Quote:
Originally Posted by
dlcox
VT, is by your and LFJ's own statements a method of concept and contains no applications. This would extend to theoretical approach, as well as, physical movement. Making it little more than philosophical musing of theoretical concept
Not at all
Quote:
You concede that it has limitations (grappling, both ground & upright) yet state that there is nothing a VT fighter needs to adapt for fighting, unlike boxing. For starters, prior to the use of mufflers and the Queensbury rules, boxing did have "Wrassling, hurling, gouging and purring", which made it fairly complete and competent in all ranges of fighting, it wasn't always relegated to sport competition. You two have stated that VT never contained grappling or throwing, yet view it as more complete than boxing, where's the proof?
I believe we said it doesn't need adapted, whereas boxing does.
Quote:
All I see out of the VT camp is Chi Sau videos. Now you two have stated time and again that Chi Sau is not a method of fighting, that is is just a drill and that no applications are being used when performing it. Yet it is still constantly used to validate any claims you make.
There are some clips that are not chi sau on this very thread. I have never used chi sau clips to make any point not related to chi sau.
Quote:
Your views on VT are that it is a system of striking, a system of striking that hasn't been proven to be more effective than sport boxing on any platform, in fact just the opposite
This is not my claim. I guess it is yours?
Quote:
The "Systematic" approach that you say VT has and boxing lacks is a baseless claim
Not baseless in the slightest, very happy to discuss
Quote:
I have yet to see anything resembling what you call VT prove itself to be superior in any manner (technique wise, strategy wise, theory wise, or power generation wise) than any martial art, sport or street based
I guess you haven't looked?
Quote:
Theory alone has little to do with winning a fight, application of that theory in a realistic and achievable manner does. When the best evidence to your claims is a non-functional drilling exercise called Chi Sau, an exercise you claim not to be a method of fighting, where then is the real evidence that VT is systematically and theoretically more sound than anything, let alone boxing
In the systematisation and theory of ving tsun maybe?
Quote:
Boxing is time tested and has proven itself again and again. It is because of its limited techniques and a strong strategy and theory that it is able to be made realistic and effective on a world stage. Can VT make the same claim?
Boxing is a ruleset for competition. People training to compete under that ruleset naturally win 50% or all competitions under that rule set, while other people training to compete under the same rule set lose the other 50%
Quote:
Now don't get me wrong, I like Wing Chun and what it has to offer. I'm simply not going to raise a glass of Jim Jones' Kool Aid and try to convince others that its the best they've ever tasted
Hard to see how you can hold any opinion when you have no experience of what you are describing?
Quote:
The way you and LFJ describe VT relegates it to little more than boxing IMO
Then read more closely, it is very different
Quote:
Your VT contains no grappling, you describe it as a method of striking which uses Chi Sau as a platform to develop the punch. It hasn't proven itself to be more effective than boxing despite this Chi Sau
More effective than boxing at doing what?
Quote:
Boxing doesn't need Chi Sau to work, why does VT?
Happy to start at step 1 if you would like to find out more, please just ask rather than getting all angry
Quote:
Seems to me that VT and boxing have much in common theoretically and strategically, with one exception, boxing has been proven to actually work
Work for what?
Quote:
Chi Sau is a method of hand chasing, try to argue that point. Its a method of defense that is either reactionary in nature or used offensively to impede an attack, either way it is focusing on the opponents limbs prior to attack. This is why VT fails in real time under heavy pressure.
It's ok if you don't understand chi sau, just ask. Guessing just looks silly
Quote:
If your method is a method of striking why not develop and focus on drills that move the body away from an incoming attack
Because this would be contrary to VT basic ideas?
Quote:
It seems to me that boxing actually employs the strategies of simplicity, directness, & efficiency way better than VT in this aspect
There is no "boxing". There are 101 different stylistic interpretations which can work (and also fail) under boxing rules. Some may be better ideas than others under that rule set. If you would like to know about VT then again please just ask, don't guess.
Quote:
I find it silly that a method of striking uses a complicated method of Patty Cake as a platform to develop actual striking
It is actually very simple. I think your misunderstanding comes from having no experience of VT. This is understandable
Quote:
Chi Sau has way more to do with grappling than it does striking, and are contradictory methodologies
Ah ok, you don't understand chi sau. Feel free to ask, always happy to help.