Would you ever say that you're good? [Archive]

urban tea

10-25-2002, 11:12 PM

The reason that I post this is because I feel that the more I learn, the more I also realize that I have much more to go. I've met people that have trained 10 years and 20 years in wing chun and they will still get creamed by their sifu. And their sifu is the same way, compared to THEIR teacher.

I remember a conversation with a southern dragon sifu.

"Do you feel like you've accomplished a lot in your 30 years of training?"

"Some but not a lot. I remembered my sifus' kung fu...the way he moved, now he was good. He could do a style and move in such a way that was so distinct. But the scary thing is that he said he wasn't good and that HIS TEACHER, my sigung, was awesome. I have a long way to go, but all I can do is train everyday."

I've met mantis teachers that have spent 20 years in the art , researching their style around the world who only say they're not even half way there.

My point is that we should never say that we are good because, the more we learn, the more we know that it's still a long road ahead. This is why kung fu doesn't have a belt system compared to other systems of fighting.

The Chinese saying, "One mountain low, one mountain high." No matter how good you think you are, there is always someone better than you.

10-26-2002, 04:00 AM

Good post, urban tea.

I have seen some amazing Wing Chun people, and the most I have heard them reluctantly admit of themselves is "I'm okay." So if one day I can say even "I'm okay" it will be a big deal and quite an accomplishment, IMHO.

Originally posted by urban tea
The Chinese saying, "One mountain low, one mountain high." No matter how good you think you are, there is always someone better than you.

Indeed.

And we haven't even considered rock, paper, scissors yet. Cockiness is rather silly.

Regards,
- Kathy Jo

Miles Teg

10-26-2002, 05:32 AM

Im such a beginner that I cant even say Im ok. I would say Im crap.
But I dont see anything wrong with thinking your good but saying your OK.
At some point along the line Id like to be able to say to myself: `Hey fella your good`

I think everyone one wants to strive to get better, but at some point shouldnt we relax and say `I am good and although I am not at the level of my seniors or sifu, I am doing the best that I can`

So you think your not so good so you train harder, but because you have this belief system of thinking your not so good the extra training doesnt help this idea you have.

Instead of focussing on the end goal why not focus on the process ie. say I will train this much per day/week and by doing this I know that I am doing well and I should relax and confidently know that I am on the right path.

yuanfen

10-26-2002, 08:40 AM

urban tea
Senior Member

Would you ever say that you're good?
_______________________________________________
NEVER- except for kidding a frequent poster or two.

Tristan

10-26-2002, 10:08 AM

I am good!

T.

EnterTheWhip

10-26-2002, 10:34 AM

No. I would say that I'm better than most.

urban tea

10-26-2002, 04:02 PM

Entering the Whip,

For me I block off many of the wing chun master's out of my mind when I think of wing chun. To explain, let's say there are 500 wing chun students in the world. I only consider wing chun from Tsui Seung Tin, Lok Yiu, Leung Sheung and Wong Shun Leung to be the right approach.

The rest of the world, I would not consider in my mind. So I went from (example) 500 wing chun studenets to maybe 50 students.

If I said that "I am better than most" it would be comparing myself to the 500. However, since I only agree wtih the approaches of the 4 sifus above, I would only compare myself with the 50 students, which all should give me a run for my money.

It's kinda of like master _______ , I won't consider him to be training wing chun so I cannot include him in the equation. I wouldn't say "MOST" because I know that those sifus that I listed above have many senior students that could teach me something.

Depends on your outlook I guess....but I would only include the top top top sifus in my wing chun sphere. The others are not in my equation.

Spectre

10-26-2002, 06:06 PM

I do not think that there is anything wrong with an individual saying or believing that they are good at Wing Chun. If you believe that you are good, that self confidence will be apparent in your 'technique'. One can say that they are good and still maintain a humble character.

Now when someone believes that they are the best, that is when they can become over-confident in their abilities. I personally feel that one is being foolish when they think there is nothing else to improve upon.

Wing Chun was created in order to produce quick fighting abilities in comparison to many other styles. Not to produce just 'okay' fighters, but good fighters. This is not saying that the short learning time leads to mastery. It is saying that whoever chooses to learn it should be able to become good in a short time. Mastery is the lifetime journey.

If you were in a fight, would you be thinking to yourself "Gosh, I hope I survive - I'm just okay with this Wing Chun thing"?

There is nothing wrong with being humble if the sentiment is genuine and not just for the sake of appearing humble.

Kevin

EnterTheWhip

10-26-2002, 06:54 PM

Like I said in my previous post, I am better than most.

Neurotic

10-27-2002, 12:16 AM

I usually reply 'I can hold my own'.

Same response I use when people ask me if I can play pool. (I can play a fairly decent game of pool)

Its a fairly non commital answer, and doesn't say you are terrible, or brilliant either.

I like the post however - MA is about being humble, and respectful to other people.

Neurotic

Merryprankster

10-27-2002, 07:25 AM

MA is about being humble, and respectful to other people.

That's funny. I was under the impression that it was about being able to handle yourself in a confrontation, and that being a decent fellow was about being humble and respectful to other people.

Neurotic

10-27-2002, 09:24 AM

Merryprankster -

Maybe it would have been better if I had written 'one of the main aspects of MA is...'

Would that have made you feel better about what I said.

If you still disagree, I think that those that do not find MA as a path to making themsevles better people, along with all the physical improvements as well, are sorely missing something.

There are too many people in this world who have their ego intrinsically tied to their abilities and knowledge.

Neurotic

Merryprankster

10-27-2002, 01:36 PM

Hey, you're entitled to your opinion. I think people who look to the martial arts for this character development thing are kidding themselves.

TjD

10-27-2002, 01:50 PM

im not good now, however i know what my wing chun will feel like when i am good

when it does, i'll say i'm good, until then no :)

anerlich

10-27-2002, 03:04 PM

Merryprankster is correct.

Thinking that the study of an MA will necessarily remove character flaws and make you a kinder, more humble, more compassionate and generous person is IMO incorrect and dangerous. You need to do additional work in areas of life which have little or nothing to do with MA to accomplish that.

Charity begins at home, not in an MA academy.

Neurotic

10-27-2002, 10:46 PM

Hmnnn...

>shrugs<

Well, I would disgaree.. but we are entitled to our opinions.

