Who are the "real" grandmasters?? [Archive]

taltos

01-18-2005, 03:26 PM

Originally posted by Phil Redmond
It seems that some people use the term GM when they have a few generations under them.
PR

Agreed.

I have seen people called GM in the following instances:

-They are the founder of the system (or lineage)

-They have great grandstudents (it seems that some schools refer to their teacher as Sifu, his as Master, and his as Grandmaster)

-They are the legitimate heirs of the style/lineage/family

In the end, they are all "Sifu" and sometimes "Sigung" or "Sitaigung." I prefer sticking with the family titles, and certainly no one would be insulted at being "Sifu" so-and-so. At least, I would hope not.

-Levi

Phil Redmond

01-18-2005, 07:52 PM

Originally posted by reneritchie
I hereby nominate Phil for Grand Master, Chief Poobah, and all around Uber-dude.
Heck no. Not me. I couldn't stand the controversy :(
Phil

Airdrawndagger

01-18-2005, 08:03 PM

Lets take GM Moy Yat (my direct lineage) or GM Leung Ting
Both learned from YM so how is this so?
It was explaned to me by my sifu who is a deciple of GM Moy Yat, that once you have aquired a certain # of students and a certain # of schools, then you might "earn" the title of GM. Has anyone heard the same?

SAAMAG

01-18-2005, 08:32 PM

That's pretty much it. A grandmaster is someone who has master's under him...and sifu's under them...and so forth.

It's just a title, not a definition of skill. I'm a grandmaster of Van kuen gung fu. And even though I suck, I can still be called that because I created the system. So HAHAHAHAH! I can now do whatever I want! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! HA! ...ahem...

Now back to Kobe Tai.....

sihing

01-18-2005, 09:26 PM

I've also heard the practice that if a legitimate GM, like Yip Man for example, has students but does not name a successor, that the one student with the most knowledge is the next one in line for Grandmastership. From what I understand this is one of the reasons why GM Cheung laid claim to it when he confronted his seniors in Hong Kong back in the early 80's, but I could be wrong?

Also the theory of when a Sifu level teach producing Master level students then of course this would elevate him to Grandmaster (of course this would take a long period of time). For my organization it takes someone 20yrs at the Sifu level (our level 10) to obtain a red sash which signifies Master Level. And this does signify skill, because if someone at this level does not know how to defend themselves, and teach others to a high quality skill level well then there would be a big problem, especially in Wing Chun families since effective self defense ability is the primary purpose behind the invention of the Art.

James

SAAMAG

01-18-2005, 09:35 PM

Well just keep in mind Sihing that just because your organization feels titles denote skill, it doesn't mean the rest do. There are too many masters and grandmasters out there that couldnt fight out of a wet paper bag.

sihing

01-18-2005, 10:00 PM

Originally posted by Vankuen
Well just keep in mind Sihing that just because your organization feels titles denote skill, it doesn't mean the rest do. There are too many masters and grandmasters out there that couldnt fight out of a wet paper bag.

It doesn't matter what the rest feel or think, because it's not about what anyone thinks. Basically it's down to what the individual student feels and what Sifu feels. Since I trust his judgement I too will believe it when he says someone is a Master or Sifu level practitioner. The Sifu level test alone, denotes skill in combat, the latter Master level denotes skill in life, and sharing of a Art.

Yes I do agree that there has been an abuse of the terms "Master" and "Grandmaster", but does that mean we should not use the terms? Or should we try to bring credibility back to what the terms were meant to mean? I believe in the latter.

James

Ravenshaw

01-18-2005, 10:35 PM

The way Leung Ting uses it seems to be the familial way. The instructors are Sihing, the country/continenent leaders are Sifu, and the organization's leaders are Sigung, which some people translate as Grandmaster. I'm sure he feels as if he has inherited the "secrets" of the style as well...

The fact that "grandmaster" is just a word and does not have much backing has been pointed out many times. I tend to see it in the familial sense, since that seems legitimate.

If you're asking "who is the inheritor of Yip Man's Wing Chun?" well... technically no one. He never chose a successor (the original post said "predecessor," which is incorrect but I'm just nitpicking ;) ).

t_niehoff

01-19-2005, 06:39 AM

It would be so much better if we didn't use the terms "master" or "grandmaster", or if we recongnized that these are honorary terms and have nothing to do with skill.

And while I'm at it, it would be great if we didn't hear about how great or skillful your sifu was too -- I mean, does anyone ever say their sifu stinks? ;)

reneritchie

01-19-2005, 07:43 AM

Students of Grandmaster Niehoff routinely make disparaging remarks about their 'sifu'.

Mr Punch

01-19-2005, 07:48 AM

LOL Rene :D !

One of my sifus stank. So I left.

Ultimatewingchun

01-19-2005, 08:39 AM

"Lets take GM Moy Yat (my direct lineage) or GM Leung Ting
Both learned from YM so how is this so?
It was explaned to me by my sifu who is a deciple of GM Moy Yat, that once you have aquired a certain # of students and a certain # of schools, then you might "earn" the title of GM. Has anyone heard the same?"

What Van said was CLOSE to hitting it right on the head - as far as Moy Yat is concerned...and perhaps as a definition in general, imo.

Moy Yat used to define the word MASTER, during the time I spent with him (1975-1983) as a Sifu who had at least one student who learned the entire Wing Chun system.

NEVER heard him use the word Grandmaster to describe anyone but Yip Man.

Things change.

Definitions become arbitrary. You see that everywhere now.

.................................................. ............................................

And as for this quote by Van:

"Well just keep in mind Sihing that just because your organization feels titles denote skill, it doesn't mean the rest do. There are too many masters and grandmasters out there that couldnt fight out of a wet paper bag..."

LET'S FRAME THAT AND HANG IT ON THE WALL.

sihing

01-19-2005, 10:20 AM

Originally posted by t_niehoff
It would be so much better if we didn't use the terms "master" or "grandmaster", or if we recongnized that these are honorary terms and have nothing to do with skill.

And while I'm at it, it would be great if we didn't hear about how great or skillful your sifu was too -- I mean, does anyone ever say their sifu stinks? ;)

But it's okay for you to talk about your sparring buddies that are "Real fighters with quality skill", and put them all up there on a pedestal, to be judged against as to what real fighting is all about? When you stop that then maybe we will stop bragging about our Sifu's.

James

sihing

01-19-2005, 11:21 AM

Originally posted by Ultimatewingchun
[B}And as for this quote by Van:

"Well just keep in mind Sihing that just because your organization feels titles denote skill, it doesn't mean the rest do. There are too many masters and grandmasters out there that couldnt fight out of a wet paper bag..."

