Wing Chun Boxing

[Nobody Important]

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!

HAPPY BIRTHDAY!

 

[drop bear]

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!

The thing is you face notoriously good martial artists when you start doing competition. The higher the level the better the martial artist.

You are throwing wing chun that doesn't have that depth of talent into an environment where other styles have had this advantage of competition for years. It will take a couple of generations of wing chun fighters to catch up.

As an example of what I am getting at. Here is a sappy feel good story about success and collaboration.

Growing Good Corn

But I think martial arts works very much within this principle.

 

[drop bear]

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!

What is your experience with wing chun and boxing by the way?

 

[drop bear]

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

The evidence says some styles work.

For example boxing is definitely one that has evidence behind its method. In pretty much all areas of fighting and competition. The concepts of boxing. Ideas of foot work, power generation, rotational punching. All have evidence that it works.

It is reflected in other styles that all have evidence they work.

I am saying VT is not one of those styles that has that wealth of evidence behind its method.

That is why when I say styles that work. I don't include VT.

That is unbiased evidence based reasoning.

This is why back to the premis of this thread. If you needed to gap fill a style. You need a style that works and you need a style that can be integrated into your own system.

Boxing has evidence that it can do these tasks.

VT has no real evidence it can do these tasks.

So when I say VT does not work. I am saying it from its lack of evidence that it works. Not evidence that it doesn't work.

I have said I am willing to be swayed by evidence. But that is not going to be some stuff about an unnamed tournement and which way your elbow should face.

It will certainly not be some rubbish challenge to fly across the world and beat on a bunch of chunners. Who do not fight on a national or international scale.

Ok. You have said I have not experience with VT.

well you have no experience with a martial arts that works.

I train with guys that compete on an international and national level, This includes boxing, kickboxing MMA, kudo and karate.

These are gold and silver gloves.

Medal tally for WMA

Title belt.

Another title belt.

The UFC. (ok. he didn't win. But still a pretty big deal.)

Competing in world titles.

Off to Japan for world titles

 

[LFJ]

You need a style that works and you need a style that can be integrated into your own system.

Boxing has evidence that it can do these tasks.

Depends on the system it's to be integrated into. If it's a striking method WB contradicts, it can't be integrated without fundamentally changing one or the other.

So when I say VT does not work. I am saying it from its lack of evidence that it works. Not evidence that it doesn't work.

That would not be a skeptic position, that you simply aren't convinced that it works, but a claim that it doesn't work. Which means you have taken on a burden of proof.

Also, you are showing your bias, because you have ignored evidence that it works.

It will certainly not be some rubbish challenge to fly across the world and beat on a bunch of chunners. Who do not fight on a national or international scale.

I told you about an international open-style tournament that competitors from your country have fought in. Lobo also posted videos of a VT fighter getting a knockout, and another getting knocked out.

So, like other styles that work, some times it works, and some times it doesn't.

Ok. You have said I have not experience with VT.

well you have no experience with a martial arts that works.

Since you don't know my full training history, you are just being unnecessarily insulting.

And since I told you directly that I cross-train BJJ, you are either style-bashing BJJ, which is stupid, or you're being dishonest in order to make a personal attack.

 

[Martial D]

evidence that it works.

Where?

 

[drop bear]

Depends on the system it's to be integrated into. If it's a striking method WB contradicts, it can't be integrated without fundamentally changing one or the other.

Ok. I have experience integrating boxing with other systems of striking that contradict. That is called MMA. That is why you see wing chun stuff in MMA striking. I say it is possible. And advantageous. KPM says it is possible and advantageous to do so with chun. What is your experience with integrating boxing with contradicting systems? Or where do you get this knowledge from?

So I say it can. KPM says it can.

That would not be a skeptic position, that you simply aren't convinced that it works, but a claim that it doesn't work. Which means you have taken on a burden of proof.

Also, you are showing your bias, because you have ignored evidence that it works.

No. The claim of working is the claim that requires evidence. If the style has an absence of evidence then it cannot claim that it works. So the description that it does not work is valid.. I am happy for you to find a better term for the absence of evidence that something works. But not working seems pretty self explanatory.

The burden of proof is on you.

I told you about an international open-style tournament that competitors from your country have fought in. Lobo also posted videos of a VT fighter getting a knockout, and another getting knocked out.

So, like other styles that work, some times

Ok. works some times is not the same as works consistantly due to an absolute wealth of evidence.

Your link to the tournement never worked. You never found one that did. Nobody knows what tournement you are on about.
.

Since you don't know my full training history, you are just being unnecessarily insulting.

And since I told you directly that I cross-train BJJ, you are either style-bashing BJJ, which is stupid, or you're being dishonest in order to make a personal attack.

Sorry a striking style that works.

 

[KPM]

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.

