Food for thought: Can a person learn to fight, without fighting?

[Vankuen]

Alright guys and gals,

I pose to you this question as a friendly "mind opening" debate. I'm hoping to keep things civil and avoid childish or ad-hominum remarks here. If you have a viewpoint, and someone disagrees...try to use some intelligence to debate your stance...and the key here is to debate it. If you make a claim, defend with proper logical reasoning, or else why make the claim at all?

So here it is: can a student of any martial art, learn to fight without actually ever fighting? I.E. Ceteris Paribus (all other things being equal), can he or she be a consistently effective full contact fighter of their system without ever having stepped onto the mat/ring to test out their skills?

[AndrewS]

Wouldn't *ever* stepping out on the mat to test their skills and validate or disprove the hypothesis that they could learn to fight without fighting invalidate their status as someone who has never stepped out on the mat?

Your Schroedinger's Cat-style is strong. . .



Joking aside, not just no, f*ck no.

Andrew

[Buddha_Fist]

Can you learn how to swim without ever swimming?

Can you learn how to drive stick-shift wihout ever driving stick-shift?

[sanjuro_ronin]

Alright guys and gals,

I pose to you this question as a friendly "mind opening" debate. I'm hoping to keep things civil and avoid childish or ad-hominum remarks here. If you have a viewpoint, and someone disagrees...try to use some intelligence to debate your stance...and the key here is to debate it. If you make a claim, defend with proper logical reasoning, or else why make the claim at all?

So here it is: can a student of any martial art, learn to fight without actually ever fighting? I.E. Ceteris Paribus (all other things being equal), can he or she be a consistently effective full contact fighter of their system without ever having stepped onto the mat/ring to test out their skills?

Can someone, through intensive drills, learn how to fight?
Yes.
Will they be able to fight?
Perhaps, to an extent.
Will they even be as close in terms of skill and intent (crucial) to someone that does fight?
No.

Perhaps you mean if someone can learn how to fight without ever competing?
Sparring only?

Because it doesn't make a lot of sense to think that someone can learn to do something, at least at a decent level, without actually doing it.

[LoneTiger108]

So here it is: can a student of any martial art, learn to fight without actually ever fighting?

I'm sure there have been times in the past where the more virtuous person learnt how 'not' to fight, like the Karate Kid, but this just doesn't wash well these days due to the over-eagerness to 'compete'.

Are we talking about competing or fighting?

Anyone can learn how to fight without fighting imo, it's when you gotta learn how to compete I would say it's impossible without hands-on experience.

[KPM]

Anyone can learn how to fight without fighting imo, it's when you gotta learn how to compete I would say it's impossible without hands-on experience.


Good way of stating it! I agree with Spencer! :)

[sanjuro_ronin]

I'm sure there have been times in the past where the more virtuous person learnt how 'not' to fight, like the Karate Kid, but this just doesn't wash well these days due to the over-eagerness to 'compete'.

Are we talking about competing or fighting?

Anyone can learn how to fight without fighting imo, it's when you gotta learn how to compete I would say it's impossible without hands-on experience.

Competition is not fighting, though full contact is as close as it gets to it, but then again, not-fighting is NOT fighting either.

[t_niehoff]

It's not a matter of learning how to fight.

We can all fight. If someone attacks you, for example, you'll fight.

The question is more about how can we get better at fighting.

Can you get "better" at fighting without fighting? Sure. If you get in better shape, get stronger, etc. you'll be a better fighter -- in that your fighting performance will improve.

You can also increase your fighting performance through development and refinement of fighting skills, which includes strategic, tactical, and technical aspects. Fighting skill development beyond the superficial level comes only from fighting practice. Like any physical skill, you only get better at it by practicing it. You can't practice a fighting skill by not fighting (a fighting skill is doing something in fighting).

Some try to make the distinction between fighting and "real" fighting, between fighting and sport, between fighting and competition, etc. While there are obvious distinctions between them, there is also an obvious similarity between them: they all use realistic fighting skills (things that work in a fighting environment). Boxing skills, for example, work in the ring, in competition, in a streefight, in sparring, etc. because they are realistic skills. They will work in any realistic fighting environment (given the appropriate "range", etc.). Those realistic skills are developed by and through fighting, through practicing the skills (doing them as you will really do them). If a person doesn't practice in a realistic fighting environment, they can't and won't develop realistic fighting skills. Their skill level will correspond to the amount of quality time they've spent practicing their fighting skills (fighting).

[Wu Wei Wu]

Oldboy did it. All he did to train himself was watch TV and punch the wall.

[LoneTiger108]

Competition is not fighting, though full contact is as close as it gets to it, but then again, not-fighting is NOT fighting either.

I'm waiting for someone to describe to me 'how to train to fight without fighting'?! I've seen it, trained like it and still feel that fighting in the cage is not going to help me improve too much. If anything competitive fighting is detrimental to polishing my WCK skillset.

Lets face it, teams make a fighter great. And a good team is what most of us lack in the training hall. Everyone for themselves. Great!! :eek: What if I told you that to test your 108 wooden man skills, you would need 108 well-trained Martial Artists to attack you continuously with different techniques. Now, if you know them you will always hold back, unless you know they can take the punishment! This is still not fighting, but it is a preparatory stage of fighting. More so than a one-one encounter in a ring or nicely padded floor.

I could teach anyone to bite your ears and nose off, as this is the reality of fighting. Break legs, disjoint arms, gouge eyes. Someone tell me that a boxer has trained that and I'll convert to boxing! I'd prefer to have my WCK than boxing on the street any day. Besides, it's a known fact that boxers fists/wrists are weak as they've never felt knuckle to skull either...

[couch]

I could teach anyone to bite your ears and nose off, as this is the reality of fighting. Break legs, disjoint arms, gouge eyes. Someone tell me that a boxer has trained that and I'll convert to boxing! I'd prefer to have my WCK than boxing on the street any day. Besides, it's a known fact that boxers fists/wrists are weak as they've never felt knuckle to skull either...

I have respect for you (and everyone else), so the following is for conversation's sake.

It's not all about the joint-locks, etc when it comes to Boxing vs. TMA. It's about the constant pressure testing and sparring. No tricks or gimmicks.

The one-step sparring that many people do (read: one attack is thrown and the defender gets to hit the unresisting guy 40 times in a demo) is actually (IMO) a great drill. One-step, two-step and three-step sparring are great starters for a beginner...but for some reason...lots of TMA clubs stopped there. As a practitioner, one day you have to realize that it's time to put a bit of pressure on. Anyone can start with a little gear and those step-sparring scenarios...just up the pressure. Then you can work on light sparring, etc.

Can a person learn to fight without fighting? Does light sparring count? Do step-sparring drills count? I think that the sucker-punch drills are great...get in someone's face...put the pressure on, not just with physical power but with mental power. Get a little adrenaline going, etc.

Best,
Kenton

[sanjuro_ronin]

I could teach anyone to bite your ears and nose off, as this is the reality of fighting. Break legs, disjoint arms, gouge eyes. Someone tell me that a boxer has trained that and I'll convert to boxing! I'd prefer to have my WCK than boxing on the street any day. Besides, it's a known fact that boxers fists/wrists are weak as they've never felt knuckle to skull either...

I love quotes like this, they just remind me of why I got into the MA :D

[Vankuen]

Ceteris Paribus (all other things being equal), can he or she be a consistently effective full contact fighter of their system without ever having stepped onto the mat/ring to test out their skills?

To elaborate further....

Key words in that last sentence were "effective" and "full contact". We all know that anyone in any system can eye gouch and bite, but that's not what I'm talking about here. I'm talking about using their system to fight effectively.

Now to elaborate on the definition of "fight"...take your pick. Full contact or street. To me the skills are the same. But to make things easier--omit the "dirty tricks" that are universal to human survival instinct. Stay within the skillset of the same system. Sound good?

Now to me, since I've not put my own opinion up (though I'm sure most of you knew this already)...practicing skills in a free flowing and fully resistance environment is absolutely essential to gaining proficiency in performance in that environment from a technical point of view. Additionally the person gains in experience which will be invaluable on the street and cannot be attained in techniques, drilling, or attributes training.

I'm talking about knowing what to do when, knowing to instinctively do it, knowing what it feels like to be hit, knowing what it feels like to actually hit something solid (or something moving when you miss at full power). Knowing what it feels like to gas out and try to keep going....etc...etc. Being pushed mentally and physically to the point where you have to overcome the human element to perform well.

To me, it's analogous to music. The musician learns notes and chords and then puts it together to make a song. The martial artist learns techniques and drills and puts those together make a good fight. Can there be any other way?

But let's take this further....

Why do you think some systems/teachers/organizations are so adverse to sparring/fighting when most know full well it's necessary to become a skilled fighter? More so, why is the fallacy still being proliferated that people can be great fighters even when they never test themselves?

It doesn't make sense to me. With all the hubbub about honor, integrity, honesty and so forth that go along with most martial arts schools...it seems some of them just are being honest...not with themselves or their students.

For example, I used to be really into motorcycle racing. People in that crowd could talk all day about how good of rider they were, how they can do this or that on their bikes. But when the wheels hit the pavement, what really happens? More often than not the talkers would be way in the back, or worse, they'd crash trying to keep up with the more skilled riders. Then they'd make excuses as to why they couldn't do what they said they could. The sport is absolutely honest. You can't lie to yourself or others because the proof is in the performance. It's a common saying in that crowd "The racetrack is the most honest place on earth".

[sanjuro_ronin]

Fighting full contact is something that, unless you have done it, you do NOT know if you can, period.
To learn how to fight full contact you MUST fight full contact ( not everyday obviously).
And fighting full contact with gloves is very different that with no gloves, as is fighting full contact with MMA rules as opposed to other rules, as is fighting MMA of today VS the Vale Tudo of yesteryear.

[HardWork8]

Alright guys and gals,

I pose to you this question as a friendly "mind opening" debate. I'm hoping to keep things civil and avoid childish or ad-hominum remarks here. If you have a viewpoint, and someone disagrees...try to use some intelligence to debate your stance...and the key here is to debate it. If you make a claim, defend with proper logical reasoning, or else why make the claim at all?

So here it is: can a student of any martial art, learn to fight without actually ever fighting? I.E. Ceteris Paribus (all other things being equal), can he or she be a consistently effective full contact fighter of their system without ever having stepped onto the mat/ring to test out their skills?

The simple answer to this question is that yes it is possible to learn to fight without actually fighting training. However, this kind of "learning" will have its limits and ultimately will depend on the exponent's character.

Even among kids one sees the more aggressive types who are not afraid to have a go when they are provoked by other children. Imagine, if you take a kid like that and teach him how to hit properly. It is quite likely that the next time another child provokes him he will use that method to hit him.

Do the same with a shy,withdrawn and unaggressive child, then he will probably do what he usually does when he is provoked or bullied, which is to run or "crumble".

With this type of person the fighting/sparring training would be crucial to help them overcome the fear of physical combat. Where as the earlier example demonstrates a person who does not have fear or inhibitions in engaging in combat.

Yes, fighting training is as significant for training the mind (if not, more so)than training the body. After all, you can train the body to take hits and you can train to hit hard, without actually fighting. The mind in this case also means spirit. Some people do have fighting spirit and some don't, or don't have when it comes to fighting.

Of course, training for combat without engaging in some kind of sparring will have its limitations even for an unfearful individual,but it is not the beginning and the end of it all in martial arts training, as it is marketed by some "sifus". You do however need to use and test the skills you have been taught so that you can reach higher levels within your art.

I believe it is overemphasised nowadays at the determent of external technique and especially internal ones, meaning that many so called TMA schools make students spar too early in their training, before they have gained sufficient understanding of fighting and internal techniques and concepts.

Once sufficient understanding and skills have been the instilled in the student then the student should be taught how to fight/spar, USING the art and not just hopping around and swinging wildly as one sees some "kung fu" exponents, when they are fighting.

[Jeff Bussey]

Hey all
I don't think you can become a better fighter without fighting. The main things, IMO, you get from fighting is getting used to being hit and being gassed and learning how to deal with it.
After you've been fighting / sparring that's when you learn what is really the best stance for you to take, where your weight should be and when to shift it, balance, timing and everything else you do in you MA. It'll open your eyes to how you train your MA, and definitely emphasize all of the areas you need to work on, and maybe even show you a couple of areas you weren't even aware of without fighting / sparring.

To me you won't be able to highlight those things if you don't fight / spar. So your MA suffers as well.

:D

[Vankuen]

The simple answer to this question is that yes it is possible to learn to fight without actually fighting training. However, this kind of "learning" will have its limits and ultimately will depend on the exponent's character.

Even among kids one sees the more aggressive types who are not afraid to have a go when they are provoked by other children. Imagine, if you take a kid like that and teach him how to hit properly. It is quite likely that the next time another child provokes him he will use that method to hit him.

Do the same with a shy,withdrawn and unaggressive child, then he will probably do what he usually does when he is provoked or bullied, which is to run or "crumble".

With this type of person the fighting/sparring training would be crucial to help them overcome the fear of physical combat. Where as the earlier example demonstrates a person who does not have fear or inhibitions in engaging in combat.

Yes, fighting training is as significant for training the mind (if not, more so)than training the body. After all, you can train the body to take hits and you can train to hit hard, without actually fighting. The mind in this case also means spirit. Some people do have fighting spirit and some don't, or don't have when it comes to fighting.

Of course, training for combat without engaging in some kind of sparring will have its limitations even for an unfearful individual,but it is not the beginning and the end of it all in martial arts training, as it is marketed by some "sifus". You do however need to use and test the skills you have been taught so that you can reach higher levels within your art.

I believe it is overemphasised nowadays at the determent of external technique and especially internal ones, meaning that many so called TMA schools make students spar too early in their training, before they have gained sufficient understanding of fighting and internal techniques and concepts.

Once sufficient understanding and skills have been the instilled in the student then the student should be taught how to fight/spar, USING the art and not just hopping around and swinging wildly as one sees some "kung fu" exponents, when they are fighting.

All great points! But what you're talking about in the beginning of your post is someone's natural fighting spirit. Let's omit that from the table. Remember...all other things being equal.

I do agree though, no sense in sparring or fighting until one has a solid grasp of the basics. And while I think you're right that some teachers throw their students into the frying pan much too early, I think there are even more that wait too long. I have taught someone a thai kick, and had them learn it in an hour, to the point where the kick was identical to mine in technique, power and speed. Let's say I can teach him some basic punches and defenses in the relative same time frame...no reason not to put him to the test within a few weeks. Each person is different, and I think some people are held back because of doctrine.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Don't take this the wrong way but, things are NEVER equal.

[t_niehoff]

All great points! But what you're talking about in the beginning of your post is someone's natural fighting spirit. Let's omit that from the table. Remember...all other things being equal.


"Fighting spirit" or toughness is something that can and needs to be developed just like anything else.


I do agree though, no sense in sparring or fighting until one has a solid grasp of the basics.


But you can't get a "solid grasp of the basics" without sparring.

Some people see the basics (movements, shapes, etc.) as one thing and using them (sparring) as another. In my view this is the wrong way of looking at things (though it is the way promoted by TMAs). In my view, the basics are the doing of it (whatever it is). You don't get the basics of surfing by doing anything other than surfing.

[donbdc]

It seems to me, the military does a real good job of training how to kill, but I don't think they actually kill each other during their training. I don't know if thats just trying to be politicaly correct on their part or not, but it does seem to work.
we train drills and we free style them, and we control spar once people have the basics. All combat sport training is just that, sport.
Its as real as you want to make it but no one brings a live knife or gun to the matt, I hope.
I train to develop a skill set that will get me out of a pinch, but really most of that comes from just earth time, being aware of my enviroment and not being stupid.
I don't need to show up to work w/ a broken black eyes and broken ribs, toes and finges. I did that in my youth, now I'd just scare my patients more than already do.
I have trained in lots of arts from Tai Chi to Bando it all good. But Wing Chun is my focus now it has eeverything I need in it. From stand up to the ground.
I just don't think I need to train in such a way that a mugging would be more preferable to a training session, and yes i have had some of those but now I don't mend as well.
Don

[Ultimatewingchun]

"Ceteris Paribus (all other things being equal), can he or she be a consistently effective full contact fighter of their system without ever having stepped onto the mat/ring to test out their skills?

To elaborate further....

Key words in that last sentence were 'effective' and 'full contact'. We all know that anyone in any system can eye gouch and bite, but that's not what I'm talking about here. I'm talking about using their system to fight effectively..." (Vankuen)


***NO CHANCE of being an effecive full contact fighter without actually doing full contact sparring/fighting (be it in competition or otherwise) on a consistent basis.

[Tom Kagan]

So here it is: can a student of any martial art, learn to fight without actually ever fighting? I.E. Ceteris Paribus (all other things being equal), can he or she be a consistently effective full contact fighter of their system without ever having stepped onto the mat/ring to test out their skills?


Can you learn to fight without actually ever fighting?


Perhaps a better question is: why would you want to even bother to learn to fight that way? What would be the point?


Fighters want to fight.

[Vankuen]

"Fighting spirit" or toughness is something that can and needs to be developed just like anything else.



But you can't get a "solid grasp of the basics" without sparring.

Some people see the basics (movements, shapes, etc.) as one thing and using them (sparring) as another. In my view this is the wrong way of looking at things (though it is the way promoted by TMAs). In my view, the basics are the doing of it (whatever it is). You don't get the basics of surfing by doing anything other than surfing.

Maybe it's just semantics, but I consider fighting spirit to be something other than toughness. I also feel that sending someone into a ring without them knowing how to punch correctly is wrong if you want them to be able to spar using what they have learned (which in this scenario is nada).

[anerlich]

Besides, it's a known fact that boxers fists/wrists are weak as they've never felt knuckle to skull either...

LOL at "known fact".

You can teach people "The Art of Fighting without Fighting" per Geoff Thompson's book.

BTW he advocates boxing and obviously has nevber felt knuclkle to skull and has those weak wrists per the "known fact" mentioned above. :rolleyes:

I dont' think you can people people to fight without some attempt to duplicate fighting.

To the OP: congrats at summoning the spirit of T back from internet limbo.

[Vankuen]

LOL at "known fact".

You can teach people "The Art of Fighting without Fighting" per Geoff Thompson's book.

BTW he advocates boxing and obviously has nevber felt knuclkle to skull and has those weak wrists per the "known fact" mentioned above. :rolleyes:

I dont' think you can people people to fight without some attempt to duplicate fighting.

To the OP: congrats at summoning the spirit of T back from internet limbo.

Well...another conversation got me sick of the lack of realism in some martial arts' programs. I never thought that in today's world of knowledge that I would see the mystical "too deadly to spar" mantra still being spouted. It's a crock of ****. Even the deadliest of the military elite will tell you any hand to hand system is only as good as how you train in it. I've been there, done that. Worked with all of the Armed Forces overseas...tactical teams, Army airborne, marines, even the Brits. The same underlying theory is in all their training: the more realistic the better if you want results.

I truly think that it shows a lack of integrity and a lack of general morals when something like that comes out of someone's mouth. Especially if they're teaching.

[hakke]

The sad truth is no you can't. That is not to say Ma doesn't prepare you for it. However truly knowing how requires doing it on severak occasions.

[Edmund]

Well...another conversation got me sick of the lack of realism in some martial arts' programs. I never thought that in today's world of knowledge that I would see the mystical "too deadly to spar" mantra still being spouted. It's a crock of ****. Even the deadliest of the military elite will tell you any hand to hand system is only as good as how you train in it. I've been there, done that. Worked with all of the Armed Forces overseas...tactical teams, Army airborne, marines, even the Brits. The same underlying theory is in all their training: the more realistic the better if you want results.

I truly think that it shows a lack of integrity and a lack of general morals when something like that comes out of someone's mouth. Especially if they're teaching.

Well there's plenty of stuff that's too deadly to spar with which is plenty realistic. e.g. Throws that you shouldn't do because they can put your opponent on their head. Any strikes on the spine is generally no good etc.

[Vankuen]

Well there's plenty of stuff that's too deadly to spar with which is plenty realistic. e.g. Throws that you shouldn't do because they can put your opponent on their head. Any strikes on the spine is generally no good etc.


Thats true. There are always certain techniques one should refrain from when practicing with friends; but the occasional single technique that is a maiming or deadly move does not typically comprise the entire system or theory; not to mention there are always several options to using a given system in a realistic manner.

For example, most of the ground work that we see can maim quite easily. It's just that the practicioners stop just shy of doing so. I can throw someone on their head, but just as easily change the angle to drop them on their side. I can snap an arm quickly in a locking technique or I can slowly pull it to it's limit. I can punch the back without hitting the spine, I can kick the leg without hitting the knee, and etc. There are options.

[sihing]

Can one learn to fight effectively without fighting? Yes, I think we all agree on that. If no fighting ability is 0, with 10 being the most effective on a scale, I would say that one that is learning WC/VT, forms, drills, bag work, progressive intensity and randomness in the drills over a period of time based on skill development and interest, will improve their own effectiveness as a fighter, from 0 to maybe a 5 or 6. Will that same person (twin A) be able to defeat their exact twin(B), when twin B is doing the same things but fighting/sparring per say as well? On paper no, twin A should lose to twin B. In real world? Anything can happen and no one knows for sure what would happen, but a betting man would put more money on Twin B, as he has more chance of success due to his more complete training regimend. All we can really do when adding more realism in training a Martial Art is improve our chances of success in a fight.

James

[Edmund]

Thats true. There are always certain techniques one should refrain from when practicing with friends; but the occasional single technique that is a maiming or deadly move does not typically comprise the entire system or theory; not to mention there are always several options to using a given system in a realistic manner.

For example, most of the ground work that we see can maim quite easily. It's just that the practicioners stop just shy of doing so. I can throw someone on their head, but just as easily change the angle to drop them on their side. I can snap an arm quickly in a locking technique or I can slowly pull it to it's limit. I can punch the back without hitting the spine, I can kick the leg without hitting the knee, and etc. There are options.

The thing is what options you choose. If we have to wear boxing gloves to spar my ability to take you down is severely limited. If we switch to MMA gloves, I get a fair bit more capable. If you take your shirt off, it's a bit more limited again.

Same on the ground. There's a heap of solid chokes for me, if you wear some sort of shirt, but maybe 5 or 6 for me without it.

In a real fight, how often are you up against a bare chested opponent though?

[Vankuen]

The thing is what options you choose. If we have to wear boxing gloves to spar my ability to take you down is severely limited. If we switch to MMA gloves, I get a fair bit more capable. If you take your shirt off, it's a bit more limited again.

Same on the ground. There's a heap of solid chokes for me, if you wear some sort of shirt, but maybe 5 or 6 for me without it.

In a real fight, how often are you up against a bare chested opponent though?

That's where adaptation comes in; changing things on the fly. You deal with the cards you are dealt and hopefully if your training regimen is well rounded enough, you'll come out ok. Know what I mean?

That's why I think the environment of full contact sparring is a no question absolute necessity. Because it introduces that level of unpredictability coupled with stress. Practicing sections of fighting is fine, but without free flowing real time stress, things are likely to wrong when the time comes to use your skills. Fighting also gives a person a benchmark...he or she will understand their strengths and weaknesses and will be able to adjust their attributes training accordingly.

I hate using boxing gloves personally because they limit my ability to grab, slip, parry, and punch into smaller openings. But I do so because I can hit harder with them and can work on different fighting attributes. Next time I might spar with lighter MMA style gloves but then use lighter strikes when punching to sensitive areas (like the face). People don't realize how much faster they'll gas out hitting full out, and how much every miss with a full out punch will destabilize them. When the conditioning goes, so does the skill.

[Edmund]

That's where adaptation comes in; changing things on the fly. You deal with the cards you are dealt and hopefully if your training regimen is well rounded enough, you'll come out ok. Know what I mean?


Not really. That's why I used the shirt example.
You aren't going to adapt a choke on the fly that uses the clothing if you irregularly spar with it and usually don't use it. Or a throw.

Most likely you will just try whatever you trained most.

And if your opponent trained to un-holster their gun real quick and bust some caps you may get shot regardless of how unrealistically they practiced it.

I'm not saying don't spar but there's plenty of "dirty" moves in fighting. These tricks can help in a real fight just as much as all the attributes.

Some untrained psycho who's trying to claw my eyes out IS dangerous. I don't WANT to go head-on with them even if I am more trained. My first priority is to keep them off my face not take them on full contact.

[Vankuen]

Not really. That's why I used the shirt example.
You aren't going to adapt a choke on the fly that uses the clothing if you irregularly spar with it and usually don't use it. Or a throw.

Most likely you will just try whatever you trained most.

True, so why would you be trying a lapel choke or throw that you don't practice with? By your admission, you most likely wouldn't. If you make an attack and it doesn't work, you move onto another attack. Let's say the guy had a shirt, and I try a lapel choke, shirt tears--oops--didn't expect that. So then why not try punching or working around to another type of choke like a RNC?



And if your opponent trained to un-holster their gun real quick and bust some caps you may get shot regardless of how unrealistically they practiced it.

Also true. But now you're trying to compare a gun with a martial art which isn't comparable. A gun will *almost* always trump any martial art. So perhaps we should stick with the subject at hand?



I'm not saying don't spar but there's plenty of "dirty" moves in fighting. These tricks can help in a real fight just as much as all the attributes.

Some untrained psycho who's trying to claw my eyes out IS dangerous. I don't WANT to go head-on with them even if I am more trained. My first priority is to keep them off my face not take them on full contact.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Those dirty tricks you speak of are adaptable to any person at any time. If you have to resort to those and keep using those as an anchor to your point of view on this...then why practice your chosen art?

And no one is saying to go head-to-head with psycho's. We're not talking about fighting Mike Tyson or some crazed up nutjob. The question was...can you learn to fight effectively and progressively without some form of resistant full contact sparring in your training regimen? That's it. No guns...no clawing crazies. You're going off on a tangent unrelated to the debate at hand.

[Edmund]

I think you asked a loaded question in the first place to try justify your progressive sparring methods.

While sparring is good and I advocate it, I still think the true answer is that someone who hasn't sparred can fight quite viciously by doing stuff that is "dirty". By escalating the fight with dirty tactics or weapons or using your clothes to choke you, they can make up for their lack of sparring experience.

So as anyone who has been in bad fights would know, although you can prepare via sparring and everything, an untrained opponent can still do some dirty move that is dangerous to you. While they would be a complete chump in a sparring environment, they can still even their odds with some underhanded move in a real fight.



True, so why would you be trying a lapel choke or throw that you don't practice with? By your admission, you most likely wouldn't. If you make an attack and it doesn't work, you move onto another attack. Let's say the guy had a shirt, and I try a lapel choke, shirt tears--oops--didn't expect that. So then why not try punching or working around to another type of choke like a RNC?


There's a lot more chokes with a lapel, they are easier to get and tougher to defend. They are a fight equalizer because of this. If one person has drilled gi chokes with no sparring, they still can gi choke the **** out of some who sparred but without any gi chokes. They have a real good chance.

Same with throws actually. Someone with very little sparring experience with the gi is still going to throw very experienced people who never used the gi. Probably like a rag doll.

[HardWork8]

"Fighting spirit" or toughness is something that can and needs to be developed just like anything else.

Exactly, but some people seem to have that from an early age and some don't. For those who don't, fighting without fighting becomes an impossible task. And that was one of my points.

For those who do have a fighting spirit then they will manage some degree of fighting proficiency through the right kind of training.

Ultimately, both types of people will need to practice sparring to take them to a higher level of competence, but NOT before learning and gaining some working understanding of the important basics of Wing Chun or whatever kung fu style they practice.



But you can't get a "solid grasp of the basics" without sparring.

Basics in any kung fu style, include your STANCE and the ability to "sink"; relaxation and the ability to be "soft" without being floppy; the correct punching and blocking techniques and their repetions (that should be in X thousands) and of course, the correct LINES.

Before a kung fu student engages in sparring, he or she should have built solid stance foundations and an understanding of concepts.I am talking about traditional kung fu training and not the "John Dough's new and 'improved' for 'today's streets' ", pseudo kung fu styles.

So you will gain your basics and some releveant techniques first and then you will test, apply and adjust them in sparring.

You take some guy and throw him in the deep end from the beginning, then the only basics he is going to learn are the basics of kick boxing, that is, he is going to hop around like a boxer/kickboxer/TKD-ist, presumably with the full encouragement of his "sifu", who wouldn't know real kung fu if it fell on him.

Some people see the basics (movements, shapes, etc.) as one thing and using them (sparring) as another. In my view this is the wrong way of looking at things (though it is the way promoted by TMAs). In my view, the basics are the doing of it (whatever it is). You don't get the basics of surfing by doing anything other than surfing.


Luckily for all of us, Wing Chun is a land sport/art.:D

[sanjuro_ronin]

It seems to me, the military does a real good job of training how to kill, but I don't think they actually kill each other during their training. I don't know if thats just trying to be politicaly correct on their part or not, but it does seem to work.
we train drills and we free style them, and we control spar once people have the basics. All combat sport training is just that, sport.
Its as real as you want to make it but no one brings a live knife or gun to the matt, I hope.
I train to develop a skill set that will get me out of a pinch, but really most of that comes from just earth time, being aware of my enviroment and not being stupid.
I don't need to show up to work w/ a broken black eyes and broken ribs, toes and finges. I did that in my youth, now I'd just scare my patients more than already do.
I have trained in lots of arts from Tai Chi to Bando it all good. But Wing Chun is my focus now it has eeverything I need in it. From stand up to the ground.
I just don't think I need to train in such a way that a mugging would be more preferable to a training session, and yes i have had some of those but now I don't mend as well.
Don

Military H2H is sub-par and the one that are good fighters in the military are those that compete.
As for the weapons part of military training, the drills involve shooting don't they?
I recall in my time we had quite a bit of actual shooting and actual "mock" fir fights, ie: sparring.
Have things changed that much?
From the combatives clips on youtube, I don't think so.

[t_niehoff]

Basics in any kung fu style, include your STANCE and the ability to "sink"; relaxation and the ability to be "soft" without being floppy; the correct punching and blocking techniques and their repetions (that should be in X thousands) and of course, the correct LINES.


The basics from my perspective are the neccessary skills you need to do the activity (fight with your method). The basics are fighting skills. The only way to learn if you are doing the basics (skills) "correctly" is by fighting. The only way to develop them beyond a superficial level is by fighting. Any drilling needs to be replicative of a fighting environment (taking snippets of fighting and repeating them).


Before a kung fu student engages in sparring, he or she should have built solid stance foundations and an understanding of concepts.I am talking about traditional kung fu training and not the "John Dough's new and 'improved' for 'today's streets' ", pseudo kung fu styles.


So you will gain your basics and some releveant techniques first and then you will test, apply and adjust them in sparring.

You take some guy and throw him in the deep end from the beginning, then the only basics he is going to learn are the basics of kick boxing, that is, he is going to hop around like a boxer/kickboxer/TKD-ist, presumably with the full encouragement of his "sifu", who wouldn't know real kung fu if it fell on him.


This is the classic TMA view: that if you put a trainee into sparring too soon they will develop bad habits. Actually, that is entirely wrong. The only way to learn and develop good habits is by sparring.

The problem is in part how people "look" at what WCK is. For me, WCK is an activity. Just like boxing or wrestling or grappling is an activity. You only learn and develop skill at an activity by doing the activity. Like riding a bike or surfing are activities (skills). You can't really learn or develop bike riding skills or surfing skills outside of the activity itself. You can represent them, but that representation isn't really accurate.

[Jeff Bussey]

Hey again,
The basics from my perspective are the neccessary skills you need to do the activity (fight with your method). The basics are fighting skills. The only way to learn if you are doing the basics (skills) "correctly" is by fighting. The only way to develop them beyond a superficial level is by fighting. Any drilling needs to be replicative of a fighting environment (taking snippets of fighting and repeating them).




I agree with T on this.
You may practice your stance, punching and kicking in class with static or somewhat dynamic drills and it'll hold up. But you really find out how you're doing with them when you spar/fight.
Then when you go back to those drills, you'll have a new perspective on things.

J

[LoneTiger108]

Besides, it's a known fact that boxers fists/wrists are weak as they've never felt knuckle to skull either...

LOL at "known fact".

You can teach people "The Art of Fighting without Fighting" per Geoff Thompson's book.

BTW he advocates boxing and obviously has nevber felt knuclkle to skull and has those weak wrists per the "known fact" mentioned above. :rolleyes:

I knew I'd be pulled up by someone with a quote like that! :rolleyes: My appologies for such an irrational thought! I was only speaking from my experience with professional boxing coaches.

From what I know of Mr Thompson he was an avid Karateka, so his makiwara knuckles would do just fine!

If what we're talking about is how to condition a fighter for the ring, I still stand by my original comment, you must get in there and have a go to learn more about your own weaknesses. Fighting with rules is actually a lot harder than taking your art to the street imho.

[Ultimatewingchun]

"I think the environment of full contact sparring is a no question absolute necessity. Because it introduces that level of unpredictability coupled with stress. Practicing sections of fighting is fine, but without free flowing real time stress, things are likely to wrong when the time comes to use your skills. Fighting also gives a person a benchmark...he or she will understand their strengths and weaknesses and will be able to adjust their attributes training accordingly." (Vankuen)


***THAT pretty much sums it up.

[Vankuen]

Military H2H is sub-par and the one that are good fighters in the military are those that compete.
As for the weapons part of military training, the drills involve shooting don't they?
I recall in my time we had quite a bit of actual shooting and actual "mock" fir fights, ie: sparring.
Have things changed that much?
From the combatives clips on youtube, I don't think so.

While I can appreciate that comment, what in particular makes you think that the military elite's training is sub-par? These guys literally have to fight to save their lives much more consistently that you and I.

I'm not talking about the standard marine or army program (MCMAP for example), I'm talking about the special forces; delta's, seals, tac' p's, etc. etc. And no I'm not talking about the seal training you see at the back of a BB magazine either.

One of the reasons I like their programs, is they throw out what doesn't work and retain what does. Nothing too fancy, just straight up save your life ass-whoopin. Hmmm..that mantra sounds familiar, retain what works and throw out the rest. I love pragmaticism.

[sanjuro_ronin]

While I can appreciate that comment, what in particular makes you think that the military elite's training is sub-par? These guys literally have to fight to save their lives much more consistently that you and I.

I'm not talking about the standard marine or army program (MCMAP for example), I'm talking about the special forces; delta's, seals, tac' p's, etc. etc. And no I'm not talking about the seal training you see at the back of a BB magazine either.

Allow me to make it clear, Military H2H is sub-par on average because they devote so little time to it, those that do are actually quite good.
I did boxing and judo even sambo in the Canadian army, but the H2H was borderline useless.
I was in the army and while not SF, I did compete VS some of the SF guys.
Great bunch.

Typical training in a MMA gym or MT gym is far better than typical basic training in the Military.

[Chango]

I personally agree! you must learn how to deal with real live unpredictable attacks! Your ability to respond under this stress has alot more do with your ability to survive and overcome then what technique or style etc... Of couse why choose if you can have all of the elements in place such as drills forms etc...

[Vankuen]

Allow me to make it clear, Military H2H is sub-par on average because they devote so little time to it, those that do are actually quite good.
I did boxing and judo even sambo in the Canadian army, but the H2H was borderline useless.
I was in the army and while not SF, I did compete VS some of the SF guys.
Great bunch.

Typical training in a MMA gym or MT gym is far better than typical basic training in the Military.

So then the amount of and the consistency of the fight training is where the difference lies. Understandable, I agree with you there.

You're statement reminded me of a time when I met some marines that had just gotten out of basic training (I was in my secondary school recently out of boot camp as well) and I remember hearing them talk in the hallway about moves they learned that could kill someone in the field--performing their over the shoulder arm-bars in the hallway. I asked them what they'd do if the guy was much taller and that move didn't work (because this guy was super short, like 5'2"). They sort of looked at me funny since I was an Air Force guy and then started talking ****. It was kinda funny.

They had all this confidence with these various moves, but never had the chance yet for one of those moves to go wrong in the natural environment. They simply had no knowledge on how to deal with a failed scenario. So I guess that sort of reinforces your first statement, huh?

[sanjuro_ronin]

So then the amount of and the consistency of the fight training is where the difference lies. Understandable, I agree with you there.

You're statement reminded me of a time when I met some marines that had just gotten out of basic training (I was in my secondary school recently out of boot camp as well) and I remember hearing them talk in the hallway about moves they learned that could kill someone in the field--performing their over the shoulder arm-bars in the hallway. I asked them what they'd do if the guy was much taller and that move didn't work (because this guy was super short, like 5'2"). They sort of looked at me funny since I was an Air Force guy and then started talking ****. It was kinda funny.

They had all this confidence with these various moves, but never had the chance yet for one of those moves to go wrong in the natural environment. They simply had no knowledge on how to deal with a failed scenario. So I guess that sort of reinforces your first statement, huh?

Its much better now from what I have seen of the youtube clips and the quaity of their combatives instructors.

[Vankuen]

I think you asked a loaded question in the first place to try justify your progressive sparring methods.
Maybe, but I don't need to justify my methods--the results do that for me. But maybe I asked the question because so many people make up excuses not to do it when they know better? Perhaps I am trying to find out what the rational thought might be behind the denial of such a proven method of training. Could be a lot of reasons why I asked. Either way, the debate is in search of the truth. Nothing more.


While sparring is good and I advocate it, I still think the true answer is that someone who hasn't sparred can fight quite viciously by doing stuff that is "dirty".
By escalating the fight with dirty tactics or weapons or using your clothes to choke you, they can make up for their lack of sparring experience.

So as anyone who has been in bad fights would know, although you can prepare via sparring and everything, an untrained opponent can still do some dirty move that is dangerous to you. While they would be a complete chump in a sparring environment, they can still even their odds with some underhanded move in a real fight.

I remember hearing that time and again through the years. It's a common thing that strikers say to grapplers. Both individuals in a fight can do the dirty moves, so there is that--which even's up the playing field. But if both individuals can do the dirty moves, what is going to separate the men from the boys? His or her TRAINING. The dirty moves are what I call survival moves, not skilled fighting. The idea here was whether or not someone could be skilled in their chosen method of fighting without the use of sparring/fighting.

But I just want to make sure I understand you correctly..."You can be an effective fighter without sparring if you resort to dirty tricks and/or a gun". If that's your stance in simplistic form, than I say, why practice your art if the pinnacle of it's performance in real world combat is resorting to dirty tricks or shooting someone?


There's a lot more chokes with a lapel, they are easier to get and tougher to defend. They are a fight equalizer because of this. If one person has drilled gi chokes with no sparring, they still can gi choke the **** out of some who sparred but without any gi chokes. They have a real good chance.

Same with throws actually. Someone with very little sparring experience with the gi is still going to throw very experienced people who never used the gi. Probably like a rag doll.

FYI...lapel chokes are not something simple to learn. They require proper angles and training to work well, just like any other move. It's not a dirty trick...it's a skilled technique which also requires application in rolling to perfect it's real world application. Same with throws. I can't count how many times I've seen someone practice a hip toss, using the clothing, only to have the clothing come off and fail. I've also seen people try to do a hip toss and because the opponent was resisting, failed.

I think your last scenario here has some points, but these points are not the commonplace occurance. You MIGHT find someone who never fights be able to gi throw another person who is skilled; but do you think that truly proves that a person who doesn't practice FCS would be able to fight successful within their given system? I don't. I think it's an occasional anomoly.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Any system that relies on "dirty moves" is useless, I mean, if that is all you have in your arsenal that will make the difference, what DO you have?

[TaichiMantis]

[slightly revised response from another forum but applicable here]

I have no problem with the fact that those who train their skills in the ring consistantly, both stand up and on the ground, have more of an advantage over a single unarmed attacker than those who do not .

HOWEVER, when attacked outside the ring/class, you only win if:

a) you escape unharmed or with the least amount of injury
b) your attacker(s) didn't get your ID, don't know who the heck you are or where you live and work, and have no way of finding out to get revenge later
c) you are in no trouble with the law for whatever you did to your attacker (usually easier for a woman)

You increase your chances of the above through many means, physical training being only part of it. You can only train realistically for the above to a certain degree. Evaluation of the situation, environment, skill and intent of the attacker, control of your own fear/confidence/intent, all need to be pulled together quickly or you lose....which is why I would want to learn from someone who is aware of these aspects, has some weapons training, and has dealt with this out in the streets to some degree...Would I want to put myself into bad situations so I can get real life practice? Hmmm....don't think so :rolleyes:

Makes me think of some other skills/knowledge that could be useful prior/during/after a fight
-humor
-negotiation
-distraction
-flight
-peacemaking
-body language
-cultural
-language other than English

...:cool:

[Edmund]

I think your last scenario here has some points, but these points are not the commonplace occurance. You MIGHT find someone who never fights be able to gi throw another person who is skilled; but do you think that truly proves that a person who doesn't practice FCS would be able to fight successful within their given system? I don't. I think it's an occasional anomoly.

Totally depends on what TECHNIQUES are in the system!
All Systems are not equal.

Plenty of strikers full contact spar and still get owned in fights because they have a weakness of not having enough technical knowledge of grappling. Even against relatively inexperienced grapplers.

Plenty of grapplers who can't take the fight to the ground can get owned by relatively inexperienced strikers.

They can spar MMA style if they like but they still need to be taught all the different skills.

WC guy who can't kick for instance:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyYduJ4fCLA&feature=related

[Vankuen]

Totally depends on what TECHNIQUES are in the system!
All Systems are not equal.

Plenty of strikers full contact spar and still get owned in fights because they have a weakness of not having enough technical knowledge of grappling. Even against relatively inexperienced grapplers.

Plenty of grapplers who can't take the fight to the ground can get owned by relatively inexperienced strikers.

They can spar MMA style if they like but they still need to be taught all the different skills.

WC guy who can't kick for instance:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyYduJ4fCLA&feature=related

I understand what you're getting at. If you put a player in an envrionment he or she knows nothing about, then the odds are greatly against them, regardless of their experience within their own given system. That's absolutely true.

But this still variant doesn't answer the original question really. Can you sum up all your variants into one concise answer? Bottom line, can someone be an effective fighter in their chosen style without practicing it in a combat environment? Can they learn to apply their given system in a combat environment without ever having done so?

Try not to get off on tangents and bring in external variables into the equation like guns or batons or friends, or looking at it in terms of style vs style. To make things easier for you, I'll rephrase it. Can a boxer get good at boxing, without boxing? Can he or she become an effective / successful boxer doing only pad work, bag work, running, jump roping, and various other drills?

Edit: on a side note...that video made me vomit in my mouth. I noticed those same dudes seem to think they skilled enough to show various style vs style clips too. Ugh. They probably only do drills. LOL -- just busting your balls with that last one!!

[Edmund]

But this still variant doesn't answer the original question really. Can you sum up all your variants into one concise answer? Bottom line, can someone be an effective fighter in their chosen style without practicing it in a combat environment? Can they learn to apply their given system in a combat environment without ever having done so?

Well my point is that they aren't actually an effective fighter without the OTHER facet of being well rounded enough.

Sparring would be one element that develops an effective fighter but the other element of covering all your bases is pretty important.

Try not to get off on tangents and bring in external variables into the equation like guns or batons or friends, or looking at it in terms of style vs style. To make things easier for you, I'll rephrase it. Can a boxer get good at boxing, without boxing? Can he or she become an effective / successful boxer doing only pad work, bag work, running, jump roping, and various other drills?

No.
But in terms of WC, is it more important to be good at only WC or to be a good fighter?

WC guys can full contact spar WC style becoming awesome against each other and believe they are effective at WC. In a sense, they are effective at WC but it doesn't mean as much as they think it means.


Edit: on a side note...that video made me vomit in my mouth. I noticed those same dudes seem to think they skilled enough to show various style vs style clips too. Ugh. They probably only do drills. LOL -- just busting your balls with that last one!!

:) Maybe they only do drills usually but they are sparring on the clip at least!

I think for the WC guy, he could spar until the cows come home and still get kicked in the lead leg because his basic stance is inherently vulnerable to it.

[HardWork8]

The basics from my perspective....

Yes, YOUR perspective. Most of us know of your perspective regarding Traditional Wing Chun and indeed TMAs in general and your lack of knowledge and the resultant misunderstandings regarding the relevant concepts of Wing Chun.


[the basics]are the neccessary skills you need to do the activity (fight with your method).

To fight with your method, specially something relatively complicated and deep such as kung fu, you need to first develop an understanding of the method through repetion of basic techniques, relaxation and Qigong exercises, and the building of stances/foundations etc.

The basics are fighting skills.

No, they are not. The basics, at least in kung fu, are what I referred to above. There are however basic fighting skills that one learns after one develops the necessary foundations and basic skills, as well as an understanding of the concepts and principles involved.

The only way to learn if you are doing the basics (skills) "correctly" is by fighting.

Only after you have built a solid foundation and have an understanding of the role the stance plays in generating power and mobility. Only after you have learnt to punch properly using the correct lines and the correct degree of relaxation and correct breathing.

The only way to develop them beyond a superficial level is by fighting.

The only way to develop a superficial kung fu fighter is by putting him into fighting training before he has developed basic skills, rooted stances and at least a basic understanding of Wing Chun's (or any other kung fu styles'), principles and concepts.

You may however end up training a great kick boxer, but we are talking kung fu here.

Any drilling needs to be replicative of a fighting environment (taking snippets of fighting and repeating them).

That is what happens in any decent kung fu school. Kung fu techniques once learnt and understood by students will be used in sparring/fighting/combat training.



This is the classic TMA view: that if you put a trainee into sparring too soon they will develop bad habits.

Your criticism of the above view only reflects your complete lack of understanding as regards TMAs.

Let me put this very simply. Real TMAs take a relatively longer time to make effective or master. That is a fact. Anyone who doesn't like that fact can go and train in kickboxing, Krav Maga or BJJ, and many do and that is fair enough.

Others, accept that fact and get on with training taking a longer term approach. However, there are yet other MA-ists who try to re-invent the TMAs by turning them into glorified ring sports which most of them were never designed to be. This is because they have not studied them deep enough to understand the essence of these arts.

Going back to my "simple" point, it is good to understand the fact that the Kung Fu in general will teach you the basics first and sometimes even the more advanced techniques and then you will be put in combat training to test them. This is because you are required to use kung fu techniques in fighting and not the relatively simple kick boxing ones.


Actually, that is entirely wrong. The only way to learn and develop good habits is by sparring.

That is wrong. The only way to develop learn and develop good habits is by practicing them first in a non stressful environment so that one has a clear understanding of the technical details and concepts. Once this is achieved , then one can practice the learnt techniques during combat, so that one can fine tune them.



The problem is in part how people "look" at what WCK is.

By "people" do you mean the people who practice the real and authentic Wing Chun and not some high breed "New and Improved" version? If you mean the former, then they have a better understanding of Wing Chun than someone who has never practiced the real system in a real kung fu school.

For me, WCK is an activity.

Every art, sport and hobby is an activity, but thank you for the enlightenment anyway.

You only learn and develop skill at an activity by doing the activity.

More enlightenment. You aren't related to Dalai Lama, by any chance?


Like riding a bike or surfing are activities (skills). You can't really learn or develop bike riding skills or surfing skills outside of the activity itself. You can represent them, but that representation isn't really accurate.

What people like you and other proponents of "modern" martial arts don't seem to understand is that Wing Chun, other kung fu styles and TMAs in general are profound styles, and because of that there is a methodology to training, whose logic is not grasped by the simpler minds in the MA world.

Let me put it this way, one can learn to ride a bike sometimes within minutes. Surfing will take a little longer may be a few lessons or so, but there is no way in hell that you are going to teach Wing Chun or any other Kung Fu style in a few lessons.

If you put some beginners through a crash course of fighting training then you might get competent fighters in a relatively short space of time but there is no way you will be teaching them kung fu and anyone who claims to teach kung fu in that way is not a real kung fu exponent but rather, a BS artist.

[Vankuen]

Yes, YOUR perspective. Most of us know of your perspective regarding Traditional Wing Chun and indeed TMAs in general and your lack of knowledge and the resultant misunderstandings regarding the relevant concepts of Wing Chun.

To fight with your method, specially something relatively complicated and deep such as kung fu, you need to first develop an understanding of the method through repetion of basic techniques, relaxation and Qigong exercises, and the building of stances/foundations etc.

No, they are not. The basics, at least in kung fu, are what I referred to above. There are however basic fighting skills that one learns after one develops the necessary foundations and basic skills, as well as an understanding of the concepts and principles involved.

Only after you have built a solid foundation and have an understanding of the role the stance plays in generating power and mobility. Only after you have learnt to punch properly using the correct lines and the correct degree of relaxation and correct breathing.

The only way to develop a superficial kung fu fighter is by putting him into fighting training before he has developed basic skills, rooted stances and at least a basic understanding of Wing Chun's (or any other kung fu styles'), principles and concepts.

You may however end up training a great kick boxer, but we are talking kung fu here.

That is what happens in any decent kung fu school. Kung fu techniques once learnt and understood by students will be used in sparring/fighting/combat training.

Your criticism of the above view only reflects your complete lack of understanding as regards TMAs.

Let me put this very simply. Real TMAs take a relatively longer time to make effective or master. That is a fact. Anyone who doesn't like that fact can go and train in kickboxing, Krav Maga or BJJ, and many do and that is fair enough.

Others, accept that fact and get on with training taking a longer term approach. However, there are yet other MA-ists who try to re-invent the TMAs by turning them into glorified ring sports which most of them were never designed to be. This is because they have not studied them deep enough to understand the essence of these arts.

Going back to my "simple" point, it is good to understand the fact that the Kung Fu in general will teach you the basics first and sometimes even the more advanced techniques and then you will be put in combat training to test them. This is because you are required to use kung fu techniques in fighting and not the relatively simple kick boxing ones.

That is wrong. The only way to develop learn and develop good habits is by practicing them first in a non stressful environment so that one has a clear understanding of the technical details and concepts. Once this is achieved , then one can practice the learnt techniques during combat, so that one can fine tune them.

By "people" do you mean the people who practice the real and authentic Wing Chun and not some high breed "New and Improved" version? If you mean the former, then they have a better understanding of Wing Chun than someone who has never practiced the real system in a real kung fu school.

Every art, sport and hobby is an activity, but thank you for the enlightenment anyway.

More enlightenment. You aren't related to Dalai Lama, by any chance?

What people like you and other proponents of "modern" martial arts don't seem to understand is that Wing Chun, other kung fu styles and TMAs in general are profound styles, and because of that there is a methodology to training, whose logic is not grasped by the simpler minds in the MA world.

Let me put it this way, one can learn to ride a bike sometimes within minutes. Surfing will take a little longer may be a few lessons or so, but there is no way in hell that you are going to teach Wing Chun or any other Kung Fu style in a few lessons.

If you put some beginners through a crash course of fighting training then you might get competent fighters in a relatively short space of time but there is no way you will be teaching them kung fu and anyone who claims to teach kung fu in that way is not a real kung fu exponent but rather, a BS artist.

That's some deep understanding for only having trained for 7 years! But let's instead stay on the topic at hand and keep the personal assumptive insults at bay shall we?

Keep in mind as well that some of us have trained for 20+ years...and have been there done that and been back again. Bruce Lee was noted to be a great kung fu fighter, and opted to go the same route as the MMA's...albeit in the 50's and 60's when it wasn't as popular. Nonetheless...

You've stated that you feel that sparring is good...as long as the basics of the said system have been appropriately mastered. Which is a solid answer and one that most will agree with.

[HardWork8]

That's some deep understanding for only having trained for 7 years! But let's instead stay on the topic at hand and keep the personal assumptive insults at bay shall we?

I have trained for only 7 years, but I have had the good fortune of crossing paths with sifus who are the real deal, and even though none of them know each other and not all of them are Wing Chun exponents, they do however, explain kung fu the same way.

If I came across strong in my last post is because some forum members seem to always come in and push their MMA agendas here in the kung fu threads. You can almost predict what they are going to post before they even participate.

I took it as an insult when the poster in question stated what in effect was, t "the TMA were wrong in their methodology". Here by TMA he means systems that include all kung fu styles (China);all karate styles (Okinawa/Japan) and all traditional Jiu Jitsu styles (Japan) and of course thousands of years of development that is part of the history of these styles.

T_niehoff does not practice kung fu (whatever he may claim to the contrary), and he has made commments like this before and frankly, that is insulting to me and any one of many thousands of people who practice traditional MA and I am very surprised that he has not been laughed off these forums a long time ago.

Keep in mind as well that some of us have trained for 20+ years...and have been there done that and been back again.

The question is the quality of training and not the quantity. When the t_niehoff makes the kind of comments that I just referred to, it puts the quality of his "kung fu" training in question.


Bruce Lee was noted to be a great kung fu fighter, and opted to go the same route as the MMA's...albeit in the 50's and 60's when it wasn't as popular. Nonetheless...

Bruce Lee was one in a million, but wether he was a kung fu fighter is another question. He did not even complete half of his Wing Chun syllabus. His JKD resembles more kick boxing with MMA aspects than anything to do with kung fu.
Furthermore and to my knowledge he did not include internal Qigong training in his system. Internal training is a fundemental part of any kung fu training, yes even in the so called external styles.

So I think to say that he was a kung fu fighter does not reflect the complete story, even if he did start with kung fu.

Please do not take my comments as meaning that he was not a good fighter or an innovator. He did the best he could with his limited knowledge of kung fu. That is he researched and enriched what he already knew and gained new knowledge from his own studies and put them together in a phylosophical package called Jeet Kune Do. Furthermore, he made this work for himself. That is fine.

I personally think that with his fanatical approach to training he or anyone else for that matter, could win fights using even ballet techniques, or maybe that is just me.:D

You've stated that you feel that sparring is good...as long as the basics of the said system have been appropriately mastered. Which is a solid answer and one that most will agree with.

Yes back to the topic.:)

[sanjuro_ronin]

Whatever we may think of T and his views in regards to TMA ( they tend to be blanket statements), you can't argue when he is right.
I have been a TMA for close to 30 years and love my TMA, that said, to me a TMA = a PMA ( Practical Martial art) and that means that it must evolve with the times.
This "evolution" is in tune with the principles in which all TMA were created - practicality in fighting.

[Vankuen]

Whatever we may think of T and his views in regards to TMA ( they tend to be blanket statements), you can't argue when he is right.
I have been a TMA for close to 30 years and love my TMA, that said, to me a TMA = a PMA ( Practical Martial art) and that means that it must evolve with the times.
This "evolution" is in tune with the principles in which all TMA were created - practicality in fighting.

Practical means being concerned with actual facts and real life and experience, not theory. It also means plain, functional, and suitable for everyday use. (I just looked it up to be sure that my definition was in line with the actual definition).

Keeping that in mind, I would say based on my experience that not all TMA's are in that definition, because the styles that don't do any fight training are simply based on theory. There would be no facts or real life experience to base the movements off of.

Also because some of it is based soley on theory, you will have movements that are not based on pragmatic efficiency, but are more flowery and quite dangerous to the user if he or she should decide to use it in actual combat against another fighter or simply an athlete (not the average-joe).


...


And that is where I'm coming from with all of this. Some people/teachers/styles/etc. are passing down crap for the purposes of making a buck. They're teaching people things and gaining their confidence by telling them mystical b.s. so that these students actually believe that they don't have to work hard, sweat, bruise, or FIGHT. I find the lack of morals of those entities and the lack of logic from the students quite amazing.

I used to have a gung fu INSTRUCTOR who was a great man, taught me a lot about a particular style gung fu, and the traditional methods of training. Everything from chi gung to the gung fu itself to making dit da jow. But I saw him fight once against someone who was a seasoned fighter, someone who trained and sparred constantly. It was a friendly bout, but my instructor was eaten alive. He didn't know how to apply the gung fu because he never had to do so in his training more than likely. I feel that this is an injustice to all martial arts students not to be butrally honest with them...and the results should primary over anything else.

Of course, then we still have things like wushu and XMA, that don't really count because that's more along the lines of entertainment.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Practical means being concerned with actual facts and real life and experience, not theory. It also means plain, functional, and suitable for everyday use. (I just looked it up to be sure that my definition was in line with the actual definition).

Keeping that in mind, I would say based on my experience that not all TMA's are in that definition, because the styles that don't do any fight training are simply based on theory. There would be no facts or real life experience to base the movements off of.

Also because some of it is based soley on theory, you will have movements that are not based on pragmatic efficiency, but are more flowery and quite dangerous to the user if he or she should decide to use it in actual combat against another fighter or simply an athlete (not the average-joe).


...


And that is where I'm coming from with all of this. Some people/teachers/styles/etc. are passing down crap for the purposes of making a buck. They're teaching people things and gaining their confidence by telling them mystical b.s. so that these students actually believe that they don't have to work hard, sweat, bruise, or FIGHT. I find the lack of morals of those entities and the lack of logic from the students quite amazing.

I used to have a gung fu INSTRUCTOR who was a great man, taught me a lot about a particular style gung fu, and the traditional methods of training. Everything from chi gung to the gung fu itself to making dit da jow. But I saw him fight once against someone who was a seasoned fighter, someone who trained and sparred constantly. It was a friendly bout, but my instructor was eaten alive. He didn't know how to apply the gung fu because he never had to do so in his training more than likely. I feel that this is an injustice to all martial arts students not to be butrally honest with them...and the results should primary over anything else.

Of course, then we still have things like wushu and XMA, that don't really count because that's more along the lines of entertainment.


If you were to look into the history of almost any TMA you would see that when they were developed, they were practical for their time.
They filled a need for their time.
Don't ever confuse what people have made of a TMA to what it was when it was created.
Very few TMA were created to NOT work,

[sanjuro_ronin]

I used to have a gung fu INSTRUCTOR who was a great man, taught me a lot about a particular style gung fu, and the traditional methods of training. Everything from chi gung to the gung fu itself to making dit da jow. But I saw him fight once against someone who was a seasoned fighter, someone who trained and sparred constantly. It was a friendly bout, but my instructor was eaten alive. He didn't know how to apply the gung fu because he never had to do so in his training more than likely. I feel that this is an injustice to all martial arts students not to be butrally honest with them...and the results should primary over anything else.

This is an all too common occurence from what I gather.

[sihing]

Practical means being concerned with actual facts and real life and experience, not theory. It also means plain, functional, and suitable for everyday use. (I just looked it up to be sure that my definition was in line with the actual definition).

Keeping that in mind, I would say based on my experience that not all TMA's are in that definition, because the styles that don't do any fight training are simply based on theory. There would be no facts or real life experience to base the movements off of.

Also because some of it is based soley on theory, you will have movements that are not based on pragmatic efficiency, but are more flowery and quite dangerous to the user if he or she should decide to use it in actual combat against another fighter or simply an athlete (not the average-joe).

Theory is the minds way of explaining something intellectually, it is the way we explain to one another how things work or how they should work. You basically need theory to start off with, as who wants to recreate the wheel when someone already did that thousands of years ago. Practical application, in Martial Arts is taking that theory and using it, absorbing it, and learning it with the help of someone else, a Sifu or partner per say. In WC for example, SNT is the theory of sorts, it reconditions someone in a specific manner (teaches one how to sit or lower their weight into the ground, this builds stability & balance in stance; it also teaches us how to connect lower and upper body and facing, plus how to use our elbows proper regarding positioning and control, as well as teaches us centerline awareness and usage). This is isolated training, and very specific. While one is learning the form, there are practical drills with a partner that bring about physically what the form is trying to teach us, dan chi is but one example. The training goes on from there to CK and the associated drills that accompany that level of training. It is all a progression, and in WC that is to simply learn how to control and attack down the centerline, apply constant forward pressure on your opponent, be able to adapt quickly by using footwork or transitional moves to allow the hitting to succeed, in a very efficient and direct manner. The training is very precise and complex, the application of it simple. After awhile you need to test yourself to see if you have learned what the training method has taught you, this is the practical application stage, and IMO is not about learning, rather more about doing, in a natural way, with no concern with restrictions or having to do things this way or that (trying to perform WC (tan, bong, fok) vs. just using it naturally).

Some styles (and the people practicing them) are set up to pass along tradition, and that is okay, as long as one is aware of that. We all practice MA for our own reasons, learning how to fight effectively is one of the reasons, for me this is important but not the only reason why I train in WC. I find the training fun, it is enjoyable and interesting. Thinking about fighting all the time is draining and stressful because it is surrounded by conflict, and overcoming another person, this is negative if you ask me. Build quality skills and realize what they are there for and you should do well if and when you need to use those skills, having fun and enjoying the process is more important if you ask me.

James

[HardWork8]

Whatever we may think of T and his views in regards to TMA ( they tend to be blanket statements), you can't argue when he is right.
I have been a TMA for close to 30 years and love my TMA, that said, to me a TMA = a PMA ( Practical Martial art) and that means that it must evolve with the times.
This "evolution" is in tune with the principles in which all TMA were created - practicality in fighting.

TMAs have always been PMAs when practiced the way they were meant to be. The reason why they have lost their practicality is in many ways, but not exclusively, the fault of this "evolution" that so many modernists are obsessed about.

We have ended up with people "evolving" arts that they have not practiced sufficiently to understand fully. So people who have hardly scratched the surface of the arts they are supposed to be experts in, have ended up modernising and "improving" them.

So we ended up with sports competitions that were meant to "test" the one's fighting skill. We have ended up with some styles being watered down so that they can fit the standardised competition modes and to facilitate the money making machine that are the martial arts of today. Traditional kung fu, for the most part, was never meant to be taught as a standard method to start with - eventhough certain techniques can be taught in this way.

Sometimes we are told that because we live in modern times that there is no time, and that we should not emphasis forms practice, nor emphasis serious iron palm training, because "boards don't hit back" or some other irrelevant statement. And of course, there is never time for serious Chi kung and internal practice either. Yet that is how these arts were practiced in the old days when they were practical.

It would be fair to say that the (irrelevant) evolution is what is really wrong with TMAs. First essencial bits are taken out, through lack of understanding or through not having learnt them in the first place.

Then when the art loses its "bite" other bits are added to compensate for that, making the art lose its essence and turning it into another form of kick boxing or sport fighting. Then they present this as "evolved" kung fu. Yes, it is very funny and sad.

You cannot evolve something without including its essence (which requires complete proficiency in all its aspects and expert and deep understanding of its concepts and principles) in that evolution. This is how TMAs have evolved traditionally, before big money and the "modernists" entered the equasion.

So, there is nothing wrong with evolution and these arts have been evolving for thousands of years. It is the people who are involved nowadays and their idea of "evolution" that concerns me most.

So I will leave the real kung fu MASTERS to evolve these arts and not some guy who studied kung fu in some Mcdojo/kwoon and did not find it satisfied his requirements for "practicality".

[HardWork8]

Whatever we may think of T and his views in regards to TMA ( they tend to be blanket statements), you can't argue when he is right.
I have been a TMA for close to 30 years and love my TMA, that said, to me a TMA = a PMA ( Practical Martial art) and that means that it must evolve with the times.
This "evolution" is in tune with the principles in which all TMA were created - practicality in fighting.

TMAs have always been PMAs when practiced the way they were meant to be. The reason why they have lost their practicality is in many ways, but not exclusively, the fault of this "evolution" that so many modernists are obsessed about.

We have ended up with people "evolving" arts that they have not practiced sufficiently to understand fully. So people who have hardly scratched the surface of the arts they are supposed to be experts in, have ended up modernising and "improving" them.

So we ended up with sports competitions that were meant to "test" the one's fighting skill. We have ended up with some styles being watered down so that they can fit the standardised competition modes and to facilitate the money making machine that are the martial arts of today. Traditional kung fu, for the most part, was never meant to be taught as a standard method to start with - eventhough certain techniques can be taught in this way.

Sometimes we are told that because we live in modern times that there is no time, and that we should not emphasis forms practice, nor emphasis serious iron palm training, because "boards don't hit back" or some other irrelevant statement. And of course, there is never time for serious Chi kung and internal practice either. Yet that is how these arts were practiced in the old days when they were practical.

It would be fair to say that the (irrelevant) evolution is what is really wrong with TMAs. First essencial bits are taken out, through lack of understanding or through not having learnt them in the first place.

Then when the art loses its "bite" other bits are added to compensate for that, making the art lose its essence and turning it into another form of kick boxing or sport fighting. Then they present this as "evolved" kung fu. Yes, it is very funny and sad.

You cannot evolve something without including its essence (which requires complete proficiency in all its aspects and expert and deep understanding of its concepts and principles) in that evolution. This is how TMAs have evolved traditionally, before big money and the "modernists" entered the equasion.

So, there is nothing wrong with evolution and these arts have been evolving for thousands of years. It is the people who are involved nowadays and their idea of "evolution" that concerns me most.

So I will leave the real kung fu MASTERS to evolve these arts and not some guy who studied kung fu in some Mcdojo/kwoon and did not find it satisfied his requirements for "practicality".

[couch]

If you were to look into the history of almost any TMA you would see that when they were developed, they were practical for their time.
They filled a need for their time.
Don't ever confuse what people have made of a TMA to what it was when it was created.
Very few TMA were created to NOT work,

You said something that is interesting: "They filled a need for their time."

I agree, but with two sides of the coin:

1. WC needs to evolve and be aware of the other changes happening in combat.

2. First, train all that WC has to offer, then pick, choose, add, delete, etc. I like that WSL always said to teach someone all of the WC. Even if your "version" is different, it's best for that student to decide what THEY want to add/delete. You may never need to use a Biu Jee technique (Cheun/Threading Sau) to thread under your arms if you're 6'4" but you better teach it to everyone you come in contact with just in case one of your students is 4'11"!

Best,
Kenton

[sihing]

You said something that is interesting: "They filled a need for their time."

I agree, but with two sides of the coin:

1. WC needs to evolve and be aware of the other changes happening in combat.

2. First, train all that WC has to offer, then pick, choose, add, delete, etc. I like that WSL always said to teach someone all of the WC. Even if your "version" is different, it's best for that student to decide what THEY want to add/delete. You may never need to use a Biu Jee technique (Cheun/Threading Sau) to thread under your arms if you're 6'4" but you better teach it to everyone you come in contact with just in case one of your students is 4'11"!

Best,
Kenton

With today's technology it is very easy for us to be aware of what is out there, and with the access we now have, most all can train in a variety of arts simultaneously if one chooses to. That is the cool part about living today.

I personally believe it is not about deleting, adding or anything like that, more so it is about using what you have trained naturally. Some, because they love their art so much, try to express it rather than just use the training. When you search WC on youtube, all you see are people that perform bong, tan fok, chi sau drills to the perfection that they were taught it, they are performing, not using. The training is just that Training, meant to teach us something, the application is up to us, we use it, not it using us, as Sigung Wong Shun Leung said, Don't be it's slave.

The art will evlove, not in the way that we are improving the concepts or techniques, rather in the way we train. Instead of the strict way of forms, and chi sau only, we now use pads, heavy bags, progressive isolated sparring drills with modern protective equipment, modern S&C condtioning methods (that are just like WC in a sense, they make you better faster), etc.. This all helps with the application of the art. The way we develop the skills are still basically the same, as the theory and concept is almost perfection. Its the application that we mess up on.

James

[sanjuro_ronin]

TMAs have always been PMAs when practiced the way they were meant to be. The reason why they have lost their practicality is in many ways, but not exclusively, the fault of this "evolution" that so many modernists are obsessed about.

We have ended up with people "evolving" arts that they have not practiced sufficiently to understand fully. So people who have hardly scratched the surface of the arts they are supposed to be experts in, have ended up modernising and "improving" them.

So we ended up with sports competitions that were meant to "test" the one's fighting skill. We have ended up with some styles being watered down so that they can fit the standardised competition modes and to facilitate the money making machine that are the martial arts of today. Traditional kung fu, for the most part, was never meant to be taught as a standard method to start with - eventhough certain techniques can be taught in this way.

Sometimes we are told that because we live in modern times that there is no time, and that we should not emphasis forms practice, nor emphasis serious iron palm training, because "boards don't hit back" or some other irrelevant statement. And of course, there is never time for serious Chi kung and internal practice either. Yet that is how these arts were practiced in the old days when they were practical.

It would be fair to say that the (irrelevant) evolution is what is really wrong with TMAs. First essencial bits are taken out, through lack of understanding or through not having learnt them in the first place.

Then when the art loses its "bite" other bits are added to compensate for that, making the art lose its essence and turning it into another form of kick boxing or sport fighting. Then they present this as "evolved" kung fu. Yes, it is very funny and sad.

You cannot evolve something without including its essence (which requires complete proficiency in all its aspects and expert and deep understanding of its concepts and principles) in that evolution. This is how TMAs have evolved traditionally, before big money and the "modernists" entered the equasion.

So, there is nothing wrong with evolution and these arts have been evolving for thousands of years. It is the people who are involved nowadays and their idea of "evolution" that concerns me most.

So I will leave the real kung fu MASTERS to evolve these arts and not some guy who studied kung fu in some Mcdojo/kwoon and did not find it satisfied his requirements for "practicality".

Very true.
On the flip side though, and again it si more applicable to "modern masters" then the older ones, we have people believing that their TMA system has the answers to questions that were never part of its original development process.
Case in point:
Submission oriented grappling and ground work and FMA based stick and knife work.

[Tom Kagan]

So I will leave the real kung fu MASTERS to evolve these arts and not some guy who studied kung fu in some Mcdojo/kwoon and did not find it satisfied his requirements for "practicality".


How do you decide who are or are not "the real kung fu MASTERS"?

Perhaps more importantly, who decides? Me? You? Wen Jiabao?

[Vankuen]

So I will leave the real kung fu MASTERS to evolve these arts and not some guy who studied kung fu in some Mcdojo/kwoon and did not find it satisfied his requirements for "practicality".

Please disregard the tone of this text, but this last statement makes me chuckle. Why? Because I've met not one "master" that was willing to show that he was truly a master of his fighting style. Why? Because if he loses...he's got A LOT to lose.

Master's like all of the upper echilon of the wing chun circles. Great great grandmaster of the 10th degree who promotes himself whenever he sees fit, another master who is the only true master who then got beat by another great grandmasters' protege, another master who does nothing but chi sao...and so forth. Now that's not an attack at the wing chun system, because I practice it still myself; and while I can appreciate wing chun and it's uses, it's got a bad rap because there's so many idiots out there both high and low that lay claim to it.

I've seen "masters" of other styles fight as well, famous ones as a matter of fact...only to roll on the ground. I just wonder...who are these "true masters" that you speak of?

In my opinion...people are people. We are constructed with the same bones, muscles, and biological functions. We all breath using the same lungs. Our anatomical movement is the same. It's time that we use our modern technology and understanding of the human body to overcome the mystical crap that's been passed down since the dark ages.

Chi as it's understood by most is merely a figment of the imagination--when in reality it's just air. While chi gung is good for you from a health standpoint, you're not going to chi charge your strikes. It's a waste of time from a fighting standpoint. I met chi masters overseas, one guy who showed a one inch punch on 10 people....I stood at the front of the line and at the back of the line. He basically pushed and let the domino effect set in. Gimmicks. If a chi master can only perform with parlor tricks, I'll take the pragmatic approach that provides results any day.

[Vankuen]

Overall, what I think I'm seeing here, are two camps of thought.

Camp one is staying true to traditional values, believing in the style that they learn and having faith that the technology that originated hundreds of years ago is still relevant and that one day it will pay off after 10-20 years of hard work.

The other camp is saying "Hey, lets get real here. We've got plenty of data now that supports this more "modern" methodology, and we've got a better understanding of kinsiology and science now that would should take into consideration."

-----

Camp one says that it's not good to spar too soon because small nuances will be lost in that particular style, and true master will not be attained.

Camp two says that sparring will enable an individual to learn to use the human body in a dynamic environment, and can use it to gauge both strenths and weaknesses.

-----

Camp one has a distaste for camp two and vice versa because each thinks they are correct in their training methodology.

Bottom line guys, which method is showing results more often in your experiences?

[sanjuro_ronin]

Overall, what I think I'm seeing here, are two camps of thought.

Camp one is staying true to traditional values, believing in the style that they learn and having faith that the technology that originated hundreds of years ago is still relevant and that one day it will pay off after 10-20 years of hard work.

The other camp is saying "Hey, lets get real here. We've got plenty of data now that supports this more "modern" methodology, and we've got a better understanding of kinsiology and science now that would should take into consideration."

-----

Camp one says that it's not good to spar too soon because small nuances will be lost in that particular style, and true master will not be attained.

Camp two says that sparring will enable an individual to learn to use the human body in a dynamic environment, and can use it to gauge both strenths and weaknesses.

-----

Camp one has a distaste for camp two and vice versa because each thinks they are correct in their training methodology.

Bottom line guys, which method is showing results more often in your experiences?

You do realize that both are right and both are wrong.

[sihing]

You do realize that both are right and both are wrong.

Good post:)

Personally I don't see it as sides, or this vs that, both are needed in a combined way, but it has to be stated that without a good foundation, and a real understanding of the basics and what the system is teaching you, putting yourself out there too early will definetly build bad habits IMO. There lots of variables here, but from what I have seen, lots of practitioners in the WC community don't practice or understand what the system is about. I just did a seminar out west, had 3 different lineages represented in WC, and for the first hour of the seminar they all were giving me funny looks, when ever I talked about body unity, relaxed springy energy, facing and the such, up until they started to feel it for themselves then the smiles started coming out. Most of them, and this is no put down, were the same in the fact that they were all tense, did not feel comfortable in close range, and did not use their body unity to generate force in their strikes. Not that this is representative of all people of all lineages but it is out there. The fact is that WC is not easy to learn, it takes allot of dedicated effort and lots of understanding to learn it, no magic pills here.

Also, whenever there is mass production of something, mass marketing and lots of people participating in it, there overall quality of the activity in the participants will be lower, just due to the fact that most people do not do what is necessary to achieve quality skills.


James

[Vankuen]

You do realize that both are right and both are wrong.

In theory of course! But the results don't lie. So that being said, who gets results more often? Or better said, which methodolgy provides more consistent results? (Results being the ability to utilize your given system of fighting effectively in a combat environment, regardless of what style you're up against).

[sanjuro_ronin]

Good post:)

Personally I don't see it as sides, or this vs that, both are needed in a combined way, but it has to be stated that without a good foundation, and a real understanding of the basics and what the system is teaching you, putting yourself out there too early will definetly build bad habits IMO. There lots of variables here, but from what I have seen, lots of practitioners in the WC community don't practice or understand what the system is about. I just did a seminar out west, had 3 different lineages represented in WC, and for the first hour of the seminar they all were giving me funny looks, when ever I talked about body unity, relaxed springy energy, facing and the such, up until they started to feel it for themselves then the smiles started coming out. Most of them, and this is no put down, were the same in the fact that they were all tense, did not feel comfortable in close range, and did not use their body unity to generate force in their strikes. Not that this is representative of all people of all lineages but it is out there. The fact is that WC is not easy to learn, it takes allot of dedicated effort and lots of understanding to learn it, no magic pills here.

Also, whenever there is mass production of something, mass marketing and lots of people participating in it, there overall quality of the activity in the participants will be lower, just due to the fact that most people do not do what is necessary to achieve quality skills.


James


Actually, WC is probably a system that would benefit quite a bit from sparring almost from the get-go, since it seems that some of its practioners have issues applying it in a "free style" format.

[sanjuro_ronin]

In theory of course! But the results don't lie. So that being said, who gets results more often? Or better said, which methodolgy provides more consistent results? (Results being the ability to utilize your given system of fighting effectively in a combat environment, regardless of what style you're up against).

All the TMA I have done, I was sparring in one way or another in the first month.
Same thing with boxing and MT.

I don't see it as being a case of absolutes ( one or the other), but I do know that when it IS a case of absolutes, both ways fail.
Sparring without basic knowledge is just as bad as not sparring when you do have basic knowledge.

[sihing]

Actually, WC is probably a system that would benefit quite a bit from sparring almost from the get-go, since it seems that some of its practioners have issues applying it in a "free style" format.

There are "sparring" platforms within the system itself, that bring about a more natural expression of it. By this I mean there are things I can do that force me to stay within the confines of the system but bring about spontananous reactions, that are not fixed and so forth. Since the system is teaching me an ability that I don't have already, I want to stay within the confines of the system so it becomes more natural later on, when things start from a non contact setting, here you learn how to enter and timing, things like that. Me, I'm still in the learning stage, absorbing what the system is teaching me, and understanding more of it on a daily basis. I've had previous experiences with sparring and teaching in a different way and I find the method I do know very effective as compared to the previous one, where it was more technique and application thinking right off the bat. To each their own though;)


The reason I think that people have a hard time using it in a free style format is that they are performing instead of using, they are trying to use their pak sau, or bong sau, or tan sau, all with the YJKYMA in perfect formation. It doesn't work like that, because for me it is a training method only, not a application method. If I fight you, and you know I train only in WC, you may think I will move in a certain way (hands up Man/Wu sau perfect, in pigeon toed stance like a statue), well for me this is incorrect. When I use it, there is nothing stopping me from throwing out a boxing like jab, slide step side kick like karate or a high round kick to your head like TKD, as now I am fighting or sparring, I can use anything I want to use, but when I get in closer to you the method will be more or less utilized, the thing here is if your opponent has enough time to realize this and react to it. If your doing things correctly they won't, but if they do the ability to adapt and react is there as well, as you don't emotionally connect to anything that you do (like thinking this strike is going to KO you, and it doesn't, then I'm in shock or something), rather the idea is to apply forward pressure, to put you back on your heels and take it too you, be aggressive with structure and engine to support it all. Of course anything can happen in a sparring situation or fight, and none of us are perfect, all we can do is improve our chance by practicing a Martial Art.

James

[sanjuro_ronin]

Personally I think its because they don't learn to use their WC VS Non-WC systems.

[Vankuen]

All the TMA I have done, I was sparring in one way or another in the first month.
Same thing with boxing and MT.

I don't see it as being a case of absolutes ( one or the other), but I do know that when it IS a case of absolutes, both ways fail.
Sparring without basic knowledge is just as bad as not sparring when you do have basic knowledge.

The question was never sparring w/o the basics...the question was doing the basics and drills over and over and then never sparring. For example doing chi sao all day but never actually using the wing chun in a fighting atmosphere.

[Edmund]

The question was never sparring w/o the basics...the question was doing the basics and drills over and over and then never sparring. For example doing chi sao all day but never actually using the wing chun in a fighting atmosphere.

Never sparring is just useless.

But on the flip side, you see a lot of sparring that doesn't look so hot and you wonder if they're gaining anything out of it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKnP-Lah0DQ

Often it comes down to who you spar against.

[HardWork8]

If you were to look into the history of almost any TMA you would see that when they were developed, they were practical for their time.
They filled a need for their time.
Don't ever confuse what people have made of a TMA to what it was when it was created.
Very few TMA were created to NOT work,

Excellent post. The TMAs were doing fine until some smart asses tried to modernize,"improve" and make them more sport friendly and even more "practical".

These "geniuses" include unskilled conmen who tried to teach them to a gullible public, see the Mcdojos/Kwoon phenomenom. There were others who standardised them to make them easier to teach. This also took away a lot of essence from these arts. And of course, there are the know it all modernists who try to "force-evolve" and "improve" anything that is too complicated for them to understand.

Ironically, Kung Fu has been evolving for thousands of years, but in the old days the evolution and any improvements were carried out by real masters, (who had profound knowledge of these arts, their techniques, concepts and principles, both external and INTERNAL) and not some glorified kick boxers.

[HardWork8]

How do you decide who are or are not "the real kung fu MASTERS"?

Perhaps more importantly, who decides? Me? You? Wen Jiabao?

That is a difficult one. Finding a real master or a competent sifu is not easy. It is not a question of deciding. We can decide whatever we want but the fact is that over 95% of sifus out there are not the real deals. However, some are better than others.

If you really want to know then avoid the following types of kwoons:

1. When a sifu walks over to you and shows the competition trophies.

2. If they enphasis weight training and you see a lot of bulky muscle bound practitioners.

3. If the sifu tells you that "we make everyone spar from the first week so that they will learn how to fight quickly, that is the only way you know!".

4. You see some sparring sessions where the exponents hop around like kickboxers/boxers/TKD-ists.

5. The sifu says "Oh, we don't practice Qigong, because:

A. That has nothing to do with fighting.

B. We are an external school.

C. I don't know what that is".


5. Avoid schools that have the modern tags such as "New and improved", "for the streets" etc.

6. Avoid schools where the sifu claims to have invented his own style.

7.Avoid schools where the sifu claims to have 15 dans on his black belt ;).

8. Avoid sifus who will claim not only to teach traditional kung fu, but also also other arts such as TKD, Karate, Thai Boxing, BJJ, Mongolian Wrestling and pottery (whatever makes some $$$$$, right?). That is jack of all trades and master of none. Practicing multiple arts and teaching them are not the same things.

What else can I say?

The above advice will at least help you avoid the worst of the schools.

[HardWork8]

Very true.
On the flip side though, and again it si more applicable to "modern masters" then the older ones, we have people believing that their TMA system has the answers to questions that were never part of its original development process.

No style has ultimate answers to all the questions. However, it is my understanding that most major kung fu styles address all ranges of fighting the way they were practiced in the old days. I have made this point in another thread.

The masters who developed these systems did so holistically. There is no kung fu style to my knowledge that only uses short or long range fighting exclusively. Some will emphasis long range others short range to midrange, but they will still have a bit of other ranges in their arsenal because many of these masters were real fighters and knew that a fights and their ranges vary and cannot always be controlled.

If the idea of a many fights going to the ground is understood and accepted now, then be sure it was understood then, specially in China where wrestling has been around since before kung fu.

Hence, there are kung fu styles that address this problem and incorporate ground fighting in their arsenal. The Siu Lam Wing Chun that I practice has this type of training in its curriculum and it did not get it from Judo,BJJ or wrestling. There are Northern Mantis styles that also address ground fighting. Other Shaolin styles, including some Tiger and Monkey lineages do so also. There is a style of kung fu that is called Dog Boxing that also uses many ground techniques.

Even Kyokushinkai Karate, which you yourself practice used to address ground fighting, but from what I have heard, nowadays it doesn't (please correct me if I am wrong and you do train original kyokushinkai ground fighting techniques).

Yes, you were right when you stated that TMAs were developed to be practical. However, many schools have lost some of the aspects that made them so functional.


Case in point:
Submission oriented grappling and ground work and FMA based stick and knife work.

Here is a link that shows one of the handful of real kung fu masters in London teaching a stick fighting seminar. The picture and sound quality are not that good, but it is worth a look. The gentleman in question is Master Yap Leong and he teaches Five Ancestor Fist Kung Fu. Yes, he is the real deal and there are other videos of him in Youtube.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IKpDN4Z1DI

If this link doesn't work then go to YouTube and type in Yap Leong and the first video in the list is the stick fighting seminar.

[Ultimatewingchun]

If you're not sparring/fighting on a regular basis with some real contact going on against other skilled fighters/practitioners how can you possibly think that you're ever going to be a GOOD fighter? Regardless of what style you do.

This should be a no-brainer by now.

It's only a question of how soon? How often? What are the rules of engagement? How to go about transitioning from drills/chi sao to sparring? What protective gear will be used? etc.

But that's it.

[HardWork8]

Please disregard the tone of this text, but this last statement makes me chuckle. Why? Because I've met not one "master" that was willing to show that he was truly a master of his fighting style. Why? Because if he loses...he's got A LOT to lose.

Well that is your experience. You will find that most real kung fu sifus and masters will accept a challenge. And even nowadays these type of challenges are not uncommon.

Master's like all of the upper echilon of the wing chun circles. Great great grandmaster of the 10th degree who promotes himself whenever he sees fit, another master who is the only true master who then got beat by another great grandmasters' protege, another master who does nothing but chi sao...and so forth.

All kung fu styles are fighting arts. That means all kung fu masters should be able to fight and willing (at least most of the time) to accept challenges.


Now that's not an attack at the wing chun system, because I practice it still myself; and while I can appreciate wing chun and it's uses, it's got a bad rap because there's so many idiots out there both high and low that lay claim to it.

Agreed!

I've seen "masters" of other styles fight as well, famous ones as a matter of fact...only to roll on the ground. I just wonder...who are these "true masters" that you speak of?

Please check the link for master Yap Leong that I posted for Sanjuro. I do not usually give out names of kung fu masters that I know personally in public domains, but as his links are in the You Tube then I am sure that people who have never seen a real kung fu master can have look and enlighten themselves.

In my opinion...people are people. We are constructed with the same bones, muscles, and biological functions. We all breath using the same lungs. Our anatomical movement is the same.

....And yet, there are so many different major fighting systems on the face of this planet and some of them look so different both in appearance, training methods and emphasis and they are all valid and practical in their own right.


It's time that we use our modern technology and understanding of the human body to overcome the mystical crap that's been passed down since the dark ages.

There is a lot of mystical crap around and that is usually used by conmen who couldn't fight their way out of a paper bag. However, there are internal concepts that are not understood by many, shall we say, "external" martial artists. Not understanding profound concepts does not give anyone the excuse for calling them "crap".

Chi as it's understood by most is merely a figment of the imagination--when in reality it's just air.

As understood by most chinese or none chinese? Chi and chi kung training does not only have martial relevance, but also forms the fundmental aspect in Chinese medicine that was around long before what we call modern medicine.

So, you are not only saying that generations of kung fu masters were wrong or lying and internal styles such as Hsing I, Tai Chi, Pa kua are not valid MAs, but also that generations of chinese medical practitioners were also dealing in mystical crap. I am sorry, but you are beginning to sound like t_niehoff.

Hasn't it occured to you that maybe through specialised training and through hundreds of years of development and evolution many of these kung fu masters discovered alternative ways of developing and issuing power and constructed different concepts? That perhaps they moved away from the caveman approach to fighting? Like they did with other aspects of their society, well advanced of their time.

While chi gung is good for you from a health standpoint, you're not going to chi charge your strikes.

No you are not going to "chi charge" your strikes, but there are hard and soft Chi kung exercises that will help you develop power for internal strikes.


It's a waste of time from a fighting standpoint.

You are again making sweeping statements like you know who.:rolleyes:


I met chi masters overseas, one guy who showed a one inch punch on 10 people....I stood at the front of the line and at the back of the line. He basically pushed and let the domino effect set in. Gimmicks. If a chi master can only perform with parlor tricks, I'll take the pragmatic approach that provides results any day.

So you have met a kung fu conman (I have met some too), and that means everyone is a conman?

I have seen and unfortunately felt demonstrations of short power, sometimes called shock power and I assure you that it is very real and you are not going to get that type of power from western style weight training.

Anyway, I suppose different experiences form different beliefs. So fair enough, I just had to put my side of things on the table.

And going back to the subject at hand:Solid foundations first then sparring. I've seen this described as something that goes along the lines of "learn to fight first [get your foundations;learn the proper techniques and their applications], then practice it [Sparring]. That is an intersting way of putting it.:)

[Vankuen]

Excellent post. The TMAs were doing fine until some smart asses tried to modernize,"improve" and make them more sport friendly and even more "practical".

These "geniuses" include unskilled conmen who tried to teach them to a gullible public, see the Mcdojos/Kwoon phenomenom. There were others who standardised them to make them easier to teach. This also took away a lot of essence from these arts. And of course, there are the know it all modernists who try to "force-evolve" and "improve" anything that is too complicated for them to understand.

Ironically, Kung Fu has been evolving for thousands of years, but in the old days the evolution and any improvements were carried out by real masters, (who had profound knowledge of these arts, their techniques, concepts and principles, both external and INTERNAL) and not some glorified kick boxers.

I sense some animosity in this post! I think my last one probably has some tone to it as well. I think it's because each person is passionate about getting better but simply has different perspectives based on their experiences to date.

Sanjuro was correct. But when you agreed with him I think you may have missed the part where he said they were practical FOR THEIR TIME; and perhaps forgotten that there were many styles and systems and fighters even then that couldn't fight there way out of a paper bag. It's not like everyone that practiced a traditional martial art then was effective--even back then. To think so would be foolish to say the least.

And while your overall post is correct in many instances, I think that some of the evolution wasn't meant for anything other than the intent of making things more practical for that person's generation. Martial arts adjust for their times. According to some text that I read about the history of gung fu in general, some of the Shaolin "monks" were simply local ruffians that were good simply good at fighting and sought refuge in the monestaries. The monks took some of their knowledge as well into consideration when "forming" their respective styles of fighting. That is not to take away from traditional arts, because my foundation wouldn't be as good today had I not taken them. The knowledge has to start somewhere.

It's hard to talk about history for validity of anything. The world's history is illusive, our understanding of it is based on flashes of insight with us filling in the gaps with assumed educational guesses. I would think it's safe to say though that then, just like now, the fighting ability was determined by the training methods.

....And yet, there are so many different major fighting systems on the face of this planet and some of them look so different both in appearance, training methods and emphasis and they are all valid and practical in their own right.

And remember also that a lot of these fighting methods were not based on the human body. They were based on animals and mythical creatures--all with attributes different to our own. Humans should use fighting styles based on the human physique, not an animal's.


As understood by most chinese or none chinese? Chi and chi kung training does not only have martial relevance, but also forms the fundmental aspect in Chinese medicine that was around long before what we call modern medicine.

So, you are not only saying that generations of kung fu masters were wrong or lying and internal styles such as Hsing I, Tai Chi, Pa kua are not valid MAs, but also that generations of chinese medical practitioners were also dealing in mystical crap. I am sorry, but you are beginning to sound like t_niehoff.

Hasn't it occured to you that maybe through specialised training and through hundreds of years of development and evolution many of these kung fu masters discovered alternative ways of developing and issuing power and constructed different concepts? That perhaps they moved away from the caveman approach to fighting? Like they did with other aspects of their society, well advanced of their time.


Sorry about the tone, and yes, It's occurred to me, or else I wouldn't have studied it for so many years. I've studied tai chi, chi kung, learned about intrinsic energy (otherwise defined as AIR in chinese) and practiced turning chi into jing. Even during the practice of this, one of the words I heard the most was "imagine". Imagine absorbing the energy around you, imagine pulling it into your dan tien, imagine you expelling it through your limbs and having it coil up in your bones and expelled out in a vibrating force". I got tired of imagining. I decided to use reality to get results instead of my imagination. Because quite frankly, one's imagination only goes so far. But who knows....perhaps if I'd given the trainin another couple decades, I too would be able to throw a person 20 feet without using a muscle in my body. Which is odd since the only way to move the skeletal structure is through the use of muscles, tendons, and ligaments.

[Vankuen]

On a side note--and this is directed to no one in particular--the conversation is starting to get to be a war of traditional vs modern, and the question by no means was meant to spark that debate per say.

Regardless of whether the system is old, new, traditional, conventional, non conventional, or whatever...the question still holds true about the fight training. Another thing to remember, and this is just more food for thought, but another thing to remember is that the MMA you see today is from traditional martial arts. Wrestling and Judo/Jujutsu are all traditional arts from various countries such as China, Japan, and Greece. Perhaps the OLDEST of arts. The striking techniques are also taken from boxing, karate, etc. As stated previously, nothing is new. So where exactly are they going wrong from a traditional martial arts standpoint?

It seems only a couple people see it for as simply as it is. Think about it: no military in of any country of any time trained without fighting. It simply wasn't the case. So why people in modern times avoid it when their ulitmate goal is to become better at the activity is beyond me. That's what sparked the question in the first place to be honest. Excuses and rationalizations are made--the typical "too deadly to spar" excuse, or the "sparring only develops bad habits", or the "you must train for another 10 years before sparring". The fact is nothing is too deadly (in terms of martial arts) to practice fight training with; bad habits only develop when the teacher doesn't correct them while sparring; and no one needs to wait that long to learn to fight in any style.

BTW guys, thanks for keeping this debate interesting and civil. I don't get to talk like this much with the locals here.

[HardWork8]

If you're not sparring/fighting on a regular basis with some real contact going on against other skilled fighters/practitioners how can you possibly think that you're ever going to be a GOOD fighter? Regardless of what style you do.

This should be a no-brainer by now.

It is a no-brainer. No one is denying the importance of sparring, the two "schools" differ on the when.

It's only a question of how soon?

As soon as one has built the necessary foundations, fluidity in techniques and understanding of basic concepts.


How often?

As often as a BALANCED training regiment allows. Don't forget that there are the forms, iron palm training, chi kung, practice of techniques, learning correct breathing, etc.


What are the rules of engagement? How to go about transitioning from drills/chi sao to sparring? What protective gear will be used? etc.

In my school I got into sparring only at the Chum Kiu level. It was a tansition from Chi Sao (both striking and kum La) to contact sparring. By this time I could breath in a deep and relaxed way, had developed good bases, power and through external and internal conditioning, could take solid blows to the body so there was no need for protective equipment. Of course we use light contact to the head (but hard enough to hurt:D).

But that's it.

It sure is.:)

[Edmund]

Wrestling and Judo/Jujutsu are all traditional arts from various countries such as China, Japan, and Greece. Perhaps the OLDEST of arts. The striking techniques are also taken from boxing, karate, etc. As stated previously, nothing is new. So where exactly are they going wrong from a traditional martial arts standpoint?


Who said they are going wrong at all?
The thing is that a WC person shouldn't look like a karate person. Not that the karate person is doing something wrong.

The WC person could TRY do karate but I think it's inevitably going to show their own weaknesses if they don't actually train karate.

IF the WC person crosstrained in karate, it would be a different story.


It seems only a couple people see it for as simply as it is. Think about it: no military in of any country of any time trained without fighting. It simply wasn't the case. So why people in modern times avoid it when their ulitmate goal is to become better at the activity is beyond me.

I don't see anyone on here saying avoid it.

[sanjuro_ronin]

No style has ultimate answers to all the questions. However, it is my understanding that most major kung fu styles address all ranges of fighting the way they were practiced in the old days. I have made this point in another thread.

The masters who developed these systems did so holistically. There is no kung fu style to my knowledge that only uses short or long range fighting exclusively. Some will emphasis long range others short range to midrange, but they will still have a bit of other ranges in their arsenal because many of these masters were real fighters and knew that a fights and their ranges vary and cannot always be controlled.

If the idea of a many fights going to the ground is understood and accepted now, then be sure it was understood then, specially in China where wrestling has been around since before kung fu.

Hence, there are kung fu styles that address this problem and incorporate ground fighting in their arsenal. The Siu Lam Wing Chun that I practice has this type of training in its curriculum and it did not get it from Judo,BJJ or wrestling. There are Northern Mantis styles that also address ground fighting. Other Shaolin styles, including some Tiger and Monkey lineages do so also. There is a style of kung fu that is called Dog Boxing that also uses many ground techniques.

Even Kyokushinkai Karate, which you yourself practice used to address ground fighting, but from what I have heard, nowadays it doesn't (please correct me if I am wrong and you do train original kyokushinkai ground fighting techniques).

Yes, you were right when you stated that TMAs were developed to be practical. However, many schools have lost some of the aspects that made them so functional.




Here is a link that shows one of the handful of real kung fu masters in London teaching a stick fighting seminar. The picture and sound quality are not that good, but it is worth a look. The gentleman in question is Master Yap Leong and he teaches Five Ancestor Fist Kung Fu. Yes, he is the real deal and there are other videos of him in Youtube.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IKpDN4Z1DI

If this link doesn't work then go to YouTube and type in Yap Leong and the first video in the list is the stick fighting seminar.

I think that there is much to be said for specialized systems.
I don't think that there is any TCMA system that has the basics of ground work that can compare to Judo, much less BJJ.
Most TMA system may have a broad base of skills, but all prefered one method or another.
I think that your view of "ground fighting" is more towards the "ground and pound" and I agree that, in THAT view, some TCMA do have ground work.
Nothing on the par of BJJ or MMA though.
Kyokushin addressed ground fighting yes, they directed us to Judo.

As for the clip of Sifu Leong, nice clip, his technique seemed very FMA based, though it seemed off a bit at times, but its never correct to formulate a view liek that based on one clip and from a seminar.
Context and all that.

[Vankuen]

Who said they are going wrong at all?
The thing is that a WC person shouldn't look like a karate person. Not that the karate person is doing something wrong.

The WC person could TRY do karate but I think it's inevitably going to show their own weaknesses if they don't actually train karate.

IF the WC person crosstrained in karate, it would be a different story.




I don't see anyone on here saying avoid it.

Plenty of people. In real life and on here. It's been said and implied numerous times in this thread by the opposing TMA's. That brings me to something else.

Not training for a real fight, and specifically for the ground at this point is just plain ignorance. I was talking to someone the other day about this. I talked about through all the years I trained in standup fighting, I felt the ground game was never an issue because only a few people were skilled enough to put me there. Today it's different. There are A LOT of people that can put me there. Because of the UFC and Pride, every guy and his mother wants to take people down for the ground and pound or the armbar. Thus it is smart to prepare for it and gain proficiency in groundwork (and by that I mean more than just laying on the ground and punching or kicking). Keep your friends close--keep your enemies even closer.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Today it's different. There are A LOT of people that can put me there. Because of the UFC and Pride, every guy and his mother wants to take people down for the ground and pound or the armbar. Thus it is smart to prepare for it and gain proficiency in groundwork (and by that I mean more than just laying on the ground and punching or kicking). Keep your friends close--keep your enemies even closer.

Couldn't agree more.

[Vankuen]

Please check the link for master Yap Leong that I posted for Sanjuro. I do not usually give out names of kung fu masters that I know personally in public domains, but as his links are in the You Tube then I am sure that people who have never seen a real kung fu master can have look and enlighten themselves.


I just took a look at that video. Brief synopsis? Standard stick fighting techniques. The stance at the end I WOULD NOT recommend doing when trying to gain superior ground position, but otherwise pretty standard stuff. I'll take a look around for more vids of the guy.

[Vankuen]

Take a look at this one....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_v52iLXH_E

Push hands combat challenge I. Do you know why the big guy can't push the master? Simple body mechanics. He's trying to push using only his side deltoid muscle, which is a very weak muscle when used individually. He's also trying to push against a superior structure of the old gent. meaning that the body positioning and the alignment of the older gent's body was more structurally solid than the brit's. Part 2 is the same concept, except that the older gent is leaning his entire body at a better angle and his arms are being supported by that same angle...whereas the big guy is simply using his muscles again.

Just simple mechanics. Have them both put their arms straight like the Brit's was, and use shoulder vs shoulder and see what happens. Not going to get the same results.

Sorry but it is what it is. I learned some of the methods from a hapkido master who would show me how to use "chi" to have my arm completely unflexed and yet have someone not be able to bend it while it's placed on someone's shoulder. I analyzed it, it's simpy a slight angle and the arm.

The limb knocking? That's simply conditioning. The body builder guy doesn't practice hitting his forearms all day long like most chinese martial artists do...60 years old or not...it's just proper conditioning.

The only one that impressed me was the "chi sao" challenge,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oZraRtBDlg

but only at the quickness and sharpness of the older guy. He learned 5 ancestor? I studied 5 animal (wuxingquan) which looked almost the same in application when using the chi sao.

Unfortunately the brit was already at that point a scared little girl and was just slapping. (No offense to any girls with that last one btw). But yea...just that last vid to me was somewhat impressive. Same stuff I've seen before.

[HardWork8]

Sanjuro was correct. But when you agreed with him I think you may have missed the part where he said they were practical FOR THEIR TIME;

Yes I have heard this view before, it goes something to the effect of the following:
"Nowadays, things are different, people will attack to hurt and seriously injure you in any which way they can, whereas in the old days, people would attack you with pillows and would tickle you with feathers, so, what you need is to train our, take your pick, 'Improved', 'Modernized','Practical', 'Realisntic' and so, on system.

Chinese TMA systems were designed to work and the fact that some of them don't work now, has more to do with them being watered down for whatever reason, then with evolutionary changes in human beings and the way they attack each other.

and perhaps forgotten that there were many styles and systems and fighters even then that couldn't fight there way out of a paper bag. It's not like everyone that practiced a traditional martial art then was effective--even back then. To think so would be foolish to say the least.

I am sure that there were systems that were not as effective as others, and that they have been forgotten and left behind in the mists of time.

And while your overall post is correct in many instances, I think that some of the evolution wasn't meant for anything other than the intent of making things more practical for that person's generation. Martial arts adjust for their times.

I am sure that many old masters wish for the old conflict ridden days in China where you could be attacked attacked and seriously hurt by bandits using deadly pillows. Some people were even known to have been tickled to death by viscious criminals.:D

As far as the TMAs are concerned this "adjustment" that you refer to has lead to many of them being watered down.

Let me put it this way, you needed to be much more practical with your martial arts in old China then in the new West.

According to some text that I read about the history of gung fu in general, some of the Shaolin "monks" were simply local ruffians that were good simply good at fighting and sought refuge in the monestaries. The monks took some of their knowledge as well into consideration when "forming" their respective styles of fighting.

All kung fu styles were designed for combat and were developed by exponents who had knowledge and experience in fighting.



That is not to take away from traditional arts, because my foundation wouldn't be as good today had I not taken them. The knowledge has to start somewhere.

The problem nowadays seems to be, not so much where the knowledge starts, but where that knowledge ends, devolution and NOT evolution.

It's hard to talk about history for validity of anything. The world's history is illusive, our understanding of it is based on flashes of insight with us filling in the gaps with assumed educational guesses. I would think it's safe to say though that then, just like now, the fighting ability was determined by the training methods.

That is a universal fact. However, as I pointed out in my first post on this thread, fighting ability and its acquisition can also in some part be determined by an individuals character.


And remember also that a lot of these fighting methods were not based on the human body. They were based on animals and mythical creatures--all with attributes different to our own.

The approach the old masters used was to take the "essence" of these animals and not necessarily the animals themselves. That is, if you are using a cat like technique, then you will use the cat like relaxion and the explosive burst on the attack WITHOUT the Meeeeeeeowww, of course !;)

These masters found that this approached worked, so much so that used the same approach using many other animals, but many of todays' "technologically advanced" modern martial artists do not wonder WHY, they just dismiss this approach.



Humans should use fighting styles based on the human physique, not an animal's.

Here we go another sweeping statement. All those masters for all those generations were using the wrong approach, they should have listened to Vankuen and used the "Wing Chun Kick Boxing" approach. Imagine, thousands of years of martial arts evolution was wasted, only if you were around then to advise them. I could see you as martial arts advisor in the Shaoling Temple, or even Wudang. Teaching the monks the "Technologically advanced Van Kuen style.

Even though you are doing your best to come across as a fair, just and an understanding contributor, you end up making statements that don't do your forum image any justice and are offensive to people who know more about the subject then you do.

Don't you realize that making sweeping statements about systems that you have never practiced or at least not understood are insulting for those of us who know more than you.

If you think training in animal styles is irrelevant, then why don't you go and challenge a Tiger Claw or Pak Mei master and then come and tell us how you defeated him, if you still have your wind pipe intact that is.

Sorry about the tone, and yes, It's occurred to me, or else I wouldn't have studied it for so many years. I've studied tai chi, chi kung, learned about intrinsic energy (otherwise defined as AIR in chinese) and practiced turning chi into jing. Even during the practice of this, one of the words I heard the most was "imagine". Imagine absorbing the energy around you, imagine pulling it into your dan tien, imagine you expelling it through your limbs and having it coil up in your bones and expelled out in a vibrating force". I got tired of imagining. I decided to use reality to get results instead of my imagination. Because quite frankly, one's imagination only goes so far. But who knows....perhaps if I'd given the trainin another couple decades, I too would be able to throw a person 20 feet without using a muscle in my body. Which is odd since the only way to move the skeletal structure is through the use of muscles, tendons, and ligaments.

From that post you have shown that you have no understanding of internal martial arts, but don't worry, you are in good company. The majority don't understand that approach, heck if they did, then the world would be full of Tai Chi masters (real ones).

Look, maybe your teacher was not good, and there is generally an over 90% chance of that specially when it come to internal styles (over 95%). Or even maybe this type of martial arts are not for you, but please don't go around calling them mumbo jumbo.

I will also state again, without using internal training in your kung fu you end up practicing a totally externally and "miss the point". Many kung fu techniques were designed to work using the internal approach and you will lack combat efficiency as far as kung fu techniques are concerned.

Many so called kung fu exponents use kick boxing type of sparring and this is the result of bad foundations and the ignorance of the internals. If you are going to turn your kung fu into pseudo kung fu or glorified kick boxing, then I believe that it will be more combat efficient and practical for you to totally train in kick boxing or MMA.

I have said this before in another thread. Chain punching while hopping around like a boxer/kickboxer does not make your art Wing Chun.

[HardWork8]

I think that there is much to be said for specialized systems.
I don't think that there is any TCMA system that has the basics of ground work that can compare to Judo, much less BJJ.

I couldn't tell you, because I have not trained in all styles of TCMA.


Most TMA system may have a broad base of skills, but all prefered one method or another.
I think that your view of "ground fighting" is more towards the "ground and pound" and I agree that, in THAT view, some TCMA do have ground work.
Nothing on the par of BJJ or MMA though.

Many TMAs also make extensive use of Chi-na techniques standing AND on the ground.

Chi-na techniques are very prevalent in the style of Wing Chun that I practice.

Kyokushin addressed ground fighting yes, they directed us to Judo.

That is interesting. I have the "This is Karate" by the founder of Kyokushinkai, Masutatsu Oyama, and there is a section in that book on ground fighting, ie. Using karate techniques on the ground.

Again, another example of techniques being taken out of a system which eventually leads the exponents of that system "searching" for them in another MA style.

As for the clip of Sifu Leong, nice clip, his technique seemed very FMA based,

His technique has nothing to do with FMA. He teaches shaoling kung fu and weapons. However, I do suspect that the FMA might just be, at least in part, shaolin based.;)


though it seemed off a bit at times, but its never correct to formulate a view liek that based on one clip and from a seminar.
Context and all that.

Yes, sometimes "offness" is in the eye of the beholder.

[Vankuen]

Yes I have heard this view before, it goes something to the effect of the following:
"Nowadays, things are different, people will attack to hurt and seriously injure you in any which way they can, whereas in the old days, people would attack you with pillows and would tickle you with feathers, so, what you need is to train our, take your pick, 'Improved', 'Modernized','Practical', 'Realisntic' and so, on system.

Chinese TMA systems were designed to work and the fact that some of them don't work now, has more to do with them being watered down for whatever reason, then with evolutionary changes in human beings and the way they attack each other.

I think your last statement sums it up pretty well. I wasn't talking about pillows...I was merely implicating that our environments are simply different, and our threats are different, and the general public (with it's more broad based martial arts knowledge now) are able to defeat the mystical styles through scientific knowledge.


I am sure that there were systems that were not as effective as others, and that they have been forgotten and left behind in the mists of time.

Or perhaps not...based on what we see of a lot of it. But you're probably right, it's just too much water in the kool-aid more than likely. I've love to be able to say otherwise...but my experience which spans across the globe and for the past 25 years tells me otherwise.


Let me put it this way, you needed to be much more practical with your martial arts in old China then in the new West.

Wrong. You should always be practical no matter the timeframe. A person trying to hurt was no different then than it is now.


All kung fu styles were designed for combat and were developed by exponents who had knowledge and experience in fighting.

Knowledge in fighting from....fighting? Which came first the chicken or the egg?



The problem nowadays seems to be, not so much where the knowledge starts, but where that knowledge ends, devolution and NOT evolution.

Do you mean cutting out what doesn't work? That is called efficiency.


That is a universal fact. However, as I pointed out in my first post on this thread, fighting ability and its acquisition can also in some part be determined by an individuals character.

There are lot's of good conmen out there. Want me to start talking about christianity? I'm on the ropes with that one too.


The approach the old masters used was to take the "essence" of these animals and not necessarily the animals themselves. That is, if you are using a cat like technique, then you will use the cat like relaxion and the explosive burst on the attack WITHOUT the Meeeeeeeowww, of course !;)

So then when I learned my five animal gung fu and became a sifu in it...you mean to tell me that I wasn't mimicking a preying mantis with my hands or a tiger's claws or crane's beak even though the human metacarpels are nothing like the preying mantis limbs, and we don't have hard pointed beaks or large sharp nails?


These masters found that this approached worked, so much so that used the same approach using many other animals, but many of todays' "technologically advanced" modern martial artists do not wonder WHY, they just dismiss this approach.
It's not been dismissed, it's still retained, but knowing that I can't rip people to shred with my fingers using tiger claw technqiues is also a good thing to keep in mind. Though raking the face does leave a bitter taste in the person's mouth I'm sure...especially if I never washed my hands.


Here we go another sweeping statement. All those masters for all those generations were using the wrong approach, they should have listened to Vankuen and used the "Wing Chun Kick Boxing" approach. Imagine, thousands of years of martial arts evolution was wasted, only if you were around then to advise them. I could see you as martial arts advisor in the Shaoling Temple, or even Wudang. Teaching the monks the "Technologically advanced Van Kuen style.
It's just simple logic. Why base human fighting on attributes possessed by things other than human beings? If we as humans didn't capitalize on the strongest human weapon, OUR BRAINS...we wouldn't be here today. So instead of having "faith" that old technology is still functional, why not INVESTIGATE it further, and use some common sense? Tell me where capitalizing on human attributes is not an intelligent thing to do...and I'll succumb to your POV on it.


Even though you are doing your best to come across as a fair, just and an understanding contributor, you end up making statements that don't do your forum image any justice and are offensive to people who know more about the subject then you do.

Don't you realize that making sweeping statements about systems that you have never practiced or at least not understood are insulting for those of us who know more than you.

Do I care about an online persona? Not really. It's the internet. Do you know what I've done and what I've practiced? Not really. Because although I've divulged some of my training in other threads, even that's not complete. I've studied a number of internal arts, for just about as long as you have. Remember I'm almost 20 years your senior in terms of training.


If you think training in animal styles is irrelevant, then why don't you go and challenge a Tiger Claw or Pak Mei master and then come and tell us how you defeated him, if you still have your wind pipe intact that is.

I have. Do you know when the time comes for me to move on from a particular school? When I can beat the teacher. It's happened about 4-5 times now. When I can do it using kickboxing, than it's even moreso time to leave.


From that post you have shown that you have no understanding of internal martial arts, but don't worry, you are in good company. The majority don't understand that approach, heck if they did, then the world would be full of Tai Chi masters (real ones).
Hmmm...I can see why you'd say that. But again, like you said, it's an ONLINE persona. Most of what I debate is just that, debate. Sometimes I debate just to debate. It kills time...just like practicing Tai Chi. BTW...I looked up some of my notes that I took when studying in Florida, and yep...my understanding of it is still correct.


I have said this before in another thread. Chain punching while hopping around like a boxer/kickboxer does not make your art Wing Chun.

I'd agree, bouncing around and using wing chun probably isn't good wing chun, unless you can combine skills from different styles and switch back and forth. Hmmm...that's a thought.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I couldn't tell you, because I have not trained in all styles of TCMA.


Get cracking man !!

Many TMAs also make extensive use of Chi-na techniques standing AND on the ground.

Chi-na techniques are very prevalent in the style of Wing Chun that I practice.

And how do they apply them?

That is interesting. I have the "This is Karate" by the founder of Kyokushinkai, Masutatsu Oyama, and there is a section in that book on ground fighting, ie. Using karate techniques on the ground.

Again, another example of techniques being taken out of a system which eventually leads the exponents of that system "searching" for them in another MA style.

I have that book and a few others and, while I never had a chance to train with Oyama, I did have a chance to train with a few of hsi 1st generation students/teachers.
One word: Judo.

His technique has nothing to do with FMA. He teaches shaoling kung fu and weapons. However, I do suspect that the FMA might just be, at least in part, shaolin based.


Ok then.

Yes, sometimes "offness" is in the eye of the beholder.
True, some beholders have more varied experience and are not easily impressed.

[Vankuen]

What do you all think of this guy? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2lkGynvAqk&feature=related

[sanjuro_ronin]

What do you all think of this guy? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2lkGynvAqk&feature=related

Well...the arm bar at :40 sucked, he was to far from the opponent, somethign he does on all his arm bars for some reason.
The flying elbow with the step on the leg is from MT.
The knife defense at :56 sucked.
He seems to over reach on his strikes and the "opponent" just stands there when he chain punches.
All in all not horrible, but not great.

[HardWork8]

I think your last statement sums it up pretty well. I wasn't talking about pillows...I was merely implicating that our environments are simply different, and our threats are different, and the general public (with it's more broad based martial arts knowledge now) are able to defeat the mystical styles through scientific knowledge.

...defeat them ("kung fu masters") in sports competitions. I have seen those matches too.;)


Or perhaps not...based on what we see of a lot of it. But you're probably right, it's just too much water in the kool-aid more than likely. I've love to be able to say otherwise...but my experience which spans across the globe and for the past 25 years tells me otherwise.

Fair enough, I suppose that our experiences differ. I have been lucky enough to come across (personally) three kung fu sifus who are the real deal, but you with your decades of experience haven't come across one. I suppose that is how the cooky crumbles.


Wrong. You should always be practical no matter the timeframe. A person trying to hurt was no different then than it is now.

You misunderstand. I am saying that they were practical then and there are still undiluted styles/schools around today that teach practical combat. These type of schools are very hard to find-you, yourself being are living the proof of the difficulty faced by people looking for authentic CTMAs- but there are authentic sifus out there and that is a fact.


Knowledge in fighting from....fighting? Which came first the chicken or the egg?

It depends on how hungry you are, I suppose.:D



Do you mean cutting out what doesn't work? That is called efficiency.

No I mean adding in what is not needed. That is looking outside one's art to find solutions that already exist in ones own art, usually because one has not gained enough understanding of it and/or one is not patient enough to wait or perhaps even because one always ends up in bad kung fu schools, just like you presumably have.


There are lot's of good conmen out there. Want me to start talking about christianity? I'm on the ropes with that one too.

Don't get me started on christianity or any of the major world religions. Now if fantasy is what you really want to expose then these belief systems are unbeatable. However, at the end of the day they have controlled the minds of millions of people, made money for a few thousand and pushed forward the hidden agendas of the people who have been running the world for the past few centuries, and still do.


So then when I learned my five animal gung fu and became a sifu in it...you mean to tell me that I wasn't mimicking a preying mantis with my hands or a tiger's claws or crane's beak even though the human metacarpels are nothing like the preying mantis limbs, and we don't have hard pointed beaks or large sharp nails?

The whole point is that when you incorporate the essence of the animal, then you can use certain "mimicking" actions practical ways. The Mantis hook does work, so does a tiger claw grab to the throat. So does a Crane kick (using the softness of the Crane).


It's not been dismissed, it's still retained, but knowing that I can't rip people to shred with my fingers using tiger claw technqiues is also a good thing to keep in mind.

Maybe you can't, tell me how long have you trained your Tiger Claw and what kind of iron palm/fist exercises have you undertaken and for how many years. Tearing (internally) someones bicept muscle is a valid technique, not only in Tiger Claw, but also in Chow Gar (also known as Southern Praying Mantis) kung fu.


Though raking the face does leave a bitter taste in the person's mouth I'm sure...especially if I never washed my hands.

Then, I won't bother asking you about the bone marrow washing exercises either...:D


It's just simple logic. Why base human fighting on attributes possessed by things other than human beings?

You have answered that question to yourself and to your own satisfaction. If you really wanted to know the answer to that question, then you would seriously search for a kung fu master who would answer your question.
However, with your track record in finding good kung fu schools, that might take some time.

So let me, at least partly, answer your question. If you see the belief systems and monestaries where many of these styles came from you would see a general philosophy of oneness or harmony with nature. The people who created some of these methods actually dared to think that they could learn somethings from nature and they did.

They looked beyond the superficial and created functional styles that were combat effective. And by the way, they created training methods that today's high technology "gods" will take ages to understand. So, please don't assume that high tech and modern automatically mean better.


If we as humans didn't capitalize on the strongest human weapon, OUR BRAINS...we wouldn't be here today.

Who is "we"? The human race or the technologically advanced West? Because the last time I looked, the chinese were doing quite well.


So instead of having "faith" that old technology is still functional, why not INVESTIGATE it further, and use some common sense?

Your so called "old technology" (TCMAs) have been and are being investigated further, by masters who have a complete understanding of these profound systems. People who have dedicated decades of their lives to learning and accumulating that knowledge and not some modernist know it all guru who does not have the attention span to do his Siu Lim Tao, without falling a sleep.

Tell me where capitalizing on human attributes is not an intelligent thing to do...and I'll succumb to your POV on it.

Ok, I'll tell you. Capitalizing on human attribute is not an intelligent thing to do when you are doing it for the sake of doing it. That is, you are using your immense high technology intelligence to fix something that ain't broke. You are adjusting your tv set thinking it is broke but when in fact you have not gained the mastery of its use.

Have you sucumbed yet??:D



Do I care about an online persona? Not really. It's the internet. Do you know what I've done and what I've practiced? Not really. Because although I've divulged some of my training in other threads, even that's not complete. I've studied a number of internal arts, for just about as long as you have. Remember I'm almost 20 years your senior in terms of training.

From my knowledge of TCMAs, you would need to spend around 6-8 years training to really have a basic (not beginners') understanding of all internal/external aspects of one single style. Enough knowledge to perhaps teach. Then of course decades more training would be needed to gain higher level knowledge. That is if you had found authentic training.

Even in authentic karate schools it should take about 6 years to get your black belt, nevermind the higher dan levels.

So, you have spent 20+ years studying, how many styles, did you say??


I have. Do you know when the time comes for me to move on from a particular school? When I can beat the teacher. It's happened about 4-5 times now. When I can do it using kickboxing, than it's even moreso time to leave.

Those Mc Kwoons never stop to amaze me. If you are so good in kickboxing then perhaps you should only practice kick boxing and other "technologically advanced" MA styles and leave us traditionalist in peace.


Hmmm...I can see why you'd say that. But again, like you said, it's an ONLINE persona. Most of what I debate is just that, debate. Sometimes I debate just to debate.[/quote]

I see that you are capitalizing needlessy on your human attributes yet again, you naughty boy! :eek:



It kills time...

It might just kill your argument if you are not careful.


just like practicing Tai Chi. BTW...I looked up some of my notes that I took when studying in Florida, and yep...my understanding of it is still correct.

Correct in your mind and based on your own experience in your own chosen school of Tai Chi. Well, that is fair because at the end of the day it comes down to one's own experience.;)



I'd agree, bouncing around and using wing chun probably isn't good wing chun, unless you can combine skills from different styles and switch back and forth. Hmmm...that's a thought.

Hold that thought and think about cross training Wing Chun with other kung fu styles. They will by nature fit and assimilate better. Now, we don't want to dilute our Wing Chun with low level "hop around" styles of fighting, do we?:D

[Vankuen]

You're pretty fun to talk to. My main argument was actually done quite some time ago when everyone for the most part agreed about resistant fight training.

I can't really figure out what the second one was...it's late, and I'm tired from work.

On the other hand, the only two styles that I still maintain are wing chun and muay thai. The rest I've left by the wayside for the most part. Some movements of course will never be forgotten, and the heavy hand training soft movements are still with me, albeit moreso with the wing chun and some of the older gung fu movements.

In my opinion and experience, wing chun compliments any style, which is why I retained it. I'm currently looking around town for a good grappling school to brush up since training in florida.

Thanks for the talk...I appreciate the enlightenment. BTW...ever see the independent film Zeitgeist?

[HardWork8]

You're pretty fun to talk to. My main argument was actually done quite some time ago when everyone for the most part agreed about resistant fight training.

I agree with you there. Resistance fight-training is a fundemental part of most martial arts training.

I can't really figure out what the second one was...it's late, and I'm tired from work.

Neither can I, I just woke up from a late night's work.:confused:

On the other hand, the only two styles that I still maintain are wing chun and muay thai. The rest I've left by the wayside for the most part. Some movements of course will never be forgotten, and the heavy hand training soft movements are still with me, albeit moreso with the wing chun and some of the older gung fu movements.

I really wish that you had met the likes of master Yap Leong. He has the traditional but very functional approach which is definitly an eye opener for anyone who has TCMA background.

In my opinion and experience, wing chun compliments any style, which is why I retained it. I'm currently looking around town for a good grappling school to brush up since training in florida.

Good luck with your search( but please do investigate Wing Chun and its other lineages, as well as other kung fu styles, whenever you can and you might be pleasantly surprised at the richness of TCMAs.

Thanks for the talk...I appreciate the enlightenment.

Thank you also.:)


BTW...ever see the independent film Zeitgeist?

I did and I wish more people would take the time to see and research into what is really happening to the world.

Here are a couple of more that are real eye openers:

http://video-stats.video.google.com.videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173 America:From freedom to fascism

http://video-stats.video.google.com.videoplay?docid=-6470450895164255089

Terror Storm

http://video-stats.video.google.com.videoplay?docid=57927536477 50188322

The Clinton Chronicles

You may have seen them before, but if you haven't, then I really recommend that you watch them. If the links don't work, then please got to Video Google and search by the names of the documentaries.

Happy Training.:)

[HardWork8]

Get cracking man !!

Give me time man. I want to have expert knowledge in one art before I move to the next one, to cut down the risk of me making uninformed comments, in internet forums, about arts that I have not fully understood.;)



And how do they apply them?

You need to ask someone who is at that level of training. I am not. I can Chi-na in stand up, but not on the ground, not yet. I can tell you the ground fighting includes striking as well as Chin-na. Furthermore, the applications would not be easy to explain in writing on a forum.


I have that book and a few others and, while I never had a chance to train with Oyama, I did have a chance to train with a few of hsi 1st generation students/teachers.
One word: Judo.

That just proves my point. In the his book "This is karate", Oyama does not make any references to Judo in the ground fighting section in the book.


True, some beholders have more varied experience and are not easily impressed.

It is amazing how so many people with such varied experiences are not impressed, or even recognize, a real kung fu master when they see one.:rolleyes:

[LoneTiger108]

I really wish that you had met the likes of master Yap Leong. He has the traditional but very functional approach which is definitly an eye opener for anyone who has TCMA background.

... Good luck with your search( but please do investigate Wing Chun and its other lineages, as well as other kung fu styles, whenever you can and you might be pleasantly surprised at the richness of TCMAs.

... I wish more people would take the time to see and research into what is really happening to the world.

Happy Training.:)

I never knew you knew Yap Leong Sifu?! :) My respects to you.

I guess there's hope for us traditionalists yet, eh?! :eek: I find us under so much pressure to 'show & tell' these days. Wing Chun is still being researched at a core level and still I frequently read on here how people have 'left' us, only to be consumed by the modern trends. Old family styles hold treasures some never find imho.

All old news if you're familiar with London and it's Chinatown history, don't ya fink? ;)

We all need to stand together sometimes...

[HardWork8]

I never knew you knew Yap Leong Sifu?! :) My respects to you.

Thank you. He is the real deal.:)

I guess there's hope for us traditionalists yet, eh?! :eek:

Hopefully, there is hope for the modernists too.;)


I find us under so much pressure to 'show & tell' these days. Wing Chun is still being researched at a core level and still I frequently read on here how people have 'left' us, only to be consumed by the modern trends.

I think it is cultural. In our Western culture everybody is looking for a quick fixes and quick solutions and fair enough, if one is looking to learn to fight as quickly as possible or cannnot wait to methodoligically learn one system, so that he can assimilate all that is within that system, then even I would recommend them to go and train in something like kick boxing and I have many times, believe me.

However, in the last few years I have come across more and more "modernists" who put down the TCMA's as more or less useless and many of them are people whose experiences in the these arts are at best dubious. This gets under my skin.:mad:

There seem to be more lineages of Wing Chun then many people at first thought and those who are really passionate about this art then should research these styles to find the "lost" aspects of this art, while at the same time enriching their own practice.

Some years ago, when I first mentioned that there were grappling movements in the mainland lineage (Siu Lam) of Wing Chun that I was practicing nobody would believe it, because these experts in Kung Fu (who at the same time were experts in BJJ AND Wrestling AND Muay Thai/KickBoxing AND judo AND MMA) said,"Wing Chun is stand up only".

This lineage emphasises Chi Kung training, but apparently this is just "fantasy training" according to other modernists. There are more who say no need for Iron Palm training because it is better to hit the Bag as boxers do, "it is more modern you know, and therefore it must be better", and it goes on.:mad:

We are told "The modern scientists have better knowledge of how our bodies work and their approach in training and nutrition is better than the traditional approach. I wonder if these are the same scientists who invent and /or declare safe, all those technologically advanced food additives that are causing cancer epidemics all over the Western world, but lets not worry, because cancer epidemics are a MODERN phenomenon, so as a result, they MUST be good.:rolleyes:


Old family styles hold treasures some never find imho.

Most of the time, if they don't find these treasures, then it is because they don't deserve it. Martial arts practice is a search, on many levels.

More and more I think that many masters were right in not exposing their treasures just to anybody, eventhough this in some ways contributes to the many "misunderstandings" that exist nowadays as regards kung fu, but then the more intelligent will see beyond the confusion and search for the ESSENCE.

I still believe in the old chinese saying,"when the student is ready, the master appears" and if he is not ready, then there is always the local kickboxing gym (for the quicker results,that are so much sought after nowadays).

All old news if you're familiar with London and it's Chinatown history, don't ya fink? ;)

I am not too familiar with that, but I believe it.

We all need to stand together sometimes...

I most certainly agree with you.:)

[sanjuro_ronin]

Give me time man. I want to have expert knowledge in one art before I move to the next one, to cut down the risk of me making uninformed comments, in internet forums, about arts that I have not fully understood.

True, like your comments on Kyokushin based on what you saw in a book.

You need to ask someone who is at that level of training. I am not. I can Chi-na in stand up, but not on the ground, not yet. I can tell you the ground fighting includes striking as well as Chin-na. Furthermore, the applications would not be easy to explain in writing on a forum.

I have asked and I have seen, you'd be surprised at what level too...

That just proves my point. In the his book "This is karate", Oyama does not make any references to Judo in the ground fighting section in the book.

Book...*shakes head*

It is amazing how so many people with such varied experiences are not impressed, or even recognize, a real kung fu master when they see one.

Really? I am amazed that you are amazed.

[HardWork8]

True, like your comments on Kyokushin based on what you saw in a book.

Correction, it was not a book, but one of THE books by the founder of the Kyokushinkai Karate, Sosai Masutatsu Oyama, which you claim to have.

Are you denying that there is a ground fighting section in that book? NO you are not, and that is because there is. Any references to Judo in that section? I thought not.

I have asked and I have seen, you'd be surprised at what level too...

If you did ask someone else, then why ask me, as well?

Book...*shakes head*

Don't shake your head too much, your brain might role out of one of your ears. You do know that Masutatsu Oyama wrote the book that you obviously haven't read, don't you. I know, I know, your intense crosstraining doesn't give you time for intelligent persuits such as reading.

I can tell you something though, incase you didn't know. Books have been a source of knowledge throughout history and a good source of reference for a great variety of subjects.

Specially books that are written by qualified authors, which later become classics and as source of reference, as is the case with the book in question, "This is Karate" written by no less than, the founder of the Kyokushinkai style.

Eventhough, you can not use a book like this to learn karate,you can however use it as a source of reference as to the characteristics of this particular style, as Oyama himself presumably intended.

Of course, no book is going to serve its purpose if you don't read it or at least recall its contents at a later date, or if you ignore them because they don't fit with your present "understanding" of the martial arts.

Yes, even kyokushinkai has been watered down.



Really? I am amazed that you are amazed.

You'll be amazed at yourself, when you realize one day, that quantity in knowledge (jack of all trades) does not always reflect quality.;)

[sanjuro_ronin]

Correction, it was not a book, but one of THE books by the founder of the Kyokushinkai Karate, Sosai Masutatsu Oyama, which you claim to have.

Are you denying that there is a ground fighting section in that book? NO you are not, and that is because there is. Any references to Judo in that section? I thought not.



If you did ask someone else, then why ask me, as well?



Don't shake your head too much, your brain might role out of one of your ears. You do know that Masutatsu Oyama wrote the book that you obviously haven't read, don't you. I know, I know, your intense crosstraining doesn't give you time for intelligent persuits such as reading.

I can tell you something though, incase you didn't know. Books have been a source of knowledge throughout history and a good source of reference for a great variety of subjects.

Specially books that are written by qualified authors, which later become classics and as source of reference, as is the case with the book in question, "This is Karate" written by no less than, the founder of the Kyokushinkai style.

Eventhough, you can not use a book like this to learn karate,you can however use it as a source of reference as to the characteristics of this particular style, as Oyama himself presumably intended.

Of course, no book is going to serve its purpose if you don't read it or at least recall its contents at a later date, or if you ignore them because they don't fit with your present "understanding" of the martial arts.

Yes, even kyokushinkai has been watered down.





You'll be amazed at yourself, when you realize one day, that quantity in knowledge (jack of all trades) does not always reflect quality.;)

You are too much.
Truly.
I bow to your superiour knowledge of Kyokushin, LOL !
I bow to your superiour knowledge of WHY Oyama wrote This is Karate and to what YOU think constitutes ground fighting ! LOL !

One thing though, just so that you know and don't make yourself look too bad, Oyama was very adamant ( behind close doors) that people take up judo to round themselves off.
What is Karate, This is karate, essential karate and quite a few others, including the ones in japanese and his autobiograhy are great publicity books, don't think that they even scratch the surface of what kyokushin was or is and how it continues to evolve.

As for "jack of all trades", perhaps I am, perhaps I am indeed.
Then again, considering others than can all into that category: Bluming, Inosanto, Adam Hsu and so many other, I will take that as a huge compliment !
:D

[k gledhill]

Alright guys and gals,

I pose to you this question as a friendly "mind opening" debate. I'm hoping to keep things civil and avoid childish or ad-hominum remarks here. If you have a viewpoint, and someone disagrees...try to use some intelligence to debate your stance...and the key here is to debate it. If you make a claim, defend with proper logical reasoning, or else why make the claim at all?

So here it is: can a student of any martial art, learn to fight without actually ever fighting? I.E. Ceteris Paribus (all other things being equal), can he or she be a consistently effective full contact fighter of their system without ever having stepped onto the mat/ring to test out their skills?



no .........[ has to be 10 characters at least to post ]


can you taste an apple from a description, swim without going in water....? virtual world alert !;)

[Vankuen]

As for "jack of all trades", perhaps I am, perhaps I am indeed.
Then again, considering others than can all into that category: Bluming, Inosanto, Adam Hsu and so many other, I will take that as a huge compliment !
:D

Something else I think is pretty ridiculous is the implication that someone who seeks out different sources for their various skills is somehow less skilled than someone who stayed with a single all knowing mystical style; even though the movements are ultimately the same, because again, the human body can only move so many different ways.

For example, let's say someone learns their round kicks from muay thai. Their punches from kyokushinkai, throws from judo, and groundwork from BJJ.

Who is to say that this person is not of a high caliber? The assumption that the jack of all trades is a master of none is a fallacy, more so a fallacy than believing that a single style has all the answers if you just "look for them".

I've learned some brutal techniques from all of my traditional martial arts training. Many of them I still use today. Are all of them good? Hell no. But it's only by experience that one can make that assessment for themselves.

The *only* problems I have with TMA in general is that jack of all trades statement, statements about "finding" techniques in the forms (which is ultimately making up moves from the forms), and anything having to do with the promotion of anything mystical, which includes far fetched non-fact based stories about the feats of their previous masters.

I believe in brutal honesty in ones abilities and efficiency in training, regardless of the style.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Something else I think is pretty ridiculous is the implication that someone who seeks out different sources for their various skills is somehow less skilled than someone who stayed with a single all knowing mystical style; even though the movements are ultimately the same, because again, the human body can only move so many different ways.

For example, let's say someone learns their round kicks from muay thai. Their punches from kyokushinkai, throws from judo, and groundwork from BJJ.

Who is to say that this person is not of a high caliber? The assumption that the jack of all trades is a master of none is a fallacy, more so a fallacy than believing that a single style has all the answers if you just "look for them".

I've learned some brutal techniques from all of my traditional martial arts training. Many of them I still use today. Are all of them good? Hell no. But it's only by experience that one can make that assessment for themselves.

The *only* problems I have with TMA in general is that jack of all trades statement, statements about "finding" techniques in the forms (which is ultimately making up moves from the forms), and anything having to do with the promotion of anything mystical, which includes far fetched non-fact based stories about the feats of their previous masters.

I believe in brutal honesty in ones abilities and efficiency in training, regardless of the style.

There are many reasons why I have trained in different systems, sometimes it was the case of what was available, other times I wanted to specialize in a certain skill set, and other times I wanted to fill in a void, you know, just like all those TMA did before they developed their own system, like Oyama did and like kano did and like so many other TCMA did.

[k gledhill]

some guys just buy a gun ...go figure, cheaters :rolleyes:

[sanjuro_ronin]

some guys just buy a gun ...go figure, cheaters :rolleyes:

They obviously lack chi.

[Vajramusti]

sanjuro_ronin


Quote:
Originally Posted by k gledhill
some guys just buy a gun ...go figure, cheaters

They obviously lack chi.
-------------------------------------------------Careful-
they may have a chi gun

[Edmund]

Some years ago, when I first mentioned that there were grappling movements in the mainland lineage (Siu Lam) of Wing Chun that I was practicing nobody would believe it, because these experts in Kung Fu (who at the same time were experts in BJJ AND Wrestling AND Muay Thai/KickBoxing AND judo AND MMA) said,"Wing Chun is stand up only".



No. As I recall, you MENTIONED there were WC ground grappling movements that you have NOT learnt or seen but you were sure they were really good.

i.e. You haven't even seen them. Since others on here hadn't seen them either they are pretty much invisible! You wanted everyone to believe you when you haven't seen them yourself.

So why would you conclude WC has groundfighting based on something you've only heard about? Why would others accept that based just on you telling them that someone else told you that WC has groundfighting?

But somehow it's others being "too modern" to disagree with you.

There's faith which goes only so far and then there's just too much.

Being from the mainland shouldn't mean that it would be hard to find these days.
Didn't you say it was mainland WC but now only in Brazil or something?

[Vankuen]

Waaait. So this guy is talking about the great benefits of his TCMA with all the answers, and has never actually trained in the techniques he's speaking of??

[Edmund]

Waaait. So this guy is talking about the great benefits of his TCMA with all the answers, and has never actually trained in the techniques he's speaking of??

It was on that stupid WC Grappling mega-thread last year (not several years ago)!
It quickly went to hell after HardWork8 put his views about Shaolin WC ground fighting being awesome. "PS. Haven't learnt any yet. Should be really excellent."

On certain things that HardWork8 says, I'm somewhat in agreement but this ground fighting stuff is another story. It's kinda pointless discussing it if no one in the conversation has even seen it.

[Vankuen]

If I recall correctly, doesn't that german style weng chun have ground fighting? I mean who knows where it actually came from, doesn't really matter to be honest. But I thought that was the only "wc" style that incorporated it.

They had like brown colored uniforms on or something.

[Edmund]

If I recall correctly, doesn't that german style weng chun have ground fighting? I mean who knows where it actually came from, doesn't really matter to be honest. But I thought that was the only "wc" style that incorporated it.

They had like brown colored uniforms on or something.

I think they teach BJJ not a WC groundfighting style. The guy, Andreas Hoffman, is a BJJ black belt so he's not one of the "jack of all trades" dabblers.

[Vankuen]

Ahhh...that's right! Hoffman! I remember now.

I couldn't recall, only remember I saw them rolling around and doing some really odd looking chi sao.

Just curious, do those of you who use the "jack-of-all-trades" terminology consider someone who gains proficiency in various systems to be deemed as such, or just someone who takes bits and pieces from various systems as such?

I didn't think there was a difference to be honest. I've done both, learned entire systems before moving on, and sometimes just portions. Depends on how the training went, where the military moved me, or how quickly I could beat the teacher.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I think they teach BJJ not a WC groundfighting style. The guy, Andreas Hoffman, is a BJJ black belt so he's not one of the "jack of all trades" dabblers.

Andreas is one of those guys that understands the NEED and BENEFIT of training with highly specilaized people in the areas that are lacking in a system.

I think that Hardwork means well, he just seems naive.
I mean, chapter 15 of Oyama's book "this is karate" is suppose to cover ground work, but its the typical "striking systems" answers to ground work, they just wouldn't work against someone with half a brain.
Oyama put them in for marketing sake, even the people that worked on that book with him like Bluming ( who you can see doing the weights section) acknowledge that.

You wanna get good at ground work, train with specialized ground works, just like, going back to the topic of this thread, you wanna get good at fighting, fight.

[HardWork8]

You are too much.
Truly.
I bow to your superiour knowledge of Kyokushin, LOL !
I bow to your superiour knowledge of WHY Oyama wrote This is Karate

You are BOWING alot for someone who claims NOT to be a traditionalist. Aren't you modernists supposed to shake hands and say something like,"hey buddy!" ?


and to what YOU think constitutes ground fighting ! LOL !

It is not what I THINK constitutes groundfighting that matters,but what MAS. OYAMA thought, when he wrote the book, 'This is Karate' and included a GROUND FIGHTING section in it.
So, save all your "bowing" for him.


One thing though, just so that you know and don't make yourself look too bad,

As you can see, I am not the one who is looking bad right now.

Oyama was very adamant ( behind close doors) that people take up judo to round themselves off.

Which BOOK did you read that in? And is it a better book than mine?:D Or were you behind the closed doors with him?

Having said that, I personally don't think that mixing judo and karate together is a bad idea, that is if your karate had the throwing techniques taken out of it for whatever reason.

These arts seem to complement each other much better than some other mixes that I have seen.

I am merely pointing out the "changes" that have occured in many TMAs and that many arts, not just Wing Chun are more "complete" than first thought by many "experts", who have not practiced and/or researched them deeply enough.

My point was, that there were ground fighting techniques in kyokushinkai some decades ago, but they don't seem to be there now. I have even talked to an older gentleman who was a kyokushinkai practitioner in the early 70's, here in london, and according to him they would also train ground fighting techniques as well.

Furthermore, there is a TRADITIONAL Okinawan Goju-ryu school here in London, run by Sensei Gavin Mulholland (you can google him, for more info on his school) and they also practice ground fighting.

For those who don't know, a lot of Kyokushinkai comes from Goju-ryu.

I hope that my point has been (finally) understood.

What is Karate, This is karate, essential karate and quite a few others, including the ones in japanese and his autobiograhy are great publicity books, don't think that they even scratch the surface of what kyokushin was or is

You mean that there is even more ground fighting then shown in that book? Oh that is great.

But,You are right, these books don't even scratch the surface, after all Mas. Oyama, their author, was ONLY the founder of Kyokushinkai and had dedicated his life to training and fighting with his karate (and pparently he even defeated some US wrestlers,boxers and judokai in the 1950's).

If I really wanted a deep knowledge of kyokushinkai (without training in it myself), I would instead go and ask Kyokushinkai people who had dedicated their lives to crosstraining.

Yes, that is it, that is what I would do, yes, ask the crosstrainers about specific styles in which they do not possess profound knowledge. It makes sense.:rolleyes:

The crosstrainers are in fashion nowadays, or didn't you know. We can see them all over the place, even here in the Kung Fu/Wing Chun threads, giving out their "wisdom" AND for free, I might add, with gems like, "forms don't work";"Siu lim Tao is useless"; and so on. We are even told that things can be added to our core style of wing chun, without adhering to its principles and concepts.

Afterall, who needs principles if you crosstrain. Crosstraining is good for everything, it can even cure upset stomacks, headaches and Irritable bowl Syndrom. And that is because it is new and very hightech, not like those old masters in China, who hadn't heard of vitamin pills,running machines and groundfighting.


and how it continues to evolve.

Oh yeah, what other techniques have been taken out this time?

Oh, yes I just remembered, I heard that some kyokushinkai schools had done away with the Kata practice and are concentrating solely on fighting training (kickboxing?).

And the "evolution" continues.:mad:



As for "jack of all trades", perhaps I am, perhaps I am indeed.
Then again, considering others than can all into that category: Bluming, Inosanto, Adam Hsu and so many other, I will take that as a huge compliment !
:D

JON BLUMING is a racist thug. Who seems to make a habit of badmouthing Mas. Oyama, after his death, of course.

If he hadn't come across karate, then he would have probably spent most of his life in jail.

ADAM HSU, is a traditional northern shaolin kung fu sifu, according to what I have read, yes, according to what I read, as I did not have the time to "crosstrain" in his school:D.

Traditionally, some kung fu masters would practice and gain expert knowledge in a number of kung fu styles. You can call that crosstraining if you want, and actually, you would be right. You could even call each style of kung fu as coming about as a result of crosstraining and you would be right too.

The difference is, and that is, as far as the individual styles are concerned there are distinct concepts and principles that are adhered too.

Also, most times, if not always a base style would be studied and its applications, theories and concepts understood and assimilated before the next kung fu style was approached.

Rather than, "I will learn Wing Chun for close range", "TKD for kicks and long range", "bjj for ground fighting and Muay Thai for contact fighting and elbow/knee techniques" AND I will study, all or, most of the above at the SAME TIME and of course, "to hell with their clashing principles and concepts".

Both are very different approaches and will give results depending on what you are looking for. Generally, the kung fu approach is a longer term approach where it takes longer to get the results, but they will stay with you longer as well, with other added health benefits.

DAN INOSANTO, is a talent and a warrior and is a relevant example. What I am not sure about is wether he deserves to have his name associated with yours.:D

Maybe you should take out Inosanto and Hsu from your list and then add other examples such as the world famous Grand Master of IHSNT (I Hate Siu Nim Tao)lineage of Wing Chun, t_niehoff.

You know, in another thread, he said to another (traditional) kung fu poster, that he would throw him around like a "rag doll". To do that to another human being requires a lot of realistic and full contact training with skilled and resisting rag dolls. This guy is a serious crosstrainer alright.:rolleyes:

His lineage of Wing Chun, has everything, BJJ, Thai Boxing, Wrestling, Western Boxing, Sambo, and a little bit of samba together with salsa, as well (just in case he gets attacked by a latino dancer, you know).

He also crosstrains in cooking, you have to see him using kitchen appliances to defend himself, it is an incredible site and he does it very realistically and of course, with full contact.

However, note that he doesn't do tradtional chinese cooking as that is too complicated. He wants it fast, fast and very fast so he will only cook fast food such as hamburgers and hot dogs.

These types of foods are good, honest and MODERN american recepies and not some old fashioned mambo jumbo food that actually has nutrients and is Yin Yang balanced.

He will then take the vitamins and nutrients in the form of capsules, that is the modern thing to do. I mean who has the time to chew on a piece lettuce nowadays, when he can be spending that time crosstraining his Wing Chun with Bangladeshi Wrestling?? Tell me who? Who? Who?

He apparently trains realistically and full contact, even on a tranpolin, don't you laugh, because you never know, if an evil clown attacks him and his family during a circus show, then he can protect himself, having acquired his skills by numerous full contact fight sessions against resisting circus clowns.
Now,don't give me that look, you know that it can happen.:D

[That is why crosstrainers are so successfull, they train for every eventuallity, forgetting that perhaps within the concepts and principles which they so consistently ignore, they may find the solutions to many of their "scenario" questions].

Now, that is the kind of people you need on your list of crosstrainers, not people like Dan Inosanto. Actually, you can keep Jon Bluming on your list, if you have affinity towards people of his character, then that is fine I suppose.:D

On a more serious note, as I have stated before, if it makes you or anyone else, happy to train in styles that have clashing principles & concepts, then that is fine, and depending on who you are and how you do it, then it can work for you and probably a lot quicker than it would in TCMA, but, don't call it Wing Chun, just because this style, or aspects of it happen to be somewhere in the mix.

This is a fair point.:)

[sanjuro_ronin]

You are BOWING alot for someone who claims NOT to be a traditionalist. Aren't you modernists supposed to shake hands and say something like,"hey buddy!" ?




It is not what I THINK constitutes groundfighting that matters,but what MAS. OYAMA thought, when he wrote the book, 'This is Karate' and included a GROUND FIGHTING section in it.
So, save all your "bowing" for him.




As you can see, I am not the one who is looking bad right now.



Which BOOK did you read that in? And is it a better book than mine?:D Or were you behind the closed doors with him?

Having said that, I personally don't think that mixing judo and karate together is a bad idea, that is if your karate had the throwing techniques taken out of it for whatever reason.

These arts seem to complement each other much better than some other mixes that I have seen.

I am merely pointing out the "changes" that have occured in many TMAs and that many arts, not just Wing Chun are more "complete" than first thought by many "experts", who have not practiced and/or researched them deeply enough.

My point was, that there were ground fighting techniques in kyokushinkai some decades ago, but they don't seem to be there now. I have even talked to an older gentleman who was a kyokushinkai practitioner in the early 70's, here in london, and according to him they would also train ground fighting techniques as well.

Furthermore, there is a TRADITIONAL Okinawan Goju-ryu school here in London, run by Sensei Gavin Mulholland (you can google him, for more info on his school) and they also practice ground fighting.

For those who don't know, a lot of Kyokushinkai comes from Goju-ryu.

I hope that my point has been (finally) understood.



You mean that there is even more ground fighting then shown in that book? Oh that is great.

But,You are right, these books don't even scratch the surface, after all Mas. Oyama, their author, was ONLY the founder of Kyokushinkai and had dedicated his life to training and fighting with his karate (and pparently he even defeated some US wrestlers,boxers and judokai in the 1950's).

If I really wanted a deep knowledge of kyokushinkai (without training in it myself), I would instead go and ask Kyokushinkai people who had dedicated their lives to crosstraining.

Yes, that is it, that is what I would do, yes, ask the crosstrainers about specific styles in which they do not possess profound knowledge. It makes sense.:rolleyes:

The crosstrainers are in fashion nowadays, or didn't you know. We can see them all over the place, even here in the Kung Fu/Wing Chun threads, giving out their "wisdom" AND for free, I might add, with gems like, "forms don't work";"Siu lim Tao is useless"; and so on. We are even told that things can be added to our core style of wing chun, without adhering to its principles and concepts.

Afterall, who needs principles if you crosstrain. Crosstraining is good for everything, it can even cure upset stomacks, headaches and Irritable bowl Syndrom. And that is because it is new and very hightech, not like those old masters in China, who hadn't heard of vitamin pills,running machines and groundfighting.




Oh yeah, what other techniques have been taken out this time?

Oh, yes I just remembered, I heard that some kyokushinkai schools had done away with the Kata practice and are concentrating solely on fighting training (kickboxing?).

And the "evolution" continues.:mad:





JON BLUMING is a racist thug. Who seems to make a habit of badmouthing Mas. Oyama, after his death, of course.

If he hadn't come across karate, then he would have probably spent most of his life in jail.

ADAM HSU, is a traditional northern shaolin kung fu sifu, according to what I have read, yes, according to what I read, as I did not have the time to "crosstrain" in his school:D.

Traditionally, some kung fu masters would practice and gain expert knowledge in a number of kung fu styles. You can call that crosstraining if you want, and actually, you would be right. You could even call each style of kung fu as coming about as a result of crosstraining and you would be right too.

The difference is, and that is, as far as the individual styles are concerned there are distinct concepts and principles that are adhered too.

Also, most times, if not always a base style would be studied and its applications, theories and concepts understood and assimilated before the next kung fu style was approached.

Rather than, "I will learn Wing Chun for close range", "TKD for kicks and long range", "bjj for ground fighting and Muay Thai for contact fighting and elbow/knee techniques" AND I will study, all or, most of the above at the SAME TIME and of course, "to hell with their clashing principles and concepts".

Both are very different approaches and will give results depending on what you are looking for. Generally, the kung fu approach is a longer term approach where it takes longer to get the results, but they will stay with you longer as well, with other added health benefits.

DAN INOSANTO, is a talent and a warrior and is a relevant example. What I am not sure about is wether he deserves to have his name associated with yours.:D

Maybe you should take out Inosanto and Hsu from your list and then add other examples such as the world famous Grand Master of IHSNT (I Hate Siu Nim Tao)lineage of Wing Chun, t_niehoff.

You know, in another thread, he said to another (traditional) kung fu poster, that he would throw him around like a "rag doll". To do that to another human being requires a lot of realistic and full contact training with skilled and resisting rag dolls. This guy is a serious crosstrainer alright.:rolleyes:

His lineage of Wing Chun, has everything, BJJ, Thai Boxing, Wrestling, Western Boxing, Sambo, and a little bit of samba together with salsa, as well (just in case he gets attacked by a latino dancer, you know).

He also crosstrains in cooking, you have to see him using kitchen appliances to defend himself, it is an incredible site and he does it very realistically and of course, with full contact.

However, note that he doesn't do tradtional chinese cooking as that is too complicated. He wants it fast, fast and very fast so he will only cook fast food such as hamburgers and hot dogs.

These types of foods are good, honest and MODERN american recepies and not some old fashioned mambo jumbo food that actually has nutrients and is Yin Yang balanced.

He will then take the vitamins and nutrients in the form of capsules, that is the modern thing to do. I mean who has the time to chew on a piece lettuce nowadays, when he can be spending that time crosstraining his Wing Chun with Bangladeshi Wrestling?? Tell me who? Who? Who?

He apparently trains realistically and full contact, even on a tranpolin, don't you laugh, because you never know, if an evil clown attacks him and his family during a circus show, then he can protect himself, having acquired his skills by numerous full contact fight sessions against resisting circus clowns.
Now,don't give me that look, you know that it can happen.:D

[That is why crosstrainers are so successfull, they train for every eventuallity, forgetting that perhaps within the concepts and principles which they so consistently ignore, they may find the solutions to many of their "scenario" questions].

Now, that is the kind of people you need on your list of crosstrainers, not people like Dan Inosanto. Actually, you can keep Jon Bluming on your list, if you have affinity towards people of his character, then that is fine I suppose.:D

On a more serious note, as I have stated before, if it makes you or anyone else, happy to train in styles that have clashing principles & concepts, then that is fine, and depending on who you are and how you do it, then it can work for you and probably a lot quicker than it would in TCMA, but, don't call it Wing Chun, just because this style, or aspects of it happen to be somewhere in the mix.

This is a fair point.:)

You have crossed that fine line.
I know that the internet gives people a nice ego boost, but to call someone a racist thug is slander, period.
One any other board you would be banned for slander.
You have zero clue what Kyokushin is, ZERO.
You have ZERO clue about Jon Bluming, and I would suggest you keep your slanderous ways to yourself.
You have shown yourself over and over to not only be ignorant, but now hateful and slanderous.
I take back what I said about thinking you naive.
You are an idiot that has zero clue about anything Mr.7 years training.

You are in London? how close are you to Scott Morris?
Maybe he can enlighten you a bit.

[CFT]

You are BOWING alot for someone who claims NOT to be a traditionalist.That is a pretty long rant and I'm not going to reply to it. Just to say that sanjuro_ronin has posted MANY times that he considers himself to be a "traditionalist", FWIW.

[HardWork8]

No. As I recall, you MENTIONED there were WC ground grappling movements that you have NOT learnt or seen but you were sure they were really good.

Well you "recall" wrong. Maybe you should crosstrain in some memory enhancement courses.

I have not learnt the Wing Chun GROUND FIGHTING, but I HAVE seen it practiced by sifu with his senior students. It exists and it is part of the curriculum of this lineage.

i.e. You haven't even seen them. Since others on here hadn't seen them either they are pretty much invisible! You wanted everyone to believe you when you haven't seen them yourself.
So why would you conclude WC has groundfighting based on something you've only heard about? Why would others accept that based just on you telling them that someone else told you that WC has groundfighting?

I have not learnt the Wing Chun GROUND FIGHTING, as I had not reached that level when I left Brazil. However, I have seen it taught by sifu at an advanced level. It exists, just that it does in some other kung fu styles and lineages, so live with it.


But somehow it's others being "too modern" to disagree with you.

Not too modern, just too ignorant, thinking that systems that have been around in China for a millenia did not forsee the fight going to the ground and hence make the necessary provisions.

There's faith which goes only so far and then there's just too much.

As I stated, I have seen Wing Chun ground fighting being practiced, so it exists, but your faith,which dictates that it doesn't exist , because you yourself haven't come accross it, does however go too far.

Being from the mainland shouldn't mean that it would be hard to find these days.

Why, how many good unadulterated Hong Kong/Yip Man Wing Chun schools have you come across, among the thousands that exist, nowadays?


Didn't you say it was mainland WC but now only in Brazil or something?

Actually our Grand Master, Liang Jie Zhou, used to teach it in Paris, France where my sifu learnt it. According to my sifu, there were two other disciples, one english and the other french. He has no idea what became of them.

Grand Master is currently living in Mainland China.

My sifu will be in London on May the 11th, to teach a seminar of Siu Lam Wing Chun, where the ground fighting aspects will be explained among other distinct characteristics of this lineage.
Some one should be posting the details soon on this site.

I am sure that you and others like you can't wait to come and enhance your knowledge ;)

[Nick Forrer]

My sifu will be in London on May the 11th, to teach a seminar of Siu Lam Wing Chun, where the ground fighting aspects will be explained among other distinct characteristics of this lineage.
Some one should be posting the details soon on this site.

I am sure that you and others like you can't wait to come and enhance your knowledge ;)

I will be happy to come to this seminar if it is in london and will write a review on this forum. Please post the details when you have them.

[Nick Forrer]

This one right?

http://www.gumtree.com/london/48/20421448.html

[HardWork8]

It was on that stupid WC Grappling mega-thread last year (not several years ago)!

The first time that I mentioned this aspect of wing chun was in another forum site/forum a few years ago.

Even then I was "set upon" by that forums self professed ("modern" and new and "improved" Wing Chun expert) as well as couple of other "masters" of all trades. Why? Because, they hadn't seen it or heard of it, so it didn't exist.:rolleyes:

It quickly went to hell after HardWork8 put his views about Shaolin WC ground fighting being awesome.

Can you kindly direct us to the link where I say that WC ground fighting is "awesome". What I said, in answer to the thread starter,was that it exists.
Some HFY guys also said that existed too. Others disagreed, because they "hadn't seen it".


"PS. Haven't learnt any yet. Should be really excellent."

And you ain't gonna learn it either, not with that attitude.

If I recall correctly, the thread was debating wether there were ground fighting in Wing Chun and not wether I, Hardwork8, had any experience in it. Just as it seems that there were groundfighting techniques in kyokushinkai, which were later "forgotten". the fact that, I myself have never practiced kyokushinkai not its ground fighting techniques, does not unvalidate that statement and the fact that these techniques were part of the training in the old days.

On certain things that HardWork8 says, I'm somewhat in agreement but this ground fighting stuff is another story. It's kinda pointless discussing it if no one in the conversation has even seen it.

I have seen it. Not trained in it, but I have seen it and it exists and is part of the training curriculum of this lineage.

[HardWork8]

That is a pretty long rant and I'm not going to reply to it. Just to say that sanjuro_ronin has posted MANY times that he considers himself to be a "traditionalist", FWIW.

He can consider himself whatever he wants. The fact is that he is practicing a combination of more than half a dozen martial arts at the same time, including such classics like western boxing and Jeet Kune Do, and we all know how traditional that is.

He also crosstrains in arts that have clashing principles and concepts. Doesn't seem like a very traditional approach to me, but if he wants to call it that then that is fine.

However, as stated before. This type of approach will give valid short term results and is suitable for those who like it, but they shouldn't call it kung fu or traditional.

Hypophetically speaking, you can drink good wine and be a connoseur of that drink. You can do the same with good whisky. The minute you mix them together then you are neither a wine drinker nor a whisky drinker, because you are drinking a "****tail".

If your passion is drinking ****tails that are a mixture of wine and whisky, then you should not call yourself a wine nor a whisky drinker or connoseur. You may however, for all intents and purposes call yourself a ****tail expert, which is valid in its own right, but again you will lack expert knowledge when it comes to the individual drinks.

I know that the above is not a perfect example, but I hope that it got my point across.
:)

[sanjuro_ronin]

He can consider himself whatever he wants. The fact is that he is practicing a combination of more than half a dozen martial arts at the same time, including such classics like western boxing and Jeet Kune Do, and we all know how traditional that is.

He also crosstrains in arts that have clashing principles and concepts. Doesn't seem like a very traditional approach to me, but if he wants to call it that then that is fine.

However, as stated before. This type of approach will give valid short term results and is suitable for those who like it, but they shouldn't call it kung fu or traditional.

Hypophetically speaking, you can drink good wine and be a connoseur of that drink. You can do the same with good whisky. The minute you mix them together then you are neither a wine drinker nor a whisky drinker, because you are drinking a "****tail".

If your passion is drinking ****tails that are a mixture of wine and whisky, then you should not call yourself a wine nor a whisky drinker or connoseur. You may however, for all intents and purposes call yourself a ****tail expert, which is valid in its own right, but again you will lack expert knowledge when it comes to the individual drinks.

I know that the above is not a perfect example, but I hope that it got my point across.
:)

Once again you show your total lack of understanding and experience.
What I do, not that you have any clue, is what has been done by tradionalists from the very beginning.
That fact that you don't know what speaks volumes.

[HardWork8]

This one right?

http://www.gumtree.com/london/48/20421448.html

Yes. I have been told that there may be more details added to that info, but that is the one. I hope that you can make it as it should be an interesting one.:)

[CFT]

If your passion is drinking ****tails that are a mixture of wine and whisky, then you should not call yourself a wine nor a whisky drinker or connoseur. You may however, for all intents and purposes call yourself a ****tail expert, which is valid in its own right, but again you will lack expert knowledge when it comes to the individual drinks.

I know that the above is not a perfect example, but I hope that it got my point across.
:)It is a far from perfect example. To make a good c0cktail you need to appreciate the combination of the constituent flavours. You don't mix and hope for the best. You might need to experiment with the mix to arrive at what works.

[Vankuen]

Hey guys, let's not turn this current debate into a mob-mentality based ****ing match. I try to take comments and disregard the irrelevant name calling and ad-homenum attacks. HOWEVER, I do like to take certain things that were said and ask for logical and factual information to back it up. That being said....


He also crosstrains in arts that have clashing principles and concepts. Doesn't seem like a very traditional approach to me, but if he wants to call it that then that is fine.
I am trying to figure out why you think that TCMA and TMA in general always have to have the same principle and concept inlaid within it's entire curriculum. The only style I know of that does this is wing chun. All the other TMA that I have gained proficiency in do not follow a particular doctrine for EVERY technique used. Additionally, fighting using only one principle is severly limiting. Why would you want to limit yourself in a fight where anything can happen? You may be fighting a person wherein the centerline theory isn't working. If you don't know how to fight any other way, how will you adapt to the situation?


However, as stated before. This type of approach will give valid short term results and is suitable for those who like it, but they shouldn't call it kung fu or traditional.

Can you give some data to back this one up? The longevity of the results have nothing to do with where the source for the technique comes from. The longevity of the results come from the individual's dedication to his or her training, i.e. the consistency and the approach to the training. Many "traditionalists" never practice against resisting opponents, and so why would you think that those with lackluster training regimens would achieve real world results at all?

Lastly, kung fu is any skill that is acquired through hard work. If someone doesn't know the side kick, but then learns it over time and practice...eventually gaining such mastery of it that it becomes his most formiddable weapon, you wouldn't call that kung fu?

[Ultimatewingchun]

"He also crosstrains in arts that have clashing principles and concepts. Doesn't seem like a very traditional approach to me, but if he wants to call it that then that is fine." (LessWork)


***DIFFERENT PRINCIPLES often apply in different places, ie.- standup/clinch/ground.

DUH !!!:rolleyes:

Sanjuro is right: Your lack of understanding on this issue speaks volumes; hence, you're interested in fiding a nice, cookie cutter, one-size-fits-all approach to fighting.

Therefore: LESS WORK. :p :cool:

But that doesn't cut it. :(

[Vankuen]

^^^




yup.

[LoneTiger108]

In response to HardWork8
Once again you show your total lack of understanding and experience.
What I do, not that you have any clue, is what has been done by tradionalists from the very beginning.

What is happening to this thread? I think sanjuro hit the nail on the head here, as I for one understand what the modern Chinese refer to as 'Wushu'! ;) In an old Wu Bin book, he referred to 33 Chinese styles at the time. All have more things in common than not imho, and Modern Wushu is a combination of many of these styles. Not possible without the Traditionalists imho!

Mixed Martial Arts practices have been going on forever, however you you look at it. Some people refer to 'absorbing what is useful' where others call that 'stealing'. Most principles and concepts are 'identical' and it's only the language variations that confuse us westerners, something the Chinese don't tend to worry about (if they can read!) due to their range of choice!

Now we have more choices in the west, and have mixed non-Chinese Martial Arts with Chinese based ones and sometimes avoid the Chinese ways altogether. Its only when we close ourselves off to outside influences that we drift off into our own, very individual, very unique little world. I know this from experience, as I too have 'served' a Sifu. But he never told me to close my eyes and ears to anyone, especially when I venture into the public domain!

What I'd like to know is 'can a fighter with no teaching knowledge even teach at all?' :rolleyes: Hmmm...

[sanjuro_ronin]

Even though this is in the WC forum, this is not a WC thread, it is a general view thread, but as most things go, threads tend to take on a life of their own.
And the issue of cross training is one that you either agree with or you don't and it does, in some ways, fall into this thread because many people end up cross training because of the lack, or preceived lack, of something, and in many cases it is sparring or some sort of "alive" ( yes I hate that word too) fighting.

[Lucas]

A long time ago, there was this temple. We can call it Shaolin.

What we can call China, was viewed my most all as the entire world. As it was known to the people in China. The middle or central kingdom.


This Shaolin Temple eventually became a centering for many of the "world's" martial arts.

The entire world, as it was known, was drawn to this temple for martial aspects. Many masters would visit and share and learn knowledge.

The world is simply larger than the Chinese had previously believed.

If one were to follow this originally intended tradition, one would see many other styles represented in this fashion. Not just those of Chinese origin. But those of any and all origins.

This was a tradition that began, yet over time was lost. Yet is today we see this trend emerging from the dust of those long dead centuries.

The idea being that each person is different. To have a very large degree of material to choose from, to better accomidate each individuals personal fighting preference and needs, is a great way to create adept warriors. Provided the sifting can be done well, and the correct lessons learned, one can accumulate a plethora of martial knowledge from varying sources. At which point a fighter can find himself, and focus accordingly.

[Vankuen]

The idea being that each person is different. To have a very large degree of material to choose from, to better accomidate each individuals personal fighting preference and needs, is a great way to create adept warriors. Provided the sifting can be done well, and the correct lessons learned, one can accumulate a plethora of martial knowledge from varying sources. At which point a fighter can find himself, and focus accordingly.


I would use this as my quote at the bottom if it weren't as long as it is! Good post.

[HardWork8]

You have crossed that fine line.
I know that the internet gives people a nice ego boost, but to call someone a racist thug is slander, period.

That is it, direct the people's attention away from all the valid points I made in that last post. Yes, the statements that destroyed your argument.

Go to YouTube and search "Jon Blumming interview" and see how he himself describes his character, before he entered the martial arts.

In an interview that appears in the Bullshido.net, he states to the effect that eventhough he follows some traditions and ettiquettes, they have nothing to do with "chinese or japanese bull****", his words not mine. If that is not a racist remark, then I don't know what is?

Pay attention to how he generally comes across in that interview.

He doesn't have that many kind words about Oyama either, as I stated in my previous post.

However, on the plus side he seems to know about fighting and unlike you, he knows how to mix relevant martial arts training together.

One any other board you would be banned for slander.

Yes, that is it, try and get me banned because you haven't got a clue about the history of the art that you practice. Which proves my point about some (not by any means, all), cross-trainers.

You have zero clue what Kyokushin is, ZERO.

It seems that as far as the history of this art is concerned, I know something that you didn't.

Now, don't be so upset, the book, "This is Karate", the one that you have, but have not yet read, presumably because cross-training in 9 different arts does not give you time to do anything else (I hope that you brush your teeth though), was NOT WRITTEN BY ME, it was WRITTEN BY MAS. OYAMA, THE FOUNDER OF KYOKUSHINKAI.

So why don't you go to some temple and try and contact his ghost and tell him that he knows ZERO about kyokushinkai?

You have ZERO clue about Jon Bluming, and I would suggest you keep your slanderous ways to yourself.

Check out the references I provided on Jon Bluming and get back to me. And remember that no one is saying that he is bad at what he does. He has a well earned reputation as a martial arts pioneer.

You have shown yourself over and over to not only be ignorant, but now hateful and slanderous.
I take back what I said about thinking you naive.

That is it, keep trying to take people's attention away from my last post thta was addressed to you.

You are an idiot that has zero clue about anything Mr.7 years training.

So says, "Mr I know all about kyokushinkai". It is all about quality not always the time and the QUANTITY of arts one practices.

You are in London? how close are you to Scott Morris?
Maybe he can enlighten you a bit.

I didn't think that you modern types were into enlightenment?

[Edmund]

Well you "recall" wrong. Maybe you should crosstrain in some memory enhancement courses.

I have not learnt the Wing Chun GROUND FIGHTING, but I HAVE seen it practiced by sifu with his senior students. It exists and it is part of the curriculum of this lineage.

I have not learnt the Wing Chun GROUND FIGHTING, as I had not reached that level when I left Brazil. However, I have seen it taught by sifu at an advanced level. It exists, just that it does in some other kung fu styles and lineages, so live with it.


Well in that case, I'm sorry I recalled your argument wrongly.
You've seen it but haven't learnt any.


As I stated, I have seen Wing Chun ground fighting being practiced, so it exists, but your faith,which dictates that it doesn't exist , because you yourself haven't come accross it, does however go too far.

LOL. No I'm willing to believe that stuff exists that I haven't seen. I'd be an idiot otherwise.


My sifu will be in London on May the 11th, to teach a seminar of Siu Lam Wing Chun, where the ground fighting aspects will be explained among other distinct characteristics of this lineage.
Some one should be posting the details soon on this site.

I am sure that you and others like you can't wait to come and enhance your knowledge ;)

I'm fully open to learning something new. You actually don't seem to be as open to learning new things as I am.


Can you kindly direct us to the link where I say that WC ground fighting is "awesome". What I said, in answer to the thread starter,was that it exists.
Some HFY guys also said that existed too. Others disagreed, because they "hadn't seen it".


Well I can quote you directly thanks to archive searching (Post 81 of the Wing Chun Grappling thread):
"You misunderstand, Wing Chun principles may be superior or they may not be, but they are DIFFERENT. In my opinion their principles are superior and more profound than those of judo and bjj, but you don't have to agree."

Your opinion carries a lot less weight when you also state you haven't LEARNT the WC ground principles that you believe are superior.

How can anyone in the conversation agree with your opinion about superiority when they haven't learnt any of these WC groundfighting skills (AND you haven't)?



And you ain't gonna learn it either, not with that attitude.


:) I was paraphrasing your opinion not stating my own.
You argued that WC grappling was superior to cross-training in a grappling style when you haven't even learnt any of it.

[Edmund]

Just curious, do those of you who use the "jack-of-all-trades" terminology consider someone who gains proficiency in various systems to be deemed as such, or just someone who takes bits and pieces from various systems as such?

I didn't think there was a difference to be honest. I've done both, learned entire systems before moving on, and sometimes just portions. Depends on how the training went, where the military moved me, or how quickly I could beat the teacher.

The full saying is that "the jack of all trades is a master of none".
ie. If you try to learn a little of everything you end up not proficient at anything.

[Vankuen]

Yea...I've heard the saying, but the users of the phrasing may have different ideas as to the meaning of it...so I just wanted to make sure.

I think it's a cliche more than anything else...but understand it's probably true more often than not. But you can absolutely master a technique, or concept in fighting even though you've not learned the entire system that the technique came from. It again depends on the training of it and it's practicial application.

I just think it's best to learn as much as possible, and have fun doing it. As long as a person knows all ranges of combat, regardless of the style(s) they should be alright.

[HardWork8]

Once again you show your total lack of understanding and experience.

You mean like the lack of understanding that you showed regarding Oyama's book, This is Karate ?

What I do, not that you have any clue, is what has been done by tradionalists from the very beginning.

First you were a "Dan Inosanto" and now you are a "Funakoshi". Very interesting. Those 2 have a lot "in common".

Again, there is the "traditional cross-training" undertaken by masters, that consisted of arts that complemented one's core art. If in some cases some arts did not compliment the core art, then they were changed and systemised. That is why if one sees most kung fu styles in action then he will recognize that it is kung fu, even if he cannot identify the individual style.

Of course, this person has to have some basic knowledge of kung fu to make this identification ;).

Wing Chun itself has a mixture of influences, including the Crane, Snake and even the Tiger. Shaolin Five Animals style, which everyone has heard of, has, as the name implies, the 5 animal influences. The cross-training that brought about these styles has very little to do with the type of modern cross training undertaken nowadays.

BUT, again as I stated before, if you are happy with it then that is fine, it is valid and most people who practice this way can make the often-trained techniques work in combat situations, no argument from me there.

I take issue only when it is called, in this case Wing Chun, or any other TCMA.

That fact that you don't know what speaks volumes.

I hope that you are not referring to "volumes" of books;).

[AndrewS]

Re: this crosstraining clusterf*ck of an 'argument'.

The initial point of this thread is just as pertinent to this specific silliness as to its original generalization.

You cannot learn to fight without fighting.

To learn to fight well you must fight other quality people regularly. Shy of taking the professional, Thai-born, MT approach (fighting whatever opponent you get matched with in a ring 2-4x/mos for years while growing up, i.e. being Shonie Carter), in order to fight quality people regularly you must train with them regularly. The best and safest way to do this is to cross-train. Twice-weekly challenge matches are not a valid learning strategy for most people.

Andrew

[HardWork8]

Well in that case, I'm sorry I recalled your argument wrongly.

That is ok, mistakes happen.:)

You've seen it but haven't learnt any.

I have seen many things that I have not learnt, however, that does not mean that they do not exist.


LOL. No I'm willing to believe that stuff exists that I haven't seen.

Well, part of learning is through getting second hand info about things you haven't seen, wether it is in books, magazines, such as Kung Fu Magazine and word of mouth. So, please don't pretend that this concept is so strange.

I'd be an idiot otherwise.

Who knows, you may be or you may not.



I'm fully open to learning something new. You actually don't seem to be as open to learning new things as I am.

I learn something new everyday. We all have our ways. If I am going to add something to my core art, then I prefer it to make to fit with its principles and concepts .

Furthermore, I would like to have built up sufficient knowledge and understanding in it before make any additions. That is all I am saying.



Well I can quote you directly thanks to archive searching (Post 81 of the Wing Chun Grappling thread):
"You misunderstand, Wing Chun principles may be superior or they may not be, but they are DIFFERENT. In my opinion their principles are superior and more profound than those of judo and bjj, but you don't have to agree."

There you go, you have made another mistake. This statement refers to the my opinion to the GENERAL principles of Wing Chun as compared to the other arts mentioned and not the ground fighting techniques technique.

It would be silly to say that WC ground fighting is superior to any art that specializes in that area. The thread was started by someone who asked if WC ground fighting existed. The answer from me and a few others was YES IT DOES!


:) I was paraphrasing your opinion not stating my own.
You argued that WC grappling was superior to cross-training in a grappling style when you haven't even learnt any of it.

And, I was playing with your words, to lighten up the mood.:)

[Edmund]

Yea...I've heard the saying, but the users of the phrasing may have different ideas as to the meaning of it...so I just wanted to make sure.

I think it's a cliche more than anything else...but understand it's probably true more often than not. But you can absolutely master a technique, or concept in fighting even though you've not learned the entire system that the technique came from. It again depends on the training of it and it's practicial application.

I just think it's best to learn as much as possible, and have fun doing it. As long as a person knows all ranges of combat, regardless of the style(s) they should be alright.

Better than alright!

I don't think the Jack of All Trades/Master of None idea even applies to fighting. It's the Jack of All Trades that tends to fight better than the Master of One Trade!

Assume the well rounded person has enough skill to not get owned in the specialty of their opponent. Combine that with the ability to completely own them in a different range and they end up doing real well.

This is what I mentioned way back at the start of the thread, some complete newbies at MMA can destroy masters of Kung Fu by not playing to their opponent's strength.

Their striking may be weak as hell and they might have only a few days of grappling drills experience but it's a few *hundred* percent more grappling experience than a purely stand up fighter.

This happens in stand up as well. Some newbie who's only been kneeing and punching pads for a few lessons gets into a pub fight and beats up his attacker with just striking power.

[LoneTiger108]

A long time ago, there was this temple. We can call it Shaolin.

What we can call China, was viewed my most all as the entire world. As it was known to the people in China. The middle or central kingdom.


This Shaolin Temple eventually became a centering for many of the "world's" martial arts.

The entire world, as it was known, was drawn to this temple for martial aspects. Many masters would visit and share and learn knowledge.

The world is simply larger than the Chinese had previously believed.

If one were to follow this originally intended tradition, one would see many other styles represented in this fashion. Not just those of Chinese origin. But those of any and all origins.

This was a tradition that began, yet over time was lost. Yet is today we see this trend emerging from the dust of those long dead centuries.

I like the analogy, but seriuosly I hope you don't actually 'teach' these 'ideas'! :eek: Many things you said are familiar to me, but even I had to look at it all again and research more. Not to disprove anyone, but for my own piece of mind.

I generally have a problem with people who 'use' the Shaolin name to justify Martial Arts existence in the World. Martial Artists in India would not suggest that they come from Shaolin at all, the opposite in fact!

Let me try and explain. 'Shaolin' Temple was given it's name because of it's position, in the baby forests of bamboo. It was and still is a TEMPLE which mainly promotes Cha'n Buddhism. The gatherings you mention were manily of different leaders of Buddhist sects, and the problems they were solving were the difficulties of influencing Chinese Culture with Buddhism, a foreign religion. They were NOT Martial Artists at all!

Later, during harder times the Shaolin Temple was USED as a Library for the great Buddhist canons etc, and became a target for rebels and 'non-religious' folks. The Martial Artists who had 'hidden' there for whatever reason helped the monks to learn how to use this spiritual knowledge in a physical form and the 'Soldier Monk' was born.

What's interesting on a WCK level is the naming of certain halls where meetings and discussion took place, but it may only be a coincidence that the hall was called Weng Chun Tong. And if the hall was to be representative of it's name, no writing of minutes of any sort would have been allowed. Just verbal chit chat and brainstorming.

In respects to the Jack of all trade quote, look at the Buddhism we see in todays China as being from only 'one family'. The result of many families uniting ideas maybe, just as we done with Christianity and on a Martial level with modern MMA, no?

The thing is, back in them days I think that the Country itself was under threat, it's older cultures were trying to eradicate the new religions. This is why 'WHATEVER' the Shaolin Temple is known for today, one thing is for sure. You cannot be Shaolin, if you do not practice Cha'n (Zen). One reason there will never be a Shaloin Fighter enter an Olympic Competition I believe...

[sanjuro_ronin]

That is it, direct the people's attention away from all the valid points I made in that last post. Yes, the statements that destroyed your argument.

Go to YouTube and search "Jon Blumming interview" and see how he himself describes his character, before he entered the martial arts.

In an interview that appears in the Bullshido.net, he states to the effect that eventhough he follows some traditions and ettiquettes, they have nothing to do with "chinese or japanese bull****", his words not mine. If that is not a racist remark, then I don't know what is?

Pay attention to how he generally comes across in that interview.

He doesn't have that many kind words about Oyama either, as I stated in my previous post.

However, on the plus side he seems to know about fighting and unlike you, he knows how to mix relevant martial arts training together.



Yes, that is it, try and get me banned because you haven't got a clue about the history of the art that you practice. Which proves my point about some (not by any means, all), cross-trainers.



It seems that as far as the history of this art is concerned, I know something that you didn't.

Now, don't be so upset, the book, "This is Karate", the one that you have, but have not yet read, presumably because cross-training in 9 different arts does not give you time to do anything else (I hope that you brush your teeth though), was NOT WRITTEN BY ME, it was WRITTEN BY MAS. OYAMA, THE FOUNDER OF KYOKUSHINKAI.

So why don't you go to some temple and try and contact his ghost and tell him that he knows ZERO about kyokushinkai?



Check out the references I provided on Jon Bluming and get back to me. And remember that no one is saying that he is bad at what he does. He has a well earned reputation as a martial arts pioneer.



That is it, keep trying to take people's attention away from my last post thta was addressed to you.



So says, "Mr I know all about kyokushinkai". It is all about quality not always the time and the QUANTITY of arts one practices.



I didn't think that you modern types were into enlightenment?

Idiot, have you met the man?
I have.
Have you trained with the man?
I have.

History of Kyokushin...look up Kenji Kurozaki and close your yap.
What high rank do you hold in Kyokushin?
Oh that's right, you have 7 grand years of WC.
Richard.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I like the analogy, but seriuosly I hope you don't actually 'teach' these 'ideas'! :eek: Many things you said are familiar to me, but even I had to look at it all again and research more. Not to disprove anyone, but for my own piece of mind.

I generally have a problem with people who 'use' the Shaolin name to justify Martial Arts existence in the World. Martial Artists in India would not suggest that they come from Shaolin at all, the opposite in fact!

Let me try and explain. 'Shaolin' Temple was given it's name because of it's position, in the baby forests of bamboo. It was and still is a TEMPLE which mainly promotes Cha'n Buddhism. The gatherings you mention were manily of different leaders of Buddhist sects, and the problems they were solving were the difficulties of influencing Chinese Culture with Buddhism, a foreign religion. They were NOT Martial Artists at all!

Later, during harder times the Shaolin Temple was USED as a Library for the great Buddhist canons etc, and became a target for rebels and 'non-religious' folks. The Martial Artists who had 'hidden' there for whatever reason helped the monks to learn how to use this spiritual knowledge in a physical form and the 'Soldier Monk' was born.

What's interesting on a WCK level is the naming of certain halls where meetings and discussion took place, but it may only be a coincidence that the hall was called Weng Chun Tong. And if the hall was to be representative of it's name, no writing of minutes of any sort would have been allowed. Just verbal chit chat and brainstorming.

In respects to the Jack of all trade quote, look at the Buddhism we see in todays China as being from only 'one family'. The result of many families uniting ideas maybe, just as we done with Christianity and on a Martial level with modern MMA, no?

The thing is, back in them days I think that the Country itself was under threat, it's older cultures were trying to eradicate the new religions. This is why 'WHATEVER' the Shaolin Temple is known for today, one thing is for sure. You cannot be Shaolin, if you do not practice Cha'n (Zen). One reason there will never be a Shaloin Fighter enter an Olympic Competition I believe...

The work on the shaolin temple by Meir Shahar is quite good and very interesting to say the least, those shaoling guys were great cross traininers ;)

[sanjuro_ronin]

You mean like the lack of understanding that you showed regarding Oyama's book, This is Karate ?

Just in case anyone is wondering about the book and what groin ache is referring too, chapter 15 titled "lying down techniques" is about kyokushin counters to common attacks while on the ground and the opponent standing and while on the ground and the opponent trying to grapple you.
It can hardly be called "ground fighting" and the counters will work on only the crappiest of fighters and all those 4 pages were done to show kyokushin's "superiority" over judo LOL !
Oyama was a great marketing man, we all know that and his various books show that.
That Oyama was a huge proponent of cross training and actual fighting is also common knowldge, that a nice chunk of Oyama's 1st and 2nd generation students were also judokas is also well know fact.

End of story, thread high jack complete and I will not bother with this must point again.

Sorry Vankuen.

[CFT]

In an interview that appears in the Bullshido.net, he states to the effect that even though he follows some traditions and ettiquette, they have nothing to do with "chinese or japanese bull****", his words not mine. If that is not a racist remark, then I don't know what is?I've not seen the interview so I can't gauge the way he comes across. From just the text you have posted I would not say that was necessarily a racist remark by itself (I am Chinese myself). There are plenty of Chinese people who don't like some of the "old ways".

He doesn't have that many kind words about Oyama either, as I stated in my previous post.So? Are they racist or just disagreement with his ideas?

[Ali. R]

The Klan would love to have their old ways back too… Would that make them racist? :rolleyes:


Ali Rahim.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I've not seen the interview so I can't gauge the way he comes across. From just the text you have posted I would not say that was necessarily a racist remark by itself (I am Chinese myself). There are plenty of Chinese people who don't like some of the "old ways".

So? Are they racist or just disagreement with his ideas?

Bluming almost idolized Kenji Kurozaki and when Kurozaki and Oyama split in the early 70's, there was some "animosity transference".
Bluming had nothing but praise for Oyama when I met the man in the early 90's, though he still had issues with Oyama's showmanship and his lack of acknowledgement of Kurozaki.

Not sure how someone that held a japanese in such high regard as Bluming did Kurozaki and a few other kyokushin and judo men, could be viewed as "rascist".

[Vankuen]

Eh...it doesn't really matter. Hell I say racially derogatory remarks about asians all the time! But wait--I'm asian--so I guess that doesn't count.

What this guy said or didn't say, if it was in the context provided here, wasn't racist at all, just that he didn't agree with the asian crap as it was put. I don't agree with some of the asian crap either--doesn't make me racist.

Sanjuro...talk about whatever you want with regards to martial arts man...it's a forum. My topic has been long dissolved anyway. This thread is free to evolve as we see fit.

[LoneTiger108]

Sanjuro...talk about whatever you want with regards to martial arts man...it's a forum. My topic has been long dissolved anyway. This thread is free to evolve as we see fit.

Okay Vankuen, so I'm a Cha'n Buddhist Shaolin Monk who can teach you to fight, although I have done nothing but read the old canons of Buddhism and trained how to kick and punch a bag like a truck! I've also trained Iron Shirt, so can be hit like a truck too :D I've never had a fight, as my Religion forbids any use of violence.

This is fighting without fighting, surely? Would you train with me?

(Note: For people who don't know me, I am NOT a Shaolin Monk! But just using this example to highlight my previous post.)

[Lucas]

I like the analogy, but seriuosly I hope you don't actually 'teach' these 'ideas'! :eek: Many things you said are familiar to me, but even I had to look at it all again and research more. Not to disprove anyone, but for my own piece of mind.

I generally have a problem with people who 'use' the Shaolin name to justify Martial Arts existence in the World. Martial Artists in India would not suggest that they come from Shaolin at all, the opposite in fact!

Let me try and explain. 'Shaolin' Temple was given it's name because of it's position, in the baby forests of bamboo. It was and still is a TEMPLE which mainly promotes Cha'n Buddhism. The gatherings you mention were manily of different leaders of Buddhist sects, and the problems they were solving were the difficulties of influencing Chinese Culture with Buddhism, a foreign religion. They were NOT Martial Artists at all!

Later, during harder times the Shaolin Temple was USED as a Library for the great Buddhist canons etc, and became a target for rebels and 'non-religious' folks. The Martial Artists who had 'hidden' there for whatever reason helped the monks to learn how to use this spiritual knowledge in a physical form and the 'Soldier Monk' was born.

What's interesting on a WCK level is the naming of certain halls where meetings and discussion took place, but it may only be a coincidence that the hall was called Weng Chun Tong. And if the hall was to be representative of it's name, no writing of minutes of any sort would have been allowed. Just verbal chit chat and brainstorming.

In respects to the Jack of all trade quote, look at the Buddhism we see in todays China as being from only 'one family'. The result of many families uniting ideas maybe, just as we done with Christianity and on a Martial level with modern MMA, no?

The thing is, back in them days I think that the Country itself was under threat, it's older cultures were trying to eradicate the new religions. This is why 'WHATEVER' the Shaolin Temple is known for today, one thing is for sure. You cannot be Shaolin, if you do not practice Cha'n (Zen). One reason there will never be a Shaloin Fighter enter an Olympic Competition I believe...

Simply an analogy, nothing more.

[Lucas]

Yea...I've heard the saying, but the users of the phrasing may have different ideas as to the meaning of it...so I just wanted to make sure.

I think it's a cliche more than anything else...but understand it's probably true more often than not. But you can absolutely master a technique, or concept in fighting even though you've not learned the entire system that the technique came from. It again depends on the training of it and it's practicial application.

I just think it's best to learn as much as possible, and have fun doing it. As long as a person knows all ranges of combat, regardless of the style(s) they should be alright.

Kind of on the same note:

My Taiji teacher told me once that a lot of guys back in the day, and still today, would pick one technique. Usually a punch or so. and work it and work it and work it.

Get that one technique so good you could literally kill with it.

Of course not to ignore all the other important factors of combat, but to have that one thing they can always rely on to be done perfectly.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Of course not to ignore all the other important factors of combat, but to have that one thing they can always rely on to be done perfectly.

And that is the core of cross training the the "difference" between that and MMA.
Cross training in various arts allows you to fill in the gabs of your CORE system.
Think of a well rounded specialist.
Mirco for example, or Lidell, striking specialists ( MT and Kempo respectively I think) that have added grappling and ground work to their game.

That is the point, no way you are gonna ever get the kind of highly specialized ground work of BJJ in anythign other than BJJ, so you cross train in it and add what you need to your striking arsenal.

[Grilo]

My 2 cents.

Here is the thing. To answer your first direct question. Yes, one can learn to fight without fighting. All things being equal or not. MA are a mind set, reflex, thought process, reaction, muscle memory, or way of life. Knowing what something does and how it is applied is the idea. Applying it is the action. You do not necessarily need to act to know that what you know can be used.

To use the Twin example one suggested earlier. If Twin A trains but does not fight and thinks about the art all day and how all the movements apply and interact all they need to do is react to the stimuli of a punch. If they trained sucker punch drills they can control their flinch reaction and respond with a number of attacks, blocks, counters.

Twin B due to sparing may only train what they find useful, ie a left jab left arm shoulder throw and even though they both have the same training and one spars twin b only applies the moves they feel comfortable with or like doing and only thinks about the moves they like rather than the whole skill set.

On another note the "basics" as everyone says usually are the first and last "forms" a student must know to become a "master" at an art. I have talked to many masters of many arts and the all said usually their last test was to do the fist form they learned. why the basics and everything one needs will never be perfect. If full contact was what it takes to become a master of an art does the Sifu test have sparing in it?

One only has to understand to apply. I can teach you the mechanics of anything but i do not have to be able to do it.

I am starting to ramble and will end my opinion. For one to understand a system they can apply it no matter what. If you do not understand why you do SLT for example you will never be able to use it in a full contact event. Full contact is not a physical test it is a mental test of understanding yourself and what you believe to be what you know.

[HardWork8]

Idiot,

I think we both better tone down our posting manner. It seems that some of the more sensitive "full contact", "crosstraining" and "tough & realistic" warriors have had their fragile feelings hurt recently, leading to complaints to moderators.

So lets just keep things civil or at least more civil.

have you met the man?

I don't train karate, but if I ever do, then I may look him up. I am an admirer of Kyokushinkai Karate, as well as a few other styles.

I have.

Was it behind closed doors or was it like the other thousands of karate-kai who have met him?

Have you trained with the man?

You mean crosstrained my Wing Chun with him? No, I haven't

I have.
Then good for you. That must have improved your Wing Chun immensly.
You forget, I said I believe that he has a well earned reputation as a martial arts pioneer and as I said before, his mixing of judo with kyokushinkai make a lot more sense than many other combinations that I have come across ;).

If you are not going to site my positive comments, then it will be difficult to discuss anything with you.

History of Kyokushin...look up Kenji Kurozaki and close your yap.

I am sorry, but in that interview that is how he comes across. Replace the words "chinese and japanese" with "african" or even"american" and see if you don't see why I have come to that conclusion.

What high rank do you hold in Kyokushin?

No rank, of course. I do however have various academic diplomas that enable me to read and understand books. I know, that is a rare thing nowadays.


Oh that's right, you have 7 grand years of WC.
Richard.

Don't be jeaulous, one day you will find a real Wing Chun school and might be able to do the same.:)

[HardWork8]

Bluming almost idolized Kenji Kurozaki and when Kurozaki and Oyama split in the early 70's, there was some "animosity transference".
Bluming had nothing but praise for Oyama when I met the man in the early 90's, though he still had issues with Oyama's showmanship and his lack of acknowledgement of Kurozaki.

Not sure how someone that held a japanese in such high regard as Bluming did Kurozaki and a few other kyokushin and judo men, could be viewed as "rascist".


I see your point, but that is how he comes across in that interview. If instead of "asians" he had referred to "blacks" in that manner, then I think my point would have been better understood.

[HardWork8]

It is a far from perfect example. To make a good c0cktail you need to appreciate the combination of the constituent flavours. You don't mix and hope for the best. You might need to experiment with the mix to arrive at what works.

That means one has to go on and experiment with the mix for many years. You can make a good or a bad drink in a few minutes, where you can spend years training in irrelevant arts. Furthemore, I don't have to train for years in TKD to discover that it is an irrelevant art to crosstrain in.

However, I know White Crane kung fu, would be a relevant art for a Wing Chun exponent, BUT only after he has gained some degree of expertise in Wing Chun.

Again, to each his own.

[HardWork8]

I am trying to figure out why you think that TCMA and TMA in general always have to have the same principle and concept inlaid within it's entire curriculum.

Many were designed that way and were made to work. One look at Tai Chi or Hsing I, will tell you that they follow certain principles, albeit many internal ones that no one here seems to value.

Even looking generally across a cross section of kung fu styles one can see common principles, such as rootedness, the upper body structure during the execution of punches (shoulders and so on); breathing and so on. And that is EXACTLY the difference between the "crosstraining" that created these styles and the crosstraining promoted today, where in many (but not all) cases the arts that are crosstrained are irrelevant to each other as far as their principles are concerned.

That is my point. However, and YET AGAIN, if that is what works for you, then go ahead and continue by all means it that type of training but don't call it kung fu.

The only style I know of that does this is wing chun. All the other TMA that I have gained proficiency in do not follow a particular doctrine for EVERY technique used. Additionally, fighting using only one principle is severly limiting. Why would you want to limit yourself in a fight where anything can happen? You may be fighting a person wherein the centerline theory isn't working. If you don't know how to fight any other way, how will you adapt to the situation?

In an era of Mcdojos/kwoons, why always blame the art, if things go wrong and NOT the people who teach. Some of the kung fu and indeed karate teachers out there couldn't teach a fish to swim, let alone teach a human being to fight with Wing Chun's Central Line Theory.

Can you give some data to back this one up? The longevity of the results have nothing to do with where the source for the technique comes from.

And that is where you need to research the "internals" in kung fu as regards martial ability and health and longevity. I know that you are tempted to do a Bluming and call the internals "chinese and japanese" BS, but please don't. You might get sued for breach of copywrite by the original author of that description.

The longevity of the results come from the individual's dedication to his or her training, i.e. the consistency and the approach to the training. [/quote] Many "traditionalists" never practice against resisting opponents, and so why would you think that those with lackluster training regimens would achieve real world results at all?

And many traditionalists do. Many others who train too realistically, end up walking funny when they get older as well. The best approach is a balance, i.e. Yin and Yang. See, it can make sense. So it is worth investigating the internals further.

Lastly, kung fu is any skill that is acquired through hard work.

Certainly.

If someone doesn't know the side kick, but then learns it over time and practice...eventually gaining such mastery of it that it becomes his most formiddable weapon, you wouldn't call that kung fu?

Of course I would call it kung fu. The side kick has been a part of the kung fu arsenal for a very long time.

Or did I misunderstand your point.:confused:

[HardWork8]

I am trying to figure out why you think that TCMA and TMA in general always have to have the same principle and concept inlaid within it's entire curriculum.

Many were designed that way and were made to work. One look at Tai Chi or Hsing I, will tell you that they follow certain principles, albeit many internal ones that no one here seems to value.

Even looking generally across a cross section of kung fu styles one can see common principles, such as rootedness, the upper body structure during the execution of punches (shoulders and so on); breathing and so on. And that is EXACTLY the difference between the "crosstraining" that created these styles and the crosstraining promoted today, where in many (but not all) cases the arts that are crosstrained are irrelevant to each other as far as their principles are concerned.

That is my point. However, and YET AGAIN, if that is what works for you, then go ahead and continue by all means it that type of training but don't call it kung fu.

The only style I know of that does this is wing chun. All the other TMA that I have gained proficiency in do not follow a particular doctrine for EVERY technique used. Additionally, fighting using only one principle is severly limiting. Why would you want to limit yourself in a fight where anything can happen? You may be fighting a person wherein the centerline theory isn't working. If you don't know how to fight any other way, how will you adapt to the situation?

In an era of Mcdojos/kwoons, why always blame the art, if things go wrong and NOT the people who teach. Some of the kung fu and indeed karate teachers out there couldn't teach a fish to swim, let alone teach a human being to fight with Wing Chun's Central Line Theory.

Can you give some data to back this one up? The longevity of the results have nothing to do with where the source for the technique comes from.

And that is where you need to research the "internals" in kung fu as regards martial ability and health and longevity. I know that you are tempted to do a Bluming and call the internals "chinese and japanese" BS, but please don't. You might get sued for breach of copywrite by the original author of that description.

The longevity of the results come from the individual's dedication to his or her training, i.e. the consistency and the approach to the training. Many "traditionalists" never practice against resisting opponents, and so why would you think that those with lackluster training regimens would achieve real world results at all?

And many traditionalists do. Also, many ma-ists who train too realistically, end up walking funny when they get older as well.

The best approach is a balance, i.e. Yin and Yang. See, it can make sense. So it is worth investigating the internals further.

Lastly, kung fu is any skill that is acquired through hard work.

Certainly, but with the right instruction.

If someone doesn't know the side kick, but then learns it over time and practice...eventually gaining such mastery of it that it becomes his most formiddable weapon, you wouldn't call that kung fu?[/QUOTE]

Of course I would call it kung fu. The side kick has been a part of the kung fu arsenal for a very long time.

Or did I misunderstand your point.:confused:

[Tom Kagan]

In an era of Mcdojos/kwoons, why always blame the art, if things go wrong and NOT the people who teach.

The people who teach and the student who practice - no matter good or bad - *are* the art.

[HardWork8]

***DIFFERENT PRINCIPLES often apply in different places, ie.- standup/clinch/ground.

So, all those masters were wrong? No they weren't. You can use different techniques that follow distinct principles for different situations. That is what Wing Chun is all about, for god's sake.

DUH !!!:rolleyes:

Don't worry, it'll come to you eventually.

Your lack of understanding on this issue speaks volumes;

One of us has a lack of understanding, it could be my lack of understanding of cross-training or more likely, your lack of understanding of Wing Chun and kung fu in general and the significance of their concepts and principles.

hence, you're interested in fiding a nice, cookie cutter, one-size-fits-all approach to fighting.

No not me, it was all those various masters who SYTEMIsED their accumulated knowledge (through crosstraining) into individual styles with distinct concepts and principles. That seems a lot more hardwork than studying various styles to gain their benefits.

Of course, it is by now apparent that the crosstrainers in this thread know more about kung fu and fighting in general than the old masters.

You guys should open a Cross-trainers Temple and tour the world sharing your martial arts wisdom globally.:)

Therefore: LESS WORK. :p :cool:

Systemising is more complicated and requires more profound knowledge, both external and internal. Furthermore, studying one system up to a point of understanding what it has to offer on its various levels takes a long time. This a common argument against kung fu training, "it takes too long", they say, it has internals, "oh no, I have to use my mind", "I have to be patient".

Therefore HARDWORK ;)

[HardWork8]

The people who teach and the student who practice - no matter good or bad - *are* the art.

I'll keep that in mind, the next time I get food poisoning because of some chef's ART of cooking.

[unkokusai]

Don't be jeaulous, one day you will find a real Wing Chun school and might be able to do the same.:)



Say, aren't you the guy who just 'trains' by himself in his basement?

[sanjuro_ronin]

I think we both better tone down our posting manner. It seems that some of the more sensitive "full contact", "crosstraining" and "tough & realistic" warriors have had their fragile feelings hurt recently, leading to complaints to moderators.

So lets just keep things civil or at least more civil.

You made a slanderous comment about a know public figure, you excepted NOT to get at least a wrist slap from Gene?

I don't think you should try to lecture Victor (ultimatewingchun) on WC, he has done it longer than you probably have been alive by the sounds of your posts.

Your issues with cross training is well founded ( surprise I say that?), I have had similar issues with MMA and view the majority of them as "jack of all trades", but MMA and cross training are not the same thing.

I don't know if its because you refuse to understand or can't understand the point of cross training in a system(s) that fills in the missing pieces of your core style, and yes, there are always missing pieces.

[HardWork8]

Say, aren't you the guy who just 'trains' by himself in his basement?

I see that you are back for more of what you got in the other thread.

No, I definitely don't have a basement. you should have known that by now , but I see that you are still suffering from that little (mental) problem of yours, the bad memory and you just can't say anything coherent. So I suppose you need a "little help from me, again". Sheesh, charity never stops :mad:

I don't know about your "mix of martial arts", but in kung fu you are required to do a lot of training on your own.;)

[HardWork8]

You made a slanderous comment about a know public figure, you excepted NOT to get at least a wrist slap from Gene?

.....because of complaints received by "realistic training" warriors with hurt feelings. I think that some of you guys should go to japan and crosstrain in spirit building training.

Some of you are just too sensitive.:D

By the way, the "slanderous" comment was not based on my prejudices but rather on how that public figure puts himself across.

I don't think you should try to lecture Victor (ultimatewingchun) on WC, he has done it longer than you probably have been alive by the sounds of your posts.

I have seen the depth of his MA knowledge from his posts. "It is incredible". YET AGAIN longer doesn't always mean better.

Your issues with cross training is well founded ( surprise I say that?), I have had similar issues with MMA and view the majority of them as "jack of all trades", but MMA and cross training are not the same thing.

That is interesting as some MMA guys refer to you crosstrainers as styles collectors. Actually, the MMA guys make their approach work for themselves, just like some of you guys make your work for yourself. No argument from me there.

My issue is with people calling what they do kung fu, just because there is a kung fu style somewhere in the mix. Then they go on making critical comments about styles which they have not fully comprehended.

I don't know if its because you refuse to understand or can't understand the point of cross training in a system(s) that fills in the missing pieces of your core style, and yes, there are always missing pieces.

I know there are always missing pieces. One of my points was that some (not all) of the missing pieces are "perceived" missing pieces, by people who have not fully understood the art they are training in.

My other point was that some of the missing pieces were there before the art was "modernized" or changed.

Yet another point was that some styles are easier to assimilate, depending on ones core art, than others. The simple example would be our (your?) friend Bluming. Judo and karate fit together a lot better than Wing Chun and TKD.

I also stated that if your way crosstraining makes you happy and works for you then THAT IS FINE BY ME, JUST DON'T CALL IT KUNG FU. Many MMA people are also happy with what they do, and that is great too.

Another point is that none of you will ever come to have profound knowledge in kung fu, but hen if that is not what you are looking for then, that is also FINE BY ME. We all have different goals.:)

[sanjuro_ronin]

Don't you think that is rather arrogant of you to dictate what someone can or can't call "kung fu"?
Considering that the vast majority of "kung fu masters" were cross trainers?

[sanjuro_ronin]

By the way, what makes you think that WC and TKD don't compliment each other?

[couch]

I don't know about your "mix of martial arts", but in kung fu you are required to do a lot of training on your own.;)

And in combat-effective martial arts such as boxing, kickboxing and BJJ (where they pressure test), you don't do much by yourself.

Just my 2 cents. Go get a partner. :)

[sanjuro_ronin]

And in combat-effective martial arts such as boxing, kickboxing and BJJ (where they pressure test), you don't do much by yourself.

Just my 2 cents. Go get a partner. :)

You can't grapple without a partner, no matter how useful those grappling dummies are.
In striking arts you actually train more without a partner per say, than you do with one.
Pad work needs a partner, but just to hold them, bad work doesn't, conditioning doesn't.
You only really need a partner for sparring.
Though having a partner for drills and such does make things more interesting.

[unkokusai]

No, I definitely don't have a basement.



Oh, so where do you train by yourself since its not at a particular school? The park? The middle of the street? The alley?

[unkokusai]

..... I think that some of you guys should go to japan and crosstrain



Have you? (I seem to remember asking you this before and you avoided the question because you had not. Nothing beats 'training' by yourself in your basement, huh? Especially the 'ol WC grapplin'!)

[unkokusai]

.....

Another point is that none of you will ever come to have profound knowledge in kung fu,


But you will? Is that what you have discovered down there in your basement all by yourself?

[unkokusai]

That is a difficult one. Finding a real master or a competent sifu is not easy. .



Especially when you 'train' all by yourself, like you do.

[unkokusai]

Currently I practice by myself.



LOL!


But you are just dying to tell everyone about sparring, grappling, and finding a good teacher.


LOL!

[Lucas]

Scenario:

Kungfu master has spent 20 years practicing traditional arts. He has mastered numerous empty hand as well as weapon sets. He has sparred and fought in a good amount of bouts. He has become the lineage holder of his style.

This kungfu master joines the military. Upon being in the military this kungfu master joines the boxing arena. At which point learns the finer points of western style boxing. With these newly acclimated skills the becomes the boxing champion several years running. Within a western boxing format and ruleset.

His personal martial arts, mostly comprised of long years of traditional studies is now influenced by western boxing. Western boxing has some concepts, principles and techniques that differ from his traditional arts.

Now this kungfu master is no longer doing kungfu because boxing has been added to his Repertoire?

This scenario is not all that far from what has happened to many chinese artists.

[HardWork8]

Don't you think that is rather arrogant of you to dictate what someone can or can't call "kung fu"?
Considering that the vast majority of "kung fu masters" were cross trainers?

Nobody is saying that they were not crosstrainers, however, as I stated before, and various times they systemised what they had learnt in different arts. I.e. they unified the various techniques under common principles and concepts.

And that is the difference. That is why most (or at least many), martial aritists will recognize kung fu exponents from the way they move, no matter the style. And that is what makes it kung fu.

[HardWork8]

By the way, what makes you think that WC and TKD don't compliment each other?

Here are a couple:

Most of the TKD artists that I have seen do not root themselves. There may be exceptions. If you are bouncing around without rootedness then your wing chun or all, if not most kung fu style, will be lacking and pointless.

From the Wing Chun point of view, high kicks and jump spinning kicks are not only impractical but also dangerous to he who is doing it. That is why they don't exist in Wing Chun.

[HardWork8]

And in combat-effective martial arts such as boxing, kickboxing and BJJ (where they pressure test), you don't do much by yourself.

Just my 2 cents. Go get a partner. :)

You don't know my full story. Don't base your opinions of me on what is posted by unkokusai.

He was born a retard and has problems understanding posts. Like most retards he borders strong complexes that he likes to let out, but we must be like jesus (if he ever existed)and forgive him.

On the plus side, unkokusai is under a strict regime of repeat reading whatever he is reading. This might cure him of his problems and one day he may gain enough attention span to understand simple statements, but don't hold your breath.

Now, as far as my story goes. I used to train under personal supervision of my Wing Chun sifu until I moved (temporarily) to london. Here, I train WC on my own and train with my sifu whenever I go to Brazil. Actually, in a couple of months time he will be in London where we will train again.

I also belong to a traditional (non-wing chun) kung fu school here in london and train 9 hours a week as well as on my own for this particular style, together with my WC training.

[HardWork8]

Have you? (I seem to remember asking you this before and you avoided the question because you had not. Nothing beats 'training' by yourself in your basement, huh? Especially the 'ol WC grapplin'!)

You really have to do something about your attention span. Now repeat read "I don't have a basement" a thousand times. Like always, don't forget to wipe your retard drool from your mouth, you might get a nasty electric shock if you wet your keyboard and an electric shock is not going to help your ahem, little problem.

[unkokusai]

From the Wing Chun point of view, high kicks are not only impractical but also dangerous to he who is doing it. That is why they don't exist in Wing Chun.



You're right, there's no way that could work.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5efA1aKEeBI&feature=related

[unkokusai]

You really have to do something about your attention span.


Thanks for that advice. Now, have you trained in Japan as you have encouraged others to?

[HardWork8]

But you will? Is that what you have discovered down there in your basement all by yourself?

Ok, there you go again, read "I don't have a basement" and repeat. You poor devil trying so hard and getting nowhere. That is ok, don't lose hope, maybe in the next life you will come back more evolved, maybe as a lizard.

[unkokusai]

Now, as far as my story goes. I used to train under personal supervision of my Wing Chun sifu until I moved .



Yes, you "used to train" before you were transferred to a more secure facility...

[unkokusai]

No, I definitely don't have a basement.



Oh, so where do you train by yourself since its not at a particular school? The park? The middle of the street? The alley?

[HardWork8]

Especially when you 'train' all by yourself, like you do.


Unfortunately, for you and your "argument" and as mentioned before, I only train my Wing Chun by myself when I am not with sifu. I also train in another kung fu school with plenty of people and with a fantastic sifu.

Oh no, now I've done it. How the hell am I going to get you to understand and remember the above statement, while you are still struggling with "I don't have a basement".

Oh yes, now I got it. Why don't you get a pen and ask the kind person who takes care of your medical needs and who is typing your posts on your behalf, to write my above statements on your hand, then you try to read it as often as you can, believe me, you will eventually get a basic understanding of it.

[HardWork8]

Yes, you "used to train" before you were transferred to a more secure facility...


Well of course real wing chun makes one very dangerous, or didn't you know? Besides, I just wanted to get closer to you. That way I can help you more with your mental problem.

I am not going to give up on you until I help you reach your full potential, which I believe is an IQ of around 2.

[unkokusai]

So, how 'bout it? How long did you train in Japan? I guess being a WC 'man' you trained even longer in China, right?

Or is it all your basement and the free 'kungfoo' class at the local civic center?

[unkokusai]

Well of course real wing chun makes one very dangerous.


I'm sure you are quite a danger to yourself.

[HardWork8]

Thanks for that advice. Now, have you trained in Japan as you have encouraged others to?


Of course, I haven't trained in japan.I don't know where you got that idea from.
You poor soul, the world must be such a confusing place for you, but, as I said, I wont be giving up on you anytime soon.

Now, first go back and reading my "basement" statement, then in a couple years time, when you beginning a working knowledge of it, we will move to my "japan" statement. However, be a good boy and wipe the drool from your mouth first.

[HardWork8]

Full contact is not a physical test it is a mental test of understanding yourself and what you believe to be what you know.

Excellent point and the other points were not bad either.:)

[HardWork8]

Just in case anyone is wondering about the book and what groin ache is referring too, chapter 15 titled "lying down techniques" is about kyokushin counters to common attacks while on the ground and the opponent standing and while on the ground and the opponent trying to grapple you.
It can hardly be called "ground fighting" and the counters will work on only the crappiest of fighters and all those 4 pages were done to show kyokushin's "superiority" over judo LOL !

I have that book and eventhough Oyama makes distinctions between the karate way and the judo way ofground fighting, he definitely does not propose that the karate one is superior.



Oyama was a great marketing man, we all know that and his various books show that.
That Oyama was a huge proponent of cross training and actual fighting is also common knowldge, that a nice chunk of Oyama's 1st and 2nd generation students were also judokas is also well know fact.

So were many Shotokan 1st and 2nd generation of students. As I stated before, these 2 arts compliment each other much better than some other combinations that I have seen.

My point was that they existed in Kyokushinkai karate and in Goju Ryu, where a large chunk of kyokushinkai comes from. [/QUOTE]

[sanjuro_ronin]

My point was that they existed in Kyokushinkai karate and in Goju Ryu, where a large chunk of kyokushinkai comes from.

If you wanna call that crap ground fighting, fine.
The Japanese Goju that Oyama learned had even crappier "ground fighting" than the original Okinawan Goju that Yamaguchi learned or was taught, depending on your point of view.

It would be more correct to say that Okinawan Goju had a limited number of techniques that could be used to counter unskilled attacks while on the ground, even that is kind.

No one will ever look to Goju and kyokushin for help with "ground fighting".

[HardWork8]

If you wanna call that crap ground fighting, fine.
The issue is not what I call ground fighting, it is what Oyama, the founder of kyokushinkai called ground fighting. My point was, that groundfighting existed in kyokushinkai, before it was "forgotten".

The Japanese Goju that Oyama learned had even crappier "ground fighting" than the original Okinawan Goju that Yamaguchi learned or was taught, depending on your point of view.

I couldn't tell you about japanese goju-ryu as I do not have any references or info on this lineage and because I have not trained it.

As far the Okinawan one is concerned, then I can tell you that the traditional school that functions in central london practice ground fighting and seem to take it seriously. Here is their site: www.goju-karate.co.uk.
You can visit them if you are ever in london. The sensei Gavin Mulholland is very knowledgable and friendly.

It would be more correct to say that Okinawan Goju-ryu had a limited number of techniques that could be used to counter unskilled attacks while on the ground, even that is kind.

Again, I wouldn't know, because I have never trained in Okinawan Goju-Ryu. However, I have seen them train their ground work in above mentioned school and it seemed that they took that area of their training very seriously.

No one will ever look to Goju and kyokushin for help with "ground fighting".

That is because their emphasis is not ground fighting, however, if trained properly (which as you know, most schools don't nowadays), then the combination of their striking and groundfighting techniques would make up for any weaknesses in the ground fighting area.

A lot of the times when strikers lose to ground fighters is not because of their lack of mastery in the groundfighting area but because they haven't mastered the techniques that they are supposed to be good in, that is effective striking.
Sometimes their strikes are not effective and that is why they lose.

Other times of course, they lose because of their lack of knowledge on the ground.

[sanjuro_ronin]

The issue is not what I call ground fighting, it is what Oyama, the founder of kyokushinkai called ground fighting. My point was, that groundfighting existed in kyokushinkai, before it was "forgotten".

Oyama used the term "newaza", borroed from judo ( Karate never had that term) so there is where he got the "ground fighting" from, it was never "forgotten".
Look at the Daidojuku, Ashihara and Enshin off -shoots, they have it because they either decided to include some rudimentary ground work or they have corss trained with judo, Enshin has a pretty solid ground work curriculm because Ninomya was a judoka,
Kyokushin proper opted, quite correctly and still in Oyama's time to cross train in judo.

I couldn't tell you about japanese goju-ryu as I do not have any references or info on this lineage and because I have not trained it.

As far the Okinawan one is concerned, then I can tell you that the traditional school that functions in central london practice ground fighting and seem to take it seriously. Here is their site: www.goju-karate.co.uk.
You can visit them if you are ever in london. The sensei Gavin Mulholland is very knowledgable and friendly.

Again, I wouldn't know, because I have never trained in Okinawan Goju-Ryu. However, I have seen them train their ground work in above mentioned school and it seemed that they took that area of their training very seriously.


If that school has ground work it was added, it wasn't part of the original curriculm, or at least that is what Higaonna and a few others have stated.
Notice I say ground work, not the typical "counters from/while on the ground" crap that EVERY Karate ryu has to some lousy extent.

That is because their emphasis is not ground fighting, however, if trained properly (which as you know, most schools don't nowadays), then the combination of their striking and groundfighting techniques would make up for any weaknesses in the ground fighting area.

A lot of the times when strikers lose to ground fighters is not because of their lack of mastery in the groundfighting area but because they haven't mastered the techniques that they are supposed to be good in, that is effective striking.
Sometimes their strikes are not effective and that is why they lose.

Other times of course, they lose because of their lack of knowledge on the ground.

Ground fighting is a highly specialized skill set, to be proficient at it, you must train in it, not dabble.
I have a Shodan in Judo and while judo and BJJ share 99% of the same techniques, the ground work is almost night and say, why?
Specialization.
Even Kosen Judo is so good because they focus on Ne waza, to the determent of their stand up work.

[Vankuen]

Sooo....I went back to a BJJ school after about a 7 year hiatus. For varying reasons, I've not been able to practice any ground work since then, and figured that if, in the event I was taken to the ground, my previous knowledge would get me through or help me to counter any ground attacks well enough to stand back up.

I was sorely wrong. The conditioning in the beginning wasn't too bad, but the subsequent class reminded me why I decided to learn ground work in the first place. This was a tryout class (because I'm doing research in my area as to which school I want to attend for groundwork). This school just kinda threw me in there...no instruction on any attacks or defenses, just a "have at it" sort of introduction. At first I was doing alright just maintaining a superior position during rolling. My frustration is that although I knew moves in my head, and had practiced them long ago, I could NO LONGER APPLY THEM under pressure. Why? Because I didn't maintain the skills by constant resistant sparring.

And there's my point again. One simply cannot maintain skill in fighting, without fighting. One cannot gain profiency in any system (in fighting) without fighting. This also solidifies my (and others') views on cross-training. Because it's obvious that if I didn't knock the guy out while standing, my odds of winning on the ground against even a novice grappler would be severly limited.

Just some more food for thought.

Now I've got to let my knee and arm heal a bit---and then I'm out to find another grappling school in town! This is a very painful way to interview schools btw. But still fun nonetheless~ :D

[Tom Kagan]

I'll keep that in mind, the next time I get food poisoning because of some chef's ART of cooking.

It is encouraging to observe a seed I planted take root.

[HardWork8]

Oyama used the term "newaza", borroed from judo ( Karate never had that term) so there is where he got the "ground fighting" from, it was never "forgotten".

He may have gotten it from Goju-ryu. In the book he refers to them as karate techniques and DIFFERENTIATES them from judo. Furthermore, lookin at the pictures one sees a lot of ground striking "a la" karate.

Look at the Daidojuku, Ashihara and Enshin off -shoots, they have it because they either decided to include some rudimentary ground work or they have corss trained with judo, Enshin has a pretty solid ground work curriculm because Ninomya was a judoka,
Kyokushin proper opted, quite correctly and still in Oyama's time to cross train in judo.

If Oyama did indeed mix judo with Kyokushinkai, then he did it the way many kung fu masters in the past assimilated various systems into one art within distinct concepts and principles. That is the judo techniques were assimilated into a karate framework, hence the karate style strikes on the ground that can be see in the pictures.

This means that the ground work came about through cross training, but not in the modern sense.

However, if nowadays the senseis recommend judo, then that is fine too. As I stated various times before, karate and judo match and compliment each other better than some other mixtures that I have come across.


If that school has ground work it was added, it wasn't part of the original curriculm, or at least that is what Higaonna and a few others have stated.
Notice I say ground work, not the typical "counters from/while on the ground" crap that EVERY Karate ryu has to some lousy extent.

Here is another link to the same lineage of Okinawan Goju-ryu where you can see a reference to their groundfighting techniques:

www.daigakukaratekai.co.uk/5.html

This system seems to be a lineage whose last master was Eiichi Miyazato.

[HardWork8]

It is encouraging to observe a seed I planted take root.

Keep your seeds away from me, I am a married man.:eek:

[Tom Kagan]

Keep your seeds away from me, I am a married man.:eek:


Too late. Enjoy your next food poisoning.

[HardWork8]

Scenario:

Kungfu master has spent 20 years practicing traditional arts. He has mastered numerous empty hand as well as weapon sets. He has sparred and fought in a good amount of bouts. He has become the lineage holder of his style.

This kungfu master joines the military. Upon being in the military this kungfu master joines the boxing arena. At which point learns the finer points of western style boxing. With these newly acclimated skills the becomes the boxing champion several years running. Within a western boxing format and ruleset.

His personal martial arts, mostly comprised of long years of traditional studies is now influenced by western boxing. Western boxing has some concepts, principles and techniques that differ from his traditional arts.

Now this kungfu master is no longer doing kungfu because boxing has been added to his Repertoire?

You are talking about a kung fu master. A person who has MASTERED kung fu and who for all intents and purposes is kung fu. Any minor addition to his practice is not going to take that away from him.

This scenario is not all that far from what has happened to many chinese artists.

I personally don't know of any kung fu masters, real ones that is, who crosstrain in boxing. I do know one sifu who respects boxing for what it is.

[AmanuJRY]

IMO...can someone learn to fight without fighting?....

Yes.:)

Can someone become proficient at fighting without fighting?...

No.:(

Knowing how to do something and being good at it are two different things.;)

[unkokusai]

Of course, I haven't trained in japan..



Ok, how long did you train in China?

[HardWork8]

Ok, how long did you train in China?

You poor soul. 1st you thought that I trained in japan..lol. And now you think that I said that I trained in China. Things must be very mixed up in that little head of yours.

Besides repeat reading my privious posts, I would suggest that you change your medication. Also, avoid products that contain fluoride and aspartame. These chemicals have the side effect of dumbing people. God only knows what they would do to you.

There, now be a good boy and go back to reading my initial statement on your "basement" theory and please,please, watch that drooling of yours....

[HardWork8]

IMO...can someone learn to fight without fighting?....

Yes.:)

Can someone become proficient at fighting without fighting?...

No.:(

Knowing how to do something and being good at it are two different things.;)


Well put. One can learn just so much fighting without fighting and even that will depend on ones character. To improve on any basic ability, one will have to train live.

[HardWork8]

Too late.

Not to worry, it is not too late. I was protected all the time, but don't let it happen again.

Enjoy your next food poisoning.

It won't happen again, I have taken t_niehoff's lead and have decided to crosstrain in the art of "realistic" and "practical" cooking. This way I can detect "off" food before it is too late.

And of course, I will be prepared to defend myself with kitchen appliances if I am ever attacked in the kitchen, it can happen you know.:D

[unkokusai]

And now you think that I said that I trained in China. ....


Ok, so you didn't. I see. It appears that you have taken a vacation to Brasil and played around all by yourself in your basement and think that makes you some kind of expert.

Got it.

[HardWork8]

Ok, so you didn't. I see. It appears that you have taken a vacation to Brasil and played around all by yourself in your basement and think that makes you some kind of expert.

Got it.

Ok a be nice boy now and go back to my "basement" statement and read again.

And promise me that tomorrow, when you wake up in your mental home. After the nurse changes your diper and gives you a spungbath, ask her to call in that nice man who is your doctor, then you tell him to change your medication, because not only that it is not working, but that you are more retarded than you were in the Wing Chun Grappling thread.

Don't worry, the nice man probably made an honest mistake with your medication. There you go now, sit down and read my statement in answer to your "trainint in your basement" comment.

Now remember, don't touch yourself, no nose picking and no drooling. Good luck and do let me know how you get along.

[unkokusai]

So, we have established that you are just a loudmouth with very little training, trying to play at 'expert.'


Good job, Champ.

[Edmund]

My frustration is that although I knew moves in my head, and had practiced them long ago, I could NO LONGER APPLY THEM under pressure. Why? Because I didn't maintain the skills by constant resistant sparring.


:)
Well how much groundfighting have you practiced in terms of drills recently?

Having "moves in your head" is a bit different from regularly practicing drills to prepare for competition.

Every competitive sport uses drills to give your some preparation. The repetition helps you get your coordination up.

A baseball example might be that every player knows in their head how to catch a fly ball. It really helps to have someone lob many balls to the outfield for you to practice catching. In a game, you wouldn't get as many opportunities and a lot more is on the line when you drop it.

Having gone and sparred, rather than go and spar again, wouldn't it help you more to look back at what you did wrong and drill those situations?

[Vankuen]

:)
Well how much groundfighting have you practiced in terms of drills recently?

Having "moves in your head" is a bit different from regularly practicing drills to prepare for competition.

Every competitive sport uses drills to give your some preparation. The repetition helps you get your coordination up.

A baseball example might be that every player knows in their head how to catch a fly ball. It really helps to have someone lob many balls to the outfield for you to practice catching. In a game, you wouldn't get as many opportunities and a lot more is on the line when you drop it.

Having gone and sparred, rather than go and spar again, wouldn't it help you more to look back at what you did wrong and drill those situations?


None, no technique drills or anything. Would need a partner for that. But that was my point. I figured that the class format would be the same as the one in Florida, wherein we'd go over a technique in detail, then drill the technique on a semi resisting opponent, then roll to submission. Well they just kinda threw me in. So I didn't expect to perform all that well. I was able to keep some of the guys at bay, and able to counter some of the moves, so it wasn't like I was completely useless. The instructor did see that I was having trouble at one point, and came and showed me the escape for a forearm choke that was being done to me. I was immediately able to apply it when we started rolling again and the guy tried the same move a little later. So yea for that. The most dissapointed thing about my performance was my conditioning. I haven't been that winded in a long time! It sucked, I was tired, I've got a crappy knee and a gimpy shoulder now, but it was necessary and looking back I smile about it. I can't wait to find the right place and continue training in it.

It turns out my old MT coach now has partnered up with a MMA guy named Rangel; that's where I go to spar once in a while anyway--so if the MMA guy is good [at teaching as well as in skill] than that will be a good spot, even though it's a longer distance away. It's funny too...that place used to bad mouth the local wing tsun guys that would show up to spar them. Then I would tell them I also trained in wing chun, and would show them during the sparring session (no gloves light sparring) and then they're like "oh man, that's so much different than the other guys! They were all stiff and didn't have any footwork!". So I'm still waiving the wing chun flag even though I'm not an "expert" in it. woot!

[HardWork8]

So, we have established that you are just a loudmouth with very little training, trying to play at 'expert.'


Good job, Champ.


Who is "we"?

You and that peanut sized, rotten piece of meet between your cabbage ears, that you call a brain?

Well, you do make an interesting team for tag "rasslin". By the way, it is called wrestling and not "rasslin".

Or unless, "rasslin" is a new style that the both of you invented through crosstraining? In which case, please accept my apologies.

Otherwise, go and repeat the word "wrestling" a few thousand times. Take your medication first and take deep breath and repeat the word and do it now. As always, don't forget to wipe the drool.

Listen, you must co-operate because your retardness is not going to be cured and you are not going to get anywhere without a lot of Hardwork ;):D

[HardWork8]

Good job, Champ.

Well thank you unkokusai.

You didn't have to call me a"champ". I suppose that you are a real "retard with a heart" and are trying to be nice to the guy who is spending time and effort to help you with that little (your brain) problem (not functioning) of yours.

However, if you address me as champ, then you need to do that with everybody else in the whole wide world, because compared to you everybody is a "Champ", if not in martial arts, then for sure in remembering and understanding relatively simple statements.

So let's not be so "formal", I am here to help you and please, please, please, anytime you get that feeling of lonliness and feel that urgent need for attention to lighten up your lonely and miserable life, then please don't hesitate to address a post to me and I will do my best to give you the attention that you deserve.

Hardwork8

PS. Now go back to your repeat-reading assignment and "Work Hard".

[unkokusai]

Who is "we"?


Everyone who sees what a load of **** you are.

[unkokusai]

You didn't have to call me a"champ".


Yes, I'm quite sure you are not and have never been.

[HardWork8]

Yes, I'm quite sure you are not and have never been.


It was YOU who called me a Champ, but retards will be retards.:rolleyes:

[HardWork8]

Everyone who sees what a load of **** you are.

Why thank you unkokusai, first you referred to me as "champ" and now you are giving me *stars*. I was right, you really are a "retard with a heart".

Now boy, you need to attend to that little mental problem of yours as you are not going to get anywhere without being focused(yes, I know that it is difficult for you) and right now that is your priority,so as always, first wipe that drool from around your mouth and start your repeat-reading assignment, there, ata boy!

By the way, when that world of yours becomes a little less confused (I am not holding my breath) then maybe you can make a relevant contribution regarding the subject matter of this thread.;)

Oh, you don't remember the subject matter of this thread. Don't worry, we still love you, so now go back to your repeat reading brain exercises like a nice boy, ok? And we will talk soon. Now, don't forget your medication.

[unkokusai]

It was YOU who called me a Champ

What a shock that you would miss the point. Champ. :rolleyes:

[sanjuro_ronin]

Sooo....I went back to a BJJ school after about a 7 year hiatus. For varying reasons, I've not been able to practice any ground work since then, and figured that if, in the event I was taken to the ground, my previous knowledge would get me through or help me to counter any ground attacks well enough to stand back up.

I was sorely wrong. The conditioning in the beginning wasn't too bad, but the subsequent class reminded me why I decided to learn ground work in the first place. This was a tryout class (because I'm doing research in my area as to which school I want to attend for groundwork). This school just kinda threw me in there...no instruction on any attacks or defenses, just a "have at it" sort of introduction. At first I was doing alright just maintaining a superior position during rolling. My frustration is that although I knew moves in my head, and had practiced them long ago, I could NO LONGER APPLY THEM under pressure. Why? Because I didn't maintain the skills by constant resistant sparring.

And there's my point again. One simply cannot maintain skill in fighting, without fighting. One cannot gain profiency in any system (in fighting) without fighting. This also solidifies my (and others') views on cross-training. Because it's obvious that if I didn't knock the guy out while standing, my odds of winning on the ground against even a novice grappler would be severly limited.

Just some more food for thought.

Now I've got to let my knee and arm heal a bit---and then I'm out to find another grappling school in town! This is a very painful way to interview schools btw. But still fun nonetheless~ :D

Been there bro.
:D

[sanjuro_ronin]

Here is another link to the same lineage of Okinawan Goju-ryu where you can see a reference to their groundfighting techniques:

www.daigakukaratekai.co.uk/5.html

This system seems to be a lineage whose last master was Eiichi Miyazato.

I know 4 different high ranking senseis in that line, including Higaonna, none have ever stated that Goju has ground work , other than the typical "karate" stuff.
The grappling inherent in Goju is standing with some very minor grappling on the "ground" to set-up strikes, very limited and with varying degrees of practical application outside the context they were designed for ( typical grappling attacks from untrained people).

There is no ground grappling of the Judo level in Goju, much less the BJJ level.
And if these gentlemen have some, they have added it to the curriculm, which I find commendable.

[sanjuro_ronin]

None, no technique drills or anything. Would need a partner for that. But that was my point. I figured that the class format would be the same as the one in Florida, wherein we'd go over a technique in detail, then drill the technique on a semi resisting opponent, then roll to submission. Well they just kinda threw me in. So I didn't expect to perform all that well. I was able to keep some of the guys at bay, and able to counter some of the moves, so it wasn't like I was completely useless. The instructor did see that I was having trouble at one point, and came and showed me the escape for a forearm choke that was being done to me. I was immediately able to apply it when we started rolling again and the guy tried the same move a little later. So yea for that. The most dissapointed thing about my performance was my conditioning. I haven't been that winded in a long time! It sucked, I was tired, I've got a crappy knee and a gimpy shoulder now, but it was necessary and looking back I smile about it. I can't wait to find the right place and continue training in it.

It turns out my old MT coach now has partnered up with a MMA guy named Rangel; that's where I go to spar once in a while anyway--so if the MMA guy is good [at teaching as well as in skill] than that will be a good spot, even though it's a longer distance away. It's funny too...that place used to bad mouth the local wing tsun guys that would show up to spar them. Then I would tell them I also trained in wing chun, and would show them during the sparring session (no gloves light sparring) and then they're like "oh man, that's so much different than the other guys! They were all stiff and didn't have any footwork!". So I'm still waiving the wing chun flag even though I'm not an "expert" in it. woot!

IN many ways it's much "easier" to maintain skill in striking VS grappling, though timing does tend to suffer if you don't spar reguarly.
Grappling is almost all about sensitivity to what you opponent is doing, is a feel that one gets through constant rolling that can't be had with drills.

[HardWork8]

What a shock that you would miss the point. Champ. :rolleyes:


Oh my god, you are becoming incoherent now. Stop the repeat reading immediately and take your retard medication again and take a nap.

When you wake up and if you are still desperate for attention, then please don't hesitate to post me.:D

Regards,

Your Champ.

[HardWork8]

I know 4 different high ranking senseis in that line, including Higaonna, none have ever stated that Goju has ground work , other than the typical "karate" stuff.

Well, that contradicts what I was told in that school, unless that is if, "the typical karate stuff" has many levels and interpretations.

The grappling inherent in Goju is standing with some very minor grappling on the "ground" to set-up strikes, very limited and with varying degrees of practical application outside the context they were designed for ( typical grappling attacks from untrained people).

Well the issue here is ground fighting and not just grappling. The ground fighting that I observed in the traditional school seemed to be more than just superficial and it did actually seem to contain a lot of grappling moves. It may be that this school has decided to increase the emphasis on ground fighting and has further explored the ground techniques inherent in this style.

There is no ground grappling of the Judo level in Goju, much less the BJJ level.

Agreed. Goju ryu is primarily a striking art.


And if these gentlemen have some, they have added it to the curriculm, which I find commendable.

They DON'T claim to have added judo to their curriculum, but even if they had, then that would be fine too, because karate and judo compliment each other better than many other mixes that I have come across. :)

[unkokusai]

Well, that contradicts what I was told in that school, unless that is


Unless that is, that you were full of **** from the get-go and just making **** up as you go along, basement-boy. :rolleyes:

[sanjuro_ronin]

Well, that contradicts what I was told in that school, unless that is if, "the typical karate stuff" has many levels and interpretations.



Well the issue here is ground fighting and not just grappling. The ground fighting that I observed in the traditional school seemed to be more than just superficial and it did actually seem to contain a lot of grappling moves. It may be that this school has decided to increase the emphasis on ground fighting and has further explored the ground techniques inherent in this style.



Agreed. Goju ryu is primarily a striking art.




They DON'T claim to have added judo to their curriculum, but even if they had, then that would be fine too, because karate and judo compliment each other better than many other mixes that I have come across. :)

I have mixed views about what they are claiming, but I will let it drop, I don't wanna say I give them the benefit of the doubt simply because higher ranking Okinawan's have said there is no ground work inherent to Goju, but at least they are addressing that aspect and I give them pops for it.

[Vankuen]

Oh and seriously....UNo and Hard work...cut the shiet out on this thread. So far we've been able to have relatively ok discussion up to the last couple pages. So let's just end it now. If you two have some personal issues, take it to PM's.

[Vankuen]

Does anyone else have any stories about a time when they had an "epiphany" about their training process in regards to fighting?

[sanjuro_ronin]

Does anyone else have any stories about a time when they had an "epiphany" about their training process in regards to fighting?

Hmmmm, there was the fist liver shot I got that opened my eyes towards body shots, there was getting owned by a boxer with 6 months training when I had done Karate and Kung fu for 7 years - started boxing after that :)
There was thinking grappling was inferior to striking because I could just "KO them as the tries to grab me" and then trying it out on a judo buddy of mine and getting thrown on my head - started Judo after that :)
There was getting owned by a blue belt on the ground even though I have a Shodan in Judo - Started BJJ after that.
Hmmm, I see a pattern...
:D

[HardWork8]

Oh and seriously....UNo and Hard work...cut the shiet out on this thread. So far we've been able to have relatively ok discussion up to the last couple pages. So let's just end it now. If you two have some personal issues, take it to PM's.

Sorry Vankuen, Unkokusai, the retard seems to like to follow me around the forums, you see he is a sucker for punishment or maybe he is just a "sucker", if you know what I mean.;)

Ok Unkokusai, you tried to provoke me and got what you deserved. Let it go. You don't belong in this thread, because:


A) This a Wing Chun thread and not a "Rasslin" one.

B} You have so far not added anything relevant to the discussion.


Unkokusai, this thread is a good one and was started by Vankuen. Eventhough I disagreed with him on some fundemental points, I believe that he is a decente person and I am going to respect his request and stop beating your "forum rear end".

I think that you've had enough punishment already, meaning that any further posts made by you will be IGNORED!

So, Unkokusai, you can now go and lick your wounds and try cool down.

Sorry Vankuen.

[unkokusai]

I think that you've had enough punishment already.


Ah, I've been "punished" by exposing you yet again as an empty, dishonest, dim-witted poseur. Ouch, tough punishment.


Beg for forgivness all you want, but if you really don't want threads to become about you and the fantasies you cook up down there in your basement you'd best be careful how much bull**** you decide to spew, Champ.

[HardWork8]

Does anyone else have any stories about a time when they had an "epiphany" about their training process in regards to fighting?

Without going into too much detail and story, my "epiphany" or revelation happened when I realized that what I had considered as power and power building was somewhat irrelevant, in kung fu terms.

Meaning, some basic muscle building exercises that I had considered part of power building were irrelevant and in many cases counter productive, when it came to following these particular concepts and principles.


The "revelation" occured when the concept of "relax" or "soft" power (i.e. the internals) was revealed to me. These concepts and their relationship to sensitivity training, ie. through chi-sao, hard and soft chi-kung, was a real eye opener.

Of course, other concepts including body unity through movement and so on have their part to play.



Do does this soft power exist? Yes, it does.

How do I know?

I know because, I have been hit by this relaxed power, somewhat "effortlessly" and from a relatively short range, more times than I care to mention.


Hardwork8


IMPORTANT PS. As I stated that I would ignore our poor suffering, and very hurt retarded friend Unkokusai. I really didn't mean to hurt his feeling that much, but maybe I did.;)

Perhaps one of you guys should mention to him that he will be unable to "expose" anyone's claims regarding any particular art, if he himself has not practiced and understood that art.

After all the poor retard hasn't managed to spell the name of his OWN art correctly in his profile, which he claims to be "rasslin". Or is this a particular lineage developed by retards and for retards? Who knows, maybe be they wear drool protectors and dipers during sparring sessions?

If anyone does explain this to him, then please give him time to "absorb" the new information and don't hold your breath. He is still trying to understand the various statements that I have made about not training in a "basement".;)

ON A MORE SERIOUS NOTE, this is a Wing Chun thread and eventhough that does not exclude people practicing other arts, it should exclude people who are practicing other arts but do not add anything to the thread and enter it for the sole purpose of PROVOKING conflict and keep insisting in carrying on even after having their "forum A$$ kicked and bruised" by their intended "victim".

I am surprised that no one "noticed" that Unkosusai, the forum retard, was not even pretending to contribute to the thread, that is, answer and at least enquire about the subject matter.

Anyway, on a more philosophical note, I suppose retards are a fact of life (just look at the current batch of world leaders) and just like us are "god's creations", (even if, Unkokusai seems to have been created on the seventh day).

Seriously though, perhaps when the next time he or one of his fellow retards, enters a thread with NOTHING TO ADD to the subject matter of the thread, and is there with the SOLE INTENTION OF PROVOKING CONFLICT, then the THREAD STARTER should inform him or slap his forum a$$, (something Unkokusai, for whatever reason, seems to prefer), before things get out of hand, as they did in this thread.:)

[HardWork8]

Vankuen,

I almost forgot. I checked the links that I had posted for you a while back on this thread. They don't seem to be functioning.

I am just wondering if you have had time to go to Videogoole and make a search for the documentaries by their title and have watched any? Or have you seen them before?

From what little I know about you, I think that you will find the documentaries very interesting.

[unkokusai]

THREAD STARTER should inform him or slap his forum a$$, before things get out of hand, as they did in this thread.:)


So, first he begs forgiveness from his KF brothers, having been exposed as nothing of the 'expert' he tried to sell himself as, and now he begs for help; poor little put-upon thing just wants to get along and never wanted any trouble, really.

:rolleyes:


It would have been so much easier to simply not be a poseur and an ******* from the get-go.

Ain't that right, Basement-boy?

[HardWork8]

Hmmmm, there was the fist liver shot I got that opened my eyes towards body shots, there was getting owned by a boxer with 6 months training when I had done Karate and Kung fu for 7 years - started boxing after that :)
There was thinking grappling was inferior to striking because I could just "KO them as the tries to grab me" and then trying it out on a judo buddy of mine and getting thrown on my head - started Judo after that :)
There was getting owned by a blue belt on the ground even though I have a Shodan in Judo - Started BJJ after that.
Hmmm, I see a pattern...
:D

How long have you been practicing BJJ and do you practice in a Gracie school?

[unkokusai]

So anyway, now that Basement-boy seems otherwise preocuppied, had anyone defined what was meant by "fighting" in the original question of the thread?

[Vankuen]

Definitions for fighting:

(verb): to use violent physical means such as blows with fists or a weapon to try to overpower somebody.

(noun): a conflict between individual people or groups in which each tries to do physical harm to, or defeat, the other.

[Matrix]

Definitions for fighting:

(verb): to use violent physical means such as blows with fists or a weapon to try to overpower somebody.Some people may think that sparring and even chi sao fit this defintion. ;)

Bill

[Vankuen]

Some people may think that sparring and even chi sao fit this defintion. ;)

Bill

Good point Bill. I hate the word sparring, because it has a connotation reminiscent of the point fighting light touch type stuff. But so long as the sparring is done with true intent on hitting to do damage and done in a continuous manner (and not just playing tag) than it probably could fit that definition. I.E. full contact and no holds barred (NHB to an extent--I don't think getting hit full power in the nads is necessary).

Chi sao--hell no. That's where I think most of the problem with WC lies...people think that's sparring and that's the extent of their "fight" training. No no no no.

[sanjuro_ronin]

How long have you been practicing BJJ and do you practice in a Gracie school?

I trained for almost 2 years under a local BJJ BB, but mostly MMA, until he went back to fighting.
Then life decided to throw me a few curve balls and in terms of grappling I do Combat Submission Grappling and Judo as well as my MT/kyokushin/kung fu blend along with FMA.

[Matrix]

Chi sao--hell no. That's where I think most of the problem with WC lies...people think that's sparring and that's the extent of their "fight" training. No no no no.
Hey Van,
I'm with you on this. I just wanted to play devil's advocate here.

I also agree with your "point sparring" comment. I think that point sparring - as it is more commonly played - actually has a detrimental effect because it trains you to go for inferior "hits" from a weak position in order to get the tag/point.

Bill

[Liddel]

Chi sao--hell no. That's where I think most of the problem with WC lies...people think that's sparring and that's the extent of their "fight" training. No no no no.

Chi Sao where i train is point sparring...its continuous, spentaneous and contains attacks and defence with adequate force.
- its any and all VT actions.

'Chi Dan Sao' is a two man drill with three actions repeated by each participant.

The problem IMHO is people often when posting dont draw a line between the two...or dont have Chi Sao free sparring and stay within the confines of Chi Dan Sao, Poon Sao, Gor Sao and Lux Sao.

:rolleyes:
DREW

[Liddel]

Hey Van,
I think that point sparring - as it is more commonly played - actually has a detrimental effect because it trains you to go for inferior "hits" from a weak position in order to get the tag/point.
Bill

I dont disagree Bill, but dont you think thats up to the user or teacher to tell the dif...? you have to be honest with yourself :rolleyes:

When doing light sparring or free chi sao i know in my heart if a shot ive landed was/could have been solid (if its light sparring) or if it was lacking in structure and power just to gain time for what is effectively a touch.

Its just that people kid themselves, i touched the sifu :eek: WOW
its not the platform at fault IMO, its the mindset.

DREW

[Vankuen]

Chi Sao where i train is point sparring...its continuous, spentaneous and contains attacks and defence with adequate force.
- its any and all VT actions.

Well I don't disagree with you in terms of applying the said definition with the activity. Two things though that I feel are a detrimint in your scenario:

One, the act of chi sao sparring is not realistic in that people don't fight that way in real life. You're not going to square off in bong/fook sao with people on the street. And though it builds great sensitivity and good wing chun skills, I think that comparing it with full out [disconnected] sparring is like comparing apples and oranges. Chi sao--to my understanding--was always meant to be a drill to increase sensitivity attributes, nothing more.

Two, chi sao is done with no gear, right? Meaning that if that assumption is right and you did use adaquate force, there'd be a lot of bloodied up lips and noses in your place. So unless that's actually happening, I don't think the "force" is probably as adaquate as the full out sparring that you'd see at Phil or Victor's place (or any other place that trains that way).

To me, chi sao is chi sao. Nothing more.

Edit:

I was thinking a little harder on this:

If you decided to start your sparring with some mma type gloves, and wore headgear, starting from afar and only barring the dirty stuff, groin kicks, etc. Then I'd have no problem if at some point the opponents crossed bridges in a bong/fook scenario like in chi sao--but it's still not likely unless two wing chun guys are fighting. I say try sparring wherein one guy fights like a typical person or a boxer or something and then have the wing chun person try to contend with that--since it's more likely to happen.

[Liddel]

Two things though that I feel are a detrimint in your scenario:
One, the act of chi sao sparring is not realistic in that people don't fight that way in real life. You're not going to square off in bong/fook sao with people on the street.

Correct... and in Chi Sao (not Chi Dan Sao) which means sticking hands and does not specify what type of sticking, we DO NOT start with Tan/Fook.
It starts with a punch.


Two, chi sao is done with no gear, right? Meaning that if that assumption is right and you did use adaquate force, there'd be a lot of bloodied up lips and noses in your place.

Body is protected, head is not - body shots only as a result...

And yes its a prelude to full contact sparring :) which you need to bridge the gap between training and realism.

IMHO though without the step of free chi sao between full contact sparring (light or heavy, i advocate both) then students tend to abandon VT habbits for something more akin to kickboxing allbeit a poor version. ;)

DREW

[Vankuen]

True true. Without direction comes flailing; but have you ever wondered why--when karatekas, TKD stylists, gung fu and wing chun guys, or just anyone in general--get thrown into a high pressure sparring environment that they will sometimes "revert" back to a kickboxing type of fighting?

Through the years, the main components of my stand-up I've learned are TKD, three styles of gung fu (including wing chun), MT/boxing, dabbled in some JKD, etc. I noticed that the MT, as compared to the other styles, sometimes just feels more "natural".

Granted I can fight using any of the systems today....although it really depends on what is presented to me in the fight, what comes out more often than not is the muay thai, and then the wing chun when I'm in that range, then muay thai again when I'm clinching. If it goes to the ground--well I've got some really bad BJJ experiences to work with! :) So let's hope that last scenario doesn't happen for a while.

I often come to the conlusion that kickboxing (the good kind--not the bouncing around with the hands down crap) is a more humanistic form, meaning it COULD be the most simplistic and natural method for the human anatomy when fighting with all four limbs.

Just a thought though. Nothing really to back it up besides my own experiences and what I observe in the world around me. And don't get me wrong--I love my gung fu the most--but you gotta admit that some styles of gung fu put people in some odd positions at times...which to me can be counter productive in hard fighting.

[sanjuro_ronin]

The reason that striking arts like Boxing, MT and kickboxing have a very small "learning curve" is because they are as close to natural movement as one can get and still be effective.

[Vankuen]

I wouldn't say that the learning curve is the same--because like anything else that depends on the individual. However in general yes!

Then perfecting those natural movements -- capitalizing on the strengths of the human body -- seems to be the most logical to me.

Now I think that wing chun also has some natural movements to it. Things like bong sau for example, it resembles almost the same natural movement that someone might do to protect themselves instinctively. Tan sao, same thing with a little tweak here and there.

But as far as punching and kicking go--I think that MT/B/KB still seem to have more of that ingrained technicallity to it.