What was Wing Chun designed for?

[KPM]

VT also has the means to conduct a fight entirely from long range and end it there.

---Ok then. Please show a video clip of pure Wing Chun conducting a fight entirely from long range. Any lineage of Wing Chun. It doesn't have to be WSLVT, since you guys seem so afraid of posting sparring clips.


VT was designed to deal with fighting. It believes close-range is most often the best way to finish quickly, but realizes one must also know how to handle the fight at longer range and can do so just as well.

---So VT works just as well at long range as it does at close range? Despite the fact that it doesn't have near the structured training drills that it has for close range work? Despite the fact that it doesn't teach any closing or evasive footwork in its forms? Despite the fact that its steps are short and compact and its punches used very close and not extended at all? Despite the fact that its kicks are rather low and close as well? You really think that it is comparable to what a good boxer can do at long range? Or what a kickboxer or TKD guy can do at long range? I don't believe you. The burden of proof is on you. Post a video of this "long range Wing Chun." And don't say you already have, because Sean's guys were clearly doing MMA. MMA based in Wing Chun as a striking method. But MMA nonetheless and not pure Wing Chun.


I have fulfilled your arbitrary requirements for both.

---They aren't arbitrary, and you haven't even come close. And I'm afraid that the fact that you think you have really just suggests that you don't even understand what we're talking about.



You expect a VT fighter not to duck when backed into a corner, huh?
He should have stood up straight and taken a spinning heel to the face, otherwise it's not pure VT??

---No. Ducking, and bobbing and covering up are natural responses and make sense. And they come from boxing.



Some is Biu-ji, but none is outside of VT principles.

---What comes from Biu Gee?



The video of long-range fighting does.

---I didn't see any video of long-range fighting. What are you talking about???


It was all VT, and there was no forward-weighted stance.

---You know, in the past anytime you thought it would prove your point you went to lengths to post a slo-mo gif or at least screen shots of the motion in question. I notice you didn't do that this time. Probably because you realized it would prove you wrong.



Close to your arbitrary definitions that seem to change whenever I meet them.

---Again, what you talking about? You can't even follow a discussion! I've been saying the same thing for the last 13 pages! And I'm getting tired of repeating myself!!! And I've been saying the same thing I said on the other thread!


VT is not WB. The long-rage game is different because kicks are involved. So, you will not have equivalent.

----That's just a cop-out, and again suggests that don't even understand what long range fighting is about. You can certainly have an equivalent! Both are striking arts after all. And I can add low-line kicks to my boxing structure and it works just fine. Panantukan does that. You can have kicking equivalents of a jab, cross, and hook, etc. You can even mix them into combinations with the punches.....jab punch, cross kick, hook kick....jab kick, hook kick, upper cut punch....etc. All still using the basic boxing "engine" or biomechanics and boxing strategy.



What part am I missing? Now you have a chance to clearly define the goalpost once and for all.

---I've repeated myself over and over. Go back and read what I've already posted. Again, I've reached the conclusion that you don't even truly understand what other fighting methods do at long range. And I'm getting tired of banging my head against the wall on this thread with people that can't even seem to follow a common sense presentation. They object, but then can't provide any proof to back up what they say!


No changies once I meet your requirements this time, though! So, write it well!
Take your time to set all the necessary loopholes you might need.

---And just where did you meet any "requirements"? That one clip of Sean's guys doing MMA sparring? You think that did it? Really? When you can't even provide a clip of pure WSLVT sparring against a non-Wing Chun guy, let along a pure WSLVT fight done entirely at long range? Just how have you "meet" anything? Dude, give it up. Its pretty obvious at this point that you've got nothing to back up what you've been saying.


The video showed a VT fighter staying on the outside the entire fight and using only VT methods.

----I thought it was only that 13 seconds? And I thought he was doing MMA stuff? Its becoming pretty clear at this point that you can't back up what you've been saying. In fact, its now becoming pretty clear that you don't truly understand what other systems do at long range. I guess that might explain why you think Wing Chun's "long range strategy" is the equivalent of the "long range game" found in systems that were actually designed to work at that range!

 

[LFJ]

Please show a video clip of pure Wing Chun conducting a fight entirely from long range. Any lineage of Wing Chun. It doesn't have to be WSLVT, since you guys seem so afraid of posting sparring clips.

Just did.

---So VT works just as well at long range as it does at close range? Despite the fact that it doesn't have near the structured training drills that it has for close range work? Despite the fact that it doesn't teach any closing or evasive footwork in its forms? Despite the fact that its steps are short and compact and its punches used very close and not extended at all? Despite the fact that its kicks are rather low and close as well?

