Grappling at Wing Chun????? [Archive] - Kung Fu Magazine Forums

blooming lotus

07-24-2004, 08:27 PM

Lets talk Wc and grappling, throws, locks, holds and takedowns..............

we all know these things are are an essential part of any complete art .......... so in Wing Chun, no sarcasim about it.where exactly is this represented???.........

I may've overlooked something, but here's my take......

It has been a contraversial discussion over and over whether r not dimmak is part of the WC sysytem no???.........

Here's what I know.........

a. dimmak has " mythical " root in Wc.....

b. Dimmak in china is commonly know as chin na....

c. chin na is a conceptual lock, hold and point manipulation sytem of shaolin

d. there are rumours that WC's 5 elders were directly or otherwise affiliated with shaolin.

e. Wing chn, Vin tsun, is a taiwanese phrase....

f. according to the legend of the five elders, and the red opera, some of these and their students defected / escaped abroad.

g. you will find cause to argue every point I made........

soooo.........if giving benifit of doubt to my statements and conclusions.........where is the grappling etc at Wing Chun????????

Ultimatewingchun

07-24-2004, 08:31 PM

Good Wing Chun doesn't need grappling.

sihing

07-24-2004, 08:59 PM

Wing Chun Does not "concentrate" on Grappling, but it shouldn't ignore it since it is all already in the system, just not done the same way as other styles or specific systems of grappling, and since just for the fact that there are and will be more and more grapplers out there we as WC players should look at that range and know how to deal with it. As for Chin-na(which in my mind means joint-locks, pressure point manipulation, more passive techniques), again it is all in the system, we use it all the time in class, but it is one of those things that is hard to actually apply in real life, you can't make it happen(unless your really skilled at it like Aikido/Jujitsu masters). I advise the students that these types of things have to be applied at the right moment, when the opportunity arise for it to work effectively. Dim-Mak, "the death touch", I believe it exists, but with all the specific training involved, and TCM knowledge of pressure points and chi energy patterns and such, it is just not practical in today's world, or reliable. I'd rather learn Iron Palm, at least with this I can hit you anywhere on your body, at any time of the day/season, from inches away from your body and seriously hurt you or kill you.

Sihing

AmanuJRY

07-24-2004, 10:32 PM

Wing Chun does not have any grappling, traditionally at least (not that I have seen anyway).

To understand why this is you must understand strategy in martial arts. Every art has it's 'base' strategy, TKD's is to keep your opponent inside kick range; hence the focus on developing kicking ability, Jujitsu and other grappling arts is to shoot past other ranges into clinch/grappling range, and Wing Chun's is in-fighting range (I call it this, it is a blend of kick, punch and elbow ranges). Other traditional arts usually focus there strategy in one or a few ranges (kick, punch, elbow, clinch, ground), but most do not address all ranges.

That being said, IMO it is wise to add at least a study of grappling to your training to understand how to employ you WC kung fu (note: literal translation) against it and to understand grappling's usefulness.

Know thy enemy.....so to speak.

anerlich

07-24-2004, 10:49 PM

As I think Rene or KWJ, or was it Merryprankster, said, Wing Chun grappling is about as good as BJJ striking.

Know thy enemy

Or better yet, befriend them and learn from them.

AmanuJRY

07-24-2004, 10:59 PM

The idea of befriending one's enemy is an oxymoron that would create an infinate loop and crash my system, were I to try to concieve it.

But learning from one's enemy......I have posted before that your enemy can teach you the most profound lessons.

anerlich

07-24-2004, 11:19 PM

Bad phrasing on my part.

My point is, why see grapplers as your enemy? I've met some top people and great martial artists amongst "the enemy" since my academy became a BJJ affiliate.

I'm not suggesting changing sides, I'm suggesting that the taking of sides at all is the wrong way to look at it.

The bad guys are the criminals on the street, not people who train a different MA from you.

namron

07-25-2004, 03:00 AM

Quote:"I'd rather learn Iron Palm, at least with this I can hit you anywhere on your body, at any time of the day/season, from inches away from your body and seriously hurt you or kill you."

Theres a kettle of fish if I ever seen one!

Never been big on the death touch iron palm connection. I've found it good for improving striking/blocking power, although so it should if you spent an hour a day, every day developing that degree of conditioning as well as wrist and elbow co-ordination by hitting the sandbag.

Grappling is another phase of combat that IMO is important to have a knowledge base in.

That having been said i personally have a lot of growing to do in these areas, but to date I've found Clinch work and ground work are great fun are a great work out in addition to being a good study on ranges.

In past I've seen alot of contact sparing or chi-sau clash with forward energy and turn into a woeful wrestle, myself included. The magic in the grappling is the familiarity with a different range from which a branch of options sprouts. (i.e. control the fight in the standing phase, or take it to the ground).

As for small joint manipulation in particular wrist holds IMO they can be a risky option in the standing position and then once applied often need finishing locks if you wish to fully restrain someone. Personally I have found only a handleful of Aikido locks are direct enough for use on a resisting opponent.

blooming lotus

07-25-2004, 05:39 AM

Originally posted by sihing
Wing Chun Does not "concentrate" on Grappling, but it shouldn't ignore it since it is all already in the system, just not done the same way as other styles or specific systems of grappling, and since just for the fact that there are and will be more and more grapplers out there we as WC players should look at that range and know how to deal with it. As for Chin-na(which in my mind means joint-locks, pressure point manipulation, more passive techniques), again it is all in the system, we use it all the time in class, but it is one of those things that is hard to actually apply in real life, you can't make it happen(unless your really skilled at it like Aikido/Jujitsu masters). I advise the students that these types of things have to be applied at the right moment, when the opportunity arise for it to work effectively. Dim-Mak, "the death touch",Sihing

dimmak as a style is a genric term..........to have your dimmak and be able to apply it to another base style ( like me and my aikido.......even though not a master) is probably how it evolves to here in china interperate as chin na........coi-incincidently its' oriniginal form ...........lol...........yes I am surmising and all I have is logic and facts to support it.

blooming lotus

07-25-2004, 05:44 AM

Originally posted by AmanuJRY
Wing Chun does not have any grappling, traditionally at least (not that I have seen anyway).

To understand why this is you must understand strategy in martial arts. Every art has it's 'base' strategy, TKD's is to keep your opponent inside kick range; hence the focus on developing kicking ability, Jujitsu and other grappling arts is to shoot past other ranges into clinch/grappling range, and Wing Chun's is in-fighting range .

and as we all know, in-fighting range and grappling are clearly extremely different ...........

on small joint maipulation , chin na not neccesarily exclusive to this...........

on iron palm vs dimmak.........iron body vs irom palm + dimmak = strike proof torso and freedom to defend elsewhere;

AmanuJRY

07-25-2004, 07:35 AM

Originally posted by anerlich
Bad phrasing on my part.