LET'S FRAME THAT AND HANG IT ON THE WALL. [/B]

Well if proof of quality is what you want Van, I can always put on video for all to see Victor's and my level 10 tests, to which would be a fair comparison of skills at similar training levels. I have Victor's level 10 test from when we were all in Denver back in 1990 for GM Cheung's 50th, Blaine Collins (the former Dai Sihing of the US chapter of Cheung's TWC organization) sent them to me in the mid 90's. At that time according to Victor he had 7 years of training in the TWC system, plus another 7 or 8 yrs from Moy Yat system. For me I tested and passed my level 10 test in 1996, I started training in Sept. 1988 with no previous MA training, so it would sort of be a fair comparison of skills. I could get the video's transferred to digital and somehow get them on the internet somehow. Then you would all see what's what.

How bout it?

James

Jhapa

01-19-2005, 11:36 AM

i would like to see it.

Knifefighter

01-19-2005, 11:43 AM

Originally posted by sihing
For me I tested and passed my level 10 test in 1996, I started training in Sept. 1988 with no previous MA training, so it would sort of be a fair comparison of skills. I could get the video's transferred to digital and somehow get them on the internet somehow. Then you would all see what's what.

How bout it?Sounds good. I'm sure we'd all love to see the "killer" level 10 tests you had to go through.

Ultimatewingchun

01-19-2005, 12:07 PM

If you post my test, James....from 14 years ago...make sure you post the ENTIRE test. Don't leave anything out.

Nothing.

sihing

01-19-2005, 10:04 PM

Originally posted by Ultimatewingchun
If you post my test, James....from 14 years ago...make sure you post the ENTIRE test. Don't leave anything out.

Nothing.

Well, I'm sure you have the same footage that I got, from the professional done tapes that guy made, 3 tapes in total, basically an over view of the entire event with lots of the your test and Rhonda's and that other guy with the beard. I can easliy try to do it, as a matter of fact one of the students borrowed the tapes and is in the process of converting them to VCD on disc, when he is done I will see what I can do, and then after that I will have to put mine on VCD also and go from there. Next week is out for me to do this as I am on Vacation and am going back home to visit family, but back a week from this Friday, and will start on it then.

The only problem I can forsee is sharing a file that is as big as these tests will be. My test is around 45 minutes long, and I can't remember how long Victor's is, so it would not be like clicking on a link and there they are. Maybe through a peer to peer network or something. If anyone has any suggestions on how we all can view these large video files let me know.

James

Knifefighter

01-19-2005, 10:32 PM

Originally posted by sihing
Well, I'm sure you have the same footage that I got, from the professional done tapes that guy made, 3 tapes in total, basically an over view of the entire event with lots of the your test and Rhonda's and that other guy with the beard. I can easliy try to do it, as a matter of fact one of the students borrowed the tapes and is in the process of converting them to VCD on disc, when he is done I will see what I can do, and then after that I will have to put mine on VCD also and go from there. Next week is out for me to do this as I am on Vacation and am going back home to visit family, but back a week from this Friday, and will start on it then.

The only problem I can forsee is sharing a file that is as big as these tests will be. My test is around 45 minutes long, and I can't remember how long Victor's is, so it would not be like clicking on a link and there they are. Maybe through a peer to peer network or something. If anyone has any suggestions on how we all can view these large video files let me know.

James I don't think anyone wants to watch the entire 45 minute test. I think a few minutes of the hardest parts would be sufficient... like the part where you have to fight against multiple opponents who are trying to take you out.

sihing

01-19-2005, 11:03 PM

Yeah, but Victor said not to leave anything out, lol.

Knifefighter, your sarcasm is so artificial.

Actually I was thinking of doing a repeating loop on the Sil Lum Tao section of the test just to bug a few hardcore's on here, lol.

James

Ernie

01-19-2005, 11:25 PM

Originally posted by sihing
Yeah, but Victor said not to leave anything out, lol.

Knifefighter, your sarcasm is so artificial.

Actually I was thinking of doing a repeating loop on the Sil Lum Tao section of the test just to bug a few hardcore's on here, lol.

James
wing chun guys pretending to fight wing chun guys will be enough to make me sick :D

Ultimatewingchun

01-20-2005, 12:05 AM

Okay...I'll tell you what, James.

Just post the part of my test where I do the cross-arm sparring at random with Mike Kraushaar...that only lasts a minute or two.

And then post whatever part of your test is similar to that in actual contact, intensity, and spontaneity.

We don't need to show everyone our forms, wooden dummy, chi sao, etc.

sihing

01-20-2005, 12:22 AM

Originally posted by Ultimatewingchun
Okay...I'll tell you what, James.

Just post the part of my test where I do the cross-arm sparring at random with Mike Kraushaar...that only lasts a minute or two.

And then post whatever part of your test is similar to that in actual contact, intensity, and spontaneity.

We don't need to show everyone our forms, wooden dummy, chi sao, etc.

No problem.....

sihing

01-20-2005, 12:24 AM

Originally posted by Ernie
wing chun guys pretending to fight wing chun guys will be enough to make me sick :D

Although I knew my post about looping the SLT would bug the hardcore guys like you Ernie, there was no "pretending" about the whole event. Or should we all believe that you could have done a better job because YOU say so.

James

Ernie

01-20-2005, 07:53 AM

Originally posted by sihing
Although I knew my post about looping the SLT would bug the hardcore guys like you Ernie, there was no "pretending" about the whole event. Or should we all believe that you could have done a better job because YOU say so.

James

been in real gang fights covered in blood , face kicked in and still made it home

i guess i'm level 12 or is that 23 or is it 54 hike !

get in front of a silly little boxer it would be a better test

as for hard core me no way , just not blind to the obvious nuff said

:eek:

Ultimatewingchun

01-20-2005, 10:52 AM

***Sandman***
removed for attempting to dodge the profanity filter.

sihing

01-20-2005, 11:35 AM

***Sandman***
Personally directed comments removed. Oh the irony....

sihing

01-20-2005, 11:51 AM

Originally posted by Ernie
been in real gang fights covered in blood , face kicked in and still made it home

i guess i'm level 12 or is that 23 or is it 54 hike !

get in front of a silly little boxer it would be a better test

as for hard core me no way , just not blind to the obvious nuff said

:eek:

Yes you have mentioned your experiences before, and I'm sure it was not a pleaseant time for you ( or anyone having to go through it), but this does not mean you or anyone has a monopoly on what or how to test others abilities. If Sifu Gary has no need to test or grade his students then that is fine, not all are this way or believe the same, which is not to say Sifu Gary has never generated a quality student. When things get a little more commercial then structure is needed, but just because it is commercial doesn't mean "Quality" is out the window, because in our school high quality instruction and student skill is a strict requirement.

