Wing Chun vs MMA

[Kung Fu Wang]

I think this is moving towards those secret principles that one martial art has that others don't.

Because nobody has been exposed to the chun in the last 20 years.

I wish someone can provide some detail WC power generation method here. It's not clear to me why people may think that WC uses different power generation method than boxing does. After all a punch is a punch that come from

- borrow the counter force from the ground,
- body rotation,
- body unification, and
- body push/pull limbs.

 

[drop bear]

I wish someone can provide some detail WC power generation method here. It's not clear to me why people may think that WC uses different power generation method than boxing does. After all a punch is a punch that come from

- borrow the counter force from the ground,
- body rotation,
- body unification, and
- body push/pull limbs.

There is a boxing lead right that generate power from a step forwards and a tight elbow.

A bit different to an overhand right where you would pivot and roll your shoulder.

So yeah.... there are different structures to different punches.

But to say that using only one structure is some sort of advantage is a bit limited.

 

[Juany118]

Yeah, you're right. BJJ is all about brute strength. Physics, leverage and technique don't come into play at all.

Here's the thing. I think where skill is equal, size and strength matter in every case, regardless of style. Aikido, Bjj, boxing, whatever.

Other physical attributes also matter. Athleticism, for example. Regardless of the ma in which you train.

And I also think that training against multiple body types is a great idea regardless of style.

Hey look a straw man argument. When did I say anything about BJJ?

I agree with you in terms of training. My point is this. You must chose a MA based on ALL the qualities I noted including the last, purpose. If I did not have the clear priority regarding real world self defense against larger subjects and wanting to supplement my baton fighting and knife defense training, I might have chosen a different MA because my priorities would be different.

Maybe I would have taken TKD because my Brother in Law is an assistant instructor there and we like hanging out. Maybe I would have taken Wushu because it is simply awesome in terms of its visual displays of athleticism. Who knows.

Again all I say is that you need to pick an art that fits with your goals, mind set, personality and physical traits. Not anyone of them, all inclusive.

Yeah it was probably the boxing thread that ranges came up. Something about phone booths. And that your one tactic is to get close.

So now you are range fighters as well.

How do you practice against larger people? Aren't they disadvantaged a bit in chun as it is not suited to them.

And as is typical you take things out of context. In that thread I specifically noted kicks as being an option BUT here is the thing with fighting a boxer, as I noted, and actually you noted as well with a link you shared regarding boxing styles.
A boxer is going to want to close so they can punch, especially the swarmer. They are willing to take a hit and once inside kicking range the WC practitioner will need to get even closer than the boxer to maximize their punches due to their different stance structure. This puts you immediately on the "back foot" as the boxer is on the offensive. WC is about being on the offensive and since, against a boxer, you will end up in punching range anywho you are simply better served getting their ASAP so you get inside a boxers most powerful punches faster and have the initiative.

But nuance like this seems lost on you.

 

[Steve]

Hey look a straw man argument. When did I say anything about BJJ?

You're acting like anyone who doesn't train aikido doesn't know anything about biomechanics, physics or technique. I'm beginning to wonder if you know the difference between an observation and an argument.

You didn't mention BJJ. I did, because that's what I know, and I gather you know diddly squat about it because biomechanics, physics and technique are very important in BJJ. And just so you know, trying to distract from the substance of an argument with irrelevant statements (such as, I don't know, starting every post with, "Hey look, another straw man argument!") is called a red herring.

I agree with you in terms of training. My point is this. You must chose a MA based on ALL the qualities I noted including the last, purpose. If I did not have the clear priority regarding real world self defense against larger subjects and wanting to supplement my baton fighting and knife defense training, I might have chosen a different MA because my priorities would be different.

Okay. Slow down. You're saying that I must choose an MA based upon ALL of the qualities YOU noted. Must I? Do you think there's any room for another equally valid opinion? Or is it just that cut and dry? Because, I still think your criteria is broken.

Maybe I would have taken TKD because my Brother in Law is an assistant instructor there and we like hanging out. Maybe I would have taken Wushu because it is simply awesome in terms of its visual displays of athleticism. Who knows.

No idea what this means, but I wonder if you have any idea how patronizing you sound.

Again all I say is that you need to pick an art that fits with your goals, mind set, personality and physical traits. Not anyone of them, all inclusive.

