Old Age

[foolinthedeck]

I'd like a pay a little respect to Ip Chun and others like him for still going strong at the age they are.

There are many people on this forum trolling and flaming about power, about this about that, the fundamental goal IMO should be to be still practicing when we are old.

There is nothing i would like more than to be still practicing Wing Chun age 70 and beyond, having young people respect my skill and wisdom and seek me out to come and train with me.

Currently I work with the elderley and physically disabled, everyday i see arthritis stricken men and women who have little left to do except sit in their chairs and wait for the inevitable. How much better to have siu lim tao, chi sau etc..

On the subject of training i would also like to encourage everyone reading this to train hard but softly, train internal, train for your old age, not just for fa jing now. I work with several Stroke victims - theres nothing like it to make me realise how lucky i am and how my body works how i want it to. I am not saying Wing Chun stops strokes, no, just that what we do is important and in the long term also.

give it 50 years and i expect to see a special forum here for all the old people - for us, when all we have left is our zimmer frames, our daily practice and our internet connection.

[kj]

Originally posted by foolinthedeck
give it 50 years and i expect to see a special forum here for all the old people - for us, when all we have left is our zimmer frames, our daily practice and our internet connection.

50 years! :confused:
Why, you're just a youngun' aren't ye. ;)

Regards,
- Kathy Jo

[t_niehoff]

foolinthedeck wrote:

There are many people on this forum trolling and flaming about power, about this about that, the fundamental goal IMO should be to be still practicing when we are old. . . There is nothing i would like more than to be still practicing Wing Chun age 70 and beyond, having young people respect my skill and wisdom and seek me out to come and train with me. F

Poppy****! I don't agree that the fundamental goal of WCK is "to still be practicing when we're old" -- it is to develop certain specific skills and an approach toward fighting that we can use effectively. If you have those skills -- regardless of your age -- then you can demonstrate them; if you don't . . . well, I guess you can call yourself "grandmaster". ;) If you can use your skills effectively, then you can make them work against a larger, skilled, resisting opponent; if not, well . . . you can claim to have had lots of fights or that your system is somehow superior. People go out and train with all kinds of people, most of them have no real skills and couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag. But they have a "name" or an association or a reputation of beating up other high-school kids or claim that they alone have some "secret" -- all nonsense. Now don't get me wrong, I admire old-timers like Helio Gracie and the late Sum Nung (btw, Sum had great power into his 70's because he had developed it; if they don't have it in their 70's it means they never had it) -- they are both martial artists in the truest sense of the word, and I admire them for their *proven accomplishments*, their demonstrable skill and the knowledge they have accumulated. I don't admire them for just getting old and being able to "go thru the motions." TN

Terence

[William E]

Great post foolinthedeck.

foolinthedeck wrote> There is nothing i would like more than to be still practicing Wing Chun age 70 and beyond, having young people respect my skill and wisdom and seek me out to come and train with me.

In typical Terrence fashion, he has taken a really good post and has twisted the words all around.

Terrence wrote> Poppy****! I don't agree that the fundamental goal of WCK is "to still be practicing when we're old" -- it is to develop certain specific skills and an approach toward fighting that we can use effectively.

Not sure where the fundamental goal of WCK was ever mentioned in this post.....

[yuanfen]

foolingthe deck- the best that one can be at any age (young or old)- is not a bad goal. In good kung fu if one trains right- continued development of martial skill can occur upto a point later than sport and athleticism alone.

[kungfu cowboy]

Soon science wll revolutionize the way we revolutionize science.

[John Weiland]

Originally posted by foolinthedeck
I'd like a pay a little respect to Ip Chun and others like him for still going strong at the age they are.

How old are Ip Chun and Ip Ching? Maybe they just look old. Are they as old as Yip Man's first students?

If you're for showing respect for age, there's nothing wrong with that. :) I'm with Terence though for showing respect for actual skill at any age.

Regards,

[Phil Redmond]

Naw, I can't believe Terence is trolling. Not the Terence that we all know and love. Hmmm, maybe it's just me. He's too critical of trolls to do the same thing. Right?
Phil

[Ultimatewingchun]

Terence:

You need to read one of the latest posts on the TO BE OR NOT TO BE THREAD that is entitled:

IT'S AN OUTRAGE!

Your disrespect for the historical facts, and for the abilities of a certain Grandmaster who, at his current age of 62 ...could still punch and kick your a## all around the room - is a sign of not only stupidity but also of a very deceitful character...

[canglong]

I do think the practice of kung fu is a good thing to slow down some of the negative effects of aging. All that was stated by foolinthedeck was stated well and seems very insightful. I also agree that if you have read one of Terence's post you have read them all.



If you're for showing respect for age, there's nothing wrong with that. I'm with Terence though for showing respect for actual skill at any age. John

Reading your statement I am left wondering how many people you think practicing kung fu can't or don't appreciate skill?

