Wing Chun Boxing

[Gerry Seymour]

Problem is the concepts are missing and needing to be made up for by resorting to other styles, and in the end, these guys end up basically just doing Western Boxing while still calling it Wing Chun, or "Wing Chun Boxing".

That's not progressing the art. That's just tacking the name onto something completely different so that it can appear as if Wing Chun isn't as useless as it has been acknowledged to be.

Or, it could be them adding some pieces to WC that weren't in their toolbox (whether they were ever in the art or not isn't terribly relevant - they were never in their version of the art). Might that change their approach to WC? Sure. But you're saying that if they make certain changes, you no longer accept what they are doing as WC. I'd argue WC is only a name, and applies to whatever people define it as. If their base (what they built upon) is WC, then what they do can legitimately be referred to as WC, or at least a derivative of WC. At some point, it probably needs an identifier to avoid confusion. "Wing Chun Boxing" is a reasonably descriptive moniker for a WC base with WB tools and tactics integrated. For the purist, it's not fully WC. For many others, it's as WC in their minds as what they do. Who's right? I'm not sure "right" is all that important here.

 

[LFJ]

Or, it could be them adding some pieces to WC that weren't in their toolbox (whether they were ever in the art or not isn't terribly relevant - they were never in their version of the art). Might that change their approach to WC? Sure. But you're saying that if they make certain changes, you no longer accept what they are doing as WC. I'd argue WC is only a name, and applies to whatever people define it as. If their base (what they built upon) is WC, then what they do can legitimately be referred to as WC, or at least a derivative of WC. At some point, it probably needs an identifier to avoid confusion. "Wing Chun Boxing" is a reasonably descriptive moniker for a WC base with WB tools and tactics integrated. For the purist, it's not fully WC. For many others, it's as WC in their minds as what they do. Who's right? I'm not sure "right" is all that important here.

They ain't what happened, though.

As stated in the OP, the "biomechanical engine has been replaced", and the same has happened to the overall fighting strategy, actually because it was lacking in their "classical WC" to begin with.

It's not "a WC base with WB tools and tactics integrated".

It's just WB with the WC name and terminology.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

They ain't what happened, though.

As stated in the OP, the "biomechanical engine has been replaced", and the same has happened to the overall fighting strategy, actually because it was lacking in their "classical WC" to begin with.

It's not "a WC base with WB tools and tactics integrated".

It's just WB with the WC name and terminology.

I'll take your word for that one - I don't have the knowledge to discuss at that level. So, is that your primary issue with it, then? If they were still using the biomechanics of WC with the WC movements (and blending in the movements/biomechanics of WB), would that still be WC, to you?

As to the strategy, I'll say that I've never seen an art that had only one strategy everyone agreed upon. There are often commonalities that most agree upon, but then there will be significant groups who prefer a different approach, but still use the techniques and biomechanics of the art - and they are still seen as doing the same art. I'm not saying WC doesn't have a universal strategy - I clearly don't know enough to speak to that. Mind you, all of that depends entirely on whether you and I define "strategy" the same way.

 

[LFJ]

So, is that your primary issue with it, then? If they were still using the biomechanics of WC with the WC movements (and blending in the movements/biomechanics of WB), would that still be WC, to you?

I don't have an issue with what they're doing. If it works, it's because of the WB, though.

Where I take issue is with the idea that WC can't work on its own and needs help for basic things.

That's probably true for most WC in the world, but not all.

As to the strategy, I'll say that I've never seen an art that had only one strategy everyone agreed upon. There are often commonalities that most agree upon, but then there will be significant groups who prefer a different approach, but still use the techniques and biomechanics of the art - and they are still seen as doing the same art. I'm not saying WC doesn't have a universal strategy - I clearly don't know enough to speak to that. Mind you, all of that depends entirely on whether you and I define "strategy" the same way.

I don't mind if others don't share my strategy, but they shouldn't be clueless as to what to do when not attached to someone's arms.

That just reveals they have not learned the fully. But, instead they blame WC.

 

[drop bear]

I mean you want to set up boundaries between chun and boxing. But other that a vague feeling of wanting to. Nobody has a suggested a method of doing that.

---Why do you think there needs to be boundaries? Rackemann doesn't seem to place any boundary between Wing Chun and boxing. He seems to blend them together pretty well. And he says that he no longer teaches the forms. He starts by teaching solid boxing base and then teaches the Wing Chun "sau's", Chi Sau, and various drills. Mark Phillips is essentially boxing at range while also including some Wing Chun defensive hands and then flowing smoothly into "standard" Wing Chun at close range. I don't think a boundary is needed or desirable.

There does not even seem to be a plan as to what you want boxing to do for chun.

---I guess any "plan" would be to make Wing Chun more functional in a modern fighting/sparring environment. To "update" or "evolve" Wing Chun somewhat. Now this wouldn't be for everyone! I would certainly not want to see "classical" Wing Chun go away! And obviously people are already doing this whether they truly acknowledge it or not. It seems there are a lot of people out there that are doing "classical Wing Chun" but then resort to some very "boxing-like" structures and methods when sparring, whether they are doing it on purpose or not! At least that what it looks like in a whole lot of Wing Chun sparring footage that is posted! And some here have already admitted that this is true.

