I'd like to see . . .

[t_niehoff]

. . . these things stop being a part of the WCK community:

1. To stop using "history" to market or validate what someone is doing. If it works, and works against skilled fighters, they don't need the history to market it or validate it. If it doesn't work, paticuarly against skilled fighters, then all the "history" in the world doesn't make it worth a bucket of warm spit.

2. To stop using titles like grandmaster, master, sifu, etc. These do not reflect performance (like a black belt in BJJ does, for example) but are purely (cultural in some cases) honorifics that have no real significance except to some in that group. And it's just more marketing. If they can make what they do work, especially against skilled fighter, then they don't need titles. A person doesn't need to call himself "giant killer" if he has really killed giants. "Rickson" says it all, without a title.

3. Stop "demonstrating" things. Show them in action, in real fighting, or don't show it. If a person can't do it in fighting, then they shouldn't be demonstrating it in the first place. If they can do it in fighting, why won't they show it in that context?

4. Stop the hyperbole. Don't talk about how good someone's instructor is, how WCK is a superior art (for a laugh, Google "superior martial art" and see how everyone makes that claim), etc. It just makes us in WCK look like clowns.

5. Stop with the "theory". Focus on performance. If it helps performance, then great. Show us (see #3) that performance, and we'll be interested.

6. Stop with the "wing chun isn't for sport" excuse. All that says to any genuine fighter is that "I can't make my wing chun work." If someone can fight, they can fight anywhere. If they can't fight, they can't fight anywhere.

7. Stop the role-playing and associated nonsense in WCK. WCK is a fighting method, an approach to fighting and a means to train that approach. If someone wants philosphy, religion, social interaction, mysticism, the "kung fu life", to be someone's "disciple", to be part of a "family", etc. then by all means do that -- just don't bring it to WCK. None of that will help anyone be a better WCK fighter; it only detracts one from being a better fighter. And it just makes the WCK community look silly.

8. Stop with talk or concern about "lineage". See #1, 3, 5, and 7.

All these things are empty, at least in terms of increasing fighting (WCK) performance, and if someone uses them or relies on them, it means what they are saying is empty. And it would be a start toward dealing with those things that are important.

[Losttrak]

9. Have the balls to test yourself, in spite of the chance you might get whooped. Its easy to be top dog in your own little cloister, if you never venture outside its walls.

(This goes for everyone though, not just WCK in particular.)

[Zhuge Liang]

10) stop assuming you're right and everyone else is wrong

11) stop overtly or covertly denigrating other people just because they don't agree with your viewpoints

12) stop assuming the values you have should be shared by everyone else

13) stop needing to feel superior to everyone else

14) stop acting as though you have the right to say and do whatever you want while at the same time trying to deny that right to other people

15) stop putting words into other people's mouths, and then critisizing them for what you put into their mouths

16) stop thinking that just because you think respect should be earned, disrepect is freely given

:) Just playin'. I actually happen to agree with most of what Terrence listed.

Regards,
Alan

[Ultimatewingchun]

So do I.

Terence was right on the money with that post.

[t_niehoff]

Zhuge Liang wrote:

10) stop assuming you're right and everyone else is wrong

**See #3, 5 of my post: if you're using your WCK in fighting and making it work for you (this is **performance** level) then you can at least say you are right -- for you. If someone else is fighting, they can say they are right for them. Two high level boxers or BJJists often do things very differently but they can both make their case because they are able to make it work (in fighting). If someone has never made it work, how can they assume that **they** are right?

11) stop overtly or covertly denigrating other people just because they don't agree with your viewpoints

**If we focus on performance, this happens naturally.

12) stop assuming the values you have should be shared by everyone else

**It depends on what you mean by "values." If we accept that WCK is first and foremost a fighting method (if we don't accept that, well then there's no point even talking about fighting since other things take precedence), then any discussion of skill, how to do things, training, etc. will naturally focus on the values associated with increased performance. If we see WCK as something else, then we will have differing values.

13) stop needing to feel superior to everyone else

**The interesting thing about fighting is that it puts one's ego in check (because you will, no matter how skilled you are, get pounded all the time). There will be no illusions or delusions since you actually see for yourself what you can and cannot do. It's only those that don't fight as part of their training that begin to feel superior (since they "speculate" about these things).

14) stop acting as though you have the right to say and do whatever you want while at the same time trying to deny that right to other people

15) stop putting words into other people's mouths, and then critisizing them for what you put into their mouths

16) stop thinking that just because you think respect should be earned, disrepect is freely given

**Everyone has a right to their opinion: I beleive in the 1st Amendment. But opinions, like individuals, in and of themselves, aren't always to be respected. Some opinions are simply wrong or silly or injurious, etc. Anyone can come onto a forum and post anything -- do we respect them for it? Anyone can teach WCK and call themselves "master" or "grandmaster". If you practice BJJ, who would you listen too -- someone that has never rolled or fought but has opinions on how to train, who is good, how to do certain things, etc. or someone that has fought successfully with their BB against skilled fighter, who has proven they can make what they do work, etc.?

**The whole point of my post -- which you seem to have missed -- is that IMO we in WCK need to focus on *performance*, our **proven** ability to use WCK in fighting (where it is meant to be used), and if we do that, the rest will take care of itself. If we focus on anything other than performance (history, titles, hyperbole, marketing, lineage, etc.) as indicators that we know what we are talking about, then it only means we don't know what we are talking about.

[Kevin Bell]

**The whole point of my post -- which you seem to have missed -- is that IMO we in WCK need to focus on *performance*, our **proven** ability to use WCK in fighting (where it is meant to be used), and if we do that, the rest will take care of itself. If we focus on anything other than performance (history, titles, hyperbole, marketing, lineage, etc.) as indicators that we know what we are talking about, then it only means we don't know what we are talking about.

Seems to me you got a book in you Terence based on the above, but then again it may only sell well if you talk about the angle of Taan Sau :) :) Comprimise and call it "applying the angle of Taan Sau in the urban environment" ;)

[Zhuge Liang]

Hi Terrence,


**The whole point of my post -- which you seem to have missed -- ...

LOL, it appears we've talked past one another...again. In any case, I did agree with most of the points you made in your original post, as I've already said. But I guess even when I agree with you I'm wrong :D. In any case, you listed a bunch of points you'd like wc people to adhere to in an ideal world and I simply added a few more.

Cheers,
Alan

[Tom Kagan]

**The whole point of my post -- which you seem to have missed -- is that IMO we in WCK need to focus on *performance*, our **proven** ability to use WCK in fighting (where it is meant to be used), and if we do that, the rest will take care of itself. If we focus on anything other than performance (history, titles, hyperbole, marketing, lineage, etc.) as indicators that we know what we are talking about, then it only means we don't know what we are talking about.

According to Marc MacYoung, there are five focuses of martial arts (http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/four_focuses.html), not just your "fighting" focus.

So, in the spirit of your posts which put forth your theory that your focus alone is the arbiter of what is and is not Ving Tsun, I'm going to ask you to first prove your theory.

Prove to me that Ving Tsun Paai is meant for a focus characterized as "a dead-end" by the aforementioned source. Disprove that it was meant for Tradition/physical art/self-discipline. Show that its focus was not to build the spirit and health. List where it was successfully and consistently used in sport/tournaments geared toward what you consider "real fighting". Show that it was not geared toward demonstrations in its blueprints.

Unless you can do this, then all you have is your own theory as to what the focus of Ving Tsun is truly for. And, unless you can prove your theory, it remains just a theory - even if you yourself can go around opening cans o'whoopass on any and everyone not armed with a taser or handgun - or a Buick LeSabre.


To focus on performance infers that that a practitioner does not wish to make it about one's ego or image, not your inference that Ving Tsun is meant to be used for fighting. This is because any and all possible uses of this art has a clear way of focusing on performance and minimizing the intrusion of the ego and its image consciousness.

Fighting does not have the monopoly on performance as a gauge of effectiveness if it is the primary focus for a given Martial Art. And, it certainly does nothing, in and of itself as a distinct focus, to minimize the intrusion of the ego and its image on performance metrics.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Wing Chun, like every other martial art, SHOULD be based on performance.

That's not to say that other things aren't important, such as what was listed in the article by Mark Mac Young that Tom Kagan referenced.

