Training

[LFJ]

Boxing isn't a martial art.

I think people are taking offense to this for the wrong reason.

No one is saying boxing can't be modified for street and be very effective for self-defense.

However, if it were already directly related to free fighting, it wouldn't need to be modified.

These things KPM says below indicate that he knows and agrees that modifications need to be made for boxing to be more effective and safer when applied on the street, and there are obviously many more significant and necessary modifications, some of which I described.

In this sense, it is not a martial art, but a ring sport, and not even a single approach to that. But so what? That is not to say you can't use it to knock out an attacker.

...there are some vulnerabilities in what they do if they are facing someone on the street.....

...he needs to cover better when he isn't using gloves, or be more careful in how he hits to protect his hands...

And yes, every martial art will have to work with certain vulnerabilities as well, but not for a lack of consideration of possible dangers due to the opponent being bound by ring rules. A martial art, being designed for self-defense, does not need to be modified for the street.

[KPM]

And yes, every martial art will have to work with certain vulnerabilities as well, but not for a lack of consideration of possible dangers due to the opponent being bound by ring rules. A martial art, being designed for self-defense, does not need to be modified for the street.

How about Olympic Judo or Olympic Tae Kwon Do? Are they "martial arts"?

[KPM]

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

---There is no "one" system of Wing Chun either! Does that mean it isn't a martial art?




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.


---The exact same thing could be said of Wing Chun or Karate.



They are as much different systems as various karate styles.

---Does that mean Karate isn't a "martial art" either??




Which means things will have to be changed, in some ways drastically, from how it is in the boxing ring.

---Likewise, Wing Chun will need to change things for fighting on the street compared to training in the gym. That may be why lots of Wing Chun sparring clips don't look anything like Wing Chun!


Seriously? That guy is a moron.

[guy b.]

I think people are taking offense to this for the wrong reason.

No one is saying boxing can't be modified for street and be very effective for self-defense.

However, if it were already directly related to free fighting, it wouldn't need to be modified.

These things KPM says below indicate that he knows and agrees that modifications need to be made for boxing to be more effective and safer when applied on the street, and there are obviously many more significant and necessary modifications, some of which I described.

In this sense, it is not a martial art, but a ring sport, and not even a single approach to that. But so what? That is not to say you can't use it to knock out an attacker.

Absolutely. Someone trained in boxing is probably going to be in a better position in a fight than someone who trained golf, dancing or bowling. But someone regularly competing at a reasonable level in rugby or wrestling will also be in a better position than those others. None of these sports are martial arts because they don't teach particular strategies for fighting, but they are all tough physical sports involving physically overcoming another trained person according to the rules of their competition, so are most likely going to be useful in the event of a fight. Of course modification would be necessary for fighting.

In fact the book posted by Glenn a few pages back is about modifying the sport of boxing for fighting. Hard to understand the outrage on this one to be honest

[guy b.]

How about Olympic Judo or Olympic Tae Kwon Do? Are they "martial arts"?

Judo can be a martial art. It depends on the focus. Some people today do judo purely as a sport, and I think the sport and particularly the evolution of rule set in Olympic judo has done a lot of damage to the martial art of judo. Judo currently is probably 50:50 sport to martial art.

Luckily BJJ exits, which is definitely a martial art, and judo is still taught as a martial art in some places. Judo certainly has everything required to be a martial art, and if taught that way it is a truly excellent martial art and a great compliment/backup to a striking style like VT.

I don't know anything about Tae Kwon Do. What I have seen of it looks heavily crippled by its rules, possibly even more so than Olympic judo.

[guy b.]

And yes, every martial art will have to work with certain vulnerabilities as well, but not for a lack of consideration of possible dangers due to the opponent being bound by ring rules. A martial art, being designed for self-defense, does not need to be modified for the street.

People appear to be confusing competition strategies for fighting strategies, which is strange given how many times the difference has been emphasised.

OF COURSE BOXING HAS STRATEGY! *lists ring strategies*

[LFJ]

How about Olympic Judo or Olympic Tae Kwon Do? Are they "martial arts"?

Martial arts modified for sport.

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

---There is no "one" system of Wing Chun either! Does that mean it isn't a martial art?

No.

That is also not the reason for saying boxing isn't a martial art.
It's the reason for saying boxing isn't one system.

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.

---The exact same thing could be said of Wing Chun or Karate.

Correct.

They are as much different systems as various karate styles.

---Does that mean Karate isn't a "martial art" either??

No. Again, you are confusing "not one thing" and "not a martial art".

Which means things will have to be changed, in some ways drastically, from how it is in the boxing ring.

---Likewise, Wing Chun will need to change things for fighting on the street compared to training in the gym.

You are now confusing training and fighting.

Boxing training is preparation for ring fighting and the ring fighting method needs modification for street application.
VT training is preparation for free fighting and the free fighting method needs no modification for street application.

[LFJ]

In fact the book posted by Glenn a few pages back is about modifying the sport of boxing for fighting. Hard to understand the outrage on this one to be honest

Ego too strong to acknowledge they took something the wrong way, or too angry/dumb to understand what has been said.

[guy b.]

