# What was Wing Chun designed for?



## KPM

This idea came up on one of the recent threads, and I thought it would make an interesting discussion. 

As I've pointed out already, Wing Chun does not have a "long range game."   It may have a strategy for getting from long range to its preferred close range, but this is not the same thing as having a "long range game."  See the "Wing Chun Boxing" thread for more on that.  And you really do need to have a good long range game to function well in a sparring setting.

I can't remember who it was, but I think it was someone is this very forum that described Wing Chun as an "ambush style."  The more I think about this the more I like that idea.  To me, it seems that Wing Chun was really designed to work in close quarters and to finish the fight within 3 or 4 seconds of closing.  It really isn’t designed for the prolonged back & forth exchange where a mobile fighter has lots of room to move around.

Think about it.....Wing Chun shines when you are in less than an arm's length from the opponent.  This is where all those Chi Sau skills kick in!  This is the range you find yourself in if suddenly facing a surprise attack where someone jumps you unexpectedly.   This is why when sparring so many Wing Chun guys seem to just step into close range and start exchanging.

I'll say that this idea seems to apply best to the mainland styles and most of the Ip Man derivatives.   TWC kind of breaks from this because it has a lot more footwork and angling from longer range than other Wing Chun.   HFY I don't know enough about to really say, but given its similarity to TWC I tend to think what I just wrote applies to it as well.

This video kind of speaks to this as well:


----------



## Martial D

KPM said:


> This idea came up on one of the recent threads, and I thought it would make an interesting discussion.
> 
> As I've pointed out already, Wing Chun does not have a "long range game."   It may have a strategy for getting from long range to its preferred close range, but this is not the same thing as having a "long range game."  See the "Wing Chun Boxing" thread for more on that.  And you really do need to have a good long range game to function well in a sparring setting.
> 
> I can't remember who it was, but I think it was someone is this very forum that described Wing Chun as an "ambush style."  The more I think about this the more I like that idea.  To me, it seems that Wing Chun was really designed to work in close quarters and to finish the fight within 3 or 4 seconds of closing.  It really isn’t designed for the prolonged back & forth exchange where a mobile fighter has lots of room to move around.
> 
> Think about it.....Wing Chun shines when you are in less than an arm's length from the opponent.  This is where all those Chi Sau skills kick in!  This is the range you find yourself in if suddenly facing a surprise attack where someone jumps you unexpectedly.   This is why when sparring so many Wing Chun guys seem to just step into close range and start exchanging.
> 
> I'll say that this idea seems to apply best to the mainland styles and most of the Ip Man derivatives.   TWC kind of breaks from this because it has a lot more footwork and angling from longer range than other Wing Chun.   HFY I don't know enough about to really say, but given its similarity to TWC I tend to think what I just wrote applies to it as well.



IMO Wing Chun is a game of get close and be first. Most fights start at very close range, nose to nose, Wing Chun range.Attack first, and play off of reactions. Wing Chun is no good 'off the back foot' (lol) so to speak.

My Wing Chun teacher got this, and taught me the most valuable lesson you can learn; The fight doesn't start when the opponent attacks, but when they indicate to attack.


----------



## drop bear

Not chun of course. But concept.


----------



## Charlemagne

In addition to the question of what WC was designed for, I think, as noted in another thread that is ongoing, we need to ask the question "does it actually work for that purpose?"  If, as the OP suggests, WC shines when you are less than arms length from the opponent, there ought to be a way to demonstrate that against someone who is trying to legitimately fight back (or at least resist).  If that cannot be shown, some questions in regards to why should be asked.  Specifically:

Is the system flawed? Does it actually not work for what it was designed for?
is it a flaw in the manner in which the system is trained and tested?  Could WC be effective for its purpose if it was trained with aliveness?
Are people simply not pressure testing it in this way?  Do we actually know one way or the other whether or not WC is effective for its intended purpose?
Some combination of the above?

*Disclaimer* I don't mean to be a troll.  I am legitimately interested in WC as I think it could pair nicely with the Pekiti Tirsia that I study and, would actually play to some of my strengths from an attribute and body style perspective.  In other words, I _want_ WC to work, and work well, but am not interested in anything that cannot be pulled off effectively against a resisting opponent.


----------



## LFJ

"_What was Wing Chun designed for?_"

Sounds like a complete beginner's question. 
Hope you get that figured out for yourself.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> "_What was Wing Chun designed for?_"
> 
> Sounds like a complete beginner's question.
> Hope you get that figured out for yourself.



Get lost.  Don't post on this thread if you aren't interested in discussion.  Go argue elsewhere.  This is a legitimate question to see how various people view Wing Chun.


----------



## Juany118

Charlemagne said:


> In addition to the question of what WC was designed for, I think, as noted in another thread that is ongoing, we need to ask the question "does it actually work for that purpose?"  If, as the OP suggests, WC shines when you are less than arms length from the opponent, there ought to be a way to demonstrate that against someone who is trying to legitimately fight back (or at least resist).  If that cannot be shown, some questions in regards to why should be asked.  Specifically:
> 
> Is the system flawed? Does it actually not work for what it was designed for?
> is it a flaw in the manner in which the system is trained and tested?  Could WC be effective for its purpose if it was trained with aliveness?
> Are people simply not pressure testing it in this way?  Do we actually know one way or the other whether or not WC is effective for its intended purpose?
> Some combination of the above?
> 
> *Disclaimer* I don't mean to be a troll.  I am legitimately interested in WC as I think it could pair nicely with the Pekiti Tirsia that I study and, would actually play to some of my strengths from an attribute and body style perspective.  In other words, I _want_ WC to work, and work well, but am not interested in anything that cannot be pulled off effectively against a resisting opponent.



It works for me BUT I hesitate to say it works for anyone else.  First I appear to be in the minority regarding the WC I study, William Cheung's TWC.  It is called a "long fist" style by some and so it has a long game of a sort already "baked in".  Also when I pressure test it is real dyanmic situations (fight/arrest scenarios) and as such they move so fast and under such pressure I honestly may not be the best judge.  I can honestly say that in making entry/bridging it works but once in what many see as the "sweet spot" I would be hard pressed to say if it was WC, Aikido or something from Kali that my body just "did" to get the guy down and under control because everything at that point is just a blur of action.


----------



## Juany118

KPM said:


> This idea came up on one of the recent threads, and I thought it would make an interesting discussion.
> 
> As I've pointed out already, Wing Chun does not have a "long range game."   It may have a strategy for getting from long range to its preferred close range, but this is not the same thing as having a "long range game."  See the "Wing Chun Boxing" thread for more on that.  And you really do need to have a good long range game to function well in a sparring setting.
> 
> I can't remember who it was, but I think it was someone is this very forum that described Wing Chun as an "ambush style."  The more I think about this the more I like that idea.  To me, it seems that Wing Chun was really designed to work in close quarters and to finish the fight within 3 or 4 seconds of closing.  It really isn’t designed for the prolonged back & forth exchange where a mobile fighter has lots of room to move around.
> 
> Think about it.....Wing Chun shines when you are in less than an arm's length from the opponent.  This is where all those Chi Sau skills kick in!  This is the range you find yourself in if suddenly facing a surprise attack where someone jumps you unexpectedly.   This is why when sparring so many Wing Chun guys seem to just step into close range and start exchanging.
> 
> I'll say that this idea seems to apply best to the mainland styles and most of the Ip Man derivatives.   TWC kind of breaks from this because it has a lot more footwork and angling from longer range than other Wing Chun.   HFY I don't know enough about to really say, but given its similarity to TWC I tend to think what I just wrote applies to it as well.
> 
> This video kind of speaks to this as well:



There is one issue with Izzo's ideas (and I do like the guy).  His experience under pressure is dealing with what I call the "blind brawler" or "talented street fighter."  Many of the "issues" he sees are through that lens and so he seems to see some holes that I don't think really exist.  I think this is further proof as to why WC needs proper pressure testing internally.


----------



## wingchun100

I don't get why Wing Chun gets trash talked for not having outside game. I mean, Judo is an up-close style too, but no one ever bashes it for that. Judo practitioners train to close the gap and grapple. Tae Kwon Do people train to keep out at kicking range. So on and so forth. I don't hear any other style get criticized for lacking "close-range game" or "long range game."


----------



## Juany118

wingchun100 said:


> I don't get why Wing Chun gets trash talked for not having outside game. I mean, Judo is an up-close style too, but no one ever bashes it for that. Judo practitioners train to close the gap and grapple. Tae Kwon Do people train to keep out at kicking range. So on and so forth. I don't hear any other style get criticized for lacking "close-range game" or "long range game."



I think the difference is this.  
1. wrestling arts are ALL about being up close, striking arts not so much.  Whether right or wrong a striking art, or a combo striking/grappling art, is expected by many to be able to work at multiple ranges.
2. Your estimation of TKD is based, largely, on sport TKD where more points are awarded for kicks etc. and TKD of that sort is criticized. 

The "traditional" form of TKD however also has not only effective punching techniques but some standing grappling and takedowns that are also taught.  It's actually one of the reasons my brother in law likes sparring with me.  While he knows all of these techniques (he is currently studying for his 3rd Dan) the people in his class tend to focus more on the sport aspect than he would like and I am his "reality check" after a fashion.


----------



## LFJ

wingchun100 said:


> I don't get why Wing Chun gets trash talked for not having outside game. I mean, Judo is an up-close style too, but no one ever bashes it for that. Judo practitioners train to close the gap and grapple. Tae Kwon Do people train to keep out at kicking range. So on and so forth. I don't hear any other style get criticized for lacking "close-range game" or "long range game."



Because a viable striking style will address obvious ranges of standup fighting.
If it doesn't, chances are it had things lost in transmission or is a made up fantasy style.


----------



## KPM

wingchun100 said:


> I don't get why Wing Chun gets trash talked for not having outside game. I mean, Judo is an up-close style too, but no one ever bashes it for that. Judo practitioners train to close the gap and grapple. Tae Kwon Do people train to keep out at kicking range. So on and so forth. I don't hear any other style get criticized for lacking "close-range game" or "long range game."



I wouldn't call it "trash talking".  I would call it pointing out a deficiency and how to fix it.  The difference between Judo or BJJ and Wing Chun, is that they are grappling arts and Wing Chun is a striking art.  Nobody "bashes" BJJ or Judo for not having a long range game because no one would expect them too!   And I certainly have seen modern TKD criticized for not having a "close range game".   Have you ever watched a modern TKD competition?  Those guys barely seem to know how to throw a punch.  So yeah, they catch some flack for that.

So to get back to the OP.....what was modern Judo designed for? Jacketed Wrestling/Throwing!   What was BJJ designed for?  Grappling on the ground!  What was modern TKD designed for?  Kicking!  What was Wing Chun designed for?  Trapping and punching within an arm's reach!


----------



## Charlemagne

wingchun100 said:


> I don't get why Wing Chun gets trash talked for not having outside game. I mean, Judo is an up-close style too, but no one ever bashes it for that. Judo practitioners train to close the gap and grapple. Tae Kwon Do people train to keep out at kicking range. So on and so forth. I don't hear any other style get criticized for lacking "close-range game" or "long range game."



Agreed that if a particular style has a stated purpose of working in a particular range, it would seem to be a bit unfair to critique it for not being effective at other ranges.  Having said that, most of the criticism of WC that I have seen and come across has been about it not working at all, or not being sparred to the point that its effectiveness can actually be determined, not about it only working in one range.


----------



## LFJ

If we're talking about self-defense systems, they were standalone arts. As such they address the different common ranges that need to be dealt with in a fight, while having their preferred ranges. Some have since devolved for sport.

Wing Chun wasn't developed in the recent MMA era only to compliment other styles, nor is it a sport. So, why should it be so deficient when not attached to someone's arms, which is almost a given in a fist fight? Why should it have no recourse when outclassed at close-range?

No viable striking method would only be designed for one range without methods to get there, or to recover to and survive at other ranges when outclassed at their preferred range.

Unless you have some evidence that Wing Chun was designed alongside another evidently lost style it was meant to compliment, and even still since that style is lost, you're acknowledging that your Wing Chun is not a viable art and needs a lot of gap-filling due to apparent content loss in recent transmission by people who probably never fought.

Suggesting that it was purposefully designed with so many holes is just a face-saving excuse.

So, there are two options; try to find a more complete understanding of Wing Chun, or carry on gap-filling.

Clearly you are not interested in potentially more complete Wing Chun, and have chosen to gap-fill with Western Boxing.

That's better than nothing! Though, I would personally just go all in for Western Boxing.

Hopefully you can work something functional out from it. Are you still studying other guys on Youtube, or do you already have a working idea for your own "Wing Chun Boxing"? 

Anyway, good luck!


----------



## Eric_H

KPM said:


> I'll say that this idea seems to apply best to the mainland styles and most of the Ip Man derivatives. TWC kind of breaks from this because it has a lot more footwork and angling from longer range than other Wing Chun. HFY I don't know enough about to really say, but given its similarity to TWC I tend to think what I just wrote applies to it as well.



HFY handles long range very differently to TWC from what I can see - being able to go from Bai Jong into Jeet Kiu and have a healthy bridge (Kiu Sao) as the output is how we in HFY seek to operate. This is what gives us the ability to play one hand against two by virtue of centerline control.

To answer the original question - I think WC was designed to understand leverage and timing for combat in a mode that purposely departed from the animal style mentality and body structure. It sounds simple, but it runs parallel to the Buddhist idea of "understanding things as they are" rather than inserting a preference into combat.


----------



## DanT

I can only speak for my wing chun, but my wing chun does have a long range game, the end strategy is to use the long range game to eventually close the gap and pin or trap and strike, but it's still there.

-Jab
-cross
-chop
-man sau
-front kick
-side kick
-round kick
-hook kick

There are many techniques and combos from just these techniques at long range. The key is to perfect the technique.


----------



## Flying Crane

I still believe that wing chun can be applied at any range.  I really don't see the issue.


----------



## drop bear

wingchun100 said:


> I don't get why Wing Chun gets trash talked for not having outside game. I mean, Judo is an up-close style too, but no one ever bashes it for that. Judo practitioners train to close the gap and grapple. Tae Kwon Do people train to keep out at kicking range. So on and so forth. I don't hear any other style get criticized for lacking "close-range game" or "long range game."



Striking in close range is high risk. Grappling in close range isn't.


----------



## drop bear

LFJ said:


> If we're talking about self-defense systems, they were standalone arts. As such they address the different common ranges that need to be dealt with in a fight, while having their preferred ranges. Some have since devolved for sport.
> 
> Wing Chun wasn't developed in the recent MMA era only to compliment other styles, nor is it a sport. So, why should it be so deficient when not attached to someone's arms, which is almost a given in a fist fight? Why should it have no recourse when outclassed at close-range?
> 
> No viable striking method would only be designed for one range without methods to get there, or to recover to and survive at other ranges when outclassed at their preferred range.
> 
> Unless you have some evidence that Wing Chun was designed alongside another evidently lost style it was meant to compliment, and even still since that style is lost, you're acknowledging that your Wing Chun is not a viable art and needs a lot of gap-filling due to apparent content loss in recent transmission by people who probably never fought.
> 
> Suggesting that it was purposefully designed with so many holes is just a face-saving excuse.
> 
> So, there are two options; try to find a more complete understanding of Wing Chun, or carry on gap-filling.
> 
> Clearly you are not interested in potentially more complete Wing Chun, and have chosen to gap-fill with Western Boxing.
> 
> That's better than nothing! Though, I would personally just go all in for Western Boxing.
> 
> Hopefully you can work something functional out from it. Are you still studying other guys on Youtube, or do you already have a working idea for your own "Wing Chun Boxing"?
> 
> Anyway, good luck!



Plenty of styles specialise in ranges and concepts. There is only so much brain power one person can bring to a system. So if your system is driven by the concepts of one guy. then it is going to be limited.

Good martial arts don't have complete systems. they are good at what they do. And then let someone else be good at what they do. then they both gap fill. It stops this stagnation and isolation that has held a lot of martial arts back.

But if you are going to gap fill. You go for guys who know what they are on about.

I gap fill. And if i get to choose between a quality fighter who can do what he says he can do. And a guy who can't. Then I will pick the system with the top guys in it. 

Regardless of the system.

I mean you could ask why so many complete systems have such terrible ground work. Or you find a guy who has good ground work and gap fill.

I think the concept of a more complete Wing Chun is a red herring. You have to make your own way towards that.


----------



## KPM

DanT said:


> I can only speak for my wing chun, but my wing chun does have a long range game, the end strategy is to use the long range game to eventually close the gap and pin or trap and strike, but it's still there.
> 
> -Jab
> -cross
> -chop
> -man sau
> -front kick
> -side kick
> -round kick
> -hook kick
> 
> There are many techniques and combos from just these techniques at long range. The key is to perfect the technique.



Then is sounds like you are doing a bit of "Wing Chun Boxing" yourself!


----------



## DanT

KPM said:


> Then is sounds like you are doing a bit of "Wing Chun Boxing" yourself!


I guess, I don't think of it as that way tho. My wing chun is just wing chun, I know other styles, but I don't need to mix.


----------



## LFJ

drop bear said:


> Plenty of styles specialise in ranges and concepts.



Yes, including VT.



> There is only so much brain power one person can bring to a system. So if your system is driven by the concepts of one guy. then it is going to be limited.



Don't know what you're talking about.
Is any system not the product of many brains over generations?



> Good martial arts don't have complete systems. they are good at what they do. And then let someone else be good at what they do. then they both gap fill. It stops this stagnation and isolation that has held a lot of martial arts back.



Depends on what you mean by complete and who is gap-filling.

BJJ contains a standalone street defense system that works fine as 100% BJJ.
Many street fight videos demonstrate that.

Some people use striking systems to fill out the standup portion, but often for sport fighting needs.



> I mean you could ask why so many complete systems have such terrible ground work. Or you find a guy who has good ground work and gap fill.
> 
> I think the concept of a more complete Wing Chun is a red herring. You have to make your own way towards that.



VT as a striking system should not need to gap-fill for striking ideas. That's the point.

BJJ is good for knowledge of ground skill, but is not desirable in a street fight, personally.
Too many potential dangers to deliberately go to the ground.

VT can standalone for standup striking, just like MT or other KF and Karate styles.
Adding BJJ ground skill is complementing, not gap-filling like resorting to WB for striking basics.


----------



## drop bear

LFJ said:


> Yes, including VT.
> 
> 
> 
> Don't know what you're talking about.
> Is any system not the product of many brains over generations?
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on what you mean by complete and who is gap-filling.
> 
> BJJ contains a standalone street defense system that works fine as 100% BJJ.
> Many street fight videos demonstrate that.
> 
> Some people use striking systems to fill out the standup portion, but often for sport fighting needs.
> 
> 
> 
> VT as a striking system should not need to gap-fill for striking ideas. That's the point.
> 
> BJJ is good for knowledge of ground skill, but is not desirable in a street fight, personally.
> Too many potential dangers to deliberately go to the ground.
> 
> VT can standalone for standup striking, just like MT or other KF and Karate styles.
> Adding BJJ ground skill is complementing, not gap-filling like resorting to WB for striking basics.



Muay Thai gap fills. Karate gap fills. Most styles that are looking to improve is looking outside their own system  A lot of styles will look to Western boxing for the same reason a lot of styles look to BJJ.

If you have a complete system then you are unable to grow. That is the issue with complete systems.

An incomplete system is functionally better. Because it uses many brains over generations.


----------



## LFJ

drop bear said:


> Muay Thai gap fills. Karate gap fills.



They are functional, standalone striking styles, like VT. Cross-training is not the same as gap-filling.


----------



## drop bear

LFJ said:


> They are functional, standalone striking styles, like VT. Cross-training is not the same as gap-filling.



um... what is the difference?


----------



## LFJ

drop bear said:


> um... what is the difference?



Cross-training is complementing functional methods with more functional methods to expand one's toolset.

Gap-filling is plugging holes in non-functional methods when essential parts are missing from a system, most likely due to loss in transmission for whatever reason. It's essential because without it, it doesn't work.

As an example;

When a MT practitioner cross-trains another striking style, it isn't to fill gaps in a non-functional system. It's to expand their toolset with different strategies and tactics they can make use of to improve their overall striking game.

When a WC practitioner does poorly in free sparring or fighting due to lack of long-range skills, and needs to resort to other striking styles for basic range elements common to standup fighting, that is gap-filling necessary to make their style work.

In other words, if it works standalone without cross-training, it's not gap-filling.
If it doesn't work standalone and needs cross-training to work, it's gap-filling.


----------



## KPM

*When a MT practitioner cross-trains another striking style, it isn't to fill gaps in a non-functional system. It's to expand their toolset with different strategies and tactics they can make use of to improve their overall striking game.*

---Good example!  And when a WC practitioner cross-trains in WB, it isn't to fill gaps in a "non-functional" system either.  It's to expand WC's toolset with different strategies and tactics they can make use of to improve their overall striking game.  WB has tools at long range that WC doesn't have.  WB has an array of punches from various angles that WC doesn't have.  WB just makes a good striking system (WC) better!


*When a WC practitioner does poorly in free sparring or fighting due to lack of long-range skills, and needs to resort to other striking styles for basic range elements common to standup fighting, that is gap-filling necessary to make their style work.*

----What is the difference between that and saying that an MT practitioner is learning different strategies and tactics to improve their overall game??  Wouldn't learning more and better long-range skills "improve WC's overall striking game"???


*In other words, if it works standalone without cross-training, it's not gap-filling.*

----WC works standalone....for what it was designed for.   Cross-training WB complements WC's strengths.

----If you think your version of WC can do just as well as WB at the "long range game", then please show us.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> ---Good example!  And when a WC practitioner cross-trains in WB, it isn't to fill gaps in a "non-functional" system either.  It's to expand WC's toolset with different strategies and tactics they can make use of to improve their overall striking game.  *WB has tools at long range that WC doesn't have.*



.....because this basic and essential part of standup fighting is entirely missing from some WC, so it needs to be gap-filled.



> ----What is the difference between that and saying that an MT practitioner is learning different strategies and tactics to improve their overall game??



MT wouldn't be filling gaps in striking ranges it doesn't even address. 
It would simply be expanding its toolset on top of what it already does at each range.

WC gap-filling for long range is not adding to what is already there. 
It's filling a void, plugging a hole... gap-filling.



> Wouldn't learning more and better long-range skills "improve WC's overall striking game"???



Absolutely. That's the point of gap-filling WC that is missing those elements.



> ----WC works standalone....for what it was designed for.   Cross-training WB complements WC's strengths.



WC (YMVT) was designed for standup striking.

You can't have a striking style that only focuses on short-range without methods of getting there or recourse to fight on the outside in case of being outclassed at short-range. 

"_Forward pressure! No retreat!_" That's how you get knocked out.

If that's all you have, it's just not a viable style and wouldn't have been designed to standalone that way, because it frankly doesn't stand alone.

You went to lengths to show through fight video that it doesn't work due to lacking long-range, and hence needs something like WB to gap-fill in order for the short-range to "possibly" work.


----------



## Charlemagne

drop bear said:


> Striking in close range is high risk. Grappling in close range isn't.



Can't agree with that.  Anything at close range is high risk if you are in a real world situation.  Grappling can be dangerous, particularly if the other guy is better, or significantly stronger.  I am a believer in grappling, but choosing to go there in a self-defense situation or a real fight comes with its own set of risks.  One obvious example of that is that you lose the ability to disengage on your terms.  If you are grappling, and the other guy doesn't want to let go, you're stuck.


----------



## Charlemagne

.


----------



## Charlemagne

KPM said:


> ---Good example!  And when a WC practitioner cross-trains in WB, it isn't to fill gaps in a "non-functional" system either.  It's to expand WC's toolset with different strategies and tactics they can make use of to improve their overall striking game.  WB has tools at long range that WC doesn't have.  WB has an array of punches from various angles that WC doesn't have.  WB just makes a good striking system (WC) better!]
> 
> WB has a long range that WC doesn't have?  How is that possible given they are both throwing punches?  The question of functionality is the issue.  WB has demonstrated ability against a resisting opponent.  As of yet, no one, at least that I have seen, has been able to show that WC has that level of function.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KPM said:
> 
> 
> 
> ----WC works standalone....for what it was designed for. .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does it? That really seems to be the issue.  Multiple people have asked for evidence of WC working in and "alive" manner.  I want it to work, but so far, no one is providing that evidence.  WB and WC share the same basic range.  If WC really does work, that should not be hard to show.  If nothing else, the blending of WC and WB could serve to provide a training and testing methodology to accurately assess the ability of WC to be used in against someone who is trying not to get hit, and who is working to hit you back.
Click to expand...


----------



## Martial D

LFJ said:


> WC (YMVT) was designed for standup striking.
> 
> You can't have a striking style that only focuses on short-range without methods of getting there or recourse to fight on the outside in case of being outclassed at short-range.
> 
> "_Forward pressure! No retreat!_" That's how you get knocked out.
> 
> If that's all you have, it's just not a viable style and wouldn't have been designed to standalone that way, because it frankly doesn't stand alone.



I've seen you make the claim, many times over a long period of time, that your style of WC offers an effective and complete striking system. Yet, in all that time you have offered no evidence to support this.

I am sure I am not alone in wondering if there is any ham in this sandwich?


----------



## LFJ

Martial D said:


> I've seen you make the claim, many times over a long period of time, that your style of WC offers an effective and complete striking system. Yet, in all that time you have offered no evidence to support this.
> 
> I am sure I am not alone in wondering if there is any ham in this sandwich?



I have described the different elements in detail here before.

As I told KPM, doors are open around the world if you want to see it firsthand.


----------



## Martial D

LFJ said:


> I have described the different elements in detail here before.
> 
> As I told KPM, doors are open around the world if you want to see it firsthand.


Of the many many times I've seen you make the claim, the best I've seen is vague allusions to having a 'long range game', but never any specifics as to just what that entails.

Do you have any video evidence of live sparring/fighting that can provide for examination? I honestly want you to be right, but I don't do faith claims, and none of those schools are in my area.


----------



## drop bear

LFJ said:


> Cross-training is complementing functional methods with more functional methods to expand one's toolset.
> 
> Gap-filling is plugging holes in non-functional methods when essential parts are missing from a system, most likely due to loss in transmission for whatever reason. It's essential because without it, it doesn't work.
> 
> As an example;
> 
> When a MT practitioner cross-trains another striking style, it isn't to fill gaps in a non-functional system. It's to expand their toolset with different strategies and tactics they can make use of to improve their overall striking game.
> 
> When a WC practitioner does poorly in free sparring or fighting due to lack of long-range skills, and needs to resort to other striking styles for basic range elements common to standup fighting, that is gap-filling necessary to make their style work.
> 
> In other words, if it works standalone without cross-training, it's not gap-filling.
> If it doesn't work standalone and needs cross-training to work, it's gap-filling.



Ok. so gap filling and cross training both have the aim of searching for the best method. 

MT traditionally had terrible boxing. they gap fill with western boxing.

If it works stand alone you wouldn't need to cross train or gap fill.


----------



## drop bear

Charlemagne said:


> Can't agree with that.  Anything at close range is high risk if you are in a real world situation.  Grappling can be dangerous, particularly if the other guy is better, or significantly stronger.  I am a believer in grappling, but choosing to go there in a self-defense situation or a real fight comes with its own set of risks.  One obvious example of that is that you lose the ability to disengage on your terms.  If you are grappling, and the other guy doesn't want to let go, you're stuck.



Within its own mechanics grappling at long range is high risk. Because you have to negotiate more strikes.


----------



## LFJ

Martial D said:


> Of the many many times I've seen you make the claim, the best I've seen is vague allusions to having a 'long range game', but never any specifics as to just what that entails.



I think I have given details, too, though sure, I have not written up a fighting manual. 

What would you like to know?



> Do you have any video evidence of live sparring/fighting that can provide for examination? I honestly want you to be right, but I don't do faith claims, and none of those schools are in my area.



I haven't asked anyone to just believe me. I'm only saying what I know, and telling people to go experience it if interested.

If nothing is nearby and it is not within one's means to travel, then they will just have to make peace with the fact that they won't be able to learn it, can remain agnostic about it, and that's ultimately not going to affect them.

If I were in that situation, I would be focusing on whatever practical style is available near me and not worrying about something I have no chance of learning anyway.


----------



## LFJ

drop bear said:


> If it works stand alone you wouldn't need to cross train or gap fill.



Correct. Doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't necessarily.


----------



## drop bear

LFJ said:


> Correct. Doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't necessarily.



Well then they should add the boxing or BJJ or whatever.


----------



## LFJ

drop bear said:


> Well then they should add the boxing or BJJ or whatever.



Who?


----------



## Martial D

LFJ said:


> I think I have given details, too, though sure, I have not written up a fighting manual.
> 
> What would you like to know?
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't asked anyone to just believe me. I'm only saying what I know, and telling people to go experience it if interested.
> 
> If nothing is nearby and it is not within one's means to travel, then they will just have to make peace with the fact that they won't be able to learn it, can remain agnostic about it, and that's ultimately not going to affect them.
> 
> If I were in that situation, I would be focusing on whatever practical style is available near me and not worrying about something I have no chance of learning anyway.


So no video evidence then. If there are many schools, and no videos of live sparring, I am left with one of two conclusions. Either you are globally forbidden from doing so, or no live sparring is happening.


----------



## DanT

LFJ said:


> They are functional, standalone striking styles, like VT. Cross-training is not the same as gap-filling.


For once I agree, 100%.


----------



## DanT

Cross training in a different style provides you with a different set of skills. You don't mix the training and start doing a double leg or hip throw in Chi Sao for example. You keep the training separate except for sparring.

Filling the gaps means mixing styles when you train them. 

It's like playing soccer and then playing baseball. They have skills that overlap, but you don't start wearing a baseball glove to soccer practice.


----------



## LFJ

Martial D said:


> So no video evidence then. If there are many schools, and no videos of live sparring, I am left with one of two conclusions. Either you are globally forbidden from doing so, or no live sparring is happening.



It is true most groups do not make many things public, including sparring.
It is their right to publicize their VT to the extent of their choosing.

Doesn't matter what people not present think.
Many will go and train. Many will not go, and not know.

The thing is, the reality and efficacy of what is being trained is not at all contingent upon whether or not someone online has seen videos of it and/or approves.

That said, there are some sparring clips on this channel and that channel.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> .....because this basic and essential part of standup fighting is entirely missing from some WC, so it needs to be gap-filled.
> 
> 
> .



Again, if you think your version of Wing Chun has a "long range game" as good as Boxing's and better than everyone else's Wing Chun, then please show us!!


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> Again, if you think your version of Wing Chun is a "long range game" as good as Boxing's and better than everyone else's Wing Chun, then please show us!!



It's not the same as Western Boxing, and of course depends on the fighter.

Can't be "better" than something that doesn't exist, though.

I'm sorry, if you are unwilling to travel, you will just have to live without.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> It's not the same as Western Boxing, and of course depends on the fighter.
> 
> Can't be "better" than something that doesn't exist, though.
> 
> I'm sorry, if you are unwilling to travel, you will just have to live without.



I have no problem with that.  But if you are going to continue to say you do something that other Wing Chun people don't and make claims for your version of Wing Chun.....yet remain unable to provide evidence that any of it is true....then maybe you need to tone down your rhetoric just a bit and try not to come across all smug and superior to everyone else.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> I have no problem with that.  But if you are going to continue to say you do something that other Wing Chun people don't and make claims for your version of Wing Chun.....yet remain unable to provide evidence that any of it is true....then maybe you need to tone down your rhetoric just a bit and try not to come across all smug and superior to everyone else.



I don't believe I have.

I've talked about the system I train, which is not as deficient as you'd suggest in your uninformed generalization.

You can disbelieve if you wish. I don't mind. But, I am allowed to describe what I train. 
If someone wants to see it, they can go see it. If they can't or couldn't be bothered, then......


----------



## Nobody Important

DanT said:


> Cross training in a different style provides you with a different set of skills. You don't mix the training and start doing a double leg or hip throw in Chi Sao for example.



Why? That logic doesn't make any sense, the entire purpose for seeking out new methods, tactics or strategies is to incorporate to fill a deficiency or improve upon an existing method. The entire premise is to make the new addition cohesive with the existing one, and improve the overall method making it more utilitarian. Especially with a method like Chi Sau, that is essentially nothing more than a fancy version of pummeling. Understanding how other, similar methods are used and deployed allows us to enhance our understanding of the strengths and weaknesses other methods and what we can do to improve ours.



DanT said:


> You keep the training separate except for sparring.Filling the gaps means mixing styles when you train them.



Again, why? Why train one way and fight another, when what you're looking for is cohesion. "Gap Filling" and "Cross Training" are nothing more than two phrases that describe the same thing with a slightly different emphasis on the semantics of what attributes are being augmented. They are both terms used to describe the aspect of "Mixing", one simply has a negative connotation associated with it, but make no mistake, there are the same thing.


----------



## Charlemagne

Martial D said:


> So no video evidence then. If there are many schools, and no videos of live sparring, I am left with one of two conclusions. Either you are globally forbidden from doing so, or no live sparring is happening.



I'm forced to agree.  There might be many who don't put such things out on video, and that I could understand.  The idea that no one is, doesn't make sense.  The only real conclusion is that: a) no one is validating the system; or, b) people have tried to do so and it hasn't gone well.


----------



## KPM

Charlemagne said:


> I'm forced to agree.  There might be many who don't put such things out on video, and that I could understand.  The idea that no one is, doesn't make sense.  The only real conclusion is that: a) no one is validating the system; or, b) people have tried to do so and it hasn't gone well.



Most WSLVT guys that I know of have no problem "mixing it up."  So I do think they work on "validating the system."  But likely this is done almost entirely against partners also doing Wing Chun, based on the videos that they do actually post.  My suspicion is that they don't do any better in sparring with non-Wing Chun guys than any other Wing Chun lineage.  But they don't want anyone to really see that, because then it would affect the "aire of superiority" that so many of them like to maintain on these forums.  And to prove my point, just sit back and watch the responses this will get from the resident WSLVT expert!


----------



## Martial D

LFJ said:


> It is true most groups do not make many things public, including sparring.
> It is their right to publicize their VT to the extent of their choosing.
> 
> Doesn't matter what people not present think.
> Many will go and train. Many will not go, and not know.
> 
> The thing is, the reality and efficacy of what is being trained is not at all contingent upon whether or not someone online has seen videos of it and/or approves.
> 
> That said, there are some sparring clips on this channel and that channel.


Thanks for the links.

I'm a little confused though. While this channel didn't have much but light sparring/drilling that channel did.

Lots of wb and jui jitsu mixed in with what the guys on that channel are doing. Looks good but there is definitely stand up cross training (gap filling?)happening here.


----------



## Danny T

LFJ said:


> It is true most groups do not make many things public, including sparring.
> It is their right to publicize their VT to the extent of their choosing.
> 
> Doesn't matter what people not present think.
> Many will go and train. Many will not go, and not know.
> 
> The thing is, the reality and efficacy of what is being trained is not at all contingent upon whether or not someone online has seen videos of it and/or approves.
> 
> That said, there are some sparring clips on this channel and that channel.


Interesting...can't say I see anything as sparring. Sparring like drills and no real difference in what we do but for having some real boxers, muay thai, and mma fighters feeding the pads and attacking as a boxer, muay thai fighter, and mma fighter would as well as doing some sparring with us.


----------



## geezer

Martial D said:


> ...I'm a little confused though. While this channel didn't have much but light sparring/drilling that channel did. Lots of wb and jui jitsu mixed in with what the guys on that channel are doing. Looks good but there is definitely stand up cross training (gap filling?)happening here.



Exactly my response.
_
This Chanel _(Michael Kurth's group)_ s_howed nothing but classical VT vs VT drilling ...not much there to show a  WSLVT l_ong range_ game, or how it would be applied in free-sparring against a boxer or anyone else.
_
That Channel _(Sean Wood's VT Lille group) showed a lot more. The elbow-low punching, the aggressive advancing steps, the forward pressure were all straight-up VT with a strong WSL flavor, but there was so much else worked in too ...some boxing hands (the "kung-fu fighting" clip at 1:13), use of what we call the "comb your hair" cover against hooks, as well as seamless transitions from punching to clinch-work, throws, ground fighting and submissions. Saw the same thing happening in a lot of the other videos, such as "VT Lille 15".

While Sean's group is obviously sticking with traditional VT/WC more closely than guys like Alan Orr, these guys are certainly pulling in _a lot of outside stuff_ and moving the art forward. I don't know if you'd call it "filling the gap" or what. But it definitely looks more like an argument in support of what KPM is talking about than LFJ's _"WSLVT is a complete system and needs nothing else" _position. 

Honestly, it looks like a great club.


----------



## geezer

LFJ said:


> I'm sorry, if you are unwilling to travel, you will just have to live without.



OK then, if a person were willing to travel 1,000, heck maybe even 2,000 miles ...to see _good_ WSLVT who would you recommend visiting in the USA, where so many of us live? Somebody other than Kevin Gledhill, please!


----------



## drop bear

DanT said:


> Cross training in a different style provides you with a different set of skills. You don't mix the training and start doing a double leg or hip throw in Chi Sao for example. You keep the training separate except for sparring.
> 
> Filling the gaps means mixing styles when you train them.
> 
> It's like playing soccer and then playing baseball. They have skills that overlap, but you don't start wearing a baseball glove to soccer practice.



You probably should. If you add striking to chi sau. No reason you couldn't add takedowns.

Even Thai style clinch work could be gap filled


----------



## geezer

drop bear said:


> You probably should. If you add striking to chi sau. No reason you couldn't add takedowns.
> Even Thai style clinch work could be gap filled



Assuming you want to keep WC/VT as your striking core, some things would definitely mix in better than others. Clinchwork and takedowns allowing a seamless transition to grappling should work in very well. By contrast, a very different striking art with a different structure and method of power generation would be more problematic.


----------



## KPM

geezer said:


> Assuming you want to keep WC/VT as your striking core, some things would definitely mix in better than others. Clinchwork and takedowns allowing a seamless transition to grappling should work in very well. By contrast, a very different striking art with a different structure and method of power generation would be more problematic.



Gap-filling?  Or just good integration of different skills sets?


----------



## DanT

Nobody Important said:


> Why? That logic doesn't make any sense, the entire purpose for seeking out new methods, tactics or strategies is to incorporate to fill a deficiency or improve upon an existing method. The entire premise is to make the new addition cohesive with the existing one, and improve the overall method making it more utilitarian. Especially with a method like Chi Sau, that is essentially nothing more than a fancy version of pummeling. Understanding how other, similar methods are used and deployed allows us to enhance our understanding of the strengths and weaknesses other methods and what we can do to improve ours.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, why? Why train one way and fight another, when what you're looking for is cohesion. "Gap Filling" and "Cross Training" are nothing more than two phrases that describe the same thing with a slightly different emphasis on the semantics of what attributes are being augmented. They are both terms used to describe the aspect of "Mixing", one simply has a negative connotation associated with it, but make no mistake, there are the same thing.


Because there is no diffeciency. The style is complete, it works on its own, I don't need to do a Shaolin movement to make up for my shity wing chun, because my wing chun is excellent, and my Shaolin is excellent. I don't have any gaps to be filled. I train the system, I believe in the system. They work, I don't need to gap fill because I have trained diligently.
Chi Sao is not "pummelling", if that's how you do it then great, but you're not doing it for the same purpose that I am then.


----------



## DanT

drop bear said:


> You probably should. If you add striking to chi sau. No reason you couldn't add takedowns.
> 
> Even Thai style clinch work could be gap filled


I don't need to add that to Chi Sao because it's not the purpose of my Chi Sao. My Chi Sao is to develop sensitivity and reaction, as well as to practice pining and trapping. If I do a double leg I'm not working on those things. If I want to work on a double leg, then I'll do it in a platform that allows for that.


----------



## DanT

When you start adding stuff to a style you lose it's essence. If you do ballet do ballet, don't start doing jazz. If you play classical music, don't go to a classical music symphony and start playing a hip hop beat. It's disgraceful.


----------



## Nobody Important

DanT said:


> Because there is no diffeciency. The style is complete, it works on its own, I don't need to do a Shaolin movement to make up for my shity wing chun, because my wing chun is excellent, and my Shaolin is excellent. I don't have any gaps to be filled. I train the system, I believe in the system. They work, I don't need to gap fill because I have trained diligently.
> Chi Sao is not "pummelling", if that's how you do it then great, but you're not doing it for the same purpose that I am then.


So you're able to effectively grapple with only WC? Or participate in a TKD only tournament and win using WC kicking methods? If not there are deficiencies whether you agree or not. Context here is important. When it comes to a no rules method of fighting, no one method addresses all ranges and methods of defense equally or proficiently. The reason MMA has lept to the front of the fight scene is because the entire premise is acknowledging weak areas, filling the gaps that are lacking to address the deficiency. MMA is constantly tested and refined to address deficiencies, can WC claim the same? WC hasn't proven that it contains adequate methods to deal with all ranges and methods, feel free to believe otherwise. It may work in the context for what it was designed for, but it does not address them all, therefore "Gap Filling" or "Cross Training" are necessary for growth. No art evolves by remaining stagnant, no fighter evolves (even within the confines of a specific sport) by adhering to dogmatic belief that what they already possess is all inclusive & nothing more is necessary.


----------



## drop bear

geezer said:


> Assuming you want to keep WC/VT as your striking core, some things would definitely mix in better than others. Clinchwork and takedowns allowing a seamless transition to grappling should work in very well. By contrast, a very different striking art with a different structure and method of power generation would be more problematic.



Chi sau and pummeling don't look hugely different. You would effectively just be hitting different targets.


----------



## drop bear

DanT said:


> When you start adding stuff to a style you lose it's essence. If you do ballet do ballet, don't start doing jazz. If you play classical music, don't go to a classical music symphony and start playing a hip hop beat. It's disgraceful.



So you don't like fusion then?

Go watch crossroads.


----------



## DanT

Nobody Important said:


> So you're able to effectively grapple with only WC? Or participate in a TKD only tournament and win using WC kicking methods? If not there are deficiencies whether you agree or not. Context here is important. When it comes to a no rules method of fighting, no one method addresses all ranges and methods of defense equally or proficiently. The reason MMA has lept to the front of the fight scene is because the entire premise is acknowledging weak areas, filling the gaps that are lacking to address the deficiency. MMA is constantly tested and refined to address deficiencies, can WC claim the same? WC hasn't proven that it contains adequate methods to deal with all ranges and methods, feel free to believe otherwise. It may work in the context for what it was designed for, but it does not address them all, therefore "Gap Filling" or "Cross Training" are necessary for growth. No art evolves by remaining stagnant, no fighter evolves (even within the confines of a specific sport) by adhering to dogmatic belief that what they already possess is all inclusive & nothing more is necessary.


Wing Chun works excellent for what it was designed for. Obviously grappling arts work well in grappling tournaments and TKD works well in TKD tournaments. I'm not training for a TKD tournament, I'm training for street survival, and for that Wing Chun is a complete system. I don't have any reason to mix. If I want to compete in a BJJ tournament I'll use BJJ. If I want go fight in a TKD tournament I'll use TKD.


----------



## DanT

drop bear said:


> So you don't like fusion then?
> 
> Go watch crossroads.


Not when it comes to true Traditional Gong Fu no, because the systems are complete, the problem is that people are lazy and don't dedicate themselves to them and go looking elsewhere for answers.


----------



## drop bear

DanT said:


> Not when it comes to true Traditional Gong Fu no, because the systems are complete, the problem is that people are lazy and don't dedicate themselves to them and go looking elsewhere for answers.



If you think your system is complete then you don't understand your system.


----------



## DanT

drop bear said:


> If you think your system is complete then you don't understand your system.


Actually I do understand it. It's complete because it provides everything I need, not everything I could have. I will agree with you that some systems and styles do compliment Wing Chun well, such as BJJ, or a Longfist style. That's not to say that wing chun needs to be mixed, you keep the training separate. You perfect the skill and the style and then you learn another one, that's my philosophy. It's an art, I learn it, I become excellent in it, and then I start learning another one, and so on. I become excellent at jazz, then excellent at classical, then excellent at hip hop. Then when I play music, I play how I want to play.


----------



## Nobody Important

DanT said:


> I'm training for street survival, and for that Wing Chun is a complete system.



IMO not even close to being complete, there are so many things that can happen from rolling around on the ground, to weapons, to group attack. Belief that any one system, let alone Wing Chun, has all the answers to adequately deal with all ranges and methods of attack is foolish. In a sporting competition you stand a much better chance of making the opponent fight to your strengths than you do in a street altercation. Different environment, different attitude and different consequences. Augmenting a system like Wing Chun with methods like grappling or boxing doesn't mean that it is inferior, it means that it doesn't specialize in those methods or ranges, and by complimenting the art with such methods, allows you to be better equipped to use it more effectively. 

Now I'm not saying you have to mix the method. If you want to keep it as is, OK with me, I don't have a problem with you keeping it traditional. Just don't go around making unsubstantiated claims that it is an all inclusive method when it isn't.


----------



## anerlich

KPM said:


> Gap-filling?  Or just good integration of different skills sets?



I see what you are getting at, Keith, but in that particular case the IMO concepts behind that combination exist in various dummy sets. There's other stuff on that DVD which is a bit more like incorporating standing grappling moves into chi sao. But the essence is probably being able to move from wing chun structures into grappling controls. Opinions vary amongst my Wing Chun / Jiu Jitsu crosstraining friends and acquaintances about how useful such drills are.


----------



## anerlich

DanT said:


> I don't need to add that to Chi Sao because it's not the purpose of my Chi Sao. My Chi Sao is to develop sensitivity and reaction, as well as to practice pining and trapping. If I do a double leg I'm not working on those things. If I want to work on a double leg, then I'll do it in a platform that allows for that.



Chi sao is a platform to develop specific skills and attributes. I personally see it as more to develop correct structure and positioning than as a sensitivity drill. If you're structure is on point, sensitivity matters less, and if your structure is poor, sensitivity won't save you. Wrestling IMO is a way better drill for overall sensitivity.

Shooting a double leg from a poon sao position makes no sense, you don't want be engaged like that to set it up in the first place.

That said, a favourite d*ck move of mine when pressure testing in freestyle chi sao is to suddenly disengage, level change and hit them with a low ankle shoot. Your sprawl better be on point ... not the case for many WC guys.


----------



## anerlich

DanT said:


> Not when it comes to true Traditional Gong Fu no, because the systems are complete, the problem is that people are lazy and don't dedicate themselves to them and go looking elsewhere for answers.



I know what you mean, but there is also merit in not putting all your eggs in one basket. There might be good stuff over there you're missing out on.

I started Kung Fu doing a fusion style. My instructor was a goju ryu karate nidan and JJJ black belt who decided to switch to Chinese arts. To get in as much training as possible back in the mid 1960s he trained with a number of instructors of different styles at the same time. Wing Chun, Choy Li Fut, and Northern Sil Lum. He taught a system which included elements of all three. He was a man who didn't look for trouble, but enjoyed finding it, and he had more than a few chances to pressure test his system. He was a small guy, not particularly imposing and had regular challengers in the early days of his kwoon, though they stopped ocming once word got around that he was not an easy mark. His chi sao was as good as any I've experienced. I felt my time with him was very well spent and only stopped training with him because I had to move cities.

Style purity or completeness arguments tend to leave me unimpressed as a result.

I train with my current WC instructor because I though he was the best TCMA guy in my city at the time. Still do. He also cross trains, with a black belt in Kyokushin karate and a brown belt in BJJ.

I train WC and BJJ now. I don't try to mix them or use one to fill perceived holes in the other. But I certainly don't think myself lazy for pursuing two arts at once. I enjoy and value them both.


----------



## LFJ

Martial D said:


> I'm a little confused though. While this channel didn't have much but light sparring/drilling that channel did.



The question was whether or not VT practitioners are doing any sparring. Was it not?

Here is a glimpse of geared up sparring from this channel.

If you doubt any hard sparring is taking place there, I'm sure he's wondering what you'd consider "hard". 
He's had to have surgery on his chin for the amount of hits he has taken there. 
Knife sparring has also drawn blood despite heavy protection.

They no doubt do some serious training.









> Lots of wb and jui jitsu mixed in with what the guys on that channel are doing. Looks good but there is definitely stand up cross training (gap filling?)happening here.



There is no WB or gap-filling for missing striking elements there.

There is JJ because their instructor intends to have them compete in the future.
So, that is necessary to cross-train to complement the standup striking.


----------



## LFJ

geezer said:


> not much there to show a  WSLVT l_ong range_ game, or how it would be applied in free-sparring against a boxer or anyone else.



Nor did I say there was. The question was whether or not WSLVT practitioners are sparring at all.

So, there you go. The answer is yes.



> _That Channel _(Sean Wood's VT Lille group) showed a lot more. The elbow-low punching, the aggressive advancing steps, the forward pressure were all straight-up VT with a strong WSL flavor, but there was so much else worked in too ...some boxing hands (the "kung-fu fighting" clip at 1:13), use of what we call the "comb your hair" cover against hooks, as well as seamless transitions from punching to clinch-work, throws, ground fighting and submissions. Saw the same thing happening in a lot of the other videos, such as "VT Lille 15".



None of that is Western Boxing. The striking is standard VT.

Although the high cover is not typical of core VT tactics, more a BJ tactic, it works well against other styles, and use is therefore made of it.

Grappling is a complement to the striking, not gap-filling for something that should be a part of striking but is missing, like strategy and tactics for different striking ranges that are a given in fist fights.



> LFJ's _"WSLVT is a complete system and needs nothing else" _position.



As a striking method, that is true. It doesn't need help to function in standup striking at any range.

WB and VT are a bit like water and oil. If you try to use WB strategy or tactics, you must abandon VT strategy and tactics, and vice versa.

Doing so will more than likely render VT ineffective, because it's designed to work with a particular strategy and tactic. Switching up to a contradictory strategy and tactic will just muddle the efforts.



geezer said:


> OK then, if a person were willing to travel 1,000, heck maybe even 2,000 miles ...to see _good_ WSLVT who would you recommend visiting in the USA, where so many of us live? Somebody other than Kevin Gledhill, please!



I don't know anyone in the U.S. not affiliated with KG. I think he gets a bum rap, though, due to respectfully allowing someone their turn to show their approach, and then having that used against him. But, whether you think he's personally good at it or not (despite having experience to know that), he understands the system and can explain and teach it well.


----------



## KPM

DanT said:


> Wing Chun works excellent for what it was designed for.



And what was it designed for?


----------



## KPM

DanT said:


> some systems and styles do compliment Wing Chun well, such as BJJ, or a Longfist style. That's not to say that wing chun needs to be mixed, you keep the training separate. You perfect the skill and the style and then you learn another one, that's my philosophy. It's an art, I learn it, I become excellent in it, and then I start learning another one, and so on. I become excellent at jazz, then excellent at classical, then excellent at hip hop. Then when I play music, I play how I want to play.



While I agree with you in spirit, I disagree with how you get there.  Sure, you learn two different arts separately.  But then you also have to train them together and learn how to best move freely from one to the other.  You need to learn where they overlap so you have a seamless transition when you "want to play."  Otherwise you may find yourself hesitating or pausing when you aren't sure which method to use.


----------



## KPM

*Here is a glimpse of geared up sparring from this channel.*

---Again, Wing Chun vs. Wing Chun guy.  Not against a non-Wing Chun guy, and not really a "free-fighting" context.    To echo your question about TWC and that clip of William Cheung light sparring.....why is it I always see you saying your VT works so well against anyone, yet all the clips only show it working against another Wing Chun guy holding his hands nicely right on the centerline, standing nice and upright, so that the VT guy can charge forward at an angle and blast away?  Why does the opponent never simply take a step back and pivot out of the way?  Why does the opponent never duck and throw a hard and low body shot? Why does the opponent never slip to the side while throwing a hard round kick to the thigh? Why does the opponent always just stand right in front of the VT guy and let him come....never dancing away with good footwork like a boxer would?   


*He's had to have surgery on his chin for the amount of hits he has taken there. 
Knife sparring has also drawn blood despite heavy protection.

They no doubt do some serious training*.

----Bullshido styles can do some "serious training."  Doesn't mean its effective or good training.  Seeing the video that lead to that picture would mean much more!


*There is no WB or gap-filling for missing striking elements there.*

---I saw only one punch in that clip.  The VT straight punch.  For a dedicated striking art it seems odd that there is only one punch.  You have others you say?  Odd that they seldom if ever show up in all the numerous training clips.  Are they a secret as well?


*So, that is necessary to cross-train to complement the standup striking.*

---That doesn't explain the Boxing high cover.  Shouldn't a dedicated standup striking art be able to handle any strike coming at it with its own defensive methods???


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> ---Again, Wing Chun vs. Wing Chun guy.  Not against a non-Wing Chun guy, and not really a "free-fighting" context.



Duh. The question it answers is simply whether or not VT guys are sparring. The answer is yes.



> why is it I always see you saying your VT works so well against anyone, yet all the clips only show it working against another Wing Chun guy holding his hands nicely right on the centerline, standing nice and upright, so that the VT guy can charge forward at an angle and blast away?



That is a quite dishonest troll comment, since you have just seen VT vs MMA sparring.



> Why does the opponent never simply take a step back and pivot out of the way?  Why does the opponent never duck and throw a hard and low body shot? Why does the opponent never slip to the side while throwing a hard round kick to the thigh? Why does the opponent always just stand right in front of the VT guy and let him come....never dancing away with good footwork like a boxer would?



...Because they are VT fighters. Duh.

The MMA opponents did all of the above.



> ----Bullshido styles can do some "serious training."  Doesn't mean its effective or good training.  Seeing the video that lead to that picture would mean much more!



Your uninformed opinion has nothing to do with the reality or efficacy of what is being trained without you present.



> ---I saw only one punch in that clip.  The VT straight punch.  For a dedicated striking art it seems odd that there is only one punch.  You have others you say?  Odd that they seldom if ever show up in all the numerous training clips.  Are they a secret as well?



What others? Straight punches can have two different energies.
Seen as just a simple straight punch to the uninformed.

VT uses a few simple tools. Doesn't need a giant bag of tricks. So what?



> ---That doesn't explain the Boxing high cover.  Shouldn't a dedicated standup striking art be able to handle any strike coming at it with its own defensive methods???



Not a boxing cover. It's a BJ tactic that works well against other styles.


----------



## KPM

*WB and VT are a bit like water and oil. If you try to use WB strategy or tactics, you must abandon VT strategy and tactics, and vice versa.*

---Well here I may have to actually agree with you!   If your main VT strategy or tactic is to wedge in on the 45 degree angle and then charge into the opponent with a barrage of chain punches (as we see on so many WSLVT training clips, including the one you just posted), then yeah....that wouldn't mix very well with good Boxing.  But that isn't the main strategy in the various versions of Wing Chun I have learned.  And it has always seemed rather "one-dimensional" to me, as I've said before.

*
I don't know anyone in the U.S. not affiliated with KG. I think he gets a bum rap, though, due to respectfully allowing someone their turn to show their approach, and then having that used against him. But, whether you think he's personally good at it or not (despite having experience to know that), he understands the system and can explain and teach it well.*

---Well here I may have to actually agree with you again!   Geezer is probably spitting his coffee through his nose by now!     KG came across as a real  XXXX on the other forum, even worse than you do here on this forum!  He gave HIMSELF a "bum rap" for that reason. But  I would certainly be willing to cut him some slack over that exchange with Shaun.  What that exchange did show was that he needed to tone down his trash-talking of everyone else's Wing Chun....again like you need to do here in this forum (and also probably why you would NEVER post a clip of yourself doing any VT).  But I am sure that one exchange was not a good measure of his skills or how well he knows WSLVT.   So given a chance, I would gladly do some training with him.  But, given his known past attitude and behavior am I going to go out of my way to seek him out and risk wasting my time?  Likely not, and I'm sure anyone that knows him from the other forum would say the same.  In contrast, if I was ever in France I would definitely consider making an effort to visit Sean in Lille.


----------



## KPM

*That is a quite dishonest troll comment, since you have just seen VT vs MMA sparring.*

----No, now you are being dishonest.  Because if it is Sean's clip you are referring to, you admitted that they were mixing in other things with VT because they were  training for MMA competition.  So it wasn't just VT vs. MMA.




*The MMA opponents did all of the above.*

---Not in Kurth's clip that you just posted.  That seems to be the only sparring clip you can find other than Sean's.  And Sean's guys weren't doing pure VT, as you yourself pointed out.


*What others? Straight punches can have two different energies.
Seen as just a simple straight punch to the uninformed.*

---Ok.  So you only have one punch with two different energies.  Seems a bit strange for such an effective striking art.


*
Not a boxing cover. It's a BJ tactic that works well against other styles.*

---And just where the heck do you think BJJ got it from????!!!!!


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> If your main VT strategy or tactic is to wedge in on the 45 degree angle and then charge into the opponent with a barrage of chain punches (as we see on so many WSLVT training clips, including the one you just posted),



It's not, and that is not what is done in any videos I've pointed to.



> But that isn't the main strategy in the various versions of Wing Chun I have learned.  And it has always seemed rather "one-dimensional" to me, as I've said before.



Wasn't talking about WC you've encountered.
And "one-dimensional" is an opinion that doesn't affect the efficacy of the method.



> So given a chance, I would gladly do some training with him.  But, given his known past attitude and behavior am I going to go out of my way to seek him out and risk wasting my time?  Likely not, and I'm sure anyone that knows him from the other forum would say the same.  In contrast, if I was ever in France I would definitely consider making an effort to visit Sean in Lille.



Okay. Well, given the lack of motivation or chance to do either, you'll just have to live without.



KPM said:


> if it is Sean's clip you are referring to, you admitted that they were mixing in other things with VT because they were  training for MMA competition.  So it wasn't just VT vs. MMA.



The striking portion is VT.



> Sean's guys weren't doing pure VT, as you yourself pointed out.



The striking portion is VT.



> ---Ok.  So you only have one punch with two different energies.  Seems a bit strange for such an effective striking art.



Okay...?



> ---And just where the heck do you think BJJ got it from????!!!!!



Didn't say BJJ. BJ = _Biu-ji_.


----------



## DanT

You don't go to a golf club and start teaching tennis. 

You don't go to a basketball practice and start playing soccer.

You don't go to a boxing club and start teaching double legs.

You don't go to a Wing Chun club and start teaching arm bars.

You loose the essence of the system. It's an art, it does what it's designed for. If you want to learn a different sport or different art, go ahead, but don't have shitty wing chun and shitty judo and combine them and think you'll have anything more than ****.

I'm not saying it's a bad thing to learn multiple arts. In fact I think it's a great thing to have a diverse skill set, I have studied half a dozen martial arts myself. I don't mix them, I keep the skills and the training pure, and maintain the integrity of the arts that my teachers have taught me. If you want to learn wing chun, learn wing chun. If you want to learn Shaolin, learn Shaolin. If you want to learn Hong Kuen, learn Hong Kuen. You don't see Floyd Mayweather practicing double legs because boxing "doesn't have them." Boxing is boxing. Wing Chun is wing chun. BJJ is BJJ.


----------



## KPM

DanT said:


> You loose the essence of the system. It's an art, it does what it's designed for. If you want to learn a different sport or different art, go ahead, but don't have shitty wing chun and shitty judo and combine them and think you'll have anything more than ****.
> 
> I'm not saying it's a bad thing to learn multiple arts. In fact I think it's a great thing to have a diverse skill set, I have studied half a dozen martial arts myself. I don't mix them, I keep the skills and the training pure, and maintain the integrity of the arts that my teachers have taught me. If you want to learn wing chun, learn wing chun. If you want to learn Shaolin, learn Shaolin. If you want to learn Hong Kuen, learn Hong Kuen. You don't see Floyd Mayweather practicing double legs because boxing "doesn't have them." Boxing is boxing. Wing Chun is wing chun. BJJ is BJJ.



Would you say JKD is ***?   Would you say Krav Maga is ***?  How about Sambo?  Those are just a few of the arts that were derived from the combination of others.  Do you believe the Wing Chun legend that suggests that the art came from a combination of a snake and a crane style?  Nothing develops in a vacuum.  Most traditional arts came from someone with a background in more than one thing combining to produce something new.  A guy learns Choy Ga, Li Ga and Fut Ga and suddenly....whoala!.....Choy Li Fut Kung Fu is born.   The classic Hung Ga of Wong Fei Hung was a combination of more than one village style.  Combine Tae Kwon Do and Japanese Jiu Jutsu and you get Hapkido!   White Crane Kung Fu adapted with some native Okinawan movements becomes Karate.  

At one end of the spectrum, a near total melding of Wing Chun with Boxing is neither "classical" Wing Chun nor sport Boxing.  It is "Wing Chun Boxing."  It is its own thing.  As I've said before, this wouldn't be for everyone and I certainly wouldn't want to see "classical" Wing Chun go away!  

On the other end of the spectrum....Wing Chun can pick up a few things from Boxing that can improve some areas without really changing Wing Chun.  People have already been doing that for awhile.  Throwing in a high cover to defend a tight hook, using jabs or crosses to help move into close range, using evasive head movements (slipping, bobbing, ducking) at times, throwing shovel hooks to the body when in close, etc.


