Why not have an open mind about real fighting?

[SAAMAG]

I've only been back on the forum for a few months now since my 3 year long hiatus from training. Back then I remember talking mostly about wing chun only, there wasn't as much MMA talk as there is now...but a couple things I've been noticing...

First let me say that I love the art of wing chun, I feel it's got some of the best theories and concepts...it's simple and direct, as the saying goes. It develops great sensetivity and reaction time which is good for any fighter. It's also conceptual, which means it's ideas can work across many areas and styles of combat.

Wing chun grew famous as being a FIGHTING art. It's techniques directly address FIGHTING...not meditation, not exercise, not the betterment of one's moralities and personality flaws...but FIGHTING.

So then why do some of the people here have such a closed mind when it comes to the idea that wing chun MIGHT not have all the answers to fighting? True, perception of the art and the level of understanding can make a difference in what "effective" really is, but the sky is blue and the grass is green, these are things that we cannot dispute, just as in FIGHTING, we cannot dispute effectiveness or lack of effectiveness.

It's quite obvious when stepping back and looking at the system's methodology, that it is indeed a highly specialized system and doesn't take into consideration all aspects of fighting. One cannot dispute that. It takes very little intelligence to see, and refusing to see is just a fear of accepting the facts.

So then if we practice an art that was known for effective fighting, and are presented with facts that may help us to stay effective as fighters...why are we so closed minded to it? Because it didn't come from China or Hong Kong? Because it doesn't follow the straight line maxim?

Like I said, I love wing chun, but I from 23 years of martial arts, I see things differently now, I don't think in the box anymore, and I stay open to new ideas and things that would make me better as a fighter, and a martial artist in general.

To cite an example of why we should start thinking ouside the box...I was in a wing chun school, and was doing some anti grappling using wing chun against the leg clinch/ leg shoot. When I was the wing chun person, and the "attacker" went for my leg, I simply moved it back while punching him. He stopped and looked at me and said "I don't think that's right. I said "why wouldn't it be? You didn't get my leg, and I managed to keep hitting you in the process..." He said "well, in wing tsun we don't give up space, so we don't step the leg back." I looked at him like I thought he was joking at first but he wasn't. INSTEAD of thinking logically and reacting naturally, he wouldve left himself in a situation wherein his leg would've been taken, all because a style that doesn't even really address that area of fighting, told him not to. That's not fighting smart, that's fighting blind.

We should use wing chun for what it's good for, but also be able to go outside the box and think for ourselves, think logically, and realistically. Not be made into robots that follow rules based on no imperical evidence. Science doesn't come up with answers based on what someone thinks will happen, it experienments and gathers data, and then makes an assessment. If you gather no data, then how can you say what you do works, doesn't work, works but is need of improvement in "x" area....etc??

I'm just wondering really how one can get so offended at people questioning blind faith. It's a valid question/debate, and one really should take into consideration the evidence that's out there.

Just my two cents...

[old jong]

I personaly don't see Wing Chun as a complete MA,in the sense of including all techniques and ranges.It is a weapon that can be very sharp or dull just like any weapon.
But ,this is a Wing Chun forum and it is getting very hard to talk about Wing Chun around here.This is not a MMA forum.Is that true?...
;)

[Ultimatewingchun]

"It's quite obvious when stepping back and looking at the system's methodology, that it is indeed a highly specialized system and doesn't take into consideration all aspects of fighting. One cannot dispute that. It takes very little intelligence to see, and refusing to see is just a fear of accepting the facts."

You're right, Van.

Because accepting the facts would mean having to start over - to a certain degree.

But some people prefer to rest.

They think they've climbed to the top of the mountain...and nobody is going to tell them otherwise.

Let them be.

So that they can continue to play in their own little world.

[SAAMAG]

No, you're right OJ, this is a WC forum. We talk about wing chun here, but the "occasional" questions about whether or not wing chun would work against this or that...well that just helps us out as personal martial artists and keeps us honest. I for one welcome anything that might save my life one day.

I do see what you're saying however....but I feel that as long as people stay on the topic of the posts, it wouldn't be hard at all to speak about wing chun.

[iblis73]

Hey Van, I've come to find your postings to be sensible and informative. I still lurk on this forum even tho I dont train with the WT crowd anymore and will be starting jkd/mma soon. I really want to get into bjj and go as far as I can in that.

People like sytems and groupings, I think we are wired for it psychologically. I loved training at Parkers and doing wt-but whenever sumpin came up, well, it sorta broke down. I've gone far afield and found that sport based and mma type systems just seem to natural to me. I had an epiphany after training so intently in WT (sometimes 10-12 hrs a week.) I got into martial arts to learn how to FIGHT, or as one student put it so succintly I got into MA to learn how to kick someones ass. I did not get into it to "do martial arts" master a style or any of that.

After talking with and training with jkd folks, garage groups and military/leos, going back to "traditional" training just feels like a regression. Thats the biggest reason I left WT and the TMA world in general-the psychological stuff and mentality of so many is something I couldnt deal with.

[Phil Redmond]

Originally posted by old jong
I personaly don't see Wing Chun as a complete MA,in the sense of including all techniques and ranges.It is a weapon that can be very sharp or dull just like any weapon.
But ,this is a Wing Chun forum and it is getting very hard to talk about Wing Chun around here.This is not a MMA forum.Is that true?...
;)
Michel, it's good to know the competition is doing ;)
PR

[Phil Redmond]

Vankuen, contrary to what some might believe WC is first for me. I just don't want to be caught unaware. So, I'm experimenting with other MAs. If it's not againt forum rules I'd like to copy your post and email it to my students. It is on the money.
Phil

[Sihing73]

Hello,

I doubt that there is such a thing as a “complete” martial art, which has the answers for all situations. However, Wing Chun has the capability to obtain the answers to each and every situation simply because it is a system of concepts rather than techniques. If one understands the energy and angles behind various attacks then one is not limited to a preset group of responses. Wing Chun should teach one to “think outside of the box” after all doesn’t Biu Tze teach us to do just that?

I think that Wing Chun was developed as an eclectic style and thus took in what it needed in order to deal with the types of attack sit was most likely to face. I think that in keeping with that tradition we who train today should keep an open mind and realize that there may be other things, which could benefit our approach by their inclusion in our training. Of course this does not open the door to doing and training a hodgepodge of techniques or systems but it does present one with the opportunity to explore other arts and then build upon your Wing Chun base. For example, many have found it quite beneficial to incorporate BJJ into their Wing Chun in order to improve their ground fighting skills.

I think that we do no disservice to the founders of Wing Chun when we expand our take on the art to include methods not originally found within the system. I feel that we need to constantly evaluate and evolve as times change. I always point to the inclusion of the pole as a good example of the need and sometimes the acceptability of looking outside of the system.

I do understand Old Jong’s point though that many people fail to thoroughly explore Wing Chun in favor of the perceived shortcut of sometimes adding techniques from outside of the system. I am not against integrating other arts with ones Wing Chun, however I do think that one should fully explore their own art before they start adding things.

Peace,

Dave

[SAAMAG]

Biu tze to me, simply teaches techniques to use in the event something went wrong with the basic techniques. Emergency techniques I believe is the coined term? Everything necessary to fight with wing chun however can be found in the first two sets. The third set and even the weapon sets aren't "necessary" to fight empty handed using wing chun.

Had you not said this first Dave, I would have. The long pole is a great and undeniable example of integration/evolution. There is no disservice to wing chun at all when you integrate ideas and techniques to better yourself as a martial artist, because quite frankly wing chun is there to help us as individuals...and well, wing chun has no identity after all. It's just a set of concepts and techniques that fall directly under those set concepts.

Like I said...it's an awesome system, and I can't think of any of other style that can develop ones hands and body unity the way wing chun does. It's second to none in that department...it's just the other departments that I think we owe to ourselves to look into when addressing combat in the truest sense of the word.

[OdderMensch]

Originally posted by Vankuen
I've only been back on the forum for a few months now since my 3 year long hiatus from training.

<<<sniping some good stuff here>>>

So then why do some of the people here have such a closed mind when it comes to the idea that wing chun MIGHT not have all the answers to fighting? True, perception of the art and the level of understanding can make a difference in what "effective" really is, but the sky is blue and the grass is green, these are things that we cannot dispute, just as in FIGHTING, we cannot dispute effectiveness or lack of effectiveness.


Well for me, there are two reasons I have a closed mind in this case. One is that it hinders my ability to have a very open mind about the possibilties present within WC. The second is that I belive any form of fighting (yes even hard core sparring/mma freestyle) is going to have a balance of pro's and cons. WC seems to me to be a very well thought out and considered balance, and I trust (at least for now) the designers plans.



It's quite obvious when stepping back and looking at the system's methodology, that it is indeed a highly specialized system and doesn't take into consideration all aspects of fighting. One cannot dispute that. It takes very little intelligence to see, and refusing to see is just a fear of accepting the facts.


No fear here. Well ok heights do bother me a bit, but other than that.........But one thing that has always struck me about WC is that every time I read/see/hear about some aspect or range of fighting that WC does not seemingly address, I soon learn from my Sifu how and where WC addresses it.



So then if we practice an art that was known for effective fighting, and are presented with facts that may help us to stay effective as fighters...why are we so closed minded to it? Because it didn't come from China or Hong Kong? Because it doesn't follow the straight line maxim?

Like I said, I love wing chun, but I from 23 years of martial arts, I see things differently now, I don't think in the box anymore, and I stay open to new ideas and things that would make me better as a fighter, and a martial artist in general.


OK this is a bit esoteric, but one must consider the mindset of the creators of WC. They were most likely buddists and or daoists and those people have been philiosphicly thinking outside the box inside the box and realizeing there is no box for thousands of years.



To cite an example of why we should start thinking ouside the box...<<<<<<<<<snipped a trademark example of WC misteachings>>>>>>> That's not fighting smart, that's fighting blind.


I won't point out to you why he was 'wrong' on a techical level, cuz this is not about that. But i have heard BJJ instucters telling people to just 'not worry' about takeing a few shots to the face or head while going in for a takedown. While I am sure there are times this is good advice it strikes me as absurd!



I'm just wondering really how one can get so offended at people questioning blind faith. It's a valid question/debate, and one really should take into consideration the evidence that's out there.

Just my two cents...

By all means lets debate this, but understand I do not follow blindly into any mindset. Kabbalah (sp) and some parts of the new testament left out over the centueries tells us that the faithful should go thru stages.

In the first stage, one must simplly belive and have faith. Latter as the person grows, they should study and confirm that faith. The greeks said an unexamined life is not worth liveing, they belived that unexplored faith was not worth haveing.

So yes at this stage in my training I have faith that WC will give me all the tools I need on order to fight.

[SAAMAG]

Originally posted by Phil Redmond
Vankuen, contrary to what some might believe WC is first for me. I just don't want to be caught unaware. So, I'm experimenting with other MAs. If it's not againt forum rules I'd like to copy your post and email it to my students. It is on the money.
Phil

I don't mind Phil, go right ahead.

This was just something I was thinking about, and I was getting sick of the bickering between the groups, I feel like I'm right in the middle of them, although I do cater to the pragmatic side. I want to get more advanced in wing chun, and I love discussing it...however one cannot dispute that to be good at fighting in general...we need to practice other things as well...and since it's still martial arts, we should be eager to learn these things...I know I was/am everytime someone is willing to share useful knowledge with me in a NONCONDESCENDING or egotistical fashion. On the same token, I've never charged anyone for any of my coaching/teaching either and I love doing that as well. There's nothing quite like the feeling of helping trying to teach someone something and finally seeing them apply it correctly in it's environment. It's almost as good as when it happens to you!

[OdderMensch]

Biu tze to me, simply teaches techniques to use in the event something went wrong with the basic techniques. Emergency techniques I believe is the coined term? Everything necessary to fight with wing chun however can be found in the first two sets. The third set and even the weapon sets aren't "necessary" to fight empty handed using wing chun.

I'd just like to go on recored as saying I almost completely disagree with thqat statement. All three handsets work to expand and clarify each other a proper understanding of chum kui is no less or more important than a proper understanding of Biu Jee

the "emergency techniquies" are just one aspect of that form, just as the stance is just one aspect of SLT.

[SAAMAG]

To justify that statement, simply look at the most common wing chun techniques typically used in whatever sparring you may happen to see (as it happens very little in most schools) in addition to the chi sau. Aside from the elbows, and the biu sau, what other biu tze techniques do you think are absolutely necessary in wing chun fighting that aren't already present in the previous two forms?

You will typically see paks, tan, bong, fook, lap, lan, biu, hiuen, gaan, gwat, on the defensive side and the punches, palms, and elbows on the offensive side consistantly in most exchanges (at least from what I've been exposed to...maybe I'm wrong) But even my sihings and other wing chun people I've discussed this with agree that most of is used can be found in the first two forms. But like I said, everyone's reality is slightly different. Some people need more information to fight better, some do not. From one thing know ten thousand right? I guess that's why we the everlasting debate that started this thread exists right?

[SAAMAG]

Originally posted by OdderMensch
Well for me, there are two reasons I have a closed mind in this case. One is that it hinders my ability to have a very open mind about the possibilties present within WC. The second is that I belive any form of fighting (yes even hard core sparring/mma freestyle) is going to have a balance of pro's and cons. WC seems to me to be a very well thought out and considered balance, and I trust (at least for now) the designers plans.

just like yin and yang everything will have it's ups and downs, pro's and con's etc. Wing chun is indeed a well thought out system derived from some very smart people. That is why we must upkeep the intelligence level by thinking logically about fighting and how wing chun fit's into the totality of it.