This again. I NEED to pick an art that meets ALL of your criteria? Really? What if I don't? Do you think a little guy like Demetrious Johnson took all of your criteria into play when he chose MMA? I don't, but maybe so. What I do know for sure is that at 210 lbs, I wouldn't want to tangle with him, even though according to you he doesn't train aikido, and so isn't going to be capable of defending himself against a bigger guy.

I'll try to be really clear. You're asserting that aikido is better suited for fighting bigger, stronger opponents than boxing. Further, you've asserted that boxing is not just less well suited than aikido, but is actually doesn't work at all on people who are bigger than you. You have an arbitrary standard by which you insist other people MUST choose a style. And finally, you seem to carelessly dismiss as useful in self defense pretty much every martial arts style you don't endorse (which I think are Aikido and maybe Wing Chun). So far, you've either stated or implied that boxing, TKD and Wushu aren't suitable for self defense.

 

[Juany118]

You're acting like anyone who doesn't train aikido doesn't know anything about biomechanics, physics or technique. I'm beginning to wonder if you know the difference between an observation and an argument.

You didn't mention BJJ. I did, because that's what I know, and I gather you know diddly squat about it because biomechanics, physics and technique are very important in BJJ. And just so you know, trying to distract from the substance of an argument with irrelevant statements (such as, I don't know, starting every post with, "Hey look, another straw man argument!") is called a red herring. Okay. Slow down. You're saying that I must choose an MA based upon ALL of the qualities YOU noted. Must I? Do you think there's any room for another equally valid opinion? Or is it just that cut and dry? Because, I still think your criteria is broken. No idea what this means, but I wonder if you have any idea how patronizing you sound. This again. I NEED to pick an art that meets ALL of your criteria? Really? What if I don't? Do you think a little guy like Demetrious Johnson took all of your criteria into play when he chose MMA? I don't, but maybe so. What I do know for sure is that at 210 lbs, I wouldn't want to tangle with him, even though according to you he doesn't train aikido, and so isn't going to be capable of defending himself against a bigger guy.

I'll try to be really clear. You're asserting that aikido is better suited for fighting bigger, stronger opponents than boxing. Further, you've asserted that boxing is not just less well suited than aikido, but is actually doesn't work at all on people who are bigger than you. You have an arbitrary standard by which you insist other people MUST choose a style. And finally, you seem to carelessly dismiss as useful in self defense pretty much every martial arts style you don't endorse (I gather Aikido and maybe Wing Chun). So far, boxing, TKD and Wushu.

First, how is it patronizing to say that if I didn't have the priorities I do I would have chosen a different MA for different reasons? All that says is that the arts I picked are right for ME and that they may not fit your purposes.

Second if you are familiar with how some Martial arts use principles of leverage and the like then why did you say you don't understand how strength can be a greater factor in boxing than Aikido?

As for what you note regarding Demetrius I would say he absolutely used my list. Why?

First he started as a High School wrestler. When you chose a "sport" MA for the purposes of sanctioned competition, the size issue is not a big factor because of the weight classes. So you are left with priority and mindset, the later only if you want to be successful. His priority was so he picks wrestling.

He then chose to compete professionally. He chose MMA. MMA also has weight classes so again, relative size is not a factor. All that mattered was "I want to compete in MMA" and that meant learning MMA. If he would have chosen professional boxing, well then weight classes again and he would have to learn boxing.

It all starts with your priorities though imo, everything else occurrs to one degree or another there after. Examples...

1. If you are looking at Martial Arts as a fitness/confidence builder you don't have to be overly concerned with sizes of others, mind set etc.
2. If you are looking to compete in sanctioned sports matches that have weight classes, size isn't that big a factor (it can be if your weight is on the bubble etc. just speaking in general) but mindset is.
3. If you are looking for self defense, you should consider your size and the chances of you running into an assailant that is larger than you. You may also want to consider if you are going to have ready access to certain basic weapons as force multipliers are always a good thing in a fight.

In the self defense context you should also consider your mindset and personality because, as an example if you aren't comfortable waiting for your opponent to make the first move Aikido is likely not for you. Conversely if you aren't a naturally aggressive person and don't see that as something that you can change, then a self defense style that is largely based on striking or "hard" grappling/ground fighting like BJJ may not be for you.

I know some people may have a point of disagreement on the last bit bit you would be surprised how hard it is to actually get people to be "really" aggressive outside of the training scenario, but it is actually quite hard. The whole point of Army basic training is to, in essence, breakdown the "kid" and then rebuild them into a Soldier who can act with ultimate aggression without thought...as one of the Forum advisers called it "Robo-droid.". Even then with months of 24/7 breaking down and then rebuilding it doesn't always take.

