how not to fight a boxer

[KC Elbows]

.

Unless a boxer is going into match with a specific person that they know, they don't really prepare that much, they just fight their own fight.

Yeah, I've read quite a few statements by great boxers that they rarely stressed knowing the other guy too well, though there are, of course, exceptions, but even he exceptions knew THEIR stuff from training fully, not creaming their pants for twenty years over a drill that was never meant to be the height of practice<<coughcough chisao coughcough>>.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Yeah, I've read quite a few statements by great boxers that they rarely stressed knowing the other guy too well, though there are, of course, exceptions, but even he exceptions knew THEIR stuff from training fully, not creaming their pants for twenty years over a drill that was never meant to be the height of practice<<coughcough chisao coughcough>>.

No comment on chi sao.
But you do bring up an interesting point and that is fighting YOUR fight and what that means.
If a boxer likes to be on the inside, liek I do, as long as I am on the inside, I am fighting my fight.
If you keep me on the outside and slap me silly with your 200" reach advantage, I am screwed.
This also brings into question the philosophies of training :
Focus on your strengths or focus on developing your weaknesses.
But I digress.

[YouKnowWho]

So what you are suggesting is that a stand up style that is meant to be a close range striking art should abandon its principles and look for the throw as soon as it comes up against a boxer?

When I response that post, I didn't know that you started this thread for WC discussion only.

WC may be strong in striking but boxing is weak in throwing. You can utilize your own strong point. You can also utilize your opponent's weak point. In order to do that, cross training is a must.

Focus on your strengths or focus on developing your weaknesses.

One of my guys doesn't like to train his striking skill. His "arm wrapping" skill is very good (much easier to develop than striking). He is good at entering a punching range and achieve a "clinching". He also has good throwing skill after his can get his "clinching".

Sometime to "focus on your strength" is the same as to "focus on developing your weakness".

[Vajramusti]

So what you are suggesting is that a stand up style that is meant to be a close range striking art should abandon its principles and look for the throw as soon as it comes up against a boxer?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am late to this thread and just a passing comment or two.

Wing chun is not just a striking art--it is interested in control- whether you strike, break, throw -
depends on the moment... and the simplest thing to do at that moment.

joy chaudhuri

[Pacman]

Just like in the spear fighting, the best defense against a straight line spear stabbing is a circular spear deflect. This is to use the "circular" motion to counter the "straight line" motion issue.

and this is what the boxer did. the wing chun guy kept repeating the same thing, just went straight in without any setup and so was very predictable.

the boxer used his reach advantage and some circular punches to tag him every time.

[YouKnowWho]

whether you strike, break, throw - depends on the moment.

If you do:

- wrestling daily, you will become a wrestler.
- striking daily, you will become a striker.
- forms daily, you will becomer a dancer.
- Zhan Zhuang daily, you will become a stander.
- ...

It has nothing to do with your style.

[Phil Redmond]

How not to fight a boxer.....don't try to kickbox with WCK! The guy is this clip seems to know a more WCK than the guy above, but he still doesn't fair to well against this kickboxer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7iLZ...eature=related


The problem is closing the gap so that you can make good use of your WCK. Bruce Lee recognized this problem and I think it was one of the factors leading to the creation of JKD. If you want to kickbox with a WCK "flavor", study some JKD! But don't try to make WCK into something it is not....because it doesn't work very well ......as most of these clips on the internet will attest!!

According to Bruce Lee JKD is WC.

[Phil Redmond]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am late to this thread and just a passing comment or two.

Wing chun is not just a striking art--it is interested in control- whether you strike, break, throw -
depends on the moment... and the simplest thing to do at that moment.

joy chaudhuri

WC is a win by any means necessary art. At least that's what Yip Man said.

[JPinAZ]

The "problem" is that it is much easier written than done AND that there is precious little evidence that many VT peeps are doing it regularly against decent boxers...

I'm not going to assume, so are you saying you are not able to close the gap with boxers with your WCK? Or just that WCK's "problem" is that it doesn't have this ability in the system in general? If the later, I would totally disagree.

For me, WCK should 'work' at ANY 'range' where contact can be made. If someone can hit me, then I can bridge with that attack on it's way in. And, if I can bridge with the attack using proper structure, facing and leverage, then I have a greater chance of neutralizing it & setting up a advantageous position or my own. All with which I can now start to effect my opponent's COG, lessening their chances of landing a strong follow-up attack as well as counter with hits of my own. To me, this is WCK.

