Bruce Lee vs PBF aka "Money" Mayweather: Who wins?

[OCPancho]

Don't worry about less chin. Beating p people wwasnt hard for bruce that's all you need to know

He couldn't beat up Wong Jack Man easily.

[Marchegiano]

Wow! A lot of good info here! Ill respond generally but won't miss some of the points you made because they are relevant to the discussion.

Regarding knife defenses and attacks: I studied them with Ronald Duncan's top student.... Who passed two weeks ago and I have observed many others...also looked at accounts and one singular factor that makes or breaks the success is Aggression! So if you used your jab as an attack you would indeed have a good outcome. What people do that gets them killed to start with is let the brain ask them "Is this for real?" And in the interm while the brain is coming to grips with "yeah!!! get going body!!" the attack had occured.

This is why space is everything. Many knife attacks seek to get close and ambush, then drive forward while cutting. Sometimes it is a matter of inches that determine success or failure. One very good martial artist I know was taught to move the head and shoulders a certain way...he was attacked by four guys and the last guy with the knife got his throat....It missed his cateroid by a spec because he moved in the right direction when trying to evade the attack.

Ive seen smaller guys who really do generate and while I would not want to say one should depend on this, as it goes against physics, when you get hit that way... And Lee did hit hard by all accounts.

Now...regarding your experiences I always tell people, you respond the way you are trained. So the actual techniques one uses are far less important than going through the training scenarios. As you progress to real martial ability I would add that you learn to see the attack scenario as a series of distances and that determines how you respond. So the real skill in, oh...lets say disarming a knife, is knowing the angle to step off to catch the knife on the back arm, and protect the throat...from that point, there are tricks, like securing the thumb of the attacker's knife hand, but if I am at the right distance...I can punch him, break him. throw him, or what we were taught, turn the blade upon him by securing the thumb.

I actually hate kickboxing. It is a prejudice of mine. I think it debaised karate and boxing. What happened was a lot of boxers entered and would just do the minimum for kicks during a bought. Regarding kicks. Again, its how they are trained... When done properly, untelegraphed, they are hard to slip. Also, the Thai roundhouse is a virtual "get out of jail" card! Its like giving someone a giant axe handle to swing.

If you want to get an idea of an approach, an art that uses kicks very well against boxing (because it is a boxing style) and a style that Lee really liked, look at some videos of Savate, French kick boxing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfEvLG9sQfw



This vid is nice because it shows the kicking rhythm, the snapping whip like movement of the kicks and how things like the shoes are used as a weapon. Its kind if no nonsense, no affect lol.

You can see that with the movements it would be hard to deal with these kicks and time them. Not impossible by any means, but not easy. Lee kicked a lot like this actually... more so than the way Korean Kicks are done which use the body moving for the torque in a circle.

Edit: Interesting aside: While savate matches use mostly boxing cross movements (they are all over YouTube) the self Defense applications all involve kicks primarily. its that need to keep distance and use the farthest weapon the most aggressively...to train to do so.

I had refrained from mentioning it due to my respect for you, but, if I am honest I don't have much respect for tradition martial arts because TMAs don't have as much respect for kinematic chains as boxing does.

I think it's funny because you don't like kickboxing. I love kickboxing!

I would say kickboxing is TMA with a heavy focus on kinematic chains and pure kinetic energy transfers like boxing. I like kickboxing for the same damn reason you don't like it

I'll give you some examples that are straight out of Bruce's pay book. I don't mean to say he's the innovator, just that he did them often both in movies and demos. Also, before I go on I should say I don't dislike Bruce or TMA, it's all fighting stuffs and i'm interested in it all they're just lower on my personal list...brutally honest, I like Sumo best out of the TMAs and I'm not even sure it qualifies as a martial art or just a combat sport.

The backfist, I'm not sure it's actually called a backfist, but I'm pretty sure you know what I am talking about.



I dunno if this fella does a good job explaining what Bruce is doing or not, seems good but I'm pretty ignorant to TMAs so you'd have to tell me, but, he's close enough for what I need to say about it.

Where is the powerline in Bruce Lee's backfist? Why on earth would I hit a man with what is essentially a slap with a closed hand when I can deliver a proper punch with kinematic chaining behind it to really drive the energy into the opponent?


Let me get specific, just in case anyone is reading and doesn't know what I mean by kinematic chains or powerline:


In boxing proper punch structure is centered around pure kinematic chains like a Newton's Cradle. Each joint lines up with the next to carry the energy as purely from body part to body part as possible. In the Cradle that is directly in and out of the cradle with no circular motion.

This makes sense. What the sam hell is the point of generating energy in your feet just to lose it in your wrist? There is none. In boxing the punch starts at the foot because the energy does flow from foot to fist.

In TMA they seem to believe more in enough force rather than all the force generated. Look at the backfist I posted. The direction of the impact force is against the back of the fist. To counter that energy you need something directly opposite. Well, what's meant to oppose the impact force in his backfist then? The inertia in his fingers? It's the only thing on the other side of his fist. The only thing stopping his elbow from collapsing are his muscles....meaning he's fighting to flow of energy by generating more energy.

It's like taking the starter balls on the Cradle and swinging them in a circular motion. Yes, you will see flow throughout the cradle but it's greatly diminished compared to a direct strike isn't it?

When you throw a jab what opposes the force you put into your opponent? Your own body doesn't it? If all your bones are lined up to transfer energy from foot to fist then when that energy pushes back, which it will because it's a law, where does it have to go? Nowhere right? Because you're a wall made for dealing with the energy the only place for it to get absorbed is by the struck not the striker.

Going back to the backfist, having no powerline to oppose the reactive force generated by the act of landing the backfist then bouces off. Energy generated, energy lost in transfer, and energy actually working against you moments afters....it's just not a good punch...in my opinion.

In the video the young man actually encourages bending your wrist so that the proper knuckles line up. At least we can all agree on which knuckles are proper

When I was a lad if I noticed a fella bending his wrists I'd do my best to cut the punch short with something hard to hurt their wrist. An elbow, my forehead, and when I was really ****y I'd even try to punch a punch.

