Demo Man vs. Fighting Man

[sihing]

Its been said that people that perform in Demo's can't fight. Let's use Jet Li as an example because you could call most of his movies one big demo of his fighting abilities. My question is what does he have to do or add to make himself a fighter?( that is if you believe demo people aren't fighters) Ya Ya I already know he would have to get in the ring and spar/fight whatever you call it, but my point is when he does this what attributes would be added to his repertoire that he already possess, speed, flexibility, power.

This thread is not about Jet Li, but I am using him as an example, since most of us here have seen him in action....


James

[YongChun]

I think this is a good question. Jet Li is an example of someone that has movements light years ahead of anyone else. But probably he is not a fighter. The same goes for Jackie Chan. It's not relevant if they are or not for the sake of this discussion.

A long time ago I read of an American fighting team (standard kickboxing, Karate types) that went to mainland China. They met some top Wu Shu guys and worked with them. They found they could beat these guys fairly easily. So then they did an experiment. They sparred each day with these guys for three months. After that they said the Chinese fighters were a pretty good match for the Americans. They said just fine points relating to distancing and timing and seeing things were missing.

Still that's not to say if one of those guys was attacked in a bar or on the street that he couldn't do a lot of damage because they are fast and they are strong and they got the moves. But in a competitive ring situation it's a totally different kind of fight. For Karate tournaments it's sometimes a hit and run kind of match and sometimes not. For Thai boxing you need the hard conditioning, otherwise you will get winded and your shins won’t be able to take it. Furthermore without heavy duty sparring you risk getting knocked out in the first 10 seconds.

If a guy walks up to a non-fighter martial artist in a bar and starts a fight then there are a lot of examples where such a person has been successful. There are other examples where people who were considered to be masters (even in Wing Chun) have been beaten up on the street. For a non-fighter, if you can get the guy to play your game or to underestimate you then you can succeed. Fighting Thais in a ring setting is a different story. Thais on the street or in a bar are also able to defend themselves of course.

My Hung style teacher said there was a Northern style-fighting master in Toronto who had quite a good reputation for fighting. So one day a large Caucasian confronted him when he was walking down the street. The guy walked up to the masters and said I hear you can fight. Then he immediately threw a low kick. The master tried a low foot block but missed. So then the guy slams the master against a car with a strong push. So the master instinctively shot a eye thumb attack to the attacker’s face. But everything went wrong that day. The guy bit his thumb. During this commotion the restaurant owner, in front of whose place this was happening (in Toronto’s Chinatown), rushed out before any more damage could be done and hit the guy over the head with a steel frying pan and that ended the fight. After that the Northern style master didn’t show his face anymore.

[PaulH]

It's amazing how many heads the pan can fry in our daily life! =)

[sihing]

Yes, I agree with your responses Ray. It would be an interesting experiment to take a Wu Shu Guy and see how long it would take to make a fighter out of them. Even Bruce Lee realized that a Ballet Dancer could fight if the right attributes were taught. Timing and control of distancing are some of the most important things, more important than conditioning, although in competitions this is the deciding factor in most cases, due to rules applying. When I teach the advance students I emphasize to them that when ever they are practicing a technique in a prearranged manner that they should also pay attention to the timing, distancing, and set up of their partners, this way they train themselves not only to perfect a particular application but to work the attributes of perception and distance control. When they start to apply this in a sparring environment then they will be more capable to handle the situation than if they were just working on technical perfection. The one advantage I think we as WC players have over most MA out there is our ability to overwhelm them with the explosiveness of the techniques WC has, and in which the non telegraphic way we apply the movements of the art, it’s the one that you don't see that knocks you out.

James

[AmanuJRY]

Originally posted by sihing
My question is what does he have to do or add to make himself a fighter?

Strategy.;)

[Ultimatewingchun]

"My question is what does he have to do or add to make himself a fighter?"

Answer: Get rid of the desire to be a demo man.

The desire to be a fighter requires not wasting time training things that don't reflect realism.

Which raises the question: Now that you've been involved in the martial arts for presumably many years - how many demos have you seen lately actually reflect something you might ever see in a real streetfight or NHB event?

And how much of the demos you've seen lately don't meet that standard?

[sihing]

There is no desire to be "demo man". But at times there is a need to demonstrate to people that are curious as to what one has to offer. If Jet Li can actually perform most of what we see him do on screen, as we all know some of the moves are totally unrealistic in the fact that he is flying at times, how would his abilities translate in him being a real fighter and if he is lacking what would he need to do to be a real "fighter", OR, is this not possible?

My main point in this thread is lots of people that commute this forum have the belief that people in a demo have no valid fighting skills. This may or may not be true, but the real question is can they learn to fight if they are lacking, and what is needed to fill that gap. We all have our thoughts on what makes or breaks a real fighter, so please tell us all what you think a real fighter needs. I've already stated my requirements, so has Ray. I'm curious to hear more...

Victor,
Is there really a waste of time performing movements with a partner, even though they are at times in a prearranged manner? From what I understand even the best of the best boxers still practice the basics under a prearranged manner, like hitting the focus mitts in a pattern, jab jab bobb hook.....Yes some demo's are of a flashy sort, and I agree that these are mostly a waste of time, but not all are like this. The one I posted on this forum showcased a realistic set of movements that would and can actually be applied in a realistic manner, although I will admit some of the high kicks were added in for more special effect, it's still good to know how and when to apply these movements.


James

[AmanuJRY]

Originally posted by sihing
...it's still good to know how and when to apply these movements.

This statement inspires me to say, again, that strategy is the key.

Strategy is the 'how and when'.

If a person (the demo guy) has the skill to perform the techniques and the ability to do so with power and accuracy (not as obvious in a demo) the only thing that is missing, IMO, is strategy, the ability to use those techniques tactically.

If the demo guy lacks the ability to tactically employ his skill, then he's just a demo guy.

[sihing]

AmanuJRY,
Yes I agree, if the demo guy can't apply his movements/tech/concepts in a random atmosphere, with real pressure being applied then he/she will only be a demo person, but with that said, it still takes some sort of timing and distancing abilities to perform the demo well, so in some sorts the demo man is on his/her way there already. Strategy is the difference and being able to apply it well against all comers...

James

[Ernie]

Anothor way to look at it

The difference between doing a demo [ cold static technique ]
Or expressing yourself

Expressing your body mechanics explosiveness timing sensitivity and intent , since it’s a demo most of all control .
Really good people do this [ they] come through not just the motion
Like some one just singing the right notes or some one singing with soul and expression

Talent will show , functional talent will stand out ,

Just something to think about .

[Ultimatewingchun]

"Yes some demo's are of a flashy sort, and I agree that these are mostly a waste of time, but not all are like this. The one I posted on this forum showcased a realistic set of movements that would and can actually be applied in a realistic manner, although I will admit some of the high kicks..."
(James)

My comments about realism and demos was not directed at you personally - haven't yet watched what you posted.

As to this:

"Victor,
Is there really a waste of time performing movements with a partner, even though they are at times in a prearranged manner? From what I understand even the best of the best boxers still practice the basics under a prearranged manner, like hitting the focus mitts in a pattern, jab jab bobb hook..."

I agree that these kinds of pre-arranged drills are useful...but moving on from prearranged to more spontaneity - as part of a "demo" situation - is much more interesting/informative to the spectator than just doing that which is pre-arranged...especially those spectators with any fighting skills and background.

Today's class was a perfect example...a visitor made the comment to me that my guys were doing a prearranged drill and that fighting could involve anything - not just the move that they were practicing over and over again. I told him to keep watching...then the guys were shown a different fighting scenario - and were told to practice this second one over and over...Followed by a differentiation drill wherein either the first attack OR the second attack would be coming...without advance notice.

Later on he got to see myself and some of the more senior students take the first two scenarios as a starting point (which dealt with punches and kicks)...into a realm of pretty much anything goes standup TWC sparring...fighting in the clinch...and wrestling on the ground.

The final result was that by the end of the class he got to see much more than pre-arranged scenarios.

[anerlich]

Jet Li would kick all your a$$es.

So would Michelle Yeoh.

