Fighting a boxer in Wing Chun

[LFJ]

I'm quite surprise to hear that

- to use your blocking arm (such as Tang Shou) to block your opponent's punch,
- re-direct his arm to be away from your attacking path,
- use his leading arm to jam his back arm (this is a very important MA strategy),
- you then attack him through his "side door",

are not part of the WC "bridge" strategy.

Well, look at your picture and tell me why that taan-sau is not simply a direct punch to the face rapidly followed by another from the right?

He's entering with the wrong leg, unnecessarily chasing an arm, and punching low when he could much more effectively finish the guy by just punching him in the face.

This is probably a commonly accepted WC technique, but it's bad, like most WC...

 

[guy b.]

If people would step away from chi-sau and face someone moving fast, unpredictably, and throwing a lightning quick barrage of attacks at them with full intent they would know these sticky arm, intent-sensing bridging theories don't work

Obviously they don't work. It doesn't even have to be a good fighter to see this: the average person is impossible to deal with using sticking arms, force sensing, and so on. This is why most CMA is so bad- too much time spent on drills, no time spent on fighting. Some CMA have sadly even forgotten what the point was in the first place. Few retain functional understanding, including wing chun.

 

[KPM]

Few people in fact know the free fighting aspect of VT. Fact is when WSL informed students that sparring was planned for the next class, most didn't turn up.

---Really? You were there???


Easy to see how they might think it's all about arm contact and control.

---Well, given that Chi Sau is emphasized so much in ALL versions of Wing Chun one would think that making contact with the opponent so that you can control him at close-range to avoid exchanging blows as much as possible is a central strategy in Wing Chun. This would suggest that the central strategy of Wing Chun is NOT to stand at arm's length and exchange blows like a boxer.

Actually, VT free fighting is very simple compared to the drills.

---Of course. If you see free fighting only as exchanging blows like a sparring match.....if you see all of the various things trained in the Wing Chun forms as only abstract ways to learn to punch....then yes, fighting would seem pretty simple. So why not just learn to box?

 

[Th0mas]

I am not sure if someone has raised this point ( don't have time to read the full thread), apologies if they have?

What is the point of the question.. Is it, can I adapt my WC to be better than a boxer in a boxing ring? Really? Boxing as a fighting art has been adapted and honed to maximise its effectiveness to meet the rule constraints of a boxing bout. As a WC exponent entering the ring to fight a boxer on his terms puts the WC guy at a massive disadvantage . Don't expect your WC techniques to be optimally effective.

The point is all about context. I am assuming ( not being a WC historian) that at the root of WC are strategies and principles for fighting in civilian self defence. If the question was " in a self defence situation, in a crowded bar, you find yourself facing someone with good boxing skills, what aspects of my WC training would be most effective?" Then the debate on this topic might be a little more focused.

As it is, the simple answer is that No WC is not very effective against a boxer if you are fighting on the boxers terms...

 

[Th0mas]

As an aside having good boxing experience is likely to mean your punching power, speed and accuracy are going to be good, if you get the opportunity to use them as you have trained. However, if you have ever watched pre-match fights at the press conference with world class boxers.. It very rapidly decends into a complete mess, and the fighters look no different from your average guy flailing around and falling over outside the pub...

 

[guy b.]

Few people in fact know the free fighting aspect of VT. Fact is when WSL informed students that sparring was planned for the next class, most didn't turn up.

---Really? You were there???

People I trust to tell me the truth were there. I assume the same for LFJ.

---Well, given that Chi Sau is emphasized so much in ALL versions of Wing Chun one would think that making contact with the opponent so that you can control him at close-range to avoid exchanging blows as much as possible is a central strategy in Wing Chun.

And one would be completely wrong if they drew this conclusion. Chi sau is an abstract drill allowing two people to correct body position, timing, responses and power for fighting. It is not fighting. This is a very common and pernicious misunderstanding of the VT system which renders it pretty much useless. You can't chi sau with someone who doesn't want to chi sau. Chi sau is not grappling- it is possible to leave chi sau at any time and anyone intent on hurting you will do this as soon as chi sau is attempted.