But I think it's clear, whether we want to take issue with Terence's single-minded and myopic view that to demonstrate proof that you can fight (and have fought) with your martial art is the ONE AND ONLY criteria to use when judging a martial art or an individual within the art...

regardless of what one thinks of Terence's insistence that this is the one and only way to go...

the fact still remains that Wing Chun has within it's borders a very substantial amount of people who make all kinds of claims about themselves (and their version of the art)...THAT THEY HAVE NEVER BACKED UP...

by demonstrating that they indeed CAN fight using wing chun, and that they can fight WELL.

Too many self proclaimed grandmasters, masters, sifus, experts, legends, champions, fighters of "hundreds" of streetfights that no one has witnessed, and on and on.

Now some can argue that this is the case within every martial art; but in point of fact, I can't think of even one other art with NUMEROUS people making those kinds of claims...

that doesn't have some sort of OBJECTIVE venue (ie.- tournaments, transparent ranking systems that includes actually fighting/sparring in order to attain a rank, etc.) to lend some some sort of validation to the fighting "claims" being made.

Sure there are people who may make (and have made) spurious claims about being a "champion" in karate, kickboxing, wrestling, jiu jitsu, judo, TKD, etc...

but at least there are records kept and events recorded within these other arts.

Just one case in point: anybody remember Jean Claude Van Dam's claim at one time to being THE FORMER "European kickboxing champion" ?

Well...it was researched.

And it was found that Jean Claude Van Varenberg (his real name) participated in exactly ONE low level karate/kickboxing tournament in Belgium, back in the day. A tournament that had no real ranking (or recognition) within the European martial arts community at that time. Certainly not a "championship status" type event.

So he was exposed as being much less than what he claimed to be.

How do you do that if there are NO VENUES WHATSOEVER within a given martial art (ie.- wing chun).

Now my point is this: I'm NOT saying that there aren't some very skilled wing chun FIGHTERS - even though they never fought in an organized event - because I know such people do exist (and have existed).

But there's just way too much smoke and mirrors being used by numerous people involved in this art.

And because of that, I think the spirit of what Terence has been saying, if not the "letter of it"...is correct.

[t_niehoff]

Who gives a sh1t what Marc "The Animal" MacYoung -- someone who has never proven he could do anything besides write funny books -- says? He's not a martial artist, he's not a fighter . . . he's a role-player who sells books about role-playing to folks that want to role-play. So, it's not surprising that he advocates role-playing as part of martial arts.

The focus of martial arts is fighting -- you can get all those "other things" outside of martial arts but you can't get the fighting from those "other things."

[Fresh]

Who gives a sh1t what Marc "The Animal" MacYoung -- someone who has never proven he could do anything besides write funny books -- says? He's not a martial artist, he's not a fighter . . . he's a role-player who sells books about role-playing to folks that want to role-play. So, it's not surprising that he advocates role-playing as part of martial arts.

The focus of martial arts is fighting -- you can get all those "other things" outside of martial arts but you can't get the fighting from those "other things."

Evasive manuver. :D You've become a top notch troll, T. Gotta hand you that much! :p

[Tom Kagan]

Who gives a sh1t what Marc "The Animal" MacYoung -- someone who has never proven he could do anything besides write funny books -- says? He's not a martial artist, he's not a fighter . . . he's a role-player who sells books about role-playing to folks that want to role-play. So, it's not surprising that he advocates role-playing as part of martial arts.

The focus of martial arts is fighting -- you can get all those "other things" outside of martial arts but you can't get the fighting from those "other things."


LOL. Using the basis of your theory to launch an an ad-hominem attack on the citation so that you can come full circle back to the conclusion of your theory, then restating your theory, is not proof.

You can get the fighting outside of martial arts, too - and probably a lot better and quicker depending on where one lives and what's their demeanor.

So why fight? What is its purpose? Can you come up with a reason to fight where not only is martial arts useful in such a scenario, but that another avenue of study wouldn't be better equipped to provide the tools to achieve that end (beyond Marc MacYoung's five, that is)? And if what you say is true, that there are better ways to achieve the ends of each of even the "five focuses", then the conclusion must be that there is absolutely no reason for fighting within the context of what your focus of martial arts defines as fighting (one-on-one, hand-to-hand, face-to-face, fair-and-square, with or without rudimentary weapons - or something close).

And, if that is the case, then there actually is no real need for martial arts and there is no real focus whatsoever to martial arts - not even fighting.

...well, other than focusing on art itself. But what is art if not a personal expression of beauty?

:cool:

[azwingchun]

I am usually just a spectator here and very seldom stick my nose into these types of discussions (as I think I have stated before). Because I feel this is a no win situation, at least in my opinion.

I guess what really gets me a bit, is the fact that people need to feel that is's their job call people out or to be the Wing Chun police. Why are people so concerned with what claims are made by Joe Blow? Jean Claude Van Dam made some claims! So what?!?!?!? Did it truly affect you and me? Same goes with any particular Wing Chun instructor. I am of the belief that if someone makes a claim....then great. It isn't what I would do, or how I teach, and that's ok!


Too many self proclaimed grandmasters, masters, sifus, experts, legends, champions, fighters of "hundreds" of streetfights that no one has witnessed, and on and on.

And?!?!?!? many if not all the peopel have never seen any one on this forum in a true street fight. Do I need to see a video tape of Victor Parlati fighting in the streets to believe that he knows what he is doing? No, I take your word for it, whether true or not......it isn't for me to decide. And if I did see you in a real life conflict and lose (which anyone who has fought enough, has surely lost a few), does this mean Victor sucks, or his Wing Chun sucks? No, you just lost that day!

Remember, you don't have to believe in something for it to be true or a fact.


But there's just way too much smoke and mirrors being used by numerous people involved in this art.

Still not sure why this matters or how it affetcs you, me or anyone else?


Wing Chun, like every other martial art, SHOULD be based on performance.

Agreed! But who sets those standards? You? Me? Or the next generation of instructors? There will always be those who feel that it is them, regardless of what you and I think. And on any given day in the street either could prove themselves correct!


Too many self proclaimed grandmasters, masters, sifus, experts, legends, champions, fighters of "hundreds" of streetfights that no one has witnessed, and on and on.

And?!?!?!? What's in a title....I know people who wear no title such as these and still make these claims. Again, makes no difference to me and shouldn't to anyone else if they are confident in their own skills and abilities.

Lastly, I truly try not to worry myself about what others say, I feel it takes too much time and is somewhat school yard to even care. Not to mention, if I went around proving myself to everyone, I would never have time for anything else. And regardless of claims and titles, I try to spend my time learning from what they have to say.

Though these are just my opinions, just as yours are yours.....they don't mean much. ;)

[Ultimatewingchun]

azwingchun:

Why take my word for it? (that I can fight well in the street)

Why assume that I'm REALLY deserving of the title Sifu?

Or that Master John Doe REALLY is a Master?

And if it turns out that all three of the above statements are false...

Doesn't phoniness bother you? (Obviously it doesn't).

But it bothers me.

And it's starting to bother a lot of other people as well.

Otherwise...we wouldn't be talking to each other about this issue as often as we do.

There's too much fluff in wing chun.

This is from another current thread, but it fits this one like a glove:

"Right now my right knee is killing me because I refuse to stop training even after severely tearing the LCL. The ring finger on my right hand has been swollen, stiff, and painful for two weeks, but I just tape it up and keep going back to training. My girlfriend is ****ed that I dont spend enough time with her and even when I do spend time with her, my mind is on jiujitsu. Instead of working my ass of at my career, Im following the sport bjj scene to find out who's on top and how they got there. Basically, for the last 8+ years I have been really obsessed with this grappling/jiujitsu thing and I am thankfully not a black belt yet.

A black belt should mean something. It should mean that, without a doubt, you have proven that you have put in your time and blood to improve yourself. The path to it should be extremely hard and at times very discouraging because none of the necessary skills come easily or quickly. While 4 year olds get their black belts in TKD and everyone and their mothers take up karate, I want to know that the art I train is too tough for most people."

There's too much fluff in wing chun.

[Gangsterfist]

One thing I would like to toss out to be devil's advocate here.

STOP CARING WHAT OTHER PEOPLE DO!

