Obsolete and out-moded?

[t_niehoff]

Is WCK outmoded or obsolete? Either it's method, training, or both? I've spoken with some well-respected MMA/NHB trainers/fighters and they have suggested that the "traditional arts", including WCK, may have been good for their day but that wasn't because they were that good (to begin with), just that the prevailing performance levels were so low. In other words, they worked because everyone was so bad!

For example, the Shaolin monks weren't, and aren't, the zenith of martial art ability; they were simply good for their time period. But as time passed, and methods and training methods improved -- as martial arts evolved -- those things became obsolete and outmoded.

Similarly, WCK may have been great by mid-1800, rural chinese standards (excellent for beating up untrained peasants) but just won't hold up by today's standards.

How do I refute their position?

[Ng Mui]

I was talking to a snow boarder that said his sport was far better than baseball.
He said baseball was fine once upon a time, but it was outdated now.

[old jong]

[QUOTE=t_niehoff]Is WCK outmoded or obsolete? Either it's method, training, or both? I've spoken with some well-respected MMA/NHB trainers/fighters and they have suggested that the ..........QUOTE]

I'm surprised you did not ask some swimmers!.... :rolleyes:

[Tom Kagan]

How do I refute their position?


The way to refute their position - for anyone who really wants to know and for whomever has a desire to be the one to tell them - is to blast them. If you cannot, then the possibility remains that their position is valid.

The way to refute their premise - for anyone who really wants to know and for whomever has a desire to be the one to tell them - is to make a proper case that Ving Tsun was not designed to do the things they ask of it in their premise. If you cannot, then the possibility remains that their premise is valid, too.


Of course, you could always undercut their character and use this as a basis for an ad-hominem attack on the validity their arguments. If you cannot, then the possibility remains that more interesting things in the martial arts would be open for discussion amongst "well-respected MMA/NHB trainers/fighters" and yourself. :rolleyes:


:)

[Jim Roselando]

Hello,


When I hear outdated or obsolete or not functional for todays times etc.!

I find this to be kind of funny but its my person feeling!

So! When someone asks me this I reply with these questions:

How much has the human body changed in the past 500 or more years?

How many different angles can someone attack you from? Has those angles changed in the past 500 or more years?

Typical answer for both is: AHHHH! No and Ahhhh No again!

Now! While arts have evloved and more types of well rounded fighters have been born I have yet to meet any honest Grappler or Reality fighter that believes in grappling in the street or going to the ground in the street unless its by accident or last resort! Rolling around on cement or concrete is brutal on the body. So, they end up using their M. Thai, Boxing, Kicking etc..

Wing Chun is designed or specializes in short bridge/close range fighting. Thats our specialty. For someone to hit us or kick us they must come into our range sooner or later. He who is better at what they are doing will win and thats the way of the world. For me, I dont have time to train like a beast so the time I do have I spend on WCK. I would rather be decent at one thing than mediocre at a bunch. If i am decent at one thing I have a better chance and thats all Kung Fu can really do for us is help our chances if we train right.

Nuff said!


Oh yeah! Why not go visit some of the older generation Grapplers or Jiu Jistu guys and see how they are doing. I dont know any of them that are not in bad condition or have regular pain. First priority for me is health and how this stuff effects my body. Once you know your body you then learn how to use it and I do not want to wake up in pain on a regular basis in my golden years.

Tom is correct tho! Perhaps you could have blasted them! Or better yet! Teach them how to swim! hehehehahaha Sorry! I couldnt resist! :p


Regards,

[Vajramusti]

Or some good liu he ba fa pracitioners-
water boxers- i dont know whether they need to getin to the water.

[Wayfaring]

How do I refute their position?

I don't know, maybe by being a little less argumentative?

Tell them they may be right, and that you have been looking for a fight card with some untrained out of shape peasants from the Far East, and ask if they know any.

:D

[rogue]

Similarly, WCK may have been great by mid-1800, rural chinese standards (excellent for beating up untrained peasants) but just won't hold up by today's standards.
Why are you assuming that traditional arts were empty hand. Ever think that what most of us traditional people practice is only part of weapons based arts? So it could be a non-argument.

[old jong]

Why are you assuming that traditional arts were empty hand. Ever think that what most of us traditional people practice is only part of weapons based arts? So it could be a non-argument.

Don't forget he asked some MMA/NHB guys! ;)

[Hendrik]

Terence,

Great idea!


May be you can take my Three Tiered Pyramid model with its associated rules/models. Make an inventory on detail itemizing and start from there instead of draw conclusion with random based?


while itemizely audit the inventory,


May be one might find out one doesnt have a three tiered pyramid but just some fragmented applications in the application tier and one called that WCK.

May be one might find out what one do is another version of fragmented Karate engine with mimic Tan Da mix instead of WCK.

May be one might find out it is some Boxing, some karate, some Bjj and some kali mix instead of WCK.

May be one might find out one have never gone through the 4 stages of implementation/realization but stop at stage 1 and thinking one has already master the art?


If that is the case, then how can one talked about obsolete and out-model on something one doesnt have a clear idea about?


As for the Fighting, IMHHO, one dont fight. One exercute what one had been train.
Thus, one needs to find out what is it and the capability of the "stuffs" one train in. otherwise, there is no deposit in the bank and how can one with draw money to buy anything?

Everything is OBsolete and out date, out model when there is no deposito in the bank.

since GOLD has neither tradition or modern but Gold. Then gold in a bank account be it the Great Britain bank 1880 or City Bank 2010 always a great deposit.

The question is do one really have gold deposit in the bank?

Similarly there is no traditional or modern bullet. a bullet is a bullet. one can kill a guy with any bullet. so the point is do the gun has a bullet?


just some ideas.

OSU!

[Ernie]

;)
Is WCK outmoded or obsolete? Either it's method, training, or both? I've spoken with some well-respected MMA/NHB trainers/fighters and they have suggested that the "traditional arts", including WCK, may have been good for their day but that wasn't because they were that good (to begin with), just that the prevailing performance levels were so low. In other words, they worked because everyone was so bad!

For example, the Shaolin monks weren't, and aren't, the zenith of martial art ability; they were simply good for their time period. But as time passed, and methods and training methods improved -- as martial arts evolved -- those things became obsolete and outmoded.

Similarly, WCK may have been great by mid-1800, rural chinese standards (excellent for beating up untrained peasants) but just won't hold up by today's standards.

How do I refute their position?


T,
my boxing , MMA . vale tudo Bjj etc,,,, friends
don't doubt me at all in fact my old boxing coach just asked me to teach him wing chun and some sticks !

more often then not they want me to work out with them they have a very hard time trying make there game work on me

now we are normally training not [fighting] ;)

i have brought many of them over to meet gary and he move around with them and they have mad respect for his skills

and gary gives them all the respect in the world [ fighter to fighter ]

MY tap out buddies even asked me to help the with hitting from the mount , they wanted to impliment short power with hands and elbows

but i guess i don't count because i'm in condition , have years of sparring with these guys under my belt ;)


out dated hmmmm more like the training methods have turned into watered down conversation pieces

if you have a goal , to improve your skill [ not to become a wing chun robot poster boy ]

you can draw alot out of the training methods , but you need to focus on you , not becomeing some one else and you need a goal , not just going through some set up system floating around for years with no measuring stick

when you base it on your greedy growth , you will draw out what you need create your own goal and drive yourself , you will use the skills the system introduced any way you see fit
not be a clown with your robot antenna sticking out hoping he hits you in some familier way and activates you program

:cool:

[kung fu fighter]

Hi,
The problem is that a lot of wing chun knoledge has already been lost due to people hearding their knoledge at the expense of the system. when was the last time you heard two NHB/MMA guys argue about who's style was better and if it was modified or traditional. In the world of professional fighting there can be no secrets to become the best only hardwork and openess of training methods will make the art continue to get better with time, just like it was in china before the boxer revolution when the sifus started to hold back certain key knoledge in case his student turned against him. KNOLEDGE IS MENT TO BE SHARED, then it can grow and be truely enjoyed by everyone involved.
Sometimes i wish people like Hendrik and some others on this forum that's secretive understand what sharing truely means and the rewards that you can reep back from it especially different peoples experiences.

In my opinion most of the time the MMA/NHB fighters view fighting from practical experiences, so i value their opinions. However we must remember that their training reflects the invironment that they fight in, which is very real, but not necessaryly all out survival/street fighting. MMA/NHB fighting does not allow dirty street tactics such as attacking certain areas as well as biting, and therefore reflects what works under these controlled conditions. This is not to say it couldn't work in all out street fights with some modifications but then we would probably be reinventing something similar to wing chun anyways. Every martial art works best for the intent/situation that it was created to work for, including the wing chun system.

[anerlich]

I dont know any of them that are not in bad condition or have regular pain.

Your experience is rather different from mine ... and I probably know many more grapplers than you.

I know quite a few older guys that have been doing judo and/or jiu jitsu for decades. They are in excellent health with no major physical problems. The 70+ wrestling coach I knew in Melbourne who had been doing it all his life was in superb condition and throwing people around regularly.

I know a fairly well-known WC guy, younger than me, who's had two knee replacements, major ankle surgery, and can't afford to get head-punched hard again without risking both retinal and brain damage, all training-related.

WSL and Jerry McKinley (and Bruce Lee) died before their time, no disrespect and RIP.

Helio Gracie is still doing well at 90+.

I'm 50, I train for fitness, challenge, and enjoyment, not for the extraordinarily unlikely streetfight with multiple grapplers. After 5 years BJJ has yet to seriously mess me up; I've had black eyes, concussion, broken toes, etc. from WC. But both have increased my physical abilities and attributes, and so far this process is continuing.

But individual cases and anecdotal evidence do not really support general arguments.

The art isn't outmoded, just some of its practitioner's attitudes (not you personally Jim).

[AmanuJRY]

out dated hmmmm more like the training methods have turned into watered down conversation pieces.

I think E said it all here.

The concepts and techniques of WC are pretty timeless, it's how we develop them and more importantly, how we USE them.

[reneritchie]

If your purpose is to have fun, enjoy some social activity, and learn an interesting cultural art, then WCK is neither obsolete nor out-moded.

If your desire self defense, you're better off buying Strong on Defense for a couple bucks and starting there.

If your desire is to compete in the UFC and K-1, then that's combat sports and it requires a modern approach to athletics, mental preperation, coaching, and some degree of natural ability ("vitamins" not-withstanding) or intense dedication to purpose.