Sounds like you have a very limited knowledge of VT, in both form and function.

Post a video of this "long range Wing Chun." And don't say you already have, because Sean's guys were clearly doing MMA. MMA based in Wing Chun as a striking method. But MMA nonetheless and not pure Wing Chun.

I already have.

The striking was pure VT and no MMA was involved in the long-range game I pointed you to.

Ducking, and bobbing and covering up are natural responses and make sense. And they come from boxing.

Your only knowledge comes from boxing.

What the fighter did was entirely VT, some biu-ji.

---What comes from Biu Gee?

What you keep mistaking for boxing.

---I didn't see any video of long-range fighting. What are you talking about???

It certainly wasn't close-range.

It was all VT, and there was no forward-weighted stance.

---You know, in the past anytime you thought it would prove your point you went to lengths to post a slo-mo gif or at least screen shots of the motion in question. I notice you didn't do that this time. Probably because you realized it would prove you wrong.

Actually, I was going to, but I ran out of free hosting space on the site I was using to upload. Had to find another.

Here you go. The bit where you said he leaned forward to weight a front stance??

Clearly parallel stance and lateral movement here.

VT is not WB. The long-rage game is different because kicks are involved. So, you will not have equivalent.

----That's just a cop-out, and again suggests that don't even understand what long range fighting is about. You can certainly have an equivalent! Both are striking arts after all. And I can add low-line kicks to my boxing structure and it works just fine.

I'm talking about kicks from the opponent. WB's long-range footwork fails where kicks are involved.

This is what happens when you face a kicker with WB stances and footwork. Not pretty.

What part am I missing? Now you have a chance to clearly define the goalpost once and for all.

---I've repeated myself over and over. Go back and read what I've already posted. Again, I've reached the conclusion that you don't even truly understand what other fighting methods do at long range.

So, link to the post.

It sounds like you want me to do exactly what a boxer does, throwing overextended punches and such.

But, VT is not WB. Its long-range game is strategically and tactically very different.

---And just where did you meet any "requirements"? That one clip of Sean's guys doing MMA sparring? You think that did it? Really? When you can't even provide a clip of pure WSLVT sparring against a non-Wing Chun guy, let along a pure WSLVT fight done entirely at long range?

The guy used nothing but pure VT against the MMA opponent from long range.

----I thought it was only that 13 seconds? And I thought he was doing MMA stuff?

Nothing he did was MMA, and the clip is long enough to demonstrate to you VT behaviors at long range.

Parallel stance, evasive lateral footwork, distance management, long-range kicking, punching when opportune while safely maintaining distance.

you think Wing Chun's "long range strategy" is the equivalent of the "long range game" found in systems that were actually designed to work at that range!

You said;

Long-range strategy is surviving long enough to close in.
Long-range game is conducting the fight from the outside.

VT has methods of doing both, and this frustrates you because you never learned it and have to resort to WB.

 

[KPM]

Just did.



.

Once again, you clearly don't have anything to back up what you are saying. Pretty pathetic response, actually. And thanks for the GIF! But if you honestly don't see him bending over with his weight on his right leg as he bobs with his head forward over his knee, just like a boxer would, then I don't know why I'm even responding to you. Because you are obviously either being dishonest, or are so set on being "right" and have such a closed mind about these things that trying to carry on any kind of reasonable discussion with you is pointless. If you think that was "pure WSLVT" then that would suggest that WSL himself incorporated some things from his boxing background!

 

[Lobo66]

In a self defence situation the question of range is often decided for you. Assault tends to happen up close and personal, and if you have the space to escape the situation you should do so. That is your "long range game" in this context. In the ring/cage it's different and can become an intricate game of chess. In VT we use shifting and angling footwork to bait the opponent into over-extending. The oblique kick and side kicks to the shin, knee and hip, as well as sweeping techniques can all be used to disrupt the rhythm of the opponent and thus gain advantage. Properly placed the knee kick can really injure the opponent, so in sparring we try to control our placement and aim more for the shin or thigh. We need to protect our sparring partners

Against experienced opponents this is, of course, no easy task. It doesn't always work and you are also vulnerable to long range attacks. It's essential to have good defensive gestures should your evasive footwork fail you. Knowing how to properly block high kicks and check low kicks, for example, is essential.

Unfortunately, a common failing in WC/VT schools is that they don't spar against people outside their club/gym, so they often lack experience in this area.

