# Fighting a boxer in Wing Chun



## Isaiah90

Just a few thoughts on fighting a boxer. Wing Chun is great with hand strikes but an experienced boxer has more power and speed with his punches. Similar to Wing Chun, the boxer's power comes from the ground in a stable stance. The difference is that the boxer has no defense for his legs. Wing Chun kicks are essential to keep your distance but also to preferably break his leg joints and disrupt his stability. The boxer's power and speed is greatly reduced with an injured leg(s) making it easier for a Wing Chun practitioner to finish the fight.  

Wondering if anyone else has further comments and/or tips on how to fight boxers in Wing Chun Kung Fu.


----------



## Flying Crane

How do you know a boxer has more speed and power in his punches?


----------



## drop bear

Flying Crane said:


> How do you know a boxer has more speed and power in his punches?



Boxing is a rule set. You can wing chun punch in a boxing match if you wanted to.

But the best boxers don't.


----------



## Isaiah90

Flying Crane said:


> How do you know a boxer has more speed and power in his punches?



Because they train their body to throw more weight into their punches than a Wing Chun fighter who keeps his/her body straight.


----------



## KPM

Isaiah90 said:


> Just a few thoughts on fighting a boxer. Wing Chun is great with hand strikes but an experienced boxer has more power and speed with his punches. Similar to Wing Chun, the boxer's power comes from the ground in a stable stance. The difference is that the boxer has no defense for his legs. Wing Chun kicks are essential to keep your distance but also to preferably break his leg joints and disrupt his stability. The boxer's power and speed is greatly reduced with an injured leg(s) making it easier for a Wing Chun practitioner to finish the fight.
> 
> Wondering if anyone else has further comments and/or tips on how to fight boxers in Wing Chun Kung Fu.



Compared to something like Thai Boxing, Wing Chun's kicks are not nearly as strong and are not delivered from as safe a distance.  If you are close enough to use a Wing Chun kick, you are close enough to get blasted by a good boxer.  So that's a risky thing to try as your primary strategy!  Boxer's have fast and powerful combinations of punches.  There is no way to block something like that, or to try and match it in any kind of exchange.  Your best hope with a boxer is to get very close very quickly, smother his punches and trap his arms so he can't throw combo's, use elbow strikes of your own to stay as close as possible, and break his base/balance to put him on the ground.  If you let him push off at arm's distance you are in trouble!  The strategy is to try your best to control him while hitting him, smother his punches, and break his balance.


----------



## geezer

I'd second what KPM said. Boxers are fast and powerful, plus they rotate and throw their shoulder into their punches. Their punches extend farther and they can reach out to a longer range than a squared-up WC fighter. So if you are going to use low kicks, as the OP suggested, I wouldn't recommend using them to maintain range, but rather to use a few leg shots as a distraction to get the boxer to drop his guard and give you an opening to close in tight. I do best against punchers getting in tight and sticking, smothering, and using elbows. In our VT we do a lot of elbow distance work in chi-sau which is very useful training for this range.

Now the problem with this approach is that, although it can help against a striker, it brings you into the grappler's zone. If your opponent knows both, you better be very good!


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

geezer said:


> Now the problem with this approach is that, although it can help against a striker, it brings you into the grappler's zone. If your opponent knows both, you better be very good!


My rule of thumb: If their striking game is better than your striking game, you grapple. If their grappling game is better than your grappling game, you strike. If they've got you beat in both, you're f'ed.


----------



## geezer

kempodisciple said:


> My rule of thumb: If their striking game is better than your striking game, you grapple. If their grappling game is better than your grappling game, you strike. If they've got you beat in both, you're f'ed.



...well there's always stuff like Escrima.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

geezer said:


> ...well there's always stuff like Escrima.


If I have a knife/stick/weapon, I hope that I never found out who is the better grappler, because by that time I've already done something seriously wrong.


----------



## Buka

Sometimes people will picture the Wing Chun fighter in a boxing ring. Sometimes people will picture the boxer guy doing Wing Chun.
Neither makes sense, of course, it's just two guys fighting. You know what happens when two guys fight, sometimes one guy wins or sometimes the other guy wins - or sometimes they just smack the crap out of each other and nobody wins. Until they go home and tell their friends the story.


----------



## drop bear

geezer said:


> I'd second what KPM said. Boxers are fast and powerful, plus they rotate and throw their shoulder into their punches. Their punches extend farther and they can reach out to a longer range than a squared-up WC fighter. So if you are going to use low kicks, as the OP suggested, I wouldn't recommend using them to maintain range, but rather to use a few leg shots as a distraction to get the boxer to drop his guard and give you an opening to close in tight. I do best against punchers getting in tight and sticking, smothering, and using elbows. In our VT we do a lot of elbow distance work in chi-sau which is very useful training for this range.
> 
> Now the problem with this approach is that, although it can help against a striker, it brings you into the grappler's zone. If your opponent knows both, you better be very good!



You couldn't john jones them.  And pick them off with low kicks?


----------



## KPM

drop bear said:


> You couldn't john jones them.  And pick them off with low kicks?



Wing Chun doesn't really teach those types of kicks...ie...the longer, stretched out variety.  Wing Chun kicks are really intended to be used once you have closed with the opponent and have his upper tools occupied so he doesn't notice the kick that suddenly breaks his base and his balance and makes him easier to control and manipulate.  They can certainly be used as a feint as Steve mentioned.  But you aren't going to "pick someone off" with them.  They can also be used with the strategy I described....after you have smothered his attacks, gained control, and put him off balance, a well-placed kick can not only send him to the ground, but make it difficult for him to get back up!


----------



## wckf92

Isaiah90 said:


> Because they train their body to throw more weight into their punches than a Wing Chun fighter who keeps his/her body straight.



I would say, from your viewpoint on this, that you are relatively new to WC(?)


----------



## wckf92

drop bear said:


> You couldn't john jones them.  And pick them off with low kicks?



Yes, you could. WC has long range and short range (long bridge and short bridge concepts) for both upper and lower limbs. These "letters" are free to use to help mitigating a threat...just most don't, for some reason. But yes, low kick "letters" combined with long bridge "letters" create what you are talking about.


----------



## Isaiah90

KPM said:


> Compared to something like Thai Boxing, Wing Chun's kicks are not nearly as strong and are not delivered from as safe a distance.  If you are close enough to use a Wing Chun kick, you are close enough to get blasted by a good boxer.  So that's a risky thing to try as your primary strategy!  Boxer's have fast and powerful combinations of punches.  There is no way to block something like that, or to try and match it in any kind of exchange.  Your best hope with a boxer is to get very close very quickly, smother his punches and trap his arms so he can't throw combo's, use elbow strikes of your own to stay as close as possible, and break his base/balance to put him on the ground.  If you let him push off at arm's distance you are in trouble!  The strategy is to try your best to control him while hitting him, smother his punches, and break his balance.



Yea i was referring to standard hand-to-hand boxing but kickboxing and Thai Boxing are completely different lol.


----------



## Flying Crane

Isaiah90 said:


> Because they train their body to throw more weight into their punches than a Wing Chun fighter who keeps his/her body straight.


You know this for a fact?  You've trained to a high level with good instructors in both methods, and can make such a judgment with real authority? Really?  You've systematically compared high numbers of boxers, of all levels, with high numbers of wing chun people, of all levels, and you've analyzed the results for statistical significance, while controlling for factors that might impact the data, like natural ability and athleticism?  Really?

Or, gee, maybe it depends on the person doing it...


----------



## Isaiah90

geezer said:


> I'd second what KPM said. Boxers are fast and powerful, plus they rotate and throw their shoulder into their punches. Their punches extend farther and they can reach out to a longer range than a squared-up WC fighter. So if you are going to use low kicks, as the OP suggested, I wouldn't recommend using them to maintain range, but rather to use a few leg shots as a distraction to get the boxer to drop his guard and give you an opening to close in tight. I do best against punchers getting in tight and sticking, smothering, and using elbows. In our VT we do a lot of elbow distance work in chi-sau which is very useful training for this range.
> 
> Now the problem with this approach is that, although it can help against a striker, it brings you into the grappler's zone. If your opponent knows both, you better be very good!



I think doing that is risky though. Facing a boxer with experience in grappling and superior strength, you run the risk of breaking the Wing Chun principle of using minimum brute force along with being thrown off balance. Although i agree with you on the elbows but i would use elbow-hand techniques in defense (if necessary) and attacking at the boxer's blindside when i close in. If possible, i'd use them to break the boxer's arms.


----------



## KPM

Flying Crane said:


> You know this for a fact?  You've trained to a high level with good instructors in both methods, and can make such a judgment with real authority? Really?  You've systematically compared high numbers of boxers, of all levels, with high numbers of wing chun people, of all levels, and you've analyzed the results for statistical significance, while controlling for factors that might impact the data, like natural ability and athleticism?  Really?
> 
> Or, gee, maybe it depends on the person doing it...



Don't be too harsh!    I understood what he meant.  The body mechanic for the upper body when generating power in western boxing is to pivot at the waist and roll the shoulder forward and arch the mid-back a bit.  This does "put more weight behind it."  The body mechanic for the upper body when generating power in Wing Chun is to keep the shoulders back and the spine straight and pivot with the stance.  So while, there will be factors that will make a difference...like whether the Wing Chun is stepping in and the boxer isn't....in general terms is statement was fairly accurate.


----------



## Isaiah90

KPM said:


> Don't be too harsh!    I understood what he meant.  The body mechanic for the upper body when generating power in western boxing is to pivot at the waist and roll the shoulder forward and arch the mid-back a bit.  This does "put more weight behind it."  The body mechanic for the upper body when generating power in Wing Chun is to keep the shoulders back and the spine straight and pivot with the stance.  So while, there will be factors that will make a difference...like whether the Wing Chun is stepping in and the boxer isn't....in general terms is statement was fairly accurate.



Yea that's what i meant lol. Wing Chun emphasizes (or at least should) a balance between arms and legs for attack/defense. If you sacrifice balance over power, you can leave a huge weak point that your opponent can exploit. That's why humility is so important in Wing Chun because your better equipped in seeing your opponent's strengths and weaknesses.


----------



## Flying Crane

KPM said:


> Don't be too harsh!    I understood what he meant.  The body mechanic for the upper body when generating power in western boxing is to pivot at the waist and roll the shoulder forward and arch the mid-back a bit.  This does "put more weight behind it."  The body mechanic for the upper body when generating power in Wing Chun is to keep the shoulders back and the spine straight and pivot with the stance.  So while, there will be factors that will make a difference...like whether the Wing Chun is stepping in and the boxer isn't....in general terms is statement was fairly accurate.


No, they are simply two different methodologies, both with good proponents, both with poor proponents, both with advantages and disadvantages.  It's not possible to make a generalization like that.  It makes for a very poor discussion because the initial premise is extremely flawed.


----------



## Flying Crane

Isaiah90 said:


> Yea that's what i meant lol. Wing Chun emphasizes (or at least should) a balance between arms and legs for attack/defense. If you sacrifice balance over power, you can leave a huge weak point that your opponent can exploit. That's why humility is so important in Wing Chun because your better equipped in seeing your opponent's strengths and weaknesses.


Do you have a background in wing chun and/or boxing?  If so, would you describe the training you have received?  I'm just not finding your comments credible, and I wonder where your knowledge comes from.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

It's fair to say that

- boxing has more powerful punch,
- WC has faster linear punch combo, and better center line strategy.

IMO, it makes no sense for WC tries to compete in the area of "power generation" against boxing.

A 50 lb force land on the nose can break that nose as good as a 100 lb force. Sometime, speed is more important than power.


----------



## Phobius

Kung Fu Wang said:


> It's fair to say that
> 
> - boxing has more powerful punch,
> - WC has faster linear punch combo, and better center line strategy.
> 
> IMO, it makes no sense for WC tries to compete in the area of "power generation" against boxing.
> 
> A 50 lb force land on the nose can break that nose as good as a 100 lb force. Sometime, speed is more important than power.



Boxers need more powerful punch, their gloves protect their hand and wrist against any self inflicted damage from punching. A WC practitioner need to graduately increase toughness in his fists, with time and practise his fist grows tougher and his punches harder.

So there is a good reason why boxers hit like trains, and WCs have not focused as much on it in my view. Both can punch hard enough for the purpose. Problem I see with boxers are that they have less things to focus on, the amount of time they repeat a punch and train it. It beats any amount of time a WC practitioner spends practising punching.  This is my concern if fighting a boxer, the amount of time he spent perfecting his movements.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Assume your power is generated from

- bottom and up,
- back and forward.

When a boxer throws his

- left jab, his left hand, left shoulder, and right shoulder are in a straight line.
- right cross, his right hand, right shoulder, and left shoulder will be in a straight line.

To move from one straight line into another straight line, it will give you the maximum body rotation. That can give you the maximum punching power.

The concern is if WC tries to punch the same way as boxing does, WC will not be WC any more.


----------



## Phobius

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Assume your power is generated from
> 
> - bottom and up,
> - back and forward.
> 
> When a boxer throws his
> 
> - left jab, his left hand, left shoulder, and right shoulder are in a straight line.
> - right cross, his right hand, right shoulder, and left shoulder will be in a straight line.
> 
> To move from one straight line into another straight line, it will give you the maximum body rotation. That can give you the maximum punching power.
> 
> The concern is if WC tries to punch the same way as boxing does, WC will not be WC any more.



WC will always be WC, my view is that we are not our system. We train our systems to be fighters. If you need a tool don't limit yourself if your system is limited.

For me I train grappling because they are better at what they do than WC, I look at boxing techniques because quite frankly they know how to utilize length of arms to their advantage, and so on. Just make sure you are clear in understanding the different systems then I see no harm in you learning more than one system. Just keep the system itself to what it is.

That is probably one reason why there are fighters and teachers and they are usually not the same.


----------



## KPM

Flying Crane said:


> No, they are simply two different methodologies, both with good proponents, both with poor proponents, both with advantages and disadvantages.  It's not possible to make a generalization like that.  It makes for a very poor discussion because the initial premise is extremely flawed.


 
Sorry, but that's BS.  There is a distinct biomechanic involved in western boxing and a distinct biomechanic involved in Wing Chun.  Sure there  are some deviations, but one can certainly generalize and refer to how the majority move in a discussion.  If you can't see that, and therefore can't follow the discussion, then that isn't our problem.


----------



## Tames D

Flying Crane said:


> Do you have a background in wing chun and/or boxing?  If so, would you describe the training you have received?  I'm just not finding your comments credible, and I wonder where your knowledge comes from.


FC, Have you had any training in Boxing and WC? Just curious.


----------



## Isaiah90

It's also because boxers attack from many different angles with uppercuts, haymakers, etc. which makes it hard for the Wing Chun practitioner to keep up his or her defenses. Boxers spend a great amount of time perfecting their punches in power, speed, mobility, etc. more than a Wing Chun practitioner. That's why i don't advise engaging in hand-to-hand combat against an experienced boxer because you will get K.O'ed.


----------



## Flying Crane

Tames D said:


> FC, Have you had any training in Boxing and WC? Just curious.


Wing chun for 3 or 4 years. I don't train it anymore, this was around 15 years ago.


----------



## Flying Crane

KPM said:


> Sorry, but that's BS.  There is a distinct biomechanic involved in western boxing and a distinct biomechanic involved in Wing Chun.  Sure there  are some deviations, but one can certainly generalize and refer to how the majority move in a discussion.  If you can't see that, and therefore can't follow the discussion, then that isn't our problem.


The first part of what you say here, regarding the biomechanics,  I agree with.  But your conclusions are erroneous.


----------



## KPM

Flying Crane said:


> The first part of what you say here, regarding the biomechanics,  I agree with.  But your conclusions are erroneous.



How so?


----------



## drop bear

Just go fight a crap ton of boxers. Then when you start beating them.

Do that thing.


----------



## JPinAZ

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Assume your power is generated from
> 
> - bottom and up,
> - back and forward.
> 
> When a boxer throws his
> 
> - left jab, his left hand, left shoulder, and right shoulder are in a straight line.
> - right cross, his right hand, right shoulder, and left shoulder will be in a straight line.
> 
> To move from one straight line into another straight line, it will give you the maximum body rotation. That can give you the maximum punching power.



Yes, but the boxer gives up equal reach of hands to do so, which takes up more time, as well as losing what WC considers simultaneous offense/defense. advantages and disadvantages in everything...


----------



## drop bear

JPinAZ said:


> Yes, but the boxer gives up equal reach of hands to do so, which takes up more time, as well as losing what WC considers simultaneous offense/defense. advantages and disadvantages in everything...



Simultaneous offence and Defence in boxing is achieved by moving to a position where they are not punching. And then punching them.


Technically you really should be doing that regardless of what style you do as walking straight into a guy pretty much equals a beating.


----------



## wckf92

drop bear said:


> Simultaneous offence and Defence in boxing is achieved by moving to a position where they are not punching. And then punching them.



Yep. I think it's called 'counter-punching'? Timing and position backed by footwork is the name of the game!


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

JPinAZ said:


> Yes, but the boxer gives up equal reach of hands to do so, which takes up more time, as well as losing what WC considers simultaneous offense/defense. advantages and disadvantages in everything...


That's also the main trade off between the southern CMA and northern CMA. I had once tried to integrate WC and long fist together. It just didn't work at all. This is why it makes no sense to compare whether the trade off is good or bad. In battle field, both machine gun and grenade are all needed.