No fear here. Well ok heights do bother me a bit, but other than that.........But one thing that has always struck me about WC is that every time I read/see/hear about some aspect or range of fighting that WC does not seemingly address, I soon learn from my Sifu how and where WC addresses it.

if that is happening and your sifu can adapt the concepts of wing chun kuen to address the different ranges of fighting then that's great! That is what needs to happen. Use the wing chun, don't let it use you!


OK this is a bit esoteric, but one must consider the mindset of the creators of WC. They were most likely buddists and or daoists and those people have been philiosphicly thinking outside the box inside the box and realizeing there is no box for thousands of years.

"most likely...probably..." I'm glad you're saying it that way instead of "they were..." because honestly...we really don't know who they were. The concepts are taken by every individual differently, and this is good because that is what allows for growth. But if they indeed did think "outside the box" they probably didn't think that fighting was going to evolve the way it has either. So we must do the thinking for them...as we are the ones carrying the torch in this day and age. We will decide the evolution or stagnation of the system, or your system rather as you would interpret it.



I won't point out to you why he was 'wrong' on a techical level, cuz this is not about that. But i have heard BJJ instucters telling people to just 'not worry' about takeing a few shots to the face or head while going in for a takedown. While I am sure there are times this is good advice it strikes me as absurd!

As you do not need to because it was pretty evident what was wrong there in his thinking...that was the point of the story. But the idea of people taking hits to get better ones in may not sound right in theory, it happens that way because fighters...or people that have time actually fighting, have learned that no matter who you are or how good you think you may be, you're most likely going to take hit(s) in any given fight (against a semi skilled opponent). The thinking doesn't go "take these hits on purpose to get this hit in" but moreso "It's highly probably you may take a few hits when doing..." This obviously doesn't sound right to a wing chun person who relies on the wing chun "safe hitting" maxim wherein the attacks happen after a trap when it's "safe" to hit. The hard reality is that even a non trained person with simply good athletic ability can keep his hands from being trapped...depending of course on the skill levels and natural ability of the untrained person. Too many variables my friend to give absolutes here...so on we go to the next tidbit...

By all means lets debate this, but understand I do not follow blindly into any mindset. Kabbalah (sp) and some parts of the new testament left out over the centueries tells us that the faithful should go thru stages.

In the first stage, one must simplly belive and have faith. Latter as the person grows, they should study and confirm that faith. The greeks said an unexamined life is not worth liveing, they belived that unexplored faith was not worth haveing.

So yes at this stage in my training I have faith that WC will give me all the tools I need on order to fight.

Well I hope that you will learn fast, and start to explore a little bit to "reinforce" your faith. I too have faith that wing chun will work...

... for it's intended use. I do not have faith that wing chun will get me out of situations that wing chun does not train in. So it's not a matter of having no faith, it's a matter of thinking for yourself and understanding that there's more out there that you have to be ready for....that's all. Nothing wrong with wing chun at all...just remember that there's more out there my friend. That's all.

[anerlich]

I do understand Old Jong’s point though that many people fail to thoroughly explore Wing Chun in favor of the perceived shortcut of sometimes adding techniques from outside of the system. I am not against integrating other arts with ones Wing Chun, however I do think that one should fully explore their own art before they start adding things.

These are good points. However, the question that it begs is how long it takes to "fully explore" one's own art, at least to the point where one is competent enough to be able to judge the value of other systems and approaches.

Frank Shamrock turned pro after 8 months training. He won a world title after a year and a half. Anyone who's met him knows he's no idiot.

If you are an adult of reasonable intelligence, following someone else's track for several decades without applying your own judgement and critical faculties seems foolish and an abrogation of both potential and maturity.

In Japanese culture, sometimes derided by Sinophiles and others as being a nationality inflexible in their thinking and attitude, the concept of Shu Ha Ri is espoused.

Simplistically, you follow Shu for ten years, and train your art as laid down by your instructors.

In the next phase, Ha, you are EXPECTED to break away, try other things, look for weaknesses, think for yourself, find your own path.

In the third stage, Ri, you integrate your own learning with your inheritance.

So you are EXPECTED to go outside the boundaries of your system. After about ten years. If you haven't got a decent understanding of what you are doing after a decade, something is wrong with you or the people allegedly instructing you. If you want to stay in that bubble, or you are ordered to, ditto IMO.

As for "a conceptual based art, which has the answers to everything if you understand the concepts, and if you want to do something else you haven't understood..." I could just as easily have gone to a CLF, BJJ, taiji school or Peekaboo boxing gym and be told the same thing, and unfortunately for the true believers, it would be right. I went to a WC school because I liked the instructor's skill and personality, not because I was looking to hook up to a philosophy of life, religion, or cult. I wasn't looking for a black hole to fall into.

WC is an elegant and effective system. I've trained hard in this system for 15 years. It's great. I did forms and chi sao with a couple of training buds before work this morning, though - shock horror - sorry - we did move out of the "traditional TWC" drills into hip tosses, arm drags, duckunders and knee strike/snapdown/front chokes.

When I saw BJJ, I saw a similarly elegant and beautiful art. Once I tried it, I was hooked. So effective, and so much fun, such a challenge both physically and intellectually. It can be a brutally effective means to dominate superior attributes with skill, and it can also be a gentle art of restraint. Plus most of the other students have less attitude than most TMAers.

I see boxing as a great challenge. So much more to it than just bashing someone. In some ways, it's a more efficient striking art than WC, with some concepts that are IMO superior.

I'm going to continue following all these paths. Because I like them all. I don't just choose one, because .. I don't have to.

Got a problem with that? Then *you* got a problem, not me.

[Sihing73]

Hello,

Frist of all when I say that Biu Tze teaches one to think outside of the box I am saying this in respect to it being for emergency techniques. One of the aspects which I think Biu Tze addresses is that of having to deal with when one makes a mistake, in some cases you will need to step outsideof the box in order to come back from such an error. If you chose to respond in a fixed pattern then you may never recover. However, if you step outside and realize that your response need sto be flexible and alive then you are free to utilize all aspects of the system. Perhaps WSL said it best when he stated that one needed to be the master and not the slave to Wing Chun.

anerlich makes some very valid points as many of the "old" masters were not only expected to train and diversify but were actually sent for instruction with other "masters" by their own sifu. I think that one must take a somewhat pragmatic appraoch to "fighting". One must prepare for the opponents they are likely to face and one should do whatever it takes to win. If you like BJJ or Boxing then so be it as long as you stay true to the basic precepts of your chosen art. I believe that every art has the potential to be very effective, a lot has to do with the focus and intent of ones training. In many cases the mental aspect may be more important than the physical.

Having a good instructor is important in allowing the student to find the proper balance and not jump ship to another art before he is ready. In many systems the expectation is to achieve at least Black belt level in your system of choice before looking to other arts.

Just some late night ramblings when I should be working............

Peace,

Dave

[Phil Redmond]

If you're doing WC for a hobby, for philosphy, or for health that's all good. If you do WC for what it was invented for then you have to test you art against what's out there. PERIOD. There is no other way. Until (generic) you have tried your art against skilled fighters you never really know if it'll work in real situations.
PR

[AmanuJRY]

Phil,

That is on the money.

People need to decide what their reason is for studying WC (or any other MA for that matter), then apply that reason to their approach. If it's fighting (self-defence, competition, etc.) then the act of fighting (or whatever pseudo-fighting model) should be the test that defines the training.


As for Biu Jee, I like to think that SNT is a basic tool set and CK is the methods for applying those tools. BJ is learning to employ basic tools with unique methods or unique tools with normal methods and even unique tools with unique methods.

[PaulH]

I find this explanation most illuminating on the meaning of Biu Gee fingers. =D

"Reality, the truth, is not something abstract. For this reason it cannot be grasped with words. Why, then, should we spend our time pursuing explanation? Or more to the point, why can we not cease our efforts to explain reality? Human beings sometimes seem preoccupied with the questions of what reality should be like, and what we should or should not do. Yet we can sometimes simply glimpse how things are, just as we see clear sky emerging from beyond the clouds. What both Dogen and Nagaijuna do in their writings is to point us towards a gap in the clouds; to the clear sky beyond. In the words of an ancient Buddhist metaphor, ideas, theories, and explanations are fingers pointing at the distant moon. They are not, and can never be, the moon itself. Our pointing fingers do not touch the moon, just as our ideas do not touch reality. But they can act as a guide.

Where then, is the moon at which these fingers point, and why can we not easily see it for ourselves? Buddhism says that it is in front of us here and now. The philosopher, Ludwig Wittgenstein, put it succinctly when he said, "The place I really have to get to is a place I must already be at now." And yet Wittgenstein would be the first to agree that the phrase, "a place I must already be at now" merely creates another image in our brain. No matter how hard we try to describe it in words, we only create more images."

[KPM]

Originally posted by Vankuen

So then why do some of the people here have such a closed mind when it comes to the idea that wing chun MIGHT not have all the answers to fighting? to see, and refusing to see is just a fear of accepting the facts.

I'm just wondering really how one can get so offended at people questioning blind faith. It's a valid question/debate, and one really should take into consideration the evidence that's out there.

Just my two cents...

---It is often not the "questioning" that offends, but the way that it is presented. No one likes to be labeled or told that what they are doing is worthless. Things seem to get personal far too quickly and far too often on this forum. There are some here that will jump into a reasonable thread discussing WCK (this is after all, as Old Jong pointed out, a WCK forum and not a MMA forum) and completely hijack a thread and turn it into an "us vs. them" argument. There is certainly room for talking about how WCK would work against other systems, and even how certain things like BJJ can be integrated in your fighting approach. But too many people here seem to have an agenda and go on an evanglistic crusade to prove that what everyone else is doing is worthless. They purposefully create a polarization where none really exists. THAT is what I take offense at. They think in terms of black and white when really things are a shade of gray. IMHO THAT is not "thinking outside of the box". That is just as "close-minded" as anything else. And human nature is funny.....you offend someone and they typically stop listening to what you have to say..........

Keith

[t_niehoff]

KPM doesn't like the tone. LOL!

Well, in my view, a great many WCK practitioners (and we're not alone, it's the same with most TCMAs and especially the for-the-most-part-make-believe "internal" arts) suffer from a superiority complex -- they *believe* their art is great ("awesome"), superior to most other arts, provides most, if not all, the answers etc. Even some of the posts on this thread suggest WCK does certain things better than other arts, like developing "body unity". (What a joke; the overwhelming majority of WCK practitioners have absolutely no body unity.) When the truth -- if we bother to look at the *evidence* -- is something altogether very different.

Wong Sheung Leung said "Wing Chun is a good horse but few can ride her." IMO there is something very profound and very true in those words. Hundreds, if not thousands, went through Yip Man's Hong Kong kwoon -- perhaps a handful ever developed any real skill. I've seen loads of WCK practitioners in my time (over 20 years) in the art, including masters, grandmasters, the so-called "top-notch" folks, etc. and very, very few (I could count them on one hand) had any decent skill (other than being "good" at chi sao or demos -- which is how, along with marketing, they sell their art). Is this evidence that WCK is a superior art? That it has all the answers?

My opinion is that if you -- not the generic "you" but *you* reading this post -- can't demonstrate under fighting conditions against skilled opposition your beliefs, in other words if you can't do it, perform it, etc., then your beliefs (or claims) whatever they are are essentially meaningless and you are deluding yourself. WCK isn't superior if you aren't a superior fighter; WCK doesn't have the answers if you don't have all the answers. And while you can believe in the tooth fairy (or that biu jee is for this or that or the other thing), proving it is something else. So far, all we have are claims, theory, etc.

KPM doesn't like the "tone"; sorry, but I don't like the "tone" I've been hearing for 20+ years from the fantasy-boxers. And what I find pathetic is the constant back-slapping among those WCK practitioners -- "we have the superior art" nonsense -- when they couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag. Keith doesn't like being told that most people are wasting their time. Well, they are. It's like boy scouts talking about war and the things they would do or could do if they ever went to war. My POV is for us to stop wasting our time.

Stop talking about that cr@p -- either prove it, that you can do it, that you can back up your belief or don't talk about it. And if you can do it, you'll have no reticence in stepping up and proving it. Stop talking about what WCK *can* (in theory) do -- what you believe wtihout evidence -- and talk instead what you can do, what works for you (and not in chi sao or drills), etc. Of course, the only way to know what you can do is by having done it, by fighting. So, if you haven't done it, and against skilled folks, you have no real idea if you could do it or not, whether it works for you or not. Stop the nonsense.

Why don't many have an open mind about fighting? Because fighting will take one out of the safety of their cacoon of theory and belief, expose their true level of performance, and deep in their hearts (unconsciously) they know that. And they don't want to see it.

[Nick Forrer]

Good post Terence

[Vajramusti]

Terence sez:

My POV is for us to stop wasting our time.

Stop talking about that cr@p -- either prove it, that you can do it, that you can back up your belief or don't talk about it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The POV is clear enough...why repeat the same point again and again.

Keith made a fairly well balanced point...and the kind of response that he got from Terence is not necessary and is really pointless.

Prove it? To whom? To Terence? A self appointed jury on an internet list?

Victor put some films up. I enjoyed watching them.Thanks for sharing. Its not my cup of tea but I appreciated seeing the films. I avoid a critique because of the often dysfunctional communications
that arise.

[Vajramusti]

Terence sez:

My POV is for us to stop wasting our time.

Stop talking about that cr@p -- either prove it, that you can do it, that you can back up your belief or don't talk about it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The POV is clear enough...why repeat the same point agin and again.

