218358 Bullies, 4786 online  
  • Register
Our Sponsors:

Results 1 to 10 of 14
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Sponsored Links Spacer Image
  1. Artis Ferox is offline

    Featherweight

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    97

    Posted On:
    7/27/2009 1:47am

    Bullshido Newbie
     Style: Muay Thai, MMA

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!

    Technical Problems in Wing Chun: My take

    My very first foray into the martial arts was Wing Chun, taught in a not so traditional style (incorporation of boxing punches, however keeping the Wing Chun footwork, strangely enough).

    Now I am aware that the merits of WC have been already debated on Bullshido, but I have not yet come across the following insights of my own, forgive me if I am wrong.

    I did 18 months hard WC training before experimenting with a few other styles, including a friend teaching me Muay Thai basics.

    One of the first things I noticed was the footwork. As my friend pointed out, and it became clearer to me over time, WC footwork (and martial arts footwork in general) is so pre-occupied with "correct balance" and "keeping even weight distribution", that it sacrifices agility, natural movement and power of systems such as boxing, kickboxing and Muay Thai.

    I would like to note that at this stage that my only understanding of the differences between these 3 striking systems are: boxing punches, kickboxing punches and kicks, Muay Thai punches, kicks, elbows and knees. I have no idea about any differences in footwork between them. All systems appear not to block strikes coming in, rather move out of the way and counter attack, or simply absorb them.

    So to my first point. WC footwork, aiming to quickly bridge the gap between you and your opponent, fails against b, kb and mt. Say I wanted to deliver a thigh kick to my opponent in WC, I would leave my lead foot planted on the ground and swivel it (all the while the friction of my foot on the ground working against the speed of my swivel), then execute the kick. In KB or MT however, I would simply hop my lead foot off the ground while swivelling my hips, landing nearer my opponent and landing a devastating thigh kick, hopping being faster than stepping. So KB and MT wins on both speed and power. Using WC, the friction of my foot constantly on the ground is acting against my speed and power, KB and MT this is no longer a problem, the one simple hop acting to bridge the gap between me and my opponent.

    Speaking of power, b, kb, and mt appear to make full use of the hips and legs when striking for maximum power, WC (not only picking on WC here, likely karate as well), seem to make some subtle hip motions to drive power into the strikes, but nowhere nearly to the same degree.

    I myself can't seem to comprehend why anyone would bother teaching or using WC or TMA footwork at all. Especially in schools that teach KB and WC side by side.

    Another problem is how WC (and other styles) teach you that when executing a front kick off the rear leg, to always land with the kicking leg now your lead leg, effectively changing your stance so that your rear leg before the kick is now your lead leg. My first MMA class the other day taught me to execute the front kick off the rear leg and then retract it to where it was, at the rear. The reason for this is that if planting the rear leg in front, it can get grabbed in a single leg takedown in an MMA environment. Makes sense. I found myself even using a small hop while angling my lead foot from angled slightly inward to outwards, and delivering a fast and powerful front kick. I suppose a WCer might be better off if he missed his opponent with the kick, and was going to land with that leg in front, he would maintain better balance, but I'm not sure. Perhaps it is a case of training the "MMA front kick" until balance is no longer much of an issue.

    Now for vertical "chain punches" vs boxing punches. We can all see that boxing punches are more powerful and have more weight behind them, but WC punches can be delivered one after the other very quickly. Here's another observation: WC works on the premise that a punch should ideally cover the shortest distance to its target. The issue here is that WC punches from a proper WC guard are delivered from lower than head level, about chest level. Boxing punches such as jabs and crosses appear to be delivered from near the jaw/facial region generally. So a WC punch has to travel diagonally forwards and upwards to the opponent's face. A boxing punch goes straighter (my jaw to his jaw - straight line if we're the same height and are in the same stance). A WC guard at head level wouldn't really work, as your rear hand would be right in front of your own nose.

    Speaking of balance and effective striking, watch any amount of UFC and you'll quickly see strikers doing this: punching while basically leaning forwards and running at their opponent to catch the poor devil with more punches. See Harold Howards knock down of Roland Payne in UFC 3 (the lean forward into the strike), or Vitor Belfort's punishing of Wanderlei Silva at UFC Ultimate Brazil (running at him with multiple boxing punches). Last time I checked leaning forward or running at your opponent weren't staple WC or TMA practices (even though they plainly seem to work if you catch your opponent at the right time).

