# Wing Chun Boxing



## KPM

I posted this in the other thread and it didn't get much of a response as the thread took a tangent.  So I thought I would make it a topic of its own.  What do guys think of what Rackemann is doing?  Is combining Wing Chun and Boxing the way to really get it to work in fighting/sparring? 





















He has essentially replaced the typical Wing Chun biomechanical "engine" or power base with a western boxing "engine" or power base while still using a lot of the Wing Chun concepts and techniques.

Is this a valid version of Wing Chun?  Or is this just Boxing with some Wing Chun "add ons"?


----------



## Danny T

Only viewed the first video, it is quite representative of what I teach as to the application within fighting. I impress the use of the hip under the torso vs being front foot weighted when in close.  There times that having a close guard and/or covering is  important. Use of the mon sao/wu sao guard from the outside and attempting to enter is a good way to get smashed.

A good Fighting person (no matter the system or style) must be willing and able to adapt. Strict adherence to ones ideology of any particular method when the opposition is doing something that is beating you is foolish. 

This interpretation and adaptation can be well suited for the the fighting method shown.


----------



## DanT

If you have to use boxing gloves then of course you have to modify your technique a little bit. I don't understand the difference much, because I was always taught to punch with the hip. I just don't understand, if you wanna box, why not just do boxing?

Lap Da
Pak Da
Gan Da
Tan Da

All these techniques work when you master them, you don't need to pretend you know how to box. If you have big gloves on, you can adapt them a bit. I think a lot of people just aren't athletic enough to be able to move around and be dynamic and this is the problem. I do like how athletic and dynamic he moves tho.

Over all, his style of Wing Chun is similar to what I do. Perhaps the differences are:

- I keep the weight slightly on the back leg
- I Kick more
- I keep the shoulders dropped 

The pivoting on the toe is a wing chun concept and is taught in the LDBG form, I do that as well which most wing chun people don't.


----------



## Headhunter

KPM said:


> I posted this in the other thread and it didn't get much of a response as the thread took a tangent.  So I thought I would make it a topic of its own.  What do guys think of what Rackemann is doing?  Is combining Wing Chun and Boxing the way to really get it to work in fighting/sparring?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He has essentially replaced the typical Wing Chun biomechanical "engine" or power base with a western boxing "engine" or power base while still using a lot of the Wing Chun concepts and techniques.
> 
> Is this a valid version of Wing Chun?  Or is this just Boxing with some Wing Chun "add ons"?


If it works for him who cares what you call it.


----------



## jobo

KPM said:


> I posted this in the other thread and it didn't get much of a response as the thread took a tangent.  So I thought I would make it a topic of its own.  What do guys think of what Rackemann is doing?  Is combining Wing Chun and Boxing the way to really get it to work in fighting/sparring?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He has essentially replaced the typical Wing Chun biomechanical "engine" or power base with a western boxing "engine" or power base while still using a lot of the Wing Chun concepts and techniques.
> 
> Is this a valid version of Wing Chun?  Or is this just Boxing with some Wing Chun "add ons"?


was having much the same discussion with kung fu guy. There. Is nothing much wrong with these styles apart from the insistance on using really exaggerated fighting stances tha slow down your movement. Which then leaves the open question of was winchun always rely poor or has is slowly evolved to make it so. Ie slow and unathletic people have turned it in to a style for them


----------



## LFJ

"Adapting Wing Chun Techniques for Boxing"

Yeah. It appears he started with incomplete Wing Chun, i.e.; techniques devoid of fighting strategy.

So, he went to look for similar techniques in Western Boxing to figure out how to apply stuff in a fight, and just ended up mimicking WB overall, while still calling it "Wing Chun Boxing" so he can be the "founder" of something with traditional kung fu roots but effective.



KPM said:


> Is combining Wing Chun and Boxing the way to really get it to work in fighting/sparring?



I think if your Wing Chun isn't really working, you'd be better off just learning boxing than trying to create something by mixing nonfunctional bits with boxing, especially if you've found similar, functional bits already existing in boxing.

If he can make "Wing Chun Boxing" work, it's because of the strategy and techniques as they already exist in boxing. In other words... it's because of the boxing.

Of course, the ego and bank account will be better off if you're a "creator" of a "style", rather than just a guy who cross trains WC and WB.


----------



## KPM

*Only viewed the first video, it is quite representative of what I teach as to the application within fighting. I impress the use of the hip under the torso vs being front foot weighted when in close.  There times that having a close guard and/or covering is  important. Use of the mon sao/wu sao guard from the outside and attempting to enter is a good way to get smashed.*

----So are you saying you use the boxing "biomechanics" he is showing when you apply your Wing Chun?

*A good Fighting person (no matter the system or style) must be willing and able to adapt. Strict adherence to ones ideology of any particular method when the opposition is doing something that is beating you is foolish.*

---I agree.  But adapting to a few different angles or bobbing on occasion when you can't get your hands up to defend fast enough is one thing.  Completely changing your biomechanical base is another.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be saying that you do your "classical" Wing Chun training but then are a bit "freer" with form and mechanics when applying?   I see that as different than making of a point of training with a boxing mechanic specifically on a regular basis.

---Dave pointed out on the other thread that he thinks that the best use of Wing Chun is for refining another martial art.....for taking an art that uses mostly "gross motor skills" and using Wing Chun to refine it and provide the "fine motor skills."   Taking western boxing and then using Wing Chun to "refine it" seems to fit with this idea perfectly.   And....it gives you an effective fighting method that is relatively easier and faster to learn than a TCMA (western boxing), and then refines it and makes it more "martial" by using Wing Chun. 

---I've played around with what Rackemann is doing in his videos off and on over the years.  I spent a good amount of time training Panantukan.   Dan Inosanto's version of Panantukan is essentially western boxing with FMA-specific hand techniques added in.  I do think that the  western boxing biomechanic is more fluid and more "natural" than just about every "classical" or "traditional" martial art out there.   But the question still remains in my mind.....is doing your Wing Chun with a western boxing base or biomechanics still an acceptable or valid form of Wing Chun?  Is this a natural "evolution" of Wing Chun for modern fighting?  Is this the way to make Wing Chun truly "workable" and usable again?


----------



## KPM

*If he can make "Wing Chun Boxing" work, it's because of the strategy and techniques as they already exist in boxing. In other words... it's because of the boxing.*

---Yeah.  That's the one thing you said in your post that is likely true.  And I think that's the point of the whole thing.  Boxing works in free sparring/fighting pretty well.   The same thing can't be said of Wing Chun.   Wing Chun is somewhat specialized.  So can you take something known to work well, and just give it some refinements so it also works in more "specialized" environments?

---Now before everyone goes getting all excited and saying "Wing Chun works well!"  Consider how crappy Wing Chun guys do in just about any sparring video with another style.   Wing Chun guys have not developed a reputation for being good in mixed sparring scenarios....WSLVT guys included.   A good boxer would clean up on just about every TCMA guy you see in the typical sparring/fighting videos on youtube.   So take that guy.....and then teach him some Wing Chun to "refine" or "augment" his boxing skills......


----------



## KPM

DanT said:


> If you have to use boxing gloves then of course you have to modify your technique a little bit. I don't understand the difference much, because I was always taught to punch with the hip.
> 
> .



Dan, no offense, but are you recognizing the different body mechanics in use between Rackemann and "classical" Wing Chun?  There is a lot more to what he is doing than just doing his Wing Chun while wearing boxing gloves.


----------



## Martial D

KPM said:


> I posted this in the other thread and it didn't get much of a response as the thread took a tangent.  So I thought I would make it a topic of its own.  What do guys think of what Rackemann is doing?  Is combining Wing Chun and Boxing the way to really get it to work in fighting/sparring?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He has essentially replaced the typical Wing Chun biomechanical "engine" or power base with a western boxing "engine" or power base while still using a lot of the Wing Chun concepts and techniques.
> 
> Is this a valid version of Wing Chun?  Or is this just Boxing with some Wing Chun "add ons"?



A valid version of Wing Chun. Not even all pure Wing Chun lineages consider all other Wing Chun to be 'valid' so this could get slippery.

Me, I say..does it work?

Yes=valid
No =invalid.

For me it works quite well. Worked for Bruce Lee too.

If it works for this guy, I say great.


----------



## Danny T

KPM said:


> ----So are you saying you use the boxing "biomechanics" he is showing when you apply your Wing Chun?


When applying WC...No.



KPM said:


> ---I agree.  But adapting to a few different angles or bobbing on occasion when you can't get your hands up to defend fast enough is one thing.  Completely changing your biomechanical base is another.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be saying that you do your "classical" Wing Chun training but then are a bit "freer" with form and mechanics when applying?   I see that as different than making of a point of training with a boxing mechanic specifically on a regular basis.


Training WC...We train WC.
My personal interpretation...I move from one base to another depending on what is most applicable. Boxing mechanics is for a different distance from the opponent and what is the objective for using a particular action.
When sparring in Muay Thai I often get my sparring partners frustrated by the shifting to WC when inside fighting and then back to a Muay Thai base with at a longer range.

---Dave pointed out on the other thread that he thinks that the best use of Wing Chun is for refining another martial art.....for taking an art that uses mostly "gross motor skills" and using Wing Chun to refine it and provide the "fine motor skills."   Taking western boxing and then using Wing Chun to "refine it" seems to fit with this idea perfectly.   And....it gives you an effective fighting method that is relatively easier and faster to learn than a TCMA (western boxing), and then refines it and makes it more "martial" by using Wing Chun.

---I've played around with what Rackemann is doing in his videos off and on over the years.  I spent a good amount of time training Panantukan.   Dan Inosanto's version of Panantukan is essentially western boxing with FMA-specific hand techniques added in.  I do think that the  western boxing biomechanic is more fluid and more "natural" than just about every "classical" or "traditional" martial art out there.   But the question still remains in my mind.....is doing your Wing Chun with a western boxing base or biomechanics still an acceptable or valid form of Wing Chun?  Is this a natural "evolution" of Wing Chun for modern fighting?  Is this the way to make Wing Chun truly "workable" and usable again?[/QUOTE]

When I train WC it is WC 
When I train MT it is MT
When I train Boxing it is Boxing...etc.
I would not call what I do personally WC because it is more than just WC.


----------



## Martial D

Danny T said:


> My personal interpretation...I move from one base to another depending on what is most applicable. Boxing mechanics is for a different distance from the opponent and what is the objective for using a particular action.
> When sparring in Muay Thai I often get my sparring partners frustrated by the shifting to WC when inside fighting and then back to a Muay Thai base with at a longer range.



This is my exact experience as well. Soon as the arms tie up, weigh shifts back, spine straightens..I'm doing chi sau in that moment.


----------



## KPM

Danny T said:


> Training WC...We train WC.
> My personal interpretation...I move from one base to another depending on what is most applicable. Boxing mechanics is for a different distance from the opponent and what is the objective for using a particular action.
> When sparring in Muay Thai I often get my sparring partners frustrated by the shifting to WC when inside fighting and then back to a Muay Thai base with at a longer range.
> 
> When I train WC it is WC
> When I train MT it is MT
> When I train Boxing it is Boxing...etc.
> I would not call what I do personally WC because it is more than just WC.



Ok.  Fair enough!  But that begs the question I've asked before.......  Do you need to train the entire system of "classical" Wing Chun from start to finish in order to do that?


----------



## KPM

Good article here:

Why Western Boxing is a form of Self-Defence and better than most others. - Rackemann Wing Chun


----------



## DanT

KPM said:


> Dan, no offense, but are you recognizing the different body mechanics in use between Rackemann and "classical" Wing Chun?  There is a lot more to what he is doing than just doing his Wing Chun while wearing boxing gloves.


I do, I'm just saying if you do use boxing gloves you need to modify the technique a little anyways.


----------



## Juany118

KPM said:


> ---I've played around with what Rackemann is doing in his videos off and on over the years.  I spent a good amount of time training Panantukan.   Dan Inosanto's version of Panantukan is essentially western boxing with FMA-specific hand techniques added in.  I do think that the  western boxing biomechanic is more fluid and more "natural" than just about every "classical" or "traditional" martial art out there.   But the question still remains in my mind.....is doing your Wing Chun with a western boxing base or biomechanics still an acceptable or valid form of Wing Chun?  Is this a natural "evolution" of Wing Chun for modern fighting?  Is this the way to make Wing Chun truly "workable" and usable again?



I don't know if your estimation of Guro's Dan Panantukan is entirely accurate.  One of the guys in my class spent a fair amount of time in the Philippines and he has some background in it, this is how he describes the differences in Northern and Southern Philippines unarmed art.  In the south far more Silat influence.  In the north far more boxing influence (the sometimes used term "dirty boxing".)  Why did he say that?  Because the south was never fully pacified by the USA.  Heck down their they sometimes use the term Silat in general for FMA vs Kali, Arnis or Eskrima.  In the north the US/Western Boxing influence took hold, similar to how in the north you will find Spanish sword techniques in the weapon work.  

Now I will say Guro Dan has inserted some traditional western boxing training techniques that they don't use in the Philippines and that he perhaps leans more towards western boxing than they do as well BUT Panantukan is heavily influenced, in the foot work and punching aspect, by western boxing.  Its actually one of the things I LOVE about FMA.  Often occupied cultures will make the ways of the "invader" forbidden.  The Filipinos did exactly the opposite.  They said "hey sword and dagger (Spanish sword) works!!!!" So we got Espada y daga.  They did the same empty hand eventually.  Elements of the West blended with the native art to make something very effective.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> Boxing works in free sparring/fighting pretty well.   The same thing can't be said of Wing Chun.   Wing Chun is somewhat specialized.  So can you take something known to work well, and just give it some refinements so it also works in more "specialized" environments?



If Wing Chun doesn't work well in sparring/fighting, in what "speciailzed" environment does it work well, _chi-sau_?

Sounds pretty useless! 

Something nonfunctional will not "refine" something functional. It will only crap on it.

So, the same question remains. Why not ditch the Wing Chun (something "known not to work well") and just do Western Boxing (something "known to work well")?


----------



## KPM

Juany118 said:


> I don't know if your estimation of Guro's Dan Panantukan is entirely accurate.  One of the guys in my class spent a fair amount of time in the Philippines and he has some background in it, this is how he describes the differences in Northern and Southern Philippines unarmed art.  In the south far more Silat influence.  In the north far more boxing influence (the sometimes used term "dirty boxing".)  Why did he say that?  Because the south was never fully pacified by the USA.  Heck down their they sometimes use the term Silat in general for FMA vs Kali, Arnis or Eskrima.  In the north the US/Western Boxing influence took hold, similar to how in the north you will find Spanish sword techniques in the weapon work.
> 
> Now I will say Guro Dan has inserted some traditional western boxing training techniques that they don't use in the Philippines and that he perhaps leans more towards western boxing than they do as well BUT Panantukan is heavily influenced, in the foot work and punching aspect, by western boxing.  Its actually one of the things I LOVE about FMA.  Often occupied cultures will make the ways of the "invader" forbidden.  The Filipinos did exactly the opposite.  They said "hey sword and dagger (Spanish sword) works!!!!" So we got Espada y daga.  They did the same empty hand eventually.  Elements of the West blended with the native art to make something very effective.



Well....yeah!  But doesn't that amount to the same thing?  Panantukan is essentially western boxing with FMA-specific hand methods thrown in?


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> If Wing Chun doesn't work well in sparring/fighting, in what "speciailzed" environment does it work well, _chi-sau_?
> 
> Sounds pretty useless!
> 
> Something nonfunctional will not "refine" something functional. It will only crap on it.
> 
> So, the same question remains. Why not ditch the Wing Chun (something "known not to work well") and just do Western Boxing (something "known to work well")?



As Dave noted in the other thread, the "specialized" range for Wing Chun seems to be Chi Sau range or "clinch" range.  That doesn't mean someone would be doing Chi Sau in a fight, but rather that the skills developed in Chi Sau come into play the most at that range.  So if someone is a good boxer, but in the "clinch range" only knows how to hold and hit and then push away..... learning how to deflect and trap and manipulate the opponent ala Wing Chun would indeed be a refinement of his fighting skills. 

Personally I think Wing Chun also has some tools to offer to boxing at punching range.  If you look at something like Lyte Burly's "52 Blocks" there are a lot of elements that "standard" boxing doesn't have, but that bear a good resemblance to Wing Chun.   "Skull & Bones" from 52 Blocks is essentially a Bong Sau.  There are others.


----------



## drop bear

The first video is using concepts from a stance called the philly shell. Which i dont get and cant make work.

So if you can figure out how that works then yeah you could chunify it I suppose.

The trick is to work out where you can apply it.

I probably wouldn't try to go down the philly shell or maywhether path. It just seems too at odds.

I would look more at amature boxing and lomachenko. Who does a bit more of that upright angles and footwork that chun seems to like.


----------



## KPM

I've long thought that Mark Phillips blends a lot of boxing mechanics into his Wing Chun, whether on purpose or not.  I used to think that was a bad thing.  But now I'm changing my mind!  

Wing Chun vs Boxing: What is all the fuss?






Here Mark speaks to the idea of Wing Chun having a specialized range.  Watch what he does when he is not in that "specialized range"!  Sure looks a lot like western boxing!


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> So if someone is a good boxer, but in the "clinch range" only knows how to hold and hit and then push away..... learning how to deflect and trap and manipulate the opponent ala Wing Chun would indeed be a refinement of his fighting skills.



If it can't be said of Wing Chun that it works well in sparring/fighting, as you stated, adding some techniques that only work in _chi-sau_ isn't going to help the boxer in sparring/fighting.



> If you look at something like Lyte Burly's "52 Blocks" there are a lot of elements that "standard" boxing doesn't have, but that bear a good resemblance to Wing Chun.   "Skull & Bones" from 52 Blocks is essentially a Bong Sau.  There are others.



First video that came up for this shows the same thing used in boxing. So, I don't know what this is supposed to add to boxing.








KPM said:


> Here Mark speaks to the idea of Wing Chun having a specialized range.  Watch what he does when he is not in that "specialized range"!  Sure looks a lot like western boxing!



Because most Wing Chun practitioners don't have an overall fighting strategy, so they look elsewhere to figure out how to fight effectively when they aren't attached to someone's arms. 

They think they will do Western Boxing until they are able to achieve "connectivity" and start using their Wing Chun. But, that never happens in reality and it's just the WB that works if anything.

Makes one wonder why they don't just commit fully to learning WB.


----------



## Juany118

KPM said:


> Well....yeah!  But doesn't that amount to the same thing?  Panantukan is essentially western boxing with FMA-specific hand methods thrown in?



Yes indeed, it just read like you were giving Guro Dan credit for that.  The Kali I study is Inosanto Kali, so much respect for Guro Dan, but the credit starts in Cebu, not California


----------



## KPM

*If it can't be said of Wing Chun that it works well in sparring/fighting, as you stated, adding some techniques that only work in chi-sau isn't going to help the boxer in sparring/fighting.*

---Like I said before, it might help out the boxer when he is in clinch range.  It might help him deal with someone that tries to tie up his arms and essentially "hold and hit."   Rackemann addresses that somewhat in the beginning of this clip:








*First video that came up for this shows the same thing used in boxing. So, I don't know what this is supposed to add to boxing.*

---I never said that 52 Blocks added things completely unique.  Just that they added things that weren't typically part of "standard" boxing.  52 Blocks takes some of the things through boxing history that have been shown to work and essentially assembles them into one system and then makes it a bit more "street applicable".  Here is a better explanation of "skull & bones"








*Because most Wing Chun practitioners don't have an overall fighting strategy, so they look elsewhere to figure out how to fight effectively when they aren't attached to someone's arms.*

---Well, if you actually watch Mark Phillip's video, he is explaining short-comings in Wing Chun methods and technique.  So unless your "overall fighting strategy" includes unique footwork and ability to fight from longer range not found in anyone else's Wing Chun, then you are missing the point. (And I will note, as I've said in the past, that charging from long range into close range to play Wing Chun's game is NOT the same thing as having a "long range" ability   )


*They think they will do Western Boxing until they are able to achieve "connectivity" and start using their Wing Chun. But, that never happens in reality and it's just the WB that works if anything*.

---How do you know that never happens in reality?  Certainly seems to happen for both Mark Phillips and Paul Rackemann when free sparring! 

*Makes one wonder why they don't just commit fully to learning WB*.

---Looks to me like they have!  They just choose to also include some Wing Chun.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> ---Like I said before, it might help out the boxer when he is in clinch range.  It might help him deal with someone that tries to tie up his arms and essentially "hold and hit."   Rackemann addresses that somewhat in the beginning of this clip:



Where?



> ---I never said that 52 Blocks added things completely unique.  Just that they added things that weren't typically part of "standard" boxing.



What is "standard" boxing then?



> 52 Blocks takes some of the things through boxing history that have been shown to work and essentially assembles them into one system and then makes it a bit more "street applicable".



Okay, but we were talking about adding things to boxing.



> unless your "overall fighting strategy" includes unique footwork and ability to fight from longer range not found in anyone else's Wing Chun, then you are missing the point.



Well, of course the VT I train has footwork and strategy at longer range. It would be dumb not to.

Do people really think WC was a style created to fight at close range without even addressing how to get there?



> *They think they will do Western Boxing until they are able to achieve "connectivity" and start using their Wing Chun. But, that never happens in reality and it's just the WB that works if anything*.
> 
> ---How do you know that never happens in reality?  Certainly seems to happen for both Mark Phillips and Paul Rackemann when free sparring!



Never seen that from either of them.



> *Makes one wonder why they don't just commit fully to learning WB*.
> 
> ---Looks to me like they have!  They just choose to also include some Wing Chun.



Funny, since they are supposed to be WC-based, but all they seem to know about WC is some hand techniques, no fighting strategy. They have to go to boxing for that.

And in the case of Rackemann, it appears he looked for similar techniques in boxing to figure out how to use them effectively, and ended up just doing boxing while calling it "Wing Chun Boxing".


----------



## KPM

^^^^Sorry.  Not going to let you turn this thread into one of your big pointless arguments.  Ignoring you as best as I can from here on out.


----------



## KPM

Lyte Burly gives his two cents about combining Boxing and Wing Chun.  He is obviously much more a Boxer than a Wing Chun guy, but he has studied Wing Chun:






Here LB talks about merging Boxing and Wing Chun, and what he's saying about range matches up with what Mark Phillips  was saying:











Here LB talks about how Wing Chun has no "long range game."  As I noted before, it isn't enough to just charge into close range and claim that as a "long range" ability:






Here LB talks about achieving that "connectivity" to use skills developed in Chi Sau:







Now clearly LB is not an expert on Wing Chun.  But love him or hate him, the guys know fighting and makes some good points.


----------



## Juany118

KPM said:


> Lyte Burly gives his two cents about combining Boxing and Wing Chun.  He is obviously much more a Boxer than a Wing Chun guy, but he has studied Wing Chun:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here LB talks about merging Boxing and Wing Chun, and what he's saying about range matches up with what Mark Phillips  was saying:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here LB talks about how Wing Chun has no "long range game."  As I noted before, it isn't enough to just charge into close range and claim that as a "long range" ability:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here LB talks about achieving that "connectivity" to use skills developed in Chi Sau:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now clearly LB is not an expert on Wing Chun.  But love him or hate him, the guys know fighting and makes some good points.


I think your post illustrates something that has annoyed me about some TMA practitioners for sometime.  Now they may be VERY skilled at what they do in their school, even a Sifu or Master, but too many simply do not give the respect due to those who have fought for real.  Now if they were to actually listen to what those with the experience have to say and then disagree logically I wouldn't have an issue.  However they enter with a closed mind and in in order to justify there stance they end up using any number of excuses but the excuses lack serious detail to support them.


----------



## drop bear

LFJ said:


> Funny, since they are supposed to be WC-based, but all they seem to know about WC is some hand techniques, no fighting strategy. They have to go to boxing for that.
> 
> And in the case of Rackemann, it appears he looked for similar techniques in boxing to figure out how to use them effectively, and ended up just doing boxing while calling it "Wing Chun Boxing".



There is always going to be a scale with chun on one side boxing on the other and this blend somewhere in the middle.

Boxing is a pretty big style. As it is basically two people punching each other. Pretty much so long as you are just throwing punches. You are boxing.

You can box by standing up and throwing chain punches. No rule against it.


----------



## drop bear

I mean you want to set up boundaries between chun and boxing. But other that a vague feeling of wanting to. Nobody has a suggested a method of doing that.

There does not even seem to be a plan as to what you want boxing to do for chun.

And I think you need to get that locked down.


----------



## DanT

KPM said:


> Lyte Burly gives his two cents about combining Boxing and Wing Chun.  He is obviously much more a Boxer than a Wing Chun guy, but he has studied Wing Chun:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here LB talks about merging Boxing and Wing Chun, and what he's saying about range matches up with what Mark Phillips  was saying:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here LB talks about how Wing Chun has no "long range game."  As I noted before, it isn't enough to just charge into close range and claim that as a "long range" ability:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here LB talks about achieving that "connectivity" to use skills developed in Chi Sau:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now clearly LB is not an expert on Wing Chun.  But love him or hate him, the guys know fighting and makes some good points.


The last video is most similar to how I fight using wing chun. Notice how he uses his arm to indirectly cover the opponents. I like that video a lot.


----------



## DanT

As a side note I was always taught how to slip and duck under and to the side of punches. In fact one of the drills we often do assumes that your hands are full (groceries or in your pocket or what not), and you have to rely on ducking and evading.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> Lyte Burly gives his two cents about combining Boxing and Wing Chun.



Do you also think Wing Chun is "tap and go", "tap, tap, bang"?

That's no different than what many boxers already do.



> Here LB talks about merging Boxing and Wing Chun, and what he's saying about range matches up with what Mark Phillips  was saying:
> 
> Here LB talks about how Wing Chun has no "long range game."  As I noted before, it isn't enough to just charge into close range and claim that as a "long range" ability:



It also matches up with what I was saying, about most WC guys having no overall fighting strategy, and having to look elsewhere to figure out how to actually fight.

You agree with me when you say; 
"_it isn't enough to just charge into close range and claim that as a 'long range' ability._"

That's basically what this thread is about.

You said; "_Boxing works in free sparring/fighting pretty well. The same thing can't be said of Wing Chun._"

You asked; "_Is combining Wing Chun and Boxing the way to really get it to work in fighting/sparring?_"


LB says he'd use MT or WB to get into WC range. The other two guys you mentioned in this thread also go to WB for overall strategy.

But, think about it, would a standup striking art be created to fight at close range without addressing how to get there? Isn't that stupid fantasy fighting?

You obviously have to pass through some danger zones to get to ideal position. Why would WC not address this? Do you think people used to be able to teleport themselves to close range?

_Of course_ YMVT has footwork and strategy at long range to manage distance, bait and draw, and get to the preferred range/position intelligently.

It shouldn't be "charge straight in" versus "resort to Western Boxing".

The problem is, as I've been saying, that most YM students never learned the free fighting aspect of his VT. Now everyone has to look elsewhere to fill gaps.

If the gap they're looking to fill is for an overall fighting strategy, that's a pretty freaking huge gap! 
It's basically the entire thing. Techniques without strategy are useless.

So, again, if people's WC is that deficient, why don't they stop wasting time and just do straight-up boxing?


----------



## drop bear

LFJ said:


> So, again, if people's WC is that deficient, why don't they stop wasting time and just do straight-up boxing?



Because your martial art should be more than the guy who created it. And that means taking the concepts and exploring different ideas with it.

The deficiencies are how a martial art Progress's.


----------



## LFJ

drop bear said:


> Because your martial art should be more than the guy who created it. And that means taking the concepts and exploring different ideas with it.
> 
> The deficiencies are how a martial art Progress's.



Problem is the concepts are missing and needing to be made up for by resorting to other styles, and in the end, these guys end up basically just doing Western Boxing while still calling it Wing Chun, or "Wing Chun Boxing".

That's not progressing the art. That's just tacking the name onto something completely different so that it can appear as if Wing Chun isn't as useless as it has been acknowledged to be.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> _Of course_ YMVT has footwork and strategy at long range to manage distance, bait and draw, and get to the preferred range/position intelligently.



Ok.  If you've got Wing Chun that has a "long range game", and Wing Chun that works reliable and consistently in free sparring with other systems.....then let's see it!   I've posted lots of video so far backing up what I've been saying.  How about you post some video backing up what you're saying rather than just running your mouth???  

Or....at the very least...give us a description and explanation of this "long range game" that you are talking about.  So far, all you do is argue rather than actually contribute to the discussion.


----------



## KPM

*I mean you want to set up boundaries between chun and boxing. But other that a vague feeling of wanting to. Nobody has a suggested a method of doing that.*

---Why do you think there needs to be boundaries?  Rackemann doesn't seem to place any boundary between Wing Chun and boxing.  He seems to blend them together pretty well.  And he says that he no longer teaches the forms.  He starts by teaching solid boxing base and then teaches the Wing Chun "sau's", Chi Sau, and various drills.   Mark Phillips is essentially boxing at range while also including some Wing Chun defensive hands and then flowing smoothly into "standard" Wing Chun at close range.  I don't think a boundary is needed or desirable.  

*There does not even seem to be a plan as to what you want boxing to do for chun.*

---I guess any "plan" would be to make Wing Chun more functional in a modern fighting/sparring environment.  To "update" or "evolve" Wing Chun somewhat.   Now this wouldn't be for everyone!  I would certainly not want to see "classical" Wing Chun go away!    And obviously people are already doing this whether they truly acknowledge it or not.   It seems there are a lot of people out there that are doing "classical Wing Chun" but then resort to some very "boxing-like" structures and methods when sparring, whether they are doing it on purpose or not!   At least that what it looks like in a whole lot of Wing Chun sparring footage that is posted!     And some here have already admitted that this is true.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> Or....at the very least...give us a description and explanation of this "long range game" that you are talking about.  So far, all you do is argue rather than actually contribute to the discussion.



I have done so many times, in fact, mostly addressing you personally.
You always seem to forget. Maybe one of these times it will stick.

See here, for example. I explain a bit how a VT fighter might behave on the outside, which is quite different from what is done once in close range.

It is all part of the overall fighting strategy of VT that ties into close range tactics. Without it, you'll likely be knocked out before ever getting a chance to attempt your "connectivity" and throw a punch, unless you resort to other styles like MT or WB to fill that gap and stay safe at longer range.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> And he says that he no longer teaches the forms.  He starts by teaching solid boxing base and then teaches the Wing Chun "sau's", Chi Sau, and various drills.



He looked for the "_sau_'s" in boxing and started doing them that way, with an actual strategy, to figure out how they can work.

Which means he's just doing boxing while also training _chi-sau_, so he can continue to call it Wing Chun.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> I mean you want to set up boundaries between chun and boxing. But other that a vague feeling of wanting to. Nobody has a suggested a method of doing that.
> 
> There does not even seem to be a plan as to what you want boxing to do for chun.
> 
> And I think you need to get that locked down.


I don't see hard boundaries between them, either. Mind you, I'm not highly knowledgeable in western boxing (a smattering, only), nor in WC (spectator, only), but I don't see hard boundaries between arts, in general. Some are harder to blend (some training/use principles that seem to conflict), but I've seen so many variations that people have trained and integrated for their own use. I'm not sure hard boundaries around an art are good for the art. They freeze an art artificially, and stop it from evolving as knowledge and need change.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

LFJ said:


> Problem is the concepts are missing and needing to be made up for by resorting to other styles, and in the end, these guys end up basically just doing Western Boxing while still calling it Wing Chun, or "Wing Chun Boxing".
> 
> That's not progressing the art. That's just tacking the name onto something completely different so that it can appear as if Wing Chun isn't as useless as it has been acknowledged to be.


Or, it could be them adding some pieces to WC that weren't in their toolbox (whether they were ever in the art or not isn't terribly relevant - they were never in their version of the art). Might that change their approach to WC? Sure. But you're saying that if they make certain changes, you no longer accept what they are doing as WC. I'd argue WC is only a name, and applies to whatever people define it as. If their base (what they built upon) is WC, then what they do can legitimately be referred to as WC, or at least a derivative of WC. At some point, it probably needs an identifier to avoid confusion. "Wing Chun Boxing" is a reasonably descriptive moniker for a WC base with WB tools and tactics integrated. For the purist, it's not fully WC. For many others, it's as WC in their minds as what they do. Who's right? I'm not sure "right" is all that important here.


----------



## LFJ

gpseymour said:


> Or, it could be them adding some pieces to WC that weren't in their toolbox (whether they were ever in the art or not isn't terribly relevant - they were never in their version of the art). Might that change their approach to WC? Sure. But you're saying that if they make certain changes, you no longer accept what they are doing as WC. I'd argue WC is only a name, and applies to whatever people define it as. If their base (what they built upon) is WC, then what they do can legitimately be referred to as WC, or at least a derivative of WC. At some point, it probably needs an identifier to avoid confusion. "Wing Chun Boxing" is a reasonably descriptive moniker for a WC base with WB tools and tactics integrated. For the purist, it's not fully WC. For many others, it's as WC in their minds as what they do. Who's right? I'm not sure "right" is all that important here.



They ain't what happened, though.

As stated in the OP, the "biomechanical engine has been replaced", and the same has happened to the overall fighting strategy, actually because it was lacking in their "classical WC" to begin with.

It's not "a WC base with WB tools and tactics integrated".

It's just WB with the WC name and terminology.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

LFJ said:


> They ain't what happened, though.
> 
> As stated in the OP, the "biomechanical engine has been replaced", and the same has happened to the overall fighting strategy, actually because it was lacking in their "classical WC" to begin with.
> 
> It's not "a WC base with WB tools and tactics integrated".
> 
> It's just WB with the WC name and terminology.


I'll take your word for that one - I don't have the knowledge to discuss at that level. So, is that your primary issue with it, then? If they were still using the biomechanics of WC with the WC movements (and blending in the movements/biomechanics of WB), would that still be WC, to you?

As to the strategy, I'll say that I've never seen an art that had only one strategy everyone agreed upon. There are often commonalities that most agree upon, but then there will be significant groups who prefer a different approach, but still use the techniques and biomechanics of the art - and they are still seen as doing the same art. I'm not saying WC doesn't have a universal strategy - I clearly don't know enough to speak to that. Mind you, all of that depends entirely on whether you and I define "strategy" the same way.


----------



## LFJ

gpseymour said:


> So, is that your primary issue with it, then? If they were still using the biomechanics of WC with the WC movements (and blending in the movements/biomechanics of WB), would that still be WC, to you?



I don't have an issue with what they're doing. If it works, it's because of the WB, though.

Where I take issue is with the idea that WC can't work on its own and needs help for basic things.

That's probably true for most WC in the world, but not all.



> As to the strategy, I'll say that I've never seen an art that had only one strategy everyone agreed upon. There are often commonalities that most agree upon, but then there will be significant groups who prefer a different approach, but still use the techniques and biomechanics of the art - and they are still seen as doing the same art. I'm not saying WC doesn't have a universal strategy - I clearly don't know enough to speak to that. Mind you, all of that depends entirely on whether you and I define "strategy" the same way.



I don't mind if others don't share my strategy, but they shouldn't be clueless as to what to do when not attached to someone's arms. 

That just reveals they have not learned the fully. But, instead they blame WC.


----------



## drop bear

KPM said:


> *I mean you want to set up boundaries between chun and boxing. But other that a vague feeling of wanting to. Nobody has a suggested a method of doing that.*
> 
> ---Why do you think there needs to be boundaries?  Rackemann doesn't seem to place any boundary between Wing Chun and boxing.  He seems to blend them together pretty well.  And he says that he no longer teaches the forms.  He starts by teaching solid boxing base and then teaches the Wing Chun "sau's", Chi Sau, and various drills.   Mark Phillips is essentially boxing at range while also including some Wing Chun defensive hands and then flowing smoothly into "standard" Wing Chun at close range.  I don't think a boundary is needed or desirable.
> 
> *There does not even seem to be a plan as to what you want boxing to do for chun.*
> 
> ---I guess any "plan" would be to make Wing Chun more functional in a modern fighting/sparring environment.  To "update" or "evolve" Wing Chun somewhat.   Now this wouldn't be for everyone!  I would certainly not want to see "classical" Wing Chun go away!    And obviously people are already doing this whether they truly acknowledge it or not.   It seems there are a lot of people out there that are doing "classical Wing Chun" but then resort to some very "boxing-like" structures and methods when sparring, whether they are doing it on purpose or not!   At least that what it looks like in a whole lot of Wing Chun sparring footage that is posted!     And some here have already admitted that this is true.



Sorry the impression I got was that people didnt want wing chun to become boxing. That would indicate that some ideas would be flexible and some wouldn't. For me I couldn't care less. If it works it is good.

As far as a plan I think you need a specific one so that you are incorporating the right stuff.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

LFJ said:


> I don't have an issue with what they're doing. If it works, it's because of the WB, though.
> 
> Where I take issue is with the idea that WC can't work on its own and needs help for basic things.
> 
> That's probably true for most WC in the world, but not all.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't mind if others don't share my strategy, but they shouldn't be clueless as to what to do when not attached to someone's arms.
> 
> That just reveals they have not learned the fully. But, instead they blame WC.


It seems in some schools - maybe some lineages - that is the full system that is taught. I don't think the student can be blamed for seeing the art through that lens. I teach things as part of NGA that others wouldn't view as part of the art. Are they failing to teach the entire system, or have I added to it? I think it's a matter of perspective.


----------



## LFJ

gpseymour said:


> It seems in some schools - maybe some lineages - that is the full system that is taught. I don't think the student can be blamed for seeing the art through that lens. I teach things as part of NGA that others wouldn't view as part of the art. Are they failing to teach the entire system, or have I added to it? I think it's a matter of perspective.



A striking system with only close-range tactics that doesn't address how to get there either had that bit lost in transmission among people who don't fight, or it's a fantasy style created by people who don't fight.


----------



## Martial D

Look this boils down to two camps. Wing Chun as an art vs what can be extracted from WC for fighting.

For me, WC is both. I spend 8 to ten minutes every morning when I wake up doing SLT and it's amazing the focus and sense of 'oneness' I get from that. When I was training it exclusively I would always leave class feeling more 'awake' than when I arrived. 

On the other side of the spectrum I feel WC is a tool-set rather than system of fighting as it leaves way too many things unaddressed.

Even the best tools are just paperweights without the knowledge of when and how to use them.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Many people

- use long fist to build up their basic foundation.
- cross trained preying mantis, or Zimen to learn "speed generation".
- cross train Baji, Chen Taiji, or XYLH to learn "power generation".
- cross train Shuai-Chiao to learn locking/throwing skill.
- cross train BJJ to learn ground skill.

Does

- long fist have speed generation training?
- preying mantis have power generation training?
- Baji have throwing skill training?
- Shuai-Chiao have kick/punch training?
- BJJ have speed generation training?

The answer is no. What may make people to think that WC can have everything?

Boxing was a requirement course for all students in Central Nanking CMA Institute. Every students who graduated from that institute would understand the benefit of "cross training". It makes no sense for our generation to still argue whether "cross training" is necessary or not.


----------



## LFJ

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Does
> 
> - long fist have speed generation training?
> - preying mantis have power generation training?
> - Baji have throwing skill training?
> - Shuai-Chiao have kick/punch training?
> - BJJ have speed generation training?
> 
> The answer is no.



What?? 

How in the world are you taken to be some sort of resident expert on TCMA?

Apart from the SJ you specialize in, you have an extremely simplistic understanding of TCMA.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

LFJ said:


> A striking system with only close-range tactics that doesn't address how to get there either had that bit lost in transmission among people who don't fight, or it's a fantasy style created by people who don't fight.


Or, perhaps it assumed people had those skills, but lacked in-fighting, or the opponents they faced simply weren't effective at that range. I'll grant its more likely that part was lost - perhaps for one of those reasons, and perhaps for other reasons altogether. 

My main point was that the more "complete" version need not be any more accurate to the source. It may have regrow what was once lost.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

LFJ said:


> A striking system with only close-range tactics that doesn't address how to get there either had that bit lost in transmission among people who don't fight, or it's a fantasy style created by people who don't fight.


Actually, let me correct myself. My main point was that what a student is taught, is properly the entire system to them. If they are not taught part of it, it's not their lack of understanding that created a gap.


----------



## Marnetmar

IMO Wing Chun only makes sense as an exclusively clinch-range art. Sure, you can adapt some Chun principles to boxing range, but I don't think you can call it Wing Chun if 90% of the art falls apart and stops making any sense when at that range.


----------



## DanT

All the traditional systems I have learned are complete systems. I don't have to mix it with anything personally.


----------



## anerlich

Glad I started martial arts in a hybrid system and continue to cross train. And stay out stylistic purity arguments like this.


----------



## drop bear

LFJ said:


> A striking system with only close-range tactics that doesn't address how to get there either had that bit lost in transmission among people who don't fight, or it's a fantasy style created by people who don't fight.



It is not completely missing but it is not as comprehensive as it should be. Think BJJ and striking.


----------



## drop bear

anerlich said:


> Glad I started martial arts in a hybrid system and continue to cross train. And stay out stylistic purity arguments like this.



Yeah athetics. Is the least of my martial arts concern. My boss had an issue with it though.

"That just look really messy drop bear"

"Um..... yeah it was a fight"


----------



## drop bear

DanT said:


> All the traditional systems I have learned are complete systems. I don't have to mix it with anything personally.



All the hybrids I have done need the influence of outside sources.

We at best would collect a whole team of specialists to create a better system.

John Wayne Parr: Training with GSP - Interview - Blitz Martial Arts Magazine

I mean we can't afford it. But imagine if we could?


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Actually, let me correct myself. My main point was that what a student is taught, is properly the entire system to them. If they are not taught part of it, it's not their lack of understanding that created a gap.



Not really. What you are taught is never the entire system. You just get enough toolset to find out for yourself.


----------



## Danny T

Take all the gloves off.
In what manner does fighting evolve?


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> I have done so many times, in fact, mostly addressing you personally.
> You always seem to forget.



And that always seems to be your answer rather than actually contributing to the discussion at hand.  If you just want to argue and not contribute, then go elsewhere.

I'll note that nearly an entire day went by and you posted several times.  But you still avoided explaining the "long range game" that you see WSLVT having, nor have you attempted to provide any video showing same. 

This is a current discussion.  You can't say..."oh I explained that all before, everyone should remember."  In a current discussion you contribute to the discussion by explaining your viewpoint.  Then people can talk about it.   Again, if you are only interesting in arguing and not contributing to the discussion, then please go elsewhere.


----------



## KPM

From my current understanding, the "long range game" in boxing works something like this.  Its about being able to control distance and dictate where the fight occurs.   That means being able to move in when you see an advantage in in-fighting, and it means being able to stay just at the edge of contact range when you don't want to engage in in-fighting.  In a nutshell....it is being able to conduct the fight at arm's reach and to choose NOT to be engaged at close-range.  This means in addition to having short, tight and powerful punches on the inside, the fighter also has longer more extended punches that can come from various unpredictable angles at a longer distance.  This also means having the ability to bait and lure the opponent into making mistakes, leaving openings, or over-reaching when you are at a longer range.  It means having good footwork that will let you control distance and adjust angles quickly, using angles that make it harder for the opponent to land solid punches....in other words, being evasive and hard to hit.  Good footwork is also required to move in and out at will....moving in to tag the opponent, and back out again before he can respond well. 

So bottom-line.....having an "long range game" in boxing means the boxer can choose to conduct the entire fight at that range and prevent his opponent from bringing him into "clinch range" or "chi sau range".


LB shows it working here:
















Ok LFJ.  Your turn!   And video showing your version of the "long range game" would be very helpful!


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Not really. What you are taught is never the entire system. You just get enough toolset to find out for yourself.


If someone is not shown part of the system, it isn't their fault they don't know it's in there.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> If someone is not shown part of the system, it isn't their fault they don't know it's in there.



Yeah. I am not sure I like the connotations of that and where it leads though. And I admit I am petty sceptical where terms like the complete method and hidden systems are used. 

It alludes to some sort of secret that only gives a few select martial artists this edge.  

And without a whole heap of supporting evidence becomes very scammy.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Yeah. I am not sure I like the connotations of that and where it leads though. And I admit I am petty sceptical where terms like the complete method and hidden systems are used.
> 
> It alludes to some sort of secret that only gives a few select martial artists this edge.
> 
> And without a whole heap of supporting evidence becomes very scammy.


I'm not sure what you're referring to in that. I'm not saying people shouldn't be shown the whole system, or anything about secret stuff. You popped in on a side-thread where I commented that a person's view of what a style is, is partly determined by what they are taught. If someone isn't taught an entire area of an art, it's not their fault they don't understand that part of the art.

So, what are you arguing against?


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I'm not sure what you're referring to in that. I'm not saying people shouldn't be shown the whole system, or anything about secret stuff. You popped in on a side-thread where I commented that a person's view of what a style is, is partly determined by what they are taught. If someone isn't taught an entire area of an art, it's not their fault they don't understand that part of the art.
> 
> So, what are you arguing against?



This discussion about whole systems when applied to kung fu is another way of waging the never ending linage war.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> This discussion about whole systems when applied to kung fu is another way of waging the never ending linage war.


Except that I never said anyone didn't get the whole system. If you have a problem with that claim, take it up with someone who claimed it.


----------



## Flying Crane

KPM said:


> Good article here:
> 
> Why Western Boxing is a form of Self-Defence and better than most others. - Rackemann Wing Chun


Honestly, I am not impressed by the article.  Sure, boxing is a worthy method, and anyone who is interested in it ought to go ahead and train.

But the author strikes me as someone who doesn't know much about many other systems, and yet wants to put boxing on a pedestal, above other systems.

I'm just not impressed with what he has to say.


----------



## LFJ

gpseymour said:


> Actually, let me correct myself. My main point was that what a student is taught, is properly the entire system to them. If they are not taught part of it, it's not their lack of understanding that created a gap.



I never blamed the student. You only get what you get.


----------



## LFJ

Marnetmar said:


> IMO Wing Chun only makes sense as an exclusively clinch-range art. Sure, you can adapt some Chun principles to boxing range, but I don't think you can call it Wing Chun if 90% of the art falls apart and stops making any sense when at that range.



WC should not fall apart and stop making sense at that range!

An exclusively clinch-range art doesn't make sense if you don't know how to safely get there.

What percentage of BJJ is on the ground? But it has standup strategy and tactics to survive at every range from outside into clinch and down to the ground. 

It's all part of the overall fighting strategy, even though the preferred range/position is on the ground.

It would be stupid not to consider all the standup ranges that commonly happen in a fight.


----------



## LFJ

drop bear said:


> It is not completely missing but it is not as comprehensive as it should be. Think BJJ and striking.



It is completely missing if they don't have a WC answer and must look elsewhere for basic things like what to do when you aren't attached to someone's arms.

BJJ has BJJ strategy for all ranges of standup, though the goal is to get to the ground and finish.

VT has VT strategy for all ranges of standup, though the goal is to get to close-range and finish.

Thinking you're just going to teleport to your preferred position and not have to worry about ranges in between is fantasy.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> And that always seems to be your answer rather than actually contributing to the discussion at hand.  If you just want to argue and not contribute, then go elsewhere.
> 
> I'll note that nearly an entire day went by and you posted several times.  But you still avoided explaining the "long range game" that you see WSLVT having, nor have you attempted to provide any video showing same.
> 
> This is a current discussion.  You can't say..."oh I explained that all before, everyone should remember."  In a current discussion you contribute to the discussion by explaining your viewpoint.  Then people can talk about it.   Again, if you are only interesting in arguing and not contributing to the discussion, then please go elsewhere.



Blah, blah, blah...

I linked you to a long and detailed post already explaining it.

How 'bout you not just read my first sentence and have a knee-jerk emotional reaction, and actually follow the provided link...?


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> I
> BJJ has BJJ strategy for all ranges of standup, though the goal is to get to the ground and finish.
> 
> VT has VT strategy for all ranges of standup, though the goal is to get to close-range and finish.
> .



Having a strategy for moving from long range into your systems desirable close-range is NOT the same thing as having a "long range game" as I have said several times now.  BJJ is a good example.   BJJ has methods for surviving until they can get the takedown and do their thing.  But that is not the same thing as having a "long range game."   So what do many BJJ guys do?  They learn to box or kickbox!   If BJJ had a "long range game" then they would have the ability to conduct the entire fight from long range.  If Wing Chun had a "long range game", we would be able to conduct the entire fight from long range.   I explained that pretty well in my last post.  I made the effort to actually explain what I'm talking about in some detail and contribute to this discussion.  And your response was to simply ignore my points and say "blah, blah, blah."

Some Wing Chun guys think they can use their techniques on the ground.  But would you say that Wing Chun has a "ground game"?   Does boxing have a "ground game"?   I'd say "no" to both!  Just like I would  say that Wing Chun and BJJ both have no "long range game."  

And let me repost something else you ignored:

T*his is a current discussion. You can't say..."oh I explained that all before, everyone should remember." In a current discussion you contribute to the discussion by explaining your viewpoint. Then people can talk about it. Again, if you are only interesting in arguing and not contributing to the discussion, then please go elsewhere.*


----------



## drop bear

LFJ said:


> It is completely missing if they don't have a WC answer and must look elsewhere for basic things like what to do when you aren't attached to someone's arms.
> 
> BJJ has BJJ strategy for all ranges of standup, though the goal is to get to the ground and finish.
> 
> VT has VT strategy for all ranges of standup, though the goal is to get to close-range and finish.
> 
> Thinking you're just going to teleport to your preferred position and not have to worry about ranges in between is fantasy.



Ok lets suggest it is completely missing. Looking at range fighting ideas  from boxing will give them pretty much the best possible set of tactics to adress that issue. 

So it would be more of a reason to collaborate with boxers. Not less of one.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> Having a strategy for moving from long range into your systems desirable close-range is NOT the same thing as having a "long range game" as I have said several times now.



Never said it was. It all fits together. Overall fight strategy.

Everything you said here below can be done with VT strategy and tactics, with exception of extended punches we don't want to throw and potentially have expose us, unless necessary.

This says much of the same thing I already outlined in my post you refuse to look at. 
The difference is in the specifics.



> _Its about being able to control distance and dictate where the fight occurs. That means being able to move in when you see an advantage in in-fighting, and it means being able to stay just at the edge of contact range when you don't want to engage in in-fighting. In a nutshell....it is being able to conduct the fight at arm's reach and to choose NOT to be engaged at close-range. This means in addition to having short, tight and powerful punches on the inside, the fighter also has longer more extended punches that can come from various unpredictable angles at a longer distance. This also means having the ability to bait and lure the opponent into making mistakes, leaving openings, or over-reaching when you are at a longer range. It means having good footwork that will let you control distance and adjust angles quickly, using angles that make it harder for the opponent to land solid punches....in other words, being evasive and hard to hit. Good footwork is also required to move in and out at will....moving in to tag the opponent, and back out again before he can respond well._



This is essential, because while the preferred VT method might be to get in and finish, if the person I'm facing is more skilled than me at close-range, staying there when it's not working is going to get me hurt.

VT has methods of recovering to the outside when necessary. It has methods of controlling distance at long range, keeping the opponent at bay, using evasive footwork, then baiting and drawing them into overextension and errors that we can capitalize on. We can stay out and finish with kicks at long-range, too, or use that to open them up for finishing punches. All VT. No need to resort to WB.

Question:

What the heck does a WC fighter do when they are outclassed at close-range and have no long-range plan, or plan B whatsoever?? 

If they haven't cross-trained they just get knocked out?

Great system! Very intelligent...



> And let me repost something else you ignored:
> 
> T*his is a current discussion. You can't say..."oh I explained that all before, everyone should remember." In a current discussion you contribute to the discussion by explaining your viewpoint. Then people can talk about it. Again, if you are only interesting in arguing and not contributing to the discussion, then please go elsewhere.*



I answered. You refused to follow the link for some reason.

You posted links to an article in this thread. Why don't you copy the whole thing here, too?

Also, this is not KPMartialtalk.com. Don't tell me where and what I can post.

If you don't like it, you need not talk to me.


----------



## LFJ

drop bear said:


> Ok lets suggest it is completely missing. Looking at range fighting ideas  from boxing will give them pretty much the best possible set of tactics to adress that issue.
> 
> So it would be more of a reason to collaborate with boxers. Not less of one.



Probably so! I was not saying there is anything wrong with drawing from Western Boxing, if they can make it work. It's definitely better than non-functional "Classical WC".

I'm just saying YMVT already has VT ideas at different ranges that tie into its overall strategy. No need to look elsewhere or result to other methods for basic standup fighting ideas, unless something so fundamental and crucial is severely lacking from the system as one has learned it.


----------



## drop bear

LFJ said:


> Probably so! I was not saying there is anything wrong with drawing from Western Boxing, if they can make it work. It's definitely better than non-functional "Classical WC".
> 
> I'm just saying YMVT already has VT ideas at different ranges that tie into its overall strategy. No need to look elsewhere or result to other methods for basic standup fighting ideas, unless something so fundamental and crucial is severely lacking from the system as one has learned it.



The YMVT ideas may not suit the wing chun guys goals as readily as boxing. In which case looking elsewhere is the better option in this case. YMVT may even have crucial details missing that has been picked up by someone else.


----------



## LFJ

drop bear said:


> The YMVT ideas may not suit the wing chun guys goals as readily as boxing. In which case looking elsewhere is the better option in this case. YMVT may even have crucial details missing that has been picked up by someone else.



VT ideas suit VT goals. Boxing ideas are often contradictory, so looking there is not a good option.

The reason "Wing Chun Boxing" might work, is because it's actually just boxing... 

Everything that was WC– the biomechanical engine, non-existent fighting strategy– has been replaced or gap-filled with WB or changed to mimic WB methods, as with the hand techniques found working in WB in a WB way which has been adopted.

In the end, it's just WB with the WC name.


----------



## drop bear

LFJ said:


> VT ideas suit VT goals. Boxing ideas are often contradictory, so looking there is not a good option.
> 
> The reason "Wing Chun Boxing" might work, is because it's actually just boxing...
> 
> Everything that was WC– the biomechanical engine, non-existent fighting strategy– has been replaced or gap-filled with WB or changed to mimic WB methods, as with the hand techniques found working in WB in a WB way which has been adopted.
> 
> In the end, it's just WB with the WC name.


Well obviously you would choose the parts of boxing that suits the parts if chun.

You dont have to do all of either system.

Chun people are not all idiots. They should be able to figure out what they are trying to achieve.

I dont think it matters if what they come up with was the origional intention of the guy who created the system or not.

Just come up with something good.


----------



## LFJ

drop bear said:


> Well obviously you would choose the parts of boxing that suits the parts if chun.
> 
> You dont have to do all of either system.



VT is designed to work in a way that WB does not.

It also doesn't have extra parts you can just throw out and still expect it to work. It doesn't have many parts to begin with.

The strategy and tactics form a highly integrated approach to fighting. If some elements are missing it no longer works.

If gap-filled, it also generally doesn't go well, unless the gap is the entire fighting strategy and method that gets transplanted, as with "Wing Chun Boxing".



> I dont think it matters if what they come up with was the origional intention of the guy who created the system or not.
> 
> Just come up with something good.



Well, if you're starting from what you acknowledge is a non-functional system,
I guess anything you add to it that has been demonstrated to work would do it good.


----------



## KPM

*Everything you said here below can be done with VT strategy and tactics, with exception of extended punches we don't want to throw and potentially have expose us, unless necessary.
*
----Please explain how Wing Chun would conduct the fight entirely from long range without ever closing to "chi sau" range/close range.  Better yet, please post a video of a WSLVT  guy doing this very thing, as I did of boxers doing this. 
*

This says much of the same thing I already outlined in my post you refuse to look at.
*
----Hard to believe that you are so lazy or so smug that you can't be bothered to restate or summarize your other post or even cut and paste it here for the benefit of those following this discussion so it can be considered in the context of the rest of this discussion.
*


VT has methods of recovering to the outside when necessary. It has methods of controlling distance at long range, keeping the opponent at bay, using evasive footwork, then baiting and drawing them into overextension and errors that we can capitalize on. We can stay out and finish with kicks at long-range, too, or use that to open them up for finishing punches. All VT. No need to resort to WB.*

----Then please illustrate that, because I don't believe you.   WB is designed to work in a way that VT does not.  All those things you mentioned are  highly developed in WB, and from what I've seen only rudimentary in VT.   So the burden of proof is on you.  Post the video.  If you can't find one, make one.


*You posted links to an article in this thread. Why don't you copy the whole thing here, too?*

---I posted a link, and then videos that supported what I was saying.  The videos were the important part.  People could choose to follow the link  or not.  Where are your videos supporting what you are saying???


*Also, this is not KPMartialtalk.com. Don't tell me where and what I can post.*

---Then stop being such a XXXXX and actually contribute to the discussion!

*If you don't like it, you need not talk to me.*

---If you do't like it, then there is no need for you to post on the threads that I start and try and turn each of them into a huge pointless argument.   Please go elsewhere!   Better yet, start your own thread for discussion!  Oh wait....you never do that.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> ----Please explain how Wing Chun would conduct the fight entirely from long range without ever closing to "chi sau" range/close range.



That is not the goal of VT. You wouldn't just choose to do that. 
Doesn't mean we have no long-range strategy or tactics.

It would be stupid not to, because that is a range that commonly needs to be dealt with in standup fighting.



> ----Hard to believe that you are so lazy or so smug that you can't be bothered to restate or summarize your other post or even cut and paste it here for the benefit of those following this discussion so it can be considered in the context of the rest of this discussion.



Here is the link again. If you aren't too lazy or stubborn, just click on it and read.



> ----Then please illustrate that, because I don't believe you.   WB is designed to work in a way that VT does not.  All those things you mentioned are  highly developed in WB, and from what I've seen only rudimentary in VT.   So the burden of proof is on you.  Post the video.  If you can't find one, make one.



Burden of proof? lol 

I don't care. I've explained enough. I'm not here to teach you VT.

Plus, as confrontational as you are being with me, you think I'd go out of my way to make an instructional video for you??



> Where are your videos supporting what you are saying???



Not needed.



> ---If you do't like it, then there is no need for you to post on the threads that I start and try and turn each of them into a huge pointless argument.   Please go elsewhere!   Better yet, start your own thread for discussion!  Oh wait....you never do that.



If you start KPMartialtalk.com I promise I won't register and comment on any of "your threads".

But this here is an open forum, so I will comment on whichever thread I please.


----------



## Juany118

anerlich said:


> Glad I started martial arts in a hybrid system and continue to cross train. And stay out stylistic purity arguments like this.




Agreed, I just come at that from a different angle.  I studied other arts before and now study in a school where we bounce between studying TWC and Inosanto Kali.  Doing all of that has shown me two things...
1. any single fighting style has holes/weaknesses, no matter how small.
2. if you have an open mind you can see how most fighting styles have a spot where they dovetail with another, sometimes seemingly opposite arts.  

An example of number 2.  One night one of my Sifu's used be as a demonstrator because I am good at kicking.  I did a full speed round kick to the ribs, he did a fook sau in such a way that spun me and put me completely off balance.  It was WC but it felt so much like the Aikido it blew my damn mind.


----------



## Juany118

Danny T said:


> Take all the gloves off.
> In what manner does fighting evolve?



I think some of the evolution comes from mind set more so than technique.  Example, some TMA schools can have rather rigid mind sets... "this is 'right', this is 'wrong'.  Wrong means it is not WC at all" as an example.  This is of course more a matter of how TMAs have been taught over the last 50 odd years because of the lack of actual combat use and/or formal "real" fighting/competition.  

Because things like boxing, MMA, Krav Maga etc. do see such use and many I (though not all) of the teachers have some experience in real use there is a more open mind set that accepts that if it works, and adhere's to the core principles of the style, it is part of the style because what matters most is winning/survival.

Now there are some TMA instructors who also take the "modern" mindset BUT, in my experience at least, these instructors are the minority.


----------



## Juany118

KPM said:


> *
> 
> VT has methods of recovering to the outside when necessary. It has methods of controlling distance at long range, keeping the opponent at bay, using evasive footwork, then baiting and drawing them into overextension and errors that we can capitalize on. We can stay out and finish with kicks at long-range, too, or use that to open them up for finishing punches. All VT. No need to resort to WB.*
> 
> ----Then please illustrate that, because I don't believe you.   WB is designed to work in a way that VT does not.  All those things you mentioned are  highly developed in WB, and from what I've seen only rudimentary in VT.   So the burden of proof is on you.  Post the video.  If you can't find one, make one.



Part of that confused me because the footwork, controlling distance etc, are essentially the "foundation" of not only Western Boxing but any combative system.  That response makes it sound unique to WC.  I also, don't see, how baiting someone into over extension is a "long game", its more making someone fall into your "short game."

That said I wonder how much of part of this debate is a matter of semantics.  As an example, one can say they "baited" someone into creating an opening.  If you are fighting a skilled opponent baiting, the way I am taught, isn't easy.  However both the Kali and TWC I study are taught to me in the following way.  It's not just about obtaining a dominant position and trying to dominate your opponent (though this is important), it's about flow.  

Forget about the way I am taught, in my experience of violence a fight moves too fast for me to say "_I will do X, this will bait him into doing Y and this will give me an opening for Z, Z.1, whatever_."  First I can never be sure he will do "Y", ergo I can't plan on a retaliatory measure.  Every action does have a reaction but these reactions are most often unpredictable so what I need to do is truly be in the moment so I have awareness and sensitivity to what is happening and then flow into what ever reaction my action generated.  

But the above is simply my perspective via the lens of my study.  I say that I have allowed my opponent to show me where to strike, someone else may say "I baited him into providing that opening."


----------



## Nobody Important

LFJ said:


> A striking system with only close-range tactics that doesn't address how to get there either had that bit lost in transmission among people who don't fight, or it's a fantasy style created by people who don't fight.


Who says it's a striking art? You're entire argument is based on the premise that all systems of Wing Chun are. If thats the case you bring up valid points, but I view my system as a close range bridging art based on being grabbed. From my perspective your points aren't as valid and the rudimentary punching skills in Wing Chun require an altered approach to deal with closing the gap to intentionally get into that range.


----------



## LFJ

Nobody Important said:


> Who says it's a striking art? You're entire argument is based on the premise that all systems of Wing Chun are. If thats the case you bring up valid points, but I view my system as a close range bridging art based on being grabbed.



Just talking about YMVT, as the two examples given in this thread are incomplete YMVT being gap-filled with WB. YMVT is a striking style.


----------



## LFJ

Juany118 said:


> Part of that confused me because the footwork, controlling distance etc, are essentially the "foundation" of not only Western Boxing but any combative system.  That response makes it sound unique to WC.



Of course it isn't unique to VT, but KPM doesn't believe those are part of VT.



> I also, don't see, how baiting someone into over extension is a "long game", its more making someone fall into your "short game."



Depends on how you deal with it. Is a kick to the gut "short game"?



> That said I wonder how much of part of this debate is a matter of semantics.  As an example, one can say they "baited" someone into creating an opening.  If you are fighting a skilled opponent baiting, the way I am taught, isn't easy.  However both the Kali and TWC I study are taught to me in the following way.  It's not just about obtaining a dominant position and trying to dominate your opponent (though this is important), it's about flow.
> 
> Forget about the way I am taught, in my experience of violence a fight moves too fast for me to say "_I will do X, this will bait him into doing Y and this will give me an opening for Z, Z.1, whatever_."  First I can never be sure he will do "Y", ergo I can't plan on a retaliatory measure.  Every action does have a reaction but these reactions are most often unpredictable so what I need to do is truly be in the moment so I have awareness and sensitivity to what is happening and then flow into what ever reaction my action generated.
> 
> But the above is simply my perspective via the lens of my study.  I say that I have allowed my opponent to show me where to strike, someone else may say "I baited him into providing that opening."



Baiting, drawing, and forcing counters are not uncommon, not even in pro Western Boxing.

Read this post and the linked article on the topic to understand more.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> I don't care. I've explained enough. I'm not here to teach you VT.
> 
> .



Ok.  Then please stop posting on my thread and trying to create pointless arguments.


----------



## Nobody Important

LFJ said:


> Just talking about YMVT, as the two examples given in this thread are incomplete YMVT being gap-filled with WB. YMVT is a striking style.


OK, that's fair enough.  I wasn't aware of the context of the discussion being limited to YMVT exclusively.


----------



## KPM

*That said I wonder how much of part of this debate is a matter of semantics. *

---I have explained pretty clearly what having a "long range game" means.  This is different than just having a "long range strategy" that allows you to get to close range quickly and safely.  Yet LFJ turned around and said that everything I described for the "long range game" in boxing, WSLT does as well.  So I don't know how he is defining his "semantics."  But there it is!  



*Forget about the way I am taught, in my experience of violence a fight moves too fast for me to say "I will do X, this will bait him into doing Y and this will give me an opening for Z, Z.1, whatever."  First I can never be sure he will do "Y", ergo I can't plan on a retaliatory measure. *

----Good point!  But maybe different in a sparring situation compared to a high adrenaline real self-defense encounter.


----------



## KPM

Nobody Important said:


> OK, that's fair enough.  I wasn't aware of the context of the discussion being limited to YMVT exclusively.



It wasn't.  But everything always comes down to "everything else" being substandard compared to YMVT (he actually means WSLVT) in LJF's mind.


----------



## Martial D

KPM said:


> ---I have explained pretty clearly what having a "long range game" means.  This is different than just having a "long range strategy" that allows you to get to close range quickly and safely.



Indeed. The difference between being able to finish them at that range and not being able to.

Why develop strategy to get them elsewhere when you can instead learn to get them anywhere?


----------



## KPM

Now it seems to me that Wing Chun guys generally don't fare too well in sparring other styles simply because they lack a "long range game."  So this is what Boxing can bring to Wing Chun to make it an effective modern fighting style....the long range game!  Too many Wing Chun guys simply try to charge into close range so they can do the shorter Wing Chun punches and use Chi Sau-type applications.  But if their opponent is good at maintaining range and actually has a "long range game", the Wing Chun guy can find it very difficult to "do his thing."  He ends up eating heavy kicks and long punches.  And in frustration he typically abandons any semblance of Wing Chun structure and technique and resorts to the only thing that will half-way function for him....a form of "sloppy kickboxing" until he can get to his preferred "close range" where he can start chain punching and trapping.  Doesn't it seem like a much better approach to training for sparring to learn Boxing so you can do well at longer ranges until you get to the "Wing Chun range"???

I spent a good amount of time searching for Wing Chun sparring videos and I couldn't find a single one of a Wing Chun actually having any kind of success conducting his fight from long range.  I'd say every video I watched had the Wing Chun essentially standing back and avoiding blows and then trying to charge into close range while taking minimum damage.

Here's a few of the videos that I found interesting or that illustrate what I'm talking about.


Here's a guy that can't figure out how to fight from long range.  He keeps throwing his Wing Chun punches when they aren't even close enough to land!  He can't seem to get into close range to use his Wing Chun hardly at all.   And this match was in the "finals" of this tournament!!






These guys aren't doing too bad.  But watch how they have no "long range game" at all.  They simply step into close range and starting throwing punches!






Another guy with no "long range game" at all.  Just charge in and start punching!






This is one of the better clips of a TWC guy sparring.  He maintains good form and technique throughout.  But again, he is essentially just charging into Wing Chun punching range.  He isn't trying to fight from the outside or "long range" at all.






Here is an "International" Wing Chun sparring competition.  Sanda rules.  The fighting starts at 3:48.  They are hardly even recognizable as Wing Chun!  They should have done some boxing training prior to these bouts and they would have done much better!






Now here is some good "close range" sparring!  But note that they don't even try to start at long range and then close the distance.  They just step up and start going at it!  However, this is a good example of what Wing Chun can bring to Boxing....all of this trapping and hitting at close range without clinching.

Gary Lam Wing Chun Kung Fu - Free Spar / Pressure Testing


Here are a couple of guys sparring.  They don't call it "Wing Chun Boxing", but I would!  They would probably both be doing much better if they actually spent time training the boxing structure they both end up resorting to when they spar.  

Wing Chun Sparring

Here's a pretty good boxer using his "long range game" for some light  sparring with his Wing Chun friend.  You can see the Wing Chun guy never even got in close enough to land a punch and just ended up looking like crappy kickboxing.

Who Wins? Wing Chun vs Boxing Sparring


So I am reaching the conclusion that the best way to upgrade or "evolve" Wing Chun and make it more workable in a modern fighting/sparring context is to merge it with western Boxing.  This will bring a great "long range game" to Wing Chun that is essential in a free-fighting context.   And Wing Chun will bring to the mix the close range trapping and hitting work while avoiding the clinch.   It will also make the boxing more "martial"......it will be a form of "martial boxing" rather than strictly sport boxing.   The result, as Rackemann shows, will no longer be "just boxing" and will no longer be "classical" Wing Chun.  It will be "Wing Chun Boxing."


----------



## drop bear

LFJ said:


> VT is designed to work in a way that WB does not.
> 
> It also doesn't have extra parts you can just throw out and still expect it to work. It doesn't have many parts to begin with.
> 
> The strategy and tactics form a highly integrated approach to fighting. If some elements are missing it no longer works.
> 
> If gap-filled, it also generally doesn't go well, unless the gap is the entire fighting strategy and method that gets transplanted, as with "Wing Chun Boxing".
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if you're starting from what you acknowledge is a non-functional system,
> I guess anything you add to it that has been demonstrated to work would do it good.



Exept boxing is a pretty big concept. It incorporates a lot of different ideas. More like kung fu. It is an umbrella term. So when you say designed to work in a way that boxing doesnt. Boxing works by punching better than the other guy. How would VT differ in such a general concept?

If VT has these issues that it cant integrate or be integrated then again I dont understand why you are suggesting someone integrate it. You would pick a system that does integrate well with other systems.

If you are starting from a functional system adding things that work also helps.


----------



## Martial D

KPM said:


> Now it seems to me that Wing Chun guys generally don't fare too well in sparring other styles simply because they lack a "long range game."  So this is what Boxing can bring to Wing Chun to make it an effective modern fighting style....the long range game!  Too many Wing Chun guys simply try to charge into close range so they can do the shorter Wing Chun punches and use Chi Sau-type applications.  But if their opponent is good at maintaining range and actually has a "long range game", the Wing Chun guy can find it very difficult to "do his thing."  He ends up eating heavy kicks and long punches.  And in frustration he typically abandons any semblance of Wing Chun structure and technique and resorts to the only thing that will half-way function for him....a form of "sloppy kickboxing" until he can get to his preferred "close range" where he can start chain punching and trapping.  Doesn't it seem like a much better approach to training for sparring to learn Boxing so you can do well at longer ranges until you get to the "Wing Chun range"???
> 
> I spent a good amount of time searching for Wing Chun sparring videos and I couldn't find a single one of a Wing Chun actually having any kind of success conducting his fight from long range.  I'd say every video I watched had the Wing Chun essentially standing back and avoiding blows and then trying to charge into close range while taking minimum damage.
> 
> Here's a few of the videos that I found interesting or that illustrate what I'm talking about.
> 
> 
> Here's a guy that can't figure out how to fight from long range.  He keeps throwing his Wing Chun punches when they aren't even close enough to land!  He can't seem to get into close range to use his Wing Chun hardly at all.   And this match was in the "finals" of this tournament!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These guys aren't doing too bad.  But watch how they have no "long range game" at all.  They simply step into close range and starting throwing punches!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another guy with no "long range game" at all.  Just charge in and start punching!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is one of the better clips of a TWC guy sparring.  He maintains good form and technique throughout.  But again, he is essentially just charging into Wing Chun punching range.  He isn't trying to fight from the outside or "long range" at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is an "International" Wing Chun sparring competition.  Sanda rules.  The fighting starts at 3:48.  They are hardly even recognizable as Wing Chun!  They should have done some boxing training prior to these bouts and they would have done much better!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now here is some good "close range" sparring!  But note that they don't even try to start at long range and then close the distance.  They just step up and start going at it!  However, this is a good example of what Wing Chun can bring to Boxing....all of this trapping and hitting at close range without clinching.
> 
> Gary Lam Wing Chun Kung Fu - Free Spar / Pressure Testing
> 
> 
> Here are a couple of guys sparring.  They don't call it "Wing Chun Boxing", but I would!  They would probably both be doing much better if they actually spent time training the boxing structure they both end up resorting to when they spar.
> 
> Wing Chun Sparring
> 
> Here's a pretty good boxer using his "long range game" for some light  sparring with his Wing Chun friend.  You can see the Wing Chun guy never even got in close enough to land a punch and just ended up looking like crappy kickboxing.
> 
> Who Wins? Wing Chun vs Boxing Sparring
> 
> 
> So I am reaching the conclusion that the best way to upgrade or "evolve" Wing Chun and make it more workable in a modern fighting/sparring context is to merge it with western Boxing.  This will bring a great "long range game" to Wing Chun that is essential in a free-fighting context.   And Wing Chun will bring to the mix the close range trapping and hitting work while avoiding the clinch.   It will also make the boxing more "martial"......it will be a form of "martial boxing" rather than strictly sport boxing.   The result, as Rackemann shows, will no longer be "just boxing" and will no longer be "classical" Wing Chun.  It will be "Wing Chun Boxing."


If I need to remove a screw, a screwdriver is an elegant tool I would not want to be without.

Sometimes you need to remove a nail.


----------



## Nobody Important

KPM said:


> It wasn't.  But everything always comes down to "everything else" being substandard compared to YMVT (he actually means WSLVT) in LJF's mind.


Just to chum the waters a bit. Wasn't WSL a boxer prior to learning Wing Chun? Isn't it possible that he recognized a deficiency in the method and corrected it by modifying it based on knowledge and experience of WB? Who would be the wiser if he did? Especially if the modification occurred after Yip Man passed, there would be very few who could confirm or deny any alterations.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> It wasn't.  But everything always comes down to "everything else" being substandard compared to YMVT (he actually means WSLVT) in LJF's mind.



How so, if all I was talking about is YMVT?

You gave no example of non-YM WC being mixed with boxing.



KPM said:


> Doesn't it seem like a much better approach to training for sparring to learn Boxing so you can do well at longer ranges until you get to the "Wing Chun range"???



Since you did a good job showing that most WC doesn't work, even at close range, I think the better approach would be to just learn WB.

The only one you thought did neat WC stuff at close range was the GLWC "free sparring", but it was actually one guy feeding 2 or 3 straight punches then pausing for the other guy to do his tricks. That was "pressure testing"...

I think most boxers would know better than to want to add WC stuff to what they do. It would just mess up their already functional methods more than anything.


----------



## LFJ

drop bear said:


> Exept boxing is a pretty big concept. It incorporates a lot of different ideas. More like kung fu. It is an umbrella term. So when you say designed to work in a way that boxing doesnt. Boxing works by punching better than the other guy. How would VT differ in such a general concept?



Right. Boxing is a set of rules with many different ring approaches.

VT doesn't function under the ruleset and none of those approaches resemble VT in specific strategy or tactics.



> If VT has these issues that it cant integrate or be integrated then again I dont understand why you are suggesting someone integrate it. You would pick a system that does integrate well with other systems.
> 
> If you are starting from a functional system adding things that work also helps.



I have never suggested it should be integrated.

The thing is, if I want to start doing WB in a fight, I have to abandon the VT strategy and tactics, and vice versa.

Starting from a functional standup striking system, what would help is adding ground fighting like BJJ, but not another contradictory standup style.

The only way you can mix WB and WC is if you only look at superficial techniques and not the overall approach to the fight, then use WC techniques in your WB strategy, which is what the guy in the OP has done by figuring out how WB uses similar techniques, and then just copying that...

So, in the end, the WC elements are indistinguishable from the boxing that already existed. It's just boxing.


----------



## LFJ

Nobody Important said:


> Just to chum the waters a bit. Wasn't WSL a boxer prior to learning Wing Chun? Isn't it possible that he recognized a deficiency in the method and corrected it by modifying it based on knowledge and experience of WB? Who would be the wiser if he did? Especially if the modification occurred after Yip Man passed, there would be very few who could confirm or deny any alterations.



lol You know KPM will love this! Anything to save face for other YM lineages.

WSL wasn't just a boxer who ended up doing VT later. He gave up boxing in favor of VT.

The elements of the VT method when outside of close range is already present in the system, on the dummy for example. Nothing needs to be added or modified.

But, most don't recognize it because they never learned the free fighting aspect of VT, or the abstract concepts behind the training method. Instead, they see the dummy as a three-armed human, or a two-armed guy who's just happy to see you, and do a choreographed fight with him.

Plus, the long-range elements are unlike WB in specific strategy and tactics, and it takes things like kicking into consideration. It might make better sense if you said WSL was a Muay Thai fighter and modified his VT based on his knowledge of MT. But, even then, the VT training system is the same as it was before him.


----------



## drop bear

LFJ said:


> Right. Boxing is a set of rules with many different ring approaches.
> 
> VT doesn't function under the ruleset and none of those approaches resemble VT in specific strategy or tactics.



Nothing of VT resembles nothing of boxing in specific strategy or tactics?


----------



## LFJ

drop bear said:


> Nothing of VT resembles nothing of boxing in specific strategy or tactics?



Is this a trick question with the double negative or are you a native Spanish speaker?

They are quite different in specifics, and are most often contradictory methods.
You can find some superficial similarities, but the how and why are still often at odds.


----------



## KPM

Nobody Important said:


> Just to chum the waters a bit. Wasn't WSL a boxer prior to learning Wing Chun? Isn't it possible that he recognized a deficiency in the method and corrected it by modifying it based on knowledge and experience of WB? Who would be the wiser if he did? Especially if the modification occurred after Yip Man passed, there would be very few who could confirm or deny any alterations.



Oh yeah!  I'm pretty convinced that WSL made changes and "updates" to his Wing Chun, and that this is why it has quite a few differences compared to everyone else's Wing Chun!  And I think these "updates" were for the better!   But try to convince the WSLVT groupies and they will blow a gasket!  To suggest that WSL violated Chinese tradition and actually changed his Wing Chun.....scandalous!!!!


----------



## KPM

*The thing is, if I want to start doing WB in a fight, I have to abandon the VT strategy and tactics, and vice versa.*

---Let me fix this for you......"_if I want to start doing WB in a fight, I have to abandon the WSLVT strategy and tactics"_

*So, in the end, the WC elements are indistinguishable from the boxing that already existed. It's just boxing.*

---If you think that, then you obviously haven't matched many of Paul Rackemann's videos that I shared.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> Oh yeah!  I'm pretty convinced that WSL made changes and "updates" to his Wing Chun, and that this is why it has quite a few differences compared to everyone else's Wing Chun!  And I think these "updates" were for the better!   But try to convince the WSLVT groupies and they will blow a gasket!  To suggest that WSL violated Chinese tradition and actually changed his Wing Chun.....scandalous!!!!



How can you be convinced of anything, without prejudice, regarding a martial art you don't know the first thing about?

There is nothing undesirable about believing WSL made updates for the better.
Ever wonder why "WSLVT groupies" don't believe that, though?

Highly doubt any of us care about Chinese tradition. I, for one, couldn't care less. 
We don't dress up and do "discipleship" ceremonies like some other groups.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> The elements of the VT method when outside of close range is already present in the system, on the dummy for example. Nothing needs to be added or modified.
> 
> .



Really?  Then you must have a very special dummy!   One that can throw punches so you learn to gauge distance and stay just out of reach?  One that can move and follow you across the floor as you bait it to over-reach or over-extend and leave an opening?  One that will miss a strike and off-balance itself so you can practice stepping to the side and getting an angle for hard punches?  One that will respond to baiting and luring tactics to make mistakes and set up openings?  I'd like to see that dummy!


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> *The thing is, if I want to start doing WB in a fight, I have to abandon the VT strategy and tactics, and vice versa.*
> 
> ---Let me fix this for you......"_if I want to start doing WB in a fight, I have to abandon the WSLVT strategy and tactics"_



Same thing.



KPM said:


> Really?  Then you must have a very special dummy!   One that can throw punches so you learn to gauge distance and stay just out of reach?  One that can move and follow you across the floor as you bait it to over-reach or over-extend and leave an opening?  One that will miss a strike and off-balance itself so you can practice stepping to the side and getting an angle for hard punches?  One that will respond to baiting and luring tactics to make mistakes and set up openings?  I'd like to see that dummy!



When clueless, best to ask, not make yourself look stupid.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> Same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> When clueless, best to ask, not make yourself look stupid.




Once again, we see your typical pattern for participating in a discussion.  WSLVT is the "gold standard" for all Ip Man Wing Chun and anyone doing anything different from WSLVT must be wrong and was learned improperly or incompletely.   You throw a comment out like "the dummy teaches long range" without any elaboration or explanation and expect everyone to just take your word for it.  And why did I not ask?  Because another pattern you show is that when people do ask for elaboration you just ignore it, obfuscate and never really explain, or say that you aren't here to teach anyone Wing Chun.      Please go find another thread to post on if this is how you want to carry on a discussion.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> Once again, we see your typical pattern for participating in a discussion.  WSLVT is the "gold standard" for all Ip Man Wing Chun and anyone doing anything different from WSLVT must be wrong and was learned improperly or incompletely.



Not at all. I take each one case by case and independent of WSLVT.

If, for example, your YMVT as a standup striking style doesn't address the obviously common long range, and just assumes you'll teleport safely to your preferred range and not be outclassed there, something indeed "must be wrong and was learned improperly or incompletely".

That has nothing to do with WSLVT. It's an independent observation. A viable standup striking style would not be created like that by people who actually fight.


----------



## KPM

^^^^  Ok, then I'll ask again....please post video of a WSLVT guy conducting the fight with a "long range game" and doing something other than just charging in from long range as in all the videos I posted.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> ^^^^  Ok, then I'll ask again....please post video of a WSLVT guy



And you say I make everything about WSLVT? 
Seems like your obsession on every unrelated thread.

You've acknowledged your problems and are looking to WB to fix them. Good.
Proving WSLVT to be equally deficient as yours won't help you, besides to feel better.

Proving the opposite will only make you feel worse. So, just keep focusing on fixing your thing.


----------



## KPM

^^^^  Ok.  Strike one.   Then please explain to everyone how the dummy teaches WSLVT's "long range game."


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> ^^^^  Ok.  Strike one.   Then please explain to everyone how the dummy teaches WSLVT's "long range game."



Why? If you want to gap-fill with WB, do so. If you want to learn WSLVT instead, go learn it.


