Wing Chun rules?

[m1k3]

In martial sports your style of fighting is determined by the rules that you use to compete. There may be multiple variations or sub-styles but all of those still must comply with the rule set. That’s why boxing looks different than Muai Thai and Judo looks different than wrestling or Jiu-Jitsu.

So, my question is what are the implied rules of Wing Chun that make it what it is? They may be cultural or even historical, for example it was done that way in the past and thus is shouldn’t change or that isn’t a Chinese approach to fighting.
What brought this question to mind was the number of people who practice Wing Chun who say what Alan Orr and his people do is not Wing Chun. I find this really confusing and would like some sort of explanation as to why this is.

So what are the rules that make what Alan and his people do something other than Wing Chun? What makes Wing Chun Wing Chun? Should it be allowed to change, if it changes is it still Wing Chun?

I mean boxing rules have changed a lot over the years and boxing has changed with those rules but it is still boxing. Wrestling and Judo and Jiu Jitsu rules change, the sports evolve new techniques and new rules, gi vs no-gi for example, but they are still wrestling and Judo and Jiu Jitsu. What is it that makes Wing Chun what it is and how flexible is the definition?

[Vajramusti]

IMO FWIW wing chun is not a sport-it's not boxing or wrestling. And there are many versions of wing chun- some good some terrible. You make your own judgment.

The "rules' of wing chun, if any- rise from 1. the law:no duels in the US anyway today-the Hamilton/Burr days are gone. And avoidance of prosecution and civil suits.2. agreements you make with your sparring partners, 3.rules of the school you belong to 6. the rules of the contests that you may choose to enter in. 7. the necessities of self defense in peace or war. 8. the ethics you live by.


joy chaudhuri

[SAAMAG]

Wouldn't the rules be the kuen kuit?

[Vajramusti]

Wouldn't the rules be the kuen kuit?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Depends on what means by "rules".The kuen kuit provides poetically expressed insights into aspects pf the art. They are not rules for sporting competition.

joy chaudhuri

[SAAMAG]

IMO FWIW wing chun is not a sport-it's not boxing or wrestling. And there are many versions of wing chun- some good some terrible. You make your own judgment.

The "rules' of wing chun, if any- rise from 1. the law:no duels in the US anyway today-the Hamilton/Burr days are gone. And avoidance of prosecution and civil suits.2. agreements you make with your sparring partners, 3.rules of the school you belong to 6. the rules of the contests that you may choose to enter in. 7. the necessities of self defense in peace or war. 8. the ethics you live by.


joy chaudhuri

Thats why I mentioned it. Because wing chun doesn't use any sporting rules, the things that shape it are a combination of the kuen kuit--which are the closest thing we have to rules--in addition to teaching preferences, lineage, and to a lesser extent the socio-economic conditions.

[m1k3]

I'm not talking about sporting rules, duh.

I am saying that sports are defined by their rules. What is it that defines Wing Chun. Whatever it is it appears to be rather static and inflexible. Alan's people say they are doing Wing Chun but they get grief for their method of playing Wing Chun. Why?

I know it isn't rules but what is it that defines Wing Chun and how flexible is it? When I trained if I threw a horizontal fist, even with the elbow down I was told that isn't Wing Chun. Why not? Is Wing Chun a cultural art, a set of specific techniques (gasp, not that!) or something else?

If it is a fighting art why the restrictions? Shouldn't a fighting art be a pragmatic art?

I'm just looking for your insights into what makes Wing Chun Wing Chun for you or your linage.

[Vajramusti]

I'm not talking about sporting rules, duh.
(OK)

I am saying that sports are defined by their rules. What is it that defines Wing Chun.
((Long story-specifics/details of structure. motion. dynamics-one needs good teaching))

Whatever it is it appears to be rather static and inflexible.

((Eye of the beholder issue and who is doing what issue.To me wing chun is neither static or inflexible))

Alan's people say they are doing Wing Chun but they get grief for their method of playing Wing Chun. Why?

((I have made no comment-ask anyone who has made a comment))))

I know it isn't rules but what is it that defines Wing Chun and how flexible is it?