    Now the final thing is how WC and in all likelihood a few other martial arts appear to teach to fight only or preferably from the "blindside", or 45 degree angle from the centreline of your opponent. I would imagine most current and past WCers can testify as to how tricky (read, nearly impossible) to pull off in sparring. It takes less energy to neutralise this blindside advantage than it takes to create it. Creating it means stepping around and into your opponent, neutralising it means simply angling your body so that your centreline is always facing them. Probably the only way this move can work is defensively rather than offensively. As in, opponent comes in swinging, you block and counter strike while stepping offline. Their forward movement means you don't need to step forward much at all, only sideways. This was never explained to us in class however.

    I can't think of much else for now but that's enough to start this thread off at least. I guess the only real advantage of WC over b, kb and mt is keeping the arms up in front of you defensively and trapping or blocking attacks before they gain enough momentum to do real damage, rather than boxers, etc covering up and getting hit with the full force of the punch (ie, no middle ground, either you're not in the way of the attack or you are and you get smashed).

    Oh, one other thing, leg checking/kicking/kneeing kicks coming at the midsection or legs sure beats dropping hands to fend off kicks with a gum sao/garn sao.

    So, are the blocking/trapping arms really all WC has to offer, and are those ring styles all that much more effective for the reason descrobed above?
  2. wingchunx2z is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    751

    Posted On:
    7/27/2009 7:05am


     Style: Wing Chun

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Artis Ferox View Post
    My very first foray into the martial arts was Wing Chun, taught in a not so traditional style (incorporation of boxing punches, however keeping the Wing Chun footwork, strangely enough).

    Now I am aware that the merits of WC have been already debated on Bullshido, but I have not yet come across the following insights of my own, forgive me if I am wrong.

    I did 18 months hard WC training before experimenting with a few other styles, including a friend teaching me Muay Thai basics.

    One of the first things I noticed was the footwork. As my friend pointed out, and it became clearer to me over time, WC footwork (and martial arts footwork in general) is so pre-occupied with "correct balance" and "keeping even weight distribution", that it sacrifices agility, natural movement and power of systems such as boxing, kickboxing and Muay Thai.

    I would like to note that at this stage that my only understanding of the differences between these 3 striking systems are: boxing punches, kickboxing punches and kicks, Muay Thai punches, kicks, elbows and knees. I have no idea about any differences in footwork between them. All systems appear not to block strikes coming in, rather move out of the way and counter attack, or simply absorb them.

    So to my first point. WC footwork, aiming to quickly bridge the gap between you and your opponent, fails against b, kb and mt. Say I wanted to deliver a thigh kick to my opponent in WC, I would leave my lead foot planted on the ground and swivel it (all the while the friction of my foot on the ground working against the speed of my swivel), then execute the kick. In KB or MT however, I would simply hop my lead foot off the ground while swivelling my hips, landing nearer my opponent and landing a devastating thigh kick, hopping being faster than stepping. So KB and MT wins on both speed and power. Using WC, the friction of my foot constantly on the ground is acting against my speed and power, KB and MT this is no longer a problem, the one simple hop acting to bridge the gap between me and my opponent.

    Speaking of power, b, kb, and mt appear to make full use of the hips and legs when striking for maximum power, WC (not only picking on WC here, likely karate as well), seem to make some subtle hip motions to drive power into the strikes, but nowhere nearly to the same degree.

    I myself can't seem to comprehend why anyone would bother teaching or using WC or TMA footwork at all. Especially in schools that teach KB and WC side by side.

    Another problem is how WC (and other styles) teach you that when executing a front kick off the rear leg, to always land with the kicking leg now your lead leg, effectively changing your stance so that your rear leg before the kick is now your lead leg. My first MMA class the other day taught me to execute the front kick off the rear leg and then retract it to where it was, at the rear. The reason for this is that if planting the rear leg in front, it can get grabbed in a single leg takedown in an MMA environment. Makes sense. I found myself even using a small hop while angling my lead foot from angled slightly inward to outwards, and delivering a fast and powerful front kick. I suppose a WCer might be better off if he missed his opponent with the kick, and was going to land with that leg in front, he would maintain better balance, but I'm not sure. Perhaps it is a case of training the "MMA front kick" until balance is no longer much of an issue.