All I know is that MA has taught me some life skills that I don't think I would have found elsewhere.

As well as that, it has altered my perseption of the world and the way I think.

There is nothing to say that MA principles cannot be applied to the way one lives and thinks.

Neurotic

urban tea

10-27-2002, 11:21 PM

I think what Neurotic meant was that martial arts changed his life becauese it was a tool that he used to help him bring out emotions and find who he really is.

That can help you out and it is the same thing looked upon in two different views. Neurotic's view is that MA saved him. Someone elses outlook may be that to save yourslef, you have to start with yourself.

However the other variable (??) in this is that MA helped him on his path. =]

jesper

10-28-2002, 12:38 AM

Or maybe he just got older and wiser.
Be carefull not to contribut your change of attitude to one source

Neurotic

10-28-2002, 01:56 AM

urban - Heh. Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Jesper - Maybe both. I dont attribute all of changes in me JUST to MA :oP That would be silly. But I also feel I would be a different person if i hadn't started MA 4 years ago.

It becomes an interesting philosophical discussion.

(allow me to go off on a tangent here)

Generally speaking, one derives confidece in oneself from MA. You feel fit, you can control your body, and you feel like you can take care of yourself.

From that confidence you may well be able to take on mental aspects of yourself you may have not been able to tackle before.

Is this MA helping, or youself? Maybe both. Is there a difference anymore?

Hmnn... maybe this should be started as a seperate thread mind you.

Neurotic

red5angel

10-28-2002, 08:02 AM

MP- I would say this, while I agree with you for the most part, I think that learning/training the arts can build character, it can also create monsters. I think in the past morality and responsibility in china were commonly taught with the martial arts and this has continued for the most part into modern times.

yuanfen

10-28-2002, 08:46 AM

Assuming a natural link between CMA and character building
is baloney- despite r5a's new historian hat. Martial artists have been a mixed bag-some into personal journeys of self dicovery others as bodyguards for caravans, extortionists , assasins, servants of warlords, revolutionaries, counterevolutionaries,
soldiers,thugs, policemen, gangsters. What you get out depends on what you put in- who, what , when, why....

crumpet

10-28-2002, 08:51 AM

sorry for this off topic post, but Spectre i would like to know what your avatar means. i've seen it around, but i'm not sure of its meaning or name. it looks like another symbol i quite like. :)

yenhoi

10-28-2002, 08:55 AM

I think the whole better character BS that comes out at random has to do with the white hats telling the little white hats to behave and not use thier so-called power for evil.

I am superior in skill to Enterthewhip, AND MerryPrankster. AND I know how to sprawl!:cool:

red5angel

10-28-2002, 08:58 AM

yenhoi- you must not stray to the dark side....besides I know how to stop the sprawl.... ;)

yuanfen - I see your reading skills are the same as last week?

yuanfen

10-28-2002, 10:52 AM

r5a sez: I think in the past morality and responsibility in china were commonly taught with the martial arts and this has continued for the most part into modern times.
r5a also sez:yuanfen - I see your reading skills are the same as last week?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quite well indeed thank you. I read r5a's invented exploration of the past and the present quite well(see above)- despite the inaccurate contents.

Jabb

10-28-2002, 11:17 AM

If someone would ask me if I am good in kung fu after training like 20 years or something, I would say: "I can do what I can do" :cool:

Merryprankster

10-28-2002, 11:27 AM

Red, getting crushed underneath somebody's falling body does not count as "stopping a sprawl." :D

fa_jing

10-28-2002, 11:43 AM

I am far lower in skill than many of you. But, I would say I'm good at what I do, although light-years away from expert Because if someone asked me that question that was outside the martial arts, to me it means "can you beat me up and my cousin who played football in high school and did Karate for a year" I mean, I don't suck! I understand what I am taught and nothing flies above my head anymore or presents itself to me as a mystery. I would have trouble with certain exceptional untrained people, but I'm good, you know, I can kick someone in the head. That's what most people mean when they say "are you good?" Can you put your fists where your mouth is? Or have you learned just enough to get yourself beat up? I'm way past that stage, which I think takes a year or two for most people to get past. I can move in an unrehearsed situation and it looks like I know something.

I think some of you are approaching the question like, if I demonstrate my skill to this person, and they are impressed, I want them to know that there are many many levels more of martial skill/wing chun skill to be attained that are yet way higher than what I'm demonstrating. I don't think that's really a correct interpretation of the word "good." I think if I demonstrated my skill to most people, they would say "hey, you're pretty good!" I would hope as much after over three years of dedicated training in Wing Chun, as well as time spent over the rest of my youth in physical culture activities and other martial arts.

On the other hand, would I ever tell myself that I'm good? No fricken way, I know very well that I SUCK. That's because I have an image in my mind of reducing my errors by 90%. To tell myself I was good would imply that I could be complacent, whereas in reality I know that I take plenty of hits that I could have avoided, and people with high levels of skill could take me out fast.

Never mind this post, it's all semantics and lunchtime musing.
:p

reneritchie

10-28-2002, 11:46 AM

In the "old days" it was a common saying/belief that skill in Mosut (Wushu/Martial Arts) was inextricably linked to attainment of Modak (Wude/Martial Virtue) and that a "bad person" could never hope to attain "good skill".

Like many old beliefs, they rarely survive the harsh shattering of reality. Many famed martial artists of even grouchingly admitted high skill are not (always) very nice people. Some are gangsters, some womanizers, some substance abusers, and the list goes on. Sometimes their shady personal characters are what led them to MA and drove them to achieve their skill. And sometimes using that skill for nefarious puposes helped hone it.

Of course, we all love to believe our sifu/hero/lineage/favorite is the noble (wo)man of legend, but as most know (even if they won't admit it), its rarely the case.

People who are good at martial arts are the same as people good at physics, race car driving, etc. They often have type A (and we all know what that stands for) personalities.

When we know them and like them, of course, egotism becomes ****iness or sureness, drunkenness becomes fun-loviningness, (wo)manizing becomes socialbility, and gangsterism becomes "import/export" or something of the like.

Does this mean, however, that we should stop demanding more/better? That we should stop striving for more/better? That we shouldn't seek out honest teachers who won't rip us off or treat us as fortunate slaves? That we shouldn't cheer for the respectful fighter in the ring and not the @$$hole shooting off his mouth? That we should let instructors get away with hitting on our girlfriends or offering booze/drugs to kids down the street?