As for the "silly little boxer" scenerio, funny you mention that as I related a story awhile back of one of the junior students who sparred with a "silly big boxer" and had no problems. Samething happen with another friend of his who was a "silly big wrestler", but I was attacked on this forum by others that wondered as to the quality of the boxer & wrestlers skills, lol. Again on forums like this anything can be said or written as fact, it depends totally on the credibility of the source where it is coming from.

James

Ultimatewingchun

01-20-2005, 12:04 PM

54 hike!

Ha,ha,Ha,ha,Ha,ha...

Now that's some funny...poopoo !!!

How was that, Sandman?

Better?

Ernie

01-20-2005, 01:20 PM

Originally posted by sihing
Yes you have mentioned your experiences before, and I'm sure it was not a pleaseant time for you ( or anyone having to go through it), but this does not mean you or anyone has a monopoly on what or how to test others abilities. If Sifu Gary has no need to test or grade his students then that is fine, not all are this way or believe the same, which is not to say Sifu Gary has never generated a quality student. When things get a little more commercial then structure is needed, but just because it is commercial doesn't mean "Quality" is out the window, because in our school high quality instruction and student skill is a strict requirement.

As for the "silly little boxer" scenerio, funny you mention that as I related a story awhile back of one of the junior students who sparred with a "silly big boxer" and had no problems. Samething happen with another friend of his who was a "silly big wrestler", but I was attacked on this forum by others that wondered as to the quality of the boxer & wrestlers skills, lol. Again on forums like this anything can be said or written as fact, it depends totally on the credibility of the source where it is coming from.

James

Sifu Lam did have tons of testing for himself and his students [in the ring and in the streets]
This is how he refined his coaching skills and application of wing chun [and Thai]

His system is very clear and structured [I do not normally do the my sifu and his system is great crap, let the hands talk is a much better reflection of skill]

But the system is not teaching little kids and filling schools it's all about results producing individuals that can apply the skills gained from training and testing wing chun out side of a wing chun environment, not form masters, chi sau masters, Etc.

Quality first, he has been offered very big franchising deals, but he refused since there it would kill the quality.

I respect him for that, tells me were his heart is.

As for a monopoly on what is right or wrong, of course I don't have the definitive answer for everyone, just common sense =)

And for your student that sparred with a boxer that's great, you should really give it a try, not some guy who boxes at the local health club but some one that has had a few fights, its a incredible experience very eye opening.

:D

sihing

01-20-2005, 10:20 PM

Originally posted by Ernie
Sifu Lam did have tons of testing for himself and his students [in the ring and in the streets]
This is how he refined his coaching skills and application of wing chun [and Thai]

His system is very clear and structured [I do not normally do the my sifu and his system is great crap, let the hands talk is a much better reflection of skill]

But the system is not teaching little kids and filling schools it's all about results producing individuals that can apply the skills gained from training and testing wing chun out side of a wing chun environment, not form masters, chi sau masters, Etc.

Quality first, he has been offered very big franchising deals, but he refused since there it would kill the quality.

I respect him for that, tells me were his heart is.
As for a monopoly on what is right or wrong, of course I don't have the definitive answer for everyone, just common sense =)
And for your student that sparred with a boxer that's great, you should really give it a try, not some guy who boxes at the local health club but some one that has had a few fights, its a incredible experience very eye opening.
:D

I respect him for that also, but if someone has a quality product, when so much "low quality" is out there (your opinion) then why not try to bring the quality level up for the majority to see the way it should be done with new information and technology. Quality does not have to be lost with high numbers, not if it's done right and with the right resources.

I'd love to move around with a quality boxer, and I'm sure I would learn a great deal about what he does as he would learn allot also about what I do. It's always nice to experience what others have to offer in a non-confrontational way.

James

Ernie

01-20-2005, 10:24 PM

Originally posted by sihing
I respect him for that also, but if someone has a quality product, when so much "low quality" is out there (your opinion) then why not try to bring the quality level up for the majority to see the way it should be done with new information and technology. Quality does not have to be lost with high numbers, not if it's done right and with the right resources.

I'd love to move around with a quality boxer, and I'm sure I would learn a great deal about what he does as he would learn allot also about what I do. It's always nice to experience what others have to offer in a non-confrontational way.

James

honestly i feel wing chun [ in its pure barbaric form ] is not for everyone , so it's real quality will not be seen in mass production
people just don't like to go into there dark side and swim there :D

as for the boxer just becarful find one that understands and is willing to work with you not some dude that just want s to have fresh meat ;)

Phil Redmond

01-20-2005, 10:44 PM

Originally posted by Ernie
honestly i feel wing chun [ in its pure barbaric form ] is not for everyone , so it's real quality will not be seen in mass production
people just don't like to go into there dark side and swim there :D

as for the boxer just becarful find one that understands and is willing to work with you not some dude that just want s to have fresh meat ;)
Many 'good' WC people can't deal with a 'good' boxer.
PR

sihing

01-20-2005, 10:54 PM

Originally posted by Ernie
honestly i feel wing chun [ in its pure barbaric form ] is not for everyone , so it's real quality will not be seen in mass production
people just don't like to go into there dark side and swim there :D

as for the boxer just becarful find one that understands and is willing to work with you not some dude that just want s to have fresh meat ;)

maybe he should be careful too, you might think, lol? You make it sound like, in a sutle way, that it will automatically be a piece of cake for the boxer to plow through me, lol.....Again allot of assumptions in your post.

James

sihing

01-20-2005, 10:59 PM

Originally posted by Phil Redmond
Many 'good' WC people can't deal with a 'good' boxer.
PR

What's your definition of good, Phil? Naming names would be nice.

James

P.S. Once again I'm getting the feeling that I'm defending Wing Chun effectiveness on the Wing Chun forum, ridiculous...

Ernie

01-20-2005, 11:10 PM

Originally posted by sihing
maybe he should be careful too, you might think, lol? You make it sound like, in a sutle way, that it will automatically be a piece of cake for the boxer to plow through me, lol.....Again allot of assumptions in your post.

