[QUOTE=YungChun;999034]So, WCK without “boxing” is insufficient?
Is “boxing” without WCK insufficient?
Is “boxing”, as is, insufficient?
WCK has about a “billion” more tools and techniques and more ranges than “boxing” yet somehow it is insufficient without also using “boxing”?
rolleyes:[/QUOTE]
Boxing is a sport so yes it is quite insufficient.
You make some several good points. I think that if a person does plenty of good sparring and training in WC, a wholesale import of boxing is not needed .
[QUOTE=YungChun;999034]So, WCK without “boxing” is insufficient?
Is “boxing” without WCK insufficient?
Is “boxing”, as is, insufficient?
WCK has about a “billion” more tools and techniques and more ranges than “boxing” yet somehow it is insufficient without also using “boxing”?rolleyes:[/QUOTE]
it might have a billion more tools, but if the student can’t make them work against an opponent then it is insufficent and the tools useless
[QUOTE=Frost;999055]it might have a billion more tools, but if the student can’t make them work against an opponent then it is insufficent and the tools useless[/QUOTE]
Which then means you must do boxing? Un huh…
[QUOTE=YungChun;999058]Which then means you must do boxing? Un huh…[/QUOTE]
which means i have done both at various times, and have enough experience to realise that depth is sometimes better than breadth when it comes to fighting
[QUOTE=Frost;999055]it might have a billion more tools, but if the student can’t make them work against an opponent then it is insufficent and the tools useless[/QUOTE]
In a nutshell. This is representive of any fighting system. It is truely based upon the persons committment. You know, in most any sport fighting system like boxing for instance, It is trained in the same manner between individuals and they all require gloves and rules to fight by. It all really comes down to who is the toughest. The stronger, faster, and more committed fighter is usually going to win, if not by ko then by points. Most Gung Fu fighting systems were not created for sport, but for a more sinister purpose. You would have to remove most of the more effective techniques and thus render it practically useless. Sport is designed that 2 equally skilled opponents can match their prowess and or skills in a controlled environment. Gung Fu is designed to allow a lesser person to defend himself against possibly a stronger opponent. There have been attempts at making it into sport fighting, but somehow it just seems like some other form of sport fighting rather than gung fu.
If you are sparring against someone, say a friend or associate, your goal would not be to injure or damage him in some way, but to simply hone your skills. So from the very beginning you would have to start subtracting the elements that would possibly injure your friend, and eventually it comes down to some sort of MMA, boxing, wrestling, sort of sport. That already exists. No one seems to respect the power of the finger jabs, even though it does tend to stop fights in the ring for a while. Most anything that would give you an unfair advantage over someone would immediately be illiminated, so what you do is no longer what you wanted to do. It is like showing up at a knife fight with a pistol. You would have a clear advantage. But if you had to surrender the gun and use a knife instead, then you have to fight the same fight as the other guy.
Getting a public sanction of a no holds barred fighting tournemant is probably wishful thinking at best. The only sport that I know of that does that is pro wrestling, and everyone knows that it is fake, except for the acrobatic displays. And even they have had people maimed or killed.
[QUOTE=HumbleWCGuy;999012]I would absolutely like to add some elements from boxing and kickboxing into WC but it isn’t worth arguing about. I am tired of the nonsense. People just need to run their students to fights against evenly matched opponents and demonstrate that their method works or be marginalized.[/QUOTE]
im not arguing with you. you started a thread about mixing boxing with WC. im just curious what you are talking about
Who is it that is teaching the students when they “come in the door”? People who can’t make their WCK work but nonetheless feel the need to teach others.
have you ever fought with your sifu full contact?
I started the thread…
Did you read post#9 on page 1 ???
[QUOTE=Pacman;999070]im not arguing with you. you started a thread about mixing boxing with WC. im just curious what you are talking about[/QUOTE]
***I started the thread…Did you read post#9 on page 1 ???
o i see. this is very good. good for you that you analyzed. you can’t be pure intellectual but you need to have a brain and think and try things out. at the same time you cant just fight for hours without a brain and think that you will get better (as terrence recommends)
if your WC consists of stiff robotic arm only punches without turning the body (leads to lack of reach) then you are definitely at a disadvantage.
its good that you incorporate something that can help you from the long range or else you are toast
for some WC lineages, however, they didnt lose or perhaps added (IMO they didn’t lose) the long range techniques and have jabs, crosses. turning is a big part of the way they punch.