I'd offer a very loud he!! no on that.

Martial arts should build character. Learning how to hurt someone should build an equal and opposite respect for how fragile life is. It should help mend broken people by giving them a sense of accomplishment, of self-worth, and of empowerment that, rather than turning them into what likely broke them in the first place (abuser, bully, etc.) turns them into someone who never wants to see anyone else so broken.

In the "old days" many people used martial arts to defend themselves and their villages, so that they would prosper and their villages would prosper. We're very good at seeing to our own self-prospering these days. Many are also good at pretending to see to the villages prosperity as a means to increasing their own. We need to work on really improving things, however, and doing so by personal example.

Martial arts should require Martial Virtue because we insist that it does and do not tolerate it when it doesn't. It should require Martial Virtue so that, as each day goes by, it requires less and less Martial Arts to survive, and more to thrive.

Ouch... d@mn soapbox broke again... eom...

RR

Grendel

10-28-2002, 12:03 PM

Originally posted by reneritchie
Martial arts should build character. Learning how to hurt someone should build an equal and opposite respect for how fragile life is. It should help mend broken people by giving them a sense of accomplishment, of self-worth, and of empowerment that, rather than turning them into what likely broke them in the first place (abuser, bully, etc.) turns them into someone who never wants to see anyone else so broken.
[/B]
The world would improve quickly if everyone would adopt such a POV.

In the "old days" many people used martial arts to defend themselves and their villages, so that they would prosper and their villages would prosper. We're very good at seeing to our own self-prospering these days. Many are also good at pretending to see to the villages prosperity as a means to increasing their own. We need to work on really improving things, however, and doing so by personal example.

The martial artist as public citizen. Hmmm. :)

Martial arts should require Martial Virtue because we insist that it does and do not tolerate it when it doesn't. It should require Martial Virtue so that, as each day goes by, it requires less and less Martial Arts to survive, and more to thrive.

Nice turn of phrase.

Ouch... d@mn soapbox broke again... eom...

RR
LOL.

Good points. You've got my vote. Oops, forgot to ax. What you running fer? :)

Regards,

red5angel

10-28-2002, 12:13 PM

LOL! MP, alright alright....I was shown some things this weekend that were pretty good and if used right would be pretty good at stopping a sprawl. I am not at the apropriate skill level to use them very effectively yet but I am getting together the my wrestling buddy to work on it a little this coming weekend and I will fill you in on the details of what I learned then ok?

yenhoi

10-28-2002, 02:00 PM

Red5: are you trying to take people down now?

WC has throws.... :eek:

Martial Joe

10-28-2002, 02:19 PM

Depends on who I could beat.

red5angel

10-28-2002, 02:32 PM

Yenhoi - LOL! no, no take downs, a few weeks ago and we had a discussion, I thought you were involved, about the sprawl and the shoot. I went and talked to my wrestling buddy and worked with him a litle on the stuff I knew. This weekend I was shown some pretty cool stuff on how to counter the shoot, not the sprawl , that was a joke, and want to try them on my friend and see what he thinks of them.
Its the sort of thing where I know they work, and I know I am not capable of pulling them off at the moment. A lot of work however......

I have seen some things people call WC throws but havent dealt a whole lot with it, I imagine if they exist, there arent many!

gnugear

10-28-2002, 02:40 PM

Oh, I'm good .... I'm so good that when I walk into a room, my chi creates a path and everyones hair blows back.

I'm so sensitive that I can feel your moves from the vibrating hairs in my ears.

Be afraid .... very afraid.

red5angel

10-28-2002, 02:43 PM

I am, a little.........:(

gnugear

10-28-2002, 02:48 PM

Originally posted by red5angel
I am, a little.........:(

... as you should be.

;)

red5angel

10-28-2002, 02:55 PM

I can feel the chi from uranus from here...... ;)

Merryprankster

10-28-2002, 04:51 PM

Well red--If you're "Sure they would work," but can't do them--and haven't seen them demonstrated at full speed on a decent shooter, then you don't know they would work.

Just my 2 cents...

anerlich

10-28-2002, 07:43 PM

Originally posted by red5angel
MP- I would say this, while I agree with you for the most part, I think that learning/training the arts can build character, it can also create monsters.

Arguably there is evidence for that on this forum, and this thread.

anerlich

10-28-2002, 07:52 PM

Martial arts should build character.
Martial arts should require Martial Virtue

I agree that it SHOULD.

It doesn't follow from that that it WILL.

What worries me is that some seem to feel that turning up to class and working out will necessarily turn you into a paragon of virtue. It ain't that easy. Arguably IMHO the MA training is incidental to the character building.

Merryprankster

10-28-2002, 08:06 PM

Anerlich,

More or less what you said. There's nothing wrong with teaching a little self-restraint in a class designed to teach you how to hurt people.

But, and I think I pointed it out earlier, there's nothing unique to MA's about character building. People like to think there is, but there isn't.

canglong

10-28-2002, 09:45 PM

Just like to acknowledge that the post from Spectre and Nuerotic were very well written IMO.

MerryPrankster ---- when you introduced the word unique I think that may be the sticking point in this argument. No, MA are not exclusive holders of the path to good character only one of many but surely it can be seen as one of the many.

couch

10-28-2002, 10:29 PM

I don't think that I'd ever say "I'm good" ...rather "I'm scared sh*tless..."

I don't think I'll ever be able to say that I'm good, or the best or something.

Every day, I strive for perfection within myself, within Wing Chun. I struggle so much, and like everyone says:
The more I learn, the more I realize what I have to learn.

Honestly, I get scared about the amount of time and effort needed to reach my goals...but A Journey Of A Thousand Li Begins With A Single Step.

AndrewS

10-28-2002, 11:36 PM

Merry,

I disagree with you about the uniqueness of martial arts in character building.

One element of character is the ability to put oneself in someone else's shoes- empathy.

Train hard and honestly, and you will have had direct experience of another's pain.

You also tend to meet a lot of folks you wouldn't otherwise, and hopefully develop a deep level of trust and friendship with them.

FWIW,

Andrew

Merryprankster

10-29-2002, 03:20 AM

Unique was probably overstating the case.

However...

You can gain the same empathy in football, track or any other physical endeavor where exhaustion, pain, luck and training come into play.

