The Road to Wing Chun applied in Combat Sports

[TheMaster]

Why would you post this? I dont understand what your trying to say? Boxing failing? This video (for the most part) shows boxers getting knocked out by other boxers............so if anything, its showing boxing working. Obviously not for the guy that got knocked out

I asked for a video of WC working. You gave me a video of a guy fighting MMA who cross trains WC. Although it didnt look like WC, he does cross train and advocate it.........so Ill give you the "win" on that one.

It looked like application of WC principles and methods in a mixed combat sport with many elements just as if you saw someone cross trained in boxing in that type of fight where there was alot of grappling you wouldn't be saying "but it didn't look like boxing".
And the fight was won with powerful elbows which exist in wc, but not in boxing and also used close range sensitivity skills which his wingchun would have helped with.

The force direction is still linear but done through a chance in direction of the stance so that it appears superficially to be rotational. This contrasts with the boxig and muay thai engine that is purely rotational in nature. No matter what is the angle of punching in wc it is still linear in nature and not rotational

No, no no!
You are showing here basic misunderstanding which is key to why you keep making foolish statments about "it isn't WC unless the stance and vector is linear and static"

- If a centreline straight punch from the chest goes forward although the line of the punch is straight the arm is actually doing a forward and across motion I.e. if the fist went forward purely by the elbow raising without the arm also going across the fist would actually go across the body not along the centreline as it is a straight line from the shoulder.

-Therefore if one punches from the fist on the centre of the chest and shifts and turns 45 degrees as one punches, only then the line is actually trully straight from the shoulder as it extends.

- To shift and then punch is wrong and would be a two stage action.
One should punch and shift at the same time. This adds rotational force to the punch.

- Rotational force is also added in many other situations and techniques as when for example one absorbs force with a bong sau or tan sau and turns and then comes back to a front facing stance with a strike.

-Elbows obviously use rotational force as does the hook and many other applictions.

- WC uses not just linear but circular, rotational and many other lines of force and power generation. Static stance training helps isolate and maximize the ability to generate force without rotation using tendon power, but does not prevent the addition of rotational force which multiplies power.

- Even if one stays front facing and 'linear' there will always be some amount of small rotation in absorbing and redirecting energy as per a dynamic system not static fixed positions like you see in a book or kungfu movie choreography.

 

[shincheckin]

if you saw someone cross trained in boxing in that type of fight where there was alot of grappling you wouldn't be saying "but it didn't look like boxing".

I did see someone cross trained in that type of fight where there was a lot of grappling and it did look like boxing. not WC. I also saw standard ground and pound elbows. I thought WC was only telephone booth range and not on the ground. So I dont see how ground and pound is suddenly WC.


and your best attempt at showing boxing failing........is boxers knocking other boxers out.........I dont see how that is a "fail", please explain.

 

[TheMaster]

I did see someone cross trained in that type of fight where there was a lot of grappling and it did look like boxing. not WC. I also saw standard ground and pound elbows. I thought WC was only telephone booth range and not on the ground. So I dont see how ground and pound is suddenly WC.

Well guess what alot of the same striking power can be used on the ground also, gnp is often basically at near enough the 'telephone box range' or a bit closer or further even it depend on your positioning.

I think the main minsunderstanding is because WC is a principle based art.
It is trained WC vs WC, and most of the applications are 'examples' of these principles vs other southern CMA.

So if facing western boxing or other arts it will look different but that doesn't mean the principles are not being used. But the form of the techniques may vary.
For example if a WC guy came out favouring using the horizontal fist for straights rather than the vertical I am pretty sure you would call it 'boxing' because it wouldn't fit the stereotype of the system.
But actually it is perfectly compatible to punch like that using the WC 'engine'.

Same with punching at mid range rather than always trying to close if the opponent trys to maintain distance. It doesn't suddenly change all of your training of attributes and techniques and WC principles you just adjust it.
You wait for your chance to close distance or your adopt a parrying- counterpunch style at mid range, compatible with flat footed footwork.

Basically WC is an alternative to the boxing/MT combination and will bring a different path to a common goal in the sport of MMA.
It brings some differences in power generation and increased sensitivity for elbows , 'dirty boxing' and parrying which has some advantages but with all the cross training and convergence in MMA it is going to look similar to some of what we see already especially in-fighting type fighters.

For the 'traditional' WC that we see looking like they train in many schools or like in HongKong films it would have to be:

-WC vs WC or vs other southern CMA which mainly all operate at close quarters

-WC vs someone such as a boxer wanting to stand and willing to fight at close range or cornered into close range

- WC using true no restrictions including e.g spear hand and other attack vectors and targets

If not in any of the above conditions, and especially in MMA with cross training I would expect it tobe adapted look something like dirty boxing/MT and for close range power standing or on the ground. The sensitivity skills would carry over to grappling and clinch also.

