# Wing Chun vs. Boxing



## skribs (Nov 27, 2013)

I don't practice Wing Chun, but when I was trying to pick an art I viewed several videos explaining the basic principles and techniques of the art.  The biggest reason I chose not to do Wing Chun over another art is simply there aren't any schools for it in my local area.  Anyway, I was wondering what the theory is behind the Wing Chun stance compared with a boxing stance.  I guess this is sort of a TMA vs. Sport question, but specifically I want to hear the theory behind Wing Chun.

Here's what I'm thinking:

One of the basic principles of Wing Chun is simultaneous defense and attack, with the primary focus being your and your opponent's centerline.  I would classify these defenses as fairly active, as you are actively deflecting an attack with one hand while striking with the other.

In a boxing stance (which is the basic sparring stance for most striking combat sports, including boxing, kickboxing, muay thai, and MMA), your hands are held closer the body and used as a guard.  Defense from this position is easier - your hands provide a barrier between yourself and your opponent.  Granted, the barrier has holes, but it's a much smaller movement to defend against attacks.

Specifically regarding a Wing Chun fighter vs. a boxer, the guard makes a good shield against straight punches.

I'm not trying to flame the art, I'm just curious.  I consider boxing and Wing Chun to both be arts based on the science of punching (much like my art, TKD, is the science of kicking).  The two arts have radically different philosophies, and I'd like to know what the advantages of Wing Chun are as opposed to something like boxing, kickboxing, or muay thai.


----------



## Eric_H (Nov 27, 2013)

skribs said:


> I don't practice Wing Chun, but when I was trying to pick an art I viewed several videos explaining the basic principles and techniques of the art.  The biggest reason I chose not to do Wing Chun over another art is simply there aren't any schools for it in my local area.  Anyway, I was wondering what the theory is behind the Wing Chun stance compared with a boxing stance.  I guess this is sort of a TMA vs. Sport question, but specifically I want to hear the theory behind Wing Chun.
> 
> Here's what I'm thinking:
> 
> ...



Wing Chun looks to intercept bridging and control gravity in order to enable striking with advantage. Blocking doesn't work to that end. 

Additionally, we look to have control over our own 13 joints at all times, that's why we don't hunch over.


----------



## geezer (Nov 28, 2013)

Eric_H said:


> Wing Chun looks to intercept bridging and control gravity in order to enable striking with advantage. Blocking doesn't work to that end.
> 
> Additionally, we look to have control over our own 13 joints at all times, that's why we don't hunch over.



That's the first reference I've heard to the "13 joints". Could you elaborate?


----------



## skribs (Nov 28, 2013)

I'm going to guess:
2xWrist
2xElbow
2xShoulder
2xHip
2xKnee
2xAnkle
1xNeck

That adds up to 13 joints.  However, I don't see that a boxer is not in control of those.  He hunches over to provide a smaller target and let his shields (arms, shoulders) protect his head and neck more.


----------



## punisher73 (Nov 28, 2013)

Here is a video that isn't your typical wing chun vs. boxer or which is better type video.  It kind of looks at what a boxer will be trying to do and what you as a wing chunner will be trying to do and how each will be trying to apply their strategies.  Very interesting to get a perspective on both without having the "mine is better than yours" type comparisions.


----------



## skribs (Nov 29, 2013)

While it didn't have any "mine is better than yours" directly said, I didn't see any pros for Wing Chun in there.


----------



## strike101 (Nov 29, 2013)

punisher73 said:


> Here is a video that isn't your typical wing chun vs. boxer or which is better type video.  It kind of looks at what a boxer will be trying to do and what you as a wing chunner will be trying to do and how each will be trying to apply their strategies.  Very interesting to get a perspective on both without having the "mine is better than yours" type comparisions.



not a big fan of Izzo's videos and he doesn't exactly make wing chun look great there.


----------



## geezer (Nov 29, 2013)

skribs said:


> While it didn't have any "mine is better than yours" directly said, I didn't see any pros for Wing Chun in there.



The way I see it, the "pro" argument here was for _an adaptive, evolutionary approach_ to WC. Izzo is a big advocate of that, but from what I've seen in some of his other videos, he isn't always so successful in integrating stuff from boxing and grappling without compromising his WC core. 

Still, it was an interesting video. I may not agree with some of what Izzo does with his WC, but I like the way he thinks. He seems very open minded and curious. Lyte Burly is clearly a gifted martial artist who has a working knowledge of WC as well as boxing skills. There are guys I work with in our eskrima group who employ similar skills. Especially quick off-lining and angling ...and nasty hooks using a lot of body torque. It's definitely something WC needs to adapt to. But I think it can be done without losing the WC structure and principles.