;)

[Vajramusti]

Anerlich says-Jet Li would kick all your a$$es.

So would Michelle Yeoh.
-------------------------------------------------------------
I dont think so re Jet Li.

Michelle Yeoh wouldnt need to- I would be her most humble and obedient servant-atleast for a day.;)

BTW- I did a demo once with a top wushu friend- a senior of Jet Li-
he is very athletic. We didnt rehearse- he said we didnt need to.
At one point- he attacked- he fell down when he made contact with my controlled hand. I have known several other top flight wu shu folks. Very conditioned and coordinated---- but their training does not teach them martial intent, distancing, coordinating or
reflexes.

They would have to relearn-though their athleticism and past discipline in training regimens could help them some in relearning and handling uncoordinated folks..

[t_niehoff]

sihing wrote: "Its been said that people that perform in Demo's can't fight."

**That doesn't make sense -- a fighter that puts on a demo certainly can fight (his fighting proves that). However, it is true that just because someone can put on a "good" demo it doesn't mean they can fight (examples abound).

"My question is what does he have to do or add to make himself a fighter?"

**Simple, he has to fight.

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

"There is no desire to be "demo man". But at times there is a need to demonstrate to people that are curious as to what one has to offer. "

**Then do an exhibition rather than a demo. Do boxers do demos (have someone step in with a jab to show how they would deal with it)? How, then, do they show what they have to offer? By doing an exhibition of skill -- through fighting by sparring in the ring. Many BJJ BB's spar with everyone that attends their seminars.

"My main point in this thread is lots of people that commute this forum have the belief that people in a demo have no valid fighting skills. This may or may not be true, but the real question is can they learn to fight if they are lacking, and what is needed to fill that gap."

**Everyone has fighting skills, even folks with absolutely no training. So the question isn't "can someone fight" (sure they can) but has their training significantly improved their fighting skills? A demo won't tell us that; only through fighting as part of one's training can we tell that. No one can answer your question about "what they are lacking" and "what they need" -- these are dependent on the individual (there is no universal response). Besides, any answer is a theoretical one and we don't need more theory and more specualtion. Get out there and see for yourself. Go fight. You'll then know the answer.

Regards,

Terence

[AmanuJRY]

Originally posted by t_niehoff
**Simple, he has to fight.

I think you are over-simplifying it.

So does that mean anyone who has ever been in a fight is a 'fighter'? And does that mean they're good at it?



Originally posted by t_niehoff
**Then do an exhibition rather than a demo. Do boxers do demos (have someone step in with a jab to show how they would deal with it)? How, then, do they show what they have to offer? By doing an exhibition of skill -- through fighting by sparring in the ring. Many BJJ BB's spar with everyone that attends their seminars.

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

**Everyone has fighting skills, even folks with absolutely no training. So the question isn't "can someone fight" (sure they can) but has their training significantly improved their fighting skills? A demo won't tell us that; only through fighting as part of one's training can we tell that. No one can answer your question about "what they are lacking" and "what they need" -- these are dependent on the individual (there is no universal response). Besides, any answer is a theoretical one and we don't need more theory and more specualtion. Get out there and see for yourself. Go fight. You'll then know the answer.
[/B]

Though I agree with the rest of your post, I would argue that whether you call it a 'demo' or an 'exhibition' it's the same thing (demo being short for demonstration, and all), therefor it's a matter of semantics. But, I'm totally with you in regards to the nature of the 'demo/exhibition'. Instead of a flashy display of acrobatics or choreography [sp?] a gritty, true display of skill against live resistance is more impressive to those who are in it for 'reality' than 'show'.

[sihing]

The problem with a demo that is random is the audience would not see much. On a personal level, to try and wait for the attack and apply a movement(and make it look good for the crowd, which is the whole point of a demo, crowd appeal) would be too risky, I would just attack and finish the attackers off one by one before they had a chance to get the attack off, much like a real situation. The audience would not get much of a education or idea of what WC is or what seperates it from other MA. I've done enough demo's to know that even when the attacks are somewhat controlled, the response isn't, and at times the attacker has been hurt, just due to the excitment of the event, especially for those not use to that environment.

Terence,
Your post reflects the opposite of most of your previous post from the past. Now you say that everyone has fighting ability even though one may not even have training in a fighting art. Before, the absolute was if you weren't fighting then you can't fight, period. Like AmurJRY said, demo or exibition, it's all labels and really means the same. I would have no problem performing in a demo with real random attacks, if the attacker had no problem taking a shot here or there then I have no problem too, but like I said earlier, it is a demo, and it's purpose is to show the public something they may not have seen before and to gain interest in what is being demonstrated.

James

[t_niehoff]

sihing wrote:

Your post reflects the opposite of most of your previous post from the past. Now you say that everyone has fighting ability even though one may not even have training in a fighting art. Before, the absolute was if you weren't fighting then you can't fight, period.

**Anyone can fight (most people had fights in high school, for example), the question is whether they have good fighting skills (which enable them to defeat skilled fighters, someone with superior attributes, etc.). Better fighting skills come from fighting as part of your training. It's like saying everyone has strength -- they do, to some degree. But if one wants to increase their strength significantly, there are some things they absolutely need to do.

Like AmurJRY said, demo or exibition, it's all labels and really means the same. I would have no problem performing in a demo with real random attacks, if the attacker had no problem taking a shot here or there then I have no problem too, but like I said earlier, it is a demo, and it's purpose is to show the public something they may not have seen before and to gain interest in what is being demonstrated.

**A demo with "real random attacks" isn't fighting; if it were, then what is the problem with just fighting?

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


AmanuJRY wrote:


I think you are over-simplifying it. . . So does that mean anyone who has ever been in a fight is a 'fighter'? And does that mean they're good at it?

**Obviously there is more to becoming a very good swimmer than just getting in the pool -- but that's a necessary and essential requirement for improving one's swimming skill. And anyone that gets in the pool regularly, regardless of their level, can legitmately call themselves "a swimmer".

Regards,

Terence

[AmanuJRY]

Terrance,

Ok, then, modify the original question to 'what does it take to make a demo guy a good fighter?'


There was a demo I saw once from some guys in Europe (LT/WT guys) in which they started out going all out, full speed and then all of a sudden went into 'slow motion' showing their techs and then bounced back into full speed again (just like if you slowed down your vhs at a certain spot). They did it several times throughout the sequence. I found that to be a pretty impressive demo.

Also, there are some vids of Emin Boztepe about ten years back in Europe, where he did an 'exhibition' style of demo, those were also pretty good as demos go.

[YongChun]

Terences answer would be they have to fight but it's never really defined against who or with what intensity? Trying to really take your training partner's head off or to really bust their knee or break their arms doesn't make a lot of sense. Once the members of a club know each other, they become like a family and no one really tries to hurt the other guy.

Ray

[kj]

Originally posted by YongChun
Terences answer would be they have to fight but it's never really defined against who or with what intensity? Trying to really take your training partner's head off or to really bust their knee or break their arms doesn't make a lot of sense. ONce the members of a club know each other, they become like a family and no one really tries to hurt the other guy.

Ray

I see it this way too. While minor injuries will sometimes occur, and there may be occasional non-trivial accidents, at least no serious injury is intended in the kind of school I admire. I agree with my own teacher who says it is okay to hit and be hit in training, but in never in anger. It takes quite a lot to build the kind of trust necessary for hard training in relative safety, but very little to destroy such trust.

If I were to see a "demo" where the participants were unable to control themselves, unwilling to contain their actions, or were furthermore setting forth to seriously hurt each other, I would avoid such a club, school, or teacher like the plague. For that matter, I would probably avoid such a demo. Too much "fight club" for my taste, interests, and values. This would be as true now as before I began martial arts training. To each their own.