And in the old days they fist-fought a lot more, which meant they tested their stuff under high resistance, which is a weeding process (both technically and personally) all its own.

[t_niehoff]

Jim,

While it is true the human body hasn't changed, that doesn't mean that our knowledge of fighting hasn't evolved (based on experiences over time, new insights into how to effectively train, myths being dispelled, etc.). I've a friend that does Renassaince "western martial arts" (sword fighting and wrestling) but he recognizes that both wrestling and fencing evolved since the 1600s.
And even if the body hasn't changed, that doesn't mean that some fighting method from the past made the best use of it, had the most effective tools or tactics, etc. Nor does it help to say these things worked in the past since that begs the question: against whom (what level of skill)?

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

RR wrote:

If your purpose is to have fun, enjoy some social activity, and learn an interesting cultural art, then WCK is neither obsolete nor out-moded.

**Quite true, like my friend who does Renaissance WMA. It's a great hobby.

If your desire self defense, you're better off buying Strong on Defense for a couple bucks and starting there.

**True.

If your desire is to compete in the UFC and K-1, then that's combat sports and it requires a modern approach to athletics, mental preperation, coaching, and some degree of natural ability ("vitamins" not-withstanding) or intense dedication to purpose.

**What if you don't want to compete but just enjoy the fighting aspects?

And in the old days they fist-fought a lot more, which meant they tested their stuff under high resistance, which is a weeding process (both technically and personally) all its own.

**That's a good point; similar to what happens today in BJJ, boxing, muay thai gyms.

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

Tom, Ernie,

You guys seem to have the same "answer" -- show them you can make it work. If you can do that, that seems to be a great answer.

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

Kungfufighter,

How do you know that "knowledge was hoarded"?

[sihing]

Jim,

While it is true the human body hasn't changed, that doesn't mean that our knowledge of fighting hasn't evolved (based on experiences over time, new insights into how to effectively train, myths being dispelled, etc.). I've a friend that does Renassaince "western martial arts" (sword fighting and wrestling) but he recognizes that both wrestling and fencing evolved since the 1600s.
And even if the body hasn't changed, that doesn't mean that some fighting method from the past made the best use of it, had the most effective tools or tactics, etc. Nor does it help to say these things worked in the past since that begs the question: against whom (what level of skill)?

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

RR wrote:

If your purpose is to have fun, enjoy some social activity, and learn an interesting cultural art, then WCK is neither obsolete nor out-moded.

**Quite true, like my friend who does Renaissance WMA. It's a great hobby.

If your desire self defense, you're better off buying Strong on Defense for a couple bucks and starting there.

**True.

If your desire is to compete in the UFC and K-1, then that's combat sports and it requires a modern approach to athletics, mental preperation, coaching, and some degree of natural ability ("vitamins" not-withstanding) or intense dedication to purpose.

**What if you don't want to compete but just enjoy the fighting aspects?

And in the old days they fist-fought a lot more, which meant they tested their stuff under high resistance, which is a weeding process (both technically and personally) all its own.

**That's a good point; similar to what happens today in BJJ, boxing, muay thai gyms.

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

Tom, Ernie,

You guys seem to have the same "answer" -- show them you can make it work. If you can do that, that seems to be a great answer.

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

Kungfufighter,

How do you know that "knowledge was hoarded"?


I think anything that we as humans do, will improve over time. Is the quality of the fighting arts better today than it was 150-200yrs ago? That's a good question. Back in those days or the days when WC was created, wasn't there a revolution going on? Warfare can make one very skilled in their respective Martial Art, out of the need for necessity, not glory. Probably the average person sucked at Martial Arts back then, just due to lack of access to proper information, not like today where you can download media or find information on just about any Martial art. There are definitely more of us practicing Martial Arts today than in years gone by, IMO. I also believe that we as westerners appreciate the Oriental Martial Arts more so than the average Oriental as they have had the Martial Arts within their culture for Centuries, whereas we have only had it in ours for maybe a Century now, so it is still new for us and we appreciate more of what it has to offer us, in this fast paced environment.

With all the practitioners of WC in the world today, and with the varying associations and organizations that are alive, I think this is a good thing as it will promote improvement and analysis of the Wing Chun system. Competition in this sense is a good thing, as organizations have to stay on top of things and constantly improve the quality of what they teach to stay in the game of promoting their respective organization and Wing Chun system. :)



James

[reneritchie]

Yesterday was interesting. The local place where I often go on Tues. for some open mat time also has a Japanese JJ guy teaching classes, and he and some of his students had been considering trying out BJJ/Sub graps tournaments and so wanted to try out the open mat night as a way to gage their readiness.

Now, the teacher had been to Gracie seminars since the early 90s and had picked up some grappling from Grappling Magazine, and tried out the moves on each other in class, but they'd never rolled.

They didn't do too well. Cardio was a big problem, they got tired after just a few minutes. Most of them stuck with it for 60, though they were dead tired. Only 1 lasted 90+

They knew pins and they knew submissions, but they had no idea how to control during the transition from one to the other, so they couldn't get anything to work (nor could they counter basic positional escapes).

They were shocked at the difference between compliant partner reps, and resistan t freestyle training.

As an aside, what really impressed me was their teacher. He was 74 fricken years old, and he rolled quasi-steady for 60 min., and was pretty dang fiesty the whole time, going for Jujigatame, Udegarami, and other typical JJJ holds.

If I can still go like that at 74, I will be *incredibly* happy.

(Note: they offered to teach us Bo Kata in exchange for the time spent rolling with them, but it was not something any of us were interested in currently)

[reneritchie]

TN,

"**What if you don't want to compete but just enjoy the fighting aspects?"

Then it goes back to just doing it because you enjoy it. Let's say boxing was PROVEN by alien psychics to be 1.3 times more effective than WCK, but you hated boxing. It was too boring and you had trauma from bad Rocky movies seen in childhood. But, you loved the concepts, logic flow, progression, and other aspects of WCK. Since you didn't want to make a living fighting, would it matter that it was only .87 times as effective in clone pit testing?

One of the greatest keys to success is consistency. If you enjoy something, you are more likely to be consistent with it. And that's something that needs to be factored in. The human element is often what futzez up any scientific equation :)

[Hendrik]

1, While it is true the human body hasn't changed, that doesn't mean that our knowledge of fighting hasn't evolved (based on experiences over time, new insights into how to effectively train, myths being dispelled, etc.).


2, I've a friend that does Renassaince "western martial arts" (sword fighting and wrestling) but he recognizes that both wrestling and fencing evolved since the 1600s.


3, And even if the body hasn't changed, that doesn't mean that some fighting method from the past made the best use of it, had the most effective tools or tactics, etc. Nor does it help to say these things worked in the past since that begs the question: against whom (what level of skill)?




IMHHO,


1, Doesnt seems to evolve beyond the general theme of " the big beat the weak. the more etheletics beat the less etheletics. the one knows more move beat the one knows less move. the one with faster speed beat the one with slower speed." which the chinese has said hundred of years ago.



2, a comparison without a clear related relationship is just a fuzzy speculation. western and eastern oftern doesnt travel the same evolution or de -evolution.


3, until one knows what happen in the past. this is an assumption without based.

The Chinese Martial art in particulary the TaiJi has recorded " Those are side door art, eventhought the energetics take different shape, it is not within the Fast beat the Slow. The physicallystrong beat the weak. .."

Dont one will be curious why in old 1700's time the chinese has already has this thoughts? Dont one will be curious what kind of technology invention has been invented to go beyond the above "physical strong beat the weak" ?



IMHHO, one can keep evolve, evolve within a domain such as the physical strong beat the weak. and one never get beyond the "bigger shoulder muscle talk louder " bottom line. is that anything new? sure today we can have all kind of drug to make a super sport eltheletics stars by promoting SPEED growing muscle, growing all the physical and stamina..... but the side effect might be one is speeding into grave too."


OSU!

[Jim Roselando]

Hey RR,


As an aside, what really impressed me was their teacher. He was 74 fricken years old, and he rolled quasi-steady for 60 min., and was pretty dang fiesty the whole time, going for Jujigatame, Udegarami, and other typical JJJ holds.

In the Jiu Jistu type world this guy is the odd ball. Most are physically damaged and have pain regulary. Probally he was in better shape because he did not have much grappling time in as grappling is brutal on your body.

If I can still go like that at 74, I will be *incredibly* happy.

Well, my friend! Then you will need a lot of Yoga and sports therapy to counter the effect it has on your body. In the time you have been involved with grappling how many injuries have you had??

Everyone gets injured grappling! Its part of it. If someone has not been injured grappling then they have never grappled! I only did it for a little while but in that time period I twisted my ankle twice, pulled a back muscle, injured a rib and not to mention the lovely feeling of the Swollen (Col. Flow Ears)! Oh are they are the best! Even a pillow made me cry when the ears touched it!

I wish that on nobody!

Most honest reality guys will tell you for the street all you need is a year or so with ground stuff. For those times when you end up there or have no choice. If you want to be a competitive grappler then thats a different story.


Have a good one!

[Tom Kagan]

Tom, Ernie,

You guys seem to have the same "answer" -- show them you can make it work. If you can do that, that seems to be a great answer.


(Man, I must be going soft or something. Normally, I'd let someone not getting the obtuseness of my answers slide.)


"Show them you can make it work" does not "seem to be a great answer" from my point of view - it's just one answer. Even by narrowing the scope of a discussion to the context of a Ving Tsun conversation, aren't there more interesting things to discuss than an ego driven attempt to validate and/or refute a Ving Tsun existence by proving its greatness and/or mediocrity?

I'd like to think that most "well-respected MMA/NHB trainers/fighters" don't go around trying to prove anything and are just interested in developing relationships based on mutual respect and exchanging ideas. I'd also like to think that the most important lesson any well respected Ving Tsun teacher could impart on a student would be no different.


If ten people enter a tournament and all of them have only one goal - to win - then nine will be disappointed.

If ten people enter a competition with the idea that they are there to seek together, then all ten will benefit: All ten will win.

To seek your limits with the help of your competitor is the key. (Think about the Latin root of the word: "competere".)

Training and competition can be its own reward and can be enjoyed fully without expectation of future achievement. To have the enthusiasm without the glory of an image validated by "proof" would let all ages and ranges of ability to have fun, participate, and exchange ideas enthusiastically regardless of disparity of skill.

