What was Wing Chun designed for?

[geezer]

Ok. I'll just put this out and then be done with it.

So you be the judge! Do you think it more likely that:

A. What we see on Sean's clip is "pure WSLVT" based on that section from the BJ form?

or

B. What we seen on Sean's clip is an adaptation of boxing via MMA to the concepts taught from that section of the WSLVT BJ form?

What do YOU guys think?

And with that, I've said all I can and I'm out! That is, unless someone feels the need to continue with his "character assassination" or tries to twist around what I've been saying all along.

OK, I vote B.

...And that's what Sean said in his post, too.

...And since those movements are apparently consistent with WSL VT Biu Jee concepts, at least according to both Sean and LFJ, then it's perfectly within VT parameters. I'll take their word for that, since they're the WSL-VT guys on this forum.

That makes everybody right, sort of. Except that you and LFJ insist on finding grounds to disagree. I couldn't care less at this point. I like the way Sean put it best:

This technique is widely used in both traditional CMA and in modern MMA. It works. I like things that work. It also does not compromise our VT structure or strategy, in my opinion. As LFJ rightly points out, it is more of a BJ tactic, "looking beyond the pointing finger" as it were. But let's not get caught up in where it comes from....that misses the whole point.

Now maybe it's time to let this topic rest?

 

[geezer]

....Because I don't have this need to try and defend anything and prove to people that what I do is the "real thing" and "true VT" and "exactly what Ip Man taught" and "non-gap filled" and "the best damn thing since sliced bread"!!!!!

No, you don't have the need to prove that what you do is the one, true, "unbroken" VT that YM intended.

...But you do apparently have a need to win in these mostly meaningless internet dust-ups. Why not trust that some folks will get your point, some may not, and that there will always be others who will never agree, no matter what arguments you muster? Accept that and your stress level will go way down.

Oh, and these threads will be a lot shorter and more interesting.

 

[Juany118]

True! And also as I pointed out before, the elbow shield is essentially an exaggerated "Tun Sau" or "Sao Sau" from Pin Sun Wing Chun. However, I wouldn't do what is also essentially an "elbow shield" the way boxing does (without exaggerating anything....without saying "see, if you freeze this motion at this particular instant....") and then tell people that it is "pure TWC" or "pure Pin Sun Wing Chun." No, I would be honest and tell people that this high cover I am using was inspired by western boxing, but also conceptually matches with an exaggerated Chuen Sau from TWC or an exaggerated Tun Sau from Pin Sun, and so fits with those systems just fine. Because I don't have this need to try and defend anything and prove to people that what I do is the "real thing" and "true VT" and "exactly what Ip Man taught" and "non-gap filled" and "the best damn thing since sliced bread"!!!!!

I think the issue falls down to two issues.
1. What does "pure <insert MA> mean. As I said before Sifu Keith has said "you don't really fight this way" more than once standing in the picture perfect man sau/wu sau. We are taught that TWC is a conceptual martial art and this means that you adhere to principles first because we aren't being taught techniques, to use the words of Sifu Jerry and my school's Sifu, we are being taught a skill. So to me the elbow shield is a "pure" TWC technique.

2. Other TMA's use such high guards. Here is one from Shaolin Kung Fu that is very similar as an example

It also exists in both Northern and Southern Philippines FMA. This distinction is important because while the Northern FMA has boxing elements the south doesn't, there some communities even call FMA not Kali, Arnis or Escrima but Silat. Neither the Spanish nor the Americans ever fully pacified the south during the age of colonialism so the empty hand fighting is more based in Silat due to the influence of Muslim traders from the region (and thus indirectly in part by the influence of Chinese Kung Fu actually from the LARGE expat populations that have existed in the region for centuries.) In FMA the elbow cover is inspired NOT by the western boxing cover but the roof or shield block (below is a shield, a roof block would be a similar angle going from right to left.)

