Angles, Chum Kiu, the Blind Side, and Mike Tyson

[Wayfaring]

I know these are different topics, but look at this clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VB6F22feBiI

That float step to the angle is awesome. You guys got any thoughts on what we are developing in WCK facing that fits in here?

The guy that did this clip was one hell of an armchair quarterback if you ask me. And that's a definite compliment.

[sanjuro_ronin]

That was a great clip showing Tyson's foot work.
That footwork would not work ( as well) in WC because, well, Tyson's style is more "hung garish" than "wing chunish".
That said, the principles of it would and those are to position your centreline outside your opponents so that you can hit him with YOUR best shots while his best shots are limited.

[Vajramusti]

A good clip.
Opinions can vary on it's relevance for wing chun.
Expressing an opinion- not debating.


Of course Tyson is not doing wing chun but some wing chun folks can see/recognize some relevant principles..

1.
fairly square bodied and much of the time equally balanced
2 power can explode from either side

3. Chum kiu has an upper cut that can be developed.

A real tragedy that Tyson wasted his talents away.

[GlennR]

I know these are different topics, but look at this clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VB6F22feBiI

That float step to the angle is awesome. You guys got any thoughts on what we are developing in WCK facing that fits in here?

The guy that did this clip was one hell of an armchair quarterback if you ask me. And that's a definite compliment.

Yep, nice little clip there, hope he does more.

I guess you could say in WC way its a flanking move, though done at a broken bridge range more suited to boxing.

Problem with WC is when it steps to the side it loses power, Tyson on the other hand is using the step not only to evade and confuse his opponent but is also using the step to transfer weight to add power (lots of) to his hooks and uppercuts.

Personally, there is a basic concept of flanking you could associate, but taking into account the weight transfer and tools used (hooks/uppercuts) i think its a superficial comparison at best.

[Wayfaring]

again opinion here - but I just love how athletically Tyson gets to the flank position. the guy doing the clip was spot on in noticing that movement from his earlier career when training with Cus D'Amato, and its relative absence in his later fights.

watching it again - in boxing they get to the flank with a check hook. this is literally an artificial WCK bridge situation. the hook is thrown against the outside arm or outside of the body, and the intent is simply to provide a leverage point to propel the body more easily to the flanking position along with the step.

my mma team is known for this flanking position - and we are taught to get to it because every combo thrown ends with an angle step and pivot off the line and a double jab.

we do this in WCK with an angle step and chum kiu turn. the end flanking position we describe in terms of facing in HFY - jeui ying, and the footwork involved as wui ma jeui ying.

all in all my opinion is good fighters get to the angle, and looking at examples of that and how we do it in WCK.

[GlennR]

again opinion here - but I just love how athletically Tyson gets to the flank position. the guy doing the clip was spot on in noticing that movement from his earlier career when training with Cus D'Amato, and its relative absence in his later fights.

I think the word "athletically" is the key. Tyson bob-weave style combined with a lot of lateral footwork is taxing (compare it to what a Klitschko does) IMO opinion its a younger boxers style and hard to maintain as you get older. Frazier is another that comes to mind that peaked when he was young.


watching it again - in boxing they get to the flank with a check hook. this is literally an artificial WCK bridge situation. the hook is thrown against the outside arm or outside of the body, and the intent is simply to provide a leverage point to propel the body more easily to the flanking position along with the step.


Exactly, but they actively transfer weight on the turn, adding power that WC just doesnt have available.



my mma team is known for this flanking position - and we are taught to get to it because every combo thrown ends with an angle step and pivot off the line and a double jab.

we do this in WCK with an angle step and chum kiu turn. the end flanking position we describe in terms of facing in HFY - jeui ying, and the footwork involved as wui ma jeui ying.


We do exactly the same thing in regards to the jab. The beauty of Tyson is he could consistently do it with a hook as highlighted, those little adjustments in stance are a joy to watch... well done by the clip maker again


all in all my opinion is good fighters get to the angle, and looking at examples of that and how we do it in WCK.