This would suggest that the central strategy of Wing Chun is NOT to stand at arm's length and exchange blows like a boxer.

Boxers don't just exchange dumb bombs, and neither does VT. It is a very sophisticated yet also simple, resilient, and effective approach to striking. It is very different to boxing. Effective like boxing, but in a different way.

Actually, VT free fighting is very simple compared to the drills.

---Of course. If you see free fighting only as exchanging blows like a sparring match.....if you see all of the various things trained in the Wing Chun forms as only abstract ways to learn to punch....then yes, fighting would seem pretty simple. So why not just learn to box?

VT is not about exchanging blows (neither is boxing). It is about hitting and not being hit. 90% of VT is learning to punch and to deliver the punch. The punch is the main weapon of VT. Learnig to box or learning MT is a good idea for anyone serious about fighting. In terms of VT it helps to be able to box in a functional way, both in terms of helping training partners and for understanding the reality of fighting. Fighting against a person who can box reveals what can and what cannot work quite well.

 

[KPM]

People I trust to tell me the truth were there. I assume the same for LFJ.

---But you make such definitive pronouncements like you were actually there. Memories tend to fade, shift, or get different emphasis over time...especially second or third hand memories.



And one would be completely wrong if they drew this conclusion. Chi sau is an abstract drill

---Everything is WSLVT is "abstract" I guess!!!


This is a very common and pernicious misunderstanding of the VT system which renders it pretty much useless. You can't chi sau with someone who doesn't want to chi sau. Chi sau is not grappling- it is possible to leave chi sau at any time and anyone intent on hurting you will do this as soon as chi sau is attempted.


---Yeah, right. Go tell Alan Orr his Wing Chun is useless. Chi Sau is about control. It is about gaining and maintaining control over the opponent upon any kind of extended contact in an effort to ensure that you can strike him without him being able to defend well or return good strikes of his own.



Boxers don't just exchange dumb bombs, and neither does VT. It is a very sophisticated yet also simple, resilient, and effective approach to striking. It is very different to boxing. Effective like boxing, but in a different way.

---I never said anything about "dumb bombs." But most definitely boxing, and most sparring in general, is about exchanging blows. Boxing may use footwork to avoid the blow, or may "cover" to defend against the blow, but it is certainly about throwing punches back and forth and hoping that yours lands more often and with more effect than the opponent's! Most sparring, including Wing Chun guys sparring, is the same way. Contrast this to BJJ guys sparring when the intent is to take the opponent to the ground, control him, and make him tap out or go unconscious.



It is about hitting and not being hit. 90% of VT is learning to punch and to deliver the punch. The punch is the main weapon of VT.

---Then how can you say its not about exchanging blows? Because exchanging blows doesn't mean you just stand there and let the other guy hit you at random. Exchanging blows means you are trying to punch the opponent and he is trying to punch you!


. In terms of VT it helps to be able to box in a functional way, both in terms of helping training partners and for understanding the reality of fighting.

---Then I will ask again.....why don't you just learn boxing? Why are you doing all of this "abstract" training? Why not just get in there and box? Boxers are formidable in that sparring situation. They punch and defend very well. So if that is your goal, why are you spending all of your time training WSLVT forms....doing the dummy form....doing Chi Sau.....learning the pole???? Why not just learn boxing? That is a heck of a lot more efficient than what you are doing! In fact, you make your WSLVT sound like a very inefficient system if it is truly 90% about learning to punch! Boxing is MUCH more efficient!

 

[LFJ]

I really don't know what to tell you, KPM...

You've been involved in forum discussions on the WSLVT system for several years now and are still totally clueless about it. I would suggest going to check it out in person. What has taken years of explanation to get absolutely nowhere with you could be made crystal clear in person in a matter of minutes.