 

[KPM]

In a self defence situation the question of range is often decided for you. Assault tends to happen up close and personal, and if you have the space to escape the situation you should do so. That is your "long range game" in this context.

---I agree that Wing Chun is a close range system. But what you just described is a "long range strategy" not a "long range game." I've pointed out the differences between the two multiple times now.


In the ring/cage it's different and can become an intricate game of chess. In VT we use shifting and angling footwork to bait the opponent into over-extending. The oblique kick and side kicks to the shin, knee and hip, as well as sweeping techniques can all be used to disrupt the rhythm of the opponent and thus gain advantage.


---Yes. Now add to that having footwork that is "light on the feet" and can cover large distances quickly, evasive upper body movement with bobbing and weaving, punches that are a bit more extended so you can "dart" in and land one and "dart" back out again and move away before the opponent can respond properly, a strategy to "pick away" at the opponent for the win rather than moving in to fight at close range, etc and you start having an actual "long range game" that is very similar to boxing.


Against experienced opponents this is, of course, no easy task. It doesn't always work and you are also vulnerable to long range attacks. It's essential to have good defensive gestures should your evasive footwork fail you. Knowing how to properly block high kicks and check low kicks, for example, is essential.

---Very true. And if you are not training a "long range game" specifically, it becomes even harder to do. I have maintained through-out that Wing Chun was designed for and optimized for close range. "Classical" Wing Chun does not spend nearly the same amount of training or specific techniques for long range, because that is not its forte. So there is room to improve Wing Chun's long range skills by incorporating methods and concepts from other systems....like western boxing....which it appears to me that you and your guy's have done in your preparation for MMA fighting. This is no different than incorporating methods and concepts from a grappling art to improve a Wing Chun fighter's ground-fighting ability. Because again, ground-fighting is not what Wing Chun was designed for and is not its forte!

Unfortunately, a common failing in WC/VT schools is that they don't spar against people outside their club/gym, so they often lack experience in this area.

---Also true! So they begin to think that Wing Chun has all the answers! Same guys that think they can do a "Wing Chun ground-fighting" or a "long range Wing Chun" rather than looking to systems that are actually designed to work in these areas. Same guys that straddle a downed opponent and chain punch him to the face and say "see, this is just Wing Chun." All the while disregarding the fact that the mount comes from BJJ and BJJ could actually show them a lot more ways to get there and how to control and maintain it once they have! Same guys that duck and weave under a high kick and say "see, this is just Wing Chun." All the while disregarding the fact that bobbing & weaving comes from boxing and boxing could actually show them a lot more ways to be evasive and control distance even better!

 

[LFJ]

thanks for the GIF! But if you honestly don't see him bending over with his weight on his right leg as he bobs with his head forward over his knee, just like a boxer would, then I don't know why I'm even responding to you.

You're changing your story now.
You said he used a weighted front leg.
There is clearly no front leg to be weighted.

He uses an equally weighted parallel stance throughout, and shifts as he goes under the kick.
There is nothing non-VT about avoiding the kick as he did.
Boxers don't use a squared stance perpendicular to the opponent this way.

If you think that was "pure WSLVT" then that would suggest that WSL himself incorporated some things from his boxing background!

It is not like boxing. You have just not learned VT fully.

---Yes. Now add to that having footwork that is "light on the feet"

Check.

and can cover large distances quickly,

Check.

evasive upper body movement with bobbing and weaving,

Permissible in the right context, as in the gif, not as WB does.

punches that are a bit more extended so you can "dart" in and land one and "dart" back out again and move away before the opponent can respond properly,

This can be achieved without overextending punches.

a strategy to "pick away" at the opponent for the win rather than moving in to fight at close range, etc and you start having an actual "long range game" that is very similar to boxing.

All of the above is "check" with a few caveats since VT is not WB, and the long-range game uses a very different strategy and tactics, particularly because the opponent has no rule preventing him from kicking.

"Classical" Wing Chun does not spend nearly the same amount of training or specific techniques for long range, because that is not its forte.

That is not the reason. Plenty of attention is given to long-range, it is essential to any viable striking system, but more to close-range simply because more things are going on at close-range, more weapons are in the fight, there's less distance and less reaction time, and it requires a more refined skill than dealing with long-range attacks. But, VT long-range is not at all deficient. You just haven't learned it.

So there is room to improve Wing Chun's long range skills by incorporating methods and concepts from other systems....like western boxing....which it appears to me that you and your guy's have done in your preparation for MMA fighting.