----------



## Juany118

DanT said:


> You don't go to a golf club and start teaching tennis.
> 
> You don't go to a basketball practice and start playing soccer.
> 
> You don't go to a boxing club and start teaching double legs.
> 
> You don't go to a Wing Chun club and start teaching arm bars.
> 
> You loose the essence of the system. It's an art, it does what it's designed for. If you want to learn a different sport or different art, go ahead, but don't have shitty wing chun and shitty judo and combine them and think you'll have anything more than ****.
> 
> I'm not saying it's a bad thing to learn multiple arts. In fact I think it's a great thing to have a diverse skill set, I have studied half a dozen martial arts myself. I don't mix them, I keep the skills and the training pure, and maintain the integrity of the arts that my teachers have taught me. If you want to learn wing chun, learn wing chun. If you want to learn Shaolin, learn Shaolin. If you want to learn Hong Kuen, learn Hong Kuen. You don't see Floyd Mayweather practicing double legs because boxing "doesn't have them." Boxing is boxing. Wing Chun is wing chun. BJJ is BJJ.




The thing is your analogy only applies to your WC.  Some Lineages, such as mine, not only have standing grappling but arm bars and other methods of "take down." Where did that come from in my Lineage?  Who knows. Wing Chun works in it's realm, if trained properly, but like anything it has limits, each lineage having different limits, because nothing is perfect.  I don't necessarily see the harm in someone trying to reduce those limitations by importing additional methodologies.  So long as those methodologies don't undermine the core principles of WC it will still be WC.  I think this is especially important if you are learning WC for real life combat where you may be confronted by a miriad of different fighting styles, some of which have techniques that can exploit the limits of WC, or any number of striking focused arts.


----------



## LFJ

Malos1979 said:


> I couldn't get the Wing Chun that I learned, to work outside the system itself. So the system worked excellent against other Chunners, but it didn't work well against my Pukulan and Silat teacher.



Two things:

Were you ever taught how to use the method in free fighting, and do free sparring, or just endless _chi-sau_? Many WC practitioners are never shown the free-fighting aspect beyond theory, whether it be because their teachers don't know it, or whatever... Not a fault of the system itself, I think.

And, do you think a few years in anything would work well against a trainer who presumably has many more years of experience fighting with their art? Might also be quite subjective.

I mean, personal experience in valid, but there might be particular reasons it didn't work for you.


----------



## Juany118

Malos1979 said:


> I was taught the free fighting but still got my *** handed to me by people that were practising Kickboxing, Silat, Pukulan etc.....
> Maybe you are right and is a total of 8-9 years of Wing Chun not long enough to grasp the principles of the system and apply them outside the Wing Chun eco system.
> 
> It's all subjective and personal I think.



In my experience the main issue with WC, even those with full sparring, is that it is almost always WC v WC.  This can create issues.  As an example I have beaten more experienced and "better" WC practitioners because, in an effort to make myself more effective in real use, I would use Aikido when my WC couldn't overcome their WC.  It's not that they weren't a better practitioner than I, it's the fact that they have only sparred against other WC practitioners.  Such myopic training can create muscle memory that trips you up when you encounter a styles that have different methodologies.  The degree of getting tripped up being based, in part, on how different the methodology in question is.


----------



## LFJ

Malos1979 said:


> I was taught the free fighting but still got my *** handed to me by people that were practising Kickboxing, Silat, Pukulan etc.....
> Maybe you are right and is a total of 8-9 years of Wing Chun not long enough to grasp the principles of the system and apply them outside the Wing Chun eco system.
> 
> It's all subjective and personal I think.



Well, no. 8-9 years should be more than enough to fare well.
It sounded like you had a couple years here and a couple there.

Good Wing Chun is not something easy to come by.

I don't want to piss everyone off and say most get it wrong, but indeed few ever figure out how to get it to work against other styles. Current threads here indicate that pretty well.

What it takes is a good understanding of the strategy and tactics for facing any sort of attacker, and then lots of practice actually facing people from other styles. Most Wing Chun simply doesn't have the strategy, and the practitioners don't face others enough. So, the result is to be expected.


----------



## DaveB

Lots of people seem to agree that wing chun is lacking a "long range game".

Can anyone elaborate on what exactly that involves?

Most of the wing chun fighters I've seen getting beaten seemed to me to have 2 problems:
1. A need to embody an idealised formal aesthetic.
2. A lack of appreciation for the increased velocity of punches when the opponent is moving forward at the same time.

The antidote to number 2 is usually just improve your footwork so you can compensate for body movement
Take footwork skills a bit further and you can enter and escape at will. 

I could be wrong but I don't think getting better at footwork would constitute a departure from the style.


----------



## Juany118

DaveB said:


> Lots of people seem to agree that wing chun is lacking a "long range game".
> 
> Can anyone elaborate on what exactly that involves?
> 
> Most of the wing chun fighters I've seen getting beaten seemed to me to have 2 problems:
> 1. A need to embody an idealised formal aesthetic.
> 2. A lack of appreciation for the increased velocity of punches when the opponent is moving forward at the same time.
> 
> The antidote to number 2 is usually just improve your footwork so you can compensate for body movement
> Take footwork skills a bit further and you can enter and escape at will.
> 
> I could be wrong but I don't think getting better at footwork would constitute a departure from the style.




I think what people mean is this...how effective is the art if, for whatever reason you can't get to, or maintain, what some people refer to as "trapping" range and by trapping range I mean being close enough so that you can control the elbow of the opponent.

Naturally the WC punch can strike from outside this range but some Lineages of WC are hindered if they can't reach, and maintain, that sweet spot because they train the practitioner to use trapping techniques to create openings to strike and also to use being that close to moderate the effectiveness of kicks and certain "long fist" strikes your opponent may utilize. 

Other arts are the opposite.  As an example, Savate, if you trained it as a sport and not a street fighting art (there are actually some combative training methods) is far more effective at kicking range.  This is a consequence of how points are scored.  If you punch three times in a row you only get the point for the first punch in order to encourage kicking.  As such a lot more time is spent training on kicking and punches are relegated to a more utilitarian purpose (set ups, gaining distance etc.)


----------



## wckf92

LFJ said:


> Straight punches can have two different energies.



This could make for an interesting thread topic. I'd like to learn more about it. I'm not sure what @LFJ means but I'm wondering (from watching vid clips of his lineage) if he means one energy is like a hard uprooting 'push'? And the other has more of a ballistic/KO quality / energy to it? Don't want to derail this thread though... perhaps a different thread or a PM...Thanks!


----------



## Juany118

wckf92 said:


> This could make for an interesting thread topic. I'd like to learn more about it. I'm not sure what @LFJ means but I'm wondering (from watching vid clips of his lineage) if he means one energy is like a hard uprooting 'push'? And the other has more of a ballistic/KO quality / energy to it? Don't want to derail this thread though... perhaps a different thread or a PM...Thanks!



The only things I can think of are...
A. What you just described (usually due to the fact mass was put behind a punch without adequate acceleration)
B. He is talking about the mechanics of the punch.  As an example you can be standing still and generate force via a "sinking" punch, by stepping as you punch, by stepping and sinking at the same time etc.


----------



## LFJ

None of the above. Every punch needs to count.

The basic _taan_ and _fuk _concepts; the expanding or contracting energies in the elbow during the punch.


----------



## Knapf

DaveB said:


> Lots of people seem to agree that wing chun is lacking a "long range game".
> 
> Can anyone elaborate on what exactly that involves?


Wing Chun doesn't have a long range "game" unlike Hung Ga and Buk Sing Choy Lee Fat.  Both arts have footwork which enable you to to get closer and strike at a far away  or a retreating enemy. If you are using Wing Chun against a far or retreating enemy,there are no leaping or running moves to get you closer so it takes quite some time to get near. Especially not good when you have already gotten near and he retreats again .Try practicing with someone and ask them to stand far away at first and then retreat each time you get closer. Then stand in the usual stance(not Yi Ji kim yeung ma but the one you always use in WC) and try going after them while stepping forward with the front foot(Biu Ma?) each time you try to advance. You'll start feeling frustrated after some time.


----------



## KPM

DaveB said:


> Lots of people seem to agree that wing chun is lacking a "long range game".
> 
> Can anyone elaborate on what exactly that involves?
> 
> Most of the wing chun fighters I've seen getting beaten seemed to me to have 2 problems:
> 1. A need to embody an idealised formal aesthetic.
> 2. A lack of appreciation for the increased velocity of punches when the opponent is moving forward at the same time.
> 
> The antidote to number 2 is usually just improve your footwork so you can compensate for body movement
> Take footwork skills a bit further and you can enter and escape at will.
> 
> I could be wrong but I don't think getting better at footwork would constitute a departure from the style.




Dave, here is what I posted in the "Wing Chun Boxing" thread:

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

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


As I've said numerous times now, there is a difference between having a "long range game" and having a strategy for surviving in the long range long enough to  be able to move into close range.  Personally I think it is quite obvious that the "long range game" as described above is not what Wing Chun was designed to do.


----------



## wckf92

Knapf said:


> Wing Chun doesn't have a long range "game" unlike Hung Ga and Buk Sing Choy Lee Fat.  Both arts have footwork which enable you to to get closer and strike at a far away  or a retreating enemy. If you are using Wing Chun against a far or retreating enemy,there are no leaping or running moves to get you closer so it takes quite some time to get near. Especially not good when you have already gotten near and he retreats again .Try practicing with someone and ask them to stand far away at first and then retreat each time you get closer. Then stand in the usual stance and try going after them while stepping forward with the front foot(Biu Ma?) each time you try to advance. You'll start feeling frustrated after some time.



Are you a Wing Chun practitioner who has completed all the training/entire curriculum?


----------



## Knapf

wckf92 said:


> Are you a Wing Chun practitioner who has completed all the training/entire curriculum?


I only did SLT before I quit for obvious reasons. I know that even if I had finished the entire curriculum,there will still not be some sort of long range footwork taught to me.


----------



## DaveB

Juany118 said:


> I think what people mean is this...how effective is the art if, for whatever reason you can't get to, or maintain, what some people refer to as "trapping" range and by trapping range I mean being close enough so that you can control the elbow of the opponent.
> 
> Naturally the WC punch can strike from outside this range but some Lineages of WC are hindered if they can't reach, and maintain, that sweet spot because they train the practitioner to use trapping techniques to create openings to strike and also to use being that close to moderate the effectiveness of kicks and certain "long fist" strikes your opponent may utilize.
> 
> Other arts are the opposite.  As an example, Savate, if you trained it as a sport and not a street fighting art (there are actually some combative training methods) is far more effective at kicking range.  This is a consequence of how points are scored.  If you punch three times in a row you only get the point for the first punch in order to encourage kicking.  As such a lot more time is spent training on kicking and punches are relegated to a more utilitarian purpose (set ups, gaining distance etc.)



So the tools are there (punch and kick).

The tactics are there (hit where the opponent is empty?... where they aren't defending/watching).

All that's missing is the practice bit.

Can anyone suggest some good drills for fighting at distance and without chi sau?

My close quarter kung fu taught me to use short quick steps rather than lunging longer steps, to circle to their blind side as it forces adjustment and use angles in both attack and retreat.

It sounds like we've nearly cracked it.


----------



## KPM

*I don't want to piss everyone off and say most get it wrong,*

---Turning over a new leaf?  That has never concerned you in the past!  


*but indeed few ever figure out how to get it to work against other styles.*

---Few seem to get it to work in a sparring/free-fighting environment against other styles without alterations.  Maybe because that kind of setting is not what it was designed for?  


*What it takes is a good understanding of the strategy and tactics for facing any sort of attacker, and then lots of practice actually facing people from other styles.*

----True.  But interesting that in all those numerous training clips from WSLVT/PB people we've only seen....what...one clip of WSLVT people facing other styles?  And that was specifically Sean's group training for MMA and not standard WSLVT training?  Strange, given your comment above!!!  


*Most Wing Chun simply doesn't have the strategy, and the practitioners don't face others enough. So, the result is to be expected.[*

---Well, given the evidence we do have for WSLVT, and the fact that the evidence to support what you are saying is lacking....the reasonable conclusion is that what you do fits in with "most Wing Chun" as well.  That is, until proven otherwise.


----------



## Knapf

KPM said:


> I can't remember who it was, but I think it was someone is this very forum that described Wing Chun as an "ambush style."


Yup. It could be an ambush style. It's supposed to be the art of the assassin, when you are already close to the target,you use a straight punch to the throat to disable the enemy's possiblity to call for backup. Then you use whatever you are taught in WC to kill him. But then again..........I only heard this on the net and there's really no sources to back up my story. Maybe there are and I would like to see it.

Still,only using the straight punch (without left or right hooks,leopard fists or hammer fists )may not be enough if your enemy uses more types of punches than you.Well of course you have the eye gouge,throat poke and strikes to vital points but you should have more types of punches at your disposal.


----------



## Parky

Knapf said:


> Wing Chun doesn't have a long range "game" unlike Hung Ga and Buk Sing Choy Lee Fat.  Both arts have footwork which enable you to to get closer and strike at a far away  or a retreating enemy. If you are using Wing Chun against a far or retreating enemy,there are no leaping or running moves to get you closer so it takes quite some time to get near. Especially not good when you have already gotten near and he retreats again .Try practicing with someone and ask them to stand far away at first and then retreat each time you get closer. Then stand in the usual stance(not Yi Ji kim yeung ma but the one you always use in WC) and try going after them while stepping forward with the front foot(Biu Ma?) each time you try to advance. You'll start feeling frustrated after some time.



This is funny stuff to me. There are no leaping or running moves to get you closer? I'm imagining some stiff and rigid WC guy using shuffle-step footwork trying to bridge some HUGE gap...like one of those 'athletes' who *walk* super fast, and meanwhile the opponent keeps taking slow steps backward laughing at the dumb Wing Chun guy. As if Wing Chun is some ball and chain attached to the legs and you have to abandon everything else your body already knows how to do and try and do it the 'Wing Chun Way'. If someone is retreating I will let them. If I feel like pursuing them I will walk toward them. If they run away, depending on the circumstances, I will smile and wave goodbye.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> ---Few seem to get it to work in a sparring/free-fighting environment against other styles without alterations.  Maybe because that kind of setting is not what it was designed for?



It wasn't designed to work against other styles in fighting? Is it not a martial art?

Designed to not work without alterations makes no sense...



> interesting that in all those numerous training clips from WSLVT/PB people we've only seen....what...one clip of WSLVT people facing other styles?  And that was specifically Sean's group training for MMA and not standard WSLVT training?



It is each group's right to publicize their training to the extent they choose.
It seems to upset you if you aren't given enough to gawk at without going to train in person..?

What do you mean "not standard WSLVT training"? Their striking method is standard WSLVT.



> ---Well, given the evidence we do have for WSLVT, and the fact that the evidence to support what you are saying is lacking....



You mean the evidence _you_ have or are willing to look at. You could go visit a school and find out any time.

Why don't you do that if you're this obsessed with the lineage?


----------



## Knapf

Parky said:


> There are no leaping or running moves to get you closer?


Somebody asked what having no lang range game involves.I just gave an example



> As if Wing Chun is some ball and chain attached to the legs


It is.



> If someone is retreating I will let them. If I feel like pursuing them I will walk toward them. If they run away, depending on the circumstances, I will smile and wave goodbye.


Have fun "walking" all over the place towards someone  who jabs,retreats and jabs again instead of running away totally.


----------



## KPM

Parky said:


> This is funny stuff to me. There are no leaping or running moves to get you closer? I'm imagining some stiff and rigid WC guy using shuffle-step footwork trying to bridge some HUGE gap...like one of those 'athletes' who *walk* super fast, and meanwhile the opponent keeps taking slow steps backward laughing at the dumb Wing Chun guy. As if Wing Chun is some ball and chain attached to the legs and you have to abandon everything else your body already knows how to do and try and do it the 'Wing Chun Way'. If someone is retreating I will let them. If I feel like pursuing them I will walk toward them. If they run away, depending on the circumstances, I will smile and wave goodbye.



Post #96 on this thread.


----------



## Juany118

DaveB said:


> So the tools are there (punch and kick).
> 
> The tactics are there (hit where the opponent is empty?... where they aren't defending/watching).
> 
> All that's missing is the practice bit.
> 
> Can anyone suggest some good drills for fighting at distance and without chi sau?
> 
> My close quarter kung fu taught me to use short quick steps rather than lunging longer steps, to circle to their blind side as it forces adjustment and use angles in both attack and retreat.
> 
> It sounds like we've nearly cracked it.



It goes beyond what you say above though with many Lineages.  Can WC punch and Kick?  Yep.  Thing is it is far more effective in chi sau/trapping ranged because of the straight punch.  The straight punch is a two edged sword.  The shortest distance between two points is a straight line so it is fast.  Thing is since you are using a straight punch it can be easier to defend against unless you can wedge/trap the opponents defense and/or flank.  Even if you get to the flank you need to be in that range so you can attempt to control the opponent in order to maintain the flank, other wise it becomes a game of Ring Around the Rosie.

Now some WC lineages have more of a long game, whether it be higher kicks, round punches (even if it's limited to tight hook punches) that allow the practitioner to have less reliance on getting into chi sau/trapping range but for those Lineages that rely more on trapping/standing grappling to create openings only reach maximum effectiveness when they are in that range and you see it in sparring, especially when people are sparring against other Martial Arts.  The WC guy all but charges straight in looking to get to that optimal range.


----------



## LFJ

Juany118 said:


> Even if you get to the flank you need to be in that range so you can attempt to control the opponent in order to maintain the flank, other wise it becomes a game of Ring Around the Rosie.



A pocket full of posies!


----------



## Parky

Knapf said:


> Somebody asked what having no lang range game involves.I just gave an example
> 
> 
> It is.
> 
> 
> Have fun "walking" all over the place towards someone  who jabs,retreats and jabs again instead of running away totally.



So citing your boxing comments, would you say a boxer is using leaping and running 'moves' when he is jabbing-retreating-and jabbing, or are you suggesting we should have leaping and running 'moves' to defend against boxers? See I think boxers step, walk, and run...just like me. I think stepping, walking, and running is all I need, not some special Wing Chun way of moving.


----------



## Juany118

Parky said:


> So citing your boxing comments, would you say a boxer is using leaping and running 'moves' when he is jabbing-retreating-and jabbing, or are you suggesting we should have leaping and running 'moves' to defend against boxers? See I think boxers step, walk, and run...just like me. I think stepping, walking, and running is all I need, not some special Wing Chun way of moving.


You don't have to run or leap.  A retreating fighter will only move so fast if they are backing away in order to maintain their balance.  All you ultimately need to so is either 

A. Widen your footwork, which some WC Lineages do indeed do.  When you start they teach you to keep your footwork tight but later your footwork HAS to learn how to widen.  If it doesn't you will be in a world of hurt when it comes to learning the Baat Jaam Do.  You can also use the footwork Rocky Marciano used for his left hook, stepping forward and crossing your lead foot with the trailing foot.






I really don't think footwork is the issue with WC tbh (at least it isn't in TWC) the issue with some Lineages is just that it is very reliant on being in chi sau range period.  Sometimes the dynamics of a fight just won't let you stay there.


----------



## Phobius

I believe some people just get so caught up in chi-sau they forget to use their legs.

Footwork requires a lot of practise. Try doing crappy footwork when your opponent has two swords in his hands. I assure you that the sharper those blades become, the more lively your footwork gets.


----------



## Flying Crane

Do people believe they are not able or allowed to move unless it is taught as a specific wing chun technique or method?

Sometimes we just need to move.  Most of us began learning how to do this when we were very young...

Methinks sometimes limitations are created artificially.


----------



## drop bear

DanT said:


> You don't go to a golf club and start teaching tennis.
> 
> You don't go to a basketball practice and start playing soccer.
> 
> You don't go to a boxing club and start teaching double legs.
> 
> You don't go to a Wing Chun club and start teaching arm bars.
> 
> You loose the essence of the system. It's an art, it does what it's designed for. If you want to learn a different sport or different art, go ahead, but don't have shitty wing chun and shitty judo and combine them and think you'll have anything more than ****.
> 
> I'm not saying it's a bad thing to learn multiple arts. In fact I think it's a great thing to have a diverse skill set, I have studied half a dozen martial arts myself. I don't mix them, I keep the skills and the training pure, and maintain the integrity of the arts that my teachers have taught me. If you want to learn wing chun, learn wing chun. If you want to learn Shaolin, learn Shaolin. If you want to learn Hong Kuen, learn Hong Kuen. You don't see Floyd Mayweather practicing double legs because boxing "doesn't have them." Boxing is boxing. Wing Chun is wing chun. BJJ is BJJ.



I bet Connor McGregor is practicing boxing though.

The line between martial arts are just human constructed concepts.

Someone just made a rule and said you can't play tennis with a golf club. That is their rule. Not mine.


----------



## drop bear

Flying Crane said:


> Do people believe they are not able or allowed to move unless it is taught as a specific wing chun technique or method?
> 
> Sometimes we just need to move.  Most of us began learning how to do this when we were very young...
> 
> Methinks sometimes limitations are created artificially.



Yeah we have confused ideas like it just doesn't work very well with it is not part of the system.


----------



## drop bear

LFJ said:


> Well, no. 8-9 years should be more than enough to fare well.
> It sounded like you had a couple years here and a couple there.
> 
> Good Wing Chun is not something easy to come by.
> 
> I don't want to piss everyone off and say most get it wrong, but indeed few ever figure out how to get it to work against other styles. Current threads here indicate that pretty well.
> 
> What it takes is a good understanding of the strategy and tactics for facing any sort of attacker, and then lots of practice actually facing people from other styles. Most Wing Chun simply doesn't have the strategy, and the practitioners don't face others enough. So, the result is to be expected.



You need to start with a guy who can demonstratively use their system against other styles.

Otherwise the principles don't count.

That is why people turn to boxing or BJJ because you can roll up to a gym and get your butt handed to you. That way you know you have the right guy.


----------



## Knapf

Parky said:


> So citing your boxing comments, would you say a boxer is using leaping and running 'moves' when he is jabbing-retreating-and jabbing,



No. But you _yourself  _as a Wing Chunner should adopt long range moves to defeat him quickly if he retreats and not Biu Ma which takes too long.



> or are you suggesting we should have leaping and running 'moves' to defend against boxers?


Yes. But running doesn't mean running in marathon style. "Running" towards the enemy in Choy Lee Fat style. Or should I say advancing.



> See I think boxers step, walk, and *run*...just like me. I think stepping, walking, and running is all I need, not some special Wing Chun way of moving.


I thought you were disagreeing with me about running.  Why are you saying now that stepping,walking and running  is all you need?


----------



## Knapf

Juany118 said:


> You don't have to run or leap.  A retreating fighter will only move so fast if they are backing away in order to maintain their balance.  All you ultimately need to so is either
> 
> 
> I really don't think footwork is the issue with WC tbh (at least it isn't in TWC) the issue with some Lineages is just that it is very reliant on being in chi sau range period.  Sometimes the dynamics of a fight just won't let you stay there.


Biu Ma takes too long to achieve the desired results. The boxer will jab and at times not only retreat backwards but to the left and right. You use Biu Ma and before you know it he's already at the right side. Biu Ma again and he's already at the right. You need quick offensive footwork to finish off the boxer.


----------



## Knapf

Flying Crane said:


> Do people believe they are not able or allowed to move unless it is taught as a specific wing chun technique or method?
> 
> Sometimes we just need to move.  Most of us began learning how to do this when we were very young...
> 
> Methinks sometimes limitations are created artificially.


Biu Ma takes too long.


----------



## Juany118

Knapf said:


> Biu Ma takes too long to achieve the desired results. The boxer will jab and at times not only retreat backwards but to the left and right. You use Biu Ma and before you know it he's already at the right side. Biu Ma again and he's already at the right. You need quick offensive footwork to finish off the boxer.




Not all WC is the same however, even those who claim YM Lineage.  Yip Chun is different than WSLVT which is different than TWC.


----------



## Knapf

Juany118 said:


> Not all WC is the same however, even those who claim YM Lineage.  Yip Chun is different than WSLVT which is different than TWC.


So if one lineage teaches Biu Ma, what does the other lineage teach that is better than Biu Ma?


----------



## Juany118

Knapf said:


> So if one lineage teaches Biu Ma, what does the other lineage teach that is better than Biu Ma?



That's not actually the point.  The point is that every lineage uses similar, if not identical, identifiers to say "foot work" as an example, but in practice they can be different.  It also changes as you progress.  When one starts learning the Baat Jaam Do you see the change in footwork necessary to address the longer reach of the blade.  This can be applied to empty hand, heck many argue it's the point of BJD.  I am speaking from the position of studying Grand Master Cheung's Wing Chun though.

Also full disclosure... I have not started with the BJD yet.  However GM Cheung gave his Blessing to my school to teach TWC and Inosanto Kali in parallel, so the footwork changes necessary for weapons is taught in my school from the very beginning and applying it to WC, when needed, is basically second nature.


----------



## Knapf

Juany118 said:


> That's not actually the point.  The point is that every lineage uses similar, if not identical, identifiers to say "foot work" as an example, but in practice they can be different.  .


My original point was that footwork in WC,Biu Ma,for example, was too slow. So if your point was that every lineage uses identical footwork but in practice they can be different,I would like to know how your lineage has  better footwork.


----------



## Flying Crane

Knapf said:


> Biu Ma takes too long.


Are you unable to move outside of what is specifically taught?  Seriously, you can't step or walk or run or skip or jump or roll or do a goddam cartwheel if necessary, if it isn't specifically taught in your wing chun?  You are unable to do that?  How to you walk to the bathroom?  How do you run after a bus?  How do you jump over a puddle?  How do you bend over to pick up a sack of groceries, or kneel down to tie your shoe?  If the only way you can move is how you are taught in wing chun, then you live a horribly constructed life.

Sometimes ya gotta just move, if that is what you need to do.


----------



## Knapf

Flying Crane said:


> Are you unable to move outside of what is specifically taught?  Seriously, you can't step or walk or run or skip or jump or roll or do a goddam cartwheel if necessary, if it isn't specifically taught in your wing chun?  You are unable to do that?  How to you walk to the bathroom?  How do you run after a bus?  How do you jump over a puddle?  How do you bend over to pick up a sack of groceries, or kneel down to tie your shoe?
> Sometimes ya gotta just move, if that is what you need to do.


Then we are not in disagreement then. Biu Ma in WC is too slow so it helps alot to adopt a Choy Lee Fat or Hung Ga style of advancing. I may not have stated that but that's what I would suggest.

Edit:My mistake .I overlooked your message


> Methinks sometimes limitations are created artificially.


----------



## drop bear

You know you might have to break out of your stance and fight a running battle.


----------



## Phobius

Biu ma has its purposes but on long range I would say it is not your wisest move. 

Just because it is what you train it does not mean it is all you can use. We train it a lot and the better positioning I can maintain against opponents the more dominant it becomes for me. This means that I often train other ways to move, sadly. 

Now a boxer sacrifice leg safety for better and faster movement. This I doubt is the best way forward as they will always be better until you start kicking those knees. 

What MT, boxers and many more do however is to use different tools frequently in training to get more explosive stepping. 

Many in WC seem to think just walking around or standing in SLT will teach good footwork. Missing that you still need the explosiveness in your muscles.


----------



## Knapf

Phobius said:


> Biu ma has its purposes but on long range I would say it is not your wisest move.


I know. Just using it as one of the few examples.



> Just because it is what you train it does not mean it is all you can use.


The other methods that WC can use are ineffective for long range fighting



> This means that I often train other ways to move, sadly.


Keep it up


----------



## LFJ

Knapf said:


> Biu Ma in WC is too slow so it helps alot to adopt a Choy Lee Fat or Hung Ga style of advancing.





Knapf said:


> The other methods that WC can use are ineffective for long range fighting



If people think they can only move as in form, it sounds like they've never learned the free-fighting aspect. Only form and _chi-sau_. That's the problem. 

I can move freely and quickly in any direction at long range, without resorting to other styles' ways of moving. Sounds like you only know short-range footwork?


----------



## Knapf

LFJ said:


> If people think they can only move as in form, it sounds like they've never learned the free-fighting aspect. Only form and _chi-sau_. That's the problem.
> 
> I can move freely and quickly in any direction at long range, without resorting to other styles' ways of moving. Sounds like you only know short-range footwork?


What is your way of long range advancing then?Any videos?If possible,what is it called in cantonese?


----------



## LFJ

Knapf said:


> What is your way of long range advancing then?Any videos?If possible,what is it called in cantonese?



What is it called? Just natural fluid stepping, man.
Even weight, balanced COG, and free movement in whatever direction.

Don't be confined to patterns and techniques like a programmed robot.
Mobility and angling is key to fighting effectively with VT, or anything.


----------



## Knapf

LFJ said:


> What is it called? Just natural fluid stepping, man.
> Even weight, balanced COG, and free movement in whatever direction.


Nope,I still don't believe that the footwork in WC has long range "game" if you can't show some proof that it can fight long range like HG or CLF.


> Don't be confined to patterns and techniques like a programmed robot.
> Mobility and angling is key to fighting effectively with VT, or anything.


I'm not. In fact it is WC that is sticking to it's short range footwork and can't adapt.


----------



## LFJ

Knapf said:


> Nope,I still don't believe that the footwork in WC has long range "game" if you can't show some proof that it can fight long range like HG or CLF.



Most WC doesn't.



> I'm not. In fact it is WC that is sticking to it's short range footwork and can't adapt.



I agree, most WC is stuck to specific techniques like you just asked me for, not understanding natural movement.


----------



## KPM

Flying Crane said:


> Are you unable to move outside of what is specifically taught?  Seriously, you can't step or walk or run or skip or jump or roll or do a goddam cartwheel if necessary, if it isn't specifically taught in your wing chun?  You are unable to do that?  How to you walk to the bathroom?  How do you run after a bus?  How do you jump over a puddle?  How do you bend over to pick up a sack of groceries, or kneel down to tie your shoe?  If the only way you can move is how you are taught in wing chun, then you live a horribly constructed life.
> 
> Sometimes ya gotta just move, if that is what you need to do.



So....you're saying that Wing Chun may not possess everything needed in a fight and may have to actually do something from outside the system?  It may need to actually "gap fill"..... to quote a resident expert?   And if that is true....which is better?....to improvise with any old thing at the time and hope it works?.....or to actually train something that has footwork and strategies for that very purpose?


----------



## wckf92

Knapf said:


> Nope,I still don't believe that the footwork in WC has long range "game" if you can't show some proof that it can fight long range like HG or CLF.



How would you know this if you only were at SLT level before leaving for greener pastures?


----------



## Knapf

wckf92 said:


> How would you know this if you only were at SLT level before leaving for greener pastures?


Wing Chun has it's "reputation".  Also my memory involving a real fight made that left me frustrated


----------



## Juany118

Knapf said:


> My original point was that footwork in WC,Biu Ma,for example, was too slow. So if your point was that every lineage uses identical footwork but in practice they can be different,I would like to know how your lineage has  better footwork.



1. I will never speak of something that is "better" in terms of WC.  Also it's not that WC footwork is slow, rather it can be very tight.

2. TWC's footwork isn't "slow" as you describe, likely a consequence of the focus of "fighting on the blind side".  To get to the flank as you are entering requires a bit of speed so it can be "wider" which provides speed.

This is a conversation, even debate, we have had a few times around here.  Where some Lineages try to obtain such a superior position via their attack forcing the opponent, TWC has a focus on you moving to that position yourself, the way a boxer would.  That requires more speed.  So around here says that makes my lineage less effective.  I make no such judgement, I just say it works for me /shrug.

3. When one reaches BJD one learns wider footwork in other Lineages (I studied another before TWC.  Some around here have argued that WC may teach things backwards to an extent because a lot of footwork and the like doesn't get taught until after SLT.  So I would suggest that if you didn't learn the advanced footwork that starts with CK and then is really opened up with the BJD that criticizing the footwork is odd.


----------



## Knapf

Juany118 said:


> 1. I will never speak of something that is "better" in terms of WC.


I would.



> 2. TWC's footwork isn't "slow" as you describe, likely a consequence of the focus of "fighting on the blind side".  To get to the flank as you are entering requires a bit of speed.


Ok. That kinda makes sense. Although I still think that the footwork wouldn't be enough to chase an overactive opponent.


> This is a conversation, even debate, we have had a few times around here.  Where some Lineages try to obtain such a superior position via their attack forcing the opponent, TWC has a focus on you moving to that position yourself, the way a boxer would.  That requires more speed.  So around here says that makes my lineage less effective.  I make no such judgement, I just say it works for me /shrug.


To each their own then.


----------



## Juany118

Knapf said:


> Ok. That kinda makes sense. Although I still think that the footwork wouldn't be enough to chase an overactive opponent.



In my experience an opponent that "over active", especially if retreating, would be so off balance that they would not only be ineffective in terms of the jabs and such that are used to maintain distance that I would be waiting for them to trip over their own feet


----------



## DaveB

KPM said:


> So....you're saying that Wing Chun may not possess everything needed in a fight and may have to actually do something from outside the system?  It may need to actually "gap fill"..... to quote a resident expert?   And if that is true....which is better?....to improvise with any old thing at the time and hope it works?.....or to actually train something that has footwork and strategies for that very purpose?


I think your falling into a common trap.

Even the most well defined ma style is just a set of guiding principles. 

You've understood your art not when you can fit each principle to a situation, but when you know when to make use of them and when to ignore them.

An easy example is to ask, do you duck the punch you didn't see in time to block even though throwing your head down and to the left isn't in any forms...
Or do you get hit?

Violence has waayyy too many permutations for any art to give in depth guidance on every possibility. Sometimes that might mean as you suggest, looking else where to fill the gaps. 

However, just doing something better, like striking without looking to enter chi-sau or as most call it, basic striking, isn't really a detour from a style as it is a refinement of the individuals use of the style.

Unless that style lacks any striking or footwork...


----------



## Juany118

KPM said:


> So....you're saying that Wing Chun may not possess everything needed in a fight and may have to actually do something from outside the system?  It may need to actually "gap fill"..... to quote a resident expert?   And if that is true....which is better?....to improvise with any old thing at the time and hope it works?.....or to actually train something that has footwork and strategies for that very purpose?



I don't think it needs to be "any old thing".  Depending on the circumstance it could just require widening the footwork, so instead of half steps you take full steps.  As @LFJ said, don't be a robot be a natural flowing human being. 

Now of course the footwork would only correct some issues, I was just trying to provide one example.  Another example would be like @DaveB said.  If you don't deflect a strike you slip it, you don't take the hit.


----------



## Danny T

LFJ said:


> What it takes is a good understanding of the strategy and tactics for facing any sort of attacker, and then lots of practice actually facing people from other styles. Most Wing Chun simply doesn't have the strategy, and the practitioners don't face others enough. So, the result is to be expected.


Agreed.
Lots of practice facing good practitioners from other styles. 
Wing Chun has the strategy...unfortunately many practitioners don't. And because they only train vs other wc or vs wc practitioners attempting to emulate what they think other styles do the failure rate is high.



LFJ said:


> If people think they can only move as in form, it sounds like they've never learned the free-fighting aspect. Only form and _chi-sau_. That's the problem.
> 
> I can move freely and quickly in any direction at long range, without resorting to other styles' ways of moving.


Again I agree.
Just move. Don't analyze or try to make it something special...just move naturally.


----------



## KPM

*You've understood your art not when you can fit each principle to a situation, but when you know when to make use of them and when to ignore them.*

---Oh, I'm in no trap here!  I agree with you!  But the key word I used before was "train."  So it is better to just expect you will be able to apply those principles "on the fly" in an area you are not accustomed to, or to actually train a method meant specifically for that area that makes use of the same or similar principles?

*An easy example is to ask, do you duck the punch you didn't see in time to block even though throwing your head down and to the left isn't in any forms...
Or do you get hit?*

----A better question to ask is do you just hope and pray you will be able to duck the punch you didn't see when you are forced to, or is it better to actually practice a method that trains how to duck....and bob, and weave, etc.???


----------



## Flying Crane

Knapf said:


> Then we are not in disagreement then. Biu Ma in WC is too slow so it helps alot to adopt a Choy Lee Fat or Hung Ga style of advancing. I may not have stated that but that's what I would suggest.
> 
> Edit:My mistake .I overlooked your message


Gotcha, and looks like to was misinterpreting your message.  Thx!


----------



## Flying Crane

KPM said:


> So....you're saying that Wing Chun may not possess everything needed in a fight and may have to actually do something from outside the system?  It may need to actually "gap fill"..... to quote a resident expert?   And if that is true....which is better?....to improvise with any old thing at the time and hope it works?.....or to actually train something that has footwork and strategies for that very purpose?


No, I'm actually saying that sometimes we just need to be human beings and just move.  It's not something taught as any specific martial method.  It's just being a person.  No martial method can teach you exactly how to move in every situation.  So we gotta just wing it simetimes.  This is not gap filling or borrowing material from elsewhere.  It's just moving, and if you do that, it isn't abandoning wing chun.  You might need to chase someone, or run away from someone, or step out of the way, or spin away from a push, or fall and roll and jump back up from a push, or whatever.  That stuff may not the specifically taught in your wing chun, and neither is it borrowed or stolen from elsewhere.  It's just movement because well, you know humans are animals, and animals move, it's what we do, and not every movement needs to be learned in a martial context.


----------



## KPM

Flying Crane said:


> No, I'm actually saying that sometimes we just need to be human beings and just move.  It's not something taught as any specific martial method.  It's just being a person.  No martial method can teach you exactly how to move in every situation.  So we gotta just wing it simetimes.  This is not gap filling or borrowing material from elsewhere.  It's just moving, and if you do that, it isn't abandoning wing chun.  You might need to chase someone, or run away from someone, or step out of the way, or spin away from a push, or fall and roll and jump back up from a push, or whatever.  That stuff may not the specifically taught in your wing chun, and neither is it borrowed or stolen from elsewhere.  It's just movement because well, you know humans are animals, and animals move, it's what we do, and not every movement needs to be learned in a martial context.



Sure!  And I'm saying that if you know there is a high likelihood that you are going to have to move in a specific context or situation, why not actually train specifically for that rather than leaving it to chance?  And if you decided to train specifically for that possibility, wouldn't you train something that is meant to work in that situation??


----------



## Flying Crane

KPM said:


> Sure!  And I'm saying that if you know there is a high likelihood that you are going to have to move in a specific context or situation, why not actually train specifically for that rather than leaving it to chance?  And if you decided to train specifically for that possibility, wouldn't you train something that is meant to work in that situation??


Well, I guess I feel like once you are outside of some engagement range, then movement becomes much more natural and less scripted.  Meaning, certain footwork has relevance when actively engaged, and does not when there is no engagement.  

So my comments are really aimed at this notion of wing chun having no footwork for a longer range engagement.  People talking about a boxer outrunning or out chasing a wing chun guy, stuff like that.  Well when you are too far out to engage, you don't need special footwork.  If you are too far away and need to bridge the gap, do so.  There may not be any special footwork for that.  It's called "walking" or perhaps "running".


----------



## Juany118

His point is you can't train/plan f


KPM said:


> Sure!  And I'm saying that if you know there is a high likelihood that you are going to have to move in a specific context or situation, why not actually train specifically for that rather than leaving it to chance?  And if you decided to train specifically for that possibility, wouldn't you train something that is meant to work in that situation??



His point is, I believe, that you cannot train plan for every possible contingency and that Martial arts acknowledge this.  

As such, to use footwork as an example, the foot woork training in a particular martial art is to teach you the principles of maintaining structure and power generation.  After that foundation has fully "set", so long as you move in accordance with those principles, even if it does not precisely mirror the drill, you are using that martial art.


----------



## Phobius

I keep stating weapons here.

But I remember one training session we had where one person chased me with a long pole and I had nothing but butterfly swords to defend myself. Not talking about the drilling kind where you do a move as if taken from the form.

What you notice then is that even if you do keep your structure there is such a great need to cover distance fast. Great for practising footwork, a little risky in terms of that large stick can bash your skull in if you are not careful.

Anyways, a short story shorter. We ended up using movements that were part of regular footwork exercises. At least those we do in our WT, and not some movements stuck to Biu Ma. Maybe we are trying to adapt to learn more movement both in body and legs, since we also introduce weapons a lot more often than most. Not as a platform for mastering weapons but as a training tool for footwork, body structure and extended sensitivity.

One thing you also learn when speaking about sharp weapons, positioning often beats speed. However if you both can position yourself correctly then speed helps declare who lives to see another day. Footwork to position yourself correctly requires training and drills, speed requires training up your explosiveness in muscles.

At least this is my belief. Sometimes I am not aware what has gotten me to develop new skills.


----------



## Juany118

Phobius said:


> I keep stating weapons here.
> 
> But I remember one training session we had where one person chased me with a long pole and I had nothing but butterfly swords to defend myself. Not talking about the drilling kind where you do a move as if taken from the form.
> 
> What you notice then is that even if you do keep your structure there is such a great need to cover distance fast. Great for practising footwork, a little risky in terms of that large stick can bash your skull in if you are not careful.
> 
> Anyways, a short story shorter. We ended up using movements that were part of regular footwork exercises. At least those we do in our WT, and not some movements stuck to Biu Ma. Maybe we are trying to adapt to learn more movement both in body and legs, since we also introduce weapons a lot more often than most. Not as a platform for mastering weapons but as a training tool for footwork, body structure and extended sensitivity.
> 
> One thing you also learn when speaking about sharp weapons, positioning often beats speed. However if you both can position yourself correctly then speed helps declare who lives to see another day. Footwork to position yourself correctly requires training and drills, speed requires training up your explosiveness in muscles.
> 
> At least this is my belief. Sometimes I am not aware what has gotten me to develop new skills.


Many actually say that what you describe (learning how to cover distance quickly) is one of the reasons for the BJD being in the system.  I actually see THIS as the biggest weakness in WC.

Putting a fair bit of the "fighting footwork" of WC at CK and later creates a false impression imo.  On the other hand the Kali I study, since you learn not just empty hand but stick, sword, and knife from the beginning means you need the "fighting footwork", timing and distance etc., from day one.


----------



## KPM

Flying Crane said:


> So my comments are really aimed at this notion of wing chun having no footwork for a longer range engagement.  People talking about a boxer outrunning or out chasing a wing chun guy, stuff like that.  Well when you are too far out to engage, you don't need special footwork.  If you are too far away and need to bridge the gap, do so.  There may not be any special footwork for that.  It's called "walking" or perhaps "running".



And I'm saying that there is far more to effective long range footwork than just "walking" or "running" after or away from someone!  That is what you resort to if you have never trained any actual long range footwork!  So again, if you think you are likely to actually find yourself in  a situation where you are running away from or after someone in long range, why wouldn't you actually practice and train to do that?  And if you are going to actually make it part of your practice, why wouldn't you practice a version shown to be effective???


----------



## KPM

*His point is, I believe, that you cannot train plan for every possible contingency and that Martial arts acknowledge this. *

----Having to move around in the long range is not exactly an unusual occurrence or contingency!  Why wouldn't you train for it???


----------



## KPM

Juany118 said:


> Many actually say that what you describe (learning how to cover distance quickly) is one of the reasons for the BJD being in the system.  I actually see THIS as the biggest weakness in WC.
> 
> .



I agree!  And that would question the idea of Wing Chun being based on "efficiency", wouldn't it?  How efficient is a system if it leaves the actual effective fighting footwork for one of the final stages of training that most people won't get to for 5 years if ever???   This suggests that one of the things western Boxing can bring to Wing Chun is effective fighting footwork practiced right from the beginning!


----------



## Phobius

KPM said:


> I agree!  And that would question the idea of Wing Chun being based on "efficiency", wouldn't it?  How efficient is a system if it leaves the actual effective fighting footwork for one of the final stages of training that most people won't get to for 5 years if ever???   This suggests that one of the things western Boxing can bring to Wing Chun is effective fighting footwork practiced right from the beginning!



We dont wait 5 years. This is something we train from day one more or less. This is actually not really true because the beginners need to learn structure before doing improved footwork. First you learn to crawl, then walk before you can run.

Waiting 5-10 years to study footwork is not a wise move. This should also not be blamed on WT. The footwork is there, even if you yourself wait so long to train it. I have seen no good explanation or rules that state one must not train this until after several years.

Now please do not call WB for effective footwork. It is very much perfected for a context without kicks or grappling.


----------



## Juany118

KPM said:


> I agree!  And that would question the idea of Wing Chun being based on "efficiency", wouldn't it?  How efficient is a system if it leaves the actual effective fighting footwork for one of the final stages of training that most people won't get to for 5 years if ever???   This suggests that one of the things western Boxing can bring to Wing Chun is effective fighting footwork practiced right from the beginning!



Well it's not the last stage.  In TWC you start to learn the footwork in the SLT stage via drills, in CK it starts to appear in a form, and BJD refines it even further but the footwork is always there.  In the other Lineage I studied it was similar.  While there were admittedly more stationary drills in the SLT phase there was still "fighting footwork".

As for efficiency I think the idea was this.  Remember the stories of how much it cost YM to learn WC?  WC at that time was something that involved 2 things in China, money and liesure time.  Once YM had to teach in HK, it was again about money because that was his lively hood.  That, imo, encouraged a very deliberate method of teaching.  SLT is in essence learning the alphabet (which includes structure) and then after you learn the alphabet they teach you how to spell words, next write sentences, then a poems etc.  The end product itself can be efficient even if the method of teaching is less so but I do think the time frame you have (5 years) is exaggerated, at least for YM lineage, especially TWC.


----------



## Flying Crane

KPM said:


> And I'm saying that there is far more to effective long range footwork than just "walking" or "running" after or away from someone!  That is what you resort to if you have never trained any actual long range footwork!  So again, if you think you are likely to actually find yourself in  a situation where you are running away from or after someone in long range, why wouldn't you actually practice and train to do that?  And if you are going to actually make it part of your practice, why wouldn't you practice a version shown to be effective???


Alright, well, I just don't see the problem here.  I think it is artificially manufactured, I don't believe itnactually exists.

But it's your system, not mine, so carry on as you see fit.


----------



## Juany118

Flying Crane said:


> Alright, well, I just don't see the problem here.  I think it is artificially manufactured, I don't believe itnactually exists.
> 
> But it's your system, not mine, so carry on as you see fit.


I have to agree. Initially I thought the argument made some sense because to me the problem with Wing Chun isn't the footwork when you know the system the footwork works it's no less wrapping and its advancement than any other traditional martial art. As a matter of fact one of the core premises of the art is to attack quickly and brutally. 

Where I see there being issues in some lineages is perhaps too much focus on straight attacks, both hands strikes and kicks.  With the hand strikes, to be consistently effective, that means entering and maintaining trapping range because inevitably you're going to have to remove a barrier at some point.  This isn't true for all lineages though some teach round kicks and round hand strikes such as the Buffalo punch. These rounded strikes allow you to continue to have better Effectiveness outside of trapping range because it gives you the possibility of going around a barrier rather than wedging it or trapping it. That's where I thought @KPM was going with the boxing comment.  I didn't know he meant the footwork as well.


----------



## KPM

*We dont wait 5 years. This is something we train from day one more or less*. 

---Is that not rather unusual for the Wing Tsun lineage?  I"ve heard plenty of other WT people talk about the advanced footwork being in the knife form but having to be darn near at the "Master" level before ever actually being taught the knife form.


*Now please do not call WB for effective footwork. It is very much perfected for a context without kicks or grappling.*

---If that were true, why would so many MMA fighter also be doing what is essentially boxing footwork????


----------



## KPM

Juany118 said:


> Well it's not the last stage.  In TWC you start to learn the footwork in the SLT stage via drills, in CK it starts to appear in a form, and BJD refines it even further but the footwork is always there.



First, you and I both know that TWC is outside the "norm" of Ip Man Wing Chun as far as footwork goes.  So things I have been saying don't necessarily apply to TWC.

Second, in Ip Man lineages other than TWC, the footwork learned as the "basics" from the Chum Kiu form is not the  same footwork that is taught in the Bart Jam Dao form.


----------



## Juany118

KPM said:


> First, you and I both know that TWC is outside the "norm" of Ip Man Wing Chun as far as footwork goes.  So things I have been saying don't necessarily apply to TWC.
> 
> Second, in Ip Man lineages other than TWC, the footwork learned as the "basics" from the Chum Kiu form is not the  same footwork that is taught in the Bart Jam Dao form.



Yes but even the WSLVT I took via the Gary Lam method was fast on entry.  It was different and TWC's method makes more sense to me but that is personal preference.

As for the last bit CK in TWC's footwork is still a bit different than BJD, that's why I described BJD as refining it.  Think of it like forging a blade.  I can forge the blade and just sharpen it.  "The knife will keel" to quote Doug Marcaida .  Or I can polish the blade.  It will look more beautiful, and if poliched correctly slice better as there will be less friction along the sides of the blade.  BJD to my mind is the final polish.  It's also a polish that, in part, may not even be necessary for everyone because some of the lessons are those someone can already understand if they don't just think about the art they are taught but think first of themselves as a flowing human being using the art.  Sometimes I think people get so trapped inside the minutia of an art the art ends up using them.


----------



## Flying Crane

Juany118 said:


> I have to agree. Initially I thought the argument made some sense because to me the problem with Wing Chun isn't the footwork when you know the system the footwork works it's no less wrapping and its advancement than any other traditional martial art. As a matter of fact one of the core premises of the art is to attack quickly and brutally.
> 
> Where I see there being issues in some lineages is perhaps too much focus on straight attacks, both hands strikes and kicks.  With the hand strikes, to be consistently effective, that means entering and maintaining trapping range because inevitably you're going to have to remove a barrier at some point.  This isn't true for all lineages though some teach round kicks and round hand strikes such as the Buffalo punch. These rounded strikes allow you to continue to have better Effectiveness outside of trapping range because it gives you the possibility of going around a barrier rather than wedging it or trapping it. That's where I thought @KPM was going with the boxing comment.  I didn't know he meant the footwork as well.


Yeah, honestly I find these wing chun threads weird because it looks to me like a bunch of wing chun folks insisting that wing chun is nothing but holes and gaps and shortcomings in the method.  If people feel that way, then why do they train wing chun?  Go do some other method that they have more faith in.


----------



## drop bear

Flying Crane said:


> Yeah, honestly I find these wing chun threads weird because it looks to me like a bunch of wing chun folks insisting that wing chun is nothing but holes and gaps and shortcomings in the method.  If people feel that way, then why do they train wing chun?  Go do some other method that they have more faith in.



Hopefully to make it better.


----------



## KPM

Flying Crane said:


> Yeah, honestly I find these wing chun threads weird because it looks to me like a bunch of wing chun folks insisting that wing chun is nothing but holes and gaps and shortcomings in the method.  If people feel that way, then why do they train wing chun?  Go do some other method that they have more faith in.



Well, if you are referring to me, I think you have missed my point and have not followed my premise very well.  First, Wing Chun works great for what it was designed for!  And that's close range fighting.  I have suggested that Wing Chun can be made even more effective by giving it a "long range game."  Numerous people seem to have had difficulty grasping the fact that having a "long range game" is different from having a strategy to survive at long range long enough to be able to close the gap into the preferred "close range game."   Wing Chun guys typically just step into close range and start going at it.  You see this a LOT in clips of Wing Chun guys free-sparring.  Just look for yourself.  Having a "long range game" means you can conduct the entire fight from long range.  That clearly is not what Wing Chun was designed to do nor optimized for.  There is nothing wrong with that.  I'm sure plenty of people are perfectly happy with that.  But what I don't understand is why so many people seem to want to deny all of this.  Including you, and you don't even do Wing Chun!  

Now sure, one could just expect to improvise and use "natural body motion" when caught out at long range and might do fine.  Someone could be confident in their close range skills and their ability to move into close range and might do fine.  But another option is to actually train a method that does have a good "long range game."  Maybe that's for you.  Maybe not.  But to deny the value of doing something like that just seems absurd.  To think that Wing Chun can do just as well at long range (something it wasn't designed for) as a method was actually designed for long range just seems absurd.  

My premise hasn't been that Wing Chun is worthless and ineffective.  My premise has been that there is room for improvement.  Room for an "upgrade."   Room for some "modernization."  Do I expect that everyone will want to or feel the need to "modernize" their Wing Chun?  Of course not!  But I also don't expect people to flat out deny that there is potential to do such a thing.


----------



## DanT

drop bear said:


> I bet Connor McGregor is practicing boxing though.
> 
> The line between martial arts are just human constructed concepts.
> 
> Someone just made a rule and said you can't play tennis with a golf club. That is their rule. Not mine.


Go to Wimbledon and play tennis with a golf club and see what happens.


----------



## DanT

drop bear said:


> Hopefully to make it better.


It doesn't need improving, it's a method that works. Your wing chun needs improving tho. Practice that more before complaining.


----------



## drop bear

DanT said:


> Go to Wimbledon and play tennis with a golf club and see what happens.



Donald Bradman traditionally played cricket with a stump as a child.

That grounding potentially made him the best cricketer of his time.


----------



## drop bear

DanT said:


> It doesn't need improving, it's a method that works. Your wing chun needs improving tho. Practice that more before complaining.



It is not about complaining it is about innovation. Not being satisfied with works. But striving for works better.


----------



## Flying Crane

KPM said:


> Well, if you are referring to me, I think you have missed my point and have not followed my premise very well.  First, Wing Chun works great for what it was designed for!  And that's close range fighting.  I have suggested that Wing Chun can be made even more effective by giving it a "long range game."  Numerous people seem to have had difficulty grasping the fact that having a "long range game" is different from having a strategy to survive at long range long enough to be able to close the gap into the preferred "close range game."   Wing Chun guys typically just step into close range and start going at it.  You see this a LOT in clips of Wing Chun guys free-sparring.  Just look for yourself.  Having a "long range game" means you can conduct the entire fight from long range.  That clearly is not what Wing Chun was designed to do nor optimized for.  There is nothing wrong with that.  I'm sure plenty of people are perfectly happy with that.  But what I don't understand is why so many people seem to want to deny all of this.  Including you, and you don't even do Wing Chun!
> 
> Now sure, one could just expect to improvise and use "natural body motion" when caught out at long range and might do fine.  Someone could be confident in their close range skills and their ability to move into close range and might do fine.  But another option is to actually train a method that does have a good "long range game."  Maybe that's for you.  Maybe not.  But to deny the value of doing something like that just seems absurd.  To think that Wing Chun can do just as well at long range (something it wasn't designed for) as a method was actually designed for long range just seems absurd.
> 
> My premise hasn't been that Wing Chun is worthless and ineffective.  My premise has been that there is room for improvement.  Room for an "upgrade."   Room for some "modernization."  Do I expect that everyone will want to or feel the need to "modernize" their Wing Chun?  Of course not!  But I also don't expect people to flat out deny that there is potential to do such a thing.


I studied wing chun for four or five years, and continued to practice my forms for a few years after that.  I have not practiced wing chun since about 2010, but I have some familiarity with it.

So where do you draw the line in defining a long range vs. a short range?


----------



## LFJ

Flying Crane said:


> Yeah, honestly I find these wing chun threads weird because it looks to me like *a bunch of wing chun folks insisting that wing chun is nothing but holes and gaps and shortcomings in the method*.  If people feel that way, then why do they train wing chun?  Go do some other method that they have more faith in.



That's what I'd been saying about most Yip Man derivatives, and people blew up and called me an elitist jerk for pointing how and why certain systems are "broken"...

But then, these same people turn around and start making threads _admitting_ exactly what I'd been saying! 

Quite amusing, really...


----------



## Juany118

I think the problem here is that people see Wing Chun as something monolithic.  It isn't, WC has almost as many different Lineages as Karate if you account for Main Land Lineages and then the numerous YM sub lineages and this creates issues.  As an example...

1.  Some have grappling some don't.
2.  Some have round kicks some don't.
3.  Some have round punches (tight round punches) some don't.
4.  Some kick above the waist some don't and this can get compounded by #3.

I could go on but I think, for issues like what we saw here we need to do what has even been acknowledged by the OP.  The WC I am dedicated to doesn't follow the same rules that some around here see as set.  I am far from unique.  So maybe we need to first post our perspective born of the WC we study, then raise the "issue".


----------



## Phobius

KPM said:


> ---Is that not rather unusual for the Wing Tsun lineage?  I"ve heard plenty of other WT people talk about the advanced footwork being in the knife form but having to be darn near at the "Master" level before ever actually being taught the knife form.



Nothing in WT or even WC is ever simple. However take away desire to charge money for knowledge and many WT clubs/practitioners  probably introduce things a lot quicker. I am certain this is not unique to my situation. 



KPM said:


> ---If that were true, why would so many MMA fighter also be doing what is essentially boxing footwork????



Either something is or it isn't. But I think most do MT footwork. Western boxing is too wide sometimes and not as effective in deflecting or handling kicking. 

It is perfect for its purpose though. 

But MT footwork is not WB and yet it might be if that is what their teacher teaches. Footwork is not something that follows a blueprint. 

It is more of a good enough list of dos and donts on long range. It creates unique style in everyone and yet it is not anything goes because structure and good form needs to be kept. 

Experiment but don't add just WB footwork as if being a technique. Train it as they do and be aware that you may or may not incorporate bad habits because they do not consider kicks.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> That's what I'd been saying about most Yip Man derivatives, and people blew up and called me an elitist jerk for pointing how and why certain systems are "broken"...
> 
> But then, these same people turn around and start making threads _admitting_ exactly what I'd been saying!
> 
> Quite amusing, really...



But then, you have no evidence and can provide no proof that your version of Wing Chun is any different.  And you go on and on about how "broke" everyone else is but come up short when asked to show what you do differently to prove that yours isn't "broken."  Quite amusing, really......


----------



## KPM

*Either something is or it isn't. But I think most do MT footwork.* 

----No. That is incorrect.  Not even the MT-based guys are doing strictly MT footwork.  They have incorporated a lot of boxing to improve their punching skills and with that comes bobbing, weaving, ducking, angling to get punches, etc. that are boxing footwork. 

*Western boxing is too wide sometimes and not as effective in deflecting or handling kicking.*

---Boxers only have a hard time handling kicking if they haven't trained against kicking.  Why would you assume that a footwork system that is very mobile and evasive would have a problem with kicking?


----------



## KPM

*I studied wing chun for four or five years, and continued to practice my forms for a few years after that.  I have not practiced wing chun since about 2010, but I have some familiarity with it.*

---Good to know!  Didn't realize that.

*So where do you draw the line in defining a long range vs. a short range?*

---I've posted a brief description of the "long range  game" twice now on two different threads. But as far as "drawing a line".....generally speaking, of course for punching styles.....close range is essentially going to be where you can reach the opponent with both hands at the same time without having to move in.  This is Chi Sau range for Wing Chun or clinch range for boxing.  Middle range is where you can reach with an extended lead punch with only a small step if any but aren't quite close enough to lay both hands on the opponent.  This is the "stand toe to toe and punch" range for Boxing.  Long range is where you aren't close enough to contact with a strike at all.....kick or punch.  This is the range where you are moving around the opponent to set something up or to avoid contact.  Fighting  from long range means you are good at maintaining distance and can "dart" into that middle range to land a blow and back out again before the opponent can do much.  Fighting from long range means that when the opponent tries to close in, you can keep him away and keep him from landing effective blows until you see or create an opening that you can take advantage of.   Muhammed Ali was a master of this.

---Some like to talk about "pre-contact range" vs. "contact" range.  This is because in a system that specializes in close-range, it makes sense to think of things as either being in your preferred close-range (contacting the opponent) or outside of that preferred range (before contact).  The implication of this way of thinking is that nothing much is going on in "pre-contact" range and it doesn't really count. So they don't worry about it much or do much there.  It is seen as something to be moved through in order to get to "contact range", which is essentially "close range."  A good Boxer would disagree with this way of thinking!!!


----------



## wckf92

I wish KPM would use the multi quote function. It would certainly help to track long threads ... 
Probably would take less time than it takes to breakout & bold the lines he wants... just sayin!


----------



## Flying Crane

KPM said:


> *I studied wing chun for four or five years, and continued to practice my forms for a few years after that.  I have not practiced wing chun since about 2010, but I have some familiarity with it.*
> 
> ---Good to know!  Didn't realize that.
> 
> *So where do you draw the line in defining a long range vs. a short range?*
> 
> ---I've posted a brief description of the "long range  game" twice now on two different threads. But as far as "drawing a line".....generally speaking, of course for punching styles.....close range is essentially going to be where you can reach the opponent with both hands at the same time without having to move in.  This is Chi Sau range for Wing Chun or clinch range for boxing.  Middle range is where you can reach with an extended lead punch with only a small step if any but aren't quite close enough to lay both hands on the opponent.  This is the "stand toe to toe and punch" range for Boxing.  Long range is where you aren't close enough to contact with a strike at all.....kick or punch.  This is the range where you are moving around the opponent to set something up or to avoid contact.  Fighting  from long range means you are good at maintaining distance and can "dart" into that middle range to land a blow and back out again before the opponent can do much.  Fighting from long range means that when the opponent tries to close in, you can keep him away and keep him from landing effective blows until you see or create an opening that you can take advantage of.   Muhammed Ali was a master of this.
> 
> ---Some like to talk about "pre-contact range" vs. "contact" range.  This is because in a system that specializes in close-range, it makes sense to think of things as either being in your preferred close-range (contacting the opponent) or outside of that preferred range (before contact).  The implication of this way of thinking is that nothing much is going on in "pre-contact" range and it doesn't really count. So they don't worry about it much or do much there.  It is seen as something to be moved through in order to get to "contact range", which is essentially "close range."  A good Boxer would disagree with this way of thinking!!!