((Steel can be very flexible but one has to know how to make steel for that purpose. I don't know your wing chun background-so I dont know what you have seen or done with respect to wing chun))

When I trained if I threw a horizontal fist, even with the elbow down I was told that isn't Wing Chun. Why not?
((Depends on where and when and how-the devil in the details. The vertical fist is for training some attributes. :later in usage the fist is not always vertical))

Is Wing Chun a cultural art,
))Yes and no- I am not Cantonese))

a set of specific techniques (gasp, not that!) or something else?

((More than techniques but there are techniques as well))

If it is a fighting art why the restrictions?
((What restrictions.. there are some mechanics and dynamics in training well))

Shouldn't a fighting art be a pragmatic art?
((It is a pragmatic art but pragmatism isn't laissez faire))

I'm just looking for your insights into what makes Wing Chun Wing Chun for you or your linage.

((Check into good websites as a starter and talk to good wing chun sifus. The wing chun field has it's share of junk like some other arts as well. Most boxers and wrestlers fade into oblivion as well. If someone does not like wing chun they are not forced to do wing chun-Frankly. the wing chun field has expanded too fast and rather unevenly. Internet disxussions have their limits in explaining some things))

joy chaudhuri

[Pacman]

there are certain principles that WC stresses, but you have to adapt for every situation and there are times in which you might not adhere to every single principle and hit the guy at the same time.

the flexibility is where it gets subjective.

but lets get specific.

take a look at this video:

http://www.youtube.com/user/10thlegionmmamedia#p/u/7/KJkJPhpmU7E

and point out where you see wing chun principles in action.

to me it looks like he won the fight because he was just in better shape than the other guy. same with the aaron baum fight a while back.

http://www.youtube.com/user/10thlegionmmamedia#p/u/17/_jIa5MTQvwA

i am looking at this with an open mind. perhaps i missed something



I'm not talking about sporting rules, duh.

I am saying that sports are defined by their rules. What is it that defines Wing Chun. Whatever it is it appears to be rather static and inflexible. Alan's people say they are doing Wing Chun but they get grief for their method of playing Wing Chun. Why?

I know it isn't rules but what is it that defines Wing Chun and how flexible is it? When I trained if I threw a horizontal fist, even with the elbow down I was told that isn't Wing Chun. Why not? Is Wing Chun a cultural art, a set of specific techniques (gasp, not that!) or something else?

If it is a fighting art why the restrictions? Shouldn't a fighting art be a pragmatic art?

I'm just looking for your insights into what makes Wing Chun Wing Chun for you or your linage.

[YungChun]

It's very simple..

If they use WCK tools and tactics they are doing WCK...

If they rush in and use an overhand right over and over, fall down, get mounted and whatever... No, that's not really WCK.. :)

Of course you could make the case..

"Well he used forward pressure..."

"Yeah, and he was hitting to the centerline, um, kinda..."

So, take your pick...

[m1k3]

I am going to try a comparisson here since I have more experience in jiu juitsu than in Wing Chun.

In JJ you have some very sport oriented styles that are geared to MMA and grappling competitions, Brazilian JJ and Judo for example. You can have self defense oriented styles like Gracie JJ and some of the Japanese styles. You also have some very traditional styles that can trace their history to a single individual going back hundreds of years. Not all of these styles look favorably upon each other. Each of these types of styles has there own rules and traditions.

Some are very flexible limited only by their sport rules, some are very traditional in that if the technique is not part of the original curriculum and trained in the original manner it is outside of their style. Others fall somewhere in between.

I guess what I am asking is how do you see your or your linage's Wing Chun being placed on a similar type of chart. Is it uber traditional in that the linage is what it is and to change it is wrong? Does it have sporting aspects? Is it self defense oriented and maybe just somewhat traditional?

I see my JJ as being very non-traditional with a strong sporting component as I practice only no-gi but do not compete. I view what I had learned in WC in the same manner, not so much sporting but as non-traditional and as something I can blend with my JJ in a seamless fashion.

[t_niehoff]

It's very simple..

If they use WCK tools and tactics they are doing WCK...

If they rush in and use an overhand right over and over, fall down, get mounted and whatever... No, that's not really WCK.. :)


Yes, that's it.

Another way to look at it is from a training perspective: are you doing what you train to do as you train to do it? Isn't that the test of anyone's training?



Of course you could make the case..

"Well he used forward pressure..."

"Yeah, and he was hitting to the centerline, um, kinda..."

