ANY Fighting Style can work if you train it right.

[Gerry Seymour]

well , the purpose of punch is to a) knock your opposing number out, or b) set him up for a knock out, therefore if your big punch lands and doesn't have the efficiency to do that, then it doesn't work, it only annoys him

There are more uses for a punch than that. I often use them for off-balancing to set up grappling, for instance. And injuring punches can take a person out of the fight, eventually. Of course, if you meant "knock him out of the fight", then we're on the same page.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

So a given style may or may not have the most efficient or comprehensive methods for the various skills. This is true, but if you want the style to work I argue that you only need to be able to understand how to get the most out of what is there.

Boxing head movement is a great example. It should be almost useless when kicks and takedowns are involved because it fixes your legs leaving your lower body vulnerable to attack. It's a great example of both how the rules (no low blows) shape the game of boxing but also of a skill that is sub-optimal, unless you know how and when to use it.

No fighting style was handed down by the gods. Every drop of fight knowledge was learned through analyses of what happens both in the ring but more so in training (since we train more than we compete).

Wing chun may not teach head movement like boxing, but in so far as the principles allow, one could through training practices, work out what works for the wing chun practitioner and how to incorporate it.

I'm no expert on boxing movement, but I don't think their head movement fixes the legs. It makes them less mobile, perhaps, but they're not stationary. Kicks make the leg (support) far more stationary.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

IMO, one of the major differences between the boxing punch and the CMA punch is when you punch your right fist,:

1. boxing - your left fist may be static idle (not moving).
2. CMA (or Karate) punch - you pull your left fist back at the same time (unless you are using left arm to block your opponent's punch).

In the following clip, not sure which approach that he thinks the WC system is using.

I consider that a false difference, KFW. Hands can remain at guard, pull back for next strike, or be static, regardless of the system.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

I consider that a false difference, KFW. Hands can remain at guard, pull back for next strike, or be static, regardless of the system.

When you punch right hand, you can use your left hand to

- remain guard to protect your head,
- block your opponent's punch,
- guide your opponent's arm away,
- pull your opponent's body toward you,
- ...

When you are "not doing any of the above", you should

- pull your left hand back,
- cause your body "rotation",
- extend your body to the maximum, and
- generate your maximum amount of power into your punch.

IMO, the mind set are different. When a

- boxer thinks about right punch, he thinks about to send right arm out. The body rotation start from right arm out.
- CMA (or Karate) guy thinks about right punch, he thinks about to pull left hand back while send right arm out. The body rotation start from left arm back.

This can be seen in the following clip. You can clear see the sequence of his

- left hand back,
- left shoulder back,
- right shoulder out,
- right hand out.

 

[DaveB]

but you have no fixed point of comparison, against who or what are your examples fighting, Boxers don't just stand there moving their head, unless they are Floyd M. And certainly not if someone is trying to kick them, that would be silly

wing Chun against any fast and mobile fighter is a dead duck, its never going to work, you can't hit them as they keep moving in and out and round, you can't stop them hitting you as you have no guard worth the name, against some drunk on the,street it may well work, but so will anything else

Jobo, we will have to agree to disagree.
I can see no reason why any of your above statements regarding either wing chun or boxing mat be true.

Boxers often present a moving target and in mma fights people are often punished for it. If someone leans their upper body in response to being punched it doesn't take a genius to know to follow your next punch with a kick.

As for wing chun, your idea of the style seems very rigid. There's no rule limiting a chun fighters mobility nor is an extended guard a weakness if you know how to use it.

Almost all se asian fighting styles defend using strike interception; active defence to enable you to take control of the fight. It may be a harder route and you might need to drop it if your opponent is faster, but it does work if you train it properly.

 

[DaveB]

Ok so what if the movement is in the rules. But nobody successfully uses it?

Then you can pretty much say it doesn't work. You dont see much chain punching and you are allowed to do it. you dont see much hand trapping. But are allowed to do that. All of these things that are supposed to work. But just don't.