----------



## KPM

^^^^ Ok.  Strike two.  Then please summarize for us or explain how you see WSLVT working a "long range game", since you have no video.  Please summarize it here to contribute to the current discussion rather than just linking to a prior thread.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> ^^^^ Ok.  Strike two.  Then please summarize for us or explain how you see WSLVT working a "long range game", since you have no video.  Please summarize it here to contribute to the current discussion rather than just linking to a prior thread.



Why? Too lazy or stubborn to click on a link to a post you responded to at the time with this:

"_Thanks LFJ! Nice direct responses and clear illustrations. I understand much better where you are coming from now! This is how discussions should be done!_"

Strike three! GTFO!


----------



## KPM

^^^^Ok.  Strike three.  You have made it very obvious now that you have no intentions of actually contributing to this thread in any kind of positive way.    Let me repeat what I said before:

_Once again, we see your typical pattern for participating in a discussion. WSLVT is the "gold standard" for all Ip Man Wing Chun and anyone doing anything different from WSLVT must be wrong and was learned improperly or incompletely. You throw a comment out like "the dummy teaches long range" without any elaboration or explanation and expect everyone to just take your word for it. And why did I not ask? Because another pattern you show is that when people do ask for elaboration you just ignore it, obfuscate and never really explain, or say that you aren't here to teach anyone Wing Chun.  Please go find another thread to post on if this is how you want to carry on a discussion_.

You've just proven me right.   So, PLEASE GO ELSEWHERE.


----------



## Juany118

Nobody Important said:


> Just to chum the waters a bit. Wasn't WSL a boxer prior to learning Wing Chun? Isn't it possible that he recognized a deficiency in the method and corrected it by modifying it based on knowledge and experience of WB? Who would be the wiser if he did? Especially if the modification occurred after Yip Man passed, there would be very few who could confirm or deny any alterations.



Clearly there were changes but I don't see how those changes are related to the issue proposed here.  The power generation is not related to modern WB, the footwork is substantially different as well.  I think that rather than adding elements of WB to WC WSL more likely used the fighting experience he had from both to make his VT different.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> ^^^^Ok.  Strike three.



Already called it!



> You have made it very obvious now that you have no intentions of actually contributing to this thread in any kind of positive way.



I've reposted the link three times in this thread.

You are being confrontational and expect me to hand-feed you?



> Let me repeat what I said before:
> 
> _Once again, we see your typical pattern for participating in a discussion. WSLVT is the "gold standard" for all Ip Man Wing Chun and anyone doing anything different from WSLVT must be wrong and was learned improperly or incompletely._



Not at all. I take each one case by case and independent of WSLVT.

If, for example, your YMVT as a standup striking style doesn't address the obviously common long range, and just assumes you'll teleport safely to your preferred range and not be outclassed there, something indeed "must be wrong and was learned improperly or incompletely".

That has nothing to do with WSLVT. It's an independent observation. A viable standup striking style would not be created like that by people who actually fight.


----------



## LFJ

Juany118 said:


> Clearly there were changes but I don't see how those changes are related to the issue proposed here.  The power generation is not related to modern WB, the footwork is substantially different as well.  I think that rather than adding elements of WB to WC WSL more likely used the fighting experience he had from both to make his VT different.



Clearly? Different how?

You and KPM are both in the clouds talking about something you have no knowledge of whatsoever.


----------



## drop bear

LFJ said:


> Is this a trick question with the double negative or are you a native Spanish speaker?
> 
> They are quite different in specifics, and are most often contradictory methods.
> You can find some superficial similarities, but the how and why are still often at odds.



It is a pity VT is not a system that can evolve though. So is the WT variant more flexable in concept. Possibly more suited to collaboration with other systems?


----------



## LFJ

drop bear said:


> It is a pity VT is not a system that can evolve though. So is the WT variant more flexable in concept. Possibly more suited to collaboration with other systems?



Who says it can't evolve? Probably has done quite a bit in its development.
We don't have long enough recorded history of it to tell. It is open-ended, though.

But, if two species can't interbreed, does that mean neither of them will evolve?


----------



## drop bear

LFJ said:


> Who says it can't evolve? Probably has done quite a bit in its development.
> We don't have long enough recorded history of it to tell. It is open-ended, though.
> 
> But, if two species can't interbreed, does that mean neither of them will evolve?



Oh it was just your comment about how damaging an external influence is to VTs stucture. That you could not take advantage of boxing concepts.

Where WC seems to be able to. Obviously WC would seem to be the more evolved system.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> You are being confrontational and expect me to hand-feed you?
> 
> 
> 
> .



I'm not expecting you to "hand-feed" anyone.  I'm simply expecting you to contribute to this thread in a positive way.  I've been asking you to share your viewpoint and knowledge of WSLVT's approach openly and explicitly on THIS thread.  Why is that so hard for you?


----------



## LFJ

drop bear said:


> Oh it was just your comment about how damaging an external influence is to VTs stucture. That you could not take advantage of boxing concepts.



That means they are incompatible, not that VT can't evolve.



> Where WC seems to be able to. Obviously WC would seem to be the more evolved system.



Because incomplete WC doesn't have an overall approach to fighting that can be contradicted.

Gap-filling is not what I would call evolving, but if you like it, okay. Non-functional WC would obviously be better off gaining a real fighting strategy no matter where it comes from.


----------



## Martial D

KPM said:


> I'm not expecting you to "hand-feed" anyone.  I'm simply expecting you to contribute to this thread in a positive way.  I've been asking you to share your viewpoint and knowledge of WSLVT's approach openly and explicitly on THIS thread.  Why is that so hard for you?


I too am curious about these VT solutions at long range.  Afaik they are all just ways to not be at long range for long or at all.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> It is a pity VT is not a system that can evolve though. So is the WT variant more flexable in concept. Possibly more suited to collaboration with other systems?


It can though.  Gary Lam and David Petersen both teach VT.  Both are said to be different than WSLVT to varying degrees by those who study via Philipp Bayer.  The issue is this not one of an inability of the system to evolve but of people choosing to say it is perfect and thus there is no need.

As for other forms TWC can.  There are a number of things from Kali that Sifu Keith Mazza has brought in via his association with my Sifu and Sifu Keith "cleared" it with GM Cheung.  The most obvious examples are the "elbow shield", for round strikes to the head and the like, and a modified pak sau that, instead of being forwarding energy aimed in the area of the elbow, is a slap/strike to the area of the wrist to address an "oh crap" moment when someone is attacking with a weapon.  The only thing that is required is that it doesn't violate core concepts such as centerline theory and body structure.


----------



## Nobody Important

Juany118 said:


> Clearly there were changes but I don't see how those changes are related to the issue proposed here.  The power generation is not related to modern WB, the footwork is substantially different as well.  I think that rather than adding elements of WB to WC WSL more likely used the fighting experience he had from both to make his VT different.


The post really wasn't about changes. I was just having fun poking the bear. TBH, I don't see WSLVT or any other branch of Wing Chun as an  efficient and effective all around boxing method, others may feel differently. Personal experience and video evidence have offered no proof as of yet to the contrary. 

Wing Chun is a specialty method half way between boxing and grappling. It lives in the twain, it is an art about bridging. Until a bridge is created, the art is all but useless IMO. Often trying to force this connection or attempting to manipulate the opponent to bridging range leads to disaster for Wing Chun people. It ends up failing because it wasn't designed as a stand alone method of all around fighting, it was designed to address the issues of the clinch. As such it lacks grappling skill beyond the clinch and boxing skill beyond the clinch. To ignore this and assume all areas are covered is, IMO, naive.

For those that would argue that Wing Chun requires an effective strategy to achieve clinch from long range, so therefore has one, I say where is the proof? That thinking is based on the premise that the art is a boxing method, not a bridging one. No strategy is required on your part for someone attempting or succeeding in grabbing you, it should happen organically. To intentionally try and set someone up to do so is going to lead to disaster. 

The goal of any violent encounter is to win and walk away. The idea is to keep the attacker at bay or draw them in close in order to subdue them, there are essentially two empty hand ways this can be achieved striking or grappling. Both methods require effective control of the clinch in order for you to maintain the range and method you are most competent in.

Wing Chun is a specialty method that deals directly with the issues of the clinch as its own area separate from striking or grappling, it is a twain state. It is neither a boxing or grappling method, it contains specialized elements of each based on bridging at clinch range to allow you to control the inside line that dictates whether grappling or striking methods are going to be used, or are necessary, to subdue your opponent. It's  a method, from my perspective, that requires secondary skill in boxing, grappling or both to be truly effective.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> I'm not expecting you to "hand-feed" anyone.  I'm simply expecting you to contribute to this thread in a positive way.  I've been asking you to share your viewpoint and knowledge of WSLVT's approach openly and explicitly on THIS thread.  Why is that so hard for you?



You want me to reword a long and detailed post for you here instead of just linking to one that has already been done. That is asking me to hand-feed you again.

Why didn't you rewrite the article you linked to earlier? Who clicks on links anymore these days?

If you aren't genuinely interested, as I can tell you are not by your refusal to follow the link and read, don't expect me to just feed you anything you ask for.


----------



## Juany118

Nobody Important said:


> The post really wasn't about changes. I was just having fun poking the bear. TBH, I don't see WSLVT or any other branch of Wing Chun as an  efficient and effective all around boxing method, others may feel differently. Personal experience and video evidence have offered no proof as of yet to the contrary.
> 
> Wing Chun is a specialty method half way between boxing and grappling. It lives in the twain, it is an art about bridging. Until a bridge is created, the art is all but useless IMO. Often trying to force this connection or attempting to manipulate the opponent to bridging range leads to disaster for Wing Chun people. It ends up failing because it wasn't designed as a stand alone method of all around fighting, it was designed to address the issues of the clinch. As such it lacks grappling skill beyond the clinch and boxing skill beyond the clinch. To ignore this and assume all areas are covered is, IMO, naive.
> 
> For those that would argue that Wing Chun requires an effective strategy to achieve clinch from long range, so therefore has one, I say where is the proof? That thinking is based on the premise that the art is a boxing method, not a bridging one. No strategy is required on your part for someone attempting or succeeding in grabbing you, it should happen organically. To intentionally try and set someone up to do so is going to lead to disaster.
> 
> The goal of any violent encounter is to win and walk away. The idea is to keep the attacker at bay or draw them in close in order to subdue them, there are essentially two empty hand ways this can be achieved striking or grappling. Both methods require effective control of the clinch in order for you to maintain the range and method you are most competent in.
> 
> Wing Chun is a specialty method that deals directly with the issues of the clinch as its own area separate from striking or grappling, it is a twain state. It is neither a boxing or grappling method, it contains specialized elements of each based on bridging at clinch range to allow you to control the inside line that dictates whether grappling or striking methods are going to be used, or are necessary, to subdue your opponent. It's  a method, from my perspective, that requires secondary skill in boxing, grappling or both to be truly effective.


I think what you describe here is one of the reasons TWC is clearly different in many respects.  It has what, from my Judo and Aikido experience, I would call "intermediate" level grappling and also is more "flexible" than other arts in terms of the "ideal" punching range.  We still want to get to the ultimate goal of being in close enough for trapping, but it's not to the extent of "you MUST" be there the way other Lineages look at it.


----------



## LFJ

Nobody Important said:


> The post really wasn't about changes. I was just having fun poking the bear. TBH, I don't see WSLVT or any other branch of Wing Chun as an  efficient and effective all around boxing method, others may feel differently. Personal experience and video evidence have offered no proof as of yet to the contrary.
> 
> Wing Chun is a specialty method half way between boxing and grappling. It lives in the twain, it is an art about bridging. Until a bridge is created, the art is all but useless IMO. Often trying to force this connection or attempting to manipulate the opponent to bridging range leads to disaster for Wing Chun people. It ends up failing because it wasn't designed as a stand alone method of all around fighting, it was designed to address the issues of the clinch. As such it lacks grappling skill beyond the clinch and boxing skill beyond the clinch. To ignore this and assume all areas are covered is, IMO, naive.
> 
> For those that would argue that Wing Chun requires an effective strategy to achieve clinch from long range, so therefore has one, I say where is the proof? That thinking is based on the premise that the art is a boxing method, not a bridging one. No strategy is required on your part for someone attempting or succeeding in grabbing you, it should happen organically. To intentionally try and set someone up to do so is going to lead to disaster.
> 
> The goal of any violent encounter is to win and walk away. The idea is to keep the attacker at bay or draw them in close in order to subdue them, there are essentially two empty hand ways this can be achieved striking or grappling. Both methods require effective control of the clinch in order for you to maintain the range and method you are most competent in.
> 
> Wing Chun is a specialty method that deals directly with the issues of the clinch as its own area separate from striking or grappling, it is a twain state. It is neither a boxing or grappling method, it contains specialized elements of each based on bridging at clinch range to allow you to control the inside line that dictates whether grappling or striking methods are going to be used, or are necessary, to subdue your opponent. It's  a method, from my perspective, that requires secondary skill in boxing, grappling or both to be truly effective.



If KPM didn't see you as an ally most of the time, he'd be demanding you use your YCW WC initials instead of saying "Wing Chun" is this or that.


----------



## KPM

*You want me to reword a long and detailed post for you here instead of just linking to one that has already been done. That is asking me to hand-feed you again.
*

---Ok.  Fair enough.  So where are the videos of WSLVT guys sparring and working a "long range game"?   Where is your explanation of how the "long range game" in WSLVT is found in the dummy?


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> If KPM didn't see you as an ally most of the time, he'd be demanding you use your YCW WC initials instead of saying "Wing Chun" is this or that.



No.  Dave's comments were pretty generic and pretty accurate.  He said...*Wing Chun is a specialty method half way between boxing and grappling. It lives in the twain, it is an art about bridging.  * I find that to be a pretty good assessment of all Wing Chun I've been exposed to.   It wasn't a comment unique to YCW WCK.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> No.  Dave's comments were pretty generic and pretty accurate.  He said...*Wing Chun is a specialty method half way between boxing and grappling. It lives in the twain, it is an art about bridging.  * I find that to be a pretty good assessment of all Wing Chun I've been exposed to.   It wasn't a comment unique to YCW WCK.



It doesn't describe YMVT, unless the deficient kind that looks to mainland and elsewhere to fill gaps.


----------



## Nobody Important

LFJ said:


> If KPM didn't see you as an ally most of the time, he'd be demanding you use your YCW WC initials instead of saying "Wing Chun" is this or that.


Maybe, I don't mind doing so if others are so opposed to my thoughts on the art as a whole.


----------



## LFJ

Nobody Important said:


> Maybe, I don't mind doing so if others are so opposed to my thoughts on the art as a whole.



I'm not opposed to your thoughts. But, there is no "Wing Chun" art as a whole that includes everything that uses that name. What you describe and what I do, for instance, are different enough to be separate martial arts. If either of us make general statements about "the art as a whole", the other is probably going to object.


----------



## Nobody Important

LFJ said:


> I'm not opposed to your thoughts. But, there is no "Wing Chun" art as a whole that includes everything that uses that name. What you describe and what I do, for instance, are different enough to be separate martial arts. If either of us make general statements about "the art as a whole", the other is probably going to object.


True, this is why I often ask you if you are speaking about WSLVT specifically or Wing Chun collectively when a point is in question, otherwise we argue needlessly. From one perspective it can make sense, from another it can be conflicting. I know at times I speak in general terms when I should be speaking specifically about YCWWC, and this is because I don't feel there is one correct method of Wing Chun. I realize my views aren't shared by all and I need to be more disciplined in this aspect, as do others IMO.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> It doesn't describe YMVT, unless the deficient kind that looks to mainland and elsewhere to fill gaps.



Which "deficient kind" are you referring to?   Everything other than WSLVT??


----------



## LFJ

Nobody Important said:


> True, this is why I often ask you if you are speaking about WSLVT specifically or Wing Chun collectively when a point is in question, otherwise we argue needlessly.



I'm never talking about non-YM lineages, because I don't know enough and don't have a particular interest there.

I'm always talking about YMVT, as that is what I'm familiar with, and I believe it is supposed to be one system. I don't buy the idea that one man taught dozens of contradictory interpretations of the same system. So I say VT.


----------



## Nobody Important

LFJ said:


> I'm never talking about non-YM lineages, because I don't know enough and don't have a particular interest there.
> 
> I'm always talking about YMVT, as that is what I'm familiar with, and I believe it is supposed to be one system. I don't buy the idea that one man taught dozens of contradictory interpretations of the same system. So I say VT.


I understand your point, but others have a good argument that Yip Man did teach slightly different versions of the art throughout his lifetime. That being said, I do not practice YMWC so therefore cannot comment on the validity of this claim. I can only compare what is said to my experience and understanding of "Wing Chun" through a YCW  perspective, which admittedly, is of a vastly different viewpoint than that of the main stream "Wing Chun" community.


----------



## KPM

^^^^^ Absolutely Ip Man taught things differently throughout his career.  Anyone that says otherwise is delusional.  What he taught in his younger years in Foshan is different from what he taught when he moved to Hong Kong, which is different from what he taught after years in Hong Kong.


----------



## Juany118

KPM said:


> ^^^^^ Absolutely Ip Man taught things differently throughout his career.  Anyone that says otherwise is delusional.  What he taught in his younger years in Foshan is different from what he taught when he moved to Hong Kong, which is different from what he taught after years in Hong Kong.


Not only that but a good Sifu, while teaching everyone the core, will teach students to their strengths, weaknesses and needs.  It can be as big a difference as the fact one of my classmates doesn't get taught much in the way of kicking techniques because of a nervous system disorder that effects his legs or a bit more subtle as my Sifu let's me work a bit more Chin Na due to my occupation.  The later definitely comes out in my sparring where I am more apt to transition to standing submissions and take down where as other students tend to stick to striking.  The same happens in weapons sparing where I tend to go for disarms more often to then open the way for attack.  The others tend to simply defend and attack.


----------



## LFJ

Juany118 said:


> Not only that but a good Sifu, while teaching everyone the core, will teach students to their strengths, weaknesses and needs.



This can be done, by a good sifu, without fundamentally changing the system and ending up teaching contradictory understandings that include non-functional methods that are missing hugely important elements for dealing with obviously common aspects of fist fighting like outside range, you know, the range you have to go through to even get a chance to attempt _chi-sau_ stuff.


----------



## KPM

Let me see if I can summarize the "gist" of things here so far, since we have taken a bit of tangent recently. 

When you look at the typical Wing Chun guy engaging in sparring against a non-Wing Chun fighter, they often don't do too well.  For the most part this appears to be due to a lack of any kind of "long range game."  The most common thing you see is that they simply rush forward to get to "Wing Chun range" and no real ability to conduct the fight at long range.  I showed several videos illustrating this.  And if they can't do this, they often resort to a form of "sloppy kickboxing" to survive. 

So my thesis here has been that a great way to "update" or "evolve" or "modernize" Wing Chun is to blend it with western Boxing.  WB typically teaches a good "long range game."  Boxers learn to manage distance and keep from getting hit when they don't want to.  This would involve changing the Wing Chun mechanics and footwork to match Boxing, but still retain the Wing Chun defensive structures/techniques and Chi Sau skills.   This would bring to Wing Chun a very mobile and evasive "long range game" and greatly increase sparring/fighting skills.  This would bring to Boxing excellent skills at close range for trapping and hitting while avoiding getting tied up in a clinch.   The result would be neither "just Boxing" or "Classical" Wing Chun.  The result would be "Wing Chun Boxing".  Rackemann's videos that I shared show a good example of this.  When he gets to close range he is clearly using Wing Chun skills and is not "just boxing."   As I said before, this may not be for everyone.  I would not want to see "classical" Wing Chun go away!

Another problem you find in Wing Chun as well as almost all "traditional" arts is one of "in-breeding."   When training they always train against fellow classmates.  So a Wing Chun guy is nearly always learning to fight against another Wing Chun guy.  Sometimes the partner may try to throw some semblance of a boxing punch, but it typically is pretty poor and gives the Wing Chun guy a false sense of how well he would do against a boxer.   And given that the typical mugger or attacker on the street is going to likely be doing something closer to Boxing than to Wing Chun, and given that open competitions are going to very likely be against someone doing a version of Kickboxing.....training good boxing as part of Wing Chun just makes good sense.  Because you end up training against someone that can actually DO boxing and get a better result. 

The only naysayer really so far has been LFJ.  He stated that VT has a "long range strategy".  I wouldn't disagree with this.  But having a "long  range strategy" for getting to your preferred range is not the same thing as having an actual "long range game."  So I described exactly what I meant by a "long range game" and LFJ replied that VT did everything I described.  I can only take that to mean that LFJ believes that VT has a "long range game" as I defined it and therefore has no need of merging with boxing.  However, he wouldn't elaborate on what he thinks and he couldn't produce a video showing a guy fighting with Wing Chun at long range. After lots of searching I couldn't find one either.  So what he is saying is just theoretical at this point since he can't back it up.

Wing Chun and Boxing can be merged to varying degrees.   I would say Paul Rackemann is on one end of the spectrum....basically doing Boxing with Wing Chun "hands" and adapted Chi Sau skills.   Mark Phillips is on the other end of the spectrum...basically still doing "classical" Wing Chun, but doing Boxing at longer ranges to get to his Wing Chun.  But my guess is that if Phillips was competing and sparring more (or his students were) what they do would look more and more like what Rackemann does.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> The only naysayer really so far has been LFJ.



Not even once did I say nay.

I said adding anything that works to something that doesn't will be good for that something that doesn't.

So, I support you in trying to fill your gaps, though it'd probably be more effective to just go with WB that you already know works, than to mix it with what you acknowledge doesn't.

YMVT already works, though.



> Boxers learn to manage distance and keep from getting hit when they don't want to.  This would involve changing the Wing Chun mechanics and footwork to match Boxing, but still retain the Wing Chun defensive structures/techniques and Chi Sau skills.



YMVT also manages distance and keeps from getting hit with VT mechanics and footwork.



> I can only take that to mean that LFJ believes that VT has a "long range game" as I defined it and therefore has no need of merging with boxing.  However, he wouldn't elaborate on what he thinks



I elaborated in another post you refuse to read for some odd reason.



> and he couldn't produce a video showing a guy fighting with Wing Chun at long range.



Wouldn't, not couldn't.



> After lots of searching I couldn't find one either.  So what he is saying is just theoretical at this point since he can't back it up.



Because you personally have no experience of something doesn't mean it is just theoretical in reality.

You are simply not someone who encourages me to share with you because you come on combatively from the drop. That's no way to get fed.


----------



## KPM

^^^^^ Go away.  You have no credibility.  You had the chance to actually contribute on this thread and you chose not to.  Now please go away.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> ^^^^^ Go away.  You have no credibility.  You had the chance to actually contribute on this thread and you chose not to.  Now please go away.



Posted the link 3 times. What are you afraid of?

I will continue to post wherever I like, except KPMartialtalk.com. Why don't you go there?


----------



## Juany118

@KPM might I suggest, instead of boxing FMA?  I say this for a few reasons.

1. the fact you train with three different ranges (largo, medio, corto), and the fact the threat of getting wacked with a stick or training knife HURTs, definitely rams home not just maintaining distance but transitioning and being able to function at multiple distances.  As an example when fighting espada y daga, I may parry with my sword at largo but then need to close to attack with the knife.

2. At least the Kali I study has a largely upright, WC like, structure so you aren't essentially begging your opponent to brain you (which is especially problematic with swords lol)

3. The footwork, working the angles and zoning, is very similar to what we already try to do in TWC.


----------



## Nobody Important

Juany118 said:


> @KPM might I suggest, instead of boxing FMA?  I say this for a few reasons.
> 
> 1. the fact you train with three different ranges (largo, medio, corto), and the fact the threat of getting wacked with a stick or training knife HURTs, definitely rams home not just maintaining distance but transitioning and being able to function at multiple distances.  As an example when fighting espada y daga, I may parry with my sword at largo but then need to close to attack with the knife.
> 
> 2. At least the Kali I study has a largely upright, WC like, structure so you aren't essentially begging your opponent to brain you (which is especially problematic with swords lol)
> 
> 3. The footwork, working the angles and zoning, is very similar to what we already try to do in TWC.


Juany,

Speaking strictly to Wing Chun, you bring up a point often forgotten, weapons. Historically weapons were the first thing taught in TCMA, as weapons are more useful in warfare than empty hands. When distance is relegated  to where the weapon is no longer an advantage a different tactic is required. Or when disarmed/unarmed the same considerations on range holds true whether the opponent is armed or not. Looking how the weapons work in conjunction with empty hands while adhering to the overall theory is also a way to address ranging issues, especially in Wing Chun where the weapons adhere to the same theory as hands.


----------



## Juany118

Nobody Important said:


> Juany,
> 
> Speaking strictly to Wing Chun, you bring up a point often forgotten, weapons. Historically weapons were the first thing taught in TCMA, as weapons are more useful in warfare than empty hands. When distance is relegated  to where the weapon is no longer an advantage a different tactic is required. Or when disarmed/unarmed the same considerations on range holds true whether the opponent is armed or not. Looking how the weapons work in conjunction with empty hands while adhering to the overall theory is also a way to address ranging issues, especially in Wing Chun where the weapons adhere to the same theory as hands.


That was basically my thought.  The only things I would say further is that I think it should be more a matter of cross training than trying to truly integrate it plus, if one was to chose a form of FMA they should look for ones like Inosanto Kali or PTK which already have empty hand techniques baked in, vs some styles that only focus on the weapons.  The reason for this is these are already teach the transitions from weapons to empty hands and as such there is little need to figure out how to get things to "click."

You also point out one of the most valuable take aways, I'm, from understanding weapons.  If I do not have a tool ready but the suspect has a bat, as an example, I am first and foremost thinking about his effective range and then deciding what I need to do next.  It may seem common sense but I have seen way to many people appear to focus on "their range" first and that gets them hurt.


----------



## geezer

Ever go to an outing with someone's family and notice a really strong family resemblance between siblings, their parents, and sometimes even cousins? Yet when you point out the resemblance, some people simply cannot see it. They respond with surprise and shock, _"Oh no, I look nothing like uncle Jed!"  _

Well, I practice YMVT, _not WSLVT_ mind you, but Yip Man lineage Ving Tsun (Yip Man's preferred transliteration). And I see a lot that connects the different VT/WC/WT groups, even outside the Yip Man lineages. Some apparently don't. And some would like to co-opt the term YMVT for what they do alone, with the presumption that anything else is not authentically from Yip Man. Sorry cousin Jethro. There's no denying that you are part of the family!

The Authentic Ving Tsun Family:
https://metvnetwork.s3.amazonaws.com/vjTJY-1445351305-35-lists-beverlyhillbillies_1200.jpg


_
_


----------



## Nobody Important

Juany118 said:


> That was basically my thought.  The only things I would say further is that I think it should be more a matter of cross training than trying to truly integrate it plus, if one was to chose a form of FMA they should look for ones like Inosanto Kali or PTK which already have empty hand techniques baked in, vs some styles that only focus on the weapons.  The reason for this is these are already teach the transitions from weapons to empty hands and as such there is little need to figure out how to get things to "click."
> 
> You also point out one of the most valuable take aways, I'm, from understanding weapons.  If I do not have a tool ready but the suspect has a bat, as an example, I am first and foremost thinking about his effective range and then deciding what I need to do next.  It may seem common sense but I have seen way to many people appear to focus on "their range" first and that gets them hurt.


Agree, and that's why I made my statement about integration of boxing & grappling as a necessary addition to fully exploit those ranges. Though there is some argument to be made that Wing Chun weapons teach middle and long range, hence, hold the key to how empty hand Wing Chun can be utilized at those ranges. The validity of this, however, will depend on how well integrated the weapon theory is. I think even LFJ can at least partially agree with that assessment based on his long pole theory.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> It can though.  Gary Lam and David Petersen both teach VT.  Both are said to be different than WSLVT to varying degrees by those who study via Philipp Bayer.  The issue is this not one of an inability of the system to evolve but of people choosing to say it is perfect and thus there is no need.
> 
> As for other forms TWC can.  There are a number of things from Kali that Sifu Keith Mazza has brought in via his association with my Sifu and Sifu Keith "cleared" it with GM Cheung.  The most obvious examples are the "elbow shield", for round strikes to the head and the like, and a modified pak sau that, instead of being forwarding energy aimed in the area of the elbow, is a slap/strike to the area of the wrist to address an "oh crap" moment when someone is attacking with a weapon.  The only thing that is required is that it doesn't violate core concepts such as centerline theory and body structure.



Well yeah. I don't think the ability to encompass new ideas is any sort of weakness. Which seemed to be the theory there.


----------



## drop bear

KPM said:


> Let me see if I can summarize the "gist" of things here so far, since we have taken a bit of tangent recently.
> 
> When you look at the typical Wing Chun guy engaging in sparring against a non-Wing Chun fighter, they often don't do too well.  For the most part this appears to be due to a lack of any kind of "long range game."  The most common thing you see is that they simply rush forward to get to "Wing Chun range" and no real ability to conduct the fight at long range.  I showed several videos illustrating this.  And if they can't do this, they often resort to a form of "sloppy kickboxing" to survive.
> 
> So my thesis here has been that a great way to "update" or "evolve" or "modernize" Wing Chun is to blend it with western Boxing.  WB typically teaches a good "long range game."  Boxers learn to manage distance and keep from getting hit when they don't want to.  This would involve changing the Wing Chun mechanics and footwork to match Boxing, but still retain the Wing Chun defensive structures/techniques and Chi Sau skills.   This would bring to Wing Chun a very mobile and evasive "long range game" and greatly increase sparring/fighting skills.  This would bring to Boxing excellent skills at close range for trapping and hitting while avoiding getting tied up in a clinch.   The result would be neither "just Boxing" or "Classical" Wing Chun.  The result would be "Wing Chun Boxing".  Rackemann's videos that I shared show a good example of this.  When he gets to close range he is clearly using Wing Chun skills and is not "just boxing."   As I said before, this may not be for everyone.  I would not want to see "classical" Wing Chun go away!
> 
> Another problem you find in Wing Chun as well as almost all "traditional" arts is one of "in-breeding."   When training they always train against fellow classmates.  So a Wing Chun guy is nearly always learning to fight against another Wing Chun guy.  Sometimes the partner may try to throw some semblance of a boxing punch, but it typically is pretty poor and gives the Wing Chun guy a false sense of how well he would do against a boxer.   And given that the typical mugger or attacker on the street is going to likely be doing something closer to Boxing than to Wing Chun, and given that open competitions are going to very likely be against someone doing a version of Kickboxing.....training good boxing as part of Wing Chun just makes good sense.  Because you end up training against someone that can actually DO boxing and get a better result.
> 
> The only naysayer really so far has been LFJ.  He stated that VT has a "long range strategy".  I wouldn't disagree with this.  But having a "long  range strategy" for getting to your preferred range is not the same thing as having an actual "long range game."  So I described exactly what I meant by a "long range game" and LFJ replied that VT did everything I described.  I can only take that to mean that LFJ believes that VT has a "long range game" as I defined it and therefore has no need of merging with boxing.  However, he wouldn't elaborate on what he thinks and he couldn't produce a video showing a guy fighting with Wing Chun at long range. After lots of searching I couldn't find one either.  So what he is saying is just theoretical at this point since he can't back it up.
> 
> Wing Chun and Boxing can be merged to varying degrees.   I would say Paul Rackemann is on one end of the spectrum....basically doing Boxing with Wing Chun "hands" and adapted Chi Sau skills.   Mark Phillips is on the other end of the spectrum...basically still doing "classical" Wing Chun, but doing Boxing at longer ranges to get to his Wing Chun.  But my guess is that if Phillips was competing and sparring more (or his students were) what they do would look more and more like what Rackemann does.



Bear in mind you are engaging these systems in a mechanic that they are experts at.

A good boxer has potentially crossed hands with with thousands of other people. That is all they do. 

They have experts working on how to make this better than the other guy. Because if they don't. They are no longer successful boxers.

They generally have punching and avoiding punches pretty figured out.


----------



## Juany118

Nobody Important said:


> Agree, and that's why I made my statement about integration of boxing & grappling as a necessary addition to fully exploit those ranges. Though there is some argument to be made that Wing Chun weapons teach middle and long range, hence, hold the key to how empty hand Wing Chun can be utilized at those ranges. The validity of this, however, will depend on how well integrated the weapon theory is. I think even LFJ can at least partially agree with that assessment based on his long pole theory.




Yes, it is my understanding that the BJD especially helps with understanding ranging.  However there is something that I think is a negative there as well.  Most of the instruction I have seen regarding them speaks to the fact that in order to survive you need to get in FAST and strike first.  Gary Lam speaks of it as helping to improve the closing ability and also comments...



> What is true though is that if you train correctly, the Baat Cham Do will greatly improve the students closing style abilities (i.e. Wing Chun grappling)...



And



> Hand to hand fighting is considered gambling; fighting with Baat Jaam Do is a kind of suicide, you must become like someone unafraid to die.



So in short while it would help the practitioner to better understand range, the way it is often taught simply enhances the "rush into close range" mentality that @KPM raised.


----------



## Nobody Important

Juany118 said:


> Yes, it is my understanding that the BJD especially helps with understanding ranging.  However there is something that I think is a negative there as well.  Most of the instruction I have seen regarding them speaks to the fact that in order to survive you need to get in FAST and strike first.  Gary Lam speaks of it as helping to improve the closing ability and also comments...
> 
> 
> 
> And
> 
> 
> 
> So in short while it would help the practitioner to better understand range, the way it is often taught simply enhances the "rush into close range" mentality that @KPM raised.


I suppose, if your training consisted of standing toe to toe trading knive stabs. To me that type of understanding of edged weapon use is of little value. While the double knives in YCWWC aren't an all inclusive system of blade work the basics are there, and rushing in attempting to get a kill shot before the opponent can is definitely not part of the overarching strategy.


----------



## drop bear

There are a few tricks to dealing with rangier fighters that really can't be labeled as style specific.

There are parts of the strategy that do not seem intuitive unless you really understand what is happening.

Rushing forwards. Or trying to serpentine your way in. Has some issues if you factor in what they are trying to do.

So this idea about style specific tactics really only gets you so far.

So regardless of how your style works. If you put a rush on a rangier guy. He can step back angle off and counter.





You think this frustration in dealing with range is a Chun thing. It isn't It is all martial arts that has this problem.

so the MMA solution isn't the MMA solution. The tactics are fighting tactics.


----------



## KPM

* might I suggest, instead of boxing FMA? *

I have considered that.  I have trained a lot of FMA myself.  And I will certainly draw inspiration for Wing Chun Boxing drills from the Panantukan drills I have learned.  But there are things in Panantukan, just like there are things in TWC, that just don't see as being very high yield in a real fight situation.  A lot of the gunting limb destruction work just doesn't seem very practical under stress.  I have Guru Ron Balicki's series on Filipino Boxing.  He includes a lot of footage of himself competing or free-sparring with a student to illustrate how what he is teaching can be applied.  But what struck me was how difficult it was for him to actually pull some of it off.  It just didn't seem "high yield."   And given that Panantukan started with western boxing.....it seems more straight-forward to just go with western boxing.

Many many years ago I went to a few seminars with Guru Ted Lucaylucay.  At that time he was promoting what he called "stickboxing."   He and his father Lucky Lucaylucay were the big promotors of Panantukan in the Inosanto Academy back in the day.   "Stick boxing" was basically using western boxing mechanics to throw the equivalent of jabs, crosses, hooks, etc. with a stick.  The empty hand can be used to either check or land a strike of its own in a combination straight out of western boxing.  Or it can hold the knife and be used the same way....sort of a boxing version of Espada y daga.  Of course, a short knife in hand (especially in reverse grip) can be used with boxing mechanics quite well!   James Keating and later Mike Janich promote a reverse grip knife fighting method called "Drawpoint."  One of the key drills is called "Rotary Picking", and it is essentially the Pak Da drill from Wing Chun with a knife held in reverse grip in one hand.  So from my perspective, as far as weapons go, I see clearly how they can be used with a western boxing mechanic without claiming to hybridize with FMA.   And I'm sure you already know that the twirling motions from the TWC knife form are just an upward figure 8.  They can be done just as easily with a downward figure 8 and match with a sinawali pattern.  Going from blocking structures with the Wing Chun knives into cutting patterns that match sinawali is quite easy and instinctive.  

So I think it is a little "cleaner" and more "direct" to work on basic Western Boxing merging with Wing Chun, and then draw inspiration for the weapons from FMA rather than try and merge with a specific FMA style.   From what I've seen, FMA weapons systems generally do not use a western boxing mechanic as Panantukan does.


----------



## LFJ

Nobody Important said:


> there is some argument to be made that Wing Chun weapons teach middle and long range, hence, hold the key to how empty hand Wing Chun can be utilized at those ranges. The validity of this, however, will depend on how well integrated the weapon theory is. I think even LFJ can at least partially agree with that assessment based on his long pole theory.



Yes. BJD teaches highly mobile, evasive footwork at long range and awareness of danger, hence caution and the ability to draw, angle, and time your counterattacks.


----------



## LFJ

Juany118 said:


> Yes, it is my understanding that the BJD especially helps with understanding ranging.  However there is something that I think is a negative there as well.  Most of the instruction I have seen regarding them speaks to the fact that in order to survive you need to get in FAST and strike first.  Gary Lam speaks of it as helping to improve the closing ability and also comments...



That is a huge negative! As in NOT what BJD teaches!
He must be talking about doing drills on the pole and not actual knife fighting.



> So in short while it would help the practitioner to better understand range, the way it is often taught simply enhances the "rush into close range" mentality that @KPM raised.



Rushing into close range when your opponent is armed with knives is a good way to get dead.
At least he admits that strategy is suicide and his students should be willing to die if they try it.

I know you have not learned BJD yet, so, be careful with whatever you find on Google.
Only a couple people even learned BJD from YM! There are a lot of suicide manuals out there.

Actually, BJD strategy follows the same principle that is termed in Kali "defang the snake".

An attacker that has been mortally wounded by a knife or even gun shots can remain on their feet and in the fight longer than Hollywood makes you think. Certainly long enough to kill you back!

Therefore, BJD strategy is to remain mobile and evasive on the outside and take out the weapon arm before safely closing to finish from a relatively safe position and GTFO ASAP.

BJD is not about charging in on an armed opponent like a lunatic, nor does it teach charging in on an opponent from long range in hand-to-hand. Both are idiotic strategies that don't work and could potential kill you.


----------



## KPM

^^^^^^ Finally!  A positive contribution to this thread!  See!  That wasn't so hard, was it??    When you want to, you have some  good things to share.  If you could just get over being such a XXXX all the time, we could have some good discussions!


----------



## Juany118

KPM said:


> * might I suggest, instead of boxing FMA? *
> 
> I have considered that.  I have trained a lot of FMA myself.  And I will certainly draw inspiration for Wing Chun Boxing drills from the Panantukan drills I have learned.  But there are things in Panantukan, just like there are things in TWC, that just don't see as being very high yield in a real fight situation.  A lot of the gunting limb destruction work just doesn't seem very practical under stress.  I have Guru Ron Balicki's series on Filipino Boxing.  He includes a lot of footage of himself competing or free-sparring with a student to illustrate how what he is teaching can be applied.  But what struck me was how difficult it was for him to actually pull some of it off.  It just didn't seem "high yield."   And given that Panantukan started with western boxing.....it seems more straight-forward to just go with western boxing.
> 
> Many many years ago I went to a few seminars with Guru Ted Lucaylucay.  At that time he was promoting what he called "stickboxing."   He and his father Lucky Lucaylucay were the big promotors of Panantukan in the Inosanto Academy back in the day.   "Stick boxing" was basically using western boxing mechanics to throw the equivalent of jabs, crosses, hooks, etc. with a stick.  The empty hand can be used to either check or land a strike of its own in a combination straight out of western boxing.  Or it can hold the knife and be used the same way....sort of a boxing version of Espada y daga.  Of course, a short knife in hand (especially in reverse grip) can be used with boxing mechanics quite well!   James Keating and later Mike Janich promote a reverse grip knife fighting method called "Drawpoint."  One of the key drills is called "Rotary Picking", and it is essentially the Pak Da drill from Wing Chun with a knife held in reverse grip in one hand.  So from my perspective, as far as weapons go, I see clearly how they can be used with a western boxing mechanic without claiming to hybridize with FMA.   And I'm sure you already know that the twirling motions from the TWC knife form are just an upward figure 8.  They can be done just as easily with a downward figure 8 and match with a sinawali pattern.  Going from blocking structures with the Wing Chun knives into cutting patterns that match sinawali is quite easy and instinctive.
> 
> So I think it is a little "cleaner" and more "direct" to work on basic Western Boxing merging with Wing Chun, and then draw inspiration for the weapons from FMA rather than try and merge with a specific FMA style.   From what I've seen, FMA weapons systems generally do not use a western boxing mechanic as Panantukan does.




Just one thing Inosanto Kali, as it is today, and Pekiti Tirsia Kali (what the Filipino Recon Marines) have empty hand, related to Panantukan, but my understanding of the Inosanto blend and what I have been told of PTK has a difference regarding gunting.  Basically I am taught gunting works as follows...
1. With sticks, swords... Effective.
2. With knives, flashlights, less effective but still can "destroy."
3. Open hand, this is basically an attack that doubles as a block/deflection.  It may cause temporary disruption if you strike nerves and tendons properly but it's only temporary, don't bank on it.

The other reason I said study one of these blends (PTK is also a recent creation) is because open hand has longer striking, you can basically ignore the gunting if you want as gunting should only be used if the opportunity permits any who, and the longer striking is "baked in" with the weapons work out of the gate.  This imo provides an advantage.

1. You get the longer striking.
2. Because you have the weapons out of the gate you have "maintain proper timing and distance" pounded into your head with a dang sledgehammer, even more than WB I'm because... Well rattan hurts more .
3. Another thing that @Nobody Important noted.  TWC has basic to intermediate grappling but not all WC flavors do.  Kali also has a good amount of grappling.  So you not only get the long game.  If you "trip" and get pulled in "deeper" you have tools to cope with that as well.


----------



## Juany118

LFJ said:


> That is a huge negative! As in NOT what BJD teaches!
> He must be talking about doing drills on the pole and not actual knife fighting.
> 
> 
> 
> Rushing into close range when your opponent is armed with knives is a good way to get dead.
> At least he admits that strategy is suicide and his students should be willing to die if they try it.
> 
> I know you have not learned BJD yet, so, be careful with whatever you find on Google.
> Only a couple people even learned BJD from YM! There are a lot of suicide manuals out there.
> 
> Actually, BJD strategy follows the same principle that is termed in Kali "defang the snake".
> 
> An attacker that has been mortally wounded by a knife or even gun shots can remain on their feet and in the fight longer than Hollywood makes you think. Certainly long enough to kill you back!
> 
> Therefore, BJD strategy is to remain mobile and evasive on the outside and take out the weapon arm before safely closing to finish from a relatively safe position and GTFO ASAP.
> 
> BJD is not about charging in on an armed opponent like a lunatic, nor does it teach charging in on an opponent from long range in hand-to-hand. Both are idiotic strategies that don't work and could potential kill you.


I am not speaking to how you learn it.  As you said you speak of your teaching.  I haven't dived into "really" learning it myself (I don't want to confuse weapon techniques) I have however just stood back and watched the teaching in two systems quite a bit.  I used the quotes from Gary Lam because they best excemplified what I observed.

As such in this case I am little more than a messenger.  There is more to it of course but the instruction I have seen is, as I said, excellent in one respect because it gives you a better appreciation of timing and distance but it also, again just what I observed, rams home the idea of closing rapidly.  Now of course the idea is that through the use of simultaneous attack and defense you penetrate your opponents defenses and succeed but again, it is taking the unarmed Philosophy (which includes rapid closing) and applying it to the BJD.  That is why I see, again just my experience, the BJD as being more a tool to build upon the existing empty hand side.  The problem is, for this topic (and I understand you disagree with the premise @KPM has put forth, it reinforces what he sees as a negative.

Again, no comments about what you are taught.  You clearly have been taught differently and that to me is a good thing.

I have also said elsewhere something else.  Fighting is fighting.  Someone who is skilled in a similar method of fighting can look at a system and understand what is going on.  Example a Wrestler can look at a Judoka and say "hey I get that".  An FMA guy can look at HEMA and say "hey I get that".  The reverse also holds true of course.


----------



## KPM

Here is another pretty good analysis of how Boxing and Wing Chun complement each other:


----------



## Juany118

Juany118 said:


> I am not speaking to how you learn it.  As you said you speak of your teaching.  I haven't dived into "really" learning it myself (I don't want to confuse weapon techniques) I have however just stood back and watched the teaching in two systems quite a bit.  I used the quotes from Gary Lam because they best excemplified what I observed.
> 
> As such in this case I am little more than a messenger.  There is more to it of course but the instruction I have seen is, as I said, excellent in one respect because it gives you a better appreciation of timing and distance but it also, again just what I observed, rams home the idea of closing rapidly.  Now of course the idea is that through the use of simultaneous attack and defense you penetrate your opponents defenses and succeed but again, it is taking the unarmed Philosophy (which includes rapid closing) and applying it to the BJD.  That is why I see, again just my experience, the BJD as being more a tool to build upon the existing empty hand side.  The problem is, for this topic (and I understand you disagree with the premise @KPM has put forth, it reinforces what he sees as a negative.
> 
> Again, no comments about what you are taught.  You clearly have been taught differently and that to me is a good thing.
> 
> I have also said elsewhere something else.  Fighting is fighting.  Someone who is skilled in a similar method of fighting can look at a system and understand what is going on.  Example a Wrestler can look at a Judoka and say "hey I get that".  An FMA guy can look at HEMA and say "hey I get that".  The reverse also holds true of course.


Note for the last part.  Saying "I get that" doesn't mean they can do it.  All it means is that they have the understanding of combat theory and biomechanics to understand what they are seeing.

Another note.  What I may he seeing may not be the original intent of BJD.  Obviously people don't walk around with such blades strapped to them anymore.  I am sure "back in the day" the BJD were an end in and of themselves but now, again not all Lineages, it often is used as a tool to enhance the understanding of empty hand.


----------



## Juany118

KPM said:


> Here is another pretty good analysis of how Boxing and Wing Chun complement each other:



Also, here is an example of how it works the other way around...





Now there is some debate as to whether Guro Dan was teaching Silva JKD trapping (origin WC) or Kali.  I think during the fights after the announcers said Kali but regardless it seemed to serve him well in the Octagon and the trapping principles are the same for either art.


----------



## KPM

^^^^^ Panantukan!


----------



## Juany118

KPM said:


> ^^^^^ Panantukan!


My first instinct is to say it's the inosanto Kali I know. Obviously that has panantukan elements.  I only hesitate because I've seen some JKD guys very similar thing so I don't want to make a definitive statement since I wasn't in the room.


----------



## wckf92

Nobody Important said:


> The goal of any violent encounter is to....walk away.



Fixed that for you Bro


----------



## Nobody Important

wckf92 said:


> Fixed that for you Bro


If you lose, I doubt you'll walk away.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> Also, here is an example of how it works the other way around...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now there is some debate as to whether Guro Dan was teaching Silva JKD trapping (origin WC) or Kali.  I think during the fights after the announcers said Kali but regardless it seemed to serve him well in the Octagon and the trapping principles are the same for either art.



Ever since anderson silva trained with Steven Segal. I have been a bit wary of at he is actually learning in these sessions.


----------



## Danny T

KPM said:


> Here is another pretty good analysis of how Boxing and Wing Chun complement each other:


Interesting... 
David Erath (Hertao) was a wing chun and pekiti-tirsia kali student of my prior to his moving to Austria a few years ago.


----------



## drop bear

KPM said:


> Here is another pretty good analysis of how Boxing and Wing Chun complement each other:



they hand trap in fight sports by the way.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> Ever since anderson silva trained with Steven Segal. I have been a bit wary of at he is actually learning in these sessions.




I would hope that you would say that Dan Inosanto has a little bit more credibility than Steven Seagal.  Guro Dan has a long list of students who have been pro-fighters and coaches in everything from MMA to Shoot wrestling.  Guro Dan, unlike people like Seagal, has made his life the martial arts.  He never stops studying himself and learning new things.  Heck he got his black belt in BJJ from John Machado (who doesn't just hand em out) when he was in his 70s.  The man is a mutant of some sort.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> I would hope that you would say that Dan Inosanto has a little bit more credibility than Steven Seagal.  Guro Dan has a long list of students who have been pro-fighters and coaches in everything from MMA to Shoot wrestling.  Guro Dan, unlike people like Seagal, has made his life the martial arts.  He never stops studying himself and learning new things.  Heck he got his black belt in BJJ from John Machado (who doesn't just hand em out) when he was in his 70s.  The man is a mutant of some sort.



No. I consider dan credible. Dan teaching Anderson silva just not no much. As I think he does that more for the performance factor.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> No. I consider dan credible. Dan teaching Anderson silva just not no much. As I think he does that more for the performance factor.



Oh I see so you're more talking about Silva and his own self promotion.  I wouldn't dispute that.


----------



## LFJ

Juany118 said:


> There is more to it of course but the instruction I have seen is, as I said, excellent in one respect because it gives you a better appreciation of timing and distance but it also, again just what I observed, rams home the idea of closing rapidly.  Now of course the idea is that through the use of simultaneous attack and defense you penetrate your opponents defenses and succeed but again, it is taking the unarmed Philosophy (which includes rapid closing) and applying it to the BJD.



For me, closing is quite different in unarmed vs BJD, for reasons that should be obvious.

When unarmed VT closes, it gets in tight to smother the opponent, disrupting their balance and facing.

When the opponent is armed with knives, that becomes an unintelligent strategy.

Usually, we'll maintain safe distance with highly mobile, evasive footwork and take out the weapon arm as it is presented, before closing.

We can also be the aggressor and pressure in quickly, but in doing so we still maintain safe distance by angling to the "blind side" while again taking out the weapon arm _first_, and even holding that line as we go in to finish.

We are cutting them off (convenient pun) with the angles we use, to avoid facing two knives at once, like in unarmed, but we aren't closing in the same way as unarmed to disrupt balance by attacking center. That's too dangerous.

In unarmed we don't have to worry about a spent punch slicing us open as it's retracted. Hence, there is no need to maintain distance and focus on the arm while getting to the blindside, as I see TWC do in its unarmed strategy. We can safely drive straight through and destroy their center (not meaning up the middle).

We are also opposite in direction of development, as you guys know.

Instead of applying unarmed philosophy to BJD, we take certain tactics from the knives into unarmed, but obviously the strategy is different.

When at long range unarmed, the mobile, evasive footwork is more like BJD, as are drawing and angling tactics. When closing, it becomes more LDBG in strategy and tactics combined with BJD flanking concepts.

As previously stated, VT prefers to close and finish, but what if we are outclassed at that range or in that moment? We can recover to the outside to find another tactical entry, or remain at distance and evade, bait and draw while keeping the opponent at bay with kicks, well-placed kicks that can also end fights.

Still no need to resort to other styles for any of this. We can just look at the weapons. 
That might not work if weapons are based on empty-hand, though.


----------



## LFJ

drop bear said:


> they hand trap in fight sports by the way.



That sounds like a bit of a misnomer.

I wouldn't really call pulling or slapping an arm out of the way "trapping".

The word "trap" sounds like what some people in WC talk about being able to do, covering two arms with one hand while striking with the other, actually _trapping_ both the opponent's arms so they have no free arm to defend with.

Now, I'd like to see that in fight sports.


----------



## KangTsai

Pretty interesting, if not a bit redundant.


----------



## KPM

Here is someone that has recognized that Wing Chun lacks a "long range game" and has taken measures to correct it.  However, I don't find his method very appealing and still think that western Boxing offers the most viable and useful answer.


----------



## Juany118

KPM said:


> Here is someone that has recognized that Wing Chun lacks a "long range game" and has taken measures to correct it.  However, I don't find his method very appealing and still think that western Boxing offers the most viable and useful answer.



*First note the below idea is based on your "average" practitioner, not the one that can figure out integration on their own.
*

I think, if you aren't going to study one of the WC lineages that is sometimes seen as what you have called a "long fist" version, there is an issue with both this guy's idea and integrating boxing to fill the gap.  The more I have been thinking about it, and I have pretty much settled on the idea that something that have very integrated weapons, out of the gate, is a better match.  Certain styles of FMA, HEMA, I forget the name of the Thai version etc.  Why?  

WC has as a key concept "protect the center".  The manner the guy in your video there does so made me cringe when I thought of this principle.  Boxing accomplishes this BUT it does so in a way that, when under pressure, often violates another key concept, simultaneous attack and defense.  The average practitioner will have a difficult time integrating boxing on the defensive side, I think.  However arts that integrate empty hand and weapons from the beginning definitely have the idea of longer range AND center protection out of the gate.  

A natural consequence of the integration of weapons with empty hand is that you train, out of the gate, to defend against an armed subject if you have no weapon, or need to draw.  There is no cover in such a circumstance.  You either need to divert their weapon while you draw theirs or take control.  So while performing simultaneous attack and defense the principle of protecting the center is maintained because a knife in the torso hitting major blood vessels can be deadly.  

Now if you have "that guy" teaching you, the one who is so good he can integrate arts with different principles I think boxing may be a good choice.  Thing is how common is "that guy"?  So one should perhaps, look to arts that share the principles, even if under a different name, to make integrating it yourself easier.


----------



## KPM

* The more I have been thinking about it, and I have pretty much settled on the idea that something that have very integrated weapons, out of the gate, is a better match.* 

---I can understand that, coming from an LEO!     But my concern is that a weapons-based art has such a strong identity of its own that any Wing Chun component would be essentially "lost in the mix."   My emphasis is on effective empty-hand sparring/free-fighting, as that is the way I am most likely to use my training.  If I was more concerned about weapons use and weapons defense, then I totally agree that studying a FMA would be a better choice.  But then there would be no need to integrate it with Wing Chun, since Wing Chun's emphasis is not weapons.


*WC has as a key concept "protect the center".  The manner the guy in your video there does so made me cringe when I thought of this principle.  Boxing accomplishes this BUT it does so in a way that, when under pressure, often violates another key concept, simultaneous attack and defense.* 

---More use of simultaneous attack and defense is something that Wing Chun can bring to boxing.   And you don't have to occupy the center to protect the center. 


* The average practitioner will have a difficult time integrating boxing on the defensive side, I think.  However arts that integrate empty hand and weapons from the beginning definitely have the idea of longer range AND center protection out of the gate.  *

---I have to disagree with you on this one.  As I'm starting to teach my guys the Boxing side, they seem to be finding most of it pretty instinctive...."covering up" to shield yourself from blows is a large part of boxing defense, and is quite an instinctive response for most people.  At long range Boxing defense centers around evasive body movement and footwork.  Also something found in weapons systems.


*A natural consequence of the integration of weapons with empty hand is that you train, out of the gate, to defend against an armed subject if you have no weapon, or need to draw.  There is no cover in such a circumstance.* 

----I agree.  But in almost every martial art, FMAs included, training to defend empty hand vs. a weapon is considered a different category of training compared to empty hand vs. empty hand.  It has its own methods within the system.   A "Wing Chun Boxing" would be no different.   When I get ready to teach empty-hand defenses against the knife, I will draw upon Mike Janich's "Counter Blade Concepts" or "CBC."   Janich bases it upon FMA, but it also has some very "Wing Chun-like" features.


----------



## Juany118

KPM said:


> ---I have to disagree with you on this one.  As I'm starting to teach my guys the Boxing side, they seem to be finding most of it pretty instinctive...."covering up" to shield yourself from blows is a large part of boxing defense, and is quite an instinctive response for most people.  At long range Boxing defense centers around evasive body movement and footwork.  Also something found in weapons systems.
> .



I think the underlined part is actually to my point.  I am talking about the average guy who is studying WC and is a good student but who wants to deepen his game without the benefit of a teacher like you showing them the boxing side and how it works.

Maybe it's the specific nature of Inosanto Kali that makes me think it would work better.  You note how there is a demarcation between weapon training and empty hand training in FMA but the way Inosanto Kali is taught (the only Kali I have experience with) you are shown how the weapon work (both hand and foot work) relates directly to the empty hand.  It's not taught



> here is how you use weapons, okay now here is how you do empty hand.



Rather it's



> okay now that we are done with the weapons, onto empty hand, see how all the same principles apply?



Guro Dan based his system in those taught by Johnny Lacoste and Floro Villabrille.  Lacoste's concept was that in learning how to do everything (locking, pinning, chocking, disarming, hitting etc) with long and short weapons paired together one would be able to flow across all weapons, and empty hand.  The idea behind this is based on how dynamic it is.  I may parry my opponents sword/stick with my sword/stick but now I have to rapidly close inside that guard to be able either disarm, or attack, my opponent with my dagger.  They also try to relate the various armed techniques to empty hand techniques.

I believe this manner of teaching would allow the person, who doesn't have the benefit of a teacher such as yourself, to do the integration on their own.  Here is a far more in depth description of of the Lacoste-Inosanto blend from a 1985 issue of Blackbelt magazine...

Lacoste Inosanto Kali


----------



## KPM

Here is another take on "Wing Chun Boxing."  This one from Victor Parlati, one of GM William Cheung's senior students in the US.   Jump to the 6:30 mark:


----------



## Knapf

KPM said:


> Is combining Wing Chun and Boxing the way to really get it to work in fighting/sparring?


Yes


----------



## JbrmWC

I'm new here but I've done some hard sparring with my WC. I've also used boxing against WC in sparring. My Kung fu brother I spar with has been practicing for 11 years and I've been at it for 2 1/2. He's 5'7" and I'm 6'2", I've found that just boxing doesn't work as well against his WC. I have incorporate other things/styles to get over on him. When I use WC adding boxing interrupts the flow of my WC and plays into his because of the committed punches of boxing. These are just some things I've noticed when sparring at full speed.


----------



## Juany118

KPM said:


> Here is another take on "Wing Chun Boxing."  This one from Victor Parlati, one of GM William Cheung's senior students in the US.   Jump to the 6:30 mark:




Before I commented I watched the video a bunch of times.  I don't see anything "new" to me.  The title is how boxing compliments TWC but I see nothing there that is "new" to the TWC.  Does what he say address the practical issues of combat?  Certainly they do, but there are other ways to address the same thing.  One of the things I found "odd" is that when he went into boxing mode he appeared to greatly reduce his lateral footwork (trying to flank, get to the blind side). Based on how he first showed how going up the middle blindly chain punching can go bad, and instead use boxing techniques for that purpose.  Thing is though that in TWC you aren't supposed to go up the middle blindly chain punching.  The video in short confused the heck out of me.


----------



## KPM

JbrmWC said:


> I'm new here but I've done some hard sparring with my WC. I've also used boxing against WC in sparring. My Kung fu brother I spar with has been practicing for 11 years and I've been at it for 2 1/2. He's 5'7" and I'm 6'2", I've found that just boxing doesn't work as well against his WC. I have incorporate other things/styles to get over on him. When I use WC adding boxing interrupts the flow of my WC and plays into his because of the committed punches of boxing. These are just some things I've noticed when sparring at full speed.



Welcome to the forum!  But, with all due respect, if you are using "committed" punches when Boxing, then you probably aren't using very good Boxing!


----------



## KPM

Juany118 said:


> Before I commented I watched the video a bunch of times.  I don't see anything "new" to me.  The title is how boxing compliments TWC but I see nothing there that is "new" to the TWC.  Does what he say address the practical issues of combat?  Certainly they do, but there are other ways to address the same thing.  One of the things I found "odd" is that when he went into boxing mode he appeared to greatly reduce his lateral footwork (trying to flank, get to the blind side). Based on how he first showed how going up the middle blindly chain punching can go bad, and instead use boxing techniques for that purpose.  Thing is though that in TWC you aren't supposed to go up the middle blindly chain punching.  The video in short confused the heck out of me.



My takeaway from Victor's video was the idea of keeping the hands on the shoulder lines and thinking of your left taking care of his right and vice versa.  Sure, not new to TWC.  Victor admits he got the idea from William Cheung.  But I think it is the emphasis he is placing on it and NOT using the centerline Man/Wu guard that is the difference.  Also he uses the longer range punches and upper body movement from Boxing when at a greater distance.  In some of his other vids he goes into more Boxing-oriented things.


----------



## JbrmWC

KPM said:


> Welcome to the forum!  But, with all due respect, if you are using "committed" punches when Boxing, then you probably aren't using very good Boxing!


Thanks,it depends on how you define "committed" . An overhand right or hook in my opinion is a committed punch in comparison to WC punches. Or any punch you have to reload and regain structure, pretty much anything but a jab.


----------



## Juany118

KPM said:


> My takeaway from Victor's video was the idea of keeping the hands on the shoulder lines and thinking of your left taking care of his right and vice versa.  Sure, not new to TWC.  Victor admits he got the idea from William Cheung.  But I think it is the emphasis he is placing on it and NOT using the centerline Man/Wu guard that is the difference.  Also he uses the longer range punches and upper body movement from Boxing when at a greater distance.  In some of his other vids he goes into more Boxing-oriented things.



Like I said in the PM, perhaps it is simply a teaching difference?  In short, I get the feeling that the "firm" man su, wu sau, is more of a teaching tool to emphasize where your centerline is and controlling it as efficiently as possible as Sifu Keith Mazza will say, while in the stance, "no one really fights this way."  Also with some of the punches, while the straight punch/palm strike, is clearly the "bread and butter" once understood you do learn things like a tight round punch (aka buffalo punch).  The difference between teachers perhaps being how they try to transition you from the "introduction" where you have the core/foundational principles lie centerline, blind side, never meet force with force etc. ingrained into you to the intermediate and advanced areas where you learn other things.  Example high kicks aren't part of testing until are testing for level 6.


----------



## Juany118

JbrmWC said:


> Thanks,it depends on how you define "committed" . An overhand right or hook in my opinion is a committed punch in comparison to WC punches. Or any punch you have to reload and regain structure, pretty much anything but a jab.



First if you read through this, at least in terms of the Lineage that I study, I do find some of KPMs ideas redunant BUT that is the "wonder" of WC, there is no single way to do it.  That said...

That really depends on how "tight" the hook punch (buffalo punch) is and how much you are using your body vs the arm.  If it's properly done (even in terms of boxing) it isn't that much different than a straight for two reasons, let me give you an analogy.  Have you ever in sparring thrown a punch and because your punch incidentally intercepted the opponent's, all you would have had to do is rotate the wrist and open the hand and you say "hey tan sau!"  The same can happen with a proper hook punch (not a "good night Irene" haymaker) except there you say "hey bong sau!" Or you can just rotate the elbow down and go tan OR extend the hand out further and it's a bil sau etc. 

That's why I often refer to WC as a conceptual art.  The fact there is a fist instead of an open hand doesn't change the fact that the arm itself is acting as a tan, bong or bil sau.  The key part being that you have to look at, as the last video @KPM  posted explains, (in different language) are your gates.  As long as you don't go outside your gates, left or right, imo you haven't over committed.  On the other hand a "good night Irene" goes outside of the gate and there you have over committed.  

In short a proper hook punch doesn't require a "reload", all you need to so is focus on the elbow and in 3 dimensional space picture yourself rotating it.  Think of the end of SLT.  You scoop to gan, into tan and then after that rotate from bong into tan.  In short, it's all about looking at the elbow, not the hand.  At least that is my take.


----------



## KPM

Juany118 said:


> Like I said in the PM, perhaps it is simply a teaching difference?  In short, I get the feeling that the "firm" man su, wu sau, is more of a teaching tool to emphasize where your centerline is and controlling it as efficiently as possible as Sifu Keith Mazza will say, while in the stance, "no one really fights this way."  .



Have you seen this old footage?   Skip to the 8:30 mark:






Or this one?






GM Cheung is using a center Man/Wu guard in both.  No "side stance" used either time.

So I'm willing to bet, that over the years many of his students have incorporated some elements of boxing to what they do, whether they would admit it or not.  Just like DanT saying he is using jabs and crosses from long range but he still considers it Wing Chun.  I would posit that for many branches this integration of some Boxing to their Wing Chun has been going on for awhile.  They just see it as being "practical"!  But a lot of it was never part of "classical" Wing Chun back in Ip Man's day, let along Leung Jan's day!


----------



## KPM

Referencing the two videos above......Rick Spain does his TWC forms a bit differently from everyone else, and I really like the way he does them.  He has essentially eliminated the side stance from his version of the system.  His reasoning was that when watching fellow TWC classmates in sparring or drilling under heavy pressure, anytime they started in a side stance they ended up either stepping forward into a front stance whenever they really needed to exchange, or getting forced back into the front stance when pressed by a charging opponent.  He concluded that the side stance really wasn't very useful.  Those videos of GM Cheung himself doing this light sparring kind of bears that out.  He didn't use a side stance a single time in either video.  Boxing never fights from a side stance either.  

Eliminating the side stance from the system changes the angling used in the forms.  And the way Spain angles in his forms fits very well with a Boxing approach. So I am drawing a lot of inspiration from TWC in general, and Rick Spain's version in particular.


----------



## LFJ

Hmm, sure seems to be a lot of predictable circling around out at arms' length and swatting at arms without ever closing distance and attacking center in those clips, as I often note about TWC.

Only at the very end of the first one where he does his demos does he actually move in and attack center.

Maintaining that distance allows the boxer freedom of movement so they basically trade blows. If only the boxer moved laterally to cut Cheung off and keep him in front of him...


----------



## JbrmWC

LFJ said:


> Hmm, sure seems to be a lot of predictable circling around out at arms' length and swatting at arms without ever closing distance and attacking center in those clips, as I often note about TWC.
> 
> Only at the very end of the first one where he does his demos does he actually move in and attack center.
> 
> Maintaining that distance allows the boxer freedom of movement so they basically trade blows. If only the boxer moved laterally to cut Cheung off and keep him in front of him...


 I agree,there were also many missed opportunities by Cheung. The first time he bridged it should have been over. IMO,sparring to where you just throw stuff back and forth creates bad habits and defeats the purpose of WC.


----------



## JbrmWC

Juany118 said:


> First if you read through this, at least in terms of the Lineage that I study, I do find some of KPMs ideas redunant BUT that is the "wonder" of WC, there is no single way to do it.  That said...
> 
> That really depends on how "tight" the hook punch (buffalo punch) is and how much you are using your body vs the arm.  If it's properly done (even in terms of boxing) it isn't that much different than a straight for two reasons, let me give you an analogy.  Have you ever in sparring thrown a punch and because your punch incidentally intercepted the opponent's, all you would have had to do is rotate the wrist and open the hand and you say "hey tan sau!"  The same can happen with a proper hook punch (not a "good night Irene" haymaker) except there you say "hey bong sau!" Or you can just rotate the elbow down and go tan OR extend the hand out further and it's a bil sau etc.
> 
> That's why I often refer to WC as a conceptual art.  The fact there is a fist instead of an open hand doesn't change the fact that the arm itself is acting as a tan, bong or bil sau.  The key part being that you have to look at, as the last video @KPM  posted explains, (in different language) are your gates.  As long as you don't go outside your gates, left or right, imo you haven't over committed.  On the other hand a "good night Irene" goes outside of the gate and there you have over committed.
> 
> In short a proper hook punch doesn't require a "reload", all you need to so is focus on the elbow and in 3 dimensional space picture yourself rotating it.  Think of the end of SLT.  You scoop to gan, into tan and then after that rotate from bong into tan.  In short, it's all about looking at the elbow, not the hand.  At least that is my take.


I agree in terms of WC. But in boxing,I'd only throw a hook as a haymaker because it leaves you open if it's not thrown fast enough.


----------



## Juany118

JbrmWC said:


> I agree,there were also many missed opportunities by Cheung. The first time he bridged it should have been over. IMO,sparring to where you just throw stuff back and forth creates bad habits and defeats the purpose of WC.



But again, often in situations like that where you are light sparring it can be about trying to demonstrate specific principles.  Example if I am trying to prove that my bridging method does work against a boxer, then all I am looking to do is to show the successful bridge.  The next point is arguably a different topic.  That is one of the reasons I often have issues with YouTube videos.  You get a 30 second snippet of a MUCH longer instructional video (as we see in the second video that @KPM linked.)


----------



## Juany118

KPM said:


> Have you seen this old footage?   Skip to the 8:30 mark:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or this one?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GM Cheung is using a center Man/Wu guard in both.  No "side stance" used either time.
> 
> So I'm willing to bet, that over the years many of his students have incorporated some elements of boxing to what they do, whether they would admit it or not.  Just like DanT saying he is using jabs and crosses from long range but he still considers it Wing Chun.  I would posit that for many branches this integration of some Boxing to their Wing Chun has been going on for awhile.  They just see it as being "practical"!  But a lot of it was never part of "classical" Wing Chun back in Ip Man's day, let along Leung Jan's day!



I haven't but he does illustrate one of the things I was talking about in terms of "people don't really fight that way."  You have to look full screen but you will see that often the "perfect" man and wu aren't there as he has his hands either fully or partially in a fist while his arms still protect the centerline.


----------



## JbrmWC

Juany118 said:


> But again, often in situations like that where you are light sparring it can be about trying to demonstrate specific principles.  Example if I am trying to prove that my bridging method does work against a boxer, then all I am looking to do is to show the successful bridge.  The next point is arguably a different topic.  That is one of the reasons I often have issues with YouTube videos.  You get a 30 second snippet of a MUCH longer instructional video (as we see in the second video that @KPM linked.)


That's why I only go off personal experience and not YouTube vids,lol. Imo, in any type of sparring you should attempt to do what you'd do in a fight and the boxer should try to not let you. That's where you learn what will work or not. It's easy to bridge,the part after is where it gets complicated.


----------



## Juany118

JbrmWC said:


> I agree in terms of WC. But in boxing,I'd only throw a hook as a haymaker because it leaves you open if it's not thrown fast enough.



Thing is there are a number of schools of boxing, some are very much not big fans of haymakers vs hook punches.  The reason to them is as follows.  A wide haymaker hits harder because it had more distance across which to accelerate.  The problem is this extra distance allows for two things. 

1. a better chance for your opponent to intercept
2. an opening through which they can strike.

This is also true is double stick fighting in Kali, Arnis, Eskrima (Inosanto Kali is the other art I study atm).  The "back hand" strike hits harder for the same reason (more time to accelerate) and if it connects it's devastating BUT the travel time creates a number of complications which make it something you only want to use at just the right time.

Example (boxing wise) in the army we were taught a combination of boxing a Judo.  what did they say about punches...

"Throw short hooks, short uppercuts, and short rights but long jabs"  

to throw "long" on the first three would leave you open.


----------



## Juany118

JbrmWC said:


> That's why I only go off personal experience and not YouTube vids,lol. Imo, in any type of sparring you should attempt to do what you'd do in a fight and the boxer should try to not let you. That's where you learn what will work or not. It's easy to bridge,the part after is where it gets complicated.



The last part actually surprised me.  If I am not mistaken most people around here see the bridging part (well to bridge and remain intact) as the difficult part, getting through the "no man's land" so to speak where you then have clear openings to retaliate through.


----------



## JbrmWC

Juany118 said:


> The last part actually surprised me.  If I am not mistaken most people around here see the bridging part (well to bridge and remain intact) as the difficult part, getting through the "no man's land" so to speak where you then have clear openings to retaliate through.


If you give a false sense of pressure most people will instinctually try to fight against it (in terms of boxer/street fighter) and that's when you can relax and take advantage.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> Hmm, sure seems to be a lot of predictable circling around out at arms' length and swatting at arms without ever closing distance and attacking center in those clips, as I often note about TWC.
> 
> Only at the very end of the first one where he does his demos does he actually move in and attack center.
> 
> Maintaining that distance allows the boxer freedom of movement so they basically trade blows. If only the boxer moved laterally to cut Cheung off and keep him in front of him...



Now I DID NOT post this as fodder for you to criticize and start a fight about!  Get over yourself!!!   Stop just looking for things to criticize and argue about!


----------



## Juany118

JbrmWC said:


> If you give a false sense of pressure most people will instinctually try to fight against it (in terms of boxer/street fighter) and that's when you can relax and take advantage.



That CAN work in street fighting (my main experience in using WC and Kali) but the thing is one can become over reliant on such an assumption.  What you just said there actually reminds me of n issue in Aikido (the other art I am most familiar with).  Even thought the Aikido I studied, Yoshinkan Aikido, is FAR closer to the Aiki-Jujutsu origins of Aikido, some practitioners would rely too much on Aiki (simple form, the "bad guy" providing you with the energy to throw them) vs the simple principles of leverage and position that are also present in the art but more commonly seen in Judo.  In short you need to enter assuming the opponent will not fight instinctively but tactically.


----------



## KPM

JbrmWC said:


> I agree,there were also many missed opportunities by Cheung. The first time he bridged it should have been over. IMO,sparring to where you just throw stuff back and forth creates bad habits and defeats the purpose of WC.



Guys.  This was light sparring.  Essentially "playing around."  I did not post this as a way to bring criticism down on GM Cheung.  I posted this to show that he himself does fight with a center-held Man/Wu guard position.  You can't really conclude anything else from this.


----------



## JbrmWC

Juany118 said:


> That CAN work in street fighting (my main experience in using WC and Kali) but the thing is one can become over reliant on such an assumption.  What you just said there actually reminds me of n issue in Aikido (the other art I am most familiar with).  Even thought the Aikido I studied, Yoshinkan Aikido, is FAR closer to the Aiki-Jujutsu origins of Aikido, some practitioners would rely too much on Aiki (simple form, the "bad guy" providing you with the energy to throw them) vs the simple principles of leverage and position that are also present in the art but more commonly seen in Judo.  In short you need to enter assuming the opponent will not fight instinctively but tactically.


I'd never assume either, you figure that out as you go. Your opponent will let you know how they fight by the way they fight. I'd also like to say it's refreshing to be able to debate and share ideas without the bs of most forums.


----------



## KPM

Juany118 said:


> I haven't but he does illustrate one of the things I was talking about in terms of "people don't really fight that way."  You have to look full screen but you will see that often the "perfect" man and wu aren't there as he has his hands either fully or partially in a fist while his arms still protect the centerline.



Ok.  So he closed his hands a few times.  That isn't the same thing as using the guard the way Victor was talking about on his video.


----------



## Juany118

KPM said:


> Guys.  This was light sparring.  Essentially "playing around."  I did not post this as a way to bring criticism down on GM Cheung.  I posted this to show that he himself does fight with a center-held Man/Wu guard position.  You can't really conclude anything else from this.



Yeah, you want to see what happens in a "real" spar I think the MUSU fights I have posted previously with Sifu Jerry Devone are a better example because people get KO'd and such.


----------



## JbrmWC

KPM said:


> Guys.  This was light sparring.  Essentially "playing around."  I did not post this as a way to bring criticism down on GM Cheung.  I posted this to show that he himself does fight with a center-held Man/Wu guard position.  You can't really conclude anything else from this.


My point was not to criticize but share the way I go about things. I understand the point of the vid and no dissrespect to Cheung was intended.


----------



## Juany118

JbrmWC said:


> I'd never assume either, you figure that out as you go. Your opponent will let you know how they fight by the way they fight. I'd also like to say it's refreshing to be able to debate and share ideas without the bs of most forums.



The thing is a real fight, on the street, is such a blur you don't have time to have your opponent "let you" know (at least consciously) how to do it.  I stated elsewhere that I know my WC works in bridging but once I am in the "spot" where I can control/knock out I honestly couldn't tell you if I used WC, Aikido or Kali.  All I know is who ended up on top when it is all said and done.  

On the street, just my experience, you don't have the testing that happens in sparring or the ring.  You don't have the definitive goals of points, KO and/or TKO.  The person you are fighting basically wants to destroy you by going all in, stun you, again, by going all in so they can escape, or they dance between the two depending on how the scenario progresses but it's always "all in" on their part so you have to go "all in" on your part if you have decided "hands on" is the only option.


----------



## JbrmWC

Juany118 said:


> The thing is a real fight, on the street, is such a blur you don't have time to have your opponent "let you" know (at least consciously) how to do it.  I stated elsewhere that I know my WC works in bridging but once I am in the "spot" where I can control/knock out I honestly couldn't tell you if I used WC, Aikido or Kali.  All I know is who ended up on top when it is all said and done.
> 
> On the street, just my experience, you don't have the testing that happens in sparring or the ring.  You don't have the definitive goals of points, KO and/or TKO.  The person you are fighting basically wants to destroy you by going all in, stun you, again, by going all in so they can escape, or they dance between the two depending on how the scenario progresses but it's always "all in" on their part so you have to go "all in" on your part if you have decided "hands on" is the only option.


All in is instinct...just saying


----------



## KPM

Juany118 said:


> The thing is a real fight, on the street, is such a blur you don't have time to have your opponent "let you" know (at least consciously) how to do it. .


 
And that is why some refer to Wing Chun as an "ambush style" intended for close quarters and an exchange that lasts only seconds!


----------



## JbrmWC

KPM said:


> And that is why some refer to Wing Chun as an "ambush style" intended for close quarters and an exchange that lasts only seconds!


Yes


----------



## Juany118

JbrmWC said:


> All in is instinct...just saying



Not the way my mind works and what I have encountered (admittedly my encounters being arrest encounters is a different dynamic than what we usually think of in terms of "fighting").  "All in" is simply about the level of initial commitment.  Before you "pull the trigger" so to speak you are still looking at your opponent, trying to decide where he is weakest and the best manner in which to exploit said weakness in the context of the goal you have chosen (destroy, escape, control etc).  It's just that once you decide it's time to enter you don't test.

To me instinct is simply reacting.  You don't have a plan and your goal may even be uncertain when the street encounter starts because you haven't committed one way or the other (such as in a typical "bar" confrontation that escalates.)


----------



## JbrmWC

Juany118 said:


> Not really, at least the way my mind works and what I have encountered (admittedly my encounters being arrest encounters is a different dynamic than what we usually think of in terms of "fighting").  "All in" is simply about the level of initial commitment.  Before you "pull the trigger" so to speak you are still looking at your opponent, trying to decide where he is weakest and the best manner in which to exploit said weakness in the context of the goal you have chosen (destroy, escape, control etc).  It's just that once you decide it's time to enter you don't test.


I never said test. If a guy throws a wild right it's obviously instinctual and no tactics. If he sets up in a stance it's obviously tactical. Not to say that I would,But if I come down with a hard hammer fist both guys will throw an arm up to block it.


----------



## Juany118

KPM said:


> Ok.  So he closed his hands a few times.  That isn't the same thing as using the guard the way Victor was talking about on his video.



I think GM Cheung is showing though what I pointed to your video confusing me about.  GM Cheung is using footwork that allows him to still protect his center without widening his guard.  Victor appeared to stop using the footwork to try and flank and basically was using the widened guard to make the "up the middle" approach work.  It was the sudden devolution of Victor's footwork that was the source of my confusion.


----------



## Juany118

JbrmWC said:


> ,But if I come down with a hard hammer fist both guys will throw an arm up to block it.



Or simply step to the side as they guide it away.  I admit I work in a BAD place and there are people that, while never formally trained, have spent most of their teenage and all of their adult lives in and out of prison.  They can easily have just as good of a plan as any of us do with the formal training we may have.  So while we may look at their technique and call it primitive there is a method to the madness.


----------



## brammerd

the way this boxer punches makes me think he knows wing chung or JKD


----------



## KPM

^^^^^ That's because he often has a relatively upright stance with his shoulders squared to his opponent.  His punches are often pretty straight...almost "centerline" punches.  I've always thought Alexis Arguello looked somewhat like Wing Chun for the exact same reasons!


----------



## Juany118

KPM said:


> ^^^^^ That's because he often has a relatively upright stance with his shoulders squared to his opponent.  His punches are often pretty straight...almost "centerline" punches.  I've always thought Alexis Arguello looked somewhat like Wing Chun for the exact same reasons!



The thing is this is actually an example of parallel evolution.  It's a WC punch but it is also the Jack Dempsey "falling step" punch.  Not the best video but, short form, it's the modern evolution of the bare knuckled boxing Dempsey started with...


----------



## drop bear

JbrmWC said:


> I never said test. If a guy throws a wild right it's obviously instinctual and no tactics. If he sets up in a stance it's obviously tactical. Not to say that I would,But if I come down with a hard hammer fist both guys will throw an arm up to block it.



People test in street fights. Police test in street fights. If Juanny doesn't test it is because he is choosing not to.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> People test in street fights. Police test in street fights. If Juanny doesn't test it is because he is choosing not to.



First the majority of "street fights", I hate the term btw, aren't "fights".  They are assualts, robberies etc.  A person who is looking for revenge on an imagined slight (assault) doesn't test, they attack.  A robber doesn't physically test (with jabs and the like).  They say "hand me your money" and if they don't get compliance, they strike.

It is similar in an arrest scenario.  If I tell someone to "put their hands behind their back" and they strike out or start to resist in another fashion I am not stepping back and physically "testing" them, I am trusting my initial observations as to their strengths and weaknesses via the tells they gave during the verbal encounter and am moving immediately for control.

If you can find a single LEO on this forum (and there are a bunch of us) who, if they can't go to a tool, is going to start the type of physical testing we are talking about here; jabs, feints etc, I would be interesting to hear their methodology.  I have all the respect in the world for what you do because a bouncer can take at least as many knocks as I do for less money and crappier benefits btw.

In my experience a good LEO, hell a good Street fighter, does most, if not all, of their testing while they are talking.  You use your eyes, see how they are standing, watch their body language as you make specific statements etc.  That is the "testing" in an assault/robbery/arrest encounter at least.  If you physically test in those scenarios, unless you are in a very enclosed space, you say "yes please, run away" and that seriously reduces the chance of achieving the goal.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> I posted this to show that he himself does fight with a center-held Man/Wu guard position.  *You can't really conclude anything else from this.*



Why not? Though light, it is free sparring filmed for the purpose of showing the differences in strategy and tactics between WB and TWC.

I'm not looking to fight or saying anything offensive. I'm just confused as to why I see the same thing from TWC all the time, despite TWC practitioners telling me they do something different.

I say TWC always maintains distance and circles around at arms' length, focusing on the opponent's arms while allowing them space for freedom of movement, as opposed to cutting in, eating space, and unbalancing the opponent while attacking center.

TWC practitioners tell me they do the latter, but we always see the opposite, which is what we see here in light sparring from the man himself.


----------



## JbrmWC

Conceptually speaking. I think a lot of people miss the point that WC is a baiting style MA. It's design is to bring your opponent closer, but most people won't allow it which defeats its purpose. I mostly see people trying to stop the advance on the outer limits of contact.


