how not to fight a boxer

[Frost]

discuss :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AKFNCIJdvA&feature=player_embedded

[tigershorty]

i like seeing an aggressive fighter...but if youre going to commit to starting the action, you better be faster and more efficient than that. and at least stick with it and not back up after throwing 1 or 2 punches or kicks.

he's being countered every time with a quick jab from a taller dude. as a strategy, he's not even messing with the guy's "structure", "center of gravity", "axis" etc etc.
he never up-rooted the tall guy or brought him down to his level.

the other guy (boxer) seems totally fine and in control even when he's would appear to be giving up to some.

why is the wing chun dude head hunting when punching the guy in the head is too tall for him? where where the body punches? he's lucky the dude wasn't a kicker.

why didn't he stay committed instead of keep backing off once he had him.

obviously, the boxer is playing with him the entire time, and the boxer isnt even that great in terms of other boxers.

and at the end, he gets punched right down the middle in the face by a slow cross. because he starts copying the other guys hands by dropping them. the problem is, he's not a boxer and doesn't have the reflexes to play that game.

i mean, this all obvious. not even sure it's worth mentioning anything i wrote.

[goju]

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

[goju]

in all seriousness the boxer had a big height advantage.

[KPM]

discuss :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AKFNCIJdvA&feature=player_embedded


How not to fight a boxer.....don't try to kickbox with WCK! :eek: The guy is this clip seems to know a more WCK than the guy above, but he still doesn't fair to well against this kickboxer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7iLZ-BEgqo&feature=related


The problem is closing the gap so that you can make good use of your WCK. Bruce Lee recognized this problem and I think it was one of the factors leading to the creation of JKD. If you want to kickbox with a WCK "flavor", study some JKD! But don't try to make WCK into something it is not....because it doesn't work very well ......as most of these clips on the internet will attest!!

[tigershorty]

How not to fight a boxer.....don't try to kickbox with WCK! :eek: The guy is this clip seems to know a more WCK than the guy above, but he still doesn't fair to well against this kickboxer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7iLZ-BEgqo&feature=related


The problem is closing the gap so that you can make good use of your WCK. Bruce Lee recognized this problem and I think it was one of the factors leading to the creation of JKD. If you want to kickbox with a WCK "flavor", study some JKD! But don't try to make WCK into something it is not....because it doesn't work very well ......as most of these clips on the internet will attest!!

i think you went off on a tangent that missed the point.

[KPM]

i think you went off on a tangent that missed the point.

A clip was posted with the invitation to discuss. The clip showed a WCK guy doing very poorly against a boxer because he was trying to "kickbox" with his WCK. It was definitely an example of how NOT to fight a boxer, as the original poster said, and which I agreed with. So how did I go off on a tangent, and where did I miss the point?

[YouKnowWho]

The best way to fight against a boxer is not to play boxing game with him but to take him down ASAP. It's just "common sense" and has nothing to do with style.

[GlennR]

The best way to fight against a boxer is not to play boxing game with him but to take him down ASAP. It's just "common sense" and has nothing to do with style.


Nice idea... but but how does the WC guy do this in the clip provided?

[YouKnowWho]

Nice idea... but but how does the WC guy do this in the clip provided?
I didn't know that sparring clip had rules that "throwing" was not allowed.

[YungChun]

The best way to fight against a boxer is not to play boxing game with him but to take him down ASAP. It's just "common sense" and has nothing to do with style.

It has everything to do with skills and skills are going to be dependent on what you train and what you train will often be called "style"...

Most plain vanilla VT peeps don't have a ground game.. They are supposed to have a stand up game though... So unless VT having any kind of game is a myth then it stands to reason that the VT man should have some skills that would allow him to use his stand up game.. However using VT as pure kick boxing will take away much of VT's tool set.

Most VT folks have trouble entering because it's not trained enough and most VT folks have much more trouble when the opponent is taller and has considerably longer reach.

[JPinAZ]

The problem is closing the gap so that you can make good use of your WCK. Bruce Lee recognized this problem and I think it was one of the factors leading to the creation of JKD. If you want to kickbox with a WCK "flavor", study some JKD! But don't try to make WCK into something it is not....because it doesn't work very well ......as most of these clips on the internet will attest!!

I don't see a problem with WCK not being able to close the gap. Why would you say this? If you occupy the line, have good structure, fwd intent and understand proper range, what's the problem?

[YungChun]

I don't see a problem with WCK not being able to close the gap. Why would you say this? If you occupy the line, have good structure, fwd intent and understand proper range, what's the problem?

The "problem" is that it is much easier written than done AND that there is precious little evidence that many VT peeps are doing it regularly against decent boxers...

[Pacman]

his problem is not because he knows wing chun.

the loser basically kept charging straight in in without setting up an attack. the boxer (probably with more experience) just kept picking him off with round punches (avoiding the attack) and a longer reach.

the loser kept charging in over and over again, not changing his game plan.

wing chun's problem is not its techniques, its the fact that most teachers don't know how to apply what they teach.

[YouKnowWho]

In my personal experience, the jab and cross just don't work well againt hook punch. When your opponent uses hook to deal with your jab or cross, Even if he misses your head, his fore-arm can still knock your fore-arm down, that will interrupt the continuation of your straight line chain punches. A good hook punch can integrate both offense and defense in one.

Just like in the spear fighting, the best defense against a straight line spear stabbing is a circular spear deflect. This is to use the "circular" motion to counter the "straight line" motion issue.

http://www.tudou.com/programs/view/QO0LSRudgfY/

[tigershorty]

I don't see a problem with WCK not being able to close the gap. Why would you say this? If you occupy the line, have good structure, fwd intent and understand proper range, what's the problem?

i agree, jp.

he didnt say what was wrong with the person, he said what was wrong with wing chun (the misguided tangent) it would seem his wing chung cant bridge the gap, therefore he imposes someone doing kickboxing? who was really doing wing chun that didnt work.

i dont get where this guy is coming from..no offense, tho. i just think you missed the point of the question, kpm.

[IRONMONK]

Boxer has a significant reach advantage

And wing chunner has a sandcastle chin :D

[LoneTiger108]

discuss :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AKFNCIJdvA&feature=player_embedded

Interesting clip, but that was no boxer but a pretty casual Muay Thai fighter using his hands. Nice session though and something that actually looked quite friendly and enjoyable imho. Reminded me a little of the Chuck & Bruce fight in WOTD, when Chuck starts to mimic Bruce and gets blasted.

Exactly what happened here imo.

When you fight/spar with Wing Chun, do so. Don't try to play their game when they obviously have more experience at what they do than you will! If you have trained well, entry to a tall, longer reach opponent isn't as dificult as people think. You also have the benefit of striking upwards under the chin, so drill specifics and just don't fall into the 'mirror trap'.

[Frost]

The best way to fight against a boxer is not to play boxing game with him but to take him down ASAP. It's just "common sense" and has nothing to do with style.

So what you are suggesting is that a stand up style that is meant to be a close range striking art should abandon its principles and look for the throw as soon as it comes up against a boxer?:confused:

[Frost]

The "problem" is that it is much easier written than done AND that there is precious little evidence that many VT peeps are doing it regularly against decent boxers...

Oh thank you, I posted the clip precisely because of this, all the threads lately have talked about wing chuns strategy, expertise, ability to fight close in etc, but where do we actually see this in action? most clips are cooperative training clips, and the few fights out there (even phils and alan orrs even though they are good clips) do not show anything like what people are talking about

[Frost]

i agree, jp.

he didnt say what was wrong with the person, he said what was wrong with wing chun (the misguided tangent) it would seem his wing chung cant bridge the gap, therefore he imposes someone doing kickboxing? who was really doing wing chun that didnt work.

i dont get where this guy is coming from..no offense, tho. i just think you missed the point of the question, kpm.

So please post full contact clips of wing chun actually closing the gap and dominating the centre?

There are pages and pages on this forum of wing chun guys talking about how it works, what it should look like in action, but the few videos of it in full contact action either show the wing chun guy losing or winning in a manner most say is not wing chun and certainly not in the manner everyone talks about on here

[HumbleWCGuy]

Before I start talking a lot of junk about any sparring match, I like for there to be an even match from a physical perspective as well as experience. Neither fighter was very good and it wasn't a fair match physically for sure.

I guess that you could create a number of talking points about boxing versus WCK from the fight, but neither fighter was a great representative of their respective arts so what we would be doing is using generalizations about boxing versus WCK to make sense of the fight and not the fight to make generalizations about boxing versus WCK.

Without grabbing and elbows, it is hard to put out a legitimate display of classical WCK. Good for the WCK guy to get out there and spar, but it looked to me like they were following boxing rules so a classically trained WCK guy under those rules will probably do just what you saw. Run in and chain punch because there isn't a lot else there.

[KPM]

i agree, jp.

he didnt say what was wrong with the person, he said what was wrong with wing chun (the misguided tangent) it would seem his wing chung cant bridge the gap, therefore he imposes someone doing kickboxing? who was really doing wing chun that didnt work.

i dont get where this guy is coming from..no offense, tho. i just think you missed the point of the question, kpm.

No offense tigershorty, but I think you must be a little dense! I missed the point? I've contributed what I thought about that clip to the discussion, which triggered several topical responses. What have you done? I said what was wrong with the person....he couldn't close the gap effectively and was trying to kickbox with his WCK. Unfortunately, as Jim pointed out, this is pretty common amongst WCKers.

You said "it would seem his wing chung cant bridge the gap, therefore he imposes someone doing kickboxing?" What the heck does that mean? Are you implying something about my WCK based on what I said about that clip? I think you are the one that seems to have missed the point!

[sanjuro_ronin]

It's very simple really:
The only way to fight and beat a boxer with WC is the same way you fight and beat anyone else with WC -
You expose your WC to said fighting system, learn the puzzle it presents, learn how to solve it and voila, you have effective WC vs whatever system it has been exposed to.

The boxer had all the advantages:
Height, reach, power, skill level and confidence.
He also had the full contact experience as we can see that when he does get hit, it doesn't phase him, as opposed to the WC guy that gets his "structure" compromised with virtually every hit.

[Frost]

It's very simple really:
The only way to fight and beat a boxer with WC is the same way you fight and beat anyone else with WC -
You expose your WC to said fighting system, learn the puzzle it presents, learn how to solve it and voila, you have effective WC vs whatever system it has been exposed to.

The boxer had all the advantages:
Height, reach, power, skill level and confidence.
He also had the full contact experience as we can see that when he does get hit, it doesn't phase him, as opposed to the WC guy that gets his "structure" compromised with virtually every hit.

Stop being sensible that has no place here

And I thought your new years promise to yourself was to keep off the wing chun forum!

[t_niehoff]

It's very simple really:
The only way to fight and beat a boxer with WC is the same way you fight and beat anyone else with WC -
You expose your WC to said fighting system, learn the puzzle it presents, learn how to solve it and voila, you have effective WC vs whatever system it has been exposed to.


Yes, and the "exposure to said fighting system" is to actually go train/spar with good people in that "system" -- not have one of your own "pretend" to be a boxer.

If you are not already doing it, you won't be able to do it.



The boxer had all the advantages:
Height, reach, power, skill level and confidence.
He also had the full contact experience as we can see that when he does get hit, it doesn't phase him, as opposed to the WC guy that gets his "structure" compromised with virtually every hit.

Good observations.

I'd like to add, since this has come up, that the WCK guy didn't have any trouble "getting in." He got in several times. He just didn't stay there, and he didn't -- and couldn't -- do anything while he was there. He was throwing from the outside as he stepped in, then once in, he stepped out again.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Stop being sensible that has no place here

And I thought your new years promise to yourself was to keep off the wing chun forum!

Well, I fell and hit my head, sorry.
:D

[sanjuro_ronin]

Yes, and the "exposure to said fighting system" is to actually go train/spar with good people in that "system" -- not have one of your own "pretend" to be a boxer.

If you are not already doing it, you won't be able to do it.



Good observations.

I'd like to add, since this has come up, that the WCK guy didn't have any trouble "getting in." He got in several times. He just didn't stay there, and he didn't -- and couldn't -- do anything while he was there. He was throwing from the outside as he stepped in, then once in, he stepped out again.

The reason, I assume from what I saw, that he couldn't stay in is because he didn't like getting hit, he didn't have experience in "staying in while getting hit" and that the boxers "profile" presented him with problems he hadn't faced before.

[KC Elbows]

He didn't train this way enough before?

He didn't get used to staying in and the hits that come with that?

He spent most of is training time stationary and couldn't translate his strikes to a moving platform?

The "boxer" likely didn't have substantial experience with wing chun, but he would be accustomed to blows, to using his strikes on a moving target while moving, etc.

The difference between the two is the difference between knowing the theory of the fighting method and knowing the theory and having entrained it in its proper context, imo.

[sanjuro_ronin]

The "boxer" likely didn't have substantial experience with wing chun, but he would be accustomed to blows, to using his strikes on a moving target while moving, etc.

Unless a boxer is going into match with a specific person that they know, they don't really prepare that much, they just fight their own fight.
As a boxer I fought everyone, basically, the same:
I fought my fight, period.
Of course it didn't always go as planned, LOL !
But I never changed my fighting style because of who or what I was fighting and my fighting style was very simple:
My opponent was a human punching bag.
What hand he had forward, what he liked to do, how he liked to do it, never factor into it much.
Why?
Because I approached a fight with the understanding that it was not "just" a fight with another boxer, but that it could be a Thai boxer, a judoka, a wrestler, whatever.
Of course I was only able to fight like the "opponent wasn't there" because I HAD been exposed to fighting those particular "systems" before.

It is like BL used to say, though I don't think he was the first to say it:
When I started a kick was a kick and a punch was a punch, but when I learned a kick wasn't just a kick and a punch wasn't just a punch.
Now that I am experienced, a kick is a kick and a punch is a punch.

What that means to me is that, in our learning phase ( that never really ends) we need to be exposed to the different methods of combat, once we are, they "don't matter" anymore because, in the end, we have modified OURSELVES enough that the differences aren't there and what we are fighting is the person, not the system.

[KC Elbows]

.

Unless a boxer is going into match with a specific person that they know, they don't really prepare that much, they just fight their own fight.

Yeah, I've read quite a few statements by great boxers that they rarely stressed knowing the other guy too well, though there are, of course, exceptions, but even he exceptions knew THEIR stuff from training fully, not creaming their pants for twenty years over a drill that was never meant to be the height of practice<<coughcough chisao coughcough>>.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Yeah, I've read quite a few statements by great boxers that they rarely stressed knowing the other guy too well, though there are, of course, exceptions, but even he exceptions knew THEIR stuff from training fully, not creaming their pants for twenty years over a drill that was never meant to be the height of practice<<coughcough chisao coughcough>>.

No comment on chi sao.
But you do bring up an interesting point and that is fighting YOUR fight and what that means.
If a boxer likes to be on the inside, liek I do, as long as I am on the inside, I am fighting my fight.
If you keep me on the outside and slap me silly with your 200" reach advantage, I am screwed.
This also brings into question the philosophies of training :
Focus on your strengths or focus on developing your weaknesses.
But I digress.

[YouKnowWho]

So what you are suggesting is that a stand up style that is meant to be a close range striking art should abandon its principles and look for the throw as soon as it comes up against a boxer?:confused:

When I response that post, I didn't know that you started this thread for WC discussion only.

WC may be strong in striking but boxing is weak in throwing. You can utilize your own strong point. You can also utilize your opponent's weak point. In order to do that, cross training is a must.


Focus on your strengths or focus on developing your weaknesses.
One of my guys doesn't like to train his striking skill. His "arm wrapping" skill is very good (much easier to develop than striking). He is good at entering a punching range and achieve a "clinching". He also has good throwing skill after his can get his "clinching".

Sometime to "focus on your strength" is the same as to "focus on developing your weakness".

[Vajramusti]

So what you are suggesting is that a stand up style that is meant to be a close range striking art should abandon its principles and look for the throw as soon as it comes up against a boxer?:confused:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am late to this thread and just a passing comment or two.

Wing chun is not just a striking art--it is interested in control- whether you strike, break, throw -
depends on the moment... and the simplest thing to do at that moment.

joy chaudhuri

[Pacman]

Just like in the spear fighting, the best defense against a straight line spear stabbing is a circular spear deflect. This is to use the "circular" motion to counter the "straight line" motion issue.



and this is what the boxer did. the wing chun guy kept repeating the same thing, just went straight in without any setup and so was very predictable.

the boxer used his reach advantage and some circular punches to tag him every time.

[YouKnowWho]

whether you strike, break, throw - depends on the moment.

If you do:

- wrestling daily, you will become a wrestler.
- striking daily, you will become a striker.
- forms daily, you will becomer a dancer.
- Zhan Zhuang daily, you will become a stander.
- ...

It has nothing to do with your style.

[Phil Redmond]

How not to fight a boxer.....don't try to kickbox with WCK! :eek: The guy is this clip seems to know a more WCK than the guy above, but he still doesn't fair to well against this kickboxer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7iLZ-BEgqo&feature=related


The problem is closing the gap so that you can make good use of your WCK. Bruce Lee recognized this problem and I think it was one of the factors leading to the creation of JKD. If you want to kickbox with a WCK "flavor", study some JKD! But don't try to make WCK into something it is not....because it doesn't work very well ......as most of these clips on the internet will attest!!
According to Bruce Lee JKD is WC.

[Phil Redmond]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am late to this thread and just a passing comment or two.

Wing chun is not just a striking art--it is interested in control- whether you strike, break, throw -
depends on the moment... and the simplest thing to do at that moment.

joy chaudhuri
WC is a win by any means necessary art. At least that's what Yip Man said.

[JPinAZ]

The "problem" is that it is much easier written than done AND that there is precious little evidence that many VT peeps are doing it regularly against decent boxers...

I'm not going to assume, so are you saying you are not able to close the gap with boxers with your WCK? Or just that WCK's "problem" is that it doesn't have this ability in the system in general? If the later, I would totally disagree.

For me, WCK should 'work' at ANY 'range' where contact can be made. If someone can hit me, then I can bridge with that attack on it's way in. And, if I can bridge with the attack using proper structure, facing and leverage, then I have a greater chance of neutralizing it & setting up a advantageous position or my own. All with which I can now start to effect my opponent's COG, lessening their chances of landing a strong follow-up attack as well as counter with hits of my own. To me, this is WCK.

It's not about WCK vs. boxing range, or kicking range or vs. any particular style. There's either stirking range or not. While yes, a kick might require me to use a different 'technique' over a punch and there might be different responses for a round punch vs a straight punch attack. In the end, it's just an attack entering my box/space. And if I want the best chance of dealing with that attack, the above strategies or 'rules' apply - regardless the attack or style I'm up against. Things like leverage, facing, structure, energy awareness, etc don't change just because my opponent did. This is WCK (how I see and train it anyway).

As far as evidence, the only evidence I look for is my own results in my own training. That's all that should matter IMO

[t_niehoff]

If someone can hit me, then I can bridge with that attack on it's way in.


No, you can't. And trying to "bridge" to an attack is extremely low percentage.



And, if I can bridge with the attack using proper structure, facing and leverage, then I have a greater chance of neutralizing it & setting up a advantageous position or my own. All with which I can now start to effect my opponent's COG, lessening their chances of landing a strong follow-up attack as well as counter with hits of my own. To me, this is WCK.


That's a great theory, only it won't work like that. You will never be able to "bridge with the attack using proper structure, facing and leverage"-- that is a fantasy. His action is too fast, too unpredictable, etc.



It's not about WCK vs. boxing range, or kicking range or vs. any particular style. There's either stirking range or not. While yes, a kick might require me to use a different 'technique' over a punch and there might be different responses for a round punch vs a straight punch attack. In the end, it's just an attack entering my box/space. And if I want the best chance of dealing with that attack, the above strategies or 'rules' apply - regardless the attack or style I'm up against. Things like leverage, facing, structure, energy awareness, etc don't change just because my opponent did. This is WCK (how I see and train it anyway).


If you are in an opponent's striking range, you won't be able to stop him from hitting you unless he is a scrub.



As far as evidence, the only evidence I look for is my own results in my own training. That's all that should matter IMO

That all depends on what that training is.

[HumbleWCGuy]

That all depends on what that training is.

When did results stop mattering?

[CFT]

I'm not going to assume, so are you saying you are not able to close the gap with boxers with your WCK? Or just that WCK's "problem" is that it doesn't have this ability in the system in general? If the later, I would totally disagree.I think Jim stated his case quite clearly in his original post. It is down to an individual's training and the kind of people they are training against. Along the lines of what Terence consistently posts (shock horror!) :eek:


Most VT folks have trouble entering because it's not trained enough and most VT folks have much more trouble when the opponent is taller and has considerably longer reach.

[YungChun]

According to Bruce Lee JKD is WC.

Please post supporting documentation.

JKD as in JunFan was simply Bruce Lee's method, which btw changed daily if not hourly...

Later JKD was formalized into JKD Concepts.. In the later case these concepts have nothing to do with a style.

Bruce at the end was anti style...he was in his honest expression stage...

[YungChun]

I think Jim stated his case quite clearly in his original post.

Thanks Chee I thought so... :)


I wrote:

The "problem" is that it is much easier written than done AND that there is precious little evidence that many VT peeps are doing it regularly against decent boxers...




I'm not going to assume, so are you saying you are not able to close the gap with boxers with your WCK? Or just that WCK's "problem" is that it doesn't have this ability in the system in general?

I said what I wrote.. That it's much easier to pay lip service to this kind of stuff..

And that not many VT people are training like boxers... Because if they were you wouldn't hear the theory you'd see the fighting..

Most VT people are not actively fighting at all let alone with dozens of good boxers, I mean let's try to keep this just a little real...

Most people don't have access to LOT'S of good boxers... Most VTers are not fighting lots of good anythings...

[CFT]

Regarding JKD = WC.

Here is a post by John Smith, one of Wong Shun Leung's students:

http://wongshunleung.takeforum.com/2006/04/13/jkd-and-wing-chun-how-they-differ/


Bruce Lee was really years ahead of his time. Yes his training developed as he had no one to coach him except himself. He was very proud of Chinese culture and of the gung fu that it had produced.

This needs to be saluted.

Sifu used to say that Bruce turned full circle from VT. Initially as you have indicated we has a VT man, but then left many of it's principles, but as Sifu indicated that towards the end of his life he was returning to what VT already had.

[YungChun]

I read that as a fudge.. Bruce may well have been using (returning to) all kinds of "things" but at the end his POV was anti-style regardless of what his methods were..

