Wing Chun Boxing

[Martial D]

Not my problem.

Australians have participated before.



That's funny, because I do cross-train.

Why would you cross train if your wslvt is 'complete' and good from all ranges?

Unless it's BJJ or wrestling you are crossing over with something doesn't add up.

 

[Juany118]

So your not only a dumbass?

You are a racist army boy. Turn the 12 year old mode off boy, oh wait that's not possible since you are 12.

Can a mod or admin please stop this dumbass? Thank you

I think in context that is probably not so racist.

Agreed. While perhaps a contentious turn of phrase, in the context of the statement he is/was a soldier who went to the Middle East to fight the Taliban, Islamic State etc. This groups are technically self proclaimed "Islamist" groups. Now their views don't express the views of the Muslims I know and/or call friend, thus I prefer personally using the term "militants" but the name technically applies.

Additionally Islam is a religion, not an ethnicity so if you want to argue that he was speaking from a position of prejudice the term "bigot" would work, but that said...

Dude, I am sharp thinkin, just not so good on pressing computer button. I am man, joined army, fought for country. Islamist never got me, I can do thinkin just fine boy. Now I run own busines (wit help from acounts guys an otherz), givin jobs to lozers and helpin community. Ur weak, pasty cubicle office guy taht think martial art aint got nothin to do wit fightin. LOL at u thinking u teh voice of experienz

What does your military service have to do with anything. The person you were responding to was talking more so about HOW you are expressing yourself. When I, and others, around here speak to out Military and LE experience it is because it is relevant to the conversation at hand. Perhaps explaining how a certain art proved effective, describing the physiological experience of feeling "fight or flight" etc. However neither Military nor LE experience is necessarily indicative of maturity.

I am boxer, LOL. wing chun is add on 4 me. Pukulan, lololz, WTF is that??

Pukulan is a form of Silat that, while using all parts of the body, focuses of the use of fist, shins and elbows. Basically think of it as a more "in your face" Muay Thai.

 

[LFJ]

Why would you cross train if your wslvt is 'complete' and good from all ranges?

Unless it's BJJ or wrestling you are crossing over with something doesn't add up.

I began and continue (to a lesser extent now) training other TCMA and BJJ prior to VT.

That doesn't mean I need to mix contradictory methods, though. VT and BJJ are good together.

 

[Juany118]

Why would you cross train if your wslvt is 'complete' and good from all ranges?

Unless it's BJJ or wrestling you are crossing over with something doesn't add up.

Well WC/VT doesnt have much of a "ground game" for one, so if you end up there, knowing what to do there would be useful.

 

[drop bear]

I began and continue (to a lesser extent now) training other TCMA and BJJ prior to VT.

That doesn't mean I need to mix contradictory methods, though. VT and BJJ are good together.

Doesn't mean you couldn't either. If you ever truly integrated striking and grappling you have to.

If you ever wanted to get truly good. You have to integrate them.

 

[drop bear]

Well WC/VT doesnt have much of a "ground game" for one, so if you end up there, knowing what to do there would be useful.

Gap filling?

 

[Martial D]

Gap filling?

No no, it's the other one that means the same thing.

 

[drop bear]

As an example of someone who gets that transition right.

 

[LFJ]

Doesn't mean you couldn't either. If you ever truly integrated striking and grappling you have to.

If you ever wanted to get truly good. You have to integrate them.

VT isn't for fighting on the ground, so groundfighting doesn't interfere with VT.

Gap filling?

Trolling?

 

[drop bear]

VT isn't for fighting on the ground, so groundfighting doesn't interfere with VT.



Trolling?

You don't actually stand up fight and ground fight. It is all an aspect of fighting. Just like you don't long range fight and then switch systems and short range fight.

Doing 2 different systems and then swapping from one to the other would be my definition of gap filling.

 

[geezer]

You don't actually stand up fight and ground fight. It is all an aspect of fighting. Just like you don't long range fight and then switch systems and short range fight. Doing 2 different systems and then swapping from one to the other would be my definition of gap filling.

I have to say, LFJ has a good point about not blending contradictory systems. That can lead to real problems in which neither art is effective.

That said, I think you can effectively go from one mode to another without constantly mixing the two, but you have to be skilled at the art of transition. So you don't just switch from one modality to another, but flow seamlessly back and forth as necessary. To achieve that you have to go beyond mere competency in each separate art and explore how each one can set up and flow into the other. If you are too rigid in your thinking about each art, I don't think that is going to happen.

Wang Zhi-Peng practices the same lineage, WSL-VT, that LFJ does and IMO does a pretty good job at making those transitions. Of course it's a demo on a student. Fighting always looks different.

 

[geezer]

An example taken from nature as to why blending sharply different systems can be harmful: Mule deer living on rugged western terrain are very effective at escaping predators through a form of locomotion called stotting.

Stotting is a form of jumping locomotion that enables mule deer to quickly traverse rough and uneven terrain with a bouncing, pogo stick-like action that makes them very difficult to catch, especially on rocky slopes too uneven to allow for conventional running.

White-tail deer by contrast favor less rugged terrain and effectively run rather than stot to escape predators.

Hybrids of white-tails and muleys instinctively tend to blend running and stotting. The resulting blended form of locomotion is not as effective as either of the pure forms, and in previous eras hybrids were rare since they were quickly eliminated from the gene pool by natural predators such as wolves, coyotes and mountain lions.

