How Sean Strickland Dismantled Israel Adesanya

[ShadowoftheSun]

You folks heard it here: Sandy Saddler, George Foreman and Roberto Duran - all of whom used a style where they smothered punches as a prominent part of their defense - were actually hidden wing chun practicioners all along.

The principles you're trumpeting aren't unique to wing chun and never have been. The biggest difference is that unlike when you train them in wing chun, when you train them in muay thai and boxing they actually work.

 

[Nonoame]

"For boxing it's the reverse, continuous head and body movement and footwork as the foundation, with parrying as a supplement where needed."

This statement from "the master" just indicates two things

1) he knows nothing about boxing
2)wing chun is very limited in its approach to defence

 

[TheMaster]

You folks heard it here: Sandy Saddler, George Foreman and Roberto Duran - all of whom used a style where they smothered punches as a prominent part of their defense - were actually hidden wing chun practicioners all along.

The principles you're trumpeting aren't unique to wing chun and never have been. The biggest difference is that unlike when you train them in wing chun, when you train them in muay thai and boxing they actually work.

These are not foundational principles of boxing.
Stricklands exposure to Muay Thai is where the influence came for him to develop this style, not his boxing training even though his approach to fighting is not typical for Muay Thai at all and he doesn't look to clinch.

Use and development of similar methods by some boxers may have occcasionally occurred, but they are rare enough that the same few examples are being raised, which actually invalidates claims that they are central boxing principles. They will also always be restricted by the rules and gloves, which the lesser restrictions of MMA allows for methods of defence could never be trained the same way in boxing.

You mentioned Duran and I did find these videos, so yes some comparisons have been made with his close range style that is not typical of most boxers and he had developed use of similar principles. Some boxing analysts have called it a 'sticking hands' style.




Perhaps if he had fought MMA it would have become as much of a Wing Chun type of style as Stricklands but that will remain unknown.

"For boxing it's the reverse, continuous head and body movement and footwork as the foundation, with parrying as a supplement where needed."

This statement from "the master" just indicates two things

1) he knows nothing about boxing
2)wing chun is very limited in its approach to defence

So tell me which schools of boxing teach to use arm deflection and parrying of strikes as the primary defence without head and body movement first? What is this style of boxing called? 52 blocks boxing? Name the system of boxing that teaches this.
The foundations of boxing are head movement and footwork.
You find me an example of this approach to boxing foundations then we have a boxing equivalent of Wing Chun. Otherwise it is again outliers that have come to similar principles themselves and it does not speak to the basis of the style.

 

[Nonoame]

These are not foundational principles of boxing.
Stricklands exposure to Muay Thai is where the influence came for him to develop this style, not his boxing training even though his approach to fighting is not typical for Muay Thai at all and he doesn't look to clinch.

Use and development of similar methods by some boxers may have occcasionally occurred, but they are rare enough that the same few examples are being raised, which actually invalidates claims that they are central boxing principles. They will also always be restricted by the rules and gloves, which the lesser restrictions of MMA allows for methods of defence could never be trained the same way in boxing.

You mentioned Duran and I did find these videos, so yes some comparisons have been made with his close range style that is not typical of most boxers and he had developed use of similar principles. Some boxing analysts have called it a 'sticking hands' style.




Perhaps if he had fought MMA it would have become as much of a Wing Chun type of style as Stricklands but that will remain unknown.

So tell me which schools of boxing teach to use arm deflection and parrying of strikes as the primary defence without head and body movement first? What is this style of boxing called? 52 blocks boxing? Name the system of boxing that teaches this.
The foundations of boxing are head movement and footwork.
You find me an example of this approach to boxing foundations then we have a boxing equivalent of Wing Chun. Otherwise it is again outliers that have come to similar principles themselves and it does not speak to the basis of the style.

All boxing defenses are taught as primary defensive.

Head movement mostly is not taught to complete beginners, it starts with parrys and guard work, being defensively sound and not panicking under pressure. Head movement comes later, generally.