[JPinAZ]

I think Jim stated his case quite clearly in his original post. It is down to an individual's training and the kind of people they are training against. Along the lines of what Terence consistently posts (shock horror!) :eek:

And I totally agree that who and how you train is important. Not sure your point?

[JPinAZ]

No, you can't. And trying to "bridge" to an attack is extremely low percentage.

Only if you read 'bridge' as chasing hands. This is not how I mean it. But then, I don't expect a moron like you to understand what I'm talking about. How many years did you waste not making WCK work again? 17+? yeah, like you'[d understand anything about WCK... :rolleyes:


That's a great theory, only it won't work like that. You will never be able to "bridge with the attack using proper structure, facing and leverage"-- that is a fantasy. His action is too fast, too unpredictable, etc.

Now you're assuming I'm not talking from experience or that I'd try to match speed for speed. You have no clue what I'm talking about. Go troll someone else.


If you are in an opponent's striking range, you won't be able to stop him from hitting you unless he is a scrub.

Troll troll troll along....


That all depends on what that training is.

You still talking? Go sit in the corner, gossip queen.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I don't suggest "bridging" VS a Boxer unless you want to turn it into a clinch fight or grappling.
Boxing doesn't lend itself to being "bridged" for the purpose of striking.
Of course there is no rule against it and I would assume that, training with good boxers and developing a way to bridge with boxers, that it would work well with most.
Still, boxing hand and footwork tend to nullify "bridging" very well, or at least this has been my experience.

[Vajramusti]

I don't suggest "bridging" VS a Boxer unless you want to turn it into a clinch fight or grappling.
Boxing doesn't lend itself to being "bridged" for the purpose of striking.
Of course there is no rule against it and I would assume that, training with good boxers and developing a way to bridge with boxers, that it would work well with most.
Still, boxing hand and footwork tend to nullify "bridging" very well, or at least this has been my experience.
----------------------------------
Yup. A good boxer should not be underestimated. They can "squirm" and hit. They also understand leverage.
In a different way wrestlers also can adjust.

Takes good level wing chun to deal with them.

joy chaudhuri

[JPinAZ]

I said what I wrote.. That it's much easier to pay lip service to this kind of stuff..

And that not many VT people are training like boxers... Because if they were you wouldn't hear the theory you'd see the fighting..

Most VT people are not actively fighting at all let alone with dozens of good boxers, I mean let's try to keep this just a little real...

Most people don't have access to LOT'S of good boxers... Most VTers are not fighting lots of good anythings...

That's fine, but how do you know how 'most VT people' are training?
And I'm not trying to argue here, but really, what should we care how others that we don't even know are training? Aren't only our own skills in the given situation what matters? (unless we are also teaching, then the skills of our students matter)

Really though, my original reply was to Keith when he said this: The problem is closing the gap so that you can make good use of your WCK. Bruce Lee recognized this problem and I think it was one of the factors leading to the creation of JKD. If you want to kickbox with a WCK "flavor", study some JKD! But don't try to make WCK into something it is not....because it doesn't work very well ......as most of these clips on the internet will attest!!

And I'll repeat, I don't see this same 'problem' in WCK or in my training.
And, I don't go by the little evidence you see, or that he sees on the internet, only my results are what count (at least to me). yeah, I'd agree, that a lot of the WCK you see in vids isn't up to my fighting standards, but then I don't look to the internet for validation that WCK works. And hopefully you're not saying you do ;)

[KPM]

Really though, my original reply was to Keith when he said this: The problem is closing the gap so that you can make good use of your WCK. Bruce Lee recognized this problem and I think it was one of the factors leading to the creation of JKD. If you want to kickbox with a WCK "flavor", study some JKD! But don't try to make WCK into something it is not....because it doesn't work very well ......as most of these clips on the internet will attest!!

And I'll repeat, I don't see this same 'problem' in WCK or in my training.
And, I don't go by the little evidence you see, or that he sees on the internet, only my results are what count (at least to me). yeah, I'd agree, that a lot of the WCK you see in vids isn't up to my fighting standards, but then I don't look to the internet for validation that WCK works. And hopefully you're not saying you do ;)

Hey JP!

Those are fair statements. But it does kind of beg the question.....why don't we see ANY clips of Hung Fa Yi anywhere? HFY uses a different set of terms than the rest of us. It would be nice to see some clips showing exactly what a lot of the talk refers to.

[KPM]

I don't suggest "bridging" VS a Boxer unless you want to turn it into a clinch fight or grappling.
Boxing doesn't lend itself to being "bridged" for the purpose of striking.
Of course there is no rule against it and I would assume that, training with good boxers and developing a way to bridge with boxers, that it would work well with most.
Still, boxing hand and footwork tend to nullify "bridging" very well, or at least this has been my experience.

Where are Kevin Gledhill or Graham H? It seems to me, given Sanjuro's well-founded conclusions above about fighting a boxer, one of the better WCK approaches would be what they have been talking about learning from Phillip Bayer. Of course, I could have it completely wrong since I have not trained with Phillip Bayer myself. So here is my interpretation for the "boxer" situation:

Be aggressive and charge in with chain punching. But be smart and use angling and leverage to your best advantage and to limit his ability to follow up. Use defensive motions to stop his punches but with very brief contact in conjunction with your own striking barrage. Don't try to "trap" or "bridge", because he isn't going to leave an arm out there long enough for this. Keep moving forward into his center to limit his ability to use his evasive footwork. Close and finish, don't try to play his game of dancing in and out.

[CFT]

And I totally agree that who and how you train is important. Not sure your point?You seemed to have missed what Jim was saying in your post.

It appeared from your post that you thought Jim was saying there was some kind of fundamental deficiency in WCK itself, rather than the individual or the training regime.

[JPinAZ]

Hey JP!

Those are fair statements. But it does kind of beg the question.....why don't we see ANY clips of Hung Fa Yi anywhere? HFY uses a different set of terms than the rest of us. It would be nice to see some clips showing exactly what a lot of the talk refers to.

Keith, that is a fair question, and something that is being worked on as we speak ;)

But personally, I don't think that videos are the best way to demonstrate an art, first hand knowledge is. What is it people would really want to see? A demonstration, sparring, etc? Any of those can be argued 'well, that's a static demonstration', or the T response 'the other guy is a total scrub', even if he's not. This, IMO, is the problem if someone wants to see an art solely thru video. While yeah, videos are nice to give a glips on how something looks, it doesn't really tell you anything important like how things work.

Now, this isn't a sales pitch, but HFY has and has had many public workshops around the country and world for the past 12 years or so. What area do you live in?

[JPinAZ]

Be aggressive and charge in with chain punching.

While I would totally disagree with the charging in with chain punching..


But be smart and use angling and leverage to your best advantage and to limit his ability to follow up. Use defensive motions to stop his punches but with very brief contact in conjunction with your own striking barrage.

This is pretty much exactly what I have been talking about!


Don't try to "trap" or "bridge", because he isn't going to leave an arm out there long enough for this. Keep moving forward into his center to limit his ability to use his evasive footwork. Close and finish, don't try to play his game of dancing in and out.

And I totally agree. Trying to trap or bridge would be chasing hands. But covering your space with good structure when a punch comes in, if a bridge happens, so be it :)

IMO, any time you used "defensive motions to stop his punches but with very brief contact" you are 'bridging'. When I say bridging, I'm not talking prolonged sticking like in chi sau. That, to me, is chasing hands or chasing the bridge. I think some people here might view 'bridging' as some prolonged attempt at sticking like chi sau drilling (?) For me, it simply means when contact is made with which I can effect my opponent's attack and/or COG/COM, however brief.

[t_niehoff]

Only if you read 'bridge' as chasing hands. This is not how I mean it. But then, I don't expect a moron like you to understand what I'm talking about. How many years did you waste not making WCK work again? 17+? yeah, like you'[d understand anything about WCK... :rolleyes:


Oh, the dreaded "rolls eyes" again! LOL!

If what you describe is "chasing hands" then don't be surprised that someone would read it that way.



Now you're assuming I'm not talking from experience or that I'd try to match speed for speed. You have no clue what I'm talking about. Go troll someone else.


You are not making what you describe work in sparring with decently skilled people. You may be able to pull it off against your classmates who are cooperating with you to let you do it.

If you think that I don't have the wrong idea of what you are doing, you could explain it to me.



Troll troll troll along....


If you are in someone's striking range, then you had already better be closing them down BEFORE they strike or you won't be able to stop their strike. It takes ANYONE 0.20 seconds to BEGIN to respond to a stimulus. That is how we are "hard wired." You can't change it with training or anything. Someone in range and with decent speed can hit you or get their strike almost to you in under that time (0.20 seconds).

Nor can you in that time-frame "bridge with the attack using proper structure, facing and leverage" -- things happen too fast. If you are caught "in range" by a strike, there are only very limited things you can do.

If you had experience realistically sparring, then you would have seen that for yourself.

[t_niehoff]

Trying to trap or bridge would be chasing hands. But covering your space with good structure when a punch comes in, if a bridge happens, so be it :)


What do you mean "cover your space"? You can, if you have a decent guard, cover the target, but that won't create a bridge.



IMO, any time you used "defensive motions to stop his punches but with very brief contact" you are 'bridging'. When I say bridging, I'm not talking prolonged sticking like in chi sau. That, to me, is chasing hands or chasing the bridge. I think some people here might view 'bridging' as some prolonged attempt at sticking like chi sau drilling (?) For me, it simply means when contact is made with which I can effect my opponent's attack and/or COG/COM, however brief.

No. Contact alone is not "a bridge". A bridge is the connection (from your center) to your opponent's center. Covering may block his attack but does not create a bridge.

[IRONMONK]

. Trying to trap or bridge would be chasing hands. But covering your space with good structure when a punch comes in, if a bridge happens, so be it :)


Whn I land a punch on my opponent I consider that as a "bridge"

[Wayfaring]

I don't suggest "bridging" VS a Boxer unless you want to turn it into a clinch fight or grappling.


Oh, but I do. :D

There's a very small percentage of boxers for which this is not a good idea.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Oh, but I do. :D

There's a very small percentage of boxers for which this is not a good idea.

Yeah, I would try it out on "dirty boxers" or "clinch boxers" or the "crazy monkey" guys, but most typical boxers just clinch and hold and are really well versed in multi-dimensonal clinch work.

[Wayfaring]

but most typical boxers just clinch and hold and are really well versed in multi-dimensonal clinch work.

Until you take them down.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Until you take them down.

Sorry, I meant NOT really well versed.

[TenTigers]

Whn I land a punch on my opponent I consider that as a "bridge"
therein lies the confusion. There are many ways to bridge. Bridging does not neccesarally mean touching forearms and sticking to your opponent.
If I crash into your guard, I am bridging. Some WCK people do this with bong or kwun-sao. (won't get into a debate on right or wrong, just that people do it)

The other thing is, if we are discussing WCK vs Boxing, fine. If we are discussing, as Frost suggested, the clip, then the main problem is that the WCK guy was not experienced. Ok, so he put up his hands in bai-jong (mun-sao/wu-sao) and threw chain punches-something a first week student can do. The boxer was not much better, but evidently more experienced.
This reminds me of when I was younger, I was training in Tang Soo Do and on alternate days, WCK. I was a beginner in both.
My TSD instructor would say, "Show me some of that Wing Chun, and then proceed to beat the crap out of me and say, "See? That stuff doesn't work."
Then, on alternate days, my WCK Sifu would say, "Do your Karate," and beat the crap out of me and say, "See? That Karate doesn't work."
Unfortunately, as was stated before, we don't have any footage of a skilled WCK practitioner fighting an equally skilled boxer.
Without that, this conversation is at a stalemate. It's a theoretical debate that leads nowhere.
I think however, if T starts insulting Victor and Phil, we can at least get back to our usual discussions.

[t_niehoff]

It's a theoretical debate that leads nowhere.


And THAT is at the core of most of these issues.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Unfortunately, as was stated before, we don't have any footage of a skilled WCK practitioner fighting an equally skilled boxer.

No, but in the case of the video in question we have footage of a low level WC AND a low level boxer.
And what do we see?
The fact that we don't have any footage of high level WC VS a high level boxer ( any type of boxing) does make you wonder though.

[TenTigers]

No, but in the case of the video in question we have footage of a low level WC AND a low level boxer.
And what do we see?
The fact that we don't have any footage of high level WC VS a high level boxer ( any type of boxing) does make you wonder though.
nah, the people rowing the boat usually don't have time to rock it. I don't think this means that there just aren't any people out there doing it, or afraid to show their stuff might not be so hot.
More like people are just to busy with their own stuff to really get involved in little online forum debates.
Ok, so I might not be the greatest example, but besides running a full-time school, six days a week,
I have a pile of articles I've written and re-written, to be submitted...um, soon.
Apparently, I won't submit them to IKF...
I have an outline for a DVD series I really want to shoot..um, soon...
I have the outline for a book series, but I need to get in better shape (the camera adds ten pounds..) ..um, soon..
I have to work out harder..um, soon..
Put up a video on youtube? Are you kidding? I'm so busy!

[sanjuro_ronin]

nah, the people rowing the boat usually don't have time to rock it. I don't think this means that there just aren't any people out there doing it, or afraid to show their stuff might not be so hot.
More like people are just to busy with their own stuff to really get involved in little online forum debates.
Ok, so I might not be the greatest example, but besides running a full-time school, six days a week,
I have a pile of articles I've written and re-written, to be submitted...um, soon.
Apparently, I won't submit them to IKF...
I have an outline for a DVD series I really want to shoot..um, soon...
I have the outline for a book series, but I need to get in better shape (the camera adds ten pounds..) ..um, soon..
I have to work out harder..um, soon..
Put up a video on youtube? Are you kidding? I'm so busy!

How many WC videos are out there?
How many done by proficient and talented teachers?
Most of them are marketing for them or their system.
How many actually show WC fighting ??

[Iron_Eagle_76]

Wing Chun sucks! Boxing does not! End of discussion.:D

[sanjuro_ronin]

Wing Chun sucks! Boxing does not! End of discussion.:D

Its funny but I have a friend that is a boxer and a very good one and another that is a WC guy and has been for about 15 years, they argue all the time about WC VS Boxing and the boxing guy said the samething.
The WC guy asked how he arrived at that conclusion and the boxer said this:
In 6 months I can take anyone and make them a decent fighter and by that I mean they go fight full contact and they will be able to hit hard, move well, protected themselves and, given the opportunity, KO another fighter in the ring.
In other words, most people can become profcient in Boxing in less than a year.
Can you say the same thing about WC and how it is TYPICALLY taught?

The answer was silence.

[TenTigers]

How many WC videos are out there?
How many done by proficient and talented teachers?
Most of them are marketing for them or their system.
How many actually show WC fighting ??
good points.
Same with Hung-Ga-I have yet to see decent application/sparring videos

[sanjuro_ronin]

good points.
Same with Hung-Ga-I have yet to see decent application/sparring videos

To be honest, all the HK videos I have seen have been forms oriented and none have ever claimed to show anything for fighting purposes.

That is NOT the case with the majority of WC videos by recognised masters.

[chusauli]

Its funny but I have a friend that is a boxer and a very good one and another that is a WC guy and has been for about 15 years, they argue all the time about WC VS Boxing and the boxing guy said the samething.
The WC guy asked how he arrived at that conclusion and the boxer said this:
In 6 months I can take anyone and make them a decent fighter and by that I mean they go fight full contact and they will be able to hit hard, move well, protected themselves and, given the opportunity, KO another fighter in the ring.
In other words, most people can become profcient in Boxing in less than a year.
Can you say the same thing about WC and how it is TYPICALLY taught?

The answer was silence.

LOL!

Oh yeah?

Can boxing give you a fancy uniform and sash?

Can you get fun titles like "Si gung" or "Si Jo"? Or other grandiose titles?

Can you pay "monthly dues taken out automatically at a boxing gym"?

Can boxers claim that they're related to Bruce Lee? That alone should stop fights, or at least prevent fights...

LOL!

Classic! And for the record, I completely agree!

[sanjuro_ronin]

LOL!

Oh yeah?

Can boxing give you a fancy uniform and sash?

Can you get fun titles like "Si gung" or "Si Jo"? Or other grandiose titles?

Can you pay "monthly dues taken out automatically at a boxing gym"?

Can boxers claim that they're related to Bruce Lee? That alone should stop fights, or at least prevent fights...

LOL!

Classic! And for the record, I completely agree!

I can't argue with that logic, LOL !

Thing is, if System A can make average Joe a decent fighter in 1 year and system B needs 3, then isn't A a better system?

[chusauli]

Honestly, WCK can be taught within a year or even a few months. It all depends on the student, and the teacher. You could at least make a functional stand up fighter in that time.

Mastery will take a while...but that's with everything.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Honestly, WCK can be taught within a year or even a few months. It all depends on the student, and the teacher. You could at least make a functional stand up fighter in that time.

Mastery will take a while...but that's with everything.

I agree, but IS IT taught that way typically? and for it to be taught that way, what is done?
Or more correctly, what is prioritized and what is de-prioritized?

[goju]

anyone know who that boxer is? he looks like he would be pretty good if he was taking it seriously

on another side note the karate vs wing chun match linked to that vid was a more fair fight due to both gentleman being equal in size

[LoneTiger108]

Honestly, WCK can be taught within a year or even a few months. It all depends on the student, and the teacher. You could at least make a functional stand up fighter in that time.

Mastery will take a while...but that's with everything.

Will this relatively new stand up fighter actually be able to do Wing Chun Robert, or simply stand and trade blows??

Personally I think the quick fix fighter for comps requires more than 15hrs a week to be any good in 3 months, unless they have already come with something already.

[jesper]

Will this relatively new stand up fighter actually be able to do Wing Chun Robert, or simply stand and trade blows??

Personally I think the quick fix fighter for comps requires more than 15hrs a week to be any good in 3 months, unless they have already come with something already.

Who cares how he wins. If you can teach a beginner to win by chainpunching the **** out of your opponent in two weeks that will get him by until he can improve his WCK to take out better opponents.

Will it work everytime. ofcourse not, nothing you teach a beginner will (or an advanced for that matter)
Will it work against proven good fighters. Ofcourse not, nothing you teach a beginner will.
Will it work against most of the scrubs you meet in bars etc. **** well it will, most of the time.

[YungChun]

Will this relatively new stand up fighter actually be able to do Wing Chun Robert, or simply stand and trade blows??

Personally I think the quick fix fighter for comps requires more than 15hrs a week to be any good in 3 months, unless they have already come with something already.

IMO Robert is correct.. Anyone with the ability can be taught to be functional in a short time.. This is not the case typically in VT even after 10 years but not because of what VT is but rather because of poor training.

[chusauli]

I agree, but IS IT taught that way typically? and for it to be taught that way, what is done?
Or more correctly, what is prioritized and what is de-prioritized?

Of course, its not taught like this typically. One of my students is a cop. He studied BJJ, MT, and WCK. The WCK was from one of my disciples. He learned probably 2nd set prior, but I started to teach him from scratch when he moved to Los Angeles. I taught him the entire system in less than a year. I also taught him Integrated Escrima in that time as well.

Mostly it was through private time one on one.

You prioritize function, hands on pressure, application; not showing and performing sets. Also pad drills, sticking hands, and body pressure - of course, sparring would be part of that.

What I outlined in my DVD's, if any one drilled them for 6 months, they'd be a very good fighter.

[chusauli]

Will this relatively new stand up fighter actually be able to do Wing Chun Robert, or simply stand and trade blows??

Personally I think the quick fix fighter for comps requires more than 15hrs a week to be any good in 3 months, unless they have already come with something already.

Spencer,

I would actually teach them the method of WCK, which Dr. John Fung summed up so eloquently as:

封 手, 制 腳, 管 勢, 失 中 （失 重 ）

Why would it be so hard? If its the real teaching, one small teaching of it embodies the truth of the system.

Why would a scrub want to learn to trade blows? What is the merit of their teaching then? I give them a lot of homework to do and they have to do conditioning, then try it with all sorts of opponents.

[chusauli]

IMO Robert is correct.. Anyone with the ability can be taught to be functional in a short time.. This is not the case typically in VT even after 10 years but not because of what VT is but rather because of poor training.

LOL! The story of Ng Mui teaching Yim Wing Chun was set in a few months, not decades or years.

If you use pads and a wall bag, you get power in your strikes and kicks immediately. If you train the Jong with your whole body on principle moves, you learn to use the whole body to issue power. When you pressure the student from different angles, they immediately get stronger in their root, base and posture. When you work on San Sao, they have no fear of facing an opponent. If you stick hands and strike them, they can learn to see what fits them in the moment. If you give them supplemental work with a KB and a Medicine ball, they learn to catch and throw with their body. Nothing is just forms and talking all night long to understand. Its all about doing.

I have to say that most WCK schools waste a student's time. If they put in the work, there is no reason why they cannot get good in a short period of time.

[Liddel]

The guys elbows are outside his body width so what makes us all think he is trained in VT ? after all thats one of the biggest attributes that sets VT apart..elbow behaviour. We all know Fighting under the banner of VT doesnt men you use VT.

His chin is up and his hands are down which is bad for any style and like paul said, his reactions to being hit suggest he's not very experienced.

Up untill he got kablammed he wasnt doing so bad. We see proffesional fighters in situations like this where they are on the back foot.
I feel people here expect a fighter of any style thats considered 'good' to not be tested and just own people. Reality aint like that. You get bullied about even with a evenly matched opponent, you trade. Its ones ability to get passed it / weather it and continue on. Frankie Edgar please stand up ! :p but the guy played into his opponents strengths full stop. What he does in the next encounter would be interesting to see and that would determine how good of a fighter he is IMO, how he learns from his mistakes...

Im not sure why he didnt use more kicks. When ive faced guys better than me with the advantages we see here i've found mixing up kicks and punches opens up the opponents defences and keeps them from pressing forward as you present a changing moving target.
VT has taught me how to take punches whilst landing my own kicks at close range so why not capitalise on this bennifit of VT?? is he not at that level yet ?

As for the newer subject of quick training peeps in VT, ive found learning techs for how to cover yourself and take punches are way more effective for enabling you to hang in there with better skilled people than teaching someone a bunch of attcking movements...it also hardens you up which IMO is a very important attribute that alot of VT schools in my local area dont address :(

[Frost]

How many WC videos are out there?
How many done by proficient and talented teachers?
Most of them are marketing for them or their system.
How many actually show WC fighting ??

lol snap this is what i was going on about so many people say what wing chun should look like, so many on here say whats wrong with this clip or that clip and so many seem to find the time to write on these forums or put up clips of chi sao or drills, yet no one can be bothered putting up a real fight against a half decent opponent because they cant find the time :rolleyes: (phil and Alan aside that is, and hell victor too has at least put up sparring clips)

[LoneTiger108]

Who cares how he wins. If you can teach a beginner to win by chainpunching the **** out of your opponent in two weeks that will get him by until he can improve his WCK to take out better opponents.

