Forget the History, Forget the Politics

[Museumtech]

****ing? Works for me .

When I tried it ****ing turned into ****ing. Is it the use of a capital P?

Peter

[JPinAZ]

Might even be easier if ALL the history and politics were just put aside and people got back to the basics as to what works and what doesn't in a martial setting...

as we don't need history lessons or individual political chest-beating to see what's what when the fighting/sparring/rolling is live.

This is funny, are you saying your training became easier when you started ignoring history? How does studying history, culture, etc effect your training in any way? They are 2 seperate things!

Personally, I find the history aspect of WC to be quite interesting! I also think it enriches the learning experience. But I don't think anyone is silly enough to think that it makes thier fighting abilities any better. Are you saying I should give it up and then magically my fighting will improve?
If not, what do you care if people want to study history and share what they've found?

[Ultimatewingchun]

"Are you saying I should give it up and then magically my fighting will improve?
If not, what do you care if people want to study history and share what they've found?"


***WHAT I'm saying is that if most of the time and energy so many people spend getting involved in the history, lineage, and politics was spent training instead....

yeah, fighting abilities would improve.

It's just basic common sense.

[JPinAZ]

***WHAT I'm saying is that if most of the time and energy so many people spend getting involved in the history, lineage, and politics was spent training instead....

yeah, fighting abilities would improve.

It's just basic common sense.

So what you are saying is that instead of having any other hobbies or interests, if we're going to be students of WC, we should spend every free moment in phisical training and forget the rest of our lives.
If that's the case then we should never see you here again right? How much different is time spent on these forums vs. time spent learning history..

Do you even think these things through when you write them??

[SoCo KungFu]

But I don't think anyone is silly enough to think that it makes thier fighting abilities any better.

To the contrary, I think an exceeding majority actual are silly enough to think just that.

[Ultimatewingchun]

That's not even worth a response, JP...

[hhe]

Victor, the time you spend reading, writing, and debating online is enough time to get a Ph D in history or politics and extra time for training.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Attacking me does not negate the premise of this thread.

I don't attend seminar-after-seminar, class-after-class, meeting-after-meeting, read book-after-book, article-after-article....and yes, get involved in thread-after-thread...

devoted to wing chun history.

Which is what many people can't seem to get enough of.

And the lineage and politics discussions and debates have grown very old - so I try to avoid them as much as possible at this point.

My primary interest has always been either actually doing, (ie.- as in training), or discussing various fighting methods, training methods, strategies, principles, and techniques THAT WORK under pressure.

And the premise of this thread is that if you call yourself a wing chun man and you're spending a great deal of your time still doing the history and politics thing as we approach 2009...

seminars, classes, books, articles, discussions, meetings, debates, etc...

you're helping wing chun become antiquated and irrelevant. There's really no getting around that fact anymore. For anybody. Regardless of what lineage they come from. Or what is the history (or supposed history) of that lineage...or anything else...the politics of who's-who, or the alleged unbeatable quality of the wing chun method in question, etc.

Because wing chun is being left behind. The martial arts world has taken a giant leap forward within the last 15 years or so - and wing chun, for the most part, is watching from the sidelines.

Why?

Because instead of spending most of their time pressure testing to find out what wing chun works and what doesn't - people are engaging in history lessons and trying to figure out (and shuffle) the politics of who's who.

[canglong]

And the lineage and politics discussions and debates have grown very old - so I try to avoid them as much as possible at this point.

That would explain why you started this thread.

[golgo]

The martial arts world has taken a giant leap forward within the last 15 years or so

Has it though? In terms of controlled competitions I would agree with this (such as MMA). In terms of real pressure testing? I would think martial arts was at its peak when it was actually the primary means of killing someone in war, i.e. centuries ago (or less, depending on the civilization). I think modern MA still laggs way behind the true peak of MA. Even with the advances of the past 15 years or so I believe it still pales in comparison.

Now, in terms of the past 50 years it is probably at its peak. I would assume that the martial arts craze over the last half-century or so watered down the arts (as well as its secondary or tertiary role in war-time combat).

Please don't take this to mean that I think WC is too deadly of an art to pressure test, not meant for competitions, etc. or that competitions aren't valid forms of pressure testing. I am just saying that the true peak of martial arts was during a time when more people needed to use martial arts to survive.

[m1k3]

Has it though? In terms of controlled competitions I would agree with this (such as MMA). In terms of real pressure testing? I would think martial arts was at its peak when it was actually the primary means of killing someone in war, i.e. centuries ago (or less, depending on the civilization). I think modern MA still laggs way behind the true peak of MA. Even with the advances of the past 15 years or so I believe it still pales in comparison.

Now, in terms of the past 50 years it is probably at its peak. I would assume that the martial arts craze over the last half-century or so watered down the arts (as well as its secondary or tertiary role in war-time combat).

Please don't take this to mean that I think WC is too deadly of an art to pressure test, not meant for competitions, etc. or that competitions aren't valid forms of pressure testing. I am just saying that the true peak of martial arts was during a time when more people needed to use martial arts to survive.

There is a big difference between the skills used by a solider and those used by an individual.

That difference is fighting as part of a unit. Melee style fighting is more the thing of movies and primitive cultures. Societies that had standing armies trained their armies to move and fight as part of a larger unit.

The ability to march long distances, set camp, build fortifications and fight in formation would be valued much higher than individual dueling skills, especially unarmed skills.

So, it is highly unlikely that unarmed fighting skills were developed and showcased during combat.

[sanjuro_ronin]

There is a big difference between the skills used by a solider and those used by an individual.

That difference is fighting as part of a unit. Melee style fighting is more the thing of movies and primitive cultures. Societies that had standing armies trained their armies to move and fight as part of a larger unit.

The ability to march long distances, set camp, build fortifications and fight in formation would be valued much higher than individual dueling skills, especially unarmed skills.

So, it is highly unlikely that unarmed fighting skills were developed and showcased during combat.

Even nowadays, many battles "degenerate" into CQB, some actually start that way.
Fact is, if you are gonna train a soldier or warrior to fight, you start with one-on-one skills and work from there.
As the old saying goes, if you can't beat one...

[m1k3]

Even nowadays, many battles "degenerate" into CQB, some actually start that way.
Fact is, if you are gonna train a soldier or warrior to fight, you start with one-on-one skills and work from there.
As the old saying goes, if you can't beat one...

No, they don't. And for training, at least in the Marines when I was in the most important thing is being able to shoot, and team work, not individual skills. Gung Ho! means work together. Thats why all the close order drill, and group pt and the platoon being punished for the actions of an individual. The very first things they teach you in boot camp is to become part of a team, your platoon. The unit is all. Until you graduate there are no individual awards there are only awards for the platoon. You win or lose as a unit.

There were NO individuals in my beloved Marine Corps. Oohrah!

MCMAP and bayonet fighting and Army Combatives are there as a fail safe not as a primary fighting skill. They are also used to develop toughness and the warrior spirit of attack and aggression.

CQC, especially hand to hand is the exception and an unwanted exception in combat. According to the guy who developed the Army combatives program its primary use is to allow a solider to survive long enough until his buddies with guns get there.

The armies that were most successful were the ones that fought as disciplined units, not as a howling mob.

Very much like sports. A team of disciplined athletes working together can often defeat a group of stars playing as individuals.

[golgo]

There is a big difference between the skills used by a solider and those used by an individual.

That difference is fighting as part of a unit. Melee style fighting is more the thing of movies and primitive cultures. Societies that had standing armies trained their armies to move and fight as part of a larger unit.

The ability to march long distances, set camp, build fortifications and fight in formation would be valued much higher than individual dueling skills, especially unarmed skills.

So, it is highly unlikely that unarmed fighting skills were developed and showcased during combat.

Martial arts does not equal unarmed. Are there any styles/systems of kung fu that did not originally include weapon training? This is not a rhetorical question - I genuinely do not know. I am assuming the answer is no however.

I still find it hard to believe that individual skill did not play a role in being able to survive on a battlefield. Yes, strategy, tatctics and leadership play a larger role, especially in the overall outcome of the battle, but to say individual skill has a minor role when it comes to individual survival - well, I don't really agree with this notion.

=
The armies that were most successful were the ones that fought as disciplined units, not as a howling mob.

Very much like sports. A team of disciplined athletes working together can often defeat a group of stars playing as individuals.

Yeah, but the Chicago Bulls with the arguably greatest individual player to ever grace the NBA... they built a dynasty... oh, except for the year he went and played baseball.

The Lakers with Kobe & Shaq - arguably the best 2 players in the game - dynasty.

The Yankees in the 90's (and their butt-load of talent)- dynasty

And the list could go on...

So its hard to argue that individual skill plays no part in the success of a franchise. It doesn't guarantee success, mind you (i.e. recent Yankees). This is why you see so few dynasties once salary caps are put into place - it stops teams from being able to keep all of the best individual players.

So either you picked a bad analogy, or you proved the opposite point you were trying to make.

[stonecrusher69]

Attacking me does not negate the premise of this thread.

I don't attend seminar-after-seminar, class-after-class, meeting-after-meeting, read book-after-book, article-after-article....and yes, get involved in thread-after-thread...

devoted to wing chun history.

Which is what many people can't seem to get enough of.

And the lineage and politics discussions and debates have grown very old - so I try to avoid them as much as possible at this point.

My primary interest has always been either actually doing, (ie.- as in training), or discussing various fighting methods, training methods, strategies, principles, and techniques THAT WORK under pressure.

And the premise of this thread is that if you call yourself a wing chun man and you're spending a great deal of your time still doing the history and politics thing as we approach 2009...

seminars, classes, books, articles, discussions, meetings, debates, etc...

you're helping wing chun become antiquated and irrelevant. There's really no getting around that fact anymore. For anybody. Regardless of what lineage they come from. Or what is the history (or supposed history) of that lineage...or anything else...the politics of who's-who, or the alleged unbeatable quality of the wing chun method in question, etc.

Because wing chun is being left behind. The martial arts world has taken a giant leap forward within the last 15 years or so - and wing chun, for the most part, is watching from the sidelines.

Why?

Because instead of spending most of their time pressure testing to find out what wing chun works and what doesn't - people are engaging in history lessons and trying to figure out (and shuffle) the politics of who's who.

I think being knowledgeable about ones art is time well spent. It does not make you a better fighter per se but M.A. is not all about fighting. There is more to it then that.