Profound

[nschmelzer]

I found the following interview very helpful in my wing chun training.

http://taijijourney.blogspot.com/2005/07/interview-with-mr-wang-xiangzhai.html

It shares my disdain for McDojos as well as the MMA sports entertainment phenomenon. It makes points that resonate in both communities. (E.g., forms are generally a waste of time; most MMA fighters miss the point; etc.)

[t_niehoff]

You might want to watch this clip of two yi quan "masters", particularly the middle part of the clip where they are shown "sparring":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-ZBR51Tewg

I'd be careful of listening to these "masters" opinions unless and until you can see what they can really do in fighting. Their profound ideas may be baseless. As Yip Man said, "Go out and test it for yourself, I may be tricking you."

[sanjuro_ronin]

Some of the stuff he says is right on the money.

I don't like commercialization of MA, but I dislike "public consumption MA' even less.

Either teach or don't, this teach one thing to the public and other in private is silly and can lead to the death of a system.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink it.
You can't teach those that can't be taught.
Knowledge is for the deserving.

All the above show that teaching should be done open hearted and holding nothing back, though you certainly don't give everything all at once.
I have heard of people being in a systems for 10 years or more and still haven't been or never wil be taught the "real" thing, that is just sad.

[nschmelzer]

I'd be careful of listening to these "masters" opinions unless and until you can see what they can really do in fighting. Their profound ideas may be baseless. As Yip Man said, "Go out and test it for yourself, I may be tricking you."

Agreed. But in this case, the master is very critical of most martial arts practiced today. Further, he does not appear to have any motive for distorting reality (no commercial or ego motives). Therefore, I find him to be more credible than the average "master" or MMA sports competitor.

I'd be more careful listening to internet warriror opinions, until you can examine their skill face to face. Wouldn't you agree?

[sanjuro_ronin]

Agreed. But in this case, the master is very critical of most martial arts practiced today. Further, he does not appear to have any motive for distorting reality (no commercial or ego motives). Therefore, I find him to be more credible than the average "master" or MMA sports competitor.

I'd be more careful listening to internet warriror opinions, until you can examine their skill face to face. Wouldn't you agree?

Quite, but don't forget, what is right, is right, regardless of "skill level".
If someone told you its better to move out of the way than get hit, would their skill level be relevant?

[t_niehoff]

Quite, but don't forget, what is right, is right, regardless of "skill level".
If someone told you its better to move out of the way than get hit, would their skill level be relevant?

Actually, I don't agree necessarily with "what is right, is right." This presupposes there is an objective "right way." And IME that's not how things in open skill physical (athletic) activities really work. What makes it "right" is that you can do it. There are often many "right" or appropriate ways of doing things. Some will work for us, others not. Who can say you are wrong if you can do it? And as I've seen for myself, the greater the skill level, the more often those people can do things others can't.

With regard to "getting out of the way" - if your shot can't hurt me, because it lacks power for instance, I might just not get out of the way and instead just pound you when you come in to hit. That's sort of what the MT fighter did in that clip with the TKD guy.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Actually, I don't agree necessarily with "what is right, is right." This presupposes there is an objective "right way." And IME that's not how things in open skill physical (athletic) activities really work. What makes it "right" is that you can do it. There are often many "right" or appropriate ways of doing things. Some will work for us, others not. Who can say you are wrong if you can do it? And as I've seen for myself, the greater the skill level, the more often those people can do things others can't.

With regard to "getting out of the way" - if your shot can't hurt me, because it lacks power for instance, I might just not get out of the way and instead just pound you when you come in to hit. That's sort of what the MT fighter did in that clip with the TKD guy.

Context is everything.
I think my point was loss.

[nschmelzer]

Quite, but don't forget, what is right, is right, regardless of "skill level".
If someone told you its better to move out of the way than get hit, would their skill level be relevant?

Would someone have to tell a frog when to jump in the water? Is there anything for the frog to learn? We only discover what we already know intuitively, and skill is the degree by which we understand this intuition and act intuitively. Training, drilling, forms, etc. only help our bodies learn how to express our intuitive intent.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Would someone have to tell a frog when to jump in the water? Is there anything for the frog to learn? We only discover what we already know intuitively, and skill is the degree by which we understand this intuition and act intuitively. Training, drilling, forms, etc. only help our bodies learn how to express our intuitive intent.

That is one way of looking at it.

