[QUOTE=Edmund;924366]When UWC said “We are living Bruce Lee’s vision”, I think he forgot to add that “We” didn’t include you, HW108.[/quote]
Insults apart, there is nothing new about the Bruce Lee vision. TCMA’S were always about the accumulation of skills and their mastery at higher levels. Bruce Lee’s way was different and perhaps more in par with modern MMA, even if some of his principles may have been different.
Not in the way that Bruce Lee would (or you) would have it.
I never mentioned “complete rejection” of the JKD vision!
I believe that if he had completed Wing Chun or any other combat oriented style of kung fu in a genuine kung fu school and under a genuine master, then he may have come to realize that some of “his” JKD vision was thought out centuries before he was born.
Furthermore, he would have been exposed to and would have presumably mastered some of the kung fu internals. That would have been enough to change a lot of his vision, perhaps not completely but enough for him to not have made some of the criticisms that he eventually made regarding the classical styles.
And as Dale Dugas has recently mentioned in another Bruce Lee thread here in the forum, he would have been with us if he had real kung fu (or something to that effect).
What you and people of the McWing Chun generation don’t seem to comprehend is the fact that learning the Chum Kiu or Biu Jee form is not the same as gaining HOLISTIC expertise in Chum Kiu and Biu Jee LEVELS!
And this forum is full of “Bruce Lees” who form an opinion based on whatever they have learnt and who definitely do criticize classical styles..Lol,lol,lol,lol.
One would hope that Bruce Lee’s opinion would have been based on at least a complete mastery and understanding of the relatively short style of Wing Chun.
Tough luck to the classical people who don’t like it.[/QUOTE]
Tough luck to the modern MMA-ists who think that Bruce Lee’s criticisms of traditional kung fu is based on actual expertise in a given style of TCMA.
[QUOTE=Hardwork108;924596]
I believe that if he had completed Wing Chun or any other combat oriented style of kung fu in a genuine kung fu school and under a genuine master, then he may have come to realize that some of “his” JKD vision was thought out centuries before he was born.
Furthermore, he would have been exposed to and would have presumably mastered some of the kung fu internals. That would have been enough to change a lot of his vision, perhaps not completely but enough for him to not have made some of the criticisms that he eventually made regarding the classical styles.
And as Dale Dugas has recently mentioned in another Bruce Lee thread here in the forum, he would have been with us if he had real kung fu (or something to that effect).
[/QUOTE]
These are all hypothetical.
Bruce Lee gave his opinion in writings and interviews.
They do not agree with you. Hypothesizing that he’d change his mind IF ONLY this or that is irrelevant.
This is not an insult. Your argument about Bruce Lee’s change of opinion is simply not supported by his writings and quotes.
You don’t have any evidence to back your claim that he’d “come around”.
What you and people of the McWing Chun generation don’t seem to comprehend is the fact that learning the Chum Kiu or Biu Jee form is not the same as gaining HOLISTIC expertise in Chum Kiu and Biu Jee LEVELS!
It doesn’t matter what the distinction is.
The fact that you claim to have more expertise than Bruce Lee is not the issue.
“If Bruce Lee knew what I knew, he’d agree with me. He was just too inexperienced. Therefore Bruce Lee almost agrees with my opinion.”
Tough luck to the modern MMA-ists who think that Bruce Lee’s criticisms of traditional kung fu is based on actual expertise in a given style of TCMA.
Who cares what they are based on?
All his visions have essentially become relevant and true for modern MMA-ists regardless of how “expert” you consider him.
His vision is not for YOU. You are in the classical mess that he was definitely advocating against.
Lets quote Bruce Lee’s actual opinion:
Styles tend to not only separate men - because they have their own doctrines and then the doctrine became the gospel truth that you cannot change. But if you do not have a style, if you just say: Well, here I am as a human being, how can I express myself totally and completely? Now, that way you won’t create a style, because style is a crystallization. That way, it’s a process of continuing growth.