My point is, why see grapplers as your enemy? I've met some top people and great martial artists amongst "the enemy" since my academy became a BJJ affiliate.

I'm not suggesting changing sides, I'm suggesting that the taking of sides at all is the wrong way to look at it.

The bad guys are the criminals on the street, not people who train a different MA from you.

Bad phrasing on my part as well, I guess.....:D

I don't mean to suggest that grapplers are the enemy, just that there is a good chance that one of the 'bad guys' may know a thing or two about some sort of grappling art.....be it BJJ or high school wrestling.

I think there is a standing belief that grapplers are WCers enemy, because grapplers have given WCers the biggest challenge to their ability. Many people get jealous, mad or otherwise upset at this and relate to them as foe, but this is just not true. People are people, regardless of art, social or religeous affiliation.

Vajramusti

07-25-2004, 08:18 AM

Grappling at Wing Chun?????
Lets talk Wc and grappling, throws, locks, holds and takedowns..............
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Blooming Lotus- if you check past posts and archives I think that you will find lots of discussions on this/these topic(s).

FooFighter

07-25-2004, 08:27 AM

"The bad guys are the criminals on the street, not people who train a different MA from you."

Excellent quote. I will borrow it and of course mentioned the author. This an good quote for mo duk.

AmanuJRY

07-25-2004, 09:05 AM

Here is a question that I have not seen posted on any thread regarding this topic (at least none I have read).

Why did the 'creator(s)' of WC not include any kind of grappling in the original system?

As Victor said, 'good WC doesn't need grappling', yet we all agree that a knowledge of it is imperetive, why didn't the 'creator(s)' see this stream of logic?

Surely, several forms of grappling existed during the time of it's creation.

Ultimatewingchun

07-25-2004, 09:21 AM

AmanuJRY...about this:

"Why did the 'creator(s)' of WC not include any kind of grappling in the original system?

As Victor said, 'good WC doesn't need grappling', yet we all agree that a knowledge of it is imperetive, why didn't the 'creator(s)' see this stream of logic?

Surely, several forms of grappling existed during the time of it's creation."

I was being quite ironic with my remark...for although there is a limited amount of chin na in Wing Chun - and some very good standing grappling that features armlocks and throws within the Weng Chun system...

the fact is...grappling IS missing from Wing Chun...and I myself have started many threads in the not-too-distant past about the importance of grappling...and specifically - why I think it is essential to add grappling to one's fighting arsenal of weapons.

I am an advocate/student/teacher of Catch-as-Catch-can Wrestling...as a matter of fact.

And one of the reasons for my enthusiasm for wrestling has already been mentioned by namron in his good post:

"Clinch work and ground work are great fun are a great work out in addition to being a good study on ranges.

In past I've seen alot of contact sparing or chi-sau clash with forward energy and turn into a woeful wrestle, myself included. The magic in the grappling is the familiarity with a different range from which a branch of options sprouts. (i.e. control the fight in the standing phase, or take it to the ground).

As for small joint manipulation in particular wrist holds IMO they can be a risky option in the standing position and then once applied often need finishing locks if you wish to fully restrain someone. Personally I have found only a handleful of Aikido locks are direct enough for use on a resisting opponent."

Reality can easily lead even the best Wing Chun fighters into a standing clinch situation - at which point knowing how to grapple from both standing (locks, throws, sweeps and takedowns) - and ground-grappling is absolutely essential, IMO.

That said...Wing Chun (especially longer range strategies and techniques)...can provide some anti-grappling maneuvers against being grabbed or thrown...but IMO...THIS IS NOT ENOUGH.

Such manuevers (including wrist/arm/elbow/shoulder locks) should be a PART of the strategy - not the end all and be all - simply because it's IMPOSSIBLE to ALWAYS keep a good grappler or clinch fighter (ie.-Muay Thai)...out of the grappling range they want to secure...

hence the need to also know grappling yourself.

AmanuJRY

07-25-2004, 09:26 AM

Originally posted by Ultimatewingchun
I was being quite ironic with my remark...for although there is a limited amount of chin na in Wing Chun - and some very good standing grappling that features armlocks and throws within the Weng Chun system...

the fact is...grappling IS missing from Wing Chun...and I myself have started many threads in the not-too-distant past about the importance of grappling...and specifically - why I think it is essential to add grappling to one's fighting arsenal of weapons.

I am an advocate/student/teacher of Catch-as-Catch-can Wrestling...as a matter of fact.

And one of the reasons for my enthusiasm for wrestling has already been mentioned in

I knew this about you, I was merely quoting your statement because it is a belief that some have and your statement was handy.:D

but my question still stands...why didn't the originator(s) include it in the art?

I would like to hear your opinion on this Victor.

Ultimatewingchun

07-25-2004, 09:53 AM

AmanuJRY:

Okay...but what I'm about to say are "theories" - or opinions - that I can't really prove.

First of all - if you've been following a contemporary thread entitled "A Theory about TWC" - you'd know that I suspect that the Chi Sim Weng Chun standing grappling system (although it is much more than just grappling)...DID have a big influence on at least some Wing Chun systems.

But as to why ground-grappling is absent from Wing Chun (and virtually all of Kung Fu)...I can only speculate.

As you may know - there are shai chiao (spelling?) ground grappling systems...and there is Mongolian Wrestling...but why this aspect of fighting didn't really find it's way into Wing Chun?

Maybe because...considering the history of Wing Chun from Shaolin - through the Red Boat era, etc. - was designed to be a "new and more efficient" fighting art in order to overthrow the oppressive Manchu government...

well then - groundgrappling was to be avoided as much as possible...since it's not wise to be on the ground when you might have more than one adversary in the area at any given moment.

Just some thoughts...

sihing

07-25-2004, 10:01 AM

Quote Victor P.:
"was designed to be a "new and more efficient" fighting art in order to overthrow the oppressive Manchu government...

well then - groundgrappling was to be avoided as much as possible...sine it's not wise to be on the ground when you might have more than one adversary in the area at any given moment.

Just some thoughts..."

I agree with you here Victor. If WC was developed for troops to learn fighting in a fast and efficient/effective manner, then rolling around on the ground during battle in the field would not be recommended, IMO. Fast and effective blows, while always using the element of surprise(since the armies they were fighting had never seen this style of combat before)had to be used and taught, to take them down very quickly and move on to the next one. I think this would be more logical in my thinking. If they were to teach more techniques(which included ground fighting, and all the array of Chinese weapons) then this would take much longer to train the troops.