Or as mentioned another side is the mid range parry counter version could be developed for BK, maybe in conjunction with elements of Letrit or similar.

 

[Sanserif]

It looked like application of WC principles and methods in a mixed combat sport with many elements just as if you saw someone cross trained in boxing in that type of fight where there was alot of grappling you wouldn't be saying "but it didn't look like boxing".
And the fight was won with powerful elbows which exist in wc, but not in boxing and also used close range sensitivity skills which his wingchun would have helped with.



No, no no!
You are showing here basic misunderstanding which is key to why you keep making foolish statments about "it isn't WC unless the stance and vector is linear and static"

- If a centreline straight punch from the chest goes forward although the line of the punch is straight the arm is actually doing a forward and across motion I.e. if the fist went forward purely by the elbow raising without the arm also going across the fist would actually go across the body not along the centreline as it is a straight line from the shoulder.

-Therefore if one punches from the fist on the centre of the chest and shifts and turns 45 degrees as one punches, only then the line is actually trully straight from the shoulder as it extends.

- To shift and then punch is wrong and would be a two stage action.
One should punch and shift at the same time. This adds rotational force to the punch.

- Rotational force is also added in many other situations and techniques as when for example one absorbs force with a bong sau or tan sau and turns and then comes back to a front facing stance with a strike.

-Elbows obviously use rotational force as does the hook and many other applictions.

- WC uses not just linear but circular, rotational and many other lines of force and power generation. Static stance training helps isolate and maximize the ability to generate force without rotation using tendon power, but does not prevent the addition of rotational force which multiplies power.

- Even if one stays front facing and 'linear' there will always be some amount of small rotation in absorbing and redirecting energy as per a dynamic system not static fixed positions like you see in a book or kungfu movie choreography.

The point I was making is that even with biu jee, it is actually the entire stance shifting that creates the apparent rotation - as opposed to the shoulder and hip rotation that powers the boxing punch. The wc stance shift is achieved with the entire body turning into the new stance position as one block before launching the punch or elbow in the new stance position and direction according to the same wc linear force projection method. The shoulders and hips do not turn independently of the entire body. The centrifugal force of the stance shift is thus added to the linearity of the force vector of the standard wc punch or elbow. However this does not convert the convert the engine for the wc strike fro linesr to rotational. You can see this demonstrated by ip ching...



On the other hand in boxing or muay thai the engine is always purely rotational in the shoulders and hips turning. The boxer or mak muay can also step into a new stance position off line and throw his punch or elbow with the usual boxing methodology in one continuous movement and so add the centrifugal force of the stance turn to his punch as well. Likewise this does not affect the rotational engine of the punch or elbow using boxing or muay thai striking methodology.

This is also why wc is not fully compatible with boxing or bare knuckle boxing or muay thai - not in the way those sports are very easily able to be fused in a fighting style because they employ the same striking engine.

 

[TheMaster]

The wc stance shift is achieved with the entire body turning into the new stance position as one block before launching the punch or elbow in the new stance position and direction according to the same wc linear force projection method.

Yes it is true the stance is trained shifting as one unit. But it is totally wrong to say the shift is done before the punch is thrown.
It is done simultaneously with the turn so rotational force is added to the linear force of the strike. If that is how you have been training not just punches but deflections with a shift that is a serious mistake in your training and understanding.

The boxer or mak muay can also step into a new stance position off line and throw his punch or elbow with the usual boxing methodology in one continuous movement and so add the centrifugal force of the stance turn to his punch as well. Likewise this does not affect the rotational engine of the punch or elbow using boxing or muay thai striking methodology.

And the same is true of WC although there are some differences with more focus on tendon power generation.

Also in the speed of real fighting if one turns one cannot always rotate the entire stance either, so the turn can easily be done at the waist from a stable stance still which means the power is rooted.
It does not significantly change anything.

If you notice with Ip Ching he is doing the form without even being in a stance as he has internalized the principles and force so less need for an obvious training stance.

Doing these things in practice is where you will actually be able to convert theory to application and will understand these concepts properly.

 

[Sanserif]

Yes it is true the stance is trained shifting as one unit. But it is totally wrong to say the shift is done before the punch is thrown.
It is done simultaneously with the turn so rotational force is added to the linear force of the strike. If that is how you have been training not just punches but deflections with a shift that is a serious mistake in your training and understanding.



And the same is true of WC although there are some differences with more focus on tendon power generation.

Also in the speed of real fighting if one turns one cannot always rotate the entire stance either, so the turn can easily be done at the waist from a stable stance still which means the power is rooted.
It does not significantly change anything.

If you notice with Ip Ching he is doing the form without even being in a stance as he has internalized the principles and force so less need for an obvious training stance.

Doing these things in practice is where you will actually be able to convert theory to application and will understand these concepts properly.