Biomechanics are biomechanics. Western Boxing really didn't invent any specific technique contained within it. The human body can only move in so many ways, ergo it can only protect itself and attack others in so many ways. What happened was that the rule set resulted in a specific strategy, said strategy resulted in focusing on specific methods which were refined further because the narrow rule set naturally limits said available methods . One of these methods happens to be the elbow block but it clearly exists elsewhere

So in the end we have the first point where what is "pure" depends on how you are actually taught your art. Are you taught that there is a "look" that must be adhered to or are you taught that there are principles that need be adhered to? If it's just principles then look/appearance doesn't matter.

Second the fact that you keep referring to a specific guard/block as having it's origin in Western Boxing when I suspect that the technique only became commonplace in boxing sometime after 1867. I say this because that was when gloves were required under the publication of the Queensbury rules and prior to the introduction of gloves shots to the head were VERY Wing Chun like and used sparingly due to the risk of injury from punching a skull with the naked hand. As such the vast majority of blows were body shots so why really work such a head cover? As it exists in various forms in older MAs to say "it's from western boxing" simply doesn't seem entirely accurate.

On this last point I invite @lklawson to correct me if I am off because as far as I am concerned he is the authority around here on the history of Western Pugilism.


THE MOST IMPORTANT PART
Oh btw, I am NOT saying that TWC, or any WC for that matter, is "the one true Wing Chun" either. All I am saying is 2 things.

1. Things that are not seen by some as "true" WC to some can come from sources other than Western Boxing because even the elbow shield/guard exists in other arts that predate it and...
2. Since every lineage has differences, some small and some great, it could be "pure" as far as that specific lineage is concerned and seem impure to those who study another lineage.

Sorry if my tendency to talk/type too much has obscured these 2 points but they are my key points.

 

[LFJ]

The other is that it is impossible to integrate other styles into VT because of its uniqueness.

That has not been said at all.

BJJ is an excellent addition to VT that doesn't contradict its striking method.

WB strategy and tactics, most obviously footwork at long and close range, directly contradict VT, but also general defense and striking methods.

Doesn't lobo do exactly that?

No. The striking method I've seen is VT, contextualized, as he said. They incorporate grappling skills.

 

[LFJ]

I would be honest and tell people that this high cover I am using was inspired by western boxing, but also conceptually matches with...

That may well be true for your WC, but you cannot just assert the same thing in another system where you have no knowledge or experience whatsoever, much less facts to back up the assertion.

To simply make this bald assertion from a position of complete ignorance is a lie.

I don't have this need to try and defend anything and prove to people that what I do is the "real thing" and "true VT" and "exactly what Ip Man taught" and "non-gap filled" and "the best damn thing since sliced bread"!!!!!

That seems to be what this whole thing is about...

You hate it when I say certain supposedly YM derived systems are broken and require gap-filling.

After years of fighting it, you have acknowledged the gaps in what you train, but now you want to drag everyone else down with you, as if that changes anything.

So, you will lie about what was or was not original to the system I train, despite having no knowledge of or experience with it, and nothing to back up your assertion.

 

[karatejj]

[If you look at the photos I provided, you'll see the exact same arm position as in the form.
Arm thrown up to cover. Hand and forearm wrapping the head, elbow lifted to point forward.

---Except if you look at the actual video, WSL never pauses in the position you have frozen in the picture. Not even for a nanosecond. So your photo gives a very false impression. He is also looking straight at the ground. Can you pause there? Sure! Was that what WSL intended....a high cover? I seriously doubt it! Would Ip Man have ever done a high cover like that? I seriously doubt it. Does that make it wrong? Of course not! That just shows there was an outside influence that lead people to seeing this motion in the BJ form and deciding that it was close enough to the high cover seen in other systems. So that high cover from other systems could be "borrowed" and still be seen to fit with WSLVT concepts from the BJ form. Does that make it "pure WSLVT"? I don't think so.

---But LFJ can defame me and continue his character assassination all he wants. I'm just pointing out common sense!