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

---There is no "one" system of Wing Chun either! Does that mean it isn't a martial art?

There is only one VT, and it is a martial art (a systematised approach to fighting). Other systems may exist which call themselves wing chun, but these are not the same system as VT

The exact same thing could be said of Wing Chun or Karate

Re wing chun, see above. Re Karate, there are many different styles of Karate which are not the same in terms of beliefs and strategy for the fight, i.e. they different systems.

---Does that mean Karate isn't a "martial art" either??

Many karate styles are martial arts and many share a common history. They are not all the same martial art though.

---Likewise, Wing Chun will need to change things for fighting on the street compared to training in the gym. That may be why lots of Wing Chun sparring clips don't look anything like Wing Chun!

VT doesn't need changed for fighting because it is designed specifically for fighting. It takes a particular view of the best course of action in the fight and is not applicable in some situations (e.g. on the ground). That it has limits does not make it not a martial art. There is nothing the VT fighter needs to adapt or modify for fighting, unlike boxing.

[KPM]

Judo can be a martial art. It depends on the focus. Some people today do judo purely as a sport, and I think the sport and particularly the evolution of rule set in Olympic judo has done a lot of damage to the martial art of judo. Judo currently is probably 50:50 sport to martial art.

Luckily BJJ exits, which is definitely a martial art, and judo is still taught as a martial art in some places. Judo certainly has everything required to be a martial art, and if taught that way it is a truly excellent martial art and a great compliment/backup to a striking style like VT.

I don't know anything about Tae Kwon Do. What I have seen of it looks heavily crippled by its rules, possibly even more so than Olympic judo.

Ok. Good answer. I can agree with that.

[KPM]

People appear to be confusing competition strategies for fighting strategies, which is strange given how many times the difference has been emphasised.

OF COURSE BOXING HAS STRATEGY! *lists ring strategies*

But why do you see such a difference? Why would strategies used when squaring off in the ring differ so much or not be useful for squaring off in a back alley or parking lot? Of course, you couldn't use ALL of them. But I think some of them would certainly apply.....like using the ring (or a car or a wall or a dumpster) to limit the opponent's ability to use footwork or move well.....or throwing light jabs as you subtly angle to the side to bait the opponent into launching a committed attack that you are prepared to slip and come in from an angle....etc. At a certain level, fighting is fighting, whether in the ring or on the street. And since the majority of street fights end up as an exchange of punches, boxers do pretty well!

[KPM]

There is only one VT, and it is a martial art (a systematised approach to fighting). Other systems may exist which call themselves wing chun, but these are not the same system as VT


.

I didn't say "VT." I said "Wing Chun.

[dlcox]

There is only one VT, and it is a martial art (a systematised approach to fighting). Other systems may exist which call themselves wing chun, but these are not the same system as VT

VT doesn't need changed for fighting because it is designed specifically for fighting. It takes a particular view of the best course of action in the fight and is not applicable in some situations (e.g. on the ground). That it has limits does not make it not a martial art. There is nothing the VT fighter needs to adapt or modify for fighting, unlike boxing.

VT, is by your and LFJ's own statements a method of concept and contains no applications. This would extend to theoretical approach, as well as, physical movement. Making it little more than philosophical musing of theoretical concept. You concede that it has limitations (grappling, both ground & upright) yet state that there is nothing a VT fighter needs to adapt for fighting, unlike boxing. For starters, prior to the use of mufflers and the Queensbury rules, boxing did have "Wrassling, hurling, gouging and purring", which made it fairly complete and competent in all ranges of fighting, it wasn't always relegated to sport competition. You two have stated that VT never contained grappling or throwing, yet view it as more complete than boxing, where's the proof?

All I see out of the VT camp is Chi Sau videos. Now you two have stated time and again that Chi Sau is not a method of fighting, that is is just a drill and that no applications are being used when performing it. Yet it is still constantly used to validate any claims you make. Your views on VT are that it is a system of striking, a system of striking that hasn't been proven to be more effective than sport boxing on any platform, in fact just the opposite. The "Systematic" approach that you say VT has and boxing lacks is a baseless claim. I have yet to see anything resembling what you call VT prove itself to be superior in any manner (technique wise, strategy wise, theory wise, or power generation wise) than any martial art, sport or street based.

Theory alone has little to do with winning a fight, application of that theory in a realistic and achievable manner does. When the best evidence to your claims is a non-functional drilling exercise called Chi Sau, an exercise you claim not to be a method of fighting, where then is the real evidence that VT is systematically and theoretically more sound than anything, let alone boxing.

Boxing is time tested and has proven itself again and again. It is because of its limited techniques and a strong strategy and theory that it is able to be made realistic and effective on a world stage. Can VT make the same claim?

Now don't get me wrong, I like Wing Chun and what it has to offer. I'm simply not going to raise a glass of Jim Jones' Kool Aid and try to convince others that its the best they've ever tasted.

The way you and LFJ describe VT relegates it to little more than boxing IMO, argue that point if you like but it is moot. Your VT contains no grappling, you describe it as a method of striking which uses Chi Sau as a platform to develop the punch. It hasn't proven itself to be more effective than boxing despite this Chi Sau. Boxing doesn't need Chi Sau to work, why does VT? Seems to me that VT and boxing have much in common theoretically and strategically, with one exception, boxing has been proven to actually work.