WB's stances and footwork don't work at long-range when the opponent can kick. It is not an intelligent addition if you are fighting anywhere outside of boxing ring rules.

I also see nothing of WB in their striking. It is straight up VT. The "high-guard" you keep mentioning is more a biu-ji tactic, but works great against non-VT, so use is made of it.

So they begin to think that Wing Chun has all the answers! Same guys that think they can do a "Wing Chun ground-fighting" or a "long range Wing Chun" rather than looking to systems that are actually designed to work in these areas.

VT doesn't have all the answers. That's why BJJ is a good addition.
But, for standup striking, it can standalone at whatever range with no gaps needing filled.
You can certainly cross-train for more striking ideas if you want, but that's not gap-filling for missing elements, and you better be careful what you choose to add.

Same guys that duck and weave under a high kick and say "see, this is just Wing Chun." All the while disregarding the fact that bobbing & weaving comes from boxing

Ducking under a kick doesn't "come from" boxing. It comes from not being an idiot and taking a spinning heel to the face because Wing Chun "must stay upright".

 

[KPM]

You're changing your story now.

---I'm not changing anything! Dude, you really are getting pretty pathetic here.

You said he used a weighted front leg. There is clearly no front leg to be weighted.

---He leaned out over the right leg, which is the leg directed at his opponent. Please explain to me from a biomechanical perspective how one can lean out forward over one leg and not have that leg weighted more than the other, and how one can lean forward and that leg not effectively become a forward or front leg. Please also explain how that little fast "hop" to the side that he does is "pure" Wing Chun footwork. What form teaches hopping?


Boxers don't use a squared stance perpendicular to the opponent this way.

---Sure they do! You really don't know what you're talking about.


Check. Check.

---Ok. If you think WSLVT already has all of this, then please post a video of a "pure" WSLVT guy (not mixing in MMA) doing all of this.


Plenty of attention is given to long-range, it is essential to any viable striking system, but more to close-range simply because more things are going on at close-range, more weapons are in the fight, there's less distance and less reaction time, and it requires a more refined skill than dealing with long-range attacks. But, VT long-range is not at all deficient. You just haven't learned it.

---You just admitted that Wing Chun is optimized for close range, not for long range....just as I have been saying. VT long range strategy works for what it was intended. But it is not the same thing as having a dedicated "long range game." It is not as developed as what boxing, or kickboxing, or TKD can do from long range. That should be obvious to anyone that has been around fighters.


WB's stances and footwork don't work at long-range when the opponent can kick. It is not an intelligent addition if you are fighting anywhere outside of boxing ring rules.

---Again, very wrong. You don't know what you are talking about. Kickboxers use a forward-weighted stance. All it would take is to teach the boxer what to do and have him train for kick defense.


The "high-guard" you keep mentioning is more a biu-ji tactic, but works great against non-VT, so use is made of it.

---Where is it in the Biu Gee form?

 

[DaveB]

You've understood your art not when you can fit each principle to a situation, but when you know when to make use of them and when to ignore them.

---Oh, I'm in no trap here! I agree with you! But the key word I used before was "train." So it is better to just expect you will be able to apply those principles "on the fly" in an area you are not accustomed to, or to actually train a method meant specifically for that area that makes use of the same or similar principles?

An easy example is to ask, do you duck the punch you didn't see in time to block even though throwing your head down and to the left isn't in any forms...
Or do you get hit?

----A better question to ask is do you just hope and pray you will be able to duck the punch you didn't see when you are forced to, or is it better to actually practice a method that trains how to duck....and bob, and weave, etc.???

Now your falling into that other age old trap: confusing the training with the art.

No other endeavor has this problem. Nobody sees a footballer in the gym and confuses the weight lifting for playing football. Yet martial artists often think that a "fighting" style is the training bit instead of the fighting bit.

You can take ANY style, and train it in an infinite variety of different ways.
My old karate school did mostly two person drills and only a little sparring under street rules. The school down the road did all sparring but under sport rules. Both were Shotokan schools.

You don't *train* a method that *trains* ducking and weaving. You *train a method* that includes ducking and weaving. Now since there is no martial art that does not use "get out of the way" as a tactic, there's no martial art that precludes ducking.

If you remember problem 1 that I posted was trying to stick to a hard wing chun aesthetic. If the student gets over needing to look wing chun then practicing to duck and dodge is basic training.

If you want more in depth integration of weaving then you may need to change style, but as a basic element of fighting ducking is not limited to style. It's also not something you really need to train. The reaction speed is what you train, along with balanced movement and counter attacking. But if your style prefers blocking to ducking then there's no need to spend time on it, just don't think you can't dodge because you're wing chun.

