Good Fighting = Good MA?

[red5angel]

The grados string got me thinking. what is the difference between good wing chun and good fighting? Does having good wing chun make you a good fighter? If you fight well and study wing chun, do you have good wing chun? Can you be one and not the other, as far as can you have good wing chun and not be a good fighter?

[mun hung]

Sure, why not?

There are probably plenty of people on this board who are "good Wing Chun people" who probably can't fight a lick. LOL :D

[yuanfen]

A complete wing chun person should be anbe to fight with his/her wing chun. But one doesnt have to be wing chun person in order to fight. No contradiction between those two propositions IMO

[red5angel]

Mun hung - you are kidding right?

[kj]

Originally posted by yuanfen
A complete wing chun person should be anbe to fight with his/her wing chun. But one doesnt have to be wing chun person in order to fight. No contradiction between those two propositions IMO

Buried within your message is another important distinction, overlooked more often than not: that of someone with capability to fight when they must, and someone who chooses to fight even when unnecessary.

Regards,
- Kathy Jo

[red5angel]

Good point KJ, this is true as well.

[mun hung]

Red5A - I was kidding. :)

Fighting comes from the heart as well as the hands.

When it comes to fighting - It's not the dog in the fight, but the fight in the dog.

[red5angel]

Munhung - agreed! Just had to make sure! ;)

[yuanfen]

There are probably plenty of people on this board who are "good Wing Chun people" who probably can't fight a lick. LOL
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A pointless, gratuitous and speculative comment. Who is that supposed to impress?

[red5angel]

I took it like he was implying there are people out there, or on this board that woudl say you could have good wing chun but not be a good fighter. I believe there are people we may come across who would say that to have good wing chun is possible and still not be able to fight. the joke would be in that Wing Chun is a fighting art. For some of us, like me, I would say that if you cannot fight well using your wing chun you do not have good wing chun. My opinion of course.

[mun hung]

yuanfen - did I strike a nerve? Pointless? Really? Are you trying to hurt my feelings again? :(

red5a - Bravo! At least someone got my joke. ;)

[kungfu cowboy]

I think someone can be excellent technically, but still be useless when it really goes down. You can do all the forms well, all the drills well, do chi sao well, and still be unable to fight in a real world situation, if you do not have the right mental resources for it. (Calm, Cool, Collected, and on Autopilot)

[Alpha Dog]

Yet another self-serving "I am not good at Wing Chun but that's okay because I am a good fighter (or whatever)" thread, penned and pondered by those who are too impatient to learn Wing Chun, most likely because deep down they don't really like it.

It's already beating you. Just like the psycho in Silence of The Lambs, come Hell or High Water you (believe you) will force others to accept you for what you are not.

[Sabu]

Fighting is ABSOLUTELY unnecessary, but sometimes hurting is not.

[red5angel]

Munhung - I am with ya buddy! ;)

Kungfu Cowboy - Thats exactly what I am talking about. If you can do it 'techinically' well but not in a fight is that good wing chun? It may look pretty or flashy but what the hell does that mean? Why bother if you cant use it to fight? For Qiong reasons? Other arts better suited for that? For health, same thing.

AD - shouldnt talk about good wing chun, havent "Seen"it from you, your mouth boxing isnt even that good. your subtleties are not subtle and your allusions are more illusion I think.

Sabu - I disagree, fighting can be necessary, in many cases it might be the only option. I am not trianing wing chun to avoid a fight, I have other better suited skills for that, Wing chun is for when those skills fail. ;)

[yuanfen]

AD - shouldnt talk about good wing chun, havent "Seen"it from you, your mouth boxing isnt even that good. your subtleties are not subtle and your allusions are more illusion I think.

Sabu - I disagree, fighting can be necessary, in many cases it might be the only option. I am not trianing wing chun to avoid a fight, I have other better suited skills for that, Wing chun is for when those skills fail.
---------------------------------------red5angel; your comment to ad is unnecessarily personal IMO...I have not seen either good real boxing or mouth boxing knowledge in your posts. And- you have not completely represented sabu's comment either...note the rest-on hurting(as opposed to fighting).

[Alpha Dog]

Originally posted by red5angel

AD - shouldnt talk about good wing chun, havent "Seen"it from you, your mouth boxing isnt even that good. your subtleties are not subtle and your allusions are more illusion I think.


