Wing Chun and Boxing

[hunt1]

****** warning some may be offended by this post ********

To be blunt to say wing chun doesn't have a hook punch or doesn't have this or that etc shows a lack of understanding of wing chun.

Wing chun forms are not rules. They do not contain all there is to the system. They do not set out the only way of doing things.

While everyone will say wing chun is conceptual not everyone understands what a concept is and what this means. There are several places in the forms where the hook concept may be seen and derived. Chum kui has no backward step. Does this mean you can never step backward? Of course the weapons have backward steps. Does this mean you can only step back after you have learned the weapons?

When 2 students asked Yip Man who was doing the correct tan sau his answer was both. A perfect tan sau that fails to stop a punch and you lose your teeth isn't so good. A horrible looking tan sau that stops the punch would be the perfect tan sau in the instance.

There are no set rules only concepts to be adopted to the situation.

[anerlich]

wing chun has jab, cross, and uppercut. no hook though

You really don't like those hooks, do you?

If your BJ has the circular elbow strikes, then it also has the mechanics of a hook punch.

****** warning some may be offended by this post ********

IMO it was an excellent post.

[sihing]

****** warning some may be offended by this post ********

To be blunt to say wing chun doesn't have a hook punch or doesn't have this or that etc shows a lack of understanding of wing chun.

Wing chun forms are not rules. They do not contain all there is to the system. They do not set out the only way of doing things.

While everyone will say wing chun is conceptual not everyone understands what a concept is and what this means. There are several places in the forms where the hook concept may be seen and derived. Chum kui has no backward step. Does this mean you can never step backward? Of course the weapons have backward steps. Does this mean you can only step back after you have learned the weapons?

When 2 students asked Yip Man who was doing the correct tan sau his answer was both. A perfect tan sau that fails to stop a punch and you lose your teeth isn't so good. A horrible looking tan sau that stops the punch would be the perfect tan sau in the instance.

There are no set rules only concepts to be adopted to the situation.

Probably one of the best posts in a long while here, thanks Hunt People will only see what they WANT to see of something. Guess why? Because it validates their wants or needs, another word one can use here is motivation. With MMA taking root in the MA world, technique has become the buzz word, so since everyone is on that band wagon, this is what they see. Of course WC has technique, this is the physical application of the concept and priniples, but it is not exactly applied the way it is practiced. Why is this? In practice we are perfecting a skill or physical attribute in a somewhat perfect environment, for the purpose of gaining efficiency, power, structure, timing, aim etc.. in our combative movements. If you do not practice something perfectly when there is little to no pressure, then how the he!! are you going to be able to use any of it effectively in application? Like Hunt said, what some may consider a lousy tan sau, may be just what is need for the situation at hand, as long as you are not getting hit and beaten, you have used the training effectively. My new definition of Economy of Motion, is using only the littlest amount of the training that you need to overcome and succeed in the situation at hand. Like Sifu Lam once told me, WC is a lazy man's Martial Art, this saying has nothing to do with the effort one is putting into his training, but rather how one uses his training when in combat.

James

[clam61]

yep-thought so.
Oh, and btw-clam...I agree that a large, swinging punch is slower in comparrison to short strikes, which is why a well-trained fighter sets up his strikes, and uses proper angles and range.
In case you didn't realize, Hung-Ga was originally a short bridging system , and added the larger swinging strikes (from Wong Yun-Lum's Hop-Ga) later on in its development.
You need to understand a technique, in order to use it.
Case in point-many beginner Wing Chun students(or casual observers) try to throw chain punches from outside the proper range, fail, and then conclude that they are inneffective.
In the words of Duncan Leung-"Once I'm in your horse, you can't stop me."

thank you for teaching me the history of hung gar. regardless, my statement was that hung gar has hook punches and that is true.

you are right that you need to set up a hook punch--i dont disagree with that.

and no, WC does not have hook punches like boxer hooks.

[clam61]

i agree with a lot of what u said, but WC is a set of movements, so you can objectively and definitively say whether a movement is or is not contained in the set of WC movements.


i do not consider WC a philosophy. perhaps you defined WC as a philosophy, and if you do i cant really argue against it i can only clarify your position and mine.

you are right WC forms are not rules, i dont mean that they are. but clearly the define a set of movements.

going by your thinking, WC could have jump spin kicks

****** warning some may be offended by this post ********

To be blunt to say wing chun doesn't have a hook punch or doesn't have this or that etc shows a lack of understanding of wing chun.

Wing chun forms are not rules. They do not contain all there is to the system. They do not set out the only way of doing things.

While everyone will say wing chun is conceptual not everyone understands what a concept is and what this means. There are several places in the forms where the hook concept may be seen and derived. Chum kui has no backward step. Does this mean you can never step backward? Of course the weapons have backward steps. Does this mean you can only step back after you have learned the weapons?

When 2 students asked Yip Man who was doing the correct tan sau his answer was both. A perfect tan sau that fails to stop a punch and you lose your teeth isn't so good. A horrible looking tan sau that stops the punch would be the perfect tan sau in the instance.

There are no set rules only concepts to be adopted to the situation.

[clam61]

You really don't like those hooks, do you?

If your BJ has the circular elbow strikes, then it also has the mechanics of a hook punch.



IMO it was an excellent post.

yes it has similar mechanics of a twisting body blah blah...but its not a hook punch. its an elbow.

[Liddel]

Its can just be a difference in terms also.

I prefer to use the name banana punch LOL ... Sifu had some funny names for actions when using english, but he aint got nothing on Eddie bravo .

Why 'Banana punch'...Because it conjures up an image of an arc rather than such a harsh angle of a boxing hook. This is my VT hook.

I have what some would consider hooks, but the elbow behavior is VT. its quite different to that of a boxing hook.