There is no "primary" defense in boxing when you became more experienced. You take all that you have learnt and work with your coaches to develop your own individual style.

That's the difference with boxing and a TMA like wing chun that you fail to comprehend. That's why sports like boxing and MMA evolve over time when athletes bring something new to the table that they have found that works for them in training. Boxing and the like gives you the freedom to express a yourself (to a certain extent), because there is no rule book or scripture that you have to follow for it to be considered boxing unlike kung fu.

This is why you find it so hard to accept that you are wrong, because you can't see the forest through the trees, because your love for kung fu and obsession to prove its legitimacy even with its limitations really clouds your vision of what everyone is trying to point out to you.

In simple terms if you see a silhouette of someone doing kung fu, you will say that's kung fu, if you see silhouette of a professional boxer boxing, you will be able to name the boxer...because most boxers have their own style, and look completly different and are completly individually recognisable

 

[Stuart0502]

Head movement mostly is not taught to complete beginners, it starts with parrys and guard work, being defensively sound and not panicking under pressure. Head movement comes later, generally.

That's a fair point. As an MMA guy that's what I've encountered when I've trained at pure boxing gyms that have a competition team.

Most of the time when I've trained at an MMA gym that may have a full time schedule but typically offers a boxing class about twice a week they seem to think something along the lines of "what's unique about having a boxing class on the schedule, I guess it's the head movement so we'll heavily emphasise that".

In that sense I'd say having a coach who doesn't know how to properly progress and instil fundamentals is a common problem at a lot of MMA gyms.

 

[TheMaster]

All boxing defenses are taught as primary defensive.

Head movement mostly is not taught to complete beginners, it starts with parrys and guard work, being defensively sound and not panicking under pressure. Head movement comes later, generally.

There is no "primary" defense in boxing when you became more experienced. You take all that you have learnt and work with your coaches to develop your own individual style.

That's a reasonable post from a 7 day account. Looks like you joined the forums to enter this discussion. I can see that head movement could often be taught later compared to parrying as for some it may be a more difficult skill to master.

Perhaps for some they can both be considered 'primary defences' in boxing. However if you see a boxer not using head movement much and instead relying on parrying its notable and unusual and stands out, which is why guys who use it a lot like Duran get attention as unique and even get labelled as using "sticky hands". This supports the premise that it generally has much lesser emphasis in boxing as opposed to Wing Chun fundamentals which is a distinction between the two systems.

Considering that boxing is a spectator sport, and that there have actually been rules against excessive parrying or 'spoiling' punches at various times, this isn't surprising.

That's why sports like boxing and MMA evolve over time when athletes bring something new to the table that they have found that works for them in training. Boxing and the like gives you the freedom to express a yourself (to a certain extent), because there is no rule book or scripture that you have to follow for it to be considered boxing unlike kung fu.

Some of this is true and simply relates to the nature of live combat sports allowing for a natural evolution of fighting basesd on seeing what works and what doesn't work. Application of styles like Wing Chun or principles and techniques consistent with it can likewise enter MMA which it has, and go through the same process so this is not unique to boxing.
However you are on shaky ground when you say "there is no rulebook to follow for it to be considered boxing".

There quite literally is a rulebook in boxing for it to be considered as boxing, with obvious limitations on grappling, striking, what part of the hand can be used etc and techniques for punching and moving.
For you to claim boxing is simply a formless standup punching style limited by a ruleset, and can therfore take credit for most anything someone might do with their hands and fists in a combat setting simply isn't true. Boxing has freedom yes, but it is still basically a style or system like any other.

you can't see the forest through the trees, because your love for kung fu and obsession to prove its legitimacy even with its limitations really clouds your vision of what everyone is trying to point out to you.

In simple terms if you see a silhouette of someone doing kung fu, you will say that's kung fu, if you see silhouette of a professional boxer boxing, you will be able to name the boxer...because most boxers have their own style, and look completly different and are completly individually recognisable

Different boxers have different ways of doing it yes, but there are consistencies that can be identified which make it recognizably 'boxing'.
Use of head movement in dealing with incoming strikes is one such inseperable aspect of boxing.