Keith made a fairly well balanced point...and the kind of response that he got from Terence is not necessary and is really pointless.

Prove it? To whom? A self appointed jury on an internet list?

[SAAMAG]

KPM basically said what I said in another post..."it's not what you say but how you say it. " Edmund mentioned on another thread as well that if we are to help each other out on this forum,or at the very least discuss wing chun kuen in a more positive light, that we need to stop the name calling, the personal attacks, and the mentioning on specific people on the forum when trying to make points. (After all we all know who is who on here) as far as personality types go.

KPM basically said that And Terence, In IMHO, that's exactly what were talking about. The point could've been made easily without mentioning names, or anything of the sort...and the put/shut up attitude, although it has it's place with me as well...quite frankly doesn't matter on a forum. We can mention it here and there should the subject arise...but the fact that we "fighter" types are making it arise on just about every thread is starting to become a nuisance to everyone else, and hell even I am noticing the trend.

This thread was originally just a rant...but now Im looking just to bring some light on the subject and maybe this can be the start of a more civil union between the two groups....

[Edmund]

Originally posted by Vankuen
This thread was originally just a rant...but now Im looking just to bring some light on the subject and maybe this can be the start of a more civil union between the two groups....

I doubt there can be.
But the rant level is getting too high.

There should be a sticky thread called "Screw You" where all the crap goes.

[t_niehoff]

Let's put things into perspective. If folks want to talk about history or WCK for health or the way various lineages do or have done the forms or drills, we can all share in that -- everyone. But there needs to a "line drawn in the sand" when it comes to talking, even on a forum, about the effectiveness of training methods, application, and related claims. With regard to those topics, I don't give a rat's @ss about "inclusion" or a "civil union" or things of that nature. Wouldn't you expect Joy to challenge me if I said Fong does this or that? How could I know other than by hearsay? A person needs to have personal knowledge on the topic being discussed to have any credibility in the matter. In the same vein, folks that don't fight -- don't actually *do* WCK -- have no personal knowledge on which to base their opinions about application or effective training methods, so they have absolutely no credibility in these matters.

So, yes, I'll bet when issues of training and application are being discussed that a focus on expereince (fighting) rather than belief (theory) has been a nuisance to all the theoreticians. But, you know, why should anyone care if some theoretician gives their opinion on how to use pak sao when they've never tried to actually use it against anyone skilled in their life? And shouldn't it be pointed out that they don't have a clue? Should we just "include" them and treat their opinion as valid to make them feel good? To stroke their egos? Should we not draw a line in the sand because we may not appear cordial?

Joy asks, "prove it to whom?" To yourself. To others. If you can do it, why is the question of proof even an issue? If proof is an issue, is a sore spot, it's because there is no proof. Why not go onto a BJJ forum and say "I've never rolled on the mats, let alone with someone good, but have been studying BJJ for years, so let me tell you how to apply it." Or a boxing forum, "I've learned to box, done the drills, etc. but have never gotten into the ring or boxed with anyone skilled but let me tell you how you should train and do things." But that's standard in TCMAs.

Sorry if you don't like "how I say things." IME, martial artists or fighters don't need things sugar-coated, they talk like men and women rather than children ("can't you be nice?", "can't we all just get along?"), can take the blunt truth even if it hurts, their egos don't bruise easily because their egos are getting pounded all the time. When you fight, you get beaten every day, you see that you're not all that, that what you do isn't "superior". And you come to recognize BS when it's spewed.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Very interesting and insightful post, Andrew. All of it. Especially liked the part about the Japanese philosophy regarding martial art training. That's the way it should be for everybody. Makes so much sense.




Originally posted by anerlich
These are good points. However, the question that it begs is how long it takes to "fully explore" one's own art, at least to the point where one is competent enough to be able to judge the value of other systems and approaches.

Frank Shamrock turned pro after 8 months training. He won a world title after a year and a half. Anyone who's met him knows he's no idiot.

If you are an adult of reasonable intelligence, following someone else's track for several decades without applying your own judgement and critical faculties seems foolish and an abrogation of both potential and maturity.

In Japanese culture, sometimes derided by Sinophiles and others as being a nationality inflexible in their thinking and attitude, the concept of Shu Ha Ri is espoused.

Simplistically, you follow Shu for ten years, and train your art as laid down by your instructors.

In the next phase, Ha, you are EXPECTED to break away, try other things, look for weaknesses, think for yourself, find your own path.

In the third stage, Ri, you integrate your own learning with your inheritance.

So you are EXPECTED to go outside the boundaries of your system. After about ten years. If you haven't got a decent understanding of what you are doing after a decade, something is wrong with you or the people allegedly instructing you. If you want to stay in that bubble, or you are ordered to, ditto IMO.

As for "a conceptual based art, which has the answers to everything if you understand the concepts, and if you want to do something else you haven't understood..." I could just as easily have gone to a CLF, BJJ, taiji school or Peekaboo boxing gym and be told the same thing, and unfortunately for the true believers, it would be right. I went to a WC school because I liked the instructor's skill and personality, not because I was looking to hook up to a philosophy of life, religion, or cult. I wasn't looking for a black hole to fall into.

WC is an elegant and effective system. I've trained hard in this system for 15 years. It's great. I did forms and chi sao with a couple of training buds before work this morning, though - shock horror - sorry - we did move out of the "traditional TWC" drills into hip tosses, arm drags, duckunders and knee strike/snapdown/front chokes.

When I saw BJJ, I saw a similarly elegant and beautiful art. Once I tried it, I was hooked. So effective, and so much fun, such a challenge both physically and intellectually. It can be a brutally effective means to dominate superior attributes with skill, and it can also be a gentle art of restraint. Plus most of the other students have less attitude than most TMAers.

I see boxing as a great challenge. So much more to it than just bashing someone. In some ways, it's a more efficient striking art than WC, with some concepts that are IMO superior.

I'm going to continue following all these paths. Because I like them all. I don't just choose one, because .. I don't have to.

Got a problem with that? Then *you* got a problem, not me.

[AndrewS]

Van writes:

>To cite an example of why we should start thinking ouside the >box...I was in a wing chun school, and was doing some anti >grappling using wing chun against the leg clinch/ leg shoot. >When I was the wing chun person, and the "attacker" went for >my leg, I simply moved it back while punching him. He stopped >and looked at me and said "I don't think that's right. I said "why >wouldn't it be? You didn't get my leg, and I managed to keep >hitting you in the process..." He said "well, in wing tsun we >don't give up space, so we don't step the leg back." I looked at >him like I thought he was joking at first but he wasn't. INSTEAD >of thinking logically and reacting naturally, he wouldve left >himself in a situation wherein his leg would've been taken, all >because a style that doesn't even really address that area of >fighting, told him not to. That's not fighting smart, that's fighting >blind.

Hey Van-

you're right and he's wrong on both practical and EBMAS curriculum levels. There is nothing wrong with moving back; there are better and worse ways to do so.

For *all* 'anti-grappling' things work in the following tiers:
1). Defend with just the hits, keeping space by using the pressure of the hits as a way to 'post' off of incoming force. This is what you were doing. If you go back, do so on an angle, and work on getting power out of your backwards step, using the space and weight drop it provides in conjunction with core activation potentiated by adduction.

2). Destroy the setup of the takedown/ clinch. Make their handfighting and positioning ineffective by controlling facing and giving no leverage advantage. This is essentially chi sao skills made real, and often looks like 1). if you have the timing of your attack done nicely.

3). Counter the takedown/clinch mid-execution- when someone actually has a solid and dangerous hold on you, what to do. This is what you were working on.

4). Reverse/control a successful takedown mid-air. Sifu has some slick stuff for this, probably the most neglected range.

5). Reverse control position when you hit the ground

6). Counter submission attempts, counter and reverse ground and pound- their own topics.

To the rest of the crew- the delusional schmucks giving us a bad rep also have the wonderful advantage of giving us an element of surprise. It's kinda fun when people expect you to have nothing and suddenly get ahold of something they really didn't expect. . .

Andrew

[Ultimatewingchun]

"The delusional schmucks giving us a bad rep also have the wonderful advantage of giving us an element of surprise. It's kinda fun when people expect you to have nothing and suddenly get ahold of something they really didn't expect."

CAN I STEAL that one, Andrew?

Would like to hang it on my wall.

Good overall post.

[AndrewS]

Victor,

feel free.

Andrew

[old jong]

Originally posted by Phil Redmond
Michel, it's good to know the competition is doing ;)
PR
Hey Phil!
I know exactly what the "competition" is doing. I guess everybody else know also!...;)
:D

[Phil Redmond]

Originally posted by old jong
Hey Phil!
I know exactly what the "competition" is doing. I guess everybody else know also!...;)
:D
Had you ever heard of people JHR people fighting with razor blades between their finger or Capoeristas using blades between their toes, or people that can catch your punch and kiss your fist and throw it back into your face EFFECTIVELY, people who can block puinches with their elbows, head, or..... I can go on and on. I don't think there is a person on this planet that can know every thing about every martial art or fighting system. I'm a perpetual (sp)? student of the fighting arts and would never claim to have all the answers. So in my case I'd like to know what's out there so that I can at least be prepared. Since you know "exactly" what the competiton is doing you're in a different league than I am
PR

[old jong]

Phil!
No need to get angry!...
There is life outside of this forum and I know about some things.I was talking about the MMA noise mainly.

But did you know that some skin heads train their killing instinct by taking living birds eyes out of their sockets with their fingers?...

Peace!
;)

BTW,blocking with the elbows is an old dirty trick but it works wonder! (I know!)

[Ultimatewingchun]

Here's a post by Phil Redmond from another thread - because it really should be on this thread as well...


"Almost all fights (that involve kicks), will look similar to kick boxing. Also, a WC practitioner should be effective with or without gloves. You simply apply WC principles to the fight. You don't have to always have to grab or finger strike. I can still cover gates and counter punch with gloves on. I think many WC people say that to excuse the fact that many don't train for realism."

This was a response to someone saying that even using thin fingerless gloves, when sparring, is a problem for Wing Chun people.

It shouldn't be a problem.

And it isn't.

[Phil Redmond]

Originally posted by old jong
Phil!
No need to get angry!...
There is life outside of this forum and I know about some things.I was talking about the MMA noise mainly.

But did you know that some skin heads train their killing instinct by taking living birds eyes out of their sockets with their fingers?...

Peace!
;)

BTW,blocking with the elbows is an old dirty trick but it works wonder! (I know!)
WHO ME ANGRY??? jk .....lolol
Phil

[old jong]

Originally posted by Phil Redmond
WHO ME ANGRY??? jk .....lolol
Phil

O.K.!.....A little grumpy insread?....;) :D

[Vajramusti]

Phil sez:

I'm a perpetual (sp)? student of the fighting arts and would never claim to have all the answers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil- I share those curiosities. There are all sorts of fairly vile tricks in fighting the world over.

BUT IMO it does not mean that we can or should simulate
"sparring" against each and every one of the different possibilities. Too many of them.. The swinging big bar punches can be a piece of cake for a good boxer- who in turn can be knifed.

The real question is what is the most versatile self defense system which when well understood allows an individual to
deal with a wide spectrum of possibilities. Thats where it is wing chun for me. I dont begrudge other's choices. neither in kung fu nor in other areas of life am I an evangelical.

BTW- street gangs I knew in Calcutta did many of those things with razor blades. Sharpened coins. little sharpened hand held objects were/ are known in various parts of South and South east Asia. Vestiges of thugee traditions have not all disappeared.

Our family butcher cut meat with his hands against a sharp
knife held between the big and the next toe. He and his relatives in urban riots could fight with knives on their feet. Ditto in parts of Indonesia and other places. My butcher could kick someone in the groin fast with a small knife well held between his toes.

The kubotan is not new. Little hand weapons were/are known in many parts of the world.

Many can tell many other frightening possibilities.

Depending onwhere when and with whom one travels-
lots of nasty things in the world. Not an issue of perfection
but one of the highest probability for the longest time- in self defense.

The sword made some arts decline... then the gun put an end to many martial arts. Complete self defense is an illusion.

Developing an alert and aware individual- who is not a walking case of paranoia- witha decent auto reflex system which gets better over time-with guts and ability to perform under pressure and quick read situations and individuals- and knowing when to fight and when not to-
and also doing something to tame fear in oneself and in the community can be a constructive part of martial development in addition to fighting skills. I am not makinga brief against the latter.

[SAAMAG]

Well the gun put an end to all unarmed martial arts. That is if you're going to pit the effectiveness of a punch to the effectiveness of a bullet.

But these things that we suggest aren't to begrudge those that practice wing chun alone, but to help in betterment of the person's fighting ability as a whole...without regard to style. Most of what is being said is simply to train differently than those do in wing chun right now...not to abandon it altogether.

Training in a little groundwork and a little of this or that takes little effort, it's similar to having a college major, and then having minor(s) as well. Think of it that way. It's not as if they're saying that wing chun plain and simple sucks...they may just be facing facts that there is little to say otherwise.

We can all benefit from other people's experience...especially if their area of expertise is in an area we don't dwell in.

I for one just in case...do carry a gun. It's a glock19c. Easy to aim - easy to shoot...numerous times in a row. Im pretty sure that if there is something happening that my unarmed martial arts couldnt handle...that I would be pulling out ol' faithful.

[Vajramusti]

"I for one just in case...do carry a gun."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
You and i are basically different. I have never carried one and dont currently plan to. And I have lived in dangerous places and encountered dangerous individuals.

The best weapon is the alert brain. The body and its reflexes
are just another set of tools to be used.

Threats to personal safety are somewhat exaggerated IMO-
of course depending on country and time.