With respect, what u r saying does not make sense and even conflicts with the portion of the demo of biu jee that I wanted to highlight which was how he twisted with his whole body in his stance shift and only then blocked.

The punch or block must be done after the stance shift is completed - once the centreline is pointing in the right direction. You can see that being done by IP ching which is what i wanted to highlight in his demo. (BTW I was not endorsing anything else ip ching was doing or failing to do in his demo - though it reflects poorly on him not to show completely correct form since he was supposed to be demonstrating the biu jee form. (By the way I do not believe he would have been able to stand with the same strength as he would have been able to do had he been in correct stance. If u want to believe he had "internalised" the principles so that he could do si, u r free to d so but I believe he was just being too relaxed about his demo)).

If you start to throw the punch while you are not pointed in the right direction before you have completed the stance shift by twisting, u r violating the form and an important principle of chinese martial arts. What will happen is a dissipation of force because you r punching without "yi" or intention at the intended target. You are not even pointed at the right target before your stance shift. By starting your punch so that it is already extending before you have even executed your stance shift ,this will result in serious loss of power and accuracy as well as much greater difficulty in harvesting the centrifugal force push supplied by the stance shift twist.

A waist turn with an unmoving lower body will not achieve the same effect in anywhere near what is necessary and in fact it is pointless to even do so give that biu jee demonstrates twisting in place that can be done if a waist turn can be done thereby rendering the latter unnecessary. The power of wingchun comes from a WHOLE BODY movement in wc stance all the time - which is why the WHOLE BODY shifts stance by twisting as demonstrated by biu jee. Furthermore the punch must be delivered with the linear triangle of wc otherwise u r using the boxing engine and u r not doing wc at all. How will u succeed in your attempt to materialise the power of w c in sports mma if u refuse to accept this basic concept?

 

[TheMaster]

With respect, what u r saying does not make sense and even conflicts with the portion of the demo of biu jee that I wanted to highlight which was how he twisted with his whole body in his stance shift and only then blocked.

The punch or block must be done after the stance shift is completed - once the centreline is pointing in the right direction. You can see that being done by IP ching which is what i wanted to highlight in his demo. (BTW I was not endorsing anything else ip ching was doing or failing to do in his demo - though it reflects poorly on him not to show completely correct form since he was supposed to be demonstrating the biu jee form. (By the way I do not believe he would have been able to stand with the same strength as he would have been able to do had he been in correct stance. If u want to believe he had "internalised" the principles so that he could do si, u r free to d so but I believe he was just being too relaxed about his demo)).

If you start to throw the punch while you are not pointed in the right direction before you have completed the stance shift by twisting, u r violating the form and an important principle of chinese martial arts. What will happen is a dissipation of force because you r punching without "yi" or intention at the intended target. You are not even pointed at the right target before your stance shift. By starting your punch so that it is already extending before you have even executed your stance shift ,this will result in serious loss of power and accuracy as well as much greater difficulty in harvesting the centrifugal force push supplied by the stance shift twist.

A waist turn with an unmoving lower body will not achieve the same effect in anywhere near what is necessary and in fact it is pointless to even do so give that biu jee demonstrates twisting in place that can be done if a waist turn can be done thereby rendering the latter unnecessary. The power of wingchun comes from a WHOLE BODY movement in wc stance all the time - which is why the WHOLE BODY shifts stance by twisting as demonstrated by biu jee. Furthermore the punch must be delivered with the linear triangle of wc otherwise u r using the boxing engine and u r not doing wc at all. How will u succeed in your attempt to materialise the power of w c in sports mma if u refuse to accept this basic concept?

No.
The intent is to hit the oppenent in the most efficient way possible.
The principle of simultaneous attack and defence is throughout WC.
The line exists from the fist to the target, before you turn.
The punch must be launched at the same time as the shift.
To wait to turn the body first and then punch is wrong and wouldn't work and you would get hit first and goes against basic WC theory.

You post, like much of your other points have been mocked for a reason.
You sound like you want to do a course on trigonometry or physics and have constructed a false representation of the system and how it works that is devoid of practical value and not even confirming with the actual correct principles of force and most efficient lines of attack.

This type of attitude is failure of your teachers to correct you, and over reliance on looking at books and basically mcNerd-fu thinking .

This is a very basic point but without it you will never be able to apply WC correctly.

 

[Sanserif]

No.
The intent is to hit the oppenent in the most efficient way possible.
The principle of simultaneous attack and defence is throughout WC.
The line exists from the fist to the target, before you turn.
The punch must be launched at the same time as the shift.
To wait to turn the body first and then punch is wrong and wouldn't work and you would get hit first and goes against basic WC theory.

You post, like much of your other points have been mocked for a reason.
You sound like you want to do a course on trigonometry or physics and have constructed a false representation of the system and how it works that is devoid of practical value and not even confirming with the actual correct principles of force and most efficient lines of attack.