You can also gain it in chorus, the musical, a play, etc.

Any activity with the potential for public humiliation, loss and some sort of mental or physical anguish builds empathy. I did an awful lot of activities as a teen and let me tell you that you learn a lot more empathy doing a solo in front of 50 people than you ever do in an MA. Doing a form for demonstration or anything of that nature doesn't BEGIN to compare to that, IMO.

You also form the same tight bonds with the people you do those activities with...and you meet a lot of people you wouldn't have met at different events all over the place. And you hook up with some of them. Especially at All-State Chorus... :D

The purpose of MA is not to build character. It's to learn to handle yourself in a confrontation. Part of that is learning to defuse things as best you can, which means there needs to be some component that downplays the need/desire to beat the crap out of somebody. But that's not necessarily "character building." It could just be seen as enlightened self interest.

crumpet

10-29-2002, 06:42 AM

The purpose of MA is not to build character. It's to learn to handle yourself in a confrontation.

geez it really seems you're totally against the idea that martial arts strengthens your character. obviously it doesn't for you, but many people have stated that it does for them. so why are you trying to tell them otherwise? martial arts is a part of some people's lives. a VERY important part, and it may be part of their identity. to state that it's NOT a character builder is quite hurtful to who they know themselves as.

if you're tired of other's enforcing their views upon you, and that's why you do it in turn to them... maybe you should realise that not EVERY person is like that. i agree that martial arts is to learn how to handle yourself in a confrontation, but each person can take much more away from their training than that. if you don't, then it's not going to affect my life in anyway. and i wouldn't try to convince you that you should otherwise. so why would you to anyone else?

UltimateFighter

10-29-2002, 07:10 AM

Originally posted by Mr. Bao
After 10 years or 20 years of practice, I hope I can say I am good. But I rather people judge my skill through my skill and not by me telling them.

Bao

You can practice for 20 years and still be a piece of crumpet when it comes to real fighting. Its not how long you train its how you train and what you put into it that counts, combined with how much real fighting experience you have.

When will people realise this!!!!!!!!!!!???

Frank Shamrock had no martial arts training till age 20, then trained for about 6 years submission wrestling and kickboxing and was one of the most dangerous fighters on the planet.

If after 10 years you still can't say your 'good' its time to do something else or realsie your a no-hoper.

Martial arts were designed to make people 'good' at fighting in a relatively short space of time (i.e 10 years max). At the moment I would say I am 'alright' at WingTsun. But after 10 years, I better be **** good otherwise I would have been doing something SERIOUSLY wrong in my training.

red5angel

10-29-2002, 07:13 AM

MP - I saw enough to be confident that it works, but like everything, it takes some time and some practice before one is able to utilize those tools themselves.
As for building character in the martial arts, do you think you would be the same person if you were not doing them? Besides whose to say creating "enlightened self interest" isnt character building?

TkdWarrior

10-29-2002, 07:22 AM

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The purpose of MA is not to build character. It's to learn to handle yourself in a confrontation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
well it's agreeable...
if u wanna learn to build character then u should be in the character building class, serving community, acting religioss... wat MA has to do with Character Building?
if it's given then i think we can afford...
and ur character tells more about the enviornment u live in,the environment where u put ur time, the kind of ppl u meet...
character building starts from family n then from neighbourhood, n ur freinds... How much time u spent in character building in ur MA class?? hardly one hr per week i guess...then how do u think u can build character...if it's there...it'll build otherwise none...

MA builds character only when u spent 24/7/365 practicing with the kind of evironment u looking for... something like shaolin temple or Gurukul...

-TkdWarrior-

crumpet

10-29-2002, 07:41 AM

i don't think anyone goes into a ma class intended to build character, but it CAN be something that comes out regardless. or maybe it doesn't, but the point is that we as people are shaped by our surroundings and experiences. if ma is our fav activity, it forms a part of our character. if i didn't do ma and trained in football instead, that would be as much a part of my character as ma is. i could argue that helping out at community centre isn't character building, it's their to provide a specific purpose. there is no activity that has been created to build character, it's just the experiences in doing any activity that shapes who we are. so imo and my own experiences, martial arts along with my job and school has strengthed my character.

Merryprankster

10-29-2002, 11:08 AM

and it seems you're really into bad pop psychology.

I didn't say you can't develop some character from practicing a martial art. I said the PURPOSE of a martial art isn't to build character.

Those that think the purpose of a martial art is to build character are kidding themselves. Can you build character through the study of an MA? Of course. Perserverance, dedication, hard work and self-discovery are part of any lengthy endeavor that you find worth doing. Definitely character building.

I've stated repeatedly I don't have a problem with those who find MA's character building. I have a REAL problem with those that find the PURPOSE of MA's to be character building because they insist those that aren't doing it that way are doing it wrong.

See the difference? The purpose of oxycontin isn't to get high. but some people use it that way.

BTW, a forum is for discussion of ideas--sometimes heated, sometimes friendly, and sometimes plain old fun. If I didn't feel like being heard, I wouldn't type. I suspect, same with you.

Merryprankster

10-29-2002, 11:37 AM

Red, you also thought the shot was an off-balance, over committed attack and that the trick was to sink your stance and stagger it so he couldn't take you down. ;)

red5angel

10-29-2002, 11:56 AM

yep, and while I agree there is plenty of balance I still say its overcommitted. I know MP, there are counters and counter-counters and circles within circles when dealing with the shoot :) but I think its too overcommittal for what I am loking for in wingchun. And to be fair I only ASKED if sinking the stance would work! :D

Anyway, I have my wrestling friend set up to come over friday night I will fill you in on the details next week!

AndrewS

10-29-2002, 12:13 PM

Hey Merry,

alright, I see your beef with people who argue that the purpose of martial training is character building.

Stuff involving public humilitation, mental anguish, etc.- I'll grant you that can build some degree of empathy, yet for the stupidist creature on the planet, the teen-age male, more direct methods seem often needed - 'Ouch, red stuff run from my face and chest. It hurt. Red stuff run from his face. He hurt?' - It's like watching Quest for Fire sometimes. . .

And as a fellow traveller with Nietzsche, I'm not sure I'd make much distinction between enlightened self-interest and character building. . .

Later,

Andrew

Zhuge Liang

10-29-2002, 12:38 PM

Hi Merry,

Originally posted by Merryprankster
I didn't say you can't develop some character from practicing a martial art. I said the PURPOSE of a martial art isn't to build character.