It does not effect you or your training. Honestly, when it comes to working out with people I give a rats arse about lineage, grand master this, cerfitied this, won this many street fights this, or grand UFC champion. I only care if you can positively effect my training and have a good impact on my kung fu.

So, some of you are fed up with the BS and the politics and you demand to standardize stuff, or you want people to start doing, what YOU think is right.

Terrance,

MA training is not about fighting, fighting is the basics of what you get. You get so much more from MA training. Kung Fu training has changed my life in many positive ways. I work out now hard core at least twice a week, and do light work outs inbetween. I am healthier, and have better posture, and I can now learn to relax my body more. We are not warriors, we do not need to defend our lives at all times. Sure, you may have that occasional conflict with life where it throws some danger in your path and you must fight. Then, only then will the fighting part really matter.

I have been in 4 real fights in the last 3 years. All of them were multiple attackers vs multiple attackers, all of them ended really quick, and all of them involved some drunks.

Now, I will agree to you for some extent, you need to yield skills when training for several or more years of a MA. Otherwise you are probably doing something wrong. I do heavy sparring, even against multiple attackers. Its continous with all strikes allowed and protective gear. We also cover all ranges of combat, and I now, actually have some formal Jiu Jitsu training. So my ground game is not pathetic anymore. I also work out with my ground game and occasionally we do bull in the ring which beats the utter carp outta you no matter who you are.

All in all, I do not care how YKS, HFY, YM, Cho, whatever train, or how they do their system. I don't care what lineage you come from. If you can teach me new stuff that adds to my game and does not take away you are good in my book.

So, IMO, you should be concetrating on yourself, and your training partners and not what everyone else is doing. Otherwise, we will always be at conflict with everyone, because everyone will always be different.

[t_niehoff]

Fresh,

There's nothing evasive in my response -- I just wonder why anyone would use "The Animal" as some authority on martial arts when there is no evidence that he's ever really practiced any martial art for any significant period of time, hasn't fought anyone with any skill to demonstrate that he has some (so he's "worked" bars!), etc. He's just another role-player making money off of other role-players. There are lots of snake-oil salesmen in the martial arts. They are easy to recognize.

AZwingchun,

It's about time we start policing ourselves. As it stands now, anyone can claim to be a master or grandmaster, anyone can claim to be an authority on WCK, folks can make up history, etc. WCK is drowning in BS and role-playing, with masters and grandmasters that can't fight their way out of wet paper bags, with anyone able to be a "sifu" and teach nonsense, etc. You believe we don't need to police ourselves?

The question of skill isn't about who has had a "streetfight" -- and btw, anyone, ANYONE, who believes "streetfights" are the ultimate expression of fighting skill (like "The Animal"), has by their belief, shown that they are a nonfighting theoretician scrub -- it's about *performance level*: at what level of skill we can make our WCK work. Performance standards are not "set" by anyone; our performance level is simply what we can do at the moment. The only way to know is to do WCK -- fight -- and see. Of course, the grandmasters and masters and most of the sifu don't want to hear this because they can't perform (fight) at any significant level. Who would want to learn a fighting method from someone that can't fight well? So they avoid showing what they can, or more appropriately, cannot do, by instead doing demonstrations of their "skills" or by "touching hands" or by using other cooperative situations -- anything except fighting skilled fighters and putting it out there for us to judge for ourselves what skills they really have or don't have. The ricebowl and the egos will take quite the beating if folks begin to focus on performance instead of all the BS and marketing. But, if we in WCK don't want to drown in a sea of BS -- and we're already swimming in one -- we need to change direction and focus on performance instead of the BS.

Tom,

Art is in the expression, in the doing, in performance. Mohammed Ali, Rickson Gracies, etc. are artists. Someone that can't make their boxing or BJJ work at a high level is not (yet) an artist. WCK is a fighting method. To express WCK is to fight. One is not "doing" WCK or "expressing" WCK without fighitng. Same with BJJ, MT, boxing, wrestling, etc. If someone wants to lead a "kung fu life" or role-play by bai si-ing and becoming an "indoor disciple" or believe that being a Hare Krishna will make your life better -- that's fine. But it has nothing to do with developing skill, e.g., increasing performance, in fighting (using WCK).

[azwingchun]

Why take my word for it? (that I can fight well in the street)

Maybe you have......who am I to say you haven't......I wasn't there. And what if you don't have any true martial skill, but just won the fight (happens all the time...someone has to win)........does this mean you are a great fighter?!?!?!? What if you have great skill and won this match but lost the last one? Are you a great fighter or were you just lucky?!?!?!? My point being a win doesn't mean someone is good, great or even judged by there experiences.

Again, it has no affect on me and my world whatsoever. Your claims don't make me personally any better or worse.


Why assume that I'm REALLY deserving of the title Sifu?

Well, this kinda gets into another topic in my opinion. Whether you call yourself Sifu, Master, or even Grandmaster holds no bearing on your experiences. What makes someone a Sifu? Or when should someone be called a Sifu? Hmmmmmn...I guess this lays in the hands of whatever organization you train with. Some people hand out belts like there going out of style, some schools make ya really work for it and then there are those that lay somewhere in between. And whether I like it or think it's fair or not, still has no affect in my life. And hopefully your Sifu made you work hard and truly earn it.....for your sake.


Or that Master John Doe REALLY is a Master?

What's a Master????? I would personally never use that term as it gives the impression that I have learned it all. But those that use it, that's fine...if it makes them feel better. ;)


And if it turns out that all three of the above statements are false...

Again, who does it affect? You or them? Not me.


And it's starting to bother a lot of other people as well.

Honestly?!?!?! I really and truly don't know why?!?!?!? If they aren't what they claim to be or what their teachers make them believe they are......then possibly someday they will find out the truth and hopefully move on for their sake.....not mine.


There's too much fluff in wing chun.

This may true, but again, doesn't make me any better or worse.


"Right now my right knee is killing me because I refuse to stop training even after severely tearing the LCL. The ring finger on my right hand has been swollen, stiff, and painful for two weeks, but I just tape it up and keep going back to training. My girlfriend is ****ed that I dont spend enough time with her and even when I do spend time with her, my mind is on jiujitsu. Instead of working my ass of at my career, Im following the sport bjj scene to find out who's on top and how they got there. Basically, for the last 8+ years I have been really obsessed with this grappling/jiujitsu thing and I am thankfully not a black belt yet.

Forgive me, but I am not quite sure what you are getting at here?!?!? Was it that this guy trains hard even when injured and that shows what a great fighter he is? Honestly, not trying to be funny, just didn't get your meaning behind this example.

But if that was the point....it doesn't sound like a very smart fighter. Why not allow yourself to heal, all in the name of being the best?!?!?! A lot of heart yes, but not the smartest thing.


A black belt should mean something. It should mean that, without a doubt, you have proven that you have put in your time and blood to improve yourself.

This is true with any title earned, from a lower level student level ranking to the Master or Sifu rank that's being given. But when you say proven, this throws me off a bit?!?!? Again, proven to who? Himself and his teacher, you, me or the world?


While 4 year olds get their black belts in TKD and everyone and their mothers take up karate, I want to know that the art I train is too tough for most people."

Agree again, but I am sure you don't go around thinking about this all day, I hope you have better things to worry or think about. Sure, I will take your side on this.....when I see this it bugs me at that moment in time, moreso, that the parents are buying into this.....and worse the kid. But it only affects them in the long run.

You know Victor, we can go back and forth about this all day, week or even all year........but in the end, ask yourself what affect does it truly have on you? If I make a claim of add any topic here , and I can't back it up in real life......it is me that should be worried or bugged out by it.......not you my friend. Once again, I hope you have much better things to do then worry about my claims. ;)

[t_niehoff]

You ask why worry about this stuff? Well, if our goal is to (significantly) increase our performance (fighting) ability by practicing WCK, a fighting method, then we need to ask ourselves two fundamental (there are other related ones) questions:

1) how can I measure my performance (to know whether or not my performance level is increasing and, if so, at what rate?),

and

2) what do I mean by performance?

Since it is our fighting ability we are trying to increase, it is our fighting performance using our WCK tools (the WCK method) that is our "performance". Just like the performance of a boxer or BJJ practitioner or MT stylist is their ability to fight with their tools. Our performance level is the skill level of opponents that we can consistently handle or hang with. That's the same with BJJ or MT or boxing or any other MA. The only way to determine that is by fighting using our WCK.

