Training

[LFJ]

You concede that it has limitations (grappling, both ground & upright) yet state that there is nothing a VT fighter needs to adapt for fighting, unlike boxing.

VT is a standup striking method that in fact needs no adaptation for free fighting.
Adding something like BJJ for grappling would not change anything about the VT.

For starters, prior to the use of mufflers and the Queensbury rules, boxing did have "Wrassling, hurling, gouging and purring", which made it fairly complete and competent in all ranges of fighting, it wasn't always relegated to sport competition. You two have stated that VT never contained grappling or throwing, yet view it as more complete than boxing, where's the proof?

I never said VT is more complete, only more directly suited to free fighting.
Obviously, if we're talking about boxing with fewer ring rules, this may change somewhat.

All I see out of the VT camp is Chi Sau videos.

Other things have been posted.

Now you two have stated time and again that Chi Sau is not a method of fighting, that is is just a drill and that no applications are being used when performing it. Yet it is still constantly used to validate any claims you make.

Is it? I have not used chi-sau to validate any claim I've made.

Your views on VT are that it is a system of striking, a system of striking that hasn't been proven to be more effective than sport boxing on any platform, in fact just the opposite.

Just the opposite, based on what data?

The "Systematic" approach that you say VT has and boxing lacks is a baseless claim.

Or you have not understood the statement.

I have yet to see anything resembling what you call VT prove itself to be superior in any manner (technique wise, strategy wise, theory wise, or power generation wise) than any martial art, sport or street based.

Don't think anyone made that claim, but have you even looked? Ever had any direct experience with VT?

When the best evidence to your claims is a non-functional drilling exercise called Chi Sau, an exercise you claim not to be a method of fighting, where then is the real evidence that VT is systematically and theoretically more sound than anything, let alone boxing.

Chi-sau has never been presented as evidence of anything. And again, this claim has not been made.

Boxing is time tested and has proven itself again and again. It is because of its limited techniques and a strong strategy and theory that it is able to be made realistic and effective on a world stage. Can VT make the same claim?

Well, for one, the number of VT practitioners in the world is extremely insignificant comparing to boxing.
It is even a very small number in the greater Wing Chun world. And it is not made for sporting competition, so not to be expected.

The way you and LFJ describe VT relegates it to little more than boxing IMO, argue that point if you like but it is moot.

VT is Chinese street boxing. So?

Your VT contains no grappling, you describe it as a method of striking which uses Chi Sau as a platform to develop the punch. It hasn't proven itself to be more effective than boxing despite this Chi Sau.

Hasn't proven itself to whom? You and others who have no experience with it? Not my problem. Not VT's problem.

Boxing doesn't need Chi Sau to work, why does VT?

They function very differently.

Seems to me that VT and boxing have much in common theoretically and strategically, with one exception, boxing has been proven to actually work.

VT has been proven to work. It has proven to work for me. I frankly don't care if you believe it or not.

Chi Sau is a method of hand chasing, try to argue that point.

Depends on who does it and how.

Its a method of defense that is either reactionary in nature or used offensively to impede an attack, either way it is focusing on the opponents limbs prior to attack.

There are no opponents in chi-sau and it's not a method of attack or defense. This statement is nonsensical.

This is why VT fails in real time under heavy pressure.

Evidence of this? None, of course.

It has not always been my experience, or that of other VT practitioners I know, so our own hands have proven this false to us, and again, I don't care if you believe it. I don't particularly care to convince anyone. I don't personally train to make VT famous or please anyone else.

If your method is a method of striking why not develop and focus on drills that move the body away from an incoming attack and strike the target? It seems to me that boxing actually employs the strategies of simplicity, directness, & efficiency way better than VT in this aspect.

Moving away is not direct. Why not focus on such drills? Because VT functions differently.

I find it silly that a method of striking uses a complicated method of Patty Cake as a platform to develop actual striking, but feel free to argue its usefulness in that aspect.

I would suggest you experience it and have it explained to you in person. You cannot accurately assess something you don't understand and have not experienced.

Chi Sau has way more to do with grappling than it does striking, and are contradictory methodologies.

You are not describing VT chi-sau.

VT has not proven itself on any platform to be a superior methodology to any martial art, let alone to a "Sport" like boxing. Until you can prove otherwise, you can keep your Kool Aid.

No one is making that claim or selling anything. If not interested, don't worry about it.