how not to fight a boxer

[Ultimatewingchun]

Attacking center is "attacking center"

Hitting people's arms is "hitting their arms".

And thanks for sharing the VT method.

[Phil Redmond]

Phil, you know I love you like the brother that you are, but I am going to say something that MAY come off as, well, rude or even "terrence'like".
The fact that it was a demo is NO excuse for doing it the "wrong way".

See what you did is symptomatic of what is wrong with TCMA demos, they are NOT done in a realistic way and as such, give false information and incorrect perception of what is being done.
YOU ( and I am putting the TCMA world on your shoulder and I apologise for that) are the problem and so is your demo.

That said, I think Phil is a HUGE credit to TCMA and WC in particular, he is a guiding force in putting WC out there and is a great guy, friendly, helpful and he was a ****ing Marine !! Simper Fi !!!

Don't take my critique as anything other then me wanting you to do better.

We Cool ?

According to you what was I doing wrong? Then I can explain what I was doing right. Unless you think I should smash students in order for them to learn. One problem people seem to have is that they expect a perfect choreographed Shaw Bros demo. Regardless of what people think. Our guys fight.

[YungChun]

Attacking center is "attacking center"

Hitting people's arms is "hitting their arms".

And thanks for sharing the VT method.

No, attacking the center can also mean attacking arms, but I know--you prefer to just "not get it"..

I'll leave it alone and let you resume your attack.

Anyone want to take up a collection to send Phil and/or Victor to St. Louis?

[Yoshiyahu]

The Best way to fight a boxers is to previously fought with boxers. This Guy was even getting the full spectrum of real boxing tools. The Big was toying with him an everytime he step in range he would clobber his face. Eventually the WC guy got knocked out...

Weaknesses
-WC punches lack power
-Didnt know how to defend against a punch
-Didn't cover when going inside
-Didn't control the bridge or trap opponent limbs
-Did lousy kicks that were just a tease
-Lacked the skill to fight any of those guys
-Has lousy structure and terrible horse

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEUhO..._order&list=UL

It looks like the Karate guy did more WC than the boxer!

[Niersun]

I'm not anonymous -- I use my real name, people on this forum have met me, trained with me, etc. My sifu posts here.

So, I'm not like YOU.

The whole "humble" thing is nonsense. I know what my skill level is, what I can do and not do, etc. Anyone who really trains will. I have repeatedly said that I am not that good. I'm one of the few who admit it.

I argue against what I see as bullsh1t. There is loads of it in the TMAs and in WCK. I used to believe much of the bullsh1t. Now I know better. And I know that it is the bullsh1t that holds us back. It held me back. But it is so pervasive, and it continues to grow.

I was writing a big ar$e reply, but chose to limit it to this: Truth is in the eye of the beholder.

[t_niehoff]

I was writing a big ar$e reply, but chose to limit it to this: Truth is in the eye of the beholder.

No, it's not. "Beauty" is. Truth is a goal, something some people seek. Be faithless to your cause and betray it to a stronger enemy.

[t_niehoff]

That is VT's method, attacking their structure.....

Yes, and you do that so that you can control them.

I don't care what Terence claims or what you claim, that is the f#cking method...

Yes, and the WCK method exists apart from me or Victor -- all you have to do is look at Ku Lo/Gu Lao, YKS/SN, Pan Nam, some of the better Yip people, etc. and you see that again and again. Some lineages/branches/teachers make that explicit, some make it implicit.

And, Jim, some people never learned it. So when they went out and taught, formed organizations, etc. it was never part of their "system." These people can't look beyond their little lineage/branch and see the greater art.

The most basic tool used to do that is the punch...

Of course.

Is there more involved, sure, timing, distance, having real structure a real horse, etc... Nevertheless attacking structure is the VT method, it's what sets VT apart from and makes it different from Boxing..

Exactly! You've condensed it down to its essence.

Moreover, it's clear you don't even know what T means when he says hitting their arms, he means attacking their center with his and regardless of who has done what with whom THAT is the method and most experienced VT folks here are well aware of it.

He doesn't WANT to understand.

[t_niehoff]

Logically the answer is simply because they are not familiar with its opposite..

How difficult is it really? If I say do not to reach to block, for example, then you have a guide for whatever you do.

We can point out problems but without then explaining how to do something correctly the 'student' is left without complete direction...

