Boxing & Wing Chun

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Wing Chun
41

No deep end here brother. I just don’t see the point…

[QUOTE=Vankuen;999135]
Though you can apply WCK techniques within any one of those systems…
[/quote]
And you can do a TKD kick while doing Sambo..so what?

I fail to see the significance.

[QUOTE=Vankuen;999135]
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).
[/quote]
WCK is WCK, it’s in the forms, it’s in the drills, it’s in the method..

If you want to dance around on the outside and box, then change to WCK on the inside, and then switch to Judo great.. I call that JKD or just using whatever you want to. But I would not advertise that, nor agree with that referred to as WCK. I doubt WSL would either.

[QUOTE=Vankuen;999135]
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]

Nothing is going to “hurt” WCK.. It is what it is.. However, I think that it’s unfortunate that folks who want to do WCK, who train WCK feel that they need WB in order to “do” WCK…

I realize that there is very little good instruction out there… And perhaps folks will perform better doing boxing.. I doubt that they would really be doing boxing, more like foo foo boxing as has been seen around these parts, hitting the mitts, and bag, and then saying they box. Boxing means training like a boxer… And if you do that you will have your hands full.. But training like a boxer has very little to do with training another art. Even in JKD the idea is to train an art as that art was intended in order to really grasp the essence of whatever the art.. Then you express later however is needed…

A student who wants to learn WCK (hard enough as it is) is going to then be told that his WCK teacher is going to teach him boxing as part of doing WCK.. It’s just goofy.. Just like if I went to a MT school and they said well, we will teach you MT but you will need some Mantis training (which we will cover) in order to be fully effective doing MT.. LOL

Again I have no problem with JKD concepts, switching between arts, doing one then doing another, making it all your own way, whatever you want to call it..but Boxing is Boxing, WCK is WCK and Judo is Judo..

WCK has it’s own methods and tools, mechanics, tactics, etc… I am not sure what the point here is, other than WCK is not Boxing nor should “good” WCK need Boxing in order to do WCK, assuming we are interested in doing WCK.. Folks who purport to know WCK should be teaching THAT, not pretending to “know” and teach boxing and then say it’s another “take” on WCK because it isn’t.

I met WSL.. And I never saw him do WB nor talk about any need to use WB to compensate for WCK’s lack of whatever. In fact WSL said Bruce needed to add “all the other stuff” because Bruce never got the whole WCK picture..

I simply see tons of tools and options in WCK and find it sad that instead of using all those options folks will drop half the art to work on WB presumably under the instruction of a WCK teacher..

Also I’d be interested in reading what WSL said that you refer to.. Can you post some of it?

42

[QUOTE=Pacman;999137]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.[/QUOTE]

That’s the problem right there. There are so many different interpretations on the system it’s mind boggling.

Two people of the same class can have two completely different ideologies as to what they were taught – even though it was the same teacher that taught them both.

43

[QUOTE=YungChun;999138]
Nothing is going to “hurt” WCK.. It is what it is.. However, I think that it’s unfortunate that folks who want to do WCK, who train WCK feel that they need WB in order to “do” WCK… [/quote]
What I mean by that is one’s WC is not going to be watered down or any less effective just because someone wants to use boxing punches in line with the systems core concepts.

[QUOTE=YungChun;999138]
WCK has it’s own methods and tools, mechanics, tactics, etc… I am not sure what the point here is, other than WCK is not Boxing nor should “good” WCK need Boxing in order to do WCK, assuming we are interested in doing WCK.. Folks who purport to know WCK should be teaching THAT, not pretending to “know” and teach boxing and then say it’s another “take” on WCK because it isn’t.[/quote]
Unfortunately for you, it very well can be. If Victor wants to incorporate boxing styled punches in his wing chun, make it part of his curriculum, and call it wing chun…he has every right to. Especially since the system is conceptual in nature. If you believe that it can only be what’s in the forms, than that’s your right and you can limit yourself in any way that you wish.

[QUOTE=YungChun;999138]
I met WSL.. And I never saw him do WB nor talk about any need to use WB to compensate for WCK’s lack of whatever. In fact WSL said Bruce needed to add “all the other stuff” because Bruce never got the whole WCK picture..