Let's say X throws the backfist, is his wrist not more susceptible to Y's elbow defense given at the right angle Y can apply pressure X did not intend on and break it quite, quite, quite, easily?

So there you have a punch that makes you vulnerable where you should not be. It requires generation of energy is can not use, and even if everything goes right for you all you got out of it was a slap. I'd trade lost backfists for jolts all day long. Let's not even consider boxing's bent elbow strikes because we all know comparing the power in a backfist to the power in an overhand is stupid in favor of the overhand.


I kind of stayed on backfist a while there, I'll do the second example quickly. My other big beef with TMAs is the bouncing. It doesn't make any damn sense to me. In boxing they bounce in steps and in and out of strike zones. It's great for a trigger step or some such if you want to be real tricky, but, when you're just bouncing indifferent to stance or steps then what are you doing? Seriously, what's the theory behind that?


In a nutshell, where TMA differs from boxing I tend to on a philosophical level agree with boxing theory over what I understand of them TMA theory and because Kickboxing employs traditional martial arts techniques with more focus on a boxing-eque philosophy behind them what they have effectively made if a form of TMA I can agree with.

[Lance98]

Bruce lee has never been in a professional fight and has never faced elite competition. Even back in the day, he was all hype. He can do some cool stuff in exhibitions, but he was never a pro fighter. Why is this even a comparison?

[billeau2]

I had refrained from mentioning it due to my respect for you, but, if I am honest I don't have much respect for tradition martial arts because TMAs don't have as much respect for kinematic chains as boxing does.

I think it's funny because you don't like kickboxing. I love kickboxing!

I would say kickboxing is TMA with a heavy focus on kinematic chains and pure kinetic energy transfers like boxing. I like kickboxing for the same damn reason you don't like it

I'll give you some examples that are straight out of Bruce's pay book. I don't mean to say he's the innovator, just that he did them often both in movies and demos. Also, before I go on I should say I don't dislike Bruce or TMA, it's all fighting stuffs and i'm interested in it all they're just lower on my personal list...brutally honest, I like Sumo best out of the TMAs and I'm not even sure it qualifies as a martial art or just a combat sport.

The backfist, I'm not sure it's actually called a backfist, but I'm pretty sure you know what I am talking about.



I dunno if this fella does a good job explaining what Bruce is doing or not, seems good but I'm pretty ignorant to TMAs so you'd have to tell me, but, he's close enough for what I need to say about it.

Where is the powerline in Bruce Lee's backfist? Why on earth would I hit a man with what is essentially a slap with a closed hand when I can deliver a proper punch with kinematic chaining behind it to really drive the energy into the opponent?


Let me get specific, just in case anyone is reading and doesn't know what I mean by kinematic chains or powerline:


In boxing proper punch structure is centered around pure kinematic chains like a Newton's Cradle. Each joint lines up with the next to carry the energy as purely from body part to body part as possible. In the Cradle that is directly in and out of the cradle with no circular motion.

This makes sense. What the sam hell is the point of generating energy in your feet just to lose it in your wrist? There is none. In boxing the punch starts at the foot because the energy does flow from foot to fist.

In TMA they seem to believe more in enough force rather than all the force generated. Look at the backfist I posted. The direction of the impact force is against the back of the fist. To counter that energy you need something directly opposite. Well, what's meant to oppose the impact force in his backfist then? The inertia in his fingers? It's the only thing on the other side of his fist. The only thing stopping his elbow from collapsing are his muscles....meaning he's fighting to flow of energy by generating more energy.

It's like taking the starter balls on the Cradle and swinging them in a circular motion. Yes, you will see flow throughout the cradle but it's greatly diminished compared to a direct strike isn't it?

When you throw a jab what opposes the force you put into your opponent? Your own body doesn't it? If all your bones are lined up to transfer energy from foot to fist then when that energy pushes back, which it will because it's a law, where does it have to go? Nowhere right? Because you're a wall made for dealing with the energy the only place for it to get absorbed is by the struck not the striker.

Going back to the backfist, having no powerline to oppose the reactive force generated by the act of landing the backfist then bouces off. Energy generated, energy lost in transfer, and energy actually working against you moments afters....it's just not a good punch...in my opinion.

In the video the young man actually encourages bending your wrist so that the proper knuckles line up. At least we can all agree on which knuckles are proper

When I was a lad if I noticed a fella bending his wrists I'd do my best to cut the punch short with something hard to hurt their wrist. An elbow, my forehead, and when I was really ****y I'd even try to punch a punch.

Let's say X throws the backfist, is his wrist not more susceptible to Y's elbow defense given at the right angle Y can apply pressure X did not intend on and break it quite, quite, quite, easily?

So there you have a punch that makes you vulnerable where you should not be. It requires generation of energy is can not use, and even if everything goes right for you all you got out of it was a slap. I'd trade lost backfists for jolts all day long. Let's not even consider boxing's bent elbow strikes because we all know comparing the power in a backfist to the power in an overhand is stupid in favor of the overhand.


I kind of stayed on backfist a while there, I'll do the second example quickly. My other big beef with TMAs is the bouncing. It doesn't make any damn sense to me. In boxing they bounce in steps and in and out of strike zones. It's great for a trigger step or some such if you want to be real tricky, but, when you're just bouncing indifferent to stance or steps then what are you doing? Seriously, what's the theory behind that?


In a nutshell, where TMA differs from boxing I tend to on a philosophical level agree with boxing theory over what I understand of them TMA theory and because Kickboxing employs traditional martial arts techniques with more focus on a boxing-eque philosophy behind them what they have effectively made if a form of TMA I can agree with.

M

I want you to know that I take it as a sign of respect and admiration to disagree about ideas I put fourth. It generates better and honest discourse. And I may learn something in the process. You threw me a lot of stuff to answer to here! Lets clear a few of the easy ones up first:

1) The reason I don't like kickboxing is not because of the techniques I just think that it encourages bad boxing and bad karate. What happened was the original guys who started it were very good fighters but, they were not professional boxers. Professional boxers would always be better than karate guys trying to make karate into a hybrid of boxing. The movement dynamics are just totally different enough so the karate and boxing detracht from each other. You don't bounce around in Karate and you need an open hand for most blows, and even the punches to form the right chain generating power.

