Wing Chun Boxing

[drop bear]

Here is a nice WC chain punches used in MMA.

Yes MMA does.VT better.

 

[KPM]

You aren't just doubting.
You're stating that it does not work.

The burden of proof is on anyone making a claim, whether positive or negative.

If you don't want to take on a burden of proof you will neither claim that it does or does not work.

You will say that you accept neither claim.

Wrong. Scientists are by nature skeptics. So, again, if you really want to take a "scientific approach", you are skeptical about success stories. So the "scientific" approach would be to assume the "null hypothesis"....that it doesn't work....until evidence suggests otherwise. Andrew suggested that his version of TWC works in an MMA setting and provided photographic evidence of a fighter trained in one of their gyms having his hand raised in victory at the end of the fight. That is evidence suggesting that TWC works. You were just upset because he didn't provide the details of the experiment (video of the fight), but that does not negate the evidence that he provided.

 

[LFJ]

You have claimed functionality along side esoteric concepts. Without any real evidence that it is possible. That seems silly.

I have not. There is nothing esoteric about it, and there is evidence of its functionality.

Now you are also suggesting you can combine esoteric striking with functional grappling. But you can't combine esoteric striking with functional striking. That seems silly.

Nothing esoteric about it. Also nothing silly about contradictory striking strategies and tactics interfering with each other.

What's silly is making judgments on something you have no knowledge or experience with. You are just guessing. My question is why such the strong bias?

 

[LFJ]

Scientists are by nature skeptics.

And the skeptic position on the proposal that "VT works" is to not accept the proposition.

It is not to assert the opposite, that "VT doesn't work". If you do so, you are making a claim and assuming a burden of proof.

So the "scientific" approach would be to assume the "null hypothesis"....that it doesn't work....until evidence suggests otherwise.

There is an important distinction to be made between rejecting the proposal and asserting its opposite.

If a proposal is made saying the number of gumballs in a jar is odd, the skeptic position, the null hypothesis, is to not believe that to be true.

But, not believing the claim that the number is odd is not asserting that the number is even. It's just saying "I don't believe you". It is possible to not believe either claim. That is the neutral position.

That's my stance on TWC. I'm not saying it doesn't work. I just doubt that it does.

You guys who are making the claim that "VT doesn't work" have assumed a burden of proof, because your position is not neutral.

Andrew suggested that his version of TWC works in an MMA setting and provided photographic evidence of a fighter trained in one of their gyms having his hand raised in victory at the end of the fight. That is evidence suggesting that TWC works.

lol

No, it is not. Having his hand raised says nothing about what he used to fight.

Photographic evidence shows non-TWC striking methods and non-TWC grappling. The fight finisher was also a BJJ technique after fighting on the ground, which we know Cheung couldn't do.

It was said the guy trains kickboxing and BJJ for competition, and that's what photographic evidence shows. No TWC anywhere.

We know TWC was not used to finish the fight or leading up to it. Takedown, ground fight, RNC finisher all BJJ.

If you want to make the claim that TWC was used in the fight at all, you'll have to show something more.

 

[Nobody Important]

FWIW, the RNC isn't exclusive to BJJ (in YCWWC it is found in Chum Kiu). I can't speak for TWC, but it is a technique found in some Wing Chun branches, as well as, some other TCMAs.

 

[drop bear]

I have not. There is nothing esoteric about it, and there is evidence of its functionality.



Nothing esoteric about it. Also nothing silly about contradictory striking strategies and tactics interfering with each other.

What's silly is making judgments on something you have no knowledge or experience with. You are just guessing. My question is why such the strong bias?

You know what esoteric means don't you?

 

[KPM]

And the skeptic position on the proposal that "VT works" is to not accept the proposition. It is not to assert the opposite, that "VT doesn't work". If you do so, you are making a claim and assuming a burden of proof.

---No. You have suggested that VT is a superior method and essentially the next best thing to sliced bread. You have suggested that VT is different from everyone else's Wing Chun and works far better. You can deny this all you want, but this is the under-current in practically every thread you participate in. So the skeptic's position is to assume you are wrong and that VT doesn't work any better than anyone else's Wing Chun....that it isn't as different and superior as you claim. And the burden of proof is then on you to show that your claims are true.