----------



## geezer (Nov 29, 2013)

strike101 said:


> not a big fan of Izzo's videos and he doesn't exactly make wing chun look great there.



Another way to put it. Which of these two guys would you want to train with?


----------



## Kwan Sau (Nov 29, 2013)

Anyone know who izzo learned from and how much of the system did he learn? 
From his videos...it seems clear he doesnt have a good grasp of Wing Chun. But, to his credit...he usually caveats his videos with "my wing chun", etc.


----------



## Kwan Sau (Nov 29, 2013)

geezer said:


> Another way to put it. Which of these two guys would you want to train with?



Neither!


----------



## skribs (Nov 29, 2013)

Geezer, the problem is pretty much everything about WC vs. Boxing in that video showed why boxing was superior.

1) Hand position:  it was shown that there are holes in the WC stance that do not exist in boxing (my original point in my OP), and that taking a WC stance is telegraphing your style (while a boxing stance might be any number of styles, from boxing to kickboxing).
2) Footwork:  boxing has superior footwork, which made it harder for the WC fighter to make use of his techniques.  WC might adapt into it, but then this would be a neutral point and not a pro for WC.
3) The Wing Chun style, from what I've seen, doesn't support torquing your body.  It relies on snap power to get a lot of little hits in while maintaining a strong position.  The boxer showed that you can torque your body without sacrificing mobility.

The take-away from that is this:  if you take a WC fighter and make the above changes, you are left with something that is basically a modified version of boxing.  With that said, I have two big questions:

1) In the points above, are there any pros to the Wing Chun style?  For example, the hand position has a con (provides less coverage).  Is there a pro to the hand position besides tradition?
2) Are there points where boxing* can learn from Wing Chun?  This video just showed what WC can learn from boxing.

*When I say "boxing" I mean any sport based on boxing, including kickboxing, savate, muay thai, MMA, etc.  So yes, Wing Chun has kicks and true Boxing is just punches, but I'm looking at the style of boxing/kickboxing vs. the traditional stance.


----------



## yak sao (Nov 29, 2013)

If I just stand there with my hands still, of course there are openings. 
Same as if the boxer just stands there with his hands in a guard, it is very easy to punch right between them

The thing is, neither form of fighting is just standing there. I don't care how much it's seen on youtube, good WC/WT/VT is not just standing there like some kind of statue waiting for the attack to come to them. Good WC is always moving, always pressing. always seeking the path of least resistance with our hands and our footwork.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 29, 2013)

yak sao said:


> If I just stand there with my hands still, of course there are openings.



It's interest to compare the WC system that protects center from inside out (with hands still) vs. other systems that protects center from outside in (with hands moving). Both have it's value.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfzNW7xSPaQ&feature=youtu.be


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 29, 2013)

skribs said:


> I'd like to know what the advantages of Wing Chun are as opposed to something like boxing, kickboxing, or muay thai.


CMA likes to fight to be inside instead of to fight to be outside, to fight to be on top instead of  to fight be on the bottom. 

When you arms are in your center line, when your opponent punches at you, his right punch can only go through the left of your left arm. His left punch can only go through the right of your right arm. When your opponent use a jab, cross combo, and if you use left Tan Shou (left comb hair) and right Tan Shou (right comb hair), both of your arms will be inside of your opponent's arms. There are many advantage to be in that position.


----------



## skribs (Nov 29, 2013)

> CMA likes to fight to be inside instead of to fight to be outside, to fight to be on top instead of  to fight be on the bottom.



While I've been on the topic of boxing, I'd like to bring up my experience with TKD here.  Our self defense drills have us stepping out away from the punch, essentially angling on the attack to get us out of the center line of the attacker, while putting the attacker into our center line.  What you're saying is the goal in CMA is instead to get _inside_ the opponent's defenses instead of around them?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 29, 2013)

skribs said:


> While I've been on the topic of boxing, I'd like to bring up my experience with TKD here.  Our self defense drills have us stepping out away from the punch, essentially angling on the attack to get us out of the center line of the attacker, while putting the attacker into our center line.  What you're saying is the goal in CMA is instead to get _inside_ the opponent's defenses instead of around them?



If you think 

- you are better than your opponent, you enter through your opponent's front door (space between both arms).
- your opponent is better than you, you enter through your opponent's side door (space outside of each arm).

This is just a general concept that has nothing to do with style. You can do this when you are in your opponent's front door.


----------



## geezer (Nov 30, 2013)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you think
> 
> - you are better than your opponent, you enter through your opponent's front door (space between both arms).
> - your opponent is better than you, you enter through your opponent's side door (space outside of each arm).