Thats where WC ideas differ, personally id not be looking to flank, id do that if i have to

[Graham H]

3. Chum kiu has an upper cut that can be developed.


Joy

There is an action that is commonly mistaken for an uppercut in Chum Kiu.

Where and for what reason is there one in your system?

[Graham H]

Problem with WC is when it steps to the side it loses power.

It would be better if you said the "your" WC loses power because it steps to the side. ;)

[Graham H]

adding power that WC just doesnt have available

.....that your WC doesn't have available. A lot of systems of WC do not have any power. I spent 8 years practicing those systems. They are not all like that Glenn nut generally I would agree with you.

[wingchunIan]

Yep, nice little clip there, hope he does more.

I guess you could say in WC way its a flanking move, though done at a broken bridge range more suited to boxing.

Problem with WC is when it steps to the side it loses power, Tyson on the other hand is using the step not only to evade and confuse his opponent but is also using the step to transfer weight to add power (lots of) to his hooks and uppercuts.

Personally, there is a basic concept of flanking you could associate, but taking into account the weight transfer and tools used (hooks/uppercuts) i think its a superficial comparison at best.

I'd disagree Glenn, a simple angled step followed by a sharp turn creates the angle and puts the hip (and hence body mass) into the shot (whether a punch, palm to the ribs / jaw / ear etc) giving plenty of power, of course all that said not many people on the planet hit as hard as Tyson in his prime

[Graham H]

This turning and not facing an opponent square is an important concept in Ving Tsun missing in a lot of lineages. It aslo means you have to only fight one weapon instead of two if utilsed correctly. That is not possible when people try to fight in Ving Tsun using SLT ideas.

There is a whole strategy for it and being a tactition is an important part of the system much like what is talked about in that video. That is boxing though not Ving Tsun but many parallels can be taken from Boxing as w whole. Its helped me out for sure.

Mike Tyson was awesome. My era and as Joy said, its a shame he wasted all those talents.

[GlennR]

I'd disagree Glenn, a simple angled step followed by a sharp turn creates the angle and puts the hip (and hence body mass) into the shot (whether a punch, palm to the ribs / jaw / ear etc) giving plenty of power, of course all that said not many people on the planet hit as hard as Tyson in his prime

I never said there wasnt power, just not as much as a boxer.

Pound for pound, they hit harder

[GlennR]

This turning and not facing an opponent square is an important concept in Ving Tsun missing in a lot of lineages. It aslo allows you to only fight one weapon instead of two. That is not possible when people try to fight in Ving Tsun using SLT ideas.

There is a whole strategy for it and being a tactition is an important part of the system much like what is talked about in that video. That is boxing though not Ving Tsun but many parallels can be taken from Boxing as w whole. Its helped me out for sure.

Mike Tyson was awesome. My era and as Joy said, its a shame he wasted all those talents.

Graham, if you stepped to the side, youd face and not turn?

[Graham H]

Graham, if you stepped to the side, youd face and not turn?

I never step to the side unless my sparring partner has moved first then I cut his way much like a boxer cuts off the ring. Chum Kiu teaches you a certain way of fighting that enables you to turn the opponent away from you and take away his ability to attack with the rear arm. As you are no longer facing them square on they must turn to try and hit you back. In this moment we intercept that strike and the opponent actually makes his own mistake and releases you to his other side where he will be faced with the same problem.

We are constantly removing ourselves from the direct firing line but still allowing ourselves to make contact with both attacking limbs.

Its a hard thing to explain Glenn but easy to show. I was not exposed to this strategy is previous VT lineages. It was one of the eye openeners for me.

Every action should attack the opponents attack unlike other systems such as the Ip Chun lineage where they are always stepping to the side or pivoting away. In my lineage we go in the opposite direction to Ip Chun :D

[Graham H]

Its good to see a video with somebody respecting Mike tysons tactics and be able to draw simularities to Ving Tsun but at the end of the day in the mid to late 80's Tyson would have knocked a dinosaur out, tactics or no tactics :D

[GlennR]

I never step to the side unless my sparring partner has moved first then I cut his way much like a boxer cuts off the ring. Chum Kiu teaches you a certain way of fighting that enables you to turn the opponent away from you and take away his ability to attack with the rear arm. As you are no longer facing them square on they must turn to try and hit you back. In this moment we intercept that strike and the opponent actually makes his own mistake and releases you to his other side where he will be faced with the same problem.