Sorry Jesper, but Robert was talking about teaching, or finish teaching a student Wing Chun in 3moths to a year. Thankfully, chain punching isn't all Wing Chun has to offer.


IMO Robert is correct.. Anyone with the ability can be taught to be functional in a short time.. This is not the case typically in VT even after 10 years but not because of what VT is but rather because of poor training.

In your opinion Robert is always correct! ;)

And if that's really what you think about Wing Chun, taking 10 years to get functional, you really ought to get out more. Maybe 10 years on 1hr training per week with no homework! But that's not how to learn Wing Chun imho, which is why our style should have never gone commercial in the first place imho.


Spencer,

I would actually teach them the method of WCK, which Dr. John Fung summed up so eloquently as:

封 手, 制 腳, 管 勢, 失 中 （失 重 ）

Why would it be so hard? If its the real teaching, one small teaching of it embodies the truth of the system.

Why would a scrub want to learn to trade blows? What is the merit of their teaching then? I give them a lot of homework to do and they have to do conditioning, then try it with all sorts of opponents.

Robert,

From what you say here, you are only teaching the 'character' of Wing Chun from one line of kuit. That is not complete by a long shot fme, just an overview of what there is on offer. A better question for you would be, how long it takes to get a student functional in all the 40 points from Kulo?

And of course, will this training improve your future prospects of fighting a boxer?

[Frost]

nah, the people rowing the boat usually don't have time to rock it. I don't think this means that there just aren't any people out there doing it, or afraid to show their stuff might not be so hot.
More like people are just to busy with their own stuff to really get involved in little online forum debates.
Ok, so I might not be the greatest example, but besides running a full-time school, six days a week,
I have a pile of articles I've written and re-written, to be submitted...um, soon.
Apparently, I won't submit them to IKF...
I have an outline for a DVD series I really want to shoot..um, soon...
I have the outline for a book series, but I need to get in better shape (the camera adds ten pounds..) ..um, soon..
I have to work out harder..um, soon..
Put up a video on youtube? Are you kidding? I'm so busy!

You run a full time school (as do a fair few wing chun teachers I bet) and yet you don’t have the time to record any sparring matches that happen within the school or any of the competition fights your guys do? What is it with kung fu schools do cameras not work in them? Can’t they see the advertising advantage of doing this? And while I’m at it how come it’s only the schools that suck that manage to actually put out sparring clips but not the good schools?

One of the MMA gyms I attend is also full time, and is very very busy (the two coaches run the gym, delivery privates and teach around the country, run a team of fighters and a grappling team as well) yet they manage to not only record the fights their guys take part in, as well as the inter club grappling comps they run AND the grappling comps they attend, hell they even manage to record a typical weeks training and put the clip out on youtube: which includes sparring, grappling and drills (shock horror) Why because they realise its great publicity to do so and a great way to advertise and get new students

How hard is it to set a video up and press record, you don’t have to set up special fights just record normal sparring sessions

[sanjuro_ronin]

Not to press the video thing too much since it is kind of highjacking the thread but the Dog Brothers have a motto that I believe should be universal:
See it taught, see it fought.
Now, you don't always have to do it full contact, though it is best that way, just doing it in a sparring application is just fine, but you SHOULD demo any application VS a resisting opponent.
The question is, WHY WOULDN'T YOU ?

[Frost]

Not to press the video thing too much since it is kind of highjacking the thread but the Dog Brothers have a motto that I believe should be universal:
See it taught, see it fought.
Now, you don't always have to do it full contact, though it is best that way, just doing it in a sparring application is just fine, but you SHOULD demo any application VS a resisting opponent.
The question is, WHY WOULDN'T YOU ?

Don’t worry I started the thread so hijack away…and your point goes to the core of why I posted it, most people agree the wing chun guy didn’t do very well, most people say its not a good representation of wing chun…….fine that’s their opinion but can they point to a good representation….if not why not

Are we just meant to believe that whilst people have the time to post on line over and over and take the time to refute bad things said about wing chun they don’t have the time or inclination to actually show what they are talking about

Or are we meant to believe that whilst more than a few wing chun instructors are bothered enough and technically minded enough to put out demos and compliant training clips they aren’t bothered or technical minded enough to actually record some sparring
.................:rolleyes:

[m1k3]

Don’t worry I started the thread so hijack away…and your point goes to the core of why I posted it, most people agree the wing chun guy didn’t do very well, most people say its not a good representation of wing chun…….fine that’s their opinion but can they point to a good representation….if not why not

Are we just meant to believe that whilst people have the time to post on line over and over and take the time to refute bad things said about wing chun they don’t have the time or inclination to actually show what they are talking about

Or are we meant to believe that whilst more than a few wing chun instructors are bothered enough and technically minded enough to put out demos and compliant training clips they aren’t bothered or technical minded enough to actually record some sparring
.................:rolleyes:

Frost, you just don't understand. _ing _un has too many crippling and deadly techniques to be able to spar with it. If they went to a competition all the other folks would have their eyes gouged out or there throats crushed or other horrible injuries.

Don't you see that these folks are simply being adult and responsible by not not inflecting the terrible damage that _ing _un can cause on unsuspecting boxers, mma players and other thugs.






Yeah, right. But it sounds good to the unknowing.
:D

[Frost]

I don’t actually have a problem with that argument as such (I mean its bull you know it and I know it) BUT it at least is an argument for why there’s no clips out there from these guys

MY problem is with people who say this or that clip is bad and not good wing chun and not good representation of wing chun and that with good training (like they have ben exposed to) it should look like this: you should be able to enter easily and control the opponent and lamp him with elbows and punches whilst you off balance him blah blah blah but THEN say oh wait the real guys cant be bothered putting clips up, as they have nothing to prove and better things to do if that’s the case why bother typing a response in the first fecking place

[LoneTiger108]

How hard is it to set a video up and press record, you don’t have to set up special fights just record normal sparring sessions

I used to do this all the time when I first started coaching, as a self assessment tool for both myself and the students. But we never sparred really, just practised the basic foundation.

You have to realize that this was all on tape, so to even transfer onto the PC takes far too much space and time! I'm now pushing the HD/Digital and building a small coleection of personal training 'experiences' which I will share once I feel the time is right.

As for sparring, I've had interest in the BCCMA Sanshou comp this year and may look at helping a few Wing Chun guys enter as we have had no representation at all in these formal comps for years. Mainly Lau Gar and others who end up kickboxing their way to the finals! Good fighters imo, but also some very low level ones too.

FWIW Nobody is allowed to film these things either, when I was involved, as the BCCMA have their own crew who produce a DVD for members to buy (which is copyrighted too so you couldn't share it anyway!)

[Frost]

I used to do this all the time when I first started coaching, as a self assessment tool for both myself and the students. But we never sparred really, just practised the basic foundation.

You have to realize that this was all on tape, so to even transfer onto the PC takes far too much space and time! I'm now pushing the HD/Digital and building a small coleection of personal training 'experiences' which I will share once I feel the time is right.

As for sparring, I've had interest in the BCCMA Sanshou comp this year and may look at helping a few Wing Chun guys enter as we have had no representation at all in these formal comps for years. Mainly Lau Gar and others who end up kickboxing their way to the finals! Good fighters imo, but also some very low level ones too.

FWIW Nobody is allowed to film these things either, when I was involved, as the BCCMA have their own crew who produce a DVD for members to buy (which is copyrighted too so you couldn't share it anyway!)

Lol you are talking to former senior black sash in Lau Gar here so watch what you say :o)

On a side note I remember entering the nationals in sticky hands fighting because some of the guardians were worried it was becoming too much like kick boxing without gloves and they wanted some of us seniors to show how it was done properly with control and good technique…. the first time my opponent got through my guard he chipped a tooth and blooded up my nose and I saw stars…. lol it became a lot like bare knuckle kick boxing from then on

[sanjuro_ronin]

No one expects "average joe" to video himself sparring and post it.
We are truly addressing this to those that HAVE posted videos or done instructional series, and there are a lot of them out there.

[TenTigers]

You run a full time school (as do a fair few wing chun teachers I bet) and yet you don’t have the time to record any sparring matches that happen within the school or any of the competition fights your guys do? What is it with kung fu schools do cameras not work in them? Can’t they see the advertising advantage of doing this? And while I’m at it how come it’s only the schools that suck that manage to actually put out sparring clips but not the good schools?

One of the MMA gyms I attend is also full time, and is very very busy (the two coaches run the gym, delivery privates and teach around the country, run a team of fighters and a grappling team as well) yet they manage to not only record the fights their guys take part in, as well as the inter club grappling comps they run AND the grappling comps they attend, hell they even manage to record a typical weeks training and put the clip out on youtube: which includes sparring, grappling and drills (shock horror) Why because they realise its great publicity to do so and a great way to advertise and get new students

How hard is it to set a video up and press record, you don’t have to set up special fights just record normal sparring sessions
That's kinda what I was getting at. (although I meant it in a humorous way, it still holds true for me) For me, it's a personal issue I've been struggling with for a long time. Procrastination, inconsistancy, motivation. I have trouble getting out of my own way sometimes.
I seriously have written a dozen articles, but never got around to submitting them.
As far as videos, I have just moved to a new location, after suffering a near bankruptcy-I was down to a handfull of students, now building it back up.(thankfully, I have a business partner who now runs the administrative aspect. Apparantly, passion alone isn't sufficient)
I have a small group of guys and will be video taping them soon. So far, my guys have done well in continuous sparring, and are getting ready for a better challenge, and one has fought and won in the first amature MMA event in Thailand. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oBEeHw1RzE
(at this time, he really focuses on MT, and helps with our san-shou/san-da classes)
I will put up some vids after Chinese New Year. (Priorities.)

[YungChun]

No one expects "average joe" to video himself sparring and post it.
We are truly addressing this to those that HAVE posted videos or done instructional series, and there are a lot of them out there.

The problem is the nature of the system the curriculum..

What you will see posted is what people train.. People train GorSao/ChiSao and that's what you see posted... The problem lies in the focus on repeating the curriculum over and over again instead of a focus on completing the basics and then using sparring as the core learning tool, and by sparring I mean sparring that involves VT sparring NON VT....

And since the focus in NOT on going outside the kwoon you don't see it and you also don't see many teachers with that experience either and so they can't pass that on to the students..

[TenTigers]

ok, so in keeping this topic on track, what WCK techniques and methods have you found to be successful vs boxing?
What has worked for you? What has NOT worked, and perhaps through brainstorming and sharing, people can come up with possible solutions?
After all, isn't that the idea of these forums? Or is it simply for mudslinging?

[YungChun]

ok, so in keeping this topic on track, what WCK techniques and methods have you found to be successful vs boxing?
What has worked for you? What has NOT worked, and perhaps through brainstorming and sharing, people can come up with possible solutions?
After all, isn't that the idea of these forums? Or is it simply for mudslinging?

I think that's been covered from all sides....including mud slinging afterward..

You don't see agreement on the method and discussion breaks down.

VT's method is to enter and break them down/disrupt and control while bashing them...

Until people do that then IMO you'll only see them chasing people around with chain punches...

The only way to find out is to actually do it and leave behind the idea of staying inside the safe, dull kwoon doing drills and forms forever..

Remember the old Kung-Fu series? It may be fiction but the message was correct, remember what they said? When you can take the pebble from my hand it will be time for you to leave...!

They kicked them out.. That's what VT needs to do or some variation.. Give your student some gear as a graduation present and kick them out! ;)

[TenTigers]

VT's method is to enter and break them down/disrupt and control while bashing them...

ok, so let's get specific;
which methods do you use?
As I said before, some schools use kwun-sao, bong-sao, TWC's"entry technique" etc.

[m1k3]

I soak my head in harsh chemicals and then pound my face with a rubber mallet to develop iron head skills. :eek:

Then when I fight a boxer I fight with my hands down so that he can break his fist on my iron face.

Bwahahahahahahaha.

[YungChun]

ok, so let's get specific;
which methods do you use?
As I said before, some schools use kwun-sao, bong-sao, TWC's"entry technique" etc.

It's not so much in the what as in the how IMO.... The classical way IMO is to attack their attack, but the timing/distance must be correct.. We use the strike to whack their structure and make a bridge.. But whatever tool you use it must take something away from them, it must make a connection to their core, it must break them down, not just block and play with their hands from outside, or chase them around with chain punches. But to break them down you need real structure and real power and a real horse and put the time in.

But there is more to it.. You can't give people step by step instructions on fighting they have to do it themselves..

Also I don't claim to have extensive experience fighting lots of boxers, just a modicum of experience sparring with a couple (of good ones) who I taught some VT.

What I found was that trying to gain position/land from outside was the wrong way to go... The key for me was to attack their attack, as in their jab for example in order to interrupt their timing, disrupt them etc..but there is more than one way to go.. But you must do some variation of this in order to enter into VT's range and stay there until you can finish.. How you set this up, how you move on the outside, etc must be learned from experience...

We generally don't want to just chase them around or wait for them.. The key to VT is in breaking them down, energizing their core with our tools and body power--this is what makes VT different from boxing our tools are supposed to break structure. Without this aspect all you have is a very peculiar boxing style that doesn't work very well and people then adding in boxing in order to fill the 'gaps', etc...

[LoneTiger108]

Lol you are talking to former senior black sash in Lau Gar here so watch what you say :o)

Well, some of these fighters I mention are considered the pioneers of sanshou in the UK and they are not the low level guys I'm talking of! ;)


On a side note I remember entering the nationals in sticky hands fighting because some of the guardians were worried it was becoming too much like kick boxing without gloves and they wanted some of us seniors to show how it was done properly with control and good technique…. the first time my opponent got through my guard he chipped a tooth and blooded up my nose and I saw stars…. lol it became a lot like bare knuckle kick boxing from then on

One of the reasons myself and my seniors avoid going back to the 'old days' (1980's) of Club Vs Club Wing Chun comps that literally ended up as blood baths! :eek: I know it sounds cliche, and I've only heard the stories, but it WAS crazy back then! Far too many bloody accounts from too many sources for it to be lies imo. And from what I heard, these fights were 10x harder and more vicious than any HK roof top encounter!! :D At that time I was in my early teens and witnessed the adult Shotokan Kumite comps and see enough blood from, so-called, "slips of the fist!", to understand it aint really worth it. Or it wasn't back then when practically anything was okay and imbedded teeth in knuckles was the norm.

And that's why I respect what the guys have done with the BCCMA Sanshou comps. They are safe and clean with a rack load of senior advisers. And their Shuai Jiao has a good rep too internationally. We were also asked to look into Chisau comps for them a few years back, but refused because they thought other styles could enter too. "It's really not that simple" we said, so they didn't go ahead. Besides, we all knew sanshou was the format for TCMA so they just built on that.

It's going to be an interesting year for me as it will be good to take some decent guys through if they decide it's worth the time and financial investment. I personally train a bit of cardio anyway and our Wing Chun sessions have never been shy of sweat! Just need to add on the 'sparring' to see what they can do, but I don't believe it's really needed like everyone here thinks. Maybe if they are to project a solid Wing Chun image they just need confidence. Like I've always said, fight a WCK fight and it really doesn't matter if you lose. Just carry on and improve using your WCK as best you can.

I also boxed a lot when I was a kid but even before that had won point light contact kumite championships without ever sparring beforehand. My old sensei said "you can either fight or you can't" and I suppose I could way back then. We never sparred in training, it was all very traditional Shotokan. Kinda like my Wing Chun training too. My WCK Sifu used to say "why fight for nothing but a plastic medal? If you wanna fight, at least earn the money!" And FWIW when I went boxing I had to be taken pout of the sparring sessions because I wanted to win and their 'champ' fighter moaned that I hit like a brick! But he clubbed me some bricks too from my own memory and took the pi$$ because I was going easy ;) Just trained and trained after that and had to learn about 'gears' and driving my boxing. Pretty cool stuff but still, a long time ago.

And so, there it is. I'm a little too 'responsible' to enter the arena myself as I have a public facing job and kids and a wife! :) But that doesn't mean I can't train a decent Wing Chun fighter and make a good sparring partner out of myself. Does it?

Just keep to your own game is my only advice, whether you fight a boxer or a Lau Gar dude! ;):D

[jesper]

Sorry Jesper, but Robert was talking about teaching, or finish teaching a student Wing Chun in 3moths to a year. Thankfully, chain punching isn't all Wing Chun has to offer.


Ofcourse Chainpunching isnt all it has to offer. its a beginners way to fight relatively efficient.

As for how long it takes to teach WCK. I would say if he trains 5-6 days a week He should be able to learn it in 1½-2 years. Emphasis here on learn, not mastering which will take a lifetime.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Not sure why the rag on chain punching, hitting a guy a bunch of times into submission is what boxing is all about, at ANY level !

[YungChun]

Not sure why the rag on chain punching, hitting a guy a bunch of times into submission is what boxing is all about, at ANY level !

Because it doesn't take 10 years (or even 10 hours) to learn how to CP.

Moreover, CPing represents 90% of what you see people do yet it's 10% of the art or less...

Shall I keep going?

[sanjuro_ronin]

Because it doesn't take 10 years (or even 10 hours) to learn how to CP.

Moreover, CPing represents 90% of what you see people do yet it's 10% of the art or less...

Shall I keep going?

You can, sure, but allow me this simple analogy.
The right cross is less than 10% of boxing ( as is any single punch really), yet without an effective one has there ever been a elite level boxer?

Point is that I see many people say that CP is "low end" WC but that is like saying a left hook is low level boxing.

[YungChun]

You can, sure, but allow me this simple analogy.
The right cross is less than 10% of boxing ( as is any single punch really), yet without an effective one has there ever been a elite level boxer?

Point is that I see many people say that CP is "low end" WC but that is like saying a left hook is low level boxing.

Not the same... A VT punch--the punch could be compared to a hook... We could look at if someone's punch is well developed and no it's use is not low level..

"Chain Punching" is a (myth) or noob tactic, possibly an erroneous one depending on how it's done, which is typically with hyper timing and no body power.... It's used to compensate for no power, no technique, no real tactic, no real control, no use of ging, structure and instead what you get is the Mad Eggbeater.. Using this tactic against good boxers will result in making them giggle....

[sanjuro_ronin]

Not the same... A VT punch--the punch could be compared to a hook... Chain Punching is a tactic, possibly an erroneous one depending on how it's done, which is typically with hyper timing and no body power.... It's used to compensate for no power, no technique, no real tactic, no real control, no use of ging, structure and instead what you get is the Mad Eggbeater.. Using this tactic against good boxers will result in making them giggle....

Well, described like that, anyone using or teaching CP should be shot and ****ed on.

[kung fu fighter]

here are a couple of good sparring drills to help to prepare for boxers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tie4k2d0ZSM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHKzeOE9dlg&feature=channel

[YungChun]

Well, described like that, anyone using or teaching CP should be shot and ****ed on.

LOL :D

Something like that..

[YungChun]

here are a couple of good sparring drills to help to prepare for boxers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tie4k2d0ZSM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHKzeOE9dlg&feature=channel

Really?

CB is totally off IMO..

He has a very limited and static idea of what "Boxing range" is and seems to emphasize the idea of VT keeping distance... Then he has the V step thing where he waits for him, demos walking around the punch, blind side, etc... This is what I meant before about trying to gain position on the outside not being the right way to go.. Try walking around a boxers jab... :rolleyes:

Still watching to see if anything useful...

[sanjuro_ronin]

Honestly, the only drill anyone can do to prepare for a certain system is to spar that system.

[YungChun]

Honestly, the only drill anyone can do to prepare for a certain system is to spar that system.

I have no problem drilling stuff, but it should be stuff that follows the method, that can work...that uses realistic timing.

Not this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8EbYipJprQ

Which is exactly what you shouldn't do. It's a good way to get decapitated..

[KPM]

Remember the old Kung-Fu series? It may be fiction but the message was correct, remember what they said? When you can take the pebble from my hand it will be time for you to leave...!

They kicked them out.. That's what VT needs to do or some variation.. Give your student some gear as a graduation present and kick them out! ;)

That's good! I like that image! :)

[Frost]

No one expects "average joe" to video himself sparring and post it.
We are truly addressing this to those that HAVE posted videos or done instructional series, and there are a lot of them out there.

actually if they are making comments about how bad certain clips are and how wrongly they are fighting with wing chun, then it would be nice of them to actually put upa clip of them doing it right.........:D

[YungChun]

Not perfect but this is getting a little closer..

The VT guy has the reach advantage this time as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cA7rj7b_sM0

Of course the skill levels of who and what as well as methods will vary...

[GlennR]

Not perfect but this is getting a little closer..

The VT guy has the reach advantage this time as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cA7rj7b_sM0

Of course the skill levels of who and what as well as methods will vary...

That was not a boxer

GlennR

[YungChun]

That was not a boxer

GlennR


Well perhaps not the kind you'd like to see, btw feel free to post a better one, (I gave finding one a shot) but it does show VT which is slightly closer to what I am looking for....

There simply are not lots of good VT vs. Western Boxing to be found.... Which of course speaks volumes..

Okay here's a 100% real Boxer against VT.. A bit too much CPing but notice later how he controls and breaks structure while striking, and uses the VT collar, etc... :)

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

[Hardwork108]

Because it doesn't take 10 years (or even 10 hours) to learn how to CP.

Moreover, CPing represents 90% of what you see people do yet it's 10% of the art or less...

Shall I keep going?

You are saying that the overall majority of Wing Chun teachers don't teach the art properly (because they have no idea themselves)!!!

Wow, we finally agree o something.....:D

[Vajramusti]

You can, sure, but allow me this simple analogy.
The right cross is less than 10% of boxing ( as is any single punch really), yet without an effective one has there ever been a elite level boxer?

Point is that I see many people say that CP is "low end" WC but that is like saying a left hook is low level boxing.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sanjuro-

No right cross?-- Frazier? Some left hook from that right hander. But you know that.Just a question of phrasing more clearly?

One of those opinions- many wc-ers are not taught their punching properly. Not understood- the role of good structure and the path of the punch for development.

Joy Chaudhuri

[KPM]

Not perfect but this is getting a little closer..

The VT guy has the reach advantage this time as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cA7rj7b_sM0

Of course the skill levels of who and what as well as methods will vary...

Hey Jim!