Ok, well I think something that is important to keep in mind is that different people have different experiences and different capabilities with the same material.  Different lineages go about things differently and may have different material or variations on the same material.  So there is no ultimate standard for consistency that will hold true across the board.

Before deciding that "wing chun does not have..." or "wing chun cannot do..." it might be important to understand that we are all speaking from our own experiences, and those experiences do not reflect all that there is.  My own ability, or lack thereof, in no way determines someone else's.

There are plenty of things out there that seem downright stupid to me, and yet plenty of people are quite capable with them.  Maybe I don't have any use for it so it's not a good match for me, but that does not take away from what others can do with it.

So, maybe that's something that ought to be an undercurrent for the discussion.

And sometimes an internet discussion forum is a poor venue to make a point because we can't directly show what we mean when describing a physical action.  So in the end, I think we need to be able to come away understanding that other people have a different grasp of it all, and there just isnt anything wrong with that.


----------



## KPM

*Ok, well I think something that is important to keep in mind is that different people have different experiences and different capabilities with the same material. *

---Good point.  There are several ways to "slice it up" when talking about ranges.  JKD talks about it as trapping range, punching range, and kicking range.   When dealing with weapons in FMA how "close range, middle range, and long range" are defined varies a bit from how I defined them above.  

*Before deciding that "wing chun does not have..." or "wing chun cannot do..." it might be important to understand that we are all speaking from our own experiences, and those experiences do not reflect all that there is.  My own ability, or lack thereof, in no way determines someone else's.*

---Again, this is true.  But that is irrelevant to the fact that Wing Chun was designed as a close-range system.  It was not designed to function optimally at long range.  Now some people may have added things to their version of the system to make it more viable at long range.....like the vid I showed of how Adam Willis has adapted what he sees as Biu Gee form principles to long range.  But most of the time these are the exceptions and not the rule.  LFJ thinks that WSLVT functions well in long range.  And it very well might!  But as I have been trying to descibe, surviving at long range long enough to get to your preferred close range is not the same thing as having a "long range game" that allows you to fight comfortably and completely from that range.  

*
And sometimes an internet discussion forum is a poor venue to make a point because we can't directly show what we mean when describing a physical action.*

---I've showed several videos that illustrate fighting from long range in boxing.  People have said "Wing Chun does that!" but haven't been able to provide equivalent videos.  

*  So in the end, I think we need to be able to come away understanding that other people have a different grasp of it all, and there just isnt anything wrong with that.*


---Of course not!  And that is exactly why people shouldn't be "poo poo'ing" what I have been saying across three different threads now!   I have met with all kinds of resistance simply because I have pointed out the fact that Wing Chun does not have a "long range game" equivalent to what Boxers do.


----------



## Phobius

KPM said:


> Of course not!  And that is exactly why people shouldn't be "poo poo'ing" what I have been saying across three different threads now!   I have met with all kinds of resistance simply because I have pointed out the fact that Wing Chun does not have a "long range game" equivalent to what Boxers do.



I think you contradict yourself. First you say people disagree with you. Then you go out and make a statement that leaves no room for other opinions saying 'Wing Chun does not have a "long range game" equivalent to what Boxers do'. 

This will cause people to disagree with you not because something is or isn't. But because the truth is different to them. 

I for one does not share your view on WB and MT footwork. My view is not that footwork is taught by learning a technique but rather natural movement confined by different requirements on structure and form. In the end also created and improved through physical exercises.

You can't learn footwork from watching an art. You learn it by training by that arts confinement. 

My view forces me to disagree with some statements that leave no room for the words 'IT DEPENDS', no yelling intended.


----------



## KPM

*I think you contradict yourself. First you say people disagree with you. Then you go out and make a statement that leaves no room for other opinions saying 'Wing Chun does not have a "long range game" equivalent to what Boxers do'. *

---No, I am not contradicting myself.  Wing Chun doesn't have a "long range game" equivalent to boxing.  That is a fact.  No one yet has been able to show otherwise.   But that is different from saying....."Wing Chun has a strategy for dealing with long range that works well for me, so I'm not concerned about the fact that Wing Chun has no long range game equivalent to boxing.  I'm perfectly Ok without that!"   Now THAT statement I could not disagree with! 


*This will cause people to disagree with you not because something is or isn't. But because the truth is different to them. *

----The Wing Chun system is designed to function optimally in close range.  It was not designed to be a long range fighting method.  That is a fact.  I don't care what someone's "truth" may be.  This is not religion. Well, maybe it is for some, but it shouldn't be!  


*I for one does not share your view on WB and MT footwork. My view is not that footwork is taught by learning a technique but rather natural movement confined by different requirements on structure and form. In the end also created and improved through physical exercises.*

---Ok.  And when MT guys started doing WB punching to improve their striking game, that required a little different structure and form that included the footwork and body dynamics that went along with learning WB punching methods.


*My view forces me to disagree with some statements that leave no room for the words 'IT DEPENDS', no yelling intended.*

---- What DEPENDS is whether you feel the need to improve or add a "long range game" to what you do.  THAT part is open for discussion and opinions.   That Wing Chun lacks a "long range game" equivalent to what boxers do (unless it has been added from outside the system) is just a fact.  It doesn't "depend" on anything!

----BJJ was designed to work optimally for ground fighting.  Do they have some things to help them get through the stand up portion of the fight in order to get to the ground?  Of course they do!  But that isn't where BJJ functions optimally and isn't what BJJ was designed for.  I doubt you would find BJJ guys arguing that their system has a "long range game" equivalent to what boxing does.


----------



## Flying Crane

KPM said:


> *Ok, well I think something that is important to keep in mind is that different people have different experiences and different capabilities with the same material. *
> 
> ---Good point.  There are several ways to "slice it up" when talking about ranges.  JKD talks about it as trapping range, punching range, and kicking range.   When dealing with weapons in FMA how "close range, middle range, and long range" are defined varies a bit from how I defined them above.
> 
> *Before deciding that "wing chun does not have..." or "wing chun cannot do..." it might be important to understand that we are all speaking from our own experiences, and those experiences do not reflect all that there is.  My own ability, or lack thereof, in no way determines someone else's.*
> 
> ---Again, this is true.  But that is irrelevant to the fact that Wing Chun was designed as a close-range system.  It was not designed to function optimally at long range.  Now some people may have added things to their version of the system to make it more viable at long range.....like the vid I showed of how Adam Willis has adapted what he sees as Biu Gee form principles to long range.  But most of the time these are the exceptions and not the rule.  LFJ thinks that WSLVT functions well in long range.  And it very well might!  But as I have been trying to descibe, surviving at long range long enough to get to your preferred close range is not the same thing as having a "long range game" that allows you to fight comfortably and completely from that range.
> 
> *
> And sometimes an internet discussion forum is a poor venue to make a point because we can't directly show what we mean when describing a physical action.*
> 
> ---I've showed several videos that illustrate fighting from long range in boxing.  People have said "Wing Chun does that!" but haven't been able to provide equivalent videos.
> 
> *  So in the end, I think we need to be able to come away understanding that other people have a different grasp of it all, and there just isnt anything wrong with that.*
> 
> 
> ---Of course not!  And that is exactly why people shouldn't be "poo poo'ing" what I have been saying across three different threads now!   I have met with all kinds of resistance simply because I have pointed out the fact that Wing Chun does not have a "long range game" equivalent to what Boxers do.


See, you are starting with a premise that you hold out as truth, that you claim is a fact that wing chun was designed as a close range system, that not everyone will agree with.  I don't know where you came up with your assertion of what wing chun IS, but I for one, do not agree with it.  So that's just for starters.  I don't mind that you believe what you are saying, and if you get good mileage in what you do within that context, then I cannot tell you that you are wrong.  But neither do I hold your assertion as truth.  I see these things differently, I don't feel they can or should be categorized in that way, I feel it means something different.

If you can't have enough flexibility in your point of view to accept that of others, it's going to be never ending argument.


----------



## KPM

Flying Crane said:


> See, you are starting with a premise that you hold out as truth, that you claim is a fact that wing chun was designed as a close range system, that not everyone will agree with.  I don't know where you came up with your assertion of what wing chun IS, but I for one, do not agree with it.  So that's just for starters.  I don't mind that you believe what you are saying, and if you get good mileage in what you do within that context, then I cannot tell you that you are wrong.  But neither do I hold your assertion as truth.  I see these things differently, I don't feel they can or should be categorized in that way, I feel it means something different.
> 
> If you can't have enough flexibility in your point of view to accept that of others, it's going to be never ending argument.



Holy geez!  It just boggles the mind that people who have trained Wing Chun would question whether it was designed as a close-range system!  

Let's see:
1.  Short, tight punches......no extended "long arm" punches that can be used from a longer range
2.  A focus on developing "contact reflexes" in Chi Sau.....which is a close-range training platform
3.  An upright stance with very short and direct footwork intended to move quickly for very short distances.
4.  Minimal kicks and the kicks that are used are low and close without much extension.

Contrast that to something like Hung Kuen or Choy Lit Fut that do include long range fighting:
1. "Long arm" extended punches designed to land from a distance
2.  Two-man drilling when only one arm can reach to contact.
3.  Extended lower stances and evasive body work to avoid blows rather than block or parry them.   Footwork that covers larger distances quickly
4.  Longer, extended kicks with some "flying" or "jumping" kicks that again...cover distance from a longer range quickly.

That's just "kung fu 101", in a very brief and limited summary!


----------



## Vajramusti

KPM said:


> Holy geez!  It just boggles the mind that people who have trained Wing Chun would question whether it was designed as a close-range system!
> 
> Let's see:
> 1.  Short, tight punches......no extended "long arm" punches that can be used from a longer range
> 2.  A focus on developing "contact reflexes" in Chi Sau.....which is a close-range training platform
> 3.  An upright stance with very short and direct footwork intended to move quickly for very short distances.
> 4.  Minimal kicks and the kicks that are used are low and close without much extension.
> 
> Contrast that to something like Hung Kuen or Choy Lit Fut that do include long range fighting:
> 1. "Long arm" extended punches designed to land from a distance
> 2.  Two-man drilling when only one arm can reach to contact.
> 3.  Extended lower stances and evasive body work to avoid blows rather than block or parry them.   Footwork that covers larger distances quickly
> 4.  Longer, extended kicks with some "flying" or "jumping" kicks that again...cover distance from a longer range quickly.
> 
> That's just "kung fu 101", in a very brief and limited summary!



Hopelessly lost-wandering around without a compass  !!!


----------



## Flying Crane

KPM said:


> Holy geez!  It just boggles the mind that people who have trained Wing Chun would question whether it was designed as a close-range system!
> 
> Let's see:
> 1.  Short, tight punches......no extended "long arm" punches that can be used from a longer range
> 2.  A focus on developing "contact reflexes" in Chi Sau.....which is a close-range training platform
> 3.  An upright stance with very short and direct footwork intended to move quickly for very short distances.
> 4.  Minimal kicks and the kicks that are used are low and close without much extension.
> 
> Contrast that to something like Hung Kuen or Choy Lit Fut that do include long range fighting:
> 1. "Long arm" extended punches designed to land from a distance
> 2.  Two-man drilling when only one arm can reach to contact.
> 3.  Extended lower stances and evasive body work to avoid blows rather than block or parry them.   Footwork that covers larger distances quickly
> 4.  Longer, extended kicks with some "flying" or "jumping" kicks that again...cover distance from a longer range quickly.
> 
> That's just "kung fu 101", in a very brief and limited summary!


Oh I know all about long range systems.  My system of Tibetan white crane is about as "long-arm" as it gets.  That doesn't mean it is most useful at long range, or that it is not useful at short range.

What is often described as short or long range in one system or another is really a training methodology and mechanism that has little relevance to the range at which it is useful.  It is a training mechanism that teaches and develops and reinforces certain principles of movement and power generation, that can then be applied in any situation once you understand them.  As a methodology, there is a certain consistency that is important in training the principles.  These principles are expressed in certain techniques that are part of the training regimen, but are not limited to those techniques.  They can be utilized in any movement that is needed to fit the situation, even if that movement is not a "proper" technique.  It does not matter.  But it is up to the individual to apply them as they will, in whatever context they find themselves, and any failure is the person, not the method.  If you cannot see that wing chun ought to be plenty useful at any "range", then I think you are selling the method short.  It has more potential then you are giving it credit for.

I really don't even like the distinction of short, medium, long range, to be honest.  You are trying to define differences of what often amount to an inch or two, in a dynamic and possibly chaotic, and constantly changing encounter of combat.  You don't try to change your methods to deal with a change in range.  You need to understand how your method works, regardless.

There will always be distancing issues. Some of them are biological.  Some people simply have longer arms and legs, larger bodies, and there are advantages and disadvantages in that.  So yes, that is an issue.  But the discussion of range in wing chun isn't the same as say, a boxing matchup where one competitor has a six inch reach advantage over the other.  That is an absolute comparison on a biological level.  A martial system is not the same as that.  It is a methodology used to develop skills that can be applied whenever and wherever and however you need them, to the extent of your own skill level.  And different people will get different mileage from it, and some methods are a better match for some people than others are, so pick your method wisely.


----------



## Martial D

Flying Crane said:


> Oh I know all about long range systems.  My system of Tibetan white crane is about as "long-arm" as it gets.  That doesn't mean it is most useful at long range, or that it is not useful at short range.
> 
> What is often described as short or long range in one system or another is really a training methodology and mechanism that has little relevance to the range at which it is useful.  It is a training mechanism that teaches and develops and reinforces certain principles of movement and power generation, that can then be applied in any situation once you understand them.  As a methodology, there is a certain consistency that is important in training the principles.  These principles are expressed in certain techniques that are part of the training regimen, but are not limited to those techniques.  They can be utilized in any movement that is needed to fit the situation, even if that movement is not a "proper" technique.  It does not matter.  But it is up to the individual to apply them as they will, in whatever context they find themselves, and any failure is the person, not the method.  If you cannot see that wing chun ought to be plenty useful at any "range", then I think you are selling the method short.  It has more potential then you are giving it credit for.
> 
> I really don't even like the distinction of short, medium, long range, to be honest.  You are trying to define differences of what often amount to an inch or two, in a dynamic and possibly chaotic, and constantly changing encounter of combat.  You don't try to change your methods to deal with a change in range.  You need to understand how your method works, regardless.
> 
> There will always be distancing issues. Some of them are biological.  Some people simply have longer arms and legs, larger bodies, and there are advantages and disadvantages in that.  So yes, that is an issue.  But the discussion of range in wing chun isn't the same as say, a boxing matchup where one competitor has a six inch reach advantage over the other.  That is an absolute comparison on a biological level.  A martial system is not the same as that.  It is a methodology used to develop skills that can be applied whenever and wherever and however you need them, to the extent of your own skill level.  And different people will get different mileage from it, and some methods are a better match for some people than others are, so pick your method wisely.


Classic example of theory eclipsing reality.

Except wc is a close range system in theory too.


----------



## geezer

And, if VT/WC/WC doesn't favor close range work, then why would no less than Wong Shun Leung choose to title his well known instructional video as...

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/dMJxSlAnNdM/maxresdefault.jpg


----------



## Flying Crane

geezer said:


> And, if VT/WC/WC doesn't favor close range work, then why would no less than Wong Shun Leung choose to title his well known instructional video as...
> 
> https://i.ytimg.com/vi/dMJxSlAnNdM/maxresdefault.jpg


And yet the photo on that link that shows him throwing a punch, is a pretty classic "long" punch.

I maintain that it is an artificial distinction without much meaning.


----------



## geezer

Personally, I see _Flying Crane's _point that if you really understand the theory of the art, then you _can make it work _regardless of range. But to do so means moving beyond rigid ideas of technique. And that gets us to where _KPM _is. Searching and innovating to come up with a way of doing his WC effectively at long range, and _in a way that works for him.
_
So maybe you guys aren't really so far apart in what you are saying. 

As for LFJ and Joy (Vajramusti), they seem to have found what works well for them within their lineage, as have I ... for the most part, anyway.

...On the other hand, I also see so many theoretical similarities between what I do and some other arts, that I am driven to experiment and play with new ideas. I'm sure my old sifu would disapprove and tell me that I am wasting my time. But heck, everybody else I know tells me that _my entire involvement in martial arts is a waste of time_. So screw it. I'm going continue trying different things and just have some fun with it. 

_
_


----------



## geezer

Flying Crane said:


> And yet the photo on that link that shows him throwing a punch, is a pretty classic "long" punch. I maintain that it is an artificial distinction without much meaning.



Inconceivable! 
http://www.3quarksdaily.com/.a/6a00d8341c562c53ef01b7c7e95e5e970b-250wi

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51adePVydCL._SX325_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/dMJxSlAnNdM/maxresdefault.jpg


----------



## KPM

Vajramusti said:


> Hopelessly lost-wandering around without a compass  !!!



Another drive-by one-liner that contributes nothing to the thread?  You are getting good at those!


----------



## KPM

geezer said:


> And, if VT/WC/WC doesn't favor close range work, then why would no less than Wong Shun Leung choose to title his well known instructional video as...
> 
> https://i.ytimg.com/vi/dMJxSlAnNdM/maxresdefault.jpg



That was going to be my next response, but you beat me to it!  

WSL called Wing Chun...."the Science of In-fighting."   Not ...."the Science of Long Range fighting."  Not..."the Science of Fighting at any Range."   He called it the Science of "In-Fighting"....close range fighting.


----------



## KPM

Flying Crane said:


> And yet the photo on that link that shows him throwing a punch, is a pretty classic "long" punch.
> 
> I maintain that it is an artificial distinction without much meaning.



Jazzed up for a cover photo.  I don't recall him ever punching like that on the actual video itself.  And obviously, it meant something to WSL, or he wouldn't have put it in the title!  He could have just titled the video "Wing Chun:  The Science of Street Fighting" or something along those lines.


----------



## KPM

*Personally, I see Flying Crane's point that if you really understand the theory of the art, then you can make it work regardless of range.*

---And I don't disagree with that!  But there is still the fact that some things work better at certain ranges than others!  That's just simple common sense.  There is still the fact that some martial arts methods were designed to work optimally at one given range.  Again that's just simple common sense.   Would anyone argue that BJJ wasn't created to function optimally on the ground?  Or that modern TKD wasn't created to function optimally at a longer kicking range?  


*As for LFJ and Joy (Vajramusti), they seem to have found what works well for them within their lineage, as have I ... for the most part, anyway.*

----And like I've said, there is nothing wrong with admitting that you are satisfied with how your system handles long range!  You can be perfectly content with the idea that you can survive at long range enough to use closing skills to get to close range.  But that is not the same thing as having a "long range game" that is the equivalent of what is done in boxing.   

---And it seems to me that the people that are having a hard time admitting that their Wing Chun doesn't have a "long range game" just aren't being honest with themselves.


----------



## Juany118

KPM said:


> *Personally, I see Flying Crane's point that if you really understand the theory of the art, then you can make it work regardless of range.*
> 
> ---And I don't disagree with that!  But there is still the fact that some things work better at certain ranges than others!  That's just simple common sense.  There is still the fact that some martial arts methods were designed to work optimally at one given range.  Again that's just simple common sense.   Would anyone argue that BJJ wasn't created to function optimally on the ground?  Or that modern TKD wasn't created to function optimally at a longer kicking range?
> 
> 
> *As for LFJ and Joy (Vajramusti), they seem to have found what works well for them within their lineage, as have I ... for the most part, anyway.*
> 
> ----And like I've said, there is nothing wrong with admitting that you are satisfied with how your system handles long range!  You can be perfectly content with the idea that you can survive at long range enough to use closing skills to get to close range.  But that is not the same thing as having a "long range game" that is the equivalent of what is done in boxing.
> 
> ---And it seems to me that the people that are having a hard time admitting that their Wing Chun doesn't have a "long range game" just aren't being honest with themselves.


To you last point, is it not a bit pedantic, on both sides?  Let me explain.

Martial Arts is the study of how to fight and win that fight regardless of whether it has what you define as a "long range game" or if it has methods that allow you to bridge through that long range effectively to a closer range game. 

In both cases that "outside range" is addressed within the respective art.  In the first case you find ways to fight "out there" in the other you find ways to get past being "out there." It's simply two different methodologies addressing the same problem in two different ways, which method you pick is up to your preference and strengths.


----------



## geezer

KPM said:


> ---And it seems to me that the people that are having a hard time admitting that their Wing Chun doesn't have a "long range game" just *aren't being honest with themselves.*



Ya want _honesty,_ wiseguy? I'll give ya honesty...

Geezer's VT long-range game:

1. Run away.
2. Pick up a rock, stick, or whatever else I can get my hands on and beat the tar outta the guy!
3. Close, and use my short-range game.

Now if you can pull something outta boxing or wherever to come up with a better game, and then post a video ...well, _I'm game._


----------



## Vajramusti

KPM said:


> *Personally, I see Flying Crane's point that if you really understand the theory of the art, then you can make it work regardless of range.*
> 
> ---And I don't disagree with that!  But there is still the fact that some things work better at certain ranges than others!  That's just simple common sense.  There is still the fact that some martial arts methods were designed to work optimally at one given range.  Again that's just simple common sense.   Would anyone argue that BJJ wasn't created to function optimally on the ground?  Or that modern TKD wasn't created to function optimally at a longer kicking range?
> 
> 
> *As for LFJ and Joy (Vajramusti), they seem to have found what works well for them within their lineage, as have I ... for the most part, anyway.*
> 
> ----And like I've said, there is nothing wrong with admitting that you are satisfied with how your system handles long range!  You can be perfectly content with the idea that you can survive at long range enough to use closing skills to get to close range.  But that is not the same thing as having a "long range game" that is the equivalent of what is done in boxing.
> 
> ---And it seems to me that the people that are having a hard time admitting that their Wing Chun doesn't have a "long range game" just aren't being honest with themselves.



When you learn wing chun well- you can work it at any ranges


----------



## KPM

Juany118 said:


> In both cases that "outside range" is addressed within the respective art.  In the first case you find ways to fight "out there" in the other you find ways to get past being "out there." It's simply two different methodologies addressing the same problem in two different ways, which method you pick is up to your preference and strengths.



Absolutely!  And I have only been pointing out that Boxing has a specific "long range game" that can improve what Wing Chun typically does at long range.   Not everyone will want to seek to improve what they do at long range, and that is fine!  Nothing wrong with "finding ways to get past being 'out there'"!  But to deny that it CAN be improved and to claim that Wing Chun does the same thing that boxing does as far as having a "long range game" is just kind of silly.  I don't need a  "compass" to see that!  And neither should anyone else!  Its just common sense!


----------



## KPM

Vajramusti said:


> When you learn wing chun well- you can work it at any ranges



Geez, how many times do I need to repeat myself?  Sure, Wing Chun can function at multiple ranges (probably not on the ground though, so I wouldn't say "any") but working at a specific range long enough to close the gap to the preferred and optimal range for Wing Chun is NOT the same thing as having a "long range game" that is the equivalent of boxing.  Why do so many people seem to be having such a problem understanding this??

And you have a boxing background, so I am surprised that you are not seeing this!  Has it been that along ago?

Would you say that Wing Chun can conduct the entire fight from long range the same way that Muhammed Ali was able to conduct the entire fight from long range?


----------



## KPM

geezer said:


> Now if you can pull something outta boxing or wherever to come up with a better game, and then post a video ...well, _I'm game._



I did that on the other thread.  I posted several videos showing some of the "long range game" from boxing.


----------



## Flying Crane

KPM said:


> Jazzed up for a cover photo.  I don't recall him ever punching like that on the actual video itself.  And obviously, it meant something to WSL, or he wouldn't have put it in the title!  He could have just titled the video "Wing Chun:  The Science of Street Fighting" or something along those lines.


Maybe the title did mean something to him.  I don't know, I never discussed it with him.  Did you?  Do you really think he was trying to convey the idea that wing chun is great at ultra-close range, but sucks as soon as your enemy shifts away by three inches?  On its face, that would be a rediculous premise.  I suspect the title of the video was a marketing gimmick, plain and simple.

Either way, it still doesn't matter.  What it meant to him doesn't need to be what it means to you or to anybody else.  You take your training and do with it whatever you figure out that you can do with it.  You need to own it for yourself.  You don't fall back to whatever limits some prior generation might have imposed on it.  Make those decisions for yourself, and sometimes the next generation can become better than the previous, even better than the founders.

Personally, if sifu Wong were here to read these discussions, I think he would be beating his head on the table.  I don't believe for a second that he would say wing chun is no good at some arbitrarily defined "long" or "middle" range.


----------



## Juany118

KPM said:


> I did that on the other thread.  I posted several videos showing some of the "long range game" from boxing.



I could be wrong but I thought his point was to show that boxing can stop him from running or can be better than him picking up a stick and going Kali, Arnis, Eskrima on you .  Like me @geezer also studies FMA


----------



## Flying Crane

KPM said:


> Geez, how many times do I need to repeat myself?  Sure, Wing Chun can function at multiple ranges (probably not on the ground though, so I wouldn't say "any") but working at a specific range long enough to close the gap to the preferred and optimal range for Wing Chun is NOT the same thing as having a "long range game" that is the equivalent of boxing.  Why do so many people seem to be having such a problem understanding this??
> 
> And you have a boxing background, so I am surprised that you are not seeing this!  Has it been that along ago?
> 
> Would you say that Wing Chun can conduct the entire fight from long range the same way that Muhammed Ali was able to conduct the entire fight from long range?


I think the real answer here is that you are of course free to decide where your limitations lie in your wing chun, but you need to stop trying to tell everyone else that your limitations are also theirs.


----------



## Martial D

Flying Crane said:


> I think the real answer here is that you are of course free to decide where your limitations lie in your wing chun, but you need to stop trying to tell everyone else that your limitations are also theirs.


Yet, is it not important to stay realistic? Some limitations aren't your limitations, or kpms limitations, or my limitations..they are THE limitations. Thinking otherwise is fine if you intend to stick to being sequestered in a cycle of mutual masturbation in some mcdojo, but reality doesn't care about your feelings. 

The hard cold fact of the matter is not everything works how you want it to, and much of the  so called "martial" arts don't work at all.


----------



## KPM

* Do you really think he was trying to convey the idea that wing chun is great at ultra-close range, but sucks as soon as your enemy shifts away by three inches?  On its face, that would be a rediculous premise.  I suspect the title of the video was a marketing gimmick, plain and simple.*

----Sure its ridiculous because you are purposefully making it ridiculous!     I think he was trying to convey that Wing Chun is specialized and excels at "in-fighting", hence the title.  I said nothing about "sucks as soon as your enemy shifts away."   If they wanted a marketing gimmick that could have said "The Science of Street Fighting" which would have been even catchier.  But Wing Chun is a close-range system, so the title makes perfect sense!  Until you purposefully try to make things sound ridiculous.  


*Either way, it still doesn't matter.  What it meant to him doesn't need to be what it means to you or to anybody else.  You take your training and do with it whatever you figure out that you can do with it.  You need to own it for yourself.  You don't fall back to whatever limits some prior generation might have imposed on it.  Make those decisions for yourself, and sometimes the next generation can become better than the previous, even better than the founders.*

----This is not a religion.  It isn't open to personal interpretation.  Wing Chun was designed to work at close-range and is optimized for that range.  It can function well enough at other ranges to get to the preferred close range.  But it is a system specializing in close-range fighting.  That's a fact.  It is the  "Science of In-Fighting" plain and simple.  

*Personally, if sifu Wong were here to read these discussions, I think he would be beating his head on the table.  I don't believe for a second that he would say wing chun is no good at some arbitrarily defined "long" or "middle" range.*

----Personally, I think he would be scratching his head and wondering how the heck anyone that had studied Wing Chun could question the idea that it is a close range or "in-fighting" system.


----------



## KPM

Juany118 said:


> I could be wrong but I thought his point was to show that boxing can stop him from running or can be better than him picking up a stick and going Kali, Arnis, Eskrima on you .  Like me @geezer also studies FMA



Sorry.  That makes no sense.


----------



## KPM

Flying Crane said:


> I think the real answer here is that you are of course free to decide where your limitations lie in your wing chun, but you need to stop trying to tell everyone else that your limitations are also theirs.



Well no.  I just keep stating a fact and people seem to want to deny that fact.  I don't understand it myself.  It should be pretty clear to anyone studying Wing Chun and that is being honest with themselves.


----------



## Flying Crane

KPM said:


> Well no.  I just keep stating a fact and people seem to want to deny that fact.  I don't understand it myself.  It should be pretty clear to anyone studying Wing Chun and that is being honest with themselves.


And yet what you keep insisting is a fact, so many people don't seem to agree with.

Why do you suppose that is?


----------



## Nobody Important

Flying Crane said:


> And yet what you keep insisting is a fact, so many people don't seem to agree with.
> 
> Why do you suppose that is?


It's known as motivated reasoning, quite interesting really, science vs. faith.


----------



## Juany118

KPM said:


> Sorry.  That makes no sense.


Well to me to an extent it does, in the generic fighting sense. If the point of martial arts is to defend yourself and you're at long range and you have the opportunity to run, isnt running the better option than risking a fight you may lose?

Also if you are at long range, or further, and that gives you the time to pick up a force multiplier, aka weapon, the opponent doesn't have, does that not make more sense then just starting to throw punches?


----------



## KPM

Flying Crane said:


> And yet what you keep insisting is a fact, so many people don't seem to agree with.
> 
> Why do you suppose that is?



Good question!  But no one has yet attempted to explain how Wing Chun is NOT a close-range art, nor has anyone tried to show a Wing Chun "long range game" that is equivalent to that found in boxing.  No one has tried to describe how Wing Chun is NOT optimized to function at close range much more than long range.  Why do you suppose that is???


----------



## Flying Crane

KPM said:


> But Wing Chun is a close-range system, so the title makes perfect sense!  Until you purposefully try to make things sound ridiculous.



It only sounds rediculous when what you are saying is put into plain and simple English.




> ----This is not a religion.  It isn't open to personal interpretation.



It is not religion, that much is true.  This stuff absolutely is open to personal interpretation.


----------



## KPM

Juany118 said:


> Well to me to an extent it does, in the generic fighting sense. If the point of martial arts is to defend yourself and you're at long range and you have the opportunity to run, isnt running the better option than risking a fight you may lose?
> 
> Also if you are at long range, or further, and that gives you the time to pick up a force multiplier, aka weapon, the opponent doesn't have, does that not make more sense then just starting to throw punches?


 
And where have I said or suggested that someone shouldn't do that??


----------



## wckf92

Flying Crane said:


> This stuff absolutely is open to personal interpretation.



...seems to me that this is what's been happening for 11 pages now!


----------



## KPM

*It only sounds rediculous when what you are saying is put into plain and simple English.*

----Except that what you wrote was not what I was saying.


----------



## Flying Crane

KPM said:


> Good question!  But no one has yet attempted to explain how Wing Chun is NOT a close-range art, nor has anyone tried to show a Wing Chun "long range game" that is equivalent to that found in boxing.  No one has tried to describe how Wing Chun is NOT optimized to function at close range much more than long range.  Why do you suppose that is???


I'm sorry that you are unable to see the possibilities.  I don't know why that is.  Seriously, do what is right for you.  But if you have such difficulty accepting that other people disagree with you, you will have a very difficult time getting through life.  So, good luck.


----------



## Flying Crane

wckf92 said:


> ...seems to me that this is what's been happening for 11 pages now!


Yup!


----------



## KPM

wckf92 said:


> ...seems to me that this is what's been happening for 11 pages now!



Uh no.  I have been stating simple facts that people have been doing their best to deny.  However, no one has yet explained HOW or WHY they think the fact I have been stating is untrue.  Not once has anyone attempted to explain how Wing Chun is NOT a close-range art, nor has anyone tried to show a Wing Chun "long range game" that is equivalent to that found in boxing. No one has tried to describe how Wing Chun is NOT optimized to function at close range much more so than at long range.   So actually, no one has offered their own interpretation, other than to say that they think I am wrong.  Why do you think that is?


----------



## KPM

Flying Crane said:


> I'm sorry that you are unable to see the possibilities.  I don't know why that is.  Seriously, do what is right for you.  But if you have such difficulty accepting that other people disagree with you, you will have a very difficult time getting through life.  So, good luck.



I have no problem with people disagreeing with me!  As I already pointed out, if someone wanted to disagree with me and say that they think that Wing Chun is perfectly adequate in using its long range strategy to survive at long range long enough to close to close range and they don't feel the need to improve their long range skills by actually training a system with a "long range game", then I couldn't argue with that!  That would be a very valid disagreement!  But to state that you don't think Wing Chun is a close-range system....well, I'm not the one "unable to see"!


----------



## Flying Crane

KPM said:


> Uh no.  I have been stating simple facts that people have been doing their best to deny.  However, no one has yet explained HOW or WHY they think the fact I have been stating is untrue.  Not once has anyone attempted to explain how Wing Chun is NOT a close-range art, nor has anyone tried to show a Wing Chun "long range game" that is equivalent to that found in boxing. No one has tried to describe how Wing Chun is NOT optimized to function at close range much more so than at long range.   So actually, no one has offered their own interpretation, other than to say that they think I am wrong.  Why do you think that is?


Because honestly I would say that nobody gives a **** about this the way that you do.  You aren't changing anyone's minds, and and neither will you change yours, so it doesn't really matter, in the end.  If you can't see the possibilities, I honestly don't know how to help you see it. Either you get it, or you don't.


----------



## Flying Crane

KPM said:


> I have no problem with people disagreeing with me!  As I already pointed out, if someone wanted to disagree with me and say that they think that Wing Chun is perfectly adequate in using its long range strategy to survive at long range long enough to close to close range and they don't feel the need to improve their long range skills by actually training a system with a "long range game", then I couldn't argue with that!  That would be a very valid disagreement!  But to state that you don't think Wing Chun is a close-range system....well, I'm not the one "unable to see"!


I don't think wing chun is a close range system.  There.


----------



## KPM

Flying Crane said:


> Because honestly I would say that nobody gives a **** about this the way that you do.  You aren't changing anyone's minds, and and neither will you change yours, so it doesn't really matter, in the end.  If you can't see the possibilities, I honestly don't know how to help you see it. Either you get it, or you don't.



Dude, you've been going on and on about it as much as I have!     If you don't understand how Wing Chun works...how it was designed...I honestly don't know how to help you either.


----------



## Flying Crane

KPM said:


> Dude, you've been going on and on about it as much as I have!     If you don't understand how Wing Chun works...how it was designed...I honestly don't know how to help you either.


Ok well, I actually don't have any need to "win" an argument on the internet.  I've made my contribution to the discussion,  nobody has changed their minds, and now I've got more important things to do.  Have fun.


----------



## geezer

Flying Crane said:


> I don't think wing chun is a close range system.  There.



Yeah, well I_ do_ think Wing Chun functions best as a close-range system, _so there_ X 10! 

BTW is it hilarious or what? how worked-up people get over these discussions? ....or maybe I'm just getting too comfortable with nobody taking me seriously. 20 years teaching high school and nearly 30 years of marriage can do that to you!


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> Well to me to an extent it does, in the generic fighting sense. If the point of martial arts is to defend yourself and you're at long range and you have the opportunity to run, isnt running the better option than risking a fight you may lose?
> 
> Also if you are at long range, or further, and that gives you the time to pick up a force multiplier, aka weapon, the opponent doesn't have, does that not make more sense then just starting to throw punches?



Why throw punches at all?

Run or use a weapon. don't bother with wing chun at any range.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> Why throw punches at all?
> 
> Run or use a weapon. don't bother with wing chun at any range.



That wasn't the point.  The point was how do you make WC better at long range.  If you accept that as a weakness (which I don't) there are arguably better ways than boxing.


----------



## Parky

Knapf said:


> No. But you _yourself  _as a Wing Chunner should adopt long range moves to defeat him quickly if he retreats and not Biu Ma which takes too long.
> 
> 
> Yes. But running doesn't mean running in marathon style. "Running" towards the enemy in Choy Lee Fat style. Or should I say advancing.
> 
> 
> I thought you were disagreeing with me about running.  Why are you saying now that stepping,walking and running  is all you need?



I don't Biu Ma. I step, walk, or run...just like I did when I was a little feller. I agree with you that Biu Ma, if done in the stiff and rigid manner some folks do it in, takes too long. When I say Running I mean Advancing quickly. Again I agree with you. But I don't see stepping, walking, or running as 'moves'. What I'm trying to say and maybe I'm not direct enough is that maybe there is no footwork in Wing Chun. Well, maybe there's a little bit in the knives form. Maybe mostly there is just moving the center of mass and the feet follow. Maybe the mind directs where to place the center of mass and the center moves and the feet follow. I think it's that simple. Most people would probably disagree and that's cool. I think people try and 'look' Wing Chun, rigidly. People try and perform Wing Chun. I think that's wrong thinking. I think people over complicate it with all kinds of footwork and footwork drills and the idea of all these techniques that must be drilled repeatedly with a partner in a Wing Chun manner. I understand that place because I lived there for years. I'm not judging I just see things differently now and occasionally I see a comment that moves me to share my current thoughts. I'm sorry you quit after SLT. There's a lot within the first form alone that translates to other arts, but Wing Chun certainly aint everyone's flavor. Cheers!


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> That wasn't the point.  The point was how do you make WC better at long range.  If you accept that as a weakness (which I don't) there are arguably better ways than boxing.



It is the point. Why limit these better ways to a specific range? Just use the better ways.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> It is the point. Why limit these better ways to a specific range? Just use the better ways.



Well because a weapon, in this context, does have range limits.  Say I am using something the length of your average Kali stick.  Once I am in corto I am largely limited to punyo strikes and to get back out to medio or largo to fully use the weapon.


----------



## KPM

Juany118 said:


> That wasn't the point.  The point was how do you make WC better at long range.  If you accept that as a weakness (which I don't) there are arguably better ways than boxing.



But we weren't speaking about the weapons element at all.  We were talking about a sparring/free-fight situation all this time.


----------



## KPM

geezer said:


> Yeah, well I_ do_ think Wing Chun functions best as a close-range system, _so there_ X 10!
> 
> BTW is it hilarious or what? how worked-up people get over these discussions? ....or maybe I'm just getting too comfortable with nobody taking me seriously. 20 years teaching high school and nearly 30 years of marriage can do that to you!



I don't know about "worked up" or "hilarious" but I do find it odd that I have to keep restating and reexplaining the obvious to people that should know Wing Chun.


----------



## Parky

_"What is often described as short or long range in one system or another is really a training methodology and mechanism that has little relevance to the range at which it is useful.  It is a training mechanism that teaches and develops and reinforces certain principles of movement and power generation, that can then be applied in any situation once you understand them.  As a methodology, there is a certain consistency that is important in training the principles.  These principles are expressed in certain techniques that are part of the training regimen, but are not limited to those techniques.  They can be utilized in any movement that is needed to fit the situation, even if that movement is not a "proper" technique.  It does not matter.  But it is up to the individual to apply them as they will, in whatever context they find themselves, and any failure is the person, not the method.  If you cannot see that wing chun ought to be plenty useful at any "range", then I think you are selling the method short.  It has more potential then you are giving it credit for._

_A martial system is not the same as that.  It is a methodology used to develop skills that can be applied whenever and wherever and however you need them, to the extent of your own skill level.  And different people will get different mileage from it, and some methods are a better match for some people than others are, so pick your method wisely. _*Flying Crane* *quote*_._

This is great stuff!!! I couldn't agree more. The so-called 'techniques' are just expressions of movement. What matters is what powers the so-called techniques, or at least that's what matters to me. The same thing that powers my Wing Chun movement could power movements I previously learned in the Tai Chi, Hakkoryu JuJutsu, and Northern Mantis I  dabbled in. It could also power my golf swing. The training is about 'powering up'. Just my 2 pennies worth.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> But then, you have no evidence and can provide no proof that your version of Wing Chun is any different.  And you go on and on about how "broke" everyone else is but come up short when asked to show what you do differently to prove that yours isn't "broken."  Quite amusing, really......



So, assuming my VT is also broken...

This doesn't change the fact that you blew a gasket whenever I said other YMWC is broken and gap-filling left and right, but have now been starting threads _admitting_ to all the holes and gaps in WC and looking for ways to fill them! 

I'm glad you've finally come to the realization and are trying to do something about it, but saying "yours is broken, too" doesn't help your situation.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> ---Boxers only have a hard time handling kicking if they haven't trained against kicking.  Why would you assume that a footwork system that is very mobile and evasive would have a problem with kicking?



And if they train against kicks, they have to change a ton about their footwork and overall strategy or this happens:


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> You can be perfectly content with the idea that you can survive at long range enough to use closing skills to get to close range.  But that is not the same thing as having a "long range game" that is the equivalent of what is done in boxing.



If you have a striking style that only functions at close-range and you are outclassed there with no recourse to a longer range, you just get beat trying to do what doesn't work. That's a pretty dumb fail for your system.

You keep harping on this "surviving long enough to get close is not a long-range game", but that's not all that can be done with functional VT.

See here from 2:13 to 2:26. The VT guy is sparring an MMA guy with a reach advantage on him and probably superior grappling skills.

He stays outside using highly mobile and evasive lateral footwork and kicks to keep the opponent at bay. At 2:18, he stops the MMA guy's kick with his own, nails him in the jaw with a nice VT punch (that would have much different effects without the protective gear), and safely remains at outside range.

Now, there are many reasons why one may want or need to stay out at longer range, not the least of which is being, as I already stated, outclassed at that range. It's stupid to stay close then or only know how to fight close.

And a fight can definitely be finished at longer range. There are many ways to end a fight without closing in.

But first, conducting a fight on the outside, 2:13 to 2:26.






So, there are of course VT methods of conducting a fight at longer range with mobile and evasive footwork to avoid leg kicks and so on.

But, VT can also end fights at longer range.

This, done with intent can absolutely end a fight and ruin someone's life. That's why it's illegal or at least strongly frowned upon in sport fighting.







This, too, can absolutely end a fight. Kick someone over chairs and tables, into other people, into a wall, off a pier. If cracked ribs or other injuries don't stop them from continuing to fight, and you don't wait for them to get back up, it buys time for escape.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> And obviously, it meant something to WSL, or he wouldn't have put it in the title!  He could have just titled the video "Wing Chun:  The Science of Street Fighting" or something along those lines.



It's true that VT's main strategy is to get in, overwhelm, and finish an attacker quickly.

But, it also has methods of conducting and even finishing a fight from longer range because it wasn't developed by fantasy fighters who'd never actually fought to know that sometimes you're not going to be able to win at close range, and without recourse, you're dead.



KPM said:


> ---And it seems to me that the people that are having a hard time admitting that their Wing Chun doesn't have a "long range game" just aren't being honest with themselves.



It seems to me you really wish for others to have WC as deficient as yours so you can feel better about having to gap-fill.



KPM said:


> If you don't understand how Wing Chun works...how it was designed...I honestly don't know how to help you either.



How could you? You're the one who started this thread called "What was Wing Chun designed for" because you are trying to validate the ridiculous idea that WC was _purposefully designed with gaps_ so you are justified in filling them with Western Boxing without losing face.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> So, assuming my VT is also broken...
> 
> This doesn't change the fact that you blew a gasket whenever I said other YMWC is broken and gap-filling left and right, but have now been starting threads _admitting_ to all the holes and gaps in WC and looking for ways to fill them!
> 
> I'm glad you've finally come to the realization and are trying to do something about it, but saying "yours is broken, too" doesn't help your situation.



I don't recall you ever talking about a lack of a "long range game" when you referred to everyone's Wing Chun as being "broken".   And....I repeat myself again......Wing Chun is a close-range system...designed and optimized for close range.  It has a long range strategy for surviving at that range so you can close in to the preferred close range.  Saying there is a lack of a more extensive "long range game" equivalent to boxing is not saying Wing Chun is "broken."  It is simply pointing out that there is room for improvement, should someone want to pursue it.


----------



## KPM

*He stays outside using highly mobile and evasive lateral footwork and kicks to keep the opponent at bay. At 2:18, he stops the MMA guy's kick with his own, nails him in the jaw with a nice VT punch (that would have much different effects without the protective gear), and safely remains at outside range.*

--Yeah, that was a good clip!  You seem to like that one.  Maybe because its the only one showing WSLVT guys doing any real sparring? 

----Here's what I see Sean's student doing on the outside......keeping his weight more on the forward leg with his posture a bit "hunched" forward and his guard held in close to his face.....high covers used to defend punches to the head....quick "hopping" lateral movement...some bobbing and weaving to avoid  strikes.  Hmmm....sounds amazingly like boxing, doesn't it???     And given that Sean's guys are preparing for MMA competition and therefore also are incorporating sweeps and throws and such (which aren't part of WSLVT)....this leads me to believe that this "outside" portion is also not typical WSLVT and has been incorporated from elsewhere.    So I applaud Sean and like this video.  He has clearly been making updates and improvements to his WSLVT method. 

---And BTW....landing a kick to finish a fight is not at all what I meant by conducting a fight from long range.  Of course you have to move in to be able to strike the guy, and you aren't going to finish him without hitting him!  Long range fighting is more about how you control and maintain distance and choose when to close in to strike when its in your favor to do so.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> You're the one who started this thread called "What was Wing Chun designed for" because you are trying to validate the ridiculous idea that WC was _purposefully designed with gaps_ so you are justified in filling them with Western Boxing without losing face.



I started this thread to get other people's ideas.  Yet after 11 pages no one has yet proposed a valid alternative explanation and description of Wing Chun being something other than a "close range" system.  No one has tried to justify why they think Wing Chun is NOT designed for and optimized for close range fighting.  They've simply argued against the fact that Wing Chun was NOT designed for nor optimized for fighting at long range.

I know of at least one person that could have chimed in and explained how he thinks Wing Chun was designed to be an "in between" system....between striking and grappling.  And how Wing Chun is as much a standing grappling system as a striking system.  That would have made the discussion interesting.  But he knew he would get the kind of BS argumentative responses that I have been getting so he didn't bother.  He predicted that people would just be trying to defend their entrenched beliefs rather than really discussing the topic.  Its a shame really.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> I don't recall you ever talking about a lack of a "long range game" when you referred to everyone's Wing Chun as being "broken".



There are _so_ many gaps in mainstream YMWC. I point them out whenever the particular topic arises.



> Saying there is a lack of a more extensive "long range game" equivalent to boxing is not saying Wing Chun is "broken."  It is simply pointing out that there is room for improvement, should someone want to pursue it.



I heartily disagree for the fact that if you are outclassed at close range and that's all you know how to do, you're finished, because your broken WC failed to give you a functional recourse.



KPM said:


> --Yeah, that was a good clip!  You seem to like that one.  Maybe because its the only one showing WSLVT guys doing any real sparring?



It is good. How many you've seen doesn't mean anything in terms of what WSLVT is.



> keeping his weight more on the forward leg



There is no forward leg and it's evenly weighted.



> with his posture a bit "hunched" forward and his guard held in close to his face.....high covers used to defend punches to the head....quick "hopping" lateral movement...some bobbing and weaving to avoid  strikes.  Hmmm....sounds amazingly like boxing, doesn't it???



Maybe "sounds" like it, but is quite different in execution, and drastically different in specific strategy and tactics.



> And given that Sean's guys are preparing for MMA competition and therefore also are incorporating sweeps and throws and such (which aren't part of WSLVT)



Not in the portion I pointed to.



> ....this leads me to believe that this "outside" portion is also not typical WSLVT and has been incorporated from elsewhere.



It is pure WSLVT, dummy/knife footwork, standard pre-contact strategy.



> ---And BTW....landing a kick to finish a fight is not at all what I meant by conducting a fight from long range.  Of course you have to move in to be able to strike the guy, and you aren't going to finish him without hitting him!



So, conducting the entire fight on the outside, never going into close-range, and ending the fight with a kick is still not "long-range game" to you??

 Then nothing can be!



> Long range fighting is more about how you control and maintain distance and choose when to close in to strike when its in your favor to do so.



Oh... This sounds like "surviving long enough to close in". Exactly what you said is _not_ a long-range game!

So, if I stay out and finish the fight with the longest range unarmed weapons (kicks), I'm not conducting the fight from long range...

And if I control and maintain distance and choose when to close in to strike, as you just said is long-range fighting, it's still not a "long-range game", but just survival until I can get in???


----------



## wckf92

KPM said:


> Long range fighting is more about how you control and maintain distance....



Seems to me he controlled both pretty well with that kick to the knee


----------



## Lobo66

Hey guys,
Just saw this thread and thought I'd write a short response.
I don't have time to read everyone's posts, so I apologize _im Voraus _if I'm repeating what somebody else has already said.

Ving Tsun (as I've learned it) is designed for fighting.  Period.  Not for health or fitness or aesthetics, but for fighting empty-handed and with weapons.  
That being said it is important to contextualize.  A "fight" can be many things: A typical monkey dance (to use Miller's term), one of the various forms of criminal assault, the struggle to subdue and arrest someone, a sport competition, etc, etc.  

So it's important to contextualize.  Regaining the initiative and carrying out a successful counter attack after having been assaulted needs a different skill set (mentally and physically) than having to subdue and control an outraged patient in a hospital, for example.  Or break up a fight between two adolescents.  Or fight an experienced combat athlete in the ring.  Whatever martial art you do, you have to contextualize your training to render it truly effective.  
If you want to enter mixed martial arts competitions, you better have the possibility to spar with mixed martial artists.  If you want your art to give you an advantage during a possible assault, you'd better do some self defence scenario-type training.  

When you do this - when you contextualize your training- you will see very quickly what aspects of your art need to be emphasized, what things need to be avoided or kept under control,  or maybe even things that need changing.  You just might need to supplement your training with other things.  I think this is logical and obvious to everyone.   

Sorry got to run, but if I have time I'll post some more.


----------



## Juany118

Lobo66 said:


> Hey guys,
> Just saw this thread and thought I'd write a short response.
> I don't have time to read everyone's posts, so I apologize _im Voraus _if I'm repeating what somebody else has already said.
> 
> Ving Tsun (as I've learned it) is designed for fighting.  Period.  Not for health or fitness or aesthetics, but for fighting empty-handed and with weapons.
> That being said it is important to contextualize.  A "fight" can be many things: A typical monkey dance (to use Miller's term), one of the various forms of criminal assault, the struggle to subdue and arrest someone, a sport competition, etc, etc.
> 
> So it's important to contextualize.  Regaining the initiative and carrying out a successful counter attack after having been assaulted needs a different skill set (mentally and physically) than having to subdue and control an outraged patient in a hospital, for example.  Or break up a fight between two adolescents.  Or fight an experienced combat athlete in the ring.  Whatever martial art you do, you have to contextualize your training to render it truly effective.
> If you want to enter mixed martial arts competitions, you better have the possibility to spar with mixed martial artists.  If you want your art to give you an advantage during a possible assault, you'd better do some self defence scenario-type training.
> 
> When you do this - when you contextualize your training- you will see very quickly what aspects of your art need to be emphasized, what things need to be avoided or kept under control,  or maybe even things that need changing.  You just might need to supplement your training with other things.  I think this is logical and obvious to everyone.
> 
> Sorry got to run, but if I have time I'll post some more.


I think this is very important, the contextualized point, I tried to get there but didn't articulate it well.  Example, I use my WC different than some others do.  Most people, naturally, focus on the striking aspect, even in the TWC I study which has a fair amount of grappling.  Thing is I study MA to assist my aging body in my occupation so I use it to get myself so I can grapple/control, so to me it is an art to bridge with and "soften up" the target so I can then exert control.  If the TWC grappling techniques work, great, if I have to go to control methods I learned from other arts, so be it.

I think what MAY happen is that a lot of people who study martial arts don't really give contextualizing much thought.  They study a martial art to be a "good fighter" in a generic sense, then they see another art that seems to be stronger in a specific context, whether or not they will ever actually encounter that specific scenario, and they start looking for a better way.

If they were to ask the question "why do I study martial arts"? They may find that yourtube video they watched really doesn't matter. Such as...

1. I am studying martial arts for physical and psychological well being... so who cares if MA X has a "longer game?"
2. I study MAs to engage in tornament Lei Tai against similar arts.  So if you are studying a striking art who cares if your MA has a deep grappling game or not?
3. I study MAs because I am a fan of historical weapons.  So who cares if you have a deep empty hand system?
4. I study martial arts in order to gain physical control/submission of an opponent.  So who cares if I can't fight as well from a "stand off" position? I need to get inside to gain compliance.

That math is what brought me to my school.  I wanted to be better at getting "inside" to control when the opponent is doing everything to prevent it (my WC) so I could use my existing Aikido/Judo skill set plus I wanted those existing control options reinforced (my WC and Kali do that) as well as get better with the use of a baton and knife defense, which Kali provides.

In short shouldn't we look at MA like we do buying a car?  I never had kids so I currently have a Subaru Hatchback. My girlfriend has a 3 year old and wants another child though.  So first I am buying a roof cargo carrier (a car version @KPM 's idea of adding boxing to his WC) but when I get a new car I am buying a Forester.  In short I will chose my new car because of the context that is now my family life, the car carrier is only a "filler" until I can get the proper tool.


----------



## Phobius

KPM said:


> Good question!  But no one has yet attempted to explain how Wing Chun is NOT a close-range art, nor has anyone tried to show a Wing Chun "long range game" that is equivalent to that found in boxing.  No one has tried to describe how Wing Chun is NOT optimized to function at close range much more than long range.  Why do you suppose that is???



Because that is not the subject. To have an art that master movement and position  at long range in order to either get close or win the fight... This you stated footwork in WC does not work as an undisputed fact. 

I say I don't agree it being a fact. Nor would I say BJJ is long range and yet Gracie's have shown closing footwork from long range. So they would be better off doing boxing?


----------



## Phobius

A close range art is not equal to not having long range game. In fact the close range fighter most often need to focus a lot on long range game. This is why I do not agree with KPM stated facts.

Saying a close range art has no long range game because of it as a fact that must not be questioned is like saying a tennis player is just hitting a ball and as such does not need to move around because they never hit a ball they can not reach.


----------



## KPM

*I heartily disagree for the fact that if you are outclassed at close range and that's all you know how to do, you're finished, because your broken WC failed to give you a functional recourse.*

---So, you believe that Wing Chun is just as developed and optimized for long range fighting as it is for close range fighting?  You believe that there is no difference in emphasis in the training for close range vs. long range?   You don't see Wing Chun as an "In-fighting" system, as WSL referred to it??


*There is no forward leg and it's evenly weighted.*

---There were plenty of times where he was hunched forward, leaning out over the forward leg and bobbing and weaving to avoid kicks.  He did not stay evenly weighted.


*Maybe "sounds" like it, but is quite different in execution, and drastically different in specific strategy and tactics.*

---There is some boxing element there nonetheless.


*Not in the portion I pointed to.*

----Portion?  Isn't WSLVT a "stand alone" method that needs no "gap filling"????  Yet your example is a mix of WSLVT and MMA.....including some boxing elements.  Kind of goes against your entire thesis on multiple threads now....you know....where you repeatedly maintain that other people's Wing Chun is "broken" and that people have to "gap fill" to fix it, but that WSLVT is different and perfect and complete  and all that.  



*It is pure WSLVT, dummy/knife footwork, standard pre-contact strategy.*

----Pure WSLVT?  Heck, even Sean just admitted he was mixing things in and it wasn't "pure" WSLVT!  Oh wait...you mean that small "portion"???   



*So, conducting the entire fight on the outside, never going into close-range, and ending the fight with a kick is still not "long-range game" to you??*

----Your example showed only the landing of the kick.  We don't know how much "long range game" there was behind it at all.  He could have just stepped up and kicked, just like people just  step up and punch.


*Oh... This sounds like "surviving long enough to close in". Exactly what you said is not a long-range game!*

---I've described what the "long range game" can consist of two different times now on two different threads.  Once again, you are just being  argumentative.


----------



## KPM

*Because that is not the subject.*

---What do you mean "that is not the subject"???  The topic of the thread is "What was Wing Chun designed for?"!!!! 


*To have an art that master movement and position  at long range in order to either get close or win the fight... This you stated footwork in WC does not work as an undisputed fact. *

---What?  That makes no sense.  I said that WC has a strategy for surviving at long range in order to close to close range.  I said that WC was not designed for nor optimized to function at long range.  It is a fighting art, so sure it has things to do at long range.  But that is not the same as a method actually designed to work at long range.  Wing Chun most certainly has not "mastered movement and position at long range", but that isn't Wing Chun's forte.  Close range is Wing Chun's forte.


*I say I don't agree it being a fact. Nor would I say BJJ is long range and yet Gracie's have shown closing footwork from long range. So they would be better off doing boxing?*

---As I've already pointed out, plenty of BJJ guys cross-train in boxing/kickboxing to work on their feet before going to BJJ's forte....ground-fighting.   No BJJ guy would claim that BJJ has "mastered movement and position at long range."


*A close range art is not equal to not having long range game. In fact the close range fighter most often need to focus a lot on long range game. This is why I do not agree with KPM stated facts.*

---Ok then.  Please post video of a Wing Chun guy sparring and working a "long range game" equivalent to the boxing videos I posted.....using entirely Wing Chun.


*Saying a close range art has no long range game because of it as a fact that must not be questioned is like saying a tennis player is just hitting a ball and as such does not need to move around because they never hit a ball they can not reach.*

----No.  Its more like saying a lineman in American football builds strength and explosiveness but doesn't worry about how well he can catch the ball or how fast he can run because he leaves that to the running back.  Both are football players, but they have different roles and are  specialized for a specific part of the game.  Neither is expected to do everything on the field.


----------



## Phobius

KPM said:


> ---What do you mean "that is not the subject"???  The topic of the thread is "What was Wing Chun designed for?"!!!!



If the topic is, Wing Chun is not designed to be a long range boxing art. Then I would agree with you. However this I do not consider to be the same as saying WC is not good at long range game.

Nothing can compete with a long range boxing methology (correct word?) when it comes to having a long range boxing methology.



KPM said:


> ---What?  That makes no sense.  I said that WC has a strategy for surviving at long range in order to close to close range.  I said that WC was not designed for nor optimized to function at long range.  It is a fighting art, so sure it has things to do at long range.  But that is not the same as a method actually designed to work at long range.  Wing Chun most certainly has not "mastered movement and position at long range", but that isn't Wing Chun's forte.  Close range is Wing Chun's forte.



You are very comfortable in saying what WC is and isn't. Especially given that there are more lineages and versions of WC than I can probably imagine. Saying that Wing Chun has not mastered movement I believe you may be wrong, and may be right. You are both and neither. What I do however agree with is that many of the known or mentioned clubs and purist lineages are not doing enough exercises to improve footwork. Not statying the movement is bad but if you can't walk a mile then being a master at running wont help you finish a marathon.



KPM said:


> ---As I've already pointed out, plenty of BJJ guys cross-train in boxing/kickboxing to work on their feet before going to BJJ's forte....ground-fighting.   No BJJ guy would claim that BJJ has "mastered movement and position at long range."



Actually there are those that disagree. While there are many sport interested clubs this does not mean BJJ has no training about taking down fighters starting from long range. It does not mean that their takedowns are not practised and optimized to prevent them from being knocked out while going in for that takedown.

This would in my view be a long range game. Not all long range game has to be boxing, not all arts are boxing arts.


----------



## KPM

*If the topic is, Wing Chun is not designed to be a long range boxing art. Then I would agree with you. However this I do not consider to be the same as saying WC is not good at long range game.*

---Geez!  Why do I have to keep repeating myself???  I already pointed out that....following the topic of the thread...I said that Wing Chun was designed to be a close-range fighting method.  And after more than 11 pages no one has yet tried to describe Wing Chun in any other way and give an explanation and justification for saying it is NOT a close-range fighting method.  People have only objected to me saying that it does not have as developed and effective long range method as boxing.


*Nothing can compete with a long range boxing methology (correct word?) when it comes to having a long range boxing methology.*

---Sure it can!  Muay Thai, American Kickboxing, and even Tae Kwon Do have "long range games" that would give a boxer a run for his money!   But since Wing Chun is primarily a punching method, it makes sense to look at a good long range game from another punching method. 


*This would in my view be a long range game. *

---No.  This  would be a strategy for closing from long range to close range.   Again,  I've said this multiple times now....having a long range game means you can conduct the entire fight from long range.  BJJ doesn't do that, therefore BJJ does not have a "long range game."

---I've had to say it over and over now.....having a "long range strategy" is NOT the same thing as having a  "long range game."  And I've defined what both of those are several times already.


----------



## Phobius

KPM said:


> ---Geez!  Why do I have to keep repeating myself???  I already pointed out that....following the topic of the thread...I said that Wing Chun was designed to be a close-range fighting method.  And after more than 11 pages no one has yet tried to describe Wing Chun in any other way and give an explanation and justification for saying it is NOT a close-range fighting method.  People have only objected to me saying that it does not have as developed and effective long range method as boxing.



