The Thinking Man's Art

[KPM]

I came across an interview with Sifu Robert Chu today. He said something I liked and that has some bearing on recent threads here in the forum:

You gotta have some brains in order to do Wing Chun. That is the beauty of it, what is it an advanced marital art? It is thinking man’s art. Think about it, Wing Chun was passed down by the opera troops. They have to be very innovative, be comical, understand situations to entertain people. They have to be able to take the best of martial arts and simplify it for application. Yet they still have to be able to use martial arts for show and entertainment.

They passed it down to the merchant class. Doctors and merchants are usually very smart people. They have to use their brain, they have to do problem solving. Then we have the age of the educated individuals, like in Hong Kong.

You didn’t have your basic farmers learning Wing Chun, you had people with more substance (learning it at that time). We should conduct the art in that matter, because it’s progressing in that matter. I think there is a great improvement of Wing Chun, because it passes onto intelligent people. Not just thugs, gangsters, or stupid people.

[anerlich]

Well ...

IMO most martial arts require the application of intelligence and critical thinking to get the most out of them. Jiu jitsu IMO is undergoing continual evolution with some very smart and innovative practitioners and coaches pushing it along. Wing Chun, not so much.

The above statements generalise that farmers and the lower classes lack intelligence, and that entertainers are necessarily smart. And that merchants are as smart as doctors. Might have been so back then, but highly questionable whether it is now.

Another WC internet celebrity seems to think that WC has gone backwards since 1850 and we've lost a lot of stuff since then. All the smart people must have got left out of the loop. Or all the smart people got too smart for their own good and decided to take that sh*t to their graves.

Which Internet guru do you want to follow? Neither, thank you.

[Wayfaring]

You gotta have some brains in order to do Wing Chun.

I read that statement, and then I look around at this forum, and somehow I don't find myself agreeing with Robert. Maybe it's just me.

[David Jamieson]

oh my gosh, talk about fluffing a **** filled pillow.

"thinking mans art"?

It's not mathematics, it's stuffing your fist into someones face and stomping on their knee.

WTF is there to think about. Just repeat stuff til you have skill and then apply. Not much thought required.

Wing Chun is the same as any other martial art in that respect.

Why is there a segment of people who think themselves intellectual for pursuing martial art? It borders on the sublimely ridiculous when you break down the logic of that.

Just saying. :)

[YouKnowWho]

Combat is whatever that you can do on your body. It's not what you can think in your brain.

The difference between a scholar and a MA guy is when a

- scholder tries to answer 10 questions exam. He would start from Q1, Q2, ... If he has problen with Q5, he can skip it and come back to it after he has finished Q10.

- knife is stabbing toward a MA guy's heart, he has only 1/10 second to make the right decision. If he has to think about whether he should use "Tan Shou", "Fu Shou", or "Bon Shou", he would be dead.

[goju]

oh my gosh, talk about fluffing a **** filled pillow.

Lol :D:D:D:D

[Jimbo]

He says doctors, merchants and actors are of more substance, and farmers are stupid? That's pretty funny. None of those 'persons of more substance' would have been able to feed themselves without farmers to provide for them. Also, many farmers develop freaky strength from their daily labor. Add MA training to that and put two and two together. Farmers also have to know what they're doing. I doubt those 'men of greater substance' would have lasted a day working the fields.

As YKW mentioned, intellect has little to do with combat. Too much reliance on intellect and thinking will indeed interfere with your actions/reactions.

[PalmStriker]

Combat is whatever that you can do on your body. It's not what you can think in your brain.

The difference between a scholar and a MA guy is when a

- scholder tries to answer 10 questions exam. He would start from Q1, Q2, ... If he has problen with Q5, he can skip it and come back to it after he has finished Q10.

- knife is stabbing toward a MA guy's heart, he has only 1/10 second to make the right decision. If he has to think about whether he should use "Tan Shou", "Fu Shou", or "Bon Shou", he would be dead. Yes, true, but he could think about the ramifications as he lay there dying and make adjustments for his next life. I have heard Wing Chun referred to as a "gentleman's art", though.

[anerlich]

I have heard Wing Chun referred to as a "gentleman's art", though.

An assertion often contradicted by the behaviour of its senior practitioners.

[PalmStriker]

An assertion often contradicted by the behaviour of its senior practitioners.
Ha ! I think the expression was mostly used in Hong Kong. :)

[guy b.]

He says doctors, merchants and actors are of more substance, and farmers are stupid? That's pretty funny.

By "farmers" in 19th century China I think he means peasants pretty much. It is probably true that wing chun was more a martial art of the middle classes in China at that time. It is also true that it does provide quite a bit to think about if you are so inclined.

Who cares though really? It is what it is today, and today is all we have

[lance]

I came across an interview with Sifu Robert Chu today. He said something I liked and that has some bearing on recent threads here in the forum:

You gotta have some brains in order to do Wing Chun. That is the beauty of it, what is it an advanced marital art? It is thinking man’s art. Think about it, Wing Chun was passed down by the opera troops. They have to be very innovative, be comical, understand situations to entertain people. They have to be able to take the best of martial arts and simplify it for application. Yet they still have to be able to use martial arts for show and entertainment.

They passed it down to the merchant class. Doctors and merchants are usually very smart people. They have to use their brain, they have to do problem solving. Then we have the age of the educated individuals, like in Hong Kong.

You didn’t have your basic farmers learning Wing Chun, you had people with more substance (learning it at that time). We should conduct the art in that matter, because it’s progressing in that matter. I think there is a great improvement of Wing Chun, because it passes onto intelligent people. Not just thugs, gangsters, or stupid people. I agree , you ' re not only learning how to fight , but you ' re also learning how to think too .

[Lee Chiang Po]

The class levels pretty much determined who did and who did not study martial arts in old china. If you worked from daylight to dark every day it might effect the time you might have to study or practice. The red boat acrobats likely had lots of time to practice wing chun, as would most persons of status .

[KPM]

Wow! I have to scratch my head a bit over some of the responses on this thread. I felt the need to respond to a few of them.

The above statements generalise that farmers and the lower classes lack intelligence, and that entertainers are necessarily smart. And that merchants are as smart as doctors. Might have been so back then, but highly questionable whether it is now.

---He was obviously talking about “then”, not “now.” And it wasn’t a statement on intelligence, it was a statement on educational level.

Another WC internet celebrity seems to think that WC has gone backwards since 1850 and we've lost a lot of stuff since then. All the smart people must have got left out of the loop. Or all the smart people got too smart for their own good and decided to take that sh*t to their graves.

---Internet celebrity? Robert hasn’t had any kind of internet presence for several years now. He no longer participates regularly on the forums and hasn’t even updated his own webpage in a couple of years. And you got all that from that simple passage I quoted? He simply said that to be good at Wing Chun you have to use your brain as much as your fists. Nothing was said about whether we are worse off or better off than our predecessors.

knife is stabbing toward a MA guy's heart, he has only 1/10 second to make the right decision. If he has to think about whether he should use "Tan Shou", "Fu Shou", or "Bon Shou", he would be dead.

---Once again, how do you derive that idea from the passage quoted? Robert is talking about training and understanding Wing Chun at a certain depth. He never implied that you were supposed to stop and think about each move before you did it. That’s just a ridiculous statement.

He says doctors, merchants and actors are of more substance, and farmers are stupid? That's pretty funny. None of those 'persons of more substance' would have been able to feed themselves without farmers to provide for them.

---And again! How do you arrive at that conclusion from his statement? Where did he say farmers are stupid? Obviously farmers worked long hard days and had little time left over for either education or training in martial arts. This was not necessarily the case for the merchant class, and certainly not the case for the “upper class.”


oh my gosh, talk about fluffing a **** filled pillow. "thinking mans art"? It's not mathematics, it's stuffing your fist into someones face and stomping on their knee.
WTF is there to think about. Just repeat stuff til you have skill and then apply. Not much thought required.

---“Fluffing a **** filled pillow”??? Really???? You think it’s that simple? Ok. If you guys don’t respect what Robert Chu has to say, how about some quotes from someone else? This one is from Wong Shun Leung in David Petersen’s book. Wong Shun Leung knew a thing or two about fighting and referred to Wing Chun as a “skill” rather than an “art.” He had a no-nonsense approach to fighting. Yet even he said:

Wing Chun teaches you how to think. People find that its concepts can be applied in other areas of their life.

They (students) don’t understand how to apply the concepts of Wing Chun. This means that the students are concentrating too much on the individual technique rather than seeing the whole situation. They cannot appreciate the theory that would otherwise suggest an appropriate technique.

A lot of Wing Chun is in the mind. The actions or movements are not that important. What Wing Chun teaches is that it is more important to use what is in your head.

Wing Chun is an expression of concepts. Wing Chun does not have to be done to the letter. Only enough needs to be done to fulfill the requirements of the theory.


I think I'll stick with Robert Chu and Wong Shun Leung. If you guys can't see the wisdom in their words, that's OK. To each his own.

[anerlich]

He was obviously talking about “then”, not “now.” And it wasn’t a statement on intelligence, it was a statement on educational level.

Then or now, it was a dumb generalisation. He implied farmers were without "substance". He said Wing Chun was only passed down to "intelligent people", and it was not passed down to farmers. Maybe that doesn't imply farmers are stupid by the rules of formal logic, but it certainly f'in' does in regular parlance.

What do you think he meant if not that?


---Internet celebrity? Robert hasn’t had any kind of internet presence for several years now. He no longer participates regularly on the forums and hasn’t even updated his own webpage in a couple of years. And you got all that from that simple passage I quoted? He simply said that to be good at Wing Chun you have to use your brain as much as your fists. Nothing was said about whether we are worse off or better off than our predecessors.

He's on Facebook.

My point was that there are widely different opinions among gravitas-claiming amateur Wing Chun historians about the activities and motivations of our illustrious predecessors. Robert's view is but one.

Using your brain? Think for yourself rather than making appeals to authority, in that case.


Where did he say farmers are stupid?

See above. It's more what he implied they weren't rather than what he said they were.


If you guys don’t respect what Robert Chu has to say

I respect Robert. I can forgive him when he puts his foot in his mouth like he did this time, too. He's only human, not some Wing Chun messiah whose words are to be absorbed uncritically like the Bible or the Koran.


I think I'll stick with Robert Chu and Wong Shun Leung.

Arrgh, death by a thousand quotes.

Good for you. Just maybe apply a little more critical thinking before sharing their wisdom with us next time.

[KPM]

Good for you. Just maybe apply a little more critical thinking before sharing their wisdom with us next time.

No, I think this forum suffers from too much CRITICAL thinking most of the time. Why can't we take things at face value for the intention behind the post or statement rather than nit-picking them too death with CRITICAL thinking? Everyone's a critic! :rolleyes:

So, to apply critical thinking to what you have said....I would reach the conclusion that you don't agree with the intent of my posting in this thread. I would assume that you are in the camp that believes that all one has to do is copy one's instructor, simply learn a collection of techniques, and spar a lot. I would assume that you believe that one doesn't need to understand the concepts and theories behind Wing Chun, or use one's brain to try to understand how to apply Wing Chun in many widely varied situations. But I really don't believe that about you, because I know how you've posted in the past.

[anerlich]

So, Wing Chun is not a battlefield art as claimed by some, a revolutionary art as claimed by others ....

But instead, the martial art of the Bourgeoisie‎. No wonder those MFers went up against the wall during the Cultural Revolution.


But I really don't believe that about you, because I know how you've posted in the past.

Uh ... OK. Good to know.

[tc101]

So, to apply critical thinking to what you have said....I would reach the conclusion that you don't agree with the intent of my posting in this thread. I would assume that you are in the camp that believes that all one has to do is copy one's instructor, simply learn a collection of techniques, and spar a lot.


How you train depends on your goal. It is to preserve the system then copying your teacher and practicing the forms and drills is the way to go.

If your goal is to learn how to use your wing chun in fighting situations then you need to practice doing just that.

I hear learn a collection of techniques from time to time here as though this is a bad thing. We all learn the technical repertoire of wing chun just as anyone would do with any martial art. That repertoire is not a collection of techniques but a comprehensive way of moving and using your body to accomplish certain things. The tie that binds those techniques or what makes it comprehensive is not principles or concepts but purpose.



I would assume that you believe that one doesn't need to understand the concepts and theories behind Wing Chun, or use one's brain to try to understand how to apply Wing Chun in many widely varied situations. But I really don't believe that about you, because I know how you've posted in the past.

The principles or concepts of wing chun are very simple and it does not take deep thought to put them to use but you learn to do that by doing that not by intellectual process. It is the same for any martial art it is not worked out on a chalkboard but in the ring or on the mat. How did you learn to use your wing chun in chi sau? By doing lots of chi sau.

[Jimbo]

Saying that one's own art is one of 'men of substance' and not one of 'thugs, gangsters and stupid people' is a type of pseudo-intellectual, passive-aggressive snobbery. It's not unlike more than a century ago, when so-called internal systems became popular among scholars, some of whom used their ability to write and publish books to hype their systems' supposed superiority. It's another tired way of saying, 'My art is better than yours, nyah nyah nyah.' I have no issue with Robert Chu as a MAist, as he's clearly very good at what he does. But even very good MAists can make very uninformed statements.

Not an art of thugs, gangsters and stupid people?!? Wasn't Wing Chun one of the arts favored among HK gangs, who also reportedly used melon knives or choppers in places of butterfly knives? Seriously, what MA hasn't required critical thinking at some points in the learning process? And what art, including WC, doesn't include 'stupid' people within its ranks? Every MA requires a certain level of intelligence to learn, but it's not rocket science. As previously mentioned, too much intellectual analysis beyond a certain point becomes a hindrance.

Did you know that actors and performers in China's past were looked down upon, put into a similar category with prostitutes? Whether or not they were intelligent.

Many excellent CMA were practiced among farmers. Yes, in many, maybe even most cases a day of labor may have left little time/energy for training. But there were clearly very big exceptions to that.

[KPM]

So, Wing Chun is not a battlefield art as claimed by some, a revolutionary art as claimed by others ....
.

What makes you think that "battlefield fighters" or "revolutionaries" weren't "thinking men"????? :confused:

[Happy Tiger]

One of the biggest problems of VT is it's over thunked

[Wayfaring]

What makes you think that "battlefield fighters" or "revolutionaries" weren't "thinking men"????? :confused:

Ummm, possibly the fact that "battlefield fighters" in the 1850's like today probably used long range weapons rather than close hand to hand fighting where WCK would come into play?

If the "WCK battlefield fighters" today can't put that together, why should I believe those in 1850 could?

In other words, those with mental images of being open hand close combat "battlefield" fighters have quite their own mental delusion going on. Which kind of precludes being a "thinking man".

[Wayfaring]

Saying that one's own art is one of 'men of substance' and not one of 'thugs, gangsters and stupid people' is a type of pseudo-intellectual, passive-aggressive snobbery.

Is calling someone a "man of substance" a nice way of saying he's fat? Is he saying WCK is for fat men that are pseudo intellectuals? :D:D:D

[BPWT]

Is calling someone a "man of substance" a nice way of saying he's fat? Is he saying WCK is for fat men that are pseudo intellectuals? :D:D:D

Certainly this system has had, and continues to have, people that could lose a few pounds around the stomach! :eek:

[anerlich]

What makes you think that "battlefield fighters" or "revolutionaries" weren't "thinking men"????? :confused:

What makes YOU think I ever said they weren't?????

[KPM]

So, Wing Chun is not a battlefield art as claimed by some, a revolutionary art as claimed by others ....

But instead, the martial art of the Bourgeoisie‎. No wonder those MFers went up against the wall during the Cultural Revolution.



Uh ... OK. Good to know.

Andrew:

This post certainly implies that you think that being a "thinking man" or part of the "bourgeoise" is separate from being a "battlefield fighter" or "revoluntionary." You said Wing Chun "is not....., but instead....." That's two different things. Maybe you need to use a little more critical thinking when you post! ;)

[KPM]

One of the biggest problems of VT is it's over thunked

I agree that there has to be a balance. Some do spend way too much theorizing and not enough time applying. I'm sure that is not what either Robert Chu or Wong Shun Leung intended. After all, WSL was a "no-nonsense" type of guy with a big emphasis on realistic training. But he also saw a danger in students that didn't try to understand the underlying concepts and wanted only to fight with a limited number of techniques. I posted this thread in response to some recent threads with discussions that denied that Wing Chun has a conceptual basis. I've been very surprised by the number of negative responses it has received. I have to wonder when people deny that being able to understand the principles and concepts that Wing Chun expresses is an important element in learning Wing Chun. What Wing Chun are they learning????

I also think back to more than one account that stated that Yip Man didn't have much patience with "dull" students that didn't learn very quickly. This leads me to believe that he would disagree with a number of the responses on this thread.

[Jimbo]

I also think back to more than one account that stated that Yip Man didn't have much patience with "dull" students that didn't learn very quickly. This leads me to believe that he would disagree with a number of the responses on this thread.

A student being quick or dull isn't always about someone being in a certain social status; this especially true in MA. ANY MA requires a degree of intelligence to fully grasp. My objection was the wording that doctors, actors, etc., make better MAists because their social status means they are more intelligent than 'simple farmers'. Success in MA also requires intelligence for MA, consistency, motivation, hard work and 'guts'. It also helps to have a degree of natural aptitude, something not confined to upper classes. I've known of medical professionals, educators, and other highly educated people who are quite dumb and lack critical thinking in certain other areas of life. That was my original objection to what was stated.

The ability to understand principles and concepts is important in all MA. In this regard, WC is not unique. You seem to imply that anyone who disagrees with Robert Chu's statement, or you. must somehow be slow.

[anerlich]

This post certainly implies that you think that being a "thinking man" or part of the "bourgeoise" is separate from being a "battlefield fighter" or "revoluntionary." You said Wing Chun "is not....., but instead....." That's two different things.

Actually I was interpreting what others had said, or to be more precise, taking a bunch of fatuous statements made by others to their (il)logical conclusion. These are not MY opinions. God forbid.

Benny Meng et al: WC is a battlefield art.
Many people: WC was developed by Ming revolutionaries to over throw the Qing (and didn't THAT work out so BRILLIANTLY) until all involved got flattened by the Japanese and the Communists.
Robert Chu: WC was developed by "people of substance", doctors, show people and merchants, viz. the bourgeouisie rather than the proletariat.

IMO all involved are probably talking out of their *$$es.

And, learn to count. I talked about THREE different things, not two.

And JMFC, I'm not really trying to be all that serious :rolleyes:


Maybe you need to use a little more critical thinking when you post!

Thanks for your concern. However, I think you have significant issues of your own in that regard you should probably sort out before worrying about l'il ol' me.

Anyway, make up your own mind about what I said. You can tell yourself you won if you want to.

[anerlich]

I have to wonder when people deny that being able to understand the principles and concepts that Wing Chun expresses is an important element in learning Wing Chun. What Wing Chun are they learning????

Robert's quote had **** all to do with that.

Few people on this thread said any of that.

You seem to be arguing with people who aren't actually posting on the thread.


I also think back to more than one account that stated that Yip Man didn't have much patience with "dull" students that didn't learn very quickly. This leads me to believe that he would disagree with a number of the responses on this thread.

I doubt it. He's been dead for 40 years.

[Kevin73]

You didn’t have your basic farmers learning Wing Chun, you had people with more substance (learning it at that time). We should conduct the art in that matter, because it’s progressing in that matter. I think there is a great improvement of Wing Chun, because it passes onto intelligent people. Not just thugs, gangsters, or stupid people.


I think I would prefer that the art I am learning to be one that was used by a bunch of thugs and gangsters who had to really use it to survive and not by a bunch of intellectuals who only "think" about fighting and "think" that they know what would work in a violent situation.

A phrase that I have heard applied to arts that "think" too much is "paralysis by analysis". They put too much stock on the theory of their art and not enough hands on give and go with their art.

[Wayfaring]

Robert Chu: WC was developed by "people of substance", doctors, show people and merchants, viz. the bourgeouisie rather than the proletariat.


If he means like rich people who could afford private lessons from Yip Man and the other known teachers of the day, he may have a point.

Do you think Yip was above taking their money, showing them a few things, and allowing them to believe they were bad@sses? I don't. In fact that would explain a whole lot of his teaching different things to different people.

I'm sure nothing like that goes on today. :rolleyes:

[Wayfaring]

I think I would prefer that the art I am learning to be one that was used by a bunch of thugs and gangsters who had to really use it to survive and not by a bunch of intellectuals who only "think" about fighting and "think" that they know what would work in a violent situation.


That would probably be boxing. The sweet science of the proletariat. ;)

[KPM]

My objection was the wording that doctors, actors, etc., make better MAists because their social status means they are more intelligent than 'simple farmers'. .

That was NOT the message or intent of this thread. Why do people here feel the need to "nit-pick" things to death? Are you just looking for a fight????? :mad:

[KPM]

Thanks for your concern. However, I think you have significant issues of your own in that regard you should probably sort out before worrying about l'il ol' me.

You brought that up first Andrew. Don't throw stones if you aren't ready to catch the bounce back. Evidently I'm not the only one with issues.

Isn't it amazing that a simple friendly conversation is nearly an impossibility in this forum? :(

[KPM]

OK. I realize that Robert could have stated things in a little more politically correct way. But the central message was that a little bit of intelligence and understanding of the concepts behind Wing Chun are important. I reinforced this idea with the quotes from Wong Shun Leung. So why does everyone seem to want to nit-pick what Robert Chu said rather than talking about developing Wing Chun? :confused: Why does nearly everything here have to turn into an argument rather than a simple conversation?

[YouKnowWho]

If you worked from daylight to dark every day it might effect the time you might have to study or practice.

In order to study CMA, you have to have:

- money,
- free time.

Since poor kids won't have money and free time, only rich kids can afford to train CMA. Since rich kids will become CMA guys and poor kids will become scholars, the poor kids will become more intelligent than the rich kids in the long run. It ends up those who doesn't train CMA are smarter than those who does.

This will apply to all TCMA styles and not just WC.

[Jimbo]

That was NOT the message or intent of this thread. Why do people here feel the need to "nit-pick" things to death? Are you just looking for a fight????? :mad:

It's one of the things that were implied. But since you can't see that...

Have a nice day.

[PalmStriker]

If he means like rich people who could afford private lessons from Yip Man and the other known teachers of the day, he may have a point.

Do you think Yip was above taking their money, showing them a few things, and allowing them to believe they were bad@sses? I don't. In fact that would explain a whole lot of his teaching different things to different people.

I'm sure nothing like that goes on today. :rolleyes: Yip Man himself was a product of private lessons for the "well to do".

[anerlich]

OK. I realize that Robert could have stated things in a little more politically correct way.

It's to do with correctness, not political correctness.

Rich or artistic != intelligent. That's the main objection distilled, I think.


That was NOT the message or intent of this thread.

It WAS the message of the quote with which you started the thread. IMO. You seem to disagree.


But the central message was that a little bit of intelligence and understanding of the concepts behind Wing Chun are important.

Can't I agree with that and still disagree with what he said about social class?


Don't throw stones if you aren't ready to catch the bounce back.

I'm ready.

[GlennR]

I actually skimmed over this thread initially but, having read it gain, i think this sums up whats wrong with WC in general.

That is, this semi-elitist attitude of it being a "clever" art that only suits educated intelligent people.

Personally, i think its an awful statement

[Wayfaring]

I don't know, I think some of the stuff coming up shows the propensity for BS in WCK. Is that the art itself or is it just the baggage and culture that you have to wade through to get to the valuable things in the art?

IMO WCK as an art is pure, direct, simple, effective.

Unfortunately the vast majority of its practitioners are none of these.

[anerlich]

That is, this semi-elitist attitude of it being a "clever" art that only suits educated intelligent people.

Personally, i think its an awful statement

Agreed.

I'm always looking for weaknesses and holes in whatever I've learned. Not reasons to congratulate myself on choosing so cleverly.

And never assume I'm smarter or better than any other MAist just because of whatever choices of what to study I made, most of which truth be told were by fortuitious accident or coincidence.

You think you're smart or need to tell yourself you are, something is wrong with you.

[KPM]

I'm resurrecting this old contentious thread, well, because at least Danny agrees with me! ;)


http://www.wingchunbrotherhood.com/blog/wing-chun-the-thinking-mans-art/

[Faux Newbie]

Thinking is useful in designing one's training. That would be how techniques that support each other （and thus bring out principles) become habit.

Once fighting, thinking is a liability most of the time. If your training doesn't prepare, then hope for luck and take advantage of it.

This is true of every real style.

[Grumblegeezer]

Thinking is useful in designing one's training. That would be how techniques that support each other （and thus bring out principles) become habit.

Once fighting, thinking is a liability most of the time. If your training doesn't prepare, then hope for luck and take advantage of it.

This is true of every real style.

I agree completely.

Other than that I have no interest in reviving the old arguments on this thread about social class and all that rubbish. I will say that all the great coaches I've ever known where really smart guys. Not necessarily educated, intellectual, or upper class, ...but just really smart. And there's truth in the old axiom, "Don't just train hard, train smart". This applies to every sport and MA I know, not just WC.

[KPM]

I agree completely.

Other than that I have no interest in reviving the old arguments on this thread about social class and all that rubbish. I will say that all the great coaches I've ever known where really smart guys. Not necessarily educated, intellectual, or upper class, ...but just really smart. And there's truth in the old axiom, "Don't just train hard, train smart". This applies to every sport and MA I know, not just WC.

Yes. Please do ignore all the other rubbish on this thread. I meant only to revive the idea that Wing Chun is a "thinking man's art." People are free to interpret that simple statement any way they want! ;)

[JPinAZ]

I agree completely.

Other than that I have no interest in reviving the old arguments on this thread about social class and all that rubbish. I will say that all the great coaches I've ever known where really smart guys. Not necessarily educated, intellectual, or upper class, ...but just really smart. And there's truth in the old axiom, "Don't just train hard, train smart". This applies to every sport and MA I know, not just WC.

I agree, that a teacher should most likely have to have a good amount of intelligence to be able understand the deeper ideas of the art, as well as be able to construct good ways for various types of people from different walks of life to learn and be able to use the art in an efficient amount of time.

That said, I don't think you necessarily have to be an overly smart and/or educated person to be able to just learn to use the art of WC. There is a difference between becoming a teacher of an art and just a practitioner of an art. What is needed to be a fighter/practitioner is hard work ethic, some natural abilities/attributes & coordination, heart, proper temperament, and of course a good teacher. Intelligence can help, but isn't a pre requisite to just be able to fight with the art.

[Faux Newbie]

I agree, that a teacher should most likely have to have a good amount of intelligence to be able understand the deeper ideas of the art, as well as be able to construct good ways for various types of people from different walks of life to learn and be able to use the art in an efficient amount of time.

That said, I don't think you necessarily have to be an overly smart and/or educated person to be able to just learn to use the art of WC. There is a difference between becoming a teacher of an art and just a practitioner of an art. What is needed to be a fighter/practitioner is hard work ethic, some natural abilities/attributes & coordination, heart, proper temperament, and of course a good teacher. Intelligence can help, but isn't a pre requisite to just be able to fight with the art.

Definitely. Also, there's different sorts of intelligence, so sometimes the people who seem intelligent in one way are almost hopeless in others.

[anerlich]

I'm resurrecting this old contentious thread, well, because at least Danny agrees with me! ;)


http://www.wingchunbrotherhood.com/blog/wing-chun-the-thinking-mans-art/

Danny seems to have travelled around a bit and met a whole lot of people who have similar interests to him. He's going to see them as intelligent thinkers, perhaps because they are, but also possibly because of confirmation bias (look it up if you don't know - you're a thinking person - let's not be sexist like Danny and Robert (j/k) ).

Many of my BJJ training buds know about biohacking and Dave Asprey, though most of them became aware of it through Tim Ferriss' "The 4-Hour Body". I've been listening to some of DA's podcasts. There's some dispute about his opinions, most notably about coffee. My BJJ training buds and Dave Asprey, however, are thinking men and women ... even though not practitioners of Wing Chun :eek: - and would seek more opinions.

Suspending judgement for a moment about whether "thinking man" and "detoxifying the pineal gland" actually belong in the same sentence, and though I prefer my dreams lucid rather than spiritual (though I'll take a mix), I haven't heard about the apple cider vinegar trick before and might give it a shot.

[tc101]

Thinking is useful in designing one's training. That would be how techniques that support each other （and thus bring out principles) become habit.

Once fighting, thinking is a liability most of the time. If your training doesn't prepare, then hope for luck and take advantage of it.

This is true of every real style.

I really wonder if this is true. I think what really is useful in designing your training is experience. Without the experience what would your basis for thinking about things be? What I mean is you can think all you want about how to train as a boxer but the guys who have done it who have that experience pretty much have already figured it out. If I want to get fit I go train with a personal fitness instructor someone with experience in training fitness.

The other part of your view I wonder about also. My experience is most fighters are thinking when they fight or spar. They are thinking about how to beat the other guy. It's a lot like driving some times you are on auto pilot sometimes your are very focused sometimes you are thinking sometimes you are pure reaction and so forth all depending on the situation.

[Faux Newbie]

I really wonder if this is true. I think what really is useful in designing your training is experience. Without the experience what would your basis for thinking about things be? What I mean is you can think all you want about how to train as a boxer but the guys who have done it who have that experience pretty much have already figured it out. If I want to get fit I go train with a personal fitness instructor someone with experience in training fitness.

The other part of your view I wonder about also. My experience is most fighters are thinking when they fight or spar. They are thinking about how to beat the other guy. It's a lot like driving some times you are on auto pilot sometimes your are very focused sometimes you are thinking sometimes you are pure reaction and so forth all depending on the situation.

On the first part, experience is vital. But, each student, in boxing or otherwise, often elects aspects of what sort of fighter they choose to be. In designing training, there needs to be objectivity, and some sort of lab to make sure that you are getting actual results, not just imagining them. Experience needs to provide feedback. So, in designing training for myself, sometimes I may be drilling something to deal with something that comes up a lot in sparring certain people. Sometimes it may come from theorizing and testing. Nothing wrong with theorizing as long as you are testing. Additionally, you cannot count on teachers to have figured it all out, everyone has what they are strong at teaching and what they are not. The reality is good boxing coaches are a tiny minority of all boxing coaches, but even the good ones leave room for the boxer to find what sort of boxer they are, and that requires shaping their training. I don't think all champions are made by following what is, but by trying to be ahead of the curve, so I see value beyond what others do.

On the second part, I think you are right, thinking does occur during a fight or sparring session, but the thinking shouldn't be what move you are hoping to apply, but about how what the other person is doing effects one's plan. If they are hopeless, the feints and tricks you might normally use may not be necessary, if they are very skilled, it also may change things. But, as far as technique, once it is time to apply, if the technique isn't drilled into your habit, thought does nothing to help. So, thought on the game is natural, but only if training time was spent entraining what is useful in this fight will technique consistently work, thought has little to do with that. Nonetheless, I don't see this as an absolute. Sometimes an idea may come up in the fight that involves technique that has not been drilled that way, and it may work. But it's way more likely to occur if the rest of your technique and responses are well entrained.