We are constantly removing ourselves from the direct firing line but still allowing ourselves to make contact with both attacking limbs.

Its a hard thing to explain Glenn but easy to show. I was not exposed to this strategy is previous VT lineages. It was one of the eye openeners for me.

Every action should attack the opponents attack unlike other systems such as the Ip Chun lineage where they are always stepping to the side or pivoting away. In my lineage we go in the opposite direction to Ip Chun :D

Thats much how id do it, we dont turn for the sake of it and im not a fan of turning strikes in WC, you lose facing which to me is one of the main ideas of WC

[Graham H]

I never said there wasnt power, just not as much as a boxer.

Pound for pound, they hit harder

I agree and the reason is that from day one in the gym they are trying to improve the punch. A lot of VT systems don;t have that. They get stuck on each others arms and have no real power. They can egg whisk the air very well though.

Another thing given attention to in my lineage, increasing punching power. The dummy, wall bag, poon sau and the long pole are just a few methods that help punching power and precision.

[Graham H]

Thats much how id do it, we dont turn for the sake of it and im not a fan of turning strikes in WC, you lose facing which to me is one of the main ideas of WC

I Agree........

[Wayfaring]

Here's a question. When Tyson does his step off the check hook, is the energy on the bridge dictating where his feet land? Or is he manufacturing some extra movement to get there?

therein to me lies the WCK concept or not.

[Graham H]

Here's a question. is the energy on the bridge.

I'm don't know what that means :confused:

[k gledhill]

I never step to the side unless my sparring partner has moved first then I cut his way much like a boxer cuts off the ring. Chum Kiu teaches you a certain way of fighting that enables you to turn the opponent away from you and take away his ability to attack with the rear arm. As you are no longer facing them square on they must turn to try and hit you back. In this moment we intercept that strike and the opponent actually makes his own mistake and releases you to his other side where he will be faced with the same problem.

We are constantly removing ourselves from the direct firing line but still allowing ourselves to make contact with both attacking limbs.

Its a hard thing to explain Glenn but easy to show. I was not exposed to this strategy is previous VT lineages. It was one of the eye openeners for me.

Every action should attack the opponents attack unlike other systems such as the Ip Chun lineage where they are always stepping to the side or pivoting away. In my lineage we go in the opposite direction to Ip Chun :D

Well put............

[desertwingchun2]

Here's a question. When Tyson does his step off the check hook, is the energy on the bridge dictating where his feet land? Or is he manufacturing some extra movement to get there?

therein to me lies the WCK concept or not.

Of course it the energy on the bridge. In one of the clips you can see how he missed it and flailed away to regain position. Then he went again and lights out.

[Wayfaring]

I'm don't know what that means :confused:

We have a "feet follow hands" type of kuen kuit saying that is trained up with drilling from beginning. The idea is that energy on the bridge dictates your footwork because you hold your structure true rather than elbows and limbs collapsing in on yourself from the bridge.

[Graham H]

What is "the bridge"?

[Wayfaring]

What is "the bridge"?

Any kind of persistent contact between you and your opponent. something between you and your striking target. chi sau forearm contact is a bridge. some people translate chum kiu as "sinking the bridge" I've heard but I'm no Chinese term expert.

And, of course, something you must drive over before you can pillage your opponent's village ;)

[Vajramusti]

[QUOTE=GlennR;1212914]I think the word "athletically" is the key. Tyson bob-weave style combined with a lot of lateral footwork is taxing (compare it to what a Klitschko does) IMO opinion its a younger boxers style and hard to maintain as you get older. Frazier is another that comes to mind that peaked when he was young.

((True))joy



Exactly, but they actively transfer weight on the turn, adding power that WC just doesnt have available.



((Not necessarily true.There is a lot of footwork in my lineage-don't lose power))Joy

[Graham H]

Any kind of persistent contact between you and your opponent. something between you and your striking target. chi sau forearm contact is a bridge. some people translate chum kiu as "sinking the bridge" I've heard but I'm no Chinese term expert.