----------



## KPM

I've got the "Wing Chun Boxing" project underway!  Check out my youtube channel and subscribe if you are interested enough to follow on with what we are working on.  I'll be putting up lessons as we go.

Iron Fist Wing Chun Boxing


----------



## Phobius

KPM said:


> I've got the "Wing Chun Boxing" project underway!  Check out my youtube channel and subscribe if you are interested enough to follow on with what we are working on.  I'll be putting up lessons as we go.
> 
> Iron Fist Wing Chun Boxing



Thanks for showing those videos.

Just as a remark. When displaying basic punches you have a twist in your knee. From that angle this looks very unhealthy. Was it just from extended movie making or were you actually twisting that knee while doing jab and just a slight twist while doing cross? Just be careful with those knees. They need to last a lifetime. (Edit: I am aware that it could just be bad angle, but still wanted to highlight it just in case)


----------



## KPM

Yep. Just the angle.  As a Physical Medicine doctor I'm well aware of good mechanics and protecting the joints.    My knees were not under any undue stress.  Thanks!


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> First the majority of "street fights", I hate the term btw, aren't "fights".  They are assualts, robberies etc.  A person who is looking for revenge on an imagined slight (assault) doesn't test, they attack.  A robber doesn't physically test (with jabs and the like).  They say "hand me your money" and if they don't get compliance, they strike.
> 
> It is similar in an arrest scenario.  If I tell someone to "put their hands behind their back" and they strike out or start to resist in another fashion I am not stepping back and physically "testing" them, I am trusting my initial observations as to their strengths and weaknesses via the tells they gave during the verbal encounter and am moving immediately for control.
> 
> If you can find a single LEO on this forum (and there are a bunch of us) who, if they can't go to a tool, is going to start the type of physical testing we are talking about here; jabs, feints etc, I would be interesting to hear their methodology.  I have all the respect in the world for what you do because a bouncer can take at least as many knocks as I do for less money and crappier benefits btw.
> 
> In my experience a good LEO, hell a good Street fighter, does most, if not all, of their testing while they are talking.  You use your eyes, see how they are standing, watch their body language as you make specific statements etc.  That is the "testing" in an assault/robbery/arrest encounter at least.  If you physically test in those scenarios, unless you are in a very enclosed space, you say "yes please, run away" and that seriously reduces the chance of achieving the goal.



The concept is like jackals taking down a Buffalo.


----------



## KPM

Here is a good clip of Sifu Mark Phillips doing some Wing Chun Boxing:

[WING CHUN EXPERIMENT] DOES Pak Sao REALLY Work Against Jab Cross Punches?


----------



## JbrmWC

Good vid,I like to use pak to check the jabs so the opponent gets use to the check. Then when they've become more comfortable with it I add to it and move in.


----------



## karatejj

KPM said:


> Here is a good clip of Sifu Mark Phillips doing some Wing Chun Boxing:
> 
> [WING CHUN EXPERIMENT] DOES Pak Sao REALLY Work Against Jab Cross Punches?



Awesum stuff!


----------



## KPM

I put some new video lessons up today:

Iron Fist Wing Chun Boxing


----------



## Phobius

KPM said:


> I put some new video lessons up today:
> 
> Iron Fist Wing Chun Boxing



It is great that you display the progress of your Wing Chun boxing and by doing so I assume you dont mind some feedback.

Some things I noticed with your bong-lop da drill.

1. You remove the flow of the bong-lop da drill and treat it as a "I move and you wait" kind of drill. To me the force pushing the hand of the opponent is what gives that spring force causing you to receive an attack back when letting go. Sensitivity in the drill, I do not see any of that in this drill. Which is perfectly fine, but it is a remark to better understand my feedback and reject it if my base differs too much to yours.

2. Now this is where I have more of an objection. You make too  many moves on your "opponent" with that final punch in the stomach. The way the drill is demonstrated you make a drill where you do bong-lop da... follow up with a punch in the stomach against a frozen opponent and then perhaps also stepping. Not sure I like the whole idea of a non-resisting opponent unless the intent is just to  simply train the punch itself without any real application theory to it.

3. You opponent is learning to have two hands in contact with one of yours. Instead of the opponent being aggressive and having is intent on attacking you it seems he is focued on your arm instead. This is noticed when you punch in stomach. What are his hands doing there? Is that the actually response you want people to learn as a reflex?

4. Elbow down, not to the side. It seems you are intentionally opening up that stomach for an attack.

Of course this is all hypothetical(sp?) and I have not tried your drill and have a terrible eye for these things still. I prefer sensing it myself to properly understand. It just feels like you are leaving that stomach area quite open. So feel free to argue or ignore this message. I just feel any uploaded video deserves honest feedback.

Just a final question, you want to integrate boxing techniques for long range fighting game. Why even bother doing modified chi-sau drills with boxing techniques. It is not at all what has made boxers so great at long range. I am just worried that you seem to remove the aspect of Wing Chun and yet trying to maintain some training to create a close range boxer rather than adding a long range game using boxing techniques to a close range defined Wing Chun style.

Feels like you might also need to change the entire training method if you want to incorporate long range boxing for your students. Maybe you already have and this is just experimental videos so once more I am not judging. Just raising questions as I see them.

If I am not curious I would just simply ignore your movies and not take the time to go through them in depth.


----------



## karatejj

KPM said:


> I put some new video lessons up today:
> 
> Iron Fist Wing Chun Boxing



Awesome knowlege dropped here! Thanks man

Can u give more about what is ur bong drill teach compared to standard WC?


----------



## Martial D

KPM said:


> I put some new video lessons up today:
> 
> Iron Fist Wing Chun Boxing


 7:35 of lesson 2 video.

What the holy hell!

Anyway, good stuff. Keep on refining this.


----------



## KPM

Martial D said:


> 7:35 of lesson 2 video.
> 
> What the holy hell!
> 
> Anyway, good stuff. Keep on refining this.



Mark of a good camera operator!  She didn't drop the camera!!!


----------



## KPM

*It is great that you display the progress of your Wing Chun boxing and by doing so I assume you dont mind some feedback.*

---Good feedback is welcome!   Harsh judgmental criticism not so much.  


*1. You remove the flow of the bong-lop da drill and treat it as a "I move and you wait" kind of drill. *

---You are right.  My student doesn't have this drill down well at all yet.  I probably should have waited until he could do it smoothly with me.  But I've just started showing this to them.  I'll probably swap this video out with a better one later on when we can make it look sharper.


*To me the force pushing the hand of the opponent is what gives that spring force causing you to receive an attack back when letting go. Sensitivity in the drill, I do not see any of that in this drill. Which is perfectly fine, but it is a remark to better understand my feedback and reject it if my base differs too much to yours.*

---No, point taken!  We were definitely loosing some of the continuity of the drill by not maintaining good contact.  That will get better as my guys learn it.


*2. Now this is where I have more of an objection. You make too  many moves on your "opponent" with that final punch in the stomach. The way the drill is demonstrated you make a drill where you do bong-lop da... follow up with a punch in the stomach against a frozen opponent and then perhaps also stepping. Not sure I like the whole idea of a non-resisting opponent unless the intent is just to  simply train the punch itself without any real application theory to it.*

---That's an interesting comment, given how elaborate many Wing Chun lineages get with this drill!  I thought what we did was pretty simple and straight-forward in comparison!   But it isn't too many moves.  The idea is that the Bong & Lop with the backhand motion sets him up.  If he doesn't respond he gets hit in the face.  But when he puts his hand up to stop the strike he leaves an opening and gets hit in the solar plexus instead.  It's quick and not complicated it all.  If flows nicely just like any boxing combination.  He is resisting when he throws the hand up to stop the punch.  And notice that we are actually close enough that all of those strikes can land!  This is unlike how this drill is done in a lot of Ip Man lineages where you are standing back from the partner and neither one of you are actually within real striking range.


*3. You opponent is learning to have two hands in contact with one of yours. Instead of the opponent being aggressive and having is intent on attacking you it seems he is focued on your arm instead. This is noticed when you punch in stomach. What are his hands doing there? Is that the actually response you want people to learn as a reflex?*

----I see what you are saying.  The way we are doing the drill, he isn't really reinforcing a good response to the Bong-Lop Da.  He is just falling right into to the trap the drill is meant to create.  So I guess you could say we are using the drill to really commit  actions of the guy doing the Bong-Lop and strike to muscle memory but not so much the defender's actions.  But if you think about it, we are doing 2 steps in our basic drill.  Most Wing Chun people only do 1.....Bong & Lop and partner stops your punch....1 step.  We could do that as well by leaving out the punch to the solar plexus.   I guess I skipped a step in showing the drill and should have done the even more basic 1 step drill first....like most people do.  


*4. Elbow down, not to the side. It seems you are intentionally opening up that stomach for an attack.*

----Even with the elbow down there is going to be a gap that is easy enough to punch through.  And besides, we train with the idea that if we ever use this....it won't be against a trained Wing Chun guy that is good at keep his elbows down and holding centerline.  


*So feel free to argue or ignore this message. I just feel any uploaded video deserves honest feedback.*

---No, thanks for the feedback!  Good things to think about!


*Just a final question, you want to integrate boxing techniques for long range fighting game. Why even bother doing modified chi-sau drills with boxing techniques. It is not at all what has made boxers so great at long range. I am just worried that you seem to remove the aspect of Wing Chun and yet trying to maintain some training to create a close range boxer rather than adding a long range game using boxing techniques to a close range defined Wing Chun style.*

----Well, like I explained in my intro video on the page, and I think higher up in this thread....there is a spectrum.  On one end someone could do "classical" Wing Chun unchanged when in close, and only do Boxing things at long range as you say.  I think Mark Phillips is a fairly good example of that.  On the other end of the spectrum you can basically have boxing, but add in Wing Chun "hands" when in close to expand defensive abilities as well as working some Chi Sau skills from some of the drills.  I think Paul Rackemann is a good example of this.  I'm trying to be more in the middle....a good hybrid of both Wing Chun and Boxing.  So I'm still using most of the Wing Chun drills and still doing the Wing Chun forms.  But I've changed the mechanics to use the boxing "engine".  So I'm sure it will be a trade off.  This will make some of the Boxing better and some worse and likewise some of the Wing Chun better and some worse.   But its all fun!


----------



## KPM

karatejj said:


> Awesome knowlege dropped here! Thanks man
> 
> Can u give more about what is ur bong drill teach compared to standard WC?


 
Really, at the level we are working it now its mostly about training the guy doing the Bong as a defense to flow right into the Lop and strike to set up the punch to the mid-section and right into the shovel hook to the ribs.  Just a like a boxing combo....jab, cross, hook.   But in this Wing Chun Boxing context it becomes....Bong/Lop Da, cross, hook.  And this can be done defensively....an opponent throws a punch that crosses my lead arm and prompts a Bong Sau in defense that flows right into the combo.  Or it can be done more offensively....the opponent is standing in his own boxing-like guard and before he can react I step into him and jam his lead arm with a Bong Sau and then flow right into the combo.  I plan on doing a lesson on various uses of the Bong Sau in the future and will include this.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

KPM said:


> I plan on doing a lesson on various uses of the Bong Sau in the future and will include this.


Don't forget to use Bong to

- hide your head next to it to avoid head shot.
- raise up your opponent's neck control hand.


----------



## Phobius

KPM said:


> *It is great that you display the progress of your Wing Chun boxing and by doing so I assume you dont mind some feedback.*
> 
> ---Good feedback is welcome!   Harsh judgmental criticism not so much.
> 
> 
> *1. You remove the flow of the bong-lop da drill and treat it as a "I move and you wait" kind of drill. *
> 
> ---You are right.  My student doesn't have this drill down well at all yet.  I probably should have waited until he could do it smoothly with me.  But I've just started showing this to them.  I'll probably swap this video out with a better one later on when we can make it look sharper.
> 
> 
> *To me the force pushing the hand of the opponent is what gives that spring force causing you to receive an attack back when letting go. Sensitivity in the drill, I do not see any of that in this drill. Which is perfectly fine, but it is a remark to better understand my feedback and reject it if my base differs too much to yours.*
> 
> ---No, point taken!  We were definitely loosing some of the continuity of the drill by not maintaining good contact.  That will get better as my guys learn it.
> 
> 
> *2. Now this is where I have more of an objection. You make too  many moves on your "opponent" with that final punch in the stomach. The way the drill is demonstrated you make a drill where you do bong-lop da... follow up with a punch in the stomach against a frozen opponent and then perhaps also stepping. Not sure I like the whole idea of a non-resisting opponent unless the intent is just to  simply train the punch itself without any real application theory to it.*
> 
> ---That's an interesting comment, given how elaborate many Wing Chun lineages get with this drill!  I thought what we did was pretty simple and straight-forward in comparison!   But it isn't too many moves.  The idea is that the Bong & Lop with the backhand motion sets him up.  If he doesn't respond he gets hit in the face.  But when he puts his hand up to stop the strike he leaves an opening and gets hit in the solar plexus instead.  It's quick and not complicated it all.  If flows nicely just like any boxing combination.  He is resisting when he throws the hand up to stop the punch.  And notice that we are actually close enough that all of those strikes can land!  This is unlike how this drill is done in a lot of Ip Man lineages where you are standing back from the partner and neither one of you are actually within real striking range.
> 
> 
> *3. You opponent is learning to have two hands in contact with one of yours. Instead of the opponent being aggressive and having is intent on attacking you it seems he is focued on your arm instead. This is noticed when you punch in stomach. What are his hands doing there? Is that the actually response you want people to learn as a reflex?*
> 
> ----I see what you are saying.  The way we are doing the drill, he isn't really reinforcing a good response to the Bong-Lop Da.  He is just falling right into to the trap the drill is meant to create.  So I guess you could say we are using the drill to really commit  actions of the guy doing the Bong-Lop and strike to muscle memory but not so much the defender's actions.  But if you think about it, we are doing 2 steps in our basic drill.  Most Wing Chun people only do 1.....Bong & Lop and partner stops your punch....1 step.  We could do that as well by leaving out the punch to the solar plexus.   I guess I skipped a step in showing the drill and should have done the even more basic 1 step drill first....like most people do.
> 
> 
> *4. Elbow down, not to the side. It seems you are intentionally opening up that stomach for an attack.*
> 
> ----Even with the elbow down there is going to be a gap that is easy enough to punch through.  And besides, we train with the idea that if we ever use this....it won't be against a trained Wing Chun guy that is good at keep his elbows down and holding centerline.
> 
> 
> *So feel free to argue or ignore this message. I just feel any uploaded video deserves honest feedback.*
> 
> ---No, thanks for the feedback!  Good things to think about!
> 
> 
> *Just a final question, you want to integrate boxing techniques for long range fighting game. Why even bother doing modified chi-sau drills with boxing techniques. It is not at all what has made boxers so great at long range. I am just worried that you seem to remove the aspect of Wing Chun and yet trying to maintain some training to create a close range boxer rather than adding a long range game using boxing techniques to a close range defined Wing Chun style.*
> 
> ----Well, like I explained in my intro video on the page, and I think higher up in this thread....there is a spectrum.  On one end someone could do "classical" Wing Chun unchanged when in close, and only do Boxing things at long range as you say.  I think Mark Phillips is a fairly good example of that.  On the other end of the spectrum you can basically have boxing, but add in Wing Chun "hands" when in close to expand defensive abilities as well as working some Chi Sau skills from some of the drills.  I think Paul Rackemann is a good example of this.  I'm trying to be more in the middle....a good hybrid of both Wing Chun and Boxing.  So I'm still using most of the Wing Chun drills and still doing the Wing Chun forms.  But I've changed the mechanics to use the boxing "engine".  So I'm sure it will be a trade off.  This will make some of the Boxing better and some worse and likewise some of the Wing Chun better and some worse.   But its all fun!



Thanks for the response. I will gladly wait and see how this evolves. Always found it interesting to see people doing new trial and errors.

If it works you created something that makes you proud. If not you learn yourself and your students the ability to have an open mind. 

Then again I am not much of a purist. Even if I credit much to WT.


----------



## anerlich

brammerd said:


> the way this boxer punches makes me think he knows wing chung or JKD



When Prince Naseem Hamed was in his heyday, many tried to imitate his style. Just about all of them got knocked TFO. He had spent many years perfecting a proper base for his skills which allowed him to fight in such an unorthodox and seemingly risky fashion. His imitators missed that part of the memo.

Many BJJ white belts who try to attack with flying armbars and triangles (which aren't legal for white belts anymore), or berimbolos and ashi garami, suffer the same fate. They don't understand the evolution of these techniques or the serious technical backgrounds in fundamentals of the guys they are trying to emulate, like Rafa Mendes and Eddie Cummings.


----------



## karatejj

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Don't forget to use Bong to
> 
> - hide your head next to it to avoid head shot.
> - raise up your opponent's neck control hand.



this winh chun man, not wreslin

u can see how it uzed in KPM video, catchin the punch!!


----------



## drop bear

KPM said:


> I put some new video lessons up today:
> 
> Iron Fist Wing Chun Boxing



Could you go sideways rather than backwards? Just backward head movement isn't cool unless you are really experienced.

I might mean you would have to foot fight like hell in that drill.


----------



## KPM

drop bear said:


> Could you go sideways rather than backwards? Just backward head movement isn't cool unless you are really experienced.
> 
> I might mean you would have to foot fight like hell in that drill.



Very true!   When training the forms, I'm using an adapted version of Rick Spain's TWC forms.  In the Chum Kiu form, when doing the stepping high bongs, we do them from the forward facing boxing stance and we step laterally towards the outside.  That's because this is how the stepping Bong is actually going to be used!   Who would ever step across with a high Bong so that the Bong is moving forward as most people do it in the form?  So when we do the Bong it is almost always with a lateral step to the outside.....blindside strategy.   So that is a good suggestion.....doing the Bong-Lop Da drill with a lateral step instead of "evade back."  We will have to work that in.  It may provide better contact and continuity.  Thanks!


----------



## KPM

Here's a good article by Paul Rackemann:

Why Western Boxing is a form of Self-Defence and better than most others. - Rackemann Wing Chun


----------



## JbrmWC

KPM said:


> I put some new video lessons up today:
> 
> Iron Fist Wing Chun Boxing


Nice..vid. The only feedback I have is that it'd be better to punch directly  at the face. But, prolly not the best idea with an unfamiliar partner,lol.


----------



## LFJ

Phobius said:


> You make too  many moves on your "opponent" with that final punch in the stomach. The way the drill is demonstrated you make a drill where you do bong-lop da... follow up with a punch in the stomach against a frozen opponent and then perhaps also stepping. Not sure I like the whole idea of a non-resisting opponent unless the intent is just to  simply train the punch itself without any real application theory to it.



The idea that you're going to "fade back" with _bong-sau_, and then _laap-da_ them is already quite a stretch.



> 4. Elbow down, not to the side. It seems you are intentionally opening up that stomach for an attack.



Rather than training application choreography on each other, it's more practical to train useful behaviors.

The punch to the gut could be testing the partner's (not opponent's) responsiveness, so that both arms are trained to stay active.

Instead, the punch has become the main idea as a finisher at the end of an unlikely attack sequence.
And the "opponent" is detraining responsiveness in the arm that goes dead from being pulled.

The problem is trying to make modifications to a training method that has not been understood.


----------



## KPM

*The idea that you're going to "fade back" with bong-sau, and then laap-da them is already quite a stretch.*

---Boxers do an "evade back" to avoid straight punches all the time.  I just included the Bong Sau.  Not a stretch at all.  In fact, it kind of makes the standard "evade back" a little safer. 


*Rather than training application choreography on each other, it's more practical to train useful behaviors.*

----Committing to muscle memory a fast combination that is a reaction to leading the opponent to present an opening is a useful behavior.  Multiple Bong Saus over and over with switching from side to side is not. 



I*nstead, the punch has become the main idea as a finisher at the end of an unlikely attack sequence.*

---Nothing at all "unlikely" about flowing with the hand in a lower position such as a Bong Sau to a strike to the face that prompts the opponent to bring his rear up to stop it or get hit....and so leave an opening lower.  That's pretty basic.  


*And the "opponent" is detraining responsiveness in the arm that goes dead from being pulled.*

----That is a valid point.  Right now we are viewing more like hitting the focus mitts, but a little more realistically since you have a real target and a real reaction from the partner.  But I was only showing a very basic level drill at this point.  I will likely elaborate on it later.


*The problem is trying to make modifications to a training method that has not been understood.*

---I understand just fine how it is used in both Pin Sun Wing Chun and TWC.  But maybe not in your WSLVT since it seems to be so special and completely different from everyone else's Wing Chun!


----------



## drop bear

LFJ said:


> The idea that you're going to "fade back" with _bong-sau_, and then _laap-da_ them is already quite a stretch.
> 
> 
> 
> Rather than training application choreography on each other, it's more practical to train useful behaviors.
> 
> The punch to the gut could be testing the partner's (not opponent's) responsiveness, so that both arms are trained to stay active.
> 
> Instead, the punch has become the main idea as a finisher at the end of an unlikely attack sequence.
> And the "opponent" is detraining responsiveness in the arm that goes dead from being pulled.
> 
> The problem is trying to make modifications to a training method that has not been understood.



Nah. To understand something. You do it. Test it. Work out what modifications you need then do it and test it again.

That way you have a system you understand. Rather than copy a system someone else understood.

So there is not so much you can't fade back. People do. But you look at whether it is going to work for your game. And the only way to really know is to try it out.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> *The idea that you're going to "fade back" with bong-sau, and then laap-da them is already quite a stretch.*
> 
> ---Boxers do an "evade back" to avoid straight punches all the time.  I just included the Bong Sau.  Not a stretch at all.  In fact, it kind of makes the standard "evade back" a little safer.



You included a step straight back while lifting your elbow up to shield yourself as a primary response to a straight punch then countered with _laap-da_, and then another follow-up.

If you try this against someone advancing with some serious punches, I think you won't get past step 1.



> ----Committing to muscle memory a fast combination that is a reaction to leading the opponent to present an opening is a useful behavior.



Only if it were a practical combination. I don't think it is.



> Multiple Bong Saus over and over with switching from side to side is not.



Of course not, if you don't know why you're doing it.



> ---Nothing at all "unlikely" about flowing with the hand in a lower position such as a Bong Sau to a strike to the face that prompts the opponent to bring his rear up to stop it or get hit....and so leave an opening lower.  That's pretty basic.



Has this combo ever been pulled off for real, or are you just imagining it'd go as you think? (Rhetorical question)



> *And the "opponent" is detraining responsiveness in the arm that goes dead from being pulled.*
> 
> ----That is a valid point.  Right now we are viewing more like hitting the focus mitts, but a little more realistically since you have a real target and a real reaction from the partner. But I was only showing a very basic level drill at this point.  I will likely elaborate on it later.



It's one real reaction and then non-responsiveness.

To elaborate, are you going to make him respond to that, and then you have to do another step?

Sounds like you're on your way to making _laap-sau_ "sections", something which you criticized as too "elaborate".



> ---I understand just fine how it is used in both Pin Sun Wing Chun and TWC.  But maybe not in your WSLVT since it seems to be so special and completely different from everyone else's Wing Chun!



It's just that what you know from those lineages seems to be the equivalent of only knowing _pun-sau _and saying now you're going to make modifications to "_the chi-sau drill_".


----------



## LFJ

drop bear said:


> Nah. To understand something. You do it.



We're done right there, then.

You can't do something without understanding it.
Otherwise, you're just making stuff up, not actually "doing" it.



> That way you have a system you understand. Rather than copy a system someone else understood.



Like WC people who make up drills for ground fighting without knowing ground fighting. 
They don't understand BJJ, but they "understand" the system they're making up.

The whole process is cringeworthy to a BJJ practitioner, and the outcome is usually not good.
BJJ wasn't developed by people experimenting with something they didn't understand.


----------



## karatejj

KPM said:


> But I was only showing a very basic level drill at this point.  I will likely elaborate on it later



Please do! Awesome to see you're mastery of wing chun and a new martial are being literally created before our eyes.


----------



## karatejj

LFJ said:


> You included a step straight back while lifting your elbow up to shield yourself as a primary response to a straight punch then countered with _laap-da_, and then another follow-up.
> 
> If you try this against someone advancing with some serious punches, I think you won't get past step 1.



That is a good point but I think KPM has probably thought of that and has an answer for why he is doing it!


----------



## drop bear

LFJ said:


> BJJ wasn't developed by people experimenting with something they didn't understand.



Of course it was.  
That is why bjj fighters used to look like this.





and now look like this.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> BJJ wasn't developed by people experimenting with something they didn't understand.



What????     Anyone that has been paying any attention to MMA has seen BJJ evolve right before their very eyes over the last 15 years!!!      And that was due to some trial and error in an arena that they didn't quite understand until stepping into the ring against certain kinds of fighters and having a go at it.


----------



## KPM

*If you try this against someone advancing with some serious punches, I think you won't get past step 1.*

---Once again, you are just being argumentative for the sake of arguing.  You know very well that there are different scenarios and situations in fighting.  It isn't always "advancing with some serious punches"!  Not everyone charges straight in with chain punches!    In a fight you have to respond to the specific situation.  What I do is not a "one trick pony" as you like to describe what you do!  IF someone was charging in with some serious punches I would step off the line and respond in a different way.  Isn't that just common sense?

*
Only if it were a practical combination. I don't think it is.*

----Really?  You don't think ....jab, cross, hook...is a practical combination?     Then I don't feel any need to further give any credibility to your criticism.  It is obviously in an entirely different class compared to what Phobius had to say.


----------



## DanT

If YOUR Wing Chun doesn't have a long range game you can:

1. Ignore that
2. Mix with something else
3. Learn Wing Chun that does

MY Wing Chun, and the Wing Chun MY Sifu learned, from Wong Shun Leung, Chu Shon Tin, and Sunny Tang does. I do not need to mix. If you do then good for you, you're making your Wing Chun work, and that's what's important.


----------



## LFJ

drop bear said:


> Of course it was.
> That is why bjj fighters used to look like this.
> 
> and now look like this.





KPM said:


> What????     Anyone that has been paying any attention to MMA has seen BJJ evolve right before their very eyes over the last 15 years!!!      And that was due to some trial and error in an arena that they didn't quite understand until stepping into the ring against certain kinds of fighters and having a go at it.



Who the heck said it didn't evolve? That was my point, but to say that Carlos Gracie didn't just start experimenting with techniques or training methods he didn't understand. Same with the rest of the people who have contributed to the style over the years. 

Point being you do have to understand something before doing it, otherwise you're not actually doing it, and whatever adaptations you try to make to what you don't understand will probably not be good, like WC ground fighting.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> *If you try this against someone advancing with some serious punches, I think you won't get past step 1.*
> 
> ---Once again, you are just being argumentative for the sake of arguing.  You know very well that there are different scenarios and situations in fighting.  It isn't always "advancing with some serious punches"!  Not everyone charges straight in with chain punches!



I didn't say charging in with chain punches.

If someone wants to hit you, they will advance and throw serious punches.
They will not present one punch and let you do three things to it.



> IF someone was charging in with some serious punches I would step off the line and respond in a different way.  Isn't that just common sense?



Didn't say charging in. Only a fool will run past you when you "step off the line".



> *Only if it were a practical combination. I don't think it is.*
> 
> ----Really?  You don't think ....jab, cross, hook...is a practical combination?     Then I don't feel any need to further give any credibility to your criticism.  It is obviously in an entirely different class compared to what Phobius had to say.



Where was there a jab, cross, hook? What are you talking about?

You did a step back raising _bong-sau_, then step forward with _laap-da_, and a body punch. 

Unrealistic. Not comparable in the least to jab, cross, hook.


----------



## drop bear

LFJ said:


> Who the heck said it didn't evolve? That was my point, but to say that Carlos Gracie didn't just start experimenting with techniques or training methods he didn't understand. Same with the rest of the people who have contributed to the style over the years.
> 
> Point being you do have to understand something before doing it, otherwise you're not actually doing it, and whatever adaptations you try to make to what you don't understand will probably not be good, like WC ground fighting.



Nobody understood MMA. They made it up as they went along.


----------



## LFJ

drop bear said:


> Nobody understood MMA. They made it up as they went along.



Are you trying to miss the point, or what?

Who mixed martial arts they didn't understand?


----------



## drop bear

LFJ said:


> Are you trying to miss the point, or what?
> 
> Who mixed martial arts they didn't understand?



Everybody.

Everyone just went out their with their own good ideas. Some worked some didn't. That is how you understand a martial art.


----------



## LFJ

drop bear said:


> Everybody.
> 
> Everyone just went out their with their own good ideas. Some worked some didn't. That is how you understand a martial art.



No one understood a single MA?


----------



## drop bear

LFJ said:


> No one understood a single MA?



Not fully. Everyone had to go back to the drawing board to make their system functional.


----------



## LFJ

drop bear said:


> Not fully. Everyone had to go back to the drawing board to make their system functional.



That doesn't mean no one understood even a single MA they trained! 

When cross-training, people actually went to learn legit BJJ and worked it into styles they already understood.

That is entirely unlike making modifications, just based on what you've seen others do, to an already fragmented understanding of a base-style.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> I didn't say charging in with chain punches.
> 
> If someone wants to hit you, they will advance and throw serious punches.
> They will not present one punch and let you do three things to it.
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't say charging in. Only a fool will run past you when you "step off the line".
> 
> 
> 
> Where was there a jab, cross, hook? What are you talking about?
> 
> You did a step back raising _bong-sau_, then step forward with _laap-da_, and a body punch.
> 
> Unrealistic. Not comparable in the least to jab, cross, hook.



Your replies are just argumentative non-sense and don't deserve a reply.  Please go elsewhere.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> Your replies are just argumentative non-sense and don't deserve a reply.



Ha! 

You said I don't think "jab, cross, hook" is a practical combination when we're talking about your multi-step combo that involved none of the above.

Talk about argumentative nonsense!



> Please go elsewhere.



You wound up here instead of KPMartialtalk.com again!


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> Ha!
> 
> You said I don't think "jab, cross, hook" is a practical combination when we're talking about your multi-step combo that involved none of the above.
> 
> Talk about argumentative nonsense!
> 
> 
> 
> You wound up here instead of KPMartialtalk.com again!



Your credibility is continuing to suffer with your argumentative non-sense posts.  If you can't see a "jab" in a fast back-hand blow, a "cross" in a rear-hand punch to the solar plexus and a "hook" in a shovel-hook to the ribs.....then I don't know what else to tell you.  You are as clueless about real fighting as you think I am about Wing Chun.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> If you can't see a "jab" in a fast back-hand blow, a "cross" in a rear-hand punch to the solar plexus and a "hook" in a shovel-hook to the ribs.....



Yeah, not the same at all, and that was not your combo.

You stepped straight back and used _bong-wu_ as a "don't hit me" shield, then pulled the arm that was posed for you, dropping a backfist toward the nose that was blocked, and gave an unchallenged punch to the gut.

You're telling me that's the same technically or conceptually as jab, cross, hook?


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> Yeah, not the same at all, and that was not your combo.
> 
> You stepped straight back and used _bong-wu_ as a "don't hit me" shield, then pulled the arm that was posed for you, dropping a backfist toward the nose that was blocked, and gave an unchallenged punch to the gut.
> 
> You're telling me that's the same technically or conceptually as jab, cross, hook?



  Clearly you didn't even bother to watch the whole video lesson.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> Clearly you didn't even bother to watch the whole video lesson.



I did. 

In your "application" version, you did the same combo as I just described, but added _another_ unchallenged punch to the other side. 

That's even more impractical coming off your unrealistic setup. 
You will not get past the step back _bong-wu_ "don't hit me" shield.

Even if you do, the rest of your mutli-step follow ups are not going to go unchallenged.

Jab, cross, hook can certainly work, but not this convoluted "Wing Chun Boxing" application.


----------



## drop bear

LFJ said:


> That doesn't mean no one understood even a single MA they trained!
> 
> When cross-training, people actually went to learn legit BJJ and worked it into styles they already understood.
> 
> That is entirely unlike making modifications, just based on what you've seen others do, to an already fragmented understanding of a base-style.



I would definitely suggest KPM goes and learns boxing if he is integrating it. He already understands wing chun. Not sure what you are arguing here.


----------



## LFJ

drop bear said:


> I would definitely suggest KPM goes and learns boxing if he is integrating it.



As would I.



> He already understands wing chun.



How do you know?


----------



## drop bear

LFJ said:


> As would I.
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know?



Good point. we have moved back to functional. And there is pretty much no way to tell with WC or VT. As there is no good platform to test function.

On the plus side you can test boxing function. So there is at least part of an answer there.


----------



## LFJ

drop bear said:


> Good point. we have moved back to functional. And there is pretty much no way to tell with WC or VT. As there is no good platform to test function.



Of course there is. You have just chosen to ignore it and run your mouth instead.


----------



## drop bear

LFJ said:


> Of course there is. You have just chosen to ignore it and run your mouth instead.



Was that when you just said it was so?

Well we can subject kpm to the same intense scrutiny.


----------



## drop bear

Hey KPM do you understand wing chun?


----------



## LFJ

drop bear said:


> Was that when you just said it was so?



No. The annual open-style tournament that has been hosted and competed in by a VT group in Germany for several years now was just posted about. Alan Orr has also been putting his WC guys into MMA cages/rings for years.

Plenty of people test WC/VT in the sport fighting arena, if that's what you want. It could do with more, but you just seem more interested in ignoring those who do and running your mouth about "lack of evidence" instead, which I think is a clear form of dishonest style-bashing.


----------



## drop bear

LFJ said:


> No. The annual open-style tournament that has been hosted and competed in by a VT group in Germany for several years now was just posted about. Alan Orr has also been putting his WC guys into MMA cages/rings for years.
> 
> Plenty of people test WC/VT in the sport fighting arena, if that's what you want. It could do with more, but you just seem more interested in ignoring those who do and running your mouth about "lack of evidence" instead, which I think is a clear form of dishonest style-bashing.



So we know one style of wing chun is functional. and lets put this open tournament at a mabye as I know nothing about it.

And does alan orr cross-train in boxing?


----------



## LFJ

drop bear said:


> So we know one style of wing chun is functional. and lets put this open tournament at a mabye as I know nothing about it.



You should stop saying "we" when you really mean "I", and when you've never bothered to look.



> And does alan orr cross-train in boxing?



I think he's gone to lengths to try showing how his WC is not WB.


----------



## DanT

drop bear said:


> So we know one style of wing chun is functional. and lets put this open tournament at a mabye as I know nothing about it.
> 
> And does alan orr cross-train in boxing?


No his stand up is completely Wing Chun.


----------



## JbrmWC

I think it's more important to understand yourself before trying to understand an art. Lots of things work for lots of people,but until you've put yourself into the right situations you'll never truly understand what will work or not.


----------



## DanT

KPM said:


> I put some new video lessons up today:
> 
> Iron Fist Wing Chun Boxing


I actually agree with a majority of the points you make in your video series in general. The Wing Chun that I was taught is similar in nature, as that is what my Sifu learned. I would say in general the difference is:

-we always keep two feet in a straight line to protect the groin

-we use the outside techniques to hopefully result in a pin or trap

-we don't lean if not nessessary

-bong lap da is with a punch not a backfist for us

I like how dynamic your footwork is. I like the blindside strategy a lot and that is something I was always taught. We do the same. The thing is, what you created is what I've been taught (with minor variations), and what my Sifu was taught. It's great that you're making your Wing Chun work.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> I did.
> 
> In your "application" version, you did the same combo as I just described, but added _another_ unchallenged punch to the other side.
> 
> That's even more impractical coming off your unrealistic setup.
> You will not get past the step back _bong-wu_ "don't hit me" shield.
> 
> Even if you do, the rest of your mutli-step follow ups are not going to go unchallenged.
> 
> Jab, cross, hook can certainly work, but not this convoluted "Wing Chun Boxing" application.



Now you are the one that obviously doesn't know what you are talking about, as you tell me so often!


----------



## KPM

drop bear said:


> Hey KPM do you understand wing chun?



Yeah, I understand Wing Chun just fine.  But maybe not LFJ's version, since it seems to be so different and extra special.     And I have studied boxing....in the form of Panantukan.... which gives a little better insight in how it can be used as a martial art.


----------



## Juany118

DanT said:


> I actually agree with a majority of the points you make in your video series in general. The Wing Chun that I was taught is similar in nature, as that is what my Sifu learned. I would say in general the difference is:
> 
> -we always keep two feet in a straight line to protect the groin
> 
> -we use the outside techniques to hopefully result in a pin or trap
> 
> -we don't lean if not nessessary
> 
> -bong lap da is with a punch not a backfist for us
> 
> I like how dynamic your footwork is. I like the blindside strategy a lot and that is something I was always taught. We do the same. The thing is, what you created is what I've been taught (with minor variations), and what my Sifu was taught. It's great that you're making your Wing Chun work.


And this is largely my issue.  I think the thing is, in any TMA we always bring a bit of ourselves along for the ride.  This applies to Sifus as well.  So, when you have a conceptual art like WC, you can even have two Sifu's appearing to teach a slightly different art.  Not only due to other experience but simply different teaching methods.  One might say "this is how we can apply <insert art here> to WC principles" when another will just say "no one actually stands in the stance for real fighting, move naturally within the principles of WC."


----------



## drop bear

KPM said:


> Yeah, I understand Wing Chun just fine.  But maybe not LFJ's version, since it seems to be so different and extra special.     And I have studied boxing....in the form of Panantukan.... which gives a little better insight in how it can be used as a martial art.



There we go then.

Maybe we can move on to discussing how to more effectively crack heads.


----------



## drop bear

DanT said:


> No his stand up is completely Wing Chun.



But not VT. Cos I see the banned rotational punches and hooks there.


----------



## Juany118

@KPM honest question.  Looking at lesson 4 you relate a body shot to a tan sau in SLT.  Now the argument has been made that in BJ you see a high cover, you said that wasn't "right".  Yet in the video you are justifying a body shot with the tan in the form.

Let me clarify by saying I agree with you.  I have explained to people that a punch or palm strike can incidentally intercept an opponents strike and it's a tan because of the arm/elbow position (the hand is incidental imo). So I am confused because you seem to say on one hand "this guy is taking the idea of WC as a conceptual art too far" when you appear to be making a similarly conceptual conclusion in your videos.

I am actually enjoying watching your videos btw, that video simply confused me a bit when I compare it to the debate we have been having on the forums here.


----------



## DanT

drop bear said:


> But not VT. Cos I see the banned rotational punches and hooks there.


Nothing is banned. Hook punches and rotational punches are Wing Chun techniques. They are delivered differently compared to other martial arts however.


----------



## Juany118

DanT said:


> Nothing is banned. Hook punches and rotational punches are Wing Chun techniques. They are delivered differently compared to other martial arts however.



I'll just address the hook punch.  Often you will see a "western boxer" simply rotate at the waist to throw a hook punch.  I am taught to throw a hook punch (we call it a "buffalo punch") but I will, for lack of a better term, also step into it, vs simply rotating at the waist.  In this way my "hook" doesn't cross my personal centerline and in doing so I still maintain my gates.  That is TWC though and more than a few who fall under YMWC will say I don't do YMWC.


----------



## anerlich

Juany118 said:


> Often you will see a "western boxer" simply rotate at the waist to throw a hook punch.



I don't think I've ever seen a western boxer do this. The move comes from a rotation on the ball of the front foot (for a lead hook) - "like crushing peanuts", according to one coach - and the hip leads the movement, snapping the shoulder and the rest of the hook after it. There is little waist rotation IMO. A good boxer can step or not step in as well.


----------



## KPM

* Looking at lesson 4 you relate a body shot to a tan sau in SLT.  Now the argument has been made that in BJ you see a high cover, you said that wasn't "right".  Yet in the video you are justifying a body shot with the tan in the form.*

----With that Tan you don't have to bring in a lot of conceptual twists and turns to justify it being a punch.  With the Tan, you simply close your hand into a fist and you can feel that it is a valid punch.  Same thing with the Bong.  No great stretch of imagination needed!     And the "bouncing punch" from most Ip Man WCK versions of the Chum Kiu form is essentially that....a Tan Sau as a punch.   Same with the Bong being an overhand punch.  Many Ip Man WCK versions of Biu Jee have this punch in the form without going to conceptual convolutions to justify it.


* So I am confused because you seem to say on one hand "this guy is taking the idea of WC as a conceptual art too far" when you appear to be making a similarly conceptual conclusion in your videos.*

---So that "bouncing punch" from Chum Kiu IS a body shot and one could say that it is "pure" WC.  Same with the punch from the Biu Jee form.  But notice that in my video lesson I only pointed out that the punches that we are using from boxing are very close to punches that are already part of Wing Chun.   I never did a boxing punch and claimed it was "pure Wing Chun."

---You'll see the same when I do the video lesson on boxing defenses.  I will show a high cover, low cover, inward deflection etc. and show that there are corresponding things in Wing Chun already.   But you won't see my doing a high cover or a low cover and then claiming that it is "pure Wing Chun" and has nothing at all to do with boxing!


----------



## KPM

DanT said:


> Nothing is banned. Hook punches and rotational punches are Wing Chun techniques. They are delivered differently compared to other martial arts however.



Drop Bear has simply resorted to the same short hand that LFJ uses.  When he wrote "VT" he meant LFJ's version of Wing Chun, which we all now know is completely different from everyone else's Wing Chun and is extra special!


----------



## Juany118

anerlich said:


> I don't think I've ever seen a western boxer do this. The move comes from a rotation on the ball of the front foot (for a lead hook) - "like crushing peanuts", according to one coach - and the hip leads the movement, snapping the shoulder and the rest of the hook after it. There is little waist rotation IMO. A good boxer can step or not step in as well.


Apologies, I sometimes say waist, when I mean hip movement.  I don't know where I picked up that bad habit.  Thank you for correcting me.


----------



## karatejj

KPM said:


> Yeah, I understand Wing Chun just fine.  But maybe not LFJ's version, since it seems to be so different and extra special.     And I have studied boxing....in the form of Panantukan.... which gives a little better insight in how it can be used as a martial art.



It is clear you have studied boxing, you're examples are awesome and an inspiration!!

Why do you think LFJ's wing chun is different. Looking at it seems different, but why? I have asked him but got no answer?


----------



## karatejj

Malos1979 said:


> OMG !!!
> 
> Are you guys using hooks and uppercuts, don't let the VT purists hear you making your Wing Chun more practical than theirs .



For sure sifu KPM is making a great new thing combine boxing and wing chun. But I thinkLFJ gave good reason said his wing chun does not using hooks and uppercuts? Seemed to make sense to me?

What I am not understanding is why is LFJ wing chun looking so different to standard wing chun?


----------



## Juany118

karatejj said:


> It is clear you have studied boxing, you're examples are awesome and an inspiration!!
> 
> Why do you think LFJ's wing chun is different. Looking at it seems different, but why? I have asked him but got no answer?


That is an interesting question with 4 potential answers, I won't judge which one is correct.
1. Some say that a few of YM's students were taught the "true" version of YMWC/VT
2. YM taught his first generation students to their strengths and weaknesses.
3. They modified what they were taught based on their own experiences in the roof top fighting culture.
4 a combination of 2 and 3.

You will have a hard time finding a consensus.


----------



## karatejj

Juany118 said:


> That is an interesting question with 4 potential answers, I won't judge which one is correct.
> 1. Some say that a few of YM's students were taught the "true" version of YMWC/VT
> 2. YM taught his first generation students to their strengths and weaknesses.
> 3. They modified what they were taught based on their own experiences in the roof top fighting culture.
> 4 a combination of 2 and 3.
> 
> You will have a hard time finding a consensus.



But dude is like complete different thing, like oil and water don't mix. 2, 3, 4 don't make much sense when whole different animal. So which is the real wing chun?? I am confused.


----------



## Juany118

karatejj said:


> But dude is like complete different thing, like oil and water don't mix. 2, 3, 4 don't make much sense when whole different animal. So which is the real wing chun?? I am confused.



Not really, TWC can be similar in some respects.  Thing is if you know YMWC you can see where things are the same and where they divert in terms of fighting.  The similarities, at least imo, out weigh the differences once the fists fly.


----------



## karatejj

Juany118 said:


> Not really, TWC can be similar in some respects.  Thing is if you know YMWC you can see where things are the same and where they divert in terms of fighting.  The similarities, at least imo, out weigh the differences once the fists fly.



Im having trouble to see the similar bits, compared to wing chun I do. Stuff I do makes sense compared to what other people say and do, example KPM vids. Does not make sense with LFJ videos. Is like different martial art!!


----------



## Juany118

karatejj said:


> Im having trouble to see the similar bits, compared to wing chun I do. Stuff I do makes sense compared to what other people say and do, example KPM vids. Does not make sense with LFJ videos. Is like different martial art!!



Some teach that there is a difference between your drills, in light sparring etc. There things look VERY similar.  The purpose of this is to teach the principles so the "feel" of them becomes second nature.  By that I mean you know when you have proper structure based on where you feel your center, how this is then used for power generation as well as defense etc.

Then when you add full spar/free fighting it's about moving naturally while adhereing to the principles.  It's also in full spar that you first actually see what BJ means, namely that you can break the rules when you are in a position where you have to recover lost structure.  As one of my Sifus says, when he is in a picture perfect man say/wu sau, "no one fights like this in real life." Maybe one or both hands will be fists?  Maybe you will stand in a left or right "front stance".  You can't become rigidly locked into any particular posture, you have to flow as the fight dictates, while still adhereing to the principles.


----------



## KPM

karatejj said:


> Why do you think LFJ's wing chun is different. Looking at it seems different, but why? I have asked him but got no answer?



Are you talking about that video of Sean's guys training MMA, that LFJ pointed to as "pure WSVLT"?  If so, then I can see your confusion!  That is NOT what "pure WSLVT" looks like, despite what LFJ may say!  Sean's guys were doing MMA.   Just do a youtube search for "Phillip Bayer Ving Tsun" and you will find a plethora of Chi Sau videos.  That is more representative of what "pure" WSLVT looks like!  At least the version that LFJ endorses.     You can also do a youtube search for "David Petersen Ving Tsun" and see another perfectly valid representation that LFJ does not endorse.  Or "Gary Lamb Ving Tsun" and see another perfectly valid version that LFJ does not endorse.   What LFJ does personally we will never know, because he would never put himself out there by sharing a video of his "VT".


----------



## Juany118

KPM said:


> Are you talking about that video of Sean's guys training MMA, that LFJ pointed to as "pure WSVLT"?  If so, then I can see your confusion!  That is NOT what "pure WSLVT" looks like, despite what LFJ may say!  Sean's guys were doing MMA.   Just do a youtube search for "Phillip Bayer Ving Tsun" and you will find a plethora of Chi Sau videos.  That is more representative of what "pure" WSLVT looks like!  At least the version that LFJ endorses.     You can also do a youtube search for "David Petersen Ving Tsun" and see another perfectly valid representation that LFJ does not endorse.  Or "Gary Lamb Ving Tsun" and see another perfectly valid version that LFJ does not endorse.   What LFJ does personally we will never know, because he would never put himself out there by sharing a video of his "VT".



I have to concur on the last bit.  As an example many moons ago I studied GL VT.  In many ways, using standing grappling, especially to trap for strikes, it is similar to TWC.  However in interviews PB has explicitly said there is no grappling whatsoever in his VT.  Where are the differences born just in WSLVT alone?  I don't know, but I still believe the core of YMWC is shared across most every lineage I have seen or experienced.


----------



## drop bear

The other aspect is we all want the secret method. That trick that gives us an advantage over the rest of the herd.

It is kind of why we do martial arts in the first place.

And this is why the whole method or the secret linage has so much appeal. 

Personally I don't really think it exists. Or if it does it only exists in tiny percentages.


----------



## KPM

drop bear said:


> The other aspect is we all want the secret method. That trick that gives us an advantage over the rest of the herd.
> 
> It is kind of why we do martial arts in the first place.
> 
> And this is why the whole method or the secret linage has so much appeal.
> 
> Personally I don't really think it exists. Or if it does it only exists in tiny percentages.



Yep!  William Cheung said that he was the only one taught the "traditional" version of Wing Chun that Ip Man learned from Leung Bik.    Leung Ting said that he was the only one taught the "final" version of Ip Man's refined Wing Tsun.   LFJ has been claiming that Wong Shun Leung is the only one that was taught the "complete" or "unbroken" version of Ip Man's Ving Tsun.  And follows that up by saying only a few learned the "real" version of WSLVT from Wong Shun Leung!  In modern circles the sales pitch for almost everything has been "new and improved!"  But in TCMA circles the sales pitch has always been "traditional and original!"


----------



## karatejj

KPM said:


> Are you talking about that video of Sean's guys training MMA, that LFJ pointed to as "pure WSVLT"?  If so, then I can see your confusion!  That is NOT what "pure WSLVT" looks like, despite what LFJ may say!  Sean's guys were doing MMA.   Just do a youtube search for "Phillip Bayer Ving Tsun" and you will find a plethora of Chi Sau videos.  That is more representative of what "pure" WSLVT looks like!  At least the version that LFJ endorses.     You can also do a youtube search for "David Petersen Ving Tsun" and see another perfectly valid representation that LFJ does not endorse.  Or "Gary Lamb Ving Tsun" and see another perfectly valid version that LFJ does not endorse.   What LFJ does personally we will never know, because he would never put himself out there by sharing a video of his "VT".



Hey dude, much as I like you're clips, you are being biased here.

LFJ has said repeatedly that the WHOLE VIDEO contains some grappling mixed in with striking for MMA

BUT that the section he is highlighting is PURE WING CHUN type he study. He says it in black and white many many times. If you ignore this fact then makes you look bad man, sorry too say! Please don't play silly games on the forum, cause I like you're clips man!


----------



## JbrmWC

My understanding is Ip Man's wing chun changed over the years as his age progressed. The older he got the softer it became because he did not have the same strength. Hence the changes and differences in the way his students learned through the years. IMO, since WC is conceptual it should be a bit different for everyone but the core concepts would remain. For instance,one of my friends I spar with is a lot smaller than I. I can use a gum sao against his uppercut without stance turning. But if he doesn't turn against mine it will break right through it.


----------



## DanT

JbrmWC said:


> My understanding is Ip Man's wing chun changed over the years as his age progressed. The older he got the softer it became because he did not have the same strength. Hence the changes and differences in the way his students learned through the years. IMO, since WC is conceptual it should be a bit different for everyone but the core concepts would remain. For instance,one of my friends I spar with is a lot smaller than I. I can use a gum sao against his uppercut without stance turning. But if he doesn't turn against mine it will break right through it.


You are right. My Sifu had the fortune to study under 3 different students of Yip Man. (Wong Shun Leung, Chu Shon Tin, Moy Yat). He notes that each had slightly different flavours, but for the most part, taught the same. I think too many people get caught up in the differences, and forget that the differences are largely caused by personal preferences rather than secrets. I also feel like too many people get caught up in the "concepts" of the art, and forget that the techniques are of equal importance as well. Hence my favourite quote "Stop reciting theory and hit your target." That's not to say theory isn't important, it is, but so are techniques, and mastery over them. 

As a side note, try using Gan Da vs an uppercut instead of Gum Sao if the person is very strong. IE: person punches with a left upper cut, you intercept with left Gan on the inside of their forearm, and turn them so you have access to their outside gate.


----------



## Juany118

JbrmWC said:


> My understanding is Ip Man's wing chun changed over the years as his age progressed. The older he got the softer it became because he did not have the same strength. Hence the changes and differences in the way his students learned through the years. IMO, since WC is conceptual it should be a bit different for everyone but the core concepts would remain. For instance,one of my friends I spar with is a lot smaller than I. I can use a gum sao against his uppercut without stance turning. But if he doesn't turn against mine it will break right through it.



It's not only that.  There is a video I linked a while ago that relates an interesting story that was alleged to have been told by Wong Shun Leung.  

Story Part 1:  Before he fled to Hong Kong YM was actually a police officer for the Nationalist Government.  When the Communists won he fled to Hong Kong.  He had never intended to teach Wing Chun but once in Hong Kong it was suggested by friends that this is what he could do to earn a living.  

Now for the next part of the story we have to remember it had been many years since he was being formally taught by a teacher.  Over time, even if you practice regularly, you will make a martial art "your own".  You will emphasize your own personal strengths and minimize the weaknesses.  If you have a practical reason to study Martial arts you will also emphasize the parts that best suit the practical purpose.

Story Part 2: Now YM decides to teach Wing Chun.  However as he never intended to teach, and it had been many years since he learned formally under a teacher himself, he needs a curriculum from which to teach.  The story goes on as to how students would watch YM work the Mook Jong and how he had to do 2 things.  First remember the form itself.  There would be times they would see him stop, shake his head, and start again.  Second it was an adapted dummy form.  The Mooks on the mainland were basically "free standing".  It is rather difficult however to have free standing mooks in the cramped apartment conditions that the majority of people in Hong Kong live under though so the wall mounted Mook comes of age, the adpations to which result in more uniqueness.

So you have an art that is born of remembering, filling in gaps in memory, and adapting to the very different environment of Hong Kong life itself vs that on the main land.


----------



## JbrmWC

DanT said:


> You are right. My Sifu had the fortune to study under 3 different students of Yip Man. (Wong Shun Leung, Chu Shon Tin, Moy Yat). He notes that each had slightly different flavours, but for the most part, taught the same. I think too many people get caught up in the differences, and forget that the differences are largely caused by personal preferences rather than secrets. I also feel like too many people get caught up in the "concepts" of the art, and forget that the techniques are of equal importance as well. Hence my favourite quote "Stop reciting theory and hit your target." That's not to say theory isn't important, it is, but so are techniques, and mastery over them.
> 
> As a side note, try using Gan Da vs an uppercut instead of Gum Sao if the person is very strong. IE: person punches with a left upper cut, you intercept with left Gan on the inside of their forearm, and turn them so you have access to their outside gate.


Totally agree,that's how he prefers to deal with it also. The gum is just an example that he and I noticed when testing theories. Body size has a lot to do with the way WC works/looks. Since I'm several inches taller and 70 lbs heavier our WC looks totally different even though we're doing the same things.


----------



## JbrmWC

Juany118 said:


> It's not only that.  There is a video I linked a while ago that relates an interesting story that was alleged to have been told by Wong Shun Leung.
> 
> Story Part 1:  Before he fled to Hong Kong YM was actually a police officer for the Nationalist Government.  When the Communists won he fled to Hong Kong.  He had never intended to teach Wing Chun but once in Hong Kong it was suggested by friends that this is what he could do to earn a living.
> 
> Now for the next part of the story we have to remember it had been many years since he was being formally taught by a teacher.  Over time, even if you practice regularly, you will make a martial art "your own".  You will emphasize your own personal strengths and minimize the weaknesses.  If you have a practical reason to study Martial arts you will also emphasize the parts that best suit the practical purpose.
> 
> Story Part 2: Now YM decides to teach Wing Chun.  However as he never intended to teach, and it had been many years since he learned formally under a teacher himself, he needs a curriculum from which to teach.  The story goes on as to how students would watch YM work the Mook Jong and how he had to do 2 things.  First remember the form itself.  There would be times they would see him stop, shake his head, and start again.  Second it was an adapted dummy form.  The Mooks on the mainland were basically "free standing".  It is rather difficult however to have free standing mooks in the cramped apartment conditions that the majority of people in Hong Kong live under though so the wall mounted Mook comes of age, the adpations to which result in more uniqueness.
> 
> So you have an art that is born of remembering, filling in gaps in memory, and adapting to the very different environment of Hong Kong life itself vs that on the main land.


Agreed,it's almost it's own while being the same.


----------



## DanT

JbrmWC said:


> Totally agree,that's how he prefers to deal with it also. The gum is just an example that he and I noticed when testing theories. Body size has a lot to do with the way WC works/looks. Since I'm several inches taller and 70 lbs heavier our WC looks totally different even though we're doing the same things.


Yes if you are bigger and stronger the Gum Sao will work fine.


----------



## Callen

karatejj said:


> Im having trouble to see the similar bits, compared to wing chun I do. Stuff I do makes sense compared to what other people say and do, example KPM vids. Does not make sense with LFJ videos. Is like different martial art!!


There are different approaches to Wing Chun, as I’m sure you are aware of. Lineage interpretations and individual preference play a large part. In terms of identifying the system, one approach or lineage is not necessarily more “real” or valid than any other.

Wing Chun should be “alive” and adaptive in nature. The more you become familiar with the system, the more you will see the similarities between these approaches and lineages.


KPM said:


> Just do a youtube search for "Phillip Bayer Ving Tsun" and you will find a plethora of Chi Sau videos. That is more representative of what "pure" WSLVT looks like!


Actually, the YouTube search should be for “Wong Shun Leung”. The only way to find "pure" WSLVT is from the man himself.


----------



## drop bear

karatejj said:


> It is clear you have studied boxing, you're examples are awesome and an inspiration!!
> 
> Why do you think LFJ's wing chun is different. Looking at it seems different, but why? I have asked him but got no answer?



OK. I think there are some points missing here.

As with every martial art. Someone just invented it. So a person just decided that in all the moves that could be used for fighting some of them were wing chun and some of them weren't.

Now he trained some guys who trained some guys. And they evolved and adapted and along the way they decided what was wing chun and what wasn't.

But there is no actual rule that decides what is wing chun except for what exists in the minds of the practitioners.

So duck and weave is wing chun but overhand punches are not. 

So basically as these practitioners separate and create their own wing chun they will all start to look a bit different because they all have their own idea of what wing chun is.


----------



## karatejj

drop bear said:


> there is no actual rule that decides what is wing chun



Umm dude, yes there is


----------



## wckf92

karatejj said:


> Umm dude, yes there is



What is it?


----------



## karatejj

Wing chun has sayings that cover ideas its based on. Its a system design to work togeher. You cant just throw any things in there cos you can make other bits not work


----------



## drop bear

karatejj said:


> Umm dude, yes there is


----------



## KPM

karatejj said:


> Hey dude, much as I like you're clips, you are being biased here.
> 
> LFJ has said repeatedly that the WHOLE VIDEO contains some grappling mixed in with striking for MMA
> 
> BUT that the section he is highlighting is PURE WING CHUN type he study. He says it in black and white many many times. If you ignore this fact then makes you look bad man, sorry too say! Please don't play silly games on the forum, cause I like you're clips man!



Ok.  Don't take my word for it.  Check it out yourself as I suggested.  Because you aren't going to get a good answer from LFJ.  And even Sean didn't claim that portion was "pure WSLVT", and those are his students!


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> ----With that Tan you don't have to bring in a lot of conceptual twists and turns to justify it being a punch.



You just have to not understand the concept in the first place. Then it easily becomes whatever you want!



> With the Tan, you simply close your hand into a fist and you can feel that it is a valid punch.  Same thing with the Bong.  No great stretch of imagination needed!



If you don't understand the concepts, it's just a matter of putting a fist on the end.

The energies will be entirely different, but if you didn't know that, it doesn't take any conceptual twist. Great!



> And the "bouncing punch" from most Ip Man WCK versions of the Chum Kiu form is essentially that....a Tan Sau as a punch.



There's a reason in all the position changes in _pun-sau_ you never end up with _taan-sau_ having contact on the inside of the forearm.

If you don't know the reason, then any time your palm faces upward you can call it a _taan-sau_, despite it having nothing to do with the hand, and possibly being the exact opposite in concept.



> Same with the Bong being an overhand punch.  Many Ip Man WCK versions of Biu Jee have this punch in the form without going to conceptual convolutions to justify it.



That "punch" is not a _bong-sau_, and the only way to turn _bong-sau_ into an overhand punch is to completely castrate the concept and elbow use from it, as you've done to _taan_.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> That is NOT what "pure WSLVT" looks like, despite what LFJ may say!



Having no knowledge or experience of WSLVT whatsoever, it's best you not arrogantly tell its practitioners what it is and isn't.



> Just do a youtube search for "Phillip Bayer Ving Tsun" and you will find a plethora of Chi Sau videos.  That is more representative of what "pure" WSLVT looks like!



Wrong.

_Chi-sau_ is not sparring or fighting.



> You can also do a youtube search for "David Petersen Ving Tsun" and see another perfectly valid representation that LFJ does not endorse.  Or "Gary Lamb Ving Tsun" and see another perfectly valid version that LFJ does not endorse.



This old lie again...

They are just different than what I do, but I'd send people to either one of them before any WC you're talking about!


----------



## LFJ

JbrmWC said:


> My understanding is Ip Man's wing chun changed over the years as his age progressed. The older he got the softer it became because he did not have the same strength. Hence the changes and differences in the way his students learned through the years.



This directly contradicts the idea of him having taught to the individual strengths and weaknesses of each student.

Why would he teach strong youth to fight like a frail elderly man just because _he_ got older and weaker? 



> IMO, since WC is conceptual it should be a bit different for everyone but the core concepts would remain.



Right. It can accommodate all physical conditions (within reason) without fundamental changes.

That's why it would not make sense for YM to completely change the way he taught to where at different "stages" he was teaching contradictory concepts and understandings of the same material, and teaching young guys to fight like elderly men.


----------



## karatejj

LFJ said:


> You just have to not understand the concept in the first place. Then it easily becomes whatever you want!
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't understand the concepts, it's just a matter of putting a fist on the end.
> 
> The energies will be entirely different, but if you didn't know that, it doesn't take any conceptual twist. Great!
> 
> 
> 
> There's a reason in all the position changes in _pun-sau_ you never end up with _taan-sau_ having contact on the inside of the forearm.
> 
> If you don't know the reason, then any time your palm faces upward you can call it a _taan-sau_, despite it having nothing to do with the hand, and possibly being the exact opposite in concept.
> 
> 
> 
> That "punch" is not a _bong-sau_, and the only way to turn _bong-sau_ into an overhand punch is to completely castrate the concept and elbow use from it, as you've done to _taan_.



Great info on you're system man!!


----------



## karatejj

KPM said:


> Ok.  Don't take my word for it.  Check it out yourself as I suggested.  Because you aren't going to get a good answer from LFJ.  And even Sean didn't claim that portion was "pure WSLVT", and those are his students!



I don't think he agree with you either man! He's a guy that likes to keep the peace, I like that.

Look, why you're argue about this stuff all the time man, its a waste of you're time! You have better things to offer, like teh wing chun boxing project!!


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> You just have to not understand the concept in the first place. Then it easily becomes whatever you want!
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't understand the concepts, it's just a matter of putting a fist on the end.
> 
> The energies will be entirely different, but if you didn't know that, it doesn't take any conceptual twist. Great!
> 
> 
> 
> There's a reason in all the position changes in _pun-sau_ you never end up with _taan-sau_ having contact on the inside of the forearm.
> 
> If you don't know the reason, then any time your palm faces upward you can call it a _taan-sau_, despite it having nothing to do with the hand, and possibly being the exact opposite in concept.
> 
> 
> 
> That "punch" is not a _bong-sau_, and the only way to turn _bong-sau_ into an overhand punch is to completely castrate the concept and elbow use from it, as you've done to _taan_.



Everything you wrote above demonstrates a rather narrow and dogmatic view of wing chun.  Which is very ironic given that you can see a high cover in the sweeping motion in Biu Jee, but you can't see a punch in a Tan Sau!


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> Having no knowledge or experience of WSLVT whatsoever, it's best you not arrogantly tell its practitioners what it is and isn't.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> _Chi-sau_ is not sparring or fighting.
> 
> 
> 
> This old lie again...
> 
> They are just different than what I do, but I'd send people to either one of them before any WC you're talking about!


----------



## KPM

karatejj said:


> Great info on you're system man!!



You do realize that he still didn't answer your question?  I'm starting to smell a rat here.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> you can see a high cover in the sweeping motion in Biu Jee,



As has been explained to you, it need not sweep. The action and arm position is there. You just never learned far enough.



> but you can't see a punch in a Tan Sau!



Not the way you do, because I understand the _taan_-concept punch, and that _taan-sau_ is a pre-punch position that trains the elbow for such a punch.

What happens to the elbow during the _chau-kyun_ in CK? It recovers center from the raised position in _bong-sau_, contracting inward.

You have interpreted this as a _taan-sau_ because the palm turns up, not knowing what happens at the elbow.

Do you understand why _taan-sau_ is never on the outside with contact on the inside of the forearm in _pun-sau_ training? It doesn't contract inward.

Of course, you're unable to examine this because you never learned the concepts and do a big loopy punch leading with the fist. Same as your _bong-sau_ overhand punch. It's fist-led. 

You have no elbow concept in your WC at all. So, it's easy to make up whatever you want without conceptual twists. Because you have no concepts to twist, only to make up.


----------



## wckf92

LFJ said:


> _chau-kyun_



What does this translate to?


----------



## wckf92

LFJ said:


> What happens to the elbow during the _chau-kyun_ in CK? It recovers center from the raised position in _bong-sau_, *contracting inward*.





LFJ said:


> Do you understand why _taan-sau_ is never on the outside with contact on the inside of the forearm in _pun-sau_ training? *It doesn't contract inward.*



Hi LFJ.
Not sure what chau-kyun means...but both of these mention 'contracting inward'(?) Can you please explain? Thx.


----------



## LFJ

wckf92 said:


> Hi LFJ.
> Not sure what chau-kyun means...but both of these mention 'contracting inward'(?) Can you please explain? Thx.



Dictionary definition gives 'to whip; thrash; flog'.

Contracting inward means the elbow is brought to the center.


----------



## karatejj

KPM said:


> You do realize that he still didn't answer your question?  I'm starting to smell a rat here.


 
Hey man, you're right!!

Im smelling a rat here too..WTF, feel like I been conned!!


----------



## karatejj

LFJ said:


> Dictionary definition gives 'to whip; thrash; flog'.
> 
> Contracting inward means the elbow is brought to the center.



Ok, enough of the dodging. Why the first action??

Make me understand ur system


----------



## karatejj

KPM said:


> You do realize that he still didn't answer your question?  I'm starting to smell a rat here.



Actually dude, you not answer it either!!!

Both of u should answer if you post on teh thread


----------



## LFJ

karatejj said:


> Ok, enough of the dodging. Why the first action??



Wrong thread.


----------



## Martial D

ROFL

This dude HAS to be trolling. Nobody is that daft.


----------



## karatejj

Martial D said:


> ROFL
> 
> This dude HAS to be trolling. Nobody is that daft.



Dude that is abuse. I can't help I not sharpest tool. But I know gr8 WC when I see it, anf I see it here with KPM!! Now I just try to find who  else got teh real stuff


----------



## drop bear

LFJ said:


> As has been explained to you, it need not sweep. The action and arm position is there. You just never learned far enough.
> 
> 
> 
> Not the way you do, because I understand the _taan_-concept punch, and that _taan-sau_ is a pre-punch position that trains the elbow for such a punch.
> 
> What happens to the elbow during the _chau-kyun_ in CK? It recovers center from the raised position in _bong-sau_, contracting inward.
> 
> You have interpreted this as a _taan-sau_ because the palm turns up, not knowing what happens at the elbow.
> 
> Do you understand why _taan-sau_ is never on the outside with contact on the inside of the forearm in _pun-sau_ training? It doesn't contract inward.
> 
> Of course, you're unable to examine this because you never learned the concepts and do a big loopy punch leading with the fist. Same as your _bong-sau_ overhand punch. It's fist-led.
> 
> You have no elbow concept in your WC at all. So, it's easy to make up whatever you want without conceptual twists. Because you have no concepts to twist, only to make up.


You are describing your styles limitations. Which don't apply to what KPM is doing.

That is the point of this thread is KFM has more flexibility to change or make up concepts.

It is the difference between your martial arts and someone else's.

You would have to show why your concepts are functional before you can discount someone else's.


----------



## drop bear

karatejj said:


> Dude that is abuse. I can't help I not sharpest tool. But I know gr8 WC when I see it, anf I see it here with KPM!! Now I just try to find who  else got teh real stuff



You really don't know great wing chun when you see it. Because you almost never see it function.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> As has been explained to you, it need not sweep. The action and arm position is there. You just never learned far enough.
> 
> 
> 
> Not the way you do, because I understand the _taan_-concept punch, and that _taan-sau_ is a pre-punch position that trains the elbow for such a punch.
> 
> What happens to the elbow during the _chau-kyun_ in CK? It recovers center from the raised position in _bong-sau_, contracting inward.
> 
> You have interpreted this as a _taan-sau_ because the palm turns up, not knowing what happens at the elbow.
> 
> Do you understand why _taan-sau_ is never on the outside with contact on the inside of the forearm in _pun-sau_ training? It doesn't contract inward.
> 
> Of course, you're unable to examine this because you never learned the concepts and do a big loopy punch leading with the fist. Same as your _bong-sau_ overhand punch. It's fist-led.
> 
> You have no elbow concept in your WC at all. So, it's easy to make up whatever you want without conceptual twists. Because you have no concepts to twist, only to make up.




That may apply to you extra special VT,  but this is a thread on Wing  Chun Boxing.  So why are you trying to tell me I am wrong just because I don't know you extra special secret VT?


----------



## LFJ

drop bear said:


> You are describing your styles limitations. Which don't apply to what KPM is doing.
> 
> That is the point of this thread is KFM has more flexibility to change or make up concepts.
> 
> It is the difference between your martial arts and someone else's.
> 
> You would have to show why your concepts are functional before you can discount someone else's.





KPM said:


> That may apply to you extra special VT,  but this is a thread on Wing  Chun Boxing.  So why are you trying to tell me I am wrong just because I don't know you extra special secret VT?



It is actually all YM lineages and probably any others that use _pun-sau_ training.

All lineages always roll with _taan-sau_ having contact on the outside of the forearm, never inside. There is a reason.

Some apparently just don't know the reason, and it never crossed their minds to think why, or at least KPM never got that far in studying them.

I'd like to see any one lineage that uses the inside of the forearm for _taan-sau_. Probably worth a good laugh.

KPM, you might be "right" for your "Wing Chun Boxing" because you aren't combining WC and WB, you're making most of it up as you go.


----------



## drop bear

LFJ said:


> It is actually all YM lineages and probably any others that use _pun-sau_ training.
> 
> All lineages always roll with _taan-sau_ having contact on the outside of the forearm, never inside. There is a reason.
> 
> Some apparently just don't know the reason, and it never crossed their minds to think why, or at least KPM never got that far in studying them.
> 
> I'd like to see any one lineage that uses the inside of the forearm for _taan-sau_. Probably worth a good laugh.
> 
> KPM, you might be "right" for your "Wing Chun Boxing" because you aren't combining WC and WB, you're making most of it up as you go.



Well you either have a reason or you don't for why you taan sau like you do. And we can either accept it or discount it.

Have you explained your reasoning yet?

I mean linage doesn't count for anything unless it is backed up by functional success.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> It is actually all YM lineages and probably any others that use _pun-sau_ training.
> 
> All lineages always roll with _taan-sau_ having contact on the outside of the forearm, never inside. There is a reason.
> 
> Some apparently just don't know the reason, and it never crossed their minds to think why, or at least KPM never got that far in studying them.
> 
> I'd like to see any one lineage that uses the inside of the forearm for _taan-sau_. Probably worth a good laugh.
> 
> KPM, you might be "right" for your "Wing Chun Boxing" because you aren't combining WC and WB, you're making most of it up as you go.




You really should think more before you post.  Because you are sounding more and more ridiculous each time!      Because I have said nothing about poon sau are which side of the forearm and you are jumping to some pretty big assumptions solely for the purpose of being argumentative!


----------



## LFJ

drop bear said:


> Well you either have a reason or you don't for why you taan sau like you do. And we can either accept it or discount it.
> 
> Have you explained your reasoning yet?
> 
> I mean linage doesn't count for anything unless it is backed up by functional success.





KPM said:


> You really should think more before you post.  Because you are sounding more and more ridiculous each time!      Because I have said nothing about poon sau are which side of the forearm and you are jumping to some pretty big assumptions solely for the purpose of being argumentative!



Because _taan_ elbow "spreads" from the line as the name suggests, while the _chau-kyun_ elbow contracts to the line.

It's the exact opposite...

The _pun-sau_ reference is to make it clear to you, _taan_ never contracts to center with the inner forearm from outside, as the action you're mistaking for a _taan_ punch does.

You are literally doing the exact opposite of what you're calling it, because you saw the orientation of the hand but had no clue what it's actually doing.

That's how most misinterpretations are made; by looking at shapes and guessing without information.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> Because _taan_ elbow "spreads" from the line as the name suggests, while the _chau-kyun_ elbow contracts to the line.
> 
> It's the exact opposite...
> 
> The _pun-sau_ reference is to make it clear to you, _taan_ never contracts to center with the inner forearm from outside, as the action you're mistaking for a _taan_ punch does.
> 
> You are literally doing the exact opposite of what you're calling it, because you saw the orientation of the hand but had no clue what it's actually doing.
> 
> That's how most misinterpretations are made; by looking at shapes and guessing without information.




You are simply arguing lineage semantics.  Tan means "to spread".  You can spread inward or outward.  But I have not been referring to the concept of "tan".   I have been referring to the shape.  I even commented on being able to "see" a punch in a Tan.  So is your wing chun so inflexible and dogmatic that you truly can't see that?  Or do you just like to make everything an argument whenever you can?


----------



## karatejj

drop bear said:


> You really don't know great wing chun when you see it. Because you almost never see it function.



Are you sayin KPM no good? Lol he know more Wing Vhun than you seen in ur life


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> You are simply arguing lineage semantics.  Tan means "to spread".  You can spread inward or outward.



Not lineage semantics, as no lineage ever has _taan-sau_ spreading inward. That's what _fuk-sau_ is for. That's why you never see any lineage do _chi-sau_ using a _taan_ in _fuk_'s position. They'd have too be as confused as you to do something as funny.



> But I have not been referring to the concept of "tan".   I have been referring to the shape.



So, you admit, to come to your idea, you have to castrate the concept from the shape. Then you can "see" anything, but it's not WC/VT, because the concepts you're discarding are WC/VT.


----------



## wckf92

karatejj said:


> Are you sayin KPM no good? Lol he know more Wing Vhun than you seen in ur life



...just curious but...how do you know how much WC Drop Bear has seen in his life?


----------



## karatejj

LFJ said:


> Because _taan_ elbow "spreads" from the line as the name suggests, while the _chau-kyun_ elbow contracts to the line.
> 
> It's the exact opposite...
> 
> The _pun-sau_ reference is to make it clear to you, _taan_ never contracts to center with the inner forearm from outside, as the action you're mistaking for a _taan_ punch does.
> 
> You are literally doing the exact opposite of what you're calling it, because you saw the orientation of the hand but had no clue what it's actually doing.
> 
> That's how most misinterpretations are made; by looking at shapes and guessing without information.



This is interesting man. I always wonder why the Tan block on outside. And you right, I never seen it on inside!!


----------



## karatejj

KPM said:


> You are simply arguing lineage semantics.  Tan means "to spread".  You can spread inward or outward.  But I have not been referring to the concept of "tan".   I have been referring to the shape.  I even commented on being able to "see" a punch in a Tan.  So is your wing chun so inflexible and dogmatic that you truly can't see that?  Or do you just like to make everything an argument whenever you can?



You do both sides Tan?? I never see this neither, Lol I learn more every day


----------



## KPM

karatejj said:


> You do both sides Tan?? I never see this neither, Lol I learn more every day



The transition move on the dummy......some call it Gang Sau, some Gan/Jum.....if the upper arm is directed with downward pressure it can be seen as a Jum or Chum Sau.  But if the pressure is sweeping across and not pressing down, then how can it be a chum, which means "to sink or collapse"?  When it sweeps inward it is more of an inward Tan because it is deflecting, redirecting, or "spreading".


----------



## karatejj

KPM said:


> The transition move on the dummy......some call it Gang Sau, some Gan/Jum.....if the upper arm is directed with downward pressure it can be seen as a Jum or Chum Sau.  But if the pressure is sweeping across and not pressing down, then how can it be a chum, which means "to sink or collapse"?  When it sweeps inward it is more of an inward Tan because it is deflecting, redirecting, or "spreading".



Great info, thanx man. I not get too the dummy yet.


----------



## Martial D

KPM said:


> You are simply arguing lineage semantics.  Tan means "to spread".  You can spread inward or outward.  But I have not been referring to the concept of "tan".   I have been referring to the shape.  I even commented on being able to "see" a punch in a Tan.  So is your wing chun so inflexible and dogmatic that you truly can't see that?  Or do you just like to make everything an argument whenever you can?


In my WC there is an action in SLT that uses taan as a strike with the fingertips to the neck. Taan strike, low bong, taan block, palm/ridge strike.

If you close the fist, you are left with a sort of uppercut/cross hybrid that travels in a sort of corkscrew fashion. It's actually a very landable close range strike.


----------



## KPM

karatejj said:


> Are you sayin KPM no good? Lol he know more Wing Vhun than you seen in ur life



No, I think Drop Bear is saying that forms and drills don't truly show how good you wing chun is.  You have to really see it working "on the fly" to know that. Someone can have really fancy and impressive chi sau and drilling that falls apart under pressure when facing an opponent not doing wing chun!


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> Not lineage semantics, as no lineage ever has _taan-sau_ spreading inward. That's what _fuk-sau_ is for. That's why you never see any lineage do _chi-sau_ using a _taan_ in _fuk_'s position. They'd have too be as confused as you to do something as funny.
> 
> 
> VT.



I'm telling you man, you are sounding more and more ridiculous with each post.  Chu Sau Li lineage has an inward Tan.  Pin Sun has an inward Tan.  So you think chi Sau defines everything in wing chun? You really are showing a narrow view and knowledge of wing chun limited only to you own lineage.  You don't seem to know as much as you want everyone to think you know!


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> Chu Sau Li lineage has an inward Tan.  Pin Sun has an inward Tan.



"Inward _taan_" is an oxymoron, because _taan_ means to spread _out_, as in to expand.

That is the opposite of contract. You can't expand inward.

Whatever they are doing is not the _taan_ concept. Probably caught up on handshape again.


----------



## Nobody Important

karatejj said:


> You do both sides Tan?? I never see this neither, Lol I learn more every day


New trolling tactic Guy? Pretending to play both sides? You really should think about therapy.


----------



## karatejj

Nobody Important said:


> New trolling tactic Guy? Pretending to play both sides? You really should think about therapy.



What u talkin about man? I don't know u


----------



## Nobody Important

karatejj said:


> What u talkin about man? I don't know u


Lol, don't bee a ha8er!


----------



## karatejj

Nobody Important said:


> Lol, don't bee a ha8er!



Take you're own words an live buy it man!!


----------



## Nobody Important

karatejj said:


> Take you're own words an live buy it man!!


Whatever you say Guy B., toodles.


----------



## karatejj

Nobody Important said:


> Whatever you say Guy B., toodles.



Stop stalkin and sweet talkin me man, lol

Ur a funny dude


----------



## Nobody Important

karatejj said:


> Stop stalkin and sweet talkin me man, lol
> 
> Ur a funny dude


Got it JJ, dyno-mite!


----------



## karatejj

Hey at least you gut the name right this time man, good work


----------



## Nobody Important

karatejj said:


> Hey at least you gut the name right this time man, good work


Yes ma'am, I sure did. Thanks Sally.


----------



## drop bear

wckf92 said:


> ...just curious but...how do you know how much WC Drop Bear has seen in his life?



Very little. Did about a month but the school wasn't at a level that was testing my abilities.

My mum did it for longer. But then the school got a bit weird. So she left. But if this subject ever got of the completely irrelevant subject of linage and complete systems and back on to the subject of combining chun with boxing. I do train with some fairly handy guys in that department.


----------



## wckf92

drop bear said:


> Very little. Did about a month but the school wasn't at a level that was testing my abilities.
> 
> My mum did it for longer. But then the school got a bit weird. So she left.



Yeah, no worries on my end.... just seemd like our karate jj fella was psychic..


----------



## drop bear

wckf92 said:


> Yeah, no worries on my end.... just seemd like our karate jj fella was psychic..



I think we need to take JJ with a grain of salt. Martial arts can mess with peoples heads some times.


----------



## dudewingchun

drop bear said:


> So we know one style of wing chun is functional. and lets put this open tournament at a mabye as I know nothing about it.
> 
> And does alan orr cross-train in boxing?



Alan doesn't cross train boxing.


----------



## drop bear

dudewingchun said:


> Alan doesn't cross train boxing.



He probably should.


----------



## karatejj

Nobody Important said:


> Yes ma'am, I sure did. Thanks Sally.



Stop stalkin me u freak!! Lol


----------



## Nobody Important

karatejj said:


> Stop stalkin me u freak!! Lol


What are you on about lady? Go away!


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> "Inward _taan_" is an oxymoron, because _taan_ means to spread _out_, as in to expand.
> 
> That is the opposite of contract. You can't expand inward.
> 
> Whatever they are doing is not the _taan_ concept. Probably caught up on handshape again.



I said nothing about "contracting".  And I was taught Tan simply means "to spread" with no out or in implied.  If your left hand is forward, it can "spread" as easily to the right as to the left.  And CSL lineage also uses Tan to move back or "spread" as it receives.  Pin Sun calls this a "Tun Sau".  You truly have a very limited view of wing chun and still show that you think all wing chun should be the same as WSLVT!


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> I said nothing about "contracting".  And I was taught Tan simply means "to spread" with no out or in implied.  If your left hand is forward, it can "spread" as easily to the right as to the left.  And CSL lineage also uses Tan to move back or "spread" as it receives.  Pin Sun calls this a "Tun Sau".  You truly have a very limited view of wing chun and still show that you think all wing chun should be the same as WSLVT!



Your uppercut/bodyshot doesn't spread at all. And, I'm aware of _tun-sau_, but it and moving inward toward the centerline are not _taan_ by the very definition of the word.

See link. English verb is "to spread out; to open". So, to expand from center, opening, not contract to center, closing.

摊的解释|摊的意思|汉典“摊”字的基本解释


----------



## Martial D

LFJ said:


> Your uppercut/bodyshot doesn't spread at all. And, I'm aware of _tun-sau_, but it and moving inward toward the centerline are not _taan_ by the very definition of the word.


You do realize that a plethora of different lineages also means a plethora of different techniques and interpretations right? You must have a ton of faith in this Wong Shun Leung guy, to believe he nailed it for all time, the perfect unassailable Wing Chun.

If that were true, and your vt were so much better than other lineages we should expect to see trained vt guys dominating both the fighting world and the SD market..or at the very least doing those things better than other WC lineages.

Yet we do not.

What do you think that means?


----------



## LFJ

Martial D said:


> You do realize that a plethora of different lineages also means a plethora of different techniques and interpretations right?



