Wing Chun Boxing

[LFJ]

It is a pity VT is not a system that can evolve though. So is the WT variant more flexable in concept. Possibly more suited to collaboration with other systems?

Who says it can't evolve? Probably has done quite a bit in its development.
We don't have long enough recorded history of it to tell. It is open-ended, though.

But, if two species can't interbreed, does that mean neither of them will evolve?

 

[drop bear]

Who says it can't evolve? Probably has done quite a bit in its development.
We don't have long enough recorded history of it to tell. It is open-ended, though.

But, if two species can't interbreed, does that mean neither of them will evolve?

Oh it was just your comment about how damaging an external influence is to VTs stucture. That you could not take advantage of boxing concepts.

Where WC seems to be able to. Obviously WC would seem to be the more evolved system.

 

[KPM]

You are being confrontational and expect me to hand-feed you?



.

I'm not expecting you to "hand-feed" anyone. I'm simply expecting you to contribute to this thread in a positive way. I've been asking you to share your viewpoint and knowledge of WSLVT's approach openly and explicitly on THIS thread. Why is that so hard for you?

 

[LFJ]

Oh it was just your comment about how damaging an external influence is to VTs stucture. That you could not take advantage of boxing concepts.

That means they are incompatible, not that VT can't evolve.

Where WC seems to be able to. Obviously WC would seem to be the more evolved system.

Because incomplete WC doesn't have an overall approach to fighting that can be contradicted.

Gap-filling is not what I would call evolving, but if you like it, okay. Non-functional WC would obviously be better off gaining a real fighting strategy no matter where it comes from.

 

[Martial D]

I'm not expecting you to "hand-feed" anyone. I'm simply expecting you to contribute to this thread in a positive way. I've been asking you to share your viewpoint and knowledge of WSLVT's approach openly and explicitly on THIS thread. Why is that so hard for you?

I too am curious about these VT solutions at long range. Afaik they are all just ways to not be at long range for long or at all.

 

[Juany118]

It is a pity VT is not a system that can evolve though. So is the WT variant more flexable in concept. Possibly more suited to collaboration with other systems?

It can though. Gary Lam and David Petersen both teach VT. Both are said to be different than WSLVT to varying degrees by those who study via Philipp Bayer. The issue is this not one of an inability of the system to evolve but of people choosing to say it is perfect and thus there is no need.

As for other forms TWC can. There are a number of things from Kali that Sifu Keith Mazza has brought in via his association with my Sifu and Sifu Keith "cleared" it with GM Cheung. The most obvious examples are the "elbow shield", for round strikes to the head and the like, and a modified pak sau that, instead of being forwarding energy aimed in the area of the elbow, is a slap/strike to the area of the wrist to address an "oh crap" moment when someone is attacking with a weapon. The only thing that is required is that it doesn't violate core concepts such as centerline theory and body structure.

 

[Nobody Important]

Clearly there were changes but I don't see how those changes are related to the issue proposed here. The power generation is not related to modern WB, the footwork is substantially different as well. I think that rather than adding elements of WB to WC WSL more likely used the fighting experience he had from both to make his VT different.

The post really wasn't about changes. I was just having fun poking the bear. TBH, I don't see WSLVT or any other branch of Wing Chun as an efficient and effective all around boxing method, others may feel differently. Personal experience and video evidence have offered no proof as of yet to the contrary.

Wing Chun is a specialty method half way between boxing and grappling. It lives in the twain, it is an art about bridging. Until a bridge is created, the art is all but useless IMO. Often trying to force this connection or attempting to manipulate the opponent to bridging range leads to disaster for Wing Chun people. It ends up failing because it wasn't designed as a stand alone method of all around fighting, it was designed to address the issues of the clinch. As such it lacks grappling skill beyond the clinch and boxing skill beyond the clinch. To ignore this and assume all areas are covered is, IMO, naive.

For those that would argue that Wing Chun requires an effective strategy to achieve clinch from long range, so therefore has one, I say where is the proof? That thinking is based on the premise that the art is a boxing method, not a bridging one. No strategy is required on your part for someone attempting or succeeding in grabbing you, it should happen organically. To intentionally try and set someone up to do so is going to lead to disaster.

The goal of any violent encounter is to win and walk away. The idea is to keep the attacker at bay or draw them in close in order to subdue them, there are essentially two empty hand ways this can be achieved striking or grappling. Both methods require effective control of the clinch in order for you to maintain the range and method you are most competent in.

