[QUOTE=anerlich;896547]You really don’t like those hooks, do you?
If your BJ has the circular elbow strikes, then it also has the mechanics of a hook punch.
IMO it was an excellent post.[/QUOTE]
yes it has similar mechanics of a twisting body blah blah…but its not a hook punch. its an elbow.
Its can just be a difference in terms also.
I prefer to use the name banana punch LOL … Sifu had some funny names for actions when using english, but he aint got nothing on Eddie bravo :p.
Why ‘Banana punch’…Because it conjures up an image of an arc rather than such a harsh angle of a boxing hook. This is my VT hook.
I have what some would consider hooks, but the elbow behavior is VT. its quite different to that of a boxing hook.
I think the hook discussion is also akin to footwork… when some refer to the footwork of others as not being VT because to them it looks to much like a boxing stance.
My free flowing VT footwork is very similar to other styles boxing included, the difference is in the details… ie weight, shapes and how it loads my hands and behaves towards the opponents stepping etc but its as dynamic in movement as say boxing…most form junkies see it as being less static and dont think its VT…WTF !
Good call Hunt1… i dont know why some get so staunch when it comes to not thinking outside the square of the forms…not enough experience with actual fighting i think.
WC does not have hook punches like boxer hooks
Clam61 …boxer hooks, NO. Hooks or round punches…YES.
CK and BJ have round punches in my VT. Lok Yiu Lineage.
DREW
[QUOTE=hunt1;896543]
When 2 students asked Yip Man who was doing the correct tan sau his answer was both. A perfect tan sau that fails to stop a punch and you lose your teeth isn’t so good. A horrible looking tan sau that stops the punch would be the perfect tan sau in the instance.
[/QUOTE]
although this sounds like one of those poignant and though provoking stereotypical chinese sayings/philosophies i would have to disagree.
WC developers did not devise the proper way to punch or block out of thin air or aesthetics. there are reasons behind the technique. so you can definitely look at a way someone does something and point out whats wrong with it and why its not going to be as good as if he did it another way
[QUOTE=clam61;896571]WC developers did not devise the proper way to punch or block out of thin air or aesthetics. there are reasons behind the technique. so you can definitely look at a way someone does something and point out whats wrong with it and why its not going to be as good as if he did it another way[/QUOTE]
In training, this is what you do exactly, because you are learning something unnatural, foreign to how you would normally move. Training is all about isolating things, the thing is training is not application. If you see someone trained in WC free fighting and he does not apply the punch or whatever else absolutely correctly IYO, this is due to the random intense natural of the act of combat. The idea IMO is not to DO Wing Chun in a fight, but to fight naturally, with the hope that your movements, reactions and such have been improved due to WC training, so that you are more effective in physically violent situations. I fight, not Wing Chun or anyother MA.
James
Let the opponent dictate how you hit him. If for example, he is close and it requires a short arc like motion (i.e. similar to a boxer’s hook), then so be it. This is Wing Chun.
In terms of mechanical movements, it is not slipping, or weaving that dictates whether it should be classified as Wing Chun or boxing. If you do something, that prevents you from being hit and enables you to set up a punch or counter, it is Wing Chun.
For Wing Chun to operate we look at the tactical aspects of the system such as; por jung (crashing the center), chui ying (forward facing), bik bo (pressing forwards with footwork). As these are tactical, they operate on a strategic level i.e. function driven, not form/appearance driven.
Performance is judged solely on effectiveness.
Conversely, it ceases to be Wing Chun at the point at which it is is proved (by way of pressure testing) to be ineffective and one has to look outside of the system for a solution.
The clip was someone who looked inside the system to fight in a boxing arena.
Suki
yes it has similar mechanics of a twisting body blah blah…but its not a hook punch. its an elbow.
Move your hand out an inch or two, it’s a hook punch. The forms are a framework, to be adapted.
You don’t want to do hook punches, fine. Your loss. You have a bad experience or something?
Don’t presume to tell me what is or is not in my forms. You’ve already shown your ignorance of YMWC, and made it sound likely that isaid ignorance extends well beyond that. Quit while you’re ahead, or at least not too far behind, please.
WC developers did not devise the proper way to punch or block out of thin air or aesthetics. there are reasons behind the technique. so you can definitely look at a way someone does something and point out whats wrong with it and why its not going to be as good as if he did it another way
Just make sure you’re not pointing it out from the floor to the guy that just knocked you down with one of those inferior hook punches.
Jack Dempsey documentary.
Pt 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZDlvZ2W3Ak
Pt 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMrUvDPVK1w&feature=related
Suki Gosal
[QUOTE=clam61;896571]although this sounds like one of those poignant and though provoking stereotypical chinese sayings/philosophies i would have to disagree.