Umm, dude, I agree with a lot of what you are saying but the forms are not full of things you need to copy in fighting like a robot

I would say I agree with this guy that his wing chun is nothing like other wing chun. He posted clips and I don't know WTF I am looking at tehre

My question then would be why is it so different? Is it really wing chun?...

 

[LFJ]

Biomechanics are biomechanics. Western Boxing really didn't invent any specific technique contained within it.

Correct. There are countless unrelated styles that have this technique, because it's human fighting.

As it exists in various forms in older MAs to say "it's from western boxing" simply doesn't seem entirely accurate.

Therefore, if someone wants to assert that it came specifically from WB and is not original to the system, it is incumbent upon them to demonstrate this.

Who, when, where? "Looks like" doesn't do it. That is just a bald assertion.

1. Things that are not seen by some as "true" WC to some can come from sources other than Western Boxing because even the elbow shield/guard exists in other arts that predate it and...

Correct. As above, if any such claim is to be made, a burden of proof must be met.

How do we know it was specifically WB and not one of the countless other styles that use it?
How do we know it was not original to the system as common human biomechanics?

A very specific assertion has been made, without the slightest fact to demonstrate it.

2. Since every lineage has differences, some small and some great, it could be "pure" as far as that specific lineage is concerned and seem impure to those who study another lineage.

Correct. It would be wise to educate oneself before making careless assertions.

I was asked where this technique comes from in the WSLVT BJ form, because the questioner had no idea and doubted it was there.

I showed it clearly. Then it was still denied by a mind already made up, purely out of ego.

 

[LFJ]

2. Other TMA's use such high guards. Here is one from Shaolin Kung Fu that is very similar as an example

Not a great example, since it's not covering tightly as the WB high cover.

Real Shaolin is not very common outside of the mountains, even in commercial schools right outside the temple, but especially not overseas. It's all performance crap.

The high guard in Shaolin is called yunding, meaning "cloudy peak", arm covering the head like a mountain peak enveloped in clouds.

It can be done in the small frame, tightly wrapping the head, or large frame where the guard is extended.

The small frame "looks like" the WB high cover. But, it would be stupid to say it came straight from WB since it predates WB by centuries.

Since some people say VT is the distillation of Shaolin arts, why would one jump to WB and not Shaolin for origins?

Obviously because they're only familiar with WB, and ignorant of TCMA in general!

The correct attitude would be to say, oh cool, that's like this technique in WB, okay, I understand.

The uneducated, ego-driven attitude would be to say, wait a minute, that's just this technique in WB, not pure VT!

Anyway, here it is at 5:27:

 

[KPM]

1. What does "pure <insert MA> mean. As I said before Sifu Keith has said "you don't really fight this way" more than once standing in the picture perfect man sau/wu sau. We are taught that TWC is a conceptual martial art and this means that you adhere to principles first because we aren't being taught techniques, to use the words of Sifu Jerry and my school's Sifu, we are being taught a skill. So to me the elbow shield is a "pure" TWC technique.

----Ok. My last comment on the topic and then I'm done. Because Geezer is right.

---I think we can apply a simple thing call the "reasonable person" argument. Sure, as I have already pointed out, the high cover matches conceptually with things from TWC, Pin Sun, and WSLVT. But if a person was training those systems and had NEVER seen or experienced a boxing high cover from exposure to western boxing or MMA, would a reasonable person do that so readily in a way that so closely matches western boxing? It isn't a question of who did it first historically. Its a question of whether a reasonable person would have come up with that exact thing if they hadn't seen it or experienced it from outside of Wing Chun? If the answer is "no" then it cannot be referred to as "pure" Wing Chun. It may be adapted to Wing Chun following Wing Chun priniciples....but not "pure."