 

[wckf92]

VT is not about exchanging blows (neither is boxing). It is about hitting and not being hit.

Completely agree with this

 

[guy b.]

People I trust to tell me the truth were there. I assume the same for LFJ.

---But you make such definitive pronouncements like you were actually there. Memories tend to fade, shift, or get different emphasis over time...especially second or third hand memories.

The crystal clear understanding of the system and how it fits together that I have seen and heard is not indicative of memory problems. Neither are the photos and videos.

This is a very common and pernicious misunderstanding of the VT system which renders it pretty much useless. You can't chi sau with someone who doesn't want to chi sau. Chi sau is not grappling- it is possible to leave chi sau at any time and anyone intent on hurting you will do this as soon as chi sau is attempted.

---Yeah, right. Go tell Alan Orr his Wing Chun is useless. Chi Sau is about control. It is about gaining and maintaining control over the opponent upon any kind of extended contact in an effort to ensure that you can strike him without him being able to defend well or return good strikes of his own.

Alan Orr's group use chi sau as a kind of standing grappling from which they hit in video clips, but in application this is missing. The reason is because it impossible to stop someone leaving chi sau unless you are holding onto them (i.e. fully grappling). I guess this is why they do acually hold sometimes. If chi sau is about control then it is simply grappling, and there are much more effective menthods of standing grappling than chi sau.

Boxers don't just exchange dumb bombs, and neither does VT. It is a very sophisticated yet also simple, resilient, and effective approach to striking. It is very different to boxing. Effective like boxing, but in a different way

.

---I never said anything about "dumb bombs." But most definitely boxing, and most sparring in general, is about exchanging blows. Boxing may use footwork to avoid the blow, or may "cover" to defend against the blow, but it is certainly about throwing punches back and forth and hoping that yours lands more often and with more effect than the opponent's! Most sparring, including Wing Chun guys sparring, is the same way. Contrast this to BJJ guys sparring when the intent is to take the opponent to the ground, control him, and make him tap out or go unconscious.

Exchanging blows is a failure of either boxing or VT training, where the aim is hitting while making the opponent miss (boxing) or never hit (vt). The goal in both boxing and VT is for landed strikes to be a 1 way street.

There is no "hoping" in good boxing or VT. It is a strategic and systematic approach to increase the chance of success.

It is about hitting and not being hit. 90% of VT is learning to punch and to deliver the punch. The punch is the main weapon of VT.

---Then how can you say its not about exchanging blows? Because exchanging blows doesn't mean you just stand there and let the other guy hit you at random. Exchanging blows means you are trying to punch the opponent and he is trying to punch you!

Exchange entails tit for tat. This is not the VT strategy.

In terms of VT it helps to be able to box in a functional way, both in terms of helping training partners and for understanding the reality of fighting.

---Then I will ask again.....why don't you just learn boxing? Why are you doing all of this "abstract" training? Why not just get in there and box? Boxers are formidable in that sparring situation. They punch and defend very well. So if that is your goal, why are you spending all of your time training WSLVT forms....doing the dummy form....doing Chi Sau.....learning the pole???? Why not just learn boxing? That is a heck of a lot more efficient than what you are doing! In fact, you make your WSLVT sound like a very inefficient system if it is truly 90% about learning to punch! Boxing is MUCH more efficient!

The VT approach is different to the boxing approach. For me the VT approach is more suitable. All of the types of training you mention above are training the VT punch, so no wasted time or inefficiency. What is inefficient is training without understanding.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

VT is not about exchanging blows (neither is boxing). It is about hitting and not being hit.

You have 2 arms and your opponent also has 2 arms. So what's the best strategy to avoid being hitting?

 

[KPM]

If chi sau is about control then it is simply grappling, and there are much more effective menthods of standing grappling than chi sau.

