[QUOTE=guy b.;1287266]I’m sure they will get over it, or not even care.
The only reason I mention these people is that they are used in yet another thread against normal traditional wing chun training. I do happen to think that what all of the people mentioned do is not of benefit to wing chun. But that is only my opinion and what they do is their business.
There is never any discussion anywhere about actual wing chun. Always it is about adapting wing chun for the ring, where wing chun is weak, how to change wing chun to make it better, how various peoples are rejecting traditional wing chun and making it different/better, how great sport training is compared to wing chun training, etc, etc[/QUOTE]
My fault this thread. Yes, us with no WC training try to look at it though our lenses. Try to make sense of it. Most say it is crap. I do not see it that way. I try to find things I believe would work from my point of view. But then, I do not see with your eyes. So I am canabalizing what I could pull off ( possibly) in a way I could us similar motion. Similar is not same. It wont be WC that is for certain. It is not that sport is better or worse a lot of my beliefs were established because of where I grew up and later places I lived before coming back.
I still believe WC can work full contact. I see great potential even with rules. People have proved that so. I have no idea what WC principals may be violated in doing so.
[QUOTE=guy b.;1287264]Wing chun is complete and utter S.H.I.T as a ring sport. If you must fight in the ring then there are only a few options. Either you change wing chun until it no longer resembles wing chun (Alan Orr), you fight at very low level (Phil Redmond), you lose (most likely outcome), or you don’t do it (everyone else).
Wing chun is not a ring sport. It is not designed as a ring sport. It doesn’t function well as a ring sport. Why would you ever want to be in a ring fighting with wing chun? Wrong tool wrong job.[/QUOTE]
I was impressed by Phil’s student.
I have never seen any of Alan’s students fight but I am certain they can.
[QUOTE=bawang;1287276]wing chun uses chinese knife principles and is a method for training knife fighting. its not designed to be a complete boxing system[/QUOTE]
Thanks Bawang. Can any one concur with this ?
There are some that believe modern boxing shares more similarities with Filipino arts than with European. And that is come from the knife. I think the Filipinos contributed a great deal to modern boxing perhaps even more so than European but I think the glove was the primary reason stances, movement and fighting in close become more and more common. Why circular blows began having **** near as much importance as straight hits.
[QUOTE=boxerbilly;1287277]Thanks Bawang. Can any one concur with this ?[/QUOTE]
No. The knife set is last taught and (should be) taught only to those who fully understand and can make work the empty hand system. The reason is that fighting with the knives is different to fighting with the hands, and doing knives at the wrong time can wreck your wing chun if you don’t have a good grasp of it. This is in stark contrast to pole which should be started as early as possible.
Thank Guy. Prior to our most modern version, say 100 year. Boxing was based around principals of fencing. I forget the guy that was credited with doing that. One may say that is when it became more scientific. It has gone through many changes through the millennium. Probably at times it all but disappeared.
But it was based around the main weapon. The fist. When we began to wear gloves we changed the weapon enough to change the methods I think. It was not that the method based on fencing was no longer functional it was with gloves some things did not work as well any longer. Guys wear willing to come in and slug. Those stiff straights , walking into walls, were not as effective as they would have been bare fisted. Prior, in fighting consisted mainly of standing grappling. There were locks mainly spinal in nature, but the objective was to throw or trip the guy to the ground. Hip throws using the neck/head were common. They also hacked in close. Neck, face, arms. You know, sword hand. Edge
of hand.
The fencing, was probably closer to the sword and dagger methods. Because both hands needed to be employed. Filipino’s also have sword and dagger. Generally their swords tended to be shorter. Most believe and I do, they learned it from the Spanish. I just think not completely. And melded it with their native sword arts. Primarily their boxing would have been based around much shorted knives. Not a Bolo. Not that those ways never made it into their fist arts. Generally the shorter knife.
Fencing/boxing gets tossed around from time to time on boxing forums. Most have trouble seeing how it would work. It is because they are looking at the wrong eras of boxing and fencing. They are seeing it through todays eyes. If you ever get a chance to see John Clements book on sword fighting. Not the one on long battle field swords. You may see how many in the previous incarnation of boxing employed both hands. The forearms become the blades. The fist the tip.
[QUOTE=boxerbilly;1287282]Thank Guy. Prior to our most modern version, say 100 year. Boxing was based around principals of fencing.[/QUOTE]
I don’t know about that. What does it have to do with wing chun?
In wing chun the pole is like the hands but the knives are not, both in terms of principle and application. Why then would you assume the empty hand evolved from the knives? More likely the pole came first and the knives came later.
[QUOTE=guy b.;1287299]I don’t know about that. What does it have to do with wing chun?
In wing chun the pole is like the hands but the knives are not, both in terms of principle and application. Why then would you assume the empty hand evolved from the knives? More likely the pole came first and the knives came later.[/QUOTE]
You do know! Nothing. I did not assume. I asked if anyone could back Bawangs belief up. You said no. I went off on a tangent topic. I followed up elsewhere as I realized this is the wrong forum. I could have erased it. But why?