WC developers did not devise the proper way to punch or block out of thin air or aesthetics. there are reasons behind the technique. so you can definitely look at a way someone does something and point out whats wrong with it and why its not going to be as good as if he did it another way[/QUOTE]
First you say that WC has no hook punch without having studied all versions/lineages of WC. But what gets me is that you know what the developers of WC were thinking hundreds of years ago and that is utterly impossible.
you’re right. i was wrong in generalizing WC. that was my mistake.
and even though i cannot jump into the minds of people hundreds of years ago, i think it is fairly obvious that WC developers created the style based on something. they did not just pull these moves out of their ass
[QUOTE=Phil Redmond;896658]First you say that WC has no hook punch without having studied all versions/lineages of WC. But what gets me is that you know what the developers of WC were thinking hundreds of years ago and that is utterly impossible.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=anerlich;896581]Move your hand out an inch or two, it’s a hook punch. The forms are a framework, to be adapted.
You don’t want to do hook punches, fine. Your loss. You have a bad experience or something?
Don’t presume to tell me what is or is not in my forms. You’ve already shown your ignorance of YMWC, and made it sound likely that isaid ignorance extends well beyond that. Quit while you’re ahead, or at least not too far behind, please.
Just make sure you’re not pointing it out from the floor to the guy that just knocked you down with one of those inferior hook punches.[/QUOTE]
you’re right, extend your hand out and its a hook punch. too bad they didnt do that and thus its not a hook punch.
look its very simple. this isnt subjective here. im not speaking out of emotion. its an elbow and not a hook. it could be a hook, but its not.
if there are some lineages of WC that incorporated a hook, then again, i conceded to your point that my generalization was incorrect
[QUOTE=sihing;896574]In training, this is what you do exactly, because you are learning something unnatural, foreign to how you would normally move. Training is all about isolating things, the thing is training is not application. If you see someone trained in WC free fighting and he does not apply the punch or whatever else absolutely correctly IYO, this is due to the random intense natural of the act of combat. The idea IMO is not to DO Wing Chun in a fight, but to fight naturally, with the hope that your movements, reactions and such have been improved due to WC training, so that you are more effective in physically violent situations. I fight, not Wing Chun or anyother MA.
James[/QUOTE]
i agree with what you are saying. to give an example to my point. lets say you are fighting and you have a bad habit of punching with your elbow out and you don’t twist your body that much when blocking at the same time.
i think its reasonable for someone to say that your form is not as effective and you are losing potential hitting power.
this conflicts with the whole notion that two forms can both be ‘right’
Kuen- Do - Pai
In Cantonese Chinese martial arts can generally be divided into three “types”
Pai, Do, and Kuen.
Now these are loose interpretations but here goes.
Pai means system (Fu Jow Pai or Ying Jow Pai), and implies that everything is laid out for the practitioner. Only the powers that be can make changes.
Do (Tao) means path/way. It’s a more philosophical approach to an art.
Kuen means ‘fist’. I know that there is a Wing Chun Do but that’s a modern art. The Wing Chun I’m refering to is a kuen. Hence the name Wing Chun Kuen. Though the underlying principle is simplicity it’s eclectic, open to interpretation and change. What’s efficient for some may not be for others.
To say this or that is or is not can be misleading. I don’t know the exact quote but Sibak WSL said something like don’t be a slave to WC.
The idea of a kuen is if you knock someone out and your elbow was out he’s still knocked out.
but what if you knocked someone out and broke your hand or wrist because your form wasn’t optimal for withstanding the impact
u couldnt say its just as good, right?
although you may consider WC as completely fluid (and as a native cantonese speaker i disagree), there has to be some limit right?
going by your ‘whatever works best in the situation approach is WC’, i might do a jump spin kick because that was the best move in the situation and call it WC.
it might be the best thing to have done. it might have worked. i might have KOd some guys. it might be the best fighting philosophy out there. but its not WC. not that thats a bad thing.
[QUOTE=Phil Redmond;896694]In Cantonese Chinese martial arts can generally be divided into three “types”
Pai, Do, and Kuen.
Now these are loose interpretations but here goes.
Pai means system (Fu Jow Pai or Ying Jow Pai), and implies that everything is laid out for the practitioner. Only the powers that be can make changes.
Do (Tao) means path/way. It’s a more philosophical approach to an art.
Kuen means ‘fist’. I know that there is a Wing Chun Do but that’s a modern art. The Wing Chun I’m refering to is a kuen. Hence the name Wing Chun Kuen. Though the underlying principle is simplicity it’s eclectic, open to interpretation and change. What’s efficient for some may not be for others.
To say this or that is or is not can be misleading. I don’t know the exact quote but Sibak WSL said something like don’t be a slave to WC.
The idea of a kuen is if you knock someone out and your elbow was out he’s still knocked out.[/QUOTE]
Am I to believe that mobility and effective punching methods are the exclusive domain of western boxing?
Nope. They’re not. And in the same vein, it isn’t specifically wing chun, either. Its simply basic techniques that are in almost every single art. My POINT was that aside from those non-exclusive basics, there was nothing definitively wing chun in that video.
And I suppose one would have you believe the forms couldn’t possibly contain a blueprint for punches that have hooking and uppercut motions?
Absolutely. Still not the point.
And to suggest that one couldn’t ‘see’ body structure therefore it could not possibly exist
Your homeboy was losing balance and getting pushed around quite a bit by an amateur.. Compare it to some of Alan Orr’s guys fighting against professionals. You may not outwardly see tan sao or pak sao or whatnot, but they have some definitive wing chun principles at work. I’m not saying he won’t get better at it, I’m just saying I didn’t see any effective implementation of it. Thats fine, its an amateur bout. You’ve proven that a wing chun guy can go in and just barely win an amateur boxing match. woo hoo.