[John Weiland]

Originally posted by canglong
If you're for showing respect for age, there's nothing wrong with that. I'm with Terence though for showing respect for actual skill at any age. John

Reading your statement I am left wondering how many people you think practicing kung fu can't or don't appreciate skill?
Too many for me to count. And, it isn't the novices that concern me. My major disagreement with Terence is that it isn't all Wing Chun. Some is, some isn't. PlanetWC recently made this same observation. If it doesn't follow Wing Chun principles, such as the five listed in Atleastimnotyou's and PlanetWC's sigs:


kim sut
lok ma
ting yu
dung tao
mai jiang


then, likely it is not Wing Chun at all. Certainly it isn't Yip Man's Wing Chun. And this is fine. People can concoct whatever MA compendium they want. But, calling it Wing Chun is misleading. Yip Man's was the definitive Wing Chun in his lifetime, if not of all time. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it. :D

Regards,

[Fresh]

Originally posted by t_niehoff
foolinthedeck wrote:

There are many people on this forum trolling and flaming about power, about this about that, the fundamental goal IMO should be to be still practicing when we are old. . . There is nothing i would like more than to be still practicing Wing Chun age 70 and beyond, having young people respect my skill and wisdom and seek me out to come and train with me. F

Poppy****! I don't agree that the fundamental goal of WCK is "to still be practicing when we're old" -- it is to develop certain specific skills and an approach toward fighting that we can use effectively. If you have those skills -- regardless of your age -- then you can demonstrate them; if you don't . . . well, I guess you can call yourself "grandmaster". ;) If you can use your skills effectively, then you can make them work against a larger, skilled, resisting opponent; if not, well . . . you can claim to have had lots of fights or that your system is somehow superior. People go out and train with all kinds of people, most of them have no real skills and couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag. But they have a "name" or an association or a reputation of beating up other high-school kids or claim that they alone have some "secret" -- all nonsense. Now don't get me wrong, I admire old-timers like Helio Gracie and the late Sum Nung (btw, Sum had great power into his 70's because he had developed it; if they don't have it in their 70's it means they never had it) -- they are both martial artists in the truest sense of the word, and I admire them for their *proven accomplishments*, their demonstrable skill and the knowledge they have accumulated. I don't admire them for just getting old and being able to "go thru the motions." TN

Terence

Yeah. When old people beat the living crap out of each other its great for them and great for the art. :rolleyes: Sometimes I have to wonder what kind of a world you live in or if you just have trouble expressing your self about some things.

[canglong]

John, please clarify what your last post has to do with skill or does it.

[t_niehoff]

Phil Redmond wrote:

I can't believe Terence is trolling. Not the Terence that we all know and love. Hmmm, maybe it's just me. He's too critical of trolls to do the same thing. Right? PR

I'm not trolling but expressing my informed opinion which I explained. Perhaps you need to reacquaint yourself with the definition of "trolling." TN

----------------------------

Fresh wrote:

When old people beat the living crap out of each other its great for them and great for the art. Sometimes I have to wonder what kind of a world you live in or if you just have trouble expressing your self about some things. F

Is it that I have trouble expressing myself or that some folks don't have a high level of reading comprehension? The point of my post is clear (John W. got it): that we should respect skill, not age or time in the art or that a person is a "name" or any of the other substitutes for skill people commonly used to market themselves. And skill isn't in my book "well, he looks good to me." Skill can be more objectively shown -- by doing what you say you can do against skilled, resisting opponents (not by a demo with cooperative stuntmen). Helio and Sum have skill, skill they have demonstrated again and again over the years against skilled, resisting opponents. TN

------------------------------

canglong wrote:

Reading your (John's) statement I am left wondering how many people you think practicing kung fu can't or don't appreciate skill? C

It doesn't matter who we *believe* has skill or not (that belief could be mistaken) -- the issue is do they actually have skill and to what degree. How do we *know*? The only way to make that determination is by seeing the results of that skill in action (how do you tell if someone is a good tennis player or musician or surgeon?). WCK is a martial art, and any skill we have should be able to be used against skilled, resisting opponents. TN

-------------------------------

John Weiland wrote:

My major disagreement with Terence is that it isn't all Wing Chun. Some is, some isn't. PlanetWC recently made this same observation. If it doesn't follow Wing Chun principles, such as the five listed in Atleastimnotyou's and PlanetWC's sigs: kim sut, lok ma, ting yu, dung tao, mai jiang then, likely it is not Wing Chun at all. JW

Any fighting method can be defined by its tools (since the tools reflect the approach taken to implementing the specific approach of that method), and the core of WCK is its tools: the jik chung choi, YJKYM, tan, bong, fook, etc. So, IMO if it has these things - regardless of how well or poorly they are used - it can be called WCK. The "principles" you list aren't principles at all IMO, but are physical descriptions (shapes). WCK is IMO formless and not bound by shape. These "principles" you list are common physical expressions that are the by-products of underlying body mechanics; it is these mechanics that are the "principles". Too many people mistakenly focus on the by-product instead of the mechanics themselves (which will naturally produce these by-products). TN

Terence

[canglong]

It doesn't matter who we *believe* has skill or not (that belief could be mistaken) -- the issue is do they actually have skill and to what degree. How do we *know*? The only way to make that determination is by seeing the results of that skill in action (how do you tell if someone is a good tennis player or musician or surgeon?). WCK is a martial art, and any skill we have should be able to be used against skilled, resisting opponents. Terence


There is also a distinct difference in believing in ones own skill and being able to recognize and appreciate skill in yourself or others, which is what my original question pertains to.