In the US I fear the car more than I fear the gun. Just look at the breakdowns on causes of death in additon to the
health disasters. During the Vietnam war more people in the US were killed on the highway than the US deaths in Vietnam.

[SAAMAG]

Well I didn't say that I was going to shoot everyone that gave me shyt nor that I would even ever have to use it, but since we're students of war arts...and me being ex military under the air force special operations command, I find that being a true student of the war arts includes weapons (modern weapons) as well as unarmed combat.

I have it at home as a safeguard...not on my person day to day anymore.

[Phil Redmond]

Originally posted by Vankuen
Well I didn't say that I was going to shoot everyone that gave me shyt nor that I would even ever have to use it, but since we're students of war arts...and me being ex military under the air force special operations command, I find that being a true student of the war arts includes weapons (modern weapons) as well as unarmed combat.

I have it at home as a safeguard...not on my person day to day anymore.
In Michigan anyone that doesn't have a felony conviction can get a CCW (Carry Concealed Weapon) permit. Road rage in Detroit can be scary at times.
PR

[OdderMensch]

Originally posted by Vankuen
To justify that statement, simply look at the most common wing chun techniques typically used in whatever sparring you may happen to see (as it happens very little in most schools) in addition to the chi sau. Aside from the elbows, and the biu sau, what other biu tze techniques do you think are absolutely necessary in wing chun fighting that aren't already present in the previous two forms?


the Chum sun motion. (sinking body near the end of the form.)

and aside from the elbows! i love elbows! also of great need in a fight (so far as i can see) is the long bridge energies in bui jee. the oi got kuen (possiblely implied in reverse in chum kui) and the lau sau motions.

Like I said, it is my belief that, you need thye whole systwem to fight effecively. a lot of the other stuff that gets thrown togther to "fill the holes" in wing chun are not neede with the proper understanding, and practice of the entire system.

[SAAMAG]

You can still learn long bridge from any motion wherein your arm is further out....remember these are just motions done in the air! Lan sau is learned even before biu jee in the sil lim tao form...and everything else is pretty standard stuff. But like I said...whatever works for you is what works for you.

But nothing in biu gee, can help you in the guard or on the ground. So filling in the gaps is still necessary even with the form...just as experience fighting other people that aren't using wing chun. That in my opinion is paramount. You will see what works and what doesn't when you're fighting someone who doesn't move the way you are used to.

[Vajramusti]

"But nothing in biu gee, can help you in the guard or on the ground."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wrong!

[SAAMAG]

Well then Joy, please elaborate. It does no good to simply say wrong without an explanation.

Funny, I don't recall ever laying on the ground in the form...but maybe I learned a different version. Perhaps performing moves in the air does make a fighter better! Maybe the MMA's need more forms...if they did them maybe they would be able to beat wing chun guys right? ;)

But seriously, elaborate for us how it would transpose to groundfighting, and keep in mind Im not talking about eye gouging and using elbows while down there...what Im talking about is something other then striking...how does it teach someone to excape or break a guard....to learn how to sense chokes coming on or the opponent's repositioning in preparation for a submission or choke? I'm curious now. I seem to remember movements that help us to regain our wing chun composure in the event the previous two form's motions went awry or were unsuccessful...and that's about it. Maybe I didn't spend enough time imagining how to transpose the moves into an entirely different fighting range....

Like I said before...wing chun is great for the fighting areas it's expertise lies in, and not so great for areas it does not.

[Knifefighter]

Originally posted by Vankuen

But seriously, elaborate for us how it would transpose to groundfighting, and keep in mind Im not talking about eye gouging and using elbows while down there...what Im talking about is something other then striking...how does it teach someone to excape or break a guard....to learn how to sense chokes coming on or the opponent's repositioning in preparation for a submission or choke? I'm curious now. I seem to remember movements that help us to regain our wing chun composure in the event the previous two form's motions went awry or were unsuccessful...and that's about it. Maybe I didn't spend enough time imagining how to transpose the moves into an entirely different fighting range.... I'll bet I can answer this one way better than Joy can... and it will include a positive, useful, and specific way that WC can be used on the ground.

But I'll wait until he posts his reply first.

[Sihing73]

Hello,

Vankuen brings up a good point and I have to agree in part; I do not think that Wing Chun in and of itself has ground-fighting within it. It is easy to argue that the concepts can be applied to the ground, and to a certain extent I am sure they can be. However, I believe that groundfighting needs to be explored from outside the system and then integrated into the system. In other words you can take techniques from BJJ or Judo and build upon them and mold them into a base which compliments your Wing Chun and in a sense you have simply added a new layer to the system, evolving as the need arises. But, I have yet to find anyone who claims that ground-fighting is found within the system who is able to articulate just how and where it is to be found, without drawing from without the system.

I honestly believe that we are the sum of our parts or our experiences. Wing Chun is a highly personal art and it is possible to mold it to suit your needs and your environment, you just need to balance this need with the underlying concepts of the system. Easy to say, but hard to do. One of the problems which I have noticed in some "mixed" arts is that there is no flow. You can notice a distinct shift in fighting attitude. If this happens then you have not truly integrated your "arts" you have simply mixed and matched and have no true core system or foundation upon which everything is built.

I also think that if we are honest with ourselves, we will find that the ground-fighting and other things we bring to Wing Chun are the result of our life experiences. For example, I was doing some ground-fighting back in the early 80's before BJJ became popular but mine was based on my past experince in Judo. What I ended up with was neither "pure" Wing Chun nor Judo but an integration of the two. Consider when you propose the existence of Wing Chun Ground-Fighting whether or not you may be sub-conciously drawing from a previous background in wrestling or the like to create this platform. Nothing wrong with that, it is natural and should be desired, imho. But lets be honest with ourselves and give credit where it is due.

If you honestly believe that Wing Chun, in and of itself has ground-fighting and does not need to incorporate it from outside the system; Then please give clear concise examples of where to find it within the system.

Peace,

Dave

[Phil Redmond]

James, yopu wrote:
>> . . . But, I have yet to find anyone who claims that ground-fighting is found within the system who is able to articulate just how and where it is to be found, without drawing from without the system.<<
I think that Sum Nung did ground fighting in his WC and BJJ wasn't invented then.
PR

[Sihing73]

Hi Phil,

I think that was me who said that ;)

I would love more details regarding Sum Nung doing ground-fighting. Did he use Wing Chun or did he incorporate another art as well? Did he teach ground-fighting as part of his Wing Chun system? If so, where and how does it fit into the system?

Phil, no disrespect, but it is easy to point to examples without the specifics to detail them. I can claim that my Wing Chun has this and that and I may even be able to make some things work, but going back to my original post, is'nt this simple an outgrowth of my own personal experience, the sum of my parts so to speak? Would it be correct to say that your Wing Chun is different than that of the other members of your lineage and it is thus directly because of your life experiences?

Peace,

Dave

[sihing]

Originally posted by Sihing73
Hi Phil,

I think that was me who said that ;)

I would love more details regarding Sum Nung doing ground-fighting. Did he use Wing Chun or did he incorporate another art as well? Did he teach ground-fighting as part of his Wing Chun system? If so, where and how does it fit into the system?

Phil, no disrespect, but it is easy to point to examples without the specifics to detail them. I can claim that my Wing Chun has this and that and I may even be able to make some things work, but going back to my original post, is'nt this simple an outgrowth of my own personal experience, the sum of my parts so to speak? Would it be correct to say that your Wing Chun is different than that of the other members of your lineage and it is thus directly because of your life experiences?

Peace,

Dave

True statements Dave. When questions started to arise regarding shoots and takedowns to my Sifu back in the mid 90's he had counters to each and everyone of them, all from the WC system, using WC techniques and concepts. Also to expand it all he explained and demonstrated WC concepts and strategies when being mounted and attacked from that angle, so in other words we learned to apply WC from standing position, to kneeling to sitting and from the standing grappling positions and mounted positions, all using WC concepts/principals and technqiues and explainations. For some reason no one believes me on this forum, I'll have to get some of that footage on line too, but have to get permission first to release the footage.

James

[Ultimatewingchun]

Wing Chun principles and techniques are useful against attempted takedowns...but my experience has been that they have to be PART OF a bigger overall strategy and fighting moves (ie. - combined with sprawls, cross-faces, whi//ers, and so on).

Wing Chun strikes, blocks, and footwork - BY THEMSELVES - will only work in certain circumstances against takedowns...and those circumstances are limited in scope.

Against a really good wrestler/grappler who has a whole array of takedowns in his arsenal...

forget it.

Wing Chun alone is not enough.

[Kevin Bell]

Originally posted by t_niehoff
KPM doesn't like the tone. LOL!

Well, in my view, a great many WCK practitioners (and we're not alone, it's the same with most TCMAs and especially the for-the-most-part-make-believe "internal" arts) suffer from a superiority complex -- they *believe* their art is great ("awesome"), superior to most other arts, provides most, if not all, the answers etc. Even some of the posts on this thread suggest WCK does certain things better than other arts, like developing "body unity". (What a joke; the overwhelming majority of WCK practitioners have absolutely no body unity.) When the truth -- if we bother to look at the *evidence* -- is something altogether very different.

Wong Sheung Leung said "Wing Chun is a good horse but few can ride her." IMO there is something very profound and very true in those words. Hundreds, if not thousands, went through Yip Man's Hong Kong kwoon -- perhaps a handful ever developed any real skill. I've seen loads of WCK practitioners in my time (over 20 years) in the art, including masters, grandmasters, the so-called "top-notch" folks, etc. and very, very few (I could count them on one hand) had any decent skill (other than being "good" at chi sao or demos -- which is how, along with marketing, they sell their art). Is this evidence that WCK is a superior art? That it has all the answers?

My opinion is that if you -- not the generic "you" but *you* reading this post -- can't demonstrate under fighting conditions against skilled opposition your beliefs, in other words if you can't do it, perform it, etc., then your beliefs (or claims) whatever they are are essentially meaningless and you are deluding yourself. WCK isn't superior if you aren't a superior fighter; WCK doesn't have the answers if you don't have all the answers. And while you can believe in the tooth fairy (or that biu jee is for this or that or the other thing), proving it is something else. So far, all we have are claims, theory, etc.

KPM doesn't like the "tone"; sorry, but I don't like the "tone" I've been hearing for 20+ years from the fantasy-boxers. And what I find pathetic is the constant back-slapping among those WCK practitioners -- "we have the superior art" nonsense -- when they couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag. Keith doesn't like being told that most people are wasting their time. Well, they are. It's like boy scouts talking about war and the things they would do or could do if they ever went to war. My POV is for us to stop wasting our time.

Stop talking about that cr@p -- either prove it, that you can do it, that you can back up your belief or don't talk about it. And if you can do it, you'll have no reticence in stepping up and proving it. Stop talking about what WCK *can* (in theory) do -- what you believe wtihout evidence -- and talk instead what you can do, what works for you (and not in chi sao or drills), etc. Of course, the only way to know what you can do is by having done it, by fighting. So, if you haven't done it, and against skilled folks, you have no real idea if you could do it or not, whether it works for you or not. Stop the nonsense.

Why don't many have an open mind about fighting? Because fighting will take one out of the safety of their cacoon of theory and belief, expose their true level of performance, and deep in their hearts (unconsciously) they know that. And they don't want to see it.


Very good post there Terence. You remember a while back i asked you if you had any more articles in the pipeline. I think you just posted it buddy.

[SAAMAG]

Originally posted by Ultimatewingchun
Wing Chun principles and techniques are useful against attempted takedowns...but my experience has been that they have to be PART OF a bigger overall strategy and fighting moves (ie. - combined with sprawls, cross-faces, whi//ers, and so on).

Wing Chun strikes, blocks, and footwork - BY THEMSELVES - will only work in certain circumstances against takedowns...and those circumstances are limited in scope.

Against a really good wrestler/grappler who has a whole array of takedowns in his arsenal...

forget it.

Wing Chun alone is not enough.

Exactly. That's what I was saying. You can use some wing chun on the ground...at certain times when in any of the positions (unless he's got your back and you are on all fours...) but this is still just striking, as wing chun is a striking art. If anyone does upa and then says it's wing chun then they're lying. Unless a wing chun master just happened to have incorperated it previously and passed it down saying it was wing chun.

[Vajramusti]

Vankuen sez:Well then Joy, please elaborate. It does no good to simply say wrong without an explanation.

Funny, I don't recall ever laying on the ground in the form...but maybe I learned a different version. Perhaps performing moves in the air does make a fighter better! Maybe the MMA's need more forms...if they did them maybe they would be able to beat wing chun guys right?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
((I have expressed my judgement and opinion. Given your second paragraph - it would be a waste of my time to
elaborate. Words can point- but learning biu jee and proper development of biu jee skills with practice and experimenting with it in different situations is the key. Sarcastic chit chat gets in the way. Not a matter of "secrets"- but a nexus of right learning, understanding, practicing and applying. The secrets just reveal themselves along the way.

No- I am not talking about isolated motions -- crude eye gouging etc. And I am not talking about only doing forms.

There are fundamental differences in POVs in the recent parts of this thread... and we have not reached the stage of discussing core differences in the POVs.

Terence merely repeats the same- fight. Again, sparring is not fighting. (Sparring or fighting is not unknown territorry
in forming my POV)

Victor asks to go outside of the box- when there is no box.

And as for knifefighter- I just dont bother.

But- I agree most wing chun that I have seen- needs mma- someone should write a book on incomplete wing chun.