This type of attitude is failure of your teachers to correct you, and over reliance on looking at books and basically mcNerd-fu thinking .

This is a very basic point but without it you will never be able to apply WC correctly.

Of course it is simultaneously defence/attack (by the way this is a principle I have been asserting throughout our conversation which u hae effectively ben denying in your endorsement of various wc trained people who have been filmed fighting in quasi boxing manner) but that does not mean that the punch is launched at the start if the stance beinf twist shifted which will not work and the demo that I posted contradicts what u r saying.

 

[TheMaster]

Of course it is simultaneously defence/attack (by the way this is a principle I have been asserting throughout our conversation which u hae effectively ben denying in your endorsement of various wc trained people who have been filmed fighting in quasi boxing manner) but that does not mean that the punch is launched at the start if the stance beinf twist shifted which will not work and the demo that I posted contradicts what u r saying.

You don't understand the basics and you are trying to argue.

Simultaneous attack and defence is when there is close enough range to attack which is where it is usually trained.

If you are further away this may not be possible so this opens up just parrying or attacking the limbs etc without stepping in to attack if there is no opportunity yet.


But on the issue of launching a punch you are just totally wrong and trying to argue for the sake of it. This deep misunderstanding does explain however why you have been foolishing arguing that everything you see supposedly "isn't WC principles " since you have such fundamental misunderstanding of application of those principles.

Turning and then punching from the new position is wrong.
It is a two stage process.
It would enable the other person to hit first by launching the punch at the same time as they turn which is the correct action and fastest line.
The fact you don't know this questions what if anything you have actually been learning in both WC and boxing.

Here is Chu Shong Tin, maybe Ip Mans most senior student demoing the hand action done simultaneously with the stance turn.
The same can apply for other strikes, parry, deflections etc.



He does not turn first then do the action, he does the strike while turning and thus adding rotational force as well as being a faster movement and line and a single movement rather than an incorrect two-stage action you are describing.
Also at 1:15 he does a fak sau knife hand while turning back adding rotational force to the strike as he turns which is the same principle.

There is no debate or ambiguity here, this is the right way to do it and your description is wrong and contradicts WC principles.

Also, many of of the movements can be done with just waist rotation although preferrable with the entire stance shift it is not necessary or possible always and anyone who has actually done it in practice would know this.
As long as you are rooted is most important not the foot position which is why Ip Ching can demo the entire set without even being in a stance.

More advanced and experienced practicioners understand this and dont get into nerd-fu arguments on key points leading to a misunderstood application of the 'system' that wouldn't work.

 

[JohnPJones]

Having a base and having a background are 2 different things. His background is karate. But His base for his kickboxing wasn't his karate. His dad was a champion shiney pants kickboxer. His base for his kickboxing was his kickboxing.

The point I am making is he probably didn't have to take any muay Thai classes in order to compete in the stand up side MMA at the highest level, because his base was solid. My opinion is you'd struggle to do the same with a WC base. I don't have a issue with it and would welcome being wrong. A WC background on the other hand is a different thing, and will probably have its benefits.

I'm happy to be wrong though, but I'd need a little more evidence than imaginative thoughts...

And what was his dad's base for kickboxing? Oh yeah, his karate...their kickboxing is based on their karate just like the early kickboxers from the 60s and 70s...

 

[II Muchetto II]

And what was his dad's base for kickboxing? Oh yeah, his karate...their kickboxing is based on their karate just like the early kickboxers from the 60s and 70s...

Like I said before. You are missing my point completely, but it's probably my fault. So we will just leave it there because we are going round in circles.

 

[II Muchetto II]

And what was his dad's base for kickboxing? Oh yeah, his karate...their kickboxing is based on their karate just like the early kickboxers from the 60s and 70s...

Just so we are clear though on your position...

I'm saying his base in kickboxing worked for him in his MMA stand up, and his MMA fights are recognisable from his FC kickboxing days. I don't think you could do the same from a pure WC background.

And you are saying, his base in karate wasnt good enough to take on the elites of American kickboxing, so he had to change his style completely? So your stance for WC is the same? It isn't strong enough so will need to be changed so it becomes a different style? (eg karate becomes kickboxing, or WC becomes muay Thai)

Yes we agree

 

[Sanserif]

You don't understand the basics and you are trying to argue.

Simultaneous attack and defence is when there is close enough range to attack which is where it is usually trained.

If you are further away this may not be possible so this opens up just parrying or attacking the limbs etc without stepping in to attack if there is no opportunity yet.


But on the issue of launching a punch you are just totally wrong and trying to argue for the sake of it. This deep misunderstanding does explain however why you have been foolishing arguing that everything you see supposedly "isn't WC principles " since you have such fundamental misunderstanding of application of those principles.