Who's purpose? Yours or mine? Or the elderly lady practicing Taiji? Or 7 year old kid practicing wushu? The purpose of something depends on the person assigning the purpose for him or herself, not your personal definition, or anyone else's. If the sole reason I study martial arts is to build character, then what difference does it make what you think the purpose of my study should be?

I'm just sayin....

Regards,
Zhuge Liang

Grendel

10-29-2002, 03:33 PM

Originally posted by Merryprankster

The purpose of MA is not to build character. It's to learn to handle yourself in a confrontation.

Nuff said. Merryprankster is entirely correct. "The purpose of MA is not to build character." Any good character acquired is a nice-to-have.

Zhuge Liang, when does Ken "teach" character? He exudes character and exemplifies it, but character building in Wing Chun is a side benefit of hard work and good role models.

Regards,

Zhuge Liang

10-29-2002, 04:00 PM

Hi Grendel,

Originally posted by Grendel
Nuff said. Merryprankster is entirely correct. "The purpose of MA is not to build character." Any good character acquired is a nice-to-have.

You're missing my point. Purpose is relative. I define what my purpose of training is. Not you, not Merry. Me. Myself. I. I respect yours and Merry's opinions, and I respect you two as decent people and martial artists, but I could care less about what you think my purpose in training should be. If my purpose to learning Wing Chun is to eventually transform myself into a magical pink unicorn, there's nothing you can do about it. You can say my goal is not feasible. You can say my goal is ludicrous. You can even say martial arts training isn't designed to transform people into magical pink unicorns. But you cannot say it is not my purpose. It is my purpose because I make it my purpose.

Zhuge Liang, when does Ken "teach" character? He exudes character and exemplifies it, but character building in Wing Chun is a side benefit of hard work and good role models.

Ken teaches a lot of things, not all of it is explicit. I have also learnt a lot from Ken and continue to do so. But not everything I pick up from him was consciously or explicitly taught.

Incidently, FWIW, I'm playing devil's advocate here. I do agree that character building is not restricted to martial arts training nor is it even guaranteed. But I don't agree on having a "martial arts training purpose" defined for me. And I don't believe someone is wrong or delusional to train for the purpose of personal development.

Regards,
Zhuge Liang

Grendel

10-29-2002, 05:39 PM

Originally posted by Zhuge Liang
You're missing my point. Purpose is relative. I define what my purpose of training is. Not you, not Merry. Me. Myself. I. I respect yours and Merry's opinions, and I respect you two as decent people and martial artists, but I could care less about what you think my purpose in training should be. If my purpose to learning Wing Chun is to eventually transform myself into a magical pink unicorn, there's nothing you can do about it. You can say my goal is not feasible. You can say my goal is ludicrous. You can even say martial arts training isn't designed to transform people into magical pink unicorns.

I don't have to say it, because you said it. :o

But you cannot say it is not my purpose. It is my purpose because I make it my purpose.

I can still say it. :D

Regards,

Merryprankster

10-29-2002, 08:08 PM

Zhang--I think we're talking past each other a bit, but we ARE, in fact, saying the same thing. I'm saying that MA's aren't really designed to be character builders. Your purpose might be to build your character through your MA training, but it's like using a hammer to drill a hole--the tool doesn't fit the end very well. Consequently, one might say the purpose of a hammer is not to drill a hole.

Unless I'm mistaken that seems to be what you're saying...

Merryprankster

10-29-2002, 08:10 PM

Good luck Red! I mean that literally, not in a sarcastic way. Hope it's a good experience.

Zhuge Liang

10-29-2002, 10:06 PM

Hi Merry,

Originally posted by Merryprankster
Zhang--I think we're talking past each other a bit, but we ARE, in fact, saying the same thing. I'm saying that MA's aren't really designed to be character builders.

Now if you had said that in the first place, there'd be less for me to argue about. Design and purpose are two different things. Just because something is designed for one thing doesn't mean it can't do something else, and do it exceedingly well.

Your purpose might be to build your character through your MA training, but it's like using a hammer to drill a hole--the tool doesn't fit the end very well.

That depends on who's using the hammer, the teacher, and what type of hole you're aiming to "drill". What "fits" is also relative. Maybe the type of hole you need is exactly the type that a hammer would produce. In which case, the hammer would fit very well. It's not my place to judge how someone should use a hammer.

Regards,
Zhuge Liang

Merryprankster

10-30-2002, 03:23 AM

Yeah, but you don't DRILL with a hammer, yeah? That's kinda what I'm getting at. You can use the hammer for a lot of things. Drilling ain't one of them. Doesn't mean it can't MAKE a hole, just that it's not the PURPOSE of the hammer to drill one.

That's what I'm saying about MA's--you CAN improve your character with them, sure. But is that the real PURPOSE? I would argue not. I think it's self-evident in the name and in the sheer physical movements/manifestation that its purpose isn't character development, but fighting.

yuanfen

10-30-2002, 06:44 AM

MP- purpose is in the eye of the beholder.
For some martial arts is part of the conquest of the self.
That purpose and self defense are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Merryprankster

10-30-2002, 07:13 AM

Sorry Yuan, I don't buy that line of thinking. If purpose were only in the eye of the beholder, lots of buildings would fall down.I'll remember that a table saw's purpose is to examine the heavens for signs of extraterrestrial life. After all, the purpose is in the eye of the beholder...right?

And once again, I did not say the two ends were mutually exclusive. They can exist together, and you CAN develop character, but to slate the PURPOSE of MA as being character development is unsupportable, when the purpose is obviously to teach a particular system of combat.

red5angel

10-30-2002, 07:46 AM

MP - thanks, it should be interesting, I will let you know what the outcome is and what he thinks of the techniques themselves so atleast you get an idea of what a fellow grappler thinks of them in action!

Also, while I may agree with you about the whole character building thing sometimes it takes a hammer. The Martial Arts can build some character. Its sort of like boot camp in my experience except you have to work harder to get something out of it. Along those same lines boot camp may not build character either since it is designed to create soldiers first but sometimes it has that effect.

Merryprankster

10-30-2002, 08:13 AM

No offense, but are people not reading what I'm writing? This is the third time it's been pointed out that MA's can build character in the context that the writer is not agreeing with me, or agreeing with caveats.

