The Thinking Man's Art

[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!

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"?????

[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"?????

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?

[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?

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

[anerlich]

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

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

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.