# How to Box with Wing Chun



## KPM (Oct 1, 2014)

Hey Guys!  This is my first attempt at a youtube video.I&#8217;ve been thinking about his a lot lately and working on it, so I decided to commit it to video.Here is my first installment on the issue of making Wing Chun more &#8220;boxing-like.&#8221;I talk about the power-line, coupling the elbow and the hip, generating power with a &#8220;drop step&#8221;, and the differences between modern boxing and a &#8220;Wing Chun Boxing."  

I think we are seeing a natural evolution of Wing Chun in modern times.  If you browse through youtube you will find any number of vids showing people trying to spar with their Wing Chun skills.  A lot of them don't look that great.  I think this is because Wing Chun was not designed to be a "sparring" method.   Or people will look like they are doing what is essentially modern boxing while using some Pak Sau's and Bong Sau's.   I think that if you are going to combine Wing Chun with boxing, or use boxing as an inspiration to "expand" upon your Wing Chun, the "old school" boxing is a much better fit than "modern" boxing.  The old school boxing had a structure and footwork that was already very similar to Wing Chun.  But I don't see what I am doing as a combination of the two, but rather as an "inspired by" way of doing Wing Chun.   

http://youtu.be/o4oyVEtljj4

Here is my second installment on &#8220;How to Box with Wing Chun.&#8221;  This one deals with footwork.It really isn&#8217;t much different than standard Wing Chun footwork, just a little more &#8220;open.&#8221;

http://youtu.be/AjDYx4OEa9s


----------



## Argus (Oct 1, 2014)

Good stuff. 

There's a lot of insight to be gleamed from old bareknuckle boxing, and I'd recommend anyone to read manuals of the time.

I feel that the most important aspect of applying Wing Chun, though, is not in technique, but in principle; loi lau, hoi sung - lat sau jik chung. With an emphasis on "lat sau jik chung" - always follow in, fill and chase the center.

As such, the only problem I had with the video was when you demonstrated reacting to a round punch with a biu-sau, but did not cover the center at the same time with a punch in the other hand. That's not just missing a free punch, but also leaving the line open for his rear hand. 

I think the best way to think about intercepting an opponent's technique is to focus on hitting first, and covering with the other hand second. To use a fencing reference and paraphrase Lichtenauer: keep your point on line and threaten the opponent at every opportunity; he who displaces only will just put himself in greater danger. Focus on attacking with a better line, that both covers you, and threatens him, and let the other hand assist naturally. Otherwise, you're just following the opponent, chasing hands, and waiting to be set up. But chase center, and follow after, and you'll have better control over the fight and catch your opponent on feints. At least, in theory.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 1, 2014)

I think the difference between the boxing and TCMA such as the WC system is:

1. In boxing, a punch is just a punch.
2. In TCMA (such as WC), a punch is more than just a punch. You should never pull your punch back empty hand.

The 2nd method is more advance and useful than the 1st method. We should expand that concept "a punch is more than just a punch" in more deeper level.


----------



## Marnetmar (Oct 1, 2014)

This is almost identical to how I train my Wing Chun, I must not be as much of a traditionalist as I think I am! Excellent stuff!


----------



## Eric_H (Oct 1, 2014)

KPM said:


> Hey Guys!  This is my first attempt at a youtube video.Ive been thinking about his a lot lately and working on it, so I decided to commit it to video.Here is my first installment on the issue of making Wing Chun more boxing-like.I talk about the power-line, coupling the elbow and the hip, generating power with a drop step, and the differences between modern boxing and a Wing Chun Boxing."
> 
> I think we are seeing a natural evolution of Wing Chun in modern times.  If you browse through youtube you will find any number of vids showing people trying to spar with their Wing Chun skills.  A lot of them don't look that great.  I think this is because Wing Chun was not designed to be a "sparring" method.   Or people will look like they are doing what is essentially modern boxing while using some Pak Sau's and Bong Sau's.   I think that if you are going to combine Wing Chun with boxing, or use boxing as an inspiration to "expand" upon your Wing Chun, the "old school" boxing is a much better fit than "modern" boxing.  The old school boxing had a structure and footwork that was already very similar to Wing Chun.  But I don't see what I am doing as a combination of the two, but rather as an "inspired by" way of doing Wing Chun.
> 
> ...



Watched a bit of the first video with the sound off and got pretty confused with your WC punch - why in the heck are you throwing that punch without any knee function? You're leaving 1/2 your leg out of the game man! You could easily make your punches probably twice as powerful.


----------



## Mephisto (Oct 1, 2014)

As an outsider the problem I see with wc is that there seems to be a lot of guys talking and theorizing about "concepts" and "scientific" approach but we see very little demonstration of technique against a resisting partner of comparable skill. You see wc guys making videos about how to beat style x,y,z but you don't see the other styles making videos about how to beat wc. We may be seeing a slow change in the wc community but wc guys will have to prove that all their theory and concepts work. Of course you have the standard, "wc is not a sport" tired argument and it will never change anyone's opinion.


----------



## Argus (Oct 1, 2014)

Mephisto said:


> As an outsider the problem I see with wc is that there seems to be a lot of guys talking and theorizing about "concepts" and "scientific" approach but we see very little demonstration of technique against a resisting partner of comparable skill. You see wc guys making videos about how to beat style x,y,z but you don't see the other styles making videos about how to beat wc. We may be seeing a slow change in the wc community but wc guys will have to prove that all their theory and concepts work. Of course you have the standard, "wc is not a sport" tired argument and it will never change anyone's opinion.



In my experience, very few practitioners actually stick to the principles and concepts of the system under pressure, and that's why they don't meet with success. But there are the minority who learn to apply those principles under pressure, and they're the ones who do succeed.

On one hand, most people never even test their stuff. On the other hand, the problem is further compounded by those who devalue theory and principle, and proclaim that it's "impractical" when they never understood or learned to apply it in the first place. Without its principles, Wing Chun is nothing more than a collection of useless techniques, and getting in the ring with that mentality amounts to little more than a poorly trained boxer.

Wing Chun is proven in concept and principle. If you're humble, and would like me to point you to a few good examples, I'll gladly oblige. But if you're just looking to discount and discredit things you don't understand, I won't waste my time, and you can go on believing whatever you want.


----------



## KPM (Oct 1, 2014)

* As such, the only problem I had with the video was when you demonstrated reacting to a round punch with a biu-sau, but did not cover the center at the same time with a punch in the other hand. That's not just missing a free punch, but also leaving the line open for his rear hand. 

---*Good point!  But that's primarily a function of demo'ing on BOB, rather than a real opponent, with actual arms.  ;-)

*I think the best way to think about intercepting an opponent's technique is to focus on hitting first, and covering with the other hand second*. 

---Exactly!  And that's very much a "boxing" approach.  Hit the opponent and defend only if you really have to.