Moreoever, the only way to to significantly increase that performance level is to include fighting as the focus and as a part of our training, just as does any other fighter.

This is, of course, only important if increased performance is important to you. If other "things" are what motivates you to "practice" WCK, then it may be meaningless to you.

[Gangsterfist]

I agree with terrance in some respects. If I went off and posted everything I have heard from actual sifus about how some people really are I would start a huge flame war. That is because lots of things are infact embelished.

However, it all doesn't matter in the end. None of it does. It matters what you get out of it, and if you decide to pass it down yourself to others someday. To learn and gain from the art, not to get into petty internet fights.

To express wing chun by fighting can be seen as a disgrace as well. Injuring your students, your fellow wing chunners, etc, is not the way to express the art. You should express the art in a positive way and as any martial art, it does infact include fighting. However, to have that mindset that, that is the only way to express the art, then you are missing something. Having the brutish mentality of always fighting (too much yang) seems un appealing to me.

I think if you train the art properly with the right mindset and ego then you are indeed expressing what it truly is. Part of that would be fighting, but definately not the only aspect.

[azwingchun]

It's about time we start policing ourselves.

You couldn't have said it better here...policing "OURSELVES", I don't have time to police you and the martial arts world.


As it stands now, anyone can claim to be a master or grandmaster, anyone can claim to be an authority on WCK, folks can make up history, etc.

You are absolutely correct! But who's to say that they aren't true? Let's not even get into history proof. LOL!!!!! And ranking? Well, that is going to vary from school to school, so kind a moot point.


WCK is drowning in BS and role-playing

You may be correct about some schools, but not all.


You believe we don't need to police ourselves?

Here's a question for you. How do you police every Wing Chun school that is now available in the world today? How about policing our own schools, and feeling great that you, me or whoever has a school, knows that they taught their group very well and to the best of "their" ability? If you ask me, trying to police everyone is a huge responsibility


ANYONE, who believes "streetfights" are the ultimate expression of fighting skill (like "The Animal"), has by their belief, shown that they are a nonfighting theoretician scrub -- it's about *performance level*: at what level of skill we can make our WCK work. Performance standards are not "set" by anyone; our performance level is simply what we can do at the moment.

Why don't street fights fall into the "MOMENT" as you put it? I don't know about the rest of you, but if you call performance lasting 30 minutes in the UFC against Randy Cotoure, then we don't agree. But if you talk about being able to defend yourself in the streets against the average everyday attacker or street thug......then I agree. This is what I train for, and for you and I to be up front with each other, I place a high degree of difference between the two.


we need to change direction and focus on performance instead of the BS.

I can agree here, as long as we agree as mentioned above in my last statement. But at the same time we study Wing Chun, and there is nothing wrong about discussing Wing Chun.....whether that be histories, angles, looking within our systems for answers or what have you. Performance is just one side of it, and there is nothing wrong with that, Wing Chun has many sides......not just chi sao (hopefully). ;)

[kj]

Most present and ongoing arguments are that of position, however detached they may appear, rather than objective essays or comprehensive representations of viewpoint. Including my own of course.

The problem ultimately boils down to an issue of values, for which there is an evident lack of toleration (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=toleration) in some quarters. Endless vituperation (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=vituperation) is unfortunate and unhelpful. Most arguments and "lines in the sand" here are ironic given that issues of ongoing debate are not essentially about martial arts but, again, debates on personal and sometimes even religious values (of which in this day and age, we dare not speak thanks to prevailing political correctness).

Exercises in logic (the domain of intelligence), while entertaining in and of themselves, won't reach to the heart and soul of the matter. If one looks hard enough, there is always a bigger picture (the domain of wisdom). This is no less true in martial arts than in any other human endeavor.

What an odd lot, we humans. From my perspective, anyway.

Regards,
- kj

[azwingchun]

Yeah...what kj said! Though you lost me with 'vituperation'....that one I need to look up! ;)

[kj]

I agree with terrance in some respects.

Many, if not most of us do. To Victor's point, some of us have gotten the "spirit" of it for years. The other way around seems more problematic, and once again the virtual center of forum discussions.

Nicely reflective post, BTW.

Regards,
- kj

[kj]

Back at you, AZ.
- kj

[CarlD]

"The only way to know is to do WCK -- fight -- and see. Of course, the grandmasters and masters and most of the sifu don't want to hear this because they can't perform (fight) at any significant level. Who would want to learn a fighting method from someone that can't fight well? So they avoid showing what they can, or more appropriately, cannot do, by instead doing demonstrations of their "skills" or by "touching hands" or by using other cooperative situations -- anything except fighting skilled fighters and putting it out there for us to judge for ourselves what skills they really have or don't have. The ricebowl and the egos will take quite the beating if folks begin to focus on performance instead of all the BS and marketing. But, if we in WCK don't want to drown in a sea of BS -- and we're already swimming in one -- we need to change direction and focus on performance instead of the BS." (Terrance)


Well lets look at it from the persepctive of golfers. Look at any of the good coaches, take Tiger's old coach Butch Harmon, did he need to play with the best of them to prove that he could coach or teach or that he knows the golf game?

Or do all of the regular golfers have to compete to prove that they are "really golfers"? And who will they compete with, at what level? So they golf 2-3 days a week and sure they cannot compete with the pros that golf everyday. Does that make them non golfers?

Who do you fight with someone that has the same exact time and intensity invested? Same age, same weight, same training? What standards will you use to scientificly judge who has it and who does not? Do really believe that every teacher you meet has to be challenged to determine if they have any skill?

(One of the thoughts that saved me from getting in many fights when I use to frequent bars was how fair can it be that I have thousands of hours of training and the drunk that wants to fight me may have 5 or 10 hours?)

There are many that love wing chun and its ideas but are not at the physical level of a 25 year old. So should they quit Wing Chun?

Regards,

Carl

[Phil Redmond]

Some believe that if your style doesn't compete in UFC/NHB/Cage fights, etc., it's no good for combat. I've heard people talk as if UFC fighters are invincible and can beat every style. The idea that MA are ONLY for fighting seems pretty western to me. What about Mo Duk and Bushido (not BS) Most traditional MAs taught respect, honor, self discipline, etc. as well as fighting. I watched a Demo for World Tai Chi day this past Sat. and the oldest student was a 92 year old woman. Regardless of whether a Tai Chi person can beat a UFC guy Tai Chi is still a MA. This woman was after the health aspects like many others. When the UFC guys get old will they continue to fight to prove themselves and risk injury, or will they just pass on their knowledge of fighting? Does that mean they're not doing MA amymore? I believe in training to fight in order to fight but I don't knock people who are in the arts for other reasons. Some people take piano lesson with no aspirations on being a concert pianist. They simply enjoy playing.

Terence, you practice Criminal Law which I'll presume takes time and research right? Do you have the time to train and practice all out fighting like UFC people? If you don't, wouldn't that make you less skilled than them? If I'm right should you give up WC or try to be the best you can be personally? BTW, what do you call your teacher?
Phil

[Edmund]

CarlD,

You're using reduction to absurdity here.
By stating the extreme case (which can't be true), you're trying to prove the opposite which kind of leaves out the middle case.

A non-elite fighter can not compete with an elite fighter. That simply means they are not elite. They are still using fighting ability as a measure.

In WC, you may see people who have little fighting ability praised for their demonstrations, their lineage, their theories or their marketing. In the end, that has little value.

If the WC world turned it's priorities around and said, "Let's start measuring our fighting ability", wouldn't that be a good thing?

In terms of values, surely that is more important than lineage, demos, marketing, history, etc. I am all for people having different values, but some things I think are inherently of lesser value.





Well lets look at it from the persepctive of golfers. Look at any of the good coaches, take Tiger's old coach Butch Harmon, did he need to play with the best of them to prove that he could coach or teach or that he knows the golf game?

Or do all of the regular golfers have to compete to prove that they are "really golfers"? And who will they compete with, at what level? So they golf 2-3 days a week and sure they cannot compete with the pros that golf everyday. Does that make them non golfers?
...
...
...

There are many that love wing chun and its ideas but are not at the physical level of a 25 year old. So should they quit Wing Chun?

[Redd]

CarlD,

You're using reduction to absurdity here.
By stating the extreme case (which can't be true), you're trying to prove the opposite which kind of leaves out the middle case.