When I did my own fishing around on youtube those clips from Jai Harmon were about the best ones I could find as well.

[LoneTiger108]

That was not a boxer

GlennR

Totally agree.


Okay here's a 100% real Boxer against VT.. A bit too much CPing but notice later how he controls and breaks structure while striking, and uses the VT collar, etc...

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

A typical comedic response, which was quite funny actually! Although I'd seen the clip before. Aint easy finding clips to prove what we're all saying is it?


Point is that I see many people say that CP is "low end" WC but that is like saying a left hook is low level boxing.

Not my intention. Compare poor fistwork in WCK to a sloppy jab that is never in distance.

If all you are taught is lienwan kuen and think that blasting your way through a strong defence with limitless punchunig (what some refer too as 'caveman wck') then I think that would classify as 'low end' skill. Charging blindly forwards aiming at the same target works against a non martial artist as a surprise technique, but against another skilled fighter? No. You will be taken out very quickly imho.

My point is, most schools teach the fistwork in sets of three or four. Three being the key imho. This is how the lienwan kuen should be excecuted and if you haven't found your target by the 3rd you need to change tactic. This 'concept' doesn't restrict the target you aim for either as we have 3 paths too consider(upper, middle and lower) and the combinations of your fistwork can reflect this.

Then, of course some would have 3 distinctly different fist/elbow/shoulder alignments originating from the seed of bong, tan and fook. A little idea that should be naturally developed, which I sadly do not see that often. Even in some of the most senior practitioners I have met.

[Ultimatewingchun]

discuss :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AKFNCIJdvA&feature=player_embedded

***Just watched this for the first time, Frost. My God, you and I are really on the same page, about this anyway! :D

Anyway, that vid you posted is beautiful, and is reminiscent of numerous sparring sessions I've had over the years with guys who can really box - and especially guys with a longer reach.

Boxers are going to round punch, hook, or overhand around your wing chun arm structure - and as you come in: they will bypass your defense, and beat on you before you can make your "shortest distance between two points is a straight line" approach work its magic on them.

It's about distance.

WING CHUN IS A CLOSE QUARTER STANDUP STRIKING GAME, and getting to that location is the biggest challenge for the wing chun fighter - getting there before being tagged (possibly heavily) by lead hand round punches and hooks, or, as we saw - a rear cross that can put you on the floor.

If you're really in close quarter striking range, then basic wing chun striking and attempts to control the opponent's body can work.

If you're not - you're inviting trouble if you limit yourself to such narrow lines and real estate coverage as what was seen in the vid. The wing chun guy was doing the move straight ahead and straight line punching attack - and he paid the price for it becuase the boxer is using a more dynamic footwork, can bobb and weave, slip, duck, etc. And if his reach is longer than yours, and it's not close striking range - then you're really inviting trouble. He can hold his arms back and offline - and pick you off by going around your structure as you move in by timing you.

Remember, in "pure" wing chun, there's no bobbing and weaving, no ducking, no slipping, no raised heel up on the toes broken rhythm footwork....because it's all about keeping the wing chun "structure and body alignment" intact.

And a good boxer can give you a hell of a lot of trouble if your arms are always held in the basic wing chun position and all your strikes are straight, and even though you might try to use some angling as you approach - the final push to penetrate is always to come straight in. He knows where your arms are at all times and what you're trying to do...

he always knows where your head is, he sees that your strikes and other arm motions are all basically very straight, and you become very predictable.

I've seen this time and again when sparring with boxers (and especially when against guys with a longer reach) - like in that vid.

And without some real hard contact and frequent sparring against guys with serious boxing skills - these things will never come to light for wing chun guys.

That's why I eventually developed a straight lead, rear cross, and even round punch strategy (along with some more dynamic footwork and slipping, etc.) of my own through the years to get close - but using these things within a central line/centerline structure...

so that my left arm is dueling his right arm and my right arm is dueling his left arm for control of valuable real estate: ie.- two vertical centerlines: one that runs down his body from his right shoulder line, and one from his left shoulder line...

to get close - without getting beaten by his punches and his footwork.

I'm using long swords, if you will, to battle his long swords - in order to get to the point where my short swords can take over and work along my main centerline to attack and control his center of mass....

including the willingness to go to clinch, neck ties and knees, over and unders, trips, takedowns and shoots, etc.

But that's another matter. ;)

[Niersun]

I'm using long swords, if you will, to battle his long swords - in order to get to the point where my short swords can take over....

including the willingness to go to clinch, neck ties and knees, over and unders, trips, takedowns and shoots, etc.



Going down the JKD/MMA path no doubt. Its the natural thing to do.

But you should no longer call it Wing Chun and just call it JKD (this may upset your Sifu and he may no longer want to talk to you). Its your own interpretation of what works for you. Wing Chun is still your foundation.

[Ultimatewingchun]

I've explained numerous times how I'm using TWC centraline principles in order to do this - and therefore the result is waaay more like TWC than JKD.

And that includes the front kicks and roundhouse kicks that I may also employ as part of the strategy to get in close - that's also part of basic TWC.

I'm not going back to that anymore. Check out some of my past posts on this. People "want" to label what I do non-wingchun/JKD because they can't admit that there are holes (limitations) in the wing chun game - or that they themselves have added non wing chun into their game - and instead of acknowledging that they have added some elements from other styles - even though what they do still revolves around basic wing chun...

they make the claim that it's still all wing chun (ie.- the wing chun "guillotine", for example).

So naturally they want to discredit what I'm doing and talking about..."oh, it's just a JKD approach"...."it's no longer wing chun", etc.

And I'm not necessarily directing this at you, Niersun.

[Niersun]

No dramas mate.

Fighting is fighting to me. Its hardly ever anything that you see in the movies where you can distinctively tell the difference between the styles.

I was just suggesting something that i would do if i were in your shoes.

[Ultimatewingchun]

I understand. Not a problem.

[YouKnowWho]

When

- the fire has reached to the highest temperature, that fire will have no color.
- a MA guy has reached to the highest level, that guy will have no "style".

I truly hate people who said, "You don't fight like ... or you don't fight like ...". When your opponent is unconcious below your knee, he can't care less which style that you had used to knock him out.

The day that you no longer have "style boundary" in mind, the day that you will become the master of your style/styles, and you no longer be the slave of it.

[LoneTiger108]

WING CHUN IS A CLOSE QUARTER STANDUP STRIKING GAME...

... Remember, in "pure" wing chun, there's no bobbing and weaving, no ducking, no slipping, no raised heel up on the toes or broken rhythm footwork....because it's all about keeping the wing chun "structure and body alignment" intact.

I'm not a fan of this "pure" wing chun ideal you have here. Especially if you think that when you spar with Wing Chun there is no "bobbing and weaving, no ducking, no slipping, no raised heel up on the toes broken rhythm footwork". All of this IS present within the Wing Chun I have been taught, and Lee Shing was a Sifu of Ip Mans teaching primarily (my own Sifu being a direct student of LS for over 25 years) What makes you think the heel up isn't there? Or that it would affect your Wing Chun structure negatively or take you away from this 'pure' image you talk of? Or are you talking about others here?

Many people fall into the trap of copying the old masters, almost mimicking them exactly, when these old masters (let's use Ip Man as a prime example) were over 70 and actually very ill when the filming was done. The forms we are accustomed to seeing over the World are 'dead' images, they have no life in them at all until you breathe life into them yourself and guided through them by someone that has also been guided through them. And this is a pretty free process, as is 'free-style' sparring. It's open to peoples individuality and character, especially when we are young. I think many try to adapt more modern methods, like you have, by trying to keep whatever ideas they have about Wing Chun intact. But this should never just be a very basic image of our style that, imho, should never have been put there in the first place!

Of course, I'm also a firm believer (well FME anyways) in there being hooks and upper cuts in Wing Chun too AND the mechanics to use one of these simple images from a form to apply headlocks and guilotines. CK is a good example. But what I would say is that these 'ideas' are NOT my interpretation, it's simply what I was exposed to on my journey within Siu Lim Tao alone, and I'm still learning more everyday without my Sifu as he managed to pass on good, strong foundations for me to nurture and grow from.

Just an observation and attempt to help you see what many others have already seen too. Although I also understand that many others see this from cross training or mixing their martial arts knowledge base with sports sciences, so I understand your frustration at being mocked by others for just trying to improve and develop. I feel your pain dude, as I'm targetted too sometimes for rolling my eyes and being gay!! (which I'm not by the way lol!) :rolleyes:

[YouKnowWho]

I'm not a fan of this "pure" wing chun ideal you have here.
I don't like the word "pure" either. Cross training will force you to look at thing from different angles. Some Taiji guys said that when you train Taiji, your

- head should be vertical,
- heel should be down, and
- body should not lean.

The day that Taiji guy starts to train "hip throw", he will realize that all those articifical restriction was just BS, and his view of CMA was just like a frog at the bottom of the well, and assume the sky was no bigger than the well.

[LoneTiger108]

The day that Taiji guy starts to train "hip throw", he will realize that all those articifical restriction was just BS, and his view of CMA was just like a frog at the bottom of the well and assume the sky was no bigger than the well.

Not so much BS, but just an idea that IS used for specific purpose during set forms/patterns that do not cover the classic hip throw in the way you know it. But I see your point.

[KPM]

I've explained numerous times how I'm using TWC centraline principles in order to do this - and therefore the result is waaay more like TWC than JKD.

So naturally they want to discredit what I'm doing and talking about..."oh, it's just JKD approach"...."it's no longer wing chun", etc.



Hey Victor!

I think what you are talking about is certainly Wing Chun! Like I've said in other posts, I have been exploring something similar using a Jun Fan/JKD perspective. I've come to think of what I am doing as "Jun Fan Wing Chun", but still consider it Wing Chun! After all, you have JKD guys like Lamar Davis that have a WCK "flavor" in their JKD. Why can't we have some WCK with a "JKD flavor." :-)

[Ultimatewingchun]

Keith, Lone, You know who:

I'm feelin' you guys. :D

[Vajramusti]

Remember, in "pure" wing chun, there's no bobbing and weaving, no ducking, no slipping, no raised heel up on the toes broken rhythm footwork....because it's all about keeping the wing chun "structure and body alignment" intact.

((Thanks Victor for expressing your views. You seem to have come to some conclusions over time which you have expressed many times. My views area little different because my wing chun
is likely to be different from yours and TWC. BTW- the heel can be raised when needed.Some more comments below. Thx. Joy)))


And a good boxer can give you a hell of a lot of trouble if your arms are always held in the basic wing chun position and all your strikes are straight, and even though you might try to use some angling as you approach - the final push to penetrate is always to come straight in. He knows where your arms are at all times and what you're trying to do...

((My hands are not rigid when properly held in the front and the center is closed.There is always motion- may not be visible. A boxer specially a good one should never be underestimated))

he always knows where your head is, he sees that your strikes and other arm motions are all basically very straight, and you become very predictable.

((Not necessarily))

I've seen this time and again when sparring with boxers (and especially when against guys with a longer reach) - like in that vid.

And without some real hard contact and frequent sparring against guys with serious boxing skills - these things will never come to light for wing chun guys.

((Wing chun folks should try their game against all sorts of folks))

That's why I eventually developed a straight lead, rear cross, and even round punch strategy (along with some more dynamic footwork and slipping, etc.) of my own through the years to get close - but using these things within a central line/centerline structure...

((Boxing stances and foot work are not the only way to get close. Wing chun IMO is capable of a rich repertoire of footwork to reach contact point.
I have not seen that foot work in many
practitioners.

From very far away one can be natural..walking, running etc. The balancing of the knees and ankles and the structural coordination achieved through much ygkym, slt and chum kiu- insures wing chun approach to coordination no matter what the distance. Of course we all will develop our individual moves but that is not necessarily adding layers on wing chun for every one. Wing chun is not about fixed techniques IMO- it's a way of mastering martial motion.

I want to re-iterate- I do not underestimate boxers and wrestlers.
In action, there is always motion in wing chun- standing still- and one is a sitting duck for the boxer or wrestler. But wing chun motion is not always bobbing and weaving,or hopping. Good slt paves the way for good chum kiu and in biu jee all kinds of unorthodox motions make radical adjustments possible.

Then there is individuation and taking care of what is on hand. Wing chun folks can adapt and not be mechanical or become boxers and grapplers. To do the last two- box and wrestle one needs to begin in their teens and with a few exceptions one is done by the time they are 30. You can maintain some but progress will be slow.Wing chun is so natural one keeps on learning and getting rid of rigidities. My take any way- not intentionally preaching.Joy))

[t_niehoff]

Boxers are going to round punch, hook, or overhand around your wing chun arm structure - and as you come in: they will bypass your defense, and beat on you before you can make your "shortest distance between two points is a straight line" approach work its magic on them.

It's about distance.


No. It is about TIMING.

You talk about how boxers will "bypass your defense" (WCK arm structure?) -- that is true, if you are being defensive, if you are trying to block/parry, etc.

WCK's method is to strike as you come in (as your entry) -- not block or parry -- but to hit them, whether arm or body or whatever we can, to disrupt their structure and so their ability to generate an offense. Then you don't need to deal with what they do as they are busy dealing with what you are doing. You want to put the opponent BEHIND THE TIMING.



WING CHUN IS A CLOSE QUARTER STANDUP STRIKING GAME,


That is only half of WCK. WCK's approach is to control the opponent while striking him. If you are in "close quarters" -- the phone booth -- in most situations you can't get away with only striking him. If you are in range to hit him, he can hit you. He can grab you. He can do all kinds of things. Without controlling him, he has all these options open. By controlling him, you take those things away. Again, keeping him BEHIND THE TIMING.



and getting to that location is the biggest challenge for the wing chun fighter - getting there before being tagged (possibly heavily) by lead hand round punches and hooks, or, as we saw - a rear cross that can put you on the floor.


Actually, that isn't the "biggest challenge". Most people don't really guard the inside -- they aren't on an active stop-the-guy-from-getting-in mode. The more someone throws from the outside, the easiest it is get in.



If you're really in close quarter striking range, then basic wing chun striking and attempts to control the opponent's body can work.


Yes, or to put it another way, if you are in clinch range, dirty clinch can work!



If you're not - you're inviting trouble if you limit yourself to such narrow lines and real estate coverage as what was seen in the vid. The wing chun guy was doing the move straight ahead and straight line punching attack - and he paid the price for it becuase the boxer is using a more dynamic footwork, can bobb and weave, slip, duck, etc. And if his reach is longer than yours, and it's not close striking range - then you're really inviting trouble. He can hold his arms back and offline - and pick you off by going around your structure as you move in by timing you.


The WCK guy in the video didn't really have trouble getting in -- he "got in" several times without even trying! The WCK wasn't using WCK's method. He didn't break the opponent's structure, wasn't even trying to, wasn't trying to control, etc. He was essentially trying to use WCK kickboxing.



Remember, in "pure" wing chun, there's no bobbing and weaving, no ducking, no slipping, no raised heel up on the toes broken rhythm footwork....because it's all about keeping the wing chun "structure and body alignment" intact.


No. That's not true. WCK has a "bob", it has changing levels (gwa ma), it has "slipping", etc. The WCK "structure and body alignment" is for contact, not noncontact. They are "designed" for controlling an opponent. Mechanics are task specific. On the outside, we use a different method and different mechanics.



And a good boxer can give you a hell of a lot of trouble if your arms are always held in the basic wing chun position and all your strikes are straight, and even though you might try to use some angling as you approach - the final push to penetrate is always to come straight in. He knows where your arms are at all times and what you're trying to do...

he always knows where your head is, he sees that your strikes and other arm motions are all basically very straight, and you become very predictable.

I've seen this time and again when sparring with boxers (and especially when against guys with a longer reach) - like in that vid.


Yes, if you use WCK kickboxing, you will fail.



And without some real hard contact and frequent sparring against guys with serious boxing skills - these things will never come to light for wing chun guys.

That's why I eventually developed a straight lead, rear cross, and even round punch strategy (along with some more dynamic footwork and slipping, etc.) of my own through the years to get close - but using these things within a central line/centerline structure...

so that my left arm is dueling his right arm and my right arm is dueling his left arm for control of valuable real estate: ie.- two vertical centerlines: one that runs down his body from his right shoulder line, and one from his left shoulder line...

to get close - without getting beaten by his punches and his footwork.

I'm using long swords, if you will, to battle his long swords - in order to get to the point where my short swords can take over and work along my main centerline to attack and control his center of mass....

including the willingness to go to clinch, neck ties and knees, over and unders, trips, takedowns and shoots, etc.

But that's another matter. ;)

Yes, that is another matter. It's not WCK.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Joy,

You and I disagree about much of these things - but I respect your point of view. Must say, however, I don't quite know how these motions you speak of that arent always so detectable and visible are going to make much of a difference: if they're basically small and the structure is always pretty much the same for the wing chun man - how is this going to adversely affect the boxer's ability to time him and know almost all the time where the wing chun man's head and arms are?
...............................

Terence,

For the time being, I will not repeat the same old arguments with you; but instead, if anyone is taking what you say about my last post seriously, or is confused about any of it - then I refer them to many, many posts wherein I contradict your views and have explained why your logic and arguments don't hold up when examined carefully.

[Niersun]

Yes, if you use WCK kickboxing, you will fail.
.

I have to disagree against that generalisation. Kickboxing with TWC blocks, training techs and some strategies works quite well in my opinion.

Its the person who's applying the techniques and you cant compare a seasoned combat sport fighter to a majority of TMA's like you do; rarely do i see a TMA get up in 4am in the morning to do 5 miles, train 2 times a day and do strength training in evening nearly everyday.

[t_niehoff]

I have to disagree against that generalisation. Kickboxing with TWC blocks, training techs and some strategies works quite well in my opinion.


Do you know why kickboxers -- really any sport fighter -- do what they do (use certain techniques, tactics, etc.)? Because they have found through LOADS of experience those things consistently work against all levels of fighters. They know that because they are constantly doing it and can see what works and what doesn't at all levels. So, if you want to kickbox, and you do it enough, you will end up doing what all kickboxers do, because they are doing the things that continue to work -- which also means not doing those things that don't!

And that is a critical aspect: learning what not to do.

Why don't you see kickboxers using TWC-like blocks? Because they don't work in kickboxing AND because they create openings for your opponent.

If TWC has strategies that "work quite well" in kickboxing, then kickboxing will already have those strategies (so you don't need to learn TWC to kickbox). For example, circling away from the rear hand is something all boxers and kickboxers already know.

WCK isn't kickboxing. If you want to learn to kickbox, then you should go train with good kickboxers.



Its the person who's applying the techniques and you cant compare a seasoned combat sport fighter to a majority of TMA's like you do; rarely do i see a TMA get up in 4am in the morning to do 5 miles, train 2 times a day and do strength training in evening nearly everyday.

And even if they did, they would not be able to make much of what they "practice" work. Skill not only comes from how "hard" you practice but also from what you practice. Practice doing things that aren't very good, and no matter how much time you put in, you won't be very good. And that is because what you are practicing is self-limiting (it will only take you so far).

BTW, you overgeneralize how most sport fighters train. A person's individual skill and conditioning level will depend on how well and much they train -- just like any athlete. If you want to be a world-class athlete, then you have to train like a world class athlete. But not all -- in fact, most -- sport fighters are NOT world-class.

[Vajramusti]

[QUOTE=Ultimatewingchun;1072765]Joy,

You and I disagree about much of these things - but I respect your point of view. Must say, however, I don't quite know how these motions you speak of that arent always so detectable and visible are going to make much of a difference: if they're basically small and the structure is always pretty much the same for the wing chun man - how is this going to adversely affect the boxer's ability to time him and know almost all the time where the wing chun man's head and arms are?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Victor- we can disagree- it's ok to have different perspectives. The structures of wing chun people vary considerably.And the details of chum kiu motions vary widely.Some motions are more macro and others micro- but they have to be coordinated together and it is possible to work on
that ina wing chun way. Wing chun is not a stranger to different kinds of timing.

joy chaudhuri

[shawchemical]

Do you know why kickboxers -- really any sport fighter -- do what they do (use certain techniques, tactics, etc.)? Because they have found through LOADS of experience those things consistently work against all levels of fighters. They know that because they are constantly doing it and can see what works and what doesn't at all levels. So, if you want to kickbox, and you do it enough, you will end up doing what all kickboxers do, because they are doing the things that continue to work -- which also means not doing those things that don't!

And that is a critical aspect: learning what not to do.

Why don't you see kickboxers using TWC-like blocks? Because they don't work in kickboxing AND because they create openings for your opponent.


Why then are there large differences between the technique of mt kickboxers and savate kickboxers??

your argument does not stand up to scrutiny.

[m1k3]

Same reason the techniques for wrestling and bjj are different. Different rules. Each uses the techniques that are best suited for their rules. For example pulling guard in freestyle or folkstyle wrestling = a pin and a loss.

[Niersun]

Do you know why kickboxers -- really any sport fighter -- do what they do (use certain techniques, tactics, etc.)? Because they have found through LOADS of experience those things consistently work against all levels of fighters. They know that because they are constantly doing it and can see what works and what doesn't at all levels. So, if you want to kickbox, and you do it enough, you will end up doing what all kickboxers do, because they are doing the things that continue to work -- which also means not doing those things that don't!

And that is a critical aspect: learning what not to do.

Why don't you see kickboxers using TWC-like blocks? Because they don't work in kickboxing AND because they create openings for your opponent.

If TWC has strategies that "work quite well" in kickboxing, then kickboxing will already have those strategies (so you don't need to learn TWC to kickbox). For example, circling away from the rear hand is something all boxers and kickboxers already know.

WCK isn't kickboxing. If you want to learn to kickbox, then you should go train with good kickboxers.



And even if they did, they would not be able to make much of what they "practice" work. Skill not only comes from how "hard" you practice but also from what you practice. Practice doing things that aren't very good, and no matter how much time you put in, you won't be very good. And that is because what you are practicing is self-limiting (it will only take you so far).

BTW, you overgeneralize how most sport fighters train. A person's individual skill and conditioning level will depend on how well and much they train -- just like any athlete. If you want to be a world-class athlete, then you have to train like a world class athlete. But not all -- in fact, most -- sport fighters are NOT world-class.

I was talking about using a mixture of Kickboxing and WC to fight. Kickboxing as a sport uses gloves that wont really allow you to block and counter other than Bil Sao, which is still very effective.

Your words were referenced against boxers was it not. WC Kickboxing will win against a boxer. If someone who has the advantage of using kicks against a person who is solely using the hands, then its not the system that is wrong its the person and there level of allround training, etc.