(And hand trapping is pretty simple. If i am punching you with two hands. and you are defending with one hand. you are punching me back with one hand. The guy who can use two hands offensively has the advantage

Which is why as soon as the fight goes off being a drill people whose style relies on using this as a primary fighting mechanic get beat up)

I don't completely disagree, except to say that I would question if any style holds trapping as the primary mechanic?
And as I learned it the point of a trap is to remove a weapon (So you are 1 to 1 not 2 to 1) but also to improve position so that you end up 1 to 0 in practical terms.

This whole thread is based upon the idea that there are optimal ways to use each skill.
I've not presented my views on style specific methods in this thread because it's about the idea that core combat skills are universal. But if it's true that there's a good time to throw an uppercut and a bad time to throw an uppercut, it stands to reason that the same may be true of trapping or any other style specific skill.

And if that's the case how do you work out when that is? The same way they worked out when to uppercut: trial and error. An analytical approach to sparring
plus patience and humility is all anyone needs to understand their art.

I will lay out my counter in its simplified matter. You train to punch in a correct manner. Kind of assumes you can punch in an incorrect manner.

There is a whole bunch of non style specific mechanics that apply to effective punching. But there is no requirement for a style to adhere to those mechanics. A style can make up any punching it wants.

Any timing it wants.
Any distancing it wants
Any positioning it wants
Any speed it wants.

Just because it is a style doesnt mean it has to work.

If you abandon the concept of style then your arguments make more sense. But you are trying to keep the concept of style and keep the concept of fighting mechanics are not dependant on style.

And that is dumb.

That's all true up until you fail to separate universal concepts from style specific one's. But I've never encountered a fighting style that had any radically (or for that matter even remotely) different views about the core elements of combat.
Close was close, fast was fast, sen no sen was sen no sen (just in a different language).
Maybe that's just my inexperience.

However my argument obviously only works if those core skills are universal. If one style has it's own variations it falls outside of the bounds of my argument. If every style changes those elements then I am just wrong, but I wouldn't have posted if I believed that.

So now you have clear criteria with which to disprove my case, I look forward to seeing what you find.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

- CMA (or Karate) guy thinks about right punch, he thinks about to pull left hand back while send right arm out. The body rotation start from left arm back.

That's not the thought process I learned in Shotokan, nor in the Shotokan-based strikes of NGA. We initially learn to draw the off-hand back when striking, to avoid leaving it out. The motion is initiated on the striking side. This allows the flexibility to choose how to move the off-side.

 

[drop bear]

That's all true up until you fail to separate universal concepts from style specific one's. But I've never encountered a fighting style that had any radically (or for that matter even remotely) different views about the core elements of combat.
Close was close, fast was fast, sen no sen was sen no sen (just in a different language).
Maybe that's just my inexperience.

Doesn't wing chun have a unique striking engine?

Just as an example of an art that just decides its method is better.

 

[DaveB]

Doesn't wing chun have a unique striking engine?

Just as an example of an art that just decides its method is better.

For power generation yes, but not as far as I know for those universal combative skills that determine whether or not the blow lands.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

The motion is initiated on the striking side. This allows the flexibility to choose how to move the off-side.

The concern is if you initial your punch on the striking side, you only use 1/2 of your body in striking. Your other side is not helping you for power generation.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Doesn't wing chun have a unique striking engine?

Just as an example of an art that just decides its method is better.

Did someone suggested the "snake engine" before?

The WC power generation is always a question mark in my mind. IMO, if you don't use your whole body (for example, just use your punching side) in power generation, you won't be able to generate the maximum amount of power.

 

[drop bear]

For power generation yes, but not as far as I know for those universal combative skills that determine whether or not the blow lands.

If you change the power generation you are going to effect every thing else. Slipping for example relies on rotational movement. Which means you not only change punching power you have to come up with a new delivery system.

 

[drop bear]

Did someone suggested the "snake engine" before?

The WC power generation is always a question mark in my mind. IMO, if you don't use your whole body (for example, just use your punching side) in power generation, you won't be able to generate the maximum amount of power.

And you then have to set up your striking style to fit the engine. Boxing's rotational striking incorporates head movement. Head moves off center to rotate a strike. That way you don't have to deal with every incoming strike. The probability is that a reasonable percentage will miss whether you know a shot is coming or not.