 

[drop bear]

Hey look a straw man argument. When did I say anything about BJJ?

I agree with you in terms of training. My point is this. You must chose a MA based on ALL the qualities I noted including the last, purpose. If I did not have the clear priority regarding real world self defense against larger subjects and wanting to supplement my baton fighting and knife defense training, I might have chosen a different MA because my priorities would be different.

Maybe I would have taken TKD because my Brother in Law is an assistant instructor there and we like hanging out. Maybe I would have taken Wushu because it is simply awesome in terms of its visual displays of athleticism. Who knows.

Again all I say is that you need to pick an art that fits with your goals, mind set, personality and physical traits. Not anyone of them, all inclusive.

And as is typical you take things out of context. In that thread I specifically noted kicks as being an option BUT here is the thing with fighting a boxer, as I noted, and actually you noted as well with a link you shared regarding boxing styles.
A boxer is going to want to close so they can punch, especially the swarmer. They are willing to take a hit and once inside kicking range the WC practitioner will need to get even closer than the boxer to maximize their punches due to their different stance structure. This puts you immediately on the "back foot" as the boxer is on the offensive. WC is about being on the offensive and since, against a boxer, you will end up in punching range anywho you are simply better served getting their ASAP so you get inside a boxers most powerful punches faster and have the initiative.

But nuance like this seems lost on you.

So that still sounds like you have one range. You are still trying to get it and maintain a single range there. Which is some weird half infighting that you think will give you the advantage.

I dont think any nuance of that idea changes my point really. I would prefer to be able to fight for multiple ranges. And against others who have multiple ranges.

Kicking to close with a guy doesn't really make you an outfighter.

 

[Juany118]

So that still sounds like you have one range. You are still trying to get it and maintain a single range there. Which is some weird half infighting that you think will give you the advantage.

I dont think any nuance of that idea changes my point really. I would prefer to be able to fight for multiple ranges. And against others who have multiple ranges.

Kicking to close with a guy doesn't really make you an outfighter.

No it's called understanding how your opponent will fight, how they train, and deal with it. Wing Chun, like most striking arts, requires you to try to take the initiative. If you know your opponent, in this case a boxer, is going to try and get into close range so they can strike, simply waiting for them to do so and trying to use kicks to stop them, is handing the initiative to your opponent. They in essence dictate how and when you will try to kick based on how they chose to enter close range. Additionally since formally trained boxers train to take hits, kicks are unlikely to stop their advance for any time. The link you posted in the other thread regarding a swarmer is evidence of this. They want to close asap and are willing to take hits to achieve this.

So in WC you will close with the enemy. You will use kicks once in kicking range and then techniques in the art specifically designed to bridge into punching range. All of this is to maintain the initiative. If the boxers dances out of punching range faster than the WC practitioner can continue their advance then you kick again until you can again use those bridging techniques.

The entire idea is based around one of tonekey concepts behind the art, namely to the initiative as fast as possible so that the fight can be ended as quickly as possible.
--this is part of the concept because WC acknowledges that, in a striking fight, the longer a fight between a smaller and larger opponent lasts generally benefits the larger fighter.
--it is also applies when facing a grappler the sooner you end the fight the less opportunity you give that grappler the opportunity to take you to the ground and go to work.

 

[drop bear]

No it's called understanding how your opponent will fight, how they train, and deal with it. Wing Chun, like most striking arts, requires you to try to take the initiative. If you know your opponent, in this case a boxer, is going to try and get into close range so they can strike, simply waiting for them to do so and trying to use kicks to stop them, is handing the initiative to your opponent. They in essence dictate how and when you will try to kick based on how they chose to enter close range. Additionally since formally trained boxers train to take hits, kicks are unlikely to stop their advance for any time. The link you posted in the other thread regarding a swarmer is evidence of this. They want to close asap and are willing to take hits to achieve this.

So in WC you will close with the enemy. You will use kicks once in kicking range and then techniques in the art specifically designed to bridge into punching range. All of this is to maintain the initiative. If the boxers dances out of punching range faster than the WC practitioner can continue their advance then you kick again until you can again use those bridging techniques.