    Now for vertical "chain punches" vs boxing punches. We can all see that boxing punches are more powerful and have more weight behind them, but WC punches can be delivered one after the other very quickly. Here's another observation: WC works on the premise that a punch should ideally cover the shortest distance to its target. The issue here is that WC punches from a proper WC guard are delivered from lower than head level, about chest level. Boxing punches such as jabs and crosses appear to be delivered from near the jaw/facial region generally. So a WC punch has to travel diagonally forwards and upwards to the opponent's face. A boxing punch goes straighter (my jaw to his jaw - straight line if we're the same height and are in the same stance). A WC guard at head level wouldn't really work, as your rear hand would be right in front of your own nose.

    Speaking of balance and effective striking, watch any amount of UFC and you'll quickly see strikers doing this: punching while basically leaning forwards and running at their opponent to catch the poor devil with more punches. See Harold Howards knock down of Roland Payne in UFC 3 (the lean forward into the strike), or Vitor Belfort's punishing of Wanderlei Silva at UFC Ultimate Brazil (running at him with multiple boxing punches). Last time I checked leaning forward or running at your opponent weren't staple WC or TMA practices (even though they plainly seem to work if you catch your opponent at the right time).

    Now the final thing is how WC and in all likelihood a few other martial arts appear to teach to fight only or preferably from the "blindside", or 45 degree angle from the centreline of your opponent. I would imagine most current and past WCers can testify as to how tricky (read, nearly impossible) to pull off in sparring. It takes less energy to neutralise this blindside advantage than it takes to create it. Creating it means stepping around and into your opponent, neutralising it means simply angling your body so that your centreline is always facing them. Probably the only way this move can work is defensively rather than offensively. As in, opponent comes in swinging, you block and counter strike while stepping offline. Their forward movement means you don't need to step forward much at all, only sideways. This was never explained to us in class however.

    I can't think of much else for now but that's enough to start this thread off at least. I guess the only real advantage of WC over b, kb and mt is keeping the arms up in front of you defensively and trapping or blocking attacks before they gain enough momentum to do real damage, rather than boxers, etc covering up and getting hit with the full force of the punch (ie, no middle ground, either you're not in the way of the attack or you are and you get smashed).

    Oh, one other thing, leg checking/kicking/kneeing kicks coming at the midsection or legs sure beats dropping hands to fend off kicks with a gum sao/garn sao.

    So, are the blocking/trapping arms really all WC has to offer, and are those ring styles all that much more effective for the reason descrobed above?
    Interesting view point. Thanks for sharing. There are a few misconceptions in the post though. the first is the no planted foot leg kciks. I was taught to keep my foot planted and pivot on it and to step out an angle when doing leg kicks both are correct depedning on what situation you're in. both were taught by muay thai fighters. Sifu has never said thai style roundhouse leg kicks were a part of wing chun. He's used them very rarely but always said they were not from wing chun and only in homage to the thai culture and because he knows that I'm crosstraining as well.

    The second question I'd have is you seeem to have had an experience with a hybrid wing chun who took boxing and tried to fill the holes in wing chun up with mixtures. The standard wing chun principles we all adhere to would then be tainted so it's difficult to equate your experince to what we're all training. If you learned boxing from a wing chun insructor who was only decent at boxing you're getting a watered down boxing mixed with watred down chun isntead of good either.

    As for your comments regarding the chun footwork I cant really make an accurate coment on that. Everyone says that wing chun is so immobile and fixed in their footwork but I'e learned differntly. The only thing that boxing and mt have on chun footwork to me is the ability to circle. Wing chun doesnt circle siunce it's a linear and angular style but we can travel in at various angles, retreat, and advance all with effective footwork. But again wihtout knowing what your school taught I can't really comment on that.