There is an important distinction to be made between rejecting the proposal and asserting its opposite.

---In this case, rejecting the proposal is to assume the opposite. If the proposal is that it works, then to reject that proposal is to assume it doesn't. Taking a neutral stance is just not dealing with the proposal. Again, from a "scientific" standpoint you start with a null hypothesis....the idea that the proposal doesn't work. Then you design an experiment that puts the proposal to the test stringently enough that if it bears itself out, no one will continue to assume that it doesn't work. Taking a "neutral" position doesn't lead to good experimental design.


If a proposal is made saying the number of gumballs in a jar is odd, the skeptic position, the null hypothesis, is to not believe that to be true. But, not believing the claim that the number is odd is not asserting that the number is even. It's just saying "I don't believe you". It is possible to not believe either claim. That is the neutral position.


---If you don't belief that the number of gumballs is odd, then what else could it be other than even??? You logic makes no sense! Drop Bear's example is better. If someone claims that the moon is made of green cheese, the skeptics position or "null hypothesis" is that it isn't made of green cheese. Then you would set up an experiment to prove that it isn't. To say "well, it may or may not be made of green cheese" is just to not take a position.




You guys who are making the claim that "VT doesn't work" have assumed a burden of proof, because your position is not neutral.

---I've never made the claim that "VT doesn't work." I've only doubted your claims that it is so different and so superior to everyone else's Wing Chun.



No, it is not. Having his hand raised says nothing about what he used to fight.

---Again, your logic is faulty. Andrew told us that his friend trains in a TWC gym that also teaches BJJ and MMA. He has said that TWC training is a big part of what they do. So he has noted the "inclusion criteria" for the experiment. And he showed us the results....the fighter winning the bout. While this proves nothing, this is indeed evidence suggesting that TWC works. We don't know to what degree TWC was used and how well it works because Andrew did not provide the details of the experiment (fight video), but from what he did provide, we can say that it suggests that TWC works.


Photographic evidence shows non-TWC striking methods and non-TWC grappling. The fight finisher was also a BJJ technique after fighting on the ground, which we know Cheung couldn't do. It was said the guy trains kickboxing and BJJ for competition, and that's what photographic evidence shows. No TWC anywhere.

---This is rich! Weren't you the guy that went into an extensive argument to say that a video showing one of Sean's fighters using high covers, and ducks and weaves was "pure WSLVT" straight out of the Bui Jee form? And when it was pointed out that what he was doing looked far more like western boxing than WSLVT you argued that it was the concepts that counted and not the physical way they were applied??? And when it pointed out that Sean's guys cross-trained in MMA as well as doing WSLVT you ignored that point and stuck to your argument?? And yet now you are claiming....based a couple of still photos and NOT video as we had with Sean's clip....that Andrew's fighter couldn't possibly be using TWC????



If you want to make the claim that TWC was used in the fight at all, you'll have to show something more.

---Ok. Then following your argument and your logic, if you want to claim that clip of Sean's student sparring was "pure WSLVT", then you are going to have to show something more as well.

 

[LFJ]

So the skeptic's position is to assume you are wrong and that VT doesn't work any better than anyone else's Wing Chun

No, it is not. It is simply to not accept the claim and to assume nothing until having sufficient evidence to justify belief one way or the other.

---In this case, rejecting the proposal is to assume the opposite.

No, it is not. It is simply to not accept the claim and to assume nothing until having sufficient evidence to justify belief one way or the other.

---If you don't belief that the number of gumballs is odd, then what else could it be other than even??? You logic makes no sense!

It can only be odd or even. But, if I have no way of knowing which it is, I will neither believe the person who tells me it's odd, nor the person who tells me it's even.

The proper skeptic position is to not accept either claim until there's sufficient evidence to support one of them. Otherwise I'm just guessing, and if I go with one, I have assumed a burden of proof.

---I've never made the claim that "VT doesn't work."

You literally just did in this same post telling me you reject the claim that it works, and that this means you're going with the idea that it doesn't.

So he has noted the "inclusion criteria" for the experiment. And he showed us the results....the fighter winning the bout. While this proves nothing, this is indeed evidence suggesting that TWC works.

No, it is not. That the guy also trains TWC is not even evidence that TWC was used in the fight, much less successfully.