The entire idea is based around one of tonekey concepts behind the art, namely to the initiative as fast as possible so that the fight can be ended as quickly as possible.
--this is part of the concept because WC acknowledges that, in a striking fight, the longer a fight between a smaller and larger opponent lasts generally benefits the larger fighter.
--it is also applies when facing a grappler the sooner you end the fight the less opportunity you give that grappler the opportunity to take you to the ground and go to work.

But you don't really understand how a boxer fights.

 

[Juany118]

But you don't really understand how a boxer fights.

I love how you like to take shots that are non sequiturs. Why a non sequitur in this case? Because the specific tactics an individual boxer may use aren't actually relevant to the point I made above. In essence your argument boils down to a cop out "you aren't a boxer so you can't speak to it." Thing is I have fought people trained in boxing, real fights, and it works.

I also need to say that you seem to have a nack for derailing points I am trying to make... In this case a MA should be chosen first with priority in mind, meaning

1."why do I want to learn the MAs?"
2. "based on my reason is relative size important?
a. If it is not important move onto question 3.
b. If it is important, how important is it?
3. What is my personaliy and over all mind set and how does this fit it in.?
a. Am I naturally more patient and less aggressive or vice versa?
b. Am I comfortable with people being in my personal space?
c. Would I be comfortable performing techniques that cause REAL pain? (By this I mean the following. Yes getting punched in the head hurts. Been there done that. However getting put in a submission hold by a BJJ guys, as I experienced practicing with a co-worker, in my experience REALLY hurts.)

Now you may have already answered number 3 by your answer to number 1. I know people who take MA because they are looking to build self confidence. Over 20 years ago when I started studying Aikido it was because I was looking to help cultivate more patience, which I lacked and I was just beginning to study Buddhism and the school I joined very much taught the Zen principles of Aikido along with the physical MA aspect, the potential self defense applications, for me at the time, were simply a bonus. So if part of your answer to #1 is "I am looking to overcome what I see as weaknesses in my mind-set or personality you can certain chose absolutely any art. I just don't suggest you do this IF, not I say if, you also has as a major purpose self-defense, or at least be honest enough with yourself to see if you actually are improving on those weak points so that you aren't handicapping yourself in an actual real life self-defense scenario.

That said I will entertain your derail...

For a boxer to fight you, they need to move into punching range. If you wait for them to start closing they have the initiative, it ultimately doesn't matter what their goal is. Are they just coming in first to test you with some jabs, then dance away? After that an "out-boxer" who is going to want to keep you at arms length with longer range punches, with the intent to wear you down? Are they a swarmer who is going to come in and try to overwhelm you in a manner not unlike the philosophy of WC?

Any of the above is irrelevant to the philosophy behind WC. WC is an art that uses both punches and kicks but the goal of the art is to apply constant pressure. It is easier to do this if you use both kicks and punches. If you just confront an opponent with kicks they can dance away and then you have to advance and reengage. However if you use kicks and hand strikes together you have a better, not perfect chance simply much better chance, of keeping continual pressure on your opponent and with he intent of ending the fight as quickly as possible. While the following video is WC vs AC,it illustrates the use of both punches (lots of chain punching on the victor's part) and kicks, along with trapping, all to accomplish this goal.

 

[drop bear]

Any of the above is irrelevant to the philosophy behind WC. WC is an art that uses both punches and kicks but the goal of the art is to apply constant pressure. It is easier to do this if you use both kicks and punches. If you just confront an opponent with kicks they can dance away and then you have to advance and reengage. However if you use kicks and hand strikes together you have a better, not perfect chance simply much better chance, of keeping continual pressure on your opponent and with he intent of ending the fight as quickly as possible. While the following video is WC vs AC,it illustrates the use of both punches (lots of chain punching on the victor's part) and kicks, along with trapping, all to accomplish this goal.

And you think that is designed for the smaller weaker person to gain the advantage?

Or that there was some sort of unique range or strategy at play?

I mean if you wanted to be some sort of super pressure fighter. There are better examples than that guy. Look up mighty mouse or ben ten. Both tiny guys and both front foot monsters.

 

[drop bear]

1."why do I want to learn the MAs?"
2. "based on my reason is relative size important?
a. If it is not important move onto question 3.
b. If it is important, how important is it?
3. What is my personaliy and over all mind set and how does this fit it in.?
a. Am I naturally more patient and less aggressive or vice versa?
b. Am I comfortable with people being in my personal space?
c. Would I be comfortable performing techniques that cause REAL pain? (By this I mean the following. Yes getting punched in the head hurts. Been there done that. However getting put in a submission hold by a BJJ guys, as I experienced practicing with a co-worker, in my experience REALLY hurts.)