Sihing

azwingchun

07-25-2004, 10:07 AM

Why did the 'creator(s)' of WC not include any kind of grappling in the original system?

This has been my question for many years now. My actual question is, with an individual (or group, depending on your history) that could create such an amazing, efficient combative system just forget to add grappling????? My opinion is they didn't, that it is all there (but I am not going there now......this has already been done.....LOL).

well then - groundgrappling was to be avoided as much as possible...since it's not wise to be on the ground when you might have more than one adversary in the area at any given moment.

This may be true, grappling was a very dangerous thing in their time, due to weapons used in battle. Let's face it, the last place you wanted to be when someone was facing you with a spear or sword was on the ground. Let's not forget the mentioned multiple opponents! But at the same time, this would be even more of a reason to have some form of a ground game in place.

These are obviously my opinions, since I wasn't around 300 years ago duringt he Wing Chun creation era. But at the same time, I can't believe that someone that was genius enough to create such an incredible system would allow the grappling part of combat slip his(their) mind. ;)

AmanuJRY

07-25-2004, 12:12 PM

Originally posted by Ultimatewingchun
AmanuJRY:

Okay...but what I'm about to say are "theories" - or opinions - that I can't really prove.

But as to why ground-grappling is absent from Wing Chun (and virtually all of Kung Fu)...I can only speculate.

Of course......your speculation is what I was asking for. Thank you for it and your informative post.

It's true that in multiple attacker situations, grappling is the last thing you want to do, especially going to the ground. As well, it is not wise against weapons.

...but, to give an example otherwise, the Samuri used grappling techniques against armed opponents (speculation) and quite possibly in mass battle situations, it was a part of their empty hand fighting.

My speculation as to the reason it was not used in WC or other kung fu against the manchu was a matter of strategy. Their (the creator[s]) strategy was designed to work against the primary strategy of the manchu, which was mostly the mix of styles that today we refer to as wushu/shaolin/generic kung fu, which was more or less a fight of distance (kick and punch range). So to defeat that spawned the movement to 'in fighting', which stand up grappling, as you refered to it Victor, could be included. For the reasons stated by others and the assumption that there were not many who attempted to take things to the ground at that time, there was not a strong need to include groundfighting/grappling into the strategy of WC.

Nowadays things are much different.......:D

AmanuJRY

07-25-2004, 12:25 PM

Originally posted by Ultimatewingchun
First of all - if you've been following a contemporary thread entitled "A Theory about TWC" - you'd know that I suspect that the Chi Sim Weng Chun standing grappling system (although it is much more than just grappling)...DID have a big influence on at least some Wing Chun systems.

Yeah, sorry about that, but I lost interest in that thread after like 6 or so pages. :(

ChuanFa631987

07-25-2004, 01:34 PM

Sorry if anyone has already talked about this and if you dislike who I am about to talk about, sorry...

Hasn't Emin Boztepe (sp?) come up with or learned defense against grappling? I believe I saw a clip from an instructional video on www.fightauthority.com a while ago...
I thought it was pretty cool.

anerlich

07-25-2004, 03:49 PM

CF631987:

It is true that EB developed, or at least played a part in developing a system of "antigrappling" which was incorporated in WT.

Emin himself is, by several accounts, well versed in wrestling and groundfighting. Keith Kernspecht also had a wrestling background.

I think this only supports the argument that you have to know something about grappling to deal with a grappler.

I'm not sure I buy the arguments here that WC was designed to teach the infantryman to fight effectively in a short period of time, and thus grappling was not included. On other threads, sometimes even by the same posters, we are told that WC is the most complete and sophisticated combat system ever developed - somehow these two goals seem irreconcilable. Also, despite the claims of some historians, WC seems to be more of a style for assassins and spies, and used more in such situations, than for your average grunt in China several centuries ago.

Also, yes, you don't want to go to the ground by choice in a battle with armed multiple opponents. but in such a situation choice is a luxury. It might be foolish for an adversary, or several, to try to take you down or grapple with you, but if he is or they are such a fool(s) and it happens you are on the ground or wrestling and you'd better know how to deal with that - which should be regaining your feet ASAP. If you can grab and control the weapon arm (clinch/grapple), there's less chance of losing your head.

BTW, the current US army H2H combat syallabus is based heavily on BJJ ... so someone sees things differently.

Some styles, Northern Sil Lum for example, have integrated fairly sophisticated grappling systems. And there have been systems of Chinese and other Asian wrestling around at least as long as WC. They probably didn't mix much due to the same ridiculous animosities that stop WCers and grapplers crosstraining today. Per the other thread, "history repeats".

Miles Teg

07-25-2004, 04:59 PM

I dont know about the "grappling not efficient for troops" business.

As I understood it, Jiu Jutsu was developed for the later stages of a battle where injuries where abundant, soldiers were exhausted, lying all over the ground and you were basically swimming around in blood and bodies wearing lots of armour - what a great time to know how to break limbs and choke people out!

sihing

07-25-2004, 05:07 PM

Quote: Anerlich
" think this only supports the argument that you have to know something about grappling to deal with a grappler."

Interesting comment Anerlich, and I agree. The greatest legacy of the Gracie's, or at least part of it, should be how they made the whole world aware of how effective a good grappler can be, a eye opener to say the least. I remember watching the first UFC's and Royce defeating everyone in sight. Although I had my own thoughts about the whole thing(like why these fighters were letting Royce control distance, and allow themselves to get grappled to the ground by letting Royce in too close without doing "something" to distract him from doing just that), I remember the respectful feeling I had for Royce, because he was using "technique" to defeat opponents, some of which were much larger than himself, instead of toughness, speed or strength type attributes.

A good question would be, does one have to learn the art they are trying to defeat/counter/deal with or is it possible to just study it and be aware of the technique/strategy of the style, and deal with those types of threats that way???

Sihing

blooming lotus

07-25-2004, 05:08 PM

Originally posted by Vajramusti
Grappling at Wing Chun?????
Lets talk Wc and grappling, throws, locks, holds and takedowns..............
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Blooming Lotus- if you check past posts and archives I think that you will find lots of discussions on this/these topic(s).

I'm sure, but I don't think it's ever been broached with these fore mentioned tid-bits in mind.................

amanujury..........and why , my friend is exactly my question.......kinda gives credence to the dimmak aka chin na as part of WC ha..................