True. And the other problem is this....the things that are "identifiable" as Wing Chun tend to be the things that just flat don't work very well or at least show up very much in an actual free-fight encounter against a non-Wing Chun person. All the advanced Lat Sau progressions and combinations from Chi Sau....gone. All the nice upright centerline structure....gone.

 

[KPM]

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

Oh! So it is exactly like that video of Sean's student and your claim that it was "pure WSLVT"!!!

 

[drop bear]

True. And the other problem is this....the things that are "identifiable" as Wing Chun tend to be the things that just flat don't work very well or at least show up very much in an actual free-fight encounter against a non-Wing Chun person. All the advanced Lat Sau progressions and combinations from Chi Sau....gone. All the nice upright centerline structure....gone.

Which is all the things wing chun is worried about loosing if they mix styles.

 

[LFJ]

What is your experience with integrating boxing with contradicting systems? Or where do you get this knowledge from?

VT.

The claim of working is the claim that requires evidence.

The burden of proof is on anyone who makes a claim.

If the style has an absence of evidence then it cannot claim that it works. So the description that it does not work is valid.

Even if it were true that there's no evidence that VT works, the claim that it doesn't needs to be substantiated.

Before the wealth of evidence supporting evolution was gathered, saying lifeforms didn't evolve would not have been correct just because we didn't know any better.

So, if you make a claim either way, you need supporting evidence or you are just making a bald assertion.

The burden of proof is on you.

It's on anyone who makes a claim, be it positive or negative.

You and KPM, who thinks he's a scientist, don't even understand the burden of proof.

Ok. works some times is not the same as works consistantly due to an absolute wealth of evidence.

Your claim is that it doesn't work, full stop. That is demonstrably false.

How consistently it works will depend on the fighters and the opponents they face.

There aren't that many VT fighters in sporting competition. As VT grows, there will probably be more, maybe enough to satisfy you, but that is not the be-all and end-all of a martial art "working".

Your link to the tournement never worked. You never found one that did. Nobody knows what tournement you are on about.

You didn't click on it. Everyone who was paying attention knows.

Sorry a striking style that works.

Meaning in sporting competition...

Done Sanda for years in China. Its punching is similar to WB. It has been used successfully by some fighters in UFC, which should satisfy your fanboy criteria for "working".

 

[LFJ]

Oh! So it is exactly like that video of Sean's student and your claim that it was "pure WSLVT"!!!

Yeah, only, when I educated you on the WSLVT system, you arrogantly denied it because you are unwilling to learn or concede that VT could be more complete as a striking method than the bits and pieces of various WC lineages you've briefly encountered.

 

[Phobius]

Which is all the things wing chun is worried about loosing if they mix styles.

Which is all the things I do not expect from a WC fighter. Strange how it works, doesn't it. Perhaps the error in the discussion is not WC or anything else but the expectation of people. How many actually know what WC/WT/VY should look like.

Most of what has been said is something I disagree with when it comes to what is WT and what is not.

How WT looks in an ideal situation where there is no resistance from opponent is not the same as it looks like with resistance. Just because there are non-resistant drills does not mean there are not aliveness drills to use Matt Thornton's term. (Was it he who coined it?)

 

[KPM]

The burden of proof is on anyone who makes a claim.

---So the "burden of proof" is on you for all of your claims, whether overt or covert, in this very forum over a couple of years now....that your VT is so different and so superior to everyone else's Wing Chun and that everyone else's Wing Chun is somehow "broken" in comparison. Despite repeated claims, you have never proven that.


Even if it were true that there's no evidence that VT works, the claim that it doesn't needs to be substantiated.

---No it doesn't. If there is a claim that it works but without evidence, then the default skeptic position is that it doesn't. Again, if someone claims the moon is made of green cheese, the skeptic assumes that is wrong and needs to be proven. But that doesn't rule out taking a neutral or agnostic position of "I don't know either way." I've simply been saying that if you want to be "scientific" about it, you take the position of the skeptic and assume all claims are false. Somehow you don't seem to understand that.


Before the wealth of evidence supporting evolution was gathered, saying lifeforms didn't evolve would not have been correct just because we didn't know any better.

----Because it was a theory, not a claim. And any scientist that made the claim that the theory was indeed fact, would have come under heavy pressure to provide evidence that his claim was true.



You and KPM, who thinks he's a scientist, don't even understand the burden of proof.

----And you don't seem to understand basic logic. But I am involved in half a dozen research projects and was the site PI on a big project that just wrapped up and is pending publication. You are an anonymous troll hiding behind 3 initials who refused to answer Geezers simple questions about your background.


Done Sanda for years in China

----Well, going by your criteria, no one should accept that claim either....until you show evidence that supports it. After all, that is what you asked of Phil Redmond!


Yeah, only, when I educated you on the WSLVT system, you arrogantly denied it

---Again, you seem confused. "Educating" someone....ie providing information that may or may not be true....is not the same thing as providing evidence that supports a claim. If I "arrogantly" denied anything, it was it direct proportion to how you "arrogantly" made claims that had no real support.