To me totality is very important in sparring. Many styles claim this totality. They say that they can cope with all types of attacks; that their structures cover all the possible lines and angles, and are capable of retaliation from all angles and lines. If this is true, then how did all the different styles come about? If they are in totality, why do some use only the straight lines, others the round lines, some only kicks, and why do still others who want to be different just flap and flick their hands? To me a system that clings to one small aspect of combat is actually in bondage.
[QUOTE=AdrianK;924353]Thats under the assumption that the internals are scientifically verifiable. Which given the amount of kung fu people who fight, they would be king of the ****ing hill if they actually made any kind of real difference.[/quote]
Unfortunately over 95% (and I believe that I am being generous here) are Mc dojos/kwoons.
That would explain around 98% of (the totally clueless) posts regarding the subject of traditional kung fu and its alleged shortcomings, in this very forum.
No doubt that what you say holds true for the McKwoon “sifus” but there are sifus out there who do not enter competitions but will fight if challenged. Furthermore, these types of challenges have been going on for centuries.
Well perhaps Bruce Lee should have explained it better!
Furthermore that punch is still valid but there is also a valid application for the fist on the hip!
First, how many “scientists” that you know have mastered the intricacies of kung fu forms? I mean not just going through the motions!
It is obvious that you have no experience of the internal side of kung fu training.
More clueless statements.
You are still showing, to put it politely, a misunderstanding of the internal concepts.
I suppose that if you have mastered Tai Chi then perhaps you can break down some of the forms into specific and functional exercises. As far as I know, most of those who have mastered it and hence have profound knowledge, have not done so!
Why do you think that is?
I wish that Yip Man, Huen Kay San and Fung Siu Sing had your advanced training knowledge.:rolleyes:
Let us just say that there is a reason for SLT being the way it is and that to change it you would first have to have mastered it in all its aspects, hence being qualified to change it.
If you believe that the internals are about chi balls then you have no way in hell of mastering SNT.
It is vague for you because you have apparently not come across genuine kung fu instruction.
Mas. Oyama was combat oriented as well and in earlier life had practiced kung fu. However, that does not make him a combat oriented kung fu fighter!
Again you are showing your “misunderstandings” on this subject, and rudely at that!
A lot of genuine masters have gone into a lot of trouble to keep that stuff under their hats. I mean look, even the great Bruce Lee didn’t know about them.
There are those (McKwoons) who are full of what you say and there are the others that are genuine and even if they don’t fight in competions, they would accept challenges. Care to go to one such school and try for yourself?
And some of those compete as well.
“Best wing chun instructors” who did not know about the internals? I smell Mc Kwoon again…lol.
I hate to break it to you but that sounds like McKwoon to me. I have never met a kung fu sifu who promotes his students because they put time and effort or because they are good people, but then you can count those sifus on (less than) one hand.
By the way, those who put the time and effort do get tangible results unless they have other problems.
Then I will inform you none of the traditional kung fu schools that I have trained in had exams. Sifu is always there and is hands on does regularly touch hands with students. So there is no fulling him. Of course if you have a Mckwoon with 40 students doing stuff and the “sifu” doesn’t even know their names and doesn’t care as long as he makes $$$$ on the exam fees, then you have a problem.
Showing you the school is not going to help you.
Nope. Showing videos is not going to help you.
Yes I do and it is regarding Wing Chun and the part of syllabus relevant to my level of training.
You see, you have been practising WC for I don’t know how many years and still you have not grasped the relevance of the internals, the forms and god knows what else. What is a video of a genuine kung fu school going to do for you? I’ll tell you, it will either confuse you even further as you will not make heads or tails out of it or at worst it will bring out snide remarks.
I would say that WC may share common movements/techniques with other kung fu (specially Southern styles) but that does not mean that doing less than half of Wing Chun and then going to one of these styles is going to complete your Wing Chun. It may improve your kung fu in general but it will not complete you WC. Think internals and their different energies as regards body unity.
Who says I haven’t?
It can if you look at it holistically and include the internal aspects. Taking what I said further you can even have the same tam sao performed by two Wing Chun people but one has studied the art internally (and externally) and the other only externally, then the energy and the sensitiviy will be different.
