Page 11 of 25 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 165 of 374

Thread: Training

  1. #151
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Rockville, MD
    Posts
    2,662
    Quote Originally Posted by LFJ View Post
    Neither. I think you haven't understood what he actually means by what he wrote.

    As I read it;

    "No systematized approach" means "boxing" is not one thing or style. In this sense, there is no one such thing as a "boxer". Two boxers may fight with wildly different styles and train differently to suit those styles.

    That means there is also no one strategy that defines "boxing". This doesn't mean boxing gyms don't teach strategy or have good strategy. Some do. Some don't. Every gym will be different because they are free to do what they find best in the ring, based on the coach's experience and for each fighter, bound only by ring rules and not codified into one style that is "boxing".

    "Not directly related to fighting" means that a lot of what a boxer does is unsafe outside of the boxing ring. Things like bobbing and weaving become dangerous when kicks and knees are possible. Stances are often susceptible to leg kicks or takedowns. A typical cover defense on the inside is easily penetrated when both fighters are bareknuckled and doesn't consider other dangers than punching. Many punches rely on the gloves to protect the hand and would be dangerous to the bareknuckled puncher.

    These things are not taking all possibilities of free fighting into account, only that which is within the ring rules of the sport. In this sense, it doesn't directly relate to fighting. This doesn't mean a boxer can't knock someone's block off in a street fight, though.
    No. I "comprehended" what he was saying just fine! I just think it way off, is all. And I think if you brought those points up in a serious boxing gym they would laugh in your face. Again, be my guest to try that!!

    A "systematized approach" to boxing is training to punch from various angles, training to be mobile in the ring, using covering/bobbing/weaving, etc as a defense. While there are some variations, "boxers" stick to that pretty closely. For you to say that there is no one "boxing" is wrong. That would imply that you couldn't pick out someone with a background in boxing by watching them move. There is such a thing as a "boxer", and then there can be variations on "boxing." Just like there is such a thing as "Karate" and then there can be variations of "Karate."

    While there are some vulnerabilities in what they do if they are facing someone on the street.....that does not mean that strategies used in the ring, like angling away from a direct punch, covering and returning a hit on another line, moving around with a jab to confuse before closing on another line, etc wouldn't work if facing off with an attacker in a parking lot. Heck, most Wing Chun guys use a stance that is vulnerable to leg kicks and takedowns!

    You really think a boxer that has given half a thought to what he would do on the street doesn't realize he needs to cover better when he isn't using gloves, or be more careful in how he hits to protect his hands???? You don't think a boxer that takes his art seriously hasn't done some light sparring with buddies when they were neither wearing gloves?

    Here is at least one guy that would disagree with what you are saying:

    https://www.amazon.com/Championship-...s=ned+beaumont


    Good book. I've had it in my library for many years.
    Last edited by KPM; 04-16-2017 at 01:42 PM.

  2. #152
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    482
    Quote Originally Posted by guy b. View Post
    no such thing as "a boxer". No systematised approach. it isn't a martial art.
    Really!?!

    Good thing LFJ jumped in to "clarify" so that you don't come across as a total fool.
    Last edited by Grumblegeezer; 04-16-2017 at 03:16 PM.
    "No contaban con mi astucia!" --el Chapulin Colorado

    http://www.vingtsunaz.com/
    www.nationalvt.com/

  3. #153
    Quote Originally Posted by Grumblegeezer View Post
    Really!?!

    Good thing LFJ jumped in to "clarify" so that you don't come across as a total fool.
    I don't think any unbiased person would have any difficulty understanding what I was saying. Even KPM above says that he understands.

    LFJ just said the same thing using more words so not sure why that changes the message for you to seem non-foolish where it was before?
    Last edited by guy b.; 04-16-2017 at 04:43 PM.

  4. #154
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    2,252
    Give it up Glenn like most people who have never boxed they don't have a clue about what it takes to be good at boxing, you get the usual it's for the young, you have to be supremely fit and conditioned to box, train every day etc, no that if you are competing at a high level, otherwise you can train boxing the same way you train any martial art at any age and use it very successfully in a self defense situation, the irony is there are way more clips of boxers using their art in a self defense situation than wing chun...
    Bingo Frost, for a non-martial art it seems to do pretty well in self defense situations

    The other irony is they argue you will lose to a younger fitter conditioned boxer and that makes boxing useless for older people, yet somehow think wing chun is this great equaliser but again...Where's the proof it works against anyone let alone helps you defy the aging process LOL
    Yep that massive elephant in the room...... wheres the evidence it works???
    But hey, let the VT Nerds bathe in lap sao drills and clever little Chinese sayings........ its all they have after all.