It's not about WCK vs. boxing range, or kicking range or vs. any particular style. There's either stirking range or not. While yes, a kick might require me to use a different 'technique' over a punch and there might be different responses for a round punch vs a straight punch attack. In the end, it's just an attack entering my box/space. And if I want the best chance of dealing with that attack, the above strategies or 'rules' apply - regardless the attack or style I'm up against. Things like leverage, facing, structure, energy awareness, etc don't change just because my opponent did. This is WCK (how I see and train it anyway).

As far as evidence, the only evidence I look for is my own results in my own training. That's all that should matter IMO

[t_niehoff]

If someone can hit me, then I can bridge with that attack on it's way in.

No, you can't. And trying to "bridge" to an attack is extremely low percentage.

And, if I can bridge with the attack using proper structure, facing and leverage, then I have a greater chance of neutralizing it & setting up a advantageous position or my own. All with which I can now start to effect my opponent's COG, lessening their chances of landing a strong follow-up attack as well as counter with hits of my own. To me, this is WCK.

That's a great theory, only it won't work like that. You will never be able to "bridge with the attack using proper structure, facing and leverage"-- that is a fantasy. His action is too fast, too unpredictable, etc.

It's not about WCK vs. boxing range, or kicking range or vs. any particular style. There's either stirking range or not. While yes, a kick might require me to use a different 'technique' over a punch and there might be different responses for a round punch vs a straight punch attack. In the end, it's just an attack entering my box/space. And if I want the best chance of dealing with that attack, the above strategies or 'rules' apply - regardless the attack or style I'm up against. Things like leverage, facing, structure, energy awareness, etc don't change just because my opponent did. This is WCK (how I see and train it anyway).

If you are in an opponent's striking range, you won't be able to stop him from hitting you unless he is a scrub.

As far as evidence, the only evidence I look for is my own results in my own training. That's all that should matter IMO

That all depends on what that training is.

[HumbleWCGuy]

That all depends on what that training is.

When did results stop mattering?

[CFT]

I'm not going to assume, so are you saying you are not able to close the gap with boxers with your WCK? Or just that WCK's "problem" is that it doesn't have this ability in the system in general? If the later, I would totally disagree.

I think Jim stated his case quite clearly in his original post. It is down to an individual's training and the kind of people they are training against. Along the lines of what Terence consistently posts (shock horror!)

Most VT folks have trouble entering because it's not trained enough and most VT folks have much more trouble when the opponent is taller and has considerably longer reach.

[YungChun]

According to Bruce Lee JKD is WC.

Please post supporting documentation.

JKD as in JunFan was simply Bruce Lee's method, which btw changed daily if not hourly...

Later JKD was formalized into JKD Concepts.. In the later case these concepts have nothing to do with a style.

Bruce at the end was anti style...he was in his honest expression stage...

[YungChun]

I think Jim stated his case quite clearly in his original post.

Thanks Chee I thought so...


I wrote:

The "problem" is that it is much easier written than done AND that there is precious little evidence that many VT peeps are doing it regularly against decent boxers...

I'm not going to assume, so are you saying you are not able to close the gap with boxers with your WCK? Or just that WCK's "problem" is that it doesn't have this ability in the system in general?

I said what I wrote.. That it's much easier to pay lip service to this kind of stuff..

And that not many VT people are training like boxers... Because if they were you wouldn't hear the theory you'd see the fighting..

Most VT people are not actively fighting at all let alone with dozens of good boxers, I mean let's try to keep this just a little real...

Most people don't have access to LOT'S of good boxers... Most VTers are not fighting lots of good anythings...

[CFT]

Regarding JKD = WC.

Here is a post by John Smith, one of Wong Shun Leung's students:

http://wongshunleung.takeforum.com/2...w-they-differ/

Bruce Lee was really years ahead of his time. Yes his training developed as he had no one to coach him except himself. He was very proud of Chinese culture and of the gung fu that it had produced.

This needs to be saluted.

Sifu used to say that Bruce turned full circle from VT. Initially as you have indicated we has a VT man, but then left many of it's principles, but as Sifu indicated that towards the end of his life he was returning to what VT already had.