---If you think the answer to that question is "yes." Well then we will have to agree to disagree, and I would question your motivations for having to maintain that your system is so "pure" and "complete." Because I just don't think the guys living in Ku Lo village practicing Pin Sun Wing Chun a generation ago were doing "high covers" like a boxer.....a "Sao Sau"....yes, which is similar but not exactly the same. And guys today doing TWC and WSLVT cannot escape exposure to seeing that boxing high cover used in multiple different fighting venues. Its everywhere. So it just seems like common sense to me that they have seen other people doing it, acknowledged its effectiveness, recognized that it matched some things conceptually in their system and started to use it. I don't have any emotional investment in calling it "pure." I just get frustrated when people seem to be defying common sense arguments. But Geezer is right. People will be people.

 

[LFJ]

if a person was training those systems and had NEVER seen or experienced a boxing high cover from exposure to western boxing or MMA, would a reasonable person do that so readily in a way that so closely matches western boxing?

If it is already a part of the system, then yes, of course.
The same is true of the Shaolin example I just posted.

It isn't a question of who did it first historically. Its a question of whether a reasonable person would have come up with that exact thing if they hadn't seen it or experienced it from outside of Wing Chun?

If it is already a part of the system, then yes, of course.
The same is true of the Shaolin example I just posted.

The action is really just a refinement of a natural instinct to cover one's head.
It's no wonder various styles have come to this independently.

If the answer is "no" then it cannot be referred to as "pure" Wing Chun. It may be adapted to Wing Chun following Wing Chun priniciples....but not "pure."

The answer is yes.

---If you think the answer to that question is "yes." Well then we will have to agree to disagree, and I would question your motivations for having to maintain that your system is so "pure" and "complete."

No such motivation. The system simply is what it is, despite your ignorance of it.

And guys today doing TWC and WSLVT cannot escape exposure to seeing that boxing high cover used in multiple different fighting venues. Its everywhere.

The same is true of the Shaolin example I just posted.

It is stupid to round up all the styles that use this action and claim they're all copying boxing.

Or to single one out and make this assertion without proof, especially when you don't even know the system you're talking about.

I just get frustrated when people seem to be defying common sense arguments.

You have not given a common sense argument. You have simply made a baldass assertion from ignorance.

 

[Danny T]

In my experience...take any new untrained person and start slapping them in the head or body. They will almost always bring their arms up to cover their head or drop their arms to cover the body.
Which system did that derive? Many systems have the same movements, same actions, same positions...Why? Has nothing to do with the purity of the system but that it is human doing what is human action.

You may continue your silly arguing.

 

[lklawson]

Second the fact that you keep referring to a specific guard/block as having it's origin in Western Boxing when I suspect that the technique only became commonplace in boxing sometime after 1867. I say this because that was when gloves were required under the publication of the Queensbury rules and prior to the introduction of gloves shots to the head were VERY Wing Chun like and used sparingly due to the risk of injury from punching a skull with the naked hand. As such the vast majority of blows were body shots so why really work such a head cover? As it exists in various forms in older MAs to say "it's from western boxing" simply doesn't seem entirely accurate.

On this last point I invite @lklawson to correct me if I am off because as far as I am concerned he is the authority around here on the history of Western Pugilism.

One of the best sources for pre-MoQ and pre-LPR boxing in England, which I place in the late period "Broughton Era" is Daniel Mendoza's "The Modern Art of Boxing." It contains descriptions, exposition, instruction, (very importantly) his "Six Lessons," and (a real treat) a description of his famous fight with Humphreys, another famous and influential boxer of the day (it was the equivalent of the Thrilla in Manila fo its day).

