Wing Chun and Boxing

[Phil Redmond]

In Cantonese Chinese martial arts can generally be divided into three "types"
Pai, Do, and Kuen.
Now these are loose interpretations but here goes.
Pai means system (Fu Jow Pai or Ying Jow Pai), and implies that everything is laid out for the practitioner. Only the powers that be can make changes.

Do (Tao) means path/way. It's a more philosophical approach to an art.

Kuen means 'fist'. I know that there is a Wing Chun Do but that's a modern art. The Wing Chun I'm refering to is a kuen. Hence the name Wing Chun Kuen. Though the underlying principle is simplicity it's eclectic, open to interpretation and change. What's efficient for some may not be for others.
To say this or that is or is not can be misleading. I don't know the exact quote but Sibak WSL said something like don't be a slave to WC.
The idea of a kuen is if you knock someone out and your elbow was out he's still knocked out.

[clam61]

but what if you knocked someone out and broke your hand or wrist because your form wasn't optimal for withstanding the impact

u couldnt say its just as good, right?

although you may consider WC as completely fluid (and as a native cantonese speaker i disagree), there has to be some limit right?

going by your 'whatever works best in the situation approach is WC', i might do a jump spin kick because that was the best move in the situation and call it WC.

it might be the best thing to have done. it might have worked. i might have KOd some guys. it might be the best fighting philosophy out there. but its not WC. not that thats a bad thing.

In Cantonese Chinese martial arts can generally be divided into three "types"
Pai, Do, and Kuen.
Now these are loose interpretations but here goes.
Pai means system (Fu Jow Pai or Ying Jow Pai), and implies that everything is laid out for the practitioner. Only the powers that be can make changes.

Do (Tao) means path/way. It's a more philosophical approach to an art.

Kuen means 'fist'. I know that there is a Wing Chun Do but that's a modern art. The Wing Chun I'm refering to is a kuen. Hence the name Wing Chun Kuen. Though the underlying principle is simplicity it's eclectic, open to interpretation and change. What's efficient for some may not be for others.
To say this or that is or is not can be misleading. I don't know the exact quote but Sibak WSL said something like don't be a slave to WC.
The idea of a kuen is if you knock someone out and your elbow was out he's still knocked out.

[AdrianK]

Am I to believe that mobility and effective punching methods are the exclusive domain of western boxing?

Nope. They're not. And in the same vein, it isn't specifically wing chun, either. Its simply basic techniques that are in almost every single art. My POINT was that aside from those non-exclusive basics, there was nothing definitively wing chun in that video.

And I suppose one would have you believe the forms couldn't possibly contain a blueprint for punches that have hooking and uppercut motions?

Absolutely. Still not the point.

And to suggest that one couldn't 'see' body structure therefore it could not possibly exist

Your homeboy was losing balance and getting pushed around quite a bit by an amateur.. Compare it to some of Alan Orr's guys fighting against *professionals*. You may not outwardly see tan sao or pak sao or whatnot, but they have some definitive wing chun principles at work. I'm not saying he won't get better at it, I'm just saying I didn't see any effective implementation of it. Thats fine, its an amateur bout. You've proven that a wing chun guy can go in and just barely win an amateur boxing match. woo hoo.

And of course, the cliches continue with "controlling the opponents center".

Its an effective method that works, if you could only understand it

[Phil Redmond]

but what if you knocked someone out and broke your hand or wrist because your form wasn't optimal for withstanding the impact

u couldnt say its just as good, right?

although you may consider WC as completely fluid (and as a native cantonese speaker i disagree), there has to be some limit right?

going by your 'whatever works best in the situation approach is WC', i might do a jump spin kick because that was the best move in the situation and call it WC.

it might be the best thing to have done. it might have worked. i might have KOd some guys. it might be the best fighting philosophy out there. but its not WC. not that thats a bad thing.

Though not a native speaker I do speak enough Cantonese to get by. Three years in college in the 70's but I learned more hanging out in NYC Chinatown.
I did preface my statement with the words, "loose interpretation"
Now what if you didn't break your hand? People are always saying this or that didn't look like WC. All I'm saying is that when in a real fight your form will not look like a choreographed WC drill.

