2004 WC forum urination Olympics

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Wing Chun
1

Why does it seem that every thread descends into a peeing contest? It always ends up sounding like “my dad can beat up your dad” bickering between six year olds?

Wing Chun has many lineages and many styles. Why do we get wrapped up in the difference and not the similarities? The common elements and concepts should bind us together. Where is the tolerance and respect?

Every website I have seen from every style of WC mentions RESPECT. Where is the respect in the post on this forum. Can’t we agree the others have different opinions and that they might be valid? If not, how do we expect that the students will learn any tolerance.

Just ranting at the same old WC infighting…

2

As I wrote before, because it comes down to worldview of WCK (or martial arts in general). The first view is what I call the dogmatic view of WCK. This view holds that WCK is a secret book, written by a supremely skilled and knowledgeable person or persons or entity that contains the secret wisdom of fighting (“WCK is a complete fighting system”) and has been secretly passed down over the ages to a lineage of keepers-of-the-secret-book. Some have only gotten parts of the secret book; others, of course, have learned it all (the protectors of the secret book). A variation of this metaphor is that GM So-and-So is a genius and singularly skillful fighter, and he took the info available and came up with a new secret book (that only he and his followers have access to, naturally). The secret book typically contains a very complex and arcane theoretical “knowledge.” Secret-book styles rarely “test” their approach, i.e., challenge fight, as their methods are “too dangerous” or “lethal” and are for “combat” or “street fighting” not “sport.” This world view is closed (“don’t add or subtract from the secret book”; “that’s not part of the system”; etc.), rigid (“you can only do it this way” – as outlined in the secret book), elitist (“we have the genuine secret book, the rest of you poor fellows, well . . . “) and doesn’t evolve or change (why would it evolve when you have the perfection contained in the secret book?). Worth is measured by how close one is to the keeper-of-the-secret book. The absolute accuracy of their “history” is vitally important to them – because if you question their claim to access to the secret book (let alone suggest that the secret book itself doesn’t exists), you question the very foundation of their belief system.

The other world view is the pragmatic view of WCK. It sees WCK, like boxing or BJJ or any other fighting method, as having a certain approach to fighting and certain core fundamentals (by “fundamental” I mean basics that everyone in that method has) that are necessary to effectively take that approach to fighting. Why do they have the same fundamentals? Because anyone using that approach will face the same demands, encounter the same problems, etc. How does one become skillful and knowledgeable in that approach? Not by reference to a secret book or by hearsay but by learning the fundamentals (from someone that can actually use them) and then actually using them, in other words, from personal experience – that is by fighting (overcoming genuine resistance) with that approach and finding out how to make the fundamentals really work with their individual qualities. Different practitioners of that approach may very well have different individual ways of putting the same fundamentals to use. This view doesn’t have secrets: the fundamentals are readily available. Skill and knowledge is personal in nature and is determined solely by what one can actually do (fighting with that approach). This view is open, flexible, not elitist, and embraces change and evolution. Worth is measured by ability; lineage, titles, certifications, etc. are considered essentially meaningless. The accuracy of any “history” is considered relatively unimportant.

So, if two persons have different dogmatic views (each thinks their secret book is the “correct one” and that the other guy just doesn’t have it) or if you have one with a dogmatic and another with a pragmatic view, there can be no “meeting of minds” – each sees the other as having an “incorrect view.”

Regards,

Terence

3

Lack of maturity. In a civilized world, people can engage in productive discourse where even diametrically opposed views can be discussed or argued without the matters being taken or made personal.

But this is hardly unique to WCK. It is epidemic in the world. Look at politicians, then count how many are truly statesmen.

When you think how bitter and venomous discussions about something as relatively trivial as WCK become, imagine our chances when faced with issues effecting life and death.

Sad.

But the only thing sadder is giving in to it, is failing to always try and strive and will yourself to do better each and every time, and hope only that others will try and strive and will likewise.

4

Gentlemen,
Thanks for your feedback. It is nice to know that there are others who want to have rational discourse without politics and name-calling.

Ian Macaulay

5

I think both Terence and Rene have stated very good points. Allot of the bickering has to do with bruised ego’s, but is this the persons fault? Partially I think. For the Yip Man lineage, I believe allot of the fault is with Yip Man himself. Now I will probably get in sh!t for saying this but it is my belief. Why would Yip teach different things at different times, and if he did why didn’t he upgrade his earlier students with these revisions? Many times on this forum I have read that Yip Man’s students have varying ways of explaining and demonstrating Wing Chun techniques, each having their own individual styles. This can be confusing to anyone, one master says to do things this way and the other totally contradicts that what was said, but both came from the same teacher??? Pretty confusing to me. So people start to take things personally and start to defend what they think is right. IMO, there is good Wing Chun out there and bad Wing Chun out there. But the good thing is in the last decades, the overall approach to WC has improved greatly, masters can’t teach techniques anymore that won’t work in some capacity, but there is only one way IMO to do a technique correctly. For example when applying pak sao, is it better to pak sao the wrist or elbow? One way is correct and the other is incorrect. Now when I use examples like this I’m talking about perfect execution of the technique. I realize that this is not always possible but some WC teachers have definite answers to this question. I’ll let you answer this yourself’s, and we will see where the cards fall.

Also WC is big business now and there is more at stake than in the past.  People's livelihood are dependent on reputations and skills that they possess, so this changes the dynamics of just having a friendly conversation about a Martial Art.  

I personally like to explore other avenue's of WC.  I have lots of video and avi's on different WC lineage's and enjoy viewing them.  If I were to discuss in person WC technique with another from a different lineage would I force my opinions and technique on them?  No I wouldn't.  I'm not out to prove my tech. is better than anyone elses, or my teacher or school is better than others, although I do have definite opinions about these things.

Sihing

6

I don’t think this problem is restricted to Wing Chun. You can see it in many/most martial arts. In fact it happens whenever humans get together to form groups/tribes/schools-of-thought/political parties…you name it. Everyone wants to feel that they have some sort of lock on the “the truth”. It is just one of the more negative aspects of human nature. We’re very odd creatures.

Bill

7

There are as many styles of Wing Chun as practioners. Since everyone including students of the same Sifu, develop their own unique interpretation of the system..

Ultimately there will always be in-infighting as long as there is ego combined with ignorance.

8

Sihing- differences in perceptions is not limited to wing chun.
Or arguing about them.

Simple traffic accidents turn out to be not so simple in claims courts. I can tell you that seeing class notes of different students in the same class can be hilariously instructive. Friends have kept records. After discussing the age of discovery -one student note said- Magellan was the first person to circumcise the globe!!!
Or Luther nailed his testes on the door at Nuremburg.

And as far as holding Ip man responsible ? Nonsense? He didnt and doesnt owe you or me a thing.

And the business aspects of wing chun? I care not a ****hing, penny, dinar or paisa or peso.

Students bear responsibilities too in seeking out good instruction, exploring, thinking, comparing. practicing, experimenting. listening, focussing etc- rather than beinga passive receptor for information.

9

And the business aspects of wing chun? I care not a ****hing, penny, dinar or paisa or peso

An American censoring robot! Funny.
Need clearance from Homeland Security perhaps?

10

Vajramusti

I agree with you there, perception differences can vary considerably, but as a student if I saw a fellow student doing what was suppose to be the same thing differently then wouldn’t it be justified to ask why? Maybe Yip Man wasn’t the great teacher we all thought he was if he didn’t owe anyone (not even his students) anything, if I recall correctly these people were paying students. From what I understand about Yip Man he didn’t like to teach anyways, but on this forum there are nays Ayer’s to everything that has been written about Yip. First he didn’t touch hands with anyone then he did. First he was a drug addict then he wasn’t. Yip doesn’t owe you and I anything but he did to his students. To be true to them and respect them as they respect Yip. Isn’t that fair? Yes every instructor has their favoured students, but myself as a WC teacher I will teach everything I know to every student that comes into the school. Whether or not they can learn or interpret what I teach is up to them, but all questions will be answered by inquiring students.

Sihing

11

Sihing
With reagards to YM:
I dont think he was neccessarily a bad teacher. It would just seem that he didnt view wing chun as fixed movements and positions. There is the famous conversation that is commonly referred to between YM and Wong Shun Leung and Lok Yu.

Wong Shun Leung and Lok Yu were having a conversation about the best way to execute a technique. WHen the both asked YM for guidence, he told them they were both right. Even amonst YM’s first generation students there are big differences in execution.

I think that it is also apparent that YM did not expect all this in house fighting. There probably wasnt much of it when he was alive and it certainly seems that most if not all the squabling started after he died. If he had the slightest idea that there would be so much friction, Im sure he would have done something about it.

12

Some may want this place to be some sort of intellectual coffee-house. I see it more like a pub or bar, where you can be yourself. Face it, you’ll occasionally meet an Albert Einstein or Sherlock Holmes in a pub, but those occasions are rare. Even if you do, they’d probably just talk about the footy or crack a few jokes to unwind rather than continue to dazzle you with their brilliance.

Immaturity, as alluded to by Rene, comes in a variety of forms. Uncritical acceptance and pushing of suspect ideas is one form thereof, as is un-thought-out scorm of other peoples’ opinions.

I’m guilty of occasional poor behaviour. I’ve seen few others that aren’t. I realise respect must be earned, not expected, that cuts both ways for us all.

Insults? Pi$$ing contests? As Joy said, happens, and will continue to happen everywhere, not just here.

As my coach says: “Life sucks, get a helmet.”

13

Some may want this place to be some sort of intellectual coffee-house. I see it more like a pub or bar, where you can be yourself.

Why do you have to be anything other than yourself at a coffee-house??

Some people just have conflicting relationships with others, some misinterpet others, some are psychopathic and some are just schizophrenic.

What can you do? It’s a public internet forum.:rolleyes:

14

Why do you have to be anything other than yourself at a coffee-house??

Touche.

I imagine coffee-houses to be places with poetry readings, frequented by the highbrow (like yin and yang, most of us contain elements of both highbrow and lowbrow). Pubs take all comers with a wider tolerance for behaviour.

To be honest, I’ve never been to one so I don’t know what I’m talking about .
:slight_smile:

15

I go to coffee-houses to drink coffee and maybe read a paper (mostly coffee though).

I got the metaphore though.

…and can’t say I haven’t been to a pub.:smiley:

16

Pubs are more fun than coffee houses. But then there are pubs and there are pubs-have tended bar etc in both ends of the spectrum- avoid one end these days–with late arrival of wisdom.

Coffee houses? Less variety of people and fare.

17

I think that Terance is essentially correct, except that I would add that many of those who believe they hold what he calls the “pragmatic” view probably actually have a “dogmatic” view.

Even if your core beliefs don’t involve a “secret book”, you can still be “dogmatic” about them, in the sense he’s using it. The defining characteristic of such dogmatism is not secrecy (that would be occultism…), but rather resistance to change, and unwillingness to consider contrary positions.

For example, one could be dogmatic (in this sense) about such core beliefs as:
Why do they have the same fundamentals? Because anyone using that approach will face the same demands, encounter the same problems, etc.
There are other possible reasons they would have the same fundamentals.

Different practitioners of that approach may very well have different individual ways of putting the same fundamentals to use.
This may not be true, or may be true but undesirable. For example, if different practitioners of mathematics had different individual ways of putting the same fundamentals to use, that would be a Bad Thing.

Skill and knowledge is personal in nature and is determined solely by what one can actually do (fighting with that approach).
This presumes all skill and knowledge pertains directly to fighting.

This view is open, flexible, not elitist, and embraces change and evolution.
One can believe one’s view is open, flexible, not elitist, and embraces change and evolution even if in practice it is closed, rigid, elitist, and resistant to change and evolution.

Worth is measured by ability; lineage, titles, certifications, etc. are considered essentially meaningless.
Actually, this is a perfect example of a “dogmatic” position. Lineage, titles, certifications, etc., are certainly not “essentially meaningless”. Some individual, specific lineages, titles, certifications, etc. may be meaningless, but there is nothing inherent to the concept of lineages, titles, certifications, etc., that renders them meaningless in essence.

The accuracy of any “history” is considered relatively unimportant.
Another good example of dogma. “What is behind me doesn’t matter” (quote from one of the Cannonball Run movies).)

Regarding Rene’s post, maturity is only part of it. Part of the problem is the venue itself - I have found that all online discussions, if they go on long enough, tend to devolve into ****ing contests, regardless of the subject matter. There are several possible explanations:

  1. Online discussions, due to their perceived anonymity and lack of non-textual indicators (tone of voice, body language, etc.), encourage ****ing contests, even among otherwise rational, mature people.

  2. Online discussions, due to their perceived anonymity, tend to attract people who just plain get off on ****ing contests.

  3. Online discussions, due to their perceived anonymity, are filled with people of a wide range of maturity (you can’t immediately tell if the person you’re talking to is 25 or 12), and the immature folks tend to dominate the discussion.

  4. Trolls.

I know #3 cannot be the entire explanation, because I’ve met face-to-face some of the people I’ve seen in grand online ****ing contests, and they’re neither 12 years old, nor particularly immature. I suspect #1 cannot be the entire explanation either, because in my experience it’s usually the same small handful of people who are responsible for turning a rational discussion into a ****ing contest, which suggests that without those specific people, the discussion would remain rational (#1 can’t be discounted completely, though. Sometimes, the ****ing contests start when someone misinterprets something someone has said as being offensive, due to the absence of vocal inflections and facial expressions and such. False positives on the sarcasm detector, or false negatives on the humor detector, are often the problem).

#4, Trolls, is a special case. These are people who apparently get off on starting ****ing contests among other people, but not actually participating themselves. They’ll come in, post something blatantly clueless or offensive, then just shut up, quit posting, and sit back and watch as everyone else ****es all over each other. About all you can do about trolls is ignore them
(if you must respond to them, the IEEE standard is to just post “Please don’t feed the troll” and leave it at that). Note that true trolls don’t participate in the discussions they start. Food for thought when branding people all willy-nilly.

lata,
Jeremy R.

18

LOL. Astute post, Jeremy.

Regards,

  • kj
19

Everyone thinks they’re open minded. That’s part of the problem. The other part is the bastids who keep disagreeing.

20

it’s mostly white collar [the middle class] people who fear the “banter”,or are pulled into it too easily.working class people grow up having to trade quips and insults as an every day part of life.funny,id place a small fortune [not really] on most of the people on this site being middle class.[exactly who wck is not for].bnter and pi$$ taking is healthy and fun.why not see it as harmless and not as an afront to you and your kin?

for instance:how many obviously taken from the "100 hillarious and poignant quotes book"can rene use in one day.see his answer above!see,banter,hamrless!!

russ.