 

[Vajramusti]

VT also has the means to conduct a fight entirely from long range and end it there.

---Ok then. Please show a video clip of pure Wing Chun conducting a fight entirely from long range. Any lineage of Wing Chun. It doesn't have to be WSLVT, since you guys seem so afraid of posting sparring clips.


VT was designed to deal with fighting. It believes close-range is most often the best way to finish quickly, but realizes one must also know how to handle the fight at longer range and can do so just as well.

---So VT works just as well at long range as it does at close range? Despite the fact that it doesn't have near the structured training drills that it has for close range work? Despite the fact that it doesn't teach any closing or evasive footwork in its forms? Despite the fact that its steps are short and compact and its punches used very close and not extended at all? Despite the fact that its kicks are rather low and close as well? You really think that it is comparable to what a good boxer can do at long range? Or what a kickboxer or TKD guy can do at long range? I don't believe you. The burden of proof is on you. Post a video of this "long range Wing Chun." And don't say you already have, because Sean's guys were clearly doing MMA. MMA based in Wing Chun as a striking method. But MMA nonetheless and not pure Wing Chun.


I have fulfilled your arbitrary requirements for both.

---They aren't arbitrary, and you haven't even come close. And I'm afraid that the fact that you think you have really just suggests that you don't even understand what we're talking about.



You expect a VT fighter not to duck when backed into a corner, huh?
He should have stood up straight and taken a spinning heel to the face, otherwise it's not pure VT??

---No. Ducking, and bobbing and covering up are natural responses and make sense. And they come from boxing.



Some is Biu-ji, but none is outside of VT principles.

---What comes from Biu Gee?



The video of long-range fighting does.

---I didn't see any video of long-range fighting. What are you talking about???


It was all VT, and there was no forward-weighted stance.

---You know, in the past anytime you thought it would prove your point you went to lengths to post a slo-mo gif or at least screen shots of the motion in question. I notice you didn't do that this time. Probably because you realized it would prove you wrong.



Close to your arbitrary definitions that seem to change whenever I meet them.

---Again, what you talking about? You can't even follow a discussion! I've been saying the same thing for the last 13 pages! And I'm getting tired of repeating myself!!! And I've been saying the same thing I said on the other thread!


VT is not WB. The long-rage game is different because kicks are involved. So, you will not have equivalent.

----That's just a cop-out, and again suggests that don't even understand what long range fighting is about. You can certainly have an equivalent! Both are striking arts after all. And I can add low-line kicks to my boxing structure and it works just fine. Panantukan does that. You can have kicking equivalents of a jab, cross, and hook, etc. You can even mix them into combinations with the punches.....jab punch, cross kick, hook kick....jab kick, hook kick, upper cut punch....etc. All still using the basic boxing "engine" or biomechanics and boxing strategy.



What part am I missing? Now you have a chance to clearly define the goalpost once and for all.

---I've repeated myself over and over. Go back and read what I've already posted. Again, I've reached the conclusion that you don't even truly understand what other fighting methods do at long range. And I'm getting tired of banging my head against the wall on this thread with people that can't even seem to follow a common sense presentation. They object, but then can't provide any proof to back up what they say!


No changies once I meet your requirements this time, though! So, write it well!
Take your time to set all the necessary loopholes you might need.

---And just where did you meet any "requirements"? That one clip of Sean's guys doing MMA sparring? You think that did it? Really? When you can't even provide a clip of pure WSLVT sparring against a non-Wing Chun guy, let along a pure WSLVT fight done entirely at long range? Just how have you "meet" anything? Dude, give it up. Its pretty obvious at this point that you've got nothing to back up what you've been saying.


The video showed a VT fighter staying on the outside the entire fight and using only VT methods.

----I thought it was only that 13 seconds? And I thought he was doing MMA stuff? Its becoming pretty clear at this point that you can't back up what you've been saying. In fact, its now becoming pretty clear that you don't truly understand what other systems do at long range. I guess that might explain why you think Wing Chun's "long range strategy" is the equivalent of the "long range game" found in systems that were actually designed to work at that range!

usual display of KPM's fragmented understanding of wing chun

 

[Juany118]

---So VT works just as well at long range as it does at close range? Despite the fact that it doesn't have near the structured training drills that it has for close range work? Despite the fact that it doesn't teach any closing or evasive footwork in its forms? Despite the fact that its steps are short and compact and its punches used very close and not extended at all? Despite the fact that its kicks are rather low and close as well? You really think that it is comparable to what a good boxer can do at long range? Or what a kickboxer or TKD guy can do at long range? I don't believe you. The burden of proof is on you. Post a video of this "long range Wing Chun." And don't say you already have, because Sean's guys were clearly doing MMA. MMA based in Wing Chun as a striking method. But MMA nonetheless and not pure Wing Chun.

