Wing Chun Boxing

[Kung Fu Wang]

but the body weight is not driven over the front foot."

If you always punch when your weight is on your back foot, your reach will be limited. IMO, you should shift your body weight freely when you need.

If we compare the stances that your punch can reach:

1. empty stance - 0% weight on leading leg.
2. 3-7 stance - 30% weight on leading leg.
3. 4-6 stance - 40% weight on leading leg.
4. horse stance - 50% weight on leading leg.
5. bow-arrow stance - 70% weight on leading leg.
6. monkey stance - 90% weight on leading leg.
7. golden rooster stance - 100% weight on leading leg.

empty stance < 3-7 stance < 4-6 stance < horse stance < bow-arrow stance < monkey stance < golden rooster stance

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Torque is driven by the hip. (you say you have training WC so you should know this).

I had crossed trained the WC system not because it's power generation method but because it's "centerline" principle and "block and strike at the same time" principle.

 

[Danny T]

I had crossed trained the WC system not because it's power generation method but because it's "centerline" principle and "block and strike at the same time" principle.

Ok...that doesn't change how or why WC punches or drives off the rear.
It does so due to the range WC is designed for not because some wants to do something else. If one is punching in the manner a boxer drives the weight over or some even drive past the front foot then one at that point not doing WC.

 

[Danny T]

If you always punch when your weight is on your back foot, your reach will be limited. IMO, you should shift your body weight freely when you need.

Not disagreeing. But then that isn't WC.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

drives the weight over or some even drive past the front foot then one at that point not doing WC.

I think WC should be your slave. WC should not be your master. Attitude such as: "If you do ..., you are not doing WC." is not proper. Since WC is only one of my cross training CMA styles, I won't let WC to put restriction on my "footwork - mobility".

If your opponent moves back in fast speed, you will need fast footwork to hit him. To step your back leg in front of your front leg is a must.

Here is an example. So this guy is not doing WC just because his back leg moved pass over his leading leg?

IMO, the question should

- not be "Is this guy doing WC?"
- be "Should a WC guy move like this?"

If the answer is no, then why not?

Not disagreeing. But then that isn't WC.

I do think WC needs some "evolution".

Among so may MA systems, By using the WC footwork to cover great distance is always a serious concern.

 

[wckf92]

If your opponent moves back in fast speed, you will need fast footwork to hit him. To step your back leg in front of your front leg is a must.

If your opponent disengages, and is moving away from you, then, as a human...just walk or run after him.

However, fast footwork ideas are in the weapons forms.

 

[KPM]

If you always punch when your weight is on your back foot, your reach will be limited. IMO, you should shift your body weight freely when you need.

I agree John. But as Danny said, Wing Chun doesn't do that! That is one of the reasons why I like my Wing Chun -- Boxing cross-fertilization. Boxing is more flexible and versatile when it comes to punching and power generation.

 

[KPM]

If your opponent moves back in fast speed, you will need fast footwork to hit him. To step your back leg in front of your front leg is a must.

I agree!

 

[Danny T]

I think WC should be your slave. WC should not be your master. Attitude such as: "If you do ..., you are not doing WC." is not proper. Since WC is only one of my cross training CMA styles, I won't let WC to put restriction on my "footwork - mobility".

Can't disagree from an individual perspective. WC is a training system with a specific methodology.
The individual should always be adaptable to the situations without strict adherence to a particular method or way. That is why I train in multiple methods. But the discussion is, at that moment what one doing WC? I opine NO. Using something that isn't specifically WC isn't bad but that doesn't make it WC.

Here is an example. So this guy is not doing WC just because his back leg moved pass over his leading leg?

What?? You think what he is doing is WC? It isn't. My statement doesn't mean he should not be doing so. That method worked for him at that moment...individual adaptability in the moment. But again that doesn't make it WC.

IMO, the question should

- not be "Is this guy doing WC?"
- be "Should a WC guy move like this?"

If the answer is no, then why not?

Ok.

"Is this guy doing WC?" I'm not asking if it is WC. You did.
"Should a WC guy move like this?" The individual is always more important than a particular method. Use whatever is needed at the time it is needed. Adaptability is very important.

I do think WC needs some "evolution".