You have talked about footwork. I joined the discussion at that point. Since then I have talked about footwork. And the thread is about what Wing Chun was designed for.
If you are saying Wing Chun is not boxing then I can agree. But Wing Chun is also kicking, a lot of kicking, but not necessarily as high kicks. That is still long range game even by your definition.

Now any art that has a plan to handle long range fighting would in my view have a long range game. WC has long range punches and can be a long range art as well. It depends on how you train it.

Heck even boxers can be close range without a single solid long range technique other than an annoying jab.

And to highlight, I would argue that if you can move from long range to close range and back. It becomes nothing but labels. Labels are pointless as long as you do what must be done in the situation you are in. 

Now if you want to learn sparring and not make it look like boxing while doing WC. Train harder is the usual tip I give. Most people doing WC would die from physical exhaustion just doing the regular warm up that an MMA fighter would do on near daily basis. Then they wonder why many WC practitioners have trouble fighting MT or boxers.



KPM said:


> ---Sure it can!  Muay Thai, American Kickboxing, and even Tae Kwon Do have "long range games" that would give a boxer a run for his money!   But since Wing Chun is primarily a punching method, it makes sense to look at a good long range game from another punching method.



This is very much a view you have. Do not know what to say other than it is good you share it, makes it easier to understand why you have your opinion.



KPM said:


> ---No.  This  would be a strategy for closing from long range to close range.   Again,  I've said this multiple times now....having a long range game means you can conduct the entire fight from long range.  BJJ doesn't do that, therefore BJJ does not have a "long range game."



Do you desire to conduct a fight from long range? Learn Muay Thai or boxing. No need to incorporate it with WC to create a mix. A boxer does this better than any mix would do most likely. Or go for tae kwon do. They would argue that a boxer is short range. Now we are talking long range.

Even better, do long pole. Or archery, or guns... but those are kind of cheating.


----------



## Phobius

Also don't get me wrong. I am not a purist. Think your boxing project is interesting.

But I don't agree with some of your statements you claim to be facts, that is all.

It is all about building fighters and one art may not be suitable for all. I for one train BJJ as well.

But I still personally think being fit is one major problem to many doing WC.


----------



## drop bear

Phobius said:


> Do you desire to conduct a fight from long range? Learn Muay Thai or boxing. No need to incorporate it with WC to create a mix. A boxer does this better than any mix would do most likely. Or go for tae kwon do. They would argue that a boxer is short range. Now we are talking long range.
> 
> Even better, do long pole. Or archery, or guns... but those are kind of cheating.



I guess the idea is to get better at chun though. Not better at boxing. Which is the point of collaboration.


----------



## wckf92

Phobius said:


> It depends on how you train it..



Yup!!! Winner winner chicken dinner!!!!!


----------



## KPM

*It is all about building fighters and one art may not be suitable for all. I for one train BJJ as well.
*
---So what is the difference between recognizing that Wing Chun wasn't designed for nor optimized for ground-fighting, and so training BJJ......and recognizing that Wing Chun wasn't designed for nor optimized for long range fighting?  That makes no sense!
*
You have talked about footwork. I joined the discussion at that point. Since then I have talked about footwork. *

---Then please go back and read the entire discussion.  And the discussion on "Wing Chun Boxing" as well.  Because I'm getting pretty tired of repeating myself over and over just because people haven't been following the discussion.


*But Wing Chun is also kicking, a lot of kicking, but not necessarily as high kicks. That is still long range game even by your definition.*

----No its not.  Again, I have already described what the "long range game" is twice on two different threads.  Go and read it and then maybe you can speak a bit more intelligently on the topic. 


*Now any art that has a plan to handle long range fighting would in my view have a long range game. WC has long range punches and can be a long range art as well. It depends on how you train it.*

---Ok.  Again, post some video of this "long range Wing Chun."

*
And to highlight, I would argue that if you can move from long range to close range and back. It becomes nothing but labels. Labels are pointless as long as you do what must be done in the situation you are in. *

---Now you're just talking about semantics.  Sure, it doesn't matter how you label it.  But it is still a reality.  And the reality is....once again....that Wing Chun was designed as a close range system.  That is its forte and what it is optimized for.  It was not designed for nor optimized for fighting from long range.  Call it "in-fighting" and "out-fighting", or call it "compact fighting" and "extended fighting."  Call it whatever you want.  But the reality remains. 


*Do you desire to conduct a fight from long range? Learn Muay Thai or boxing. No need to incorporate it with WC to create a mix. A boxer does this better than any mix would do most likely. Or go for tae kwon do. They would argue that a boxer is short range. Now we are talking long range.*

---I've already said that my approach is not for everyone, and that I would never want to see "classical" Wing Chun go away.  I've only been saying that it is a valid approach and one that would improve Wing Chun.  You may see the need and have the desire to improve what you can do at long range, or you may not.  And that's Ok.  But what everyone has been telling me is that Wing Chun has just as good an ability at long range as boxing.  And that simply isn't true. 

---Now, if you really want to know what I think and stop just making assumptions, go back and actually read the discussions and what I have  written.


----------



## Nobody Important

wckf92 said:


> Yup!!! Winner winner chicken dinner!!!!!


You cooking chicken bro? I'll bring the beer


----------



## drop bear

If your whole style doesn't have a long range game. Then you will never be able to develop one. Because you will not encounter anybody else with a long range game.

Both of you will just walk into each others comfort zone and fight.

You basically won't be able to develop your chun until you go outside your own system.


----------



## Phobius

KPM said:


> ---So what is the difference between recognizing that Wing Chun wasn't designed for nor optimized for ground-fighting, and so training BJJ......and recognizing that Wing Chun wasn't designed for nor optimized for long range fighting?  That makes no sense!



The difference is very simple. I only say my way to train WC/WT is not optimized for that. I do not train BJJ for that but because I am interested in BJJ and what it can bring. I say nothing about what WC/WT has or does not have. 

There are no statements from my side that my view is the only true view.

You said WC does not work in long range and then say that the only way to do long range game is to box from that distance.

I say do not outbox a boxer. And footwork/positioning is a large part of long range game.



KPM said:


> ---And it seems to me that the people that are having a hard time admitting that their Wing Chun doesn't have a "long range game" just aren't being honest with themselves.



This is my argument. You want the world in black and white. I can not agree with you about these 'facts'.

Then being unclear. You want WC long range game to be about outboxing a boxer. Boxers don't stand there to trade punches. They move in and out. Feeling an opponent out.

If you want an art to be having a long range game just because it can do jabs at distance then you of course need an art that does jabs. But that does not mean another art at some school can't be all about movement and footwork to maintain upper hand at those ranges and using kicks.


Now a boxing WC is interesting for other reasons such as if you can make that work without losing what you call close range. If you lose what you consider it's strengths are to you, you risk ending up chasing a holy grail.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> ---So, you believe that Wing Chun is just as developed and optimized for long range fighting as it is for close range fighting?  You believe that there is no difference in emphasis in the training for close range vs. long range?   You don't see Wing Chun as an "In-fighting" system, as WSL referred to it??



That's not what I'm saying.

The core fighting strategy of VT is obviously to get in, overwhelm, and finish the opponent asap.

But, some times that is not possible, and in such a case, VT should not just fail.
Some times you are not starting at close range, and need an intelligent means of getting there.
Some times you will be outclassed at close range, and need an intelligent means of fighting on the outside.

For the above reasons and more, VT is a fully functional striking method capable of fighting on the outside when necessary. It would be stupid to fail at close range and have no recourse, or not even be able to get there.

Only fantasy fighters who've never had a scrap would imagine close-range striking only would make for a feasible striking system.



> *There is no forward leg and it's evenly weighted.*
> 
> ---There were plenty of times where he was hunched forward, leaning out over the forward leg and bobbing and weaving to avoid kicks.  He did not stay evenly weighted.



Point to it between 2:13 and 2:26.

The only time there is a lead leg is after stepping forward with the punch.
Other than that, he is moving with lateral footwork on the outside with no lead leg and even weight.

This is VT long-range footwork.



> ---There is some boxing element there nonetheless.



It's VT.



> ----Portion?  Isn't WSLVT a "stand alone" method that needs no "gap filling"????  Yet your example is a mix of WSLVT and MMA.....including some boxing elements.



There is no boxing. It's VT plus some grappling.

The VT striking stands alone. The grappling is cross training, adding functional method to functional method.
It would only be gap-filling if the striking method had gaps to be filled with other striking methods. It doesn't.



> ----Pure WSLVT?  Heck, even Sean just admitted he was mixing things in and it wasn't "pure" WSLVT!  Oh wait...you mean that small "portion"???



The striking method is pure VT. What is added is clinch, throws, and groundwork.



> ----Your example showed only the landing of the kick.  We don't know how much "long range game" there was behind it at all.  He could have just stepped up and kicked, just like people just  step up and punch.



Doesn't matter. Kicks are long-range weapons. You keep moving the goalpost.
If at long-range and ending the fight there with one move, it can't be considered anything other than long-range.

And the "long-range game" was just demonstrated to you.
Distance management, evasiveness, long-range weapons.
The fight was conducted entirely on the outside.



> *Oh... This sounds like "surviving long enough to close in". Exactly what you said is not a long-range game!*
> 
> ---I've described what the "long range game" can consist of two different times now on two different threads.  Once again, you are just being  argumentative.



Not being argumentative. You just keep moving the goalpost whenever I get close.

You said;

"_*Long range fighting is more about how you control and maintain distance and choose when to close in to strike when its in your favor to do so.*_"

But, if I do exactly this, managing distance on the outside and finding my opportunity to strike, you say that's "_just surviving long enough to close in_" and "_not conducting the fight at long-range_".

So, if instead I do this, stay on the outside the entire fight and end it with the longest-range weapons there are (kicks), that's "_just ending with a kick_" and doesn't count!

It seems you just desperately don't want to admit that VT has long-range strategy and tactics, because that is admitting the deficiency in other YM derivatives you've experienced, as I've been saying all along.

You could never bring yourself to admit that I'm right after all the fighting me you've done on here.

You could man-up and acknowledge the VT long-range game you never learned, then go on with your Wing Chun Boxing. No one's going to blame you for it. You only learn what your teachers know and teach you.


----------



## Martial D

Phobius said:


> Because that is not the subject. To have an art that master movement and position  at long range in order to either get close or win the fight... This you stated footwork in WC does not work as an undisputed fact.
> 
> I say I don't agree it being a fact. Nor would I say BJJ is long range and yet Gracie's have shown closing footwork from long range. So they would be better off doing boxing?



Adding it, sure. That's actually a great example. In the beginning of UFC, BJJ was all he needed to dominate. Fast forward to his fight with Matt Hughs..

Some boxing sure would have helped!

The game evolved, and people cross trained to the point that no one style was diverse enough to compete any longer.


----------



## wckf92

Nobody Important said:


> You cooking chicken bro? I'll bring the beer



Come on down! 
Either Corona...or Yuengling


----------



## drop bear

LFJ said:


> But, if I do exactly this, managing distance on the outside and finding my opportunity to strike, you say that's "_just surviving long enough to close in_" and "_not conducting the fight at long-range_".
> 
> So, if instead I do this, stay on the outside the entire fight and end it with the longest-range weapons there are (kicks), that's "_just ending with a kick_" and doesn't count!
> 
> It seems you just desperately don't want to admit that VT has long-range strategy and tactics, because that is admitting the deficiency in other YM derivatives you've experienced, as I've been saying all along.
> 
> You could never bring yourself to admit that I'm right after all the fighting me you've done on here.
> 
> You could man-up and acknowledge the VT long-range game you never learned, then go on with your Wing Chun Boxing. No one's going to blame you for it. You only learn what your teachers know and teach you.



A lot of styles have a long range game. I think that is the point. So ok. lets just say WT does not have a long range game due to a deficiency in their linage or whatever. They are no longer limited to learning VT to address that. They can outsource the best long range game. Creating a system that is stronger than VT or WC

You dont have to do any sort of VT grappling. you can go out and just pick the best grappling.


----------



## Phobius

drop bear said:


> A lot of styles have a long range game. I think that is the point. So ok. lets just say WT does not have a long range game due to a deficiency in their linage or whatever. They are no longer limited to learning VT to address that. They can outsource the best long range game. Creating a system that is stronger than VT or WC
> 
> You dont have to do any sort of VT grappling. you can go out and just pick the best grappling.



This is not the same between learning a secondary art for grappling or incorporating grappling bits and pieces to an existing art.

The first is the very essence of MMA and something I find rather good idea, the second option however is not gonna be a merger between the two but something completely new that may or may not work at all.


----------



## KPM

*That's not what I'm saying*.

---Then your whole post just proved that you are arguing for argument's sake alone!!!  

*The core fighting strategy of VT is obviously to get in, overwhelm, and finish the opponent asap.*

---So, as I have been saying from the very beginning, Wing Chun is a close-range system designed for and optimized for that range.  That is what I described at the beginning of this  thread!

*But, some times that is not possible, and in such a case, VT should not just fail. Some times you are not starting at close range, and need an intelligent means of getting there.*

----And Wing Chun has a "long range strategy" for surviving at long range and closing to the preferred close range.  As I have repeated many times now.

*Some times you will be outclassed at close range, and need an intelligent means of fighting on the outside.*

---Sure!  Long enough to get away!  And if you are out-classed at close range, which is what Wing Chun was designed to deal with, what makes you think it is going to work BETTER at long range???


*For the above reasons and more, VT is a fully functional striking method capable of fighting on the outside when necessary. *

---Agreed.  "When necessary."  That doesn't mean that it was designed for fighting on the outside, that doesn't mean it is optimized for fighting on the outside, that doesn't mean it has a fully developed "outside game."   Boxing does.  Kickboxing does.  TKD does.  But not Wing Chun....unless things have been added from elsewhere.


*It would be stupid to fail at close range and have no recourse, or not even be able to get there.*

---Which is why Wing Chun has a "long range strategy"....which, again....is not the same thing as having a "long range  game."




*Point to it between 2:13 and 2:26.*

---So, you are saying that the only time you see any "long  range Wing Chun" happening in that entire clip is in a 13 second timeframe???   Ok.  How about at 2:17 when the guy throws a spinning back kick and the Wing Chun fighter leans forward on his lead leg ducks and bobs like a boxer to keep from kicking clocked in the head????





*There is no boxing. It's VT plus some grappling.*

---Yeah, whatever you say that helps you sleep better at night!  


*The VT striking stands alone. The grappling is cross training, adding functional method to functional method. The striking method is pure VT.*

----Yeah  maybe "portions" as you said before.  That is, except for the high covers, bobbing & weaving, hunched forward posture with guard held in close to the face, etc.  

*
Doesn't matter. Kicks are long-range weapons. You keep moving the goalpost.*

---I didn't move any goalposts.  I already explained.  Landing a kick doesn't prove you have a "long range game."  Anyone can kick.  Heck, you can kick while holding both of the opponent's arms! 


*If at long-range and ending the fight there with one move, it can't be considered anything other than long-range.*

--Again, you are just being argumentative again.  You've read where I described what a "long range game" looks like.  There is far more to it than that! 


*And the "long-range game" was just demonstrated to you.
Distance management, evasiveness, long-range weapons.
The fight was conducted entirely on the outside.*

---You mean Sean's clip?  Where the guy was bobbing & weaving, using high covers, a forward-weighted stance and other things from boxing???  


*
Not being argumentative. You just keep moving the goalpost whenever I get close.*

----Close to what?  You have yet to demonstrate how WSLVT has a long range game equivalent to what I described and what is show in the boxing clips I provided.  The "closest" thing you have come up with as a clip of Sean's guys training for MMA.  A clip where both you and he have admitted that they are mixing in plenty of other things.  A clip where anyone with a little common sense can see a boxing element being used at longer range.  A clip that does NOT show a purely Wing Chun fighter conducting the fight entirely from long range, but closing in for takedowns!!   And you think you're "close"?  Heck, you can't even provide a clip of a "pure" WSLVT guy sparring with a non-Wing Chun guy, let alone a pure WSLVT guy fighting entirely from long range!!!  



*"Long range fighting is more about how you control and maintain distance and choose when to close in to strike when its in your favor to do so."

But, if I do exactly this, managing distance on the outside and finding my opportunity to strike, you say that's "just surviving long enough to close in" and "not conducting the fight at long-range".*

----But that was not my entire description. Only a part.  Again, you are just being argumentative and purposefully ignoring what I have written in the past.  I'm not moving any goalposts.  You just seem to be having a hard time remembering where the goalpost is!!  


*So, if instead I do this, stay on the outside the entire fight and end it with the longest-range weapons there are (kicks), that's "just ending with a kick" and doesn't count!*

---The two short clips you provided showed only a guy landing a kick.  They didn't show a pure WSLVT fighter staying on the outside for an entire fight.   So what the heck are you talking about? 


*It seems you just desperately don't want to admit that VT has long-range strategy and tactics, because that is admitting the deficiency in other YM derivatives you've experienced, as I've been saying all along*.

---Now wait just one minute!  I HAVE been saying all along that Wing Chun has a "long range strategy"!  So what you are even talking about????  It seems to me you just desperately want to defend what you believe, but can't really come up with any proof or justification for saying I am wrong. 

*You could never bring yourself to admit that I'm right after all the fighting me you've done on here.*

---Heck, you can't even seem to follow a discussion logically!  And you could never bring yourself to admit that I'm right after all the arguing you've done on here.  Look, its just common sense after all.  You yourself have admitted that Wing Chun is a close range system.  That's its forte.  That's what it was designed for.  Why would you even expect that it would be able to do the same thing at long range as a method that was actually designed for and optimized for that purpose?  Why would you even expect that it would be able to function just as well at long range as it does for close range, when these are two different approaches....and Wing Chun was optimized for one and not the other?  I've provided a description of what a "long range game" is in boxing twice, on two different threads which you have obviously chosen to ignore.  I have provided video clips showing the long range game in boxing.  You have not been able to show equivalent video clips of pure "long range Wing Chun."   And neither has Phobius, or White Crane, or anyone else that has been trying to deny the reality of what I have been saying.


*You could man-up and acknowledge the VT long-range game you never learned, then go on with your Wing Chun Boxing. No one's going to blame you for it. You only learn what your teachers know and teach you.*

----And you could man-up and acknowledge that having a "long range strategy" is not the  same thing as having a "long range game" and that Wing Chun was not designed for nor optimized for long range.   And there is nothing wrong with that!   I don't see that as being "broken" or having a "gap" as you seem to.   I just see it as an area that can be improved upon, should someone take an interest in doing that.  But you are so dogmatic and narrow-minded that I know you would never admit that!!!


----------



## drop bear

Phobius said:


> This is not the same between learning a secondary art for grappling or incorporating grappling bits and pieces to an existing art.
> 
> The first is the very essence of MMA and something I find rather good idea, the second option however is not gonna be a merger between the two but something completely new that may or may not work at all.



If you understand your own aims. It should work out ok.


----------



## KPM

*You said WC does not work in long range and then say that the only way to do long range game is to box from that distance.*

---No I didn't say that!  You obviously haven't gone back and read the entire discussion as I recommended!  


*Then being unclear. You want WC long range game to be about outboxing a boxer.*

----I never said that either!!  Geez!  

*But that does not mean another art at some school can't be all about movement and footwork to maintain upper hand at those ranges and using kicks.*

---Ok then.  Let's see it!  Post a video of this "long range Wing Chun"!!


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> ----And Wing Chun has a "long range strategy" for surviving at long range and closing to the preferred close range.  As I have repeated many times now.



VT also has the means to conduct a fight entirely from long range and end it there.



> *Some times you will be outclassed at close range, and need an intelligent means of fighting on the outside.*
> 
> ---Sure!  Long enough to get away!



Close-range fighting is also just long enough to get away. How much longer should I stay?



> And if you are out-classed at close range, which is what Wing Chun was designed to deal with, what makes you think it is going to work BETTER at long range???



VT was designed to deal with fighting. It believes close-range is most often the best way to finish quickly, but realizes one must also know how to handle the fight at longer range and can do so just as well.



> ---Agreed.  "When necessary."  That doesn't mean that it was designed for fighting on the outside, that doesn't mean it is optimized for fighting on the outside, that doesn't mean it has a fully developed "outside game."



Not true. It was designed and fully optimized for fist fighting, plain and simple.
That includes essential knowledge of the "outside game".



> ---Which is why Wing Chun has a "long range strategy"....which, again....is not the same thing as having a "long range  game."



I have fulfilled your arbitrary requirements for both.



> How about at 2:17 when the guy throws a spinning back kick and the Wing Chun fighter leans forward on his lead leg ducks and bobs like a boxer to keep from kicking clocked in the head????



There's no lead leg to lean forward onto!
His stance is clearly parallel and he's moving laterally.

You expect a VT fighter not to duck when backed into a corner, huh?
He should have stood up straight and taken a spinning heel to the face, otherwise it's not pure VT??



> That is, except for the high covers, bobbing & weaving, hunched forward posture with guard held in close to the face, etc.



None of that is Western Boxing.
Some is _Biu-ji_, but none is outside of VT principles.



> Landing a kick doesn't prove you have a "long range game."



The video of long-range fighting does.



> ---You mean Sean's clip?  Where the guy was bobbing & weaving, using high covers, a forward-weighted stance and other things from boxing???



It was all VT, and there was no forward-weighted stance.



> *Not being argumentative. You just keep moving the goalpost whenever I get close.*
> 
> ----Close to what?  You have yet to demonstrate how WSLVT has a long range game equivalent to what I described and what is show in the boxing clips I provided.



Close to your arbitrary definitions that seem to change whenever I meet them.

VT is not WB. The long-rage game is different because kicks are involved. So, you will not have equivalent.



> The "closest" thing you have come up with as a clip of Sean's guys training for MMA.  A clip where both you and he have admitted that they are mixing in plenty of other things.



The striking is pure VT. The long-range game is pure VT.



> A clip that does NOT show a purely Wing Chun fighter conducting the fight entirely from long range, but closing in for takedowns!!



He was at long-range the whole time, evading and kicking.
Didn't even close in and follow up from the punch. Also never did a takedown.



> ----But that was not my entire description. Only a part.  Again, you are just being argumentative and purposefully ignoring what I have written in the past.  I'm not moving any goalposts.  You just seem to be having a hard time remembering where the goalpost is!!



What part am I missing? Now you have a chance to clearly define the goalpost once and for all.

No changies once I meet your requirements this time, though! So, write it well!
Take your time to set all the necessary loopholes you might need.



> *So, if instead I do this, stay on the outside the entire fight and end it with the longest-range weapons there are (kicks), that's "just ending with a kick" and doesn't count!*
> 
> ---The two short clips you provided showed only a guy landing a kick.  They didn't show a pure WSLVT fighter staying on the outside for an entire fight.   So what the heck are you talking about?



Talking about how VT can be used.

The video showed a VT fighter staying on the outside the entire fight and using only VT methods.
If he happened to end that particular match with the knee kick he did another time, would that count?



> You yourself have admitted that Wing Chun is a close range system.  That's its forte.  That's what it was designed for.



Wrong.

VT is a fully developed and functional striking method.
It was designed for fist fighting which obviously includes longer range.

Though aggressive close-range fighting is preferable from a percentage standpoint, this does not mean VT is any less developed or functional at long range.

Again, it is a fully developed and functional standalone striking method.
It doesn't need gap-filling for fundamental striking elements at long range.



> I have provided video clips showing the long range game in boxing.  You have not been able to show equivalent video clips of pure "long range Wing Chun."



I just did.


----------



## KPM

*VT also has the means to conduct a fight entirely from long range and end it there.*

---Ok then.  Please show a video clip of pure Wing Chun conducting a fight entirely from long range.  Any lineage of Wing Chun.  It doesn't have to be WSLVT, since you guys seem so afraid of posting sparring clips. 


*VT was designed to deal with fighting. It believes close-range is most often the best way to finish quickly, but realizes one must also know how to handle the fight at longer range and can do so just as well.*

---So VT works just as well at long range as it does at close range?  Despite the fact that it doesn't have near the structured training drills that it has for close range work?  Despite the fact that it doesn't teach any closing or evasive footwork in its forms?  Despite the fact that its steps are short and compact and its punches used very close and not extended at all? Despite the fact that its kicks are rather low and close as well?  You really think that it is comparable to what a good boxer can do at long range?  Or what a kickboxer or TKD guy can do at long range?  I don't believe you.  The burden of proof is on you.  Post a video of this "long range Wing Chun."   And don't say you already have, because Sean's guys were clearly doing MMA.  MMA based in Wing Chun as a striking method.  But MMA nonetheless and not pure Wing Chun. 


*I have fulfilled your arbitrary requirements for both.*

---They aren't arbitrary, and you haven't even come close.  And I'm afraid that the fact that you think you have really just suggests that you don't even understand what we're talking about. 



*You expect a VT fighter not to duck when backed into a corner, huh?
He should have stood up straight and taken a spinning heel to the face, otherwise it's not pure VT??*

---No.  Ducking, and bobbing and covering up are natural responses and make sense.  And they come from boxing. 



*Some is Biu-ji, but none is outside of VT principles.*

---What comes from Biu Gee?


*
The video of long-range fighting does.*

---I didn't see any video of long-range fighting.  What are you talking about???


*It was all VT, and there was no forward-weighted stance.*

---You know, in the past anytime you thought it  would prove your point you went to lengths to post a slo-mo gif or at least screen shots of the motion in question.  I notice you didn't do that this time.  Probably because you realized it would prove you wrong.  



*Close to your arbitrary definitions that seem to change whenever I meet them.*

---Again, what you talking about?  You can't even follow a discussion!  I've been saying the same thing for the last 13 pages!  And I'm getting tired of repeating myself!!!  And I've been saying the same thing I said on the other thread!


*VT is not WB. The long-rage game is different because kicks are involved. So, you will not have equivalent.*

----That's just a cop-out, and again suggests that don't even understand what long range fighting is about.  You can certainly have an equivalent!  Both are striking arts after all. And I can add low-line kicks to my boxing structure and it works just fine.   Panantukan does that.  You can have kicking equivalents of a jab, cross, and hook, etc.  You can even mix them into combinations with the punches.....jab punch, cross kick, hook kick....jab kick, hook kick, upper cut punch....etc.  All still using the basic boxing "engine" or biomechanics and boxing strategy. 



*What part am I missing? Now you have a chance to clearly define the goalpost once and for all.*

---I've repeated myself over and over.  Go back and read what I've already posted.  Again, I've reached the conclusion that you don't even truly understand what other fighting methods do at long range.   And I'm getting tired of banging my head against the wall on this thread with people that can't even seem to follow a common sense presentation.  They object, but then can't provide any proof to back up what they say!  


*No changies once I meet your requirements this time, though! So, write it well!
Take your time to set all the necessary loopholes you might need.*

---And just where did you meet any "requirements"?  That one clip of Sean's guys doing MMA sparring?  You think that did it?  Really?  When you can't even provide a clip of pure WSLVT sparring against a non-Wing Chun guy, let along a pure WSLVT fight done entirely at long range?  Just how have you "meet" anything?   Dude, give it up.  Its pretty obvious at this point that you've got nothing to back up what you've been saying.


*The video showed a VT fighter staying on the outside the entire fight and using only VT methods.*

----I thought it was only that 13 seconds?   And I thought he was doing MMA stuff?  Its becoming pretty clear at this point that you can't back up what you've been saying.  In fact, its now becoming pretty clear that you don't truly understand what other systems do at long range. I guess that might explain why you think Wing Chun's "long range strategy" is the equivalent of the "long range game" found in systems that were actually designed to work at that range!


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> Please show a video clip of pure Wing Chun conducting a fight entirely from long range.  Any lineage of Wing Chun.  It doesn't have to be WSLVT, since you guys seem so afraid of posting sparring clips.



Just did.



> ---So VT works just as well at long range as it does at close range?  Despite the fact that it doesn't have near the structured training drills that it has for close range work?  Despite the fact that it doesn't teach any closing or evasive footwork in its forms?  Despite the fact that its steps are short and compact and its punches used very close and not extended at all? Despite the fact that its kicks are rather low and close as well?



Sounds like you have a _very limited_ knowledge of VT, in both form and function.



> Post a video of this "long range Wing Chun."   And don't say you already have, because Sean's guys were clearly doing MMA.  MMA based in Wing Chun as a striking method.  But MMA nonetheless and not pure Wing Chun.



I already have.

The striking was pure VT and no MMA was involved in the long-range game I pointed you to.



> Ducking, and bobbing and covering up are natural responses and make sense.  And they come from boxing.



Your only knowledge comes from boxing.

What the fighter did was entirely VT, some _biu-ji_.



> ---What comes from Biu Gee?



What you keep mistaking for boxing.



> ---I didn't see any video of long-range fighting.  What are you talking about???



It certainly wasn't close-range.



> *It was all VT, and there was no forward-weighted stance.*
> 
> ---You know, in the past anytime you thought it  would prove your point you went to lengths to post a slo-mo gif or at least screen shots of the motion in question.  I notice you didn't do that this time.  Probably because you realized it would prove you wrong.



Actually, I was going to, but I ran out of free hosting space on the site I was using to upload. Had to find another.

Here you go. The bit where you said he leaned forward to weight a front stance??

Clearly parallel stance and lateral movement here.









> *VT is not WB. The long-rage game is different because kicks are involved. So, you will not have equivalent.*
> 
> ----That's just a cop-out, and again suggests that don't even understand what long range fighting is about.  You can certainly have an equivalent!  Both are striking arts after all. And I can add low-line kicks to my boxing structure and it works just fine.



I'm talking about kicks from the opponent. WB's long-range footwork fails where kicks are involved.

This is what happens when you face a kicker with WB stances and footwork. Not pretty.








> *What part am I missing? Now you have a chance to clearly define the goalpost once and for all.*
> 
> ---I've repeated myself over and over.  Go back and read what I've already posted.  Again, I've reached the conclusion that you don't even truly understand what other fighting methods do at long range.



So, link to the post.

It sounds like you want me to do exactly what a boxer does, throwing overextended punches and such.

But, VT is not WB. Its long-range game is strategically and tactically very different.



> ---And just where did you meet any "requirements"?  That one clip of Sean's guys doing MMA sparring?  You think that did it?  Really?  When you can't even provide a clip of pure WSLVT sparring against a non-Wing Chun guy, let along a pure WSLVT fight done entirely at long range?



The guy used nothing but pure VT against the MMA opponent from long range.



> ----I thought it was only that 13 seconds?   And I thought he was doing MMA stuff?



Nothing he did was MMA, and the clip is long enough to demonstrate to you VT behaviors at long range.

Parallel stance, evasive lateral footwork, distance management, long-range kicking, punching when opportune while safely maintaining distance.



> you think Wing Chun's "long range strategy" is the equivalent of the "long range game" found in systems that were actually designed to work at that range!



You said;

Long-range strategy is surviving long enough to close in.
Long-range game is conducting the fight from the outside.

VT has methods of doing both, and this frustrates you because you never learned it and have to resort to WB.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> Just did.
> 
> 
> 
> .




Once again, you clearly don't have anything to back up what you are saying.  Pretty pathetic response, actually.   And thanks for the GIF!   But if you honestly don't see him bending over with his weight on his right leg as he bobs with his head forward over his knee, just like a boxer would, then I don't know why I'm even responding to you.  Because you are obviously either being dishonest, or are so set on being "right" and have such a closed mind about these things that trying to carry on any kind of reasonable discussion with you is pointless.  If you think that was "pure WSLVT" then that would suggest that WSL himself incorporated some things from his boxing background!


----------



## Lobo66

In a self defence situation the question of range is often decided for you.  Assault tends to happen up close and personal, and if you have the space to escape the situation you should do so.  That is your "long range game" in this context.  In the ring/cage it's different and can become an intricate game of chess.  In VT we use shifting and angling footwork to bait the opponent into over-extending.  The oblique kick and side kicks to the shin, knee and hip, as well as sweeping techniques can all be used to disrupt the rhythm of the opponent and thus gain advantage.  Properly placed the knee kick can really injure the opponent, so in sparring we try to control our placement and aim more for the shin or thigh.  We need to protect our sparring partners 

Against experienced opponents this is, of course, no easy task.  It doesn't always work and you are also vulnerable to long range attacks.  It's essential to have good defensive gestures should your evasive footwork fail you.  Knowing how to properly block high kicks and check low kicks, for example, is essential. 

Unfortunately, a common failing in WC/VT schools is that they don't spar against people outside their club/gym, so they often lack experience in this area.


----------



## KPM

*In a self defence situation the question of range is often decided for you.  Assault tends to happen up close and personal, and if you have the space to escape the situation you should do so.  That is your "long range game" in this context.* 

---I agree that Wing Chun is a close range system.  But what you just described is a "long range strategy" not a "long range game."  I've pointed out the differences between the two multiple times now.


*In the ring/cage it's different and can become an intricate game of chess.  In VT we use shifting and angling footwork to bait the opponent into over-extending.  The oblique kick and side kicks to the shin, knee and hip, as well as sweeping techniques can all be used to disrupt the rhythm of the opponent and thus gain advantage.*


---Yes.   Now add to that having footwork that is "light on the feet" and can cover large distances quickly, evasive upper body movement with bobbing and weaving, punches that are a bit more extended so you can "dart" in and land one and "dart" back out again and move away before the opponent can respond properly, a strategy to "pick away" at the opponent for the win rather than moving in to fight at close range, etc and you start having an actual "long range game" that is very similar to boxing. 


*Against experienced opponents this is, of course, no easy task.  It doesn't always work and you are also vulnerable to long range attacks.  It's essential to have good defensive gestures should your evasive footwork fail you.  Knowing how to properly block high kicks and check low kicks, for example, is essential.*

---Very true.  And if you are not training a "long range game" specifically, it becomes even harder to do.  I have maintained through-out that Wing Chun was designed for and optimized for close range.  "Classical" Wing Chun does not spend nearly the same amount of training or specific techniques for long range, because that is not its forte.  So there is room to improve Wing Chun's long range skills by incorporating methods and concepts from other systems....like western boxing....which it appears to me that you and your guy's have done in your preparation for MMA fighting.   This is no different than incorporating methods and concepts from a grappling art to improve a Wing Chun fighter's ground-fighting ability.  Because again, ground-fighting is not what Wing Chun was designed for and is not its forte! 

*Unfortunately, a common failing in WC/VT schools is that they don't spar against people outside their club/gym, so they often lack experience in this area.*

---Also true!  So they begin to think that Wing Chun has all the answers!   Same guys that think they can do a "Wing Chun ground-fighting" or a "long range Wing Chun" rather than looking to systems that are actually designed to work in these areas.  Same guys that  straddle a downed opponent and chain punch him to the face and say "see, this is just Wing Chun."  All the while disregarding the fact that the mount comes from BJJ and BJJ could actually show them a lot more ways to get there and how to control and maintain it once they have!   Same guys that duck and weave under a high kick and say "see, this is just Wing Chun."  All the while disregarding the fact that bobbing & weaving comes from boxing and boxing could actually show them a lot more ways to be evasive and control distance even better!


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> thanks for the GIF!   But if you honestly don't see him bending over with his weight on his right leg as he bobs with his head forward over his knee, just like a boxer would, then I don't know why I'm even responding to you.



You're changing your story now.
You said he used a weighted front leg.
There is clearly no front leg to be weighted.

He uses an equally weighted parallel stance throughout, and shifts as he goes under the kick.
There is nothing non-VT about avoiding the kick as he did.
Boxers don't use a squared stance perpendicular to the opponent this way.



> If you think that was "pure WSLVT" then that would suggest that WSL himself incorporated some things from his boxing background!



It is not like boxing. You have just not learned VT fully.



KPM said:


> ---Yes.   Now add to that having footwork that is "light on the feet"



Check.



> and can cover large distances quickly,



Check.



> evasive upper body movement with bobbing and weaving,



Permissible in the right context, as in the gif, not as WB does.



> punches that are a bit more extended so you can "dart" in and land one and "dart" back out again and move away before the opponent can respond properly,



This can be achieved without overextending punches.



> a strategy to "pick away" at the opponent for the win rather than moving in to fight at close range, etc and you start having an actual "long range game" that is very similar to boxing.



All of the above is "check" with a few caveats since VT is not WB, and the long-range game uses a very different strategy and tactics, particularly because the opponent has no rule preventing him from kicking.



> "Classical" Wing Chun does not spend nearly the same amount of training or specific techniques for long range, because that is not its forte.



That is not the reason. Plenty of attention is given to long-range, it is essential to any viable striking system, but more to close-range simply because more things are going on at close-range, more weapons are in the fight, there's less distance and less reaction time, and it requires a more refined skill than dealing with long-range attacks. But, VT long-range is not at all deficient. You just haven't learned it.



> So there is room to improve Wing Chun's long range skills by incorporating methods and concepts from other systems....like western boxing....which it appears to me that you and your guy's have done in your preparation for MMA fighting.



WB's stances and footwork don't work at long-range when the opponent can kick. It is not an intelligent addition if you are fighting anywhere outside of boxing ring rules.

I also see nothing of WB in their striking. It is straight up VT. The "high-guard" you keep mentioning is more a _biu-ji _tactic, but works great against non-VT, so use is made of it.



> So they begin to think that Wing Chun has all the answers!   Same guys that think they can do a "Wing Chun ground-fighting" or a "long range Wing Chun" rather than looking to systems that are actually designed to work in these areas.



VT doesn't have all the answers. That's why BJJ is a good addition.
But, for standup striking, it can standalone at whatever range with no gaps needing filled.
You can certainly cross-train for more striking ideas if you want, but that's not gap-filling for missing elements, and you better be careful what you choose to add.



> Same guys that duck and weave under a high kick and say "see, this is just Wing Chun."  All the while disregarding the fact that bobbing & weaving comes from boxing



Ducking under a kick doesn't "come from" boxing. It comes from not being an idiot and taking a spinning heel to the face because Wing Chun "must stay upright".


----------



## KPM

*You're changing your story now.*

---I'm not changing anything!  Dude, you really are getting pretty pathetic here.  

*You said he used a weighted front leg. There is clearly no front leg to be weighted.*

---He leaned out over the right leg, which is the leg directed at his opponent.  Please explain to me from a biomechanical perspective how one can lean out forward over one leg and not have that leg weighted more than the other, and how one can lean forward and that leg not effectively become a forward or front leg.   Please also explain how that little fast "hop" to the side that he does is "pure" Wing Chun footwork.  What form teaches hopping? 


*Boxers don't use a squared stance perpendicular to the opponent this way.*

---Sure they do!  You really don't know what you're talking about.  


*Check.  Check.*

---Ok.  If you think WSLVT already has all of this, then please post a video of a "pure" WSLVT guy (not mixing in MMA) doing all of this.   


* Plenty of attention is given to long-range, it is essential to any viable striking system, but more to close-range simply because more things are going on at close-range, more weapons are in the fight, there's less distance and less reaction time, and it requires a more refined skill than dealing with long-range attacks. But, VT long-range is not at all deficient. You just haven't learned it.*

---You just admitted that Wing Chun is optimized for close range, not for long range....just as I have been saying.  VT long range strategy works for what it was intended.  But it is not the same thing as having a dedicated "long range game."  It is not as developed as what boxing, or kickboxing, or TKD can do from long range.  That should be obvious to anyone that has been around fighters.


*WB's stances and footwork don't work at long-range when the opponent can kick. It is not an intelligent addition if you are fighting anywhere outside of boxing ring rules.*

---Again, very wrong.  You don't know what you are talking about.  Kickboxers use a forward-weighted stance.  All it would take is to teach the boxer what to do and have him train for kick defense. 


*The "high-guard" you keep mentioning is more a biu-ji tactic, but works great against non-VT, so use is made of it.*

---Where is it in the Biu Gee form?


----------



## DaveB

KPM said:


> *You've understood your art not when you can fit each principle to a situation, but when you know when to make use of them and when to ignore them.*
> 
> ---Oh, I'm in no trap here!  I agree with you!  But the key word I used before was "train."  So it is better to just expect you will be able to apply those principles "on the fly" in an area you are not accustomed to, or to actually train a method meant specifically for that area that makes use of the same or similar principles?
> 
> *An easy example is to ask, do you duck the punch you didn't see in time to block even though throwing your head down and to the left isn't in any forms...
> Or do you get hit?*
> 
> ----A better question to ask is do you just hope and pray you will be able to duck the punch you didn't see when you are forced to, or is it better to actually practice a method that trains how to duck....and bob, and weave, etc.???



Now your falling into that other age old trap: confusing the training with the art.

No other endeavor has this problem. Nobody sees a footballer in the gym and confuses the weight lifting for playing football. Yet martial artists often think that a "fighting" style is the training bit instead of the fighting bit.

You can take ANY style, and train it in an infinite variety of different ways. 
My old karate school did mostly two person drills and only a little sparring under street rules. The school down the road did all sparring but under sport rules. Both were Shotokan schools.

You don't *train* a method that *trains* ducking and weaving. You *train a method* that includes ducking and weaving. Now since there is no martial art that does not use "get out of the way" as a tactic, there's no martial art that precludes ducking. 

If you remember problem 1 that I posted was trying to stick to a hard wing chun aesthetic. If the student gets over needing to look wing chun then practicing to duck and dodge is basic training. 

If you want more in depth integration of weaving then you may need to change style, but as a basic element of fighting ducking is not limited to style. It's also not something you really need to train. The reaction speed is what you train, along with balanced movement and counter attacking. But if your style prefers blocking to ducking then there's no need to spend time on it, just don't think you can't dodge because you're wing chun.


----------



## Vajramusti

KPM said:


> *VT also has the means to conduct a fight entirely from long range and end it there.*
> 
> ---Ok then.  Please show a video clip of pure Wing Chun conducting a fight entirely from long range.  Any lineage of Wing Chun.  It doesn't have to be WSLVT, since you guys seem so afraid of posting sparring clips.
> 
> 
> *VT was designed to deal with fighting. It believes close-range is most often the best way to finish quickly, but realizes one must also know how to handle the fight at longer range and can do so just as well.*
> 
> ---So VT works just as well at long range as it does at close range?  Despite the fact that it doesn't have near the structured training drills that it has for close range work?  Despite the fact that it doesn't teach any closing or evasive footwork in its forms?  Despite the fact that its steps are short and compact and its punches used very close and not extended at all? Despite the fact that its kicks are rather low and close as well?  You really think that it is comparable to what a good boxer can do at long range?  Or what a kickboxer or TKD guy can do at long range?  I don't believe you.  The burden of proof is on you.  Post a video of this "long range Wing Chun."   And don't say you already have, because Sean's guys were clearly doing MMA.  MMA based in Wing Chun as a striking method.  But MMA nonetheless and not pure Wing Chun.
> 
> 
> *I have fulfilled your arbitrary requirements for both.*
> 
> ---They aren't arbitrary, and you haven't even come close.  And I'm afraid that the fact that you think you have really just suggests that you don't even understand what we're talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> *You expect a VT fighter not to duck when backed into a corner, huh?
> He should have stood up straight and taken a spinning heel to the face, otherwise it's not pure VT??*
> 
> ---No.  Ducking, and bobbing and covering up are natural responses and make sense.  And they come from boxing.
> 
> 
> 
> *Some is Biu-ji, but none is outside of VT principles.*
> 
> ---What comes from Biu Gee?
> 
> 
> *
> The video of long-range fighting does.*
> 
> ---I didn't see any video of long-range fighting.  What are you talking about???
> 
> 
> *It was all VT, and there was no forward-weighted stance.*
> 
> ---You know, in the past anytime you thought it  would prove your point you went to lengths to post a slo-mo gif or at least screen shots of the motion in question.  I notice you didn't do that this time.  Probably because you realized it would prove you wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> *Close to your arbitrary definitions that seem to change whenever I meet them.*
> 
> ---Again, what you talking about?  You can't even follow a discussion!  I've been saying the same thing for the last 13 pages!  And I'm getting tired of repeating myself!!!  And I've been saying the same thing I said on the other thread!
> 
> 
> *VT is not WB. The long-rage game is different because kicks are involved. So, you will not have equivalent.*
> 
> ----That's just a cop-out, and again suggests that don't even understand what long range fighting is about.  You can certainly have an equivalent!  Both are striking arts after all. And I can add low-line kicks to my boxing structure and it works just fine.   Panantukan does that.  You can have kicking equivalents of a jab, cross, and hook, etc.  You can even mix them into combinations with the punches.....jab punch, cross kick, hook kick....jab kick, hook kick, upper cut punch....etc.  All still using the basic boxing "engine" or biomechanics and boxing strategy.
> 
> 
> 
> *What part am I missing? Now you have a chance to clearly define the goalpost once and for all.*
> 
> ---I've repeated myself over and over.  Go back and read what I've already posted.  Again, I've reached the conclusion that you don't even truly understand what other fighting methods do at long range.   And I'm getting tired of banging my head against the wall on this thread with people that can't even seem to follow a common sense presentation.  They object, but then can't provide any proof to back up what they say!
> 
> 
> *No changies once I meet your requirements this time, though! So, write it well!
> Take your time to set all the necessary loopholes you might need.*
> 
> ---And just where did you meet any "requirements"?  That one clip of Sean's guys doing MMA sparring?  You think that did it?  Really?  When you can't even provide a clip of pure WSLVT sparring against a non-Wing Chun guy, let along a pure WSLVT fight done entirely at long range?  Just how have you "meet" anything?   Dude, give it up.  Its pretty obvious at this point that you've got nothing to back up what you've been saying.
> 
> 
> *The video showed a VT fighter staying on the outside the entire fight and using only VT methods.*
> 
> ----I thought it was only that 13 seconds?   And I thought he was doing MMA stuff?  Its becoming pretty clear at this point that you can't back up what you've been saying.  In fact, its now becoming pretty clear that you don't truly understand what other systems do at long range. I guess that might explain why you think Wing Chun's "long range strategy" is the equivalent of the "long range game" found in systems that were actually designed to work at that range!




usual display of KPM's fragmented  understanding of wing chun


----------



## Juany118

KPM said:


> ---So VT works just as well at long range as it does at close range? Despite the fact that it doesn't have near the structured training drills that it has for close range work? Despite the fact that it doesn't teach any closing or evasive footwork in its forms? Despite the fact that its steps are short and compact and its punches used very close and not extended at all? Despite the fact that its kicks are rather low and close as well? You really think that it is comparable to what a good boxer can do at long range? Or what a kickboxer or TKD guy can do at long range? I don't believe you. The burden of proof is on you. Post a video of this "long range Wing Chun." And don't say you already have, because Sean's guys were clearly doing MMA. MMA based in Wing Chun as a striking method. But MMA nonetheless and not pure Wing Chun.



I think part of your issue, whether it comes to (speaking just YM lineages here) WC, VT, WT, TWC you are confabulating drills with fighting.  Chi sau, at least imo, isn't about developing how one fights, it's about developing attributes that are useful in fighting at any range.  The problem isn't that WC doesn't have a long game, it's that first, sparring in general is rare and sparring against other styles is even more rare.  Because of this people far into what amounts to an unintended trap and they allow the drills to define something that they we're never meant to, namely a range.  


KPM said:


> *You expect a VT fighter not to duck when backed into a corner, huh?
> He should have stood up straight and taken a spinning heel to the face, otherwise it's not pure VT??*
> 
> ---No. Ducking, and bobbing and covering up are natural responses and make sense. And they come from boxing.



Ducking comes from fighting, not boxing.  No martial art teaches you to be inflexible and take a hit because your cover/deflection failed.  Also when one is moving dynamically to gain a superior position, unless you are completely flat footed, you will occasionally appear to "bob"/bounce.  I am beginning to think your vision of WC/VT is very rigid, perhaps overly so.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> ---He leaned out over the right leg, which is the leg directed at his opponent.  Please explain to me from a biomechanical perspective how one can lean out forward over one leg and not have that leg weighted more than the other, and how one can lean forward and that leg not effectively become a forward or front leg.



His stance is parallel, perpendicular to the opponent.
Shifting weight from one to the other doesn't change orientation.

You said he was using a weighted front leg during the fight, like boxing, but his stance was perpendicular to the opponent and evenly weighted throughout, and he only briefly shifted weight to duck under the kick.



> Please also explain how that little fast "hop" to the side that he does is "pure" Wing Chun footwork.  What form teaches hopping?



VT long-range footwork is very light and mobile, using a parallel stance and lots of lateral movement as in MYJ and BJD training and various partner drills. He simply moved to cover more distance to escape the corner he was in. There's nothing non-VT about it. You don't have to be a form robot.

The problem is, the forms are just homework, not restrictions on your movement.
That would be terribly unfortunate, because most actions are incomplete in forms.

But, in many cases form is all people received, and that's why you don't know how to move freely in a fight.



> *Boxers don't use a squared stance perpendicular to the opponent this way.*
> 
> ---Sure they do!  You really don't know what you're talking about.



Nope. At long-range, they'll use a lead-rear leg stance to increase reach. Even an open stance will have lead and rear. They might square up with parallel feet when in close.

This is the exact opposite of VT, because at long-range, a weighted lead leg is extremely vulnerable to devastating leg kicks (see videos below), and at close-range, an upright parallel stance is susceptible to knees, clinch grappling, and takedowns.

The boxing methods are fine within boxing ring rules that protect them from such dangers and allow them to safely behave as they do. But, it fails when facing kickers without changing footwork, biomechanics, or power generation methods.



> ---Ok.  If you think WSLVT already has all of this, then please post a video of a "pure" WSLVT guy (not mixing in MMA) doing all of this.



Already did. The fighter is very agile, covers great distance to evade his taller opponent, checks a kick with his own and cracks the guy in the jaw with an opportune VT punch and safely remains at distance.



> ---You just admitted that Wing Chun is optimized for close range, not for long range....just as I have been saying.  VT long range strategy works for what it was intended.  But it is not the same thing as having a dedicated "long range game."



I did no such thing. I said it's optimized for striking, plain and simple.

That includes the essential long-range.

It would be stupid to fail at close-range and have no recourse to conduct and finish the fight from long range. No viable striking style would ever think one range at striking will cut it. That's what I have been repeating!



> It is not as developed as what boxing, or kickboxing, or TKD can do from long range.



It is fully developed to be functional at close or long range.

It just doesn't have overextended punching or spinning kicks because it's a different philosophy. That's all.



> *WB's stances and footwork don't work at long-range when the opponent can kick. It is not an intelligent addition if you are fighting anywhere outside of boxing ring rules.*
> 
> ---Again, very wrong.  You don't know what you are talking about.  Kickboxers use a forward-weighted stance.  All it would take is to teach the boxer what to do and have him train for kick defense.



Kick defense starts from intelligent stance and stepping patterns.
The WB "engine" as you call it would need to be gutted completely for it to be safe against leg kicks.

It's not just a matter of adding kicks. American Kickboxing didn't have leg kicks either (illegal), and what happened to the undefeated champion when he faced Muay Thai?

He got taken out on a stretcher because his stance and footwork didn't consider leg kicks. Loading the lead leg for power got taken advantage of.






And since you think you're just gonna tell a boxer "how to defend leg kicks" while not changing his stance, weighting, or footwork, I'll just leave this one here again:






And there are many more examples. Easy to find. Muay Thai vs Boxing.
It never goes well if they haven't cross-trained and changed their approach.

So, gap-filling incomplete Wing Chun with Western Boxing that needs its own gap-filling for free-fighting is just compounding the difficulty of coming up with something functional in free-fighting where there are no rules to protect you.



> *The "high-guard" you keep mentioning is more a biu-ji tactic, but works great against non-VT, so use is made of it.*
> 
> ---Where is it in the Biu Gee form?



End.


----------



## LFJ

DaveB said:


> Now since there is no martial art that does not use "get out of the way" as a tactic, there's no martial art that precludes ducking.



Exactly!



> If you remember problem 1 that I posted was trying to stick to a hard wing chun aesthetic. If the student gets over needing to look wing chun then practicing to duck and dodge is basic training.



Exactly! 

KPM thinks Wing Chun should fight like its forms. "_Fight the way you train_", he says. 

Maybe understand what your system is training first!



Vajramusti said:


> usual display of KPM's fragmented  understanding of wing chun





Juany118 said:


> I am beginning to think your vision of WC/VT is very rigid, perhaps overly so.



Fragmented and overly rigid.


----------



## KPM

Vajramusti said:


> usual display of KPM's fragmented  understanding of wing chun



Usual display of Joy's "one-liner drive-by negative comment" that contributes nothing to the actual discussion.


----------



## KPM

*[Now your falling into that other age old trap: confusing the training with the art.*

---No I'm not.  The art should be reflected in the training and the training should be actually "training" what you are going to use in the art.  "Fight the way you train and train the way you fight."  Anything else is inefficient.


*No other endeavor has this problem. Nobody sees a footballer in the gym and confuses the weight lifting for playing football. Yet martial artists often think that a "fighting" style is the training bit instead of the fighting bit.*

---There is a difference between conditioning and sport-specific training.  There was an entire video posted about this recently! 


*You don't *train* a method that *trains* ducking and weaving. You *train a method* that includes ducking and weaving. Now since there is no martial art that does not use "get out of the way" as a tactic, there's no martial art that precludes ducking.*

---Ducking and weaving and bobbing come from boxing.  Sure you can train that as part of your method.  But you are being a bit dishonest if you don't credit boxing as the source, or at least the inspiration and claim it has always been part of your particular martial art.


*If you remember problem 1 that I posted was trying to stick to a hard wing chun aesthetic. If the student gets over needing to look wing chun then practicing to duck and dodge is basic training.*

---Basic training for boxing.  Not basic training for Wing Chun unless someone has added it in.  For one thing, it breaks several Wing Chun concepts in facing, and maintaining the centerline.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> The art should be reflected in the training and the training should be actually "training" what you are going to use in the art.  "Fight the way you train and train the way you fight."  Anything else is inefficient.



The problem is you don't understand what VT is training and don't have all parts to it.



> ---Ducking and weaving and bobbing come from boxing.  Sure you can train that as part of your method.  But you are being a bit dishonest if you don't credit boxing as the source, or at least the inspiration and claim it has always been part of your particular martial art.



This is just stupid. You need to expand your knowledge.

There are hundreds of styles in China that use actions like this and have had no contact with or knowledge of Western Boxing whatsoever, and not to mention predate it by centuries! Besides, much of it is just natural instinct.



> ---Basic training for boxing.  Not basic training for Wing Chun unless someone has added it in.  For one thing, it breaks several Wing Chun concepts in facing, and maintaining the centerline.



No, it doesn't. Unless to you "maintaining the centerline" means standing right in front of your opponent like a statue in your little Wing Chun pose.

Besides, centerline is a concept of a zone where paths cross like at an intersection.
There is no rule that you must physically _occupy_ center in order to control traffic through that space.

"Fragmented and overly rigid" describes your understanding of Wing Chun perfectly.


----------



## KPM

*You said he was using a weighted front leg during the fight, like boxing,*

---He did! Your gif showed it!


*VT long-range footwork is very light and mobile, using a parallel stance and lots of lateral movement as in MYJ and BJD training and various partner drills. He simply moved to cover more distance to escape the corner he was in. There's nothing non-VT about it. You don't have to be a form robot.*

---You guys are very touchy about sharing videos of your WSLVT because, as you've said, it would be "casting pearls before swine."  You've said something along the lines of you didn't want people to see things and then claim it was part of their Wing Chun all along.  But here you are looking at things that are very much like boxing and at the very least "boxing-inspired" and saying that your Wing Chun has had it all along.  Go figure!  


*Nope. At long-range, they'll use a lead-rear leg stance to increase reach. Even an open stance will have lead and rear. They might square up with parallel feet when in close.*

---But that wasn't long range right at that moment.  If he was close enough to connect, he was closer than long range!  Boxers will "square up" to the opponent at times when in close.  Mike Tyson did this because he was a "close range" specialist!  


*This is the exact opposite of VT, because at long-range, a weighted lead leg is extremely vulnerable to devastating leg kicks*

----I guess that's why kickboxers and MMA fighters will also often stand with a forward-weighted stance??  


*The boxing methods are fine within boxing ring rules that protect them from such dangers and allow them to safely behave as they do. But, it fails when facing kickers without changing footwork, biomechanics, or power generation methods.*

---So you think your Wing Chun footwork is going to work better than a boxer's footwork when facing a kicker at long range?  You think your Wing Chun footwork faster, more mobile and more evasive than a boxer's footwork at long range?? 



*Already did.*

---I said:  _ then please post a video of a "pure" WSLVT guy (not mixing in MMA) doing all of this.   _So you are now calling that video clip of Sean's student "pure" WSLVT with no mixing in of MMA???   Its becoming very clear that you have nothing else to back up what you are saying.  Looking more and more pathetic when you just keep repeating non-sense. 

---The rest of your post isn't even particularly gemaine to this discussion.  I'm not sure why I'm even still wasting my time with you.


----------



## Juany118

KPM said:


> The art should be reflected in the training and the training should be actually "training" what you are going to use in the art. "Fight the way you train and train the way you fight." Anything else is inefficient.



But I explained previously how chi sau does exactly what you say here.  The problem is that all too often WC/VT training doesn't do enough free sparring, especially against other styles, to help you understand what place chi sau is actually serving in the training.

Lets look at another form of combat training, US Army marksmanship.  You practice, and qualify, using the M16 on semi auto from picture perfect supported positions.  However you also train under simulated combat conditions so you can take the attributes trained to qualify; proper sight picture, trigger squeeze, and breathing, and put them into the proper context, the messy reality of combat.  No one says the soldier qualifying isn't training how he will fight because that process is to build attributes that will be used when one undergoes the pressure testing of force on force training.


----------



## Nobody Important

If anyone's interested, I'm selling popcorn and beer. $2 for popcorn & $5 for beer. PayPal accepted


----------



## DaveB

KPM said:


> *[Now your falling into that other age old trap: confusing the training with the art.*
> 
> ---No I'm not.  The art should be reflected in the training and the training should be actually "training" what you are going to use in the art.  "Fight the way you train and train the way you fight."  Anything else is inefficient.
> 
> 
> *No other endeavor has this problem. Nobody sees a footballer in the gym and confuses the weight lifting for playing football. Yet martial artists often think that a "fighting" style is the training bit instead of the fighting bit.*
> 
> ---There is a difference between conditioning and sport-specific training.  There was an entire video posted about this recently!
> 
> 
> *You don't *train* a method that *trains* ducking and weaving. You *train a method* that includes ducking and weaving. Now since there is no martial art that does not use "get out of the way" as a tactic, there's no martial art that precludes ducking.*
> 
> ---Ducking and weaving and bobbing come from boxing.  Sure you can train that as part of your method.  But you are being a bit dishonest if you don't credit boxing as the source, or at least the inspiration and claim it has always been part of your particular martial art.
> 
> 
> *If you remember problem 1 that I posted was trying to stick to a hard wing chun aesthetic. If the student gets over needing to look wing chun then practicing to duck and dodge is basic training.*
> 
> ---Basic training for boxing.  Not basic training for Wing Chun unless someone has added it in.  For one thing, it breaks several Wing Chun concepts in facing, and maintaining the centerline.



The training should reflect how you intend to fight, I agree. What I was saying though was that you can train a variety of different ways and still be doing the same art. Being a wing chun man doesn't mean you only train one way or that you cannot change how you train.

Fight how you train doesn't is about the habits you form and what you are used to. It's not a god given rule meaning you can only do stuff you've drilled in class.

And no, ducking doesn't come from boxing. Ducking comes from not wanting to be hit. Bob and weave and the science of counter hitting with the weave is boxing and as I said, if you want to go that direction you might need to add from outside of chun.


----------



## Juany118

Nobody Important said:


> If anyone's interested, I'm selling popcorn and beer. $2 for popcorn & $5 for beer. PayPal accepted



As long as you have a Saison or IPA I am in, it's that time of year


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> *You said he was using a weighted front leg during the fight, like boxing,*
> 
> ---He did! Your gif showed it!



It showed his stance perpendicular to the opponent, and him moving laterally from there.
It's impossible that he had a front leg to be weighted while perpendicular to the opponent.



> here you are looking at things that are very much like boxing and at the very least "boxing-inspired" and saying that your Wing Chun has had it all along.



It is _entirely_ unlike boxing, as I've described.



> *Nope. At long-range, they'll use a lead-rear leg stance to increase reach. Even an open stance will have lead and rear. They might square up with parallel feet when in close.*
> 
> ---But that wasn't long range right at that moment.  If he was close enough to connect, he was closer than long range!



Ducking under the kick? He was not close enough to connect, so he was at long range.



> Boxers will "square up" to the opponent at times when in close.  Mike Tyson did this because he was a "close range" specialist!



Duh. I just said that. They use a lead leg at long range, and perpendicular stance at times in close.

As I said, though;

"This is the exact opposite of VT, because *at long-range, a weighted lead leg is extremely vulnerable to devastating leg kicks* (see videos above), and *at close-range, an upright parallel stance is susceptible to knees, clinch grappling, and takedowns*."

Tyson got away with this because, as I said;

"The boxing methods are fine within boxing *ring rules that protect them from such dangers and allow them to safely behave as they do*. But, it fails when facing kickers without changing footwork, biomechanics, or power generation methods."



