Wu Gong Yee vs. Chan Hak Fu [Archive] - Kung Fu Magazine Forums

friday

12-21-2002, 06:19 AM

hi everyone, i've recently viewed this clip and thought i might add some of my thoughts on the fight. i'm no expert and my thoughts are meant to be informative and for discussion for those ppl who are interested in having a useful productive chat about the fight.

i have noted that the fight clip has copped alot of flack and been the subject of differing opinions from people with varying levels of knowledge and skill in the two styles or martial arts in general. here are my thoughts:

first of all the two fighters had the guts to put up with no gloves and fight infront of a huge amount of spectators, recorded on television, for the purposes of a charity for hong kong - some sort of fire tragedy i believe from hearing the commentary. so kudos to them for having the guts and their hearts in the right places.

secondly, it appears that the rules mainly confined both fighters to rely on striking techniques which i guess removes any resort to throws, takedowns, grappling, etc. the commentary mentioned towards the end of the second round that the fighters were breaching the rules as they were kicking above waist height shortly before the fight was stopped. so in spite of some opinions on MA forums there were more rules then just no eye gouging and groin striking :)

from a subjective perspective i think the significance of the match, the number of spectators, the rules, their 'representation' of their respective styles and the televising of the fight probably affected the fighting ability and approach of both fighters

the official and to me the final result was a draw so take that to those tai chi and non-ma related people who i have spoken to about the fight who informed me solidly that Ng Gong yee won the fight. :P.

my thoughts on the fight itself:
its not as bad as ppl particularly those with no or little knowledge of the two styles make it out to be.

Mr Chan who apparently has had some boxing training was constantly moving around his opponent with short strides, making Mr Ng constantly having to re-adjust his guard in response. he often applied continuous striking using basic pak hok fist strikes the straight punch, the stamping fist, the chopping fist, the fisthook. some fist strikes he performed which hit the target might look odd to those not familiar with pak hok pai, but when performed properly involve body mechanics within the system which try to fully utilise the power, speed of the practitioners body.
in the second round he put up a fist towards the opponent and used it to feint, when Mr Ng started attacking the arm by chopping downwards, he used it to propel his other arm into a fisthook which caught Mr Ng in the head. this is something sometimes used in the system.

Mr Ng probably conserving energy due to his older age adopted a more defensive approach as the fight progressed except for the initial first few seconds in round 1 when he attacked. u will note that he was approx 50 yrs old or so at the time of the fight. his strikes were quick and relatively accurate. he was often able to partly avoid mr Chans' strikes or diffuse them when he was hit by going with the direction and force of the strike. i understand that his reliance mainly on boxing style jabs may cause some disappointment from people who are viewing the clip now 50 yrs onwards. i think the situation at the time and the rules may have affected the look of his fighting approach.

both fighters were able to get in some solid hits against the other opponent and were also able to take some pretty solid hits from each other. they were able and willing to keep standing and continue with the fight until it was stopped. with consideration given towards the rules, the situation at the time, i think the fight
is a good one to watch and one can learn things from. in any high pressure situation fighters will make mistakes and i'm sure mistakes were made in that fight too.

if u still want the clip wizard let me know.

friday
ps i have also heard many many many different stories about the motives behind the fight, why it occurred etc. some differing to an alarming and highly contradictory degree. whatever the reason i think the most important thing now is that look at the fight learn something from it if u can. any useless dissing of the fighters is pointless and disrespectful. i respect two fighters who were willing to put up and fight out in the open for a charitable

wiz cool c

12-21-2002, 12:41 PM

Yes Friday I would like to see that clip. Thanks.

BAI HE

12-21-2002, 02:43 PM

I believe the gentleman asked
for the clip, not opinions and commentary on
said altercaton.

So here you go. Merrt Christmas Wiz.

http://www.sheenpeak.com/NgvsChan.WMV

"It is well that war is so terrible- We shouldn't
grow to fond of it."
- Robert E. Lee

wiz cool c

12-21-2002, 03:29 PM

Interesting thanks.

David Jamieson

12-21-2002, 05:30 PM

How many rounds was that? Three?

looked like the same rounds from diffrent angles.

peace

friday

12-21-2002, 06:42 PM

sorry wiz :) bai he beat me to it. its the same link anyway.

bai he
he may be asking for the clip but some ppl don't think the clip is worth watching and i think wiz and perhaps others might appreciate my commentary on it ;) and as i said if he still wants the clip to let me know.

kung lek
its actually two rounds. three camera angles were used to film the fight which is the repeats u saw.

if anyone has some queries about the commentary i'm happy to help.

BAI HE

12-22-2002, 08:15 AM

I was just busting your stones Fri! You're a good man.
What did you get Ego Extrodinaire for X-mas?

I sent him a card laced with a rather aggressive strain
of tropical Jock itch.

Regards, P-funk

friday

12-22-2002, 11:42 PM

hey bai he

no pressies for ego from me ehh...its the thought that counts after all.
btw what white crane do u study?

friday
ps merry christmas :) and take care

Muppet

12-23-2002, 06:14 AM

I wasn't sure I wanted to get into this, but screw it.

First, why is it disrespectful to criticize the performance of two people who were supposed to be EXPERTS in their respective arts?

Sure, they had the guts to go and fight, but these are guys who convinced others (and perhaps themselves) that they could fight. But when push came to shove, it's clear to most people that a decent boxer would have eaten them alive.

Also, you said the fight was restrictive? This seems to be a conjecture on your part, but regardless, striking is well within the realm of both white crane and tai chi. To put it mildly, Mr. Ng is no Yang Lu Chan (don't know too much about the history of white crane).

Finally, why do these individuals deserve particular respect? They kidded themselves and others that they could fight.

Giving MA masters more respect than they are due is a bane to Asian martial arts. This is what lets cults like Chung Moo Do flourish. And while I do NOT subscribe to the idea that the master should be the best fighter of the style (e.g., boxing coaches at the pro level vs. the people they train), I do think the instructor should be able to hold his own.

Imho, this video should be an eye opener to anyone blindly assuming their instructor has the goods: Even if you don't want to test the instructor out, at least look at his long term students.

BAI HE

12-23-2002, 06:30 AM

None anymore. I just started studying
the internals.

I could never get a straight answer out of my Pak Hok
instructor re: style.
It definately wasn't Fukien. I believe it was a Tibetan
with a Shaolin flavor.

Have a good Holiday!

friday

12-23-2002, 11:05 PM

muppet

pls note i said something about useless dissing i recall. so for, e.g. comments like 'they were both crap...the end' are rather silly comments to make in this case. :) i'm happy to discuss the what, why, how, etc, and have a discussion on what ppl think they did wrong, right, etc and constructive criticism for mutual learning.

btw i'm not suggesting u are doing the useless dissing thing. thats just a comment on what some ppl have done. and i agree with u. some ppl do push the respect thing a bit too far and don't think its ok to critically analyse a fight due to the respect thing particularly if he is of your own pai. anyway i understand that and its no big deal. then of course there are those ppl who are all talk and can't do jack and see fit to engage in useless rude, criticism.

as for the rules thing yes its partly my conjecture as Ng's lack of use of grappling, throws etc was kind of a surprise considering his background. when i heard about the rule about no kicking above waist height it seemed to suggest that the NHB, no rules that some ppl thought the fight involved was in fact incorrect. my apolgoies for misleading anyone. u will note that the statement u made that a 'decent boxer' would have eaten them alive is also conjecture, and your opinion based upon your MA exp. :) as mentioned b4, Mr Chan is also believed to have done some boxing as well.

as for experts, not taking sides or anything but a friend of mine from the internal arts was telling me he heard that mr Chan was in fact new in pak hok and was regarded as an up and coming kung fu practitioner of the style. hvaen't verified this.

the comment about kidding themselves that they could fight etc...i mean...thats what they did, they were in the ring, and they fought. it may not have been as pretty as some ppl would have liked or looked the way some ppl expected they did fight and hit each other with some pretty solid strikes. if your referring to skill levels however, which i think u are. i dont really know the internal arts that well so i don't really have too much new to add.

i'm happy to hear your comments on the fight if you are willing to share. :).
muppet what style do u practice? just curious too.

friday

12-23-2002, 11:08 PM

hi bai he :)

ic thats a bit strange the origins of the style isn't exactly that secretive a topic nowadays.
anyway moving to internals seems to be a trend quite a few ppl make. how are u finding it? i'm assuming yr doing a combo of the ba gua, hsing yi, and tai chi?

u have a good holiday too
i'm making roast pork chinese style for a party tonite :)

regards,
Friday

brassmonkey

12-23-2002, 11:14 PM

Its sorta weird to finally actually dl this clip after months of trying from some other site that must be in taiwan or hong kong as it would take about 10 hours to dl this time only 3 seconds thanx who ever put the link up.

This clip has been bashed so much on this board I was pleasantly suprised to see some very good skills used not to say they were skilled fighters I havent figured that out yet. They definately held theyre hands down but some good fighters I know can get away with this, not sure if this was a good or bad thing in theyre case, I'll have to watch it a few more x.

In my opinion the Wu TCC guy schooled the Tibetan Crane guy but I really have to watch this more.

friday

12-23-2002, 11:19 PM

hi brassmonkey

what does 'schooled' mean? :)

friday

Muppet

12-24-2002, 02:18 AM

Friday, imho, dissing them IS constructive. Hopefully, it makes people see their instructors in a new light (for the better or worse) and starts the long overdue process of weeding out frauds.

Anyway, if you want an idea of the internal arts, look at Shanxi Hsing I or Piqua/Bajiquan.

They're an easy starting point for getting the flavor of internal arts because while are very direct and very aggressive, they are most effective when there is a softness.

For instance, in Hsing I, one tries not to "block", but to lightly brush aside an attack while moving in to strike.

From what I understand, Tai Chi is similar except whereas in Hsing I and Bajiquan, one generates one's own power, tai chi has refined attack redirection and has the added dimension of borrowing the opponent's power.

Power borrowing, not like in the Aikido sense, but sort of like a sling shot. If the opportunity presents itself, I let the opponent do much of the work of coiling and storing power in my body and then when they're spent (e.g., on the retreat), I let the power lash out.

Maybe I missed something, but what I saw the Wu stylist do was more akin to boxing (as you mentioned earlier) via plain ol' external power.

Muppet

12-24-2002, 02:37 AM

Or better yet, if you can manage to find it, read Terry Dobson's recollection of Wang Shun Jin; in particular, Wang's encounter with Kazuo Chiba.

Even Kazuo Chiba's recollection of his encounter with Wang Shun Jin is impressive, although he tries hard to save his own face:
http://omlc.ogi.edu/aikido/talk/others/chiba.html#With%20friends%20like

Here's another one, regarding Mas Oyama and his encounter w/ a taiji master:
http://members.tripod.com/~crane69/index6j.htm

BAI HE

12-24-2002, 04:52 PM

My Pak Hok Sifu had some good stuff. But I believe he'll
take it to his grave with him. He's one of those types.
He said our lineage differs from most of the common lines.
So I believe it was a family style with 8 animals and
a few other sets mixed in.

I am enjoying the internal arts. I've just started recently
but I am enjoying it immensely. I found a great teacher out here. He teaches Hebei Hsing-I, Gao style Bagua and Serak Silat.
He also teaches Wu Style Taijiquan privately I believe.