This is why I favor off-lining and entering from the outside gate or oi moon. As I get on in years, I tend to assume that my opponent is younger, stronger, faster, and usually bigger than I am. That doesn't make him "better" though! 

Now to _Scribs: _It's hard to generalize about CMA since there are so many different Chinese martial arts specializing in different ranges and approaches. But if you are talking Wing Chun, yes we do constantly press forwards and tend to move inside... although _not necessarily right up the middle_ like Izzo did in that clip. We are at our best just outside of the clinch, which generally makes us very effective in close against longer range styles like TKD. I speak from experience since one of our local branches operates out of a good TKD school and the school owner (5th degree) and a couple of his blackbelts are learning Ving Tsun from us. 


Now as far as WC and Boxing go. Remember _WC is boxing_. Chinese boxing. And in some ways it's not so far removed from what Western boxing looked like in the early bare-knuckle days. Boxing has evolved over the last century. WC is evolving too. That's why I give creative thinkers like Fernandez, Gutierrez, Izzo, Orr and others credit even when I don't agree with everything they come up with. After all, "a wise man learns from others", both from their successes and from their mistakes!


----------



## J W (Dec 1, 2013)

skribs said:


> Geezer, the problem is pretty much everything about WC vs. Boxing in that video showed why boxing was superior.
> 
> 1) Hand position:  it was shown that there are holes in the WC stance that do not exist in boxing (my original point in my OP), and that taking a WC stance is telegraphing your style (while a boxing stance might be any number of styles, from boxing to kickboxing).
> 2) Footwork:  boxing has superior footwork, which made it harder for the WC fighter to make use of his techniques.  WC might adapt into it, but then this would be a neutral point and not a pro for WC.
> ...



So my two cents; I would say that video was aimed at WC folks, with the idea of a boxer who has WC experience explaining where he sees holes in WC from a boxer's point of view. Without some understanding of both WC and boxing, I don't think the points they were trying to make will come across too well. 

Like most arts, some WC folks get so wrapped up with training WC vs other WC players that they don't stop to think about how someone trained in another art might approach them (I'm sure you've seen this in the TKD world). So yes, the video makes WC look inferior to boxing, because most of it is explaining _to WC guys_ where a boxer might find holes in WC. 

Also keep in mind that, like most other martial arts, there is good WC and bad WC out there. Bad WC might be full of all the holes the boxer was pointing out. Good WC would not. For instance, when he explained how a boxer would get around the WC guard. Sure, if the WC guy just stands there with his hands out, it'll be pretty easy to get around. But that would be bad WC. WC is an aggressive art, and doesn't work if you just stand there with your arms out waiting for your opponent to clock you. Or, when he explained (as a boxer) angling off and attacking along the centerline while your opponent isn't facing your center. Good WC should do that, too. 

To point #3; WC does support body torquing. Watch our second form, Chum kiu.



skribs said:


> One of the basic principles of Wing Chun is simultaneous defense and attack, with the primary focus being your and your opponent's centerline.  I would classify these defenses as fairly active, as you are actively deflecting an attack with one hand while striking with the other.



Ideally, you would be defending and attacking with the same hand at the same time. For instance, you punch, I punch. My punch both deflects yours and hits its target. 



skribs said:


> In a boxing stance (which is the basic sparring stance for most striking combat sports, including boxing, kickboxing, muay thai, and MMA), your hands are held closer the body and used as a guard.  Defense from this position is easier - your hands provide a barrier between yourself and your opponent.  Granted, the barrier has holes, but it's a much smaller movement to defend against attacks.
> 
> Specifically regarding a Wing Chun fighter vs. a boxer, the guard makes a good shield against straight punches.



The idea of WC is to find and exploit those holes. Does the boxer's guard make a good defense against WC attacks? Maybe, depends on how good the WC guys is at getting through those holes. 



skribs said:


> I'm not trying to flame the art, I'm just curious.  I consider boxing and Wing Chun to both be arts based on the science of punching (much like my art, TKD, is the science of kicking).  The two arts have radically different philosophies, and I'd like to know what the advantages of Wing Chun are as opposed to something like boxing, kickboxing, or muay thai.



Personally, I see alot of similarity between boxing and WC. Sure, they approach things a bit differently, but I don't think I'd say that they are "radically" different.


----------



## skribs (Dec 1, 2013)

> Also keep in mind that, like most other martial arts,  there is good WC and bad WC out there. Bad WC might be full of all the  holes the boxer was pointing out. Good WC would not. For instance, when  he explained how a boxer would get around the WC guard. Sure, if the WC  guy just stands there with his hands out, it'll be pretty easy to get  around. But that would be bad WC. WC is an aggressive art, and doesn't  work if you just stand there with your arms out waiting for your  opponent to clock you. Or, when he explained (as a boxer) angling off  and attacking along the centerline while your opponent isn't facing your  center. Good WC should do that, too.





