Wing Chun: What is it to You?

[sihing]

There's been so much talk on here lately by a select few that the Wing Chun system is in need of something more to fill in the gaps, or lack of ability to deal with certain situations in combat. Most know of my own personal feelings here, but I'm curious to hear what you all think what Wing Chun is about and how does it deal with combat. By this I mean how does a Wing Chun practitioner or someone with tools developed within them by training in the WC system deal with opponents, whether trained in another MA or not. For example, how does your WC deal with someone charging, shooting, tackling you. How does your WC deal with a boxer type attacker, light on their feet with fast hands and combinations. How does your WC deal with the various kicking arts and stylist out there? These are just a few examples, please feel free to expand upon it. Just curious as IMO there are some on here with very different perspectives on just what WC means as a combat art and what it is good for. Please feel free to explain to us all why you would feel crosstraining in another MA would supplement your effectiveness in combat. Also please try to be specific and provide reasons why you think this way, instead of just stating something as fact without backing it up.

Thanks...

James

[unkokusai]

Dude, put down the koolaide for five minutes and go grab yourself a beer.

[sihing]

Dude, put down the koolaide for five minutes and go grab yourself a beer.

As a matter of fact I have a tall boy of Coor's light in my hand right now, lol....

Seriously, unkokusai, are you up to the challenge of explaining the way you feel about things Martial or is this to tough a job for you? What's your perspective of WC and how WC relates, compares to other MA?

JR

[negativecr33p]

My biggest problem with wing chun seems to be the lack of a power rear cross. And the fact that, as far as I know there are only centerline punches, besides your throat attacks and eye jabs...it seems like a boxer has access to alot more combos to kind of open up a gap in an opponents defenses. My opinion means little though, I haven't practiced wing chun terribly long.

[unkokusai]

As a matter of fact I have a tall boy of Coor's light in my hand right now, lol....

Seriously, unkokusai, are you up to the challenge of explaining the way you feel about things Martial or is this to tough a job for you? What's your perspective of WC and how WC relates, compares to other MA?

JR


I've got nothing against WC. I've kicked it around with WC guys often. Its fine. I think that a larger more aggresive opponent can squash alot of the technique and I have never encountered a WC guy who wasn't basically helpless off his feet despite what people here may say. Maybe I've just never crossed hands with someone badass enough to represent the art. I have no problem recognizing the value of WC, but the bizarre certainty that it contains the answers to all of life's questions is pretty disturbing. And some of your assumptions about boxers are incongruous with reality. That's all.

[Fajing]

Wing Chun for me, I feel works as an ideal stand up fighting system. I do not argue it's superiority to other styles, but feel that it suits me personally. This is mainly because I prefer a practical, stand up fighting style. While I do believe ground fighting to be effective, I simply prefer a striking style that I feel works in a more practical fashion than many other flowery systems. I think it is very quick and to the point. I train because I love it, but also for self defense, if needed. Although, personally I would prefer fleeing a street confrontation if it cannot be resolved verbally, but do understand that in certain cases this may not be an option. My fighting mentality concerns survival over manly pride. I consider family over ego. Wing Chun, I do think is very effective in reality and does cover all bases of attack if learned properly and practiced regularly. Of course timing, speed, circumstance, and individual all play a part, but in my experience confrontations usualy take place point-blank, and not from a distance. Agressors tend to get right on you or in your face. Wing Chun thrives on dealing with these situations. So it basically comes down to what you prefer and what truly works for you. I compare Wing Chun to the two styles of Karate I took and my friend's styles, TKD, JJ and Judo. These are the styles I have seen in action, and still prefer Wing Chun. I don't think the others are bad, but feel that a stand up style based more on speed, trapping and striking suits me. As far as MMA events go, if you are actually training for these, I would not recommend soley Wing Chun, or any other style for that matter. I have seen plenty of UFC matches and it seems clear that every WINNING fighter usually posesses skills in some striking art and some ground fighting art. I feel that with Wing Chun, if that is your chosen martial style, one must focus on it and get good at it. Try and focus on what you love and you do best/feel most comfortable with. Don't worry about randomly trying to fight like your opponent, because you will clearly lose at the attempt of playing their game. You must focus on what you know and how you would effectively deal with any oncoming attack. Wing Chun most likely covers it. You just have to train for it. Okay, that probably got off track of your original question, but in short, I feel that Wing Chun offers me a more practical, quick solution to attacks of all kinds through it's principles, techniques, simplicity, ect... It all comes down to what you prefer, enjoy, and what you are training for. :D

[sihing]

Good post Fajing, I appreciate your comments, thank you for contributing.

James

[arbas]

I've been training in Wing Chun on and off for about 5 years with a little boxing and ju jitsu trained separately. I enjoy the chi sao aspects of WC but I am concerned that we train almost exclusively from a bridge . I feel that we dont spend enough time practicing how to deal with our opponents approach or our own approach to an opponent. When training in boxing one of the first things trained was how to move in and out of range effectively. This may be just a problem of where I train. But for me when recently threated with violence I felt more comfortable being in a boxing style stance up on my toes and as mobile as possible. Fortunately this confrontation didnt escalate into contact. If we had made contact I am sure I would have attempted to use WC techniques.

My main point is that though I love WC I dont feel I can make it work for me all of the time especially against a bigger more agressive opponent.

Mark

[Airdrawndagger]

Sihing,

I do not write many post here anymore because ive been training AND it seems to be a waste of time writting about WC and all its possitive aspects when you got alot of people out there that thrive on arguing the opposite. Although there is nothing is wrong with questioning points about the system, MANY MANY people out there just dont understand WC as a whole.

WC is a complete system because it is comprised of principles that can be used in any situation. These principles are represented by examples which are techniques and the forms. These techniques and forms are GUIDELINES to point you in the right direction to help with the understandings of the bio mechanics and scientific principles within the system.
In my opinion learning the forms and drills within the system just isnt enough to grasp a true understanding of what WC is. Futhermore, after grasping this understanding it is very difficult to show what you understand if you do not train like a real kung fu fighter. That is to train your body, mind, and spirit over a long period of time so your movements become kung fu and are guided with your spirit.

One of the core principles of WC other than simple, direct, and efficent is SPEED.
WC cannot be used properly without speed. The moves just wont work. The quickest person has an extreme advantage over a slower opponent.

You move as one unit without thought, with precision, power and speed. This is kung fu and this is what is required in order to truly represent WC the way it was intended.
Not many can do this which is why there isnt many truly representing WC. It takes a deep commitment that many dont realize and if they do realize are not able to commit to.

Thats my 2 cents. Take it for what its worth. Train hard.

[Sihing73]

Hello,

I just want to chime in on a few things;

1) First WC has hooks and uppercuts within the system. It is not, nor should it be limited to the all mighty chaing punch. One of the things which I think make WC strikes so effective is their ability to adjust to the opponents reaction and mold themselves to penetrate when they encounter a block. Of course, other arts can do the same as well.

2) I disagree with James that SPEED is the one of the most important aspect of WC. While SPEED is certainly important and I will agree that it is one of the core attributes that one should develope, I think that relying on SPEED to overcome better structure, strength or timing is a mistake. SPEED is but one piece of the puzzle, not the answer to every situation. Remember one of of the WC kuen kuit involves not being greedy. If I had to give my opinion on the most important aspect I would say it is timing and structure. SPEED and Strength can and will fade as one gets older, however one can utilize proper structure into old age. Look at Yip Chun and tell me that he relies on SPEED.

3) I will almost always seek a bridge. To me that is one of the things which makes WC so effective. Once I have established a bridge I have tapped into my opponent and have an idea of what they are about to do. You can feel thier movements and react to them from a bridge even it is established by standing on their foot. To me this represents Chi Sau skill far more than simply sticky arms. I want to make contact with my opponent and then use thier energy to tell me how to defeat them.

4) WC is about efficiency and stripping away the unneccessary. Big movements take too long and since I am lazy I like to do what I can with as little as I can. Most movements can be performed in a very small or slight movement. This can often give more illusion to SPEED but, the movement is not always faster it may just be shorter.