He's a real dedicated teacher and knows his stuff.
Unfortunately I've not gotten to the point where
I can practice correctly at home yet (afraid of developing bad habits). I am loving it though.
The chi gung and nei gung make me feel great
Have a good X-mas

Regards, Peter.

type01

12-25-2002, 11:24 PM

obvisouly many of you have missed alot of the subtlities in the fight. Personally i thought it was one of the best fights ive ever seen in a long time. Even though it seemed a bit akward and flimsy at times it was still a great fight but when taking in to consideration conditions and facts about the individuals it makes sense why those parts appeared that way and one can really appreciate the fighting skill displayed.

Crimson Phoenix

12-26-2002, 04:16 AM

OK let's cut the crap...there were good things in that fight, but to say it was the best one you ever seen??? The problem is that even in the lamest of the lame fights I have seen, there were always a gem or two...an set up here, a counter there, a redirection, whatever...which does not mean it is a great fight...finding only one diamond somewhere does not mean you have a diamond mine...

Now a bit of info: this fight was not at all NHB. It was a gala fight promoted by an hotel and used to raise fund for a hospital, hence the TV broadcast. The rules were quite restrictive regarding hiting zones,throws and locks...initially 6 five minutes rounds were planned, with 5 mins rest between each. There were only two rounds fought, and the video shows both but with cuts to switch angles.
The fight ended because Chen, harmed to his right arm by Wu's series of strikes to his wrist, launched a forbidden low kick, to which Wu replied by a forbidden low kick. Judges cut it out, everybody shake hands, quite satisfied (after all, good money was raised, and that was the main reason of the fight). Back on the mainland, the two parties celebrated.

But to say it was a good fight? Did taiji practicionners saw many taiji concepts? I doubt it...Dong YiJie in the audience, seen doing his form at the beginning of the clip, came after the fight to see Wu and told him he didn't know any taiji and shouldn't even teach. Of course it could just be a lineage friction hehehe

Personnaly if I didn't know Chen was supposedly doing white crane I would never have guessed his style: he always stroke with his closed fist where white crane uses open hand almost exclusively (or refined forms of fist), his stepping, jings, etc...were not white crane...
It all looked like bad kickboxing except one or two good stuffs (some counters, Wu targetting the wrist etc...).
What's the use of being a so-called master of an art and fight like that, with no flavor, no flavor of your own style, and doing some bad western kickboxing? Hell, I have seen old school savate videos of the 1920's in which the guys displayed more gong fu in 5 mins than in this whole clip...

Merryprankster

12-26-2002, 04:56 AM

Some people wonder why CMAs get no respect as fighting arts from parts of the MA community.

Watch the clip. Then read the posts trying to downplay the ****poor (sloppy, off-balance, no power) skills of both combatants. If you don't get it after that.... you don't get it.

Or the one about "missing subtleties." Apparently, stumbling around like a drunken fratboy, throwing wild punches in vain at your opponent, is "subtle." This must be a new usage of the word subtle I'm unfamiliar with.

Thank heavens there are guys like Muppet and Crimson on here willing to call a spade a spade.

I'm 100% certain there are guys out there who can fight with CMA's. I'm 100% certain these two weren't in that group.

lkfmdc

12-26-2002, 12:24 PM

My sifu was good friends with Chan Hak Fu later in his life and had always heard about the match, one day he actually found the video tape. He stuck it in the school VCR, we watched it ONCE and he was so embarassed he took it and we've never seen it again, it was real bad

But there is a LONG, LONG article in a magazine recently making it sound like it was some profound, "secret technique laced" master vs master clash that us poor normal Westerners simply can't appreciate

It was bad, end of story

Walter Joyce

12-26-2002, 12:50 PM

Originally posted by Walter Joyce
That fight has been documented, discussed, analyzed, dissected and argued about from here to Bangkok and back again. Suffice to say its not worth finding the video or viewing it either. You'll be disappointed in the quality.

Three pages later, I stand by my assessment.
:cool:

friday

12-26-2002, 07:47 PM

:) so i was right? ...i think??? :)

thought it wasn't as NHB as some ppl were suggesting so crimson where can u get access to the actual rules from? :) i'd like to have a look just for personal interest.

its cool walter i'm interested in reading other ppl's opinions as ii've only watched it recently. i have picked up the reasons why ppl find fault with the fight or don't like it, etc.
but i stand by the fact that some of those strikes mr chan used are easily recognisable by pak hok ppl as basic strikes in the system. the fight has some good things in it but i don't believe its the best fight i've ever seen. anyway i think i should leave this to rest now on my part. i feel i'm caught between a rock and a hard place (is that the correct expression??)...

anyway i enjoyed watching it as i've heard about this fight for a long time and now have finally had a chance to watch it.

all this christmas food has gotten my a bit balloony now. i'm going to go train now.

regards,
friday

Merryprankster

12-27-2002, 02:03 AM

Friday, I think what you are saying makes a lot of sense: There are perhaps some nuggets to look at and go "ah!, not too shabby." But overall "Wow, this really sucked."

I think that's just a fine assessment.

Crimson Phoenix

12-27-2002, 03:31 AM

Some friend of mine who has direct access to chinese sources...don't worry, I'm not making it all up :-)

Merry, it's an important problem you raise here (a major one indeed): putting everyone on a pedestal due to the impressive term of "master"...we can still give the benefit of the doubt when it comes to an old "master" who we never seen fight. But we have to keep our lucidity and objectivity and call a lame fight a lame fight...else it will do no good by pushing CMAs into the world of fantasies even more, with every other fighting arts scoffing at us.
Lucidity is a key component of martial training. Lucidity implies honesty and objectivity.
I too am persuaded CMAs have gems to offer...it's been 5 years I practice them now, after 4 years of savate, and not one moment I doubted that CMAs were at least as good if not better. But we have to keep our eyes open and our lucidity in action. CMA do not need people living in fighting fantasies, but lucid people training hard and pragmatic when it comes to combat. That also mean that we shouldn't fall in the fantasy realm and try to see subtleties or hidden knowledge behind even crappy fights just because they are CMA and "they are masters, you don't understand their high level and blah blah".

friday

12-27-2002, 06:18 PM

hmmm...sigh i'm retyping this the second time now after some glitch happened posting the reply. :( grrrr...

anyway to CP - :) don't worry i wasn't saying u were making things up. my comments about the rules were based upon discussion with a friend in the internal arts and watching the clip and listening to the commentary. i'm just glad to hvae them confirmed by someone else.

hi MP - i think u may have taken my comments a bit too far. in summary my thoughts are that there were some good things i saw in the fight and some things i didn't like. having already sensed the general feel for the fight in forums i thought it would be beneficial to have someone with some background in the TWC to offer a few comments on the positive things. I still disagree with comments made earlier about wild punches and 'no power'. its often a mistake made ppl outside the pai. i have had the chance to change the mind of a few ppl in sydney while sparring with a friend of mine. of course u will all hav eto take my word for it ;).

anyway, we should just agree to disagree with each other on particular aspects of the fight. :)

Merryprankster

12-27-2002, 07:09 PM

Well, if that is your viewpoint, it is clear that I misinterpreted what you had to say. I apologize for putting words in your mouth, so to speak. Ooops.

And we certainly MUST agree to disagree, because I still think it looked like crap :D. No offense to you or anybody else intended, just my opinion.

Cheers!

James

lkfmdc

12-29-2002, 11:51 AM

At the risk of being offensive to some who are affiliated with both camps, (oh well, here we go again)....

In the 1950's in Hong Kong, fighting had come to a stand still for simple reasons

Traditionally, there was little to no sparring done in schools, heck, group classes was not much of a common thing even

and in HK, there was not a lot of fighting going on because it was a British colony under the rule of law (and police who would smack the top of your head with a club just to be friendly :) LOL)

OK, so you have never sparred and you have never fought, I don't care how much technique or lineage you have, you are not going to perform well in your first real life, adrenaline fueled, high stress situation

Frankly, they looked like people when the spar for the first few times, throwing some stuff, poor defense, adrenaline contributing to poor body control

Nothing profound, nothing "secret", any attempt to paint this match as something of the sort is wishful thinking. Take away the "context" and just show the fight, and most people here would be making faces and then jump on the bandwagon of blaming and denegrating

If you criticize the average San Shou contest, this makes grade C level guys look like pro's

Merryprankster

12-30-2002, 03:22 AM

lkfmdc,

Good point about how it makes the C level guys look. I was immediately reminded of two guys who had about 6 months (of not very good) training each who fought MMA in VA beach. It ended when (I kid you not) one of the guys turned his back and ran to the corner. When the other guy was in hot pursuit, the fellow in the corner CLOSED HIS EYES, turned in a 180 and caught his opponent on the jaw with the wildest haymaker I'd ever seen.

Ugh.

type01

01-01-2003, 02:01 AM

ok... if that was such a bad fight in your opinions then what dictates a good fight?? please be specific "poor defence" and "poor body control" do not explain anything, why did he have poor body control?? how can you tell?? different styles have different stances, do you do their styles?? what about adaptation skilled fighters are able to adapt how can you tell their actions were adapted, improvised or purposeful, when do fights look good since this one looked "crap" other than in the chinese movies of course, because i dont quite understand why it was so bad when most of you say it was crap without giving explainations (excluding the posts that did). I my self did post saying i liked the fight very much but without giving an explanation and so many were quick to rebut my post without even asking why???

And finally i would like to ask could you have done better?? considering the fact it was one of the biggest events in china at the time also would you be able to fight in those situations or even agree to fight in a DEATH match in front of a nation imagine the pressure and expectations put on your shoulders heart pounding in your chest????

i think they disserve great respect just getting up there and is the reason why i thought it was one of the best fights ive seen in a long time.

jon

01-01-2003, 05:38 PM

type01

I honestly have a similar opinion to you, i didnt like everything i saw but i understood a lot about why some of the things happened which did. If you have some exposure to both styles you can also have a better indication of why some things happened the way they did.

I dont want to do this again becouse ive been though all before however a few quick points.

Wu style exponents hands seem to be kept at waist level: White crane exponents are famous for being able to hook peoples bridges into strikes. Only a fool would leave a solid bridge outstreached when fighting a white crane stylist.

White Crane stylist seems to only throw his basic fists mainly consisting of swinging punches: He is fighting a Tai Chi guy, he knows darn well that grappling or getting in to close will likely put him in a position he doesnt want to be in. Hence he trys to keep a middle distance and basicaly knock the Wu exponents head off using power shots. He makes the mistake early in the second round of getting in to close and gets wrapped up and clobbered pretty darn quickly.

Wu exponent uses many strait jabs: Commen mindset in small frame Tai Chi is to slip punches and return by filling the gaps, he uses jabs becouse he needs the speed and distance as his opponent is clearly trying to get in and out asap.

Both fighters are knocked off balance - by each others punches. Strangely not so unusual. Still they both also do a great job of absorbing the force behind them, if you dont buy this then ask yourself how they manage to take so many shots without ever hitting the ground?

There is pleanty more to see in that fight and like as well as lots of clear nerves and mistakes. Still there humans and there *not* professional fighters. Just two guys from various schools who aggreed to a ruled fight for charity. It was not a *real* fight and neither party wanted to actualy 'hurt' each other but both of course wanted to win. Add all that up and yes you basicaly have a school yard scrap. Neither wants to lose face infront of there mates but neither wants to get sent to the principals office either.
There may have been contracts but no one wants to kill someone else on TV in whats supposed to be a match for charity.