---Interesting that you are willing to call Chi Sau "standing grappling" and say there are more effective methods, while at the same time being unwilling to call your Wing Chun a form of boxing (which is how you describe it) and not admit that there are more effective (at least more efficiently trained) methods.



Exchanging blows is a failure of either boxing or VT training, where the aim is hitting while making the opponent miss (boxing) or never hit (vt). The goal in both boxing and VT is for landed strikes to be a 1 way street.

---If you think you can participate in a "real fight" as a "1 way street" and not get hit, then you are living in the same fantasy world that you seem to think most Wing Chun people live in. Not a single boxer expects to go into the ring and not get hit at all. He may hope and plan to come out on top in the "exchange" and make it as one-sided as possible, but he knows there is going to be an exchange of blows.



Exchange entails tit for tat. This is not the VT strategy.

---No it doesn't. I already stated that the "exchange of blows" I'm talking about is an opponent trying to hit you, and you trying to hit the opponent. Two punching methods meeting in opposition is going to produce an "exchange of blows" probably 9 times out of 10.



The VT approach is different to the boxing approach. For me the VT approach is more suitable. All of the types of training you mention above are training the VT punch, so no wasted time or inefficiency. What is inefficient is training without understanding.

---I guess it depends on your definition of "efficiency." Anyone with a little common sense can examine what training a boxer does to get good at punching and compare it to the entire WSLVT syllabus, which you say is all about training to get good at punching, and reach the conclusion that what you are doing must not be all that efficient. Not if it takes learning all the forms, the dummy, and the pole method just to get good at punching. If I was concerned only with punching well, I would stick with boxing myself. More result in much less time!

 

[KPM]

You've been involved in forum discussions on the WSLVT system for several years now and are still totally clueless about it. I would suggest going to check it out in person. What has taken years of explanation to get absolutely nowhere with you could be made crystal clear in person in a matter of minutes.

Oh I'm not as "clueless" as you think. I just don't believe about half the BS that you and Guy put out.

 

[Flying Crane]

So...I guess it's safe to say that wing chun isn't your cup of tea?

Well, now that we've settled that, moving on.

 

[Phobius]

You have 2 arms and your opponent also has 2 arms. So what's the best strategy to avoid being hitting?

Movement in both body and feet, besides arms which you already covered.

 

[drop bear]

I am not sure if someone has raised this point ( don't have time to read the full thread), apologies if they have?

What is the point of the question.. Is it, can I adapt my WC to be better than a boxer in a boxing ring? Really? Boxing as a fighting art has been adapted and honed to maximise its effectiveness to meet the rule constraints of a boxing bout. As a WC exponent entering the ring to fight a boxer on his terms puts the WC guy at a massive disadvantage . Don't expect your WC techniques to be optimally effective.

The point is all about context. I am assuming ( not being a WC historian) that at the root of WC are strategies and principles for fighting in civilian self defence. If the question was " in a self defence situation, in a crowded bar, you find yourself facing someone with good boxing skills, what aspects of my WC training would be most effective?" Then the debate on this topic might be a little more focused.

As it is, the simple answer is that No WC is not very effective against a boxer if you are fighting on the boxers terms...

Especially if linage is more important than practicality.

Most boxers will jump outside the rule set in a street fight.

Apparently you cant if you chun.

 

[KPM]

So...I guess it's safe to say that wing chun isn't your cup of tea?

Well, now that we've settled that, moving on.

Not at all true! You obviously haven't been here long!

 

[guy b.]

You have 2 arms and your opponent also has 2 arms. So what's the best strategy to avoid being hitting?

Loi lau hoi sung, lat sau jik chung

Lin siu dai da

 

[guy b.]

If chi sau is about control then it is simply grappling, and there are much more effective menthods of standing grappling than chi sau.

---Interesting that you are willing to call Chi Sau "standing grappling" and say there are more effective methods, while at the same time being unwilling to call your Wing Chun a form of boxing (which is how you describe it) and not admit that there are more effective (at least more efficiently trained) methods.