Ultimatewc dude.........this morning I saw an interesting combo of what looked like aikdo meets chin na.
It wasn't specifically WC but in relation to your querie come statement, it was a rear triangle choke defense, and went something like......

pull outside wrist outwrd using a grab'n'pull, defender inside elbow strike > chest / heart( whatever point is available), then repeat to dantien or other torso point...........aikido style twist of outside of attackers arm under, witth defenders' outside arm, while stepping inside leg back, kinda pubu ish style.............., step inside leg over twisted arm and face just off centre twd outside ( feel free to twist out) and sit into it whilst pulling up from wrist hold...........

this is classic aikido meets chin na, and I think it's similar to what you're queriying........... as side note.the chinese army uses this as one of their standard rear choke defenses...................

Relevance: I think when you get that chin na / dim mak flow on, it applies just like aikido meets chin na as above, giving credit to it as a WC manouver ( bearing 5 elders and forementioned points in mind)

UWC: dong ...........agree totally.ps: spelling shui chiao ( shway chiow)

\sihing..............what you say is heresay!!!!!!!!............who said WC was originally developed for troops????....not according to what I've read..............from my information it was created by fve elders, 3 of whom came from shaolin and 2 who ( while brining their own facet of modern wc style), were nothing more than mates willing to back them up when the shyte started hitting le fan................

ps...you should see the jazz on free to air tv here and you'd know that grappling , rolls and ground fighting, were indeed a part of the system way back as it was. It's nearly amusing that was is practically public primary school history knowledge here is profound insight back home west...............lol............don't be sore, vice versa with our past..............

Amanjury: samuri grappling is nothing in the face of same of ninjitsu...................hence the creation of such.............

FYI....did you know that grappling was originally conceived by some dude sitting out on a snowy day watching the way a teee - branch reacted with the snow - culmination and pressure on it's limbs??? Idea being flexibilty and subtlety to move in a flow wher "oppoonents'" weight moves to his detriment by bending this way or that...................

cheers..........

Ps.sihing on last....as long as you're aware of how they think and the combat phsycology that governs those manouvers, I think you're covered ;)

Miles Teg

07-25-2004, 05:09 PM

Perhaps the reason there was not much ground fighting was because the technology just wasnt there. People werent exposed to how effective it could be. I mean if you think about it, there was no internet, no televised UFC, not even a good mailing system. People in CHina and to travel for miles to find a teacher or schools.
If you think about it even with all the tecnology we have had in the last few decades, the western (well, English speaking western world) world didnt realize how effective grappling really was till events like UFC came out. THink about all the competitors who went into the octogon that had balck belts in all these different martial arts but didnt know how to choke someone out!!

Now, almost anyone who steps into this environment knows that they better have some solid fundamentals in grappling before the enter. Its thanks to the media that we have been bestowed with this valuable knowledge.

We cant keep thinking that ancient CHina had all the answers.

blooming lotus

07-25-2004, 05:28 PM

that's just not true......I think you understand how important it was for these peoples' general ivlihood to know such arts...It was study with every ounce of strength and consitution you had or watch yourself and family be chewed up by the compitition..............life or deatth, these folks ( mainly boys ) were unstoppable animals............course they knew ..............

sihing

07-25-2004, 05:53 PM

Quote: Blomming Lotus
"\sihing..............what you say is heresay!!!!!!!!............who said WC was originally developed for troops????....not according to what I've read..............from my information it was created by fve elders, 3 of whom came from shaolin and 2 who ( while brining their own facet of modern wc style), were nothing more than mates willing to back them up when the shyte started hitting le fan................"

From what I understand, there was a need for a Combat Style to be developed that could be learned very quickly and could counter every other fighting style known at that time, for the revolutionaries(troops). The lineage I belong to believes the Five Elders story also, just that the art was never developed in the temple, as it was burned down. I downloaded something recently that listed the names of the Five elders, their specialities also(see story below). This story is similar to the HFY Wing Chun history, just that the Five Elders were not necessarily monks but actually soldiers/generals hiding in the temple after the takeover. I never bought the story of the Nun watching a snake and crane fight crap, WC is much too sophisticated for that and I believe that each lineage holder of each generation has added/improved more to the art, as my Sifu has, IMO...

Sihing

Some Wing Chun History(downloaded text)

By the start of the 17th century there was great turmoil brewing in the country and there was also unrest between the 5 elders at Shaolin.
In (1644), the Manchus invaded China and ruled it with an iron fist for nearly 300 years. The Manchus were well aware of the skills of the Shaolin monks and their sympathy for refugees. The 5 elders (were Taoist and Buddhists monks) of the Shaolin temple around this period were:
Abbot Jee Shin - Shaolin Iron Cloth - (Iron Head Qi Gong master, Kung Fu expert, wooden dummy expert and weapons expert) was the creator of Wing Chun Kung Fu and the founder of Hung Gar and Praising spring boxing,.
Bai Mei - Golden Bell Iron Body - (Iron Body Qi Gong master) was the founder of White Eyebrow Kung Fu.
Fong Sai Yuk, (famous swordsman) was the founder of White Tiger Kung Fu.
Miu Hin, (was not an ordained monk, but was a Kung Fu elder) was the founder of Five Shape boxing and helped in developing Wing Chun
Ng Mui, (buddhist nun, Bil Gee master and Dim Mak expert) helped develop the practical aspects of Wing Chun Kung Fu, founded Dragon shape boxing and Wu Mei boxing.

One of the 5 elders, Bai Mei, left the temple because of his mistreatment and sought revenge. He offered his services to the Ching and then taught them the Shaolin way of fighting. Abbot Jee Shin realized this and conferred with the other 3 to develop a system that the enemy was not aware of and use it to assassinate the enemy. The monks decided to pick the best fighting qualities from the 5 Shaolin systems being taught at the temple, eliminate all the unnecessary moves which were for demonstrative purposes and create an efficient killing art. This system became known as Wing Chun.
Before the practical aspects of this new system could be completed, Bai Mei and the Manchus invaded the Shaolin temple and razed it to the ground. Of the 1000 or so monks residing at the temple, only about 30 or 40 escaped. The rest were killed, jailed and tortured. The remaining 4 elders also escaped and fled south.
Abbot Jee Shin relocated at Fujian Shaolin temple, which was also destroyed. After this, Jee Shin escaped and roamed the countryside spreading the word of Wing Chun to " kill the ching and restore the ming". He finally joined the Red Junk Opera troupe as a cook.
Ng Mui went south and developed Wing Chun on Tai Lang mountain with Yim Wing Chun. Yim Wing Chun and the infamous Red Junk Opera troupe were to later meet up with Abbot Jee Shin and develop Wing Chun Kung Fu further.
Miu Hin returned to civilization in Guangdong Province.
Fong Sai Yuk fled and took refuge on Wu Dang Mountain in the Hubei Province. Originally, the Wing Chun Kung Fu system consisted of butterfly swords, dart knives and Dim Mak (pressure point killing). The dragon pole, and the classical forms as we know them today were introduced into the system during the infamous Red Junk Opera period. The opera troupe's famous trio were Wong Wah Bo (dragon pole), Leung lan Kwai and Leung Yee Tai.

