Wing Chun Boxing

[KPM]

The more I have been thinking about it, and I have pretty much settled on the idea that something that have very integrated weapons, out of the gate, is a better match.

---I can understand that, coming from an LEO! But my concern is that a weapons-based art has such a strong identity of its own that any Wing Chun component would be essentially "lost in the mix." My emphasis is on effective empty-hand sparring/free-fighting, as that is the way I am most likely to use my training. If I was more concerned about weapons use and weapons defense, then I totally agree that studying a FMA would be a better choice. But then there would be no need to integrate it with Wing Chun, since Wing Chun's emphasis is not weapons.


WC has as a key concept "protect the center". The manner the guy in your video there does so made me cringe when I thought of this principle. Boxing accomplishes this BUT it does so in a way that, when under pressure, often violates another key concept, simultaneous attack and defense.

---More use of simultaneous attack and defense is something that Wing Chun can bring to boxing. And you don't have to occupy the center to protect the center.


The average practitioner will have a difficult time integrating boxing on the defensive side, I think. However arts that integrate empty hand and weapons from the beginning definitely have the idea of longer range AND center protection out of the gate.

---I have to disagree with you on this one. As I'm starting to teach my guys the Boxing side, they seem to be finding most of it pretty instinctive...."covering up" to shield yourself from blows is a large part of boxing defense, and is quite an instinctive response for most people. At long range Boxing defense centers around evasive body movement and footwork. Also something found in weapons systems.


A natural consequence of the integration of weapons with empty hand is that you train, out of the gate, to defend against an armed subject if you have no weapon, or need to draw. There is no cover in such a circumstance.

----I agree. But in almost every martial art, FMAs included, training to defend empty hand vs. a weapon is considered a different category of training compared to empty hand vs. empty hand. It has its own methods within the system. A "Wing Chun Boxing" would be no different. When I get ready to teach empty-hand defenses against the knife, I will draw upon Mike Janich's "Counter Blade Concepts" or "CBC." Janich bases it upon FMA, but it also has some very "Wing Chun-like" features.

 

[Juany118]

---I have to disagree with you on this one. As I'm starting to teach my guys the Boxing side, they seem to be finding most of it pretty instinctive...."covering up" to shield yourself from blows is a large part of boxing defense, and is quite an instinctive response for most people. At long range Boxing defense centers around evasive body movement and footwork. Also something found in weapons systems.
.

I think the underlined part is actually to my point. I am talking about the average guy who is studying WC and is a good student but who wants to deepen his game without the benefit of a teacher like you showing them the boxing side and how it works.

Maybe it's the specific nature of Inosanto Kali that makes me think it would work better. You note how there is a demarcation between weapon training and empty hand training in FMA but the way Inosanto Kali is taught (the only Kali I have experience with) you are shown how the weapon work (both hand and foot work) relates directly to the empty hand. It's not taught

here is how you use weapons, okay now here is how you do empty hand.

Rather it's

okay now that we are done with the weapons, onto empty hand, see how all the same principles apply?

Guro Dan based his system in those taught by Johnny Lacoste and Floro Villabrille. Lacoste's concept was that in learning how to do everything (locking, pinning, chocking, disarming, hitting etc) with long and short weapons paired together one would be able to flow across all weapons, and empty hand. The idea behind this is based on how dynamic it is. I may parry my opponents sword/stick with my sword/stick but now I have to rapidly close inside that guard to be able either disarm, or attack, my opponent with my dagger. They also try to relate the various armed techniques to empty hand techniques.

I believe this manner of teaching would allow the person, who doesn't have the benefit of a teacher such as yourself, to do the integration on their own. Here is a far more in depth description of of the Lacoste-Inosanto blend from a 1985 issue of Blackbelt magazine...

Lacoste Inosanto Kali

 

[KPM]

Here is another take on "Wing Chun Boxing." This one from Victor Parlati, one of GM William Cheung's senior students in the US. Jump to the 6:30 mark:

 

[Knapf]

Is combining Wing Chun and Boxing the way to really get it to work in fighting/sparring?

Yes

 

[JbrmWC]

I'm new here but I've done some hard sparring with my WC. I've also used boxing against WC in sparring. My Kung fu brother I spar with has been practicing for 11 years and I've been at it for 2 1/2. He's 5'7" and I'm 6'2", I've found that just boxing doesn't work as well against his WC. I have incorporate other things/styles to get over on him. When I use WC adding boxing interrupts the flow of my WC and plays into his because of the committed punches of boxing. These are just some things I've noticed when sparring at full speed.