----------



## KPM (Oct 1, 2014)

Eric_H said:


> Watched a bit of the first video with the sound off and got pretty confused with your WC punch - why in the heck are you throwing that punch without any knee function? You're leaving 1/2 your leg out of the game man! You could easily make your punches probably twice as powerful.



Not sure what you mean Eric.  Can you elaborate?


----------



## Mephisto (Oct 1, 2014)

Argus said:


> In my experience, very few practitioners actually stick to the principles and concepts of the system under pressure, and that's why they don't meet with success. But there are the minority who learn to apply those principles under pressure, and they're the ones who do succeed.
> 
> Wing Chun is proven in concept and principle. If you're humble, and would like me to point you to a few good examples, I'll gladly oblige. But if you're just looking to discount and discredit things you don't understand, I won't waste my time, and you can go on believing whatever you want.



I'm not staunch WC hater, i'm always open to evidence that will change my opinion. I will seriously consider anything you bring to light. At this point though I think what i'd find most convincing is video of a WC guy applying his technique against a resisting opponent of comparable size and skill. There are big athletic guys that do WC that could hand me my lunch but i'm not convinced that an equally sized opponent would have such success. There are a lot of videos of guys explaining and demonstrating on bags and compliant partners. Some videos even have the guys put on gear and an attacker will lunge in with one punch only to become docile and compliant for the defender to unleash a flurry of strikes. Here's one of the better videos i've run across, there's a lot of dancing but the WC guy seems to use his technique effectively of the other guy.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 1, 2014)

In 

- boxing, a jab will be followed by a cross. hook, or uppercut.
- WC, a jab will be followed by another jab because the special WC stance.

When we compare WC and boxing, should we talk more about WC "knock down power"?


----------



## KPM (Oct 2, 2014)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> In
> 
> - boxing, a jab will be followed by a cross. hook, or uppercut.
> - WC, a jab will be followed by another jab because the special WC stance.
> ...



John, did you actually watch my first clip?  I addressed both of those points already.


----------



## PiedmontChun (Oct 2, 2014)

I thought the videos, especially footwork, were reminiscent of JKD. Some might see that as a good thing and some as a bad thing. 
I would imagine we all realize that theory and concepts learned sometimes go out the window under pressure. Thats seems like all the more reason to drill and pressure test them though, not modify them. We are what we train right?


----------



## Eric_H (Oct 2, 2014)

KPM said:


> Not sure what you mean Eric.  Can you elaborate?



I'll try, but this is probably going to be one of those "talk about it forever and not really communicate what i could show you in 10 seconds" so, bear with me 

When lunging into the opponent's space, WC uses the knee hip and elbow together with forward footwork to generate power. 

Here when i see you slide into the opponent's space it seems you're trying to maintain relatively flat-facing which works great for when the bridge is built, but not as much when entering the opponent's space. I can't exactly tell but it also looks like you're somewhat back weighted using a slide step more akin to how xingyi does it. Could be wrong, but that's what i see. 

Try instead picking up the front foot a bit higher and then as it lands use the adducting learned in YGKYM (In Hung Fa Yi we call that inward force Lok Ma) to create a slight turn in with knee and hip to drive the elbow. YMMV but what I got that to start connecting, my punches got *a lot* more knock down power.


----------



## Marnetmar (Oct 2, 2014)

Mephisto said:


> I'm not staunch WC hater, i'm always open to evidence that will change my opinion. I will seriously consider anything you bring to light. At this point though I think what i'd find most convincing is video of a WC guy applying his technique against a resisting opponent of comparable size and skill. There are big athletic guys that do WC that could hand me my lunch but i'm not convinced that an equally sized opponent would have such success. There are a lot of videos of guys explaining and demonstrating on bags and compliant partners. Some videos even have the guys put on gear and an attacker will lunge in with one punch only to become docile and compliant for the defender to unleash a flurry of strikes. Here's one of the better videos i've run across, there's a lot of dancing but the WC guy seems to use his technique effectively of the other guy.




Eh, I don't really like that one. I think this is a better example of WC working under pressure:

Wing chun kung fu Vs Kick Boxing - YouTube


----------



## Mephisto (Oct 2, 2014)

Marnetmar said:


> Eh, I don't really like that one. I think this is a better example of WC working under pressure:
> 
> Wing chun kung fu Vs Kick Boxing - YouTube


the practitioners in this video don't really seem to be of comparable skill. Not really sure about the wc guy but the kb-er looks very shy and doesn't seem to be able to throw a proper kick. Of course a lot of wc haters would say this about any video where a wc guys seems to get the upper hand, but in this case the kb guy really looks like he doesn't know what he's doing.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 2, 2014)

KPM said:


> John, did you actually watch my first clip?  I addressed both of those points already.



I did watch every single second of your 1st clip and I agree with what you have said there. I think it will be nice to add a "100% final committed punch" to demonstrate your "knock down power". That extra 1 second addition will make your clip "perfect" with a nice ending.

I always like to see clips that TCMA guys can punch harder than boxer does. To apply WC principles is important. To apply WC "finish power" is also important.


----------



## Marnetmar (Oct 2, 2014)

Mephisto said:


> the practitioners in this video don't really seem to be of comparable skill. Not really sure about the wc guy but the kb-er looks very shy and doesn't seem to be able to throw a proper kick. Of course a lot of wc haters would say this about any video where a wc guys seems to get the upper hand, but in this case the kb guy really looks like he doesn't know what he's doing.



Fair point. You could also argue that the WC guy has a size advantage on the KB-er.


----------



## geezer (Oct 2, 2014)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I did watch every single second of your 1st clip and I agree with what you have said there. I think it will be nice to add a "100% final committed punch" to demonstrate your "knock down power". That extra 1 second addition will make your clip "perfect" with a nice ending.
> 
> I always like to see clips that TCMA guys can punch harder than boxer does. To apply WC principles is important. To apply WC "finish power" is also important.



Such a 100% committed finish seems more characteristic of a very external system like Hung ga or  Shotokan Karate, and honestly isn't very representative of WC. One of the WC principles (at least of my lineage) is _Mo kuen yat fat _or _no one-punch technique_. We refrain from over committing, even as a "finish". It does make for a nice demo though.



Also, do you _really_ think that TCMA, as a rule, hit's harder than a western boxer? I mean, while I am committed to WC and respect the  surprising _short power_ it can help us develop, I really don't think you should undervalue the punching power of a good boxer!


----------



## Marnetmar (Oct 2, 2014)

I don't think that's the point John's trying to make.


----------



## geezer (Oct 2, 2014)

Marnetmar said:


> I don't think that's the point John's trying to make.