 

[LFJ]

that your VT is so different and so superior to everyone else's Wing Chun and that everyone else's Wing Chun is somehow "broken" in comparison. Despite repeated claims, you have never proven that.

I have shown VT forms and explained how they are different.
I've shown VT sparring that is obviously different.
I've shown and explained long-range strategy and tactics that most WC you've seen doesn't have, and as you admit is why it often fails.

Then you arrogantly told me all of that is not VT precisely because it's different.

So, whatever.

If there is a claim that it works but without evidence, then the default skeptic position is that it doesn't.

Wrong. It's "I don't believe that", which is not the same as "I believe it doesn't."

No claim has been made without evidence, anyway.

that doesn't rule out taking a neutral or agnostic position of "I don't know either way." I've simply been saying that if you want to be "scientific" about it, you take the position of the skeptic and assume all claims are false.

You can't say you don't know either way but then assert the negative claim.

A skeptic assumes and asserts nothing. You are not a skeptic.

----Because it was a theory, not a claim. And any scientist that made the claim that the theory was indeed fact, would have come under heavy pressure to provide evidence that his claim was true.

Correct. Would that justify one in claiming evolution is false just because they didn't know better?

Obviously not, because there was no evidence to the contrary, and they would have been wrong. That's why the skeptic doesn't assert anything one way or the other until justified.

----Well, going by your criteria, no one should accept that claim either....until you show evidence that supports it. After all, that is what you asked of Phil Redmond!

No, it's not. He claimed to have a competitive fight record he couldn't produce.

"Educating" someone....ie providing information that may or may not be true....is not the same thing as providing evidence that supports a claim.

It's not "may or may not be true". What I explained to you was WSLVT. All our members from the lineage agreed with the posts.

It's no different from you going into 4 or 5 WSLVT schools, learning these things, then arrogantly telling the teachers they are just showing you WB and not VT, because you say so.

 

[geezer]

...It's not "may or may not be true". What I explained to you was WSLVT. All our members from the lineage agreed with the posts.

Frankly, I don't get this. KPM and others have questioned the factuality of your claims regarding WSL-VT's superior efficacy in sparring. Not whether you are accurately describing the system you train. Other VT practitioners here have supported your explanations of your VT. But, let's be honest. Convincing evidence of superior effectiveness is something else.

 

[Callen]

Maybe some other WSL-VT folks would care to weigh in?

Forgive me, but this thread has taken a few turns. What exactly would the weigh-in be about?

 

[LFJ]

KPM and others have questioned the factuality of your claims regarding WSL-VT's superior efficacy in sparring. Not whether you are accurately describing the system you train.

Actually, KPM arrogantly told me pointblank that what I showed and described in our forms and working in sparring is not VT.

Other VT practitioners here have supported your explanations of your VT. But, let's be honest. Convincing evidence of superior effectiveness is something else.

VT has been shown to work in sparring non-VT. It has been show to work in competition against non-VT.

I'm not saying that makes this method more effective, or that it's the only one, but that most other WC systems don't have the same evidence.

Other systems' own practitioners have acknowledged their failings on their own.

 

[Nobody Important]

There is no such thing as a superior method, it's the person behind it that is responsible for success or failure. Techniques, biomechanics, theory and principles mean absolutely nothing without a sound strategy employed by a seasoned, well conditioned, mentally fit and intelligent being. No style can do that for you, you have to make it work by working.

 

[geezer]

@KPM -- Overall, this is clip by Alan Orr more relevant to integrating MMA concepts with WC/VT than boxing specifically, although what he shows when you have an opponent against the wall, can be seen both in the cage and the ring.

Also, if you look at 3:45 - 4:05, you will see Alan explain using the boxing high cover with both hands in terms of the principle seen in the final movement of Biu Tze form (as did Sean and LFJ previously in reference to the clip Sean provided). Like you, I believe Alan's usage of this technique here, much like the way Sean's guy used it, owes more to boxing than WC/VT, but the reference to the BT form shows that is is an evolutionary adaptation totally consistent with WC/VT's DNA.

IMO, only a person who is a VT creationist and not an evolutionist could find a way to view this as a traditional application of Yip Man WC/VT, and I don't waste my time arguing "creation science" with religious zealots!.

Now, let's look how this approach is applied in MMA by one of Alan's fighters: Josh Kaldani. Whenever Josh gets his opponent against the cage such as at around 8:00 - 8:50, at 11:00 - 11:15, or again at 14:15 - 14:55, you can see this applied. Something similar often happens on the ground, too. Is it MMA or WC? ...or an evolution that is obviously inspired by MMA that works with WC/VT DNA? ....Or is it just "filling gaps" in a "broken" branch of WC? --Any thoughts?