[Interested in etymology? Enthusiasm: "entheos"]

[Mr Punch]

Is WCK outmoded or obsolete? Either it's method, training, or both? I've spoken with some well-respected MMA/NHB trainers/fighters and they have suggested that the "traditional arts", including WCK, may have been good for their day but that wasn't because they were that good (to begin with), just that the prevailing performance levels were so low. In other words, they worked because everyone was so bad!Suits me. If I get into a fight in a pub, I'm guessing I'm not gonna be in the same bar as Crocop, and if I am, I think I'd recognize him.

I'm big enough, trained enough, and dirty enough to just be able to enjoy my training for its own sake... so that should in turn relax me enough for some reasonable advances in that training.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Good ol' Ernie just pm'd me about something - and part of his words went like this:

"If they can work off a jab, cross, hook and handle a shoot, thigh kick
and get back on their feet... then their worth a conversation and investigation
the rest I leave for the label makers."

HE WAS TALKING about Wing Chun people...if they can deal with the above - then they're worth an investigation.

Really thought that those ideas belong on this thread - as he definitely put his finger on something - in terms of Wing Chun being outdated and obsolete.

You've got to be able to make your Wing Chun work against all of the above moves, imo, or you ARE obsolete...because those kinds of fighting moves (and the training methodologies that go into them)...are today's state-of-the-art, so to speak.

Deal with them - and you're keeping pace.

Can't deal with them - buy a rocking chair.

[reneritchie]

Like I mentioned in a previous thread, when I visited my Sigung in Guanzhou in '99, he had been tweaking a movement in Chum Kiu to shoot in on western boxers. He was 75 or so at the time, and understood the risks of stagnation and value of constant expert refinement as well as his ancestors.

[Ultimatewingchun]

So he's 75 and still doesn't need a rocking chair...good for him!

[reneritchie]

My sigung passed away November 2002.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Sorry to hear that.

R.I.P.

[t_niehoff]

Sorry, Tom, that I missed your "obtuseness." ;) I posed the question because I wanted to underscore the pointlessness of theoretical argument (no one can by argument prove WCK is valid). For example, you don't "prove" your swordfighting method -- modern or from times past -- will work via theory, you do it by fencing with good fencers: the results prove it.

Hendrik,

Sure there were lots of writings and lots of theories from ancient China -- that doesn't tell us whether they could make them work today, against today's fighters (my original point). Today's fighters aren't just the "strong defeating the weak" -- didn't Royce Gracie (at 180 lbs., and there is no evidence he's doing performance enhancing drugs -- he's looked and weighed the same for a decade) defeat Akebono, the ex-sumo grand champion, who weighed 3 times as much via submission (grappling)? That's an excellent example (real evidence) of the weaker overcoming the stronger. While many TCMAist's make those *claims*, how come we don't see any of them actually able to do it? The only weaker folks overcoming the stronger publically at least are MMAists. This is what my MMA firends say -- between tai ji and WCK, there are millions more practitioners than BJJ, and many of the TJ and WCK people have trained longer than the BJJ people, yet the BJJ people are going and and fighting and winning. The TJ and WCK people are not. What's the answer to that? We could if we wanted to, but we don't? It only works on the street?

[Ultimatewingchun]

"Today's fighters aren't just the "strong defeating the weak" -- didn't Royce Gracie, at 180 lbs....defeat Akebono, the ex-sumo grand champion, who weighed 3 times as much via submission (grappling)? That's an excellent example (real evidence) of the weaker overcoming the stronger. While many TCMAist's make those *claims*, how come we don't see any of them actually able to do it?

The only weaker folks overcoming the stronger publically at least are MMAists. This is what my MMA friends say -- between tai ji and WCK, there are millions more practitioners than BJJ, and many of the TJ and WCK people have trained longer than the BJJ people, yet the BJJ people are going and and fighting and winning. The TJ and WCK people are not.

What's the answer to that?
We could if we wanted to, but we don't?
It only works on the street?"


THE ABOVE QUOTE by Terence goes right to the heart of the matter.

There are several reasons, imo, why MMA people who do Muay Thai and BJJ...or some form of Kickboxing mixed with BJJ...are doing these things and TJ and WCK people are not...

and "it only works on the street" is not one of those reasons.

While it's true that wearing gloves and having to take off your shoes does limit the Wing Chun game a bit - THAT IS STILL not a valid excuse - because adjustments can be made - if one really wanted to.

Did I just say want to?

It would seem that a VERY big part of the Wing Chun population have no real desire to train seriously enough to go into a NHB event; but more significant, imo, is the fact that neither do they want to train realistically behind closed doors...

preferring instead to make a game or a hobby out of their Wing Chun experience....which is okay...as long as no great claims about the fighting efficiency of THEIR wing chun is attached to the equation...and neither should such people make such statements like..."Well maybe not me - but my sifu can do it"...or "sigung could do it"...or "the great WCK folks from previous generations could do it"...and on and on. That's a HUGE COPOUT.

And training seriously enough HAS to include, at the very least, realistic and consistent hard sparring against skilled partners/opponents.

And imo - it also has to include some crosstraining - in terms of footwork and grappling skills.

Forms, chi sao, wooden dummy, drills, and the "occasional" light sparring against a classmate who's using wing chun, or doing some half-assed version of boxing, Thai-boxng, kickboxing, or grappling takedowns...

doesn't cut it.

[wingtsunmonk]

Isn't it the fighter that becomes outdated and not the art? I've always gone on the philosiphy that the particular art is only as good as the person applying it on that particular day, in that particular moment in time.

[t_niehoff]

No, fighting methods, training methods, and associated aspects, like any systems of knowledge, grow and evolve over time. Boxing, for instance, has changed a great deal in the past 125 years; BJJ has evolved a immensly in 50 years. Of course, some people believe that Shaolin monks and/or Chen villagers had perfect knowledge and fighting skills hundreds of years ago. ;)

[wingtsunmonk]

Your last statement seems to contradict your orignial question of if WCK is outdated or obsolete. Or you are making WCK the exception to this scenario.

If we both agree that fighting and training methods grow and evolve over time, which I do, then I would say no to WCK being outdated and "traditional."

I still think that the quality of the art is dependent on the effort put forth by the individual studying/practising it. Hence what I meant by the fighter becoming outdated. :)

[t_niehoff]

wingtsunmonk wrote:

Your last statement seems to contradict your orignial question of if WCK is outdated or obsolete. Or you are making WCK the exception to this scenario.

**What does the evidence tell us?

If we both agree that fighting and training methods grow and evolve over time, which I do, then I would say no to WCK being outdated and "traditional."

**OK, then where are the results?

I still think that the quality of the art is dependent on the effort put forth by the individual studying/practising it. Hence what I meant by the fighter becoming outdated.

**Certainly a large part of the equation is the talent/effort of the trainee; but another significant aspect is the fighting method and training method. A limitation in either aspect can limit our overall potential. For example, even the best athlete putting in the max effort will not achieve what they could doing a second-rate art. How do we know what is not -- including WCK -- a second-rate art (one that's obsolete or outmoded)? By theory (it sounds great)? By faith (I just know)? By stories of past exploits (the Shaolin monks or Leung Jan were good!)? By the fact that you were able to survive a streetfight (so did the ninjutsu and shotokan practitioners)? Or, by results? Let me pose the question another way: how do we know BJJ or boxing or muay thai aren't second-rate arts?

[andreww]

who's to say WC has not evolved?

i know what and how i practice is very different from that which i originally taught, i would have thought a system conceived to defeat the fighting systems of the day would demand continual assessment and adjustment.

i can remember Terence arguing with me at length about the purity of wc and that all that one would need was already contained in the system. so some things do change, or at least points of view do.

i would agree whole heartedly with Terence's premise, if and only if wc was technique based, but from my understanding it is concept and principle based, this means that many adaptations, augmentations can be made. So ideas can be tested and developed under stressful non-compliant conditions, those ideas stimulated if one wishes to confront and defeat the fighting systems of the day.

regards andrew williams

[t_niehoff]

Hey Andrew!

Good to hear from you -- it's like back in the day!

You wrote:

who's to say WC has not evolved?

**LOL! There are some that say it has remain unchanged for hundreds of years. ;)

i know what and how i practice is very different from that which i originally taught, i would have thought a system conceived to defeat the fighting systems of the day would demand continual assessment and adjustment.

**Yes, so it would seem.

i can remember Terence arguing with me at length about the purity of wc and that all that one would need was already contained in the system. so some things do change, or at least points of view do.

**Growth involves change. :) But I want to make it clear that I'm acting as devil's advocate here . . .

i would agree whole heartedly with Terence's premise, if and only if wc was technique based, but from my understanding it is concept and principle based, this means that many adaptations, augmentations can be made.

**I hear "concept and principle based" (folks often use that as "proof" WCK is an advanced art), and I don't buy into it. IMO the whole "concept-based" and "technique-based" dichotomy is nonsense; it's always the interplay between the two. Sure WCK has "principles and concepts", but so does any fighting art. I think WCK becomes "concept and principle based" for theoreticians since that's all they really have! Technical aspects evolve too (BJJ and boxing are good examples of it).

So ideas can be tested and developed under stressful non-compliant conditions, those ideas stimulated if one wishes to confront and defeat the fighting systems of the day.

**I agree as far as this goes -- what about when WCK does not provide the technical basis for dealing with something?

[andreww]

Hi Terence


**Growth involves change. But I want to make it clear that I'm acting as devil's advocate here . . .
---so some things do not change. :)


**I hear "concept and principle based" (folks often use that as "proof" WCK is an advanced art), and I don't buy into it.
---I would think this being dependant their intelligence, experience and willingness to take a risk.

** IMO the whole "concept-based" and "technique-based" dichotomy is nonsense; it's always the interplay between the two.
---what do you think “concept based” means?

** Sure WCK has "principles and concepts", but so does any fighting art.
---of course, all part of a multilateral base, am thinking that some drill techniques tried and tested without considering alternate ideas.

** I think WCK becomes "concept and principle based" for theoreticians since that's all they really have!
---yes, I have met many theoreticians who have not fought and many have no right teaching a fighting art if that is what they are selling (imho), equally I know one or two who make great combat teachers. LOL I know instructors who, as fighters are supreme, but as teachers leave much to be desired.

** Technical aspects evolve too (BJJ and boxing are good examples of it).
---technical advances based on mechanical principles, tactical concepts??????


**I agree as far as this goes -- what about when WCK does not provide the technical basis for dealing with something?
---fun question, like what?

Regards Andrew

[t_niehoff]

Hi Andrew,

AndrewW wrote:

---what do you think “concept based” means?