> Ideally, you would be defending and attacking with the same hand at the  same time. For instance, you punch, I punch. My punch both deflects  yours and hits its target.



These are very good explanations of the pros of WC.


----------



## Kwan Sau (Dec 1, 2013)

J W said:


> some WC folks get so wrapped up with training WC vs other WC players that they don't stop to think about how someone trained in another art might approach them



Totally agree! J W is right on the money here. This lack of vision by some in the WC world makes them think there WC is good to go against EVERYONE...just because they can beat up their fellow WC partners in the kwoon. 



J W said:


> there is good WC and bad WC out there. Bad WC might be full of all the holes the boxer was pointing out. Good WC would not.



Absolutely. The sad part is...either the boxer guy or this izzo guy isn't well versed in "good" WC in my opinion. Sadly, many internet surfers tend to lean on youtube WC'ers as gospel. Izzo being on of them. I would have had more respect for izzo if he had included the full WC arsenal...but perhaps he doesn't know it yet. 



J W said:


> WC is an aggressive art



Agree! "Good" WC has a rich assortment of footwork which, when properly learned, drilled, trained, allows the WC exponent a wide latitude of movement in order to constantly bring the agressiveness to the adversary. 



J W said:


> To point #3; WC does support body torquing. Watch our second form, Chum kiu.



Again, totally agree with J W here. Again, Izzo and/or this boxer guy do not understand even basic WC IMO. 



J W said:


> Ideally, you would be defending and attacking with the same hand at the same time. For instance, you punch, I punch. My punch both deflects yours and hits its target.



Yup!!!!! Another example of "good" WC. And, as J W states... "ideally". Because not everything is 100% effective, 100% of the time.

And finally, let's not forget that "good" WC has a rich, in-depth leg / kick training arsenal. Most youtube vids and the like seem to only focus on waist up WC...forgetting the lower half of the body. This is a huge mistake. Properly trained, a WC man's legs are formidable.


----------



## geezer (Dec 1, 2013)

Kwan Sau said:


> ...And finally, let's not forget that "good" WC has a rich, in-depth leg / kick training arsenal. Most youtube vids and the like seem to only focus on waist up WC...forgetting the lower half of the body. This is a huge mistake. Properly trained, a WC man's legs are formidable.



This is something the long range kickers, like TKD guys, often forget. Unlike long range styles, WC's kicks are most effective at very close range and can delivered at the same time that we are attacking with our hands. That means that we can attack the boxer's legs and disrupt his stance creating holes for our striking attacks. A boxer's stance is not designed to deliver close kicks and punches at the same time. Kick boxers do both, but they typically kick from a longer range, then close to punch. WC  is unusual in this regard.

In the lineage I train, we keep our weight back precisely so we can punch or kick at will without shifting our weight off the front leg. I know of no other system that has a structure so geared for simultaneous close range hand and leg attacks.


----------



## J W (Dec 1, 2013)

Kwan Sau said:


> Again, Izzo and/or this boxer guy do not understand even basic WC IMO.



I'll admit that I didn't watch that entire video before my first response, just the first ten minutes or so. I went back and watched a little more, and I think I may have to agree with you about that. Their arguments start to get a little absurd near the end. 

I'm certainly not an expert myself after only a couple years of training, but seems to me that pretty much everything that the boxer cited as missing from WC is actually there, and most of his characterizations of the weaknesses of WC are based on misunderstandings.

skribs, I wouldn't take anything in that video as indicative of actual WC.


----------



## skribs (Dec 1, 2013)

Is there a better video that you would suggest?

Preferably one that doesn't assume the boxer leaves his arm out after a jab.


----------



## Eric_H (Dec 2, 2013)

skribs said:


> I'm going to guess:
> 2xWrist
> 2xElbow
> 2xShoulder
> ...



You are pretty much spot on with the estimation of joints.

The Hunched posture does protect against incoming blows more easily - it does not protect against clinch and throw very easily. Your neck and sometimes shoulder are more easily compromised. From my limited experience in Thai kickboxing, you'll see them typically be much more upright than a western boxer because the clinch is a big part of their game. WC has the same idea. 

There is no ultimate technique in martial arts, there's only trade. The posture in question gives smaller target, but easier to disrupt gravity - which one you value more is up to the style of fighting you choose to pursue and personal taste/experience.