Also I’d be interested in reading what WSL said that you refer to.. Can you post some of it?[/QUOTE]

Well, meeting WSL and training with him are two different things and I wouldn’t doubt that he didn’t divulge to you all his inner thoughts in your one meeting.

But what I am referencing is David Peterson’s biography of the man, and because of copyright laws, I’ll paraphrase. It was the section that talked about being master of the system as opposed to its slave. Wong Sifu said that many people are confined in the ruleset of wing chun, and that is the wrong mentality. He cited a beimo match where his opponent ducked down to avoid further punches, and was subsequently knee’d in the face and knocked out. WSL’s colleagues berated him saying it wasn’t WCK because it wasn’t in the forms. Much in the same way you stated “WCK is WCK, it’s in the forms, it’s in the drills, it’s in the method”. However WSL responded back citing the maxim of using the closest weapon to the nearest target, and that is WCK.

So I’m again, not saying that boxing = WCK, I’m saying that if you do not use a classical wing chun techqnique, or choose to utilize some other tools in your toolbox while using your WCK, it’s no less WCK because the system transcends technique. I can’t really say it any more simply.

44

[QUOTE=Vankuen;999150]
What I mean by that is one’s WC is not going to be watered down or any less effective just because someone wants to use boxing punches in line with the systems core concepts.
[/quote]
WCK is watered down and nearly worthless as is, right now. And it is because of this that we are talking about doing more of the same…

[QUOTE=Vankuen;999150]
Unfortunately for you, it very well can be.
[/quote]
Not unfortunate for me, unfortunate for the victims of the BS training. :smiley:

[QUOTE=Vankuen;999150]
If Victor wants to incorporate boxing styled punches in his wing chun, make it part of his curriculum, and call it wing chun…he has every right to.
[/quote]

Sure..

And I can add in thumb wrestling and hand springs and call what I do WCK too..so what?

[QUOTE=Vankuen;999150]
Especially since the system is conceptual in nature. If you believe that it can only be what’s in the forms, than that’s your right and you can limit yourself in any way that you wish.
[/quote]
With a few exceptions, I use and train the art as an unbroken line of force…using the tools and tactics in the art.. Beyond that I could care less what anyone thinks WCK is..

You think it’s cool to change everything and then call it by the same name?

Fine by me.

I’m sure the MT Mantis school does too..

[QUOTE=Vankuen;999150]
Well, meeting WSL and training with him are two different things and I wouldn’t doubt that he didn’t divulge to you all his inner thoughts in your one meeting.
[/quote]
WSL was not known for keeping such basic thoughts to himself.

Yes, his inner most thoughts.. LMAO… Right.

It’s well known how he moved and what he used, and it wasn’t WB nor did he advocate adding in this kind of stuff.. as per his “Bruce never understood” comments.. Oh and that’s what I’m saying too essentially…meaning you don’t add more if you can use what’s there…

If he was here I would wager he’d tell you so (even if it was one of his inner most feelings) :rolleyes:

But prove me wrong.. Did anyone who ever studied with him get ANY training in ANY other style???

45

[QUOTE=YungChun;999152]WCK is watered down and nearly worthless as is, right now. And it is because of this that we are talking about doing more of the same…

Not unfortunate for me, unfortunate for the victims of the BS training. :smiley:

Sure..

And I can add in thumb wrestling and hand springs and call what I do WCK too..so what?

With a few exceptions, I use and train the art as an unbroken line of force…using the tools and tactics in the art.. Beyond that I could care less what anyone thinks WCK is..

You think it’s cool to change everything and then call it by the same name?

Fine by me.

I’m sure the MT Mantis school does too..

WSL was not known for keeping such basic thoughts to himself.

Yes, his inner most thoughts.. LMAO… Right.

