What can a boxer gain from WC?

[Gerry Seymour]

Well that really only reenforces my point. If you are prepared for a skilled opponent that is familiar with your skillset, you will be better prepared for an unskilled that does not.

By the same token if your style only works on unskilled opponents that aren't prepared, it might be time for some upgrades!

I forgot to include part of my point in my prior response, MD. It's not only about whether they are skilled or not. It's also about what they know about you. If someone knows I'm trained, and something about my training, they are going to try to take away weapons I'm likely to use. If they don't know that, they can't know to block those specific weapons.

 

[ShortBridge]

The subject of this thread is almost click bait. I've resisted for a few weeks, but it looks like I lack the discipline to stay away. There is so much wrong with this discussion right form the initial premise that it's not even really worth unpacking. I could demonstrate and sort all of this out for you in person in about 10 minutes, TMA17, but this thread will go on for 30 pages and you will learn NOTHING, but probably believe that you have, which will lead to more posting of "facts and conclusions" that you've reached about Wing Chun.

Prior to Wing Chun I spent decades doing and dabbling in other systems and ring sports. Between classic western boxing and Muay Thai, I suppose I trained for a good 8 years or so, which doesn't make me an expert on boxing, but since that appears to about 8 years longer than you have with Wing Chun, I guess that shouldn't stop me from expressing my observations about it.

I can honestly say that the sweet science of boxing doesn't need ANYTHING from Wing Chun. Boxers need to train as boxers and get experience boxing. If they're in a rut, there are other coaches and other gyms that can help them move forward with boxing, but I can't imagine how anything from Wing Chun would make a boxer a better boxer. To me it is a ridiculously uninformed premise.

Conversely, Wing Chun doesn't need boxing and isn't compatible with it. They are completely different constructs. The second that a Wing Chun player starts trying to function like a boxer, the wheels come off....which is, by the way, why You Tube is full of Wing Chun guys losing boxing matches. It's not what we do or aspire to do. If you want to be a good boxer, you need to study and practice boxing.

If you mix Wing Chun with Boxing, you get a different system...JDK perhaps, which is fine, but it is neither Wing Chun nor boxing. It is something different. You don't take the front differential off of a 4x4 and bolt it on the hood of a sports car to get something special. You get something that makes no sense and disparate engineering solutions that serve no purpose as assembled.

Wing Chun forms have nothing to do with shadow boxing. Nothing. ....nothing. I realize that everyone's opinion is equal on the internet, but that's just uninformed. It shows that you lack and understanding of the role of forms in Wing Chun AND shadow boxing. Actually what it shows is that you watched a YouTube video and became convinced that you stepped forward years in your knowledge of something that you just started training. You will find your echo chamber on-line, but people who actually understand these things aren't fooled by how emphatically you state this as fact.

And, I don't get wanting to figure out how to make Wing Chun work better in MMA. If you're interested in MMA, there are tried and true ways to train for it. Why try to retrofit something for it that was not designed for that. You can make a fish tank out of an old TV set, but it's hard. It's not what they were designed for and you could also just buy a flipping fish tank...or study up on how to make fish tanks. There are professionals and professional methods for doing so. This is not a problem to be solved. You can't skip over the part of actually learning something and just right to the part where you innovate perceived shortcomings with it.

TMA17, if you have a good teacher and want to learn Wing Chun. Stopping posting things about it on the internet that you don't understand, put your head down and learn it. If you don't believe in the system, why are you studying it? There are a million other things that you could be doing. The art wasn't stalled and waiting for you to come along and fix it based on stuff you've seen on YouTube.

This is the golden age of martial arts, in way. Do something you like. Anything worth doing is going to require you to dedicate yourself to learning it. You can't skip over that part, even with the internet as your guide.

 

[Flying Crane]

The subject of this thread is almost click bait. I've resisted for a few weeks, but it looks like I lack the discipline to stay away. There is so much wrong with this discussion right form the initial premise that it's not even really worth unpacking. I could demonstrate and sort all of this out for you in person in about 10 minutes, TMA17, but this thread will go on for 30 pages and you will learn NOTHING, but probably believe that you have, which will lead to more posting of "facts and conclusions" that you've reached about Wing Chun.