Regards,
- Kathy Jo

[sihing]

AmanuJRY,
I think I know what demo you may be talking about coming out of the WT family, is it from a Sifu named Heinrich Pfaff, from Germany, check out this demo of his, http://www.sifu-pfaff.com/video/Trailer%202003%20DVD%20Sifu%20Heinrich%20Pfaff%20-%20DSL.wmv . His student and himself even dress up in old style Chinese clothing with wigs and all, but the demo looks impressive. There is a similar demo of his on some of the WT highlight vids, the guy seems to know his stuff but the impression I got was he has a big ego too, small man syndrome maybe. There's some other good demo's on those tapes, with one WT practitioner demonstrating blindfold fighting sequence while on the Plum Flower posts, which in this case was something like 3 1/2 or 4' up in the air. Obviously the sequence is choreographed, but it is impressive the control these guys have and it took allot of practice to perfect the demo. Some of the other demos are not as good, but overall they did a good job on those tapes and demo's, IMO. Can these people fight? I would say so, hard to tell for sure as to what skill level they are, but they would have no problem with the average mugging or assault attacker.


James

[t_niehoff]

Go to a boxing gym or a muay thai gym or a kyokushinkai school or a bjj academy or a gym that trains NHB fighters and see what they do -- what they all share is that each student as part of their training regularly get into a fighting environment where they are facing a fully resisting opponent, with genuine aggressive intensity (full power, full speed, all-out attributes), that is really trying to defeat (submit, pound, whatever) them. That's how they become better fighters -- by fighting (taking what they get from "class" and trying to put it into their fighting). They're not trying to cause "serious injury" to each other, or doing it out of "anger", or doing it from "ego" -- this is part of what must be done to significantly increase their fighting skills. How much more do I need to "define" this?

I have no problem with demos -- but am merely pointing out that being able to look good in a demo doesn't mean squat about having good fighting skills. The visiting shaolin monks, for example, look great at demos. The NHB fighter that visited the shaolin monks found that they couldn't fight (he wrote up his account in Black Belt, I believe). They could do all kinds of amazing things with their bodies (so can acrobats) and they believed they were "superior" fighters, but they were no match for a run-of-the-mill MMAist. Because they didn't train to fight.

Regards,

Terence

[sihing]

I agree with you there Terence, if all you do is perform in demo's then that is all that you will be good at. Like the example I used with Jet Li, he can perform all kinds of great athletic movements with precision and power but can he fight? Yes he would definetly have to start sparring more with other fighters, but what else would he have to do. Is the ring or sparring mat the only place to learn timing, distancing or perception skills? I think Jet Li would do quite well against most people, but of course if you put him up against a Martial artist that has fought or used his stuff regularly then he may not do as well, especially if they are training on a regular basis.

James

[t_niehoff]

sihing wrote:

Is the ring or sparring mat the only place to learn timing, distancing or perception skills?

**Yes. You can only develop the attributes for fighting by fighting (supplemental exercises can help but won't do it alone) and can only develop the tools for fighting by fighting (supplmental exercises can help but won't do it alone). Increased fighting skill -- skill being the synergetic combination of strategy, tools, attributes, experience, etc. -- requires a three-step training model: learning the tool (technique, mechanic, concept, whatever), drilling the tool, and then integrating that tool into your fighting.

I think Jet Li would do quite well against most people, but of course if you put him up against a Martial artist that has fought or used his stuff regularly then he may not do as well, especially if they are training on a regular basis.

**The number one determining factor in success in fighting (excluding a surprise attack, like a sucker punch) is the relative level of conditioning of the two fighters (not that the better conditioned fighter always wins but rather that skill doesn't become much of a factor unless there is some parity of conditioning). A good athlete (someone in shape) will beat most people in a fight as most people are in poor relative shape.

Regards,

Terence

[sihing]

Again I agree mostly with what you said Terence. Training by fighting to improve your fighting is a requirement, as long as the supplementary things are there, forms, drills, etc...Fighting alone, with none of the above will develop little in the area of skilled self defense. In this case one would be able to do this alone and try to figure it all out themselves, and for all they know they could be doing it all wrong.

As for conditioning and that being the key factor in fights (on the street) I would have to disagree with that. If you got the best decathlon Olympic athlete to fight someone skilled in any MA then I would put my money on the skilled Martial Artist. Combine that skill with conditioning and you have a better Martial Artist. Wing Chun IMO is a MA that does not rely on a person's individual assets or attributes but more on what the art can do for them, the techniques and concepts work on their own right. Of course we do need some sort of strength and stamina to put it together, but the average person already has enough of that to make it work. They just need to coordinate it and work on the skill attributes like distancing, timing and perception. Competitions are a different story just due to the fact that there are rules and the other athletes are in shape also. The competitions are meant to last longer so therefore you must be able to last longer. Real self-defense situations should be over quick, and IMO that's what WC strives for, quick resolutions to one being attacked.


James

[t_niehoff]

sihing wrote:

As for conditioning and that being the key factor in fights (on the street) I would have to disagree with that. If you got the best decathlon Olympic athlete to fight someone skilled in any MA then I would put my money on the skilled Martial Artist. Combine that skill with conditioning and you have a better Martial Artist.

**"Skill" means fighting ability (our ability to use the WCK method in fighting), and that ability depends upon our conditioning. Conditioning is therefore a part of one's skill. There is a direct collerlation between the level of one's condition and the level of their skill, with poor shape meaning poor fighting skill.

Wing Chun IMO is a MA that does not rely on a person's individual assets or attributes but more on what the art can do for them, the techniques and concepts work on their own right. Of course we do need some sort of strength and stamina to put it together, but the average person already has enough of that to make it work. They just need to coordinate it and work on the skill attributes like distancing, timing and perception.

**That's a lovely theory, and one that many people want to believe (it comforts them). But fighting is the most intense and physically demanding of all physical activities, and while our method (WCK) doesn't rely on excessive brute force but instead the intelligent application of refined force, this is not something that comes easily (it requires a great deal of hard training), nor is it something that the 'average person can do' (but requires certain, specific physical development).

Competitions are a different story just due to the fact that there are rules and the other athletes are in shape also. The competitions are meant to last longer so therefore you must be able to last longer. Real self-defense situations should be over quick, and IMO that's what WC strives for, quick resolutions to one being attacked.

**If I fight a MMAist in some competition, I want it to be over as quickly as possible too. But as he is a skilled fighter and not a scrub "from the street", he'll more likely be able to give me more trouble. In any event, I don't want to depend on being able to "dispatch" my guy "on the street" in 10 seconds or less but be gassed if that fails (and at his mercy) -- that "should be over quick" is another lovely theory. If you train with good fighters, you'll be in shape and you'll be better prepared for the schmuck that takes a swing at you on the street -- whether he goes down in seconds or the fight goes for minutes.

Regards,

Terence

[kj]

Originally posted by t_niehoff
Go to a boxing gym or a muay thai gym or a kyokushinkai school or a bjj academy or a gym that trains NHB fighters and see what they do -- what they all share is that each student as part of their training regularly get into a fighting environment where they are facing a fully resisting opponent, with genuine aggressive intensity (full power, full speed, all-out attributes), that is really trying to defeat (submit, pound, whatever) them. That's how they become better fighters -- by fighting (taking what they get from "class" and trying to put it into their fighting). They're not trying to cause "serious injury" to each other, or doing it out of "anger", or doing it from "ego" -- this is part of what must be done to significantly increase their fighting skills. How much more do I need to "define" this?

It is great and quite amazing that you and everyone you know can go all out with "genuine aggressive intensity (full power, full speed, all-out-attributes) that is really trying to defeat (submit, pound, whatever)" while at the same time "not trying to cause 'serious injury' to each other," and where anger or ego never surface, and where (we are to presume) this occurs regularly and without undue exposure to 'accidents' or misfortune, and all the people who do this are all significantly and irrefutably increasing their Wing Chun specific skill set in the process. It is furthermore proposed that this is somehow "provable." Maybe it's just me, but without more data to support such a theory, some suspension of disbelief would be involved in accepting it outright.

To me, "fighting without violence" doesn't compute any more than "violence without violence." And to me, based on the assumptions above, your "definition" of what is and is not fighting so far has been as artificial, abstract and pragmatically unrealistic as other theoretical arguments on this board.

On a macro or individual level, to me fighting is war, and commensurately serious. Training may be preparation for war, but it is not the same thing as real war. To wage war when you don't really mean war makes zero sense to me; furthermore, a failure to manage inadvertently crossing that line is irresponsible from my perspective. Having experienced direct violence in my lifetime, this is much more than some abstract theory to me.