James

no assumptions just seen it done it many people many times

give it a shot report back ;)

reality is a ***** , but a great teacher , if you really want to learn about yourself i mean really , not speculate or have a concept of this or that

go and find out , and again make sure he is a real boxer not some pretend fitness gym or used to be a boxer guy

play with a light and heavy wieght

put on some head gear and a mouth piece and get some Aspirin
you will need it !:D

this has nothing to do with wing chun or super sifu's it's about you and what is in front of you , film it watch yourself and see truth and learn you and your students will be the better for it ;)

Airdrawndagger

01-22-2005, 12:03 AM

This like any art is really solely dependant on the person, not the art. Quality, true quality is rare to find. Especially in such a well-designed intelligent,brutal, and solid principled art. What does it mean to be the best, and who do you know who is? So maybe wininng is more about courage, morals, disapline, self, and focus. Who ever applies the characteristics to an Art the best, at least has the best chance to be the best.

sihing

01-22-2005, 12:48 AM

Originally posted by Ernie
no assumptions just seen it done it many people many times

give it a shot report back ;)

reality is a ***** , but a great teacher , if you really want to learn about yourself i mean really , not speculate or have a concept of this or that

go and find out , and again make sure he is a real boxer not some pretend fitness gym or used to be a boxer guy

play with a light and heavy wieght

put on some head gear and a mouth piece and get some Aspirin
you will need it !:D

this has nothing to do with wing chun or super sifu's it's about you and what is in front of you , film it watch yourself and see truth and learn you and your students will be the better for it ;)

I'll make sure to bring enough Aspirin for both of us. You never know I might just have enough Wing Chun skill to get a couple in on the mighty boxer, lol.

See you all next Saturday, have a good week and be safe and happy.

James

sihing

01-22-2005, 01:01 AM

Originally posted by Airdrawndagger
This like any art is really solely dependant on the person, not the art. Quality, true quality is rare to find. Especially in such a well-designed intelligent,brutal, and solid principled art. What does it mean to be the best, and who do you know who is? So maybe wininng is more about courage, morals, disapline, self, and focus. Who ever applies the characteristics to an Art the best, at least has the best chance to be the best.

Unless your art is Muay Thai, BJJ or boxing on this forum, everything you said is true. They are exceptions to the rule because on this forum having your name on the registery in their schools means automatically that your in shape, have killer instinct, are super tough, and have great skills. On this Wing Chun forum the above is false if your name is on the registery of any Wing Chun school, because you are automatically considered lazy, that you practice form too much and are obsessed with chi-sao. Sounds like the same syndrome that Bruce Lee had, which is he forgot where he got his foundation from. Once he mastered the form he didn't need it anymore, but if it wasn't for the form he wouldn't have had it in the first place.

JR

PaulH

01-22-2005, 09:39 AM

"Once again I'm getting the feeling that I'm defending Wing Chun effectiveness on the Wing Chun forum, ridiculous...- J Rollers"

James,

If WC is truly effective, then why waste words to convince others about it. I do not wish my fire and passion to be wasted in empty halls and in the sound of silence. =)

Airdrawndagger

01-22-2005, 09:50 AM

You know its a shame that alot of people on this forum seem to have such a negative view on the capabilities of VT. Just as I write this I know that the automatic response is something like "Im not being negative, im being realistic". Well what reality are we talking about here? Yours? Mine? Kung fu and Ving Tsun is very much like a religion where the strongest atribute and core principle is BELIEF. If you dont believe in something, your own wing chun for example, then how do you expect to beat anyone? Im not saying that belief is all you need, anyone who jumps to that conclusion is foolish, but it all starts there. Do you remember your first few times of sparing only using wing chun? Kind of awkward wasn't. I remember Sifu telling me that you do not yet trust your own abilities and you do not believe in your wing chun yet. Until you do then your chances of success are limited.

James I think I understand your view and I see that all you are doing is defending your belief of your own capabilities with in VT. But most people dont share those beliefs and try to logically explain why they might not be as proficient in an art by pointing out "flaws" in themselves and blaming it on the art!
"Ohh, you better watch out for that fearsome boxer, he'll knock your block off". "Man, those BJJ guys will kill ya if they get ahold of you".
An 80 year old man might get the best of you if you let him!
Until any of us reach the level of perfect wing chun, then you really dont know what the out come would be against anyone! If every individual is different, and they are, then using other peoples experiences to state the "truth" is wrong also. The same person presented with the same challenge will always produce different out comes. So someone using wing chun in UFC got his but kicked. That doesn't mean that there is a problem with wing chun! Would it be fair for someone to assume that you are good or not good based on the UFC guy?
:mad:

Matrix

01-22-2005, 12:19 PM

Originally posted by Airdrawndagger
James I think I understand your view and I see that all you are doing is defending your belief of your own capabilities with in VT. But most people dont share those beliefs and try to logically explain why they might not be as proficient in an art by pointing out "flaws" in themselves and blaming it on the art! I'm finding it hard to understand why people who are quite senior in this art of WC are so quick to condemn it in the face of many other arts. I'm certainly open to discovering any flaws and weaknesses in our art, but it sounds like we're living in a house of cards, where even the whiff of a boxers jab will make the house come tumbling down.
I say if a "good" WC person cannot deal with a "good" boxer, them the WC person, by definition is not "good". If that is not the case, we're all wasting our time, and we should all be taking up boxing, or MT or BJJ or whatever.

Phil Redmond

01-22-2005, 01:57 PM

Originally posted by sihing
What's your definition of good, Phil? Naming names would be nice.

James

P.S. Once again I'm getting the feeling that I'm defending Wing Chun effectiveness on the Wing Chun forum, ridiculous...
There were a lot of HK trained Sifu in NYC. I've seen them and lots of their students. I studied different lineages. My experiences through 35 years of consistant training and fighting have taught me the strengths and weaknesses of WC. There is no need to defend a particular system if your ultimate goal is "martial" arts.
PR

Phil Redmond

01-22-2005, 02:04 PM

Originally posted by Matrix
I'm finding it hard to understand why people who are quite senior in this art of WC are so quick to condemn it in the face of many other arts. I'm certainly open to discovering any flaws and weaknesses in our art, but it sounds like we're living in a house of cards, where even the whiff of a boxers jab will make the house come tumbling down.
I say if a "good" WC person cannot deal with a "good" boxer, them the WC person, by definition is not "good". If that is not the case, we're all wasting our time, and we should all be taking up boxing, or MT or BJJ or whatever.
Go and spar a boxer or kickboxer. If you are able to get off your techniques then it's all good. If you'll notice the people that have fought others outside of their systems have no problem with posts concerning flaws in any martial art. Basically what I think I hear from some is that WC is invincible. If that's the case then the principles in WC can be translated into full contact and NHB. Yeah, I know about the deadly Biu Jee.
PR

Phil Redmond

01-22-2005, 02:15 PM

Originally posted by Airdrawndagger
You know its a shame that alot of people on this forum seem to have such a negative view on the capabilities of VT. Just as I write this I know that the automatic response is something like "Im not being negative, im being realistic". Well what reality are we talking about here? Yours? Mine? Kung fu and Ving Tsun is very much like a religion where the strongest atribute and core principle is BELIEF. If you dont believe in something, your own wing chun for example, then how do you expect to beat anyone? Im not saying that belief is all you need, anyone who jumps to that conclusion is foolish, but it all starts there. Do you remember your first few times of sparing only using wing chun? Kind of awkward wasn't. I remember Sifu telling me that you do not yet trust your own abilities and you do not believe in your wing chun yet. Until you do then your chances of success are limited.