Pure arts that kick and punch, like Savate and Thai boxing IMO are excellent arts that combine the two types of techniques well. Although as I was telling another poster, one notices much less head movement in these arts than Western boxing.

2) Now onto the kinematic chain: There are similar concepts such as communitive locking, where the whole force of the body is brought to bare onto the opponent, or, conversly the person is controlled through the shoulder. TMA's are so varied...Some have very strong and direct kinetic lines, others... not so obvious. South East Asian arts of origination? they tend to operate through triangles of stabile movements, so they are not a straignt line. Other arts, the circle but... its misunderstood, by most of the people who practice them: Because even the circle has to conform to what you call the Kinematic chain and what I would term communicative locking.

basically the older arts were about taking the center mass away from the opponent and using their own control to generate force via torque. Torque being the conversion of circular movement into linear force. This is why one could fight with a sword and live...and many died by Iuchi, or mutual combat because, when we both have three foot razor blades, unless I come through your center mass and take it, we will both kill each other when our swords meet. So, I must make you depend on me for balance, or unbalance you with the movement coming towards you, then cut you down, without you being able to have the support to swing back.

How this has translated through the years? well... your critiscism is relevant here M: Most people really don't understand that this connection to center mass and the ability to take it from the opponent, is how TMA's were supposed to function in combat. When done properly in this manner, the principle becomes very similar to the kinematic chains, the proper body dynamics that make a punch work from center mass outward. Its the same critiscim boxing trainers had in the late 1800's about "mufflers" and sparring in the gyms with no power or accuracy on the punches.. and what would become Dempsey's monumental critique and formulation of the "dead step" to get people to appreciate the force of gravity and weight coming into a target area and upending it. With Dempsey this was with a punch, it could jut as easily have been with a weapon, a grappling technique, a throw. In any case, the person had to be moved with force on a part of their body and controlled with that force enough to affect that person's location...particularly their center mass.

Sumo was and is Japan's only indigenious martial art. yes, it has martial applications that deal very much with operating center mass and generating power doing such. In this case it is how slapping the hands with the weight of the body behind them, and moving the legs into the space occupied by the opponent, proceeds. Ju Jutsu is the process of learning how to yield at certain points to this rush, redirect the rush, and using leverage at key points during the exchange/rush. But the joint locks themselves came probably from Korea via China originally and were added to the hooking movements of Sumo, the martial art of the Gods (in Japan at least lol).

Again, we see the same result with the sword, as with the hands: one learns the art of generating force, efficiently and displacing the opponent as fast as possible. When it was Sumo it was pushing the other out of the ring, when it was the original warring periods of Japan, it was the bow and arrow, and the spear, because of distance...And when the sword became the choice weapon, it became the skill of closing, grappling (like old boxing grappling) until one could fell an opponent, reach the short sword and cut his throat. The longer swords only developed during the periods of reconstruction when technique could be perfected, duels fought, schools formalized... Not on the battle field where most kills were done with the shorter sword when distance was eliminated and the fight became a grapple in armour (YoraKumuchi).

Now lets get to your idea of Kinematic chains which is really for all practical purposed identical to communitive locking in classical Japanese Arts in many respects...not the least of which how it relates to Neutonian forces theology. First off: One should never bounce in traditional TMA! Thats a big critscism I point out a lot when people tell me about the Gracies defeating "Karate" fighters. In these events I see guys bouncing...a no no! In Japanese and
Chinese traditional arts, one should never lose the connection to the ground in combat.

Now the backfist: The backfist comes from a punch with the arm that is vertical and delivered much like a reverse uppercut, as though you were looking into your palm and dropped your arm straight, vertically down. Originally in many of the older systems the hands were held so that if we were fighting and my elbow could be positioned over your encrouching arm, my hand would then vertically come down from the center and hit to your center area. Hence, this technique was a way to use distance to take away center mass with a vertical blow, not the version you saw Lee use, which, as we shall see is a later basterdization.

The techniqhe was first basterdized in karate forms, you can literally see that in Okinawan Karate, the original techniqhe delivered vertically, even in Goju Ryu karate, changes to a horizontal strike. The question becomes, Why did this change take place? and what was Bruce Lee's interest in this technique?

Well, the reason for the change is to create another angle of attack. By incorporating the backfist with the lunge punch and the jab it allows one to attack the opponent from the vertical, and from the horizontal position, around the opponent's guard. The power for the techniqhe comes from the speed and momentum. So the opposing force, to speak Neutonian physics, becomes the body propelled into the opponent. The strike can be delivered as a fist with the to large knuckles hitting the temple, zygomatic arch of the opponent's head to the side. The proper form should be so the technique comes from the shoulder, with the horizontal pivot coming from the elbow in a centripedial direction.

The structural integrity for the technique comes from centripedial dynamics more than linear...the one form of energy transfer that cannot be explained by the second (?) law of Neuton? One twists the spine and at times, twists the arm joint, while moving forwards and aims the blow to the side of the head. It can be delivered as a slap, or as a punch. It can also be used exclusively as a spinning technique with centripedial force.

What Lee may not have known, was that this version, the one you speak of where he is hitting horizontal and not vertical is basterdized from the original which does work with the kinetic chain, and involves the force of the arm coming down, while the weight drops, so that the force gets countered into the ground, through the legs, waist, like any other punch. Lee also used the blow as a diversionary tactic, as a lot of people did. I used to use the technique when I fought, as a set up for my round kick.

Keep in mind also that when chopping to the side of the head, like Karate does, the force, while generating torque in a circular fashion, does get grounded, offset, like any linear strike would get offset. There is just a conversion where the arm strikes out like a hook punch, in a semi circle initially.

My own opinion is that the theory of how any art generates power has to be anatomically correct, in line with Neutonian physics, and subject to a mechanism such as communitive locking, or the kinetic chain, to be effective and useful. And if one just takes the arm, with no circular torque from the shoulders, or the waist, the back slap will not have the force necessary to be effective. Take your two knuckles and with a fist, First just move the arm from the elbow...not much force... Now step in and transfer your weight and turn the shoulder, and snap the same blow with all that force as your foot hits the ground. Hitting someone in the temple with that, the soft spot could cause damage. Lee used it more of a set up though.