We should all move on and stop looking at this like its some kind of big show case. Its basicaly a sparring match that went horribly wrong fairly quickly.

Just to be annoying... and stay in forum spirit...
Royce woulda choked both of em!
:p :rolleyes: :eek: :cool: :D

Muppet

01-01-2003, 06:41 PM

Jon (sorry Bai He),

Still they both also do a great job of absorbing the force behind them, if you dont buy this then ask yourself how they manage to take so many shots without ever hitting the ground?

Maybe it's because there wasn't any significant power behind most of the blows.

There is pleanty more to see in that fight and like as well as lots of clear nerves and mistakes. Still there humans and there *not* professional fighters.

At least one of the two guys was supposed to be a MASTER of the style.

Professional or not, a master should at least be decent at what he's teaching.

Just two guys from various schools who aggreed to a ruled fight for charity. It was not a *real* fight and neither party wanted to actualy 'hurt' each other but both of course wanted to win.

First you said both did a good job of absorbing the other's strike, "if you dont buy this then ask yourself how they manage to take so many shots without ever hitting the ground?"

Now you're saying it wasn't a "real" fight.

So are you saying it wasn't a real fight, but both were throwing full-powered blows to the other?

Add all that up and yes you basicaly have a school yard scrap. Neither wants to lose face infront of there mates but neither wants to get sent to the principals office either.

So they decided on mutual embarassment?

friday

01-01-2003, 06:47 PM

ahhh muppet thought i should point out...yr quoting bai he instead of jon who actually was the one posting that stuff. :)

also...your comment about the strikes perhaps having no power............................................. .........OMG. no offense...but u seriously have no idea about TWC. u really should try getting hit with some of those jabs and strikes thats the only way u'll know.

:)

Muppet

01-01-2003, 07:11 PM

type01,

You can tell that the fight was poor from the way the punches were thrown.

I'll stick to the tai chi guy, because I'm not too familiar w/ white crane.

Most of the time, the punches looked like out-of-control b*tch slaps and not solid punches.

- They weren't straight, solid punches where the strength comes straight from the ground.
- It wasn't a body momentum driven punch either.
Choy li fut uses turns of the waist to whip the fists around.
Styles like Wing Chun (and boxing, as I'm finding out) uses the whole body to commit a power punch.
Tai chi has strikes where waist twisting is essential too--deflect/parry/punch, brush knee, and repulse monkey come to mind.
- On at least one occasion, the guy was readily tossed into the ropes and another time, the guy barely was able to stop spinning on a swing. Of ALL people, a tai chi guy should know better than to overcommit on his strikes.

Like others have said, there may be some gems but the fight as a whole was terrible.

Muppet

01-01-2003, 07:18 PM

Friday, since when did my criticism of the video and the two fighters extend out to all of white crane?

Did I imply that white crane sucked?

Or are you saying the white crane guy in the video was very good?

Like I said, I don't know the white crane style very well--I know that they like to swing arms and kick high, and that's about it--so I can only make a judgement on the twc guy by proxy. The wu stylist was terrible--or if you want to be nice, what he put on display was absolutely awful--and the twc did not do anything significant to the wu stylist, therefore what the twc did probably wasn't too hot either.

friday

01-01-2003, 09:30 PM

hi Muppet,

:) not implying u are speaking for the whole style. one point among others i dispute is that the strikes were without power in the clip. not knowing much about tai chi or the internal arts or its power generation except from discussions with ppl in those styles, i'd still be reluctant to say those strikes by Ng Gong Yee had no power. knowing a bit about TWC, power generation etc, i understnad the mechanics of those basic strikes Chan Hak Fu used. the way he applied them, he had power behind those strikes. they may not be exactly how i would have done them and many were diffused by Ng. but power isn't something they lacked.

if anything i think its something positive that Mr Ng was able to diffuse the power behind many of the basic TWC strikes, or was able to take the hit/partially diffused hit. one thing i didn't like was that it wasn't to an outsider like myself easily recognisable as tai chi. his main form of attack using jabs gave a very limited showcase of wu style tai chi.

for Mr Chan i would have liked to see more TWC in action. i can sort of relate to his circle walking and moving in and out, attacking and retreating etc. constantly on the move. becos i have done that with some success against an internal MA in a friendly sparring session together. of course i'm comparing myself yet a novice with a person at the time in the position of a master? or up and coming master?

don't get me wrong. this is something i've repeated many times. there are things i don't like in the fight. some of which i hvae already mentioned. there are just some things i dispute with such as the no power behind strikes comment.

my apologies muppet if my comments came across too strong. i think it comes from hearing ppl talk too much about no power behind strikes a bit too much in this thread and other places not just with this fight but with styles as well without really understanding power generation etc in a style. i don't really think that becos a guy doesn't drop from a strike thus translates to a lack of power.

:) anyway hope i've cleared up our little misunderstanding

jon

01-02-2003, 02:16 AM

Muppet

Jon (sorry Bai He),
* My name is Jon no need for confusion. Its my real name as well as my forum name. Others can back this up if you wish. I have no idea why you put 'Bai He' there.

"Maybe it's because there wasn't any significant power behind most of the blows."
* Or maybe there was power to kill, maybe is a stupid word and unfit for a debate. If we are going to discuss issues then lets stick to facts. The fact that both opponents managed to knock each other off base with strikes was enough for me to realise there was certainly some good power there.

"At least one of the two guys was supposed to be a MASTER of the style. Professional or not, a master should at least be decent at what he's teaching."
*Wont argue with you here, however the term master is VERY subjective. Was it a title brought upon them from there respective organisations or was it simply a self proclaimed title?
What some call master i call stink and what some call student i call expert.

"First you said both did a good job of absorbing the other's strike, "if you dont buy this then ask yourself how they manage to take so many shots without ever hitting the ground?"
Now you're saying it wasn't a "real" fight.
So are you saying it wasn't a real fight, but both were throwing full-powered blows to the other?"
* Im saying there was power i never said 'full power' please dont put words into my mouth. It was not a real fight as there was no intent to seriously injure each other. As far as im concerned any fight which is organised in advance and has rules is NOT a 'real' fight.

"So they decided on mutual embarassment?"
* Your assement not mine, personaly i dont like a lot of things about that fight but there is still some things there to see and enjoy if your that way inclined.

Anyway to each there own:)

Crimson Phoenix

01-02-2003, 04:12 AM

I really got to see the clip again...after seeing it 2-3 times back in the days I definitely made my mind up that the fight plainly sucked (I didn't say totally...just plainly). But seeing the posts here, I'm starting to doubt...I guess I must be quite blind for not having seen those seemingly obvious displays of mastery...anyway...from memory then...

First, I would like to take back my comment on white crane. I didn't know at the time it was tibetan white crane, and thought it was fujian white crane. Now my first reaction back in the days was "this doesn't look like any white crane I have seen, even in the lamest one". Now I know why, it just wasn't. I'm happy to see that contrary to what I thought, Chan used some principles of his style, at least in the swinging punches (and I won't comment on the rest, since my knowledge of TWC is very limited and extends only to these trademark punches among a few other common knowledge about it).

One little question...where were the stop kicks? The only true range control I have seen is an attempt to walk away by turning the back?? what the heck???...it's a definite no-no in a ring, even if in an open-space it could arguably work.
What kind of fighter would let his opponent get so freely at close range without ever trying to stop them in their tracks? Even boxers keep their opponents at range with a good use of jabs, how come these guys could litterally WALK at each other??

jon

01-02-2003, 04:35 AM

From what little ive 'heard'.
The basic rules where to be three rounds.
No grappling (not dead sure on this)
No kicking above the waist.
I heard there where a few others as well like the obvious no groin or eyes.

The most important thing to remember...
Staged fight for charity... Not a bloodbath.
They had to put on something of a display, they where expected to make there fight last longer than a few seconds. They where litteraly required to draw it out. From what i heard the hope was for the fight to be similar in style to a western boxing match except without gloves.

The whitecrane guy turned his back in the first round becouse he was punched hard in the face. It actualy made his nose bleed quite badly (you can see this in the footage). Being a ruled fight he simply turned his back to indicate he was not ready to continue at that time. You can clearly see the Wu exponent behind him quite confused as well.

There are many things that where the way they where in that fight for a reason and i dont even pretend to know half of what went on. I do know that many people are way to quick to judge and most would not have been willing to do the same thing.

IMHO anyone who is willing to put themselfs and there reputation on the line infront of a crowd and TV cameras and all in the name of charity deserves a certain level of respect no matter what. These where extraordiary circumstances and in my opinion its highly unfair to try and say what these two men 'should' have done. They did what they could with what they had in an extraordinary circumstance - nothing to be ashamed of there.

Crimson Phoenix

01-02-2003, 07:35 AM

I sort of agree with you, yet all this P.C. trend is kind of irritating. Here's where I disagree: the charity thing. It was a fight first, a money-raising event second for the sake of a martial discussion.
Actually it brings much more pressure to fight for your own wallet than to fight for a charity stuff. No matter how good (or bad) you do, it won't change much for you. However, having to fight for let's say 100 000$ for yourself tax free is sure an intimidating prospective.

But that is not the real question anyway, so forget (and forgive) my rambling: the real point is "do all charity fights have to be bad just because they are charity" ?? Of course not. So do the math...this fight was bad period. Charity or feud, organized or not, it wasn't a high quality fight. I don't know much about Wu style specifically, but I do have a little knowledge about taiji. And all I can tell you is that, at least in my eyes, I haven't seen any taiji principle applied here. Where were the peng? The jing? The relaxed shoulders, with the spine "hung by a thread to the sky"? Sticking hands? Redirection of power? I haven't seen any of these, or too few to be significant. All I seen was a couple of bouts between two people who would have been literally trashed by any good savate fighter of the same period. I know TWC and Wu taiji can do better. I know CMA in a whole can do much better. I know because I have seen. But definitely not in this clip.
This fight was low-level, whatever we can say about it. Or for thos of you who like it sugar-coated for your tender ears "this event was absolutely not worthy of people considered as masters under no excuse". We are talking about masters rights? Master is a big word to live up to, I agree. Yet, masters should be a term reffering to people who can definitely show high quality stuffs regardless of the environment.

To conclude, Jon I totally agree with you that anyone stepping in a ring deserves respect whatever the outcome of their fight is. the thing is that we are not cussing people here, we are discussing their fight. Earning respect for stepping up and saying "the fight was poor" are, or rather should be, two different things.
I also agree on the unfairness of comments such as "they should have done x or y". It's quite easy to know what should have been done in theory, in the comfort of a home or office, but inside the ring it's a whole different story. I myself was quite shocked when I would watch some tapes of some bouts I'd get into and wonder when analyzing my own moves "why the hell did I do this? It's so stupid" or "why didn't I do that, it was obvious??".

Indeed, these two men deserve the highest respect for stepping up for such a noble cause, and Wu even more because he wasfar from a youngster when he did. Nevertheless, I'm sorry but the "fight" or rather event was low-quality in my eyes, however close I looked at it...and God knows I tried to dissecate closely all stuffs of this legendary fight when I first got the video...but I didn't find anything. Or rather, as I said, I found things that were so inconsistent that I didn't take them into consideration.
There are good fight, there are bad fights. It would be silly to find excuses to make all fights look good, or saying they look good just because it is a hard and noble thing to climb in the ring under the eyes of 1000s of people.
It's actually not even a shame of losing or conducting a bad fight, because the one in the ring can always say "where were you when I stepped in? In the comfort of your chair". Yet I find it very irritating to endlessly find excuses to make everyone look good, and all that P.C. trend won't prevent me from saying "I THINK THE FIGHT LOOKED BAD". Or at least, the sugar-coated version "I think the fight should have looked MUCH better considering the status/reputation that both fighters were upholding".
This fight I found bad, because I have witnessed much better ones, in many disciplines, that took place during many different periods, even much older than these.