James I think I understand your view and I see that all you are doing is defending your belief of your own capabilities with in VT. But most people dont share those beliefs and try to logically explain why they might not be as proficient in an art by pointing out "flaws" in themselves and blaming it on the art!
"Ohh, you better watch out for that fearsome boxer, he'll knock your block off". "Man, those BJJ guys will kill ya if they get ahold of you".
An 80 year old man might get the best of you if you let him!
Until any of us reach the level of perfect wing chun, then you really dont know what the out come would be against anyone! If every individual is different, and they are, then using other peoples experiences to state the "truth" is wrong also. The same person presented with the same challenge will always produce different out comes. So someone using wing chun in UFC got his but kicked. That doesn't mean that there is a problem with wing chun! Would it be fair for someone to assume that you are good or not good based on the UFC guy?
:mad:

Do you train realistically? Do you train to take a blow? Do you train for stamina? Do you train heart? No one is saying that WC is ineffective. What the major problem is that "most" WC people solely depend on theory and don't do enough "hard" training. Do you think people like Leung Jan, Sum Nung, Yip Man, etc., didn't train realistically? All I'm saying is that a lot of WC thrives on the accomplishments of others and don't do the work themselves. My standup fight is WC. But I;ve had to work hard to make it effective. It didn't come from just chi sau and forms. I had to sweat, get kicked and punched to learn how to make it work under pressure. The combat exercises we learned in the Corps helped a little, but it the real lessons were learned in the bush (Vietnam). The same goes for ANY type of fighting. My statement could go for Karate, TKD or any art. I'm not picking on WC.
PR

Airdrawndagger

01-22-2005, 02:25 PM

---Go and spar a boxer or kickboxer.

If my goal is to spar, then im missing the point of VT. How many techs can you pull off with gloves on? Kind of hard isn't it.
So im to go to a gym, put on some gloves, and go at it with a boxer in the ring? And as far as Biu Jee, whens the last time you tried to use a Biu Jee move with gloves on? Wow ive got several strikes against me and I haven't even set foot in the ring! What am i proving here? Am i testing my own skill against another, wearing gloves and equipment in a controled environment? So what. But you do make a point Phil and that is:
---There is no need to defend a particular system if your ultimate goal is "martial" arts.

Thats your bag, not mine. Mine is to be as good at Ving Tsun as humanly possible! VT is hard enough let alone throwing in this art or that art. Why be a jack of all trades if you can be the master of one?

Airdrawndagger

01-22-2005, 02:37 PM

Do you train realistically? Do you train to take a blow? Do you train for stamina? Do you train heart? No one is saying that WC is ineffective. What the major problem is that "most" WC people solely depend on theory and don't do enough "hard" training. Do you think people like Leung Jan, Sum Nung, Yip Man, etc., didn't train realistically? All I'm saying is that a lot of WC thrives on the accomplishments of others and don't do the work themselves. My standup fight is WC. But I;ve had to work hard to make it effective. It didn't come from just chi sau and forms. I had to sweat, get kicked and punched to learn how to make it work under pressure. The combat exercises we learned in the Corps helped a little, but it the real lessons were learned in the bush (Vietnam). The same goes for ANY type of fighting. My statement could go for Karate, TKD or any art. I'm not picking on WC.

I dont depend on anything but my own abilites. As far as Leung Jan, Sum Nung, Yip Man, etc. I dont think they went 10 rounds in the ring with a boxer or BJJ fighter. So does that mean that they didn't train realistically? We don't know how they trained so we can only speculate. There are plenty of ways to skin the cat! And there are 1000 different ways to train, but in the end it is all up to YOU.

Ernie

01-22-2005, 02:39 PM

funny how people that have not really tried something will have so many oppinions on it :p

Lets look at what a boxer offers you some one who can hit with both hands, can take a hit, has timing and footwork and is conditioned

if you can not pull you wing chun off against this then you suck

being good at your VT, WT WC what ever training method your playing in means nothing if you can not adapt it to a non wing chun environment

if you believe you will pull off some deadly bil jee move and you don't even have the timing to pull of a simple punch against some one who is really trying to punch you

keep living the fantasy bro

it's not that wing chun sucks your right its the people that lack training methods to produce real world results

a boxer should be simple just a silly guy with 2 hands and a few attack lines

take your advanced wing chun concepts and idea's and you should walk right through him right ?
You should not need to fall back on deadly techniques if you basic structure and timing is so refined right?

Hell you should look forward to the challenge
a chance to release your power and express your advanced VT skills

it will be easy

so who is really investigating and trying to use there wing chun
the guy that looks for difficult situations to pressure test stuff

or the guy whining about the need to do so?

Pathetic
:rolleyes:

Matrix

01-22-2005, 03:04 PM

Originally posted by Phil Redmond
Go and spar a boxer or kickboxer. If you are able to get off your techniques then it's all good. Phil,
I was a kickboxer for several years. I've been there. I have fought outside the system. You're confusing me with someone else.

I did not say that WC was invicible, and I did say that I'm open to discussing any weaknesses. However, you said a good boxer can beat a good WC guy. Based on what? Why the generalization that seems bent on putting the art down. You seem to willing to bad-mouth WC, and quite frankly I find it disappointing.

As for the "deadly Biu Jee" comment, why are you bringing all these straw men arguements into the discussion. Let's stick to the point being discussed and not attempt to bring in ridiculous distractions to muddy the waters. Nobody said anything about being invincible or dead techniques. I want to know why WC does not stand up, at least in your mind. You're the one with "Master" in front of his name, and I want to know why you are so negative. If WC is so weak, why teach it? Teach boxing or Ma Jong.

Airdrawndagger

01-22-2005, 03:15 PM

Your right. And I have. Boxers arn't a real big deal to me. Maybe for you they are which is why you feel the need to cross train. To fill in the gaps? Have I gone 10 rounds with Mike Tyson? No, so what are you comparing and who are you comparing.

Fantasy world? No, I just don't disrespect my art by doubting it.:cool:

Ive tested VT against different styles and there is one truth that I have discovered in my years of practice. PEOPLE MAKE MISTAKES. If I get hit with a right cross then it is MY FAULT not Ving Tsuns fault. If a ground fighter takes me down, its my fault, not Ving Tsun's fault. I like to be accountable for my own actions, i dont like to pawn off responsibity to someone or something else, THAT IS LIVING IN A FANTASY.
:eek:

Ernie

01-22-2005, 03:25 PM

Originally posted by Airdrawndagger
Your right. And I have. Boxers arn't a real big deal to me. Maybe for you they are which is why you feel the need to cross train. To fill in the gaps? Have I gone 10 rounds with Mike Tyson? No, so what are you comparing and who are you comparing.