I don't exclusively accept the premises of your argument, and what you describe as a black and white definition of fighting (as above) remains ambiguous to me. Like analog vs. digital representations, perspective plays its part even in matters of clarity and precision. I don't wholly negate your theory, however I do feel relentless insistence on it is obsessive.

As before, if what you are really trying to describe is progressive resistance, I couldn't agree more on the importance of that. In my swimming analogy, this is akin to working in the appropriate range from wading pool to thunderous and crashing seas. But of course that cannot be your point, since you persist in disagreeing. Also, my swimming analogy is wrong and yours is right. :p

If you are furthermore trying to say that progressive resistance is important but that many of us don't routinely resist enough, that's your prerogative to say. It nonetheless remains each to their own judgement on how far and hard to go, when, and how to manage the associated risks, benefits, and reasonble degrees of assurance vs. "proof" in practice. Anyone subscribing to your or similar arguments without consideration of their own needs, priorities and values would be remiss.

Till next time,
- Kathy Jo

[t_niehoff]

kj wrote:

It is great and quite amazing that you and everyone you know can go all out with "genuine aggressive intensity (full power, full speed, all-out-attributes) that is really trying to defeat (submit, pound, whatever)" while at the same time "not trying to cause 'serious injury' to each other," and where anger or ego never surface, and where (we are to presume) this occurs regularly and without undue exposure to 'accidents' or misfortune, and all the people who do this are all significantly and irrefutably increasing their Wing Chun specific skill set in the process. It is furthermore proposed that this is somehow "provable." Maybe it's just me, but without more data to support such a theory, some suspension of disbelief would be involved in accepting it outright.

**It's actually very easy to prove -- if someone is fighting as part of their training: they will see the improvement as they go along (with every fight). It's like checking the weight on the bar if you're actually lifting weights; you'll see the poundage go up as you continue lifting. If someone doesn't fight, they have absolutely no way to judge whether or not their skill is improving. Some think getting "better" at a drill like chi sao translates into better fighting skill. It doesn't. And, in fact, any of the drills can be detrimental (instilling poor habits that "work" within the drill) to developing our fighting skills. The fighting is what keeps us on track and honest. Those people that aren't fighting have no way of knowing their progress, either forward or backward. All they do is guess. And there guess is wrong since they can't improve their skill without fighting.

To me, "fighting without violence" doesn't compute any more than "violence without violence." And to me, based on the assumptions above, your "definition" of what is and is not fighting so far has been as artificial, abstract and pragmatically unrealistic as other theoretical arguments on this board.

**Only a nonfighter would have difficulty grasping the notion of what fighting is. "Let's define and delineate fighting." Get real. Or maybe just go vist some place where they actually fight. See for yourself.

On a macro or individual level, to me fighting is war, and commensurately serious. Training may be preparation for war, but it is not the same thing as real war. To wage war when you don't really mean war makes zero sense to me; furthermore, a failure to manage inadvertently crossing that line is irresponsible from my perspective. Having experienced direct violence in my lifetime, this is much more than some abstract theory to me.

**Complete nonsense. Don't call yourself a martial artist if you don't fight -- I don't know what you are doing but it is not martial arts. Someone can't practice a fighting method like WCK without fighting (just like someone can't practice a swimming method without swimming).

I don't exclusively accept the premises of your argument, and what you describe as a black and white definition of fighting (as above) remains ambiguous to me. Like analog vs. digital representations, perspective plays its part even in matters of clarity and precision. I don't wholly negate your theory, however I do feel relentless insistence on it is obsessive.

**I don't care if you accept my "premises." The great thing about martial arts, including WCK, is that the proof is in the pudding. We can look to results and see for ourselves.

As before, if what you are really trying to describe is progressive resistance, I couldn't agree more on the importance of that. In my swimming analogy, this is akin to working in the appropriate range from wading pool to thunderous and crashing seas. But of course that cannot be your point, since you persist in disagreeing. Also, my swimming analogy is wrong and yours is right.

**This has nothing to do with "progressive resistance" (a strength training concept). Rather, it is the principle that do become better at any physical activity requires that we actually do that activity itself. So to become better WCK fighters, we need to regularly fight with WCK. Forms, chi sao, san sao, other drills, etc. are not fighting -- not even close to fighting (and if you disagree, there is an easy way to see for yourself).

Regards,

Terence

[KingMonkey]

Go to a boxing gym or a muay thai gym or a kyokushinkai school or a bjj academy or a gym that trains NHB fighters and see what they do -- what they all share is that each student as part of their training regularly get into a fighting environment where they are facing a fully resisting opponent, with genuine aggressive intensity (full power, full speed, all-out attributes), that is really trying to defeat (submit, pound, whatever) them
Define regularly ?
I train at a MMA gym.
What you're claiming doesnt match my experience, not where the stand up is concerned anyway. BJJ and grappling arts are different beasts and lend themselves to training against a fully resisting opponent without people getting hurt.

Resistance yes, 100% balls to the wall on a regular basis ?
I dont think so.

[t_niehoff]

KingMonkey,

Obviously one doesn't need to go 100% all of the time -- sometimes it is 80%, sometimes it may drop to 50%, but it needs to go regularly (at consistent intervals) to 100%. If your training partner isn't really trying to hit you with that jab the very best he can, with all the speed, timing, etc, he can muster, you are not really learning to deal with a good jab but something less. If when he shoots but he isn't really trying to take you down the very best he can, with all the speed, penetration, deception, etc, he can muster, you're not really learning to deal with a really good shoot.

When you fellows spar, do you just coast?

Regards,

Terence

[kj]

Originally posted by t_niehoff
**Complete nonsense. Don't call yourself a martial artist if you don't fight -- I don't know what you are doing but it is not martial arts. Someone can't practice a fighting method like WCK without fighting (just like someone can't practice a swimming method without swimming).

Sorry Terence, we've already been this route. I've explained clearly that I don't accept that Wing Chun and fighting are the same thing, and while they share much in common, neither is it a subset/superset relationship. Consequently, we won't agree on what constitutes a martial artist, nor much of anything else that relies on the same premise.

I'm starting to think you have a short attention span. :D

If you'd like to discuss "qualitative" criteria (versus state-of-being), that's a different matter.

Over and out from Venus,
- kj

[kj]

Originally posted by t_niehoff
KingMonkey,

Obviously one doesn't need to go 100% all of the time -- sometimes it is 80%, sometimes it may drop to 50%, ...

a) More equivocation about what constitutes fighting, and b) consistent with my swimming analogy.


Not arguing, just offering to help you to see. :)

Regards,
- kj

[KingMonkey]

Coast ?
Well my training partner is genuinely trying to hit me while also trying not to be hit and I am doing the same.
Doesnt mean to say we're both firing on all cylinders though. ie 100% power aggression submit pound whatever.

[Knifefighter]

Originally posted by YongChun
Terences answer would be they have to fight but it's never really defined against who or with what intensity? Trying to really take your training partner's head off or to really bust their knee or break their arms doesn't make a lot of sense. Once the members of a club know each other, they become like a family and no one really tries to hurt the other guy. And therein lies the value of NHB/MMA competitions. They let you go at a much higher intensity against people who are not your friends.

A "real" fighter has fought and tested his training in a competitive environment and has used this to enhance his fighting skills.

[t_niehoff]

kj wrote:

I've explained clearly that I don't accept that Wing Chun and fighting are the same thing,

**It's not that they are the same thing but that WCK is a method of fighting, a fighting approach as are the various other martial arts (each with their own individual approach).

and while they share much in common, neither is it a subset/superset relationship. Consequently, we won't agree on what constitutes a martial artist, nor much of anything else that relies on the same premise.

**If someone doesn't accept that skill in WCK is fighting skill (using WCK's approach) then IMO they are lost and clueless. They can never develop skill in WCK since they haven't a clue as to what that means.

