Fighting a boxer in Wing Chun

[guy b.]

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

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

Or it is close enough and you have to compete.

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

 

[KPM]

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

Says the guy that thinks its all about punching.

 

[guy b.]

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

Which boxers are you describing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[drop bear]

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

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

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

 

[drop bear]

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

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

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

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

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

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

So good VT is better than bad boxing?

Fair enough.

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

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

 

[guy b.]

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

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

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

 

[guy b.]

So good VT is better than bad boxing?

Fair enough.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[drop bear]

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

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



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

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

Vt also dosent have more street fights than anyone else.

So also meaningless.

So aside from opinion how do you determine exelent vt?

 

[drop bear]

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

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

Vt do more real world encounters than boxers?

Mabye there are more vt bouncers?

More vt bare knuckle competitors?

 

[guy b.]

Vt also dosent have more street fights than anyone else.

So also meaningless.

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

aside from opinion how do you determine exelent vt?

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

 

[drop bear]

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



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

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

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

 

[guy b.]

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

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

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

 

[guy b.]

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

As I said all test in different ways.

 

[guy b.]

Vt do more real world encounters than boxers?

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

 

[drop bear]

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

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

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

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

 

[drop bear]

As I said all test in different ways.

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

But you do.

 

[drop bear]

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

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

If vt quality is decided on opinion then fair enough.

It is what it is.

 

[guy b.]

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

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

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

By visiting them and trying what they are offering

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

VT comes from practical understanding and works very well

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

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

If vt quality is decided on opinion then fair enough

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

 

[drop bear]

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

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

When do these fighters actually fight people?

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

 

[drop bear]

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

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