Good points, Pacman.
[QUOTE=Frost;999059]which means i have done both at various times, and have enough experience to realise that depth is sometimes better than breadth when it comes to fighting[/QUOTE]
Well I guess you mean the reverse of what you wrote..
I do agree that depth can be more useful than breadth, the depth of putting to use all the tools and ranges of one art, WCK, which addresses more ranges and options than does boxing..not shrugging our shoulders, blaming the art and then adding another art in the hopes of fixing what went wrong with art number 1.
Terence has it right again on this one IMO.. Bad WCK is not going to benefit from incorporating bad boxing, or even good boxing as that would just make you better at boxing not WCK..
And if folks are going to go that extra mile to make their boxing work then why not just do that with their WCK?
Adding boxing into the mix is fine but arguably training WCK is a better way to get better at WCK than is training boxing or whatever other method.
WCK has the tools and tactics to address longer and shorter ranges than does boxing… Given that why the desperate need to add something that covers less to benefit the art that covers more? Does that really make sense?
As T said it’s not the art’s fault no matter how you slice it.. (Though good instuction is a vital component as well)
If folks want better WCK they need to look carefully (learn) and think about what they are doing, what WCK offers and put it into practice..rinse, repeat…
Cross training is great but it is what it is… Folks who do BJJ will also cross train boxing but I doubt they expect the boxing to help them refine their BJJ, no, that work requires training BJJ…
Have you given any thought to the idea that perhaps one can still be using wing chun regardless of the specific technique that’s being used?
[QUOTE=Vankuen;999118]Have you given any thought to the idea that perhaps one can still be using wing chun regardless of the specific technique that’s being used?[/QUOTE]
Ducks and Dogs.
I would agree with that…when using a chung choi or name your WCK element…can be thought of as BJJ…
Using BJJ or MT or WCK means using those tools, tactics and techniques of the art..
If find the idea that doing boxing = doing WCK an odd way of thinking that perhaps serves to offer false hope of attaining skill in one art by doing another, which some may see as more accessible or understandable.
We can mix and match arts, and express any way we want to.. But that doesn’t mean by any stretch of the imagination that art A becomes art B or vise versa, or that doing art A means learning/doing art B, to me that’s just silly.
Then … you don’t agree with wsl either?
[QUOTE=Vankuen;999120]Then … you don’t agree with wsl either?[/QUOTE]
On what?
Did he say that WCK = Western Boxing?
Or that one should do WB in order to learn WCK?
They call it cross training for a reason…
I can’t even believe we are debating if WCK = Boxing. Is that what you are suggesting?
[QUOTE=YungChun;999121]On what?
Did he say that WCK = Western Boxing?
Or that one should do WB in order to learn WCK?
They call it cross training for a reason…
I can’t even believe we are debating if WCK = Boxing. Is that what you are suggesting?[/QUOTE]
We are not debating anything. I’m simply asking you questions. First, you took things off on the deep end with my first question. I’m not saying the boxing=WCK, or BJJ = WCK, or Muay Thai = WCK. Though you can apply WCK within any one of those systems…
I’m saying that WCK transcends the individual technique. In other words, you don’t have to you only use classical wing chun techniques in order to apply wing chun (both IMO as well as WSL’s).
To apply that concept to the conversation…using a few boxing punches here and there isn’t going to hurt and change anything in the application of wing chun (again, IMO).
[QUOTE=Vankuen;999118]Have you given any thought to the idea that perhaps one can still be using wing chun regardless of the specific technique that’s being used?[/QUOTE]
***YES and no. Take the Tyson clip wherein he does the combos starting around 2:15 of the vid.
Would you call the 4 hook punches he finishes with wing chun? Or the way he moved his upper body to set it all up?
Hardly.
Could we say that throwing those hooks at the end is a way to dominate the opponent’s center of mass. Yeah, I suppose we could.
Some principles in wing chun are very universal - others are not.
[QUOTE=YungChun;999113]
WCK has the tools and tactics to address longer and shorter ranges than does boxing… Given that why the desperate need to add something that covers less to benefit the art that covers more? Does that really make sense?
[/QUOTE]
my WC has long range options. maybe yours does too, but lots of people’s WC does not. you wouldnt believe some of the stuff that is taught out there.