Prior to Wing Chun I spent decades doing and dabbling in other systems and ring sports. Between classic western boxing and Muay Thai, I suppose I trained for a good 8 years or so, which doesn't make me an expert on boxing, but since that appears to about 8 years longer than you have with Wing Chun, I guess that shouldn't stop me from expressing my observations about it.

I can honestly say that the sweet science of boxing doesn't need ANYTHING from Wing Chun. Boxers need to train as boxers and get experience boxing. If they're in a rut, there are other coaches and other gyms that can help them move forward with boxing, but I can't imagine how anything from Wing Chun would make a boxer a better boxer. To me it is a ridiculously uninformed premise.

Conversely, Wing Chun doesn't need boxing and isn't compatible with it. They are completely different constructs. The second that a Wing Chun player starts trying to function like a boxer, the wheels come off....which is, by the way, why You Tube is full of Wing Chun guys losing boxing matches. It's not what we do or aspire to do. If you want to be a good boxer, you need to study and practice boxing.

If you mix Wing Chun with Boxing, you get a different system...JDK perhaps, which is fine, but it is neither Wing Chun nor boxing. It is something different. You don't take the front differential off of a 4x4 and bolt it on the hood of a sports car to get something special. You get something that makes no sense and disparate engineering solutions that serve no purpose as assembled.

Wing Chun forms have nothing to do with shadow boxing. Nothing. ....nothing. I realize that everyone's opinion is equal on the internet, but that's just uninformed. It shows that you lack and understanding of the role of forms in Wing Chun AND shadow boxing. Actually what it shows is that you watched a YouTube video and became convinced that you stepped forward years in your knowledge of something that you just started training. You will find your echo chamber on-line, but people who actually understand these things aren't fooled by how emphatically you state this as fact.

And, I don't get wanting to figure out how to make Wing Chun work better in MMA. If you're interested in MMA, there are tried and true ways to train for it. Why try to retrofit something for it that was not designed for that. You can make a fish tank out of an old TV set, but it's hard. It's not what they were designed for and you could also just buy a flipping fish tank...or study up on how to make fish tanks. There are professionals and professional methods for doing so. This is not a problem to be solved. You can't skip over the part of actually learning something and just right to the part where you innovate perceived shortcomings with it.

TMA17, if you have a good teacher and want to learn Wing Chun. Stopping posting things about it on the internet that you don't understand, put your head down and learn it. If you don't believe in the system, why are you studying it? There are a million other things that you could be doing. The art wasn't stalled and waiting for you to come along and fix it based on stuff you've seen on YouTube.

This is the golden age of martial arts, in way. Do something you like. Anything worth doing is going to require you to dedicate yourself to learning it. You can't skip over that part, even with the internet as your guide.

Perfectly stated.

 

[DanT]

The subject of this thread is almost click bait. I've resisted for a few weeks, but it looks like I lack the discipline to stay away. There is so much wrong with this discussion right form the initial premise that it's not even really worth unpacking. I could demonstrate and sort all of this out for you in person in about 10 minutes, TMA17, but this thread will go on for 30 pages and you will learn NOTHING, but probably believe that you have, which will lead to more posting of "facts and conclusions" that you've reached about Wing Chun.

Prior to Wing Chun I spent decades doing and dabbling in other systems and ring sports. Between classic western boxing and Muay Thai, I suppose I trained for a good 8 years or so, which doesn't make me an expert on boxing, but since that appears to about 8 years longer than you have with Wing Chun, I guess that shouldn't stop me from expressing my observations about it.

I can honestly say that the sweet science of boxing doesn't need ANYTHING from Wing Chun. Boxers need to train as boxers and get experience boxing. If they're in a rut, there are other coaches and other gyms that can help them move forward with boxing, but I can't imagine how anything from Wing Chun would make a boxer a better boxer. To me it is a ridiculously uninformed premise.

Conversely, Wing Chun doesn't need boxing and isn't compatible with it. They are completely different constructs. The second that a Wing Chun player starts trying to function like a boxer, the wheels come off....which is, by the way, why You Tube is full of Wing Chun guys losing boxing matches. It's not what we do or aspire to do. If you want to be a good boxer, you need to study and practice boxing.