I think part of your issue, whether it comes to (speaking just YM lineages here) WC, VT, WT, TWC you are confabulating drills with fighting. Chi sau, at least imo, isn't about developing how one fights, it's about developing attributes that are useful in fighting at any range. The problem isn't that WC doesn't have a long game, it's that first, sparring in general is rare and sparring against other styles is even more rare. Because of this people far into what amounts to an unintended trap and they allow the drills to define something that they we're never meant to, namely a range.

You expect a VT fighter not to duck when backed into a corner, huh?
He should have stood up straight and taken a spinning heel to the face, otherwise it's not pure VT??

---No. Ducking, and bobbing and covering up are natural responses and make sense. And they come from boxing.

Ducking comes from fighting, not boxing. No martial art teaches you to be inflexible and take a hit because your cover/deflection failed. Also when one is moving dynamically to gain a superior position, unless you are completely flat footed, you will occasionally appear to "bob"/bounce. I am beginning to think your vision of WC/VT is very rigid, perhaps overly so.

 

[LFJ]

---He leaned out over the right leg, which is the leg directed at his opponent. Please explain to me from a biomechanical perspective how one can lean out forward over one leg and not have that leg weighted more than the other, and how one can lean forward and that leg not effectively become a forward or front leg.

His stance is parallel, perpendicular to the opponent.
Shifting weight from one to the other doesn't change orientation.

You said he was using a weighted front leg during the fight, like boxing, but his stance was perpendicular to the opponent and evenly weighted throughout, and he only briefly shifted weight to duck under the kick.

Please also explain how that little fast "hop" to the side that he does is "pure" Wing Chun footwork. What form teaches hopping?

VT long-range footwork is very light and mobile, using a parallel stance and lots of lateral movement as in MYJ and BJD training and various partner drills. He simply moved to cover more distance to escape the corner he was in. There's nothing non-VT about it. You don't have to be a form robot.

The problem is, the forms are just homework, not restrictions on your movement.
That would be terribly unfortunate, because most actions are incomplete in forms.

But, in many cases form is all people received, and that's why you don't know how to move freely in a fight.

Boxers don't use a squared stance perpendicular to the opponent this way.

---Sure they do! You really don't know what you're talking about.

Nope. At long-range, they'll use a lead-rear leg stance to increase reach. Even an open stance will have lead and rear. They might square up with parallel feet when in close.

This is the exact opposite of VT, because at long-range, a weighted lead leg is extremely vulnerable to devastating leg kicks (see videos below), and at close-range, an upright parallel stance is susceptible to knees, clinch grappling, and takedowns.

The boxing methods are fine within boxing ring rules that protect them from such dangers and allow them to safely behave as they do. But, it fails when facing kickers without changing footwork, biomechanics, or power generation methods.

---Ok. If you think WSLVT already has all of this, then please post a video of a "pure" WSLVT guy (not mixing in MMA) doing all of this.

Already did. The fighter is very agile, covers great distance to evade his taller opponent, checks a kick with his own and cracks the guy in the jaw with an opportune VT punch and safely remains at distance.

---You just admitted that Wing Chun is optimized for close range, not for long range....just as I have been saying. VT long range strategy works for what it was intended. But it is not the same thing as having a dedicated "long range game."

I did no such thing. I said it's optimized for striking, plain and simple.

That includes the essential long-range.

It would be stupid to fail at close-range and have no recourse to conduct and finish the fight from long range. No viable striking style would ever think one range at striking will cut it. That's what I have been repeating!

It is not as developed as what boxing, or kickboxing, or TKD can do from long range.

It is fully developed to be functional at close or long range.

It just doesn't have overextended punching or spinning kicks because it's a different philosophy. That's all.

WB's stances and footwork don't work at long-range when the opponent can kick. It is not an intelligent addition if you are fighting anywhere outside of boxing ring rules.

---Again, very wrong. You don't know what you are talking about. Kickboxers use a forward-weighted stance. All it would take is to teach the boxer what to do and have him train for kick defense.

Kick defense starts from intelligent stance and stepping patterns.
The WB "engine" as you call it would need to be gutted completely for it to be safe against leg kicks.