Nowhere did I say that MA's CAN'T build character, just that that is not it's "purpose," so to speak.

Red- you have to go full speed. It's the only way to know. I KNOW that sometimes I'm going to get hit on the way in. I've yet to be knocked out, or even seriously rattled.

yuanfen

10-30-2002, 08:32 AM

Sorry Yuan, I don't buy that line of thinking. If purpose were only in the eye of the beholder, lots of buildings would fall down.

((Sorry MP: Without being morbid- some buildings do fall- depending on the eye of the beholder. We sadly witnessed that a little over a year ago))

And once again, I did not say the two ends were mutually exclusive. They can exist together, and you CAN develop character, but to slate the PURPOSE of MA as being character development is unsupportable, when the purpose is obviously to teach a particular system of combat.

((I didnt say that THE purpose is xyz...while combat is a big part
of CMA it also depends on context what other purpose is there---
time, place, teacher, student, art etc... development of monk's staff,spade etc and some CMAs were preludes to personal development. Others werent or were directly for battle))

Merryprankster

10-30-2002, 08:41 AM

Yuan, I would still argue that the purpose of an MA is to learn a particular system of combat. I would also argue that the idea of character development or spiritual development by doing an activity is a common theme in Asian cultures, from MA's to cooking, and more a result of that Asian characteristic than the MA itself.

I see them as being distinct. One can truly be considered an MA master--as evident in many of the traditional stories-- and still not be a very nice person--bodyguards to unsavory characters, hit men, etc.

I personally see little difference between the character building one might experience in a martial arts environment and learning to be a good sport when you play chess. Both are character building and neither are directly tied, fundamentally, to the activity itself--that is, other activities can provide the same or similar lessons.

yuanfen

10-30-2002, 08:58 AM

I would also argue that the idea of character development or spiritual development by doing an activity is a common theme in Asian cultures, from MA's to cooking, and more a result of that Asian characteristic than the MA itself.(MP)

((Precisely--- illustrates the eye of the beholder factor that
I mentioned. For some Asians yes- for others no)))(Yuanfen)

I see them as being distinct. One can truly be considered an MA master--as evident in many of the traditional stories-- and still not be a very nice person--bodyguards to unsavory characters, hit men, etc.

((My point too...but then there are others who went beyond the combat. Funakoshi, Aikido's O Sensei and even some wing chun people that I have known)))

I personally see little difference between the character building one might experience in a martial arts environment and learning to be a good sport when you play chess.

((Being a good sport is only one superficial aspect of character.
On chess(bad example) I have been the chauffeur to many chess tournaments in different states.
The denizens of those dungeons are for the most part self centered juveniles in their character whose social sense are quite underdeveloped. Bobby Fisher being creme de la creme))

Merryprankster

10-30-2002, 09:07 AM

We aren't talking past each other then, excellent. I'll grant you the viewpoint perspective, but will argue that taken to extremes in either directions, it is unsavory. I find that "within reason," is an excellent phrase that avoids the messes that often result when trying to translate ideas into reality.

If you think chess is bad try high school academic teams. YOWZA! I had never been in a room with so many socially stunted people until I went to MathCounts. Once, at a different event I had to physically put one of our resident nerds back in his chair. He was yelling at the moderator for being a dolt.

Of course, at the time, I was one of the socially stunted :)

Anyhoo, pick another activity if it suits you. But I still point out that say, cooking, regardless of any particular spiritual aspirations you might have, has as its primary purpose, getting food to taste good to hungry diners. Not spiritual development. Similarly for MA's. Again, I view them as distinct, not inseperable.

If I learn WC, but nothing about "character development," am I no longer learning WC? That's kind of what I'm getting at. There are many places you can go to learn Aikido without hippies telling you about spiritual oneness--I might point out that O Sensei started talking about that AFTER he learned to kick a little ass :D

fa_jing

10-30-2002, 10:14 AM

I think that purpose is always in the eye of the beholder. Ever hear of the Transcendental Ego? The observer is part of the perception (phenomena) of the observed (noumena). Besides which, purpose is not an inherent quality in physical objects. The purpose of a building to Frank Lloyd Wright was to emulate Nature. However, I agree that given that the purpose of MA to a particular person is to build character in others, they will find that that's not generally the case. If they think that the purpose is to build character in themselves, then that will be the case, as it could be in several other devotions.

Sorry to get all philosophical on you guys, but most of the discussion on KFO is purely philosophical in nature.

Zhuge Liang

10-30-2002, 12:17 PM

Hi Merry,

I think you're confusing your purpose with the purpose. What is the purpose of martial arts training anyway? How do you know? How can you prove it? Can you claim to know the purpose for every martial art style out there? If you argue that ma training is for fighting, then are those styles which incorporate health sets wrong? How about those schools that encourage good character development in their practitioners? Are they also wrong by "MerryPrankster's definition of purpose for all martial arts training?"

Martial arts training is a very personal matter. In means different things to different people. How can you claim to have the definitive purpose for all of us? My "purpose" in training is personal development, among other things. And in the time that I have trained, I have developed a great deal as a person. And I am extremely grateful to my training for that. Was my purpose wrong? Prove it.

You can say that martial arts weren't designed for this and that. Aside from that fact that you can't prove that either, it really doesn't even make a difference. Are hospitals supposed to stop using Penicillin simply because it was never "designed" to fight bacteria in the human body? Maybe one type of martial arts training isn't conducive to character development, but does that mean all martial arts training aren't? How can you even begin to prove that?

Martial arts training by itself doesn't have a purpose. You have a purpose. I have a purpose. Your purpose isn't any more valid than mine, nor mine more valid than yours.

regards,
Zhuge Liang

Merryprankster

10-30-2002, 12:37 PM

Zhuge,

Presumably, MA is a tool to achieve an end. Is it not accurate to suggest that the tool was crafted with the end in mind?

One might ask what the end is--then divine from that the purpose of the tool.

I argue that the end is not character development per se, but to train the person to approach personal combat from a particular perspective, and give them the physical wherewithal to do that.

So no, I'm not confusing MY purpose with OTHER purposes. I'm suggesting, quite simply, that the tool was designed to complete a specific task--handling yourself in an encounter.