Communitive locking is the theory that when one properly controls the opponent from an appandage, usually the arm, they are controlling the opponent's center mass, through the shoulder joint and through displacing the spine, and unbalancing the opponent. TMA's are supposed to achieve this and bouncing will aways be something that goes against the proper mechanics of generating force efficiently, no TMA should bounce.

The only deviation I see is that certain arts seek to control center mass through triangular movement that comes in at an angle, and twists the spine, to control opponent. Hope this helps!

[Marchegiano]

M

I want you to know that I take it as a sign of respect and admiration to disagree about ideas I put fourth. It generates better and honest discourse. And I may learn something in the process. You threw me a lot of stuff to answer to here! Lets clear a few of the easy ones up first:

1) The reason I don't like kickboxing is not because of the techniques I just think that it encourages bad boxing and bad karate. What happened was the original guys who started it were very good fighters but, they were not professional boxers. Professional boxers would always be better than karate guys trying to make karate into a hybrid of boxing. The movement dynamics are just totally different enough so the karate and boxing detracht from each other. You don't bounce around in Karate and you need an open hand for most blows, and even the punches to form the right chain generating power.

Pure arts that kick and punch, like Savate and Thai boxing IMO are excellent arts that combine the two types of techniques well. Although as I was telling another poster, one notices much less head movement in these arts than Western boxing.

2) Now onto the kinematic chain: There are similar concepts such as communitive locking, where the whole force of the body is brought to bare onto the opponent, or, conversly the person is controlled through the shoulder. TMA's are so varied...Some have very strong and direct kinetic lines, others... not so obvious. South East Asian arts of origination? they tend to operate through triangles of stabile movements, so they are not a straignt line. Other arts, the circle but... its misunderstood, by most of the people who practice them: Because even the circle has to conform to what you call the Kinematic chain and what I would term communicative locking.

basically the older arts were about taking the center mass away from the opponent and using their own control to generate force via torque. Torque being the conversion of circular movement into linear force. This is why one could fight with a sword and live...and many died by Iuchi, or mutual combat because, when we both have three foot razor blades, unless I come through your center mass and take it, we will both kill each other when our swords meet. So, I must make you depend on me for balance, or unbalance you with the movement coming towards you, then cut you down, without you being able to have the support to swing back.

How this has translated through the years? well... your critiscism is relevant here M: Most people really don't understand that this connection to center mass and the ability to take it from the opponent, is how TMA's were supposed to function in combat. When done properly in this manner, the principle becomes very similar to the kinematic chains, the proper body dynamics that make a punch work from center mass outward. Its the same critiscim boxing trainers had in the late 1800's about "mufflers" and sparring in the gyms with no power or accuracy on the punches.. and what would become Dempsey's monumental critique and formulation of the "dead step" to get people to appreciate the force of gravity and weight coming into a target area and upending it. With Dempsey this was with a punch, it could jut as easily have been with a weapon, a grappling technique, a throw. In any case, the person had to be moved with force on a part of their body and controlled with that force enough to affect that person's location...particularly their center mass.

Sumo was and is Japan's only indigenious martial art. yes, it has martial applications that deal very much with operating center mass and generating power doing such. In this case it is how slapping the hands with the weight of the body behind them, and moving the legs into the space occupied by the opponent, proceeds. Ju Jutsu is the process of learning how to yield at certain points to this rush, redirect the rush, and using leverage at key points during the exchange/rush. But the joint locks themselves came probably from Korea via China originally and were added to the hooking movements of Sumo, the martial art of the Gods (in Japan at least lol).

Again, we see the same result with the sword, as with the hands: one learns the art of generating force, efficiently and displacing the opponent as fast as possible. When it was Sumo it was pushing the other out of the ring, when it was the original warring periods of Japan, it was the bow and arrow, and the spear, because of distance...And when the sword became the choice weapon, it became the skill of closing, grappling (like old boxing grappling) until one could fell an opponent, reach the short sword and cut his throat. The longer swords only developed during the periods of reconstruction when technique could be perfected, duels fought, schools formalized... Not on the battle field where most kills were done with the shorter sword when distance was eliminated and the fight became a grapple in armour (YoraKumuchi).

Now lets get to your idea of Kinematic chains which is really for all practical purposed identical to communitive locking in classical Japanese Arts in many respects...not the least of which how it relates to Neutonian forces theology. First off: One should never bounce in traditional TMA! Thats a big critscism I point out a lot when people tell me about the Gracies defeating "Karate" fighters. In these events I see guys bouncing...a no no! In Japanese and
Chinese traditional arts, one should never lose the connection to the ground in combat.

Now the backfist: The backfist comes from a punch with the arm that is vertical and delivered much like a reverse uppercut, as though you were looking into your palm and dropped your arm straight, vertically down. Originally in many of the older systems the hands were held so that if we were fighting and my elbow could be positioned over your encrouching arm, my hand would then vertically come down from the center and hit to your center area. Hence, this technique was a way to use distance to take away center mass with a vertical blow, not the version you saw Lee use, which, as we shall see is a later basterdization.

The techniqhe was first basterdized in karate forms, you can literally see that in Okinawan Karate, the original techniqhe delivered vertically, even in Goju Ryu karate, changes to a horizontal strike. The question becomes, Why did this change take place? and what was Bruce Lee's interest in this technique?

Well, the reason for the change is to create another angle of attack. By incorporating the backfist with the lunge punch and the jab it allows one to attack the opponent from the vertical, and from the horizontal position, around the opponent's guard. The power for the techniqhe comes from the speed and momentum. So the opposing force, to speak Neutonian physics, becomes the body propelled into the opponent. The strike can be delivered as a fist with the to large knuckles hitting the temple, zygomatic arch of the opponent's head to the side. The proper form should be so the technique comes from the shoulder, with the horizontal pivot coming from the elbow in a centripedial direction.

The structural integrity for the technique comes from centripedial dynamics more than linear...the one form of energy transfer that cannot be explained by the second (?) law of Neuton? One twists the spine and at times, twists the arm joint, while moving forwards and aims the blow to the side of the head. It can be delivered as a slap, or as a punch. It can also be used exclusively as a spinning technique with centripedial force.

