WCK has evolved... However, looking forward, one man's evolution is another man's de-evolution.. :D

So to me personally I like the idea of keeping WCK and Western Boxing different arts..and if you wish you can certainly train both and create a fusion...

[bennyvt]

wsl was a boxer. He used to go and fight people that did kung fu as he thought it was a joke. He even beat most of the junior students of yip until yip and some senior guys smashed him. If he wanted boxing mixed in he would have done that.

[Wayfaring]

Interesting perspectives. Apparantly many people tunnel out on what they feel WCK is. I've certainly heard historic references of WCK "boxers". I mean when you think about it from a high level, what would you describe WCK as other than a form of boxing?

The main differences I see in Victor's clips are 2 skillsets not present in WCK usually:

1) Striking with rotational force - punches and uppercuts (although arguably CK and BJ introduce rotational force and rotational elbow strikes)

2) Ducking and slipping punches

Both take the development of athletic attributes to implement, which is possibly one reason why most WCK practitioners may not like them. To stand and play on the centerline doesn't require that.

Unfortunately in a live environment many times pure unskilled athleticism can win out over technique and concept based fighting. To a wrestler, conditioning is one of his greatest holds. To a WCK fighter, standing upright stationary and keeping your elbows in is their greatest attribute to protect and fight along the centerline.
That mentality doesn't produce athletes. And you don't see the difference in the 2 approaches unless you turn up the intensity of the environment to the point where athleticism is required. That seldom happens in WCK circles. You have people "play fighting" and they don't discover the holes in the way they are training until they come up against a skilled conditioned athlete. And many never do.

So to come full circle - I want to have my core WCK attributes and science working - strong structures, centerline fighting, energies. But I also want rotational force striking skills and ducking and slipping - because against an athlete I know all too well I can get cornered, I can lose space, I can have something get through my defenses. I want to be able to recover and keep my athletic opponent off balance in the process.

[Frost]

Right so we need to add more stuff (boxing) to the already billion things, which somehow isn't more 'breadth', because we have not enough 'depth' of ability with the original material... okidoki LOL....

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

Sorry guys I don't see adding foo foo boxing to shallow WCK as the cure for WCK woes..

where did i say add boxing to wing chun, you said wing chun had more to it than boxing
i said just because an art has a billion things in it it doesn,t mean its better than an art that only has a few but can really make those things work when it counts... why are you finding this point hard to grasp

[sanjuro_ronin]

Boxing....
It takes 4 (basic) punches and uses them to the utmost effectiveness.
Simple, Direct, effective.
Where have I heard that before?

[bennyvt]

i watched a video from the guys that teach the seals and other groups for building entries and shooting. One thing when talking about general shooting was that instead of jumping around and shooting it was better to have a solid 'shooting platform', to stay level and turn as it have you a better way of aiming and control. Obviously defence only came into it from around corners.

[SAAMAG]

I would be more interested in seeing folks who can apply more of WCK itself, something far more rare and interesting IMO. (And that is my pick btw for the 'better product')

IMO most people teaching WCK, um, let me put this kindly, really suk. :o:rolleyes::D


I agree.

So now you have a product (wing chun) that you've recognized is for the most part crap. You've decided that in order to improve your product, you're going to show that it is indeed capable of doing what it was built to do (teach someone to fight). In doing so you're going to have to show the value (the skill of fighting) to the consumer in such a way that makes your product more desireable than the other products (what else are you getting from it besides fighting?). It needs to not only provide them with a solution to their needs, and fit their wants, but it has to do it better than all the other products out there.

So now what? What have you done to achieve this either in yourself or your classmates or your classes (as I don't know if you are teaching or not)? Other people, based on their own experiences both in the system of wing chun and out are trying to do whatever they can to enhance the usage of the product through additional features (e.g. boxing) or higher levels of training methodology that are more proven to result in a person who can fight (i.e. cardiovascular conditioning, sparring, and etc.).

What are you doing?

[sanjuro_ronin]

All WC needs is more cross system sparring and training and it's "lackings" will take care of themselves, really.
In the past that was done view beimo's or WTF they were called, but now we have full contact sparring that is available to us and a very open attititude of cross testing that most gyms are ok with and even encourage.

[SAAMAG]

All WC needs is more cross system sparring and training and it's "lackings" will take care of themselves, really.
In the past that was done view beimo's or WTF they were called, but now we have full contact sparring that is available to us and a very open attititude of cross testing that most gyms are ok with and even encourage.