This is why it has been such a struggle for people to identify the few boxers who have a somewhat relateable style to what Strickland was doing.

To claim that a fighter, using MMA gloves (not trained with in boxing), utilising primarily a parry and arm deflection system (adapted mainly from his Muay Thai training, not boxing) with control of range along the centerline and straight punching, with minimal head movement most of the time, is simply "doing boxing" is disingenuous and inaccurate.

The fact that I can readily identify most of these principles as consistent with Wing Chun, yet nobody can name me a school or type of boxing that teaches and produces fighters who employ a similar style (which isn't going to happen, due to boxing gloves and ruleset limiting this stylistic development and also that he developed it largely from a Muay Thai influence in an MMA ruleset) supports the view that I have.

It has nothing to do with 'love of Kung Fu', and it's rare for me to claim anyone as using Wing Chun principles and techniques in MMA. I have pointed it out with Anderson (especially in the Bisping fight), Ferguson used some techniques (especially in the Pettis fight) and we have seen some Wing Chun trained fighters in lower level MMA competitions but this is literally the first time we have seen a 'Wing Chun boxing' type of style successfully used to this extent in elite level MMA.

 

[DoctorTaco]

That's a fair point. As an MMA guy that's what I've encountered when I've trained at pure boxing gyms that have a competition team.

Most of the time when I've trained at an MMA gym that may have a full time schedule but typically offers a boxing class about twice a week they seem to think something along the lines of "what's unique about having a boxing class on the schedule, I guess it's the head movement so we'll heavily emphasise that".

In that sense I'd say having a coach who doesn't know how to properly progress and instil fundamentals is a common problem at a lot of MMA gyms.

the first thing you learn is how to parry a jab, shield (single arm pillar) a cross, and block a hook. Literally day 1.

when I teach a class focusing purely on defense we go through our 4 major families of defense: parrys, pillars, head movement and footwork. We isolate each one first then let the boxers pick and choose. At the end I ask people which 2 felt most comfortable and which 2 felt then most unnatural and the answers seem completely random. In the years I’ve been running this drill I’ve never sussed out a pattern.

but to your point: parrying punches is absolutely fundamental and foundational. Boxing offense works in combinations and if you try to slip, roll, and pull all the time you’re going to get blasted until you are truly a master of the sport. The “master” is a master of setting up strawmen to knock down but as a guy advocating for an art without sparring or drilling full resistance to the techniques I guess this makes sense.

 

[Nonoame]

That's a reasonable post from a 7 day account. Looks like you joined the forums to enter this discussion. I can see that head movement could often be taught later compared to parrying as for some it may be a more difficult skill to master.

Perhaps for some they can both be considered 'primary defences' in boxing. However if you see a boxer not using head movement much and instead relying on parrying its notable and unusual and stands out, which is why guys who use it a lot like Duran get attention as unique and even get labelled as using "sticky hands". This supports the premise that it generally has much lesser emphasis in boxing as opposed to Wing Chun fundamentals which is a distinction between the two systems.

Considering that boxing is a spectator sport, and that there have actually been rules against excessive parrying or 'spoiling' punches at various times, this isn't surprising.



Some of this is true and simply relates to the nature of live combat sports allowing for a natural evolution of fighting basesd on seeing what works and what doesn't work. Application of styles like Wing Chun or principles and techniques consistent with it can likewise enter MMA which it has, and go through the same process so this is not unique to boxing.
However you are on shaky ground when you say "there is no rulebook to follow for it to be considered boxing".

There quite literally is a rulebook in boxing for it to be considered as boxing, with obvious limitations on grappling, striking, what part of the hand can be used etc and techniques for punching and moving.
For you to claim boxing is simply a formless standup punching style limited by a ruleset, and can therfore take credit for most anything someone might do with their hands and fists in a combat setting simply isn't true. Boxing has freedom yes, but it is still basically a style or system like any other.



Different boxers have different ways of doing it yes, but there are consistencies that can be identified which make it recognizably 'boxing'.
Use of head movement in dealing with incoming strikes is one such inseperable aspect of boxing.

