# What can a boxer gain from WC?



## TMA17 (Oct 22, 2017)

I apologize in advance if this should have been included in an existing post.

A common question that comes up among the WC practitioners is how do we modify or improve it, while still maintaining its core principles.  Boxing is usually the most common comparison and art that is most often blended in with WC.

I want to rephrase the question and ask what can a boxer gain from WC?  Boxers are extremely proficient with their hands.  WC fights often turn into what essentially looks like sloppy boxing.

Some things that come to mind when look at both styles:  Boxers are light on their feet.  WC uses the anchored stance.  WC seems to favor elbow strikes and blocks.  Boxing has more punches.  Center Line theory is not exclusive to WC IMO.  Boxing, arguably, has better long range and strikes from multiple angles.  WC, arguably, has advantages with blocking.  Boxing has advantages in overall movement.

I think a boxer can gain several things:  defend and attack simultaneously.  Better elbow strikes (being boxers don't use them lol), more direct striking, kicking and anchored stability when close range.


----------



## TMA17 (Oct 22, 2017)




----------



## KPM (Oct 22, 2017)

TMA17 said:


> I think a boxer can gain several things:  defend and attack simultaneously.  Better elbow strikes (being boxers don't use them lol), more direct striking, kicking and anchored stability when close range.



Wing Chun can help Boxing become a martial art rather than a sport.  But this I mean training with the idea of facing someone on the street and not in the ring.  Wing Chun (at least some Wing Chun) has a Kum Na or standing grappling element that can help accomplish this.  Awareness of kicks and how to deal with them is part of this.  

Wing Chun brings contact sensitivity to boxing.  This may not be a significant factor when both fighters are wearing gloves, but without gloves it can be a game-changer!  A lot of boxers will go from punching range right into a tie up as they close in, then push off back into punching range again.  Wing Chun has a lot to teach boxing about that "intermediate" range before a tie up happens!  

Some Boxers do already have a sense of centerline structure and controlling the center, but not all. And when they do, it typically isn't as developed as it is in Wing Chun.   So this is also something Wing Chun can bring to the mix.


----------



## TMA17 (Oct 22, 2017)

Great points!


----------



## Martial D (Oct 22, 2017)

TMA17 said:


> I apologize in advance if this should have been included in an existing post.
> 
> A common question that comes up among the WC practitioners is how do we modify or improve it, while still maintaining its core principles.  Boxing is usually the most common comparison and art that is most often blended in with WC.
> 
> ...


More trapping range options. 

-In tight straight punches and different ways of getting angles for punching off the back foot.

 -In tight tie up options and options for getting untangled. 

-Options for when you get rushed and put on your back foot via shifting and trapping.

-In tight kicking and elbowing options.

-Options for power generation when you can't get any rotation.

-Sensitivity to balance and motion of the opponent that will sometimes allow you to use these options.


----------



## TMA17 (Oct 22, 2017)

These are all excellent points that I agree with even with my limited experience in WC.

The only thing that concerns me is there are so few real world videos/scenarios where I've seen WC work.  I'm not saying it doesn't or can't, I've just not seen it.  But this was addressed in other posts and the reasons why make sense.


----------



## Martial D (Oct 22, 2017)

TMA17 said:


> These are all excellent points that I agree with even with my limited experience in WC.
> 
> The only thing that concerns me is there are so few real world videos/scenarios where I've seen WC work.  I'm not saying it doesn't or can't, I've just not seen it.  But this was addressed in other posts and the reasons why make sense.



Well, that's because...

Well, imagine WC is like ketchup. Ketchup make your fries better, but you wouldn't want to eat a plate of just ketchup now would you?


----------



## drop bear (Oct 22, 2017)

Every time we mention chun concepts and boxing I seem to mention lomenchenko who xomes from an amateur boxing background. Which is very wing chun in concept. Sorta.


Anyhoo. Hand trapping.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 22, 2017)

TMA17 said:


>



He has taken the straight line off the bat.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 22, 2017)

Actually I might chi sau the next guy who fences out with their hand. That John jones style feeler hand.







Normally I just scissor punch their elbow. But it is always good to try something new.


----------



## Martial D (Oct 22, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Every time we mention chun concepts and boxing I seem to mention lomenchenko who xomes from an amateur boxing background. Which is very wing chun in concept. Sorta.
> 
> 
> Anyhoo. Hand trapping.


Indeed, Lomenchenco is a good example of some the concepts found in Wing Chun being put to practice.

He probably didn't get it from Wing Chun, but if it works it works.


----------



## wckf92 (Oct 23, 2017)

That Lomachenko dude would fit right in at a Duncan kwoon. That "hand trap" is fairly common in that camp...
Thx for posting


----------



## jobo (Oct 23, 2017)

TMA17 said:


> I apologize in advance if this should have been included in an existing post.
> 
> A common question that comes up among the WC practitioners is how do we modify or improve it, while still maintaining its core principles.  Boxing is usually the most common comparison and art that is most often blended in with WC.
> 
> ...


boxing is effective as it combines simple techniques with fast fluid movements, , anything from wing Chun or any other art that interferes with its simplicity or speed or fluidity will take away from boxing. That's not to say you couldn't improve it for self defence, there are as you point out a number of under used weapons, that might come to your aid, elbow, knee ,head and foot strikes come to mind and the common boxing practise of holding might be a bad idea if your opponent can get you with a knee or an eye gauge or an ear bite, learning the missing parts of kick boxing might be a much better idea, than trying to take elements of wing chun that can only really hamper the target of hurting the other guy quickly and  efficiently


----------



## drop bear (Oct 23, 2017)

jobo said:


> boxing is effective as it combines simple techniques with fast fluid movements, , anything from wing Chun or any other art that interferes with its simplicity or speed or fluidity will take away from boxing. That's not to say you couldn't improve it for self defence, there are as you point out a number of under used weapons, that might come to your aid, elbow, knee ,head and foot strikes come to mind and the common boxing practise of holding might be a bad idea if your opponent can get you with a knee or an eye gauge or an ear bite, learning the missing parts of kick boxing might be a much better idea, than trying to take elements of wing chun that can only really hamper the target of hurting the other guy quickly and  efficiently



For self defence the chi sau  stuff is pretty good. Because while you are both smack talking you can be hand trapping. So he sticks a finger in your face, you push it to one side, he tries to get it back.


----------



## TMA17 (Oct 23, 2017)

LOL right.


----------



## TMA17 (Oct 24, 2017)

I think I’m finally at peace with what WC is and don’t need to compare it to boxing.  It is what it is and it’s really not something designed for a ring environment.  Certain principles and attributes from WC can certainly be incorporated into boxing, and likewise, but WC is a different striking art approach.  And it’s a good one at that.  I “think” I’m done comparing them now. LOL.  I got it out of my system.....until tomorrow.  J/k


----------



## DanT (Oct 24, 2017)

Martial D said:


> Well, that's because...
> 
> Well, imagine WC is like ketchup. Ketchup make your fries better, but you wouldn't want to eat a plate of just ketchup now would you?


I would consider Wing Chun more of a Gourmet meal myself.


----------



## DanT (Oct 24, 2017)

jobo said:


> boxing is effective as it combines simple techniques with fast fluid movements, , anything from wing Chun or any other art that interferes with its simplicity or speed or fluidity will take away from boxing. That's not to say you couldn't improve it for self defence, there are as you point out a number of under used weapons, that might come to your aid, elbow, knee ,head and foot strikes come to mind and the common boxing practise of holding might be a bad idea if your opponent can get you with a knee or an eye gauge or an ear bite, learning the missing parts of kick boxing might be a much better idea, than trying to take elements of wing chun that can only really hamper the target of hurting the other guy quickly and  efficiently


While I agree that you probably shouldn't just mix the two, you do realize that Wing Chun also is based off of fluid and simple motions right?


----------



## jobo (Oct 24, 2017)

DanT said:


> While I agree that you probably shouldn't just mix the two, you do realize that Wing Chun also is based off of fluid and simple motions right?


i wouldn't describe them as fluid, there are short and,sharp and,a lot of standing there waiting with your arms out, which is no motion at all and the motions are not at all compatable with boxing


----------



## DanT (Oct 24, 2017)

jobo said:


> i wouldn't describe them as fluid, there are short and,sharp and,a lot of standing there waiting with your arms out, which is no motion at all and the motions are not at all compatable with boxing


That's called "**** Wing Chun". The idea that in Wing Chun you stand still like a Ip Man statue is propogated by students of Ip man who trained for maybe 2 years before opening up they're own school.


----------



## TMA17 (Oct 24, 2017)

You can tell quality WC from poor WC. It can be fluid.  I used to think that but realized I was wrong.


----------



## Martial D (Oct 24, 2017)

DanT said:


> I would consider Wing Chun more of a Gourmet meal myself.


I guess that depends on context. In the context of effectiveness in fighting and sparring, there might be a few courses missing.


----------



## jobo (Oct 24, 2017)

DanT said:


> That's called "**** Wing Chun". The idea that in Wing Chun you stand still like a Ip Man statue is propogated by students of Ip man who trained for maybe 2 years before opening up they're own school.


i thought there was only one wing Chun? I'm aware that some styles have integrated boxing moves, abd that seems like,a wise thing, i think they call it wing Chun boxing, but integrating wing chun movies in to boxing would be like integrating  a,spectrum 64 with an iPad, it can only make it worse


----------



## Martial D (Oct 24, 2017)

jobo said:


> i thought there was only one wing Chun? I'm aware that some styles have integrated boxing moves, abd that seems like,a wise thing, i thing they call it wing Chun boxing, but integrating wing chun movies in to boxing would be like integrating  a,spectrum 64 with an iPad, it can only make it worse


How many years have you trained in Wing Chun?


----------



## jobo (Oct 24, 2017)

Martial D said:


> How many years have you trained in Wing Chun?


about as many as i have,using a spectrum 64, that doesn't mean my views on the usefulness of either are compromised.

they were both ok in the distant past,


----------



## Martial D (Oct 24, 2017)

jobo said:


> about as many as i have,using a spectrum 64, that doesn't mean my views on the usefulness of either are compromised.
> 
> they were both ok in the distant past,


So none then.

Do you think the views of someone that has never trained in a style should been seen as comprehensive?

Also, what do you think of JKD?


----------



## jobo (Oct 24, 2017)

Martial D said:


> So none then.
> 
> Do you think the views of someone that has never trained in a style should been seen as comprehensive?
> 
> Also, what do you think of JKD?


i don't consider my view as comprehensive, merely definitive

so go on then which wing Chun move would greatly enhance boxing?


----------



## Martial D (Oct 24, 2017)

Definitive? With 0 experience?

Ok then.

And I already answered that question earlier in the thread.


----------



## Martial D (Oct 24, 2017)

jobo said:


> i don't consider my view as comprehensive, merely definitive
> 
> so go on then which wing Chun move would greatly enhance boxing?


Ok let me put it a different way. You do realize that boxing is actually older than WC I assume.

So with that said, how do you think someone would fare in today's ring using the skillset of say, John l Sullivan?


----------



## jobo (Oct 24, 2017)

Martial D said:


> Definitive? With 0 experience?
> 
> Ok then.
> 
> And I already answered that question earlier in the thread.


well who's view should count with me more than my own, i don't need to waste some years of my life to come to the exactly same conclusion as i have now.

there are a considerable number of things I've come to the quite reasonable conclusion to avoid, with out having tried them out, these range from eating dog poo to borrowing of a loan shark, wing Chun is in the middle some where


----------



## jobo (Oct 24, 2017)

Martial D said:


> Ok let me put it a different way. You do realize that boxing is actually older than WC I assume.
> 
> So with that said, how do you think someone would fare in today's ring using the skillset of say, John l Sullivan?


well yes, boxing has evolved through competing, if it doesn't work to well it gets dropped, if it does it get adapted by others.

that's the very reason that boxing and mma are superior, and wing Chun is not


----------



## geezer (Oct 24, 2017)

jobo said:


> i don't consider my view as comprehensive, merely definitive
> 
> so go on then which wing Chun move would greatly enhance boxing?



I don't think any Wing Chun move would necessarily enhance boxing as a sport. But there is a lot within WC that addresses areas deficient in boxing as self defense. Close, low kicks, grabbing, trapping and controlling ...that sport boxing can't use because of gloves, and so on.

The problem is, I believe _other_ arts found within the MMA spectrum address some of these issues in a way that would be easier to assimilate into boxing than Wing Chun. So I wouldn't try marketing WC to a boxer as a way of improving their self-defense skills either.

Ultimately, I thing WC is_ it's own thing_. And for all Jobo's tactless, in-your-face, killer clown comments... well, as usual, he_ does_ have a point. WC is probably in more need of adapting to the modern world than boxing. This is why I'm interested in and supportive of the efforts of people like Alan Orr and our own KPM.


----------



## geezer (Oct 24, 2017)

jobo said:


> ...they were both ok in the distant past,



Tactless, but somewhat true. Not only of WC ...but of me personally! Oh well, as they say, getting older is not for the faint of heart.


----------



## Martial D (Oct 24, 2017)

jobo said:


> well who's view should count with me more than my own, i don't need to waste some years of my life to come to the exactly same conclusion as i have now.
> 
> there are a considerable number of things I've come to the quite reasonable conclusion to avoid, with out having tried them out, these range from eating dog poo to borrowing of a loan shark, wing Chun is in the middle some where



Well you are entitled to your opinion, even if it is admittedly completely uninformed.  I have a ton of experience and training in both of these things, so you'll excuse me if I don't put too much weight on what you have to say on this matter.


----------



## jobo (Oct 24, 2017)

Martial D said:


> Well you are entitled to your opinion, even if it is admittedly completely uninformed.  I have a ton of experience and training in both of these things, so you'll excuse me if I don't put too much weight on what you have to say on this matter.


you might have a point except that nothing you have said about incorporating wing Chun moves into boxing disagree with my view, so there we are, you have x years experiance and i don't, but we came to the same conclusion  .
i do have kung fu experience, not fortunately the wing Chun variety, go image if i had wasted two years of my life on that, id be very bitter


----------



## Martial D (Oct 24, 2017)

Also, you didn't answer my question about JKD.

