Fighting a boxer in Wing Chun

[guy b.]

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

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

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

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

 

[drop bear]

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



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

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

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

 

[guy b.]

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

There is success in real fighting using VT

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

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

 

[drop bear]

There is success in real fighting using VT



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

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

Like boxing for an example.

Where would i find out if vt was good?

 

[Phobius]

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

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

Like boxing for an example.

Where would i find out if vt was good?

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

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

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

 

[guy b.]

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

Like boxing for an example.

Where would i find out if vt was good?

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

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

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

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

 

[JPinAZ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[guy b.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[KPM]

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

 

[guy b.]

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

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

 

[JPinAZ]

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

Then stop saying things that only inexperienced people would say!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[drop bear]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[drop bear]

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



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

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

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

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

I am pretty sure training plays a part in that.

 

[Phobius]

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

I am pretty sure training plays a part in that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[drop bear]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[wckf92]

Then stop saying things that only inexperienced people would say!



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



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

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

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



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



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



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

I agree about the San sau part.

 

[Phobius]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[guy b.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Marnetmar]

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

 

[drop bear]

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

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

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

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

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

Q What if you fight on the stairs.

A I hit harder and more often.

Q what if their is multiple attackers.

A i hit harder and more often.

And so on.

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

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

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