    The punching comparison is nice becasue it's objective. I'm glad it's open to both sides although ultimately decidding that boxing is faster since the level of attack is straight and not diagnal is a very interesting concept. I had never thought of that. Regardless, chainpunching as with most of our handstrikes requires you to understand the benefit of uncommited attacks and mid range power strikes. without this understanding you only have the sacrifices you make for them and not the benefits.

    The final thing you mentioned was checking and how wing chun taught you to gum sao kicks. To me that is an absurd concept. Trying to pak or gum a lowline kick is likely goign to injurre your own hand IF it actually blocks the kick At all. Wing Chun highly advocates the use of the legs to to stop low line attacks. Perhaps in your system you did nto have what is called chi gerk (sticking legs) This is our form of checking a kick but it goes a little more in deopth than the standard thai style check drop and return fire method.

    In any case thanks for the post and I hope you can continue to share your insights regarding your expereinces and what you have learned from them.
  3. Kovacs is offline
    Kovacs's Avatar

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Kent - UK
    Posts
    1,539

    Posted On:
    7/27/2009 7:16am


     Style: Kettles (MA hiatus).

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    I scanned the post and generally I agree with all of it Artis, I trained WC and then WT for a fair few years and after trying Muay Thai on a whim I never looked back. I don't think WC/WT etc are totally useless but for every good idea there's a dozen bad ones. As a convert I highly recommend you bin it for something else.
  4. Sang is offline
    Sang's Avatar

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    2,253

    Posted On:
    7/27/2009 7:24am


     Style: MMA, Yoga

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    I can appreciate that you feel betrayed about your previous Wing Chun training but you are doing what most chunners do, over-thinking and analyzing topics without a solid basic understanding of the topic. Most of the references you made to "boxing,kb,mt" were flat out wrong.

    Keep training hard in a martial art that trains in an alive manner, stop thinking.
  5. Rato is offline

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3

    Posted On:
    7/27/2009 8:15am

    Bullshido Newbie
     Style: Boxing

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Artis Ferox View Post
    I can't think of much else for now but that's enough to start this thread off at least. I guess the only real advantage of WC over b, kb and mt is keeping the arms up in front of you defensively and trapping or blocking attacks before they gain enough momentum to do real damage, rather than boxers, etc covering up and getting hit with the full force of the punch (ie, no middle ground, either you're not in the way of the attack or you are and you get smashed).
    this is not true either boxing defence is a lot more complex than you give it credit for. There is slipping, parrying, catching and many different types of guards and covers to name but i few you not simply cover up and get your face caved in. if you wanna see example go on you tube and type 'boxing defense' in.
  6. Artis Ferox is offline

    Featherweight

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    97

    Posted On:
    7/27/2009 9:55am

    Bullshido Newbie
     Style: Muay Thai, MMA

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Many thanks for your insights, wingchunx2z:

    I was taught to keep my foot planted and pivot on it and to step out an angle when doing leg kicks both are correct depedning on what situation you're in. both were taught by muay thai fighters.

    Interesting there's a use for the planted and non planted kick, I don't doubt this. My issue is more that how WC was taught to us it was so rigid that you would never unplant your foot for any reason. Again, my point being that this slows down the critical "bridge the gap between you and your opponent" stage of the fight, giving you control of the fight and not your opponent, an aim WC does strive to achieve (I'm just not sure about the tools it uses to achieve it).

    The second question I'd have is you seeem to have had an experience with a hybrid wing chun who took boxing and tried to fill the holes in wing chun up with mixtures. The standard wing chun principles we all adhere to would then be tainted so it's difficult to equate your experince to what we're all training. If you learned boxing from a wing chun insructor who was only decent at boxing you're getting a watered down boxing mixed with watred down chun isntead of good either.

    Partly correct, we were taught WC principles for everything we did, but with the inclusion of boxing jabs, crosses, hooks, uppercuts and body rips. We also did round kicks and I have no idea whether they were added from kickboxing or whether they also form part of the traditional WC curriculum.
    When we started, it was more traditional, but as the months passed, we progressed from a static WC guard to a "floating guard", where the hands are nearer the head, and always moving around in little circles. Incidentally, they also brought in Filipino stick and knife techniques and BJJ into the school, they also taught KB separately. They also dropped WC in the title at some point and just used the name "The Combat Centre". It was the Hung Suen (Red Boat) lineage, with Si-Bak Rick Spain in Sydney as the Si-Bak of my Si-Fu, up here north of the border ;)

    The issue I still have is that the bottom half of us was geared toward throwing linear chain punches (keeping WC footwork), while the top half of us was throwing crosses and hooks which would have had more power behind them not to mention fluidity if only we could have used boxing footwork and body positioning.