Turning and then punching from the new position is wrong.
It is a two stage process.
It would enable the other person to hit first by launching the punch at the same time as they turn which is the correct action and fastest line.
The fact you don't know this questions what if anything you have actually been learning in both WC and boxing.

Here is Chu Shong Tin, maybe Ip Mans most senior student demoing the hand action done simultaneously with the stance turn.
The same can apply for other strikes, parry, deflections etc.



He does not turn first then do the action, he does the strike while turning and thus adding rotational force as well as being a faster movement and line and a single movement rather than an incorrect two-stage action you are describing.
Also at 1:15 he does a fak sau knife hand while turning back adding rotational force to the strike as he turns which is the same principle.

There is no debate or ambiguity here, this is the right way to do it and your description is wrong and contradicts WC principles.

Also, many of of the movements can be done with just waist rotation although preferrable with the entire stance shift it is not necessary or possible always and anyone who has actually done it in practice would know this.
As long as you are rooted is most important not the foot position which is why Ip Ching can demo the entire set without even being in a stance.

More advanced and experienced practicioners understand this and dont get into nerd-fu arguments on key points leading to a misunderstood application of the 'system' that wouldn't work.

You don't understand the basics and you are trying to argue.

Simultaneous attack and defence is when there is close enough range to attack which is where it is usually trained.

If you are further away this may not be possible so this opens up just parrying or attacking the limbs etc without stepping in to attack if there is no opportunity yet.


But on the issue of launching a punch you are just totally wrong and trying to argue for the sake of it. This deep misunderstanding does explain however why you have been foolishing arguing that everything you see supposedly "isn't WC principles " since you have such fundamental misunderstanding of application of those principles.

Turning and then punching from the new position is wrong.
It is a two stage process.
It would enable the other person to hit first by launching the punch at the same time as they turn which is the correct action and fastest line.
The fact you don't know this questions what if anything you have actually been learning in both WC and boxing.

Here is Chu Shong Tin, maybe Ip Mans most senior student demoing the hand action done simultaneously with the stance turn.
The same can apply for other strikes, parry, deflections etc.



He does not turn first then do the action, he does the strike while turning and thus adding rotational force as well as being a faster movement and line and a single movement rather than an incorrect two-stage action you are describing.
Also at 1:15 he does a fak sau knife hand while turning back adding rotational force to the strike as he turns which is the same principle.

There is no debate or ambiguity here, this is the right way to do it and your description is wrong and contradicts WC principles.

Also, many of of the movements can be done with just waist rotation although preferrable with the entire stance shift it is not necessary or possible always and anyone who has actually done it in practice would know this.
As long as you are rooted is most important not the foot position which is why Ip Ching can demo the entire set without even being in a stance.

More advanced and experienced practicioners understand this and dont get into nerd-fu arguments on key points leading to a misunderstood application of the 'system' that wouldn't work.

U r inaccurate about your wc lineage ideas. Chu shong tin was clearly not ip man's most senior student and even he acknowledged that Leung sheung and Lok yiu were more senior than him. In fact lo man kam likely predated chu shong tin as well in wc training under ip man.

It is not a two stage action as u suppose. It is still the same continuous movement but the difference between your idea and mine is that in the latter case the punch is not launched until after the commencement of the stance being twist-shifted. There is a slight lag because the punch or block is only thrown once the body is facing the opponent's centreline so that the puncher's "yi" can have its target. But in your case u want to start the punch when u r still facing the wrong direction as u start the twist stance shift.

See 3:47 in this archive video of ip man himself demonstrating biu jee.



Imho based on the video u linked Chu is losing quite a proportion of the rotational energy he got from his stance twisting by simultaneously throwing his block at the same time. In this case it is preferable to follow ip man and ip ching in that technique imho.

Boxers can also chain the rotational energy they gain from stepping into a new stance and then throwing their punch. There is similarly a slight lag between the stance change and the commencement of the punch.

Anyway let's not get sidetracked. The original point I was making in response to u is that regardless of the twisting stance shift, the wc punching action is still linear and any additional power the rotational element of the stance shift twist imparts does not change this essential nature. Ip man demonstrated the linearity of the punches and elbows in his forms demos in the above archive video.

 

[TheMaster]

So a few points for clarity, this is Muay Khorat, but it is the personal style of General Tunwakom passed down from his Arjan, who's name was Lertrit. Ajarn Lertrit was in the Siamese Navy, and personally knew the muay khorat, which is one of the several styles of Muay Boran (Boran is an umbrella term in the same way Kung Fu is). Unfortunately the only documentation of his style is what has been done by 8Limbs, and they are only one team with a lot of other stuff to work on. The impression that I get is that Lertrit isn't a martial art in the same way that wing chun is, but more a 'family style' like Incense Shop boxing is a family style of Southern Louhan, though even then it isn't as wide spread as that.