It's not just a matter of adding kicks. American Kickboxing didn't have leg kicks either (illegal), and what happened to the undefeated champion when he faced Muay Thai?

He got taken out on a stretcher because his stance and footwork didn't consider leg kicks. Loading the lead leg for power got taken advantage of.

And since you think you're just gonna tell a boxer "how to defend leg kicks" while not changing his stance, weighting, or footwork, I'll just leave this one here again:

And there are many more examples. Easy to find. Muay Thai vs Boxing.
It never goes well if they haven't cross-trained and changed their approach.

So, gap-filling incomplete Wing Chun with Western Boxing that needs its own gap-filling for free-fighting is just compounding the difficulty of coming up with something functional in free-fighting where there are no rules to protect you.

The "high-guard" you keep mentioning is more a biu-ji tactic, but works great against non-VT, so use is made of it.

---Where is it in the Biu Gee form?

End.

 

[LFJ]

Now since there is no martial art that does not use "get out of the way" as a tactic, there's no martial art that precludes ducking.

Exactly!

If you remember problem 1 that I posted was trying to stick to a hard wing chun aesthetic. If the student gets over needing to look wing chun then practicing to duck and dodge is basic training.

Exactly!

KPM thinks Wing Chun should fight like its forms. "Fight the way you train", he says.

Maybe understand what your system is training first!

usual display of KPM's fragmented understanding of wing chun

I am beginning to think your vision of WC/VT is very rigid, perhaps overly so.

Fragmented and overly rigid.

 

[KPM]

usual display of KPM's fragmented understanding of wing chun

Usual display of Joy's "one-liner drive-by negative comment" that contributes nothing to the actual discussion.

 

[KPM]

[Now your falling into that other age old trap: confusing the training with the art.

---No I'm not. The art should be reflected in the training and the training should be actually "training" what you are going to use in the art. "Fight the way you train and train the way you fight." Anything else is inefficient.


No other endeavor has this problem. Nobody sees a footballer in the gym and confuses the weight lifting for playing football. Yet martial artists often think that a "fighting" style is the training bit instead of the fighting bit.

---There is a difference between conditioning and sport-specific training. There was an entire video posted about this recently!


You don't *train* a method that *trains* ducking and weaving. You *train a method* that includes ducking and weaving. Now since there is no martial art that does not use "get out of the way" as a tactic, there's no martial art that precludes ducking.

---Ducking and weaving and bobbing come from boxing. Sure you can train that as part of your method. But you are being a bit dishonest if you don't credit boxing as the source, or at least the inspiration and claim it has always been part of your particular martial art.


If you remember problem 1 that I posted was trying to stick to a hard wing chun aesthetic. If the student gets over needing to look wing chun then practicing to duck and dodge is basic training.

---Basic training for boxing. Not basic training for Wing Chun unless someone has added it in. For one thing, it breaks several Wing Chun concepts in facing, and maintaining the centerline.

 

[LFJ]

The art should be reflected in the training and the training should be actually "training" what you are going to use in the art. "Fight the way you train and train the way you fight." Anything else is inefficient.

The problem is you don't understand what VT is training and don't have all parts to it.

---Ducking and weaving and bobbing come from boxing. Sure you can train that as part of your method. But you are being a bit dishonest if you don't credit boxing as the source, or at least the inspiration and claim it has always been part of your particular martial art.

This is just stupid. You need to expand your knowledge.

There are hundreds of styles in China that use actions like this and have had no contact with or knowledge of Western Boxing whatsoever, and not to mention predate it by centuries! Besides, much of it is just natural instinct.

---Basic training for boxing. Not basic training for Wing Chun unless someone has added it in. For one thing, it breaks several Wing Chun concepts in facing, and maintaining the centerline.

No, it doesn't. Unless to you "maintaining the centerline" means standing right in front of your opponent like a statue in your little Wing Chun pose.

Besides, centerline is a concept of a zone where paths cross like at an intersection.
There is no rule that you must physically occupy center in order to control traffic through that space.

"Fragmented and overly rigid" describes your understanding of Wing Chun perfectly.

 

[KPM]

You said he was using a weighted front leg during the fight, like boxing,

---He did! Your gif showed it!


VT long-range footwork is very light and mobile, using a parallel stance and lots of lateral movement as in MYJ and BJD training and various partner drills. He simply moved to cover more distance to escape the corner he was in. There's nothing non-VT about it. You don't have to be a form robot.