Regards,

Terence

[kj]

Originally posted by t_niehoff
**If someone doesn't accept that skill in WCK is fighting skill (using WCK's approach) then IMO they are lost and clueless. They can never develop skill in WCK since they haven't a clue as to what that means.

Okay, then I am lost and clueless because I disagree with this too.

IMHO, WCK is not just set of skills, but also a) a set of principles and concepts combined with b) a training method for internalizing and actualizing those principles and concepts. I would say that the primary goal of WCK is to nurture skills which enhance fighting capability, though other purposes and benefits can also be fulfilled through practice of the methods and the skills obtained thereby. Whether or not the practitioner becomes engaged in an actual fight is a different matter.

To enhance fighting capabilities is not the same thing as to fight. While fighting can certainly serve as an alternate or additional method to enhance fighting capability - possibly even a superior method in terms of results - it too does not guarantee development of WCK skills.

Success in fighting is not a sole and sufficient measure of WCK skill(s). Neither is WCK skill(s) a sole and sufficient measure of fighting skill(s). While related, they simply aren't the same thing(s).

What is really cool is when during the necessity of a fight (my emphasis on necessity), there is a conjunction of WCK skill and relative success (e.g., survival and minimized injury) during the fighting encounter.

Your higher end and purpose may be to fight. My higher relative purpose is to avoid fighting yet, among other things, to do some reasonable advance preparations in case I should ever be compelled to. On my planet, avoiding fights (by my definition) and the practice of WCK are not mutually exclusive.

To me it's utterly foolish to swim willingly into thunderous and crashing seas unless there is some higher calling and purpose for doing so. However, it is not foolish to engage in advance preparations in conjunction with carefully considered risk management.

Being sentient and rational beings, we humans also have a unique ability to understand quite a lot without directly experiencing a thing for ourselves. This is something you appear to completely discount. Even imperfect understanding can be useful. Take death for example ... until we experience it, our understanding will remain imperfect for sure, yet even imperfect understanding is quite useful and serves as a "clue."

Regards,
- kj

[YongChun]

KJ, you and Terence are from different planets with different kinds of logic and different definitions. So it's not possible to convince each other of anything.


In my opinion, if your not getting injured on a regular basis in a punching art, then your not going 100%. That's my easy to understand, easy to measure definition.

Furthermore, none of this is on topic. The topic is how to turn someone like Jet Li into a fighter assuming that he doesn't know the first thing about fighting? The only report I have ever read about this question was that about three months of daily fighting produced some good results that the USA people were happy with. That doesn't necessarily mean the Chinese were happy with that level of fighting. Im sure a lot more time would have been required to make their complete repertoire applicable in a real fight.

Ray

[kj]

Originally posted by YongChun
KJ, you and Terence are from different planets with different kinds of logic and different definitions. So it's not possible to convince each other of anything.

Hi Ray,

Yes, we are indeed from different planets. :cool:

I hope no one has illusions that I am really trying to convince Terence of something, LOL. I don't think we generally convince other people of things anyway ... convincing must come from inside ourselves, just like learning does.

Like you though, I do sometimes enjoy giving voice to other reasonable perspectives and playing the devil's advocate. Just because something is said again and again, or said very "loudly" or aggressively does not make it more true or invalidate other truths. However, it can "appear" so if left unquestioned. There can always be some value in asking a good question or raising food for thought. It's sometimes about seeing the bigger picture.


In my opinion, if your not getting injured on a regular basis in a punching art, then your not going 100%. That's my easy to understand, easy to measure definition.

I agree of course.


Furthermore, none of this is on topic. The topic is how to turn someone like Jet Li into a fighter assuming that he doesn't know the first thing about fighting?

Sorry to be off topic. Not really. :D Catch as catch can. Besides, I think if we could understand the answer to these deeper and more fundamental questions, then it would be easier and more reliable to address such subsequent things as "what would make Jet Li into a fighter." It's all related.

Regards,
- kj

[t_niehoff]

Ray,

Lots of stand-up fighters, kyokushinkai, muay thai, boxers, MMAists, etc., train full-contact with intensity for years without getting seriously injured or routinely injured -- you have heard of protective gear, right? And, part of avoiding injury is conditioning. And skill (you actually learn how to better protect yourself from harm! -- novel idea, isn't it?). But, yes, accidents do happen -- as they do in any activity involving intense contact (american football, rugby, etc.). Those activities aren't for everyone. Anyone taking them up should be aware of what's involved and be prepared to assume the risk. But the rewards only come to those that do.
----------------------

KJ wrote:

IMHO, WCK is not just set of skills, but also a) a set of principles and concepts combined with b) a training method for internalizing and actualizing those principles and concepts. I would say that the primary goal of WCK is to nurture skills which enhance fighting capability, though other purposes and benefits can also be fulfilled through practice of the methods and the skills obtained thereby. Whether or not the practitioner becomes engaged in an actual fight is a different matter.

**The *purpose* of those principles and concepts are to enable us to better use our tools and thus make us better fighters. The purpose of the training is to make us better fighters (using WCK's method). You can say WCK is to "nurture skills and enhance fighting capability" though that is just another way to say "make us better fighters." The problem is that forms and drills alone won't "make us better fighters" because forms and drills, including chi sao, is not some sort of "toned down" fighting -- they are *different in kind* (fundamentally different) than fighting. Being able to "absorb" these principles and concepts, or develop fighting skills, requires we actually fight. Chi sao is a supplementary exercise -- it's there to supplement, not replace, fighting.

To enhance fighting capabilities is not the same thing as to fight.

**Agreed. Just as enhancing swimming capabilities is not the same thing as swimming. But no one becomes a better swimmer without swimming -- that's the essential requirement. Just getting in good shape will "enhance fighting capabilities." But that won't make you a good fighter.

While fighting can certainly serve as an alternate or additional method to enhance fighting capability - possibly even a superior method in terms of results - it too does not guarantee development of WCK skills.

**Of course not -- because we can fight without using WCK's approach. Just like I can fight without developing BJJ skills. But one can't develop BJJ skills or WCK skills without fighting. So I take my method and tools, from BJJ or WCK, and put it into a fighting environment. Fighting is not the "alternate or additional" training method, it is the principal training method. Chi sao is the supplemental method (the goal is not to develop good chi sao but good fighting skills).

Success in fighting is not a sole and sufficient measure of WCK skill(s). Neither is WCK skill(s) a sole and sufficient measure of fighting skill(s). While related, they simply aren't the same thing(s).

**One can be a good fighter without knowing WCK. Just like I can be a good fighter without being a boxer. Or a BJJ practitioner. But my skill in any of those methods is determined by how well I can fight with that method. A BJJ practioner that routinely gets tapped by a blue belt could not say they were highly skilled. A boxer that can't box in the ring against a good boxer can't say they have good boxing skills. A WCK fighter that can't hold their own against a skillful fighter can't say they have good skill. This is because fighting is not the particular method but the particular method is a way of fighting (not all birds are robins but a robin is a bird).

Being sentient and rational beings, we humans also have a unique ability to understand quite a lot without directly experiencing a thing for ourselves. This is something you appear to completely discount. Even imperfect understanding can be useful. Take death for example ... until we experience it, our understanding will remain imperfect for sure, yet even imperfect understanding is quite useful and serves as a "clue."

**Sentient and rational human beings fool themselves and others, intentionally and unintentionally, all the time. People can convince themselves of all kinds of things, particularly when they want to believe them. Some people believe chi sao and other drills will "enhance fighting capability", for example. It is an easy thing to check out. A very good way to tell when "sentient and rational beings" are fooling themselves is when they avoid testing their "conclusions" or looking at evidence.

Regards,

Terence

[YongChun]

Terence:
Lots of stand-up fighters, kyokushinkai, muay thai, boxers, MMAists, etc., train full-contact with intensity for years without getting seriously injured or routinely injured -- you have heard of protective gear, right? And, part of avoiding injury is conditioning. And skill (you actually learn how to better protect yourself from harm! -- novel idea, isn't it?).

Ray:
Boy you sure have a lot of novel ideas! Protection, getting fit, that’s great! Skill is good too. I never heard of those things before. It’s amazing what martial arts have evolved to these days! No telling what it will evolve to in the future? Maybe some kind of full contact Ballet, but with full protection of course.