  5. #155
    Quote Originally Posted by LFJ View Post
    Neither. I think you haven't understood what he actually means by what he wrote.

    As I read it;

    "No systematized approach" means "boxing" is not one thing or style. In this sense, there is no one such thing as a "boxer". Two boxers may fight with wildly different styles and train differently to suit those styles.

    That means there is also no one strategy that defines "boxing". This doesn't mean boxing gyms don't teach strategy or have good strategy. Some do. Some don't. Every gym will be different because they are free to do what they find best in the ring, based on the coach's experience and for each fighter, bound only by ring rules and not codified into one style that is "boxing".

    "Not directly related to fighting" means that a lot of what a boxer does is unsafe outside of the boxing ring. Things like bobbing and weaving become dangerous when kicks and knees are possible. Stances are often susceptible to leg kicks or takedowns. A typical cover defense on the inside is easily penetrated when both fighters are bareknuckled and doesn't consider other dangers than punching. Many punches rely on the gloves to protect the hand and would be dangerous to the bareknuckled puncher.

    These things are not taking all possibilities of free fighting into account, only that which is within the ring rules of the sport. In this sense, it doesn't directly relate to fighting. This doesn't mean a boxer can't knock someone's block off in a street fight, though.
    Haven't posted on here in years, but after reading this, felt the urge to. LFJ, all of what you wrote is in direct contradiction to your very public opinion of other branches of WC as compared to VT and has a direct correlation to your post. Either your phishing or purposefully trying to get someone's goat, either way it's trolling at its finest.

    Generally you at least try to tie a point in, this time, you have provided absolutely no proof of your claim that WC is superior in strategy or better systematically to boxing. You can do better than this, try harder.

  6. #156
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    2,252
    Quote Originally Posted by dlcox View Post
    Haven't posted on here in years, but after reading this, felt the urge to. LFJ, all of what you wrote is in direct contradiction to your very public opinion of other branches of WC as compared to VT and has a direct correlation to your post. Either your phishing or purposefully trying to get someone's goat, either way it's trolling at its finest.

    Generally you at least try to tie a point in, this time, you have provided absolutely no proof of your claim that WC is superior in strategy or better systematically to boxing. You can do better than this, try harder.
    Nicely put.
    To put it bluntly..... he's got nothing

  7. #157
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    ᏌᏂᎭᎢ, ᏥᎾ
    Posts
    3,257
    Quote Originally Posted by KPM View Post
    A "systematized approach" to boxing is training to punch from various angles, training to be mobile in the ring, using covering/bobbing/weaving, etc as a defense. While there are some variations, "boxers" stick to that pretty closely.
    That is not what systematized means.

    There is massive variation that creates different types of fighters in the ring, meaning there is no one system of boxing.

    The reason you will find these broadly defined commonalities is because they are bound by the ring rules of the sport, not one particular system.

    For you to say that there is no one "boxing" is wrong. That would imply that you couldn't pick out someone with a background in boxing by watching them move. There is such a thing as a "boxer", and then there can be variations on "boxing." Just like there is such a thing as "Karate" and then there can be variations of "Karate."
    Which means you can't say "this" and only "this" is boxing, or can't guarantee that if you go into a boxing gym they will be teaching the same method as any other gym.

    They are as much different systems as various karate styles.

    While there are some vulnerabilities in what they do if they are facing someone on the street.....that does not mean that strategies used in the ring, like angling away from a direct punch, covering and returning a hit on another line, moving around with a jab to confuse before closing on another line, etc wouldn't work if facing off with an attacker in a parking lot.
    No one said it wouldn't work.

    You really think a boxer that has given half a thought to what he would do on the street doesn't realize he needs to cover better when he isn't using gloves, or be more careful in how he hits to protect his hands????
    Which means things will have to be changed, in some ways drastically, from how it is in the boxing ring.

