Power generation starting at the beginning of a strike doesn't preclude good body mechanics, speed or surprise. If the only way someone knows how to generate power in a punch from the beginning is to throw a big, wound up haymaker, that person has no grasp whatsoever of dirt-basic body mechanics. The most basic cross, jab, or hook starts with recruitment of the legs and core to generate power and acceleration from the very beginning. Without a solid grounding in these basics, an effective punch starting from partial extension will be impossible.
I'm not sure where the argument is in this. Yes, it is many times easier to learn how to put power into punches when your hands are closer to your body. I haven't noticed anyone arguing against that. That doesn't mean that exploring those mechanics to figure out how to get the most power possible from more extended arms or more awkward body positions isn't worthwhile. Just because striking in a certain way isn't as strong as another, that doesn't automatically preclude it from being useful. Less useful? Yes. A more niche technical avenue? Yes. Useful for beginners? Nope. But pointless? I don't believe so.
Really totally devout of all the above, I know a wing chun sifu who felt and witnessed alans wing chun first hand a number of years ago and he felt it was sound southern chinese kung fu, I have heard this allot from people on various forums over the years, he doenst do wing chun and Alan has always responded in the same way, saying he has over 30 years in wing chun under various lineages, is the representative in Europe and Australia of rober chu, serior student of Hawkins Cheung one of Yip mans original students and what he does is CSL wing chun. he can post clips of his guys actually winning in fights against good fighters using there wing chun system if others can do the same he will dissect their clips just as they do his, so far the only guy I have seen take him up on this offer was phil Redmond, one of cheungs guys and someone who had his people fight in the manup stand up events and someone who actually gets along very well with Orr, and again everyone else responded to his clips saying that’s not wing chun, that’s not how it looks. This begs the question where are the clips of proper wing chun winning in limited rules environments from the people saying this against decent opponents? and if they cant post any because there aren’t none then who is right when it comes to wing chun as a fighting art, the guys actually fighting and posting clips, or the ones saying nope that’s not how it looks let me tell you how it should look? Usually these interactions come down to one of two responses 1) Wing chun is for the street not the ring because its either too deadly or needs so much changing to work it doesn’t look like wing chun (this it self begs the question if you have to change your art so much that you don’t kill your opponent or so you can keep up with someone wearing 4 oz gloves under limited rules is that art any use in the first place?) And 2) We don’t have the time or feel the need to actually post clips as its not that important to use, this usually comes from people with multiple posts on the subject going back years which does seem to suggest they do care a little bit lol
I'm not arguing against an extended guard. I'm arguing against the idea that waiting until the end of a punch to generate power is useful. I have no problem with an extended guard. I have a problem with imaginary mechanics being used to justify a given strategy. Hence the comment about virgins.
I can pick out good, technically adherent bits here and there but it's the exception, not the rule. Ah yes the old 'well this is my wing chun' argument wherein people try to justify any technique and method as being wing chun. Just like how when I do spinning triple flying hook kicks it's just my wrestling even though it bears no resemblance technically nor follows the core principles or wrestling... But it's my wrestling. Heck I'll just throw up some videos of Muay Thai fights and go 'but it's my wing chun.' I guess we've established that that's how we label systems now, right? I mean I can break down, referencing the kuen kuit and photos of Ip Man the technical problems with Alan's so called 'wing chun.' Hawkins Cheung's wing chun is actually pretty good. Those good bits is see in HC's technique seem to have gotten lost somewhere down the pipe to Alan. As I said earlier it's not about strict adherence to the classic tools but about still using tools which are in wing chun structurally and conceptually. The cross/jab mechanic from shoulder in to center for instance, exists in the opening of biu jee, just with no turn over. Goh bong sau (known as biu sau) turns over, and the kuen kuit says that a hand used to strike, also blocks (by covering a line). So using an elbow up strike like boxers do, totally valid because it fits the component pieces and the principles. Just like I can use a lead hand strike because a lead hand strike exists in the gwan choi, or use a more side on stance because it's degrees between the other stances and the kuen kuit says "when facing your opponent with your side your shoulder becomes your centreline." BUT... When I spar I base off the toe most of the time because basing off the heel is only good for being In close, self defence, and using the baat jaam do or luk dim boon gwan. But the wing chun saying is 'power comes from the ground through the heels.' So is a toe base wing chun? No. At that point I'm using wing chun hand techniques from a boxing base and I will never, and can never claim that type of base is wing chun because it's patently not. It is a necessary adjustment to the context I'm using the techniques in but that is not the wing chun base and not matter how much I shout that it's my wing chun it's not wing chun. All the guys who could slug and knock people out with no technique in the early days of mma were clearly technically skilled boxers just because they could knock people out, right? I'd argue that there are a few main problems with wing chun winning in the ring: 1. Wing chun is not best adapted to the context of sport fighting as a whole and it's primarily trained tools are best for SD/weapons. 