In WC how do you compete with boxers hopping footwork?

[Vash]

Originally posted by EmptyCup
Practioners before tended to be less well rounded in the ranges.

You base this on what?

May also have been much smaller in stature.

Could've been. This'd've necessitated an art or ability allowing for survival against the bigger attacker, right?

[Tak]

> Honestly there is a reason why non martial artists laugh at traditional martial artists.

Sure, it's because they don't understand. Non martial artists also tend to laugh when they see two spandex-clad wrestlers going at it (and also wrestling).


> Well there are alot of world records in the 1989 world record
> books that have long since been surpassed in the 2003 ones.

OK, but sticking the most paperclips up your nose isn't really relevant to this conversation, is it?


> The newer martial arts and the practioners are getting better and better.
> Systems need to change to improve.
I agree. The traditional systems are evolving and improving as well. However, this doesn't mean that you revamp an entire system every time it has to be applied to a new situation. The first thing to do is to experiment and see how the existing system can be applied.

Those thousand of years old systems were created by ppl who never were exposed to all the arts that are out there for us to compare with today. Some were not much exposed to kicks. Others to grappling. Still others to boxing combinations.

Really. So, 1000 years ago, people didn't grab each other? They hadn't figured out that they could strike with the legs? They didn't string techniques together, they just performed one and stopped?

A complete chinese martial art (some would say any martial art) contains striking, kicking, throwing, and grappling.

Grappling is the oldest of the arts, not the newest. Shuai Chiao has been around longer than many (possibly all) traditional kung fu styles. Eagle claw methods also teach grappling, and how to use grappling in combination with striking. Finally, traditional martial arts are all about combinations! Forms are nothing but long sets of combinations. If you're referring to combination training in the sense of a boxer drilling a single, short combination (jab, jab, hook) for hours on end, this is more applicable to training methodology than system content. One could focus on drilling only the Tan Tui sets, for example, and thus become very proficient with a practical set of fighting combinations. (Tan Tui king?) You don't get any grappling that way, but neither does the boxer.


> Practioners before tended to be less well rounded in the ranges.
This applies to nearly everyone. Very few fighters are range-neutral, in the same way that very few of us are truly hand/side neutral.

> The practioners from newer arts attempt to speak with action.
"Newer arts" also include JKD, Shaolin-do, and modern wushu.


> Traditionalists talk alot.
Actually, some of the most vocal parties right now seem to tend to be members of the brazilian jiujitsu camp. No offense intended, just an observation from someone who's new to this particular forum.

> Can somebody please point me to a good WC fight clip?
Nope, sorry. What I would have liked to have seen was the supposed legendary hand-crossing between Dong Hai Chuan and "the Divine Crushing Fist."

Oh and as for the NHB debate yeah every single kung fu guy who ever competed just didn't know his stuff well enough, all the MMA/MuayThai/Grappling guys just happened to be the best, and the rules prevented the dreaded finger jab so wing chun couldnt' be used to it's full potential

My sifu often says, (paraphrase) "Someone with 3 months of training in shuai chiao can usually defeat someone who has trained kung fu for a year. However, this is not the case anymore at three years."

Additionally, every martial artist trains toward a target. If you train specifically to participate in a specific kind of tournament, then you will have an advantage in that tournament, and possibly a disadvantage in other kinds. For example, grapplers might have a rough time in a tournament that forbids throws or attacking the supporting leg - similarly, a tae kwon do practitioner would likely be in trouble in a (hands-only) boxing match.

Often, grapplers like to tout the applicability of their arts in "real world" situations. If "real world" means getting your opponent one-on-one in a steel cage, then they may be justified in making such statements. On the other hand, taking a fight to the ground in a crowded bar or public street can often result in the receipt of a barstool/pool cue/any handy impromptu weapon to the head.

I'm sorta a devil's advocate sometimes but everything I said above have been (quite persuasive) arguments against wing chunners and traditional martial artists for some time by others.

Intelligent discussion good, unsupported flames bad.

[Tak]

Satan withdraws.

[Vyvial]

If you guys learned "wing chun" that can't even deal with boxers or grapplers of similar skill level, then I'm sorry for you. Find a new school or try to forget what you think you know, because most of you just didn't get it. Train realistically, trust in the system, and test yourself every chance you get... take the wing chun and make it your own, then it will work at all levels, even in competition.

[saifa5k]

Originally posted by anerlich


So, "don't use Wing Chun against a Wing Chunner"? What do you do then if that's all you know?

Hi Andrew,

How about "better wing chun"?
Dave C

[old jong]

What is the use of practicing something if you don't trust it as good?...

[saifa5k]

Originally posted by old jong
What is the use of practicing something if you don't trust it as good?...