Lets make it simpler. A straight karate punch may look like the equivalent from a Shaolin style. Are day the same? Of course not!
There are similarities between these two styles but you cannot complete your WC studies by leaving it halfway and going to a PM school nor can you complete your PM studies by going to a WC school.
[QUOTE=AdrianK;924355]And which lineage would that be?[/quote]
It would be Chow Gar!
I would say that perhaps those people had some “unhealthy” habits. Furthermore it would seem that many of the Hong Kong lineages do not practice the internals that much or at least not openly.
My point of reference is the Mainland Chinese Lineage that I practise.
That is good. Perhaps you should take up taiji and just discard the forms.
Yes and no. I don’t believe these two styles to be that similar. Furthermore, Bruce Lee hardly mentioned his experience in Praying Mantis. WHY?
Are you just assuming that he went very far in that system?
I got news for you. Once one masters a few styles of kung fu then he can “shed” the styles during combat. He just “becomes” or “is”. That does not mean that he will invent something else nor that he will suddenly gain the super ability to hop around like a kickboxer, but it will all come to him naturally.
Of course to get to this level one has to gain kung fu MASTERY or at least EXPERTISE!
Which students and what was the context of Bruce Lee’s order. I could tell you that don’t teach high kicks to new and stiff students…etc.
And that is another aspet that you misuderstand. It is not my Framework but it is a kung fu framework!
I did not invent the internals. I did not invent the principles of “swallowing”, “spitting”, “floating”,etc.etc.
I did not create the distinct mechanisms using the distinct kung fu roots.
I don’t know who you studied kung fu with but I am tempted to advice you to ask for your money back.
You mean Western sciense don’t you?
Well you can experience it yourself by practicing it with real sifus who will show you what is meant by them.
Right now I think that you equate the internals with chi blasts and magic powers and that is what some of the know nothing knucklehead “sifus”:rolleyes: who post in these forums would want you to believe.
I give scientists a lot of credit and not just the ones in the East but also a few in the West.
I wish I had a dollar for everytime someone here told me that they have “seen it all”.Lol.
Well your comments don’t reflect that!
When I said that you “haven’t seen too many combat oriented traditional kung fu masters” I meant studied under and not seen on some video clip or demonstration.
There is a design to the form and there are good reasons for it. One way of looking at them would be to take the Yin and Yang view of the movements and the balance that they creat. It is not just a case of lets stand there and do dynamic tension until we are tired.
Also as far as I am concerned Uechi ryu karate will not have the depth of the SPM “dynamic tension”. Or are you saying now that you can complete your SPM training by going on to Uechi ryu, before even completing half of your Mantis? Lol,lol.
It is in Rio de Janeiro Brasil. Are up for a visit?:eek:
I am really surprised that you find the fact that real kung fu schools don’t just teach you forms and then elevate your grades so unbelievable.
That raises a lot of questions from my side!
I am merely saying that if one does not have a point of reference regarding authentic kung fu then one cannot make judgements.
How can you have great students if you teach crap? They have crappy students because they teach some half assed “kung fu” stuff mixed with some half assed karate or TKD and then call it kung fu.
The authentic schools that I am familiar with will not promote your level without you first having understood that level to the required degree and gained the correct structures, techniques,powers etc.
Well as far as I am aware the first MAs in China were of wrestling nature. This would put doubt on the well known “modern” MMA peech that TCMAs don’t address groundfighting…based on some half-assed study of kung fu, I suppose? lol,lol. See where I am coming from?
That is like assuming that a modern sword fighter would defeat genuine samurai if they ever crossed paths because he is modern and has access to “modern” science.
As far as I am concerned, there are internal elements of kung fu training that modern sciense has not understood. The same can be said about enchant Chinese medicine.
Well there is always a first time.
No because you do not seem to have “grasped” the internals.
Well the groundfighting scenario is addressed in some kung fu styles. This is very understandable since the wrestling arts were around in China long before kung fu.
They may not look like BJJ but they still address this scenario.