Like no one else ever did that on this forum.

[Redd]

In terms of values, surely that is more important than lineage, demos, marketing, history, etc. I am all for people having different values, but some things I think are inherently of lesser value.

Of lesser value to you.

[Tom Kagan]

Fresh,
Art is in the expression, in the doing, in performance. Mohammed Ali, Rickson Gracies, etc. are artists.

Now you're the arbiter of what is art, too? ;)

By your standard, since both Ali and Rickson are no longer fighting, does that mean they are no longer martial artists? What were Ali and Rickson between fights? What were they before their first fights?

What about any of the people who lost to Ali or Rickson? They obviously cannot successfully express their fighting skill. They took your fighting test, and failed. By your standard, are they or are they not martial artists?

There is a great deal of art in the process - probably more than in a successful result.



You know, becoming the adjudicator of what is and is not Ving Tsun Paai for the entire community of this sub[n] culture is not exactly increasing your fighting ability, either. But regardless of the value of such a role for someone to play, I would never suggest that someone who actively seeks out such a role, such as yourself, is not a martial artist.

Using the title of "martial artist" to bestow on the chosen few that uphold your personal fantasy standard of what a martial artist "should be" is just another form of what you portend to decry. Is the recognition of this for what it is - what I'm sure is the unintended hypocrisy of your argument - the real difference of consequence between you and I? :)

[t_niehoff]

CarlD wrote:

Well lets look at it from the persepctive of golfers. Look at any of the good coaches, take Tiger's old coach Butch Harmon, did he need to play with the best of them to prove that he could coach or teach or that he knows the golf game?

**All golf pros can, or at least could at some time, play the game well -- they can actually get out on the links and have a decent score. Because they can play the game, they can coach the game. If someone in WCK can't "play the game" well, i.e., fight decently, how in the hell are they going to coach anyone?

Or do all of the regular golfers have to compete to prove that they are "really golfers"? And who will they compete with, at what level? So they golf 2-3 days a week and sure they cannot compete with the pros that golf everyday. Does that make them non golfers?

**The difference is that golfers actually play golf: go out on the links, hit the ball, etc. WCK practitioners don't, for the most part, ever practice WCK -- fighting with WCK tools. They do prep work: forms, drills (including chi sao), etc. If you go to a boxing gym, you box; if you go to a BJJ school, you'll roll/spar; it's the same for any genuine martial art. It's doing the activity itself, fighting, that makes them martial artists and gives them skills. If these guys only did the prep work (like WCK people), they'd never get any good either.

Who do you fight with someone that has the same exact time and intensity invested? Same age, same weight, same training? What standards will you use to scientificly judge who has it and who does not? Do really believe that every teacher you meet has to be challenged to determine if they have any skill?

**Go to any good boxing gym or a MMA gym or a BJJ school or a MT school or kyokushinkai school and you'll see all ages, both genders, all sizes represented. But they all get out there and fight (spar realistically). Performance level can only be determined from performance.

(One of the thoughts that saved me from getting in many fights when I use to frequent bars was how fair can it be that I have thousands of hours of training and the drunk that wants to fight me may have 5 or 10 hours?)

**I'm not interested in punching out drunk, unskilled people -- that's no challenge and certainly doesn't demonstrate much in the way of skill. Fighting is a physical performance like any other physical performance.

There are many that love wing chun and its ideas but are not at the physical level of a 25 year old. So should they quit Wing Chun?

**I'm not suggesting they quit WCK -- I'm suggesting just the opposite: that they actually begin practicing WCK. Forms, drills, including chi sao, etc. is not "playing the game", it's not getting out on the golf course. It's like hitting the heavy bag, skipping rope, hitting the focus mitts -- that's the prep work, that's not *boxing*. Boxing is getting in the ring and fighting. That's the objective of the training. In WCK, the objective of the training is to fight with our tools.

**Imagine learning to box or learning BJJ from someone that has never developed any decent level of skill in boxing or BJJ, someone that has never fought (boxed or rolled) with anyone skilled. What are they going to teach you?

**IMO most of the folks "teaching" WCK aren't teaching WCK (beyond a very superficial level), and most who call themselves WCK practitioners have never practiced WCK. They are a bunch of folks that have never gotten into water trying to teach others how to swim and calling themselves swimmers. It's a joke. They can't have skill in WCK (fighting skill) without every practicing WCK. Then they respond by saying they have different "values" other than swimming and that it's nasty to point out that they can't swim.

[sihing]

I agree with terrance in some respects. If I went off and posted everything I have heard from actual sifus about how some people really are I would start a huge flame war. That is because lots of things are infact embelished.

However, it all doesn't matter in the end. None of it does. It matters what you get out of it, and if you decide to pass it down yourself to others someday. To learn and gain from the art, not to get into petty internet fights.

To express wing chun by fighting can be seen as a disgrace as well. Injuring your students, your fellow wing chunners, etc, is not the way to express the art. You should express the art in a positive way and as any martial art, it does infact include fighting. However, to have that mindset that, that is the only way to express the art, then you are missing something. Having the brutish mentality of always fighting (too much yang) seems un appealing to me.

I think if you train the art properly with the right mindset and ego then you are indeed expressing what it truly is. Part of that would be fighting, but definately not the only aspect.

I agree with Gangsterfist on all of his points here. Fighting is but one aspect of WC training and IMO from my experience at this point in my WC training it is the by product of everything I have put into it. I do not claim to be a great "Fighter" because fighting to me means Ego, plain and simple. If someone challenges me to fight and I accept it, that is my Ego expressing it self. Part of WC training is to control and or subdue the Ego, not stroke it. My belief is that if you have high quality skills in WC you will have the ability to defend your self in a self defense situation where physical violence is used against you. Funny thing is that lots on this forum believe that WC teaches no self defense skills and if that is your only concern the best thing to do is read a book or buy a gun or mace, lol. Wing Chun has taught me lots about all the things that happen before physical contact takes place between you and someone attacking you, but more importantly it has given me the ability to NOT worry about it, which reflects in the way people perceive me. For example, when walking in a room and staring down all the men in that room as compared to walking in a room and being aware of the men that are there but not really recognizing them for their existence extracts different responses from them. One will make you a target and the other won't. I have friends and fellow students that do this all the time and get into trouble for that, and others that don't and avoid trouble although both types frequent the same types of places in society.

Simply put IMO if fighting is your primary concern in WC training then you are still at the basic/primary level of understanding, when it comes to MA and what you really get out of it. Yes, fighting effectiveness is important and I wouldn't be doing WC today if it was not as effective as it is, as that is one of the things that appeals to me, but it is not the only thing that I appreciate about the art.

James

[azwingchun]

Well said!

[t_niehoff]

I guess by that rationale then if being able to fight is your objective in boxing or BJJ or whatever, you'reat some basic level of understanding. Developing skill -- increased fighitng performance -- is the objective of any martial art; otherwise, we don't need to practice any martial art. Performance can only be measured and increased by performance. No performance means no way to measure and no significant increase in performance. The forms, drills, etc. will not *by themselves* incease your ability to fight (using WCK's tools); those need to be coupled with fighting itself.

Of course, I understand that folks that can't fight will try to rationalize their inability and lack of skill by focusing on "other values" -- the "WCK is about more than fighting." Perhaps it is about more than fighting. But fighting still remains a significant aspect of any fighting method. How can anyone say they have skill in WCK if they can't use it skillfully?

There are two WCKs IMO. There is the WCK, which like tai ji, has become a pseudo-martial art, that focuses on nonfighting: drills, forms, cooperative play (chi sao or push hands). You can do that forever and never develop any significant fighting skill. Then there is the WCK that is a martial art, and it needs to be trained like a martial art. How do martial artists train? Look at anyone with significant fighting skills and you see they follow, with some variation, the same training model: forms (not necessarily linked set but forms nonetheless), drills, supplementary exercises, and fighting. What model you follow will tell you which WCK you practice.

[Ultimatewingchun]

"The ricebowl and the egos will take quite the beating if folks begin to focus on performance instead of all the BS and marketing. But, if we in WCK don't want to drown in a sea of BS -- and we're already swimming in one -- we need to change direction and focus on performance instead of the BS." (Terence)

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

"In WC, you may see people who have little fighting ability praised for their demonstrations, their lineage, their theories or their marketing. In the end, that has little value.