[QUOTE=boxerbilly;1287300]You do know! Nothing. I did not assume. I asked if anyone could back Bawangs belief up. You said no. I went off on a tangent topic. I followed up elsewhere as I realized this is the wrong forum. I could have erased it. But why?[/QUOTE]
I don’t know about the history of western boxing as it pertains to the fencing methods of the relevant historical period.
I do know about wing chun.
Therefore I am able to answer Bawang’s question, which was about wing chun (rather than olde tymes western boxing)
What I am not seeing is what a theory about historical western boxing relating to fencing has to do with wing chun? Or why a person without any knowledge of wing chun is interested in a fairly cranky theory about the weapons of wing chun, but not in a fairly safe theory of same? Can you explain?
Did you “follow up elsewhere” on the relation of wing chun to historical western boxing and how both were influenced by sword play forum? I haven’t seen that one. Sounds like it might be full of people that like to talk a lot.
[QUOTE=guy b.;1287304]I don’t know about the history of western boxing as it pertains to the fencing methods of the relevant historical period.
I do know about wing chun.
Therefore I am able to answer Bawang’s question, which was about wing chun (rather than olde tymes western boxing)
What I am not seeing is what a theory about historical western boxing relating to fencing has to do with wing chun? Or why a person without any knowledge of wing chun is interested in a fairly cranky theory about the weapons of wing chun, but not in a fairly safe theory of same? Can you explain?[/QUOTE]
Nothing. I could but I see there is no point. I’ll let you get back to trashing who’s WC you think sucks.
[QUOTE=boxerbilly;1287300]You do know! Nothing. I did not assume. I asked if anyone could back Bawangs belief up. You said no. I went off on a tangent topic. I followed up elsewhere as I realized this is the wrong forum. I could have erased it. But why?[/QUOTE]
this is not belief is this is fact. wing chun uses principles from chinese double dagger. wing chun principles are very nice for knife fighting
[QUOTE=boxerbilly;1287300]You do know! Nothing. I did not assume. I asked if anyone could back Bawangs belief up. You said no. I went off on a tangent topic. I followed up elsewhere as I realized this is the wrong forum. I could have erased it. But why?[/QUOTE]
its not a belief its fact from me hanging out with diverse groups of kung fu people. wing chun is gangster kung fu
A comment on “not enough time”:
Here are the facts -
If a person can use a system effectively to defend themselves ( against someone with no training) after 3 months of training then it is a good system.
If they can’t it is NOT AS GOOD as a system in which a person can.
Common sense 101.
If a person can use a system to defend themselves effectively against someone with comparable training ( 3 months) then it is a very good system.
If a person can use a system to defend themselves effectively against someone with MORE training than they have then it is a EXCELLENT system.
It really is just that simple.
And before anyone asks to define “effectively” , that too is very simple and every one that has actually fought knows the answer to that one.
Sanjuro, I would agree with that premise! Considering all other factors being equal (starting attributes and aptitude of students being compared are equal)
[QUOTE=sanjuro_ronin;1287315]A comment on “not enough time”:
Here are the facts -
If a person can use a system effectively to defend themselves ( against someone with no training) after 3 months of training then it is a good system.
If they can’t it is NOT AS GOOD as a system in which a person can.
Common sense 101.
If a person can use a system to defend themselves effectively against someone with comparable training ( 3 months) then it is a very good system.
If a person can use a system to defend themselves effectively against someone with MORE training than they have then it is a EXCELLENT system.
It really is just that simple.
And before anyone asks to define “effectively” , that too is very simple and every one that has actually fought knows the answer to that one.[/QUOTE]
I don’t know that it is a fact that speed of learning is proportional to total effectiveness. Why would this be the case?
If your definition is correct then wing chun is quite a bad system, because it is quite slow to learn compared to others.
[QUOTE=boxerbilly;1287306]Nothing. I could but I see there is no point. I’ll let you get back to trashing who’s WC you think sucks.[/QUOTE]
I think you are just scared to continue in the direction you were rambling, because you are aware that it is incoherent and that is risky if someone is around to call you on it. Unless you are makling a connection between wing chun and old western boxing then where are you going exactly?
If you can swallow your ego and genuinely want to talk about the weapons of wing chun then I am happy to do so from a position of experience.
[QUOTE=guy b.;1287345]I think you are just scared to continue in the direction you were rambling, because you are aware that it is incoherent and that is risky if someone is around to call you on it. Unless you are makling a connection between wing chun and old western boxing then where are you going exactly?
If you can swallow your ego and genuinely want to talk about the weapons of wing chun then I am happy to do so from a position of experience.[/QUOTE]
Don’t worry about Guy. You enjoy what you like . Keep doing it. It is all good. This thread was my fault.
I would love for you to start threads on the weapons of wing chun.
Okay Guy. I believe in contact training. I also think a very small percent can make less contact ways work for them. I believe the scales tip toward contact even at the sacrifice of perfect form and holding to a specific principal. It is not that I do not believe eye jabs and throat hits or side kicks to wont work. It is just highly unlikely you will need them or not find yourself in great trouble if you use them.
But really, this thread is about getting a WC guy ready for full contact in 3 months. That would not be perfect WC anymore than 3 months would create a perfect boxer. Answer was some say yes and some say no.
Probably be my last post in this thread. I really do not want to get in a debate about will WC work with rules. It can. It does. You are wrong!