No, you're probably right. He's talking about what makes an appealing demo. Still, comments like that can be misconstrued. All that aside, I prefer sticking to WC (as I understand it) whether it looks cool or not. But then I've been getting more and more turned off by theatrics as I get older. It's gotten to the point where I won't even wear my pretty WC pajama pants to class any more. An old pair of gym shorts just seems so much more honest. Next thing I'll be wanting to drop the whole "sifu" title and wanting to be called "coach". ...Or then again, maybe not, at least _not yet._


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 2, 2014)

geezer said:


> Such a 100% committed finish seems more characteristic of a very external system like Hung ga or  Shotokan Karate, and honestly isn't very representative of WC. One of the WC principles (at least of my lineage) is _Mo kuen yat fat _or _no one-punch technique_. We refrain from over committing, even as a "finish". It does make for a nice demo though.
> 
> Also, do you _really_ think that TCMA, as a rule, hit's harder than a western boxer? I mean, while I am committed to WC and respect the  surprising _short power_ it can help us develop, I really don't think you should undervalue the punching power of a good boxer!



I see no reason that TCMA guys cannot hit as hard as boxers. All the power generation method are clearly defined in the TCMA system. IMO, if you (general YOU) can't knock your opponent down by one punch, your striking power may have some issue. If you have to deal with multiple opponents on this street, that one punch knock out is very important. The faster that you can knock your opponent down, the safer that you will be in that multiple opponents environment. All MA guys want to develop that fast knock/take down skill.

When you deal with a grappler, if you can knock him down in one punch, none of his grappling skill can apply on you. If you need to throw many punches to knock him down, you will give him opportunity to obtain the clinch that he is looking for.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 2, 2014)

geezer said:


> He's talking about what makes an appealing demo.





Mephisto said:


> As an outsider the problem I see with wc is that there seems to be a lot of guys talking and theorizing about "concepts" and "scientific" approach but we see very little demonstration of technique against a resisting partner of comparable skill. You see wc guys making videos about how to beat style x,y,z but you don't see the other styles making videos about how to beat wc. We may be seeing a slow change in the wc community but wc guys will have to prove that all their theory and concepts work. Of course you have the standard, "wc is not a sport" tired argument and it will never change anyone's opinion.



IMO, the only way to remove *Mephisto's* doubt is to put up a clip and demonstrate "WC knock down power". The centerline theory is like the rocket. The knock down power is like the nuclear head. Both are equally important.


----------



## KPM (Oct 3, 2014)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I did watch every single second of your 1st clip and I agree with what you have said there. I think it will be nice to add a "100% final committed punch" to demonstrate your "knock down power". That extra 1 second addition will make your clip "perfect" with a nice ending.
> 
> I always like to see clips that TCMA guys can punch harder than boxer does. To apply WC principles is important. To apply WC "finish power" is also important.



John, I showed a lead hand punch from an outside range with a "drop step" or "falling step".  That is as "committed" as I am willing to get, and it has "knock down power."  I don't know what you else you might want, other than a big lunging Hung Ga type punch.  But that's not Wing Chun.


----------



## Argus (Oct 3, 2014)

Mephisto said:


> I'm not staunch WC hater, i'm always open to evidence that will change my opinion. I will seriously consider anything you bring to light. At this point though I think what i'd find most convincing is video of a WC guy applying his technique against a resisting opponent of comparable size and skill. There are big athletic guys that do WC that could hand me my lunch but i'm not convinced that an equally sized opponent would have such success. There are a lot of videos of guys explaining and demonstrating on bags and compliant partners. Some videos even have the guys put on gear and an attacker will lunge in with one punch only to become docile and compliant for the defender to unleash a flurry of strikes. Here's one of the better videos i've run across, there's a lot of dancing but the WC guy seems to use his technique effectively of the other guy.



Hey, sorry I took it as such!

I sent you a PM so as not to take the thread too off topic. I did fail to mention that you should look at fencing theory, though - despite being unrelated in time and culture, the principles behind Historic European Rapier and German Longsword (Lichtenauer Tradition) are identical to Wing Chun, and provide good proof of concept as well.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 3, 2014)

KPM said:


> John, I showed a lead hand punch from an outside range with a "drop step" or "falling step".  That is as "committed" as I am willing to get, and it has "knock down power."  I don't know what you else you might want, other than a big lunging Hung Ga type punch.  But that's not Wing Chun.



If your "1st leading hand committed punch" is WC, why is your "2nd back hand committed punch" not WC?

This thread is talking about "how to box with WC". If the "boxing leading arm jab" fits into the WC principle, why should the "boxing back arm cross" not fit into the WC principle?


----------



## KPM (Oct 3, 2014)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If your "1st leading hand committed punch" is WC, why is your "2nd back hand committed punch" not WC?
> 
> This thread is talking about "how to box with WC". If the "boxing leading arm jab" fits into the WC principle, why should the "boxing back arm cross" not fit into the WC principle?



I don't understand what you are asking John.   I can do a "falling step" with the rear foot and punch as well, I just didn't show it on the video.   I can also step through so that my rear hand becomes the lead hand with a falling step that has lots of penetration and knock down power.   And if I throw a 1, 2 combination with my lead and rear hand using a good power-line while using the hips and keeping the elbows down in good Wing Chun fashion as I show in the video, how is my "cross" not fitting into the WC principle?  How is my second punch "not WC"?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 3, 2014)

KPM said:


> *how is my "cross" not fitting into the WC principle*?  How is my second punch "not WC"?


The above was my question. I asked whether boxing "cross" fit into WC or not.

The following is your answer. I didn't ask for "a big lunging Hung Ga type punch".



KPM said:


> I don't know what you else you might want, other than a big lunging Hung Ga type punch. * But that's not Wing Chun*.



If we also add the following post, it will get even more confused about what WC is, and what WC is not. 



geezer said:


> Such a 100% committed finish seems more characteristic of a very external system like Hung ga or  Shotokan Karate, and honestly isn't very representative of WC. One of the WC principles (at least of my lineage) is _Mo kuen yat fat _or _no one-punch technique_. We refrain from over committing, even as a "finish".


----------



## Marnetmar (Oct 3, 2014)

In certain instances you can use a type of hook in W.C as well (see Biu Jee)


----------



## KPM (Oct 3, 2014)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The above was my question. I asked whether boxing "cross" fit into WC or not.
> 
> .



I'm sorry John, if that was what you were asking, I completely missed it.  I thought you were asking about "knock down power" or "100% committed punch."   So in answer to your question "does a boxing "cross" fit into WC or not?"......from my perspective....No, it doesn't.  At least not the modern boxing cross with the elbow turned outward and the fist horizontal.  Like I explained in the video, the elbow and the shoulder has to stay down so that the punch stays coupled to the hip movement and the power-line can go from the ground straight out the fist.  But a WC punch with the rear hand is just as powerful if not more powerful than a boxer's cross.


----------



## Thunder Foot (Oct 5, 2014)

Argus said:


> I sent you a PM so as not to take the thread too off topic. I did fail to mention that you should look at fencing theory, though - despite being unrelated in time and culture, the principles behind Historic European Rapier and German Longsword (Lichtenauer Tradition) are identical to Wing Chun, and provide good proof of concept as well.


