Sparring against boxers...

Many thanks for all the replies…

Coincidentally, I’ve just discovered a similar question posed to Wong Kiew Kit on his website;

[B]
Question 7

I was delighted to find that you had included some information in your Q&A on how to use Wing Chun to defend against the fast jabs of a boxer, as I
cannot find a way to defend against this particular attack which has almost made me lose faith in Wing Chun.

However although the techniques you have prescribed against a boxer’s jabs do work, I am loyal to my style of Wing Chun, which is Yip Man Wing Chun. My sifu teaches that ‘tan sao’ can be used on the inside gate of the opponent’s arm to parry heavy punches, but often I find that the opponent uses a fast second punch which catches me off guard. Could you suggest any methods of countering these fast jabs from the perspective of the Yip Man Wing Chun style

Christian, England

Answer 7

Using ‘tan sau’ (Mirror Hand), while sitting on your typical Four-Six Stance, on the inside of a Boxer’s arm to parry his heavy punches, is using your weak point against the opponent’s strong point. No wonder you were often hit by his second punch.

Among many weaknesses, which are mentioned below, you use one defence action against a series of fast attacks. If you try to use another ?tan sau?
against a second attack, and then a third ?tan sau? against a third attack, and so on, you will be too slow. Moreover, you would be forced to defensive mode most of the time, which is what a Boxer would like you to do so that he can rain continuous punches on you while you only manage to cover up.

Even if you combine your ‘tan sau’ with a simultaneous ‘phew chi’ (Finger Thrust), which means you counter-attack when he attacks, your response is better, but it is still technically inferior to a Boxer’s fast punches, because of the following reasons.

1.Because you use a Four-Six Stance, which means you sit back on your back leg, your reach is shorter than that of the Boxer who usually leans forward with his leading hand.
2.Moreover your ‘phew chi’ (finger thrust) would be hindered by his other hand which acts as a guard.
3.The jab of a Boxer curves inward from outside. Hence blocking his jab at his inner arm is going against his force.
4.Not only you go against the forceful momentum of a heavy punch, you also use a weak block. In this case of ‘tan sau’, you block with the inner side of your arm, with your palm facing you and your elbow inward. If youreverse the position of your block, where you use the outer side of your arm with your palm facing forward and your elbow outward, your block would be stronger, but even this is not advisable against the forceful momentum of a fast punch.

What should you do then? The following is an effective counter. Let say your opponent gives you a fast and heavy right jab. To make the sequence simple for you, it does not mater much whether his jab is real or feign, and whether his right leg or his left is in front.

Move your left leg a small step diagonally forward and sit at the left Four-Six Stance Simultaneously shoot out your right ‘phew chi’ or ‘finger thrust’
at his eye (making sure you stop a few inches from his eye), brushing his attacking arm from the outside, so that his attacking punch is at your ‘outside gate’, and he is struck about the same time his punch is spent.

In this situation he cannot effectively attack you with a second punch. His immediate concern is to protect his eye. He is likely to bounce slightly to his left side to avoid your ‘finger thrust’ or pull back his right punch to block your counter-attack, or do both. This he can accomplish in a split second. Immediately he will attack you with a second punch. Most likely he will use his left hand, but he may also use his right hand.

It does not matter mcu whether he uses his right or left hand in his second punch. All you need to do is to move your body weight forward to your left leg, lift up your hands as a feign move, and execute a frontal thrust kick at his abdomen.

As in all combat sequences, merely knowing the techniques is not enough; you must have the necessary skills (including force and speed) to implement the techniques. Practice the above sequence 50 times daily for six months, and you will probably find that using these Wing Chun techniques, which are quite typical of Yip Mann Style, to defeat a Boxer is surprisingly easy.

The techniques are reviewed here for your easy reference. Move your left foot diagonally forward slightly to your left side to sit at a left Four-Six Stance and simultaneously strike out your right ‘phew chi’ (finger thrust) slightly to your right side. Then move your body weight over your front left leg and execute a right frontal thrust kick slightly to your right side.

Next, from the kicking position, move your right leg diagonally forward slightly to your right side to sit at a right Four-Six Stance and simultaneously strike out your left ?phew chi? (finger thrust) slightly to your left side. Then move your body weight over your front right leg and execute a left frontal thrust kick slightly to your left side. Repeat the procedure 50 times.