Fantasy world? No, I just don't disrespect my art by doubting it.:cool:

Ive tested VT against different styles and there is one truth that I have discovered in my years of practice. PEOPLE MAKE MISTAKES. If I get hit with a right cross then it is MY FAULT not Ving Tsuns fault. If a ground fighter takes me down, its my fault, not Ving Tsun's fault. I like to be accountable for my own actions, i dont like to pawn off responsibity to someone or something else, THAT IS LIVING IN A FANTASY.
:eek:

in response to the thread you deleted

you keep refering to wing chun like a living thing , it's a training method [ with really great concepts !]

but you ,[ the individual ] are the true spirit ,

so by allowing yourself to research and experiement and face the unknown

your learn to adapt and express that which the wing chun training method exposed to you

of course sparring is just a game , chi sau is just a game

but these games allow us to investigate and refine the skills we are trying to develop

don't see what the big deal is

you should welcome every chance to test and refine and grow
no one said learn this or that other art , just work your VT off different energy

just another form of chi sau and extension of your skill development

if your goal is to be combat effective , the forms of combat you expose yourself to the more you will learn about your ability to apply your VT skill

but if you goal is only to be perfect at drills and forms then stay in the confines of the training system
and be happy

depends on what you the individual wants ;)

Phil Redmond

01-22-2005, 04:38 PM

Originally posted by Airdrawndagger
---Go and spar a boxer or kickboxer.

If my goal is to spar, then im missing the point of VT. How many techs can you pull off with gloves on? Kind of hard isn't it.
So im to go to a gym, put on some gloves, and go at it with a boxer in the ring? And as far as Biu Jee, whens the last time you tried to use a Biu Jee move with gloves on? Wow ive got several strikes against me and I haven't even set foot in the ring! What am i proving here? Am i testing my own skill against another, wearing gloves and equipment in a controled environment? So what. But you do make a point Phil and that is:
---There is no need to defend a particular system if your ultimate goal is "martial" arts.

Thats your bag, not mine. Mine is to be as good at Ving Tsun as humanly possible! VT is hard enough let alone throwing in this art or that art. Why be a jack of all trades if you can be the master of one?
A warrior should be able to deal with all types of warfare. Sparring gives you endurance. Of course you don't need to spar to fight. You can simply hit someone with a baseball/cricket bat. Like you said my bag is to be the best I can be with no limitations. Being familiar with only one weapon when there are many available doesn't make sense to me. I guess it's my Corps training :)
PR

There's no sense in going back and forth on this subject.

Phil Redmond

01-22-2005, 04:57 PM

Originally posted by Matrix
Phil,
I was a kickboxer for several years. I've been there. I have fought outside the system. You're confusing me with someone else.

I did not say that WC was invicible, and I did say that I'm open to discussing any weaknesses. However, you said a good boxer can beat a good WC guy. Based on what? Why the generalization that seems bent on putting the art down. You seem to willing to bad-mouth WC, and quite frankly I find it disappointing.

As for the "deadly Biu Jee" comment, why are you bringing all these straw men arguements into the discussion. Let's stick to the point being discussed and not attempt to bring in ridiculous distractions to muddy the waters. Nobody said anything about being invincible or dead techniques. I want to know why WC does not stand up, at least in your mind. You're the one with "Master" in front of his name, and I want to know why you are so negative. If WC is so weak, why teach it? Teach boxing or Ma Jong.
You missed the point. I never said WC was weak. Can you point to me where I wrote that? My problem is and has been for MANY years how "lots" of WC people train. Had you not trained properly for full contact would you have lasted?
PR

Phil Redmond

01-22-2005, 05:07 PM

Originally posted by Matrix
Phil, . . . .You're the one with "Master" in front of his name, and I want to know why you are so negative. If WC is so weak, why teach it? Teach boxing or Ma Jong.
Never expected something like that from you :( but, I guess after 35 years total of devotion to Wing Chun (and other arts), and 21 years under one WC Sifu my Sifu felt it was time. I'm just plain ol' Phil here. What can I say?
PR

t_niehoff

01-22-2005, 05:27 PM

There's nothing wrong with WCK -- it is very good for what it's for, but it's not for all things (not that "complete system" so often matketed). Similarly, boxing is a great art but it's not much help on the ground.

And even though the method is very good for what it's for -- it's only as good as the practitioner can make it through what he brings to his training and to his training itself. For example, boxing is great for stand-up but if a boxer didn't train properly, he'd still suck. Similarly, with WCK, to become skilled one needs to do certain things, including fight as part of their training (and not WCK vs. WCK with their classmates).

Finally, skill is always relative, and even changes with time periods -- the fighters of today are better than the fighters of yesteryear. In part because they have more exposure to different methods, better training methods, better equipment, better understanding of the physiology of training, better nutritition, etc. To deal with today's fighters we can't train like they did in the 1850s.

chisauking

01-22-2005, 06:40 PM

Phil sez: Many 'good' WC people can't deal with a 'good' boxer.

Although that statement is correct, one can say just as well many good boxers can't deal with a good WC man... I think you are just stating the obvious.

To be truthful, I don't know what the big deal is with some of you people regarding boxers. Boxing is a very 'truthful' skill on the street, but against a good kicker, a boxer is totally lost. I have personally sparred with quite a few good boxers, and although they aren't champions, some do box on a club and national level. Before I continue any further, may I ask all those that repeatedly ask the forum members to spare with boxers, what do you mean exactly? Do you mean put gloves on and box? If that is so, then I can understand your request. However, if we were to spar in this context, then I think we are defeating the objective of learning wing chun and further more, severely restricting wing chun's effectiveness.

As I was saying about sparring with boxers, I always spar with NO gloves and I insist on using my kicks with Dr. Martin shoes. I always start by mimicking boxing actions to fool the boxer into focusing on my hands....THEN BAM! I give them a powerful front kick to their thighs, or a stomp kick to their shins to draw some blood. After that, they don't want to play any more.

Clever fighters know that you should always focus your strong points against the opponent's weak points, or to put it another way, use the right tools for the right job. Against a boxer, you should always focus on their legs. Why? Simple -- because boxers drill and box hours after hours in a ring against a partner or opponent that don't use legs, they don't focus or defend at all below their waist. In another words, it's a weak area of defence. The last thing a boxer will think of when sparring is someone kicking them in the legs, and that's why it's so easy to get them there. However, if you were stupid and decided to attack the boxer's strong points using boxing, then you are surely going to get a lesson.

Although some of us are heading for the same destination, we may well be travelling on a different route. That's why our experiences may differ. You have to ask yourself: how did I arrive at my conclusion? More importantly, is it accurate? For example, one guy on this forum stated that conditioning is the real deciding factor in a fight. But how did he arrive at that conclusion? Did he spar with club members and friends, with rules, or was it from challenging good fighters using no rules and no protective equipment? So you see, people can arrive at different conclusions from different routes.