If you mix Wing Chun with Boxing, you get a different system...JDK perhaps, which is fine, but it is neither Wing Chun nor boxing. It is something different. You don't take the front differential off of a 4x4 and bolt it on the hood of a sports car to get something special. You get something that makes no sense and disparate engineering solutions that serve no purpose as assembled.

Wing Chun forms have nothing to do with shadow boxing. Nothing. ....nothing. I realize that everyone's opinion is equal on the internet, but that's just uninformed. It shows that you lack and understanding of the role of forms in Wing Chun AND shadow boxing. Actually what it shows is that you watched a YouTube video and became convinced that you stepped forward years in your knowledge of something that you just started training. You will find your echo chamber on-line, but people who actually understand these things aren't fooled by how emphatically you state this as fact.

And, I don't get wanting to figure out how to make Wing Chun work better in MMA. If you're interested in MMA, there are tried and true ways to train for it. Why try to retrofit something for it that was not designed for that. You can make a fish tank out of an old TV set, but it's hard. It's not what they were designed for and you could also just buy a flipping fish tank...or study up on how to make fish tanks. There are professionals and professional methods for doing so. This is not a problem to be solved. You can't skip over the part of actually learning something and just right to the part where you innovate perceived shortcomings with it.

TMA17, if you have a good teacher and want to learn Wing Chun. Stopping posting things about it on the internet that you don't understand, put your head down and learn it. If you don't believe in the system, why are you studying it? There are a million other things that you could be doing. The art wasn't stalled and waiting for you to come along and fix it based on stuff you've seen on YouTube.

This is the golden age of martial arts, in way. Do something you like. Anything worth doing is going to require you to dedicate yourself to learning it. You can't skip over that part, even with the internet as your guide.

This is what I'm saying.

My Wing Chun works fine on its own.

Boxing works fine on its own.

KPM came up with a hybrid system, and it works great for him.

I think hybrid systems can be good. However, I dislike when someone studies 6 months of Taekwondo, 2 years of Judo, and 3 years of Boxing, and combines it to form "Box Ju Tae" and calls themself a Master. A kindergarten education, plus a grade 1 education, plus a grade 4 education, does not equal a PHD.

 

[drop bear]

Yes, but I think we can agree with the point of his post, which I believe is that BJJ doesn't have a focus on escape, but on using the grappling as an offensive weapon, while WC's focus (as stated) is on escape. So, a BJJ person will escape from a bad situation (and in SD, that might be the full intent), but is likely to turn that escape into a grappling attack, like a sweep into an arm bar.

See I would have looked at it like end result proficiency.​

 

[Martial D]

I'm not sure I understand the question. It applies to my own style, for one. If I'm facing someone trained in NGA, I defend against NGA, so I will be compact and relatively upright, in a basic fighting stance. I can use similar defenses against Shotokan Karatedo (our original striking base), and can afford to give up some of the compactness, since grappling is less likely. If I'm facing a Judoka, my movement drops dramatically and I play lower and more square. Against a boxer, I'll use a stance and movement more similar to a boxer's movement. Against WC, part of my focus would be to deny them centerline (which is what I expect WC person would do to them).

Each of those are closer to the movement developed to defend against those styles. Obviously, it's more nuanced than that - I have tools I'll use that those styles wouldn't so my defense won't look precisely like theirs.

You said
”I have a theory that we tend to recognize most styles by their defensive approach"

Presumably this was offered as an argument against my statement that styles are defined by their movements, and should be recognizable as such if you are going to claim it is in fact the style in question.

I gave a list of the most well known styles that are plainly recognisable in attack. So by 'most styles' you meant 'your style'?

I maintain that bobbing, weaving, slipping while throwing hooks and haymakers using boxing rotation is in no universe, Wing Chun.

Words mean things.

 

[ShortBridge]

...

KPM came up with a hybrid system, and it works great for him.
...

The key difference is that Keith knows Wing Chun and is now exploring some new things. He didn't start trying to enhance it before he started learning it.