When you are familiar with the above techniques, you may make appropriate adjustment in spacing and direction according to where your opponent is.
For example, before moving your body weight over your left leg, you may shift your left foot accordingly to get the best spacing advantage, and instead of kicking slightly to your right, you may turn right and kick straight in front.

If you are ready to surpass limitations imposed by your style and use a sideway Bow-Arrow Stance instead of a Four-six Stance while striking out your ‘phew chi’ (finger thrust), you would have certain extra advantages. Using a sideway Bow-Arrow Stance, you will be nearer in your attack on your opponent, yet further away in your defence from his attack! Moreover, you can choose to move your body weight forward or move your body weight backward for the subsequent frontal thrust kick. If you realize that, in this case for example, even when you use the same techniques, but if you just change a stance, you can have three extra advantages, you may appreciate why stances are so important in kungfu. [/B]

http://shaolin-wahnam.tripod.com/answers/ans03a/jun03-3.html

Any more thoughts? Anyone know what Wong Kiew Kit is referring to when he mentions the ‘Four-six stance’? A neutral stance?

Some comments-

  1. he seems to think that he knows the jab- he doesnt-
    at least not very well.

  2. the six four is probaly leg weighting for him- more on the back leg. But note he also advocates moving into bow stance-ugh-no!

  3. he seems to be giving the far too common- if this then that-
    mechanical answers.

On the other hand–

But not all boxers are good jabbers either. Until north of the border training crept in… many south of the border(not Cubans)
were not as dependent on jabs… more closing in with hooks-
that was Pipino Cuevas’ undoing aginst Hearns.

One other thing- a tan sao is not necessaeily a “weak” block.

Wong Kiew Kit seems to think that the ‘4-6’ stance is weak due to the fact that 60% of the weight is on the back leg-but does not take into account that the stance is rooted, the energy is foward, and you are in his horse, or knee to knee. His idea of tan-sao seems pretty far from any wing chun I have learned as well.
This makes all the difference in the world, and is the difference between looking at a system from the outside, and thinking you understand it, and actually studying the art. There is a world of diiference between dabbling in an art and total imersion. BTW, I think his books are great, and he is a storehouse of info, but Wing Chun is not his forte’-that’s all. No offense intended.

I won’t comment on the WC vs Boxing, but I would like to point out a couple of things, primarily to back up Yuan Fen’s points.

I do agree “don’t spar/box with a boxer.” However, that statement needs a little more rounding out.

A boxer is not necessarily going to “box” with you, as Yuan has pointed out. Some boxers are outside fighters, others WANT you to come close. Some are skilled at long distance movement and popping you from the outside and cutting off your footwork. Others are better at getting inside, taking short angles and delivering punches based on feel. Some feel out their opponent…others blast through you with a barrage of shots.

My point is only to say that as always, it depends on the individual. In all instances, play your game. But recognize that fellow is playing his too and that WILL change from person to person and will likely change your responses (feel, adapt, overcome).

I guess, at the end of it, I’m not adding anything new here, I just want to belay the misconception that you are going to work with a “boxer.” When, in fact, you might be dealing with a brawler or a puncher or… etc.

Nice thread! Im thinking of doing a little boxing myself. Nothing else available in this hick town Ive moved to.

Anyways I was wondering who Wong Kiew Kit is, as Ive never heard of him before. ThanX

Miles-if you decide to study boxing-please read Dempsey’s book on Boxing-then look for a trainer. This book is a real eye-opener, a pleasant surprise for all Wing Chun people and other Southern Siu-Lum practitioners as well.

Cool!
Eye opener in the sense that it encourages boxing or discourages?
Or none of the above?

Dempsey uses the Bottom three knuckles, all his jabs are used to HURT, not to flick, or pepper someone with-“Don’t throw a punch unless you intend to hurt your opponent” his body connection is incredible-his attitude is perfect. Itis a refreshing departure from boxing as a sport-his fighting is just that-fist fighting-great stuff. Too much to mention, trust me, you’ll love this book! It was also one of Bruce Lee’s faves-in fact his term straight blast, was copied from Dempsey, who called it the jolt.

Whats up TenTigers,

Jack Dempsey is da man. Hands down. The book is called Championship fighting: Explosive Punching and Aggressive Defense. It was published in 1950 by Centerline Press.