The Mainland Chinese Lineage of Wing Chun that I study does have groundfighting training based on WC principles, using striking and Chin-na techniques. However, I have not trained this yet as I am not at this level currently.
I didn’t say that they did.
Yet, according to my readings Yip Man did not personally teach Bruce Lee, one of the reasons beign because bruce was mix raced. Anyway, Bruce Lee did not stay in HK long enough either.
How do I do that in a forum? You have studied WC for what I assume to be a pretty long time yet you make light of the internals, the SLT and so on. How can I show you “real kung fu”?
I am not a sifu (not even close) but I have been very lucky. Believe me I sometimes think about it and just thank my lucky stars regarding the kung fu sifus that I have crossed paths with in the Uk and Brasil. It is all in the approach and being lucky enough to have a sifu who can teach you that approach in a way that makes sense (without mumbo jumbo and the crazy stuff).
[QUOTE=Edmund;924602]These are all hypothetical.[/quote]
I am not making some incredible claim!
I am just saying that if he had a clearer base of understanding regarding traditional kungfu methodology then his final vision would have been different. I am not saying that he would have been totally different but I am sure that his final conclusions would have been slightly “enriched”.
Again, I never said that he would “change his mind” I said that his final conclusions would have been different. Unlike what people like you think, aspects such as the internals form a great part of the richness and potency of authentic kung fu.
It is in your tone.
I was not talking about a total change!
However, all his writings and quotes reflect that conclusions that he had arrived at while having had practiced kung fu in an incomplete way. That is without having even gained mastery of a single style of kung fu in all its aspects including the internals.
I don’t need evidence to prove claims that I have never made. Perhaps he would have “come around” or perhaps not. I believe that he would have had a richer sphere of referance regarding authentic kung fu when arriving to the conclusions that he did hence his criticisms of “the classical mess” may not have been made in such a way.
Woa, woa, woa, hold your horses. You have already made a post based on the incorrect assumption that I said that Bruce Lee would have been a traditionalist if he had gained expertise in Wing Chun. [Even if that may be a slight possibility;)].
So don’t push that foot of yours any further by assuming that I said that I am more of an expert than Bruce Lee!
THANK YOU!:mad:
I don’t know what you are smoking (maybe it is a modern MMA performance enhancer? Lol) but I never implied the above.
If you claim to make “expert” comments, then you should have some VALID experience in the subject area that you criticise (unless it seems if you happen to be a knucklehead posting your “informed” comments on traditional kung fu, in this forum, that is).
But, let me try again. If you are going to criticise kung fu style(s) that are by design profound and difficult to understand (just look at the confused “expert” comments every time chi sao is discussed here..lol.), then the least you can do to give yourself credibility is to have gained expert knowledge of at least one system.
However, even then kung fu is not just Wing Chun and there is a lot of stuff out there that would need to be examined to come to the idiotic conclusion that all classical kung fu is a “mess”!
IN THE SPORT SCENARIO. Meanwhile all the classically trained gangsters in some part of the far just do fine with their kung fu. So do those who work in police military and the security industry in those countries (and some in the West). I have used my kung fu successfully in self defense and so have thousands of kung fu (karate) practitioners.
If you are going to confuse success in ring fighting and sports tournaments with with TCMA goals then you are going to confuse yourself further!
Well you got that right (yes, I am surprised too).
Except for the fact that because of his lack of expertise in traditional kung fu, the “Classical Mess” only existed in Bruce Lee’s mind.
However, the “Jack of All Trades and Master of None” mess is all over the place today, including in these forums (if you don’t believe me then look for the DVD evidence for $15 I believe).
Don’t you want to be the first to thank Bruce Lee for this phenomenom?
Lets do, by all means.
HARDWORK108’s CONVERSATION WITH BRUCE LEE
Until you MASTER that style!
Then you can go on and “change”.
You are meant to express yourself totally and freely in kung fu as well but, yet again, when you master or gain expertise in its practice, FIRST!
That is what many authentic kung fu sifus say!
That is because many major kung fu styles do cover all possible lines!
Because there are more ways than one to skin a cat?