---You guys are very touchy about sharing videos of your WSLVT because, as you've said, it would be "casting pearls before swine." You've said something along the lines of you didn't want people to see things and then claim it was part of their Wing Chun all along. But here you are looking at things that are very much like boxing and at the very least "boxing-inspired" and saying that your Wing Chun has had it all along. Go figure!


Nope. At long-range, they'll use a lead-rear leg stance to increase reach. Even an open stance will have lead and rear. They might square up with parallel feet when in close.

---But that wasn't long range right at that moment. If he was close enough to connect, he was closer than long range! Boxers will "square up" to the opponent at times when in close. Mike Tyson did this because he was a "close range" specialist!


This is the exact opposite of VT, because at long-range, a weighted lead leg is extremely vulnerable to devastating leg kicks

----I guess that's why kickboxers and MMA fighters will also often stand with a forward-weighted stance??


The boxing methods are fine within boxing ring rules that protect them from such dangers and allow them to safely behave as they do. But, it fails when facing kickers without changing footwork, biomechanics, or power generation methods.

---So you think your Wing Chun footwork is going to work better than a boxer's footwork when facing a kicker at long range? You think your Wing Chun footwork faster, more mobile and more evasive than a boxer's footwork at long range??



Already did.

---I said: then please post a video of a "pure" WSLVT guy (not mixing in MMA) doing all of this. So you are now calling that video clip of Sean's student "pure" WSLVT with no mixing in of MMA??? Its becoming very clear that you have nothing else to back up what you are saying. Looking more and more pathetic when you just keep repeating non-sense.

---The rest of your post isn't even particularly gemaine to this discussion. I'm not sure why I'm even still wasting my time with you.

 

[Juany118]

The art should be reflected in the training and the training should be actually "training" what you are going to use in the art. "Fight the way you train and train the way you fight." Anything else is inefficient.

But I explained previously how chi sau does exactly what you say here. The problem is that all too often WC/VT training doesn't do enough free sparring, especially against other styles, to help you understand what place chi sau is actually serving in the training.

Lets look at another form of combat training, US Army marksmanship. You practice, and qualify, using the M16 on semi auto from picture perfect supported positions. However you also train under simulated combat conditions so you can take the attributes trained to qualify; proper sight picture, trigger squeeze, and breathing, and put them into the proper context, the messy reality of combat. No one says the soldier qualifying isn't training how he will fight because that process is to build attributes that will be used when one undergoes the pressure testing of force on force training.

 

[Nobody Important]

If anyone's interested, I'm selling popcorn and beer. $2 for popcorn & $5 for beer. PayPal accepted

 

[DaveB]

[Now your falling into that other age old trap: confusing the training with the art.

---No I'm not. The art should be reflected in the training and the training should be actually "training" what you are going to use in the art. "Fight the way you train and train the way you fight." Anything else is inefficient.


No other endeavor has this problem. Nobody sees a footballer in the gym and confuses the weight lifting for playing football. Yet martial artists often think that a "fighting" style is the training bit instead of the fighting bit.

---There is a difference between conditioning and sport-specific training. There was an entire video posted about this recently!


You don't *train* a method that *trains* ducking and weaving. You *train a method* that includes ducking and weaving. Now since there is no martial art that does not use "get out of the way" as a tactic, there's no martial art that precludes ducking.

---Ducking and weaving and bobbing come from boxing. Sure you can train that as part of your method. But you are being a bit dishonest if you don't credit boxing as the source, or at least the inspiration and claim it has always been part of your particular martial art.


If you remember problem 1 that I posted was trying to stick to a hard wing chun aesthetic. If the student gets over needing to look wing chun then practicing to duck and dodge is basic training.

---Basic training for boxing. Not basic training for Wing Chun unless someone has added it in. For one thing, it breaks several Wing Chun concepts in facing, and maintaining the centerline.

The training should reflect how you intend to fight, I agree. What I was saying though was that you can train a variety of different ways and still be doing the same art. Being a wing chun man doesn't mean you only train one way or that you cannot change how you train.

Fight how you train doesn't is about the habits you form and what you are used to. It's not a god given rule meaning you can only do stuff you've drilled in class.

And no, ducking doesn't come from boxing. Ducking comes from not wanting to be hit. Bob and weave and the science of counter hitting with the weave is boxing and as I said, if you want to go that direction you might need to add from outside of chun.

 

[Juany118]

If anyone's interested, I'm selling popcorn and beer. $2 for popcorn & $5 for beer. PayPal accepted

As long as you have a Saison or IPA I am in, it's that time of year