How do you think the present state of this forum is viewed by newcomers to wing chun?

[t_niehoff]

There is nothing untrue in that reply. But who's to say Terence, that there aren't wing chun people who test themselves in this way at their kwoons? In my short stint with the Boztepe camp, they trained using modern methodologies.

I don't doubt that there are some WCK groups that do use modern training methods -- I never said there weren't. I know of some. But most do not.

The other aspect is that you need to train/spar with good fighters to get good. That's my problem with Boztepe's approach -- you don't develop good skills only training within your group.

It was the wing chun equivelent to a Muay Thai camp. We physically conditioned ourselves with cardio and circuit training, we hit focus mitts, we practiced footwork, we conditioned on heavy bags and wall bags, and more importantly we sparred. On the traditional side, we practiced the forms and analyzed them as well for application purposes. The sifu even had guys come in who practiced other arts to train with us (like MMA) to get an exposure to what others might try to do so that we could use our wing chun to combat it.

That's all great (except for the form work). I think Boztepe's group and others are moving in the right direction. The trouble is that Boztepe himself isn't a highly skilled fighter and he's not a fight trainer, so how can someone who isn't particularly good train others to be good? Doesn't it make more sense to go to guys who are really good at fighting and proven fight-trainers?

Its unfortunate that my wrist couldn't handle the punching at the time (it was broken and I was trying to train through it) because that place was awesome.

Compared to most other WCK schools, I would agree.

All in all, training methodology and testing will show you what is effective or not, and that takes precedent over style IMO because styles are just labels. The only constant is the human body.

Styles are more than labels. Some styles are specific approaches to fighting; the labels identify them. Other styles are creations of theoretical nonfighters.

[SAAMAG]

I don't doubt that there are some WCK groups that do use modern training methods -- I never said there weren't. I know of some. But most do not.

The other aspect is that you need to train/spar with good fighters to get good. That's my problem with Boztepe's approach -- you don't develop good skills only training within your group.



That's all great (except for the form work). I think Boztepe's group and others are moving in the right direction. The trouble is that Boztepe himself isn't a highly skilled fighter and he's not a fight trainer, so how can someone who isn't particularly good train others to be good? Doesn't it make more sense to go to guys who are really good at fighting and proven fight-trainers?



Compared to most other WCK schools, I would agree.



Styles are more than labels. Some styles are specific approaches to fighting; the labels identify them. Other styles are creations of theoretical nonfighters.

I agree that you have to train with good fighters, but just because Boztepe isn't as great as some might think, it doesn't mean that someone learning that wing Tsun system couldn't make it work for them. Additionally, the individual sifu's can also learn and expand of their own accord, and I wouldn't doubt that the guy I learned from wasn't a better fighter than Boztepe seemed to be...but I've not had any first hand experience with Boztepe to be honest, so I can't make that call based on limited knowledge of videos (though the one with Cheung was horrid).

As to your point of not getting good while training within your own camp...I beg to disagree. In terms of training...everyone works with people from their own camp. Muay thai fighters do it, BJJ guys do it, Karate guys do it, and it doesn't hinder them in the least. They get better at their chosen system, and the same could be true with WC. They get good at what they do against others in the same skillset. Now they TEST themselves with others from other camps in the form of fights, competitions, and so forth...but that's not the same as as the standard training. Then again I could be splitting hairs here because I agree that diversity in training is better than not and understand what you're getting at.

Styles are labels...they label one's strategic method for the chosen techniques. The techniques themselves are not much different than one another because there are only so many ways for someone to move. True each style might do things slightly different, but because the human anatomy doesn't change, the techniques can only be so much different.

For example, a round kick is a round kick. Some do it with a snap of the knee, some do with with the leg relatively straight, some do it upwards and snap it over at the end, some swing wide from the side and some angle it. Some hit with the top of the foot, some the ball of the foot, and some the shin. But all in all, a round kick is such that the hip is turned so that the leg can strike from a sideward angle.

I'm just making the point that the methods to me are more important. I've been able to takeaway useful things from every style that I learned through the years, even the "bad ones". It was their training methods that needed help...because many of the students couldn't "apply" what they learned even after years went by.

[LoneTiger108]

Given all the pee-pee measuring discussions that seem to have proliferated on this forum, how do you think that effects those "newcomers" who wish to learn about the art of wing chun?

I still have trouble posting about the Wing Chun I practise and I've been here for a few years now. I seem to always be shot down with one insult or another!

I wish the newbies good luck, but would just say that if you wanted to learn about Wing Chun your best starting point to to visit people and talk face-to-face.

[Matrix]

I don't know what a newcomer would think, but I would advise them to hang in and wade through the junk. To mine an ounce of gold you might might have to go through a ton of mud, but that's one think that makes it valuable.

They should know that Wing Chun is not one big happy family. Unfortunately, this is the truth. Too much political noise, but filter it out so that you can look, think and evaluate ideas and concepts that may be in direct conflict with what you are being taught, or totally new to your current cirriculum. Either way, your current view of the WC needs to be able to withstand these challenges or they are not worth anything. We have an unlimited capacity for self-delusion. A reality check may be just what the doctor order.

Peace,
Bill

[anerlich]

They should know that Wing Chun is not one big happy family.

That's true, but IMO most of the angst of the 80's and 90's has died down. There have been more recent web feuds due to marketing practices, but they were never going to go anywhere physical, not that they did much in the old days either.

When was the last TWC/WT argument on the forum?

The lineage wars and related mouth boxing are pretty pointless in an environment where there are easily available opportunities to test skills - in the ring - and plenty of people prepared to have a go.

Plus people cross-train. Many/most of us were doing what T browbeats us about in one form or another long before he started doing it himself. I'm currently training BJJ alongside one of Jim Fung's top guys, Dave O'Donnell. We'd never have spoken if we'd stuck to our WC guns. Obviously neither of us think, or need to defend, our WC lineage as the greatest or most complete MA on the planet.

The arguments here are much more to do with individual personalities and egos IMO.

[t_niehoff]

I agree that you have to train with good fighters, but just because Boztepe isn't as great as some might think, it doesn't mean that someone learning that wing Tsun system couldn't make it work for them. Additionally, the individual sifu's can also learn and expand of their own accord, and I wouldn't doubt that the guy I learned from wasn't a better fighter than Boztepe seemed to be...but I've not had any first hand experience with Boztepe to be honest, so I can't make that call based on limited knowledge of videos (though the one with Cheung was horrid).

Well, you can learn something from someone who is not well-skilled, if you go in recognizing that he is not well-skilled and take everything he says with a huge grain of salt. But, as we know, this is not the TCMA way!

As to your point of not getting good while training within your own camp...I beg to disagree. In terms of training...everyone works with people from their own camp. Muay thai fighters do it, BJJ guys do it, Karate guys do it, and it doesn't hinder them in the least. They get better at their chosen system, and the same could be true with WC. They get good at what they do against others in the same skillset. Now they TEST themselves with others from other camps in the form of fights, competitions, and so forth...but that's not the same as as the standard training. Then again I could be splitting hairs here because I agree that diversity in training is better than not and understand what you're getting at.

You can't put WCK people in the same category as MT or BJJ since those arts already have very good fighters, so even if you only train with a particular MT or BJJ school, you are training with good fighters. That's not the case with WCK. WCK has very, very, very, very few good fighters. Since we are only as good as our training/sparring partners, why would anyone want to mainly train with poorly skilled people?

Styles are labels...they label one's strategic method for the chosen techniques. The techniques themselves are not much different than one another because there are only so many ways for someone to move. True each style might do things slightly different, but because the human anatomy doesn't change, the techniques can only be so much different.

So, you think MT is pretty much like BJJ? Or that boxing is very much like wrestling? After all, it is all labels?

For example, a round kick is a round kick. Some do it with a snap of the knee, some do with with the leg relatively straight, some do it upwards and snap it over at the end, some swing wide from the side and some angle it. Some hit with the top of the foot, some the ball of the foot, and some the shin. But all in all, a round kick is such that the hip is turned so that the leg can strike from a sideward angle.

There are many varieties of hammer,and they all share some properties, but some hammers are better at certain jobs than other hammers. Of course, we can take the position that they are all hammers, and the different varieties are simply labels.

I'm just making the point that the methods to me are more important. I've been able to takeaway useful things from every style that I learned through the years, even the "bad ones". It was their training methods that needed help...because many of the students couldn't "apply" what they learned even after years went by.

The method and the SPECIFIC tools for implementing the method go hand-in-hand, and you NEED both.

[SAAMAG]

Well, you can learn something from someone who is not well-skilled, if you go in recognizing that he is not well-skilled and take everything he says with a huge grain of salt. But, as we know, this is not the TCMA way!

You can't put WCK people in the same category as MT or BJJ since those arts already have very good fighters, so even if you only train with a particular MT or BJJ school, you are training with good fighters. That's not the case with WCK. WCK has very, very, very, very few good fighters. Since we are only as good as our training/sparring partners, why would anyone want to mainly train with poorly skilled people?

So, you think MT is pretty much like BJJ? Or that boxing is very much like wrestling? After all, it is all labels?

There are many varieties of hammer,and they all share some properties, but some hammers are better at certain jobs than other hammers. Of course, we can take the position that they are all hammers, and the different varieties are simply labels.

The method and the SPECIFIC tools for implementing the method go hand-in-hand, and you NEED both.

True that there are a lot of TCMA's that still go about things where the blind lead the blind but today the world is much smaller and people are not as niave IMO. For those that are, well, all in due time. There will always be those that want to go about believing what they want to as truth but don't worry...they'll eventually learn the universal truth of things.

In terms of training, there are good fighters and bad fighters in all styles. Just because you train in Muay Thai doesn't mean that everyone in your school is a champion fighter. Just because you train in BJJ doesn't mean you're going to have a pro MMA fighter in there. Some gyms have just average people, some don't. There are tons of boxing gyms that I wouldn't set foot in because of the laughable training that goes on...same goes for MMA gyms here locally. More to my point though, is that an individual training in wing chun can practice with other people who also train in wing chun...doing so helps to increase skill using wing chun against wing chun. Just as in any school...there is always a relative gap between new students and more senior ones, so there is always room for improvement from that respect. Know what I mean?

I'm not sure why you don't understand the labels thing. I sometimes think you just like process of debating or arguing. The name of the style means nothing. A rear naked choke is a rear naked choke no matter whether you learned it in Judo, BJJ, MMA, or in a military combatives course. It is what it is. The techniques in general are the same minus a few nuances. So a muay thai round kick and a Kyokushin round kick are both round kicks. You cannot say which are more effective because each has its strengths and weaknesses and both are used for fighting. So while yes there are hammers to do specific jobs, each hammer is just that...a hammer.

As far as BJJ being the same as MT or boxing the same as wrestling...you know what I mean on that. Stop being such an antagonist for a moment and step back from the keyboard. I said that styles are labels of what strategies and tactics are used for the chosen techniques. Does that mean I'm saying that muay thai and BJJ are the same? No. Obviously not. How you determined that from my past posts is beyond me. I'm again saying that a punch is a punch and a kick is a kick. A choke is a choke and a throw is a throw. For two styles that are specific to a range of combat, there will be little in terms of major differences, unless of course people grow another limb or a tail or something.

[t_niehoff]

True that there are a lot of TCMA's that still go about things where the blind lead the blind but today the world is much smaller and people are not as niave IMO. For those that are, well, all in due time. There will always be those that want to go about believing what they want to as truth but don't worry...they'll eventually learn the universal truth of things.

In terms of training, there are good fighters and bad fighters in all styles. Just because you train in Muay Thai doesn't mean that everyone in your school is a champion fighter. Just because you train in BJJ doesn't mean you're going to have a pro MMA fighter in there. Some gyms have just average people, some don't. There are tons of boxing gyms that I wouldn't set foot in because of the laughable training that goes on...same goes for MMA gyms here locally. More to my point though, is that an individual training in wing chun can practice with other people who also train in wing chun...doing so helps to increase skill using wing chun against wing chun. Just as in any school...there is always a relative gap between new students and more senior ones, so there is always room for improvement from that respect. Know what I mean?

The whole there-are-good-and-bad-gym-in-everything misses the point. Of course there are. But we are not talking about specific, individual cases but how different arts AS A WHOLE teach and train, the METHODOLOGY itself, not how some specific gym implements it. There is a marked difference between how traditinoal arts teach and train, and the modern sport-oriented arts teach and train. That differencejust isn't in degree but in kind.

The way WCK is traditionally taught and trained doesn't develop skill in WCK (which is skill in fighting with your WCK). Nor does it make any sense that you can develop skill against WCK people and not other people -- skill is skill. Boxers don't just develop skill for dealing with other boxers, BJJ people don't develop skill only against BJJ people.

I'm not sure why you don't understand the labels thing. I sometimes think you just like process of debating or arguing.

No, I like the process of thinking things through clearly, and our words express our thoughts.

The name of the style means nothing. A rear naked choke is a rear naked choke no matter whether you learned it in Judo, BJJ, MMA, or in a military combatives course. It is what it is. The techniques in general are the same minus a few nuances. So a muay thai round kick and a Kyokushin round kick are both round kicks. You cannot say which are more effective because each has its strengths and weaknesses and both are used for fighting. So while yes there are hammers to do specific jobs, each hammer is just that...a hammer.

Of course the names themselves are arbitrary (you can change the names but the thing itself doesn't change),but the thing itself isn't arbitrary. You seem to take the position that it's-all-good since various arts are doing similar things. But it is not all good, and doing something similar doesn't mean it is as good. Any old round kick isn't a thai kick. If this were the case then everyone in every art would be getting similar results-- and they are obviously not.

As far as BJJ being the same as MT or boxing the same as wrestling...you know what I mean on that. Stop being such an antagonist for a moment and step back from the keyboard. I said that styles are labels of what strategies and tactics are used for the chosen techniques. Does that mean I'm saying that muay thai and BJJ are the same? No. Obviously not. How you determined that from my past posts is beyond me.

It shows that not all styles are the same or do the same things. And, even styles that do similar things, don't necessarily do them the same way, have the same effectiveness, train them the same way, etc.

I'm again saying that a punch is a punch and a kick is a kick. A choke is a choke and a throw is a throw. For two styles that are specific to a range of combat, there will be little in terms of major differences, unless of course people grow another limb or a tail or something.

I know you are saying that and you are wrong. If that were the case, then all punching styles would be as good as boxing, and they're not. All grappling styles would be as good as BJJ, and they're not. There are better and worse ways of using your body, and better and worse tactics, strategies, etc. The evidence for this is overwhelming.

[chusauli]

That last bit says it all...just go and do your work. BTW...are you the same Robert Chu who's book I have in my bookcase?

Yes, guilty as charged...

[chusauli]

Does making it work in this generation mean the average joe has to go out and compete against someone in MMA? Many have said on here that their training has worked well for them when they needed it, only to have someone else say that is meaningless? Who's to say what is meaningless or not in regards to another's accomplishments? Only those with an huge ego, and limited POV.

One has to find out why they are training in the Martial Arts, and be honest with it and go from there. If they want to test themselves then do just that, bring the level up a notch and see what happens, if that's not for you then fine as well. No one here is making claims of superiority, and if you are then you better be ready to prove it.

James

Hi James,

No, that is unique to how far an individual wants to take it. Competition is not everything.

Heck, many beautiful women never become models, actresses, or beauty contestants.

[chusauli]

As far as making it work in this generation....I think what he means to say is that the environment in which we live today is different than it was generations ago. As such, one's strategy and tactics need to take the external environment into consideration. Not just the physical environment, but also the social, policital, and cultural as well.

Yup. When Yip Man was learning WCK, he didn't come into contact with Muay Thai, Western Boxing or wrestling. When Yip Man taught in HK, many of the younger generation he taught could be considered juvenile delinquents...

When WCK came to the USA, we didn't have to fight CLF, Lama, Bak Mei, etc. - we had to make it work against boxing, wrestling, Karate, TKD, kickboxing, etc.

Nowadays, people who practice WCK have to make it work against BJJ, MMA, and continue... Using WCK in today's USA Society is different because of self defense law.

[SAAMAG]

Yes, guilty as charged...

Then I must say thank you to both you and Rene. That was one of my favorite reads. It really helps to bring together the various ideas that wing chun folks have but more importantly the common themes.

Yup. When Yip Man was learning WCK, he didn't come into contact with Muay Thai, Western Boxing or wrestling. When Yip Man taught in HK, many of the younger generation he taught could be considered juvenile delinquents...

When WCK came to the USA, we didn't have to fight CLF, Lama, Bak Mei, etc. - we had to make it work against boxing, wrestling, Karate, TKD, kickboxing, etc.

Nowadays, people who practice WCK have to make it work against BJJ, MMA, and continue... Using WCK in today's USA Society is different because of self defense law.

Yessir...it's common sense as far as I thought.

Its one of those things where you're ****ed if you do and ****ed if you don't. Change something drastically or add in something that changes the fundamentals of the original style -- and now you're *******izing it. Don't do anything to it, and you're setting up the system for its own demise because you're not keeping up with the times.

It's a lot like business though: When a firm creates a product that no other firm has, it gains a competitive advantage. That advantage is always temporary however because the competing firms will always try to adapt in order to survive. When another firm creates a product that has a higher relative value to the consumer...we will see the value of the original firm's product go down. Now that doesn't mean that the original products actual quality has diminished, it just means that the other firm's product solves the consumer's need better.

So now you have to do some research to figure out what steps to take to regain the advantage. In business...this is called a SWOT analysis. You look at your strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. From that you can start to devise new strategies, tactics, and techniques by which to stay successful in the present and future environments.

The same can be said of a martial art. We can say that any style was created to solve a need, and was devised to face a specific threat and environment. This new style now has a competitive advantage because it is "new". Soon though, people who are exposed to the new style learn about it, and adapt to it, perhaps taking some ideas from it, eventually creating a superior performing system of fighting. The original style's quality didn't go down, but other styles are now performing better. The only way for the original art to survive from a performance aspect is to adapt to the new enviroment...so you have to seriously look at your systems strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats to figure out what you need to do to stay "on top" so to speak.

I'm glad to see that wing chun authorities like yourself are out there to lead the rest. It brings me hope that perhaps our "industry" may very well weather the storm.

[SAAMAG]

The whole there-are-good-and-bad-gym-in-everything misses the point. Of course there are. But we are not talking about specific, individual cases but how different arts AS A WHOLE teach and train, the METHODOLOGY itself, not how some specific gym implements it. There is a marked difference between how traditinoal arts teach and train, and the modern sport-oriented arts teach and train. That differencejust isn't in degree but in kind.

The way WCK is traditionally taught and trained doesn't develop skill in WCK (which is skill in fighting with your WCK). Nor does it make any sense that you can develop skill against WCK people and not other people -- skill is skill. Boxers don't just develop skill for dealing with other boxers, BJJ people don't develop skill only against BJJ people.

You can't use the different arts as a whole argument...since you've acknowledged that the training methods can vary from one place to the next. What you CAN say is that there are more traditional schools with deficiences in their training methodology as opposed to non traditional schools.

And I beg to differ on the WCK skills. If the way it is traditionally taught doesn't allow the person to be able to use it, how is it that we have people that CAN use it in application? How is it that I can use it against anyone I fight? How is it you can assumingly use it?

You also missed my point on the gaining skill against other wing chun people thing. Let me use another example then for you: In judo, players randori against other judo players. This enhances their skills even further than it would doing it against a non judo person because a judoka has better throw-countering skills. Therefore--it is logical to say that a person using wing chun in sparring and drilling can get better at wing chun because other WC folks also have better wing chun defense skills. I never said that the skill gained cannot be applied against other fighters. The point of that was to show that the people who came before in general will always have a higher degree of application skill than the ones after. When you go into a BJJ school...you're not going to be as good as the blue belts. When you make blue belt, you're still not going to be as good as those same blue belts becuase now those people are likely brown or black belts (assuming the belts are given based on skill and not money).

No, I like the process of thinking things through clearly, and our words express our thoughts.

I do as well...its just that our thoughts differ on things based on our individual experiences.

Of course the names themselves are arbitrary (you can change the names but the thing itself doesn't change),but the thing itself isn't arbitrary. You seem to take the position that it's-all-good since various arts are doing similar things. But it is not all good, and doing something similar doesn't mean it is as good. Any old round kick isn't a thai kick. If this were the case then everyone in every art would be getting similar results-- and they are obviously not.

No, I take the position that the fundamental core of each technique is the same and that details are making the differences, and also provide pro's and con's. Let me put it to you this way...the TKD round kick can knock you out just as easily as the thai round kick does, the same could be said about the kyokushin round kick.

Each has good qualities, but to say one is overall better than another is just a matter of opinion...namely your opinion. Because there are several fighters that fight full contact all able to knock people out with their round kicks that are from TKD, Muay Thai, and Karate. So that argument of yours has just been debunked.

It shows that not all styles are the same or do the same things. And, even styles that do similar things, don't necessarily do them the same way, have the same effectiveness, train them the same way, etc.

I agree....they don't do things exactly the same way, but then again I never said they did do it exactly the same way.

I know you are saying that and you are wrong. If that were the case, then all punching styles would be as good as boxing, and they're not. All grappling styles would be as good as BJJ, and they're not. There are better and worse ways of using your body, and better and worse tactics, strategies, etc. The evidence for this is overwhelming.

Unfortunately...this is an opinion not fact. It is obvious that you have an affinity towards boxing and round kicks...BJJ and the like. These again are preferences. If they were facts then you wouldn't have guys who were boxers lose in the UFC. You wouldn't have TKD and Karate kicks knock people out in the UFC, and you wouldn't see wrestlers beating BJJ masters.