----------



## LFJ

Phobius said:


> Problem I see with boxers are that they have less things to focus on, the amount of time they repeat a punch and train it. It beats any amount of time a WC practitioner spends practising punching.  This is my concern if fighting a boxer, the amount of time he spent perfecting his movements.



I don't know how much other stuff you're focussing on in your WC, but in my lineage countless hours are invested in the development of our punches. It's just that our punching methods have more tactical ideas to them that need to be trained in different ways to develop properly.

That's why hard sparring and fighting is essential. It shows you what works and what doesn't and the truth is not much does beyond balance, distancing, timing, reflexes and a few simple tactical ideas. Most _chi-sau_ theories, sticking to arms and sensitivity stuff flies out the window. Boxers, and anyone else who fights, know this.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> That's why hard sparring and fighting is essential. It shows you what works and what doesn't and the truth is not much does beyond balance, distancing, timing, reflexes and a few simple tactical ideas. Most _chi-sau_ theories, sticking to arms and sensitivity stuff flies out the window. Boxers, and anyone else who fights, know this.



How about all the forms?  How about all the intricate moves on the dummy?   I've pointed out before, that the way you and Guy describe WSLVT seems to me to indicate that you have quite a bit of "extra" material in your curriculum.   You don't need the variety of movement taught in the dummy form to do what you mention above.  Especially when you see it so abstract and not as applications.   And its interesting that if hard sparring is such an important aspect of WSLVT as you say, that we never see any video footage of it.  All we see is the "chi sau theories, sticking to arms and sensitivity stuff."


----------



## Phobius

LFJ said:


> I don't know how much other stuff you're focussing on in your WC, but in my lineage countless hours are invested in the development of our punches. It's just that our punching methods have more tactical ideas to them that need to be trained in different ways to develop properly.



So you don't do chi sao, forms or anything of that sort? Or you think that it is equal to doing a punch over and over again? 

And boxers are dangerous,  I did not say unbeatable. In the end it is about the fighters, but if you don't see their strengths you are bound to lose to it.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> How about all the forms?  How about all the intricate moves on the dummy?



Still mostly training various aspects of the punch and punching strategy, developing it in all facets. Always the same "little idea". You call things extra because you don't know how we use them and why.



> And its interesting that if hard sparring is such an important aspect of WSLVT as you say, that we never see any video footage of it.  All we see is the "chi sau theories, sticking to arms and sensitivity stuff."



We don't have _chi-sau_ theories, sticking to arms and sensitivity stuff... so I don't know what you're seeing.

Hard sparring/ fighting outside of VT is essential too. But there's rarely a friend with a camera on standby when chance encounters go down to capture reality for you. 

I just had one with a JKD guy at a gym today, easily two inches taller than me (and I'm already 6'2") also strong and fast as hell.

I can tell you what worked for me and quite well was simply mobility and VT punching tactics. If I tried to attach to his arms or half the nonsense most WC theorizes with I would have lost my head because he was throwing serious bombs.


----------



## LFJ

Phobius said:


> So you don't do chi sao, forms or anything of that sort?



All train various aspects of the punch and delivery strategy.



> Or you think that it is equal to doing a punch over and over again?



We do this too plus more training to develop the punch. It's not less time on the punch by playing sticky hand games or forms that have nothing to do with punching.



> And boxers are dangerous,  I did not say unbeatable. In the end it is about the fighters, but if you don't see their strengths you are bound to lose to it.



Punching is VT's strength too. Just a different type. Countless hours are invested in it in VT as well.


----------



## Phobius

LFJ said:


> Hard sparring/ fighting outside of VT is essential too. But there's rarely a friend with a camera on standby when chance encounters go down to capture reality for you.



Chance encounters called sparring? KPM was saying it is strange that noone organizes sparring with other schools from your lineage and films it. I would say given the amount of crap on YouTube that would mean nothing. 



LFJ said:


> I just had one with a JKD guy at a gym today, easily two inches taller than me (and I'm already 6'2") also strong and fast as hell.
> 
> I can tell you what worked for me and quite well was simply mobility and VT punching tactics. If I tried to attach to his arms or half the nonsense most WC theorizes with I would have lost my head because he was throwing serious bombs.



If you tried he would destroy you. You don't ever chase a trap and if you expect to keep one for more than an instant you are either not sparring or he is trying to grab you and not punch. 

But if you do not make contact with him with any part of your body you were boxing. Which is cool,  boxing is part of WC but it is not the only part.


----------



## LFJ

Phobius said:


> Chance encounters called sparring?



You never ran into someone who asked you to go a round after knowing you're a MAist?



> KPM was saying it is strange that noone organizes sparring with other schools from your lineage and films it.



But they do and it's been posted before. One VT school even hosts this annual open style tournament. What are you guys doing in the meantime?



> But if you do not make contact with him with any part of your body you were boxing. Which is cool,  boxing is part of WC but it is not the only part.



What part of my body should contact him for it to be complete WC then and why shouldn't I just punch him if that gets the job done?


----------



## Phobius

LFJ said:


> You never ran into someone who asked you to go a round after knowing you're a MAist?



Would be funny if it did but nope, might be my size or just bad luck. Don't know. 





LFJ said:


> But they do and it's been posted before. One VT school even hosts this annual open style tournament. What are you guys doing in the meantime?



I did not say anything,  you were the one talking about chance encounters. Tournament is not chance encounter, it is planned event.




LFJ said:


> What part of my body should contact him for it to be complete WC then and why shouldn't I just punch him if that gets the job done?



Complete WC,  same as true WC I despise those terms. I just said there is more to it than boxing. You said stuff about trapping not working. Not me. I was not at that fight, I was just agreeing that if you chased a trapping then yes he would beat you. Besides you are not skilled or trained in such am area by your own account. 

About body contact, it is not always there in a fight except a landed punch. But sometimes they are. So did you go the entire fight with no body contact besides your fist?


----------



## LFJ

Phobius said:


> I did not say anything,  you were the one talking about chance encounters. Tournament is not chance encounter, it is planned event.



You were just talking about no one in my lineage organizing sparring. A tournament is organized sparring.



> About body contact, it is not always there in a fight except a landed punch. But sometimes they are. So did you go the entire fight with no body contact besides your fist?



Foot stop to kick, palm to face, punch punch punch.

From within a fight it's more difficult to see clearly what all is happening than as a bystander sees it, but he tried some JKD hand stuff when he entered. I don't know. I just used VT punching tactics to cut through it all. So forearms touched but only for a split second as I hit target. No time for sensing limbs and doing something clever with it.


----------



## marques

One video among many of Master Wong!


----------



## guy b.

LFJ said:


> I don't know how much other stuff you're focussing on in your WC, but in my lineage countless hours are invested in the development of our punches. It's just that our punching methods have more tactical ideas to them that need to be trained in different ways to develop properly.
> 
> That's why hard sparring and fighting is essential. It shows you what works and what doesn't and the truth is not much does beyond balance, distancing, timing, reflexes and a few simple tactical ideas. Most _chi-sau_ theories, sticking to arms and sensitivity stuff flies out the window. Boxers, and anyone else who fights, know this.



I agree. The punch is 90% of VT. It is a punching style.


----------



## Flying Crane

KPM said:


> How so?


Your broad generalizations.  That's where you get into trouble.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> But they do and it's been posted before. One VT school even hosts this annual open style tournament. What are you guys doing in the meantime?
> 
> ?








This is San Da.  This is the sparring you are referring to that you used to find the errors in your fighting and use your Ving Tsun to fix?  This is your Ving Tsun?


----------



## KPM

Flying Crane said:


> Your broad generalizations.  That's where you get into trouble.



What broad generalizations?


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> This is San Da.  This is the sparring you are referring to that you used to find the errors in your fighting and use your Ving Tsun to fix?  This is your Ving Tsun?



Did you not read I said it is an open style tournament? That means various styles compete. Or are you just trying to be funny? Why don't you train for it and register for the next one?


----------



## Flying Crane

KPM said:


> What broad generalizations?


Go back and re-read the thread.  It's in there.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> Did you not read I said it is an open style tournament? That means various styles compete.



Then why did you offer this link when asked why we don't see footage of WSLVT people doing all of their sparring and testing when you say it is so important to the system?   How is an "open style tournament" an answer to that question?


----------



## KPM

Flying Crane said:


> Go back and re-read the thread.  It's in there.



Sorry.  I don't remember being in trouble on this thread.  Sounds to me like you aren't sure yourself.


----------



## Phobius

LFJ said:


> You were just talking about no one in my lineage organizing sparring. A tournament is organized sparring.



Huh? Reread what I wrote. I said KPM talked about lack of sparring videos for a lineage based on sparring. Against "outsiders". And I asked what chance encounters had to do with his question. Plus stating that YouTube is crap for sparring videos as to explain that I see no meaning in you not being able to provide sparring videos.

But I do find it a shame because I am at the point where I would love to assess your style, but without proper video and/or someone to meet firsthand there is no way I will be able to.

Another time perhaps...




LFJ said:


> From within a fight it's more difficult to see clearly what all is happening than as a bystander sees it, but he tried some JKD hand stuff when he entered. I don't know. I just used VT punching tactics to cut through it all. So forearms touched but only for a split second as I hit target. No time for sensing limbs and doing something clever with it.



And that is how fights go. Sometimes there is no body contact. It depends on the fight and the fighters. Besides you need to end up in a bad state while punching in the first place is my belief or at least what I have noticed until now. While the fight goes your way while punching, I would be suprised if any 'sensing limbs' would come to play, does not mean it is not there just that it senses nothing.


Now you say you focus 90% on punching, I was just saying of that 90% how much is actually spent doing the punch itself. Not meaning building technique, sense or elbow structure in order to punch but actually punch while doing all of the above. This is what I mean a boxer does for a large majority of their training, if you do it to... great. Many people just go to class, do their training and then go home and workout or do other stuff. We should never forget to spend a lot of time just doing those punches. And in my case even variations of them...

Footwork is everything but sooner or later we are bound to get hit, better make sure we are better at hitting than them to.


----------



## JPinAZ

drop bear said:


> Simultaneous offence and Defence in boxing is achieved by moving to a position where they are not punching. And then punching them.



My mistake, I should be more careful with how I word things I guess. make that "simultaneous offense/defense in BOTH HANDS"


----------



## drop bear

KPM said:


> This is San Da.  This is the sparring you are referring to that you used to find the errors in your fighting and use your Ving Tsun to fix?  This is your Ving Tsun?




I don't mind that. It combines the principals of the chun with the practicalitys of actual fighting.


----------



## Flying Crane

KPM said:


> Sorry.  I don't remember being in trouble on this thread.  Sounds to me like you aren't sure yourself.


?
...ok then...


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

LFJ said:


> If I tried to attach to his arms or half the nonsense most WC theorizes with I would have lost my head because he was throwing serious bombs.


The major difference between the CMA and boxing is CMA uses "bridge" strategy and boxing does not. It's fair to say that without the "bridge" strategy, there is no CMA.

There are only 3 hand skills that exist in all MA systems on this planet:

1. block with one arm and punch with another arm at the same time.
2. switch hands - you punch, your opponent block, you use the other hand to re-block his blocking arm, free your attacking arm, and attack again.
3. block and punch back by using the same arm.
4. dodge and punch back (no bridge strategy here).

CMA uses all 4 strategies. Boxing mainly use strategy 4.

What I don't understand is If

- you arm contact on your opponent's arm,
- sense his intention,
- borrow his force,
- redirect his arm away from your attacking path,
- use his leading arm to jam his back arm,
- move in, and
- attack him,

how can his arms be able to hit on your head?

For example,

- your opponent's arms are on guard in front of his face,
- you right punch at his face,
- he uses his right arm to block your punch toward your right (bridge is established),
- you sense his blocking force (toward your right),
- you borrow his force, use your left hand to help his right arm to move further to your right (his blocking arm is out of your attacking path),
- since you have redirect your opponent's right arm to jam his own left arm, you can enter and attack him through his "right side door" with your right fist again. None of his arms can stop your right punch at his face.

There is a purpose to

- build a bridge,
- use your opponent's contact arm to jam his other arm,
- cross that bridge, and
- attack.

If you train this strategy over 10,000 times, you will have advantage over your opponent if all he knows is to throw one punch after another. This is the beauty of the "bridge" strategy, and this is the beauty of the CMA.


----------



## guy b.

Kung Fu Wang said:


> What I don't understand is If
> 
> - you arm contact on your opponent's arm,
> - sense his intention,
> - borrow his force,
> - redirect his arm away from your attacking path,
> - use his leading arm to jam his back arm,
> - move in, and
> - attack him,
> 
> how can his arms be able to hit on your head?
> 
> For example,
> 
> - your opponent's arms are on guard in front of his face,
> - you right punch at his face,
> - he uses his right arm to block your punch toward your right (bridge is established),
> - you sense his blocking force (toward your right),
> - you borrow his force, use your left hand to help his right arm to move further to your right (his blocking arm is out of your attacking path),
> - since you have redirect your opponent's right arm to jam his own left arm, you can enter and attack him through his "right side door" with your right fist again. None of his arms can stop your right punch at his face.



Sounds very unrealistic. 



Kung Fu Wang said:


> There is a purpose to
> 
> - build a bridge,
> - use your opponent's contact arm to jam his other arm,
> - cross that bridge, and
> - attack.



This is not the understanding of "bridge" in the VT system.


----------



## guy b.

KPM said:


> Then why did you offer this link when asked why we don't see footage of WSLVT people doing all of their sparring and testing when you say it is so important to the system?   How is an "open style tournament" an answer to that question?



A tournament is a form of organised sparring. Regular sparring is essential to prepare for such a tournament. I am sorry that you haven't been provided with everything you demand on a plate- but I think you will find that many MA groups don't always post film of their private sparring on the internet. Mostly what you will find is organised contest like a tournament, teaching and seminar clips, or purpose made promotional footage. 

Do you post private sparring footage of yourself for example?


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> Then why did you offer this link when asked why we don't see footage of WSLVT people doing all of their sparring and testing when you say it is so important to the system?   How is an "open style tournament" an answer to that question?



It wasn't an answer to that question.

It was said that our lineage doesn't organize sparring with other schools and film it.

Not only is that not true, and clips have been posted before, but I provided an example of one WSLVT school that not only organizes sparring with other schools, but even hosts an annual open style tournament.

What you see in the video you posted is people of various styles competing. It's not VT take on all comers. It's any style vs any style. That's what "open style tournament" means.

I don't care that you aren't witnessing VT sparring or tournament preparations on video.

If you want to see what it's like, go visit them, register for the next tournament, or just be a spectator. Otherwise don't worry about what others are doing.


----------



## LFJ

Kung Fu Wang said:


> It's fair to say that without the "bridge" strategy, there is no CMA.



I train a CMA and have a "bridge" strategy, but it's nothing to do with sensing and manipulating arms.



> There are only 3 hand skills that exist in all MA systems on this planet:
> 
> 1. block with one arm and punch with another arm at the same time.
> 2. switch hands - you punch, your opponent block, you use the other hand to re-block his blocking arm, free your attacking arm, and attack again.
> 3. block and punch back by using the same arm.
> 4. dodge and punch back (no bridge strategy here).
> 
> CMA uses all 4 strategies. Boxing mainly use strategy 4.



I did none of the above and still hit my opponent while protecting myself against his attacks.

Am I training an extraterrestrial MA, or have you perhaps not encountered all MA systems on this planet?


----------



## LFJ

Kung Fu Wang said:


> - you arm contact on your opponent's arm,
> - sense his intention,
> - borrow his force,
> - redirect his arm away from your attacking path,
> - use his leading arm to jam his back arm,
> - move in, and
> - attack him



Yeeaaah, that ain't gonna happen unless you're both moving in slow motion or your opponent is not moving at all.

Fantasy tactics like this fly out the window when speed is cranked up and a barrage of serious strikes are incoming.

There's simply no time to be sensing intention and manipulating arms. That kind of stuff works in demos only.


----------



## drop bear

drop bear said:


> I don't mind that. It combines the principals of the chun with the practicalitys of actual fighting.



Oh. And notice how when guys are getting knocked out. The power generation changes straight back to using hips and footwork.


----------



## KPM

guy b. said:


> This is not the understanding of "bridge" in the VT system.



Wrong.  That is not YOUR understanding of the "bridge" in YOUR Wing Chun.   Here again we have from Guy what sounds like a definitive statement denouncing someone's understanding of a Wing Chun concept and declaring that it is not the "VT system."   I will say again....Guy, you post in a certain way that is very arrogant and condescending.  Either you lack insight and just don't realize it, or you just don't care and enjoy being a prxck.


----------



## KPM

guy b. said:


> A tournament is a form of organised sparring. Regular sparring is essential to prepare for such a tournament. I am sorry that you haven't been provided with everything you demand on a plate- but I think you will find that many MA groups don't always post film of their private sparring on the internet. Mostly what you will find is organised contest like a tournament, teaching and seminar clips, or purpose made promotional footage.
> 
> Do you post private sparring footage of yourself for example?