----------



## blindsage (Dec 2, 2013)

geezer said:


> I know of no other system that has a structure so geared for simultaneous close range hand and leg attacks.


There are quite a few.


----------



## J W (Dec 3, 2013)

skribs said:


> Is there a better video that you would suggest?
> 
> Preferably one that doesn't assume the boxer leaves his arm out after a jab.



Sorry, I don't have any videos for ya. I'll try to give you my take on your original question, though, which I believe was the advantages of the typical WC stance/guard vs a boxer's typical stance/guard. 

First, equal hands. Facing your opponent square on, both hands are in play without having to rotate the body. A boxer needs to rotate their hips and shoulders to get the cross out, so only the lead arm is in play until they do that. Second, with the arms extended in jong sau instead of held close to the face for defense, they are closer to the target, so a smaller movement is needed to attack. Think of this as an aggressive offensive position rather than purely defensive. Third, once contact is made with the hands/arms, we will have tactile information from our opponent. WC will act to get in and establish contact with the opponent quickly, and move to off balance or uproot them. We can react quicker to our opponents moves when we can feel what they are doing. With our hands back in defense, we have to rely solely on visual information. And assuming a square on stance with the feet, instead of one leg leading, we are now free to step in with either foot. The whole body is coordinated on the attack. With one leg back, you have much further to step to bring the rear leg forward. 

There is of course more to it, and there will always be trade-offs, but hopefully that gives an idea of some of the advantages to our WC approach.


----------



## geezer (Dec 3, 2013)

blindsage said:


> There are quite a few.



Help me out here. I can't think of any other well known system that specializes in infighting using a back-weighted stance allowing you to execute simultaneous flurries of punches and kicks. Now my WC doesn't do that so well, and I usually keep my feet on the ground, but my old Chinese sifu used his feet as dextrously as his hands to strike, check, sweep, lock and trap.  Anyone who has seen advanced chi-sau with chi-gherk knows what I'm talking about.

Now I'd guess that some of the other southern Chinese "narrow bridge" systems such as pak-mei, southern mantis, southern dragon and so forth, share some of these skills, and I've seen some similar things in FMA, but if you guys know of other arts that share this focus, let me know.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Dec 3, 2013)

geezer said:


> Help me out here. I can't think of any other well known system that specializes in infighting using a back-weighted stance allowing you to execute simultaneous flurries of punches and kicks. Now my WC doesn't do that so well, and I usually keep my feet on the ground, but my old Chinese sifu used his feet as dextrously as his hands to strike, check, sweep, lock and trap.  Anyone who has seen advanced chi-sau with chi-gherk knows what I'm talking about.
> 
> Now I'd guess that some of the other southern Chinese "narrow bridge" systems such as pak-mei, southern mantis, southern dragon and so forth, share some of these skills, and I've seen some similar things in FMA, but if you guys know of other arts that share this focus, let me know.




Xingyiquan, Taijiquan, Baguazhang all use a back weighted stance all fight in close and all can kick and punch at the same time

A lot of CMA styles have simultaneous kicks and punches but they are not all back weighted stances


----------



## geezer (Dec 3, 2013)

Xue Sheng said:


> Xingyiquan, Taijiquan, Baguazhang all use a back weighted stance all fight in close and all can kick and punch at the same time
> A lot of CMA styles have simultaneous kicks and punches but they are not all back weighted stances



Thanks, _Xue_. I've seen things like that in Xingyichuan and taijiquan but I have no knowledge of those systems. 

Now about the back-weighting. Unless you have your weight back you can't really work your punches and kicks _simultaneously_ since you need to unweight the lead leg before you can lift it up to kick. If you are back-weighted, the lead leg can come into play as needed. The result is fighting with both hands _and_ one-leg at the same time as you can see in the following picture: 

http://www.wtcolorado.com/2006 Seminar/slides/More Intro Chi-Gerk.jpg

Actually, IMO most of the time you are better off not trying to fight with three limbs at once. I really like the following  explanation by Alex Richter:


----------



## skribs (Dec 3, 2013)

> First, equal hands. Facing your opponent square on, both hands are in  play without having to rotate the body. A boxer needs to rotate their  hips and shoulders to get the cross out, so only the lead arm is in play  until they do that.
> 
> Considering the hips pretty much move with the hand, I don't see this as making the punch much slower.
> 
> ...



As to another art that focuses up close, I'd put Muay Thai on the list.  It might not be simultaneous punches and kicks, but the signature strikes for MT, IMHO, are the elbow and knee strikes, which are great close-in strikes.  Those spinning back-elbows are particularly nasty.