2. The pool of people you get practicing wing chun is on the whole less athletic than those who train in the more sportive styles and that's from the outset when people pick it up not considering development over the course of training. I've had plenty of fit people walk into the MMA/Muay Thai/bjj/boxing schools I've trained at. Not so with the wing chun schools. 3. There's plenty of people teaching wing chun who, even when many of them learned from legitimate instructors, are missing a lot. It's not about 'too deadly to spar' but context. You can't expect to take a system specialized to self defence and weapons and meant to transfer easily between the two, and expect to toss it into a boxing match and have it work the same way using the same preferential tools. If you practice defending haymakers, rugby tackles, weapon retention, and arresting techniques, all from conversational distance and a natural stance, doing so preferentially to using the other tools in your system, and then expect to use the same tools the same way in the ring that's not going to happen. Doesn't mean those techniques aren't good, it just means they're not well adapted to that context. Would you take the techniques from any of the big names in self defence, techniques which are specialized to self defence, techniques which people in policing and the self defence community agree are quite good, would you expect those to work in a sparring match? Now as I said wing chun does have tools which can work well in that context but when I add in a toe base, round strikes, etc. those are not wing chun tools and trying to call them so is foolish. It doesn't mean they don't work, or that they're bad, but they're not part of wing chun's system. On top of that there are a ton of so called wing chun people (and unfortunately a lot of frauds) missing a lot of pieces. The teaching in the first generation of Ip Man's students was not consistent. He taught to people's disposition and level of ability and it's clear that not everyone learned to the same level of technicality. And even some who I see who used to have great levels of technical ability who I would've loved to train with in the 80's, have degraded over the years. I can teach someone in a short time how to knock the living tar out of people that doesn't mean they have a knowledge of the technical side; where certain things come from, why they work the way they do. For example the way Ip Man did fook sau (more hooking to the side than resting forward) was based on his height but you'll see plenty of people blindly copying that and yet Moy Yat is the only one who ever explained why it was done that way. Another example, how many people know the kuen kuit? How many people understand how to apply the kuen kuit?
Actually that's really the whole point of the one inch punch and no inch punch demo. It's not about striking at the end, or adding that last bit of oomph or being able to hit super hard from zero range. It's about using the leg to drive the strike. It's the same a cross in boxing just altered to a different base (heel) and different arm alignment due to the close range. It's just an isolation of a particular mechanic.
Interesting that you mentioned toe based because karate is rear foot heel down, but over the years, the full contact has seen more on the ball of the feet. I don't believe this has to do with power generation. It has to do more with mobility. Is the toe based just an adaption for mobility? As for boxing being toe based, that was probably for mobility but there is a component of power from it. Yes there are techniques of using the spring, and it is easier to pivot when on the toes compared to flat footed. However, the component of power generation that comes from being on the toes is the ability to use leaning power. The alignment on impact for power is generally best if your shin angle in aligned with the spine. So if you lean forward, for example, to get that extra power in a punch, then the shin should be tilted at that angle, thus being on the toes allows for this without having to have some long stance. If you don't incorporate leaning power into your strikes, there is less of a reason to be on the toes for power. Look at these Mike Tyson knock outs. Of the ten, do you see "toe-based" in all of them or is it more about alignment of the shin to the spine at impact. For this to be true, this means when Tyson is more upright at the point of impact, his heel should be more down, when Tyson has more lean at the point of impact, he should be more on his toes. This applies at the point of impact, after and before impact may be more about mobility so the alignment might be different: [ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpdJFFBMYNs"]Mike Tyson's Top 10 Best 1 punch KO's - YouTube[/ame] So what I'm proposing is that it is posture that dictates the position of the heel/toe based on the angle of the shin to the spine at the point of impact for power. Edit: I'm also realizing that you could be meaning the spring from the foot that is used in boxing. It is true that initiates movement for power. The spring happens at the start of the punching step, not at the point of impact. If it is the spring you mean, then my post doesn't cover that important part of boxing punching footwork. My post is about the alignment at the point of impact of the punch and how it can be heel down in boxing too when there isn't much lean.