And of course, the cliches continue with “controlling the opponents center”.
Its an effective method that works, if you could only understand it 
[QUOTE=clam61;896704]but what if you knocked someone out and broke your hand or wrist because your form wasn’t optimal for withstanding the impact
u couldnt say its just as good, right?
although you may consider WC as completely fluid (and as a native cantonese speaker i disagree), there has to be some limit right?
going by your ‘whatever works best in the situation approach is WC’, i might do a jump spin kick because that was the best move in the situation and call it WC.
it might be the best thing to have done. it might have worked. i might have KOd some guys. it might be the best fighting philosophy out there. but its not WC. not that thats a bad thing.[/QUOTE]
Though not a native speaker I do speak enough Cantonese to get by. Three years in college in the 70’s but I learned more hanging out in NYC Chinatown.
I did preface my statement with the words, “loose interpretation”
Now what if you didn’t break your hand? People are always saying this or that didn’t look like WC. All I’m saying is that when in a real fight your form will not look like a choreographed WC drill.
[QUOTE=Vajramusti;896528]------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The problem is that a lot of wing chunners I have seen have not really developed their basic wing chun punch.
Best,
J[/QUOTE]
That’s true, because if on can understand the true biomechanics dealing with the ideal of the basic punch, then one will understand that the first punch is nothing more then the same, as well as the precursor of the others…
Ali Rahim.
[QUOTE=Phil Redmond;896725]Though not a native speaker I do speak enough Cantonese to get by. Three years in college in the 70’s but I learned more hanging out in NYC Chinatown.
I did preface my statement with the words, “loose interpretation”
Now what if you didn’t break your hand? People are always saying this or that didn’t look like WC. All I’m saying is that when in a real fight your form will not look like a choreographed WC drill.[/QUOTE]
hi phil. sorry if i sounded condescending about the cantonese. props to you for learning any foreign language!
i agree with what you say. when u spar you probably wont be as precise with your movements, as you are during a drill. totally agree with that. but what i am saying is that practice doesnt make perfect. perfect practice makes perfect. when we drill we aim to do moves a certain way because there is a REASON for the move to be done in that manner (which im sure you can attest to, is sometimes very unnatural). if there were no reasons for the form, then this would be a non issue
so although you can look at someone sparring and understand why they are a bit sloppy in the heat of the moment, you can still look at it and say what they need to change and WHY its important for them to make that change.
like i said before, otherwise i can just start throwin haymakers in a fight and say “it worked, its fluid, its a fluid art, its WC, whatever works. whatever works is WC”
[QUOTE=Phil Redmond;896725] All I’m saying is that when in a real fight your form will not look like a choreographed WC drill.[/QUOTE]
Every art has its identification, and structure is usually the blueprint of that Just as a pro boxer performs, you can easily identify which punch is thrown, then one can clearly see what type of fighter the boxer is
One can clearly see when something is wrong with a certain strike or punch when watching two-season fighter go at it One can see to the point; that you and the color commentator may say at the same time Dam, that was a wild punch
Structure is there for a reason, and not just for show Once one has lost structure, he has lost the system in which he has prescribe to The more one can master his structure the more accurate one will be when under pressure, unless something is wrong with the structure to begin with
Ali Rahim
[QUOTE=Phil Redmond;896725] All I’m saying is that when in a real fight your form will not look like a choreographed WC drill.[/QUOTE]
Every art has its identification, and structure is usually the blueprint of that Just as a pro boxer performs, you can easily identify which punch is thrown, then one can clearly see what type of fighter the boxer is
One can clearly see when something is wrong with a certain strike or punch when watching two-season fighter go at it One can see to the point; that you and the color commentator may say at the same time Dam, that was a wild punch
Structure is there for a reason, and not just for show Once one has lost structure, he has lost the system in which he has prescribe to The more one can master his structure the more accurate one will be when under pressure, unless something is wrong with the structure to begin with
Ali Rahim.
you’re right, extend your hand out and its a hook punch.
I knew that
too bad they didnt do that and thus its not a hook punch.
Who are “they”? And how would you know?
look its very simple. this isnt subjective here. im not speaking out of emotion.
No, out of ignorance.
its an elbow and not a hook. it could be a hook, but its not.
THat’s your opinion, not fact. The mechanics are almost identical, as you could find out from the surprisingly highbrow discussion in the Dempsey book you seem determined to avoid at all costs for no good reason.
Why is a circular elbow good WC, but the similar hook such a huge anathema to you? you HAVE to be speaking out of emotion.
if there are some lineages of WC that incorporated a hook, then again, i conceded to your point that my generalization was incorrect
Many of your generalisations are incorrect, props for conceding this one as a good start.
so although you can look at someone sparring and understand why they are a bit sloppy in the heat of the moment, you can still look at it and say what they need to change and WHY its important for them to make that change.
Performance overrides precision. - Scott Sonnon
Efficiency is anything that scores - Bruce Lee