Chi Sau is a method of hand chasing, try to argue that point. Its a method of defense that is either reactionary in nature or used offensively to impede an attack, either way it is focusing on the opponents limbs prior to attack. This is why VT fails in real time under heavy pressure. If your method is a method of striking why not develop and focus on drills that move the body away from an incoming attack and strike the target? It seems to me that boxing actually employs the strategies of simplicity, directness, & efficiency way better than VT in this aspect.

I find it silly that a method of striking uses a complicated method of Patty Cake as a platform to develop actual striking, but feel free to argue its usefulness in that aspect. Chi Sau has way more to do with grappling than it does striking, and are contradictory methodologies. VT has not proven itself on any platform to be a superior methodology to any martial art, let alone to a "Sport" like boxing. Until you can prove otherwise, you can keep your Kool Aid.

[guy b.]

VT, is by your and LFJ's own statements a method of concept and contains no applications. This would extend to theoretical approach, as well as, physical movement. Making it little more than philosophical musing of theoretical concept

Not at all

You concede that it has limitations (grappling, both ground & upright) yet state that there is nothing a VT fighter needs to adapt for fighting, unlike boxing. For starters, prior to the use of mufflers and the Queensbury rules, boxing did have "Wrassling, hurling, gouging and purring", which made it fairly complete and competent in all ranges of fighting, it wasn't always relegated to sport competition. You two have stated that VT never contained grappling or throwing, yet view it as more complete than boxing, where's the proof?

I believe we said it doesn't need adapted, whereas boxing does.

All I see out of the VT camp is Chi Sau videos. Now you two have stated time and again that Chi Sau is not a method of fighting, that is is just a drill and that no applications are being used when performing it. Yet it is still constantly used to validate any claims you make.

There are some clips that are not chi sau on this very thread. I have never used chi sau clips to make any point not related to chi sau.

Your views on VT are that it is a system of striking, a system of striking that hasn't been proven to be more effective than sport boxing on any platform, in fact just the opposite

This is not my claim. I guess it is yours?

The "Systematic" approach that you say VT has and boxing lacks is a baseless claim

Not baseless in the slightest, very happy to discuss

I have yet to see anything resembling what you call VT prove itself to be superior in any manner (technique wise, strategy wise, theory wise, or power generation wise) than any martial art, sport or street based

I guess you haven't looked?

Theory alone has little to do with winning a fight, application of that theory in a realistic and achievable manner does. When the best evidence to your claims is a non-functional drilling exercise called Chi Sau, an exercise you claim not to be a method of fighting, where then is the real evidence that VT is systematically and theoretically more sound than anything, let alone boxing

In the systematisation and theory of ving tsun maybe?

Boxing is time tested and has proven itself again and again. It is because of its limited techniques and a strong strategy and theory that it is able to be made realistic and effective on a world stage. Can VT make the same claim?

Boxing is a ruleset for competition. People training to compete under that ruleset naturally win 50% or all competitions under that rule set, while other people training to compete under the same rule set lose the other 50%

Now don't get me wrong, I like Wing Chun and what it has to offer. I'm simply not going to raise a glass of Jim Jones' Kool Aid and try to convince others that its the best they've ever tasted

Hard to see how you can hold any opinion when you have no experience of what you are describing?

The way you and LFJ describe VT relegates it to little more than boxing IMO

Then read more closely, it is very different

Your VT contains no grappling, you describe it as a method of striking which uses Chi Sau as a platform to develop the punch. It hasn't proven itself to be more effective than boxing despite this Chi Sau

More effective than boxing at doing what?

Boxing doesn't need Chi Sau to work, why does VT?

Happy to start at step 1 if you would like to find out more, please just ask rather than getting all angry

Seems to me that VT and boxing have much in common theoretically and strategically, with one exception, boxing has been proven to actually work

Work for what?

Chi Sau is a method of hand chasing, try to argue that point. Its a method of defense that is either reactionary in nature or used offensively to impede an attack, either way it is focusing on the opponents limbs prior to attack. This is why VT fails in real time under heavy pressure.

It's ok if you don't understand chi sau, just ask. Guessing just looks silly

If your method is a method of striking why not develop and focus on drills that move the body away from an incoming attack

Because this would be contrary to VT basic ideas?

It seems to me that boxing actually employs the strategies of simplicity, directness, & efficiency way better than VT in this aspect

There is no "boxing". There are 101 different stylistic interpretations which can work (and also fail) under boxing rules. Some may be better ideas than others under that rule set. If you would like to know about VT then again please just ask, don't guess.

I find it silly that a method of striking uses a complicated method of Patty Cake as a platform to develop actual striking

It is actually very simple. I think your misunderstanding comes from having no experience of VT. This is understandable

Chi Sau has way more to do with grappling than it does striking, and are contradictory methodologies

Ah ok, you don't understand chi sau. Feel free to ask, always happy to help.

[guy b.]

I didn't say "VT." I said "Wing Chun.

More than one system share the name wing chun?