Wing Chun is a specialty method that deals directly with the issues of the clinch as its own area separate from striking or grappling, it is a twain state. It is neither a boxing or grappling method, it contains specialized elements of each based on bridging at clinch range to allow you to control the inside line that dictates whether grappling or striking methods are going to be used, or are necessary, to subdue your opponent. It's a method, from my perspective, that requires secondary skill in boxing, grappling or both to be truly effective.

 

[LFJ]

I'm not expecting you to "hand-feed" anyone. I'm simply expecting you to contribute to this thread in a positive way. I've been asking you to share your viewpoint and knowledge of WSLVT's approach openly and explicitly on THIS thread. Why is that so hard for you?

You want me to reword a long and detailed post for you here instead of just linking to one that has already been done. That is asking me to hand-feed you again.

Why didn't you rewrite the article you linked to earlier? Who clicks on links anymore these days?

If you aren't genuinely interested, as I can tell you are not by your refusal to follow the link and read, don't expect me to just feed you anything you ask for.

 

[Juany118]

The post really wasn't about changes. I was just having fun poking the bear. TBH, I don't see WSLVT or any other branch of Wing Chun as an efficient and effective all around boxing method, others may feel differently. Personal experience and video evidence have offered no proof as of yet to the contrary.

Wing Chun is a specialty method half way between boxing and grappling. It lives in the twain, it is an art about bridging. Until a bridge is created, the art is all but useless IMO. Often trying to force this connection or attempting to manipulate the opponent to bridging range leads to disaster for Wing Chun people. It ends up failing because it wasn't designed as a stand alone method of all around fighting, it was designed to address the issues of the clinch. As such it lacks grappling skill beyond the clinch and boxing skill beyond the clinch. To ignore this and assume all areas are covered is, IMO, naive.

For those that would argue that Wing Chun requires an effective strategy to achieve clinch from long range, so therefore has one, I say where is the proof? That thinking is based on the premise that the art is a boxing method, not a bridging one. No strategy is required on your part for someone attempting or succeeding in grabbing you, it should happen organically. To intentionally try and set someone up to do so is going to lead to disaster.

The goal of any violent encounter is to win and walk away. The idea is to keep the attacker at bay or draw them in close in order to subdue them, there are essentially two empty hand ways this can be achieved striking or grappling. Both methods require effective control of the clinch in order for you to maintain the range and method you are most competent in.

Wing Chun is a specialty method that deals directly with the issues of the clinch as its own area separate from striking or grappling, it is a twain state. It is neither a boxing or grappling method, it contains specialized elements of each based on bridging at clinch range to allow you to control the inside line that dictates whether grappling or striking methods are going to be used, or are necessary, to subdue your opponent. It's a method, from my perspective, that requires secondary skill in boxing, grappling or both to be truly effective.

I think what you describe here is one of the reasons TWC is clearly different in many respects. It has what, from my Judo and Aikido experience, I would call "intermediate" level grappling and also is more "flexible" than other arts in terms of the "ideal" punching range. We still want to get to the ultimate goal of being in close enough for trapping, but it's not to the extent of "you MUST" be there the way other Lineages look at it.

 

[LFJ]

The post really wasn't about changes. I was just having fun poking the bear. TBH, I don't see WSLVT or any other branch of Wing Chun as an efficient and effective all around boxing method, others may feel differently. Personal experience and video evidence have offered no proof as of yet to the contrary.

Wing Chun is a specialty method half way between boxing and grappling. It lives in the twain, it is an art about bridging. Until a bridge is created, the art is all but useless IMO. Often trying to force this connection or attempting to manipulate the opponent to bridging range leads to disaster for Wing Chun people. It ends up failing because it wasn't designed as a stand alone method of all around fighting, it was designed to address the issues of the clinch. As such it lacks grappling skill beyond the clinch and boxing skill beyond the clinch. To ignore this and assume all areas are covered is, IMO, naive.

For those that would argue that Wing Chun requires an effective strategy to achieve clinch from long range, so therefore has one, I say where is the proof? That thinking is based on the premise that the art is a boxing method, not a bridging one. No strategy is required on your part for someone attempting or succeeding in grabbing you, it should happen organically. To intentionally try and set someone up to do so is going to lead to disaster.

The goal of any violent encounter is to win and walk away. The idea is to keep the attacker at bay or draw them in close in order to subdue them, there are essentially two empty hand ways this can be achieved striking or grappling. Both methods require effective control of the clinch in order for you to maintain the range and method you are most competent in.