[Ali. R]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The problem is that a lot of wing chunners I have seen have not really developed their basic wing chun punch.
Best,
J

That’s true, because if on can understand the true biomechanics dealing with the ideal of the basic punch, then one will understand that the first punch is nothing more then the same, as well as the precursor of the others…


Ali Rahim.

[clam61]

Though not a native speaker I do speak enough Cantonese to get by. Three years in college in the 70's but I learned more hanging out in NYC Chinatown.
I did preface my statement with the words, "loose interpretation"
Now what if you didn't break your hand? People are always saying this or that didn't look like WC. All I'm saying is that when in a real fight your form will not look like a choreographed WC drill.

hi phil. sorry if i sounded condescending about the cantonese. props to you for learning any foreign language!

i agree with what you say. when u spar you probably wont be as precise with your movements, as you are during a drill. totally agree with that. but what i am saying is that practice doesnt make perfect. perfect practice makes perfect. when we drill we aim to do moves a certain way because there is a REASON for the move to be done in that manner (which im sure you can attest to, is sometimes very unnatural). if there were no reasons for the form, then this would be a non issue

so although you can look at someone sparring and understand why they are a bit sloppy in the heat of the moment, you can still look at it and say what they need to change and WHY its important for them to make that change.

like i said before, otherwise i can just start throwin haymakers in a fight and say "it worked, its fluid, its a fluid art, its WC, whatever works. whatever works is WC"

[Ali. R]

All I'm saying is that when in a real fight your form will not look like a choreographed WC drill.

Every art has its identification, and structure is usually the blueprint of that… Just as a “pro boxer” performs, you can easily identify which punch is thrown, then one can clearly see what type of fighter the boxer is…

One can clearly see when something is wrong with a certain strike or punch when watching two-season fighter go at it… One can see to the point; that you and the color commentator may say at the same time “Dam, that was a wild punch”…

Structure is there for a reason, and not just for show… Once one has lost structure, he has lost the system in which he has prescribe to… The more one can master his structure the more accurate one will be when under pressure, unless something is wrong with the structure to begin with…


Ali Rahim.

[anerlich]

you're right, extend your hand out and its a hook punch.

I knew that

too bad they didnt do that and thus its not a hook punch.

Who are "they"? And how would you know?

look its very simple. this isnt subjective here. im not speaking out of emotion.

No, out of ignorance.

its an elbow and not a hook. it could be a hook, but its not.

THat's your opinion, not fact. The mechanics are almost identical, as you could find out from the surprisingly highbrow discussion in the Dempsey book you seem determined to avoid at all costs for no good reason.

Why is a circular elbow good WC, but the similar hook such a huge anathema to you? you HAVE to be speaking out of emotion.

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

Many of your generalisations are incorrect, props for conceding this one as a good start.

so although you can look at someone sparring and understand why they are a bit sloppy in the heat of the moment, you can still look at it and say what they need to change and WHY its important for them to make that change.

Performance overrides precision. - Scott Sonnon
Efficiency is anything that scores - Bruce Lee

[clam61]

THat's your opinion, not fact. The mechanics are almost identical, as you could find out from the surprisingly highbrow discussion in the Dempsey book you seem determined to avoid at all costs for no good reason.

Why is a circular elbow good WC, but the similar hook such a huge anathema to you? you HAVE to be speaking out of emotion.

first, i am not avoiding dempseys book. someone brought up the fact that dempsey had good things to say about the straight punch. then he started to debate about that. i said it was irrelevant. i dont know why that was brought up because this whole discussion started when i said WC has no hooks. i didnt say hooks were bad or good or inferior. all i said is that WC has no hooks.

now if some branch of wing chun has boxing style hooks then i over generalized and thats all there is to say about that.

but then you slipped up and you said elbows are hooks. you keep trying to defend that statement and honestly its a bit pathetic. its a very simple fact that an elbow is not a hook punch--even if they are similar. thats why we have two different terms.

next time watch a boxing match with your friends and say to them "wow that guy threw a crazy elbow" and see what they say.

Performance overrides precision. - Scott Sonnon
Efficiency is anything that scores - Bruce Lee

these quotes dont even apply to what we are talking about. even if it did, lee is not the ultimate authority on anything.