If the WC world turned it's priorities around and said, "Let's start measuring our fighting ability", wouldn't that be a good thing?

In terms of values, surely that is more important than lineage, demos, marketing, history, etc. I am all for people having different values, but some things I think are inherently of lesser value." (Edmund)

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

These two posts by Terence and Edmund go right to the heart of the matter - and as I stated on the A MODEL TO CONSIDER thread, an ongoing and institutionalized Wing Chun Sparring Tournament scene would go A LONG WAY toward addressing the issues that are at hand.

Because if done well, and fairly, and actual fighting/sparring ability is the ONLY MEASURE that is used to decide who wins and who loses each match...then we will begin to have at least one OBJECTIVE standard method to judge one's knowledge and ability within Wing Chun...(not the only way, as I've been saying)...but a VERY IMPORTANT standard of measure it will be...put in place for all to see, and to judge on their own.

Without marketing, and overblown egos and wild unsubstantiated claims - because PERFORMANCE will be the final arbiter.

And if someone's rice bowl can't handle performance - that's their problem.

And if some people aren't interested in such tournaments, that doesn't mean that they should quit wing chun...they can do what they want. And when someone is too old to continue in such a venue, or has some other situation that precludes them getting involved (or staying involved) in tournaments...that's fine. And they shouldn't be judged negatively because of it.

But at least the venue will be there for those who are interested in an objective standard of measure for one's wing chun fighting ability.

[t_niehoff]

It's quite simple -- "skill in WCK" is our performance level in fighting with our WCK tools/method. WCK is fighting. No fighting, no WCK. It's not how our forms look, how well we can play chi sao, or how we can spout theory. Nor is it about what our lineage is, whether we are an inner-disciple, and associated nonsense. WCK is a fighting method and our skill in a fighting method is how well we can use that method to fight. If you can't fight well, then you have little skill. Period. You can add things on to it if you want to, but the core is about fighting.

Some folks want to think that "skill" in forms or skill in drills or skill in chi sao will translate into skill in fighting. But the evidence is overwhelming that to get good at any activity requires we actually perform that activity. All good fighters -- the proven ones and not the hypothetical ones -- fight as part of their training. What make Wong Sheung Leung, Sum Nung, Leung Jan, etc. as good as they were? They fought. In the old days, they couldn't fight like we can today (with protective equipment, etc.) so they did it the old-fashioned way. Today, we can improve on their training methods. We can fight much more, use better training methods, etc.

The bottom line is this: one's WCK (fighting) skill is directly related to how much fighting they've done and the level of competition they've been exposed to. If someone never fought, they can't have developed much in the way of WCK (fighting) skill.

[Samson]

I have been reading this forum for some time now and will have to say T. Nieoff is on the money. In order to improve ones skill you must fight (Iron sharpens iron like man sharpens man) I have been involved in martial arts for at least 10 years now and the karate school I belonged to you had a choice to fight or just learn the art but were highly encouraged to fight. I have had a chance to spar with some wing chun guys in the states and in Germany the ones here in the states for the most part could not fight at all, they were high rank students but lacked hands on experience this is do to the teahers, they were out of shape and afraid to get hit. When in Germany it was a different story they were some tough sob's in order to rank in their system you had to spar so many hours and also full contact, their instructors were very tough and hardened more like military training.
Many handed my arse to me sparring. The Wing Chun here for the most part is very soft ( can't speak for all just the ones I saw) Why study a fighting art and not fight is silly those people that do so just want to say I'm a black sash in Wing Chun
with no evidence. T. Neoff keep lighting the fire and it will get hotter.

[Samson]

Well Madison, all I said was he speaks the truth Lawyer or not, I do not study wing chun but like the principles I wrestled for 6 years and now study TKD and I get good workouts so If it don't apply let it fly did not come on to argue.

[Edmund]

Of lesser value to you.

I'm not sure I take your point as one phrase does not make an argument.
I agree that people have different values however some things are inherently lesser in value *to everyone*.

(sigh) I see an endless argument thread coming for no reason again.




Let me state it in this way:
1. Surely fighting skills have *some* value to WC practitioners.

2. Then it would be valuable to have means to measure those skills so WC practitioners can improve them.

[Edmund]

These two posts by Terence and Edmund go right to the heart of the matter - and as I stated on the A MODEL TO CONSIDER thread, an ongoing and institutionalized Wing Chun Sparring Tournament scene would go A LONG WAY toward addressing the issues that are at hand.

Because if done well, and fairly, and actual fighting/sparring ability is the ONLY MEASURE that is used to decide who wins and who loses each match...then we will begin to have at least one OBJECTIVE standard method to judge one's knowledge and ability within Wing Chun...(not the only way, as I've been saying)...but a VERY IMPORTANT standard of measure it will be...put in place for all to see, and to judge on their own.


I definitely think it would give WC people an avenue that they don't really have at the moment. By taking some ownership of the rules/format, they get a chance to address all the issues and problems that WC people have. Things like safety, possible injury, equipment and allowable techniques were mentioned and addressed in that thread.

I think it will take a combination of:
Having the attitude in WC that fighting skills are worth measuring.
Having a suitable available avenue/method to do it.

As of now, neither seems to exist.

[canglong]

It's about time we start policing ourselves. As it stands now, anyone can claim to be a master or grandmaster, anyone can claim to be an authority on WCK, folks can make up history, etc. Terence,
You left off the part that says and anyone can claim to know absolutely what Wing Chun is for. ...and once again the readers of this forum are left to ponder who is this WE .

[t_niehoff]

"We" means each of us. The BS only keeps going -- and growing -- because we let it. It's easy to get the BS out of our WCK lives, if we really want to. But I'm afraid that most do not. They want the BS because it feeds into their fantasies, their role-playing, their egos, etc. And the grandmasters, the masters, the sifu want it because it keeps their rice bowl full.

[canglong]

Don't be concerned with repuations or stories or these sorts of things -- be concerned with developing your own skill.

Sounds good.

[Airdrawndagger]

WCK is about fighting plan and simple, but that is not to say that you cant practice this art for other benifits. T_niehoff wrote (paraphrasing here) that he would like to not see people bowing to each other, no theory, religion(dont see to much religion in WC). Even removing the titles of GM or sifu? Real fighting demos? Demos are the only way to share with an audience with out anyone getting hurt. Do you prepose that on the next demo the sifu picks a fight with a stranger to prove a tech? I think we would see alot of sifus in jail!
You want to basically change the cultural fabric that makes up this art. Unfortunatly to some, WC is chinese art and us americans are just going to half to put up with some cultural differences here. Every martial art has these aspects in it, its life not to much you can do about it.
Some people just want to fight and thats it. But if you strip WC of all the forms, drills, chi sao etc, then what are you left with? How can you teach/learn WC without these fundamental aspects? Just fight? Ridiculous! WC will whiter away and the quality of practicioners will fade to black.
Fighting is the ultimate challange/proof of your true ability but you will never be able to fight proficiently if you don't properly train in the drills, chi sao, and forms to get there! PEOPLE- these things are there for a reason! Stop trying to reinvent the wheel! It is not broke, so stop trying to fix it.
There is a lot of points that I disagree with when Victor writes but I will say that I totally support the idea of more sparring and perhaps more tourn. with WC. I live in FL and so far for this entire year 2005 there are no tournaments ANYWHERE! for kung fu that I have found. I have to go to CALI or NY to compete in a tournament. I dont even like tournaments but they are closer to fighting then sparring with your classmates! Its good to feel the energy of a skilled stranger then constantly training with your class and is a great way to test your true ability (for the most part). Not the end all training method but a VERY good way to test yourself and trim through the BS. The worst thing you can do is not test yourself and assume that you can beat someone!
ADD

[Gangsterfist]

I agree that fighting, sparring, etc is a very good tool to use for training, but however its not absolutly needed. I know a guy who spars, but has only gotten into one fight in his ENTIRE life, and he is a very good martial artist and he won that fight. The fight was actually against another MAist, it was over something stupid I assume, I never actually saw the fight. I haven't been in a one on one fight since highschool. All the fights I have gotten myself into over these last years have been multiple opponet vs multiple opponet, and its almost always involved with someone or all of us being drunk :cool: What can I say I am in my mid 20s. To be honest with you wing chun basic helped and nothing else really mattered in my fighting experience. I use very BASIC techniques. Just punches kicks and pak saos. Remaining calm was probably the best thing you can do in a fight.