In modern times, with the reduction or elimination of natural predation, herds are typically culled by licensed and controlled human hunting with firearms and bows. The efficiency of modern hunting methods is little affected by these different methods of locomotion employed by deer, so hybrids with their inefficient blend of running and stotting are increasing, resulting in a deer population that is more vulnerable to natural predation.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-H-lMzzt_A18/VfOnH0cb1qI/AAAAAAAAAi8/25Mhv1U3UUM/s1600/stottingdeer.jpg

Two lessons here for the martial artist;

1. Beware of indiscriminate blending of incompatible methods.

2. Without actual testing (like predators culling the herd) weird and ineffective methods proliferate!

 

[Martial D]

Doesn't mean you couldn't either. If you ever truly integrated striking and grappling you have to.

If you ever wanted to get truly good. You have to integrate them.

Great point. If you can't execute BJJ throws from trapping range, or use your VT from the ground, you still have some holes.

 

[LFJ]

You don't actually stand up fight and ground fight. It is all an aspect of fighting.

I do.

Stand-up and ground are entirely distinct situations, and it's not easy to go from one to the other at will, the way distance can be managed to and from long- and short-range striking.

So, VT stand-up and BJJ ground do not interfere with eachother.

Two contradictory stand-up striking methods would.

Just like you don't long range fight and then switch systems and short range fight.

I don't, but some "Wing Chun Boxers" do.

Doing 2 different systems and then swapping from one to the other would be my definition of gap filling.

It is only gap-filling if there is a gap to be filled, as in a stand-up striking method neglecting to address obviously essential ranges of stand-up striking.

VT has no gaps in what it was designed for, just like BJJ. To have skill in both would be intelligent cross-training to be able to deal with the two distinct situations of stand-up and ground.

 

[Martial D]

Great point. If you can't execute BJJ throws from trapping range, or use your VT from the ground, you still have some holes.

@LFJ
What's funny about that? Do you disagree that standing grappling skills and ground striking skills are aspects of combat? And that lacking training in these aspects constitutes a hole in your game?

 

[LFJ]

Do you disagree that standing grappling skills and ground striking skills are aspects of combat? And that lacking training in these aspects constitutes a hole in your game?

No groundfighting doesn't constitue a hole in VT because VT is only stand-up striking.

A hole in a stand-up striking method would be something like lacking long-range, which is an essential part of stand-up striking.

VT is whole for stand-up striking.
BJJ is whole for groundfighting.

Putting them together doesn't contradict anything because they opperate under very distinct circumstances without interference, and one is not filling a hole in the other.

 

[Phobius]

No groundfighting doesn't constitue a hole in VT because VT is only stand-up striking.

A hole in a stand-up striking method would be something like lacking long-range, which is an essential part of stand-up striking.

VT is whole for stand-up striking.
BJJ is whole for groundfighting.

Putting them together doesn't contradict anything because they opperate under very distinct circumstances without interference, and one is not filling a hole in the other.

It is besides the point but I think people are more questioning the stand-up grappling versus stand up VT, same as on ground fighting versus on ground grappling. Although the later I think is non existent in VT. WT has some versions of it that are questionable not because they are out of this place but because no matter how right they would be if people dont know ground game they will never be able to pressure test it and as such use it in any real life situation.

 

[geezer]

WT has some versions of it that are questionable not because they are out of this place but because no matter how right they would be if people don't know ground game they will never be able to pressure test it and as such use it in any real life situation.

I find your comments a bit confusing. Why can't you pressure test WT "anti-grappling". I have. Unfortunately, the results were, for the most part disappointing when put up against good grappling.

...or is that your point, in which case we agree. BTW, the authors of that anti-grappling program, the EWTO is now brining in legit grapplers to offer a ground-fighting program. That sounds like a good move to me.

@LFJ: Your definition of what is a "complete" system strikes me as highly subjective. You say WSL-VT is a complete stand-up striking system, and that it includes both long and short range strategies. It is complete or incomplete only as you define it. And that's fine by me as long as you recognize what you are doing.

 

[Phobius]

I find your comments a bit confusing. Why can't you pressure test WT "anti-grappling". I have. Unfortunately, the results were, for the most part disappointing when put up against good grappling.

...or is that your point, in which case we agree. BTW, the authors of that anti-grappling program, the EWTO is now brining in legit grapplers to offer a ground-fighting program. That sounds like a good move to me.

@LFJ: Your definition of what is a "complete" system strikes me as highly subjective. You say WSL-VT is a complete stand-up striking system, and that it includes both long and short range strategies. It is complete or incomplete only as you define it. And that's fine by me as long as you recognize what you are doing.

Not saying the program is bad. Saying the flaw lies in first having to teach grappling in order to train the students correctly.

It is not good enough that masters can it.

In order to teach grappling it is better to teach something like BJJ. In that case you already get a ground game in that.

For WC to invent wight distribution and balance in new and old takedowns as well as grappling positions on ground it becomes a big program in itself.

Once more not saying it won't work but I personally found it better to study BJJ right away.

Edit: terrible reading comprehension on my part. I think we were agreeing on what I tried to say.

 

[anerlich]

I actually learned the kick to the leading leg / stand up in base Gracie JJ defence first from a Kung Fu guy in the late 1970s. Also from my current instructor in late 1980s.

The aim of what groundfighting there is in most KF systems is to keep the opponent away and create enough space to stand up again without getting hammered. And maybe get a few shots in from down there if the other guy does something stupid.Not to take them down or beat them on the ground.

There are KF systems with more extensive ground games, but they are rarer than hens' teeth.