And by saying this, I play the game of honesty: when I do a bad fight, well, I expect people to let me know. And even if I can tell them "where were you when I was in the ring", I still have to realize that if I did a bad fight, well I just did a bad fight and nothing I can come up with will make up for that.

lkfmdc

01-02-2003, 07:52 AM

fundamental Chinese martial art fighting theory, exploit leaks and seal your own. Totally absent in the fight

They have no control over their techniques. They throw and do not recover. They throw and open themselves up. The bloddy nose in question is the most obvious example. Chan uses incorrect footwork for "kahp choih" (I do Lama Pai, I can quite correctly dissect his technique) which opens him up to the straight punch, which sadly, isn't much of a jab and has no "jing" or power, quite obviously so. ie, failure to fully exploit that leak..

The fact that the "punches" knock each one around, they hop, they spin, etc, shows their lack of defense and their lack of rooting and their lack of balance

The fact that neither capitalizes on the first technique is poor martial art as well

I could go on but the point is simple, it was a bad fight...

Muppet

01-02-2003, 09:25 AM

Jon,

Why so touchy over an honest mistake which was corrected before you even posted?

Or maybe there was power to kill, maybe is a stupid word and unfit for a debate. If we are going to discuss issues then lets stick to facts. The fact that both opponents managed to knock each other off base with strikes was enough for me to realise there was certainly some good power there.

The fact that both opponents were knocked off base mean absolutely nothing considering they unbalanced THEMSELVES half the time they swung their fists with any power.

For someone wishing to stick to facts, you seem to be turning a blind eye towards some blatant ones.

Wont argue with you here, however the term master is VERY subjective. Was it a title brought upon them from there respective organisations or was it simply a self proclaimed title?
What some call master i call stink and what some call student i call expert.

It's subjective in practice, but the term has definite qualifications to live up to.

At the very least, someone purporting to be a MA master of a style should be able to hold their own in a basic scuffle; if they can't, they don't deserve the title. Most would outright label such individuals frauds.

Im saying there was power i never said 'full power' please dont put words into my mouth. It was not a real fight as there was no intent to seriously injure each other. As far as im concerned any fight which is organised in advance and has rules is NOT a 'real' fight.

Let me put it another way: There are masters aplenty who've demonstrated their skill in a duel without permanently and seriously hurting the other individual; furthermore, as far as I know the outcome wasn't predetermined by these individuals (i.e., it wasn't fixed) and it was a physical altercation where the aim was to win.

So why doesn't it qualify as a real fight?

And let's consider the old school Chinese bounty hunters: They were bound NOT to kill their quarry at the pain of death, so does it mean the bounty hunters weren't really fighting when they were fighting their quarry without resorting to killing?

The fact that it was a fight with some rules is no excuse for the overabundance of poor form and performance either: Do you think people spar in their respective schools with the intent of maiming their partner?

fa_jing

01-02-2003, 10:15 AM

Throwing punches that fall two feet short is just poor. Sort of like when you're learning to drive and it's only your 10th time, you still can't tell what the boundaries are of your vehicle and you have to pay close attention just to stay in your lane and not clip parked cars. It really showed that these guys didn't have much free-sparring experience. There was no sense of, "this is what I've done 100 times in the past and what I found was most successful in dominating my opponent" - - rather, it looked like guesswork - and then inability to adjust, because when one has lots of fighting experience, they know that sometimes the plan goes out the window, and you have to adjust to plan B and plan C. Despite the rules, IMO you should spar under a variety of different rules, so you won't be surprised and you get the chance to work on different situations. I'm sure that their mentality was flawed in preparing for this.

fragbot

01-02-2003, 06:38 PM

Having heard about this fight forever, I finally decided to watch it. Whether or not this is representative Wu style TJQ or TWC fighting, I have no idea, but I did have the following impressions:

1) The strikes appeared devoid of power. Maybe I missed the subtleties of the two arts, but I didn't see many focused punches.

2) The guys were clumsy as hell. Now, this might be due to the surface, but I for **** sure would've expected the TJQ guy to appear rooted.

3) Is there anyone else who felt their heart was in it? While the video was poor and I might've missed alot, it didn't really appear there was any investment in clobbering the other guy.

4) Did anyone else notice the limited number (quite frankly, I don't remember any, but that's probably hyperbole) of attacks to the midsection?

I've always thought it's a perfectly nice target--not as mobile as the head and a tad easier on a bare hand.

5) If I had paid $$$ to see this fight, I would've been disappointed.

6) Having watched kyukushin/enshin/seidokan/ashihara matches on tv, I (as much as it pains me to admit it) think it makes for much better tv 'cause they look like competent fighters instead of French bicyclists.

One other thing I wondered about was the number of combination techniques put together. I didn't look for that specifically (and I ain't gonna do the download again), but I can't remember if they chained technique together reasonably well or not.

Now feel free to call me a pr*ck or something.

truewrestler

01-03-2003, 08:05 AM

I will not be able to read all of this thread until tonight but I must say that anyone that defends these fighters, for anything more than steping up to fight, is being rediculous. The bottom line is the fight was horrible and both of the fighters were horrible.

And finally i would like to ask could you have done better?? considering the fact it was one of the biggest events in china at the time also would you be able to fight in those situations or even agree to fight in a DEATH match in front of a nation imagine the pressure and expectations put on your shoulders heart pounding in your chest????
I'm not kidding one bit when I say that I could beat either of these guys with my "training only a few times in the last 2 years" ass, and someone like MerryPrankster would humiliate them. That also goes for the hundreds of thousands of MMA fighters, Boxers, Kickboxers, Judoka, BJJers, Wrestlers, etc around the world.

It is painfully obvious that these guys simply didn't spar or fight much if any in their martial arts "career". They would have absolutely no chance against a decent amateur MMA Fighter, Kickboxer, Wrestler or Boxer.

I my self did post saying i liked the fight very much but without giving an explanation and so many were quick to rebut my post without even asking why??? type01 - you really need to watch MMA, Kickboxing or Boxing to understand how bad this was. Check out the highlight reels at http://www.Sherdog.com/videos/highlights.htm and the videos in the "Fight Clips" section at http://www.FightTraining.com

I beg of you

edit: for some reason I thought type01's post was the last, not sure why... oh well

lkfmdc

01-03-2003, 11:53 AM

this just in - Tai Chi people claim absolute victory, citing Dim Mak attack that does not appear on video because it is too fast and too secret

Evidence of this? Chan Hak Fu indeed passed away a mere 45 years later.....

friday

01-03-2003, 06:26 PM

:( thats not rite...he is alive and well last time i saw him. Actually when i went to Macau two years ago i did ask Mr Chan about Mr Chan Tai San whether he knew him and he said yes they were friends :).

anyway someone has started a new thread on the kf forum page referring to two fight clips one of which is the NgvsChan. sigh...hope we don't have to go thru all this again...

jimmy23

01-03-2003, 08:11 PM

those guys were horrible. Period.

They had no idea how to punch in combinations.

They had , at best, adequete punching power. At best.

The one guy kept turning his back on his opponant .

They threw looping haymaker punches that wouldnt hit anyone who does even a little bit of full or medium contact sparring.

As for the crap here about how they should be respected for fighting in front of a crowd, etc, then youd beter extend massive respest to the tens of thousands of kickboxers, grapplers, and boxers that do that all the time.

Not to flame, but if you see anything other than two guys who were pretty close to clueless, then you dont know anything about real combat. Thats the nicest way I can that :)

type01

01-05-2003, 08:36 AM

first of all i'd like to address truewrestler

in my limited experiences of MMA and of a Judoka i know in my head that even with my background Mr Chan would beat the holy**** out of me Mr Ng didnt call him lightning fist for nothing 6 straight punches in a second no matter how good you are you cant defend against that unless you move but as you can clearly see in the first volley he could change angles and still be in your face.

i would also like to ask why was it crap was his punching crap??footwork??you prob. dont even do his style how do you know his punches were weak(like so many like to say)??No their punches are not weak.

which brings me to another point Jimmy23 you dont do their style do a lil research Tibetian White Crane have alot of very different punches to MMA therefore punch combinations are different, you refered to Mr Chan turning his back to the opponent look carfully he kind of flinches and goes into a backfist position but stops and walks away also maybe he could of been taunting by mucking around?? You call it a Haymaker but its not may look similar but its not, contrary to your beliefs it is very very fast prob. very very painful.

lkfmdc how can you tell his foot work is bad in the kup choi?? you cant even see his feet?!?!?! you see his thighs?? you of all ppl should know there was defence after Mr Chan changes tactics he barely get hit ask yourself why??

why is everyone still posting it was crap but still not giving reason ??if you have reasons why it was crap it would be much eaiser to disscuss, im not trying to take away freedom of speech please voice your opinion as i have but also be specific a good example is friday's post clearly stating what he thought was good and what he thought was bad and his final opinion.

most prob. believe this fight looked clumsy or was crap any ametuer MMA would kick there arses sideways but think about it styles of fighting are very different eg kickboxing is very defensive compared to kung fu which is very open you tell even by the tornaments boxing ring very small, kung fu ring comparably massive. Watching kickboxing and MMA is very common now and to see a totally oppisite way of fighting very open non super defensive is difficult to not comapre it to kickboxing and see it for what it is.

jimmy23

01-05-2003, 08:49 AM

yea, when you turn your back because youre flinching from a punch, thats a very tricky strategem....

and when you throw a looping rear hand punch, and your head moves in along a straight line towards your opponant, well, there is no way even an amatuer boxer would knock your block off......

a fight is a fight, and these guys were not even decent fighters.

Skummer

01-05-2003, 09:37 AM

After watching this fight with an open mind I have concluded just one thing:
I could choke both of these guys unconscious... At the same time! :D

truewrestler

01-05-2003, 04:23 PM

Type01, Please realize that if someone can not fight then they simply can not fight.

Try to use some common sense.

lkfmdc

01-06-2003, 08:53 AM

Type01, apprently you can't simply grasp the idea that the fight SUCKED....

I can tell you that his footwork is wrong because of how he stood and how he got hit! Please don't argue with me about Tibetan style footwork, trust me, I will win...

I have 10-15 guys in my school who would have killed these guys

You are grasping at straws trying to make a fight out of a slap fest

friday

01-06-2003, 05:15 PM

hmmm only a few comments to make.

firstly, i guess we are forced to make an assessment of a fighters capability from this one recorded fight match, something normally most ppl i'm assuming would be reluctant to do.

secondly, we are all using fight clips/fights etc we have seen of professional, amatuer fighters who train on a regular basis according to particular rules or NHB rules to fight in that type of arena as a standard of comparison. This standard is being used to compare with a fight that appears to have taken place between two fighters who as lkfmdc suggests had alot less sparring experience and i believe specific training for this kind of fight. i've seen the first NHB UFC tournament with no gloves. even tho' many of the fighters were apparently champions of their respective styles etc and appeared to have fighting experience they actually looked pretty awful in the ring.

my final point, regardless of what we all think of that skill level in that single recorded fight, Mr Chan has established a TWC school in Australia that has produced good fighters that has produced results in local full contact tournaments/ matches - particularly in the 70s-80s when this kind of fighting venue was more common. i know personally how a close friend of mine who studies in the school 2nd generation from Mr Chan was able to successfully defend himself against three muggers one of whom was armed with a weapon. i was surprised to hear from a hung gar man that one of Mr CHan's bai see students was seen throwing around with ease two robbers at his store (not my words).
...simply, Mr Chan is a master teacher, able to pass on his knowledge and skills effectively to his students.