5) WC should continue to evolve and grow, IMHO. But, we should never try to fight anothers game. IMHO it is a mistake to try to out-box a boxer or out wrestle a wrestler/grappler. The key to incorporating or exploring, adding other arts to your WC arsenal should not be on trying to re-invent the wheel. Rather my opinion is that you examine the concepts and energy used in the other art and then see if and how this can fit within the WC framework. When I do Pekiti Tirsia my sticks and knife have a distinct WC flavor to them. I am still doing WC I am just doing it from that aspect or perspective. I will utilize things which I find are effective, and one of them will be the SPEED from Sinawali, but it is still at the core, WC.

6) WC as a conceptual system can be argued to have all the answers one needs. However, in thinking that the system has everyone one has put blinders on and may not be able to see what others have to offer. WC is a living breathing thing and will change based on the individual practicing and the environment in which it is used. It is not the techniques which will answer each and every situation but the understanding of the energy behind the techniques and the realization that sometimes you need to step outside of the system and break the rules to have the proper answer to a situation.

7) IMHO the system is not what is lacking today but those of us who practice the system are lacking in our deeper explorations into the art. There is nothing wrong with bringing in other arts, if that is your desire. There is something wrong, IMHO, with trying to make WC a boxing or grappling art rather than trying to enhance your WC with an understanding of the concepts those arts can offer. Bottom line is that we do WC so we should keep doing WC and build on that framework.

Just my perspective on a few things. I use the illustration of the alphabet to my students. While we all have the same 26 letters, some people can right great poetry or novels. Why is this when we all have the same 26 letters? Why can't all of use write great works? It is not the alphabet which gives this skill, but ones understanding of how to utilize the letters in sentences and paragraphs. Another interesting thing to consider is that many of the best writers often ignore the rules of grammer, maybe there is something to be learned here as well...............

[chisauking]

Give a simple pencil to someone that's creative and skillful and he can produce works of beauty. Give the same pencil to a layman and he can only scribble with it.

The same holds true for wing chun... It's a great style --- but unfortunately not many can even use 20% of its potential.

What do they do? Just like a poor tradsmen, they blame the tool and start to add bits and peices to what was once a great tool.

Ultimately, why try to convince others of its worth? After all, the true effectiveness of any fighting method is proven on the street -- and not in a ring or controlled fighting environment as many dream on this forum

[Thaegen]

Sihing73 wrote:
"Just my perspective on a few things. I use the illustration of the alphabet to my students. While we all have the same 26 letters, some people can right great poetry or novels. Why is this when we all have the same 26 letters? Why can't all of use write great works? It is not the alphabet which gives this skill, but ones understanding of how to utilize the letters in sentences and paragraphs. Another interesting thing to consider is that many of the best writers often ignore the rules of grammer, maybe there is something to be learned here as well..............."

chisauking wrote
"Give a simple pencil to someone that's creative and skillful and he can produce works of beauty. Give the same pencil to a layman and he can only scribble with it."


Exactly!

[Sillywabbit]

Give a simple pencil to someone that's creative and skillful and he can produce works of beauty. Give the same pencil to a layman and he can only scribble with it.

The same holds true for wing chun... It's a great style --- but unfortunately not many can even use 20% of its potential.

What do they do? Just like a poor tradsmen, they blame the tool and start to add bits and peices to what was once a great tool.

Ultimately, why try to convince others of its worth? After all, the true effectiveness of any fighting method is proven on the street -- and not in a ring or controlled fighting environment as many dream on this forum
Thats bull give me a pencil and if I cannot draw than I won't blame it on the pencil.

[Sihing73]

Give a simple pencil to someone that's creative and skillful and he can produce works of beauty. Give the same pencil to a layman and he can only scribble with it.

The same holds true for wing chun... It's a great style --- but unfortunately not many can even use 20% of its potential.

What do they do? Just like a poor tradsmen, they blame the tool and start to add bits and peices to what was once a great tool.

Ultimately, why try to convince others of its worth? After all, the true effectiveness of any fighting method is proven on the street -- and not in a ring or controlled fighting environment as many dream on this forum

Hello,

One still needs to understand or have the basics or writing to utilize a pencil. For example, what if I went into the Amazon and gave a pencil to a tribesman. No matter how creative he is, he still has to have an understanding of the alphabet and sentence structure in order to write anything, let alone something great. But I think we agree that it is the individual and not the instrument which is the determining factor.

I agree that WC is a great style, I would not be doing it if I thought otherwise. I also agree that many of us today, myself included, do not practice or delve deeply in the the art and so often miss some of the gold underneath.

I also agree that WC is a combat art and it shines on the street. During a recent exchange with one of my students I grabbed his hair and yanked his head back. This put him in a very poor position and seemed, to me at least, to be effective. Yet, I somehow doubt this would be permitted in a MMA event. Does this make it any less effective and valid...................

[Spark]

My biggest problem with wing chun seems to be the lack of a power rear cross. And the fact that, as far as I know there are only centerline punches, besides your throat attacks and eye jabs...it seems like a boxer has access to alot more combos to kind of open up a gap in an opponents defenses. My opinion means little though, I haven't practiced wing chun terribly long.

The WC I train has a power rear cross.

[Tom Kagan]

During a recent exchange with one of my students I grabbed his hair and yanked his head back. This put him in a very poor position and seemed, to me at least, to be effective. Yet, I somehow doubt this would be permitted in a MMA event. Does this make it any less effective and valid...................


Sorry Dave, I'm going going to have to disagree with you as strongly as I can while still trying to be respectful.

I am of the opinion that pulling someone's hair, especially in the MoKwoon with your training partners, is not at all a Ving Tsun method of self-discovery within the context of KungFu. Something like that is just all you.

How much skill does it take to pull someone's hair? What attribute do you think you were working on with this?

Could it work? Of course. But if you want to go this route, why not do it right and, instead, sneak up on him in the changing room and strangle him with a garrote? (You choked him out, right? So, what's the big deal?)


Learning the ancient "caveman takes a mate" technique of hair pulling is something nearly everyone has already learned as a toddler. Shouldn't we have more interesting things to train?

[Sihing73]

Hi Tom,

I can appreciate your response and I will reply as follows:

Grabbing someones hair and pulling it is NOT a WC technique per se. However, it can be argued that it follows the concepts of efficiency in that it requires very little skill and effort to pull it off. It also is an example of taking advantage of an opportunity which presented itself at the moment. Bottom line is that I have always stated up front that I cheat and I will do whatever it takes to win.

FWIW I do not teach to grab someones hair as a training method. The example is more to illustrate the need to be flexible and adaptable to each and every situation. I train to fight based on the opportunities presented to me and I stress the importance of recognizing such opportunities even when they are not apparent techniques.

If I were to have the choice I would rather sit out about 300-900 yards and just shoot you with a high powered rifle rather than see if I could beat you in hand to hand combat. I mean if I am going to try to hurt or kill you anyhow why not do it from a margin of safety ;) .

WC teaches a very effective method of combat but you still need to take off the blinders and keep an open mind to things which may not fit into the rules and framework of the system. Grabbing someones hair can do this. Let me ask this, if you are in a poor position and someone is grappling you and about to choke you out and you find you can bite into their arm very deeply, would you use that to survive? The age of AIDS notwithstanding if it is do some stupid durty "caveman" trick or get choked out then I am all "caveman" :D

It is not the specific technique which is important in this case but the willingness to do whatever it takes to win, even if it breaks some rules along the way.

[Fajing]

I use the illustration of the alphabet to my students. While we all have the same 26 letters, some people can right great poetry or novels. Why is this when we all have the same 26 letters? Why can't all of use write great works? It is not the alphabet which gives this skill, but ones understanding of how to utilize the letters in sentences and paragraphs. Another interesting thing to consider is that many of the best writers often ignore the rules of grammer, maybe there is something to be learned here as well...............