Vajramusti

07-25-2004, 05:59 PM

Tapping on a different drum again.

Miles-

1. if someone thinks or finds that what they have learned is insufficient or unsatisfactory for their problems-that is upto them.

But-
2. choking, strangling, sleeper holds, were/ are known in many parts of the world. What tech. has done is to bring ufc etc into the living room. Many folks in those rooms do not know much about the details of martial arts-or even the sports that they watch.

3. wc was not developed for the army or groups.... it is for individual development. Sure, parts of it that were easily trainable
were used by rebels, groups, triads and later policemen. But the
whole art is for maximum individual development and also teaches to adapt to a very wide varietyof forces that one can face.... staitonery, ambulatory, sedentary or supine and respond in a unique way in each situation-rather than robotic memorization.

4. if you use grappling moves against an experienced grappler you are likely to lose. A curved punch againsta boxer you lose.

5. For people with no clue--- a wake up call on a mat or a ring
might clear the head. Very likely YOUR wc has some holes in it-
the problem is not the art but the artist. A good wing chun artist plays his own wing chun game- not the other guys game. WC was not designed to defeat other wc--- its design is one of intercepting, controlling and defeating any adverse forces and adapting to things like weapons and other stress producing
factors.

6. The art itself has such an extensive set of motions for hands, feet and footwork and timing and contact work -that there are numerous adaptations... and the development of listening ability
to a wide variety of contacts and touches.

However- it is true that wing chun has spread too fast and too superficially for its own good. But if one moves very far from the core- why call it wing chun?

But we have gone over all this before. To each his own.

anerlich

07-25-2004, 06:30 PM

did you know that grappling was originally conceived by some dude sitting out on a snowy day watching the way a teee - branch reacted with the snow - culmination and pressure on it's limbs???

Unless you're talking "dudes" in caves during prehistory (who probably didn't have a lot of inclination to venture away from the fire in winter), the earliest depictions of grappling, indeed, combat, come from the Middle East And India. Probably not a lot of snow around ... this story has about as much credence as that of WC being thought up by someone watching a snake and crane (or was it fox and crane?) fight.

Very poetic, but with no historical proof. Same as most of the other stories quoted here ... some of the figures mentioned are more than likely only legendary characters.

Grappling was probably originally conceived by some "dude" who was getting smacked around the head with fists or weapons of stone and wood, and grabbed onto his opponent to try and stop the beating.

Both pugilism and wrestling are primitive in origin. Even prehuman - I have two cats who grapple and groundfight all the time while playing, usually incorporating the bite as well.

To say they were conceived by visionaries is ridiculous. They were "thought up" by people trying to kill others or stop themselves getting killed, not by a bunch of poetic slackers with overactive imaginations and resistance to cold weather who sat around all day getting stoned out of their skulls on nature.

Miles is right ... some versions of ju jitsu history have it being a battlefield art.

blooming lotus

07-25-2004, 06:44 PM

Originally posted by sihing
Quote: Blomming Lotus
"\sihing..............what you say is heresay!!!!!!!!............who said WC was originally developed for troops????....not according to what I've read..............from my information it was created by fve elders, 3 of whom came from shaolin and 2 who ( while brining their own facet of modern wc style), were nothing more than mates willing to back them up when the shyte started hitting le fan................"

From what I understand, there was a need for a Combat Style to be developed that could be learned very quickly and could counter every other fighting style known at that time, for the revolutionaries(troops). The lineage I belong to believes the Five Elders story also, just that the art was never developed in the temple, as it was burned down.

of course, you do realise that such facde was often a great weapon in itself.......

Some Wing Chun History(downloaded text)

By the start of the 17th century there was great turmoil brewing in the country and there was also unrest between the 5 elders at Shaolin.
In (1644), the Manchus invaded China and ruled it with an iron fist for nearly 300 years. The Manchus were well aware of the skills of the Shaolin monks and their sympathy for refugees. The 5 elders (were Taoist and Buddhists monks) of the Shaolin temple around this period were:
Abbot Jee Shin - Shaolin Iron Cloth - (Iron Head Qi Gong master, Kung Fu expert, wooden dummy expert and weapons expert) was the creator of Wing Chun Kung Fu and the founder of Hung Gar and Praising spring boxing,.
Bai Mei - Golden Bell Iron Body - (Iron Body Qi Gong master) was the founder of White Eyebrow Kung Fu.
Fong Sai Yuk, (famous swordsman) was the founder of White Tiger Kung Fu.
Miu Hin, (was not an ordained monk, but was a Kung Fu elder) was the founder of Five Shape boxing and helped in developing Wing Chun
Ng Mui, (buddhist nun, Bil Gee master and Dim Mak expert) helped develop the practical aspects of Wing Chun Kung Fu, founded Dragon shape boxing and Wu Mei boxing.

One of the 5 elders, Bai Mei, left the temple because of his mistreatment and sought revenge. He offered his services to the Ching and then taught them the Shaolin way of fighting. Abbot Jee Shin realized this and conferred with the other 3 to develop a system that the enemy was not aware of and use it to assassinate the enemy. The monks decided to pick the best fighting qualities from the 5 Shaolin systems being taught at the temple, eliminate all the unnecessary moves which were for demonstrative purposes and create an efficient killing art. This system became known as Wing Chun.
Before the practical aspects of this new system could be completed, Bai Mei and the Manchus invaded the Shaolin temple and razed it to the ground. Of the 1000 or so monks residing at the temple, only about 30 or 40 escaped. The rest were killed, jailed and tortured. The remaining 4 elders also escaped and fled south.
Abbot Jee Shin relocated at Fujian Shaolin temple, which was also destroyed. After this, Jee Shin escaped and roamed the countryside spreading the word of Wing Chun to " kill the ching and restore the ming". He finally joined the Red Junk Opera troupe as a cook.
Ng Mui went south and developed Wing Chun on Tai Lang mountain with Yim Wing Chun. Yim Wing Chun and the infamous Red Junk Opera troupe were to later meet up with Abbot Jee Shin and develop Wing Chun Kung Fu further.
Miu Hin returned to civilization in Guangdong Province.
Fong Sai Yuk fled and took refuge on Wu Dang Mountain in the Hubei Province. Originally, the Wing Chun Kung Fu system consisted of butterfly swords, dart knives and Dim Mak (pressure point killing). The dragon pole, and the classical forms as we know them today were introduced into the system during the infamous Red Junk Opera period. The opera troupe's famous trio were Wong Wah Bo (dragon pole), Leung lan Kwai and Leung Yee Tai.

as for the rest, do't have time : on 10 min smoko, but if you think gongfu did not originate from animal and or nature study and mimicisation , you're possibley a lil - less informed than others.........

no big though.......maybe you 'd like to share another theory???