:)
gd training to u all

fiercest tiger

01-06-2003, 05:27 PM

wasnt very good, but the sound affects are cool!

lkfmdc,

do your guys fight kickboxing/thai more then kung fu oriented?

truewrestler

01-06-2003, 06:34 PM

i've seen the first NHB UFC tournament with no gloves. even tho' many of the fighters were apparently champions of their respective styles etc and appeared to have fighting experience they actually looked pretty awful in the ring. you are exactly right, they sucked and these guys sucked.

lkfmdc

01-06-2003, 07:08 PM

Perhaps, consider this for a mere second, Chan Hak Fu learned the hard way that just practicing forms and basics doesn't make you a fighter and so he instituted sparring in his organization and encouraged his students to compete. Perhaps, I am SUGGESTINGM, maybe he studied a lot more western boxing and saw training methods that could be used to train fighters so they wouldn't look like crap like thier teacher had once upon a time. MAYBE I AM SUGGESTING SOMETHING

I train Chinese martial art in a modern method, ie we use equipment, protective gear and we spar. We drill the applications realisticly. Funny, because we can fight, some thing it isn't even Chinese martial art! :) I am 100% sure what I teach is Chinese martial art, it is in theory, in "ging" and in technique... and my guys would still have tossed those guys about, which is a sad thing for two so called "masters"

Stories of this and that abound in TCMA, but in this case we have a concrete fight to watch, and you have to look at it and be honest, it isn't some profound display of esoteric skill, it is two guys who flail about without much body control because their training did not prepare them for a real adrenaline fueled, high stress encounter

friday

01-06-2003, 07:09 PM

which points again to the same thing
lack of training/sparring dedicated for fighting in that format :)

friday

01-06-2003, 07:11 PM

like my posts have said b4...some thigns i agree with u ppl on. anyway as i've always said theres a lesson to learn from the clip. for me at least.

:)

friday

01-07-2003, 06:07 AM

i've noticed something i keep repeating myself lol
anyway hey look! this thread has had like over 2000 views, quite a popular thread :).

type01

01-07-2003, 07:47 AM

im with Friday and fiercest tiger

yes great sound effects!!!!!

i feel like im repeating myself, no one ever gives me a proper answer ppl just keep repeating them selves it was crap it was crap. Im sorry if im sounding like im arguing im trying to have a disscussion no ones disscussing it just it was crap i could do better, well maybe you can i dont care fuksticks!!! when ppl dont like something its for a reason, eg a movie it had great action, but acting was bad becos the lines were dry....etc

lkfmdc from your comments im assuming you prob. train in Tibetian White Crane style, if you couldnt spot a severly obivous defence techniques 'employed by Mr Chan and had to be told about it what makes you think your qualifed to judge his footwork and punches??

look i agree so things were not the greatest but it was a fight there are always stuff ups right?!

lkfmdc

01-07-2003, 08:03 AM

Y A W N

People have explained in detail what is wrong with the fight, you simply aren't listening because you don't want to. Not to mention of course, it is so f-ing OBVIOUS how poor a "fight" this was.

We should start calling you Cleopatra, Queen of Denile :) Seriously though, if you want to get into a ****ing contest let me say I am the adopted disciple of one of the highest ranking Tibetan MA masters in the world, and have 17 years of experience in the art, including using it to FIGHT...

There is nothing subtle, no defense to observe, it is a very poor display, and the fact you can't even grasp this really calls into question what credentials you have vis-a-vie application of TCMA in FIGHTS

Walter Joyce

01-07-2003, 09:13 AM

Originally posted by friday
i've noticed something i keep repeating myself lol
anyway hey look! this thread has had like over 2000 views, quite a popular thread :).

Yes and McDonald's sells billions of burgers...but its still crap. This thread is a waste of bandwidth.

truewrestler

01-07-2003, 11:54 AM

lkfmdc from your comments im assuming you prob. train in Tibetian White Crane style, if you couldnt spot a severly obivous defence techniques 'employed by Mr Chan and had to be told about it what makes you think your qualifed to judge his footwork and punches??LOL @ You Type01 because you have no idea who you are talking to. Simply put...he is qualified.

Merryprankster

01-07-2003, 01:35 PM

I will address some issues as to "why this sucked."

1. Fighters were knocked off balance and frequently. What this means is no experience in yielding or rooting. Watch a boxing match. Opponents are VERY infrequently knocked off balance when you compare shots that knock them off balance with shots that land and don't. Don't tell me I "don't understand." Being off balance is bad whether you are boxing or playing soccer. It's fundamental to forceful, useful movements.

2. The fighters were frequently thrown off balance by their own movements. What this means is--no experience in yielding or rooting AND bad footwork. It also has something to do with....

3. Rotational Movements were too large. I do not mean that twisting existed and it shouldn't have, or that rotational movements existed and that that concept is bad. What I mean is that the movements discribed a path that was too long about the axes. A large rotation is a slow rotation. A slow rotation has NO impact. Every rotational movement in a combat art/sport is small. And the better you get, the smaller those movements become, to a biomechanical limit. When wrestlers first learn to hip throw, they make a big slow clumsy step around and throw the partner. As they improve they make a very small foot change that is as clean as a pirouette called a backstep that allows them to move into the throw much more quickly. Another example is a boxer's hook. Everybody who starts learning this punch almost invariably throws a looper like a half-drunk frat boy. As you get better, the movement becomes tighter and tighter until it becomes sharp and has pop.

4. Pushed punches and kickes. Punches and kicks were pushed rather than fired and returned. The difference between pushing and striking a heavy bag is obvious. A pushed punch or kick makes the bag swing. A properly thrown punch or kick causes it to fold over. Don't tell me "internal/external." You want to hurt the other guy, not push him around. Maybe if you're doing some esoteric internal organ thing I've never seen, but these guys were just punching and kicking (sort of) Pushing does not hurt the other guy, leaves you open for too long, and has a tendency to overbalance causing you to make BAD corrective actions, like sticking your head out to over compensate for poor body structure.

5. Flustered when actually kind of hit by something that almost had enough pop to do something maybe. Inexperience shows.

This can all be summed up: Those of us who have actually fought and watched real fighters fight saw this and said "The biomechanics here were all wrong."

I don't care what style you do, you can't ignore that we're all built basically the same, so offbalance movement comes from IMPROPER movement, regardless what label you attach.

Bottom line was it was inexperience that made both these guys suck. Maybe they're great teachers. But they're Z class fighters. That's not anything to be ashamed of. I'm not knocking them. I'm knocking the people that think something mystical and esoteric is going on because they're masters, or that "it's SUPPOSED to look like this," because they're brainwashed.

If you find anything worthy of note in this fight other than:

1. At least they had the balls to step up.

And

2. Here's how NOT to look,

You need a reality check.

truewrestler

01-07-2003, 02:04 PM

Merryprankster = Wow

Thanks for the explanation.

friday

01-07-2003, 04:07 PM

Hey Walter,

Those same crappy burgers make zillions of dollars!!! Besides your focusing on the wrong thing, its the business systems in place and growth from real estate Mcdonalds franchises are located at that sell those burgers and make zillions of dollars.

besides this thread can't be toooooo bad :) ppl keep coming back to view. i think its almost time for a challenge fight to start...how about it anyone???

:) lol

friday

01-07-2003, 04:12 PM

seriously though, i like MP taking the time to put together a proper critical analysis from his broad fighting experience on the fight rather than the usual, the fight sucks...the end kinda post :). i'm sure now everyone is gonna say hey!!! i was gonna say that :) haha. just joking guys.

btw also type01, lkfmdc is a bai see student of Grandmaster Chan Tai San lama arts specialist of the Lion's Roar system so i always have a lot of interest in what he has to say.

Wongsifu

01-07-2003, 06:32 PM

Hey guys i have emerged from my closet of training and lurking the forum to post.
Ironically i have to agree with merryprankster fully on this issue that fight sucked . Ive been looking for footage of that fight for ages and all i can say is im soo happy to have seen it , and embarrased to say that i practise kung fu.Im still reeling from the shock of lack of anything remotely resembling tai chi or whatever.

type01

01-08-2003, 07:07 AM

No i dont need a reality check i just needed a straight answer thank you for doing so MerryPrankster. Much more benificial wouldnt you say, now we can all go away and train more effectively now that we know about yeilding and rooting i for one did not know about that since ive only a limited experiences in martial arts i never said i had any credentials but ppl assumed i did and attacked me for asking the reason why they thought it was crap.

Most of ppl denied me that mutual respect which i gave to them by ask why and reading what they had to say (it was crap) and asked again why and never getting a straight answer, being martial artists we should have disiplined minds, i.e. manners, mutual respect is always given, after that respect is given and taken away accordingly. Being in a community of martial artists we should be mindful of what we say no matter how much experience one might have.

lkfmdc

01-08-2003, 07:50 AM

Let's refresh your memory...

When you asked for concrete explanations, I posted the following:

- "fundamental Chinese martial art fighting theory, exploit leaks and seal your own. Totally absent in the fight

They have no control over their techniques. They throw and do not recover. They throw and open themselves up. The bloddy nose in question is the most obvious example. Chan uses incorrect footwork for "kahp choih" (I do Lama Pai, I can quite correctly dissect his technique) which opens him up to the straight punch, which sadly, isn't much of a jab and has no "jing" or power, quite obviously so. ie, failure to fully exploit that leak..

The fact that the "punches" knock each one around, they hop, they spin, etc, shows their lack of defense and their lack of rooting and their lack of balance

The fact that neither capitalizes on the first technique is poor martial art as well

I could go on but the point is simple, it was a bad fight..." -

YOUR RESPONSE -

-"lkfmdc how can you tell his foot work is bad in the kup choi?? you cant even see his feet?!?!?!" -

AND

- "if you couldnt spot a severly obivous defence techniques 'employed by Mr Chan and had to be told about it what makes you think your qualifed to judge his footwork and punches??" -

So, clearly, YOU are the person who started the tone of this discussion in the direction it is going.

And you jumped in without having even the slightest clue who you are talking to. So don't send me PM's asking for us to all respect the tradition and be nice guys.

I will be blunt, my credentials in TCMA, especially Tibetan Martial Art, will top yours, no question. If you want to talk "shop", please note that the execution of the Kup Choih in question is a direct contradiction to the "8 character true essence" and "Chat Sing Bouh" which are the two most fundamental aspects of the tradition, ie, NO BASICS = IT SUCKED

NOt to mention of course, that as we are talking about FIGHTING, the fact that my gym is FAMOUS for fighting also says alot about my ability to judge this mess...