Step by step- wing chun develops the individual kung fu
persons body, mind and energy in a way that it can be useful standing, walking, sitting or lying down. Being able to adjust to varying situations is a key to real fighting
and sustained wing chun training develops that adjustment without making it chop suey.

I just respond now and then when I sense an unfortunate underestimation of wing chu's potential.. Wing chun is a culmination in the evolution of TCMA--- whose early roots had to do with grappling-preventing take downs and dealing with being taken down. And it is never too far from it.

Back to the usual programmed sarcasm.Not to worry- I dont take KFO too seriously. Onward through the fog. Yours and possibly mine.Cheers.))

[Ultimatewingchun]

Originally posted by Vajramusti
Vankuen sez:Well then Joy, please elaborate. It does no good to simply say wrong without an explanation.

Funny, I don't recall ever laying on the ground in the form...but maybe I learned a different version. Perhaps performing moves in the air does make a fighter better! Maybe the MMA's need more forms...if they did them maybe they would be able to beat wing chun guys right?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
((I have expressed my judgement and opinion. Given your second paragraph - it would be a waste of my time to
elaborate. Words can point- but learning biu jee and proper development of biu jee skills with practice and experimenting with it in different situations is the key. Sarcastic chit chat gets in the way. Not a matter of "secrets"- but a nexus of right learning, understanding, practicing and applying. The secrets just reveal themselves along the way.

No- I am not talking about isolated motions -- crude eye gouging etc. And I am not talking about only doing forms.

There are fundamental differences in POVs in the recent parts of this thread... and we have not reached the stage of discussing core differences in the POVs.

Terence merely repeats the same- fight. Again, sparring is not fighting. (Sparring or fighting is not unknown territorry
in forming my POV)

Victor asks to go outside of the box- when there is no box.

And as for knifefighter- I just dont bother.

But- I agree most wing chun that I have seen- needs mma- someone should write a book on incomplete wing chun.


Step by step- wing chun develops the individual kung fu
persons body, mind and energy in a way that it can be useful standing, walking, sitting or lying down. Being able to adjust to varying situations is a key to real fighting
and sustained wing chun training develops that adjustment without making it chop suey.

I just respond now and then when I sense an unfortunate underestimation of wing chu's potential.. Wing chun is a culmination in the evolution of TCMA--- whose early roots had to do with grappling-preventing take downs and dealing with being taken down. And it is never too far from it.

Back to the usual programmed sarcasm.Not to worry- I dont take KFO too seriously. Onward through the fog. Yours and possibly mine.Cheers.))



WHAT A BUNCH OF NONSENSE !!!

Talk about a complete unwillingness to back up ANYTHING...

Just pay special attention to the evasion snowjob found in this part of the above post:

"...learning biu jee and proper development of biu jee skills with practice and experimenting with it in different situations is the key...Not a matter of "secrets"- but a nexus of right learning, understanding, practicing and applying. The secrets just reveal themselves along the way."

WHAT SECRETS?!

This is the kind of talk that puts Wing Chun in a bad light.

There are no secrets within bil jee that will save you from a good wrestler/grappler.

But there are a lot of people around who will tell you things like that...but they can't back it up.

In the early evolution of TCMA - when WCK was formulated...there was no Greco-Roman or Catch-as-Catch-can takedowns being worked against...no Mark Kerr coming in for the grab...no Lou Thesz...no Karl Gotch...no Dan Gable...

Again - this kind of talk is nonsense.

[Vajramusti]

Read again. No secrets. But have to learn biu jee first.
An unopened book can be mistakenly regarded as
claiming secrecy.

[Ultimatewingchun]

"Read again. No secrets. But have to learn biu jee first.
An unopened book can be mistakenly regarded as
claiming secrecy."

HAVE LEARNED MOY YAT'S BIL JEE.

HAVE ALSO LEARNED WILLIAM CHEUNG'S TWC BIL JEE.


The book has been open for 30 years now - and has been studied and worked with thoroughly.

And you can't back up anything you're saying.

[old jong]

IMHO-
Having learned the forms is not enough.Having learned from the forms is the important thing and brings more real skill than relying on a "technique vs technique" mindset.
This doesn't mean that knowing how to sprawll and crossface,or knowing ground escapes is not a good thing as emergency moves.
The thing is: The higher the Wing Chun skill=The lesser are the chances you could need those things.

IMO again,skill doesn't come automaticaly from practice time.It comes from quality practice first.It also doesn't come from accumulation of material learned but from the understanding of what is learned.

[AndrewS]

Hey KF,

the signal-to-noise ratio here is getting kinda out of control- we may need a separate thread for this. Nonetheless, I'm curious what you think Wing Chun can be good for on the ground.

Principle-wise there are a lot of things that cross over in terms of body use and frame (which, I'll grant, most WC people don't have standing), but there are some specific bits of technique that stand out, too.

A few things to start-

1). If you can't move the other person, move your self.
2). Push
3). Constant pressure from the hips- which you can use to move the other person, or to try to flow around them
4). Stay relaxed- not floppy, not dead, calm and neutral- until you can feel the moment you need to explode
5). Move behind your bone structure- aka 'lan'- create a frame of a piece of skeleton that redirects force but allows you some motion behind it- the standard forearm across the shoulder and chest to make room in side control in order to shrimp is the same thing/idea as lan (barring arm) and kwan (rolling arm)- fix a point (bar the door) so the other guy can't pass it, then move behind that pressure (kwan)
6). Grab and push- the basic lop where you don't pull, but press with hand control- nice for striking control from any top position.

There are some more specifics and probably some more principles I'll think of later, but here's a start.

Andrew

[Knifefighter]

Originally posted by sihing
Also to expand it all he explained and demonstrated WC concepts and strategies when being mounted and attacked from that angle Can you explain the specific techniques you learned from there?

[Knifefighter]

Originally posted by Vajramusti

((I have expressed my judgement and opinion. Given your second paragraph - it would be a waste of my time to elaborate....

Words can point- but learning biu jee and proper development....

No- I am not talking about isolated motions --

and we have not reached the stage of discussing core differences in the POVs....

Victor asks to go outside of the box- when there is no box.

And as for knifefighter- I just dont bother.

But- I agree most wing chun that I have seen- needs mma- someone should write a book on incomplete wing chun.

Step by step- wing chun develops the individual kung fu... ...etc., etc., etc., blah, blah, blah.

People who actually know what they are talkng about will be able to site specific techniques. Those who know nothing must blow smoke and mirror pretentious nerd blather.

[Knifefighter]

Andrew-
I'll share my experiences about using WC techniques on the ground (both good and bad), but furst, I'd like to hear the technical descriptions from those who feel that WC techniques can be applied on the ground.

I think my experiences will be enlightening.

[rogue]

People questioning and testing their art, this could be healthy. Go for it Victor, Phil and Van.


Victor asks to go outside of the box- when there is no box. Joy, WC is the biggest box there is. Most WC people that I've talked to recite the same old junk over and over so much it's like they are brainwashed.

[t_niehoff]

The posts about biu jee on the ground illustrate what I've been talking about -- some suggest that WCK provides "ground defense", that they know it, that the rest of us poor slobs just have "incomplete" WCK (since we don't know). IMO that's classic theoretician-speak, even down to the attitude (it is a mystery -- and mystery sells). And when pushed, *some* generalities may be offered -- but what we *never* ***see*** is anyone who makes these sorts of claims actually provide proof by mixing it up with a good groundfighter. And my point is simply this: anytime they won't show you, won't mix it up to prove their point (and we are practicing a fighting method), you know it is BS. Period. People can claim to catch bullets with their teeth too -- OK, I'll be glad to accept that, just step up and prove you can do it. If they won't, they're full of sh1t. Plain and simple.

[SAAMAG]

I used to catch darts standing next to the dartboard if that counts!

and I thought I was the one who said I think outside the box! Maybe we both said it....

anyway....Terence and Knifey got a point (no pun intended KF), if you know your art, there are no secrets. And to be honest...most of all the secret mumbo jumbo in any style that had forms was from people interpreting movements in different ways due to lack of proper instruction/explanation in the first place.

Why the hell would a form set be created in a fighting system what didn't show plain and simple the way it should be used?

Now granted every technique in wing chun can change and become something else, and specific techniques can be used different ways...but even that has it's limits and logical, scientific thinking will show you that.

Secrets in the forms has been the oldest asian gimmick in the martial arts. A simple understanding of the human anatomy is all that's necessary, to both prove AND disprove techniques intentions, and effectiveness in any given arena.

[old jong]

We also need an open mind to really learn Wing Chun,to go beyond the "technique vs technique" syndrome.Most will simply refuse to put the necessary efforts and will always stay at a very superficial level witch they compensate by training like if it was a hard style.They then realise that these simple and precise movements are missing something to be effective and the kickboxing additives start to creep into their Wing Chun.

The ground fighting factor is something else IMO.I believe that if somebody is feeling paranoid about this or simply has an interest he should look into the matter and learn (and practice) basic things like the sprawll,crossface,upa,various escapes,ground striking from various positions,RN,side and frontal chokes,keylock,etc..The basic stuff. Then,he should keep developping his Wing Chun skills with patience and dedication in regard to the art's principles.As I said before.The more Wing Chun skill,the less chances to be forced to fall back on the other stuff.

Just treat these things as emergency techniques.

[sihing]

Originally posted by Knifefighter
Can you explain the specific techniques you learned from there?

Basically back in 96' people started asking what do you do when someone is shooting as an attack, instead of the usual punch or kick entry or what do we do when mounted. Now, I'm not going to try and explain in great detail exactly every technique he taught because it would be impractical here on this forum, but maybe I can get some footage of that stuff too and put it up sometime. Basically, when standing in the side neutral stance, which is the non contact stage stance that we use in our WC (basically one is standing square on with your opponent, like a basketball player defending his zone, but with the feet/knees/body turned either left or right on a 45 deg angle depending on the lead arm), and having the opponents foot/knee always (or as best as one can) down the center of one's stance, this allows great lateral movement. When one shoots for our lower extremities, and since there is no lead leg to grab, it is first a longer distance to travel to get at the leg or hip or whatever body part the shooter is try to grab, therefore the defender has a bit more time to react. Also the attacker is projecting his energy forward, or forward at an angle, us as defenders have to interpret quickly which side of the body the shooter is going for if not down the center. Again because we have superior lateral movement from side to side, we basically use the Matador philosophy to let the person pass us by, but at the same time we can either attack & control the opponent by using a variety of hand movements (low Bil Sao, Kan sao, low pak sao, etc..) to various areas around the neck or behind the neck to attempt to control the opponent on his way down to the ground, all the while maintaining a close proximity to him to attack and dissolve most anything that comes from him.

As for being mounted, we try to force the opponent to strike us using round movements by protecting our centerlines (using double tan sao's, similar to a move I saw Matt Thornton using on one of his tapes). At the right moment, utilizing skills learned in chi-sao and various other drills, one could apply a lap sao combined with a side palm strike to the carotid artery or anywhere to the side of the neck or a Bil Gee to the eyes, quickly followed by another lap sao from the striking hand/forearm/fingers, with a hip upturn to possibly overturn the opponent, with us gaining mounting position. There are tons of things we can do, and one has to adapt to the situation as one see's fit, as is the case we any real situation.


James

[kj]

Originally posted by Vankuen
and I thought I was the one who said I think outside the box! Maybe we both said it....

I am sure you do think out of the box. So do I. So do others. In any given context, the question remains, which box?


anyway....Terence and Knifey got a point (no pun intended KF),

They have many good points. At least presumably, LOL. Seriously, both bring up many points worthy of contemplation, as do other contributors.

Discussions are, again, much like one of these. (http://www.michaelbach.de/ot/cog_blureffects/index.html) Some see one thing, and they are correct. Some see something completely different, and they too are correct. Some see not one picture, but a broader spectrum and interpretation of what's in view. Arguing from position, even if technically or logically correct, is limiting and biased. Whose view and interpretation of the picture is the one from inside the box? Which box?


if you know your art, there are no secrets.

One could argue that as a possible definition of what it means to really know one's art.


And to be honest...most of all the secret mumbo jumbo in any style that had forms was from people interpreting movements in different ways

Indeed.


due to lack of proper instruction/explanation in the first place.

That is certainly a reason in some cases.

Just as the existence of a skull does not preclude the existence of a lovely lady, many other reasons may also factor in. A few non-mutually exclusive examples:


Breadth of experience (acknowledgement where due, this goes to Terence's perennial point of experience being a factor in interpretation, or to quote "form follows function")
Common experience (related to, but not the same as "breadth")
Interpretations based on real or perceived probabilities
A person's present ability to comprehend
A person's present ability to internalize
A person's present ability to actualize
A person's perspective, vantage point, cognitive style, or even philosophy
A person's beliefs and fundamental values
The impact of one's own present capabilities and limitations, or of those they are exposed to (again, real or perceived)


With due consideration, we could no doubt identify many more reasons why people interpret things as they do.


Why the hell would a form set be created in a fighting system what didn't show plain and simple the way it should be used?

Good question.

Again, the problem may not lie in the set(s) as created, as much as in the limitations or biases of those interpreting them (see list above).

The sets, their function, and their value can seem quite different if one perceives them as venues for development, exploration and research, rather than merely as a sequence of techniques or rote applications. In forum discussions and such, again, there is often a lot of arguing skulls and ladies. And, sometimes, those who see both are characterized by others as seeing only one or the other because of an inability to comprehend the existence of a fuller picture themselves.

Given an opposing encounter between individuals of virtually any sort (whether it be a "fight" by any definition, sparring at any intensity, or even light chi sau), it is worthwhile to consider if the sole aim is a) to control and subdue the other (dark space), b) to maintain and control oneself (light space), or c) some balance of both (wholistic view). One's conclusion will necessarily influence interpretation of the sets and training methodology more generally.