Wing Chun is a specialty method that deals directly with the issues of the clinch as its own area separate from striking or grappling, it is a twain state. It is neither a boxing or grappling method, it contains specialized elements of each based on bridging at clinch range to allow you to control the inside line that dictates whether grappling or striking methods are going to be used, or are necessary, to subdue your opponent. It's a method, from my perspective, that requires secondary skill in boxing, grappling or both to be truly effective.

If KPM didn't see you as an ally most of the time, he'd be demanding you use your YCW WC initials instead of saying "Wing Chun" is this or that.

 

[KPM]

You want me to reword a long and detailed post for you here instead of just linking to one that has already been done. That is asking me to hand-feed you again.


---Ok. Fair enough. So where are the videos of WSLVT guys sparring and working a "long range game"? Where is your explanation of how the "long range game" in WSLVT is found in the dummy?

 

[KPM]

If KPM didn't see you as an ally most of the time, he'd be demanding you use your YCW WC initials instead of saying "Wing Chun" is this or that.

No. Dave's comments were pretty generic and pretty accurate. He said...Wing Chun is a specialty method half way between boxing and grappling. It lives in the twain, it is an art about bridging. I find that to be a pretty good assessment of all Wing Chun I've been exposed to. It wasn't a comment unique to YCW WCK.

 

[LFJ]

No. Dave's comments were pretty generic and pretty accurate. He said...Wing Chun is a specialty method half way between boxing and grappling. It lives in the twain, it is an art about bridging. I find that to be a pretty good assessment of all Wing Chun I've been exposed to. It wasn't a comment unique to YCW WCK.

It doesn't describe YMVT, unless the deficient kind that looks to mainland and elsewhere to fill gaps.

 

[Nobody Important]

If KPM didn't see you as an ally most of the time, he'd be demanding you use your YCW WC initials instead of saying "Wing Chun" is this or that.

Maybe, I don't mind doing so if others are so opposed to my thoughts on the art as a whole.

 

[LFJ]

Maybe, I don't mind doing so if others are so opposed to my thoughts on the art as a whole.

I'm not opposed to your thoughts. But, there is no "Wing Chun" art as a whole that includes everything that uses that name. What you describe and what I do, for instance, are different enough to be separate martial arts. If either of us make general statements about "the art as a whole", the other is probably going to object.

 

[Nobody Important]

I'm not opposed to your thoughts. But, there is no "Wing Chun" art as a whole that includes everything that uses that name. What you describe and what I do, for instance, are different enough to be separate martial arts. If either of us make general statements about "the art as a whole", the other is probably going to object.

True, this is why I often ask you if you are speaking about WSLVT specifically or Wing Chun collectively when a point is in question, otherwise we argue needlessly. From one perspective it can make sense, from another it can be conflicting. I know at times I speak in general terms when I should be speaking specifically about YCWWC, and this is because I don't feel there is one correct method of Wing Chun. I realize my views aren't shared by all and I need to be more disciplined in this aspect, as do others IMO.

 

[KPM]

It doesn't describe YMVT, unless the deficient kind that looks to mainland and elsewhere to fill gaps.

Which "deficient kind" are you referring to? Everything other than WSLVT??

 

[LFJ]

True, this is why I often ask you if you are speaking about WSLVT specifically or Wing Chun collectively when a point is in question, otherwise we argue needlessly.

I'm never talking about non-YM lineages, because I don't know enough and don't have a particular interest there.

I'm always talking about YMVT, as that is what I'm familiar with, and I believe it is supposed to be one system. I don't buy the idea that one man taught dozens of contradictory interpretations of the same system. So I say VT.

 

[Nobody Important]

I'm never talking about non-YM lineages, because I don't know enough and don't have a particular interest there.

I'm always talking about YMVT, as that is what I'm familiar with, and I believe it is supposed to be one system. I don't buy the idea that one man taught dozens of contradictory interpretations of the same system. So I say VT.

I understand your point, but others have a good argument that Yip Man did teach slightly different versions of the art throughout his lifetime. That being said, I do not practice YMWC so therefore cannot comment on the validity of this claim. I can only compare what is said to my experience and understanding of "Wing Chun" through a YCW perspective, which admittedly, is of a vastly different viewpoint than that of the main stream "Wing Chun" community.

 

[KPM]

^^^^^ Absolutely Ip Man taught things differently throughout his career. Anyone that says otherwise is delusional. What he taught in his younger years in Foshan is different from what he taught when he moved to Hong Kong, which is different from what he taught after years in Hong Kong.