I don't know what it means to the folks that use it -- for me, the notion is not useful. IMO lots of these sorts of terms are used by theoreticians (to describe their theoretical POV) but are essentially meaningless. For examples, boxers, BJJers, MMAists, etc., i.e., folks that really fight, don't "talk" like that -- because they don't think like that. It's just not important to them.

---of course, all part of a multilateral base, am thinking that some drill techniques tried and tested without considering alternate ideas.

My experience is that fighters (boxers, BJJists, MMAists, etc. - persons actually using their method) are always looking for better ways of doing things; it's the "conceptual theoreticians" that aren't.

---yes, I have met many theoreticians who have not fought and many have no right teaching a fighting art if that is what they are selling (imho), equally I know one or two who make great combat teachers. LOL I know instructors who, as fighters are supreme, but as teachers leave much to be desired.

True, in both cases it comes down to results. We judge whether someone is a good teacher by the success of their students (their results teaching); we judge whether someone is a good practitioner by their results doing it (fighting). Good results at one doesn't mean good results at the other.

---technical advances based on mechanical principles, tactical concepts??????

Actually, I think more of these advances are based on **experience** (performance) -- encountering a problem and trying to figure out a way to solve it, stumbling on something you hadn't considered, etc. Many people think the principle or concept precedes the application; IME it's just the opposite. It's from the application that we come to realize the concept.

**I agree as far as this goes -- what about when WCK does not provide the technical basis for dealing with something?
---fun question, like what?

This too comes from experience. For one example, WCK won't provide the technical basis for fighting on the ground.

[Vajramusti]

WCK won't provide the technical basis for fighting on the ground.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
((That's Terence's opinion and he is entitled to it. There are other opinions.
Situations and people vary. Depends on who what when where and how.

Hi Andrew- good to see your posts. The net hasnt changed much. Same old. Same old tea party. How is Rolf's book coming?I remebered your comment on Kotsya's fitness recently when I saw Kotsya again in Phoenix in his last fight. His fitmess, training and recovery from his injuries is amazing. He apparently has discussed some things with Russel Crowe who will be boxing in his new movie
on Braddock- the Cinderella man.Braddock was knocked out by Louis but was an interesting individual- should be a great story. Joy))

en passim-to no one in particular: Hillary Swank did a great job indeed as a person and a female boxer in Eastwood's Million Dollar Baby. I saw it the day before the awards. There are nice little snips and lines from training rooms in the movie. Little things like the importance of the feet even in punching the bags.

[t_niehoff]

Yes, Joy, that's my opinion. And it's based on evidence. I'm still waiting for those WCK practitioners who have opinions to the contrary to provide evidence to support their view. It seems a fairly simple thing to do -- if one can really do it. But we *never* hear from these folks with WCK groundfighting skills actually being willing to demonstrate them against some good groundfighters. Of course, there are people out there that believe they can repel folks with their chi too . . . .

[sihing]

Yes, Joy, that's my opinion. And it's based on evidence. I'm still waiting for those WCK practitioners who have opinions to the contrary to provide evidence to support their view. It seems a fairly simple thing to do -- if one can really do it. But we *never* hear from these folks with WCK groundfighting skills actually being willing to demonstrate them against some good groundfighters. Of course, there are people out there that believe they can repel folks with their chi too . . . .

Why should "they" provide evidence when you won't??
You ask people to support their view but you don't? And at the same time you expect us to blindly follow?

James

[Edmund]

Why should "they" provide evidence when you won't??
You ask people to support their view but you don't? And at the same time you expect us to blindly follow?

James

I hope no one blindly follows anyone.

However there's some evidence of WC people doing badly on the ground (see the "WT in the UFC thread") and not so much of WC people doing well on the ground.

Nevertheless the "asking for evidence" approach is getting tiring....

Let's just take a different approach and poll people on the forum to find out how much time/energy they devote regularly to groundfighting vs standup.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Good poll, Edmund.

I currently spend about 1/3 of my training time doing some aspect of wrestling/grappling - be it standing or on the ground.

But my approach is not simply a Wing Chun anti-grappling theme.

Yes...the first line of defense against someone coming in for a grab and takedown is simultaneous blocking, striking, footwork - but it doesn't end there. The second line is where a standing fight in the clinch and the use of elbow or knee strikes might come into play - or a takedown of my own....and if he was coming in to take out one or both of my legs - then a sprawl, for example, might come into play...and the final line of defense is when they are past the sprawl range and other types of wrestling defenses and counters are being used - which will always lead to the ground - and ideally to an immediate advantage for myself.

Finally, I would say that about 70% of the time I do alot to wrestling is actually spent on the ground - and about 90% of that time is actually spent wrestling (ie.- controls, positioning, reversals, escapes, submissions)...the other 10% using what we call in Catch wrestling "ripping techniques" (elbow strikes, knee strikes, punches, gouges, fish hooks, etc.)

[t_niehoff]

James,

Just how do you think someone can prove WCK won't work on the ground? You can't prove a negative (you can't, for example, prove bigfoot doesn't exist, though you can point out how flimsy the evidence is for that proposition; but it's simple to prove it does -- just provide one that we can see, i.e., evidence). I could put clips of me and other WCK guys getting pounded/submitted on the ground but that wouldn't prove that someone somewhere couldn't make it work (which is exactly what the theoreticians would say: "sure, you can't do it but we can!"). All these folks saying WCK works on the ground need to do is provide evidence of it (we can argue until the cows come home) -- and not against their WCK brothers but against skilled groundfighters. The mere fact no one will produce a bigfoot says it all.


Edmund,

You raise an excellent point IMO -- the other factor (besides that we just don't have the necessary tools) is that good groundfighters have spent hundreds or thousands (in some cases tens of thousands) of hours fighting on the ground, honing their skills, etc. How much time have the "WCK groundfighters" spent fighting on the ground with good people? It's sort of like saying "WCK concepts" can be applied to foil fencing. That sounds great but even if we have the tools to fence with the foil (which I submit we don't) you won't have a chance against someone that has spent hundred/thousands of hours actually foil fencing and with an evolved fencing method.

[andreww]

Hi Terence


I don't know what it means to the folks that use it for me, the notion is not useful. IMO lots of these sorts of terms are used by theoreticians (to describe their theoretical POV) but are essentially meaningless. For examples, boxers, BJJers, MMAists, etc., i.e., folks that really fight, don't "talk" like that because they don't think like that. It's just not important to them.
---when you say “really fight,” are you talking about real fighting, broken bones, ripped skin, serious injury etc, a winner and a loser?

My experience is that fighters (boxers, BJJists, MMAists, etc. - persons actually using their method) are always looking for better ways of doing things; it's the "conceptual theoreticians" that aren't.
---by “persons actually using their method,” are you talking about real fighting?

Actually, I think more of these advances are based on **experience** (performance) -- encountering a problem and trying to figure out a way to solve it, stumbling on something you hadn't considered, etc. Many people think the principle or concept precedes the application; IME it's just the opposite. It's from the application that we come to realize the concept.
---I don’t think many people would disagree with this, it has been bashed about for years in these forums, and once ego (or arrogance) is put aside, most agree, **experience** is a great teacher, and given enough the talent can be used by a good instructor in teaching. The system is not the hindrance to development, arrogance and fear is.


This too comes from experience. For one example, WCK won't provide the technical basis for fighting on the ground.
---no it does not, but there are certainly shared principle enough that can allow the wc man to hit the mat, and after much time be able to prepare there. And where there is not (sufficient technical basis) then one must be humble enough to take what is offered.

---To your question, is wc outdated? It would seem yes, if one is not prepared to take a risk and test what they “know”. For those testing and adapting, no. So, I don’t know about what you have thus far practised but it is sounding like it was/is (outdated), you must be excited for the change.

Regards Andrew W.

[Ultimatewingchun]

"My experience is that fighters (boxers, BJJists, MMAists, etc. - persons actually using their method) are always looking for better ways of doing things; it's the "conceptual theoreticians" that aren't...To your question, is wc outdated? It would seem yes, if one is not prepared to take a risk and test what they “know”. For those testing and adapting, no." (Andrew W)


THIS POST SAYS IT ALL.

Don't know who you are, Andrew W...but welcome!

[Knifefighter]

I have yet to meet any honest Grappler or Reality fighter that believes in grappling in the street or going to the ground in the street unless its by accident or last resort! Rolling around on cement or concrete is brutal on the body. "Rolling around on cememt" is a huge disadvantage to the person who doesn't know what to do there. Most trained groundfighters know that there are a variety of scenarios where it is quite advisable to take the fight to the ground.

[Knifefighter]

Why are you assuming that traditional arts were empty hand. Ever think that what most of us traditional people practice is only part of weapons based arts? So it could be a non-argument.That is an excellent point and probably true, which would explain why so many traditional arts are not very good when it comes to empty hand fighting.

[kj]

Just for clarity and credit where credit is due ...


"My experience is that fighters (boxers, BJJists, MMAists, etc. - persons actually using their method) are always looking for better ways of doing things; it's the "conceptual theoreticians" that aren't...


Terence wrote that, not Andrew.



To your question, is wc outdated? It would seem yes, if one is not prepared to take a risk and test what they “know”. For those testing and adapting, no." (Andrew W)


Andrew did indeed write this latter part.



Don't know who you are, Andrew W...but welcome!

Indeed, great to "see" you and your voice of reason again, Andrew. :)

Regards,
- Kathy Jo

[Knifefighter]

In my opinion most of the time the MMA/NHB fighters view fighting from practical experiences, so i value their opinions. However we must remember that their training reflects the invironment that they fight in, which is very real, but not necessaryly all out survival/street fighting. MMA/NHB fighting does not allow dirty street tactics such as attacking certain areas as well as biting, and therefore reflects what works under these controlled conditions. This is not to say it couldn't work in all out street fights with some modifications but then we would probably be reinventing something similar to wing chun anyways.

What you would be "inventing" would be MMA/NHB with dirty street tactics.

[Knifefighter]

Back in those days or the days when WC was created, wasn't there a revolution going on? Warfare can make one very skilled in their respective Mar
tial Art

Warfare has always been fought with weapons. Anyone who tried to fight without weapons would have been quickly wiped out.

[SimonM]

How do I refute their position?

It's based on the same faulty premise as those who hark back to the golden days of flying and energy blasts. There have always been good and bad fighters. People who had to use martial arts on the battlefield five hundred years ago and who survived probably got **** good. In antiquity some of the good fighters systematized what worked for them into styles. Within those styles there are still good and bad fighters. That is no fault of the system. Only a system which is incapable of producing good fighters is a "bad system" WC is definately not one of those.

