What can a boxer gain from WC?

[geezer]

In your opinion, which one is more closer to the WC basic punch training?

I don't know. Which is more like a squirrel?

1. Peanut butter

2. Roller skates

 

[geezer]

Neither of the videos represent the rotation we do....

Correct answer. Better than my #1 choice above, peanut butter.

 

[Martial D]

In Pin Sun Wing Chun the level one material has a set call "Dai Bong" or "big wing." This includes do a full 180 degree pivot while swinging the arms wide and upward

I was also taught this, but in the context of turning to face an attacker behind you. The wide swing you describe with a sinking motion into center guard at completion.

I actually still do that drill lol.

 

[TMA17]

I like Sifu Fernandez. He was a bouncer for many years so he’s had a lot of real world experience.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

In many discussion, people may say that "My style also have ...". When you dig into all the forms that system have, you can't find it. People may say, "It's not in the form, it doesn't mean it's not there." If something is so important in your style, why the forms creator did not include it?

One day a Taiji guy even said that his Taiji system had

- TKD "flying side kick",
- MT "flying knee",
- Judo "hip throw",
- wrestling "single leg".
- ...

Is that possible? I don't think so.

Forms do not necessarily contain all there is. I am a form creator for my curriculum, and have purposely not put everything into the forms - they are mostly for helping new students train the first basic techniques. So, if you ask why something important wasn't put in by the form creator, the answer simply may be, "It didn't fit the purpose of that form."

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I can assure you no boxing was added. What happened is that each generation went out and fought, and the result is what it is. The Wing Chun mechanic and system is maintained. When you have a choy lee fut guy swinging his arm at your head in a beimo fight, you learn to duck.

Dan, remind me which line of WC you study, please.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Jujitsu has escapes and stand ups. By the way.

Yes, but I think we can agree with the point of his post, which I believe is that BJJ doesn't have a focus on escape, but on using the grappling as an offensive weapon, while WC's focus (as stated) is on escape. So, a BJJ person will escape from a bad situation (and in SD, that might be the full intent), but is likely to turn that escape into a grappling attack, like a sweep into an arm bar.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I wish. Not sure with how those help in terms of fighting though.

Well, the added reach would certainly help, Dan.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Can this statement apply to all MA systems?

I think so.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

There really isn't THAT big a difference between a cage fight and a street fight, the fundamentals are basically the same. Yes, a cage fight has rules and a street fight doesn't, but if your fundamentals are good the added elements of eye pokes and groin kicks(the two main things disallowed in a cage) should work for you and not against you.

The rest boils down to an awareness of your surroundings that good training should cultivate anyhow.

The biggest difference between a cage fight and a self-defense situation is that your opponent is known to be skilled (probably similar to you), he knows you will fight back, and he knows you are skilled (probably similar to him, and probably knows your style). That changes quite a lot.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Indeed. If the word Wing Chun wasn't in the titles nobody would recognise any of that(aside from moments of the third video) as Wing Chun. More like amateur kickboxing.

I have a theory that we tend to recognize most styles by their defensive approach. And their most typical defensive approach is for defense against their own style. So, if you want to see something that looks like classical WC, you have to see it where that defensive approach (the one for defending against other WC) is also valid. Boxing defenses were designed to defend against boxing, so when facing a boxer, it's best to adopt some of those defenses, regardless of your own style.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

If I said that something is in my MA system, I can put up a clip to prove it. Is that the most honest way for online discussion?

I think the issue becomes this: just because I can do a technique on video, does that mean it's part of what I say it's part of? And the corollary: just because I can't do a technique on video, does that mean it's NOT part of what I say it's part of?

In other words, does my ability to do the technique become the measure of whether it's in the system?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

It's totally wrong to have to wait until the 2nd form to learn how to use the body.

That's an absolute position, and will be hard to defend.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

In the long fist system, before I train any form, I do all the stretching, kicking drills, and punching drills.