I'd agree with that. The days of beimo (where there's no gear) are what really put WC on the map.

I do prefer to spar without gear on personally, but again, can't be going to work with a fat lip or cut eyebrow all the time either (see movie "fight club").

[HumbleWCGuy]

wsl was a boxer. He used to go and fight people that did kung fu as he thought it was a joke. He even beat most of the junior students of yip until yip and some senior guys smashed him. If he wanted boxing mixed in he would have done that.

Those sorts of stories are of uncertain significance. Anyway, I don't think that this tread is about boxing being better than WC, but the idea that boxing techniques can make a nice supplement to WC.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I'd agree with that. The days of beimo (where there's no gear) are what really put WC on the map.

I do prefer to spar without gear on personally, but again, can't be going to work with a fat lip or cut eyebrow all the time either (see movie "fight club").

I experimented with the "space helmet' of the daidojuku guys for a bit and it was great at keeping you pretty but MAN, talk about concussion time !
It seemed that the impact was transferd all around your freaking head !

[Ultimatewingchun]

Sparring with no gear is usually a very either/or situation; either the guys shy away from throwing serious headshots or they pummel each other and go away with fat lips, bloody noses, and black eyes...or worse - not cool if you have to go to work the next day.

And the problem with not throwing serious headshots (or serious kicks to the body and legs - remember, we don't go barefoot)....or serious elbow shots, etc...

is that true realism goes out the window.

Imo, wing chun in general needs constant sparring, ie.- at least once a week that uses gear - but goes pretty close to all out each time.

Why are boxers so good? MMA guys? BJJ guys? Wrestlers?

Because they are constantly going all out - within the parameters of their art.

This is what wing chun needs more of, imo.

[SAAMAG]

I experimented with the "space helmet' of the daidojuku guys for a bit and it was great at keeping you pretty but MAN, talk about concussion time !
It seemed that the impact was transferd all around your freaking head !

lol. There's always the motorcycle helmet!

[sanjuro_ronin]

lol. There's always the motorcycle helmet!

You just reminded me !
Check this out, a couple of years ago I was at a bar-b que and my brother-in-law's bother is there, this was before he became a cop.
He always wanted to do MA and their cousin, who does MA, was there too, big fellow who does MMA.
Anyways, we start to chatting and he mentions how all that kung fu **** is crap and of course my BIL is the first to start crap !
In a nutshell, after a few grappling moves ( he wasn't that good) are exchanged my other BIL mentions how I do IP ( he has seen my workout area) and the MMA guys says how that is a load of BS.
Well, I of course try to explain the science behind it and finish the explanation with a impromptu brick break ( just house brick that was under the deck).
Not good enough and my BIL brother suggests, if you can believe it, me hitting his cousin !
Ok, I explain that, without gear, that is not gonna happen, the cousin leaves and comes back with his motor cycle helmet !
Long story short ( yeah I know, too late), the end result was a cracked helmet and a concussion (probably), LOL !!

[YungChun]

where did i say add boxing to wing chun, you said wing chun had more to it than boxing
i said just because an art has a billion things in it it doesn,t mean its better than an art that only has a few but can really make those things work when it counts... why are you finding this point hard to grasp

So you are not for adding WB to WCK?

[YungChun]

All WC needs is more cross system sparring and training and it's "lackings" will take care of themselves, really.
In the past that was done view beimo's or WTF they were called, but now we have full contact sparring that is available to us and a very open attititude of cross testing that most gyms are ok with and even encourage.

Exactly...

The problem is getting all the better teachers on board with this.. Even better would be to get a few working together and then test and refine in these venues... Chances of that happening...virtually nil..

[Pacman]

what is IP?


You just reminded me !
Check this out, a couple of years ago I was at a bar-b que and my brother-in-law's bother is there, this was before he became a cop.
He always wanted to do MA and their cousin, who does MA, was there too, big fellow who does MMA.
Anyways, we start to chatting and he mentions how all that kung fu **** is crap and of course my BIL is the first to start crap !
In a nutshell, after a few grappling moves ( he wasn't that good) are exchanged my other BIL mentions how I do IP ( he has seen my workout area) and the MMA guys says how that is a load of BS.
Well, I of course try to explain the science behind it and finish the explanation with a impromptu brick break ( just house brick that was under the deck).
Not good enough and my BIL brother suggests, if you can believe it, me hitting his cousin !
Ok, I explain that, without gear, that is not gonna happen, the cousin leaves and comes back with his motor cycle helmet !
Long story short ( yeah I know, too late), the end result was a cracked helmet and a concussion (probably), LOL !!

