How do you think the present state of this forum is viewed by newcomers to wing chun?

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Wing Chun
21

[QUOTE=Xiao3 Meng4;989845]Forum facts:

  1. Newbies come on the forum and ask newbie questions. Hilarity ensues.

  2. Neophytes come on the forum and dispense dogma. Hilarity ensues.

  3. Detractors (trolls of all kinds) come on the forum. Hilarity ensues.

  4. Genuinely open and progressive people come on the forum and discuss. Hilarity ensues.

What #4 talks about eventually gets accepted by most of #1, #2 and #3, but not without intense initial protests and eventual personal epiphanies which they end up posting as their own counterpoints, oblivious to the fact that they are now agreeing with what it is they were disagreeing with before - even to the point of using their newfound “argument” against the very people who put the argument forth in the first place. hilARious! :smiley:

Still, I see this as a good thing. No matter who thought of a good idea first: if it has merit, let it grow and evolve without ownership. The end result will be progressively deeper threads alongside the newbie, troll and neophyte posts.[/QUOTE]

Nice post. I have read it several times because I find it so comical and true at the same time. :smiley:

22

Some general comments:

  1. I think this forum fairly provides the views of a fair representation of a cross-section of the WCK community in total, and I think it also represents what is going on in the WCK community.

  2. The forum is not like your television where you are a passive viewer that has no control in what is presented, quite the opposite. No one can stop anyone from posting their views. Nor anyone from challenging those views.

  3. Many people do not seem to have a well-developed sense of irony.

  4. Many people don’t like and aren’t used to having their beliefs and assumptions questioned and challenged, and they don’t have well-developed critical thinking skills.

  5. “Respect” is defined as “a high or special regard.” http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/respect Apparently, many people believe that they and/or their views are ENTITLED to a “high or special regard.” You hear the word “respect” used a lot in TMAs (and not very much in modern combative arts), and that’s because TMAs are authority-based.

  6. So, what many people want is for their beliefs and assumptions to be held in a high or special regard by others. And they get angry and frustrated when that doesn’t happen.

  7. Having your views challenged is good for you. It’s healthy. It’s how you grow. It’s what keeps you honest. It can force you to re-examine your own views and the evidentiary and logical basis for them. It can force you to think for yourself. Of course, that is not always pleasant.

  8. People who complain about having their views challenged do so because they cannot support their views with either good evidence or sound reasoning. If a person has good evidence and sound reasons for their belief, then they would welcome challenges to it – as the challenge would provide an opportunity to show the soundness of their view. Only people who want to hold onto their beliefs despite evidence and reason are bothered by challenges.

23

[QUOTE=Vankuen;989780]Just as the thread states…there are new people coming to view this forum probably on a regular basis. People who are new to wing chun and want to find out more about it, or people who simply want to discuss ideas and theories with others outside of their school.

Given all the pee-pee measuring discussions that seem to have proliferated on this forum, how do you think that effects those “newcomers” who wish to learn about the art of wing chun?

It used to be many years ago (right at the turn of the century), I’d get on this forum to discuss various techniques, situations, theories, and etcetera…whereby the conversations would develop in an almost scientific fashion. There were quite a few higher skilled wing chun folks who would contribute, and those conversations not only were enlightening, they were helpful to everyone.

The best part was…the conversations stayed on topic or flowed naturally based on the ideas being presented. If someone disagreed, it was discussed in an intelligent manner to try and come to a conclusion of truth.

Soooo…wtf happened?! We are the ones that will decide the future of this forum with the discussions we make, and right now, this forum is going down the crapper.[/QUOTE]

hopefully, New chunners will not find this site. If the do I won’t be suprised if the quite and find another art.

24

[QUOTE=YungChun;989912]If the ongoing message is essentially that classical WCK training, no matter how you do it is crap then this kind of post has no place in a forum that exists to discuss same.. Folks who do this are not suggesting how to make the classical program better they are essentially advocating it’s demise.. While these posters may have something to contribute of value their primary premise does not belong in a forum that exists to discuss a subject they deem unworthy of existence–yes it’s called trolling..

Those posts belong in another forum under a thread called “Why TMAs suck and are almost valueless..”[/QUOTE]
quoted for truth

25

I think things are essentially the same all the time. Probably since the creation of WCK, people have said it sucks, needs improvement, refinement, modification, not good for combat, etc. Its just that this forum makes things easier to communicate in a way. I can imagine in the future we’ll all Skype style video conferences and still say the same stuff…and challenges will go on in a virtual world.