What Lee may not have known, was that this version, the one you speak of where he is hitting horizontal and not vertical is basterdized from the original which does work with the kinetic chain, and involves the force of the arm coming down, while the weight drops, so that the force gets countered into the ground, through the legs, waist, like any other punch. Lee also used the blow as a diversionary tactic, as a lot of people did. I used to use the technique when I fought, as a set up for my round kick.

Keep in mind also that when chopping to the side of the head, like Karate does, the force, while generating torque in a circular fashion, does get grounded, offset, like any linear strike would get offset. There is just a conversion where the arm strikes out like a hook punch, in a semi circle initially.

My own opinion is that the theory of how any art generates power has to be anatomically correct, in line with Neutonian physics, and subject to a mechanism such as communitive locking, or the kinetic chain, to be effective and useful. And if one just takes the arm, with no circular torque from the shoulders, or the waist, the back slap will not have the force necessary to be effective. Take your two knuckles and with a fist, First just move the arm from the elbow...not much force... Now step in and transfer your weight and turn the shoulder, and snap the same blow with all that force as your foot hits the ground. Hitting someone in the temple with that, the soft spot could cause damage. Lee used it more of a set up though.

Communitive locking is the theory that when one properly controls the opponent from an appandage, usually the arm, they are controlling the opponent's center mass, through the shoulder joint and through displacing the spine, and unbalancing the opponent. TMA's are supposed to achieve this and bouncing will aways be something that goes against the proper mechanics of generating force efficiently, no TMA should bounce.

The only deviation I see is that certain arts seek to control center mass through triangular movement that comes in at an angle, and twists the spine, to control opponent. Hope this helps!

Amazing stuff bud!

By respect, I meant I realize I am ignorant in a field you are very knowledgeable in. I leave out my usual " To hell with kung fu" bull these days because you have already taught me loads about it just by-and-by in relation to boxing, changed my mind, and made me interested in what I am not getting so I chose to keep my mouth shut about it until the subject presented itself more directly.

Well, kung fu as a placeholder not actual kung fu obviously. You're very good about being specific about which TMA or what technique by name. I appreciate that a lot.


Remy Bonjasky was my favorite kickboxer, but I think Semmy Schilt is probably usually seen at the greatest. Either Semmy, Remy, Peter Aerts, or Ernesto Hoost. Of them, I know Semmy has a background in some form of TMA since he was real young. Ernesto, I am pretty sure has some traditional training given he was in black belt quite a bit....then again Black Belt is the home of folks like Frank Dux and George Dillman I'm pretty sure Peter has a background in Judo.

So it's always been there for me to see but with my very bias in favor of boxing and boxing theory eyes I couldn't see it for what it is.


Speaking of the Frank Duxes of martial arts, is there anything at all to any of them that's true or worth knowing beyond a laugh?

[billeau2]

Amazing stuff bud!

By respect, I meant I realize I am ignorant in a field you are very knowledgeable in. I leave out my usual " To hell with kung fu" bull these days because you have already taught me loads about it just by-and-by in relation to boxing, changed my mind, and made me interested in what I am not getting so I chose to keep my mouth shut about it until the subject presented itself more directly.

Well, kung fu as a placeholder not actual kung fu obviously. You're very good about being specific about which TMA or what technique by name. I appreciate that a lot.


Remy Bonjasky was my favorite kickboxer, but I think Semmy Schilt is probably usually seen at the greatest. Either Semmy, Remy, Peter Aerts, or Ernesto Hoost. Of them, I know Semmy has a background in some form of TMA since he was real young. Ernesto, I am pretty sure has some traditional training given he was in black belt quite a bit....then again Black Belt is the home of folks like Frank Dux and George Dillman I'm pretty sure Peter has a background in Judo.

So it's always been there for me to see but with my very bias in favor of boxing and boxing theory eyes I couldn't see it for what it is.


Speaking of the Frank Duxes of martial arts, is there anything at all to any of them that's true or worth knowing beyond a laugh?

The kickboxers you mention are very good. heres the dilemna for me: If those guys fought as professional boxers, how well would they do? I honestly don't know the answer to this. What I do remember is when they started kickboxing, they had a rule to the effect of: "You need to throw ___ (I think it was 7?) kicks. So... these knuckle heads would charge out, kick once kick twice kick.... seven... and then proceed to box the rest of the round. That is what initially soured me. But to the credit of Japan particularly they built the sport up and you had guys who eventually were skilled, including the guys you mention. Aerts was a big boy!! lol. Take a look at this for 5h1ts and giggles:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lpl_7w8-jTE&t=67s

M, you are not ignorant of anything. A lot of the critique you advanced to me is something that has been stated, and even dealt with as an ongoing dialogue (Bullshido,net). The difference is that you came into that critique with a specific model. The Kinematic chain and the Neutonian forces that make it something that can be duplicated... Speaking of which, I just have to throw this out there: On the scale of the "big brains"... Neuton and perhaps Davinci reign way up there. Einstein, by comparison was a lightweight in my humble opinion, a cherry picker... He never wanted any part of Quantum Mechanics, it scared him, like a prime Pac scared Floyd! lol.

One thing to be aware of with Neuton is that Centrapedial forces, unless converted to linear forces, is a slightly ddiffernt way of generating force in some very specific applications. But guess what? NOT with the slapping backfist. For that technique to work it has to be grounded in the kinetic force moving forward and the speed of the spine, shoulder and eventual elbow hitting into the opponent. So it is a valid contention that to do the technique as a slap is "iffy." Lee would generally use the lead more than the backfist if it is any conselation, but more to the point, the use of the technique could be as a diversion. And that is the only valid use because a slap to the zygomatic arch with the backhand is not effective. A slap to the eye socket with a vertical backfist is...very effective, by contrast.

Yes you are correct about TMA's they can be very different. Chinese Boxing systems alone are a thing unto themselves. The mother styles coming from the North to most are Tai Chi, the ultimate system that comprises all movements, Hsing Yi which is linear and about the same type applications as the Kinematic Chain, and Ba Qua which is circular, winding, unwinding. But within those systems, which have been basterdized by most KUng Fu lore, including the lore of the Shao Lin (Little forest)... which is a tourist trap.