However, this thread seems to be way over yang. I feel that you guys are telling the world IT HAS TO BE your way or it doesn't work. While I agree that continous sparring at all ranges of combat helps your game out indeed, I also digress that its not the only way to train and the world does not need to do what I do.

I think if we are going to promote wing chun in a positive manner we need to change some of our mannerisms here. Approach things in a more open and considerate way. Wing chun will probably never be standardized due to all the different lineages and people are preserving them for how they are.

Fighting is not absolutely needed to be good. I know people who barely spar and focus more on training and refining, sparring is a very small part of their training. Their skill is still great because they train hard, harder than most people perhaps. They train 4 to 8 hours a day sometimes. If you add up all their hours per a week and divide it up into training categories, sparring would be near the bottom of their training. I do agree that sparring and fighting can help you in other ways, and it lets you know for strengths and weaknesses.

So, what I would like to see, is not everyone coming out and telling what it has to be. I used to get kinda mad like you Terrence when I would read a wing chun article in a magazine that was utter crap, and talked about secret hidden techniques blah blah blah. Read the Yip Man quote in my sig, there are NO SECRET OR UNSTOPPABLE MANUEVERS! Now, it doesn't bother me, I just train what I do and I now cross train and learn other stuff. I went to a weekend long ground fighting jiu jitsu seminar a few weeks ago and learned a ton on ground fighting. I just look to expand my knowledge and let the other people do what they want. It doesn't effect me, I effect me.

[Samson]

Well I can agree that the majority will never get into a street fight, so if you do not spar or full contact when do you get to use these skills that you trained so hard for and all the money you spent, like buying a new car just to wax it and never drive and say (man this car handles great fastest car ever but never drove it) what a waste. IRON SHARPEN IRON LIKE MAN SHARPENS MAN

[t_niehoff]

ADD,

Yes, I do submit that we need to change the "cultural fabric" of WCK. Times have changed, technology has changed, our knowledge about increasing physical performance has increased, fighting skills overall have improved greatly, and WCK to be viable needs to keep up with those changes. Cornish wrestling may have been "da bomb" in 18th century Cornwall, but it's no longer the 18th century and we're not stuck in Cornwall. Nor is it the 1850s and we're not stuck on the Red Boats (nor is it the 1600s and we're not stuck in the Shaolin Temple). It's simple: if you want to be a fighter (develop significant fighting skill), you need to train like a fighter. Regardless of whether your fighting method originates in China or Japan or Brazil or Thailand or Europe. If you don't train like a fighter, you'll never develop any significant fighting (WCK) skill. Period.

The "culture" of most TCMAs, including WCK, is a fantasy-based culture. The TCMAs basically sell fantasy, role-playing, etc. This culture doesn't foster the development of good fighters. It is the antithesis of what fosters good fighters. And so when you see folks focusing on that stuff, it only means they're not focusing on the things that will help them develop into good fighters.

I've never suggested that we strip WCK of the forms, drills, etc. Of course you need them -- no one would suggest that you strip boxing of shadow boxing, skipping rope, hitting the heavy bag, hitting the focus mitts, etc. either. But doing the forms, drills, chi sao will never *by itself* develop good WCK/fighting skills. Never. That is prep work. Fighting skills come from fighting. All fighters recognize this and all fighters fight as part of their training. Those who don't fight as part of their training,simply never develop significant skill. So I'm simply saying that if you want to develop WCK fighting skill in today's world (and skill is relative; what was good by standards 200 years ago isn't good today), you need to train like a fighter. That model already exists. You're right, we don't need to reinvent the wheel.

[Samson]

http://www.bullshido.com/videos/wvk.asx

[sihing]

I agree that fighting, sparring, etc is a very good tool to use for training, but however its not absolutly needed. I know a guy who spars, but has only gotten into one fight in his ENTIRE life, and he is a very good martial artist and he won that fight. The fight was actually against another MAist, it was over something stupid I assume, I never actually saw the fight. I haven't been in a one on one fight since highschool. All the fights I have gotten myself into over these last years have been multiple opponet vs multiple opponet, and its almost always involved with someone or all of us being drunk :cool: What can I say I am in my mid 20s. To be honest with you wing chun basic helped and nothing else really mattered in my fighting experience. I use very BASIC techniques. Just punches kicks and pak saos. Remaining calm was probably the best thing you can do in a fight.

However, this thread seems to be way over yang. I feel that you guys are telling the world IT HAS TO BE your way or it doesn't work. While I agree that continous sparring at all ranges of combat helps your game out indeed, I also digress that its not the only way to train and the world does not need to do what I do.

I think if we are going to promote wing chun in a positive manner we need to change some of our mannerisms here. Approach things in a more open and considerate way. Wing chun will probably never be standardized due to all the different lineages and people are preserving them for how they are.

Fighting is not absolutely needed to be good. I know people who barely spar and focus more on training and refining, sparring is a very small part of their training. Their skill is still great because they train hard, harder than most people perhaps. They train 4 to 8 hours a day sometimes. If you add up all their hours per a week and divide it up into training categories, sparring would be near the bottom of their training. I do agree that sparring and fighting can help you in other ways, and it lets you know for strengths and weaknesses.

So, what I would like to see, is not everyone coming out and telling what it has to be. I used to get kinda mad like you Terrence when I would read a wing chun article in a magazine that was utter crap, and talked about secret hidden techniques blah blah blah. Read the Yip Man quote in my sig, there are NO SECRET OR UNSTOPPABLE MANUEVERS! Now, it doesn't bother me, I just train what I do and I now cross train and learn other stuff. I went to a weekend long ground fighting jiu jitsu seminar a few weeks ago and learned a ton on ground fighting. I just look to expand my knowledge and let the other people do what they want. It doesn't effect me, I effect me.

Again I agree with what Gangsterfist has to say here. Sparring will help, and at some point it will be needed to be implemented in one's training to "Test" (and that is what it is, otherwise if you claim you are fighting each week in the kwoon to the death that is BS) one's skills under pressure similar to that of a actual physical confrontation on the street (where it really matters, regardless of how skilled the NHB fighters are, and they are skilled indeed and I respect that, streetfights are more stressful due to the unpredictable nature and the fact that they usually end up in a unfair advantage for the other guy when his buds step in to help out, you vs. 4 guys with no ref).

Concerning fantasy fu and other unsubstantiated claims, if people out there are doing such things or promoting such things, then shame on them. In our kwoon we make no such claims to prospective students entering the kwoon to learn what we teach. Just yesterday I had a prospect in the school, he had a couple of years of experience in another style and I was relating some WC history to him. During the conversation I said to him that IMO I believe WC is the most effective system available today, but this does not mean you will be "Unbeatable" or the "Deadliest" man alive if you learn our system, just that it can allow you to be your most effective when you need it the most. I myself have no Illusions of Grandeur, as know I am not unbeatable or invincible, as know one is, William Cheung, Emin Boztepe or Gary Lam all have weaknesses and can "Slip on the banana peel" as Victor P mentioned in another thread. But all these people, and many others, have high quality skills which translates to others that want to attack them physically as a HUGE BARRIER. The larger the barrier is the harder it is for them to complete their task, which is to hurt you. WC provides a barrier to those that want to do such things to others, and depending on which WC one learns and who they learn it from, and also how intensely one trains to obtain such skills, will determine how large that barrier will be for them.


James

[anerlich]

It's about time we start policing ourselves.

"Ourselves" being the operative word.

My academy, and I personally, are extremely concerned with our own standards and abilities, and that the claims of what we offer to prospective students can be backed up, both within our own circle and by other martial artists who we work with or compete against.

It's not our business to tell anyone else who does Wing Chun how to behave or what to aspire to. To be blunt, we have little to do with other WC organisations and have no interest in how they are perceived, only in what we are doing. The brilliance or naffness of other WC people out there concerns us not in the slightest. We wouldn't ride on anyone else's coat tails even if that might benefit us reputation wise or financially.

You guys are on your own. ;)

[sihing]

"Ourselves" being the operative word.