Just to end, I would like to say that the greatest F1 drivers in the world use their car's capability to the maximum and they don't place limits on themselves. If the car has 6 gears, why only use 3? The car they are driving may not be the best all round car, but they don't constantly dwell on that thought. They have to have faith in their car and focus on the strong points, and they will drive it to the best of their ability and overcome any shortcomings of the car with their commitment and skill. It's the same with any other martial art. If you don't have faith in what you are doing, and feel something else is more effective, go and do it.

Airdrawndagger

01-22-2005, 06:46 PM

For what you have just said, I totally agree.

There is nothing wrong with:
you should welcome every chance to test and refine and grow
no one said learn this or that other art , just work your VT off different energy

just another form of chi sau and extension of your skill development

if your goal is to be combat effective , the forms of combat you expose yourself to the more you will learn about your ability to apply your VT skill

This part I would agree, but all im saying is that you must really look at yourself as a individual and deliniate whether or not 1. This art is right for U.
2. You fully believe in the art and where it could take you the individual.

I know all of us here has years of experience under our belts and we all are really trying to further our own developments of VT by disscussion but,
Do you know in your heart, that you have mastered Wing Chun?

I certainly haven't!

So on my eternal pilgramage to rightiousness, I will strive to perfect the perfect art.
Until the time when you can become Wing Chun, then you cannot say if it is truely flawed.
Therefore, It is all speculation.

Ernie

01-22-2005, 06:59 PM

chisauking great post
and yes when i say spar a boxer kick boxer what ever
it's about refining your termination abilities not playing tag

using isolated sparring and whole part sparring to keep building the skill ,

Airdrawndagger

sounds like the same road diffferent road signs ;)

wing chun is a trainings ystem to me nothing more so there is no mastering just continued growth

as i age as my body changes the experiences life gives me all these will define my personal journey

remember to never be a slave to the system but use it as you need it

it is simply a lab that exposes me to skill development and ideas

it's what i do with that information that counts .

there is no mastering of wing chun just of self ;)

i wish you both great experiences ahead in your training and development :D

Phil Redmond

01-22-2005, 07:02 PM

Originally posted by chisauking
. . . . Against a boxer, you should always focus on their legs. Why? Simple -- because boxers drill and box hours after hours in a ring against a partner or opponent that don't use legs, they don't focus or defend at all below their waist. In another words, it's a weak area of defence. The last thing a boxer will think of when sparring is someone kicking them in the legs, and that's why it's so easy to get them there. . . . .
In your first paragraph you mentioned sparring with Dr. Martin shoes against boxers. I like that.
Are you familiar with the old PKA and WKO kick boxing organizations? In the PKA you were not allowed to kick below the waist. In the WKO where Benny Urquidez fought kics were allowed below the legs. The reason the 8 kick per round rule was made is because boxers who couldn't kick were dominating the matches by charging in and smothering kicks. Even in the WKO ;)
PR

Phil Redmond

01-22-2005, 07:05 PM

Airdrawndagger

01-22-2005, 08:36 PM

Chisauking- EXACTAMUNDO!

ErNiE & PhiL- RIghT on, BRothas from aNothA MothEA! I wish you and everyonE the best in Wing Chun and "Martial" Discovery. We all share different experiences which lead us to different ends. Who is right a lot of times depends on what has been excepted by others to be right through personal experience. In our own way we are all right.

I must say though, this was an interesting discussion. But what the hell does it have to do with Grandmasters???

:p

Matrix

01-23-2005, 10:26 AM

Originally posted by Phil Redmond
Martix, I apologize if I offended your beliefs in WC. I can only go by my limited experience. Phil,
First of all, you did not offend my beliefs. So, no need for apologies. We are here to discuss these issues, not stick our heads in the sand, so to speak. I must admit however, when I see a "Master" of our art post things like "Many 'good' WC people can't deal with a 'good' boxer." That tells me that the art must be weak, since both players have been designated as good. That is how I interpreted the comment. Maybe, that's where I'm misinterpreting your point.
I am disappointed that you and others seem to feel that a "good" WC would lose to a "good" boxer. Since we are assuming that both persons are "good" , relatively speaking, within their arts, then we are left with the conclusion that boxing is better than WC. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

What I'm saying is that if the WC does not train realisitically, as you've already defined it, then they are not "good".

Phil Redmond

01-23-2005, 11:45 AM

Bill?, I took the Master level test as a requirement of our system. I tried to stall talking the test because the knowledge and learning was more important to me that any title. Bottom line is my sifu said it was time. You know the benefit of being a Master to me is? NO MORE TESTING :D

My concern is the lack of intense realistic training by not only WC people but the same goes for other CMAs. What the other CMAs do doesn't really concern me. I want WC to realize it's full potential.
PR

Matrix

01-23-2005, 11:55 AM

Originally posted by Phil Redmond
My concern is the lack of intense realistic training by not only WC people but the same goes for other CMAs. What the other CMAs do doesn't really concern me. I want WC to realize it's full potential. Phil,
You've never been one to boast about title or anything else, and you know that I appreciate that. You should realize that the rank does carry certain responsibilites with it. Your comments carry much more weight than mine would, for example.

Your concern about realistic training is a real one, and extends beyond WC and even CMA. I know that we both want the same thing, and that's what's really important, IMO.

Peace,

Airdrawndagger

01-23-2005, 01:55 PM

Originally posted by Phil Redmond
Bill?, I took the Master level test as a requirement of our system. I tried to stall talking the test because the knowledge and learning was more important to me that any title. Bottom line is my sifu said it was time. You know the benefit of being a Master to me is? NO MORE TESTING :D

My concern is the lack of intense realistic training by not only WC people but the same goes for other CMAs. What the other CMAs do doesn't really concern me. I want WC to realize it's full potential.
PR

Thats funny:D

You know Phil you are touching on a point that is often times addressed, but not really taken to heart. If I were to read into what you are saying with regards to your last point, I think what you are saying is todays standard of what "good" is in WC, doesn't equal to todays standard of what "good" is in boxing?
If this is what you were leading on to then I think I would agree...

Only because most(certainly not all) WC people do not place enough emphasis on "hard core" training that would produce better, more hardened fighters as apose to boxing where the training curriculum demands more from the individual physically.
Since WC has such a solid core of principles and philosopy it is very easy for the practitioner to lax in his/her training and not take his/her trainning to a higher physical level which would in turn, result in a higher mental level. Everyone is too preocupied with chi sau techniques and do not fully address the full repetuor of training exercies/drills that you have at your disposal.
Believe it or not you can and will advance in "martial", "kung fu", "fighting" level by demanding more of yourself physically.