----------



## blindsage (Dec 4, 2013)

geezer said:


> Thanks, _Xue_. I've seen things like that in Xingyichuan and taijiquan but I have no knowledge of those systems.
> 
> Now about the back-weighting. Unless you have your weight back you can't really work your punches and kicks _simultaneously_ since you need to unweight the lead leg before you can lift it up to kick. If you are back-weighted, the lead leg can come into play as needed. The result is fighting with both hands _and_ one-leg at the same time as you can see in the following picture:
> 
> http://www.wtcolorado.com/2006 Seminar/slides/More Intro Chi-Gerk.jpg


This is a basic traditional position in Taijiquan. 





Looks pretty much the same as the pic you posted.

As Xue said, many Chinese styles do it.  Systema does it.  Some karate styles do it.  There are a number of other styles that do.


----------



## blindsage (Dec 4, 2013)

Pretty much explains the problem with most WC vs. boxing videos.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Dec 4, 2013)

geezer said:


> Thanks, _Xue_. I've seen things like that in Xingyichuan and taijiquan but I have no knowledge of those systems.
> 
> Now about the back-weighting. Unless you have your weight back you can't really work your punches and kicks _simultaneously_ since you need to unweight the lead leg before you can lift it up to kick. If you are back-weighted, the lead leg can come into play as needed. The result is fighting with both hands _and_ one-leg at the same time as you can see in the following picture:
> 
> ...




Xingyiquan fighting stance






Taiji stance is similar and turn the waist and you pretty much have bagua too.

Also you can (and many do, including me) train a simultaneous kick and strike or kick and block followed by a strike in Xingyiquan 5 elements form with virtually every one of the 5 elements. Also in Taijiquan there is a lot that is done in application that is not seen in the form. And both Xingyi and Taiji can kick and punch at the same time backing up

Baguazhang






Taijiquan (Yang style) the fighting stance in taijiquan is very similar to Play the Lute/Pipa ( &#25163;&#25381;&#29749;&#29750; > shou3 hui1 pi2 pa > Hand Strums the Lute) Which looks similar to the picuters below although I do not believe any of the following Taiji photos are pipa they are all showing the back stance
















Even squirrels do it


----------



## geezer (Dec 4, 2013)

Xue Sheng said:


> Even squirrels do it



Well so much for the MMA fanatics who claim that WC stances and structures are unnatural.


----------



## skribs (Dec 4, 2013)

Actually, we use a similar hand position in hapkido.  However, I think of that as more related to grappling (ready to intercept an attack and then use the attacker's momentum) than striking.


----------



## J W (Dec 4, 2013)

skribs said:


> _First, equal hands. Facing your opponent square on, both hands are in play without having to rotate the body. A boxer needs to rotate their hips and shoulders to get the cross out, so only the lead arm is in play until they do that. _
> _
> Considering the hips pretty much move with the hand, I don't see this as making the punch much slower._


_
_You're right, a skilled boxer can get that cross out there and back pretty quick. But it still takes a split second longer to throw a cross than a jab, because you have to turn the hips/shoulders and the hand has to travel a farther distance.  

WC's main objective is efficiency. While not as powerful, the jab is more efficient than the cross. With my facing square and my hands closer to the target, I'm trying to create a more efficient attack for both hands. This can shave valuable split-seconds off of my attack. Not alot, but every split second counts in a fight and could make the difference between landing my attack and getting punched in the face. 



skribs said:


> _And assuming a square on stance with the feet, instead of one leg leading, we are now free to step in with either foot. The whole body is coordinated on the attack. With one leg back, you have much further to step to bring the rear leg forward._
> 
> _Coming from TKD, I don't think it's too much effort to move forward with either foot (depending on where our weight is). It's a further move forward moving from right leg back to right leg front than square stance to right leg front, which means longer step but more distance gained, so I guess I see what you mean regarding trade-offs._



Again, similar principle to the above. I know you TKD guys can move your feet pretty quick (I used to do TKD way back when), but there's less ground to cover from a neutral stance. 



blindsage said:


> Pretty much explains the problem with most WC vs. boxing videos.



The man makes a great point. To really make a WC vs boxing video, both participants would need to be skilled in both WC and boxing. Otherwise they're just making stuff up. As he admits, he knows nothing about WC and is just making it up, so of course his "Wing Chun" looks laughable. Same thing when a WC guy with no boxing experience talks about how to defeat a boxer- it just ends up looking silly because the "boxer" in those videos won't actually fight like a boxer.


----------



## mook jong man (Dec 4, 2013)

I think it may be worth clarifying , that when we talk about a simultaneous punch/palm strike and a kick in Wing Chun .
It is not just throwing a punch and a kick out there at the same time , the non striking hand will also be controlling the opponents arm via wrist latching to drag the opponent into the strikes , or otherwise engaged in deflecting the opponents strike.
So it will be three limbs in operation at exactly the same time.