According to Jesse Glover and Ted Wong, that's precisely what Bruce discovered. His brother was a competition fencer.


----------



## Thunder Foot (Oct 5, 2014)

KPM said:


> I'm sorry John, if that was what you were asking, I completely missed it.  I thought you were asking about "knock down power" or "100% committed punch."   So in answer to your question "does a boxing "cross" fit into WC or not?"......from my perspective....No, it doesn't.  At least not the modern boxing cross with the elbow turned outward and the fist horizontal.  Like I explained in the video, the elbow and the shoulder has to stay down so that the punch stays coupled to the hip movement and the power-line can go from the ground straight out the fist.  But a WC punch with the rear hand is just as powerful if not more powerful than a boxer's cross.


KPM, cool videos. I happen to do both as well. One thing I wanted to ask, and maybe I missed it... but I didn't see the shifting footwork of the chum kiu ma and the darting footwork found in the 2nd and 3rd form? I agree with the relation of the elbow to the hip, and to me the shifting is what allows the power generation in WC without being overcommitted and losing structure. Sorry if I may have missed it.


----------



## KPM (Oct 6, 2014)

Thunder Foot said:


> KPM, cool videos. I happen to do both as well. One thing I wanted to ask, and maybe I missed it... but I didn't see the shifting footwork of the chum kiu ma and the darting footwork found in the 2nd and 3rd form? I agree with the relation of the elbow to the hip, and to me the shifting is what allows the power generation in WC without being overcommitted and losing structure. Sorry if I may have missed it.



My videos were focusing on the "boxing" or "punching" range.  I made a comment that once we close to what is essentially the "Wing Chun" range, then all the typical training should kick in, including shifting footwork.  Glad you liked the videos.  I have a couple more coming.  ;-)


----------



## KPM (Oct 7, 2014)

Hi Guys!

Since I got a good response to my first 2 videos, I decided to do a few more!   Rather than post them individually I'll make it easier and just post the link to my youtube channel.  Check them out in sequence and let me know what you think. 

Keith Myers - YouTube

Part 3:  Clarifies some points from the prior videos and talks about evasiveness
Part 4:  The longest clip yet, covers basic defenses using Wing Chun
Part 5:  Talks about how to practice all of this on the Wing Chun Dummy!


----------



## KPM (Oct 8, 2014)

Any feedback guys?  Come on, I want hear what you think!   I thought at least my comment about YGKYM actually being more than just a training stance would get some kind of response.  :boing2:


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Oct 8, 2014)

Cute doggie! 

Seriously, I'm not a Wing Chun guy, but I thought the videos were well done and more focused on effective application than many WC videos I've seen. I was doing some old school bare-knuckle boxing technique in a seminar last weekend and it was interesting to see the parallels.


----------



## kung fu fighter (Oct 8, 2014)

Keith,        Thanks and appreciate the time you took to make the videos. Even though our interpretation differ. I found your perspective refreshing and insightful. I was impressed by your knowledge of old school boxing and nice boxing power generation.I would have liked to see a little more how you work on the inside at close range with pin sun wck after you close the gap with old school boxing tactics. 

When in close range do you still raise your rear heel when torquing to engage your rear hand like a boxing cross? or does your heels maintain contact with the ground like traditional PSWC as you torque?

Perhaps in the future you can do a video on how pure wing chun is applied in a non sparring situation such as on the battle field (life and death scenerio or street fight).


----------



## Argus (Oct 8, 2014)

KPM, you call your stuff "boxing with Wing Chun," but all I see is good Wing Chun 

Really, I believe how you're applying WC is largely how it's meant to be applied. The only element you haven't covered (except with the pak-and-hit, which was a good example) is how to apply lat-sau-jik-chung, and follow the opponent in when he removes a hand. I've always felt this would be a very useful principle against boxers, given how they retract their punches - but would take some practice.

All in all, really good stuff. I think most WC practitioners lose sight of the real goal: we're trying to hit the guy, first and foremost. Chisau is important, but we're trying to hit our opponent, not chisau with him -- only when he puts something in the way and we fail to actually hit him, does chisau come into play, and help us to flow and continue our own attack with the end goal being, once again, to hit.


----------



## KPM (Oct 8, 2014)

Hi Navin! 

*When in close range do you still raise your rear heel when torquing to engage your rear hand like a boxing cross? or does your heels maintain contact with the ground like traditional PSWC as you torque?*

---No. When in "Wing Chun range", ie close range things "square up" more and no need to raise the rear heel at all.  "Typical" Wing Chun kicks in.  Its here that the YGKYM comes into play for all those that think it is a "training stance only."  ;-)  But I'll point out as well that some people see a pivoted stance as different from the YGKYM, and they pivot to produce power in the punch when in close.  In Pin Sun we use the waist/Kua much more and can essentially "pivot" without moving the feet at all.  So we are using the YGKYM when in close and only really pivoting when we need to take an angle.
*
Perhaps in the future you can do a video on how pure wing chun is applied in a non sparring situation such as on the battle field (life and death scenerio or street fight).*

---Sounds like a good suggestion!   Esssentially my goal wasn't to make videos about Pin Sun.  My goal was to make videos about how to use Wing Chun in a "boxing" scenario.  I just happen to do Pin Sun.  ;-)


----------



## KPM (Oct 8, 2014)

*KPM, you call your stuff "boxing with Wing Chun," but all I see is good Wing Chun *

---Well, I'm glad to hear you say that!  My decision to make this video series was a reaction to what seemed to be a recurrent theme on the facebook Wing Chun forum.  People would post videos of sparring with Wing Chun and more often than not it would look like some poor form of "pseudo-boxing."  I'd ask "why aren't you using your Wing Chun?"  and the reply would be something like "Wing Chun isn't easily defined...you are being too close-minded in what you consider to be Wing Chun"  or "anything that comes from my hands is Wing Chun"  or  "Wing Chun is anything that works"  or some other BS like that.  I made these videos to show that you can do Wing Chun in a "boxing format" without resorting to some form of modern boxing spin-off that is neither good boxing nor good Wing Chun.  

* The only element you haven't covered (except with the pak-and-hit, which was a good example) is how to apply lat-sau-jik-chung, and follow the opponent in when he removes a hand. I've always felt this would be a very useful principle against boxers, given how they retract their punches - but would take some practice.*

---Good point!  I'll keep that in mind for a future installment.  ;-)  

*All in all, really good stuff. I think most WC practitioners lose sight of the real goal: we're trying to hit the guy, first and foremost. Chisau is important, but we're trying to hit our opponent, not chisau with him -- only when he puts something in the way and we fail to actually hit him, does chisau come into play, and help us to flow and continue our own attack with the end goal being, once again, to hit.
*
---I agree completely!  Too often Wing Chun people think they should be doing some kind of Chi Sau-y thing when all the have to do is put together a good combination of strong punches!  And when they do put together punches, too often its just a rushing in with chain punching!