BINGO! And my point is that I won't explain how "to do something correctly" -- if that something is application -- you need to work that out for yourself. No one can explain how to do it. Can you explain "how" to ride a bike? Will seeing someone ride a bike make you able to ride a bike? No. You need to get on the bike and try to ride, and keep trying, that is the only way to learn. It's like learning to control someone in chi sao: they have to experience it (being done to them), learn by FEELING it, etc. No one can tell you how to do it. No one can show you how to do it. It is too dynamic.

In cases of learning, "Don't do that!" Needs to be accompanied with what to do. Imagine Cesar Millan's students not being specifically shown how to control their dogs, just what not to do..

It's not the same -- we are trying to learn a skill.

Now, arguably you do typically explain these things (what to do) but for many these explanations aren't specific enough for whatever the reason.... What's even more disturbing is the almost complete lack of good examples out there--people do need to see good examples too.

Here is the trouble, Jim: WCK is built on a number of fundamental skills that are all working together (my analogy is that it is like a Swiss watch where all the cogs fit and work together to make the watch run), and you need all those "elements" in place BEFORE you can implement the method. For example, to control someone while striking them in chi sao requires that you have a certain body structure, that you can strike with that body structure, that you have the targeting (weak line, control points, etc.) to break the opponent's structure, that you can control the bridges, etc.

Now, if you develop these various skills/elements, you will find that you AUTOMATICALLY -- from that process -- begin to work out for yourself HOW to put the cogs together for yourself to implement the method. Why? Because all these elements/skills are -- or should be -- all directed toward doing that method (they are the tools you need for that job). The method is your guide, your compass, it is what you are trying to do, and the various skills/elements are how you go about doing it.

[sanjuro_ronin]

According to you what was I doing wrong? Then I can explain what I was doing right. Unless you think I should smash students in order for them to learn. One problem people seem to have is that they expect a perfect choreographed Shaw Bros demo. Regardless of what people think. Our guys fight.

Of course they fight, WE KNOW they fight, that isn't the issue.
I was hoping that I had made myself clear and I see that I didn't, sorry.
You know I have the upmost respect for you Phil so understand that the critique I am stating is not about YOU OR your TWC, its about the methodology of the DEMO, that's all.
What was wrong?
Well in all honestly, T did already state it and show it in the clips he posted which we also demo clips.
In a nutshell, the attacks were badly made, badly executed, unrealistic, incorrect range and incorrectly done and for because of that, the rest was "irrelevant".
In short, if you want to show how TWC counters a Jab or hook then the jab or hook MUST be done the right way from the right distance with the right intent.

[t_niehoff]

According to you what was I doing wrong?

I provided a detailed analysis of what you were doing wrong. Don't you think that this is what Paul is referring to?

Then I can explain what I was doing right.

Go back to my posts and take them point by point explaining why what I am saying is not correct.

Unless you think I should smash students in order for them to learn.

No one is saying that. I provided clips of good fighters/trainers covering the same points you did, and they didn't smash their students.

One problem people seem to have is that they expect a perfect choreographed Shaw Bros demo.

Again, you are making sh1t up. No one is expecting "perfect choreographed" anything. As I said, look at the clips of the GOOD instruction that I put up -- there is no "perfect choreography", just fundamentally sound instruction.

Do you really not see, for example, that "punching" from out of range, so that your student needs to reach to block, and then holding your arm out instead of retracting it, isn't very poor teaching?

Regardless of what people think. Our guys fight.

So what? They fight -- with other scrubs. And they can't do what they train to do as they train to do it. Denial isn't just a river in Africa.

[KPM]

BINGO! And my point is that I won't explain how "to do something correctly" -- if that something is application -- you need to work that out for yourself. No one can explain how to do it. Can you explain "how" to ride a bike? Will seeing someone ride a bike make you able to ride a bike? No. You need to get on the bike and try to ride, and keep trying, that is the only way to learn. It's like learning to control someone in chi sao: they have to experience it (being done to them), learn by FEELING it, etc. No one can tell you how to do it. No one can show you how to do it. It is too dynamic.

.