Not all Wing Chun lineages have the back weighted stance , in my lineage both feet are equal distance from the opponent and the weight is distributed 50/50.
The logic being as others have alluded to earlier that we have equal opportunity to use either leg to attack/defend with or either hand.
It's also thought that from this stance the total mass of the body can be greater focused to the centerline , but I shall not be getting into that at this juncture.

What I did want to mention is that Geezer's lineage may use the back weighted stance , but as with all Wing Chun the shoulders and torso will still be squared on to the opponent , enabling either arm equal opportunity to trap while the other hand strikes or , in conjunction with a kick.

It could very well be my eye sight , but in the pictures posted of other CMA they are indeed in a back weighted stance  , but I'm afraid that is where the similarity ends.

The shoulders and torso appear to be angled , from a Wing Chun stand point this would make it impossible to have equal opportunity to be able to use either arm for defence /attack equally.

The front arm and leg could certainly launch a simultaneous punch and kick , but with the torso angled and the reduced range of the rear arm  I don't see how it could be brought into play quick enough to fulfill a trapping function.

Of course the torso could be squared up again when getting into close range , but  that takes time  , time you might not have when someone has already made contact with your arms and is affecting your balance.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Dec 4, 2013)

mook jong man said:


> I think it may be worth clarifying , that when we talk about a simultaneous punch/palm strike and a kick in Wing Chun .
> It is not just throwing a punch and a kick out there at the same time , the non striking hand will also be controlling the opponents arm via wrist latching to drag the opponent into the strikes , or otherwise engaged in deflecting the opponents strike.
> So it will be three limbs in operation at exactly the same time.
> 
> ...



You would be surprised what you can do with that back hand, at that angle, in Xingyiquan.

Taiji that back hand may have just grabbed you for control and then kicked and punched you or any number of other things.

But you are correct, it is not likely to ever look like the Wing Chun stance you are talking about


----------



## Nabakatsu (Dec 5, 2013)

I would love to see some examples. I am genuinely interested in the internal styles, and you worded it in such a way that has me most curious!


----------



## VT_Vectis (Dec 5, 2013)

Nabakatsu said:


> I would love to see some examples. I am genuinely interested in the internal styles, and you worded it in such a way that has me most curious!



I second that!


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 5, 2013)

mook jong man said:


> in my lineage both feet are equal distance from the opponent and the weight is distributed 50/50. The logic being as others have alluded to earlier that we have equal opportunity to use either leg to attack/defend with or either hand.



Here is an example that in Taiji, you 

- kick with your leading leg,
- grab and pull your opponent's wrist with your leading hand, and
- strike out your back hand.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGTtkKLiyt0&feature=youtu.be

If you have right leg forward and left hand forward posture (it's called "cross stance" in TCMA), you can perform exactly the same function as your WC stance can. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3KdRTSGA9I&feature=youtu.be

The advantage of the back weight stance is:

- When you move your back foot to touch the back of your front foot, the distance between you and your opponent has not changed yet. This will give you a buffer area to decide whether you want to continue your attack (by moving your leading foot forward), or just retreat (by moving your back foot back again). In WC stance, every step is a 100% committed step. You don't have that safe buffer area as the back weight stance has.


----------



## J W (Dec 5, 2013)

On a side note, after watching the boxing v. WC video posted by Blindsage again, I noticed that the boxers are actually better utilizing WC concepts than the guy who is imitating WC. At the beginning of the video, when he throws out his imitation WC guard, he drops his right shoulder back and loses his facing. The boxer, on the other hand, is actually facing him square on, as opposed to the way we usually think of a "typical" boxing stance with one shoulder forward. The boxer has correct facing and equal hands; the "Wing Chun" guy does not. 

Later in the video when he's discussing whoever it was that said they would just elbow the boxers punches and break his hands (huh?), he points out that his face is here and his elbow is way out here. Centerline. The boxer would be aiming his punch down centerline at his face, so an elbow way off to the side will do no good. He would need to bring his elbow all the way to the center in order for that to work, and at that point his hand is now way past center and it would take too long to get it back into the game. Yeah, well, we agree on that one. I wouldn't want my arm in that position, either (this also open you up to a biu sau and then your facing is completely lost). 

So a couple of examples of where WC and boxing are similar. These guys don't know anything about WC and don't realize that they are utilizing some WC concepts- because the are using boxing concepts. They just happen to be the same.