Nice analogy!!! ;)

[Tom Kagan]

But you didn't do it in a fight, you did it in class.

Does a 100 meter hurdler just move to the side of the lane and not jump the hurdles? Does he have the someone throw rocks at his teammates while they sprint? They could, but what would be the point?


Cheating during learning teaches nothing except how to hone your skills of becoming an @sshole. Not only is the class the wrong time and place, but exactly how many people need a lot of practice how to do this, anyway?

@ssholes in class end up alone with no one to train with. Someone learning to be a bigger @sshole will become much a better practitioner, student, and teacher, and with a much better group of people around if they dispense with this nonsense.


[BTW, the goal "on the street" as you put it, should not be to win; it should be to survive. Frankly, only a small amount, if any, of what is taught in at any given MoKwoon has a directly relation to survival. But, that's how it should be; the reason why is because survival is the most limited focus of all the reasons for studying a Martial Art.]

[Sihing73]

Hi Tom,

I think you are missing the point here; the specific technique is not the focus it is the mindset which is the focus. You have to be willing to do whatever it takes to win and you need to accept that this will sometimes require you to do things which are not considered fair.

Whatever you may think, I am not in the habit of abusing my students and they sometimes hit me. More power to them. I do not cheat to fuel my ego nor do I tell them I am the best. I do try to prepare them for the reality of combat which is that no one fights fair and you need to approach fighting from that perspective. If you limit yourself to following the rules then you will lose in a real fight.

When I teach to fight with the knife, for example, the first thing I tell my students is to expect to be cut. Accept this as a foregone conclusion and be prepared to fight on no matter what. Also, if you are unwilling to cut, maim or kill your opponent you have no business picking up a kinfe to begin with. Now, this does not mean that you have to kill someone, but you need to be able to accept that fact that you may need to take it to that level. And you need to be able, mentally and physically to do just that if the need arises.

Tom,
I can respect your posts and your viewpoint. However, please do not deem it necessary to preach to me about the street or the goals of combat there. I can assure you that I have been involved in several encounters, some as a result of my previous job, some as a result of being in an inter-racial marriage, and some perhaps because I am an "a**hole" at times ;) . I have both won and not won but I have always survived. However, I wish to survive with as minimal injury as possible and if that requires me to cheat then I will do so without second thought. I can assure you that if I did not have some first hand experience pointing to the effectiveness of how I teach I would not pass this on to my students. As a matter of fact I have taught defensive tactics in a prison where I think the CO's may have a more pressing need for reality in combat. But, who knows maybe I and those I have taught have only been lucky and not skilled :rolleyes: .

I think we will be forced to dissagree on some things and that is okay with me. It will not diminish any of your views in my mind. Hope the same can be said with regards to me.

[Sillywabbit]

Alot of focus is put on the person training in wing chun more than what style of wing chun I am sure this will offend many of you but check it out for yourself. Sifu Chung Kwok Chows system I find is most realistic for street self defence. I base this on my 20 years of training several different Wing Chun styles. Also the system he teaches could make a man with no natural skills a good fighter very simple and straight to the point. This is due to the evolution of Sifu Chung Kwok's system to deal with todays fighters Traditional with a modern twist which works in ring due to ground skills and in the street due to nononsence training. I have personally not had the chance to study that system but my research shows that system will help you more than the rest when it comes to fighting.

[Sihing73]

But you didn't do it in a fight, you did it in class.

Does a 100 meter hurdler just move to the side of the lane and not jump the hurdles? Does he have the someone throw rocks at his teammates while they sprint? They could, but what would be the point?

HI Tom,

Perhaps I am again missing something but following the logic you give above, if you don't do something in a fight it does not have value. In that case why train in a kwoon at all? Would'nt we be better off going to the streets and engaging in fights to hone our skills ;) . In other words, if you did not do it in a fight then you really can't say it works :p

[Tom Kagan]

I don't think I've missed your point. So, let me try this another way:

Think back to all the times you been completely owned by someone during your training, but they were nice enough not to pull your hair, poke an eyeball, dislocate your shoulder, tear your chest hair out, spit at your face, slice your throat, etc.

Do you really think this group of people would not able to bring themselves to "cheat ... without a second thought" with the specifics mentioned above? Is there any doubt in your mind they would not "be able, mentally and physically to do just that if the need arises", as you put it?

I'm going to stick my neck out and say the chances are very good just about everyone anyone has ever met at that skill level didn't get up to this height of wisdom of their art by training in the fashion you describe you emphasize in your class.

So, why do you believe you need to specifically train with such an emphasis for people to work on these ancillary things, instead? What makes the people you teach any different than people they've taught? What makes where you live any different than where they've lived?

[Sihing73]

I don't think I've missed your point. So, let me try this another way:

Think back to all the times you been completely owned by someone during your training, but they were nice enough not to pull your hair, poke an eyeball, dislocate your shoulder, tear your chest hair out, spit at your face, slice your throat, etc.

Do you really think this group of people would not able to bring themselves to "cheat ... without a second thought" with the specifics mentioned above? Is there any doubt in your mind they would not "be able, mentally and physically to do just that if the need arises", as you put it?

I'm going to stick my neck out and say the chances are very good just about everyone anyone has ever met at that skill level didn't get up to this height of wisdom of their art by training in the fashion you describe you emphasize in your class.

So, why do you believe you need to specifically train with such an emphasis for people to work on these ancillary things, instead? What makes the people you teach any different than people they've taught? What makes where you live any different than where they've lived?

Tom,

You are making an assumption that my classes are a collection of illegal and non-wc related techniques. If your assumption were correct then I would agree with you in that I am not benefiting my students nor teaching Wing Chun. Again, the emphasis is the willingness to do whatever it takes to walk away. However I teach WC techniques as the core of our approach to combat.

As to your belief that people will cheat when they need to naturally I would disagree with you 100%. People have a tendency to want to fight according to rules and values which they hold important. Few people are able to or willing to fight dirty without reserve. Unless they train for that mindset. There will always be some hesitation when they apply a dirty technique even if it is subconcious. This hesitation will and can result in injury. Why do you think that womens self defense classes put students at stress and force them to apply techniques against a resisting opponent. Often the student has to learn not to hold back as most are unwilling to injur someone else even when being attacked.

Sorry Tom, but we have differing views and most likely will not agree. I am confident in my approach as I am sure you are in yours. I hope that each of us passes on what we can to our students and that they are able to benefit from our teaching irregardless. Oh, btw, I encourage my students to check out other teachers and see if I am full of crap. I encourage them to question me and my methods and not to take my word for anything. I also encourage them to make the art of WC their own and not become my clones.

[Tom Kagan]

As to your belief that people will cheat when they need to naturally I would disagree with you 100%. People have a tendency to want to fight according to rules and values which they hold important. Few people are able to or willing to fight dirty without reserve. Unless they train for that mindset. There will always be some hesitation when they apply a dirty technique even if it is subconcious.


Okay, what do you believe is lacking in their training from those who don't pull each others hair in class that would cause them to still hesitate after they've become accomplished? (Yes, "accomplished" is subjective, but I think you understand what I'm getting at.)



Even high level Brazilian Ju Jitsu practitioners don't typically train with knives. Their entire training system paradoxically removes nearly all techniques considered "dirty" from their training paradigm and progression. (Source: Mastering Jujitsu, by Renzo Gracie, 2003)

Okay, now hand a Brazilian Ju Jitsu Brown Belt a knife. Do you think he or she will hesitate? What's missing from their training that 6 days of knife work, if even that much, wouldn't fix when we specifically discuss this type of hesitation?

[NOTE: I picked the Brazilian Ju Jitsu Brown Belt for this example because its art still appears to have a decent uniformity of skill standard. Most people (arguably) will see this when/if they encounter it - no other reason.]

[sihing]

Quote by chisauking
"Give a simple pencil to someone that's creative and skillful and he can produce works of beauty. Give the same pencil to a layman and he can only scribble with it.

The same holds true for wing chun... It's a great style --- but unfortunately not many can even use 20% of its potential.