----------



## kung fu fighter (Oct 8, 2014)

KPM said:


> In Pin Sun we use the waist/Kua much more and can essentially "pivot" without moving the feet at all.  So we are using the YGKYM when in close and only really pivoting when we need to take an angle.



Understood! this was something that came to me naturally after years of training in chi sao. My first exposure to this formally was in the fut sao wck system which they refer to as torque power. years later I saw it again in PSWC. I also used this in close range as it's much faster doing a full juen.

in the videos I also liked how you used constant moving footwork with milling on the outside.


----------



## KPM (Oct 19, 2014)

This is not really part of the "How to Box with Wing Chun" series.  But it still is pertinent. This one is on Posture and how to generate Power.  Comments welcome!

Posture & Power - YouTube


----------



## Kwan Sau (Oct 19, 2014)

KPM said:


> This is not really part of the "How to Box with Wing Chun"  But it still is pertinent. This one is on Posture and how to generate Power.  Comments welcome!
> 
> Posture & Power - YouTube



Not my cup o tea...but thx for posting. The one thing I did like was the doorway stretch.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 19, 2014)

KPM said:


> This is not really part of the "How to Box with Wing Chun" series.  But it still is pertinent. This one is on Posture and how to generate Power.  Comments welcome!
> 
> Posture & Power - YouTube



I like many things  that you have shown in your clip such as to keep your Kua loose. You have open mind and that's a good thing. But IMO, you can open your mind even further. If you believe that pigeon toed stance is for training, you should not let your training to "restrict" your combat application. Why do you want to let your 50-50 weight distribution to set any physical limitation on yourself. Will you do a "superman punch" if you have the opportunity to finish a fight and knock your opponent out? 

To be honest, every time that I work the "superman punch" on my punching bag (or striking dummy), I truly don't know what style that I'm training at that particular moment. It's the shock that come back from my striking target, that gives me the satisfaction. As long as I know that I can use it to knock down my opponent if needed, that's all I care about.

I know the 0-0 weight distribution "superman punch" is not WC. It's just an example that there are more different weight distribution than 50-50. Since you want to discuss "how to box with WC", I assume you may want to discuss more than just WC, but I can be wrong and may be you want to talk about "only WC".


----------



## Kwan Sau (Oct 20, 2014)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> ....there are more different weight distribution than 50-50



absolutely agree with this KFW!
Now, as to KPM's video...if you keep in mind that he is coming from a Pin Sun background, it will help with viewing his video. 
I always try to keep in mind that whenever he states in the video: "...good WC doesn't slouch".... or...."good WC mechanics is 50/50" etc etc that he should be saying 'Pin Sun' in front of all.


----------



## KPM (Oct 20, 2014)

Kwan Sau said:


> absolutely agree with this KFW!
> Now, as to KPM's video...if you keep in mind that he is coming from a Pin Sun background, it will help with viewing his video.
> I always try to keep in mind that whenever he states in the video: "...good WC doesn't slouch".... or...."good WC mechanics is 50/50" etc etc that he should be saying 'Pin Sun' in front of all.



You are absolutely right Kwan.  I should probably preface each video with "from a Pin Sun perspective....."   Even more accurately I should probably say "from the perspective of Henry Mui's Pin Sun"......    But actually, I have done Yip Man Wing Chun extensively and I have some background in William Cheung's TWC.   I also have lots of training in sports medicine.   So in this particular video I am trying to address what I have found to be good biomechanics in general....regardless of your flavor of Wing Chun.  It just happens to match Pin Sun, which is the primary reason I chose to switch from Yip man Wing Chun to Pin Sun and go to some lengths to be able to study it.   Again, I was addressing what I see to be "optimal"....meaning what is the most efficient way to do things within Wing Chun.  Like I said in the video, people can obviously do things differently from what I show, and do them very well!  But that does not mean that what they are doing is "optimal."   The "Wing Chun slouch" is a perfect example.  Its bad mechanics and its bad for your health.  

As far as 50/50 weight distro....yes John, there are certainly other weightings, and they will show up at times!  Again, what I was talking about is what is optimal to use as your base-line method.  If something big and heavy is hurdling directly toward my center and I don't have time to step you better believe I'm going to pivot with a 90/10 weight distro!  ;-)


----------



## dlcox (Oct 22, 2014)

Good videos Keith. My first Yongchun teacher was a professional boxer and stressed many of the points you spoke of plus some.


----------



## Tong Chuang (Nov 13, 2014)

How would you handle these punches?






found on
Two punches two knock outs : gifs


----------



## Tong Chuang (Nov 13, 2014)

Tong Chuang said:


> How would you handle these punches?



Apparently the guy who did the knockouts wasn't the one who started the fight:

RUSSIAN COURT CASE
_''Nikolai Vlasenko, master of sports of boxing, tried to peacefully  resolve the conflict. However, jerks of easy money and power in the  country looking into a drunken stupor rush with fists on the boxer.   Pay attention to the video, the two brawlers attack on one person.  Nicholas was forced to defend himself, and put his hands in front of  him.''_






see fuller video:

https://plus.google.com/115476629444782202193/posts/ZetJbQ3NqRn


----------



## KPM (Nov 13, 2014)

Tong Chuang said:


> How would you handle these punches?


 
 Well, first and foremost....don't just walk right into them with your hands down!!!!  :-O

 Secondly, the guy is telegraphing his punches, so don't be on the end of them when they come!

 Third, since he is telegraphing and committing a lot of power to his punches, a good side step with a Pak  or Biu and he is going to go off-balance pretty readily.  Then close in!

Fourth, play the "boxing game" a bit.  He is punching with everything he's got.  So stay just far enough away from him and let him throw a few and get tired.  Then close in on him between punches.


----------



## wingchunguy (Nov 14, 2014)

You CAN'T use boxing with wing chun, it totally DESTROYS the wing chun making it crappy and useless. Wing chun is the only FULLY CONCEPTUAL martial art on the planet. Boxing is technique-based, meaning,the techniques dictate the response, not the concepts, making it stiff, rigid and limited in it's response. So by adding boxing, you are making your wing chun stiff, rigid and limit, as opposed to flexible and unlimited. What you see on you tube is unskilled, MODIFIED wing chun, NOT the traditional, which is complete. You want to make wing chun better and make sure it works on the street?? Well, then learn TRADITIONAL and learn the complete system!


----------



## wingchunguy (Nov 14, 2014)

Sure, they walked right up to him and didn't even have their hands up. What do you expect?


----------



## wingchunguy (Nov 14, 2014)

Well then you are going to go down because you are leaning back and your energy is going backwards, not forward. I think you better go back to William cheung's system, it apparently is much better. I know, that is the system I do. It is the most complete system out there.