We don't know to what degree TWC was used and how well it works because Andrew did not provide the details of the experiment (fight video), but from what he did provide, we can say that it suggests that TWC works.

Not if you don't know to what degree it was used. You can't call it evidence that TWC works if it's possible that it was not used to any degree.

Weren't you the guy that went into an extensive argument to say that a video showing one of Sean's fighters using high covers, and ducks and weaves was "pure WSLVT" straight out of the Bui Jee form?

Yes, I was that guy.

And when it was pointed out that what he was doing looked far more like western boxing than WSLVT you argued that it was the concepts that counted and not the physical way they were applied???

No. I said you just don't know what WSLVT looks like or how it functions.

And when it pointed out that Sean's guys cross-trained in MMA as well as doing WSLVT you ignored that point and stuck to your argument??

I acknowledged that but stood by my statement because it's true.

And yet now you are claiming....based a couple of still photos and NOT video as we had with Sean's clip....that Andrew's fighter couldn't possibly be using TWC????

No. I didn't say couldn't possibly.

I said we know the fight wasn't won with TWC, because it was by double-leg, groundwork, and RNC, and the only bit of evidence we have of the striking method used is a still image showing non-TWC.

So, if you want to say TWC was used at all, you'll have to actually show TWC in the fight.

---Ok. Then following your argument and your logic, if you want to claim that clip of Sean's student sparring was "pure WSLVT", then you are going to have to show something more as well.

That's not following my logic at all.

You have not shown me TWC in the fight at all.

I showed you VT in a sparring bout, and you just didn't believe it was VT.

I don't need to show you anything else. You just need to learn more about VT if you want to tell me what it is or isn't.

 

[KPM]

No, it is not. It is simply to not accept the claim and to assume nothing until having sufficient evidence to justify belief one way or the other.


---And I'm telling you again that you are wrong. That is not the best way to set up an experiment from a "scientific" standpoint. I'll say again, a scientist is by nature a skeptic. The skeptic assumes a proposition or hypothesis is untrue until proven otherwise.


It can only be odd or even. But, if I have no way of knowing which it is, I will neither believe the person who tells me it's odd, nor the person who tells me it's even.

---If the person tells me its odd, then I assume he is wrong and set out to prove that it is not odd. That's not exactly the same as assuming the answer is "even", but it is also not taking a neutral and undecided position. As I said, your example is not a very good one. If someone says the moon is made out of green cheese, then I assume he is wrong and set out to prove that it is not made out of green cheese. If I take soil samples and find no green cheese, then I prove that he is wrong. I don't take a wishy-washy "wait and see" neutral position when I design the experiment. However, if the purpose of the experiment is to just determine what the moon is actually made of, then I have an open-ended question and might design the experiment differently. In the first instance I will have tests that will specifically look for any sign of green cheese. In the second instance I will have many more general tests to get a general idea of what the soil is composed of. You don't seem to know much about the scientific method. Which is Ok. Its just another one of the "rich" things....you trying to tell me I'm wrong about science. That would be like me trying to tell you you are wrong about the Chinese language.





No, it is not. That the guy also trains TWC is not even evidence that TWC was used in the fight, much less successfully.

---You can deny it all you want. But you are not using good logic. Andrew gave you the pre-conditions and he gave you the results. The results do not prove anything without knowing the details of the experiment. But they do suggest that TWC works. Simple logic, whether you choose to use it or not.



Yes, I was that guy.

---So you admit that you are inconsistent in your arguments??



So, if you want to say TWC was used at all, you'll have to actually show TWC in the fight.

---Andrew told us that TWC was used in the fight. The fight was won. That suggests (not proves) that TWC works. Otherwise you are simply calling Andrew a liar.


That's not following my logic at all.

---Yes it is. But I know you will argue with anything and very frequently just simply refuse to acknowledge or see someone else's points. Your faulty logic should be clear to everyone. So really no sense in continuing to bang my head against this wall. You just go on believing whatever you want!

 

[Martial D]

Here is a nice WC chain punches used in MMA.

Just because someone throws sequential straight shots while moving forward doesn't make it WC chain punches. Those are patently thrown from the shoulder boxing style. Vitor is a boxer.

 

[Martial D]

I haven't seen many fights using the VT. It would be interesting to see how they are faring. But if there is evidence then there is evidence.