Sorry the impression I got was that people didnt want wing chun to become boxing. That would indicate that some ideas would be flexible and some wouldn't. For me I couldn't care less. If it works it is good.

As far as a plan I think you need a specific one so that you are incorporating the right stuff.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I don't have an issue with what they're doing. If it works, it's because of the WB, though.

Where I take issue is with the idea that WC can't work on its own and needs help for basic things.

That's probably true for most WC in the world, but not all.



I don't mind if others don't share my strategy, but they shouldn't be clueless as to what to do when not attached to someone's arms.

That just reveals they have not learned the fully. But, instead they blame WC.

It seems in some schools - maybe some lineages - that is the full system that is taught. I don't think the student can be blamed for seeing the art through that lens. I teach things as part of NGA that others wouldn't view as part of the art. Are they failing to teach the entire system, or have I added to it? I think it's a matter of perspective.

 

[LFJ]

It seems in some schools - maybe some lineages - that is the full system that is taught. I don't think the student can be blamed for seeing the art through that lens. I teach things as part of NGA that others wouldn't view as part of the art. Are they failing to teach the entire system, or have I added to it? I think it's a matter of perspective.

A striking system with only close-range tactics that doesn't address how to get there either had that bit lost in transmission among people who don't fight, or it's a fantasy style created by people who don't fight.

 

[Martial D]

Look this boils down to two camps. Wing Chun as an art vs what can be extracted from WC for fighting.

For me, WC is both. I spend 8 to ten minutes every morning when I wake up doing SLT and it's amazing the focus and sense of 'oneness' I get from that. When I was training it exclusively I would always leave class feeling more 'awake' than when I arrived.

On the other side of the spectrum I feel WC is a tool-set rather than system of fighting as it leaves way too many things unaddressed.

Even the best tools are just paperweights without the knowledge of when and how to use them.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Many people

- use long fist to build up their basic foundation.
- cross trained preying mantis, or Zimen to learn "speed generation".
- cross train Baji, Chen Taiji, or XYLH to learn "power generation".
- cross train Shuai-Chiao to learn locking/throwing skill.
- cross train BJJ to learn ground skill.

Does

- long fist have speed generation training?
- preying mantis have power generation training?
- Baji have throwing skill training?
- Shuai-Chiao have kick/punch training?
- BJJ have speed generation training?

The answer is no. What may make people to think that WC can have everything?

Boxing was a requirement course for all students in Central Nanking CMA Institute. Every students who graduated from that institute would understand the benefit of "cross training". It makes no sense for our generation to still argue whether "cross training" is necessary or not.

 

[LFJ]

Does

- long fist have speed generation training?
- preying mantis have power generation training?
- Baji have throwing skill training?
- Shuai-Chiao have kick/punch training?
- BJJ have speed generation training?

The answer is no.

What??

How in the world are you taken to be some sort of resident expert on TCMA?

Apart from the SJ you specialize in, you have an extremely simplistic understanding of TCMA.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

A striking system with only close-range tactics that doesn't address how to get there either had that bit lost in transmission among people who don't fight, or it's a fantasy style created by people who don't fight.

Or, perhaps it assumed people had those skills, but lacked in-fighting, or the opponents they faced simply weren't effective at that range. I'll grant its more likely that part was lost - perhaps for one of those reasons, and perhaps for other reasons altogether.

My main point was that the more "complete" version need not be any more accurate to the source. It may have regrow what was once lost.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

A striking system with only close-range tactics that doesn't address how to get there either had that bit lost in transmission among people who don't fight, or it's a fantasy style created by people who don't fight.

Actually, let me correct myself. My main point was that what a student is taught, is properly the entire system to them. If they are not taught part of it, it's not their lack of understanding that created a gap.

 

[Marnetmar]

IMO Wing Chun only makes sense as an exclusively clinch-range art. Sure, you can adapt some Chun principles to boxing range, but I don't think you can call it Wing Chun if 90% of the art falls apart and stops making any sense when at that range.

 

[DanT]

All the traditional systems I have learned are complete systems. I don't have to mix it with anything personally.

 

[anerlich]

Glad I started martial arts in a hybrid system and continue to cross train. And stay out stylistic purity arguments like this.

 

[drop bear]

A striking system with only close-range tactics that doesn't address how to get there either had that bit lost in transmission among people who don't fight, or it's a fantasy style created by people who don't fight.

It is not completely missing but it is not as comprehensive as it should be. Think BJJ and striking.

 

[drop bear]

Glad I started martial arts in a hybrid system and continue to cross train. And stay out stylistic purity arguments like this.

Yeah athetics. Is the least of my martial arts concern. My boss had an issue with it though.

"That just look really messy drop bear"

"Um..... yeah it was a fight"

 

[drop bear]

All the traditional systems I have learned are complete systems. I don't have to mix it with anything personally.

All the hybrids I have done need the influence of outside sources.

We at best would collect a whole team of specialists to create a better system.

John Wayne Parr: Training with GSP - Interview - Blitz Martial Arts Magazine

I mean we can't afford it. But imagine if we could?

 

[drop bear]

Actually, let me correct myself. My main point was that what a student is taught, is properly the entire system to them. If they are not taught part of it, it's not their lack of understanding that created a gap.

Not really. What you are taught is never the entire system. You just get enough toolset to find out for yourself.

 

[Danny T]

Take all the gloves off.
In what manner does fighting evolve?