My academy, and I personally, are extremely concerned with our own standards and abilities, and that the claims of what we offer to prospective students can be backed up, both within our own circle and by other martial artists who we work with or compete against.

It's not our business to tell anyone else who does Wing Chun how to behave or what to aspire to. To be blunt, we have little to do with other WC organisations and have no interest in how they are perceived, only in what we are doing. The brilliance or naffness of other WC people out there concerns us not in the slightest. We wouldn't ride on anyone else's coat tails even if that might benefit us reputation wise or financially.

You guys are on your own. ;)

We believe the same as Anerlich and his organization, here in Canada. What happens in other WC clans has no bearing on us or what we do or teach. Good post Andrew.

James

[azwingchun]

I agree, I need to watch nothing more than my own front yard!

[Edmund]

The phrase was "police ourselves" not "make up any sort of art you like for yourselves".

Once again it falls down to some WC people wanting their right to their bizarre perspective as if all views are equally valid.

"You don't own me! Why can't WC be about fairies, interpretive dance and rainbows?"

It's not about telling people how to behave.

It's about sharing common goals and values. (Kinda laughable since it seems that we don't.)

[Redd]

It's about sharing common goals and values. (Kinda laughable since it seems that we don't.)

That point has already been made and laughed at. Welcome to ridicule.

[Edmund]

That point has already been made and laughed at. Welcome to ridicule.

Obviously the BS has already taken over in some cases.

[anerlich]

It's about sharing common goals and values.

Maybe we have some, but realistically we are never going to get any closer than this forum to see whether that is true or not. This is an internet forum, mainly used to waste time at work. Only a fool would take seriously anything anyone said here.

Who adjudicates? The VTAA? The VT Museum? You? None of the above for me, thanks.


"You don't own me! Why can't WC be about fairies, interpretive dance and rainbows?"

Whatever floats your boat.


The phrase was "police ourselves"

Indeed it was. so go do that and stop your whining.

[Edmund]

I think I'd rather take everyone's post a little seriously where it's warrented rather than just playing a sullen devil's advocate and be dismissive because it's only the internet.

[anerlich]

I think I'd rather take everyone's post a little seriously where it's warrented rather than just playing a sullen devil's advocate and be dismissive because it's only the internet.

I was doing that until I saw this:

"You don't own me! Why can't WC be about fairies, interpretive dance and rainbows?"

As for "sullen", I think you got way more of that than me on this thread ...

[kj]

Yes, I do submit that we need to change the "cultural fabric" of WCK. Times have changed, technology has changed, our knowledge about increasing physical performance has increased, fighting skills overall have improved greatly, and WCK to be viable needs to keep up with those changes.

Why does Wing Chun "need" anything? Wing Chun isn't a person or even an entity.

If you don't feel Wing Chun meets today's needs (or more specifically, your needs) doesn't it make more sense to change what you do instead of launching a crusade to change Wing Chun or virtually everyone else? Why not focus on and practice something "proven" and "modern" instead, like the ever praised MMA or BJJ? Why does "Wing Chun" have to change to suit your or "today's" needs? (Whoever "today" is ...) Other than your personal preference and pride (in the art, ego, or both), or a power trip (e.g., the self-appointed "police") I fail to understand the premises behind your conclusions.

Your arguments have (over the long haul, even if inadvertently) supported the notion that Wing Chun is not "needed" for anything, including elective fighting which is the only end (purpose) you've thus far proposed or acknowledged as legitimate or worthy.

Just as there are other options for self-defense, spiritual growth, exercise, fun, cultural enrichment, etc. ad infinitum, there are plenty of other options and avenues for sports or competitive fighting. Many of those other options are ready made or don't require so much "changing", of the art or the "culture." And, according to many assessments here and elsewhere, better suited to the dedicated if isolated task of competitive fighting. From a "Wing Chunnish" perspective including directness, efficiency and energy conservation, or even just the perspective of being reasonable, utilizing another avenue appears far more appropriate to your stated needs and predilections. As above, and in keeping with your own line of argumentation, I propose that anyone interested in serious competitive MMA type fighting should undertake other art(s) or endeavor(s), just as so many of your ready advocates already, understandably, and reasonably do. All kidding aside, I largely agree with Knifefighter on this point.

Furthermore, given that your quarrel seems to be with TMA/TCMA more generally, and understanding it is quite likely that the quarrel itself is the major draw for you ;), why limit your prosecution to Wing Chun? If yours is truly an altruistic, if not rather ironic concern for your fellows, surely there are other martial arts and artists in dire straits at least as much if not more than the Wing Chun community. Again, if not an altruistic concern, then what other motivation other than personal preference, pride, or <gasp> your values (n4) (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=values)?

So far, I have not seen any compelling reason or logic from you for practicing Wing Chun. At least none in light of your priorities, balances, ends, and arguments.

Given that Wing Chun doesn't "need" us, and we don't "need" Wing Chun (a point I can generally agree with), that pretty much narrows down what's really behind all the fuss. The obvious conclusion is that if anything at all "needs" changing then, based on your own arguments, it is you.

I pose these questions rhetorically and in fun, and of course have no expectation that you will address them in lieu of your own interests. Or, you can take a shortcut (potshot) and simply imply once again how ignorant I and like minded others are. ;)

Regards,
- kj

[Edmund]

I was doing that until I saw this:

"You don't own me! Why can't WC be about fairies, interpretive dance and rainbows?"

As for "sullen", I think you got way more of that than me on this thread ...

I simply disagree.
People who don't value fighting skill aren't doing WC. It's part of the martial art.

I'm generally fairly reserved with my criticism but on this point I'm crossing the PC line.

[anerlich]

I simply disagree.
People who don't value fighting skill aren't doing WC. It's part of the martial art.

I'm generally fairly reserved with my criticism but on this point I'm crossing the PC line.

I never said I didn't value fighting skill. I said the validation of forum members, the VTAA, the VT Museum, or anyone else on the internet with an opinion as to the legitimacy of what my academy does, means far less than my own judgement and that of my training buds and fellow academy members, as well as the people we deal with in the physical world, does.

Why would the opinion of a bunch of people in the US, other Australian States, or anywhere else, that I am highly unlikely to ever meet, give me any cause for concern, or for comfort? Why am I bound to meet any standards they might set, and vice versa?

The prospective student doesn't care about WC, the style. He cares about whether the individual academy he is considering attending is going to help him meet his goals. They won't give a rat's for lineage, let alone certification from the KFO Wing Chun Police.

This whole discussion will change nothing. We might as well all be robots undergoing the Turing test for all the possible change anything discussed on this forum will make regarding "Wing Chun standards". If you want to improve WC go to your academy and train. That's something you have control over. This forum is the wrong location and the wrong medium. Nothing will change here.

You say you're disagreeing with me, but I can't see what about :confused:

As for the PC line, I don't give a flying **** about any of that ****.


If yours is truly an altruistic, if not rather ironic concern for your fellows

Perhaps the words "patronising" and "condescending" might also fit? As might the phrase "repeatedly rammed down the throat with sledgehammer finesse"?

[Edmund]

"I simply disagree.
People who don't value fighting skill aren't doing WC. It's part of the martial art."

I never said I didn't value fighting skill.


I was explaining my view. That line wasn't directed at you.

I disagree that everyone's values are equal and good.
Some of the values I disagree with and expressed my criticism of them.



Why would the opinion of a bunch of people in the US, other Australian States, or anywhere else, that I am highly unlikely to ever meet, give me any cause for concern, or for comfort? Why am I bound to meet any standards they might set, and vice versa?

If you don't care what other people's values are then simply don't criticize them.

You aren't bound by anyone else's standards. No one is. But I think no one is above being criticized also which is what I'm doing.

They can handle it. It's not like I'm kicking their door down and harrassing them.




As for the PC line, I don't give a flying **** about any of that ****.
..
..
..
Perhaps the words "patronising" and "condescending" might also fit? As might the phrase "repeatedly rammed down the throat with sledgehammer finesse"?

Well if you don't care about being PC and you don't care what others think, you shouldn't mind if I call a few WC fruit loops a bunch of fairies.

I criticized a few ideas that I think are completely wrong. If it seemed strong then good because I hate the idea of WC with no fighting skills. But now you act like I'm trying to personally police everyone to my standards (as if).

Screw them if they can't argue my point. They don't need defending.