That's just it, there's loads of evidence. There's tons of video of WC people doing full contact fighting and sparring. Tons.

...it just isn't very flattering.

 

[LFJ]

I'll say again, a scientist is by nature a skeptic. The skeptic assumes a proposition or hypothesis is untrue until proven otherwise.

The skeptic position doesn't assert anything. It just doesn't accept claims without sufficient evidence, which would include the opposite of any proposition.

Science also never pronounces anything as "proven". Everything is tentative and open to revision if the evidence changes.

A scientist also doesn't ignore or refuse to examine evidence like you and DB.

---If the person tells me its odd, then I assume he is wrong and set out to prove that it is not odd. That's not exactly the same as assuming the answer is "even", but it is also not taking a neutral and undecided position.

If you assume it's not odd and are not taking a neutral position, you are assuming it's even.

There are only two choices that are not neutral and undecided.

If you assume it's even because you don't believe the odd guy, then you have taken on a burden of proof just like him.

If you are a skeptic, you won't believe either of them, and the onus is on the person making the claim, not you.

If someone says the moon is made out of green cheese, then I assume he is wrong and set out to prove that it is not made out of green cheese. If I take soil samples and find no green cheese, then I prove that he is wrong.

Because you don't understand the burden of proof, you're going to take it upon yourself to take a spacetrip to the moon in search of green cheese. lol

I don't take a wishy-washy "wait and see" neutral position when I design the experiment.

The onus is on the person making the extraordinary claim. The null hypothesis is meant to determine where the default position and burden of proof lie and avoid assuming an absurd negative burden.

you trying to tell me I'm wrong about science. That would be like me trying to tell you you are wrong about the Chinese language.

You're a scientist now? Takes a special kind of scientist to fly to the moon looking for green cheese! lol

The results do not prove anything without knowing the details of the experiment. But they do suggest that TWC works.

You have to prove TWC was used at all in the fight for it to suggest anything, not just that the guy also trains TWC.

Not having the details of the "experiment" is not having an experiment at all.

Coming up with a conclusion of an experiment you don't have is dishonest and biased.

Yes, I was that guy.

---So you admit that you are inconsistent in your arguments??

Not at all.

I said Sean's guy was doing VT because he was and showed it. You wouldn't accept it because you don't know VT and are very arrogant.

I said Andrew's guy may or may not have used TWC because it has not been shown at all, and you admit that it hasn't been shown.

There is no inconsistency here.

---Andrew told us that TWC was used in the fight.

Actually, he never outright said so.

But if he does, he needs to demonstrate that if he wishes to enter this fight as evidence for TWC's functionality.

 

[KPM]

You have to prove TWC was used at all in the fight for it to suggest anything, not just that the guy also trains TWC.

Not having the details of the "experiment" is not having an experiment at all.

Coming up with a conclusion of an experiment you don't have is dishonest and biased.


.

So you ARE calling Andrew a liar!!???

 

[geezer]

That's just it, there's loads of evidence. There's tons of video of WC people doing full contact fighting and sparring. Tons ...it just isn't very flattering.

I have seen very few videos of experienced and well trained WC/WT/VT fighters. There are a few, and the results are mixed. On the other hand, I have seen a ton of videos billed as WC vs this or that.

In most cases the "WC" guy is obviously untrained, inexperienced, and out of shape, and more often than not doesn't even seem to know WC ...or much of any other fighting system. It's almost like these guys watched the Ip Man movies and decided that's what they were ...magical, mystical, kung-fu masters. Something about WC seems to attract delusional people living in a fantasy world not far removed from the no-touch knockout goofballs.

OK so what about the very few videos of guys who actually know some WC and are fit to fight? Some are indeed unflattering. Take the following examples: First a fight that resulted in a victory for the WC (WT branch) guy, Crnko, who actually got away with using the WT "antigrappling" tactic of punching to counter a clumsy attempt at a ...er "kinda-sorta" single leg. Skip to 1:45:

In a subsequent fight The same WT guy, Crnko, encounters a guy, Krapf who apparently knows some grappling, whereas the WT guy shows utter lack of grappling experience by giving his opponent his back and then getting quickly choked out. Skip to 3:00:

Near as I can find out, this ended Crnko's fighting career. Apparently he continued to teach WT and probably made a good deal more money teaching easily impressed non-fighters than he could have made fighting, even if he'd cross trained in grappling.