Have a nice day

jon

01-08-2003, 08:02 AM

lol at this thread :)
Im in no way trying to advocate that this was a brilliant fight but i still saw some stuff in there which i actualy liked. I certainly disagree with the idea that this was some hidden technique laced fight but i *do* believe there is a lot to miss if you have no exposure to either style and hence do not understand what either party is trying to achive.
Merry has done an excerlent job (as im sure we all agree) of listing some of the negative points of this fight. Im going to give some reasons why *I* think this may have been the case.
Again im not trying to advocate this fight as a great showcase for cma but i do think its a very misunderstood piece of history.

" Fighters were knocked off balance and frequently. What this means is no experience in yielding or rooting. Watch a boxing match. Opponents are VERY infrequently knocked off balance when you compare shots that knock them off balance with shots that land and don't. Don't tell me I "don't understand." Being off balance is bad whether you are boxing or playing soccer. It's fundamental to forceful, useful movements."

* I have to disagree with you on boxing, ive frequently seen boxers knocked off balance or out of position its all part of the game. I also personaly think that a lot of the unbalancing was the result of the practioners both trying to gain the centre. I guess what im hinting at is that the fighters where taking each others balance rather than just falling about the ring.

"2. The fighters were frequently thrown off balance by their own movements. What this means is--no experience in yielding or rooting AND bad footwork. It also has something to do with...."
* Have to agree with you here, i noticed this a lot myself. However i guess some of this may be attributed to simple nerves. This is no great excuse its simply a by product of the situation. Ive said before i believe this was an extraordinary circumstance. Still one thing that bugged me was the way both fighters did not seem terribly relaxed. For a Tai Chi exponent the Wu style player was tence as can be. My sifus father saw this fight live and came away with (according to my sifu)"to nervous and too hard". Im inclined to agree with the fact the fighters where throwing themselfs off balance but i also think its a little harsh to be so judgemental about nerves. Pleanty of people in the early UFC's we now hail as hero's of full contact where throwing themselfs off balance as well. Tell me Tank Abbot has good root when he gets charged up - he litteraly runs accross the flaw with his arms outstreched?

"3. Rotational Movements were too large. I do not mean that twisting existed and it shouldn't have, or that rotational movements existed and that that concept is bad. What I mean is that the movements discribed a path that was too long about the axes. A large rotation is a slow rotation. A slow rotation has NO impact. Every rotational movement in a combat art/sport is small. And the better you get, the smaller those movements become, to a biomechanical limit. When wrestlers first learn to hip throw, they make a big slow clumsy step around and throw the partner. As they improve they make a very small foot change that is as clean as a pirouette called a backstep that allows them to move into the throw much more quickly. Another example is a boxer's hook. Everybody who starts learning this punch almost invariably throws a looper like a half-drunk frat boy. As you get better, the movement becomes tighter and tighter until it becomes sharp and has pop."
* Brilliant observation, especialy comming from a non cma practioner. I wont disagree here at all, still i think you may be mistaking the WC practioners power generation. There power is whipped and relies on the arms being outstreched as opposed to compacted. I often like to think of WC punches as similar to swing a sledge hammer (being your arm) which you power by moving your waist and sholder. I wont even bother to discuss the Wu stylist as nearest i could tell he basicaly used linear force except for right at the end when he attempted (rather poorly) to use a whipping strike on the WC exponents bridge. This same rather lame looking strike also actualy ended the fight. Here is where things get weird, no matter how sad that fight *looks* it had a profound effect on the people involved. The WC exponents arm was partialy paralazed ( you can see him swap sides after the impact and keep his arm back ) and the Wu style exponent ive also heard suffered from some minor internal damage due to not being able to fully disolve the power of his opponents strikes. Both fighters where fine in the end but either way that fight injured both of them and people where getting mighty freaked out from all the blood. The fight was stopped after only two rounds, you have to ask WHY??? Sure they broke the rules about kicking but should this really warrent a total stop? Me thinks there was much more to this than meets the eye.

"Pushed punches and kickes. Punches and kicks were pushed rather than fired and returned. The difference between pushing and striking a heavy bag is obvious. A pushed punch or kick makes the bag swing. A properly thrown punch or kick causes it to fold over. Don't tell me "internal/external." You want to hurt the other guy, not push him around. Maybe if you're doing some esoteric internal organ thing I've never seen, but these guys were just punching and kicking (sort of) Pushing does not hurt the other guy, leaves you open for too long, and has a tendency to overbalance causing you to make BAD corrective actions, like sticking your head out to over compensate for poor body structure."
* Honestly didnt see this much, i saw maybe a tiny bit of this but i cant really see why your picking on this point. The WC exponent was pretty clearly hitting hard and the Wu style exponent was mainly using small frame jabs and jerking blocks. I honestly did not see much pushing.

"5. Flustered when actually kind of hit by something that almost had enough pop to do something maybe. Inexperience shows."
* This i honestly disagree with, to me both fighters could be seen taking and absorbing solid blows. One of the first things that struck me was how much abuse these guys seem to be able to withhold. A typical expamle is when the Wu exponent is punched in the side of the head and go's with the blow ( he actualy almost falls out of the ring) this may have been excessive and opened him up way to much for a real encounter but he either way he manages to take that punch and defuse it without skipping a beat. Im no great martial artist but ive been hit by friday and i know what these guys are capable of delivering. In my humblest anyone who can take that many shots and still remain on there feet is doing something right.

"This can all be summed up: Those of us who have actually fought and watched real fighters fight saw this and said "The biomechanics here were all wrong.""
* I have done both pleanty of times, my personal observation of the same thing. 'Body mechancis where imperfect, not altogether wrong'.

"I don't care what style you do, you can't ignore that we're all built basically the same, so offbalance movement comes from IMPROPER movement, regardless what label you attach."
* hmmm, true but there are *many* ways to develop power, no one is the 'right' way. Is circular force any more powerfull or useful than linear? Off balance fair enough, however i cant help but think just becouse you can replicate one form of power does not make you fit to understand fully the inner workings of something compleatly different.
Boxing power is quite different to Xing Yi even if the shape of the techniques may look quite similar (in some cases).
So yeah i agree that a lack of balance produses poor power but i dont agree that all movement has to be uniform accross the board for the human body to develop good power.

"Bottom line was it was inexperience that made both these guys suck. Maybe they're great teachers. But they're Z class fighters. That's not anything to be ashamed of. I'm not knocking them. I'm knocking the people that think something mystical and esoteric is going on because they're masters, or that "it's SUPPOSED to look like this," because they're brainwashed."
* Agree they lacked real fighting experience, disagree with you labeling others based on your personal ideals. I dont pretend to understand a high level (and excedingly boring) BJJ match where both exponents simply lay on each other for obsence amounts of time. I also think its a little rough to try and second guess these guys *too* much. On the flip side i also think its *highly* improper to try to elevate the match in question to some kind of lofty place far from the reaches of any type of rational thinking. After all its just a charity match, not something to get too worked up over.

"If you find anything worthy of note in this fight other than:
1. At least they had the balls to step up.
And
2. Here's how NOT to look,
You need a reality check."
* Honestly Merry you dont need this comment, it discourages others from taking up debate and potentialy learning something. You also should encourage people of differing viewpoins to put forward there case so that you personaly can further research your viewpoint.

Again im not trying to say this fight was particualy grand (never have) however i do get a little mystified at quite why it produses such strong reactions. Its almost as though people are trying to justify there own practice by the actions of others.

Ive said this before in this same thread but we all need to stop looking at this fight like its some great showcase. Its nothing but a stupid altercation with fudgy rules that go's quickly haywire. Hardly worth judging a whole nations fighting ability over.

jon

01-08-2003, 08:25 AM

Just to prove i can:
Here are some of the many negative *and* postive things i saw.

Negative:
1 No clinch game, total lack of elbows knees or leg trapping even when it clearly would have been advantages.
2 Excedingly bad nerves, both fighters where tence as heck and there blows where suffering as a result.
3 No finishing, both fighters where on occasion in a postion to close and finish and yet seemed reluctant to actualy do the job at hand.
4 Clearly both fighters where uneducated in each others styles, the WC guy kept getting sucked into the TC exponents better use of close range and the TC guy kept falling for the WC exponents baits.
5 Both fighters had obviously *not* trained in (or been informed of) the format that was to be used for the competion. They both seemed confused as to the rules and neither made any attepet to exploit them which is usualy the trademark of any competant athleate in any sport. The old acconym "you must first know the rules in order to break them" seemed way to real in this encounter.

The decent:
1 Control of distance, both fighters seem to have a prefered range and both do there best to expoit this.
2 Conditioning, for better or worse they both take some nasty punishment.
3 Some brilliant slipping and defusing, there are a *lot* of strikes thrown in that match yet only a few land with any good impact. I prefer to think most of us can hit a static target with good force so this leads me to believe that they where at least making themselves hard to hit.
4 Some guy at the start who didnt even actualy fight did a great demo of Yang style Tai Chi :p
5 They made a lot of money for a good cause
6 What is clearly an old man takes on a much younger one with some good success. Maybe youth aint all its cracked up to be.
7 Wu exponent lands some mean lead jabs and often when his opponent is not only mid movment but actualy moving into the force of the jab.
8 WC exponent has quite good footwork (being also a trained wester boxer) and does a lot of circling and slipping in and out.
9 The fight did *not* go to the ground, must have been one of the elusive 10% :)
10 I have something to write about when ive had too many beers at 2.30am and its fifty years after the fact.

Tell im lame becouse i half enjoyed this fight, heck maybe im just morbid. Still ive seen better and ive certainly seen worse.
Im also suspect of that footage its p!ss poor quality and obviously edited highly.

Ok now im gonna duck and cover while everyone tells me my opinion is invalid and im just another brainless follower - with a lot of bruises.

Merryprankster

01-08-2003, 12:33 PM

Jon,

I agree that boxers are frequently knocked out of position. RARELY are they knocked off balance to such an extent that they look like they're about to fall off a balance beam. Plus, if you read what I wrote, the number of punches that land and do damage vs. the number that actually manage to knock them off balance was what I was comparing. A small percentage of punches thrown actually physically knock the fighters off balance or twist them around at odd angles. Of these, they infrequently send opponents hopping about. On the other hand, I saw what I consider to be a great deal of awkward recovering movements from both of these masters.

I believe you are decidedly incorrect about them being off-balance because of balance stealing. I believe you are attributing more skill than was being shown. I wrestled for several years, have a smattering of Judo and a decent amount of BJJ under my belt, and boxed for just long enough to get myself hurt if I ever actually try and use it :D. In any event, while I do not necessarily pride myself as an expert on punching and kicking, I'm pretty sure I understand balance breaking well enough to identify it. What I saw, wasn't it. Even when I had no Judo experience, I could understand the mechanics. When I look at a Shuai Chiao vid, I can understand the mechanics. When I watch this clip, the only balance stealing going on is when they trip over their own feet.

Tank is a straw man argument. You use him as a counter example to demonstrate that MMA legends aren't necessarily any more aware of footwork or yielding, etc, than our two masters, and you're ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. However, that's not really the issue, is it? Tank is a legend because he is an entertaining monster of a puncher with a big mouth. He's funny and fun to watch. Minotauro or Couture on the other hand, are legends because of their fight savvy and technical skills. They have excellent skills and wow you with their ability to USE WHAT THEY PRACTICE in a fight. These two masters didn't. That's the crux of the issue. So while I agree that some MMA legends aren't much in the way of technique, it's not really relevant to the conversation.