I am not the one making declarations for an entire lineage of Wing Chun.  There are quite a few people doing WSLVT, is there not?  If sparring is such a huge component of training in WSLVT as you and LFJ say, then why don't we see footage of it?  Just on a statistical basis in our modern "selfie" world you would think such videos would start showing up on-line.  But all we ever see is the typical Chi Sau videos.  Is that phase of training in WSLVT a big secret?   Or are you and LFJ just over-stating your assertions?


----------



## KPM

_It wasn't an answer to that question.  It was said that our lineage doesn't organize sparring with other schools and film it._

---Ah!  I see now you are right.  I made the comment about sparring videos and Phobius took that and made the comment about organized sparring competitions with other schools.  My apologies!


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> If sparring is such a huge component of training in WSLVT as you and LFJ say, then why don't we see footage of it?



We do. You have. You've commented favorably on it. Not sure why you're pretending otherwise.

We have seen 0 from your lineage. So again, I'm not sure why you're barking up this tree. Unless sparring is not part of your training at all?


----------



## guy b.

KPM said:


> Wrong.  That is not YOUR understanding of the "bridge" in YOUR Wing Chun



I don't have my own personal wing chun. I train in YM VT. In that system the understanding described by Kung Fu Wang is not part of the system. If in doubt then a quick check of the conceptual base of the system will put us on the right track. I don't know if this understanding is in other Chinese MA systems- it may well be. I think you train a different system for example- maybe your understanding of bridging is different?


----------



## guy b.

KPM said:


> If sparring is such a huge component of training in WSLVT as you and LFJ say, then why don't we see footage of it?



Because people don't generally release private sparring footage as much as they release promotional clips? A quick check of youtube should show you this. However some sparring clips have been posted on this forum and I believe you saw them, didn't you?

Where can I check out private sparring clips from your martial arts group?


----------



## wckf92

Kung Fu Wang said:


> There are only 3 hand skills that exist in all MA systems on this planet:
> 
> 1. block with one arm and punch with another arm at the same time.
> 2. switch hands - you punch, your opponent block, you use the other hand to re-block his blocking arm, free your attacking arm, and attack again.
> 3. block and punch back by using the same arm.
> 4. dodge and punch back (no bridge strategy here).
> 
> CMA uses all 4 strategies. Boxing mainly use strategy 4.



Think you forgot one(?)..
#5  the hand that hits also cancels


----------



## LFJ

wckf92 said:


> Think you forgot one(?)..
> #5  the hand that hits also cancels



That's extraterrestrial. Doesn't count.


----------



## Phobius

guy b. said:


> I don't have my own personal wing chun. I train in YM VT.



Before people get a fit again. You train WSLPBVT. Unless anyone of us trained directly under YM we should not say we train YM VT/WT.

Noone has been able to unite a common ground what YM VT is. Problem is YM never bothered to define it. He left it all to his students to define their own. As such YM VT/WT probably does not exist. No matter if you are sure to train exactly as he taught or not. Leave that statement to his direct student and honor you sifu or the system instead.


----------



## wckf92

Phobius said:


> Before people get a fit again. You train WSLPBVT. Unless anyone of us trained directly under YM we should not say we train YM VT/WT.



Well stated!!!!


----------



## KPM

guy b. said:


> I don't have my own personal wing chun. I train in YM VT. In that system the understanding described by Kung Fu Wang is not part of the system. If in doubt then a quick check of the conceptual base of the system will put us on the right track. I don't know if this understanding is in other Chinese MA systems- it may well be. I think you train a different system for example- maybe your understanding of bridging is different?



I trained in Augustine Fong's system and I most definitely learned the idea of "bridge" as being contact and not a gap.  LFJ was the first person I had ever seen define "bridge" as an opening or gap.   It most certainly is not the standard understanding through-out Ip Man Wing Chun that I have seen.  Is it the standard understanding in WSLVT?


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> LFJ was the first person I had ever seen define "bridge" as an opening or gap.



Attack line is what I said, not opening or gap. It may well already be open, but we're not just lookin around and picking shots.


----------



## guy b.

KPM said:


> I most definitely learned the idea of "bridge" as being contact and not a gap.



And yet this idea is easily found to be contradictory in terms of other bits of the system, i.e. a problem exists with this understanding of bridging



> Is it the standard understanding in WSLVT



It is the only understanding that makes sense and avoids contradiction


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

wckf92 said:


> Think you forgot one(?)..
> #5  the hand that hits also cancels


Are you talking about "block and punch back by using the same arm" as method 3? Could you give an example?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

LFJ said:


> I train a CMA and have a "bridge" strategy, but it's nothing to do with sensing and manipulating arms.
> 
> I did none of the above and still hit my opponent while protecting myself against his attacks.
> 
> Am I training an extraterrestrial MA, or have you perhaps not encountered all MA systems on this planet?


So you think "bridge" strategy has nothing to do with "sensing and manipulating arms".

I have tried to find the 5th method besides the following 4 methods from any MA system on this planet, but I have not found it yet. I will be grateful if you can tell me the 5th one if it exists.

1. block and punch at the same time - This is the WC most famous strategy 连消带打(Lian Xiao Dai Da) such as to use left Tang Shou to block your opponent's punch and right hand punch on his face.

2. switch hands - you punch, your opponent block, you use the other hand 拍手(Pai Shou) to re-block his blocking arm (follow his blocking direction, sensing and manipulating arms), free your attacking arm, and attack again.

3. block and punch back by using the same arm - Your opponent punch, you use right 扶手(Fu Shou) to block his punch. Redirect his punching arm to pass your face (sensing and manipulating arms). You then punch back with the same right hand.

4. dodge and punch back - Your opponent hook punch at your head, you dodge your head under his hook, you then uppercut his chin.


----------



## wckf92

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Could you give an example?




Step 1: strike the bad guy
Step 2: if, while en route to pummeling bad guy, an obstacle is encountered...WC hands contain angles which will either 'subdue', or 'disperse', or 'wedge' or 'sink' (etc etc but you get the idea) that obstacle while hopefully still en route to striking the bad guy. 
Step 3: depending on the obstacle and the tactical situation you've encountered (and the adversary)...a covering or clearing hand may be needed. 

Yes, WC operates on the holier-than-thou "centerline"...but it also contains the ability to cut back to the centerline if you find yourself off of it or being diverted too far from it. I.E. straight defeats circular; circular defeats straight, etc.  

Let's say the bad guy beats me to the punch...let's say a straight punch to my teeth. Depending on where my hands happen to be located at the time...I can 'counter punch' with angles embedded in the system via the forms. I can punch him in the face with either a wedging or a cutting/sinking aspect to my punch depending on several factors (i.e. am I taller or shorter than him? Am I on the outside or inside of the attack? etc... closest weapon closest target, etc). Again, this all depends on many factors..;.but hopefully you get a general idea. 

I could just as easily punch him somewhere else besides the face. I could elbow him. I could kick him in the balls. etc.


----------



## wckf92

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I have tried to find the 5th method besides the following 4 methods from any MA system on this planet, but I have not found it yet. I will be grateful if you can tell me the 5th one.



The "5th" is rare to see. I was in WC for several years already before I was shown an example. It's not a 'secret' and it's "idea" is in the forms.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

wckf92 said:


> Step 1: strike the bad guy
> Step 2: if, while en route to pummeling bad guy, an obstacle is encountered...WC hands contain angles which will either 'subdue', or 'disperse', or 'wedge' or 'sink' (etc etc but you get the idea) that obstacle while hopefully still en route to striking the bad guy.
> Step 3: depending on the obstacle and the tactical situation you've encountered (and the adversary)...a covering or clearing hand may be needed.


If I understand you correctly, that is still "3. block and punch by using the same arm". You punch, your opponent blocks it, you use your punching arm to "bounce" his blocking arm away, you still punch him with the same arm. In CMA, there is a name for that and that's called 哈拳(Ha Quan).


----------



## wckf92

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Still that is "3. block and punch by using the same arm". If I understand you correctly, you punch, your opponent blocks it, you use your punching arm to "bounce" his blocking arm away, you still punch him with the same arm. In CMA, there is a name for that and that is 哈拳(Ha Quan).



Your earlier post was "block and punch back". 
And above you now say "block and punch" 
So, perhaps we have a slight miscommunication(?)

But, in the WC I learned there are no "blocks". Blocking is defensive. 
So, when I read your post about 'block' and punch...it sounds like a defensive, 1st motion, then 2nd motion. 
In my example, "blocking" is not part of the thought process.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

wckf92 said:


> Your earlier post was "block and punch back".
> And above you now say "block and punch"
> So, perhaps we have a slight miscommunication(?)
> 
> But, in the WC I learned there are no "blocks". Blocking is defensive.
> So, when I read your post about 'block' and punch...it sounds like a defensive, 1st motion, then 2nd motion.
> In my example, "blocking" is not part of the thought process.


May be "block" is not a proper term to be used here. How about "deflect", "re-direct", "yield", "sticky", "bounce", ...

You punch, if

- nothing is in your punching path, your fist will meet on your opponent's face.
- something is in your punching path, your punching arm can deflect, re-direct, yield, sticky, bounce, ...)" it away. You can also just change your attacking path to avoid contact. You then continue your punch.

For example, you hook punch at your opponent's head, your opponent responds. You change your circular hook punch into a linear straight punch toward his chest.


----------



## KPM

_And yet this idea is easily found to be contradictory in terms of other bits of the system, i.e. a problem exists with this understanding of bridging_

---And yet, this idea is not contradictory to the meaning of the word "Kiu" and the way "Kiu" is used throughout CMAs to refer to something done with the forearm.   So I'm not sure what "bits" of the system you are referring to.


_It is the only understanding that makes sense and avoids contradiction_

---You didn't answer my question.  In fact, as it pretty usual for you, you side-stepped the question pretty obviously.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

I'm quite surprise to hear that

- to use your blocking arm (such as Tang Shou) to block your opponent's punch,
- re-direct his arm to be away from your attacking path,
- use his leading arm to jam his back arm (this is a very important MA strategy),
- you then attack him through his "side door",

are not part of the WC "bridge" strategy.


----------



## guy b.

KPM said:


> And yet, this idea is not contradictory to the meaning of the word "Kiu" and the way "Kiu" is used throughout CMAs to refer to something done with the forearm. So I'm not sure what "bits" of the system you are referring to



This is why it is important to look for inconsistency and incoherence in the system, not in terms of a weak understanding of Canonese words, or in terms of what other Chinese MA systems might or might not do. Bridge meaning forearm contact is not consistent with the conceptual basis of the VT system. It doesn't hang together. There are big problems with it as an idea probably meaning that it is a misunderstanding or an intentional change.


----------



## guy b.

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I'm quite surprise to hear that
> 
> - to use your blocking arm (such as Tang Shou) to block your opponent's punch,
> - re-direct his arm to be away from your attacking path,
> - use his leading arm to jam his back arm (this is a very important MA strategy),
> - you then attack him through his "side door",
> 
> are not part of the WC "bridge" strategy.



Looks fantastically unlikely ever to work, unless you are fighting a person with a chronic motor disability. This is not VT


----------



## guy b.

KPM said:


> You didn't answer my question.  In fact, as it pretty usual for you, you side-stepped the question pretty obviously.



That is an answer to your question. There are WSL groups with a poor understanding of the system. I used to train with one of those. I don't train with them any more.


----------



## guy b.

Kung Fu Wang said:


> So you think "bridge" strategy has nothing to do with "sensing and manipulating arms".



Correct



> block and punch at the same time - This is the WC most famous strategy 连消带打(Lian Xiao Dai Da) such as to use left Tang Shou to block your opponent's punch and right hand punch on his face.



This is not the VT system understanding of LSDD


----------



## Buka

I kind of like the idea that a lot of you are debating/disagreeing on certain aspects of fighting. I think it shows individual artistry, and I believe fighting skill is personal and unique.

I hope as you continue you steal things from each other as much as you write off anything as wrong.
And be nice. It's nice to be nice.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

guy b. said:


> This is not the VT system understanding of LSDD


If your opponent is

- not on guard, you can punch on his face.
- on guard, your face punch will be interrupted by his guard. what do you do then?

When you fight, do you use any "set up" at all?

Even if you use "jab, cross" combo, your jab will hit on your opponent's guard (knock on the door - build a bridge). if he moves his arm away from his face (he opens his door), you can then punch his face (you enter through his door).

The "knock on the door (such as boxing jab, jab, cross)" strategy is the same as the "bridge" strategy.


----------



## guy b.

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If your opponent is
> 
> - not on guard, you can punch on his face.
> - on guard, your face punch will be interrupted by his guard. what do you do then?



You clear the way to punch. But VT is not a reactive system and does not seek arm contact- it is about imposing patterns of movement on the other person. With stepping you cut the way and make attacking lines. The punching strategy covers without thinking while exploiting these attack lines.



> Even if you use "jab, cross" combo, your jab will hit on your opponent's guard (knock on the door - build a bridge).



Why would you seek a bridge if a bridge is arm contact and your ultimate aim is to punch your opponent? This is contradictory.



> if he moves his arm away from his face (he open his door), you can then punch his face (you enter through his door).



What do you call it when he just removes his arms from your forearm contact while you are waiting for him to "open his door"? Did he "demolish his bridge"? Maybe it was one of those bridges that opens to allow ships through? What happens if traffic is backed up on the bridge and high winds are forecast? What if it's a toll bridge in rush hour and traffic is really bad, or a railway bridge and cars can't use it? Maybe today they are painting the bridge and it is closed. Perhaps you will need to take the ferry?

All of this theoretical stuff generally assumes that people don't move and for the most part it is nonsense because it derives from games in chi sau. Unfortunately people do move around a lot while trying to hit you and these kind of ideas fall apart rapidly. What works is simple, direct, efficinet, non-contradictory, and able to be done under pressure, i.e. without thinking


----------



## geezer

I'm totally bored with this obsession with the word _bridge_ in VT. Now it may be some kind a a special key word in YM-WSL-PB-VT but in our branch of YM-VT it's no big deal. It's just a term that can be applied several ways as a way to understanding what we do in VT.

If it doesn't describe things the way you like, just find another word.


----------



## KPM

guy b. said:


> That is an answer to your question. There are WSL groups with a poor understanding of the system. I used to train with one of those. I don't train with them any more.



So, your answer seems to be "no, that is not the accepted understanding of "bridge" throughtout the WSLVT lineage."


----------



## KPM

guy b. said:


> This is why it is important to look for inconsistency and incoherence in the system, not in terms of a weak understanding of Canonese words, or in terms of what other Chinese MA systems might or might not do. Bridge meaning forearm contact is not consistent with the conceptual basis of the VT system. It doesn't hang together. There are big problems with it as an idea probably meaning that it is a misunderstanding or an intentional change.



Yes.  You are probably right!  Given that "Kiu" in Cantonese actually refers to a physical structure and not a gap, and given that "Kiu" in CMAs is used consistently to refer to the forearm of a martial artist in concrete terms, as well as establishing a linkage or contact of some kind with an opponent in abstract terms, then I would say you are correct... it is likely a misunderstanding or intentional change in meaning within the WSLVT lineage.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> So, your answer seems to be "no, that is not the accepted understanding of "bridge" throughtout the WSLVT lineage."



That would suggest they know it yet don't accept it. That's not the case.

Few people in fact know the free fighting aspect of VT. Fact is when WSL informed students that sparring was planned for the next class, most didn't turn up.

Most people, hobbyists, don't really get into serious fight training. Most just do the drills and use them as "technique practice" without getting into real fight strategy. 

Easy to see how they might think it's all about arm contact and control. However, the control we are developing in training is of our own behaviors, not control of the opponent's arms. We're just using each other to check for and test attributes, not theorizing about fighting techniques that are predicated on pre- and prolonged arm contact.

Actually, VT free fighting is very simple compared to the drills.


----------



## LFJ

Kung Fu Wang said:


> 1. block and punch at the same time - This is the WC most famous strategy 连消带打(Lian Xiao Dai Da) such as to use left Tang Shou to block your opponent's punch and right hand punch on his face.



It's not a particularly special skill to use two arms against one, and in a case where simultaneous attack and defense can be achieved with a single arm, using two would violate VT efficiency principles.

连消带打 primarily means 打手亦是消手, that is dual functions by a single arm in one beat. No block and then punch, which is two beats against one and again violates efficiency principles when the same can be achieve in one beat.


----------



## LFJ

guy b. said:


> All of this theoretical stuff generally assumes that people don't move and for the most part it is nonsense because it derives from games in chi sau. Unfortunately people do move around a lot while trying to hit you and these kind of ideas fall apart rapidly. What works is simple, direct, efficinet, non-contradictory, and able to be done under pressure, i.e. without thinking



Correctamundo!

If people would step away from _chi-sau_ and face someone moving fast, unpredictably, and throwing a lightning quick barrage of attacks at them with full intent they would know these sticky arm, intent-sensing bridging theories don't work.


----------



## LFJ

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I'm quite surprise to hear that
> 
> - to use your blocking arm (such as Tang Shou) to block your opponent's punch,
> - re-direct his arm to be away from your attacking path,
> - use his leading arm to jam his back arm (this is a very important MA strategy),
> - you then attack him through his "side door",
> 
> are not part of the WC "bridge" strategy.



Well, look at your picture and tell me why that _taan-sau_ is not simply a direct punch to the face rapidly followed by another from the right? 

He's entering with the wrong leg, unnecessarily chasing an arm, and punching low when he could much more effectively finish the guy by just punching him in the face.