    The only thing that boxing and mt have on chun footwork to me is the ability to circle. Wing chun doesnt circle siunce it's a linear and angular style but we can travel in at various angles, retreat, and advance all with effective footwork.

    I guess what sums the footwork argument for me is: whats faster and more effective, stepping while sweeping the rear leg forward WC style or hopping in MT and KB style. MT/KB are unarguably faster, the argument goes by the TMA is that they lack proper balance/too reckless an approach for the traditionalists to be comfortable with. Put it this way, just to go back to that Belfort vs Silva fight (and probably countless others, but as I watched the tape of it last night its still stuck in my head), if Belfort only trained WC, there's no way he could have capitalised on (or maybe even landed for all I know) that first punch that was the beginning for the end for Silva. His rear leg is planted a fair way behind him while leaning in, he catches Silva with two straights, then follows through with more straights as he runs forward, on the balls of his feet, stance almost totally front on and torso leaning forward till his opponent is backed against the octagon wall, downed, and big John stops the match. This approach would be completely alien to a WC practioner, but guess what, it worked with great effect against a trained and able fighter. By golly, watching that alone is nearly enough to make me ditch half the WC I learned.

    Trying to pak or gum a lowline kick is likely goign to injurre your own hand IF it actually blocks the kick At all. Wing Chun highly advocates the use of the legs to to stop low line attacks. Perhaps in your system you did nto have what is called chi gerk (sticking legs)

    Yes it is bizarre but we were taught this. Low round and front (and possibly middle height round) kicks, we were taught to use simply a gum sao or a combination of gum sao and garn sao together in a sweeping motion - we also stepped in and this removed some of the kicks momentum. I believe that for head kicks we had some sort of tan sao and pac sao combination, can't quite remember now (this was many years ago). We were never taught any Chi Gerk and I never saw it used by anyone in the school ever, even at gold belt gradings.

    As a convert I highly recommend you bin it for something else.

    Nearly completely in agreement there Kovacs. It wasn't wasted time though, it gave me a pretty good base to work with, and great physical conditioning. As street self defense against someone not very well trained and who can't grapple I'd say it would work solidly on its own merits.

    I can appreciate that you feel betrayed about your previous Wing Chun training but you are doing what most chunners do, over-thinking and analyzing topics without a solid basic understanding of the topic. Most of the references you made to "boxing,kb,mt" were flat out wrong.

    Sang, I can't say I feel betrayed - they genuinely believed in what they were doing and teaching, it was up to me to do my own research on the matter. Interesting how your discipline is Muay Thai and yet you appear to be sticking up for Wing Chun.Not to sound cocky, but I do believe my post demonstrated I have a fairly good basic understanding of the topic, however I agree that my experience with b, kb and mt is limited. Any insights or corrections of my ignorance would be appreciated. Without some evidence I can only take flat out refutations of my arguments with a pinch of salt.

    Keep training hard in a martial art that trains in an alive manner, stop thinking.

    I will certainly keep up my alive training, but for stopping thinking, that's like saying stop your pulse. I'm not trying to excuse myself out of training in a complex and hard to grasp martial art through over analysis, I just wish to train in a style that yields the most efficiency of movement, fluidity, speed and power from the human body. The absence of any real WC (to my knowledge) from the mixed martial arts appears to me a solid refutation enough of its merits. If it was that wonderful, someone would surely use it.

    Evil Salvolou, read it or not, respond or not, I don't care. Sometimes posts are long - they need to be to get a complex point across, got to by years of sweat, experimentation and analysis of the martial arts. Internet forums are already full to the brim with brief, poor attempts at communication, I don't feel the need to add to that. I looked up the urban dictionary for "nutrider", and I get the gist of what you're trying to say. I would have thought my post exposed me as nothing like a nutrider. The concept of a nutrider is an "irrational" admiration for something (BJJ looks so cool so it beats everything else, blah blah blah). What I'm doing here is clearly rationalising, and kind Mr Sang even pointed it out to me that if anything, I am OVER rationalising.

    this is not true either boxing defence is a lot more complex than you give it credit for. There is slipping, parrying, catching and many different types of guards and covers to name but i few you not simply cover up and get your face caved in. if you wanna see example go on you tube and type 'boxing defense' in.