What do they do? Just like a poor tradsmen, they blame the tool and start to add bits and peices to what was once a great tool.

Ultimately, why try to convince others of its worth? After all, the true effectiveness of any fighting method is proven on the street -- and not in a ring or controlled fighting environment as many dream on this forum"

I like this example, some do not have the understand to use the pencil in the same manner as others, therefore what is written on the page varies in quality between different people. Skill with your tools folks, that's what it comes down to.

I've been reading through the post up to thus far. Very good comments and they are appreciated. Concerning the comments concerning strike variety(negativecr33p), think of it this way, every deflection you do is a strike. When I perform Bon sao for e.g. I am also performing a forearm smash and elbow strike. When I bring Bon Sao to Tan sao, that motion is a elbow strike, side palm strike. Biu Sao is can be interpreted as a side palm chop. There are many ways of looking at things in the WC system. Chain punching is a the basic follow-up weapon, because it allow a continuous flow of attacks based on the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. Initial counters can be done with many tools.

For footwork and a lack of it, this is something I have notice throughout my years in WC, mostly concerned with lineages outside of my own. In the WC I practice footwork and mobility is active, and regardless of what the opposing fighter is doing in terms of movement, we can keep up with them and we do not teach to stand in a static neutral stance. Movement is key in all aspects of the WC I teach, but I know this is not the case for other versions of WC. Basically, IMO, if you are dealing with your opponents two primary weapons (arms/hands) while defending or attacking you lack footwork. There have been many clips posted on here from lineages ranging from Gary Lam to Augustine Fong, both still showed me a lack of footwork(not to say these Master's lack skill or effectiveness, just different skills IMO) as they stood square on with the opponents weapons while in the exchange phase of combat. IMO this is not an effective strategy, but to each their own.

In the end, like others have said before me, understanding has allot to do with how you will interpret what you have learned from your WC training. Some believe that it all comes down to the individual, I say Yes & No. What you learn and what it teaches you is the FOUNDATION. If what you are learning is weak and inefficient & ineffective, then it is harder in the end to apply. If the structure is strong, and the movement is efficient and effective for a reality situation, then your chances are better. Remember, all practitioners from all the Martial Arts systems and styles still have to make it work for them, regardless of what others have already done within there respective arts (Bruce Lee, Royce, Rickson Gracie, are prime examples).

Keep the good posts coming...

James

[Spark]

How much skill does it take to pull someone's hair? What attribute do you think you were working on with this?

I guess this point is just a matter of opinion with regards to training. FWIW I've seen a well known sifu use hair pulling to incapacitate someone effectively and looked much like technique I've used in my class except we haven't used the hair pulling.

All I know is if I'm in a "real" altercation I'm really not going to give a $hit about whether or not my "wc skills" are evident. How much skill does it take to kick someone in the nuts?

If I walk away alive then who cares?

[Fajing]

All I know is if I'm in a "real" altercation I'm really not going to give a $hit about whether or not my "wc skills" are evident. How much skill does it take to kick someone in the nuts?

If I walk away alive then who cares?


EXACTLY!! THAT'S REALITY!!! :eek:

[Tom Kagan]

If I walk away alive then who cares?

When do you even approach not walking away from training alive?

If a person is pulling hair to control a training partner, I guarantee the hair puller is less skilled than someone who can control a training partner without doing so.

If you really believe a correct attitude is to say "Who cares?" to that observation, why train at all?

Why train for months/years to hit like a hammer when the simple reality is you can just carry one and hit with a hammer after two or three practice swings?



[Sheesh, I can hear it now: "What if the other guy has a hammer too?" "What if I lost my hammer?" "What if I walk into a blind alley at night with cash falling out of my pockets and I'm jumped by 27 ninjas wielding Uzi sub-machine guns?" :rolleyes:]

[Fajing]

When do you even approach not walking away from training alive?

SPARK may be referring to a street encounter. I hope so anyway.
:p

[Sihing73]

Hi Tom,

What's eating you? You really seem stuck on the whole idea of hair pulling. I thought I already made it clear that it is the attitude not the pulling of hair that is important here. Do you have bad memories of someone pulling your hair when you were younger and you just can't get past that image? :confused:

Look, you seem to disdain the idea of pulling someones hair, it is beneath you and people who resort to using such a method must be unskilled morons. Talk about shortsighted.

[Merryprankster]

I think Tom's point is one that I have voiced many times.

We talk about MA, sport vs street, etc, and inevitably, the conversation winds up turning around "well the rules in 'x' don't allow for...."

Well, the truth is, we all train with rules. Even the places that train for the street train with rules. If we didn't, we'd have a dearth of training partners. I COULD execute a takedown into a wall, or ram their heads into a pillar, or break fingers (which, incidentally, is much harder to do than people like to think), etc. But we don't because it is actually detrimental to our training.

The ultimate point being that everything we do is a simulation, regardless of what you are training for.

The corrollary point to that is something Thomas Barnett calls "The absurdly conditional scenario," where you put in so many what if's, that the conclusion you advocate is inevitable. What I mean is:


Sheesh, I can hear it now: "What if the other guy has a hammer too?" "What if I lost my hammer?" "What if I walk into a blind alley at night with cash falling out of my pockets and I'm jumped by 27 ninjas wielding Uzi sub-machine guns?"

I can imagine any number of scenarios where I'm ****ed, and there's really nothing I could do about it. So you train, keeping the best balance between safety and realism that you can, and you get as good as you can and that's really it.

None of this is to say that hair-pulling and such doesn't have it's place, but more that I think we really ought to be aware that we really are all running simulations, with, depending on the art, different solution sets to the same general problems. So how good can you get at something like hair pulling? That's sort of the question. That's kind of an auxilliary thing to be added to a solid foundation....

[Fajing]

I can imagine any number of scenarios where I'm ****ed, and there's really nothing I could do about it. So you train, keeping the best balance between safety and realism that you can, and you get as good as you can and that's really it.


Nicely said. True that!! :D

[BRIAN]

The only thing that i will add to this discussion is that even the UFC fighters although they are excellent fighters are the rear chosen few exceptions. Most other arts that i have seen most people can't actually apply their art to real life situations.

What I like about WC is the art was developed not fro the exceptional person but for the average person or the under dog. Now of course there are also exceptiional WC practicioners too. But over all I think the average WC person can learn to truly and honestly defend themselves.

That doesn't mean that all WC persons can beat any art out there but again how many arts can women apply and effectivly efend themselves against bigger and stronger men. Just my opinion.

[Merryprankster]

again how many arts can women apply and effectivly efend themselves against bigger and stronger men.

Well, lets see. Judo comes immediately to mind, as does wrestling.

BJJ is a good choice - my wife routinely *****es new men bigger and stronger than her. (After a few months, this goes away - curse of being female).

Muay Thai, with its arsenal of knees, elbows and kicks, plus effective infighting skills, give women excellent weapons.

Bigger and stronger men aren't going to sit back and "box" with a woman, generally. They are going to close the gap and overwhelm them with superior size and power. Any art will, of course, help, but arts with a particular emphasis on close-in fighting seem particularly apropos.


What I like about WC is the art was developed not fro the exceptional person but for the average person or the under dog.

This is basically a "special and unique" claim that is simply untrue. EVERY art is built around minimum effort, maximum efficiency (which, for the record, is a judo maxim). But, ultimately, the delivery package for the art (ie, you, your mind and body) is going to have a say in how adequately you perform it.

[sihing]

I respectfully have to disagree with your statement Merryprankster, "This is basically a "special and unique" claim that is simply untrue. EVERY art is built around minimum effort, maximum efficiency (which, for the record, is a judo maxim). But, ultimately, the delivery package for the art (i.e., you, your mind and body) is going to have a say in how adequately you perform it."