Is it also ****? It heavily mixes boxing and wc


----------



## Martial D (Oct 24, 2017)

jobo said:


> you might have a point except that nothing you have said about incorporating wing Chun moves into boxing disagree with my view, so there we are, you have x years experiance and i don't, but we came to the same conclusion  .
> i do have kung fu experience, not fortunately the wing Chun variety, go image if i had wasted two years of my life on that, id be very bitter


Again, I already gave a LIST of WC elements I personally incorporate. Where we might agree is that WC in it's current state is insufficient as a stand alone art for fighting


----------



## jobo (Oct 24, 2017)

Martial D said:


> Also, you didn't answer my question about JKD.
> 
> Is it also ****? It heavily mixes boxing and wc


i have no views on jkd, i think lau gar is pretty good though


----------



## DanT (Oct 24, 2017)

Martial D said:


> I guess that depends on context. In the context of effectiveness in fighting and sparring, there might be a few courses missing.


Such as?


----------



## KPM (Oct 24, 2017)

jobo said:


> well who's view should count with me more than my own, i don't need to waste some years of my life to come to the exactly same conclusion as i have now.
> 
> there are a considerable number of things I've come to the quite reasonable conclusion to avoid, with out having tried them out, these range from eating dog poo to borrowing of a loan shark, wing Chun is in the middle some where



My!  What an open mind you have Jobo the clown!


----------



## KPM (Oct 24, 2017)

jobo said:


> i have no views on jkd, i think lau gar is pretty good though



Well, if you want an example of one possibility of mixing boxing and Wing Chun, JKD is it!  Just as Martial D suggested!


----------



## Martial D (Oct 24, 2017)

DanT said:


> Such as?


Head movement, footwork, long range game, grappling, diversity of punches and angles, slipping, bobbing, weaving, and a realistic guard, just off the top of my head.


----------



## TMA17 (Oct 24, 2017)

I’ve changed my tune on this. Granted, I am not an WC expert by any means.  Just started.  

1. WC is fine as is for what it is.

2. To make it better for MMA and sport, yes it has to be modified.


----------



## TMA17 (Oct 24, 2017)

Forms / katas are just the same as shadow boxing.  Same thing. Forms serve a purpose.  When you are in a fight it will not look like a form all the time but it has added value.  Seem Adam Chan’s videos on this they are good.

Adam Chan - Are forms useless?


----------



## DanT (Oct 24, 2017)

Martial D said:


> Head movement, footwork, long range game, grappling, diversity of punches and angles, slipping, bobbing, weaving, and a realistic guard, just off the top of my head.


Head movement? Wing Chun has it.
Footwork? Wing Chun has it.
Long range game? Wing Chun has it.
Grappling? Wing Chun has it.
Diversity of punches? Wing Chun has it.
Slipping, bobbing, weaving? Wing Chun has it.
Realistic guard? Wing Chun has it.

If your Wing Chun is lacking these things then either:

Your Sifu never learned it and so your Wing Chun is missing parts.

Or 

You never learned it and so your Wing Chun is missing parts.


----------



## Martial D (Oct 24, 2017)

DanT said:


> Head movement? Wing Chun has it.
> Footwork? Wing Chun has it.
> Long range game? Wing Chun has it.
> Grappling? Wing Chun has it.
> ...


Head movement?  very hard to do effectively off the back foot.

Footwork? yes..WC HAS footwork, but it's not conducive to alive fighting. At least not outside of trapping range.

Long range game?  By this I mean the ability to finish fights at range rather than trying to bridge to where you can.

Grappling? Please. WC isn't a grappling art. Go roll with a juijiitsu man or a wrestler and tell me how that goes.

Diversity of punches?  Are you really claiming WC measures up to boxing in this regard? Cmon now.

Slipping/bobbing/weaving? To do these things completely breaks your mother line and structure, and require a weight forward posture.

Realistic guard? Center guard requires an unrealistic ability to react to the opponent before they can score. Hands held center is simply bad strategy.


----------



## TMA17 (Oct 24, 2017)

Good points.  Here is my .02.  

Head movement? very hard to do effectively off the back foot.

I think some WC splits weight 50/50 but I agree there seems to be little to no head movement in WC. 

Footwork? yes..WC HAS footwork, but it's not conducive to alive fighting. At least not outside of trapping range.

You may be right, but my Sifu is quick straight forward/left/right.  Boxers are lighter on their feet for sure.  (some not all)

Long range game? By this I mean the ability to finish fights at range rather than trying to bridge to where you can.

True, you have to get in close with WC.  A friend of mine that has studied multiple arts (10 years in Southern Mantis to BJJ/MT) is going to show me some of their punches which I believe are better for longer range.  Long range favors boxers.  

Grappling? Please. WC isn't a grappling art. Go roll with a juijiitsu man or a wrestler and tell me how that goes.

I have not heard of any WC grappling other than their stance being rooted, along with kicking/knees can help (not stop) being taken down.

Diversity of punches? Are you really claiming WC measures up to boxing in this regard? Cmon now.

WC definitely has limited punches.  It does offer elbow strikes.  But I agree.

Slipping/bobbing/weaving? To do these things completely breaks your mother line and structure, and require a weight forward posture.

Definitely more of an upright, rigid stance. 

Realistic guard? Center guard requires an unrealistic ability to react to the opponent before they can score. Hands held center is simply bad strategy.

I don't know.  Again though, in boxing you have gloves on and can take hits.  In a street fight you need to often strike first.  Palm strikes and elbows are better than breaking your fist.


----------



## Martial D (Oct 24, 2017)

TMA17 said:


> I don't know.  Again though, in boxing you have gloves on and can take hits.  In a street fight you need to often strike first.  Palm strikes and elbows are better than breaking your fist.



I'm not referring to taking hits or types of strikes, but where you keep your hands. If you keep them up so your covered, the area you can be hit is a lot smaller. Without even moving you will stop a lot of shots with your arms. With WC center guard, you need to move your hands and arms to meet strikes. Their default position doesn't stop any inbound traffic.


----------



## Danny T (Oct 24, 2017)

Martial D said:


> Head movement, footwork, long range game, grappling, diversity of punches and angles, slipping, bobbing, weaving, and a realistic guard, just off the top of my head.


I can agree that most of what I have seen has little head movement. We do more body movement than just the head but have some...at least in the wc I train. In the outside game we are freer with our footwork to move about but do tend to lock down in closer. Ground work very little but standing grappling a lot...again in the wc I've been exposed to. Diversity of punches and angle. 
Let's see; we have 
fisted punches: straight, hook, uppercut, hammer 
palm: straight, side, down, up
forearm: outside of the arm, inside of the arm.
elbow strikes: Horizontal forward & backward, Diagonal up & down, Vertical up & down, spinning
shoulder butts: Dropping downward, driving upward,
Head butts: driving upward
We do a lot of angling. Well in the wc I do we do a lot of angling. 

Slipping /bobbing/weaving - yeah not very much...well not in the same manner as what is seen in boxing. Slipping we do as a part of the angling I was talking about but again not in the same manner as boxing does.

Realistic guard: realistic in relation to boxing...no. Realistic in relation to wc...yes. Unfortunately many never transition from the learning, drilling phase to full fighting phase. I would even go so far as to say the Mon Sao/Wu Sao position isn't a guard though a lot of wc people use it as a guard.


----------



## Martial D (Oct 24, 2017)

Danny T said:


> I can agree that most of what I have seen has little head movement. We do more body movement than just the head but have some...at least in the wc I train. In the outside game we are freer with our footwork to move about but do tend to lock down in closer. Ground work very little but standing grappling a lot...again in the wc I've been exposed to. Diversity of punches and angle.
> Let's see; we have
> fisted punches: straight, hook, uppercut, hammer
> palm: straight, side, down, up
> ...


I've never seen hooks used in WC, and the 'uppercut' from the second form is more of a bola punch, but other than that I agree that WC offers a lot of in tight _striking_ options, even moreso than boxing. But I said _punching_, which most of the strikes you named are not.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 24, 2017)

TMA17 said:


> 1. WC is fine as is for what it is.


- WC has "protect center from inside out".
- Boxing has "protect center from outside in".


----------



## KPM (Oct 24, 2017)

DanT said:


> Head movement? Wing Chun has it.
> Footwork? Wing Chun has it.
> Long range game? Wing Chun has it.
> Grappling? Wing Chun has it.
> ...



I'm sorry Dan.  But it sounds like someone in your lineage has already added some boxing for good effect!  Because "classic" Wing Chun does not have most of what you just listed.  I'm quite certain neither Ip Man or any of his direct students did any slipping, bobbing,  weaving or grappling.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 24, 2017)

KPM said:


> I'm sorry Dan.  But it sounds like someone in your lineage has already added some boxing for good effect!  Because "classic" Wing Chun does not have most of what you just listed.  I'm quite certain neither Ip Man or any of his direct students did any slipping, bobbing,  weaving or grappling.


In many discussion, people may say that "My style also have ...". When you dig into all the forms that system have, you can't find it. People may say, "It's not in the form, it doesn't mean it's not there." If something is so important in your style, why the forms creator did not include it?

One day a Taiji guy even said that his Taiji system had

- TKD "flying side kick",
- MT "flying knee",
- Judo "hip throw",
- wrestling "single leg".
- ...

Is that possible? I don't think so.


----------



## DanT (Oct 24, 2017)

Martial D said:


> Head movement?  very hard to do effectively off the back foot.
> 
> Footwork? yes..WC HAS footwork, but it's not conducive to alive fighting. At least not outside of trapping range.
> 
> ...


There is no limitation to footwork in Wing Chun. The only rule I have is: no bouncing, no crossing legs. All footwork in boxing or kickboxing is found in Wing Chun if you're taught properly.

No long range game? 
-Front kick
-side Kick
-round Kick
-hook kick
-straight left
-straight right
-Chan Jeong
-backfist
-chop

These are all long range techniques that can be fight finishers.

Wing Chun punches can be delivered from any position in front of the body. You can throw them from your centre line or from your shoulder line, or any where in between. From any of these starting positions, they can land anywhere. This allows for punching diversity.

Wing Chun grappling is for a different purpose than Jiu Jitsu. In Wing Chun we learn how to escape and get to better positions, and get off the ground.

Slipping, bobbing, and weaving are all part of the Wing Chun I learned.


----------



## DanT (Oct 24, 2017)

KPM said:


> I'm sorry Dan.  But it sounds like someone in your lineage has already added some boxing for good effect!  Because "classic" Wing Chun does not have most of what you just listed.  I'm quite certain neither Ip Man or any of his direct students did any slipping, bobbing,  weaving or grappling.


I can assure you no boxing was added. What happened is that each generation went out and fought, and the result is what it is. The Wing Chun mechanic and system is maintained. When you have a choy lee fut guy swinging his arm at your head in a beimo fight, you learn to duck.


----------



## DanT (Oct 24, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> In many discussion, people may say that "My style also have ...". When you dig into all the forms that system have, you can't find it. People may say, "It's not in the form, it doesn't mean it's not there." If something is so important in your style, why the forms creator did not include it?
> 
> One day a Taiji guy even said that his Taiji system had
> 
> ...


Because the system isn't limited to its forms.


----------



## Martial D (Oct 24, 2017)

DanT said:


> There is no limitation to footwork in Wing Chun. The only rule I have is: no bouncing, no crossing legs. All footwork in boxing or kickboxing is found in Wing Chun if you're taught properly.
> 
> No long range game?
> -Front kick
> ...



Hmm. And the Wing Chun you were taught probably makes you a foot taller and can deliver the cure for cancer too I'm sure. My mistake.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 24, 2017)

DanT said:


> There is no limitation to footwork in Wing Chun. The only rule I have is: no bouncing, no crossing legs. All footwork in boxing or kickboxing is found in Wing Chun if you're taught properly.
> 
> No long range game?
> -Front kick
> ...


Jujitsu has escapes and stand ups. By the way.


----------



## Danny T (Oct 24, 2017)

Martial D said:


> I've never seen hooks used in WC,


Ok. 
Keep studying there are hooks.



Martial D said:


> the 'uppercut' from the second form is more of a bola punch,


 As presented in form. Doesn't mean one has to drop the hand creating a large looping punch.



Martial D said:


> But I said _punching_, which most of the strikes you named are not.


I did name off more than just punches. The thing about wc or the wc I've been exposed to is most every punch can be more than a punch. But looking just punches we have:
straight, hook, uppercut, hammer.
Boxing has:
Jab (lead straight)
Rear Straight
Hook
Upper cut
Overhand


----------



## DanT (Oct 24, 2017)

Martial D said:


> Hmm. And the Wing Chun you were taught probably makes you a foot taller and can deliver the cure for cancer too I'm sure. My mistake.


I wish. Not sure with how those help in terms of fighting though.


----------



## DanT (Oct 24, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Jujitsu has escapes and stand ups. By the way.


Of course! I love jujitsu, I would go so far to say that it's concepts of pressure and control make it more similar to Wing Chun than any stand up style.


----------



## Danny T (Oct 24, 2017)

DanT said:


> Because the system isn't limited to its forms.


Agreed!!


----------



## drop bear (Oct 24, 2017)

DanT said:


> Of course! I love jujitsu, I would go so far to say that it's concepts of pressure and control make it more similar to Wing Chun than any stand up style.



Pressure and control is a meta concept. I have seen pressure fighters from different styles.

Chun seems to think everyone can be a mug style fighter all the time. I personally think people are shooting themselves in the foot.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 24, 2017)

DanT said:


> Because the system isn't limited to its forms.


Can this statement apply to all MA systems?


----------



## DanT (Oct 24, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Can this statement apply to all MA systems?


I don't know. I only know in terms of what I have learned and my experiences. In the systems I have studied, yes.


----------



## DanT (Oct 24, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Pressure and control is a meta concept. I have seen pressure fighters from different styles.
> 
> Chun seems to think everyone can be a mug style fighter all the time. I personally think people are shooting themselves in the foot.


I hate that line of thinking too.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 24, 2017)

DanT said:


> I don't know. I only know in terms of what I have learned and my experiences. In the systems I have studied, yes.


I have cross trained all the following CMA systems. As far as I know,

- long fist doesn't have flying knee.
- Preying mantis doesn't have flying side kick.
- Baji does have hay-maker.
- Zimen doesn't have roundhouse kick.
- White ape doesn't have hip throw.
- Taiji doesn't have side kick.
- XingYi doesn't have leg twist.
- Bagua doesn't have ...

Is WC the only CMA system that's "complete"?


----------



## Danny T (Oct 24, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Can this statement apply to all MA systems?


Don't know about all MA systems...I don't have experience in most (after all there are 100s of martial systems) however, of the systems I have a lot of experience with the statement "the system isn't limited to its forms" is correct.


----------



## Danny T (Oct 24, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> As far as I know,
> 
> - long fist doesn't have flying knee.
> - Preying mantis doesn't have flying side kick.
> ...


