how not to fight a boxer

[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-GR...eature=related

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

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