Now granted every technique in wing chun can change and become something else, and specific techniques can be used different ways...but even that has it's limits and logical, scientific thinking will show you that.

Thinking in terms of techniques, combinations and permutations has its utility but is, IMHO, a very limited view of all there is to it.


Secrets in the forms has been the oldest asian gimmick in the martial arts.

Keeping secrets and using gimmicks is of course not exclusive to the Asian culture. In some cases and in certain cultural contexts, what appear to be gimmicks or secrets are sometimes more the result of naivete. A melody is a combination of both sounds and silences. It's not entirely unlike confusing "giving face" with deep, sincere and abiding respect. Digging more deeply, it's more a function of individuals and human nature than something unique to a specific culture, though culture is obviously influential and can be a significant "facilitator" for certain types of human inclinations and behavior.

Secrets can be things that others are intentionally hiding from us, though often they are simply things we ourselves haven't yet come to know or understand. There is a lot of truth in the saying that many "secrets are hidden in plain sight."


A simple understanding of the human anatomy is all that's necessary, to both prove AND disprove techniques intentions, and effectiveness in any given arena.

I strongly agree that this is one of our best benchmarks for evaluation. Some caveats I try to bear in mind:


The benchmark of anatomy is well suited for weeding out inconsistencies in movement and application (disprove or invalidate application).
It is, however, somewhat less rigorous as a stand-alone method for illuminating the fullest range of operational possibilities or for "proving" intended use. More is needed to exhaustively and conclusively accomplish the latter, including but not limited to application context or "function" if you will.
Our understanding of anatomy, physiology, kinesiology, and all manner of things related to human function is not yet complete or exhaustive.


Just some random thinking from a slow learner. Thanks for the food for thought.

Regards,
- kj

[kj]

Excellent contribution, AndrewS.

Regards,
- kj

[chisauking]

Old Jong Sez: The thing is: The higher the Wing Chun skill=The lesser are the chances you could need those things.

IMO again,skill doesn't come automaticaly from practice time.It comes from quality practice first.It also doesn't come from accumulation of material learned but from the understanding of what is learned.

Very wise words, OJ.

[Ultimatewingchun]

"Having learned the forms is not enough.Having learned from the forms is the important thing and brings more real skill than relying on a "technique vs technique" mindset." (Michel-OJ...obviously referring to my posts about bil jee and Joy's comments)...


YES..I have learned FROM the forms...30 years worth of learning "from" the forms.

And the technique vs. technique mindset is for those who actually fight/spar, Michel.

Because if you don't have specific techniques to use against specific techniques...you lose the fight.

AND THE ANTI-TECHNIQUE VS. TECHNIQUE MINDSET...

is for those who sit in armchairs, smoking pipes, and blowing smoke.

[old jong]

I don't smoke :rolleyes: and you assume too much

[Knifefighter]

Concepts, strategy, tactics, and techniques are all intimately connected and equally important.

[Sihing73]

Originally posted by Ultimatewingchun
"And the technique vs. technique mindset is for those who actually fight/spar, Michel.

Because if you don't have specific techniques to use against specific techniques...you lose the fight.

AND THE ANTI-TECHNIQUE VS. TECHNIQUE MINDSET...

is for those who sit in armchairs, smoking pipes, and blowing smoke.

Hello,

I must disagree with this statement; if you fight with a technique mindset then you are only prepared for the "techniques" you have trained against. If you truly understand the concept and energy behind your "techniques" then you are free to apply them in a more fluid manner. thus you can adapt on the fly and even deal with things you may have never faced before. In the beginning you do train and need to train in a technique mindset, but as you evolve you should be able to step outside and react to the energy being faced. Consider Chi Sau for example; in the beginning it is A/B/C but after you develope some sensitivity you can react in a free flowing manner not a preset pattern. If you are reacting to the energy then you may notice that your "techniques" change and mold themselves in accordance with the shape and energy they encounter.

Peace,

Dave

[Ultimatewingchun]

"Concepts, strategy, tactics, and techniques are all intimately connected and equally important." (KF)

TRUE.


"If you fight with a technique mindset then you are only prepared for the "techniques" you have trained against. If you truly understand the concept and energy behind your "techniques" then you are free to apply them in a more fluid manner. thus you can adapt on the fly..." (Dave)

BUT WHAT I was trying to say to Michel, and now to Dave - and a whole array of other people...

is that drilling SPECIFIC counters to specific moves - something that many WC people around here are against - is in fact very important...

ALONG WITH understanding and implementing concepts, strategies, and so on.

Of course you need to understand the concept and the energy behind your techniques...

BUT A LOT OF PEOPLE AROUND HERE WANT TO GET LOST IN CONCEPTS...

and never get down to where the rubber hits the road.

And that was the point I was trying to make.

Otherwise...people can (and do) try to hide behind smokescreens (like saying that the secrets hidden within a form like bil jee will reveal how to resist a great takedown)...

and when pressed to explain themselves...

THEY TALK IN CONCEPTS...

and thereby avoid explaining EXACTLY what the moves are.

[Sihing73]

Hello Victor,

You may have a point about some hiding behind terms or words rather than explaining things. I myself may be guilty of this, however, if you pose a specific question I will do my best to respond with a real answer.

Going into a bit more detail regarding the whole "technique versus concepts" thing lets consider the idea of how to deal with a hooking type of punch. There are several types of "techniques" which you can use to deal with such an attack. For example you can use a Taun Da, A Fook Da or a Bui Sau. Now each one of these specific techniques will present a slightly different energy and also a diferent structure to deal with the energy of the incoming attack. Which one is the right one to use? Or are any of them the right one? Is the idea to deal with the "specific" attack or is the idea to cover an angle from which such an attack and other attacks can come from? So do we learn to cover and deal with the energy or do we train to meet attack A with Defense B?
In the end, it is my opinion that the opponent decides what we do and how we respond. We take the "concept" which we embrace and then try to mold our response, "technique" if you will to the attack. Where I have a problem using terms like "technique versus technique" is that I feel people will attempt to meet each and every attack from a similar angle with the same type of "technique defense" or counter. In other words each and every time my opponent throws a right cross I respond with the same "technique". If I do this then I limit myself and also make my responses predictable. It is not how many different "techniques" I know which make me effective but my understanding of how to modify such "techniques" depending on my need at the specific moment. Wing Chun does not have a large number of forms with a multitude of "techniques" it instead has a few forms which provide all of the "techniques" you need but allows you the freedom to apply such "techniques" in ways that may fall outside of them in the strict sense of the word. An example is that some believe that you should never allow the Taun Sau to collapse. However, there may be times when it is desirible to allow the Tauns shape to collapse. If you do this are you fighting with the "technique" of the Taun or the "concept"? Or is it the same thing? Does it even make a difference?

Perhaps I am just rambling and making no sense, Lord knows my wife often tells me I don't know what I am talking about :D

Peace,

Dave

[old jong]

Victor-
Maybe your words make you sound a little on the extreme side of the "tech vs tech" mentality and maybe my words make me sound a little too much on the opposite "concept" side?...I don't know.
I often practice and have my students practice against various types of attacks,like the hooks,jabs,takedowns.We are not smoking our pipes in rocking chairs,talking about concepts!...We practice the forms,Chi-Sau,drills,spar...We practice Wing Chun as I learned it.That's all! And...I am still learning,all the times.

BTW,Thanks Dave for explaining my "concept" a lot better that I could possibely do myself!...;)

[SAAMAG]

Originally posted by Sihing73
Hello Victor,

You may have a point about some hiding behind terms or words rather than explaining things. I myself may be guilty of this, however, if you pose a specific question I will do my best to respond with a real answer.

Going into a bit more detail regarding the whole "technique versus concepts" thing lets consider the idea of how to deal with a hooking type of punch. There are several types of "techniques" which you can use to deal with such an attack. For example you can use a Taun Da, A Fook Da or a Bui Sau. Now each one of these specific techniques will present a slightly different energy and also a diferent structure to deal with the energy of the incoming attack. Which one is the right one to use? Or are any of them the right one? Is the idea to deal with the "specific" attack or is the idea to cover an angle from which such an attack and other attacks can come from? So do we learn to cover and deal with the energy or do we train to meet attack A with Defense B?
In the end, it is my opinion that the opponent decides what we do and how we respond. We take the "concept" which we embrace and then try to mold our response, "technique" if you will to the attack. Where I have a problem using terms like "technique versus technique" is that I feel people will attempt to meet each and every attack from a similar angle with the same type of "technique defense" or counter. In other words each and every time my opponent throws a right cross I respond with the same "technique". If I do this then I limit myself and also make my responses predictable. It is not how many different "techniques" I know which make me effective but my understanding of how to modify such "techniques" depending on my need at the specific moment. Wing Chun does not have a large number of forms with a multitude of "techniques" it instead has a few forms which provide all of the "techniques" you need but allows you the freedom to apply such "techniques" in ways that may fall outside of them in the strict sense of the word. An example is that some believe that you should never allow the Taun Sau to collapse. However, there may be times when it is desirible to allow the Tauns shape to collapse. If you do this are you fighting with the "technique" of the Taun or the "concept"? Or is it the same thing? Does it even make a difference?

Perhaps I am just rambling and making no sense, Lord knows my wife often tells me I don't know what I am talking about :D

Peace,

Dave

No Dave you're making sense, I understand exactly what you are saying. (I think....)

Wing chun techniques are alive and transposable and the techniques used in a fight are not chosen by you but rather the person you are fighting...I don't do tan sau, the opponent brings out tan sau. That is true. This is very easy to apply when fighting someone with energies that you are familiar with such as another wing chun person or another CMA with similiar moves and counters.

Fight someone that doesn't play the same or a similar game...and then that concept is a bit harder to apply. When a person never bridges with you (and is good enough to do so) how do you "feel" which movement the opponent is "requesting" next? On the ground in a submission hold, will tan sau or fok sao or biu sau help you to get out of an arm bar or triangle choke, or to even counter one in the process of it's application? If you're fighting a thai fighter and goes to throw a full on round kick at you, are you going to choose tan sau it or gan sau it? (the kick didn't bring it out, as there was no touching before the kick happened....) Some people don't know what to change their techniques into midstream if it's an energy that they've never or rarely been exposed to.

Do you see what I'm saying? So the need to drill based on visual triggers is necessary as well. Not all the attacks coming toward you will be done in a fashion that you will be able to apply the "use whatever technique the opponent brings out" if you've never really been accustomed to being attacked by that technique. And that brings us full circle to having to train in at least all the general areas of fighting....not so much every little tiny little thing like the icepick that Joy mentioned before....but the general areas of fighting such as the long range game with more mobile footwork, the clinching and throwing /counterthrowing game, the ground GRAPPLING game (not just ground "fighting", because then you're missing out on a chunk of the ground game), just some of the areas that wing chun doesn't specialize in. And here's the kicker in doing so...while you're trianing in these areas with people that know them well...you can still learn to apply your wing chun there (if you can) by experimenting with these guys while learning their methods. That would be the ultimate test/training to learn to apply wing chun in those areas.

So you see, there really is no downside...you can expand your wing chun into those areas while training there...while you're learning their methods as well. It's a win win situation.

The reason I know this is because I did it myself when I trained in BJJ and muay thai. I applied wing chun concepts in both areas and still do. In certain exchanges I can use the attributes I gained in chi sau to help me feel where the other guy is going with his arms, but then switch back to JJ techniques when I need to counter or apply something of my own, as nothing else at the time in my wing chun arsenal would've helped me in that INSTANT. In muay thai, as it was mentioned in other posts, I can apply wing chun straight line closing techniques while I fight, even with gloves on, I can intercept (although found in other styles...i learned it in wing chun and JKD and so that's where I credit it.) and so that's what I'm saying here. When I go to the MT even though Im doing muay thai, Im still doing wing chun at times. When I go train with MMA (which I need to do again after my wrist heals) I will still use wing chun gained attributes to help me in certain instances where applicable (when striking or counter striking, sticking to the arms to gain position, etc.)

But at this point I'm rambling...I think you guys get the point here.

[RedJunkRebel]

Originally posted by Sihing73
Hello,

I doubt that there is such a thing as a “complete” martial art, which has the answers for all situations. However, Wing Chun has the capability to obtain the answers to each and every situation simply because it is a system of concepts rather than techniques. If one understands the energy and angles behind various attacks then one is not limited to a preset group of responses. Wing Chun should teach one to “think outside of the box” after all doesn’t Biu Tze teach us to do just that?

I think that Wing Chun was developed as an eclectic style and thus took in what it needed in order to deal with the types of attack sit was most likely to face. I think that in keeping with that tradition we who train today should keep an open mind and realize that there may be other things, which could benefit our approach by their inclusion in our training. Of course this does not open the door to doing and training a hodgepodge of techniques or systems but it does present one with the opportunity to explore other arts and then build upon your Wing Chun base. For example, many have found it quite beneficial to incorporate BJJ into their Wing Chun in order to improve their ground fighting skills.

I think that we do no disservice to the founders of Wing Chun when we expand our take on the art to include methods not originally found within the system. I feel that we need to constantly evaluate and evolve as times change. I always point to the inclusion of the pole as a good example of the need and sometimes the acceptability of looking outside of the system.

I do understand Old Jong’s point though that many people fail to thoroughly explore Wing Chun in favor of the perceived shortcut of sometimes adding techniques from outside of the system. I am not against integrating other arts with ones Wing Chun, however I do think that one should fully explore their own art before they start adding things.

