how not to fight a boxer

[KPM]

A good place to start would be to learn WCK, beginning with body structure and with the punch.

Well then! Let's hear it! Or better yet...see it! You said what Phil was doing is no good and showed clips of what you thought was good....but it wasn't Wing Chun. So give us the Wing Chun alternatives that ARE good!

[t_niehoff]

Well then! Let's hear it! Or better yet...see it! You said what Phil was doing is no good and showed clips of what you thought was good....but it wasn't Wing Chun. So give us the Wing Chun alternatives that ARE good!

What do you mean "give us the Wing Chun alternatives that ARE good"? Are you asking me to tell you how to box? How to ride a bike? How to surf?

[sanjuro_ronin]

What do you mean "give us the Wing Chun alternatives that ARE good"? Are you asking me to tell you how to box? How to ride a bike? How to surf?

If Rodney thought that way, you wouldn't have any videos to counter Phil's would you?

[t_niehoff]

If Rodney thought that way, you wouldn't have any videos to counter Phil's would you?

That's a fair point.

However, my view is not to look to others but to find your own way through your own hard work.

[YouKnowWho]

Phil showed a good example of "breaking structure" by unbalancing his opponent when he ...

Allow me to ask a stupid question here. What the difference between "breaking structure by unbalancing his opponent" vs. "Moving your opponent's gravity center to be outside of his base" as showing in the following picture?

http://img717.imageshack.us/img717/2850/balancebase.jpg

[Ultimatewingchun]

That's a fair point.

However, my view is not to look to others but to find your own way through your own hard work.

***Oh how wonderful, and how convenient that this attitude provides a thin veil as to why you never post a vid of yourself doing anything.

And people on this forum believe this?

[Frost]

If Rodney thought that way, you wouldn't have any videos to counter Phil's would you?

and for someone who says you have to learn it for yourself he cant tell you how to do it.........he sure does make a lot of posts

[KPM]

That's a fair point.

However, my view is not to look to others but to find your own way through your own hard work.

But its not exactly fair to rip into someone else's work and efforts and say how wrong they are without providing your own alternative.

[KPM]

Allow me to ask a stupid question here. What the difference between "breaking structure by unbalancing his opponent" vs. "Moving your opponent's gravity center to be outside of his base" as showing in the following picture?

http://img717.imageshack.us/img717/2850/balancebase.jpg

There's not one, as far as I'm concerned! That is, as long as the opponent is unbalanced to the point that his COG is outside of his base....which is essentially the definition of "unbalanced" to begin with!

[Phil Redmond]

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?



And neither are the good instructors in the videos that I use as contrast.



And that's how it is in the good videos I posted.



Wait. What? Is he teaching good, sound fighting skills or not? If yes, then they will work against anyone.



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.



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.



A good place to start would be to learn WCK, beginning with body structure and with the punch.

They were demo clips. Not sparring clips. In the first clip I was teaching what I used successfully in full contact matches.

[Phil Redmond]

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.

It was a demo.

[Phil Redmond]

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.

It's not unrealistic if you can pull it off. I'm not going to fight the way you think I should. Everyone has different attributes. If I can do it why change. And yes, it can be pulled off against competent fighters. We do have Golden Gloves boxers and a Pro boxer that trains with us. But I don't want to convince you. So don't try to convince me.

[Ultimatewingchun]

No matter what the criticisms are - legitimate or not...at least Phil has vids up showing what his wing chun looks like.

And why are we even talking about this anymore?

When are people going to catch on to this big game that Niehoff plays?

He doesn't train, spar, roll...with mma, MT, boxing, BJJ people. Talking about it incessantly is not doing it. He can't make his wing chun work against any of them.

There's no analysis of what happens when he works with or against them.

There's no vids of any kind.

Get past this guy. That's what this forum needs to do, imo.

[chusauli]

Summary: The way I see it, Wing Chun's structure breaking methods focus on "small then big" or "one and then two" where "one" can be any small break in the opponent's structure or timing, administered by anything from Pak Sao to Tan Da to inch power expressed by our most structured point of contact, and "two" can be any capitalization on that break in structure or timing, again with any of the Wing Chun tools.

P.S. What's the smallest break in structure that is practically trainable?

You are asking all the right questions. Look and see if its "hand leads body" or "body leads hands".

Then you have to have the 4 changes/transitions:

Hand - Hand
Hand - Body
Body - Hand
Body - Body

From here you understand WCK can take advantage of the smallest break in structure because we already know the desired outcome.

[YouKnowWho]

The one inch punch exists in Tai Ji as well, but under a general heading of "Inch power" or "explosive power" or "Fa Jing."

The "inch power" can be seen in Taiji Ji, An, vital punch, brush knee, ... The interest question is "Is inch power used for striking or throwing?" Do your want to kill your opponent with your Taiji "push"?, or you just want to use your Taiji "push" to throw your opponent down, and let the hard ground to do the striking for you?

Usually, a small break in structure is enough to disrupt an opponent's ability to absorb the next strike effectively. It is also enough to create a window of opportunity whereby we can go for a throw or trip - and if we're talkin "mastery," then why not go for both at the same time?

When we mix the "striking world" and the "throwing world", thing can get confused. In the

- striking world, you want to create a "head on collusion" so you can use your your power and hurt your opponent to the maximum.
- throwing world, you want to create a "rear end collusion" so you can add your force along with your opponent's force and that will make your throw easier.

Do you need to break your opponent's structure before knocking him out? I think that will be counter productive to a "head on collusion". The better structure that your opponent has, the more damage that when he receives your punch. Here is my favor "head on collusion" example. Please watch how did Anthony Hopkins killed that bear.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G31h5gbazwU

Do you need to break your opponent's structure before throw him down? I think that will also be counter productive to a "rear end collusion". All you need is just give your force first, when your opponent resists, you borrow his force and "reverse" your throw. There is rarely a shock first, it is usually a "everything is fine...what the hell?" kind of feeling.