Or in short tell your friends their position is no more tenable to the history of martial arts than Ka Me Ha Me Ha. :p

EDIT: Martial arts is all about weapons. Spears are weapons, swords are weapons, knives are weapons, empty hands are weapons. Therefore while I don't at all disagree that people make weapons for warfare, I still would assert that in pre-firearms warfare martial arts had to be top-notch.

Also there is nothing wrong with dirty street tactics. And WC got there before MMA so they get rights to the name. You could say that NHB/MMA is WC only cleaned up for sportmanly conduct. :D Or is my sifu the only one who teaches Chin'na applications from WC material?

[t_niehoff]

SimonM wrote:

It's based on the same faulty premise as those who hark back to the golden days of flying and energy blasts. There have always been good and bad fighters.

**Agreed. But the point is that these things are relative -- a good boxer from 100 years ago wouldn't be as good by today's standards.

People who had to use martial arts on the battlefield five hundred years ago and who survived probably got **** good.

**They just got good relative to those folks they were fighting (same as the boxers). When the peasant class was finally permitted to own and practice sword fighitng in Japan, they didn't have the "knowledge" or experience of the samurai but they trained competively by "sparring" with bamboo swords. At the first tournament where the peasants were permitted to compete (with the samurai), they destroyed the samurai.

In antiquity some of the good fighters systematized what worked for them into styles. Within those styles there are still good and bad fighters. That is no fault of the system.

**You seem to miss the point that "good" and "bad" are relative to the times. This is true of all physical or athletic endeavors. Cornish wrestling may have been "da bomb" in 18th century Cornwall, just as tai ji may have been "da bomb" in 18th century Chen village but that doesn't mean those arts are effective today since training methods and knowledge and skills have evolved.

Only a system which is incapable of producing good fighters is a "bad system" WC is definately not one of those.

**Here's where you and I agree -- the only way to know if a fighting method is effective by results: does it produce good fighters. You seem to think it does. My friends would say the evidence is overwhelmingly to the contrary. For example, to avoid any unpleasantness I'll avoid using WCK and talk instead about tai ji. Chen Xaio Wang is the standard-bearer of Chen tai ji; he's considered the "best" in that method. So who has he fought? No one. Now, shouldn't the "best" or a "grandmaster" of a fighting method either be or have been a world-class fighter? The only way to determine that is, of course, by fighting world-class fighters. So what tai ji "grandmaster" has ever fought anyone known to have high level fighting skills? See why I don't want to talk about WCK and its "grandmasters"? ;)

[sihing]

Warfare has always been fought with weapons. Anyone who tried to fight without weapons would have been quickly wiped out.

And back then there were no satellite tracking systems and infrared technologies, laser guided missiles, nor planes, trains and automobiles. Guerilla warfare, with weapons (like the one's developed over the years in the oriental MA), where of course used but the empty hands were also there to supplement them.

James

[SimonM]

**You seem to miss the point that "good" and "bad" are relative to the times. This is true of all physical or athletic endeavors.

No I don't "miss the point" I just disagree. I have never seen any evidence to suggest that the hypothetical "best fighter" from 500 years ago would have been any worse at hand to hand combat than the hypothetical "best fighter" from today. Nor do I think that any such evidence could ever be found since there is no way to observe a 500 year old fighter in action.

So I work from the assumption that the human genome has not changed in the last couple years and therefore the ability to develop humans that are able to fight will likely have remained constant. All that has changed is the sophistication of our supplimentary tools (weapons, vehicles, etc.).

[Ultimatewingchun]

"I have never seen any evidence to suggest that the hypothetical "best fighter" from 500 years ago would have been any worse at hand to hand combat than the hypothetical "best fighter" from today." (SimonM)


TOTALLY ABSURD LOGIC...

By the same thinking one could argue that medicine was just as advanced as today...the means of transportation...military weaponry...farming and agriculture...political and human rights...and a thousand other things.

This line of thinking is an attempt to deny evolution and progress.

Ridiculous.

[SimonM]

This line of thinking is an attempt to deny evolution and progress.



No it is not. Evolution takes much longer than 500 years to work. Genetically modern humans have existed for somewere around 50000 years at least if I remember correctly from first year anthro. As for nutrition; in Europe and North America we had lower obesity rates and better nutrition 50 years ago than we do today. That is hardly progress. I simply don't agree that more complicated technology equals better people. That is your line of logic and it is HIGHLY flawed.

[lawrenceofidaho]

No it is not. Evolution takes much longer than 500 years to work.

Hi Simon,

there is some evidence that suggests "evolution" can work much more quickly...... Rupert Sheldrake's theory of morphogentic fields offers an explanation of how this might work.

Sheldrake's work is hotly debated, but quite interesting. Here's the nutshell explanation of morphogentic fields from Wikipedia:

Rupert Sheldrake trained as a plant physiologist, and became interested in the way that plants, and all living things, took on their form. What starts as a single cell splitting into identical copies eventually changes, with some cells taking on specific characteristics, some become leaves, some stem. Once these changes have taken place, the reverse is no longer possible; for example, leaves cannot be changed back into stems.

At the time of his research in the late 1960s and 1970s, the reasons for this sort of development were unclear. In the 1920s, embryo regeneration and the capacity for willow shoots to grow whole new trees, were thought to imply such fields or knowledge or memory in the environment. The later discovery of DNA appeared at first to offer an explanation, but since the DNA remains largely identical throughout an organism, it was not, of its own, able to explain form. It explained that a cell was from a plant, but not that it was stem or leaf. Most scientists believed there was an unknown mechanism in the DNA that provided form as well, but there was no direct evidence that it existed.

Sheldrake instead developed a completely new theory to explain this problem, one based on a universal field encoding the "basic pattern" of an object. In Sheldrake's view, the existence of a form is itself sufficient to make it easier for that form to come to exist somewhere else. He first published his ideas in 1973, referring to the concept as the morphogenetic field.

This morphogenetic field would provide a force that guided the development of an organism as it grew, making it take on a form similar to that of others in its species. The term morphogenesis came from the Greek morphe which means form, and genesis which means coming-into-being. A feedback mechanism, morphic resonance, would lead to changes in this pattern, as well as explain why humans didn't "pick up" the pattern of plants during development. As evidence, Sheldrake offered a selection of seemingly disconnected bits of evidence.

One was the research of Harvard University researcher William McDougall, who, in the 1920s, studied the abilities of rats to correctly solve mazes. He found that children of rats that had learned the maze were able to run it faster -- at first the rats would get it wrong 165 times before being able to run it perfectly each time, but after a few generations it was down to 20. McDougall felt this was due to some sort of Lamarckian evolutionary process. Sheldrake felt that this was instead evidence of a morphogenetic field. The rats running the maze the first times built their pattern of learning into the "rat field", and later rats were able to draw on this patterning. Several examples of this sort of "universal learning" were offered.

The other major piece of evidence came from pure chemistry, where another unexplained "learning behaviour" takes place during the formation of crystals. When a new chemical compound is first created it will crystallize slowly, but when other researchers repeat the experiment they find it occurs more quickly. Chemists generally attribute this to better experiments, the mistakes of the first are documented and not repeated. Sheldrake instead felt this was yet another example of a morphogenetic field, that the crystals being formed for the first time were creating a field that later experiments were able to draw on.

Since then a number of other examples have been added -- the behaviour of monkeys in Japan cleaning their food (the Hundredth Monkey effect), and birds in Europe learning to open milk bottles have all been offered as examples of a "nonlocal" force in behaviour and learning.

[SimonM]

Hi Simon,

there is some evidence that suggests "evolution" can work much more quickly...... Rupert Sheldrake's theory of morphogentic fields offers an explanation of how this might work.
[/B]

Fascinating as punctuated equilibrium theories are there is nothing to suggest that anything of this sort has happened to humanity in the last several thousand years. Let's face it, genetically modern human beings predate all current civilizations.

[AmanuJRY]

No it is not. Evolution takes much longer than 500 years to work. Genetically modern humans have existed for somewere around 50000 years at least if I remember correctly from first year anthro. As for nutrition; in Europe and North America we had lower obesity rates and better nutrition 50 years ago than we do today. That is hardly progress. I simply don't agree that more complicated technology equals better people. That is your line of logic and it is HIGHLY flawed.

Simon,

Evolution and Progress are two different animals. Sure, in some opinions, WC might not have progressed any and in others it has, but the truth is it has evolved (whether anyone likes it or not). The question is, has it evolved into something better or something worse?

Both, IMHO.

[SimonM]

Simon,

Evolution and Progress are two different animals.

I agree that they are not the same thing. It was UWC that chose to link them. I cannot comment on the evolution of WC. It is one of the styles my Sifu teaches and I KNOW that he has made modifications to a few of the forms he teaches in order to repair what he saw as problems with some of them. My sifu is hardly the only bright martial artist produced by Hong Kong in the last half a century so I imagine others have done the same. Assuming that they don't all talk to one another their personal variations (that they then teach) would be different.

All I have been saying is that since people are essentially the same physically now that they were 500 years ago (this IS true) their physical capabilities are also probably about the same they were 500 years ago. What I am denying is not evolution (which I adhere to rather strongly) but simply the assumption of the inevitable progress of 'man' in all endeavors. That is a mistake almost identical to the assumption that there was a golden age of now-lost knowlege in the distant past.

Or: people are people so how could it be
that people think the anciens differed awfully? :D

[Haggis]

Or: people are people so how could it be
that people think the anciens differed awfully? :D

I understand where you're coming from Simon, but I'm not sure that your argument really stands.

Evolution provided modern humans with a certain potential. It is by no means certain that we have yet attained the full measure of that potential... thus applying the genetic card to "eyeblink" timescales (in an evolutionary sense) may not be most appropriate.

I DO see where you're going, just don't agree with you. :p

If we can compare combat skills loosely with physical prowess - look at the revolutions in Olympic records over the past century alone. I'm willing to bet that a martial artist, trained in the modern era with appropriately pragmatic methods, would kick the ass of an older era warrior.

CAVEAT: This is in no way validating most of the current training methods though. They tend to suck, due to the tendency of most modern people to avoid discomfort as if it were a smelly hobo coated in cr@p looking for a cuddle. :)

[SimonM]

If we can compare combat skills loosely with physical prowess - look at the revolutions in Olympic records over the past century alone.