The statement "the system isn't limited to its forms" does not mean anything or everything is in the system. Every system is limited just as every person is limited. I don't believe any one system is 'complete'.


----------



## DanT (Oct 24, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I have cross trained all the following CMA systems. As far as I know,
> 
> - long fist doesn't have flying knee.
> - Preying mantis doesn't have flying side kick.
> ...


I'm not sure about the other ones, but since I know Tai Chi and Longfist, I can say with certainty that: Tai Chi has a side kick, and Longfist has a flying knee.


----------



## Martial D (Oct 24, 2017)

DanT said:


> I wish. Not sure with how those help in terms of fighting though.


In terms of fighting...

I don't see anyone winning fights using pure wing chun. Maybe yours, since it seems to incorporate every style and strike ever invented, but certainly not the kind that is recognizable as wing chun.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 25, 2017)

DanT said:


> I'm not sure about the other ones, but since I know Tai Chi and Longfist, I can say with certainty that: Tai Chi has a side kick, and Longfist has a flying knee.


Do you have any clip to prove it?


----------



## KPM (Oct 25, 2017)

DanT said:


> I can assure you no boxing was added. What happened is that each generation went out and fought, and the result is what it is. The Wing Chun mechanic and system is maintained. When you have a choy lee fut guy swinging his arm at your head in a beimo fight, you learn to duck.



Each generation went out and fought and found that certain boxing elements helped them win.  These elements were incorporated.  In our modern culture boxing has been part of the "consciousness" for  several generations.  I can assure you that you wouldn't have seen the same evolution of your Wing Chun lineage had it been isolated to central China with no exposure to western culture regardless of how much they were fighting with it.  If nothing else, sparring or fighting against opponents using some form of western boxing is going to lead to defenses and movement that resembles western boxing.  There is no discounting the influence of western boxing when you start talking about your system having bobbing and weaving and slipping and such. I think we have been seeing an evolution towards a "Wing Chun  boxing" to some degree or another for awhile now, whether people recognize and acknowledge it or not. Because, as I said before, it is highly unlikely that Ip Man was doing those things!


----------



## TMA17 (Oct 25, 2017)

Martial D said:


> In terms of fighting...
> 
> I don't see anyone winning fights using pure wing chun. Maybe yours, since it seems to incorporate every style and strike ever invented, but certainly not the kind that is recognizable as wing chun.



I think it depends again on environment. If I’m out say at a store and someone starts with me and gets in my face, pure WC could absolutely help you win a fight.  In a boxing ring, no.


----------



## TMA17 (Oct 25, 2017)




----------



## Martial D (Oct 25, 2017)

TMA17 said:


> I think it depends again on environment. If I’m out say at a store and someone starts with me and gets in my face, pure WC could absolutely help you win a fight.  In a boxing ring, no.


Wing Chun has helped me win all of my fights(aside from the ones I've lost!) mostly because I know when it is and isn't applicable.


----------



## TMA17 (Oct 25, 2017)

I just think context is key.  I think everyone would agree on that.  To make WC sport combat suitable it has to be somewhat modified IMO.  I don’t have enough experience with it to say for sure, but from what I’ve seen across the board really seems to suggest that.

Which is why I now realize how silly the argument or debate is about WC vs MMA/UFC or boxing really is. 

If I’m at Target in an aisle WC would serve me well. LOL  If I’m in an octagon, starting from outside of WC’s range, of course it will struggle to be effective.  If I’m on the street I will do everything I can to avoid a fight.


----------



## Martial D (Oct 25, 2017)

There really isn't THAT big a difference between a cage fight and a street fight, the fundamentals are basically the same. Yes, a cage fight has rules and a street fight doesn't, but if your fundamentals are good the added elements of eye pokes and groin kicks(the two main things disallowed in a cage) should work for you and not against you.

The rest boils down to an awareness of your surroundings that good training should cultivate anyhow.


----------



## Danny T (Oct 25, 2017)

I think it comes down to the adaptability of the individual.
Empty hand fighting is empty hand fighting, punching is punching, kicking is kicking...etc.
If one trains and practices vs straight line punching only when confronted with curved or looping punches you will either adapt in some manner or get struck.
The training system is a method to learn don't be a slave to the system. Adaptability is key.


----------



## DanT (Oct 25, 2017)

I agree with Danny T. Adaptability is key. You have to be dynamic when you fight. If you're just some passive pussy with a man wu Sau pretending to be an Ip man statue, of course you're gonna get rocked. Development in Wing Chun is different from application.


----------



## TMA17 (Oct 25, 2017)

^ right lol


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 25, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Can this statement apply to all MA systems?


Yes


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 25, 2017)

Danny T said:


> The statement "the system isn't limited to its forms" does not mean anything or everything is in the system. Every system is limited just as every person is limited. I don't believe any one system is 'complete'.


In my experience, the system isn’t the techniques.  Rather, it is a  way to approach the training and the application, regardless of the technique.  Some techniques become primary in a system mainly because they embody and illustrate that approach especially well.

Once you understand that, you can pick up a technique from elsewhere and it will have a place within your system, as long as your approach to training and applying it is consistent.


----------



## DanT (Oct 25, 2017)

TMA17 said:


> I just think context is key.  I think everyone would agree on that.  To make WC sport combat suitable it has to be somewhat modified IMO.  I don’t have enough experience with it to say for sure, but from what I’ve seen across the board really seems to suggest that.
> 
> Which is why I now realize how silly the argument or debate is about WC vs MMA/UFC or boxing really is.
> 
> If I’m at Target in an aisle WC would serve me well. LOL  If I’m in an octagon, starting from outside of WC’s range, of course it will struggle to be effective.  If I’m on the street I will do everything I can to avoid a fight.


The techniques don't have to be modified that much, it's the training methods that most schools employ that need to be change. If you want to fight full contact then you're daily routine would be:

30 min heavy bag
1 h technique training
1 h partner training including Chi Sao
1 h sparring
1 h pad work
30 min workout

6 days a week

Compare this to most Wing Chun schools:

15 minute warm up
15 minute forms
15 minute partner drills
15 minute Chi Sao

2 days a week

Is it that complicated to see that most Wing Chun people are out of their league in professional fighting?


----------



## Danny T (Oct 25, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> In my experience, the system isn’t the techniques.  Rather, it is a  way to approach the training and the application, regardless of the technique.  Some techniques become primary in a system mainly because they embody and illustrate that approach especially well.
> 
> Once you understand that, you can pick up a technique from elsewhere and it will have a place within your system, as long as your approach to training and applying it is consistent.


I agree...and my experience is the same. However, I don't have experience in all things martial art, hence "of the systems I have a lot of experience with the statement "the system isn't limited to its forms" is correct."
There may be a or some system/s that are different. I just don't know.


----------



## DanT (Oct 25, 2017)

KPM said:


> Each generation went out and fought and found that certain boxing elements helped them win.  These elements were incorporated.  In our modern culture boxing has been part of the "consciousness" for  several generations.  I can assure you that you wouldn't have seen the same evolution of your Wing Chun lineage had it been isolated to central China with no exposure to western culture regardless of how much they were fighting with it.  If nothing else, sparring or fighting against opponents using some form of western boxing is going to lead to defenses and movement that resembles western boxing.  There is no discounting the influence of western boxing when you start talking about your system having bobbing and weaving and slipping and such. I think we have been seeing an evolution towards a "Wing Chun  boxing" to some degree or another for awhile now, whether people recognize and acknowledge it or not. Because, as I said before, it is highly unlikely that Ip Man was doing those things!


The ducking under hook punches and slipping to the outside of straights while applying pak Sao is a fundamental element of the actual application of Yip Man Wing Chun. Those who think that you just stand there with your head still like an open target are the ones who learned from people who never learned properly or who believe that development is the same as application.


----------



## DanT (Oct 25, 2017)

Martial D said:


> In terms of fighting...
> 
> I don't see anyone winning fights using pure wing chun. Maybe yours, since it seems to incorporate every style and strike ever invented, but certainly not the kind that is recognizable as wing chun.


----------



## TMA17 (Oct 25, 2017)

I was told any slipping or bobbing is not WC as it is not moving forward . Some degree of movement away from forms practice is of course required for real fighting but goal is to use least amount of energy and jam them up. ??


----------



## DanT (Oct 25, 2017)

TMA17 said:


> I was told any slipping or bobbing is not WC as it is not moving forward . Some degree of movement away from forms practice is of course required for real fighting but goal is to use least amount of energy and jam them up. ??


If you have a punch flying at your face how can you walk forward? You have to move your head slightly to the side while pinning the punching arm and stepping to the outside gate. You can move your head while moving forward / to the outside. You can't be a robot, you have to be dynamic. Once you learn to control your centre, you can move however the hell you want.


----------



## TMA17 (Oct 25, 2017)

That makes sense.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 25, 2017)

Danny T said:


> I agree...and my experience is the same. However, I don't have experience in all things martial art, hence "of the systems I have a lot of experience with the statement "the system isn't limited to its forms" is correct."
> There may be a or some system/s that are different. I just don't know.


I don’t disagree


----------



## drop bear (Oct 25, 2017)

DanT said:


> The techniques don't have to be modified that much, it's the training methods that most schools employ that need to be change. If you want to fight full contact then you're daily routine would be:
> 
> 30 min heavy bag
> 1 h technique training
> ...



Well the level of effort would have to even out before we could even look at what system is better.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 25, 2017)

TMA17 said:


> I was told any slipping or bobbing is not WC as it is not moving forward . Some degree of movement away from forms practice is of course required for real fighting but goal is to use least amount of energy and jam them up. ??



Head off line is important wing chun or not you should be using it.

You are not really there to be lawyer and try to bend your concepts to match reality.


----------



## Martial D (Oct 25, 2017)

DanT said:


>


Indeed. If the word Wing Chun wasn't in the titles nobody would recognise any of that(aside from moments of the third video) as Wing Chun. More like amateur kickboxing.


----------



## TMA17 (Oct 25, 2017)

I've been reading some articles and what I've found among different Sifus is that some think the system is fine as is and some think it needs to adapt - (Alan Orr etc.)

Interview with Sifu William Kwok - Wooden Dummy Shop


----------



## KPM (Oct 25, 2017)

DanT said:


> The ducking under hook punches and slipping to the outside of straights while applying pak Sao is a fundamental element of the actual application of Yip Man Wing Chun. Those who think that you just stand there with your head still like an open target are the ones who learned from people who never learned properly or who believe that development is the same as application.



Uh, no.  Dan I've been around Wing Chun since 1983.  Back when Geezer and I were young whipper-snappers and he was writing some articles for "Inside Kung Fu."     And I'm telling you from experience that that was NOT a "fundamental element of the actual application of Yip Man Wing Chun" back then, and that is not even true of many of the various lineages from Ip Man today.   I'm not sure where you are  getting your information, but you should consider it suspect.  Just like your statements on the other thread that you gave with such conviction about Ip Man being a student of Yuen Kay Shan.   Or your prior statements made with such conviction about every Wing Chun lineage saying Wing Chun started as one long form.  You need to dial back the "authoritative" statements and comments like "ones who learned from people who never learned properly" or you may soon join the ranks of the "dynamic duo" here in the annals of martialtalk!


----------



## Martial D (Oct 25, 2017)

KPM said:


> Uh, no.  Dan I've been around Wing Chun since 1983.  Back when Geezer and I were young whipper-snappers and he was writing some articles for "Inside Kung Fu."     And I'm telling you from experience that that was NOT a "fundamental element of the actual application of Yip Man Wing Chun" back then, and that is not even true of many of the various lineages from Ip Man today.   I'm not sure where you are  getting your information, but you should consider it suspect.  Just like your statements on the other thread that you gave with such conviction about Ip Man being a student of Yuen Kay Shan.   Or your prior statements made with such conviction about every Wing Chun lineage saying Wing Chun started as one long form.  You need to dial back the "authoritative" statements and comments like "ones who learned from people who never learned properly" or you may soon join the ranks of the "dynamic duo" here in the annals of martialtalk!


There is a school of thought (whatever happened to lfj anyway?) that anything and everything can be Wing Chun. Personally I don't get it, and certainly don't agree with it. If a style can't be recognised as such by those that have spent years training in it, one has to wonder why one is describing it as such.

If you see someone doing karate, BJJ, boxing, Mui Thai, tkd, any other style of Kung Fu, Arnis, even aikido in a fight..you can tell what it is just by looking at it. That's what makes them styles. But somehow, you can do anything and everything, and it's still Wing Chun.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 25, 2017)

TMA17 said:


> I've been reading some articles and what I've found among different Sifus is that some think the system is fine as is and some think it needs to adapt - (Alan Orr etc.)
> 
> Interview with Sifu William Kwok - Wooden Dummy Shop



You know if you said boxing or BJJ or MMA needed to adapt. They would look at you like you to just told them water was wet.

I am down in Melbourne at the moment and got some training in. And that was what their instructor said. It is just so important to continually introduce fresh ideas. That is why I do classes when I am away. So I can get that fresh perspective.


----------



## Martial D (Oct 25, 2017)

DanT said:


>


Upon watching those videos again, I have changed my mind. How could I not have realized the back mount/rear naked choke were pure wing chun? I guess it's been too many years since my formal wc training, I must have forgotten that part. My mistake. Yip Man was known for strangling the life out of people, shortly before he taught it to Helio Gracie.


----------



## DanT (Oct 25, 2017)

Martial D said:


> Indeed. If the word Wing Chun wasn't in the titles nobody would recognise any of that(aside from moments of the third video) as Wing Chun. More like amateur kickboxing.


I can recognize it as Wing Chun because it is Wing Chun. The positions, the use of power, the dropped shoulders, the low elbow power, the footwork, the momentum handeling, are all Wing Chun. This is real Wing Chun, sorry you never learned it.


----------



## Martial D (Oct 25, 2017)

DanT said:


> I can recognize it as Wing Chun because it is Wing Chun. The positions, the use of power, the dropped shoulders, the low elbow power, the footwork, the momentum handeling, are all Wing Chun. This is real Wing Chun, sorry you never learned it.


LOL


----------



## DanT (Oct 25, 2017)

Martial D said:


> Upon watching those videos again, I have changed my mind. How could I not have realized the back mount/rear naked choke were pure wing chun? I guess it's been too many years since my formal wc training, I must have forgotten that part. My mistake. Yip Man was known for strangling the life out of people, shortly before he taught it to Helio Gracie.


Their Stand Up game is pure Wing Chun, their ground fighting is BJJ.


----------



## Martial D (Oct 25, 2017)

DanT said:


> Their Stand Up game is pure Wing Chun, their ground fighting is BJJ.