This is why it has been such a struggle for people to identify the few boxers who have a somewhat relateable style to what Strickland was doing.

To claim that a fighter, using MMA gloves (not trained with in boxing), utilising primarily a parry and arm deflection system (adapted mainly from his Muay Thai training, not boxing) with control of range along the centerline and straight punching, with minimal head movement most of the time, is simply "doing boxing" is disingenuous and inaccurate.

The fact that I can readily identify most of these principles as consistent with Wing Chun, yet nobody can name me a school or type of boxing that teaches and produces fighters who employ a similar style (which isn't going to happen, due to boxing gloves and ruleset limiting this stylistic development and also that he developed it largely from a Muay Thai influence in an MMA ruleset) supports the view that I have.

It has nothing to do with 'love of Kung Fu', and it's rare for me to claim anyone as using Wing Chun principles and techniques in MMA. I have done it with Anderson (especially in the Bisping fight), and we have seen some Wing Chun trained fighters in lower level MMA competitions but this is literally the first time we have seen a 'Wing Chun boxing' type of style successfully used to this extent in elite level MMA.

You've misunderstood as per normal. As you are thinking of boxing as in the sport inside the ring. Yes in the ring there are rules about what part of the hand you strike with etc. But if you have ever trained with a decent boxing coach, you will learn all sorts of things that are against the rules. Of course there will be things you can't do (like kick). You are just stating the obvious.

But I thought it was obvious what i meant when i was talking about freedom, I was taking about hand placement, stance etc. Not that you can literally do anything you want and it's still "boxing" that's abserd.

I've never said Strickland is doing boxing, you are just miss quoting me to fuel an argument, that's not my position. This isnt a boxing vs wing chun argument. Strickland is an mma fighter who is doing Strickland. It resembles some parts of boxing, it may very well resemble some parts of Wing chun. You would be better suited to comment on that.

The problem is you using stricklands win as a way of legitimising Wing chun as a base for mma. Strickland has never trained it, he has developed his own style for hours of mma sparring, boxing sparring and kickboxing sparring. So another point you are missing is, if you are advocating Stricklands stand up as something everyone should be looking to do, or develop. You should be looking at what he did to get there, and going down that route...and that did not contain any Wing chun training

If a soccer mum who has never trained kicks someone in the balls in self defence, you can't say she is doing krav maga. She kicked someone in the nuts. The groin shot is in loads of martial arts, but she isn't doing any of them....she just kicked someone in the nuts

 

[TheMaster]

the first thing you learn is how to parry a jab, shield (single arm pillar) a cross, and block a hook. Literally day 1.

when I teach a class focusing purely on defense we go through our 4 major families of defense: parrys, pillars, head movement and footwork. We isolate each one first then let the boxers pick and choose. At the end I ask people which 2 felt most comfortable and which 2 felt then most unnatural and the answers seem completely random. In the years I’ve been running this drill I’ve never sussed out a pattern.

but to your point: parrying punches is absolutely fundamental and foundational. Boxing offense works in combinations and if you try to slip, roll, and pull all the time you’re going to get blasted until you are truly a master of the sport. The “master” is a master of setting up strawmen to knock down but as a guy advocating for an art without sparring or drilling full resistance to the techniques I guess this makes sense.

The fact of head movement and footwork alongside parrying being a foundational defence in boxing, doesn't translate to the development of a style such as Stricklands. We don't see boxers fighting like Strickland because MMA is a different sport and his style does not represent the behaviors and reactions you are trying to develop in boxing, with boxing rules.

An easy example is that bobbing and ducking is not commonly used MMA because you can get kneed or kicked in the head.

And I do and always have advocated sparring.

I'm not in the Strickland is doing boxing bandwagon, that's not my position. Strickland is an mma fighter who is doing Strickland. It resembles some parts of boxing, it may very well resemble some parts of Wing chun. You would be better suited to comment on that.