Re: my argument about the body being built the way it's built, so it can't all look that different. You sort of made my case for me. You pointed out that I had a great insight for a non-cma guy (a bit snotty in my mind, but I reciprocated with my catty remark at the end about needing a reality check--we'll call it even with no harm done). It wasn't an insight that any other competant artist couldn't have made regardless of style practiced. Why? Because the body is limited in function. That doesn't mean that certain things won't have their own flavor or be used in different, creative ways. It DOES mean, however, that certain fundamentals of movement must be maintained across the board. When these fundamentals are violated, the result is a sloppy mess.

As a side note, I don't think I misunderstood the WC power generation. An over hand right, looks VERY much like that. The arm is loose, and the fist hammers into the target. So it was pretty clear what was going on. However, I happen to believe it wasn't done well. It, along with the kicks (which were just bad) were what I meant by pushing. The punches and kicks were PUSHED out there to meet the target, not just thrown nice and loose with hands like clubs at the end of it.

The after fight effects you describe can be attributed to a simple lack of conditioning. You can chop even a conditioned man down with thai leg kicks. Doing it to an unconditioned person is like child's play. When I say conditioning, I'm just talking about "getting used to what this stuff feels like, and grinding through it." The first time I got slammed in wrestling, it was "Whuff," and it took the fight out of me. After that, it was de rigeur and it took a spectacular slam (like the one that popped my collarbone out of place), to phase me. Rather than me believing something wierd was going on, I chalk it up to them not knowing what a full contact whacking about is like and being surprised.

We will agree to disagree on the diffusion and evasion aspect. You saw a guy diffuse a good shot by almost falling out of the ring, for instance, where as I saw a guy with bad balance take an ok shot and nearly fall. A GOOD shot would have knocked him flat with that awful balance, and not just teeter him about.

At the end of it all, I saw a fight between two novices, not two masters. And I use novice in the sense of "new to full contact," because they obviously were. It's not a knock on them, again. They stepped up, and were inexperienced. It's just another example of why you need full contact sparring on a regular and frequent basis to really understand what you do.

red5angel

01-08-2003, 01:52 PM

This fight always cracks me up when I see it. I can't belive anyone calls these guys masters.

Can anyone here show me just one or two techniques in either system pulld off, not flawlessly, but even well? I saw one or two interesting shots, as some have already pointed out but these guys really look like they are flailing at each other. It reminds me of that video floating around with those two bikers flailing at each other, what's the difference?
I am not saying it has to look hollywood perfect but if you are a master you better dang well be representing whatever it is you are a master of.
I get so sick of this crap in CMA. A bunch of ameteurs claiming to be something they are not. I have met one guy, ONE that I believe I could not take, and you see in every move he makes, the art he studies. You see him in action you know what it is he is good at.
So what is the problem with all these other guys, about 99% of them, who can't put up?
It is especially glaring in CMA because these guys want to tout nigh mystical abilities, and knowledge so deep only a few know it, yet when it is time, they have almost nothing to show for it!

truewrestler

01-08-2003, 02:46 PM

Didn't Bruce Lee advocate sports (boxing, judo, etc) as a good way to perfect timing and technique???

Martial Arts(fighting/self-defense) is one of the few things in the world that I can think of where people try to get good, or think they are good, without ever trying it. A pianist becomes good by play for hundreds of hours on a piano, not by waiving their fingers in the air. Would you want a surgeon, that has only read about surgery, to operate on you? Sure a rifleman in the military doesn't fire real bullets at real people for training, but they come as close as possible to the real thing.

Why do people feel differently about Martial Arts??

red5angel

01-08-2003, 02:56 PM

truewrestler, good points. I have walked into quite a few CMA schools and kwoons that do not do a whole lot of sparring, much less full contact sparring yet these guys think they have attained a level of ability where it doesn't matter because they will be able to handle whatever comes :rolleyes:

Walter Joyce

01-08-2003, 03:04 PM

Anyone who doesn't include sparring/non-co-operative methods in their training is NOT training in a Martial Art.

BTW, to me wrestling and boxing are both martial arts, and probably two of the most realistic.

FWIW

jon

01-08-2003, 05:21 PM

Merry
As always quality rebutals, i have to be carefull here becouse i agree with much more than i disagree with amoungst your arguements. Im partialy only doing this for the sake of it and also partly becouse im having fun just analysing the fight.

"Plus, if you read what I wrote, the number of punches that land and do damage vs. the number that actually manage to knock them off balance was what I was comparing."
* I personaly saw a lot of this as being due to the constant checking and blocking. I saw the Wu style guy for example using a lot of jerking blocks and actualy pulling his opponent off balance - then hitting him when he was not grounded.

"On the other hand, I saw what I consider to be a great deal of awkward recovering movements from both of these masters"
* I gotta admit, i should have been much more clear on this, there dodging may have been mildly effective in the matter at hand but as you point out yourself it was still poorly executed and often left them very open to follow ups (which still no one used). Still then again some of the basic slipping was not awefull. The wu stylist in particular seems pretty good at slipping leads and the returning fire with his own. Not exactly a good boxers standard but its still there.

"I believe you are decidedly incorrect about them being off-balance because of balance stealing."
* Yikes ive never been told im 'decidedly incorrect' before hehe i feel kinda dirty :(
Seriously though I think here we are looking at two different things. You are looking for examples of people actively jostling for the centre ala a wrestling match or even a Tai Chi push hands comp. What I meant within in this fight (of the unbalancing variety) is more to do with the way that blocks are executed. Both fighters attempt to use each others bridges to whip there opponents into there strikes. This can often be seen by one exponent pulling down sharply on there opponents arm and forcing the recovery or attempting to jam. Sadly this was often one of the aspects of the fight which suffered badly from nerves and as such the fighters useing there arms instead of there bodys to do the dropping. This has the effect of making the practioners look like there trying to use there arms like hammers to hit the bridge - not a great look.

"Tank is a straw man argument."
* given...
However my point here is partialy also that you get good at what you train. Early NHB was nothing to what it is today, why are we all so supprised that this fight in particular was poor? Especialy when weighing in all the circumstances. Maybe these guys 'could' have been really good given a few matches to practice the rules - who knows?

"You sort of made my case for me. You pointed out that I had a great insight for a non-cma guy (a bit snotty in my mind, but I reciprocated with my catty remark at the end about needing a reality check--we'll call it even with no harm done)."
* Appologys... I did not mean that the way it came out. When i said 'for a non cma practioner' i did *not* mean that only cma can understand things such as rotational power or rooting. The reason i said this was simply you where not a chinese martial artist yet where doing an exceptionaly good job and picking up on the body mechanics of two people who are. Human movement is just that, still doesnt mean i cant give credit where its due. I honestly thought it was a great observation comming from a non chinese stylist - there was no disrespect intended.

"It wasn't an insight that any other competant artist couldn't have made regardless of style practiced."
* Never said it was, still i prefer to call a spade a spade and this thread already has heated emotions. I was hoping to keep our discussion as respectfull as possible. I was maybe stroking your ego but it was in the hope of further good will.

"Because the body is limited in function."
* Disagree, the human body is capable of extraoridinary diversity. Some things may be similar or even uniform but that does not detract from the unique aspects. Pointless to debate but never the less.

"That doesn't mean that certain things won't have their own flavor or be used in different, creative ways. It DOES mean, however, that certain fundamentals of movement must be maintained across the board. When these fundamentals are violated, the result is a sloppy mess."
* Very tricky comment, this is what i was hinting at above.
The body is different and minds are different. What works ammazingly for some may be next to useless for others. How is it that whole countrys fighting technqiues are coloured by the indiginous populations builds? There are many different ways even to deliver a strait linear strike, look at the difference between Bajiquan and silat.
I can concede there are some fundamentals and i can also concede that balance should be one of them. However im also not willing to judge fully what i dont understand. I dont practice either Wu style or WC (though ive somehow managed to be hit by both on seperate occasions) so im simply not that keen on casting aspersions on there choosen methods of power generation.

"As a side note, I don't think I misunderstood the WC power generation. An over hand right, looks VERY much like that. The arm is loose, and the fist hammers into the target. So it was pretty clear what was going on. However, I happen to believe it wasn't done well. It, along with the kicks (which were just bad) were what I meant by pushing. The punches and kicks were PUSHED out there to meet the target, not just thrown nice and loose with hands like clubs at the end of it."
* Ok i think i have got what you mean here, I gotta say now i understand your comments better ill also agree with this as well. The wu exponent in particular seemed to be actualy reaching with his punches instead of driving them. I also think this was the reason that the Wu exponent kept throwing 'himself' off balance:rolleyes: You can also notice both partys are ammazingly unprepared for misses. Each time one of them hits nothing but air they almost launch themselfs after the punch. Clear nerves in my humblest.

"The after fight effects you describe can be attributed to a simple lack of conditioning."
* To be honest i doubt it, still this is certainly a possibility.

"We will agree to disagree on the diffusion and evasion aspect. You saw a guy diffuse a good shot by almost falling out of the ring, for instance, where as I saw a guy with bad balance take an ok shot and nearly fall."
* Ok ill tell you what i saw i liked exactly.
During this exchange the WC exponent basicaly whips the Wu stylist into a hook punch. The wu stylist knowing he has been already off balanced go's 'with' his opponents whip and allows himself to be actively drawn into the strike. At the last moment he then drives his head and body right forward making the strike contact the side of his head with redused impact instead of his face with the full brunt. He then ducks down and allows the blow to keep moving him in the same direction. I will say it looked odd and even imcompetant and was certainly not a good move in terms of defence (left him open). However the fact remains he took that punch and didnt come out badly at all - even if he did have a brief meeting with the ropes(what boxer hasnt?).

"At the end of it all, I saw a fight between two novices, not two masters. And I use novice in the sense of "new to full contact," because they obviously were. It's not a knock on them, again. They stepped up, and were inexperienced. It's just another example of why you need full contact sparring on a regular and frequent basis to really understand what you do."
* Can understand that compleatly, also agree with you on the lack of experience issue.
However this has also been my point all along, why do people make such a big deal of this fight? People seem to come at it from such extreame angles - it was the worst fight ever or conversly it was the battle of the masters. I just dont get why everyone makes it out to be such a big deal.

One thing ive heard but am not dead sure on: Still its kind of interesting anyway.
The guy who was doing the demo of Yang style was student of Yang Chen Fu - he was so unimpressed with the fight he visted the Wu stylist prior to the fight and berated him.
The WC practioner from what ive heard was actualy a relatively new up and comming student - NOT a master (at the time of the fight, he certainly went on to become a master however). He was picked becouse there was some arguement with the Wu exponents school and they wished to have him beaten by a junior level student and not one of there seniors. They thought this would bring them better face. In the end it had the opposite effect becouse being a new student he didnt really have a good handle on his basics and got his WC confused with his boxing turning his execution into a confused mish mash.
I cant confirm this is just what ive heard, this fight is not exactly known for its brilliance amoungst cma circles. My sifus father was certainly unimpressed and his main sparring partner was a Wu stylist who was also pretty upset at the event.