Compare Aikido to Judo and you have a prime example, one art requires less strength and speed than the other, Aikido. Some arts may claim this but it is not always true. Traditional Kung-Fu for example, Hung Gar, Choy Lay Fut, Praying Mantis, all require skill to make them work, but all require high conditioning also. Boxing too.. IMO WC requires less of the physical attributes (strength, speed, toughness, flexibility, endurance, etc..) than the other arts. Yes, we do need elements of these attributes but not to the same level as them. Why is this? Because WC IMO is based on skill attributes (timing, coordination, structure, distance control, perception ability, technique, forward intention, etc..) things that any normal/average person can learn quickly and maintain when not using the art frequently. Now does this mean that one can come into the kwoon and study the art intellectually to become effective in its use? No. You have to go through all the sweat to teach your body how to use it, then and only then when the skills are within your conscious, unconscious, neuromuscular system will you have it.


James

[anerlich]

As a standup fighting system goes, WC can be as good as any in the hands of a well-trained, skilled practitioner with the right mental and tactical approach for the given arena of combat or competition.

Like most fighting systems, WC has its areas of excellent applicability and those where its approach is less stellar.

Trying to determine its deficiencies in a pragmatic manner will strengthen rather than weaken the art. Trying to paint those who do so as foolish, heretical or poorly taught says more about the inquistor's fears and misunderstandings than it does about the subject of the criticism. This is a system of fighting, not a religion. Systems and sciences demand constant reevaluation in accordance with changing circumstances and new information, only pseudosciences and dogma do not.

It is also intellectually dishonest to try to raise WC by comparing it with skewed or ignorant impressions of other arts, e.g. boxing being an art in which people jump about furiously on their toes and punch inefficiently, or a smorgasbord of other styles being based on physical conditioning rather than skill and other neurosomatic attributes.

The CDC has it that you are several thousand times more likely to die of lifestyle-related cardiovascular disease than from a violent crime. I WANT training that is going to improve my fitness levels, indeed, the incentive for having to be fit to do it I see as a plus, not a drawback. CLF, contrary to claims made above, is NOT a system reliant on physical conditioning. My first teacher has been studying it for about forty years, as well as WC, and he would know, much better than any forum member here.

His father, a former boxer and judoka, not particularly big, successfully fought off two would be muggers at age 82, chasing one into a public toilet, where the would be mugger locked himself in a cubicle and refused to come out until the cops came and called the old guy off. And those arts won't work into old age, huh?

I agree Hung Gar requires development of specific strength and power. But not CLF, at least no more than WC does.

Some make great claims that WC has physical culture, qigong etc. within it. Most of what I've seen or heard about is watered down qigong. IMO you would be better served by taking up yoga or similar systems which are at least tailored for those specific results.

WC has groundfighting. At least TWC does. To claim what is taught in most schools gives you all the tools you need to escape a takedown, pin, submission hold, or G&P from an experienced wrestler or BJJ practitioner is to place oneself in denial.

I do several arts because I enjoy them. WC remains my primary art. I did my WC forms this morning, after some yoga. All you fundamentalists do them today?

Martial skill is the one of the least important aspects in surviving violent crime (see link in my .sig for sources). People who want to argue stridently with my views, or say I don't understand WC can basically go **** themselves IMO, though I'll probably argue with them because I'm an argumentative SOB who enjoys it. Sue me.


hair pulling

You guys :rolleyes: Get a buzzcut and take a pill. Problem disappears.


Skill with your tools folks, that's what it comes down to.

Only so far. If you have a screw to join two items together, no amount of improving your skills with a hammer is going to help. Nor your skills with a pencil if you're trying to spraypaint a car.

As Mr Natural says, "get the right tool for the job". (Probably showing my age bigtime with that reference :p )

[Ultimatewingchun]

"Like most fighting systems, WC has its areas of excellent applicability and those where its approach is less stellar.

Trying to determine its deficiencies in a pragmatic manner will strengthen rather than weaken the art. Trying to paint those who do so as foolish, heretical or poorly taught says more about the inquistor's fears and misunderstandings than it does about the subject of the criticism. This is a system of fighting, not a religion.

It is also intellectually dishonest to try to raise WC by comparing it with skewed or ignorant impressions of other arts, e.g. boxing being an art in which people jump about furiously on their toes, or a smorgasbord of other styles being based on physical conditioning rather than skill and other neurosomatic attributes." (Anerlich)


***EXACTLY. Couldn't have said it better.

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


And as for the hair pulling debate: In a self defense situation, which should include some preparatory training while in the school...one should become acquainted to some extent with the dynamics of using a hair pull in this or that situation. So that it's not completely alien to you if you ever need to resort to it in a real encounter. That's all.

[Fajing]

As a standup fighting system goes, WC can be as good as any in the hands of a well-trained, skilled practitioner with the right mental and tactical approach for the given arena of combat or competition.

Like most fighting systems, WC has its areas of excellent applicability and those where its approach is less stellar.

Trying to determine its deficiencies in a pragmatic manner will strengthen rather than weaken the art. Trying to paint those who do so as foolish, heretical or poorly taught says more about the inquistor's fears and misunderstandings than it does about the subject of the criticism. This is a system of fighting, not a religion. Systems and sciences demand constant reevaluation in accordance with changing circumstances and new information, only pseudosciences and dogma do not.

It is also intellectually dishonest to try to raise WC by comparing it with skewed or ignorant impressions of other arts, e.g. boxing being an art in which people jump about furiously on their toes and punch inefficiently, or a smorgasbord of other styles being based on physical conditioning rather than skill and other neurosomatic attributes.

The CDC has it that you are several thousand times more likely to die of lifestyle-related cardiovascular disease than from a violent crime. I WANT training that is going to improve my fitness levels, indeed, the incentive for having to be fit to do it I see as a plus, not a drawback. CLF, contrary to claims made above, is NOT a system reliant on physical conditioning. My first teacher has been studying it for about forty years, as well as WC, and he would know, much better than any forum member here.

His father, a former boxer and judoka, not particularly big, successfully fought off two would be muggers at age 82, chasing one into a public toilet, where the would be mugger locked himself in a cubicle and refused to come out until the cops came and called the old guy off. And those arts won't work into old age, huh?

I agree Hung Gar requires development of specific strength and power. But not CLF, at least no more than WC does.

Some make great claims that WC has physical culture, qigong etc. within it. Most of what I've seen or heard about is watered down qigong. IMO you would be better served by taking up yoga or similar systems which are at least tailored for those specific results.

WC has groundfighting. At least TWC does. To claim what is taught in most schools gives you all the tools you need to escape a takedown, pin, submission hold, or G&P from an experienced wrestler or BJJ practitioner is to place oneself in denial.

I do several arts because I enjoy them. WC remains my primary art. I did my WC forms this morning, after some yoga. All you fundamentalists do them today?

Martial skill is the one of the least important aspects in surviving violent crime (see link in my .sig for sources). People who want to argue stridently with my views, or say I don't understand WC can basically go **** themselves IMO, though I'll probably argue with them because I'm an argumentative SOB who enjoys it. Sue me.



You guys :rolleyes: Get a buzzcut and take a pill. Problem disappears.



Only so far. If you have a screw to join two items together, no amount of improving your skills with a hammer is going to help. Nor your skills with a pencil if you're trying to spraypaint a car.

As Mr Natural says, "get the right tool for the job". (Probably showing my age bigtime with that reference :p )


Nicely put, Anerlich!!! You covered alot there.
;) :D :D :D :D :D :D

[sihing]

I think an important thing to remember is that WC is not about having every technique/concept/principal within the system. Does WC possess the same grappling repertoire as BJJ? Nope, but neither does BJJ when talking about standup or other such ranges. The point is, can WC deal with it? Yes. But I'm the first one to say I would not want to roll around on the ground with a BJJ black belt, but can he get me to the ground when the fight is on? Yes and No. Only when the situation is on will we all know for each one of us the answer to that question. The same scenario can be used with boxing. Would I box a boxer? Nope I wouldn't, but can WC deal with it? Yes again.

To learn every technique known to every Martial Art would take a few lifetimes of practice. Not practical if you ask me. Even learning more then one or two MA takes a while, so why not learn something that can deal with it all, and give you tools to be able to do just that....