The problem is you using stricklands win as a way of legitimising Wing chun as a base for mma. Strickland has never trained it, he has developed his own style for hours of mma sparring, boxing sparring and kickboxing sparring.

It doesn't matter if Strickland or his trainers hasve never formally trained Wing Chun, although its quite possible his trainers have been exposed to it. If a guy who has never trained amateur wrestling shoots a double leg takedown and gets it, he is still 'doing wrestling', formal training or not.

Yes, Strickland developed his style though mainly Muay Thai and boxing training and MMA sparring, so it doesn't really resemble either sport. The point is I am identifying the overall system he has come to, is consistent with many aspects of Wing Chun. More so in my opinion than with boxing or Muay Thai strategy as they are commonly practiced.
Many Wing Chun methods are also found in Muay Thai and boxing. Yet the combat strategy and defensive structure is generally different which I had posted about before. And when I see Strickland doing this I call it as I see it. So yes, it does demonstrate many Wing Chun methods and principles even if the way he got there was a different route.

 

[Nonoame]

The fact of head movement and footwork alongside parrying being a foundational defence in boxing, doesn't translate to the development of a style such as Stricklands. We don't see boxers fighting like Strickland because MMA is a different sport and his style does not represent the behaviors and reactions you are trying to develop in boxing, with boxing rules.

An easy example is that bobbing and ducking is not commonly used MMA because you can get kneed or kicked in the head.

And I do and always have advocated sparring.

It doesn't matter if Strickland or his trainers hasve never formally trained Wing Chun, although its quite possible his trainers have been exposed to it. If a guy who has never trained amateur wrestling shoots a double leg takedown and gets it, he is still 'doing wrestling', formal training or not.

Yes, Strickland developed his style though mainly Muay Thai and boxing training and MMA sparring, so it doesn't really resemble either sport. The point is I am identifying the overall system he has come to, is consistent with many aspects of Wing Chun. More so in my opinion than with boxing or Muay Thai strategy as they are commonly practiced.
Many Wing Chun methods are also found in Muay Thai and boxing. Yet the combat strategy and defensive structure is generally different which I had posted about before. And when I see Strickland doing this I call it as I see it. So yes, it does demonstrate many Wing Chun methods and principles even if the way he got there was a different route.

So you are saying, if you never train Wing chun, you can still be proficient in it enough to do it at the highest level by training a mixture of mma, boxing and muay thai....why would you bother training it then.


From what you are saying, it makes sense to train the other arts so you pick up enough Wing chun while still picking up all the "usefull" arts of fighting

As I mentioned before, Israel's Wing chun master was in the crowd and he dedicated the fight to him that night, that's why he was wearing China colour shorts. The only one in that cage that night who was a student of Wing chun was Israel, and he lost.

 

[Nonoame]

If a guy who has never trained amateur wrestling shoots a double leg takedown and gets it, he is still 'doing wrestling', formal training or not.

Another showing that you haven't got a clue. What if he has trained rugby, wouldn't he be doing a rugby tackle? A corrent double leg requires many factors including hand placement etc. Just dragging someone to the ground instinctively with no training doesn't make it a wrestling double leg. It may do to the untrained eye.

You are making my point for me.

 

[Stuart0502]

Edit

 

[TheMaster]

So you are saying, if you never train Wing chun, you can still be proficient in it enough to do it at the highest level by training a mixture of mma, boxing and muay thai....why would you bother training it then.

Well there is more to the system but for MMA rules he has nailed it pretty good yes.

From what you are saying, it makes sense to train the other arts so you pick up enough Wing chun while still picking up all the "usefull" arts of fighting

Strickland has done it...so far nobody else has to this extent. And it seems to be something he has just developed over time for himself. It's not a common style or combat strategy at all in MMA at this point to come to by training the above mentioned arts, which is why he is described so often as unique.