I think the hook discussion is also akin to footwork... when some refer to the footwork of others as not being VT because to them it looks to much like a boxing stance.

My free flowing VT footwork is very similar to other styles boxing included, the difference is in the details... ie weight, shapes and how it loads my hands and behaves towards the opponents stepping etc but its as dynamic in movement as say boxing...most form junkies see it as being less static and dont think its VT...WTF !

Good call Hunt1... i dont know why some get so staunch when it comes to not thinking outside the square of the forms....not enough experience with actual fighting i think.

WC does not have hook punches like boxer hooks

Clam61 ...boxer hooks, NO. Hooks or round punches...YES.

CK and BJ have round punches in my VT. Lok Yiu Lineage.


DREW

[sihing]

WC developers did not devise the proper way to punch or block out of thin air or aesthetics. there are reasons behind the technique. so you can definitely look at a way someone does something and point out whats wrong with it and why its not going to be as good as if he did it another way

In training, this is what you do exactly, because you are learning something unnatural, foreign to how you would normally move. Training is all about isolating things, the thing is training is not application. If you see someone trained in WC free fighting and he does not apply the punch or whatever else absolutely correctly IYO, this is due to the random intense natural of the act of combat. The idea IMO is not to DO Wing Chun in a fight, but to fight naturally, with the hope that your movements, reactions and such have been improved due to WC training, so that you are more effective in physically violent situations. I fight, not Wing Chun or anyother MA.

James

[Wu Wei Wu]

Let the opponent dictate how you hit him. If for example, he is close and it requires a short arc like motion (i.e. similar to a boxer's hook), then so be it. This is Wing Chun.

In terms of mechanical movements, it is not slipping, or weaving that dictates whether it should be classified as Wing Chun or boxing. If you do something, that prevents you from being hit and enables you to set up a punch or counter, it is Wing Chun.

For Wing Chun to operate we look at the tactical aspects of the system such as; por jung (crashing the center), chui ying (forward facing), bik bo (pressing forwards with footwork). As these are tactical, they operate on a strategic level i.e. function driven, not form/appearance driven.

Performance is judged solely on effectiveness.

Conversely, it ceases to be Wing Chun at the point at which it is is proved (by way of pressure testing) to be ineffective and one has to look outside of the system for a solution.

The clip was someone who looked inside the system to fight in a boxing arena.

Suki

[anerlich]

yes it has similar mechanics of a twisting body blah blah...but its not a hook punch. its an elbow.

Move your hand out an inch or two, it's a hook punch. The forms are a framework, to be adapted.

You don't want to do hook punches, fine. Your loss. You have a bad experience or something?

Don't presume to tell me what is or is not in my forms. You've already shown your ignorance of YMWC, and made it sound likely that isaid ignorance extends well beyond that. Quit while you're ahead, or at least not too far behind, please.

WC developers did not devise the proper way to punch or block out of thin air or aesthetics. there are reasons behind the technique. so you can definitely look at a way someone does something and point out whats wrong with it and why its not going to be as good as if he did it another way

Just make sure you're not pointing it out from the floor to the guy that just knocked you down with one of those inferior hook punches.

[Wu Wei Wu]

Jack Dempsey documentary.

Pt 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZDlvZ2W3Ak

Pt 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMrUv...eature=related

Suki Gosal

[Phil Redmond]

although this sounds like one of those poignant and though provoking stereotypical chinese sayings/philosophies i would have to disagree.

WC developers did not devise the proper way to punch or block out of thin air or aesthetics. there are reasons behind the technique. so you can definitely look at a way someone does something and point out whats wrong with it and why its not going to be as good as if he did it another way

First you say that WC has no hook punch without having studied all versions/lineages of WC. But what gets me is that you know what the developers of WC were thinking hundreds of years ago and that is utterly impossible.

[clam61]

you're right. i was wrong in generalizing WC. that was my mistake.

and even though i cannot jump into the minds of people hundreds of years ago, i think it is fairly obvious that WC developers created the style based on something. they did not just pull these moves out of their ass

First you say that WC has no hook punch without having studied all versions/lineages of WC. But what gets me is that you know what the developers of WC were thinking hundreds of years ago and that is utterly impossible.

[clam61]

Move your hand out an inch or two, it's a hook punch. The forms are a framework, to be adapted.

You don't want to do hook punches, fine. Your loss. You have a bad experience or something?

Don't presume to tell me what is or is not in my forms. You've already shown your ignorance of YMWC, and made it sound likely that isaid ignorance extends well beyond that. Quit while you're ahead, or at least not too far behind, please.



Just make sure you're not pointing it out from the floor to the guy that just knocked you down with one of those inferior hook punches.

you're right, extend your hand out and its a hook punch. too bad they didnt do that and thus its not a hook punch.

look its very simple. this isnt subjective here. im not speaking out of emotion. its an elbow and not a hook. it could be a hook, but its not.

if there are some lineages of WC that incorporated a hook, then again, i conceded to your point that my generalization was incorrect

[clam61]

In training, this is what you do exactly, because you are learning something unnatural, foreign to how you would normally move. Training is all about isolating things, the thing is training is not application. If you see someone trained in WC free fighting and he does not apply the punch or whatever else absolutely correctly IYO, this is due to the random intense natural of the act of combat. The idea IMO is not to DO Wing Chun in a fight, but to fight naturally, with the hope that your movements, reactions and such have been improved due to WC training, so that you are more effective in physically violent situations. I fight, not Wing Chun or anyother MA.

James

i agree with what you are saying. to give an example to my point. lets say you are fighting and you have a bad habit of punching with your elbow out and you don't twist your body that much when blocking at the same time.

i think its reasonable for someone to say that your form is not as effective and you are losing potential hitting power.

this conflicts with the whole notion that two forms can both be 'right'