This is probably a commonly accepted WC technique, but it's bad, like most WC...


----------



## guy b.

LFJ said:


> If people would step away from _chi-sau_ and face someone moving fast, unpredictably, and throwing a lightning quick barrage of attacks at them with full intent they would know these sticky arm, intent-sensing bridging theories don't work



Obviously they don't work. It doesn't even have to be a good fighter to see this: the average person is impossible to deal with using sticking arms, force sensing, and so on. This is why most CMA is so bad- too much time spent on drills, no time spent on fighting. Some CMA have sadly even forgotten what the point was in the first place. Few retain functional understanding, including wing chun.


----------



## KPM

_Few people in fact know the free fighting aspect of VT. Fact is when WSL informed students that sparring was planned for the next class, most didn't turn up._

---Really?  You were there??? 


_Easy to see how they might think it's all about arm contact and control._

---Well, given that Chi Sau is emphasized so much in ALL versions of Wing Chun one would think that making contact with the opponent so that you can control him at close-range to avoid exchanging blows as much as possible is a central strategy in Wing Chun.  This would suggest that the central strategy of Wing Chun is NOT to stand at arm's length and exchange blows like a boxer.

_Actually, VT free fighting is very simple compared to the drills._

---Of course.  If you see free fighting only as exchanging blows like a sparring match.....if you see all of the various things trained in the Wing Chun forms as only abstract ways to learn to punch....then yes, fighting would seem pretty simple.   So why not just learn to box?


----------



## Th0mas

I am not sure if someone has raised this point ( don't have time to read the full thread), apologies if they have?

What is the point of the question.. Is it, can I adapt my WC to be better than a boxer in a boxing ring? Really? Boxing as a fighting art has been adapted and honed to maximise its effectiveness to meet the rule constraints of a boxing bout. As a WC exponent entering the ring to fight a boxer on his terms puts the WC guy at a massive disadvantage .  Don't expect your WC techniques to be optimally effective.

The point is all about context. I am assuming ( not being a WC historian) that at the root of WC are strategies and principles for fighting in civilian self defence. If the question was " in a self defence situation, in a crowded bar, you find yourself facing someone with good boxing skills, what aspects of my WC training would be most effective?" Then the debate on this topic might be a little more focused.

As it is, the simple answer is that No WC is not very effective against a boxer if you are fighting on the boxers terms...


----------



## Th0mas

As an aside having good boxing experience is likely to mean your punching power, speed and accuracy are going to be good, if you get the opportunity to use them as you have trained. However, if you have ever watched pre-match fights at the press conference with world class boxers.. It very rapidly decends into a complete mess, and the fighters look no different from your average guy flailing around and falling over outside the pub...


----------



## guy b.

KPM said:


> _Few people in fact know the free fighting aspect of VT. Fact is when WSL informed students that sparring was planned for the next class, most didn't turn up._
> 
> ---Really?  You were there???



People I trust to tell me the truth were there. I assume the same for LFJ.



> ---Well, given that Chi Sau is emphasized so much in ALL versions of Wing Chun one would think that making contact with the opponent so that you can control him at close-range to avoid exchanging blows as much as possible is a central strategy in Wing Chun.



And one would be completely wrong if they drew this conclusion. Chi sau is an abstract drill allowing two people to correct body position, timing, responses and power for fighting. It is not fighting. This is a very common and pernicious misunderstanding of the VT system which renders it pretty much useless. You can't chi sau with someone who doesn't want to chi sau. Chi sau is not grappling- it is possible to leave chi sau at any time and anyone intent on hurting you will do this as soon as chi sau is attempted.



> This would suggest that the central strategy of Wing Chun is NOT to stand at arm's length and exchange blows like a boxer.



Boxers don't just exchange dumb bombs, and neither does VT. It is a very sophisticated yet also simple, resilient, and effective approach to striking. It is very different to boxing. Effective like boxing, but in a different way.

_



			Actually, VT free fighting is very simple compared to the drills.
		
Click to expand...

_


> ---Of course.  If you see free fighting only as exchanging blows like a sparring match.....if you see all of the various things trained in the Wing Chun forms as only abstract ways to learn to punch....then yes, fighting would seem pretty simple.   So why not just learn to box?



VT is not about exchanging blows (neither is boxing). It is about hitting and not being hit. 90% of VT is learning to punch and to deliver the punch. The punch is the main weapon of VT. Learnig to box or learning MT is a good idea for anyone serious about fighting. In terms of VT it helps to be able to box in a functional way, both in terms of helping training partners and for understanding the reality of fighting. Fighting against a person who can box reveals what can and what cannot work quite well.


----------



## KPM

_People I trust to tell me the truth were there. I assume the same for LFJ._

---But you make such definitive pronouncements like you were actually there.  Memories tend to fade, shift, or get different emphasis over time...especially second or third hand memories.



_And one would be completely wrong if they drew this conclusion. Chi sau is an abstract drill_

---Everything is WSLVT is "abstract" I guess!!!  


_This is a very common and pernicious misunderstanding of the VT system which renders it pretty much useless. You can't chi sau with someone who doesn't want to chi sau. Chi sau is not grappling- it is possible to leave chi sau at any time and anyone intent on hurting you will do this as soon as chi sau is attempted.
_

---Yeah, right.  Go tell Alan Orr his Wing Chun is useless.     Chi Sau is about control.  It is about gaining and maintaining control over the opponent upon any kind of extended contact in an effort to ensure that you can strike him without him being able to defend well or return good strikes of his own.



_Boxers don't just exchange dumb bombs, and neither does VT. It is a very sophisticated yet also simple, resilient, and effective approach to striking. It is very different to boxing. Effective like boxing, but in a different way_.

---I never said anything about "dumb bombs."   But most definitely boxing, and most sparring in general, is about exchanging blows.  Boxing may use footwork to avoid the blow, or may "cover" to defend against the blow, but it is certainly about throwing punches back and forth and hoping that yours lands more often and with more effect than the opponent's!   Most sparring, including Wing Chun guys sparring, is the  same way.  Contrast this to BJJ guys sparring when the intent is to take the opponent to the ground, control him, and make him tap out or go unconscious.



_It is about hitting and not being hit. 90% of VT is learning to punch and to deliver the punch. The punch is the main weapon of VT._

---Then how can you say its not about exchanging blows?   Because exchanging blows doesn't mean you just stand there and let the other guy hit you at random.  Exchanging blows means you are trying to punch the opponent and he is trying to punch you!

_
. In terms of VT it helps to be able to box in a functional way, both in terms of helping training partners and for understanding the reality of fighting._

---Then I will ask again.....why don't you just learn boxing?   Why are you doing all of this "abstract" training?   Why not just get in there and box?   Boxers are formidable in that sparring situation.   They punch and defend very well.  So if that is your goal, why are you spending all of your time training WSLVT forms....doing the dummy form....doing Chi Sau.....learning the pole????  Why not just learn boxing?  That is a heck of a lot more efficient than what you are doing!   In fact, you make your  WSLVT sound like a very inefficient system if it is truly 90% about learning to punch!   Boxing is MUCH more efficient!


----------



## LFJ

I really don't know what to tell you, KPM...

You've been involved in forum discussions on the WSLVT system for several years now and are still totally clueless about it. I would suggest going to check it out in person. What has taken years of explanation to get absolutely nowhere with you could be made crystal clear in person in a matter of minutes.


----------



## wckf92

guy b. said:


> VT is not about exchanging blows (neither is boxing). It is about hitting and not being hit.



Completely agree with this


----------



## guy b.

KPM said:


> _People I trust to tell me the truth were there. I assume the same for LFJ._
> 
> ---But you make such definitive pronouncements like you were actually there.  Memories tend to fade, shift, or get different emphasis over time...especially second or third hand memories.



The crystal clear understanding of the system and how it fits together that I have seen and heard is not indicative of memory problems. Neither are the photos and videos.

_



			This is a very common and pernicious misunderstanding of the VT system which renders it pretty much useless. You can't chi sau with someone who doesn't want to chi sau. Chi sau is not grappling- it is possible to leave chi sau at any time and anyone intent on hurting you will do this as soon as chi sau is attempted.
		
Click to expand...

_


> ---Yeah, right.  Go tell Alan Orr his Wing Chun is useless.     Chi Sau is about control.  It is about gaining and maintaining control over the opponent upon any kind of extended contact in an effort to ensure that you can strike him without him being able to defend well or return good strikes of his own.



Alan Orr's group use chi sau as a kind of standing grappling from which they hit in video clips, but in application this is missing. The reason is because it impossible to stop someone leaving chi sau unless you are holding onto them (i.e. fully grappling). I guess this is why they do acually hold sometimes. If chi sau is about control then it is simply grappling, and there are much more effective menthods of standing grappling than chi sau.

_



			Boxers don't just exchange dumb bombs, and neither does VT. It is a very sophisticated yet also simple, resilient, and effective approach to striking. It is very different to boxing. Effective like boxing, but in a different way
		
Click to expand...

_


> .
> 
> ---I never said anything about "dumb bombs."   But most definitely boxing, and most sparring in general, is about exchanging blows.  Boxing may use footwork to avoid the blow, or may "cover" to defend against the blow, but it is certainly about throwing punches back and forth and hoping that yours lands more often and with more effect than the opponent's!   Most sparring, including Wing Chun guys sparring, is the  same way.  Contrast this to BJJ guys sparring when the intent is to take the opponent to the ground, control him, and make him tap out or go unconscious.



Exchanging blows is a failure of either boxing or VT training, where the aim is hitting while making the opponent miss (boxing) or never hit (vt). The goal in both boxing and VT is for landed strikes to be a 1 way street.

There is no "hoping" in good boxing or VT. It is a strategic and systematic approach to increase the chance of success.

_



			It is about hitting and not being hit. 90% of VT is learning to punch and to deliver the punch. The punch is the main weapon of VT.
		
Click to expand...

_


> ---Then how can you say its not about exchanging blows?   Because exchanging blows doesn't mean you just stand there and let the other guy hit you at random.  Exchanging blows means you are trying to punch the opponent and he is trying to punch you!



Exchange entails tit for tat. This is not the VT strategy.

_



			In terms of VT it helps to be able to box in a functional way, both in terms of helping training partners and for understanding the reality of fighting.
		
Click to expand...

_


> ---Then I will ask again.....why don't you just learn boxing?   Why are you doing all of this "abstract" training?   Why not just get in there and box?   Boxers are formidable in that sparring situation.   They punch and defend very well.  So if that is your goal, why are you spending all of your time training WSLVT forms....doing the dummy form....doing Chi Sau.....learning the pole????  Why not just learn boxing?  That is a heck of a lot more efficient than what you are doing!   In fact, you make your  WSLVT sound like a very inefficient system if it is truly 90% about learning to punch!   Boxing is MUCH more efficient!



The VT approach is different to the boxing approach. For me the VT approach is more suitable. All of the types of training you mention above are training the VT punch, so no wasted time or inefficiency. What is inefficient is training without understanding.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

guy b. said:


> VT is not about exchanging blows (neither is boxing). It is about hitting and not being hit.


You have 2 arms and your opponent also has 2 arms. So what's the best strategy to avoid being hitting?


----------



## KPM

_If chi sau is about control then it is simply grappling, and there are much more effective menthods of standing grappling than chi sau._

---Interesting that you are willing to call Chi Sau "standing grappling" and say there are more effective methods, while at the same time being unwilling to call your Wing Chun a form of boxing (which is how you describe it) and not admit that there are more effective (at least more efficiently trained) methods.



_Exchanging blows is a failure of either boxing or VT training, where the aim is hitting while making the opponent miss (boxing) or never hit (vt). The goal in both boxing and VT is for landed strikes to be a 1 way street._

---If you think you can participate in a "real fight" as a "1 way street" and not get hit, then you are living in the same fantasy world that you seem to think most Wing Chun people live in.   Not a single boxer expects to go into the ring and not get hit at all.  He may hope and plan to come out on top in the "exchange" and make it as one-sided as possible, but he knows there is going to be an exchange of blows.



_Exchange entails tit for tat. This is not the VT strategy._

---No it doesn't.  I already stated that the "exchange of blows" I'm talking about is an opponent trying to hit you, and you trying to hit the opponent.  Two punching methods meeting in opposition is going to produce an "exchange of  blows" probably 9 times out of 10.



_The VT approach is different to the boxing approach. For me the VT approach is more suitable. All of the types of training you mention above are training the VT punch, so no wasted time or inefficiency. What is inefficient is training without understanding_.

---I guess it depends on your definition of "efficiency."   Anyone with a little common sense can examine what training a boxer does to get good at punching and compare it to the entire WSLVT syllabus, which you say is all about training to get good at punching, and reach the conclusion that what you are doing must not be all that efficient.  Not if it takes learning all the forms, the dummy, and the pole method just to get good at punching.  If I was concerned only with punching well, I would stick with boxing myself.  More result in much less time!


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> You've been involved in forum discussions on the WSLVT system for several years now and are still totally clueless about it. I would suggest going to check it out in person. What has taken years of explanation to get absolutely nowhere with you could be made crystal clear in person in a matter of minutes.



Oh I'm not as "clueless" as you think.  I just don't believe about half the BS that you and Guy put out.


----------



## Flying Crane

So...I guess it's safe to say that wing chun isn't your cup of tea?

Well, now that we've settled that, moving on.


----------



## Phobius

Kung Fu Wang said:


> You have 2 arms and your opponent also has 2 arms. So what's the best strategy to avoid being hitting?



Movement in both body and feet, besides arms which you already covered.


----------



## drop bear

Th0mas said:


> I am not sure if someone has raised this point ( don't have time to read the full thread), apologies if they have?
> 
> What is the point of the question.. Is it, can I adapt my WC to be better than a boxer in a boxing ring? Really? Boxing as a fighting art has been adapted and honed to maximise its effectiveness to meet the rule constraints of a boxing bout. As a WC exponent entering the ring to fight a boxer on his terms puts the WC guy at a massive disadvantage .  Don't expect your WC techniques to be optimally effective.
> 
> The point is all about context. I am assuming ( not being a WC historian) that at the root of WC are strategies and principles for fighting in civilian self defence. If the question was " in a self defence situation, in a crowded bar, you find yourself facing someone with good boxing skills, what aspects of my WC training would be most effective?" Then the debate on this topic might be a little more focused.
> 
> As it is, the simple answer is that No WC is not very effective against a boxer if you are fighting on the boxers terms...



Especially if linage is more important than practicality. 

Most boxers will jump outside the rule set in a street fight. 

Apparently you cant if you chun.


----------



## KPM

Flying Crane said:


> So...I guess it's safe to say that wing chun isn't your cup of tea?
> 
> Well, now that we've settled that, moving on.




Not at all true!  You obviously haven't been here long!


----------



## guy b.

Kung Fu Wang said:


> You have 2 arms and your opponent also has 2 arms. So what's the best strategy to avoid being hitting?



Loi lau hoi sung, lat sau jik chung

Lin siu dai da


----------



## guy b.

KPM said:


> _If chi sau is about control then it is simply grappling, and there are much more effective menthods of standing grappling than chi sau._
> 
> ---Interesting that you are willing to call Chi Sau "standing grappling" and say there are more effective methods, while at the same time being unwilling to call your Wing Chun a form of boxing (which is how you describe it) and not admit that there are more effective (at least more efficiently trained) methods.



You just described it as functionally identical to grappling. You want me to call VT boxing but it is functionally different to boxing.

_



			Exchanging blows is a failure of either boxing or VT training, where the aim is hitting while making the opponent miss (boxing) or never hit (vt). The goal in both boxing and VT is for landed strikes to be a 1 way street.
		
Click to expand...

_


> ---If you think you can participate in a "real fight" as a "1 way street" and not get hit, then you are living in the same fantasy world that you seem to think most Wing Chun people live in.   Not a single boxer expects to go into the ring and not get hit at all.  He may hope and plan to come out on top in the "exchange" and make it as one-sided as possible, but he knows there is going to be an exchange of blows.



If a high level professional boxer or MT fighter got into a striking match with the average person then it would indeed be a 1 way street most of the time. That the goal doesn't quite match the limitations of physical performance is not a criticism of the goal or the system- merely a recognition that humans are fallible. The goal in both boxing and VT is to avoid being hit.

_



			Exchange entails tit for tat. This is not the VT strategy.
		
Click to expand...

_


> ---No it doesn't.  I already stated that the "exchange of blows" I'm talking about is an opponent trying to hit you, and you trying to hit the opponent.  Two punching methods meeting in opposition is going to produce an "exchange of  blows" probably 9 times out of 10.



Well then you are misusing the term "exchange". Exchange entails mutual giving and receiving. Maybe look up a better word for whatever you are tring to say.

_



			The VT approach is different to the boxing approach. For me the VT approach is more suitable. All of the types of training you mention above are training the VT punch, so no wasted time or inefficiency. What is inefficient is training without understanding
		
Click to expand...

_


> .
> 
> ---I guess it depends on your definition of "efficiency."   Anyone with a little common sense can examine what training a boxer does to get good at punching and compare it to the entire WSLVT syllabus, which you say is all about training to get good at punching, and reach the conclusion that what you are doing must not be all that efficient.  Not if it takes learning all the forms, the dummy, and the pole method just to get good at punching.  If I was concerned only with punching well, I would stick with boxing myself.  More result in much less time!