[sanjuro_ronin]

what is IP?

Iron Palm.

[YungChun]

So now you have a product (wing chun) that you've recognized is for the most part crap.

Well that's an over generalization..

There are lots of problems with TMA and WCK specifically...that range from how the core classical training is taught to the mentality passed on with it, to the marketing and hype associated with it..



You've decided that in order to improve your product, you're going to show that it is indeed capable of doing what it was built to do (teach someone to fight). In doing so you're going to have to show the value (the skill of fighting) to the consumer in such a way that makes your product more desireable than the other products (what else are you getting from it besides fighting?). It needs to not only provide them with a solution to their needs, and fit their wants, but it has to do it better than all the other products out there.

So now what? What have you done to achieve this either in yourself or your classmates or your classes (as I don't know if you are teaching or not)?
{snip}
What are you doing?


It's not about me it's about the art and those currently passing themselves off as 'masters.'

I came to WCK to essentially improve my sparring... Once I did that (improved to my satisfaction) my "job" was "done" and I later moved on to some other challenges of life ... I continued training for fun until other things took over... Now I train when I can find the time and the bodies..

I used to teach a small group at my house, that group has subsequently broken up to due to folks moving, loosing interest or whatever.. I still see one or two folks now and then and work out etc..

If I had the money I'd open a WCK school that maintains the traditional core elements (plus other modern combative training elements) and then takes off in an NHB direction, that encourages students who have the core down to actually fight...in competition and in class...



Other people, based on their own experiences both in the system of wing chun and out are trying to do whatever they can to enhance the usage of the product through additional features (e.g. boxing) or higher levels of training methodology that are more proven to result in a person who can fight (i.e. cardiovascular conditioning, sparring, and etc.).


Are they? Show me all those folks who are fighting in NHB with their Chun to test and refine..

Most don't.. Most schools don't... They only add hype or add marketing or do BS seminars about the "secret" or "new take" on the <name your WCK component> for hundreds of dollars per session.. Instead of the focus being on performance, the real focus is on money, publicity and foo foo fake fighting..

But then again, most folks are training "WC Do" not WCK...

[SAAMAG]

Well that's an over generalization..

There are lots of problems with TMA and WCK specifically...that range from how the core classical training is taught to the mentality passed on with it, to the marketing and hype associated with it..
See? Not very nice when someone takes something you've said and over generalizes it, is it? But yeah, I know what you mean. Just making a point to take statements as they are said--not what you think they are trying to say.




It's not about me it's about the art and those currently passing themselves off as 'masters.'
I'm with ya on that one!! I was talking to my current sifu and he was telling me about all the intentions of several of those masters, that all along they wanted nothing more than "wing chun empires". Sort of sad isn't it?



I came to WCK to essentially improve my sparring... Once I did that (improved to my satisfaction) my "job" was "done" and I later moved on to some other challenges of life ... I continued training for fun until other things took over... Now I train when I can find the time and the bodies..

I used to teach a small group at my house, that group has subsequently broken up to due to folks moving, loosing interest or whatever.. I still see one or two folks now and then and work out etc..

If I had the money I'd open a WCK school that maintains the traditional core elements (plus other modern combative training elements) and then takes off in an NHB direction, that encourages students who have the core down to actually fight...in competition and in class...
And I'm with ya on this part too. It's all too often that training partners fall by the wayside. Today with the UFC hype you either find a guy that doesn't have the mental capacity to learn real gung fu, or you've got people who physically flake out. It's hard to find someone who is right both mentally and physically.




Are they? Show me all those folks who are fighting in NHB with their Chun to test and refine..

Most don't.. Most schools don't... They only add hype or add marketing or do BS seminars about the "secret" or "new take" on the <name your WCK component> for hundreds of dollars per session.. Instead of the focus being on performance, the real focus is on money, publicity and foo foo fake fighting..

But then again, most folks are training "WC Do" not WCK...
You don't have to fight in the UFC / WEC / Affliction and etc' to see if your stuff works. You only have to train in as realistic manner as possible. That's like saying in order to know you're a good boxer you have to fight pro...and that's simply not the case. Now you're right that most people don't do this, but I know that Victor does...and I know that Redmond does as well. I do and it seems that you do. So there are a number of people who train with the right type of pressure testing in their day-to-day activities.

[YungChun]

See? Not very nice when someone takes something you've said and over generalizes it, is it? But yeah, I know what you mean. Just making a point to take statements as they are said--not what you think they are trying to say.