Bruce, why do you ask such simple and obvious questions?
Bruce, I have never heard of styles that use only kicks. Not TCMAs at least!
The other stuff that they use reflects the evolution, richness and profoundness of the Chinese martial arts, which you as a Chinese man should be pround of.
By the way, how many of these styles have you gained expert knowledge in Bruce?
Bird styles, perhaps?
How many of them have you mastered Bruce?
What is your opinion of the upper body vibrations of the White Crane systems that manifest internal power in their palm strikes?
Whoops, sorry I asked Bruce.:eek:
Bruce, can you name me a single kung fu style that "clings to one small aspect of combat?
No? I thought not!
Edmund,
I hope the above conversation has provided you with plenty of food for thought regarding the so called “classical mess” and its validity.
[QUOTE=Hardwork108;924625]I am not making some incredible claim!
I am just saying that if he had a clearer base of understanding regarding traditional kungfu methodology then his final vision would have been different. I am not saying that he would have been totally different but I am sure that his final conclusions would have been slightly “enriched”.
..
…
HARDWORK108’s CONVERSATION WITH BRUCE LEE
…
…
…
Edmund,
I hope the above conversation has provided you with plenty of food for thought regarding the so called “classical mess” and its validity.[/QUOTE]
THIS IS NOT ABOUT ITS VALIDITY.
This is about Bruce Lee’s opinion and vision.
Bruce’s opinion was plainly stated. My quote was to establish the opinion that he held! Not entertain the concept that he would modify it thanks to advice from you about the power of the internals.
The fact that you don’t agree with his opinion is not the topic. Despite that, you continue to try have a “conversation” with him to change his mind!
You are trying to spin his opinion using a hypothetical: IF Bruce had completed WC, he would not be critical of TCMA, “his final conclusions would have been different” etc.
His opinions are clearly stated as being critical of traditional arts and the classical mess. His conclusion and vision was to be free of styles.
[QUOTE=Edmund;924635]THIS IS NOT ABOUT ITS VALIDITY.
This is about Bruce Lee’s opinion and vision.
Bruce’s opinion was plainly stated. My quote was to establish the opinion that he held! Not entertain the concept that he would modify it thanks to advice from you about the power of the internals.
The fact that you don’t agree with his opinion is not the topic. Despite that, you continue to try have a “conversation” with him to change his mind!
You are trying to spin his opinion using a hypothetical: IF Bruce had completed WC, he would not be critical of TCMA, “his final conclusions would have been different” etc.
His opinions are clearly stated as being critical of traditional arts and the classical mess. His conclusion and vision was to be free of styles.[/QUOTE]
Good points.
But, I would like to comment on the often heard “criticism” that Bruce hadn’t “completed wing chun” or “completed the system”. For me, such a comment shows a misunderstanding of WCK and martial art. That way of talking about WCK views it not as a skill but as some sort of body of knowledge, like a book (he never got past chapter 9, poor chap!). No one talks about boxing, judo, BJJ, MT in terms of “not completing the system” or not “learning all of boxing”. That’s not what it is about or how it works.
As I see it, WCK has, like every martial art, a fairly simple, fundamental skillset, and once you learn and develop that skillset (the stuff you learn very earyly on), you can “derive” everything else from it via practice.
No one ever “completes” WCK. It’s not a book that you can finish. It is a skill that you learn and that you continue to practice.
[QUOTE=Edmund;924635]THIS IS NOT ABOUT ITS VALIDITY.
This is about Bruce Lee’s opinion and vision.[/quote]
And I pointed out some “inconsistencies” in his vision!
I am not saying that he would have changed the JKD concepts, after all many of them are present in TCMAs. You didn’t know that did you?
No!
My “conversation” with him was to show the sometimes “exagerated” points that he made as well as the OBVIOUS ones that so impressed others who just had at best superficial understanding of TCMAs.
I am saying that he would not have SO critical of TCMAs, hence “his final conclusions would have been different”.
What is so incredible or difficult to understand about what I am trying to say?