And, of course, something you must drive over before you can pillage your opponent's village ;)

Ah ha, thats where we differ. There is no persistent contact in my lineage. Perhaps where distancing is concerned but definately not the forearm. Only in certain drills.

[GlennR]

Here's a question. When Tyson does his step off the check hook, is the energy on the bridge dictating where his feet land? Or is he manufacturing some extra movement to get there?

therein to me lies the WCK concept or not.

Not exactly sure wjhat you are trying to get across here??

[GlennR]

We have a "feet follow hands" type of kuen kuit saying that is trained up with drilling from beginning. The idea is that energy on the bridge dictates your footwork because you hold your structure true rather than elbows and limbs collapsing in on yourself from the bridge.

Got you now, no, id say its the range and angle he's looking for dictates his step.

I dont think the bridge is really concerning him that much

[GlennR]

((Not necessarily true.There is a lot of footwork in my lineage-don't lose power))Joy



Didnt say there wasnt any power Joy, just not as much

[Vajramusti]

Didnt say there wasnt any power Joy, just not as much
----------------------------------------------

Our footwork could be different. I have put lots of practice into it and other stepping so as not to leak power..
I am not arguing.

[wingchunIan]

Every action should attack the opponents attack unlike other systems such as the Ip Chun lineage where they are always stepping to the side or pivoting away. In my lineage we go in the opposite direction to Ip Chun :D
Only found this because it was quoted by Glen. It goes goes to show that whatever your claims to the contrary you have very limited (arguably that should be no) knowledge of the Ip Chun lineage. Stick to commenting on what you do and leave commenting on what others do to those that actually have some idea.

[wingchunIan]

Thats much how id do it, we dont turn for the sake of it and im not a fan of turning strikes in WC, you lose facing which to me is one of the main ideas of WC

Think we might have different ideas of what is reffered to as a turn. As a convenient point of reference in the WSL vid science of in fighting he reffered to it as a shift from memory. You should still be facing your opponent and be able to reach them with both arms the only difference in range between the two arms is an inch or possibly two. The only reason for the range difference is because as you turn the hip of the striking arm moves forward towards the opponent by an inch or so and the non striking hip moves back by the same distance.

[GlennR]

Only found this because it was quoted by Glen. It goes goes to show that whatever your claims to the contrary you have very limited (arguably that should be no) knowledge of the Ip Chun lineage. Stick to commenting on what you do and leave commenting on what others do to those that actually have some idea.

I think youll find it was Graham

[GlennR]

Think we might have different ideas of what is reffered to as a turn. As a convenient point of reference in the WSL vid science of in fighting he reffered to it as a shift from memory. You should still be facing your opponent and be able to reach them with both arms the only difference in range between the two arms is an inch or possibly two. The only reason for the range difference is because as you turn the hip of the striking arm moves forward towards the opponent by an inch or so and the non striking hip moves back by the same distance.

Yeh i get that, im still not a huge fan of the turn to strike in WC all the same.

Just my preference.

[Graham H]

Only found this because it was quoted by Glen. It goes goes to show that whatever your claims to the contrary you have very limited (arguably that should be no) knowledge of the Ip Chun lineage. Stick to commenting on what you do and leave commenting on what others do to those that actually have some idea.

Could somebody (Glenn) please quote this post so that Ian can see it.

Ian I was involved in the Ip Chun lineage for a very long time. I have trained with many of Ip Chun's followers inside and outside of Hong Kong. I have met Ip Chun on several occasions and been to his seminars. I also know people that were involved in that lineage for 20years or more and they share the same opinion as me.

I know exactly what I'm on about and my opinion stands.

When it comes to Wing Chun, Ip Chuns version is one of my least favourites. I'm not saying that nobody in that lineage can fight. I'm just saying that as a combat system it is riddled with flaws.

I am not so far away from you and your peers are even closer. I have no problem in showing you why I have this opinion rather than do pathetic stuff like put people on ignore lists!!! :mad:

[Graham H]

My point......................