Its a Ph.D course in power punching dynamics by the very best in the business. In the book he step by step takes you through every detail and even talks about boxing skills for the street.

Bareknuckle pugilist James Figg started a revolution in boxing in the 18th century when he invented the straight left jab. He created one of the ultimate offensive and defensive hand strikes ever to be seen.

Like TenTiger stated, real jabs can come out of the blue and rock you to the core, a vertical bullet exploding straight from the shoulder. With the proper body weight behind the jab as in a Dempsey falling step and coordinated with a waist twist it should never be a flicking blow.

Dempsey called his “left jab” the “left jolt” for a reason.

Dempsey was great…but IMO a sense of proportion is relevant.
Gene Tunney’s jab was better.(same time period)
In their prime and later- so was Louis’, Robinson’s, Homes’, Ali’s and a host of others.

Dempsey was great…but IMO a sense of proportion is relevant.
Gene Tunney’s jab was better.(same time period)
In their prime and later- so was Louis’, Robinson’s, Homes’, Ali’s and a host of others.

I don’t know if his jab was better but Tunney was one of the all time greats. Tunney only lost one fight of his whole proffessional career. Unlike Dempsey he was not a power puncher because of a genetic trait towards brittle hands. Around the gym he had the nickname as “The fighter with brittle hands”

To get around this weakness he became a fighter who threw punches with great accuracy and developed his timing skills to a very high level.

Tunney is really famous for the “long count” fight with Jack Dempsey.

One of my favorite fighters of that era was Bob Fitzsimmons and of course the great John L.

Black Jack

Boxing is a very good martial “sport”- so is wrestling… so things like weight as variable matters more…look at Lewis coming in heaver than usual and getting low on gas. They can teach things IF good wing chun instruction is not available.

Good wing chun is not a sport…weight difference can matter—but given skill development—less so than in the sporting outings.

In sport— things evolve with weight increases, coaching, training
improvements.

In kung fu IMO the problem is different— a big problem is the loss of knowledge with the resultant holes being filled in with sporting techniques… and mass production.

Back to boxing— Tunney’s jabs kept Dempsey at bay. Dempsey may write about the jab- but it was not very evident in the Tunney fights- his head was (mistakenly) set on a knockout.Cost him two key losses. I wish I could get a copy of Tunney’s out of print book. Bruce Lee had a copy and made notes from it.

Fitzimons had a great hit to the belly (from his footwork) but he was really a middleweight. John L was tough but Corbetts jabs
changed the equation. But all of those guys- from John L to dempsey wouldnt make it against…Holmes, Foreman, Ali, Tyson,
Lewis in their prime— heavier, harder punchers. more mobile
and faster. But its a sport for youth… at 37 Lewis is already past his prime…though with weight loss and training he may have a couple of good fights left in him.

Wing chun can compensate for weight, strength and speed differences better than sports.

Wing chun can compensate for weight, strength and speed differences better than sports.

Ridiculous! Skill (period) compensates for weight, strength and speed differences, not “WC” or “boxing” or “wrestling.” Being good is what compensates for disparities in thos attributes.

If WC had a strong sportive component then weight classes would probably evolve. This is partly to keep things fair and partly to prevent injury. Simply put, strength and weight matter. They don’t matter more or less from one art to another. They matter in a sport, and they matter in a fight. Sportive competition just bows to that reality and recognizes that an incredible 105 lbs fighter is unlikely to beat a good 205 lbs fighter. Why discourage your lighter fellows from competing when they have much to offer? The idea is that sportive competitions are a test of “who is better?” A 100 lbs weight differential often doesn’t tell you that much in terms of who’s the better wrestler or boxer or (insert here).

Incidentally, BJJ has its weight classes, but it also has the open class where every weight competes together. Frequently, a medium sized guy wins over several larger opponents. They also sometimes have a true “absolute” where any experience level and any weight can compete. Good stuff.

Don’t get me wrong. I realize that WC isn’t a sport, which is fine. I also realize that good WC skill can overcome attribute advantages. My point is to argue that good skill in any art overcomes those advantages, and that WC doesn’t confer, in and of itself, anything “special” in that regard.

Anybody who believes otherwise, is pretty much just an elitist snot.