Man, there is no undrinking the Kool aide you've been swillin'

Now excuse me I've got to go do some chin ups that I've decided are real pushups, and then go for a run that is actually a swim. Have a great night!


----------



## DanT (Oct 25, 2017)

KPM said:


> Uh, no.  Dan I've been around Wing Chun since 1983.  Back when Geezer and I were young whipper-snappers and he was writing some articles for "Inside Kung Fu."     And I'm telling you from experience that that was NOT a "fundamental element of the actual application of Yip Man Wing Chun" back then, and that is not even true of many of the various lineages from Ip Man today.   I'm not sure where you are  getting your information, but you should consider it suspect.  Just like your statements on the other thread that you gave with such conviction about Ip Man being a student of Yuen Kay Shan.   Or your prior statements made with such conviction about every Wing Chun lineage saying Wing Chun started as one long form.  You need to dial back the "authoritative" statements and comments like "ones who learned from people who never learned properly" or you may soon join the ranks of the "dynamic duo" here in the annals of martialtalk!


I'm not trying to be authoritative, all I can say is what I've experienced through the Wing Chun I learned (both Yip Man and Non Yip Man lineages. I can say however that head movement has its place in Wing Chun, and perhaps I'll make a video describing it some time in the future. In terms of the one long form I actually agree with what you said, which was that it could be that Yik Kam learned all three and just combined it into one long form.


----------



## DanT (Oct 25, 2017)

Martial D said:


> Man, there is no undrinking the Kool aide you've been swillin'
> 
> Now excuse me I've got to go do some chin ups that I've decided are real pushups, and then go for a run that is actually a swim. Have a great night!


Meh it's been fun, night.


----------



## DanT (Oct 25, 2017)

Martial D said:


> There is a school of thought (whatever happened to lfj anyway?) that anything and everything can be Wing Chun. Personally I don't get it, and certainly don't agree with it. If a style can't be recognised as such by those that have spent years training in it, one has to wonder why one is describing it as such.
> 
> If you see someone doing karate, BJJ, boxing, Mui Thai, tkd, any other style of Kung Fu, Arnis, even aikido in a fight..you can tell what it is just by looking at it. That's what makes them styles. But somehow, you can do anything and everything, and it's still Wing Chun.


I agree with you that it has to be recognizable. And I also don't think that everything is Wing Chun. Perhaps it's simply in the way I was taught, I don't know.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 26, 2017)

Martial D said:


> Upon watching those videos again, I have changed my mind. How could I not have realized the back mount/rear naked choke were pure wing chun? I guess it's been too many years since my formal wc training, I must have forgotten that part. My mistake. Yip Man was known for strangling the life out of people, shortly before he taught it to Helio Gracie.



On the plus side the next guy who wants to complain about me dissing wing chun without having ever really done it. I can tell him it is the same as MMA.


----------



## KPM (Oct 26, 2017)

DanT said:


> Their Stand Up game is pure Wing Chun, their ground fighting is BJJ.



Yeah, just like those clips of Sean Wood's students training for MMA were "pure WSLVT" according to LFJ.  You are really stepping up in LFJ's absence!


----------



## KPM (Oct 26, 2017)

*[I'm not trying to be authoritative, all I can say is what I've experienced through the Wing Chun I learned*

---Then that is how you should state it in discussions, don't assume it applies to all Wing Chun back to Ip Man.

*. I can say however that head movement has its place in Wing Chun,*

---No one has disputed that.  But what you said was that it was a fundamental part of Wing Chun that other people must have not been taught right if they didn't have it.  That sounds very much like someone else that comes here that has a rather unsavory reputation!  

*In terms of the one long form I actually agree with what you said, which was that it could be that Yik Kam learned all three and just combined it into one long form*.

---You only agreed after I pointed out the flaw in what you were saying at least three times.  But, to your credit, you did actually listen to reason!    But again, I will just caution that whoever is telling you these things lately....that your Wing Chun lineage represents all Wing Chun from Ip Man and no boxing elements have been added, that Ip Man was a student of Yuen Kay Shan, etc........ should be taken with just a bit of skepticism.


----------



## wingchun100 (Oct 26, 2017)

TMA17 said:


> Some things that come to mind when look at both styles:  Boxers are light on their feet.  WC uses the anchored stance.  WC seems to favor elbow strikes and blocks.  Boxing has more punches.  Center Line theory is not exclusive to WC IMO.  Boxing, arguably, has better long range and strikes from multiple angles.  WC, arguably, has advantages with blocking.  Boxing has advantages in overall movement.
> 
> I think a boxer can gain several things:  defend and attack simultaneously.  Better elbow strikes (being boxers don't use them lol), more direct striking, kicking and anchored stability when close range.



I have said it before, and I will say it again: IN MY OPINION, the rooted (or to use your word "anchored") stance is to be used only when you are in the range where Wing Chun is meant to be used. If we are a boxing ring's distance apart, I wouldn't stand there rooted. I would need to be mobile.

Now here are some other opinions I have, which I have never voiced before, but are to address other things you say.

*Wing Chun does not favor elbows. It does not favor ANY strike...because you can't. Imagine if I favor elbows, so that is predominantly what I train, and I suck at everything else. Well, then I will get creamed in a fight because elbows can be used only in EXTREMELY close range. If I am fighting a guy with arms as long as Brock Lesnar, I don't want to approach him by throwing elbows. I need to bridge the gap first.

*Wing Chun does not favor blocking either, at least not in any lineage I have seen or trained in. We favor HITTING.

*I do not agree that boxing has more punches, as there are many moves in Wing Chun that could be reinterpreted. For example, I think Bong Sao could very easily be converted into something that resembles an "overhand" punch. (If video is needed to explain, then I will gladly post.) I have also seen other techniques that could be viewed as hooks and uppercuts.

That is all for now.


----------



## TMA17 (Oct 26, 2017)

Great points.  From my only 2 months of WC I will say that I totally agree with you that I would never be in a rooted stance unless within WC range. I am all for mobility.  I’ve always liked boxers, like Ali, that move in unpredictable manner. It’s harder to strike someone where you can’t identify their pattern.

With WC I’m struggling most with the footwork and rooted stance.  Mostly bc of my boxing background.  I believe there is some value in all arts.  I see it in WC but have not been able to apply it yet.  It’s too new to me and it feels awkward although getting better.

Someone was nice enough to point out to me the value of “tsui ma” or “toy ma” in WC (horse push), which not all lineages have.  Moy Yat does which is where I’m going but that is in form 2.

I was just reading about Bruce Lee’s love for western boxing.  It makes sense why he incorporated more than one art into his style. 

I’m still debating with myself if WC is the art for me.  It’s something I have to invest time and money into to get good at it.  Basic boxing, which I already know, I’m already familiar with. 

I have 3 free trial classes at Mission MMA in my town to try Muay Thai.  That’s an option I may consider too.  More physically demanding but I like that there are kicks and elbow strikes in it.

Someone on here used the analogy of WC being a condiment and I can see why.  It can be complimentary to other arts.

Boxing is extremely effective and great it’s just a bit boring for me, which is what led me to WC.


----------



## wingchun100 (Oct 26, 2017)

TMA17 said:


> Great points.  From my only 2 months of WC I will say that I totally agree with you that I would never be in a rooted stance unless within WC range. I am all for mobility.  I’ve always liked boxers, like Ali, that move in unpredictable manner. It’s harder to strike someone where you can’t identify their pattern.
> 
> With WC I’m struggling most with the footwork and rooted stance.  Mostly bc of my boxing background.  I believe there is some value in all arts.  I see it in WC but have not been able to apply it yet.  It’s too new to me and it feels awkward although getting better.
> 
> ...



If you try that out, let me know what you think. I imagine Muay Thai would be the best art with a "long range game" to blend with WC, much in the same way I think Judo/BJJ is the best grappling art to fit with it.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 26, 2017)

DanT said:


> Because the system isn't limited to its forms.


Again, the most important principles should be included in the forms so the beginner can train it during the early training stage. Your system can also be defined as a set of "drills". As long as such drills exist, your system has it. Otherwise, your system doesn't have it.

For example, I can say that "outer twist" exists in SC because I have training for both

- solo drill, and
- partner drill.

This way, students don't have to wonder where certain principle may be hidden.


----------



## Callen (Oct 26, 2017)

TMA17 said:


> Someone on here used the analogy of WC being a condiment and I can see why. It can be complimentary to other arts.


The type of Wing Chun that you are exposed to could be quite different than others’ experiences and understanding of the system. Other people’s opinions on using Wing Chun as a “condiment” should be taken with a grain of salt. It is a concept based system, powered by the individual’s understanding of how it truly works. In my opinion, it is important that you reach your conclusions based on your own personal investigations, discoveries and purpose for training.

Best of luck to you on your journey!


----------



## Martial D (Oct 26, 2017)

Callen said:


> The type of Wing Chun that you are exposed to could be quite different than others’ experiences and understanding of the system. Other people’s opinions on using Wing Chun as a “condiment” should be taken with a grain of salt. It is a concept based system, powered by the individual’s understanding of how it truly works. In my opinion, it is important that you reach your conclusions based on your own personal investigations, discoveries and purpose for training.
> 
> Best of luck to you on your journey!



I actually was once in the other camp. I used to be a feirce supporter of WC as a complete system. I lived and breathed it. If I wasn't in school I was practicing. Then if I wasn't at work I was practicing. 

When I moved away and couldn't find any WC in my new city I joined a gym that taught BJJ 2 times a week, Arnis 2 times a week, and MT 2 times a week. (MMA was not yet coined as a term, this was in 94 or 95…)

I could only afford 2, and I'd already learned a bit of Arnis from my WC sifu and wasn't really interested in stick fighting, so I went with the other two. I'd heard of BJJ from watching UFC and messing around with the old Gracie instructional video tapes, so that was pretty cool,and I also felt my WC antigrappling could stop BJJ and I wanted to test it. My exposure to MT was limited pretty much to Hollywood. I had no idea what I was getting into there.

So anyway, first night at BJJ, totally murked by everyone. What an eye opener! 

First night at MT. Learned a lot, but I also talked up my WC a lot which lead to some after session sparring. Holy f#ck man, I got HUMBLED. That's really the only way to put it. I noticed my boxing I learned from my dad coming out under pressure instead of my WC, but not enough to save me.

Anyhow, I never did abandon my WC. I still consider it my base art, I just think it's more effective to mix it than not to.

And in essence, DanT and I don't seem too far off from each other, it's almost just semantics. He shows a video of mixed skills fighting, which is also what I'm into. He just chooses to call his wc, while I say WC is a tool for fighting rather than fighting itself.


----------



## jobo (Oct 26, 2017)

wingchun100 said:


> I have said it before, and I will say it again: IN MY OPINION, the rooted (or to use your word "anchored") stance is to be used only when you are in the range where Wing Chun is meant to be used. If we are a boxing ring's distance apart, I wouldn't stand there rooted. I would need to be mobile.
> 
> Now here are some other opinions I have, which I have never voiced before, but are to address other things you say.
> 
> ...


that really where i find wing Chun hard to fathom,? If you are at a distance you can be a rooted as you like, it doesn't matter they cant hit you, when they come close, THEN you need to be up on your toes and moving.

that's the very opposite of wing Chun, where,,, when at a distance move around, when they are close enough to hit you, stand there like a Taylors dummy, whilst they punch you, it defies logic, and is a close copy of how drunks tend to fight


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 26, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Again, the most important principles should be included in the forms so the beginner can train it during the early training stage. Your system can also be defined as a set of "drills". As long as such drills exist, your system has it. Otherwise, your system doesn't have it.
> 
> For example, I can say that "outer twist" exists in SC because I have training for both
> 
> ...


I think one is treading on dangerous turf if one tries to tell others what is or is not in their system.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 26, 2017)

Martial D said:


> I noticed my boxing I learned from my dad coming out under pressure instead of my WC, ...


If you have ever fought golden glove boxing, you will find out that your opponent are all animals. They try to kill you in the ring. Since you try to knock down your opponent ASAP, you then add "body rotation" into your punch, and you start to violate the WC principle.

The lacking of "body rotation" in WC bother me more than anything else.


----------



## DanT (Oct 26, 2017)

jobo said:


> that really where i find wing Chun hard to fathom,? If you are at a distance you can be a rooted as you like, it doesn't matter they cant hit you, when they come close, THEN you need to be up on your toes and moving.
> 
> that's the very opposite of wing Chun, where,,, when at a distance move around, when they are close enough to hit you, stand there like a Taylors dummy, whilst they punch you, it defies logic, and is a close copy of how drunks tend to fight


From my experience, it's not that you stay still like a statue when the opponent is close, it's that when you excecute a technique you need to launch it from the ground up, hence the need for a root.


----------



## DanT (Oct 26, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you have ever fought golden glove boxing, you will find out that your opponent are all animals. They try to kill you in the ring. Since you try to knock down your opponent ASAP, you then add "body rotation" into your punch, and you start to violate the WC principle.
> 
> The lacking of "body rotation" in WC bother me more than anything else.


In the Wing Chun I learned, you rotate the body when you punch, namely the hip, especially when punching from a distance. It's a slightly different mechanic than boxing though.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 26, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> I think one is treading on dangerous turf if one tries to tell others what is or is not in their system.


If I said that something is in my MA system, I can put up a clip to prove it. Is that the most honest way for online discussion?


----------



## wingchun100 (Oct 26, 2017)

jobo said:


> that really where i find wing Chun hard to fathom,? If you are at a distance you can be a rooted as you like, it doesn't matter they cant hit you, when they come close, THEN you need to be up on your toes and moving.
> 
> that's the very opposite of wing Chun, where,,, when at a distance move around, when they are close enough to hit you, stand there like a Taylors dummy, whilst they punch you, it defies logic, and is a close copy of how drunks tend to fight



Rooting doesn't mean you are rooted forever like a statue. The rooting is what helps you draw your power. I have been in situations where your typical alpha male bar patron was in my face, trying to push me or circle around me. If he goes off to my right, I don't keep facing the direction where he WAS standing.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 26, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If I said that something is in my MA system, I can put up a clip to prove it. Is that the most honest way for online discussion?


You can say what you want about your own system.

Your concept of what makes your system is your own.  It may differ dramatically from that of others.

You can read my earlier post #83, for a sense of my view on it.

But that’s just me.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 26, 2017)

DanT said:


> In the Wing Chun I learned, you rotate the body when you punch, namely the hip, especially when punching from a distance. It's a slightly different mechanic than boxing though.