I would agree on the whole. There's many ways to strike depending on what's going on at that moment and what the situation affords, an opponents position, you're positioning, and other variables. Being able to strike effectively from any positive, angle, alignment etc at any time is essential. The whole point is to try to get to someone without them thinking or knowing they can be got. With that in mind one...just one...way to strike is put the finish in as late as possible. It's not a rule or a must or putting down any other way to strike. For me it makes sense of the concept of the one inch punch as it might of original been concieved.
I had forgotten that Kimbo Slice passed away. RIP. Well the post reminded me kind of this video: [ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCW_Pf30ddU"]Kimbo Slice Gets A Lesson From Michael Jai White - YouTube[/ame] Instead of starting with the beginning of the punch and working to the end. Start with the end of the punch and work backwards.
Mostly. You need to base on the toes if you want the ability to flit in and out the way you need to in sport fighting. The heel based footwork is for continuous drive forward, angling off, and allowing the sort of base you need for the grappling, trapping, and stabbing a pretty short, wide blade though someone. But by comparison to the heel base it also helps with the braking/pivoting on lead hand strikes. The inclusion of the ankle joint allows a brake and rotation which allows something like a jab to work better because as the heel pivots you're still moving your leg forward somewhat due to the heel being free. With the heel down you can pivot the foot on the jab but you end up staying rooted in place and there's no travel and no brake. You just stop. Not so good for the more side on and lead hand striking. This is also why one of the pivots in the luk dim boon gwan (and one spot in biu jee) can be done optionally on the toe of the lead leg, although the back foot stays on the heel.
Actually I had used that in one of my fights when someone challenged me. - I jumped in from 10 feet away from my opponent. - When my right foot landed, my opponent stepped back. - My right hand already punched out, but my fist could not reach to my opponent. - I stepped my left foot behind (and forward) my right foot, leaned my body forward, touched my fist on my opponent's face, I then added my body weight into it. That single face punch ended the fight that day. But since my body momentum started to generate 10 feet away, it may not fit the definition of "inch punch". But I did try to add power into my punch after my fist could touch my opponent's face.
There is a difference between looking like you have your weight on the ball of the foot and having the weight on the ball of your foot. Having the heel close to the floor (or seemingly touching it, or actually touching it but not placing any weight there) to allow greater pivoting options is not the same as being classically flat footed.
I think we must be talking at cross purposes. If you're talking about the one-inch push, which is 99.9% of demo's you see, then I agree with you. However, as SWC Sifu Ben says, the one-inch punch should display the same mechanics as any other punch. This is guy seems like a douche, and it's hilarious that he isn't allowed to say Bruce Lee's name on camera (presumably because of a law suit), but this is the only youtube video I've seen of a one-inch punch not being a push (theatrics and histrionics aside, and the fact that he does clearly pull the hand back an inch or so): [ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhrTbYRMjeQ"]ONE INCH PUNCH - YouTube[/ame]
That's really good form in the video. I think though it isn't a push because he breaks the board. It isn't that breaking a board means it isn't a push. See the following video and you can't really see if it is a push because they aren't hitting an object with a lot of mass compared to their body mass. [ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdqdZakPEtM"]Fun with Short Distance Board Breaking - YouTube[/ame]
Of course. The board has nothing to do with it. You can see from the acceleration of the fist and the timing at which the body goes behind it. Most one-inch push demo's clearly show the fist moving and the body pushing afterward. This video I posted had the body and fist moving on concert.
To have your opponent to hold on the board may not be the best test. IMO, the best way to test between "strike" and "push" is to try it on a free standing concrete block. If that concrete block - break, that's a "strike". - fall down, or fly away, that's a "push".
Why are you saying boxing is better? With boxing and MMA you will be ask to have your first amateur fight in year or two. Walking in with no training you will have your first fight in year or two. Sure MMA has boxing program, kickboxing program, BJJ program, Judo program, wrestling program so on. And after 5 years taking Judo, wrestling and boxing at MMA gym you will know a lot than just 5 years of wing chun But if you don't want to fight and hate fighting and only want self defense than boxing or MMA is not the way to go. Unless you found some special MMA gym or boxing club with self defense program but they will be hard to fight. But most places are not going like you if all you want is to learn and not fight.