First, I have no interest in even pretending to engage any of your "discussions" (when you let someone get a word in edgewise) because you can't discern knowledge from opinion, and the insights into Wing Chun that I have observed from you are pretty weak at best. I'm no expert myself, but I don't have to be to say what I'm about to. Take your grand wisdom about the symantical differences in the ways in which East and West use words like "master," for example -- where do you get this alleged knowledge? Have you lived both worlds? Or what of your other ridiculous claims like "most people practicing Wing Chun out there are just doing weak, watered-down, pointless exercises in wasting their own time, practicing wrongly, blah blah..." Again, how is it that you can speak for the masses so clearly? And what about your ability to chastise practitioners of Wing Chun with 27 more years of experience than you have? Please tell me this is all a big joke, that you're just trolling!

Second, I don't have to mouth-box; as i have just shown, with you there is nothing to argue because you are already so much more "learned" than everyone else (Carl must be a brilliant teacher indeed), or else your real intention is to be deliberately annoying.

Finally, if you weren't so thick (I don't believe you are a troll, after all) you might have noticed the subtleties of others, whom you have undoubtedly bored away from here, suggesting that you do more listening and less talking. If I am not subtle with you, again it is because such courtesies are proven lost on you.

[red5angel]

AD -

"because you can't discern knowledge from opinion,"

this problem wouldnt seem to be exclusive to me apparently.

"Take your grand wisdom"

not grand just much more expressive then a few obscure lines stolen from philosophy books, I can think for myself not plagerize others.

"Or what of your other ridiculous claims "

Not ridiculous, I am just one of the few who have not deluded themselves. ;)

"speak for the masses so clearly"

read comment on first quote. Reread until thoroughly understood. Atleast I speak to the masses and not to myself hoping others will hear.

"chastise practitioners of Wing Chun with 27 more years of experience than you have"

Age does not make one great. If you burn ppancakes for 27 years, it doesnt make you an expert pancake cooker, just an expert pancake burner.

"I don't have to mouth-box"

this is the first non-MB post you have laid down in some time, congratulations, you are correct, you do not mouth box, well anyway.

"if you weren't so thick "

Its the muscle one developes from weightlifting. I would go with meaty as that has much better connotations.

"whom you have undoubtedly bored away from here, suggesting that you do more listening and less talking. If I am not subtle with you, again it is because such courtesies are proven lost on you."

This one is my favorite. An excellent way to end your post as well. I have had plenty of responses, to those who are civil, and have the skill you point out in your first quote, (see above) they have seen my opinion and dont mind discussing differences. neither do I.
Most of the talking here is not worth listening to. A few diamonds in the rough, the rest is garbage, just my opinion of course. ;)
You 'subtlety is not to be mistaken with courtesy. Courtesy implies kindness and atleast respect, you have shown little for anyone posting here, but thanks for not being 'subtle'. If th courtesy has been lost I apologize for being 'thick' as I have stated, to me courtesy would mean a good explanation with offhand comments about how others suck or thier post are trash. Atleast with me you get an explanation as to why I feel that way.

thanks for listening, or not.

[red5angel]

Yuanfen - I answered as much of Sabus post as I felt needed to be answered. Feel free to address anything you feel needs to be.
As for boxing, because your and my techniques differ doesnt make both of us wrong. ;) I tried my hand at maintaining peace, now I will express myself like the rest of you ad talk freely but without the confines of political correctness in how we do things. Just because you do a thing differently doesnt make 'differently' right.

[Sabu]

You are so out of line, it is quite hilarious. Even my elephant is laughing.

You should stick to your basics, red5angel, for as long as possible. You only do damage to yourself, playing at someone else's level, something you don't understand.

[Alpha Dog]

Stick to whittling your bows, you obviously can't argue about something you don't understand (Hint: Wing Chun). Or is your bad craftsmanship there also the fault of others? Hope you have plenty of insurance!

:D

[red5angel]

Back to the original subject, KungFu cowboy, would you consider the person who did his technical things well a good martial artist?

[Alpha Dog]

This rambling lump of confusion was the original subject:

"what is the difference between good wing chun and good fighting? Does having good wing chun make you a good fighter? If you fight well and study wing chun, do you have good wing chun? Can you be one and not the other, as far as can you have good wing chun and not be a good fighter?"

or, to paraphrase: "What is the difference between good pizza and good food? Does having good pizza make all your food good? If you have good food and study pizza, do you have good pizza? Can you have one and not the other, as far as can you (sic) have good pizza and not have good food?"