I am saying that since Strickland has set a template consistent with applied 'Wing Chun boxing' at the highest level, and since no one seems to have much of a handle on defining what he is actually doing "it's Philly Shell", "it's just a faux Philly Shell", "it's Muay Thai without a clinch", "it's "leverage blocking" "it's outlier boxing with minimal head movement" "its Duran style parry deflection" "its just Strickland" "its his own MMA striking style"

I am identifying the system, techniques and strategy most consistent with his approach to standup.
This potentially enables the style to be more easily trained, either by Wing Chun practicioners themselves who want to cross train, or MMA fighters who primarily do boxing and Muay Thai to develop a similar style in future, since many of the methods and techniques he employs are named and catalogued and practiced in Wing Chun, but are often vague, not commonly used or inconsistent with principles of other styles.

 

[ShadowoftheSun]

The issue is that you are identifying a system - with techniques and strategy - that has never shown any success from actual practicioners in the best means we have of judging whether it works.

You can say that this is wing chun principles all you want but he's never actually trained it - and is putting those principles into practice more successfully than anyone who has actually trained it ever has.

Incidentally, the whole "use of the centreline and trapping/parrying/occupying space" long predates wing chun. It's explicitly used in Western rapier fencing from the 1500s - you can check the manuals from Salvator Fabris and Fiore Di Liberi and see the same principles being used there.

Should I be ranting to everyone about how Sean Strickland is doing amazing Italian style fencing from the 1600s based off of a single fight?

Wing chun doesn't have a monopoly on these concepts and never has. It's used in multiple styles, and is used effectively. The difference is that those styles might not delineate them as clearly but they're developed there in an actual live environment and as such work, exactly like wing chun doesn't.

 

[Da Speeit]

Wing Chun is fucking stupid

 

[TheMaster]

The issue is that you are identifying a system - with techniques and strategy - that has never shown any success from actual practicioners in the best means we have of judging whether it works.

You can say that this is wing chun principles all you want but he's never actually trained it - and is putting those principles into practice more successfully than anyone who has actually trained it ever has.

Yes he has applied Wing Chun principles and methods more successfully so far than any Wing Chun man has been able to do. Is it all that surprising though? We can acknowledge that most WC guys are out of shape hobbyists who don't spar or cross train, therefore the chances of the majority of them actually getting to a point to compete at this level are slim.

Hopefully his win will encourage a great many more of them to cross train properly and spar and be able to compete, as at the moment Strickland has 'demonstrated Wing Chun ahead of them in MMA', so to speak.

Incidentally, the whole "use of the centreline and trapping/parrying/occupying space" long predates wing chun. It's explicitly used in Western rapier fencing from the 1500s - you can check the manuals from Salvator Fabris and Fiore Di Liberi and see the same principles being used there.

Should I be ranting to everyone about how Sean Strickland is doing amazing Italian style fencing from the 1600s based off of a single fight?

I would be happy to acknowledge rapier fencing alongside Wing Chun, though we are talking about bare handed fighting so use of these principles with weapons is more distant. Bruce Lee actually discussed the relevance of fencing to hand to hand combat back in his books.

- Interestingly Wong Shun Leung, who was Bruce Lee's teacher in practice, once fought a fencer using the WC double knives and won. When the fencer complained that Wong had two swords, he invited the fencer to fight using a second sword, and won again.

Wing chun doesn't have a monopoly on these concepts and never has. It's used in multiple styles, and is used effectively. The difference is that those styles might not delineate them as clearly but they're developed there in an actual live environment and as such work, exactly like wing chun doesn't.

This is MMA. No one has a monopoly on anything. Yet at the same time there are clearly definable foundations to styles, methods and strategies. Yes there are always outliers (like Durans 'sticking hands') but they actually define the recognized parameters of a style they don't extend it.

So while Wing Chun doesn't have 'a monopoly' on these methods and fight strategies, it is easily enough recognizable as characteristic of the style. This is why so many had immediately pointed it out, and anyone who is using this combat approach can be said to be in a sense doing a 'Wing Chun' method, since this is the only recognized style that really trains to fight in this way, and rare examples we find with similarities from western boxing are not applying typical combat strategies or behaviours of that style.

 

[TheMaster]

Not really interested in getting more into this as I've said most of what needed to be said on Strickland's Wing Chun boxing, posting this mainly for reference and because its just great.