Anyhow, i have my views and you have yours and im happy to agree on disagreeing.

I am happy to be a WC Kickboxer no matter what anyone says (even my seniors). Your legs are your longest and most powerful weapon, should train your kick arsenal as you would your punches.

[m1k3]

Kickboxing as a sport uses gloves that wont really allow you to block and counter other than Bil Sao, which is still very effective.

I am happy to be a WC Kickboxer no matter what anyone says (even my seniors).



No, you are not any type of a kickboxer or you wouldn't have made that stupid block and counter statement.

There are all sorts of blocks, counters, covers and evasions to be found in both boxing and kickboxing beyond bil sao, gloves or not.

[Ultimatewingchun]

There are two reasons why TWC uses blocks and parries - and none of them have to do with kickboxing. The first is simply defensive: you need to have B's & P's in your arsenal when someone gets an attack off before you can do your offense, ie.- he throws a lead, a cross, a hook, an uppercut, a kick, a combo, a whatever...before you were in position to either avoid the attack completely or to attack him without having to block or parry anything.

The second is that while you are attempting to punch your way in he gets an attack or a counter attack off - and then a bong, bil, pak, tan, etc. can be used to bridge off so as to continue on your way in with your attack.

In the first instance, kickboxers and boxers will occasionally also use blocks, parries, and coverups of their own.

[t_niehoff]

Why then are there large differences between the technique of mt kickboxers and savate kickboxers??

your argument does not stand up to scrutiny.

There are not large differences in kickboxing technique between MT and savate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yH-GRgYVbAc&feature=related

Do Pennacchio (savate) and Dekker (MT) look very different?

[t_niehoff]

There are two reasons why TWC uses blocks and parries -


No, there is one reason: because Cheung, who created TWC, taught to do it that way.



and none of them have to do with kickboxing. The first is simply defensive: you need to have B's & P's in your arsenal when someone gets an attack off before you can do your offense, ie.- he throws a lead, a cross, a hook, an uppercut, a kick, a combo, a whatever...before you were in position to either avoid the attack completely or to attack him without having to block or parry anything.


That DOES have to do with kickboxing. People parry/block because they are trying to deal with their opponent's strikes by parrying/blocking, and that is the "bad kickboxing" way. I call it the "bad kickboxing" way because although kick/boxing has parries/blocks, they don't reach to parry/block as Cheung teaches.

The WCK method is to be either out of range (of our opponent) or, if in range, actively entering.



The second is that while you are attempting to punch your way in he gets an attack or a counter attack off - and then a bong, bil, pak, tan, etc. can be used to bridge off so as to continue on your way in with your attack.


If you are entering and he gets an attack off, then you "smother" it.



In the first instance, kickboxers and boxers will occasionally also use blocks, parries, and coverups of their own.

Yes, but not like what TWC does. They do it in ways that are functional.

[free2flow]

Its funny but I have a friend that is a boxer and a very good one and another that is a WC guy and has been for about 15 years, they argue all the time about WC VS Boxing and the boxing guy said the samething.
The WC guy asked how he arrived at that conclusion and the boxer said this:
In 6 months I can take anyone and make them a decent fighter and by that I mean they go fight full contact and they will be able to hit hard, move well, protected themselves and, given the opportunity, KO another fighter in the ring.
In other words, most people can become profcient in Boxing in less than a year.
Can you say the same thing about WC and how it is TYPICALLY taught?

The answer was silence.

Found this video of a 3 year old kid doing boxing. I think this kid can give a WC instructor with more that 15 years experience some trouble. LOL.

http://www.break.com/index/tough-little-three-year-old.html

Seems like a lot of traditional martial artists who hasn't done any boxing training under estimates boxing.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Again, Terence....I've refuted your attempts to discredit TWC's functionality (and William Cheung, ie.- you say he "made it up")...numerous times, and no repeat is necessary. All people around here have to do is reference the various posts I've made (and others have made) in order to see that.

Not interested in your opinions, and that's what they are - about what William Cheung has done.

What I am interested in is that people see that your arguments about functionality are false. If they're interested - and I suspect that most people by now are not - they can go back and read some of my previous posts that discredit your attacks on TWC.

But for me, it's time to move on.

[Frost]

Found this video of a 3 year old kid doing boxing. I think this kid can give a WC instructor with more that 15 years experience some trouble. LOL.

http://www.break.com/index/tough-little-three-year-old.html

Seems like a lot of traditional martial artists who hasn't done any boxing training under estimates boxing.

very true, the point that always makes me laugh is when people say get in close we are a close range style beat them there, as if once past the long range you are safe...the only style i have ever seen teach how to throw hanrd shots and keep on going at close range whilst under fire and taking hard shots is boxing, they dont freeze and reset once in close they keep hitting moving and covering.....close range unattached striking is the hardest thing to master and boxers have it down pat

[Vajramusti]

I do not underestimate boxing.
But wing chun gets its short short power in a different way from boxing.It takes good wing chun training to do it..

joy chaudhuri

[Ultimatewingchun]

Originally Posted by free2flow
Found this video of a 3 year old kid doing boxing. I think this kid can give a WC instructor with more that 15 years experience some trouble. LOL.

http://www.break.com/index/tough-lit...-year-old.html

Seems like a lot of traditional martial artists who hasn't done any boxing training under estimates boxing.



very true, the point that always makes me laugh is when people say get in close we are a close range style beat them there, as if once past the long range you are safe...the only style i have ever seen teach how to throw hard shots and keep on going at close range whilst under fire and taking hard shots is boxing, they dont freeze and reset once in close they keep hitting moving and covering.....close range unattached striking is the hardest thing to master and boxers have it down pat

***Okay, Frost, so here's a question then. How long, in your opinion, can a boxer like the kind you just described go on the inside before it becomes a wrestling/grappling match? Or before a neck tie comes? So we're not within boxing rules. Anything goes - mma style. How long?

[GlennR]

***Okay, Frost, so here's a question then. How long, in your opinion, can a boxer like the kind you just described go on the inside before it becomes a wrestling/grappling match? Or before a neck tie comes? So we're not within boxing rules. Anything goes - mma style. How long?[/QUOTE]


Well you wont know Vic... depends on what the other guy does
GlennR

[Ultimatewingchun]

I already have my thoughts on this, but I want to hear what Frost thinks.

He believes that unattached striking on the inside is owned by boxers, not by wing chun - while many within wing chun will say that they do own the close range inside striking game.

And some within wing chun will tell you that wing chun "attached" fighting on the inside is the way to own this game, not boxing, and not wing chun that emphasizes striking over "attachment".

But I want to know just how far Frost thinks a good boxer can take the inside unattached striking game before a good MMA/MT/Wrestler-Grappler type will take that away from him.

[Phil Redmond]

. . . People parry/block because they are trying to deal with their opponent's strikes by parrying/blocking, and that is the "bad kickboxing" way. I call it the "bad kickboxing" way because although kick/boxing has parries/blocks, they don't reach to parry/block as Cheung teaches. . . . .
This REALLY shows what little you know about what TWC or any WC does. WC across the board has parries and blocks. TWC is very adamant about "reaching". We just don't do it.
You say bad kickboxing uses parries and blocks. This statement proves you have no clue.
I guess boxers don't use blocks and parries as well.
I'm going to show your comments to some pro fighters I know so they can get a laugh....

[Frost]

Originally Posted by free2flow
Found this video of a 3 year old kid doing boxing. I think this kid can give a WC instructor with more that 15 years experience some trouble. LOL.

http://www.break.com/index/tough-lit...-year-old.html

Seems like a lot of traditional martial artists who hasn't done any boxing training under estimates boxing.




***Okay, Frost, so here's a question then. How long, in your opinion, can a boxer like the kind you just described go on the inside before it becomes a wrestling/grappling match? Or before a neck tie comes? So we're not within boxing rules. Anything goes - mma style. How long?

Depends on whose clinching, a trained thai and MMA gut maybe only seconds (although with footwork and body movement they will last longer) against someone NOT trained in the clinch but just chi sao....probably alot longer, its one thing to enter on and control the arms and try to clinch against a non hitting opponent, quite another to do it against someone moving and hitting hard with hooks and upper cuts if you are not used to that kind of punishment (which wing chun guys arent typically, wouldnt you agree)

On the whole i think they will last long enough to put someone out for the count, Boxers train to take and give punishment at that range, they are also versed in the clinch (in a limited way) they are taught how to make space in the clinch by shoulder punching the opponent off

[t_niehoff]

This REALLY shows what little you know about what TWC or any WC does. WC across the board has parries and blocks.


BAD WCK has parries and blocks -- or, more accurately, it uses the bridge hands as parries and blocks. And since most WCK is taught by people who are unskilled, etc., it is not surprising that you see blocking and parrying "across the board."



TWC is very adamant about "reaching". We just don't do it.


Just the opposite -- you do it all the time. TWC teaches it as its (Cheung's) way of dealing with strikes.



You say bad kickboxing uses parries and blocks. This statement proves you have no clue.
I guess boxers don't use blocks and parries as well.


For the most part they don't, and what they do is not what TWC does.



I'm going to show your comments to some pro fighters I know so they can get a laugh....

Then be sure get my statements right. ;)

Below will be a couple of posts you can show them.

[t_niehoff]

Phil,

OK, let's really look at your "covering" clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbjWqYJ0BgQ

I say it is really not good. Here's why.

1) look 1 second into the clip when YOU (the teacher) "jab" -- and freeze the frame so you can see it. You'll see that the end of your arm (fist) is over a foot away from hitting your partner. That isn't a punch -- it is just sticking your arm out there. You are punching from out of range. This is a bad habit. If one of my guys did that (and they wouldn't) I would be screaming at them! Anytime you punch, you should be in range (or you should at the very least be trying to be in range) to hit. Every fxcking time. Not only is it a bad habit for you, the puncher, but it is a bad habit for your partner -- he should be developing an eye for range and the habit of not reacting to attacks that can't possibly hit him. This leads to . . .

2) look what your partner (Rashun?) does in response -- he is reaching to block (something that isn't even a threat). His arm is extended a good 2 feet from his body/head. All he has done is expose himself and for no reason. Reaching like that is only going to get him KO'ed by anyone with decent hands. This is precisely the sort of thing a good striker wants you to do, and it is what a good coach/teacher should be correcting.

3) look at 2 seconds in when your parnter kicks WHILE YOU HOLD YOUR PUNCHING ARM EXTENDED. Tell me, Phil, when is that EVER going to happen? Do you know people who fight by keeping their arm extended after they punch so that their partner can hold onto it? Do you know fighters that punch and don't immediately retract their arm? Why did you LEAVE your arm extended? Another unrealistic thing to do.

4) look at 8 seconds in when you do the pak/gaun sao to block his round kick. First, the kick itself is bad. It is out of range too (see a pattern?) and he's not kicking with his shin, like any good kicker will but with his instep -- which won't do much even if it lands. Second, your pak/guan -- a two-handed block that also drops both hands -- is utter nonsense. You won't in all likelihood have time to do that, and even if you did all that you would accomplsish is injuring your hand if he was really kicking with power. Not only that, but you drop both your hands to deal with his kick (which is exactly what a good kicker wants you to do -- the tactic is to hit low to open high) which leaves your head open. Terible. That is a perfect example of what not to do.

5) Now let's look at how you teach your cover -- more problems. When the kick is coming in fighitng, you can't (won't have time to) tell if it is to the body or the head, all you can see is that a kick is coming up. If you cover as you are showing, you leave your head exposed. See how your hands are away from your body/head (like at 1:09) -- that space leaves an opening. And if he hits that opening, you are OUT. You have to cover both the body and head at the same time. The other thing you aren't doing is rolling (arms and body) with the impact. If he kicks with real power and you don't roll to dissipate the impact, you will be rocked (and your arm may get injured).

Now, let's compare that to Rodney's cover. And, BTW, he's boxed, trained MT inThailand, and trained many MMA fighters, and as I told you Rampage uses his Crazy Monkey:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qguQfn0QtBs

1) look at 27 seconds in where he shows how NOT to hold your hands (which is what you are doing).

2) He also shows how to raise the shoulders, tuck the chin, etc. which are necessary for the cover to work -- those things you don't do.

3) look at 43 seconds in when his partner jabs and look at the range. He is making contact with the jab. In other words HE REALLY PUNCHED, not just stuck his arm out there, He's in range, trying to hit his opponent. You'll notice every time he punches, he really punches with the intent to hit (even if not pwerfully) and make contact.

4) looking at how Rodney blocks, do you see how his hand is in contact with his own head -- this lends support to the arm since with a powerful blow you won't have the strength to keep you hand away from your body/head like you teach -- the blow will collapse/knock your own hand into you.

5) Do you also see how he keeps his hands moving and rolls on impact to lessen the impact? Again, not what you are doing.

Here it is again:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHJGfJmj4I4

Same things.

You see, Phil, when you train with good, skilled people like Rodney, and then you see what you do and advocate, well, it just makes it hard for me to believe that you know what you are doing.

[t_niehoff]

Phil,

Let's look at your dealing with the hook video:

http://www.youtube.com/user/sifupr#p/u/33/SLFWdM3qwfU

1) in the first few seconds you talk about how "if you are fighting in here (close) a boxer can . . . " and then you go on to talk about ahow you want to be OUTSIDE. No. In WCK's method we want to be INSIDE, close to our opponent, where you were before you stepped out. You go on to talk about "I can't see what he is doing in there . . ." Of course not. That is why we have CONTACT. WCK is a contact/attached fighting method. When you are "in there" you are in contact, attached so that a boxer can't hit you and you can control him. This is WCK 101.

2) then at 9 seconds you talk about how you want to keep your guard out to make him reach for you. Apparently you don't know that keeping your guard out exposes you. This is why boxers, MT, MMA fighters keep their guard TIGHT. When you keep it tight, they still have to reach for you. So, whether your guard is out or in, they need to reach. But with guard out, you are exposed so that if you miss a block, you get hit; if you are tight and miss a block, you are still covered.

3) at 22 seconds you talk about "stepping off the line". Nope. You are able to step off the line because you know it is coming. You won't be able to do that in fighting since you won't know what punch is coming and his arm can move much faster than your body. Apparently you don't realize that you don't move your body to respond to his arm movement (which won't work) but to respond to his body movement. When he moves his body, you move yours. For example, when he steps in (moves his body), you circle (move your body).

4) then at 27 seconds you go on to say (and I couldn't believe this nonsense), "the reason I step off the line is because if you were his friend . . ." and you have the friend stand to the open side. WTF? Well, what if his friend was on your partner's other side? Would you then circle into him? It has nothing whatsoever to do with that.

5) notice how your partner only throws one punch and stand there while you do all this movement -- nonsense. He doesn't even face you when you move. No one is going to do that. It is completely unrealisitic.

6) at 1:03 he does a jab and round punch. Of course his jab is thrown from out of range (surprise, surprise) and you reach to block it.

7) and you don't seem to be aware that at any time, your partner could have hit you with his rear hand. In fact, you were stepping into it. Look at 1:17.

So, tell me, are these your WCK "principles" in action?

Compare what you did to good stand-up:

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntIwk3jw0DM

Do you notice that they

1) keep their guard tight so that they are always protected

2) don't try to step off the line (since they know you won't be able to)

3) talk about how punches are really thrown (like the hook coming after a rear hand as opposed to your jab, hook combo)

4) are working in range (yet without blood and broken bones!)

5) don't talk about dealing with his friends

6) aren't leaving themselves exposed and open to a rear hand counter.

[imperialtaichi]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHJGfJmj4I4


Very nice.

Cheers,
John

[Ultimatewingchun]

If you know where to look (elbows & knees) and you've done the differentiation drills I've spoken of on other threads - there is very little reaching for anything when doing good TWC (as opposed to say, someone who spent one year in Australia and thinks he's got it)...

you see it, you move into it at a slight angle as it comes - you block/parry it...you bridge off it...you avoid it entirely and strike on a different line....you block and strike against it...or maybe the bridge becomes an opportunity to break his balance and structure.

But it begins with seeing what's coming - and making the TWC regiment of block/parry/bridge/strike/unbalance work requires lots of training in this area (ie.- eyes and nerve working together).

But if one wants to blast TWC at any and all costs - then of course the whole idea (and the science) about how things slow down for the naked eye when watching a point 12-15 inches away from the tip of the weapon gets attacked.

Wake up to this, Phil. Internet trolls like him are impossible to deal with short of a plane ride to Saint Louis - and with no guarantee whatsoever that he'd show for a matchup.

Just refer the forum to the many posts that refute his garbage and move on.

[sanjuro_ronin]

T, your posts 158 and159 are the kind of post that MAKE your point.
No need for snide remarks or silly name calling.
Those posts made your case for you AND were highly educational for all.

[Frost]

lol T really took those clips apart :)

[shawchemical]

There are not large differences in kickboxing technique between MT and savate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yH-GRgYVbAc&feature=related

Do Pennacchio (savate) and Dekker (MT) look very different?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHQLk2kw_tc&feature=related

Pennachio vs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_gx2QPcJT4

pramuk


YES they do look different.

[KPM]

With all fairness to Phil....his clips are teaching demos! They aren't wearing protective gear, and so aren't throwing hard shots. Phil is talking while demo'ing, which can be a little distracting, so his partner is obviously not trying to take his head off. Phil is not necessarily talking about how to fight a professional boxer, but rather how to defend against a "street thug" that likely will be using quasi-boxing base. So there is very likely to be time to step off-line. Phil showed a good example of "breaking structure" by unbalancing his opponent when he defended against the lead hook with that step off-line. But that didn't get mentioned. Some of T's criticisms could be equally applied to the boxing clips he showed as an alternative, if one wants to get "nit-picky." You can pick apart anything. You could argue that the crazy monkey guy is not in the best position to counter quickly by having his wrists on his forehead. The bottom line is that Phil showed an example of using WCK against basic boxing. T...if you don't agree with what he does, how about providing an alternative view...using WCK, not boxing?

[t_niehoff]

With all fairness to Phil....his clips are teaching demos!


So you think it a good idea to teach by doing all kinds of things wrong? Do you think someone that has good, solid fighting habits will do poor things in their explanation?



They aren't wearing protective gear, and so aren't throwing hard shots.


And neither are the good instructors in the videos that I use as contrast.



Phil is talking while demo'ing, which can be a little distracting, so his partner is obviously not trying to take his head off.


And that's how it is in the good videos I posted.



Phil is not necessarily talking about how to fight a professional boxer, but rather how to defend against a "street thug" that likely will be using quasi-boxing base. So there is very likely to be time to step off-line.


Wait. What? Is he teaching good, sound fighting skills or not? If yes, then they will work against anyone.



Phil showed a good example of "breaking structure" by unbalancing his opponent when he defended against the lead hook with that step off-line. But that didn't get mentioned.


It didn't get mentioned because he will never be able to do that. You are not going to move your body faster than your opponent does his arm.



Some of T's criticisms could be equally applied to the boxing clips he showed as an alternative, if one wants to get "nit-picky." You can pick apart anything. You could argue that the crazy monkey guy is not in the best position to counter quickly by having his wrists on his forehead. The bottom line is that Phil showed an example of using WCK against basic boxing.


You can get as nit-picky as you want. No, you can't pick apart anything -- there is good, sound stuff and there is crappy stuff. You can't pick apart good stuff, but it is easy to pick apart crap.

What Phil showed isn't "using WCK against basic boxing"; what he showed is nonsense that is fundamentally unsound. Doing it is only training to fail.



T...if you don't agree with what he does, how about providing an alternative view...using WCK, not boxing?

A good place to start would be to learn WCK, beginning with body structure and with the punch.

[KPM]

A good place to start would be to learn WCK, beginning with body structure and with the punch.

Well then! Let's hear it! Or better yet...see it! :) You said what Phil was doing is no good and showed clips of what you thought was good....but it wasn't Wing Chun. So give us the Wing Chun alternatives that ARE good!

[t_niehoff]

Well then! Let's hear it! Or better yet...see it! :) You said what Phil was doing is no good and showed clips of what you thought was good....but it wasn't Wing Chun. So give us the Wing Chun alternatives that ARE good!

What do you mean "give us the Wing Chun alternatives that ARE good"? Are you asking me to tell you how to box? How to ride a bike? How to surf?

[sanjuro_ronin]

What do you mean "give us the Wing Chun alternatives that ARE good"? Are you asking me to tell you how to box? How to ride a bike? How to surf?

If Rodney thought that way, you wouldn't have any videos to counter Phil's would you?

[t_niehoff]

If Rodney thought that way, you wouldn't have any videos to counter Phil's would you?

That's a fair point.

However, my view is not to look to others but to find your own way through your own hard work.

[YouKnowWho]

Phil showed a good example of "breaking structure" by unbalancing his opponent when he ...
Allow me to ask a stupid question here. What the difference between "breaking structure by unbalancing his opponent" vs. "Moving your opponent's gravity center to be outside of his base" as showing in the following picture?

http://img717.imageshack.us/img717/2850/balancebase.jpg

[Ultimatewingchun]

That's a fair point.

However, my view is not to look to others but to find your own way through your own hard work.

***Oh how wonderful, and how convenient that this attitude provides a thin veil as to why you never post a vid of yourself doing anything.

And people on this forum believe this?

[Frost]

If Rodney thought that way, you wouldn't have any videos to counter Phil's would you?

and for someone who says you have to learn it for yourself he cant tell you how to do it.........he sure does make a lot of posts :)

[KPM]

That's a fair point.

However, my view is not to look to others but to find your own way through your own hard work.

But its not exactly fair to rip into someone else's work and efforts and say how wrong they are without providing your own alternative.

[KPM]

Allow me to ask a stupid question here. What the difference between "breaking structure by unbalancing his opponent" vs. "Moving your opponent's gravity center to be outside of his base" as showing in the following picture?

http://img717.imageshack.us/img717/2850/balancebase.jpg

There's not one, as far as I'm concerned! That is, as long as the opponent is unbalanced to the point that his COG is outside of his base....which is essentially the definition of "unbalanced" to begin with!

[Phil Redmond]

So you think it a good idea to teach by doing all kinds of things wrong? Do you think someone that has good, solid fighting habits will do poor things in their explanation?



And neither are the good instructors in the videos that I use as contrast.



And that's how it is in the good videos I posted.



Wait. What? Is he teaching good, sound fighting skills or not? If yes, then they will work against anyone.



It didn't get mentioned because he will never be able to do that. You are not going to move your body faster than your opponent does his arm.



You can get as nit-picky as you want. No, you can't pick apart anything -- there is good, sound stuff and there is crappy stuff. You can't pick apart good stuff, but it is easy to pick apart crap.