Peace,

Dave I couldn't agree more with your views on how Wing Chun is an ever evolving art. I feel that your two recent posts I read "evolve or die" and your other post in the ground fighting thread are right on the money. Because it is a system of concepts rather than specific techniques, its evolution is natural. People don't need to forego Wing Chun and become Jeet Kune Do or Mixed martial Arts enthusiasts just because Wing Chun doesn't hold all the answers for them in every situation. Wing Chun has more in it than many people realize if they'd just stick with it, be patient and value it for what it is. Learn Wing Chun fully before trying to integrate other arts into it. Just stick to the concepts of simple, direct and efficient and lets help Wing Chun evolve to handle present day opponents such as the BJJ people. If techniques need to be integrated in WC from BJJ, so be it. That's how Wing Chun came about to begin with. Wing Chun is all about what works.

[Ultimatewingchun]

"I couldn't agree more...on how Wing Chun is an ever evolving art...Because it is a system of concepts rather than specific techniques, its evolution is natural. People don't need to forego Wing Chun and become Jeet Kune Do or Mixed martial Arts enthusiasts because Wing Chun doesn't hold all the answers for every situation." (RJR)

No they don't need to forego Wing Chun...but as the art evolves...IT WILL BECOME more like JKD and MMA - in the sense that it will have to adapt certain strategies, principles, and techniques used in other systems.

IT WILL STILL LOOK like Wing Chun...more than JKD presently does, for example.

But it will take on an unmistakable flavor to it that arts like JKD and MMA systems now evoke.

...precisely because those arts ARE more recently evolved - and therefore more state-of-the-art.

[SAAMAG]

Originally posted by RedJunkRebel
I couldn't agree more with your views on how Wing Chun is an ever evolving art. Your two recent posts I read "evolve or die" and your other post in the ground fighting thread. Because it is a system of concepts rather than specific techniques, its evolution is natural. People don't need to forego Wing Chun and become Jeet Kune Do or Mixed martial Arts enthusiasts because Wing Chun doesn't hold all the answers for every situation.

Since it is conceptual and it's evolution is natural, why is everyone so afraid to supplement it in efforts to help it evolve? It's obvious in todays knowledge of fighting in general, that it indeed is in need of evolution. No one is suggesting to forego wing chun at all, if you look at my post before this one. I love wing chun, but I also have no bias to it to the point that I'm taking it as "the only way" - conceptual or not. BTW JKD didn't forego wing chun, the primary core of it IS wing chun. And maybe this is a perception thing...but EVERY martial artist is in some form or fashion a MMA. We are all sum totals of everything we've done and learned. You don't have to be the iconic cage fighter or NHB guy like the ones we see on tv to be catagorized as a MMA.

You both seem to be open to the evolution of wing chun...but the evolution doesn't lie within it's own confines. Practicing it longer will make you better at wing chun, but you're not going to all of a sudden find the secret ground fighting techniques, or the secret long range fighting techniques because you've put in your 20 years. It's not going to happen. We have to be open to looking towards those that have the most expertise in whatever field we are looking to develop. That is the way of the warrior. Why wait to "discover" something that might get you by when you can learn something that is proven to work effectively now?

[RedJunkRebel]

IT STILL WILL BE WING CHUN. Still have the same principles and concepts.... still be simple, direct and efficient. It will be more state-of-the-art, more evolved. But the distinct, straight-to-the-point flavor remains Wing Chun.

[RedJunkRebel]

I agree that more people that are Wing Chun traditionalists need to step out of their comfort zone and "test the waters." And if something works against you, learn it and make it part of your Wing Chun. If you don't, that's how a system will die, by not helping it to evolve.

However, it also will fade away from its greatness by saying Wing Chun is just one of the many martial arts that you study. You then lose the legacy of Wing Chun and belittle it by not helping it to evolve.

[old jong]

IT WILL STILL LOOK like Wing Chun...

IMHO,Wing Chun is a principles based system.The look of a system is not important as how it's principles are followed.It is only when some of these principles are forgotten that Wing Chun cease to be what it is.But some of the more important principles of the art are not visual or very apparent.So,it could very well look like Wing Chun but be something else in reality.

Adding a few things like the sprawll or crossface is not a big deal as compared to losing the core principles of Wing Chun in favor of "hard style" training.

But enough boring hogwash theoric crap!...:rolleyes: For now!...:)

[Ultimatewingchun]

"However, it also will fade away from its greatness by saying Wing Chun is just one of the many martial arts that you study. You then lose the legacy of Wing Chun and belittle it by not helping it to evolve." (RJR)


I agree...but that is NOT the attitude that I, for one...have.

I look upon what I do as a mixture of Traditional Wing Chun and Catch-as-Catch-can wrestling.

With a few elements of boxing, Thai-boxing, jkd, judo, and jiu-jitsu thrown in here-and-there as well...

BUT MAINLY...

it's TWC and CATCH.

And in fact...I look upon TWC as the sun...and Catch as the moon - in my little world.

Everything revolves around the sun (TWC)...and it's closest companion - the moon (CATCH)...while the other planets are just there to supplement the main focus.

[SAAMAG]

See I think of like wing chun is my college major, and MT as my minor, with everything else (BJJ and whatever else...) as my electives.

[Airdrawndagger]

I need to be a speed reader to catch up with all of you:)

Victor, when was the last time you got in to a real fight with someone who used BJJ, catch, or any other type of grappling art?

Is it fairly common for this to occur?

If so then more power to you. But people will (on average) rarely even get into a fight let alone with someone who is very skilled in the above arts.
You are more likely to face a person who doesn't really have any skill at all. Or, get mugged/attacked by someone with a weapon.

So all of this talk about "you need to get with the program cause you'll get grappled on the street" talk (not your exact words) is not as realistic as you and others imply.
Now, in the training world, you greatly increase your chances of mixing it up with grapplers in which cross-training/integrating grappling moves would be more excepted/expected.

So who is really being realistic here?

Another point

Everybody wants to be right. NOONE wants to be told that all there efforts are not good enough or foolish. So when people make comments like "You need to be realistic" or "You live in a fantasy world cause all you do is chi-sao and drill" you really offends a lot of people. How do you know what i do and don't do?(a blanket statement not directly directed to Victor)
How do you know i cant kick your a$$, the person trying to spoon feed all of your nonsense to me? (Im not saying I can kick anyones arse, we are just people on a forum with similar interest I wouldn't know who you were if i walked right into you.)
People are individual and have different levels of fighting skill. I dont really care how many years you have practiced MA or WC, it all depends on the individual and there skill level and there understandings of themselves.

Your experiences may not be suitable for my needs and vice/versa.

[Ultimatewingchun]

"So who is really being realistic here?"

Let's put it this way:

I come from Brooklyn...I was born here...raised here...and still live here.

This is a very tough place.

I knew guys who've been shot to death...stabbed to death...beaten to death with baseball bats.

I've had to pull a knife out in order to scare off the bad guys on three separate occasions - when they were making their first moves on what was going to be a mugging.

My wife was mugged and had her pocketbook ripped off her shoulder as recently as one month ago.

Twelve years ago a guy pulled out a gun and demanded she get in his car as she was walking down the street one morning...(she managed to run away safely).

Have had my share of streetfights - starting at the age of 6 - and as recently as 4 years ago on a moving subway train (I was 50 years old at the time).

I've been arrested for assault three times in my life. (Never convicted of a crime).

I watched the smoke coming from the burning World Trade Center from my front porch on 9/11.

And I worked on the 53rd floor of Tower 1 until six weeks before the attack.

Any problem understanding why a guy like me prefers to be ready for the toughest possible opponents???

[Airdrawndagger]

Originally posted by Ultimatewingchun
"So who is really being realistic here?"

Let's put it this way:

I come from Brooklyn...I was born here...raised here...and still live here.

This is a very tough place.

I knew guys who've been shot to death...stabbed to death...beaten to death with baseball bats.

I've had to pull a knife out in order to scare off the bad guys on three separate occasions - when they were making their first moves on what was going to be a mugging.

My wife was mugged and had her pocketbook ripped off her shoulder as recently as one month ago.

Twelve years ago a guy pulled out a gun and demanded she get in his car as she was walking down the street one morning...(she managed to run away safely).

Have had my share of streetfights - starting at the age of 6 - and as recently as 4 years ago on a moving subway train (I was 50 years old at the time).

I've been arrested for assault three times in my life. (Never convicted of a crime).

I watched the smoke coming from the burning World Trade Center from my front porch on 9/11.

And I worked on the 53rd floor of Tower 1 until six weeks before the attack.

Any problem understanding why a guy like me prefers to be ready for the toughest possible opponents???

Exactly...

So why would you focus on catch wrestling, grappling, and then try to sell us all on how grappling should be integrated into VT to properly prepare us for reality?

My question was when was the last time you got into a real fight with a grappler?

It would seem that grappling would not be the best choice of study given your above refferences if you are to prepare or "be ready for the toughtest possible opponents". Ving Tsun would be, right? The next best thing would be to carry a weapon!

[Ultimatewingchun]

First of all...I don't do Ving Tsun.

Second of all...you just don't get it.

I want to be the very best I can be - given the circumstances of my life.

When was the last time I got into a fight with a grappler?

Here's a better question:

Given the amount of martial art schools that exist here in NYC...who can guarantee that my next fight won't be against a skilled grappler?

As for weapons - I do use/train/own them.

So what?

Still need to be able to fight unarmed...

Good bye.

[Airdrawndagger]

Thats fine but dont shove your garbage down everyones throat.

BE THE BEST YOU CAN BE

Great good for you, i hope you achive your goals. You have some good points about different subjects and I respect your views...just dont try to convince the world that your right and everyone else that doesnt share your perspective is wrong.

[Airdrawndagger]

You still didnt answer the question........

[RedJunkRebel]

.

[Knifefighter]

Originally posted by Airdrawndagger
Or, get mugged/attacked by someone with a weapon. If you are attacked with a weapon, you are much more likely to survive and/or have less severe injuries with grappling or grappling mixed with striking than with striking alone.

[SAAMAG]

...because you can control the weapon / person rather then have both parties arm's flailing and the person without the weapon getting cut up or shot up?

[Knifefighter]

Originally posted by Vankuen
...because you can control the weapon / person rather then have both parties arm's flailing and the person without the weapon getting cut up or shot up? That's part of it. Knowledge of grappling can also help to prevent an opponent from accessing a weapon. Additionally, with blunt force weapons, and even with edged weapons to a certain degree, grappling cuts down on the force that can be generated by the weapon.

[sihing]

Originally posted by Knifefighter
That's part of it. Knowledge of grappling can also help to prevent an opponent from accessing a weapon. Additionally, with blunt force weapons, and even with edged weapons to a certain degree, grappling cuts down on the force that can be generated by the weapon.

And contact excercises like chi-sao cannot help either with everything mentioned above, lol. Chi-sao is a method of grappling if you haven't already figured it out.

James

[Knifefighter]

Originally posted by sihing
Chi-sao is a method of grappling if you haven't already figured it out. That is is. The problem is, it is a much less effective form of grappling than what the grapplers already do for working hand, arm, and body control.

[sihing]

Originally posted by Knifefighter
That is is. The problem is, it is a much less effective form of grappling than what the grapplers already do for working hand, arm, and body control.

Your forgot again to include in your statement "IMO".

JR

P.S. Just for the record I have nothing against grapplers, kickers, strikers, or any other Martial Artist from any system or style, all have value and skills that demand respect.

James

[anerlich]

Knifefighter is correct. IMO.

[Knifefighter]

Originally posted by sihing
Your forgot again to include in your statement "IMO". Actually, "in my experience" is what it should have been.

[sihing]

Originally posted by anerlich
Knifefighter is correct. IMO.

Off course it is Anerlich, since Spain converted to the dark side, lol, you follow.

James

[Ultimatewingchun]

Converted to the dark side....


Ha,ha,Ha,ha,Ha,ha


James...you are hysterical !!!

[OdderMensch]

Originally posted by Vankuen
[
You both seem to be open to the evolution of wing chun...but the evolution doesn't lie within it's own confines. Practicing it longer will make you better at wing chun, but you're not going to all of a sudden find the secret ground fighting techniques, or the secret long range fighting techniques because you've put in your 20 years. It's not going to happen. We have to be open to looking towards those that have the most expertise in whatever field we are looking to develop. That is the way of the warrior. Why wait to "discover" something that might get you by when you can learn something that is proven to work effectively now?

To answer the second bold questin, because i trust my sifu's teachings. Yes, many may consider this to be a cop out answer, or another example of blind faith, but there is a huge difference between trust and blind faith.

Also I only have a limited amount of resources (time in this case) to devote to my martial skills, I have chosen to devote all of that to WC for ten years (my sifu has said often, if you don't get it in ten years, you never will) that does not mean I won't work with other styles, thats encouraged andd ive done it whenever given the opourtunity.

to the first statment i made bold, I don't expect sudden enlightenment of secret techniques, long hidden in the forms, I expect that if I keep diligent work, I will gain the results I want. From what I have seen, the ground fighting, the llong range attacks(and defenses) and the dealing with random attacks (ie non wing chun attacks delivered in a real fasion) are all there, right in front of me, but it will take more time and more work from myself to see them and gain the 'kung' I desire.

Vankuen, someday soon, pehaps this summer, i would love to come down to SA and meet up with you. The graplers ive so far faced have been of the high school varity, and a few karateka with some grappling practice.