I wonder who Mas Oyama has fought before? You seem to be a big fan of his but on the other hand credit only those people who have really fought. Jon Bluming doesn’t seem to have such high praise for him. Jon Bluming is a fighter. But Mas Oyama could knock the horns of a tied up bull though. I don’t think he fought anyone of note except some out of shape wrestlers. There was a Tai Chi guy that he looked up to according to a Muay Thai site somewhere. Nakayama was also impressed with a Tai Chi guy that was in Japan.

But don’t get me wrong. I have a respect for Mas Oyama even though he didn’t fight anyone good. I respect Yip Man also even though he didn't fight anyone good that we know of either. Mas Oyama's big fat book was the first one I ever bought on martial arts. Several members of our club were previous Kyokushinkai fighters. My first art was Karate under a very good fighter.

After a certain age, and when you have gotten all your aggression out, you tend to not train as hard anymore. That’s why these kyokushinkai guys switched arts. After awhile, health is more important than the personal glory of beating someone to a pulp. THat's not to say that you can't prcatice that type of Karate after a certain age. Just the training will not be as intense.

I don’t think boxers go 100% with their sparring partners, (see what 100% means above). Also Muay Thai fighters like to save themselves for the real fight and don’t like to get injured during practice with their training partners. So they don’t train 100% in practice. I read that on a Muay Thai site. Maybe they were lying, I don’t know?

I also read they don’t generally fight like that after age 30. That was on a Muay Thai site too. They said they can’t keep up the high intensity fighting past this age. Western boxers also tend not to keep up the high intensity training after a certain age, maybe age 40. Judo people also find their bodies can’t take it after a certain age. So they train with less intensity after that. In Aikido in Japan, people over 40 tend not to take the falls. They find it’s too hard on the body. My friend who is a 3rd dan in Aikido told me that. Maybe he was kidding?

Terence:
But, yes, accidents do happen -- as they do in any activity involving intense contact (american football, rugby, etc.). Those activities aren't for everyone. Anyone taking them up should be aware of what's involved and be prepared to assume the risk. But the rewards only come to those that do. Terence

Ray:
Are the rewards of going 100% a broken knee? Severe arthritis? Alzheimer’s disease? Mohammed Ali’s brain condition? What are your rewards? One of my friend’s mountain climber team leaders was just awarded with a soccer ball sized boulder hitting him on the head and he bled to death. Is that the kind of reward we are looking for? If I go 100% and bust my student’s knee is that a good reward for him? These are examples of what 100% really means.

Full contact with intensity is different from going all out 100% as you suggested before. In my definition, going all out 100% is equivalent to a real fight, a professional boxing match, knockout or injury is the result in a hitting art. The grappling arts are different, it’s only submission and 5 minutes later you are OK again.

In my Karate days we trained with no protection and kicked at fast as possible with control. Still people got their ribs broken, their knees busted. What’s more real, that or fighting in a foam suit? Is fighting with full protection like the Arnis people in a full Kendo suit going all out 100%. Or is fighting with a foam covered stick 100%. I think all those are less than 100%. If there is no serious risk then it’s less than 100%.

The next level up in sparring for us would be to try to injure each other, to go all out or 100%. It would be to try to knock each other out. To really whack each other in bony areas with unpadded sticks. But one of our novel ideas is safety first. Another novel idea is to gear the training to the practitioner’s abilities, interests etc. So we tend to go only as hard as is safe for the student and so that we can keep to the art rather than to have a wild uncontrolled flurry. Those students who have the interest test their art by going to other clubs to train. Some get feedback from applying their art in their work (police, correctional, bouncing).

We all have speed limits within which we have control but beyond which we start to lose control. Driving beyond the speed you can control, although very exciting, with big rewards, big thrills, isn’t necessary to becoming a good driver. So for this reason we don’t train 100% animal mode.

Real fighting is real fighting. The rest is playing, fitness, conditioning, sports, learning an art or whatever. War is real fighting. Fighting for your life on the street is real fighting. Fighting in jail is real fighting. Professional fighters fight for real. Those are the fighters that can really talk about fighting. The rest is just arguing about whose intensity is higher. We can’t measure that on the net.

The art of Aikido might have 3,000 techniques. You can’t train those by putting on full body protection and going all out. It just doesn’t seem to work. I think they have a true martial art as well. The millions who practice that are not practicing dance. So there are different ways to train. Training for war and training for sports or for a hobby are all different. Training also differs according to age, according to what kinds of skills one likes to develop.

Training will vary according to what kind of fighter you want to fight. You want to beat the Thais? Then train against the Thais. You want to beat BJJ? Then train against BJJ. You want to beat Malaysian street fighters? Then practice fighting them. One rough and tough method cannot handle them all.

The standard classical model to become a fighter is: learn the forms, train the applications in drills and sparring, then when you think you got it, go out and fight. Every art I have studied used that standard training model. A few aggressive people became fighters and fought but most trained it for fitness, the art and some self defense. The modern version of that is to substitute sports competition for fighting. It avoids jail or death. Maybe just a few % of martial artists like to compete. But they are still martial artists.

I am just wondering, does your teacher Robert Chu really fight? If so who? If not, is he a real martial artist? To me he is a real martial artist even though I have never heard about him fighting anyone good.

Anyone who dedicates his life to a martial art is a martial artist no matter what the chosen art, no matter what the level of skill is achieved and no matter what his or her viewpoint.

[t_niehoff]

YongChun wrote:

Boy you sure have a lot of novel ideas! Protection, getting fit, that’s great! Skill is good too. I never heard of those things before. It’s amazing what martial arts have evolved to these days! No telling what it will evolve to in the future? Maybe some kind of full contact Ballet, but with full protection of course.

**You're main concern seems to be getting injured -- protection, conditioning, skill, etc. are what minimize that chance.

I wonder who Mas Oyama has fought before? blah, blah, blah . . .

**Oyama did a world tour taking on "all comers", plus kyokushinkai practioners regularly fight (spar) as part of their training (as all fighters do).

After a certain age, and when you have gotten all your aggression out, you tend to not train as hard anymore. That’s why these kyokushinkai guys switched arts. After awhile, health is more important than the personal glory of beating someone to a pulp. THat's not to say that you can't prcatice that type of Karate after a certain age. Just the training will not be as intense.

**Sure people stop fighting -- some do it for age, injuries, other interests, all kinds of things. So what?

I don’t think boxers go 100% with their sparring partners, (see what 100% means above). Also Muay Thai fighters like to save themselves for the real fight and don’t like to get injured during practice with their training partners. So they don’t train 100% in practice. I read that on a Muay Thai site. Maybe they were lying, I don’t know?

**No one goes 100% all of the time, but they go 100% regularly. And they train at 80% a lot of the time. You can't expect to race your car around the track at 100 mph if you only ever drive 20 mph.

I also read they don’t generally fight like that after age 30. blah, blah, blah

**And when they stop, their skill declines. They will be able to train folks, but they won't have the same skill they did when they were practicing. Mountain climbers stop climbing mountains too when they get older. They can say that they were once mountain climbers.

Are the rewards of going 100% a broken knee? Severe arthritis? Alzheimer’s disease? Mohammed Ali’s brain condition? What are your rewards? One of my friend’s mountain climber team leaders was just awarded with a soccer ball sized boulder hitting him on the head and he bled to death. Is that the kind of reward we are looking for? If I go 100% and bust my student’s knee is that a good reward for him? These are examples of what 100% really means.

**The rewards are developing fighting skill. Not everyone wants that. If not, fine -- don't fight. But you won't get it any other way but through fighting. Some people like mountain climbing. But there are risks. For you the risks may outweigh the benefits. Fine -- different strokes for different folks. But if you want to be a mountain climber, you need to accept those risks. You can try to minimize them too.

Full contact with intensity is different from going all out 100% as you suggested before. In my definition, going all out 100% is equivalent to a real fight, a professional boxing match, knockout or injury is the result in a hitting art. The grappling arts are different, it’s only submission and 5 minutes later you are OK again.