 

[KPM]

---I agree with the gist of what you are saying, but just a few points for the discussion:

I can honestly say that the sweet science of boxing doesn't need ANYTHING from Wing Chun. Boxers need to train as boxers and get experience boxing.

---Agreed. Boxing as BOXING needs nothing! But as I pointed out earlier in the thread, what Wing Chun can bring to boxing is to improve its ability to function as a full-fledged martial art....."martial boxing." Some are perfectly content with training boxing for just boxing's sake, and nothing wrong with that. But boxing is lacking when it comes to functioning as what most people would consider a martial art.


Conversely, Wing Chun doesn't need boxing and isn't compatible with it. They are completely different constructs. The second that a Wing Chun player starts trying to function like a boxer, the wheels come off....which is, by the way, why You Tube is full of Wing Chun guys losing boxing matches. It's not what we do or aspire to do. If you want to be a good boxer, you need to study and practice boxing.

---Well, that's the thing. People try to spar with Wing Chun and they typically suck. So if you want to get good at sparring, bringing boxing to the mix to "put sparring wheels" on your Wing Chun is one solution. I guess it depends on what you are trying to accomplish. A friend of mine recently pointed out that the Pin Sun Wing Chun guys in Shaping China typically do very well in the local fight/tournament scene. The same is true of the Ho Kam Ming Wing Chun guys in Macao. But neither one are actually using their Wing Chun. When it comes to competition fighting they train either Sanda or Muay Thai. So my comment was that if you are going to train something else for actual "face off fighting", then why not try to use as much as your Wing Chun as you can at the same time?


If you mix Wing Chun with Boxing, you get a different system...JDK perhaps, which is fine, but it is neither Wing Chun nor boxing. It is something different.

---Very true! I pointed this out to Joy in another thread.


Wing Chun forms have nothing to do with shadow boxing.

---The formal long forms....true. But one can "free-lance" movements from the forms and this is the equivalent of shadow boxing. One can take Wing Chun drills and work them in a flowing manner over and over and this is the equivalent of shadow boxing.



And, I don't get wanting to figure out how to make Wing Chun work better in MMA. If you're interested in MMA, there are tried and true ways to train for it.

----True. As I noted above, it would be more a matter of "enhancing" your MMA with some Wing Chun. This all goes back to a point that Dave/Nobody Important made awhile back. He proposed that Wing Chun was meant as a "fine motor skill" method to enhance the "gross motor skills" of an already existing system. I don't agree with him that this was the intent behind the design of Wing Chun, but it does work well in a modern context where you have something like western boxing or MMA as the base that is being "refined."
So from this angle, Wing Chun may very well have something to bring to boxing.


This is the golden age of martial arts, in way. Do something you like. Anything worth doing is going to require you to dedicate yourself to learning it. You can't skip over that part, even with the internet as your guide.

---True!

 

[ShortBridge]

...I don't know, man. Okay, I guess.

You and the OP are very different cases, though.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

See I would have looked at it like end result proficiency.​

I expect that's the aim of all arts. Whether the training methods foster it or not is a different question.

 

[Touch Of Death]

Thrust.

 

[wckf92]

Thrust.

???

 

[Gerry Seymour]

You said
”I have a theory that we tend to recognize most styles by their defensive approach"

Presumably this was offered as an argument against my statement that styles are defined by their movements, and should be recognizable as such if you are going to claim it is in fact the style in question.

I gave a list of the most well known styles that are plainly recognisable in attack. So by 'most styles' you meant 'your style'?

No, I meant "most styles". That's why I used that term. Boxing looks somewhat less like what we expect boxing to look like if it adapts to defend against shoot fighters. Judo looks somewhat less like Judo if it adapts to defend against strikes. And so on. If the standard defensive usage already fits what it's facing, a style doesn't have to adapt, so keeps looking like what we expect.

I maintain that bobbing, weaving, slipping while throwing hooks and haymakers using boxing rotation is in no universe, Wing Chun.

I'd agree about the boxing rotation not being native WC. The rest, I can't speak to, but from what I know of WC (very little), I can see how they would fit with it. See, I don't expect styles to stay neatly confined within where they were - I expect them to adapt as their proponents learn. So, what IS Wing Chun need not be the same as what WAS Wing Chun. The principles are what define the art.