So when I focus on one point I cherry pick and if I don't I derail.

So this is your main point?

See I would go for.

Do I want to learn martial arts?

A. do I want a fun or cultural experience?

B. Do I want to manhandle people?

If the answer is a then am I having fun or being cultural?

If the answer is b then are the better guys in my school manhandling people?

Not really complicated at all.

 

[Juany118]

And you think that is designed for the smaller weaker person to gain the advantage?

Or that there was some sort of unique range or strategy at play?

And you continue the derail. I get that you are still chomping on the bit regarding our previous debate and that MMA appears to be THE MA in your eyes but I have moved on from that particular debate. So this will be the last time I respond regarding specifics on WC.

If you read what I posted elsewhere it is more than that, it is holistic, the whole of the art, the strategy with the techniques together.

1. The WC practitioner's structure and centerline theory on attack.
a. The structure and the way punches are thrown, straight from the centerline. As I said in the elsewhere, but you seem to have forgotten, or ignored it, punches are thrown from your center with the elbow down, instead of from the shoulder. Added with the overall structure and the way you step as you punch or palm strike, is essentially a "thrust" with your entire body body mass starting at the ground. While some argue this is not as powerful as more muscularly driven strikes, often circular in nature rotating out from the shoulder and/or waist (I won't argue on that point) it provides for excellent transfer of force along with great speed for each strike and the ability to chain punch very rapidly as well. Since force is mass*acceleration, and this method does an excellent job of maximizing both it benefits a smaller person.
b. The structure, being upright can also, potentially, permit you to be striking with full power inside the reach of many of the most powerful strikes of a larger opponent.
c. The concept of centerline theory however doesn't only extend to maintaining your centerline. It also goes towards techniques of disrupting the centerline of the opponent as well. Disruption of the centerline makes for weaker attacks as the foundation of those attacks is now no longer stable.

2. Defense.
a. The way WC bridges and/or stops incoming attacks. Tan-sau, bong-sau, pak-sau, gaun-sau etc are deflections, many of then designed to essentially create a wedge. This follows the concept of never meet force with force and also feeds into the structure. The since you are deflecting instead of blocking a good portion of the energy is diverted away from you (picture a sword sliding along the edge of another sword and away from the subject parrying.) Your structure comes into play because even under those circumstances all of the energy isn't deflected, but the structure of your spine in relation to your legs, due to the stances, allows that excess energy to travel straight down to the ground. Again benefiting a smaller person. A different example is the Ryushinka Karate I took. There you primarily did hard blocks and to absorb the energy you relied on muscle power to absorb the excess energy with strong forceful stances. This later method would negatively impact WC attacks because it would disrupt the structure and require a reset of sorts before launching an attack.
b. I mentioned bridging. Looking again at the sword analogy, the fact you are creating a "wedge" of sorts allows you to maintain your forward momentum for attacks while simultaneously defending. This comes into play again with the F=m*a equation as, if you are not capable of stepping in with your attacks, they lose a portion of their acceleration and as such you lose power.

Now oof course other arts generate as much force, arguably more force than a WC punch BUT the structure behind a WC punch, as described above, is designed to put the maximum amount of mass behind a punch for a smaller person while permitting a very high rate of acceleration to help compensate for smaller size.

Now the above, again, is not to say strength and size don't benefit WC. To quote one Sifu I heard speak "two fighters of equal skill, one is bigger, the bigger guy wins." He wasn't limiting his comment to WC vs WC either, it was WC against just about any equally skilled/prepared fighter. It's only to say that the physics of the art were specifically designed around an understanding of how force is generated and diverted in such a way as to maximize it's effectiveness for smaller people. It's one of the reasons legend has it that the first person to teach the art was a Nun and that she first taught it to a young girl she named Yim Wing Chun.

 

[Juany118]

So when I focus on one point I cherry pick and if I don't I derail.

So this is your main point?

See I would go for.

Do I want to learn martial arts?

A. do I want a fun or cultural experience?

B. Do I want to manhandle people?

If the answer is a then am I having fun or being cultural?

If the answer is b then are the better guys in my school manhandling people?

Not really complicated at all.