 

[Juany118]

Here is another take on "Wing Chun Boxing." This one from Victor Parlati, one of GM William Cheung's senior students in the US. Jump to the 6:30 mark:

Before I commented I watched the video a bunch of times. I don't see anything "new" to me. The title is how boxing compliments TWC but I see nothing there that is "new" to the TWC. Does what he say address the practical issues of combat? Certainly they do, but there are other ways to address the same thing. One of the things I found "odd" is that when he went into boxing mode he appeared to greatly reduce his lateral footwork (trying to flank, get to the blind side). Based on how he first showed how going up the middle blindly chain punching can go bad, and instead use boxing techniques for that purpose. Thing is though that in TWC you aren't supposed to go up the middle blindly chain punching. The video in short confused the heck out of me.

 

[KPM]

I'm new here but I've done some hard sparring with my WC. I've also used boxing against WC in sparring. My Kung fu brother I spar with has been practicing for 11 years and I've been at it for 2 1/2. He's 5'7" and I'm 6'2", I've found that just boxing doesn't work as well against his WC. I have incorporate other things/styles to get over on him. When I use WC adding boxing interrupts the flow of my WC and plays into his because of the committed punches of boxing. These are just some things I've noticed when sparring at full speed.

Welcome to the forum! But, with all due respect, if you are using "committed" punches when Boxing, then you probably aren't using very good Boxing!

 

[KPM]

Before I commented I watched the video a bunch of times. I don't see anything "new" to me. The title is how boxing compliments TWC but I see nothing there that is "new" to the TWC. Does what he say address the practical issues of combat? Certainly they do, but there are other ways to address the same thing. One of the things I found "odd" is that when he went into boxing mode he appeared to greatly reduce his lateral footwork (trying to flank, get to the blind side). Based on how he first showed how going up the middle blindly chain punching can go bad, and instead use boxing techniques for that purpose. Thing is though that in TWC you aren't supposed to go up the middle blindly chain punching. The video in short confused the heck out of me.

My takeaway from Victor's video was the idea of keeping the hands on the shoulder lines and thinking of your left taking care of his right and vice versa. Sure, not new to TWC. Victor admits he got the idea from William Cheung. But I think it is the emphasis he is placing on it and NOT using the centerline Man/Wu guard that is the difference. Also he uses the longer range punches and upper body movement from Boxing when at a greater distance. In some of his other vids he goes into more Boxing-oriented things.

 

[JbrmWC]

Welcome to the forum! But, with all due respect, if you are using "committed" punches when Boxing, then you probably aren't using very good Boxing!

Thanks,it depends on how you define "committed" . An overhand right or hook in my opinion is a committed punch in comparison to WC punches. Or any punch you have to reload and regain structure, pretty much anything but a jab.

 

[Juany118]

My takeaway from Victor's video was the idea of keeping the hands on the shoulder lines and thinking of your left taking care of his right and vice versa. Sure, not new to TWC. Victor admits he got the idea from William Cheung. But I think it is the emphasis he is placing on it and NOT using the centerline Man/Wu guard that is the difference. Also he uses the longer range punches and upper body movement from Boxing when at a greater distance. In some of his other vids he goes into more Boxing-oriented things.

Like I said in the PM, perhaps it is simply a teaching difference? In short, I get the feeling that the "firm" man su, wu sau, is more of a teaching tool to emphasize where your centerline is and controlling it as efficiently as possible as Sifu Keith Mazza will say, while in the stance, "no one really fights this way." Also with some of the punches, while the straight punch/palm strike, is clearly the "bread and butter" once understood you do learn things like a tight round punch (aka buffalo punch). The difference between teachers perhaps being how they try to transition you from the "introduction" where you have the core/foundational principles lie centerline, blind side, never meet force with force etc. ingrained into you to the intermediate and advanced areas where you learn other things. Example high kicks aren't part of testing until are testing for level 6.

 

[Juany118]

Thanks,it depends on how you define "committed" . An overhand right or hook in my opinion is a committed punch in comparison to WC punches. Or any punch you have to reload and regain structure, pretty much anything but a jab.

