Is it just me?...

[Gangsterfist]

...or is kung fu becoming too complicated to understand anymore? I keep reading articles about all this philosophy and technology behind certain styles and techniques. Especially with wing chun. I read this some what ridiculous article about the wing chun punch. I will not post a link to start a flame war between lineages here, so please do not argue lineage. The article itself was several pages with tons of technical details behind it. I agree the wing chun punch is pretty unique to wing chun. But to break it down and over complicate something as simple as a punch is somewhat ridiculous to me. I think that some of us are getting too technical for our own good. A punch is simply from point A to point B in a straight line. Sure there is tons of science behind it, including structure but some of these articles just get way out of hand. I think it makes you jaded when you marvel at how awesome the power is and all the technology behind it is so effecient. I read another article on figer jabs that was pretty much the same way.

Do we really need a 10 page disertation on the straight punch? Was wing chun intended to go this way? I thought it was known for its simplicity and combat orientedness.

Chi Sao is the same way, too much technical mumbo jumbo out there to confuse us from what we really need to learn.

I don't know just some thoughts, sorry for ranting.

[PaulH]

Simple enough so that even a fool can understand it, but profound enough that even a wise man can't comprehend it! This is essense of human creativity.

Regards,
PH

[old jong]

IMHO
You will always gain accordingly to what you put in,in Kung Fu or in anything else.
Theory is a factor but well done practice is more important.But you better can trust your teacher.
Anyway ,the best is to have a good understanding on what you are doing.So,there is a balance.

Rocky Balboa got good by hitting on frozen beef and chasing chickens around but we can do better.

[Ernie]

it's only complicated if you don't honestly test it . the truth comes out under pressure ,
now here is the tricky part the truth for one person is not the truth for another
the problem starts when you erase individual attributes and accountability .
you must always look at wahat is best for you , not try and squeeze yourself into another persons interpitation of what '' the best '' is

people that don't test get lost in the details an endless maze of this or that possibility

people who test cut through all the b.s. and feel through application and experience

so you can read up on chess how the board was designed what year the pieces were created and what the creator had for lunch 800 years ago , study and measure the exact spaces on the board and so on
you can dazzle the foolish with layers of information

or you can just play chess after a short time with some basic understanding

once you get a feel for it
you complicate it , play under water ,in a car during a earthquake what ever , just adapt

uh oh the rambling bug has spread

[taltos]

I agree the wing chun punch is pretty unique to wing chun. But to break it down and over complicate something as simple as a punch is somewhat ridiculous to me.

On the street... yes. In a learning environment, I'd personally rather have all of the variables spelled out for me. I want detail in the school, so I can self-correct and make all the mistakes I can and get them out of the way so I don't screw up when it really matters.

A punch is simply from point A to point B in a straight line. Sure there is tons of science behind it, including structure but some of these articles just get way out of hand.

I'm a pretty skeptical guy, so I need all that science and structure spelled out for me so I can justify putting forth the effort to master it (or at least become proficient at it). Anything else and I'd feel like I was either flailing blindly for something lucky, or just carbon copying a good fighter. Or both.

I think it makes you jaded when you marvel at how awesome the power is and all the technology behind it is so effecient.

It doesn't make me jaded. It reminds me why I love WC so much: WC takes the guesswork out of things because everything has a reason, and the reasons are based on physics and geometry. When I can see the proof of why something works efficiently, I am more apt to dedicate time to it. Besides, how can we really know if it is efficient if there are no measurements?

Do we really need a 10 page disertation on the straight punch? Was wing chun intended to go this way? I thought it was known for its simplicity and combat orientedness.

I do. As I said, I'm lazy. And if it can't be proven, I'm walking away. Maybe that's not the best way to be, but that's how I am. And when I have information to ponder, I can "do" WC anywhere. And when I know what to work on, I can practice anywhere, because I can self-correct.

Chi Sao is the same way, too much technical mumbo jumbo out there to confuse us from what we really need to learn.

How do we know what we are supposed to learn without it being clearly defined? Anything else is just blind faith in the instructor, who will invariably (until technology advances considerably) be an organic, carbon-based human, full of frailty and imperfection just like everyone else.

I think some confusion might arise by assuming that because there is a lot of technical and structural information available, a practicioner will be concentrating on all of those things in the heat of battle. Quite the opposite is true, IMO. We train in accordance to specific technical criteria so that outr bodies will recognize correct and incorrect position and structure WITHOUT us needing to be consciously aware of it. That way, outside the kwoon and in the mix, we can concentrate on more important things. Like surviving.

I don't know just some thoughts, sorry for ranting.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, so no worries here.

-Levi

[Gangsterfist]

Understanding how it works is okay, going into a small novel about it is a waste of time IMHO. I think some people do this to boost the reputation of their lineage or make their punch (or whatever technique they are describing) sound like its better.

I am a visual learner, and learn best through experience. I think that most martial arts are made that way. I am a big fan of using what works, no matter how technical or non technical it is.

To me wing chun is simple to learn. Then once you learn its simplicity you begin to realize how complicated and technical it really is. Its subtle however, not some huge scientific discovery.

Eh I am just ranting about stuff, so I hope no one takes any offense to this.

[Gangsterfist]

I had a debate with one of my fellow kung fu brothers about ground fighting the other week. He started babbling all this technical stuff about wing chun immoveable elbow and how effective it is and how it can be applied on the ground. I told him perhaps, but its not real practical. Eventually we decided to test it out. So he is laying on his back with his arm extended all the way out and I have his arm inbetween my legs wrapping around his shoulders and head. I am perpendicular to his body. His elbow was right on my pelvis. The minute he tried to use the immovable elbow I clinched the arm bar and negated his every move from that arm. Everytime he tried to twist and turn that elbow I just clinced it, and he never had a chance of applying this highly scientific technique that has all this skeletal structure behind it.

So there is tons of science behind the move he was describing to me. Yes the techniques, philosophy, and science behind the immovable elbow are great. Its very anti-chin na applicable. However, it didn't work. So my point to this story is don't get jaded by 10 page disertations about how perfect a move is. You can be skeptical all you want, I am that way as well about certain things.

No matter what you learn it doesn't really mean anything until you really use it.

[PaulH]

One of the reasons that Wong never wrote a WC book as David Peterson correctly pointed out on one of the posts is that he did not want to contradict himself later on. What you know today is not the same as what the future has in store for you. The important thing is to enjoy the learning experience and to grow in your understanding.

Regards,
PH

[Zhuge Liang]

Hi All,

IMO.

Do you need form? Yes. Do you need live experience? Yes. Forms provide a framework to get you started, so you minimize the ramp up time where you're directionless and flailing about. It also gives you a reference should you wish to further refine your movements. Live experience provides the "aliveness" part of your training. It provides you a platform on which to test what works, what doesn't work, and what needs work. Without this dynamic environment, you will not be able to adapt to a real life, even more dynamic, even more chaotic environment.

Despite the over-emphasis of liveliness over form or form over liveliness, the truth of the matter (again IMO) is that you need both. The point of contention, really, is the distribution between the two. Should it be 30/70, 50/50, or 70/30? That depends on the person. Some people can draw a lot from the forms, "see" the intention behind the movements, and be able to apply what they gain out of the forms. These people may tend to weight form training more heavily. Does that mean they can't benefit from live experience? No. Then there are people whose minds/bodies are set up to learn from experience extremely fast. You throw them in a swimming pool for the first time in their lives and they manage not only to stay afloat but to swim ashore as well. These people may value live experience more than form. Does that mean they can't benefit from forms? No.

Look around at the people in your class. I'm willing to bet that you can pick out a few that you think might benefit if they focused on forms a little more. Similarly, you will be able to pick out people that would benefit from live experience if they focused on that a little more. It all depends on how each person learns. And it doesn't have to be static. For me at least, there were times where I felt I had to lay down forms and emphasize live training a little more. Then there were times I felt I had to settle down and emphasize forms a little more.

Not unexpectedly, I'm a little wary of the opinions of "live experience is the only thing that matters" or "forms are the only thing that matters". They both matter. Each to what degree depends on you. It will probably be different from me.

Just some thoughts,

Regards,
Alan

[Gangsterfist]

Just to clarify the subject, I am by no means against all the science behind it. I think fully understanding it is not a bad thing.

I like to train realistically. In a street fight, I probably would never use a flying dragon kick. I can say this from experience most fights I have been in didn't last long. Usually the winner was pretty obviously winning within 20 to 30 seconds. It seems to me like a lot of the stuff being published or put out on the net is more of a sales perspective of wing chun. Oh use this its so scientific.

The FACT is fighting is not a concept nor an exact science. So trying to make it one is futile. You WILL NEVER have the same fight twice.

Okay I just had to get that out in the open, just needed to ramble. Either you agree with me or you disagree. So we can agree to disagree on this subject.

[Gangsterfist]

Alan,

I agree forms are useful. They break down the movements and structure so it can be analyzed and put in your muscle memory. I agree with you on the training apect of both form and hands on (sparring, chi sao, etc). I use both. Forms are used to refence movements, and help train the body.

I think keeping it humble along with keeping yourself humble will benefit you the most. Do not rely on science (since sometimes its theroy and not proof) but on experience. Remind yourself you can always improve and always do the same thing many different ways.

The science is there and has been for since the dawn of time. We are utilizing our knowledge now to benefit us. But, when we rely on it are we denying ourselves something?

Just some more thoughts on my own ramblings...

[taltos]

Zhuge Liang,

Excellent post. I couldn't agree more.

-Levi

[KenWingJitsu]

"Before I started the martial arts, a kick was just a kick, a punch was just a punch....after I started martial arts, a kick was no longer just a kick, a punch was no longer just a punch.......after I understood the martial arts, a kick was just a kick, a punch was just a punch."

Bruce Lee

[Ernie]

kick was just a kick, a punch was just a punch."


can i get an'' a ''to the mutha funkin ''men''

my the class of analyze to paralyze come to an end

[Gangsterfist]

I agree with what Ken posted, that was the answer I was looking for.

Thanks Ken.