It’s well known how he moved and what he used, and it wasn’t WB nor did he advocate adding in this kind of stuff.. as per his “Bruce never understood” comments.. Oh and that’s what I’m saying too essentially…meaning you don’t add more if you can use what’s there…

If he was here I would wager he’d tell you so (even if it was one of his inner most feelings) :rolleyes:

But prove me wrong.. Did anyone who ever studied with him get ANY training in ANY other style???
[/QUOTE]

It’s funny, the only areas of my post you didn’t respond to were the two main points. Again, simply put…I’m saying that if you do not use a classical wing chun techqnique, or choose to utilize some other tools in your toolbox while using your WCK, it’s no less WCK because the system transcends technique. Additionally, you disregard the fact that the referenced piece discussed directly the subject at hand–and illustrates clearly the idea that I’m advocating in the former sentences. I never said WSL TAUGHT OTHER STYLES or that he advocated adding this or that. I’m saying that he didn’t see anything wrong with using something that wasn’t present in the classical form sets. If you find yourself in a fight, and see an opportunity for a strike-- but don’t do it because it’s not in the “wing chun curriculum”, then frankly you’re an idiot.

So again, you’re going off on the deep end here. If you take things as they are stated and not try to take them as some implication of anything more you’d do far better in these conversations. Try not to get so flustered as well. “LMAO” and snide comments do little to further your POV.

46

[QUOTE=Vankuen;999157]It’s funny, the only areas of my post you didn’t respond to were the two main points. Again, simply put…I’m saying that if you do not use a classical wing chun techqnique, or choose to utilize some other tools in your toolbox while using your WCK, it’s no less WCK because the system transcends technique. Additionally, you disregard the fact that the referenced piece discussed directly the subject at hand–and illustrates clearly the idea that I’m advocating in the former sentences. I never said WSL TAUGHT OTHER STYLES or that he advocated adding this or that. I’m saying that he didn’t see anything wrong with using something that wasn’t present in the classical form sets. If you find yourself in a fight, and see an opportunity for a strike-- but don’t do it because it’s not in the “wing chun curriculum”, then frankly you’re an idiot.

So again, you’re going off on the deep end here. If you take things as they are stated and not try to take them as some impication of anything more you’d do far better in these conversations.[/QUOTE]

I am not the one going off the deep end.. At least as far as I am concerned sir.

You are on the one hand saying WSL never taught anything but WCK but he was fine with calling whatever the f$@ you want WCK… And that IMO sir is a load…

And that’s really all I have to say on the matter.

47

[QUOTE=YungChun;999158]I am not the one going off the deep end.. At least as far as I am concerned sir.

You are on the one hand saying WSL never taught anything but WCK but he was fine with calling whatever the f$@ you want WCK… And that IMO sir is a load…

And that’s really all I have to say on the matter.[/QUOTE]

Is that what I said? Because that’s not what I typed. You should really READ what’s written and understand the message before you respond to it. I didn’t write explicitly or imply anything regardng the systems or techniques he did or did not teach, rather cited what was written by one of his students of a story told to him illustrating the idea of being master of the system and not slave to it. Why that’s so hard to get, I don’t know.

48

“What I mean by that is one’s WC is not going to be watered down or any less effective just because someone wants to use boxing punches in line with the systems core concepts.” (Vankuen)

***BINGO.

…

“If Victor wants to incorporate boxing styled punches in his wing chun, make it part of his curriculum, and call it wing chun…he has every right to.” (Vankuen)

***ACTUALLY, I try to be very upfront about it. I tell people coming into my class that I use some boxing moves but married to some basic TWC principles.

49

[QUOTE=YungChun;999113]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…[/QUOTE]

nope i meant exactly what i wrote, no point having a billion things (bredth) if you can’t do them well because of no depth

50

[QUOTE=Frost;999198]nope i meant exactly what i wrote, no point having a billion things (bredth) if you can’t do them well because of no depth[/QUOTE]

You guys are both making solid points, but assuming that a person goes the extra mile with their WC, a few nice boxing punches and defense will go a long way in improving any WCers fighting. You evenly match two WCers, one with boxing punches and one with not, it is hard to imagine a scenario where the one without boxing punches and defense could come out on top consistently.