James

[unkokusai]

so why not learn something that can deal with it all, and give you tools to be able to do just that....


James


.................................................. ............................ :rolleyes:

[anerlich]

Even learning more then one or two MA takes a while, so why not learn something that can deal with it all, and give you tools to be able to do just that

Opinions vary on the veracity of those assertions, that's why. Plus some like variety. Others can do what they like, as long as they don't try to tell me theirs is the only way.

[lawrenceofidaho]

As a standup fighting system goes, WC can be as good as any in the hands of a well-trained, skilled practitioner with the right mental and tactical approach for the given arena of combat or competition.

Like most fighting systems, WC has its areas of excellent applicability and those where its approach is less stellar.

Trying to determine its deficiencies in a pragmatic manner will strengthen rather than weaken the art. Trying to paint those who do so as foolish, heretical or poorly taught says more about the inquistor's fears and misunderstandings than it does about the subject of the criticism. This is a system of fighting, not a religion. Systems and sciences demand constant reevaluation in accordance with changing circumstances and new information, only pseudosciences and dogma do not.

It is also intellectually dishonest to try to raise WC by comparing it with skewed or ignorant impressions of other arts, e.g. boxing being an art in which people jump about furiously on their toes and punch inefficiently, or a smorgasbord of other styles being based on physical conditioning rather than skill and other neurosomatic attributes.

The CDC has it that you are several thousand times more likely to die of lifestyle-related cardiovascular disease than from a violent crime. I WANT training that is going to improve my fitness levels, indeed, the incentive for having to be fit to do it I see as a plus, not a drawback. CLF, contrary to claims made above, is NOT a system reliant on physical conditioning. My first teacher has been studying it for about forty years, as well as WC, and he would know, much better than any forum member here.

His father, a former boxer and judoka, not particularly big, successfully fought off two would be muggers at age 82, chasing one into a public toilet, where the would be mugger locked himself in a cubicle and refused to come out until the cops came and called the old guy off. And those arts won't work into old age, huh?

I agree Hung Gar requires development of specific strength and power. But not CLF, at least no more than WC does.

Some make great claims that WC has physical culture, qigong etc. within it. Most of what I've seen or heard about is watered down qigong. IMO you would be better served by taking up yoga or similar systems which are at least tailored for those specific results.

WC has groundfighting. At least TWC does. To claim what is taught in most schools gives you all the tools you need to escape a takedown, pin, submission hold, or G&P from an experienced wrestler or BJJ practitioner is to place oneself in denial.

I do several arts because I enjoy them. WC remains my primary art. I did my WC forms this morning, after some yoga. All you fundamentalists do them today?

Martial skill is the one of the least important aspects in surviving violent crime (see link in my .sig for sources). People who want to argue stridently with my views, or say I don't understand WC can basically go **** themselves IMO, though I'll probably argue with them because I'm an argumentative SOB who enjoys it. Sue me.



You guys :rolleyes: Get a buzzcut and take a pill. Problem disappears.



Only so far. If you have a screw to join two items together, no amount of improving your skills with a hammer is going to help. Nor your skills with a pencil if you're trying to spraypaint a car.

As Mr Natural says, "get the right tool for the job". (Probably showing my age bigtime with that reference :p )
Andrew,

I am printing out this post of yours and putting it in a frame....... :)


To quote Dave from earlier in this thread;
(well, sorta.......)

"While we all have the same 26 letters, some people, like Andrew can write great [posts]. -Why is this, when we all have the same 26 letters? Why can't all of us write great works?"
:D
-Lawrence

[Fajing]

James, I understand where you're coming from, but have to agree only to an extent. As far as Wing Chun is concerned, I prefer it as well, over other styles. I do believe that there are defensive and offensive moves/techniques in Wing Chun to deal with all kinds of attacks, however, executing all of these is definitely easier said than done. This is certainly highly dependant on the practitioner and his/her level of skill. Now, if one were saying that a skilled BJJ guy were coming at you, there are definitely things (Wing Chun) you could do to defend and attack before ending up on your back. If we are talking about a skilled groundfighter has already taken you down, then there may be a serious problem (of course there are exceptions). As I have stated, I study Wing Chun because I love the style, and I believe it's a practical form of self defense (although I would still prefer fleeing a physical confrontation, or use verbal solution, because you NEVER know what the hell, or who the hell you are dealing with on the street half the time, anything can happen). Furthermore, if we are discussing mixing it up with other fighters in a tournament-like atmosphere, who have eclectic styles under their belt, for example UFC, crosstraining in a stand-up, striking style and ground fighting system would be IDEAL from what I've seen. Again, it comes down to what you like and what it's for. Many on this forum simply prefer mixing Wing Chun with other styles to make sure they are preparred for what all is out there (which is alot). I mix Wing Chun with knife tactics since I LOVE knives, and am usually packing at least two :D. We all have to do what suits us best and makes us feel most comfortable/confident/satisfied. In the end, Wing Chun is a great style if you properly learn, practice and understand so it can be effective. I do believe that it is always best to EVOLVE the art with the times though. The Wing Chun I learn is not soooooo traditional. We train against ground fighting of course. It only makes sense. ;) :D One thing I do have to mention since it was noted previously, is that one should be concerned on some AWARE level that one could certainly be attacked on the street no matter what statistics say you will "more-likely" die from. People are certainly attacked, mugged, raped, robbed, and abducted daily by the thousands. At least here in the old U.S.A. :D :D :D :D :D

[lawrenceofidaho]

To learn every technique known to every Martial Art would take a few lifetimes of practice. Not practical if you ask me. Even learning more then one or two MA takes a while, so why not learn something that can deal with it all, and give you tools to be able to do just that....
Every art has both "high percentage" and "low percentage" moves in it's arsenal. The high percentage ones are the "bread and butter" techniques that the art is generally known for, while the others are (generally) either: more complicated, less powerful, only used in certain specialized situations, etc....

After you become proficient with the core techniques of your primary art, why not set aside some of the time you would normally spend dabbling with various "low percentage" moves, and instead focus on learning the fundamentals of an art that compliments, or fills in some of the gaps of your primary art?

This seems to be the most efficient way to train, -meaning, you will be practicing the greatest number, of the most effective techniques, to prepare yourself for combat........ And since efficiency is a wing chun principle, how can it possibly be bad?
;)
-Lawrence

[KPM]

We all have to do what suits us best and makes us feel most comfortable/confident/satisfied. In the end, Wing Chun is a great style if you properly learn, practice and understand so it can be effective. I do believe that it is always best to EVOLVE the art with the times though.

I agree! If we all did exactly the same thing....wouldn't life be boring? :) I like to see people being innovative and "evolving" things. But I also would not like to see the "traditional" version fade away. Its nice to have both. Judo may be more "evolved", but its still nice to have traditional Jiu Jitsu around to refer back to. To know where you are going, you have to know where you came from. Different strokes for different folks. There is definately room in this world for both the traditional lineage approach as well as the more eclectic innovative approach. Each can inform the other! :eek:

Keith

[Fajing]

There is definately room in this world for both the traditional lineage approach as well as the more eclectic innovative approach. Each can inform the other!

I can't argue with that! :)

[anerlich]

KPM and fajing are correct.

[Mr Punch]

To me wing chun is a way to complement, enhance and practise my natural fighting skills... and a way to have fun.

All this talk talk talk about is it complete, is this from boxing, is that from some other MA etc suggests that some of you need more smacks upside the head, and I hope you get them from sparring with people from other arts rather than in the street.