Yes, but if they're doing something else, they need a new word for it, because they have completely castrated its definition.



> Yet we do not.



You should speak for yourself. Most of you have not even seen VT in person, much less faced it in competition or any other manner.


----------



## Martial D

LFJ said:


> Yes, but if they're doing something else, they need a new word for it, because they have completely castrated its definition.
> 
> 
> 
> You should speak for yourself. Most of you have not even seen VT in person, much less faced it in competition or any other manner.


And back to the lethal yet completely hidden(at least the lethal part) vt.

I can't even take you seriously anymore.


----------



## LFJ

Martial D said:


> And back to the lethal yet completely hidden(at least the lethal part) vt.
> 
> I can't even take you seriously anymore.



Not hidden at all. Doors are open around the world. 

There's also an open-style tournament hosted annually by a VT school in Germany. Why don't you register for the next one?


----------



## Martial D

LFJ said:


> Not hidden at all. Doors are open around the world.
> 
> There's also an open-style tournament hosted annually by a VT school in Germany. Why don't you register for the next one?


The same could be said of many WC scools and lineages, as well as schools from a good deal of other styles too. That on it's face doesn't make any of those styles Uber lethal, or better than any of those other schools and styles doing the same.

Yet you continue to bluster as if everything that does not fall into the narrow confines of what you (allegedly) train is somehow incorrect by default, without any evidence to support that. It's frankly sort of pathetic.


----------



## karatejj

Martial D said:


> The same could be said of many WC scools and lineages, as well as schools from a good deal of other styles too. That on it's face doesn't make any of those styles Uber lethal, or better than any of those other schools and styles doing the same.
> 
> Yet you continue to bluster as if everything that does not fall into the narrow confines of what you (allegedly) train is somehow incorrect by default, without any evidence to support that. It's frankly sort of pathetic.



Hey dude, if it not even make sense then think we can ignore!!

Thgis all we can do on a forum man


----------



## LFJ

Martial D said:


> The same could be said of many WC scools and lineages, as well as schools from a good deal of other styles too. That on it's face doesn't make any of those styles Uber lethal, or better than any of those other schools and styles doing the same.
> 
> Yet you continue to bluster as if everything that does not fall into the narrow confines of what you (allegedly) train is somehow incorrect by default, without any evidence to support that. It's frankly sort of pathetic.



No idea where you're getting this.

I never said VT is particularly "lethal", and I have given evidence that certain understandings of _taan_ are incorrect by definition.


----------



## Martial D

LFJ said:


> No idea where you're getting this.
> 
> I never said VT is particularly "lethal", and I have given evidence that certain understandings of _taan_ are incorrect by definition.


Gee I dunno. Must be thin air...


----------



## karatejj

Martial D said:


> Gee I dunno. Must be thin air...



Ur imagination?

Lol obvious u got a problem with this guy. This forum full of stalkers


----------



## Nobody Important

And full of banned members who keep opening new troll accounts


----------



## drop bear

LFJ said:


> Yes, but if they're doing something else, they need a new word for it, because they have completely castrated its definition.
> 
> 
> 
> You should speak for yourself. Most of you have not even seen VT in person, much less faced it in competition or any other manner.



People change the meanings of words.

We really should draw from systems we can see in person or face in competition or any other manner. That is a limitation of VT. And the issue with the technical critique. You don't explain why you think it works. And there is nothing to show it works.

This is why boxing is such a good mix. Because you can use it. And use it in any manner you want. If you never want to throw a rotational punch. That doesn't stop you from boxing. 

Might stop you from boxing well. But they are big gloves and so are more forgiving.


----------



## karatejj

Nobody Important said:


> And full of banned members who keep opening new troll accounts



Lol u still crazy man


----------



## Nobody Important

karatejj said:


> Lol u still crazy man


That apparently doesn't deter you from having a crush on me.

While I'm flattered, I'm sure you're not my type, and besides I'm not into online dating.

Please leave me alone. I've much better things to do than constantly ward off the advances of some special needs individual who wants to engage in online flirting with me.


----------



## geezer

KPM said:


> I said nothing about "contracting".  And I was taught Tan simply means "to spread" with no out or in implied.  If your left hand is forward, it can "spread" as easily to the right as to the left.  And CSL lineage also uses Tan to move back or "spread" as it receives.  Pin Sun calls this a "Tun Sau".  You truly have a very limited view of wing chun and still show that you think all wing chun should be the same as WSLVT!



I've been thinking about this and, I agree with LFJ that for the most part. IMO, tan sau serves _best_ to spread to the outside. Of course you can use a "tan sau" position to deflect to the inside, but _normally_ wouldn't you use a vertically aligned palm as a _jum-sau to deflect downward_ ....or roll your hand over into a palm-down _fook-sau ..._ or even use a_ pak-sau,_ to deflect inward?

I think the problem I have with LFJ is that he won't even entertain the idea that "there is more than one way to skin a cat" and arbitrarily dismisses divergent opinion.


----------



## paitingman

You can use a pair of pliers as a hammer as well.


----------



## LFJ

drop bear said:


> People change the meanings of words.



To mean the exact opposite of what they're doing? Only if they never understood the word to begin with!



> We really should draw from systems we can see in person or face in competition or any other manner. That is a limitation of VT.



You are only stopping yourself from going to see it in person. And, I know you've been shown an annual open-style competition hosted by a VT school.

So, why the continued dishonesty?

How 'bout you go register to compete in the next one? You and Martial D can go as a team.



> And the issue with the technical critique. You don't explain why you think it works. And there is nothing to show it works.



I've explained a ton on this forum, and your refusal to look doesn't mean there's "nothing".


----------



## LFJ

geezer said:


> I think the problem I have with LFJ is that he won't even entertain the idea that "there is more than one way to skin a cat" and arbitrarily dismisses divergent opinion.



I don't care if other people want do something else. But, the interpretation of _taan_ given here is demonstrably incorrect.

That doesn't mean the action is "incorrect" if that's what they choose to do, but to call it _taan_ is not right.


----------



## LFJ

paitingman said:


> You can use a pair of pliers as a hammer as well.



Maybe, maybe not.

Best to know what each tool is for and use it as intended. 

Works much more reliably that way.


----------



## paitingman

LFJ said:


> Maybe, maybe not.
> 
> Best to know what each tool is for and use it as intended.
> 
> Works much more reliably that way.


my point exactly


----------



## karatejj

Nobody Important said:


> That apparently doesn't deter you from having a crush on me.
> 
> While I'm flattered, I'm sure you're not my type, and besides I'm not into online dating.
> 
> Please leave me alone. I've much better things to do than constantly ward off the advances of some special needs individual who wants to engage in online flirting with me.



Huh? Please bud you leave ME alone!!


----------



## karatejj

geezer said:


> I've been thinking about this and, I agree with LFJ that for the most part. IMO, tan sau serves _best_ to spread to the outside. Of course you can use a "tan sau" position to deflect to the inside, but _normally_ wouldn't you use a vertically aligned palm as a _jum-sau to deflect downward_ ....or roll your hand over into a palm-down _fook-sau ..._ or even use a_ pak-sau,_ to deflect inward?
> 
> I think the problem I have with LFJ is that he won't even entertain the idea that "there is more than one way to skin a cat" and arbitrarily dismisses divergent opinion.



Do you think tan position good for deflect inwards compare to different way?


----------



## karatejj

drop bear said:


> We really should draw from systems we can see in person or face in competition or any other manner. That is a limitation of VT.



Hey dude we all can go train what we like. What is stopping you? It not the fault of wing chun if u too lazy to go and try it!!



> And the issue with the technical critique. You don't explain why you think it works. And there is nothing to show it works.



He explain a lot already, right here on the forum. You blind man!!



> This is why boxing is such a good mix. Because you can use it. And use it in any manner you want. If you never want to throw a rotational punch. That doesn't stop you from boxing



If u want to throw a kick or knee then boxing will stop u!! Also gloves will stop doing many thing, and allow u to do thing taht are stupid


----------



## drop bear

LFJ said:


> To mean the exact opposite of what they're doing? Only if they never understood the word to begin with!
> 
> 
> 
> You are only stopping yourself from going to see it in person. And, I know you've been shown an annual open-style competition hosted by a VT school.
> 
> So, why the continued dishonesty?
> 
> How 'bout you go register to compete in the next one? You and Martial D can go as a team.
> 
> 
> 
> I've explained a ton on this forum, and your refusal to look doesn't mean there's "nothing".



Your link never worked on that tournement. I mean a tournament is cool. But how do I put this delicately? 

Was this sort of national tournament that anyone wanted to show up to?


----------



## drop bear

karatejj said:


> Hey dude we all can go train what we like. What is stopping you? It not the fault of wing chun if u too lazy to go and try it!!
> 
> 
> 
> He explain a lot already, right here on the forum. You blind man!!
> 
> 
> 
> If u want to throw a kick or knee then boxing will stop u!! Also gloves will stop doing many thing, and allow u to do thing taht are stupid



I would like to see something work before I invest time and money in it.

Is that unreasonable?


----------



## karatejj

drop bear said:


> Your link never worked on that tournement. I mean a tournament is cool. But how do I put this delicately?
> 
> Was this sort of national tournament that anyone wanted to show up to?



Lol,if u not fed multi clips of style used in MMA fight, u no interest. Get you're self off you're a** and go train. Yo too lazy man!!

When u given clips of style being use for realz then story change and comp not good enough

LOL


----------



## karatejj

drop bear said:


> I would like to see something work before I invest time and money in it.
> 
> Is that unreasonable?



Not reasona to criticise if you not take time to try it. If no interest in trying the go talk about MA u ARE interest in!! Simples


----------



## drop bear

karatejj said:


> Not reasona to criticise if you not take time to try it. If no interest in trying the go talk about MA u ARE interest in!! Simples



Is asking to see if something actually works before I try it criticism?

What if it doesn't work. Then I will be out of pocket.


----------



## karatejj

drop bear said:


> Is asking to see if something actually works before I try it criticism?
> 
> What if it doesn't work. Then I will be out of pocket.



Dude, you hangin out on this forum too criticize some style of wing chun taht you never tried nor know nothing about. Too me that is clear, you crazy.

If you out of pocket buy few dollard then , at least u learn something rather than usual talk talk talk

an if a few dollar to much for u to spend, then you no interest in wing chun at WTF are you doing posting on wing chun forum every day of ur life??

You nuts, like I said


----------



## drop bear

karatejj said:


> Dude, you hangin out on this forum too criticize some style of wing chun taht you never tried nor know nothing about. Too me that is clear, you crazy.
> 
> If you out of pocket buy few dollard then boo hoo, at least u learn something for a change rather than usual talk talk talk



Ok. But this thread is about Wing Chun being combined with boxing.

Not Ving Tsung being a complete system.

So do you feel I have criticized wing chun boxing combination?

Mabye I am not the one bashing styles here.


----------



## karatejj

drop bear said:


> Ok. But this thread is about Wing Chun being combined with boxing.
> 
> Not Ving Tsung being a complete system.
> 
> So do you feel I have criticized wing chun boxing combination?
> 
> Mabye I am not the one bashing styles here.



I got nothin but strong support for waht sifu KPM is doin to make wing chun boxing

Short answer for u and other that all talk, no action: get off ur a** and try it before you speak. Taht way we not waist time on you're biased lazy opinion base on nuthin!!


----------



## LFJ

drop bear said:


> Your link never worked on that tournement. I mean a tournament is cool. But how do I put this delicately?
> 
> Was this sort of national tournament that anyone wanted to show up to?



Delicately?

You're trying to disqualify a competition before knowing anything about it while claiming to be unbiased??

It's an international open-style tournament. People from around the world have gone.

Are you saying it doesn't count if UFC champions aren't competing? That is just a lame bias, and you are still afraid to register to fight in it.



drop bear said:


> Is asking to see if something actually works before I try it criticism?



Blindly criticizing by saying there is no proof that it works and that it can't be faced in competition, while refusing to check it out or acknowldge an international open-style tournament hosted by a VT group, is plainly dishonest style-bashing.



> What if it doesn't work. Then I will be out of pocket.



Then you sit at home and wonder, but you don't get to say there is no evidence because _you_ are afraid to examine it.


----------



## dudewingchun

LFJ said:


> Not hidden at all. Doors are open around the world.
> 
> There's also an open-style tournament hosted annually by a VT school in Germany. Why don't you register for the next one?


How do you register


----------



## drop bear

LFJ said:


> Delicately?
> 
> You're trying to disqualify a competition before knowing anything about it while claiming to be unbiased??
> 
> It's an international open-style tournament. People from around the world have gone.
> 
> Are you saying it doesn't count if UFC champions aren't competing? That is just a lame bias, and you are still afraid to register to fight in it.



Yeah but your link never worked. So we cant judge if it is good or lame.
And for reference sake.

I live here.







It is not exactly a bus trip.


----------



## karatejj

Malos1979 said:


> Since you are speaking so openly and without any spelling check  I'll give my take on your answer in the same manner as you did without any restraint and I'll give you my conclusions after 25 years practicing martial arts.
> 
> My 8-9 years in Wing Chun weren't wasted years, but it was wasted money. Let me elaborate:
> 
> - No wasted years, why you might think, well they showed me alot of stuff how it *SHOULDN'T* be done. How their self defense only works in their *OWN* eco system, some will say this isn't the case but trust me it is.
> 
> - It was wasted money, why, because it would've been better if I took up *Boxing*.



Heh, it aint nobody fault but you're own if u waisted 8-9 year on some lame wing chun that not workin right. Most of us can tell after 2-5 max lesson!! This just tell me u had no base of real fightin to be able to tell. You start off a soft person wit no experience, ok



> The thing is, WC led me to Pukulan and Silat and that was the good thing about it for me



Sound like you going on just as u start!! Heh, 25 wasted year..



> The advice I would give you is, take some english lessons.



Advice I would give u is take teh silver spoon out you're mouth, finger out you're a**, and suck it up boy.

Some of us here been there done taht, and it never took 25 year (lol) to figure it out. I been boxin since I was a kid, many real fights, I know whats what. You shpuld be askin advice, not givin it


----------



## karatejj

drop bear said:


> Yeah but your link never worked. So we cant judge if it is good or lame.
> And for reference sake.
> 
> I live here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not exactly a bus trip.



You live on teh internet??


----------



## drop bear

Its not this is it?






How do I put this delicately.


----------



## drop bear

karatejj said:


> You live on teh internet??



Yes. Yes I do.


----------



## wckf92

karatejj said:


> You live on teh internet??


----------



## karatejj

Malos1979 said:


> Looking at your responses I doubt you are even older than 12 years?



32 years son


----------



## wckf92

karatejj said:


> 32 years son



Huh...weird...your profile says 36


----------



## karatejj

wckf92 said:


> Huh...weird...your profile says 36



Finger musta slipped, i not so good on word an numbers


----------



## Knapf

Malos1979 said:


> Well the 1979 is my year of birth, "son"
> 
> Ok some more advice for you:
> 
> 1st order yourself an adult brain, get rid of that 12 year old one because it only gives you problems with language and logical thinking
> 
> 2nd if you are studying WC or VT or whatever combination of letters that can mean toilet, just try to spar a little bit with a kickboxer or boxer, or even give a proper Pukulan guy a shot, I bet that they will beat the living **** out of you, or maybe not if you ask them friendly to "Chi Sao" with you
> 
> Congrats I didn't think WC/VT people could sink any further, but you proved me otherwise


I wanted to rate your post Funny  but then I decided on Informative instead.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> Your uppercut/bodyshot doesn't spread at all. And, I'm aware of _tun-sau_, but it and moving inward toward the centerline are not _taan_ by the very definition of the word.
> 
> See link. English verb is "to spread out; to open". So, to expand from center, opening, not contract to center, closing.
> 
> 摊的解释|摊的意思|汉典“摊”字的基本解释



So again, you can see a boxer's "duck and weave motion" and a "high cover" in the Biu Jee form, but you can't see a Tan shape with the hand closed being a punch?     Or that motion in the Chum Kiu form being a body shot?  You really need to get over yourself.


----------



## KPM

*I've been thinking about this and, I agree with LFJ that for the most part. IMO, tan sau serves best to spread to the outside. Of course you can use a "tan sau" position to deflect to the inside, but normally wouldn't you use a vertically aligned palm as a jum-sau to deflect downward ....or roll your hand over into a palm-down fook-sau ... or even use a pak-sau, to deflect inward?*

---I agree!  Tan is better used outward than inward because when you do it inward you risk crossing center and putting yourself in a vulnerable position.  But that doesn't mean there won't be times when you would use an inward Tan, depending upon the situation.  And, as I noted before, what would you call the upper arm motion when done at the same time as the lower Gan Sau in the dummy form?  Especially when using it to deflect something across and inward?

*I think the problem I have with LFJ is that he won't even entertain the idea that "there is more than one way to skin a cat" and arbitrarily dismisses divergent opinion.*

----True!   Anyone that can't see that "to spread" can mean outward or inward is being pretty narrow-minded!


----------



## karatejj

Malos1979 said:


> 1st order yourself an adult brain, get rid of that 12 year old one because it only gives you problems with language and logical thinking



Dude, I am sharp thinkin, just not so good on pressing computer button. I am man, joined army, fought for country. Islamist never got me, I can do thinkin just fine boy. Now I run own busines (wit help from acounts guys an otherz), givin jobs to lozers and helpin community. Ur weak, pasty cubicle office guy taht think martial art aint got nothin to do wit fightin. LOL at u thinking u teh voice of experienz



> 2nd if you are studying WC or VT or whatever combination of letters that can mean toilet, just try to spar a little bit with a kickboxer or boxer, or even give a proper Pukulan guy a shot, I bet that they will beat the living **** out of you, or maybe not if you ask them friendly to "Chi Sao" with you



I am boxer, LOL. wing chun is add on 4 me. Pukulan, lololz, WTF is that??


----------



## karatejj

KPM said:


> So again, you can see a boxer's "duck and weave motion" and a "high cover" in the Biu Jee form, but you can't see a Tan shape with the hand closed being a punch?     Or that motion in the Chum Kiu form being a body shot?  You really need to get over yourself.



Sifu, ur bein dumb here. Hes sayin taht tan not cover inside, not that it cant be punch

Send me message if u want to speak about, ok?


----------



## geezer

LFJ said:


> I don't care if other people want do something else. But, the interpretation of _taan_ given here is demonstrably incorrect.
> 
> That doesn't mean the action is "incorrect" if that's what they choose to do, but to call it _taan_ is not right.



In my experience, non-speakers of Cantonese in WC/VT/WT.... and perhaps even some people who do speak Cantonese, abuse the terminology atrociously. I admit that I am guilty of this as well. While I recognize that having a knowledge of the Cantonese language will facilitate understanding, my old Chinese sifu insisted that it is not necessary. As he often pointed out, there are many Cantonese speakers in WC/VT/WT who understand nothing of the system! On the other hand it is quite posible to learn the system well and know nothing of Cantonese.

That said, I always appreciate your linguistic clarifications. They are of more than academic interest, as I often find they do enrich _my _understanding.


----------



## geezer

karatejj said:


> Do you think tan position good for deflect inwards compare to different way?



Generally speaking, _no_.

...As I stated in my previous post, I would use other techniques to deflect inward or downward.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> So again, you can see a boxer's "duck and weave motion" and a "high cover" in the Biu Jee form, but you can't see a Tan shape with the hand closed being a punch?     Or that motion in the Chum Kiu form being a body shot?  You really need to get over yourself.



It's simply a matter of concepts and actions already existing in the system, versus you making things up while directly contradicting the concept you're citing.



KPM said:


> what would you call the upper arm motion when done at the same time as the lower Gan Sau in the dummy form?  Especially when using it to deflect something across and inward?



That would be _jam-sau_, a _fuk_ concept, the exact opposite of _taan_.

And, it doesn't deflect across, it strikes directly to the target.

Have you seriously done SNT for 30 years? This is super basic stuff.



> Anyone that can't see that "to spread" can mean outward or inward is being pretty narrow-minded!



It's not English. It's a Chinese word that means to spread _out_, or open. It cannot close to the centerline.


----------



## geezer

karatejj said:


> Finger musta slipped, i not so good on word an numbers



Ah! So your literacy is equaled by your numeracy! I suspected as much.


----------



## LFJ

geezer said:


> In my experience, non-speakers of Cantonese in WC/VT/WT.... and perhaps even some people who do speak Cantonese, abuse the terminology atrociously. I admit that I am guilty of this as well. While I recognize that having a knowledge of the Cantonese language will facilitate understanding, my old Chinese sifu insisted that it is not necessary. As he often pointed out, there are many Cantonese speakers in WC/VT/WT who understand nothing of the system! On the other hand it is quite posible to learn the system well and know nothing of Cantonese.
> 
> That said, I always appreciate your linguistic clarifications. They are of more than academic interest, as I often find they do enrich _my _understanding.



As wild as some interpretations can get, I've never seen anyone use _taan_ on the outside, closing to center with the inside of the forearm.

That is never a position in _pun-sau_ for a reason. What KPM thinks does that is not _taan_, but _jam_. He has confused it by looking at the open hand while not knowing the concept. Neither _taan_ nor _jam_ have anything to do with the handshape.


----------



## geezer

KPM said:


> ---I agree!  Tan is better used outward than inward because when you do it inward you risk crossing center and putting yourself in a vulnerable position.  But that doesn't mean there won't be times when you would use an inward Tan, depending upon the situation.  And, as I noted before, *what would you call the upper arm motion when done at the same time as the lower Gan Sau in the dummy form?*  Especially when using it to deflect something across and inward?



_This movement _from the _Biu Tze_ and _Mook Yang Jong_ forms (as seen being practiced in a paired drill by two of my _former_ kung-fu brothers)?

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-..._to_Bloomington_scissores_gaun_sau_061715.jpg

We call that _high-low gaun sau_ or _scissors gaun sau. _Yes, the upper hand chops in towards center, but if you look closely you will see that the upper palm is more vertical and actually strikes forward, deflecting _and _attacking. In _our_ system it may look a bit like a tan-sau, but does not function as such. 

...OK, looking closely at that picture, I do see that the upper hand position really looks a lot like a t_an-sau_, especially as demonstrated by my former si-dai on the right. That's _not_ how I learned it. Maybe he _bought _his wide WT "master's stripes"? Oh well, I don't need them anyway since I don't train in my pajamas.


----------



## KPM

karatejj said:


> Sifu, ur bein dumb here. Hes sayin taht tan not cover inside, not that it cant be punch
> 
> Send me message if u want to speak about, ok?



He did say that seeing Tan as a punch was the same as not understanding what a Tan is, and has definitely said that the Tan cannot be a punch.  Have you not been reading this discussion?


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> He did say that seeing Tan as a punch was the same as not understanding what a Tan is, and has definitely said that the Tan cannot be a punch.  Have you not been reading this discussion?



_Taan_ is a punch concept, but the punch you did is not using the _taan_ concept, because you don't understand either _taan_ or that punch.


----------



## KPM

*It's simply a matter of concepts and actions already existing in the system, versus you making things up while directly contradicting the concept you're citing.*

---What makes you think I made it up?  I'm not the first to see this simple punch being based upon the Tan shape.  Heck, I once saw a guy post a video of himself doing the entire SNT form with every action converted to a punch!  Gan Sau as a downward sweeping hammerfist, Tan Sau as a drilling punch, punches instead of palm strikes, etc.   Again, you  are obviously far too close-minded and think that your version of VT is THE version of Wing Chun by which everything is compared!!!  



*That would be jam-sau, a fuk concept, the exact opposite of taan.*

----Nope.  You can "spread" inward or outward.  Outward contacts with the outer edge of the forearm first and "spreads" to the flat of the forearm, while inward contacts with the inner edge of  the forearm first and "spreads" to the flat of the forearm.   Simple common sense.  


*And, it doesn't deflect across, it strikes directly to the target.*

---It doesn't always strike directly into the target.  Again, you seem to be expecting ALL Wing Chun to be your uber special VT!  

*Have you seriously done SNT for 30 years? This is super basic stuff.*

----And you seriously think you can speak for ALL of Wing Chun?   That everyone should conform to your understanding of VT?   And yet you have protested in the past when I pointed out that you always compare what others do to your own understanding of WSLVT and therefore call anything that is different "broken" or "incomplete" or "wrong"???  


*
It's not English. It's a Chinese word that means to spread out, or open. It cannot close to the centerline.*

---Who said anything about "closing" to the centerline???   Someone can deflect inward just as  well as they can outward.  And I already explained that by "inward" I simply mean the left hand moving to the right or vice versa.   You are so interested in arguing and proving me wrong that you haven't  really been listening to what I've been saying.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> That is never a position in _pun-sau_ for a reason. What KPM thinks does that is not _taan_, but _jam_. He has confused it by looking at the open hand while not knowing the concept. Neither _taan_ nor _jam_ have anything to do with the handshape.



Man, you are so dense!!!!  Again....is poon-sau the "be all" and "end all" for your Wing Chun?  I guess that's why Chi Sau is all we ever see in PB's videos!   

I never said that the Tan Sau is a punch directly.   I said that a punch can be seen in the Tan Sau shape.....ie....ignoring the concept behind the Tan as a defense, one can look at the shape and action in the form and also see it as a punch.   Is the resulting punch a "Tan Sau"?   Of course not!  A Tan Sau is a defensive action, not a punch!  But the Tan shape with the hand closed, and the energy directed forward rather than  "spreading" easily becomes a punch.   That's just basic understanding.   That is, as long as one has an open mind and is willing to think for themselves rather than being so dogmatic and "sifu sez"......


----------



## KPM

*We call that high-low gaun sau or scissors gaun sau. Yes, the upper hand chops in towards center, but if you look closely you will see that the upper palm is more vertical and actually strikes forward, deflecting and attacking. In our system it may look a bit like a tan-sau, but does not function as such*. 

----Some lineages do the Tan Sau somewhat vertical as well....TWC does.   I've seen some lineages refer to the top hand simply as a "high line Gan Sau"....because they didn't have a good name for it!  In your picture they seem to be obviously sweeping across to contact forearms, and not chopping inward to attack towards the torso.  But if done sweeping inward, it can "spread" and deflect rather than impact.


----------



## geezer

KPM said:


> *We call that high-low gaun sau or scissors gaun sau. Yes, the upper hand chops in towards center, but if you look closely you will see that the upper palm is more vertical and actually strikes forward, deflecting and attacking. In our system it may look a bit like a tan-sau, but does not function as such*.
> 
> ----Some lineages do the Tan Sau somewhat vertical as well....TWC does.   I've seen some lineages refer to the top hand simply as a "high line Gan Sau"....because they didn't have a good name for it!  In your picture they seem to be obviously sweeping across to contact forearms, and not chopping inward to attack towards the torso.  But if done sweeping inward, it can "spread" and deflect rather than impact.



The reason we call the upper hand _high gaun-sau _comes from the energy and function which is _chopping_ and not _spreading. _Yes, any gaun-sau, high or low can deflect and/or strike, but in the VT I train, the energy is totally different.

Personally, I don't see it matters if, in _your _system, you use the term_ tan-sau _to include an inward deflection, as long as we understand each other.

....or to put it another way, here are a couple of possible reactions to you presenting different ideas which may not mesh with what somebody else does:



1.  Oh, well that's not how we do it, but it's an interesting idea. I do have some concerns about it though, such as....

2. That's _wrong_. You are obviously an ignorant buffoon. Allow me to enlighten you as to the error of your ways....



--Personally, I favor the first mode. It makes for more pleasant conversations, and sometimes I learn stuff from unexpected sources.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> You can "spread" inward or outward.



You _can_, but since _taan_ means to spread _out_, if you "spread inward" you are not using the _taan_ concept.

Up to you to do what you want, but if you call it _taan_, you're just wrong by definition.



> ---It doesn't always strike directly into the target.



If it "deflects across" then it's arm-chasing.



> ---Who said anything about "closing" to the centerline???...
> ...I already explained that by "inward" I simply mean the left hand moving to the right or vice versa.



Moving your left arm to the right, or vice versa, closes space between your arm and the centerline.

_Taan_ means to spread out or open, so not to your center.



> is poon-sau the "be all" and "end all" for your Wing Chun



No, but it's a primary method of developing _taan_ vs _fuk_ energies. It should tell you something why _taan_ never takes _fuk_ position.



> ignoring the concept behind the Tan as a defense, one can look at the shape and action in the form and also see it as a punch.



Ignoring the concept (rather not knowing it)... Exactly my point.

The concept is a punch with built-in defense from the elbow. This is _lin-siu-daai-da_, the basic idea built through SNT, _daan-chi-sau_, _pun-sau_, etc.. _Fuk_/_jam_ is its counterpart.



> A Tan Sau is a defensive action, not a punch! But the Tan shape with the hand closed, and the energy directed forward rather than "spreading" easily becomes a punch. That's just basic understanding.



More like basic _misunderstanding_.

You are castrating the concept completely to get what you're doing. You even admit this.



> I've seen some lineages refer to the top hand simply as a "high line Gan Sau"....because they didn't have a good name for it!



It's _jam-sau_. Basic SNT. Some never learned it.



> In your picture they seem to be obviously sweeping across to contact forearms, and not chopping inward to attack towards the torso. But if done sweeping inward, it can "spread" and deflect rather than impact.



A.k.a. arm-chasing.


----------



## Martial D

LFJ said:


> As wild as some interpretations can get, I've never seen anyone use _taan_ on the outside, closing to center with the inside of the forearm.
> 
> That is never a position in _pun-sau_ for a reason. What KPM thinks does that is not _taan_, but _jam_. He has confused it by looking at the open hand while not knowing the concept. Neither _taan_ nor _jam_ have anything to do with the handshape.


I'm going to take this rare(unicorn rare) opertunity to agree with you about something. If you use taan inward you'll get a punch in the face. I don't care what any tradition or official party line says,  I learned that one at the end of a 6 ounce leather gloves ages ago.

I disagree about the hand position though, I think it's important to keep the palm up shape, to hook incoming punches between the back of your hand and your wrist so you can twist into a grab/fook or sink it down and expose their flank.

What does your wslvt have to say about that?


----------



## wckf92

Martial D said:


> I disagree about the hand position though, I think it's important to keep the palm up shape, to hook incoming punches between the back of your hand and your wrist so you can twist into a grab/fook or sink it down and expose their flank.



Martial D...are you saying that in your WC...WRT hand / wrist position, you have a bent wrist when your hand/arm is in the Tan shape/usage?


----------



## geezer

wckf92 said:


> Martial D...are you saying that in your WC...WRT hand / wrist position, you have a bent wrist when your hand/arm is in the Tan shape/usage?



What's "WRT"?

And although your question above wasn't directed at me, just for the record, we _do_ have a _slight_ bend in the wrist in the extending centerline tan-sau as performed in the _saam pai fut _sequence in Siu Nim Tau -- in the VT I train (coming out of the WT branch of YMVT) as the palm is kept horizontal throughout the extension. This is not the case in the crossed, or _gow-cha tan-sau _movement that opens the form.


----------



## wckf92

geezer said:


> What's "WRT"?
> 
> And although your question above wasn't directed at me, just for the record, we _do_ have a _slight_ bend in the wrist in the extending centerline tan-sau as performed in the _saam pai fut _sequence in Siu Nim Tau -- in the VT I train (coming out of the WT branch of YMVT) as the palm is kept horizontal throughout the extension. This is not the case in the crossed, or _gow-cha tan-sau _movement that opens the form.



Sorry..."with regard to"


----------



## drop bear

KPM said:


> *I've been thinking about this and, I agree with LFJ that for the most part. IMO, tan sau serves best to spread to the outside. Of course you can use a "tan sau" position to deflect to the inside, but normally wouldn't you use a vertically aligned palm as a jum-sau to deflect downward ....or roll your hand over into a palm-down fook-sau ... or even use a pak-sau, to deflect inward?*
> 
> ---I agree!  Tan is better used outward than inward because when you do it inward you risk crossing center and putting yourself in a vulnerable position.  But that doesn't mean there won't be times when you would use an inward Tan, depending upon the situation.  And, as I noted before, what would you call the upper arm motion when done at the same time as the lower Gan Sau in the dummy form?  Especially when using it to deflect something across and inward?
> 
> *I think the problem I have with LFJ is that he won't even entertain the idea that "there is more than one way to skin a cat" and arbitrarily dismisses divergent opinion.*
> 
> ----True!   Anyone that can't see that "to spread" can mean outward or inward is being pretty narrow-minded!


Ok. Had to look up taan sau. 




Basically similar to boxing in concept.

There are a few basic ideas that you can employ if you get caught in a bad position doing any move. 

So if you get caught in the midle. You pretty much have to strike.  They have a shot at you. You have a shot at them so you just be first.

If you have stopped an arm. Then the threat is the other arm. And you can change levels with the expectation that other arm will come. So gumby block you should allready be ducking and weaving.

And all your blocks and strikes should be fired off center. so his return strikes dont find your head as easily. You can do this by slipping or by using footwork. 

Givin it looks like you always want to step into position to strike rather than reach. Footwork might be better.

(but seriously head movement would raise your game i think.)


----------



## Martial D

wckf92 said:


> Martial D...are you saying that in your WC...WRT hand / wrist position, you have a bent wrist when your hand/arm is in the Tan shape/usage?


Yes. Like you are holding a plate.


----------



## LFJ

Martial D said:


> I think it's important to keep the palm up shape, to hook incoming punches between the back of your hand and your wrist so you can twist into a grab/fook or sink it down and expose their flank.
> 
> What does your wslvt have to say about that?



I would say _taan-sau_ is not a block and that _fuk-sau_ is not a grab.

They aren't shapes for applications.

They are both training tools for developing striking ideas with dual offensive and defensive functions.

The important part is the elbow, as the hand can be a fist or palm as needed.

People look at the hand shapes in the training tools without information, and wonder how they can be used.

This mostly leads to arm-chasing techniques, as the striking concepts are lost.


----------



## Martial D

LFJ said:


> I would say _taan-sau_ is not a block and that _fuk-sau_ is not a grab.
> 
> They aren't shapes for applications.
> 
> They are both training tools for developing striking ideas with dual offensive and defensive functions.
> 
> The important part is the elbow, as the hand can be a fist or palm as needed.
> 
> People look at the hand shapes in the training tools without information, and wonder how they can be used.
> 
> This mostly leads to arm-chasing techniques, as the striking concepts are lost.


"without information"
See, this is why people don't like you. You are so arrogant it must hurt....

Or wait no, everything that isn't what you have been taught is made up, or incorrect, or incomplete.

Kick rocks.


----------



## KPM

geezer said:


> ....or to put it another way, here are a couple of possible reactions to you presenting different ideas which may not mesh with what somebody else does:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  Oh, well that's not how we do it, but it's an interesting idea. I do have some concerns about it though, such as....
> 
> 2. That's _wrong_. You are obviously an ignorant buffoon. Allow me to enlighten you as to the error of your ways....
> 
> 
> 
> --Personally, I favor the first mode. It makes for more pleasant conversations, and sometimes I learn stuff from unexpected sources.



Well said!  And I find it interesting that T Ray "liked" your post  as well, given that he has "agreed" with LFJ nearly EVERY time he has been posting with your #2 above!


----------



## KPM

*You can, but since taan means to spread out, if you "spread inward" you are not using the taan concept.*

----Only by YOUR definition!  

*Up to you to do what you want, but if you call it taan, you're just wrong by definition.*

----Only by YOUR definition!

*If it "deflects across" then it's arm-chasing.*

----Only by YOUR definition!

*Moving your left arm to the right, or vice versa, closes space between your arm and the centerline*.

---Not if you are pivoting at the time!

*
Ignoring the concept (rather not knowing it)... Exactly my point.*

---Once you again, you are sounding like a complete idiot.  



*You are castrating the concept completely to get what you're doing. You even admit this.*

----I admitted no such thing.  As per your usual....you are going out of your way just to argue.


*A.k.a. arm-chasing.*

----Only by YOUR definition!    Did you read Geezer's post?

----Need I say it again?  You prove over and over that you judge everything by your own understanding of VT and think anything that differs is "broken" or "incomplete" or "wrong"!!!   Sorry, but you don't get to define EVERY version of Wing Chun!  You need to get over yourself!!!


----------



## LFJ

Martial D said:


> "without information"
> See, this is why people don't like you. You are so arrogant it must hurt....
> 
> Or wait no, everything that isn't what you have been taught is made up, or incorrect, or incomplete.
> 
> Kick rocks.



You asked. I answered.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> ----Only by YOUR definition!



I don't have a definition.

It is _the_ definition of the Chinese word.



> ---Not if you are pivoting at the time!



How is pivoting to move your center away while "deflecting across" not arm-chasing?!

That is the worst case of arm-chasing! You are chasing nothing but the arm, and doing it with your whole body.



> *You are castrating the concept completely to get what you're doing. You even admit this.*
> 
> ----I admitted no such thing.



You just said you get to your application by "ignoring" the concept.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> Well said!  And I find it interesting that T Ray "liked" your post  as well, given that he has "agreed" with LFJ nearly EVERY time he has been posting with your #2 above!



What I'm saying follows the #1 template.

1. Oh, well that's not how we do it, but it's an interesting idea. I do have some concerns about it though, such as....

....the fact that you're directly contradicting the definition of the Chinese term you're using. It's up to you to do what you want. Hopefully it works for you, but if you call it _taan_ that is problematic, because it means the exact opposite of what you're doing.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> What I'm saying follows the #1 template.
> 
> 1. Oh, well that's not how we do it, but it's an interesting idea. I do have some concerns about it though, such as....
> 
> ....the fact that you're directly contradicting the definition of the Chinese term you're using. It's up to you to do what you want. Hopefully it works for you, but if you call it _taan_ that is problematic, because it means the exact opposite of what you're doing.



Total and complete BS!!!!  Dude up to now you have laughed at multiple posts I've made and told me I was wrong about what I was saying.....including when I posted video of an adapted Bong-Lop Da drill.  So how can you now deny you have been following Geezer's #2???  Do you completely lack insight?  Or are you just a total XXXXXX????


----------



## KPM

*It is the definition of the Chinese word.*

---A general Chinese word that has been adapted to a specific martial arts movement.  How "literal" someone follows the exact meaning of the word may vary in different lineages, as with many of the terms now used.  "Gan Sau" is often translated as "cultivating hand."  Are you actually "cultivating" anything with a Gan Sau??


*How is pivoting to move your center away while "deflecting across" not arm-chasing?!*

----You are in close with the inside of your left forearm in contact with the outside of the opponent's right forearm.  He directs his energy towards you and you pivot as you deflect inward with a Tan to extend him slightly past you and then follow up immediately with an Fak Sau sweeping strike to the throat.  The inward rolling motion with the Tan is just enough to deflect his strike while encouraging him to continue his forward momentum to run right into your sweeping strike to the throat.  Pak Sau is no good because you are already contacting forearm to forearm.  Fook Sau could work, but doesn't set up the fast sweeping strike to the throat nearly as well.  This is a very fast "pivot, roll, strike."   Something from Pin Sun that works very well.  But I'm sure you've never seen it.  



*You just said you get to your application by "ignoring" the concept.*

---Geez!  You ARE dense!   I noted one could see a punch in the Tan Sau.  You argued that the punch violated the "concept" of the Tan and so was invalid.  I pointed out that I wasn't using the "concept" of the Tan but rather the shape and minor alteration in movement of the Tan found in the form, and that it would no longer be a Tan (because a Tan is a defense) but is a punch that resembles a Tan.  Why is that so hard for you to follow??   It does not mean that I don't understand the "concept" or the "use" of the Tan.  It means that I am a bit more open-minded than you and much less dogmatic!


----------



## drop bear

Malos1979 said:


> So your not only a dumbass?
> 
> You are a *racist* army boy. Turn the 12 year old mode off boy, oh wait that's not possible since you are 12.
> 
> Can a mod or admin please stop this dumbass? Thank you



I think in context that is probably not so racist.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> ---A general Chinese word that has been adapted to a specific martial arts movement.  How "literal" someone follows the exact meaning of the word may vary in different lineages, as with many of the terms now used.



No. There's no adapting that can change that the word means to spread _out_ or _open_.

If you want just "to spread" in general, there are other words.



> "Gan Sau" is often translated as "cultivating hand."  Are you actually "cultivating" anything with a Gan Sau??



It means to cultivate as in to plow. It describes the action of using a type of hoe to till the soil by hand.

It's the same action. Visually descriptive. It fits perfectly.




> ----You are in close with the inside of your left forearm in contact with the outside of the opponent's right forearm



I would not need to turn myself away with them and need another step before striking. You are not being simple, direct, or efficient.



> I pointed out that I wasn't using the "concept" of the Tan but rather the shape and minor alteration in movement of the Tan found in the form, and that it would no longer be a Tan



Like I said, castrating the concept. You used the word "ignore".



> It does not mean that I don't understand the "concept" or the "use" of the Tan.  It means that I am a bit more open-minded than you and much less dogmatic!



It's "open-minded" to chuck out the concepts from a concept-based system and just use the shapes for individual techniques?

You may as well just go do boxing that already has those techniques. Why waste your time trying to turn your WC forms into WB?


----------



## LFJ

Malos1979 said:


> You are a *racist*



Islam is not a race, and you shouldn't name-call. It violates forum rules.


----------



## Nobody Important




----------



## KPM

*No. There's no adapting that can change that the word means to spread out or open.
*
---And the example I gave "opens" or creates an opening for that Fak Sau sweeping strike.  Just as in my Bong-Lop Da example the backhand strike creating an opening for the punch to the solar plexus.  It also "spread out", just in a different direction.  But evidently your VT doesn't have this concept of "setting up" or "creating an opening" using more than one action.  You consider anything like that to be "arm chasing."  But it is a very important concept in Boxing.


*It means to cultivate as in to plow. It describes the action of using a type of hoe to till the soil by hand.
*
---So you take one word "Tan" as literal as possible, but not another word?? 


*It's the same action. Visually descriptive. It fits perfectly.
*
---But you are not using the literal meaning as you do with Tan.  So it seems to me there is some inherent flexibility in the way people use Wing Chun terminology.  




*I would not need to turn myself away with them and need another step before striking. You are not being simple, direct, or efficient.
*
---Its not "turning away from them."  Its turning towards them.   And like I said above, obviously your uber special VT lacks the concept of setting up  or creating an opening and just seeks to "blast" straight in.  And that matches most of the PB clips we have seen.



*Like I said, castrating the concept. You used the word "ignore".*

---Because its a punch, not a Tan Sau!  So why would it follow the Tan concept???  Geez!  Use your brain!  


*It's "open-minded" to chuck out the concepts from a concept-based system and just use the shapes for individual techniques?
*
---In this particular instance, yes.  Wing Chun as I have come to understand it contains both concepts and techniques.  The concepts drive the use of the techniques. But the specific techniques are what make Wing Chun identifiable as Wing Chun.  Both are important.  But evidently your uber special VT has no applications and no techniques.....even though you use Tan, Bong, Fook like everyone else!  


*You may as well just go do boxing that already has those techniques. Why waste your time trying to turn your WC forms into WB?
*
---I am doing boxing that has those techniques.  Before you started this ridiculous argument, I pointed out that these techniques could also be seen in certain actions in the forms.  This was to show that Wing Chun and Boxing are compatible and already share certain things.  Like I said, I didn't make up this idea that the Tan action or the Bong action could be seen as a punch.  Plenty of people use them that way.  And I'm not turning the WC forms into WB.  I haven't changed the SNT form at all.  The other forms I use are both and neither.  They are their own thing.....Wing Chun Boxing.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> ---And the example I gave "opens" or creates an opening for that Fak Sau sweeping strike.  Just as in my Bong-Lop Da example the backhand strike creating an opening for the punch to the solar plexus.



That's not what open means in the defintion of _taan_. It is to spread or open _outward _(with reference to itself), not create an "opening".



> It also "spread out", just in a different direction.



Yeah, in! That's not spreading out.



> But evidently your VT doesn't have this concept of "setting up" or "creating an opening" using more than one action.



Correct. It's more direct and efficient.



> You consider anything like that to be "arm chasing."  But it is a very important concept in Boxing.



I consider _chasing arms_ as arm-chasing, not just setting up strikes.



> ---So you take one word "Tan" as literal as possible, but not another word??



It's the intended meaning. There's no other way to take "spread out". If you take it as "spread in" you're just not making sense and should use another word.



> ---But you are not using the literal meaning as you do with Tan.  So it seems to me there is some inherent flexibility in the way people use Wing Chun terminology.



No. There's no other way to take _taan_ and not be wrong.



> ---Its not "turning away from them."  Its turning towards them.



So, you were facing away to begin with?

Your application assumes both opponents are one-armed.

Where's the guy's other arm? You guess the one-armed man would have no guard hand blocking your path?

And where's your other arm? Why not use both arms together to strike immediately while turning the guy and maintaining your own facing?

That would be the more direct and efficient method.



> *Like I said, castrating the concept. You used the word "ignore".*
> 
> ---Because its a punch, not a Tan Sau!  So why would it follow the Tan concept???



Right. So, you're admitting you have to ignore the concept in order to get your punch out of the shape.



> Wing Chun as I have come to understand it contains both concepts and techniques.  The concepts drive the use of the of the techniques.



But, you just said you get this technique by _ignoring_ the concept.



> you use Tan, Bong, Fook like everyone else!



I do not use them like everyone else.



> I pointed out that these techniques could also be seen in certain actions in the forms.  This was to show that Wing Chun and Boxing are compatible and already share certain things.



But, you just said to get this technique you have to ignore the concept.

Which means they are only compatible if you castrate the conceptual-base that makes WC, and try to see WB in the shapes.

Then suddenly they "share things".

You should just box.


----------



## KPM

^^^^^ Trying to discuss anything with you is like arguing with a post.     I've got better things to do right now.  I'll just say this......stop comparing everything to your understanding of WSLVT in order to say that everyone else is "wrong" or "broken" or "incomplete."  WSLVT does not define all other versions of Wing Chun!  And don't act all innocent and say that you don't do this, because you do!!!   Admit that others can just be  "different", and that there is nothing wrong with this.  Stop being such a XXXX.


----------



## geezer

_@LFJ and KPM_ --have you guys ever considered that if you weren't so busy arguing and really_ listened_ to each other, you could actually help each other to a higher level of understanding. For example, if _tan_ specifically means to _spread-out_ or _open, _then KPM could incorporate that info and call that tan-shaped inward-deflecting movement he uses something like_ "reverse tan-sau"._ It might have no place in WSL-VT, but if it works in KPM's Boxing-WC blend, then good for him ...and it would be a more accurate use of the term.

Another example would be LFJ accusing KPM of _chasing hands_ when he advocates using this "reverse tan" or inward deflection along with a turn _to get an angle_. Maybe he _is_ chasing hands. Or maybe he is deflecting and angling his body to get a clear line to attack center. VT/WC guys and boxers _all_ use angling that way. So instead of slapping him with what amounts to a VT/WC insult, i.e. accusing him of "chasing hands",  how about just asking, "Wouldn't that be chasing hands"? I guarantee you will get a better response.

Honestly, LFJ, it's not _what_ you say that's the problem. It's _how_ you say it. You really do phrase your opinions in a very contentious manner. And, predictably, KPM responds in kind. It's really kinda embarrassing. 

Oh, and BTW, LFJ thanks for that clarification of the term _gaun sau_. In the VT I train, it functions very much like a plow. In fact I frequently use that example, but I had no idea that the plow reference was actually implicit in the meaning of the term. That was very helpful.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> stop comparing everything to your understanding of WSLVT in order to say that everyone else is "wrong" or "broken" or "incomplete."  WSLVT does not define all other versions of Wing Chun!  And don't act all innocent and say that you don't do this, because you do!!!



I've been comparing what you do to the meaning of the word you use.

The definition is what it is independent of any lineage.



> Admit that others can just be  "different", and that there is nothing wrong with this.



I didn't say there is anything "wrong" with what you do. It's up to you to say what's "right" or "wrong" for you.

But, your use of the term is objectively incorrect. Just so you know. It's like pointing up and saying "look down there!"

If you use another term, then I can say nothing about it, except give technical critiques you don't have to agree with.


----------



## LFJ

geezer said:


> maybe he is deflecting and angling his body to get a clear line to attack center. VT/WC guys and boxers _all_ use angling that way.



We never rotate from target to redirect attacks. We only turn to face our target.

In the described scenario, there's no reason to shift and move the arm across, then come back with the same arm. 

Just maintain facing and _jat-da_ immediately. Accomplishes the same thing, disrupting their balance and facing while counterstriking, but more directly and efficiently, without compromising your own facing.

And with better percentage and follow-up potential, being that the opponent's guard hand can more easily intercept a horizontal chop without much adjustment or precision, whereas they'd have to cross center to parry a straight punch, but already facing with both arms you'd be poised to take advantage of that.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> We never rotate from target to redirect attacks. We only turn to face our target.
> 
> In the described scenario, *there's no reason to shift and move the arm across*, then come back with the same arm.
> 
> Just maintain facing and _jat-da_ immediately. Accomplishes the same thing, disrupting their balance and facing while counterstriking, but more directly and efficiently, without compromising your own facing.
> 
> And with better percentage and follow-up potential, being that the opponent's guard hand can more easily intercept a horizontal chop without much adjustment or precision, whereas they'd have to cross center to parry a straight punch, but already facing with both arms you'd be poised to take advantage of that.



See, you just did it!  You used your reference point of how things are done in WSLVT to say that the way Pin Sun Wing Chun might do it is somehow wrong.  You didn't say it that way, but it is implicit in how you just wrote your post.  You have such a smug and superior attitude that you just can't seem to avoid it.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> See, you just did it!  You used your reference point of how things are done in WSLVT to say that the way Pin Sun Wing Chun might do it is somehow wrong.  You didn't say it that way, but it is implicit in how you just wrote your post.  You have such a smug and superior attitude that you just can't seem to avoid it.



There should be no reason to do that regardless of lineage, unless you have nothing more direct and efficient.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> There should be no reason to do that regardless of lineage, unless you have nothing more direct and efficient.



You just can't seem to stop with the insults!!


----------



## drop bear

LFJ said:


> There should be no reason to do that regardless of lineage, unless you have nothing more direct and efficient.



Direct is predictable. Misdirection is the secret to fighting.


----------



## KPM

.


----------



## Nobody Important

KPM said:


> .


Did you use invisible ink to write this post?


----------



## anerlich

Nobody Important said:


> Did you use invisible ink to write this post?



It's a video of the boxing punch you don't see coming that knocks you out.

("You" generally, not "you", NI)


----------



## geezer

anerlich said:


> It's a video of the boxing punch you don't see coming that knocks you out.



Oh. I thought it was the long awaited video of LFJ sparring.


----------



## wckf92

Nobody Important said:


> Did you use invisible ink to write this post?



...probably just direct application of the misdirection secret...nothing to worry about


----------



## KPM

Nobody Important said:


> Did you use invisible ink to write this post?



I was going to drop a pearl of wisdom on the forum, but thought better of "casting pearls before swine".    Or what was the term LFJ used?.....ingrates???


----------



## LFJ

geezer said:


> Oh. I thought it was the long awaited video of LFJ sparring.



Could have been any one of yours.

I think the only person we've seen actually do stuff is dudewingchun, who posted a clip of him in the ring.

All you monkies demanding sparring videos from me have never posted any yourselves. So, seems kind of stupid to point fingers.


----------



## LFJ

drop bear said:


> Direct is predictable. Misdirection is the secret to fighting.



Wrong. Direct can put you a step or two ahead of the opponent. They will be fighting to recover, until you start doing multistep defenses and give them a chance to cut in.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> Could have been any one of yours.
> 
> I think the only person we've seen actually do stuff is dudewingchun, who posted a clip of him in the ring.
> 
> All you monkies demanding sparring videos from me have never posted any yourselves. So, seems kind of stupid to point fingers.



But nobody but you has claimed that their Wing Chun is the "be all" and "end all" by which all other Wing Chun should be defined and compared.  Nobody but you goes around telling other people that their Wing Chun is "broken" or "incomplete" or "wrong."  So the burden of proof is on you to provide some kind of video showing that you can "walk the talk" rather than just run your mouth.  Otherwise you have no credibility.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> Wrong. Direct can put you a step or two ahead of the opponent. They will be fighting to recover, until you start doing multistep defenses and give them a chance to cut in.



Wrong.  That might work up until the point that it doesn't!  If that's all you have in your "central strategy" then you are going to have trouble when you come up against that non-Wing Chun opponent that simply won't cooperate with your attempts to be so "direct."  A "one trick pony" might perform well when only one trick is needed.  But when the going gets more complicated it might be in trouble!


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> But nobody but you has claimed that their Wing Chun is the "be all" and "end all" by which all other Wing Chun should be defined and compared.



I haven't claimed that. I haven't even been talking about WSLVT on this topic.



> Nobody but you goes around telling other people that their Wing Chun is "broken" or "incomplete" or "wrong."  So the burden of proof is on you to provide some kind of video showing that you can "walk the talk" rather than just run your mouth.  Otherwise you have no credibility.



That's not how burden of proof works.

I haven't claimed to be a grandmaster. I said your stuff is misinterpreted and proved it by showing the definition doesn't fit what you're doing.

Plus, just assuming I'm a crap fighter, it doesn't make you any less wrong.



KPM said:


> But when the going gets more complicated it might be in trouble!



You think you will regain the upper hand when already a step behind by being indirect and inefficient?! lol


----------



## geezer

LFJ said:


> Could have been any one of yours. I think the only person we've seen actually do stuff is dudewingchun, who posted a clip of him in the ring. All you monkies demanding sparring videos from me have never posted any yourselves. So, seems kind of stupid to point fingers.



You're right about me. I've never posted any videos of myself, and if I did, they'd probably be awful. I'm just messin' with you bro.  

On the other hand, KPM has posted videos, so does he get to point fingers?


----------



## LFJ

geezer said:


> On the other hand, KPM has posted videos, so does he get to point fingers?



Of him standing around talking and fantasy fighting with a demo dummy?

Yeah, I haven't posted any videos like that, but demanding sparring/fighting clips from anyone is still a huge step beyond what he has ever shown.

Besides, as has been stated by others, no one is obligated to publicize themselves on a discussion forum or risk losing credibility. Arguments either stand or they don't.

If your argument ends with "post a video or I don't have to listen to you", it doesn't help your credibility even if you post talking videos.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> If your argument ends with "post a video or I don't have to listen to you", it doesn't help your credibility even if you post talking videos.



Well, that's funny!  Since that's EXACTLY what you said to Phil Redmond!


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> Well, that's funny!  Since that's EXACTLY what you said to Phil Redmond!



Really? When? I'm sure I have never said anything remotely similar to anyone. Link to the post, please.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> Really? When? I'm sure I have never said anything remotely similar to anyone. Link to the post, please.



Then you have a very short memory.  On the "other" forum Phil said he had used his TWC successfully in competition and you wouldn't take his word for it and told him he had to produce a video proving it.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> Then you have a very short memory.  On the "other" forum Phil said he had used his TWC successfully in competition and you wouldn't take his word for it and told him he had to produce a video proving it.



No, I didn't. I asked if he had proof of a fight record, because I couldn't find any information.

And, the only reason I asked this is because whenever anyone has a different opinion than him he brushes them off by saying he used to be a competitive fighter and so doesn't have to consider anyone's point of view.

He does this on that forum, on Facebook, and even on his Youtube videos when he's not even talking to anyone.

He just likes to put his nose in the air and say he used things in competition so no one can even constructively criticize him.

And, what happened every time I asked him to produce a fight record or any sort of verification for his claim?

He stopped talking and disappeared.

Likely because these competitions either don't exist or were sparring in his own school or something.


----------



## geezer

Malos1979 said:


> ...WSL might have been the "King of Talking Hands" back in the day when they still fought on rooftops, but this are different times and most of his students are "Kings of Talking BS"



WSL produced some excellent students, some of whom I would love to train with given the opportunity. Let's not let the anti-social attitudes of certain individuals tarnish the man's legacy.


----------



## Martial D

I don't think anyone has demanded video evidence of any particular user. Myself, I just find it highly unlikely that something is true if there is no affirmative evidence, up to and including video footage.


----------



## geezer

Martial D said:


> I don't think anyone has demanded video evidence of any particular user. Myself, I just find it highly unlikely that something is true if there is no affirmative evidence, up to and including video footage.



Yes. A little skepticism is a very healthy thing. And not just regarding martial arts!


----------



## Martial D

geezer said:


> Yes. A little skepticism is a very healthy thing. And not just regarding martial arts!


Indeed. I have found over my years that just about everyone is selling something. Caveat Emptor.


----------



## LFJ

Martial D said:


> I don't think anyone has demanded video evidence of any particular user.



KPM, for one, has been demanding video from people for years, on this forum and "the other".

That's his last resort tactic when the only other option is to admit valid criticism. Must have learned that from Phil.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> KPM, for one, has been demanding video from people for years, on this forum and "the other".
> 
> That's his last resort tactic when the only other option is to admit valid criticism. Must have learned that from Phil.



  Geez!  You are really something!     I've only asked for video from fools like you that make big claims but can't back them up!


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> Geez!  You are really something!     I've only asked for video from fools like you that make big claims but can't back them up!



What big claim have I made? And, especially what big claim have I made that would require video of _me_?


----------



## drop bear

Malos1979 said:


> In the context that he used it, it was referred to as a race.
> 
> Doesn't really matter actually.
> 
> By now we all know that @KPM is capable of adjusting his fighting style and @LFJ is not, so that WSL BS uhhmm VT sorry mistype isn't so superior at all.
> 
> WSL might have been the "King of Talking Hands" back in the day when they still fought on rooftops, but this are different times and most of his students are "Kings of Talking BS"



Yeah. Mostly I agree with you. Although with a much softer emphasis.

It is very hard to expand a system with so many arbitrary rules. 

I can see why a style would not want to step out too far and get manhandled in the adult pool.

But martial arts isn't about what you can do. It is about looking at what you can't do.


----------



## drop bear

LFJ said:


> What big claim have I made? And, especially what big claim have I made that would require video of _me_?



Was that the open tournament you were describing by the way?


----------



## LFJ

drop bear said:


> It is very hard to expand a system with so many arbitrary rules.



VT doesn't have any arbitrary rules.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> What big claim have I made? And, especially what big claim have I made that would require video of _me_?



I've already pointed that out multiple times.  Not going to keep repeating myself just because you want to play all "innocent".   You come across as rather "clueless" instead.  But I know that you aren't that dumb.


----------



## geezer

LFJ said:


> VT doesn't have any arbitrary rules.



_Arbitrary_ basically means "just because I said so". No reason offered. The VT I train may have strong points and weak points, but everything is part of a system, and is done for a reason. Hence nothing is arbitrary.

I assume you feel the same about your WSL-VT.

Now a lot of CMA schools, including WC and VT schools end up doing things "just because sifu says so". Maybe there is a better reason, but since the students don't know it, they are essentially obeying arbitrary dictates. That's OK for a_ student,_ ...for a while. Eventually, there comes a time when you need to think for yourself. Hopefully by then the student will understand enough to recognize what is a necessary part of their system, and recognize what may be there just for tradition or style --i.e. arbitrary.


----------



## drop bear

geezer said:


> _Arbitrary_ basically means "just because I said so". No reason offered. The VT I train may have strong points and weak points, but everything is part of a system, and is done for a reason. Hence nothing is arbitrary.



Arbitrary as in non negotiational.


Given a reason is not the same as given a choice.

It limits the system.

The second definition. Not the first one.

arbitrary
ˈɑːbɪt(rə)ri/
_adjective_

*1*.
based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
"an arbitrary decision"
synonyms: capricious, whimsical, random, chance, erratic, unpredictable, inconsistent, wild, hit-or-miss, haphazard, casual; More


*2*.
(of power or a ruling body) unrestrained and autocratic in the use of authority.
"a country under arbitrary government"
synonyms: despotic, tyrannical, tyrannous, peremptory, summary, autocratic, dictatorial, authoritarian, draconian, autarchic, anti-democratic;


----------



## drop bear

LFJ said:


> VT doesn't have any arbitrary rules.



So the arbitrary rules are just you?

Was that tournament I found  the one you were talking about?

I have no issue with that by the way. Maybe as the flagship for the whole style. But it is definitely moving in the right direction.


----------



## LFJ

drop bear said:


> So the arbitrary rules are just you?



What arbitrary rules do you think there are? Directness and efficiency? That's just a matter of percentages. Break those principles at your own risk.



> Was that tournament I found  the one you were talking about?



I don't know what video you looked at, but you should be aware that it isn't VT versus everyone else. It's an open-style tournament hosted by a VT group,  and competed in by other VT groups and styles from all over.

Your complaint was that you can't face VT in competition. That's not true. You can register for the next one, and I guess request a VT opponent.


----------



## geezer

drop bear said:


> Arbitrary as in non negotiational.
> 
> 
> Given a reason is not the same as given a choice.
> 
> It limits the system.
> 
> The second definition. Not the first one.
> 
> arbitrary
> ˈɑːbɪt(rə)ri/
> _adjective_
> 
> *1*.
> based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
> "an arbitrary decision"
> synonyms: capricious, whimsical, random, chance, erratic, unpredictable, inconsistent, wild, hit-or-miss, haphazard, casual; More
> 
> 
> *2*.
> (of power or a ruling body) unrestrained and autocratic in the use of authority.
> "a country under arbitrary government"
> synonyms: despotic, tyrannical, tyrannous, peremptory, summary, autocratic, dictatorial, authoritarian, draconian, autarchic, anti-democratic;



Thanks for expanding on that. And in the second sense of the word "arbitrary" as being under the autocratic authority of a supreme leader (sifu), a lot of WC, and a lot of TMA in general, certainly qualify. 

That's the way it was in my old WT organization, and  a large part of why I left. Sometimes it seems that way in the organization I belong to now. Fortunately I'm 1,200 miles away from the organization HQ and can get away with a little free-thinking. Also, I'm pretty sure the organization head doesn't read this forum. Just as well, too. In some ways I suspect he and LFJ share similar world-views.


----------



## drop bear

LFJ said:


> I don't know what video you looked at, but you should be aware that it isn't VT versus everyone else. It's an open-style tournament hosted by a VT group, and competed in by other VT groups and styles from all over.
> 
> Your complaint was that you can't face VT in competition. That's not true. You can register for the next one, and I guess request a VT opponent.



So just fly halfway across the world?

Kind of puts facing a VT out of reach a bit.

Do you have a video of this comp? At what standard are they?


----------



## drop bear

LFJ said:


> What arbitrary rules do you think there are? Directness and efficiency? That's just a matter of percentages. Break those principles at your



The arbitrary rule you can't cross train is a pretty big one.


----------



## LFJ

drop bear said:


> So just fly halfway across the world?
> 
> Kind of puts facing a VT out of reach a bit.
> 
> Do you have a video of this comp? At what standard are they?



Not my problem. 

Australians have participated before.



drop bear said:


> The arbitrary rule you can't cross train is a pretty big one.



That's funny, because I do cross-train.


----------



## geezer

LFJ said:


> ...That's funny, because I do cross-train.



I know you previously mentioned having experience in a number of styles. What do you currently cross-train in ...or at least continue to work at besides WSL-VT? ...and how do you feel that training contributes to you, personally as a martial artist?


----------



## Martial D

LFJ said:


> Not my problem.
> 
> Australians have participated before.
> 
> 
> 
> That's funny, because I do cross-train.


Why would you cross train if your wslvt is 'complete' and good from all ranges?

Unless it's BJJ or wrestling you are crossing over with something doesn't add up.


----------



## Juany118

Malos1979 said:


> So your not only a dumbass?
> 
> You are a *racist* army boy. Turn the 12 year old mode off boy, oh wait that's not possible since you are 12.
> 
> Can a mod or admin please stop this dumbass? Thank you





drop bear said:


> I think in context that is probably not so racist.



Agreed.  While perhaps a contentious  turn of phrase, in the context of the statement he is/was a soldier who went to the Middle East to fight the Taliban, Islamic State etc.  This groups are technically self proclaimed "Islamist" groups.  Now their views don't express the views of the Muslims I know and/or call friend, thus I prefer personally using the term "militants" but the name technically applies.

Additionally Islam is a religion, not an ethnicity so if you want to argue that he was speaking from a position of prejudice the term "bigot" would work, but that said...



karatejj said:


> Dude, I am sharp thinkin, just not so good on pressing computer button. I am man, joined army, fought for country. Islamist never got me, I can do thinkin just fine boy. Now I run own busines (wit help from acounts guys an otherz), givin jobs to lozers and helpin community. Ur weak, pasty cubicle office guy taht think martial art aint got nothin to do wit fightin. LOL at u thinking u teh voice of experienz



What does your military service have to do with anything.  The person you were responding to was talking more so about HOW you are expressing yourself.  When I, and others, around here speak to out Military and LE experience it is because it is relevant to the conversation at hand.  Perhaps explaining how a certain art proved effective, describing the physiological experience of feeling "fight or flight" etc.  However neither Military nor LE experience is necessarily indicative of maturity.




> I am boxer, LOL. wing chun is add on 4 me. Pukulan, lololz, WTF is that??



Pukulan is a form of Silat that, while using all parts of the body, focuses of the use of fist, shins and elbows.  Basically think of it as a more "in your face" Muay Thai.


----------



## LFJ

Martial D said:


> Why would you cross train if your wslvt is 'complete' and good from all ranges?
> 
> Unless it's BJJ or wrestling you are crossing over with something doesn't add up.



I began and continue (to a lesser extent now) training other TCMA and BJJ prior to VT.

That doesn't mean I need to mix contradictory methods, though. VT and BJJ are good together.


----------



## Juany118

Martial D said:


> Why would you cross train if your wslvt is 'complete' and good from all ranges?
> 
> Unless it's BJJ or wrestling you are crossing over with something doesn't add up.



Well WC/VT doesnt have much of a "ground game" for one, so if you end up there, knowing what to do there would be useful.


----------



## drop bear

LFJ said:


> I began and continue (to a lesser extent now) training other TCMA and BJJ prior to VT.
> 
> That doesn't mean I need to mix contradictory methods, though. VT and BJJ are good together.



Doesn't mean you couldn't either. If you ever truly integrated striking and grappling you have to.

If you ever wanted to get truly good. You have to integrate them.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> Well WC/VT doesnt have much of a "ground game" for one, so if you end up there, knowing what to do there would be useful.



Gap filling?


----------



## Martial D

drop bear said:


> Gap filling?



No no, it's the other one that means the same thing.


----------



## drop bear

As an example of someone who gets that transition right.


----------



## LFJ

drop bear said:


> Doesn't mean you couldn't either. If you ever truly integrated striking and grappling you have to.
> 
> If you ever wanted to get truly good. You have to integrate them.



VT isn't for fighting on the ground, so groundfighting doesn't interfere with VT.



drop bear said:


> Gap filling?



Trolling?


----------



## drop bear

LFJ said:


> VT isn't for fighting on the ground, so groundfighting doesn't interfere with VT.
> 
> 
> 
> Trolling?



You don't actually stand up fight and ground fight. It is all an aspect of fighting. Just like you don't long range fight and then switch systems and short range fight.

Doing 2 different systems and then swapping from one to the other would be my definition of gap filling.


----------



## geezer

drop bear said:


> You don't actually stand up fight and ground fight. It is all an aspect of fighting. Just like you don't long range fight and then switch systems and short range fight. Doing 2 different systems and then swapping from one to the other would be my definition of gap filling.



I have to say, LFJ has a good point about not _blending_ contradictory systems. That can lead to real problems in which neither art is effective.  

That said, I think you _can _effectively go from one mode to another without constantly mixing the two, but you have to be skilled at  the art of _transition_. So you don't just switch from one modality to another, but flow seamlessly back and forth as necessary. To achieve that you have to go beyond mere competency in each separate art and explore how each one can set up and flow into the other. If you are too rigid in your thinking about each art, I don't think that is going to happen.

Wang Zhi-Peng  practices the same lineage, WSL-VT, that LFJ does and IMO does a pretty good job at making those _transitions_. Of course it's a demo on a student. Fighting always looks different.


----------



## geezer

An example taken from nature as to why _blending_ sharply different systems can be harmful: Mule deer living on rugged western terrain are very effective at escaping predators through a form of locomotion called _stotting_.

Stotting is a form of jumping locomotion that enables mule deer to quickly traverse rough and uneven terrain with a bouncing, pogo stick-like action that makes them very difficult to catch, especially on rocky slopes too uneven to allow for conventional running.

White-tail deer by contrast favor less rugged terrain and effectively run rather than stot to escape predators.

Hybrids of white-tails and muleys instinctively tend to_ blend _running and stotting. The resulting blended form of locomotion is not as effective as either of the pure forms, and in previous eras hybrids were rare since they were quickly eliminated from the gene pool by natural predators such as wolves, coyotes and mountain lions.

In modern times, with the reduction or elimination of natural predation, herds are typically culled by licensed and controlled human hunting with firearms and bows. The efficiency of modern hunting methods is little affected by these different methods of locomotion employed by deer, so hybrids with their inefficient blend of running and stotting are increasing, resulting in a deer population that is more vulnerable to natural predation.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-H-lMzzt_A18/VfOnH0cb1qI/AAAAAAAAAi8/25Mhv1U3UUM/s1600/stottingdeer.jpg

Two lessons here for the martial artist;

1. Beware of indiscriminate blending of incompatible methods.

2. Without actual testing (like predators culling the herd) weird and ineffective methods proliferate!


----------



## Martial D

drop bear said:


> Doesn't mean you couldn't either. If you ever truly integrated striking and grappling you have to.
> 
> If you ever wanted to get truly good. You have to integrate them.


Great point. If you can't execute BJJ throws from trapping range, or use your VT from the ground, you still have some holes.


----------



## LFJ

drop bear said:


> You don't actually stand up fight and ground fight. It is all an aspect of fighting.



I do.

Stand-up and ground are entirely distinct situations, and it's not easy to go from one to the other at will, the way distance can be managed to and from long- and short-range striking.

So, VT stand-up and BJJ ground do not interfere with eachother.

Two contradictory stand-up striking methods would.



> Just like you don't long range fight and then switch systems and short range fight.



I don't, but some "Wing Chun Boxers" do.



> Doing 2 different systems and then swapping from one to the other would be my definition of gap filling.



It is only gap-filling if there is a gap to be filled, as in a stand-up striking method neglecting to address obviously essential ranges of stand-up striking.

VT has no gaps in what it was designed for, just like BJJ. To have skill in both would be intelligent cross-training to be able to deal with the two distinct situations of stand-up and ground.


----------



## Martial D

Martial D said:


> Great point. If you can't execute BJJ throws from trapping range, or use your VT from the ground, you still have some holes.


@LFJ 
What's funny about that? Do you disagree that standing grappling skills and ground striking skills are aspects of combat? And that lacking training in these aspects constitutes a hole in your game?


----------



## LFJ

Martial D said:


> Do you disagree that standing grappling skills and ground striking skills are aspects of combat? And that lacking training in these aspects constitutes a hole in your game?



No groundfighting doesn't constitue a hole in VT because VT is only stand-up striking.

A hole in a stand-up striking method would be something like lacking long-range, which is an essential part of stand-up striking.

VT is whole for stand-up striking.
BJJ is whole for groundfighting.

Putting them together doesn't contradict anything because they opperate under very distinct circumstances without interference, and one is not filling a hole in the other.


----------



## Phobius

LFJ said:


> No groundfighting doesn't constitue a hole in VT because VT is only stand-up striking.
> 
> A hole in a stand-up striking method would be something like lacking long-range, which is an essential part of stand-up striking.
> 
> VT is whole for stand-up striking.
> BJJ is whole for groundfighting.
> 
> Putting them together doesn't contradict anything because they opperate under very distinct circumstances without interference, and one is not filling a hole in the other.



It is besides the point but I think people are more questioning the stand-up grappling versus stand up VT, same as on ground fighting versus on ground grappling. Although the later I think is non existent in VT. WT has some versions of it that are questionable not because they are out of this place but because no matter how right they would be if people dont know ground game they will never be able to pressure test it and as such use it in any real life situation.


----------



## geezer

Phobius said:


> WT has some versions of it that are questionable not because they are out of this place but because no matter how right they would be if people don't know ground game they will never be able to pressure test it and as such use it in any real life situation.



I find your comments a bit confusing. Why can't you pressure test WT "anti-grappling". I have. Unfortunately, the results were, for the most part disappointing when put up against good grappling.

...or is _that_ your point, in which case we agree. BTW, the authors of that anti-grappling program, the EWTO is now brining in legit grapplers to offer a ground-fighting program. That sounds like a good move to me.

@LFJ: Your definition of what is a "complete" system strikes me as highly subjective. You say WSL-VT is a complete  stand-up striking system, and that it includes both long and short range strategies. It is complete or incomplete _only as you define it._  And that's fine by me as long as you recognize what you are doing.


----------



## Phobius

geezer said:


> I find your comments a bit confusing. Why can't you pressure test WT "anti-grappling". I have. Unfortunately, the results were, for the most part disappointing when put up against good grappling.
> 
> ...or is _that_ your point, in which case we agree. BTW, the authors of that anti-grappling program, the EWTO is now brining in legit grapplers to offer a ground-fighting program. That sounds like a good move to me.
> 
> @LFJ: Your definition of what is a "complete" system strikes me as highly subjective. You say WSL-VT is a complete  stand-up striking system, and that it includes both long and short range strategies. It is complete or incomplete _only as you define it._  And that's fine by me as long as you recognize what you are doing.



Not saying the program is bad. Saying the flaw lies in first having to teach grappling in order to train the students correctly.

It is not good enough that masters can it.

In order to teach grappling it is better to teach something like BJJ. In that case you already get a ground game in that.

For WC to invent wight distribution and balance in new and old takedowns as well as grappling positions on ground it becomes a big program in itself.

Once more not saying it won't work but I personally found it better to study BJJ right away.

Edit: terrible reading comprehension on my part. I think we were agreeing on what I tried to say.


----------



## anerlich

I actually learned the kick to the leading leg / stand up in base Gracie JJ defence first from a Kung Fu guy in the late 1970s. Also from my current instructor in late 1980s.

The aim of what groundfighting there is in most KF systems is to keep the opponent away and create enough space to stand up again without getting hammered. And maybe get a few shots in from down there if the other guy does something stupid.Not to take them down or beat them on the ground. 

There are KF systems with more extensive ground games, but they are rarer than hens' teeth.


----------



## drop bear

LFJ said:


> I do.
> 
> Stand-up and ground are entirely distinct situations, and it's not easy to go from one to the other at will, the way distance can be managed to and from long- and short-range striking.
> 
> So, VT stand-up and BJJ ground do not interfere with eachother.
> 
> Two contradictory stand-up striking methods would.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't, but some "Wing Chun Boxers" do.
> 
> 
> 
> It is only gap-filling if there is a gap to be filled, as in a stand-up striking method neglecting to address obviously essential ranges of stand-up striking.
> 
> VT has no gaps in what it was designed for, just like BJJ. To have skill in both would be intelligent cross-training to be able to deal with the two distinct situations of stand-up and ground.



Sorry I realise you do. I am saying if you wanted a complete system you shouldn't. When you get good enough at BJJ. you will realise it gap fills its incomplete system and considers it a neccecery part of its expansion.

If VT had no gaps then it would dominate the striking landscape.

It doesn't.

If VT was the most efficient striking system it would dominate the striking landscape.

It doesn't.

And you refuse to address that. Your solution is to shut yourself down from external influence and hope that tournements will provide the necessary exposure.

It will untill it doesn't.

Then you will either hit a plateau. And have to mouth box more about efficiency while ignoring the real problem of stagnancy. Or adapt new concepts into your system.

If those concepts are BJJ that is fine. If it helps you sleep at night that you haven't just gap filled an entire segment of your incomplete system. Also fine.

But this thread is not about VT and its inability to compete on a level playing field with better designed and more well rounded systems.

This thead is about using any and all concepts to make WC better and more well rounded So that unlike VT it can hold its own on a level playing field with other systems.

And to do that takes exposure to new concepts and gap filling of short comings. None of which you at this point are capable of processing.

Take it away Frank Dux.


----------



## drop bear

Judo for BJJ.






Gap filling at its finest.


----------



## anerlich

I agree, BJJ is festooned with filled gaps, and recognises there are more yet to fill. Which is one reason why it remains effective and continues to evolve.

Recognising that such gaps exist in any art is one step towards enlightenment


----------



## Martial D

LFJ said:


> VT is whole for stand-up striking.
> BJJ is whole for groundfighting.


So in your world, you can have a complete game without learning how to strike from the ground and grapple from the feet? These are just things you can ignore?


----------



## geezer

anerlich said:


> I agree, BJJ is *festooned* with filled gaps, and recognises there are more yet to fill. Which is one reason why it remains effective and continues to evolve.
> 
> Recognising that such gaps exist in any art is one step towards enlightenment



_
Festooned! _   ...Anyway, looks like there's no self-deception for you. From being open and honest about weaknesses comes the ability to grow stronger. I totally get it. .....Now if only _LFJ_ ...oh forget about it.


----------



## Juany118

geezer said:


> I have to say, LFJ has a good point about not _blending_ contradictory systems. That can lead to real problems in which neither art is effective.
> 
> That said, I think you _can _effectively go from one mode to another without constantly mixing the two, but you have to be skilled at  the art of _transition_.



And the art you use can make transitions easier.  While the bridging is technically different, the overall concept behind how you bridge (never meeting force with force) is very similar between the WC and the Aikido lineage I studied.  Add in the fact that TWC is very fond of trapping... and it doesn't take a whole lot to transition from a _lap_ which is supposed to be temporary to a legitimate control/lock.  It also is very easy to go from a _gum _to a _lap_ or maybe it was just for me.

My first Asian Martial Arts training was a good foundation in Yoshinkan Aikido and then some Judo. When I started studying WC one of the biggest struggles I had was adapting to NOT grabbing a wrist when I was doing drills involving _gum sau. _So maybe starting with grappling first and then going to WC made it easier for me to connect the dots between the two because I was repeatedly finding points of transition as I would start to revert to the muscle memory I already had.  I think it also helped that unlike some instructors I have seen my Sifu doesn't like resets.  He believes that, even in a drill you train like you fight, so if you mess up in a drill (as I did) he wanted you to continue on.  If that means your partner has to adapt, well then you both learned something.  Since I was allowed to experience these mistakes and, not simply "reset", I was able to "file" these transition points for future use.


----------



## LFJ

drop bear said:


> If VT had no gaps then it would dominate the striking landscape.
> 
> It doesn't.
> 
> If VT was the most efficient striking system it would dominate the striking landscape.
> 
> It doesn't.



Your logic is flawed because VT is not a well-known system by any stretch. It's not to be expected that it would "dominate" any landscape.

Wing Chun practioners in general are already a tiny portion of the world MA population, WSLVT even smaller, and good WSLVT extremely rare in proportion to the entire MA landscape.

So, your requirements are unrealistic and illogical.



> better designed and more well rounded systems.



You know nothing about the VT system to make this judgement.



> unlike VT it can hold its own on a level playing field with other systems.



Again, you are style-bashing while having no knowledge or experience to actually judge how well VT functions.

This just amounts to trolling. If you were honest you'd either educate yourself on the system you're bashing, or admit you don't know enough to say anything about it.


----------



## geezer

LFJ said:


> Your logic is flawed because VT is not a well-known system ... good WSLVT extremely rare in proportion to the entire MA landscape.So, your requirements are unrealistic and illogical. *You know nothing* about the VT system to make this judgement.
> Again, *you are style-bashing* while having no knowledge or experience to actually judge how well VT functions.
> *This just amounts to trolling*. If you were *honest* you'd either educate yourself on the system you're *bashing*, or admit you don't know enough to say anything about it.



Allow me to paraphrase the post quoted above:
_
Drop Bear, you ignorant clod.... you dishonest, style bashing troll, good WSL-VT is so rare that you cannot judge it.
...Now if you're talking negatively about that low-class "broken" WC stuff guys like ...Geezer and the rest of those benighted clowns do, you are probably righ_t.

...or how about this:





...And LFJ doesn't understand why people resent his honest, well meant criticism. After all, he's just trying to help educate us.


----------



## Martial D

LFJ said:


> Your logic is flawed because VT is not a well-known system by any stretch. It's not to be expected that it would "dominate" any landscape.
> 
> Wing Chun practioners in general are already a tiny portion of the world MA population, WSLVT even smaller, and good WSLVT extremely rare in proportion to the entire MA landscape.
> 
> So, your requirements are unrealistic and illogical.
> 
> 
> 
> You know nothing about the VT system to make this judgement.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you are style-bashing while having no knowledge or experience to actually judge how well VT functions.
> 
> This just amounts to trolling. If you were honest you'd either educate yourself on the system you're bashing, or admit you don't know enough to say anything about it.


No, DB has a solid point. In the 90s when mixed style tournaments got popular(UFC etc) everyone and their dog came out of the woodwork to show their style was best.

And there was of course a cold and merciless reconing, for as it turns out the alive beast that is combat doesn't care about anyone's feelings or if what it does is considered 'style bashing'.

If wslvt was indeed viable, it would have been demonstrated between then and now. That it hasn't is worth more than a lifetime worth of excuses.


----------



## drop bear

geezer said:


> :
> 
> ...And LFJ doesn't understand why people resent his honest, well meant criticism. After all, he's just trying to help educate us.



So is wespro.

No really that is their intent.


----------



## LFJ

Martial D said:


> If wslvt was indeed viable, it would have been demonstrated between then and now.



Demonstrated to whom? The UFC audience? And just why do you say that?

There are thousands of styles from rural areas in China that are "viable" but virtually unknown to the western world.

Just because they are not widely practiced and don't have competitors in UFC doesn't mean you are justified in saying their aren't viable fighting methods.

You don't have to believe they are before you see them, but to judge them with 0 knowledge or experience is just ignorant and arrogant.


----------



## drop bear

LFJ said:


> Your logic is flawed because VT is not a well-known system by any stretch. It's not to be expected that it would "dominate" any landscape.
> 
> Wing Chun practioners in general are already a tiny portion of the world MA population, WSLVT even smaller, and good WSLVT extremely rare in proportion to the entire MA landscape.
> 
> So, your requirements are unrealistic and illogical.
> 
> 
> 
> You know nothing about the VT system to make this judgement.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you are style-bashing while having no knowledge or experience to actually judge how well VT functions.
> 
> This just amounts to trolling. If you were honest you'd either educate yourself on the system you're bashing, or admit you don't know enough to say anything about it.