Ultimatewingchun

07-25-2004, 07:38 PM

AmanuJRY wrote:

"It's true that in multiple attacker situations, grappling is the last thing you want to do, especially going to the ground. As well, it is not wise against weapons.

...but, to give an example otherwise, the Samuri used grappling techniques against armed opponents (speculation) and quite possibly in mass battle situations, it was a part of their empty hand fighting."

I remember seeing a number of black and white Japanese jiu-jitsu movies back in the mid-1970's (though I believe they were actaully made back in the 1950's)...that had very little groundgrappling compared to Brazilian jiu-jitsu, for example. I'm not saying that the ground positions and strategies don't exist in Japanese jiu jitsu (for clearly they do)...

but I suspect that they were not emphasized as much in the feudal days of the samurai as they are now within BJJ circles. The main thrust of Japanese jiu-jitsu (to my understanding) has always been a combination of disarming techniques,strikes, arm/elbow/wrist locks, throws, takedowns...and above all - CHOKES...which are entered into from many "positions" - and not necessarily when the jiu jitsu fighter (or his intended victim) is actually on the ground.

Although I don't take issue with Andrew's contention that many contemporary military organizations teach BJJ - they do.

As I've said many times - I'm a firm believer in being able to fight from all ranges...including groundfighting.

anerlich

07-25-2004, 09:13 PM

but if you think gongfu did not originate from animal and or nature study and mimicisation , you're possibley a lil - less informed than others

You're talking about kung-fu, OK, though you're talking legends not historical fact.

But if you think grappling originated from watching snow fall off tree branches, you're the one that needs a history lesson, if not therapy.

For grappling history, I recommend "Mastering Ju Jitsu", by Renzo Gracie and John Danaher.

blooming lotus

07-26-2004, 02:49 AM

lol................on all acounts............

dead set.........if and when I have time I'll find it for you.the snowy tree thing that is.........for shaolin gongfu history please visit any shaolin site..........but we are talking WC, sodessimate my thread only if you must :mad: ;)

Vajramusti

07-26-2004, 04:39 AM

namron

07-26-2004, 06:01 AM

Originally posted by anerlich

For grappling history, I recommend "Mastering Ju Jitsu", by Renzo Gracie and John Danaher.

Super book and one that touches on the last post from Victor re the transition and connection between traditional jiu-jitsu, judo and bjj.

I second that recommendation!:D

captain

07-26-2004, 06:36 AM

all wing chun folk should learn the judo ude garami standing arm lock.if you imagine that youre grabbed at chi sao range,this is a great lock to place.ive said this before though and it's been ignored.
r

AmanuJRY

07-26-2004, 08:38 AM

Hasn't Emin Boztepe (sp?) come up with or learned defense against grappling? I believe I saw a clip from an instructional video on www.fightauthority.com a while ago... ChuanFa631987

Your spelling is correct. Emin developed an 'anti-grappling' program with Kieth Kernspecht, but note; it was not part of the traditional WT program they were teaching, they ADDED it. Also, Mr. Kernspecht also wrote an article called "Don't wrestle a wrestler, Don't box a boxer' or something like that and a book called 'On single combat' that deals with these issues (the latter being a real good source on their 'anti-grappling' concepts.

BTW, the current US army H2H combat syallabus is based heavily on BJJ ... so someone sees things differently.anerlich

Actually, I was in the US military (1988-1994), what they taught us was a hodge podge, mostly Judo techniques with boxing concepts, and they didn't even teach the Judo techniques well. I remember getting squashed by a Texan that out weighed me by over 50 pounds.
On the other hand, my brother, who is currently in the Special Forces, trained in some BJJ on his own volition, as do many of his comrades.

amanujury..........and why , my friend is exactly my question.......kinda gives credence to the dimmak aka chin na as part of WC ha..................bloominglotus

I wouldn't say 'part of' I would say 'used in conjunction with' and the same can be said for grappling today.

Perhaps the reason there was not much ground fighting was because the technology just wasnt there.Miles Teg

There was knowledge of grappling in China at that time, in Japan as well which is/was not far from China and in communication with them. So I don't believe there is much to support your theory of lack of media.

but I suspect that they were not emphasized as much in the feudal days of the samurai as they are now within BJJ circles. The main thrust of Japanese jiu-jitsu (to my understanding) has always been a combination of disarming techniques,strikes, arm/elbow/wrist locks, throws, takedowns...and above all - CHOKES...which are entered into from many "positions" - and not necessarily when the jiu jitsu fighter (or his intended victim) is actually on the ground.Ulitimatewingchun

Yes, but the grappling that Samuri would have used isn't the JuJitzu of today. Some of the techniques would be present because Judo/Jujitzu evolved from the collection of techniques from different 'families' of Samuri. Also, I don't believe old Movies to be a qualified example of what 'really' happened in feudal Japan, if you go that route there is a really good example of a Samuri using grappling in the movie "The Last Samuri".:D

did you know that grappling was originally conceived by some dude sitting out on a snowy day watching the way a teee - branch reacted with the snow - culmination and pressure on it's limbs??? bloominglotus

As for this, and the idea that WC was devised from watching a fight between a fox/snake and crane, whatever you want to believe. Some native american tribes believe that humans were created from the blood of a slain bear.

I think this only supports the argument that you have to know something about grappling to deal with a grappler.anerlich

I think this is the most relavant statement about this topic.

anerlich

07-26-2004, 04:24 PM

if and when I have time I'll find it for you.the snowy tree thing that is

Don't go to any trouble, I have no great interest in MA legends or fiction. I don't doubt that someone tells the story, but I strongly challenge its historical veracity. A horde of scholars say otherwise.

Actually, I was in the US military (1988-1994), what they taught us was a hodge podge, mostly Judo techniques with boxing concepts, and they didn't even teach the Judo techniques well.