[Tom Kagan]

Quite, but don't forget, what is right, is right, regardless of "skill level".
If someone told you its better to move out of the way than get hit, would their skill level be relevant?

Yes their skill level is relevant. Oversimplified statements too nonspecific to disagree with but too general to be of any practical use are barely a step above trite pleasantries. Perhaps they might be excusable or understandable coming from or said to a newbie, but they downright patronizing said to or heard from anyone else.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Yes their skill level is relevant. Oversimplified statements too nonspecific to disagree with but too general to be of any practical use are barely a step above trite pleasantries. Perhaps they might be excusable or understandable coming from or said to a newbie, but they downright patronizing said to or heard from anyone else.

Let me put it another way, in boxing we don't expect our coaches to be able to beat us, yet they have TONES to offer us in terms of advice, experience and know-how.

[Knifefighter]

Let me put it another way, in boxing we don't expect our coaches to be able to beat us, yet they have TONES to offer us in terms of advice, experience and know-how.

Put a pair of gloves on almost any boxing coach and you will see at least a pretty good bit of skill. It is rare for a boxing coach not to have competed at least at the amateur level.

[nschmelzer]

Yes their skill level is relevant. Oversimplified statements too nonspecific to disagree with but too general to be of any practical use are barely a step above trite pleasantries. Perhaps they might be excusable or understandable coming from or said to a newbie, but they downright patronizing said to or heard from anyone else.

Perhaps you are the patronizing one. Perhaps you only see "trite pleasantries" because you lack compassion and/or depth in understanding. Perhaps someone discussing "trite pleasantries" could put you on the ground. But rather than beat their chests and say "me punch hard" - they choose to discuss the deeper aspects of our training. After all, there is only one way to test skill - and that is face to face. Since that is not possible, perhaps the best use of this forum is for the deeper discussions - rather than the theories of internet warriors and MMA wannabes.

The topic of this thread was the interview linked in the first post. What are your thoughts of that interview? (Perhaps we can save our other more random thoughts for other threads?)

[Tom Kagan]

Let me put it another way, in boxing we don't expect our coaches to be able to beat us, yet they have TONES to offer us in terms of advice, experience and know-how.

I understand where you are coming from. So, as long as you understand that a ton of bullsh!t weighs the same as a ton of "advice, experience, and know-how", I think we are on the same wavelength.


they choose to discuss the deeper aspects of our training.

Then those wouldn't be trite pleasantries like "better to move out of the way than get hit". The Sphinx from the Mystery Men says stuff like that. People who understand "deeper aspects" who aren't patronizing either share them and don't speak in trite pleasantries, or choose to remain silent.


The topic of this thread was the interview linked in the first post. What are your thoughts of that interview?

I think one way it could be interpreted is as an all too typical "Everyone else is wrong except my way" troll job. If it is, indeed, such an expression of an overinflated ego, then the entire interview would have to fall under the heading of trite UNpleasantries.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Put a pair of gloves on almost any boxing coach and you will see at least a pretty good bit of skill. It is rare for a boxing coach not to have competed at least at the amateur level.

very much agreed

[nschmelzer]

Wang Xiangzhai: What is, after all, the basic principle of combat science? Different people have different answers to this question, but studying boxing routines, forms of movements, fixed techniques, and training hits and beats, all fall into the category of superficial, and although the boxing routines and forms of movements have been popular already for a long time, they are, indeed, extremely harmful to the people.

Wang Xiangzhai: Combat science cannot be divided into schools, and the boxing theory does not have the distinction of Chinese or foreign, and new or old. Do nothing but examine whether it is right or wrong, and suitable or unsuitable, that is enough. At large, the numerous schools of our society, generally take the approach of forms and techniques to learn boxing. One must know that this kind practice is just forgery conducted by the later generations, it is not the original essence of combat science. Even though a few people by chance realise some side-mechanics and one-sided techniques, they have not, however, left the methods and forms after all, so it is without avail in the end.

Wang Xiangzhai: The human body has all kinds of functions; no wise man can exhaust them all even if practising all his life. What is the reason to abandon the essence and study the scum? The more one studies the methods of forms and routines the ****her one will be from the truth. That is like binding the feet of the women, the more profound one’s skill is, the more difficult it is to extend the feet, therefore the beginners advance much faster than the veterans. This argument has been proved by many irrefutable examples. The theory created by the later generations where a certain posture breeds a certain strength, and a certain method overcomes a certain boxing skill is real magniloquence resulting in deceiving the people. I am afraid that the one who claims such things has no understanding of boxing at all.