When Yeh Men punch in his SNT form (0.10 - 0.16), his shoulder is not moving. His shoulder and arm are in a 90 degree angle. His body is not rotated either.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 26, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> You can say what you want about your own system.
> 
> Your concept of what makes your system is your own.  It may differ dramatically from that of others.


I have always believed that if I can't prove it, I won't say it. So what you are saying is it's not proper to ask others to prove what they have said.


----------



## TMA17 (Oct 26, 2017)

One of my WC teachers said he can access the rooting power when needed, from wherever.

To me this all goes back to WC in its pure form is not really designed for combat sport fighting.  That’s why you see others modifying it.

WC is great for quick encounters such as being at a bar etc. and acting quickly.

I’ve been watching Adam Chan’s videos on YouTube.  He’s incredible but he’s demonstrating what would normally happen in a street fight which usually don’t last more than a few minutes at most.  WC is great for that.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 26, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I have always believed that if I can't prove it, I won't say it. So what you are saying is it's not proper to ask others to prove what they have said.


Read my earlier post, #83, for a sense of my point of view.


----------



## TMA17 (Oct 26, 2017)

*just an observation but the maturity level of the members on this board is great.  Some of the other forums are full of raging meat head lunatics.  Lol


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 26, 2017)

TMA17 said:


> *just an observation but the maturity level of the members on this board is great.  Some of the other forums are full of raging meat head lunatics.  Lol


Well, we all have our moments...


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 26, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> In my experience, the system isn’t the techniques.  Rather, it is a  way to approach the training and the application, regardless of the technique.  Some techniques become primary in a system mainly because they embody and illustrate that approach especially well.
> 
> Once you understand that, you can pick up a technique from elsewhere and it will have a place within your system, as long as your approach to training and applying it is consistent.


I understand the approach of

principle -> techniques

But technique such as

- flying side kick,
- fly knee,
- spinning hook kick,
- hip throw,
- leg twist,
- leg lift,
- ...

will require special stretching and special training. If you (general YOU) know the "principle", you still may not be able to do the "spinning hook kick" if you don't have the flexibility.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 26, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I have always believed that if I can't prove it, I won't say it. So what you are saying is it's not proper to ask others to prove what they have said.


Here is another way of looking at it.

If you earn a degree in chemistry and then get a job as a chemist, in your work are you limited to doing only what you can find as a direct example in your textbooks?

Or do you take your knowledge of how chemistry works, and tackle new problems that may require unique and creative solutions?

I would hope you do the latter.

Your formal studies teach you the foundation and the theory, and how to approach a problem to find a solution.  It gives you a body of useful tools, but not every tool.  Some you will need to find on your own, but you should have the skills and knowledge to do so effectively.  That is what your training should give you.  It isn’t to simply regurgitate what you did in the classroom.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 26, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I understand the approach of
> 
> principle -> techniques
> 
> ...


Sure.  And anyone can do that, and that technique can have a place in the curriculum, even if it hasn’t been formally taught as such.

I don’t see a lot of point in defining a curriculum.  Rather, define the principles and the approach and the methodology, and then recognize how any technique may be part of that theory.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 26, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> Here is another way of looking at it.
> 
> If you earn a degree in chemistry and then get a job as a chemist, in your work are you limited to doing only what you can find as a direct example in your textbooks?
> 
> ...


The discussion has been switched from "What you can learn from your MA system" to "What you can develop by yourself".

As self-development, I agree with you there.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 26, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> I don’t see a lot of point in defining a curriculum.  Rather, define the principles and the approach and the methodology, and then recognize how any technique may be part of that theory.


We may talk about MA in general here and not just for the WC system. One of the throwing "principle" is to

- push the head down,
- kick/sweep/hook/... the leg up.

But this principle can map into over 100 different throws. IMO, even if you (general YOU) understanding the principle, you still may not understand all the techniques.

One of the Zimen system principles is "残(Can) - to damage, to injury, to kill". Some principles are just too high level to be any useful.


----------



## jobo (Oct 26, 2017)

wingchun100 said:


> Rooting doesn't mean you are rooted forever like a statue. The rooting is what helps you draw your power. I have been in situations where your typical alpha male bar patron was in my face, trying to push me or circle around me. If he goes off to my right, I don't keep facing the direction where he WAS standing.


no you move like a particulary stiff robot to face the new direction, and then stand there like a Taylors dummy again


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 26, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The discussion has been switched from "What you can learn from your MA system" to "What you can develop by yourself".
> 
> As self-development, I agree with you there.


But if you cannot apply your system outside of the “formal curriculum” then you haven’t learned much.  The formal curriculum, while hopefully useful, isn’t the point.  It is just a bridge to get you farther than that.

Otherwise you have only learned to regurgitate from the textbook, without any deeper understanding.


----------



## Martial D (Oct 26, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you have ever fought golden glove boxing, you will find out that your opponent are all animals. They try to kill you in the ring. Since you try to knock down your opponent ASAP, you then add "body rotation" into your punch, and you start to violate the WC principle.
> 
> The lacking of "body rotation" in WC bother me more than anything else.



Agreed, and another reason why I see my WC as a situational tool more than anything.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 26, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> We may talk about MA in general here and not just for the WC system. One of the throwing "principle" is to
> 
> - push the head down,
> - kick/sweep/hook/... the leg up.
> ...


You would probably still need instruction in those other throws, but then you can see how the principles are consistent.  But this does not mean that the technique should be considered “not part of this system”.  It follows the principles, and the system really is the principles, not the specific technique.

As for the kill bit, I don’t feel those are principles, at least not how I use the term.  I mean principles of biomechanics and movement, the fundamentals that are consistent with every technique, that make it effective, and efficient beyond mere athleticism.


----------



## DanT (Oct 26, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When Yeh Men punch in his SNT form (0.10 - 0.16), his shoulder is not moving. His shoulder and arm are in a 90 degree angle. His body is not rotated either.


Correct, he doesn't move his shoulder in the SLT form. However, SLT serves to isolate techniques to make them easier to learn. I agree with you that for the most part, beginner Wing Chun emphasizes "train arm first, learn to move body later".  This does not mean that techniques are executed without body movement in application. Once students learn to move the arm properly, we then generally teach them to add in the stance and hip movement. Take the turning stance drill we do. We punch and turn our stance to 30-45 degrees. Taking this turn of the waist and stance, you apply it the same way when you fight and punch, especially from a distance. Yun Ma Lik is an important element of my Wing Chun. Take a look at the video below, he doesn't do things the same way I do, but the concept is the same:


----------



## Danny T (Oct 26, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When Yeh Men punch in his SNT form (0.10 - 0.16), his shoulder is not moving. His shoulder and arm are in a 90 degree angle. His body is not rotated either.


And as someone who says he has experience in wc you should also know why in SNT the body isn't rotated yet in CK and BJ there is rotation which is connected with the punch. Or, possibly you don't know.


----------



## DanT (Oct 26, 2017)

The reason why I feel like the Wing Chun punch is sufficient for fighting is because in the way I was taught, it can be delivered from various angles. For example you can punch from your fist starting anywhere in front of your chest and shoulders, and it can land anywhere on the opponents body. This allows for a lot of variation in striking angles and targets. If you learn to connect your elbow with your hip, you can generate a lot of power this way too. It's always the same "Chong Kuen" (thrusting punch) it's just that the starting position can change horizontally from the centre line to the shoulder line or anywhere in between, and vertically from as low as the belly button to as high as the shoulder.


----------



## wingchun100 (Oct 26, 2017)

jobo said:


> no you move like a particulary stiff robot to face the new direction, and then stand there like a Taylors dummy again



You are just determined that the way YOU think Wing Chun practitioners moved is the way we really move so, this comment aside, I'm not even going to bother addressing you anymore.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 26, 2017)

DanT said:


>


The other MA system turns much more.


----------



## jobo (Oct 26, 2017)

DanT said:


> From my experience, it's not that you stay still like a statue when the opponent is close, it's that when you excecute a technique you need to launch it from the ground up, hence the need for a root.


the prime consideration in a fight is not to get hit hard, or better, at all, that's best,achieved by being very mobile, if i spend 2 mins moving back and side ways with out throwing a blow and avoid being hit that a win, you don't need to be rooted to throw a good punch or kick, last night i was doing jumping kicks, not at all rooted, if you do need a root, you only need it for half a second whilst you throw, .

to be fair i find karate a bit odd as well, I'm not standing there blocking punches, I'm either moving away, or I'm going forward and beating them to the punch, standing there like a tree seems the worst possible decision


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 26, 2017)

Danny T said:


> And as someone who says he has experience in wc you should also know why in SNT the body isn't rotated yet in CK and BJ there is rotation which is connected with the punch. Or, possibly you don't know.


IMO, body rotation is so important. It should start from day one. After you know how to use your body, to learn how to use your arm is easy.

I strongly disagree with the approach that you train your arm first (muscle group isolation) and then train your body (body unification) later. It develops bad habit and hard to get ride of later.

When I worked out in 24 hours gym, every time that I saw people pull the weight by freezing the body and only move the arms. Just by seeing it, it gave me the creep feeling.


----------



## wckf92 (Oct 26, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The lacking of "body rotation" in WC bother me more than anything else.



Apparently the WC you learned lacked body rotation. 
WC,  most of it, contains body rotation a la 2nd form...


----------



## DanT (Oct 26, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> IMO, body rotation is so important. It should start from day one. After you know how to use your body, to learn how to use your arm is easy.
> 
> I strongly disagree with the approach that you train your arm first (muscle group isolation) and then train your body (body unification) later. It develops bad habit and hard to get ride of later.
> 
> When I worked out in 24 hours gym, every time that I saw people pull the weight by freezing the body and only move the arms. Just by seeing it, it gave me the creep feeling.


In most schools (from my experience), body rotation (stance turning) is taught day one. It's only in SLT that stationary techniques are done.


----------



## DanT (Oct 26, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The other MA system turns much more.


In Wing Chun we have 90 and 180 degree turns as well:


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 26, 2017)

wckf92 said:


> Apparently the WC you learned lacked body rotation.
> WC,  most of it, contains body rotation a la 2nd form...


It's totally wrong to have to wait until the 2nd form to learn how to use the body. Also. I don't mean just turn the body but to turn the body with the punch. If we compare these 2 clips, you can see that WC body turning is not enough.


----------



## Martial D (Oct 26, 2017)

DanT said:


> In the Wing Chun I learned, you rotate the body when you punch, namely the hip, especially when punching from a distance. It's a slightly different mechanic than boxing though.





Danny T said:


> And as someone who says he has experience in wc you should also know why in SNT the body isn't rotated yet in CK and BJ there is rotation which is connected with the punch. Or, possibly you don't know.


Shifting. The front foot becomes the back foot and the straight punch ends on a 45 degree angle. Very different than typical boxing or kickboxing hip rotation. In boxing it's more of a pivot on the inside hip, where in WC one hip moves forward and the other backwards. Does this match your WC experience?


----------



## wckf92 (Oct 26, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> It's totally wrong to have to wait until the 2nd form to learn how to use the body. Also. I don't mean just turn the body but to turn the body with the punch. If we compare these 2 clips, you can see that WC body turning is not enough.


I understand, but IME,  one learns turning horse punching mechanics one day one and it is trained along side 1st form methods because it takes time to learn and internalize. 
But, I agree that waiting till 2nd form to learn waist power generation methods is too late.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 26, 2017)

jobo said:


> the prime consideration in a fight is not to get hit hard, or better, at all, that's best,achieved by being very mobile, if i spend 2 mins moving back and side ways with out throwing a blow and avoid being hit that a win, you don't need to be rooted to throw a good punch or kick, last night i was doing jumping kicks, not at all rooted, if you do need a root, you only need it for half a second whilst you throw, .
> 
> to be fair i find karate a bit odd as well, I'm not standing there blocking punches, I'm either moving away, or I'm going forward and beating them to the punch, standing there like a tree seems the worst possible decision



You don't have to be stationary to be rooted in to the ground.

Nobody else does that.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 26, 2017)

wingchun100 said:


> If you try that out, let me know what you think. I imagine Muay Thai would be the best art with a "long range game" to blend with WC, much in the same way I think Judo/BJJ is the best grappling art to fit with it.



Why do people think judo BJJ is the best art for strikers?


----------



## Martial D (Oct 26, 2017)

drop bear said:


> You don't have to be stationary to be rooted in to the ground.
> 
> Nobody else does that.


Ya, I'm not sure where the idea that WC is stationary comes from. Forward, ever forward.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 26, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you have ever fought golden glove boxing, you will find out that your opponent are all animals. They try to kill you in the ring. Since you try to knock down your opponent ASAP, you then add "body rotation" into your punch, and you start to violate the WC principle.
> 
> The lacking of "body rotation" in WC bother me more than anything else.



We have I think 2 golden gloves in our gym and a few silvers.

It is not that bad. 

Hell I am thinking of having a crack next time it comes around.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 26, 2017)

Martial D said:


> Ya, I'm not sure where the idea that WC is stationary comes from. Forward, ever forward.



Or where mobility and stability is some sort of trade off.


----------



## DanT (Oct 26, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> It's totally wrong to have to wait until the 2nd form to learn how to use the body. Also. I don't mean just turn the body but to turn the body with the punch. If we compare these 2 clips, you can see that WC body turning is not enough.


I just said that most schools start teaching Hip and stance rotation in drills from day one. Yes, in SLT you are mostly stationary, but that is simply to set an easier goal for beginner students. 

Hope that clears things up.


----------



## DanT (Oct 26, 2017)

Martial D said:


> Shifting. The front foot becomes the back foot and the straight punch ends on a 45 degree angle. Very different than typical boxing or kickboxing hip rotation. In boxing it's more of a pivot on the inside hip, where in WC one hip moves forward and the other backwards. Does this match your WC experience?


Well let's say if your standing in a typical fighting guard with your left foot forward and both hands up. In Wing Chun the back heel would be flat on the ground, in boxing it would be up right?

There are three main mechanical differences of the straight punches between boxing and Wing Chun (the way I was taught), namely:

- In boxing the shoulder is up, in Wing Chun the shoulders are down

- in boxing the back heel is up, in Wing Chun the back heel is planted

-in boxing the fist is horizontal with the elbow out, in Wing Chun the fist is vertical with the elbow down

-both styles turn the hips and shoulders when throwing the 1-2 combination (at least in the way I was taught).


----------



## drop bear (Oct 26, 2017)

DanT said:


> Well let's say if your standing in a typical fighting guard with your left foot forward and both hands up. In Wing Chun the back heel would be flat on the ground, in boxing it would be up right?
> 
> There are three main mechanical differences of the straight punches between boxing and Wing Chun (the way I was taught), namely:
> 
> ...