So, take your pick...

The problem with that POV is that people can use these "principles" who have never trained in or practiced WCK.

[t_niehoff]

To create a rule set for any martial art (to make it a sport), you need to begin with that particular art's method and then come up with a set of rules that "impose" conditions to force the participants to stick to that method.

WCK's method is to control the opponent while striking him (an attached fighting method), a variation of dirty clinch boxing. So any rule set would need to require the participants to maintain contact/clinch (except for very brief transitions and then to re-engage immediately), to remain standing, etc. Or, we could just put two people in a phonebooth and let then have at it. :)

[k gledhill]

VT is NOT dirty clinch fighting.....boxers may use 'VT'esque ' drills modified for their own ideas of 'in clinch fighting' doesnt make it VT fighting...adopting a 'drill' for what you MAY THINK is VT doesnt make it VT...

Find a school of VT, watch a class and see if sticking hands is how they fight :D I know we dont use the drill in a basic stance with 2 arms outstretched :D:D:D

[t_niehoff]

VT is NOT dirty clinch fighting.....boxers may use 'VT'esque ' drills modified for their own ideas of 'in clinch fighting' doesnt make it VT fighting...adopting a 'drill' for what you MAY THINK is VT doesnt make it VT...


The method comes from the ancestors, and the method is attached fighting.



Find a school of VT, watch a class and see if sticking hands is how they fight :D I know we dont use the drill in a basic stance with 2 arms outstretched :D:D:D

Chi sao is not fighting, it is an unrealsitic exercise/drill to learn WCK's contact/attached skills; in chi sao your opponent does not behave like he will when fighting. So, once you'velearned the skills, you next need to learn to USE the skills -- and that comes from fighting/sparring while in contact/attached.

How does finding a VT school and seeing that they are unable to do in fighting what they train to do (use the WCK tools) tell you anything other than that's not what to do?

[stonecrusher69]

I'm not talking about sporting rules, duh.

I am saying that sports are defined by their rules. What is it that defines Wing Chun. Whatever it is it appears to be rather static and inflexible. Alan's people say they are doing Wing Chun but they get grief for their method of playing Wing Chun. Why?

I know it isn't rules but what is it that defines Wing Chun and how flexible is it? When I trained if I threw a horizontal fist, even with the elbow down I was told that isn't Wing Chun. Why not? Is Wing Chun a cultural art, a set of specific techniques (gasp, not that!) or something else?

If it is a fighting art why the restrictions? Shouldn't a fighting art be a pragmatic art?

I'm just looking for your insights into what makes Wing Chun Wing Chun for you or your linage.

Wing Chun has no restriction unless you preferr to. Why worry what something is called if its good who cares. Waste of time IMO.

[SAAMAG]

Yes, that's it.

Another way to look at it is from a training perspective: are you doing what you train to do as you train to do it? Isn't that the test of anyone's training?



The problem with that POV is that people can use these "principles" who have never trained in or practiced WCK.

I'd say that's a pretty concise and spot on description.

Something that uses wing chun techniques in conjunction with its principles is wing chun. However, that's not to say that one cannot also use something not within the classical sense and have that label all of a sudden come crashing down.

For example if someone decides to uses a cross or something while in application of their wing chun--its not that they're not using wing chun to fight. On the other extreme, fighting MMA with one or two wing chun techniques is not wing chun.

[CFT]

Something that uses wing chun techniques in conjunction with its principles is wing chun. However, that's not to say that one cannot also use something not within the classical sense and have that label all of a sudden come crashing down.

For example if someone decides to uses a cross or something while in application of their wing chun--its not that they're not using wing chun to fight. On the other extreme, fighting MMA with one or two wing chun techniques is not wing chun.I'd question that last statement. Thought I'd read that WSL ended his fights in 2-3 moves?

[SAAMAG]

I'd question that last statement. Thought I'd read that WSL ended his fights in 2-3 moves?

Wrong context.

Re-worded:

If only 2% of what is done in the fight is wing chun based than the totality of the fight cannot be said to have been fought using wing chun.

On the other hand, if 98% of the fight is done using wing chun techniques than the opposite would be true.

[Pacman]

no no one pointed out any wing chun in the videos. is this a consensus that no wing chun is being used ?