All this stuff is done in stadium muay thai, the real differences in my view is that while the principles are the same, Boran styles have the habit of trying to jump up onto your shoulders to throw a knee and shit like that, and of course 'hanuman presents the ring' the double uppercut which you won't ever see, unless someone is an absolute mad lad and goes for it.

When it comes to boran/bokator styles in general. I think it's fair to say mostly that they are the same martial art. Pradal Serey and Lethwei do not differ in technique at all from muay thai (Lethwei has headbutts but its important to remember that headbutts were removed from Muay Thai competition, but were once legal admittedly a very long tie ago). The form behind everything is identical and between pradal serey, tomoi and muay thai the rules are identical, the only difference is that serey scores elbows higher meaning that you are more likely to see elbow fighters, but usually not to the same proficiency as a Muangthai or Yodkhunpon as the economy of the country doesn't really allow for it.

Generally we can say that Boran/Bokator's kinks were ironed out a long time ago in the form of lethwei/thai/pradal serey/tomoi. Everything that works, the legal strikes, the hand traps and parries, clinch, the legal throws are all there from the original, they're just applied in more reliable ways.



I don't think it's fair to call it superficial. I sort of see it, in that all of that 'phonebox' hand trapping stuff is done in muay thai and naturally would be present in muay khorat. It's also quite present in fillipino boxing.

Arjan Lertrit was travelling asia in the navy, so it's not unreasonable to assume that he could have picked things up from other martial arts, but we really don't know.

Yes, that's some good breakdown and history there.
We seem to see that whenever there are these 'self defence' or military BK styles they all tend to look more similar. More stable stance and less dancing around, and looking for power punches or elbows to finish.


It's not a coincidence at all in my view that Wing Chun, Lethwei and Muay Thai share similarities in combat style and all come from very close regions, Southern China bordering Myanmar.

If we imagine a common possible root or shared influences then it would be likely that the differences come from the way they evolved in the different settings they were used in.

If Letrit is the 'military' or martial version is would be expected to be closer to WC and general bk boxing styles. I would also expect them to contain some of the same illegal techniques employed in WC although I don't know the history of how these branches developed.
So again we come to the issue of combat testing and rulesets.


I don't agree for example from what I have seen that Lethwei much resembles MT at all although on paper it should.
But alot more punching and less kicks since they are not 'scored'.
The bareknuckle punching action and receiving so many BK punches to the face would take getting used to for gloved kickboxers also.

And the clinch work is usually very different, when you add headbutts this completely changes the dynamic.

So even here, with a simialar ruleset and style these changes make all the difference in practice.



Also, am still waiting for you to send one of your boys to take out that supposed 'c-lister' world Lethwei champ Dave Leduc.


Recent 2nd fight with Cyrus Washington yesterday



Highlights of the first fight.




The recent fight happened in the US, and Lethwei just got a new TV deal.
So it looks like it's no longer such a small time show and their putting money in to it and I can see it taking off with the right promoting and the appetite for combat sports right now around the world. This is the most free form of standup combat sport that exists.

Would be just the right time for you to send any one of your guys to rise to the challenge if they are capable of it. Otherwise I think you can stop calling him 'c-list', he has his niche and until anyone else proves otherwise and enters that world he is the best at it.
And don't tell me the WKA and WMF are meaningless orgs or that having more than 100 kickboxing and MT fights doesnt mean something. Washington is legit.

 

[TheMaster]

It is not a two stage action as u suppose. It is still the same continuous movement but the difference between your idea and mine is that in the latter case the punch is not launched until after the commencement of the stance being twist-shifted. There is a slight lag because the punch or block is only thrown once the body is facing the opponent's centreline so that the puncher's "yi" can have its target. But in your case u want to start the punch when u r still facing the wrong direction as u start the twist stance shift.

See 3:47 in this archive video of ip man himself demonstrating biu jee.



Imho based on the video u linked Chu is losing quite a proportion of the rotational energy he got from his stance twisting by simultaneously throwing his block at the same time. In this case it is preferable to follow ip man and ip ching in that technique imho.

Boxers can also chain the rotational energy they gain from stepping into a new stance and then throwing their punch. There is similarly a slight lag between the stance change and the commencement of the punch.

Anyway let's not get sidetracked. The original point I was making in response to u is that regardless of the twisting stance shift, the wc punching action is still linear and any additional power the rotational element of the stance shift twist imparts does not change this essential nature. Ip man demonstrated the linearity of the punches and elbows in his forms demos in the above archive video.

Honestly I have little patience for you at this point. You want to argue for the sake of it when you know you are clearly wrong and try to find irrelevant minutiae and distort even this.

So now you are trying to fault some of Yip Man's most senior students with your nerd-fu 'quantum mechanical Wing Chun analysis'?