I think they only brought the BJJ in this century - if you looked at the US Army H2H combat manual on the web (can't remember tjhe address offhand) before about 2002, it had no BJJ in it, just the sort of stuff you are talking about. Last time I looked at it though (prob. over 12 months ago) it had lots of BJJ therein.

blooming lotus

07-26-2004, 04:41 PM

Originally posted by namron
Super book and one that touches on the last post from Victor re the transition and connection between traditional jiu-jitsu, judo and bjj.

I second that recommendation!:D

on that gracie and jitsu........while these boys are what I wouls undoubtedly deem the worlds' masters of grappling full stop, as sevenstar brought to our attention earlier in a link, they didn't create the style, but they did preserve , expand and develope it where it was not possible for anyone else elsewhere to do so..............so where'd you think their jiutsu came from??????????

blooming lotus

07-26-2004, 04:51 PM

Originally posted by AmanuJRY

Actually, I was in the US military (1988-1994), what they taught us was a hodge podge, mostly Judo techniques with boxing concepts, and they didn't even teach the Judo techniques well. I remember getting squashed by a Texan that out weighed me by over 50 pounds.

on this as a side point.........saw some A grade grappling/ throw/hold/lock defense recently and generally speaking it was little chicks vs big adult male attackers/opponents..................so size sees the win ha????..sorry, technique over strength or size in my opinion: but that's only from what I've directly seen.........;) :P

As for this, and the idea that WC was devised from watching a fight between a fox/snake and crane, whatever you want to believe. Some native american tribes believe that humans were created from the blood of a slain bear.

I

as for this.............exactly, believe what you wanna..........I guess you'd just need some knowledge of culture and custom to even half entertain such a thing..................meiguanxie.doesn't matter.........whatever gets you there :eek: :cool:

Vajramusti

07-26-2004, 05:02 PM

Blooming Lotus asks:
..............so where'd you think their jiutsu came from??????????

Blooming Lotus answers?

..............some dude sitting out on a snowy day watching the way a teee - branch reacted with the snow - culmination and pressure on it's limbs???

KenWingJitsu

07-26-2004, 05:52 PM

Reality can easily lead even the best Wing Chun fighters into a standing clinch situation - at which point knowing how to grapple from both standing (locks, throws, sweeps and takedowns) - and ground-grappling is absolutely essential, IMO.
Victor my friend,...you may add YOUR quote to the list of other quotables. Beautifully put.

anerlich

07-26-2004, 06:03 PM

so where'd you think their jiutsu came from??????????

I don't know what jiutsu is, but IF YOU READ THE BOOK YOU'D KNOW WHERE JIU JITSU *REALLY* CAME FROM AS WELL.

Hint: not from some Chinese sage suffering hypothermia-induced hallucinations.

Please do yourself a favour and get some real education in this regard.

For anyone interested in an informative timeline related to MA, from the Electronic Journal of Martial Arts and Sciences:

http://ejmas.com/kronos/index.html

Very interesting, expecially if you prefer harder history as opposed to the tall tales, exaggerations and legends which permeate the oral histories of TCMA.

KenWingJitsu

07-26-2004, 08:02 PM

LOL anerlich has just PWN3D you!!!!!!!

Miles Teg

07-26-2004, 09:02 PM

Amanjury wrote:
"There was knowledge of grappling in China at that time, in Japan as well which is/was not far from China and in communication with them. So I don't believe there is much to support your theory of lack of media."

Its more of a fact than a theory. There was no media - plain and simple. The only distribution of info was through word of mouth - ever heard of the game "Chinese whispers" and you'll know that this is an unreliable form of information exchange. And saying China had grappling doesnt mean anything. China is a big place. Just cause there may have been some grappling in one place doesnt mean other martial artist could be exposed to it. There is not one city where all martial arts were created and therefore everyone was able to exchange with eachother. Then you have to consider the secretivity that many martial arts held in those days.

I gather you are an American so try and imagine living in America with out T.V, video or the internet. Now imagine no cars or public transport system. Now imagaine that there are different styles of martial arts in different parts of Amercia that you only know about through word of mouth. If you were highly dedicated you might spend your whole life walking around seeking out these schools, and hoping that they will even let you watch them train.

The golden age of information is now. No one in history could be exposed to as many martial arts as our generation.

AmanuJRY

07-26-2004, 10:00 PM

anerlich--I think they only brought the BJJ in this century - if you looked at the US Army H2H combat manual on the web (can't remember tjhe address offhand) before about 2002, it had no BJJ in it, just the sort of stuff you are talking about. Last time I looked at it though (prob. over 12 months ago) it had lots of BJJ therein.

I believe you. What I don't believe is that any instruction they give you in basic training would be effective. Think of spending about one week, tops, in a 2 hour-a-day BJJ class (and I'm not talking one where the instructor caters to your learning of the art), do you think it's enough to mean much.

blooming lotus--.......so size sees the win ha????..sorry, technique over strength or size in my opinion: but that's only from what I've directly seen......... :P

technique over size, maybe. technique over size+technique?.........what then?

..............so where'd you think their jiutsu came from??????????

What difference would that make? Would it change it's effectiveness?

Miles Teg--Its more of a fact than a theory.

How can fact be based on your speculation? Or, what facts do you have to support the idea that knowledge of any form of grappling couldn't possibly spread?

I understand the geographical limitations of China during such a period, but still; messengers were sent for the government to communicate, merchants traveled, rebels were nomadic, heck things like the Red Boat Opera itself can be seen as a major form of communication, as far as MA in china goes.

anerlich

07-26-2004, 10:15 PM

believe you. What I don't believe is that any instruction they give you in basic training would be effective. Think of spending about one week, tops, in a 2 hour-a-day BJJ class (and I'm not talking one where the instructor caters to your learning of the art), do you think it's enough to mean much.

No argument from me. I brought it up more as a curiosity rather than as an affirmation of the art's effectiveness or otherwise. I find it a rather strange choice for basic training for modern soldiers myself. I know how long it took me to get my blue belt and how hard it was, how much more there is to learn, and how far I am from the black belts.

Surely weapons are the primary focus, even if they aren't rifles or pistols? I remeber seeing a documentary on the siege of Stalingard in WWII - one Russian ex-soldier they interviewed claimed to have killed 20 Germans with an entrenching tool (shovel) in one battle. I don't think he used many Sambo leglocks.

According to Kronos, there is archaeological evidence that Sumerians grappled in 3200 BC. But I say once again that grappling is almost instinctive. To say someone "invented" grappling is about as sensible as saying someone "invented" bipedal locomotion (patent pending).

AmanuJRY

07-26-2004, 10:21 PM

I can easily picture two cavemen 'wrestleing' over a piece of food or a woman. Although, I can't picture them even realizing that that is what they are doing.

blooming lotus

07-26-2004, 11:22 PM

:rolleyes: here we go...........