It doesn't depend on the definition of efficiency at all. The VT punch, VT strategy, VT concepts are different from boxing punches, strategy, concepts. Therefore it makes sense that they are trained in different ways. If you stuck with boxing over VT then you would be learning boxing rather than VT. Boxing punching is not VT punching.


----------



## KPM

_If a high level professional boxer or MT fighter got into a striking match with the average person then it would indeed be a 1 way street most of the time. That the goal doesn't quite match the limitations of physical performance is not a criticism of the goal or the system- merely a recognition that humans are fallible. The goal in both boxing and VT is to avoid being hit._

---The last I checked, a high level professional boxer is not training to get into a striking match with the average person.  Are you saying you are training to face the lowest common denominator in a fight and counting on your opponent being a scrub?  Sounds like that fantasy world we talked about again!  



_Well then you are misusing the term "exchange". Exchange entails mutual giving and receiving. Maybe look up a better word for whatever you are tring to say._

---And you are just being obtuse.  Maybe you should look that up!  



_It doesn't depend on the definition of efficiency at all. The VT punch, VT strategy, VT concepts are different from boxing punches, strategy, concepts. Therefore it makes sense that they are trained in different ways. If you stuck with boxing over VT then you would be learning boxing rather than VT. Boxing punching is not VT punching._

----And.......you missed the point entirely.  But I'm not surprised.  Let me spell it out again......if your goal is simply to learn to punch well and effectively in a fight or sparring match involving an EXCHANGE of blows....you hitting him and him trying to hit you (as in fighting someone who is NOT a scrub)....then training boxing is a far more efficient way to do that than spending many years learning the Wing Chun forms....the Wing Chun dummy....Wing Chun Chi Sau.... and the Wing Chun pole, and trying to understand all of the in-depth "abstract" teaching involved!   And if WSLVT is  a  vastly superior way to punch effectively in a confrontation, then the typical WSLVT person should have no problem with a boxer, and we should start seeing some WSLVT show up in the boxing ring!


----------



## Flying Crane

KPM said:


> Not at all true!  You obviously haven't been here long!


You're right. Not long at all.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> Oh I'm not as "clueless" as you think.  I just don't believe about half the BS that you and Guy put out.



Interesting. In all the forum discussions on WSLVT you've been in, you have not once made any statement that suggests you have half a clue what it's about.

Also interesting, you don't believe what practitioners of a system you've never trained in have to say about it... Guy and I have never met, but we are on the same page and understand each other perfectly. You don't, because you've never experienced a similar system and look at it through the lens of other lineages that are entirely different.

I just made a post on the "Deficiencies in WSL teachings" thread describing how we use _pun-sau_ abstractly for developing correct punching force and various facets of the VT punch. It's not something that can be learned and developed properly by just punching.

You think _chi-sau_ and everything else in the system is "inefficient" for us because we don't think of it as technique practice, looking at how the arms "control the opponent" and whatnot, and you think our punch is just a punch. In fighting it becomes that simple. But it doesn't get that way by just punching.

By the way, KPM, there's no shame in being clueless on a system you have no direct experience with. Just don't talk about its method being inefficient when you know neither the method nor its goal.


----------



## guy b.

KPM said:


> Are you saying you are training to face the lowest common denominator in a fight and counting on your opponent being a scrub? Sounds like that fantasy world we talked about again!



VT training is aimed at hitting and ending the fight quickly, as simply and effectively as possible. The aim of any striking system is always to end the fight without being hit. That aims are not always achieved is not a criticism of those aims. After all, if we train to avoid being hit then over time we get better at avoiding being hit. If we train to accept being punched in the face then this is what tends to happen when we fight.



KPM said:


> .if your goal is simply to learn to punch well and effectively in a fight or sparring match involving an EXCHANGE of blows....you hitting him and him trying to hit you (as in fighting someone who is NOT a scrub)....then training boxing is a far more efficient way to do that than spending many years learning the Wing Chun forms....the Wing Chun dummy....Wing Chun Chi Sau.... and the Wing Chun pole, and trying to understand all of the in-depth "abstract" teaching involved!



You only believe this to be the case because you don't understand the VT system. All of the VT training builds the ability to move and punch to end the fight rapidly and safely. This includes forms, dummy, chi sau, pole. That you don't understand this at all is a bit mind boggling. You obviously train a very different system.

Remember that what you see of boxing is the cream of the elite performers. These are people who have systematised the generic info taught to amateur boxers in terms of ring success under a specific rule set, and then been taught by elite trainers with their own system organisation and knowledge. You do not see the many people who simply train and never make it anywhere beyond gym sparring or low lever amateur fights.



KPM said:


> And if WSLVT is a vastly superior way to punch effectively in a confrontation, then the typical WSLVT person should have no problem with a boxer, and we should start seeing some WSLVT show up in the boxing ring!



For ring fighting under boxing rules, boxing is the best thing to train. For ring fighting under MT rules, MT is the best thing to train. For ring fighting under knockdown karate rules, knockdown karate is the best thing to train, for ring fighting under MMA rules, MMA is the best thing to train etc, etc.

VT is not ring fighting. It has a particular systematised approach aimed at ending street confrontation very rapidly. Having trained VT against reasonable boxers, having boxed at University, and also having trained MT I would say that VT brings something that is not present in boxing or MT. It is a very fast and safe way to punch in a high very stress situation where gross motor skill and thinking is compromised, and its design makes it particularly safe for the user in situations where there is no preparation and where time is critical. Safety and apparent speed (to the opponent) are the primary advantages of VT.


----------



## guy b.

edit


----------



## drop bear

guy b. said:


> VT training is aimed at hitting and ending the fight quickly, as simply and effectively as possible. The aim of any striking system is always to end the fight without being hit. That aims are not always achieved is not a criticism of those aims. After all, if we train to avoid being hit then over time we get better at avoiding being hit. If we train to accept being punched in the face then this is what tends to happen when we fight.



There are so many mitigating circumstances to that idea.


----------



## KPM

_Also interesting, you don't believe what practitioners of a system you've never trained in have to say about it... Guy and I have never met, but we are on the same page and understand each other perfectly. You don't, because you've never experienced a similar system and look at it through the lens of other lineages that are entirely different._

---That's funny, since you denigrate everyone else's Wing Chun.  Have you trained in all systems of Wing Chun?


_You think chi-sau and everything else in the system is "inefficient" for us because we don't think of it as technique practice, looking at how the arms "control the opponent" and whatnot, and you think our punch is just a punch. In fighting it becomes that simple. But it doesn't get that way by just punching._

---Boxers fight pretty well and punch pretty well without all that WSLVT training.  The fight is pretty simple for them as well.  So again, it is you and Guy describing your system as being all about punching....90% punching if I recall.  If that is true....then yes, that seems very inefficient when boxing training can accomplish the same goal.  I don't have to have been through your entire training curriculum to reach that conclusion.  And I'm guessing that there are plenty of other people in the WSLVT lineage that wouldn't describe things quite the way you two have.


----------



## KPM

_VT training is aimed at hitting and ending the fight quickly, as simply and effectively as possible._

---Well, then I'll state the obvious one more time.  Boxing training is a much efficient method to achieve that goal than the entire curriculum of WSLVT.   You sure have a lot of "abstract" training for something that should be so simple.


_The aim of any striking system is always to end the fight without being hit. That aims are not always achieved is not a criticism of those aims. After all, if we train to avoid being hit then over time we get better at avoiding being hit. If we train to accept being punched in the face then this is what tends to happen when we fight._

---Well sure.  And a boxer trains plenty of footwork and upper body movement to avoid being hit as much as possible.  In a perfect match he would go into the ring and dominate the opponent without the other guy ever landing a punch.  But they don't count on that happening.


_
You only believe this to be the case because you don't understand the VT system._

---Oh, I understand the WING CHUN system fine.   I just don't buy into the line you and LFJ are putting out.   LFJ just told me I don't understand what you guys are saying because I have never trained your system.  But at the same time you guys are saying that your system is THE Wing Chun system.  You don't see a disconnect and contradiction there?  You don't see that what you are describing differs from everyone else's Wing Chun?  Even other WSL lineage people?  And you believe that everyone else is wrong and misunderstands Wing Chun, rather than seeing your PBWSLVT approach as a specific development along a specific tactical approach?   That's what I find "mind boggling"! 


_All of the VT training builds the ability to move and punch to end the fight rapidly and safely. This includes forms, dummy, chi sau, pole. That you don't understand this at all is a bit mind boggling. You obviously train a very different system._

---If you don't understand that this seems very inefficient and time consuming compared to boxing training, which is accomplishing the same goal that you have described, then you obviously lack some common sense.   You see, I view training the forms, the dummy, Chi Sau, and the pole has having a lot more purpose and depth than just learning to punch well.  I understand what they are for.  I just don't agree with what YOU are saying they are for.   Because it all becomes pretty redundant if all you are worrying about is punching!



_Remember that what you see of boxing is the cream of the elite performers._

---BS.  The average amateur "club" boxer would give a Wing Chun guy with 10 years of training a good show in a sparring match.



_VT is not ring fighting. It has a particular systematised approach aimed at ending street confrontation very rapidly._

---Well, I've got news for you.  A street confrontation can involve a whole lot more than punching!


_ It is a very fast and safe way to punch in a high very stress situation where gross motor skill and thinking is compromised, and its design makes it particularly safe for the user in situations where there is no preparation and where time is critical. Safety and apparent speed (to the opponent) are the primary advantages of VT._

---Ah!  Finally!  That is most reasonable thing you've said so far!   This I can agree with!  But why would you then exclude so many other elements of a possible street confrontation?   Again, you may need more than just punching in a fight, and Wing Chun as most people train it contains much more than just punching.  What you have been describing all this time is a very one-dimensional view of Wing Chun.   How is it that you cannot see that?


----------



## Phobius

KPM said:


> Ah!  Finally!  That is most reasonable thing you've said so far!   This I can agree with!  But why would you then exclude so many other elements of a possible street confrontation?   Again, you may need more than just punching in a fight, and Wing Chun as most people train it contains much more than just punching.  What you have been describing all this time is a very one-dimensional view of Wing Chun.   How is it that you cannot see that?



I think guy b. said previously that he does not want to train those other parts because he believes he can train other systems to learn to deal with those scenarios a lot better than doing WC/VT. So if that is the case maybe this is exactly the focus he wants. Of course I can not speak for him, it is just something I remember him saying.

As for LFJ I do not know, can not recall him saying anything on the matter.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> ---That's funny, since you denigrate everyone else's Wing Chun.  Have you trained in all systems of Wing Chun?



I can denigrate obviously unrealistic bridging theories because I have fighting experience, but I won't say I don't believe you if you say they are part of the system you train.



> ---Boxers fight pretty well and punch pretty well without all that WSLVT training.  The fight is pretty simple for them as well.  So again, it is you and Guy describing your system as being all about punching....90% punching if I recall.  If that is true....then yes, that seems very inefficient when boxing training can accomplish the same goal.



But boxing doesn't accomplish the same goal. Our punching methods are entirely different and require different training methods.


----------



## guy b.

drop bear said:


> There are so many mitigating circumstances to that idea.



In fighting it is a good idea to have experience of being hit and of being beaten, because without that it is difficult to know what to do when things go against you. But it isn't a good idea to learn to accept being hit as something ok that just happens. You should always try not to be hit.


----------



## guy b.

KPM said:


> Boxing training is a much efficient method to achieve that goal than the entire curriculum of WSLVT. You sure have a lot of "abstract" training for something that should be so simple.



Boxing is not VT; this is why the training is different. The goals of boxing and of VT are also different. Boxing is a set of competition rules and doesn't come as a systematised MA, and although different trainers teach various boxing systems, all are optimised for fighting in a ring wearing gloves to a particular rule set. VT is a Chinese MA system not aimed at fighting in a ring to a particular rule set wearing gloves. 

"boxing training" is not a thing per se, because all boxing trainers teach different systems of boxing. Some bad trainers don't teach any system, or teach a system they don't understand very well. The VT system is a very particular systematised approach to fighting which, if not taught with the correct understanding, falls to bits and is a complete waste of time. 



KPM said:


> But they don't count on that happening.



Neither do we.



KPM said:


> Oh, I understand the WING CHUN system fine. I just don't buy into the line you and LFJ are putting out. LFJ just told me I don't understand what you guys are saying because I have never trained your system. But at the same time you guys are saying that your system is THE Wing Chun system. You don't see a disconnect and contradiction there?



The problem with the idea that your system is a system/a system that you understand is that you don't present arguments that hang together. Your thinking is incoherent. I don't see why you would be angry at me or LFJ for pointing this out. 



KPM said:


> The average amateur "club" boxer would give a Wing Chun guy with 10 years of training a good show in a sparring match.



That depends of the VT guy. Some yes, some no.



KPM said:


> A street confrontation can involve a whole lot more than punching!



VT is about imposing upon the fight, not reacting to impositions from the opponent as they arise



KPM said:


> why would you then exclude so many other elements of a possible street confrontation? Again, you may need more than just punching in a fight, and Wing Chun as most people train it contains much more than just punching. What you have been describing all this time is a very one-dimensional view of Wing Chun.



VT is a way of ending standing confrontations quickly, primarily using hand strikes. This is a high percentage approach to fighting because most confrontations begin with hand strikes standing up. If you wish to train your VT for all eventualities including standing grappling and ground grappling, then you are taking a very unsuitable tool for the job and wasting a lot of tme trying to make it fit the job. Far more efficient to get really good where the system is good, and train other systems if you need anything else. Personally I also train bjj for the ground because it is pure fantasy to think VT can help there.


----------



## KPM

_The problem with the idea that your system is a system/a system that you understand is that you don't present arguments that hang together. Your thinking is incoherent. I don't see why you would be angry at me or LFJ for pointing this out. _

---  So what "incoherent" thinking do you believe you have pointed out?



_VT is about imposing upon the fight, not reacting to impositions from the opponent as they arise_

--You're just talking in circles now. 



_VT is a way of ending standing confrontations quickly, primarily using hand strikes._

---Sounds like boxing to me.


. _If you wish to train your VT for all eventualities including standing grappling and ground grappling, then you are taking a very unsuitable tool for the job and wasting a lot of tme trying to make it fit the job._

---Now it is my turn to say you clearly don't understand Wing Chun!    If you could see beyond the punch, you would see that Wing Chun has plenty to offer.  Again, its about establishing control of an opponent, not exchanging blows.  Establishing control over an opponent can take many forms.  Chi Sau is about gaining some level of control and superior positioning. Breaking the opponent's structure is an important part of this.  There are some straight-forward joint manipulations that are part of the system.  Heck, that classic old video tape that WSL did even shows him doing some simple foot sweeps!


----------



## drop bear

guy b. said:


> In fighting it is a good idea to have experience of being hit and of being beaten, because without that it is difficult to know what to do when things go against you. But it isn't a good idea to learn to accept being hit as something ok that just happens. You should always try not to be hit.



Not getting hit is this wierd non intuitive process. You have to accept being hit or you will fight flinchy. 

When you can cope with being hit then you can work the defences that help you win fights.


----------



## guy b.

drop bear said:


> Not getting hit is this wierd non intuitive process. You have to accept being hit or you will fight flinchy.
> 
> When you can cope with being hit then you can work the defences that help you win fights.



There's a difference between accepting being hit and learning to deal with being hit. Acceptance is a bad mental attitude to cultivate in terms of being punched by another person. 

I think you are probably talkiing about people beginning boxing where, yes, it is daunting to realise that someone is going to try and hit you in the face. You can learn to handle it though without accepting it as a normal and inevitable part of fighting. A stoic attitude is not what makes the best fighers.


----------



## drop bear

guy b. said:


> There's a difference between accepting being hit and learning to deal with being hit. Acceptance is a bad mental attitude to cultivate in terms of being punched by another person.
> 
> I think you are probably talkiing about people beginning boxing where, yes, it is daunting to realise that someone is going to try and hit you in the face. You can learn to handle it though without accepting it as a normal and inevitable part of fighting. A stoic attitude is not what makes the best fighers.



Not really if you box. You are going to have to accept you will get hit pretty much until you stop boxing.


----------



## drop bear

guy b. said:


> Boxing is not VT; this is why the training is different. The goals of boxing and of VT are also different. Boxing is a set of competition rules and doesn't come as a systematised MA, and although different trainers teach various boxing systems, all are optimised for fighting in a ring wearing gloves to a particular rule set. VT is a Chinese MA system not aimed at fighting in a ring to a particular rule set wearing gloves.
> 
> "boxing training" is not a thing per se, because all boxing trainers teach different systems of boxing. Some bad trainers don't teach any system, or teach a system they don't understand very well. The VT system is a very particular systematised approach to fighting which, if not taught with the correct understanding, falls to bits and is a complete waste of time.




This is not really correct. Because boxing actually does what it sets out to be. Punch top tier guys in the face while avoiding being punched in that competition setting.

VT may aim to end street confrontation quickly or whatever but does not set out to actually find top tier fighters and end them as quick as they can on the street.

So you could not find a VT guy who performs well at that goal.

You could identify a boxer who performs well at his.

So the idea of correct understanding becomes subjective in VT case


----------



## guy b.

drop bear said:


> Not really if you box. You are going to have to accept you will get hit pretty much until you stop boxing.