Thank you I was just waiting for someone to bring up Olympic records!

You see I had already thought out that particular angle before I phrased my original argument. To be honest - records mean nothing about our actual Potential to perform. The Olympics have hardly existed for more than 100 years in the modern context. Considering that the archaic Greek Olympics were extinct for a couple of millenia they really don't matter for addressing performance improvement in sport.


Lets be honest, people who get drawn to sports at a high level are competitive. If you set a record in front of a competitive person they will try to best it if they believe they can. Why have Olympic records improved so much over tha last 100 years? It's because we keep better records now. Had there been a system in place for the storage and dissemination of mass information over great distances five hunderd years ago we would have probably seen a simmilar seemingly meteoric rise in performance standards. The fact that we do not does not mean that nobody was that good then, just that they were not recorded performing. Let's face it accounts of Kung Fu skill from back in the day are often half fiction - "geko" techniques that allowed the MAist to climb walls and techniques to make the MAist paper thin so that when stabbed with their back to a wall they would not suffer any serious injury appear in ancient martial arts accounts. I think any rational person would consider such accounts as exaggerations at best. However I have never come across a doccument talking about the weakness of antique martial arts as practiced in antiquity.

In the absence of any proof that ancient fighters were worse than modern ones I have do discount the argument the same way I discount the stories of the supernatural powers of the ancients. What a concept - a person who neither believes in atlantis nor in the idea that cars and computers make us superior to the people of the last centuries.


thus applying the genetic card to "eyeblink" timescales (in an evolutionary sense) may not be most appropriate.

Oh and I agree that it is inappropriate to apply evolution to this situation because it is too short a period, please see above my post that refers to "punctuated equilibrium".

[lawrenceofidaho]

What I am denying is not evolution (which I adhere to rather strongly) but simply the assumption of the inevitable progress of 'man' in all endeavors.

Simon,

I feel I can relate now to what your are saying (at least in some sense.)

I think a painful example of this might be that mankind as a whole still appears to be relatively "unevolved" psychologically, -continuing to have little understanding of it's own; mechanics of thought, emotions, motives, etc. (e.g. -Many people on the planet; would still like to burn "non-believers" / "infidels" at the stake, are ready to go to war at the drop of a hat, and tend to only consider input & opinions of others if they're reasonably sure that they are closely aligned with their own.) :(

-Lawrence

[AmanuJRY]

Simon,

I feel I can relate now to what your are saying (at least in some sense.)

I think a painful example of this might be that mankind as a whole still appears to be relatively "unevolved" psychologically, -continuing to have little understanding of it's own; mechanics of thought, emotions, motives, etc. (e.g. -Many people on the planet; would still like to burn "non-believers" / "infidels" at the stake, are ready to go to war at the drop of a hat, and tend to only consider input & opinions of others if they're reasonably sure that they are closely aligned with their own.) :(

-Lawrence


Holding on to out-moded religeon is similar to holding on to out-moded martial doctrines.

Let evolution happen and try to affect it toward 'progress'.

[R Clausnitzer]

WCK won't provide the technical basis for fighting on the ground.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
((That's Terence's opinion and he is entitled to it. There are other opinions.
Situations and people vary. Depends on who what when where and how.

Hi Andrew- good to see your posts. The net hasnt changed much. Same old. Same old tea party. How is Rolf's book coming?I remebered your comment on Kotsya's fitness recently when I saw Kotsya again in Phoenix in his last fight. His fitmess, training and recovery from his injuries is amazing. He apparently has discussed some things with Russel Crowe who will be boxing in his new movie
on Braddock- the Cinderella man.Braddock was knocked out by Louis but was an interesting individual- should be a great story. Joy))

en passim-to no one in particular: Hillary Swank did a great job indeed as a person and a female boxer in Eastwood's Million Dollar Baby. I saw it the day before the awards. There are nice little snips and lines from training rooms in the movie. Little things like the importance of the feet even in punching the bags.


Hi, Joy, Kathy, and the many others still championing the cause of reason :)


With regard to the e-book, the first draft was completed about a year ago, but every few weeks I would add or amend something. To cut a long story short, a student who is a professional publisher, has offered to do the production. He is on a business trip to the USA and Europe and will be back in early April, when we will get moving.

By the way, as a matter of interest, we have a new, skilful student who trained intensively as a private student of a senior disciple of Lawrence Lee in Sydney. Lawrence has a strong Wing Chun base, is one of the longest established Kung Fu teachers in Australia, and for the past 9 years or so has been training Kostya Zyuu (Sp?) in iron palm, in view of the latter's wrist problems........talk about "six degrees of separation" :)

Regards to all.

Rolf

[Ultimatewingchun]

"All I have been saying is that since people are essentially the same physically now that they were 500 years ago (this IS true) their physical capabilities are also probably about the same they were 500 years ago." (SimonM)


MORE ABSURDITY...

It's about what's going on in their MINDS...which is in control of the body. The body, and and the energy, (both physical muscular and internal chi)...these things are instruments that the MIND uses.

And the MIND of man has evolved and progressed over the last 500 years...so yes...it is reasonable to assume that today's fighters are more efficient than fighters from 500 hundred years ago...because the MIND of man has evolved - which therefore leads to progress.

So therefore perhaps we can can come back to the thesis of this thread ??? Instead of following an attempted hi-jacking in order to fulfill an agenda that wants to bury the question of today's wing chun efficiency...(and the efficiency that many wing chun people today may or may not be demonstrating in their training methods, fighting strategies, and techniques).

[sihing]

Hi, Joy, Kathy, and the many others still championing the cause of reason :)


With regard to the e-book, the first draft was completed about a year ago, but every few weeks I would add or amend something. To cut a long story short, a student who is a professional publisher, has offered to do the production. He is on a business trip to the USA and Europe and will be back in early April, when we will get moving.

By the way, as a matter of interest, we have a new, skilful student who trained intensively as a private student of a senior disciple of Lawrence Lee in Sydney. Lawrence has a strong Wing Chun base, is one of the longest established Kung Fu teachers in Australia, and for the past 9 years or so has been training Kostya Zyuu (Sp?) in iron palm, in view of the latter's wrist problems........talk about "six degrees of separation" :)

Regards to all.

Rolf

Rolf,
You mean a real boxer/fighter like Kostya is learning a ancient art form? Wait until Terence hears about this, it will rock his world. I thought boxers were to tough to ever need Iron Palm. LoL...... :cool:

James

[Vajramusti]

Kostya has had his share of injuries including a hand related problem. He has stated that he has used iron palm dit da jow on his hands. He is one tough cookie.

A student of mine had some hand problems- he is a superb guitarist and musician...
with light careful iron palm work and jow- his ligaments became strong again without losing flexibility.

[KPM]

If we need to train our solders that we are going to ship to Iraq, do you think our soldiers would prefer "Wing Chuan" or "MMA"?

Beside their heavy armor, our soldier's life is too valuable and cannot afford to go down to the ground with Iraq guys. I don't think MMA could even be a valid choice. Has time changed? Soldiers still wear heavy armor and try to kill as many enemies as possible in today’s battle ground. Hit and run are still the best strategy in today's battle field.



---First off, if you are going to post in a Wing Chun forum, shouldn't you learn how to spell it? :rolleyes: I hate to burst your bubble, but many units in the US Army do train in a variation of BJJ. On "today's battle ground" much of the fighting is done in an urban setting going house to house. It has been recognized that modern weapons make extensive hand-to-hand fighting unnecessary even in that situation. Even at close range the soldier most often still has his weapon at hand. That is why many units have gone to the shorter, more compact version of the M16. But......if a soldier finds himself on the ground in a situation where he has to fight for his life he very likely has lost his weapon in the process of getting blown or knocked to the ground! Granted, grappling with LBE and a flak vest still on is not ideal, but not impossible!

Keith

[t_niehoff]

SimonM,

If you are interested in the "evolution" of the fighting arts, look at how wwestern fencing has developed. It's easier because much of it has been documented in various books for hundreds of years. You can see technical elements being added, theoretical elements being added, etc. as time goes by. Or, spend a little time looking into the history of boxing and you'll see that not that long ago (a 100 years or so), there was no bob-and-weave or slipping or peek-a-boo, that the jab was a very different sort of punch, the "stance" has changed, etc. All these technical elements were discovered and adopted to answer some question or give some fighter an edge, and then they begin to be adopted by others who think it was a good idea. Hell, it's the same in basketball -- it's not the same game 50 years ago. BJJ has changed, with a great many new technical elements, in just 20 years.

And if you want a great laugh, look at the tai ji-white crane "masters" fight from the 1920s (it's floating around somewhere on the 'net). Try and tell me that this is good fighting by today's standards. yet, this fight was hailed in both sides camps as a top-notch demonstration. And they were crap. This is what I think most of the "masters" from the past were like -- at the very best simply 'good' for their day, and in many cases more "fish story" than truth.

[SimonM]

And the MIND of man has evolved and progressed over the last 500 years...so yes...it is reasonable to assume that today's fighters are more efficient than fighters from 500 hundred years ago...because the MIND of man has evolved - which therefore leads to progress.


Clearly you have not ever taken an intro-anthropology course UWC. I will repeat: THERE HAS BEEN NO SIGNIFICANT GENETIC CHANGESD TO THE HUMAN SPECIES IN THE LAST SEVERAL THOUSAND YEARS since the mind is NOTHING more than an organ that means it too is structurally identical to how it was hundreds of years ago. Technological progress DOES NOT EQUAL EVOLUTION!!! And don't play the hijack card. I replied with a valid answer to KF's initial post and you chose to challenge it.

[anerlich]

Granted, grappling with LBE and a flak vest still on is not ideal, but not impossible!

A predecessor of jiu jitsu called kumiuchi was developed in c. 12th century Japn which taught throws and immobilisations with weapons for use against armoured opponents, the rationale being that withour controlling the opponent first, it was difficult to drive a weapon into the *****s in the armour.

From memeory when a US army PT guy was asked about the BJJ training for H2H was it was mor eabout developing a tolerance for and familiarity with close quarter engagement rather than shooting a double leg on and armbarring Osama Bin Laden.

The whole argument about soldiers in Iraq was a straw man in any case.

The arumment about evolution/progress is just semantics. In common use outside of anthropology and biology nerd circles, the two terms are used interchangeably in common usage.

[SimonM]

SimonM,

Or, spend a little time looking into the history of boxing and you'll see that not that long ago (a 100 years or so), there was no bob-and-weave or slipping or peek-a-boo, that the jab was a very different sort of punch, the "stance" has changed, etc.