First if you read through this, at least in terms of the Lineage that I study, I do find some of KPMs ideas redunant BUT that is the "wonder" of WC, there is no single way to do it. That said...

That really depends on how "tight" the hook punch (buffalo punch) is and how much you are using your body vs the arm. If it's properly done (even in terms of boxing) it isn't that much different than a straight for two reasons, let me give you an analogy. Have you ever in sparring thrown a punch and because your punch incidentally intercepted the opponent's, all you would have had to do is rotate the wrist and open the hand and you say "hey tan sau!" The same can happen with a proper hook punch (not a "good night Irene" haymaker) except there you say "hey bong sau!" Or you can just rotate the elbow down and go tan OR extend the hand out further and it's a bil sau etc.

That's why I often refer to WC as a conceptual art. The fact there is a fist instead of an open hand doesn't change the fact that the arm itself is acting as a tan, bong or bil sau. The key part being that you have to look at, as the last video @KPM posted explains, (in different language) are your gates. As long as you don't go outside your gates, left or right, imo you haven't over committed. On the other hand a "good night Irene" goes outside of the gate and there you have over committed.

In short a proper hook punch doesn't require a "reload", all you need to so is focus on the elbow and in 3 dimensional space picture yourself rotating it. Think of the end of SLT. You scoop to gan, into tan and then after that rotate from bong into tan. In short, it's all about looking at the elbow, not the hand. At least that is my take.

 

[KPM]

Like I said in the PM, perhaps it is simply a teaching difference? In short, I get the feeling that the "firm" man su, wu sau, is more of a teaching tool to emphasize where your centerline is and controlling it as efficiently as possible as Sifu Keith Mazza will say, while in the stance, "no one really fights this way." .

Have you seen this old footage? Skip to the 8:30 mark:

Or this one?

GM Cheung is using a center Man/Wu guard in both. No "side stance" used either time.

So I'm willing to bet, that over the years many of his students have incorporated some elements of boxing to what they do, whether they would admit it or not. Just like DanT saying he is using jabs and crosses from long range but he still considers it Wing Chun. I would posit that for many branches this integration of some Boxing to their Wing Chun has been going on for awhile. They just see it as being "practical"! But a lot of it was never part of "classical" Wing Chun back in Ip Man's day, let along Leung Jan's day!

 

[KPM]

Referencing the two videos above......Rick Spain does his TWC forms a bit differently from everyone else, and I really like the way he does them. He has essentially eliminated the side stance from his version of the system. His reasoning was that when watching fellow TWC classmates in sparring or drilling under heavy pressure, anytime they started in a side stance they ended up either stepping forward into a front stance whenever they really needed to exchange, or getting forced back into the front stance when pressed by a charging opponent. He concluded that the side stance really wasn't very useful. Those videos of GM Cheung himself doing this light sparring kind of bears that out. He didn't use a side stance a single time in either video. Boxing never fights from a side stance either.

Eliminating the side stance from the system changes the angling used in the forms. And the way Spain angles in his forms fits very well with a Boxing approach. So I am drawing a lot of inspiration from TWC in general, and Rick Spain's version in particular.

 

[LFJ]

Hmm, sure seems to be a lot of predictable circling around out at arms' length and swatting at arms without ever closing distance and attacking center in those clips, as I often note about TWC.

Only at the very end of the first one where he does his demos does he actually move in and attack center.

Maintaining that distance allows the boxer freedom of movement so they basically trade blows. If only the boxer moved laterally to cut Cheung off and keep him in front of him...

 

[JbrmWC]

Hmm, sure seems to be a lot of predictable circling around out at arms' length and swatting at arms without ever closing distance and attacking center in those clips, as I often note about TWC.

Only at the very end of the first one where he does his demos does he actually move in and attack center.

Maintaining that distance allows the boxer freedom of movement so they basically trade blows. If only the boxer moved laterally to cut Cheung off and keep him in front of him...

I agree,there were also many missed opportunities by Cheung. The first time he bridged it should have been over. IMO,sparring to where you just throw stuff back and forth creates bad habits and defeats the purpose of WC.

 

[JbrmWC]

First if you read through this, at least in terms of the Lineage that I study, I do find some of KPMs ideas redunant BUT that is the "wonder" of WC, there is no single way to do it. That said...