For me it is not acceptance. There are many guys in amateur boxing and MT who are happy to block with their face so long as they can hit the opponent. Boxing has a very high failure rate as a useful method of fighting.


----------



## guy b.

drop bear said:


> VT may aim to end street confrontation quickly or whatever but does not set out to actually find top tier fighters and end them as quick as they can on the street.



Several VT groups that I know of either train with boxers or have guys with boxing experience. Real fighting is a very different thing from boxing in a ring. 



drop bear said:


> So you could not find a VT guy who performs well at that goal.



I think you could actually. Boxing doesn't have a single systematic approach to real conflict. Where boxing systems have been designed by individuals they are focused on righ fighting, which is different to a real violent encounter. 



drop bear said:


> So the idea of correct understanding becomes subjective in VT case



Testing is very important in VT. That it isn't a spectacle you can observe doesn't mean it is not happening


----------



## drop bear

guy b. said:


> Several VT groups that I know of either train with boxers or have guys with boxing experience. Real fighting is a very different thing from boxing in a ring.
> 
> 
> 
> I think you could actually. Boxing doesn't have a single systematic approach to real conflict. Where boxing systems have been designed by individuals they are focused on righ fighting, which is different to a real violent encounter.
> 
> 
> 
> Testing is very important in VT. That it isn't a spectacle you can observe doesn't mean it is not happening



Exept it dosent test in a manner that reflects its goals.

So either sport fighting is not street fighting and so you have to street fight people.

Or it is close enough and you have to compete.

But either way you have to present a varifiable record of you doing that.

That is kind of the standard.

I mean if you build houses for a living you cant have on your resume.

Just because i built a house you cant observe dosent mean it is not an awesome house.


----------



## drop bear

guy b. said:


> For me it is not acceptance. There are many guys in amateur boxing and MT who are happy to block with their face so long as they can hit the opponent. Boxing has a very high failure rate as a useful method of fighting.



I haven't met many who chin parry on purpose.

Which boxers are you describing.


----------



## guy b.

drop bear said:


> Exept it dosent test in a manner that reflects its goals.
> 
> So either sport fighting is not street fighting and so you have to street fight people.
> 
> Or it is close enough and you have to compete.



How do you know what people you don't know do to test their MA? There are other options than the two you give above and it isn't an either/or choice. Many people I have trained with have tested in both of the above ways, and also in other ways. Different testing tests different aspects of real fighting. Sport fighting is a great test of physical ability, determination, and ability to make it work against another person who has prepared in a similar way. But it isn't the be all and end all of fighting.


----------



## KPM

guy b. said:


> Where boxing systems have been designed by individuals they are focused on righ fighting, which is different to a real violent encounter.



Says the guy that thinks its all  about punching.


----------



## guy b.

drop bear said:


> I haven't met many who chin parry on purpose.
> 
> Which boxers are you describing.



I did amateur boxing at university for several years and was quite good at that level, winning several amateur fights. When I left university I trained MMA and MT through my 20s, along with bjj and was quite serious in my training. I am late 30s now and still go to MT sparring for a bit of exercise in the medium sized town where I live. Thoughout that time, the vast majority of people that I have met in amateur boxing and MT did a little bit of training before starting low level bouts. At this point they usually continue on for a little bit then quit, drop back to club sparring level and don't compete, or go on to continue (low %). All of these people consider themselves to have boxing or MT experience, but most of that experience isn't worth an awful lot. Even guys who continue on and compete are a very mixed bag. This is mostly because decent training is quite hard to come by and a lot of coaches simply don't have a systematic strategic approach to the sport, focusing almost exclusively on basics. Good coaches are rare. 

This means that many guys are either figuring something out for themselves with more or less success, or just taking a very basic approach. Taking a basic approach entails getting hit in the face because you have no intelligent coupling of movement to avoid getting hit and imposition of your game upon the opponent to make them do what you want. I would say that the average club amateur in either boxing or MT in the UK goes forward, is ok with taking a hit with tucked chin provided they can also land one, and lacks any more complex skill set. This means that in a fight they are waging a war of attrition against any opponent who also has the basics of how to punch and move covered, while against a skilled opponent they can become not much more than a human punchbag. 

I had a good coach for amateur boxing at University who did teach a systematic approach to amateur boxing which relied on what he had worked out himself from his competition career, but since that time I have seen some awful teaching in boxing, MMA striking and MT. To me a low standard and lack of systematic approach seems more like the rule than the exception. 

This problem is particularly obvious in MMA where you see many people under 1 year of pretty basic training having bought all of the gloves, wraps, gumshield and Thai shorts considering themselves to be "fighters". This is obviously nonsense, and beyond the basics such people people usually have no good understanding of how to achieve what they want to against a resisting opponent. Much less even than the average amateur boxer under 1 year. 

My experience leads me to believe that the automatic defference often seen for "the boxer" is misplaced, because the majority of actual boxers don't understand much about boxing. Also I would say that assuming boxing is a single entity is not true. Different boxing coaches teach different boxing systems, while some bad coaches teach no system because they do not have a systematic understanding. Finally boxing systems are aimed at ring competition. Sometimes these systems align quite well with actual fighting, and sometimes they don't. There is no guarantee that "a boxer" is going to be an effective fighter. Boxing systems are too varied to make such blanket statements, and training experience too varied in quality to make any statement about any individual boxer. Good boxers usuing a boxing system suitable for real fighting can indeed be formidable opponents in a real fight. But many boxers are not. 

VT in comparison is a particular systematised approach to fighting that emphasises apparent speed and safety. It takes account of the reality of actual fighting and makes some assumptions in the approach it takes. Because VT teaches a systematised approach to everyone, VT produces people who are from day one focused on imposing that approach on the fight. It is an approach that works in real fighting, unlike some styles of boxing, and it is a shocking/difficult/counter intuitive approach for the opponent. You may not like the approach that VT takes to real fighting, and you may disagree with the assumptions it makes, but as a rule I think it turns out people much more prepared for real fighting than the average boxing training.


----------



## drop bear

guy b. said:


> How do you know what people you don't know do to test their MA? There are other options than the two you give above and it isn't an either/or choice. Many people I have trained with have tested in both of the above ways, and also in other ways. Different testing tests different aspects of real fighting. Sport fighting is a great test of physical ability, determination, and ability to make it work against another person who has prepared in a similar way. But it isn't the be all and end all of fighting.



OK. You make the distinction between sport fighting and a real world violent encounter.

So unless you test via a real world violent encounter whatever you test will be basically sport fighting in one form or another. Whether it be sparring,combat scenarios,drills or a written report. It is not going to be a real world encounter.


----------



## drop bear

guy b. said:


> I did amateur boxing at university for several years and was quite good at that level, winning several amateur fights. When I left university I trained MMA and MT through my 20s, along with bjj and was quite serious in my training. I am late 30s now and still go to MT sparring for a bit of exercise in the medium sized town where I live. Thoughout that time, the vast majority of people that I have met in amateur boxing and MT did a little bit of training before starting low level bouts. At this point they usually continue on for a little bit then quit, drop back to club sparring level and don't compete, or go on to continue (low %). All of these people consider themselves to have boxing or MT experience, but most of that experience isn't worth an awful lot. Even guys who continue on and compete are a very mixed bag. This is mostly because decent training is quite hard to come by and a lot of coaches simply don't have a systematic strategic approach to the sport, focusing almost exclusively on basics. Good coaches are rare.
> 
> This means that many guys are either figuring something out for themselves with more or less success, or just taking a very basic approach. Taking a basic approach entails getting hit in the face because you have no intelligent coupling of movement to avoid getting hit and imposition of your game upon the opponent to make them do what you want. I would say that the average club amateur in either boxing or MT in the UK goes forward, is ok with taking a hit with tucked chin provided they can also land one, and lacks any more complex skill set. This means that in a fight they are waging a war of attrition against any opponent who also has the basics of how to punch and move covered, while against a skilled opponent they can become not much more than a human punchbag.
> 
> I had a good coach for amateur boxing at University who did teach a systematic approach to amateur boxing which relied on what he had worked out himself from his competition career, but since that time I have seen some awful teaching in boxing, MMA striking and MT. To me a low standard and lack of systematic approach seems more like the rule than the exception.
> 
> This problem is particularly obvious in MMA where you see many people under 1 year of pretty basic training having bought all of the gloves, wraps, gumshield and Thai shorts considering themselves to be "fighters". This is obviously nonsense, and beyond the basics such people people usually have no good understanding of how to achieve what they want to against a resisting opponent. Much less even than the average amateur boxer under 1 year.
> 
> My experience leads me to believe that the automatic defference often seen for "the boxer" is misplaced, because the majority of actual boxers don't understand much about boxing. Also I would say that assuming boxing is a single entity is not true. Different boxing coaches teach different boxing systems, while some bad coaches teach no system because they do not have a systematic understanding. Finally boxing systems are aimed at ring competition. Sometimes these systems align quite well with actual fighting, and sometimes they don't. There is no guarantee that "a boxer" is going to be an effective fighter. Boxing systems are too varied to make such blanket statements, and training experience too varied in quality to make any statement about any individual boxer. Good boxers usuing a boxing system suitable for real fighting can indeed be formidable opponents in a real fight. But many boxers are not.
> 
> VT in comparison is a particular systematised approach to fighting that emphasises apparent speed and safety. It takes account of the reality of actual fighting and makes some assumptions in the approach it takes. Because VT teaches a systematised approach to everyone, VT produces people who are from day one focused on imposing that approach on the fight. It is an approach that works in real fighting, unlike some styles of boxing, and it is a shocking/difficult/counter intuitive approach for the opponent. You may not like the approach that VT takes to real fighting, and you may disagree with the assumptions it makes, but as a rule I think it turns out people much more prepared for real fighting than the average boxing training.



So good VT is better than bad boxing?

Fair enough.

But there is exelent boxing that is easily definable. There is no exelent VT.

I mean who is your top VT fighters and how many fights have they won?


----------



## guy b.

drop bear said:


> OK. You make the distinction between sport fighting and a real world violent encounter.
> 
> So unless you test via a real world violent encounter whatever you test will be basically sport fighting in one form or another. Whether it be sparring,combat scenarios,drills or a written report. It is not going to be a real world encounter.



People do test in real world violent encounters. Other alternatives are unfriendly training venue visits (i.e. challenges), simulated real encounters, either suited up or not, security work. In UK quite a few have tested via unlicensed bare knuckle. These all test different things and are useful.


----------



## guy b.

drop bear said:


> So good VT is better than bad boxing?
> 
> Fair enough.



I think that VT is a better option for the average person in terms of real fighting ability than average boxing, meaning the kind of thing the average person is going to find themselves training in the average boxing gym in the average town. 

There are of course some excellent boxing coaches. Access to these is one problem. The other is working out whether the boxing system they teach is good for real fighting or not. VT is good for real fighting in my experience. 



> But there is exelent boxing that is easily definable. There is no exelent VT.
> 
> I mean who is your top VT fighters and how many fights have they won?



There is excellent VT. There is also excellent boxing that is good for fighting and excellent boxing that is not. The criterion for excellent boxing is not fighting, it is success in boxing matches. 

VT does not have sanctioned bouts with a rule set and so askinghow many fights the best VT fighters have won is meaningless.


----------



## drop bear

guy b. said:


> I think that VT is a better option for the average person in terms of real fighting ability than average boxing, meaning the kind of thing the average person is going to find themselves training in the average boxing gym in the average town.
> 
> There are of course some excellent boxing coaches. Access to these is one problem. The other is working out whether the boxing system they teach is good for real fighting or not. VT is good for real fighting in my experience.
> 
> 
> 
> There is excellent VT. There is also excellent boxing that is good for fighting and excellent boxing that is not. The criterion for excellent boxing is not fighting, it is success in boxing matches.
> 
> VT does not have sanctioned bouts with a rule set and so askinghow many fights the best VT fighters have won is meaningless.



Vt also dosent have more street fights than anyone else. 

So also meaningless.

So aside from opinion how do you determine exelent vt?


----------



## drop bear

guy b. said:


> People do test in real world violent encounters. Other alternatives are unfriendly training venue visits (i.e. challenges), simulated real encounters, either suited up or not, security work. In UK quite a few have tested via unlicensed bare knuckle. These all test different things and are useful.



Ok so they are comparable to a real world encounter but a competition is not?

Vt do more real world encounters than boxers?

Mabye there are more vt bouncers? 

More vt bare knuckle competitors?


----------



## guy b.

drop bear said:


> Vt also dosent have more street fights than anyone else.
> 
> So also meaningless.



What is also meaningless? Don't believe I asked a similar question.



drop bear said:


> aside from opinion how do you determine exelent vt?



How do you determine it in other people or how do you determine it in yourself?


----------



## drop bear

guy b. said:


> What is also meaningless? Don't believe I asked a similar question.
> 
> 
> 
> How do you determine it in other people or how do you determine it in yourself?



Vt,s street credentials are meaningless unless there are actual street credentials.

Determine in other people to start.  So i want to find the best vt fighting coach in my area.  How do i find out who that is.


----------



## guy b.

drop bear said:


> Vt,s street credentials are meaningless unless there are actual street credentials.
> 
> Determine in other people to start.  So i want to find the best vt fighting coach in my area.  How do i find out who that is.



I don't really mind what you think of VT or what the general public perception of it is. I'm not trying to advertise it to you or anyone else. There are ways to find out if you are interested.


----------



## guy b.

drop bear said:


> Ok so they are comparable to a real world encounter but a competition is not?



As I said all test in different ways.


----------



## guy b.

drop bear said:


> Vt do more real world encounters than boxers?



'Boxers' are not all doing the same thing. Boxers are people training for and fighting in boxing matches. There are many different boxing systems, and many with no systematised understanding at all. I am sure that there are some people who have trained for and competed in boxing matches who are also good fighters. I am also sure there are many who are not.


----------



## drop bear

guy b. said:


> 'Boxers' are not all doing the same thing. Boxers are people training for and fighting in boxing matches. There are many different boxing systems, and many with no systematised understanding at all. I am sure that there are some people who have trained for and competed in boxing matches who are also good fighters. I am also sure there are many who are not.



We have already established that there are good and bad boxers.  Just like we determine there is good and bad vt. 

How do you tell who the good vt guys are from the bad? 

Systemised understanding really should come from some sort of practical application. The ends justify the means.  In this case.


----------



## drop bear

guy b. said:


> As I said all test in different ways.



We dont all determine the validity of the test based on whether or not it is the same as a real world encounter.

But you do.


----------



## drop bear

guy b. said:


> I don't really mind what you think of VT or what the general public perception of it is. I'm not trying to advertise it to you or anyone else. There are ways to find out if you are interested.



It is not what i think.  It is not opinion. That is like choosing a car based on the colour.

If vt quality is decided on opinion then fair enough.

It is what it is.


----------



## guy b.

> We have already established that there are good and bad boxers. Just like we determine there is good and bad vt.



Being a good boxer is no guarantee of being good at fighting, because boxing is a sports rule set, not a fighting system. Being good at VT is a guarantee of being good at fighting. I wasn't aware of good and bad VT. VT is VT, a coherent conceptual and strategic framework for fighting. There may be people who are not good at VT or who do not understand it. That is their problem. 



drop bear said:


> How do you tell who the good vt guys are from the bad?



By visiting them and trying what they are offering



drop bear said:


> Systemised understanding really should come from some sort of practical application.



VT comes from practical understanding and works very well



drop bear said:


> We dont all determine the validity of the test based on whether or not it is the same as a real world encounter



If the aim is real fighting then closeness to real fighting is important in the test



drop bear said:


> If vt quality is decided on opinion then fair enough



You can decide VT quality in any way you like. If you are happy with opinion then who am I to stand in your way? You are your own person.


----------



## drop bear

guy b. said:


> Being a good boxer is no guarantee of being good at fighting, because boxing is a sports rule set, not a fighting system. Being good at VT is a guarantee of being good at fighting. I wasn't aware of good and bad VT. VT is VT, a coherent conceptual and strategic framework for fighting. There may be people who are not good at VT or who do not understand it. That is their problem.



Sorry.  I have failed to see the link between vt and it being a fighting system.

When do these fighters actually fight people?

I mean that is the difference you are making.  A boxing competition is not a street fight.  It is close.  But you have said.  Close and the real thing are different things.


----------



## drop bear

guy b. said:


> You can decide VT quality in any way you like. If you are happy with opinion then who am I to stand in your way? You are your own person.



I would like to be able to tell oobjectively who is the most capable. And not have to rely on opinion. Or at least have opinion added on to the objective assessment. And not instead.


----------



## guy b.

drop bear said:


> I mean that is the difference you are making. A boxing competition is not a street fight. It is close. But you have said. Close and the real thing are different things.



Boxing systems are designed for success in boxing competitions. VT is designed for success in real fighting. 



drop bear said:


> I would like to be able to tell oobjectively who is the most capable. And not have to rely on opinion. Or at least have opinion added on to the objective assessment. And not instead.



Then go ahead and find out. I am not sure what it has to do with me?


----------



## drop bear

guy b. said:


> Boxing systems are designed for success in boxing competitions. VT is designed for success in real fighting.
> 
> 
> 
> Then go ahead and find out. I am not sure what it has to do with me?



I am not sure how vt is designed for success in real fighting if there is no success in real fighting.