How do Master Wang's statements relate to wing chun? Is the wing chun elbow position and punch, and stances, forgeries? Critics of WC claim that the WC theories and practice all go out the window in a real combat situation (and even in an MMA sporting situation). If that is true, what is left? Personally, I believe in the gate theory, elbow theory, centerline theory, simultaneous attack/defend theory, chi sau, kiu sau, chi kiu progression. I use the jong sau, chin gum sau, and biu sau in live situations. Any comments?

[t_niehoff]

How do Master Wang's statements relate to wing chun?


Quite frandkly, I don't care what Wang says. I reach my own conclusions based on my own experience.



Is the wing chun elbow position and punch, and stances, forgeries? Critics of WC claim that the WC theories and practice all go out the window in a real combat situation (and even in an MMA sporting situation). If that is true, what is left? Personally, I believe in the gate theory, elbow theory, centerline theory, simultaneous attack/defend theory, chi sau, kiu sau, chi kiu progression. I use the jong sau, chin gum sau, and biu sau in live situations. Any comments?

What you believe is not meaningful. People can beleive all kinds of stuff (for example, that they can fire chi balls at you). What matters is what you can do (in fighitng), and the level at which you can do it (the skill/attributes of your opponent). What you can do is true, the rest is merely theory.

[Hendrik]

Wang Xiangzhai: The human body has all kinds of functions; no wise man can exhaust them all even if practising all his life. What is the reason to abandon the essence and study the scum? The more one studies the methods of forms and routines the ****her one will be from the truth. That is like binding the feet of the women, the more profound one’s skill is, the more difficult it is to extend the feet, therefore the beginners advance much faster than the veterans. This argument has been proved by many irrefutable examples. The theory created by the later generations where a certain posture breeds a certain strength, and a certain method overcomes a certain boxing skill is real magniloquence resulting in deceiving the people. I am afraid that the one who claims such things has no understanding of boxing at all.


How do Master Wang's statements relate to wing chun? Is the wing chun elbow position and punch, and stances, forgeries? Critics of WC claim that the WC theories and practice all go out the window in a real combat situation (and even in an MMA sporting situation). If that is true, what is left? Personally, I believe in the gate theory, elbow theory, centerline theory, simultaneous attack/defend theory, chi sau, kiu sau, chi kiu progression. I use the jong sau, chin gum sau, and biu sau in live situations. Any comments?


IMHO, what WXZ said is direct to the target.

For example, the number one question when SLT/SNT was design will be how is this type of "structure" or Nature or Function sustain the frontal in comming force vectors.

if this issue is not resolve, disregard of which SLt/SNT practioners one is in trouble with frontal integrity of the structure under dynamaic attack such as a take down.



So, one could do tan sau or and more technics....to evolve thier SLT/SNt that still not solving the issue of this frontal sustain or neutralized...etc the frontal in comming force.



For me, when I mean Goes InternaL I mean to study, have a solution for the basic physical, mental... Nature or Function needed. It is not style or different ways of doing things... it is direct into the target of "ok, how things is possible to be implement? "


The bottom line I keep brougt up the Emei 12 Zhuang is not only that the SLT Kuen Kuit I know do "copy " the Emei 12 Zhuang writing, but to drive into the core to observe how is SLT possible/suppose to handling simple thing such as the frontal in comming force naturally without lip service. IE drop a ball from 12 floor it is going to go down no matter what theory one is Lip servicing or trying to explain one's way out. IE: if one clamp one's butt and hip tightly in the YJKYM , one sure "break" one's body into two part--- lower and upper body, and has to use lots of muscle power to sustain the incomming force because the hip joins has been locked. that is just nature. is that effective? could this stance rooted effortlessly? could this stance flow with ease while in action as needed? nope, that is just nature.

As what the Emei 12 Zhuang provide in the case of the SLT is the training of manualling or handling the spine and other part of body almost Join by Join, and with this type of handling, one knows, has a much greater chances to sustain or neutralize or slip away instead of head on collision compare with the other training such as CLF or HungGa or other "hard " style which rely more muscular power then WCK.

Thus, there is nothing Profound but we need to cover the basic with simplicity. that is what I mean internal.

Who cares how the explicit look of the move or how many sets one drill or what theory...ect? focus on the basic handling and simplicity IMHO. until that could be attained how could one even impliment the most basic? IMHO

Best regards