Controlling centreline with Pak sau (slapping parries) and minimal unnecessary movement.
This allows optimal efficiency of counter striking at close range.



Stricklands solid defensive structure, and another nice bong sau or 'wing arm' deflection.


Strickland has adapted or come to the Wing Chun concept of 'bridging' in his defence structure , generally a foreign concept to boxing.
Bridging is to intercept incoming strikes with your own arms (and thus to create a 'bridge') to then deflect or counter. It includes but is not limited to parrying but also many variations of deflections made by contacting the opponents strikes with your arms or hands as an initial defensive movement.


Another beautiful bong sau from the bridge. One of Stricklands signature moves



Precise parry and deflections of kicks while maintaining centreline control. Sweeping aside deflections of the kicks are done very smoothly.



Beautiful integration of closing range and straight punching along the centreline with both parrying control with the left hand and then the punching arm instantly turned into a deflection, mitigating the need for unnecessary head movement which would take him off his stance equilibrium.



More close range bridging defences

 

[rmongler]

Highly exaggerated movements of leverage blocking is a common feature of many modern CMA's, and it's not hard to understand why; two demonstrators slapping at each others limbs like they are crossing blades in a flurry of motion makes for highly photogenic displays, easily perceptible by uninitated mundanes as something impressive looking, hence the prevalence in the mid twentieth century Hong Kong cinema scene, and later marketing success in America.

 

[shunyata]

Not really interested in getting more into this as I've said most of what needed to be said on Strickland's Wing Chun boxing, posting this mainly for reference and because its just great.

Controlling centreline with Pak sau (slapping parries) and minimal unnecessary movement.
This allows optimal efficiency of counter striking at close range.



Stricklands solid defensive structure, and another nice bong sau or 'wing arm' deflection.


Strickland has adapted or come to the Wing Chun concept of 'bridging' in his defence structure , generally a foreign concept to boxing.
Bridging is to intercept incoming strikes with your own arms (and thus to create a 'bridge') to then deflect or counter. It includes but is not limited to parrying but also many variations of deflections made by contacting the opponents strikes with your arms or hands as an initial defensive movement.

View attachment 1004424
Another beautiful bong sau from the bridge. One of Stricklands signature moves



Precise parry and deflections of kicks while maintaining centreline control. Sweeping aside deflections of the kicks are done very smoothly.



Beautiful integration of closing range and straight punching along the centreline with both parrying control with the left hand and then the punching arm instantly turned into a deflection, mitigating the need for unnecessary head movement which would take him off his stance equilibrium.


More close range bridging defences

Thank you for the gifs of the fight. The presence of these gifs is extremely constructive and one of the only positive contributions I've seen you make to this thread. And they're on topic!

Wing Chun is historically a very new style and does not have any kind of monopoly on parries or blocks or BRIDGING.

Sean fought a great fight. I greatly appreciate OP's breakdown of it.

I'd appreciate it (and I'm guessing other residents of the standup forum would share my appreciation) if you could take your energy that you're using to claim stylistic ownership or relationship with his success and instead focus on highlighting in a non stylistically denominational sense what Sean did right in this fight using visual evidence like above.

 

[rmongler]

I'd appreciate it (and I'm guessing other residents of the standup forum would share my appreciation) if you could take your energy that you're using to claim stylistic ownership or relationship with his success and instead focus on highlighting in a non stylistically denominational sense what Sean did right in this fight using visual evidence like above.

The 'thing in itself' doesn't really matter to this kind of guy, all are simply vehicles of rationalization through which the primal motivation of partisan animus is expressed, the attainder of superior social status over neighbors. One could see the same thing in many of our other dearly departed bridge dwellers, like stanclarker, guerilla, or karatestylist. That the sphere of fisticuffs happens to be his milieu of attachment is simply an accident of history. You can find these types in practically any walk of life. A forum for video games or anime. School administration. Your company's HR department. The county bureaucracy. An international NGO. An ivy league think-tank. The catholic vatican. Et cetera et cetera.