<{cruzshake}>

This is height of arrogance and dimwittedness at the same time. I'm not insulting you, I'm calling it what it is. I don't know why WC attracts these trigonometry nerds.

No, Chu Shong Tin not losing power, and his movement very clearly supports what I am saying, the strike should be launched at the sama time as the stance shift adding both rotational force and also creating a faster line to the target.

Your attempt to try to twist what you said earlier is still wrong. You do not wait until the body faces the opponents centreline before throwing the punch, it should be thrown simultaneously and done during the turn.
So yes, stating the obvious that it is a straight punch doesn't change the fact that the rotation adds significant power and also makes the line more direct to the target as per WC principles rather than your incorrect explantion, of turning first into a front facing stance and then punching which is simply wrong (or more likely then getting punched in the face since it is a much slower action)

Also, the video you posted shows Ip Man demoing the first two forms and the wooden dummy, there is no bij jee so it is clear you have never learned this.

 

[AndyMaBobs]

Yes, that's some good breakdown and history there.
We seem to see that whenever there are these 'self defence' or military BK styles they all tend to look more similar. More stable stance and less dancing around, and looking for power punches or elbows to finish.


It's not a coincidence at all in my view that Wing Chun, Lethwei and Muay Thai share similarities in combat style and all come from very close regions, Southern China bordering Myanmar.

If we imagine a common possible root or shared influences then it would be likely that the differences come from the way they evolved in the different settings they were used in.

If Letrit is the 'military' or martial version is would be expected to be closer to WC and general bk boxing styles. I would also expect them to contain some of the same illegal techniques employed in WC although I don't know the history of how these branches developed.
So again we come to the issue of combat testing and rulesets.


I don't agree for example from what I have seen that Lethwei much resembles MT at all although on paper it should.
But alot more punching and less kicks since they are not 'scored'.
The bareknuckle punching action and receiving so many BK punches to the face would take getting used to for gloved kickboxers also.

And the clinch work is usually very different, when you add headbutts this completely changes the dynamic.

So even here, with a simialar ruleset and style MT these changes make all the difference in practice.



Also, am still waiting for you to send one of your boys to take out that supposed 'c-lister' world Lethwei champ Dave Leduc.


Recent fight 2nd fight with Cyrus Washington yesterday



Highlights of the first fight.




The recent fight happened in the US, and Lethwei just got a new TV deal.
So it looks like it's no longer such a small time show and their putting money in to it and I can see it taking off with the right promoting and the appetite for combat sports right now around the world. This is the most free form of standup combat sport that exists.

Would be just the right time for you to send any one of your guys to rise to the challenge if they are capable of it. Otherwise I think you can stop calling him 'c-list', he has his niche and until anyone else proves otherwise and enters that world he is the best at it.
And don't tell me the WKA and WMF are meaningless orgs or that having more than 100 kickboxing and MT fights doesnt mean something. Washington is legit.

I'll stop calling him a C-lister, when he beats a good opponent, rather than a nearly 40 year old fellow C-lister. Lethwei is still small time, you choosing to be ignorant of the business of combat sports is your deal. It's also not as free a standing combat sport as Shootboxing, which it appears you simply didn't know existed, it's actually really weird how little knowledge you have, considering how you argue like a zealot.

As I really don't have anything to say with someone who routinely argues in bad faith - I'd rather shed some light on Indochinese Kickboxing, as it keeps coming up here, rather than continue arguing with your delusions.

Letrit isn't the version of muay thai used in the military, it's simply how it's described. Lethwei and Muay Thai are identical in the form of their techniques, what changes is the strategy. In terms of how these martial arts developed, the best guess we have is that Bokator is the ancestor of Indochinese Kickboxing. Pradal Serey, Muay Laos and Muay Thai are the same martial art and sport with different names depending on the country (nationalism) and Lethwei is again the same martial art, but the sport is different. They form their strikes identically, they put them together differently. They all had headbutts, if you look at boran style forms you can see headbutts, Lethwei is the only one that has kept them, they were removed from Muay Thai. Kard Cheuk, which you have tried very hard to pretend doesn't exist, and Lethwei are very similar.

Lertrit looks a bit more TMAish, because it's from what I can tell, like Muay Khorat, not actually pressure tested. I would hazard a guess that if you go back far enough, indochinese kickboxing probably share similar roots with silat and panantukan, but there is no way to be sure, because of all the cultural uprisings and the general illiteracy of the countries in the 'olden times'. Khmer Rogue damn near wiped out Bokator.

Your best bet, if you're looking for info, is to ask Brooklyn Monk, as he is the only legitimate expert of martial arts of that era. He doesn't agree with my conclusion that Bokator is the ancestor to them all, but I'm making that off the information I COULD find, in the knowledge that it could well be inaccurate. As for where Bokator comes from? I have no idea, could be the same arts that influenced early Kung Fu

 

[shincheckin]

Yes, that's some good breakdown and history there.
We seem to see that whenever there are these 'self defence' or military BK styles they all tend to look more similar. More stable stance and less dancing around, and looking for power punches or elbows to finish.


It's not a coincidence at all in my view that Wing Chun, Lethwei and Muay Thai share similarities in combat style and all come from very close regions, Southern China bordering Myanmar.

If we imagine a common possible root or shared influences then it would be likely that the differences come from the way they evolved in the different settings they were used in.

If Letrit is the 'military' or martial version is would be expected to be closer to WC and general bk boxing styles. I would also expect them to contain some of the same illegal techniques employed in WC although I don't know the history of how these branches developed.
So again we come to the issue of combat testing and rulesets.


I don't agree for example from what I have seen that Lethwei much resembles MT at all although on paper it should.
But alot more punching and less kicks since they are not 'scored'.
The bareknuckle punching action and receiving so many BK punches to the face would take getting used to for gloved kickboxers also.

And the clinch work is usually very different, when you add headbutts this completely changes the dynamic.

So even here, with a simialar ruleset and style MT these changes make all the difference in practice.



Also, am still waiting for you to send one of your boys to take out that supposed 'c-lister' world Lethwei champ Dave Leduc.


Recent fight 2nd fight with Cyrus Washington yesterday



Highlights of the first fight.




The recent fight happened in the US, and Lethwei just got a new TV deal.
So it looks like it's no longer such a small time show and their putting money in to it and I can see it taking off with the right promoting and the appetite for combat sports right now around the world. This is the most free form of standup combat sport that exists.

Would be just the right time for you to send any one of your guys to rise to the challenge if they are capable of it. Otherwise I think you can stop calling him 'c-list', he has his niche and until anyone else proves otherwise and enters that world he is the best at it.
And don't tell me the WKA and WMF are meaningless orgs or that having more than 100 kickboxing and MT fights doesnt mean something. Washington is legit.

You are greatly mistaken in the differences and similarities of MT and Lethwei.

Regarding so much talk of BK boxing vs gloved boxing. You are again greatly mistaken as they are more similar than they are different.

We can see a BK boxing match here, they are boxing, just as they would box with gloves.


Just in case you want to point out hand wraps. We can again see here that the boxing technique is largely unchanged in BK.


Additionally we don't see any hands being shattered from fighting without gloves or what not. No that it can't happen, but it's being over exaggerated by the self defense gurus. When you fight, you can get injured, even if win.

 

[Dexter]

Y

Great WC footage, Shin! Are you WC sifu-in-exile as @AndyMaBobs, too? Just pretending to teach MT?

 

[TheMaster]

Regarding so much talk of BK boxing vs gloved boxing. You are again greatly mistaken as they are more similar than they are different.

We can see a BK boxing match here, they are boxing, just as they would box with gloves.


Just in case you want to point out hand wraps. We can again see here that the boxing technique is largely unchanged in BK.


Additionally we don't see any hands being shattered from fighting without gloves or what not. No that it can't happen, but it's being over exaggerated by the self defense gurus. When you fight, you can get injured, even if win.

I never said western boxing wasn't the predominant style uses in BK fghts which is what we would expect since that what's by far most available to train. Rather that it doesn't work very well in that environment as evidenced by their faces after and how much damage they take, and how elite boxers get busted up by low level brawlers in BK.

Then it was raised that Soviet style upright defensive style boxing which is a very different style may be a better fit and may have BK origins although again adapted to gloved boxing in modern day.

Then I mentioned the approach taken by WC at close range is superior to boxing at close quarters in BK fighting, and for the mid range could be adapted with flat footed footwork and maybe combined with elements of the old time BK style to form a more combat effctive form for that format that doesn't end up with you taking huge damage to win.

Then people argued boxing could be combined with Thai and Greco to make a better form and I argued WC would still give unique attributes and advantages from chi sau sensitivity training especially and it continued...

 

[TheMaster]

I'll stop calling him a C-lister, when he beats a good opponent, rather than a nearly 40 year old fellow C-lister. Lethwei is still small time, you choosing to be ignorant of the business of combat sports is your deal. It's also not as free a standing combat sport as Shootboxing, which it appears you simply didn't know existed, it's actually really weird how little knowledge you have, considering how you argue like a zealot.

Shootboxing includes grappling and no headbutts and done wearing large boxing gloves . So no, I don't consider that a pure standup striking discipline that is as free as Lethwei unless u want to start calling Judo a 'standup art' as the term standup is commonly used.
The term standup forum referring to striking, not Judo, being a nice example to clarify for you.
Nice try at redefinitions though.

Since u keep ducking this issue of easily sending a guy to take out the 'c-list' King of Lethwei we can maybe assume you're not up to it?