It's very simple..

If they use WCK tools and tactics they are doing WCK...

If they rush in and use an overhand right over and over, fall down, get mounted and whatever... No, that's not really WCK.. :)

Of course you could make the case..

"Well he used forward pressure..."

"Yeah, and he was hitting to the centerline, um, kinda..."

So, take your pick...

[YouKnowWho]

Your opponent in the dark alley will not follow any rules, so why should you? The person who walks away unharmed is the winner. The person who lies on the ground dead is the loser. That's the only meaningful rule to follow.

[SAAMAG]

Is THIS (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_Y2ZPpeBuQ&feature=related) WT?

Opinions will vary of course...luckily he's labeling his WC so that you don't have to guess as to whether he sourced it from WC or something else.

I'm not sure I agree with all of it from a principle or technique standpoint, but I can see the source of what he's doing is wing chun regardless of certain flaws.

[t_niehoff]

I'd say that's a pretty concise and spot on description.

Something that uses wing chun techniques in conjunction with its principles is wing chun. However, that's not to say that one cannot also use something not within the classical sense and have that label all of a sudden come crashing down.

For example if someone decides to uses a cross or something while in application of their wing chun--its not that they're not using wing chun to fight. On the other extreme, fighting MMA with one or two wing chun techniques is not wing chun.

Principles/concepts are mainly nonsense. It's not helpful to look at things from that perspective.

WCK is a skill set, just like wrestling and boxing are both skill sets -- they all teach you how to move in fighting to achieve a particular (specific) goal. And this is key: the movement is tied to the goal (task). They are linked, and it is a two-way street or two sides of the same coin.

It's very easy to identify wrestling or boxing by its movement, particularly in conjuction with its goal (some wrestling moves may look similar to a boxer's movement but they have different goals).

WCK movement is "designed" to control while striking (attached fighting). That is the goal. WCK (the actions, skills, etc.) teaches us how to move to accomplish that goal.

So what we need to look for in identifying any art is goal and movement (to accomplish the goal).

[SAAMAG]

Yes yes, you and I (and everyone else) has had this conversation before. We know that you feel that the principles are nothing short of a waste of time.

I feel that they are a necessary component of wing chun because they are the guiding "rules' of how to apply wing chun correctly.

Simply put -- you can all the wing chun techniques in your toolbox, and know the individual uses; but if you are not adhering to the guidelines in place to that lead a wing chun practitioner's strategy and tactics, are you still using wing chun? For example, wing chun can be summed up (for the most part) with the "loy la hoy sung, lut sao jik chung" guideline. If someone doesn't follow that, than in my opinion its not entirely wing chun. Same goes for all the kuen kuit.

That's why I say both would need to be in place. You can be doing tan sao all day long--if you're not using it the way it was intended its just a poor copy of a physical movement. If you're not sticking, if you're crashing instead of blending, if you're using non-economical motions...not entirely wing chun.

[Pacman]

well said!!!

there is more to WC than the actual physical movements

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Krg4k8uB4E8

and then they think thats how WC "really is"

T said that the goal of WC is attached fighting yet in previous posts he also commented on the above video and said that WC will look like that in a real life situation. seems like he needs to get this thoughts in order.



That's why I say both would need to be in place. You can be doing tan sao all day long--if you're not using it the way it was intended its just a poor copy of a physical movement. If you're not sticking, if you're crashing instead of blending, if you're using non-economical motions...not entirely wing chun.

[t_niehoff]

Yes yes, you and I (and everyone else) has had this conversation before. We know that you feel that the principles are nothing short of a waste of time.

I feel that they are a necessary component of wing chun because they are the guiding "rules' of how to apply wing chun correctly.


That's precisely the problem. "Rules" shouldn't guide us -- results should guide us. Your "principles" are only someone's PRECONCEPTIONS (usually someone who couldn't fight their way our of a wet paper bag). Skill isn't based on concepts or principles, it is based on performance. You don't need concepts or principles to learn to ride a bike.



Simply put -- you can all the wing chun techniques in your toolbox, and know the individual uses; but if you are not adhering to the guidelines in place to that lead a wing chun practitioner's strategy and tactics, are you still using wing chun?


Look, if someone can use all the tools of boxing in their fighting and make it work for them, are they boxing? Even if it doesn't match your preconception of how they should box?