Yeah see I got the impression that wing chun stances in to everything. So you don't rotate as much as walk in to position.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 26, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> It's totally wrong to have to wait until the 2nd form to learn how to use the body. Also. I don't mean just turn the body but to turn the body with the punch. If we compare these 2 clips, you can see that WC body turning is not enough.


The Hung ga guy in the Batman shirt is mostly missing the body connection when he rotates.  Rather than rotate and punching in unison, he is turning his body and shifting his stance while allowing his root to disconnect in that transition.  Once he has transitioned, THEN he is punching.  This undermines the purpose in the rotation.  Doing it this way is little more than arms alone, without body rotation.

For starters, he needs to stop picking his feet up to transition.  He needs to drive the feet down and turn them, driving the body,  the work gets done during the rotation, not by turning and stepping into a stance and then punching.

This is a subtlety that most people miss.


----------



## Danny T (Oct 26, 2017)

Martial D said:


> Shifting. The front foot becomes the back foot and the straight punch ends on a 45 degree angle. Very different than typical boxing or kickboxing hip rotation. In boxing it's more of a pivot on the inside hip, where in WC one hip moves forward and the other backwards. Does this match your WC experience?


Some of the time but not always. More so with shifting the stance but rotation can happen with a direct forward step or an angled forward step as well.


----------



## Danny T (Oct 26, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> It's totally wrong to have to wait until the 2nd form to learn how to use the body. Also. I don't mean just turn the body but to turn the body with the punch.


What makes you think we don't do turning prior to learning the 2nd form?
There are no kicks or stepping in SNT either do you really think wc people don't learn kicking or stepping during the SNT phase of learning?
SNT is about learning the lines, elbow position, using the elbow, sinking the body, mental intent, among other things it certainly isn't just about punching straight ahead using only arm power. If so you really do not know much about wc.


----------



## Martial D (Oct 26, 2017)

Danny T said:


> What makes you think we don't do turning prior to learning the 2nd form?
> There are no kicks or stepping in SNT either do you really think wc people don't learn kicking or stepping during the SNT phase of learning?
> SNT is about learning the lines, elbow position, using the elbow, sinking the body, mental intent, among other things it certainly isn't just about punching straight ahead using only arm power. If so you really do not know much about wc.



Ya, we were doing footwork and movement drills on day one, long before chum kiu was introduced.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 26, 2017)

DanT said:


> The reason why I feel like the Wing Chun punch is sufficient for fighting is because in the way I was taught, it can be delivered from various angles. For example you can punch from your fist starting anywhere in front of your chest and shoulders, and it can land anywhere on the opponents body. This allows for a lot of variation in striking angles and targets. If you learn to connect your elbow with your hip, you can generate a lot of power this way too. It's always the same "Chong Kuen" (thrusting punch) it's just that the starting position can change horizontally from the centre line to the shoulder line or anywhere in between, and vertically from as low as the belly button to as high as the shoulder.



You loose range. Which if you have you shouldn't give up.


----------



## TMA17 (Oct 26, 2017)

I did footwork the first two weeks I started.  I did and still do find it challenging and awkward.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 26, 2017)

Danny T said:


> If so you really do not know much about wc.


In your opinion, which one is more closer to the WC basic punch training?

1. Punch with body rotation.






2. Punch without body rotation.


----------



## DanT (Oct 27, 2017)

drop bear said:


> You loose range. Which if you have you shouldn't give up.


Not so much if you turn the hip and shoulder when at a distance.


----------



## DanT (Oct 27, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> In your opinion, which one is more closer to the WC basic punch training?
> 
> 1. Punch with body rotation.
> 
> ...


In my school, we practice the turning punch (similar to the Baji one) more often.


----------



## KPM (Oct 27, 2017)

In Pin Sun Wing Chun the level one material has a set call "Dai Bong" or "big wing."  This includes do a full 180 degree pivot while swinging the arms wide and upward. It is considered a conditioning set and a set to teach the full pivot.

The level two material has a set called "Saam Gin Choi" or "three arrow punch."   The first of the 3 "arrows" is the "Pin Sun Choi" or "side body punch" and is an extended punch with a full pivot somewhat like the Baji example above.  The body is turned completely into a "side body" position during the punch so that both shoulders are in a direct straight line with the extended arm.  Yuen Kay Shan Wing Chun has this exact same punch in the San Sik they teach as preliminary material prior to the forms.


----------



## wingchun100 (Oct 27, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Why do people think judo BJJ is the best art for strikers?



I don't know about other strikers, but the sensitivity from Chi Sao would be very useful to help execute several Judo throws. (That was the first art I studied.)


----------



## Danny T (Oct 27, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> In your opinion, which one is more closer to the WC basic punch training?
> 
> 1. Punch with body rotation.
> 
> 2. Punch without body rotation.


What do you mean by 'basic' punch training.
We have the punching as shown in SNT and do a lot of it on the wall bags. It is to teach the student to relax the shoulders and to push and pull with the elbow however, that punch is not the punch we teach as a fundamental for striking.

Neither of the videos represent the rotation we do but the closest would be #1.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 27, 2017)

Danny T said:


> What do you mean by 'basic' punch training.


In the long fist system, before I train any form, I do all the stretching, kicking drills, and punching drills.

One of the punching drills (usually 60 rep) that I do is:

1. Face north.
2. Stand both feet with shoulder width with fists on both sides of the waist.
3. Drop down to low horse stance.
4. Straight both legs (power from ground and up), turn body to the west (power from back to front), and punch out right fist. The right arm, right shoulder, chest, and back shoulder are all in one perfect straight line (this give the maximum reach).
5. Repeat 3, 4 for the other side.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 27, 2017)

wingchun100 said:


> I don't know about other strikers, but the sensitivity from Chi Sao would be very useful to help execute several Judo throws. (That was the first art I studied.)



Should help with any throw.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 27, 2017)

wingchun100 said:


> I don't know about other strikers, but the sensitivity from Chi Sao would be very useful to help execute several Judo throws. (That was the first art I studied.)


When you use WC Tan Shou that your forearm touch on your opponent's forearm, if you just extend your arm, you can wrap his punching arm. That will give you that Judo sleeve hold.


----------



## Danny T (Oct 27, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> In the long fist system, before I train any form, I do all the stretching, kicking drills, and punching drills.
> 
> One of the punching drills (usually 60 rep) that I do is:
> 
> ...


Cool.

I start with 3 minutes of wall bag punching working the elbow positioning and wrist abduction on each punch. Average 400-450 punches in the round.
Then with a partner holding focus mitts 3 minutes of angled stepping and full straight punch with body rotation driven off the rear foot. Average 150 punches in the round. Both the pad holder and the puncher get get footwork practice one advancing, one yielding and always working on angles.
Then we do some stretching and begin training.


----------



## geezer (Oct 27, 2017)

OK, OK.... for all the WC haters out there, how about this one:

_What can a boxer gain from Wing Chun???

...A couple of easy KOs!!!_ 



...oh, wait, I'm a WC guy. Not supposed to be trashing my own style. Sorry!


----------



## drop bear (Oct 27, 2017)

I chi saued a dude in sparring today. Yeah kinda works.

He tried to fence me of with his lead hand. I crossed with mine. Patted the arm down and fired a jab cross off it.


----------



## wingchun100 (Nov 1, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Should help with any throw.



Okay, then I am right. So what is the issue?


----------



## drop bear (Nov 1, 2017)

wingchun100 said:


> Okay, then I am right. So what is the issue?



Correlation does not mean causation basically.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 1, 2017)

chunners addressing this issue that you can't really see punches coming at speed.






I would suggest that the defence should preempt likley attacks. He says the defence is an attack. It is sorta kinda the same thing.

This is why in boxing you strike off the center line not on it.

If you can jam a guy up. That will also work.


----------



## geezer (Nov 1, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> In your opinion, which one is more closer to the WC basic punch training?



I don't know. Which is more like a squirrel?

1. Peanut butter

2. Roller skates


----------



## geezer (Nov 1, 2017)

Danny T said:


> Neither of the videos represent the rotation we do....



Correct answer. Better than my #1 choice above, _peanut butter._


----------



## Martial D (Nov 1, 2017)

KPM said:


> In Pin Sun Wing Chun the level one material has a set call "Dai Bong" or "big wing." This includes do a full 180 degree pivot while swinging the arms wide and upward



I was also taught this, but in the context of turning to face an attacker behind you. The wide swing you describe with a sinking motion into center guard at completion. 

I actually still do that drill lol.


----------



## TMA17 (Nov 2, 2017)

I like Sifu Fernandez.  He was a bouncer for many years so he’s had a lot of real world experience.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 2, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> In many discussion, people may say that "My style also have ...". When you dig into all the forms that system have, you can't find it. People may say, "It's not in the form, it doesn't mean it's not there." If something is so important in your style, why the forms creator did not include it?
> 
> One day a Taiji guy even said that his Taiji system had
> 
> ...


Forms do not necessarily contain all there is. I am a form creator for my curriculum, and have purposely not put everything into the forms - they are mostly for helping new students train the first basic techniques. So, if you ask why something important wasn't put in by the form creator, the answer simply may be, "It didn't fit the purpose of that form."


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 2, 2017)

DanT said:


> I can assure you no boxing was added. What happened is that each generation went out and fought, and the result is what it is. The Wing Chun mechanic and system is maintained. When you have a choy lee fut guy swinging his arm at your head in a beimo fight, you learn to duck.


Dan, remind me which line of WC you study, please.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 2, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Jujitsu has escapes and stand ups. By the way.


Yes, but I think we can agree with the point of his post, which I believe is that BJJ doesn't have a focus on escape, but on using the grappling as an offensive weapon, while WC's focus (as stated) is on escape. So, a BJJ person will escape from a bad situation (and in SD, that might be the full intent), but is likely to turn that escape into a grappling attack, like a sweep into an arm bar.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 2, 2017)

DanT said:


> I wish. Not sure with how those help in terms of fighting though.


Well, the added reach would certainly help, Dan.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 2, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Can this statement apply to all MA systems?


I think so.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 2, 2017)

Martial D said:


> There really isn't THAT big a difference between a cage fight and a street fight, the fundamentals are basically the same. Yes, a cage fight has rules and a street fight doesn't, but if your fundamentals are good the added elements of eye pokes and groin kicks(the two main things disallowed in a cage) should work for you and not against you.
> 
> The rest boils down to an awareness of your surroundings that good training should cultivate anyhow.


The biggest difference between a cage fight and a self-defense situation is that your opponent is known to be skilled (probably similar to you), he knows you will fight back, and he knows you are skilled (probably similar to him, and probably knows your style). That changes quite a lot.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 2, 2017)

Martial D said:


> Indeed. If the word Wing Chun wasn't in the titles nobody would recognise any of that(aside from moments of the third video) as Wing Chun. More like amateur kickboxing.


I have a theory that we tend to recognize most styles by their defensive approach. And their most typical defensive approach is for defense against their own style. So, if you want to see something that looks like classical WC, you have to see it where that defensive approach (the one for defending against other WC) is also valid. Boxing defenses were designed to defend against boxing, so when facing a boxer, it's best to adopt some of those defenses, regardless of your own style.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 2, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If I said that something is in my MA system, I can put up a clip to prove it. Is that the most honest way for online discussion?


I think the issue becomes this: just because I can do a technique on video, does that mean it's part of what I say it's part of? And the corollary: just because I can't do a technique on video, does that mean it's NOT part of what I say it's part of?

In other words, does my ability to do the technique become the measure of whether it's in the system?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 2, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> It's totally wrong to have to wait until the 2nd form to learn how to use the body.


That's an absolute position, and will be hard to defend.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 2, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> In the long fist system, before I train any form, I do all the stretching, kicking drills, and punching drills.
> 
> One of the punching drills (usually 60 rep) that I do is:
> 
> ...


Sorry, I couldn't read this without hearing this in my head:


----------



## Danny T (Nov 2, 2017)

TMA17 said:


> I was told any slipping or bobbing is not WC as it is not moving forward . Some degree of movement away from forms practice is of course required for real fighting but goal is to use least amount of energy and jam them up. ??


My sifu, Francis Fong, tells give an account of having been on the receiving end of several punches in a fight. When his sifu, Jiu Wan, asked what happen to his eye Fong explained what happen during the fight. Jiu Wan says something along the lines of "next time move your head". Fong said, "but we don't move the head in the forms or in the drills we practice."
Jiu Wan retorts, "Forms and drills are not fighting. If you are unable prevent the attack from striking you; move. To just stand there is a fool. Next time move your head."


----------



## Flying Crane (Nov 2, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Forms do not necessarily contain all there is. I am a form creator for my curriculum, and have purposely not put everything into the forms - they are mostly for helping new students train the first basic techniques. So, if you ask why something important wasn't put in by the form creator, the answer simply may be, "It didn't fit the purpose of that form."


And, there are simply too many techniques and possibilities to codify everything into one or a body of many forms.


----------



## Martial D (Nov 2, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> The biggest difference between a cage fight and a self-defense situation is that your opponent is known to be skilled (probably similar to you), he knows you will fight back, and he knows you are skilled (probably similar to him, and probably knows your style). That changes quite a lot.


Well that really only reenforces my point. If you are prepared for a skilled opponent that is familiar with your skillset, you will be better prepared for an unskilled that does not.

 By the same token if your style only works on unskilled opponents that aren't prepared, it might be time for some upgrades!


----------



## Martial D (Nov 2, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I have a theory that we tend to recognize most styles by their defensive approach. And their most typical defensive approach is for defense against their own style. So, if you want to see something that looks like classical WC, you have to see it where that defensive approach (the one for defending against other WC) is also valid. Boxing defenses were designed to defend against boxing, so when facing a boxer, it's best to adopt some of those defenses, regardless of your own style.


Unless the style is boxing, BJJ, karate, Mui Thai or a number of others that are plainly recognisable in attack. To what style does your theory apply?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 2, 2017)

Martial D said:


> Well that really only reenforces my point. If you are prepared for a skilled opponent that is familiar with your skillset, you will be better prepared for an unskilled that does not.
> 
> By the same token if your style only works on unskilled opponents that aren't prepared, it might be time for some upgrades!


Untrained people (even people simply unfamiliar with what you know) act differently than trained people. They aren't just sloppier, they take different approaches. Training to battle skilled people is not IMO the fastest method to train for defending against unskilled people. In the long run, it's probably at least as effective. It takes a long time and more fitness to prepare for a skilled opponent. I can prepare someone for an unskilled one in stages much more readily.