I disagree. I could watch a vid of a kid trying to learn to ride his bike and tell him to "pull your knees in" or "sit up straight and don't slouch forward" or "lock your elbows and don't let the front wheel wobble." These are all "how to do it correctly" that will help him build his skill of riding a bike. A seasoned racing cyclist could watch a vid clip of a colleague in a race and tell him how pass more effectively or how to draft on another rider, etc. So a seasoned fighter should be able to watch a vid of someone showing an application and be able to make recommendations on how to do it better. Anyone can tear something apart. If you know the skill, you should be able to provide guidance on how to do it and build it up. Its a cop out to say "you have to feel it to know what I'm talking about." This may to appropriate when talking about how to direct intent or energy. But when it comes to how to use WCK to defend against a boxer's hook, it should be straight-forward. This ain't rocket science!

[t_niehoff]

I disagree. I could watch a vid of a kid trying to learn to ride his bike and tell him to "pull your knees in" or "sit up straight and don't slouch forward" or "lock your elbows and don't let the front wheel wobble." These are all "how to do it correctly" that will help him build his skill of riding a bike. A seasoned racing cyclist could watch a vid clip of a colleague in a race and tell him how pass more effectively or how to draft on another rider, etc. So a seasoned fighter should be able to watch a vid of someone showing an application and be able to make recommendations on how to do it better. Anyone can tear something apart. If you know the skill, you should be able to provide guidance on how to do it and build it up. Its a cop out to say "you have to feel it to know what I'm talking about." This may to appropriate when talking about how to direct intent or energy. But when it comes to how to use WCK to defend against a boxer's hook, it should be straight-forward. This ain't rocket science!

Read the rest of my post, Keith, which expands on my point:

WCK is built on a number of fundamental skills that are all working together (my analogy is that it is like a Swiss watch where all the cogs fit and work together to make the watch run), and you need all those "elements" in place BEFORE you can implement the method. For example, to control someone while striking them in chi sao requires that you have a certain body structure, that you can strike with that body structure, that you have the targeting (weak line, control points, etc.) to break the opponent's structure, that you can control the bridges, etc.

Now, if you develop these various skills/elements, you will find that you AUTOMATICALLY -- from that process -- begin to work out for yourself HOW to put the cogs together for yourself to implement the method. Why? Because all these elements/skills are -- or should be -- all directed toward doing that method (they are the tools you need for that job). The method is your guide, your compass, it is what you are trying to do, and the various skills/elements are how you go about doing it.

I am providing "guidance" on how to do it -- but you aren't listening.

If you have learned WCK's method, then you will know why the question "how to use WCK to defend against a boxer's hook?" is a WRONG question. That's NOT what we do. And you won't get the right answers by asking the wrong questions.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Let me just cut to the chase, Jim, and address this to Terence.

When using your wing chun, Terence, and when you spar with boxers:

You say that you punch your way in, and in the process of attacking center, it might be necessary to hit (punch) their arms, and you always try to break their structure on initial contact.

You've made it clear that this is your method.

So think back to the last time you sparred a boxer with this approach - what was the result?

How did you do?

What was he throwing at you?

What happened when he did?

Did you break his structure?

Please be specific.

[t_niehoff]

Let me just cut to the chase, Jim, and address this to Terence.

When using your wing chun, Terence, and when you spar with boxers:

You say that you punch your way in, and in the process of attacking center, it might be necessary to hit (punch) their arms, and you always try to break their structure on initial contact.

You've made it clear that this is your method.

Yes, that is my method BECAUSE THAT IS WCK'S METHOD. This is what they teach in all the older, legit branches of WCK.

So think back to the last time you sparred a boxer with this approach - what was the result?

How did you do?

What was he throwing at you?

What happened when he did?

Please be specific.

Victor, I find that dealing with PURE boxers -- even very good boxers -- is not very difficult since what we do -- getting in and controlling -- takes away their game. I am not trying to box with him, or stay outside and "deal" with his punches. That is playing his game. It can't be put into a you-do-this and he-does-that and then you-do-this-other-thing and he-responds-with, etc. That is a wrong way of looking at it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNBbk58FC6A

Ed Hart's description of his meeting with Bruce shows that Bruce knew WCK's method.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Terence,

You did not answer my specific question about exactly what happened the last time you sparred a boxer.

You gave a generic answer.

And amazingly, you said that it's easy to deal with very good pure boxers - and based upon your previous posts - these are guys who train out of boxing gyms that you're talking about.

Therefore I see no point in taking this any further.

Well that's my case, Jim, and it's now closed.