Why not have an open mind about real fighting?

[Sihing73]

Hello,

Frist of all when I say that Biu Tze teaches one to think outside of the box I am saying this in respect to it being for emergency techniques. One of the aspects which I think Biu Tze addresses is that of having to deal with when one makes a mistake, in some cases you will need to step outsideof the box in order to come back from such an error. If you chose to respond in a fixed pattern then you may never recover. However, if you step outside and realize that your response need sto be flexible and alive then you are free to utilize all aspects of the system. Perhaps WSL said it best when he stated that one needed to be the master and not the slave to Wing Chun.

anerlich makes some very valid points as many of the "old" masters were not only expected to train and diversify but were actually sent for instruction with other "masters" by their own sifu. I think that one must take a somewhat pragmatic appraoch to "fighting". One must prepare for the opponents they are likely to face and one should do whatever it takes to win. If you like BJJ or Boxing then so be it as long as you stay true to the basic precepts of your chosen art. I believe that every art has the potential to be very effective, a lot has to do with the focus and intent of ones training. In many cases the mental aspect may be more important than the physical.

Having a good instructor is important in allowing the student to find the proper balance and not jump ship to another art before he is ready. In many systems the expectation is to achieve at least Black belt level in your system of choice before looking to other arts.

Just some late night ramblings when I should be working............

Peace,

Dave

[Phil Redmond]

If you're doing WC for a hobby, for philosphy, or for health that's all good. If you do WC for what it was invented for then you have to test you art against what's out there. PERIOD. There is no other way. Until (generic) you have tried your art against skilled fighters you never really know if it'll work in real situations.
PR

[AmanuJRY]

Phil,

That is on the money.

People need to decide what their reason is for studying WC (or any other MA for that matter), then apply that reason to their approach. If it's fighting (self-defence, competition, etc.) then the act of fighting (or whatever pseudo-fighting model) should be the test that defines the training.


As for Biu Jee, I like to think that SNT is a basic tool set and CK is the methods for applying those tools. BJ is learning to employ basic tools with unique methods or unique tools with normal methods and even unique tools with unique methods.

[PaulH]

I find this explanation most illuminating on the meaning of Biu Gee fingers. =D

"Reality, the truth, is not something abstract. For this reason it cannot be grasped with words. Why, then, should we spend our time pursuing explanation? Or more to the point, why can we not cease our efforts to explain reality? Human beings sometimes seem preoccupied with the questions of what reality should be like, and what we should or should not do. Yet we can sometimes simply glimpse how things are, just as we see clear sky emerging from beyond the clouds. What both Dogen and Nagaijuna do in their writings is to point us towards a gap in the clouds; to the clear sky beyond. In the words of an ancient Buddhist metaphor, ideas, theories, and explanations are fingers pointing at the distant moon. They are not, and can never be, the moon itself. Our pointing fingers do not touch the moon, just as our ideas do not touch reality. But they can act as a guide.

Where then, is the moon at which these fingers point, and why can we not easily see it for ourselves? Buddhism says that it is in front of us here and now. The philosopher, Ludwig Wittgenstein, put it succinctly when he said, "The place I really have to get to is a place I must already be at now." And yet Wittgenstein would be the first to agree that the phrase, "a place I must already be at now" merely creates another image in our brain. No matter how hard we try to describe it in words, we only create more images."

[KPM]

Originally posted by Vankuen

So then why do some of the people here have such a closed mind when it comes to the idea that wing chun MIGHT not have all the answers to fighting? to see, and refusing to see is just a fear of accepting the facts.

I'm just wondering really how one can get so offended at people questioning blind faith. It's a valid question/debate, and one really should take into consideration the evidence that's out there.

Just my two cents...

---It is often not the "questioning" that offends, but the way that it is presented. No one likes to be labeled or told that what they are doing is worthless. Things seem to get personal far too quickly and far too often on this forum. There are some here that will jump into a reasonable thread discussing WCK (this is after all, as Old Jong pointed out, a WCK forum and not a MMA forum) and completely hijack a thread and turn it into an "us vs. them" argument. There is certainly room for talking about how WCK would work against other systems, and even how certain things like BJJ can be integrated in your fighting approach. But too many people here seem to have an agenda and go on an evanglistic crusade to prove that what everyone else is doing is worthless. They purposefully create a polarization where none really exists. THAT is what I take offense at. They think in terms of black and white when really things are a shade of gray. IMHO THAT is not "thinking outside of the box". That is just as "close-minded" as anything else. And human nature is funny.....you offend someone and they typically stop listening to what you have to say..........

Keith

[t_niehoff]

KPM doesn't like the tone. LOL!

Well, in my view, a great many WCK practitioners (and we're not alone, it's the same with most TCMAs and especially the for-the-most-part-make-believe "internal" arts) suffer from a superiority complex -- they *believe* their art is great ("awesome"), superior to most other arts, provides most, if not all, the answers etc. Even some of the posts on this thread suggest WCK does certain things better than other arts, like developing "body unity". (What a joke; the overwhelming majority of WCK practitioners have absolutely no body unity.) When the truth -- if we bother to look at the *evidence* -- is something altogether very different.

Wong Sheung Leung said "Wing Chun is a good horse but few can ride her." IMO there is something very profound and very true in those words. Hundreds, if not thousands, went through Yip Man's Hong Kong kwoon -- perhaps a handful ever developed any real skill. I've seen loads of WCK practitioners in my time (over 20 years) in the art, including masters, grandmasters, the so-called "top-notch" folks, etc. and very, very few (I could count them on one hand) had any decent skill (other than being "good" at chi sao or demos -- which is how, along with marketing, they sell their art). Is this evidence that WCK is a superior art? That it has all the answers?

My opinion is that if you -- not the generic "you" but *you* reading this post -- can't demonstrate under fighting conditions against skilled opposition your beliefs, in other words if you can't do it, perform it, etc., then your beliefs (or claims) whatever they are are essentially meaningless and you are deluding yourself. WCK isn't superior if you aren't a superior fighter; WCK doesn't have the answers if you don't have all the answers. And while you can believe in the tooth fairy (or that biu jee is for this or that or the other thing), proving it is something else. So far, all we have are claims, theory, etc.

KPM doesn't like the "tone"; sorry, but I don't like the "tone" I've been hearing for 20+ years from the fantasy-boxers. And what I find pathetic is the constant back-slapping among those WCK practitioners -- "we have the superior art" nonsense -- when they couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag. Keith doesn't like being told that most people are wasting their time. Well, they are. It's like boy scouts talking about war and the things they would do or could do if they ever went to war. My POV is for us to stop wasting our time.

Stop talking about that cr@p -- either prove it, that you can do it, that you can back up your belief or don't talk about it. And if you can do it, you'll have no reticence in stepping up and proving it. Stop talking about what WCK *can* (in theory) do -- what you believe wtihout evidence -- and talk instead what you can do, what works for you (and not in chi sao or drills), etc. Of course, the only way to know what you can do is by having done it, by fighting. So, if you haven't done it, and against skilled folks, you have no real idea if you could do it or not, whether it works for you or not. Stop the nonsense.

Why don't many have an open mind about fighting? Because fighting will take one out of the safety of their cacoon of theory and belief, expose their true level of performance, and deep in their hearts (unconsciously) they know that. And they don't want to see it.

[Nick Forrer]

Good post Terence

[Vajramusti]

Terence sez:

My POV is for us to stop wasting our time.

Stop talking about that cr@p -- either prove it, that you can do it, that you can back up your belief or don't talk about it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The POV is clear enough...why repeat the same point again and again.

Keith made a fairly well balanced point...and the kind of response that he got from Terence is not necessary and is really pointless.

Prove it? To whom? To Terence? A self appointed jury on an internet list?

Victor put some films up. I enjoyed watching them.Thanks for sharing. Its not my cup of tea but I appreciated seeing the films. I avoid a critique because of the often dysfunctional communications
that arise.

[Vajramusti]

Terence sez:

My POV is for us to stop wasting our time.

Stop talking about that cr@p -- either prove it, that you can do it, that you can back up your belief or don't talk about it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The POV is clear enough...why repeat the same point agin and again.

Keith made a fairly well balanced point...and the kind of response that he got from Terence is not necessary and is really pointless.

Prove it? To whom? A self appointed jury on an internet list?

[Vankuen]

KPM basically said what I said in another post..."it's not what you say but how you say it. " Edmund mentioned on another thread as well that if we are to help each other out on this forum,or at the very least discuss wing chun kuen in a more positive light, that we need to stop the name calling, the personal attacks, and the mentioning on specific people on the forum when trying to make points. (After all we all know who is who on here) as far as personality types go.

KPM basically said that And Terence, In IMHO, that's exactly what were talking about. The point could've been made easily without mentioning names, or anything of the sort...and the put/shut up attitude, although it has it's place with me as well...quite frankly doesn't matter on a forum. We can mention it here and there should the subject arise...but the fact that we "fighter" types are making it arise on just about every thread is starting to become a nuisance to everyone else, and hell even I am noticing the trend.

This thread was originally just a rant...but now Im looking just to bring some light on the subject and maybe this can be the start of a more civil union between the two groups....

[Edmund]

Originally posted by Vankuen
This thread was originally just a rant...but now Im looking just to bring some light on the subject and maybe this can be the start of a more civil union between the two groups....

I doubt there can be.
But the rant level is getting too high.

There should be a sticky thread called "Screw You" where all the crap goes.

[t_niehoff]

Let's put things into perspective. If folks want to talk about history or WCK for health or the way various lineages do or have done the forms or drills, we can all share in that -- everyone. But there needs to a "line drawn in the sand" when it comes to talking, even on a forum, about the effectiveness of training methods, application, and related claims. With regard to those topics, I don't give a rat's @ss about "inclusion" or a "civil union" or things of that nature. Wouldn't you expect Joy to challenge me if I said Fong does this or that? How could I know other than by hearsay? A person needs to have personal knowledge on the topic being discussed to have any credibility in the matter. In the same vein, folks that don't fight -- don't actually *do* WCK -- have no personal knowledge on which to base their opinions about application or effective training methods, so they have absolutely no credibility in these matters.

So, yes, I'll bet when issues of training and application are being discussed that a focus on expereince (fighting) rather than belief (theory) has been a nuisance to all the theoreticians. But, you know, why should anyone care if some theoretician gives their opinion on how to use pak sao when they've never tried to actually use it against anyone skilled in their life? And shouldn't it be pointed out that they don't have a clue? Should we just "include" them and treat their opinion as valid to make them feel good? To stroke their egos? Should we not draw a line in the sand because we may not appear cordial?

Joy asks, "prove it to whom?" To yourself. To others. If you can do it, why is the question of proof even an issue? If proof is an issue, is a sore spot, it's because there is no proof. Why not go onto a BJJ forum and say "I've never rolled on the mats, let alone with someone good, but have been studying BJJ for years, so let me tell you how to apply it." Or a boxing forum, "I've learned to box, done the drills, etc. but have never gotten into the ring or boxed with anyone skilled but let me tell you how you should train and do things." But that's standard in TCMAs.

Sorry if you don't like "how I say things." IME, martial artists or fighters don't need things sugar-coated, they talk like men and women rather than children ("can't you be nice?", "can't we all just get along?"), can take the blunt truth even if it hurts, their egos don't bruise easily because their egos are getting pounded all the time. When you fight, you get beaten every day, you see that you're not all that, that what you do isn't "superior". And you come to recognize BS when it's spewed.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Very interesting and insightful post, Andrew. All of it. Especially liked the part about the Japanese philosophy regarding martial art training. That's the way it should be for everybody. Makes so much sense.

Originally posted by anerlich
These are good points. However, the question that it begs is how long it takes to "fully explore" one's own art, at least to the point where one is competent enough to be able to judge the value of other systems and approaches.

Frank Shamrock turned pro after 8 months training. He won a world title after a year and a half. Anyone who's met him knows he's no idiot.

If you are an adult of reasonable intelligence, following someone else's track for several decades without applying your own judgement and critical faculties seems foolish and an abrogation of both potential and maturity.

In Japanese culture, sometimes derided by Sinophiles and others as being a nationality inflexible in their thinking and attitude, the concept of Shu Ha Ri is espoused.

Simplistically, you follow Shu for ten years, and train your art as laid down by your instructors.

In the next phase, Ha, you are EXPECTED to break away, try other things, look for weaknesses, think for yourself, find your own path.

In the third stage, Ri, you integrate your own learning with your inheritance.

So you are EXPECTED to go outside the boundaries of your system. After about ten years. If you haven't got a decent understanding of what you are doing after a decade, something is wrong with you or the people allegedly instructing you. If you want to stay in that bubble, or you are ordered to, ditto IMO.

As for "a conceptual based art, which has the answers to everything if you understand the concepts, and if you want to do something else you haven't understood..." I could just as easily have gone to a CLF, BJJ, taiji school or Peekaboo boxing gym and be told the same thing, and unfortunately for the true believers, it would be right. I went to a WC school because I liked the instructor's skill and personality, not because I was looking to hook up to a philosophy of life, religion, or cult. I wasn't looking for a black hole to fall into.

WC is an elegant and effective system. I've trained hard in this system for 15 years. It's great. I did forms and chi sao with a couple of training buds before work this morning, though - shock horror - sorry - we did move out of the "traditional TWC" drills into hip tosses, arm drags, duckunders and knee strike/snapdown/front chokes.

When I saw BJJ, I saw a similarly elegant and beautiful art. Once I tried it, I was hooked. So effective, and so much fun, such a challenge both physically and intellectually. It can be a brutally effective means to dominate superior attributes with skill, and it can also be a gentle art of restraint. Plus most of the other students have less attitude than most TMAers.

I see boxing as a great challenge. So much more to it than just bashing someone. In some ways, it's a more efficient striking art than WC, with some concepts that are IMO superior.

I'm going to continue following all these paths. Because I like them all. I don't just choose one, because .. I don't have to.

Got a problem with that? Then *you* got a problem, not me.

[AndrewS]

Van writes:

>To cite an example of why we should start thinking ouside the >box...I was in a wing chun school, and was doing some anti >grappling using wing chun against the leg clinch/ leg shoot. >When I was the wing chun person, and the "attacker" went for >my leg, I simply moved it back while punching him. He stopped >and looked at me and said "I don't think that's right. I said "why >wouldn't it be? You didn't get my leg, and I managed to keep >hitting you in the process..." He said "well, in wing tsun we >don't give up space, so we don't step the leg back." I looked at >him like I thought he was joking at first but he wasn't. INSTEAD >of thinking logically and reacting naturally, he wouldve left >himself in a situation wherein his leg would've been taken, all >because a style that doesn't even really address that area of >fighting, told him not to. That's not fighting smart, that's fighting >blind.

Hey Van-

you're right and he's wrong on both practical and EBMAS curriculum levels. There is nothing wrong with moving back; there are better and worse ways to do so.

For *all* 'anti-grappling' things work in the following tiers:
1). Defend with just the hits, keeping space by using the pressure of the hits as a way to 'post' off of incoming force. This is what you were doing. If you go back, do so on an angle, and work on getting power out of your backwards step, using the space and weight drop it provides in conjunction with core activation potentiated by adduction.

2). Destroy the setup of the takedown/ clinch. Make their handfighting and positioning ineffective by controlling facing and giving no leverage advantage. This is essentially chi sao skills made real, and often looks like 1). if you have the timing of your attack done nicely.

3). Counter the takedown/clinch mid-execution- when someone actually has a solid and dangerous hold on you, what to do. This is what you were working on.

4). Reverse/control a successful takedown mid-air. Sifu has some slick stuff for this, probably the most neglected range.

5). Reverse control position when you hit the ground

6). Counter submission attempts, counter and reverse ground and pound- their own topics.

To the rest of the crew- the delusional schmucks giving us a bad rep also have the wonderful advantage of giving us an element of surprise. It's kinda fun when people expect you to have nothing and suddenly get ahold of something they really didn't expect. . .

Andrew

[Ultimatewingchun]

"The delusional schmucks giving us a bad rep also have the wonderful advantage of giving us an element of surprise. It's kinda fun when people expect you to have nothing and suddenly get ahold of something they really didn't expect."

CAN I STEAL that one, Andrew?

Would like to hang it on my wall.

Good overall post.