Japanese arts can generally be looked at as classical warrior arts, the Bugaei, then the later arts Gendai, and eventually the Budo, or the arts that were further refined to embrace more than simply combat skills. Again, most people do not even know that Sumo is the only indigenious Japanese martial art! lol.

Finally Dillman and Dux are not generally acknowledged as credible by most. Dillman was a decent karate guy, even trained with Ali a bit in his camps. Went a little light in the head with pressure point stuff which while fun, is simply not reliable. Lets put it this way regarding Dillman: If you wear armour, it has seams...it has to because you have to move. Those seams are where your arms and legs connect, and where your arteries are. So I know, with certainty that if I cut you on the inside of your leg where it meets your hip, that there is a place where the artery is located for every human being... Likewise, I know that if I hit you with my weight on the tip of your chin, your brain will be slammed into the back of your skull... this is reliable and will duplicate the same for virtually all human beings.

Pressure points work sometimes, maybe... They work on some people, at some times of the day (allegedly). You cannot take that into a combat scenario. As far as Dux look at the numbers.

[LoadedWraps]

The kickboxers you mention are very good. heres the dilemna for me: If those guys fought as professional boxers, how well would they do? I honestly don't know the answer to this. What I do remember is when they started kickboxing, they had a rule to the effect of: "You need to throw ___ (I think it was 7?) kicks. So... these knuckle heads would charge out, kick once kick twice kick.... seven... and then proceed to box the rest of the round. That is what initially soured me. But to the credit of Japan particularly they built the sport up and you had guys who eventually were skilled, including the guys you mention. Aerts was a big boy!! lol. Take a look at this for 5h1ts and giggles:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lpl_7w8-jTE&t=67s

M, you are not ignorant of anything. A lot of the critique you advanced to me is something that has been stated, and even dealt with as an ongoing dialogue (Bullshido,net). The difference is that you came into that critique with a specific model. The Kinematic chain and the Neutonian forces that make it something that can be duplicated... Speaking of which, I just have to throw this out there: On the scale of the "big brains"... Neuton and perhaps Davinci reign way up there. Einstein, by comparison was a lightweight in my humble opinion, a cherry picker... He never wanted any part of Quantum Mechanics, it scared him, like a prime Pac scared Floyd! lol.

One thing to be aware of with Neuton is that Centrapedial forces, unless converted to linear forces, is a slightly ddiffernt way of generating force in some very specific applications. But guess what? NOT with the slapping backfist. For that technique to work it has to be grounded in the kinetic force moving forward and the speed of the spine, shoulder and eventual elbow hitting into the opponent. So it is a valid contention that to do the technique as a slap is "iffy." Lee would generally use the lead more than the backfist if it is any conselation, but more to the point, the use of the technique could be as a diversion. And that is the only valid use because a slap to the zygomatic arch with the backhand is not effective. A slap to the eye socket with a vertical backfist is...very effective, by contrast.

Yes you are correct about TMA's they can be very different. Chinese Boxing systems alone are a thing unto themselves. The mother styles coming from the North to most are Tai Chi, the ultimate system that comprises all movements, Hsing Yi which is linear and about the same type applications as the Kinematic Chain, and Ba Qua which is circular, winding, unwinding. But within those systems, which have been basterdized by most KUng Fu lore, including the lore of the Shao Lin (Little forest)... which is a tourist trap.

Japanese arts can generally be looked at as classical warrior arts, the Bugaei, then the later arts Gendai, and eventually the Budo, or the arts that were further refined to embrace more than simply combat skills. Again, most people do not even know that Sumo is the only indigenious Japanese martial art! lol.

Finally Dillman and Dux are not generally acknowledged as credible by most. Dillman was a decent karate guy, even trained with Ali a bit in his camps. Went a little light in the head with pressure point stuff which while fun, is simply not reliable. Lets put it this way regarding Dillman: If you wear armour, it has seams...it has to because you have to move. Those seams are where your arms and legs connect, and where your arteries are. So I know, with certainty that if I cut you on the inside of your leg where it meets your hip, that there is a place where the artery is located for every human being... Likewise, I know that if I hit you with my weight on the tip of your chin, your brain will be slammed into the back of your skull... this is reliable and will duplicate the same for virtually all human beings.

Pressure points work sometimes, maybe... They work on some people, at some times of the day (allegedly). You cannot take that into a combat scenario. As far as Dux look at the numbers.

Was Dux a laughing stock haha? I only know about him because the very awesome flick "The Quest" was loosely based on him.

I think the economics and efficiency of an strike perfected through repetition cannot be ignored, when I was learning Wing Chun, the strikes were unconventional and awkward to me but we also only trained against practitioners of the same discipline, I've only seen Wing Chun be effective against other arts in film, not in any actual competition. I think if you mastered the techniques you could surprise someone within range and gain control at least momentarily, but I feel the stance and forms limit you more than they empower you. Again, my experience with boxing is vastly superior to with wing chun, so I am biased, but, and to your point in a way about the school of thought that you should never leave the group, I prefer a good low level stance as a boxer, forcing you to seek a counter opportunity or trying your luck getting through my low stance philly shell where I have time to react as you take eons to cross the 2 feet + of space between your lead foot, and my protected moving chin.

I won't say there isn't truth to the one inch punch idea where force can be generated quickly and expended efficiently, but to Marchieagos point, the distribution of delivery of power is not ideal to me, especially when I have perfected a devastating short and tight check hook and practice throwing shoeshine 1-2s in phonebooth distances, because that is one of the ways I was taught as a fighter to give myself space and get out of trouble.

Give me a boxer with the heart of a lion against a fighter of another discipline any day, I'll take a prime Marciano over Bones Jones even if it's a size mismatch on paper.

[billeau2]

Was Dux a laughing stock haha? I only know about him because the very awesome flick "The Quest" was loosely based on him.