> ----I guess that's why kickboxers and MMA fighters will also often stand with a forward-weighted stance??



And many get the crap kicked out of their legs for it! Many fights are ended with leg kicks.



> ---So you think your Wing Chun footwork is going to work better than a boxer's footwork when facing a kicker at long range?  You think your Wing Chun footwork faster, more mobile and more evasive than a boxer's footwork at long range??



Of course! Boxing footwork wasn't designed to evade kicks. That's why it fails against kickers as videos show!

That's why it's stupid to transplant that type of movement into incomplete Wing Chun if intending to fight outside of protective boxing ring rules.



> ---I said:  _ then please post a video of a "pure" WSLVT guy (not mixing in MMA) doing all of this.   _So you are now calling that video clip of Sean's student "pure" WSLVT with no mixing in of MMA???



Yes, the striking is pure WSLVT. And particularly the entire long-range game I pointed you to includes nothing whatsoever outside of pure VT strategy and tactics.

The rest of the video is irrelevant to the topic. Because they do grappling at another part of the video, doesn't mean the striking and long-range game is not pure VT. 

That's just your last thread of hope at denying the demonstrated VT long-range fighting by discrediting the entire video because of unrelated clips.


----------



## KPM

Juany118 said:


> But I explained previously how chi sau does exactly what you say here.  The problem is that all too often WC/VT training doesn't do enough free sparring, especially against other styles, to help you understand what place chi sau is actually serving in the training.
> 
> Lets look at another form of combat training, US Army marksmanship.  You practice, and qualify, using the M16 on semi auto from picture perfect supported positions.  However you also train under simulated combat conditions so you can take the attributes trained to qualify; proper sight picture, trigger squeeze, and breathing, and put them into the proper context, the messy reality of combat.  No one says the soldier qualifying isn't training how he will fight because that process is to build attributes that will be used when one undergoes the pressure testing of force on force training.



This has already been addressed in the whole "conditioning training vs. sport specific training" portion of the discussion.  When I trained in Army marksmanship on the range we had to get "down in the trenches" and take firing positions standing, kneeling, and prone that were the firing positions we would be expected to use in combat.  There were no "picture perfect support positions."   But yeah...some things can be a mix of conditioning and sport-specific training.  Like Chi Sau.  It conditions good reactions and builds contact reflexes, even if it isn't exactly how you expect to use things.  But the fact remains that the closer  your training resembles what you are going to do in actual fighting, the more efficient is your training!


----------



## Parky

Nobody Important said:


> If anyone's interested, I'm selling popcorn and beer. $2 for popcorn & $5 for beer. PayPal accepted



What kind of popcorn? I'm partial to white cheddar. Any beer will do.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> This has already been addressed in the whole "conditioning training vs. sport specific training" portion of the discussion.  When I trained in Army marksmanship on the range we had to get "down in the trenches" and take firing positions standing, kneeling, and prone that were the firing positions we would be expected to use in combat.  There were no "picture perfect support positions."   But yeah...some things can be a mix of conditioning and sport-specific training.  Like Chi Sau.  It conditions good reactions and builds contact reflexes, even if it isn't exactly how you expect to use things.  But the fact remains that the closer  your training resembles what you are going to do in actual fighting, the more efficient is your training!



And VT does this. You just have a very incomplete knowledge of the system and what all it entails.


----------



## KPM

*The training should reflect how you intend to fight, I agree. What I was saying though was that you can train a variety of different ways and still be doing the same art. Being a wing chun man doesn't mean you only train one way or that you cannot change how you train*.

--I agree! Which is why I have been suggesting that training boxing can expand upon Wing Chun's skills in long range! 

*Fight how you train doesn't is about the habits you form and what you are used to. It's not a god given rule meaning you can only do stuff you've drilled in class.*

---No.  But it is a good rule of thumb that if a lot the things you are drilling in class aren't going to show up and work in a real situation, then you have a real problem!  Don't you think?  You're probably wasting your time, which is not being efficient.

*And no, ducking doesn't come from boxing. Ducking comes from not wanting to be hit. Bob and weave and the science of counter hitting with the weave is boxing and as I said, if you want to go that direction you might need to add from outside of chun.*

---Absolutely!  And if you are going to borrow things like that or do things so similar, what is wrong with suggesting that you actually train more of the method they come from to get even better at it??  That's what I've been saying this entire thread!!!!


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> if you are going to borrow things like that or do things so similar, what is wrong with suggesting that you actually train more of the method they come from to get even better at it??  That's what I've been saying this entire thread!!!!



The fact that the protection of ring rules is what made it what it is and allows it to be done safely.


----------



## Juany118

KPM said:


> This has already been addressed in the whole "conditioning training vs. sport specific training" portion of the discussion.  When I trained in Army marksmanship on the range we had to get "down in the trenches" and take firing positions standing, kneeling, and prone that were the firing positions we would be expected to use in combat.  There were no "picture perfect support positions."   But yeah...some things can be a mix of conditioning and sport-specific training.  Like Chi Sau.  It conditions good reactions and builds contact reflexes, even if it isn't exactly how you expect to use things.  But the fact remains that the closer  your training resembles what you are going to do in actual fighting, the more efficient is your training!


By picture perfect I meant simply having stable support (knee, sand bag etc) vs say the crumbled wall, your elbows on uneven soil and/or sharp gravel etc.


----------



## KPM

Look, LFJ's responses are getting more and more pathetic.  This discussion has obviously run its course.  I'm getting tired of repeating myself.

BLUF:   I've maintained the whole time that Wing Chun was designed for and optimized to work best at .....close range.  It has a workable long range strategy for surviving at long range and closing to close range where Wing Chun works best.  But this is not the same as having a dedicated "long range game" and is not quite the equivalent of methods that do...such as boxing, kickboxing, TKD, etc.  I have stated that many people may be perfectly fine with using this long range strategy and that's Ok.  But I have also suggested that if someone wanted to get better at fighting at long range they could look to a method that has dedicated a big portion of its training to working at long range.  I prefer boxing, because IMHO it fits so well with Wing Chun.

But several people have objected to the idea that Wing Chun might not be as good at fighting at long range as say...western boxing.  So they try to discredit what I'm saying by just repeating over and over that I don't understand Wing Chun.  I have asked multiple times, but no one has provided a video showing this "long range Wing Chun" that is the equivalent of boxing from long range.  I have provided plenty of video, however, showing Wing Chun fighters simply stepping in from long range and going at it.   LFJ thinks he has the answer in a clip showing MMA sparring, and even claims it to be "pure WSLVT."   A clip where there are obvious sweeps and throws and he admits that grappling has been mixed in, but when an obvious boxing element is pointed out he claims it has been part of WSLVT all along.

So that's it.  Nothing has really be gained in the last 10 pages or so of this thread.  So unless anyone has something interesting or constructive to contribute, I'm tired of banging my head against this brick wall.


----------



## Juany118

KPM said:


> Look, LFJ's responses are getting more and more pathetic.  This discussion has obviously run its course.  I'm getting tired of repeating myself.
> 
> BLUF:   I've maintained the whole time that Wing Chun was designed for and optimized to work best at .....close range.  It has a workable long range strategy for surviving at long range and closing to close range where Wing Chun works best.  But this is not the same as having a dedicated "long range game" and is not quite the equivalent of methods that do...such as boxing, kickboxing, TKD, etc.  I have stated that many people may be perfectly fine with using this long range strategy and that's Ok.  But I have also suggested that if someone wanted to get better at fighting at long range they could look to a method that has dedicated a big portion of its training to working at long range.  I prefer boxing, because IMHO it fits so well with Wing Chun.
> 
> But several people have objected to the idea that Wing Chun might not be as good at fighting at long range as say...western boxing.  So they try to discredit what I'm saying by just repeating over and over that I don't understand Wing Chun.  I have asked multiple times, but no one has provided a video showing this "long range Wing Chun" that is the equivalent of boxing from long range.  I have provided plenty of video, however, showing Wing Chun fighters simply stepping in from long range and going at it.   LFJ thinks he has the answer in a clip showing MMA sparring, and even claims it to be "pure WSLVT."   A clip where there are obvious sweeps and throws and he admits that grappling has been mixed in, but when an obvious boxing element is pointed out he claims it has been part of WSLVT all along.
> 
> So that's it.  Nothing has really be gained in the last 10 pages or so of this thread.  So unless anyone has something interesting or constructive to contribute, I'm tired of banging my head against this brick wall.


The only issue I have is with the basis of your conclusion.  I don't see the drills such as chi sau as indicative of how one should fight.  If that was true then shouldn't boxers punch in a fight the same way they punch a speed bag?  No, they take the attributes, speed and timing, that the speed bag teaches and they apply that to sparring.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> I've maintained the whole time that Wing Chun was designed for and optimized to work best at .....close range.  It has a workable long range strategy for surviving at long range and closing to close range where Wing Chun works best.  But this is not the same as having a dedicated "long range game" and is not quite the equivalent of methods that do...such as boxing, kickboxing, TKD, etc.



This applies to your limited knowledge of WC, and the limited WC you have knowledge of.



> I have also suggested that if someone wanted to get better at fighting at long range they could look to a method that has dedicated a big portion of its training to working at long range.  I prefer boxing, because IMHO it fits so well with Wing Chun.



Gap-filling incomplete WC with WB that also needs gap-filling to function outside of its own ring rules.



> LFJ thinks he has the answer in a clip showing MMA sparring, and even claims it to be "pure WSLVT."   A clip where there are obvious sweeps and throws and he admits that grappling has been mixed in, but when an obvious boxing element is pointed out he claims it has been part of WSLVT all along.



KPM thinks clips of grappling at other points in the video invalidate the pure VT long-range striking method pointed out to him. In reality, he's too proud to admit it because it demonstrates there's more to YMVT than he knows, and he hates that I'm the one showing it to him. lol



> So that's it.  Nothing has really be gained in the last 10 pages or so of this thread.



That's a shame. If you watched some of the videos I posted (WB failing against kicks) you might learn to be more careful in what you gap-fill your incomplete WC with.



> I'm tired of banging my head against this brick wall.



Maybe if you stopped doing that you could have learned a thing or two from this conversation.


----------



## karatejj

KPM said:


> Look, LFJ's responses are getting more and more pathetic.  This discussion has obviously run its course.  I'm getting tired of repeating myself.
> 
> BLUF:   I've maintained the whole time that Wing Chun was designed for and optimized to work best at .....close range.  It has a workable long range strategy for surviving at long range and closing to close range where Wing Chun works best.  But this is not the same as having a dedicated "long range game" and is not quite the equivalent of methods that do...such as boxing, kickboxing, TKD, etc.  I have stated that many people may be perfectly fine with using this long range strategy and that's Ok.  But I have also suggested that if someone wanted to get better at fighting at long range they could look to a method that has dedicated a big portion of its training to working at long range.  I prefer boxing, because IMHO it fits so well with Wing Chun.
> 
> But several people have objected to the idea that Wing Chun might not be as good at fighting at long range as say...western boxing.  So they try to discredit what I'm saying by just repeating over and over that I don't understand Wing Chun.  I have asked multiple times, but no one has provided a video showing this "long range Wing Chun" that is the equivalent of boxing from long range.  I have provided plenty of video, however, showing Wing Chun fighters simply stepping in from long range and going at it.   LFJ thinks he has the answer in a clip showing MMA sparring, and even claims it to be "pure WSLVT."   A clip where there are obvious sweeps and throws and he admits that grappling has been mixed in, but when an obvious boxing element is pointed out he claims it has been part of WSLVT all along.
> 
> So that's it.  Nothing has really be gained in the last 10 pages or so of this thread.  So unless anyone has something interesting or constructive to contribute, I'm tired of banging my head against this brick wall.



Got to say it, after wading my way through this monster thread you hve a point!


----------



## Nobody Important

Parky said:


> What kind of popcorn? I'm partial to white cheddar. Any beer will do.


White cheddar is my favorite!


----------



## karatejj

KPM said:


> I have also suggested that if someone wanted to get better at fighting at long range they could look to a method that has dedicated a big portion of its training to working at long range.  I prefer boxing, because IMHO it fits so well with Wing Chun.



Sounds cool man. Do you know of any serious wing chun guys teaching this approach?


----------



## KPM

karatejj said:


> Sounds cool man. Do you know of any serious wing chun guys teaching this approach?



Rackemann Wing Chun

Iron Fist Wing Chun Boxing


----------



## karatejj

KPM said:


> Rackemann Wing Chun
> 
> Iron Fist Wing Chun Boxing



Awesome, thanks!

Love the second link, structured lessons exactly what I need. It reminds me of the Alan Orr stuff which is also excellent.


----------



## karatejj

LFJ said:


> I'm talking about kicks from the opponent. WB's long-range footwork fails where kicks are involved.
> 
> This is what happens when you face a kicker with WB stances and footwork. Not pretty.



To quote that video: "If you sit your weight down to punch, which is "textbook" in boxing to help generate power, the power and probability of a low kick landing multiplies. Even the toughest athletes can only take so many full powered low-kicks."

Come on man, do you expect us to believe this stuff?? Everyone knows that boxers are the best at punching because it is all they do. They don't need to sink their weight down if they choose not to because they are masters of movement. Ever hear of "float like a butterfly sting like a bee"? Well that is what boxing is all about. These muy Thai sluggers couldn't hold a candle to a real boxer. 

Low kicks? Don't make me laught. They will never connect with a real boxer. A boxer with wing chun in-fighting ability? Your average Muy Thai will be toast inside 1 round!


----------



## LFJ

karatejj said:


> Come on man, do you expect us to believe this stuff?? Everyone knows that boxers are the best at punching because it is all they do. They don't need to sink their weight down if they choose not to because they are masters of movement. Ever hear of "float like a butterfly sting like a bee"? Well that is what boxing is all about. These muy Thai sluggers couldn't hold a candle to a real boxer.
> 
> Low kicks? Don't make me laught. They will never connect with a real boxer. A boxer with wing chun in-fighting ability? Your average Muy Thai will be toast inside 1 round!



Lmao...

Did you bother to watch the action in the videos? It speaks for itself. Champion boxers get destroyed by leg kicks.


















You can search up more yourself.


----------



## karatejj

Another classic line from that video:

"Boxing's combination punching and inside ounching becomes very limited against undefended clinch holds"

This is funny, tell me another one! 

Where did they get the "boxer" in that clip. I'm betting he hasn't boxed a day against real opposition in his life! Too funny.


----------



## KPM

*Champion boxers get destroyed by leg kicks.*

---And you actually think your "long range Wing Chun" would fare any better  in those exact same scenarios????


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> *Champion boxers get destroyed by leg kicks.*
> 
> ---And you actually think your "long range Wing Chun" would fare any better  in those exact same scenarios????



Of course! I don't just leave my leg out there for them. 
Boxers who haven't cross-trained don't know it doesn't work against kickers.

Nice of you to get your kid student to register and start patting your back today, by the way! lol


----------



## karatejj

LFJ said:


> Lmao...
> 
> Did you bother to watch the action in the videos? It speaks for itself. Champion boxers get destroyed by leg kicks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can search up more yourself.



So you found a few clips of second rate boxres who got drafted into fights at the last minute and didn't understand the rules? So what. The sweet science wipes the floor with these Muy Thais in a real faceoff with no BS. 

Boxing is a science of combat. Throwing a few kicks is playground stuff by comparison


----------



## LFJ

karatejj said:


> Another classic line from that video:
> 
> "Boxing's combination punching and inside ounching becomes very limited against undefended clinch holds"
> 
> This is funny, tell me another one!



Demonstrated in the videos.

That's where KPM says his WC can help.


----------



## LFJ

karatejj said:


> So you found a few clips of second rate boxres who got drafted into fights at the last minute and didn't understand the rules? So what. The sweet science wipes the floor with these Muy Thais in a real faceoff with no BS.
> 
> Boxing is a science of combat. Throwing a few kicks is playground stuff by comparison



Show it.


----------



## Flying Crane

Oh good, somebody new just jumped in so this can go at least another 16 pointless pages.  I was worried, it looked like it might be winding down.


----------



## karatejj

LFJ said:


> Demonstrated in the videos.
> 
> That's where KPM says his WC can help.



And I think he is onto something! Sounds like someone not dreaming about fantasy martial arts and insead down with the reality of actual combat. Sure wing chun can add to boxing in close where it all gets a bit Jackie Chan and you need the contact reflexes and skills in chi sau.


----------



## karatejj

LFJ said:


> Show it.


 

Show what? Throwing a kick (kids stuff) vs the whole craft of boxing built up over generations?!? 

Lol don't make me laught. Just give up, you r looking desperate now.


----------



## LFJ

karatejj said:


> And I think he is onto something!



Then laughing at that quote is stupid if you agree it's a weakness and believe WC can help.



> Sounds like someone not dreaming about fantasy martial arts and insead down with the reality of actual combat.



Sounds like someone who never learned a complete martial art looking to gap-fill with contradictory methods that are only safe under its own ring rules.



karatejj said:


> Show what?



Boxing wiping the floor with Muay Thai.


----------



## LFJ

Flying Crane said:


> Oh good, somebody new just jumped in so this can go at least another 16 pointless pages.  I was worried, it looked like it might be winding down.



KPM either got his young student to come troll, or he opened a troll account of his own.


----------



## Flying Crane

LFJ said:


> KPM either got his young student to come troll, or he opened a troll account of his own.


Never mind the explanation, I just can't ever look away from a big waste of time.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> KPM either got his young student to come troll, or he opened a troll account of his own.


 
Nope.  I have no idea  who that guy is.   But he seems to recognize common sense when he sees it!


----------



## Juany118

KPM said:


> Nope.  I have no idea  who that guy is.   But he seems to recognize common sense when he sees it!


Well I would say, based on his comments regarding the talent of the boxers in those videos he is showing a rather startling lack of common sense.  My first thought was to watch the one video and look at the names then Google. 

Arthur "King" James Williams was actually a dang good boxer during the time that K-1 fight happened.  Arthur Williams (boxer) - Wikipedia

To me when you are going to make a comment on the skill of a fighter, if you have a name, you check out the fighter's record.


----------



## Lobo66

@karatejj 
Mayweather is an incredibly skilled boxer, but if his upcoming fight with McGregor were to take place in the cage instead of the ring he would get eaten alive.
Style vs style comparisons in an MMA setting between boxers and grapplers/mma fighters have not gone well historically for the boxers.  MMA fighters simply have more tools in their toolbox.  Once again context is everything.

For example :


----------



## wckf92

Nobody Important said:


> If anyone's interested, I'm selling popcorn and beer. $2 for popcorn & $5 for beer. PayPal accepted



Bring it on!!!


----------



## drop bear

LFJ said:


> Wrong.
> 
> VT is a fully developed and functional striking method.
> It was designed for fist fighting which obviously includes longer range.
> 
> Though aggressive close-range fighting is preferable from a percentage standpoint, this does not mean VT is any less developed or functional at long range.
> 
> Again, it is a fully developed and functional standalone striking method.
> It doesn't need gap-filling for fundamental striking elements at long range.



I don't think anybody is saying VT doesn't have a system for long range strinking. They are saying that if given the choice to pick any system for long range fighting. They will pick a good one.

So given a choice between what two guys sparring in their living room use. And what champion fighters use.

For some reason people are leaning towards what champions use.


----------



## drop bear

Ok. on to the technical. 

Regarding things like a weighted front leg. there is no real right way to approach it. There are only reasons why you would or wouldn't.

 So a weighted front leg lets you punch harder and avoid takedowns better. It also helps if they are trying to kick you in the knee.

A light front leg lets you kick easier and lets you check kicks better.

So it depends on your game plan.

As chun does not dominate with kicks at any range. I would suggest a heavy front leg. I also would not sit in kicking range though either. All the way in or all the way out.

And I will mention this idea again. Fighting is not style specific. There are ideas that work and ones that dont. linage is balls it is completely irrelevant to the mechanics of face punching.


----------



## drop bear

Mark hunt has never been accused of having a light front foot. Cro Cop does. They are working to their own strengths.






Both of these guys have won some fights.


----------



## Nobody Important

wckf92 said:


> Bring it on!!!


Thinking about increases the rates since some new blood jumped in. I might need some help keeping up with the sales, lol.


----------



## wckf92

Nobody Important said:


> Thinking about increases the rates since some new blood jumped in. I might need some help keeping up with the sales, lol.



I'm more of a chips n salsa n beer or wine guy...but count me in on the rate increases, my credit card can handle it! Hahahahaha


----------



## dudewingchun

I think Wing Chun was designed to win fights. But it doesn't seem to do that much these days.

A fight is dynamic, you can change your weight distribution according to the circumstance. When I had my fight I was preparing for a boxing match and my footwork in training then was more front leg heavy, when I got told it was kickboxing now I did have to change how my footwork would be because the inside of my front leg would have been sitting out for a good kick. 

IMO having good boxing is more effective than kickboxing when all ranges are involved, if the boxer is aware of all the other aspects of fighting and knows about the timing of kicks etc. People like Conor Mcgregor and Cody Garbrandt in the UFC are good examples. They have very good boxing but still, have some skill in other aspects. Nate Diaz boxed up Donald Cerrone in a match that could be considered mainly Muay Thai vs Boxing, but hen again Mcgregor used the kicks against Diaz in the 2nd fight. So yeah, fighting is dynamic, I think the best skill is awareness. 

Street fights have a way different dynamic than sports fighting and I believe having good hands is also better if you get assaulted. I doubt most trained people, whether in boxing or kickboxing would have trouble with an untrained Joe throwing sloppy hooks.


----------



## drop bear

Malos1979 said:


> I think he makes perfect sense to me. He sees the flaws in Wing Chun as did I, but it start to feel that people are so hung up into their own art and blinded by it that they won't see their shortcomings anyways.
> 
> So whats the point in discussing anything.



Repeated ideas and arguments help you develop your BS meter. So that when you are told something you don't automatically just accept it. You start to notice what is being left out of the conversation.

The Emperors new clothes.

Even if we never agree. We have been forced to think about it.

And this is important because with the world is becoming an echo chamber and our BS meters need to be more finely tuned than ever.


----------



## Phobius

If this thread is about boxing. Train boxing. No point in having a discussion about it when minds are set. It is just a waste of training time. 

I still think the discussion is silly. First it is about having long range game. Then a game that is about positioning and footwork to get in range for striking or stay in range of kicking is not acceptable because it has to be about fighting a WB boxer as a WB boxer. 

This is in itself a long discussion. 

Now it seems to be statements such as WC not being able to handle itself. 

This is not a discussion. So therefore I say. Train whatever you need. But do it as MMA and not trying to integrate WB to WC. Not unless you already have the answer and want to spread it. 

It is all about creating the fighter and not the art. I personally do not need boxing to teach me about what you all talked about here. WC/WT gives me what you say it does not. 

Now I care not about what you believe and there are many WC places out there that are not similar to mine to say it gently. 

Just if people think mixing is the answer then be aware that the result will not be a mix, it will be something completely new and untested.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> Nope.  I have no idea  who that guy is.   But he seems to recognize common sense when he sees it!





Juany118 said:


> Well I would say, based on his comments regarding the talent of the boxers in those videos *he is showing a rather startling lack of common sense*.  My first thought was to watch the one video and look at the names then Google.
> 
> Arthur "King" James Williams was actually a dang good boxer during the time that K-1 fight happened.  Arthur Williams (boxer) - Wikipedia
> 
> To me when you are going to make a comment on the skill of a fighter, if you have a name, you check out the fighter's record.



That's why I guess he's either KPM's kid student or KPM's new troll account.

He shows equal ignorance but greater immaturity.


----------



## LFJ

drop bear said:


> I don't think anybody is saying VT doesn't have a system for long range strinking. They are saying that if given the choice to pick any system for long range fighting. They will pick a good one.



KPM has been saying VT doesn't have a long-range game, based on his lack of VT knowledge.

One also isn't justified in saying whether something is good or not if they have no knowledge of it.

Skepticism is fine, but agnostic is the correct position if you lack the knowledge and experience to judge.



> So given a choice between what two guys sparring in their living room use. And what champion fighters use.
> 
> For some reason people are leaning towards what champions use.



Yeah. Sounds logical. The problem is, just picking a popular and respected ring sport to gap-fill your missing long-range game without deeper thought is a silly mistake.

When looking to fill gaps it's important to do so intelligently, taking into consideration what exactly you're trying to accomplish if you hope to do so successfully.

To tack on a long-range game from Western Boxing to a free-fighting method is stupid because it fails to consider all the dangers boxing is susceptible to when not working under the ring rules that allow it to safely behave as it does. Various videos show the failures quite clearly.

Much has to be changed and gaps have to be filled for it, too! That's just compounding the difficulties of coming up with a functional free-fighting system starting from fractured, non-functional Wing Chun.



drop bear said:


> As chun does not dominate with kicks at any range. I would suggest a heavy front leg. I also would not sit in kicking range though either. All the way in or all the way out.



VT doesn't use a lead-rear leg stance at long-range. It keeps the leg out of the danger zone, either outside of kicking range, or inside of it.

This can help in drawing and baiting tactics to get the opponent to overextend, which opens them up for counter-kicking or punching. It's deceptive in that you don't actually lose reach. Of course, there's a lot more to the strategy and long-range tactics to accomplish this.


----------



## LFJ

double


----------



## KPM

*KPM has been saying VT doesn't have a long-range game, based on his lack of VT knowledge.*

---And you have clearly demonstrated that you don't even understand what having a "long range game" means for the methods that actually have one!  You have confused a "long range strategy" with a "long range game" over and over and obviously believe they are the same thing.  Clearly a lack of fighting knowledge!

*Skepticism is fine, but agnostic is the correct position if you lack the knowledge and experience to judge.*

---Ok.  And the skeptic and agnostic asks "show me the evidence" or "prove it."    Which you very obviously haven't been able to do!!!!   

---And, in anticipation of your next pathetic response that has been repeated multiple times now.....No, you haven't!  That clip of Sean's guys training MMA proves nothing.  It wasn't "pure" WSLVT by any means. It was MMA.  So, when someone can look at it and see an obvious boxing element, yet you claim WSLVT has had this very "boxing-like" method all along....it just doesn't ring very true!


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> That's why I guess he's either KPM's kid student or KPM's new troll account.
> 
> He shows equal ignorance but greater immaturity.



I told you already.  I have no idea who that guy is.  And it certainly isn't me!


----------



## KPM

Phobius said:


> I still think the discussion is silly. First it is about having long range game. Then a game that is about positioning and footwork to get in range for striking or stay in range of kicking is not acceptable because it has to be about fighting a WB boxer as a WB boxer.
> 
> .



It only seems silly to you because you have not even been following the logic of the discussion, as your comment above proves!  Did you ever go back and read the whole thing as I recommended?  No where did anyone say anything about "fighting a WB boxer as a WB boxer."


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> ---And you have clearly demonstrated that you don't even understand what having a "long range game" means for the methods that actually have one!  You have confused a "long range strategy" with a "long range game" over and over and obviously believe they are the same thing.



Clearly not. In simple terms, you said;

LR Strategy = surviving long enough to get to close range.
LG Game = ability to conduct and end a fight from long range.

Is this an accurate summary of your definitions?

I have described VT methods of doing both. It is unlike boxing, but no less a long-range strategy and game.



> That clip of Sean's guys training MMA proves nothing.  It wasn't "pure" WSLVT by any means. It was MMA.  So, when someone can look at it and see an obvious boxing element, yet you claim WSLVT has had this very "boxing-like" method all along....it just doesn't ring very true!



How do you know what pure WSLVT is to judge?

You keep pointing to irrelevant clips in the video to invalidate the relevant part. Why?

This is a dishonest tactic.

The LR game I pointed out to you had no non-VT element, neither MMA nor boxing.
Ducking a kick is not boxing. It's natural instinct even for the untrained.

The rest of it is entirely unlike boxing. You say oh, he ducked a kick, so we can disregard everything else he did. 

This is dishonest.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> C
> 
> The rest of it is entirely unlike boxing. You say oh, he ducked a kick, so we can disregard everything else he did.
> 
> This is dishonest.



No.  Showing a clip that is clearly MMA training, acknowledging that things that look like grappling were added from outside the system, but then trying to say that things that look a lot like boxing have been part of WSLVT all along....that is what seems dishonest to me.

No.  Showing a clip that is clearly MMA training, but then wanting to pick and choose short sections of it and say "this portion is pure WSLVT and representative of all WSLVT"....that is what seems dishonest to me. 

So if you really want to prove what you are saying, provide a diffferent clip.  A clip showing "pure" WSLVT (not MMA) sparring with a non-Wing Chun guy and conducting the fight entirely with a "long range game."   Or heck, I'll take a clip of ANY lineage of Wing Chun doing that to make it easier for you.  

I'm just being the skeptic you asked for.   And I'm saying the evidence you've provided so far is weak and inconclusive.  So either provide better evidence, or just drop the whole thing.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> No.  Showing a clip that is clearly MMA training, acknowledging that things that look like grappling were added from outside the system, but then trying to say that things that look a lot like boxing have been part of WSLVT all along....that is what seems dishonest to me.



Other clips in the video showing grappling are irrelevant.
To continue to focus on this to invalidate the relevant part is dishonest.

Not knowing VT or what it entails but presuming to know is not only dishonest, but also arrogant.



> No.  Showing a clip that is clearly MMA training, but then wanting to pick and choose short sections of it and say "this portion is pure WSLVT and representative of all WSLVT"....that is what seems dishonest to me.



The striking is pure VT. Other clips with grappling are irrelevant.
If the long-range striking clip were uploaded by itself, it would still show long-range VT.

You are just looking for any excuse to invalidate it.



> I'm just being the skeptic you asked for.   And I'm saying the evidence you've provided so far is weak and inconclusive.  So either provide better evidence, or just drop the whole thing.



You are not being an honest skeptic. Your tactics are deceitful.

Other clips showing grappling are irrelevant. Stop using this dishonest tactic to brush off the relevant clip.

And your lack of experience and knowledge of VT doesn't render the evidence inconclusive.
It shows the VT long-range game whether that upsets you that you never learned it or not.


----------



## Phobius

KPM said:


> No.  Showing a clip that is clearly MMA training, acknowledging that things that look like grappling were added from outside the system, but then trying to say that things that look a lot like boxing have been part of WSLVT all along....that is what seems dishonest to me.
> 
> No.  Showing a clip that is clearly MMA training, but then wanting to pick and choose short sections of it and say "this portion is pure WSLVT and representative of all WSLVT"....that is what seems dishonest to me.
> 
> So if you really want to prove what you are saying, provide a diffferent clip.  A clip showing "pure" WSLVT (not MMA) sparring with a non-Wing Chun guy and conducting the fight entirely with a "long range game."   Or heck, I'll take a clip of ANY lineage of Wing Chun doing that to make it easier for you.
> 
> I'm just being the skeptic you asked for.   And I'm saying the evidence you've provided so far is weak and inconclusive.  So either provide better evidence, or just drop the whole thing.



Why provide a video when you already have made up your mind? Wing Chun does have footwork. Some of it resembles boxing quite a bit.

I find it strange that you object to it despite knowing one thing you should be all about is not getting stuck thinking of everything as techniques.

You have forms showing you that WC fighter can lose his angles and still recover yet you deny that when it occurs that it is WC.

You know about weapons form and yet you deny that there is a lot of footwork in WC. Maybe you have missed something. 

Short swords against long pole should teach you the need for footwork is greater when having shorter weapons (punches).

Also look and you notice a shift in weight may occur in BJD. This teaches you something as well.

Now you may wish to deny all of this but what it means then only you can answer.

Now introduce  boxing and you will notice your footwork does not improve. What it takes to improve footwork is to train with boxing gym because it is not techniques. It is repetition and physical drills. Structure and stance you can find in all arts.

Finally WSL was long range boxer I believe when learning WC. It was not something he was asked to forget. It was something he should use as part of his WC to make him the great fighter he was.


----------



## LFJ

Malos1979 said:


> Could you post a video of pure WSLVT? I'm curious what you consider pure, I saw the term passing by a couple times now.



Here.


----------



## LFJ

Phobius said:


> Finally WSL was long range boxer I believe when learning WC. It was not something he was asked to forget. It was something he should use as part of his WC to make him the great fighter he was.



WSL gave up boxing because it didn't work against VT.

VT long-range game is the _polar opposite_ to boxing and based mostly on BJD strategy.
It is in direct conflict with what Western Boxing does at both long and close range.


----------



## Phobius

LFJ said:


> WSL gave up boxing because it didn't work against VT.
> 
> VT long-range game is the _polar opposite_ to boxing and based mostly on BJD strategy.
> It is in direct conflict with what Western Boxing does at both long and close range.



While I admit you must be right, what I mean is that it is still part of his body and training. It will be part of his natural movement and as such some parts of it will affect his style. 

This is kung fu. Not an art you master but a constant progress towards something better.


----------



## drop bear

LFJ said:


> KPM has been saying VT doesn't have a long-range game, based on his lack of VT knowledge.
> 
> One also isn't justified in saying whether something is good or not if they have no knowledge of it.
> 
> Skepticism is fine, but agnostic is the correct position if you lack the knowledge and experience to judge.



It doesn't matter if VT has a long range game or not. The point is VTs game at any range is not necessary to improve WTs game. Even boxing isn't necessary.

If VT want to use VTs long range game that is fine. If VT wish to suggest that WC should use their game then they really need to come to the table with evidence that it works. Just like everyone else.

You don't need in depth knowledge of a style to see lack of evidence.



LFJ said:


> Yeah. Sounds logical. The problem is, just picking a popular and respected ring sport to gap-fill your missing long-range game without deeper thought is a silly mistake.
> 
> When looking to fill gaps it's important to do so intelligently, taking into consideration what exactly you're trying to accomplish if you hope to do so successfully.
> 
> To tack on a long-range game from Western Boxing to a free-fighting method is stupid because it fails to consider all the dangers boxing is susceptible to when not working under the ring rules that allow it to safely behave as it does. Various videos show the failures quite clearly.
> 
> Much has to be changed and gaps have to be filled for it, too! That's just compounding the difficulties of coming up with a functional free-fighting system starting from fractured, non-functional Wing Chun.



This is because you think people who do WC are a bunch of potatoes. And that they can't figure out what they need to incorporate and what they need to leave out. There is no reason WC guys can't just use the concepts that fit in with their needs.

Unfortunately if they tried to do that with VT they would first have to find out if any of it works. And then work out what to incorporate. Which seems like a much more difficult proccess.

Remember various videos show failures of boxing quite clearly. This transparency makes it a lot easier to guage a system than no videos and constant assurance ther system is "complete."



LFJ said:


> VT doesn't use a lead-rear leg stance at long-range. It keeps the leg out of the danger zone, either outside of kicking range, or inside of it.
> 
> This can help in drawing and baiting tactics to get the opponent to overextend, which opens them up for counter-kicking or punching. It's deceptive in that you don't actually lose reach. Of course, there's a lot more to the strategy and long-range tactics to accomplish this.



Great show me someone making that work.


----------



## LFJ

Phobius said:


> While I admit you must be right, what I mean is that it is still part of his body and training. It will be part of his natural movement and as such some parts of it will affect his style.



I disagree.

I've learned other styles that I have given up, and they don't affect how I perform VT.

Especially the more contradictory they are, the easier it is to discard.

Since WB strategy & tactics at both long & close range are in direct conflict with VT, it is not going to leak over for someone who has spent so much time training to ingrain their VT fighting behaviors.


----------



## LFJ

drop bear said:


> It doesn't matter if VT has a long range game or not. The point is VTs game at any range is not necessary to improve WTs game. Even boxing isn't necessary.
> 
> If VT want to use VTs long range game that is fine. If VT wish to suggest that WC should use their game then they really need to come to the table with evidence that it works. Just like everyone else.



I haven't suggested anyone adopt my game. I'm simply describing what VT is and what it entails.



> This is because you think people who do WC are a bunch of potatoes. And that they can't figure out what they need to incorporate and what they need to leave out...
> ...Remember various videos show failures of boxing quite clearly. This transparency makes it a lot easier to guage a system



And yet, someone is still looking to incorporate the demonstrably failing parts into their free-fighting strategy.



> Great show me someone making that work.



Half of this thread has been about the video that shows that, here.


----------



## Phobius

LFJ said:


> I disagree.
> 
> I've learned other styles that I have given up, and they don't affect how I perform VT.
> 
> Especially the more contradictory they are, the easier it is to discard.
> 
> Since WB strategy & tactics at both long & close range are in direct conflict with VT, it is not going to leak over for someone who has spent so much time training to ingrain their VT fighting behaviors.



It is ok for you to disagree. Does not mean any of us has to be right or even that any of us have to be wrong...

Now a question on that. Do you believe all fighters are the exact same? My view is that we are all somewhat unique more or less. So my experience changes my perception and way to act in a fight compared to others.

Training other things in my view changes both my perception, preference and personality. As such my experience changes me and I do not forget it. I use it to my advantage. Whether it be my strength, way to read a fight, desire to go in or stay out.... You name it.

This is why I disagree with you. If you wish to explain your view it is fine but it probably won't change my mind since it is part of my philosophical standpoint at core.


----------



## LFJ

Phobius said:


> Do you believe all fighters are the exact same? My view is that we are all somewhat unique more or less. So my experience changes my perception and way to act in a fight compared to others.



No, I don't. But, VT is trained in such a way that any even slight deviation in principle will be immediately obvious to the practitioner. It's self-correcting in that way.

Since, as I said, WB is the polar opposite of VT at both long and short range, it's impossible that one would be incorporating WB without realizing it.

But, more importantly, since they are directly contradictory, switching to WB strategy or tactics will render VT ineffective. They simply do not blend. If you want to do one, you have to completely abandon the other. So, there is no purposeful mixing of the two either.

Point being, no, WSL's VT was not influenced by WB. That can be clearly seen in how contradictory they are.


----------



## drop bear

LFJ said:


> I haven't suggested anyone adopt my game. I'm simply describing what VT is and what it entails.
> 
> 
> 
> And yet, someone is still looking to incorporate the demonstrably failing parts into their free-fighting strategy.
> 
> 
> 
> Half of this thread has been about the video that shows that, here.



Which is whatever sytem that was. VT probably? suplimenting their concepts with a bunch of modern fighting concepts. Either gap filling or cross training. To make a better system.


----------



## Juany118

LFJ said:


> VT doesn't use a lead-rear leg stance at long-range. It keeps the leg out of the danger zone, either outside of kicking range, or inside of it.
> 
> This can help in drawing and baiting tactics to get the opponent to overextend, which opens them up for counter-kicking or punching. It's deceptive in that you don't actually lose reach. Of course, there's a lot more to the strategy and long-range tactics to accomplish this.



Maybe the problem is other forms of WC/VT are A LOT lighter on kicking?  One may look at the "full on" stance and assume it lacks range because the fist doesn't reach as far.  Thing is you can kick.  In kicking you also learn how to defend against kicks and the neutral stance, which can limit punching range, for practical purposes, is a product of this.  Thing is I can see how people may erroneously assume it is a product of how one should attack and not the defense it is is actually born of.


----------



## LFJ

drop bear said:


> Which is whatever sytem that was. VT probably? suplimenting their concepts with a bunch of modern fighting concepts. Either gap filling or cross training. To make a better system.



What are you talking about?

In that post, I was only discussing one sparring bout in that video that contained nothing but VT.

The other clips in the video showed grappling, which is cross-training, not gap-filling for missing striking fundamentals.


----------



## LFJ

Juany118 said:


> Maybe the problem is other forms of WC/VT are A LOT lighter on kicking?  One may look at the "full on" stance and assume it lacks range because the fist doesn't reach as far.  Thing is you can kick.  In kicking you also learn how to defend against kicks and the neutral stance, which can limit punching range, for practical purposes, is a product of this.  Thing is I can see how people may erroneously assume it is a product of how one should attack and not the defense it is is actually born of.



Punching range isn't really limited either. It's deceptive.

If you stand in a lead-rear leg stance and extend your arm fully to touch a target, then without removing your arm, adjust your stance back to have the feet side by side, you can still reach the target as before, but your legs will have come back by more than a foot.

Of course, though, the range at which this stance is generally used is not for punching. It's just outside even the boxer's longest punching range, with the legs also safely out of kicking range. More safely on the edge of the opponent's long-range, used to bait and draw overextension that can be capitalized on.

A whole essential strategy goes with it. It's not just a fighting stance. Things also change when at close range.

It's the exact opposite of boxing stances and footwork and long and close range.


----------



## KPM

*Other clips in the video showing grappling are irrelevant.
To continue to focus on this to invalidate the relevant part is dishonest.

Not knowing VT or what it entails but presuming to know is not only dishonest, but also arrogant.*


----To continue to repeatedly refer to an MMA training clip as "pure WSLVT" is dishonest.   To show an MMA clip that clearly has elements added from grappling and clearly has elements that look like boxing, and then to say the grappling was an "add on"  but the boxing element has been part of WSLVT all along....and expect everyone to just take your word for this.....despite the fact that you cannot provide any other WSLVT video showing this long range element....and claim this video as any kind of "proof" of what you are saying....is not only dishonest, but also arrogant and somewhat delusional.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> ----To continue to repeatedly refer to an MMA training clip as "pure WSLVT" is dishonest.



I haven't.

I referred to a single sparring bout that happened to be in a compilation video that also shows grappling in unrelated clips.

You keep pointing to unrelated clips in the compilation to disqualify the sparring bout that shows a pure VT long-range game.

If you don't know what VT entails, you are not justified in saying what is or isn't VT.


----------



## Juany118

LFJ said:


> Punching range isn't really limited either. It's deceptive



True.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> You keep pointing to unrelated clips in the compilation to disqualify the sparring bout that shows a pure VT long-range game.



And you think that short segment of a bout showed an actual "long range game"???  Not just a "long  range strategy"???   Again, it is very clear that you don't understand the difference between the two.   And again, you expect everyone to take your word for it...that motions that so strongly resemble western boxing are actually "pure WSLVT".....despite no other evidence to show that.  And despite the fact that they are found in a clip where things from outside of WSLVT have clearly been added?   And this is your "proof" of  what you've been saying?  Pretty pathetic!


----------



## Juany118

KPM said:


> And you think that short segment of a bout showed an actual "long range game"???  Not just a "long  range strategy"???   Again, it is very clear that you don't understand the difference between the two.   And again, you expect everyone to take your word for it...that motions that so strongly resemble western boxing are actually "pure WSLVT".....despite no other evidence to show that.  And despite the fact that they are found in a clip where things from outside of WSLVT have clearly been added?   And this is your "proof" of  what you've been saying?  Pretty pathetic!



The thing is however, while you have shown that yes many WC people just try to get inside, you haven't really examined the whys of it which I think are two fold 

1. The training issue I have noted more than once.
2. Strategy.  

2. Is I think just as important.  When I first started sparring against my brother in law I went to get in close not because I lacked a long game but because I know how he trained TKD and I knew he would be weak if I got in that close. In short my opponent shows me how to beat him and in those early days getting in close was the way.  It had nothing to do with a lack of a long game on my part and everything to do with the fact that many striking arts are simply more vulnerable to a close game.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> And you think that short segment of a bout showed an actual "long range game"???  Not just a "long  range strategy"???



It meets your arbitrary requirements, unless you are requiring overextended punching and spinning kicks.



> And despite the fact that they are found in a clip where things from outside of WSLVT have clearly been added?



It's not. That video is a compilation of unrelated clips.

Your tactic of using one clip to disqualify another is very dishonest.


----------



## LFJ

Malos1979 said:


> WSL wasn't the only teacher so you probably mean your VT.



YMVT. He doesn't know YMVT in any branch. 

He's only attended a few private lessons with a handful of teachers.


----------



## Nobody Important

Why don't y'all take a break. Have some BBQ, spend some time with your loved ones and pick this ridiculous conversation up later. Happy 4th everyone!


----------



## LFJ

Malos1979 said:


> Are you teaching this to students or learning this? Because I think this is the biggest laugh I have ever had.
> 
> I know I learned this at some point, it's just way to long ago that I needed this video to remind me. WSL VT for you guys



_Chiu-ying_ is obviously a fundamental concept of VT, but I don't pay much attention to DP. 
He also a fragmented understanding of VT. Everything is application-based for him, too.

Not WSLVT.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> It's not. That video is a compilation of unrelated clips.
> 
> Your tactic of using one clip to disqualify another is very dishonest.



What???  That entire video clip was of Sean's guys training for MMA.  So you are sounding even more and more pathetic in your attempts to defend your dogmatic beliefs.  Better you stop now!


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> YMVT. He doesn't know YMVT in any branch.
> 
> He's only attended a few private lessons with a handful of teachers.



You're talking about me?  You know nothing about me!     And this coming from a guy that won't give his real name and would NEVER post a video of himself!!!   Like I said....when you can't disprove the message, attack the messenger!  Typical pathetic attempt to deflect valid points.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> That entire video clip was of Sean's guys training for MMA.



And why the heck do you keep looking at the entire video, when I was only talking about a single sparring bout, if not in a dishonest attempt to disqualify the bit that demonstrates VT's long-range game?



KPM said:


> You're talking about me?  You know nothing about me!



You said it yourself, here:

"_---I did Ip Man Wing Chun for many years. First directly from Joy _*[who says you have a fragmented understanding of WC]*_, and then traveling back and forth to Tucson to work with Augustine Fong directly on multiple occasions. Then I did TWC, traveling to Baltimore to study with John Clayton in a series of private lessons. Did that for awhile, and then got into Pin Sun. I made several visits to Boston to study with Jim Roselando. Got away from it for awhile and did other things. More recently went back to Boston a few times to study with Marc Kenney under the direct supervision of Henry Mui. _*[So, you traveled for several visits here and there for private lessons]*_ Looked into the CSL approach because they do talk about some of the same type of biomechanics as in Pin Sun. _*[By following an online program, not even in person with hands-on training] *_I've only recently returned to TWC, because I came to the conclusion that the footwork and angling was just much better for a sparring/fighting situation._" *[And at the end, you found most things had less functional footwork and angling for sparring and fighting.]*

So, no full training at all. Of course you barely know anything about Wing Chun...

Now, with your fragmented understanding of Wing Chun, you're attempting to make something functional out of it on your own by adding Western Boxing without taking into consideration the protective ring rules that allow it to safely behave as it does... Meanwhile telling me what WSLVT does or does not entail, while having 0 knowledge or experience of it.



> when you can't disprove the message, attack the messenger!



I have, but you can't talk much about Wing Chun with as little experience as you have.


----------



## Nobody Important

ap·pli·ca·tion
ˌapləˈkāSH(ə)n/

*the action of putting something into operation*.

"the application of general rules to particular cases"
synonyms: implementation, use, exercise,employment, utilization, practice,applying, discharge, execution,prosecution, enactment;
_formal_praxis
"the application of official rules"
Principles don't apply themselves, simply knowing a WC principle doesn't mean it will spontaneously manifest. The principle is of little use until it is applied to a technique that can exploit the principle. Correctness of the pairing is subjective, as relevance is based on the outcome.


----------



## Knapf

Er...guys, can I play the role of mediator? It seems like this is getting nowhere. Of course browsing through, there are some things I agree on more than another but I decided it would not help if I join in but aggravate things more. 
So let's just move on.  Never mind who backs out first,nobody is gonna say you lost or was proven wrong. I have learned that from the humble people here and it was a good lesson


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> And why the heck do you keep looking at the entire video, when I was only talking about a single sparring bout, if not in a dishonest attempt to disqualify the bit that demonstrates VT's long-range game?
> 
> 
> 
> You said it yourself, here:
> 
> "_---I did Ip Man Wing Chun for many years. First directly from Joy _*[who says you have a fragmented understanding of WC]*_, and then traveling back and forth to Tucson to work with Augustine Fong directly on multiple occasions. Then I did TWC, traveling to Baltimore to study with John Clayton in a series of private lessons. Did that for awhile, and then got into Pin Sun. I made several visits to Boston to study with Jim Roselando. Got away from it for awhile and did other things. More recently went back to Boston a few times to study with Marc Kenney under the direct supervision of Henry Mui. _*[So, you traveled for several visits here and there for private lessons]*_ Looked into the CSL approach because they do talk about some of the same type of biomechanics as in Pin Sun. _*[By following an online program, not even in person with hands-on training] *_I've only recently returned to TWC, because I came to the conclusion that the footwork and angling was just much better for a sparring/fighting situation._" *[And at the end, you found most things had less functional footwork and angling for sparring and fighting.]*
> 
> So, no full training at all. Of course you barely know anything about Wing Chun...
> 
> Now, with your fragmented understanding of Wing Chun, you're attempting to make something functional out of it on your own by adding Western Boxing without taking into consideration the protective ring rules that allow it to safely behave as it does... Meanwhile telling me what WSLVT does or does not entail, while having 0 knowledge or experience of it.
> 
> 
> 
> I have, but you can't talk much about Wing Chun with as little experience as you have.



Wow!  You really are obsessed with me, aren't you!    Pretty pathetic the lengths you will go to to defend your dogmatically held beliefs!      If you can't negate the message, then attack the messenger!  

Evidenced by the fact that you will put out effort to hunt down my bio, but you won't put out effort to describe how all those boxing-like things from Sean's clip are found in the WSLVT Biu Gee form.   You've got nothing!  Obviously!


----------



## KPM

Knapf said:


> Er...guys, can I play the role of mediator? It seems like this is getting nowhere. Of course browsing through, there are some things I agree on more than another but I decided it would not help if I join in but aggravate things more.
> So let's just move on.  Never mind who backs out first,nobody is gonna say you lost or was proven wrong. I have learned that from the humble people here and it was a good lesson



Agreed.  I had already decided this was pretty pointless and have only come back to defend myself from personal attacks and when people have tried to say I wrote something or believe something that I don't.


----------



## geezer

Malos1979 said:


> Are you teaching this to students or learning this? Because I think this is the biggest laugh I have ever had ...WSL VT for you guys'



_@Malos:_  That's David Peterson, a WSL-VT instructor demonstrating two basic concepts, 1. fighting with the body square to your opponent's center and not "bladed" at an angle, and 2.he shows how he gets and angle on his opponent so that his opponent is _not _facing his center. Which one, or both do you find laughable?

...Also, Peterson is one WSL-VT instructor that LFJ has expressed disagreements with in the past, so he may not find this basic demo representative of _his_ VT.

_
@ LFJ:  _Regarding my last comment above, I know that in the past you have distanced the conceptual WSL-VT you train from the more "application-based" teaching method of David Peterson.
_
Apart from that,_ would you more or less agree with the very basic points Peterson touches on in this beginner demo? Simple stuff like facing your opponent squarely, chasing center while forcing your opponent off-center?


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> If you can't negate the message, then attack the messenger!



I can negate the message, but the "messenger" doesn't understand for obvious lack of experience and knowledge, not to mention ego keeping his eyes covered and ears plugged.



> Evidenced by the fact that you will put out effort to hunt down my bio, but you won't put out effort to describe how all those boxing-like things from Sean's clip are found in the WSLVT Biu Gee form.   You've got nothing!  Obviously!



I said at the end, but I hadn't taken into account that you never learned the form in any lineage! It's in the last action.

It's nothing like WB, though. VT doesn't bob and weave under punches at close range. He ducked under a long-range kick. And the high cover is just the _biu-ji_ tactic used as standard defense against other styles because it works.

Nothing non-VT about it! Saying it comes from boxing is like saying the oblique kick is not pure VT because other styles use something similar, too.

It's just ignorance, which is to be expected looking at your very limited experience.


----------



## geezer

LFJ said:


> ...VT doesn't use a lead-rear leg stance at long-range. It keeps the leg out of the danger zone, either outside of kicking range, or inside of it.
> 
> This can help in drawing and baiting tactics to get the opponent to overextend, which opens them up for counter-kicking or punching. It's deceptive in that you don't actually lose reach. Of course, there's a lot more to the strategy and long-range tactics to accomplish this.



This is useful information that gives me a glimpse into how you see the WSL-VT long-range game. BTW, I agree with this approach.

Please, continue in this vane rather than continuing the endless insult exchange with KPM.


----------



## LFJ

geezer said:


> _Apart from that,_ would you more or less agree with the very basic points Peterson touches on in this beginner demo? Simple stuff like facing your opponent squarely, chasing center while forcing your opponent off-center?



The basic concepts of _chiu-ying_ vs _baai-ying_ are of course central to VT.

Some of what he says or thinks will work is a bit idealistic, while fighting is more dynamic than that, though. You're not going to just stand there and make someone fall over themselves because they pressed on your arm while you're facing them. Sounds a bit too Hendrik-like to me.


----------



## LFJ

geezer said:


> Please, continue in this vane rather than continuing the endless insult exchange with KPM.



Trying. Probably would have been able to explain more in a more productive discussion with others if KPM wasn't so desperate with his ego-driven denial of what he's been shown and had explained to him.


----------



## geezer

LFJ said:


> It's in the last action ...It's nothing like WB, though. VT doesn't bob and weave under punches at close range. He ducked under a long-range kick. And the *high cover* is just the _biu-ji_ tactic used as standard defense against other styles because it works.



^^^Here's your last post edited to remove the distracting references to KPM. Notice how much more informative it is! 

So, you apparently see the movement where the guy ducks the kick in the sparring video as utilizing the concept embodied in the forward-bending movement at the end of Biu Tze. Now I find that informative.

In my VT, we usually would see that bending as a response to a physical force, with the body bending like bamboo, when force is applied ...not in _anticipation _of impending impact. But what you say makes perfect sense, especially in the context of WSL-VT as you have explained it in the past.

Now, regarding the "high cover" (bolded above) that looks like a boxer's "peek-a-boo" guard -- we have nothing that looks similar in the VT I train, yet I concede its usefulness. Could you please clarify_ where_ that concept is found in your lineage. Otherwise, I would also have assumed it was borrowed from boxing or MMA.


----------



## geezer

LFJ said:


> The basic concepts of _chiu-ying_ vs _baai-ying_ are of course central to VT. Some of what he says or thinks will work is a bit idealistic, while fighting is more dynamic than that, though. You're not going to just stand there and make someone fall over themselves because they pressed on your arm while you're facing them...



I agree. Not with the "Hendrick" part though. That was just ...too mean! 

So I will be interested to hear what _Malos _found so risible. My guess is that he objects to what your referred to as it being _"a bit idealistic" _and not dynamic. It would never be functional in sparring as posed. But then it's just a basic explanatory demo. I get that, and as such, have no problem with it.

And, as far as the "getting an angle" thing goes --where you either offline or turn your opponent aside so that he is not facing your center, a friend of mine who is an MMA coach with a lot of boxing experience makes _this_ one of his key principles. So I don't get the joke there either.

...or perhaps _Malos'_ issue is with standing upright with your head exposed and expecting that your opponent won't nail you on the chin. Now _that's _a legitimate concern


----------



## LFJ

geezer said:


> So, you see the movement where the guy ducks the kick in the sparring video as utilizing the concept embodied in the bending movement at the end of Biu Tze. Now I find that informative...
> 
> ...Now, regarding the "high cover" (bolded above) that looks like a boxer's "peek-a-boo" guard -- we have nothing that looks similar in the VT I train, yet I concede it's usefulness. Could you please clarify_ where_ that concept is found in your lineage. Otherwise, I would also have assumed it was borrowed from boxing or MMA.



I'm talking about the same action. Recovery from that position involves bringing your hands to the side and back of your head while throwing the elbows up to cover. Held tightly it can be used to effectively cover from non-VT strikes. It's not typical. It's _biu-ji_, but it works well when needed. Nothing non-VT about using it.

If you're talking about how you display your guard, I think outside of contact range it makes little difference, and is perhaps better not to display a "style". You can hold your arms however you like. Things change as range changes. You can go from _man/wu _baiting guard, pre-contact, to linking actions working from rotating _man/wu_ concepts without holding a particular guard, since both arms are engaging in action.

To think one is doing Western Boxing simply because they hold their hands naturally, closer to the head at pre-contact range is quite rigid thinking. You don't have to do Yip Man statue poses when you fight. Be loose and dynamic.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> I'm talking about the same action. Recovery from that position involves bringing your hands to the side and back of your head while throwing the elbows up to cover. .



So you equate bending directly forward at the waist with knees practically straight and looking at the ground with a boxer's duck and bob & weave????  And you equate the flinging the arms overhead in a big circle that come nowhere close to the side the head to a boxer's high cover????  

Now, I would be willing to go along with the idea that the first embodies the concept of moving the upper body and being evasive, and the second embodies the concept of clearing a high line attack....but the form in which those concepts are being expressed in Sean's video are straight from western boxing.  Otherwise, when he needed to evade that high kick, why didn't he just bend over straight at the waist to get out of the way?  When a high punch came towards his head, why didn't he just fling his arm up in a big circle to clear it?

I think it is somewhat dishonest to show things that were obviously borrowed from western boxing, but since they loosely follow something you see as a concept in your form you say they have always been part of WSLVT and refuse to give any credit to WB for the way you express those concepts.   Again, pretty pathetic!


----------



## KPM

Drawing upon the concepts embodied in the forms, Pin Sun Wing Chun comes closer than WSLVT.   In the Pin Sun "Siu Lim Tao" San Sik there is a motion called "Sao Sau" or "cover hand" that is the Tun Sau pulled all the way back towards the head.  It is meant to deflect a strong force past the head, but the ending position is almost the same as a boxing high cover.   In the "Dai Lim Tao" San Sik there is a motion that is withdrawing the Tun Sao on the low-line that ends with the elbow tucked against the flank...just like a boxing "low cover."  In the "Wien Wan Yiu" or "Life after death" San Sik originally it was the same motion as that "bend at the waist and fling the arms overhead" section of the Ip Man Biu Gee form (and yes, I have learned the Ip Man Biu Gee and the TWC Biu Gee form in the past as well as the Pin Sun San Sik equivalents!).  But Sifu Mui changed that San Sik and made it an actual boxer's bob & weave....because he recognized that it was a better expression of the concept of being evasive.  But...he clearly points out that he has changed it and for that reason.  He never claims that the actual "bob & weave" motion was always part of Pin Sun!

So  I could take my Pin Sun Wing Chun background, do my western boxing and tell people...."See this high cover?.....this low cover?.....this evasive bob & weave?.....those aren't boxing....those come from Pin Sun!"  But I don't. Because that would be dishonest. Instead I point out how the concepts are very similar and cross-over well.  But I don't try to pass off those boxing motions as "pure" Pin Sun Wing Chun.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> So you equate bending directly forward at the waist with knees practically straight and looking at the ground with a boxer's duck and bob & weave???? And you equate the flinging the arms overhead in a big circle that come nowhere close to the side the head to a boxer's high cover????



Not at all. In fact, I said it's nothing like WB, and you have clearly not been taught VT.



> the form in which those concepts are being expressed in Sean's video are straight from western boxing.



Just like the _dang-geuk_ in CK is "straight from" Muay Thai because they happen to have a higher oblique kick?

Which of the dozens of Chinese, Japanese, Thai, etc. styles did VT get the low oblique kick "straight from"?

You are just ignorant of VT, and martial arts in general. 
You only had a few lessons when you travelled here and there.

So, of course, whenever you see something familiar to boxing you'll say hey, that's straight up boxing! But, you don't realize it's just natural instinct even to the untrained, and part of dozens of MA styles.



> Otherwise, when he needed to evade that high kick, why didn't he just bend over straight at the waist to get out of the way?  When a high punch came towards his head, why didn't he just fling his arm up in a big circle to clear it?



Because he's not an idiot and knows how to use VT...



> I think it is somewhat dishonest to show things that were obviously borrowed from western boxing, but since they loosely follow something you see as a concept in your form you say they have always been part of WSLVT and refuse to give any credit to WB for the way you express those concepts.



You have not even learned _Biu-ji_ in any lineage, much less WSLVT, so what experience are you speaking from?


----------



## geezer

KPM said:


> I think it is somewhat dishonest to show things that were obviously borrowed from western boxing, but since they loosely follow something you see as a concept in your form you say they have always been part of WSLVT and refuse to give any credit to WB for the way you express those concepts.   *Again, pretty pathetic! *



Continuing in kind to use terms like "dishonest" and "pathetic" does nothing to further this discussion. 

Perhaps you should try_ irony_ instead, like for example: "Yes, indeed, I can certainly see how the _flexibility _trained in the final, forward-bending movement in Biu Tze form would apply here. ...After all it must take incredible _flexibility of mind_ to equate what appears exactly like a boxer's bob, using a knee-bending movement, with the forward waist-bend from Biu Tze!!!" 

On the other hand, I am happy just to see the reasoning behind LFJ's argument. I'm not here to convince anyone else, or to be convinced by anyone else of anything. I just like exchanging information and ideas. I gave up always being right nearly 30 years ago when I got married.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> In the Pin Sun "Siu Lim Tao" San Sik there is a motion called "Sao Sau" or "cover hand" that is the Tun Sau pulled all the way back towards the head.  It is meant to deflect a strong force past the head, but the ending position is almost the same as a boxing high cover.



There's a reason this idea is not part of SNT or CK, but BJ.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> Drawing upon the concepts embodied in the forms, Pin Sun Wing Chun comes closer than WSLVT.



Let's remember, you have 0 experience or knowledge of WSLVT, not even the first thing about it.