I often tell my students, “Everyone can learn the art and express it in their own way, but its only 50% of the job - the job you have to do is make it work in this generation.” If that means better conditioning (roadwork, weights, EDT, KB’s, Clubs, Tabata, etc.), using training equipment (bags, pads, targets, etc.), sparring full contact with and without armor/gear, and familiarizing yourself with other systems, then you should.

Martial arts encompasses empty hand (striking, kicking, throwing, joint locking, ground fighting) and weaponry (knives, sticks, swords, staff, spear, and projectiles). It is a lifelong dedication and training to be good in all areas. Why worry? WCK only practices a fraction of what I listed. You need to have it all to be real good. Why the complaints? Just go and do your work.

26

[QUOTE=chusauli;989965]I think things are essentially the same all the time. Probably since the creation of WCK, people have said it sucks, needs improvement, refinement, modification, not good for combat, etc. Its just that this forum makes things easier to communicate in a way. I can imagine in the future we’ll all Skype style video conferences and still say the same stuff…and challenges will go on in a virtual world.

I often tell my students, “Everyone can learn the art and express it in their own way, but its only 50% of the job - the job you have to do is make it work in this generation.” If that means better conditioning (roadwork, weights, EDT, KB’s, Clubs, Tabata, etc.), using training equipment (bags, pads, targets, etc.), sparring full contact with and without armor/gear, and familiarizing yourself with other systems, then you should.

Martial arts encompasses empty hand (striking, kicking, throwing, joint locking, ground fighting) and weaponry (knives, sticks, swords, staff, spear, and projectiles). It is a lifelong dedication and training to be good in all areas. Why worry? WCK only practices a fraction of what I listed. You need to have it all to be real good. Why the complaints? Just go and do your work.[/QUOTE]

That last bit says it all…just go and do your work. BTW…are you the same Robert Chu who’s book I have in my bookcase?

27

[QUOTE=chusauli;989965]I think things are essentially the same all the time. Probably since the creation of WCK, people have said it sucks, needs improvement, refinement, modification, not good for combat, etc. Its just that this forum makes things easier to communicate in a way. I can imagine in the future we’ll all Skype style video conferences and still say the same stuff…and challenges will go on in a virtual world.

I often tell my students, “Everyone can learn the art and express it in their own way, but its only 50% of the job - the job you have to do is make it work in this generation.” If that means better conditioning (roadwork, weights, EDT, KB’s, Clubs, Tabata, etc.), using training equipment (bags, pads, targets, etc.), sparring full contact with and without armor/gear, and familiarizing yourself with other systems, then you should.

Martial arts encompasses empty hand (striking, kicking, throwing, joint locking, ground fighting) and weaponry (knives, sticks, swords, staff, spear, and projectiles). It is a lifelong dedication and training to be good in all areas. Why worry? WCK only practices a fraction of what I listed. You need to have it all to be real good. Why the complaints? Just go and do your work.[/QUOTE]

Does making it work in this generation mean the average joe has to go out and compete against someone in MMA? Many have said on here that their training has worked well for them when they needed it, only to have someone else say that is meaningless? Who’s to say what is meaningless or not in regards to another’s accomplishments? Only those with an huge ego, and limited POV.

One has to find out why they are training in the Martial Arts, and be honest with it and go from there. If they want to test themselves then do just that, bring the level up a notch and see what happens, if that’s not for you then fine as well. No one here is making claims of superiority, and if you are then you better be ready to prove it.

James

28

[QUOTE=sihing;990005]Does making it work in this generation mean the average joe has to go out and compete against someone in MMA? Many have said on here that their training has worked well for them when they needed it, only to have someone else say that is meaningless? Who’s to say what is meaningless or not in regards to another’s accomplishments? Only those with an huge ego, and limited POV.

One has to find out why they are training in the Martial Arts, and be honest with it and go from there. If they want to test themselves then do just that, bring the level up a notch and see what happens, if that’s not for you then fine as well. No one here is making claims of superiority, and if you are then you better be ready to prove it.

James[/QUOTE]

As far as making it work in this generation…I think what he means to say is that the environment in which we live today is different than it was generations ago. As such, one’s strategy and tactics need to take the external environment into consideration. Not just the physical environment, but also the social, policital, and cultural as well.