----------



## geezer (Dec 5, 2013)

Sorry, double post --see below


----------



## geezer (Dec 5, 2013)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you have right leg forward and left hand forward posture (it's called "cross stance" in TCMA), you can perform exactly the same function as your WC stance can.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3KdRTSGA9I&feature=youtu.be



These Shuai chiao (?) guys are leaning forward so much that their stance is nowhere near a "back-weighted" stance. It looks more like 50%-50% weighting. 




Kung Fu Wang said:


> -... *In WC stance, every step is a 100% committed step.* You don't have that safe buffer area as the back weight stance has.



??? _KFW_ -- What lineage of WC did you train that used "100% committed stepping"? To the contrary, the two main branches I studied both used back-weighting, and the one I've studied longest coming from Yip Man via Leung Ting uses back total weighting even when stepping so that the lead leg is always free to attack and defend. 

My old Chinese sifu has demonstrated this in an old video now on Youtube, but it's pretty long, so instead I posted the short clip below in which an instructor from the same general lineage gives a good short demo.

http://www.howcast.com/videos/509884-How-to-Do-Seung-Ma-aka-Advancing-Step-Wing-Chun


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 5, 2013)

geezer said:


> the two main branches I studied both used back-weighting, ...



I have no issue with back weight stance. As long as you have one leg forward and one leg backward, the weight distribution (whether it's 100/0, 70/30, 50/50, 40/60, 30/70, 0/100) depends on your application. When both of your feet have same distance from your opponent's leading foot, no matter which leg that you may move, you will alter the distance between you and your opponent.


----------



## wingchun100 (Dec 16, 2013)

Argh! I'm dying to comment, but I am at work and YouTube is blocked here. The only boxing video I know that Izzo has done is with the "52 blocks" guy. I watched that video before. From what he was saying, it didn't seem to me like the 52 blocks guy had a complete understanding of wing chun even though he said he had trained in it too.

Having said that, I do believe we need to find a way to train more realistically against other styles. For example, a boxer wouldn't just leave a jab hanging out there for you to counter. By the time you reach to pak sao a jab, the boxer has already pulled his arm back. Then again, since everyone in my class trains in wing chun and not boxing, I guess the only way around that would be to bring in a boxer for a demonstration. 

Actually it'd be kind of cool to do a whole series of classes like that: this week we have a grappler, next week a TKD guy, etc. I'd love to get practice against the real thing instead of one wing chun person just pretending to do the other style.


----------



## yak sao (Dec 16, 2013)

wingchun100 said:


> Argh! I'm dying to comment, but I am at work and YouTube is blocked here. The only boxing video I know that Izzo has done is with the "52 blocks" guy. I watched that video before. From what he was saying, it didn't seem to me like the 52 blocks guy had a complete understanding of wing chun even though he said he had trained in it too.
> 
> Having said that, I do believe we need to find a way to train more realistically against other styles. For example, a boxer wouldn't just leave a jab hanging out there for you to counter. By the time you reach to pak sao a jab, the boxer has already pulled his arm back. Then again, since everyone in my class trains in wing chun and not boxing, I guess the only way around that would be to bring in a boxer for a demonstration.
> 
> Actually it'd be kind of cool to do a whole series of classes like that: this week we have a grappler, next week a TKD guy, etc. I'd love to get practice against the real thing instead of one wing chun person just pretending to do the other style.



That is definitely the way to go. My old si-sok was a kick boxer back in Germany. He gave us a couple of excellent clinics on boxing basics. I'm an old shaolin guy, so from time to time I give kicking clinics. I've brought in boxers, other striking arts such as kenpo, kajukenbo, TKD and various grapplers to do clinics for our group.
The goal is to first learn a little bit about other methods so that when we defend against, say a boxing jab, the guys have a pretty good grasp on how to throw one correctly instead of throwing some half baked imitation.
We also use the opportunity of these guest instructors to allow the guys to see if what they're doing can be applied effectively against someone who is well versed in another art.


----------



## JPinAZ (Jan 8, 2014)

J W said:


> The man makes a great point. To really make a WC vs boxing video, both participants would need to be skilled in both WC and boxing. Otherwise they're just making stuff up. As he admits, he knows nothing about WC and is just making it up, so of course his "Wing Chun" looks laughable. Same thing when a WC guy with no boxing experience talks about how to defeat a boxer- it just ends up looking silly because the "boxer" in those videos won't actually fight like a boxer.



He does make a funny/good point about a lot of the 'bad' WC vs boxing demo videos out there. BUT, if you watch the video, while it's clearly obvious he has no admitted WC experience, he actually uses centerline occupation and the bong sau to roll the 'boxer' off his center effectively against the 1-2, somewhat dis-proving his point (@2:45).  Still a funny clip though.


----------