Character development, per se, is not necessarily on that list. It can be a side benefit of training, certainly, but it is NOT NECESSARY to learning the art itself, as so amply demonstrated by the history of rogues and people of questionable vices that have been considered masters of their art. There is also a substantial number of very good people that are masters as well. But the evidence indicates that MA's aren't necessarily about building character.

Once again, I'm not suggesting you can't build character by practicing the MA's. But is that what they were designed for? presumably not.

I put the question again--can a person of questionable moral judgment become good at WC?

yuanfen

10-30-2002, 12:48 PM

MP-asks-
I put the question again--can a person of questionable moral judgment become good at WC?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the fighting level-yes. You bet.

But- there have been and are teachers who would not teach
such a person...reverse true fpr others.

Merryprankster

10-30-2002, 12:57 PM

Yuan, you readily state that perception/mindset certainly influences who you might teach--even how you might teach. You also readily state that a person can become very good--perhaps even a master of WC independently of those differences.

Does that not suggest that WC is a tool that is, in fact, seperable from the concept of character development?

Zhuge Liang

10-30-2002, 12:59 PM

Presumably, MA is a tool to achieve an end. Is it not accurate to suggest that the tool was crafted with the end in mind?

One might ask what the end is--then divine from that the purpose of the tool.

Firstly, design and purpose have different meanings. Secondly, even assuming that a tool has a purpose which is distinct for the user's purpose, how do you know what the original "purpose" is? Have you consulted with each and every original creator of every martial arts style to determine that all of there "purposes" is fighting?

I argue that the end is not character development per se, but to train the person to approach personal combat from a particular perspective, and give them the physical wherewithal to do that.

Well, says you.

So no, I'm not confusing MY purpose with OTHER purposes. I'm suggesting, quite simply, that the tool was designed to complete a specific task--handling yourself in an encounter.

Again, design and purpose are different. Why do you use them interchangeably?

Character development, per se, is not necessarily on that list.

Again, says you.

Once again, I'm not suggesting you can't build character by practicing the MA's. But is that what they were designed for? presumably not.

1. How do you know?
2. Who cares what it was or wasn't designed for? I ask again. If I trained for the purpose of personal development and I am getting that, is my purpose wrong? Perhaps you don't think my purpose is aligned with martial arts training's supposed purpose, but then again, so what? I have a purpose. What do I care what you think my purpose should be?

I put the question again--can a person of questionable moral judgment become good at WC?

Define good. If the person's purpose was to develop good character through WC training, then he has failed. If his purpose was to kick ass, then maybe he can succeed.

Regards,
Zhuge Liang

Merryprankster

10-30-2002, 01:05 PM

Zhuge, IMO you've taken this into the realm of the utterly esoteric.

First, purpose and design are interchangeable in this context:

1. What is the purpose of the screwdriver?
2. What is the screwdriver designed for?

The answer is the same.--to turn a screw. Or, I suppose, build character.

I don't have to consult with every style founder. I can analyze based on available evidence, nice straw man though--thanks!

If you have a personal purpose centered about character development, be my guest. You might even succeed. There are other tools, better suited to spirituality, enlightenment, character development, etc, because they were designed/purposed to that end, but if this one works for you, great.

That doesn't change the fact that the tool in question is unlikely to have been centered around character development, and instead centered around fighting.

Merryprankster

10-30-2002, 01:14 PM

Well, guys, it's been fun. I've been up since 2:30 am, and the last time I did this, I wound up arguing semantics with shooter for 200 posts. As enthralling as the prospect is, I just can't do this anymore and propose we let this thread die a quiet, pitiable death in the nether regions of this board.

Yuan--as always, great conversation.
Red--good luck.
Zhuge--enjoy building character with your bearing presser ;) Seriously--no hard feelings. I think agreeing to disagree is just fine.

Cheers all, I tap!

fa_jing

10-30-2002, 01:32 PM

Actually, nothing Zhuge said conflicted with what MP was saying. Merry just said that character building and training skill in fighting were seperable, Zhuge responded that they did not have to be seperate. MP didn't ever claim that they had to be seperate, just that they could be and often were.
And it is just semantics - 90% of a good argument.

:rolleyes:

reneritchie

10-30-2002, 02:17 PM

MP, Anerlich,

Seen this? http://www.sheenpeak.com/NgvsChan.WMV

rubthebuddha

10-30-2002, 03:57 PM

rene,

who were those and what was the context?

Merryprankster

10-31-2002, 03:29 AM

I see almost no qualitative difference between the fighters in your link RR, and the ones in the link below.

Street Fight (http://www.mcdojo.com/dl_goto.asp?id=46)

I'm sure somebody's going to tell me "I just don't know what I'm looking at..." :rolleyes:

YungChun

10-31-2002, 06:22 AM

I've always found that those who were emotionally 'stuck' be it ego, anger or whatever had major trouble keeping up in their development in Chi-Sao. This 'emotional tenseness' seemed to transfer directly into their bodies and hold them back - never letting them experience the energy - learn the lesson - feel the technique. Does this mean the system develops us emotionally or simply is more accessible to the emotionally whole? I'm not sure but those who learned to or simply could let their ego go, let the anger go, or whatever else was bothering them always seemed to get it better and faster than the rest who would often walk around the school talking to themselves and clenching their fists :D

reneritchie

10-31-2002, 06:49 AM

RTB - This is a famous kung-fu fight that occured years ago, between two old masters, I believe of the White Crane and Taiji branches. I've often heard it mentioned, but to see it, well, it makes me wonder if other famous fights from the past were as "impressive"?

MP - The bicyclists seem a little more passionate!

RR

Merryprankster

10-31-2002, 07:29 AM

Call a spade a spade RR. That fight looked awful on both accounts.

canglong

10-31-2002, 08:12 AM

Merryprankster,

"I put the question again--can a person of questionable moral judgment become good at WC?"

Well, what's the answer? I am thinking no, because no good teacher would accept a student of ill character and any teacher that would is probably not any "good" himself.

old jong

10-31-2002, 09:06 AM

People with a questionable moral jugement or bad morality/temper,whatever, will never have the patience an dedication necessary to learn and perfect an art like Wing Chun. They will not go beyong the basics anyway.
Thinking you are good is the sure way to never learn enough to be good in the first place.

yenhoi

10-31-2002, 09:18 AM

MP: yes.