I may be no master, but what student can not aford a few black eyes :)

[Matrix]

Originally posted by OdderMensch
To answer the second bold questin, because i trust my sifu's teachings. Yes, many may consider this to be a cop out answer, or another example of blind faith, but there is a huge difference between trust and blind faith. OdderMensch,
You are correct, there are those here who will criticize you for taking this position, but I will not be one of them. I agree.

[Ultimatewingchun]

"Also I only have a limited amount of resources (time in this case) to devote to my martial skills, I have chosen to devote all of that to WC for ten years (my sifu has said often, if you don't get it in ten years, you never will) that does not mean I won't work with other styles, thats encouraged andd ive done it whenever given the opourtunity." (OM)


Although I advocate crosstraining simultaneously - I understand that many people don't have the time to do that - and so they devote themselves to just Wing Chun...even though - like you - they recognize the value of working with or against other styles.

THIS IS ALL FINE.

I have no problem with that...my problem is with those who just refuse to recognize the value of crosstraining because THEY ERRONEOUSLY BELIEVE that Wing Chun has ALL THE ANSWERS to combat.

They refuse to recognize their limitations - and therefore make all kinds of unfounded claims...and try to belittle those who DO RECOGNIZE the limitations of Wing Chun.

And the same is true on the issue of HARD SPARRING.

These same people often refuse to recognize the limitations of just doing forms, chi sao, and light contact drills...and belittle the value of hard sparring.

[SAAMAG]

That pretty much sums it up right there and my stance is exactly the same as Victor's.

I have no problem with the way anyone trained here, up until I started hearing people saying the same things Vic has just now brought up, then I got to worry a bit because well quite frankly, if this is the way wing chun is to develop, then we need to address the problems now.

It's exactly what Emin Boztepe did with the LT system. The LT guys were mostly out of shape, and couldn't fight out of a wet paper bag (here in america mind you...) and so Emin came in to revitalize the wing chun and bring it up to standards, the same "fighting" standards as the Europeans.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not on the guy's hairy bean bag, just stating the similarities in what he did and whats seemingly happening again.

We can't let wing chun as a whole erode into a geometric game of patty cake...which is what probably 80 percent of the wing chun is out there now...not because wing chun is faulty...but because the people's training methods and mentality are faulty.

Now to odderM....

I'm not a grappler...I myself have very little grappling experience, and what I did have was from about 5 years ago at a BJJ place in FL while I was in the military...not enough to become an adept, but enough to use to keep out of trouble while still relying on my wing chun and MT. I plan on getting more ground work done as soon as my wrist heals up completely.

But by all means if you're down my way gimme a call...I miss having friends around that are as into the martial arts as I am...it seems that everyone around me is going to other things...and just arent as diligent as they once were.

[Ultimatewingchun]

"It's exactly what Emin Boztepe did with the LT system. The LT guys were mostly out of shape, and couldn't fight out of a wet paper bag (here in america mind you...) and so Emin came in to revitalize the wing chun and bring it up to standards, the same "fighting" standards as the Europeans.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not on the guy's hairy bean bag, just stating the similarities in what he did and whats seemingly happening again.

We can't let wing chun as a whole erode into a geometric game of patty cake...which is what probably 80 percent of the wing chun is out there now...not because wing chun is faulty...but because the people's training methods and mentality are faulty. " (Van)


NOW I'M CERTAINLY no fan of Emin Boztepe...but I've heard similar stories about WT in America before - enough times to allow credence in my own mind...so I assume that it's probably true.

And therefore - give the man his due.

If he's been doing this kind of thing...then that's a good thing...not just for his side of the world - but for all of Wing Chun.

And the 80% figure that Van mentions also sounds about right - from what I can gather...(could even be more like 90% - who knows?).

80-90% can't fight their way out of a wet paper bag...MAKE ALL KINDS OF CLAIMS...and then get upset when those who are training hard and smart admonish them???!!!

No wonder there's so much dissension around here.

The Wing Chun world as a whole...IS A MESS.

[Matrix]

Originally posted by Ultimatewingchun
80-90% can't fight their way out of a wet paper bag...MAKE ALL KINDS OF CLAIMS...and then get upset when those are training hard and smart admonish them???!! Funny, I was thinking the exact same thing. :p

[Ultimatewingchun]

Care to elaborate on that, Bill?

[Matrix]

Originally posted by Ultimatewingchun
Care to elaborate on that, Bill? I'm just agreeing with you.....

[Mark Rasmus]

Wing chun grew famous as being a FIGHTING art. It's techniques directly address FIGHTING...not meditation, not exercise, not the betterment of one's moralities and personality flaws...but FIGHTING.



Hello Vankuen,
I enjoyed your post, it was thought provoking. Just a couple comments on this paragraph.
In order to become a good fighter, meditation or refinement of the mind is important. And I believe Sil Lim Tao directly addresses it. To maintain deep stillness/ mindfulness in the middle of the hurricane of a fight is important to flow in the right way.
The confrontation of fear, anxiety and soforth during sparring directly address personality flaws. And if Wing Chun is Shoalin based art or a Taoist art, both of these philosophies apply martial arts as a means of spiritual attain which address morality, with the side benefits of self protection.
Just another View
Mark Rasmus

http://au.geocities.com/markrasmus/index.html

[Ultimatewingchun]

Originally posted by Mark Rasmus
Wing chun grew famous as being a FIGHTING art. It's techniques directly address FIGHTING...not meditation, not exercise, not the betterment of one's moralities and personality flaws...but FIGHTING.



Hello Vankuen,
I enjoyed your post, it was thought provoking. Just a couple comments on this paragraph.
In order to become a good fighter, meditation or refinement of the mind is important. And I believe Sil Lim Tao directly addresses it. To maintain deep stillness/ mindfulness in the middle of the hurricane of a fight is important to flow in the right way.
The confrontation of fear, anxiety and soforth during sparring directly address personality flaws. And if Wing Chun is Shoalin based art or a Taoist art, both of these philosophies apply martial arts as a means of spiritual attain which address morality, with the side benefits of self protection.
Just another View
Mark Rasmus

http://au.geocities.com/markrasmus/index.html




EXCELLENT post, Mark.

Focusing upon the energy coming out - especially during the tan and the fuk saos during SLT...and the energy coming back when doing the retracting wu saos...is a DOOR through which much can be learned and developed about maintaining stillness and mindfulness in the middle of the hurricane...as well as a means to cultivate control of one's chi (internal energy flow)...

both of these things (but especially the first one) being major steps within one's spiritual development.

And following (focusing) upon the energy coming and going is directly connected to following the breath - and to visualizing the energy moving about within the mind's eye.

Some martial art people don't spend enough time with these things because they just "want to learn how to fight"...

and some people spend too much time with these things because they "don't want to learn how to fight." (Although they think they do).

And some people spend significant amounts of time cultivating these "higher" faculties AND in learning how to fight.

[SAAMAG]

Good to meet you sir!

Of course refinement of the mind is necessary just as much as the physical skills (after all the mind leads the body...) My statement was more concerning the goal of wing chun in it's totalality. It's not so much that one shouldn't concentrate on chi development during SLT, or during any movement for that matter... taking things slow and concentrating on the deliberate movement and feeling of energy; but rather to not fool oneself into thinking that wing chun's goal was something other then fighting. I don't really want to spark up another uproar as recently we've finally been able to subdue the "fighting vs non-fighting" clash, but that exerpt was simply meant to say that wing chun is not Tai chi, or Tae bo, nor is it a religion or a "way of thought" in the philosophical sense. It's fighting. Period.

Now based on the history of "kung fu" as I know it, it's true that the shaolin fighting monks (the real ones...not the wushu stylists of today) used the martial arts practice as a means of health and defense as well, but this was to help SUPPLEMENT their meditations and buddhist practices. The arts were not originally meant as a conduit for attaining Nirvana. Buddhists existed before Buddharama went to the shaolin temple and so did fighting arts. They were not always intertwined.

Hopefully you get the gist of what I'm saying.

[Ultimatewingchun]

"It's true that the shaolin fighting monks (the real ones...not the wushu stylists of today) used the martial arts practice as a means of health and defense as well, but this was to help SUPPLEMENT their meditations and buddhist practices. The arts were not originally meant as a conduit for attaining Nirvana. Buddhists existed before Buddharama went to the shaolin temple and so did fighting arts." (Van)


ACTUALLY, Van...Bodhidharma was an Indian Buddhist monk who travelled to China....and Buddhism was an outgrowth of Hinduism (although the esoteric aspects of both religions are identical).

And within the Hindu religion...within it's most esoteric (and most spiritual and highest teachings)...one finds the poem entitled the Bhagavad Gita (the "song celestial"...or the "song of life").

It's really a dialogue between Krishna and his disciple Arjuna...takes place on a battlefield...and reflects TRUE HISTORICAL FACTS.

There really was an ancient war between the Pandavas and the Kurus...and Arjuna was said to be the greatest warrior on the battlefield.

But what the dialogue contains - more than anything else - is a set of instructions from Krishna about how and why it is important to fight AGAINST THE LOWER self...as it exists within other people...

but most importantly - as it exists within ONESELF.

The same principles, strategies, and techniques one uses to vanquish an enemy on the physical plane of life HAVE A CORRESPONDING SET of principles, strategies, and techniques within the spiritual world of one's own soul.

And once that battle is won....then what the Buddhists call Nirvana...what the Christians call Heaven...what the Jews call the Promised Land...what the American Indians call the Happy Hunting Ground, etc...

is attained.

[Ultimatewingchun]

"And, from my own traditions, the Promised Land of Judaism is nothing mystical at all - it simply means the lands of the historical kingdoms of Israel (and Judea) in the area of modern Israel. Unless you're *really* heavily into kabbalah, then you attach mystical meanings to everything, but for most Jews it's a very practical thing."


NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH.

GOD does not, never has, and never will designate specific land to specific people.

The Promised Land is NOT about geography.

It is about a state of mind, consciousness, soul, and being.

And the Kaballah IS the esoteric tradition of Judaism (along with the Zohar)...

And the Gnostic Tradition is the esoteric tradition within Christianity...

and the Bhagavad Gita is the esoteric tradition within Hinduism...

and the Mahayana is the esoteric tradition within Buddhism..

and Sufism is the esoteric tradition within Islam...


AND THEY ALL TEACH THE SAME EXACT PRINCIPLES.

AND THEY ALL REPRESENT THE HIGHEST AND MOST SPIRITUAL TEACHINGS within their respective traditions.

[Mark Rasmus]

Originally posted by Vankuen
Good to meet you sir! Of course refinement of the mind is necessary just as much as the physical skills (after all the mind leads the body...) My statement was more concerning the goal of wing chun in it's totalality.

Good to meet you as well Vankuen,
As for myself not speaking for any else in Wing Chun, my ultimate goal changed over the years. I wanted the ultimate weapon in a fighting art when I was younger, in my teens. As I got older my values changed and so did my focus in Wing Chun. Even in my mid 20`s I moved from doing 10 second rounds of Chain punching sprints to more slow chi kung work.
I would not think that the older wing chun masters out there actually still focus on being the ultimate fighter. I would imagine they are working on inner refinements of the art and themselves and would not careless of how ultimate they are.
"Wing Chun offers a transition from the physical to the spiritual."
Just another View
Mark Rasmus

http://au.geocities.com/markrasmus/retreat.html

[SAAMAG]

This is true, we all evolve as martial artists, the path is not a straight road and occasional we veer off in the brush to see what's there. Through the curves and hills and the valleys...the path always seems to lead to the same place as time passes.

I know I'm not going to be concerned with the fighting aspects forever, right now, given my demographics it's still an issue. Later I may find that I'm not so concerned with it myself. I actually went through a phase wherein I was only doing tai chi (during my shaolin gung fu studies) and that alone.

I've since forgotten that form. It's too bad too, I liked doing it at the crack of dawn. Things change. People change. If everything stayed the same the world would be a very boring place I bet.

[sihing]

Originally posted by Mark Rasmus
Good to meet you as well Vankuen,
As for myself not speaking for any else in Wing Chun, my ultimate goal changed over the years. I wanted the ultimate weapon in a fighting art when I was younger, in my teens. As I got older my values changed and so did my focus in Wing Chun. Even in my mid 20`s I moved from doing 10 second rounds of Chain punching sprints to more slow chi kung work.
I would not think that the older wing chun masters out there actually still focus on being the ultimate fighter. I would imagine they are working on inner refinements of the art and themselves and would not careless of how ultimate they are.
"Wing Chun offers a transition from the physical to the spiritual."
Just another View
Mark Rasmus

http://au.geocities.com/markrasmus/retreat.html

Same here. We each go through stages along the way. Like I have said in previous threads I felt privileged to be part of the lineage I belong to and also felt a special feeling when first entering the kwoon (to which I was criticized by some on this forum).. I became obsessed with WC the first 6 yrs or so of training, practicing at home, at the school and at work (I did security work and had lots of free time between rounds), reading anything I could about it and buying video's. It was pretty well the only thing on my mind and I tried to emulate my Sifu as much as possible, watching demo's and video's of him whenever I could (I believe this helped tremendously in my development). Later on I mellowed a bit, but maintained my maintenance program so nothing was lost, although there was a time over the last 6 yrs that I wasn't practicing at all, for a lengthy period of time (1 to 1 1/2 yrs). Now that I am a full time at it again, I am not at the least concerned with the effectiveness of the WC I practice or my competence with it. Personally my concern is refinement and self discovery, making it my own. Professionally, I dealing more with administration and promotion of the school I work at (my Sifu's) and making sure those learning at the school are receiving quality material in a timely fashion, in accordance to Sifu's wishes, since he is the founder/owner and Chief Instructor of the association I belong to.

James