[Phil Redmond]

hi phil. sorry if i sounded condescending about the cantonese. props to you for learning any foreign language!

i agree with what you say. when u spar you probably wont be as precise with your movements, as you are during a drill. totally agree with that. but what i am saying is that practice doesnt make perfect. perfect practice makes perfect. when we drill we aim to do moves a certain way because there is a REASON for the move to be done in that manner (which im sure you can attest to, is sometimes very unnatural). if there were no reasons for the form, then this would be a non issue

so although you can look at someone sparring and understand why they are a bit sloppy in the heat of the moment, you can still look at it and say what they need to change and WHY its important for them to make that change.

like i said before, otherwise i can just start throwin haymakers in a fight and say "it worked, its fluid, its a fluid art, its WC, whatever works. whatever works is WC"

No problem. Some times it's hard to interpret one's true meaning or intent on a written forum. Language is one of my hobbies. I speak a few and I'm learning Mandarin now. And no, we don't want to throw wild haymakers.

[Ali. R]

And no, we don't want to throw wild haymakers.

I really believe you when you say that your wing chun doesn’t turn out the way that you trained it to be, and to say that especially around those that can apply their structure without deviation could only mean one thing, something is wrong…

The first thing and the main thing is ones stance, and how well can that stance supplement the ideal of offensive and defensive lines or bridge contact, and how well can your bridge control someone’s center of gravity, while all along fighting and defending with structure…

Using structure will take the stress and the muscles mass or tension out of the fight (wildness), while focusing on calmness, positioning and timing… But if one studies the ideal of structure and body unity and how the structure should work as clean as a watch (gear for gear), then ones wing chun would turn out the way they trained it to be…

It’s obvious something is wrong with the ideal of engagement… But to say that your wing chun doesn’t look like the way you trained it to be (wildness) is one thing, and to say that one does not throw wild punches is another…

And here’s something that you consider as good wing chun in action, and something that you should be very proud of; after all, it won you a championship… In some fashion this is how your wing chun may or could turn out in live action,

http://www.wingchunkwoon.com/movie_v...ilesize=55.6MB

That clip along with this statement almost holds a double edge sword,

All I'm saying is that when in a real fight your form will not look like a choreographed WC drill.

Meaning; if it would have turned out good with focus, calmness, structure, positioning and timing, then it would have been all good and should have been that way all along, but fighting that way will never give you a chance to fight multiple opponents… But when it doesn’t look clear, then everyone’s wing chun should look that way when under pressure, NOT…

But to say that wing chun shouldn’t turn out the way that you trained it to be, gives credibility to that clip… But it’s a lot people just like the color commentator on cable that will say; “Man that was wild”…

But when one runs training session based on; if he throws this or that, I’ll do that or this, or work on technique 1, 2 through 50, only confuses the student when under pressure… These are the things that one should be working on if they want to bring their structure to life: calmness, positioning, timing and body unity, and there’s drills that can bring out everyone of those attributes that I just mention…


Ali Rahim.

[TenTigers]

perhaps elbows aren't hooks (I beg to differ)
but if anyone has seen Tyson fight,
hooks can definately be elbows!

[Ali. R]

perhaps elbows aren't hooks (I beg to differ)
but if anyone has seen Tyson fight,
hooks can definately be elbows!

Ten Tiger, I understand where’re your coming from, because I was taught to throw my hook (in boxing) and I do teach one to throw the hook leveled, as if one is throwing an elbow…

Any good trainer would know that the hook has elbow tendencies and if the elbow lands that’s good, as long as it doesn’t seems intentional... That has always been apart of the game…


Ali Rahim.

[anerlich]

WWW,

thanks for the Dempsey links - good stuff!

[Wu Wei Wu]

Anerlich,

No worries. I'm glad someone picked up on the links. I was impressed by the portrayal of Gene Tunney as the well read/educated, scientific tactician, going up against Dempsey the Brawler. Despite the fixers, there seems to be something special about boxing, almost an ethereal beauty that MMA lacks.

FWIW, the recent Calzaghe fight against Roy Jones Jnr. is well worth watching.

More significantly, a few weeks ago a documentary aired on British TV, which charts the trilogy between Frazier and Ali, predominantly from Frazier's perspective. If you can get your hands on it, the documentary was beautiful, storytelling at its best.

Suki