----------



## wingchunguy (Nov 14, 2014)

That came from Wong Shun Leung and is absolutely correct. That saying is crucial in wing chun,as well as you entering as soon as the hands are released. THIS is the problem and what you DON'T see here on you tube. Fencing won't work here. If you try to punch first, then you are creating an opening that your opponent can exploit. You ALWAYS start with initial contact FIRST,  and a step to close the distance (Angled, to the OUTSIDE of your opponent's attacking arm) until you are close enough to either enter when the hands are released, or use contact one more time to close the distance to close combat range, where you trap the arm and leg, and counter.


----------



## wingchunguy (Nov 14, 2014)

Mephisto said:


> As an outsider the problem I see with wc is that there seems to be a lot of guys talking and theorizing about "concepts" and "scientific" approach but we see very little demonstration of technique against a resisting partner of comparable skill. You see wc guys making videos about how to beat style x,y,z but you don't see the other styles making videos about how to beat wc. We may be seeing a slow change in the wc community but wc guys will have to prove that all their theory and concepts work. Of course you have the standard, "wc is not a sport" tired argument and it will never change anyone's opinion.



Well the concepts are what make wing chun flexible and tailorable to your abilities or disabilities, your personality and most importantly, that of your opponent. The concepts have been proven for over 400 years now, in rooftop fights and fights against boxers, muay thai guys and other martial arts like karate, when the japanese invaded china. Wing chun is not a sport. By making it a sport, you have to take out the essence of wing chun that makes it work properly.


----------



## wingchunguy (Nov 14, 2014)

Mephisto said:


> the practitioners in this video don't really seem to be of comparable skill. Not really sure about the wc guy but the kb-er looks very shy and doesn't seem to be able to throw a proper kick. Of course a lot of wc haters would say this about any video where a wc guys seems to get the upper hand, but in this case the kb guy really looks like he doesn't know what he's doing.
> 
> Well that is because the wing chun guy is using FORWARD INTENT and forward momentum to stop the kick boxer from setting up. This guy is a modified wc guy and not even using REAL wing chun, but you can still see it is effective.


----------



## wingchunguy (Nov 14, 2014)

geezer said:


> Such a 100% committed finish seems more characteristic of a very external system like Hung ga or  Shotokan Karate, and honestly isn't very representative of WC. One of the WC principles (at least of my lineage) is _Mo kuen yat fat _or _no one-punch technique_. We refrain from over committing, even as a "finish". It does make for a nice demo though.
> 
> 
> 
> Also, do you _really_ think that TCMA, as a rule, hit's harder than a western boxer? I mean, while I am committed to WC and respect the  surprising _short power_ it can help us develop, I really don't think you should undervalue the punching power of a good boxer!



Well you shouldn't underestimate the power of the wing chun punch, considering it comes from a foot or less as opposed to three feet or more with any boxing derivative.


----------



## wingchunguy (Nov 14, 2014)

Thunder Foot said:


> According to Jesse Glover and Ted Wong, that's precisely what Bruce discovered. His brother was a competition fencer.


Well you're WRONG! Fencing uses large steps and you over commit your response by putting most of the weight on the front leg. In wing chun we NEVER, EVER do that! We always remain balanced no matter what.


----------



## wingchunguy (Nov 14, 2014)

kung fu fighter said:


> Understood! this was something that came to me naturally after years of training in chi sao. My first exposure to this formally was in the fut sao wck system which they refer to as torque power. years later I saw it again in PSWC. I also used this in close range as it's much faster doing a full juen.
> 
> in the videos I also liked how you used constant moving footwork with milling on the outside.


It may be faster, but it isn't as safe as stepping to the outside of your opponent's attacking arm,as in the William Cheung system. If you ever fought an experienced boxer, he'd be kicking the **** out of you, because he uses multiple attacks.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 14, 2014)

wingchunguy said:


> Sure, they walked right up to him and didn't even have their hands up. What do you expect?



Well neither did he. And it worked out ok.


----------



## VT_Vectis (Nov 14, 2014)

wingchunguy said:


> You CAN'T use boxing with wing chun, it totally DESTROYS the wing chun making it crappy and useless. Wing chun is the only FULLY CONCEPTUAL martial art on the planet. Boxing is technique-based, meaning,the techniques dictate the response, not the concepts, making it stiff, rigid and limited in it's response. So by adding boxing, you are making your wing chun stiff, rigid and limit, as opposed to flexible and unlimited. What you see on you tube is unskilled, MODIFIED wing chun, NOT the traditional, which is complete. You want to make wing chun better and make sure it works on the street?? Well, then learn TRADITIONAL and learn the complete system!



I love Ving Tsun as much as the next guy, and I'm not sure if you're just going on what you're Sifu has told you, but Ving Tsun is far from the only concept based Fighting System on the planet. There's plenty out there. It's like people saying that Chi São is unique to wing chun; look at most any Southern Style, Southern Mantis, for example, and you'll find sensitivity training that is basically chi Sau.

 Also I think if you look in to old style boxing you'd be very surprised by what you find. KPM's videos make a great deal of sense. I think anyone who refuses to accept that their truth is not the only truth, and that it might not be all you need, is frankly limiting their potential for growth, making them rigid, and inflexible of mind. 

Countless masters learnt other styles to increase their own understanding of how to use their style to its full potential. As for "Modified" and "Traditional"... Well, if it works for you, then fair play but I still have a problem with the whole concept. Think I'll stick with the more believable "Modified" Ving Tsun of Wong Shun Leung, and an open, inquisitive mind.

With respect, 
Your brother in Ving Tsun.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 14, 2014)

VT_Vectis said:


> I love Ving Tsun as much as the next guy, and I'm not sure if you're just going on what you're Sifu has told you, but Ving Tsun is far from the only concept based Fighting System on the planet. There's plenty out there. It's like people saying that Chi São is unique to wing chun; look at most any Southern Style, Southern Mantis, for example, and you'll find sensitivity training that is basically chi Sau.
> 
> Also I think if you look in to old style boxing you'd be very surprised by what you find. KPM's videos make a great deal of sense. I think anyone who refuses to accept that their truth is not the only truth, and that it might not be all you need, is frankly limiting their potential for growth, making them rigid, and inflexible of mind.
> 
> ...



Concepts driven vs results driven?


----------



## KPM (Nov 15, 2014)

wingchunguy said:


> You CAN'T use boxing with wing chun, it totally DESTROYS the wing chun making it crappy and useless. Wing chun is the only FULLY CONCEPTUAL martial art on the planet. Boxing is technique-based, meaning,the techniques dictate the response, not the concepts, making it stiff, rigid and limited in it's response. So by adding boxing, you are making your wing chun stiff, rigid and limit, as opposed to flexible and unlimited. What you see on you tube is unskilled, MODIFIED wing chun, NOT the traditional, which is complete. You want to make wing chun better and make sure it works on the street?? Well, then learn TRADITIONAL and learn the complete system!