WC has evolved but... When one changes the fundamentals of the system then it is not long the same system. WC the system doesn't need to evolve. The individual needs to evolve.

In using the French term 'faux pax' within my discussion doesn't make the term English. Nor does it mean I'm speaking French. It is simply a French term I used. Does that mean English needs to change?

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

But again that doesn't make it WC.

We are still debating whether or not we should "keep WC pure".

- In stead of thinking about "pure", why can't we think about "complete"?
- Should we just act like a perfect "copy machine", or should we "contribute something into our MA system, so our next generation won't have to go through what we did"?

A + B > A

By adding something into a MA system won't change that MA system.

For example, if you add the following "ground get back up" methods into the BJJ system, there is no way that it will hurt the BJJ system. It will only make the BJJ system more complete.

 

[drop bear]

WC has evolved but... When one changes the fundamentals of the system then it is not long the same system. WC the system doesn't need to evolve. The individual needs to evolve.

In using the French term 'faux pax' within my discussion doesn't make the term English. Nor does it mean I'm speaking French. It is simply a French term I used. Does that mean English needs to change?

Yeah this is kind of the issue. Who decides when something is no longer chun?

Which has so far just been based on people just saying it is or isn't.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Yeah this is kind of the issue. Who decides when something is no longer chun?

Which has so far just been based on people just saying it is or isn't.

The most proud thing that I have ever done in my life was to "evolve" SC into "CSC - Combat SC" with David C. K. Lin by adding kicking and punching back into the Chinese wrestling system and made it into "Sanda".

Combat Shuai-Chiao Main Page

In the past 37 years, no one had ever said that my "SC is not pure".

 

[Danny T]

We are still debating whether or not we should "keep WC pure".

- In stead of thinking about "pure", why can we think about "complete"?
- Should we just act like a perfect "copy machine", or should we "contribute something into our MA system, so our next generation won't have to go through what we did"?

A + B > A

By adding something into a MA system won't change that MA system.

For example, if you add the following "ground get up" method into the BJJ system, there is no way that it will hurt the BJJ system. It will make the BJJ system more complete.

Yeah this is kind of the issue. Who decides when something is no longer chun?

Which has so far just been based on people just saying it is or isn't.

When it no longer follows the principles of the system.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

When it no longer follows the principles of the system.

boxing + kicking = kick boxing

Does a kick boxer not follow the boxing principle?

 

[drop bear]

When it no longer follows the principles of the system.

Well that is completely different to people just saying it.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

When it no longer follows the principles of the system.

One of the Taiji principles is always to keep your head straight up. If there is a $100 bill on the ground, will you violate the Taiji principle, bend down your body, and pick it up?

Taiji + preying mantis = Taiji preying mantis

The Taiji preying mantis system was created by combining both Taiji and preying mantis.

- Taiji is slow with body push/pull arm.
- Preying mantis is fast with body chase arm.

If Taiji and preying mantis can be combined, WC and boxing are much easier to combine.

 

[Danny T]

boxing + kicking = kick boxing

Does a kick boxer not follow the boxing principle?

Some of time but as soon as he is kicking is he following the principle (rules) of boxing.
Is he boxing or is he doing something else? He certainly isn't boxing anymore.

 

[Danny T]

One of the Taiji principles is always to keep your head straight up. If there is a $100 bill on the ground, will you violate the Taiji principle, bend down your body, and pick it up?

Taiji + preying mantis = Taiji preying mantis

The Taiji preying mantis system was created by combining both Taiji and preying mantis.

- Taiji is slow with body push/pull arm.
- Preying mantis is fast with body chase arm.

If Taiji and preying mantis can be combined, WC and boxing are much easier to combine.

Hahahahahaha!!! Are you serious; you are wanting to compare someone finding an object of value on the ground and picking it up to someone fighting using a particular martial art?

I have already stated the individual aspect in your equation.

 

[Vajramusti]

When it no longer follows the principles of the system.

-------------------------------------------------

Correct & prancing in boxing poses isn't wing chun

 

[geezer]

-------------------------------------------------

Correct & prancing in boxing poses isn't wing chun

I agree. I resolve to only prance about in Wing Chun poses!