Fair enough but in the last 400 years Boxing has also made Kicking, Throwing and a variety of "dirty" techniques illegal. And yes the stance has changed from the 1800's but look at the very occasional 1700s boxing manual picture and you will see that they were using stances not that different from those used by modern MMA fighters.

As for the white crane master vids from the '20s I have heard of them but as I have said many times before I can not view videos at work and I almost never go on forums unless I am at work. That being said what happened in the 1920's in one set of videos is not indicitave of all of history. As a counter example I believe that Chan Tai San was active in that period as was Yip Man (I think). Lam Si Wing had been alive not too long ago in the 1920's and even in his eighties he demonstrated the Tiger and Crane better than most people I have seen in the modern period. That would tend to support my hypothesis that there have always been both good and bad martial artists.

(And a caveat to that - there have always been people who claim to be masters and who should not.)

[Ultimatewingchun]

"THERE HAS BEEN NO SIGNIFICANT GENETIC CHANGES TO THE HUMAN SPECIES IN THE LAST SEVERAL THOUSAND YEARS since the mind is NOTHING more than an organ..." (SimonM)


YOUR TOTALLY MATERIALISTIC view of life is so far below the true nature of things - and so attached to a stubbornly resistant and erroneous set of assumptions...that I won't even waste my time debating it any further with you, Simon.

But more than that...I think there's something else at play here with you - regarding the discussion on this thread.

What is is about the subject matter that puts you into such denial?

You have a lot invested in the "old ways"?

Spent many years perhaps learning something that would be too painful now to have to admit is not very efficient by today's standards?

Or perhaps you're running a McDojo operation of some sort?

In any event - I'm through arguing these points with you.

There are much better things for me to do.

[SimonM]

YOUR TOTALLY MATERIALISTIC view of life is so far below the true nature of things -


You accuse me of attachment to "old ways" and then use mysticism as your argument against a "materialistic" view of human development. Rather hypocritical.




What is is about the subject matter that puts you into such denial?



I am in no denial. I simply don't believe that the development of modern technology is the result of or the cause of any significant change to the nature of human kind. I also KNOW that knowlege has been both gained and lost many times by many cultures. Just because something was one way once does not mean that those conditions always applied. So there was some bad Kung Fu in the '20s and some foolish Boxing in the 1800's. There was also some good Kung Fu in the turn of the 20th century and some downright scary Boxing in the 1600's. You are so attached to the illusion that we live in a golden age of technology now that you are the one displaying signs of denial. After all it is you who keeps using invalid arguments such as "you hijacked this thread" (which I did not) or "you must be running a McDojo" (which I most certainly am not since if you look at my history of posts I have NEVER ONCE claimed to be a Sifu). These personal attacks have nothing to do with Knifefighter's original question. But nice try.


Spent many years perhaps learning something that would be too painful now to have to admit is not very efficient by today's standards?

Because I think that the principles of WC are valid? I'm surprised considering you are the one who puts the name of the style right in your nick! I just used my name.


Or perhaps you're running a McDojo operation of some sort?


I already addressed this a little but I think it deserves a reiteration. I am not running any school. I have never run any school. I am not a Sifu. I am a Kung Fu student with a passion for all aspects of the martial arts - including it's history. I also am a Sociologist with a strong grounding in the social sciences such as Anthropology and humanities such as Philosophy. And yes, as you suggested before much of my academic work is based on Dialectical Materialism as set out by Hegel and expanded on by Marx. Unsurprising for a socialist with a Sociology degree. Quite frankly it is frequently the most logical framework for dispassionately addressing human history. Please feel free to discuss your methodology for determining that the human mind is somehow superior to how it was in the past, I would be fascinated to hear it.



In any event - I'm through arguing these points with you.

There are much better things for me to do.

Well I guess I won't be hearing your marvelous hypothesis then. Pity. :p

[R Clausnitzer]

Rolf,
You mean a real boxer/fighter like Kostya is learning a ancient art form? Wait until Terence hears about this, it will rock his world. I thought boxers were to tough to ever need Iron Palm. LoL...... :cool:

James



Hi, James

Whilst Kostya remains primarily an outstanding western boxer, it would be wrong, imo, to assume that his association with Lawrence Lee, over a nine year period, has been limited to iron palm training to overcome weaknesses in the wrists.

Common sense would suggest that there have been exchanges of ideas and techniques. I can give you two actual examples. I have a great colour photo of Lawrence readying Kostya as he is about to deliver a WC 1" punch to a cloth covered frying pan (!) supported by a book, held by a bemused looking third party, in what looks like Lawrence's kitchen. Also, in his last fight when he ko'd or tko'd his American opponent in a return match, Kostya included in his finishing punches a technique that Lawrence had taught him and that Lawrence was quite excited about.

I still recall my students, many years ago, asking me as I arrived whether I had seen this new Russian born boxer in the news who fought in a very "aggressive and direct, Wing Chun like style".

My point is that Wing Chun concepts AND basic punching can be incorporated successfully into western boxing. This is happening right now here in WA, although still in the developmental stages. It would take too long to explain it all, but it will all become clearer in the next 12 months, as this form of hybrid boxing becomes better known.

Regards.

Rolf

[Vajramusti]

Rolf sez:

Common sense would suggest that there have been exchanges of ideas and techniques. I can give you two actual examples. I have a great colour photo of Lawrence readying Kostya as he is about to deliver a WC 1" punch to a cloth covered frying pan (!) supported by a book, held by a bemused looking third party, in what looks like Lawrence's kitchen. Also, in his last fight when he ko'd or tko'd his American opponent in a return match, Kostya included in his finishing punches a technique that Lawrence had taught him and that Lawrence was quite excited about.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

((Rolf- Completely understood. If I had the money I would also open a boxing training gym for inner city youth (apart from the wing chun). Saw a piece of property in downtown Phoenix- but got second financially conservative thoughts. Now that property is gone with the price driven up by nearby university related development. With gloves at very very close quarters I can show (and sometimes do) the difference between standard boxing punches and wing chun type of punches.

I sat ring side at both of Kostya's fights here in Phoenix separated by several years.(Chavez in the earlier fight and Shamabala Mitchell in the last one) Even though he is older - in his last fight against a very well conditioned and accomplished opponent (Mitchell)- Kostyas straight punches were more effective than mitchell's hooks. And, when he devatstatingly downed Mitchell- it was one of those short punches that he has increasingly developed. He will need them if he meets with Zab Judah again. In their last fight Kostya went down first but got up... later he dropped Judah... the fight was stopped controversially with Judah trying to get up. Judah is faster than Kostya and a southpaw but Judah has a bit of a glass jaw. Kostya now has experience against south paws and hus more squared up stance and stratight and the devlopment of short power should serve him well.

In both his fights here- there were both Australian and Russian flags being furled around- and there wasa little disturbace in one part of the audience with the Russian flag-- given the rising nationalism and the macho crowd around here. A hockey game did break out briefly. Tyson was at ring side too holding court but behaving.. In his prime he too had short effective wc likebut not wc -punches- but his legs fail him these days in closing with his little shuffle steps- specially aginst people much larger than him. He still has his hand power though.
Regards.

Joy

[R Clausnitzer]

Rolf sez:

Common sense would suggest that there have been exchanges of ideas and techniques. I can give you two actual examples. I have a great colour photo of Lawrence readying Kostya as he is about to deliver a WC 1" punch to a cloth covered frying pan (!) supported by a book, held by a bemused looking third party, in what looks like Lawrence's kitchen. Also, in his last fight when he ko'd or tko'd his American opponent in a return match, Kostya included in his finishing punches a technique that Lawrence had taught him and that Lawrence was quite excited about.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

((Rolf- Completely understood. If I had the money I would also open a boxing training gym for inner city youth (apart from the wing chun). Saw a piece of property in downtown Phoenix- but got second financially conservative thoughts. Now that property is gone with the price driven up by nearby university related development. With gloves at very very close quarters I can show (and sometimes do) the difference between standard boxing punches and wing chun type of punches.

I sat ring side at both of Kostya's fights here in Phoenix separated by several years.(Chavez in the earlier fight and Shamabala Mitchell in the last one) Even though he is older - in his last fight against a very well conditioned and accomplished opponent (Mitchell)- Kostyas straight punches were more effective than mitchell's hooks. And, when he devatstatingly downed Mitchell- it was one of those short punches that he has increasingly developed. He will need them if he meets with Zab Judah again. In their last fight Kostya went down first but got up... later he dropped Judah... the fight was stopped controversially with Judah trying to get up. Judah is faster than Kostya and a southpaw but Judah has a bit of a glass jaw. Kostya now has experience against south paws and hus more squared up stance and stratight and the devlopment of short power should serve him well.

In both his fights here- there were both Australian and Russian flags being furled around- and there wasa little disturbace in one part of the audience with the Russian flag-- given the rising nationalism and the macho crowd around here. A hockey game did break out briefly. Tyson was at ring side too holding court but behaving.. In his prime he too had short effective wc likebut not wc -punches- but his legs fail him these days in closing with his little shuffle steps- specially aginst people much larger than him. He still has his hand power though.
Regards.

Joy


Hi, Joy

I get a great kick out of reading your posts on boxing. As one who shares your interest in boxing but with only a fraction of your experience, I envy your knowledge and understanding of the "noble art" :)

I wonder what your views might be on the older and earliest forms of western boxing. I've come across quite a few fascinating websites, including astonishing historical illustrations showing some techniques that are still used in today's boxing rings!

Dismissing these forms as obsolete and inferior, as some people on this forum vehemently do, seems to me somewhat simplistic and blinkered. For example, Dempsey's book provides much food for thought I have to smile when he bemoans the path that modern boxing has taken and reckons that "nine of every ten fellows.....become 'powder puff' punchers or, at best, only fair hitters".

Regards.

Rolf

[sihing]

Hi, James

Whilst Kostya remains primarily an outstanding western boxer, it would be wrong, imo, to assume that his association with Lawrence Lee, over a nine year period, has been limited to iron palm training to overcome weaknesses in the wrists.

Common sense would suggest that there have been exchanges of ideas and techniques. I can give you two actual examples. I have a great colour photo of Lawrence readying Kostya as he is about to deliver a WC 1" punch to a cloth covered frying pan (!) supported by a book, held by a bemused looking third party, in what looks like Lawrence's kitchen. Also, in his last fight when he ko'd or tko'd his American opponent in a return match, Kostya included in his finishing punches a technique that Lawrence had taught him and that Lawrence was quite excited about.