Ok. here is where we unflaw my logic.

This is Josh barnet. He does a pretty well unheard of style called catch wrestling. Done by a tiny portion of the martial arts world. The reason anyone even cares about him is because he dominates in wrestling. 

(Or at least up there enough for people to take notice)

An obscure art is not an excuse for not being able to effectively use your system.






I dont know much about catch wrestling. But I do know someone somwhere can make it work. 

That is just a basic observation. I dont have to be versed in a system to objectively determine its success.


----------



## LFJ

drop bear said:


> An obscure art is not an excuse for not being able to effectively use your system.



So, if a style doesn't have a sport fighter succesfully using it in competiton, you are then justified in saying it doesn't work, even if you've never seen it?

Your logic has not been unflawed. It's just becoming more arrogant.



> I dont have to be versed in a system to objectively determine its success.



...in sport fighting only.


----------



## drop bear

LFJ said:


> So, if a style doesn't have a sport fighter succesfully using it in competiton, you are then justified in saying it doesn't work, even if you've never seen it?
> 
> Your logic has not been unflawed. It's just becoming more arrogant.
> 
> 
> 
> ...in sport fighting only.


If it has no real record of it working anywhere. I am going to go with the theory it doesn't work. I am happy to be persuaded it does work. But I think there should be evidence of it working before I come to that conclusion.

 I dont think I should have to train every style forever to determine if something works or not. That is just a backwards way of going about things.


Ok. And why did you choose to cross train in BJJ and not some obscure grappling system?


----------



## LFJ

drop bear said:


> If it has no real record of it working anywhere. I am going to go with the theory it doesn't work.



Besides the fact that it does, you have taken on a burden of proof to show that it doesn't work if you want to make that claim.

But since you know nothing about VT, the correct stance to take would be agnostic.



> I am happy to be persuaded it does work. But I think there should be evidence of it working before I come to that conclusion.



There should also be evidence that it doesn't work before you come to that conclusion. Otherwise you are just showing bias and arrogance.



> I dont think I should have to train every style forever to determine if something works or not. That is just a backwards way of going about things.



I agree, but you must know _something _about how it functions, or doesn't.



> Ok. And why did you choose to cross train in BJJ and not some obscure grappling system?



I don't choose styles based on popularity. Usually interest and availability, some times chance.


----------



## anerlich

LFJ said:


> There should also be evidence that it doesn't work before you come to that conclusion. Otherwise you are just showing bias and arrogance.



Does that apply to your posts about TWC and my pal's fight as well?


----------



## LFJ

anerlich said:


> Does that apply to your posts about TWC and my pal's fight as well?



Yes.


----------



## anerlich

Agreed.


----------



## LFJ

anerlich said:


> Agreed.



So, what's your point?

I never said TWC doesn't work. 

I was expecting you to meet your burden of proof that that fight demonstrates that TWC works.

I think you were having a quite emotional reaction.


----------



## anerlich

LFJ said:


> I was expecting you to meet your burden of proof that that fight demonstrates that TWC works.



I feel no burden to demonstrate anything, or to meet your expectations.



LFJ said:


> I think you were having a quite emotional reaction.



Really? How fascinating.


----------



## anerlich

I spent a couple of hours today gap filling my Wing Chun (no gi BJJ at lunchtime, followed by a mid winter swim at Freshwater Beach - global warming is real).

I just wanted to say that on here.


----------



## anerlich

LFJ said:


> I never said TWC doesn't work.



Duly noted. I get the feeling I may feel a need to remind you of this at a time in the near future.


----------



## LFJ

anerlich said:


> I feel no burden to demonstrate anything, or to meet your expectations.



So, why make the claim in the first place? 

You were in the middle of crapping on WSLVT and wanted to show me that TWC works by citing a fight you can't show had TWC in it. Just looks silly.


----------



## anerlich

LFJ said:


> So, why make the claim in the first place?
> 
> You were in the middle of crapping on WSLVT and wanted to show me that TWC works by citing a fight you can't show had TWC in it. Just looks silly.



I claimed a student from my organisation (which trains in TWC, BJJ, etc.) won an MMA fight. Not that TWC won an MMA fight.

Sorry if I was crapping on WSLVT. Was I? I thought I was crapping on you.

I concede I made some unflattering remarks about overconceptualising and mentioning PBWSLVT.

After you crapped on my Patrick McCarthy quote and made all sorts of intelligent remarks about ball grabbing.

You behaved well and I behaved badly, huh?

Look him up, the guy is an awesome karate technician and historian and knows his sh*t backwards. Pretty amazing JJJ as well.

I apologise unreservedly for my insutls toward PBWSLVT. God, will I be able to sleep tonight? Will I ever be able to live with myself again?

Others can make their own judgements about which one of us might look the sillier after the discussion about that fight.


----------



## LFJ

anerlich said:


> I claimed a student from my organisation (which trains in TWC, BJJ, etc.) won an MMA fight. Not that TWC won an MMA fight.



You only said your "_si-dai_" (WC term) won an MMA fight to then say your stuff works while contrasting application-based TWC with "over-conceptualized" VT.

It would be pointless (irrelevant) to tell us that BJJ works in the context of that discussion.

Of course you wanted to cite your _si-dai_'s fight and tally one for TWC.

It would be cool to see if he used any TWC in his fight, but unfortunately there's no video and the only photos you shared show non-TWC, and he won it with BJJ.


----------



## anerlich

drop bear said:


> I dont know much about catch wrestling. But I do know someone somewhere can make it work.



I'm playing around with some catch stuff with one of my BJJ training buds at the moment. He got a lot of stuff from an recent Erik Paulson seminar. There's some brutal stuff in there.

There's some BJJ gaps that it can do a great job of gap-filling for.


----------



## anerlich

LFJ said:


> while contrasting application-based TWC with "over-conceptualized" VT.



Actually, I just pi$$ed on "over-conceptualized" VT, and I wasn't being altogether serious. I made no comparisons with application based styles. To call TWC an application-based style is inaccurate, in any case. To say such a thing would be display bias and arrogance. Just as well no one on this forum is like that.



LFJ said:


> he won it



Yes! he did!

I'm going to stop know. I need to think more about gap filling, using complementary arts, and the similarities and differences between the two approaches.


----------



## LFJ

anerlich said:


> To call TWC an application-based style is inaccurate, in any case.



Except for the case in which TWC stands for Traditional Wing Chun.

It's almost nothing but applications against the one arm to and on the blindside.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> Besides the fact that it does, you have taken on a burden of proof to show that it doesn't work if you want to make that claim.
> 
> 
> There should also be evidence that it doesn't work before you come to that conclusion. Otherwise you are just showing bias and arrogance.
> .



Actually....if we want to be all "scientific" about things.....in science many theories and experiments work by having a hypothesis, assuming its wrong, and doing an experiment to see what happens.  Statistically you look for deviations from the norm...the norm typically being that it doesn't work, and you are looking for evidence that it does!     So the best view to take is that something doesn't work until you are pleasantly surprised by finding out that it does.  This is how you help reduce study bias in an experiment.  And the burden of proof in many situations outside of science is on the person saying something DOES work, not the person doubting that person's claim that it works!


----------



## anerlich

LFJ said:


> Except for the case in which TWC stands for Traditional Wing Chun.
> 
> It's almost nothing but applications against the one arm to and on the blindside.



But you never said it doesn't work, right?


----------



## Martial D

Fellas, fellas...can we just agree that all variations of Wing Chun don't work equally? 

(Kidding of course. Any style of WC can probably work. If you are already in trapping range. And if your opponent has no standing grappling game.)


----------



## anerlich

Of course they work equally up to that point.

The pivotal factor after that is whether you are gap filling, or supplementing what you are doing with a complementary art.

After listening to the various inputs on this, I'm coming around to thinking gap filling is superior, even after all those years in Jiu Jitsu.

The gap fillers are coming to kick your butt.

Covfefe


----------



## drop bear

LFJ said:


> Besides the fact that it does, you have taken on a burden of proof to show that it doesn't work if you want to make that claim.
> 
> But since you know nothing about VT, the correct stance to take would be agnostic.
> 
> 
> 
> There should also be evidence that it doesn't work before you come to that conclusion. Otherwise you are just showing bias and arrogance.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, but you must know _something _about how it functions, or doesn't.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't choose styles based on popularity. Usually interest and availability, some times chance.



No. There doesnt have to be evidence it doesn't work. I can just say there is no evidence that it does work.

Are there men on mars? Well there is no evidence of them being there. I dont have to prove they are not there. Or even go to mars. I am going to assume there are no men on mars untill someone proves there is.

Otherwise you have told me how VT functions. which is basically differently to how martial arts that do work function. To the point it is incompatible with systems that do work.

So we have a system that does not follow methods of succesful systems. We have a system that cannot integrate succesful methods. And we have a system does not seem to be succesful anywhere.

The idea that it doesnt work is not a great leap of imagination. Sorry. You can dance around some obscure possibility that it really does work using unconventional methods that work in a way nobody can mesure. But I am at this point untill evidence sways me otherwise go with the more likley possibility.

I mean before you invested time in BJJ you looked at a system that objectively worked. Then you invest time in understanding that system.

I don't believe you just picked a system at random to integrate.

This is why people pick arts like boxing to gap fill. Because before they invest time and effort in understanding the system they know it works.


----------



## geezer

drop bear said:


> ...Otherwise* you have told* me how VT functions. which is basically differently to how martial arts that do work function. To the point it is incompatible with systems that do work. So we have a system that does not follow methods of succesful systems. We have a system that cannot integrate successful methods. And we have a system does not seem to be successful anywhere.



Drop Bear -- I would maintain that there _is_ evidence that VT/WT/WC does work as a stand-up self defense system, and that elements of VT/WC/WT, with the right coaches, the right students, and the right training methods, _can contribute _to an MMA fighter's repertoire.

My evidence is meager, because very few WC/VT/WT groups train for MMA with, as stated above, effective coaches and a appropriate training regimen (including a lot of "gap filling" ). Even so, Anerlich and Lobo66 have provided us with examples. And, of course there are the efforts of guys like Alan Orr. All in all, enough to suggest that the potential is there.

So perhaps it is wise to distinguish between the uncompromising position LFJ stakes out and what others in the WC/VT community are saying. Including others in LFJ's own WSL-VT community. I am not certain that he speaks for all of them on this issue.

Maybe some other WSL-VT folks would care to weigh in?


----------



## LFJ

anerlich said:


> But you never said it doesn't work, right?



Though, I have very strong doubts that the applications are realistic, and there's no evidence that they work.

Following KPM's "scientific" method, I should say it doesn't work. But, I'm fine with just saying I don't believe it.



KPM said:


> the burden of proof in many situations outside of science is on the person saying something DOES work, not the person doubting that person's claim that it works!



You aren't just doubting.
You're stating that it does not work.

The burden of proof is on anyone making a claim, whether positive or negative.

If you don't want to take on a burden of proof you will neither claim that it does or does not work.

You will say that you accept neither claim.



drop bear said:


> we have a system does not seem to be succesful anywhere.



Except where it does and you ignore it.

You cannot refuse to examine evidence and then claim there is none. That's just covering your eyes and ears and saying nanna nanna nanna!


----------



## Juany118

LFJ said:


> Though, I have very strong doubts that the applications are realistic, and there's no evidence that they work.
> 
> Following KPM's "scientific" method, I should say it doesn't work. But, I'm fine with just saying I don't believe it.



Well, if/when we get body cameras I will inevitably be able to show it does work (beyond my existing statements it works based on my personal experience) if granted permission to make a a copy.


----------



## drop bear

geezer said:


> Drop Bear -- I would maintain that there _is_ evidence that VT/WT/WC does work as a stand-up self defense system, and that elements of VT/WC/WT, with the right coaches, the right students, and the right training methods, _can contribute _to an MMA fighter's repertoire.
> 
> My evidence is meager, because very few WC/VT/WT groups train for MMA with, as stated above, effective coaches and a appropriate training regimen (including a lot of "gap filling" ). Even so, Anerlich and Lobo66 have provided us with examples. And, of course there are the efforts of guys like Alan Orr. All in all, enough to suggest that the potential is there.
> 
> So perhaps it is wise to distinguish between the uncompromising position LFJ stakes out and what others in the WC/VT community are saying. Including others in LFJ's own WSL-VT community. I am not certain that he speaks for all of them on this issue.
> 
> Maybe some other WSL-VT folks would care to weigh in?


I haven't seen many fights using the VT. It would be interesting to see how they are faring. But if there is evidence then there is evidence. I dont have a problem with that. 

Is there evidence that gap filling with boxing breaks VT? I find that kind of silly.


----------



## LFJ

drop bear said:


> Is there evidence that gap filling with boxing breaks VT? I find that kind of silly.



Based on what knowledge or experience of what makes VT function and what breaks it would you find it silly?

A more unbiased statement would be; 
"_I can't imagine how that would happen._"


----------



## drop bear

LFJ said:


> Based on what knowledge or experience of what makes VT function and what breaks it would you find it silly?
> 
> A more unbiased statement would be;
> "_I can't imagine how that would happen._"



Thank you captain tact.

If we look at combat sports we find that regardless of the style people tend to become pretty generic.

Ultimately there are concepts that work and people tend to gravitate towards those concepts when the outcome is important. Similar movement, power generation. That kind of thing.

We have seen guys like Alan Orr functionally use their system. And from my experience they are doing some pretty generic MMA. Which makes sense if he wants to win fights.

As we move further away from functionality we get more esoteric in application.

You have claimed functionality along side esoteric concepts. Without any real evidence that it is possible. That seems silly.

Now you are also suggesting you can combine esoteric striking with functional grappling. But you can't combine esoteric striking with functional striking. That seems silly.

You see my experience is with fighting in general. Non style specific concepts. And combining styles to increase their functionality. That is basically what I do. 

Now my view is if you have something that works. You will see it in other things that work.

Your rational is unique to say the least. And I was wondering if it was shared by other VT guys.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> I haven't seen many fights using the VT.


Here is a nice WC chain punches used in MMA.


----------



## drop bear

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Here is a nice WC chain punches used in MMA.



Yes MMA does.VT better.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> You aren't just doubting.
> You're stating that it does not work.
> 
> The burden of proof is on anyone making a claim, whether positive or negative.
> 
> If you don't want to take on a burden of proof you will neither claim that it does or does not work.
> 
> You will say that you accept neither claim.



Wrong.  Scientists are by nature skeptics.  So, again, if you really want to take a "scientific approach", you are skeptical about success stories.  So the "scientific" approach would be to assume the "null hypothesis"....that it doesn't work....until evidence suggests otherwise.  Andrew suggested that his version of TWC works in an MMA setting and provided  photographic evidence of a fighter trained in one of their gyms having his hand raised in victory at the end of the fight.  That is evidence suggesting that  TWC works.  You were just upset because he didn't provide the details of the experiment (video of the fight), but that does not negate the evidence that he provided.


----------



## LFJ

drop bear said:


> You have claimed functionality along side esoteric concepts. Without any real evidence that it is possible. That seems silly.



I have not. There is nothing esoteric about it, and there is evidence of its functionality.



> Now you are also suggesting you can combine esoteric striking with functional grappling. But you can't combine esoteric striking with functional striking. That seems silly.



Nothing esoteric about it. Also nothing silly about contradictory striking strategies and tactics interfering with each other.

What's silly is making judgments on something you have no knowledge or experience with. You are just guessing. My question is why such the strong bias?


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> Scientists are by nature skeptics.



And the skeptic position on the proposal that "VT works" is to not accept the proposition.

It is not to assert the opposite, that "VT doesn't work". If you do so, you are making a claim and assuming a burden of proof.



> So the "scientific" approach would be to assume the "null hypothesis"....that it doesn't work....until evidence suggests otherwise.



There is an important distinction to be made between rejecting the proposal and asserting its opposite.

If a proposal is made saying the number of gumballs in a jar is odd, the skeptic position, the null hypothesis, is to not believe that to be true.

But, not believing the claim that the number is odd is _not_ asserting that the number is even. It's just saying "I don't believe you". It is possible to not believe either claim. That is the neutral position.

That's my stance on TWC. I'm not saying it doesn't work. I just doubt that it does.

You guys who are making the claim that "VT doesn't work" have assumed a burden of proof, because your position is not neutral.



> Andrew suggested that his version of TWC works in an MMA setting and provided  photographic evidence of a fighter trained in one of their gyms having his hand raised in victory at the end of the fight.  That is evidence suggesting that  TWC works.



lol

No, it is not. Having his hand raised says nothing about what he used to fight.

Photographic evidence shows non-TWC striking methods and non-TWC grappling. The fight finisher was also a BJJ technique after fighting on the ground, which we know Cheung couldn't do.

It was said the guy trains kickboxing and BJJ for competition, and that's what photographic evidence shows. No TWC anywhere.

We know TWC was not used to finish the fight or leading up to it. Takedown, ground fight, RNC finisher all BJJ.

If you want to make the claim that TWC was used in the fight at all, you'll have to show something more.


----------



## Nobody Important

FWIW, the RNC isn't exclusive to BJJ (in YCWWC it is found in Chum Kiu). I can't speak for TWC, but it is a technique found in some Wing Chun branches, as well as, some other TCMAs.


----------



## drop bear

LFJ said:


> I have not. There is nothing esoteric about it, and there is evidence of its functionality.
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing esoteric about it. Also nothing silly about contradictory striking strategies and tactics interfering with each other.
> 
> What's silly is making judgments on something you have no knowledge or experience with. You are just guessing. My question is why such the strong bias?



You know what esoteric means don't you?


----------



## KPM

*And the skeptic position on the proposal that "VT works" is to not accept the proposition.  It is not to assert the opposite, that "VT doesn't work". If you do so, you are making a claim and assuming a burden of proof.*

---No.  You have suggested that VT is a superior method and essentially the next best thing to sliced bread.  You have suggested that VT is different from everyone else's Wing Chun and works far better.  You can deny this all you want, but this is the under-current in practically every thread you participate in.  So the skeptic's position is to  assume you are wrong and that VT doesn't work any better than anyone else's Wing Chun....that it isn't as different and superior as you claim.  And the burden of proof is then on you to show that your claims are true.


*There is an important distinction to be made between rejecting the proposal and asserting its opposite.*

---In this case, rejecting the proposal is to assume the opposite.  If the proposal is that it works, then to reject that proposal is to assume it doesn't.  Taking a neutral stance is just not dealing with the proposal.   Again, from a "scientific" standpoint you start with a null hypothesis....the idea that the proposal doesn't work.  Then you design an experiment that puts the proposal to the test stringently enough that if it bears itself out, no one will continue to assume that it doesn't work.  Taking a "neutral" position doesn't lead to good experimental design.


*If a proposal is made saying the number of gumballs in a jar is odd, the skeptic position, the null hypothesis, is to not believe that to be true.  But, not believing the claim that the number is odd is not asserting that the number is even. It's just saying "I don't believe you". It is possible to not believe either claim. That is the neutral position.*


---If you don't belief that the number of gumballs is odd, then what else could it be other than even???  You logic makes no sense!   Drop Bear's example is better.   If someone claims that the moon is made of green cheese, the skeptics position or "null hypothesis" is that it isn't made of green cheese.  Then you would set up an experiment to prove that it isn't.  To say "well, it may or may not be made of green cheese" is just to not take a position. 




*You guys who are making the claim that "VT doesn't work" have assumed a burden of proof, because your position is not neutral.*

---I've never made the claim that "VT doesn't work."  I've only doubted your claims that it is so different and so superior to everyone else's Wing Chun.


*
No, it is not. Having his hand raised says nothing about what he used to fight.*

---Again, your logic is faulty.  Andrew told us that his friend trains in a TWC gym that also teaches BJJ and MMA.  He has said that TWC training is a big part of what they do.  So he has noted the "inclusion criteria" for the experiment.  And he showed us the results....the fighter winning the bout.  While this proves nothing, this is indeed evidence suggesting that TWC works.  We don't know to what degree TWC was used and how well it works because Andrew did not provide the details of the experiment (fight video), but from what he did provide, we can say that it suggests that TWC works. 


*Photographic evidence shows non-TWC striking methods and non-TWC grappling. The fight finisher was also a BJJ technique after fighting on the ground, which we know Cheung couldn't do. It was said the guy trains kickboxing and BJJ for competition, and that's what photographic evidence shows. No TWC anywhere.*

---This is rich!  Weren't you the guy that went into an extensive argument to say that a video showing one of Sean's fighters using high covers, and ducks and weaves was "pure WSLVT" straight out of the Bui Jee form?  And when it was pointed out that what he was doing looked far more like western boxing than WSLVT you argued that it was the concepts that counted and not the physical way they were applied???  And when it pointed out that Sean's guys cross-trained in MMA as well as doing WSLVT you ignored that point and stuck to your argument??  And yet now you are claiming....based a couple of still photos  and NOT video as  we had with Sean's clip....that Andrew's fighter couldn't possibly be using TWC????  



*If you want to make the claim that TWC was used in the fight at all, you'll have to show something more.*

---Ok.  Then following your argument and your logic, if you want to claim that clip of Sean's student sparring was "pure WSLVT", then you are going to have to show something more as well.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> So the skeptic's position is to  assume you are wrong and that VT doesn't work any better than anyone else's Wing Chun



No, it is not. It is simply to not accept the claim and to assume nothing until having sufficient evidence to justify belief one way or the other.



> ---In this case, rejecting the proposal is to assume the opposite.



No, it is not. It is simply to not accept the claim and to assume nothing until having sufficient evidence to justify belief one way or the other.



> ---If you don't belief that the number of gumballs is odd, then what else could it be other than even???  You logic makes no sense!



It can only be odd or even. But, if I have no way of knowing which it is, I will neither believe the person who tells me it's odd, nor the person who tells me it's even.

The proper skeptic position is to not accept either claim until there's sufficient evidence to support one of them. Otherwise I'm just guessing, and if I go with one, I have assumed a burden of proof.



> ---I've never made the claim that "VT doesn't work."



You literally just did in this same post telling me you reject the claim that it works, and that this means you're going with the idea that it doesn't.



> So he has noted the "inclusion criteria" for the experiment.  And he showed us the results....the fighter winning the bout.  While this proves nothing, this is indeed evidence suggesting that TWC works.



No, it is not. That the guy also trains TWC is not even evidence that TWC was used in the fight, much less successfully.



> We don't know to what degree TWC was used and how well it works because Andrew did not provide the details of the experiment (fight video), but from what he did provide, we can say that it suggests that TWC works.



Not if you don't know to what degree it was used. You can't call it evidence that TWC works if it's possible that it was not used to any degree.



> Weren't you the guy that went into an extensive argument to say that a video showing one of Sean's fighters using high covers, and ducks and weaves was "pure WSLVT" straight out of the Bui Jee form?



Yes, I was that guy.



> And when it was pointed out that what he was doing looked far more like western boxing than WSLVT you argued that it was the concepts that counted and not the physical way they were applied???



No. I said you just don't know what WSLVT looks like or how it functions.



> And when it pointed out that Sean's guys cross-trained in MMA as well as doing WSLVT you ignored that point and stuck to your argument??



I acknowledged that but stood by my statement because it's true.



> And yet now you are claiming....based a couple of still photos  and NOT video as  we had with Sean's clip....that Andrew's fighter couldn't possibly be using TWC????



No. I didn't say couldn't possibly.

I said we know the fight wasn't won with TWC, because it was by double-leg, groundwork, and RNC, and the only bit of evidence we have of the striking method used is a still image showing non-TWC.

So, if you want to say TWC was used at all, you'll have to actually show TWC in the fight.



> ---Ok.  Then following your argument and your logic, if you want to claim that clip of Sean's student sparring was "pure WSLVT", then you are going to have to show something more as well.



That's not following my logic at all.

You have not shown me TWC in the fight at all.

I showed you VT in a sparring bout, and you just didn't believe it was VT.

I don't need to show you anything else. You just need to learn more about VT if you want to tell me what it is or isn't.


----------



## KPM

*No, it is not. It is simply to not accept the claim and to assume nothing until having sufficient evidence to justify belief one way or the other.*


---And I'm telling you again that you are wrong.  That is not the best way to set up an experiment from a "scientific" standpoint.  I'll say again, a scientist is by nature a skeptic.  The skeptic assumes a proposition or hypothesis is untrue until proven otherwise. 


*It can only be odd or even. But, if I have no way of knowing which it is, I will neither believe the person who tells me it's odd, nor the person who tells me it's even.*

---If the person tells me its odd, then I assume he is wrong and set out to prove that it is not odd.  That's not exactly the same as assuming the answer is "even", but it is also not taking a neutral and undecided position.  As I  said, your example is not a very good one.  If someone says the moon is made out of green cheese, then I assume he is wrong and set out to prove that it is not made out of green cheese.  If I take soil samples and find no green cheese, then I prove that he is wrong.  I don't take a wishy-washy "wait and see" neutral position when I design the experiment.  However, if the purpose of the experiment is to just determine what the moon is actually made of, then I have an open-ended question and might design the experiment differently.  In the first instance I will have tests that will specifically look for any sign of green cheese.  In the second instance I will have many more general tests to get a general idea of what the soil is composed of.    You don't seem to know much about the scientific method.  Which is Ok.  Its just another one of the "rich" things....you trying to tell me I'm wrong about science.  That would be like me trying to tell you you are wrong about the Chinese language.  





*No, it is not. That the guy also trains TWC is not even evidence that TWC was used in the fight, much less successfully.*

---You can deny it all you want. But you are not using good logic.   Andrew gave you the pre-conditions and he gave you the results.  The results do not prove anything without knowing the details of the experiment.   But they do suggest that TWC works.  Simple logic, whether you choose to use it or not.



*Yes, I was that guy.*

---So you admit that you are inconsistent in your arguments??



*So, if you want to say TWC was used at all, you'll have to actually show TWC in the fight.*

---Andrew told us that TWC was used in the fight.  The fight was won.  That suggests (not proves) that TWC works.  Otherwise you are simply calling Andrew a liar.


*That's not following my logic at all.*

---Yes it is.   But I know you will argue with anything and very frequently just simply refuse to acknowledge or see someone else's points.  Your faulty logic should be clear to everyone.  So really no sense in continuing to bang my head against this wall.    You just go on believing whatever you want!


----------



## Martial D

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Here is a nice WC chain punches used in MMA.


Just because someone throws sequential straight shots while moving forward doesn't make it WC chain punches. Those are patently thrown from the shoulder boxing style. Vitor is a boxer.


----------



## Martial D

drop bear said:


> I haven't seen many fights using the VT. It would be interesting to see how they are faring. But if there is evidence then there is evidence.



That's just it, there's loads of evidence. There's tons of video of WC people doing full contact fighting and sparring. Tons.

...it just isn't very flattering.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> I'll say again, a scientist is by nature a skeptic.  The skeptic assumes a proposition or hypothesis is untrue until proven otherwise.



The skeptic position doesn't assert anything. It just doesn't accept claims without sufficient evidence, which would include the opposite of any proposition.

Science also never pronounces anything as "proven". Everything is tentative and open to revision if the evidence changes.

A scientist also doesn't ignore or refuse to examine evidence like you and DB.



> ---If the person tells me its odd, then I assume he is wrong and set out to prove that it is not odd.  That's not exactly the same as assuming the answer is "even", but it is also not taking a neutral and undecided position.



If you assume it's not odd and are not taking a neutral position, you are assuming it's even.

There are only two choices that are not neutral and undecided.

If you assume it's even because you don't believe the odd guy, then you have taken on a burden of proof just like him.

If you are a skeptic, you won't believe either of them, and the onus is on the person making the claim, not you.



> If someone says the moon is made out of green cheese, then I assume he is wrong and set out to prove that it is not made out of green cheese.  If I take soil samples and find no green cheese, then I prove that he is wrong.



Because you don't understand the burden of proof, you're going to take it upon yourself to take a spacetrip to the moon in search of green cheese. lol



> I don't take a wishy-washy "wait and see" neutral position when I design the experiment.



The onus is on the person making the extraordinary claim. The null hypothesis is meant to determine where the default position and burden of proof lie and avoid assuming an absurd negative burden.



> you trying to tell me I'm wrong about science.  That would be like me trying to tell you you are wrong about the Chinese language.



You're a scientist now? Takes a special kind of scientist to fly to the moon looking for green cheese! lol



> The results do not prove anything without knowing the details of the experiment.   But they do suggest that TWC works.



You have to prove TWC was used at all in the fight for it to suggest anything, not just that the guy also trains TWC.

Not having the details of the "experiment" is not having an experiment at all.

Coming up with a conclusion of an experiment you don't have is dishonest and biased.



> *Yes, I was that guy.*
> 
> ---So you admit that you are inconsistent in your arguments??



Not at all.

I said Sean's guy was doing VT because he was and showed it. You wouldn't accept it because you don't know VT and are very arrogant.

I said Andrew's guy may or may not have used TWC because it has not been shown at all, and you admit that it hasn't been shown.

There is no inconsistency here.



> ---Andrew told us that TWC was used in the fight.



Actually, he never outright said so.

But if he does, he needs to demonstrate that if he wishes to enter this fight as evidence for TWC's functionality.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> You have to prove TWC was used at all in the fight for it to suggest anything, not just that the guy also trains TWC.
> 
> Not having the details of the "experiment" is not having an experiment at all.
> 
> Coming up with a conclusion of an experiment you don't have is dishonest and biased.
> 
> 
> .



So you ARE calling Andrew a liar!!???


----------



## geezer

Martial D said:


> That's just it, there's loads of evidence. There's tons of video of WC people doing full contact fighting and sparring. Tons  ...it just isn't very flattering.



I have seen very few videos of experienced and well trained WC/WT/VT fighters. There are a few, and the results are mixed. On the other hand, I have seen a ton of videos _billed_ as WC vs this or that.

In most cases the "WC" guy is obviously untrained, inexperienced, and out of shape, and more often than not doesn't even seem to know WC ...or much of any other fighting system. It's almost like these guys watched the Ip Man movies and decided that's what they were _...magical, mystical, kung-fu masters_. Something about WC seems to attract delusional people living in a fantasy world not far removed from the no-touch knockout goofballs.

OK so what about the very few videos of guys who actually know some WC and are fit to fight? Some are indeed _unflattering_. Take the following examples: First a fight that resulted in a victory for the WC (WT branch) guy, Crnko, who actually got away with using the WT "antigrappling" tactic of punching to counter a clumsy attempt at a ...er "kinda-sorta" single leg. Skip to 1:45:






In a subsequent fight The same WT guy, Crnko, encounters a guy, Krapf who apparently knows some grappling, whereas the WT guy shows utter lack of grappling experience by giving his opponent his back and then getting quickly choked out. Skip to 3:00:






Near as I can find out, this ended Crnko's fighting career. Apparently he continued to teach WT and probably made a good deal more money teaching easily impressed non-fighters than he could have made fighting, even if he'd cross trained in grappling.

Moral of the story, if you want to fight, you gotta have a well rounded game. Also, if you want to get famous, it might help to have a _vowel _or two in your name!


----------



## Martial D

geezer said:


> I have seen very few videos of experienced and well trained WC/WT/VT fighters. There are a few, and the results are mixed. On the other hand, I have seen a ton of videos _billed_ as WC vs this or that.
> 
> In most cases the "WC" guy is obviously untrained, inexperienced, and out of shape, and more often than not doesn't even seem to know WC ...or much of any other fighting system. It's almost like these guys watched the Ip Man movies and decided that's what they were _...magical, mystical, kung-fu masters_. Something about WC seems to attract delusional people living in a fantasy world not far removed from the no-touch knockout goofballs.
> 
> OK so what about the very few videos of guys who actually know some WC and are fit to fight? Some are indeed _unflattering_. Take the following examples: First a fight that resulted in a victory for the WC (WT branch) guy, Crnko, who actually got away with using the WT "antigrappling" tactic of punching to counter a clumsy attempt at a ...er "kinda-sorta" single leg. Skip to 1:45:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a subsequent fight The same WT guy, Crnko, encounters a guy, Krapf who apparently knows some grappling, whereas the WT guy shows utter lack of grappling experience by giving his opponent his back and then getting quickly choked out. Skip to 3:00:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Near as I can find out, this ended Crnko's fighting career. Apparently he continued to teach WT and probably made a good deal more money teaching easily impressed non-fighters than he could have made fighting, even if he'd cross trained in grappling.
> 
> Moral of the story, if you want to fight, you gotta have a well rounded game. Also, if you want to get famous, it might help to have a _vowel _or two in your name!


Well that's the thing isn't it? If you take a typical WC guy trained in the typical way(forms/chi sau/wooden man), even trained to a 'master' level, and put him in a fight(a very dissimilar activity to any of those three things), how would you be able to tell the difference between him and that untrained guy that saw ip man(the movie) 26 times?

In both cases you have someone with 0 training in the activity they are partaking in.


----------



## geezer

KPM said:


> So you ARE calling Andrew a liar!!???



Keith, you act surprised! What? you expect the leopard to change his spots?


----------



## geezer

Martial D said:


> Well that's the thing isn't it? If you* take a typical WC guy* trained in the typical way(forms/chi sau/wooden man), even trained to a 'master' level, and put him in a fight(a very dissimilar activity to any of those three things), *how would you be able to tell the difference between him and that untrained guy that saw ip man(the movie) 26 times?*.



Of course they are hard to tell apart. They are_ the same guy!!! _


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> So you ARE calling Andrew a liar!!???



No.

Taking the jar of gumballs example, he has not outright stated the number of gumballs in the jar is odd, even when asked directly if that's what he's saying.

I have assumed that's the reason he mentioned the fight. If and when he does make that claim openly, I will not call him a liar or assert the opposite. I will simply say I don't believe him, and ask that he demonstrate his claim.

So, you understand, I'm not saying the number is even, and I'm not saying he's lying when he tells me it's odd.

I'm taking the skeptic position of "I don't believe you", and asking that he/you meet his/your burden of proof.


----------



## geezer

LFJ said:


> No ...I'm taking the skeptic position of "I don't believe you", and asking that he/you meet his/your burden of proof.



Totally acceptable. It's exactly the position I take regarding many statements you make without convincing evidence to back them up. 

PS Please don't ask me "which ones" or say that you have provided ample and indisputable evidence. Because, as_ I remain skeptical_, you have obviously not been persuasive enough! And that's OK. If you want to dispute this, please go back to arguing with Keith or Andrew. It's _my birthday_ and I'm going out for a fun meal and maybe a movie. Talk to you later!


----------



## LFJ

geezer said:


> Totally acceptable. It's exactly the position I take regarding many statements you make without convincing evidence to back them up.
> 
> PS Please don't ask me "which ones" or say that you have provided ample and indisputable evidence. Because, as_ I remain skeptical_, you have obviously not been persuasive enough! And that's OK. If you want to dispute this, please go back to arguing with Keith or Andrew. It's _my birthday_ and I'm going out for a fun meal and maybe a movie. Talk to you later!



I don't really care if someone doesn't believe me if they are also not willing to learn, like KPM. That's on them.

Happy birthday! Have fun!


----------



## Nobody Important

geezer said:


> Totally acceptable. It's exactly the position I take regarding many statements you make without convincing evidence to back them up.
> 
> PS Please don't ask me "which ones" or say that you have provided ample and indisputable evidence. Because, as_ I remain skeptical_, you have obviously not been persuasive enough! And that's OK. If you want to dispute this, please go back to arguing with Keith or Andrew. It's _my birthday_ and I'm going out for a fun meal and maybe a movie. Talk to you later!


HAPPY BIRTHDAY!


----------



## drop bear

geezer said:


> I have seen very few videos of experienced and well trained WC/WT/VT fighters. There are a few, and the results are mixed. On the other hand, I have seen a ton of videos _billed_ as WC vs this or that.
> 
> In most cases the "WC" guy is obviously untrained, inexperienced, and out of shape, and more often than not doesn't even seem to know WC ...or much of any other fighting system. It's almost like these guys watched the Ip Man movies and decided that's what they were _...magical, mystical, kung-fu masters_. Something about WC seems to attract delusional people living in a fantasy world not far removed from the no-touch knockout goofballs.
> 
> OK so what about the very few videos of guys who actually know some WC and are fit to fight? Some are indeed _unflattering_. Take the following examples: First a fight that resulted in a victory for the WC (WT branch) guy, Crnko, who actually got away with using the WT "antigrappling" tactic of punching to counter a clumsy attempt at a ...er "kinda-sorta" single leg. Skip to 1:45:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a subsequent fight The same WT guy, Crnko, encounters a guy, Krapf who apparently knows some grappling, whereas the WT guy shows utter lack of grappling experience by giving his opponent his back and then getting quickly choked out. Skip to 3:00:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Near as I can find out, this ended Crnko's fighting career. Apparently he continued to teach WT and probably made a good deal more money teaching easily impressed non-fighters than he could have made fighting, even if he'd cross trained in grappling.
> 
> Moral of the story, if you want to fight, you gotta have a well rounded game. Also, if you want to get famous, it might help to have a _vowel _or two in your name!



The thing is you face notoriously good martial artists when you start doing competition. The higher the level the better the martial artist.

You are throwing wing chun that doesn't have that depth of talent into an environment where other styles have had this advantage of competition for years. It will take a couple of generations of wing chun fighters to catch up.

As an example of what I am getting at. Here is a sappy feel good story about success and collaboration.

Growing Good Corn

But I think martial arts works very much within this principle.


----------



## drop bear

LFJ said:


> I don't really care if someone doesn't believe me if they are also not willing to learn, like KPM. That's on them.
> 
> Happy birthday! Have fun!



What is your experience with wing chun and boxing by the way?


----------



## drop bear

LFJ said:


> The skeptic position doesn't assert anything. It just doesn't accept claims without sufficient evidence, which would include the opposite of any proposition.
> 
> Science also never pronounces anything as "proven". Everything is tentative and open to revision if the evidence changes.
> 
> A scientist also doesn't ignore or refuse to examine evidence like you and



The evidence says some styles work.

For example boxing is definitely one that has evidence behind its method. In pretty much all areas of fighting and competition. The concepts of boxing. Ideas of foot work, power generation, rotational punching. All have evidence that it works.

It is reflected in other styles that all have evidence they work.

I am saying VT is not one of those styles that has that wealth of evidence behind its method.

That is why when I say styles that work. I don't include VT.

That is unbiased evidence based reasoning.

This is why back to the premis of this thread. If you needed to gap fill a style. You need a style that works and you need a style that can be integrated into your own system.

Boxing has evidence that it can do these tasks.

VT has no real evidence it can do these tasks.

So when I say VT does not work. I am saying it from its lack of evidence that it works. Not evidence that it doesn't work.

I have said I am willing to be swayed by evidence. But that is not going to be some stuff about an unnamed tournement and which way your elbow should face.

It will certainly not be some rubbish challenge to fly across the world and beat on a bunch of chunners. Who do not fight on a national or international scale.

Ok. You have said I have not experience with VT.

well you have no experience with a martial arts that works.

I train with guys that compete on an international and national level, This includes boxing, kickboxing MMA, kudo and karate.

These are gold and silver gloves.

Medal tally for WMA

Title belt.






Another title belt.





The UFC. (ok. he didn't win. But still a pretty big deal.)





Competing in world titles.

Off to Japan for world titles


----------



## LFJ

drop bear said:


> You need a style that works and you need a style that can be integrated into your own system.
> 
> Boxing has evidence that it can do these tasks.



Depends on the system it's to be integrated into. If it's a striking method WB contradicts, it can't be integrated without fundamentally changing one or the other.



> So when I say VT does not work. I am saying it from its lack of evidence that it works. Not evidence that it doesn't work.



That would not be a skeptic position, that you simply aren't convinced that it works, but a claim that it doesn't work. Which means you have taken on a burden of proof.

Also, you are showing your bias, because you have ignored evidence that it works.



> It will certainly not be some rubbish challenge to fly across the world and beat on a bunch of chunners. Who do not fight on a national or international scale.



I told you about an international open-style tournament that competitors from your country have fought in. Lobo also posted videos of a VT fighter getting a knockout, and another getting knocked out.

So, like other styles that work, some times it works, and some times it doesn't.



> Ok. You have said I have not experience with VT.
> 
> well you have no experience with a martial arts that works.



Since you don't know my full training history, you are just being unnecessarily insulting.

And since I told you directly that I cross-train BJJ, you are either style-bashing BJJ, which is stupid, or you're being dishonest in order to make a personal attack.


----------



## Martial D

LFJ said:


> evidence that it works.


Where?


----------



## drop bear

LFJ said:


> Depends on the system it's to be integrated into. If it's a striking method WB contradicts, it can't be integrated without fundamentally changing one or the other.



Ok. I have experience integrating boxing with other systems of striking that contradict. That is called MMA. That is why you see wing chun stuff in MMA striking. I say it is possible. And advantageous. KPM says it is possible and advantageous to do so with chun. What is your experience with integrating boxing with contradicting systems? Or where do you get this knowledge from?

So I say it can. KPM says it can.



LFJ said:


> That would not be a skeptic position, that you simply aren't convinced that it works, but a claim that it doesn't work. Which means you have taken on a burden of proof.
> 
> Also, you are showing your bias, because you have ignored evidence that it works.



No. The claim of working is the claim that requires evidence. If the style has an absence of evidence then it cannot claim that it works. So the description that it does not work is valid.. I am happy for you to find a better term for the absence of evidence that something works. But not working seems pretty self explanatory.

The burden of proof is on you.



LFJ said:


> I told you about an international open-style tournament that competitors from your country have fought in. Lobo also posted videos of a VT fighter getting a knockout, and another getting knocked out.
> 
> So, like other styles that work, some times



Ok. works some times is not the same as works consistantly due to an absolute wealth of evidence.

Your link to the tournement never worked. You never found one that did. Nobody knows what tournement you are on about.
.



LFJ said:


> Since you don't know my full training history, you are just being unnecessarily insulting.
> 
> And since I told you directly that I cross-train BJJ, you are either style-bashing BJJ, which is stupid, or you're being dishonest in order to make a personal attack.



Sorry a striking style that works.


----------



## KPM

Martial D said:


> Well that's the thing isn't it? If you take a typical WC guy trained in the typical way(forms/chi sau/wooden man), even trained to a 'master' level, and put him in a fight(a very dissimilar activity to any of those three things), how would you be able to tell the difference between him and that untrained guy that saw ip man(the movie) 26 times?
> 
> In both cases you have someone with 0 training in the activity they are partaking in.



True.  And the other problem is this....the things that are "identifiable" as Wing Chun tend to be the things that just flat don't work very well or at least show up very much in an actual free-fight encounter against a non-Wing Chun person.   All the advanced Lat Sau progressions and combinations from Chi Sau....gone.  All the nice upright centerline structure....gone.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> I'm taking the skeptic position of "I don't believe you", and asking that he/you meet his/your burden of proof.



Oh!  So it is exactly like that video of Sean's student and your claim that it was "pure WSLVT"!!!


----------



## drop bear

KPM said:


> True.  And the other problem is this....the things that are "identifiable" as Wing Chun tend to be the things that just flat don't work very well or at least show up very much in an actual free-fight encounter against a non-Wing Chun person.   All the advanced Lat Sau progressions and combinations from Chi Sau....gone.  All the nice upright centerline structure....gone.



Which is all the things wing chun is worried about loosing if they mix styles.


----------



## LFJ

drop bear said:


> What is your experience with integrating boxing with contradicting systems? Or where do you get this knowledge from?



VT.



> The claim of working is the claim that requires evidence.



The burden of proof is on anyone who makes a claim.



> If the style has an absence of evidence then it cannot claim that it works. So the description that it does not work is valid.



Even if it were true that there's no evidence that VT works, the claim that it doesn't needs to be substantiated.

Before the wealth of evidence supporting evolution was gathered, saying lifeforms didn't evolve would not have been correct just because we didn't know any better.

So, if you make a claim either way, you need supporting evidence or you are just making a bald assertion.



> The burden of proof is on you.



It's on anyone who makes a claim, be it positive or negative.

You and KPM, who thinks he's a scientist, don't even understand the burden of proof.



> Ok. works some times is not the same as works consistantly due to an absolute wealth of evidence.



Your claim is that it doesn't work, full stop. That is demonstrably false.

How consistently it works will depend on the fighters and the opponents they face.

There aren't that many VT fighters in sporting competition. As VT grows, there will probably be more, maybe enough to satisfy you, but that is not the be-all and end-all of a martial art "working".



> Your link to the tournement never worked. You never found one that did. Nobody knows what tournement you are on about.



You didn't click on it. Everyone who was paying attention knows.



> Sorry a striking style that works.



Meaning in sporting competition...

Done Sanda for years in China. Its punching is similar to WB. It has been used successfully by some fighters in UFC, which should satisfy your fanboy criteria for "working".


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> Oh!  So it is exactly like that video of Sean's student and your claim that it was "pure WSLVT"!!!



Yeah, only, when I educated you on the WSLVT system, you arrogantly denied it because you are unwilling to learn or concede that VT could be more complete as a striking method than the bits and pieces of various WC lineages you've briefly encountered.


----------



## Phobius

drop bear said:


> Which is all the things wing chun is worried about loosing if they mix styles.



Which is all the things I do not expect from a WC fighter. Strange how it works, doesn't it. Perhaps the error in the discussion is not WC or anything else but the expectation of people. How many actually know what WC/WT/VY should look like.

Most of what has been said is something I disagree with when it comes to what is WT and what is not.

How WT looks in an ideal situation where there is no resistance from opponent is not the same as it looks like with resistance. Just because there are non-resistant drills does not mean there are not aliveness drills to use Matt Thornton's term. (Was it he who coined it?)


----------



## KPM

*The burden of proof is on anyone who makes a claim.*

---So the "burden of proof" is on you for all of your claims, whether overt or covert, in this very forum over a couple of years now....that your VT is so different and so superior to everyone else's Wing Chun and that everyone else's Wing Chun is somehow "broken" in comparison.  Despite repeated claims, you have never proven that.

*
Even if it were true that there's no evidence that VT works, the claim that it doesn't needs to be substantiated.*

---No it doesn't.  If there is a claim that it works but without evidence, then the default skeptic position is that it doesn't.   Again, if someone claims the moon is made of green cheese, the skeptic assumes that is  wrong and needs to be proven.   But that doesn't rule out taking a neutral or agnostic position of "I don't know either way."  I've simply been saying that if you want to be "scientific" about it, you take the position of the skeptic and assume all claims are false.  Somehow you don't seem to understand that. 

*
Before the wealth of evidence supporting evolution was gathered, saying lifeforms didn't evolve would not have been correct just because we didn't know any better.*

----Because it was a theory, not a claim.   And any scientist that made the claim that the theory was indeed fact, would have come under heavy pressure to provide evidence that his claim was true.


*
You and KPM, who thinks he's a scientist, don't even understand the burden of proof.*

----And you don't seem to understand basic logic.  But I am involved in half a dozen research projects and was the site PI on a big project that just wrapped up and is pending publication.   You are an anonymous troll hiding behind 3 initials who refused to answer Geezers simple  questions about your background.


*Done Sanda for years in China*

----Well, going by your criteria, no one should accept that claim either....until you show evidence that supports it.  After all, that is what you asked of Phil Redmond!


*Yeah, only, when I educated you on the WSLVT system, you arrogantly denied it *

---Again, you seem confused.  "Educating" someone....ie providing information that may or may not be true....is not the same thing as providing evidence that supports a claim.  If I "arrogantly" denied anything, it was it direct proportion to how you "arrogantly" made claims that had no real support.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> that your VT is so different and so superior to everyone else's Wing Chun and that everyone else's Wing Chun is somehow "broken" in comparison.  Despite repeated claims, you have never proven that.



I have shown VT forms and explained how they are different.
I've shown VT sparring that is obviously different.
I've shown and explained long-range strategy and tactics that most WC you've seen doesn't have, and as you admit is why it often fails.

Then you arrogantly told me all of that is not VT precisely because it's different.

So, whatever.



> If there is a claim that it works but without evidence, then the default skeptic position is that it doesn't.



Wrong. It's "I don't believe that", which is not the same as "I believe it doesn't."

No claim has been made without evidence, anyway.



> that doesn't rule out taking a neutral or agnostic position of "I don't know either way."  I've simply been saying that if you want to be "scientific" about it, you take the position of the skeptic and assume all claims are false.



You can't say you don't know either way but then assert the negative claim.

A skeptic assumes and asserts nothing. You are not a skeptic.



> ----Because it was a theory, not a claim.   And any scientist that made the claim that the theory was indeed fact, would have come under heavy pressure to provide evidence that his claim was true.



Correct. Would that justify one in claiming evolution is false just because they didn't know better?

Obviously not, because there was no evidence to the contrary, and they would have been wrong. That's why the skeptic doesn't assert anything one way or the other until justified.



> ----Well, going by your criteria, no one should accept that claim either....until you show evidence that supports it.  After all, that is what you asked of Phil Redmond!



No, it's not. He claimed to have a competitive fight record he couldn't produce.



> "Educating" someone....ie providing information that may or may not be true....is not the same thing as providing evidence that supports a claim.



It's not "may or may not be true". What I explained to you was WSLVT. All our members from the lineage agreed with the posts.

It's no different from you going into 4 or 5 WSLVT schools, learning these things, then arrogantly telling the teachers they are just showing you WB and not VT, because you say so.


----------



## geezer

LFJ said:


> ...It's not "may or may not be true". What I explained to you was WSLVT. All our members from the lineage agreed with the posts.



Frankly, I don't get this. KPM and others have questioned the factuality of your claims regarding WSL-VT's superior _efficacy in sparring_. Not whether you are accurately describing the system you train. Other VT practitioners here _have_ supported your explanations of your VT. But, let's be _honest. _Convincing evidence of superior effectiveness is something else.


----------



## Callen

geezer said:


> Maybe some other WSL-VT folks would care to weigh in?


Forgive me, but this thread has taken a few turns. What exactly would the weigh-in be about?


----------



## LFJ

geezer said:


> KPM and others have questioned the factuality of your claims regarding WSL-VT's superior _efficacy in sparring_. Not whether you are accurately describing the system you train.



Actually, KPM arrogantly told me pointblank that what I showed and described in our forms and working in sparring is not VT.



> Other VT practitioners here _have_ supported your explanations of your VT. But, let's be _honest. _Convincing evidence of superior effectiveness is something else.



VT has been shown to work in sparring non-VT. It has been show to work in competition against non-VT.

I'm not saying that makes this method more effective, or that it's the only one, but that most other WC systems don't have the same evidence.

Other systems' own practitioners have acknowledged their failings on their own.


----------



## Nobody Important

There is no such thing as a superior method, it's the person behind it that is responsible for success or failure. Techniques, biomechanics, theory and principles mean absolutely nothing without a sound strategy employed by a seasoned, well conditioned, mentally fit and intelligent being. No style can do that for you, you have to make it work by working.


----------



## geezer

@KPM -- Overall, this is clip by Alan Orr more relevant to integrating MMA concepts with WC/VT than boxing specifically, although what he shows when you have an opponent against the wall, can be seen both in the cage and the ring.

Also, if you look at 3:45 - 4:05, you will see Alan explain using the boxing high cover with both hands in terms of the principle seen in the final movement of Biu Tze form (as did Sean and LFJ previously in reference to the clip Sean provided). Like you, I believe Alan's usage of this technique here, much like the way Sean's guy used it, _owes more to boxing_ than WC/VT, but the reference to the BT form shows that is is _an evolutionary adaptation _totally consistent with WC/VT's DNA.

IMO, only a person who is a VT _creationist_ _and not an evolutionist _could find a way to view this as a traditional application of Yip Man WC/VT, and I don't waste my time arguing "creation science" with religious zealots!. 






Now, let's look how this approach is applied in MMA by one of Alan's fighters: Josh Kaldani. Whenever Josh gets his opponent against the cage such as at around  8:00 - 8:50, at 11:00 - 11:15, or again at 14:15 - 14:55, you can see this applied. Something similar often happens on the ground, too. Is it MMA or WC? ...or an evolution that is obviously inspired by MMA that works with WC/VT DNA?   ....Or is it just "filling gaps" in a "broken" branch of WC?  --Any thoughts?


----------



## Martial D

Nobody Important said:


> *There is no such thing as a superior method*, it's the person behind it that is responsible for success or failure. Techniques, biomechanics, theory and principles mean absolutely nothing without a sound strategy employed by a seasoned, well conditioned, mentally fit and intelligent being. No style can do that for you, you have to make it work by working.


With all due respect, this(the bolded part) is PC trash. Of course some methods are better than others. This is true not only of martial arts, but of literally every single results driven activity a human can partake of.

 Can you do surgery equally as well with a tea spoon as you can with a scalpel? Can you run as fast by hopping on one leg as you can by using both legs? Can you generate as much power with a limp wristed slapping motion as you can with a proper boxing punch? Can you maintain balance just as well with your feet together as you can with a wide, braced stance? Could even 100 years of training the best possible people make a difference in any of these examples?

Yes, some methods are superior to others.

The rest of your post following the bold is also true, but if you are flat out doing something in a way that makes no sense vis a vis desired result, you will have a much steeper, or impossible, hill to climb regardless of applied effort or natural talent.


----------



## Nobody Important

Martial D said:


> With all due respect, this(the bolded part) is PC trash. Of course some methods are better than others. This is true not only of martial arts, but of literally every single results driven activity a human can partake of.
> 
> Can you do surgery equally as well with a tea spoon as you can with a scalpel? Can you run as fast by hopping on one leg as you can by using both legs? Can you generate as much power with a limp wristed slapping motion as you can with a proper boxing punch? Can you maintain balance just as well with your feet together as you can with a wide, braced stance? Could even 100 years of training the best possible people make a difference in any of these examples?
> 
> Yes, some methods are superior to others.
> 
> The rest of your post following the bold is also true, but if you are flat out doing something in a way that makes no sense vis a vis desired result, you will have a much steeper, or impossible, hill to climb regardless of applied effort or natural talent.


If you take it out of context, yes, you're right. But we are not comparing the efficiency of spoons to knives or hopping versus running in the conventional manner. We are comparing one fighting method to another and how someone can effectively use that method. Doesn't matter if you do boxing or wing chun, tae  kwon do or jujutsu, you get out of it what you put into it and how you understand it cannot be underestimated. I've seen trained martial artists from respected styles lose fights to fighters who had no formal training at all. IMO, it's the person who counts not the method,. Its the will, desire and understanding of how to accomplish something that needs done that's most important.

I've seen combat medics patch up soldiers with parachute silk & paracord, I've seen monks paint buildings with spoons, I've seen an old man patch a leaky radiator with pepper, I've seen dogs climb trees to catch a raccoon & a man play the guitar with his feet. All unconventional methods to accomplish what needed to be done, but at the time they had no better alternative. They didn't let the situation better them just because they didn't possess the the "proper" hardware. They had the know how to use what they had to their benefit. Lacking a "better" method isn't a valid excuse to accomplish a task that needs to be accomplished.


----------



## geezer

Callen said:


> Forgive me, but this thread has taken a few turns. What exactly would the weigh-in be about?



Oh _not important_ really. To be honest, sometimes I get equally lost in the twists and turns of LFJ's and KPM's arguments. In this case, I believe _LFJ _was saying that he had accurately described WSL-VT, and that KPM had disputed that.

I simply added that_ you other WSL-VT guys seemed to back up LFJ_ on his presentation of WSL-VT concepts, etc. and as an outsider I would have to go along with that. And that's where I invited you other WSL-VT practitioners to "weigh-in".

On the other hand, I took KPM's objections_ not _to be about LFJ's discussion of WSL-VT, but rather against LFJ's claim of WSL-VT's greater authenticity and its superiority to other versions. It seemed to me that KPM was objecting to _that_, and saying that LFJ had not provided convincing evidence to back up those claims.

Anyway, I would have concur with that statement as well.

But, as these arguments go on and on, and the parties involved get angrier, and the names and accusations start to fly... Well, frankly I lose track of what the heck they are fighting about!


----------



## KPM

*Actually, KPM arrogantly told me pointblank that what I showed and described in our forms and working in sparring is not VT.*

---No I didn't.  You showed a video with a fighter training in MMA and at long range doing high covers, ducks and weaves that looked very very close to western boxing.  You called this "pure WSLVT".  You then equated it to movements in the Biu Gee form that looked nothing like what was happening in that clip.  When pressed, you said it was a use of the concepts and the physical way it was done didn't matter.  When I proposed that the physical way it was done was inspired as much by western boxing as it was from the Biu Gee form you continued to maintain that it was "pure WSLVT" and had nothing at all to do  with WB.  I didn't "arrogantly" tell you it was not VT, you "arrogantly" denied that it had anything to do with WB and  was not inspired by WB and maintained it as "pure WSLVT."  I  was willing to accept that it was a modern evolution of those concepts from the Biu Jee form inspired by WB and MMA, but no...you wouldn't have that!  So I never "pointblank" said..."this is not VT."  I simply questioned your claim that it  was "pure" VT.  You seem to have a very selective memory.


----------



## Martial D

Nobody Important said:


> If you take it out of context, yes, you're right. But we are not comparing the efficiency of spoons to knives or hopping versus running in the conventional manner. We are comparing one fighting method to another and how someone can effectively use that method. Doesn't matter if you do boxing or wing chun, tae  kwon do or jujutsu, you get out of it what you put into it and how you understand it cannot be underestimated.


So you are asserting each of these methods are exactly equal, that none excel in any way shape or form? And not only these, but every system of 'fighting' ever thought up by anyone, anywhere?



> I've seen trained martial artists from respected styles lose fights to fighters who had no formal training at all. IMO, it's the person who counts not the method,.


Unfortunately, the cold hard truth of the matter is that a vast quantity of martial arts schools and styles never address 'fighting' at all. You could just as well be saying an untrained chef can make a better souflet than some 'trained martial artists from respected styles'. 



> Its the will, desire and *understanding of how to accomplish something* that needs done that's most important.



Exactly.



> I've seen combat medics patch up soldiers with parachute silk & paracord, I've seen monks paint buildings with spoons, I've seen an old man patch a leaky radiator with pepper, I've seen dogs climb trees to catch a raccoon & a man play the guitar with his feet.


Sure, improvisation is great. Yet, that monk will never do with that spoon what an artist can with a brush, and that man will never play as well as a musician with hands.





> Lacking a "better" method isn't a valid excuse to accomplish a task that needs to be accomplished.


Surely not, yet unless you know everything, and believe there is no more room for advancement, there is always a better way.


----------



## KPM

*Also, if you look at 3:45 - 4:05, you will see Alan explain using the boxing high cover with both hands in terms of the principle seen in the final movement of Biu Tze form (as did Sean and LFJ previously in reference to the clip Sean provided). Like you, I believe Alan's usage of this technique here, much like the way Sean's guy used it, owes more to boxing than WC/VT, but the reference to the BT form shows that is is an evolutionary adaptation totally consistent with WC/VT's DNA.*

---Absolutely!  I like the way your phrased that...."evolutionary adaptation consistent with Wing Chun's DNA"!   I do not at all believe that Alan would ever make the arrogant claim (as LFJ did) that "this has nothing to do with western boxing"....or wrestling/MMA.  I'm sure he would say that this is taking concepts from the Biu Jee form and using them in a way that is consistent with and inspired by MMA/wrestling/WB training.  


*IMO, only a person who is a VT creationist and not an evolutionist could find a way to view this as a traditional application of Yip Man WC/VT, and I don't waste my time arguing "creation science" with religious zealots!. *

----Good point!

*
Now, let's look how this approach is applied in MMA by one of Alan's fighters: Josh Kaldani. Whenever Josh gets his opponent against the cage such as at around  8:00 - 8:50, at 11:00 - 11:15, or again at 14:15 - 14:55, you can see this applied.*

----Are we missing a  video link?


----------



## geezer

Martial D said:


> ...Of course *some methods are better than others*. This is true not only of martial arts, but of literally every single results driven activity a human can partake of.
> *Can you generate as much power with a limp wristed slapping motion as you can with a proper boxing punch?*



I agree totally with your point that some methods are inherently and obviously better than others. But the bolded part above stood out for being a _questionable_ example. Well maybe not if you mean a light foppish slap with a lace glove. But what about gettin smacked with a big honkin' dead fish? See below:






In my experience, some people can slap really hard! So if you are just talking _power generation_, a very relaxed swing, even with an open hand, can develop knockout power.

Now I'm not suggesting it would work in boxing. And it might not be as applicable to fighting in general. But flexible weapons like flails, nunchaku, saps, big dead fish, and so forth really develop considerable power. Many martial arts have equivalent empty-handed movements. Do you think they are worthless? Even fried with chips?


----------



## jobo

Martial D said:


> Unfortunately, the cold hard truth of the matter is that a vast quantity of martial arts schools and styles never address 'fighting' at all.  .


but despite insisting on the scientific method, this claim is unsupported  with any evidence at all , fairs fair if you want everyone to prove their claims you should do the same


----------



## drop bear

LFJ said:


> The burden of proof is on anyone who makes a claim.



My claim is boxing has a weath of evidenve it works. 

VT is different to boxing.

VT does not have the same evidence it works.

What would you like me to prove?


----------



## drop bear

geezer said:


> I agree totally with your point that some methods are inherently and obviously better than others. But the bolded part above stood out for being a _questionable_ example. Well maybe not if you mean a light foppish slap with a lace glove. But what about gettin smacked with a big honkin' dead fish? See below:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my experience, some people can slap really hard! So if you are just talking _power generation_, a very relaxed swing, even with an open hand, can develop knockout power.
> 
> Now I'm not suggesting it would work in boxing. And it might not be as applicable to fighting in general. But flexible weapons like flails, nunchaku, saps, big dead fish, and so forth really develop considerable power. Many martial arts have equivalent empty-handed movements. Do you think they are worthless? Even fried with chips?



lets put it this way. When we see chunners fight they do tend to start winding with their punches.

which becomes this fun game of yes he did. No he didn't. But still.

Classic example of the VT hook punch at play here.


----------



## LFJ

geezer said:


> the reference to the BT form shows that is is _an evolutionary adaptation _totally consistent with WC/VT's DNA.



How so? If two different lineages have the concept in their system, how are you determining that it was not originally in there, if not through bias?



> IMO, only a person who is a VT _creationist_ _and not an evolutionist _could find a way to view this as a traditional application of Yip Man WC/VT



And how do you know at what point this evolution happened? How do you know it was later than sooner? Again, just bias.



KPM said:


> You then equated it to movements in the Biu Gee form that looked nothing like what was happening in that clip.  When pressed, you said it was a use of the concepts and the physical way it was done didn't matter.



I posted images showing the exact same position in form and sparring.



> I didn't "arrogantly" tell you it was not VT, you "arrogantly" denied that it had anything to do with WB and  was not inspired by WB and maintained it as "pure WSLVT."



It is not arrogant to state facts.
It is arrogant to make bald assertions.



> I was willing to accept that it was a modern evolution of those concepts from the Biu Jee form inspired by WB and MMA, but no...you wouldn't have that!



Because it's not true and you are unable to support your claim.



> So I never "pointblank" said..."this is not VT."  I simply questioned your claim that it  was "pure" VT.  You seem to have a very selective memory.



In fact you did by telling me it came "straight from boxing" without offering to support that bald assertion.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> I do not at all believe that Alan would ever make the arrogant claim (as LFJ did) that "this has nothing to do with western boxing"....or wrestling/MMA.  I'm sure he would say that this is taking concepts from the Biu Jee form and using them in a way that is consistent with and inspired by MMA/wrestling/WB training.



Afaik, Alan doesn't train boxing and didn't create his style of WC.

In fact, he has gone a long way to show how his WC is not WB.

So, it's best you ask him, than arrogantly tell yet another person where they must have gotten their stuff.


----------



## drop bear

LFJ said:


> I have shown VT forms and explained how they are different.
> I've shown VT sparring that is obviously different.
> I've shown and explained long-range strategy and tactics that most WC you've seen doesn't have, and as you admit is why it often fails.
> 
> Then you arrogantly told me all of that is not VT precisely because it's different.
> 
> So, whatever.



Which is nice for VT. But has nothing to do with wing chun or boxing. 

You have said VT is unable to be cross trained with a working striking style. It pretty much already removes itself from consideration in this thread. 

I am not sure what point you are trying to make here.


----------



## LFJ

drop bear said:


> My claim is boxing has a weath of evidenve it works.
> 
> VT is different to boxing.
> 
> VT does not have the same evidence it works.
> 
> What would you like me to prove?



Nothing, as long as you aren't saying VT doesn't work or has no evidence that it does. Both are demonstrably false.


----------



## Martial D

jobo said:


> but despite insisting on the scientific method, this claim is unsupported  with any evidence at all , fairs fair if you want everyone to prove their claims you should do the same



The claim is self evident. Many schools do only drilling and forms, which are a completely different activities than fighting. It would be upon the one making the claim that these obviously dissimilar activities are the same activity, or that one could prepare you for the other, to demonstrate that.


----------



## drop bear

drop bear said:


> lets put it this way. When we see chunners fight they do tend to start winding with their punches.
> 
> which becomes this fun game of yes he did. No he didn't. But still.
> 
> Classic example of the VT hook punch at play here.



Alan Orr's Iron wolves.





I dont see a unique striking style. I am not even sure which one is the chunner.


----------



## drop bear

LFJ said:


> Nothing, as long as you aren't saying VT doesn't work or has no evidence that it does. Both are demonstrably false.



Ok. So we are talking about wing chun cross training with a working style. So why have we included VT in this?

I don't see what it brings to the table.


----------



## jobo

Martial D said:


> The claim is self evident. Many schools do only drilling and forms, which are a completely different activities than fighting. It would be upon the one making the claim that these obviously dissimilar activities are the same activity, or that one could prepare you for the other, to demonstrate that.


you said VAST amounts so its up to you to show that the numbers are indeed VAST. How were you thinking of evidencing that?


----------



## LFJ

drop bear said:


> I dont see a unique striking style. I am not even sure which one is the chunner.



The knockout punch was what they call a "whipping punch" that starts wide and drops the elbow as it comes in. 

Not a WB punch, or a common punching method, anyway. As I said, he has gone to lengths to show that his WC is not WB, but Chinese Boxing. They are not the same.


----------



## Martial D

geezer said:


> I agree totally with your point that some methods are inherently and obviously better than others. But the bolded part above stood out for being a _questionable_ example. Well maybe not if you mean a light foppish slap with a lace glove. But what about gettin smacked with a big honkin' dead fish? See below:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my experience, some people can slap really hard! So if you are just talking _power generation_, a very relaxed swing, even with an open hand, can develop knockout power.
> 
> Now I'm not suggesting it would work in boxing. And it might not be as applicable to fighting in general. But flexible weapons like flails, nunchaku, saps, big dead fish, and so forth really develop considerable power. Many martial arts have equivalent empty-handed movements. Do you think they are worthless? Even fried with chips?



Sure. you can knock people out with a fish, or a slap. You can also swim across a pool without using your arms, or eat soup with a fork.


----------



## LFJ

drop bear said:


> Ok. So we are talking about wing chun cross training with a working style. So why have we included VT in this?
> 
> I don't see what it brings to the table.



Then stop bashing on it.


----------



## Martial D

drop bear said:


> lets put it this way. When we see chunners fight they do tend to start winding with their punches.
> 
> which becomes this fun game of yes he did. No he didn't. But still.
> 
> Classic example of the VT hook punch at play here.



These people are obviously not trained to fight. As usual, we see sloppy kickboxing in place of any of these so called techniques.


----------



## drop bear

LFJ said:


> The knockout punch was what they call a "whipping punch" that starts wide and drops the elbow as it comes in.
> 
> Not a WB punch, or a common punching method, anyway. As I said, he has gone to lengths to show that his WC is not WB, but Chinese Boxing. They are not the same.



Yeah that whipping punch is not common at all.






Jesus.

Edit. 

And looking at that punch the elbow was so far on impact he could started flying.

No it wasnt.

yes it was.


----------



## drop bear

Martial D said:


> These people are obviously not trained to fight. As usual, we see sloppy kickboxing in place of any of these so called techniques.



Yeah but kickboxing is not a style brought in to these full contact dynamics.

It is the result of these full contact dynamics.

I am not sure what people expect to happen.


----------



## Martial D

jobo said:


> you said VAST amounts so its up to you to show that the numbers are indeed VAST. How were you thinking of evidencing that?


How would I evidence that the sky is blue? It's right there. 

Take ANY school of ANY style the does just drilling and forms, which is the majority of all traditional martial arts, and even a good deal of these newer ones, and there's your number. It is indeed vast.

Those two activities are not, and never will be, fighting. Nor are they similar activities, and I see no evidence that those that are good at drilling and forms/kata can translate that to fighting any more than they could to cooking or gardening.


----------



## LFJ

drop bear said:


> Yeah that whipping punch is not common at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus.



Not the same punch at all. That was just straight.

You need some slow-mo on the whipping punch. Starts wide and drops the elbow as it comes in before landing.


----------



## jobo

Martial D said:


> How would I evidence that the sky is blue? It's right there.
> 
> Take ANY school of ANY style the does just drilling and forms, which is the majority of all traditional martial arts, and even a good deal of these newer ones, and there's your number. It is indeed vast.
> 
> Those two activities are not, and never will be, fighting. Nor are they similar activities, and I see no evidence that those that are good at drilling and forms/kata can translate that to fighting any more than they could to cooking or gardening.


id be Interested in seeing you prove that the sky is actually blue.
you just continuing to make wild claims with no evidence what so ever.
so provide evidence,that a) the sky is blue and b) that the numbers are vast. these are both claims made by you,I await your evidence


----------



## drop bear

LFJ said:


> Not the same punch at all. That was just straight.
> 
> You need some slow-mo on the whipping punch. Starts wide and drops the elbow as it comes in before landing.



No it doesn't.


----------



## Martial D

jobo said:


> id be Interested in seeing you prove that the sky is actually blue.
> you just continuing to make wild claims with no evidence what so ever.
> so provide evidence,that a) the sky is blue and b) that the numbers are vast. these are both claims made by you,I await your evidence


I already answered that. What claim do you find 'wild'? That forms and drilling are not the same activity as fighting, or that many if not most traditional martial arts do only drilling and forms/kata?


----------



## LFJ

drop bear said:


> No it doesn't.



You also said you couldn't tell which was the chunner on a video that says Best Wing Chun KO.

So, you are just trolling to style-bash WC/VT.


----------



## LFJ

Martial D said:


> I already answered that. What claim do you find 'wild'? That forms and drilling are not the same activity as fighting, or that many if not most traditional martial arts do only drilling and forms/kata?



Obviously the latter is a wild claim.

Have you been to most TCMA schools in the world? Have you even been out of the country?


----------



## drop bear

LFJ said:


> You also said you couldn't tell which was the chunner on a video that says Best Wing Chun KO.
> 
> So, you are just trolling to style-bash WC/VT.



I am trolling?

You are suggesting Ving Tsun invented the overhand. Then suggested it was uncommon. And previously suggested that boxing style power generation is incompatable with VT or WC. 

Seriously do you guys just reinvent boxing stuff?


----------



## jobo

Martial D said:


> I already answered that. What claim do you find 'wild'? That forms and drilling are not the same activity as fighting, or that many if not most traditional martial arts do only drilling and forms/kata?





Martial D said:


> I already answered that. What claim do you find 'wild'? That forms and drilling are not the same activity as fighting, or that many if not most traditional martial arts do only drilling and forms/kata?


expressly I want you to provide evidence to your wild claim that the numbers are VAST and you latest wilder claim that the sky is blue.
are you able to do that?


----------



## Martial D

LFJ said:


> Obviously the latter is a wild claim.
> 
> Have you been to most TCMA schools in the world? Have you even been out of the country?


No, but I have been to hundreds of dojos and clubs of various styles. And I'd wager you don't even know what country I'm from, but yes, I've been out of it. I've been all over the world. Ive seen thai boxers in Thailand, Ive seen kung fu schools in China. Very Very few of them do anything even vaguely resembling fighting.(excluding the thai boxers..those guys are animals)


----------



## Martial D

jobo said:


> expressly I want you to provide evidence to your wild claim that the numbers are VAST and you latest wilder claim that the sky is blue.
> are you able to do that?


I already have. If your brain can't process the fact(as it obviously can't process metaphor) that's for you to figure out.


----------



## jobo

Martial D said:


> I already have. If your brain can't process the fact(as it obviously can't process metaphor) that's for you to figure out.


no you haven't, making wild claims that you have provided evidence about your wild claims now.
let's go back
please provide evidence that the numbers are vast, that is EVIDENCE, data stats that sort of thing, not some mumbo jumbo
and then that the sky is blue, you haven't even attempted that one


----------



## LFJ

drop bear said:


> You are suggesting Ving Tsun invented the overhand.



The Iron Wolves fighter was neither doing VT, nor throwing an overhand.

VT doesn't use the whipping punch or overhand.



> Then suggested it was uncommon.



Never said anything about an overhand.



> And previously suggested that boxing style power generation is incompatable with VT or WC.



The Iron Wolves fighter was not doing VT, and I've said nothing in regards to compatibility between boxing and other WC systems, only that CSLWC is not WB.


----------



## Martial D

jobo said:


> no you haven't, making wild claims that you have provided evidence about your wild claims now.
> let's go back
> please provide evidence that the numbers are vast, that is EVIDENCE, data stats that sort of thing, not some mumbo jumbo
> and then that the sky is blue, you haven't even attempted that one



Oh, so you need emperical data showing that a large amount of so called martial schools teach only katas/forms and drilling?  

You insisting on proof of the sky being blue reads as self satire regarding your first demand. You would rather argue than look up, which is why discussing anything with you is a waste of time. You're a wall.


----------



## drop bear

LFJ said:


> The Iron Wolves fighter was neither doing VT, nor throwing an overhand.
> 
> VT doesn't use the whipping punch or overhand.
> 
> 
> 
> Never said anything about an overhand.
> 
> 
> 
> The Iron Wolves fighter was not doing VT, and I've said nothing in regards to compatibility between boxing and other WC systems, only that CSLWC is not WB.



Pretty sure your first post off the bat was about WC and WB.


----------



## drop bear

LFJ said:


> "Adapting Wing Chun Techniques for Boxing"
> 
> Yeah. It appears he started with incomplete Wing Chun, i.e.; techniques devoid of fighting strategy.
> 
> So, he went to look for similar techniques in Western Boxing to figure out how to apply stuff in a fight, and just ended up mimicking WB overall, while still calling it "Wing Chun Boxing" so he can be the "founder" of something with traditional kung fu roots but effective.
> 
> 
> 
> I think if your Wing Chun isn't really working, you'd be better off just learning boxing than trying to create something by mixing nonfunctional bits with boxing, especially if you've found similar, functional bits already existing in boxing.
> 
> If he can make "Wing Chun Boxing" work, it's because of the strategy and techniques as they already exist in boxing. In other words... it's because of the boxing.
> 
> Of course, the ego and bank account will be better off if you're a "creator" of a "style", rather than just a guy who cross trains WC and WB.



......


----------



## jobo

Martial D said:


> Oh, so you need emperical data showing that a large amount of so called martial schools teach only katas/forms and drilling?
> 
> You insisting on proof of the sky being blue reads as self satire regarding your first demand. You would rather argue than look up, which is why discussing anything with you is a waste of time. You're a wall.


no not a LARGE amount, YES TO a VAST amount which was your claim. So yes please data to back up your claim.

you do know that the sky isn't actually blue, don't you, ? I looked that up once, a long long time ago Why is the Sky Blue?


----------



## Martial D

jobo said:


> no not a LARGE amount, YES TO a VAST amount which was your claim. So yes please data to back up your claim.
> 
> you do know that the sky isn't actually blue, don't you, ? I looked that up once, a long long time ago Why is the Sky Blue?




large
lärj/
_adjective_

*1*.
of considerable or relatively great size, extent, or capacity.
"add a large clove of garlic"
synonyms: big, great, huge, sizable, substantial, immense, enormous, colossal, massive, mammoth, *vast*, prodigious, tremendous, gigantic, giant, monumental, stupendous, gargantuan, elephantine, titanic, mountainous, monstrous; 
towering, tall, high; 
mighty, voluminous; 
king-size(d), economy-size(d), family-size(d), man-size(d), giant-size(d);
_informal_jumbo, whopping, mega, humongous, monster, astronomical, ginormous
"a large house"


----------



## jobo

Martial D said:


> large
> lärj/
> _adjective_
> 
> *1*.
> of considerable or relatively great size, extent, or capacity.
> "add a large clove of garlic"
> synonyms: big, great, huge, sizable, substantial, immense, enormous, colossal, massive, mammoth, *vast*, prodigious, tremendous, gigantic, giant, monumental, stupendous, gargantuan, elephantine, titanic, mountainous, monstrous;
> towering, tall, high;
> mighty, voluminous;
> king-size(d), economy-size(d), family-size(d), man-size(d), giant-size(d);
> _informal_jumbo, whopping, mega, humongous, monster, astronomical, ginormous
> "a large house"


is this supposed to be your data set to support your claim.
just because large and vast,are synonyms doesnt mean they are the same thing,
its quite simple, either you can back it up or you with draw your claim


----------



## Martial D

jobo said:


> is this supposed to be your data set to support your claim.
> 
> its quite simple, either you can back it up or you with draw your claim


No, this is my data showing your abilities to understand english aren't quite up to snuff.

As per that, as you haven't seemed to be able to follow along so far, I can't imagine anything else I say to you will change that. You want proof large amounts of martial arts and schools dont actually fight? That's such a ridiculous request it's not even worth addressing, even if I thought you might understand the answer.


----------



## geezer

drop bear said:


> Seriously do you guys just reinvent boxing stuff?



Some of these movements were already in WC's DNA, but looked a bit different, as they evolved to be used in a different time, a different context and against fighters of other systems who fought differently than modern MMA competitors. I believe Alan has done a good job updating old VT/WC to be workable in a modern context.

Did he draw_ entirely_ on WC/VT's traditional repertoire? Apparently LFJ thinks so. I think that's laughable. _Of course_ Alan has based a lot of his training and techniques on modern methods. He's a CSL WC guy who pays a lot of attention to _all aspects_ of MMA. And he's a pragmatic MMA coach who teaches his fighters stuff designed to help them in competition.

Sure, as LFJ says, Alan has made videos discussing how his CSL WC or "Chinese Boxing" concepts underlie a lot of what his fighters like Josh Kaldani do. But Kaldani is an MMA fighter who cross trains and puts a lot of good stuff together. I guarantee you, the kind of narrowly defined WC/VT "purity" that LFJ obsesses over is a pretty low priority for these guys compared to finding a pragmatic and effective mix that will win in competition.


----------



## LFJ

drop bear said:


> Pretty sure your first post off the bat was about WC and WB.



Yeah? Never said I didn't talk about WC and WB.

Compatibility is something I talked about regarding the VT I train and WB.


----------



## LFJ

geezer said:


> I believe Alan has done a good job updating old VT/WC to be workable in a modern context.



Where did you hear he has been developing a WC system of his own?

It has been my understanding that he teaches CSLWC.



> Sure, as LFJ says, Alan has made videos discussing how his CSL WC or "Chinese Boxing" concepts underlie a lot of what his fighters like Josh Kaldani do.



Not only that, but he has gone to lengths to show how it differs from WB. So, to say he's copying WB is to just not understand what he's doing. You should take a closer look.


----------



## jobo

Martial D said:


> No, this is my data showing your abilities to understand english aren't quite up to snuff.
> 
> As per that, as you haven't seemed to be able to follow along so far, I can't imagine anything else I say to you will change that. You want proof large amounts of martial arts and schools dont actually fight? That's such a ridiculous request it's not even worth addressing, even if I thought you might understand the answer.


the word you used was VAST, that's what I want evidence for,


----------



## KPM

*Where did you hear he has been developing a WC system of his own?  It has been my understanding that he teaches CSLWC.*

---Who said he was developing his own WC system?   And you may be shocked to discover that WSLVT is not the only system of Wing Chun that is "concept-based."   And maybe further shocked to discover that some Wing Chun lineages are more open-minded than your own.  Within CSLWC there is latitude to use the concepts to adapt the APPLICATIONS to the situation as needed. 


*Not only that, but he has gone to lengths to show how it differs from WB. So, to say he's copying WB is to just not understand what he's doing. You should take a closer look.*

---No one said he is copying WB.   It was said that he is using exposure to WB as the inspiration to adapt his Wing Chun applications in a similar way for use in a similar situation.  This is simply another  case of you NEVER being able to admit the validity someone else's points when they disagree with what you believe.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> ---Who said he was developing his own WC system?



Geezer said Alan has been updating his WC with new training and techniques based on WB/MMA, which would be developing his own WC system.



> And you may be shocked to discover that...
> And maybe further shocked to discover that...



Not shocked and don't care. I haven't done his online apprenticeship like you, but I'm familiar with what he does.

I also said there is absolutely nothing wrong with being application-based, so long as your applications are realistic. Most MAs are application-based. So?



> This is simply another  case of you NEVER being able to admit the validity someone else's points when they disagree with what you believe.



Has nothing to do with disagreement. I just don't often accept bald assertions.

How should we know there is validity to your bald assertion that he adapted his WC with inspiration from WB?

Don't just say it's obvious and anyone who doesn't agree is delusional. Actually support the alleged validity of your claim.

Because, as I said, Alan himself has gone to lengths to counter the accusation that he is doing/copying/borrowing from WB, and show that he is doing "Chinese Boxing" he was taught.


----------



## geezer

LFJ said:


> Where did you hear he has been developing a WC system of his own? It has been my understanding that he teaches CSLWC. Not only that, but *he has gone to lengths to show how it differs from WB. So, to say he's copying WB is to just not understand what he's doing.* You should take a closer look.



^^^^ I _agree_ with the bolded section above. As I said before, Alan has posted videos explaining how he integrates CSL concepts into his WC and MMA training. So when people watch his fighters like Kaldani and don't see the WC, they do need to look beneath the surface.

On the other hand, if you don't see the adaptation and evolution of what he is doing, especially with his MMA competitors, I suggest that _you_ take a closer look!

Sheesh! I've had it with "WC/VT creationists". What next? "WC/VT flat-earthers"?


----------



## Phobius

geezer said:


> ^^^^ I _agree_ with the bolded section above. As I said before, Alan has posted videos explaining how he integrates CSL concepts into his WC and MMA training. So when people watch his fighters like Kaldani and don't see the WC, they do need to look beneath the surface.
> 
> On the other hand, if you don't see the adaptation and evolution of what he is doing, especially with his MMA competitors, I suggest that _you_ take a closer look!
> 
> Sheesh! I've had it with "WC/VT creationists". What next? "WC/VT flat-earthers"?