What Phil showed isn't "using WCK against basic boxing"; what he showed is nonsense that is fundamentally unsound. Doing it is only training to fail.



A good place to start would be to learn WCK, beginning with body structure and with the punch.

They were demo clips. Not sparring clips. In the first clip I was teaching what I used successfully in full contact matches.

[Phil Redmond]

Phil,

OK, let's really look at your "covering" clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbjWqYJ0BgQ

I say it is really not good. Here's why.

1) look 1 second into the clip when YOU (the teacher) "jab" -- and freeze the frame so you can see it. You'll see that the end of your arm (fist) is over a foot away from hitting your partner. That isn't a punch -- it is just sticking your arm out there. You are punching from out of range. This is a bad habit. If one of my guys did that (and they wouldn't) I would be screaming at them! Anytime you punch, you should be in range (or you should at the very least be trying to be in range) to hit. Every fxcking time. Not only is it a bad habit for you, the puncher, but it is a bad habit for your partner -- he should be developing an eye for range and the habit of not reacting to attacks that can't possibly hit him. This leads to . . .

2) look what your partner (Rashun?) does in response -- he is reaching to block (something that isn't even a threat). His arm is extended a good 2 feet from his body/head. All he has done is expose himself and for no reason. Reaching like that is only going to get him KO'ed by anyone with decent hands. This is precisely the sort of thing a good striker wants you to do, and it is what a good coach/teacher should be correcting.

3) look at 2 seconds in when your parnter kicks WHILE YOU HOLD YOUR PUNCHING ARM EXTENDED. Tell me, Phil, when is that EVER going to happen? Do you know people who fight by keeping their arm extended after they punch so that their partner can hold onto it? Do you know fighters that punch and don't immediately retract their arm? Why did you LEAVE your arm extended? Another unrealistic thing to do.

4) look at 8 seconds in when you do the pak/gaun sao to block his round kick. First, the kick itself is bad. It is out of range too (see a pattern?) and he's not kicking with his shin, like any good kicker will but with his instep -- which won't do much even if it lands. Second, your pak/guan -- a two-handed block that also drops both hands -- is utter nonsense. You won't in all likelihood have time to do that, and even if you did all that you would accomplsish is injuring your hand if he was really kicking with power. Not only that, but you drop both your hands to deal with his kick (which is exactly what a good kicker wants you to do -- the tactic is to hit low to open high) which leaves your head open. Terible. That is a perfect example of what not to do.

5) Now let's look at how you teach your cover -- more problems. When the kick is coming in fighitng, you can't (won't have time to) tell if it is to the body or the head, all you can see is that a kick is coming up. If you cover as you are showing, you leave your head exposed. See how your hands are away from your body/head (like at 1:09) -- that space leaves an opening. And if he hits that opening, you are OUT. You have to cover both the body and head at the same time. The other thing you aren't doing is rolling (arms and body) with the impact. If he kicks with real power and you don't roll to dissipate the impact, you will be rocked (and your arm may get injured).

Now, let's compare that to Rodney's cover. And, BTW, he's boxed, trained MT inThailand, and trained many MMA fighters, and as I told you Rampage uses his Crazy Monkey:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qguQfn0QtBs

1) look at 27 seconds in where he shows how NOT to hold your hands (which is what you are doing).

2) He also shows how to raise the shoulders, tuck the chin, etc. which are necessary for the cover to work -- those things you don't do.

3) look at 43 seconds in when his partner jabs and look at the range. He is making contact with the jab. In other words HE REALLY PUNCHED, not just stuck his arm out there, He's in range, trying to hit his opponent. You'll notice every time he punches, he really punches with the intent to hit (even if not pwerfully) and make contact.

4) looking at how Rodney blocks, do you see how his hand is in contact with his own head -- this lends support to the arm since with a powerful blow you won't have the strength to keep you hand away from your body/head like you teach -- the blow will collapse/knock your own hand into you.

5) Do you also see how he keeps his hands moving and rolls on impact to lessen the impact? Again, not what you are doing.

Here it is again:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHJGfJmj4I4

Same things.

You see, Phil, when you train with good, skilled people like Rodney, and then you see what you do and advocate, well, it just makes it hard for me to believe that you know what you are doing.

It was a demo.

[Phil Redmond]

Phil,

Let's look at your dealing with the hook video:

http://www.youtube.com/user/sifupr#p/u/33/SLFWdM3qwfU

1) in the first few seconds you talk about how "if you are fighting in here (close) a boxer can . . . " and then you go on to talk about ahow you want to be OUTSIDE. No. In WCK's method we want to be INSIDE, close to our opponent, where you were before you stepped out. You go on to talk about "I can't see what he is doing in there . . ." Of course not. That is why we have CONTACT. WCK is a contact/attached fighting method. When you are "in there" you are in contact, attached so that a boxer can't hit you and you can control him. This is WCK 101.

2) then at 9 seconds you talk about how you want to keep your guard out to make him reach for you. Apparently you don't know that keeping your guard out exposes you. This is why boxers, MT, MMA fighters keep their guard TIGHT. When you keep it tight, they still have to reach for you. So, whether your guard is out or in, they need to reach. But with guard out, you are exposed so that if you miss a block, you get hit; if you are tight and miss a block, you are still covered.

3) at 22 seconds you talk about "stepping off the line". Nope. You are able to step off the line because you know it is coming. You won't be able to do that in fighting since you won't know what punch is coming and his arm can move much faster than your body. Apparently you don't realize that you don't move your body to respond to his arm movement (which won't work) but to respond to his body movement. When he moves his body, you move yours. For example, when he steps in (moves his body), you circle (move your body).

4) then at 27 seconds you go on to say (and I couldn't believe this nonsense), "the reason I step off the line is because if you were his friend . . ." and you have the friend stand to the open side. WTF? Well, what if his friend was on your partner's other side? Would you then circle into him? It has nothing whatsoever to do with that.

5) notice how your partner only throws one punch and stand there while you do all this movement -- nonsense. He doesn't even face you when you move. No one is going to do that. It is completely unrealisitic.

6) at 1:03 he does a jab and round punch. Of course his jab is thrown from out of range (surprise, surprise) and you reach to block it.

7) and you don't seem to be aware that at any time, your partner could have hit you with his rear hand. In fact, you were stepping into it. Look at 1:17.

So, tell me, are these your WCK "principles" in action?

Compare what you did to good stand-up:

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntIwk3jw0DM

Do you notice that they

1) keep their guard tight so that they are always protected

2) don't try to step off the line (since they know you won't be able to)

3) talk about how punches are really thrown (like the hook coming after a rear hand as opposed to your jab, hook combo)

4) are working in range (yet without blood and broken bones!)

5) don't talk about dealing with his friends

6) aren't leaving themselves exposed and open to a rear hand counter.

It's not unrealistic if you can pull it off. I'm not going to fight the way you think I should. Everyone has different attributes. If I can do it why change. And yes, it can be pulled off against competent fighters. We do have Golden Gloves boxers and a Pro boxer that trains with us. But I don't want to convince you. So don't try to convince me.

[Ultimatewingchun]

No matter what the criticisms are - legitimate or not...at least Phil has vids up showing what his wing chun looks like.

And why are we even talking about this anymore?

When are people going to catch on to this big game that Niehoff plays?

He doesn't train, spar, roll...with mma, MT, boxing, BJJ people. Talking about it incessantly is not doing it. He can't make his wing chun work against any of them.

There's no analysis of what happens when he works with or against them.

There's no vids of any kind.

Get past this guy. That's what this forum needs to do, imo.

[chusauli]

Summary: The way I see it, Wing Chun's structure breaking methods focus on "small then big" or "one and then two" where "one" can be any small break in the opponent's structure or timing, administered by anything from Pak Sao to Tan Da to inch power expressed by our most structured point of contact, and "two" can be any capitalization on that break in structure or timing, again with any of the Wing Chun tools.

P.S. What's the smallest break in structure that is practically trainable?

You are asking all the right questions. Look and see if its "hand leads body" or "body leads hands".

Then you have to have the 4 changes/transitions:

Hand - Hand
Hand - Body
Body - Hand
Body - Body

From here you understand WCK can take advantage of the smallest break in structure because we already know the desired outcome.

[YouKnowWho]

The one inch punch exists in Tai Ji as well, but under a general heading of "Inch power" or "explosive power" or "Fa Jing."
The "inch power" can be seen in Taiji Ji, An, vital punch, brush knee, ... The interest question is "Is inch power used for striking or throwing?" Do your want to kill your opponent with your Taiji "push"?, or you just want to use your Taiji "push" to throw your opponent down, and let the hard ground to do the striking for you?


Usually, a small break in structure is enough to disrupt an opponent's ability to absorb the next strike effectively. It is also enough to create a window of opportunity whereby we can go for a throw or trip - and if we're talkin "mastery," then why not go for both at the same time?
When we mix the "striking world" and the "throwing world", thing can get confused. In the

- striking world, you want to create a "head on collusion" so you can use your your power and hurt your opponent to the maximum.
- throwing world, you want to create a "rear end collusion" so you can add your force along with your opponent's force and that will make your throw easier.

Do you need to break your opponent's structure before knocking him out? I think that will be counter productive to a "head on collusion". The better structure that your opponent has, the more damage that when he receives your punch. Here is my favor "head on collusion" example. Please watch how did Anthony Hopkins killed that bear.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G31h5gbazwU

Do you need to break your opponent's structure before throw him down? I think that will also be counter productive to a "rear end collusion". All you need is just give your force first, when your opponent resists, you borrow his force and "reverse" your throw. There is rarely a shock first, it is usually a "everything is fine...what the hell?" kind of feeling.

[goju]

What? Are you serious? I can't point out that someone can't play the violin well unless I am willing to post a video of myself playing? Is that your view?

Do you know what I don't think is fair, Keith? For me to spend years working my ass off, taking beating after beating, paying my dues in blood, sweat, injuries, training with the best people I can find, etc. to work out how to make my WCK functional, to then have people who don't really even train, who won't do any work themselves, who won't even seek out people to teach them, who are afraid to walk into a MMA gym, but then believe that I owe it to them to show them how to do it.

Man you really need to chill out you're raging on here for one

Two, anyone can say they have worked their arse off for years. trained with the best, and paid their dues ANYONE It means nothing really especially when you're an anonymous guy whos know ones heard of. It's like you expect a big ole cookie for your alleged accomplishments in Martial arts and by calling them alleged I'm not knocking you. I'm just stating the facts.

You're just another older guy on here who claims they train hard and have trained for along time thats it . Youre just like 97 percent of this forum only for some reason you think your claims about yourself some how should be taken and marked on stone tablets like they are the word of god. :rolleyes:

Think about it if some guy just popped up out of nowhere on here and started bashing your wing chun, youre training and you have never seen him, met him, nada how exactly would you handle that or what would you think of him?

Odds are you would get ****ed and dismiss the guy yet you carry on in the same bizarre way with everyone and think theres nothing remotely odd about it.

We get it you don't like most people here or what they do just let it go already laddy. The constant bashing of everyone makes it sound like youre either trolling or have some massive delusional disorder.

[t_niehoff]

Man you really need to chill out you're raging on here for one

Two, anyone can say they have worked their arse off for years. trained with the best, and paid their dues ANYONE It means nothing really especially when you're an anonymous guy whos know ones heard of. It's like you expect a big ole cookie for your alleged accomplishments in Martial arts and by calling them alleged I'm not knocking you. I'm just stating the facts.

You're just another older guy on here who claims they train hard and have trained for along time thats it . Youre just like 97 percent of this forum only for some reason you think your claims about yourself some how should be taken and marked on stone tablets like they are the word of god. :rolleyes:

Think about it if some guy just popped up out of nowhere on here and started bashing your wing chun, youre training and you have never seen him, met him, nada how exactly would you handle that or what would you think of him?

Odds are you would get ****ed and dismiss the guy yet you carry on in the same bizarre way with everyone and think theres nothing remotely odd about it.

We get it you don't like most people here or what they do just let it go already laddy. The constant bashing of everyone makes it sound like youre either trolling or have some massive delusional disorder.

I'm sure this post will get deleted, but let me say that I don't care if anyone believes me or not. In fact, I don't want them to accept what I say -- I want them to go find out for themselves, to go do the work themselves, and to not take my word or anyone's -- including the so-called masters and grandmasters.

You are a troll. You don't even train WCK. So you have absolutely no idea about anything having to do with WCK. And you haven't trained MMA either. Troll.

[goju]

I'm sure this post will get deleted, but let me say that I don't care if anyone believes me or not. In fact, I don't want them to accept what I say -- I want them to go find out for themselves, to go do the work themselves, and to not take my word or anyone's -- including the so-called masters and grandmasters.



You argue so passionately on here for the exact reason that you want people to believe you. Thats the whole point of arguing after all LOL The harder you debate the more eager you are to get your view across.


As ive said and dont get all riled up at this but you are just some random anonymous bum like most of us here and because of that you should be a bit more humble in your mannerisms given who you are.

I can claim im a bb in 12 different arts. roll with andersons silva regularly, and am a bad ass bounty hunter with a grim reaper tattoo on my skull


While im entitled to make these claims however silly they may be after a while it makes a person look ridiculous if they keep banging on about it. You know what i mean?

[SavvySavage]

The "inch power" can be seen in Taiji Ji, An, vital punch, brush knee, ... The interest question is "Is inch power used for striking or throwing?" Do your want to kill your opponent with your Taiji "push"?, or you just want to use your Taiji "push" to throw your opponent down, and let the hard ground to do the striking for you?


When we mix the "striking world" and the "throwing world", thing can get confused. In the

- striking world, you want to create a "head on collusion" so you can use your your power and hurt your opponent to the maximum.
- throwing world, you want to create a "rear end collusion" so you can add your force along with your opponent's force and that will make your throw easier.

Do you need to break your opponent's structure before knocking him out? I think that will be counter productive to a "head on collusion". The better structure that your opponent has, the more damage that when he receives your punch. Here is my favor "head on collusion" example. Please watch how did Anthony Hopkins killed that bear.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G31h5gbazwU

Do you need to break your opponent's structure before throw him down? I think that will also be counter productive to a "rear end collusion". All you need is just give your force first, when your opponent resists, you borrow his force and "reverse" your throw. There is rarely a shock first, it is usually a "everything is fine...what the hell?" kind of feeling.

I agree with this. I always hear tai chi people talking about structure this and structure that. Now wing chun people talk about it a lot. The structure some people keep harping on is, IMO, mostly good for throwing. Boxers don't grab onto you and shake you while hitting you. They just hit until you fall like in the clip. If your practice all this "structure" stuff without learning from experienced wrestlers then you are wasting your time IMO. Your time would be better spent on training with people who have hit and thrown consistently than just learning how to shake each other.

[t_niehoff]

You argue so passionately on here for the exact reason that you want people to believe you. Thats the whole point of arguing after all LOL The harder you debate the more eager you are to get your view across.


As ive said and dont get all riled up at this but you are just some random anonymous bum like most of us here and because of that you should be a bit more humble in your mannerisms given who you are.

I'm not anonymous -- I use my real name, people on this forum have met me, trained with me, etc. My sifu posts here.

So, I'm not like YOU.

The whole "humble" thing is nonsense. I know what my skill level is, what I can do and not do, etc. Anyone who really trains will. I have repeatedly said that I am not that good. I'm one of the few who admit it.

I argue against what I see as bullsh1t. There is loads of it in the TMAs and in WCK. I used to believe much of the bullsh1t. Now I know better. And I know that it is the bullsh1t that holds us back. It held me back. But it is so pervasive, and it continues to grow.

[goju]

I'm not anonymous -- I use my real name, people on this forum have met me, trained with me, etc. My sifu posts here.

So, I'm not like YOU.

The whole "humble" thing is nonsense. I know what my skill level is, what I can do and not do, etc. Anyone who really trains will. I have repeatedly said that I am not that good. I'm one of the few who admit it.

I argue against what I see as bullsh1t. There is loads of it in the TMAs and in WCK. I used to believe much of the bullsh1t. Now I know better. And I know that it is the bullsh1t that holds us back. It held me back. But it is so pervasive, and it continues to grow.

yes my names david o"casey and theres thousands of other people running around with my same name, my pictures been posted here as well and ive sparred with a fellow poster here who wrote about his meet up with me in one of the threads


with that being said again SO WHAT?

like you i stated a common name that many people have, ive met with some on here who again was another random forum poster and most here have seen my mug

He wrote his account of our meeting but it wasnt caught on tape so you have to go by what he or i said occured (again sounds like you)


Now if we look at this rationally its not really a big whoop for the reasons i noted above


have you met the specific people on here you are bashing?

did you tape your meetings with the people you said you met ala the bullshido throw down clips?

did you spar? what caliber of a martial artist were the people you met?

Exactly as i said youre entitled to beliefs about yourself but thats all they are your beliefs and since no one knows much about you ( no fight record, no school etc,etc) there no point i carrying on about it.Youre just a guy who thinks he can apply his art. Welcome to the club

Theres tons of bs in martial arts.Always have been always will be you or anyone else isnt going to change that no matter how hard you try.

[KPM]

I guess this post from Terence must have gotten deleted somewhere along the way? So I cut this from goju's response and give my own response, since it was directed at me:

Terence wrote:
What? Are you serious? I can't point out that someone can't play the violin well unless I am willing to post a video of myself playing? Is that your view?

---No. Critics blast someone else's art and performance all the time without being able to actually do the thing themselves. But....they will at least be able to make a far comparison to something directly related in order to show the validity of their criticism. You made a comparison to boxing, not to WCK. I'm not asking you to go out and post your own video. Just point us to someone else's that is better than Phil's! What you say? There aren't any such clips of WCK? I wonder why?


Do you know what I don't think is fair, Keith? For me to spend years working my ass off, taking beating after beating, paying my dues in blood, sweat, injuries, training with the best people I can find, etc. to work out how to make my WCK functional, to then have people who don't really even train, who won't do any work themselves, who won't even seek out people to teach them, who are afraid to walk into a MMA gym, but then believe that I owe it to them to show them how to do it.

---Any endeavor has always had those willing to go out "on the edge" so to speak and bring back their findings for the good of the community. You're not willing to do that? And you wonder why the quality of WCK falls with the generations? Maybe its because people are unwilling to share and help others out? Did you not reap the benefits from your "blood, sweat, and injuries"? Isn't that reward enough? Why are you worried about "fair"? No one forces you to come here and discuss. And no one can force you to share what you know. But as a regular in this forum you are a member of a community. Don't you want to help out that community? How is that being "unfair"? What is unfair is attacking the work of someone in your community and tearing down what they do without offering to show or explain what you think is better. How can the community advance and learn otherwise?

[Ultimatewingchun]

watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D93hwx8P9So

William Cheung is so good at this that he makes it look easy. Comes with many years of training where to look, focusing under pressure, and drilling and sparring it again and again.

Because knowing where to look (elbows and knees) is one of the most important things I've ever learned about fighting...

[sanjuro_ronin]

Phil, you know I love you like the brother that you are, but I am going to say something that MAY come off as, well, rude or even "terrence'like".
The fact that it was a demo is NO excuse for doing it the "wrong way".

See what you did is symptomatic of what is wrong with TCMA demos, they are NOT done in a realistic way and as such, give false information and incorrect perception of what is being done.
YOU ( and I am putting the TCMA world on your shoulder and I apologise for that) are the problem and so is your demo.

That said, I think Phil is a HUGE credit to TCMA and WC in particular, he is a guiding force in putting WC out there and is a great guy, friendly, helpful and he was a ****ing Marine !! Simper Fi !!!

Don't take my critique as anything other then me wanting you to do better.

We Cool ?

[t_niehoff]

I guess this post from Terence must have gotten deleted somewhere along the way? So I cut this from goju's response and give my own response, since it was directed at me:

Terence wrote:
What? Are you serious? I can't point out that someone can't play the violin well unless I am willing to post a video of myself playing? Is that your view?

---No. Critics blast someone else's art and performance all the time without being able to actually do the thing themselves. But....they will at least be able to make a far comparison to something directly related in order to show the validity of their criticism. You made a comparison to boxing, not to WCK. I'm not asking you to go out and post your own video. Just point us to someone else's that is better than Phil's! What you say? There aren't any such clips of WCK? I wonder why?


I posted clips where good fighters/trainers were presenting info on the same thing -- like "the cover". And, I explained in detail what was wrong with Phil's clips.

But this is not enough for you? Why do I need to point to someone better than Phil? How does that in any way support what Phil is doing? Does the fact that there is only crap out there make his crap somehow valid?

Let me ask you a question: why do you want video clips in the first place? I don't want or need them. So why do you?



Do you know what I don't think is fair, Keith? For me to spend years working my ass off, taking beating after beating, paying my dues in blood, sweat, injuries, training with the best people I can find, etc. to work out how to make my WCK functional, to then have people who don't really even train, who won't do any work themselves, who won't even seek out people to teach them, who are afraid to walk into a MMA gym, but then believe that I owe it to them to show them how to do it.

---Any endeavor has always had those willing to go out "on the edge" so to speak and bring back their findings for the good of the community. You're not willing to do that? And you wonder why the quality of WCK falls with the generations? Maybe its because people are unwilling to share and help others out?


You misunderstand -- I'm willing to help people out (haven't I said that I'm willing to show them what I do if they visit me?), but those people need to do the work. Tell me, have you put in hundreds of hours sparring at a MMA or MT or boxing gym trying to make your WCK work? Because that is what it takes. There is no other way to make your WCK functional. None. If you aren't willing to do that, no video will help you.

Why is the quality of WCK falling? Because people won't do that work.



Did you not reap the benefits from your "blood, sweat, and injuries"? Isn't that reward enough? Why are you worried about "fair"? No one forces you to come here and discuss. And no one can force you to share what you know. But as a regular in this forum you are a member of a community. Don't you want to help out that community? How is that being "unfair"?


And as I said, I'm willing to help -- serious people. I come here to provide a different POV, one that you don't hear often in WCK circles but is rather common in combative sport circles. I do that because I wish that someone had done that for me many years ago. I wish someone had pointed out all the bullsh1t so that I didn't waste my time. I will share what is the core curriculum of WCK, I'll point out the bullsh1t, and I'll tell you what work you need to do to make that functional. If you are willing to do the work, what more do you need?



What is unfair is attacking the work of someone in your community and tearing down what they do without offering to show or explain what you think is better. How can the community advance and learn otherwise?

Because it is bullsh1t. Doing that stuff is training to fail. I can point out bullsh1t without needing to then present "a better way."