The tools of any martial art won't work outside of that art's method -- the method and the tools go hand-in-hand.

That's why when you see most WCK people sparring and fighting from noncontact, you don't see hardly any WCK movement (tools) -- the tools don't work there, they go hand-in-hand with the method (which is attached fighting).



For example, wing chun can be summed up (for the most part) with the "loy la hoy sung, lut sao jik chung" guideline. If someone doesn't follow that, than in my opinion its not entirely wing chun. Same goes for all the kuen kuit.


That doesn't "sum up" WCK -- that, like all the kuit, merely point us in the right direction. The essence of WCK is its method. Without the method, you are lost. It's the map for putting the pieces of the puzzle together.



That's why I say both would need to be in place. You can be doing tan sao all day long--if you're not using it the way it was intended its just a poor copy of a physical movement. If you're not sticking, if you're crashing instead of blending, if you're using non-economical motions...not entirely wing chun.

Try looking at things from a skill perspective -- here is a task, and here is a way of performing that task.

[k gledhill]

Terence it sounds like your missing a 'section' of how to go from chi-sao to fighting ...its common to think of 'controlling' from mis/overuse of the chi-sao drill. You end up in basic stances with both arms extended controlling with one while the other strikes...over trapping over sticking.

there are drills that help make the connection to striking attacks using quick parrying hands to open striking lines , role playing with partners who are trying to strike you ....

The distinction of the free fighting attack drill being that the partners are not fighting each other yet, but one throwing attacks for the VT attacker/counter attacker...meaning the partner doing the VT striking can either parry for distances , flanks, advantages of movement, or attack the initial action with whatever allows , randomly. The attacks are maintained once started and followed to a , wall for example, allowing the wall to be the 'end'. Then the partner backs off from the attack cycle and the guy who has been taken to the wall comes back out with attacking ...good cardio if you maintain this for several minutes :D then swap around like all the VT drills show us and adopt the other role of guy, who just throws attacking action actions while the other now does the VT counters parries ...

The drills allow for analysis of 'moments' , like not parrying enough , to much across your line...allowing entry from one flank or making a simple facing strike the direct route...iow not to just make moves by meory, but become experienced from the drills...we can add all kinds of arm actions to simulate things making the VT fighter more focused on attacking striking , rather than chase hands and be misled into bad VT habits....

you can make the drills for beginners simply use a toi ma & pak sao for flanking angling off the presented 'line of force' and position yourself in motion ,axis , balance while moving for 'your' distances of parry/strike ...finding that the movement of random actions thrown by each develops an intuitive response to flanking sides, cutting the way, and reading the fighters actions, telegraphic punches ?, shoulders leading the strikes , to show us their 'intent'....with VT's aggressive attacking we can also go for the guy to attack before they start ..use kicks to receive them :D

The 'wall' in the drill is used more for allowing the partner to have a place to stop themselves from the momentum of the attacks we deliver...

Once you see the distiction of chi-sao 'in contact , energy transfer, for learning to control each others center of gravity for fighting in motion later , meaning not to control a guy while fighting but to control YOUR OWN , having used each other in the chi-sao drill for this.....easy to get confused and assume its what your going to do always in a fight over controlling etc.......you CAN use the BY-PRODUCTS of the drilling while fighting obviously, just dont fight like the drill , facing square on using 2 hands .

We aim for ambidextrous arm use so we can face and flank either side seamlessly as they shift from L-R sides of our dividing centerline, etc..using facing drills for this ... then..we go to fighting drills, then fighting....:D

many many use the chi-sao drill as the connection... so the chi-sao turns into a 'sensitivity drill' and then you fight each other, no drill to use the chi-sao rather the chi-sao becomes the way ...creating a over controlling fighter who relies on contact to feel whats going on, making the guy throwing punches have a good % to hitting you, while you seek the arms BEFORE hitting yourself.......trying to use controlling because your missing motion and angling to entry ...parrying strikes and striking back with maintained attacks with no intent to try to 'touch the arms' for any longer than required..iow ko them asap. finish the fight.

[Ultimatewingchun]

...is the name of a thread currently running on the JKD forum at: mma.tv

Here's an excerpt, as I think this might be interesting to people posting on this thread:

"Obviously resistance and aliveness have already been established as characteristics of superior martial arts. The ones that actually work are full contact, full resistance, full force, and have you working the way you actually would in a fight.