LOL, good point! I think that if something thinks boxing is superior as a means of self defense then perhaps thats what they should do. Personally I have a lot of respect for the sport of boxing but for the street I will place my faith in wing chun.
Dave C

[anerlich]

First this, which is fine:

WC training must allow for open endedness, any weakness found needs to be corrected.

Then this:

If you guys learned "wing chun" that can't even deal with boxers or grapplers of similar skill level, then I'm sorry for you. Find a new school or try to forget what you think you know, because most of you just didn't get it.

Not all of us feel we have to be standard bearers for a particular system as it goes into battle against all other styles. That IMO is best left for the plots of HK cinema.

Any exponent of WC can learn from exposure to other arts and their training methodologies. Looking at what you do from a different viewpoint can enhance your understanding thereof. That's my definition of "open endedness". It also helps greatly to find and correct weaknesses IMO.

I continue to train WC alongside boxing and BJJ. I like all these arts and don't see why I should give any of them up because they don't fit somebody else's idea of martial arts political correctness. I don't care for the implication that I'm some form of traitor to some sort of cause. If what I do makes you angry (as it apparently does judging from the second quote above), that's your problem, not mine.

Since we all seem to enjoy quotes, here's another: "Flexibility of mind and body is the hallmark of a good martial artist."

Dave, better WC is OK ... I just keep hearing that quote over and over and find it simplistic and, as pointed out, logically inconsistent.

[saifa5k]

Originally posted by anerlich
First this, which is fine:


Dave, better WC is OK ... I just keep hearing that quote over and over and find it simplistic and, as pointed out, logically inconsistent.

Hi Andrew,
I think cross training is great for a lot of reasons, one of them being its nice to know what your opponent is capable of doing. However I have mixed feelings about the idea that you cant defeat an opponent that is fighting the same style that you are. Not saying thats what you implied but I am hearing that thought from some. Personally I think there is all kinds of wing chun out there ranging from the mediocre to the very good and I just dont buy the argument that my wing chun wont work against anothers wing chun. Lastly at this stage of my life I simply prefer to polish my art of wing chun as I feel that for me its the most street effective art.
Dave c

[anerlich]

Dave,

Fine by me. One of my instructors often says, "there is an ultimate martial art for eveyone. But that art may be different, for you, for me, for him, for her".

The same goes with training methods and the like. Problems arise when someone starts demanding that theirs is the one true path and those who feel differently are fools (some may be, but not necessarily because they disagree). Fanaticism and fundamentalism are not the way I want to live.

[Temujinn]

I studied WC before training with a group of individuals in CQC and JKD, I got an oppertunity to spar with a Boxxer/wrestler.
First my WC is basic(rusty now) then at least it was fresh.
Our teacher enjoyed watching the boxxer become frustrated because he speed up the cadence of combat, and I would move slower and slower, and simply maintain my Center(basics) a snap to the throat everytime he neared to jab(a good wingchun jab is always faster then a boxxers jab, less ditance to travel) and he was driven back, I could neutralise my fellow student at will, because he had no center.
This is just my amertuerish experience though.

[old jong]

Originally posted by anerlich
Problems arise when someone starts demanding that theirs is the one true path and those who feel differently are fools (some may be, but not necessarily because they disagree). Fanaticism and fundamentalism are not the way I want to live.

I don't think I saw anybody posting about Wing Chun being the "only true way or path,bla bla bla" for a long time here.

[saifa5k]

Originally posted by anerlich
[
The same goes with training methods and the like. Problems arise when someone starts demanding that theirs is the one true path and those who feel differently are fools (some may be, but not necessarily because they disagree). Fanaticism and fundamentalism are not the way I want to live. [/B]

Andrew,
I agree completely. FWIW one area that I would like to incorporate into my wing chun is the study of authentic Chin-Na. I know a lot of folks that cross train in Ju Jitsu or Akido to learn lock flow drills and throwing and thats fine. However I think Chin-Na would be a better complement to wing chun. Which ever style of locking and throwing though, that a person chooses to use I think complements wing chun well, since it is such a close range art. I know some will say that locking and throwing are already in Chi-Sau and that may well be.
Take care,
Dave

[Tak]

FWIW one area that I would like to incorporate into my wing chun is the study of authentic Chin-Na. I know a lot of folks that cross train in Ju Jitsu or Akido to learn lock flow drills and throwing and thats fine. However I think Chin-Na would be a better complement to wing chun.

I study northern styles, but Qin Na makes a good complement in my case because it incorporates many of the techniques, stances, and principles with which I'm already familiar, whereas something like Aikido will begin from a relatively different perspective. This is why I also advocate Shuai Jiao for chinese martial artists rather than Judo, because it tends to integrate more seamlessly into existing skillsets.

[yuanfen]

FWIW- I havent had to leave the wing chun circle to learn
qinna applications.