[QUOTE=YungChun;1072022]The “problem” is that it is much easier written than done AND that there is precious little evidence that many VT peeps are doing it regularly against decent boxers…[/QUOTE]
Oh thank you, I posted the clip precisely because of this, all the threads lately have talked about wing chuns strategy, expertise, ability to fight close in etc, but where do we actually see this in action? most clips are cooperative training clips, and the few fights out there (even phils and alan orrs even though they are good clips) do not show anything like what people are talking about
he didnt say what was wrong with the person, he said what was wrong with wing chun (the misguided tangent) it would seem his wing chung cant bridge the gap, therefore he imposes someone doing kickboxing? who was really doing wing chun that didnt work.
i dont get where this guy is coming from..no offense, tho. i just think you missed the point of the question, kpm.[/QUOTE]
So please post full contact clips of wing chun actually closing the gap and dominating the centre?
There are pages and pages on this forum of wing chun guys talking about how it works, what it should look like in action, but the few videos of it in full contact action either show the wing chun guy losing or winning in a manner most say is not wing chun and certainly not in the manner everyone talks about on here
Before I start talking a lot of junk about any sparring match, I like for there to be an even match from a physical perspective as well as experience. Neither fighter was very good and it wasn’t a fair match physically for sure.
I guess that you could create a number of talking points about boxing versus WCK from the fight, but neither fighter was a great representative of their respective arts so what we would be doing is using generalizations about boxing versus WCK to make sense of the fight and not the fight to make generalizations about boxing versus WCK.
Without grabbing and elbows, it is hard to put out a legitimate display of classical WCK. Good for the WCK guy to get out there and spar, but it looked to me like they were following boxing rules so a classically trained WCK guy under those rules will probably do just what you saw. Run in and chain punch because there isn’t a lot else there.
he didnt say what was wrong with the person, he said what was wrong with wing chun (the misguided tangent) it would seem his wing chung cant bridge the gap, therefore he imposes someone doing kickboxing? who was really doing wing chun that didnt work.
i dont get where this guy is coming from..no offense, tho. i just think you missed the point of the question, kpm.[/QUOTE]
No offense tigershorty, but I think you must be a little dense! I missed the point? I’ve contributed what I thought about that clip to the discussion, which triggered several topical responses. What have you done? I said what was wrong with the person…he couldn’t close the gap effectively and was trying to kickbox with his WCK. Unfortunately, as Jim pointed out, this is pretty common amongst WCKers.
You said “it would seem his wing chung cant bridge the gap, therefore he imposes someone doing kickboxing?” What the heck does that mean? Are you implying something about my WCK based on what I said about that clip? I think you are the one that seems to have missed the point!
It’s very simple really:
The only way to fight and beat a boxer with WC is the same way you fight and beat anyone else with WC -
You expose your WC to said fighting system, learn the puzzle it presents, learn how to solve it and voila, you have effective WC vs whatever system it has been exposed to.
The boxer had all the advantages:
Height, reach, power, skill level and confidence.
He also had the full contact experience as we can see that when he does get hit, it doesn’t phase him, as opposed to the WC guy that gets his “structure” compromised with virtually every hit.
[QUOTE=sanjuro_ronin;1072065]It’s very simple really:
The only way to fight and beat a boxer with WC is the same way you fight and beat anyone else with WC -
You expose your WC to said fighting system, learn the puzzle it presents, learn how to solve it and voila, you have effective WC vs whatever system it has been exposed to.
The boxer had all the advantages:
Height, reach, power, skill level and confidence.
He also had the full contact experience as we can see that when he does get hit, it doesn’t phase him, as opposed to the WC guy that gets his “structure” compromised with virtually every hit.[/QUOTE]
Stop being sensible that has no place here
And I thought your new years promise to yourself was to keep off the wing chun forum!
[QUOTE=sanjuro_ronin;1072065]It’s very simple really:
The only way to fight and beat a boxer with WC is the same way you fight and beat anyone else with WC -
You expose your WC to said fighting system, learn the puzzle it presents, learn how to solve it and voila, you have effective WC vs whatever system it has been exposed to.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, and the “exposure to said fighting system” is to actually go train/spar with good people in that “system” – not have one of your own “pretend” to be a boxer.
If you are not already doing it, you won’t be able to do it.
The boxer had all the advantages:
Height, reach, power, skill level and confidence.
He also had the full contact experience as we can see that when he does get hit, it doesn’t phase him, as opposed to the WC guy that gets his “structure” compromised with virtually every hit.
Good observations.
I’d like to add, since this has come up, that the WCK guy didn’t have any trouble “getting in.” He got in several times. He just didn’t stay there, and he didn’t – and couldn’t – do anything while he was there. He was throwing from the outside as he stepped in, then once in, he stepped out again.
[QUOTE=t_niehoff;1072072]Yes, and the “exposure to said fighting system” is to actually go train/spar with good people in that “system” – not have one of your own “pretend” to be a boxer.
If you are not already doing it, you won’t be able to do it.
Good observations.
I’d like to add, since this has come up, that the WCK guy didn’t have any trouble “getting in.” He got in several times. He just didn’t stay there, and he didn’t – and couldn’t – do anything while he was there. He was throwing from the outside as he stepped in, then once in, he stepped out again.[/QUOTE]
The reason, I assume from what I saw, that he couldn’t stay in is because he didn’t like getting hit, he didn’t have experience in “staying in while getting hit” and that the boxers “profile” presented him with problems he hadn’t faced before.
He didn’t get used to staying in and the hits that come with that?
He spent most of is training time stationary and couldn’t translate his strikes to a moving platform?
The “boxer” likely didn’t have substantial experience with wing chun, but he would be accustomed to blows, to using his strikes on a moving target while moving, etc.