As to your last point, I agree entirely. Once some basic competence is had, training should include the ability to handle someone with some skill. After a point, that often comes down to individual pursuit, in order to encompass multiple types of opponents.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 2, 2017)

Martial D said:


> Unless the style is boxing, BJJ, karate, Mui Thai or a number of others that are plainly recognisable in attack. To what style does your theory apply?


I'm not sure I understand the question. It applies to my own style, for one. If I'm facing someone trained in NGA, I defend against NGA, so I will be compact and relatively upright, in a basic fighting stance. I can use similar defenses against Shotokan Karatedo (our original striking base), and can afford to give up some of the compactness, since grappling is less likely. If I'm facing a Judoka, my movement drops dramatically and I play lower and more square. Against a boxer, I'll use a stance and movement more similar to a boxer's movement. Against WC, part of my focus would be to deny them centerline (which is what I expect WC person would do to them).

Each of those are closer to the movement developed to defend against those styles. Obviously, it's more nuanced than that - I have tools I'll use that those styles wouldn't so my defense won't look precisely like theirs.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 2, 2017)

Martial D said:


> Well that really only reenforces my point. If you are prepared for a skilled opponent that is familiar with your skillset, you will be better prepared for an unskilled that does not.
> 
> By the same token if your style only works on unskilled opponents that aren't prepared, it might be time for some upgrades!


I forgot to include part of my point in my prior response, MD. It's not only about whether they are skilled or not. It's also about what they know about you. If someone knows I'm trained, and something about my training, they are going to try to take away weapons I'm likely to use. If they don't know that, they can't know to block those specific weapons.


----------



## ShortBridge (Nov 2, 2017)

The subject of this thread is almost click bait. I've resisted for a few weeks, but it looks like I lack the discipline to stay away. There is so much wrong with this discussion right form the initial premise that it's not even really worth unpacking. I could demonstrate and sort all of this out for you in person in about 10 minutes, TMA17, but this thread will go on for 30 pages and you will learn NOTHING, but probably believe that you have, which will lead to more posting of "facts and conclusions" that you've reached about Wing Chun.

Prior to Wing Chun I spent decades doing and dabbling in other systems and ring sports. Between classic western boxing and Muay Thai, I suppose I trained for a good 8 years or so, which doesn't make me an expert on boxing, but since that appears to about 8 years longer than you have with Wing Chun, I guess that shouldn't stop me from expressing my observations about it.

I can honestly say that the sweet science of boxing doesn't need ANYTHING from Wing Chun. Boxers need to train as boxers and get experience boxing. If they're in a rut, there are other coaches and other gyms that can help them move forward with boxing, but I can't imagine how anything from Wing Chun would make a boxer a better boxer. To me it is a ridiculously uninformed premise.

Conversely, Wing Chun doesn't need boxing and isn't compatible with it. They are completely different constructs. The second that a Wing Chun player starts trying to function like a boxer, the wheels come off....which is, by the way, why You Tube is full of Wing Chun guys losing boxing matches. It's not what we do or aspire to do. If you want to be a good boxer, you need to study and practice boxing.

If you mix Wing Chun with Boxing, you get a different system...JDK perhaps, which is fine, but it is neither Wing Chun nor boxing. It is something different. You don't take the front differential off of a 4x4 and bolt it on the hood of a sports car to get something special. You get something that makes no sense and disparate engineering solutions that serve no purpose as assembled.

Wing Chun forms have nothing to do with shadow boxing. Nothing. ....nothing. I realize that everyone's opinion is equal on the internet, but that's just uninformed. It shows that you lack and understanding of the role of forms in Wing Chun AND shadow boxing. Actually what it shows is that you watched a YouTube video and became convinced that you stepped forward years in your knowledge of something that you just started training. You will find your echo chamber on-line, but people who actually understand these things aren't fooled by how emphatically you state this as fact.

And, I don't get wanting to figure out how to make Wing Chun work better in MMA. If you're interested in MMA, there are tried and true ways to train for it. Why try to retrofit something for it that was not designed for that. You can make a fish tank out of an old TV set, but it's hard. It's not what they were designed for and you could also just buy a flipping fish tank...or study up on how to make fish tanks. There are professionals and professional methods for doing so. This is not a problem to be solved. You can't skip over the part of actually learning something and just right to the part where you innovate perceived shortcomings with it.

TMA17, if you have a good teacher and want to learn Wing Chun. Stopping posting things about it on the internet that you don't understand, put your head down and learn it. If you don't believe in the system, why are you studying it? There are a million other things that you could be doing. The art wasn't stalled and waiting for you to come along and fix it based on stuff you've seen on YouTube.

This is the golden age of martial arts, in way. Do something you like. Anything worth doing is going to require you to dedicate yourself to learning it. You can't skip over that part, even with the internet as your guide.


----------



## Flying Crane (Nov 2, 2017)

ShortBridge said:


> The subject of this thread is almost click bait. I've resisted for a few weeks, but it looks like I lack the discipline to stay away. There is so much wrong with this discussion right form the initial premise that it's not even really worth unpacking. I could demonstrate and sort all of this out for you in person in about 10 minutes, TMA17, but this thread will go on for 30 pages and you will learn NOTHING, but probably believe that you have, which will lead to more posting of "facts and conclusions" that you've reached about Wing Chun.
> 
> Prior to Wing Chun I spent decades doing and dabbling in other systems and ring sports. Between classic western boxing and Muay Thai, I suppose I trained for a good 8 years or so, which doesn't make me an expert on boxing, but since that appears to about 8 years longer than you have with Wing Chun, I guess that shouldn't stop me from expressing my observations about it.
> 
> ...


Perfectly stated.


----------



## DanT (Nov 2, 2017)

ShortBridge said:


> The subject of this thread is almost click bait. I've resisted for a few weeks, but it looks like I lack the discipline to stay away. There is so much wrong with this discussion right form the initial premise that it's not even really worth unpacking. I could demonstrate and sort all of this out for you in person in about 10 minutes, TMA17, but this thread will go on for 30 pages and you will learn NOTHING, but probably believe that you have, which will lead to more posting of "facts and conclusions" that you've reached about Wing Chun.
> 
> Prior to Wing Chun I spent decades doing and dabbling in other systems and ring sports. Between classic western boxing and Muay Thai, I suppose I trained for a good 8 years or so, which doesn't make me an expert on boxing, but since that appears to about 8 years longer than you have with Wing Chun, I guess that shouldn't stop me from expressing my observations about it.
> 
> ...


This is what I'm saying.

My Wing Chun works fine on its own.

Boxing works fine on its own.

KPM came up with a hybrid system, and it works great for him.

I think hybrid systems can be good. However, I dislike when someone studies 6 months of Taekwondo, 2 years of Judo, and 3 years of Boxing, and combines it to form "Box Ju Tae" and calls themself a Master. A kindergarten education, plus a grade 1 education, plus a grade 4 education, does not equal a PHD.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 2, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Yes, but I think we can agree with the point of his post, which I believe is that BJJ doesn't have a focus on escape, but on using the grappling as an offensive weapon, while WC's focus (as stated) is on escape. So, a BJJ person will escape from a bad situation (and in SD, that might be the full intent), but is likely to turn that escape into a grappling attack, like a sweep into an arm bar.



See I would have looked at it like end result proficiency.​


----------



## Martial D (Nov 2, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I'm not sure I understand the question. It applies to my own style, for one. If I'm facing someone trained in NGA, I defend against NGA, so I will be compact and relatively upright, in a basic fighting stance. I can use similar defenses against Shotokan Karatedo (our original striking base), and can afford to give up some of the compactness, since grappling is less likely. If I'm facing a Judoka, my movement drops dramatically and I play lower and more square. Against a boxer, I'll use a stance and movement more similar to a boxer's movement. Against WC, part of my focus would be to deny them centerline (which is what I expect WC person would do to them).
> 
> Each of those are closer to the movement developed to defend against those styles. Obviously, it's more nuanced than that - I have tools I'll use that those styles wouldn't so my defense won't look precisely like theirs.



You said 
”I have a theory that we tend to recognize most styles by their defensive approach"

Presumably this was offered as an argument against my statement that styles are defined by their movements, and should be recognizable as such if you are going to claim it is in fact the style in question.

I gave a list of the most well known styles that are plainly recognisable in attack. So by 'most styles' you meant 'your style'?

I maintain that bobbing, weaving, slipping while throwing hooks and haymakers using boxing rotation is in no universe, Wing Chun.

Words mean things.


----------



## ShortBridge (Nov 2, 2017)

DanT said:


> ...
> 
> KPM came up with a hybrid system, and it works great for him.
> ...



The key difference is that Keith knows Wing Chun and is now exploring some new things. He didn't start trying to enhance it before he started learning it.


----------



## KPM (Nov 2, 2017)

---I agree with the gist of what you are saying, but just a few points for the discussion:

*I can honestly say that the sweet science of boxing doesn't need ANYTHING from Wing Chun. Boxers need to train as boxers and get experience boxing*.

---Agreed.  Boxing as BOXING needs nothing!  But as I pointed out earlier in the thread, what Wing Chun can bring to boxing is to improve its ability to function as a full-fledged martial art....."martial boxing."  Some are perfectly content with training boxing for just boxing's sake, and nothing wrong with that.  But boxing is lacking when it comes to functioning as what most people would consider a martial art.


*Conversely, Wing Chun doesn't need boxing and isn't compatible with it. They are completely different constructs. The second that a Wing Chun player starts trying to function like a boxer, the wheels come off....which is, by the way, why You Tube is full of Wing Chun guys losing boxing matches. It's not what we do or aspire to do. If you want to be a good boxer, you need to study and practice boxing.*

---Well, that's the thing.  People try to spar with Wing Chun and they typically suck.  So if you want to get good at  sparring, bringing boxing to the mix to "put sparring wheels" on your Wing Chun is one solution.  I guess it depends on what you are trying to accomplish.   A friend of mine recently pointed out that the Pin Sun Wing Chun guys in Shaping China typically do very well in the local fight/tournament scene.  The same is true of the Ho Kam Ming Wing Chun guys in Macao.  But neither one are actually using their Wing Chun.  When it comes to competition fighting they train either Sanda or Muay Thai.  So my comment was that if you are going to train something else for actual "face off fighting", then why not try to use as much as your Wing Chun as you can at the same time? 


*If you mix Wing Chun with Boxing, you get a different system...JDK perhaps, which is fine, but it is neither Wing Chun nor boxing. It is something different.*

---Very true!  I pointed this out to Joy in another thread. 


*Wing Chun forms have nothing to do with shadow boxing. *

---The formal long forms....true.  But one can "free-lance" movements from the forms and this is the equivalent of shadow boxing.   One can take Wing Chun drills and work them in a flowing manner over and over and this is the equivalent of shadow boxing.



*And, I don't get wanting to figure out how to make Wing Chun work better in MMA. If you're interested in MMA, there are tried and true ways to train for it. *

----True.  As I noted above, it would be more a matter of "enhancing" your MMA with some Wing Chun.  This all goes back to a point that Dave/Nobody Important made awhile back.  He proposed that Wing Chun was meant as a "fine motor skill" method to enhance the "gross motor skills" of an already existing system.  I don't agree with him that this was the intent behind the design of Wing Chun, but it does work well in a modern context where you have something like western boxing or MMA as the base that is being "refined."
So from this angle, Wing Chun may very well have something to bring to boxing.


*This is the golden age of martial arts, in way. Do something you like. Anything worth doing is going to require you to dedicate yourself to learning it. You can't skip over that part, even with the internet as your guide.*

---True!


----------



## ShortBridge (Nov 2, 2017)

...I don't know, man. Okay, I guess.

You and the OP are very different cases, though.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 2, 2017)

drop bear said:


> See I would have looked at it like end result proficiency.​


I expect that's the aim of all arts. Whether the training methods foster it or not is a different question.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 2, 2017)

Thrust.


----------



## wckf92 (Nov 2, 2017)

Touch Of Death said:


> Thrust.



???


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 2, 2017)

Martial D said:


> You said
> ”I have a theory that we tend to recognize most styles by their defensive approach"
> 
> Presumably this was offered as an argument against my statement that styles are defined by their movements, and should be recognizable as such if you are going to claim it is in fact the style in question.
> ...


No, I meant "most styles". That's why I used that term. Boxing looks somewhat less like what we expect boxing to look like if it adapts to defend against shoot fighters. Judo looks somewhat less like Judo if it adapts to defend against strikes. And so on. If the standard defensive usage already fits what it's facing, a style doesn't have to adapt, so keeps looking like what we expect.



> I maintain that bobbing, weaving, slipping while throwing hooks and haymakers using boxing rotation is in no universe, Wing Chun.


I'd agree about the boxing rotation not being native WC. The rest, I can't speak to, but from what I know of WC (very little), I can see how they would fit with it. See, I don't expect styles to stay neatly confined within where they were - I expect them to adapt as their proponents learn. So, what IS Wing Chun need not be the same as what WAS Wing Chun. The principles are what define the art.



> Words mean things.


Yep, and so does a condescending attitude.


----------



## Martial D (Nov 3, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> No, I meant "most styles". That's why I used that term. Boxing looks somewhat less like what we expect boxing to look like if it adapts to defend against shoot fighters. Judo looks somewhat less like Judo if it adapts to defend against strikes. And so on. If the standard defensive usage already fits what it's facing, a style doesn't have to adapt, so keeps looking like what we expect.


A boxing jab, cross, or hook looks identical regardless of whether it hits another boxer or a judo guy. The same with every kick, submission, and throw that actually works. You are actually saying styles look less like themselves when defending against something else, which is the opposite of what you wrote initially, and imo only applies to arts that require cooperative partners to 'work'(which is the same as not working)



> I'd agree about the boxing rotation not being native WC. The rest, I can't speak to, but from what I know of WC (very little), I can see how they would fit with it. See, I don't expect styles to stay neatly confined within where they were - I expect them to adapt as their proponents learn. So, what IS Wing Chun need not be the same as what WAS Wing Chun. The principles are what define the art.



Well, luckily I am very familiar with WC. WC is built on some core principles, namely centerline theory, an upright posture with shoulders down, pelvis forward. Attacks are loose and driven from the center. Take these things away and there is no more Wing Chun.



> Yep, and so does a condescending attitude.