MP sez:Anybody who believes otherwise, is pretty much just an elitist snot.

MP -that I am or minimally may be.!!!

I have no issue with wcers trying out whether what they do works.
Folks I know have done just that.

Those who want to train for sporting events- no problem. But the result is very likely arrested development of their knowledge of the art. Our perspectives are different- some like yourself want to see wc in sorting events- a few including myself are interested
in avoiding the withering of a great art. Many wc organizations are already into some form of mma-not enough wing chun there.
A snob?probably.

BTW, there is no way that Oscar de la Hoya could defeat
a top ranked heavyweight keave alone a champ. If he could- he would make even more money than he does. No way Willie Pep or Sadler could have beaten Louis no matter how much more time they spent devloping their boxing skills.There are some exceptions- possibly Jones but the “heavy” that he defeated
had basically defeated an overthe hill Holyfeld. So an aging heavier guy may be a fair game for a top flight lighter guy.

Good post Merry,

Yuanfen- I found that post a bit foolhardy as well. It has the rank of snobbery. Why you think that snobbery has any merit I have no idea.

Modern Boxing was created as a old time method of self protection and combative sport. James Figg the 18th century father of modern boxing and the first heavyweight champion taught boxing street fighting/self defense skills to Engilsh gentlemen at his school as so did a number of other fighters at the time such as Donald Walker and Mendoza.

For a person seeking effective self defense, basic boxing and wrestling skills IMO are more practical and usefull in modern America than the training recieved in any number of asain ma styles which claim to prepare their practitioners for combat. The reason is simple…boxing works…it works in the ring and it works in the street. Most ma styles that use the word combat seem to have a pronounced tendency to emphasize the art instead of the martial.

I am not saying that you can not find good juice in Wing Chun. I know you can. Every “art” has something to offer but its just that you can find the same good juice in Boxing. Both “arts” have their limitations but in my viewpoint real life has nothing to do with “arts”.

I also don’t agree that those boxers of the past would be beaten by those boxers of the present. I don’t make assumptions as I do not own a crystal ball but I will say that the old style of bare knuckle boxing IMO is better suited in certain regards for street dust-ups.

Cheers

Yuan, I don’t necessarily desire to see any WCers in any event that they don’t desire to compete in. The only thing I have a problem with is the idea that people are doing something “special” in well-taught and practiced WC that makes it absolutely better than well-taught and practiced something else. The bottom line is good skill–regardless of style–will overcome attribute advantages. It’s the exact same crap BJJers try to spout about wrestling and Judo, that BJJ is “more technical” than either wrestling and Judo. Ummm…no it’s not. It’s just different.

But if you want to change it into another “sport, non-sport” thread, be my guest.

I agree that there is no way Oscar De La Hoya could beat a top heavy weight. But I bet there are some heavy’s out there–who aren’t at the top of their game, that he could maul. And that is exactly my point–that greater skill can beat attribute advantages, regardless of style.

Something special?..

Yes!..There is something special in Wing Chun for those who can appreciate it as well as there is something special in say,BJJ for those who like it.
The fact that other styles or arts are good should not prevent a dedicated Wing Chun man to search and try for the best in his chosen art. You have to understand that talking good about Wing Chun does’nt = talking bad at other styles. I like it and I like it the way it is for me. I choose it because it is this way.Yes I feel it is very special and very high levels of effectiveness can be attain with it. This does’nt mean I’m negative about your preferences.

Old Jong, I don’t think you are negative about my preferences. But Yuan Fen seems to be. Or I may be misunderstanding him.

My objections are to Style X confers something “special” that makes you a better fighter than Style Y.

I don’t believe this. A great WC guy is going to have a hard time with a great boxer. A great wrestler is going to have a hard time with a great BJJer. A great Judoka is going to have a hard time with a great Samboist. And vice versa–the bottom line–a great fighter is a great fighter, and all properly taught, properly practiced arts confer advantages. To argue that one of these arts is absolutely “better” than another is a bit pointless–that a great WCer is better than a boxer equally skilled in boxing, for instance is flawed.

My general objections revolve around training. Not about arts.

Of course WC helps you become a better fighter, and of course you like it–it works well for you. But arguing that WC makes you a better fighter than, say, Muay Thai is inaccurate a best. It makes you a DIFFERENT fighter, but not “better.”