Why is it that more WCK people don't recognize that crap for what it is?

[YungChun]

Because it is bullsh1t. Doing that stuff is training to fail. I can point out bullsh1t without needing to then present "a better way."

Why is it that more WCK people don't recognize that crap for what it is?

Logically the answer is simply because they are not familiar with its opposite..

We can point out problems but without then explaining how to do something correctly the 'student' is left without complete direction... In cases of learning, "Don't do that!" Needs to be accompanied with what to do. Imagine Cesar Millan's students not being specifically shown how to control their dogs, just what not to do..


Now, arguably you do typically explain these things (what to do) but for many these explanations aren't specific enough for whatever the reason.... What's even more disturbing is the almost complete lack of good examples out there--people do need to see good examples too.

[KPM]

It may not be pretty, and it may not be perfect, but I have little doubt that these students of Phil Redmond would have done much much better against the boxer on the clip that started this thread.

http://www.youtube.com/user/sifupr#p/u/134/M1bSkRY3iWI

[YungChun]

VT attacks their structure with ours, THAT is the VT method, not using Boxing, not blocking...etc and this is EXACTLY what I discovered years ago when I was working with Boxers.. We attack their center... Simplicity in time and action IS the right way... Yet you think blocking, which takes nothing away from them and keeps you behind the timing is more "realistic"????

[jesper]

I think you put to much into his statement about hitting the arm. The aim is not to hit the arm per se, but when you punch him you will use your punching arm to "intercept" his arm and thereby either block his means of attacking you or better yet break his structure.
well best way for me to describe it anyways.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a81ROzcch3g

Look at Emin around 2 min. Though there may be some differences in actual performance he explains what is being done.

[YungChun]

That is VT's method, attacking their structure..... I don't care what Terence claims or what you claim, that is the f#cking method... The most basic tool used to do that is the punch... Is there more involved, sure, timing, distance, having real structure a real horse, etc... Nevertheless attacking structure is the VT method, it's what sets VT apart from and makes it different from Boxing.. Moreover, it's clear you don't even know what T means when he says hitting their arms, he means attacking their center with his and regardless of who has done what with whom THAT is the method and most experienced VT folks here are well aware of it.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Attacking center is "attacking center"

Hitting people's arms is "hitting their arms".

And thanks for sharing the VT method.

[Phil Redmond]

Phil, you know I love you like the brother that you are, but I am going to say something that MAY come off as, well, rude or even "terrence'like".
The fact that it was a demo is NO excuse for doing it the "wrong way".

See what you did is symptomatic of what is wrong with TCMA demos, they are NOT done in a realistic way and as such, give false information and incorrect perception of what is being done.
YOU ( and I am putting the TCMA world on your shoulder and I apologise for that) are the problem and so is your demo.

That said, I think Phil is a HUGE credit to TCMA and WC in particular, he is a guiding force in putting WC out there and is a great guy, friendly, helpful and he was a ****ing Marine !! Simper Fi !!!

Don't take my critique as anything other then me wanting you to do better.

We Cool ?
According to you what was I doing wrong? Then I can explain what I was doing right. Unless you think I should smash students in order for them to learn. One problem people seem to have is that they expect a perfect choreographed Shaw Bros demo. Regardless of what people think. Our guys fight.

[YungChun]

Attacking center is "attacking center"

Hitting people's arms is "hitting their arms".

And thanks for sharing the VT method.

No, attacking the center can also mean attacking arms, but I know--you prefer to just "not get it"..

I'll leave it alone and let you resume your attack.

Anyone want to take up a collection to send Phil and/or Victor to St. Louis?

[Yoshiyahu]

The Best way to fight a boxers is to previously fought with boxers. This Guy was even getting the full spectrum of real boxing tools. The Big was toying with him an everytime he step in range he would clobber his face. Eventually the WC guy got knocked out...

Weaknesses
-WC punches lack power
-Didnt know how to defend against a punch
-Didn't cover when going inside
-Didn't control the bridge or trap opponent limbs
-Did lousy kicks that were just a tease
-Lacked the skill to fight any of those guys
-Has lousy structure and terrible horse

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEUhO4IAkCg&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL

It looks like the Karate guy did more WC than the boxer!

[Niersun]

I'm not anonymous -- I use my real name, people on this forum have met me, trained with me, etc. My sifu posts here.

So, I'm not like YOU.

The whole "humble" thing is nonsense. I know what my skill level is, what I can do and not do, etc. Anyone who really trains will. I have repeatedly said that I am not that good. I'm one of the few who admit it.

I argue against what I see as bullsh1t. There is loads of it in the TMAs and in WCK. I used to believe much of the bullsh1t. Now I know better. And I know that it is the bullsh1t that holds us back. It held me back. But it is so pervasive, and it continues to grow.

I was writing a big ar$e reply, but chose to limit it to this: Truth is in the eye of the beholder.

[t_niehoff]

I was writing a big ar$e reply, but chose to limit it to this: Truth is in the eye of the beholder.

No, it's not. "Beauty" is. Truth is a goal, something some people seek. Be faithless to your cause and betray it to a stronger enemy.

[t_niehoff]

That is VT's method, attacking their structure.....


Yes, and you do that so that you can control them.



I don't care what Terence claims or what you claim, that is the f#cking method...


Yes, and the WCK method exists apart from me or Victor -- all you have to do is look at Ku Lo/Gu Lao, YKS/SN, Pan Nam, some of the better Yip people, etc. and you see that again and again. Some lineages/branches/teachers make that explicit, some make it implicit.

And, Jim, some people never learned it. So when they went out and taught, formed organizations, etc. it was never part of their "system." These people can't look beyond their little lineage/branch and see the greater art.



The most basic tool used to do that is the punch...


Of course.



Is there more involved, sure, timing, distance, having real structure a real horse, etc... Nevertheless attacking structure is the VT method, it's what sets VT apart from and makes it different from Boxing..


Exactly! You've condensed it down to its essence.



Moreover, it's clear you don't even know what T means when he says hitting their arms, he means attacking their center with his and regardless of who has done what with whom THAT is the method and most experienced VT folks here are well aware of it.

He doesn't WANT to understand.

[t_niehoff]

Logically the answer is simply because they are not familiar with its opposite..


How difficult is it really? If I say do not to reach to block, for example, then you have a guide for whatever you do.



We can point out problems but without then explaining how to do something correctly the 'student' is left without complete direction...


BINGO! And my point is that I won't explain how "to do something correctly" -- if that something is application -- you need to work that out for yourself. No one can explain how to do it. Can you explain "how" to ride a bike? Will seeing someone ride a bike make you able to ride a bike? No. You need to get on the bike and try to ride, and keep trying, that is the only way to learn. It's like learning to control someone in chi sao: they have to experience it (being done to them), learn by FEELING it, etc. No one can tell you how to do it. No one can show you how to do it. It is too dynamic.



In cases of learning, "Don't do that!" Needs to be accompanied with what to do. Imagine Cesar Millan's students not being specifically shown how to control their dogs, just what not to do..


It's not the same -- we are trying to learn a skill.



Now, arguably you do typically explain these things (what to do) but for many these explanations aren't specific enough for whatever the reason.... What's even more disturbing is the almost complete lack of good examples out there--people do need to see good examples too.

Here is the trouble, Jim: WCK is built on a number of fundamental skills that are all working together (my analogy is that it is like a Swiss watch where all the cogs fit and work together to make the watch run), and you need all those "elements" in place BEFORE you can implement the method. For example, to control someone while striking them in chi sao requires that you have a certain body structure, that you can strike with that body structure, that you have the targeting (weak line, control points, etc.) to break the opponent's structure, that you can control the bridges, etc.

Now, if you develop these various skills/elements, you will find that you AUTOMATICALLY -- from that process -- begin to work out for yourself HOW to put the cogs together for yourself to implement the method. Why? Because all these elements/skills are -- or should be -- all directed toward doing that method (they are the tools you need for that job). The method is your guide, your compass, it is what you are trying to do, and the various skills/elements are how you go about doing it.

[sanjuro_ronin]

According to you what was I doing wrong? Then I can explain what I was doing right. Unless you think I should smash students in order for them to learn. One problem people seem to have is that they expect a perfect choreographed Shaw Bros demo. Regardless of what people think. Our guys fight.

Of course they fight, WE KNOW they fight, that isn't the issue.
I was hoping that I had made myself clear and I see that I didn't, sorry.
You know I have the upmost respect for you Phil so understand that the critique I am stating is not about YOU OR your TWC, its about the methodology of the DEMO, that's all.
What was wrong?
Well in all honestly, T did already state it and show it in the clips he posted which we also demo clips.
In a nutshell, the attacks were badly made, badly executed, unrealistic, incorrect range and incorrectly done and for because of that, the rest was "irrelevant".
In short, if you want to show how TWC counters a Jab or hook then the jab or hook MUST be done the right way from the right distance with the right intent.

[t_niehoff]

According to you what was I doing wrong?


I provided a detailed analysis of what you were doing wrong. Don't you think that this is what Paul is referring to?



Then I can explain what I was doing right.


Go back to my posts and take them point by point explaining why what I am saying is not correct.



Unless you think I should smash students in order for them to learn.


No one is saying that. I provided clips of good fighters/trainers covering the same points you did, and they didn't smash their students.



One problem people seem to have is that they expect a perfect choreographed Shaw Bros demo.


Again, you are making sh1t up. No one is expecting "perfect choreographed" anything. As I said, look at the clips of the GOOD instruction that I put up -- there is no "perfect choreography", just fundamentally sound instruction.

Do you really not see, for example, that "punching" from out of range, so that your student needs to reach to block, and then holding your arm out instead of retracting it, isn't very poor teaching?



Regardless of what people think. Our guys fight.

So what? They fight -- with other scrubs. And they can't do what they train to do as they train to do it. Denial isn't just a river in Africa.

[KPM]

BINGO! And my point is that I won't explain how "to do something correctly" -- if that something is application -- you need to work that out for yourself. No one can explain how to do it. Can you explain "how" to ride a bike? Will seeing someone ride a bike make you able to ride a bike? No. You need to get on the bike and try to ride, and keep trying, that is the only way to learn. It's like learning to control someone in chi sao: they have to experience it (being done to them), learn by FEELING it, etc. No one can tell you how to do it. No one can show you how to do it. It is too dynamic.

.

I disagree. I could watch a vid of a kid trying to learn to ride his bike and tell him to "pull your knees in" or "sit up straight and don't slouch forward" or "lock your elbows and don't let the front wheel wobble." These are all "how to do it correctly" that will help him build his skill of riding a bike. A seasoned racing cyclist could watch a vid clip of a colleague in a race and tell him how pass more effectively or how to draft on another rider, etc. So a seasoned fighter should be able to watch a vid of someone showing an application and be able to make recommendations on how to do it better. Anyone can tear something apart. If you know the skill, you should be able to provide guidance on how to do it and build it up. Its a cop out to say "you have to feel it to know what I'm talking about." This may to appropriate when talking about how to direct intent or energy. But when it comes to how to use WCK to defend against a boxer's hook, it should be straight-forward. This ain't rocket science!

[t_niehoff]

I disagree. I could watch a vid of a kid trying to learn to ride his bike and tell him to "pull your knees in" or "sit up straight and don't slouch forward" or "lock your elbows and don't let the front wheel wobble." These are all "how to do it correctly" that will help him build his skill of riding a bike. A seasoned racing cyclist could watch a vid clip of a colleague in a race and tell him how pass more effectively or how to draft on another rider, etc. So a seasoned fighter should be able to watch a vid of someone showing an application and be able to make recommendations on how to do it better. Anyone can tear something apart. If you know the skill, you should be able to provide guidance on how to do it and build it up. Its a cop out to say "you have to feel it to know what I'm talking about." This may to appropriate when talking about how to direct intent or energy. But when it comes to how to use WCK to defend against a boxer's hook, it should be straight-forward. This ain't rocket science!

Read the rest of my post, Keith, which expands on my point:

WCK is built on a number of fundamental skills that are all working together (my analogy is that it is like a Swiss watch where all the cogs fit and work together to make the watch run), and you need all those "elements" in place BEFORE you can implement the method. For example, to control someone while striking them in chi sao requires that you have a certain body structure, that you can strike with that body structure, that you have the targeting (weak line, control points, etc.) to break the opponent's structure, that you can control the bridges, etc.

Now, if you develop these various skills/elements, you will find that you AUTOMATICALLY -- from that process -- begin to work out for yourself HOW to put the cogs together for yourself to implement the method. Why? Because all these elements/skills are -- or should be -- all directed toward doing that method (they are the tools you need for that job). The method is your guide, your compass, it is what you are trying to do, and the various skills/elements are how you go about doing it.

I am providing "guidance" on how to do it -- but you aren't listening.

If you have learned WCK's method, then you will know why the question "how to use WCK to defend against a boxer's hook?" is a WRONG question. That's NOT what we do. And you won't get the right answers by asking the wrong questions.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Let me just cut to the chase, Jim, and address this to Terence.

When using your wing chun, Terence, and when you spar with boxers:

You say that you punch your way in, and in the process of attacking center, it might be necessary to hit (punch) their arms, and you always try to break their structure on initial contact.

You've made it clear that this is your method.

So think back to the last time you sparred a boxer with this approach - what was the result?

How did you do?

What was he throwing at you?

What happened when he did?

Did you break his structure?

Please be specific.

[t_niehoff]

Let me just cut to the chase, Jim, and address this to Terence.

When using your wing chun, Terence, and when you spar with boxers:

You say that you punch your way in, and in the process of attacking center, it might be necessary to hit (punch) their arms, and you always try to break their structure on initial contact.

You've made it clear that this is your method.


Yes, that is my method BECAUSE THAT IS WCK'S METHOD. This is what they teach in all the older, legit branches of WCK.



So think back to the last time you sparred a boxer with this approach - what was the result?

How did you do?

What was he throwing at you?

What happened when he did?

Please be specific.

Victor, I find that dealing with PURE boxers -- even very good boxers -- is not very difficult since what we do -- getting in and controlling -- takes away their game. I am not trying to box with him, or stay outside and "deal" with his punches. That is playing his game. It can't be put into a you-do-this and he-does-that and then you-do-this-other-thing and he-responds-with, etc. That is a wrong way of looking at it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNBbk58FC6A

Ed Hart's description of his meeting with Bruce shows that Bruce knew WCK's method.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Terence,

You did not answer my specific question about exactly what happened the last time you sparred a boxer.

You gave a generic answer.

And amazingly, you said that it's easy to deal with very good pure boxers - and based upon your previous posts - these are guys who train out of boxing gyms that you're talking about.

Therefore I see no point in taking this any further.

Well that's my case, Jim, and it's now closed.

[t_niehoff]

Terence,

You did not answer my specific question about exactly what happened the last time you sparred a boxer.

You gave a generic answer.

And amazingly, you said that it's easy to deal with very good pure boxers - and based upon your previous posts - these are guys who train out of boxing gyms that you're talking about.

Therefore I see no point in taking this any further.

Well that's my case, Jim, and it's now closed.

As I KEEP TELLING YOU, there is no point in giving specifics. A blow-by-blow account won't clarify anything. Ed Hart gave a specific example of what happened to him -- that didn't help you, did it?

It is easy to deal with boxers -- unless you box with them. How difficult was it for Randy to deal with Toney? Easy, because he DID NOT BOX with him. Is that point sinking in yet? A pure, unattached striking game is not very difficult to deal with -- as anyone can see from MMA -- IF you are not trying to play the same game. But when you do "WCK kickboxing", you will have all kinds of difficulty since you are playing into their game, their strengths.

The case is closed because you cannot --and will not -- see past your own limitations.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Like I said - the case is closed.

"It's easy to deal with very good pure boxers using wing chun."

I have no more time to waste on this.

P.S.- Randy Couture does not use any wing chun.

[Phil Redmond]

Of course they fight, WE KNOW they fight, that isn't the issue.
I was hoping that I had made myself clear and I see that I didn't, sorry.
You know I have the upmost respect for you Phil so understand that the critique I am stating is not about YOU OR your TWC, its about the methodology of the DEMO, that's all.
What was wrong?
Well in all honestly, T did already state it and show it in the clips he posted which we also demo clips.
In a nutshell, the attacks were badly made, badly executed, unrealistic, incorrect range and incorrectly done and for because of that, the rest was "irrelevant".
In short, if you want to show how TWC counters a Jab or hook then the jab or hook MUST be done the right way from the right distance with the right intent.
I don't try to hit a student in a demo. But we do train the same thing I did in the demo while striking from a real contact intent distance. I can email you some clips showing what I mean. Look for a PM from me.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I don't try to hit a student in a demo. But we do train the same thing I did in the demo while striking from a real contact intent distance. I can email you some clips showing what I mean. Look for a PM from me.

I have no doubt that you guys do translate it well into your sparring, the clips of your guys fighting full contact is evidence of that.
And no, you don't have to hit the student in the demo, the point is that the student should AT LEAST TRY to hit you though.
That said, I have been hit plenty of times while being the "dummy" in a demo and it didn't kill me.
That is what gear and control are for.

Like I mentioned on the PM, it's not that the demo are useless and nothing can be learned, its that it is NOT realistic and it could be.

[t_niehoff]

Like I said - the case is closed.

"It's easy to deal with very good pure boxers using wing chun."

I have no more time to waste on this.

P.S.- Randy Couture does not use any wing chun.

Of course Randy doesn't use WCK -- but my point is that he isn't trying to box or to stand and bang with a boxer: he uses a different game, one that takes boxing out of the picture. WCK takes boxing out of the picture too. You don't appreciate that since to YOU (and Cheung) WCK is a form of kickboxing.

[Ultimatewingchun]

And my point is that pointing a finger at William Cheung/TWC...

and talking about Randy Couture...

and telling us how you find it easy to deal with very good pure boxers...

WITHOUT ANY DETAILS AND SPECIFICS ABOUT HOW YOU DO THIS...

means nothing.

Hence, to continue this conversation is a waste of time.

Why don't you just let it go?

[t_niehoff]

And my point is that pointing a finger at William Cheung/TWC...

and talking about Randy Couture...

and telling us how you find it easy to deal with very good pure boxers...

WITHOUT ANY DETAILS AND SPECIFICS ABOUT HOW YOU DO THIS...

means nothing.

Hence, to continue this conversation is a waste of time.

Why don't you just let it go?

The details and specifics is called WCK. Learn it. Go find a good teacher. Until you do, it will mean nothing.

[sanjuro_ronin]

From an outsider looking in it seems that T has more issues with TWC than anything else.
This here just reeks of "My lineage is better than yours".
When you start saying things like "If you learend the correct WCK" or "Older, legit lines of WCK", it takes away from your very correct critique of those videos and puts your view into the " I have the real WCK" category.

[Vajramusti]

Looks like another repetitious dead thread.

[Phil Redmond]

A Demo is a demo. Pick this one apart. Well for one. His distance is unrealistic because he's not trying to hit the guy for real.I can find more things as you all can
There a MANY examples of competent fighters teaching while talking, dropping their guard, having their partner not resist when demoing grappling techs and so on.
But as Joy said. Another dead thread.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=839vG93LgAg

[Phil Redmond]

I have no doubt that you guys do translate it well into your sparring, the clips of your guys fighting full contact is evidence of that.
And no, you don't have to hit the student in the demo, the point is that the student should AT LEAST TRY to hit you though.
That said, I have been hit plenty of times while being the "dummy" in a demo and it didn't kill me.
That is what gear and control are for.

Like I mentioned on the PM, it's not that the demo are useless and nothing can be learned, its that it is NOT realistic and it could be.
At least you disagree like a man and don't resort to childish insults. I can respect that.

[sanjuro_ronin]

At least you disagree like a man and don't resort to childish insults. I can respect that.

Insults are for people that DON'T have anything to back their position up.
We are disagreeing yes, but only of a sort and this is why:
You don;t think you need to be that realistic in a demo and I do.
Beyond that there is no disagreement.
The video you posted of the boxer is different on several regards:
Everyone has seen boxing and knows what it looks like and how boxers fight, so most of the stuff being shown can be "half-assed".
Boxing defense doesn't need to be demo'd full speed or even with half ass speed because it is base don the strikes coming to the defender, not on interceptions or things like that.

Even the clips that T put up of crazy monkey were half speed and the only reason ANY contact was made was because they wore gloves and I have seen demos of CM without gloves and they don't make contact either.

The issue is that they are more realistic in what is being shown in regards to what is being taught.

[Ultimatewingchun]

From an outsider looking in it seems that T has more issues with TWC than anything else.
This here just reeks of "My lineage is better than yours".
When you start saying things like "If you learend the correct WCK" or "Older, legit lines of WCK", it takes away from your very correct critique of those videos and puts your view into the " I have the real WCK" category.

***Amen to that.

And without having to show or discuss any details of what the correct wing chun is going to look like. That's a sweet deal.

[sanjuro_ronin]

You guys are so ****ing held up on how your :lineage" does this that and the other thing that you guys can' even understand that you have more to gain by working together than you have to lose.
Who gives a flying **** if its TWC, HFY, MYWC, scratch my balls and call me grandpa WC !
Seriously !
You guys are like a bunch of whiney women on the rag, my apologies to all the whiney women on the rag.

[sanjuro_ronin]

It's like I mentioned over PM, when Terrence showed how what Phil was demoing was incorrect based on what he was doing and then showed WHy with those two CM videos, he made it about what was going on.
The moment he through in his snide remark about "old, legit styles of WC", he stopped making it about the "legitimacy" of the practice and made it about "legitimacy of lineages" and who the **** gives a **** about that?

[Ultimatewingchun]

So let me see if I got this right, Paul. TN blasts TWC, says it doesn't work, details errors in Phil's demo (and there are errors in it)....you acknowledge that the guys that Phil and Rahsun are training can fight...but the attacks by TN on TWC continue nonetheless....

and when he's asked to show (or at least give details) about what he believes is the correct way - and how he implements it, for example, against boxers - the result is that he gives a generic non-answer and points to Randy Couture.

And in the process - makes the claim that he, personally, while using his non-detailed generic wing chun - finds it easy to deal with very good pure boxers who train in boxing gyms.

And I'm being whiney if I don't believe that?

Okey dokey, Paul.

[sanjuro_ronin]

And I'm being whiney if I don't believe that?

Yes.

LMAO !!

It was a general rant on ALL you whiney *****es.

Guys, seriously, it's pretty clear that T's issues with you is NOT about what you are doing AS MUCH as it is about the opinion that it isn't WC.
I don't think you are ever going to change his mind so perhaps it would be best to put him on ignore.
Truly.