----------



## LFJ

geezer said:


> Perhaps you should try_ irony_ instead, like for example: "Yes, indeed, I can certainly see how the _flexibility _trained in the final, forward-bending movement in Biu Tze form would apply here. ...After all it must take incredible _flexibility of mind_ to equate what appears exactly like a boxer's bob, using a knee-bending movement, with the forward waist-bend from Biu Tze!!!"



It's not done with straight legs, and it's not done to bob underneath punches at close range like boxers, either.

He ducked a long-range kick when cornered in emergency. So? He's not allowed to bend his knees to avoid the kick beyond a certain degree determined by KPM or it's not VT?

Even an untrained person would have ducked similarly.
Boxing gets to claim natural instinct as their invention?


----------



## KPM

*Not at all. In fact, I said it's nothing like WB, and you have clearly not been taught VT.*

---So you think the bobbing & weaving and high covers that Sean's student was doing in that clip "is nothing like boxing"????  



*Just like the dang-geuk in CK is "straight from" Muay Thai because they happen to have a higher oblique kick?*

----I never said that.   The only comment I made was that Jon Jone's oblique kick was straight out of Savate. 


Yo*u are just ignorant of VT, and martial arts in general. 
You only had a few lessons when you travelled here and there.*

---More character assassination because you can't come up with anything else to back up what you believe?  More "attack the messenger" since you can't negate the message?  



*You have not even learned Biu-ji in any lineage, much less WSLVT, so what experience are you speaking from?*

---I just posted above that I have learned both the Ip Man Biu Gee form and the TWC Biu Gee form and the Pin Sun equivalent San Sik.  Do you have trouble reading?


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> It's not done with straight legs, and it's not done to bob underneath punches at close range like boxers, either.
> 
> He ducked a long-range kick when cornered in emergency. So? He's not allowed to bend his knees to avoid the kick beyond a certain degree determined by KPM or it's not VT?
> 
> Even an untrained person would have ducked similarly.
> Boxing gets to claim natural instinct as their invention?



Geez!  The guy bent his knees to squat down, bent forward over his lead leg with his hands close in covering his face, did a weave to the outside and then hopped away....just like a boxer!!!!   An "untrained" person would not do that!  A person with knowledge of the Biu Gee form would not do that....unless he had seen it in boxing, recognized that it corresponded with concepts from the BG form and decided to use it!   But to do that and not give boxing credit as the inspiration...to claim that it is "pure" WSLVT....is just plain dishonest!  I don't know how else to describe it.


----------



## Juany118

geezer said:


> Continuing in kind to use terms like "dishonest" and "pathetic" does nothing to further this discussion.
> 
> Perhaps you should try_ irony_ instead, like for example: "Yes, indeed, I can certainly see how the _flexibility _trained in the final, forward-bending movement in Biu Tze form would apply here. ...After all it must take incredible _flexibility of mind_ to equate what appears exactly like a boxer's bob, using a knee-bending movement, with the forward waist-bend from Biu Tze!!!"
> 
> On the other hand, I am happy just to see the reasoning behind LFJ's argument. I'm not here to convince anyone else, or to be convinced by anyone else of anything. I just like exchanging information and ideas. I gave up always being right nearly 30 years ago when I got married.


I think LfJ's point is simply that one needs to make sure we don't get trapped in looking at the forms and drills and say "this is how you fight" because that isn't true of any combat art.  If it was you would see boxers punching like they do when they work the speed bag.  You need to take the attributes the forms and drills impart and then spar.  In sparring that means there may be a time where you duck or bob because you don't successfully intercept an attack.  

I also think sometimes people take the forms to literally, on all sides.  When this happens tends to of course be when it is convenient to an argument however.  Biu Jee is, to my learning, a form that demonstrates not only short range power but how to recover from mistakes.  The point being that you will fail and you will have to do things that aren't necessarily WC if you were to look only at SLT and CK.  So maybe it's not a matter of a technique in Biu Jee being used to recover from a mistake, rather the simple fact that through Biu Jee he has realized there are times you just need to recover and don't sweat the fact that it isn't WC because it's the recovery that matters more?


----------



## drop bear

LFJ said:


> What are you talking about?
> 
> In that post, I was only discussing one sparring bout in that video that contained nothing but VT.
> 
> The other clips in the video showed grappling, which is cross-training, not gap-filling for missing striking fundamentals.



Looking at that video it seems the VT route and the boxing route almost leads to the same place anyway.

I can see now why WC and boxing is the mix they are going for.

Actually considering the similarities I am surprised VT does not cross train with boxers to improve their striking style.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> Looking at that video it seems the VT route and the boxing route almost leads to the same place anyway.
> 
> I can see now why WC and boxing is the mix they are going for.
> 
> Actually considering the similarities I am surprised VT does not cross train with boxers to improve their striking style.




I would suspect because they feel it unnecessary.  If I remember my lineage history right WSL came to VT/WC from Western Boxing.  So it would not be illogical to believe that what is good from western boxing is already in WSLVT.  /Shrug.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> I would suspect because they feel it unnecessary.  If I remember my lineage history right WSL came to VT/WC from Western Boxing.  So it would not be illogical to believe that what is good from western boxing is already in WSLVT.  /Shrug.



But from when and from who? There are some bloody good boxers out there. Which is expertise VT could seriously benefit from.

Exactly how they are cross training with grappling.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> But from when and from who? There are some bloody good boxers out there. Which is expertise VT could seriously benefit from.
> 
> Exactly how they are cross training with grappling.



Not sure, WSLVT hasn't been "my thing" for years.  That said I do think cross training is a good thing for a number of reasons.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> Not sure, WSLVT hasn't been "my thing" for years.  That said I do think cross training is a good thing for a number of reasons.



Because no system is ever really complete.


----------



## karatejj

KPM said:


> Wow!  You really are obsessed with me, aren't you!    Pretty pathetic the lengths you will go to to defend your dogmatically held beliefs!      If you can't negate the message, then attack the messenger!
> 
> Evidenced by the fact that you will put out effort to hunt down my bio, but you won't put out effort to describe how all those boxing-like things from Sean's clip are found in the WSLVT Biu Gee form.   You've got nothing!  Obviously!



Exactly! What does your trainibg history have to do with the argument ur making or ur ability to unerstand great wing chun when u see it? This guy is such an elitist!


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> Because no system is ever really complete.


In another thread, I point out that one should have both the following abilities:

1. Be able to punch with both hands in fast speed.
2. Be able to extend your arm, make both arms to be 1 arm and get the maximum reach.

IMO, 1 and 2 should not be mutual exclusive. You don't have to cross train to be able to do both. All you will need is to modify your training to have both.


----------



## KPM

Juany118 said:


> I think LfJ's point is simply that one needs to make sure we don't get trapped in looking at the forms and drills and say "this is how you fight" because that isn't true of any combat art.



Uh no.  Why are you trying to put a positive spin on LFJ's BS?  LFJ has said that it was "pure WSLVT" straight from the Biu Gee form.   I was the one that suggested that it was boxing movement via MMA seen through the filter of the concepts from the Biu Gee form.  So actually you should be making your comment about what I wrote. That would be a closer fit!  Again, LFJ has said more than once that it  was "pure WSLVT."


----------



## KPM

Juany118 said:


> I would suspect because they feel it unnecessary.  If I remember my lineage history right WSL came to VT/WC from Western Boxing.  So it would not be illogical to believe that what is good from western boxing is already in WSLVT.  /Shrug.



Ah!  But that would suggest that WSL altered what he learned from Ip Man, now wouldn't it?


----------



## Juany118

KPM said:


> Uh no.  Why are you trying to put a positive spin on LFJ's BS?  LFJ has said that it was "pure WSLVT" straight from the Biu Gee form.   I was the one that suggested that it was boxing movement via MMA seen through the filter of the concepts from the Biu Gee form.  So actually you should be making your comment about what I wrote. That would be a closer fit!  Again, LFJ has said more than once that it  was "pure WSLVT."



Because throughout he has been saying that the forms and drills don't teach fighting, the impart the attributes that are turned into fighting via free sparring.


----------



## Juany118

KPM said:


> Ah!  But that would suggest that WSL altered what he learned from Ip Man, now wouldn't it?



I think you know I am on record saying I believe just that


----------



## KPM

Ok.  I'll just put this out and then be done with it.  Then anyone following along this ridiculous tangent for this thread can decide for yourselves!

Here is the Sean's sparring clip again.  Note the "duck and weave" at 2:17 and the "high cover" at about 2:24.






Here at 2:55 is the WSL Biu Jee form of the appropriate section that LFJ referenced:






Some ducking and weaving from boxing:





Boxing "high cover" here at 0:40






So you be the judge!   Do you think it more likely that:

A.  What we see on Sean's clip is "pure WSLVT" based on that section from the BJ form?

or

B.  What we seen on Sean's clip is an adaptation of boxing via MMA to the concepts taught from that section of the WSLVT BJ form?  

What do YOU guys think?

And with that, I've  said all I can and I'm out!   That is, unless someone feels the need to continue with his "character assassination" or tries to twist around what I've been saying all along.


----------



## LFJ

Juany118 said:


> I would suspect because they feel it unnecessary.  If I remember my lineage history right WSL came to VT/WC from Western Boxing.  So it would not be illogical to believe that what is good from western boxing is already in WSLVT.  /Shrug.



Wrong. As I just said a couple pages ago; 

VT is trained in such a way that any even slight deviation in principle will be immediately obvious to the practitioner. It's self-correcting in that way.

Since, as I said, WB is the _polar opposite_ of VT at both long and short range, it's impossible that one would be incorporating WB without realizing it.

But, more importantly, since they are directly contradictory, switching to WB strategy or tactics will render VT ineffective. They simply do not blend. If you want to do one, you have to completely abandon the other. So, there is no purposeful mixing of the two either.

Point being, no, WSL's VT was not influenced by WB. That can be clearly seen in how contradictory they are.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> ---So you think the bobbing & weaving and high covers that Sean's student was doing in that clip "is nothing like boxing"????



VT doesn't bob and weave under punches at close range like boxing.

Ducking under a kick is not non-VT.

High covers are used in dozens of TCMA and other styles unrelated to WB. Just because WB is all you know, doesn't mean anything familiar you see must have come from that.



> ---More character assassination because you can't come up with anything else to back up what you believe?  More "attack the messenger" since you can't negate the message?



I have negated the message. It just doesn't get through to someone who has no experience or knowledge to draw from and a strong ego-driven need to not acknowledge what is shown and described to him. That's not a character attack. It's just the facts of the matter.



> ---I just posted above that I have learned both the Ip Man Biu Gee form and the TWC Biu Gee form and the Pin Sun equivalent San Sik.



All in a few private lessons you travelled far for? I doubt it, since you are still clueless as to what BJ is about, and your longest teacher says you have a fragmented understand of WC.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> The guy bent his knees to squat down,



Because he's not an idiot. Bending knees is not non-VT.



> bent forward over his lead leg



His legs were side to side, perpendicular to the opponent.
This has been illustrated to you in GIF with drawn lines.
How could still think there's a lead leg??

This is the exact opposite of what WB does at long range.



> with his hands close in covering his face,



Because he's not an idiot. Covering your face is not non-VT.



> did a weave to the outside and then hopped away



Because he's not an idiot. Ducking under a kick and moving away is not non-VT.



> An "untrained" person would not do that!  A person with knowledge of the Biu Gee form would not do that....unless he had seen it in boxing,



Or unless he's not an idiot.

Someone who has only learned VT is gonna take a spinning heel to the face? Or just bend over with legs straight and hands away from his head, and hope they don't get hit on the way down or back up?

What's a Wing Chun way to avoid that kick while trapped in the corner, then? I'd like your answer on this one.



> recognized that it corresponded with concepts from the BG form and decided to use it!   But to do that and not give boxing credit as the inspiration...to claim that it is "pure" WSLVT....is just plain dishonest!  I don't know how else to describe it.



So, a high oblique push kick from Muay Thai corresponds to the VT _dang-geuk_.

Does that mean the VT kick is straight from MT, and it's dishonest if we don't credit MT?

Or are you just ignorant of Martial Arts in general?

Ducking and covering the head, just as done, are found in dozens of TCMA styles.
VT is not alone here, and it isn't copying Western Boxing.

That is simply the only thing you know about. Not because you actually box, by the way, but because you watch boxing and read books on it.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> Ok.  I'll just put this out and then be done with it.  Then anyone following along this ridiculous tangent for this thread can decide for yourselves!



Unfortunately, while you've paid for online learning before, you can't learn VT from videos.

The action in BJ is not just flinging your arms up like a madman and then still popping your up exposed. That would defeat the purpose.

The action bends the arms as the hands come together over the head, and elbows raise up. If you pause the action there, the head is covered with the forward and hand, while the upper arm and elbow covers the face.

From there, the hands can simply be pulled straight down and forward to _man/wu_ guard. There is no need to fling them around in a big circle. There may be other reasons for doing that, but it's not required.

This is the problem with having never been taught the form, and just making assumptions based on 0 experience or knowledge.

Unlike SNT and CK, BJ deals with particular situations of recovery to get back to our core VT in SNT and CK.

At the beginning, it deals with having your wrists grabbed, which is a common way people try to stop you from hitting them.

Do I actually need to throw my arm up and over my head in order to break the grip with a rolling elbow? No!
Do I need to stand still or pivot on the spot? Should my other arm be chambered at my ribs? No!

Fighting is not like form.

Ducking is not done with straight legs in the form either, but we are not restricted to an arbitrary degree of bend, or after a certain degree it becomes WB.

We do what it takes to get under the kick in emergency. Of course, we don't have to plant our feet and not move like the form either. We can use lateral, evasive footwork.

Nor do we have to do anything after covering our head than come straight back to fighting guard.

Again, the problem is having never been taught the form, or how to fight with VT, and having an extremely limited and rigid understanding of the system.


----------



## LFJ

This is the high cover when recovering from ducking.

Arms bent, tightly wrapping the head.
Hands and forearms covering the head.
Upper arm and elbow covering the face on the way up.

From there, you can just bring your hands back to fighting position.







Same idea here, safely covering:






Done in an already upright position, head up, face looking forward,
your head and face will be protected inside the cover, like so:






Done, upright, looking forward, pointing the elbow forward as in the form, with a single side:






Again, it's _Biu-ji_, not a typical VT core tactic.
But it works well against other styles, so use is made of it.

Elbow can go as high or low as needed for cover depending on the situation.
One or both sides can be used.

Nothing at all non-VT or copying WB about it!

WB will use this sort of double cover to defend straight punches. 
That doesn't work if both guys aren't wearing big gloves.

VT doesn't do that. That's why it's not a core VT tactic. 
It recovers from ducking, or defends round attacks when caught in a less favorable position.


----------



## Lobo66

Hey guys,
As I said before in regards to the original topic of this thread, training has to be contextualized in order to be effective.
We are training to take part in open martial arts competitions with pancrase rules, so we must adapt to this context.  That means including grappling and submission training as well as training defensive gestures against attacks that are not typically found in WC (low kicks and high roundhouse kicks, overhand rights, etc).

The high elbow cover is something that I started to integrate into my classes after working with Tim Cartmell, who is an expert in the Chinese internal martial arts as well as BJJ (3rd degree black belt under Cleber Luciano).  This technique is widely used in both traditional CMA and in modern MMA.  It works.  I like things that work.  It also does not compromise our VT structure or strategy, in my opinion.  As LFJ rightly points out, it is more of a BJ tactic, "looking beyond the pointing finger" as it were.  But let's not get caught up in where it comes from....that misses the whole point.

Head movement is an important part of fighting, and can be integrated into any martial art (although there are those who may disagree with me)  I do teach my students the basics of slipping, ducking, weaving, lean-back, etc. 

That's pretty obvious in this video :






.


----------



## KPM

*The high elbow cover is something that I started to integrate into my classes after working with Tim Cartmell, who is an expert in the Chinese internal martial arts as well as BJJ (3rd degree black belt under Cleber Luciano).  This technique is widely used in both traditional CMA and in modern MMA.  It works.  I like things that work.  It also does not compromise our VT structure or strategy, in my opinion.  As LFJ rightly points out, it is more of a BJ tactic, "looking beyond the pointing finger" as it were.  But let's not get caught up in where it comes from....that misses the whole point.*

---Fair point!  But then, let's not repeatedly refer to it as "pure WSLVT" either!  

*Head movement is an important part of fighting, and can be integrated into any martial art (although there are those who may disagree with me)  I do teach my students the basics of slipping, ducking, weaving, lean-back, etc.*

----Sounds like valid cross-training to me!  And again, let's not refer to this repeatedly as "pure WSLVT" either!


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> This is the high cover when recovering from ducking.
> 
> Arms bent, tightly wrapping the head.
> Hands and forearms covering the head.
> Upper arm and elbow covering the face on the way up.
> 
> From there, you can just bring your hands back to fighting position.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same idea here, safely covering:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Done in an already upright position, head up, face looking forward,
> your head and face will be protected inside the cover, like so:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Done, upright, looking forward, pointing the elbow forward as in the form, with a single side:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, it's _Biu-ji_, not a typical VT core tactic.
> But it works well against other styles, so use is made of it.
> 
> Elbow can go as high or low as needed for cover depending on the situation.
> One or both sides can be used.
> 
> Nothing at all non-VT or copying WB about it!
> 
> WB will use this sort of double cover to defend straight punches.
> That doesn't work if both guys aren't wearing big gloves.
> 
> VT doesn't do that. That's why it's not a core VT tactic.
> It recovers from ducking, or defends round attacks when caught in a less favorable position.



Anyone that thinks that picture 1 above is the same thing as picture 4 above and that picture 4 is "nothing like western boxing" is obviously delusional!


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> ---Fair point!  But then, let's not repeatedly refer to it as "pure WSLVT" either!



It is clearly a part of WSLVT, as I've just shown, and as he also said, it's a BJ tactic.

He started using it as a standard tactic after seeing its usefulness elsewhere.

That doesn't make it non-VT.



> ----Sounds like valid cross-training to me!  And again, let's not refer to this repeatedly as "pure WSLVT" either!



None of these ideas are precluded from pure VT.



KPM said:


> Anyone that thinks that picture 1 above is the same thing as picture 4 above and that picture 4 is "nothing like western boxing" is obviously delusional!



It's the exact same arm position. 

You are dishonestly taking an overly rigid view of forms here, while elsewhere you argue that actions in forms can be adapted to fit multiple scenarios by following the concept.

You are clearly ego-driven to deny these things as VT, because of deficiencies in your own WC learning.


----------



## Knapf

KPM said:


> that picture 4 is "nothing like western boxing" is obviously delusional!


Agree with you on pic 4 but please try not to call anyone delusional. Be nice


----------



## LFJ

Knapf said:


> Agree with you on pic 4



I was saying the duck and cover at long range is unlike WB, for one because the stance and footwork is the exact opposite. The fighting strategy and tactics are contradictory at long and close range between WB and VT.

The cover using a single arm is familiar to WB, but exists in many TCMAs totally unrelated and predating WB.

To say it came "straight from" WB is like saying the VT _dang-geuk_ came straight from MT.

It just shows an ignorance of Martial Arts of the world in general.


----------



## Knapf

LFJ said:


> I was saying the duck and cover at long range is unlike WB, for one because the stance and footwork is the exact opposite. The fighting strategy and tactics are contradictory at long and close range between WB and VT.
> 
> The cover using a single arm is familiar to WB, but exists in many TCMAs totally unrelated and predating WB.
> 
> To say it came "straight from" WB is like saying the VT _dang-geuk_ came straight from MT.
> 
> It just shows an ignorance of Martial Arts of the world in general.


Mm.Ok


----------



## KPM

*He started using it as a standard tactic after seeing its usefulness elsewhere.*

---I have maintained all along that this was something that was taken from outside of WSLVT.   I have said that it may match conceptually with things from your BG form, but that this does not make it "pure WSLVT."   I even gave an example of how several things from Pin Sun Wing Chun match even more closely conceptually AND structurally to boxing, but that this wouldn't make them "pure Pin Sun" when they are being done in a boxing-like format.  To continually maintain that they are "pure WSLVT" when Sean has admitted himself that it comes from elsewhere...and you just said "after seeing its usefulness elsewhere".....is just blatantly dishonest.  I don't know how else to describe it. 


*That doesn't make it non-VT.*

---It doesn't make it "pure WSLVT" either!  


*You are dishonestly taking an overly rigid view of forms here, while elsewhere you argue that actions in forms can be adapted to fit multiple scenarios by following the concept.*

---No I'm not!  I have stated several times that you can have concepts from the forms that match technical things from elsewhere and so incorporate them in what you do.  But that does not make them "pure WSLVT."   For you to deny that what is happening has been inspired by other systems....whether that was MMA, boxing, or other Chinese methods...and claim them as "pure WSLVT" is dishonest.


*You are clearly ego-driven to deny these things as VT, because of deficiencies in your own WC learning.*

----I'm the "ego-driven" one here?


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> ---I have maintained all along that this was something that was taken from outside of WSLVT.



Then you have taken on a burden of proof, but your only argument is that it looks like something else, which is just ignorance of MAs of the world.



> I have said that it may match conceptually with things from your BG form, but that this does not make it "pure WSLVT."



It matches in form as well, as the pictures show the exact same position.



> To continually maintain that they are "pure WSLVT" when Sean has admitted himself that it comes from elsewhere...and you just said "after seeing its usefulness elsewhere".....is just blatantly dishonest.



He didn't comment on where it comes from. He said what led him to incorporate it, but that it is rightly a BJ tactic.



> ---It doesn't make it "pure WSLVT" either!



Then your argument must not be that it came from WB, because it is found in many TCMAs unrelated to and predating WB.

Therefore, I could point to any one of them and say WB is not "pure WB" because this technique exists elsewhere.

But, that would be quite ignorant, and is the mistake you're making now.



> you can have concepts from the forms that match technical things from elsewhere and so incorporate them in what you do.  But that does not make them "pure WSLVT."



The concept and technical form of the high cover exist in WSLVT without looking elsewhere, as I've demonstrated.

Being inspired to make standard use of it from working with others who use it, doesn't make it impure VT.



> For you to deny that what is happening has been inspired by other systems....whether that was MMA, boxing, or other Chinese methods...and claim them as "pure WSLVT" is dishonest.



It would help if you knew what you're talking about.
I've just demonstrated that it is purely WSLVT in concept and form, though it is used elsewhere, too.



> ----I'm the "ego-driven" one here?



Clearly.


----------



## Juany118

LFJ said:


> I was saying the duck and cover at long range is unlike WB, for one because the stance and footwork is the exact opposite. The fighting strategy and tactics are contradictory at long and close range between WB and VT.
> 
> The cover using a single arm is familiar to WB, but exists in many TCMAs totally unrelated and predating WB.
> 
> To say it came "straight from" WB is like saying the VT _dang-geuk_ came straight from MT.
> 
> It just shows an ignorance of Martial Arts of the world in general.



I think the last part is the most important.  Biomechanics are biomechanics, we can only move in certain ways.  High covers exist in both the TWC and the Kali I study.  When you can only move in certain ways you will see very similar actions.  I run into this all the time talking about weapon work with a HEMA friend of mine as we compare notes on HEMA vs FMA sword work


----------



## LFJ

Juany118 said:


> I think the last part is the most important.  Biomechanics are biomechanics, we can only move in certain ways.  High covers exist in both the TWC and the Kali I study.  When you can only move in certain ways you will see very similar actions.  I run into this all the time talking about weapon work with a HEMA friend of mine as we compare notes on HEMA vs FMA sword work



Yup. Having studied a number of TCMAs, I see similarities everywhere between them.
But, I won't say one came from the other unless they're actually historically connected.

Because, "_biomechanics are biomechanics_". Similarities are to be expected to a great extent.

That's why to look at this simple action and say that's not pure VT because some other style uses it is either dishonest, or just plain ignorant.

If you look at the photos I provided, you'll see the exact same arm position as in the form.
Arm thrown up to cover. Hand and forearm wrapping the head, elbow lifted to point forward.

The arm position is exactly the same in these photos.
Only the body and head positions differ slightly, for the situations.

But, the last one was objected to because it's done with one arm, and boxers do that...

All VT forms have simultaneous arm actions, while they're often used individually. We should all know this.
This _Biu-ji_ action is an example. Done individually, the single high cover is exactly what you get.

To not acknowledge this is to either be ignorant of VT, and unwilling to learn, or ego-driven bias to avoid conceding the legitimacy of the high cover in the VT system, for some silly reason.















> High covers exist in both the TWC and the Kali I study.



Anyway, this is interesting, because TWC is KPM's claimed base style.
Where are high covers in TWC and how is it done?


----------



## KPM

*[If you look at the photos I provided, you'll see the exact same arm position as in the form.
Arm thrown up to cover. Hand and forearm wrapping the head, elbow lifted to point forward.*

---Except if you look at the actual video, WSL never pauses in the position you have frozen in the picture.  Not even for a nanosecond.  So your photo gives a very false impression.  He is also looking straight at the ground.    Can you pause there? Sure!  Was that what WSL intended....a high cover?  I seriously doubt it!   Would Ip Man have ever done a high cover like that?  I seriously doubt it.  Does that make it wrong?  Of course not!  That just shows there was an outside influence that lead people to seeing this motion in the BJ form and deciding that it was close enough to the high cover seen in other systems.  So that high cover from other systems could be "borrowed" and still be seen to fit with WSLVT concepts from the BJ form.   Does that make it "pure WSLVT"?  I don't think so. 

---But LFJ can defame me and continue his character assassination all he wants.  I'm just pointing out common sense!


----------



## Juany118

LFJ said:


> Yup. Having studied a number of TCMAs, I see similarities everywhere between them.
> But, I won't say one came from the other unless they're actually historically connected.
> 
> Because, "_biomechanics are biomechanics_". Similarities are to be expected to a great extent.
> 
> That's why to look at this simple action and say that's not pure VT because some other style uses it is either dishonest, or just plain ignorant.
> 
> If you look at the photos I provided, you'll see the exact same arm position as in the form.
> Arm thrown up to cover. Hand and forearm wrapping the head, elbow lifted to point forward.
> 
> The arm position is exactly the same in these photos.
> Only the body and head position differ.
> 
> But, the last one was objected to because it's done with one arm, and boxers do that...
> 
> All VT forms have simultaneous arm actions, while they're often used individually. We should all know this.
> This _Biu-ji_ action is an example. Done individually, the single high cover is exactly what you get.
> 
> To not acknowledge this is to either be ignorant of VT, and unwilling to learn, or ego-driven bias to avoid conceding the legitimacy of the high cover in the VT system, for some silly reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway, this is interesting, because TWC is KPM's claimed base style.
> Where are high covers in TWC and how is it done?


We learn the elbow shield you show in the last photo but that isn't specifically contained in the forms.  There is also one that is not as high but can still cover the head and you can also use it to take balance as you enter a kin to jamming bong sau, that has the particular name chuen sau.  That is contain in Biu Jee.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> ---Except if you look at the actual video, WSL never pauses in the position you have frozen in the picture.



He's doing a form, not fighting. 

Nor is he teaching and explaining it to you.

You can't learn VT from videos!



> So your photo gives a very false impression.  He is also looking straight at the ground. Can you pause there? Sure!



On the way up, recovering from a ducking position.
Is that the only time you can use it? Of course not!

There is no false impression. You have just not been taught this form or how to fight with VT.



> Was that what WSL intended....a high cover?  I seriously doubt it!   Would Ip Man have ever done a high cover like that?  I seriously doubt it.



You doubt this based on 0 knowledge or experience of what they taught, only a silly ego-driven bias because you never learned it in your poverty-stricken experience of fragmented WC.



> *That just shows* there was an outside influence that lead people to seeing this motion in the BJ form and deciding that it was close enough to the high cover seen in other systems.



What just shows...?? You are only making a bald assertion.



> So that high cover from other systems could be "borrowed" and still be seen to fit with WSLVT concepts from the BJ form.   Does that make it "pure WSLVT"?  I don't think so.



But, it is. You don't know this because you have no knowledge or experience of VT, and are unwilling to learn.

If you want to make this claim that it was borrowed from another system, you need to show decisively what system in particular, and by whom. 

Otherwise, it is just your bald assertion while you don't even know the first thing about WSLVT!



> I'm just pointing out common sense!



Common sense would be to have some knowledge of what you're talking about before making assumptions and assertions.


----------



## LFJ

Juany118 said:


> We learn the elbow shield you show in the last photo but that isn't specifically contained in the forms.  There is also one that is not as high but can still cover the head and you can also use it to take balance as you enter a kin to jamming bong sau, that has the particular name chuen sau.  That is contain in Biu Jee.



Interesting. Wonder why KPM has not learned this even in what he claims to be his base style?

As I understand it, TWC and other WC lineages also incorporate various types of hook punches and uppercuts. Yet, these are unquestionably original to the system and not adapted or even copied straight from Western Boxing?

Is the ego-driven bias not overwhelmingly obvious here??


----------



## Nobody Important

Anyone interested in this conversation  (or any recent threads) should consider taking a look here 

Troll - 100 Plus Types and Examples of Internet Trolls

before posting, to get an idea of what you're getting into.


----------



## paitingman

KPM said:


> Anyone that thinks that picture 1 above is the same thing as picture 4 above and that picture 4 is "nothing like western boxing" is obviously delusional!


it could be that since, as LFJ has stated before, some movements in the VT forms are abstract representations/exercises of another idea or movement. Therefore they don't actually look exactly like in the exercise or form. 

Application based exercises like in other systems or in WB, would have their guard exactly like they do in certain drills (or forms).


----------



## LFJ

paitingman said:


> it could be that since, as LFJ has stated before, some movements in the VT forms are abstract representations/exercises of another idea or movement. Therefore they don't actually look exactly like in the exercise or form.
> 
> Application based exercises like in other systems or in WB, would have their guard exactly like they do in certain drills (or forms).



Correct. The action in the form is telling you to cover your head to intercept whatever may be coming.

We all know WC forms, in any lineage, have double-arm actions that are applied individually.

That's why the dishonesty and bias is obvious when an exception is arbitrarily made to this fundamental fact common across lineages in this particular case.


----------



## Juany118

LFJ said:


> Interesting. Wonder why KPM has not learned this even in what he claims to be his base style?
> 
> As I understand it, TWC and other WC lineages also incorporate various types of hook punches and uppercuts. Yet, these are unquestionably original to the system and not adapted or even copied straight from Western Boxing?
> 
> Is the ego-driven bias not overwhelmingly obvious here??


Well to be fair he does know chuen say, we have discussed it and the elbow shield is essentially an exaggerated chuen sau.  The main thing that makes a chuen a chuen is how it's deployed.  It translates as "threading hand" and you raise the chuen up the way you might a needle when sewing (it's hard to describe). 

We also use round punchs, but they are "tight" and I will admit the mechanics are a bit different.  There is not a lot of body rotation and you never cross the center line.  A lot of the force comes from you stepping in as you strike and we only intend to use it on soft targets.  As an example the buffalo punch would be to the throat, neck or base of the skull.  As such a lot of people don't put a lot of practice into them because they have limited utility.


----------



## Phobius

And a note to all. Just because something exist in other styles as well it does not make a technique or movement any less a "pure" action within one of those arts.

Otherwise we would all be doing mma since we all share something intentional or not.


----------



## drop bear

LFJ said:


> Wrong. As I just said a couple pages ago;
> 
> VT is trained in such a way that any even slight deviation in principle will be immediately obvious to the practitioner. It's self-correcting in that way.
> 
> Since, as I said, WB is the _polar opposite_ of VT at both long and short range, it's impossible that one would be incorporating WB without realizing it.
> 
> But, more importantly, since they are directly contradictory, switching to WB strategy or tactics will render VT ineffective. They simply do not blend. If you want to do one, you have to completely abandon the other. So, there is no purposeful mixing of the two either.
> 
> Point being, no, WSL's VT was not influenced by WB. That can be clearly seen in how contradictory they are.



Doesn't lobo do exactly that?


----------



## drop bear

Lobo66 said:


> Hey guys,
> As I said before in regards to the original topic of this thread, training has to be contextualized in order to be effective.
> We are training to take part in open martial arts competitions with pancrase rules, so we must adapt to this context.  That means including grappling and submission training as well as training defensive gestures against attacks that are not typically found in WC (low kicks and high roundhouse kicks, overhand rights, etc).
> 
> The high elbow cover is something that I started to integrate into my classes after working with Tim Cartmell, who is an expert in the Chinese internal martial arts as well as BJJ (3rd degree black belt under Cleber Luciano).  This technique is widely used in both traditional CMA and in modern MMA.  It works.  I like things that work.  It also does not compromise our VT structure or strategy, in my opinion.  As LFJ rightly points out, it is more of a BJ tactic, "looking beyond the pointing finger" as it were.  But let's not get caught up in where it comes from....that misses the whole point.
> 
> Head movement is an important part of fighting, and can be integrated into any martial art (although there are those who may disagree with me)  I do teach my students the basics of slipping, ducking, weaving, lean-back, etc.
> 
> That's pretty obvious in this video :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .



Is that your clip?

Because it would go a long way to confirming if that is pure VT or a hibrid.


----------



## drop bear

Phobius said:


> And a note to all. Just because something exist in other styles as well it does not make a technique or movement any less a "pure" action within one of those arts.
> 
> Otherwise we would all be doing mma since we all share something intentional or not.



Yeah but we have two concepts at play here.

One is that pure VT is represented in other arts. The other is that it is impossible to integrate other styles into VT because of its uniqueness.


----------



## Nobody Important

drop bear said:


> Yeah but we have two concepts at play here.
> 
> One is that pure VT is represented in other arts. The other is that it is impossible to integrate other styles into VT because of its uniqueness.


Not impossible at all. Its a superstitious belief that if a tree is felled then the sky will come crashing down. Integration is not impossible, its simply refusal to acknowledge that some arts potentially contain a few better attributes than what your art does and are performed in a manner in which you don't believe your system can operate. It's dogma and fear, not truth. If BJJ can be added to Wing Chun as a compliment for grappling, because it is vastly different, then so can boxing because it is also so vastly different. Its only when a system is recognized as too similar that conflicts arise in some minds, to me, this still doesn't make sense, because then it should be even easier to integrate pieces that work better than or can elevate what you currently have. This whole "_It violate the theory and principles_" thing is ridiculous nonsense. To say that your striking or grappling method has nothing valuable to learn from other striking or grappling methods that can be integrated into yours, because it undermines the strategy, theory, principle, mechanics etc. of your system is ludicrous. No one method has it all, especially for the myriad of personalities involved, what works for one person may not for another. Styles are generic; Specific attributes are created by the individual teaching them, based on their understanding of the principles, theories and their favored approach to them. This does not mean that any one method is locked into that individuals interpretation, it will work for some but not others, and without experimentation into how others interpret, there is no growth only stagnation.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> Interesting. Wonder why KPM has not learned this even in what he claims to be his base style?
> 
> As I understand it, TWC and other WC lineages also incorporate various types of hook punches and uppercuts. Yet, these are unquestionably original to the system and not adapted or even copied straight from Western Boxing?
> 
> Is the ego-driven bias not overwhelmingly obvious here??



   Dude!  You are really something else!  And you're starting to sound a bit desperate!


----------



## KPM

Juany118 said:


> Well to be fair he does know chuen say, we have discussed it and the elbow shield is essentially an exaggerated chuen sau.  .



True!  And also as I pointed out before, the elbow shield is essentially an exaggerated "Tun Sau" or "Sao Sau" from Pin Sun Wing Chun.   However, I wouldn't do what is also essentially an "elbow shield" the way boxing does (without exaggerating anything....without saying "see, if you freeze this motion at this particular instant....") and then tell people that it is "pure TWC" or "pure Pin Sun Wing Chun."   No, I would be honest and tell people that this high cover I am using was inspired by western boxing, but also conceptually matches with an exaggerated Chuen Sau from TWC or an exaggerated Tun Sau from Pin Sun, and so fits with those systems just fine.  Because I don't have this need to try and defend anything and prove to people that what I do is the "real thing" and "true VT" and "exactly what Ip Man taught" and "non-gap filled" and "the best damn thing since sliced bread"!!!!!


----------



## geezer

KPM said:


> Ok.  I'll just put this out and then be done with it.
> 
> So you be the judge!   Do you think it more likely that:
> 
> A.  What we see on Sean's clip is "pure WSLVT" based on that section from the BJ form?
> 
> or
> 
> B.  What we seen on *Sean's clip is an adaptation of boxing via MMA to the concepts taught from that section of the WSLVT BJ form?  *
> 
> What do YOU guys think?
> 
> And with that, I've  said all I can and I'm out!   That is, unless someone feels the need to continue with his "character assassination" or tries to twist around what I've been saying all along.





*OK, I vote B.*

...And that's what Sean said in his post, too.

...And since those movements are apparently consistent with WSL VT Biu Jee concepts, at least according to both Sean and LFJ, then it's perfectly within VT parameters. I'll take their word for that, since they're the WSL-VT guys on this forum.

That makes everybody right, sort of. Except that you and LFJ insist on finding grounds to disagree. I couldn't care less at this point. I like the way Sean put it best: 
_
This technique is widely used in both traditional CMA and in modern MMA. It works. I like things that work. It also does not compromise our VT structure or strategy, in my opinion. As LFJ rightly points out, it is more of a BJ tactic, "looking beyond the pointing finger" as it were. But let's not get caught up in where it comes from....that misses the whole point.
_
Now maybe it's time to let this topic rest?


----------



## geezer

KPM said:


> ....Because I don't have this need to try and defend anything and prove to people that what I do is the "real thing" and "true VT" and "exactly what Ip Man taught" and "non-gap filled" and "the best damn thing since sliced bread"!!!!!



No, _you_ don't have the need to prove that what you do is the one, true, "unbroken" VT that YM intended.

...But _you_ do apparently _have a need to win _in these mostly meaningless internet dust-ups. Why not trust that some folks will get your point, some may not, and that there will always be others who will never agree, no matter what arguments you muster? Accept _that_ and your stress level will go way down. 

Oh, and these threads will be a lot shorter and more interesting.


----------



## Juany118

KPM said:


> True!  And also as I pointed out before, the elbow shield is essentially an exaggerated "Tun Sau" or "Sao Sau" from Pin Sun Wing Chun.   However, I wouldn't do what is also essentially an "elbow shield" the way boxing does (without exaggerating anything....without saying "see, if you freeze this motion at this particular instant....") and then tell people that it is "pure TWC" or "pure Pin Sun Wing Chun."   No, I would be honest and tell people that this high cover I am using was inspired by western boxing, but also conceptually matches with an exaggerated Chuen Sau from TWC or an exaggerated Tun Sau from Pin Sun, and so fits with those systems just fine.  Because I don't have this need to try and defend anything and prove to people that what I do is the "real thing" and "true VT" and "exactly what Ip Man taught" and "non-gap filled" and "the best damn thing since sliced bread"!!!!!



I think the issue falls down to two issues.
1. What does "pure <insert MA> mean.  As I said before Sifu Keith has said "you don't really fight this way" more than once standing in the picture perfect man sau/wu sau.  We are taught that TWC is a conceptual martial art and this means that you adhere to principles first because we aren't being taught techniques, to use the words of Sifu Jerry and my school's Sifu, we are being taught a skill.  So to me the elbow shield is a "pure" TWC technique.

2. Other TMA's use such high guards.  Here is one from Shaolin Kung Fu that is very similar as an example






It also exists in both Northern and Southern Philippines FMA.  This distinction is important because while the Northern FMA has boxing elements the south doesn't, there some communities even call FMA not Kali, Arnis or Escrima but Silat.  Neither the Spanish nor the Americans ever fully pacified the south during the age of colonialism so the empty hand fighting is more based in Silat due to the influence of Muslim traders from the region (and thus indirectly in part by the influence of Chinese Kung Fu actually from the LARGE expat populations that have existed in the region for centuries.)  In FMA the elbow cover is inspired NOT by the western boxing cover but the roof or shield block (below is a shield, a roof block would be a similar angle going from right to left.)





Biomechanics are biomechanics. Western Boxing really didn't invent any specific technique contained within it.  The human body can only move in so many ways, ergo it can only protect itself and attack others in so many ways.  What happened was that the rule set resulted in a specific strategy, said strategy resulted in focusing on specific methods which were refined further because the narrow rule set naturally limits said available methods .  One of these methods happens to be the elbow block but it clearly exists elsewhere

So in the end we have the first point where what is "pure" depends on how you are actually taught your art.  Are you taught that there is a "look" that must be adhered to or are you taught that there are principles that need be adhered to?  If it's just principles then look/appearance doesn't matter.

Second the fact that you keep referring to a specific guard/block as having it's origin in Western Boxing when I suspect that the technique only became commonplace in boxing sometime after 1867.  I say this because that was when gloves were required under the publication of the Queensbury rules and prior to the introduction of gloves shots to the head were VERY Wing Chun like and used sparingly due to the risk of injury from punching a skull with the naked hand.  As such the vast majority of blows were body shots so why really work such a head cover?  As it exists in various forms in older MAs to say "it's from western boxing" simply doesn't seem entirely accurate.

On this last point I invite @lklawson to correct me if I am off because as far as I am concerned he is the authority around here on the history of Western Pugilism.


*THE MOST IMPORTANT PART*
Oh btw, I am NOT saying that TWC, or any WC for that matter, is "the one true Wing Chun" either.  All I am saying is 2 things. 

1. Things that are not seen by some as "true" WC to some can come from sources other than Western Boxing because even the elbow shield/guard exists in other arts that predate it and...
2.  Since every lineage has differences, some small and some great, it could be "pure" as far as that specific lineage is concerned and seem impure to those who study another lineage.

Sorry if my tendency to talk/type too much has obscured these 2 points but they are my key points.


----------



## LFJ

drop bear said:


> The other is that it is impossible to integrate other styles into VT because of its uniqueness.



That has not been said at all.

BJJ is an excellent addition to VT that doesn't contradict its striking method.

WB strategy and tactics, most obviously footwork at long and close range, directly contradict VT, but also general defense and striking methods.



drop bear said:


> Doesn't lobo do exactly that?



No. The striking method I've seen is VT, contextualized, as he said. They incorporate grappling skills.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> I would be honest and tell people that this high cover I am using was inspired by western boxing, but also conceptually matches with...



That may well be true for your WC, but you cannot just assert the same thing in another system where you have no knowledge or experience whatsoever, much less facts to back up the assertion.

To simply make this bald assertion from a position of complete ignorance is a lie.



> I don't have this need to try and defend anything and prove to people that what I do is the "real thing" and "true VT" and "exactly what Ip Man taught" and "non-gap filled" and "the best damn thing since sliced bread"!!!!!



That seems to be what this whole thing is about...

You hate it when I say certain supposedly YM derived systems are broken and require gap-filling.

After years of fighting it, you have acknowledged the gaps in what you train, but now you want to drag everyone else down with you, as if that changes anything.

So, you will lie about what was or was not original to the system I train, despite having no knowledge of or experience with it, and nothing to back up your assertion.


----------



## karatejj

KPM said:


> *[If you look at the photos I provided, you'll see the exact same arm position as in the form.
> Arm thrown up to cover. Hand and forearm wrapping the head, elbow lifted to point forward.*
> 
> ---Except if you look at the actual video, WSL never pauses in the position you have frozen in the picture.  Not even for a nanosecond.  So your photo gives a very false impression.  He is also looking straight at the ground.    Can you pause there? Sure!  Was that what WSL intended....a high cover?  I seriously doubt it!   Would Ip Man have ever done a high cover like that?  I seriously doubt it.  Does that make it wrong?  Of course not!  That just shows there was an outside influence that lead people to seeing this motion in the BJ form and deciding that it was close enough to the high cover seen in other systems.  So that high cover from other systems could be "borrowed" and still be seen to fit with WSLVT concepts from the BJ form.   Does that make it "pure WSLVT"?  I don't think so.
> 
> ---But LFJ can defame me and continue his character assassination all he wants.  I'm just pointing out common sense!



Umm, dude, I agree with a lot of what you are saying but the forms are not full of things you need to copy in fighting like a robot

I would say I agree with this guy that his wing chun is nothing like other wing chun. He posted clips and I don't know WTF I am looking at tehre

My question then would be why is it so different? Is it really wing chun?...


----------



## LFJ

Juany118 said:


> Biomechanics are biomechanics. Western Boxing really didn't invent any specific technique contained within it.



Correct. There are countless unrelated styles that have this technique, because it's human fighting.



> As it exists in various forms in older MAs to say "it's from western boxing" simply doesn't seem entirely accurate.



Therefore, if someone wants to assert that it came specifically from WB and is not original to the system, it is incumbent upon them to demonstrate this.

Who, when, where? "Looks like" doesn't do it. That is just a bald assertion.



> 1. Things that are not seen by some as "true" WC to some can come from sources other than Western Boxing because even the elbow shield/guard exists in other arts that predate it and...



Correct. As above, if any such claim is to be made, a burden of proof must be met.

How do we know it was specifically WB and not one of the countless other styles that use it? 
How do we know it was not original to the system as common human biomechanics?

A very specific assertion has been made, without the slightest fact to demonstrate it.



> 2.  Since every lineage has differences, some small and some great, it could be "pure" as far as that specific lineage is concerned and seem impure to those who study another lineage.



Correct. It would be wise to educate oneself before making careless assertions.

I was asked where this technique comes from in the WSLVT BJ form, because the questioner had no idea and doubted it was there.

I showed it clearly. Then it was still denied by a mind already made up, purely out of ego.


----------



## LFJ

Juany118 said:


> 2. Other TMA's use such high guards.  Here is one from Shaolin Kung Fu that is very similar as an example



Not a great example, since it's not covering tightly as the WB high cover.

Real Shaolin is not very common outside of the mountains, even in commercial schools right outside the temple, but especially not overseas. It's all performance crap.

The high guard in Shaolin is called _yunding_, meaning "cloudy peak", arm covering the head like a mountain peak enveloped in clouds.

It can be done in the small frame, tightly wrapping the head, or large frame where the guard is extended.

The small frame "looks like" the WB high cover. But, it would be stupid to say it came straight from WB since it predates WB by centuries.

Since some people say VT is the distillation of Shaolin arts, why would one jump to WB and not Shaolin for origins?

Obviously because they're only familiar with WB, and ignorant of TCMA in general!

The correct attitude would be to say, oh cool, that's like this technique in WB, okay, I understand.

The uneducated, ego-driven attitude would be to say, wait a minute, that's just this technique in WB, not pure VT!

Anyway, here it is at 5:27:


----------



## KPM

*1. What does "pure <insert MA> mean.  As I said before Sifu Keith has said "you don't really fight this way" more than once standing in the picture perfect man sau/wu sau.  We are taught that TWC is a conceptual martial art and this means that you adhere to principles first because we aren't being taught techniques, to use the words of Sifu Jerry and my school's Sifu, we are being taught a skill.  So to me the elbow shield is a "pure" TWC technique.*

----Ok.  My last comment on the topic and then I'm done.  Because Geezer is right.

---I think we can apply a simple thing call the "reasonable person" argument.  Sure, as I have already pointed out, the high cover matches conceptually with things from TWC, Pin Sun, and WSLVT.   But if a person was training those systems and had NEVER seen or experienced a boxing high cover from exposure to western boxing or MMA, would a reasonable person do that so readily in a way that so closely matches western boxing?   It isn't a question of who did it first historically.  Its a question of whether a reasonable person would have come up with that exact thing if they hadn't seen it or experienced it from outside of Wing Chun?   If the answer is "no" then it cannot be referred to as "pure" Wing Chun.  It may be adapted to Wing Chun following Wing Chun priniciples....but not "pure." 

---If you think the answer to that question is "yes."   Well then we will have to agree to disagree, and I would question your motivations for having to maintain that your system is so "pure" and "complete."    Because I just don't think the guys living in Ku Lo village practicing Pin Sun Wing Chun a generation ago were doing "high covers" like a boxer.....a "Sao Sau"....yes, which is similar but not exactly the same.  And guys today doing TWC and WSLVT cannot escape exposure to seeing that boxing high cover used in multiple different fighting venues.  Its everywhere.  So it just seems like common sense to me that they have seen other people doing it, acknowledged its effectiveness, recognized that it matched some things conceptually in their system and started to use it.   I don't have any emotional investment in calling it "pure."  I just get frustrated when people seem to be defying common sense arguments.  But Geezer is right.  People will be people.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> if a person was training those systems and had NEVER seen or experienced a boxing high cover from exposure to western boxing or MMA, would a reasonable person do that so readily in a way that so closely matches western boxing?



If it is already a part of the system, then yes, of course.
The same is true of the Shaolin example I just posted.



> It isn't a question of who did it first historically.  Its a question of whether a reasonable person would have come up with that exact thing if they hadn't seen it or experienced it from outside of Wing Chun?



If it is already a part of the system, then yes, of course.
The same is true of the Shaolin example I just posted.

The action is really just a refinement of a natural instinct to cover one's head.
It's no wonder various styles have come to this independently.



> If the answer is "no" then it cannot be referred to as "pure" Wing Chun.  It may be adapted to Wing Chun following Wing Chun priniciples....but not "pure."



The answer is yes.



> ---If you think the answer to that question is "yes."   Well then we will have to agree to disagree, and I would question your motivations for having to maintain that your system is so "pure" and "complete."



No such motivation. The system simply is what it is, despite your ignorance of it.



> And guys today doing TWC and WSLVT cannot escape exposure to seeing that boxing high cover used in multiple different fighting venues.  Its everywhere.



The same is true of the Shaolin example I just posted.

It is stupid to round up all the styles that use this action and claim they're all copying boxing.

Or to single one out and make this assertion without proof, especially when you don't even know the system you're talking about.



> I just get frustrated when people seem to be defying common sense arguments.



You have not given a common sense argument. You have simply made a baldass assertion from ignorance.


----------



## Danny T

In my experience...take any new untrained person and start slapping them in the head or body. They will almost always bring their arms up to cover their head or drop their arms to cover the body.
Which system did that derive? Many systems have the same movements, same actions, same positions...Why? Has nothing to do with the purity of the system but that it is human doing what is human action. 

You may continue your silly arguing.


----------



## lklawson

Juany118 said:


> Second the fact that you keep referring to a specific guard/block as having it's origin in Western Boxing when I suspect that the technique only became commonplace in boxing sometime after 1867.  I say this because that was when gloves were required under the publication of the Queensbury rules and prior to the introduction of gloves shots to the head were VERY Wing Chun like and used sparingly due to the risk of injury from punching a skull with the naked hand.  As such the vast majority of blows were body shots so why really work such a head cover?  As it exists in various forms in older MAs to say "it's from western boxing" simply doesn't seem entirely accurate.
> 
> On this last point I invite @lklawson to correct me if I am off because as far as I am concerned he is the authority around here on the history of Western Pugilism.


One of the best sources for pre-MoQ and pre-LPR boxing in England, which I place in the late period "Broughton Era" is Daniel Mendoza's "The Modern Art of Boxing."  It contains descriptions, exposition, instruction, (very importantly) his "Six Lessons," and (a real treat) a description of his famous fight with Humphreys, another famous and influential boxer of the day (it was the equivalent of the Thrilla in Manila fo its day).

Based on this work, as well as others, we see that elbow blocks and the equivalent of "high blocks" were common and in use.  The most interesting elbow block is described in Mendoza's First Lesson:

"_Master strikes round at your right ear with his left._
Parry with your right arm, turning up the elbow so as to cover the side of the head..."​
Lesson Two lists:

"_Master strikes 1 at the side and 2 at the stomach._
Parry with the proper arms, first by catching the blow on the proper elbow, and secondly, parrying the blow at the stomach with the proper fore-arm; that is, if he strikes with his left first, catch it with your right elbow, and bar his right with your left across your stomach, and vice versa of his right."​
Strikes at the face and head were also more than was once thought.  The very first two techniques taught in Mendoza's first Lesson are defenses against a straight left and a straight rear at the face"

_"Master strikes with his left arm at your face._
Parry with your right fore-arm, barring at the same time your stomach with your left fore-arm, throwing your head and body back.
_Master strikes with his right at your face._
Parry with you left fore-arm, barring at the same time your stomach with your right fore-arm, throwing your head and body back."​
In a truly fascinating snapshot of the Mendoza v. Humphreys match, the first three rounds read like the script to a Bruce Lee scene.  Humphreys throws a punch at Mendoza's face, Mendoza counters with a single straight to Humphreys face, knocking him on his butt and ending the round:

"_Humphreys aimed the first blow at the face of his antagonist. This Mendoza stopped, returned it with great quickness, and knocked him down: the second and third rounds terminated exactly in the same manner._"

Fists were protected from injury by using a pistol-grip punch, being specific about how they punched, and by conditioning the fists which included graduated striking routines and jow-like lineaments, tinctures, and decoctions.  "Gloves," called "Mufflers" or "Mittens" at the time, were known but only used by amateurs or during practice in which the pro wanted to minimize injury.  Many pros eschewed their use entirely, decrying them as unmanly.  One of my favorite references is of a boxer from the book _Claret and Cross-Buttock_:

"Some said he was an argument against the Ring: that he shouldn't be let loose against a fightin' sportsman. That he fought like wild beast. That he never knew when to lay off. He hated gloves. Why go to all the trouble to pickle your hands in Tom Sayer's brew of turps, whiskey vinegar, horse radish and saltpetre, if ye were goin' to cover them up? Ye were supposed to use your hands to hurt him, not protect him."

I'm not sure that this answered the question you were positing.  Did I get close?

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## geezer

LFJ said:


> To simply make this bald assertion from a position of complete ignorance is* a lie.*





LFJ said:


> _*So, you will lie*_ about what was or was not original to the system I train, despite having no knowledge





LFJ said:


> ...The system simply is what it is, _*despite your ignorance*_ of it.
> It is_* stupid *_to round up all the styles that use this action and claim they're all copying boxing...
> ...You have not given a common sense argument. You have simply made _*a baldass assertion*_ from ignorance.



_LFJ,_ in your many informative, articulate, and well-crafted posts over the years, time and again you have proven yourself knowledgeable not only on the subject of WSL-VT, but regarding TCMA in general. You are also a skilled writer.

So when you repeatedly _choose_ to express yourself using offensive terms like, _*dishonest, ie, ignorance, stupid, baldass,*_ and so forth, you cheapen your own argument and lose all credibility as an objective voice on the subject. KPM then responds in kind, and the two of you go at it in a way that only degrades the quality of this forum and further sullies the reputation of VT/WC as a whole. 

I'll give you the same advice I've given KPM numerous times: Chill-out dude, control your temper and take the high road.  Or keep on as you are, and regardless of your knowledge, you will _continue _to come off as arrogant and asinine. 

Based on previous posts, I expect that you will try to argue in defense of your actions. _Don't bother._ If you don't believe me, don't take_ my _word for it. Ask around. I'm willing to bet most of the other long-term contributors here feel the same way.


----------



## LFJ

geezer said:


> Based on previous posts, I expect that you will try to argue in defense of your actions. _Don't bother._ If you don't believe me, don't take_ my _word for it. Ask around. I'm willing to bet most of the other long-term contributors here feel the same way.



Okay. Advice duly noted. In the future, if a bald assertion is purposefully made knowing there is no proof or evidence to support the claim, I will not point out the _dishonesty_ of it, but simply ask that the burden of proof is met if the person wishes to persist in making the false claim, so that the dishonesty is self-evident as they fail to do so.

"Ignorance" is not an offensive term, though, unless someone knows everything about every system and this is an insult to their omniscience?? 

How's "unfamiliarity"? The system is what it is, despite anyone's unfamiliarity with it.


----------



## geezer

LFJ said:


> Okay. Advice duly noted. In the future, if a bald assertion is purposefully made knowing there is no proof or evidence to support the claim, I will not point out the _dishonesty_ of it, but simply ask that the burden of proof is met if the person wishes to persist in making the false claim, *so that the dishonesty is self-evident as they fail to do so.*



_Yes!   _When your point is convincing, it _will _be self-evident to any with an open mind. ...and that is equally true for opposing perspectives. Really, just keep your dignity have a little faith in the rest of us! Besides, if some of us disagree, ...well so what? Nothing to get worked-up about.



LFJ said:


> "Ignorance" is not an offensive term, though, unless someone knows everything about every system and this is an insult to their omniscience??
> How's "unfamiliarity"? The system is what it is, despite anyone's unfamiliarity with it.



Of course _unfamiliarity _a gentler term than _ignorance, _especially on a forum like this where people will infer the worst. Purely academically speaking, perhaps the word ignorance is _not _an insult, depending on context. I think what really annoys you is not ignorance anyway. Heck, I'm ignorant about WSL-VT and you usually cut me a little slack. Rather, you get worked up when you are faced with what you perceive as _obstinate and willful ignorance. _Try to remember that you may also come across that way to some parties.

Personally, I was really impressed by Sean's posts. Judging from the videos I've seen, he's got a great VT club, but he was so modest about describing what they do, prefacing his assertions with phrases like, "in my opinion", etc. In my experience, that disarming humility makes people much more open to whatever you say next.
_
_


----------



## Nobody Important

lklawson said:


> One of the best sources for pre-MoQ and pre-LPR boxing in England, which I place in the late period "Broughton Era" is Daniel Mendoza's "The Modern Art of Boxing."  It contains descriptions, exposition, instruction, (very importantly) his "Six Lessons," and (a real treat) a description of his famous fight with Humphreys, another famous and influential boxer of the day (it was the equivalent of the Thrilla in Manila fo its day).
> 
> Based on this work, as well as others, we see that elbow blocks and the equivalent of "high blocks" were common and in use.  The most interesting elbow block is described in Mendoza's First Lesson:
> 
> "_Master strikes round at your right ear with his left._
> Parry with your right arm, turning up the elbow so as to cover the side of the head..."​
> Lesson Two lists:
> 
> "_Master strikes 1 at the side and 2 at the stomach._
> Parry with the proper arms, first by catching the blow on the proper elbow, and secondly, parrying the blow at the stomach with the proper fore-arm; that is, if he strikes with his left first, catch it with your right elbow, and bar his right with your left across your stomach, and vice versa of his right."​
> Strikes at the face and head were also more than was once thought.  The very first two techniques taught in Mendoza's first Lesson are defenses against a straight left and a straight rear at the face"
> 
> _"Master strikes with his left arm at your face._
> Parry with your right fore-arm, barring at the same time your stomach with your left fore-arm, throwing your head and body back.
> _Master strikes with his right at your face._
> Parry with you left fore-arm, barring at the same time your stomach with your right fore-arm, throwing your head and body back."​
> In a truly fascinating snapshot of the Mendoza v. Humphreys match, the first three rounds read like the script to a Bruce Lee scene.  Humphreys throws a punch at Mendoza's face, Mendoza counters with a single straight to Humphreys face, knocking him on his butt and ending the round:
> 
> "_Humphreys aimed the first blow at the face of his antagonist. This Mendoza stopped, returned it with great quickness, and knocked him down: the second and third rounds terminated exactly in the same manner._"
> 
> Fists were protected from injury by using a pistol-grip punch, being specific about how they punched, and by conditioning the fists which included graduated striking routines and jow-like lineaments, tinctures, and decoctions.  "Gloves," called "Mufflers" or "Mittens" at the time, were known but only used by amateurs or during practice in which the pro wanted to minimize injury.  Many pros eschewed their use entirely, decrying them as unmanly.  One of my favorite references is of a boxer from the book _Claret and Cross-Buttock_:
> 
> "Some said he was an argument against the Ring: that he shouldn't be let loose against a fightin' sportsman. That he fought like wild beast. That he never knew when to lay off. He hated gloves. Why go to all the trouble to pickle your hands in Tom Sayer's brew of turps, whiskey vinegar, horse radish and saltpetre, if ye were goin' to cover them up? Ye were supposed to use your hands to hurt him, not protect him."
> 
> I'm not sure that this answered the question you were positing.  Did I get close?
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk


This is a great post, that hopefully didn't get overlooked in all the noise. It touched base on several points I was thinking about, as I'm sure were many others.