Anyway thanks for your responce and good value insights.
Jon

jon

01-08-2003, 05:38 PM

truewrestler

How many in the army have ever shot at a live target? Should they be protecting your country?
How many in the paratroopers have done live drops into enemy occupied territory under artilary fire? Should they bother to attempt it if they have to scramble?
How many pilots have been forced to make a water landing with an engine on fire? Should they still be allowed to fly?
Unfortunately in this world some things simply cant be proparly tested. Surprisingly trying to kill people is one of them.

lkfmdc

01-08-2003, 06:24 PM

The fact the US is a civilized country with the rule of law prevents some of the methods other military does, for example, Russian special forces in teh past were locked in a room with Gulag inmates. The Gulag inmate was told he could go free if he could kill the soldier. NO, I am not making that up. NO US military would be allowed to do such things. HOwever, you do realize that they do excercises with LIVE AMMUNITION don't you?

truewrestler

01-08-2003, 08:05 PM

jon,

Everything you just said proved my point. These people have trained as close as possible to the circumstances they will encounter. Everything after that makes them better and better until they are "veterans".

This does simply not correlate to "Martial Arts". "Martial Artists" dismiss this as SPORT that will limit or taint their deadly abilities.

"Unfortunately in this world some things simply cant be proparly tested. Surprisingly trying to kill people is one of them."

That is EXACTLY the point of sparring and competition. You can become great at techniques that can be trained. Why wonder if you can break someone's neck or poke them to death when you know for certain that you can choke them unconcious, knock them out or apply a crippling lock because you have done it countless times in sparring and competition against resisting opponents that have trained to defend these attacks.

Merryprankster

01-08-2003, 08:22 PM

Jon--no offense was taken, and I hope none given. Thanks for your time! :D I apologize if anything was misconstrued--I can be direct and this sometimes comes across wrong on the internet.

I'll watch the vid again some time and see if I can spot what you are talking about.

jon

01-09-2003, 02:17 AM

truewrestler

With all due respect i think you have my arguement a little backwards. Ill happily accept responsiblity as the internet is a imperfect medium for communication and im personaly not exactly famous for being able to get my point accross.

However i have *no* arguement with you that sparring and live work with resisting opponents is vital to developing proper preasure proof skill. What i was trying to get at is that some aspects of this sort of skill simply cant be constantly drilled. It does not however mean it should not be trained.
Ill take my point about the pilots as example.
Its of course reasonable to assume your pilot has good flying time logged and some good emergency training. Its unreasonable to expect him\her to have actualy been *in* an emergency situation. Occasionaly you have to just do the best you can with commen sence and logic and then hope to god it all pans out that way in the real world.

Im in no way trying to imply your wrong about many so called 'masters' of 'fighting' being nothing more than purveyours of wishfull thinking. What im trying to get at is that some aspects of training will always remain 'practice only' becouse that is the very nature of what you train.

lkfmdc
"HOwever, you do realize that they do excercises with LIVE AMMUNITION don't you?"
* Please calm down, if ive said something which has upset you then please state it and ill do my best to reciprocate. Otherwise there is a definate tone of anger to your post and your question makes *very* little sence given the context of my post.
Does live ammo mean they shoot at live targets?
Does live ammo mean they get practice while being shot *at*?
Does live ammo mean they are still accurate when there best friend is being turned into swiss cheese right infront of them?

The idea of forcing soliders to have life or death battles 'before' they go *into* battle against a real enemy is ludicrous for one simple reason. Any soldier who 'could' have made an enemy kill (or even been used as a human shield for his peers) but was instead killed during training is a darn waste of time, money and resourses.

Merryprankster

01-09-2003, 03:30 AM

Jon,

I think the problem with all this can be summed up:

These fellows were supposed to be masters. How is it that one can be a master and not able to use the skills they supposedly practice.

I find their fight completely excusable for novices full contact sparring for the first few times, but inexplicable if the term "master," is going to be thrown about.

As Truewrestler has pointed out, MA's are the only arena in life you can be considered an expert by an awful lot of people and never ONCE have demonstrated an ability to actually DO what you practice. Nobody is asking for life and death drama, or that a master be the very best fighter, but the ability to punch kick, throw against another guy trying to do the same should be a necessary qualification. By the time you're teaching or termed master, you certainly should be able to show you've got the goods--again, not asking for the best of the best, but some obvious experience.

fiercest tiger

01-09-2003, 04:04 AM

LOL, dude you and your long posts!!:)

The fight wasnt very advanced fighting and showed that they did have the b@lls to enter, but was sloppy all the same. I liked the 1st punch by the taiji guy to the gob, but liked the kick to the kegs by the crane sifu.

I would have taken them both on.......;) :p

FT:D

jon

01-09-2003, 05:10 AM

Merryprankster
To be short and sweet i agree entirely. Ive also never claimed either of these fighters to be 'masters', although i believe the WC exponent went on to become one. The term is subjective and depends on the person using it. Personaly i did not see what i like to term 'mastery' and as such (to me) there simply two guys going the tonk.

fiercest tiger
lol yeah i know im sucker, i seem to always end up in these debates and half the time i dont even draw a clear line at what im trying to argue. I think part of the problem here is my personal view is that the fight wasnt 'horrible' but was still pretty darn shocking. Not an easy position to argue effectively, i probarly should have kept my mouth shut. Still im always keen to learn and learning is usualy done though adversity.

"I would have taken them both on....... "
* lol you would have won within seconds ;)

lkfmdc

01-09-2003, 08:00 AM

my point was simple, your statement was incorrect, Training with live ammunition means exactly that, real bullets are flying over your head during the exercises... as for someone dying, YES, it happens, and as I said, the statement about Soviet forces is true and well documented

you can not believe it if you wish, but it's true

jon

01-09-2003, 03:48 PM

lkfmdc

"my point was simple"
* No it wasnt, you asked a question which bared no relevence to my original argument and gave out a story which sounded more like a fairy tale.

"your statement was incorrect"
* Pray tell, what about my statement was 'incorrect'?

"Training with live ammunition means exactly that, real bullets are flying over your head during the exercises..."
* No it does not, that would be training under live fire. A totaly different thing and something which is also not done in this day and age. What you discribe is simply shooting with real bullets. Surprisingly blanks dont leave marks in targets so i guess that makes all the guys down my local target gun club cold killers as well becouse they use 'live' ammunition?

"as for someone dying, YES, it happens,"
* Ding Dong - my point was that it would be a... lets see what i wrote up there...."a darn waste of time, money and resourses." The glaringly obvious point being that having people killed during training is something to be avoided like the plague.

"the statement about Soviet forces is true and well documented"
* I never tried to imply it wasnt, my point was its a stupid practice. Who cares if you can beat up an undernourished scared and already physicaly and mentaly comprimised prisoner, the time spent training that would have been much better spent elsewhere. If this was an effective practice lets ask a little question like why its not used elsewhere? Do the soviet military still use this practice?

fiercest tiger

01-09-2003, 04:56 PM

All this over a silly fight?!

jon,

I would have been the guy that got smacked in the mouth......lol

when we going to have another yum cha?:)

you should be called fiercest tiger bro.....lol mini fiercest hahahaha

take care
FT

jon

01-09-2003, 06:11 PM

fiercest tiger

lol yeah i need to stop taking such things so seriously, especialy when im the idiot who stated that people get too worked up about this fight in the first place:rolleyes: Young dumb and full of errrrm chi?

Yum Cha sounds like a great idea, im gonna hopefully be taking some time off this month and we are doing heaps over Chinese new years so should have a bit more free time.
Ill get in contact with you and we can figure something out anyway.

all the best (crawling back into my private cave to yell at my reflection in the rock pool:p)
Jon

fiercest tiger

01-09-2003, 06:49 PM

sure no probs, ykm will be demoing in chinatown at the end of the month with lion dancing and some kung fu demos. I'll be getting my guys to demo , i wont be doing demos this year i have a shoulder injury.:(

anyway catch up soon and get some of the other guys together like last time it was good.

FT GARRY:)

friday

01-09-2003, 07:25 PM

hey jon

i should be going next thursday nite to check out the BJJ class at Jin Wu Kwoon i think its about 7:30pm. i think its a bit expensive to go to $15 per class but i just want to go look sweaty dog mite be there u want to come and check it out with me?

as for yum cha!!!!! aren't i invited???

FT
wheres the closest station for me to turn up to near your kwoon?
i'm really bad at defending kicks so i think i need to work that a bit.

again yum cha is good let me know when and where guys

:)

friday
ps btw i saw your reply on the how u see kfo members thread. batman???? hahaha anyway i think your rite you look more like a spiderman.

fiercest tiger

01-09-2003, 09:50 PM

merrylands station, get there around 3pm so we can do some stuff and chat and if you like you can join in the night class etc?

call me the day before incase plans change for both you and i!

FT:D

wiz cool c

01-09-2003, 11:49 PM

Now can every one who read this thread please go buy my cd. www.cdnow.com {search by artist} Wiz Cool C.

lkfmdc

01-10-2003, 09:22 AM

Jon, you really aren't getting this are you?

We told you if you don't do it for real, it isn't going to work when it has to. Your response was to ask if our military trains "for real" and my answer was "YES"

And once again, YES, you are incorrect on a number of issues.

Whatever symantic issues you want to play, the reality is that the military does train for real, and even if you don't know about it doesn't make it not so. My guess, you don't know thing #1 about real military training.

From a military point of view, learning that your force is useless and is going to get killed is better learned in training than in combat. Tough issue for many to understand or accept, but from a military training and planning point of view, better a few dead in BT than a lot dead in action. Argue with me if you want, it's true, just deal with it

How the Soviet Union trained its forces in no "fairy tale" no matter what you want to believe. YOu can call it stupid, but let's remember that you are NOT in charge of an advanced sophisticated military force now are you?

As for your last question, perhaps I should ask if you are aware there is no longer a Soviet Union?

jon

01-10-2003, 04:47 PM

"Jon, you really aren't getting this are you?"
* Good point.

"We told you if you don't do it for real, it isn't going to work when it has to."
* That is a rubbish, 'isnt going to work' apperently you know the outcome of every situation before it begins. No point arguing with someone who has already made up there mind.

"Your response was to ask if our military trains "for real" and my answer was "YES""
* I never asked this question, reread my posts. I stated there are certain things they CANT train for real for very obvious reasons.

"And once again, YES, you are incorrect on a number of issues."
* Would not be the first time.

"Whatever symantic issues you want to play, the reality is that the military does train for real, and even if you don't know about it doesn't make it not so. My guess, you don't know thing #1 about real military training."
* There is no point continuing on down this line as your trying to make an case for me which ive never tried to put forward. Im no expert on the military and have never pretended to be.

"From a military point of view, learning that your force is useless and is going to get killed is better learned in training than in combat."
* No arguement here, what the heck are you telling me this for? Did i ever try to state that training was un nessersary?

"Tough issue for many to understand or accept, but from a military training and planning point of view, better a few dead in BT than a lot dead in action. Argue with me if you want, it's true, just deal with it"
* Ive never argued the point of training, ill happily argue the idea that they deliberately put there soldiers in 'training' in situations where death is probable.

"How the Soviet Union trained its forces in no "fairy tale" no matter what you want to believe. YOu can call it stupid, but let's remember that you are NOT in charge of an advanced sophisticated military force now are you?"
* Yeah i stand corrected, forcing your soldiers to fight prisoners is a top training method. It must be so becouse it was used by the Soviets...

"As for your last question, perhaps I should ask if you are aware there is no longer a Soviet Union?"
* Yes all that millitary expertise really paid off didnt it.

Now im going to work while my dog of 12 years gets put down by my parents, as such im not posting again and couldnt give a monkeys ass what else you wish to try and insinuate.
Have a nice day i know i wont be...