Those that really have no excuse to call themselves purists are the WT folks. We sort of have an issue where LT states he changed the curriculum and brought in drills and some adaptations after experiencing western martial arts such as boxing etc.

Really makes it hard to argue as purists. Maybe we are missing out...


----------



## geezer

Phobius said:


> Those that really have no excuse to call themselves purists are the WT folks. We sort of have an issue where LT states he changed the curriculum and brought in drills and some adaptations after experiencing western martial arts such as boxing etc.
> 
> Really makes it hard to argue as purists. Maybe we are missing out...



Well that was a big part of why LT originally came up with the transliteration _Wing Tsun_. At that time, it was unique. Everybody else used either Ving Tsun or Wing Chun. When I first trained under him in the spring of 1980, he told us that he wanted to use a different spelling since what he did was his own take on what he got from Yip Man, and he did not want it to be confused with or judged by anybody else's version. Or as he put it, "I will not be responsible for their mistakes!"

He was also already working on gettiing the term copyrighted and getting some legal protection for his own curriculum, eventually resulting in the term _WingTsun  _(one word) and why everybody who later left the organization but wanted to stay close to the system and curriculum picked another variation using the tell-tale WT letters such as Wing Tjun, Wing Tshun, Wing Tchun, Wing Txun, Winky-dink Tsuny-wun, Weak Tchin, Wanker Tchong... well you get the idea.

The group I hang with, led by LT's former chief administrator in North America (until he broke away a decade ago) got singled our for legal action, so we just went back Grandmaster Yip's preferred spelling: Ving Tsun. And now this has the _added benefit _of annoying people like LFJ, who think that only his group has dibs on that! 

And, I'm not even a _purist _within this "rebel" circle.


----------



## geezer

This has gotten to be a really long thread, and I have a por memory for such things, so if the following clip has already been posted forgive me. I found it on Youtube after reading a couple of blog entries written by the same guy and posted on another thread in this forum. But, since the title of the video is _Wing Chun Boxing_, I thought I'd post it here:

Rackemann Wing Chun Boxing

What he's doing with WC and boxing reminds me of what the JKD guys have done, and also in my own area, what the DTE guys do, drawing on Latosa Escrima and Boxing, along with some WC concepts.

 My own long range stance (coming from Latosa Escrima) works the same way: rear foot heel-up and springy, weight 50-50 or 60-40 on the front leg, using a lot of leg power, weight drop and rise, and body torque.  When I'm in close, I shift more upright, using a back-weighted stance like you'd expect from a WC/WT/VT infighter, ...unless I decide to switch gears again and go to grappling. ....Though, as I'm moving well into my 60's now, I do _that_ a lot less often, and usually regret it afterwards if I do!


----------



## LFJ

Someone just posted this video in another thread. So, that makes at least 3 unrelated lineages that have this idea from _Biu-ji_.

If you admit it is in the "DNA" of VT/WC, then it was not transplanted. If you want to suggest that everyone is just copying WB, you need to support your claim with actual evidence.

That the action is used in other styles, and that _you_ may have not learned it in _your_ WC/VT/WT _is not_ evidence of origin. It is just your biased supposition.


----------



## LFJ

The guy above also does it with an elbow from the other arm, which WB never does, but Shaolin does, as I showed here.

Since some say Wing Chun is a distillation of Shaolin arts, why would you not look there for possible origins, and instead jump straight to Western Boxing?

Obviously because you're only familiar with WB, and know nothing of other TCMAs that use this same action.

With no evidence that these unrelated lineages got it from WB, it is just an uninformed bias to think so, and a bald assertion to say so.


----------



## JowGaWolf

geezer said:


> This has gotten to be a really long thread, and I have a por memory for such things, so if the following clip has already been posted forgive me. I found it on Youtube after reading a couple of blog entries written by the same guy and posted on another thread in this forum. But, since the title of the video is _Wing Chun Boxing_, I thought I'd post it here:
> 
> Rackemann Wing Chun Boxing
> 
> What he's doing with WC and boxing reminds me of what the JKD guys have done, and also in my own area, what the DTE guys do, drawing on Latosa Escrima and Boxing, along with some WC concepts.
> 
> My own long range stance (coming from Latosa Escrima) works the same way: rear foot heel-up and springy, weight 50-50 or 60-40 on the front leg, using a lot of leg power, weight drop and rise, and body torque.  When I'm in close, I shift more upright, using a back-weighted stance like you'd expect from a WC/WT/VT infighter, ...unless I decide to switch gears again and go to grappling. ....Though, as I'm moving well into my 60's now, I do _that_ a lot less often, and usually regret it afterwards if I do!


I just saw the video today and I'll take a look at the this thread from beginning to end.  freaking 34 pages worth.   Lots of skimming lol.    I was glad to see that he fights with the right heel up as much as possible when he punches.  It actually verified what I thought would happen.  He loses power when he punches with the rear heal continuously up.  I can literally see it in the video.   In boxing, from what I can tell boxers use the heel like the hammer on a gun.  When the heel is down, it is ready to fire (like the hammer being pulled back on a gun).  When the heel is up the punch has been fired.  You can see what I'm talking about here.


----------



## drop bear

LFJ said:


> The guy above also does it with an elbow from the other arm, which WB never does, but Shaolin does, as I showed here.
> 
> Since some say Wing Chun is a distillation of Shaolin arts, why would you not look there for possible origins, and instead jump straight to Western Boxing?
> 
> Obviously because you're only familiar with WB, and know nothing of other TCMAs that use this same action.
> 
> With no evidence that these unrelated lineages got it from WB, it is just an uninformed bias to think so, and a bald assertion to say so.



Because western boxing works. You can find a top tier western boxer. Spar him find out if he has methods that work.

And then use those methods.

Like you did with BJJ. Rather than using some obscure grappling art.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> I just saw the video today and I'll take a look at the this thread from beginning to end.  freaking 34 pages worth.   Lots of skimming lol.    I was glad to see that he fights with the right heel up as much as possible when he punches.  It actually verified what I thought would happen.  He loses power when he punches with the rear heal continuously up.  I can literally see it in the video.   In boxing, from what I can tell boxers use the heel like the hammer on a gun.  When the heel is down, it is ready to fire (like the hammer being pulled back on a gun).  When the heel is up the punch has been fired.  You can see what I'm talking about here.



No. Heel is just up. (In boxing anyway) because you don't go from upright to forwards. It takes to long. You go from forwards to more forwards.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> No. Heel is just up. (In boxing anyway) because you don't go from upright to forwards. It takes to long. You go from forwards to more forwards.


Now sure what you mean "Heel is just up"


----------



## JowGaWolf

I also notice that this "Wing Chun" boxing is very focused on the hands and not kicks.  I wonder how it would handle kicks or if it was even meant to deal with kicks.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> Obviously because you're only familiar with WB, and know nothing of other TCMAs that use this same action.
> 
> .



The original video which started this argument showed one of Sean's guys training for MMA.  He was using sweeps and throws from MMA.  He was using ducks and weaves from MMA.   Not a big jump to assume that the high cover he used (which looked far more like a boxer's high cover than the movement in your Biu Jee form) was also actually inspired by MMA/Boxing. That's not to say the concept cannot be found in your Biu Jee form, the physical manifestation seems to me inspired by boxing.   Boxing is ubiquitous in western culture.  Everyone has seen a high cover.  How do you know what the guy is doing in the video clip above was not also inspired by what boxer's do?   Show me a clip of Ip Man or Wong Shun Leung doing a high cover like this and then you'll have a more convincing argument.   Otherwise the most common sense conclusion is that modern Wing Chun people have been influenced by exposure to western boxing in a modern fighting context.  Because boxing works. People tend to take notice of what works and want to do something similar.  And there is nothing wrong with that!   Martial arts evolve!  Its a poor statement to think that your VT is so "pure" and so "perfect" that it cannot be improved upon or adapted for modern times.


----------



## KPM

JowGaWolf said:


> I was glad to see that he fights with the right heel up as much as possible when he punches.  It actually verified what I thought would happen.  He loses power when he punches with the rear heal continuously up.



He is actually doing chain punching or a Wing Chun "blast" in this clip.  Those aren't boxing punches.  They are meant to be very fast and repeating and not power punches.  Your criticism is a bit off because you obviously don't understand what you are seeing.  Look at other clips.  When doing boxing punches, Rackemann can produce plenty of power!


----------



## KPM

JowGaWolf said:


> Now sure what you mean "Heel is just up"



A boxer typically does not slam the heel into the ground to produce power.  For most, either one heel or the other is up all the time.  Power is produced by a drop in weight while shifting the weight forward, or by a rotation from the waist with at least one foot pivoting on the ball of the foot.  I'm planning on doing a video lesson on the "falling step" and rotational power...hopefully next weekend....that will show what I mean.


----------



## JowGaWolf

KPM said:


> He is actually doing chain punching or a Wing Chun "blast" in this clip.  Those aren't boxing punches.  They are meant to be very fast and repeating and not power punches.  Your criticism is a bit off because you obviously don't understand what you are seeing.  Look at other clips.  When doing boxing punches, Rackemann can produce plenty of power!


What good is a punch without power?  This is what I was looking at: His foot with his heel constantly up and the the disconnect between body and the punch.  It doesn't matter if the punches are fast or slow. If the punches have no power then they will be of no help either in a real fight or competitive fight, unless you are doing point sparring.   This why I made the reloading for the gun comment.


----------



## JowGaWolf

KPM said:


> A boxer typically does not slam the heel into the ground to produce power.  For most, either one heel or the other is up all the time.  Power is produced by a drop in weight while shifting the weight forward, or by a rotation from the waist with at least one foot pivoting on the ball of the foot.  I'm planning on doing a video lesson on the "falling step" and rotational power...hopefully next weekend....that will show what I mean.


I didn't say anything about slamming the heel on the ground.  Watch any video of a professional boxer and you'll see that the heel comes back down.  It does not stay up as if someone is trying to walk on the tip of their toes.  If your foot is already in the finished position when you start your punch then you can't get power because you aren't pivot, you are just on your toes and that is what I was seeing in the video.   There's a difference between weight on the toes vs heel up.


----------



## KPM

JowGaWolf said:


> I didn't say anything about slamming the heel on the ground.  Watch any video of a professional boxer and you'll see that the heel comes back down.  It does not stay up as if someone is trying to walk on the tip of their toes.  If your foot is already in the finished position when you start your punch then you can't get power because you aren't pivot, you are just on your toes and that is what I was seeing in the video.   There's a difference between weight on the toes vs heel up.



Right.  And as I said, in that particular clip he is not doing boxing punches.  He is doing a "blast."  Don't have time to search for it right now, but you can find on youtube video of Paul Vunak doing a JKD "straight blast" and pounding the heck out of a guy in a motorcycle helmet.  His heel is likely up the whole time as well.  It is a drive forward with fast punches meant to overwhelm the opponent and drive him back.  It has power.  But the power comes from the momentum driving forward, not necessarily from hard impact.


----------



## geezer

LFJ said:


> Someone just posted this video in another thread. So, that makes at least 3 unrelated lineages that have this idea from _Biu-ji_.
> If you admit it is in the "DNA" of VT/WC, then it was not transplanted. If you want to suggest that everyone is just copying WB, you need to support your claim with actual evidence. That the action is used in other styles, and that _you_ may have not learned it in _your_ WC/VT/WT _is not_ evidence of origin. It is just your biased supposition.



LFJ --is this addressed to me??? 'Cause if it is, you're wasting your time. I'm not interested in arguing with you. Try KPM instead!

I already said I can _absolutely _see a connection between the final arm swinging movement in Biu Tze  and lifting the arms to cover the head. But I _don't _look at that Biu Tze movement as teaching one particular application.

Besides, my main point was that a movement can _already exist_ within a style and _also_ be influenced by similar, and perhaps better adaptations of the same concept in other systems. It's not an either-or situation. Call it borrowing, melding , influencing, whatever. It happens a lot. Especially when natural selection (other evolving fighting methods) is pushing you do adapt or die out.

Now regarding that video by Sifu Nick Edmonds. Yeah, he's not far down the road from me.  I've visited his kwoon and done a bit of chi sau with him. A great guy, and he has some good ideas. He's in the Sam Kwok lineage of YMWC. Last I heard, he'd turned his studio over to his kung-fu brother, Sifu Sol Black, so he could take time to study some other martial arts to round out his game a bit.


----------



## Martial D

It seems pointless and pedantic to argue where a movement or body position came from. I'm pretty sure nobody can patent these things. There are a finite amount of ways the body can move, and far fewer still that are effective for combat...of course there will be some crossover.

All that matters(to me anyway) is if the movement or position is effective, not who claims to own it.


----------



## JowGaWolf

KPM said:


> Right.  And as I said, in that particular clip he is not doing boxing punches.  He is doing a "blast."  Don't have time to search for it right now, but you can find on youtube video of Paul Vunak doing a JKD "straight blast" and pounding the heck out of a guy in a motorcycle helmet.  His heel is likely up the whole time as well.  It is a drive forward with fast punches meant to overwhelm the opponent and drive him back.  It has power.  But the power comes from the momentum driving forward, not necessarily from hard impact.


If you are talking about this guy? then I can tell you that ain't going to work.  I had someone charge at me like that and I took his legs away from him and he ended up on the floor.  There is an assumption that the punching like that will "drive and opponent back"  Some people go back and others don't. People have been known in real life to step off center line when people drive in like that.  




When I look at that video I see a lack of root in his stance and in his movement. To me is clear to see because you can tell when he's off balance because it looks like he's falling off balance.  I watched his other videos where he didn't look off balance like that when he took more of a common fighting stance.


----------



## geezer

Jow Ga --IMO this boxing coach explains things really well. You will notice that while his rear foot is heel down, he is weighting the balls of his feet to be springy and alive.






Now here's a tape with him applying the stance to a right cross. The heel comes up to power the punch like you said, but it's always up a hair, or at least he's always weighting the ball of his foot, then the heel comes _fully_ up as he rotates to deliver the punch (what my DTE Eskrima coach calls "squashing the bug"):






BTW I never knew much about boxing, ...it was only when we started subletting space at a nearby boxing gym that I realized how much boxing I'd  trained in Latosa Escrima. GM Rene is not only a absolute master of Filipino Cadena de Mano (Filipino "dirty" boxing) but he also boxed competitively on the Air Force team. When he taught us virtually the  same stance, how to develop short-power via the "drop-step", etc. I thought I was just learning his Escrima. Actually it was both Escrima and Western Boxing.

--Hey that's an example for LFJ showing how techniques can _already_ exist in one art _and _also be influenced by another. God save us from binary thinking! The world is not black and white.


----------



## geezer

Did a little checking on Fran Sands. He's a Liverpudlian, and has a good rep as a coach, but contrary to online rumors he's _not_ the "fifth Beatle".


----------



## JowGaWolf

geezer said:


> Jow Ga --IMO this boxing coach explains things really well. You will notice that while his rear foot is heel down, he is weighting the balls of his feet to be springy and alive.


Yes I understand this.  I understand weighting the ball of the feet vs heel raised.  Not sure where I caused the confusion in this. This is not foreign to Jow Ga some of our techniques require that we put weight on the balls of our feet.  The movement that I original mentioned in the Wing Chun video was heel up as if was stuck at the end of straight right.  I can copy a series screen shots from that Wing Chun boxing video if needed.  I know my eyes aren't playing tricks on me.  I least I hope not, but I'm pretty sure that's what I saw in that video.

To me, weight on toes is not the same as heel up.


----------



## geezer

JowGaWolf said:


> Yes I understand this.  I understand weighting the ball of the feet vs heel raised. ...To me, weight on toes is not the same as heel up.



Yep, I think we agree here. When I work with weapons or empty-handed in_ Escrima, _I weight the ball of my rear foot and have the heel up a bit, then when I fire my strike I drive off the ball of the rear foot and the heel comes up _more_. The exact dynamics vary according to the strike. _Wing Chun _is a different animal. Usually, the feet are kept flat. There is still weight shift, torque and body engagement in the punch, but via a different "engine". As for "Wing Chun Boxing" I don't know. Just put that in there for discussion.


----------



## LFJ

drop bear said:


> Because western boxing works. You can find a top tier western boxer. Spar him find out if he has methods that work.
> 
> And then use those methods.
> 
> Like you did with BJJ. Rather than using some obscure grappling art.



That WB works does not justify the claim that this action found in multiple unrelated WC/VT lineages came to them from WB.

That claim has no evidence.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> Not a big jump to assume that the high cover he used (which looked far more like a boxer's high cover than the movement in your Biu Jee form) was also actually inspired by MMA/Boxing.



It is a big jump because you have 0 evidence for that.

Also, still images showed the _exact_ same position in the form and sparring, and it is interpreted this way by multiple unrelated lineages.



> Boxing is ubiquitous in western culture.  Everyone has seen a high cover.  How do you know what the guy is doing in the video clip above was not also inspired by what boxer's do?



Because we have multiple unrelated lineages that have the same idea already in the BJ form. I've shown Chinese practitioners using it. It's also in other TCMAs that predate WB by centuries.

If you want to say they all copied WB, you have a lot of work to do providing evidence.



> People tend to take notice of what works and want to do something similar.  And there is nothing wrong with that!   Martial arts evolve!



Sure. The BJ form is open-ended. That's the last action in the form. It has been there long enough for multiple unrelated lineages to have it.

If you want to claim they've all reinterpreted their forms with WB, you need to give evidence for it. So far, you have only made a bald assertion.

You first challenged me to show where it is in the forms. I showed you.

Then you challenged me to show a 1st generation student of WSL doing it. I showed you.

Now there are multiple examples of different lineages that have it.

I've done enough to show that it is a legit part of the WC/VT system.

If you want to continue asserting that it is a reinterpretation based on WB, it is your turn to provide evidence.

Don't just baldly assert "it's logical" and then require video of YM doing it. 

Surely, if I had that footage you'd then ask for video of Leung Jan doing it before you'd concede...


----------



## drop bear

LFJ said:


> That WB works does not justify the claim that this action found in multiple unrelated WC/VT lineages came to them from WB.
> 
> That claim has no evidence.



I didn't make that claim.


----------



## JowGaWolf

geezer said:


> Yep, I think we agree here. When I work with weapons or empty-handed in_ Escrima, _I weight the ball of my rear foot and have the heel up a bit, then when I fire my strike I drive off the ball of the rear foot and the heel comes up _more_. The exact dynamics vary according to the strike. _Wing Chun _is a different animal. Usually, the feet are kept flat. There is still weight shift, torque and body engagement in the punch, but via a different "engine". As for "Wing Chun Boxing" I don't know. Just put that in there for discussion.


We are on the same page.  The same thing you describe is how the Jow Ga shuffle works when we use it to chase people down.  Most of the time we one or two shuffles with foot flat is all that we need to maintain distance and contact.  I think (I could be wrong) this may be the same thing with Wing Chun.  Because of the way the push happens it gives the appearance that the Wing Chun practitioner hasn't moved his legs, yet the practitioner some how keeps up.  The legs and heels don't have the tale-tell sign that the Wing Chun guy is about to advance.  Wing Chun from what I'm able to tell is able to compensate for this limitation by stepping forward.  Jow Ga compensates by doing the same and by making sure that the rear foot has brief contact to the ground.  Maybe it's similar to how the rear leg pushes in fencing.  We us a cross stance as well to cover more ground but it's more of a deception step.  But other than some system differences we are thinking the same thing and understand it in the same way with the weight on the toes ready to push.


----------



## LFJ

Martial D said:


> It seems pointless and pedantic to argue where a movement or body position came from. I'm pretty sure nobody can patent these things. There are a finite amount of ways the body can move, and far fewer still that are effective for combat...of course there will be some crossover.



Correct. The action is just a refinement of a natural instinct to cover one's head.

That's why it comes up in multiple unrelated fighting arts from East to West.



> All that matters(to me anyway) is if the movement or position is effective, not who claims to own it.



I agree, which is why it's silly to insist that it belongs to WB, and use that excuse to invalidate VT methods by saying "but, that's not VT, it comes straight from WB."

And, not to be forgotten, without offerring a bit of evidence!


----------



## geezer

After reading the last couple of posts by LFJ, once again I regret that we don't have, in addition to "like", "dislike", "agree", and so forth,  ...also a_ "just settle down",_ or a _"for god's sake chill-out"_ icon to click.


----------



## karatejj

Malos1979 said:


> So your not only a dumbass?
> 
> You are a *racist* army boy. Turn the 12 year old mode off boy, oh wait that's not possible since you are 12.
> 
> Can a mod or admin please stop this dumbass? Thank you



Why is racist not to be shot by Islamist? Don't understand sorry


----------



## karatejj

drop bear said:


> Yeah. Mostly I agree with you. Although with a much softer emphasis.
> 
> It is very hard to expand a system with so many arbitrary rules.
> 
> I can see why a style would not want to step out too far and get manhandled in the adult pool.
> 
> But martial arts isn't about what you can do. It is about looking at what you can't do.



Rules is there for a reason man! With no rules you got no system


----------



## karatejj

Juany118 said:


> What does your military service have to do with anything.  The person you were responding to was talking more so about HOW you are expressing yourself.  When I, and others, around here speak to out Military and LE experience it is because it is relevant to the conversation at hand.  Perhaps explaining how a certain art proved effective, describing the physiological experience of feeling "fight or flight" etc.  However neither Military nor LE experience is necessarily indicative of maturity.



He was saying Im dumb. You don't stay alive long where I been if your dumb. There is different kinds of smarts in this world. Writing word on a page Im not so good. No reason to ridicule. In war zone with guys tryin to kill him Malos 79 might look bit dumb. Difference is Id help him, not laugh at him.


----------



## karatejj

drop bear said:


> No. There doesnt have to be evidence it doesn't work. I can just say there is no evidence that it does work.



All u can decide from the info you have is that you dont know!


----------



## karatejj

Nobody Important said:


> There is no such thing as a superior method, it's the person behind it that is responsible for success or failure. Techniques, biomechanics, theory and principles mean absolutely nothing without a sound strategy employed by a seasoned, well conditioned, mentally fit and intelligent being. No style can do that for you, you have to make it work by working.



Lol dude, have u ever tried wing chun. Strategy is right there!

Also there is better and not so good methods, I will take fighting with gun over fighting with hands. It is superior method and the biggest best fighter in the whole world has no chance use just his hands vs me with a gun

You sayin some crazy stuff here dude


----------



## Juany118

karatejj said:


> He was saying Im dumb. You don't stay alive long where I been if your dumb. There is different kinds of smarts in this world. Writing word on a page Im not so good. No reason to ridicule. In war zone with guys tryin to kill him Malos 79 might look bit dumb. Difference is Id help him, not laugh at him.


He's not saying you are dumb nor commenting on your Grammer, spelling etc.  He is talking about how you seem to react with some immaturity when people have opinions different than yours.

You even make arguments that are non sequiturs.  This a Martial arts forum so when someone says their is "no superior method" they are referring to Martial Arts, not a gun fight.  

The way you are responding reminds me of some of the people I have seen post on video game forums.


----------



## Nobody Important

karatejj said:


> Lol dude, have u ever tried wing chun. Strategy is right there!
> 
> Also there is better and not so good methods, I will take fighting with gun over fighting with hands. It is superior method and the biggest best fighter in the whole world has no chance use just his hands vs me with a gun
> 
> You sayin some crazy stuff here dude


Back from your recent ban I see, that's great! Now we all can enjoy your special posting style again. Praise be to the baby Jesus.


----------



## karatejj

Juany118 said:


> He's not saying you are dumb nor commenting on your Grammer, spelling etc.  He is talking about how you seem to react with some immaturity when people have opinions different than yours.



Wrong, he was saying I dumb



> order yourself an adult brain, get rid of that 12 year old one because it only gives you problems with language and logical thinking



He is down on what I writing and my logic. That is saying I am dumb, not that reactions are not mature. So I just showd I not dumb. We r all dumb in certain situation dude!


----------



## karatejj

Nobody Important said:


> Back from your recent ban I see, that's great! Now we all can enjoy your special posting style again. Praise be to the baby Jesus.



Vacation not ban


----------



## geezer

karatejj said:


> *Vacation* not ban



I love your positive spin. Always look at the bright side of life!  

Now, rather than going back to stupid old arguments on last week's posts, catch up with what we are talking about now and get on board with our ....yep, stupid _new _arguments!


----------



## Juany118

karatejj said:


> Wrong, he was saying I dumb
> 
> 
> 
> He is down on what I writing and my logic. That is saying I am dumb, not that reactions are not mature. So I just showd I not dumb. We r all dumb in certain situation dude!



Logic and intelligence are two different things.  Immaturity can interfeer with the former but not the latter.


----------



## KPM

JowGaWolf said:


> If you are talking about this guy? then I can tell you that ain't going to work. .



Your original mistake was in calling this a boxing punch.  I pointed out that it wasn't a boxing punch.  You said it had no power.  I pointed out that the power comes from forward momentum.  It wasn't a question of whether or not it worked in a given circumstance.  And honestly, I don't think you would be taking Vunak's legs out.  The guy is a bad ***!  ;-)


----------



## Martial D

karatejj said:


> Wrong, he was saying I dumb
> 
> 
> 
> He is down on what I writing and my logic. That is saying I am dumb, not that reactions are not mature. So I just showd I not dumb. We r all dumb in certain situation dude!


Someone left the door open again. Flies are getting in.


----------



## KPM

KPM said:


> Your original mistake was in calling this a boxing punch.  I pointed out that it wasn't a boxing punch.  You said it had no power.  I pointed out that the power comes from forward momentum.  It wasn't a question of whether or not it worked in a given circumstance.  And honestly, I don't think you would be taking Vunak's legs out.  The guy is a bad ***!  ;-)



Jowgawolf:   Maybe this will be a little clearer?  About mid-way through this clip I do the "blast" as well.  The heel is up because it is essentially a forward rush.


----------



## Steve

Juany118 said:


> He's not saying you are dumb nor commenting on your Grammer, spelling etc.  He is talking about how you seem to react with some immaturity when people have opinions different than yours.
> 
> You even make arguments that are non sequiturs.  This a Martial arts forum so when someone says their is "no superior method" they are referring to Martial Arts, not a gun fight.
> 
> The way you are responding reminds me of some of the people I have seen post on video game forums.


Ahem.  It's grammar, not Grammer.    

Haha...  hehe...  funny?  A little funny? Okay.  Nevermind.


----------



## karatejj

Martial D said:


> Someone left the door open again. Flies are getting in.



Probably attract to the the smell of the few fat old rats hiding in here. Vermins hate the light so open the door is the right thing


----------



## Steve

karatejj said:


> Probably attract to the the smell of the few fat old rats hiding in here. Vermins hate the light so open the door is the right thing


Actually.  That smell was me.  Sorry.  I had a Starbucks Egg and Cheese protein box for breakfast.


----------



## Martial D

karatejj said:


> Probably attract to the the smell of the few fat old rats hiding in here. Vermins hate the light so open the door is the right thing


You know, that wasn't bad. Every now and then something that looks like wit pokes out of you.

So either - You act retarded on purpose as some sort of trolling smoke screen or..

You have some sort of severe dyslexia that causes you to both to not understand anything you read and not be understood when you write.

I'd call it 50/50 odds at this point.


----------



## Vajramusti

KPM said:


> Jowgawolf:   Maybe this will be a little clearer?  About mid-way through this clip I do the "blast" as well.  The heel is up because it is essentially a forward rush.


----------------------------------------------------------------
Frankly and unfortunately I dont see either boxingor wing chun in that clip.And the partner just stands there


----------



## Juany118

Steve said:


> Ahem.  It's grammar, not Grammer.
> 
> Hahahaha...  hehe...  funny?  A little funny? Okay.  Nevermind.


----------



## JowGaWolf

KPM said:


> Jowgawolf:   Maybe this will be a little clearer?  About mid-way through this clip I do the "blast" as well.  The heel is up because it is essentially a forward rush.


 I watched the video without sound and what I saw in it was what I've been saying. Toes weighted versus heels up.  when a punch was fired the heel went up and returned to a toe weighted position. I didn't watch the hands.  I only watched the footwork.  I'll watch it again with sound when I get a chance.


----------



## KPM

Vajramusti said:


> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Frankly and unfortunately I dont see either boxingor wing chun in that clip.And the partner just stands there



Do you ever have anything positive to say?  My partner was meant to just stand there.  It was a demo of basic technique, not a sparring session.


----------



## KPM

JowGaWolf said:


> I watched the video without sound and what I saw in it was what I've been saying. Toes weighted versus heels up.  when a punch was fired the heel went up and returned to a toe weighted position. I didn't watch the hands.  I only watched the footwork.  I'll watch it again with sound when I get a chance.



Well yeah.  Like I said, the "blast" is a forward rush to overwhelm the opponent.  The power comes from the forward momentum.


----------



## JowGaWolf

KPM said:


> Do you ever have anything positive to say?  My partner was meant to just stand there.  It was a demo of basic technique, not a sparring session.


Next time put a rating on you video.  D=demo. C = concept discussion.


----------



## drop bear

KPM said:


> Jowgawolf:   Maybe this will be a little clearer?  About mid-way through this clip I do the "blast" as well.  The heel is up because it is essentially a forward rush.



I would consider both feet with toes forwards.


----------



## karatejj

Martial D said:


> You know, that wasn't bad. Every now and then something that looks like wit pokes out of you.
> 
> So either - You act retarded on purpose as some sort of trolling smoke screen or..
> 
> You have some sort of severe dyslexia that causes you to both to not understand anything you read and not be understood when you write.
> 
> I'd call it 50/50 odds at this point.



Hey man I tod you I got dyslexia. Dpnt stop the brain working tho!


----------



## KPM

I finally got some more lessons up!  Check it out!   Jack Dempsey's "Falling Step", Robert Fitzsimmons' "shift" and the "Rabbit Punch."

Iron Fist Wing Chun Boxing


----------



## wayfaring

KPM said:


> Do you ever have anything positive to say?  My partner was meant to just stand there.  It was a demo of basic technique, not a sparring session.





KPM said:


> Do you ever have anything positive to say?  My partner was meant to just stand there.  It was a demo of basic technique, not a sparring session.


Hey KPM what up?

For a positive thing to say it is awesome that you and your training partner are out there utilizing a seemingly underused area of your community to get some exercise, get some film in, and raise awareness of wing chun and boxing.

Having studied both arts, boxing has elbow down punches, but that doesn't make them wing chun punches.  And similar vice versa trying to combine them.  The main problem here is the underlying engine.  Boxing has a rotational engine to produce power, as opposed to wing chun's body engine which is different in nature.

Thanks.


----------



## KPM

wayfaring said:


> The main problem here is the underlying engine.  Boxing has a rotational engine to produce power, as opposed to wing chun's body engine which is different in nature.
> 
> Thanks.


 
Absolutely agree!  And that is a point I have tried to explain to people in the past that often goes right over their collective heads!     So "Wing Chun Boxing" uses that Boxing engine or biomechanic as the base, and adds various Wing Chun methods to it.  Very similarly, Panantukan uses that Boxing engine as a base and has added FMA methods to it...such a limb destructions, joint-locks, etc.   Boxing is a time-tested and proven fighting system.  So it just makes sense to use it as a base and see how we can adapt and "stretch it" a bit.


----------



## drop bear

wayfaring said:


> Hey KPM what up?
> 
> For a positive thing to say it is awesome that you and your training partner are out there utilizing a seemingly underused area of your community to get some exercise, get some film in, and raise awareness of wing chun and boxing.
> 
> Having studied both arts, boxing has elbow down punches, but that doesn't make them wing chun punches.  And similar vice versa trying to combine them.  The main problem here is the underlying engine.  Boxing has a rotational engine to produce power, as opposed to wing chun's body engine which is different in nature.
> 
> Thanks.



And yet is indistinguishable from western punching in application.

Seriously when chun is throwing overhand rights. They are comparable in concept to boxing.

Sorry but let's just suggest right here that this as a flat statement is a load of balls.

And suggest that wing Chun concepts don't actually start or end anywhere except in the imagination of the practitioner.

That you are not training inside or outside the box.

THERE IS NO BOX!

So you take any concept you want and mesh it with any other concept you want. And create a stronger system.


----------



## drop bear

KPM said:


> Absolutely agree!  And that is a point I have tried to explain to people in the past that often goes right over their collective heads!     So "Wing Chun Boxing" uses that Boxing engine or biomechanic as the base, and adds various Wing Chun methods to it.  Very similarly, Panantukan uses that Boxing engine as a base and has added FMA methods to it...such a limb destructions, joint-locks, etc.   Boxing is a time-tested and proven fighting system.  So it just makes sense to use it as a base and see how we can adapt and "stretch it" a bit.



Just make sure you don't reach to to find a target and instead footwork into position. This will reduce your rotational movement. And make your attacking and defensive structure tighter.

Also adopt the amateur boxing concept of elbows forward and front on stance so you can use both hands to make trapping easier.

Look at kostya tzu.

I mean you will still get mashed by an equal fighter who is engaging you with his head off center because he doesn't have to waste resources attacking and defending with his hands. He can just attack with both hands and defend with movement.

But it will look more like chun than Alan Oor


----------



## drop bear

Wait a damn second you shifty people. I just caught on. 

Slipping is rotational. Ducking and weaving is rotational. You can't do either of those defences without adopting rotational movement.

You do rotational movement.


----------



## drop bear

KPM said:


> Jowgawolf:   Maybe this will be a little clearer?  About mid-way through this clip I do the "blast" as well.  The heel is up because it is essentially a forward rush.



this was a while back but the smaller blond guy is called the Danimal. He came from a very traditional ammy boxing style. And you can see how he is much more chunnish than say a pro boxer you may be used to.

Greg Saunders


----------



## wayfaring

KPM said:


> Absolutely agree!  And that is a point I have tried to explain to people in the past that often goes right over their collective heads!     So "Wing Chun Boxing" uses that Boxing engine or biomechanic as the base, and adds various Wing Chun methods to it.  Very similarly, Panantukan uses that Boxing engine as a base and has added FMA methods to it...such a limb destructions, joint-locks, etc.   Boxing is a time-tested and proven fighting system.  So it just makes sense to use it as a base and see how we can adapt and "stretch it" a bit.



Got what you are trying to do.  I don't try to do that because rotational motions tend to abandon centerline and are slower.


----------



## wayfaring

drop bear said:


> And yet is indistinguishable from western punching in application.
> 
> Seriously when chun is throwing overhand rights. They are comparable in concept to boxing.
> 
> Sorry but let's just suggest right here that this as a flat statement is a load of balls.
> 
> And suggest that wing Chun concepts don't actually start or end anywhere except in the imagination of the practitioner.
> 
> That you are not training inside or outside the box.
> 
> THERE IS NO BOX!
> 
> So you take any concept you want and mesh it with any other concept you want. And create a stronger system.



Kind of not sure where to start with this.

Is this some kind of negative dig against inside vs. outside the box fighting?  

I mean if you don't recognize a box in your wing chun practice that is your business.  

Your alternative is to mix any two concepts together and create a stronger system?  

OK I'll play.  Let's mix Steven Seagal aikido with yellow bamboo and call it yellow aikido.  So much stronger than either component art.

Your turn.


----------



## drop bear

wayfaring said:


> Kind of not sure where to start with this.
> 
> Is this some kind of negative dig against inside vs. outside the box fighting?
> 
> I mean if you don't recognize a box in your wing chun practice that is your business.
> 
> Your alternative is to mix any two concepts together and create a stronger system?
> 
> OK I'll play.  Let's mix Steven Seagal aikido with yellow bamboo and call it yellow aikido.  So much stronger than either component art.
> 
> Your turn.



It is steven segals aikido and yellow bamboo.

How could you make it worse?

You look at this concept backwards. Ok. Mabye this will work as an explaination.

We have fruit and we have vegatables so to make a fruit salad we add different fruit.

Well a tomato is a fruit so it has to go in fruit salad. A banana is a herb so it doesn't go in the fruit salad.

If we try to define reality by our imposed concept we get a terrible tasting fruit salad.


----------



## geezer

Yellow Aiki-boo? Where do I sign up? Sounds more fun than boxing without a box!


----------



## wayfaring

drop bear said:


> It is steven segals aikido and yellow bamboo.
> 
> How could you make it worse?
> 
> You look at this concept backwards. Ok. Mabye this will work as an explaination.
> 
> We have fruit and we have vegatables so to make a fruit salad we add different fruit.
> 
> Well a tomato is a fruit so it has to go in fruit salad. A banana is a herb so it doesn't go in the fruit salad.
> 
> If we try to define reality by our imposed concept we get a terrible tasting fruit salad.



It's cool man I think I get your tomato banana salad idea.

Which imposed concept?


----------



## wayfaring

geezer said:


> Yellow Aiki-boo? Where do I sign up? Sounds more fun than boxing without a box!


The line for classes forms off to the left.

LOL.


----------



## drop bear

wayfaring said:


> It's cool man I think I get your tomato banana salad idea.
> 
> Which imposed concept?




It is all imposed idea. We do this, we don't do that. Which makes us chun or boxing or whatever.

None of it is real. It is all just a description of real.






I really thought the ref was going to let that go for a second.


----------



## wayfaring

drop bear said:


> It is all imposed idea. We do this, we don't do that. Which makes us chun or boxing or whatever.
> 
> None of it is real. It is all just a description of real.
> 
> I really thought the ref was going to let that go for a second.



Yes looking at that video it is hard to see the distinction between that contest, a boxing contest, or an amateur MMA contest.

I mean except for the helmets and all.

At first I thought I was watching slap fights at a motorcycle rally LOL


----------



## drop bear

wayfaring said:


> Yes looking at that video it is hard to see the distinction between that contest, a boxing contest, or an amateur MMA contest.
> 
> I mean except for the helmets and all.
> 
> At first I thought I was watching slap fights at a motorcycle rally LOL



Which is because different styles are a construct. We ultimately just make them up. We also just make up the difference between what is changeable and what is fixed.

So Chun doesnt do rotational punches. But can fight from guard. why? 

Because we just decide it is the case.


----------



## wayfaring

drop bear said:


> Which is because different styles are a construct. We ultimately just make them up. We also just make up the difference between what is changeable and what is fixed.
> 
> So Chun doesnt do rotational punches. But can fight from guard. why?
> 
> Because we just decide it is the case.



That's a bit esoteric Plato's cave for me, but I guess yes all arts are a construct.   But given that your ideas about the arts are a construct too.

So with all that in mind how exactly does Conor McGregor plan to beat up Floyd Mayweather here later this month?


----------



## drop bear

wayfaring said:


> That's a bit esoteric Plato's cave for me, but I guess yes all arts are a construct.   But given that your ideas about the arts are a construct too.
> 
> So with all that in mind how exactly does Conor McGregor plan to beat up Floyd Mayweather here later this month?



See esoteric for me is trying to come up with what is or isn't martial arts based on something other than cracking heads. Let alone who gets to decide. And more importantly who gets to decide for everyone else.

And Connor is going to loose.


----------



## KPM

wayfaring said:


> Yes looking at that video it is hard to see the distinction between that contest, a boxing contest, or an amateur MMA contest.
> 
> I mean except for the helmets and all.
> 
> At first I thought I was watching slap fights at a motorcycle rally LOL



And this is where I'm coming from.    Awhile back I took a good long look at all the footage of Wing Chun people sparring that I could find.  A great majority of them end up abandoning the Wing Chun "engine" or biomechanic when under any real pressure and just resort to a pseudo-boxing engine by default.  And since they don't really train to use that engine regularly, they don't do it very well!  So my reasoning was this.....if most people resort to a boxing-like structure or engine under pressure either because it just feels more natural to them or because it is simply what works....then why not actually train to use that boxing engine well?  But in using that boxing base, one doesn't have to necessarily abandon a lot of the Wing Chun concepts and basic techniques.   Some here have tried to argue that Western Boxing and Wing Chun are incompatible.  But that simply isn't true, and comes from people that are somewhat narrow-minded and haven't really tried to work them together.   And besides....I've always loved both Wing Chun and Boxing.  So I get to do both at once!


----------



## geezer

KPM said:


> And this is where I'm coming from.    Awhile back I took a good long look at all the footage of Wing Chun people sparring that I could find.  A great majority of them end up abandoning the Wing Chun "engine" or biomechanic when under any real pressure and just resort to a pseudo-boxing engine by default.  And since they don't really train to use that engine regularly, they don't do it very well!  So my reasoning was this.....if most people resort to a boxing-like structure or engine under pressure either because it just feels more natural to them or because it is simply what works....then why not actually train to use that boxing engine well?  But in using that boxing base, one doesn't have to necessarily abandon a lot of the Wing Chun concepts and basic techniques.   Some here have tried to argue that Western Boxing and Wing Chun are incompatible.  But that simply isn't true, and comes from people that are somewhat narrow-minded and haven't really tried to work them together.   And besides....I've always loved both Wing Chun and Boxing.  So I get to do both at once!



Let me be the first to say that you are_ totally wrong_ on so many levels. If only you had a deeper understanding of real, unbroken WC/VT/WT you would see this. 

Now that that's out of the way, let me say a lot of WC people are coming to the same conclusion as you. And that's why your WC-boxing has a chance at working. IMO, developing an effective WC-boxing method will only work if a lot of people with differing points of view get on board, each working at trying to come up with a better mousetrap and then getting together to test what they are coming up with.

And when you look around, I think that's starting to happen. Whether it will go anywhere, remains to be seen.


----------



## Phobius

geezer said:


> Let me be the first to say that you are_ totally wrong_ on so many levels. If only you had a deeper understanding of real, unbroken WC/VT/WT you would see this.
> 
> Now that that's out of the way, let me say a lot of WC people are coming to the same conclusion as you. And that's why your WC-boxing has a chance at working. IMO, developing an effective WC-boxing method will only work if a lot of people with differing points of view get on board, each working at trying to come up with a better mousetrap and then getting together to test what they are coming up with.
> 
> And when you look around, I think that's starting to happen. Whether it will go anywhere, remains to be seen.



Just keep some things in mind. Don't be a Wing Chun guy that think you know boxing from watching clips and trying to integrate to your training. Learn boxing and then integrate. Difference is same as a Wing Chun teacher introducing BJJ after watching clips on YouTube. Outcome may or may not become devastating to the students.

Understand also that evolution of boxing is here, and the sport makes it continue to evolve day by day.

Finally, not because it is a final point but rather my final in this message, gloves on or off. Do you train to fight with gloves or without them. It matters greatly. MMA gloves, bare knuckle or boxing gloves... it all has different mechanics.


----------



## drop bear

Phobius said:


> Just keep some things in mind. Don't be a Wing Chun guy that think you know boxing from watching clips and trying to integrate to your training. Learn boxing and then integrate. Difference is same as a Wing Chun teacher introducing BJJ after watching clips on YouTube. Outcome may or may not become devastating to the students.
> 
> Understand also that evolution of boxing is here, and the sport makes it continue to evolve day by day.
> 
> Finally, not because it is a final point but rather my final in this message, gloves on or off. Do you train to fight with gloves or without them. It matters greatly. MMA gloves, bare knuckle or boxing gloves... it all has different mechanics.



Slightly different. If you were going to compete it matters. If you are just using it for self defence. Good striking mechanics will take you a long way further than specific glove stuff.

As far as training goes you should probably spar in big gloves to get the concept of hitting hard and small ones for good defence.


----------



## KPM

Phobius said:


> Just keep some things in mind. Don't be a Wing Chun guy that think you know boxing from watching clips and trying to integrate to your training. Learn boxing and then integrate. Difference is same as a Wing Chun teacher introducing BJJ after watching clips on YouTube. Outcome may or may not become devastating to the students.
> 
> Understand also that evolution of boxing is here, and the sport makes it continue to evolve day by day.
> 
> Finally, not because it is a final point but rather my final in this message, gloves on or off. Do you train to fight with gloves or without them. It matters greatly. MMA gloves, bare knuckle or boxing gloves... it all has different mechanics.



Phobius, have you watched my videos?


----------



## Phobius

drop bear said:


> Slightly different. If you were going to compete it matters. If you are just using it for self defence. Good striking mechanics will take you a long way further than specific glove stuff.
> 
> As far as training goes you should probably spar in big gloves to get the concept of hitting hard and small ones for good defence.



Depends on what you mean with mechanics. I call guard/defense and aim as well as open VS closed fist, elbows etc as part of mechanics. Of course most things like power generation and structure remains the same. 

Just saying there are fall pits that I sometimes hear where people think boxing gloves only is all you need for sparring to train survival in non competitive environment.

Just like there are fall pits no matter how small where you perhaps integrate boxing techniques and forget that it is the drills, the training that makes boxers vicious.

You want to train fighters so you add boxing techniques and then you do static drills and no combination training. Outcome will not be boxing and WC merged. It will just be different. 

As for KPM i do not talk about him. There is no information about his classes so one must train with him to judge him. 

You can for instance not learn BJJ by watching YouTube clips, create a form with movements and remove sparring. Even removing competition will remove whatever you do from following the same path. (once more this is not saying anything about KPM as only he and his students know what he does) 

There are some boxers that moved over to WC but I just think the danger lies with having a guy know WC and joining classes thinking he can copy it to WC without understanding boxing in itself. (repeating this I know nothing about with KPM, just raising general points)


----------



## Phobius

KPM said:


> Phobius, have you watched my videos?



Actually I have. It is interesting what you want to do. They also do not show whether or not my 'general points' apply to you or not nor does it matter.

Just have seen those guys that think boxing is something you can teach yourself. And yet they argue that you can not learn WC from YouTube nor can you understand it with just a few months training. How come they think it is OK to do the same themselves with boxing?


----------



## wayfaring

Phobius said:


> Depends on what you mean with mechanics. I call guard/defense and aim as well as open VS closed fist, elbows etc as part of mechanics. Of course most things like power generation and structure remains the same.
> 
> Just saying there are fall pits that I sometimes hear where people think boxing gloves only is all you need for sparring to train survival in non competitive environment.
> 
> Just like there are fall pits no matter how small where you perhaps integrate boxing techniques and forget that it is the drills, the training that makes boxers vicious.
> 
> You want to train fighters so you add boxing techniques and then you do static drills and no combination training. Outcome will not be boxing and WC merged. It will just be different.
> 
> As for KPM i do not talk about him. There is no information about his classes so one must train with him to judge him.
> 
> You can for instance not learn BJJ by watching YouTube clips, create a form with movements and remove sparring. Even removing competition will remove whatever you do from following the same path. (once more this is not saying anything about KPM as only he and his students know what he does)
> 
> There are some boxers that moved over to WC but I just think the danger lies with having a guy know WC and joining classes thinking he can copy it to WC without understanding boxing in itself. (repeating this I know nothing about with KPM, just raising general points)



This is funny, but I think all the concepts for me that are sorting themselves out in the grappling/striking mix I'm talking about on the other thread, for me they don't work for boxing.  In my opinion the overlap of the arts is too great.  

Boxing is built upon the jump rope and conditioning.  IMO.  One of my favorites, Vasil Lomachenko, looks like a jump rope expert in the Matrix.   Movement based.  Head movement based.

I just don't see wing chun concepts and energy working along the same lines there.  

Maybe it's just me.

Thoughts?


----------



## KPM

Just put some more new lessons up!   Here is one of them:


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

KPM said:


> A great majority of them end up abandoning the Wing Chun "engine" ...


May be the WC "engine" is too difficult to develop. When was the last time that you have seen someone who used WC "inch punch" to knock his opponent down with gloves on? IMO, trying to generate maximum power without "body rotation" is not easy. When you want to knock your opponent down and your body rotation can add more power into your punch, it will be difficult for you not to "violate" the WC principle and apply the boxing principle instead.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Phobius said:


> Actually I have. It is interesting what you want to do. They also do not show whether or not my 'general points' apply to you or not nor does it matter.
> 
> Just have seen those guys that think boxing is something you can teach yourself. And yet they argue that you can not learn WC from YouTube nor can you understand it with just a few months training. How come they think it is OK to do the same themselves with boxing?


I think the difference is between teaching yourself something, and drawing influence/inspiration from something. I can't become a good boxer by using YouTube videos. But I can pick up some points of principle from them, and tinker with those to find some improvements in what I do. My end result won't be boxing (though it wouldn't be unreasonable to refer to the boxing principles), but it can be an effective approach if tested properly along the way.


----------



## drop bear

Malos1979 said:


> I thought some purists here always said Wing Chun didn't use hookpunches, what was I just watching in this video?
> .



They do if they drop their elbow at the last second. Makes it a wing punch or something.

Of course if you drop your elbow you dont get your weight behind the punch so they dont actually do that either.

Or more importantly they just decide what is and isn't wing chun at the time depending on no real reasoning at all other than personal preference.

Which is how you are supposed to apply a martial art which is why it tends to work live.

But they also still have to keep up the facade of the system. So there is all this weirdness confusing logic and lying to themselves.


----------



## anerlich

To my mind there is little difference between the mechanics of a good hook punch and a decent bil jee elbow strike. At least from the shoulders down. I know the way those elbows strike are done varies across lineages, and this may not apply to everybody.


----------



## KPM

anerlich said:


> To my mind there is little difference between the mechanics of a good hook punch and a decent bil jee elbow strike. At least from the shoulders down. I know the way those elbows strike are done varies across lineages, and this may not apply to everybody.



I agree!  I say that and demonstrate it in this video:


----------



## wayfaring

KPM said:


> And this is where I'm coming from.    Awhile back I took a good long look at all the footage of Wing Chun people sparring that I could find.  A great majority of them end up abandoning the Wing Chun "engine" or biomechanic when under any real pressure and just resort to a pseudo-boxing engine by default.  And since they don't really train to use that engine regularly, they don't do it very well!  So my reasoning was this.....if most people resort to a boxing-like structure or engine under pressure either because it just feels more natural to them or because it is simply what works....then why not actually train to use that boxing engine well?  But in using that boxing base, one doesn't have to necessarily abandon a lot of the Wing Chun concepts and basic techniques.   Some here have tried to argue that Western Boxing and Wing Chun are incompatible.  But that simply isn't true, and comes from people that are somewhat narrow-minded and haven't really tried to work them together.   And besides....I've always loved both Wing Chun and Boxing.  So I get to do both at once!



I get you.  I don't think I would offer as strong an argument that they are incompatible.  I actually have up until recently trained at a pro boxer's gym.  So I've trained the boxer's stance, all the punches, the jump rope, bags, speed bags, conditioning - all of it.  Their fighting and stance is based upon head movement at that gym going from front foot to back foot weighted.  There is a huge amount of the lower body exposed.   Love the workout you get with all of that movement.  Great workout benefit.   I haven't checked out all your videos on this yet but will get to them eventually.  Have seen a couple.

More recently I have been focused on the wing chun body as a power generation engine, which is more compact.  At least one video above talks a little about that I think.  

I do keep up training at my friends MMA gym - he's more Dutch Muy Thai background. We discuss wing chun a lot and he teaches trapping to his gang.  I'm always bringing the chun concepts into his gym LOL.


----------



## KPM

Malos1979 said:


> Just curious, what's Dutch Muay Thai? I'm dutch and we just call it Muay Thai



Not to speak for him, but I assume he means.....the Dutch have had a very strong Muay Thai presence for many years now.  So much so that they have somewhat their own version or variant.  For instance...the "dutch hand trap" is relatively common amongst the Dutch Muay Thai guys.  This is smacking down the opponent's guard with a backhand motion followed immediately by a punch to the head with the other hand.  Not unique to them....Vasyl Lamenchenko does it a lot as well.....but something that makes them a little different.


----------



## drop bear

Malos1979 said:


> Just curious, what's Dutch Muay Thai? I'm dutch and we just call it Muay Thai



It has more of a ckickboxing or boxing base. Thai has that hoppy front leg thing.


----------



## Danny T

Malos1979 said:


> Just curious, what's Dutch Muay Thai? I'm dutch and we just call it Muay Thai


Different rules, different scoring in matches. Creates different strategies & tactics as well as stylistic differences in stances and movement.


----------



## FighterTwister

I liked the video thought o share


----------



## drop bear

FighterTwister said:


> I liked the video thought o share



They could both benifit from fighting with their eyes open.


----------



## KPM

^^^^ Two guys screwing around.  Neither one wanted to look bad on camera.  Wing Chun guy in particular looked like crap.


----------



## Danny T

LOL..."My background is in, I've competed in fencing so you'll see my footwork come out. I've done wing chun so look for some chain punches, and I've done tricking so look for some crazy kicks."  Tricking...showmanship...as in not really kicking someone who is also trying to kick you as well.

"So what's your background my man? primarily boxing, been doing that for a number of years and then grew up watching wrestling, there's definitely a lot of grappling in my life..."  Huh? So watching wrestling growing up is a lot of grappling in his life. LOL!!

Both look terrible for both wing chun and boxing especially have done that for several years. 

Then he states they have done fight scenes for years so they are very good at just tagging each other, we are very good at timing.  

The one thing I have no concern with is sparring is communicating not arguing. However, both of these gentlemen need to spend a lot more time sparring and quit talking about how much experience or skill they have.


----------



## FighterTwister

Danny T said:


> LOL..."My background is in, I've competed in fencing so you'll see my footwork come out. I've done wing chun so look for some chain punches, and I've done tricking so look for some crazy kicks."  Tricking...showmanship...as in not really kicking someone who is also trying to kick you as well.
> 
> "So what's your background my man? primarily boxing, been doing that for a number of years and then grew up watching wrestling, there's definitely a lot of grappling in my life..."  Huh? So watching wrestling growing up is a lot of grappling in his life. LOL!!
> 
> Both look terrible for both wing chun and boxing especially have done that for several years.
> 
> Then he states they have done fight scenes for years so they are very good at just tagging each other, we are very good at timing.
> 
> The one thing I have no concern with is sparring is communicating not arguing. However, both of these gentlemen need to spend a lot more time sparring and quit talking about how much experience or skill they have.



Have you honestly ever tried Wing Chun - Boxing?

I have, its really uncomfortable with boxing gloves, sparring without them is certainly the most convenient of ways to do it.

The touch sensitivity is not really in place neither is the angulation, its more of a hybrid trapping hands and counter strike if that explains my point at all in a clear way.

I linked that video to demonstrate that very reason and they are having fun and experimenting thats all part of the broader sense of learning, so to speak.

Here is a one that is a lot more on the serious side enjoy...................








I really want to here your comments now?

Also the comment made on the video should have given you a clue "Sparring is a conversation not an argument", first being young and learning that they are just showcasing what they have learned, no need to be anal about it LOL


----------



## Nobody Important

FighterTwister said:


> Have you honestly ever tried Wing Chun - Boxing?
> 
> I have, its really uncomfortable with boxing gloves, sparring without them is certainly the most convenient of ways to do it.
> 
> The touch sensitivity is not really in place neither is the angulation, its more of a hybrid trapping hands and counter strike if that explains my point at all in a clear way.
> 
> I linked that video to demonstrate that very reason and they are having fun and experimenting thats all part of the broader sense of learning, so to speak.
> 
> Here is a one that is a lot more on the serious side enjoy...................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I really want to here your comments now?
> 
> Also the comment made on the video should have given you a clue "Sparring is a conversation not an argument", first being young and learning that they are just showcasing what they have learned, no need to be anal about it LOL


IMO it's a video showing two guys playing around & having a little fun. Nothing wrong with that, and I'm not going to critique their technique because it looks as if they're just messing around.

However, the title is misleading, it is not by my definition sparring, let alone full contact sparring.

I'm guessing the title is labeled as such to grab attention. If not, and they truly believe this to be full contact sparring, pulled strikes and all, then it's evident neither has ever trained for real full contact fighting. That kind of delusion can lead to a false sense of ability.


----------



## KPM

Nobody Important said:


> IMO it's a video showing two guys playing around & having a little fun. Nothing wrong with that, and I'm not going to critique their technique because it looks as if they're just messing around.
> 
> However, the title is misleading, it is not by my definition sparring, let alone full contact sparring.
> 
> I'm guessing the title is labeled as such to grab attention. If not, and they truly believe this to be full contact sparring, pulled strikes and all, then it's evident neither has ever trained for real full contact fighting. That kind of delusion can lead to a false sense of ability.



My thoughts exactly!   That video is labeled "Wing Chun vs. Boxing:  Real Sparring".....which it wasn't.  It was two guys screwing around and neither wanted to look bad for the camera!  And that's fine.  But to brag about their backgrounds, call a video "real sparring" and then to look that bad while doing it should be a bit embarrassing for them!


----------



## FighterTwister

Nobody Important said:


> IMO it's a video showing two guys playing around & having a little fun. Nothing wrong with that, and I'm not going to critique their technique because it looks as if they're just messing around.
> 
> However, the title is misleading, it is not by my definition sparring, let alone full contact sparring.
> 
> I'm guessing the title is labeled as such to grab attention. If not, and they truly believe this to be full contact sparring, pulled strikes and all, *then it's evident neither has ever trained for real full contact fighting.* *That kind of delusion can lead to a false sense of ability.*






KPM said:


> My thoughts exactly!   That video is labeled "Wing Chun vs. Boxing:  Real Sparring".....which it wasn't.  It was two guys screwing around and neither wanted to look bad for the camera!  And that's fine.  But to brag about their backgrounds, call a video "real sparring" *and then to look that bad while doing it should be a bit embarrassing for them! *




LOL, Okay go tell him that..................... Sifu - Dr Mark Phillips -   The London Wing Chun Academy |

His YouTube Channel:- Fight SCIENCE   Hahahaha


----------



## KPM

*Have you honestly ever tried Wing Chun - Boxing?*

---Yes!  I've been putting video lessons up on the topic!  

I *have, its really uncomfortable with boxing gloves,*

---No its not.  That statement leads me to believe you haven't really seriously worked it to any extent.  We train regularly both with and without gloves.


*The touch sensitivity is not really in place neither is the angulation, its more of a hybrid trapping hands and counter strike if that explains my point at all in a clear way.*

---Touch sensitivity is not what wins a fight.  Do you see any real "touch sensitivity" in either of the videos you posted?


*I linked that video to demonstrate that very reason and they are having fun and experimenting thats all part of the broader sense of learning, so to speak.*

---And nothing wrong with that!  But going by how they labeled the video and how they gave a background leading up to it....it sure seemed like they thought they had some kind of valuable lesson or example to share.  But they were just two guys screwing around.


*I really want to here your comments now?*

---Much better video!  Mark Phillips is good!   But again, I would say that video is mis-labeled as well.  It was far from "real full contact."   Neither one was really trying to take out the other.  They are both much better than either of the guys in that other video.  But still "playing around" mostly and not seriously trying to tag each other.


*Also the comment made on the video should have given you a clue "Sparring is a conversation not an argument", first being young and learning that they are just showcasing what they have learned, no need to be anal about it*

---Danny was reacting to the false bravado and the mis-labeling of the video.  I agree with him.  Nothing "anal" about it.  And there is nothing wrong with a couple of guys having some fun sparring.  But don't try to call it what it isn't and hold it out there as some kind shining example.   The Wing Chun guy in that video has also put out videos along the lines of "a boxer can't touch me".   Its pretty clear he  would get destroyed by a good boxer!


----------



## KPM

FighterTwister said:


> LOL, Okay go tell him that..................... Sifu - Dr Mark Phillips -   The London Wing Chun Academy |
> 
> His YouTube Channel:- Fight SCIENCE   Hahahaha



Uh....that isn't Mark Phillips in the first video....which is the one that both NI and I was referring to.


----------



## KPM

This is what it looks like when two people are really trying to hit each other.....and without gloves!


----------



## FighterTwister




----------



## KPM

Or how about this one?







Not particularly pretty.  But this is what a real fight looks like.  This is what two guys actually trying to hit each other and not just screwing around looks like.   This is "real sparring."


----------



## Danny T

FighterTwister said:


> Have you honestly ever tried Wing Chun - Boxing?
> 
> I have, its really uncomfortable with boxing gloves, sparring without them is certainly the most convenient of ways to do it.
> 
> The touch sensitivity is not really in place neither is the angulation, its more of a hybrid trapping hands and counter strike if that explains my point at all in a clear way.


Yes. Do it often. WC vs Muay Thai, WC vs, Boxing, WC vs Kali, WC vs whatever.
In our WC training we do a lot of WC vs WC for fundamental learning but quickly have our students sparring vs our boxers, nak muays, wrestlers, and mma fighters. I am very comfortable with sparring from beginners to professional fighters.
We spar with boxing gloves, with mma type gloves, with bare hands...it's all good.
Real fighting isn't like the drills done in WC. Many people never transition from form training and drill training to real time application. 


FighterTwister said:


> I linked that video to demonstrate that very reason and they are having fun and experimenting thats all part of the broader sense of learning, so to speak.


I agree they were playing around having fun and that is excellent. They came off as having a lot of experience and training. Their movements, timing, sense of distancing, attack tactics and execution say different. Is it possible they were just using poor weight distribution, movement, striking structures, etc. on purpose? Maybe but somehow I have serious doubts on that.



FighterTwister said:


> Here is a one that is a lot more on the serious side enjoy...................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I really want to here your comments now?
> 
> Also the comment made on the video should have given you a clue "Sparring is a conversation not an argument", first being young and learning that they are just showcasing what they have learned, no need to be anal about it LOL


I like a lot of what Mark Phillips does.
The video was of them doing chi sao and mostly of Mark with his back against the wall. Good training. But that isn't sparring vs a boxer. 

There are several aspects and degrees of sparring all designed for specific learning or toward sharpening one's tools and skills depending on the individuals experience. The thing is these guys in your first video embellished their years of experience training and sparring and it shows. Tricking is showmanship. Not knocking the skills it takes to do tricking. But tricking isn't sparring or fighting. Watching wrestling is not wrestling experience it is experience in watching wrestling.

No problem in good technical sparring, having fun, and enjoying the learning. I agree with that. Sparring is about learning.


----------



## KPM

On a different note, I just came across a vid for those guys (LFJ?) that said Boxing couldn't be a martial art because boxers can't handle kicks.  I  believe that was further up in this thread.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

KPM said:


> On a different note, I just came across a vid for those guys (LFJ?) that said Boxing couldn't be a martial art because boxers can't handle kicks.  I  believe that was further up in this thread.


Poor strategic choices by the kicker - everything was to areas the boxer is used to protecting. But a good demonstration that the close-in guarding a boxer uses tends to be effective, regardless of the direction of attack, if the attack is to a target the boxer is accustomed to protecting.


----------



## wckf92

KPM said:


> On a different note, I just came across a vid for those guys (LFJ?) that said Boxing couldn't be a martial art because boxers can't handle kicks.  I  believe that was further up in this thread.



Haven't seen or heard from LFJ in quite a while...wonder if he is on a vacation from forums...?


----------



## Nobody Important

FighterTwister said:


> LOL, Okay go tell him that..................... Sifu - Dr Mark Phillips -   The London Wing Chun Academy |
> 
> His YouTube Channel:- Fight SCIENCE   Hahahaha


I'm  saying it now, on a public forum, that isn't  sparring let alone full contact.

The problem in TCMA, is that individuals like you believe displays like that video to be so.

You are free to believe in whatever you want that supports your understanding of the world, but it doesn't make it true.

Believing that video to be full contact sparring because they themselves call it that doesn't mean it is. 

I don't care if this person is popular or influential because they have a YouTube channel, claims a pedigree, has a large organization, has followers, etc. So did Jim Jones, that didn't make him right either.

You asked for opinions. I gave you one, sorry you didn't like it.


----------



## geezer

KPM said:


> On a different note, I just came across a vid for those guys (LFJ?) that said *Boxing couldn't be a martial art because boxers can't handle kicks.*  I  believe that was further up in this thread.



He really said that, huh? One of his less enlightened moments I guess. Oh well. Carry on....


----------



## Flying Crane

KPM said:


> This is what it looks like when two people are really trying to hit each other.....and without gloves!


Well, it's what it looks like when these two particular people agree to have a competition in a ring, with a referee and a set of rules, and do their best to hit each other.

And while they are not wearing gloves, I see some wraps that give support and protection to the hands and wrists, so it is by no means bare-handed.

What I see in this video is a lot of caution and hesitation, which often(but not always) results in reduced commitment with their techniques.  This is a result of the fact that this is a competition that they agreed to, with a set of rules and a referee, and they both are being cautious in their desire to outlast the opponent.

That is all fine for what it is.  

But it is not as simple as "This is what it looks like when two people are really trying to hit each other.....and without gloves!"


----------



## KPM

^^^^^  Yeah right!  Clearly you didn't even bother to watch the whole fight!


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Poor strategic choices by the kicker - everything was to areas the boxer is used to protecting. But a good demonstration that the close-in guarding a boxer uses tends to be effective, regardless of the direction of attack, if the attack is to a target the boxer is accustomed to protecting.



Yeah but you can eat a few kicks regardless if you know how to stop them or not. If when you close you are knocking fools out. Then you can just pressure in.


----------



## drop bear

Flying Crane said:


> Well, it's what it looks like when these two particular people agree to have a competition in a ring, with a referee and a set of rules, and do their best to hit each other.
> 
> And while they are not wearing gloves, I see some wraps that give support and protection to the hands and wrists, so it is by no means bare-handed.
> 
> What I see in this video is a lot of caution and hesitation, which often(but not always) results in reduced commitment with their techniques.  This is a result of the fact that this is a competition that they agreed to, with a set of rules and a referee, and they both are being cautious in their desire to outlast the opponent.
> 
> That is all fine for what it is.
> 
> But it is not as simple as "This is what it looks like when two people are really trying to hit each other.....and without gloves!"



Honestly I think everyone should do a bit of really trying to hit each other. There is a lot of ideas that just dont work well withing that really trying to hit each other environment.

Now if you are too tough for rules. Do it no rules. Let me know how you get on. But generally 16 ounce glove will let you know what is the difference between what people think is a good idea. And what is actually a good idea.

You find a lot of caution and hesitation from guys who go bare knuckle. And are fighting a guy who can hit.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Yeah but you can eat a few kicks regardless if you know how to stop them or not. If when you close you are knocking fools out. Then you can just pressure in.


Agreed. I was just pointing out that the kicker didn't seem to use the one advantage he had. Though his kicks didn't seem to carry much power (based on the boxer's reaction), so I don't know how much of an advantage they were.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> You find a lot of caution and hesitation from guys who go bare knuckle. And are fighting a guy who can hit.


And often even if they don't know if he can, or not.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> And often even if they don't know if he can, or not.



Yeah. I think this is something people miss. I was doing hard rounds today and was thinking about it. There is a level where you stop being able to see punches coming in very well and are heavily relying on counter footwork and basic covering.

It changes what works well and what doesn't.


----------



## KPM

drop bear said:


> Honestly I think everyone should do a bit of really trying to hit each other. There is a lot of ideas that just dont work well withing that really trying to hit each other environment.
> 
> Now if you are too tough for rules. Do it no rules. Let me know how you get on. But generally 16 ounce glove will let you know what is the difference between what people think is a good idea. And what is actually a good idea.
> 
> You find a lot of caution and hesitation from guys who go bare knuckle. And are fighting a guy who can hit.



I agree completely!   If you are facing someone that you know is a worthy opponent and has the potential of knocking you out....of course you are going to be a bit cautious!   And good grief, Sweeney worked his opponent like a heavy bag and put him on the canvas 3 times with body blows!  I would certainly say he had "commitment" with his technique!  And Sweeney got the TKO in the 3rd round, knowing it wasn't going to be a long fight.  So he obviously wasn't worried about whether he could "outlast" his opponent!  

Bottom line.....this fight DOES show what it looks like to actually try and hit your opponent....far better than the prior to videos that started this discussion.  It IS that simple!


----------



## Flying Crane

KPM said:


> I agree completely!   If you are facing someone that you know is a worthy opponent and has the potential of knocking you out....of course you are going to be a bit cautious!   And good grief, Sweeney worked his opponent like a heavy bag and put him on the canvas 3 times with body blows!  I would certainly say he had "commitment" with his technique!  And Sweeney got the TKO in the 3rd round, knowing it wasn't going to be a long fight.  So he obviously wasn't worried about whether he could "outlast" his opponent!
> 
> Bottom line.....this fight DOES show what it looks like to actually try and hit your opponent....far better than the prior to videos that started this discussion.  It IS that simple!


Ok.  If you are satisfied with that, go with it.


----------



## Flying Crane

KPM said:


> ^^^^^  Yeah right!  Clearly you didn't even bother to watch the whole fight!


You are right, i didn't watch the whole thing.  I watched three or so minutes, before I lost interest.  

Was there something amazing at the end that i missed?


----------



## LFJ

gpseymour said:


> Poor strategic choices by the kicker - everything was to areas the boxer is used to protecting. But a good demonstration that the close-in guarding a boxer uses tends to be effective, regardless of the direction of attack, if the attack is to a target the boxer is accustomed to protecting.



Right. 

Not a single leg kick was thrown that day... 

Most likely because it was against the rules they had agreed upon because boxers can't handle leg kicks, which was my point exactly. 

This was no answer to numerous videos of pro boxers getting their legs destroyed.


----------



## drop bear

LFJ said:


> Right.
> 
> Not a single leg kick was thrown that day...
> 
> Most likely because it was against the rules they had agreed upon because boxers can't handle leg kicks, which was my point exactly.
> 
> This was no answer to numerous videos of pro boxers getting their legs destroyed.



Boxers can't handle leg kicks eventually.





They can just eat them and continue on in the first few exchanges. What this means is you absolutely need a method to handle their hands untill your leg kick works.

Fine if you do muay thai and at least have some sort of hand skill to be able to hang in there.

Not so good if your hands are not up to scratch.


----------



## drop bear

By the way. Boxers dont care that much about defending the centerline. This is because they have hook punches. So if you attack the center and the other guy is not occupying it. You just punch air. And then generally get smashed.

Taking the center can be the wrong move.






Take a good hard look at that video. And you really will see why most of your stuff just doesn't work.


----------



## drop bear

I will suggest this again. At speed You almost can't see punches coming. If you do, you do not have time to move your hands and your body in this large manner.

You dont have time to address each punch with its own counter move.

Boxers often don't have time to move a glove three inches to protect their head. Please think about this for a minute guys. 






So if someone decides to throw a hook from a distance with a tell this will work. But anyone who boxes knows not to throw a punch like that. The slow telegraphed rubbish you are drilling is nothing like a full speed shot.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> Boxers dont care that much about defending the centerline.


To defend the centerline is to prevent your opponent from throwing jab and cross. If his opponent uses "rhino guard", this will never happen.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

deleted, dup.


----------



## LFJ

drop bear said:


> most of your stuff just doesn't work.



Interesting. None of that stuff is even mine.


----------



## FighterTwister

Kung Fu Wang said:


> To defend the centerline is to prevent your opponent from throwing jab and cross. If his opponent uses "rhino guard", this will never happen.



Here you go guys a better video rendition of the above footage ...........








I 100 percent agree  with your opinion as factual input.

Wandelie was just asking for that to happen it was so obvious to me any way.

Wanderlei  was in a tense defensive guard position and opened up a little as he approached  the center, rather than a more defensive centered side stance providing room to shuffle backward or move to the side and parry through or out of the centerline.

Its a common mistake in my opinion with fighters that just walk up and expect to KO someone, you see this clearly as Victor steps back and blasts forward perfect Wing Chun tactic in Victor's favor but poorly executed for Wanderlie.

Sometimes  it works I agree where timing is on your side, but you are framing someone squarely just a plain target to blast through and thats what happened.

Going by Victors intent with arms up I would have thrown a fake straight lead jab up high crossing his line of sight from a side position and gone straight down to the legs for a take down since he has upper arm strength. and would have won that one.

Sadly he has done just that in other fights but here he got it all wrong.

Again all about reading the fight, but you can see the intents they both had.

Good fights or sparring employ good framework good use of footwork in and out the boxing range good kicks to gauge range and hurt the knees or wear doe the opponent.

So much to discuss its all about good sparring sessions though and then going back analyze them and correct the mistakes perfect what is necessary, rather than blindly just doing something with no content or expression of understanding. 

That was a good video to illustrate the straight blast, perfect!


----------



## KPM

Flying Crane said:


> You are right, i didn't watch the whole thing.  I watched three or so minutes, before I lost interest.
> 
> Was there something amazing at the end that i missed?



No.  Nothing particularly amazing.  But it was pretty obvious that you didn't watch enough of the clip to be able to pass judgement on it and reach the conclusions that you reached.  Because your conclusions were just wrong.  But you stated them so confidently!


----------



## Gerry Seymour

LFJ said:


> Right.
> 
> Not a single leg kick was thrown that day...
> 
> Most likely because it was against the rules they had agreed upon because boxers can't handle leg kicks, which was my point exactly.
> 
> This was no answer to numerous videos of pro boxers getting their legs destroyed.


The kicks being thrown didn't look like they'd do much more than distract at the legs, but they might at least have done that.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> Right.
> 
> Not a single leg kick was thrown that day...
> 
> Most likely because it was against the rules they had agreed upon because boxers can't handle leg kicks, which was my point exactly.
> 
> This was no answer to numerous videos of pro boxers getting their legs destroyed.



Give me a good boxer and within a few lessons I can have him very confidently defending against kicks.  All it takes is a little exposure and "flight time."  To assume that boxing can't deal with kicks because there is something wrong with their fighting structure is simply wrong.   A kickboxer that has never had to deal with grapplers will get taken down regularly.  But give that guy some exposure to takedowns and "flight time" to work a defense against them and he will do much better.  He doesn't have to be a grappler himself.   The same would go for a Wing Chun guy that steps into the ring against a grappler if he himself has never been exposed to grappling and has never worked a defense against a takedown.   Or a Wing Chun guy that steps into the ring against a good kicker when he himself has never sparred with anyone other than another Wing Chun guy.  He is going to "get his legs destroyed" just as easily as the boxer.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> To assume that boxing can't deal with kicks because there is something wrong with their fighting structure is simply wrong.



So, what are you going to teach in a few lessons to defend against leg kicks without changing foot placement and weighting in stance, or the footwork, power generation methods, and fight strategy, all of which leave the lead leg very exposed to leg kicks?



> a Wing Chun guy that steps into the ring against a good kicker when he himself has never sparred with anyone other than another Wing Chun guy.  He is going to "get his legs destroyed" just as easily as the boxer.



Correct. Unfortunately, adding Western Boxing for the "long-range game" isn't going to remedy this, because WB faces the same problem.


----------



## geezer

LFJ said:


> Interesting. None of that stuff is even mine.



DB wasn't talking specifically to you, LFJ. You haven't even been around for a while. He was addressing the whole idea of emphasizing centerline defense and not adequately protecting against hooking attacks coming in from the sides.

And he pointed out that these kind of attacks are hard to see coming. Also, I'd add that since they, like most attacks, are delivered from a disengaged position, so you can't_ feel_ them coming until they are too close to defend if you are obsessed with guarding center. In otherwords, you can't "chi-sau" your way out of danger!

This --i.e. the hooking attack-- is a real problem for _any_ fighter, and especially for a lot of WC/VT/WT people. Maybe not _you_ though.


----------



## geezer

To add a bit on my previous post, I'd like to say that I believe good WC/VT does have valid strategies to deal with hooking attacks. But they demand being able to control and modify that theoretically based obsession with guarding centerline and _understanding that no system is 100% effective for everyone, all the time._ Nobody works with hooks more than boxers, and they still knock each other out all with them ...a lot!

Maybe I just mis-read him, but sometimes I think LFJ really believes that _his_ VT system is exempt from what I stated in _italics _above.


----------



## Flying Crane

KPM said:


> No.  Nothing particularly amazing.  But it was pretty obvious that you didn't watch enough of the clip to be able to pass judgement on it and reach the conclusions that you reached.  Because your conclusions were just wrong.  But you stated them so confidently!


Ok, if you are content and satisfied with your assessment, then go with it.

I feel you are missing some things, but that's my assessment.  If you already have the answers you want, I'll step away.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

geezer said:


> Nobody works with hooks more than boxers, and they still knock each other out all with them ...a lot!


It can be fun to have the following match.

- 1st guy can only use jab and cross.
- 2nd guy can only use left/right hook.

3 minute a round, 15 rounds, and get the final record.


----------



## wckf92

Kung Fu Wang said:


> It can be fun to have the following match.
> 
> - 1st guy can only use jab and cross.
> - 2nd guy can only use left/right hook.
> 
> 3 minute a round, 15 rounds, and get the final record.



I agree...would be fun...however technically and/or theoretically, neither of them should land any blows if they both are rhino guard adepts!  

On a serious note though...that sort of drilling can teach one a lot about their perceived skill set. But 45 minutes is a long time!


----------



## drop bear

LFJ said:


> Interesting. None of that stuff is even mine.



Correct. And that is the point. It is just a different mechanic at speed to what people are used to.

And so people get a false feedback.

Which is why at speed fights look the way they look. Regardless of the style.


----------



## KPM

*So, what are you going to teach in a few lessons to defend against leg kicks without changing foot placement and weighting in stance, or the footwork, power generation methods, and fight strategy, all of which leave the lead leg very exposed to leg kicks?*

----Of course the strategy will have to change a bit.  But weighting in the stance is dynamic in boxing....not all back on one leg like some Wing Chun guys.  And boxing footwork is already very dynamic and suitable for evading kicks. And after all, kickboxing structure and power generation methods aren't that different from regular boxing and they deal with kicks all the time.  So no, the boxing method doesn't have to change that much to deal with kicks.  Its mainly just a matter of being used to seeing them coming and knowing what to do.  Easy enough to teach a boxer.


----------



## KPM

geezer said:


> DB wasn't talking specifically to you, LFJ. You haven't even been around for a while. He was addressing the whole idea of emphasizing centerline defense and not adequately protecting against hooking attacks coming in from the sides.
> 
> And he pointed out that these kind of attacks are hard to see coming. Also, I'd add that since they, like most attacks, are delivered from a disengaged position, so you can't_ feel_ them coming until they are too close to defend if you are obsessed with guarding center. In otherwords, you can't "chi-sau" your way out of danger!
> 
> This --i.e. the hooking attack-- is a real problem for _any_ fighter, and especially for a lot of WC/VT/WT people. Maybe not _you_ though.



One thing that ring competition has illustrated very well in the world of fighting.....when punches can come at multiple angles that are hard to see and hard to predict, it is much more efficient and effective to cover up and "weather the storm" than it is to try and block each punch.  I think this is one of the main reasons so many styles just look like poor kickboxing when they are sparring under any real pressure.  Their blocking methods just simply break down and they have to resort to "covering up" or they will be eating punches.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

KPM said:


> the boxing method doesn't have to change that much to deal with kicks.  Its mainly just a matter of being used to seeing them coming and knowing what to do.  Easy enough to teach a boxer.


A foot sweep followed by a leading arm jam may put a boxer into an area that he is not familiar with.


----------



## drop bear

FighterTwister said:


> Here you go guys a better video rendition of the above footage ...........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I 100 percent agree  with your opinion as factual input.
> 
> Wandelie was just asking for that to happen it was so obvious to me any way.
> 
> Wanderlei  was in a tense defensive guard position and opened up a little as he approached  the center, rather than a more defensive centered side stance providing room to shuffle backward or move to the side and parry through or out of the centerline.
> 
> Its a common mistake in my opinion with fighters that just walk up and expect to KO someone, you see this clearly as Victor steps back and blasts forward perfect Wing Chun tactic in Victor's favor but poorly executed for Wanderlie.
> 
> Sometimes  it works I agree where timing is on your side, but you are framing someone squarely just a plain target to blast through and thats what happened.
> 
> Going by Victors intent with arms up I would have thrown a fake straight lead jab up high crossing his line of sight from a side position and gone straight down to the legs for a take down since he has upper arm strength. and would have won that one.
> 
> Sadly he has done just that in other fights but here he got it all wrong.
> 
> Again all about reading the fight, but you can see the intents they both had.
> 
> Good fights or sparring employ good framework good use of footwork in and out the boxing range good kicks to gauge range and hurt the knees or wear doe the opponent.
> 
> So much to discuss its all about good sparring sessions though and then going back analyze them and correct the mistakes perfect what is necessary, rather than blindly just doing something with no content or expression of understanding.
> 
> That was a good video to illustrate the straight blast, perfect!



How a straight blast should be done. Unfortunately not how it is often taught.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> How a straight blast should be done. Unfortunately not how it is often taught.


Agree! The issue is most of the MA emphasizes too much on the static punch and not enough on the dynamic punch.

When you do static punch, your back leg stay on the ground. You are not moving forward.






When you do dynamic punch, your both legs are moving forward.


----------



## drop bear

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Agree! The issue is most of the MA emphasizes too much on the static punch and not enough on the dynamic punch.
> 
> When you do static punch, your back leg stay on the ground. You are not moving forward.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you do dynamic punch, your both legs are moving forward.



The punch worked because he initially went backwards making it easier and more effective to bridge the gap.

These sort of footwork concepts are what separates the ability to fight from just running after people getting picked off.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> These sort of footwork concepts are what separates the ability to fight from just running after people getting picked off.


Did Victor Belfort do it by accident, or did he train this drill daily?

This is why it's important to train:

- 2 steps 1 punch,
- 3 steps 1 punch.

Many MA systems don't train these.

The interest question is, if these kind of training does not exist in your MA system and your teacher has never taught you these kind of training, will you be able to figure it out all by yourself?

I had trained "1 step 3 punches" since I was 11. One day I figured out, if I can train "1 step 3 punches", may be I should also train:

- 1 step 2 punches,
- 1 step 1 punch,
- 2 steps 1 punch,
- 3 step 1 punch.

Until when I was 14, I trained the long fist "Tan Tui" and "3rd road Pao Chuan", I then realized that "3 steps 1 punch" does exist and I did not create it myself.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> ----Of course the strategy will have to change a bit.



A lot.



> But weighting in the stance is dynamic in boxing....not all back on one leg like some Wing Chun guys.



Weighting the lead leg is often the problem, which happens a lot.



> And boxing footwork is already very dynamic and suitable for evading kicks.



When pro and amateur boxers fight low kickers, they get their legs destroyed, as numerous videos have shown.



> And after all, kickboxing structure and power generation methods aren't that different from regular boxing and they deal with kicks all the time.



Kickboxing methods had to change when it faced leg kicks, because it was previously not allowed, which left much of the same vulnerabilities boxers have.








> So no, the boxing method doesn't have to change that much to deal with kicks.  Its mainly just a matter of being used to seeing them coming and knowing what to do.  Easy enough to teach a boxer.