One of the punching drills (usually 60 rep) that I do is:

1. Face north.
2. Stand both feet with shoulder width with fists on both sides of the waist.
3. Drop down to low horse stance.
4. Straight both legs (power from ground and up), turn body to the west (power from back to front), and punch out right fist. The right arm, right shoulder, chest, and back shoulder are all in one perfect straight line (this give the maximum reach).
5. Repeat 3, 4 for the other side.

Sorry, I couldn't read this without hearing this in my head:

 

[Danny T]

I was told any slipping or bobbing is not WC as it is not moving forward . Some degree of movement away from forms practice is of course required for real fighting but goal is to use least amount of energy and jam them up. ??

My sifu, Francis Fong, tells give an account of having been on the receiving end of several punches in a fight. When his sifu, Jiu Wan, asked what happen to his eye Fong explained what happen during the fight. Jiu Wan says something along the lines of "next time move your head". Fong said, "but we don't move the head in the forms or in the drills we practice."
Jiu Wan retorts, "Forms and drills are not fighting. If you are unable prevent the attack from striking you; move. To just stand there is a fool. Next time move your head."

 

[Flying Crane]

Forms do not necessarily contain all there is. I am a form creator for my curriculum, and have purposely not put everything into the forms - they are mostly for helping new students train the first basic techniques. So, if you ask why something important wasn't put in by the form creator, the answer simply may be, "It didn't fit the purpose of that form."

And, there are simply too many techniques and possibilities to codify everything into one or a body of many forms.

 

[Martial D]

The biggest difference between a cage fight and a self-defense situation is that your opponent is known to be skilled (probably similar to you), he knows you will fight back, and he knows you are skilled (probably similar to him, and probably knows your style). That changes quite a lot.

Well that really only reenforces my point. If you are prepared for a skilled opponent that is familiar with your skillset, you will be better prepared for an unskilled that does not.

By the same token if your style only works on unskilled opponents that aren't prepared, it might be time for some upgrades!

 

[Martial D]

I have a theory that we tend to recognize most styles by their defensive approach. And their most typical defensive approach is for defense against their own style. So, if you want to see something that looks like classical WC, you have to see it where that defensive approach (the one for defending against other WC) is also valid. Boxing defenses were designed to defend against boxing, so when facing a boxer, it's best to adopt some of those defenses, regardless of your own style.

Unless the style is boxing, BJJ, karate, Mui Thai or a number of others that are plainly recognisable in attack. To what style does your theory apply?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Well that really only reenforces my point. If you are prepared for a skilled opponent that is familiar with your skillset, you will be better prepared for an unskilled that does not.

By the same token if your style only works on unskilled opponents that aren't prepared, it might be time for some upgrades!

Untrained people (even people simply unfamiliar with what you know) act differently than trained people. They aren't just sloppier, they take different approaches. Training to battle skilled people is not IMO the fastest method to train for defending against unskilled people. In the long run, it's probably at least as effective. It takes a long time and more fitness to prepare for a skilled opponent. I can prepare someone for an unskilled one in stages much more readily.

As to your last point, I agree entirely. Once some basic competence is had, training should include the ability to handle someone with some skill. After a point, that often comes down to individual pursuit, in order to encompass multiple types of opponents.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Unless the style is boxing, BJJ, karate, Mui Thai or a number of others that are plainly recognisable in attack. To what style does your theory apply?

I'm not sure I understand the question. It applies to my own style, for one. If I'm facing someone trained in NGA, I defend against NGA, so I will be compact and relatively upright, in a basic fighting stance. I can use similar defenses against Shotokan Karatedo (our original striking base), and can afford to give up some of the compactness, since grappling is less likely. If I'm facing a Judoka, my movement drops dramatically and I play lower and more square. Against a boxer, I'll use a stance and movement more similar to a boxer's movement. Against WC, part of my focus would be to deny them centerline (which is what I expect WC person would do to them).

Each of those are closer to the movement developed to defend against those styles. Obviously, it's more nuanced than that - I have tools I'll use that those styles wouldn't so my defense won't look precisely like theirs.