Moral of the story, if you want to fight, you gotta have a well rounded game. Also, if you want to get famous, it might help to have a vowel or two in your name!

 

[Martial D]

I have seen very few videos of experienced and well trained WC/WT/VT fighters. There are a few, and the results are mixed. On the other hand, I have seen a ton of videos billed as WC vs this or that.

In most cases the "WC" guy is obviously untrained, inexperienced, and out of shape, and more often than not doesn't even seem to know WC ...or much of any other fighting system. It's almost like these guys watched the Ip Man movies and decided that's what they were ...magical, mystical, kung-fu masters. Something about WC seems to attract delusional people living in a fantasy world not far removed from the no-touch knockout goofballs.

OK so what about the very few videos of guys who actually know some WC and are fit to fight? Some are indeed unflattering. Take the following examples: First a fight that resulted in a victory for the WC (WT branch) guy, Crnko, who actually got away with using the WT "antigrappling" tactic of punching to counter a clumsy attempt at a ...er "kinda-sorta" single leg. Skip to 1:45:

In a subsequent fight The same WT guy, Crnko, encounters a guy, Krapf who apparently knows some grappling, whereas the WT guy shows utter lack of grappling experience by giving his opponent his back and then getting quickly choked out. Skip to 3:00:

Near as I can find out, this ended Crnko's fighting career. Apparently he continued to teach WT and probably made a good deal more money teaching easily impressed non-fighters than he could have made fighting, even if he'd cross trained in grappling.

Moral of the story, if you want to fight, you gotta have a well rounded game. Also, if you want to get famous, it might help to have a vowel or two in your name!

Well that's the thing isn't it? If you take a typical WC guy trained in the typical way(forms/chi sau/wooden man), even trained to a 'master' level, and put him in a fight(a very dissimilar activity to any of those three things), how would you be able to tell the difference between him and that untrained guy that saw ip man(the movie) 26 times?

In both cases you have someone with 0 training in the activity they are partaking in.

 

[geezer]

So you ARE calling Andrew a liar!!???

Keith, you act surprised! What? you expect the leopard to change his spots?

 

[geezer]

Well that's the thing isn't it? If you take a typical WC guy trained in the typical way(forms/chi sau/wooden man), even trained to a 'master' level, and put him in a fight(a very dissimilar activity to any of those three things), how would you be able to tell the difference between him and that untrained guy that saw ip man(the movie) 26 times?.

Of course they are hard to tell apart. They are the same guy!!!

 

[LFJ]

So you ARE calling Andrew a liar!!???

No.

Taking the jar of gumballs example, he has not outright stated the number of gumballs in the jar is odd, even when asked directly if that's what he's saying.

I have assumed that's the reason he mentioned the fight. If and when he does make that claim openly, I will not call him a liar or assert the opposite. I will simply say I don't believe him, and ask that he demonstrate his claim.

So, you understand, I'm not saying the number is even, and I'm not saying he's lying when he tells me it's odd.

I'm taking the skeptic position of "I don't believe you", and asking that he/you meet his/your burden of proof.

 

[geezer]

No ...I'm taking the skeptic position of "I don't believe you", and asking that he/you meet his/your burden of proof.

Totally acceptable. It's exactly the position I take regarding many statements you make without convincing evidence to back them up.

PS Please don't ask me "which ones" or say that you have provided ample and indisputable evidence. Because, as I remain skeptical, you have obviously not been persuasive enough! And that's OK. If you want to dispute this, please go back to arguing with Keith or Andrew. It's my birthday and I'm going out for a fun meal and maybe a movie. Talk to you later!

 

[LFJ]

Totally acceptable. It's exactly the position I take regarding many statements you make without convincing evidence to back them up.

PS Please don't ask me "which ones" or say that you have provided ample and indisputable evidence. Because, as I remain skeptical, you have obviously not been persuasive enough! And that's OK. If you want to dispute this, please go back to arguing with Keith or Andrew. It's my birthday and I'm going out for a fun meal and maybe a movie. Talk to you later!

I don't really care if someone doesn't believe me if they are also not willing to learn, like KPM. That's on them.

Happy birthday! Have fun!