And there seems to be no way to find out if vt is good or not.


----------



## guy b.

drop bear said:


> I am not sure how vt is designed for success in real fighting if there is no success in real fighting.



There is success in real fighting using VT



> And there seems to be no way to find out if vt is good or not.



You can go and find out if VT is good or not if you want to


----------



## drop bear

guy b. said:


> There is success in real fighting using VT
> 
> 
> 
> You can go and find out if VT is good or not if you want to



Is there any more success in vt,s real fighting than any other art?  

Like boxing for an example.

Where would i find out if vt was good?


----------



## Phobius

drop bear said:


> Is there any more success in vt,s real fighting than any other art?



Honest answer, not that it is the one you will be getting probably... is no. How you perform is not in your system but in you as a fighter. Just because you train a system that has been devoted for the scenario you are in does not mean you are a fighter.



drop bear said:


> Like boxing for an example.
> 
> Where would i find out if vt was good?



VT is found to be good through tournaments and so on which is open to all styles. Same for WC. It can also be found good through personal experience for you if you train in it. But from an outside, how to prove VT is good? Well honestly you can't, only thing one can prove is if a person is a fighter or not. What is better? I am not gonna go there, it is a silly question and some fanatics here may think to have an answer but it is silly to think it has an answer.

Reason we have these endless debates about lineages, styles, pureness, fiction of the past, religious beliefs and so on. There is no proof boxing is good either, only that good fighters have chosen boxing as their profession, could be because it is better, or because they simply do it since you can not compete in boxing if you don't and perhaps in that case they would never have become such great fighters.

But that is not the answer you are gonna get, instead you will probably hear that you have to visit a club and see for yourself. Truth be told what you find at your local club is most likely not even close to what the people here are talking about. Reason is that skills differ, and with different levels of skills on teachers... there will be different levels of skills on the fighters. So discussing lineage is silly, same as style.


----------



## guy b.

drop bear said:


> Is there any more success in vt,s real fighting than any other art?
> 
> Like boxing for an example.
> 
> Where would i find out if vt was good?



Where would I find out if boxing was good in real fighting? 

Maybe you could devote your time to compiling statistical data on fighting system and sport competition experence vs outcome of real fights. It seems important to you to have some sort of answer that you can look up on the internet. 

For most people you would find out if any physical or mental skill or knowledge was useful by personally experiencing it, learning it, and tesing its utility in terms of the job you wished it to do. 

Is it a good idea to plant a vineyard? Maybe strawberries would be better? How do I decide if exercise regime x or y is better? Will I be more successful in these clothes or these other ones? What is the best way to plan for my financial future? Is the Spanish languange good?


----------



## JPinAZ

Lately I've been agreeing with some of what you've been saying Guy, but in just a few posts you've really exposed your inexperience here.



guy b. said:


> Being a good boxer is no guarantee of being good at fighting, because boxing is a sports rule set, not a fighting system.



This is a silly opinion (bordering on stupidity). What exactly do you think 'good at boxing' means?

While 'boxing' is a ruleset, it is a ruleset formed around hand-to-hand _fighting_. To think these skills developed by a 'good boxer'  doesn't translate directly into 'fighting' skills only points towards the inexperience of the one making such an uneducated the statement. They directly apply, because while yes, boxing has rules, they are still very much fighting - and regularly. Otherwise, you won't be any good.

I would expect a lot better coming from someone that has often bragged about only sparring bare-knuckle. Hell, why don't you into a decent boxing gym, ask for someone 'good at boxing' to step out of the ring, take the gloves off, and then tell them they can't fight. Tell us all how that works out for you lol



guy b. said:


> Being good at VT is a guarantee of being good at fighting.



By itself, another unfounded and uneducated opinion.
First, you haven't defined what 'being good at VT' even means. Good at what? forms? chi sau? drills? 

Second, I would agree that WCK is a _great _system for developing solid fighting skills and is why I no longer train boxing and now teach/train WCK. But that doesn't mean a good boxer can't fight. Heck, I wasn't the greatest boxer, but what I learned in the gym made me pretty hard to handle when I was younger in real fights.

Back to WCK - being good at the system/curriculumn in itself is no guarantee that you will be 'good at fighting'. Bottom line is, you only get good at fighting by sparring/fighting. And this is true for _any_ art, VT and boxing included. Which is what good boxers do on a very regular basis and which is why your first statement is so silly.


----------



## guy b.

JPinAZ said:


> Lately I've been agreeing with some of what you've been saying Guy, but in just a few posts you've really exposed your inexperience here.



I am glad you have been agreeing with me, but you are wrong to think that I am inexperienced.



JPinAZ said:


> What exactly do you think 'good at boxing' means?



Being good at boxing means being effecive in boxing competition under the boxing rule set. Being good at boxing does not guarantee skill at fighting, because boxing is not fighting. Some boxing systems taught by some coaches happen to be much better for actual fighting than some others. Some boxing coaches teach no system at all. I know this because I have experienced it. 



JPinAZ said:


> While 'boxing' is a ruleset, it is a ruleset formed around hand-to-hand _fighting_. To think these skills developed by a 'good boxer' doesn't translate directly into 'fighting' skills only points towards the inexperience of the one making such an uneducated the statement. They directly apply, because while yes, boxing has rules, they are still very much fighting - and regularly. Otherwise, you won't be any good.



It is very possible to be an effective boxer without being a good fighter. I have known real people where this was the case. The most obvious and common example would be the amateur jab and move fighter without an inside game. There are many of these guys in amateur boxing and no, many are not particularly effective fighters because their offensive game is weak and they lack depth. Their control of a fighting situation is therefore fragile and they can be beaten by an average determined person, a confident person, an angry person, and so on. 

The other problem with believing that boxing qualifies a person as good at fighting is that boxing is not an approach to the fight. It is not a martial art. It has no cohesive strategy, tactics, thoughts about how to control and finish. It has no recovery actions, no damage control. All of this depends on the actual system of boxing taught to the boxer. Some boxing systems are good for fighting, others are not. It is a lottery. 



JPinAZ said:


> By itself, another unfounded and uneducated opinion.
> First, you haven't defined what 'being good at VT' even means. Good at what? forms? chi sau? drills?



Forms, chi sau, other drills are not the system. Being good at the whole system, testing included, is an indication of fighting ability.


----------



## KPM

You see Jonathan, the problem here is that you are talking about "boxing".  But "boxing" takes many forms and has not been passed down accurately from the true masters.   You should be taking about "bhoxing."  Only a selected number of people actually learned the true "bhoxing" art.  Everyone else has learned a sub-standard version that has departed from the original concepts.  They are all doing an "application-based" approach taken from the various drills they learn in training.  True "bhoxing" is a very abstract system known only by a few.


----------



## guy b.

KPM said:


> You see Jonathan, the problem here is that you are talking about "boxing".  But "boxing" takes many forms and has not been passed down accurately from the true masters.   You should be taking about "bhoxing."  Only a selected number of people actually learned the true "bhoxing" art.  Everyone else has learned a sub-standard version that has departed from the original concepts.  They are all doing an "application-based" approach taken from the various drills they learn in training.  True "bhoxing" is a very abstract system known only by a few.



Boxing does indeed take many forms. There are good teachers of boxing and bad teachers of boxing, just as there are boxing systems useful for fighting and boxing systems less useful for fighting.


----------



## JPinAZ

guy b. said:


> I am glad you have been agreeing with me, but you are wrong to think that I am inexperienced.



Then stop saying things that only inexperienced people would say!



guy b. said:


> Being good at boxing means being effecive in boxing competition under the boxing rule set. Being good at boxing does not guarantee skill at fighting, because boxing is not fighting. Some boxing systems taught by some coaches happen to be much better for actual fighting than some others. Some boxing coaches teach no system at all. I know this because I have experienced it.



Guy, I thought we were talking about 'good boxers'. Now you're changing you wording to 'effective', talking about the quality of coaches, boxing systems, etc. Let's stick to the topic _you_ brought up for at least more than one post, shall we? A 'good boxer' is a good boxer,_ regardless_ who trained him, what 'boxing system' they trained under or where. Doesn't even matter what color shoes they wear or what they ate for breakfast, if you're good you're good. I gave you more credit than that to understand something so simple. Maybe I shouldn't have...



guy b. said:


> It is very possible to be an effective boxer without being a good fighter. I have known real people where this was the case. The most obvious and common example would be the amateur jab and move fighter without an inside game. There are many of these guys in amateur boxing and no, many are not particularly effective fighters because their offensive game is weak and they lack depth. Their control of a fighting situation is therefore fragile and they can be beaten by an average determined person, a confident person, an angry person, and so on.



Nice how you change from 'good' to 'effective'...
So, these people you have known, they could fight well in the ring but didn't have skills outside the ring? Who are these people? How many street fights did they lose? Are you talking about one guy, or a whole bunch of 'good boxers' that are losing out on the street?

It seems you are now talking about people not very 'good' at boxing at all. I wouldn't say people with weak offensive games, lacking depth or no inside game wouldn't be considered 'good' by any means. That sounds like someone not very experienced, not well rounded and not very 'good' in general. Maybe these the same guys you are talking about that weren't good at fighting....

Anyway, again, if you don't feel the skills that makes someone good in the ring translate to fighting skills outside the ring with the gear off, feel free to take me up on my challenge I mentioned earlier and tell us how it goes! I mean, if you believe your theory is sound, it shouldn't be an issue for you..



guy b. said:


> The other problem with believing that boxing qualifies a person as good at fighting is that boxing is not an approach to the fight.



Now you're talking boxing in general - what happened to someone being 'good' at boxing? Again, for at least more than one post, let's try to stick to the topics you brought up



guy b. said:


> It [boxing] is not a martial art. It has no cohesive strategy, tactics, thoughts about how to control and finish. It has no recovery actions, no damage control. All of this depends on the actual system of boxing taught to the boxer. Some boxing systems are good for fighting, others are not. It is a lottery.



ahh, so boxers that win fights are just lucky with a winning lottery ticket? haha, I guess skill doesn't mean anything in your world. 



guy b. said:


> Forms, chi sau, other drills are not the system. Being good at the whole system, testing included, is an indication of fighting ability.



No, being good at fighting is an indication of fighting ability. And, I don't need to train someone in the 'whole system' to make them a good fighter in WCK. In fact, I can do that with san sau training - I only need to understand the system of WCK as the instructor.


----------



## drop bear

guy b. said:


> Where would I find out if boxing was good in real fighting?
> 
> Maybe you could devote your time to compiling statistical data on fighting system and sport competition experence vs outcome of real fights. It seems important to you to have some sort of answer that you can look up on the internet.
> 
> For most people you would find out if any physical or mental skill or knowledge was useful by personally experiencing it, learning it, and tesing its utility in terms of the job you wished it to do.
> 
> Is it a good idea to plant a vineyard? Maybe strawberries would be better? How do I decide if exercise regime x or y is better? Will I be more successful in these clothes or these other ones? What is the best way to plan for my financial future? Is the Spanish languange good?



So we can't determine what constitutes a street fighting art from any other sort of art?

Or what will be good as a street fighting art unless you train in the art and then street fight people?


guy b. said:


> Where would I find out if boxing was good in real fighting?
> 
> Maybe you could devote your time to compiling statistical data on fighting system and sport competition experence vs outcome of real fights. It seems important to you to have some sort of answer that you can look up on the internet.
> 
> For most people you would find out if any physical or mental skill or knowledge was useful by personally experiencing it, learning it, and tesing its utility in terms of the job you wished it to do.
> 
> Is it a good idea to plant a vineyard? Maybe strawberries would be better? How do I decide if exercise regime x or y is better? Will I be more successful in these clothes or these other ones? What is the best way to plan for my financial future? Is the Spanish languange good?



Except i am not making this unarguable claim about boxing and vt. 

 if there is no way to determine if a dedicated street system works for the purpose it is intended. And i hardly think do it and find out is an endorsement.

How can you reasonably make the distinction between a martial art that trains for competition and one that dosent?

I am happy for people to say street specific. But if they do i think they have to validate the performance of that system based on what they are claiming is the difference.


----------



## drop bear

Phobius said:


> Honest answer, not that it is the one you will be getting probably... is no. How you perform is not in your system but in you as a fighter. Just because you train a system that has been devoted for the scenario you are in does not mean you are a fighter.
> 
> 
> 
> VT is found to be good through tournaments and so on which is open to all styles. Same for WC. It can also be found good through personal experience for you if you train in it. But from an outside, how to prove VT is good? Well honestly you can't, only thing one can prove is if a person is a fighter or not. What is better? I am not gonna go there, it is a silly question and some fanatics here may think to have an answer but it is silly to think it has an answer.
> 
> Reason we have these endless debates about lineages, styles, pureness, fiction of the past, religious beliefs and so on. There is no proof boxing is good either, only that good fighters have chosen boxing as their profession, could be because it is better, or because they simply do it since you can not compete in boxing if you don't and perhaps in that case they would never have become such great fighters.
> 
> But that is not the answer you are gonna get, instead you will probably hear that you have to visit a club and see for yourself. Truth be told what you find at your local club is most likely not even close to what the people here are talking about. Reason is that skills differ, and with different levels of skills on teachers... there will be different levels of skills on the fighters. So discussing lineage is silly, same as style.



Exept swimmers are not good wrestlers who in turn are not good violin players. 

I am pretty sure training plays a part in that.


----------



## Phobius

drop bear said:


> Exept swimmers are not good wrestlers who in turn are not good violin players.
> 
> I am pretty sure training plays a part in that.



Yes, I agree. But I believe training to be the result of the fighter, not the system. The system is just a way to train to prepare yourself. Here I believe boxers are very dangerous and I respect them, there is in my opinion which is in no way fact based more good fighters coming out of boxing practise than there is from WC/WT/VT.

I do however not know if that depends on boxing training being better as a system, or simply because of the mentality of those joining a boxing gym is different.

Perhaps there are many kung fu clubs that simply do not wish to attract that kind of mentality as for instance boxing.

But if you train hard and train right, you will become what your system intends to build. In most cases a fighter, in other cases a damn good violin player or swimmer. Does not mean all who trains in a specific discipline/type of swimming will become great, some simply don't have the mentality or focus to ever become great.

Of course you can not become a fighter from spending all your days painting, but I was of course assuming a base in martial arts. If the fighter feels he has a flaw I believe the mentality of a fighter should be to remedy that flaw. So he is loyal to his own development, which often can lead to MMA because more systems may be needed for his personal development.

The systems themselves should be kept clean, but the fighter can still learn them all. They are clean in their own essence but in his fighting style it is mixed together to create something even better. Maybe a controversial thing to write on a Wing Chun forum but it is my thought on the matter.


----------



## drop bear

Phobius said:


> Yes, I agree. But I believe training to be the result of the fighter, not the system. The system is just a way to train to prepare yourself. Here I believe boxers are very dangerous and I respect them, there is in my opinion which is in no way fact based more good fighters coming out of boxing practise than there is from WC/WT/VT.
> 
> I do however not know if that depends on boxing training being better as a system, or simply because of the mentality of those joining a boxing gym is different.
> 
> Perhaps there are many kung fu clubs that simply do not wish to attract that kind of mentality as for instance boxing.
> 
> But if you train hard and train right, you will become what your system intends to build. In most cases a fighter, in other cases a damn good violin player or swimmer. Does not mean all who trains in a specific discipline/type of swimming will become great, some simply don't have the mentality or focus to ever become great.
> 
> Of course you can not become a fighter from spending all your days painting, but I was of course assuming a base in martial arts. If the fighter feels he has a flaw I believe the mentality of a fighter should be to remedy that flaw. So he is loyal to his own development, which often can lead to MMA because more systems may be needed for his personal development.
> 
> The systems themselves should be kept clean, but the fighter can still learn them all. They are clean in their own essence but in his fighting style it is mixed together to create something even better. Maybe a controversial thing to write on a Wing Chun forum but it is my thought on the matter.



So if a school turns out ten great fighters. That is not because they have a good system?


----------



## wckf92

JPinAZ said:


> Then stop saying things that only inexperienced people would say!
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, I thought we were talking about 'good boxers'. Now you're changing you wording to 'effective', talking about the quality of coaches, boxing systems, etc. Let's stick to the topic _you_ brought up for at least more than one post, shall we? A 'good boxer' is a good boxer,_ regardless_ who trained him, what 'boxing system' they trained under or where. Doesn't even matter what color shoes they wear or what they ate for breakfast, if you're good you're good. I gave you more credit than that to understand something so simple. Maybe I shouldn't have...
> 
> 
> 
> Nice how you change from 'good' to 'effective'...
> So, these people you have known, they could fight well in the ring but didn't have skills outside the ring? Who are these people? How many street fights did they lose? Are you talking about one guy, or a whole bunch of 'good boxers' that are losing out on the street?
> 
> It seems you are now talking about people not very 'good' at boxing at all. I wouldn't say people with weak offensive games, lacking depth or no inside game wouldn't be considered 'good' by any means. That sounds like someone not very experienced, not well rounded and not very 'good' in general. Maybe these the same guys you are talking about that weren't good at fighting....
> 
> Anyway, again, if you don't feel the skills that makes someone good in the ring translate to fighting skills outside the ring with the gear off, feel free to take me up on my challenge I mentioned earlier and tell us how it goes! I mean, if you believe your theory is sound, it shouldn't be an issue for you..
> 
> 
> 
> Now you're talking boxing in general - what happened to someone being 'good' at boxing? Again, for at least more than one post, let's try to stick to the topics you brought up
> 
> 
> 
> ahh, so boxers that win fights are just lucky with a winning lottery ticket? haha, I guess skill doesn't mean anything in your world.
> 
> 
> 
> No, being good at fighting is an indication of fighting ability. And, I don't need to train someone in the 'whole system' to make them a good fighter in WCK. In fact, I can do that with san sau training - I only need to understand the system of WCK as the instructor.