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvnas8sC4Fw

[LFJ]

Could somebody (Glenn) please quote this post so that Ian can see it.

Ian I was involved in the Ip Chun lineage for a very long time. I have trained with many of Ip Chun's followers inside and outside of Hong Kong. I have met Ip Chun on several occasions and been to his seminars. I also know people that were involved in that lineage for 20years or more and they share the same opinion as me.

I know exactly what I'm on about and my opinion stands.

When it comes to Wing Chun, Ip Chuns version is one of my least favourites. I'm not saying that nobody in that lineage can fight. I'm just saying that as a combat system it is riddled with flaws.

I am not so far away from you and your peers are even closer. I have no problem in showing you why I have this opinion rather than do pathetic stuff like put people on ignore lists!!! :mad:


My point......................

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvnas8sC4Fw

Some good example bits of turning the opponent, angling, and facing in here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=km7xuoeF5B0

[wingchunIan]

I think youll find it was Graham

Didn't mean it was from you, rather that I only saw it because you quoted his post. Graham is on my ignore list so i don't see his posts.

[Graham H]

Graham is on my ignore list so i don't see his posts.

What a Poof!

[Graham H]

Some good example bits of turning the opponent, angling, and facing in here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=km7xuoeF5B0

Some good examples yes.

[wingchunIan]

Thanks LFJ for reposting.

Could somebody (Glenn) please quote this post so that Ian can see it.


Ian I was involved in the Ip Chun lineage for a very long time. I have trained with many of Ip Chun's followers inside and outside of Hong Kong.
Your observations and level of understanding of what we do would suggest otherwise.

I have met Ip Chun on several occasions and been to his seminars.
aren't you the one who normally draws the distinction about training and seminars when ever WSL is mentioned?


I also know people that were involved in that lineage for 20years or more and they share the same opinion as me.

I know exactly what I'm on about and my opinion stands.
I dispute that you know what you are talking about re the Ip Chun lineage but you are of course entitled to an opinion as are the others that you mention


When it comes to Wing Chun, Ip Chuns version is one of my least favourites.
Fair enough that is your choice

I'm not saying that nobody in that lineage can fight. I'm just saying that as a combat system it is riddled with flaws. Again you are entitled to your opinion, the many that have and do train within the lineage and fight as doormen, prison officers, police, bodyguards and in a few cases paid matches along with those who have had course to use it in self defence scenarios would obviously all disagree.


I am not so far away from you and your peers are even closer. I have no problem in showing you why I have this opinion rather than do pathetic stuff like put people on ignore lists!!! :mad: I doubt that I will take you up on the offer, if I decide to explore the PB methods at any point I'll get over to Germany and talk with the man himself. Thanks for the offer though and who knows we may get to train together at some point.
As for putting you on my ignore list, if all of your posts were like the one above then you would not be on my ignore list. I am always happy to have open exchanges of ideas and adult conversations however opposed the viewpoints are. There are others on this forum that have similar views to yourself but whose posts I am happy to read. I got fed up of reading posts filled with childish comments and insults that detracted from threads I was reading and hence individuals got added to ignore list which I believe is its intended purpose.

[Graham H]

Your observations and level of understanding of what we do would suggest otherwise.

So I would be happy for you to show me then we can at least be on the same page.


aren't you the one who normally draws the distinction about training and seminars when ever WSL is mentioned?

Yes but I have been in the room with the guy and practiced his teachings. I did not have that with WSL.


I dispute that you know what you are talking about re the Ip Chun lineage but you are of course entitled to an opinion as are the others that you mention

I am interested to find out otherwise. Maybe my former teachers were not a good advert.



Fair enough that is your choice
Again you are entitled to your opinion, the many that have and do train within the lineage and fight as doormen, prison officers, police, bodyguards and in a few cases paid matches along with those who have had course to use it in self defence scenarios would obviously all disagree.

men can fight without Martial Arts. Its the system I'm unhappy with not the people inside.


I doubt that I will take you up on the offer, if I decide to explore the PB methods at any point I'll get over to Germany and talk with the man himself.

If you contact PB he will tell you to contact me depending on your location or Desmond Spencer in London.