So you're saying you wrote this to teach me 'a lesson'??

I normally quote that to which I respond and respond to that quote..



You don't have to fight in the UFC / WEC / Affliction and etc' to see if your stuff works. You only have to train in as realistic manner as possible.

"As realistic as possible" means absolutely nothing... (see--taking this as you said it)

Fighting in established competitive venues says much more about 'where you are'..



I was talking to my current sifu and he was telling me about all the intentions of several of those masters, that all along they wanted nothing more than "wing chun empires".

Who is your Sifu?

[bennyvt]

totally agree with the sparing. The wsl story was because you said he would add boxing. I was saying he learnt boxing first them went to vt. But with the bike helmet. We tried to do take down defences with them. And didnt bleed but i couldn't move my neck the next day.

[Ultimatewingchun]

....on this website, but I think it fits well on this thread also, so I'll restate it. It was a response to a Vankuen post - so here's both...
..................................

Originally Posted by Vankuen
"However, the idea that the style doesn't work because of the gloves and because it doesn't allow for maiming techniques doesn't really float in my opinion either. Even with those rules and minimal padding there is 95% of the system left over--all of the punches, all of the kicks, all of the bridgework, clinching, chin na, and etc.--and if the majority of people can't make the majority of the system work for them, then there's definitely something amiss.

But what?

Sure, we could say that the reason we don't see it is because everyone that practices wing chun today simply don't have the desire to prove themselves in that type of environment. Or that the ones that have tried it failed because of individual deficiences.

But if it is the style itself...what about the style is causing it not to be successful?
If it's not the style, is it the training? Could it be simply that more rigorous training that is necessary?"
.........................................


***AS SOMEONE who's been doing wing chun for 35 years....(and I've added some boxing/kickboxing and catch wrestling into my game over the last 7-8 years)...I think Van's post needs to be addressed.

I've come to believe that there are several reasons why wing chun has not made it in mma so far...and why, even without mma venues, the style has - for the most part - been on the downside of general martial art opinions/reputations for some time now:

1) The training methods have traditionally been lacking in realism due to the idea (myth) that it's simply bareknuckled brawling that will not work with gloves and rules....so the substitute is lots of chi sao, drills, wooden dummy, forms, etc...with the occasional "gor sau" (bareknuckled sparring) in some schools (but it would seem not that many schools)....because it's deemed "too dangerous".

This is a bad formula, to say the least.

2) Many wing chun instructors (themselves) don't want to spar with lots of contact including headshots (I recommend gear to be used)...and therefore they don't encourage their students to do so (or hardly ever). They're hiding their deficiencies in this manner - while collecting nice fees for classes, uniforms, private lessons, seminars, videos, etc. So the monetary factor has, in many instances, held the style back. If your instructor can't really fight - he doesn't want you to know that. Period.

3) Some instructors are more interested in having new schools open within their lineage/family than in the quality of the instructors they've authorized to teach.

Another bad formula, to say the least.

4) An unwillingness to look at the limitations of the system, regardless of what wing chun lineage you've studied. And while I firmly believe that some wing chun systems offer more than others (and I'll not go into detail because it's not important)...nonetheless...all wing chun systems have their limitations.

It's a close quarter infight that does not, imo, cover enough long range standup, has some limitations at close quarters that could benefit from some boxing hooks, uppercuts, blocking, etc....has very little-to-no clinch game (although some wing chun systems teach some nice close quarter elbow and knee strikes)...just rudimentary anti-takedown techniques (although this is an area that could be exploited nicely - and some wing chun systems/people use some good moves in this regard) - and no real groundgame.

But the aggressiveness of the wing chun close quarter striking style and the contact reflex training at close quarters can really bring a lot to the table in terms of relentless striking attacks, speed, close quarter angling, and the manipulation/control of the opponents limbs and his balance.

SO THERE SOME PEOPLE DOING SOME REAL GOOD THINGS IN A COMPETITIVE ATMOSPHERE WITH THEIR WING CHUN.

Because they are training realistically with pads, bags, footwork, etc...and lots of sparring...and working against people skilled in other arts.

And other wing chun people who've taken the next step and have also crosstrained in other systems.

Now here's the irony: wing chun is an effective "street" style because if its emphasis on close quarter striking - a must for effective street combat, imo. But without the proper training, constant hard sparring against skilled opponents, and proper attitude about other styles - the potential "effectiveness" of the style remains largely unfulfilled.