    Thanks Rato, I'll likely learn more about that in my MMA classes.

    Again, thanks to all who bothered to contribute something.
  7. Evil Solvalou is offline

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    880

    Posted On:
    7/27/2009 10:03am


     Style: None

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Artis Ferox View Post
    Evil Salvolou, read it or not, respond or not, I don't care. Sometimes posts are long - they need to be to get a complex point across, got to by years of sweat, experimentation and analysis of the martial arts. Internet forums are already full to the brim with brief, poor attempts at communication, I don't feel the need to add to that. I looked up the urban dictionary for "nutrider", and I get the gist of what you're trying to say. I would have thought my post exposed me as nothing like a nutrider. The concept of a nutrider is an "irrational" admiration for something (BJJ looks so cool so it beats everything else, blah blah blah). What I'm doing here is clearly rationalising, and kind Mr Sang even pointed it out to me that if anything, I am OVER rationalising.
    The [/nutriding] tag implies that I was the one nutriding boxing, as in that is the end of my nutriding in that post in the same way that [/quote] is the end of a quote. Since you're new I'll forgive you this time, but next time I'll send the ninjas after you, and you don't want that. :ninjafigh
  8. Sang is offline
    Sang's Avatar

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    2,253

    Posted On:
    7/27/2009 10:11am


     Style: MMA, Yoga

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Artis Ferox View Post

    Sang, I can't say I feel betrayed - they genuinely believed in what they were doing and teaching, it was up to me to do my own research on the matter. Interesting how your discipline is Muay Thai and yet you appear to be sticking up for Wing Chun.Not to sound cocky, but I do believe my post demonstrated I have a fairly good basic understanding of the topic, however I agree that my experience with b, kb and mt is limited. Any insights or corrections of my ignorance would be appreciated. Without some evidence I can only take flat out refutations of my arguments with a pinch of salt.
    I would like to note that at this stage that my only understanding of the differences between these 3 striking systems are: boxing punches, kickboxing punches and kicks, Muay Thai punches, kicks, elbows and knees. I have no idea about any differences in footwork between them. All systems appear not to block strikes coming in, rather move out of the way and counter attack, or simply absorb them.
    After stating you know absolutely nothing about MT, boxing or kickboxing you then devote a chapter of a novel to comparing wing chun to these techniques. See now why i think you are analyzing a topic you know little about?

    Please don't make me re-read that monster post to point out all the incorrect comments you make about boxing, mt or kickboxing. The very first comment you make about none of these styles blocking strikes is so far off base that there is really no need to. Also...kickboxing has knees.
  9. wingchunx2z is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    751

    Posted On:
    7/27/2009 10:20am


     Style: Wing Chun

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Artis Ferox View Post
    Many thanks for your insights, wingchunx2z:

    I was taught to keep my foot planted and pivot on it and to step out an angle when doing leg kicks both are correct depedning on what situation you're in. both were taught by muay thai fighters.

    Interesting there's a use for the planted and non planted kick, I don't doubt this. My issue is more that how WC was taught to us it was so rigid that you would never unplant your foot for any reason. Again, my point being that this slows down the critical "bridge the gap between you and your opponent" stage of the fight, giving you control of the fight and not your opponent, an aim WC does strive to achieve (I'm just not sure about the tools it uses to achieve it).

    The second question I'd have is you seeem to have had an experience with a hybrid wing chun who took boxing and tried to fill the holes in wing chun up with mixtures. The standard wing chun principles we all adhere to would then be tainted so it's difficult to equate your experince to what we're all training. If you learned boxing from a wing chun insructor who was only decent at boxing you're getting a watered down boxing mixed with watred down chun isntead of good either.