----------



## Juany118

lklawson said:


> One of the best sources for pre-MoQ and pre-LPR boxing in England, which I place in the late period "Broughton Era" is Daniel Mendoza's "The Modern Art of Boxing."  It contains descriptions, exposition, instruction, (very importantly) his "Six Lessons," and (a real treat) a description of his famous fight with Humphreys, another famous and influential boxer of the day (it was the equivalent of the Thrilla in Manila fo its day).
> 
> Based on this work, as well as others, we see that elbow blocks and the equivalent of "high blocks" were common and in use.  The most interesting elbow block is described in Mendoza's First Lesson:
> 
> "_Master strikes round at your right ear with his left._
> Parry with your right arm, turning up the elbow so as to cover the side of the head..."​
> Lesson Two lists:
> 
> "_Master strikes 1 at the side and 2 at the stomach._
> Parry with the proper arms, first by catching the blow on the proper elbow, and secondly, parrying the blow at the stomach with the proper fore-arm; that is, if he strikes with his left first, catch it with your right elbow, and bar his right with your left across your stomach, and vice versa of his right."​
> Strikes at the face and head were also more than was once thought.  The very first two techniques taught in Mendoza's first Lesson are defenses against a straight left and a straight rear at the face"
> 
> _"Master strikes with his left arm at your face._
> Parry with your right fore-arm, barring at the same time your stomach with your left fore-arm, throwing your head and body back.
> _Master strikes with his right at your face._
> Parry with you left fore-arm, barring at the same time your stomach with your right fore-arm, throwing your head and body back."​
> In a truly fascinating snapshot of the Mendoza v. Humphreys match, the first three rounds read like the script to a Bruce Lee scene.  Humphreys throws a punch at Mendoza's face, Mendoza counters with a single straight to Humphreys face, knocking him on his butt and ending the round:
> 
> "_Humphreys aimed the first blow at the face of his antagonist. This Mendoza stopped, returned it with great quickness, and knocked him down: the second and third rounds terminated exactly in the same manner._"
> 
> Fists were protected from injury by using a pistol-grip punch, being specific about how they punched, and by conditioning the fists which included graduated striking routines and jow-like lineaments, tinctures, and decoctions.  "Gloves," called "Mufflers" or "Mittens" at the time, were known but only used by amateurs or during practice in which the pro wanted to minimize injury.  Many pros eschewed their use entirely, decrying them as unmanly.  One of my favorite references is of a boxer from the book _Claret and Cross-Buttock_:
> 
> "Some said he was an argument against the Ring: that he shouldn't be let loose against a fightin' sportsman. That he fought like wild beast. That he never knew when to lay off. He hated gloves. Why go to all the trouble to pickle your hands in Tom Sayer's brew of turps, whiskey vinegar, horse radish and saltpetre, if ye were goin' to cover them up? Ye were supposed to use your hands to hurt him, not protect him."
> 
> I'm not sure that this answered the question you were positing.  Did I get close?
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



It did indeed, thank you.


----------



## Juany118

KPM said:


> *1. What does "pure <insert MA> mean.  As I said before Sifu Keith has said "you don't really fight this way" more than once standing in the picture perfect man sau/wu sau.  We are taught that TWC is a conceptual martial art and this means that you adhere to principles first because we aren't being taught techniques, to use the words of Sifu Jerry and my school's Sifu, we are being taught a skill.  So to me the elbow shield is a "pure" TWC technique.*
> 
> ----Ok.  My last comment on the topic and then I'm done.  Because Geezer is right.
> 
> ---I think we can apply a simple thing call the "reasonable person" argument.  Sure, as I have already pointed out, the high cover matches conceptually with things from TWC, Pin Sun, and WSLVT.   But if a person was training those systems and had NEVER seen or experienced a boxing high cover from exposure to western boxing or MMA, would a reasonable person do that so readily in a way that so closely matches western boxing?   It isn't a question of who did it first historically.  Its a question of whether a reasonable person would have come up with that exact thing if they hadn't seen it or experienced it from outside of Wing Chun?   If the answer is "no" then it cannot be referred to as "pure" Wing Chun.  It may be adapted to Wing Chun following Wing Chun priniciples....but not "pure."



But you are applying the "reasonable person" from a western context.  Yes of course in the west we will say that's from WB.  However if you said that to many an FMA practitioner they would say "no its an empty hand version of an overhead stick/shield cover" and person from China may say "no it's a Shaolin Technique" etc.

when talking about things like TMAs which cross cultural lines it smacks a bit of the "white man's burden" to assume the origin as being WB when there are much closer culturally homogeneous sources for the technique.

I honestly believe that the main reason it may be missing in other WC/VT lineages is not because it was never there but because slowly over time it simply was never taught because the art has, for the most part, progressively become more and more simply "WC vs WC."  When you are typically just dealing with straight punches in training you might not even consider in the elbow shield, let alone train it.  

*Most important part (perhaps)*
On the other hand you have the fact that TWC and WSLVT were both created/spread by two of the most notorious street fighters among YM's students.  Even if it wasn't originally part of YM's WC/VT they could have easily picked up the technique themselves from their experience of fighting on the room tops of Hong Kong from other styles of TCMAs that already had it as it can be a  more efficient way for dealing with round strikes which.  This to me is actually a more reasonable argument rather than making the assumption that it must have come from a Western source.


----------



## KPM

*But you are applying the "reasonable person" from a western context.  Yes of course in the west we will say that's from WB.  However if you said that to many an FMA practitioner they would say "no its an empty hand version of an overhead stick/shield cover" and person from China may say "no it's a Shaolin Technique" etc.*

----Be aren't talking about the Phillipines or China. We're talking about a group of Europeans training for MMA.  So don't you think its reasonable to think that their exposure to the technique come from WB via MMA?  Isn't that just common sense?


*when talking about things like TMAs which cross cultural lines it smacks a bit of the "white man's burden" to assume the origin as being WB when there are much closer culturally homogeneous sources for the technique.*

---  I already explained that it doesn't matter who might have done it first historically.  What matters is where they would have been exposed to it in a modern context.  They were training MMA.  So doesn't it seem likely that this was their exposure to the technique?


*Most important part (perhaps)
On the other hand you have the fact that TWC and WSLVT were both created/spread by two of the most notorious street fighters among YM's students.  Even if it wasn't originally part of YM's WC/VT they could have easily picked up the technique themselves from their experience of fighting on the room tops of Hong Kong from other styles of TCMAs that already had it as it can be a  more efficient way for dealing with round strikes which.  This to me is actually a more reasonable argument rather than making the assumption that it must have come from a Western source.*

---If you could provide video of either Wong Shun Leung or William Cheung doing a "high cover", then I would be willing to go along with your idea.  If you were able to provide a video of any WSL student doing a high cover outside of an MMA context, then I might be willing to go along with you.  Until then, your argument is not more reasonable.  Its more reasonable to assume that guys training for MMA incorporated the high cover after seeing it used successfully in MMA and because they recognized that it was in-line with a concept from their BJ form.  I think that's what the typical "reasonable person" would assume.


----------



## drop bear

LFJ said:


> That has not been said at all.
> 
> BJJ is an excellent addition to VT that doesn't contradict its striking method.
> 
> WB strategy and tactics, most obviously footwork at long and close range, directly contradict VT, but also general defense and striking methods.
> 
> 
> 
> No. The striking method I've seen is VT, contextualized, as he said. They incorporate grappling skills.



The striking method i have seen is western. Which should say something about their compatibility.

That video does not directly contradict WB strategy.

BJJ actually contradicts every striking method.






But that still doesn't mean you can't cross train it.


----------



## karatejj

drop bear said:


> The striking method i have seen is western. Which should say something about their compatibility.
> 
> That video does not directly contradict WB strategy.
> 
> BJJ actually contradicts every striking method.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that still doesn't mean you can't cross train it.



wow dude, you really aren't understandin the argument. he's saying that his wing chun is different (hell it looks different, i not sure its wing chun). But it sure as hell isn't western boxing! Movement completely different

I guess bjj contradicts no striking method because it is mainly roling about on teh groundrather than standing up and hitting the other guy--u can add that with no change to your striking style...personally i prefer not to be cuddling wit another man if i can help it tho


----------



## drop bear

karatejj said:


> wow dude, you really aren't understandin the argument. he's saying that his wing chun is different (hell it looks different, i not sure its wing chun). But it sure as hell isn't western boxing! Movement completely different
> 
> I guess bjj contradicts no striking method because it is mainly roling about on teh groundrather than standing up and hitting the other guy--u can add that with no change to your striking style...personally i prefer not to be cuddling wit another man if i can help it tho



Which boxing are you comparing this to?


----------



## karatejj

Standard boxing skillz that u learn in the boxing club! No boxer stands feet 2gether goig side 2 side like that @ range..staggered stance so u can punch as requires. he not even getting his in2 punches 2 generate power, nothing like boxing.

Not like wing chun either tho..no idea what it is


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> ----Be aren't talking about the Phillipines or China. We're talking about a group of Europeans training for MMA.  So don't you think its reasonable to think that their exposure to the technique come from WB via MMA?  Isn't that just common sense?



You can't talk about "common sense" regarding a system where you have no knowledge or experience.

That's called guessing.



> ---  I already explained that it doesn't matter who might have done it first historically.  What matters is where they would have been exposed to it in a modern context.  They were training MMA.  So doesn't it seem likely that this was their exposure to the technique?



No. It absolutely does matter. Because if it's already part of the system, that's where it "came from", plain and simple.



> If you were able to provide a video of any WSL student doing a high cover outside of an MMA context, then I might be willing to go along with you.



This "outside of an MMA context" is an unreasonable loophole you're setting up.

Because it's a _Biu-ji_ tactic, "beyond the pointing finger", beyond the core VT method, it will not be needed in VT vs VT. It will only be used against other styles.

Here's the thing...

You originally challenged me to explain where this high cover is in the BJ form, because you didn't believe it was part of the system, and thought it not being in the form would prove that.

So, I demonstrated that _it is_ in fact in the form, with photos and ample explanation.












You then complained about the last photo, despite it being the exact same arm position as in the form and other photo, because it's done with one arm like boxers do.

But, you know as well as anyone else that VT/WC/WT forms use double-arm actions that are applied individually.

You then objected that the body and head position is different. But, of course we aren't restricted to fighting exactly like the forms. Things are used to meet whatever needs.

So, you then objected that the action in the form doesn't pause there even for a second.

But, you are unaware of what in TCMA is called _ding-sik_, or "fixed positions" where flowing actions in forms can be paused and used as shields or the like.

The Shaolin example I showed also had a non-stop whirling action in the form, but applied the shield as a _ding-sik_.
_
Laan-sau_ is an example in standard VT that can be held as long as necessary/practical to bar an opponent's facing while attacking them.

This cover at the end of BJ can extend out in large frame, as in the form, in a searching pattern to sweep the area and intercept whatever may be coming.

Or it can be done in the small frame, as in the still images above, to shield the head and come straight back to fighting guard or striking.

Obviously, when not recovering from a ducking position, when upright and looking forward, there's no need to extend and sweep a zone while recovering position. We can simply cover tight and go straight back to attacking.

Like I said, you can't learn VT, or any TCMA, by watching video. You need to have the actions explained to you. They are often not obvious.

So, I have demonstrated that the action is in fact part of the system, in BJ. You are just unfamiliar with how the system works. Not a big deal.

Your next objection seems to be that only Sean's group does it, and they're Europeans, so it doesn't count.

You want to see a WSL student doing it, but you create the loophole that it must be VT vs VT, which generally wouldn't require this type of action.

So, ruling out your unreasonable loophole, you did say this:



> If you were able to provide a *video of any WSL student doing a high cover* outside of an MMA context, then *I might be willing to go along with you*.



I don't know why you're still saying "might be", if it has been clearly demonstrated to be in the form, and WSL's direct students do it. What other objection or loophole might you be holding out? And why are you so opposed to it being a legitimate part of VT?

Anyway, here is a WSL 1st gen. student, Cliff, teaching it to a child in sparring drills, then using it himself in play sparring, both in double and single-arm form.

You might make this about his overall performance. I don't think it's a great example of VT sparring either, but the point is you asked for video of a WSL student using it. So, here you go.

It's in the form, multiple groups do it, including 1st gens and several gens down the line, Europeans and Chinese alike. What reasonable position can you have to say it's not a legit part of VT?

If you want to continue saying it came straight from boxing, as opposed to other TCMAs, or simply being a refinement of the natural instinct to cover one's head that numerous unrelated styles have come to on their own, you need to provide proof or evidence to back that claim up... or just acknowledge that it is a legit part of VT, like many other TCMAs.


----------



## LFJ

drop bear said:


> The striking method i have seen is western. Which should say something about their compatibility.



Vertical fist, low elbow? Not really modern WB.
Side to side parallel stance, perpendicular to the opponent with squared body at long-range? Not in WB.

Hook punches and uppercuts also contradict the strategy because it interrupts the ability to deliver continuous facing attacks which is what VT is basically all about.

You only need to think about what happens when you miss a hook or uppercut to see why. VT does not use large rotating punches, and actually aims to use the opponent's rotation against them.

To use a WB strategy and tactics, the VT strategy and tactics have to be abandoned. I would say that makes them incompatible.



> BJJ actually contradicts every striking method.



You don't need to use BJJ's standup, anti-striking strategy and tactics.
VT striking can stand alone, with grappling and ground skills added.

It is definitely good cross-training, that doesn't need to contradict the VT striking method at all.


----------



## KPM

*You can't talk about "common sense" regarding a system where you have no knowledge or experience.*

---The "reasonable person", say an MMA guy that knows nothing at all about Wing Chun, could look at Sean's video clip and come to the same conclusion.   Because that was a clip of a group of WSLVT guys training for MMA.  And when we see sweeps and throws and other grappling things from MMA  you admit that they are "add ons" to Wing Chun.  But when we see high covers and ducks and weaves and hopping footwork that also come from MMA, you say that this is "pure" WSLVT.  But you want to say I am not using "common sense"???  




*No. It absolutely does matter. Because if it's already part of the system, that's where it "came from", plain and simple.*

---But you haven't proven that it was already part of the system!  You showed a modern MMA training clip. That doesn't prove anything.  I've asked repeatedly for video that was more "straight up" WSLVT and you ignored me.  The videos you just posted of Cliff Au Yeung are closer.   But its strange that it took you this long to find those and provide them, yet you had plenty of time to spend trying to dig up stuff in an attempt to discredit me with "character assassination", when you could have supplied those videos of Au Yeung right form the beginning and this may have  been a very different conversation!



*This "outside of an MMA context" is an unreasonable loophole you're setting up.*

---No its not.  See above about "common sense."   If you provide an MMA training video, showing things commonly used in MMA and claiming that they are "pure" WSLVT, then the burden of proof is on you.  There is nothing in Sean's video to suggest that what they were doing didn't come from MMA just as the grappling came from MMA.  Again....just plain common sense!  And one doesn't have to be an expert on WSLVT to reach that



*You then complained about the last photo, despite it being the exact same arm position as in the form and other photo, because it's done with one arm like boxers do.*

---No.   I objected to the comparison because in the actual video WSL doesn't pause in that position at all.  It is a fast sweeping motion.  So freezing a dynamic motion from the video in one position to suit your own ends is not quite the same as them being the same thing.  That would be like taking one of the sweeps which you have already admitted come from outside of WSLVT,  then freezing a frame from the "Huen Ma" or circling legs motion from the beginning of the BJ form that matches a part of the sweep and then saying "That sweep was pure WSLVT and does not come from grappling and is nothing like the sweep you see in grappling systems."


*But, you are unaware of what in TCMA is called ding-sik, or "fixed positions" where flowing actions in forms can be paused and used as shields or the like.*

---I never denied the concepts were there.  But when you make use of a concept to copy a motion almost exactly as is already found in boxing and MMA, then the common sense conclusion is that the boxing/MMA motion was the inspiration for using the concept in that particular way.  And there's nothing wrong with that!  But then to turn around and call it "pure WSLVT" is a bit off.  If it was so "pure" is would be obvious in the forms, and you would not have to take big liberties with your concepts to come up with it.  But again, there is nothing wrong with this!  This is how martial arts evolve....by taking inspiration from other methods and realizing where it can fit in easily with what you already do.  You just need to be honest about how that evolution is taking place.   Those aren't common motions in anyone's Wing Chun, or they would have shown up long ago and been seen regularly in videos already.




*You might make this about his overall performance. I don't think it's a great example of VT sparring either, but the point is you asked for video of a WSL student using it. So, here you go.*

---Yeah thanks.  Where was that 30 pages ago when I first asked you to provide it?  Still didn't see any bobbing & weaving or hopping footwork.  Still didn't see any "long range game"....you know, the topic that started this whole discussion before the multiple diversions to argue about various things???   But I'm tired of arguing with you.  Like I said, if you had come up with this video long ago we may have had a different discussion.  But instead you chose to just to dogmatically stick to what you were saying and argue.

---And you know, it just seems odd to me that if the BJ form is the advanced form taught at higher levels, and is about recovering from bad situations that your "standard" Wing Chun that you learned prior to BJ might not deal with well....seems odd that Au Yeung would be teaching this to a child.  Is this child at BJ level?   It just seems odd that Au Yeung would be taking an advanced concept and teaching a child how to adapt that concept.  Seems more likely to me that Au Yeung has also "updated" his Wing Chun a bit to meet the needs of sparring in a modern context.  A modern context where high covers are needed because people throw loopy punches and not nice straight punches like Wing Chun.  A modern context where other systems have been using a high cover for this reason.  I've got other things I could say about those new videos that you wouldn't like.  But I'm done with this.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> ---The "reasonable person", say an MMA guy that knows nothing at all about Wing Chun, could look at Sean's video clip and come to the same conclusion.   Because that was a clip of a group of WSLVT guys training for MMA.  And when we see sweeps and throws and other grappling things from MMA  you admit that they are "add ons" to Wing Chun.  But when we see high covers and ducks and weaves and hopping footwork that also come from MMA, you say that this is "pure" WSLVT.  But you want to say I am not using "common sense"???



You could come to that and think yourself reasonable, but still be wrong, as you are.



> ---But you haven't proven that it was already part of the system!



It's right there in the form, which was your original challenge.



> I've asked repeatedly for video that was more "straight up" WSLVT and you ignored me.  The videos you just posted of Cliff Au Yeung are closer.   But its strange that it took you this long to find those and provide them,



I answered each of your challenges in turn.

You asked where it was in the form. I showed you.
You asked why it's done this way or that. I told you.

You asked for video of a WSL student doing it. I showed you.



> when you could have supplied those videos of Au Yeung right form the beginning and this may have been a very different conversation!



It doesn't change the facts one bit.



> *This "outside of an MMA context" is an unreasonable loophole you're setting up.*
> 
> ---No its not.  See above about "common sense."   If you provide an MMA training video, showing things commonly used in MMA and claiming that they are "pure" WSLVT, then the burden of proof is on you.



And I showed it in the form, as was your original challenge.



> There is nothing in Sean's video to suggest that what they were doing didn't come from MMA just as the grappling came from MMA.  Again....just plain common sense!  And one doesn't have to be an expert on WSLVT to reach that



Again, you can reach that, and simply be wrong, which you are.



> I objected to the comparison because in the actual video WSL doesn't pause in that position at all.  It is a fast sweeping motion.



Answered. The position is in the motion as a _ding-sik_.



> *But, you are unaware of what in TCMA is called ding-sik, or "fixed positions" where flowing actions in forms can be paused and used as shields or the like.*
> 
> ---I never denied the concepts were there.  But when you make use of a concept to copy a motion almost exactly as is already found in boxing and MMA, then the common sense conclusion is that the boxing/MMA motion was the inspiration for using the concept in that particular way.



It was demonstrated to be the exact same arm position in the form and in use.

Your "common sense conclusion" is simply wrong.



> If it was so "pure" is would be obvious in the forms, and you would not have to take big liberties with your concepts to come up with it.



Wrong. You simply haven't learned the system.

You would not have come to the same action in the Shaolin form either without explanation.

The reason is, and I'm sorry to say this, you can't learn from form videos.



> *You might make this about his overall performance. I don't think it's a great example of VT sparring either, but the point is you asked for video of a WSL student using it. So, here you go.*
> 
> ---Yeah thanks.  Where was that 30 pages ago when I first asked you to provide it?



No. You only just asked for it. I provided it right away.

You previously asked for pure VT in sparring. I showed it, despite your uneducated objections.

Now you were asking specifically to see this high cover performed by a direct student of WSL. I showed it.



> Still didn't see any bobbing & weaving or hopping footwork.  Still didn't see any "long range game"....



Shown previously. These videos were an answer to your request to see the high guard by a WSL student.



> Like I said, if you had come up with this video long ago we may have had a different discussion.



You only just asked for this specifically.

And it doesn't change the facts. You cannot disqualify it based on timing.



> ---I've got things I could say about those new videos that you wouldn't like.



Heck, I could say a lot of things about it that Cliff and his students wouldn't like either!

But, that's not the point. I met every challenge you posed to meet the burden of proof for this being legit VT.

You said you might go along with it if I can provide video of a WSL student doing the high guard.

Did so, and you are disqualifying it based on timing? 

Obviously, you have no proof or evidence that it has anything to do with Western Boxing, or was not part of VT.
You only have incorrect "common sense" assumptions and bald assertions. That's it.

You want to make this bald assertion to justify mixing your WC with WB by saying we do it, too.

Why do you need WSLVT to validate your decision?
You can mix your WC with WB all you want.
But, it has nothing to do with WSLVT.


----------



## wckf92

LFJ said:


> You can't talk about "common sense" regarding a system where you have no knowledge or experience.
> 
> That's called guessing.
> 
> 
> 
> No. It absolutely does matter. Because if it's already part of the system, that's where it "came from", plain and simple.
> 
> 
> 
> This "outside of an MMA context" is an unreasonable loophole you're setting up.
> 
> Because it's a _Biu-ji_ tactic, "beyond the pointing finger", beyond the core VT method, it will not be needed in VT vs VT. It will only be used against other styles.
> 
> Here's the thing...
> 
> You originally challenged me to explain where this high cover is in the BJ form, because you didn't believe it was part of the system, and thought it not being in the form would prove that.
> 
> So, I demonstrated that _it is_ in fact in the form, with photos and ample explanation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You then complained about the last photo, despite it being the exact same arm position as in the form and other photo, because it's done with one arm like boxers do.
> 
> But, you know as well as anyone else that VT/WC/WT forms use double-arm actions that are applied individually.
> 
> You then objected that the body and head position is different. But, of course we aren't restricted to fighting exactly like the forms. Things are used to meet whatever needs.
> 
> So, you then objected that the action in the form doesn't pause there even for a second.
> 
> But, you are unaware of what in TCMA is called _ding-sik_, or "fixed positions" where flowing actions in forms can be paused and used as shields or the like.
> 
> The Shaolin example I showed also had a non-stop whirling action in the form, but applied the shield as a _ding-sik_.
> _
> Laan-sau_ is an example in standard VT that can be held as long as necessary/practical to bar an opponent's facing while attacking them.
> 
> This cover at the end of BJ can extend out in large frame, as in the form, in a searching pattern to sweep the area and intercept whatever may be coming.
> 
> Or it can be done in the small frame, as in the still images above, to shield the head and come straight back to fighting guard or striking.
> 
> Obviously, when not recovering from a ducking position, when upright and looking forward, there's no need to extend and sweep a zone while recovering position. We can simply cover tight and go straight back to attacking.
> 
> Like I said, you can't learn VT, or any TCMA, by watching video. You need to have the actions explained to you. They are often not obvious.
> 
> So, I have demonstrated that the action is in fact part of the system, in BJ. You are just unfamiliar with how the system works. Not a big deal.
> 
> Your next objection seems to be that only Sean's group does it, and they're Europeans, so it doesn't count.
> 
> You want to see a WSL student doing it, but you create the loophole that it must be VT vs VT, which generally wouldn't require this type of action.
> 
> So, ruling out your unreasonable loophole, you did say this:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why you're still saying "might be", if it has been clearly demonstrated to be in the form, and WSL's direct students do it. What other objection or loophole might you be holding out? And why are you so opposed to it being a legitimate part of VT?
> 
> Anyway, here is a WSL 1st gen. student, Cliff, teaching it to a child in sparring drills, then using it himself in play sparring, both in double and single-arm form.
> 
> You might make this about his overall performance. I don't think it's a great example of VT sparring either, but the point is you asked for video of a WSL student using it. So, here you go.
> 
> It's in the form, multiple groups do it, including 1st gens and several gens down the line, Europeans and Chinese alike. What reasonable position can you have to say it's not a legit part of VT?
> 
> If you want to continue saying it came straight from boxing, as opposed to other TCMAs, or simply being a refinement of the natural instinct to cover one's head that numerous unrelated styles have come to on their own, you need to provide proof or evidence to back that claim up... or just acknowledge that it is a legit part of VT, like many other TCMAs.



Good post. Informative. Thx LFJ.
I've always known about the 'ding sik' but never knew the name of it...cool!


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> ---And you know, it just seems odd to me that if the BJ form is the advanced form taught at higher levels, and is about recovering from bad situations that your "standard" Wing Chun that you learned prior to BJ might not deal with well....



BJ is not "advanced".



> seems odd that Au Yeung would be teaching this to a child.  Is this child at BJ level?   It just seems odd that Au Yeung would be taking an advanced concept and teaching a child how to adapt that concept.



It's not advanced.



> Seems more likely to me that Au Yeung has also "updated" his Wing Chun a bit to meet the needs of sparring in a modern context.  A modern context where high covers are needed because people throw loopy punches and not nice straight punches like Wing Chun.  A modern context where other systems have been using a high cover for this reason.



"Loopy" punches are not a "modern" thing. VT developed surrounded by "loopy" punching styles.

Of course you would use this cop-out after making the challenge to see any WSL student doing it, which you doubted.

Here you go again:


----------



## drop bear

LFJ said:


> Vertical fist, low elbow? Not really modern WB.
> Side to side parallel stance, perpendicular to the opponent with squared body at long-range? Not in WB.
> 
> Hook punches and uppercuts also contradict the strategy because it interrupts the ability to deliver continuous facing attacks which is what VT is basically all about.
> 
> You only need to think about what happens when you miss a hook or uppercut to see why. VT does not use large rotating punches, and actually aims to use the opponent's rotation against them.
> 
> To use a WB strategy and tactics, the VT strategy and tactics have to be abandoned. I would say that makes them incompatible.
> 
> 
> 
> You don't need to use BJJ's standup, anti-striking strategy and tactics.
> VT striking can stand alone, with grappling and ground skills added.
> 
> It is definitely good cross-training, that doesn't need to contradict the VT striking method at all.



vertical fist.





squared stance.




lets see if they are throwing hook punches in that pure VT video.

They don't. Well that is something they could adopt if they wanted to. The use the same duck and weave in response. Some similarities and some differences.

Which is about right for two systems integrating.


----------



## LFJ

drop bear said:


> vertical fist.



Rotational punch, unlike VT. Still an uncommon punching method in modern boxing.



> squared stance.



Feet not parallel and perpendicular to the opponent at long range.


----------



## LFJ

drop bear said:


> The use the same duck and weave in response.



Nothing non-VT about it in the context that it's done.


----------



## Knapf

LFJ, do you have a link to your VT organization? Not taking part in the conversation.Just curious about what it's all about.


----------



## LFJ

Knapf said:


> LFJ, do you have a link to your VT organization? Not taking part in the conversation.Just curious about what it's all about.



I don't have an organization. It's just standard WSLVT that I'm talking about.

For my money, the best and most easily accessible examples in the West will be under the VTKFAE.


----------



## KPM

*BJ is not "advanced".  It's not advanced.*

----Ok!  If you say so!  I guess that's why its not taught until several years into the system.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> *BJ is not "advanced".  It's not advanced.*
> 
> ----Ok!  If you say so!  I guess that's why its not taught until several years into the system.



No. You have no idea of the curriculum or rate of instruction in this system. 
You don't need to wait years for the big secrets like in some lineages.

While BJ is beyond the core VT, this cover does not compromise VT structure or strategy in any way. 
So, it could be taught early on as a functional guard when needed, no problem.

Other parts of BJ are also not "advanced" in any way. For example, when arms get raised, instead of trying to climb over, we go under. That's not "advanced". It's just recovery to main tactics.

BJ in our system isn't about advanced power generation methods, special elbow strikes, finger jabs, etc. that other systems involve. It's not an "advanced" form.


----------



## karatejj

LFJ said:


> No. You have no idea of the curriculum or rate of instruction in this system.
> You don't need to wait years for the big secrets like in some lineages.
> 
> While BJ is beyond the core VT, this cover does not compromise VT structure or strategy in any way.
> So, it could be taught early on as a functional guard when needed, no problem.
> 
> Other parts of BJ are also not "advanced" in any way. For example, when arms get raised, instead of trying to climb over, we go under. That's not "advanced". It's just recovery to main tactics.
> 
> BJ in our system isn't about advanced power generation methods, special elbow strikes, finger jabs, etc. that other systems involve. It's not an "advanced" form.



Wow u dropping sum knowlege bombs here! I never knew this stuff

Maybe now we can talk about why NOBODY ELSE wingchun looks like this...


----------



## KPM

karatejj said:


> Wow u dropping sum knowlege bombs here! I never knew this stuff
> 
> Maybe now we can talk about why NOBODY ELSE wingchun looks like this...



Careful man!  You're going to get the whole lecture about how Wong Shun Leung was the only person that learned the "real" Wing Chun from Ip Man and everyone else's Wing Chun was learned incompletely or improperly and is therefore "broken."   that has been a recurrent theme here many times.  So don't get LFJ started.  Just go back and search for threads he has participated in and you will quickly find it!


----------



## karatejj

KPM said:


> Careful man!  You're going to get the whole lecture about how Wong Shun Leung was the only person that learned the "real" Wing Chun from Ip Man and everyone else's Wing Chun was learned incompletely or improperly and is therefore "broken."   that has been a recurrent theme here many times.  So don't get LFJ started.  Just go back and search for threads he has participated in and you will quickly find it!



ur kidding me?? Lol is this what it is?


----------



## Danny T

Is footwork, turning, kicking, kneeing, not taught within the learning of SLT? Isn't a lot of CK taught along with SLT?
Isn't a lot of BJ also taught along with SLT and CK?
In my training it was and it is in what I teach as well. 
Is SLT just for beginners and CK for intermediate practitioners so BJ must be advanced? I think not.


----------



## Flying Crane

KPM said:


> *BJ is not "advanced".  It's not advanced.*
> 
> ----Ok!  If you say so!  I guess that's why its not taught until several years into the system.


I was taught all three hand forms within about two years.  Might have been a year and a half.  Maybe two. Thereabouts.


----------



## KPM

Despite that fact that some here think that David Petersen didn't learn the "real thing" from Wong Shun Leung, I still respect what he has to say.

» BIU JI: Ving Tsun’s Misunderstood Form Ving Tsun Combat Science

From the article:

_Sifu Wong Shun Leung always ended his discussion of the ‘Biu Ji’ form by stating that he hoped that his students would never need the techniques from the form. His reasoning for this was quite simple when it becomes clear that the only time that one would need to use these movements is in a situation where one is either injured or overwhelmed by the opponent(s) and close to defeat! In other words, it is good to know ‘Biu Ji’ but it is even better if that knowledge is never put to use.

‘Biu Ji’ is best not introduced to a student too early, because the way in which it contradicts all the basic concepts makes it terribly confusing for the novice student to appreciate. Perhaps it is also for this reason that this form was, in the past, so closely guarded and rarely taught outside of a tight circle of trusted students.

The final action of the ‘Biu Ji’ form, in the words of the late sifu Wong Shun Leung, “Illustrates the ‘essence’ of the form,” in that it appears to be totally removed from everything already seen in the system. We can’t afford to take anything at face value, however, and like the other techniques previously described, in the ‘Biu Ji’ form, looks can definitely be deceiving.

The sap dai seung (“lifting from below to above”) action involves bending the body forwards from the waist with the hands hanging down as if reaching for something on the ground. From here the ving tsun practitioner throws the arms up above the head as the body is returned to an upright position. This is usually repeated twice, after which the form comes to a close. It is certainly a strange looking movement but one done for very good reason.

The normal reaction for a person pushed up against a wall or getting up from a semi-prone position, is to push off the wall or floor with one or both hands. There is nothing wrong with that if no one is behind you waiting to attack you with a stick or bottle, but if this is the case, and the reason for being against the wall or on the floor is the fact that the enemy has forced you there, relying on natural movements could get you killed!

The sap dai seung movement probably won’t stop you getting injured, especially if a weapon of any kind is involved, but it could prevent you from sustaining a life-threatening injury. In other words, this technique will allow you to “cut your losses,” after all a cut on the arm is a lot less damaging than a bottle over the head. Instead of using both arms to push off from the wall or floor, ‘Biu Ji’ trains the ving tsun practitioner to bring one hand up before bringing the head up so as to deflect that which cannot be seen, reducing the severity of the likely injury.
_
This doesn't sound to me like something you would be teaching to a child.   But it does sound like it would obviously come later in the system, whatever your timeframe for learning may be.  And nothing here about bobbing and  weaving or doing high covers against swinging blows.

I also learned the Sap Dai Seung movement as being a way to rise up from a disadvantaged position while covering your head, just as Petersen states.  I learned that from Sifu Augustine Fong.  I didn't learn anything about bobbing and weaving or high covers when I learned the Biu Gee form.   Did you Danny T?  How about you Flying Crane?


----------



## drop bear

LFJ said:


> Rotational punch, unlike VT. Still an uncommon punching method in modern boxing.
> 
> 
> 
> Feet not parallel and perpendicular to the opponent at long range.



Yeah but now we have moved from unable to be integrated into uncommon.  You can move your feet parallel and perpendicular to people in boxing. 

Uncommon is miles different to incompatible.

And just because you don't have these extra concepts doesn't mean you can't  gap fill the deficiencies in VT by adding rotation to punches or fighting off a different footwork adding hooks or even ground fighting or BJJ.

And still retain the essence of what you are trying to train. Just like when you gap fill the deficiencies of VT with BJJ. You have elements that you consider compatible and you have elements that you don't. You are already making that choice.

By choosing the elements you gap fill you still have control of your direction you are heading. You can work to a specific concept if you want or you can work multiple concepts. Which also has merit in practical fighting.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

LFJ said:


> Hook punches and uppercuts also contradict the strategy because it interrupts the ability to deliver continuous facing attacks which is what VT is basically all about.


If A uses left/right straight punches and B uses left/right hooks, who will win? My money will be on B.

The circular punches such as hooks can be use for both offense and defense (similar to down parry). The straight punches can only be used for offense and have no defense ability.


----------



## drop bear

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If A uses left/right straight punches and B uses left/right hooks, who will win? My money will be on B.
> 
> The circular punches such as hooks can be use for both offense and defense (similar to down parry). The straight punches can only be used for offense and have no defense ability.



You can use both concepts. Just about every style that exists has figured that out.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> This doesn't sound to me like something you would be teaching to a child.   But it does sound like it would obviously come later in the system, whatever your timeframe for learning may be.



You realize _gaang-sau_ was only in BJ and was only later added to SNT, and is now taught to children in the first form?!

There are things in BJ that can be taught sooner because they don't compromise VT structure or strategy. 
There is in fact a lot of overlap with CK, the primary idea we work to recover.

Other things are not taught at the beginning because they contradict the primary idea. 
That doesn't make them "advanced", and covering your head is not one of them!



> I also learned... covering your head...
> 
> I didn't learn anything about... high covers



Where's _your_ head??

A high cover is covering your head. You just didn't get much detail, apparently.

There is a ton you didn't learn about, starting with the strategic information contained the very first action in SNT!

BJ is where YM lineages start to diverge wildly, because hardly anyone even got to learn it. 
I wouldn't act surprised not to have learned some details if I didn't even understand the opening to SNT.


----------



## LFJ

drop bear said:


> Yeah but now we have moved from unable to be integrated into uncommon.  You can move your feet parallel and perpendicular to people in boxing.
> 
> Uncommon is miles different to incompatible.



Rotational punches are incompatible.



> And just because you don't have these extra concepts doesn't mean you can't  gap fill the deficiencies in VT by adding rotation to punches or fighting off a different footwork adding hooks or even ground fighting or BJJ.



You can talk about adding rotational punches or changing footwork only because you don't know how VT is designed to function. It will not work with a different footwork base or rotational punches.

BJJ ground fighting will not interfere with standup striking methods.



> Just like when you gap fill the deficiencies of VT with BJJ.



Adding ground fighting to standup striking is not gap-filling for missing striking elements. 
It's cross training, adding functional method to functional method.

This has been explained to you before. Cross-training ≠ gap-filling.


----------



## LFJ

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If A uses left/right straight punches and B uses left/right hooks, who will win? My money will be on B.



Silly question. Are we just standing in front of each other swinging blindly, or are we fighting?



> The straight punches can only be used for offense and have no defense ability.



A gross misconception of fundamental VT punching principles!

Much of the entire system is about developing punches with built-in defense ability in the elbows.

That's called _lin-siu-daai-da_ in the system. It is with a single arm in a single timing.
You only know it as two arms against one, which is no great skill to develop.

I know this has been explained to you before.
You never seem to follow or remember any conversation.


----------



## anerlich

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The straight punches can only be used for offense and have no defense ability.



Wrong.


----------



## drop bear

LFJ said:


> Rotational punches are incompatible.
> 
> 
> 
> You can talk about adding rotational punches or changing footwork only because you don't know how VT is designed to function. It will not work with a different footwork base or rotational punches.
> 
> BJJ ground fighting will not interfere with standup striking methods.
> 
> 
> 
> Adding ground fighting to standup striking is not gap-filling for missing striking elements.
> It's cross training, adding functional method to functional method.
> 
> This has been explained to you before. Cross-training ≠ gap-filling.



It is a pity you can't throw hooks or rotational punches in your system or advance your footwork. I hope you find a way to overcome that.

My confusion with the terminology is that if you did not have missing elements you wouldn't be cross training. Which is the definition of gap filling. You can have missing elements within a functional system.


----------



## LFJ

drop bear said:


> It is a pity you can't throw hooks or rotational punches in your system or advance your footwork. I hope you find a way to overcome that.



Not a pity. It works as intended. Doesn't work when tampered with by someone who doesn't understand it.



> My confusion with the terminology is that if you did not have missing elements you wouldn't be cross training.



Rotational punches are not "missing elements". 

They are not done _intentionally_, and for good reason as I briefly described here.



> Which is the definition of gap filling. You can have missing elements within a functional system.



Your terminology doesn't make sense, then.

"Gap" implies non-functional. 

If a bridge has a gap, a entire missing section, right in the middle, it can't be crossed without filling the gap.

It's _not a functional bridge_!

"Missing" also implies the negative, as if it were an original part that got lost.

A horse might be cool-looking with a horn or wings, and it can do things it would otherwise not be able to do without the horn or wings, but horses are not "missing" horns or wings.

When a Muay Thai fighter cross-trains another striking style it is not to fill gaps in a non-functional system. 
It's just adding on some horns and wings, so to say, but not because it was "missing" them.

So, cross-training ≠ gap-filling.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> So, cross-training ≠ gap-filling.



So, let me get this straight....using MMA sweeps and throws is "cross-training" but using MMA ducks and bobs and weaves and high covers is not?   Doesn't your BJ form have the concept of sweeping in that Huen Ma motion???  Couldn't that "bending forward at the waist" motion in the last section of BJ be interpreted as a hip throw?   With a "conceptual" system that has such a wide latitude in how you interpret....dare I say it...."applications"....one would think you can justify saying a LOT of things are "pure" WSLVT........including the standing grappling!     And before you go off again.....how can you say that taking that wide sweeping motion with the arms from the BJ form and then interpreting it as a static "high cover" is NOT considered an "application" of the concept that you see it embodying????


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> So, let me get this straight....using MMA sweeps and throws is "cross-training" but using MMA ducks and bobs and weaves and high covers is not?



It's simply a matter of what's already in the system and what's not, and the reasons why or why not.



> how can you say that taking that wide sweeping motion with the arms from the BJ form and then interpreting it as a static "high cover" is NOT considered an "application" of the concept that you see it embodying????



I was wondering how long you'd take to come to this question... lol

First of all, the last action;

Doesn't have to be a large-frame motion.
Doesn't have to be done with both arms.
Doesn't have to be recovering from ducking.

So, it is also not a 1:1 from the form. It is simply covering the head when necessary.

Now, BJ is fundamentally different from core VT (SNT+CK).

It is correct that VT isn't built on 1:1 applications but continuous attacking actions that clear the attack line while simultaneously and thoughtlessly maintaining a closed line of defense. (The reason why we don't use hooks, uppercuts, and rotational punches.)

BJ looks "beyond the pointing finger" and considers potential situations in which we are unable to use our primary method, and gives a couple solutions to possibly recover to that primary method.

Those solutions are not the primary method, nor an "advanced" addition to the core VT.


----------



## Phobius

Sorry about this post. Was meant to post yesterday. Ignore this post.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> BJ looks "beyond the pointing finger" and considers potential situations in which we are unable to use our primary method, and gives a couple solutions to possibly recover to that primary method.
> 
> Those solutions are not the primary method, nor an "advanced" addition to the core VT.



So even though BJ "looks beyond" the primary method, gives solutions to recover the primary method, and is an addition to the  core or primary method as in taught after it....it isn't considered advanced? 

From dictionary.com....Advanced:

_2.  ahead or far or further along in progress, complexity, knowledge,skill, etc.:
an advanced class in Spanish; to take a course in advanced mathematics; Our plans are too advanced to make the change now._

And even though you are taking the concept behind that wide sweeping motion and doing it statically as a high cover, your aren't actually putting that motion from the form to a special use or purpose?

 From dictionary.com.....Application:

_1. the act of putting to a special use or purpose:  the application of common sense to a problem.

2.  the special use or purpose to which something is put:
a technology having numerous applications never thought of by its inventors.
_
Pretty amazing that WSLVT has its very own definitions for words!  Do you get a special dictionary along with your secret decoder ring?


----------



## Phobius

KPM said:


> So even though BJ "looks beyond" the primary method, gives solutions to recover the primary method, and is an addition to the  core or primary method as in taught after it....it isn't considered advanced?
> 
> From dictionary.com....Advanced:
> 
> _2.  ahead or far or further along in progress, complexity, knowledge,skill, etc.:
> an advanced class in Spanish; to take a course in advanced mathematics; Our plans are too advanced to make the change now._
> 
> And even though you are taking the concept behind that wide sweeping motion and doing it statically as a high cover, your aren't actually putting that motion from the form to a special use or purpose?
> 
> From dictionary.com.....Application:
> 
> _1. the act of putting to a special use or purpose:  the application of common sense to a problem.
> 
> 2.  the special use or purpose to which something is put:
> a technology having numerous applications never thought of by its inventors.
> _
> Pretty amazing that WSLVT has its very own definitions for words!  Do you get a special dictionary along with your secret decoder ring?



Why argue semantics? It serves no purpose and you know what LFJ meant since you write that in text. Going against his use of word will not change his meaning.It is beneath you and us all.

Saying that the move is an application would I agree be both correct and incorrect. One can also say the move shows a concept and while that move would be an application following the concept it shows. Would it be only an application then it would prohibit evolving but showing a concept means it may show other applications that may not be identified unless one can read the form.

Sorry if being unclear but there is a difference between a concept and an application even if a concept may be an application as well.


----------



## drop bear

LFJ said:


> Not a pity. It works as intended. Doesn't work when tampered with by someone who doesn't understand it.
> 
> 
> 
> Rotational punches are not "missing elements".
> 
> They are not done _intentionally_, and for good reason as I briefly described here.
> 
> 
> 
> Your terminology doesn't make sense, then.
> 
> "Gap" implies non-functional.
> 
> If a bridge has a gap, a entire missing section, right in the middle, it can't be crossed without filling the gap.
> 
> It's _not a functional bridge_!
> 
> "Missing" also implies the negative, as if it were an original part that got lost.
> 
> A horse might be cool-looking with a horn or wings, and it can do things it would otherwise not be able to do without the horn or wings, but horses are not "missing" horns or wings.
> 
> When a Muay Thai fighter cross-trains another striking style it is not to fill gaps in a non-functional system.
> It's just adding on some horns and wings, so to say, but not because it was "missing" them.
> 
> So, cross-training ≠ gap-filling.



Yeah. See I don't know if I would intentionally create gaps in my striking system by omitting ideas like hooks or advanced footwork concepts. It seems if WC can incorporate other ideas it is ultimately more flexible than VT. Which to me would make it the better system.

See for me functional is attached to the concept of use. I don't see VT really being used anywhere. Muay Thai gets used. BJJ gets used boxing gets used. Functional isn't decided by someone's opinion. And I think that is the functionality WC is looking at. Rather than functional as defined by a technique list. So I don't really know where that sits in the concept of cross training vs gap filling. 

Hopefully the BJJ will Alleviate your need for incorporating striking ideas.


----------



## karatejj

drop bear said:


> Yeah. See I don't know if I would intentionally create gaps in my striking system by omitting ideas like hooks or advanced footwork concepts. It seems if WC can incorporate other ideas it is ultimately more flexible than VT. Which to me would make it the better system.



Lol, dude, Im not the sharpest tool in teh box, but u are gettin a bit "special" here with lack of understn. Almost looks like u mean to do it. Hes sayin its not gaps cos boxing works against his method. I say fair play an i unerstan his arguments. If boxing works in different way then add it just makes the WC method not work (for him)

But WTF is his method? Looks nuthin like WC to me, an that is main weak point in teh arguments for wat hes doin

After all KPM make WC and boxing work together like a dream!!



> See for me functional is attached to the concept of use. I don't see VT really being used anywhere. Muay Thai gets used. BJJ gets used boxing gets used. Functional isn't decided by someone's opinion. And I think that is the functionality WC is looking at. Rather than functional as defined by a technique list. So I don't really know where that sits in the concept of cross training vs gap filling.
> 
> Hopefully the BJJ will Alleviate your need for incorporating striking ideas.



wing chun getz uzed in the street fightin people all the time. Doesn't need teh world too see it to know it works!! Its fine for the person that use it


----------



## drop bear

And functional is kind of the key here I know some guys with some pretty limited knowledge of a particular martial art  who beat people up with it.

They don't have the complete system but they have a functional one.


----------



## karatejj

drop bear said:


> And functional is kind of the key here I know some guys with some pretty limited knowledge of a particular martial art  who beat people up with it.
> 
> They don't have the complete system but they have a functional one.



No ideas wat u saying here, sorry dude


----------



## drop bear

karatejj said:


> Lol, dude, Im not the sharpest tool in teh box, but u are gettin a bit "special" here with lack of understn. Almost looks like u mean to do it. Hes sayin its not gaps cos boxing works against his method. I say fair play an i unerstan his arguments. If boxing works in different way then add it just makes the WC method not work (for him)
> 
> But WTF is his method? Looks nuthin like WC to me, an that is main weak point in teh arguments for wat hes doin
> 
> After all KPM make WC and boxing work together like a dream!!
> 
> 
> 
> wing chun getz uzed in the street fightin people all the time. Doesn't need teh world too see it to know it works!! Its fine for the person that use it



It is much more complex than that. We have two different styles of Chun. One is Ving  Tsung. (Excuse the spelling) and one is Wing Chun. VT and WT.

So VT is a complete system and is unable to change easily. WC is not a complete system but can integrate ideas from other styles.

Both styles can cross train in BJJ though for some reason.

WC can incorporate boxing because they have an incomplete method. This is called gap filling.

VT can't incorporate boxing because they have a complete method. But can incorporate BJJ. This is cross training.

Ironically BJJ can incorporate wrestling and judo because of its incomplete method.

Neither WC or VT is seen much outside training individual tales of street awesome. 

Both styles claim to be functional.


----------



## anerlich

drop bear said:


> And functional is kind of the key here I know some guys with some pretty limited knowledge of a particular martial art who beat people up with it.
> 
> They don't have the complete system but they have a functional one.





karatejj said:


> No ideas wat u saying here, sorry dude



It made sense to me.


----------



## karatejj

drop bear said:


> It is much more complex than that. We have two different styles of Chun. One is Ving  Tsung. (Excuse the spelling) and one is Wing Chun. VT and WT.
> 
> So VT is a complete system and is unable to change easily. WC is not a complete system but can integrate ideas from other styles.
> 
> Both styles can cross train in BJJ though for some reason.
> 
> WC can incorporate boxing because they have an incomplete method. This is called gap filling.
> 
> VT can't incorporate boxing because they have a complete method. But can incorporate BJJ. This is cross training.



U got it dude! Well dun for tryin, I new u culd get their in teh end 

Now wat i want to ask is wy this ving tsung looks total difrent to wing chun???


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> WC can incorporate boxing because they have an incomplete method. This is called gap filling.
> 
> VT can't incorporate boxing because they have a complete method. But can incorporate BJJ. This is cross training.


I have not heard any

- wrestler who said if he trains Judo, that will make his wrestling un-pure.
- Judo guy who said if he trains wrestling, that will make his Judo un-pure.

IMO, it's good to know both no-jacket wrestling and jacket Judo.


----------



## karatejj

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I have not heard any
> 
> - wrestler who said if he trains Judo, that will make his wrestling un-pure.
> - Judo guy who said if he trains wrestling, that will make his Judo un-pure.
> 
> IMO, it's good to know both no-jacket wrestling and jacket Judo.



i thin ur not unerstan the argumentz like this drop bear guy!!

taht wuld be cross trainin cos they not cover that ground alredy


----------



## drop bear

karatejj said:


> No ideas wat u saying here, sorry dude



This is functional Muay thai. 






this is complete muay thai.


----------



## Headhunter

karatejj said:


> i thin ur not unerstan the argumentz like this drop bear guy!!
> 
> taht wuld be cross trainin cos they not cover that ground alredy


Could you please try and use proper English on here it's hard to understand what you're saying


----------



## geezer

@karatejj: See previous post ^^^^ --Not to dog pile on you or anything, but Tez and others have made the same point to you before. The forum rules allow for informal English, but specifically forbid "text-speak". Everybody makes typos, and some forum members do not speak English as their first language. Fine. We do the best that we can. I'm sure you are capable of writing in conventional English as well. If not, perhaps I can translate: _Pleez rite betr cuz ur are reely not doin so gud now. Thankz bro! _


----------



## geezer

@LFJ: Just curious. Am I to understand that _WSL-VT has no rotational (hooking) punches or lifting (uppercutting) punches?_ I'm surprised. I have been exposed to several other YM-WC/VT/WT lineages and have always found those movements present, and when I look at WSL-VT forms, I see something that looks similar.

For example, in WT and also in the VT I now train, rotational (hooking) punches are found in Chum Kiu and Biu Tze. First, in Chum Kiu, we have the "hacking-elbow" sequence, basically a double lan-sau coupled with stance turning. Conceptually, this movement allows for rotational attack (and defense). The rotational energy and structure can easily be adapted as an elbow, forearm, or _hooking _attack. See 2:29-2:31, and again at 2:51-2:55 in the Leung Ting clip below:

In the LT "WT" Biu-Tze form, we can clearly the use of rotational energy to power a hooking punch, which is immediately followed by the elbow dropping back into its normal downward position. See 5:56-5:58 and again at 6:02-6:04 in the same Leung Ting clip below:

Leung Ting clip showing rotational attacks in Chum Kiu and Biu Tze forms:







I found similar rotational movements in Wong Shun Leung's Chum Kiu (0:24-0:28, and again at 1:00-1:04), and in his Biu Jee (2:46-8, and again at 2:52-3):

Wong Shum Leung Chum Kiu form:






Wong Shum Leung Biu Jee form:






Now, I note that in both forms, WSL keeps his arms a bit lower than in the LT forms, and especially in Biu Jee, he maintains a distinctly low elbow position when delivering the rotational punch referenced, but to me (admittedly coming from outside WSL-VT) this still looks like a hook to the body, or at least a VT/WC equivalent! Am I missing something?


----------



## karatejj

geezer said:


> @karatejj: See previous post ^^^^ --Not to dog pile on you or anything, but Tez and others have made the same point to you before. The forum rules allow for informal English, but specifically forbid "text-speak". Everybody makes typos, and some forum members do not speak English as their first language. Fine. We do the best that we can. I'm sure you are capable of writing in conventional English as well. If not, perhaps I can translate: _Pleez rite betr cuz ur are reely not doin so gud now. Thankz bro! _



Sorry dude, im disleksic. See u complaned to teh mods ..will try do beter for futur


----------



## karatejj

drop bear said:


> This is functional Muay thai.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> this is complete muay thai.



Got no ideas what u tryin to say?? Can yourite in plan text? thx


----------



## karatejj

geezer said:


> @LFJ: Just curious. Am I to understand that _WSL-VT has no rotational (hooking) punches or lifting (uppercutting) punches?_ I'm surprised. I have been exposed to several other YM-WC/VT/WT lineages and have always found those movements present, and when I look at WSL-VT forms, I see something that looks similar.
> 
> For example, in WT and also in the VT I now train, rotational (hooking) punches are found in Chum Kiu and Biu Tze. First, in Chum Kiu, we have the "hacking-elbow" sequence, basically a double lan-sau coupled with stance turning. Conceptually, this movement allows for rotational attack (and defense). The rotational energy and structure can easily be adapted as an elbow, forearm, or _hooking _attack. See 2:29-2:31, and again at 2:51-2:55 in the Leung Ting clip below:
> 
> In the LT "WT" Biu-Tze form, we can clearly the use of rotational energy to power a hooking punch, which is immediately followed by the elbow dropping back into its normal downward position. See 5:56-5:58 and again at 6:02-6:04 in the same Leung Ting clip below:
> 
> Leung Ting clip showing rotational attacks in Chum Kiu and Biu Tze forms:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I found similar rotational movements in Wong Shun Leung's Chum Kiu (0:24-0:28, and again at 1:00-1:04), and in his Biu Jee (2:47-8, and again at 2:52-3):
> 
> Wong Shum Leung Chum Kiu form:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wong Shum Leung Biu Jee form:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, I note that in both forms, WSL keeps his arms a bit lower than in the LT forms, and especially in Biu Jee, he maintains a distinctly low elbow position when delivering the rotational punch referenced, but to me (admittedly coming from outside WSL-VT) this still looks like a hook to the body, or at least a VT/WC equivalent! Am I missing something?



clip 3 is clip 1 again


----------



## geezer

Just for comparison, here's a guy showing a boxer's low right hook to the body. Check around 1:09-1:20:






Clearly has a different structure than WC/VT, but the essence of the rotational punch? Compare it to WSL's Biu Jee punch with the elbow low arm position. Looks somewhat analogous to me.


----------



## geezer

karatejj said:


> clip 3 is clip 1 again


 Thanks. Got that fixed. Now, how about fixing your writing? Trust me, you will reach a broader audience if you improve the quality of your written expression!


----------



## geezer

karatejj said:


> Got no ideas what u tryin to say?? *Can yourite in plan text? thx *



Oh, the irony!


----------



## geezer

karatejj said:


> Sorry dude, im disleksic. See u complaned to teh mods ..will try do beter for futur



_Nope._ I didn't complain to the mods. Maybe somebody else did? I'm just complaining to _you._ Here's a little friendly advice: Just take the time to write "you" instead of "u" and "are" instead of "r" ...oh, and don't use a "z" to make a word plural (boyz). It makes your writing _look like it was written by a kid,_ and people here won't take you seriously.


----------



## geezer

BTW I probably have a bit of ADD, definitely have a touch of OCD, and maybe a bit of dyslexia too. So here's something random and off-topic:

Did you hear about the dyslexic insomniac?


...He'd lie awake at night wondering if there really was a _Dog_.


----------



## anerlich

Wing Chun was designed by people with remarkable insight.

They knew, that centuries later it would make the perfect subject for long arguments of little value on the internet.

Intelligent design at its best.


----------



## Danny T

karatejj said:


> Sorry dude, im disleksic. See u complaned to teh mods ..will try do beter for futur


Sorry dude...it's "dyslexic" not disleksic.  Purposely writing in some kind of shorthand is a choice not a condition. Your persistent use of what someone called Textspeak is liken to when one speaks a foreign language to a group when one is fluent in the language known by the group. At first it is a bit strained, then it becomes obnoxious especially when it is pointed out that the group has difficulty understanding you, and as one persists they become ignored.
On this forum there are members from all around the world, the key in communicating is writing in a manner all can participate in discussions.


----------



## LFJ

drop bear said:


> Yeah. See I don't know if I would intentionally create gaps in my striking system by omitting ideas like hooks or advanced footwork concepts.



Up to you. You can't judge whether or not something is a gap for a system you know nothing about, though, because you don't know how it works and what makes it work, or what stops it from working.

Apparently without even wanting find to out, you've already decided what would be "the better" system for you. So, I won't bother describing anything further.


----------



## LFJ

geezer said:


> Now, I note that in both forms, WSL keeps his arms a bit lower than in the LT forms, and especially in Biu Jee, he maintains a distinctly low elbow position when delivering the rotational punch referenced, but to me (admittedly coming from outside WSL-VT) this still looks like a hook to the body, or at least a VT/WC equivalent! *Am I missing something?*



Yes. You're looking for imaginary bodies and what these actions could be doing to them, rather than what these actions are doing to our own body.


----------



## LFJ

Phobius said:


> Why argue semantics? It serves no purpose and you know what LFJ meant since you write that in text. Going against his use of word will not change his meaning.It is beneath you and us all.
> 
> Saying that the move is an application would I agree be both correct and incorrect. One can also say the move shows a concept and while that move would be an application following the concept it shows. Would it be only an application then it would prohibit evolving but showing a concept means it may show other applications that may not be identified unless one can read the form.
> 
> Sorry if being unclear but there is a difference between a concept and an application even if a concept may be an application as well.



He was so eager to have something to argue me on that he didn't even understand my post, anyway.

I can't be bothered to help him anymore. Enough free crumbs for the ingrate.


----------



## Danny T

LFJ said:


> Yes. You're looking for imaginary bodies and what these actions could be doing to them, rather than what these actions are doing to our own body.


It is both.
It is also about movement and what is available within the movement based upon the spatial relationships of the opponents but not about a specific application.


----------



## KPM

Danny T said:


> It is both.
> It is also about movement and what is available within the movement based upon the spatial relationships of the opponents but not about a specific application.



But, as Geezer was getting at....is it an arcing punch to the body or is it not?


----------



## LFJ

Danny T said:


> It is both.
> It is also about movement and what is available within the movement based upon the spatial relationships of the opponents but not about a specific application.



No, it's not. There is no opponent. It's a one-man form.

Maybe your system fights imaginary opponents in its forms, but not WSLVT.



KPM said:


> But, as Geezer was getting at....is it an arcing punch to the body or is it not?



It's not an arcing punch and there is no body.


----------



## karatejj

geezer said:


> _Nope._ I didn't complain to the mods. Maybe somebody else did? I'm just complaining to _you._ Here's a little friendly advice: Just take the time to write "you" instead of "u" and "are" instead of "r" ...oh, and don't use a "z" to make a word plural (boyz). It makes your writing _look like it was written by a kid,_ and people here won't take you seriously.



Spellin is hard foe me if you don like it then i donno wat i can do bettur. Can stayaway from 2s an 4s tho if it help?


----------



## karatejj

Danny T said:


> Sorry dude...it's "dyslexic" not disleksic.  Purposely writing in some kind of shorthand is a choice not a condition. Your persistent use of what someone called Textspeak is liken to when one speaks a foreign language to a group when one is fluent in the language known by the group. At first it is a bit strained, then it becomes obnoxious especially when it is pointed out that the group has difficulty understanding you, and as one persists they become ignored.
> On this forum there are members from all around the world, the key in communicating is writing in a manner all can participate in discussions.



im tryin mt best


----------



## Danny T

LFJ said:


> No, it's not. There is no opponent. It's a one-man form.
> 
> Maybe your system fights imaginary opponents in its forms, but not WSLVT.


So you aren't moving?

No the WC system I train and practice doesn't fight imaginary opponents in its forms. LOL are you attempting to be comical.


----------



## Nobody Important

karatejj said:


> Spellin is hard foe me if you don like it then i donno wat i can do bettur. Can stayaway from 2s an 4s tho if it help?


Turn spell check on if it's an issue


----------



## karatejj

Nobody Important said:


> Turn spell check on if it's an issue



How do i do it??


----------



## Nobody Important

karatejj said:


> How do i do it??


Depends what your responding on. Cell phones have auto correct and pc's have spell check, on pre-installed word program, just copy and paste when posting.


----------



## drop bear

LFJ said:


> Up to you. You can't judge whether or not something is a gap for a system you know nothing about, though, because you don't know how it works and what makes it work, or what stops it from working.
> 
> Apparently without even wanting find to out, you've already decided what would be "the better" system for you. So, I won't bother describing anything further.



It ties to the concept of functional. The better system functions better. Then we figure out why those concepts work.

We haven't seen VT function. We have seen systems with hooks and rotational punches function.

It has to start with working. Before we can look into why something works.


----------



## LFJ

Danny T said:


> So you aren't moving?
> 
> No the WC system I train and practice doesn't fight imaginary opponents in its forms. LOL are you attempting to be comical.



You guys are talking about "the opponent" and "to the body" when discussing a one-man form.

You must be seeing things.


----------



## LFJ

drop bear said:


> It ties to the concept of functional. The better system functions better. Then we figure out why those concepts work.
> 
> We haven't seen VT function. We have seen systems with hooks and rotational punches function.
> 
> It has to start with working. Before we can look into why something works.



The functionality of the system doesn't rely on you having seen it work. Plenty of people have. Most importantly those who train it.

I don't care one bit to convince you, but I suggest going to see and educating yourself on the system before attempting to talk about if or how well it works.


----------



## Martial D

LFJ said:


> You guys are talking about "the opponent" and "to the body" when discussing a one-man form.
> 
> You must be seeing things.


 So you are saying, in effect, that the forms in the vt you study aren't purposed to train your body to deal with opponents? What else would that movement be for?


----------



## Martial D

LFJ said:


> The functionality of the system doesn't rely on you having seen it work. Plenty of people have. Most importantly those who train it.
> 
> I don't care one bit to convince you, but I suggest going to see and educating yourself on the system before attempting to talk about if or how well it works.


This claim is problematic because it carries with it the necessary assertion that nobody has been publicly successful with this system in either tournaments or street fights. 