Bruce Lee’s “conclusion” and “vision” were based on an incomplete study of TCMAs, meaning that the “mess” he saw was not an universal truth and may have been partially a figment of his own imagination.
But, I would like to comment on the often heard “criticism” that Bruce hadn’t “completed wing chun” or “completed the system”. For me, such a comment shows a misunderstanding of WCK and martial art. That way of talking about WCK views it not as a skill but as some sort of body of knowledge, like a book (he never got past chapter 9, poor chap!). [/quote]
But it is on one level. That is the level knuckleheads never see because they are too busy hopping around in a ring and getting and inducing even more brain damage on each other, while thinking they are using or learning “functional” Wing Chun (Hun Gar, CLF, etc.).
The body of the knowledge is in the internals and the finetuning of techniques.
Boxing, BJJ and MT do not have the internals. They are basically external arts.
Then why study Wing Chun at all?
Just get a friend, wear some boxing gloves and hit each other on the head. Using some WC book as your reference…lol,lol.
Wing Chun is a kung fu SYSTEM. Any system needs to be completed before one can go and practice and perfect what he has learnt. Furthermore, WC has the internal elelments that you are never going to learn by jumping in ring and hitting someone who is hitting you.
The lack of internal teachings in today’s kung fu word seem to be reflected in the clueless kung fu advice one gets in forums such as this one.
Why don’t some people just stick to kickboxing and let the kung fu people study the TCMAs in peace!
[QUOTE=anerlich;924832]Was Bruce a Glorified Kickboxer? Discuss.[/QUOTE]
***NO. Because what he did with his hands went beyond boxing, and he went beyond the kicking often associated with “kick”-boxing.
He also used a number of wing chun principles and techniques, the same for Filipino escrima moves and concepts, some footwork and the corresponding attack and defense concepts that came from fencing, some savate kicks - and clearly was starting down the wrestling/grappling road by the end as well.
[QUOTE=Hardwork108;924830]
My “conversation” with him was to show the sometimes “exagerated” points that he made as well as the OBVIOUS ones that so impressed others who just had at best superficial understanding of TCMAs.
[/QUOTE]
LOL. Yeah keep arguing with him!
I think he’s coming around.
I am saying that he would not have SO critical of TCMAs, hence “his final conclusions would have been different”.
What is so incredible or difficult to understand about what I am trying to say?
I see what you are trying to say.
You keep trying to foresee a dead guy’s opinion, despite all he’s said and written that is opposite!
It’s a pointless argument with you. Someone’s writings don’t mean ****. If only he hadn’t died and studied with some other guy, he would have written about his change of heart.
Bruce Lee’s “conclusion” and “vision” were based on an incomplete study of TCMAs, meaning that the “mess” he saw was not an universal truth and may have been partially a figment of his own imagination.
Whatever his vision was: HE’S NOT ABOUT TO CHANGE IT.
One of the things I find amusing about the “internal” guys is their belief that they “know” something that world class level fighters, i.e., the external guys, don’t. I mean, it would be one thing if they could step up and actually hold their own (or even defeat) withe even some decent low level fighters with their “internal aspects”. Yet they can’t. They claim to have all the “secrets”, they have “the system”, all the “internal aspects”, only they can’t fight worth beans.
In reality, there is no internal-external way of doing anything – there are only proper body mechanics (ways to use our body). There isn’t an internal way to throw a ball (if there is an internal way of throwing a punch, why not a ball?) or an intenal way to lift a weight (if there is an internal way to uproot a person, why not a weight?) or an internal way to do anything. There are only appropriate mechanical ways of doing anything, and by actually doing them (the tasks) our body mechanics become more optimal (you become better at throwing a ball by practicing actually throwing a ball, and no other way).
It’s easy for guys who aren’t getting out and throwing balls to talk about “secrets” and “internal aspects” and their ball-throwing theories. But the proof is in your ability to throw the ball. It’s amusing that someone can look at Bruce throw the ball (move) and believe that while they can’t throw anywhere nearly as well, that they and their masters really know how to do it better. And that if poor old, ignorant Bruce just had “completed they system” AS THEY HAVE and “learned the internal aspects” AS THEY HAVE that his throwing (movement) would have been so much better. After all, they KNOW how to do it so much better than Bruce or those world-class fighters. Right.
