In a previous post ,Tim described the principles in dempseys book to be similar to xingyi.I have only recently started xingyi, but boxed a few years ago and used dempseys book quite a bit.How do the principles in dempseys books like falling step, shoulder whirl, upward surge etc relate to the 5 elements

Moving the mass into every strike is a central principle of Xingyiquan, and Dempsy's boxing. Xingyiquan uses variations of the Advance Step, Dempsy calls it a Falling Step.

There are two primary momemtums that make up all the forces used in Xingyiquan, horizontal (as in a Shoulder Whirl) and vertical (as in an Upward Surge).

Does Xingyiquan have an equivalent to the jab? Any DVDs of Xingyi tournaments and matches?

Tim,

What is the Xingyiquan equivalent to the 'stepping straight jolt'

Kenneth,

Xingyiquan often uses Pi Quan (Splitting) as an entry, similar to the jab.

Sloth Boxer,

Beng Quan, done to the body rather than the head.

Thanks, Tim. I had always assumed that Pi was a heavy palm smash like in Bagua. Any suggestions on where to find footage of full-contact Xingyi matches?

In my limited experience the five "fists" of Xingyi are very versatile. I could see using Pi Quan as a quick snapping jab, a sudden penetrating thrust, a heavy palm smash, or really my favorite, the heavy hammer fist pound

Yes, I suppose someone to whom the art is second nature can be quite flexible with the applications. I'm looking at it from the viewpoint of an outsider trying to understand the basics. In some hakka systems, the hammerfist is considered a "lethal" technique, not to be used in sparring.

For anyone interested the Dempsey book can be found in pdf format here.....

http://www.fulcrumfitness.com/trip/dempseybook/

Bill Ripley,
You must have gotten the word out. Owner bandwidth for the whole fulcrumfitness site is exceeded. Try again later. Thanks, anyway.

Thanks, great link. (I got it to work after a couple of days). I really appreciate Bill posting this. That is a great book. I had read the text from over at Stickgrapplers Archives but had never seen the actual book. Downloaded the whole thing, thanks again.

take care
Brian

Is anyone else receiving a forbidden message?

sorry, I meant 'forbidden massage'. I've been frequenting a Roman Bath house and received several forbidden massages.

I'm in love.

I prefer Mexican prisons... I am glad they are not watching the border... viva la Mehigo...

Enjoyed the book.
I'll rephrase the question that I put on another thread but nobody replied
In Dempsey's book he says that the swinging type of punch should be 'trashed' At long range he advocated the straight punch and in close he advocates hooks and uppercuts. In Chinese martial arts it is the other way around e.g. Choy lay fut using long swings from the outside, Wing Chun using short straight blows from the inside.
In recent MMA competitions, the development of the clinch has led to very little punching going on at close range. Most strikes seem to be at long range, with the whole length of the arm to keep the opponent from 'shooting'. These blows are of the 'looping' variety despised by Dempsey, since they seem to be naturally more powerful.
The strikers who used the 'old school' type boxing were defeated by grapplers in the early UFCs, the ones who have dropped their stance to defend the shoot have had to lengthen their punches accordingly, the method of power delivery changing from thrusting to swinging.
What do you all think?

I have always said that a MMA/UFC fighter should spend time in Wing Chun or Jeet Kune Do. There is to much clinching going on. Dempsey made a good point... a tap-jab and a knock out jab will put you in the same amount of danger/danger zone... so you might as well go for the knock out.

My point. If you are going to "clinch" and put yourself in that dangerzone... Why not hit? You should be hitting down the center line(nose, sternum, mouth) this will end the fight quickly.

And then if it does go to the ground... the opponent is already damaged and could possibly give you the upper hand.

Rich,
There were a couple of JKD fighters in the early UFCs (Todd Medina comes to mind) and several Wing Chun fighters (I remember Reza Nasri fighting). Not to say JKD or WC training wouldn't be helpful as part of a well rounded program but but the fighters mentioned above and the other JKD/WC fighters all lost quickly to either boxers or BJJ fighters.

Tim,
I have seen a Wing Chun 'Chi Sau' champion in Canton fight full contact. He quickly switched his style to long range swinging! When you add the element of CONTACT, the important point is not only whose punch lands first, but how much 'stopping power' it posseses. Same in push hands: 'friendly exchanges' can be a very skillful and useful exercise, but I have the DVD of last years National champioship in China and it looked like very poor Sumo wrestling!
My point is that all these styles begin from very different concepts but end up being very similar when you add the elements of contact and resistance.
If one observes modern MMA matches without any preconceptions or concepts of 'style' one can see that the most succesful types of technique follow athletic types of body movements: 'soccer' kicks, 'baseball' punches etc.
Watching children fighting in the playground we see the most natural type of punch is the 'swing'. Now should we be more scientific and 'trash' this technique? Or train this natural technique to make it more effective?
If we are very rational and scientific we end up with a 'wing chun' type of structure that has developed by theory and discussion, using 'chi sau' as a laboratory. What happens when it is tested under real conditions?
If we are completely unstructured and simply use aggression and wild swings we will be beaten by a skillful fighter with a cool head and accurate punches.
Styles of fighting in China that use a combination of swings and thrusts seem to do well in 'San Shou' type tournaments.
In the UFC competitions they seem to train 'boxing style' on the pads, but in the actual bout use more of a swing: If this is what you are going to really use, shouldn't it be what you are actually training?

David, in my (humble) experience, you are absolutely correct. Many MAs can't be properly judged by weekend warriors unless they have spent a LOT of time attempting to master it. Your observations bring out a case in point.

Many observe a Choy Li Fut or Tibetan form and assume they are impractical and "long range". But in a real encounter, the same moves would be made effective from the use of proper timing and distancing (assuming mastery on the part of the practitioner) developed through application training. The wide, swinging blows develop a lot of power, and are nowhere near as long-range as laymen think. The apex of such blows observed in an enemy-less "form" are a good distance past the actual target point. One aims beyond in order to smash through.

Rich, judging from the okinawan karateka who simply punched their judo opponents into unconciousness, I feel you are correct in the "simple is better" approach. However, A) no true martial art "specializes", and B) the clinch-range of WC simply cannot discount grappling. For instance, I think it is common knowledge by now that a tan sao is actually an elbow break. If you could compare the packaged strip-mall school to, say, the way a chinatown gang might train, I think you might see there aren't really any "wrong" opinions about what has been posted already.

Thanks Tim,

I will have to rent those fights. I am curious to see them.