[QUOTE=LoneTiger108;816132]Another interesting post here t! I agree with you (again!) 100% here, BUT the ‘Dog Brothers’ teach openly to anyone. Wing Chun training has still, to this day, rarely been actually ‘seen’ by the public as much of it is completed without ‘anyone’ watching. All you actually ‘see’ are the results i.e forms, shapes and drills of past ancestors.
So, my question is how do you ‘know’ that what you’re looking at is actually Wing Chun training at all?
I’ve seen and trained a few little eccentric bits, all of which you wouldn’t imagine being of any use in fighting, but I still trained them because I believed they had purpose at the time. Is this still fantasy?[/QUOTE]
How do we know it is WCK we’re looking at? I don’t think that is difficult – the tools of WCK are those movements, actions, etc. that appear in the forms and drills. The skill in any martial art is in using the tools of that art successfully in fighting. But that can’t be accomplished by practicing and/or teaching to use them in ways that simply won’t really work (or work well) – that is the fantasy. And I think the Dog Bros. motto gives us the way to avoid the fantasy (see it fought).
[QUOTE=sanjuro_ronin;816134]Yes and no, somethings are “gospel” regardless of ones experience,
[/QUOTE]
Undoubtably some things are true regardless of experience. My point is we can’t really know that or what those thigns are except through experience (otherwise it is simply conjecture).
ex:
If two people fight and one of them wants if to go to the ground, the chances are better than average that it will go to the ground.
Now, I know people that have NEVER gone to the ground in a fight YET they openly teach how to deal with ground work ( most of them through bringing people into to teach what is outside their realm of expertise), even though they are not teaching per say ( though some do if said expert is not available).
Here’s the thing, someone can’t teach what they do not “know”. And in terms of physical skills, they don’t really “know” it unless they can do it. When you bring someone in to teach, you are bringing in someone that can do it, someone who has that experience, right? Why would you bring someone in who couldn’t do it? (Only in fantasy-based MAs do they do that). But I do know what you are talking about. Lots of people “teach” things that they really only have a superficial (whether they realize it or not) knowledge, understanding and ability with.
As for “teaching things that cannot do themselves”, well, everyone does that to an extent, especially with age.
Yes, but at one time they could. That’s very different than teaching something they have never done.
Unless you know the idea that those arm shapes are developing you wont understand and end up with a redundant non functional rendition…just doing the forms wont do it , doing set pieces isnt it,…its not applications…what is it
T why dont you tells us …after 25 years you should know you wrote an article on the stance we use while developing it …what is the idea ?
good article too.
[QUOTE=k gledhill;816144]Unless you know the idea that those arm shapes are developing you wont understand and end up with a redundant non functional rendition…just doing the forms wont do it , doing set pieces isnt it,…its not applications…what is it [/QUOTE]
How do you (the generic “you”, I’m not trying to be personal) know whether the “idea” that you have or is being taught is valid or not except by seeing whether you can actually make it work like that in fighting? How? Look, the girl in that clip probably believes that what she was taught and what was demo’ed was “good” or at least a valid expression of WCK. One guy may say to do this, another may say to do that, a third something else, or we may all agree – but concensus, traditition, theory, etc. doesn’t make it so. So my point is show that it works, and works well, in fighting before you teach it. Otherwise, it is just fantasy.
T why dont you tells us …after 25 years you should know you wrote an article on the stance we use while developing it …what is the idea ?
good article too.
Looking at WCK from the standpoint of “the idea” is amistake IME. Instead of thinking like that, I look at WCK from the standpoint of “the task”. Skill is in doing the task, not implementing an idea.
[QUOTE=k gledhill;816252]so in other words , you dont know…[/QUOTE]
In other words, that’s not how it works. It’s not about “ideas” but about skills. People who believe they have “the idea” or that WCK is idea or concept-based are only fooling themselves - and perhaps others. You don’t train your body to do an idea, you train to develop a skill (the learned ability to perform a certain task with max certainty and min time/effort). Until you realize that, you are just living the fantasy.
[QUOTE=Knifefighter;816260]Of course you are in shape… you train BJJ.
Weren’t you the one making the gay abs comments earlier?
(not that there’s anything wrong with that)[/QUOTE]
Most TMA people I know are fitness people. Just becouse you are in good shape doesn’t mean you will win a fight or will even have a advantage. Every fight I have seen outside of the ring with a “BIG”(fat) guy has ended with the big guy doing most of the damage and not visually looking hurt. Anyway When I see people (men and females) who have so little fat on their body it makes me ill its just odd looking. females are supposed to have curves, and the human body is naturally a little chubby. BJ for example in his recent fights was a little pudgy yet in PERFECT shape. My WC teacher is rock solid and advocates chi kung training (running on the treadmill). Your constant generalizations don’t fit everyone or ever most people. They work for the dumb people that are on the internet but how many people does that include?
of course maybe alot of the TMA you see are fat lards.. but majority of the guys I have trained with and used to train with are not. but hey what do I know? I don’t have your credentials.