[QUOTE=t_niehoff;924861]One of the things I find amusing about the “internal” guys is their belief that they “know” something that world class level fighters, i.e., the external guys, don’t. I mean, it would be one thing if they could step up and actually hold their own (or even defeat) withe even some decent low level fighters with their “internal aspects”. Yet they can’t. They claim to have all the “secrets”, they have “the system”, all the “internal aspects”, only they can’t fight worth beans.
In reality, there is no internal-external way of doing anything – there are only proper body mechanics (ways to use our body). There isn’t an internal way to throw a ball (if there is an internal way of throwing a punch, why not a ball?) or an intenal way to lift a weight (if there is an internal way to uproot a person, why not a weight?) or an internal way to do anything. There are only appropriate mechanical ways of doing anything, and by actually doing them (the tasks) our body mechanics become more optimal (you become better at throwing a ball by practicing actually throwing a ball, and no other way).
It’s easy for guys who aren’t getting out and throwing balls to talk about “secrets” and “internal aspects” and their ball-throwing theories. But the proof is in your ability to throw the ball. It’s amusing that someone can look at Bruce throw the ball (move) and believe that while they can’t throw anywhere nearly as well, that they and their masters really know how to do it better. And that if poor old, ignorant Bruce just had “completed they system” AS THEY HAVE and “learned the internal aspects” AS THEY HAVE that his throwing (movement) would have been so much better. After all, they KNOW how to do it so much better than Bruce or those world-class fighters. Right.[/QUOTE]
It’s equally amusing that you “claim” to understand how to throw a ball, but when asked for video of you throwing the ball, your answer is that you don’t have to because you yourself don’t personally claim to throw the ball well- meaning you theoretically “understand” how to throw the ball better- but you yourself don’t “do” it particularly well. And when you were asked to meet a low level beginner and show how well you understand throwing the ball, “do” what you “claim”- you refused. Sounds a bit like the internalist you mention, or your theoretical nonfighter, don’t you think? Worse yet, you are a nutrider at his best, riding the nuts of your brothers overseas, to provide evidence that you yourself can’t provide. Don’t you hate when TMAists do that? You can “talk” but you cannot “do” so you refuse to “show” because you can’t. You and your “internal” strawmen are birds of a feather, except you make more daily claims of superior knowledge. You “know” things “internalists” don’t, but you can’t “do” any better than them. Yes, I’m amused!
So let me get this straight. A fighter who can’t fight might just as well be a theoretical nonfighting nutrider who plays with balls. Never thought of it that way, but it does kinda make sense.
Bruce Lee’s genuis was not in his kung fu because I don’t believe that he studied any kung fu style to a level of expertise. ----------
What is a level of expertise?
In fact, I dont think this is accurate.
and may be you could tell us what is your back ground so we know why you come to this conclusion?
As we know, he didn’t complete Wing Chun, nor Mantis or any other kung fu style. He did not delve into internal training including aspects such as internal tendon development. His conditioning was external. -------
Again, external and internal are brought up. So what is Internal what is External? are you a WCner? if yes, then shared with us what are these from you lineage. If you are not a WCner then how could you conclude the above?
see, what we speak there has to be facts.
What if he had gone on to take up or “cross train” in another kung fu style that was more profound than Wing Chun both in concepts and in the internals? -----
Do you mean your style is more profound then Wing Chun? and again, you mention internals again. What is internal?
what good to bring up a term you cant define and a few of others like to discredit it without a clue?
I do agree that his MMA perspective was ahead of his time.--------------
This is not accurate.
In the 1970’s Even Mas Oyama has some ground technics in his book —This Is Karate, if my memory serve.
So, it is not that ahead of his time, Professional Martial artists know what is partial and what is holistic training — from ground to air.