So, what do you do without changing much? Build tougher legs?


----------



## KPM

Kung Fu Wang said:


> A foot sweep followed by a leading arm jam may put a boxer into an area that he is not familiar with.



Sure.  But once the boxer has seen that a couple of times, the foot sweeper is going to be eating a stiff rear punch as the boxer just lifts his leg to avoid the sweep and moves right in!


----------



## KPM

*A lot.*

---No, not really.  Since the central strategy in boxing is to hit without being hit as much as possible....to land hard shots from multiple hard-to-defend angles....adding kicking defense doesn't really change it that much.  Maybe the footwork needs to be even more mobile and fast.  But that doesn't change the overall strategy. 


*Weighting the lead leg is often the problem, which happens a lot.*

---The weighting is dynamic.  Boxers move around....a lot.  A boxer can learn to defend against leg kicks the same way kickboxers learned to defend against leg kicks.  But that won't change his central strategy or goal....to hit the other guy....hard...from multiple angles.



*When pro and amateur boxers fight low kickers, they get their legs destroyed, as numerous videos have shown.*

----And Wing Chun guys would fare no better.   I'm not talking about training professional fighters.  I'm talking about learning Wing Chun Boxing as a martial art.



*So, what do you do without changing much? Build tougher leg?*

---Same question back to you as far as your WSLVT is concerned.   Are you ready to step into the ring with a professional Thai fighter and face his leg kicks????


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> the central strategy in boxing is to hit without being hit as much as possible....to land hard shots from multiple hard-to-defend angles....adding kicking defense doesn't really change it that much.  Maybe the footwork needs to be even more mobile and fast.  But that doesn't change the overall strategy.



You are just saying the strategy is "to fight".

_How_ you fight will change a lot if you're used to not having to be concerned with the dangers of leg kicks.



> ---The weighting is dynamic.  Boxers move around....a lot.



And end up with a weighted and/or exposed lead leg all the time.



> A boxer can learn to defend against leg kicks the same way kickboxers learned to defend against leg kicks.



How do you think kickboxing changed after leg kicks became legal?



> But that won't change his central strategy or goal....to hit the other guy....hard...from multiple angles.



I agree it won't change the fact that he's fighting, but _how_ will change quite a bit if he wants to walk away on his own.



> ----And Wing Chun guys would fare no better.



That's your problem.

Adding WB that has the same weakness to fragmented WC is not going to solve the problem.



> I'm not talking about training professional fighters.  I'm talking about learning Wing Chun Boxing as a martial art.



I didn't only mention pro, but also amateur, because videos showing the failures of WB where leg kicks are allowed are _easy_ to find.



> ---Same question back to you as far as your WSLVT is concerned.



VT doesn't need changing for that because it was developed with leg kicks in mind, without protective rules allowing it to behave dangerously as if legs cannot be a target.



> Are you ready to step into the ring with a professional Thai fighter and face his leg kicks????



Have done so.


----------



## KPM

*How you fight will change a lot if you're used to not having to be concerned with the dangers of leg kicks.*

----Sure it will change.  But saying "a lot" is a relative judgment.  It isn't going to require any drastic changes.

*And end up with a weighted and/or exposed lead leg all the time.*

---Wrong.  That statement is no more true of boxing than it would be of WSLVT.


*How do you think kickboxing changed after leg kicks became legal?*

---I'll assume people stopped standing sideways as Rufus was doing!  Not many boxers fight that way!



*That's your problem.    Adding WB that has the same weakness to fragmented WC is not going to solve the problem.*

---No, that's not the problem.  I have never once said that adding WB to WC was going to solve WC's problem of being vulnerable to leg kicks.

*
I didn't only mention pro, but also amateur, because videos showing the failures of WB where leg kicks are allowed are easy to find.*

---Same would be true of  Wing Chun....oh wait....not many Wing Chun guys actually compete!  That's why there isn't much video!  



*VT doesn't need changing for that because it was developed with leg kicks in mind, without protective rules allowing it to behave dangerously as if legs cannot be a target.*

---Yeah right.  I'd like to see your VT cope with the Thai boxer in that video you posted!  

*Have done so.*

---For some reason I don't take you seriously.  I wonder why?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

KPM said:


> Sure.  But once the boxer has seen that a couple of times, the foot sweeper is going to be eating a stiff rear punch as the boxer just lifts his leg to avoid the sweep and moves right in!


Most boxers don't feel comfortable with "foot sweep". The reason is simple. They like to put weight on their leading leg. To escape a foot sweep require training. They just don't spend enough time in those training. Ever MA style have weakness. IMO, one of the boxing weakness is to "escape a foot sweep".


----------



## KPM

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Most boxers don't feel comfortable with "foot sweep". The reason is simple. They like to put weight on their leading leg. To escape a foot sweep require training. They just don't spend enough time in those training. Ever MA style have weakness. IMO, one of the boxing weakness is to "escape a foot sweep".



Yeah John, I agree.  Any fighting style facing something that is unfamiliar is going to have a problem. The first UFC events proved that!  But what I have been talking about is boxing as a martial art, not as current ring sport.  I have been saying that it wouldn't take much to familiarize a boxer with defending his legs, just like it didn't take much to familiarize kickboxers with defending against a takedown when MMA was getting going.  It is not a big stretch to make boxing "martial", especially when adding insights and methods from an art like Wing Chun.   After all, that's what this thread (minus they typical wanderings and side discussions) has been about....Wing Chun Boxing.....as a martial art.


----------



## drop bear

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Did Victor Belfort do it by accident, or did he train this drill daily?
> 
> This is why it's important to train:
> 
> - 2 steps 1 punch,
> - 3 steps 1 punch.
> 
> Many MA systems don't train these.
> 
> The interest question is, if these kind of training does not exist in your MA system and your teacher has never taught you these kind of training, will you be able to figure it out all by yourself?
> 
> I had trained "1 step 3 punches" since I was 11. One day I figured out, if I can train "1 step 3 punches", may be I should also train:
> 
> - 1 step 2 punches,
> - 1 step 1 punch,
> - 2 steps 1 punch,
> - 3 step 1 punch.
> 
> Until when I was 14, I trained the long fist "Tan Tui" and "3rd road Pao Chuan", I then realized that "3 steps 1 punch" does exist and I did not create it myself.



Cross stepping is fairly common. It is setting up that cross step that everybody seems to miss.











Now we get this forwards intention stuff from chun. Which is wrong as an absolute for entries.


----------



## drop bear

Double post.


----------



## drop bear

LFJ said:


> And end up with a weighted and/or exposed lead leg all the time.





LFJ said:


> VT doesn't need changing for that because it was developed with leg kicks in mind, without protective rules allowing it to behave dangerously as if legs cannot be a target.



The lead leg is a tricky concept though as it is always a compromise. There are extremes of boxing where leg kicks are very effective.

Like these super wide almost straight leg stances.






Thai has the floating front leg which is supposed to be the best method for intercepting kicks.

Dutch muay thai has a heavier front leg to engage hands better.





And MMA has a heavier again front leg to stop takedowns.





Wrestling of course is heavier again.

It depends what methods you want to employ to what sacrifices you will make.

Wether VT,s leg kick defence method works at all. We really don't know. So in discussing methods to adopt wing chun it is generally better to stick with proven methods.


----------



## LFJ

drop bear said:


> So in discussing methods to adopt wing chun it is generally better to stick with proven methods.



Western Boxing has proven uniquely vulnerable to leg kicks.

"Wing Chun Boxing" is mixing two methods that have this same weakness.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> Western Boxing has proven uniquely vulnerable to leg kicks.
> 
> "Wing Chun Boxing" is mixing two methods that have this same weakness.



And Wing Chun/VT has never been proven to work consistently at all in any kind of competition.  Except maybe a Chi Sau competition!     At least no one doubts boxing's ability to fight!  Unfortunately, the same cannot be  said for Wing Chun/VT!    Boxing is a time-tested and proven fighting method.  Adaptable to many situations.  After all, boxing became kickboxing when kicks were added.  And kickboxing became MMA when grappling was added.  Like I said....from a martial arts standpoint I can take a  boxer and teach him how to deal with the typical kicks he might encounter in a street/self-defense situation.....including leg kicks.  I'm not worried about training professional fighters that are going to be able to compete with the best Thais.  Are you?


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> And Wing Chun/VT has never been proven to work consistently at all in any kind of competition.  Except maybe a Chi Sau competition!   At least no one doubts boxing's ability to fight!  Unfortunately, the same cannot be  said for Wing Chun/VT!



You should just do boxing then. Why mix it with something that probably doesn't work?



> boxing became kickboxing when kicks were added.  And kickboxing became MMA when grappling was added.



MMA doesn't work like kickboxing, and kickboxing doesn't work like boxing. Fundamental changes had to be made.

Put Mayweather in the cage with McGregor and he'd probably get smeared in a matter of seconds. The result would be even more drastic for amateurs.



> from a martial arts standpoint I can take a boxer and teach him how to deal with the typical kicks he might encounter in a street/self-defense situation.....including leg kicks.



It's not just a matter of a couple blocks. It affects how you move and every step you take in the fight.


----------



## drop bear

LFJ said:


> Western Boxing has proven uniquely vulnerable to leg kicks.
> 
> "Wing Chun Boxing" is mixing two methods that have this same weakness.



Dutch kick boxing has adapted the boxing stance to be less vulnerable to leg kicks. And is a method that is proven against elite fighters. 

The weakness isn't in the stance. It is more there are not methods to address the issue. So as you are adding concepts you just either learn to catch,check or just punch them really hard when they kick you.

Wing chun boxing has no ground work either. So you just bolt on some wrestling concepts.


----------



## KPM

*You should just do boxing then. Why mix it with something that probably doesn't work?*

---I already addressed that question higher up in this thread.


*MMA doesn't work like kickboxing, and kickboxing doesn't work like boxing. Fundamental changes had to be made.*

--- I said boxing is adaptable.....that it was adapted to kickboxing and MMA.   Kickboxing started out as "Full Contact Karate."  Then they quickly realized that western boxing had a much better punching and defensive structure.  So the "Karate" part was dropped, western boxing was adapted to the kicking and the rules and "kickboxing" was born. 


*Put Mayweather in the cage with McGregor and he'd probably get smeared in a matter of seconds. The result would be even more drastic for amateurs.*

---Sure.  But take a much younger Mayweather and teach him what goes on in the cage and how to prepare for it and he wouldn't have many problems.  His boxing would become adapted for that situation, but it would still be boxing.....with the addition of some kicking and grappling.

*
It's not just a matter of a couple blocks. It affects how you move and every step you take in the fight.*

---Sure.   But the basic boxing will still be there.  See, the problem is that you practice something that is so rigid in its thinking that you can't imagine anyone doing something that is actually somewhat flexible and adaptable to different situations.  


----Oh, and remember this video of "pure WSLVT"?   At about the 2 minute mark.....these guys look pretty "forward-weighted" to me!







---Relatively "forward-weighted" in this vid as well.   So your criticisms of boxing seem a bit off to me

.


----------



## geezer

I have to disagree with you, KPM.

I am not at all convinced that LFJ practices something "so rigid in it's thinking...". Doesn't Sean's group (VT Lille) practice pretty much the same system as LFJ? They don't seem hampered by overly rigid thinking. Maybe the rigidity of thought you noted comes from the individual rather than the system?


----------



## wckf92

geezer said:


> Doesn't Sean's group (VT Lille) practice pretty much the same system as LFJ?



I don't think so. Same lineage (WSL) perhaps...but different schools of thought on it's interpretation.


----------



## KPM

geezer said:


> I have to disagree with you, KPM.
> 
> I am not at all convinced that LFJ practices something "so rigid in it's thinking...". Doesn't Sean's group (VT Lille) practice pretty much the same system as LFJ? They don't seem hampered by overly rigid thinking. Maybe the rigidity of thought you noted comes from the individual rather than the system?



Well, maybe so. But I'm also not convinced that LFJ practices the same thing as Sean and his guys.    LFJ seems to be off in a world all on his own!  At least now that Guy B. is gone!


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> ----Oh, and remember this video of "pure WSLVT"?   At about the 2 minute mark.....these guys look pretty "forward-weighted" to me!



The MMA guys, maybe. The VT guys' stances are perpendicular to the MMA guys' lead-rear stances. It is not possible to be forward-weighted.



> ---Relatively "forward-weighted" in this vid as well.   So your criticisms of boxing seem a bit off to me.



You can't even see their lower bodies in that video, but VT is not forward-weighted.


----------



## LFJ

wckf92 said:


> I don't think so. Same lineage (WSL) perhaps...but different schools of thought on it's interpretation.



No. I agree 100% with his VT way of thinking. It's the same system.


----------



## wckf92

LFJ said:


> No. I agree 100% with his VT way of thinking. It's the same system.



Understood; however you did not refute the conversation about his student doing a "pak da" during one of his sparring bouts...and from all I've read from you, you feel that pak'ing the incoming limb then following with the punch is hand chasing. Is that correct? 
If I've understood your logic you use pak to clear the way...but not as a primary action. 
I don't mean to derail this thread but ...


----------



## LFJ

wckf92 said:


> you did not refute the conversation about his student doing a "pak da" during one of his sparring bouts...and from all I've read from you, you feel that pak'ing the incoming limb then following with the punch is hand chasing. Is that correct?
> 
> If I've understood your logic you use pak to clear the way...but not as a primary action.



Depending on position, distance, and timing, _paak-da_ may well be a valid and necessary response.

It becomes a primary action where one arm can't be used alone. If done in place of a single-arm action, for lack thereof, it's likely arm-chasing.

I've said _paak-sau_ opens the way for the punch, which means it should be coupled with an attack.

If one is just _paak_ing incoming punches, it is also likely arm-chasing.


----------



## wckf92

LFJ said:


> Depending on position, distance, and timing, _paak-da_ may well be a valid and necessary response.
> 
> It becomes a primary action where one arm can't be used alone. If done in place of a single-arm action, for lack thereof, it's likely arm-chasing.
> 
> I've said _paak-sau_ opens the way for the punch, which means it should be coupled with an attack.
> 
> If one is just _paak_ing incoming punches, it is also likely arm-chasing.



Ok, cool. Thx for clarifying. That helped understand your thinking better.


----------



## drop bear

geezer said:


> I have to disagree with you, KPM.
> 
> I am not at all convinced that LFJ practices something "so rigid in it's thinking...". Doesn't Sean's group (VT Lille) practice pretty much the same system as LFJ? They don't seem hampered by overly rigid thinking. Maybe the rigidity of thought you noted comes from the individual rather than the system?



Not even rigidity in LFJs thinking. It is just he had to be the one who thought of it. Overhand rights are ok. Becuse they are VT. they are not ok. Because they are boxing.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> The MMA guys, maybe. The VT guys' stances are perpendicular to the MMA guys' lead-rear stances. It is not possible to be forward-weighted.
> 
> .



Uh, no.   Your "pure WSLVT" guy from about 2:00 to 2:30 has his shoulders hunched up and is leaning forward with his hands up close to his face with a clearly forward-weighted stance.  Not possible to be forward-weighted?  What world do you live in?  How is your boy going to be hunched forward without forward-weighting his stance to some degree?


----------



## LFJ

drop bear said:


> Overhand rights are ok. Becuse they are VT. they are not ok. Because they are boxing.



Wrong.



KPM said:


> How is your boy going to be hunched forward without forward-weighting his stance to some degree?



Can't load the lead leg if there is no lead leg to load.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> Can't load the lead leg if there is no lead leg to load.



So you really believe that in  those two videos I posted of "pure WSLVT" that no one ever had one leg in front of the other as a lead leg?


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> So you really believe that in  those two videos I posted of "pure WSLVT" that no one ever had one leg in front of the other as a lead leg?



Not where you were pointing.

No one had a forward-weighted lead-rear stance, anyway.

VT doesn't have lunging punches like WB.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> Not where you were pointing.
> 
> No one had a forward-weighted lead-rear stance, anyway.
> 
> VT doesn't have lunging punches like WB.



No one said anything about lunging punches.  You said the guy couldn't have a forward-weighted stance because there was no lead leg.  He most certainly had a lead leg!


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> He most certainly had a lead leg!



No, he didn't.


----------



## Danny T

Yes he did.
No he didn't.
Yes he did!
No he didn't
Yes!!
No.

Excellent example of adult discussion.

Lots of movement and attacking from squared position, from a left lead, from a right lead.
Threw a few kicks from almost square stance and from both leads with the rear leg...very tough to do without being weighted on the opposite leg.
Also there were several, In My viewing an opinion, punches being done from a front weighted leg.
But then maybe I have a different understanding of a front weighted leg that others.


----------



## KPM

Danny T said:


> Excellent example of adult discussion.
> 
> .



Excellent example of someone trying to deny reality!


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Danny T said:


> But then maybe I have a different understanding of a front weighted leg that others.


If you don't allow your opponent to put weight on his leading leg, he can't punch you.


----------



## geezer

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you don't allow your opponent to put weight on his leading leg, he can't punch you.



_What?!?_ You never saw a punch delivered with the rear leg bearing the weight? That's the_ core _of the VT system I train. And I can get nearly as much power out of my  back weighted VT punches as I can get from my forward weighted drop-stepping Escrima punches. It's all in the kinetic linkages.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> Excellent example of someone trying to deny reality!



You have not tried to show exactly who and when you think they did this.

But, even if it happened, it's not because it's the VT method. Humans tend to make errors, of course.


----------



## Danny T

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you don't allow your opponent to put weight on his leading leg, he can't punch you.


I beg to differ sir. It will depend on range. We do so in Wing Chun quite a bit and in Pekiti-Tirsia Kali as well.
Range will dictate different actions.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

geezer said:


> _What?!?_ You never saw a punch delivered with the rear leg bearing the weight? That's the_ core _of the VT system I train. And I can get nearly as much power out of my  back weighted VT punches as I can get from my forward weighted drop-stepping Escrima punches. It's all in the kinetic linkages.


Your opponent is a moving object. To assume that your opponent will run into your punch is not realistic, you have to move forward and get him.

static punch (back foot is not moving) < dynamic punch (back foot is moving)

To achieve "back foot moving", you have to put weight on your leading leg.

No shifting weight from back leg into leading leg -> no forward momentum in your punch -> limited power generation in your punch

Distance is another issue.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Danny T said:


> I beg to differ sir. It will depend on range. We do so in Wing Chun quite a bit and in Pekiti-Tirsia Kali as well.
> Range will dictate different actions.


You can punch when you sit on a wheelchair, but it doesn't mean anything. There are 2 issues here to consider.

1. Power generation issue:

If you don't have

- body rotation,
- forward momentum,

where will your punching power come from?

2. Distance issue:

If your opponent is outside of your punching range, without stepping forward, how can your punch be able to land on him?


----------



## webmaster786

The Most common features of Wing Chun are trapping hands. This classical Wing Chun technique can be explained as the act of passing over and then trapping the arms of your attacker’s. This move involves an intensity of skill since you need to manipulate the attacker’s arms. That's why, Wing Chun trapping can be better powerful and comparatively effectual to a self defense fight than a boxing, kickboxing, or Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) match.


----------



## Danny T

Kung Fu Wang said:


> You can punch when you sit on a wheelchair, but it doesn't mean anything. There are 2 issues here to consider.
> 
> 1. Power generation issue:
> 
> If you don't have
> 
> - body rotation,
> - forward momentum,
> 
> where will your punching power come from?
> 
> 2. Distance issue:
> 
> If your opponent is outside of your punching range, without stepping forward, how can your punch be able to land on him?


Forward intent and subsequent momentum comes from moving forward and is driven off the rear leg. Weight has to momentarily be on the front but the rear immediately is re-positioned but the body weight is not driven over the front foot. Torque is driven by the hip. (you say you have training WC so you should know this). 
Power is through muscle expansion or contraction, body displacement, and rotational force which is developed from training drills within SNT & Chum Kiu. (again if you have trained WC you would know this) 

If my opponent is outside my punching range punching is futile.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Danny T said:


> If my opponent is outside my punching range punching is futile.


Do you have to step in to punch your opponent? When you step in, you either step in your

- leading leg and your back leg follow, or
- back leg and your leading leg advance, or
- back leg in front of your leading leg (this will involve with switching sides).

In all cases, you have to put weight on your leading foot.


----------



## drop bear

Danny T said:


> Forward intent and subsequent momentum comes from moving forward and is driven off the rear leg. Weight has to momentarily be on the front but the rear immediately is re-positioned but the body weight is not driven over the front foot. Torque is driven by the hip. (you say you have training WC so you should know this).
> Power is through muscle expansion or contraction, body displacement, and rotational force which is developed from training drills within SNT & Chum Kiu. (again if you have trained WC you would know this)
> 
> If my opponent is outside my punching range punching is futile.



But you are still going to need weight on that front foot when you connect or you will fall over.

pretty sure you can't punch hard and lift that front foot to defend something at the same time. Even thai boxers don't do that.

You do move and punch though?


----------



## drop bear

If you have a look at boxing and foot weight. You will generally find the hips are pretty centered. Most boxers are punching from the hip or the feet and using movement to generate power.






You still have to be able to move that front foot. Or you can't move.


----------



## Danny T

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Do you have to step in to punch your opponent? When you step in, you either step in your
> 
> - leading leg and your back leg follow, or
> - back leg and your leading leg advance, or
> - back leg in front of your leading leg (this will involve with switching sides).
> 
> In all cases, you have to put weight on your leading foot.


We are driving off the rear foot on contact. Because of the hip placement one can have 50/50 distribution or more to the rear usually 60/40 when in a lead. 
As I stated referring to WC: "Weight has to momentarily be on the front but the rear immediately is re-positioned but the body weight is not driven over the front foot." Unless Kicking or Kneeing with the rear.


----------



## Martial D

It doesn't really make a lot of sense I suppose to someone with no Wing Chun experience, mostly because the mechanics are very different to boxing, but you can actually generate a fair bit of power with that little straight punch. There are two ways that I know of. 

The first is to use your front leg to pull the back one. The weight remains on the back foot aside from a second where the front foot grips with the toe and pulls the body behind it as the back foot, and all of the body weight, come forward. Timing this forward shift with the punch does generate some serious power.

The second way is to shift stance from one foot to the other, timing the punch with the rotational shift. This generates even more power.

In both instances most of the weight is on the back foot on impact.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Danny T said:


> but the body weight is not driven over the front foot."


If you always punch when your weight is on your back foot, your reach will be limited. IMO, you should shift your body weight freely when you need.

If we compare the stances that your punch can reach:

1. empty stance - 0% weight on leading leg.
2. 3-7 stance - 30% weight on leading leg.
3. 4-6 stance - 40% weight on leading leg.
4. horse stance - 50% weight on leading leg.
5. bow-arrow stance - 70% weight on leading leg.
6. monkey stance - 90% weight on leading leg.
7. golden rooster stance - 100% weight on leading leg.

empty stance < 3-7 stance < 4-6 stance < horse stance < bow-arrow stance < monkey stance < golden rooster stance


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Danny T said:


> Torque is driven by the hip. (you say you have training WC so you should know this).


I had crossed trained the WC system not because it's power generation method but because it's "centerline" principle and "block and strike at the same time" principle.


----------



## Danny T

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I had crossed trained the WC system not because it's power generation method but because it's "centerline" principle and "block and strike at the same time" principle.


Ok...that doesn't change how or why WC punches or drives off the rear.
It does so due to the range WC is designed for not because some wants to do something else. If one is punching in the manner a boxer drives the weight over or some even drive past the front foot then one at that point not doing WC.


----------



## Danny T

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you always punch when your weight is on your back foot, your reach will be limited. IMO, you should shift your body weight freely when you need.


 Not disagreeing. But then that isn't WC.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Danny T said:


> drives the weight over or some even drive past the front foot then one at that point not doing WC.


I think WC should be your slave. WC should not be your master. Attitude such as: "If you do ..., you are not doing WC." is not proper. Since WC is only one of my cross training CMA styles, I won't let WC to put restriction on my "footwork - mobility".

If your opponent moves back in fast speed, you will need fast footwork to hit him. To step your back leg in front of your front leg is a must.

Here is an example. So this guy is not doing WC just because his back leg moved pass over his leading leg?

IMO, the question should

- not be "Is this guy doing WC?"
- be "Should a WC guy move like this?"

If the answer is no, then why not?








Danny T said:


> Not disagreeing. But then that isn't WC.


I do think WC needs some "evolution".

Among so may MA systems, By using the WC footwork to cover great distance is always a serious concern.


----------



## wckf92

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If your opponent moves back in fast speed, you will need fast footwork to hit him. To step your back leg in front of your front leg is a must.



If your opponent disengages, and is moving away from you, then, as a human...just walk or run after him. 

However, fast footwork ideas are in the weapons forms.


----------



## KPM

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you always punch when your weight is on your back foot, your reach will be limited. IMO, you should shift your body weight freely when you need.



I agree John.  But as Danny said, Wing Chun doesn't do that!   That is one of the reasons why I like my Wing Chun -- Boxing cross-fertilization.   Boxing is more flexible and versatile when it comes to punching and power generation.


----------



## KPM

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If your opponent moves back in fast speed, you will need fast footwork to hit him. To step your back leg in front of your front leg is a must.



I agree!


----------



## Danny T

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I think WC should be your slave. WC should not be your master. Attitude such as: "If you do ..., you are not doing WC." is not proper. Since WC is only one of my cross training CMA styles, I won't let WC to put restriction on my "footwork - mobility".


Can't disagree from an individual perspective. WC is a training system with a specific methodology. 
The individual should always be adaptable to the situations without strict adherence to a particular method or way. That is why I train in multiple methods. But the discussion is, at that moment what one doing WC? I opine NO. Using something that isn't specifically WC isn't bad but that doesn't make it WC.



Kung Fu Wang said:


> Here is an example. So this guy is not doing WC just because his back leg moved pass over his leading leg?


What?? You think what he is doing is WC? It isn't. My statement doesn't mean he should not be doing so. That method worked for him at that moment...individual adaptability in the moment. But again that doesn't make it WC.


Kung Fu Wang said:


> IMO, the question should
> 
> - not be "Is this guy doing WC?"
> - be "Should a WC guy move like this?"
> 
> If the answer is no, then why not?


Ok.

"Is this guy doing WC?"  I'm not asking if it is WC. You did.
"Should a WC guy move like this?"  The individual is always more important than a particular method. Use whatever is needed at the time it is needed. Adaptability is very important.



Kung Fu Wang said:


> I do think WC needs some "evolution".


WC has evolved but... When one changes the fundamentals of the system then it is not long the same system. WC the system doesn't need to evolve. The individual needs to evolve. 

In using the French term 'faux pax' within my discussion doesn't make the term English. Nor does it mean I'm speaking French. It is simply a French term I used. Does that mean English needs to change?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Danny T said:


> But again that doesn't make it WC.


We are still debating whether or not we should "keep WC pure".

- In stead of thinking about "pure", why can't we think about "complete"?
- Should we just act like a perfect "copy machine", or should we "contribute something into our MA system, so our next generation won't have to go through what we did"?

A + B > A

By adding something into a MA system won't change that MA system.

For example, if you add the following "ground get back up" methods into the BJJ system, there is no way that it will hurt the BJJ system. It will only make the BJJ system more complete.


----------



## drop bear

Danny T said:


> WC has evolved but... When one changes the fundamentals of the system then it is not long the same system. WC the system doesn't need to evolve. The individual needs to evolve.
> 
> In using the French term 'faux pax' within my discussion doesn't make the term English. Nor does it mean I'm speaking French. It is simply a French term I used. Does that mean English needs to change?



Yeah this is kind of the issue. Who decides when something is no longer chun?

Which has so far just been based on people just saying it is or isn't.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> Yeah this is kind of the issue. Who decides when something is no longer chun?
> 
> Which has so far just been based on people just saying it is or isn't.


The most proud thing that I have ever done in my life was to "evolve" SC into "CSC - Combat SC" with David C. K. Lin by adding kicking and punching back into the Chinese wrestling system and made it into "Sanda".

Combat Shuai-Chiao Main Page

In the past 37 years, no one had ever said that my "SC is not pure".


----------



## Danny T

Kung Fu Wang said:


> We are still debating whether or not we should "keep WC pure".
> 
> - In stead of thinking about "pure", why can we think about "complete"?
> - Should we just act like a perfect "copy machine", or should we "contribute something into our MA system, so our next generation won't have to go through what we did"?
> 
> A + B > A
> 
> By adding something into a MA system won't change that MA system.
> 
> For example, if you add the following "ground get up" method into the BJJ system, there is no way that it will hurt the BJJ system. It will make the BJJ system more complete.





drop bear said:


> Yeah this is kind of the issue. Who decides when something is no longer chun?
> 
> Which has so far just been based on people just saying it is or isn't.


When it no longer follows the principles of the system.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Danny T said:


> When it no longer follows the principles of the system.


boxing + kicking = kick boxing

Does a kick boxer not follow the boxing principle?


----------



## drop bear

Danny T said:


> When it no longer follows the principles of the system.



Well that is completely different to people just saying it.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Danny T said:


> When it no longer follows the principles of the system.


One of the Taiji principles is always to keep your head straight up. If there is a $100 bill on the ground, will you violate the Taiji principle, bend down your body, and pick it up?

Taiji + preying mantis = Taiji preying mantis

The Taiji preying mantis system was created by combining both Taiji and preying mantis.

- Taiji is slow with body push/pull arm.
- Preying mantis is fast with body chase arm.

If Taiji and preying mantis can be combined, WC and boxing are much easier to combine.


----------



## Danny T

Kung Fu Wang said:


> boxing + kicking = kick boxing
> 
> Does a kick boxer not follow the boxing principle?


Some of time but as soon as he is kicking is he following the principle (rules) of boxing. 
Is he boxing or is he doing something else? He certainly isn't boxing anymore.


----------



## Danny T

Kung Fu Wang said:


> One of the Taiji principles is always to keep your head straight up. If there is a $100 bill on the ground, will you violate the Taiji principle, bend down your body, and pick it up?
> 
> Taiji + preying mantis = Taiji preying mantis
> 
> The Taiji preying mantis system was created by combining both Taiji and preying mantis.
> 
> - Taiji is slow with body push/pull arm.
> - Preying mantis is fast with body chase arm.
> 
> If Taiji and preying mantis can be combined, WC and boxing are much easier to combine.


Hahahahahaha!!! Are you serious; you are wanting to compare someone finding an object of value on the ground and picking it up to someone fighting using a particular martial art?

I have already stated the individual aspect in your equation.


----------



## Vajramusti

Danny T said:


> When it no longer follows the principles of the system.


-------------------------------------------------

Correct & prancing in boxing poses isn't wing chun


----------



## geezer

Vajramusti said:


> -------------------------------------------------
> 
> Correct & prancing in boxing poses isn't wing chun



I agree. I resolve to only prance about in Wing Chun poses!


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

The major difference between the WC guard and boxing guard are:

- WC guard protects the center and invite your opponent to attack through the side doors. When you use the WC guard, your hands are closer to your opponent's head.
- Boxing guard protects the side doors and invite your opponent to attack through the front doors. When you use the boxing guard, your hands are closer to your own head.

You should be able to do both. When your opponent attacks your

- side doors, you use Tan Da to attack his front door.
- front door, you use left/right hook punch (or hay-maker) to attack his side door.

To put your hands closer to your opponent's head is superior than just to put your hands near your own head.






IMO, the "rhino guard" can protect your center much better than the WC guard.


----------



## KPM

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The major difference between the WC guard and boxing guard are:
> 
> - WC guard protects the center and invite your opponent to attack through the side doors. When you use the WC guard, your hands are closer to your opponent's head.
> - Boxing guard protects the side doors and invite your opponent to attack through the front doors. When you use the boxing guard, your hands are closer to your own head.



My view, starting at the 4:20 mark:


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

KPM said:


> My view, starting at the 4:20 mark:


We have the same concept to protect our center:

1. from inside out , as well as
2. from outside in.

IMO, to be able to do both is important. In defense, our goals are the same. In offense, our goal are different.

- You use both guards to achieve your "striking" goal.
- I use both guard to achieve my "clinching" goal.

1. close guard - rhino guard.






2. open guard - double spears.


----------



## drop bear

Danny T said:


> Hahahahahaha!!! Are you serious; you are wanting to compare someone finding an object of value on the ground and picking it up to someone fighting using a particular martial art?
> 
> I have already stated the individual aspect in your equation.



It is such a good comparison though. You would bend over to pick up money of the ground but not break ranks on your fundamentals if it stopped you getting your head smashed in?


----------



## Danny T

drop bear said:


> not break ranks on your fundamentals if it stopped you getting your head smashed in?


What?!! No...and I never said that.


----------



## LFJ

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The Taiji preying mantis system was created by combining both Taiji and preying mantis.



No, it wasn't.



> If Taiji and preying mantis can be combined, WC and boxing are much easier to combine.



Nice thought... Too bad it's entirely wrong.

The style has nothing to do with _Taijiquan_. 

It uses _Taiji_ in the name merely to recognize the philosophical principles of _Yin_ and _Yang _present in the system, represented by the _Taiji_ symbol.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Danny T said:


> I beg to differ sir. It will depend on range. We do so in Wing Chun quite a bit and in Pekiti-Tirsia Kali as well.
> Range will dictate different actions.


Agreed. I can even punch (obviously with reduced power) standing only on the rear leg. I think I may have actually used that once or twice in sparring (or maybe not - I've drilled it a few times, and can't recall a specific instance in sparring), when someone came in for my front leg.


----------



## Vajramusti

KPM said:


> My view, starting at the 4:20 mark:


Neither  boxing nor wing chun !!


----------



## KPM

Vajramusti said:


> Neither  boxing nor wing chun !!



True!  Because its "Wing Chun Boxing"!!


----------



## drop bear

KPM said:


> True!  Because its "Wing Chun Boxing"!!








By the way dont go inside their foot to throw a hook.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

KPM said:


> True!  Because its "Wing Chun Boxing"!!


It was so funny that in my dream last night, I had used my "rhino guard" to defeat 3 guys in the ring. In all 3 fights, I charged in as a rhino. My big fist could hit on my opponent's face. But my opponent's fist could not hit my head. My wife put her hand on my forehead. She told me that I was breathing heavily in my dream.

The day when you die, you will not be happy that you have been just a good copy machine. You will be happy that you have created at least something new.

No creation -> no contribution to the world -> you life has no meaning

IMO, if someone has to create the system of "WC boxing", why not just let that person to be yourself? Boxing doesn't have Tan Da.


----------



## TMA17

I'm new to the forum and to WC so please go easy on me.  

I grew up practicing western boxing.  I've always enjoyed it.  I just started Wing Chun and have a few observations of it.

Where I am training we cover all ranges and we don't face the opponent in the square stance.  There are side stances, side and front kicks and if you're foot work is good, you have the ability to move in and out of close/long range.

Western boxers are often more fit and train harder, hence they are often better fighters.  However, the core principles of Wing Chun, from what I've seen and learned so far, can be used very effectively from various distances and angles.

I know some do not personally like WC syltes that tend to integrate boxing footwork movements because those movements can slow with age.  WC is structurally designed to be its own feel.

Within boxing there are many styles.  Mike Tyson fights nothing like Ali did.  WC can be somewhat rigid and unfortunately too many within the art fight among each other as to what is "real" WC.  

WC structure is based on efficiency and directness.  Some would argue it needs no improvement.  If someone athletic enough and in great shape studies WC well, I'm sure he/she could do some serious damage against a boxer using WC.  

My .02.


----------



## KPM

*I'm new to the forum and to WC so please go easy on me.  *

---Welcome!  
*
Where I am training we cover all ranges and we don't face the opponent in the square stance.  There are side stances, side and front kicks and if you're foot work is good, you have the ability to move in and out of close/long range.*

---You'll discover that Wing Chun lacks a lot of the upper body evasiveness that boxing has.  And the footwork doesn't tend to be as "light on the feet." 

*Western boxers are often more fit and train harder, hence they are often better fighters.  However, the core principles of Wing Chun, from what I've seen and learned so far, can be used very effectively from various distances and angles.*

---The problem becomes a lack of punching angles.  Wing Chun seldom uses more than just the straight punch.  You know that a big part of the effectiveness of boxing is the ability to punch hard and fast from multiple unpredictable angles.   Changing the angle of the punch is much faster than changing your whole body in order to enter on a different angle.   So Wing Chun often tries to press the opponent to move him to set up a different angle.  But this can  be difficult on someone that knows how to "roll with punches" and use evasive upper body movement.


*I know some do not personally like WC syltes that tend to integrate boxing footwork movements because those movements can slow with age.  WC is structurally designed to be its own feel.*

---Why would boxing footwork slow with age any more than Wing Chun footwork would slow with age?


*WC structure is based on efficiency and directness.  Some would argue it needs no improvement.  If someone athletic enough and in great shape studies WC well, I'm sure he/she could do some serious damage against a boxer using WC.  *

----You say you grew up practicing western boxing, so I'll assume you are pretty good at it?  Please put on the gloves and have a serious spar with one of the senior students at the Wing Chun school and tell us how it goes.  If none are willing to do that, that should tell you something.    And if the school does actually spar, take a close look at some of the more advanced students sparring and see how much looks like Wing Chun and how much just looks like poorly done boxing.   That's another indicator.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

KPM said:


> ---You'll discover that Wing Chun lacks a lot of the upper body evasiveness that boxing has.  And the footwork doesn't tend to be as "light on the feet."


Light on the feet (fire strategy) is not always a good idea, at least not from a wrestler's point of view. Your opponent can take advantage on your "weight shifting". Most wrestlers like to use the "earth strategy" which is heavy on the feet.


----------



## geezer

KPM said:


> * ...*And if the school does actually spar, take a close look at some of the more advanced students sparring and see how much looks like Wing Chun and how much just looks like *poorly done boxing.*   That's another indicator.



When people sometimes say that WC sparring against boxers "just looks like poorly done boxing", I sometimes get a bit confused. Especially if the criticism is coming from a _boxer's _perspective. A better criticism might be that it "looks like clumsy and ineffective boxing". Because, regardless of how effective WC is, _of course_ it won't and shouldn't look like _good_ Western boxing, since it's not! 

Now, if it looks _somewhat_ more like boxing ...like for example the CSL WC/ "Chinese Boxing" that Alan Orr's guys train. Or, the "WC-Boxing" that you are developing --that's OK with me. And naturally, that stuff will still look odd from a boxer's perspective. That's OK too. But if it's clumsy and ineffective, that's _not_ OK!


----------



## Danny T

A good wing chun person will be able to adapt to whatever kind of fighter he/she faces and that adaptation will not look like picture perfect wing chun training.


----------



## KPM

Hey Guys!   I recently started a FB forum called "Martial Boxing Forum."  It is for the discussion of western boxing as a martial art, whether that is using boxing as a base and adding "martial" elements, or just using boxing-derived methods to improve your martial art.  We will be comparing notes on Wing Chun Boxing, 52 Blocks, Panantukan, or anything else with a "boxing flavor."  Come and check it out if you are interested!

Log into Facebook | Facebook


----------



## TMA17

Awesome


----------



## Martial D

KPM said:


> Hey Guys!   I recently started a FB forum called "Martial Boxing Forum."  It is for the discussion of western boxing as a martial art, whether that is using boxing as a base and adding "martial" elements, or just using boxing-derived methods to improve your martial art.  We will be comparing notes on Wing Chun Boxing, 52 Blocks, Panantukan, or anything else with a "boxing flavor."  Come and check it out if you are interested!
> 
> Log into Facebook | Facebook



Sounds interesting, right up my alley really.

Not interesting enough to join doxbook however.


----------



## Tames D

I'll check it out.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

KPM said:


> Hey Guys!   I recently started a FB forum called "Martial Boxing Forum."  It is for the discussion of western boxing as a martial art, whether that is using boxing as a base and adding "martial" elements, or just using boxing-derived methods to improve your martial art.  We will be comparing notes on Wing Chun Boxing, 52 Blocks, Panantukan, or anything else with a "boxing flavor."  Come and check it out if you are interested!
> 
> Log into Facebook | Facebook


I'll join. Just don't expect much from me. I'm not very active on FB (I probably should be - I know some folks who drive some of their business from FB activity).


----------



## Martial D

#deletefacebook


----------



## geezer

KPM said:


> Hey Guys!   I recently started a FB forum called "Martial Boxing Forum."  It is for the discussion of western boxing as a martial art, whether that is using boxing as a base and adding "martial" elements, or just using boxing-derived methods to improve your martial art.  We will be comparing notes on Wing Chun Boxing, 52 Blocks, Panantukan, or anything else with a "boxing flavor."  Come and check it out if you are interested!
> 
> Log into Facebook | Facebook




I'll check that out too. BTW, I hope that doesn't mean that you won't still be contributing here!


----------



## KPM

Nope! Still will contribute!  Here is something I did today:


----------



## KPM

Annnnd.....here's another!  ;-)


----------



## Martial D

Nice vids K. 

I now have a picture in my head of you fighting some dude and saying Bam Bam boom boom Bam boom bang bang as you hit him.


----------



## geezer

KPM said:


> Nope! Still will contribute!  Here is something I did today:





KPM said:


> Annnnd.....here's another!  ;-)



Keith: What you are doing is a lot like where I've been going with my WC and Escrima. You know what my "WT" background was. Here's what the Latosa Escrima figure eight pattern looked like back in the 80s and early 90s when applied to empty hands back. The sound effects are classic!


----------



## KPM

Oh man!  You are letting the secret out!  The sound effects are a FMA Master level version of a Kiai!  It focuses your Qi!  

Cool to hear you are doing something similar!  Would love to see it!


----------



## Gerry Seymour

KPM said:


> The sound effects are a FMA Master level version of a Kiai! It focuses your Qi!


Apparently, I'm better at FMA than I thought!


----------



## TMA17

I love WC.  I'm very new to it and think it's a great art.  However, I think styles/systems do matter despite the idea that they don't when it comes to preparing someone for a real fight.  Boxing offers better footwork, better punches from numerous angles, better overall movement (such as head movement), and better training for speed and timing.  Simple is often better.  Bruce Lee knew this.  The evidence is there.  As a striking art, WC falls behind boxing for real world effectiveness.  It's more complete and diverse overall, but lacks the attributes that boxing offers that win fights.  Add in Muay Thai elbows/kicking to boxing and you have probably the number striking art for real world self defense.  Throw in BJJ and you're pretty good to go overall.

I think what KPM, Rackemann etc. are doing is fantastic.  I think the blending of arts is what everyone should do. 

If you love WC and get what you want out of it, that's all that matters though.  Whether it's the movements, weapons, kicking or philosophy behind that keeps you motivated in mastering it, those are great things....don't stop.  However, if you want to make it more street/ring/self-defense effective, modification is likely going to be necessary.

The idea that you need to train an art for 10 years to get it work is absurd IMO.  Maybe 10 years to master it, but it should be effective much sooner than that or there is something wrong with it. 

Bruce Lee:  "someone with only 1 year of training in boxing and wrestling can easily defeat a martial artist of 20 years of experience.”


----------



## TMA17

There seems to be an increase in videos lately out of China showing MMA vs CMA.


----------



## KPM

This goes along with the Equis Strike Pattern video I posted earlier.


----------



## Flying Crane

TMA17 said:


> Add in Muay Thai elbows/kicking to boxing and you have probably the number striking art for real world self defense.



Coming from a different background, I disagree.

The thing is, everyone speaks from their own experience.  It’s good to have belief in what you do, but there is a whole lot of stuff out there with which you have no experience.  So blanket statements like the one above, really miss a whole lot.

I would say rather that what you propose above can be a very effective combination, if it fits with your personality and inclinations.

But there are a lot of other things for which that is also true.

There simply are no absolutes, in this game.


----------



## Marnetmar

I haven't had to read through the thread but some of Rackemann's ideas puzzle me. Why try to force Wing Chun to work in boxing range when it's clearly better adapted for the clinch? Why not just use regular boxing and then use Wing Chun to transition into grappling? Why sacrifice the power in a regular long-range horizontal punch for a vertical one, when the reason Chun's strikes are vertical in the first place is because they're meant to be performed at a range where you wouldn't be able to get any power from a horizontal punch?


----------



## Nobody Important

Marnetmar said:


> I haven't had to read through the thread but some of Rackemann's ideas puzzle me. Why try to force Wing Chun to work in boxing range when it's clearly better adapted for the clinch? Why not just use regular boxing and then use Wing Chun to transition into grappling?


This is a good question, one I've brought up in the past. Perhaps someone will offer you a logical response. Good luck.


----------



## drop bear

Marnetmar said:


> I haven't had to read through the thread but some of Rackemann's ideas puzzle me. Why try to force Wing Chun to work in boxing range when it's clearly better adapted for the clinch? Why not just use regular boxing and then use Wing Chun to transition into grappling? Why sacrifice the power in a regular long-range horizontal punch for a vertical one, when the reason Chun's strikes are vertical in the first place is because they're meant to be performed at a range where you wouldn't be able to get any power from a horizontal punch?



Boxing has short range concepts that transition into grappling.

Why do wing chun at all?

I mean if you have to do boxing from other ranges. Then do some sort of stand up grappling system in the clinch.

You could pretty much save yourself a system.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Boxing has short range concepts that transition into grappling.
> 
> Why do wing chun at all?
> 
> I mean if you have to do boxing from other ranges. Then do some sort of stand up grappling system in the clinch.
> 
> You could pretty much save yourself a system.


"For the hell of it" has been good enough reason for many things in my life. In this case, "because you can" or "for the love of Wing Chun" both work, too.


----------



## KPM

Marnetmar said:


> I haven't had to read through the thread but some of Rackemann's ideas puzzle me. Why try to force Wing Chun to work in boxing range when it's clearly better adapted for the clinch? Why not just use regular boxing and then use Wing Chun to transition into grappling? Why sacrifice the power in a regular long-range horizontal punch for a vertical one, when the reason Chun's strikes are vertical in the first place is because they're meant to be performed at a range where you wouldn't be able to get any power from a horizontal punch?



What makes you think Rackemann does all of that?  He starts his students out learning "standard" boxing for a full year before he starts showing them any Wing Chun.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> "For the hell of it" has been good enough reason for many things in my life. In this case, "because you can" or "for the love of Wing Chun" both work, too.



There you go then. Both questions answered.


----------



## TMA17

drop bear said:


> Why do wing chun at all?
> 
> You could pretty much save yourself a system.



That’s kind of where I’ve arrived with WC and why I stopped training in it after SLT.


----------



## Martial D

drop bear said:


> Boxing has short range concepts that transition into grappling.
> 
> Why do wing chun at all?
> 
> I mean if you have to do boxing from other ranges. Then do some sort of stand up grappling system in the clinch.
> 
> You could pretty much save yourself a system.



Fill-in in dem gaps. That and adding something that's not cookie-cutter mui-wrestle-jitsu. It's much easier to prepare for the expected!


----------



## drop bear

TMA17 said:


> That’s kind of where I’ve arrived with WC and why I stopped training in it after SLT.



The thing is there is absolutely nothing stopping anyone from wing chunning in boxing. (Well except the kicks)


----------



## drop bear

Martial D said:


> Fill-in in dem gaps. That and adding something that's not cookie-cutter mui-wrestle-jitsu. It's much easier to prepare for the expected!



Cookie cutter muai wrestle jitsu is a pretty big umbrella concept though.

That is one of the things I like about MMA is you can play with these ideas. You want to trap hands to work in to a clinch. Go for it.


----------



## Martial D

drop bear said:


> Cookie cutter muai wrestle jitsu is a pretty big umbrella concept though.
> 
> That is one of the things I like about MMA is you can play with these ideas. You want to trap hands to work in to a clinch. Go for it.


Agreed, it can be enough. In fact, I would say mui-wrestle-jitsu is only the meta BECAUSE of proven effectiveness for the cage.

With that said though, more options are better than less options.


----------



## macher

TMA17 said:


> I love WC.  I'm very new to it and think it's a great art.  However, I think styles/systems do matter despite the idea that they don't when it comes to preparing someone for a real fight.  Boxing offers better footwork, better punches from numerous angles, better overall movement (such as head movement), and better training for speed and timing.  Simple is often better.  Bruce Lee knew this.  The evidence is there.  As a striking art, WC falls behind boxing for real world effectiveness.  It's more complete and diverse overall, but lacks the attributes that boxing offers that win fights.  Add in Muay Thai elbows/kicking to boxing and you have probably the number striking art for real world self defense.  Throw in BJJ and you're pretty good to go overall.
> 
> I think what KPM, Rackemann etc. are doing is fantastic.  I think the blending of arts is what everyone should do.
> 
> If you love WC and get what you want out of it, that's all that matters though.  Whether it's the movements, weapons, kicking or philosophy behind that keeps you motivated in mastering it, those are great things....don't stop.  However, if you want to make it more street/ring/self-defense effective, modification is likely going to be necessary.
> 
> The idea that you need to train an art for 10 years to get it work is absurd IMO.  Maybe 10 years to master it, but it should be effective much sooner than that or there is something wrong with it.
> 
> Bruce Lee:  "someone with only 1 year of training in boxing and wrestling can easily defeat a martial artist of 20 years of experience.”



I agree I think where WC lacks is sparring against a boxer or a street fight scenarios where punches are coming from unorthodox angles etc. WC needs to keep drilling not against WC but against Rutgers boxers or street fighting style hay maker punches.


----------



## geezer

macher said:


> ,,,against Rutgers boxers or street fighting style hay maker punches.



Rutgers?


----------



## macher

geezer said:


> Rutgers?



My bad typo.


----------



## geezer

macher said:


> My bad typo.



I thought you meant _ruggers_, but hey, you never know!


----------



## Flying Crane

macher said:


> I agree I think where WC lacks is sparring against a boxer or a street fight scenarios where punches are coming from unorthodox angles etc. WC needs to keep drilling not against WC but against Rutgers boxers or street fighting style hay maker punches.


Why do you feel these come from “unorthodox angles”?


----------



## Martial D

Flying Crane said:


> Why do you feel these come from “unorthodox angles”?


Not to presume to speak for him, but I think he means other than straight punches.


----------



## macher

Martial D said:


> Not to presume to speak for him, but I think he means other than straight punches.



Right. If you’re in a fight you have to learn to detect punches from all angles. This comes from drilling and sparring. I visited a couple WC schools and they don’t drill and spar real life scenarios. Not that I’ve gotten into many fights but the couple I’ve gotten into as a last resort the opponent was throwing ‘Superman’ punches and / or wild punches. 

That’s why I think KPA is on the right track having a western boxing engine. Boxers learn how to detect punches and learn to defend and / or counter.


----------



## KPM

In a modern fighting context one has to be prepared to defend against punches coming rapidly from multiple angles.  This is true whether the opponent has an actual boxing/kickboxing background, or is just a street punk with some fighting experience.   You can expect these punches to be coming fast enough and at all kinds of angles that make it difficult to nearly impossible to block or parry them all.  These leaves you with two basic strategies:  1. Charge in with your own punches and hope you can parry some of his initial blows until you can overwhelm him with your own.  From a Wing Chun perspective maybe you can trap him or otherwise prevent him from continue to throw punches.   2.  Fight more defensively with "covers"....like a boxer does, and watch for openings in which to throw your counters.  This is more "weathering the storm" and "returning fire."  

Strategy #1 can work, but typically does not defend the head well and one can easily take a shot on the way in.  There is also a problem here if your opponent manages to avoid your initial onslaught or move away.  Then you have to re-engage and risk taking a shot all over again.  This really is an "ambush style" of fighting.  You close in quick and hope to maintain control the whole time.  It isn't very good for "face off"..."back and forth"....kinds of fighting.   And you see this regularly when you watch clips of Wing Chun guys sparring....that is if they make an effort to actually stick to their Wing Chun!

I saw a Wing Chun sparring clip recently where one guy just charged straight in throwing wide punches from the shoulders rapidly the whole fight.  He didn't even try to throw nice straight Wing Chun punches.   His opponent kept the typical forward guard thinking he was going to parry things.  Well, he didn't stop a single punch because they just went around his guard faster than he could respond.  And he had no idea how to cover his head.  So he took multiple punches to the head and was knocked down about half a dozen times.  He looked like he had no defense at all because his opponent was throwing wide punches rather than nice Wing Chun centerline punches.  And neither of these guys were beginners to Wing Chun!

Strategy #2 is safer, and ends up being what most people do when they spar.  People will instinctively start to "cover up" when blows are coming at them fast and hard.   52 Blocks specializes in "covering up" in this kind of scenario, even more so than western boxing.  But this strategy of "covering up" to "weather the storm" rather than blocking or parrying as your main defense is central to both.   And this is what works best when someone is raining down fast punches from multiple angles.

So the bottom line for me.......Wing Chun would do well to learn how to use these covers and the footwork from Boxing/52 Blocks in order to manage distance and close safely with an opponent.  Then when in close, the Wing Chun can kick in with sticking skills and close-range striking and controlling.


----------



## macher

KPM said:


> In a modern fighting context one has to be prepared to defend against punches coming rapidly from multiple angles.  This is true whether the opponent has an actual boxing/kickboxing background, or is just a street punk with some fighting experience.   You can expect these punches to be coming fast enough and at all kinds of angles that make it difficult to nearly impossible to block or parry them all.  These leaves you with two basic strategies:  1. Charge in with your own punches and hope you can parry some of his initial blows until you can overwhelm him with your own.  From a Wing Chun perspective maybe you can trap him or otherwise prevent him from continue to throw punches.   2.  Fight more defensively with "covers"....like a boxer does, and watch for openings in which to throw your counters.  This is more "weathering the storm" and "returning fire."
> 
> Strategy #1 can work, but typically does not defend the head well and one can easily take a shot on the way in.  There is also a problem here if your opponent manages to avoid your initial onslaught or move away.  Then you have to re-engage and risk taking a shot all over again.  This really is an "ambush style" of fighting.  You close in quick and hope to maintain control the whole time.  It isn't very good for "face off"..."back and forth"....kinds of fighting.   And you see this regularly when you watch clips of Wing Chun guys sparring....that is if they make an effort to actually stick to their Wing Chun!
> 
> I saw a Wing Chun sparring clip recently where one guy just charged straight in throwing wide punches from the shoulders rapidly the whole fight.  He didn't even try to throw nice straight Wing Chun punches.   His opponent kept the typical forward guard thinking he was going to parry things.  Well, he didn't stop a single punch because they just went around his guard faster than he could respond.  And he had no idea how to cover his head.  So he took multiple punches to the head and was knocked down about half a dozen times.  He looked like he had no defense at all because his opponent was throwing wide punches rather than nice Wing Chun centerline punches.  And neither of these guys were beginners to Wing Chun!
> 
> Strategy #2 is safer, and ends up being what most people do when they spar.  People will instinctively start to "cover up" when blows are coming at them fast and hard.   52 Blocks specializes in "covering up" in this kind of scenario, even more so than western boxing.  But this strategy of "covering up" to "weather the storm" rather than blocking or parrying as your main defense is central to both.   And this is what works best when someone is raining down fast punches from multiple angles.
> 
> So the bottom line for me.......Wing Chun would do well to learn how to use these covers and the footwork from Boxing/52 Blocks in order to manage distance and close safely with an opponent.  Then when in close, the Wing Chun can kick in with sticking skills and close-range striking and controlling.



Like I said previously you can only do this by sparring which the Wing Chun schools I visited lack.

If someone is coming at you with swinging punches which most fights will be the best way to defend yourself or be offensive  IMO is western boxing. 52 looks good but so is how Maywesther fights. Pretty defensive but when he sees an opportunity for offense he’s there. Not that any of us can be on the same level as Mayweather but even if are somewhat ok or know how to do it a little; slipping, bobbing and weaving etc you’ll be able to weather out the storm cause your opponent will get tired and sloppy which creates opportunity.


----------



## drop bear

KPM said:


> In a modern fighting context one has to be prepared to defend against punches coming rapidly from multiple angles.  This is true whether the opponent has an actual boxing/kickboxing background, or is just a street punk with some fighting experience.   You can expect these punches to be coming fast enough and at all kinds of angles that make it difficult to nearly impossible to block or parry them all.  These leaves you with two basic strategies:  1. Charge in with your own punches and hope you can parry some of his initial blows until you can overwhelm him with your own.  From a Wing Chun perspective maybe you can trap him or otherwise prevent him from continue to throw punches.   2.  Fight more defensively with "covers"....like a boxer does, and watch for openings in which to throw your counters.  This is more "weathering the storm" and "returning fire."
> 
> Strategy #1 can work, but typically does not defend the head well and one can easily take a shot on the way in.  There is also a problem here if your opponent manages to avoid your initial onslaught or move away.  Then you have to re-engage and risk taking a shot all over again.  This really is an "ambush style" of fighting.  You close in quick and hope to maintain control the whole time.  It isn't very good for "face off"..."back and forth"....kinds of fighting.   And you see this regularly when you watch clips of Wing Chun guys sparring....that is if they make an effort to actually stick to their Wing Chun!
> 
> I saw a Wing Chun sparring clip recently where one guy just charged straight in throwing wide punches from the shoulders rapidly the whole fight.  He didn't even try to throw nice straight Wing Chun punches.   His opponent kept the typical forward guard thinking he was going to parry things.  Well, he didn't stop a single punch because they just went around his guard faster than he could respond.  And he had no idea how to cover his head.  So he took multiple punches to the head and was knocked down about half a dozen times.  He looked like he had no defense at all because his opponent was throwing wide punches rather than nice Wing Chun centerline punches.  And neither of these guys were beginners to Wing Chun!
> 
> Strategy #2 is safer, and ends up being what most people do when they spar.  People will instinctively start to "cover up" when blows are coming at them fast and hard.   52 Blocks specializes in "covering up" in this kind of scenario, even more so than western boxing.  But this strategy of "covering up" to "weather the storm" rather than blocking or parrying as your main defense is central to both.   And this is what works best when someone is raining down fast punches from multiple angles.
> 
> So the bottom line for me.......Wing Chun would do well to learn how to use these covers and the footwork from Boxing/52 Blocks in order to manage distance and close safely with an opponent.  Then when in close, the Wing Chun can kick in with sticking skills and close-range striking and controlling.



Yeah the Chun concept of parrying combined with front foot fighting requires you to have a head like a bessa block.

The ideas kind of work. It is the combination in which they are used that makes them break down.

I mean at least incorporating concepts like striking with head off center would raise the odds of winning and reduce a tonne of brain damage.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

KPM said:


> Strategy #1 can work, but typically does not defend the head well and one can easily take a shot on the way in.


You have to give away some of your own punching ability before you can take away some of your opponent's punching ability.

After all those years, I still believe that "rhino guard" can give you the best "head protection".






You may lose some of your striking ability. But if you have wrestling ability, your lose can be your gain.


----------



## Martial D

Kung Fu Wang said:


> You have to give away some of your own punching ability before you can take away some of your opponent's punching ability



Not always. If you are good at slipping to the outside or bobbing and weaving you can end up loaded for a counter to the outside gate. You take their ability to hit you while enhancing your own in that context.


----------



## macher

KPM said:


> In a modern fighting context one has to be prepared to defend against punches coming rapidly from multiple angles.  This is true whether the opponent has an actual boxing/kickboxing background, or is just a street punk with some fighting experience.   You can expect these punches to be coming fast enough and at all kinds of angles that make it difficult to nearly impossible to block or parry them all.  These leaves you with two basic strategies:  1. Charge in with your own punches and hope you can parry some of his initial blows until you can overwhelm him with your own.  From a Wing Chun perspective maybe you can trap him or otherwise prevent him from continue to throw punches.   2.  Fight more defensively with "covers"....like a boxer does, and watch for openings in which to throw your counters.  This is more "weathering the storm" and "returning fire."
> 
> Strategy #1 can work, but typically does not defend the head well and one can easily take a shot on the way in.  There is also a problem here if your opponent manages to avoid your initial onslaught or move away.  Then you have to re-engage and risk taking a shot all over again.  This really is an "ambush style" of fighting.  You close in quick and hope to maintain control the whole time.  It isn't very good for "face off"..."back and forth"....kinds of fighting.   And you see this regularly when you watch clips of Wing Chun guys sparring....that is if they make an effort to actually stick to their Wing Chun!
> 
> I saw a Wing Chun sparring clip recently where one guy just charged straight in throwing wide punches from the shoulders rapidly the whole fight.  He didn't even try to throw nice straight Wing Chun punches.   His opponent kept the typical forward guard thinking he was going to parry things.  Well, he didn't stop a single punch because they just went around his guard faster than he could respond.  And he had no idea how to cover his head.  So he took multiple punches to the head and was knocked down about half a dozen times.  He looked like he had no defense at all because his opponent was throwing wide punches rather than nice Wing Chun centerline punches.  And neither of these guys were beginners to Wing Chun!
> 
> Strategy #2 is safer, and ends up being what most people do when they spar.  People will instinctively start to "cover up" when blows are coming at them fast and hard.   52 Blocks specializes in "covering up" in this kind of scenario, even more so than western boxing.  But this strategy of "covering up" to "weather the storm" rather than blocking or parrying as your main defense is central to both.   And this is what works best when someone is raining down fast punches from multiple angles.
> 
> So the bottom line for me.......Wing Chun would do well to learn how to use these covers and the footwork from Boxing/52 Blocks in order to manage distance and close safely with an opponent.  Then when in close, the Wing Chun can kick in with sticking skills and close-range striking and controlling.



I emailed Rackemann to ask about how he teaches. He said for new people he teaches them western boxing for 12 months because he said Wing Chun integrates into boxing well not boxing into Wing Chun.


----------



## KPM

macher said:


> I emailed Rackemann to ask about how he teaches. He said for new people he teaches them western boxing for 12 months because he said Wing Chun integrates into boxing well not boxing into Wing Chun.



He may have a point.  I do think Boxing integrates well enough into Wing Chun.  But the learning curve is probably faster if you start with a  good boxing base and then integrate some Wing Chun into that.


----------



## macher

KPM said:


> He may have a point.  I do think Boxing integrates well enough into Wing Chun.  But the learning curve is probably faster if you start with a  good boxing base and then integrate some Wing Chun into that.



How are you teaching it?


----------



## KPM

macher said:


> How are you teaching it?



Half-way in between?   I tend to do both in parallel.


----------



## macher

KPM said:


> Half-way in between?   I tend to do both in parallel.



Ok so if someone completely new to martial arts with no experience you’ll blend in both.

My thinking is the blend of western boxing and Wing chun is the best training to learn how to defend yourself. And you don’t necessarily have to learn Wing Chun in its formal way. You just have to be taught in a way that’s most practical for real life combat. Where western boxing comes in is distance and learning to be able to detect / slip / parry etc your opponents strikes.

Here’s a couple teresting videos...











Not sure if I’m mis-interpreting but I don’t agree to use boxing to get into short range or a means to bridge the gap then use Wing Chun. If I have a good jab then can keep the distance out of Wing Chun range and it’s working why not use that jab as a set up for a hook which can be almost medium range even though it would be a wide hook.

Did some light medium sparring with our son. And I told him come at me like a brawler with typical punches like in a street fight. 52 Blocks worked although I need a lot more practice. I kept the sparring at medium range then I was able to step in a little a use my left hook. Was defensive at first cause he was swinging and I ‘weathered out the storm’. This is real life combat MA IMO.

The thing is if you’re defending yourself and you know more than your opponent then you’ll be ok. But if you’re going against someone who’s an experienced boxer let’s say you’ll get your assed kicked. But most situations will be against a street brawler, someone who comes at you swinging.


----------



## KPM

*Ok so if someone completely new to martial arts with no experience you’ll blend in both.*

---Yes.  But the base would be boxing.  The core biomechanics I teach are from western boxing and I show how to do the Wing Chun from that base.  We usually train outdoors at a local park.  But over the winter we were in my basement.  So I took that opportunity to focus on level one of "classical"  Ku Lo Wing Chun.  I showed my small group the sets, how to do them on the dummy, and the two-man exercises that went with them.  We also still trained some boxing, but couldn't really use the back and forth footwork or do any effective sparring in my basement.  Now the weather is nice again and today we started back at the park.  So now we are back to "Wing Chun Boxing mode", but hopefully the guys have a little better perspective having done a bit of the "classical" Wing Chun. 

*My thinking is the blend of western boxing and Wing chun is the best training to learn how to defend yourself. And you don’t necessarily have to learn Wing Chun in its formal way. You just have to be taught in a way that’s most practical for real life combat. Where western boxing comes in is distance and learning to be able to detect / slip / parry etc your opponents strikes.*

---Exactly! 

*Not sure if I’m mis-interpreting but I don’t agree to use boxing to get into short range or a means to bridge the gap then use Wing Chun. If I have a good jab then can keep the distance out of Wing Chun range and it’s working why not use that jab as a set up for a hook which can be almost medium range even though it would be a wide hook.*

---That's true.  But what if you can't keep him out at the end of your jab?  Then you essentially have to try and clinch him, then push away back to your punching range.  That's where Wing Chun would kick in.  If you can't keep him at distance, or he is pretty good at avoiding any damaging blows at that distance and you are at somewhat of a stalement.....that's when you close in and start working at "Wing Chun range."   You are essentially saying..."If I am a good boxer on the outside range, then why do I need Wing Chun?"  That's the same argument as a Wing Chun guy saying..."If I am good at close range with Wing Chun, then why do I need western boxing?"   The answer to both questions would be....."You don't!"   However,  if you want to "expand your game" and be good on both the outside ranges and inside ranges, then you consider doing a hybrid "Wing Chun Boxing."  Each can fill in a gap for the other.


*The thing is if you’re defending yourself and you know more than your opponent then you’ll be ok. But if you’re going against someone who’s an experienced boxer let’s say you’ll get your assed kicked. But most situations will be against a street brawler, someone who comes at you swinging.*

---Very true!   But then the experienced boxer may not be prepared to deal with the responses he would get from a Wing Chun on the inside!  The Wing Chun guy just has to be able to get to the inside without getting knocked out first!


----------



## KPM

Sorry!  Tried to post a FB video, but it didn't work!


----------



## macher

KPM said:


> Sorry!  Tried to post a FB video, but it didn't work!



Doesn’t work. Is there a link or something?

Just did some light medium sparring with both our sons. We drilled ‘closed door’ from swinging / hooks. Very effective although we need  practice.


----------



## macher

KPM said:


> *Ok so if someone completely new to martial arts with no experience you’ll blend in both.*
> 
> ---Yes.  But the base would be boxing.  The core biomechanics I teach are from western boxing and I show how to do the Wing Chun from that base.  We usually train outdoors at a local park.  But over the winter we were in my basement.  So I took that opportunity to focus on level one of "classical"  Ku Lo Wing Chun.  I showed my small group the sets, how to do them on the dummy, and the two-man exercises that went with them.  We also still trained some boxing, but couldn't really use the back and forth footwork or do any effective sparring in my basement.  Now the weather is nice again and today we started back at the park.  So now we are back to "Wing Chun Boxing mode", but hopefully the guys have a little better perspective having done a bit of the "classical" Wing Chun.
> 
> *My thinking is the blend of western boxing and Wing chun is the best training to learn how to defend yourself. And you don’t necessarily have to learn Wing Chun in its formal way. You just have to be taught in a way that’s most practical for real life combat. Where western boxing comes in is distance and learning to be able to detect / slip / parry etc your opponents strikes.*
> 
> ---Exactly!
> 
> *Not sure if I’m mis-interpreting but I don’t agree to use boxing to get into short range or a means to bridge the gap then use Wing Chun. If I have a good jab then can keep the distance out of Wing Chun range and it’s working why not use that jab as a set up for a hook which can be almost medium range even though it would be a wide hook.*
> 
> ---That's true.  But what if you can't keep him out at the end of your jab?  Then you essentially have to try and clinch him, then push away back to your punching range.  That's where Wing Chun would kick in.  If you can't keep him at distance, or he is pretty good at avoiding any damaging blows at that distance and you are at somewhat of a stalement.....that's when you close in and start working at "Wing Chun range."   You are essentially saying..."If I am a good boxer on the outside range, then why do I need Wing Chun?"  That's the same argument as a Wing Chun guy saying..."If I am good at close range with Wing Chun, then why do I need western boxing?"   The answer to both questions would be....."You don't!"   However,  if you want to "expand your game" and be good on both the outside ranges and inside ranges, then you consider doing a hybrid "Wing Chun Boxing."  Each can fill in a gap for the other.
> 
> 
> *The thing is if you’re defending yourself and you know more than your opponent then you’ll be ok. But if you’re going against someone who’s an experienced boxer let’s say you’ll get your assed kicked. But most situations will be against a street brawler, someone who comes at you swinging.*
> 
> ---Very true!   But then the experienced boxer may not be prepared to deal with the responses he would get from a Wing Chun on the inside!  The Wing Chun guy just has to be able to get to the inside without getting knocked out first!



Watched a number of your videos today while watching the NBA playoffs. Do you teach Wing Chun in a traditional way for Wing Chun Boxing? Or do you teach WC application / form in a way to integrate it into boxing?

For instance Lan Sau. You can apply this when you’re in tight to get some distance to lunch or you can use it to keep distance from your opponent.


----------



## KPM

macher said:


> Watched a number of your videos today while watching the NBA playoffs. Do you teach Wing Chun in a traditional way for Wing Chun Boxing? Or do you teach WC application / form in a way to integrate it into boxing?
> 
> For instance Lan Sau. You can apply this when you’re in tight to get some distance to lunch or you can use it to keep distance from your opponent.



I've done both.  Over the winter I taught pretty "classical" Ku Lo Wing Chun to my guys just so they would have a sense of where the Wing Chun was coming from.  But its more efficient to just teach boxing fundamentals and mechanics and then start adapting various Wing Chun techniques to that.    Ku Lo Wing Chun is taught in short forms or "San Sik", rather than the longer forms most people are familiar with.  So it is relatively easy to change the core mechanics in those short forms to boxing mechanics and still do essentially the same techniques and applications.  I don't think other versions of Wing Chun would be as directly adaptable to "Wing Chun Boxing."


----------



## macher

KPM said:


> I've done both.  Over the winter I taught pretty "classical" Ku Lo Wing Chun to my guys just so they would have a sense of where the Wing Chun was coming from.  But its more efficient to just teach boxing fundamentals and mechanics and then start adapting various Wing Chun techniques to that.    Ku Lo Wing Chun is taught in short forms or "San Sik", rather than the longer forms most people are familiar with.  So it is relatively easy to change the core mechanics in those short forms to boxing mechanics and still do essentially the same techniques and applications.  I don't think other versions of Wing Chun would be as directly adaptable to "Wing Chun Boxing."



Yea from doing some research Ku Lo / Pin Sun seems more adaptable to Wing Chun Boxing. I’ve tried searching for a Ku Lo school near me and there isn’t any.


----------



## wingchun100

I have watched and enjoyed several Rackemann videos. In my own personal journey, I was attending a JKD class because my Wing Chun Sifu was out of commission due to back surgery. At the JKD class I had my eyes opened to the importance of footwork, head movement, timing, and distance. Most of these are not achieved through Chi Sao since you are already in arm's length of each other. Therefore, that rules out footwork and distance. As for head movement, we were always encouraged to NOT move our heads at all. I mean, maybe we veer off the center, but we definitely didn't do anything like ducking, bobbing, weaving, or slipping. We still developed timing of course, and footwork was developed to a certain extent because you aren't going to do Chi Sao standing in one spot, but it was not developed the way it is in Western boxing.

My stay at JKD didn't last too long, but I am glad I got to learn what I did out of it. In the meantime, I'm still looking to join a boxing gym so I can keep working on those missing pieces.


----------



## Martial D

wingchun100 said:


> I have watched and enjoyed several Rackemann videos. In my own personal journey, I was attending a JKD class because my Wing Chun Sifu was out of commission due to back surgery. At the JKD class I had my eyes opened to the importance of footwork, head movement, timing, and distance. Most of these are not achieved through Chi Sao since you are already in arm's length of each other. Therefore, that rules out footwork and distance. As for head movement, we were always encouraged to NOT move our heads at all. I mean, maybe we veer off the center, but we definitely didn't do anything like ducking, bobbing, weaving, or slipping. We still developed timing of course, and footwork was developed to a certain extent because you aren't going to do Chi Sao standing in one spot, but it was not developed the way it is in Western boxing.
> 
> My stay at JKD didn't last too long, but I am glad I got to learn what I did out of it. In the meantime, I'm still looking to join a boxing gym so I can keep working on those missing pieces.



I have found boxing/kickboxing to have improved my WC dramatically. I am about positive WC involved a lot more head movement and footwork at some point simply because it WORKS that way. It's next to impossible to effectively use WC from a classical WC stance in my experience.


----------



## TMA17

wingchun100 said:


> At the JKD class I had my eyes opened to the importance of footwork, head movement, timing, and distance.



Those are crucial elements in striking.  A must regardless of style.  Boxing will definitely help fill in those pieces.

Bruce Lee found the same problems with WC.  WC seems to be most effective in that sort of gray area.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Martial D said:


> I am about positive WC involved a lot more head movement and footwork at some point simply because it WORKS that way.


The WT I learned does place a heavy emphasis on footwork. Not so much for head movement.

The thought does raise some possibilities. Recently I've been studying Cus D'Amato's "peekaboo" boxing style. This approach is built on a stance which is much more square on than the typical boxing stance, closer to a WC approach. This stance is used to allow for serious side-to-side head movement. It would be interesting to see how I could apply a WC/WT engine along with that sort of head movement.


----------



## macher

Tony Dismukes said:


> The WT I learned does place a heavy emphasis on footwork. Not so much for head movement.
> 
> The thought does raise some possibilities. Recently I've been studying Cus D'Amato's "peekaboo" boxing style. This approach is built on a stance which is much more square on than the typical boxing stance, closer to a WC approach. This stance is used to allow for serious side-to-side head movement. It would be interesting to see how I could apply a WC/WT engine along with that sort of head movement.



The peekaboo style relies on punches that generate power from the style.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

macher said:


> The peekaboo style relies on punches that generate power from the style.


Yeah, I know how to generate power from the peekaboo style using western boxing body mechanics. I’d have to experiment with how to apply WC power generation from that structure. I have some ideas, but I’ll have to try them out.


----------



## Martial D

Tony Dismukes said:


> The WT I learned does place a heavy emphasis on footwork. Not so much for head movement.
> 
> The thought does raise some possibilities. Recently I've been studying Cus D'Amato's "peekaboo" boxing style. This approach is built on a stance which is much more square on than the typical boxing stance, closer to a WC approach. This stance is used to allow for serious side-to-side head movement. It would be interesting to see how I could apply a WC/WT engine along with that sort of head movement.


Yes, the wc I learned also emphasized footwork. Unfortunately it doesn't hold up too well against kickboxing footwork, and doesn't work as well with WC stuff in practicality due to rigid pody and head positioning. I get most of my WC off of slips and weaves, which don't exist in my pure WC syllabus.


----------



## macher

Martial D said:


> Yes, the wc I learned also emphasized footwork. Unfortunately it doesn't hold up too well against kickboxing footwork, and doesn't work as well with WC stuff in practicality due to rigid pody and head positioning. I get most of my WC off of slips and weaves, which don't exist in my pure WC syllabus.



Here’s an interesting video.


----------



## KPM

Fernandez is wrong about a couple of things.  First...people DO fight that way on the street.....a threat or exchange of words...push someone back..... and square off at long range.  That is the difference between a street fight and an actual assault.
Second....being able to bridge in from long range to get to close range to use your Wing Chun is NOT the  same thing as having an actual "long range" game or being able to fight from "long range."   Having a "long range game" means you can conduct the fight from long range.  You have evasive fast footwork and body motion to avoid getting hit while staying just out of reach.  You have the ability to dart in with powerful strikes and back out again before the opponent can do much about it.  You have the ability to keep the opponent from being able to trap your arms or clinch or get into "in-fighting" mode.  You have the ability to control the  range or distance and keep the fight at long range....just on the edge of being able to reach with a powerful blow.   Many western boxers are good at this.  Many kickboxers are good at this.  But this is NOT what Wing Chun was designed for.  This is not Wing Chun's forte.  And this is NOT what Fernandez is showing in his video.


----------



## Martial D

macher said:


> Here’s an interesting video.



Here's the thing about these sorts of demos; watch the other guy.

If someone throws a jab, leaves it extended, doesn't move their feet and turtles on the counter...yes, what this Sifu is doing would be effective. Good luck finding anyone that would do these things. More often than not that punch is followed by another, and another, and another, and suddenly that flaily arms extended WC attack he is doing is a prescription for getting knocked out.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

KPM said:


> back out again before the opponent can do much about it. ...  Many western boxers are good at this. ...  But this is NOT what Wing Chun was designed for


I agree that CMA is not designed to move in and then back out. Many CMA systems emphasizes on move in and never back out.

If you (general YOU) have an integrated fighting skill, you don't need to back out. It makes no sense to spent so much effort to enter. You then have to back out again. IMO, this boxing solution can be used as a short term goal. The long term goal should still be kick, punch, lock, throw, and ground game integration.

The day that when your opponent moves in toward you, he suddenly finds out that he can't back out, you will know that your MA training is on the right track.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Martial D said:


> More often than not that punch is followed by another, and another, and another,


The main question is "how to prevent your opponent from punching you over and over?"

You can

1. use footwork to maintain distance.
2. move in, establish a clinch, and disable your opponent's punching ability.

IMO, 2 > 1.


----------



## Martial D

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The main question is "how to prevent your opponent from punching you over and over?"
> 
> You can
> 
> 1. use footwork to maintain distance.
> 2. move in, establish a clinch, and disable your opponent's punching ability.
> 
> IMO, 2 > 1.



In essence, you are right. 

Flying in square spamming bongsau and tansau and hoping your opponent turtles is neither one nor the other though


----------



## macher

Martial D said:


> Here's the thing about these sorts of demos; watch the other guy.
> 
> If someone throws a jab, leaves it extended, doesn't move their feet and turtles on the counter...yes, what this Sifu is doing would be effective. Good luck finding anyone that would do these things. More often than not that punch is followed by another, and another, and another, and suddenly that flaily arms extended WC attack he is doing is a prescription for getting knocked out.



When they’re are sparring more heavily he’s not leaving the jab extended.


----------



## Martial D

macher said:


> When they’re are sparring more heavily he’s not leaving the jab extended.


Oh? And where is this footage of this heavy sparring? Got a link?

The one you posted is completely unrealistic.


----------



## wingchun100

Martial D said:


> Here's the thing about these sorts of demos; watch the other guy.
> 
> If someone throws a jab, leaves it extended, doesn't move their feet and turtles on the counter...yes, what this Sifu is doing would be effective. Good luck finding anyone that would do these things. More often than not that punch is followed by another, and another, and another, and suddenly that flaily arms extended WC attack he is doing is a prescription for getting knocked out.



Maybe so, but still...I'd like to see him fight against that MMA fighter who's going around knocking out all the traditional martial artists in China.


----------



## Martial D

wingchun100 said:


> Maybe so, but still...I'd like to see him fight against that MMA fighter who's going around knocking out all the traditional martial artists in China.


Meh. I'm fairly sure it would end the same way. I don't see how this guy has made any real adaptations to his WC to set it apart. I would like to see it too though.


----------



## wingchun100

Martial D said:


> Meh. I'm fairly sure it would end the same way. I don't see how this guy has made any real adaptations to his WC to set it apart. I would like to see it too though.



I'm not sure either, but I talk to him on a regular basis on Facebook. Good, open-minded guy. He actually took the time to read and write a testimonial for a Wing Chun book I wrote.


----------



## Martial D

wingchun100 said:


> I'm not sure either, but I talk to him on a regular basis on Facebook. Good, open-minded guy. He actually took the time to read and write a testimonial for a Wing Chun book I wrote.



Oh. Well that's pretty cool of him 

Is there any video of him sparring against a non cooperative opponent? I can't find any.

It's impossible to really assess without that. Anyone can make themselves look good with a cooperative partner in a scripted sequence. Just ask segal!


----------



## wingchun100

Martial D said:


> Oh. Well that's pretty cool of him
> 
> Is there any video of him sparring against a non cooperative opponent? I can't find any.
> 
> It's impossible to really assess without that. Anyone can make themselves look good with a cooperative partner in a scripted sequence. Just ask segal!



I'd have to look around. He has quite a few on YouTube.


----------



## Martial D

wingchun100 said:


> I'd have to look around. He has quite a few on YouTube.


While there are fighters than can be effective with a static trunk and head, they are mostly wrestlers. If there's a way to make that work against someone that knows how to move and strike, as a striker, I've yet to discover it.


----------



## KPM

wingchun100 said:


> I'm not sure either, but I talk to him on a regular basis on Facebook. Good, open-minded guy. He actually took the time to read and write a testimonial for a Wing Chun book I wrote.


 
Well!  Your experience has been much different than mine!   In the FB Wing Chun forum he posted a video of his guys doing this beltt training where they had belts around their waists that were connected so that they couldn't back away from each other.  Then they did Chi Sau that degenerated into flailing punches at each other with no technique at all.  When I pointed out that it looked like they were just flailing, he called me a "Cxnt" in the forum, and then private messaged me to tell me that he thought my profile picture made me look like a "Fxcking Fxggxt."   And all of this simply because I wasn't particularly impressed with a video he posted and made a simple comment!  So I have a much lower opinion of the guy than you!


----------



## wingchun100

KPM said:


> Well!  Your experience has been much different than mine!   In the FB Wing Chun forum he posted a video of his guys doing this beltt training where they had belts around their waists that were connected so that they couldn't back away from each other.  Then they did Chi Sau that degenerated into flailing punches at each other with no technique at all.  When I pointed out that it looked like they were just flailing, he called me a "Cxnt" in the forum, and then private messaged me to tell me that he thought my profile picture made me look like a "Fxcking Fxggxt."   And all of this simply because I wasn't particularly impressed with a video he posted and made a simple comment!  So I have a much lower opinion of the guy than you!



I rated your comment funny...not because what he DID is funny. In actuality, I dislike it...the interaction, not the post, but I didn't want to give you a negative rating.

I am sorry that has been your experience with him. This is why people say you should never meet your idols...not that he was your idol, but what they mean is, you meet the people in these videos, and then you think much less of them. For example, I admire the hell out of Emin Boztepe's skill, but I know people who have met him. They say if you manage to hit him during Chi Sao, he gets p*ssed and pours the pressure on...all because his ego can't handle that you hit him.

Not saying it's true. Just saying what I heard. And if I found out it WAS true, I'm not sure I could look at his videos the same from that point on.