Or in other words;

A it only works in the dojo against other vt guys or
B it works in the street but there has been some super clandestine conspiracy to keep this from being known publicly.

I choose C.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> You guys are talking about "the opponent" and "to the body" when discussing a one-man form.
> 
> You must be seeing things.



We were talking about "intent"....what the movement represents.  You are just being argumentative.  Again!!!


----------



## DaveB

Martial D said:


> This claim is problematic because it carries with it the necessary assertion that nobody has been publicly successful with this system in either tournaments or street fights.
> 
> Or in other words;
> 
> A it only works in the dojo against other vt guys or
> B it works in the street but there has been some super clandestine conspiracy to keep this from being known publicly.
> 
> I choose C.


Your showing your youth.

Lack of camera phone video doesn't disprove a proposition.

Furthermore you can find lots of YouTube video of wing chun winning in fights and competitions. It's just that there's always an excuse why it's not a valid win.


----------



## drop bear

LFJ said:


> The functionality of the system doesn't rely on you having seen it work. Plenty of people have. Most importantly those who train it.
> 
> I don't care one bit to convince you, but I suggest going to see and educating yourself on the system before attempting to talk about if or how well it works.



where would I see this system function? So that I can gain this education.


----------



## KPM

DaveB said:


> Furthermore you can find lots of YouTube video of wing chun winning in fights and competitions. It's just that there's always an excuse why it's not a valid win.




Really?  Please share some of these videos!


----------



## Lobo66

The guys at Ving Tsun Schriesheim have been orgainizing the Delta Cup for some years now.  It's an open style competition, with people from MT, Boxing, MMA and, yes, Ving Tusn and Wing Chun participating.  Here's one of the VT participants scoring a TKO against someone from an MMA gym :






And a VT guy getting TKO'd :


----------



## DaveB

KPM said:


> Really?  Please share some of these videos!







The rest you'll need to do yourself.


----------



## DaveB

This whole debate about whether wing chun functions is nonsense. 

Do straight punches hurt people?
If yes then wing chun works. 

Everything else is about the fighter and their preparation.

And no, how they train is not the fighting style. How they fight is the fighting style. The clue is in the name "fighting style", NOT "Training style".

I can train a wing chun punch only hitting air. 
I can train  a wing chun punch only hitting people.
I can train a wing chun punch only hitting bags.

I am still training to fight with wing chun whichever one I CHOOSE to do. 

If you want to argue that the traditional training of wc is not useful that is an argument you can make. But whether or not a style works is a nonsense because the style is nothing without the person using it. 

Any style can work if you train it right.


----------



## Martial D

DaveB said:


> Your showing your youth.
> 
> Lack of camera phone video doesn't disprove a proposition.
> 
> Furthermore you can find lots of YouTube video of wing chun winning in fights and competitions. It's just that there's always an excuse why it's not a valid win.


Am I? I'm probably older than you are. What I am showing is realism, and that reality is that there is no equality in life, especially not in the martial arts.

Video evidence is one kind of evidence, yes, and if you are old enough to be talking about my youth you should realize we had it before we all carried phones in our pockets. The total absence of it's existence is pretty compelling, but there is no evidence of any other sort either, aside from anecdotal, which isn't really evidence at all.

One thing I have learned over my years is that when people try to downplay a lack of evidence and instead urge you to just take their word for something, it's generally smoke and mirrors.


----------



## Martial D

DaveB said:


> This whole debate about whether wing chun functions is nonsense.
> 
> Do straight punches hurt people?
> If yes then wing chun works.
> 
> Everything else is about the fighter and their preparation.
> 
> And no, how they train is not the fighting style. How they fight is the fighting style. The clue is in the name "fighting style", NOT "Training style".
> 
> I can train a wing chun punch only hitting air.
> I can train  a wing chun punch only hitting people.
> I can train a wing chun punch only hitting bags.
> 
> I am still training to fight with wing chun whichever one I CHOOSE to do.
> 
> If you want to argue that the traditional training of wc is not useful that is an argument you can make. But whether or not a style works is a nonsense because the style is nothing without the person using it.
> 
> Any style can work if you train it right.



Man trained in welding dull spoon vs man trained in welding sharp sword, who wins?


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> We were talking about "intent"....what the movement represents.  You are just being argumentative.  Again!!!



Not being argumentative. That action doesn't represent the intent to punch someone with a bent wrist.



Martial D said:


> One thing I have learned over my years is that when people try to downplay a lack of evidence and instead urge you to just take their word for something, it's generally smoke and mirrors.



No one has been asked to believe anything.
I specifically said I don't care to convince anyone.

If interested, people have been invited to go check it out.
If not interested or unwilling to do so, don't talk about "lack of evidence".


----------



## Knapf

DaveB said:


> Your showing your youth.
> 
> Lack of camera phone video doesn't disprove a proposition.
> 
> Furthermore you can find lots of YouTube video of wing chun winning in fights and competitions. It's just that there's always an excuse why it's not a valid win.


It depends on what the "excuse" is. If the excuses make sense then they should be good reasons why it wasn't a valid win.





WC vs CLF. Compare the massive power a regular CLF guy has compared to WC. Here you get a CLF fighter who; is afraid to advance,punches once or twice and stays still or moves back. Where are the combos?There's no CLF here at all. I smell a rat.


----------



## Knapf

DaveB said:


> The rest you'll need to do yourself.


I stopped at 0:17. Powerful and better conditioned Karate guy with more power not using front kicks to push WC guy away?And no kicks to the WC guy's thigh?


----------



## Grenadier

*Admin's note:*

Folks, we've had a lot of people stirring up trouble in this forum.  I'm only going to say this once, before handing out more warning points. 

(For those who are unfamiliar with the Xenforo system, accumulation of warning points will lead to the suspension or banning of your account)

Keep it civil, and refrain from style bashing.


----------



## Knapf

Grenadier said:


> *Admin's note:*
> 
> Folks, we've had a lot of people stirring up trouble in this forum.  I'm only going to say this once, before handing out more warning points.
> 
> (For those who are unfamiliar with the Xenforo system, accumulation of warning points will lead to the suspension or banning of your account)
> 
> Keep it civil, and refrain from style bashing.


Sorry.Will remove video with such a title. Also edited a lot of words after removing video


----------



## DaveB

Martial D said:


> Man trained in welding dull spoon vs man trained in welding sharp sword, who wins?



Well since they are playing chess I have no idea. 

But seriously (or rather, less esoterically), trained how? For how long? For what purpose? With what natural talent? Why are they fighting? How willing are they to hurt one another?

The factors affecting the outcome of a fight are endless. If spoon guy is defending his child it's a different story to a HEMA match.


----------



## Martial D

DaveB said:


> Well since they are playing chess I have no idea.
> 
> But seriously (or rather, less esoterically), trained how? For how long? For what purpose? With what natural talent? Why are they fighting? How willing are they to hurt one another?
> 
> The factors affecting the outcome of a fight are endless. If spoon guy is defending his child it's a different story to a HEMA match.


 
Let's say all things are equal, who wins?

My point here is though it might be the easiest road to spare feelings and maintain an air of political correctness, the assertion that all styles are equally effective just isn't supported by the evidence or indeed, common sense.


----------



## DaveB

Knapf said:


> It depends on what the "excuse" is. If the excuses make sense then they should be good reasons why it wasn't a valid win.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WC vs CLF. Compare the massive power a regular CLF guy has compared to WC. Here you get a CLF fighter who; is afraid to advance,punches once or twice and stays still or moves back. Where are the combos?There's no CLF here at all. I smell a rat.



See, that to me is a weak excuse. 2 people fought, the clf guy swung and kicked and generally led the fight. The chun guy eventually blasted in and landed far more shots.

A style doesn't fight a person fights. I don't know CLF but if the guy wasn't a great clf representative isnt it more likely that he just isnt very good yet? Same for the wing chun guy.
This looked like perfectly reasonable student level sparring and the wing chun guy did pretty good. No more no less.


----------



## DaveB

Knapf said:


> I stopped at 0:17. Powerful and better conditioned Karate guy with more power not using front kicks to push WC guy away?And no kicks to the WC guy's thigh?



Because a style doesn't make you robot that auto hits with trademark moves.

 The man had to make the choice and perhaps due to the way the chun guy stood or moved he didn't think it was right at the time. 

Watch the rest. Some karate guys win, some chun guys win. Its the reality of people fighting as opposed to the fiction of style vs style.


----------



## Knapf

DaveB said:


> See, that to me is a B.S. excuse. 2 people fought, the clf guy swung and kicked and generally led the fight. The chun guy eventually blasted in and landed far more shots.


It is not a weak "excuse" if it makes sense. And no.There were no swings,right hooks or sow chois. The CLF guy only did two backfists but he didn't swing. The CLF guy could have just steamrolled his way to victory.




> A style doesn't fight a person fights.


"It's not the style it's the fighter" doesn't ring true all the time. And that's because *censored*



> I don't know CLF but if the guy wasn't a great clf representative isnt it more likely that he just isnt very good yet? Same for the wing chun guy.


Heard that a thousand times before. Yet reality shows things differently.


> This looked like perfectly reasonable student level sparring and the wing chun guy did pretty good. No more no less.


*Censored* What I want to say cannot be stated here. No style bashing remember? I'll be willing to PM what I intended to say if you prefer.


----------



## Knapf

DaveB said:


> Because a style doesn't make you robot that auto hits with trademark moves.
> 
> The man had to make the choice and perhaps due to the way the chun guy stood or moved he didn't think it was right at the time.
> 
> Watch the rest. Some karate guys win, some chun guys win. Its the reality of people fighting as opposed to the fiction of style vs style.


The reason the Kyoukushin guy didn't use his superior power to overwhelm WC shows that there's something very wrong with him


----------



## Danny T

LFJ said:


> You guys are talking about "the opponent" and "to the body" when discussing a one-man form.
> 
> You must be seeing things.


No I'm talking about movement.


----------



## karatejj

LFJ said:


> The functionality of the system doesn't rely on you having seen it work. Plenty of people have. Most importantly those who train it.
> 
> I don't care one bit to convince you, but I suggest going to see and educating yourself on the system before attempting to talk about if or how well it works.



Have too say, you have are point here!!


----------



## karatejj

drop bear said:


> It ties to the concept of functional. The better system functions better. Then we figure out why those concepts work.



If you have not seen it work, how can you say anything about how it works or does not work?? Lol


----------



## karatejj

Martial D said:


> So you are saying, in effect, that the forms in the vt you study aren't purposed to train your body to deal with opponents? What else would that movement be for?



Their are not karate katas man!


----------



## Martial D

karatejj said:


> Their are not karate katas man!


What?


----------



## karatejj

LFJ said:


> Not being argumentative. That action doesn't represent the intent to punch someone with a bent wrist.
> 
> 
> 
> No one has been asked to believe anything.
> I specifically said I don't care to convince anyone.
> 
> If interested, people have been invited to go check it out.
> If not interested or unwilling to do so, don't talk about "lack of evidence".



Can you tell me why you're wing chun looks nothing like any other wing chun?


----------



## karatejj

Martial D said:


> What?



Forms not about dealing with opponent, he already said it. You're seem to think it is just step by step attack response or something. Wing chun not like that.


----------



## Martial D

karatejj said:


> Forms not about dealing with opponent, he already said it. You're seem to think it is just step by step attack response or something. Wing chun not like that.


You completely missed the point.


----------



## DaveB

Knapf said:


> It is not a weak "excuse" if it makes sense. And no.There were no swings,right hooks or sow chois. The CLF guy only did two backfists but he didn't swing. The CLF guy could have just steamrolled his way to victory.
> 
> 
> 
> "It's not the style it's the fighter" doesn't ring true all the time. And that's because *censored*
> 
> 
> Heard that a thousand times before. Yet reality shows things differently.
> 
> *Censored* What I want to say cannot be stated here. No style bashing remember? I'll be willing to PM what I intended to say if you prefer.



You're not posting based on reality you are posting based on bias.

You are arguing that training in a ma style, regardless of school, personal talent, or anything else, magically wires your brain to fight with predetermined style methods.

If that were remotely true there would be no point in ever watching more than one fight from a given style regardless of fighter. 

Your saying "that guy fights like Mike Tyson so he can beat anyone who fights like the people Tyson beat.

It's ridiculous. People are not robots.

Incidentally not one of the posts disagreeing with me about the baselessness of style v style arguments actually refutes any of the reasons I gave....


----------



## karatejj

Martial D said:


> You completely missed the point.



No man, you did!


----------



## Knapf

DaveB said:


> You're not posting based on reality you are posting based on bias.


Yes. I am biased.So?


> You are arguing that training in a ma style, regardless of school, personal talent, or anything else, magically wires your brain to fight with predetermined style methods.


All styles are well known for having trademark characteristics


> If that were remotely true there would be no point in ever watching more than one fight from a given style regardless of fighter.


Two fighters of a particular school who fight each other will win depending on who practices _their own _style better. But sometimes one guy may win using outside styles


> Your saying "that guy fights like Mike Tyson so he can beat anyone who fights like the people Tyson beat.


Watching him and adopting his fighting methods may actually help. Who said they won't?People do that all the time by watching videos.
And if people don't learn from history and actually fight the same way as his defeated opponents ,of course they are gonna lose.


> It's ridiculous. People are not robots.
> 
> Incidentally not one of the posts disagreeing with me about the baselessness of style v style arguments actually refutes any of the reasons I gave....


I can't say what I want without bashing a style. Don't wanna gain penalty points.  But there's always PM.......


----------



## Juany118

DaveB said:


> Furthermore you can find lots of YouTube video of wing chun winning in fights and competitions. It's just that there's always an excuse why it's not a valid win.



Or why it's not "really" Wing Chun.


----------



## DaveB

Martial D said:


> Let's say all things are equal, who wins?
> 
> My point here is though it might be the easiest road to spare feelings and maintain an air of political correctness, the assertion that all styles are equally effective just isn't supported by the evidence or indeed, common sense.



The problem with common sense is that the common man is led easily by any number of cognitive dissonances and largely devoid of critical thought to all but the most basic level.

When have you seen a comparison of twins given proven training in combat skills and in universally agreed upon versions of distinct styles, to a universally agreed upon level of proficiency?

That could constitute evidence of something, but what you are talking about is anecdotal. Yes even though it's on film, it's worthless as evidence because you haven't controlled the variables of which there are many.

It's nothing to do with being politically correct and everything to do with critical thinking (that thing the anti-pc brigade avoids in favour of common sense).
I listed a bunch of reasons why style v style is rubbish but rather than thinking about them you took the common approach to breeze on to a deeply, deeply flawed analogy that only shows what you want it to if you don't look at it too hard or if you really want to see that something in it.

If all things were equal in your analogy you'd have a draw, because the two opponents are equally able to defend themselves against their opponent. A sword is less dangerous than an armed F22 fighter jet, but if your not a fighter pilot the sword guy wins.

There are a bunch of other ways to defeat this line of reasoning (not least is we're talking about unarmed combat) but since you haven't addressed mine i will leave it there.


----------



## Knapf

Juany118 said:


> Or why it's not "really" Wing Chun.


When WC fighters see their own WC guys lose they say the same thing. "They weren't doing WC"


----------



## Knapf

DaveB said:


> A sword is less dangerous than an armed F22 fighter jet, but if your not a fighter pilot the *sword guy wins.*
> 
> .


What?!?    Do you know how powerful a machine gun used by a jet is?


----------



## Martial D

karatejj said:


> No man, you did!



I missed my own point? Ok then.

I see your reading comprehension is on par with your command of the English language.


----------



## Martial D

DaveB said:


> The problem with common sense is that the common man is led easily by any number of cognitive dissonances and largely devoid of critical thought to all but the most basic level.
> 
> When have you seen a comparison of twins given proven training in combat skills and in universally agreed upon versions of distinct styles, to a universally agreed upon level of proficiency?
> 
> That could constitute evidence of something, but what you are talking about is anecdotal. Yes even though it's on film, it's worthless as evidence because you haven't controlled the variables of which there are many.
> 
> It's nothing to do with being politically correct and everything to do with critical thinking (that thing the anti-pc brigade avoids in favour of common sense).
> I listed a bunch of reasons why style v style is rubbish but rather than thinking about them you took the common approach to breeze on to a deeply, deeply flawed analogy that only shows what you want it to if you don't look at it too hard or if you really want to see that something in it.
> 
> If all things were equal in your analogy you'd have a draw, because the two opponents are equally able to defend themselves against their opponent. A sword is less dangerous than an armed F22 fighter jet, but if your not a fighter pilot the sword guy wins.
> 
> There are a bunch of other ways to defeat this line of reasoning (not least is we're talking about unarmed combat) but since you haven't addressed mine i will leave it there.


Ok, so all styles are equally viable, the man with a spoon and the man with a sword fight to a draw?

LOL.

Critical thinking huh?


----------



## DaveB

Knapf said:


> What?!?    Do you know how powerful a bomb that is dropped from a jet is?


Reread and try again.


----------



## Juany118

Knapf said:


> I stopped at 0:17. Powerful and better conditioned Karate guy with more power not using front kicks to push WC guy away?And no kicks to the WC guy's thigh?



By what measure do you say "better conditioned?" Are you making an assumption based on the art he studies?  If so you seem to also make the assumption WC/VT people don't go through a conditioning process.  Those serious about it do indeed condition themselves via iron palm training and simply working the Mook Jong.

As for kicks to the thigh.  Well first what we see here is a decent example of how to use WC. If you not the WC guy is entering with fast kicks.  Fast kicks, hard enough to disturb balance as we see here, even if not really damaging have the effect of discouraging kicks because you can easily end up on your ***.  Then the WC guy gets into a closer than normal (for the opponent) punching range.

This is exactly what I saw when I first started sparring against my Brother-in-law who is a 2nd Dan TKD guy.  I would enter with fast low straight kicks to essentially force him to keep his legs planted, not to do any real damage.  Then once "inside" I would be striking with hands, elbows and (if he clinched) knees.  It worked really well until he became accustomed to it.  Now sparring against him is more challenging as he is learning to address that methodology.

In short your entire response to any of the videos seems to be "WC doesn't work so let me find problems with the other guy to come up with an excuse as to why the WC guy won.". This is called confirmation bias.


----------



## Knapf

DaveB said:


> Reread and try again.


You mean reread the one that says  a swordsman can't fight a jet?


----------



## Knapf

Juany118 said:


> By what measure do you say "better conditioned?" Are you making an assumption based on the art he studies?  If so you seem to also make the assumption WC/VT people don't go through a conditioning process.  Those serious about it do indeed condition themselves via iron palm training and simply working the Mook Jong.


WC people don't train the really Hard and tough training a Karate man does. Hit the Mook Jong? Please don't make me laugh. Karate guys train by hitting each other's limb with staffs, breaking baseball bats and striking the punching bag. And they hit everywhere including the torso in the front and back. Not Like WC which just hits the wooden dummy with just arms and legs.


> As for kicks to the thigh.  Well first what we see here is a decent example of how to use WC. If you not the WC guy is entering with fast kicks.  Fast kicks, hard enough to disturb balance as we see here, even if not really damaging have the effect of discouraging kicks because you can easily end up on your ***.  Then the WC guy gets into a closer than normal (for the opponent) punching range.


You kick the Karate  guy 10 times his thigh will be okay but let the Karate guy kick your thigh 3 times.......


> This is exactly what I saw when I first started sparring against my Brother-in-law who is a 2nd Dan TKD guy.  I would enter with fast low straight kicks to essentially force him to keep his legs planted, not to do any real damage.  Then once "inside" I would be striking with hands, elbows and (if he clinched) knees.  It worked really well until he became accustomed to it.  Now sparring against him is more challenging as he is learning to address that methodology.


He doesn't need to plant his legs. Just one kick forward and he can do enough damage


> In short your entire response to any of the videos seems to be "WC doesn't work so let me find problems with the other guy to come up with an excuse as to why the WC guy won.". This is called confirmation bias.


Can't say what i want cause of rules. PM?


----------



## Juany118

Martial D said:


> Ok, so all styles are equally viable, the man with a spoon and the man with a sword fight to a draw?
> 
> LOL.
> 
> Critical thinking huh?



Well his analogy was a bit off but I think what he is saying is this what I hinted at.  Regarding one video someone made an assumption regarding one fighter who just HAD to be better conditioned than the WC guy.  That is an assumption you simply can't make.  The assumption was also made that the Karate guy must suck because he didn't do kicks to the thigh, but there are a miriad of other reasons this may have been the case.

In the case of MAs it is all but impossible, imo, to say one long standing art is inherently better than another.  We can say who the better/luckier fighters are, on a specific day, of course based on who is left standing  but the variables that go into a fight, especially when different styles meet, are nearly countless.  The skill and condition of each fighter.  Does one style simply naturally exploit certain issues with the other style? Has either fighter fought styles other than there own.  How well they slept the night before, what did they have for breakfast?  Is the environment something they are used to? (Example on a tile floor and you are only used to fighting on a mat.) All these things, and more, pile up.


----------



## Juany118

Knapf said:


> When WC fighters see their own WC guys lose they say the same thing. "They weren't doing WC"



Well I don't.  I just say the guy lost.  Don't project bias where it doesn't lie simply because you admit to it.  I have studied to many MAs in my day to see any single art as the "art to beat all arts." With arts that have a history of Effectiveness it comes down to the practitioner and how they train, not the art itself.


----------



## Knapf

Juany118 said:


> .it comes down to the practitioner and how they train, not the art itself.


 But don't you WC guys always like to make videos on Youtube showing how you can use WC to beat boxing ?Isn't that preaching about how "my art can beat up yours"?


----------



## Juany118

Knapf said:


> WC people don't train the really Hard and tough training a Karate man does. Hit the Mook Jong? Please don't make me laugh. Karate guys train by hitting each other's limb with staffs, breaking baseball bats. And they hit everywhere including the torso in the front and back. Not Like WC which just hits the wooden dummy with just arms and legs.



So that's why last Thursday while standing in a Ma I had a classmate kicking and hitting me.  I thought I was studying WC that night.  Weird.



> You kick the Karate  guy 10 times his thigh will be okay but let the Karate guy kick your thigh 3 times.......





> He doesn't need to plant his legs. Just one kick forward and he can do enough damage


You miss the point.  There is something in WC called chi gerk.  It is basically chi sau for the legs.  One of the points behind this is to realize you can use kicks, not simply to damage but to counter the kicks of others.  To kick and not end up on you but you need to maintain your center.  Kicking low in a solid fast way can discourage powerful damaging kicks because it disrupts the center of balance and makes you more vulnerable. 

As I stated in my example of sparring my brother in law, the first few times I basically turned him into a boxer because as I entered I used my kicks not to hurt him or knock him down, simply in a manner thank made him see there was a good chance I would disturb his center of balance and force him to recover at best, fall at worst, if he really kicked me. He tried some kicks sure, but each time he didn't connect and had to "hop back" in order to recover his center.  I essentially took the initiative from him.  Now he has learned to adapt to this, but it took more than a few sparring sessions.  Same would likely happen with the two guys in the video and the fight would thus become less one sided.  That doesn't show the Karate guy is bad though, it just shows an issue with TMAs, all too often they don't fight other styles and when they encounter one in competition it's anyone's game.


----------



## Juany118

Knapf said:


> But don't you WC guys always like to make videos on Youtube showing how you can use WC to beat boxing ?Isn't that preaching about how "my art can beat up yours"?



No.  Actually typically it's people showing videos trying to show WC doesn't work.  As for me I don't need videos.  I have fought fitter guys half my age in arrest scenarios where the other person have every incentive to lay me out so they don't go to jail. It has served me well.


----------



## Knapf

Juany118 said:


> So that's why last Thursday while standing in a Ma I had a classmate kicking and hitting me.  I thought I was studying WC that night.  Weird.



Yup. WC people hit other's limb with staffs, break baseball bats and strike the punching bag. They also hit the upper torso with sticks. WC people train the *exact* same way and just as *tough* as Karate. I see




> You miss the point.  There is something in WC called chi gerk.  It is basically chi sau for the legs.  One of the points behind this is to realize you can use kicks, not simply to damage but to counter the kicks of others.  To kick and not end up on you but you need to maintain your center.  Kicking low in a solid fast way can discourage powerful damaging kicks because it disrupts the center of balance and makes you more vulnerable.


I know what that is. The other guy just needs to kick you faster and more powerfully before you wrestle legs with him


> As I stated in my example of sparring my brother in law, the first few times I basically turned him into a boxer because as I entered I used my kicks not to hurt him or knock him down,


Is this for real? Taekwondo people are very good at kicks.


----------



## Knapf

Edited


----------



## Martial D

Juany118 said:


> Well his analogy was a bit off but I think what he is saying is this what I hinted at.  Regarding one video someone made an assumption regarding one fighter who just HAD to be better conditioned than the WC guy.  That is an assumption you simply can't make.  The assumption was also made that the Karate guy must suck because he didn't do kicks to the thigh, but there are a miriad of other reasons this may have been the case.
> 
> In the case of MAs it is all but impossible, imo, to say one long standing art is inherently better than another.  We can say who the better/luckier fighters are, on a specific day, of course based on who is left standing  but the variables that go into a fight, especially when different styles meet, are nearly countless.  The skill and condition of each fighter.  Does one style simply naturally exploit certain issues with the other style? Has either fighter fought styles other than there own.  How well they slept the night before, what did they have for breakfast?  Is the environment something they are used to? (Example on a tile floor and you are only used to fighting on a mat.) All these things, and more, pile up.


Me, I'm no hater of WC. It was the first style I ever really trained, and there are a lot of WC elements that are still a part of ...a big part of..my sparring game. With that out of the way....

Ignore the man. Ignore what he had for breakfast, what color his belt is, how many muscles he has..in fact..push him off a cliff, we won't be needing him right now. The human body only moves in so many ways, we have finite ways to attain leverage, to generate power, to close and widen distance. Of those finite ways, some are more efficient and effective than others. You'll get more power in a punch rotating on your hip than you will just extending your arm, for instance.

Now, would you say that all styles throughout time have made exactly equal use of these principles, or that maybe, just maybe, some are actually <sacrilege>better</sacrilege> than others, with regards to the job they purport to do?


----------



## Juany118

Martial D said:


> Me, I'm no hater of WC. It was the first style I ever really trained, and there are a lot of WC elements that are still a part of ...a big part of..my sparring game. With that out of the way....
> 
> Ignore the man. Ignore what he had for breakfast, what color his belt is, how many muscles he has..in fact..push him off a cliff, we won't be needing him right now. The human body only moves in so many ways, we have finite ways to attain leverage, to generate power, to close and widen distance. Of those finite ways, some are more efficient and effective than others. You'll get more power in a punch rotating on your hip than you will just extending your arm, for instance.
> 
> Now, would you say that all styles throughout time have made exactly equal use of these principles, or that maybe, just maybe, some are actually <sacrilege>better</sacrilege> than others, with regards to the job they purport to do?



But, as an example, it isn't just about extending your arm it can be about stepping and sinking as you punch (the Dempsy falling punch which is very similar to the WC straight punch).  That punch is seen as very efficient and effective.  When one looks at efficiency and effectiveness one has to look at each art holistically.


----------



## DaveB

Martial D said:


> Ok, so all styles are equally viable, the man with a spoon and the man with a sword fight to a draw?
> 
> LOL.
> 
> Critical thinking huh?



Because who needs a sound argument when you have sarcasm.


----------



## DaveB

Martial D said:


> Me, I'm no hater of WC. It was the first style I ever really trained, and there are a lot of WC elements that are still a part of ...a big part of..my sparring game. With that out of the way....
> 
> Ignore the man. Ignore what he had for breakfast, what color his belt is, how many muscles he has..in fact..push him off a cliff, we won't be needing him right now. The human body only moves in so many ways, we have finite ways to attain leverage, to generate power, to close and widen distance. Of those finite ways, some are more efficient and effective than others. You'll get more power in a punch rotating on your hip than you will just extending your arm, for instance.
> 
> Now, would you say that all styles throughout time have made exactly equal use of these principles, or that maybe, just maybe, some are actually <sacrilege>better</sacrilege> than others, with regards to the job they purport to do?



Nobody was disputing the idea that some movements are more efficient than others. The dispute is whether that is the be all and end all of fight effectiveness.

Again you would have got that if you actually <sacrilege>thought</sacrilege>  about the counter argument being presented.


----------



## Martial D

DaveB said:


> Because who needs a sound argument when you have sarcasm.


They aren't mutually exclusive you know. My argument is sound. The idea that all styles are effective just because they happen to exist is ludicrous.


----------



## Martial D

DaveB said:


> Nobody was disputing the idea that some movements are more efficient than others. The dispute is whether that is the be all and end all of fight effectiveness.
> 
> Again you would have got that if you actually <sacrilege>thought</sacrilege>  about the counter argument being presented.


The end all be all bit is something you added, then tore down. The name for that is a straw man argument. Size, speed, athleticism, fight IQ, all play a massive role, and I've never said otherwise.

Yet strip all that away to the styles themselves, and you are left with a full gammit from deadly to worthless.


----------



## DaveB

Martial D said:


> The end all be all bit is something you added, then tore down. The name for that is a straw man argument. Size, speed, athleticism, fight IQ, all play a massive role, and I've never said otherwise.
> 
> Yet strip all that away to the styles themselves, and you are left with a full gammit from deadly to worthless.



It's not a straw man, I just did you the favour of assuming you were not destroying your own argument.

You *cannot* strip away all the other factors. There is no universe where wing chun exists separate from the practitioner. The words have no meaning in reality. You can have the idea because as a human you are capable of abstract thought, but you cannot do it in real life.

If you want an actual straw man argument look here:


Martial D said:


> ... The idea that all styles are effective just because they happen to exist is ludicrous.



I gave a detailed argument that you still have not addressed. Instead you characterise it as "because they happen to exist".


----------



## Juany118

Martial D said:


> The end all be all bit is something you added, then tore down. The name for that is a straw man argument. Size, speed, athleticism, fight IQ, all play a massive role, and I've never said otherwise.
> 
> Yet strip all that away to the styles themselves, and you are left with a full gammit from deadly to worthless.



Let me elaborate on what I meant by holistically.  First you can't just look at the arch an arm takes, you must look at the whole body as in the "falling punch".  Such a punch may put less mass behind it than a punch that rotates at the waist, but if practiced properly it can have great acceleration and thus still be powerful.  

Next you have to look at all of the methods in the art and how they fit together.  Think of a clockwork mechanism.  The efficiency and effectiveness of such a mechanism isn't determined by any single gear, but how well they fit together, how smoothly each turns, how durable they are are etc.  Looking at only some gears doesn't tell you much at all.

This isn't to say WC doesn't have some issues.  It certainly puts a premium on speed and accuracy vs raw power.  It's strikes will not be as powerful as the most powerful strikes of say WB because it places that premium.  Too many schools don't pressure test in full sparring so the student who looks picture perfect in the forms or light sparring might suddenly "lose it" in the Lei Tai.  Some may find the teaching method tedious, the traditional "crawl, walk, run" of many Asian TMAs feel that way.  It still works however.  

Imo the biggest challenge is finding the right teacher/school.  The one who will not just teach you the art but the "martial." Do they use body conditioning?  Do they use full sparring?  Do they reward effectiveness as much as they do "picture perfect" form?, or to quote my Sifu of a couple students "they aren't pretty but damn they can fight." Finding that teacher, imo, is the biggest challenge of TMAs today.


----------



## Martial D

You haven't made any intelligible arguments to support your idea that all styles are somehow equal.

You saying 'ya but you can't strip the man from the style' doesn't support that case one single iota.

The fact remains not all styles of combat are equal.
Since the sword/spoon example didn't seem to penetrate, let's try another thought experiment; Johnny flails forms his own style, flail fu. You basically just flail your arms at people.  So now we have the style, flail fu..which is apparently just as effective as boxing?


----------



## Martial D

Juany118 said:


> Let me elaborate on what I meant by holistically.  First you can't just look at the arch an arm takes, you must look at the whole body as in the "falling punch".  Such a punch may put less mass behind it than a punch that rotates at the waist, but if practiced properly it can have great acceleration and thus still be powerful.
> 
> Next you have to look at all of the methods in the art and how they fit together.  Think of a clockwork mechanism.  The efficiency and effectiveness of such a mechanism isn't determined by any single gear, but how well they fit together, how smoothly each turns, how durable they are are etc.  Looking at only some gears doesn't tell you much at all.
> 
> This isn't to say WC doesn't have some issues.  It certainly puts a premium on speed and accuracy vs raw power.  It's strikes will not be as powerful as the most powerful strikes of say WB because it places that premium.  Too many schools don't pressure test in full sparring so the student who looks picture perfect in the forms or light sparring might suddenly "lose it" in the Lei Tai.  Some may find the teaching method tedious, the traditional "crawl, walk, run" of many Asian TMAs feel that way.  It still works however.
> 
> Imo the biggest challenge is finding the right teacher/school.  The one who will not just teach you the art but the "martial." Do they use body conditioning?  Do they use full sparring?  Do they reward effectiveness as much as they do "picture perfect" form?, or to quote my Sifu of a couple students "they aren't pretty but damn they can fight." Finding that teacher, imo, is the biggest challenge of TMAs today.


Can't argue with that. Yet even holistically, it's the same result. There is a reason people with mere months of boxing or BJJ training regularly wreck people that have devoted years and decades to more traditional styles, while the converse is fairly much never true.


----------



## Phobius

Martial D said:


> Can't argue with that. Yet even holistically, it's the same result. There is a reason people with mere months of boxing or BJJ training regularly wreck people that have devoted years and decades to more traditional styles, while the converse is fairly much never true.



Those people training a few months are most likely fit and young. Those training traditional arts for years are old and in some cases quite unfit for extended fighting longer than a few seconds.


----------



## Juany118

Martial D said:


> You haven't made any intelligible arguments to support your idea that all styles are somehow equal.
> 
> You saying 'ya but you can't strip the man from the style' doesn't support that case one single iota.
> 
> The fact remains not all styles of combat are equal.
> Since the sword/spoon example didn't seem to penetrate, let's try another thought experiment; Johnny flails forms his own style, flail fu. You basically just flail your arms at people.  So now we have the style, flail fu..which is apparently just as effective as boxing?


Actually what you are saying makes no sense.  First a spoon isn't a weapon.

After that Johnny creating flail fu is not the same as Martial Arts that have been proven in history.  TMAs, especially in the West, rarely get used in the civilian world.  If they do it is typically only same  art vs same art and civilian teaching reflects this.  Thing is they wouldn't be here a hundred, or hundreds, of years later if they didn't work.

Combat/competition is very Darwinistic.  Let's just focus on TCMAs.  Forgetting the clear military arts they had, until 1928, the Lei Tai where those who practiced these arts, including WC, fighting HARD.  The Chinese Nationalist Govt eventually outlawed it in 1928 due to the number of injuries and deaths. 

Next they are tested again in the chaos of post WWII Hong Kong.  There you had the roof top challenge culture where different schools matched up against one another.  





Now you can say that people like Wong Shun Leung and William Cheung (both of whom are well documented as being successful in this rooftop culture) we're just such good fighters that it was they and not Yip Man's WC that deserved the credit but throughout all of that time the arts that grew, in that environment, grew because people saw it work and said "I want to fight like that."

Even today WC/VT is knowingly incorporated along with FMA, BJJ and other arts into the training of Special Operations and Security Forces/Law Enforcement across the world.  If it didn't work, that wouldn't be the case.


----------



## Martial D

Phobius said:


> Those people training a few months are most likely fit and young. Those training traditional arts for years are old and in some cases quite unfit for extended fighting longer than a few seconds.


So why aren't the fit young aikidoists and Kung Fu men beating old seasoned boxers and BJJ black belts?


----------



## Martial D

Juany118 said:


> Actually what you are saying makes no sense.  First a spoon isn't a weapon.
> 
> After that Johnny creating flail fu is not the same as Martial Arts that have been proven in history.  TMAs, especially in the West, rarely get used in the civilian world.  If they do it is typically only same  art vs same art and civilian teaching reflects this.  Thing is they wouldn't be here a hundred, or hundreds, of years later if they didn't work.
> 
> Combat/competition is very Darwinistic.  Let's just focus on TCMAs.  Forgetting the clear military arts they had, until 1928, the Lei Tai where those who practiced these arts, including WC, fighting HARD.  The Chinese Nationalist Govt eventually outlawed it in 1928 due to the number of injuries and deaths.
> 
> Next they are tested again in the chaos of post WWII Hong Kong.  There you had the roof top challenge culture where different schools matched up against one another.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you can say that people like Wong Shun Leung and William Cheung (both of whom are well documented as being successful in this rooftop culture) we're just such good fighters that it was they and not Yip Man's WC that deserved the credit but throughout all of that time the arts that grew, in that environment, grew because people saw it work and said "I want to fight like that."
> 
> Even today WC/VT is knowingly incorporated along with FMA, BJJ and other arts into the training of Special Operations and Security Forces/Law Enforcement across the world.  If it didn't work, that wouldn't be the case.


You know, people say that. TMA is proven to work by history, yet here we are with a full compliment of them that range from effective to...not so effective. Just because people train something doesn't legitimize it on it's own. How many people train chi balls and no touch kos? Probably more than you think. I see no reason to believe the people's of antiquity we're less gullible or subject to charlatanism than the people of today.

Now many if not most TMAs contain some useful principles and techniques, but buried under layer after layer of dogma and fluff. Take what works, and discard the rest..or you aren't really doing martial arts..you are doing religion.


----------



## Juany118

Martial D said:


> Can't argue with that. Yet even holistically, it's the same result. There is a reason people with mere months of boxing or BJJ training regularly wreck people that have devoted years and decades to more traditional styles, while the converse is fairly much never true.



But there you are not looking holistically.  BJJ and boxing have people fighting/sparring, that is basically a standard part of their training.  That, and the conditioning necessary for it, is less universal in many TMA school.  There are schools out there that do train with those things in mind however, you just have to look for them.

As an example there are two schools in my area that teach TWC.  One teaches what I will call "combatively." They condition the body by having classmates strike us, one class a week is dedicated to physical conditioning with skill funadementals (think crossfit meet Martial Arts) and they full spar.  The other does none of the above.  I chose the former school at it works.  I spar with my TKD brother in law, two co-workers, one a BJJ practitioner and another a boxer.  It works, the trick is to find the school that is first and foremost training you to fight with Wing Chun vs the first priority being to look good.  Because training the former can result in injuries many schools chose not to do it.  More than a couple people have left my school after going home sore and with obvious bruises.  Hell my ex-wife was  all bent out of shape one night when she saw the bruises I came home with. It's the lack of pressure testing, not the art itself that's the problem with WC.


----------



## Juany118

Martial D said:


> You know, people say that. TMA is proven to work by history, yet here we are with a full compliment of them that range from effective to...not so effective. Just because people train something doesn't legitimize it on it's own. How many people train chi balls and no touch kos? Probably more than you think. I see no reason to believe the people's of antiquity we're less gullible or subject to charlatanism than the people of today.
> 
> Now many if not most TMAs contain some useful principles and techniques, but buried under layer after layer of dogma and fluff. Take what works, and discard the rest..or you aren't really doing martial arts..you are doing religion.




Again it's pressure testing.  The reason I mentioned Lei tai and the roof top is to ram that point home.  You can't find a boxing or BJJ school that doesn't pressure test.  They are much harder to find but if you find a TMA school that also pressure tests you see similar results.  Imagine for a moment a boxer who only ever shadow boxed.  How well do you think he would do against a baxer who regularly sparred.  Same thing.  Lack of pressure testing will break ANY martial arts system.


----------



## drop bear

DaveB said:


> The problem with common sense is that the common man is led easily by any number of cognitive dissonances and largely devoid of critical thought to all but the most basic level.
> 
> When have you seen a comparison of twins given proven training in combat skills and in universally agreed upon versions of distinct styles, to a universally agreed upon level of proficiency?
> 
> That could constitute evidence of something, but what you are talking about is anecdotal. Yes even though it's on film, it's worthless as evidence because you haven't controlled the variables of which there are many.
> 
> It's nothing to do with being politically correct and everything to do with critical thinking (that thing the anti-pc brigade avoids in favour of common sense).
> I listed a bunch of reasons why style v style is rubbish but rather than thinking about them you took the common approach to breeze on to a deeply, deeply flawed analogy that only shows what you want it to if you don't look at it too hard or if you really want to see that something in it.
> 
> If all things were equal in your analogy you'd have a draw, because the two opponents are equally able to defend themselves against their opponent. A sword is less dangerous than an armed F22 fighter jet, but if your not a fighter pilot the sword guy wins.
> 
> There are a bunch of other ways to defeat this line of reasoning (not least is we're talking about unarmed combat) but since you haven't addressed mine i will leave it there.



Exept that you can't logically support the concept of training at all if training has no effect on the outcome. 

Otherwise if the type of training you did had no effect we could just compare any two training methods. And just look at hours put in. 

Or I could just post another video of yellow bamboo and argue that no amount of hours,dedication or natural ability will make that system work.


----------



## drop bear

Martial D said:


> Ok, so all styles are equally viable, the man with a spoon and the man with a sword fight to a draw?
> 
> LOL.
> 
> Critical thinking huh?



Here is also a fun concept. it means my style of aikido or karate or kung fu is as viable as the people who have any sort of clue as to what they are on about.


----------



## drop bear

DaveB said:


> Nobody was disputing the idea that some movements are more efficient than others. The dispute is whether that is the be all and end all of fight effectiveness.
> 
> Again you would have got that if you actually <sacrilege>thought</sacrilege>  about the counter argument being presented.



Being big and mean and athletic will help you in a fight. Very few martial arts promote that they are designed to defend against weak timid oponants though.


----------



## drop bear

Phobius said:


> Those people training a few months are most likely fit and young. Those training traditional arts for years are old and in some cases quite unfit for extended fighting longer than a few seconds.




Exept boxing for some reason. Old boxers just seem to want to bash people.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> Even today WC/VT is knowingly incorporated along with FMA, BJJ and other arts into the training of Special Operations and Security Forces/Law Enforcement across the world. If it didn't work, that wouldn't be the case.



Why?

As master ken said. I will respect Krav Maga when the IDF win a war.


----------



## Phobius

Martial D said:


> So why aren't the fit young aikidoists and Kung Fu men beating old seasoned boxers and BJJ black belts?



EDIT 2: Nwm my post. Just saw drop bear already responded.


----------



## karatejj

Martial D said:


> I missed my own point? Ok then.
> 
> I see your reading comprehension is on par with your command of the English language.



No man, you missed this guys point



			
				LFJ said:
			
		

> You guys are talking about "the opponent" and "to the body" when discussing a one-man form.
> 
> You must be seeing things.



You're replied



> So you are saying, in effect, that the forms in the vt you study aren't purposed to train your body to deal with opponents? What else would that movement be for?



You're completely missed his point. If someone you can talk down too like me can see it, then what does that make you, eh mr big brain? Lol


----------



## Phobius

drop bear said:


> Exept boxing for some reason. Old boxers just seem to want to bash people.



Funny, not related but still funny. Never fight a boxing trainer and ex boxing pro after having pissed him off. Especially if you are a beginner yourself. Age just wont help you there.

And back to the problem. Many people train martial art not to be fighters but to be proud of their own achievements. Then they go on and think they are fighters, but the fighters are not them but the people they train.

I think boxing and many other competitive sports have a tendency to make non-competing practitioners become invisible. These are the kind of people you would never fear in a competition but mostly I believe they just search for fitness and will not fight themselves anyway.

Same goes for non competitive sports but the lack of competing element will often mean that you can not separate the fighters from the hobbyists.

Now take a class of Kung Fu students. My belief is that in todays society in most parts of the world they are pure hobbyists that want to achieve something and feel unbeatable. These people will not want much to destroy their belief so they avoid any risk of putting that to test.

The fighters are still there but their intention is not to win, if it was they would head for other arts where they can win. So what kind of fighter wants to learn an art that has no way of winning. If you beat someone up in real life you have only things to lose? Well perhaps it is the ones that want to be ready for everything. As an example these guys will probably by natural instinct work hard every day to make choices that will not put them in harms way.

Would they spar? Yes. Would you see them in a thug fight on YouTube? Probably not unless they are being jumped unprepared with a camera rolling.


----------



## drop bear

Phobius said:


> Funny, not related but still funny. Never fight a boxing trainer and ex boxing pro after having pissed him off. Especially if you are a beginner yourself. Age just wont help you there.
> 
> And back to the problem. Many people train martial art not to be fighters but to be proud of their own achievements. Then they go on and think they are fighters, but the fighters are not them but the people they train.
> 
> I think boxing and many other competitive sports have a tendency to make non-competing practitioners become invisible. These are the kind of people you would never fear in a competition but mostly I believe they just search for fitness and will not fight themselves anyway.
> 
> Same goes for non competitive sports but the lack of competing element will often mean that you can not separate the fighters from the hobbyists.
> 
> Now take a class of Kung Fu students. My belief is that in todays society in most parts of the world they are pure hobbyists that want to achieve something and feel unbeatable. These people will not want much to destroy their belief so they avoid any risk of putting that to test.
> 
> The fighters are still there but their intention is not to win, if it was they would head for other arts where they can win. So what kind of fighter wants to learn an art that has no way of winning. If you beat someone up in real life you have only things to lose? Well perhaps it is the ones that want to be ready for everything. As an example these guys will probably by natural instinct work hard every day to make choices that will not put them in harms way.
> 
> Would they spar? Yes. Would you see them in a thug fight on YouTube? Probably not unless they are being jumped unprepared with a camera rolling.



Yeah. No vehicle for fighters to exel and be recognized. No clear line between guys who can fight and guys who can't.

Which makes people rely on belt colors, linage and image. 

When I used to bounce. we quite often relied on status as a fighter rather than actual fighting. It was a way of keeping the sharks off you.

Luckily everyone else was doing the same thing. So if i beat up barry knuckles. It wasn't because he was pretending to be a hard man while in reality just being a bully. It was because I was so extra hard.

Martial arts does this a lot. Where in say boxing you cant because you are either winning fights or loosing them.


----------



## wckf92

Knapf said:


> But don't you WC guys always like to



Oh dear....


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> Why?
> 
> As master ken said. I will respect Krav Maga when the IDF win a war.



Well first that was satire.  The IDF has won wars, which I am sure the man behind Master Ken knows .  The first three that come to mind are their war for Independence (which the creator of KM fought in) but also the 6 Day War and the Yom Kippur War.  There are other conflicts as well.

In other threads you noted that combat today doesn't just involving killing.  Especially with Special Operations it's often about capture and that is where Martial Arts can come into play.  Are they going to be showing that on YouTube?  Nope but you can bet your bottom dollar if Operators say "this **** doesnt work" they will stop training it.  That community adapts FAR faster than the "regular" forces.


----------



## KPM

DaveB said:


> The rest you'll need to do yourself.



Thanks!  I've seen that one and others in that collection.  But why do you think that wouldn't be considered a "valid win"??  That is what I was questioning about your last post.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> Not being argumentative. That action doesn't represent the intent to punch someone with a bent wrist.
> 
> 
> 
> No one has been asked to believe anything.
> I specifically said I don't care to convince anyone.
> 
> If interested, people have been invited to go check it out.
> If not interested or unwilling to do so, don't talk about "lack of evidence".



You know, Geezer asked you a very simple question which you have avoided answering several times now.   Why is that?  That certainly is not very "friendly"!


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> Well first that was satire.  The IDF has won wars, which I am sure the man behind Master Ken knows .  The first three that come to mind are their war for Independence (which the creator of KM fought in) but also the 6 Day War and the Yom Kippur War.  There are other conflicts as well.
> 
> In other threads you noted that combat today doesn't just involving killing.  Especially with Special Operations it's often about capture and that is where Martial Arts can come into play.  Are they going to be showing that on YouTube?  Nope but you can bet your bottom dollar if Operators say "this **** doesnt work" they will stop training it.  That community adapts FAR faster than the "regular" forces.



My issue is this becomes a bit like the kabar argument. It is cool because soldiers carry them.

I have just made a lot of assumptions to get to that point. And none of them really tie directly to the product.


----------



## KPM

Martial D said:


> Johnny flails forms his own style, flail fu. You basically just flail your arms at people.  So now we have the style, flail fu..which is apparently just as effective as boxing?



Here is Johnny Flails himself!  Russian version!
















When it comes to fighting effectiveness, it is both the person AND the system.  I agree that just because a martial art exists, doesn't mean it is as equally valid and effective as other martial arts.  Do you think the baloney above is just as valid and effective as Wing Chun?  Or MMA?  Or boxing?   But you also do have to include the human factor.  Do you think if you took the guy in the videos above and actually taught him Wing Chun that he would be equally as effective as some of the guys in recent videos?  Is a 120 lb guy that knows Wing Chun really stand a good chance against a 220 lb experienced street-fighter?  Its both the martial art system and the guy doing it!  But just as it would be silly to presume that two guys doing the same system would be equally effective, it is just as silly to assume that some methods are NOT more effective fighting styles than others!   I would put "flail fu" at the bottom of the list!    (hope I don't get demerit points for "style bashing"!!!)


----------



## Knapf

wckf92 said:


> Oh dear....


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> My issue is this becomes a bit like the kabar argument. It is cool because soldiers carry them.
> 
> I have just made a lot of assumptions to get to that point. And none of them really tie directly to the product.



Well I won't get into the argument that the kbar is just an awesome tool all around (people tend to look at a knife sometimes and forget it is also supposed to be a tool, not just a weapon) but there is a reason I mentioned Special Operations. 

The "regular' Military has issues with bureaucracy.  There change can be slow.  Just look at Afghanistan and Iraq.  The US, Australia and other forces fought in Vietnam but afterwards got stuck in the "Cold War" mindset again and they had to basically rewrite the "regular army" counter-insurgency manual that had already been written in Vietnam. 

The Special Operations forces don't suffer from such inertia.  They are the ultimate test bed because even though it doesn't make the papers they are constantly being deployed, even in "peace time."  Once in an active Unit the level of training is ridiculously higher than that of a "regular" unit as well.  Because of their level of training, comparatively small size of the community, and experience it's not a matter of "okay soldiers this is what the Pentagon has determined is the best method of training", rather it's  "okay Officer's, what do your guy's say works and doesn't work."  Sometimes it takes experimentation but WC has been part of (not exclusive of course) the curriculum there since the 80's.  If it didn't work it wouldn't have lasted. It really is two different worlds.  I won't question the input of someone who will have seen as much "trigger time" as these people and I think anyone who would question it needs to do a serious check on their own ego tbh.  There is a reason the Community is called "elite".

So if I was just saying "the US Army trains X" I might agree with you.  The Special Operations community is a very different beast though and if it didn't work for them they quite literally would not train it.


----------



## Martial D

Juany118 said:


> Again it's pressure testing.  The reason I mentioned Lei tai and the roof top is to ram that point home.  You can't find a boxing or BJJ school that doesn't pressure test.  They are much harder to find but if you find a TMA school that also pressure tests you see similar results.  Imagine for a moment a boxer who only ever shadow boxed.  How well do you think he would do against a baxer who regularly sparred.  Same thing.  Lack of pressure testing will break ANY martial arts system.



Pressure testing is a big part too, but pressure testing doesn't always just leave you doing the same thing but 'now it works'; what it often results in is a drastic style change, as you tire of whiffing or getting clocked in the mouth or not even being able to get off your cool technique anymore. The pressure doesn't always make you better at your style, it often makes YOU better by moving away from a restrictive or ineffective system, in the ways that count. 

This is why a lot of fighters of this or that system don't 'look like' their system when they fight. They are no longer 'karate fighters' or 'kung fu fighters', they are fighters that happen to know, and draw from those arts when applicable.

Honestly, F systems. Fill ranges, git good.


----------



## Juany118

Martial D said:


> Honestly, F systems. Fill ranges, git good.



I would say this is a valid concept


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> Well I won't get into the argument that the kbar is just an awesome tool all around (people tend to look at a knife sometimes and forget it is also supposed to be a tool, not just a weapon) but there is a reason I mentioned Special Operations.
> 
> The "regular' Military has issues with bureaucracy.  There change can be slow.  Just look at Afghanistan and Iraq.  The US, Australia and other forces fought in Vietnam but afterwards got stuck in the "Cold War" mindset again and they had to basically rewrite the "regular army" counter-insurgency manual that had already been written in Vietnam.
> 
> The Special Operations forces don't suffer from such inertia.  They are the ultimate test bed because even though it doesn't make the papers they are constantly being deployed, even in "peace time."  Once in an active Unit the level of training is ridiculously higher than that of a "regular" unit as well.  Because of their level of training, comparatively small size of the community, and experience it's not a matter of "okay soldiers this is what the Pentagon has determined is the best method of training", rather it's  "okay Officer's, what do your guy's say works and doesn't work."  Sometimes it takes experimentation but WC has been part of (not exclusive of course) the curriculum there since the 80's.  If it didn't work it wouldn't have lasted. It really is two different worlds.  I won't question the input of someone who will have seen as much "trigger time" as these people and I think anyone who would question it needs to do a serious check on their own ego tbh.  There is a reason the Community is called "elite".
> 
> So if I was just saying "the US Army trains X" I might agree with you.  The Special Operations community is a very different beast though and if it didn't work for them they quite literally would not train it.



And what special forces are doing this training? and who is the trainer? How much of it is trained? In what combination. There are just so many  questions left unanswered before any conclusion can be made.

Just a quick look and I have already found a rift within one special forces community.  Suggesting there is more at play than the best system winning out.

Feature: Navy SEALs stir up controversy with MMA training

China?
I have no idea how legit or applicable this one is.
China’s Modern Military Combat: Death of Kung Fu? | TanDao


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> You know, Geezer asked you a very simple question which you have avoided answering several times now.   Why is that?  That certainly is not very "friendly"!



Really? What question?

I didn't see him ask any question I didn't answer.

He asked if WSLVT has no hooks or uppercuts.

I already said it doesn't several dozen times.

Then he pointed to forms where he thinks he's seeing something like that, and asked if he's missing something.

I told him/you/them that these actions are not hook punches of any sort.
You all are talking about how you can use it to hit an imaginary opponent in their imaginary body.

Just look at the bent wrist. There's more risk of injury to oneself than the opponent, punching like that.
I guess if you're just fighting imaginary opponents, then it might be safe.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> Really? What question?
> 
> I didn't see him ask any question I didn't answer.
> 
> He asked if WSLVT has no hooks or uppercuts.
> 
> I already said it doesn't several dozen times.
> 
> Then he pointed to forms where he thinks he's seeing something like that, and asked if he's missing something.
> 
> I told him/you/them that these actions are not hook punches of any sort.
> You all are talking about how you can use it to hit an imaginary opponent in their imaginary body.
> 
> Just look at the bent wrist. There's more risk of injury to oneself than the opponent, punching like that.
> I guess if you're just fighting imaginary opponents, then it might be safe.



Way back on post #500 Geezer said this:

*Now, I note that in both forms, WSL keeps his arms a bit lower than in the LT forms, and especially in Biu Jee, he maintains a distinctly low elbow position when delivering the rotational punch referenced, but to me (admittedly coming from outside WSL-VT) this still looks like a hook to the body, or at least a VT/WC equivalent! Am I missing something?*

Your response was essentially...."yes you are missing something!"....without any elaboration on what the movement was really about, when anyone with a little common sense can see that this is what Geezer was asking.   The next post you said something about "enough crumbs for the ingrate."  Then you later made some comment to the effect that this was "about movement and what is available in the movement."  And, since it seemed you just ignored what Geezer was really asking, I put it to you directly.....does this represent an arcing punching to the body?   After all, YOU said it was "about movement and what is available in the movement"!   Is an arcing punch to the body "available in the movement"?   In almost every other version of Wing Chun Chum Kiu it  is!      Yet, in your usual fashion you have avoided answering a very simple question.  Why are you here if you are unwilling to freely discuss your Wing Chun?


----------



## DaveB

Martial D said:


> You haven't made any intelligible arguments to support your idea that all styles are somehow equal.
> 
> You saying 'ya but you can't strip the man from the style' doesn't support that case one single iota.
> 
> The fact remains not all styles of combat are equal.
> Since the sword/spoon example didn't seem to penetrate, let's try another thought experiment; Johnny flails forms his own style, flail fu. You basically just flail your arms at people.  So now we have the style, flail fu..which is apparently just as effective as boxing?



No intelligible arguments?



DaveB said:


> This whole debate about whether wing chun functions is nonsense.
> 
> Do straight punches hurt people?
> If yes then wing chun works.
> 
> Everything else is about the fighter and their preparation.
> 
> And no, how they train is not the fighting style. How they fight is the fighting style. The clue is in the name "fighting style", NOT "Training style".
> 
> I can train a wing chun punch only hitting air.
> I can train  a wing chun punch only hitting people.
> I can train a wing chun punch only hitting bags.
> 
> I am still training to fight with wing chun whichever one I CHOOSE to do.
> 
> If you want to argue that the traditional training of wc is not useful that is an argument you can make. But whether or not a style works is a nonsense because the style is nothing without the person using it.
> 
> Any style can work if you train it right.



If that was unintelligible to you then there's nothing more to say until you finish school.

You will note that my actual argument  (as opposed to your straw man argument), was that any style can be made to work if you train it right.

Your deeply flawed spoon/sword analogy just reinforces the lack of thought you have given your argument. A sword does not dodge a blow. It doesn't enter striking range and it doesn't hit. All of that is done by the person. How good a person is at those things is a bigger factor to victory than what weapon he is using.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> The next post you said something about "enough crumbs for the ingrate."



That would be you, by the way, if not obvious.



> Then you later made some comment to the effect that this was "about movement and what is available in the movement."



I most certainly did not. That was Danny T.



> And, since it seemed you just ignored what Geezer was really asking, I put it to you directly.....does this represent an arcing punching to the body?   *After all, YOU said it was "about movement and what is available in the movement"!* Is an arcing punch to the body "available in the movement"?



I most certainly did not. That was Danny T;



Danny T said:


> It is both.
> *It is also about movement and what is available within the movement based upon the spatial relationships of the opponents* but not about a specific application.





> in your usual fashion you have avoided answering a very simple question.



I answered you immediately.



LFJ said:


> KPM said:
> 
> 
> 
> But, as Geezer was getting at....is it an arcing punch to the body or is it not?
> 
> 
> 
> It's not an arcing punch and there is no body.
Click to expand...


See. If you're not going to even read the thread, and are just fishing for things to argue about, _that_ would be what's "unfriendly" here.


----------



## DaveB

KPM said:


> Thanks!  I've seen that one and others in that collection.  But why do you think that wouldn't be considered a "valid win"??  That is what I was questioning about your last post.


I don't think they are invalid at all.

I was pointing out that the likes of Knapf call videos like that invalid so that they can keep mouthing off against wing chun.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> See. If you're not going to even read the thread, and are just fishing for things to argue about, _that_ would be what's "unfriendly" here.



Then what is it?  That was my point!!!  You argue and deflect and never actually talk much about your Wing Chun.  Obviously if you are going to state what it is not, why would you not then elaborate on what it actually represents???  That is the "unfriendly" part here.  People have to draw things out of you to get you to actually share something constructive.  Everything with you is an argument.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> Then what is it?  That was my point!!!



Improving elbow control.



> You argue and deflect and never actually talk much about your Wing Chun.



I did neither, and share plenty of information on my system.

I just gave you a free and detailed description on BJ a few days ago.



> Obviously if you are going to state what it is not, why would you not then elaborate on what it actually represents???  That is the "unfriendly" part here.



I answer what is asked. Not unfriendly.



> People have to draw things out of you to get you to actually share something constructive.  Everything with you is an argument.



I freely shared a lot of information with you, but instead of being grateful, you argued with me about what's in my own system, of which you have no knowledge or experience.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> And what special forces are doing this training? and who is the trainer? How much of it is trained? In what combination. There are just so many  questions left unanswered before any conclusion can be made.
> 
> Just a quick look and I have already found a rift within one special forces community.  Suggesting there is more at play than the best system winning out.
> 
> Feature: Navy SEALs stir up controversy with MMA training
> 
> China?
> I have no idea how legit or applicable this one is.
> China’s Modern Military Combat: Death of Kung Fu? | TanDao


First let me specify that the bulk of my knowledge of Operators comes from the Army side, as that was my branch of service.  As such the only thing I will note about the article is that it really doesn't speak to the effectiveness of anything, rather the possible issues of corruption in terms of contracts and that last part is the important thing.

In the "regular" Army you have a fellow soldier as your instructor.  In terms of Special Operations they first determine who is an eligible contractor and then award contracts to these civilian instructors to train.  The idea being that Specops needs instructors where that topic is "their thing." As an example on of my Sifus is "on the list" for the US NSW, US Marine Corp, and US Army Special Operations Command on top of the DOJ.  

He actually just got his certification from the NSW last year so perhaps, as he teaches Wing Chun, he is benefiting from the transition at NSW your article mentioned.  As for that article, Sanda looks like MMA in many ways but it is a product of various TCMAs.  In the end when you strip away the forms and get to the fighting, especially when you meld various styles together there isn't much difference between styles because biomechanics are biomechanics.


----------



## Grenadier

*Admin's Note:*

Thread closed, pending staff review.


----------