Based on this work, as well as others, we see that elbow blocks and the equivalent of "high blocks" were common and in use. The most interesting elbow block is described in Mendoza's First Lesson:

"Master strikes round at your right ear with his left.
Parry with your right arm, turning up the elbow so as to cover the side of the head..."​

Lesson Two lists:

"Master strikes 1 at the side and 2 at the stomach.
Parry with the proper arms, first by catching the blow on the proper elbow, and secondly, parrying the blow at the stomach with the proper fore-arm; that is, if he strikes with his left first, catch it with your right elbow, and bar his right with your left across your stomach, and vice versa of his right."​

Strikes at the face and head were also more than was once thought. The very first two techniques taught in Mendoza's first Lesson are defenses against a straight left and a straight rear at the face"

"Master strikes with his left arm at your face.
Parry with your right fore-arm, barring at the same time your stomach with your left fore-arm, throwing your head and body back.
Master strikes with his right at your face.
Parry with you left fore-arm, barring at the same time your stomach with your right fore-arm, throwing your head and body back."​

In a truly fascinating snapshot of the Mendoza v. Humphreys match, the first three rounds read like the script to a Bruce Lee scene. Humphreys throws a punch at Mendoza's face, Mendoza counters with a single straight to Humphreys face, knocking him on his butt and ending the round:

"Humphreys aimed the first blow at the face of his antagonist. This Mendoza stopped, returned it with great quickness, and knocked him down: the second and third rounds terminated exactly in the same manner."

Fists were protected from injury by using a pistol-grip punch, being specific about how they punched, and by conditioning the fists which included graduated striking routines and jow-like lineaments, tinctures, and decoctions. "Gloves," called "Mufflers" or "Mittens" at the time, were known but only used by amateurs or during practice in which the pro wanted to minimize injury. Many pros eschewed their use entirely, decrying them as unmanly. One of my favorite references is of a boxer from the book Claret and Cross-Buttock:

"Some said he was an argument against the Ring: that he shouldn't be let loose against a fightin' sportsman. That he fought like wild beast. That he never knew when to lay off. He hated gloves. Why go to all the trouble to pickle your hands in Tom Sayer's brew of turps, whiskey vinegar, horse radish and saltpetre, if ye were goin' to cover them up? Ye were supposed to use your hands to hurt him, not protect him."

I'm not sure that this answered the question you were positing. Did I get close?

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[geezer]

To simply make this bald assertion from a position of complete ignorance is a lie.

So, you will lie about what was or was not original to the system I train, despite having no knowledge

...The system simply is what it is, despite your ignorance of it.
It is stupid to round up all the styles that use this action and claim they're all copying boxing...
...You have not given a common sense argument. You have simply made a baldass assertion from ignorance.

LFJ, in your many informative, articulate, and well-crafted posts over the years, time and again you have proven yourself knowledgeable not only on the subject of WSL-VT, but regarding TCMA in general. You are also a skilled writer.

So when you repeatedly choose to express yourself using offensive terms like, dishonest, ie, ignorance, stupid, baldass, and so forth, you cheapen your own argument and lose all credibility as an objective voice on the subject. KPM then responds in kind, and the two of you go at it in a way that only degrades the quality of this forum and further sullies the reputation of VT/WC as a whole.

I'll give you the same advice I've given KPM numerous times: Chill-out dude, control your temper and take the high road. Or keep on as you are, and regardless of your knowledge, you will continue to come off as arrogant and asinine.

Based on previous posts, I expect that you will try to argue in defense of your actions. Don't bother. If you don't believe me, don't take my word for it. Ask around. I'm willing to bet most of the other long-term contributors here feel the same way.

 

[LFJ]

Based on previous posts, I expect that you will try to argue in defense of your actions. Don't bother. If you don't believe me, don't take my word for it. Ask around. I'm willing to bet most of the other long-term contributors here feel the same way.

Okay. Advice duly noted. In the future, if a bald assertion is purposefully made knowing there is no proof or evidence to support the claim, I will not point out the dishonesty of it, but simply ask that the burden of proof is met if the person wishes to persist in making the false claim, so that the dishonesty is self-evident as they fail to do so.

"Ignorance" is not an offensive term, though, unless someone knows everything about every system and this is an insult to their omniscience??

How's "unfamiliarity"? The system is what it is, despite anyone's unfamiliarity with it.