To conclude. IMHO many of those practising modern MMA may fall under the definition of Bruce Lee’s vision of “functionality” but this, for the most part, does not make them kung fu fighters. ---------
The facts are:
TCMA has two parts the “body” or Tie and “functionality” or Young.
Body is about conditioning, Functionality is about applications.
Looking at Bruce, by evidents we know his functional part of the art is very well develop.
the Body or conditioning part he is lacked even though Bruce wrote about Zen and philosophy but he doesnt have it for real from the fact of how he have lived.
This conclusion is based on comparing Bruce with TCMA kung fu master such as Du Xing Wu or Wang Xiang-Zai or Sun Loo Dang or Ma Li-Dang or Wang Pei Shen…etc
[QUOTE=gabe;924898]It’s equally amusing that you “claim” to understand how to throw a ball, but when asked for video of you throwing the ball, … You and your “internal” strawmen are birds of a feather, except you make more daily claims of superior knowledge. You “know” things “internalists” don’t, but you can’t “do” any better than them. Yes, I’m amused![/QUOTE]
IMHO
Can one blame on Terence totally?
NOpe!
Those who brought up the term Internal but cannot define it and have no cultivation of it have to share the blame.
If those who brought up the term Internal like to defend WCK’s internal components then they need to be specific and describe what is what in a clear and detail way. if not, that brought up the term is just create more confusion and down grade one more because one dont know what it is.
Speaking about Terence, I personal think he is just too extreme to comment on something he has no clue, eventhought what he is trying enforce one doesnt go into the fantasy land.
As for Shadow, Hardwork108 and others, my opinion is until you have a clear understanding on the topic, good heart can often pulling the reverse gear.
So, what is Internal? What is external?
External is the cultivation of momentum. That is beyond the tan sau… chain punch…etc .
see, WCK is about Momentum, not about this technics counter that technics. The kuen kuit has said that clearly. At the White Crane of Fujian era around mid 1600, TCMA of China has evoloved into Momentum centric instead of technics centric. Read those White Crane kuen kuit one will see different type of Shih or momentum type. As it has been said, rely on power and speed is not as good as rely on Momentum.
Internal is the cultivation/condition of the body mind so that the momentum can be implemeted at will.
That simple.
So what is the Shen and Qi stuffs? Shen is just the power behind the will. Qi is the fuel behind the physical. There is nothing in the fantasy land but very practical. It is a different way of systematically describe the mind, body, emotion, spirit.
It is very sad to see WCK’s Momentum and Conditioning got pull a part. Losing the Conditioning part and call it a fantasy before one knows what is it,
and also losing the Momentum part.
Why do I said losing the Momentum part? read the post on ROOTing, that is the indication of one losing the view on flowing of momentum. Same thing when saying WCK is useless — obviously WCK is useless if one keep trying to use a technic or fast punch to deal with the momentum of bjj or grapper. How can one stop gravitation force with a tripot under dynamic situation? cant and hopeless.
in fact it violate the Kuen kuit — As it has been said, rely on power and speed is not as good as rely on Momentum.
and there is another part of the art, Moduk ---- in the present day word from the spider man movie ------ with great power. comes great responsibility.
Bruce has no doubt present us an excellent Momuntum part. I salute to that.
[QUOTE=Edmund;924847]LOL. Yeah keep arguing with him!
I think he’s coming around.[/quote]
Well to be honest, Bruce Lee was intelligent and dedicated and that would imply that even in a none living state there would be more chance of him “coming around” than some of the brain dead knuckleheads posting in this forum.
I was not really questioning his opinion but the BASIS of his opinion and I was hypophesising. If you don’t agree then fine. That is what such forums are made for.
Well you were the one who started the “argument”.
I am trying to make you understand that, Bruce Lee’s writings are based on his knowledge on the time of his writings and that his knowledge regarding the traditional kung fu that he criticised was INCOMPLETE and that he may have had come to slightly different conclusions if he had deeper knowledge of TCMAs.
Of course not as his knowledge of TCMAs was incomplete at the time of his unfortunate death.
I never said that it was!
It was you who started arguing and putting words in my mouth.:rolleyes:
