WC straight punch?
art
boxing, which would be a stronger punch a WC straight punch or a boxer's
cross?
what are the disadvantages and advantages of the wing chun straight punch?
Crystal Alloy
most of the best fighters use it. It is direct to the target, therefore is
faster, it is more stable because the wrist is held in a stronger position,
and three knuckles are taking the hit instead of two.
A boxers corkscrew punch tends to be slower because of the turning action
needed, there is more chance of injury because the wrist is not as stable
when horizontal, and the two knuckles take more force and since they are
bigger, will crack easier upon contact with a hard surface.
KMG
art <blin...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:01bf5bc4$e70a6900$284207ca@son...
aj
> If the same person with 1 year experience in WC and say western style
> boxing, which would be a stronger punch a WC straight punch or a boxer's
> cross?
...the better man..
aj
art
Andrew Nerlich
>
> If the same person with 1 year experience in WC and say western style
> boxing, which would be a stronger punch a WC straight punch or a boxer's
> cross?
Get an Impax bag or something else that can measure punching power,
Anything else is speculation.
--
Andrew Nerlich
http://www.zeta.org.au/~ajnerl/
Andrew Nerlich
>
> The WC strait punch has very little disadvantages...thats why bruce lee and
> most of the best fighters use it.
Bruce Lee's dead, I wouldn't say Tyson and Holyfield were poor fighters.
For an in-depth discussion of the advantages of the vertical fist, see
Jack Dempsey's "Championship fighting". Large chunks of it appeared
almost verbatim in Tao of JKD.
>It is direct to the target, therefore is
> faster, it is more stable because the wrist is held in a stronger position,
> and three knuckles are taking the hit instead of two.
>
> A boxers corkscrew punch tends to be slower because of the turning action
> needed, there is more chance of injury because the wrist is not as stable
> when horizontal, and the two knuckles take more force and since they are
> bigger, will crack easier upon contact with a hard surface.
>
So bigger bones break easier than smaller bones? Naah.
If you get that WC punch wrong, it is possible to break the pinkie
knuckle. It WILL break easier than any of the others.
AN
> KMG
> art <blin...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:01bf5bc4$e70a6900$284207ca@son...
> > If the same person with 1 year experience in WC and say western style
> > boxing, which would be a stronger punch a WC straight punch or a boxer's
> > cross?
> > what are the disadvantages and advantages of the wing chun straight punch?
--
Andrew Nerlich
http://www.zeta.org.au/~ajnerl/
Myers4321
>needed, there is more chance of injury because the wrist is not as stable
>when horizontal, and the two knuckles take more force and since they are
>bigger, will crack easier upon contact with a hard surface.
>
we are going to compare one martial art to something else, it ought to be the
martial and not the sporting form. Boxing adapted as a martial art within
something like Panantukan does NOT hit that way.
Keith
Myers4321
>boxing, which would be a stronger punch a WC straight punch or a boxer's
>cross?
---I think it would depend on the people involved, the training method, and the
time invested. Given that all of these are equal, I would give the edge to the
boxer simply because boxing puts more of the body weight behind the punch.
>what are the disadvantages and advantages of the wing chun straight punch?
---Adaptability to some extent. The straight punch is what it is
called....straight. A boxer's cross can come from various angles and is a
little more unpredictable.
Keith
Ludovic AIRAUD
I'm french and I start Wing wing chun there are 6 months.
I would like to know if you have video tapes about wing chun and JKD.
Thanking you in advance.
art <blin...@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message :
01bf5bc4$e70a6900$284207ca@son...
> If the same person with 1 year experience in WC and say western style
> boxing, which would be a stronger punch a WC straight punch or a boxer's
> cross?
Michael Y Wong
against a boxer.
WC striaght punch travels in a smaller and internal curve whereas a cross
travel the external outside curve. WC has the speed advantge built-in.
WC rely on the "inch" jing and boxing rely on the rotation and "swing" of
the body, cross can do a lot of damage but if experienced WC can block
the cross, the boxer will learn the power of "inch" jing. And that takes
more than 1 year's WC experience.
In terms of "inch" jing, don't ever fight a WC in a closed space. The
cross will have no space to travel whereas the WC can knock the trapped
boxer out quite easily.
Andrew Nerlich (ajn...@zeta.org.au) wrote:
: art wrote:
: >
: > If the same person with 1 year experience in WC and say western style
: > boxing, which would be a stronger punch a WC straight punch or a boxer's
: > cross?
: > what are the disadvantages and advantages of the wing chun straight punch?
: Get an Impax bag or something else that can measure punching power,
: Anything else is speculation.
: --
: Andrew Nerlich
: http://www.zeta.org.au/~ajnerl/
--
In Christ,
Michael.
Do you have a financial plan setup properly?
Roak Garnet
> If the same person with 1 year experience in WC and say western style
> boxing, which would be a stronger punch a WC straight punch or a boxer's
> cross?
> what are the disadvantages and advantages of the wing chun straight punch?
In both you are dead ...
;-)
Myers4321
>cross will have no space to travel whereas the WC can knock the trapped
>boxer out quite easily.
>
----Who said boxing needs lots of space? Ever see any "in-fighting" in boxing?
There are times when boxing punches are still coming when the fighters are
standing literally "nose to nose." Boxers know how to use body dynamic just as
well as any other martial artist. Its not in the arm at all.
Boxing will fare better in an enclosed space than just about any other martial
art.
Keith
Don Young
> boxing, which would be a stronger punch a WC straight punch or a boxer's
> cross?
> what are the disadvantages and advantages of the wing chun straight punch?
I'd have to guess the cross, simply because more hip action goes into
powering it that the straight punch. This is not to say its the _superior_
punch.
Nemo Outis
all WCers! One proper boxing hook will ring your chimes more soundly (pun
intended) than any half-dozen or more chung choies.
Actually the WC straight punch can't even be used very effectively at *real
short* range - the WCer must keep his elbows several inches in front of his
body to get any power. At really short (percussive) range, hooks, uppercuts,
shovel punches, elbows, butts, knees, stomps, and oblique/very-low-crescent
kicks dominate, not straight vertical-fist punches. (One thing in favour of
the WCer is he tends to keep the inside position - however, he's generally
too doctrinaire to capitalize on it by changing to grappling!) Also WCers are
always in grave danger at short range of giving the opponent the Thai "plum"
posisition if the fight stays percussive (rather than grappling) whether they
have inside or outside position!
BTW, I have not seen WCers who could consistently block boxing hooks (taun
sao doesn't work worth a shit - with or without a turn; bil sao is not bad,
but only against a singleton from medium or longer range, and bong sao is not
very effective at real short range and is also asking for a followup
hammerfist to the ribs - or the opponent sliding by, etc.).
Regards,
In article <Fo6o78.7z...@torfree.net>, by...@torfree.net (Michael Y
Wong) wrote:
>With only 1 year's experience, you will learn quickly what a TKO is
>against a boxer.
>WC striaght punch travels in a smaller and internal curve whereas a cross
>travel the external outside curve. WC has the speed advantge built-in.
>WC rely on the "inch" jing and boxing rely on the rotation and "swing" of
>the body, cross can do a lot of damage but if experienced WC can block
>the cross, the boxer will learn the power of "inch" jing. And that takes
>more than 1 year's WC experience.
>In terms of "inch" jing, don't ever fight a WC in a closed space. The
>cross will have no space to travel whereas the WC can knock the trapped
>boxer out quite easily.
>
>
>Andrew Nerlich (ajn...@zeta.org.au) wrote:
>: art wrote:
>: >
>: > If the same person with 1 year experience in WC and say western style
>: > boxing, which would be a stronger punch a WC straight punch or a boxer's
>: > cross?
>: > what are the disadvantages and advantages of the wing chun straight punch?
>
Michael Y Wong
practioners. I already told our friend (original poster) with one year's
experience (i.e., unexperienced vs unexperienced) that boxing is at an
advantage.
Why do you "dislike" WC so much? Not that I am against boxing afterall.
Can't you stand a little bit of theory? Boxing has its own "theory" in
it, in case if you don't know it. :) One cannot be a good boxer if one
doesn't follow its "theory". Unless one punches with just brute force and
think that that is the "art". Then all I have to say is, good luck. :)
Brad Albert (bc...@gte.net) wrote:
: On Tue, 11 Jan 2000 18:18:43 GMT, by...@torfree.net (Michael Y Wong)
: wrote:
: >With only 1 year's experience, you will learn quickly what a TKO is
: >against a boxer.
: >WC striaght punch travels in a smaller and internal curve whereas a cross
: >travel the external outside curve. WC has the speed advantge built-in.
: Arm punches are fast but have no power, whether straight or curved.
: This simplistic geometry is not the most important factor anyway, the
: reality is that boxing punches are superior in every way that actually
: counts in fighting.
: >WC rely on the "inch" jing and boxing rely on the rotation and "swing" of
: >the body, cross can do a lot of damage but if experienced WC can block
: >the cross, the boxer will learn the power of "inch" jing. And that takes
: >more than 1 year's WC experience.
: >In terms of "inch" jing, don't ever fight a WC in a closed space. The
: >cross will have no space to travel whereas the WC can knock the trapped
: >boxer out quite easily.
: Yeah. Right. Wing chun is arm punching practiced by fighting
: theoreticians and pimple faced geeks with delusions of grandeur. And
: a few normal people. :-) A boxer will happily trade ten of your arm
: punches for one of his. To the original poster: you're asking a cult
: to explain its religion to you. If you want a cult experience where
: you will be reinforced with the idea that you are turning into one bad
: dude, even though you're no tougher than when you walked in the door,
: let one of the resident theoreticians regale you with the wonders of
: wing chun. Only good wing chun though, not the stuff those other guys
: practice. Trust the geeks in the silk outfits, they know a lot more
: than people who actually put on gloves and spar. Be sure to bring
: your slide rule and measuring tape so you can make sure you are
: sufficiently bolt upright to be a kung fu Superman. Be sure to check
: out all the fight footage of wing chun people taking on boxers and
: other martial artists. Oh wait, there isn't any. Well check out the
: footage of wing chun people fighting each other so you can see whether
: they can keep to their endless theories under fire. Oh wait, there
: isn't any of that either. But if you use a calculator and basic
: geometry you can prove on paper that wing chun would win, so don't
: worry about that. Train hard to hammer down your natural instinct to
: box and wrestle when you fight. Natural is bad! Theory is better!
: Pay no attention to the obvious fact that boxing is designed for the
: human body as it naturally works. Ignore the combination of blinding
: speed, power, and natural defense that is boxing.
: Now if you can't resist the insistent brainwashing attempts of the
: wing chun people, and really enjoy being surrounded by wannabe tough
: guys who would quail at the prospect of actually fighting a boxer
: instead of arguing with him on the net, you would still be better off
: with a year of boxing first. That way you're less likely to believe
: that standing with your hands down and chin up is a good idea, or that
: the typical wing chun dork will ever be able to do anything against
: boxing punches other than catching them with his face. :-) Hope that
: answers your questions. :-)
Mike Sigman
"chainpunch." <No...@none.com> wrote in message
news:85ihp...@enews1.newsguy.com...
> Wow. You really haven't got a clue do you?
Whoa. Pretty compelling logic in that rebuttal.
Jerry Love
Brad Albert <bc...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:387c07ab...@news.thegrid.net...
> On Tue, 11 Jan 2000 18:18:43 GMT, by...@torfree.net (Michael Y Wong)
> wrote:
>
> >With only 1 year's experience, you will learn quickly what a TKO is
> >against a boxer.
> >WC striaght punch travels in a smaller and internal curve whereas a cross
> >travel the external outside curve. WC has the speed advantge built-in.
>
> Arm punches are fast but have no power, whether straight or curved.
Great, tell my how your time with Tyson goes, thank god he doesn't kick huh?
> This simplistic geometry is not the most important factor anyway, the
> reality is that boxing punches are superior in every way that actually
> counts in fighting.
Until weapons come out, or the hands need to defend low. Then there are some
better punching methods.
But yes, Boxing has excellent punching. They train hard, they try what they
train, and it's the only weapon they use. They are very good at is and it's
a great cross-training art for many.
> >WC rely on the "inch" jing and boxing rely on the rotation and "swing" of
> >the body, cross can do a lot of damage but if experienced WC can block
> >the cross, the boxer will learn the power of "inch" jing. And that takes
> >more than 1 year's WC experience.
> >In terms of "inch" jing, don't ever fight a WC in a closed space. The
> >cross will have no space to travel whereas the WC can knock the trapped
> >boxer out quite easily.
>
> Yeah. Right. Wing chun is arm punching practiced by fighting
> theoreticians and pimple faced geeks with delusions of grandeur. And
> a few normal people. :-)
Hey brad, that would be a statistic, making you a geek for having it (unless
it's a steriotype and you would like to admit to being an ignorant asshole
for using that)
> A boxer will happily trade ten of your arm punches for one of his.
That's cause he is going ot break his hand.
> To the original poster: you're asking a cult
> to explain its religion to you. If you want a cult experience where
> you will be reinforced with the idea that you are turning into one bad
> dude, even though you're no tougher than when you walked in the door,
> let one of the resident theoreticians regale you with the wonders of
> wing chun.
What was the last major army you tried to box? Speaking of which, how come
it is the millitary, where boxing is common, that seems every time they
encounter someone else in H-t-H seems to think it is important to learn
their arts ?(Karate and TKD being exceleent examples of arts that wouldn't
be here without servicemen bringing the arts, and teachers over) After all
they had boxing, what else could they need?
> Only good wing chun though, not the stuff those other guys
> practice. Trust the geeks in the silk outfits, they know a lot more
> than people who actually put on gloves and spar.
Hey, some of them to Wing Chun.
> Be sure to bring your slide rule and measuring tape so you can make
> sure you are sufficiently bolt upright to be a kung fu Superman.
Glad to hear boxing doesn't bother with silly things like standing.
> Be sure to check out all the fight footage of wing chun people taking on
> boxers and other martial artists. Oh wait, there isn't any.
Sure there is, it's right next to the footage of boxers taking on WC and
other martial arts (I love it vs Sumo)
Except for boxing taking on BJJ. That you can find at Blockbuster. Look
under UFC.
> Well check out the footage of wing chun people fighting each other so
> you can see whether they can keep to their endless theories under fire.
> Oh wait, there isn't any of that either.
There are WC people who compete.
> But if you use a calculator and basic
> geometry you can prove on paper that wing chun would win, so don't
> worry about that. Train hard to hammer down your natural instinct to
> box and wrestle when you fight. Natural is bad! Theory is better!
If natural is best, there is no point training huh?
> Pay no attention to the obvious fact that boxing is designed for the
> human body as it naturally works.
That explains why retiring boxers are so permenantly punch drunk that they
are senile. The accellerate the natural aging with such natural technique.
Your face was designed to get hit afterall.
> Ignore the combination of blinding speed, power,
> and natural defense that is boxing.
Eye-gouges are blinging. Boxing punches are fun to watch.
> Now if you can't resist the insistent brainwashing attempts of the
> wing chun people, and really enjoy being surrounded by wannabe tough
> guys who would quail at the prospect of actually fighting a boxer
> instead of arguing with him on the net, you would still be better off
> with a year of boxing first. That way you're less likely to believe
> that standing with your hands down and chin up is a good idea, or that
> the typical wing chun dork will ever be able to do anything against
> boxing punches other than catching them with his face. :-) Hope that
> answers your questions. :-)
Or you can go box and hope on the street they have gloves and don't kick and
aren't armed and you have your cup and there is only one of them and you
have an open rectangular space with wills you don't mind bouncing in to.
FB
> Wow. You really haven't got a clue do you?
Sounded to me like he had a clue.
FB
> An apology to boxers (except brad) if I am harsh. I really do like boxing.
>
> Brad Albert <bc...@gte.net> wrote in message
>
> > Pay no attention to the obvious fact that boxing is designed for the
> > human body as it naturally works.
>
> That explains why retiring boxers are so permenantly punch drunk that they
> are senile. The accellerate the natural aging with such natural technique.
>
Ridiculous statement. The fact that boxers get hit (and hurt from too much of
it) says nothing for the naturalness of its ways of attack.
> > Now if you can't resist the insistent brainwashing attempts of the
> > wing chun people, and really enjoy being surrounded by wannabe tough
> > guys who would quail at the prospect of actually fighting a boxer
> > instead of arguing with him on the net, you would still be better off
> > with a year of boxing first. That way you're less likely to believe
> > that standing with your hands down and chin up is a good idea, or that
> > the typical wing chun dork will ever be able to do anything against
> > boxing punches other than catching them with his face. :-) Hope that
> > answers your questions. :-)
>
> Or you can go box and hope on the street they have gloves and don't kick and
> aren't armed and you have your cup and there is only one of them and you
> have an open rectangular space with wills you don't mind bouncing in to.
Or, you could train boxing, and in addition train weapons, groundwork, and
kicks, and should it ever go down at punching range you rule the roost.
FB
> In the world of rec.martial-arts, on Wed, 12 Jan 2000 05:34:55 GMT the
> bonds of time ripped as Brad Albert yelled the following:
> ~On Tue, 11 Jan 2000 18:18:43 GMT, by...@torfree.net (Michael Y Wong)
> ~wrote:
> ~
> ~>With only 1 year's experience, you will learn quickly what a TKO is
> ~>against a boxer.
> ~>WC striaght punch travels in a smaller and internal curve whereas a cross
> ~>travel the external outside curve. WC has the speed advantge built-in.
> ~
> ~ Arm punches are fast but have no power, whether straight or curved.
> ~This simplistic geometry is not the most important factor anyway, the
> ~reality is that boxing punches are superior in every way that actually
> ~counts in fighting.
> ~
> ~>WC rely on the "inch" jing and boxing rely on the rotation and "swing" of
> ~>the body, cross can do a lot of damage but if experienced WC can block
> ~>the cross, the boxer will learn the power of "inch" jing. And that takes
> ~>more than 1 year's WC experience.
> ~>In terms of "inch" jing, don't ever fight a WC in a closed space. The
> ~>cross will have no space to travel whereas the WC can knock the trapped
> ~>boxer out quite easily.
> ~
> ~Yeah. Right. Wing chun is arm punching practiced by fighting
>
> They are not the only ones who use vertical punches. Isshin ryu, an
> Okinawa martial art uses them also. Ours are different however. We do not
> have tons of theory or anything else. All of our stuff has been well
> tested.
>
> ~theoreticians and pimple faced geeks with delusions of grandeur. And
> ~a few normal people. :-) A boxer will happily trade ten of your arm
> ~punches for one of his.
>
> Boxing punches are easier to grab, block, break(bones) and dodge due to
> them being slow.
>
Really? How many boxers have you tried this against?
Ridiculous.
>
> I say again, boxing is a sport, not an advanced fighting art.
>
Really? Not an advanced fighting art. So all of the training in precise
mechanics to ensure maximum leverage for attack, slipping, bobbing, and
carriage skills, careful timing and range sensitivity, etc. are just the
foolish constructs of people who don't have the sense to do an outside-in
forearm block?
> And as for ME, I do full contact spar, with equipment. I only use
> vertical punches. I have spared boxers also.
>
You've "spared" them, huh?
Perhaps they "spared" you.
> ~Train hard to hammer down your natural instinct to
> ~box and wrestle when you fight. Natural is bad! Theory is better!
> Wrestling is inferior to grappling--judo. Wrestlers have deluded
> themselves into thinking that you can't win when you are on your back,
> this isn't true. Ground fighting in itself is not at all effective
> against multiple opponents.
>
I see.
lol
>
> ~Pay no attention to the obvious fact that boxing is designed for the
> ~human body as it naturally works.
> Bullshit.
> -Tony Destro
Tony, do get a clue.
FB
> FB <spa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:387D51F9...@hotmail.com...
> > Jerry Love wrote:
> >
> > > An apology to boxers (except brad) if I am harsh. I really do like
> boxing.
> > >
> > > Brad Albert <bc...@gte.net> wrote in message
> > >
> > > > Pay no attention to the obvious fact that boxing is designed for the
> > > > human body as it naturally works.
> > >
> > > That explains why retiring boxers are so permenantly punch drunk that
> they
> > > are senile. The accellerate the natural aging with such natural
> technique.
> > >
> >
> > Ridiculous statement. The fact that boxers get hit (and hurt from too
> much of
> > it) says nothing for the naturalness of its ways of attack.
>
> Brain damage is the natural result of humans acting in a natural way?
>
The offensive techniques, posturing, composure, and movement of boxing are what
are natural.
Brain damage is what results when you face off against this "naturalness" too
often in a full contact setting.
Only other boxers give boxers serious head injuries. No one else really manages
to land a head shot.
>
> > > > Now if you can't resist the insistent brainwashing attempts of the
> > > > wing chun people, and really enjoy being surrounded by wannabe tough
> > > > guys who would quail at the prospect of actually fighting a boxer
> > > > instead of arguing with him on the net, you would still be better off
> > > > with a year of boxing first. That way you're less likely to believe
> > > > that standing with your hands down and chin up is a good idea, or that
> > > > the typical wing chun dork will ever be able to do anything against
> > > > boxing punches other than catching them with his face. :-) Hope that
> > > > answers your questions. :-)
> > >
> > > Or you can go box and hope on the street they have gloves and don't kick
> and
> > > aren't armed and you have your cup and there is only one of them and you
> > > have an open rectangular space with wills you don't mind bouncing in to.
> >
> > Or, you could train boxing, and in addition train weapons, groundwork, and
> > kicks, and should it ever go down at punching range you rule the roost
>
> So I would only have to study 3 arts (plus guns and such) and I could rule
> the roost?
>
> I guess the same could be said for the WC guy huh? If boxing alone has flaws
> then it is the pot calling the kettle black for a boxer to say bosing is
> better than WC because WC as flaws. No?
>
> Jerry
Does what you just said actually make sense to you?
Boxing specializes in fighting with the fists. It is arguably the best
fist-fighting art ever devised. It makes an excellent complement to other
skills in constructing a total synthesis of martial art.
You should first learn some real boxing before you engage a thread on the
subject.
Everything in boxing is field tested, makes sense, and nothing is taken on
faith.
There are no grand puba's who pont-defecate untenable bullshit to the faithful.
Boxing's attitude is: You say such-and-such works? Well, let's see how you do
when I'm giving you an astronomy lesson and showing you the stars.
dmsp...@my-deja.com
bringing out tired propaganda and reciting trash that anyone who spends
anytime just watching the other art could tell isn't true?
Boxing punches are superior to WC, this is fact.
WC punches are superior to Boxing, this is fact.
How can both be fact? Easy, the collection of punches are intended to
be used differently, and under different circumstances. Boxing has
close range strikes. Powerful enough that one to the body will drop
people in and of itself. Anyone who thinks WC is the only one who can
be effective in tight inclosed spaces simply hasn't watched enough
boxing. WC's "arm punches" are used to enable them to be able to change
angles and purpose in mid flight, I strike he strikes, the WC guy turns
the strike to a parry, traps my arm and delivers another strike, if I'm
lucky he isn't good and that will be the end of it. If I'm not then I
can expect about another dozen punches within a few eye blinks (if
that). Not to mention that a punch that doesn't have body weight
committed behind it makes it difficult to get unbalanced for a throw.
At any level a boxer and a WC guy who can actually use their tools and
their fighting methodology will be pretty evenly matched. It isn't
really a fight of styles it is a fight of which FIGHTER can best impose
his fighting paradigm on the other. A stick and move boxer is going to
frustrate the hell out of a WC guy. The WC guy comes forward trying to
fight using the centerline theory and the boxer is going to use the
weaver theory, constantly steppingg offline and outside and attacking
the rib cage, kidneys, temple, and ear/jaw. Or the boxer gets
annihilated as the WC guy comes in and just drills right through his
defense sticking to his arms neutralizing his defenses and reading his
intentions and just hammering him until he falls or a blow to the eyes,
throat groin or knees gets through.
Both styles have strengths and weaknesses, some overlap others don't.
dms
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
dmsp...@my-deja.com
"Crystal Alloy" <micr...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> The WC strait punch has very little disadvantages...thats why bruce
lee and
therefore is
> faster, it is more stable because the wrist is held in a stronger
position,
> and three knuckles are taking the hit instead of two.
Not quite. The WC straight punch is negligibly faster, not enough to
make a huge difference in most confrontations. The wrist not in any
more stable position, per se. The turning of the arm in a boxers cross
will allow for a slightly greater risk of hitting before you are in
your ideal structural alignment... then again that is only if you do it
wrong. A WC straight punch can be jammed as well by a moving target and
while chances of injury to the arm is lessed the breaching of the
defense this causes to the head/torso area is much larger.
> A boxers corkscrew punch tends to be slower because of the turning
action
> needed, there is more chance of injury because the wrist is not as
stable
> when horizontal, and the two knuckles take more force and since they
are
> bigger, will crack easier upon contact with a hard surface.
Horizontal versus vertical? Has nothing to do with it. That is
propaganda that is recited by those who don't know how to properly
through a cross. the larger knuckles will crack easier? The first two
knuckles on most adults hands are far stronger than any other bone in
the hand... you should only be aiming and making immediate contact with
the middle knuckle, the index knuckle and then the ring knuckle will
make contact after determined by how enlarged the knuckles are.
The WC punch is faster and less commited. This allows it to be fired
off a tad faster so if you are in a "high-noon" situation where you
need to beat a boxer to the punch you will probably land first...
However you had better hope that punch will fully disrupt the boxers
cross because it will have much more power than the WC straight. If the
WC guy is aiming at the nose, throat or eyes he can probably reduce or
even neutralize the punch. If it is to the body or cheek area... it
will probably not do much to weaken the power behind the punch.
The benfit of the WC punch is that it can be launched in sequence by
itself, with multiple targets chosen. A cross is used more with small
feeling out combos or singly intermixed with jabs. If I had to choose
between the two in most circumstances I'd choose the WC straight, but
I'd never give up my cross, there are situations where it is preferable.
dmsp...@my-deja.com
>
> First off, Boxing is NOT a fighting art, boxing is a sport.
Okay so you have IMMEDIATELY lost all credibility.
> I am an Isshin Ryu Karate practitioner. We also use straight and
vertical
> punches. Our form is one of the most modern.
> With verts the punch is faster and more force .
More force? Than what a boxers cross? Sorry. Stick to topics you know
something about.
> Thumb placement is also
> and issue when talking about punching. Our thumb placement is
different
> from WC.
>
> Arcenio J. Advincula 9th dan isshinryu (and ex-marine) says:
Big deal I'm an ex-marine. 6 years Force Recon, and certified CQB
instructor. What's that mean? Little when it comes down to reciting
someone elses beliefs.
> The vertical fist is the trademark of
> Isshin-ryu and can be proved to make the wrist stronger. To test
this,
> all you have to do is get a person to try and bend your wrist
> while make different fists. The further the thumb comes down along
toward
> the middle finger, the weaker the wrist.
Tried... they couldn't break the plane of my wrist regardless of the
configuration I used... so what is your point?
> The muscle block again is the stronger block.
Stronger? Nope. The block does put anymore force into it if you use the
mucle over the bone. As a matter of fact if you want to break it down
to a matter of fulcrums and momentums the further away the striking
surface is from the pivot point the faster it travels and the more
force it will transfer to the target...
> You don't see them breaking
> 2x2's over the bone of the forearm do you?! They always
> break over the muscle.
I suppose the amount of pain a bone block would cause has anything to
do with it let alone the chances of damaging said bone because of the
force of the impact/deflection?
> The vertical punch is superior to the twist punch. Now I'm talking
about
> a karate straight thrusting punching.
Ah... Okay then forget all the stuff I said above, I'll replace it with
the simple comment of stick to the topic at hand or create a new
thread. We are discussing a boxing cross versus a WC straight punch.
> It is faster and for all who
> do not understand, faster is better.
Faster is better than what? If I can hit you five times with a punch
that can only generate amaximum of 45lbs of pressure each, versus two
punchs that deliver 120lbs of pressure each is faster necessarily
better?
> In scientific terms, force equals
> mass times the square of the velocity.
Okay, now how do the differences in chambering and body mechanics
effect this equation?
>Not only do you get more
> force, you can throw more vertical punches than twist punches in the
same
> time span.
Actually you get more force but I'll let you work out why. You are more
likely to believe it if you discover it for yourself... but I've
already given you plenty of hints on what to look for.
> it takes less energy to user vertical punches than
> twist punches and doesn't karate teach to be efficient by using
economy
> of motion?!
It takes less energy to deliver a single straight punch than a cross...
however how many straight punches on average are you going to have to
throw to get your KO? Economy of motion is just one facet to the
greater principle of Maximum Effeciency.
>It is natural and bushi uses the natural way.
Economy of motion is natural, or a straight verticle punch with the
thumb alongside the index finger? It had better be the former (though I
can provide plenty of evidence to show that it is NOT natural for
mankind) because all it takes is the observance of children fighting
with no training and watch how they swing when they punch... assuming
they punch and don't just immediately go to grappling range.
Jerry Love
news:MPG.12e6debc3...@news.nb.net...
> In the world of rec.martial-arts, on Wed, 12 Jan 2000 05:34:55 GMT the
> bonds of time ripped as Brad Albert yelled the following:
> ~>WC rely on the "inch" jing and boxing rely on the rotation and "swing"
of
> ~>the body, cross can do a lot of damage but if experienced WC can block
> ~>the cross, the boxer will learn the power of "inch" jing. And that takes
> ~>more than 1 year's WC experience.
> ~>In terms of "inch" jing, don't ever fight a WC in a closed space. The
> ~>cross will have no space to travel whereas the WC can knock the trapped
> ~>boxer out quite easily.
> ~
> ~Yeah. Right. Wing chun is arm punching practiced by fighting
>
> They are not the only ones who use vertical punches. Isshin ryu, an
> Okinawa martial art uses them also. Ours are different however. We do not
> have tons of theory or anything else. All of our stuff has been well
> tested.
Even boxer's have ton's of theory. If you don't know why it works, how can
you know if you can improve it or what flaws it may have.
> ~theoreticians and pimple faced geeks with delusions of grandeur. And
> ~a few normal people. :-) A boxer will happily trade ten of your arm
> ~punches for one of his.
>
> Boxing punches are easier to grab, block, break(bones) and dodge due to
> them being slow.
I have never found a good boxer to be slow. And they can be rather
deceptive. Further, the good boxer's I have played with have punches that
feel kinda like Hsing-I when you try to manipulate the arm. It is possible,
but I would not call it easier.
> In Isshin ryu, when a twist punch is blocked the blocking arm hits the
> weaker of the two bones in the arm (the attempt at isshinryu blocks is to
> break the opponents arm with the block). With a vertical punch, Both
> bones are hit with a block and the chance of your arm breaking is less.
Have you ever tried this on a good, experienced boxer?
Jerry
Jerry Love
> Tony Destro wrote:
> > In scientific terms, force equals
> > mass times the square of the velocity.
>
> Okay, now how do the differences in chambering and body mechanics
> effect this equation?
Not this discussion again.... OK fine.
How much mass is involved? Just the fist? The fist and the arm? The fist and
part of the arm? Parts of the body?
These are all moving at different speeds.
Then there is the fact that regardless of the amount of potential force
contained in the punch, there is the quetion of how much is transferred and
over what time/distance?
Did my arm stop by transferring it's force into your face through my fist
(over penetrate) or did it stop because it reached full extention.
Did I hit something hard that will transfer into your skeleton directly or
did I hit something soft that will increase the effective area of the hit
and collapse to increase decelleration time.
Then there is the issue of push that continues past contact. I can put my
hand on you (0 speed) and then push and deliver force. One presumes this is
occuring at the time of impact.
So come back to this as soon as you have concrete number on all the points I
mentioned above. Until then, you are spouting garbage.
<snip>
> > it takes less energy to user vertical punches than
> > twist punches and doesn't karate teach to be efficient by using
> economy of motion?!
> It takes less energy to deliver a single straight punch than a cross...
> however how many straight punches on average are you going to have to
> throw to get your KO? Economy of motion is just one facet to the
> greater principle of Maximum Effeciency.
What he said. But what does Karate's principles have to do with it?
> >It is natural and bushi uses the natural way.
>
> Economy of motion is natural, or a straight verticle punch with the
> thumb alongside the index finger? It had better be the former (though I
> can provide plenty of evidence to show that it is NOT natural for
> mankind) because all it takes is the observance of children fighting
> with no training and watch how they swing when they punch... assuming
> they punch and don't just immediately go to grappling range.
I gotta agree, While there is hitting, I think grappling is the most natural
fighting method for human beings.
But that is a different topic.
Jerry
Mike Sigman
"Jerry Love" <sp...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:%Nbf4.1539$Oe.3...@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net...
> <dmsp...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:85jf5t$3ea$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > Tony Destro wrote:
>
> > > In scientific terms, force equals
> > > mass times the square of the velocity.
> >
> > Okay, now how do the differences in chambering and body mechanics
> > effect this equation?
>
> Not this discussion again.... OK fine.
>
> How much mass is involved? Just the fist? The fist and the arm? The fist
and
> part of the arm? Parts of the body?
> These are all moving at different speeds.
>
> Then there is the fact that regardless of the amount of potential force
> contained in the punch, there is the quetion of how much is transferred
and
> over what time/distance?
[[snip]]
Do you guys hit while swinging from a rope? If not, and you use some sort
of stance, then you need to be looking more at moment arm, leverage, etc.,
in addition to mass and acceleration parameters (and I include momentum and
Impulse in those). There is a chain of power if you use a stance. F=ma is
great when you only strike while swinging from a rope.
Mike Sigman
Jerry Love
Mike Sigman <mikes...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:E%bf4.10111$o62.4...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
I think that was covered in the "pushing continues after impact" part since
one can push from the ground as well as from one's mass. Prior to impact,
the ground root would probably only serve to allow faster acceleration since
one would not need a counter-balance. (q.v. using the ground as a wall)
But all this would be impractical to measure (which was my point).
Jerry Love
Jerry Love
boxing.
> >
> > Brad Albert <bc...@gte.net> wrote in message
> >
> > > human body as it naturally works.
> >
> > That explains why retiring boxers are so permenantly punch drunk that
they
> > are senile. The accellerate the natural aging with such natural
technique.
> >
>
much of
> it) says nothing for the naturalness of its ways of attack.
Brain damage is the natural result of humans acting in a natural way?
> > > Now if you can't resist the insistent brainwashing attempts of the
> > > wing chun people, and really enjoy being surrounded by wannabe tough
> > > guys who would quail at the prospect of actually fighting a boxer
> > > instead of arguing with him on the net, you would still be better off
> > > with a year of boxing first. That way you're less likely to believe
> > > that standing with your hands down and chin up is a good idea, or that
> > > the typical wing chun dork will ever be able to do anything against
> > > boxing punches other than catching them with his face. :-) Hope that
> > > answers your questions. :-)
> >
> > Or you can go box and hope on the street they have gloves and don't kick
and
> > aren't armed and you have your cup and there is only one of them and you
> > have an open rectangular space with wills you don't mind bouncing in to.
>
Mike Sigman
>
> I think that was covered in the "pushing continues after impact" part
since
> one can push from the ground as well as from one's mass. Prior to impact,
> the ground root would probably only serve to allow faster acceleration
since
> one would not need a counter-balance. (q.v. using the ground as a wall)
It's not that simple. That's my point.
Mike
David Williams
They are whole body punches using power from the ground. The mechanics are
different then they
are for a boxers straight, jab, cross, hook or shovel hook.
Just as boxers train using the heavy bag, Wing Chun students train hitting a
wall mounted sandbag.
I don't think anyone would want 3 punches to the face from a Wing Chun guy
OR a boxer.
I could post more on this but I'm rather pressed for time this evening. Till
another day gentlemen.
David Williams
http://www.wingchun.com
"Brad Albert" <bc...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:387c07ab...@news.thegrid.net...
> On Tue, 11 Jan 2000 18:18:43 GMT, by...@torfree.net (Michael Y Wong)
> wrote:
>
> >With only 1 year's experience, you will learn quickly what a TKO is
> >against a boxer.
> >WC striaght punch travels in a smaller and internal curve whereas a cross
> >travel the external outside curve. WC has the speed advantge built-in.
>
> Arm punches are fast but have no power, whether straight or curved.
> This simplistic geometry is not the most important factor anyway, the
> reality is that boxing punches are superior in every way that actually
> counts in fighting.
>
> >WC rely on the "inch" jing and boxing rely on the rotation and "swing" of
> >the body, cross can do a lot of damage but if experienced WC can block
> >the cross, the boxer will learn the power of "inch" jing. And that takes
> >more than 1 year's WC experience.
> >In terms of "inch" jing, don't ever fight a WC in a closed space. The
> >cross will have no space to travel whereas the WC can knock the trapped
> >boxer out quite easily.
>
> Yeah. Right. Wing chun is arm punching practiced by fighting
> theoreticians and pimple faced geeks with delusions of grandeur. And
> a few normal people. :-) A boxer will happily trade ten of your arm
> punches for one of his. To the original poster: you're asking a cult
> to explain its religion to you. If you want a cult experience where
> you will be reinforced with the idea that you are turning into one bad
> dude, even though you're no tougher than when you walked in the door,
> let one of the resident theoreticians regale you with the wonders of
> wing chun. Only good wing chun though, not the stuff those other guys
> practice. Trust the geeks in the silk outfits, they know a lot more
> than people who actually put on gloves and spar. Be sure to bring
> your slide rule and measuring tape so you can make sure you are
> sufficiently bolt upright to be a kung fu Superman. Be sure to check
> out all the fight footage of wing chun people taking on boxers and
> other martial artists. Oh wait, there isn't any. Well check out the
> footage of wing chun people fighting each other so you can see whether
> they can keep to their endless theories under fire. Oh wait, there
> isn't any of that either. But if you use a calculator and basic
> geometry you can prove on paper that wing chun would win, so don't
> worry about that. Train hard to hammer down your natural instinct to
> box and wrestle when you fight. Natural is bad! Theory is better!
> Pay no attention to the obvious fact that boxing is designed for the
> human body as it naturally works. Ignore the combination of blinding
> speed, power, and natural defense that is boxing.
>
Myers4321
>move as they do because they needn't worry about being kicked, locked,
>tackled, or thrown inside the ring.
---You have obviously never encounter boxing that has be adapted as a martial
art.
Panantukan has boxing as its base, and is well prepared to deal with anything
you might encounter on the street. People don't define TKD by its
ring/competition aspects alone....so why do we continue to define boxing
strictly by its ring aspects? This is a martial arts forum. If you are going
to bring boxing into the mix, then you had better assume that its "martial"
boxing and not "sport" boxing. I have seen a whole lot of misconceptions in
this thread because most of the people posting are assuming a clueless boxer
right out of the gym with no concept of what martial arts are all about.
That's a big assumption!
Keith
Mike Sigman
"David Williams" <dlw_N...@wingchun.com> wrote in message
news:lfff4.17858
> I don't think anyone would want 3 punches to the face from a Wing Chun guy
> OR a boxer.
OR from just about anybody, if you think about it. My ability to absorb
punches in the face is limited; besides, it's annoying and distracting.
Mike
TravIsGod
>Yeah. Right. Wing chun is arm punching practiced by fighting
>theoreticians and pimple faced geeks with delusions of grandeur. And
>a few normal people. :-) A boxer will happily trade ten of your arm
>punches for one of his. To the original poster: you're asking a cult
>to explain its religion to you. If you want a cult experience where
>you will be reinforced with the idea that you are turning into one bad
>dude, even though you're no tougher than when you walked in the door,
>let one of the resident theoreticians regale you with the wonders of
>wing chun. Only good wing chun though, not the stuff those other guys
>practice. Trust the geeks in the silk outfits, they know a lot more
>than people who actually put on gloves and spar. Be sure to bring
>your slide rule and measuring tape so you can make sure you are
>sufficiently bolt upright to be a kung fu Superman. Be sure to check
>out all the fight footage of wing chun people taking on boxers and
>other martial artists. Oh wait, there isn't any. Well check out the
>footage of wing chun people fighting each other so you can see whether
>they can keep to their endless theories under fire. Oh wait, there
>isn't any of that either. But if you use a calculator and basic
>geometry you can prove on paper that wing chun would win, so don't
>worry about that. Train hard to hammer down your natural instinct to
>box and wrestle when you fight. Natural is bad! Theory is better!
>Pay no attention to the obvious fact that boxing is designed for the
>human body as it naturally works. Ignore the combination of blinding
>speed, power, and natural defense that is boxing.
hahaha - I love this, this is good stuff. Especially the "bolt upright" part.
U keep it coming Brad.
Trav
TravIsGod
>ryu twist punch. gojus are also straight punches and I would guess they
>would also be faster then the boxers punch (I don't know though). So
>anyhow it's 1:5 not 2:5. so the isshinryu guy would've supposedly thrown
>ten punches if not more, not five. so that's
apparently you've never seen a boxer w/ fast hands. I'm all for the throwing
10 punches to 1 and all that, but let's be serious here.
Trav
TravIsGod
>faithful.
>Boxing's attitude is: You say such-and-such works? Well, let's see how you
>do
>when I'm giving you an astronomy lesson and showing you the stars.
>
this is no bullshit.
Trav
TravIsGod
>cross because it will have much more power than the WC straight. If the
>WC guy is aiming at the nose, throat or eyes he can probably reduce or
>even neutralize the punch. If it is to the body or cheek area... it
>will probably not do much to weaken the power behind the punch.
Let's also not forget that the WC guy will be standing like a post in the
ground w/ all his weight on the back foot and puching in front of him like a
Po-lock fight. The cross is going to come right around it and bam. This is
what happens when both your hands are up in front of you in a line - it totally
exposes your jaw.
Trav
FB
True dat.
FB
> In the world of rec.martial-arts, on 13 Jan 2000 16:40:21 GMT the bonds
> of time ripped as TravIsGod yelled the following:
> ~>You are supposed to be able to exucute 5 isshin ryu punches to one goju-
> ~>ryu twist punch. gojus are also straight punches and I would guess they
> ~>would also be faster then the boxers punch (I don't know though). So
> ~>anyhow it's 1:5 not 2:5. so the isshinryu guy would've supposedly thrown
> ~>ten punches if not more, not five. so that's
> ~
> ~apparently you've never seen a boxer w/ fast hands. I'm all for the throwing
> ~10 punches to 1 and all that, but let's be serious here.
> ~Trav
> ~
> something that I didn't think of earlier. our form is actually based on
> "one punch, one kill", the typical uncontrolled boxing roundhouse punch
> can't be accurately directed to pressure point areas. the straight punch
> can
Really?
So, a "typical" boxing roundhouse punch (?) is uncontrolled? What exactly is it
you mean by "uncontrolled"?
I haven't had much problem directing my hook ("roundhouse punch"??) to the
"pressure point" on somebody's jaw.
Perhaps you should consider what a boxing punch is on a fundamental level.
In the beginning, the boxer trains technique. Boxing technique has the most
specific technical specifications regarding delivery and posture that I've ever
seen in a punching art. And I've looked.
But it doesn't end there. This is just the beginning. Learning execution is like
learning how to turn a steering wheel as it compares to actually driving a car.
The *real* work is in learning your delivery *against another boxer*. In boxing,
you're not trying to "hit something", you're trying to *land*. Your attack has to
*meet up* at maximum leverage against a moving target that is trying to make you
miss. It's very tricky to learn. Boxers are all about motion. They train to
move. This is because all boxers know all too well the axiom of the gun -- you
move the target as the bullet is coming (or after anticipating that it is about to
be thrown), and the bullet misses. A man who's throwing hands can't re-aim at
mid-stroke. And the punches come fast. So, your awareness has to pick up on
where the target is *about to be*, and you connect. You throw him out of posture
with your movement, combos, feints, re-angle off of a bob after your initial
entry, etc., and you connect.
But against a person who lacks this sense of motion and "making the opponent miss"
-- for instance, a person who leaves their head there and thinks they can "block"
or "trap" a good boxing attack -- well, this is just too easy. That man is going
to go to sleep. If the target doesn't move, it is easy. Even if the target DOES
move, it can be very easy, if the movement isn't correct. For instance, even
simplistic and unconscious movement will play into a boxer's hands. I've seen it
way too many times. Guy backs up, and BAM! he's playing right into a long rhythm
attack. A good penetrating cross puts him to sleep. And why? Because the man
moved in the wrong way. He ran down a dead end and had nowhere to go. Long
rhythm attack runs parallel and in line with this type of movement.
Let's say he managed to slip the cross to the outside -- most non-boxers do more
of a lateral duck, some will luck away. They try to make the attacker miss by too
much. BAM!. Lights out again. You overcommitted and played right into a short
rhythm attack. In boxing, at one extreme there is too little movement, and at the
other there is too much. In between, there is just enough. Too little, and you
get hit because the man only had to adjust the aim of his follow up a little bit
to get you. Too much, and now you're overcommitted to one side and can't turn
back in without looking right into your opponent's follow-up.
I suppose if more people actually tried what they *think* they could pull off
against a real boxer, they'd have more respect for boxing. But as it is, boxers
are not the most vocal lot in martial art, as far as making the reasons for their
methods clear to the uninitiated, or for that matter in criticizing openly what
other martial artists do. But I think it's very funny to hear people talk about
all of their blocking, "trapping", etc. and other static drawing board models for
how to fight, and how boxers are just these slow, clumsy "athletes" who lack
precision and don't know how to really fight. Yes, very funny.
Rene Ritchie
David Williams wrote:
>
> Wing Chun "Chain punches" are NOT arm punches.
>
> They are whole body punches using power from the ground.
I think its fair to say some people do them as arm punches and a superb
athlete could probably get away with that as long as they could train
hard enough to keep their edge. The other approach would be, as you
said, using the body hammer to drive the arm nail, which has definate
advantages (at least in my mind). A third is probably the changing
method (Fa Ging/Hua Jing) approach where the body or arm would connect
or disconnect as needed, creating the path on offense and making it
disappear on defense (lest the path out be taken as a path in ;)
> The mechanics are
> different then they
> are for a boxers straight, jab, cross, hook or shovel hook.
For certain. John C. of New York did a nice section on the differences
during the last friendship seminer.
> Just as boxers train using the heavy bag, Wing Chun students train hitting a
> wall mounted sandbag.
> I don't think anyone would want 3 punches to the face from a Wing Chun guy
> OR a boxer.
Yeah, I'd definately be in that catagory ;)
> "Brad Albert" <bc...@gte.net> wrote in message
> news:387c07ab...@news.thegrid.net...
> > On Tue, 11 Jan 2000 18:18:43 GMT, by...@torfree.net (Michael Y Wong)
> > wrote:
> > >WC rely on the "inch" jing
Actually, its probably closer to Duen Ging (Duan Jing, short power) than
Chuen Ging (Cun Jing, inch power)
> > >and boxing rely on the rotation and "swing" of
> > >the body, cross can do a lot of damage but if experienced WC can block
> > >the cross, the boxer will learn the power of "inch" jing. And that takes
> > >more than 1 year's WC experience.
Depends how good you're taught, how well you learn, and how many hours
comprise that "year". In my experience, you can learn Duen Ging without
it taking years (unless you have major unlearning or relaxation problems
to get over)
> > >In terms of "inch" jing, don't ever fight a WC in a closed space. The
> > >cross will have no space to travel whereas the WC can knock the trapped
> > >boxer out quite easily.
> >
> > Yeah. Right. Wing chun is arm punching practiced by fighting
> > theoreticians and pimple faced geeks with delusions of grandeur. And
> > a few normal people. :-)
Unfortunately, those few dull normals can demonstrate surprising power
in no distance situations.
> > A boxer will happily trade ten of your arm
> > punches for one of his. To the original poster: you're asking a cult
> > to explain its religion to you. If you want a cult experience where
> > you will be reinforced with the idea that you are turning into one bad
> > dude, even though you're no tougher than when you walked in the door,
> > let one of the resident theoreticians regale you with the wonders of
> > wing chun.
There are a lot of cult like attitudes both in and out of Wing Chun Kuen
and everyone has opinions. In the end, you have to see for yourself. If
you can't find someone who can prove it to you, it means just that. In
my experience, you can't really talk about a system, only whether the
practitioner can do it or not. I've been lucky to meet several who can,
and I'm pretty skeptical about such things.
> > Natural is bad! Theory is better!
I'm not sure you could actually prove boxing is more natural than Wing
Chun Kuen. WCK is only theory if you can't do it. Basically, in my
understanding, WCK works off simple motions that can be made reflex and
will hold up under stress. As with any subject, it can be made
needlessly complicated. I've yet to meet an experienced martial artist
who will say what is better. Most of them tend to look past silly
superficial things and realize the simple truths behind stylistic
differences.
> >Hope that
> > answers your questions. :-)
LOL! In typical RMA fashion ;)
FB
> That man is going
> ~to go to sleep. If the target doesn't move, it is easy. Even if the target DOES
> ~move, it can be very easy, if the movement isn't correct. For instance, even
> ~simplistic and unconscious movement will play into a boxer's hands. I've seen it
> ~way too many times. Guy backs up, and BAM! he's playing right into a long rhythm
> ~attack. A good penetrating cross puts him to sleep. And why? Because the man
> ~moved in the wrong way. He ran down a dead end and had nowhere to go. Long
> ~rhythm attack runs parallel and in line with this type of movement.
>
> How about I slide in under your cross and give you a good urakin to your
> nose driving it into your skull.
>
> Our form is "one punch, one kill" not one KO.
>
lol.
I think I'm done with this thread - ha.
FB
> ~> something that I didn't think of earlier. our form is actually based on
> ~> "one punch, one kill", the typical uncontrolled boxing roundhouse punch
> ~> can't be accurately directed to pressure point areas. the straight punch
> ~> can
> ~
> ~Really?
> ~
> ~So, a "typical" boxing roundhouse punch (?) is uncontrolled? What exactly is it
> ~you mean by "uncontrolled"?
> ~
> ~I haven't had much problem directing my hook ("roundhouse punch"??) to the
> ~"pressure point" on somebody's jaw.
> Again, I am not a WCer.
>
> pressure point of the solar-plexus with that punch? I am speaking of the
> little area below the sternum, where the small fragile bone called the
> Xiphoid is.
>
> An example, while giving CPR you have to be VERY careful not to hit this
> area as it'll break off. That's just the little bone, the area below
> itself is a pressure point, not the ribs and that but below the ribs
> right below the Xiphoid.
>
> This is where our vertical straight punches land. The fist lands right
> below the Xiphoid and the front two knuckles penetrate into that small
> area. just like a thread though the eye of a needle. Not a like trying to
> pound a square peg through a round hole.
>
And while you're trying to find the xiphoid it's a cake walk throwing hands over the top
in 1-2's.
>
> ~Perhaps you should consider what a boxing punch is on a fundamental level.
> ~
> ~In the beginning, the boxer trains technique. Boxing technique has the most
> ~specific technical specifications regarding delivery and posture that I've ever
> ~seen in a punching art. And I've looked
>
> We do also.
Uh, Yeah.
>
> Grip the floor with your toes, "feet shoulder width apart, knees bent (if
> you can see your toes it is wrong), back straight, shoulders back, elbows
> pined, head back chin tucked in"
>
> My sensei repeats this over and over and over while practicing the
> charts. I have this imbedded in my brain..
>
> "left foot forward, right hand punch, front knee bent back leg almost
> straight"
>
> "Your front leg is the fulcrum, the back leg is the lever, as you fire
> one punch bring it back just as fast while firing another".
>
Okay. A reverse punch with no turn of the heel. This is your ringer?
>
> Then sensei also talks about how the punch is thrown... I seriously do
> not feel like typing out that much, an entire 10 pages and can be written
> about it. here is some info if you are interested.
>
Does sensei demonstrate it against a boxer, or against someone who stands there in poor
posture and lets it happen?
>
> No we do not fight in a front stance, stances flow in and out of each
> other, sensei harry smith told me Shimabuku sensei had no defined stance
> and would flow out of them. just like a boxer moves around.
>
Just like a boxer. Hmm.
>
> ~But it doesn't end there. This is just the beginning. Learning execution is like
> ~learning how to turn a steering wheel as it compares to actually driving a car.
> ~
> ~The *real* work is in learning your delivery *against another boxer*. In boxing,
> ~you're not trying to "hit something", you're trying to *land*.
> We are trying to drive through the object. you are supposed to go through
> the solar-plexus to the spine. punch through, not at.
>
Oh, punching through. Much better than that "punching at" that boxers do, yes?
lol
>
> ~A man who's throwing hands can't re-aim at
> ~mid-stroke.
> you're right
>
> they can't, especially with a punch that takes a lot of time to reach the
> destination. That is why we are in so close, you back up we follow, you
> think boxing is close in?!? We breath down your neck.
>
So you breathe down the neck as you punch that xiphoid, or is this some other phase I'm
not familiar with?
>
> ~
> ~But against a person who lacks this sense of yupmotion and "making the opponent miss"
> ~-- for instance, a person who leaves their head there and thinks they can "block"
> ~or "trap" a good boxing attack -- well, this is just too easy.
>
> The objective is to attack the punch and break the bone.
So you break the boxer's arms as he's hitting you?
> I have also been
> taught to dodge punches, it's a slide.
Dodging and sliding?
Ah. So you slip in that uraken under the cross. hmm.
>
> ~Let's say he managed to slip the cross to the outside -- most non-boxers do more
> ~of a lateral duck, some will look away.
>
> we step to the side and push kick, sending you in the other direction.
> ducking is asking for a kick to the head, there is no duck.
>
> hey, boxing is great, it's really the student that matters I think. I
> just don't like the types of people I see coming out of the boxing club,
> it upsets me.
>
Well, certainly. After all, how could they possibly measure up to the high combative
standards you've outlined in this post alone?
>
> Do not underestimate martial arts, there are many and many which were
> recently designed.
Tae Bo was "recently designed". What is your point?
> I intern will not underestimate boxers.
>
You're an intern?
FB
> > Tony Destro wrote:
> >
> > > How about I slide in under your cross and give you a good urakin to your
> > > nose driving it into your skull.
> > >
> > > Our form is "one punch, one kill" not one KO.
> > >
> >
> > lol.
> >
> >
> > I think I'm done with this thread - ha.
>
> Don't do it, Frank. This guy might swat you with the comic book that he
> learned fighting from. Hang in there.
lol yet again.
Nemo Outis
Wing Chun - the style that jabs badly with both hands!
Regards,
In article <P8lf4.15574$406.1...@news1.rdc2.tx.home.com>, "Mike Sigman"
<mikes...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>"David Williams" <dlw_N...@wingchun.com> wrote in message
>news:lfff4.17858
>
>> I don't think anyone would want 3 punches to the face from a Wing Chun guy
>> OR a boxer.
>
Nemo Outis
Can't you let the poor WCer live with his illusions - or is that delusions?
Regards,
In article <20000113113831...@ng-fi1.aol.com>, trav...@aol.com
Mike Sigman
David Williams
Back at ya!
"Nemo Outis" <nemo_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:R0vf4.25302$G55.3...@news1.rdc1.ab.home.com...
David Williams
So can one just buy these magic boxing punches that always work? <grin>
Techniques are only as good as the practioner delivering them. If I train at
the Kronk gym and with Rickson Gracie
It don't make me the motor city cobra with Gracie options.
David Williams
"Wondering where Frank & Travis got the extra dose of testosterone from" :)
:) :)
"FB" <spa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:387D5E07...@hotmail.com...
>
> Does what you just said actually make sense to you?
>
> Boxing specializes in fighting with the fists. It is arguably the best
> fist-fighting art ever devised. It makes an excellent complement to other
> skills in constructing a total synthesis of martial art.
>
> You should first learn some real boxing before you engage a thread on the
> subject.
Isn't this a WC straight punch thread?
>
> Everything in boxing is field tested, makes sense, and nothing is taken on
> faith.
>
> There are no grand puba's who pont-defecate untenable bullshit to the
faithful.
> Boxing's attitude is: You say such-and-such works? Well, let's see how
you do
> when I'm giving you an astronomy lesson and showing you the stars.
That means little as the better boxer is simply going to beat the crap out
of the other. Right?
I mean its not just a bunch of techniques moving around the ring, it is a
person--either well trained or mediocre
or untrained trying to hit the other guy and make the other guy miss.
FB
> FB? Is that you? Dude chilll...
>
> So can one just buy these magic boxing punches that always work? <grin>
>
ha. Sometimes people who make flippant remarks about the real deal need to be
set straight.
And yes, you *can* buy those magic punches that always work. Payment is in
blood, sweat, and toil. You don't pay, you don't get.
>
> Techniques are only as good as the practioner delivering them.
And practitioners are also in many cases only as good as their methods.
IOW, it's not quite that simple, but I do agree. The individual is a major
determinant. But method does mean quite a lot.
>
> Isn't this a WC straight punch thread?
>
I believe someone at some point turned it into a "Boxing Punches" sub-thread.
> > Everything in boxing is field tested, makes sense, and nothing is taken on
> > faith.
> >
> > There are no grand puba's who pont-defecate untenable bullshit to the
> faithful.
> > Boxing's attitude is: You say such-and-such works? Well, let's see how
> you do
> > when I'm giving you an astronomy lesson and showing you the stars.
>
> That means little as the better boxer is simply going to beat the crap out
> of the other. Right?
>
> I mean its not just a bunch of techniques moving around the ring, it is a
> person--either well trained or mediocre
> or untrained trying to hit the other guy and make the other guy miss.
Yes, but well trained or mediocre at what?
IOW, there's usually more to it. Method certainly *does* mean something. You
can also have two well-trained similar people with different arsenals and
emphases, and that -- ceteris parabus -- will set them apart, yielding certain
advantages for one over the other.
I've seen mediocre, "trained for a year and a half" boxers tear up
"well-trained" martial artists with similar physical attributes and ten times
the years in.
In considering the how and why of this, we are left with the methods of the
individuals.
b...@xyz.com
>If the same person with 1 year experience in WC and say western style
>boxing, which would be a stronger punch a WC straight punch or a boxer's
>cross?
>what are the disadvantages and advantages of the wing chun straight punch?
depends on the person.
TravIsGod
>
Huh? The typical "uncontrolled" anything can't be directed, that's the
definition of "uncontrolled"!!! Boxers don't throw uncontrolled roundhouses.
Trav
TravIsGod
>mad man.. YOU _KNOW_ that to one twist punch we can do one chart 1 #12,
>how are boxers power punches any different?
10 to 1 is out of the question. Boxers also train to hit fast and
repeatedly...haven't you watched any boxing? The twisty punch may or may not
be slower; I have no beef with its speed, only the unnecessary twisting motion.
As for boxing punches, such as the hook & cross; these aren't even related to
the straight punch - they're a different technique.
>How about I slide in under your cross and give you a good urakin to your
>nose driving it into your skull.
This is just BS.
Trav
TravIsGod
>over the top
>in 1-2's.
>
yeah, don't forget to punch downward, huh?
>> about it. here is some info if you are interested.
>>
>
>Does sensei demonstrate it against a boxer, or against someone who stands
>there in poor
>posture and lets it happen?
>
he is misapplying what he's learning...don't be too hard on him.
Trav
Matt Madsen
You mean, "This is where our punches aim." And if you don't think
a boxer'll land a punch to your solar plexus, it's only because he'll
be too busy landing 'em to your temple.
Matt Madsen
Mike Sigman
"Tony Destro" <Dest...@mindless.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.12e9544f6...@news.nb.net...
> Take a tree, and hit it with a sledge hammer, this is the boxing attack,
> it shakes the shit out of the tree and the energy is dispersed over a
> large area. Hit the tree again with an ax, this disperses the energy over
> a tiny area and cuts the tree down.
You guys fight with axes???!!!
> The wedge is also at work here as
> also is in our punch.
There's another wedge between brain and mouth. You need to get hit by a
real boxer. I have. The essential thing to remember is that they spend a
lot of time practicing hitting... they hit very very hard. They hit so
much that good ones tend to have figured out the optimum way to connect all
of their used power links, just as a result of all that practice. So they
*really* hit hard. They hit harder than people who wear ice-cream suits
and wear colored belts.
Mike
Mike Sigman
> I remind you again that I do
> full contact with equipment but the okinawans sometimes do/did with no
> protection. one of my boxer friends and I are going to practice together
> during the summer so that we both can get better.
Whoa.... you do all that? All I do is about 10 minutes of my form, chant
my mantras, and "visualize" what a real fight must be like. So far I
haven't been able to visualize anyone that could whip my ass and since I'm a
well-known genius, it must be true.
Regards,
Mike "Age of Aquarius" Sigman
Matt Madsen
Tony Destro <Dest...@mindless.com> wrote:
>Take a tree, and hit it with a sledge hammer, this is the boxing attack,
>it shakes the shit out of the tree and the energy is dispersed over a
>large area. Hit the tree again with an ax, this disperses the energy over
Take a hummingbird, and hit it with a slege hammer. This is a boxing
attack. Miss the hummingbird with an ax. This is our punch.
Boxer's do not throw slow punches. They do not throw inaccurate punches.
But most importantly, they practice throwing their hard, fast, accurate
punches at moving, defending targets. They don't practice hitting small,
imobile targets. The challenge isn't to hit smaller and smaller targets,
but better and better defended ones that hit back.
Matt Madsen
Tony Destro
~>mad man.. YOU _KNOW_ that to one twist punch we can do one chart 1 #12,
~>how are boxers power punches any different?
~
~10 to 1 is out of the question.
hell yeah it is. he said 5 to two. and I said no, ten to two.
Ten to one is like impossible
~Boxers also train to hit fast and
~repeatedly...haven't you watched any boxing? The twisty punch may or may not
~be slower; I have no beef with its speed, only the unnecessary twisting motion.
~ As for boxing punches, such as the hook & cross; these aren't even related to
~the straight punch - they're a different technique.
~
~>How about I slide in under your cross and give you a good urakin to your
~>nose driving it into your skull.
~
~This is just BS.
Then what is the move in seisan kata?
~
FB
Poetry.
lol
Tony Destro
bonds of time ripped as David Williams yelled the following:
~Trav,
~
~He's implying that in isshinryu-land they have precision guided laser
~punches. :)
~Which they use to target pressure point areas with awesome precision.
Isshin ryu-land.... you upset me.. very.
I know that I can defend myself. I do full contact sparing, I don't sit
there and pull punches and WONDER what I can do.
~Of course we both know that in a fight, that kind of artistic precision is
~only going to come into play if:
Yesterday sensei talked about this EXACT same thing.
:P
~1) You are lucky.
~2) You've got the guy on woozy street and he's standing there waiting for
~you to deliver that coup de grace finishing move that knocks him out etc.
3) "You say 'How am I actually going be able do this with the form and
precision I do in class", if you practice it over and over and over and
over the correct way, this becomes habit. If someone would actually try
to harm you, your reflexes will react in the same manner as if you would
pull away from something scorching hot"
I told you before about the femur story and the femur is a rather large
bone. You want to try to hit a pressure point, it doesn't have to.. it's
still effective if it misses. I've already described to you why our
reverse punch is very powerful when thrown correctly (this includes
everything, including proper breathing) it's not a WC "arm punch". I'm
telling you this the best I know how.
Why would you think that my teacher would have any trouble striking that
area, especially since he found it without even looking.
-Tony
"All bottles are good, they all serve a purpose" -- Tastuo Shimabuku
John Carlo
it is obvious this guy knows absolutly nothing about boxing or fighting
and has his head so far up his instructors ass it is stuck.
tony the joker ., i do alittle boxing if you live around NY and want to
try your horseshit against a real boxer lets hook up a match.
I will love to break every bone in your fuckin head. and being iam
only a boxer it is going to really suck when i start kicking-because
when i do you will already be knocked out and busted up and on the
ground and then i will start kicking your dumb ass all over the parking
lot. LETS get it on cupcake show the world you can fight
David Williams
He's implying that in isshinryu-land they have precision guided laser
punches. :)
Which they use to target pressure point areas with awesome precision.
Whereas those lumbering boxer types merely just wanna take your head off
and don't have the goal of striking some meridian etc. etc.
Of course we both know that in a fight, that kind of artistic precision is
only
going to come into play if:
1) You are lucky.
2) You've got the guy on woozy street and he's standing there waiting for
you to deliver that coup de grace
finishing move that knocks him out etc.
etc. etc.
David Williams
"Trav should'n't you know this coming from Isshinryu-land? :)"
"TravIsGod" <trav...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000114123609...@ng-bh1.aol.com...
Tony Destro
(EST) the bonds of time ripped as John Carlo yelled the following:
~FB, TRAV WHY DO YOU GUYS EVEN BOTHER WITH this FUCKIN MEATBALL/
~it is obvious this guy knows absolutly nothing about boxing or fighting
~ and has his head so far up his instructors ass it is stuck.
~ tony the joker ., i do alittle boxing if you live around NY and want to
~try your horseshit against a real boxer lets hook up a match.
~ I will love to break every bone in your fuckin head. and being iam
~only a boxer it is going to really suck when i start kicking-because
~when i do you will already be knocked out and busted up and on the
~ground and then i will start kicking your dumb ass all over the parking
~lot. LETS get it on cupcake show the world you can fight
This just displays your ill temper and also shows that you have no self
control. Someone with this type of temper should not even be permitted to
learn to throw a punch until they learn some control. This just makes me
stereotype boxers more. I did not say, or claim to be the best student in
the world.. I don't think I am a very good student, even though others
say otherwise. I don't claim to be a person who couldn't be beat by a
boxer.
We are comparing strikes, that's all. I don't think once did I say that
our punch is better, or superior--you however, did. It's simply
different. I want to have an intelligent converstion and show the best
aspects of each...
Tony Destro
~>over the top
~>in 1-2's.
~>
~
~yeah, don't forget to punch downward, huh?
~
~>> about it. here is some info if you are interested.
~>>
~>
~>Does sensei demonstrate it against a boxer, or against someone who stands
~>there in poor
~>posture and lets it happen?
~>
~
~he is misapplying what he's learning...don't be too hard on him.
Trav if you know of something I am saying to be wrong why not correct me
so I can understand why I am wrong? I am actually trying to learn
something here. Why not explain to me in detail why I am wrong so I know?
not just "you are wrong" and that's it.
Myers4321
>square peg through a round hole. The energy is dispersed in to a wide
>area. The isshinryu punch disperses all the energy into a small 1 inch
>area (the front two knuckles), and directly to the solar plexus.
----Oh great...good scenario. An attacker comes at me so I say "Wait! Stop!
Let me put my boxing gloves on!" Get real! That was one of the stupidest
comments I've heard in awhile. If you are going to compare martial arts...do
it! Don't compare to "sport" boxing....compare to "martial" boxing! "Martial"
boxing doesn't wear gloves!
>The isshinryu punches' dispersion of power and it's snap creates a
>breaking effect. This is one of the reasons why that police officer I
>mentioned was told about (previous posts) was able to break an attackers
>_femur_ with our "reverse punch" as Americans call it.
>
>Take a tree, and hit it with a sledge hammer, this is the boxing attack,
>it shakes the shit out of the tree and the energy is dispersed over a
>large area. Hit the tree again with an ax, this disperses the energy over
>a tiny area and cuts the tree down. The wedge is also at work here as
>also is in our punch.
---Again, that's total B.S. You obviously don't know anything about boxing.
Keith
Myers4321
>end the fight quickly with a pressure point hit or crack a bone
----And how likely is this against a very mobile, fast opponent probbing you
with fast jabs and then throwing a firestorm of combination punches? Not very.
one of my boxer friends and I are going to practice together
>during the summer so that we both can get better.
---Great! I hope he knows what he is doing and it is a mind opening experience
for you.
Then you may realize how silly some of the comments you have made here are.
:-)
Keith
simon james
FB wrote in message <387EB796...@hotmail.com>...
>Tony Destro wrote:
>> That man is going
>> ~to go to sleep. If the target doesn't move, it is easy. Even if the
target DOES
>> ~move, it can be very easy, if the movement isn't correct. For instance,
even
>> ~simplistic and unconscious movement will play into a boxer's hands.
I've seen it
>> ~way too many times. Guy backs up, and BAM! he's playing right into a
long rhythm
>> ~attack. A good penetrating cross puts him to sleep. And why? Because
the man
>> ~moved in the wrong way. He ran down a dead end and had nowhere to go.
Long
>> ~rhythm attack runs parallel and in line with this type of movement.
>>
>> How about I slide in under your cross and give you a good urakin to your
>> nose driving it into your skull.
## I seriously doubt a backfist, even a 'good' one is going to drive
someones nose into their skull.
It *might* break it if it lands well.
This *might* effect someones ability to fight. It might not.
Pop Quiz:
Your punch will make his eyes water - Frank's will knock him out.
Which is better ?
>> Our form is "one punch, one kill" not one KO.
## So a backfist to the nose is gonna kill ??
Tony, have you ever actually been in a fight ?
Ever used any of your "one punch, one kill" techniques ?
Simon
Tony Destro
bonds of time ripped as simon james yelled the following:
~
~FB wrote in message <387EB796...@hotmail.com>...
~>Tony Destro wrote:
~
~This *might* effect someones ability to fight. It might not.
~Pop Quiz:
~Your punch will make his eyes water - Frank's will knock him out.
~Which is better ?
Even if it is poorly landed and will not kill him he'll still have a
broken nose.
~>> Our form is "one punch, one kill" not one KO.
~
~## So a backfist to the nose is gonna kill ??
It is NOT just a backfist. Remember you're sliding across the floor and
there is going to be a lot of power behind that.
~Tony, have you ever actually been in a fight ?
Several, but not like I went and tried to use kill strikes. I would never
try to kill someone unless I didn't have any other choice.
Tony Destro
of time ripped as Myers4321 yelled the following:
~>a cross will feel like a hell of a bitch if it is landed. That is why you
~>end the fight quickly with a pressure point hit or crack a bone
~
~----And how likely is this against a very mobile, fast opponent probbing you
~with fast jabs and then throwing a firestorm of combination punches? Not very.
The opponent can throw his jabs... In close the isshinryu punch will not
miss, it's too fast and too powerful when thrown correctly. you can not
pussy foot arround throwing jabs.
~
~ one of my boxer friends and I are going to practice together
~>during the summer so that we both can get better.
~
~---Great! I hope he knows what he is doing and it is a mind opening experience
~for you.
~Then you may realize how silly some of the comments you have made here are.
Most of the things I say are backed by 9th dans... and I can quote them
but That would be rude, and you wouldn't believe it even if I told you.
Tony Destro
~>square peg through a round hole. The energy is dispersed in to a wide
~>area. The isshinryu punch disperses all the energy into a small 1 inch
~>area (the front two knuckles), and directly to the solar plexus.
~
~----Oh great...good scenario. An attacker comes at me so I say "Wait! Stop!
~Let me put my boxing gloves on!" Get real! That was one of the stupidest
~comments I've heard in awhile. If you are going to compare martial arts...do
~it! Don't compare to "sport" boxing....compare to "martial" boxing! "Martial"
~boxing doesn't wear gloves!
The vertical punch was used in some boxing before the introduction of
gloves. Also note that a boxing glove the thumb lies on the top of the
glove (my pair does anyhow). And I AM talking about sport boxing--
american boxing because there are some sport boxers who think that their
SPORT is a fighting art. Martial Boxing is awesome but AGAIN do not claim
that is is better, it's different.
~---Again, that's total BS. You obviously don't know anything about boxing.
No I don't, I admit that. No one has stepped forward to explain anything
to me I have already tried to explain my best.
Myers4321
>----Oh great...good scenario. An attacker comes at me so I say "Wait!>Stop!
>~Let me put my boxing gloves on!" Get real! That was one of the stupidest
>~comments I've heard in awhile. If you are going to compare martial
>arts...do>~it! Don't compare to "sport" boxing....compare to "martial"
boxing!
>"Martial">~boxing doesn't wear gloves!
To which you responded:
The vertical punch was used in some boxing before the introduction of
gloves.
----And still is in "martial" boxing. What's your point?
Also note that a boxing glove the thumb lies on the top of the glove (my pair
does anyhow).
-----And I pointed out that not all boxing uses gloves. Especially in a real
fighting situation. So again...what's your point?
And I AM talking about sport boxing--american boxing because there are some
sport boxers who think that their
>SPORT is a fighting art.
---Why do you insist on limiting this to sport boxing? Did my previous comment
go over your head? Sport boxers don't face anyone else in the ring but sport
boxers, so any comparisons are moot. This is a martial arts forum. If you
want to make comparisons, do it with the martial version, not the sport
version. Even considering the sport boxers who "think that their sport is a
fighting art".....do you actually think they're going to take the time to put
on gloves before they defend themselves in a real situation?
Martial Boxing is awesome but AGAIN do not claim that is is better, it's
different.
----I never claimed superiority for anything. I was simply pointing out how
ludicrous many of your comments were.
>
>~---Again, that's total BS. You obviously don't know anything about boxing.
No I don't, I admit that.
---Good. So don't make sweeping comments and generalizations about it. If you
want to preface your comments with something like "in my experience," or "from
what I've seen," or "in my understanding" ....then fine. But be open to
others pointing out why your interpretation is in error.
No one has stepped forward to explain anything to me I have already tried to
explain my best.
----I pointed out the error in assuming all boxing is based on wearing gloves.
That seemed to go right over your head. Frank has made many good points and
corrections, which you seem to have ignored. Don't act all noble and say no
one is explaining things if you aren't willing to listen.
Keith
Jerry Love
news:387D5E07...@hotmail.com...
> > > > > Pay no attention to the obvious fact that boxing is designed for
the
> > > > > human body as it naturally works.
> > > >
> > > > That explains why retiring boxers are so permenantly punch drunk
that
> > > > they are senile. The accellerate the natural aging with such natural
> > > > technique.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Ridiculous statement. The fact that boxers get hit (and hurt from too
> > > much of it) says nothing for the naturalness of its ways of attack.
So it is true but irrevelant? Then why do you defend it later in this
thread?
> > Brain damage is the natural result of humans acting in a natural way?
> >
> The offensive techniques, posturing, composure, and movement of boxing are
what
> are natural.
Many animals do such posturing and figthing for territory and mates and food
and don't suffer permentant damage. Not sure how atural hitting so hard as
to require gloves in natrual. Do you feel it is natural.
> Brain damage is what results when you face off against this "naturalness"
too
> often in a full contact setting.
>
> Only other boxers give boxers serious head injuries. No one else really
manages
> to land a head shot.
Should you tell that to the Gracies and such?
<snip>
> > > > Or you can go box and hope on the street they have gloves and don't
kick
> > and
> > > > aren't armed and you have your cup and there is only one of them and
you
> > > > have an open rectangular space with wills you don't mind bouncing in
to.
> > >
> > > Or, you could train boxing, and in addition train weapons, groundwork,
and
> > > kicks, and should it ever go down at punching range you rule the roost
> >
> > So I would only have to study 3 arts (plus guns and such) and I could
rule
> > the roost?
> >
> > I guess the same could be said for the WC guy huh? If boxing alone has
flaws
> > then it is the pot calling the kettle black for a boxer to say bosing is
> > better than WC because WC as flaws. No?
> >
> Does what you just said actually make sense to you?
Yes, but I will reiterate/paraphrase
You said you can study boxing and 3 other arts and you would "rule the
roost"
I said you could study WC and 3 other arts and do the same.
I said that boxing has missing parts (weapons and such). You said WC had
missing parts (bad punching). I said you cannot critisize WC for having
omissions without aknowledging the same in boxing.
> Boxing specializes in fighting with the fists. It is arguably the best
> fist-fighting art ever devised.
It has some excellent knowledge in that area and is definately something
everyone should look at.
> It makes an excellent complement to other
> skills in constructing a total synthesis of martial art.
I both agree and disagree, but what is your point? It doesn't seem to be on
the WC vs Boxing thread.
> You should first learn some real boxing before you engage a thread on the
> subject.
Presumptuious, incorrect, and irrevelant.
> Everything in boxing is field tested, makes sense, and nothing is taken on
> faith.
That could be said for the way Iraq conducted itself in it's conflict with
us. It used proven technique and proven equipment. It also lost to something
better. But this too is irrevelant. The discussion is boxing punches ves
Wing-Ching punches.
And for the record, I prefer boxings. But the person I chimed in to respond
too was far to disparigant of WC and needed to be yelled at.
> There are no grand puba's who pont-defecate untenable bullshit to the
faithful.
> Boxing's attitude is: You say such-and-such works? Well, let's see how
you do
> when I'm giving you an astronomy lesson and showing you the stars.
Threats? OK.... Try it and I will presume you are better than me and trying
to kill me. Shall we discuss firearms and "reasonable fear of immediate
threat to health or life"? Concealed permits are easy to get in this state.
My fav is 9mm parabellum, but I seem to be alone and have been encouraged to
practice/carry .40 cal. I'm tired of ths posturing crap.
Or would you prefer to simply discuss the merits of the vertical punch vs
boxing punches?
Jerry Love
Jerry Love
dealing with kicks and elbows and such. And many of the ring skills
translate well.
Boxing in a ring however is not preparing for knees and such. What they
learn outside that environment is up to them. Never assume because some
boxes, that is all they do.
On the other hand, because of stance and movement, they will never be as
good against feet as they are against hands.
Mostly cause they are very good with hands.
Jerry Love
Myers4321 <myer...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000113063051...@ng-ca1.aol.com...
> >Boxers are not foolish, they play by the rules of their sport. They
> >move as they do because they needn't worry about being kicked, locked,
> >tackled, or thrown inside the ring.
>
> ---You have obviously never encounter boxing that has be adapted as a
martial
> art.
> Panantukan has boxing as its base, and is well prepared to deal with
anything
> you might encounter on the street. People don't define TKD by its
> ring/competition aspects alone....so why do we continue to define boxing
> strictly by its ring aspects? This is a martial arts forum. If you are
going
> to bring boxing into the mix, then you had better assume that its
"martial"
> boxing and not "sport" boxing. I have seen a whole lot of misconceptions
in
> this thread because most of the people posting are assuming a clueless
boxer
> right out of the gym with no concept of what martial arts are all about.
> That's a big assumption!
Tony Destro
newsgroup myer...@aol.com , on the date of myer...@aol.com you
posted:
>I initially wrote:
>>----Oh great...good scenario. An attacker comes at me so I say "Wait!>Stop!
>>~Let me put my boxing gloves on!" Get real! That was one of the stupidest
>>~comments I've heard in awhile. If you are going to compare martial
>>arts...do>~it! Don't compare to "sport" boxing....compare to "martial"
>boxing!
>>"Martial">~boxing doesn't wear gloves!
>
>To which you responded:
>The vertical punch was used in some boxing before the introduction of
>gloves.
>
>----And still is in "martial" boxing. What's your point?
us. Marital boxer punches, like a sport boxer, are considered very
strong,
correct?
If so, I was stating our vertical like the martial boxers vertical isn't
a weak "laser" punch like all seem to claim. It isn't, I have already
heard of two times that it has been used to kill with one strike.
Obviously you agree that verticals are strong. "sport" boxers seem to
think of a vertical being a weak "arm punch". It is not a weak "arm
punch". It is a very strong and fast punch. WCs maybe an arm punch (I
don't know), but not ours.
>Also note that a boxing glove the thumb lies on the top of the glove (my pair
>does anyhow).
>
>-----And I pointed out that not all boxing uses gloves. Especially in a real
>fighting situation. So again...what's your point?
That Sport boxers gloves force the thumb to hold the same way as ours
resembling our fist again showing that our fist and punch is not
inferior.
>And I AM talking about sport boxing--american boxing because there are some
>sport boxers who think that their
>>SPORT is a fighting art.
>
>---Why do you insist on limiting this to sport boxing?
Because I don't have any problem with martial boxing they understand that
a vertical punch is not weak. Sport boxers don't seem too and claim a
boxers cross is the best punch in the world.
>Did my previous comment
>go over your head? Sport boxers don't face anyone else in the ring but sport
>boxers, so any comparisons are moot.
No but the ones I know like to think they can and that their sport is a
"fighting art".
>Even considering the sport boxers who "think that their sport is a
>fighting art".....do you actually think they're going to take the time to put
>on gloves before they defend themselves in a real situation?
no, but the sport boxer will land them the same way as they do with
gloves . It's obvious in my estimation, the force from the punch will
still hit with the entire fist (increasing the chance of injury) not two
vertical knuckles in a vertical hole in the chest.
my point is, a sport boxer without gloves is still a sport boxer.
> Martial Boxing is awesome but AGAIN do not claim that is is better, it's
>different.
>
>----I never claimed superiority for anything.
No you haven't and you make very good conversation also. But others have,
read some of the post titles like "... boxing punches are better overall"
I assumed sport boxing with horizontal fists. And I know that a vertical
properly done is NOT weak so I naturally took the side with the WCers.
>----I pointed out the error in assuming all boxing is based on wearing gloves.
I'm talking about sport boxing... not martial boxing.
> Don't act all noble and say no one is explaining things if you aren't willing to listen.
I am willing to listen. no one has told me how a cross is somehow more
powerful then our reverse punch which has been designed and tested to
kill with one strike. I told you the femur story.. any thing that can
break a bone like that is very strong.
FB
> FB <spa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:387D5E07...@hotmail.com...
>
> > > > > > Pay no attention to the obvious fact that boxing is designed for
> the
> > > > > > human body as it naturally works.
> > > > >
> > > > > That explains why retiring boxers are so permenantly punch drunk
> that
> > > > > they are senile. The accellerate the natural aging with such natural
> > > > > technique.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ridiculous statement. The fact that boxers get hit (and hurt from too
> > > > much of it) says nothing for the naturalness of its ways of attack.
>
> So it is true but irrevelant? Then why do you defend it later in this
> thread?
>
>
Excuse me?
Boxing techniques incorporate motion and leveraging which is natural for the
human body to perform.
What is it about this statement that you are having trouble getting?
> > > Brain damage is the natural result of humans acting in a natural way?
> > >
> > The offensive techniques, posturing, composure, and movement of boxing are
> what
> > are natural.
>
> Many animals do such posturing and figthing for territory and mates and food
> and don't suffer permentant damage. Not sure how atural hitting so hard as
> to require gloves in natrual. Do you feel it is natural.
>
Entschuldigen Sie, noch einmal?
Again, you are defining the word "natural" in odd terms -- e.g. whether it is
"natural" to want to hit someone "so hard".
Of course it is natural. But what is also natural is the ways in which boxing
conveys focussed power from the hips, legs, and ground to a target. Natural
mechanics.
>
> > Brain damage is what results when you face off against this "naturalness"
> too
> > often in a full contact setting.
> >
> > Only other boxers give boxers serious head injuries. No one else really
> manages
> > to land a head shot.
>
> Should you tell that to the Gracies and such?
>
>
Ridiculous. What you said does not even address the situation.
Do try again.
Bzzt.
You're just looking for an argument.
Boxing lacks nothing in terms of carrying the load it claims to. The art
doesn't claim to have anything in spades that it doesn't possess. Boxing's only
claim to fame or function is in its ability to enable the practitioner to
dominate a standing fight at punching range.
Your whole statement about "study WC and 3 other arts and do the same" is plain
silly. A simple arbitrary obfuscation.
>
> > Boxing specializes in fighting with the fists. It is arguably the best
> > fist-fighting art ever devised.
>
> It has some excellent knowledge in that area and is definately something
> everyone should look at.
>
> > It makes an excellent complement to other
> > skills in constructing a total synthesis of martial art.
>
> I both agree and disagree, but what is your point? It doesn't seem to be on
> the WC vs Boxing thread.
>
????
>
> > You should first learn some real boxing before you engage a thread on the
> > subject.
>
> Presumptuious, incorrect, and irrevelant.
>
Oh? Then why not start making some actual sense in your statements and
comparisons?
So far, what you've had to say does not impress.
>
> > Everything in boxing is field tested, makes sense, and nothing is taken on
> > faith.
>
> That could be said for the way Iraq conducted itself in it's conflict with
> us. It used proven technique and proven equipment. It also lost to something
> better. But this too is irrevelant. The discussion is boxing punches ves
> Wing-Ching punches.
>
> And for the record, I prefer boxings. But the person I chimed in to respond
> too was far to disparigant of WC and needed to be yelled at.
>
Well, then, it's a good thing he had you handy to give it to him, isn't it?
It shouldn't deter you a bit that his statements made more sense than yours even
approached.
>
> > There are no grand puba's who pont-defecate untenable bullshit to the
> faithful.
> > Boxing's attitude is: You say such-and-such works? Well, let's see how
> you do
> > when I'm giving you an astronomy lesson and showing you the stars.
>
> Threats? OK.... Try it and I will presume you are better than me and trying
> to kill me.
Read it again. It is an exposition of boxing's attitude toward unproven tactics
-- not at all a personal statement from me.
> Shall we discuss firearms and "reasonable fear of immediate
> threat to health or life"? Concealed permits are easy to get in this state.
> My fav is 9mm parabellum, but I seem to be alone and have been encouraged to
> practice/carry .40 cal. I'm tired of ths posturing crap.
>
Nice eislogic there, Jer.
The only posturing that I'm seeing is coming from yourself.
> Or would you prefer to simply discuss the merits of the vertical punch vs
> boxing punches?
>
> Jerry Love
I've done that.
Join in anytime.
tim
: >>>>>>> Pay no attention to the obvious fact that boxing is designed for the
: >>>>>>> human body as it naturally works.
: >>>>>> That explains why retiring boxers are so permenantly punch drunk that
: >>>>>> they are senile. The accellerate the natural aging with such natural
: >>>>>> technique.
: >>>>> Ridiculous statement. The fact that boxers get hit (and hurt from too
: >>>>> much of it) says nothing for the naturalness of its ways of attack.
: Jerry:
: >>>> Brain damage is the natural result of humans acting in a natural way?
: FB:
: >>> The offensive techniques, posturing, composure, and movement of boxing
: are
: >>> what are natural.
<snip>
i snipped most of that sickeningly long string of quoting down to what i
thought was relevent. if i mixed anything up, sorry.
Jerry Love <sp...@microsoft.com> wrote: [rearranged]
: I would say that hitting with a closed fist at all is unnatural.
: Show me one 5 year-old that instinctively boxes and I'll take it all back.
hitting with a closed fist is most certainly natural. along with
pushing, pulling, squeezing, biting, and sometimes, headbutting; not to
mention using objects to hit with or throw. watch how kids fight. hell,
watch how your average joe or jane with no training fights. if they're
not 'rasslin' around (complete with bites and scratches), they ball up
their fists, extend their arms and swing them wildly.
now, is that instinct, or cultural conditioning? any choice would be
speculation.
: I would
: further say that hitting with enough force to injure yourself is unnatural.
um, absolutely not. the proper amount of force you 'naturally' hit with
is every bit you can muster. whether or not it injures you is a matter
of how much force whatever it is that you hit actually returns.
tim
Jerry Love
FB:
>>>>>>> Pay no attention to the obvious fact that boxing is designed for the
>>>>>>> human body as it naturally works.
Jerry:
>>>>>> That explains why retiring boxers are so permenantly punch drunk that
>>>>>> they are senile. The accellerate the natural aging with such natural
>>>>>> technique.
FB:
>>>>> Ridiculous statement. The fact that boxers get hit (and hurt from too
>>>>> much of it) says nothing for the naturalness of its ways of attack.
Jerry:
>> So it is true but irrevelant? Then why do you defend it later in this
>> thread?
FB:
> Excuse me?
You are excused
> Boxing techniques incorporate motion and leveraging which is natural for
the
> human body to perform.
So does Wing Chung. And if you are not pointing out this (the above) for a
comparison to WC or a rebuttal to a comparison, it is off topic. That topic
meing th differenced between WC punching and Boxing punching.
> What is it about this statement that you are having trouble getting?
Why you keep repeating it. How it is relevent. What difference it makes.
Obviously the last was "how is it true" but you have made that apparent as
"cause I interperate it so"
To wit, I agree Boxing has movements incorporated that are natural. So does
everything else.
Jerry:
>>>> Brain damage is the natural result of humans acting in a natural way?
FB:
>>> The offensive techniques, posturing, composure, and movement of boxing
are
>>> what are natural.
Jerry:
>> Many animals do such posturing and figthing for territory and mates and
food
>> and don't suffer permentant damage. Not sure how atural hitting so hard
as
>> to require gloves in natrual. Do you feel it is natural.
> Entschuldigen Sie, noch einmal?
"You apologize another once?" Ich kanne nicht Sie verstehen. Bitte, auf
English ver spreken
> Again, you are defining the word "natural" in odd terms -- e.g. whether it
is
> "natural" to want to hit someone "so hard".
Not want. You never said "boxing moves the way people want to move".
I would say that hitting with a closed fist at all is unnatural. I would
further say that hitting with enough force to injure yourself is unnatural.
Show me one 5 year-old that instinctively boxes and I'll take it all back.
> Of course it is natural. But what is also natural is the ways in which
boxing
> conveys focussed power from the hips, legs, and ground to a target.
Natural
> mechanics.
While we are off topic (since natural is irrelevent) what would be unnatural
ways to focus power?
>>> Brain damage is what results when you face off against this
"naturalness"
>>> too often in a full contact setting.
>>> Only other boxers give boxers serious head injuries. No one else really
>>> manages to land a head shot.
> > Should you tell that to the Gracies and such?
> Ridiculous. What you said does not even address the situation.
No but it addresses your statment. One which the facts do not support. The
fact is that people with boxing backgrounds have compeated and lost in NHB.
And they have been hit in the head trying. My point being that "no one else
really manages a head shot" is simply false.
> Do try again.
And this condecending remark will notmake it true.
> > <snip>
Jerry
>>>>>> Or you can go box and hope on the street they have gloves and don't
kick
>>>>>> and aren't armed and you have your cup and there is only one of them
and
>>>>>> you have an open rectangular space with wills you don't mind bouncing
in
>>>>>> to.
FB
>>>>> Or, you could train boxing, and in addition train weapons, groundwork,
>>>>> and kicks, and should it ever go down at punching range you rule the
roost
Jerry
>>>> So I would only have to study 3 arts (plus guns and such) and I could
rule
>>>> the roost?
>>>> I guess the same could be said for the WC guy huh? If boxing alone has
>>>> flaws then it is the pot calling the kettle black for a boxer to say
bosing is
>>>> better than WC because WC as flaws. No?
FB:
>>> Does what you just said actually make sense to you?
Jerry:
>> Yes, but I will reiterate/paraphrase
>>
>> You said you can study boxing and 3 other arts and you would "rule the
>> roost"
>>
>> I said you could study WC and 3 other arts and do the same.
>>
>> I said that boxing has missing parts (weapons and such). You said WC had
>> missing parts (bad punching). I said you cannot critisize WC for having
>> omissions without aknowledging the same in boxing.
FB:
> Bzzt.
>
> You're just looking for an argument.
>
> Boxing lacks nothing in terms of carrying the load it claims to. The art
> doesn't claim to have anything in spades that it doesn't possess.
Boxing's only
> claim to fame or function is in its ability to enable the practitioner to
> dominate a standing fight at punching range.
Now we are not talking on topic (WC vs Boxing punches) we are not taling
your first redirection (boxing is natural (implication WC isn't)). You are
redirecting again. But to answer that.
Boxing, due to its specilization on up-right punching, has some of the best
technique at said spelization. That combined with the practice/training
methodology make boxing the best art for upright, unarmed, punching attacks.
> Your whole statement about "study WC and 3 other arts and do the same" is
plain
> silly. A simple arbitrary obfuscation.
What does that make your "train boxing, groundwork, weapons and kicks"?
FB:
>>> Boxing specializes in fighting with the fists. It is arguably the best
>>> fist-fighting art ever devised.
Jerry
>> It has some excellent knowledge in that area and is definately something
>> everyone should look at.
FB
>>> It makes an excellent complement to other
>>> skills in constructing a total synthesis of martial art.
Jerry
>> I both agree and disagree, but what is your point? It doesn't seem to be
on
>> the WC vs Boxing thread.
> ????
What?
>>> You should first learn some real boxing before you engage a thread on
the
>>> subject.
>> Presumptuious, incorrect, and irrevelant.
> Oh? Then why not start making some actual sense in your statements and
> comparisons?
I am, you are either not reading or refusing to aknowledge. I personally
belive the latter based on your persistant topic changes.
> So far, what you've had to say does not impress.
It wasn't ment to. You may recall you first wrote in response to my post.
Not me to yours. I realld don't care weather you are impressed or not.
FB
>>> Everything in boxing is field tested, makes sense, and nothing is taken
on
>>> faith.
Jerry
>> That could be said for the way Iraq conducted itself in it's conflict
with
>> us. It used proven technique and proven equipment. It also lost to
something
>> better. But this too is irrevelant. The discussion is boxing punches ves
>> Wing-Ching punches.
>> And for the record, I prefer boxings. But the person I chimed in to
respond
>> too was far to disparigant of WC and needed to be yelled at.
FB
> Well, then, it's a good thing he had you handy to give it to him, isn't
it?
Made me feel better.
> It shouldn't deter you a bit that his statements made more sense than
yours even
> approached.
Not one bit now that you mention it. But that is a matter of opinion. I
think you can make great sense. But I feel you are overly defensive and
unable to admit when you have made an oncorrect statemt. Please poiont me to
one post where you have retracted a statement you made because someone
convinced you you were wrong.
FB
>>> There are no grand puba's who pont-defecate untenable bullshit to the
faithful.
>>> Boxing's attitude is: You say such-and-such works? Well, let's see how
you do
>>> when I'm giving you an astronomy lesson and showing you the stars.
Jerry
>> Threats? OK.... Try it and I will presume you are better than me and
trying
>> to kill me.
FB
> Read it again. It is an exposition of boxing's attitude toward unproven
tactics
> -- not at all a personal statement from me.
It does appear I misread that one. I apologize, you have be pretty
reactionary.
Jerry
<snip>
>> I'm tired of ths posturing crap.
FB
<snip>
> The only posturing that I'm seeing is coming from yourself.
I am sure that is all you are seeing.
Jerry
>> Or would you prefer to simply discuss the merits of the vertical punch vs
>> boxing punches?
FB
> I've done that.
>
> Join in anytime.
Then stop changing the subject.
Jerry Love
news:pXcf4.10244$o62.4...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> > I think that was covered in the "pushing continues after impact" part
> since
> > one can push from the ground as well as from one's mass. Prior to
impact,
> > the ground root would probably only serve to allow faster acceleration
> since
> > one would not need a counter-balance. (q.v. using the ground as a wall)
>
> It's not that simple. That's my point.
>
> Mike
The fact that it is to complicated for the F=Mv formula was my point as
well.
Jerry Love
> In the world of rec.martial-arts, on Thu, 13 Jan 2000 04:34:02 GMT the
> bonds of time ripped as Jerry Love yelled the following:
> ~> [[snip]]
> ~>
> ~> Do you guys hit while swinging from a rope? If not, and you use some
> ~sort
> ~> of stance, then you need to be looking more at moment arm, leverage,
etc.,
> ~> in addition to mass and acceleration parameters (and I include momentum
> ~and
> ~> Impulse in those). There is a chain of power if you use a stance.
F=ma
> ~is
> ~> great when you only strike while swinging from a rope.
> ~>
> ~> Mike Sigman
> ~
> ~I think that was covered in the "pushing continues after impact" part
since
> ~one can push from the ground as well as from one's mass. Prior to impact,
> ~the ground root would probably only serve to allow faster acceleration
since
> ~one would not need a counter-balance. (q.v. using the ground as a wall)
> ~
> ~But all this would be impractical to measure (which was my point).
> ~
> ~Jerry Love
> So what? we do that too, why do yo uthink we grip the floor with our
> feet?
I'm happy for you. Did I say you didn't?
My point was the I covered the concern Mike voiced in my original post and
that my real point was that all this is what makes computing force
impractical to do.
A point mike didn't get since his response was "it's not that simple"
Jerry
Jerry Love
"~But all this would be impractical to measure (which was my point)."
Your point is my point?!? It seems you are agreeing with me, but you didn't
say so.
Jerry Love <sp...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:itbg4.1500$hV4....@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net...
> Mike Sigman <mikes...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:pXcf4.10244$o62.4...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >
> > > I think that was covered in the "pushing continues after impact" part
> > since
> > > one can push from the ground as well as from one's mass. Prior to
> impact,
> > > the ground root would probably only serve to allow faster acceleration
> > since
> > > one would not need a counter-balance. (q.v. using the ground as a
wall)
> >
Eric Jones
>The fact that it is to complicated for the F=Mv formula was my point as
>well.
Uh. F != Mv. Units are wrong. P=Mv.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Jones | I fell into a burning ring of fire
xe...@clark.net | I went down down down and the flames went higher
| And it burns burns burns
| The ring of fire, The ring of fire.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Myers4321
against feet as they are against hands.
>Mostly cause they are very good with hands.
>
----I don't follow you on this one. Why will they "never be as good against
feet"? How is the stance and movement limiting in this regard? I've found
that being as mobile and elusive as possible works just as well against kicks
as it does against punches. I see the alternative as standing my ground in a
rooted stance. That doesn't seem to be a good way to defend against a strong
kick to me. What are you referring to?
Keith
John Borgman
here? For the serious, mature visitors to this post, try and stick to
exchanging thoughts and ideas and promoting what the "post group" is
about.
For the ' TUFF' guys out there, how about putting your technique where
your mouth is and prove words in real, freestyle sparring? I will set
it up? How about it?
I have been training for 38 years and am always looking for sparring
partners that want to spar in a real situating, ie, no protective gear
and learning controll and how to apply to no rules, freestyle sparring,
like what it will really be on the street. Please feel free to contact
me if you feel a need to "prove yourself".
Every day is a present just waiting to be opened and explored
storys
John Borgman wrote in message
<26043-38...@storefull-278.iap.bryant.webtv.net>... For the ' TUFF'
<guys out there, how about putting your technique where
>your mouth is and prove words in real, freestyle sparring? I will set
>it up? How about it?
How about being mature & not trying to challenge the world? The tuff guys
will aways be bloharding all over the place. Ignore them long enough and
they eventually go away. There is always someone out there tougher than you
or me. that's not what the M.A. is about. I get tired to death with all the
challenges etc. that crop up here from time to time. You'd think that we
were living in the dark ages where might made right!
.........Tom........
Jerry Love
news:slrn882jk...@quanta.clark.net...
> Jerry Love <sp...@microsoft.com> said:
> >The fact that it is to complicated for the F=Mv formula was my point as
> >well.
>
> Uh. F != Mv. Units are wrong. P=Mv.
>
Sorry, physics was a long time ago. But the point is the same. :)
Jerry
FB
> FB <spa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > Entschuldigen Sie, noch einmal?
>
> "You apologize another once?" Ich kanne nicht Sie verstehen. Bitte, auf
> English ver spreken
>
Was bedeuten "kanne" und "ver spreken"? Es ist mir kein Geheimnis, warum Sie
mich nicht verstehen konnen.
Auch ist es richtig und korrekt "noch einmal" zu sagen. Es bedeutet "yet again"
oder "once more". Klar?
> Not want. You never said "boxing moves the way people want to move".
> I would say that hitting with a closed fist at all is unnatural. I would
> further say that hitting with enough force to injure yourself is unnatural.
> Show me one 5 year-old that instinctively boxes and I'll take it all back.
So then. The determinant of what is natural is what a person 1/4 of the way
toward adult maturity would do?
> > ????
>
> What?
>
????
> FB
> > Read it again. It is an exposition of boxing's attitude toward unproven
> tactics
> > -- not at all a personal statement from me.
>
> It does appear I misread that one. I apologize, you have be pretty
> reactionary.
>
Not a problem. I would not say such a thing. This is just a newsgroup. Nobody
should feel angry or threatened here.
>
> Then stop changing the subject.
I believe the subject kind of changed itself, as I was responding to certain
*specific* points made in your post. If my reply seemed off-topic, I was merely
responding to what was said.
It is entirely possible that we're both on entirely different pages. <g>
Myers4321
>>----I don't follow you on this one. Why will they "never be as good against
>>feet"? How is the stance and movement limiting in this regard?
Tony replied:
>Okay, you are in your left stance (as I believe it is called and I think
>this is a common stance for a boxer.), you are being very Mobile and all
>that... (again I am not a boxer so correct me on what I say) your groin
>is wide open for a fast, straight kick (snap kick) or a knee lift, but
>you are moving.
----Agreed. There may be a target there, but it is a mobile one and hard to
hit.
>
>I am in my side seisan stance and my front knee is slightly bent. My
>entire front leg lies covering my groin, it is impossible to land a snap
>kick there. the opponent must resort to using slower and less powerful
>round house kicks which can easily be blocked by raising my front leg to
>a crane stance or blocking.
----Not so. I stand front on and I may be vulnerable to a front kick, but I'm
mobile and hard to hit. And I can block that front kick by lifting my leg just
as easily as you are blocking the round kick. You are standing sideways and
are vulnerable to a hook/round kick. You are less mobile, and therefore an
easier target. What's the difference? The idea that standing sideways somehow
protects your groin is a myth propogated by lots of martial arts. Do some
realistic sparring. It simply ain't true if your opponent knows what he's
doing.
>My point is, you are a moving target but you are still open for attack
>where as I am not open to stronger groin kicks at all.
---Oh but you are. And not only that, but you have also limited the use of
your rear hand by standing sideways. By standing front on, not only can I
block a kick with EITHER of my legs, I defend with both arms as well.
>A benefit of your stance is the amount of power you can get from it.. I
>can momentarily switch from my side seisan to a seisan stance (which is
>like your left stance) and fire my reverse punch for that type of power.
----I can do the same thing without the shift. Which do you think is going to
be faster and more likely to connect?
Keith
Jerry Love
> In the world of rec.martial-arts, on 17 Jan 2000 12:28:01 GMT the bonds
> of time ripped as Myers4321 yelled the following:
> >I responded thusly to Jerry Love: (I think?)
> >>>----I don't follow you on this one. Why will they "never be as good
against
> >>>feet"? How is the stance and movement limiting in this regard?
> >Tony replied:
> >>Okay, you are in your left stance (as I believe it is called and I think
> >>this is a common stance for a boxer.), you are being very Mobile and all
> >>that... (again I am not a boxer so correct me on what I say) your groin
> >>is wide open for a fast, straight kick (snap kick) or a knee lift, but
> >>you are moving.
> >----Agreed. There may be a target there, but it is a mobile one and hard
to
> >hit.
> Yes it would be somewhat harder..
I'll offer an easier one. The boxing stances I usually see are somewhat wide
and reasonably even weighted (though bobbing from leg to leg is common).
There is no protection for the groin nor is there any protection for the
knee and leg, since in a boxing match, there is no need. Further, the
movement boxers work on involve either moving the upper body (bob and slip)
or changing ranges. I have not personally seen a boxer with good leg
repositioning skills (such as Setai-Hati has for example), that is skill
designed to move the lower body defensively.
There is no reason someone who boxes could not develop these skills, but
they are not, to my knowledge, in boxing.
But then again, this has little to do with the differences in punching, so I
should probibly have stayed quiet. ;-)
> >>I am in my side seisan stance and my front knee is slightly bent. My
> >>entire front leg lies covering my groin, it is impossible to land a snap
> >>kick there. the opponent must resort to using slower and less powerful
> >>round house kicks which can easily be blocked by raising my front leg to
> >>a crane stance or blocking.
> >----Not so. I stand front on and I may be vulnerable to a front kick,
but I'm
> >mobile and hard to hit. And I can block that front kick by lifting my
leg just
> >as easily as you are blocking the round kick. You are standing sideways
and
> >are vulnerable to a hook/round kick. You are less mobile, and therefore
an
> >easier target. What's the difference?
How would you lift your leg against a Thai Boxing lunge kick or Kuntao shock
kick?
<snip>
> >The idea that standing sideways somehow
> >protects your groin is a myth propogated by lots of martial arts.
Actually, I just stand with my legs close enough togeter to protect my
groin. But standing sideways would protect ones groin from that "straight
shot up the middle"
> Wouldn't this be the same thing as saying using a guard to protect your
> head is a myth because you can just swing your arms up from the hip to
> block? just like you can crane? lifting to crane is about the same speed
> as a forearm block or leg block... may be the faster speed of an open
> hand block. The only advantage is you don't have to drop your guard. the
> disadvantage is that you are off balance for a second and could fall over
> from the force of the kick. This is why we rarely lift.. and certainly
> NEVER use the crane as a stance and stand in it.
Not to mention the problems if you mis-judge the height of the kick (say
because he decoyed) and get hit in your supporting leg, or shoved, or he
powers though your blocking leg. I have never been fond of this defense to
kicks, it works well in the ring because of the rules, but I am suspicious
of it outside.
<snip>
> I'm not open to a front kick, he has to cave my front leg in first and
> the knees slight bend helps against that but that is not it's only
> purpose.
> >And not only that, but you have also limited the use of
> >your rear hand by standing sideways.
>
> >By standing front on, not only can I
> >block a kick with EITHER of my legs, I defend with both arms as well.
Is this where I chime in in favor of flowing stances rather than fixed ones?
Jerry Love
Chas
> >Is this where I chime in in favor of flowing stances rather than fixed ones?
> without lifting feet. Stances let easy transition to the next.
In a number of arts, especially those that practice 'sikap' or 'standing
post' or stance training, it is the transition that does the work, the
stance is the ending/beginning posture. Stance is what you work out of
or in to, but they shouldn't be 'static'- holding them static is to
figure out the best posture from which to derive the power of the
application.
The flowing aspect is a matter of practicing footwork patterns (try
practicing them without upperbody movement to distract you)- you should
be able to apply all of your upperbody stuff to any of your footwork
patterns.
Work slowly and try doing it to some stately music; don't go for the
uptempo stuff quite immediately.
Liking the music is not a consideration.
Chas
Myers4321
>>>entire front leg lies covering my groin,
---It covers it from the front, but not from the side.
it is impossible to land a snap>kick there.
----A straight-on snap kick sure....but not an angled snap kick.
the opponent must resort to using slower and less powerful >>>round house
kicks which can easily be blocked by raising my front leg to >>>a crane stance
or blocking.
----In Panantukan we do a "hook kick", which is like a round house kick and a
snap kick. It goes in very fast from an angle and strikes with the point of
the shoe. Less powerful than a fully committed round house, but very damaging
none the less. Picture it this way. You're in your side stance, but your
opponent is probing with jab kicks to that leg you've got sticking out. Just
when he's got you flinching he turns that jab into a hook kick to the groin.
Sure a side stance protects you straight on...but not from the side. Just like
a boxer's stance offers some protection from the side, but not straight on.
Same difference. That old "stance protecting the groin theory" is a myth. Its
all relative.
>I don't have to lift my leg to block the front kick or drop my guard to
>block it. A fast straight kick or knee from my experience isn't at all
>easy to block and a knee is improbable to block.
----That's very true. The best defense is not to be on the receiving
end....footwork! A boxer's stance is very mobile and facilitates the fast
footwork that helps him avoid such strikes while moving in with a counter.
The way you are standing is the equivalent of fighting >without a guard and
moving (which I have no objection of in some
>situations.. especially when firing your first blow from reflex), this
>stance is a type of groin guard.. you cover your face/body don't you?
----It is not at all the equivalent of fighting without a guard. Awareness is
the guard in any stance. No stance is invulnerable. You consider your stance
a groin guard...is it guarding your groin from the side? Are you making that
lead leg a target in and of itself? Are you limiting some of your mobility and
eliminating the rear hand from quick use? Are you trading mobility and equal
use of both hands for a minimal amount of protection for your groin?
>>The idea that standing sideways somehow>>protects your groin is a myth
propogated by lots of martial arts.
>Wouldn't this be the same thing as saying using a guard to protect your
>head is a myth because you can just swing your arms up from the hip to
>block?
----Well, maybe I should rephrase a bit. :-) The idea that a stance can make
you invulnerable to a groin shot is a myth. No stance in and of itself is
enough. There are relative strengths and weaknesses in them all. Some more
than others. :-)
>I'm not open to a front kick,
----Sure, but that's not the only kick out there.
he has to cave my front leg in first and
>the knees slight bend helps against that but that is not it's only >purpose.
----True, but leave that front leg out there as too much of a target and it
will take a lot of punishment. Just when you're worried about that leg, the
groin kick gets you. Better to be mobile and not let anything be a target.
:-) If you're thinking in terms of the lead leg being a shield and holding up
to forces that would buckle it, then consider how mobile you are in the
process.
This is just one stance though, we are supposed to switch a lot.
>it would be improper to say they are rooted or immobile since it's
>designed to "change in any direction at any moment".
---OK, but there are relative degrees of mobility. You might be way more
mobile than someone in a rooted stance with their thighs parallel to the floor,
but could you be more mobile still? Just the idea of "shifting" between set
"stances" implies a mechanical type movement that is not designed to "flow."
We don't really have "stances" per se. We're in constant motion and the
balance is dynamic. We strive to make every motion flow into the next. I'm
not worried about whether my knee is directly aligned with my foot, whether my
knee is bent to exactly 135 degrees, whether my feet form a 90 degree angle,
etc. Like a boxer....its got to be dynamic.
. there is hardly any mobility or power loss
>from this stance and in a hair of a second you can switch. Only now I see
>why he fought like this, I understand it's purpose, I didn't before. I >need
to start using it.
---Sounds like he was in tune with real fighting. But you don't have to be a
high up black belt to figure this stuff out. You should be training that way
from the very beginning.
Keith
Myers4321
---Shoulder width usually. The doesn't qualify as "somewhat wide" to me.
>and reasonably even weighted (though bobbing from leg to leg is common).
>There is no protection for the groin nor is there any protection for the
>knee and leg,
---Well, see my response to Tony's post. I don't agree. And how do you
protect the knee and leg? I do it by being mobile and prepared to get it out
of the way. Much better than a rooted stance of any kind.
Further, the>movement boxers work on involve either moving the upper body (bob
and slip)>or changing ranges. I have not personally seen a boxer with good leg
>repositioning skills (such as Setai-Hati has for example), that is skill
>designed to move the lower body defensively.
----I guess you haven't seen Panantukan...Filipino boxing. Panantukan makes use
of the same triangle footwork seen in much of the FMAs. But any boxer that has
given thought to making his skills more "martial" will work on mobility to
avoid kicks and therefore protect his lower body.
>There is no reason someone who boxes could not develop these skills, but
>they are not, to my knowledge, in boxing.
----Well, I think I have said within at least 3 different threads now.....if
you're going to talk about boxing within a martial arts newsgroup you better be
talking about "martial" boxing. Forget what you see the "sport" boxers do in
the gym. The only people they worry about facing are other boxers. Its not
fair to them to draw comparisons. "Martial" boxers are indeed aware of
protecting their legs.
Keith
Jerry Love
> >I'll offer an easier one. The boxing stances I usually see are somewhat
wide
>
> ---Shoulder width usually. The doesn't qualify as "somewhat wide" to me.
It does to me.
> >and reasonably even weighted (though bobbing from leg to leg is common).
> >There is no protection for the groin nor is there any protection for the
> >knee and leg,
>
> ---Well, see my response to Tony's post. I don't agree. And how do you
> protect the knee and leg? I do it by being mobile and prepared to get it
out
> of the way. Much better than a rooted stance of any kind.
Reinforcement, bend, weight or lach therof, pointy parts, outward pressure.
> Further, the>movement boxers work on involve either moving the upper body
(bob
> and slip)>or changing ranges. I have not personally seen a boxer with good
leg
> >repositioning skills (such as Setai-Hati has for example), that is skill
> >designed to move the lower body defensively.
>
> ----I guess you haven't seen Panantukan...Filipino boxing.
If you are speaking of a Filipino performing western boxing, than it should
be the same. If you are referring to another art, then you are referring to
another art. While the term boxing covers all combat where on strikes with
the hands, I am, of course, referring to the specific art of boxing.
> Panantukan makes use of the same triangle footwork seen in much of the
FMAs.
What does that have to do with boxing.
> But any boxer that has given thought to making his skills more "martial"
will
> work on mobility to avoid kicks and therefore protect his lower body.
Easier said than done, and that doesn't seem to be terribly true either. But
you don't appear to be discussing boxing. (how do *you* avoid a shock kick?)
> >There is no reason someone who boxes could not develop these skills, but
> >they are not, to my knowledge, in boxing.
>
> ----Well, I think I have said within at least 3 different threads
now.....if
> you're going to talk about boxing within a martial arts newsgroup you
better be
> talking about "martial" boxing.
Take it up with FB
> Forget what you see the "sport" boxers do in the gym.
I won't because that is who I am talking about. The discussion was on boxing
punches and included statements like "when they are not wearing gloves". It
should have been clear that the people that fight in th ring (regardless of
fighting outside the ring) are the topic of conversation.
> The only people they worry about facing are other boxers. Its not
> fair to them to draw comparisons. "Martial" boxers are indeed aware of
> protecting their legs.
If you choose to refer to martial "western boxing" boxers, I will be happy
to take this up. If you are referring to another art that is referred to as
"boxing" it is as irrevelant as discussing Akidoka.
Jerry
> Keith
>
John Carlo
by pushing off the back foot and moving inside the power exstension of a
kick. when jumping or sliding up quickly and throwing a fast jab at the
eyes it is quite easy to smother the kicker push him off balance and out
punch him while he is trying to reposition himself and regain his
balance. if a kicker needs to chamber a kick the man moving in can
actually beat the guy chambering his kick never mind the kick itself
Myers4321
>
>It does to me.
----I guess its all relative. :-)
And how do you>> protect the knee and leg? I do it by being mobile and
prepared to get it>out>> of the way. Much better than a rooted stance of any
kind.
>
>Reinforcement, bend, weight or lach therof, pointy parts, outward pressure.
---OK. Too each his own. I still prefer the strategy of not being a target
and using mobility.
>> ----I guess you haven't seen Panantukan...Filipino boxing.
>
>If you are speaking of a Filipino performing western boxing, than it should
>be the same. If you are referring to another art, then you are referring to
>another art. While the term boxing covers all combat where on strikes with
>the hands, I am, of course, referring to the specific art of boxing.
----I'll state again....I guess you haven't seen Panantukan. Panantukan is
western boxing with FMAs added. Its not just FMA empty hands alone, and its
not just a "Filipino boxing." Western boxing is the base to which low line
kicks, limb destructions, kick defenses, takedowns, etc. are added. It is a
type of "Martial" boxing. I don't consider it a completely different art
because it encompasses western boxing as its core or base. Its still "boxing"
just like sport Judo and "original" Judo are both still "Judo."
>> Panantukan makes use of the same triangle footwork seen in much of the
>FMAs.
>
>What does that have to do with boxing.
----If you continue to limit what you consider "boxing", then nothing. :-) My
other comment about a boxer with a "martial" attitude being aware of leg
attacks is then more appropriate. Putting Panantukan aside for the
moment......Ned Beumont has a book out called "Championship Streetfighting:
Boxing as a Martial Art." He covers things like protecting your fists when
punching without gloves, striking with open hands, protecting your legs against
kicks, etc. Purely from a "western" perspective without resorting to eastern
martial arts.
>> But any boxer that has given thought to making his skills more "martial"
>will>> work on mobility to avoid kicks and therefore protect his lower body.
>
>Easier said than done,
----"easy" is relative as well. :-)
and that doesn't seem to be terribly true either.
---How many "martial" boxers have you seen?
But>you don't appear to be discussing boxing.
---I guess it depends on your definition.
(how do *you* avoid a shock kick?)
----Don't know the kick by that name. Maybe you could describe it.
>> ----Well, I think I have said within at least 3 different threads>now.....if
>> you're going to talk about boxing within a martial arts newsgroup you
>better be>> talking about "martial" boxing.
>
>Take it up with FB
---What does Frank have to do with it? He practices and teaches a form of
"martial" boxing as well. Ask him if he can defend against kicks and protect
his legs.
>> Forget what you see the "sport" boxers do in the gym.
>
>I won't because that is who I am talking about. The discussion was on boxing
>punches and included statements like "when they are not wearing gloves". It
>should have been clear that the people that fight in th ring (regardless of
>fighting outside the ring) are the topic of conversation.
-----Then my original statement, copied below still applies. Why worry about
them?
Why not talk about how a Tae Bo student punches? :-)
>> The only people they worry about facing are other boxers. Its not
>> fair to them to draw comparisons. "Martial" boxers are indeed aware of
>> protecting their legs.
>
>If you choose to refer to martial "western boxing" boxers, I will be happy
>to take this up. If you are referring to another art that is referred to as
>"boxing" it is as irrevelant as discussing Akidoka.
----OK. I'd be glad to talk about "martial western boxers." But as I said
above, Panantukan is not irrelevant to this discussion.
Keith
Myers4321
Thanks for the summary. But some may discount your opinion because you've
actually trained your boxing for something besides the ring. :-) Would you
consider yourself a "martial" boxer?
Keith
John Carlo
others guys havent a clue about the art of boxing and its use in a
street fight or no holds fight,
i would love them to try there nonsense against a fats handed and footed
boxer who has a little street fight or martial art experience they
wouldnt know what hit them
TravIsGod
>it is obvious this guy knows absolutly nothing about boxing or fighting
> and has his head so far up his instructors ass it is stuck.
> tony the joker ., i do alittle boxing if you live around NY and want to
>try your horseshit against a real boxer lets hook up a match.
> I will love to break every bone in your fuckin head. and being iam
>only a boxer it is going to really suck when i start kicking-because
>when i do you will already be knocked out and busted up and on the
>ground and then i will start kicking your dumb ass all over the parking
>lot. LETS get it on cupcake show the world you can fight
>
On of these days, I gotta meet you man. When I get super rich, you can be my
doorman.
Trav
TravIsGod
>hell yeah it is. he said 5 to two. and I said no, ten to two.
5 to 1 is also ridiculous. Expect a WELL trained guy to punch at the same rate
as you.
>~>How about I slide in under your cross and give you a good urakin to your
>~>nose driving it into your skull.
>~
>~This is just BS.
>Then what is the move in seisan kata?
That would be an elbow strike in the context of what you're discussing. BS is
that you are going to drive anyone's nose into their skull. A "urakin" is a
backfist, not an upward strike.
Trav
TravIsGod
>so I can understand why I am wrong? I am actually trying to learn
>something here. Why not explain to me in detail why I am wrong so I know?
>not just "you are wrong" and that's it.
well, since you asked, Tony. You are reflecting a very poor level of knowledge
about what boxers are capable of. Let me just say that a "boxer" as in someone
who boxes or fights competitively is a helluva lot better than you give them
credit for. I knew a pro boxer a few years back and he trained religiously,
valued boxing more than his family, and had extremely good movement, punch
accuracy, & mechanics. His weaknesses were in that he really wasn't accustomed
to the sort of heavy grabbing (lightweight boxer), trapping, & grappling sort
of stuff that a smart fighter should also know. This guy had had people
actually swing at him on the street over things and was quick enough to slip
real punches without needing to block or parry at all. Expecting to trade
hands with him because you do seisan well is unrealistic. The kata are for
defense, not "sparring" type fighting, until much much later in your practice
cycle. Because you can do X or Y in wansu or punch 5 times in #12 and thinking
that things will go down like this in reality is erroneous. It is a
misapplication.
Trav
TravIsGod
>real boxer. I have. The essential thing to remember is that they spend a
>lot of time practicing hitting... they hit very very hard. They hit so
>much that good ones tend to have figured out the optimum way to connect all
>of their used power links, just as a result of all that practice. So they
>*really* hit hard. They hit harder than people who wear ice-cream suits
>and wear colored belts.
>
>Mike
>
To his credit, Mike, some Isshinryu guys hit pretty goddam hard, too.
Seriously, many of them can break bones w/ just a punch. They practice
hitting, because there is very little in Isshinryu to learn at the basic level
other than straight punch. You do that over & over & over again a billion
times & you hit trees, walls, parking meters, cars, boards, everything...it's
the mentality. Guys in that art from where I studied had big black calloused
knuckles. Guys used to break patio bricks for fun till their hands throbbed
and they started putting them down on the ground to hit so they wouldn't break
because it was getting expensive.
Trav