With respect to your upgraded question, can you perceive the difference between the artist and the craftsman? if you can, then you should have an answer that works for you.

[red5angel]

right, and Kungfu cowboy made a good argument for how one can be a good wing chun man and not be a good fighter. He stated that one could follow through the techincal side of wingchun very well, but then in a fight choke or just not be able to apply it well.
This goes along with my original question in that if you do have these 'technical' skills should you or should you not be a good fighter, or would not being able to fight then also preclude you from really being good at wing chun, or any other martial art for that matter.

[kungfu cowboy]

I think that there are two kinds of martial artists.

1) Those who learn the physical movements only=the art aspect
2) Those who can apply what they've learned=martial aspect

Which one you become depends on many factors, including personality, desire to learn, motivation to train, how you are taught, how you train, plus physiologic factors like how your body reacts to stress, to what level are your motor abilities impaired under stress, etc, all of which interact with variability.

I think both types can be good martial artists, but only #2 will be good in a fight.

Also, it is possible for the same individual to shift back and forth between them, depending on all that stuff. I don't think they are necessarily static or mutually exclusive categories.

[Alpha Dog]

Why ask the question again? Strange.

Cowboy, how is your number 1 a martial artist? I can't see this. A dancer, maybe (that is an art) but not a martial artist. A craftsman, definitely.

[yuanfen]

Yuanfen - I answered as much of Sabus post as I felt needed to be answered. Feel free to address anything you feel needs to be.
As for boxing, because your and my techniques differ doesnt make both of us wrong. I tried my hand at maintaining peace, now I will express myself like the rest of you ad talk freely but without the confines of political correctness in how we do things. Just because you do a thing differently doesnt make 'differently' right
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A rather jumbled and confused post addressed to me.
Nowhere near the center line. Best ignored red.

[red5angel]

KFC - yes it is interesting and you have hit upon the issue I am working out at the moment. AD pointed it out as well, that if you can do the Art side of it, are you still a martial artist?
I am not sure there is a right answer, just wondering what people think as I form my own opinions and ideals.

[Alpha Dog]

Yawn

[kungfu cowboy]

AD-I see your point. If they are good at the forms and stuff, but can't fight, they must not be martial artists. What about somebody who can fight, but never learned how? Are they martial artists?

I guess it depends on your personal definition, but I feel that you can be a good martial artist (I guess here dancer or craftsman applies) who is not necessarily a good fighter. For example, what would you call somebody who knew the entire art who could probably teach somebody with the right combination of attributes to fight by using the physical form of the art that they know, even though they maybe can't fight worth a darn themselves, but they know their stuff. I guess I am just paying homage to the knowledge they have learned by including them under the banner of martial artist.

[red5angel]

KungFu Cowboy - I think what it comes down to is maybe semantics. Liek I wouldnt consider someone who could fight but didnt know a martial art, a martial artist.
Like, you could get some paints, and some brushes, and paint a picture, but are you a painter if you dont know anything about painting?

[kungfu cowboy]

I might call that person a painter, depending on what "painter" means. Is it just technical skill? If what they were painting was (however unskilled it seems) an expression of their soul, is it not still art? Of course here your example is with someone with no formal training.

We aren't talking about a sloppy or lazy or untrained practioner of a MA here. This example has someone well trained in an art, but just can't really fight.

People take a MA for many reasons, and sometimes fighting isn't one of them. Yet they still work hard, and know the material well.

So what are they? You are right. I guess it does boil down to semantics.

[Alpha Dog]

by a stupid question and begin to see it as something more meaningful. It wasn't.

Apart from the obvious (people learn at different speeds), there are a host of things that distinguish the artist from the craftsman. Natural talent is one; intuition is another; temperment, patience, endurance... these are all factors that mark a clear and undeniable distinction. There is nothing semantical about it. Even with perfect hearing, I could never become a Beethoven, who was deaf. Arguing equivolence doesn't do any justice to the artist or the craftsman.

Make no mistake, there's nothing wrong with being a craftsman. If you (generic "you") approach WC with the intention of being a star, however, you might not ever make it to unskilled apprentice.