**First of all, WCK is not a "hitting art" -- it involves or uses strikes but also involves grappling. Second, just like BJJ allows folks to submit without getting their arm broken, we can stop striking when we see the opponent is "helpless."

Real fighting is real fighting. The rest is playing, fitness, conditioning, sports, learning an art or whatever. War is real fighting. Fighting for your life on the street is real fighting. Fighting in jail is real fighting. Professional fighters fight for real. Those are the fighters that can really talk about fighting. The rest is just arguing about whose intensity is higher. We can’t measure that on the net.

**How do professional fighters -- you know, those guys that "fight for real" -- train to fight? By fighting, just like I'm advocating.

The art of Aikido might have 3,000 techniques. You can’t train those by putting on full body protection and going all out. It just doesn’t seem to work. I think they have a true martial art as well. The millions who practice that are not practicing dance. So there are different ways to train. Training for war and training for sports or for a hobby are all different. Training also differs according to age, according to what kinds of skills one likes to develop.

**You can *think* or *believe* whatever you like -- that doesn't make it true. Of "the millions" that practice aikido, where are any that can fight well, and hang with skilled fighters? It is not a martial art, at least not the way it is trained.

Training will vary according to what kind of fighter you want to fight. You want to beat the Thais? Then train against the Thais. You want to beat BJJ? Then train against BJJ. You want to beat Malaysian street fighters? Then practice fighting them. One rough and tough method cannot handle them all.

**The training that produces increased fighting skill is the same.

The standard classical model to become a fighter is: learn the forms, train the applications in drills and sparring, then when you think you got it, go out and fight. Every art I have studied used that standard training model. A few aggressive people became fighters and fought but most trained it for fitness, the art and some self defense. The modern version of that is to substitute sports competition for fighting. It avoids jail or death. Maybe just a few % of martial artists like to compete. But they are still martial artists.

**"Sparring" is fighting -- or at least it should be (and not a game). It's simple, to get better at any activity we need to do that activity. WCK is an approach to fighting. To get better at fighting, and using WCK's approach, we must fight, do the activity itself, as part of our training.

I am just wondering, does your teacher Robert Chu really fight? If so who? If not, is he a real martial artist? To me he is a real martial artist even though I have never heard about him fighting anyone good.

**I've already told you what is required to develop greater fighting skill -- it's true of everyone, including me, Robert, or Sum Nung. And to get better, we need to face better and better fighters. YKS WCK has that very statement as a kuit! How's that for tradition! Now, I'm sorry that Robert hasn't kept you personally up to date with who he trains with. But what he does or doesn't do has no bearing on the issue at hand.

Anyone who dedicates his life to a martial art is a martial artist no matter what the chosen art, no matter what the level of skill is achieved and no matter what his or her viewpoint.

**Folks can call themselves whatever they like. But a boxer is someone that boxes (in the ring), not just goes to the gym and jumps rope, hits the heavy bag, etc. for fitness or whatever. A mountain climber is someone that actually climbs mountains, a hang-glider is someone that actually hang-glides, and a martial artist is someone that **practices** martial arts -- puts it into practice, fights. Not does forms, not does drills, not does dances, but fights -- whether is is in their kwoon, or gym or ring or whatever. Doesn't matter if they get paid, doesn't matter if they win, etc.

Regards,

Terence

[kj]

Originally posted by t_niehoff
The purpose of the training is to make us better fighters (using WCK's method). You can say WCK is to "nurture skills and enhance fighting capability" though that is just another way to say "make us better fighters."

I still do not agree with this. One will never "be" a better fighter without fighting. (You may have thought I neglected to understand that point! LOL.) I might more easily accept a more precise editing though, such as:

"The purpose of training is to increase our fighting capabilities (using WCK's methods)."

Again, to "be" a fighter (state of being), or to engage in a fight (specific and limited action in time), is not the same as increasing fighting capability (a process), even though these things are related.

By way of example, I personally have zero aspiration to "be" a fighter. I do indeed have aspirations of increasing my fighting ability.

We can liken a martial artist to a soldier (more aptly than to a swimmer). There are many soldiers who prepare for war, yet not all of them encounter direct fire. Some engage in direct fire (sending, receiving, or both), and these then indeed become fighters. Others come close to the action but aren't as directly engaged, some never see any action at all. Yet we still call all these people soldiers. Not everyone training as a soldier aspires to combat, though they continue preparing for it rather than abandoning their training for ballet. This may seem paradoxical, but to me it is very reasonable.

So for Jet Li to "become" a better fighter (state of being), he would have to fight (specific activity). To increase his fighting capabilities (process), there are many possible methods which can be used in isolation or in combination. Fighting itself is only one of the possible methods, while other methods may approach fighting (again, approach in the differential sense), and still some other methods may not directly resemble fighting at all, but nonetheless build relevant and transferrable attributes.

Shall we go around one more time? :D

Regards,
- Kathy Jo

[YongChun]

Originally posted by t_niehoff
I am just wondering, does your teacher Robert Chu really fight? If so who? If not, is he a real martial artist? To me he is a real martial artist even though I have never heard about him fighting anyone good.

**I've already told you what is required to develop greater fighting skill -- it's true of everyone, including me, Robert, or Sum Nung. And to get better, we need to face better and better fighters. YKS WCK has that very statement as a kuit! How's that for tradition! Now, I'm sorry that Robert hasn't kept you personally up to date with who he trains with. But what he does or doesn't do has no bearing on the issue at hand.

Regards,

Terence

I think it relates because you look down on most other teachers whether it is Chen XiaoWang, Uyeshiba from Aikido, Garrett Gee or whoever because they have not fought anyone good that you know of.

I think Robert hasn't either nor does he hang out in Thai boxing gyms. You only deflected the issue. Since he is your teacher, then you know what he has or hasn't done.

Also who is it that Mas Oyama fought? You said he took lot's of challenges? Are these documented any more than anyone else's stories of their teachers taking on challengers? You discount the stories of others yet talk about Mas Oyama and Sum Nun being good fighters. Any evidence of this that all can accept? Has Leung Ting fought anyone? I think he has generated some good students don't you? Again to me all those people are martial artists who have made great contributions to the world of martial art. Do you have a contribution? What has your group contributed to the world of martial art? Do you think your idea that fighters fight is new and innovative in the martial arts world?

You think anyone has said that fighters don't fight? You seem to be under that impression? Most people understand what fighters do and how they train. You have provided no illumination on that front.

Some of the people you argue with on this forum are from clubs that do practice in the usual way by sparring with protection. So I don't see how what you are saying is different from what most people do. The only difference is when you said you must go 100% to really take someone's head off. I haven't seen that kind of training in any clubs but then I don't hang out with the underworld crowd who are into those bloodsport competitions.

If you are really a promotor of what you say then you should compete there and report back on your failure or success. Then you would be making a real concrete contribution.

Ernie is hoping to train someone in the Wing Chun method to compete at some high level. That might tell if his theories are good or not. Are you doing the same with your invitation only members? I would like to see a competition with your bunch and some other Wing Chun group and then your bunch and the Thais, the Kyokoshin people etc. Let's see some action because action speaks louder than repetitious words. Let's see a model for all to follow. Let's see time frames for turning an average citizen into a fighter. How about an open challenge by you against any Aikido or Tai Chi martial artist to prove your point that those people can't fight? I will put my money on you so do a good job.

Ray

[sihing]

Are we going down this road again? Fighting is fighting yeah we know this, and I think there is a consensus about realistic training and that is, just doing forms and drills will not bring you to your highest skill level in the MA. Some sort of contact is required, and it has to be progressively intensified, not all out from day one. People on day one, when learning a particular way of doing things, like MA systems, have to get the basics in them, otherwise people will just do whatever they want and all of us instructors will become obsolete. Just try learning to do anything with out some sort of guidance, and guidance can mean allot of things like personal instruction, books, video's, just watching others in a non personal way. Martial Arts and fighting is about movements and timing them. Just doing whatever is not smart, there has to be some sort of organization of it first then, once full circle has been completed, you can do whatever, because the tools are sharpened and ready to cut. I'm sure there are people out there that have taught themselves MA, but they didn't do it in a box, alone, with absolutely no sources of information, making it up as they went.