    Partly correct, we were taught WC principles for everything we did, but with the inclusion of boxing jabs, crosses, hooks, uppercuts and body rips. We also did round kicks and I have no idea whether they were added from kickboxing or whether they also form part of the traditional WC curriculum.
    When we started, it was more traditional, but as the months passed, we progressed from a static WC guard to a "floating guard", where the hands are nearer the head, and always moving around in little circles. Incidentally, they also brought in Filipino stick and knife techniques and BJJ into the school, they also taught KB separately. They also dropped WC in the title at some point and just used the name "The Combat Centre". It was the Hung Suen (Red Boat) lineage, with Si-Bak Rick Spain in Sydney as the Si-Bak of my Si-Fu, up here north of the border ;)

    The issue I still have is that the bottom half of us was geared toward throwing linear chain punches (keeping WC footwork), while the top half of us was throwing crosses and hooks which would have had more power behind them not to mention fluidity if only we could have used boxing footwork and body positioning.

    The only thing that boxing and mt have on chun footwork to me is the ability to circle. Wing chun doesnt circle siunce it's a linear and angular style but we can travel in at various angles, retreat, and advance all with effective footwork.

    I guess what sums the footwork argument for me is: whats faster and more effective, stepping while sweeping the rear leg forward WC style or hopping in MT and KB style. MT/KB are unarguably faster, the argument goes by the TMA is that they lack proper balance/too reckless an approach for the traditionalists to be comfortable with. Put it this way, just to go back to that Belfort vs Silva fight (and probably countless others, but as I watched the tape of it last night its still stuck in my head), if Belfort only trained WC, there's no way he could have capitalised on (or maybe even landed for all I know) that first punch that was the beginning for the end for Silva. His rear leg is planted a fair way behind him while leaning in, he catches Silva with two straights, then follows through with more straights as he runs forward, on the balls of his feet, stance almost totally front on and torso leaning forward till his opponent is backed against the octagon wall, downed, and big John stops the match. This approach would be completely alien to a WC practioner, but guess what, it worked with great effect against a trained and able fighter. By golly, watching that alone is nearly enough to make me ditch half the WC I learned.

    Trying to pak or gum a lowline kick is likely goign to injurre your own hand IF it actually blocks the kick At all. Wing Chun highly advocates the use of the legs to to stop low line attacks. Perhaps in your system you did nto have what is called chi gerk (sticking legs)

    Yes it is bizarre but we were taught this. Low round and front (and possibly middle height round) kicks, we were taught to use simply a gum sao or a combination of gum sao and garn sao together in a sweeping motion - we also stepped in and this removed some of the kicks momentum. I believe that for head kicks we had some sort of tan sao and pac sao combination, can't quite remember now (this was many years ago). We were never taught any Chi Gerk and I never saw it used by anyone in the school ever, even at gold belt gradings.
    Thanks for the response. Good to see another memeber ont eh site who can be civil and able to debate. Very interesting expereince, I'm learning mroe and more about some wing chun school's very strange way of thinkin and technique base. I really have been convinced by bullshido that wing chun's lack of quality control is a big problem. You can go to 3 diff wing chun schools all in teh usa and everyone will tell u that you're doing it wrong and have little to no semblance to the other.

    In any case, thank you for the response.
  10. It is Fake is offline
    It is Fake's Avatar

    Administrator

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    33,609

    Posted On:
    7/27/2009 10:42am

    staff
     Style: xingyi

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Okay this is a warning. This can be a productive discussion.

    Two things will now get your post moved.

    Comparison of styles. Not allowed.

    Discuss the merits of his post.

    A response of well My WT< WC,VT< Moy Yat, etc etc etc etc will be moved. Anything relating to that will be moved. Sorry, we have to many chun debates on here that begin or end with. "but my school or you are doing the wrong."

    Trolling.

    Yes, bitchslapper your posts are gone.

    Sarcasm is fine. Complaining about your treatment in other threads is not.

    Yes, it will be subjective.

    Fair warning guys.

    Missing posts here:
    I yaaaaah WC destroys...blah blah blah CMA cull. - No BS Martial Arts
    Last edited by It is Fake; 7/27/2009 10:48am at .
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Powered by vBulletin™© contact@vbulletin.com vBulletin Solutions, Inc. 2011 All rights reserved.