Words mean things.

Yep, and so does a condescending attitude.

 

[Martial D]

No, I meant "most styles". That's why I used that term. Boxing looks somewhat less like what we expect boxing to look like if it adapts to defend against shoot fighters. Judo looks somewhat less like Judo if it adapts to defend against strikes. And so on. If the standard defensive usage already fits what it's facing, a style doesn't have to adapt, so keeps looking like what we expect.

A boxing jab, cross, or hook looks identical regardless of whether it hits another boxer or a judo guy. The same with every kick, submission, and throw that actually works. You are actually saying styles look less like themselves when defending against something else, which is the opposite of what you wrote initially, and imo only applies to arts that require cooperative partners to 'work'(which is the same as not working)

I'd agree about the boxing rotation not being native WC. The rest, I can't speak to, but from what I know of WC (very little), I can see how they would fit with it. See, I don't expect styles to stay neatly confined within where they were - I expect them to adapt as their proponents learn. So, what IS Wing Chun need not be the same as what WAS Wing Chun. The principles are what define the art.

Well, luckily I am very familiar with WC. WC is built on some core principles, namely centerline theory, an upright posture with shoulders down, pelvis forward. Attacks are loose and driven from the center. Take these things away and there is no more Wing Chun.

Yep, and so does a condescending attitude.

The truth doesn't care about feelings.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

A boxing jab, cross, or hook looks identical regardless of whether it hits another boxer or a judo guy. The same with every kick, submission, and throw that actually works. You are actually saying styles look less like themselves when defending against something else, which is the opposite of what you wrote initially, and imo only applies to arts that require cooperative partners to 'work'(which is the same as not working)

Agreed. My theory is that we recognize styles more (not entirely) by their defensive approach. Since most styles' default defensive approach is for defending against their fellow practitioners (boxers defending against boxers), the look changes considerably when the opponent changes, even if they are still using their standard techniques...if they adapt their defensive approach to the opponent.

Well, luckily I am very familiar with WC. WC is built on some core principles, namely centerline theory, an upright posture with shoulders down, pelvis forward. Attacks are loose and driven from the center. Take these things away and there is no more Wing Chun.

That's what I'm looking for. IIRC, you have some boxing exposure, too? Is it possible to use parts of a boxing defensive approach, for instance, without violating the principles of WC? Is an upright posture in WC a principle, or is it a common usage based on principles? Same for the pelvis being forward?

The truth doesn't care about feelings.

Nor your childish sniping, thankfully. You are capable of cogent argument, but when you result to this condescending approach, folks are less likely to want to share ideas with you. You see, you seem to think my idea needed attacking. It was, as I said, a theory. I'm perfectly open to folks pointing out flaws in it - @Steve and @Tony Dismukes both do that for me on a regular basis. @drop bear does, too, though I feel he sometimes gets lost trying to win a point, rather than communicate. I put theories out to see who else has ideas that either enhance or degrade the theory. Look at your own first response to this - you went right for derision, rather than bothering to make a cogent point - which you sort of get around to in this post.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Yes, but I think we can agree with the point of his post, which I believe is that BJJ doesn't have a focus on escape, but on using the grappling as an offensive weapon, while WC's focus (as stated) is on escape. So, a BJJ person will escape from a bad situation (and in SD, that might be the full intent), but is likely to turn that escape into a grappling attack, like a sweep into an arm bar.

In general, you are correct, but there are exceptions. When I'm teaching self-defense application, I emphasize escaping the fight as a priority. (It's the same techniques to escape from the bottom, just a different tactical decision about what to do afterwards.)

I think that's important since it's easy for students to get locked into the mindset of "I've got to beat this guy" and forget what other priorities might take precedence.

I'm not the only BJJ instructor who teaches this, but I'll admit I'm probably in a minority.

 

[Martial D]

That's what I'm looking for. IIRC, you have some boxing exposure, too? Is it possible to use parts of a boxing defensive approach, for instance, without violating the principles of WC? Is an upright posture in WC a principle, or is it a common usage based on principles? Same for the pelvis being forward?