Thanks for the offer though and who knows we may get to train together at some point.

That would be interesting.


As for putting you on my ignore list, if all of your posts were like the one above then you would not be on my ignore list. I am always happy to have open exchanges of ideas and adult conversations however opposed the viewpoints are. There are others on this forum that have similar views to yourself but whose posts I am happy to read. I got fed up of reading posts filled with childish comments and insults that detracted from threads I was reading and hence individuals got added to ignore list which I believe is its intended purpose.

The majority of the threads on this forum turn into trash. I find it amusing sometimes and a little bit of mud slinging doesn't harm anybody mate.

[GlennR]

What a Poof!

Thans Graham, didnt know you could say poof here....... ya poof!

[LaRoux]

I know these are different topics, but look at this clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VB6F22feBiI

That float step to the angle is awesome. You guys got any thoughts on what we are developing in WCK facing that fits in here?

The guy that did this clip was one hell of an armchair quarterback if you ask me. And that's a definite compliment.

The key to Tyson's success with his angles was tying that in with both his head movement and his devastating hooks and uppercuts. Without those, he would have been just an average fighter, if even that.

[GlennR]

The key to Tyson's success with his angles was tying that in with both his head movement and his devastating hooks and uppercuts. Without those, he would have been just an average fighter, if even that.

So without his punches, footwork and defense he would have been ordinary??

Youre right... who needs that stuff in boxing

[LaRoux]

So without his punches, footwork and defense he would have been ordinary??

Youre right... who needs that stuff in boxing

Not just any punches, specifically the hooks and uppercuts.

Not just any defense, the specific head movement.

[GlennR]

Not just any punches, specifically the hooks and uppercuts.

Not just any defense, the specific head movement.

That would leave the jab and cross.
Had a great, underrated jab which few people fail to notice (because they focus on his knockouts) and a solid cross as well as an awesome OH right.

And threw combinations as a heavyweight that few could or have done since.

Slipped, bobbed, weaved.... could do it all.

Could fight in close, medium range and long (for his height)

Tough, ludicrously fast and had good whiskers.

What exactly was he bad at??

ps. im not even a huge Tyson fan

[LaRoux]

That would leave the jab and cross.
Had a great, underrated jab which few people fail to notice (because they focus on his knockouts) and a solid cross as well as an awesome OH right.

And threw combinations as a heavyweight that few could or have done since.

Slipped, bobbed, weaved.... could do it all.

Could fight in close, medium range and long (for his height)

Tough, ludicrously fast and had good whiskers.

What exactly was he bad at??

ps. im not even a huge Tyson fan

I wasn't saying he bad at anything. His jab and cross were OK, but not really that special. He was way too short, but he developed a style that took that "short"-coming and made it an asset.

[GlennR]

I wasn't saying he bad at anything. His jab and cross were OK, but not really that special. He was way too short, but he developed a style that took that "short"-coming and made it an asset.

You said he was ordinary without his hooks and uppercuts, he didn't develop the style, it w already there and he honed it via a great coach and hard training.


Why was he too short? He was two inches taller than Marciano and the same height as joe Frazier

Honestly, if you don't know boxing don't make uneducated throw away comments ( like so many of the anti-Tyson brigade do) about him.

It's a bit like me hopping on the grappling thread (I'm not a grappler) critiquing one of the Gracie's

[Graham H]

Thans Graham, didnt know you could say poof here....... ya poof!

I had a feeling you may jump on that one. Predictable but in a nice puppy dog way. :p

[GlennR]

I had a feeling you may jump on that one. Predictable but in a nice puppy dog way. :p

Woof, ya poofy knob!!!

[Graham H]

Woof, ya poofy knob!!!

Ooooooooo goody! I can say knob as well! <<giggles like a little girl>>

[LFJ]

What exactly was he bad at??

Acting? :p

[Vajramusti]

I wasn't saying he bad at anything. His jab and cross were OK, but not really that special. He was way too short, but he developed a style that took that "short"-coming and made it an asset.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Silly pontificating about what you don't seem to know much about. Stick to mma comments.