Just as a point I sweat 10 times more when I train Wing Chun than when I do BJJ. I work more more stomach muscles ( becouse of all the twisting motions). Then again I don’t see any other lineage using the same movements..
Anyway When I see people (men and females) who have so little fat on their body it makes me ill its just odd looking. females are supposed to have curves, and the human body is naturally a little chubby.
Dude, I’m about two kilos heavier than I was when I was 20, and I eat whatever and whenever I want (I’m chomping on a cinnamon donut as I type). I don’t even do that many sit ups and pump iron maybe twice a week for 20 minutes in a good week.
Sorry my pic made you feel ill. At least it didn’t get you excited :eek:
My WC teacher is rock solid and advocates chi kung training (running on the treadmill).
I do a bit iof running, but treadmills are boring, I live close to a beautiful bit of Aussie bushland. First time I’ve ever heard it callied chi kung. Can you elaborate?
Your constant generalizations don’t fit everyone or ever most people.
Gotta agree with that. One of the guys I’d least want to fight is about 5’5"", has a gut, and looks as innocuous as Danny de Vito. But he’s very skilful.
[QUOTE=anerlich;816317]Sorry my pic made you feel ill. At least it didn’t get you excited :eek:
[/QUOTE] I’m a T&A guy , got no problem with gay people though.
[QUOTE=anerlich;816317] I do a bit iof running, but treadmills are boring, I live close to a beautiful bit of Aussie bushland. First time I’ve ever heard it callied chi kung. Can you elaborate?
[/QUOTE] I could be wrong but I was always told chi is “energy” or oxygen. The only scientifically proven method for improving chi is cardio workouts. I am not saying traditional CHi kung is wrong, its just not as effective. Nobody has ever used Chi kung to fight someone, not in the sense of iron shirt vrs a knife…
[QUOTE=anerlich;816317]Sorry my pic made you feel ill. At least it didn’t get you excited :eek:
[/QUOTE] I’m a T&A guy , got no problem with gay people though.
[QUOTE=monji112000;816308]Anyway When I see people (men and females) who have so little fat on their body it makes me ill its just odd looking. females are supposed to have curves, and the human body is naturally a little chubby.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah I hear they dug up some prehistoric man bones sitting in an armchair with a big bowl of chips covered in sour cream and sweet chili sauce.
And his belt notch holes showed a lot of signs of wear indicating that they were holding in a lot of gut.
The BS meter goes both ways.
You ain’t kidding. You got KF checking out guys abs on one side and you thinking that chubby is natural.
This sort of stuff is dependent on your body type, metabolism, how much exercise you do and how much you’re eating. Someone could be surviving off buckets of pork rinds and creaming soda and burning off the calories with a lot of exercise to look ripped with a six-pack.
The flip side is that someone can do a lot of regular conditioning work and consume an excess of calories too. They are not going to be that ripped. (Your sumo example for instance.) So looking at their abs to see if they’ve done enough conditioning is no good.
[QUOTE=monji112000;816308] females are supposed to have curves, and the human body is naturally a little chubby. [/QUOTE]
Sorry to break this to you, but for 99.9% of human history, being chubby was the exception rather than the rule. Humans have evolved having had access to relatively small amounts of food. That’s one of the reasons we don’t do so well being overweight.
[QUOTE=t_niehoff;816122]…Yes, fighting skill comes from fighting…“if you see it taught, you see it fought”…[/QUOTE]
Yes, traditional martial arts evolves from actual fighting. People did fight dirty and kill each other in the old days.
I agree that I have seen Wing Chun schools that is totally useless, and I have seen schools that pride themselves on fighting in the slums of China; even to the degree of taking pride in being in jail for killing someone in a fight.
I don’t think WC is fantasy; it all depends on the way it is delivered to the student. Just like, one can do a Kung Fu correspondent course for a black belt. Of course the person who gets the black belt this way is going to be totally crap! but that doesn’t mean Kung Fu is crap as a whole.
Afterall, WC is one of the most popular martial arts practiced by the Triads in HK. If it is really that useless, why would they bother?
[QUOTE=imperialtaichi;816449]Yes, traditional martial arts evolves from actual fighting. People did fight dirty and kill each other in the old days.
I agree that I have seen Wing Chun schools that is totally useless, and I have seen schools that pride themselves on fighting in the slums of China; even to the degree of taking pride in being in jail for killing someone in a fight.
I don’t think WC is fantasy; it all depends on the way it is delivered to the student. Just like, one can do a Kung Fu correspondent course for a black belt. Of course the person who gets the black belt this way is going to be totally crap! but that doesn’t mean Kung Fu is crap as a whole.
Afterall, WC is one of the most popular martial arts practiced by the Triads in HK. If it is really that useless, why would they bother?
Cheers,
John[/QUOTE]
That’s why I say that people who say WC sucks haven’t met the right WC people PERIOD
(Only in fantasy-based MAs do they do that). But I do know what you are talking about. Lots of people “teach” things that they really only have a superficial (whether they realize it or not) knowledge, understanding and ability with.