The difference between the two is the difference between knowing the theory of the fighting method and knowing the theory and having entrained it in its proper context, imo.
The “boxer” likely didn’t have substantial experience with wing chun, but he would be accustomed to blows, to using his strikes on a moving target while moving, etc
.
Unless a boxer is going into match with a specific person that they know, they don’t really prepare that much, they just fight their own fight.
As a boxer I fought everyone, basically, the same:
I fought my fight, period.
Of course it didn’t always go as planned, LOL !
But I never changed my fighting style because of who or what I was fighting and my fighting style was very simple:
My opponent was a human punching bag.
What hand he had forward, what he liked to do, how he liked to do it, never factor into it much.
Why?
Because I approached a fight with the understanding that it was not “just” a fight with another boxer, but that it could be a Thai boxer, a judoka, a wrestler, whatever.
Of course I was only able to fight like the “opponent wasn’t there” because I HAD been exposed to fighting those particular “systems” before.
It is like BL used to say, though I don’t think he was the first to say it:
When I started a kick was a kick and a punch was a punch, but when I learned a kick wasn’t just a kick and a punch wasn’t just a punch.
Now that I am experienced, a kick is a kick and a punch is a punch.
What that means to me is that, in our learning phase ( that never really ends) we need to be exposed to the different methods of combat, once we are, they “don’t matter” anymore because, in the end, we have modified OURSELVES enough that the differences aren’t there and what we are fighting is the person, not the system.
Unless a boxer is going into match with a specific person that they know, they don’t really prepare that much, they just fight their own fight.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I’ve read quite a few statements by great boxers that they rarely stressed knowing the other guy too well, though there are, of course, exceptions, but even he exceptions knew THEIR stuff from training fully, not creaming their pants for twenty years over a drill that was never meant to be the height of practice<<coughcough chisao coughcough>>.
[QUOTE=KC Elbows;1072096]Yeah, I’ve read quite a few statements by great boxers that they rarely stressed knowing the other guy too well, though there are, of course, exceptions, but even he exceptions knew THEIR stuff from training fully, not creaming their pants for twenty years over a drill that was never meant to be the height of practice<<coughcough chisao coughcough>>.[/QUOTE]
No comment on chi sao.
But you do bring up an interesting point and that is fighting YOUR fight and what that means.
If a boxer likes to be on the inside, liek I do, as long as I am on the inside, I am fighting my fight.
If you keep me on the outside and slap me silly with your 200" reach advantage, I am screwed.
This also brings into question the philosophies of training :
Focus on your strengths or focus on developing your weaknesses.
But I digress.
[QUOTE=Frost;1072049]So what you are suggesting is that a stand up style that is meant to be a close range striking art should abandon its principles and look for the throw as soon as it comes up against a boxer?[/QUOTE]
When I response that post, I didn’t know that you started this thread for WC discussion only.
WC may be strong in striking but boxing is weak in throwing. You can utilize your own strong point. You can also utilize your opponent’s weak point. In order to do that, cross training is a must.
[QUOTE=sanjuro_ronin;1072101]Focus on your strengths or focus on developing your weaknesses.[/QUOTE]
One of my guys doesn’t like to train his striking skill. His “arm wrapping” skill is very good (much easier to develop than striking). He is good at entering a punching range and achieve a “clinching”. He also has good throwing skill after his can get his “clinching”.
Sometime to “focus on your strength” is the same as to “focus on developing your weakness”.
[QUOTE=Frost;1072049]So what you are suggesting is that a stand up style that is meant to be a close range striking art should abandon its principles and look for the throw as soon as it comes up against a boxer?[/QUOTE]
I am late to this thread and just a passing comment or two.
Wing chun is not just a striking art–it is interested in control- whether you strike, break, throw -
depends on the moment… and the simplest thing to do at that moment.
Just like in the spear fighting, the best defense against a straight line spear stabbing is a circular spear deflect. This is to use the “circular” motion to counter the “straight line” motion issue.
[/QUOTE]
and this is what the boxer did. the wing chun guy kept repeating the same thing, just went straight in without any setup and so was very predictable.
the boxer used his reach advantage and some circular punches to tag him every time.
[QUOTE=KPM;1071963] . . . If you want to kickbox with a WCK “flavor”, study some JKD! But don’t try to make WCK into something it is not…because it doesn’t work very well …as most of these clips on the internet will attest!![/QUOTE]
According the letters I’ve seen that Bruce wrote Wm. Cheung. JKD is a watered down version of WC principles. Bruce says keep the WC for yourself and don’t give it to outsiders. This might not be verbatim, but myself and others have copies of the unpublished letters Bruce wrote to Wm. Cheung. That’s why when people say this and that about Wm. Cheung I chuckle to myself.
[QUOTE=KPM;1071963]How not to fight a boxer…don’t try to kickbox with WCK! :eek: The guy is this clip seems to know a more WCK than the guy above, but he still doesn’t fair to well against this kickboxer:
The problem is closing the gap so that you can make good use of your WCK. Bruce Lee recognized this problem and I think it was one of the factors leading to the creation of JKD. If you want to kickbox with a WCK “flavor”, study some JKD! But don’t try to make WCK into something it is not…because it doesn’t work very well …as most of these clips on the internet will attest!![/QUOTE]
According to Bruce Lee JKD is WC.
[QUOTE=Vajramusti;1072200]------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am late to this thread and just a passing comment or two.
Wing chun is not just a striking art–it is interested in control- whether you strike, break, throw -
depends on the moment… and the simplest thing to do at that moment.
joy chaudhuri[/QUOTE]
WC is a win by any means necessary art. At least that’s what Yip Man said.
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]