The truth doesn't care about feelings.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 3, 2017)

Martial D said:


> A boxing jab, cross, or hook looks identical regardless of whether it hits another boxer or a judo guy. The same with every kick, submission, and throw that actually works. You are actually saying styles look less like themselves when defending against something else, which is the opposite of what you wrote initially, and imo only applies to arts that require cooperative partners to 'work'(which is the same as not working)


Agreed. My theory is that we recognize styles more (not entirely) by their defensive approach. Since most styles' default defensive approach is for defending against their fellow practitioners (boxers defending against boxers), the look changes considerably when the opponent changes, even if they are still using their standard techniques...if they adapt their defensive approach to the opponent.



> Well, luckily I am very familiar with WC. WC is built on some core principles, namely centerline theory, an upright posture with shoulders down, pelvis forward. Attacks are loose and driven from the center. Take these things away and there is no more Wing Chun.


That's what I'm looking for. IIRC, you have some boxing exposure, too? Is it possible to use parts of a boxing defensive approach, for instance, without violating the principles of WC? Is an upright posture in WC a principle, or is it a common usage based on principles? Same for the pelvis being forward?




> The truth doesn't care about feelings.


Nor your childish sniping, thankfully. You are capable of cogent argument, but when you result to this condescending approach, folks are less likely to want to share ideas with you. You see, you seem to think my idea needed attacking. It was, as I said, a theory. I'm perfectly open to folks pointing out flaws in it - @Steve and @Tony Dismukes both do that for me on a regular basis. @drop bear does, too, though I feel he sometimes gets lost trying to win a point, rather than communicate. I put theories out to see who else has ideas that either enhance or degrade the theory. Look at your own first response to this - you went right for derision, rather than bothering to make a cogent point - which you sort of get around to in this post.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Nov 3, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Yes, but I think we can agree with the point of his post, which I believe is that BJJ doesn't have a focus on escape, but on using the grappling as an offensive weapon, while WC's focus (as stated) is on escape. So, a BJJ person will escape from a bad situation (and in SD, that might be the full intent), but is likely to turn that escape into a grappling attack, like a sweep into an arm bar.


In general, you are correct, but there are exceptions. When I'm teaching self-defense application, I emphasize escaping the fight as a priority. (It's the same techniques to escape from the bottom, just a different tactical decision about what to do afterwards.)

I think that's important since it's easy for students to get locked into the mindset of "I've got to beat this guy" and forget what other priorities might take precedence.

I'm not the only BJJ instructor who teaches this, but I'll admit I'm probably in a minority.


----------



## Martial D (Nov 3, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> That's what I'm looking for. IIRC, you have some boxing exposure, too? Is it possible to use parts of a boxing defensive approach, for instance, without violating the principles of WC? Is an upright posture in WC a principle, or is it a common usage based on principles? Same for the pelvis being forward?


In WC everything, attack, defense, and movement, is based on and reliant on body structure. Take that away and nothing works. All the 'saus become collapsible, the mother line 'root' gets dispelled, etc etc.
As for mixing the two, most WC guys would say the two systems are incompatible, and to an extent, I agree. Mixing them, like say, throwing boxing hooks from a WC stance or chain punching or throwing out other WC stuff from a boxing stance, isnt a useful thing to do.(mostly because you can't shift properly.)
Where it works for me is what I call mode shifting. I base this off of the 4 ranges of JKD. Once I'm in trapping range, I sink into WC. On the outside I throw like a boxer(sort of, more rooted less bouncy). If I get tangled up or taken down, I go into grappling mode. I used to have a kicking game too but,my knees can't take that shiz anymore.




> Nor your childish sniping, thankfully. You are capable of cogent argument, but when you result to this condescending approach, folks are less likely to want to share ideas with you.



There was a time when a no bullsh#t, straight up and frank way of speaking was just how men communicated. Nowadays everyone has paper thin skin, think everything not delivered with velvet gloves is an attack, and believe not communicating as women do is childish. I think I was born in the wrong time.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 3, 2017)

Martial D said:


> In WC everything, attack, defense, and movement, is based on and reliant on body structure. Take that away and nothing works. All the 'saus become collapsible, the mother line 'root' gets dispelled, etc etc.
> As for mixing the two, most WC guys would say the two systems are incompatible, and to an extent, I agree. Mixing them, like say, throwing boxing hooks from a WC stance or chain punching or throwing out other WC stuff from a boxing stance, isnt a useful thing to do.(mostly because you can't shift properly.)
> Where it works for me is what I call mode shifting. I base this off of the 4 ranges of JKD. Once I'm in trapping range, I sink into WC. On the outside I throw like a boxer(sort of, more rooted less bouncy). If I get tangled up or taken down, I go into grappling mode. I used to have a kicking game too but,my knees can't take that shiz anymore.


Do you think that exclusion applies to boxing style defenses, too? That would be things like raising the shoulders, using a close guard, etc. This is getting close to my thought here. If boxing's defenses are best suited to defending against boxing attacks (which seems a reasonable premise), and a style cannot adopt boxing defenses without causing problems with their own attacks, then the only option left might be that mode switching. In some arts (again, I'll use my primary art as an example of this), boxing-style defenses aren't as much of a problem. I don't get my shoulders up as much as most boxers, but the close guard works okay, and I can work from the boxer's posture until I get my hands on them for grappling and can settle into a grappling posture. There's always a transition (for me) from striking defense to grappling attack/defense posture, so the boxing posture doesn't disrupt that.



> There was a time when a no bullsh#t, straight up and frank way of speaking was just how men communicated. Nowadays everyone has paper thin skin, think everything not delivered with velvet gloves is an attack, and believe not communicating as women do is childish. I think I was born in the wrong time.


Yeah, there was a time when people knew the difference between frankness and sniping, too. Words mean things, you know?


----------



## Martial D (Nov 3, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Do you think that exclusion applies to boxing style defenses, too?


Well I do tend to shell up in tight if the guy is going apesh#t with two free arms, but other than that I'd say yes. 



> Yeah, there was a time when people knew the difference between frankness and sniping, too. Words mean things, you know?


They do..mean things that is. Its when we lose sight of this communication becomes less effective.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 3, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Do you think that exclusion applies to boxing style defenses, too? That would be things like raising the shoulders, using a close guard, etc. This is getting close to my thought here. If boxing's defenses are best suited to defending against boxing attacks (which seems a reasonable premise), and a style cannot adopt boxing defenses without causing problems with their own attacks, then the only option left might be that mode switching. In some arts (again, I'll use my primary art as an example of this), boxing-style defenses aren't as much of a problem. I don't get my shoulders up as much as most boxers, but the close guard works okay, and I can work from the boxer's posture until I get my hands on them for grappling and can settle into a grappling posture. There's always a transition (for me) from striking defense to grappling attack/defense posture, so the boxing posture doesn't disrupt that



Or if everyone winds up pretty much looking the same when they fight then there really is an optimal system for fighting.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 3, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Or if everyone winds up pretty much looking the same when they fight then there really is an optimal system for fighting.


I think there's a range of optimal techniques for any given situation. The more narrow the situation, the more narrow the range of techniques. Boxing keeps a fairly narrow situation, so there's a narrower range of techniques. Kickboxing gets a bit broader, and so do the techniques that serve there. MMA is broader yet. And we see each of those situations comes to a fairly common range of most common options, a second range of selectable options that vary among the successful folks, and a smaller range of options that seem to work for some people.

Now, that doesn't meant there's one "right" style. If we consider the range of situations we could find ourselves in outside competitions ("the street"), there are a lot of styles that seem to cover parts of those (I don't think it's possible for any style to cover all of them). And because what we could expect is less predictable (wider range of situations), there's a wide range of suitable systems (and some that appear to be unsuitable).

And some systems cross over reasonably well. With sufficient skill, there are a lot of systems - even specialized ones - that become reasonably suitable for the street. Some (like boxing) fit reasonably well at moderate skill for a lot of the situations the street could present, and are problematic with others, even at higher skill levels (MMA showed this with the ground game).


----------



## ShortBridge (Nov 3, 2017)

So, based on how this conversation is going, it seems like the question has become: "If a boxer didn't want to box anymore, what would be a good next system for them."

Better question, but I think the answer depends on what out theoretical boxer wants to accomplish.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 3, 2017)

ShortBridge said:


> So, based on how this conversation is going, it seems like the question has become: "If a boxer didn't want to box anymore, what would be a good next system for them."
> 
> Better question, but I think the answer depends on what out theoretical boxer wants to accomplish.


Agreed. I think it's important to remember the OP's title wasn't "What can boxing gain from WC" but "What can a boxer gain from WC". There are a lot of answers to that, even if it's not stuff "missing" from boxing. There are probably things I could gain from WC that aren't really things missing from my primary art or any of the others I've studied.


----------



## Old Judoka (Nov 17, 2017)

Martial D said:


> Well, that's because...
> 
> Well, imagine WC is like ketchup. Ketchup make your fries better, but you wouldn't want to eat a plate of just ketchup now would you?



Very good analogy. Up until recently Judo and Brazilian Jiu Jitsu tried to remain begrudgingly cousin arts. But one is better for stand up and the other is better on the ground. People from each art are starting to cross train more and more, especially tournament people because they blend well together. The two are like ketchup and mustard. Both together are pretty good on a hot dog, Lol


----------



## geezer (Nov 19, 2017)

I do not see WC as being mere dressing to be added to another, very different art. But then I do have a bias.  WC is my_ foundation_ and I have used bits of other arts as dressing on my _Ving Tsun. _Or, more accurately, I've used other arts to fill in the areas or "ranges" not addressed by WC.

Still, to address the topic, I suppose the best thing a boxer could take from WC would be low, non-telegraphic lead-leg kicks. The so-called "shadowless kick". This can really mess up your opponent's stance and power base, and create openings while you continue to apply your hands.

The problem is that WC's short, low, non-telegraphic kicks are designed to be delivered from a back-weighted _WC structure._ I can't see them working as intended from a front-weighted boxing stance. You would have to shift weight back to lift the lead leg to kick. When you do that, you: a. _telegraph_ your intent, and b._ turn-off _your punching power ...if you are using boxing structure to punch.

So, there's the problem with trying to "cherry pick" from a different system. You may have to make major changes to make the stuff work.


----------



## Juany118 (Nov 27, 2017)

Martial D said:


> Well, that's because...
> 
> Well, imagine WC is like ketchup. Ketchup make your fries better, but you wouldn't want to eat a plate of just ketchup now would you?



I think that is a LITTLE extreme because not all WC is the same.  As an example, some have zero grappling, others have what amounts to the intermediate level of grappling you may find in Judo and Jujutsu.  

TBH I think this may be one of WC's biggest issues, people see WC as a single art, rather than an umbrella under which there are many different styles.  

Now this doesn't mean you don't become a better fighter if you also study something else.  I think ALL forms of fighting benefit from this.  The only difference is specific styles receive different levels of benefit from cross training.  As an example I have a friend who is big into MMA, he even competes on a local amateur circuit.  He started studying FMA not too long ago (not at my school though) and he said that FMA helped him have a better appreciation of ranging and footwork, because getting brained by a rattan stick is a GREAT incentive, which he then applied to his MMA.  That would be what I call "fine tuning" vs say being a boxer who takes up BJJ on the side and now adds a complete new game to their tool box.


----------



## Juany118 (Nov 27, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Agreed. I think it's important to remember the OP's title wasn't "What can boxing gain from WC" but "What can a boxer gain from WC". There are a lot of answers to that, even if it's not stuff "missing" from boxing. There are probably things I could gain from WC that aren't really things missing from my primary art or any of the others I've studied.




I think this is an important distinction.  As I noted you can find that studying another art doesn't give you entirely new tools but helps you fine tune or expand on things already in your tool box.  I think trapping is a good example.  I have seen good boxers, and MMA fighters, but to my knowledge the trapping isn't trained as specifically as it is in WC.  So studying WC would be about the individual boxer expanding and fine-tuning something that already exists to some extent in their tool box.  

Similarly boxers often find themselves going from "I am punching" to "I am clinching".  With all the time spent in trapping range I think WC couldhelp the boxer expand a bit so they aren't necessarily experiencing such a rapid transition and against someone who is "looking for" the clinch that could be a useful attribute to train.  These are but a couple examples but the main thing is that a boxer who acquired these attributes through studying WC wouldn't be changing boxing, they would just have gained attributes that help them to potentially use Boxing as it is in a different way.


----------



## TMA17 (Dec 5, 2017)

Wing Chun Kuen Academy of Western Australia

"M.P.: How has Ving Tsun helped you in the ring and generally speaking, in boxing, considering that Wong Shun Leung's Ving Tsun was born for street fighting and not for sports competitions?



Y.B.L.: Ving Tsun has definitely played a big role in the development of my boxing abilities. It has helped me to enhance my physical expression. In the ring, the concepts are similar. As Wong Shun Leung says “Ving Tsun is a science of combat, the intent is the total incapacitation of an opponent”. After my first loss on a points decision, I have since adopted this philosophy of aiming to finish my opponent and not to leave the decision up to the judges again.


Chi Sau training has influenced the fluidity of my boxing combinations. Of course I am speaking of free flowing, spontaneous chi sau, and not the somewhat stereotypical strikes on often compliant or intimidated students, as seen in countless videos on youtube. Always remember, in the ring, not only is your opponent mobile, but he has also trained as hard as you have. The reality of ring fights is that EVERYONE can take punishment, so you better have more than just techniques.

I try not to concentrate too much on the techniques we learn from VT but rather on the concepts of VT as they relate to fighting. I have incorporated these concepts into my boxing and it has worked. For example: footwork, the angling, the idea of pressuring forward, advancing against oncoming pressure, and so on… but the most important part of the VT training which I cherish and adapt to my boxing is the VT aggression. To elaborate on what I mean, let’s put it this way: What do Boxing and Ving Tsun have in common and what is their number one weapon? My answer is ‘The punch’ and when you make that connection, I say give em’ hell at the sound of the bell.


Having said that, I don't think that WSLVT was created solely for street fighting. I strongly believe that WSLVT is for fighting, PERIOD, whether in the ring or on the streets. I hold the view that "if you can't make it work in the ring, what chance have you got on the streets?”


In Sifu David Peterson’s book “Look Beyond The Pointing Finger”, he mentions that Wong Shun Leung himself said “Make Ving Tsun your slave, never allow Ving Tsun to be your master.” I believe that the basic concepts and applications of VT can be adopted and adapted not only by western boxing, but also by almost any other martial art. As a matter of interest, Mannie de Matos, founder of Hakarac Martial Boxing, working in conjunction with my own teacher, Rolf Clausnitzer, has had remarkable success with his boxers when sparring and competing against conventional boxers. With the right attitude and training, the application of basic VT concepts and techniques can do wonders for any fighter."


----------