 

[geezer]

Okay. Advice duly noted. In the future, if a bald assertion is purposefully made knowing there is no proof or evidence to support the claim, I will not point out the dishonesty of it, but simply ask that the burden of proof is met if the person wishes to persist in making the false claim, so that the dishonesty is self-evident as they fail to do so.

Yes! When your point is convincing, it will be self-evident to any with an open mind. ...and that is equally true for opposing perspectives. Really, just keep your dignity have a little faith in the rest of us! Besides, if some of us disagree, ...well so what? Nothing to get worked-up about.

"Ignorance" is not an offensive term, though, unless someone knows everything about every system and this is an insult to their omniscience??
How's "unfamiliarity"? The system is what it is, despite anyone's unfamiliarity with it.

Of course unfamiliarity a gentler term than ignorance, especially on a forum like this where people will infer the worst. Purely academically speaking, perhaps the word ignorance is not an insult, depending on context. I think what really annoys you is not ignorance anyway. Heck, I'm ignorant about WSL-VT and you usually cut me a little slack. Rather, you get worked up when you are faced with what you perceive as obstinate and willful ignorance. Try to remember that you may also come across that way to some parties.

Personally, I was really impressed by Sean's posts. Judging from the videos I've seen, he's got a great VT club, but he was so modest about describing what they do, prefacing his assertions with phrases like, "in my opinion", etc. In my experience, that disarming humility makes people much more open to whatever you say next.

 

[Nobody Important]

One of the best sources for pre-MoQ and pre-LPR boxing in England, which I place in the late period "Broughton Era" is Daniel Mendoza's "The Modern Art of Boxing." It contains descriptions, exposition, instruction, (very importantly) his "Six Lessons," and (a real treat) a description of his famous fight with Humphreys, another famous and influential boxer of the day (it was the equivalent of the Thrilla in Manila fo its day).

Based on this work, as well as others, we see that elbow blocks and the equivalent of "high blocks" were common and in use. The most interesting elbow block is described in Mendoza's First Lesson:

"Master strikes round at your right ear with his left.
Parry with your right arm, turning up the elbow so as to cover the side of the head..."​

Lesson Two lists:

"Master strikes 1 at the side and 2 at the stomach.
Parry with the proper arms, first by catching the blow on the proper elbow, and secondly, parrying the blow at the stomach with the proper fore-arm; that is, if he strikes with his left first, catch it with your right elbow, and bar his right with your left across your stomach, and vice versa of his right."​

Strikes at the face and head were also more than was once thought. The very first two techniques taught in Mendoza's first Lesson are defenses against a straight left and a straight rear at the face"

"Master strikes with his left arm at your face.
Parry with your right fore-arm, barring at the same time your stomach with your left fore-arm, throwing your head and body back.
Master strikes with his right at your face.
Parry with you left fore-arm, barring at the same time your stomach with your right fore-arm, throwing your head and body back."​

In a truly fascinating snapshot of the Mendoza v. Humphreys match, the first three rounds read like the script to a Bruce Lee scene. Humphreys throws a punch at Mendoza's face, Mendoza counters with a single straight to Humphreys face, knocking him on his butt and ending the round:

"Humphreys aimed the first blow at the face of his antagonist. This Mendoza stopped, returned it with great quickness, and knocked him down: the second and third rounds terminated exactly in the same manner."

Fists were protected from injury by using a pistol-grip punch, being specific about how they punched, and by conditioning the fists which included graduated striking routines and jow-like lineaments, tinctures, and decoctions. "Gloves," called "Mufflers" or "Mittens" at the time, were known but only used by amateurs or during practice in which the pro wanted to minimize injury. Many pros eschewed their use entirely, decrying them as unmanly. One of my favorite references is of a boxer from the book Claret and Cross-Buttock:

"Some said he was an argument against the Ring: that he shouldn't be let loose against a fightin' sportsman. That he fought like wild beast. That he never knew when to lay off. He hated gloves. Why go to all the trouble to pickle your hands in Tom Sayer's brew of turps, whiskey vinegar, horse radish and saltpetre, if ye were goin' to cover them up? Ye were supposed to use your hands to hurt him, not protect him."