Another thing, which of course ties in to that, is working both offense and defense. In boxing you learn to throw a punch, you then learn to block or slip that punch. You then go back and learn to throw a punch against someone who can block or slip it, and then learn how to block and slip the punch that assumes the other person is prepared for it. You've got a Vizziny gambit of sorts going on creating a cycle of excellence. You've always got to get better at everything, because the opposition is always getting better.

Inferior martial arts don't do this."

[Ultimatewingchun]

Oh, and btw....wing chun is not about "attached fighting"...it's about hitting...

usually at close quarters...

which means that often there will be some sort of limb-to-limb "bridging" going on...but the goal is HITTING THE OPPONENT...whether there's a bridge or not.

[Ultimatewingchun]

...is the title of a thread right here on this website at the MIXED MARTIAL ARTS forum...and is also relevant to the current turn of this thread, imo...

"From the videos that I've seen, punching from center line as we are taught in Wing Chun is easily avoided by systems such as western Boxing. Boxers are taught to avoid strikes, parry, and block. How do we control distance in a fight when or opponet moves every time we enter? If we draw in a boxer, he will try to hook over our lead hand. A boxers hands can be very fast. How can I trap what I can not catch?"


***DISCUSS...

[Matrix]

...is the title of a thread right here on this website at the MIXED MARTIAL ARTS forum...and is also relevant to the current turn of this thread, imo...

"From the videos that I've seen, punching from center line as we are taught in Wing Chun is easily avoided by systems such as western Boxing. Boxers are taught to avoid strikes, parry, and block. There are no invincible systems. A boxer can beat a WC person and vice versa. The question may be which player is more effective with their tools than the other.


How do we control distance in a fight when or opponet moves every time we enter? If we draw in a boxer, he will try to hook over our lead hand. A boxers hands can be very fast. How can I trap what I can not catch?" Let me start by saying if you're attempting to trap hands then you're chasing hands, and that's a non-starter in my mind.
There are so many problems with this question. I see a fundamental flaw in the logic of this part of the question, but that may just be me. I would ask the person who asked the question to think about what they are attempting to do here. What does he mean by "enter"? And what has happened that makes him think that he should be doing that at this stage of the game? It just sounds like someone randomly trying to hit someone and yet being afraid that he's going to get hit in the process. Not a great strategy. At least not one that I would recommend. Maybe I'm missing something here.

[sihing]

There are no invincible systems. A boxer can beat a WC person and vice versa. The question may be which player is more effective with their tools than the other.

Let me start by saying if you're attempting to trap hands then you're chasing hands, and that's a non-starter in my mind.
There are so many problems with this question. I see a fundamental flaw in the logic of this part of the question, but that may just be me. I would ask the person who asked the question to think about what they are attempting to do here. What does he mean by "enter"? And what has happened that makes him think that he should be doing that at this stage of the game? It just sounds like someone randomly trying to hit someone and yet being afraid that he's going to get hit in the process. Not a great strategy. At least not one that I would recommend. Maybe I'm missing something here.

Good post Bill.

Styles don't win fights, people do. Two things will effect how effective you are in a fight, your own skills and your ability to use those skill realistically, and the other guys skills and his ability to use them effectively. Questions like what the guy was posting on the other thread, this cannot be answered on a forum like this. Sometimes you will out class your opponent, or training partner, sometimes he will outclass you, this is the way of things. So there are no definitive answers, which is what people on the forum are looking for.

For years I've heard others say what this guy is saying, "But the boxer is so fast and he will go around my straight line attack, bla bla bla.." the truth of the matter is no one knows what will happen, but I can say that anyone of us would be hardpressed to deal with a top level boxer. Is that the fault of Wing Chun, or the fact that the boxer is training way more than us and is just plainly a more skilled guy with better timing and ability? What I like about WC is that it teaches us high %% things, like hands up in front of us, facing on to the target, short non telegraphic strikes, power from the ground, being aggressive by going forward and into his center, things for the most part work really well if all executed correctly, and that is the equation right there that each of us has to answer for ourselves, "Can you do it", if not then lights out.

James

[Sardinkahnikov]

Good post Bill.