51

[QUOTE=HumbleWCGuy;999205]You guys are both making solid points, but assuming that a person goes the extra mile with their WC, a few nice boxing punches and defense will go a long way in improving any WCers fighting. You evenly match two WCers, one with boxing punches and one with not, it is hard to imagine a scenario where the one without boxing punches and defense could come out on top consistently.[/QUOTE]

i agree with you totally, i think the point is not so much how much you know but how much you can perform under pressure, if you have put the effort in to make your wing chun work well in a fight then adding boxing can only help it, my point was that just because you know a 100 different techniques and the other guy only knows 5, it wont help you unless as you say you have gone that extra mile and put the hard work into ensure you can use those skills when it matters

More knowledge or techniques or even ranges doesn;t necessaryly make a system or a fighter better

52

[QUOTE=Vankuen;999160]Is that what I said? Because that’s not what I typed. You should really READ what’s written and understand the message before you respond to it. I didn’t write explicitly or imply anything regardng the systems or techniques he did or did not teach, rather cited what was written by one of his students of a story told to him illustrating the idea of being master of the system and not slave to it. Why that’s so hard to get, I don’t know.[/QUOTE]

Look you clearly intimated that WSL would be fine with adding whatever you want to WCK because it is concept driven, your language..

While I on the other hand don’t agree that WSL would be okay with that, nor do I think that you can add whatever you like and call it WCK… Is that clear enough for you?

From here it seems you can’t read because I have said several times that I have no problem with expressing however you need to, yet you came back with (see your “idiot” comment…) I mean really…

However, I would not call ‘adding whatever you like’ to WCK and then calling that WCK based on your use of the term concepts, acceptable.. Victor says he marries the two, fine by me..

53

[QUOTE=Frost;999198]nope i meant exactly what i wrote, no point having a billion things (bredth) if you can’t do them well because of no depth[/QUOTE]

Right so we need to add more stuff (boxing) to the already billion things, which somehow isn’t more ‘breadth’, because we have not enough ‘depth’ of ability with the original material… okidoki LOL…

Sorry guys I don’t see adding foo foo boxing to shallow WCK as the cure for WCK woes..

54

[QUOTE=YungChun;999347]Look you clearly intimated that WSL would be fine with adding whatever you want to WCK because it is concept driven, your language..

While I on the other hand don’t agree that WSL would be okay with that, nor do I think that you can add whatever you like and call it WCK… Is that clear enough for you?

From here it seems you can’t read because I have said several times that I have no problem with expressing however you need to, yet you came back with (see your “idiot” comment…) I mean really…

However, I would not call ‘adding whatever you like’ to WCK and then calling that WCK based on your use of the term concepts, acceptable.. Victor says he marries the two, fine by me..[/QUOTE]

Well it’s clear that we both think that the other doesn’t understand the message being sent, isn’t it?

I simply decided to reply to the two main points that I felt you were not understanding of, and failed to cite when you replied. That’s why I corrected you on the intent of my message. I am merely repeating something that he said himself as printed in a book written by a long time student of his. If you don’t believe that it was said–go buy the book.

On a side note the “idiot” comment wasn’t directed at “Jim Hawkins” as the use of the word “you” was a descriptor for “a person”. My intention was that if someone overlooks an opportunity to strike because the strike that would be best used isn’t part of the classical curriculum, that yes that person is in fact an idiot. So my apologies on the miscommunication on that one.

And…you’re entitled to your opinion…just keep in mind that most people that are able to do something like this probably don’t have foo foo wing chun or foo foo boxing.

This whole thing can be likened to product development in business…you can do all the market research and create a product that meets all the perceived needs of the consumer and it would seem like there’s no way to make it better. Then a competing firm creates a product that provides more value for the consumer, and now–even though the original product didn’t lose any of its value creating attributes, it is perceived to have a lower relative value because the competition created a product that BETTER met the needs of the market. It could easily be another factor that makes the product lose its value as well…the environment, the threats, and etc.

So basically while wing chun is a great “product” to think that there’s nothing that could be done to improve the product based on market conditions is the makings of a failed product and failed business. If you don’t move forward…you fall back. If you don’t evolve, you go extinct.