I'm not sure that this answered the question you were positing. Did I get close?

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

This is a great post, that hopefully didn't get overlooked in all the noise. It touched base on several points I was thinking about, as I'm sure were many others.

 

[Juany118]

One of the best sources for pre-MoQ and pre-LPR boxing in England, which I place in the late period "Broughton Era" is Daniel Mendoza's "The Modern Art of Boxing." It contains descriptions, exposition, instruction, (very importantly) his "Six Lessons," and (a real treat) a description of his famous fight with Humphreys, another famous and influential boxer of the day (it was the equivalent of the Thrilla in Manila fo its day).

Based on this work, as well as others, we see that elbow blocks and the equivalent of "high blocks" were common and in use. The most interesting elbow block is described in Mendoza's First Lesson:

"Master strikes round at your right ear with his left.
Parry with your right arm, turning up the elbow so as to cover the side of the head..."​

Lesson Two lists:

"Master strikes 1 at the side and 2 at the stomach.
Parry with the proper arms, first by catching the blow on the proper elbow, and secondly, parrying the blow at the stomach with the proper fore-arm; that is, if he strikes with his left first, catch it with your right elbow, and bar his right with your left across your stomach, and vice versa of his right."​

Strikes at the face and head were also more than was once thought. The very first two techniques taught in Mendoza's first Lesson are defenses against a straight left and a straight rear at the face"

"Master strikes with his left arm at your face.
Parry with your right fore-arm, barring at the same time your stomach with your left fore-arm, throwing your head and body back.
Master strikes with his right at your face.
Parry with you left fore-arm, barring at the same time your stomach with your right fore-arm, throwing your head and body back."​

In a truly fascinating snapshot of the Mendoza v. Humphreys match, the first three rounds read like the script to a Bruce Lee scene. Humphreys throws a punch at Mendoza's face, Mendoza counters with a single straight to Humphreys face, knocking him on his butt and ending the round:

"Humphreys aimed the first blow at the face of his antagonist. This Mendoza stopped, returned it with great quickness, and knocked him down: the second and third rounds terminated exactly in the same manner."

Fists were protected from injury by using a pistol-grip punch, being specific about how they punched, and by conditioning the fists which included graduated striking routines and jow-like lineaments, tinctures, and decoctions. "Gloves," called "Mufflers" or "Mittens" at the time, were known but only used by amateurs or during practice in which the pro wanted to minimize injury. Many pros eschewed their use entirely, decrying them as unmanly. One of my favorite references is of a boxer from the book Claret and Cross-Buttock:

"Some said he was an argument against the Ring: that he shouldn't be let loose against a fightin' sportsman. That he fought like wild beast. That he never knew when to lay off. He hated gloves. Why go to all the trouble to pickle your hands in Tom Sayer's brew of turps, whiskey vinegar, horse radish and saltpetre, if ye were goin' to cover them up? Ye were supposed to use your hands to hurt him, not protect him."

I'm not sure that this answered the question you were positing. Did I get close?

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

It did indeed, thank you.

 

[Juany118]

1. What does "pure <insert MA> mean. As I said before Sifu Keith has said "you don't really fight this way" more than once standing in the picture perfect man sau/wu sau. We are taught that TWC is a conceptual martial art and this means that you adhere to principles first because we aren't being taught techniques, to use the words of Sifu Jerry and my school's Sifu, we are being taught a skill. So to me the elbow shield is a "pure" TWC technique.

----Ok. My last comment on the topic and then I'm done. Because Geezer is right.