You just described it as functionally identical to grappling. You want me to call VT boxing but it is functionally different to boxing.

Exchanging blows is a failure of either boxing or VT training, where the aim is hitting while making the opponent miss (boxing) or never hit (vt). The goal in both boxing and VT is for landed strikes to be a 1 way street.

---If you think you can participate in a "real fight" as a "1 way street" and not get hit, then you are living in the same fantasy world that you seem to think most Wing Chun people live in. Not a single boxer expects to go into the ring and not get hit at all. He may hope and plan to come out on top in the "exchange" and make it as one-sided as possible, but he knows there is going to be an exchange of blows.

If a high level professional boxer or MT fighter got into a striking match with the average person then it would indeed be a 1 way street most of the time. That the goal doesn't quite match the limitations of physical performance is not a criticism of the goal or the system- merely a recognition that humans are fallible. The goal in both boxing and VT is to avoid being hit.

Exchange entails tit for tat. This is not the VT strategy.

---No it doesn't. I already stated that the "exchange of blows" I'm talking about is an opponent trying to hit you, and you trying to hit the opponent. Two punching methods meeting in opposition is going to produce an "exchange of blows" probably 9 times out of 10.

Well then you are misusing the term "exchange". Exchange entails mutual giving and receiving. Maybe look up a better word for whatever you are tring to say.

The VT approach is different to the boxing approach. For me the VT approach is more suitable. All of the types of training you mention above are training the VT punch, so no wasted time or inefficiency. What is inefficient is training without understanding

.

---I guess it depends on your definition of "efficiency." Anyone with a little common sense can examine what training a boxer does to get good at punching and compare it to the entire WSLVT syllabus, which you say is all about training to get good at punching, and reach the conclusion that what you are doing must not be all that efficient. Not if it takes learning all the forms, the dummy, and the pole method just to get good at punching. If I was concerned only with punching well, I would stick with boxing myself. More result in much less time!

It doesn't depend on the definition of efficiency at all. The VT punch, VT strategy, VT concepts are different from boxing punches, strategy, concepts. Therefore it makes sense that they are trained in different ways. If you stuck with boxing over VT then you would be learning boxing rather than VT. Boxing punching is not VT punching.

 

[KPM]

If a high level professional boxer or MT fighter got into a striking match with the average person then it would indeed be a 1 way street most of the time. That the goal doesn't quite match the limitations of physical performance is not a criticism of the goal or the system- merely a recognition that humans are fallible. The goal in both boxing and VT is to avoid being hit.

---The last I checked, a high level professional boxer is not training to get into a striking match with the average person. Are you saying you are training to face the lowest common denominator in a fight and counting on your opponent being a scrub? Sounds like that fantasy world we talked about again!



Well then you are misusing the term "exchange". Exchange entails mutual giving and receiving. Maybe look up a better word for whatever you are tring to say.

---And you are just being obtuse. Maybe you should look that up!



It doesn't depend on the definition of efficiency at all. The VT punch, VT strategy, VT concepts are different from boxing punches, strategy, concepts. Therefore it makes sense that they are trained in different ways. If you stuck with boxing over VT then you would be learning boxing rather than VT. Boxing punching is not VT punching.

----And.......you missed the point entirely. But I'm not surprised. Let me spell it out again......if your goal is simply to learn to punch well and effectively in a fight or sparring match involving an EXCHANGE of blows....you hitting him and him trying to hit you (as in fighting someone who is NOT a scrub)....then training boxing is a far more efficient way to do that than spending many years learning the Wing Chun forms....the Wing Chun dummy....Wing Chun Chi Sau.... and the Wing Chun pole, and trying to understand all of the in-depth "abstract" teaching involved! And if WSLVT is a vastly superior way to punch effectively in a confrontation, then the typical WSLVT person should have no problem with a boxer, and we should start seeing some WSLVT show up in the boxing ring!