29

[QUOTE=sihing;990005]Does making it work in this generation mean the average joe has to go out and compete against someone in MMA? Many have said on here that their training has worked well for them when they needed it, only to have someone else say that is meaningless? Who’s to say what is meaningless or not in regards to another’s accomplishments? Only those with an huge ego, and limited POV.
[/QUOTE]

Because it is meaningless, it provides us with no real meaning. People say all kinds of things, make all kinds of claims, etc. – but we don’t know that what they are saying is true, do we? When someone says that they got into a “streetfight” and their training worked, how can we evaluate that for ourselves? Maybe they got lucky, maybe what they did was nothing like what they trained to do, maybe it worked because their opponent was terrible, etc. The point is we can’t know, we can’t evaluate it. Streetfigting doesn’t prove anything about your skill.

The definition of a skill is that you can do it consistently on demand. Can you do it on demand on the street? Then you should be able to do it on demand in a gym. (And it works the other way – if you can do it on demand in a gym, then you can do it on demand on the street).

Look, you don’t find out if you are a good boxer by getting into a streetfight. People win streetfights all the time without being good boxers. How can you tell if you are a good boxer? By actually boxing with good boxers. You don’t know you are a good sub grappler because you won a streetfight. You know you are a good sub grappler by the fact that you roll with good sub grapplers and hold your own. It’s the same with any MA, including WCK.

Not only do you need to actually spar with good people to see how good you are, but you need to spar wtih good people to develop good skills. The simple truth is: if you are not already doing it, you won’t be able to do it.

If you actually went to a MMA gym, you’d see that most of the people there (over 90%) aren’t amatuer or pro competitors. It’s the same at MT gyms and BJJ schools. Yet, all those people spar/fight regularly as the core of their training, and develop realistic fighting skill. And, all those people are sparring with good, proven (from competition) fighters so they can see for themselves whether or not they can do it on demand.

One has to find out why they are training in the Martial Arts, and be honest with it and go from there. If they want to test themselves then do just that, bring the level up a notch and see what happens, if that’s not for you then fine as well. No one here is making claims of superiority, and if you are then you better be ready to prove it.

James

I agree that people do need to be honest with themselves (and others) – and that’s the point behind much of my criticism: they’re not being honest. I don’t care if people want to practice WCK for health or for entertainment. That’s fine and dandy. But if they delude themselves into thinking they are developing fighting skills, then they are being dishonest.

It’s not about making claims of personal superiority – and btw, I’m the ONLY one here who has repeatedly said that I’m not that good – but rather what are superior ways of training, what produces solid results, etc. I do claim that the modern training methodolgy is vastly superior to the traditional method, and the evidence overwhelmingly supports that, as all good, proven fighters use the former and we can find no one who exclusively uses the latter with good skills.

30

[QUOTE=t_niehoff;990064]Because it is meaningless, it provides us with no real meaning. People say all kinds of things, make all kinds of claims, etc. – but we don’t know that what they are saying is true, do we? When someone says that they got into a “streetfight” and their training worked, how can we evaluate that for ourselves? Maybe they got lucky, maybe what they did was nothing like what they trained to do, maybe it worked because their opponent was terrible, etc. The point is we can’t know, we can’t evaluate it. Streetfigting doesn’t prove anything about your skill.

The definition of a skill is that you can do it consistently on demand. Can you do it on demand on the street? Then you should be able to do it on demand in a gym. (And it works the other way – if you can do it on demand in a gym, then you can do it on demand on the street).

Look, you don’t find out if you are a good boxer by getting into a streetfight. People win streetfights all the time without being good boxers. How can you tell if you are a good boxer? By actually boxing with good boxers. You don’t know you are a good sub grappler because you won a streetfight. You know you are a good sub grappler by the fact that you roll with good sub grapplers and hold your own. It’s the same with any MA, including WCK.

Not only do you need to actually spar with good people to see how good you are, but you need to spar wtih good people to develop good skills. The simple truth is: if you are not already doing it, you won’t be able to do it.

If you actually went to a MMA gym, you’d see that most of the people there (over 90%) aren’t amatuer or pro competitors. It’s the same at MT gyms and BJJ schools. Yet, all those people spar/fight regularly as the core of their training, and develop realistic fighting skill. And, all those people are sparring with good, proven (from competition) fighters so they can see for themselves whether or not they can do it on demand.