I think the economics and efficiency of an strike perfected through repetition cannot be ignored, when I was learning Wing Chun, the strikes were unconventional and awkward to me but we also only trained against practitioners of the same discipline, I've only seen Wing Chun be effective against other arts in film, not in any actual competition. I think if you mastered the techniques you could surprise someone within range and gain control at least momentarily, but I feel the stance and forms limit you more than they empower you. Again, my experience with boxing is vastly superior to with wing chun, so I am biased, but, and to your point in a way about the school of thought that you should never leave the group, I prefer a good low level stance as a boxer, forcing you to seek a counter opportunity or trying your luck getting through my low stance philly shell where I have time to react as you take eons to cross the 2 feet + of space between your lead foot, and my protected moving chin.

I won't say there isn't truth to the one inch punch idea where force can be generated quickly and expended efficiently, but to Marchieagos point, the distribution of delivery of power is not ideal to me, especially when I have perfected a devastating short and tight check hook and practice throwing shoeshine 1-2s in phonebooth distances, because that is one of the ways I was taught as a fighter to give myself space and get out of trouble.

Give me a boxer with the heart of a lion against a fighter of another discipline any day, I'll take a prime Marciano over Bones Jones even if it's a size mismatch on paper.

There is a poster on this site that I am very fond of connected to Dux, so I hold my tongue lol... There are people connected with Dux that are legit, for whatever reason... but yes his tales themselves are numerically challenged to say the least. I used to talk regularly with some of Dante's guys, as well, what a bunch of characters lol. But crazy as Count Dante was, before he went full ****** he was one of Robert triase's top students and Triase, a former boxer, was a giant in the martial arts.

Lets talk Wing Chun and how it is somewhat symptomatic of the problem with many traditional Asian arts. First, there is no quality control what so ever. If you took ten guys each, from everywhere from San Francisco to New York... from all over the country and had half of them Chunners and the other half boxers, I guarantee you the difference between the boxers would be very small in their knowledge ratio to years spend boxing, as compared to the Wing Chun guys. Add to that the fact that most Wing Chun is garbage...there was a special not long ago that purported to show a wing chun practicioner with a legit lineage take on an MMA guy with a big mouth in China

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GJUA39ssH8

The chunner is incapable, what better way to put it? So, is all Wing Chun garbage? and...what is the art supposed to do? Well when I lived in San francisco, I actually taught one of the luminaries in the Kung Fu community, and this included teaching in China Town, the old China Town, quite an honor considering my status as a caucasian lol. There were excellent Wing Chun guys, few and far between. They could hit and destroy the target, including hitting a guy and breaking his arm, blackening his whole chest area, and arm, etc.... These guys? as a rule, did not fight in an organized, sport format. there strength was that they would hit you once, and it was quick and accurate and devistating. I knew a chunner like this in San Francisco as well when I bounced at the DNA Lounge, I "saw" him knock a guy out once...and the guy's size was small, and you did not see the punch strictly speaking, you saw the results of the punch.

A lot of the real Chinese boxers? There thing was not to stand toe to toe, rather it was to develop the body to do a hit that did maximum damage. So, having a fist that could break a skull, for example... This type of combat style is designed as an art, not really for comprehensive application, so much as a designed weapon, that when used, is used sparingly, in one scenario, but with perfect understanding.

As far as the dynamics: There is a theory that Yip Man was pigeon toed which was why the stances look the way they do. The concepts in the art predate the actual art. The way force is actually generated takes a very specific way of using the body. Most people don't understand the reasons for this> In Chinese medical metaphysics, vis a vis medicine the two most vulnerable meridians are the conception and governor's vessel, which go down the front and the back of a person. additionally, in anatomy and physiology the body is not protected at all against a short, fast poweful strike in a slight upwards direction towards the front.

Consider...If I hit down with maximum power towards you, I first would encounter your forehead, perhaps the hardest bone in the body.Then your knees...I would miss all the "good stuff." Now look at Wing Chun's hits... Coming upwards at a slight angle, if I hit low, I hit the groin, If I kick upwards, I strike into the groin, or the knee...Up a bit higher I catch the plexus, and the fishhook bone that protrudes over the plexis (the Zyphoid process), which can be broken with about 50 pounds of pressure... If I aim the punch a little higher? I catch the chin edge, a Ko punch when done properly, much as the classic boxing front hand lead was used, further up from there is the throat, the eyes...

Wing chun is designed to catch those areas with quick strikes. It does not make provisions for if you are grabbed, if you are fighting on the ground, etc, anymore than if your fighting with a hammer you would say "gee what if the other guy grabs the hammer?"

The catch is that the teacher has to understand the limitations of the art, and to develop the right way of hitting. It does exist, but is acward. Is Boxing easier? I think it is. I think boxing takes less to learn... Wing Chun does have a way that works but even most teachers imo don't get it.

[LoadedWraps]

There is a poster on this site that I am very fond of connected to Dux, so I hold my tongue lol... There are people connected with Dux that are legit, for whatever reason... but yes his tales themselves are numerically challenged to say the least. I used to talk regularly with some of Dante's guys, as well, what a bunch of characters lol. But crazy as Count Dante was, before he went full ****** he was one of Robert triase's top students and Triase, a former boxer, was a giant in the martial arts.

Lets talk Wing Chun and how it is somewhat symptomatic of the problem with many traditional Asian arts. First, there is no quality control what so ever. If you took ten guys each, from everywhere from San Francisco to New York... from all over the country and had half of them Chunners and the other half boxers, I guarantee you the difference between the boxers would be very small in their knowledge ratio to years spend boxing, as compared to the Wing Chun guys. Add to that the fact that most Wing Chun is garbage...there was a special not long ago that purported to show a wing chun practicioner with a legit lineage take on an MMA guy with a big mouth in China

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GJUA39ssH8

The chunner is incapable, what better way to put it? So, is all Wing Chun garbage? and...what is the art supposed to do? Well when I lived in San francisco, I actually taught one of the luminaries in the Kung Fu community, and this included teaching in China Town, the old China Town, quite an honor considering my status as a caucasian lol. There were excellent Wing Chun guys, few and far between. They could hit and destroy the target, including hitting a guy and breaking his arm, blackening his whole chest area, and arm, etc.... These guys? as a rule, did not fight in an organized, sport format. there strength was that they would hit you once, and it was quick and accurate and devistating. I knew a chunner like this in San Francisco as well when I bounced at the DNA Lounge, I "saw" him knock a guy out once...and the guy's size was small, and you did not see the punch strictly speaking, you saw the results of the punch.