That really depends on how "tight" the hook punch (buffalo punch) is and how much you are using your body vs the arm. If it's properly done (even in terms of boxing) it isn't that much different than a straight for two reasons, let me give you an analogy. Have you ever in sparring thrown a punch and because your punch incidentally intercepted the opponent's, all you would have had to do is rotate the wrist and open the hand and you say "hey tan sau!" The same can happen with a proper hook punch (not a "good night Irene" haymaker) except there you say "hey bong sau!" Or you can just rotate the elbow down and go tan OR extend the hand out further and it's a bil sau etc.

That's why I often refer to WC as a conceptual art. The fact there is a fist instead of an open hand doesn't change the fact that the arm itself is acting as a tan, bong or bil sau. The key part being that you have to look at, as the last video @KPM posted explains, (in different language) are your gates. As long as you don't go outside your gates, left or right, imo you haven't over committed. On the other hand a "good night Irene" goes outside of the gate and there you have over committed.

In short a proper hook punch doesn't require a "reload", all you need to so is focus on the elbow and in 3 dimensional space picture yourself rotating it. Think of the end of SLT. You scoop to gan, into tan and then after that rotate from bong into tan. In short, it's all about looking at the elbow, not the hand. At least that is my take.

I agree in terms of WC. But in boxing,I'd only throw a hook as a haymaker because it leaves you open if it's not thrown fast enough.

 

[Juany118]

I agree,there were also many missed opportunities by Cheung. The first time he bridged it should have been over. IMO,sparring to where you just throw stuff back and forth creates bad habits and defeats the purpose of WC.

But again, often in situations like that where you are light sparring it can be about trying to demonstrate specific principles. Example if I am trying to prove that my bridging method does work against a boxer, then all I am looking to do is to show the successful bridge. The next point is arguably a different topic. That is one of the reasons I often have issues with YouTube videos. You get a 30 second snippet of a MUCH longer instructional video (as we see in the second video that @KPM linked.)

 

[Juany118]

Have you seen this old footage? Skip to the 8:30 mark:

Or this one?

GM Cheung is using a center Man/Wu guard in both. No "side stance" used either time.

So I'm willing to bet, that over the years many of his students have incorporated some elements of boxing to what they do, whether they would admit it or not. Just like DanT saying he is using jabs and crosses from long range but he still considers it Wing Chun. I would posit that for many branches this integration of some Boxing to their Wing Chun has been going on for awhile. They just see it as being "practical"! But a lot of it was never part of "classical" Wing Chun back in Ip Man's day, let along Leung Jan's day!

I haven't but he does illustrate one of the things I was talking about in terms of "people don't really fight that way." You have to look full screen but you will see that often the "perfect" man and wu aren't there as he has his hands either fully or partially in a fist while his arms still protect the centerline.

 

[JbrmWC]

But again, often in situations like that where you are light sparring it can be about trying to demonstrate specific principles. Example if I am trying to prove that my bridging method does work against a boxer, then all I am looking to do is to show the successful bridge. The next point is arguably a different topic. That is one of the reasons I often have issues with YouTube videos. You get a 30 second snippet of a MUCH longer instructional video (as we see in the second video that @KPM linked.)

That's why I only go off personal experience and not YouTube vids,lol. Imo, in any type of sparring you should attempt to do what you'd do in a fight and the boxer should try to not let you. That's where you learn what will work or not. It's easy to bridge,the part after is where it gets complicated.

 

[Juany118]

I agree in terms of WC. But in boxing,I'd only throw a hook as a haymaker because it leaves you open if it's not thrown fast enough.

Thing is there are a number of schools of boxing, some are very much not big fans of haymakers vs hook punches. The reason to them is as follows. A wide haymaker hits harder because it had more distance across which to accelerate. The problem is this extra distance allows for two things.

1. a better chance for your opponent to intercept
2. an opening through which they can strike.

This is also true is double stick fighting in Kali, Arnis, Eskrima (Inosanto Kali is the other art I study atm). The "back hand" strike hits harder for the same reason (more time to accelerate) and if it connects it's devastating BUT the travel time creates a number of complications which make it something you only want to use at just the right time.

Example (boxing wise) in the army we were taught a combination of boxing a Judo. what did they say about punches...

"Throw short hooks, short uppercuts, and short rights but long jabs"

to throw "long" on the first three would leave you open.