[k gledhill]

Too short was Tysons strength...his two massive quadriceps raising at the same time into a hook/uppercut, etc.. developed a massive amount of power.

[LaRoux]

Too short was Tysons strength...his two massive quadriceps raising at the same time into a hook/uppercut, etc.. developed a massive amount of power.

Agree about his lack of height. He turned a natural weakness into a overwhelming strength.

You met him. What do you think his real height is? I think he was listed at 5'11", but I think that was overstated.

[LaRoux]

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Silly pontificating about what you don't seem to know much about. Stick to mma comments.

Maybe you could add your more informed thoughts as to his strengths and weaknesses, oh wise old one.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Agree about his lack of height. He turned a natural weakness into a overwhelming strength.

You met him. What do you think his real height is? I think he was listed at 5'11", but I think that was overstated.

I'm 5-6 and when I met Tyson I'd give him 5-9 at the most.
I remember how Lewis towered over him.

[k gledhill]

Agree about his lack of height. He turned a natural weakness into a overwhelming strength.

You met him. What do you think his real height is? I think he was listed at 5'11", but I think that was overstated.

I am 6'1" he looked more... 5'-9"~10"

[JPinAZ]

Agree about his lack of height. He turned a natural weakness into a overwhelming strength.

You met him. What do you think his real height is? I think he was listed at 5'11", but I think that was overstated.

I've met him a few times in local clubs here in AZ a while back. I'm 5'10" and he seemed a little shorter than me, so I'm thinking the 5'11" is a bit of a stretch. But then, I didn't compare sole heights of our shoes at the time...

[Phil Redmond]

That was a great clip showing Tyson's foot work.
That footwork would not work ( as well) in WC because, well, Tyson's style is more "hung garish" than "wing chunish". . .
That footwork looks just like the Wing Chun I do.

[Phil Redmond]

A good clip.
Opinions can vary on it's relevance for wing chun.
Expressing an opinion- not debating.


Of course Tyson is not doing wing chun but some wing chun folks can see/recognize some relevant principles..

1.
fairly square bodied and much of the time equally balanced . . .
All Wing Chun doesn't fight square bodied. Pin San Wing Chun doesn't and neither does TWC.

[Robinhood]

All Wing Chun doesn't fight square bodied. Pin San Wing Chun doesn't and neither does TWC.

When you don't have to protect your balls from getting hit by feet , knees, chops , punches, grabs...etc, footwork can look like anything.

[Vajramusti]

All Wing Chun doesn't fight square bodied. Pin San Wing Chun doesn't and neither does TWC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are correct Phil. But I don't do Pin San and I don't do TWC. I was referring to those who do more square bodied wing chun. But even in those squared body systems there are some seemingly side bodied work where a shoulder comes into play.

The context of the discussion included Tyson and some points of similarities with wing chun.
Probably "some forms of wing chun"- would be better.

When Tyson moved away from Kevin Rooney after Cus D'Amatos death and made a mess of his training and private life and picking his corner team, he began to lose. By the time of the Douglas fight the peekaboo and it's related geometry had eroded. Although Tyson was small for a heavyweight-before Douglas and Lewis he fought people much larger than himself.

D'Amato (Ali initially wanted him in his corner but Cus was withdrawn at that time and declined)-
boxers were for the most part square bodied, peekaboo hands had the center closed- was generally true of Patterson, Kevin Rooney, Terry Atlas, Jose Torres and Tyson and several others..

[Phil Redmond]

Sifu and Mike in Vegas.

[Vajramusti]

Sifu and Mike in Vegas.
--------------------------------------------------------
Great pic Phil.

[Phil Redmond]

--------------------------------------------------------
Great pic Phil.
Yes it is Joy. They spent two days together in Vegas this a couple months ago.

[JPinAZ]

Yes it is Joy. They spent two days together in Vegas this a couple months ago.

Great pic. What was the occasion? Any training, or something else?

[Niersun]

All Wing Chun doesn't fight square bodied. Pin San Wing Chun doesn't and neither does TWC.

Amen to that. I come back to browse and these TWC haters are still discussing the same old topics they were discussing several years ago.