Phil Redmond

01-23-2005, 02:19 PM

Originally posted by Airdrawndagger
Thats funny:D

You know Phil you are touching on a point that is often times addressed, but not really taken to heart. If I were to read into what you are saying with regards to your last point, I think what you are saying is todays standard of what "good" is in WC, doesn't equal to todays standard of what "good" is in boxing?
If this is what you were leading on to then I think I would agree...

Only because most(certainly not all) WC people do not place enough emphasis on "hard core" training that would produce better, more hardened fighters as apose to boxing where the training curriculum demands more from the individual physically.
Since WC has such a solid core of principles and philosopy it is very easy for the practitioner to lax in his/her training and not take his/her trainning to a higher physical level which would in turn, result in a higher mental level. Everyone is too preocupied with chi sau techniques and do not fully address the full repetuor of training exercies/drills that you have at your disposal.
Believe it or not you can and will advance in "martial", "kung fu", "fighting" level by demanding more of yourself physically.
You said it perfectly. I couldn't have said it better. :)
PR

sihing

01-28-2005, 09:58 PM

I think the biggest problem on this forum between people is the definitions of terms we use. "Good" to me means high quality skill in whatever you are involved in. To say a "Good" WC man will generally lose against a "Good" Boxer is uncalled for because firstly you nor I can predict that. Anything can happen. Even if only hands alone are used, WC is at the least equal to boxing in terms of hand technqiues and the concepts that govern them, contrary to what Anerlich believes. Understanding of the Art and what the differences are between all of us and the arts we practice individually are important too. Not all WC is equal or the same is a conclusion I came to a long time ago, after a thorough investigation. So, is it realistic to think that we can have a understanding conversation or discussion on a forum like this when it is almost impossible to understand one another on a concept/principal or technique based level. Even with people from the same family, like Phil or Victor and myself, our Wing Chun is different due to instructor influence and experience also, although I do understand alot more of what they say when they talk WC lingo.

James

Matrix

01-29-2005, 06:30 AM

Originally posted by sihing
"Good" to me means high quality skill in whatever you are involved in. James,
That's the way I see it as well.

If we're going to say as Airdrawndagger suggests, that there's a WC "good" and a boxing "good", and that one "good" is not as good as the other, then we're playing word games.

sihing

01-29-2005, 09:06 AM

Originally posted by Matrix
James,
That's the way I see it as well.

If we're going to say as Airdrawndagger suggests, that there's a WC "good" and a boxing "good", and that one "good" is not as good as the other, then we're playing word games.

Yes agreed. The problem is with the varying definitions people have of terms used on this forum.

James

Knifefighter

01-29-2005, 11:57 AM

If WC people would get out there and regularly test themselves, it would be easy to say who is good and who is not.

Jimmy Pedro (judo), BJ Penn (BJJ;MMA), Roy Jones Jr. (boxing); Eric "Top Dog" Knaus (stickfighting), Mirco Cro Cop (Kickboxing; MMA), and Dan Henderson (wrestling; MMA) are clearly good. One can easily say this because they have regularly tested and displayed their skills against others in environments where everyone can watch them.

Most WC people rarely venture outside of the safety of their schools.

t_niehoff

01-29-2005, 02:24 PM

knifefighter wrote:

If WC people would get out there and regularly test themselves, it would be easy to say who is good and who is not.

**Bingo -- that's exactly why they don't, because it would reveal that they have no real fighting (WCK) skill.

sihing

01-29-2005, 09:14 PM

This is the problem, one person that thinks he knows what 1 million, or more, people are thinking and feeling. Ridiculous...

How do either of you know what anyone of us on this forum or the other 99.9% of WC practitioners that don't frequent this forum or don't inhabit your home town are doing each and every training session. To make such statements is a reflection of your predjudice and could definetly get one into trouble one day, as overconfidence is the first mistake.

Name me one Martial Art that doesn't have lazy practitioners and I will call you a LIAR to your face. I could care less what Martial Art you name, each one has "Rotten Apples" and can easily be looked upon as a disgrace to their art.

JR

Ultimatewingchun

01-29-2005, 11:44 PM

"If WC people would get out there and regularly test themselves, it would be easy to say who is good and who is not.

Jimmy Pedro (judo), BJ Penn (BJJ;MMA), Roy Jones Jr. (boxing); Eric "Top Dog" Knaus (stickfighting), Mirco Cro Cop (Kickboxing; MMA), and Dan Henderson (wrestling; MMA) are clearly good. One can easily say this because they have regularly tested and displayed their skills against others in environments where everyone can watch them.

Most WC people rarely venture outside of the safety of their schools." (KF)

WHICH IS WHY....one of the things I've been advocating since I came on this forum two years ago are organized Wing Chun Full Contact Fighting Tournaments...annually...or semi-annually, or whatever.

Which could eventually become invitational and open to other styles to participate as well.

AND VIRTUALLY NO ONE around here endorsed the idea...just two or three people.

I find this amazing.

But not in a good way.

KPM

01-30-2005, 05:08 AM

Originally posted by Matrix
James,
That's the way I see it as well.

If we're going to say as Airdrawndagger suggests, that there's a WC "good" and a boxing "good", and that one "good" is not as good as the other, then we're playing word games.

---I agree with you guys as well. If the implication by some is that "good" boxing is better than "good" Wing Chun, then why haven't they dropped Wing Chun and gone whole-heartedly into boxing? We keep hearing how wonderful MMA training is, so why haven't these same people dropped their Wing Chun and focused on MMA? I agree with something that James said awhile back as well. He pointed out that it sure seems strange that you can come to a Wing Chun forum and end up having to defend Wing Chun! This is probably a skewed impression, but it sometimes seems that there are some here that don't think much of Wing Chun, but still practice it and feel like they need to change it! Why not just skip the Wing Chun and focus on boxing, or kickboxing, or BJJ, or catch wrestling, etc? If Wing Chun is so awful.....why continue to practice it? If boxing or MMA has all the answers, then why not pursue that? The typical neophyte to martial arts that happened upon this forum with the intent to find out more about Wing Chun would probably go away thinking "that's obviously not something I want to study!" Terence laughed at me on another thread because I didn't like the "tone." Well....there is a difference between saying that "Wing Chun is a great martial art and here are some things to consider that can make it better" and saying "Wing Chun is worthless and not a martial art at all unless you are doing these specific things....." We get too much of the later attitude and not enough of the former. It does make a difference. The "in your face" attitude may be warranted on occasion to make a point and wake people up, but to have it here day after day in darn near every thread gets real old real fast and people simple start to ignore it. If you scan through the most recent posts you will find many of the "regulars" missing. Coincidence? Or did they just get tired of the recent tone in the forum?

Keith