I agree about the San sau part.


----------



## Phobius

drop bear said:


> So if a school turns out ten great fighters. That is not because they have a good system?



Depends, they can have a tremendous program for building up physical strength, cardiovascular exercises and a mental development program out of this world.

Or a good system. Or perhaps a bad system but one guy filling in the gaps for his ten  friends after class.

I am just saying it is damn near impossible to know if something is good without being there yourself.

I think boxing gyms are more likely to build great fighters but then again I don't worry about good or bad systems. Instead I pick up stuff from them if it may make me better. 
I can do it right or wrong, don't know until I know.


----------



## guy b.

JPinAZ said:


> Guy, I thought we were talking about 'good boxers'. Now you're changing you wording to 'effective', talking about the quality of coaches, boxing systems, etc. Let's stick to the topic _you_ brought up for at least more than one post, shall we? A 'good boxer' is a good boxer,_ regardless_ who trained him, what 'boxing system' they trained under or where. Doesn't even matter what color shoes they wear or what they ate for breakfast, if you're good you're good. I gave you more credit than that to understand something so simple. Maybe I shouldn't have.



I will reiterate. With drop bear I have been talking about the average boxing training you are likely to receive in the average town.

Good in this context means successful in amateur shows, low level paid fights, that kind of thing. The kind of boxing that is available to the average person. The kind of boxing I have direct experience of.

In boxing being good is being effective in the arena and under the rules which you choose. Many good boxers would make awful MT boxers, because they don't have a style suited to the rule set. A lot of what they do leaves them very open for knees, elbows, leg kicks, and head kicks. Nearly all good boxers would make terrible judo or jiu jitsu fighters because they don't understand the strategy and have none of the tools required. Similarly many good boxers would make awful street fighters because they are points pickers without sufficient stopping power who become ineffective as soon as a clinch happens.



			
				guy b. said:
			
		

> I think that VT is a better option for the average person in terms of real fighting ability than average boxing, meaning the kind of thing the average person is going to find themselves training in the average boxing gym in the average town.



If we are talking about boxing as a martial art (i.e. its application to real fighting), then looking at the best pro boxers in the world is inappropriate.


----------



## Marnetmar

I think the whole "boxing is a sport, WC is meant for fighting, the rules just don't favor it" thing is kinda claptrap. It is not that easy to Chun somebody that has broken timing, takes advantage of a whole bunch of different angles and doesn't want to bridge with you if you don't spar against them regularly, which 99% of Chunners don't except in the case of against someone who's imitating boxing thinking that a bunch of slow jabs that stay there in the air and hugely telegraphed haymakers are all that boxing is.


----------



## drop bear

Marnetmar said:


> I think the whole "boxing is a sport, WC is meant for fighting, the rules just don't favor it" thing is kinda claptrap. It is not that easy to Chun somebody that has broken timing, takes advantage of a whole bunch of different angles and doesn't want to bridge with you if you don't spar against them regularly, which 99% of Chunners don't except in the case of against someone who's imitating boxing thinking that a bunch of slow jabs that stay there in the air and hugely telegraphed haymakers are all that boxing is.



Well chun doesn't real fight more than any other art.  We are all training in what is not a real fight.

So if you are in the gym and a wing chun guy or a boxer hands you your butt under any reasonable representation of a fight.  Then he is probably better than you.

Big gloves. Little gloves. The brightness of the lights. The humidity of the floor.  Are all quite simply very small variables in what was a very simple dynamic. You hit him harder and more often or he hit you.

That is a constant that can be taken into any situation.

Q What if you fight on the stairs.

A I hit harder and more often.

Q what if their is multiple attackers.

A i hit harder and more often.

And so on.

Now there are elements that need to be added to basic principles of fighting.  But those basic principle are the core of your martial art.

You can even take this to the striking,grappling debate.  Good strikers dont throw that out the window to deal with good grapplers.  They add extra elements to their basic core skills.

Unfortunately this may mean that we are not as cool as we thought we were  when we had all the excuses. But it does give us an opportunity to actually learn the skills we are paying the money for.


----------



## Juany118

Marnetmar said:


> I think the whole "boxing is a sport, WC is meant for fighting, the rules just don't favor it" thing is kinda claptrap. It is not that easy to Chun somebody that has broken timing, takes advantage of a whole bunch of different angles and doesn't want to bridge with you if you don't spar against them regularly, which 99% of Chunners don't except in the case of against someone who's imitating boxing thinking that a bunch of slow jabs that stay there in the air and hugely telegraphed haymakers are all that boxing is.




I have known a few boxers, one an Amateur Champion back in his younger days.  He is almost middle aged now so not quite as strong, not quite as fast but he has kept up on the skill side.  One thing I noticed was that because of their training  he was used to beating the heavy bag etc while taped up.  However I once saw him take a guy apart in a bar fight BUT he was in the hospital later himself getting X-rays to make sure nothing was broken because he was punching the way he would in the ring and his hands were simply unprepared for unsupported impact.  So being for the ring can make a difference in a real life fight BUT as this scenario shows it's not enough to make a difference.

Now I have never done full contact sparring with him, but I have watched him spar someone else who studies Wing Chun from the same lineage, just a different Sifu.   The first few times sparring he was kinda taken aback.  The WC guy handled a boxer the way I think you should.  It wasn't really the fact that the WC guy didn't really do the typical "feel em out and test em" thing (he did a little just to see what my buddy led with, what seemed strongest and to test footwork), as much as he was used to the the range boxers use, he simply wasn't ready for how the WC guy would essentially flood him to get to how close the WC guy was comfy fighting at.  They even had a "no kicks" rule the first few times and my buddy was constantly going for a clinch or backing up to get more distance, he really couldn't take the offensive, the WC guy had it, until he got used to it.  Once he got used to it his superior skill came to the fore BUT then as a gentleman (a lost art imo) he decided to forego the "no kick" rule.  This brought him back to a spot of bother, because while the rule was "no kicks to the knee" he took some solid shots to the thigh that could have landed him in the hospital if they had struck the knee.  The problem is though that again, the WC guy did not hesitate to bridge the gap to attack, but now instead of trying to get inside the Boxer's reach, he stayed out side it and simulated trying to destroy the Boxer's legs.  My buddy moved to the West Coast though before I could see if he learned how to deal with that so I likely won't know if he could have adapted to the full combination.

What does the above mean in short form?  Every video I see of WC vs Boxer has the Wing Chun guy looks like a boxer.  They dance back and forth and the only time you see Wing Chun is when the WC guy and the Boxer meet at what I will call "boxing range".  You either need to stay at long range with kicks or get inside quick.

If a WC guy has to fight a boxer I don't think you can fool around you need to be aggressive as hell.  If you are doing it in real life where a Boxer is trying to kick your ***, as long as you can articulate that, do not be afraid to help him visit the Orthopedic Surgeon for his knee.  If you are in the ring however, you can't do that, so (again just my opinion) you kinda have to think like Henry the V "once more into the breach!!!"  You need to get inside that reach of the Boxer as WC is designed to fight closer.  This way he can't hit you with full power while you continue your attack.  Does this mean you risk taking a hit on your way in?  Hell yeah it does, BUT if you don't go in, if you find yourself spending most of your time in the Boxer's range, you are playing to their strengths and not the strength of Wing Chun.

Again just my opinion. /shrug


----------



## Marnetmar

I'm actually very much in the same camp, WC needs to do a lot more closing the gap and fighting close in if it wants to work effectively. What I'm saying though is that closing the gap without getting clocked on the way in is more difficult than a lot of WC guys think it is, which is why a lot of WC guys play the kickboxing game when it comes to sparring, not necessarily just with a boxer but with each other as well to some degree -- they don't know what to do when they aren't bridged and are scared to come in because it's completely foreign territory to them.


----------



## Juany118

Marnetmar said:


> I'm actually very much in the same camp, WC needs to do a lot more closing the gap and fighting close in if it wants to work effectively. What I'm saying though is that closing the gap without getting clocked on the way in is more difficult than a lot of WC guys think it is, which is why a lot of WC guys play the kickboxing game when it comes to sparring, not necessarily just with a boxer but with each other as well to some degree -- they don't know what to do when they aren't bridged and are scared to come in because it's completely foreign territory to them.



Yeah I think the problem is this.  WC, from everything I can see was designed and trained in this way in China and Hong Kong in the post WWII period but this was because it wasn't just taught as a fighting art but used as such due to the culture in main land China (who is the better Martial Artist) in post war Hong Kong, (the same compounded by the chaos of refugees rolling in).  However in the West, while a fighting art in origin I think it isn't trained with real fighting in mind.  So much of the training is done already at a point of contact and then all too often the students are basically told "time to spar" and closing gap is almost an alien concept.

That is part of the difficulty, lack of training.  With that lack of training comes hesitation.  Now it's still difficult but I think these two things compound the difficulty.

I am kinda lucky in that my Sifu teaches this but he uses it in this was because he is also a former LE Operator and now a LE trainer, as such he trains the necessity of aggression, closing that gap for WC to be fully effective.


----------



## drop bear

Marnetmar said:


> I'm actually very much in the same camp, WC needs to do a lot more closing the gap and fighting close in if it wants to work effectively. What I'm saying though is that closing the gap without getting clocked on the way in is more difficult than a lot of WC guys think it is, which is why a lot of WC guys play the kickboxing game when it comes to sparring, not necessarily just with a boxer but with each other as well to some degree -- they don't know what to do when they aren't bridged and are scared to come in because it's completely foreign territory to them.



You need a certain sort of fighter to be able to constantly press.  And that means cardio and toughness.

If you are training one without the other it can get you in trouble.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> You need a certain sort of fighter to be able to constantly press.  And that means cardio and toughness.
> 
> If you are training one without the other it can get you in trouble.



We are a actually in agreement for a change  , if you mean mental as well as physical toughness because in terms of this tactic the biggest factor is mental.  Physical is important don't get me wrong, but all the realistic physical toughness in the world can't protect you from the hit you will take if you hesitate, even for a moment.  But if you aren't willing, as my old partner used to say, "let you *** hang out and risk it being shot off".  If you can adopt that mind set you will be touched no doubt, but if the opponent's skill and readiness being =/< than yours, you won't really be hit (meaning bell rung).

Tbh I think that is what he meant by "getting clocked on the way in." Yeah it's about skill but it is also very much about just surrendering to what you have to do so there is no hesitation.

I am so glad about your mention of cardio.  My school actually has one day a week that is a conditioning class.  Basically think CrossFit with the MA fundamentals.  You need that endurance to win.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> We are a actually in agreement for a change  , if you mean mental as well as physical toughness because in terms of this tactic the biggest factor is mental.  Physical is important don't get me wrong, but all the realistic physical toughness in the world can't protect you from the hit you will take if you hesitate, even for a moment.  But if you aren't willing, as my old partner used to say, "let you *** hang out and risk it being shot off".  If you can adopt that mind set you will be touched no doubt, but if the opponent's skill and readiness being =/< than yours, you won't really be hit (meaning bell rung).
> 
> Tbh I think that is what he meant by "getting clocked on the way in." Yeah it's about skill but it is also very much about just surrendering to what you have to do so there is no hesitation.
> 
> I am so glad about your mention of cardio.  My school actually has one day a week that is a conditioning class.  Basically think CrossFit with the MA fundamentals.  You need that endurance to win.



Yeah.  Because no experts ever compare chun to boxing.  You cant get a comparison there.  But there is a type of boxer that uses pressure so you can get an indication of how to use that forward pressure and the tools you need to develop to be successful with it.
Boxing Styles: Swarmer, Slugger, Boxer-Puncher | Commando Boxing - How to Box

Mental toughness will be an advantage regardless as to how you fight.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> Yeah.  Because no experts ever compare chun to boxing.  You cant get a comparison there.  But there is a type of boxer that uses pressure so you can get an indication of how to use that forward pressure and the tools you need to develop to be successful with it.
> Boxing Styles: Swarmer, Slugger, Boxer-Puncher | Commando Boxing - How to Box
> 
> Mental toughness will be an advantage regardless as to how you fight.



Oh yeah my point is that, in this case, mental toughness needs to be trained.  You need to be trained to, and practice, closing that gap so you don't hesitate.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> Yeah.  Because no experts ever compare chun to boxing.  You cant get a comparison there.  But there is a type of boxer that uses pressure so you can get an indication of how to use that forward pressure and the tools you need to develop to be successful with it.
> Boxing Styles: Swarmer, Slugger, Boxer-Puncher | Commando Boxing - How to Box
> 
> Mental toughness will be an advantage regardless as to how you fight.



One other point.  Training against boxers shouldn't be necessary, what I am speaking of is actually the heart and soul of Wing Chun.  The hand techniques are all about getting into that close range where it excels.  Due to the stance it's "punching" range is closer that a typical boxer and it is equally at home in trapping/grappling range. 

The problem is that the way it is to often taught is with the student already in that range.  You start drills, even sparring often, with one hand in contact.  Chi-sao also contributes to this.  As such many students aren't used to closing the gap the way you would in a "real" conflict or a boxing ring.  That isn't to say all sifus fail to train this, some do.  Also some people come to Wing Chun already possessing this skill via experience, but that doesn't change the issue I note above.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> One other point.  Training against boxers shouldn't be necessary, what I am speaking of is actually the heart and soul of Wing Chun.  The hand techniques are all about getting into that close range where it excels.  Due to the stance it's "punching" range is closer that a typical boxer and it is equally at home in trapping/grappling range.
> 
> Those articles by jack slack for example are universal comparisons of how fighting styles work.
> 
> The problem is that the way it is to often taught is with the student already in that range.  You start drills, even sparring often, with one hand in contact.  Chi-sao also contributes to this.  As such many students aren't used to closing the gap the way you would in a "real" conflict or a boxing ring.  That isn't to say all sifus fail to train this, some do.  Also some people come to Wing Chun already possessing this skill via experience, but that doesn't change the issue I note above.


Not really training against boxers.  But the boffins who work this stuff out generally dont bother looking at chun.  So it is hard to get good tactical advice.

How is the stance something that makes it shorter range?

For me my optimum range is the end of my extended hand. With a whole heap of conditions.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> Not really training against boxers.  But the boffins who work this stuff out generally dont bother looking at chun.  So it is hard to get good tactical advice.
> 
> How is the stance something that makes it shorter range?
> 
> For me my optimum range is the end of my extended hand. With a whole heap of conditions.



I get your first point.  My point however is that Wing Chun is by its nature about closing the gap.  The thing is, unlike 18th and 19th Century China, early to mid 20th Century Hong Kong, most people aren't learning any Martial Art with real fighting in mind.  They are thinking about competition against people practising the same art and/or self defense and in SD people often think about the other guy coming to you.

As for the stance, 2 things.  First many/perhaps most boxers lean forward when you do your full power punches 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





Proper WC structure has no lean.  There are subtle things you do with your lower body to align the spine with your legs so that when you step in with the punch to deliver power the punch is, for lack of a better term, coming from the ground.  Your elbow is also down and you are punching from your center line which assists in providing power without having to "lean" into it.

Next, at least in my Lineage, your arm at the conclusion of a punch is never fully extended.  In practice you should see a bend in the realm of 130-140 degrees when your fist is impacting.  Next you can close even further you can use elbow and knee techniques.  This isn't to say boxers can't fight in these ranges, it's just that basically all of WCs techniques, with the exception of kicks, work closer than where many of boxing power strikes are optimized for.

It's why you hear things like "WC can fight in a bathroom..." or "...can fight in a phone booth."


----------



## geezer

Juany118 said:


> It's why you hear things like "WC can fight in a bathroom..." or "...can fight in a phone booth."



So wing Chun is totally unnecessary in today's world because:

1. My kids fight constantly in the bathroom without ever having studied WC.
2. Phone booths died out when the world went to cell phones.

If it weren't for broom closets and a few undersized elevators in old buildings, WC would be totally obsolete.


----------



## Phobius

geezer said:


> So wing Chun is totally unnecessary in today's world because:
> 
> 1. My kids fight constantly in the bathroom without ever having studied WC.
> 2. Phone booths died out when the world went to cell phones.
> 
> If it weren't for broom closets and a few undersized elevators in old buildings, WC would be totally obsolete.



So best defense to WC, take the stairs and do not work as a janitor?


----------



## Juany118

geezer said:


> So wing Chun is totally unnecessary in today's world because:
> 
> 1. My kids fight constantly in the bathroom without ever having studied WC.
> 2. Phone booths died out when the world went to cell phones.
> 
> If it weren't for broom closets and a few undersized elevators in old buildings, WC would be totally obsolete.



1. Well it could be said, if your kids are fighting each other, if they knew WC they would have more training opportunities.  On the other hand if it's as school you could find yourself in the School Resource Officer's and Principal's office a lot, so there is a trade off


----------