I still recall my students, many years ago, asking me as I arrived whether I had seen this new Russian born boxer in the news who fought in a very "aggressive and direct, Wing Chun like style".

My point is that Wing Chun concepts AND basic punching can be incorporated successfully into western boxing. This is happening right now here in WA, although still in the developmental stages. It would take too long to explain it all, but it will all become clearer in the next 12 months, as this form of hybrid boxing becomes better known.

Regards.

Rolf

Hi Rolf,
I agree with you, that Wing Chun can easily be integrated into Boxing, as well as any Martial Art out there IMO. My initial statement was poking fun towards some of Terence's thoughts & ideas, "A real fighter using ancient Martial Arts techniques?" how could it be in his world, according to his posts anyways.

Take Care Rolf,

James

[Vajramusti]

Rolf sez:
I wonder what your views might be on the older and earliest forms of western boxing. I've come across quite a few fascinating websites, including astonishing historical illustrations showing some techniques that are still used in today's boxing rings!

Dismissing these forms as obsolete and inferior, as some people on this forum vehemently do, seems to me somewhat simplistic and blinkered. For example, Dempsey's book provides much food for thought I have to smile when he bemoans the path that modern boxing has taken and reckons that "nine of every ten fellows.....become 'powder puff' punchers or, at best, only fair hitters".
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
((Hi Rolf- Unfortunately folks sometimes think that every change is progress- some are and some arent. And even in good progress good folks sometimes as they say stand on the shoulders of giants.

Of course training tables and training equipment and more availabilty of coaching
and police athletic leagues, junior olympics, GG, AAU, inter school and inter college
and the armed services created a greater pool of talent in the 50s and 60s compared to earlier eras. But people are not as "hungry" these days.The main change is in the heavyweights- they are behemoths now- Marciano was only around 180--- now Lennox Lewis is 250 plus and the older Klitchko is heavier. And even 5 pounds of weight difference when someone is leaning on you while playing games with your balance can tire you out fast. no matter how conditioned you are. Nature at work..

But the late Sugar Ray Robinson by a near consensus remains the greatest of all time. His time finaklly ended but he had someting like near 160 pro fights and almost hundred amateur. That kind of staying power is not in evidence today.Footwork, hand combination and power in both hands. He could knock you out going backwards, Few people today can do that. Klitchko cant. he has to club people again and again.
Bob Fitzimmons' solar plexus knockot punch (Corbett was a victim) was a lulu. With todays head hunters--- most cant do it. A few can---the downing of de la Hoya by Hopkins with a liver punch and Jones' downing one guy with hitting the slats are some exceptions . Fitzimmons hada little shift and weight transfer that powered that punch. He worked on it again and again.

Did you see the recent two part documentary on Jack Johnson. He hada stance closer to some wc stances- and defensive moves vey wc like--- pak sao- cuffing
and defensive skills that many boxers have forgotten. He still will be knowledgeable folks top ten list. he controlled and tied up people.... better than many heavyweights of today can.

On Dempsy- have you read Tunney's good book--he was only about 175 but still probably within the top 15. A kind anonymous wc/wt person -from Chicago methinks gave me a copy. Training for Dempsey's charges--- he trained running backwards a lot. Came in handy!!

The introduction of gloves and their weight changed boxing structure. Without gloves some would stand a liitle more like old timers and hold their hands a little differently. The old timers knew quick cross buttock throws. A few get that these days. The arab Prince Naseem(?) was one of them. Unfortunately he held his hands too low which was his waterloo.

In some sports(specially non contact dramatic improvement has occurred-no question on the gracie-Machado contributions. Football- thas a different and long story-for now.But generally the greatest improvement is in events where
the object is to beat the clock or a fixed mark.

The mano y mano however is not quite the same world. John L Sullivan of around could still say in manya bar- I can lick any man in the house.

Wing chun is about beating the other gouy no matter what it takes- so it develops
a comprehensive list of skills- rather than skills ina fixed sports context. Sure it can be improved and adapted but not by throwing the baby out with the bath water.

[Ultimatewingchun]

"You accuse me of attachment to 'old ways' and then use mysticism as your argument against a 'materialistic' view of human development. Rather hypocritical." (SimonM)

THE RE-EMERGENCE of the basic principles and FACTS that underlie what you refer to as "old way mysticism"....in the later part of the 20th century and into the 21ft...

is obviously something that has eluded you.

Or perhaps you have purposely chosen to ignore all of it - as it clearly does not support your utterly materialistic (and therefore inherently erroneous) agenda.

Yeah...Marxism has really proven it's inherent value - now hasn't it???!!!

LOL.

[R Clausnitzer]

Rolf sez:
I wonder what your views might be on the older and earliest forms of western boxing. I've come across quite a few fascinating websites, including astonishing historical illustrations showing some techniques that are still used in today's boxing rings!

Dismissing these forms as obsolete and inferior, as some people on this forum vehemently do, seems to me somewhat simplistic and blinkered. For example, Dempsey's book provides much food for thought I have to smile when he bemoans the path that modern boxing has taken and reckons that "nine of every ten fellows.....become 'powder puff' punchers or, at best, only fair hitters".
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
((Hi Rolf- Unfortunately folks sometimes think that every change is progress- some are and some arent. And even in good progress good folks sometimes as they say stand on the shoulders of giants.

Of course training tables and training equipment and more availabilty of coaching
and police athletic leagues, junior olympics, GG, AAU, inter school and inter college
and the armed services created a greater pool of talent in the 50s and 60s compared to earlier eras. But people are not as "hungry" these days.The main change is in the heavyweights- they are behemoths now- Marciano was only around 180--- now Lennox Lewis is 250 plus and the older Klitchko is heavier. And even 5 pounds of weight difference when someone is leaning on you while playing games with your balance can tire you out fast. no matter how conditioned you are. Nature at work..

But the late Sugar Ray Robinson by a near consensus remains the greatest of all time. His time finaklly ended but he had someting like near 160 pro fights and almost hundred amateur. That kind of staying power is not in evidence today.Footwork, hand combination and power in both hands. He could knock you out going backwards, Few people today can do that. Klitchko cant. he has to club people again and again.
Bob Fitzimmons' solar plexus knockot punch (Corbett was a victim) was a lulu. With todays head hunters--- most cant do it. A few can---the downing of de la Hoya by Hopkins with a liver punch and Jones' downing one guy with hitting the slats are some exceptions . Fitzimmons hada little shift and weight transfer that powered that punch. He worked on it again and again.

Did you see the recent two part documentary on Jack Johnson. He hada stance closer to some wc stances- and defensive moves vey wc like--- pak sao- cuffing
and defensive skills that many boxers have forgotten. He still will be knowledgeable folks top ten list. he controlled and tied up people.... better than many heavyweights of today can.

On Dempsy- have you read Tunney's good book--he was only about 175 but still probably within the top 15. A kind anonymous wc/wt person -from Chicago methinks gave me a copy. Training for Dempsey's charges--- he trained running backwards a lot. Came in handy!!

The introduction of gloves and their weight changed boxing structure. Without gloves some would stand a liitle more like old timers and hold their hands a little differently. The old timers knew quick cross buttock throws. A few get that these days. The arab Prince Naseem(?) was one of them. Unfortunately he held his hands too low which was his waterloo.

In some sports(specially non contact dramatic improvement has occurred-no question on the gracie-Machado contributions. Football- thas a different and long story-for now.But generally the greatest improvement is in events where
the object is to beat the clock or a fixed mark.

The mano y mano however is not quite the same world. John L Sullivan of around could still say in manya bar- I can lick any man in the house.

Wing chun is about beating the other gouy no matter what it takes- so it develops
a comprehensive list of skills- rather than skills ina fixed sports context. Sure it can be improved and adapted but not by throwing the baby out with the bath water.


WOW and thanks!

There is much in your post to stimulate, inspire, and reflect on.........when are you going to write your book, or have you already answered that question, in the context of your very busy life? :)

Till later.

Rolf

[anerlich]

My point is that Wing Chun concepts AND basic punching can be incorporated successfully into western boxing. This is happening right now here in WA, although still in the developmental stages. It would take too long to explain it all, but it will all become clearer in the next 12 months, as this form of hybrid boxing becomes better known.

Several years ago, one of my sihing's students won two amateur boxing matches using TWC principles and footwork. He trained like a boxer as regards roadwork, rounds, bagwork, skipping, etc. but his technical base was strongly WC. So QLD is at least up there with WA in that regard.

As for "hybrid boxing", I've always seen strong correlations between Dempsey's approach and TWC. My instructor's academy experimented with the falling step ten years ago.

Not to steal your thunder, just to back up your thinking ...


"nine of every ten fellows.....become 'powder puff' punchers or, at best, only fair hitters".

Early Tyson fights, and Kostya himself, have helped redress that balance in more recent times.

[R Clausnitzer]

Several years ago, one of my sihing's students won two amateur boxing matches using TWC principles and footwork. He trained like a boxer as regards roadwork, rounds, bagwork, skipping, etc. but his technical base was strongly WC. So QLD is at least up there with WA in that regard.

As for "hybrid boxing", I've always seen strong correlations between Dempsey's approach and TWC. My instructor's academy experimented with the falling step ten years ago.

Not to steal your thunder, just to back up your thinking ...



Early Tyson fights, and Kostya himself, have helped redress that balance in more recent times.


Good stuff, Anerlich.

Now, a video of the two matches would have dispelled so many doubts amongst some people on this forum :)

Please say hello to David for me if you see him. We corresponded for a while back in the 80's.

Regards.

Rolf

[SimonM]

Or perhaps you have purposely chosen to ignore all of it - as it clearly does not support your utterly materialistic (and therefore inherently erroneous) agenda.


Prove that materialism is inherently erroneous. Bet you you can't in the slightest. Non sequitur; good debate skills there.




Yeah...Marxism has really proven it's inherent value - now hasn't it???!!!

LOL.

Actually yes. Ever heard of feminism? It's theory is derived from Marx. Also Socialism is still one of the most predominant forms of ideological discourse within Academia in Canada and Europe. I don't know about the USA... your spin doctors somehow made Liberal into a dirty word - that was quite a feat, if I wasn't so shocked I'd probably have been impressed.

Tell me - have you read "Capital"? How about the Letters? Even the Communist Manifesto? I have. Don't try to debate Marx with me.