----------



## nikthegreek_3

You should not combine Wing Chun with Boxing. They have totally different mentality though they have some common principles. The problem is that most people confuse Wing Chun in training with Wing Chun in actual combat and they get totally ineffective. A serious example is the punch: Most Wing Chun guys train and train in chain punches that is JUST a tool ONLY FOR TRAINING purposes and will never work in reality. Watch this video, a perfect explanation about Wing Chun's Punch and you will get my point:


----------



## jobo

nikthegreek_3 said:


> You should not combine Wing Chun with Boxing. They have totally different mentality though they have some common principles. The problem is that most people confuse Wing Chun in training with Wing Chun in actual combat and they get totally ineffective. A serious example is the punch: Most Wing Chun guys train and train in chain punches that is JUST a tool ONLY FOR TRAINING purposes and will never work in reality. Watch this video, a perfect explanation about Wing Chun's Punch and you will get my point:


in what way is the mentality different


----------



## nikthegreek_3

jobo said:


> in what way is the mentality different


For example: Boxing needs to mainly keep a distance. Wing Chun needs to close the distance so as to be able to apply it's principles (such as structure etch...). Thats is why they also use completely different way of body-movement. In boxing they lean back and forth and change height etch.. because they are based in avoiding punches. Wing Chun cannot do that because it is completely against the structure principles of the "almost" straight spine.


----------



## Cynik75

nikthegreek_3 said:


> Boxing needs to mainly keep a distance.


Fighter with longer arms wants to keep distance, fighter with shorter arms wants to close distance. 


nikthegreek_3 said:


> In boxing they lean back and forth and change height etch.. because they are based in avoiding punches.


There is a lot of blocks in boxing.

Mr Nico from posted video said that the aim of traing is to develop muscle memory, but in fight he will do something different than in training, Why is he developing muscle memory if he do not want to use it in fight? 

PS. This video is number 876876765 excuse why chunners loose fights - "they loose because the do not use TRUE/REAL wing chun, the do not use PRINCIPLES, the STRUCTURE is wrong"...
BLA, BLA, BLA
It is hardly to believe that there are no chunners who use wing chun in right way.


----------



## jobo

nikthegreek_3 said:


> For example: Boxing needs to mainly keep a distance. Wing Chun needs to close the distance so as to be able to apply it's principles (such as structure etch...). Thats is why they also use completely different way of body-movement. In boxing they lean back and forth and change height etch.. because they are based in avoiding punches. Wing Chun cannot do that because it is completely against the structure principles of the "almost" straight spine.


to add to what cynik said, who said much of what i was going to say 

wc main issue is going in a straight line and no reverse, that may well be ok in some situations but makes you a sitting duck against a boxer or an mma guy or anyone that can move sideways,

what i dont know is if this is proper wc or just what most wcs seem to do, which then leaves the question why?


----------



## nikthegreek_3

Cynik75 said:


> Fighter with longer arms wants to keep distance, fighter with shorter arms wants to close distance.
> 
> There is a lot of blocks in boxing.
> 
> Mr Nico from posted video said that the aim of traing is to develop muscle memory, but in fight he will do something different than in training, Why is he developing muscle memory if he do not want to use it in fight?
> 
> PS. This video is number 876876765 excuse why chunners loose fights - "they loose because the do not use TRUE/REAL wing chun, the do not use PRINCIPLES, the STRUCTURE is wrong"...
> BLA, BLA, BLA
> It is hardly to believe that there are no chunners who use wing chun in right way.



Well i disagree. The purpose of training is to develop muscle memory as correctly said in the video. And it is explained that: while in the form you are static and launch the punch at a low distance so as to develop the "Noarming" principle, in the real fight you will go with extended punches + this principle. The video also shows the wrong application of wing chun by some so called "wing chun masters". These people arm their punches and get beaten up. It is not an excuse for Wing Chun, because these people don;t have anything to do with Wing Chun. They claim that they do Wing Chun but they don't.
Of course there are chunners who use wing chun correctly. And in this case they are very difficult opponents. Wong Shun Leung for example, was never defeated (though he was a tiny person). This means definitely that Wing Chun works.


----------



## nikthegreek_3

jobo said:


> to add to what cynik said, who said much of what i was going to say
> 
> wc main issue is going in a straight line and no reverse, that may well be ok in some situations but makes you a sitting duck against a boxer or an mma guy or anyone that can move sideways,
> 
> what i dont know is if this is proper wc or just what most wcs seem to do, which then leaves the question why?




Yes exactly. It is not proper Wing Chun. In the video the guy is executing the correct extended chain punches and he is so fast that it is impossible for the opponent to retract. And when he does the "training chain punches" he cannot reach his opponent - no way.This is the difference between correct and wrong application of the same tool.
Moreover, as he says in the end of the video, Wing Chun doesn't have only straight punches it - may be in the next video.
And as you correctly say, yes it is not proper Wing Chun. They sit like this because they don;t know Wing Chun)) In the video it is also shown how a wing chuner with the usual chain punches is punished by an opponent who moves sideways.


----------



## Cynik75

nikthegreek_3 said:
			
		

> ....It is not an excuse for Wing Chun, because these people don;t have anything to do with Wing Chun. They claim that they do Wing Chun but they don't.


I this way we can say that Mike Tyson winning fights was a real boxer, Mike Tyson loosing fights was not  ROTFL



			
				nikthegreek_3 said:
			
		

> Of course there are chunners who use wing chun correctly. And in this case they are very difficult opponent.


Show me any video. Or any other evidence from non-chunners..



			
				nikthegreek_3 said:
			
		

> Wong Shun Leung for example, was never defeated (though he was a tiny person). This means definitely that Wing Chun works.


Beimo fights... dark alleys, rooftops, secret places. Nobody knows who, when, how has fought and both sides can claim the victory after fight. The only one existing video from beimo shows very low level (or even untrained) teenagers who fight like drunek bums. Everyone ******* who like to fight saturday night in bar can say "I have won 65 street fights", but he still is untrained amateur.


----------



## jobo

nikthegreek_3 said:


> Yes exactly. It is not proper Wing Chun. In the video the guy is executing the correct extended chain punches and he is so fast that it is impossible for the opponent to retract. And when he does the "training chain punches" he cannot reach his opponent - no way.This is the difference between correct and wrong application of the same tool.
> Moreover, as he says in the end of the video, Wing Chun doesn't have only straight punches it - may be in the next video.
> And as you correctly say, yes it is not proper Wing Chun. They sit like this because they don;t know Wing Chun)) In the video it is also shown how a wing chuner with the usual chain punches is punished by an opponent who moves sideways.


there are folk on here who have putt decades into wing chun, they are much betrer placed than i to discuss the merits of what the giy in the vid is saying.

but from a,simple  perspective,  if he is showing "fake "wing chuners being  knocked over as evidence that its fake, then he needs to go up against similar opponents  to show why he is better.

all he is offering is some guy hitting a pad and a very nice vista of  some boats and of course the obligatory bl clip


----------



## nikthegreek_3

jobo said:


> there are folk on here who have putt decades into wing chun, they are much betrer placed than i to discuss the merits of what the giy in the vid is saying.
> 
> but from a,simple  perspective,  if he is showing "fake "wing chuners being  knocked over as evidence that its fake, then he needs to go up against similar opponents  to show why he is better.
> 
> all he is offering is some guy hitting a pad and a very nice vista of  some boats



Well, you are right there are guys who spent a whole life learning fake things. Of course there are. So what? This doesn't prove that Wing Chun doesn't work. Also this guy in the video, is quite well known for his fighting ability (i think he didn't need to advertise this in the video - though his speed and technique is visible). But no matter what this guy is, i mentioned Wong Shun Leung: He is historically accepted as the "king of talking hands". He had many rooftop fights with different systems and he was never defeated. Then how is it possible that Wing Chun doesn;t work? If it doesn;t work, why he was never defeated?? (And it is not a myth - it is a quite recent history - well known in the world of martial arts).


----------



## jobo

nikthegreek_3 said:


> Well, you are right there are guys who spent a whole life learning fake things. Of course there are. So what? This doesn't prove that Wing Chun doesn't work. Also this guy in the video, is quite well known for his fighting ability (i think he didn't need to advertise this in the video - though his speed and technique is visible). But no matter what this guy is, i mentioned Wong Shun Leung: He is historically accepted as the "king of talking hands". He had many rooftop fights with different systems and he was never defeated. Then how is it possible that Wing Chun doesn;t work? If it doesn;t work, why he was never defeated?? (And it is not a myth - it is a quite recent history - well known in the world of martial arts).


maybe i beat around the bush to much? have you video of this guy or one of his disciples using wc properly against a reasonable level of pro fighter or even a good levthe amateur ,  you know someone who shows up if you google them


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

nikthegreek_3 said:


> Most Wing Chun guys train and train in chain punches that is JUST a tool ONLY FOR TRAINING purposes and will never work in reality.


Here is an example to show that "chain punches" can work.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

nikthegreek_3 said:


> Yes exactly. It is not proper Wing Chun. In the video the guy is executing the correct extended chain punches and he is so fast that it is impossible for the opponent to retract. And when he does the "training chain punches" he cannot reach his opponent - no way.This is the difference between correct and wrong application of the same tool.
> Moreover, as he says in the end of the video, Wing Chun doesn't have only straight punches it - may be in the next video.
> And as you correctly say, yes it is not proper Wing Chun. They sit like this because they don;t know Wing Chun)) In the video it is also shown how a wing chuner with the usual chain punches is punished by an opponent who moves sideways.


I'm a bit confused that you keep referring to the guy in the video in the third person, rather than as yourself. Given that your name here and the name of the youtube profile you keep linking too are very similar, I assumed you were the same person. Is that not the case?


----------



## nikthegreek_3

jobo said:


> maybe i beat around the bush to much? have you video of this guy or one of his disciples using wc properly against a reasonable level of pro fighter or even a good levthe amateur ,  you know someone who shows up if you google them


 Ι think that you just want to insist on this opinion that you have. So ok...  About this guy , i know because myself i have benn there, i know him very well (also in school there were x- boxers). About others, yes there are existing wing chun fighters that they are good and it doesn't matter about their videos of them as an evidence, because i mentioned WSL. Wong Shun Leung is accepted by everyone that he was a top fighter and he knew Wing Chun. You don't need a video - he was a top fighter in Hong Kong against other systems and it is not to be questioned in the world of martial arts. But still you insist on that Wing Chun doesn't work. If Wing Chun is a fake system, how he was the top fighter? 
Additionally the subject was if one must combine the 2 systems. And i say that no one should not combine them. They have different mentality.


----------



## nikthegreek_3

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> I'm a bit confused that you keep referring to the guy in the video in the third person, rather than as yourself. Given that your name here and the name of the youtube profile you keep linking too are very similar, I assumed you were the same person. Is that not the case?



 Why not? Knowing him so well  - also been in the school for a long time. I don't think it is bad
 By the way, in Greece it is the most common name)


----------



## nikthegreek_3

nikthegreek_3 said:


> Ι think that you just want to insist on this opinion that you have. So ok...  About this guy , i know because i know him myself)) and it is well known in my country. About others, yes there are existing wing chun fighters that they are good and it doesn't matter about their videos of them as an evidence, because i mentioned WSL. Wong Shun Leung is accepted by everyone that he was a top fighter and he knew Wing Chun. You don't need a video - he was a top fighter in Hong Kong against other systems and it is not to be questioned in the world of martial arts. But still you insist on that Wing Chun doesn't work. If Wing Chun is a fake system, how he was the top fighter?


----------



## nikthegreek_3

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Here is an example to show that "chain punches" can work.


This video is a great answer: Exactly! These are extended punches in chain mode. And not the short range chain punches that are only for training! great evidence that one should always extend the shoulders. Exactly what i was saying earlier


----------



## jobo

nikthegreek_3 said:


> Ι think that you just want to insist on this opinion that you have. So ok...  About this guy , i know because myself i have benn there, i know him very well (also in school there were x- boxers). About others, yes there are existing wing chun fighters that they are good and it doesn't matter about their videos of them as an evidence, because i mentioned WSL. Wong Shun Leung is accepted by everyone that he was a top fighter and he knew Wing Chun. You don't need a video - he was a top fighter in Hong Kong against other systems and it is not to be questioned in the world of martial arts. But still you insist on that Wing Chun doesn't work. If Wing Chun is a fake system, how he was the top fighter?
> Additionally the subject was if one must combine the 2 systems. And i say that no one should not combine them. They have different mentality.


because he is useing video of " fake" wing chun fighters to show it doesnt work, so you or he has to provided video that his version  does work, its only fair and proper, other wise he could just claim anything

i know nothing about wong shun, have you video?


----------



## Cynik75

nikthegreek_3 said:
			
		

> .... Wong Shun Leung is accepted by everyone that he was a top fighter and he knew Wing Chun.


For example I do not accept this , so your statement "accepted by everyone" is wrong. Sorry.


			
				nikthegreek_3 said:
			
		

> You don't need a video - he was a top fighter in Hong Kong against other systems and it is not to be questioned in the world of martial arts.


It is questioned (for example) on this martial arts forum. Your statement "is not to be questioned" is wrong again.
And yes: STATEMENT NEEDS PROOF.



			
				nikthegreek_3 said:
			
		

> If Wing Chun is a fake system, how he was the top fighter?.


Being the best fighter among failures is not huge achievement.
One good fighter from a style means nothing. 100 good fighters from a style means something. BJJ is proven not because of Royce and first UFCs, but because of thousands other fighters who used succesfully BJJ in fights. The same wrestling, boxing, judo, sambo etc.



			
				nikthegreek_3 said:
			
		

> Additionally the subject was if one must combine the 2 systems. And i say that no one should not combine them. They have different mentality.


Wrestling and kyokushin have different mentality, too. Wrestling and boxing have different mentality, BJJ and Muai Thain have different mentality but there are thousands fighters who succesfully mixed them.
Sticking with one (especially as limited as Wing Chun) style is straight path to defeat.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

nikthegreek_3 said:


> Why not? Knowing him so well  - also been in the school for a long time. I don't think it is bad
> By the way, in Greece it is the most common name)


Not bad at all. Just assumed you were the same person until saw the third person posts, so wanted clarity. I've heard the name before, didn't realize it was the most common name though.


----------



## nikthegreek_3

Cynik75 said:


> For example I do not accept this , so your statement "accepted by everyone" is wrong. Sorry.
> 
> It is questioned (for example) on this martial arts forum. Your statement "is not to be questioned" is wrong again.
> And yes: STATEMENT NEEDS PROOF.
> 
> 
> Being the best fighter among failures is not huge achievement.
> One good fighter from a style means nothing. 100 good fighters from a style means something. BJJ is proven not because of Royce and first UFCs, but because of thousands other fighters who used succesfully BJJ in fights. The same wrestling, boxing, judo, sambo etc.
> 
> 
> Wrestling and kyokushin have different mentality, too. Wrestling and boxing have different mentality, BJJ and Muai Thain have different mentality but there are thousands fighters who succesfully mixed them.
> Sticking with one (especially as limited as Wing Chun) style is straight path to defeat.




What you say is completely different from what i said. I said that Wing Chun and Boxing should not be combined because they have different mentality and one is opposite from the other. In case i didn't explain well, i say again:  They have opposite principles: For example the straight spine that one has, compared to the always very flexible and leaning spine of the other. It is easier to combine BJJ with Wing Chun, than boxing with Wing chun. Because one's principles do not contradict the other's. (One is striking and the other is ground - they can complete each other). 
As per combining systems: I didn;t say it is bad to know more that 1 system. If one knows 2 systems perfectly, of course it is better than knowing one. But if one knows 50% one system and 70% another (because he wanted to combine) i think it is a much worse choice.


----------



## drop bear

nikthegreek_3 said:


> What you say is completely different from what i said. I said that Wing Chun and Boxing should not be combined because they have different mentality and one is opposite from the other. In case i didn't explain well, i say again:  They have opposite principles: For example the straight spine that one has, compared to the always very flexible and leaning spine of the other. It is easier to combine BJJ with Wing Chun, than boxing with Wing chun. Because one's principles do not contradict the other's. (One is striking and the other is ground - they can complete each other).
> As per combining systems: I didn;t say it is bad to know more that 1 system. If one knows 2 systems perfectly, of course it is better than knowing one. But if one knows 50% one system and 70% another (because he wanted to combine) i think it is a much worse choice.



Head movement and cutting angles would solve a lot of wing chuns issues though because you create a third layer of defence that you desperately need.


----------



## Cynik75

nikthegreek_3 said:


> What you say is completely different from what i said...


You have said many thing and I have shown they are wrong or unproven. It means that your credibility is not very high.

The same I can say about statement "Wing chun and boxing should not be combined". IT IS FALSE STATEMENT. 
Good fighter or even medium level should be able to change his fighting style during the fight. Because it may be necessary to quickly adapt  to opponents new movement. Look at the Qi La La fights - he mixes WC with boxing quite well.

Last thing: the posted video is just the advertisement of "the only one true wing chun lineage". But without any proof of combat efficiency (other than anecdotal stories from beimo times) it means nothing.


----------



## jobo

nikthegreek_3 said:


> What you say is completely different from what i said. I said that Wing Chun and Boxing should not be combined because they have different mentality and one is opposite from the other. In case i didn't explain well, i say again:  They have opposite principles: For example the straight spine that one has, compared to the always very flexible and leaning spine of the other. It is easier to combine BJJ with Wing Chun, than boxing with Wing chun. Because one's principles do not contradict the other's. (One is striking and the other is ground - they can complete each other).
> As per combining systems: I didn;t say it is bad to know more that 1 system. If one knows 2 systems perfectly, of course it is better than knowing one. But if one knows 50% one system and 70% another (because he wanted to combine) i think it is a much worse choice.


but thats rather the issue, the founding principals of wc are the very reason it tends to fair badly against boxers.

i think this is practically a false dichotomy , most asian ma come of bady against boxers, but as long as your not fighting a good level boxer they are fine.

however what your doibg in this thread is insisting that the principals ate fine and it will be effective against a reasonable boxer, with out any evidence at all that this is so, other than some bloke saying it is


----------



## Flying Crane

Cynik75 said:


> You have said many thing and I have shown they are wrong or unproven. It means that your credibility is not very high.
> 
> The same I can say about statement "Wing chun and boxing should not be combined". IT IS FALSE STATEMENT.
> Good fighter or even medium level should be able to change his fighting style during the fight. Because it may be necessary to quickly adapt  to opponents new movement. Look at the Qi La La fights - he mixes WC with boxing quite well.
> 
> Last thing: the posted video is just the advertisement of "the only one true wing chun lineage". But without any proof of combat efficiency (other than anecdotal stories from beimo times) it means nothing.


Why is it a “FALSE STATEMENT”? He has an opinion and reasons for it.  You may disagree with his reasons.  You may have reasons of your own for your disagreement.  That does not make your position any more true than his might be false, or vice-versa.

Different people understand these things in different ways.  If his statement is consistent with his understanding, then it is true.  But it may not be the only truth.  Your position may also be true, based on how you understand it.  

Is one better than the other?  Maybe.  Maybe not.  

We each find our own path, in the end.   This isn’t a zero-sum game.


----------



## Flying Crane

Cynik75 said:


> Being the best fighter among failures is not huge achievement.
> One good fighter from a style means nothing.


Do you really believe this describes wing Chun?  Really?  Nothing but failures?  I could introduce you to some wing Chun fellows who I would want on my side if the **** went down.  You won’t find them on youtube nor in the UFC.  But they can fight. 



> Sticking with one (especially as limited as Wing Chun) style is straight path to defeat.



Do you mean in the context of mma competition?  I don’t think anyone is confused about the need to develop the full range of skills needed to thrive within the rules of a competition.  That is obvious.  

Do you mean in self defense?  Do you feel a wing Chun fellow simply cannot defend himself?  That training in wing Chun is actually a liability for self defense?   Surely not.  You know better than that.


----------



## drop bear

Flying Crane said:


> Why is it a “FALSE STATEMENT”? He has an opinion and reasons for it.  You may disagree with his reasons.  You may have reasons of your own for your disagreement.  That does not make your position any more true than his might be false, or vice-versa.
> 
> Different people understand these things in different ways.  If his statement is consistent with his understanding, then it is true.  But it may not be the only truth.  Your position may also be true, based on how you understand it.
> 
> Is one better than the other?  Maybe.  Maybe not.
> 
> We each find our own path, in the end.   This isn’t a zero-sum game.



Truth actually kind of is a zero-sum game. And why things that are not true tend to fail in blind trials.

It is pretty much the standard for finding out if magical powers really have an effect or not.

What you are describing is conformation bias. Which in itself is a lie.


----------



## Callen

Cynik75 said:


> Being the best fighter among failures is not huge achievement.


That's not much of a contribution to this particular forum. There are other locations on MartialTalk for people who don't train Wing Chun, perhaps one of them would be a better fit for you.


----------



## drop bear

Callen said:


> That's not much of a contribution to this particular forum. There are other locations on MartialTalk for people who don't train Wing Chun, perhaps one of them would be a better fit for you.



But there are wing chun systems that do address that issue with live testing, cross training and seeking out expert advice. 

Being a practical fighting system is definitely part of at least some wing chun methodology


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

nikthegreek_3 said:


> They have opposite principles: For example the straight spine that one has, compared to the always very flexible and leaning spine of the other. It is easier to combine BJJ with Wing Chun, than boxing with Wing chun.


BJJ has hip throw that requires to bend spine too.

If there is a $100 bill on the ground, will a straight spine WC guy bend forward and pick it up?

The moment that you let "style" to put restriction on yourself, the moment you become the slave of that style.


----------



## Callen

drop bear said:


> But there are wing chun systems that do address that issue with live testing, cross training and seeking out expert advice.


All Wing Chun practitioners should be doing live testing. As far as cross training, that's an option for those practitioners who feel they need it.



drop bear said:


> Being a practical fighting system is definitely part of at least some wing chun methodology


Being a practical fighting system is the heart of Wing Chun methodology, along with aliveness and adaptability.

However, I don't see how any of this is relevant to my comment above. The statement I quoted from CYNIK75 has zero contribution to the Wing Chun community.


----------



## wckf92

Kung Fu Wang said:


> BJJ has hip throw that requires to bend spine too.
> 
> If there is a $100 bill on the ground, will a straight spine WC guy bend forward and pick it up?



I'd bend my spine as taught in the forms (i.e. last section of Bil jee form) and pick up the $100 bill. Simple, direct, efficient!


----------



## drop bear

Callen said:


> All Wing Chun practitioners should be doing live testing. As far as cross training, that's an option for those practitioners who feel they need it.
> 
> 
> Being a practical fighting system is the heart of Wing Chun methodology, along with aliveness and adaptability.
> 
> However, I don't see how any of this is relevant to my comment above. The statement I quoted from CYNIK75 has zero contribution to the Wing Chun community.



There are levels to fighting.

 Which is super important to understand if you ever plan on taking your mad skills out of your dojo and using them on anyone in any context.


----------



## APL76

nikthegreek_3 said:


> "king of talking hands"




I thought Jim Henson was the King of Talking Hands.


----------



## Cynik75

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> Do you really believe this describes wing Chun?  Really?  Nothing but failures?


It describes the level of legendary beimo fighters and old masters. Doesn't matter if the were or were not chunners.
There is only one footage from beimo fights and it does not show any master level fighters but rather lame blokes who barely know what to do:




The second footage showing the actual level of this times masters is even worse:




So I think I can doubt Wong Shun Leung was beating opponents more skilled than failures.
Submitting 100 BJJ white belts does not make me a BJJ black belt. Submitting 100 BJJ black belts surely does.



			
				Flying Crane said:
			
		

> I could introduce you to some wing Chun fellows who I would want on my side if the **** went down.  You won’t find them on youtube nor in the UFC.  But they can fight.


There is a lot of good fighters who are not on youtube and do not compete. But it is really strange that a ALL  good wing-chun-only fighters avoid youtube and competitions. I am curious why?  They are not regular humans? Or maybe they do not exist at all?



			
				Flying Crane said:
			
		

> Do you mean in the context of mma competition?  I don’t think anyone is confused about the need to develop the full range of skills needed to thrive within the rules of a competition.  That is obvious.


Probably not for Nightgreek.



			
				Flying Crane said:
			
		

> Do you mean in self defense?  Do you feel a wing Chun fellow simply cannot defend himself?  That training in wing Chun is actually a liability for self defense?   Surely not.  You know better than that.


First of all: fighting is only a small part of self defense. Second: I do not see any reason why wing chun fellow should not be able to defend himself against typical street assault. Internet is full of examples untrained people who succesfuly defended themself.



			
				Flying Crane said:
			
		

> Why is it a “FALSE STATEMENT”?


Because all available evidence of pure Wing Chun stylists fighting decent fighters form others styles shows that "pure chunners" cannot fight better than mediocre amateurs.
All chunners who can fight better crosstrain other styles. Especially  mentioned above Qi La La who quite well combines orthodox WC with boxing/kickboxing. The "different mentality of boxing" helps them to be improved fighters.
Not QLL but shows what I mean:




Show me something contrary and I will change my mind.


			
				Flying Crane said:
			
		

> He has an opinion and reasons for it.  You may disagree with his reasons.  You may have reasons of your own for your disagreement.  That does not make your position any more true than his might be false, or vice-versa.Different people understand these things in different ways.  If his statement is consistent with his understanding, then it is true.  But it may not be the only truth.  Your position may also be true, based on how you understand it.


And some people can say that Earth is flat... Jesus...



			
				Flying Crane said:
			
		

> This isn’t a zero-sum game.


 It is zero sum game. If A deny B, and B deny A only one of them can be true.


			
				Callen said:
			
		

> That's not much of a contribution to this particular forum. There are other locations on MartialTalk for people who don't train Wing Chun, perhaps one of them would be a better fit for you.


Stop crying like a baby. My personal opinion of Wing Chun is that it was designed and created to solve tactical problems in very specific enviroment - small cabins and narrow corridors of red boats. Fighting chest to chest with no place for footwork, body rotations, side steps, head movement. I think it is the only one reasonable answer for question why wing chun looks this way not another.
But somewhere in wing chun history enviromental requirement were lost, the life testing was abandoned and wing chun lost it core. The next generations (like Ip Man and his contemporaries) known the moves but do not understand them because of not testing them on real clashes. They were still trying to earn money teaching people how to fight and they couldn't say to students "_sorry, we have no idea what we are doing_".
Later the beimo fights against pitifuly weak opponent gave to the next-next chunners generation false conviction about own superiority (techniques, tactic, strategy and training methodology) reinforced in next-next-next generation by lying propaganda of invincible wing chun master Bruce Lee. The result was long loosing streak of chuners from early 90's untill nowadays.
Today many of you understand all weakness of present wing chun and make efforts to make wing chun decent fighting style again, many of you understand that single victorious fight again legit opponent is worth 1000 more than 2000 hours long video rant, but there is a lot of individuals like Nightgreek who make claims, statements, moronic excuses without any track of proof.

I have nothing against wing chun. I simply do not like words without confirmation.


----------



## Cynik75

doubled post


----------



## Callen

drop bear said:


> There are levels to fighting.


That seems like an arbitrary response. Likewise, I'm not really sure what gave you the impression that I needed you to clarify for me that there are levels to fighting. Maybe that statement was more for your own affirmation.


drop bear said:


> Which is super important to understand if you ever plan on taking your mad skills out of your dojo and using them on anyone in any context.


You are not educating me on anything new in regards to fighting; and to be clear, I'm also not looking to you for your unsolicited "enlightenment".

I'm not certain who you are talking to when you say, "taking your mad skills out of your dojo and using them on anyone in any context". If that is directed towards me,  you don't have a clue about my skillset. Since we don't know each other, it's a big jump for you to assume anything about my training, experience or personal goals as they pertain to the Martial Arts.

All that said, I still fail to see how our recent exchange has anything to do with addressing my original point.


----------



## Oily Dragon

wckf92 said:


> I'd bend my spine as taught in the forms (i.e. last section of Bil jee form) and pick up the $100 bill. Simple, direct, efficient!



Do you know what happens when Cheun Kiu and Biu Ji meet?

Basically, the last inch of a snake strike.


----------



## Flying Crane

Cynik75 said:


> It describes the level of legendary beimo fighters and old masters. Doesn't matter if the were or were not chunners.
> There is only one footage from beimo fights and it does not show any master level fighters but rather lame blokes who barely know what to do:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The second footage showing the actual level of this times masters is even worse:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So I think I can doubt Wong Shun Leung was beating opponents more skilled than failures.
> Submitting 100 BJJ white belts does not make me a BJJ black belt. Submitting 100 BJJ black belts surely does.
> 
> 
> There is a lot of good fighters who are not on youtube and do not compete. But it is really strange that a ALL  good wing-chun-only fighters avoid youtube and competitions. I am curious why?  They are not regular humans? Or maybe they do not exist at all?
> 
> 
> Probably not for Nightgreek.
> 
> 
> First of all: fighting is only a small part of self defense. Second: I do not see any reason why wing chun fellow should not be able to defend himself against typical street assault. Internet is full of examples untrained people who succesfuly defended themself.
> 
> 
> Because all available evidence of pure Wing Chun stylists fighting decent fighters form others styles shows that "pure chunners" cannot fight better than mediocre amateurs.
> All chunners who can fight better crosstrain other styles. Especially  mentioned above Qi La La who quite well combines orthodox WC with boxing/kickboxing. The "different mentality of boxing" helps them to be improved fighters.
> Not QLL but shows what I mean:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Show me something contrary and I will change my mind.
> 
> And some people can say that Earth is flat... Jesus...
> 
> It is zero sum game. If A deny B, and B deny A only one of them can be true.
> 
> Stop crying like a baby. My personal opinion of Wing Chun is that it was designed and created to solve tactical problems in very specific enviroment - small cabins and narrow corridors of red boats. Fighting chest to chest with no place for footwork, body rotations, side steps, head movement. I think it is the only one reasonable answer for question why wing chun looks this way not another.
> But somewhere in wing chun history enviromental requirement were lost, the life testing was abandoned and wing chun lost it core. The next generations (like Ip Man and his contemporaries) known the moves but do not understand them because of not testing them on real clashes. They were still trying to earn money teaching people how to fight and they couldn't say to students "_sorry, we have no idea what we are doing_".
> Later the beimo fights against pitifuly weak opponent gave to the next-next chunners generation false conviction about own superiority (techniques, tactic, strategy and training methodology) reinforced in next-next-next generation by lying propaganda of invincible wing chun master Bruce Lee. The result was long loosing streak of chuners from early 90's untill nowadays.
> Today many of you understand all weakness of present wing chun and make efforts to make wing chun decent fighting style again, many of you understand that single victorious fight again legit opponent is worth 1000 more than 2000 hours long video rant, but there is a lot of individuals like Nightgreek who make claims, statements, moronic excuses without any track of proof.
> 
> I have nothing against wing chun. I simply do not like words without confirmation.


----------



## jobo

a wing chun discusion that ended in insults and acrimony , thats unusual


----------



## drop bear

Callen said:


> That seems like an arbitrary response. Likewise, I'm not really sure what gave you the impression that I needed you to clarify for me that there are levels to fighting. Maybe that statement was more for your own affirmation.
> 
> You are not educating me on anything new in regards to fighting; and to be clear, I'm also not looking to you for your unsolicited "enlightenment".
> 
> I'm not certain who you are talking to when you say, "taking your mad skills out of your dojo and using them on anyone in any context". If that is directed towards me,  you don't have a clue about my skillset. Since we don't know each other, it's a big jump for you to assume anything about my training, experience or personal goals as they pertain to the Martial Arts.
> 
> All that said, I still fail to see how our recent exchange has anything to do with addressing my original point.



Ok.

So you do understand that there are levels to fighting and you understand that we don't make assumptions without evidence. 

So to determine if a school can effectively employ their martial arts in a practical way then there would be evidence that the school has fought somewhere. 

This is very important if your school is trying to gauge its ability to transfer its fighting skills. Because without this evidence the school is receiving false feedback.

So the question of (and I am paraphrasing here) yes you win fights but do you fight bums? is actually an incredibly important piece of self reflection to make if you want any sort of realistic assessment of a martial arts schools ability to practically function as a martial art. 

And there are wing chun schools addressing this question in a realistic and thoughtful way. 

So the suggestion that this question is not only not a vital component to wing chun but not even relevant to wing chun is incorrect. 

This is a question that has to be addressed with due diligence by all martial arts if they seek to employ their skills outside their own dojo.


----------



## wckf92

Oily Dragon said:


> Do you know what happens when Cheun Kiu and Biu Ji meet?
> 
> Basically, the last inch of a snake strike.



?
I either missed the point of a joke...or I do not understand what you are saying. haha. I gotta ease back on the drinking!


----------



## Lisa lyons

i am lead to believe from a JKD instructor that WC is just a small part of JKD. Did they not change the wooden dummy forms in JKD? if so how do they differ


----------



## yak sao

Lisa lyons said:


> i am lead to believe from a JKD instructor that WC is just a small part of JKD. Did they not change the wooden dummy forms in JKD? if so how do they differ



Yeah maybe....but from my perspective I see it as JKD is a small part of WC.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

yak sao said:


> but from my perspective I see it as JKD is a small part of WC.


If we consider the following striking combo (not sure it exists in JKD or not):

1. Right jab - straight line,
2. Right hook - horizontal to the left,
3. Right back fist - curve forward,
4. Left over hook - vertical downward,
5. Right uppercut - vertical upward
6. Left hook - horizontal to the right.

It includes punches from all different directions. It also include a punch has been changed into 3 different angles (right jab, right hook, right back fist).

Compare this to the WC punches, which one is the superset and which one is the subset?


----------



## yak sao

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If we consider the following striking combo (not sure it exists in JKD or not):
> 
> 1. Right jab - straight line,
> 2. Right hook - horizontal to the left,
> 3. Right back fist - curve forward,
> 4. Left over hook - vertical downward,
> 5. Right uppercut - vertical upward
> 6. Left hook - horizontal to the right.
> 
> It includes punches from all different directions. It also include a punch has been changed into 3 different angles (right jab, right hook, right back fist).
> 
> Compare this to the WC punches, which one is the superset and which one is the subset?



With the exception of the backfist, these punches are present in Wing Tsun.
Some other WC lineages include the backfist.


----------



## Flying Crane

yak sao said:


> With the exception of the backfist, these punches are present in Wing Tsun.
> Some other WC lineages include the backfist.


The backfist was certainly present in the wing Chun that I trained.


----------



## geezer

yak sao said:


> With the exception of the backfist, these punches are present in Wing Tsun.
> Some other WC lineages include the backfist.


 
Even in WT there are plenty of times when backfist can be used instead of a fak sau or vice versa. It may not be as traditional, but a lot of people use it.

...also, Yak, ya ever notice how the chik-lok-jarn or downward elbow movement (following the hooking punch) in Biu-Tze also can be seen as a short backfist?


----------



## yak sao

geezer said:


> Even in WT there are plenty of times when backfist can be used instead of a fak sau or vice versa. It may not be as traditional, but a lot of people use it.
> 
> ...also, Yak, ya ever notice how the chik-lok-jarn or downward elbow movement (following the hooking punch) in Biu-Tze also can be seen as a short backfist?



I agree that there are places for it and frankly I'm not really even opposed to it under the right circumstances. And like you I see places in the forms that could be seen as a backfist.

I don't specifically care either way but my teacher trained in HK directly from Leung Ting and he said LT insisted there were no backfists in WT.


----------



## geezer

yak sao said:


> I don't specifically care either way but my teacher trained in HK directly from Leung Ting and he said LT insisted there were no backfists in WT.



Yes, that  is  what  he said to us as well. But he was talking about WT which is_ his own branch_ (with the implication that the same was true for Yip Man's Wing  Chun as well). Yet so many others also coming  out of the Yip Man lineage do use the backfist. Maybe it was  borrowed from elsewhere but it can be applied without breaking WT concepts so  ...what the heck. If you like it, use it. It certainly adapts to sparring with  light gloves more easily  than fak-sau. 

Or, I suppose I could go through my entire life unquestioningly following arbitrary rules laid down by my old sifu decades ago...


----------



## drop bear

yak sao said:


> I agree that there are places for it and frankly I'm not really even opposed to it under the right circumstances. And like you I see places in the forms that could be seen as a backfist.
> 
> I don't specifically care either way but my teacher trained in HK directly from Leung Ting and he said LT insisted there were no backfists in WT.



Yeah...... but if you can hit a guy with a back fist. Why wouldn't it be in WT? 

I could understand if there was a technical reason but the argument that it does not convey the right image seems a bit irrelevant.


----------



## geezer

BTW Yak, while on the subject of useful techniques that Leung Ting didn't accept, how do you feel about using low, chopping round-house kicks ... delivered either with the lead leg or from the rear with  a passing step. I kinda like them ...delivered with sharp, short power and chopping the opponent's leg like heavier version of a gaun-sau. I call it_ gaun gerk_. 

Man, as I share these thoughts I can still hear the old man saying_ "Everone thinks they are so clever ...so clever ...thinking up some funny movements. Even my German  Keith does this..."_


----------



## nikthegreek_3

Kung Fu Wang said:


> BJJ has hip throw that requires to bend spine too.
> 
> If there is a $100 bill on the ground, will a straight spine WC guy bend forward and pick it up?
> 
> The moment that you let "style" to put restriction on yourself, the moment you become the slave of that style.


You miss my point. I never said that you must be a slave of the system and that you must not move your spine at all or that you don't have to adjust. I speak about MENTALITY. And the mentality of Wing Chun is to keep a solid structure. Perhaps you train in another system so you cannot understand this, but it is just principles - which are very basic.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

yak sao said:


> LT insisted there were no backfists in WT.


The hook punch and back fist come in pair. You throw a hook punch, when your opponent dodges under it, you can use

- horizontal back fist to hit on the side of his head (similar to spin back fist).
- vertical back fist to hit on the top of his head.

If you train hook punch, you will also train back fist.

The back fist is also used to set up a kick. You throw a back fist, your opponent blocks it. You change your back fist into a grab and pull followed with a kick.

If you train kick, you will also train back fist.

Some long fist instructors insisted there were no roundhouse kick in long fist system. I insist that the roundhouse kick is in the long fist system because I brought it into the long fist system many years ago.


----------



## yak sao

geezer said:


> Or, I suppose I could go through my entire life unquestioningly following arbitrary rules laid down by my old sifu decades ago...



Sounds reasonable


----------



## yak sao

geezer said:


> BTW Yak, while on the subject of useful techniques that Leung Ting didn't accept, how do you feel about using low, chopping round-house kicks ... delivered either with the lead leg or from the rear with  a passing step. I kinda like them ...delivered with sharp, short power and chopping the opponent's leg like heavier version of a gaun-sau. I call it_ gaun gerk_.
> 
> Man, as I share these thoughts I can still hear the old man saying_ "Everone thinks they are so clever ...so clever ...thinking up some funny movements. Even my German  Keith does this..."_



Yeah when teaching I'm kind of a stickler for details, but once a student has acquired some ability then when free sparring I kind of feel like all bets are off.... if they want to use a back fist or a non WT kick in a certain situation that's fine. But if I can show them where something from WT would work better, then I use that as a learning experience


----------



## geezer

yak sao said:


> .... if they want to use a back fist or a non WT kick in a certain situation that's fine. But if I can show them where something from WT would work better, then I use that as a learning experience



See... when you do _that _^^^^ you are teaching more that just rote learning, you are teaching critical thinking  ...evaluating a technique in terms of effectiveness in context, and equally important, in terms of consistency with our system and its concepts, our relaxed, "flexible" energy, etc. And then, of course, testing the application against resistance.


----------



## geezer

BTW Yak, I got that that low round kick delivered with the shin from Rene Latosa. I personally think his concepts have really fleshed out my MA. Way back in the early 80s when I was looking for an FMA instructor, I remember LT being totally opposed to any of us in the core group training outside of his WT. Then one afternoon when LT had us all at a table opening and sorting his US mail (separating the junk mail from legit inquiries I came across a correspondence from Rene Latosa. My si-dai, not recognizing the name had thrown it into the trash, so I rescued it and handed it over to Si-fu ...but not before I jotted down the return address.

You see, I knew that if I could train with Rene, Sifu would still put up with me and not kick me out since he and Rene knew each other well and did business together with the EWTO. It was a rare case of me scheming like my Si-fu. 

And, for once, things worked out as planned. I got to learn a really practical version of FMA as I continued to learn from LT for another ten or twelve years. Eventually, my free thinking (and mediocre ability) sort of side-lined me, but looking back, branching out into Escrima was really worth it. Oddly enough, I feel I've come to understand WT/WC better for it.


----------



## yak sao

geezer said:


> BTW Yak, I got that that low round kick delivered with the shin from Rene Latosa. I personally think his concepts have really fleshed out my MA. Way back in the early 80s when I was looking for an FMA instructor, I remember LT being totally opposed to any of us in the core group training outside of his WT. Then one afternoon when LT had us all at a table opening and sorting his US mail (separating the junk mail from legit inquiries I came across a correspondence from Rene Latosa. My si-dai, not recognizing the name had thrown it into the trash, so I rescued it and handed it over to Si-fu ...but not before I jotted down the return address.
> 
> You see, I knew that if I could train with Rene, Sifu would still put up with me and not kick me out since he and Rene knew each other well and did business together with the EWTO. It was a rare case of me scheming like my Si-fu.
> 
> And, for once, things worked out as planned. I got to learn a really practical version of FMA as I continued to learn from LT for another ten or twelve years. Eventually, my free thinking (and mediocre ability) sort of side-lined me, but looking back, branching out into Escrima was really worth it. Oddly enough, I feel I've come to understand WT/WC better for it.



I was fortunate to attend several RL seminars back in the 90s / early 2000s and even had the privilege of having him at my school.

I regret not keeping up with that training....I also think it helped my WT.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

geezer said:


> I got that that low round kick delivered with the shin from Rene Latosa. I personally think his concepts have really fleshed out my MA.


What's your opinion between the 

- low roundhouse kick with the shin bone, vs.
- foot sweep with the instep?


----------



## geezer

Kung Fu Wang said:


> What's your opinion between the
> - low roundhouse kick with the shin bone, vs.
> - foot sweep with the instep?



Both are very useful, but I really think they serve somewhat different functions. In WT/WC, I see the low round kick with the shinbone is a more of _a damaging attack to the leg_ that also unbalances and creates an opening to wedge inside your opponent's stance, setting you up for close range striking. I like that the inward rotated knee position guards your center and groin to a larger degree with this technique ...something akin to _Yee Gee Kim Yeung Ma_.

The inside foot sweep seems primarily directed at the stance itself with the main objective of unbalancing and sweeping your opponent to the ground. So it is more of a takedown. Seems especially appropriate for a grappling, throwing art. In an unrestricted exchange, it can also leave your groin exposed for a counterattack if you aren't careful! 

What is your perspective on these attacks, John?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

geezer said:


> What is your perspective on these attacks, John?


When you use shin bone roundhouse kick on your opponent's low leg, if he turns his shin bone into you, that will be shin bone against shin bone. There is a risk that if your opponent's shin bone is stronger than yours, your roundhouse kick may hurt your own leg.

The foot sweep doesn't have this concern. Even if you just force your opponent to raise his leg, you can safely move in at that moment. The foot sweep is only the low body motion. It's less committed and doesn't require the upper body rotation (the MT roundhouse kick require full body rotation). Also if your opponent turns his shin bone into your foot sweep, you can change your foot sweep into a horizontal scoop to drag his foot along the ground. You can't do that for your roundhouse kick.


----------



## drop bear

Callen said:


> That's not much of a contribution to this particular forum. There are other locations on MartialTalk for people who don't train Wing Chun, perhaps one of them would be a better fit for you.



I came across this recently. On paper these are martial arts masters with years of experience performing live testing via challenge matches against trained fighters.


But in reality it is this.


----------



## drop bear

geezer said:


> Both are very useful, but I really think they serve somewhat different functions. In WT/WC, I see the low round kick with the shinbone is a more of _a damaging attack to the leg_ that also unbalances and creates an opening to wedge inside your opponent's stance, setting you up for close range striking. I like that the inward rotated knee position guards your center and groin to a larger degree with this technique ...something akin to _Yee Gee Kim Yeung Ma_.
> 
> The inside foot sweep seems primarily directed at the stance itself with the main objective of unbalancing and sweeping your opponent to the ground. So it is more of a takedown. Seems especially appropriate for a grappling, throwing art. In an unrestricted exchange, it can also leave your groin exposed for a counterattack if you aren't careful!
> 
> What is your perspective on these attacks, John?



It depends where your foot is. If you leave it at the centre of your body and keep it light then you are open to being swept. If you bring it out to the side and ground it it is much harder to sweep.

But.

Then you may not get it up fast enough to defend leg kicks.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> It depends where your foot is. If you leave it at the centre of your body and keep it light then you are open to being swept. If you bring it out to the side and ground it it is much harder to sweep.
> 
> But.
> 
> Then you may not get it up fast enough to defend leg kicks.


To deal with below knee kick, you can also just to bend your leg at your knee joint and let your opponent's leg to pass under it. You can then sweep that leg after it pass your leg.


----------



## geezer

drop bear said:


> It depends where your foot is. If you leave it at the centre of your body and keep it light then you are open to being swept. If you bring it out to the side and ground it it is much harder to sweep. But ...Then you may not get it up fast enough to defend leg kicks.



Well put.

The Wing Tsun lineage thinking is that if your front leg is light, it doesn't matter if it is swept, since you are stable on your rear leg. 

The problem, as I found out early on, is that if your opponent has a really good sweep, _he can get your rear leg too._ The guy that proved that to me later went on to become really good at muay thai.


----------



## geezer

drop bear said:


> I came across this recently. On paper these are martial arts masters with years of experience performing live testing via challenge matches against trained fighters. But in reality it is this.



Um ...I'm missing your point here. 

The first clip showed some unknown people (?) in Fo'shan from informally engaging in light or non-contact sparring. One guy was supposedly from Wong Shun Leung lineage. I couldn't tell which. Unimpressive ...a lot of bad habits, poor body positioning, dropping hands, lack of power... generally crappy fighting, and who the hell fights in a _trench coat?_ But_ so what?_

The second clip was of _Wang Zhi Peng_, a WSL student who teaches in Beijing. He was engaging in chi-sau practice with a student ...and occasionally freeing things up a bit. He also teaches grappling ...so we saw a bit of that thrown in. It looked like a good WC training session to me. So what's the problem here?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

geezer said:


> if your opponent has a really good sweep, _he can get your rear leg too._


This is why the

- sweep, cut,
- sweep, sweep,
- sweep, hook,
- sweep, shin bite,
- sweep, block.
- ...

always come in pair. You attack your opponent's leading leg, when he lifts up that leg, you attack his rear leg.


----------



## geezer

Kung Fu Wang said:


> ....You attack your opponent's leading leg, when he lifts up that leg, you attack his rear leg.



That is also why in WT the front leg is used to counterattack as soon as it lifts or evades the initial sweep. So you lift/evade and immediately thrust forward with a kick, knee, or else circle around your opponent's leg and press forward to attack _his _leg with a sweep, shin-bite, hook-sweep, etc. 

....But if your opponent is very fast and strong, or can change levels to deliver the rear leg sweep from a lower position or at a greater distance, I found that I did not always have time to counter.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

drop bear said:


> I came across this recently. On paper these are martial arts masters with years of experience performing live testing via challenge matches against trained fighters.
> 
> 
> But in reality it is this.


Not sure if it's just me. But it's saying that the link is only available on youtube, and when I click on the youtube button for it, it just takes me to my homepage


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> Not sure if it's just me. But it's saying that the link is only available on youtube, and when I click on the youtube button for it, it just takes me to my homepage


Nevermind. Refreshed, clicked it again, and it's working now.


----------



## nikthegreek_3

As a wing chun - boxing / punching thread... I am posting it: Since many stated lately that throwing non-straight punche makes you a heretic Wing Chunner. And actually you are not doing Wing Chun but Jeet Kune Do or boxing. Finaly it seems it is pure Wing Chun - and not only Bruce Lee was doing it. So i am coming back to the point:  "Wing Chun people have stuck in training principles which are definitely useful, but have made themselves very narrow minded".


----------



## drop bear

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> Not sure if it's just me. But it's saying that the link is only available on youtube, and when I click on the youtube button for it, it just takes me to my homepage



It is supposed to be a challenge fight. It is basically two untrained guys swinging with their eyes closed.


----------



## drop bear

geezer said:


> Um ...I'm missing your point here.
> 
> The first clip showed some unknown people (?) in Fo'shan from informally engaging in light or non-contact sparring. One guy was supposedly from Wong Shun Leung lineage. I couldn't tell which. Unimpressive ...a lot of bad habits, poor body positioning, dropping hands, lack of power... generally crappy fighting, and who the hell fights in a _trench coat?_ But_ so what?_
> 
> The second clip was of _Wang Zhi Peng_, a WSL student who teaches in Beijing. He was engaging in chi-sau practice with a student ...and occasionally freeing things up a bit. He also teaches grappling ...so we saw a bit of that thrown in. It looked like a good WC training session to me. So what's the problem here?



That if everyone you spar is crap. That does not make you good.

That challenge matches, sparring and live resistance can sound like one thing and mean something else.

And these are important distinctions to make if you ever want to use martial arts for fighting.

And as a side note when people say it is not the style it is the individual. It is a saying that probably comes out of these environments where style isn't really achieving much.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

nikthegreek_3 said:


> Since many stated lately that throwing non-straight punche makes you a heretic Wing Chunner. And actually you are not doing Wing Chun but Jeet Kune Do or boxing.


Because linear punches are used in the WC forms. If you can add circular punching combo into your WC form, the next WC generation will never have this concern any more.


----------



## yak sao

Yo


Kung Fu Wang said:


> Because linear punches are used in the WC forms. If you can add the following punching combo into your WC form, the next WC generation will never have this concern any more.
> 
> 1. Right jab (linear).
> 2. Left cross (linear)
> 3. Right back fist (forward).
> 4. Left overhand (vertical downward).
> 5. Right hook (horizontal to the left).
> 6. Left uppercut (vertical upward).
> 7. Right hammer fist (vertical downward).
> 8. Left hook (horizontal to the right).
> 9. Left side punch (horizontal to the left).
> 10. Right spiral punch (horizontal to the left change into forward).



You have said this numerous times and I've (attempted to) corrected you numerous times.

WC *has* hook punches and uppercuts.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

yak sao said:


> WC *has* hook punches and uppercuts.


Besides linear punch such as jab and cross, I agree that WC also has uppercut, and side punch.

In the following clip,

- Uppercut exists in the 2nd WC form (3.21, 3.33).
- Side punch exists in the 2nd WC form (2.47, 3.10).

But in those 3 forms, I can't find the hook, hammer fist, overhand, back fist, and spiral punch?

Among those 9 punching tools, I can only find 4 punching tools used in the WC system. I cannot find the other 5 tools.

It doesn't matter whether a tool exists in WC or not. As long as you add it into WC. the next WC generation will have it.

IMO, it's very easy to add those missing tools into those already existed 3 WC forms.


----------



## yak sao

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Besides linear punch such as jab and cross, I agree that WC also has uppercut, and side punch.
> 
> In the following clip,
> 
> - Uppercut exists in the 2nd WC form (3.21, 3.33).
> - Side punch exists in the 2nd WC form (2.47, 3.10).
> 
> But in those 3 forms, I can't find the hook, hammer fist, overhand, back fist, and spiral punch?
> 
> Among those 9 punching tools, I can only find 4 punching tools used in the WC system. I cannot find the other 5 tools.
> 
> It doesn't matter whether a tool exists in WC or not. As long as you add it into WC. the next WC generation will have it.



WC hook

Here's a link to a thread on wing chun hook punch


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

yak sao said:


> WC hook
> 
> Here's a link to a thread on wing chun hook punch





Yoshiyahu said:


> Si-Je check out the video. At the end before the double leg grab you see a grab pull the arm an hook punch.


Are you talking about the circular arms movement at the end of this 2nd WC form?


----------



## yak sao

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Are you talking about the circular arms movement at the end of this 2nd WC form?


.
No. The hook is in the 3rd form, Biu Tze.
It is after the double grab at the end of the form just before the big circular movements.
Incidently, the hacking elbows of the 2nd form is another place that has the hoo punch mechanics.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

yak sao said:


> No. The hook is in the 3rd form, Biu Tze.
> It is after the double grab at the end of the form just before the big circular movements.
> Incidently, the hacking elbows of the 2nd form is another place that has the hoo punch mechanics.


This is interested. It was not in the 3rd WC form that I have learned.

I can only find hook punch used in this clip.






I can't find hook punch used in these clips.


----------



## yak sao

The biu tze I learned is from Leung Ting lineage....the first video.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

yak sao said:


> The biu tze I learned is from Leung Ting lineage....the first video.


May be he added it in? He made a good contribution if that was what he did.

I still remember Leung Ting came to Austin, Texas the same year as I invited my SC teacher to come to Austin back in 1980.


----------



## yak sao

Kung Fu Wang said:


> May be he added it in? He made a good contribution if that was what he did.
> 
> I still remember Leung Ting came to Austin, Texas the same year as I invited my SC teacher to come to Austin back in 1980.



I think that's about the time Geezer started training with him.

I have a book that shows Yip man's students from fat Shan going through that form and I'm pretty sure the hook punch is in there as well.... I'm unable to verify though because apparently I Iloaned that book to someone and I have no idea where it is


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

When he moves both feet in outward circles (6.03 - 6.06), he starts a new section of his form.

If you add an extra section into this form to include hammer fist, spiral punch, over hand, back fist, the length of the form may increase a bit. But no information will be lost.

A + B > A


----------



## geezer

yak sao said:


> I think that's about the time Geezer started training with him.



Yep. On his first trip to teach in the US Leung Ting arrived and met with my Si-hing in California, then came to Arizona where I began training and then continued on to Texas. I'm not sure what other stops he made on that trip. Been a while.


----------



## wckf92

yak sao said:


> WC *has* hook punches and uppercuts.



Yep...agreed. 2nd and 3rd forms. There are many many striking options if one dissects the weapons forms too.


----------



## wckf92

@Kung Fu Wang  you've mentioned several different punches that you'd like to see "added" to the wing chun system. I'd challenge you to look more closely at the wing chun forms. There are actions/motions in the forms which, when a "fist" is formed, can increase the variations of striking options. _(Hint: practice your knife form if you know it...but remove the knives and ball up your fists.) _
Also, you stated that wc has "linear" punches. Yes, this is true. But it is also more broadly applied. If you study the motions (aka the little idea) of the "punches" in the forms, you will see what this "linear" is trying to impart to the practitioner.


----------



## bobbyboynyc

The thing about Wing Chun punching is, never lock the elbow with full extension, because arm breaking is seriously taught in all Chinese styles. The power is internal and close range, so all fighting techniques are close range and centerline, which means aimed at the body's center, not the front of the chest. Real fighting is nothing at all like chi sau. As Dr. Henry Leung used to say, this the school way, the other is the outside way (on the street). Henry's half-brother Duncan Leung made a point of teaching his students to fight kickers, boxers, etc, so they wouldn't be surprised in a real fight. The best gungfu student I ever knew was thrown on his *** by a wrestler. All fighting styles are great, it's up to the fighter to adapt to the situation, which is why Duncan taught that way. His Chinese name was Leung Siu-heng; Henry's was Leung Hung-li, I believe. Henry also had a Buddhist name, Chi-man, and his own teacher was named Man-chi (Gow-jee Fu-sao, the Buddhist abbot also named Hsueh Yuen). Henry said these meant, first get the money, then get smart, and first get smart, then get the money. Poor old Henry was not only an amazing martial artist, but a tremendous physician also. He could heal anyone but himself, hence the old saying.


----------



## bobbyboynyc

You could only hook when within your opponent's guard, but your hand should be close to his centerline. If necessary to hit him directly you still could, but remember hooks are easy to block, hence the center punch is the only one taught. You could also hit with one of the different shaped fists, but that's not really necessary, hence also not taught. I have all this from Dr. Henry Leung. Different teachers were taught by different teachers, and some didn't go in the temple door, so to speak. Some of the best teachers have always been informal ones, who just wanted good and quick results. The old guys wanted you paying dues and working for free for decades. It's a racket, but also the teacher can then see what the student's character is really like. Some people should never be taught to hurt others with this art.


----------



## geezer

bobbyboynyc said:


> The thing about Wing Chun punching is, never lock the elbow with full extension, because arm breaking is seriously taught in all Chinese styles.



My sifu repeatedly demonstrated that a vertical fist (elbow down) punch with a loose, elastic arm can be fully extended without risk of being broken ....if you know what you are doing. Admittedly, he was practically double jointed. I, on the other hand am quite stiff-jointed, but even so, have had no problems with fully extended WC punches being particularly vulnerable to arm breaks. Quite the opposite in fact. 



bobbyboynyc said:


> ....remember _hooks are easy to block.._.



 Really? Have you sparred with a good boxer? 

I have ....though it has been a very long time now. Still, some things I remember  ....like never underestimating a good boxer, ...or any other good fighter! 

BTW ...welcome to _Martialtalk_. Hope you hang around!


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

bobbyboynyc said:


> hooks are easy to block,


You may think this just from a striker's point of view.

A hook punch can have many usages. It can be a

1. punch.
2. downward parry.
3. wrist grab.
4. spiral punch - a circular punch change into a straight punch.
5. leading arm jam upper arm.
6. under hook the shoulder.
7. link between the striking art and the grappling art.
8. ...

Because there are many usages, your blocking on your opponent's hook punch can give him a chance to change his hook punch into something else.


----------



## Callen

bobbyboynyc said:


> If necessary to hit him directly you still could, but remember hooks are easy to block, hence the center punch is the only one taught.


This is one of those lineage specific situations, resulting in several ways of looking at the same stuff.

I find all interpretations interesting, even if I don’t personally train that way. From my perspective, perhaps the reason the hook is not taught in Wing Chun isn’t because it’s easy to block; but because of elbow position in general, and how that relates back to the overall concepts/goals of the system.

The straight punch is trained to employ the elbow in a specific way that generates power, provides cover, facilitates direct travel, and establishes the mechanics for actions found in the system. It is developed by keeping the elbow low, in an area (height) between the wrist and hip, and it fires the punch like a piston.

A proper hook punch lifts the elbow to the same height as the hand, which in some lineages, breaks the power generation and mechanics that we work to develop. So that’s why some groups say there is no hook punch in VT/WC.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Callen said:


> A proper hook punch lifts the elbow to the same height as the hand, which in some lineages, breaks the power generation and mechanics that we work to develop. So that’s why some groups say there is no hook punch in VT/WC.


I believe the hook punch uses a different power generation method than the straight punch uses.


----------



## Callen

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I believe the hook punch uses a different power generation method than the straight punch uses.


My point exactly.


----------



## hunschuld

geezer said:


> My sifu repeatedly demonstrated that a vertical fist (elbow down) punch with a loose, elastic arm can be fully extended without risk of being broken ....if you know what you are doing. Admittedly, he was practically double jointed. I, on the other hand am quite stiff-jointed, but even so, have had no problems with fully extended WC punches being particularly vulnerable to arm breaks. Quite the opposite in fact.
> 
> In the early 80's LT did a seminar in Chicago area where he demonstrated  this. He asked a very large gentleman to test this . Double jointed or not the way LT reacted many were surprised he did not need serious surgery.


----------



## geezer

I did not see the particular demo, but I assume you are saying that he experienced a lot of pain. That sounds totally plausible. I do know the kind of demo he used to do where he would offer up his extended arm and "dare" people to try and "break" (hyper-extend) it. I'm frankly not surprised that that foolishness caught up with him!

However, the real point I'm making is that it's hard to catch and break an elbow when someone is snapping out real punches and not just leaving them hanging out there.  And, it's even harder to injure an elbow when it's pointing downward as it is with the vertical fist WC punch, especially if your arm is relaxed and you know how to flex and roll your elbow to release the stress.

IMO the risk of having your elbow caught and injured when punching has more to do with being overly tight or  rigid rather than degree of extension._ That's_ the bigger problem. That and generally_ crappy punching._


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

wckf92 said:


> @Kung Fu Wang  you've mentioned several different punches that you'd like to see "added" to the wing chun system. I'd challenge you to look more closely at the wing chun forms. There are actions/motions in the forms which, when a "fist" is formed, can increase the variations of striking options. _(Hint: practice your knife form if you know it...but remove the knives and ball up your fists.)_
> Also, you stated that wc has "linear" punches. Yes, this is true. But it is also more broadly applied. If you study the motions (aka the little idea) of the "punches" in the forms, you will see what this "linear" is trying to impart to the practitioner.


Someone had mentioned about the snake engine used in the WC system. From his description, that snake engine doesn't suit for the hook punch power generation.

This just remind me in another thread that people said their long fist system also has "hip throw". The thing is if you don't train the hip throw power generation (bend body down), you truly don't have hip throw.







By using the same logic, if you don't train the hook punch power generation (rotate body), you don't have hook punch.


----------



## geezer

Callen said:


> A proper hook punch lifts the elbow to the same height as the hand, which in some lineages, breaks the power generation and mechanics that we work to develop. So that’s why some groups say there is no hook punch in VT/WC.



This is a good observation.

We have a hooking punch in the lineage I trained and it uses power generated by the rotational force of the stance and elastic force or "springy energy" from the waist and torso. As you noted, the elbow is raised and out (not on centerline) so it definitely uses different principles from the "normal" striking method in WC.

On the other hand, Although different, there is nothing about this hooking punch that contradicts or impedes our normal methods of power generation, for example, in the way that some "hard-style" methods of generating power are incompatible with certain  "soft-style" methods. In fact the WC hook uses exactly the same "springy" quality of movement that our branch favors, and employs a rotational movement that most Yip man branches use from Chum Kiu onward. Think of the rotating lan sau movements.

Finally, regarding our conceptual emphasis on such things as  efficiency and economy of motion, we employ the hook when the body has been turned aside or when the straight line is closed, and under such conditions, it can be the most efficient technique.

In short, Wing Chun is a reductive art. We are specialists, known as much for _what we do not do_ as for what we do. We strive to be very good at certain things by choosing not to do other things that may distract or be counterproductive to our goals. I see the WC hook punch as being near the boundary of what some (like myself) would gladly use and what others might choose to avoid.


----------



## Oily Dragon

wckf92 said:


> ?
> I either missed the point of a joke...or I do not understand what you are saying. haha. I gotta ease back on the drinking!



The point was the point.

Many southern styles share the Biu Ji concept ("dart the fingers"), but its underlying concept is the Straight/One Inch Bridge, which in hanzi means to chain one link to the next, like this, to the final inch.

Snake style!


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Does this picture make sense?

- A punches at B.
- B left hand blocks A's punch to A's left, B's right hand attacks A's eyes at the same time.

A can borrow B's blocking force, move his right arm to his left and block B's right hand fingers attack. In other words, B's blocking and attacking contradict to each other.


----------



## drop bear

geezer said:


> I did not see the particular demo, but I assume you are saying that he experienced a lot of pain. That sounds totally plausible. I do know the kind of demo he used to do where he would offer up his extended arm and "dare" people to try and "break" (hyper-extend) it. I'm frankly not surprised that that foolishness caught up with him!
> 
> However, the real point I'm making is that it's hard to catch and break an elbow when someone is snapping out real punches and not just leaving them hanging out there.  And, it's even harder to injure an elbow when it's pointing downward as it is with the vertical fist WC punch, especially if your arm is relaxed and you know how to flex and roll your elbow to release the stress.
> 
> IMO the risk of having your elbow caught and injured when punching has more to do with being overly tight or  rigid rather than degree of extension._ That's_ the bigger problem. That and generally_ crappy punching._



I have only been able to hit that arm thing when people leave it out there as a barrier. 

If you played with a tight guard i would suggest almost no chance.


----------



## drop bear

As far as hooking punches go. You could do the thumb down whipping style hook if you felt that you wanted to fight in a way where you use only one method of generating power. 

Not sure why you would want to do that? Mabye just to make fighting harder?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> As far as hooking punches go. You could do the thumb down whipping style hook if you felt that you wanted to fight in a way where you use only one method of generating power.
> 
> Not sure why you would want to do that? Mabye just to make fighting harder?


In the

- throwing art, the hip throw, leg lift, leg twist, ... all use different power generation method.
- striking art, why do you want to use the same power generation for different punches?


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Does this picture make sense?
> 
> - A punches at B.
> - B left hand blocks A's punch to A's left, B's right hand attacks A's eyes at the same time.
> 
> A can borrow B's blocking force, move his right arm to his left and block B's right hand fingers attack. In other words, B's blocking and attacking contradict to each other.


Caveat: This is literally the only thread in this that I read, just happened to see it and the picture is interesting.

I agree, for exactly the reason you suggest, B is basically helping A block his arm, meaning B has to go a lot faster than he normally would. Also, if he misses he is giving A a good opportunity to counter attack.

If B was insistent on punching with his right hand there, the better option would be either to punch low (preferably while ducking to prevent a possible counter from A's right hand), or move the hand up just enough to trick A into blocking, and then slip the hand underneath the block to go back towards the eyes. The only other thing I can see is trying to distract them with everything going on up top for a quick leg kick before disengaging.

Edit: Looking at it again, the other option would be to change the parry/block. I'm not sure if this was viable from the initial punch here, but a more downward parry with force keeping it down might also allow the opportunity to jab the eyes, as long as the left hand doesn't prevent it.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> B is basically helping A block his arm, meaning B has to go a lot faster than he normally would. Also, if he misses he is giving A a good opportunity to counter attack.


B's blocking  contact point is also interested:

B blocks on A's wrist. A can bend his right arm and strike B's head with his right elbow. If B blocks on A's elbow joint, B won't have this problem.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Here is an example that double hooks is so useful. You can use your 1st hook to parry down your opponent's guard (or grab on his wrist). Your 2nd hook can then punch on his face.


----------



## Flying Crane

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I believe the hook punch uses a different power generation method than the straight punch uses.


Not necessarily true.  Depends on your methodology, I guess.  In my system, they are the same.


----------



## hunschuld

The Bruce picture is not and was not trying to depict real usage. Bruce realized he could not use wing chun as designed in movies. The close range nature does not look good on film so he worked an adapting wing chun for film which involved doing things at a longer range so the looked good in photo's and film. Like this photo.

Also Bruce was not considered very advanced in the wing chun family. He only knew at most the first two forms and what ever techniques WSL WC and HC showed him. Bruce wanted to film Yip Man doing the dummy so he could learn it when he returned to America. Yip did not allow it. So Bruce, while very talented, is not a good example of in depth wing chun knowledge.


----------



## Oily Dragon

hunschuld said:


> The Bruce picture is not and was not trying to depict real usage. Bruce realized he could not use wing chun as designed in movies. The close range nature does not look good on film so he worked an adapting wing chun for film which involved doing things at a longer range so the looked good in photo's and film. Like this photo.
> 
> Also Bruce was not considered very advanced in the wing chun family. He only knew at most the first two forms and what ever techniques WSL WC and HC showed him. Bruce wanted to film Yip Man doing the dummy so he could learn it when he returned to America. Yip did not allow it. So Bruce, while very talented, is not a good example of in depth wing chun knowledge.



You missed my point entirely about biu ji and the cheung kiu, probably because Wing Chun wasn't "Designed in movies" and that image isn't what you claim it is.  It has nothing to do with Lee's films at all and a lot to do with the foundational ideals of Southern chinese snake styles.

What is your background in southern Chinese boxing?  How familiar are you with Shaolin Snake and Crane fundamentals?


----------



## Oily Dragon

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Does this picture make sense?



It does as long as you don't over analyze it the way you did.  It's definitely not "movie fu", since it's taken right from the Southern snake forms.

It's a basic illustration of biu ji, so I find it funny people would either to theorycraft about it or worse, claim it was made up by Bruce Lee for movies.

It's intended to blind the opponent, which is why the cheung bit regarding bridge linkage is important.

If this turns into a "he does that, I do this" conversation, we're off topic.


----------



## wckf92

Oily Dragon said:


> If this turns into a "he does that, I do this" conversation, we're off topic.



Absolutely.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Oily Dragon said:


> It does as long as you don't over analyze it the way you did.  It's definitely not "movie fu", since it's taken right from the Southern snake forms.
> 
> It's a basic illustration of biu ji, so I find it funny people would either to theorycraft about it or worse, claim it was made up by Bruce Lee for movies.
> 
> It's intended to blind the opponent, which is why the cheung bit regarding bridge linkage is important.
> 
> If this turns into a "he does that, I do this" conversation, we're off topic.


It makes sense to attack through your opponent's side door. If Bruce's right hand attack his opponent's eyes on the outside of his opponent's right arm, he won't have this issue. When he does that, he is using his opponent's right arm to jam his opponent's own left arm.







It also make sense to attack through your opponent's front door.






It just doesn't make sense to attack like Bruce did.


----------



## wckf92

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If Bruce's right hand attack his opponent's eyes on the outside of his opponent's right arm, he won't have this issue. When he does that, he is using his opponent's right arm to jam his opponent's own left arm.



Wing chun has both "inside to inside", and "outside to outside" but also "inside/outside" methods. Right tool for the right job, etc.


----------



## Oily Dragon

Kung Fu Wang said:


> It just doesn't make sense to attack like Bruce did.



It's not an attack though, it's a dead demonstration so it's not a good candidate for deep analysis.  It's a basic demo-style snapshot of the idea behind the biu ji, so to extrapolate too much from just the photo like this is throwing out the baby with the bathwater, especially when people start adding in "well Bruce changed things for the camera"...this photo is definitely not one of those.

This is why I posted the animation of the real snake linkage movement and the sudden strike at the camera lens, it's far more alive than this dead photo, but still the photo itself is from a Wing Chun trapping and eye gouge demo, not a movie demo or anything Lee made up for cameras.

You can say it's not an ideal demo of biu ji snake style strike for a given situation, but I don't really believe in ideal demos anywawy, so much is lost in translation and we end up navel gazing.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

wckf92 said:


> Wing chun has both "inside to inside", and "outside to outside" but also "inside/outside" methods. Right tool for the right job, etc.


When you attack through your opponent's

1. side door, you want to guide your opponent's leading arm to jam his own back arm.
2. front door, you want to separate your opponent's arms away from his head.

In both cases, your opponent's arms won't give you any problem.

What can the the 3rd choice?



Oily Dragon said:


> it's a dead demonstration...


Again, Bruce should not help his opponent's right arm to block Bruce's right arm attack. His opponent may forget how to block that eyes attack. because Bruce pushes his right arm, it may remind him to borrow Bruce's push force and easily block that eyes attack.


----------



## wckf92

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When you attack through your opponent's
> 
> 1. side door, you want to guide your opponent's leading arm to jam his own back arm.
> 2. front door, you want to separate your opponent's arms away from his head.
> 
> In both cases, your opponent's arms won't give you any problem.
> 
> What can the the 3rd choice?



Already wrote what a potential 3rd option is.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

wckf92 said:


> Already wrote what a potential 3rd option is.


I assume when you talk about "inside/outside method", you are talking about you have one arm inside your opponent's front door, and you have the other arm outside of your opponent's front door.

When you use inside/outside method, how do you prevent your opponent from borrowing your force (your outside arm) to block your attack (your inside arm)?


----------



## wckf92

Kung Fu Wang said:


> how do you prevent your opponent from borrowing your force



Simple, you don't use force. You don't give him anything to feed off of.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

wckf92 said:


> Simple, you don't use force. You don't give him anything to feed off of.


Since your opponent's leading arm is between your arms, all he needs to do is to move his leading arm left and right. He can use one arm to block both of your arms attack. In other word, your opponent's leading arm is in your front door (between your arms). In CMA theory, the inside arm has advantage over the outside arm because your opponent's leading arm controls your center.

This remind me to use WC Tan Shou to block left hook and right hook.


----------



## wckf92

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Since your opponent's leading arm is between your arms, all he needs to do is to move his leading arm left and right. He can use one arm to block both of your arms attack. In other word, your opponent's leading arm is in your front door (between your arms). In CMA theory, the inside arm has advantage over the outside arm because your opponent's leading arm controls your center.



Well, I'm not sure how you are arriving at that result. First, these sort of binary discussion points you are prone to use are quite odd. But, let's humor this 'tit for tat' logic tree for a moment. 
A)  If Bruce's opponent were to move his extended arm to his left (as you say: "blocking" Bruces extended arm) then Bruce has his wu sau which would shoot forward and punch the dude in the face. 
B)  If Bruce's opponent were to move his extended arm to his right (to his outside gate) then his effort would be met with Bruce's wu sau which would probably actually be more of a gum sau at this point. If this be the case, Bruce's bent left arm has the clear biomechanical advantage over his opponent's outstretched/extended arm.  

Regardless of what the opponent would do/could do...WC people are trained to go over/under/through obstacles they may encounter enroute to their intended target. This is WC 101.


----------



## Oily Dragon

Kung Fu Wang said:


> In CMA theory, the inside arm has advantage over the outside arm because your opponent's leading arm controls your center.



Also in CMA theory: blind the opponent, you won, unless of course the victim is already proficient in fighting without their eyes (a possibility).

It's important to note that blinding your opponent is strictly forbidden in the United MMA Rules, as well as Queensbury's.

I'll try to make my point a little more potent.

This is an actual snake attack that exemplifies the snake ancestry of Wing Chun.






This is Snake+Crane.  Some Wing Chun stylists call this things like "Body of crane, engine of snake" but again, that sort of deconstruction is beside the point of the first picture.  Such are the mysteries of kung fu, how effortlessly animals fight and how much humans love to analyze.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

wckf92 said:


> Well, I'm not sure how you are arriving at that result. First, these sort of binary discussion points you are prone to use are quite odd. But, let's humor this 'tit for tat' logic tree for a moment.
> A)  If Bruce's opponent were to move his extended arm to his left (as you say: "blocking" Bruces extended arm) then Bruce has his wu sau which would shoot forward and punch the dude in the face.
> B)  If Bruce's opponent were to move his extended arm to his right (to his outside gate) then his effort would be met with Bruce's wu sau which would probably actually be more of a gum sau at this point. If this be the case, Bruce's bent left arm has the clear biomechanical advantage over his opponent's outstretched/extended arm.
> 
> Regardless of what the opponent would do/could do...WC people are trained to go over/under/through obstacles they may encounter enroute to their intended target. This is WC 101.


I'm talking about a situation like this.

The moment you allow your opponent's leading arm to control your center, he can use his leading arm to deal with both of your arms.

I thought the WC system is specialized in the centerline control.


----------



## wckf92

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I thought the WC system is specialized in the centerline control.



The centerline can be controlled from inside-out; and outside-in. Elbow domination by way of the training in SLT encompasses both methods.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

wckf92 said:


> The centerline can be controlled from inside-out; and outside-in. Elbow domination by way of the training in SLT encompasses both methods.


Old CMA saying said, "Inside is better than outside, on top is better than to be below".

When your opponent's leading arm is between your arms, he can use that arm to deal with both of your arms.






Also when your opponent's leading leg is between your legs, he can use that leg to deal with both of your legs.


----------



## hunschuld

Oily Dragon said:


> You missed my point entirely about biu ji and the cheung kiu, probably because Wing Chun wasn't "Designed in movies" and that image isn't what you claim it is.  It has nothing to do with Lee's films at all and a lot to do with the foundational ideals of Southern chinese snake styles.
> 
> What is your background in southern Chinese boxing?  How familiar are you with Shaolin Snake and Crane fundamentals?



 You are reading into and over analyzing what I said.  This is a simple promo picture nothing more. It is not meant to be A does this so B does that  etc etc. The discussion was taking a promo picture making it an application discussion. Of course its a snake concept but its just a picture of an idea not a "this is the best and only way to do the technique".
When taking a picture for a promo or a book a smart marketer wants things to look good and so may use angles and positions they would not actually advocate.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

If Bruce uses his left hand to parry down his opponent's right arm, it will be perfect. Bruce just enters his opponent's front door.


----------



## Oily Dragon

hunschuld said:


> You are reading into and over analyzing what I said.  This is a simple promo picture nothing more. It is not meant to be A does this so B does that  etc etc. The discussion was taking a promo picture making it an application discussion. Of course its a snake concept but its just a picture of an idea not a "this is the best and only way to do the technique".
> When taking a picture for a promo or a book a smart marketer wants things to look good and so may use angles and positions they would not actually advocate.



Didn't you say it was made up though?  My point was that it's not, it's the same Biu Ji in multiple styles. I can think of at least 5.

Do you know it's also White Crane?   This kind of snake technique often continues (like in the Tiger Crane styles) to a followup attack where you've struck the opponent in the eyes, and then you rake their eyes left to right with the same hand, Crane's Wing, pluck an eye with Cranes Beak, whatever.  I'll look up the hanzi later, but p oint being, an enemy even partially blinded is pretty easy to blind even further.






I find it funny that Wing Chun students often focus on punching, when punches are not really the point of Wing Chun at all.  Maiming your opponent on the other hand...Wing Chun is pretty straightfoward there.  In 18th century China, blinding an enemy made you a legend.  But in 2021, there's really no need for that, and it's definitely not kosher for friendly competition.  So here we have a "promo" technique that is lost to time.

Unless of course, you have the need to blind someone fast, then it's great.


----------



## hunschuld

You will have to show me where I said it was made


Oily Dragon said:


> Didn't you say it was made up though?  My point was that it's not, it's the same Biu Ji in multiple styles. I can think of at least 5.
> 
> Do you know it's also White Crane?   This kind of snake technique often continues (like in the Tiger Crane styles) to a followup attack where you've struck the opponent in the eyes, and then you rake their eyes left to right with the same hand, Crane's Wing, pluck an eye with Cranes Beak, whatever.  I'll look up the hanzi later, but p oint being, an enemy even partially blinded is pretty easy to blind even further.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find it funny that Wing Chun students often focus on punching, when punches are not really the point of Wing Chun at all.  Maiming your opponent on the other hand...Wing Chun is pretty straightfoward there.  In 18th century China, blinding an enemy made you a legend.  But in 2021, there's really no need for that, and it's definitely not kosher for friendly competition.  So here we have a "promo" technique that is lost to time.
> 
> Unless of course, you have the need to blind someone fast, then it's great.





You need to go back and read my post. I really have no clue what you are talking about. I never said anything was made up. My posts clearly were only talking about a picture KFW posted . Nothing else. Just commenting on using a promo picture  to  extrapolate  real fighting techniques that's all. I never said anything about the technique. Nothing wrong with the bui . The bui is real,the punch is real and the pak is real. Just what is shown in the picture is very unreal.


----------



## geezer

A further note on Wing Chun Biu sau usage: In the lineage I primarily trained (WT), in application the _biu sau_ is used bpth defensively as a deflection and offensively as a thrusting strike ....usually to the neck, striking with the _edge_ of the hand (that is to say the "pinkie" side of the hand, thrusting forward like a "push-cut" with a knife). In this application, _the fingertips go past the target _without making contact.

In that lineage, the only time you would possibly "spear" with stiffened fingers is the rising, palm-up strike after the hook-punch near the end of the Biu-Tze form, and that is done specifically to the soft, front of the neck (the underside of the larynx). Personally I find closing the hand and using a "lifting punch" (the uppercut from Chim Kiu) more reliable.

This said, there are clear instances in which biu sau _can_ be used to attack the face, IMO. For example, if you use the biu as a deflection and keep your fingers flexible and "springy" they will often whip into your opponent's face and eyes ...causing, at the very least a flinching blink and tearing response which sets up the next strike. However, this is not a safe or controllable technique to use in sparring, so it is generally avoided. Even in controlled, paired drills, safety glasses and well trimmed and filed nails are recommended!


----------



## geezer

Interesting thought on the Sidewinder gif posted by Oily (#1072 above). Although the sidewinder's method of locomotion is fairly unique among snakes do to it's sandy habitat (I believe there may be other sand dwelling vipers in Africa or elsewhere who also move this way) ....nevertheless, it's method of striking with an S-curve in it's neck and fore-section is typical of pit-vipers and vipers in general and does look a lot like the dynamics of a WC biu-tze  sau.

Normally, our elbow would be angled somewhat less sideways and more downward than the totally lateral bend of the snake's neck ...unless we are deflecting an incoming strike to the outside. Then our elbow might look very much like this.

Note on elbow position: Isn't it interesting how as we come to see more of the system, we learn to relax many of the basic _rules on particulars,_ like "elbow always pointing down" etc. and yet become more consistent about applying _general concepts. _You know, the_ big picture _stuff.


----------



## yak sao

geezer said:


> Note on elbow position: Isn't it interesting how as we come to see more of the system, we learn to relax many of the basic _rules on particulars,_ like "elbow always pointing down" etc. and yet become more consistent about applying _general concepts. _You know, the_ big picture _stuff.



" The young man knows the rules the old man knows the exceptions"


----------



## Oily Dragon

hunschuld said:


> You will have to show me where I said it was made



It was made in a Wing Chun school, like I said.   Do you need the exact name?  I guess I've got homework to do.



hunschuld said:


> You need to go back and read my post. I really have no clue what you are talking about. I never said anything was made up. My posts clearly were only talking about a picture KFW posted . Nothing else. Just commenting on using a promo picture  to  extrapolate  real fighting techniques that's all. I never said anything about the technique. Nothing wrong with the bui . The bui is real,the punch is real and the pak is real. Just what is shown in the picture is very unreal.



I already read your post once, that was enough, you said it was from a movie promo.

What is shown in the picture that is unreal?  The concept of striking at the eyes?  That's pretty real.  Striking fast through the air itself?  Very real.

And why do you keep saying "bui" instead of "biu"?


----------



## hunschuld

Oily Dragon said:


> It was made in a Wing Chun school, like I said.   Do you need the exact name?  I guess I've got homework to do.
> 
> 
> 
> I already read your post once, that was enough, you said it was from a movie promo.
> 
> What is shown in the picture that is unreal?  The concept of striking at the eyes?  That's pretty real.  Striking fast through the air itself?  Very real.
> 
> And why do you keep saying "bui" instead of "biu"?


 

You clearly need to read my post several more times. I said nothing of the kind. You need to get past you confirmation bias and work on your comprehension.


----------



## geezer

hunschuld said:


> You clearly need to read my post several more times. *You need to ...work on your comprehension.*



Me too! When I read the part Oily posted in reference to your previous post, stating that  _"...it was from from a movie promo..." _I swear I read it as movie _porno. 
_
Oh well, carry on...


----------