Styles don't win fights, people do. Two things will effect how effective you are in a fight, your own skills and your ability to use those skill realistically, and the other guys skills and his ability to use them effectively. Questions like what the guy was posting on the other thread, this cannot be answered on a forum like this. Sometimes you will out class your opponent, or training partner, sometimes he will outclass you, this is the way of things. So there are no definitive answers, which is what people on the forum are looking for.

For years I've heard others say what this guy is saying, "But the boxer is so fast and he will go around my straight line attack, bla bla bla.." the truth of the matter is no one knows what will happen, but I can say that anyone of us would be hardpressed to deal with a top level boxer. Is that the fault of Wing Chun, or the fact that the boxer is training way more than us and is just plainly a more skilled guy with better timing and ability? What I like about WC is that it teaches us high %% things, like hands up in front of us, facing on to the target, short non telegraphic strikes, power from the ground, being aggressive by going forward and into his center, things for the most part work really well if all executed correctly, and that is the equation right there that each of us has to answer for ourselves, "Can you do it", if not then lights out.

James

True. When you say "boxing" people instantly think about the heavyweight pros and such. Of course you'll end up feeling, let's say, overwhelmed.
I have trained with friends who practice boxing. You have to think your strategy through? Yes. Do you have to be careful? Yes. Do you have to consider the weaknesses of your positions and techniques? That's a given. But is it impossible? Is boxing really so overwhelming that anything fist related cannot even compare? I would dare:rolleyes: to say that, no, not really.

As you said, it comes down to your own training and how much you give. If you train 1-2 hours a week but spend more than that arguing about non-issues in some forum and still think you'll do okay against someone who takes their training seriously, then...

Now, before anyone freaks out, let me just say that I like boxing and think that it works great. This statement may save me a few hundred vitriol filled replies.

[Matrix]

Is that the fault of Wing Chun, or the fact that the boxer is training way more than us and is just plainly a more skilled guy with better timing and ability? What I like about WC is that it teaches us high %% things, like hands up in front of us, facing on to the target, short non telegraphic strikes, power from the ground, being aggressive by going forward and into his center, things for the most part work really well if all executed correctly, and that is the equation right there that each of us has to answer for ourselves, "Can you do it", if not then lights out. I agree James. All of these things are factors. My one caveat that might suggest is that when we say "being aggressive by going forward and into his center"; I think that where the person who asked the question is running into trouble. That's why I asked the questions that I did.

[Pacman]

...is the title of a thread right here on this website at the MIXED MARTIAL ARTS forum...and is also relevant to the current turn of this thread, imo...

"From the videos that I've seen, punching from center line as we are taught in Wing Chun is easily avoided by systems such as western Boxing. Boxers are taught to avoid strikes, parry, and block. How do we control distance in a fight when or opponet moves every time we enter? If we draw in a boxer, he will try to hook over our lead hand. A boxers hands can be very fast. How can I trap what I can not catch?"


***DISCUSS...

the way that post is phrased it seems like he is saying that boxers are the only ones taught to avoid strikes and block or the only ones with fast hands.

WC is also not the only system to strike from the center.

[Xin quan]

I have a number of thoughts, however this is the most relevent:

Is it Wing Chun?
It's like Judge Potter said about pornography: it's hard to define, but I know it when I see it.

I would add to that statement: I know it when I feel it (both on my part, and that of my opponent(s))

[YungChun]

"From the videos that I've seen, punching from center line as we are taught in Wing Chun is easily avoided by systems such as western Boxing.


If you stand 10 feet away they'll avoid almost anything anyone can do using any method under the sun.. You'd even have trouble shooting them with most hand guns if they kept moving..

What does that tell you?



Boxers are taught to avoid strikes, parry, and block. How do we control distance in a fight when or opponet moves every time we enter?

Chapter 6, subsection 7, paragraph B... (not)

From experience.



If we draw in a boxer, he will try to hook over our lead hand. A boxers hands can be very fast. How can I trap what I can not catch?"

Bill covered this..

But to reiterate.. VT does not chase hands.. This is hand chasing theory. Traps are incidental. VT is NOT "An attached method of fighting".... Not to say you *can't* attach, it's simply not the goal of the art, unless by "Attach" you mean pound the crap out of him.