Now, where was I, lol. IMO a good Demo man is more than half way there to being a good Fighting Man. He needs the abilities that allow their tools to execute at the right moment and with efficiency and effectiveness. Timing, controlling and recognizing distance, and perceptions skills are needed once the body is trained and able to react in accordance with the respective MA systems configuration and structure. The mind can now be focused solely on what the opponent is doing and not on how their own bodies will react and trust it to do what it has been trained to do.


James

[planetwc]

Terrence,

It wasn't who Robert trains with. It was who Robert FIGHTS with.

After all, you said that you could personally kick Chen Xiaowang's behind, because you were a fighter and he wasn't.

That you fought people and had never heard of CXW doing the same.

That one needed to learn from a fighter, to learn how to fight.
That IF one's teacher had not fought some other recognized fighter they were useless.

These were the lines of your arguments.

Now it seems, it does not matter if your own teacher has fought, but rather what you yourself can do, which is all anyone else thinks as well. Further, that you and Robert disagree on many issues and don't speak for him.

Just as no one knows who YOU have fought, who ROBERT has fought, you don't know who Xiaowang has fought either. It was disingenuous and presumptuous of you to publicly denigrate Chen Xiaowang, when you have no personal knowledge of what challenges he may have had or how he trains privately.

So far all we have is you running down the reputations of others, about not "fighting" while not offering any evidence of it in your own lineage.

[YongChun]

Hi James,

The demo man is maybe 80% there if not higher. If he has the interest and right type of mentality then he can turn himself into a fighter just by fighting to adjust his distancing, positioning, timing and sensing. Those things have to be adjusted to every different kind of fighter. With practice some can be adjusted on the fly but against very foreign types of fighting arts, some trips back to the drawing board are a must. Maybe Capoera or Silat is an example of foreign arts if you have not experienced those before. In Ernie's examples it would be Savate. Each different kind of fighter requires a different kind of strategy that you can only learn from fighting those kinds of people.

A good test for fighting skill is to go into a bar frequented by the Hell's angels and then pick a fight. If you survive that, then your doing pretty good and your training can be said to have worked. But fighting should be progressive otherwise one will get lax. So after that spend some time in jail or working as a front line correctional officer that deals with the most violent offenders. If you survive that then the next step up in the progression is to fight in the numerous wars around the world. For the real macho man, that's the way to go. None of this fighting with protection stuff. That's just for kids.

Ray

[old jong]

Ray!
I don't think it is a good idea to try to pick fights with Hells angels!...These guys know the law and will bring you in court for it! ;)

[t_niehoff]

planetWC wrote:

It wasn't who Robert trains with. It was who Robert FIGHTS with.

**That's the same thing in my book.

After all, you said that you could personally kick Chen Xiaowang's behind, because you were a fighter and he wasn't.

That you fought people and had never heard of CXW doing the same.

**I said that to make a point (as Ray held him up as an example of a highly skilled martial artist): if he fights as part of his training, he may have developed significant fighting skills; if not, he couldn't have. Same with anyone, including my teacher.

That one needed to learn from a fighter, to learn how to fight.
That IF one's teacher had not fought some other recognized fighter they were useless.

These were the lines of your arguments.

**No, they weren't. I said that there are three necessary steps to developing skill (increasing fighting performance): 1) learn the form/tool/technique/concept; 2) drill it; and 3) put it into fighting. Moreoever, I said that we get the method from our teachers, not application (fighting skill). It doesn't matter to me if Yip Man could fight well or whether Hawkins could/can fight well or Robert could/can fight well -- it matters if I can fight well. If I can't do it, it won't make a difference if my sifu can or not. Increased performance comes from fighting as part of my training. But what I did say was that we shouldn't be calling people like CXW "masters" or saying they are "highly skilled" and those sorts of things absent evidence that they do have fighting skills -- that "skill" in demos or "touching hands" doesn't translate to fighting skill.

Just as no one knows who YOU have fought, who ROBERT has fought, you don't know who Xiaowang has fought either. It was disingenuous and presumptuous of you to publicly denigrate Chen Xiaowang, when you have no personal knowledge of what challenges he may have had or how he trains privately.

**I doubt very much CXW gives a rat's @ss about my comments. His reputation, along with most people's in the TCMAs, including WCK, isn't based on demonstrated fighting skill -- that was my point. So don't hold these guys up as "examples" of great martial artists. I don't hold Lou Duba up as a great example of a skilled boxer (he did box in his youth though) but as a great coach (once again as demonstrated by results: he's coached some great fighters). To say that I could kick Lou Duba's @ss would probably make Lou laugh his @ss off! It wouldn't get a "how dare you!" response because those guys are based in reality.

So far all we have is you running down the reputations of others, about not "fighting" while not offering any evidence of it in your own lineage.

**Several of us that have trained with Robert mix it up regularly with skilled fighters including Dave (last I heard, he was working with cage fighters), Alan (actively training NHB fighters), Dzu, me (getting my @ss kicked on a regular basis by just about everyone), etc. But this isn't exclusive to Robert's "lineage" -- there are many others doing the same thing. No BFD. Anyone that wants to "get good" is doing it. But then there are those that don't fight and are IMO wasting their time.

Regards,

Terence

[Ernie]

ray--Ernie is hoping to train someone in the Wing Chun method to compete at some high level.


no not really i could careless about competing , means nothing to me ,investigating training methods and finding ways to better enhance skill interest me

i don't even watch nhb ufc , at least not by choice if it's there i'll watch it but doesn't really hold my interest

i have a very sick mind and look towards street and termination methods

how to take some one out

but i need to use ring fighter training methods and tools to investigate this on some safe level

this is just my thing , right or wrong and i might never prove my research but it keeps me interested

i'm not into competing at all but i enjoy the training

i will drop people and be dropped just as much if not more along the way and this is fun to me

told you i was a little twisted :D

[YongChun]

Originally posted by old jong
Ray!
I don't think it is a good idea to try to pick fights with Hells angels!...These guys know the law and will bring you in court for it! ;)

Hi Michel,

I am not that stupid. I wouldn't last more than 2 seconds either. What they would do to me would be worse than what the law would do.

I just mention them because one of my bouncer friends know them and tell me all the stories of how tough their top fighters are. He was very smart to make friends with both them and the police so that gave him a pretty safe position to operate from.

Ray

[YongChun]

Ernie,

Again a cool logical post that I agree with.

Ray

[AmanuJRY]

In the military they prepare people for combat without actually putting them in combat, only simulation (which is still a far cry from real combat).

Just thought I'd put that out there.

Also, not everyone is readily prepared for combat by this approach, but a large % are. And actual combat still changes/affects the soldier, sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse (combat skill wise, that is, I'm not referring to any other aspects of how combat affects people).

[AmanuJRY]

Originally posted by sihing
AmanuJRY,
I think I know what demo you may be talking about coming out of the WT family, is it from a Sifu named Heinrich Pfaff, from Germany, check out this demo of his, http://www.sifu-pfaff.com/video/Trailer%202003%20DVD%20Sifu%20Heinrich%20Pfaff%20-%20DSL.wmv .

Actually, that's not the one I was referring to, although that one was kinda cool.

The one I was referring to was a bit older, the guys were wearing just the LT technitian uniforms (the black ones with the red chevrons on the pants and red trim on the jacket) and the video wasn't slowed the actual demo slowed at points and sped back up to 'real' speed. I believe it was Lawrence(ofidaho) that showed me that video.

[sihing]

There's another demo from the same WT German Sifu where he slows down also half way through the demo. I liked the one here with Sifu Heinrich and the costumes, almost like a show but it still takes some skills to pull it off even though it is obviously staged..
Just like in the Rocky movies, yeah the action is staged and set up but it still took them months and months of boxing training for Sly and the other opponents/actors to pull it off. In Rocky I & II where the actor Carl Weathers is portraying Apollo Creed, a Muhammad Ali clone, that takes skill for him to move around like that and punch in coordination with the staged movements. Can either of them fight? Probably up to a point with some skill...

James