[YungChun]

So let me see if I got this right, Paul. TN blasts TWC, says it doesn't work, details errors in Phil's demo (and there are errors in it)....you acknowledge that the guys that Phil and Rahsun are training can fight...but the attacks by TN on TWC continue nonetheless....

and when he's asked to show (or at least give details) about what he believes is the correct way - and how he implements it, for example, against boxers - the result is that he gives a generic non-answer and points to Randy Couture.

And in the process - makes the claim that he, personally, while using his non-detailed generic wing chun - finds it easy to deal with very good pure boxers who train in boxing gyms.

And I'm being whiney if I don't believe that?

Okey dokey, Paul.

Let's see T's written 2 billion posts about VT's method.. He has said what he does in fighting, control, break them down, attach, punch his way in to do this but you say he is too vague and this proves he is FOS?

WTF do you want him to tell you? A moment to moment rehash of his last match? Who did what? Which tool was used at each moment?

So if we are talking skating... You want to know exactly how he skates? How do you skate? Well if you can't explain exactly how you skate then you must be FOS... How the f#ck do you tell someone how you skate? How you fight? Other than a general method? In BJJ how do you fight? Well we take them down and submit them... But how? WTF do you mean how?

Q. How do you take down a good boxer?

A. The same f#cking way you take down anyone---by doing it, by failing and then succeeding and repeating the process...


It all sounds pretty silly to me..

[Vajramusti]

[QUOTE=m1k3;1073730]This has got to be one of the best threads ever.

LMFAO!!!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good grief...any way you look at it.

The light was dim but the noise was high.

joy chaudhuri

[chusauli]

LOL!

"You have offended my famiwy, and you have offended the Shaolin Temple."

LOL!

Let's look at this logically. The way I see it:

1) If Vic meets T and beats him up, he's got another lawsuit on his hand (like the Parlati-Draheim case). Result - a lot of hot air and money wasted, and aren't you old enough to have learned your lesson?

2) T beats up Parlati, Parlati then sues T. But Parlati will still not see things T's way.

3) They never meet and all this internet bravado continues on for years.

4) Both have mutual respect after meeting, and both crosstrain in each other's version of WCK. (Highly unlikely!)

Perhaps I missed something?

All in all, its like a car accident...

[YungChun]

"You have offended my famiwy...."


LMAO! Exactly how he said it... That was funny...:D

Kiazi's children. Their faces wet.

[KPM]

I'm sitting in a hotel room in Killeen Tx just waiting around to get on an airplane headed for Kuwait. So I brought a bunch of my WCK DVDs and have started to review some of them. I pulled out Alan Orr's "Old School Boxing" series. On the second vid in this series at about the 28 minute mark Alan shows how to defend against a lead hook or hay-maker. And guess what? It ain't that different from what Phil shows on the video that Terence critiqued!


http://www.youtube.com/user/sifupr#p/u/33/SLFWdM3qwfU

---Phil used a Lop Sao in the video above, and Alan uses a Biu Sao, but the idea is the same...they both controlled the strike at the elbow while stepping in and out to that side.

Terence said:
1) in the first few seconds you talk about how "if you are fighting in here (close) a boxer can . . . " and then you go on to talk about ahow you want to be OUTSIDE. No. In WCK's method we want to be INSIDE, close to our opponent,

---Alan is at the same distance that Phil shows. This is punching distance without being within "clinching" distance. I think Phil's point was that if you are that close, you won't be able to see anything coming. If you are that close, you should already be attaching and controlling, not blocking hay-makers.

where you were before you stepped out. You go on to talk about "I can't see what he is doing in there . . ." Of course not. That is why we have CONTACT. WCK is a contact/attached fighting method. When you are "in there" you are in contact, attached so that a boxer can't hit you and you can control him. This is WCK 101.

---Right. But that wasn't what Phil was demonstrating, nor what Alan was demonstrating on his video. What they were both showing was defending against a punch BEFORE you get into that distance.



3) at 22 seconds you talk about "stepping off the line". Nope. You are able to step off the line because you know it is coming. You won't be able to do that in fighting since you won't know what punch is coming and his arm can move much faster than your body.

---Alan also showed stepping out and to the side, catching the opponent at the elbow and unbalancing him. Apparently he thinks there will be time to see this coming. Again, it depends on the distance....as Phil pointed out in his clip.


4) then at 27 seconds you go on to say (and I couldn't believe this nonsense), "the reason I step off the line is because if you were his friend . . ." and you have the friend stand to the open side. WTF? Well, what if his friend was on your partner's other side? Would you then circle into him? It has nothing whatsoever to do with that.

---Yea, I gotta admit, that one was pretty silly! Sorry Phil! :)


5) notice how your partner only throws one punch and stand there while you do all this movement -- nonsense. He doesn't even face you when you move. No one is going to do that. It is completely unrealisitic.

---That's exactly how Alan shows it on his video as well. Now granted, he has Neil and Aaron drilling this technique "live" in the following section. But Phil only had a 2 minute clip, not an entire DVD.


6) at 1:03 he does a jab and round punch. Of course his jab is thrown from out of range (surprise, surprise) and you reach to block it.

---He did a PaK Sau against the jab, exactly what Alan shows on his DVD. Phil wasn't reaching any more than Alan does.



7) and you don't seem to be aware that at any time, your partner could have hit you with his rear hand. In fact, you were stepping into it. Look at 1:17.

---It was a 2 minute demo. On Alan's video, in the 2 minutes where he is showing the same defense, he isn't too worried about his partner's rear hand either.


So, tell me, are these your WCK "principles" in action?

---If they are, they aren't that different from Alan Orr's WCK "principles." I wish I had the ability to post that clip from Alan's DVD so people could compare it to Phil's clip. I'm telling you....they aren't that different!

[Wayfaring]

I pulled out Alan Orr's "Old School Boxing" series. On the second vid in this series at about the 28 minute mark Alan shows how to defend against a lead hook or hay-maker. And guess what? It ain't that different from what Phil shows on the video that Terence critiqued!


Now that's the funniest thing I've seen here in a long time!!!

[Ultimatewingchun]

Well I guess Robert Chu picked up something after all during those two weeks he spent with William Cheung back in 1984 - and whatever TWC vids he's been watching since then - and passed some of the good stuff onto Alan. Too bad Terence missed that part during his sessions with Robert.

:D ;) :cool:

[YungChun]

Right nothing attached there... :eek:

[bennyvt]

Come on victor if you or phil do it it has to be wrong. bbut if alan does it, its different, didnt you know that. Like his flying armbar on the dummy, we are just ignorant;)

[t_niehoff]

It's like I mentioned over PM, when Terrence showed how what Phil was demoing was incorrect based on what he was doing and then showed WHy with those two CM videos, he made it about what was going on.


OK.



The moment he through in his snide remark about "old, legit styles of WC", he stopped making it about the "legitimacy" of the practice and made it about "legitimacy of lineages" and who the **** gives a **** about that?

When I talk about the "old legit branches of WCK" what I am referring to is that there is a core method -- which is what WCK is all about. WCK is a skill. A skill. That skill is implementing the method, using that method in fighting. The tools are to implement THAT method. That method is WCK. It's been a part of WCK since the beginning.

WCK is not doing whatever the hell you please. It is not kickboxing.

This is not just a my-lineage-is-right-and-yours-is-wrong b1tchfest. Rather, it is a recognition that there exists a core method that some people -- like Cheung -- never apparently learned.

When people like Victor argue that this isn't the case, I refer them to these older lineages so that they don't need to take my word for it -- they can do the research, the investigation, themselves. They can see that what I am saying is in fact true.

[Ultimatewingchun]

But of course William Cheung learned VT from Yip man - and had an enormous reputation within the Yip clan for what he was able to do with it.

The fact that he also learned another system that had more footwork, a central line concept in addition to the centerline - both of which made for a more mobile approach and more efficiences at a longer range than the crash and burn inside approach did - that's a good thing - not a bad thing.

Oh wait, I forgot, he made the second system all up.

No way that's true, but even it were: the system still works - and that's a good thing.

So what's your problem, exactly?

Personal stuff?

[t_niehoff]

I pulled out Alan Orr's "Old School Boxing" series. On the second vid in this series at about the 28 minute mark Alan shows how to defend against a lead hook or hay-maker. And guess what? It ain't that different from what Phil shows on the video that Terence critiqued!


Yes, it is -- it is very different. I just went back and rewatched it.

To start with, the person throwing the haymaker is in range (to actually hit), so is Alan, so there is no "reaching", Alan does not stay out (as Phil does) but gets in CLOSE, Alan does not try to "step off the line", etc. It is night and dsy.



---Phil used a Lop Sao in the video above, and Alan uses a Biu Sao, but the idea is the same...they both controlled the strike at the elbow while stepping in and out to that side.


No. Alan uses a bil sao as he charges forward -- not to the side -- and is striking with the bil sao to the opponent arm (his upper arm).



Terence said:
1) in the first few seconds you talk about how "if you are fighting in here (close) a boxer can . . . " and then you go on to talk about ahow you want to be OUTSIDE. No. In WCK's method we want to be INSIDE, close to our opponent,

---Alan is at the same distance that Phil shows. This is punching distance without being within "clinching" distance.


WTF are you talking about? Phil is out of range and Alan - and his demo partner - are BOTH in range (they can touch the other guy without moving).



I think Phil's point was that if you are that close, you won't be able to see anything coming. If you are that close, you should already be attaching and controlling, not blocking hay-makers.


Phil didn't SAY that. He said you can't see so you want to step out. Stop making things up.



where you were before you stepped out. You go on to talk about "I can't see what he is doing in there . . ." Of course not. That is why we have CONTACT. WCK is a contact/attached fighting method. When you are "in there" you are in contact, attached so that a boxer can't hit you and you can control him. This is WCK 101.

---Right. But that wasn't what Phil was demonstrating, nor what Alan was demonstrating on his video. What they were both showing was defending against a punch BEFORE you get into that distance.


It makes absolutely no sense for Phil to START in close (where we ultimately want to be), explain how this is NOT where you want to be since you can't see, and move to the outside to then deal with his punches, if he really wants to be on the inside. Alan, on the other hand, starts on the inside and continues forward, into his opponent -- when he performs the biu sao he ends up within a half foot of his opponent's body. What Alan and Phil are showing are two very different things.



3) at 22 seconds you talk about "stepping off the line". Nope. You are able to step off the line because you know it is coming. You won't be able to do that in fighting since you won't know what punch is coming and his arm can move much faster than your body.

---Alan also showed stepping out and to the side, catching the opponent at the elbow and unbalancing him. Apparently he thinks there will be time to see this coming. Again, it depends on the distance....as Phil pointed out in his clip.


No. Alan moved FORWARD into his opponent, not off to the side. He CLOSED IN. There was no side-step. He did that to hit with his body -- using his biu sao to the opponent's arm.



4) then at 27 seconds you go on to say (and I couldn't believe this nonsense), "the reason I step off the line is because if you were his friend . . ." and you have the friend stand to the open side. WTF? Well, what if his friend was on your partner's other side? Would you then circle into him? It has nothing whatsoever to do with that.

---Yea, I gotta admit, that one was pretty silly! Sorry Phil! :)


It was all silly. But he is parroting how Cheung teaches.



5) notice how your partner only throws one punch and stand there while you do all this movement -- nonsense. He doesn't even face you when you move. No one is going to do that. It is completely unrealisitic.

---That's exactly how Alan shows it on his video as well. Now granted, he has Neil and Aaron drilling this technique "live" in the following section. But Phil only had a 2 minute clip, not an entire DVD.


Alan shows how when you hit the opponent with your body (with the biu sao) it will destroy the opponent's structure so that he can't hit with #2 -- he talks about that as he shows it. He even explains why happens if you don't hit with yoru body (when you reach, you can't break his structure and he hits you with #2, and his partner demos that). Do you not pay attention?

And, as you indicate, after the demo, they do it live - where the opponent can throw #2.



6) at 1:03 he does a jab and round punch. Of course his jab is thrown from out of range (surprise, surprise) and you reach to block it.

---He did a PaK Sau against the jab, exactly what Alan shows on his DVD. Phil wasn't reaching any more than Alan does.


Keith, seriously, you must be blind. When Alan shows his pak sao it is again hitting the opponent's arm with his body, he is in range when he does it, he is doing it to break his opponent's structure, etc. It is night and day. Do they both show a pak sao? Yes, but that is the only thing they have in common.



7) and you don't seem to be aware that at any time, your partner could have hit you with his rear hand. In fact, you were stepping into it. Look at 1:17.

---It was a 2 minute demo. On Alan's video, in the 2 minutes where he is showing the same defense, he isn't too worried about his partner's rear hand either.


Alan shows and explains why his opponent won't be able to hit with the rear since he is hitting the opponent and breaking his structure. And he shows how his other hand will come into play to stop anything should he not break structure.



So, tell me, are these your WCK "principles" in action?

---If they are, they aren't that different from Alan Orr's WCK "principles." I wish I had the ability to post that clip from Alan's DVD so people could compare it to Phil's clip. I'm telling you....they aren't that different!

And I'm telling you that you are blind. And this only illustrates why I think it a waste of time to put up videos. You don't see the problems with Phil's video, you don't see how what Alan does is completely different in every respect, etc. If you can't see it, why should anyone bother to post something? You are looking with YOUR eyes -- and you can only see at your level.

And, this is to all the people who jumped on what Keith posted: you should be ashamed of yourselves. NONE of you actually did any work yourself, actually bothered to look at the video in question, and see for yourself. You were all too happy to accept what someone else said because it suited what you wanted to believe. And while none of you actually took the time to check, or even to think about it, you were willing to take the time to post your opinion on something that you had no firsthand experience with, something you did not know.

[t_niehoff]

But of course William Cheung learned VT from Yip man - and had an enormous reputation within the Yip clan for what he was able to do with it.


No, he learned WCK at Yip's school. He did not have an "enormous reputation" that is mostly fiction. He had a reputation among some of the other teenagers.



The fact that he also learned another system that had more footwork, a central line concept in addition to the centerline - both of which made for a more mobile approach and more efficiences at a longer range than the crash and burn inside approach did - that's a good thing - not a bad thing.


No, he made all that stuff up.



Oh wait, I forgot, he made the second system all up.

No way that's true, but even it were: the system still works - and that's a good thing.

So what's your problem, exactly?


No, it doesn't work. And, much of his made up nonsense is contrary to what you are doing in WCK.



Personal stuff?

No. I object to the bullsh1t, the dishonesty, etc.

http://www.bullshido.net/forums/showpost.php?p=250537&postcount=1

[Sihing73]

Terrance and Victor,

Stop the back and forth regarding William Cheung and his system already. Neither of you will change the other persons mind.

Stick to the topic at hand, How not to Fight a Boxer and leave the personal issues out of it. If you do not agree then explain why and leave it at that.

If you are unable to keep the personal views out of the discussion then don't say anything. Honestly, you two are like a broken record or two gossiping women at times. :rolleyes:

[sanjuro_ronin]

No, he made all that stuff up.

Who gives a **** !
ALL of WC was "made up" at one point, like every other MA.
Who gives a crap if Cheung said he got it from Yip, from a wondering Monk or from watching a mantis and beetle mate?
All of TCMA is full of BS stories about the origin of a MA !

Seriously.
If you have issues with a principle or technique state those issues, state your point, demo it if possible and let OTHERS decide because you knwo what?
You ARE bias.
Just like everyone else.

[KPM]

Yes, it is -- it is very different. I just went back and rewatched it.

---No. They are not VERY different. I just went back and rewatched both segments back to back. You say I am blind. I say you are seeing what you want to see.


To start with, the person throwing the haymaker is in range (to actually hit), so is Alan, so there is no "reaching", Alan does not stay out (as Phil does) but gets in CLOSE, Alan does not try to "step off the line", etc. It is night and dsy.

---The distance is not that different. Phil's partner steps in with his punch, and it is clear Phil could actually be hit. Alan DOES step! You said in your critique of Phil's vid that there would be no time to step. Both men step...Alan more forward (though still with some lateral movement) and Phil more laterally (though still with some forward movement)......but both men step!!!!



WTF are you talking about? Phil is out of range and Alan - and his demo partner - are BOTH in range (they can touch the other guy without moving).

---The range may be a little wider in Phil's video, because TWC fights from a little longer range than Yip Man WCK. We all know that. But the basis of what is being done in both videos is the same. But we're only talking about 1/2 a step difference.



Alan, on the other hand, starts on the inside and continues forward, into his opponent -- when he performs the biu sao he ends up within a half foot of his opponent's body. What Alan and Phil are showing are two very different things.

----Different, but not VERY different. Alan breaks his opponent's balance by moving into him. Phil breaks the opponent's balance by moving forward and laterally. Alan "crowds" the opponent and uses his body, while Phil "stretches him out." But the fact remains that BOTH men deal with the round punch by stepping, controlling at the elbow, and unbalancing the opponent. They may accomplish that a bit differently, but it is not VERY different as you maintain. No, I am not blind. I'm just willing to call it as I see it.



Alan shows how when you hit the opponent with your body (with the biu sao) it will destroy the opponent's structure so that he can't hit with #2 -- he talks about that as he shows it. He even explains why happens if you don't hit with yoru body (when you reach, you can't break his structure and he hits you with #2, and his partner demos that). Do you not pay attention?

---Sure I paid attention. Did you pay attention to Phil's clip? He stepped off laterally and pulled the opponent off balance in the process while "zoning" away from the opponent's rear hand. Again, he may have used a little different approach than Alan, but it accomplished the same thing. It avoided the rear hand strike.


And I'm telling you that you are blind. And this only illustrates why I think it a waste of time to put up videos. You don't see the problems with Phil's video, you don't see how what Alan does is completely different in every respect, etc. If you can't see it, why should anyone bother to post something? You are looking with YOUR eyes -- and you can only see at your level.


----I'm not blind. And you are looking with YOUR eyes as well. You have to admit that you have a marked bias when it comes to anything TWC-related. I think you are being overly critical of Phil's video, primarily because it IS TWC. I'm just calling it like I see it. And I invite anyone with access to take a look at Alan's video and compare it to Phil's clip. Sure there are differences. But that are not THAT different! They both use the same basic idea to defend against a hook.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Yes, I am. I admit. I am biased against bullsh1t and deception and all those things.

No T, you are biased as to what YOU THINK is BS and deception.
Which is fine, we all are.

[KPM]

Yes, I am biased against TWC since I train WCK and look at things from that perspective.

They don't both use "the same basic idea" -- they are using very different methods. You only see the superficial aspects (biu sao, step, elbow).

Gee Terence. I was just checking out Alan Orr's website to see what was new and stumbled across this article:

http://www.alanorr.com/htdocs/articles/doestrappingwork.html

Remember when you took me to task on that other thread when I talked about trapping? You said there was NO trapping in WCK and argued semantics back and forth. Well, it seems that Alan Orr believes that there IS trapping in WCK. So again, as I said before, it would seem that your perspective on WCK isn't the only perspective....and may even differ from the people within your own lineage.

[LoneTiger108]

So again, as I said before, it would seem that your perspective on WCK isn't the only perspective....and may even differ from the people within your own lineage.

Well, variations across a single branch of the Wing Chun Family is common isn't it?? It is within the Lee Shing family, and from what I have seen from the Ip Family it is too (considering Lee Shing WAS Ip Family too!)

Why should Alan teach the same as T? When its clear that Alan can train a decent fighter and T, not only doesn't teach anyone, he simply hasn't got a clue about the broad and changeable nature of good Wing Chun!?! :D

[sanjuro_ronin]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul- I am a big dog guy. Had to say goodbye to my last dog- a 120 pound Alaskan Malamute- offshoot of the original Kotzebue line( Tigara variation)..no hip or other problems- finally old age got him. To keep it wing chun related he had a very balanced and controlling fuk sao in doing both single and double chi sao- would strike with his nails when the opening was there. Of course he didn't have a bong sao, since there was no crane in his lineage. But structure and motion? he could pull my volkswagon bug! His Bik ma at close distance was superb- a rabbit would beat him ina foot race-
but withe bik ma--good bye to anything hiding in a bush.
He was our groups mascot and his pic is on my website at<www.tempewingchun.com>.Learned some things about fook sao from him.

joy chaudhuri

Best post of this whole thread, LOL !
beautiful dog :)

[sihing]

Paul, expect T to jump on this that none of you have the real dog. Then victor will jump in that he has traditional dog not that fake dog T has and then we'll have another 17 pages of trash talking and walls of text. :rolleyes:

Which clearly exibits that the conversation about "how to fight a boxer" has nothing to really do with it, rather it is about "I am right, you are wrong" and trying to prove that to the other, like kids back in grade school.

Sad really..

State your point, argue it with logical responses, and if the other/s don't agree, move on, as who really cares..No one here knows one another on a personal basis, nor comes into personal contact regularly, so why care what another thinks if it is contrary to your own POV, what influence can a "stranger" have on your life, NONE, unless you allow it.

James

[bennyvt]

I change depending on the jab. If its a hard jab then you can go in on that. But if its a measuring jab if you go in on it normally the other hand gets you on the way in. I tend to pak the measuring jab and go for the other hand when it comes. On the hard jab depending where i contact I would pak, jum etc then slip it into the punch then stay on the outside if I contact the outside. If for some weird reason I contact on the inside (I find this doesn't happen much unless the jab is thrown more like a hook) I use biu sao (thats the reverse tan in chum kiu, with the palm down?) but normally the other is going to be coming very soon so it depends if I get the strike or have to block the other punch.
I tend to decide depending on when they commit to the punches.
But that seems to work for me OK. But how knows for everyone.
I also find the range is different depending on several factors. As I am normally heaps smaller then the person you can either try to stay inside which is really hard. Or use your distance and come in when they make a mistake. This can be either staying right out and waiting for a big strike or what I tend to do is be slightly past where he can hit me, Im talking inches. Then he has to commit with a step or lunge to hit your head. Then you can attack.
The hardest is when they really box and get in and out really quick and even when commiting they are still balanced not just throwing king hits. Big diffence with a olympic boxer, its all points so they tend to throw more controlled and lots of shots. Pro's tend to commit more as fifty soft hits doesn't add up to a win in a pro fight.
Now I humbly wait for the abuse:rolleyes:

[jesper]

try stepping on his front foot. works sometimes to keep him long enough in place for you to disrupt his balance :D.
Also while your in contact kick his shins or leg sweep him.

Either way, decide if you want to fight on the inside or stay out and kick the crap out of him. going halfway is putting you in his range and will get you f...ed