---I think we can apply a simple thing call the "reasonable person" argument. Sure, as I have already pointed out, the high cover matches conceptually with things from TWC, Pin Sun, and WSLVT. But if a person was training those systems and had NEVER seen or experienced a boxing high cover from exposure to western boxing or MMA, would a reasonable person do that so readily in a way that so closely matches western boxing? It isn't a question of who did it first historically. Its a question of whether a reasonable person would have come up with that exact thing if they hadn't seen it or experienced it from outside of Wing Chun? If the answer is "no" then it cannot be referred to as "pure" Wing Chun. It may be adapted to Wing Chun following Wing Chun priniciples....but not "pure."

But you are applying the "reasonable person" from a western context. Yes of course in the west we will say that's from WB. However if you said that to many an FMA practitioner they would say "no its an empty hand version of an overhead stick/shield cover" and person from China may say "no it's a Shaolin Technique" etc.

when talking about things like TMAs which cross cultural lines it smacks a bit of the "white man's burden" to assume the origin as being WB when there are much closer culturally homogeneous sources for the technique.

I honestly believe that the main reason it may be missing in other WC/VT lineages is not because it was never there but because slowly over time it simply was never taught because the art has, for the most part, progressively become more and more simply "WC vs WC." When you are typically just dealing with straight punches in training you might not even consider in the elbow shield, let alone train it.

Most important part (perhaps)
On the other hand you have the fact that TWC and WSLVT were both created/spread by two of the most notorious street fighters among YM's students. Even if it wasn't originally part of YM's WC/VT they could have easily picked up the technique themselves from their experience of fighting on the room tops of Hong Kong from other styles of TCMAs that already had it as it can be a more efficient way for dealing with round strikes which. This to me is actually a more reasonable argument rather than making the assumption that it must have come from a Western source.

 

[KPM]

But you are applying the "reasonable person" from a western context. Yes of course in the west we will say that's from WB. However if you said that to many an FMA practitioner they would say "no its an empty hand version of an overhead stick/shield cover" and person from China may say "no it's a Shaolin Technique" etc.

----Be aren't talking about the Phillipines or China. We're talking about a group of Europeans training for MMA. So don't you think its reasonable to think that their exposure to the technique come from WB via MMA? Isn't that just common sense?


when talking about things like TMAs which cross cultural lines it smacks a bit of the "white man's burden" to assume the origin as being WB when there are much closer culturally homogeneous sources for the technique.

--- I already explained that it doesn't matter who might have done it first historically. What matters is where they would have been exposed to it in a modern context. They were training MMA. So doesn't it seem likely that this was their exposure to the technique?


Most important part (perhaps)
On the other hand you have the fact that TWC and WSLVT were both created/spread by two of the most notorious street fighters among YM's students. Even if it wasn't originally part of YM's WC/VT they could have easily picked up the technique themselves from their experience of fighting on the room tops of Hong Kong from other styles of TCMAs that already had it as it can be a more efficient way for dealing with round strikes which. This to me is actually a more reasonable argument rather than making the assumption that it must have come from a Western source.

---If you could provide video of either Wong Shun Leung or William Cheung doing a "high cover", then I would be willing to go along with your idea. If you were able to provide a video of any WSL student doing a high cover outside of an MMA context, then I might be willing to go along with you. Until then, your argument is not more reasonable. Its more reasonable to assume that guys training for MMA incorporated the high cover after seeing it used successfully in MMA and because they recognized that it was in-line with a concept from their BJ form. I think that's what the typical "reasonable person" would assume.

 

[drop bear]

That has not been said at all.

BJJ is an excellent addition to VT that doesn't contradict its striking method.

WB strategy and tactics, most obviously footwork at long and close range, directly contradict VT, but also general defense and striking methods.



No. The striking method I've seen is VT, contextualized, as he said. They incorporate grappling skills.

The striking method i have seen is western. Which should say something about their compatibility.

That video does not directly contradict WB strategy.

BJJ actually contradicts every striking method.

But that still doesn't mean you can't cross train it.