Yada Yada Yada Yada!  So what I show is "crappy and useless"?  Well, its the very TRADITIONAL guys that typically can't spar or fight worth a damn and only show Chi Sau videos.  Or, that when they do put up some kind of sparring video it looks like some form of sloppy kickboxing.  So pontificate all you want.  I've heard it before!


----------



## KPM (Nov 15, 2014)

wingchunguy said:


> Well then you are going to go down because you are leaning back and your energy is going backwards, not forward. I think you better go back to William cheung's system, it apparently is much better. I know, that is the system I do. It is the most complete system out there.



Oh!  So that's what you meant by "traditional"!   Another true believer!


----------



## KPM (Nov 15, 2014)

wingchunguy said:


> It may be faster, but it isn't as safe as stepping to the outside of your opponent's attacking arm,as in the William Cheung system. If you ever fought an experienced boxer, he'd be kicking the **** out of you, because he uses multiple attacks.


 
 Wow! You really are clueless, aren't you!?    And I'll bet you didn't even watch my videos.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 15, 2014)

KPM said:


> Oh!  So that's what you meant by "traditional"!   Another true believer!



When you "evolve" a system, some "traditional" people will feel threaten as if you have just slapped on their faces. This is understandable and expectable.

Since the kick/punch had been removed from the "traditional SC" during the ancient time, when the "traditional SC" was evolved into "combat SC (CC)" 35 years ago by adding kick/punch back in, some "traditional SC" guys said that the "traditional SC" was already "combat" enough and there was no need to evolve. After many "combat SC (CC)" guys did pretty good in the Sanda/Sanshou rings, those criticizing stopped.

Not everybody will have the courage to "evolve". I had suggested a Judo friend of mine to evolve Gi training into no-Gi training 30 years ago. Today, he is still afraid to step beyond that boundary.

If your "evolved WC" can produce good fighters, that's all it matter. 1,000 years from today, people will still appreciate your effort.


----------



## geezer (Nov 15, 2014)

wingchunguy said:


> I think you better go back to William cheung's system, it apparently is much better. I know, that is the system I do. It is the most complete system out there.


 
Way to go _"wingchun guy"_! Great monologue of _nine posts in a row_ basically insulting everyone else on the forum while bragging about how what you study is the only "real" WC and is "the most complete system out there". When you come across like such an incredible jerk, (and I'm being _nice_ here) it saves everybody else the trouble of having to bother refuting your silly comments.


----------



## Tames D (Nov 16, 2014)

wingchunguy said:


> Well then you are going to go down because you are leaning back and your energy is going backwards, not forward. I think you better go back to William cheung's system, it apparently is much better. I know, that is the system I do. It is the most complete system out there.



Isn't William Cheung the Wing Chun Master that rolled around on the floor with Emin Bozetrepe, demonstating that they both couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag? Is that the complete Wing Chun that you practice?


----------



## Danny T (Nov 16, 2014)

What is your definition of 'traditional' and how does it relate to your stating Traditional Wing Chun is the most complete and what definition of 'complete' are you using and show how that relates.

Traditional:
*:*  an inherited, established, or customary pattern of thought, action, or behavior (as a religious practice or a social custom)  
*:*  beliefs or stories relating to the past  that are commonly accepted as historical though not verifiable 

*:*   the handing down of information, beliefs, and customs by word of mouth  or by example from one generation to another without written instruction  


*:*  cultural social attitudes, customs, and institutions 


Complete:


: having all necessary parts : not lacking anything
: not limited in any way

: not requiring more work : entirely done or completed


If you are of the thought that one system is complete and lacking nothing, that there is absolutely no limiting in an manner or that nothing can be made better you are caught up in the tradition of foolish belief.


----------



## geezer (Nov 16, 2014)

'





Tames D said:


> Isn't William Cheung the Wing Chun Master that rolled around on the floor with Emin Bozetrepe, demonstating that they both couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag? Is that the complete Wing Chun that you practice?


 
_Now, now_. Both these guys were good stand-up fighters in their prime --Emin was a freakin' beast. And at the time of that fight (late 1980s), neither had developed much of a ground game (I know for a fact that Emin worked with some top grapplers after this to fix that). The problem is _Wingchunguy's_ ridiculous claims and style-bashing.

Besides, how many of you have actually fought your way out of a wet paper bag. You know _the real thing with thick paper and all?  _:hmm:


----------



## Tames D (Nov 16, 2014)

geezer said:


> _Now, now_. Both these guys were good stand-up fighters in their prime --Emin was a freakin' beast. And at the time of that fight (late 1980s), neither had developed much of a ground game (I know for a fact that Emin worked with some top grapplers after this to fix that). The problem is _Wingchunguys_ ridiculous claims and style-bashing.
> 
> Besides, how many of you have actually fought your way out of a wet paper bag. You know _the real thing with thick paper and all?_:hmm:


Well I have to admit, the wet paper bag has always been my nemesis.


----------



## mograph (Nov 16, 2014)

Tames D said:


> Well I have to admit, the wet paper bag has always been my nemesis.


No system is complete without wet paper bag training.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Nov 16, 2014)

mograph said:


> No system is complete without wet paper bag training.



Let's get serious. If you find yourself having to fight your way out of a wet paper bag, you messed up a long time ago. You should never have let someone put you into a wet paper bag in the first place. Once you're in there, things get pretty ugly.


----------



## yak sao (Nov 16, 2014)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Let's get serious. If you find yourself having to fight your way out of a wet paper bag, you messed up a long time ago. You should never have let someone put you into a wet paper bag in the first place. Once you're in there, things get pretty ugly.



It messes up my hair


----------



## wingchunguy (Jan 14, 2015)

The 50/50 weight distribution is the best because it allows you to maintain structural integrity and also allows you to move quickly and maintain balance, which is CRUCIAL in wing chun. The 70/30 stance has your energy going BACKWARDS and if a stronger and quicker opponent is able to enter, he will jam your techniques and cause your energy to go backwards, unbalancing you and causing an opening in your defenses he can exploit easily. The superman punch is not WC and should not be mixed with wing chun. Any other system other than wing chun causes your wing chun to weaken and may cause a failure that may cause you to lose the fight, especially against experienced opponents that move around quickly and use multiple angles, like boxers.


QUOTE="Kung Fu Wang, post: 1663823, member: 28970"]I like many things  that you have shown in your clip such as to keep your Kua loose. You have open mind and that's a good thing. But IMO, you can open your mind even further. If you believe that pigeon toed stance is for training, you should not let your training to "restrict" your combat application. Why do you want to let your 50-50 weight distribution to set any physical limitation on yourself. Will you do a "superman punch" if you have the opportunity to finish a fight and knock your opponent out?