[Liddel]

Negitivecreep says
"My biggest problem with wing chun seems to be the lack of a power rear cross. And the fact that, as far as I know there are only centerline punches"
:eek:
Im affraid your missing out dude. My VT has a power cross, uppercuts (chum Kiu)
low hooks (Bil gee).
These actions exist in form but like many actions that exicst in form they can have different but similar attributes in practical use.
Also we have what my Sifu calls the Banana punch, a right/left hook that follows a round path but doesnt have the elbow flying out as much as in boxing....we apply our theory to different situations.
Hell if i spotted an opening but there wasnt straight line to the target ( and stepping to change said line is too slown as well as removing the obstacle) then of course im going to adapt an action to suit that situation and land one, whilst hopefully not deviating too far from my theories (which for my VT is very do-able)

Dont be a slave to form....
Basically you should be able to apply your VT theory of throwing a punch and apply it to punches from other styles like boxing, a hybrid if you will.
If you think and i quote "as far as I know there are only centerline punches"
I have no idea why you do/did VT in the first place.

[FooFighter]

What does Wing Chun Mean to Me?

Wing Chun Gung Fu is just a branch of Chinese martial science and not the whole science itself. When you try to make the small or large branch better or larger than the whole tree itself, then you have truly misunderstood the difference between specialized knowledge and general truths or theory and practice. Such misunderstandings do not help develop empathy for each other as human beings nor help cultivate the emotional intelligence for us to work together when real danger lies ahead of us.

The manner that I intellectually understood from Allan Chee Kong Lee Sifu was that Wing Chun is the martial scientific branch, which assumes your opponent, will have the greater physical advantages and that you will have to develop clever tactics and strategies to overcome your opponent. In this way, you have to always learn, discover in actuality. And apply the best ways to apply the theory of economy of motion or energy that simultaneously covers and attacks. A student of Wing Chun can defend himself or herself by learning how to apply his techniques through trial and error or having a good Sifu with real fighting experience guiding him or her. I personally believe that the art of Wing Chun can stand alone but people who study Wing Chun can change or should grow in whatever way they see fit. Creativity and freedom is something I admire and seek above all else before submission.

I am in favor of the individual first and system second. I think the current debate of cross-training or keeping things pure is rather subjective and rather pointless. It is your personal choice and free will in how far or deep or wide you want to experience wing chun or any martial system. In my opinion, every time you teach wing chun to a new student, you in effect have changed wing chun gung fu. So why bother fighting over sport over combat. There are no pure styles and both combat camps and sports camps are right. Each both can benefit from each other’s experience. Combat camps need to start going against others fighters to know if there can pull off their techniques under real time and pressure and stop with the nonsense too deadly for personal use busines. The MMA or sport camps need to learn how to fight in the streets against armed or unarmed, single or plural, learn criminal law and justice system (how many wing chun instructors have lawyers come in and teach criminal laws and the justice system to students?), and most importantly criminal psychology. All in all, Wing Chun is a beattiful system and I have so much empathy for those who have so much passion for it, but as I have always believed it is not the style that needs to be changed it is the educational methodology that needs radical transformation. Thank you to all the wing chun instructors who truly love and care for their students and their art. Student first and your ego second is the mark of a true father or sifu.

[lawrenceofidaho]

we have what my Sifu calls the Banana punch, a right/left hook that follows a round path but doesnt have the elbow flying out as much as in boxing....we apply our theory to different situations.
Interesting....... I've never heard of the WC "banana punch" before, but it sounds cool and very functional.

-Lawrence

[sihing]

Interesting....... I've never heard of the WC "banana punch" before, but it sounds cool and very functional.

-Lawrence

You've never heard of that one Lawrence?? It's from that parallel universe you were talking about before. Maybe that's a great place to find some new stuff for that eclectic MA philosophy of yours....

James

[lawrenceofidaho]

You've never heard of that one Lawrence?? It's from that parallel universe you were talking about before. Maybe that's a great place to find some new stuff for that eclectic MA philosophy of yours....

James
Haha!! :D

How long have you been training the "banana punch", James?

If you're already good at it, you might knock me out if you know the right time to throw it.......

;)

Peace,
-Lawrence

[sihing]

Haha!! :D

How long have you been training the "banana punch", James?

If you're already good at it, you might knock me out if you know the right time to throw it.......

;)

Peace,
-Lawrence

Ah, I'd rather use logic and take the peel off and let you slip on it, lol. More efficient and effective don't you think????

Peace back at ya,

James

[lawrenceofidaho]

Peace back at ya,
Forget it, Buddy.......
The war is ON!
I'm going to start arguing with every reply that you post!!

Uh......Wait a minute.......Never mind....... :o

-Lawrence

[sihing]

Forget it, Buddy.......
The war is ON!
I'm going to start arguing with every reply that you post!!

-Lawrence

I think you already are????

No worries though, sometimes people have to agree to disagree..

James

[lawrenceofidaho]

James,

I just PM'd you. :)

-Lawrence

[Tom Kagan]

Hi Tom,

What's eating you? You really seem stuck on the whole idea of hair pulling. I thought I already made it clear that it is the attitude not the pulling of hair that is important here. Do you have bad memories of someone pulling your hair when you were younger and you just can't get past that image? :confused:

Look, you seem to disdain the idea of pulling someones hair, it is beneath you and people who resort to using such a method must be unskilled morons. Talk about shortsighted.
I've been away for a while and the forum ate my first attempt to post a reply on Tuesday. I'm sorry I haven't followed up sooner.



People who pull others hair are not necessarily "unskilled morons." However, if our disagreement is valid evidence, the jury is still out whether such "attitude training" you embody in what you describe as "dirty tactics" is an effective method of cultivating such attributes deemed necessary for a practitioner. Any disdain you may have read in my previous post was directed at the "who cares?" comment, which was not written by you, and his "EXACTLY!!" groupie. My patience sometimes wears thin for people who pretend there is no difference between methods and results just so they can bounce back and forth for the sake of arguing. It should be obvious that I care. And, it should be obvious from your posts that you care, too. The real risk of any shortsightedness is not any spirited exchanges culminating with a personal attack accusation of deep-seated childhood trauma motivating their actions. It is, in my opinion the lack of talk and avoidance of discussion on what has the potential to be a fruitful subject.

I understood from your first post that you were speaking of the "attitude" of which you refer. However, what may not be clear from my posts is this "attitude" is also what I am discussing. This is why I asked, after you clarified your position, what you felt was lacking and/or inherent to the Ving Tsun Paai Kung Fu you know which would compel you to emphasize this explicit "attitude" training, particularly using what you characterize as "dirty tactics" to draw it out in a practitioner. It is also why I gave a baseline example of a style which discards much of this and yet paradoxically achieves the same goal you portend to seek

Brazilian Jujitsu is not a unique example of a training progression which discards most all explicit training of the "attitude" of which you refer; it is hardly unique in attempting to create rules perceived as "fair" in a training progression. There are many examples, but Brazilian Jujitsu has one other fascinating and relevant tidbit to this conversation: The U.S. Army essentially endorsed its apparent training paradox by instituting large portions of its training methodology. The kicker is the primary reason was not to improve specifics of hand-to-hand one-on-one, face-to-face combat, but because the Army feels the training progression has something inherent in efficiently training the mindset you pursue via entirely opposite methods. How's that for a paradox: Teaching soldiers to "fight fairly" expedites the down and dirty job of drawing out the the mindset to kill via the most gruesome means! Can a fair duel with many rules reduce hesitation and help people learn to "cheat"? The U.S. Army thinks so.

[NOTE: I seemed to have misplaced the reference for the U.S. Army's reasons to use its new method of training troops. I can move like a slug when it comes to finding things, but I'll eventually find it and repost it if anyone is still interested.]

Setting aside the question of whether Ving Tsun Paai Kung Fu is lacking in "attitude" training, obviously you feel there is something basic a practitioner needs in their mindset to express a martial art effectively. The disagreement you and I have is over the need to pursue it explicitly and whether to use "dirty tactics" as a means to that end. I am certainly not a "Ving Tsun bigot" with the opinion that the style has every answer to life's problems. But in this particular instance, I have the 100% polar opposite opinion of you. Not only do I believe that the attitude you seek is not explicitly mapped out in the style, but it is not supposed to be - the correct design for development of the attribute. It does not need further explicit emphasis assuming a practitioner is on the correct training path. You have already expressed the opposing opinion that it is necessary to explicitly train it, particularly with "dirty tactics". In my opinion, Ving Tsun Paai Kung Fu's successive generations of refinement show this trend of a paradoxical "attitude" training method in its curriculum of attribute devleopment and progression.