In WC everything, attack, defense, and movement, is based on and reliant on body structure. Take that away and nothing works. All the 'saus become collapsible, the mother line 'root' gets dispelled, etc etc.
As for mixing the two, most WC guys would say the two systems are incompatible, and to an extent, I agree. Mixing them, like say, throwing boxing hooks from a WC stance or chain punching or throwing out other WC stuff from a boxing stance, isnt a useful thing to do.(mostly because you can't shift properly.)
Where it works for me is what I call mode shifting. I base this off of the 4 ranges of JKD. Once I'm in trapping range, I sink into WC. On the outside I throw like a boxer(sort of, more rooted less bouncy). If I get tangled up or taken down, I go into grappling mode. I used to have a kicking game too but,my knees can't take that shiz anymore.

Nor your childish sniping, thankfully. You are capable of cogent argument, but when you result to this condescending approach, folks are less likely to want to share ideas with you.

There was a time when a no bullsh#t, straight up and frank way of speaking was just how men communicated. Nowadays everyone has paper thin skin, think everything not delivered with velvet gloves is an attack, and believe not communicating as women do is childish. I think I was born in the wrong time.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

In WC everything, attack, defense, and movement, is based on and reliant on body structure. Take that away and nothing works. All the 'saus become collapsible, the mother line 'root' gets dispelled, etc etc.
As for mixing the two, most WC guys would say the two systems are incompatible, and to an extent, I agree. Mixing them, like say, throwing boxing hooks from a WC stance or chain punching or throwing out other WC stuff from a boxing stance, isnt a useful thing to do.(mostly because you can't shift properly.)
Where it works for me is what I call mode shifting. I base this off of the 4 ranges of JKD. Once I'm in trapping range, I sink into WC. On the outside I throw like a boxer(sort of, more rooted less bouncy). If I get tangled up or taken down, I go into grappling mode. I used to have a kicking game too but,my knees can't take that shiz anymore.

Do you think that exclusion applies to boxing style defenses, too? That would be things like raising the shoulders, using a close guard, etc. This is getting close to my thought here. If boxing's defenses are best suited to defending against boxing attacks (which seems a reasonable premise), and a style cannot adopt boxing defenses without causing problems with their own attacks, then the only option left might be that mode switching. In some arts (again, I'll use my primary art as an example of this), boxing-style defenses aren't as much of a problem. I don't get my shoulders up as much as most boxers, but the close guard works okay, and I can work from the boxer's posture until I get my hands on them for grappling and can settle into a grappling posture. There's always a transition (for me) from striking defense to grappling attack/defense posture, so the boxing posture doesn't disrupt that.

There was a time when a no bullsh#t, straight up and frank way of speaking was just how men communicated. Nowadays everyone has paper thin skin, think everything not delivered with velvet gloves is an attack, and believe not communicating as women do is childish. I think I was born in the wrong time.

Yeah, there was a time when people knew the difference between frankness and sniping, too. Words mean things, you know?

 

[Martial D]

Do you think that exclusion applies to boxing style defenses, too?

Well I do tend to shell up in tight if the guy is going apesh#t with two free arms, but other than that I'd say yes.

Yeah, there was a time when people knew the difference between frankness and sniping, too. Words mean things, you know?

They do..mean things that is. Its when we lose sight of this communication becomes less effective.

 

[drop bear]

Do you think that exclusion applies to boxing style defenses, too? That would be things like raising the shoulders, using a close guard, etc. This is getting close to my thought here. If boxing's defenses are best suited to defending against boxing attacks (which seems a reasonable premise), and a style cannot adopt boxing defenses without causing problems with their own attacks, then the only option left might be that mode switching. In some arts (again, I'll use my primary art as an example of this), boxing-style defenses aren't as much of a problem. I don't get my shoulders up as much as most boxers, but the close guard works okay, and I can work from the boxer's posture until I get my hands on them for grappling and can settle into a grappling posture. There's always a transition (for me) from striking defense to grappling attack/defense posture, so the boxing posture doesn't disrupt that

Or if everyone winds up pretty much looking the same when they fight then there really is an optimal system for fighting.