Miles Teg

07-27-2004, 01:19 AM

"How can fact be based on your speculation? Or, what facts do you have to support the idea that knowledge of any form of grappling couldn't possibly spread?"

Well there is strong evidence that hundreds of years ago in China there was no internet, telephone, t.v, internet, public transport system, cars or public mail delivery service. General awareness of different fighting approaches would be so much lower than today. There probably was grappling styles in CHina but whether they were exposed to the people who created, preserved, and modified martial arts sytems is another question. Chen Taichi for example was taught only to chen family members in the chen family village for generations.

"I understand the geographical limitations of China during such a period, but still; messengers were sent for the government to communicate, merchants traveled, rebels were nomadic, heck things like the Red Boat Opera itself can be seen as a major form of communication, as far as MA in china goes."

Yep word of mouth.

captain

07-27-2004, 02:10 AM

just as predicted,most of you guys have ignored my practical idea for a lock to use in wck,and drifted into the tired "blah,blah,blah" that dominates on this site.i get my dyslexic spelling dissed by nick forrer,good [ish] ideas blanked.dont know why i bother.
r

blooming lotus

07-27-2004, 06:22 AM

Originally posted by captain
all wing chun folk should learn the judo ude garami standing arm lock.if you imagine that youre grabbed at chi sao range,this is a great lock to place.ive said this before though and it's been ignored.
r

really...........go ahead..........maybe if you explain for us noknows on the terms, we can give you some feedback ;)

cheers.........go ahead.............

namron

07-27-2004, 06:33 AM

Anerlich thanks for saving me the effort.

Blooming Lotus the book actually suggests BJJ evolved from multiple historical styles of grappling and has been further refined by the Gracies.

With this in mind I think you answered your own post on this subject.

blooming lotus

07-27-2004, 06:40 AM

dong........and the argument of the real very first origin of ma in general is always going to be contentious ..........I say tomato , you say tamata............but who ever said it was right.........doesn't really change the way you use it.......

honestly.........really don't want to do this conversation on origins because still collecting information myself...........until then though, I'm still going with China........

Ultimatewingchun

07-27-2004, 06:42 AM

"Just as predicted,most of you guys have ignored my practical idea for a lock to use in wck,and drifted into the tired "blah,blah,blah" that dominates on this site.i get my dyslexic spelling dissed by nick forrer,good [ish] ideas blanked.dont know why i bother."

Captain: I think I know which lock you're talking about - and it is a good one that can be entered into nicely from a wing chun platform.

AmanuJRY

07-27-2004, 08:21 AM

Originally posted by Miles Teg
Well there is strong evidence that hundreds of years ago in China there was no internet, telephone, t.v, internet, public transport system, cars or public mail delivery service. General awareness of different fighting approaches would be so much lower than today. There probably was grappling styles in CHina but whether they were exposed to the people who created, preserved, and modified martial arts sytems is another question......//.......Yep word of mouth.

Are you now agreeing with me??? :D

No internet, no phone, no public transport, no cars (that never stopped the pony express), No TV, no internet:D.

True, true, true, and yet somehow they managed to form one large country, were able to monitor what was happening in other regeons of that country, and were able to spread imperial decrees. Wow.

But, I will digress from this arguement, it serves no real purpose.

reneritchie

07-27-2004, 10:51 AM

1. There is no such thing as a complete martial art. What's a complete car? Both a Ferarri and a Humvee excell in their own area, but how does a humvee handle the autobahn, and a Ferrari the off-road? To be all things is to be nothing. The modern trend is to mix martial arts in an attempt to be complete, but often at the sacrifice of a unifying strategy, resulting in something not always even the sum of its parts.

2. Grappling as in ground fighting is for the most part a recent trend. When you had armies and bladed weapons, grappling was not a common occurance and hence many even most arts didn't concentrate much or any effort on it. Kano helped change that, as did people like Gracie after him, especially when Royce took part in the UFC. In an age of unarmed, mostly dueling-natured fights, groundfighting could flourish. Didn't change what was (although many, as always, pretended to 'have had it all along') but affected what is.

I love grappling. Judo was my first MA. As I get older, I prefer lying down and not getting black eyes or fat lips as often (darn accidental knees and elbows...) and I think in an era of well funded educational wrestling and football programs, it behooves anyone who's goal is fighting-inclined to know how to deal with shoots or tackles, how to get up, etc.

But that has nothing to do with 'completeness' or whether WCK has grappling (some lineages have standing grappling, most not even that, none groundfighting unless recently added or extrapolated from the stand-up).

t_niehoff

07-27-2004, 10:56 AM

Rene is correct. And he'll win by armbar 1:31 of the first round.

Miles Teg

07-27-2004, 05:31 PM

"True, true, true, and yet somehow they managed to form one large country, were able to monitor what was happening in other regeons of that country, and were able to spread imperial decrees. "

LOL! Barely. China has barely been able to remain one country until the recent Communist regime. It has been mostly thanks to foreign powers that CHina could unite e.g Invasion by Mongols and the Japanese. And before all this (and also during) there were hundreds of different dialects used througout China. With people from one end of CHian not being able to understand anything that a person from another end was saying. Couple this with the fact that most people were illiterate.

Also Mongolian, Japanese and there own Communist regimes were major reasons why martial arts became more secretive and forced further underground almost to the point of extinction.

But your right this is going off topic.

namron

07-28-2004, 05:29 AM

canglong

07-28-2004, 05:33 AM

originally posted by rene ritchie
1. There is no such thing as a complete martial art. What's a complete car? Both a Ferarri and a Humvee excell in their own area, but how does a humvee handle the autobahn, and a Ferrari the off-road? In this analogy comparing a car with a truck is fundamentally wrong. It appears you are confusing complete with absolute.
originally posted by rene ritchie
2. Grappling as in ground fighting is for the most part a recent trend. When you had armies and bladed weapons, grappling was not a common occurance and hence many even most arts didn't concentrate much or any effort on it. VS.
originally posted by Miles Teg
As I understood it, Jiu Jutsu was developed for the later stages of a battle where injuries where abundant, soldiers were exhausted, lying all over the ground and you were basically swimming around in blood and bodies wearing lots of armour - what a great time to know how to break limbs and choke people out!
originally posted by anerlich
Both pugilism and wrestling are primitive in origin. Even prehuman...some versions of ju jitsu history have it being a battlefield art. "for the most part a recent trend" there doesn't appear to be much conviction in that phrase. Where as battlefield art as used in the previous quote seems quite plausible.