The topic of this thread is "Wing Chun: What does it mean to you?"

Explicit "attitude" development: Basic ingredient, Fundamental in the mix, or icing on the cake? (And has the icing's buttercream spoiled? ;) )

I'd like to know more about your reasons for going against a very large body of evidence elsewhere and also what I believe is evidence in the style's blueprint that the style has an equivalent paradox paralleling other arts.



For the record, I have short hair. This is not because of any deep seated childhood trauma. I'm just too cheap and lazy to deal with longer hair.

[kj]

[NOTE: I seemed to have misplaced the reference for the U.S. Army's reasons to use its new method of training troops. I can move like a slug when it comes to finding things, but I'll eventually find it and repost it if anyone is still interested.][/size]

If it isn't too much trouble, I for one would indeed appreciate the reference. Thanks in advance.

Kudos to you guys for your part in raising the bar on discussions too. I deeply appreciate quality and balance in critical analysis and civility, and find such variety in discussions interesting and greatly refreshing.

Regards,
- Kathy Jo

[Spark]

People who pull others hair are not necessarily "unskilled morons." However, if our disagreement is valid evidence, the jury is still out whether such "attitude training" you embody in what you describe as "dirty tactics" is an effective method of cultivating such attributes deemed necessary for a practitioner. Any disdain you may have read in my previous post was directed at the "who cares?" comment, which was not written by you, and his "EXACTLY!!" groupie.[/size]

Haha, hey that was me! If you take a look back to page two Tom, you will notice the 'disdain' was shown in the 4-5 posts before I chimed in.

And I'm glad that I have reached Rock Star status around here. Now if only my "groupies" were women ;)

[Tom Kagan]

Haha, hey that was me! If you take a look back to page two Tom, you will notice the 'disdain' was shown in the 4-5 posts before I chimed in.

And I'm glad that I have reached Rock Star status around here. Now if only my "groupies" were women ;)


Don't spark me, Mr. Spark. You will lose. I cheat, and it won't be via the junior high method of hair-pulling and tattling to the principal. ;)

Spriited exchange and strong disagreements in a public forum can be confused with disdain, especially to those who do not have enough experience with one another or are disinterested onlookers to the conversation, or assume such posting is about ego. But if you re-read Dave's posts before my reply to "who cares?", his posts do not read to me as if he mistook what I was saying as such until I responded to a flippant remark which he did not make.

And, thank you for pointing out my misuse of a word. Lackey, stooge, bootlicker, flunky, or the newfangled internet term "nutrider" are more apt descriptions.


Game on, dudes! Get out your flamethrower and troll doll.

:cool:

[DRleungjan]

What does Wing Chun mean to me... If I was in school I'd have to make an essay out of this. Let me take a crack at this.

First of all from a quasi historical perspective Wing Chun to me is a melting pot of southern styles brought into a nifty compact little system. Now from a general point of view it is just a style in which, with diligent practice, gives one very good and usefull skills for self defence. The system, as with many martial art systems, offer good health benefits also. I actually like some of the principles such as 'economy of motion', to name just one. Within this one principle one can gain speed and speed is one of the components in generating power. Tell me who doesn't wan't a little power! :D

I can go on and on about the attributes one gains or, like me, am now re-discovering within the art. It is a well rounded style that I really like and hopefully will like to master someday. But like the saying goes...we are all eternal students. Wing Chun has so much to offer that one never gets to the bottom of it.

Just an opinion. :)

[Spark]

Don't spark me, Mr. Spark. You will lose. I cheat, and it won't be via the junior high method of hair-pulling and tattling to the principal. ;)

Spriited exchange and strong disagreements in a public forum can be confused with disdain, especially to those who do not have enough experience with one another or are disinterested onlookers to the conversation, or assume such posting is about ego. But if you re-read Dave's posts before my reply to "who cares?", his posts do not read to me as if he mistook what I was saying as such until I responded to a flippant remark which he did not make.

And, thank you for pointing out my misuse of a word. Lackey, stooge, bootlicker, flunky, or the newfangled internet term "nutrider" are more apt descriptions.


Game on, dudes! Get out your flamethrower and troll doll.

:cool:

Ooohhh Mr. Kagan, so much "attitude"!

I can let Dave (if he chooses to) say his piece on this, but from an INTERESTED onlooker, who has read the thread more than once, it seemed pretty clear that no explanation about the use of said technique would satisfy you and the phrase "what's eating you" was not a comment on your one post but to all of them.

[Tom Kagan]

Ooohhh Mr. Kagan, so much "attitude"!

I can let Dave (if he chooses to) say his piece on this, but from an INTERESTED onlooker, who has read the thread more than once, it seemed pretty clear that no explanation about the use of said technique would satisfy you and the phrase "what's eating you" was not a comment on your one post but to all of them.

Perhaps it is true that "no explanation about the use of said technique" would be sufficient to convince me. That's not disdain, though. Disdain is to regard what Dave wrote with haughty contempt.

Specifically, the word I used before which could most be construed as such disdain was "nonsense." Nonsense means it is of little or no importance or usefulness. That is my opinion on the subject. The risk of someone construing disdain from the connotations of the words I used to express and press Dave further on the disagreement we have is quite clear to me as it is to you. This is why I tried to make it clear from the start this was not my intention when addressing him by being up front I would have "to disagree with you as strongly as I can while still trying to be respectful." (If you think I did a poor job of that, then Mea Culpa.)

But, I feel it is clear it my response to you - with its similar theme, example, and with real intended disdain but was directed towards your dance back and forth of method vs. result - was what retroactively caused my own inadvertent fault of changing the tone read in my previous posts to this one.

If Dave felt I had disdain towards his words, then I apologize to Dave. I also apologize to you for losing my patience. I won't apologize for the words, though. I doubt you'd accept it as genuine, anyway.

Now, if you'll excuse the choice of wording, this tangent is nonsense (no disdain intended). If you wish to continue to discuss our playful show of mock contempt for one another, I will be more than happy to enjoy our trollfest privately. ;)

However, if you'd prefer to get back to the topic, then please answer my question to you: "Why train to hit like a hammer when you can just carry one and hit with a hammer after two or three practice swings?" What's all this training mean to you, Mr. Spark?

(Hmm ... I don't think I resorted to cheating in responding. How's that for control? :D )

[lawrenceofidaho]

principles such as 'economy of motion', to name just one. Within this one principle one can gain speed and speed is one of the components in generating power. Tell me who doesn't wan't a little power!
Dr. Leung,

please remember the difference between how fast something is traveling vs how fast something arrives at it's destination.

A car traveling 50 mph, but taking a scenic route, may arrive later at a particular destination than a car traveling 30 mph that happens to be taking a shortcut........ -However, which would you rather have slam into you as you're backing out of a driveway?

Economy of motion is important, but so is natural speed, and natural speed is what adds to power.......

-Lawrence

[DRleungjan]

Hey Lawrence,


Dr. Leung

please remember the difference between how fast something is traveling vs how fast something arrives at it's destination

A car traveling 50 mph, but taking a scenic route, may arrive later at a particular destination than a car traveling 30 mph that happens to be taking a shortcut........ -However, which would you rather have slam into you as you're backing out of a driveway?

Economy of motion is important, but so is natural speed, and natural speed is what adds to power.......

Oh yes...point well taken...I was being very brief in my assessment...thanks for the clarification. On the other hand, one has to enhance one's natural speed somehow...ergo Wing Chun's (in this case) principles and concepts. :)

[lawrenceofidaho]

Hey Lawrence,
Oh yes...point well taken...I was being very brief in my assessment...thanks for the clarification. On the other hand, one has to enhance one's natural speed somehow...ergo Wing Chun's (in this case) principles and concepts. :)
A combination of both is most effective, IMO.

-Lawrence