55

[QUOTE=Vankuen;999395]
I simply decided to reply to the two main points that I felt you were not understanding of, and failed to cite when you replied. That’s why I corrected you on the intent of my message. I am merely repeating something that he said himself as printed in a book written by a long time student of his. If you don’t believe that it was said–go buy the book.
[/quote]
I know.. But I don’t think he would have been ok with adding in boxing to WCK where this means that the “product” has changed “evolved” and still calling it “core” WCK, the classical WCK training ‘system’…

I would be more interested in seeing folks who can apply more of WCK itself, something far more rare and interesting IMO. (And that is my pick btw for the ‘better product’)
[QUOTE=Vankuen;999395]
And…you’re entitled to your opinion…just keep in mind that most people that are able to do something like this probably don’t have foo foo wing chun or foo foo boxing.
[/quote]
IMO most people teaching WCK, um, let me put this kindly, really suk. :o:rolleyes::smiley:

[QUOTE=Vankuen;999395]
So basically while wing chun is a great “product” to think that there’s nothing that could be done to improve the product based on market conditions is the makings of a failed product and failed business. If you don’t move forward…you fall back. If you don’t evolve, you go extinct.
[/QUOTE]
And I agree, WCK has evolved… However, looking forward, one man’s evolution is another man’s de-evolution.. :smiley:

So to me personally I like the idea of keeping WCK and Western Boxing different arts..and if you wish you can certainly train both and create a fusion…

56

wsl was a boxer. He used to go and fight people that did kung fu as he thought it was a joke. He even beat most of the junior students of yip until yip and some senior guys smashed him. If he wanted boxing mixed in he would have done that.

57

Interesting perspectives. Apparantly many people tunnel out on what they feel WCK is. I’ve certainly heard historic references of WCK “boxers”. I mean when you think about it from a high level, what would you describe WCK as other than a form of boxing?

The main differences I see in Victor’s clips are 2 skillsets not present in WCK usually:

  1. Striking with rotational force - punches and uppercuts (although arguably CK and BJ introduce rotational force and rotational elbow strikes)

  2. Ducking and slipping punches

Both take the development of athletic attributes to implement, which is possibly one reason why most WCK practitioners may not like them. To stand and play on the centerline doesn’t require that.

Unfortunately in a live environment many times pure unskilled athleticism can win out over technique and concept based fighting. To a wrestler, conditioning is one of his greatest holds. To a WCK fighter, standing upright stationary and keeping your elbows in is their greatest attribute to protect and fight along the centerline.
That mentality doesn’t produce athletes. And you don’t see the difference in the 2 approaches unless you turn up the intensity of the environment to the point where athleticism is required. That seldom happens in WCK circles. You have people “play fighting” and they don’t discover the holes in the way they are training until they come up against a skilled conditioned athlete. And many never do.

So to come full circle - I want to have my core WCK attributes and science working - strong structures, centerline fighting, energies. But I also want rotational force striking skills and ducking and slipping - because against an athlete I know all too well I can get cornered, I can lose space, I can have something get through my defenses. I want to be able to recover and keep my athletic opponent off balance in the process.

58

[QUOTE=YungChun;999349]Right so we need to add more stuff (boxing) to the already billion things, which somehow isn’t more ‘breadth’, because we have not enough ‘depth’ of ability with the original material… okidoki LOL…

Sorry guys I don’t see adding foo foo boxing to shallow WCK as the cure for WCK woes..[/QUOTE]

where did i say add boxing to wing chun, you said wing chun had more to it than boxing
i said just because an art has a billion things in it it doesn,t mean its better than an art that only has a few but can really make those things work when it counts… why are you finding this point hard to grasp

59

Boxing…
It takes 4 (basic) punches and uses them to the utmost effectiveness.
Simple, Direct, effective.
Where have I heard that before?

60

i watched a video from the guys that teach the seals and other groups for building entries and shooting. One thing when talking about general shooting was that instead of jumping around and shooting it was better to have a solid ‘shooting platform’, to stay level and turn as it have you a better way of aiming and control. Obviously defence only came into it from around corners.