    Here is at least one guy that would disagree with what you are saying:
    Seriously? That guy is a moron.

  8. #158
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    ᏌᏂᎭᎢ, ᏥᎾ
    Posts
    3,257
    Quote Originally Posted by dlcox View Post
    LFJ, all of what you wrote is in direct contradiction to your very public opinion of other branches of WC as compared to VT and has a direct correlation to your post.
    What are you talking about?

    you have provided absolutely no proof of your claim that WC is superior in strategy or better systematically to boxing.
    Why would I provide proof of a claim I did not make?

    Where are you getting this?

  9. #159
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    ᏌᏂᎭᎢ, ᏥᎾ
    Posts
    3,257
    Quote Originally Posted by GlennR View Post
    Yep that massive elephant in the room...... wheres the evidence it works???
    Waiting on the same from Frost's "excellent Bak Mei".

    As has been said, based on his own criteria for judging MA systems, he should also reject Bak Mei.

    He has dodged this because it undermines his entire argument against VT.

  10. #160
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    2,252
    Quote Originally Posted by LFJ View Post
    Waiting on the same from Frost's "excellent Bak Mei".

    As has been said, based on his own criteria for judging MA systems, he should also reject Bak Mei.

    He has dodged this because it undermines his entire argument against VT.
    I was talking to you.......... evidence please???

  11. #161
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    ᏌᏂᎭᎢ, ᏥᎾ
    Posts
    3,257
    Quote Originally Posted by GlennR View Post
    I was talking to you.......... evidence please???
    Have you visited a VT school or anyone good at VT?

    If not, as I said, your refusal or failure to examine the evidence doesn't mean there is none.

    The efficacy of a MA system is not contingent upon whether or not there are videos to be viewed online of it "tearing it up" in competition.

  12. #162
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    2,252
    Have you visited a VT school or anyone good at VT?
    Two of Barry Lees senior students here in Australia. I guess you know who Barry is?
    I was told by both of them that my WC was very good.

    How many boxing gyms have you trained in???

    If not, as I said, your refusal or failure to examine the evidence doesn't mean there is none.
    Do i get a pass now??? Wanker.

    The efficacy of a MA system is not contingent upon whether or not there are videos to be viewed online of it "tearing it up" in competition.
    Who asked for a video?

    So.......... evidence????

  13. #163
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    ᏌᏂᎭᎢ, ᏥᎾ
    Posts
    3,257
    Quote Originally Posted by GlennR View Post
    Two of Barry Lees senior students here in Australia. I guess you know who Barry is?
    I was told by both of them that my WC was very good.
    I have no experience or directly knowledge of Barry's or his students' VT.

    Are you saying their VT didn't work?

    Who asked for a video?

    So.......... evidence????
    What exactly are you asking for on a forum then?

  14. #164
    Quote Originally Posted by Frost View Post
    Give it up Glenn like most people who have never boxed they don't have a clue about what it takes to be good at boxing
    I boxed at university, competed successfully

    you get the usual it's for the young, you have to be supremely fit and conditioned to box, train every day etc, no that if you are competing at a high level, otherwise you can train boxing the same way you train any martial art
    Boxing isn't a martial art.

    use it very successfully in a self defense situation, the irony is there are way more clips of boxers using their art in a self defense situation than wing chun
    I haven't seen statistics on that and wonder how you would make such an assessment? Assuming for a moment that it is true and that you didn't just make it up though, the reason might be that boxing is far more common that VT, and so more people that get attacked are likely to have experience of boxing than VT. Many physical skills and conditioning regimes can be useful in a self defence situation, from rugby to running, but that doesn't make them martial arts or a good option for anyone looking to reliably survive dangerous situations involving other people. Same goes for boxing

    yet somehow think wing chun is this great equaliser but again...Where's the proof it works against anyone let alone helps you defy the aging process
    If you are interested give it a try and you will see. If not then don't worry so much about it.

    Now tell me about Bak Mei and why that is different from VT please?

  15. #165
    Quote Originally Posted by LFJ View Post
    Waiting on the same from Frost's "excellent Bak Mei".

    As has been said, based on his own criteria for judging MA systems, he should also reject Bak Mei.

    He has dodged this because it undermines his entire argument against VT.
    True, this needs answered

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •