Are style vs style challenge matches obsolete?

Actually YES they do still have a valid point because we STILL have pple deluding themselves.
And so do you challenge someone because he’s deluded or ignorant of what else is out there? In this day and age if someone isn’t interested in various ways a fight can happen, crossing hands with others or merely watching the numerous fight outlets available then what can you do. Hell, I’m pretty bad but I’ve pointed out stupid techniques to people, demostrated why and still have them use it to this day.

and if someone strongly feels that X is better than Y… well there are more than enough oppurtunities to prove your point… big gloves… little glove… “jacket”… no jacket… standing… or ‘grappling’… from bars to ballrooms to arenas…
That’s exactly it Suntzu.

Yeah…but if there is one thing I have learned it is that you can’t please everyone so you have to please yourself…even if you enter a tournament and do well, there will be naysayers that will say that was an easy tournament blah blah blah…people are going to believe what they want a lot of the time…true some styles that have done very well in the ring have earned a great deal of respect that way…but that is very hard to do…if a kung fu guy won UFC then sure he would turn some heads but winning UFC can be tricky, even challenging I’d say…

Alas, in the part of the kung fu world that I am familiar with, it seems people are content to sit around saying that their style and shifu are the best, and everything else is crap, b/c so and so won some competition 50 some odd years ago against other kung fu guys…or somebody wins a competition where they fought once and runs around calling themself the “WORLD CHAMP” which yeah technically I can’t call it a lie but is that what they are content with? They beat some tomato can so now they have reached the pinnacle of their career? I guess its easier to assume you are the best than to go out there and find out…

Why do people feel the need to proclaim something is superior?

  1. Belief preservation.
  2. Everybody wants to feel special and unique…

Don’t get me wrong.

I don’t think STYLE vs STYLE is to prove one is superior than the other. No art holds all the answers (Except the Almighty BAJI!:smiley: you mortals can’t understand!) And style vs style matches help point out the holes in each.

However the are many pple out there that will NOT see the holes in their system unless they experience it first hand.

However the are many pple out there that will NOT see the holes in their system unless they experience it first hand.
there lies the rub…

actually, the rub is currently sitting down.

sad thing is that some people, when pointed out the flaw either through reason or through getting socked, will still let themselves be deluded just because accepting error is more painful than the risk of getting socked again. :frowning:

I don’t believe there is a valid way to test any style vs another. You can test to see if your style is useful in combat by fighting, but even then count on many many fights with many many people on both sides before you can solidly state that your style works.

I learned a lesson like this concerning the Bong Sau.

I would have success with it when training with my Wing Chun teacher and classmates. But then I would train with my Southern Mantis teacher and he told me not to use Bong Sau because he’d snap my arm… sure enough, he nearly did and was kind enough only to flip the elbow and apply pressure until I was kissing the floor (this went on for about a month)… lesson learned.

Now in internal the lesson has been taught simply and clearly. It’s not that the move or idea is wrong, it’s how its applied.

Go into Bong Sau (and isn’t the correct way that elbow is under shoulder and wrist under elbow and you roll it so the elbow is now up? And I know it’s a moment in time and a deflection move). How much weight can you pick up in this position? How can you open if someone is collapsing you? You can’t roll! You already did, you shot that load already. It’s a dead movement.

I’ve said this many times and I’m sure people here will give me he|| for saying it again, but it’s true. A good guy will flip it on you.

Tan Sau is $hit because it blocks from left to right or right to left like a windshield wiper … window still gets wet.

And Fuk Sau is $hit because it merely covers? Why not strike the attack and slip outside and cover (Fuk Sau) or slip inside and open (Tan Sau).

Of course this is 100% mouth boxing over the internet but I have felt it first hand and realised the weakness in the style. People will tell me I didn’t train long enough. Fine. But when I use a computer from 10 years a go and have the chance now to use a new one, should I just train at getting better with the old one or just jump right in with the new technology?

that’s all over generalizing efist and inaccurate. Bong sau is an alive, transitional position. If you hold it, pause during it or use it otherwise incorreclty, your right you can get caught, the same with ANY technique known to man. The drilling is designed to deflect, and if you train properly in sensitivity then you should be fine. But that’s really the point isn’t it? We could one up each other all day with if’s and and’s.

Tan sau - sure, its like a windshield wiper, if your rigid and inflexible. The idea is that if your using it properly, the rain never meets the windshield at all. As a matter of fact, while most WC guys will bring up bong sau, I think tan sau is much more useful because of it’s flexability as a transition. If your throwing it around then you bet your a$$ your going to get hit. It’s not an “external” technique and doing that way misses the point, same with bong sau.

Why not strike the attack and slip outside and cover (Fuk Sau) or slip inside and open (Tan Sau).

why not?

Here’s the issue e-fist, and exactly what this whole subject is all about. for whatever reason, wingchun wasn’t working for you, but it works. I know guys who could probably impress the crap out of you with their wingchun. I know a few guys who could probably deal well with your sifu as well (I know blasphemy, but we aren’t all invulnerable to harm or a higher skilled person). It’s unfair for anyone to claim an art doesn’t work because it hasn’t worked for them. That’s one of the biggest issues in this whole style vs style thing. Guys who are out there, studied an art for a little while, or even sometimes (very few times) a long time, but can’t get the art to work.
Ever met one of those people, guy or girl, who walks into the martial arts and just doesn’t seem to “have it”. no matter how goo the instructors are, or how much attention they get paid, they just can’t ever seem to fight their way out of a wet paper bag? They’re missing a certain something that is important to good close combat. what that is I couldn’t say? Not enough time practicing? Not paying attention? Wrong style? Could be many things. To blame the art in my opinion is ignorant.

EvolutionFist-

Your questions and comments are valid. I understand where you are coming from. Perhaps Ving Tsun is just not for you. That is okay, because not every art is for every person.

I read your post, and I think of the problems with Ving Tsun today. I am no master of Ving Tsun, but I do study it, and I train hard. I am definately not the best either. However, after reading your post, I think perhaps you misunderstood certain concepts or perhaps were just taught differently.

The bong sao (or wing arm)- is a transitional movement to mainly deflect high attacks. The elbow is actually above the shoulder and the wrist is on centerline. The hand is turned inwards towards your body. The arm is held at approx 130 degree angle. You hold no tension in your shoulder or wrist. All of your focus should be near the elbow. Infact your wrist should be loose. You should have a spring like motion if someone were to press towards you on your forearm and then let go. Now when you intercept the strike with the bong sao you are using a bit of forward energy (or intent, or whatever you want to call it - not tension) + your structure to block it. The shoulder should be dropped and relaxed, not tensed or raised at all. That is the hardest part IMHO, the shoulders using the bong sao. Also, remembering not to stay in the bong sao position is hard to. Once you bong, you transition right away. As for the armbar you were talking about, yes that is a very good valid move. It is also very easy to counter. Immoveable elbow theories and dropping elbow are key here. Also feeling your opponet as well. This goes to another principle of the dragon head/tail. When the dragon tail raises (your elbow) the head lowers (your hand) and vice versa. So the moment you feel the chin na being applied you must lower the tail and raise the head, and drop that elbow down. Structurely, the dropping elbow is very powerful.

The fuk sao (or covering hand) is meant to act as a feeler. In VT they say the second hand in the killing hand. That is because a lot of times you want to trap and control then strike. This way you can set up your opponet to put themselves in a bad situation. Now, lets say you are fighting someone who is just really fast. Has really fast strikes. Fuk saos can be used to tell you where your opponet is going before they go there, by feeling where they are moving and how their body moves. Also, if you want to play nice and not really hurt someone you can feel out their movements until you can apply chin na or something else (whatever grappling, take downs whatever). It may not be “wing chun minded” but if it works it works.

The tan sao (or disperssing hand) is used with the whole body. The problem is a lot of people have trouble applying this because they do not use foot work, or positioning. I have found that the tan sao is realistically best for straight punches and it works great. For almost all other attacks I would usually end up using pak sao and biu sao. Or I would use foot work and dynamics to dodge the strike. The tan sao is effective and very powerful structure wise, but to be used in live situations you must use foot work and positioning. Come in at angles, not straight forward on your opponet.

Like I said not every art is for every person. I took several martial arts before I found Ving Tsun (wing chun, whatever) and taiji and I really like them. They are great arts if practiced right and practiced often, just like any other martial art.

Evolutionfist - This was in no way a negative post towards you. Infact I am glad you posted what you thought from your experiences. I too, am interested in other arts and do pick up techniques every now and then from other systems, like animal boxing, CLF, tai hui, bagua, hsing-i, judo etc. Because I am very fortunate in the fact I get to train with a wide variety of people who train different systems. Sometimes wing chun does not seem like it can hold its own against someone who does another art, and other times I win the sparring match easily. I also think mantis boxing is very cool as well.

Good luck in your training,
GFist

the other thing I think is a weak argument is the whole old versus new thing. The human body is only capable of so many things (not including all the belief in Qi and what it can do). Now, some traditions withstanding, the only real things that change after so many hundreds or thousands of years is the way one trains, and that is mostly due to a better understanding of things and better technology. For the most part when people claim they have something “new” it’s pretty much just re-inventing the wheel but again, out of ignorance will claim they have found a new and better way of doing things.

Originally posted by CFT
[B]I’m interested in what you have to say on this matter, can you expand on your point?

If it is striking vs. striking or grappling vs. grappling, then I don’t think that any one art is inherently better than another.

Speaking from a striking arts perspective, I don’t see large differences in basic/core philosophy. Some arts have their ideas better formulated/formalized so that the practitioners are more able to articulate why their art is “better”.

If you’re talking about a stiking style versus a grappling one, then that is just comparing apples to oranges. It’s almost the same as saying that weapons based styles are better than empty-handed ones. Weapons provide an undeniable advantage in combat which would and should make even a competant empty-handed combatant pause for thought, but it doesn’t necessarily make it superior. [/B]

7* pretty much nailed it with his Muay Thai and TKD comparison. If you took a BJJ purple belt against say a 3rd degree TKD guy, I’d put money down that unless he can kick the BJJ guy once and knock him out, each time the BJJ would win. If you took a Kyoushin or however it is spelled against a TKD guy, the Kyoushin would probably win as well.

The only way I think it depends on the person more than the style is when the styles are similar in training, and similar in time. Say CLF guy versus a Hung Gar guy, both have 5 years training or something. Then I think it might depend more on the person. Or a Shotokan guy versus a Goju Ryu, both with 3 years.

Edit:
Where can I find this SD versus BJJ White belt thread on Bullshido?

If you took a Kyoushin or however it is spelled against a TKD guy, the Kyoushin would probably win as well.
And how do you know this? If I took my personal experience I’d say you are wrong since as I’ve done well against Kyukoshinkai (OK 2 of them neither black belts) who tended to attack really well but walked into counter attacks, I’ve even seen a video of a TKD fighter knocking a Kyukoshinkai fighter across the ring. But I know my personal experience is only that and not the complete story on Kyukoshinkai or TKD or anything else, and I know this because I can watch other KK fighters and I can watch other TKD fighters. I can also work out with other styles in a friendly or competitive manner without resorting to a challenge.

However the are many pple out there that will NOT see the holes in their system unless they experience it first hand.
And what happens then? They start training to make the holes smaller, or they come up with an excuse and keep on keeping on, or they quit. I think that people will mostly find the training that they want. If someone wants to put on padding and lightly tap someone in sparring then more power to them, if someone wants to take himself to his best as a fighter will also find the training he desires. :slight_smile:

Style vs Man

Occasionally the topic comes up concerning the “street fighter” who most of us might consider a well practiced, but not “styled” fighter. One who has trained perhaps a little bit of this and that, but mostly survived on direct experience.

We’ve also got match fighters. Anything with rules. Usually with gloves or other protection.

Then the touch fighters…

Then the “non-sparring” stylists.

So, which style is superior? The one where the most people practice the hardest fighting and conditioning discipline? The street fighter?

Is best defined by fighting other trained fighters, or by fighting in real-life situations, or by being constructive members of a society and exercising violence only as a last resort? The question itself is fallacious.

Or is it the one that gives the individual practicing it the most of whatever they need? What muscle and blood do with the knowledge.

Some people have no desire to be the best fighter, but they don’t want to be the victim. Others are after money, glory and fame. Which is superior, and by whose measure?

Multi-discipline understanding is great. Know your enemy to know yourself. Some arts have particular techniques aimed at the key techniques of other arts, does that make them better?

Some arts have tremendous depth allowing for years of learning and development. Others are quick to learn to an effective level. Which of these is superior?

The art travels with the man. Good men will make a strong lineage and raise stout children. Poor practitioners will raise crippled children who will succumb.

Arts rise and fall on the backs of the players, not the strength of the style.

Thats my rant and I’m sticking to it.

Some arts have tremendous depth allowing for years of learning and development. Others are quick to learn to an effective level. Which of these is superior?

These concepts are not mutually exclusive.

Originally posted by Yum Cha
Some arts have tremendous depth allowing for years of learning and development. Others are quick to learn to an effective level. Which of these is superior?

Originally posted by Merryprankster
These concepts are not mutually exclusive.

MP is correct. I’ve not heard someone who claims their style/training methodology will make them an effective fighter in a short time say the style will be less effective as time goes on.

Vash, true.

To speak further to it, becoming effective in a short period of time does not necessarily mean that the art lacks depth.

However, I HAVE heard many people who generally lack significant full-contact experience make absurd claims to the contrary.

Some arts have tremendous depth allowing for years of learning and development. Others are quick to learn to an effective level. Which of these is superior?
:confused: What makes any art quick to learn to an effective level? In my opinion it’s hands on training with a trained partner. Look at an art like BJJ, it’s not just rolling around on the ground, you need to feel what your opponent is doing, you need to think, the art has moves, counters and counters to counters. If it was a base art I doubt people would be sticking around to get advanced rank.
I watched Mike Moses and another guy rolling and it looked like an Aikido demo but on the ground.

People who become effective quickly in any art will have many things in common when it comes to training. What some think is tremendous depth is just a slower method of training.

OK Asia, you may be right… :frowning: :wink:

I’d have to say rogue is right on. I loathe using the term “alive,” so I’ll say “training with an opponent on a constantly-increasing resistance level utilizing the techniques, principles, and methodologies of the studied style” is an integral part of learning.