A lot of the real Chinese boxers? There thing was not to stand toe to toe, rather it was to develop the body to do a hit that did maximum damage. So, having a fist that could break a skull, for example... This type of combat style is designed as an art, not really for comprehensive application, so much as a designed weapon, that when used, is used sparingly, in one scenario, but with perfect understanding.

As far as the dynamics: There is a theory that Yip Man was pigeon toed which was why the stances look the way they do. The concepts in the art predate the actual art. The way force is actually generated takes a very specific way of using the body. Most people don't understand the reasons for this> In Chinese medical metaphysics, vis a vis medicine the two most vulnerable meridians are the conception and governor's vessel, which go down the front and the back of a person. additionally, in anatomy and physiology the body is not protected at all against a short, fast poweful strike in a slight upwards direction towards the front.

Consider...If I hit down with maximum power towards you, I first would encounter your forehead, perhaps the hardest bone in the body.Then your knees...I would miss all the "good stuff." Now look at Wing Chun's hits... Coming upwards at a slight angle, if I hit low, I hit the groin, If I kick upwards, I strike into the groin, or the knee...Up a bit higher I catch the plexus, and the fishhook bone that protrudes over the plexis (the Zyphoid process), which can be broken with about 50 pounds of pressure... If I aim the punch a little higher? I catch the chin edge, a Ko punch when done properly, much as the classic boxing front hand lead was used, further up from there is the throat, the eyes...

Wing chun is designed to catch those areas with quick strikes. It does not make provisions for if you are grabbed, if you are fighting on the ground, etc, anymore than if your fighting with a hammer you would say "gee what if the other guy grabs the hammer?"

The catch is that the teacher has to understand the limitations of the art, and to develop the right way of hitting. It does exist, but is acward. Is Boxing easier? I think it is. I think boxing takes less to learn... Wing Chun does have a way that works but even most teachers imo don't get it.

You make some good points.

Wing Chun is definitely tailored for ending an altercation quickly, in the practical sense, at least in the way it was taught to me. I do agree it's much more awkward and challenging than boxing and probably several other art forms. There are definitely counters and responses to getting tied up with your opponent, but there are limitations to this just because of your stance imo, again my knowledge and experience is only about a year or so, where I've been boxing for over a decade so I am biased.

Interesting theory about Yip Man lol.

I do think, and agree that any martial art that prioritizes ending things quickly and efficient, lethal or incapacitating striking as more practical, than those more concerned with the elegance or other aspects of the art itself.

In self defense scenarios the outcome is largely decided after the first successful attack, with a weapon or not, you aren't going to dance around "feeling out" your opponent like the opening round of two boxing tacticians, you have a messy and violent ordeal that can last an eternity seeming 30 seconds or so.

For this, personally, I think both Chun and boxing, when applied properly, can be valuable.

You also made a great point that there is no standard or accountability for Wing Chun globally, the instruction out there is often poor, and nothing is worse than starting a student off on the wrong foot, with poor fundamentals.

PS I know the DNA lounge and also did some bouncing around here for about a year, small world haha. Bruce Lee used to live in this area, interestingly enough.

[billeau2]

You make some good points.

Wing Chun is definitely tailored for ending an altercation quickly, in the practical sense, at least in the way it was taught to me. I do agree it's much more awkward and challenging than boxing and probably several other art forms. There are definitely counters and responses to getting tied up with your opponent, but there are limitations to this just because of your stance imo, again my knowledge and experience is only about a year or so, where I've been boxing for over a decade so I am biased.

Interesting theory about Yip Man lol.

I do think, and agree that any martial art that prioritizes ending things quickly and efficient, lethal or incapacitating striking as more practical, than those more concerned with the elegance or other aspects of the art itself.

In self defense scenarios the outcome is largely decided after the first successful attack, with a weapon or not, you aren't going to dance around "feeling out" your opponent like the opening round of two boxing tacticians, you have a messy and violent ordeal that can last an eternity seeming 30 seconds or so.

For this, personally, I think both Chun and boxing, when applied properly, can be valuable.

You also made a great point that there is no standard or accountability for Wing Chun globally, the instruction out there is often poor, and nothing is worse than starting a student off on the wrong foot, with poor fundamentals.

PS I know the DNA lounge and also did some bouncing around here for about a year, small world haha. Bruce Lee used to live in this area, interestingly enough.

I noticed you were in the Bay Area! One of my favorite teachers was an Oakland guy who came up in the generation of Lee's students, many of whom were in Oakland. Yes he was in the area. Lol, Hip Hop night at the DNA, back then I wasn't married yet, but what a mess! I also trained the Guardian Angles here in the Tenderloin for awhile... Again before taking on a family!

yeah the theory about Yip Man is a distinct possibility. The thing that really messes up all Chinese boxing is a couple of things: During the cultural revolution the best of the lot went to Taiwan, Hong Kong (sparingly) and other South East Asian countries. Since that time China first decided to neuter the arts and create Wu Shu, which took all the real stuff and made the arts gymnastics with a punch...Then when China decided it wanted to be tough again it created San Da, which is MMA. The old China Town has some guys and there is a guy in the avenues who has a reputation of being very good. I say this because I saw their handiwork when I was teaching down there...the guy who ran the facility would show me the results of "love taps" he got.

heres the other problem. Lets take a guy like Master Wong. He is funny and I think he tries... But ultimately he is reconstructing the art more than using it as it was intended. The art was never designed to be a comprehensive art, used by a warrior caste to fight. It is more of a folk art derived from the short fast hand techniques one sees in Southern Chinese Fighting systems.

By contrast, any classical Ju Jutsu system, or one of the mother Chinese styles (Tai Chi, Hsin Yi, Ba Gua) has enough depth to the art that one can see it was used with weapons, originally, is comprehensive enough to apply in many scenarios. Virtually all the Gracie stuff is in classical Ju Jutsu, it is just used and set up differently. Wing Chun by contrast, really has very little. The Dragon Pole was added later.