Emin Botzepoppyseed

reneritchie

10-31-2002, 09:33 AM

MP: Is it really necessary to call a spade a spade when its so darn obviously a spade even a non-gardner would say "D@mn, *that's* a spade!"

Again, makes me wonder about other legendary fights you hear about in martial circles.

Old Jong - what they lack in moral judgement they more than make up for in desire to learn to hurt people and frequency of real-life practice to hone it.

Yenhoi - Personality, IMHO, has no place in these discussions.

RR

10-31-2002, 09:44 AM

Originally posted by old jong
People with a questionable moral jugement or bad morality/temper,whatever, will never have the patience an dedication necessary to learn and perfect an art like Wing Chun. They will not go beyong the basics anyway.
Thinking you are good is the sure way to never learn enough to be good in the first place.

I would like to think this also, but I believe history illustrates that even people of demonic character composition can demonstrate tremendous resolve and determination to whatever their chosen ends.

One of my ethics professors once mused, however imprecisely in his generalization, that morally virtuous people tend to become more so through the study of morality and ethics. But those not inclined to such characteristics don't seem to benefit much from the effort (or the efforts of others toward that end).

From nearly a half-century of my own observations, I tend to agree with him. There are of course exceptions, and people can indeed "change", though they appear to be, well, exceptions. I theorize that this same generalization holds true regardless if the endeavor undertaken is the direct study of ethics, or something tangentially but integrally related, such as martial arts.

Just some random thoughts for the stew.

Regards,
- Kathy Jo

old jong

10-31-2002, 10:30 AM

Hey Kathy Jo!

I understand what you mean but...wrong people tend to find Wing Chun too boring for their taste and not realistic enough for ''real fighting''...;) They will rapidly leave for the nearest (insert hard core type fighting style school name here!) the minute they reach a plateau in their progress or are feeling confident they know everything they should about Wing chun.
They will find something better to satisfy their ego.

urban tea

10-31-2002, 11:08 AM

RR,

The famous fight was between the son of the wu-style tai chi and a big name white crane guy. At least I think it was the son. I've seen the footage and it was garbage.

They look like two middle school kids fighting in an alley. Both were scared and were not calm at all. Any somewhat good fighter today would eat them apart.

It looked like a girl slap fight and didn't resemble their styles at all. This just goes to show how hyped up we can make a fight.
I also believe that those "famous" hong kong rooftop fights were garbage as well. Someone posted a clip of a northern mantis guy and a WSL student fighting. That was more garbage. I'm starting to come to a conclusion that those hk rooftop fights are no different from the high school/ gang street fights you see today.

It's just the fact that it was back in the days, in "Hong Kong", and those guys learned martial arts is why people think those were some legendary days. Overrated.

reneritchie

10-31-2002, 11:37 AM

UT - Well said.

10-31-2002, 04:35 PM

Originally posted by old jong
Hey Kathy Jo!

I understand what you mean but...wrong people tend to find Wing Chun too boring for their taste and not realistic enough for ''real fighting''...;) They will rapidly leave for the nearest (insert hard core type fighting style school name here!) the minute they reach a plateau in their progress or are feeling confident they know everything they should about Wing chun.
They will find something better to satisfy their ego.

I remain doubtful that patience in the practice of Wing Chun is sufficient assurance of moral character. I'm still practicing, so case in point. ;)

Regards,
- Kathy Jo

old jong

10-31-2002, 04:49 PM

There is always the possibility of the exeption confirming the rule but really bad people are not numerous after a few years of practice.Some kind of natural selection will push bad people away most of the times unless the school is sponsored by the mafia or something!....

anerlich

10-31-2002, 05:14 PM

People with a questionable moral jugement or bad morality/temper,whatever, will never have the patience an dedication necessary to learn and perfect an art like Wing Chun.

I can think of a fight that happened in 1986 and another ten years later whose protagonists, high-level practitioners, IMO didn't show much in the way of morality or self-control. A lot of hubris and lack of self-control, not much of a positive nature.

The perpetrators of 9/11 had patience and dedication that dwarfed that of most WC practitioners. If they had morality, it's very different to what I subscribe to.

I think it's more that bad people do tend to lose because the weight of society results in their control and marginalisation. MOST of the time, thugs and ****heads get booted from schools becuase of the instructors moral code or the impact they have on other students (who might leave because of it). Or they leave because the rest of the student body make them unwelcome. My instructor has a saying, "the ****heads weed themselves out". But he's not beyond booting someone who keeps behaving badly after several warnings.

Grendel

10-31-2002, 05:17 PM

Originally posted by kj

I remain doubtful that patience in the practice of Wing Chun is sufficient assurance of moral character.

Too true. Yip Man and Leung Sheung in the first hand accounts I've heard were not discriminating on the basis of a student's prediliction for criminal employment.

I'm still practicing, so case in point. ;)

Regards,
- Kathy Jo

We truly evil people do tend to persist. :D

Regards,

asn3

10-31-2002, 08:35 PM

Thanks Rene, for that interesting clip. Others are probably clearer on the details, but the parties involved here, as others have said (and from the audio in the clip), appear to be Ng Gung Yi (or depending on what dialect you prefer, Wu kung yi) of Wu style tai chi and Chan Hak Fu of white crane. Anyways, I found it interesting that the audio announcer at one point remarked that the match would be similar to 'Chinese kung fu vs western [fist].' Unusual that that was an 'advertised' point. Just some other things that I figure I might as well throw in (just things I've heard and read, however, so keep that in mind)...Ng Gung Yi was considerably older than Chan Hak Fu when the match took place (60s vs30s or 40s), the match wound up a 'draw,' and there were some rules in place. I kind of get the impression it was more a publicity thing than a fight-to-the-death affair.

churn-ging

10-31-2002, 10:39 PM

" I found it interesting that the audio announcer at one point remarked that the match would be similar to 'Chinese kung fu vs western [fist].' Unusual that that was an 'advertised' point. "

The announcer only said that because the white crane sifu was dressed like a western boxer with a robe and stuff where as the tai chi sifu was dressed in a traditional chinese long shirt.

" I kind of get the impression it was more a publicity thing than a fight-to-the-death affair. "

Your right, it was a publicity stunt. The announcer said that there wasn't any trouble between them, but that they were fighting because the money will go to some sort of disaster relief fund.

Anyways, I found it weird that when they were fighting, it didn't look like the art that they were practicing.