To be honest, every time that I work the "superman punch" on my punching bag (or striking dummy), I truly don't know what style that I'm training at that particular moment. It's the shock that come back from my striking target, that gives me the satisfaction. As long as I know that I can use it to knock down my opponent if needed, that's all I care about.

I know the 0-0 weight distribution "superman punch" is not WC. It's just an example that there are more different weight distribution than 50-50. Since you want to discuss "how to box with WC", I assume you may want to discuss more than just WC, but I can be wrong and may be you want to talk about "only WC".







[/QUOTE]


----------



## wingchunguy (Jan 14, 2015)

Are you people bringing back "The wet look"??


----------



## wingchunguy (Jan 14, 2015)

KPM said:


> Well, first and foremost....don't just walk right into them with your hands down!!!!  :-O
> 
> Secondly, the guy is telegraphing his punches, so don't be on the end of them when they come!
> 
> ...



The first thing you said is correct. Always keep your hands up and close to the center.  Right, when the punch comes, rotate your body and step to the outside of the attacking hand, trapping the hand when it returns, and also the leg, using chi gerk (sticky legs), and simultaneously counter, not stopping until the attacker is rendered unable to continue. Never play the boxing game and NEVER, EVER STEP BACK! You are sending your energy backwards, and you are lengthening the distance between you to mid range, which is his strong suit. Always go forward or to the side, then enter. If he kicks, enter, which will jam his kick and possibly through him off balance, causing an opening in his defenses you can exploit.


----------



## geezer (Jan 15, 2015)

wingchunguy said:


> The 50/50 weight distribution is *the best* because it allows you to maintain structural integrity and also allows you to move quickly and maintain balance, which is CRUCIAL in wing chun. The 70/30 stance has your energy going BACKWARDS ...


 
Kind of _over-simplifying_ aren't you? I've seen good fighters work from back-weighted (70-30, etc.), neutral (50-50), and front weighted stances. Each brings strengths and liabilities. The fighter and the situation will determine which is most effective.

Now I trained in a couple of WC systems that favor back weighting. I can assure you that weighting the back leg does not mean that "your  energy is going backwards" any more than weighting the front leg would mean that your energy is going forward.  Now shifting your weight from neutral to the back leg might cause your energy to go back. On the other hand I've seen my Eskrima instructor maintain powerful forward pressure_ even while retreating!_  Same is true for WC.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jan 15, 2015)

Admittedly I have not read ever single post in 4 pages of this thread but IMHO the entire concept is flawed. AS soon as you say how do I use Art 'A' to fight more like art 'B' you have lost art A.

How to Box with Wing Chun? You use wing chun, you do not use boxing at all.... as soon as you try and change Wing Chun to boxing or try and box like a (western) boxer you will lose all your Wing Chun structure and training and you will end up with a lot of people saying "see Wing Chun doesn't work" but yet they never saw wing chun. What they saw was a Wing Chun guy trying to be a boxer


----------



## yak sao (Jan 15, 2015)

Xue Sheng said:


> Admittedly I have not read ever single post in 4 pages of this thread but IMHO the entire concept is flawed. AS soon as you say how do I use Art 'A' to fight more like art 'B' you have lost art A.
> 
> How to Box with Wing Chun? You use wing chun, you do not use boxing at all.... as soon as you try and change Wing Chun to boxing or try and box like a (western) boxer you will lose all your Wing Chun structure and training and you wil lend up with a lot of people saying "see Wing Chun doesn't work" but yet they never saw wing chun. What they saw was a Wing Chun guy trying to be a boxer



Thank you.


----------



## KPM (Jan 17, 2015)

Xue Sheng said:


> Admittedly I have not read ever single post in 4 pages of this thread but IMHO the entire concept is flawed. AS soon as you say how do I use Art 'A' to fight more like art 'B' you have lost art A.
> 
> How to Box with Wing Chun? You use wing chun, you do not use boxing at all.... as soon as you try and change Wing Chun to boxing or try and box like a (western) boxer you will lose all your Wing Chun structure and training and you will end up with a lot of people saying "see Wing Chun doesn't work" but yet they never saw wing chun. What they saw was a Wing Chun guy trying to be a boxer



Well, I can understand that you wouldn't want to go back and read all the posts in a long thread.  But you could at least extend the courtesy of watching the original video clip before responding.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 18, 2015)

Amateur boxing an wing chun. Kind of similar structure?


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jan 18, 2015)

KPM said:


> Well, I can understand that you wouldn't want to go back and read all the posts in a long thread.  But you could at least extend the courtesy of watching the original video clip before responding.



Did, and the response is Wing Chun guy trying to be a boxer. Don't get me wrong, it is good stuff, but it reminds me more of Jeet Kune Do I did, with a slightly different stance, than the Wing Chun I did.

I admit that one needs to work outside of ones comfort zone in any style they train and they should train with other styles in
order to better understand their style but the videos are Wing Chun based (like Jeet Kune Do) but no longer Wing Chun (like Jeet Kune Do).


----------



## geezer (Jan 18, 2015)

KPM said:


> Well, I can understand that you wouldn't want to go back and read all the posts in a long thread.  But you could at least extend the courtesy of watching the original video clip before responding.



Well I, on the other hand, finally did get around to watching the clips. You know I couldn't link to them directly? --Had to copy and paste them over to youtube. No matter. Anyway, contrary to what _Xue_ thinks, I see all WC in what you show, just adjusted for the boxing range and game. Alan Orr has been messing around with some of the same ideas for a long time. Check the following clip for example:






The big difference is that in the end, Alan's guys show very little of what most of us would recognize as WC when they compete (Remember that contentious thread on the other forum?). On the other hand, your approach maintains 80-90% WC structure and form. Have you or any students of yours had a chance to test this approach out with boxers yet?


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jan 19, 2015)

geezer said:


> Well I, on the other hand, finally did get around to watching the clips. You know I couldn't link to them directly? --Had to copy and paste them over to youtube. No matter. Anyway, contrary to what _Xue_ thinks, I see all WC in what you show, just adjusted for the boxing range and game. Alan Orr has been messing around with some of the same ideas for a long time. Check the following clip for example:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Geezer

Like I said, I only dabble in Wing Chun and I see more Jeet Kune Do that Wing Chun, although Jeet Kune Do is based on Wing Chun. But then I only dabble, so I bow to your experience in the art.

Xue


----------



## geezer (Jan 19, 2015)

Xue Sheng said:


> Geezer
> 
> Like I said, I only dabble in Wing Chun and I see more Jeet Kune Do that Wing Chun, although Jeet Kune Do is based on Wing Chun....
> 
> Xue



Honestly, there is no right or wrong here. It boils down to a matter of your perspective. With your many years in diverse CMA, Xue, you simply offer another perspective. IMO what makes this forum better than most is that we respect and even welcome different perspectives. 

...Well except for those that are _really dumb._


----------