Well thats fine, regardless of the snark behind it, if you see Martial arts in that narrow a manner it would still fit in with what I am saying above, to an extent,

 

[drop bear]

Well thats fine, regardless of the snark behind it, if you see Martial arts in that narrow a manner and would fit in with what I am saying above, to an extent,

Less narrow. My criteria encompasses more martial arts. And focuses on much bigger concepts.

 

[drop bear]

And you continue the derail. I get that you are still chomping on the bit regarding our previous debate and that MMA appears to be THE MA in your eyes but I have moved on from that particular debate. So this will be the last time I respond regarding specifics on WC.

If you read what I posted elsewhere it is more than that, it is holistic, the whole of the art, the strategy with the techniques together.

1. The WC practitioner's structure and centerline theory on attack.
a. The structure and the way punches are thrown, straight from the centerline. As I said in the elsewhere, but you seem to have forgotten, or ignored it, punches are thrown from your center with the elbow down, instead of from the shoulder. Added with the overall structure and the way you step as you punch or palm strike, is essentially a "thrust" with your entire body body mass starting at the ground. While some argue this is not as powerful as more muscularly driven strikes, often circular in nature rotating out from the shoulder and/or waist (I won't argue on that point) it provides for excellent transfer of force along with great speed for each strike and the ability to chain punch very rapidly as well. Since force is mass*acceleration, and this method does an excellent job of maximizing both it benefits a smaller person.
b. The structure, being upright can also, potentially, permit you to be striking with full power inside the reach of many of the most powerful strikes of a larger opponent.
c. The concept of centerline theory however doesn't only extend to maintaining your centerline. It also goes towards techniques of disrupting the centerline of the opponent as well. Disruption of the centerline makes for weaker attacks as the foundation of those attacks is now no longer stable.

2. Defense.
a. The way WC bridges and/or stops incoming attacks. Tan-sau, bong-sau, pak-sau, gaun-sau etc are deflections, many of then designed to essentially create a wedge. This follows the concept of never meet force with force and also feeds into the structure. The since you are deflecting instead of blocking a good portion of the energy is diverted away from you (picture a sword sliding along the edge of another sword and away from the subject parrying.) Your structure comes into play because even under those circumstances all of the energy isn't deflected, but the structure of your spine in relation to your legs, due to the stances, allows that excess energy to travel straight down to the ground. Again benefiting a smaller person. A different example is the Ryushinka Karate I took. There you primarily did hard blocks and to absorb the energy you relied on muscle power to absorb the excess energy with strong forceful stances. This later method would negatively impact WC attacks because it would disrupt the structure and require a reset of sorts before launching an attack.
b. I mentioned bridging. Looking again at the sword analogy, the fact you are creating a "wedge" of sorts allows you to maintain your forward momentum for attacks while simultaneously defending. This comes into play again with the F=m*a equation as, if you are not capable of stepping in with your attacks, they lose a portion of their acceleration and as such you lose power.

Now oof course other arts generate as much force, arguably more force than a WC punch BUT the structure behind a WC punch, as described above, is designed to put the maximum amount of mass behind a punch for a smaller person while permitting a very high rate of acceleration to help compensate for smaller size.

Now the above, again, is not to say strength and size don't benefit WC. To quote one Sifu I heard speak "two fighters of equal skill, one is bigger, the bigger guy wins." He wasn't limiting his comment to WC vs WC either, it was WC against just about any equally skilled/prepared fighter. It's only to say that the physics of the art were specifically designed around an understanding of how force is generated and diverted in such a way as to maximize it's effectiveness for smaller people. It's one of the reasons legend has it that the first person to teach the art was a Nun and that she first taught it to a young girl she named Yim Wing Chun.

Those two guys crashed into each other while throwing as hard as they could untill they clinched. That is not a bunch of center line theory and bad physics. That is what first time fighters do.

And if i look at that video again and find that guy was knocked out by a right cross. I am not going to be mad.

Just very disappointed.

 

[Juany118]

Less narrow. My criteria encompasses more martial arts. And focuses on much bigger concepts.

Focusing on culture vs manhandling seems narrow imo because it is not an either/or proposition. Now when I think "manhandling" I think grappling. With that in mind, the various forms of Jujutsu and Aiki-Jujutsu, along with Judo, Pankration, Ying Jow Pai, etc are all effective in terms of "manhandling" and have cultural significance as well.

 

[Juany118]

Those two guys crashed into each other while throwing as hard as they could untill they clinched. That is not a bunch of center line theory and bad physics. That is what first time fighters do.

