Ignorance amazes me...

[Drunken Monkey]

okay, bad analogy time.

 

any martial art can be looked on as a lock.

 

all you have to do is find the key.

 

(the only problem is that there might not be a key)

 

i always took his post as being a theoretical point, not a factual point.

 

you seem to have taken it the wrong way.

[Beer-monster]

Just to clarify is that the recent Mike Tyson, or the pre-prison hey day Mike Tyson.

 

Also in this imaginary bout that always seems to arise in these threads (go figure ) is Mike Tyson using boxing or ear-biting brawler style?

[empty_cup]

also, just because MT has phehomenal power, and is a bit of a brawler does not mean that when the rules are removed he would be able to fight as well as with the rules. Were he to meet someone who also fights with brawn, e.g. a heavyweight Muay Thai practitioner, or even a TKD figher, MT may not be able to get close enough to use his fists, before he's kicked into submission.

 

Alternatively, put him against one of the heavier UFC fighers, who can get in close, and get MT on the ground - how well would he fare?

 

Certainly, there are many people who could beat me - e.g. my JJ teacher but whoever you are, there is always someone who could out manouver / outpunch / outkick, / lock / grapple you.

 

The trick is to get to the point where a punch is just a punch, and kick is just a kick, etc,

[alanseijas]

Thanks for the support, guys. Hey Wolverine, how's that baby? Getting big fast I bet!

 

I wasn't trying to be disrespectful to MT or his skills. He IS obviously a very dangerous man. For me to sit here and try to name people that I believe could beat him is ludicrous. Maybe Krocop(spelling?)? I don't know, but I'd love to see it. How about a Gracie? See, there I go being ludicrous. Who knows....

 

As for the centerline theory (as you called it, a theory), a traditional boxing punch is the hook; and by utilizing the centerline, you actually block the hook with your punch. I am a Kung Fu beginner, by my teacher has demonstrated very well this fact.

 

Ema honto ne shitsulae shinakedeba nadanine des. Jaa matta!

[WolverineGuy]

Braeden is just got his first pictures taken afew days ago...I'll have links as soon as I get them.

 

As for the who beating who...I'm fairly certain Crokop could take Tyson, but each case is different, depending on the rules, strengths of each party, and plain luck.

[jeffrogers]

I am sure there are fighters or TMA martial artist who can beat tyson. I would be dumb to say there isn't. But same time it hasn't been proven. So its an unknown. Sort of silly to argue about.

 

-Jeff

[JohnnyS]

I think you're being mis-lead about how easy it is to beat the hook. You train at a wing-chun type school right? Wing Chun guys seem to have this habit of saying how the straight punch always beats the hook, but this obviously isn't the case or the wing chun guys would have such a problem with the Choy Le Fut guys, or boxers. Also, if the straight punch always beat the hook, then why don't boxers just use jabs and crosses?

 

Hook, upper-cuts and body-rips are all useful. But like any technique, there is a time and a place.

[Drunken Monkey]

me?

 

well, the other guy never actually mentioned what 'kung fu' he is now practicing.

 

anyway.

 

i'll just give a general wing chun type response.

 

the straight punch as done in wing chun is used because it fits into how WE do things.

 

the way we cover, clear and operate along our centre-line/plane means that the simplest and quickest way for us to punch, which also happens to be the best use of structure (for us), is to use the straight punch.

 

there are some simple truths (or possible truths depending on how hard you train).

 

the straight punch is faster.

 

it might not have the same instant power of hook but then it isn't as commited as the hook is, which is what we want; the possiblity of interrupting ourselves.

 

to imply that we would just straight punch in response to an incoming hook is an uninformed statement.

 

even if you hit the guy first, you will still get hit by the hook (we are talking faster by hundreths here...) and in no way can a straight punch 'block' a hook.

 

a simple look at the shapes involved will show you this.

 

as for things wing chun has problems with.

 

from personal observation/experience:

 

the thing i'm not too keen on from CLF is the lower position they take relative to us.

 

the high hits i'm fine with but anything that comes to my mid section and lower section really messes me up, especially to my outside gates cos they seem to fall underneath my elbow line (i can't just drop elbow to cover).

 

as for boxers, it's everything they do.

 

i feel inclined to get too close to them but can't get through without sucking a few jabs.

 

then there's the fact that unlike chinese styles, they don't give us anything to use (apart from the hook but even then that's risky).

 

nothing stays out long enough for us to get any kind of 'stick' to.

 

the only point from which i can ever get a good 'hold' of is the behind the elbow or upper arm shoulder but i think i've only ever gotten that close two or three times (and i'll have to admit that it wasn't down to my skill).

 

i've managed to trap once but that was only cos i was more or less kick-boxing until i saw position to trap (and i hate to say that i did have to SEE it cos i sure as hell didn't FEEL it).

 

a simple response to why boxers don't use straight line punches.

 

well, they used to....

 

but that was back in the day when it was more or less bare-hand (i'll check for some references).

 

it's not really done today because of the gloves

 

AND mainly because it doesn't fit the way they fight.

[JohnnyS]

Drunken Monkey,

 

I was directing my question to alanseijas. I've trained a small amount of WC and I understand their theory (a bit anyway). But it seems to be either a beginner thing or an ignorance thing that some people dismiss things outside their art and say that they are easy to deal with e.g I've heard some WC guys say that the hook is easy to beat because it's slow and has to travel in a circle. Your response, Drunken Monkey, was well thought out and reasoned.

 

I've dabbled briefly in a few arts and it's funny how often you'll hear someone say "This is the correct way to throw a punch - the other ways are wrong". It's interesting that I could say the same things for WC as you could for boxing. What most people seem to miss, and you haven't, is that it's not wrong - it doesn't fit their thoery of fighting.

[Drunken Monkey]

it all boils down to perspective.

 

if you've only trained in one style then your perspective is going to be narrow.

 

i've dabbled in a few styles and each time i had to 'unlearn' some wing chun instincts in order to learn the style.

 

the biggest problem i see with wing chun is that they hardly ever train outside of their own style.

 

all testing is with their own guys doing their version of a move from another style.

 

the classic example is the 'hook' type drills where the partner just swings the arm wide (and slow compared to a real hook).

 

while it is good for getting you to react to an incoming threat to a certain area, it doesn't show what a hook can be like at it's worse.

 

i.e in close with forearm/elbow set at nearly 90 degrees(think elbow strike but hitting with the fist).

 

it might move in a circular path but when the path it takes is shorter than your straight line, what will you do then?

 

rely on being quicker by 200ths of a second?

 

i love my wing chun.

 

i have bled and have been bled on because of my wing chun.

 

i don't pretend to be able to do anything amazing but i like to think i can defend myself.

 

i am proud of wing chun and it really annoys me that because of the proliferation of wing chun related material, a lot of people can read and spout halfarsed theories, usually out of context and without reference to techniques that we use.