Which is probably why chun is so mad keen to catch every single incoming strike with its relevant counter. But is stupidly hard to do.

And this is all engine based.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

If you change the power generation you are going to effect every thing else. Slipping for example relies on rotational movement. Which means you not only change punching power you have to come up with a new delivery system.

Also different power generation will require different footwork. That will affect the whole system as well.

 

[DaveB]

All of the above is true, but none of it changes the universal core elements ie the requirements to land the blow.

Whether I twist from hips, waist or use no twist at all, I still need to know how to get my punch to connect at the point my opponent shifts forwards (timing). I need to be able to keep out of reach and using my timing go from out of reach to uncomfortably close and attack to interrupt his flow (distancing). I need to be able to retake the initiative be changing angle at the right time (positioning).

As long as the art let's you move your feet and make a choice about when you move or attack then you can master and manipulate these elements with whatever techniques and engines you like.

These are the skills of fighting and they transcend fighting style.

 

[jobo]

All of the above is true, but none of it changes the universal core elements ie the requirements to land the blow.

Whether I twist from hips, waist or use no twist at all, I still need to know how to get my punch to connect at the point my opponent shifts forwards (timing). I need to be able to keep out of reach and using my timing go from out of reach to uncomfortably close and attack to interrupt his flow (distancing). I need to be able to retake the initiative be changing angle at the right time (positioning).

As long as the art let's you move your feet and make a choice about when you move or attack then you can master and manipulate these elements with whatever techniques and engines you like.

These are the skills of fighting and they transcend fighting style.

but you still won't,address the core,weakness in your theory, that being you won't say who it would work against.
let's say you do what you say and teach a wing Chun man to time his weak punches and move his feet. He is still not going to punch as hard as say a boxer who uses better body mechanics to generate power and has better movement patterns built into his style.

it seems likely then that in any such punching match the boxer will come out best, as he a) punches harder and b) is more,difficult to hit. In that situation its difficult to justify your claim that wing Chun "works"

 

[Gerry Seymour]

The concern is if you initial your punch on the striking side, you only use 1/2 of your body in striking. Your other side is not helping you for power generation.

But it is available for other purposes. I can generate about the same amount of power either way. If I drive off the leg, I don't need (and can't really leverage) off-side rotation. If I want to use the off-side rotation, I can't really use (and don't need) the leg pressure. Driving from the leg gives me more flexibility in delivery.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

All of the above is true, but none of it changes the universal core elements ie the requirements to land the blow.

Whether I twist from hips, waist or use no twist at all, I still need to know how to get my punch to connect at the point my opponent shifts forwards (timing). I need to be able to keep out of reach and using my timing go from out of reach to uncomfortably close and attack to interrupt his flow (distancing). I need to be able to retake the initiative be changing angle at the right time (positioning).

As long as the art let's you move your feet and make a choice about when you move or attack then you can master and manipulate these elements with whatever techniques and engines you like.

These are the skills of fighting and they transcend fighting style.

I'd say they are more concepts of fighting, if we want to make them universal. There is a different skill to maintaining distance properly for boxing vs. Shotokan vs. WC, IMO.

 

[oftheherd1]

Did someone suggested the "snake engine" before?

The WC power generation is always a question mark in my mind. IMO, if you don't use your whole body (for example, just use your punching side) in power generation, you won't be able to generate the maximum amount of power.

Learning TKD I was taught that to pull the non-striking hand back was part of action/reaction. Pulling the non-striking hand aided getting power to the striking hand. Coincidently, if somebody had gotten behind you, your elbow might become a weapon.

In the Hapkido I learned, we did not constantly try to strike with two hands, but we did have techniques that included that. A two handed strike can have a lot of power if you learn how to put power into it. That was something I was taught in TKD, how to use the whole body for power generation.

 

[drop bear]

But it is available for other purposes. I can generate about the same amount of power either way. If I drive off the leg, I don't need (and can't really leverage) off-side rotation. If I want to use the off-side rotation, I can't really use (and don't need) the leg pressure. Driving from the leg gives me more flexibility in delivery.

Regardless of which one has an advantage we are still discussing a systematic advantage.