And if i look at that video again and find that guy was knocked out by a right cross. I am not going to be mad.

Just very disappointed.

First time fighters? Hence why the victor declared a Sifu and then Provisional Master level 1 awarded by Grand Master William Cheung personally? Secondly the physics of WC are perfectly sound for the intended purpose.

I showed that video for two reasons.
1. To show the use of kicks and that WC is not exclusively a punching art. That is a misconception as it can attack from long range as well.
2. The Victor actually is practicing centerline theory. He could throw those chain punches, a technique often practiced in WC, because he was also practicing, successfully, the other objective of WC that I noted, namely overwhelming the opponent so as to end the fight as fast as possible.

Now was his opponent less skilled and/or prepared than he was and as such he could launch those chain punches. I won't argue against that.

While it looks like wild flailing I would suggest you Google either photos or videos of "tan-sau" and "wu-sau". Unlike more conventional blocks, tan-sau specifically and wu-sau if executed in the appropriate fashion, you will be moving your arm forward but instead of the primary intent being to strike the target, it is to divert or wedge a hand/arm of the target out of he way so they are open for a strike. For when he is slapping down and even holding down hands of the opponent, Google "Wing Chun" and trapping. I will be the first person to say that at high speed WC can look pretty ugly in a real fight vs in the movies, but seen from the side, in 2D you miss what a tan-sau, bong-sau and wu-sau are actually doing because they look like attempts to punch when they are really intended to deflect attacks.

The same is often said about WC palm strikes as well since they are thrown with an open hand, so people often mistake it for "slap boxing" but you are in reality still striking with the heel of the hand.

And PS that final KO was a straight punch elbow down. There are other videos of the same fight. YouTube and "Jerry Devone."

 

[drop bear]

First time fighters? Hence why the victor declared a Sifu and then Provisional Master level 1 awarded by Grand Master William Cheung personally? Secondly the physics of WC are perfectly sound for the intended purpose.

I showed that video for two reasons.
1. To show the use of kicks and that WC is not exclusively a punching art. That is a misconception as it can attack from long range as well.
2. The Victor actually is practicing centerline theory. He could throw those chain punches, a technique often practiced in WC, because he was also practicing, successfully, the other objective of WC that I noted, namely overwhelming the opponent so as to end the fight as fast as possible.

Now was his opponent less skilled and/or prepared than he was and as such he could launch those chain punches. I won't argue against that.

While it looks like wild flailing I would suggest you Google either photos or videos of "tan-sau" and "wu-sau". Unlike more conventional blocks, tan-sau specifically and wu-sau if executed in the appropriate fashion, you will be moving your arm forward but instead of the primary intent being to strike the target, it is to divert or wedge a hand/arm of the target out of he way so they are open for a strike. For when he is slapping down and even holding down hands of the opponent, Google "Wing Chun" and trapping. I will be the first person to say that at high speed WC can look pretty ugly in a real fight vs in the movies, but seen from the side, in 2D you miss what a tan-sau, bong-sau and wu-sau are actually doing because they look like attempts to punch when they are really intended to deflect attacks.

The same is often said about WC palm strikes as well since they are thrown with an open hand, so people often mistake it for "slap boxing" but you are in reality still striking with the heel of the hand.

And PS that final KO was a straight punch elbow down. There are other videos of the same fight. YouTube and "Jerry Devone."

And the shoulder rotation to juice up those punches are wing chun now?

The final ko was a wound up punch. Love to be able to screen shot that.

 

[Juany118]

And the shoulder rotation to juice up those punches are wing chun now?

The final ko was a wound up punch. Love to be able to screen shot that.

You can't move your arm forward without rotating the shoulder. The point is where is the fist coming from? Is it coming from an outside line and in or is it coming from your center? If you look at that knockout specifically the winner doesn't even have a chance to fully launch the punch because the opponent literally, as a commentator on another video said, "walked into it."

The easiest way to tell what the impetus of the punch is by looking at elbow position. Try throwing a boxing style punch with your elbow pointed straight down. That straight down elbow is the structure of a WC punch. Naturally with. "boxing punch" even a jab, your elbow rotates as you punch so that, even if it started down it is then pointed to the side.

Again I am not saying WC is superior by any means. Equally skilled bigger person wins. Equal skill same size crap shoot. All I am saying is that WC tries as best as it can to minimize the effect of smaller size.

 

[drop bear]

Sorry that took forever.

Anyway wing chun principles in

action.