I agree that people do need to be honest with themselves (and others) – and that’s the point behind much of my criticism: they’re not being honest. I don’t care if people want to practice WCK for health or for entertainment. That’s fine and dandy. But if they delude themselves into thinking they are developing fighting skills, then they are being dishonest.

It’s not about making claims of personal superiority – and btw, I’m the ONLY one here who has repeatedly said that I’m not that good – but rather what are superior ways of training, what produces solid results, etc. I do claim that the modern training methodolgy is vastly superior to the traditional method, and the evidence overwhelmingly supports that, as all good, proven fighters use the former and we can find no one who exclusively uses the latter with good skills.[/QUOTE]

There is nothing untrue in that reply. But who’s to say Terence, that there aren’t wing chun people who test themselves in this way at their kwoons? In my short stint with the Boztepe camp, they trained using modern methodologies. It was the wing chun equivelent to a Muay Thai camp. We physically conditioned ourselves with cardio and circuit training, we hit focus mitts, we practiced footwork, we conditioned on heavy bags and wall bags, and more importantly we sparred. On the traditional side, we practiced the forms and analyzed them as well for application purposes. The sifu even had guys come in who practiced other arts to train with us (like MMA) to get an exposure to what others might try to do so that we could use our wing chun to combat it.

Its unfortunate that my wrist couldn’t handle the punching at the time (it was broken and I was trying to train through it) because that place was awesome.

All in all, training methodology and testing will show you what is effective or not, and that takes precedent over style IMO because styles are just labels. The only constant is the human body.

31

[QUOTE=Vankuen;990099]There is nothing untrue in that reply. But who’s to say Terence, that there aren’t wing chun people who test themselves in this way at their kwoons? In my short stint with the Boztepe camp, they trained using modern methodologies.
[/QUOTE]

I don’t doubt that there are some WCK groups that do use modern training methods – I never said there weren’t. I know of some. But most do not.

The other aspect is that you need to train/spar with good fighters to get good. That’s my problem with Boztepe’s approach – you don’t develop good skills only training within your group.

It was the wing chun equivelent to a Muay Thai camp. We physically conditioned ourselves with cardio and circuit training, we hit focus mitts, we practiced footwork, we conditioned on heavy bags and wall bags, and more importantly we sparred. On the traditional side, we practiced the forms and analyzed them as well for application purposes. The sifu even had guys come in who practiced other arts to train with us (like MMA) to get an exposure to what others might try to do so that we could use our wing chun to combat it.

That’s all great (except for the form work). I think Boztepe’s group and others are moving in the right direction. The trouble is that Boztepe himself isn’t a highly skilled fighter and he’s not a fight trainer, so how can someone who isn’t particularly good train others to be good? Doesn’t it make more sense to go to guys who are really good at fighting and proven fight-trainers?

Its unfortunate that my wrist couldn’t handle the punching at the time (it was broken and I was trying to train through it) because that place was awesome.

Compared to most other WCK schools, I would agree.

All in all, training methodology and testing will show you what is effective or not, and that takes precedent over style IMO because styles are just labels. The only constant is the human body.

Styles are more than labels. Some styles are specific approaches to fighting; the labels identify them. Other styles are creations of theoretical nonfighters.

32

[QUOTE=t_niehoff;990105]I don’t doubt that there are some WCK groups that do use modern training methods – I never said there weren’t. I know of some. But most do not.

The other aspect is that you need to train/spar with good fighters to get good. That’s my problem with Boztepe’s approach – you don’t develop good skills only training within your group.

That’s all great (except for the form work). I think Boztepe’s group and others are moving in the right direction. The trouble is that Boztepe himself isn’t a highly skilled fighter and he’s not a fight trainer, so how can someone who isn’t particularly good train others to be good? Doesn’t it make more sense to go to guys who are really good at fighting and proven fight-trainers?

Compared to most other WCK schools, I would agree.

Styles are more than labels. Some styles are specific approaches to fighting; the labels identify them. Other styles are creations of theoretical nonfighters.[/QUOTE]

I agree that you have to train with good fighters, but just because Boztepe isn’t as great as some might think, it doesn’t mean that someone learning that wing Tsun system couldn’t make it work for them. Additionally, the individual sifu’s can also learn and expand of their own accord, and I wouldn’t doubt that the guy I learned from wasn’t a better fighter than Boztepe seemed to be…but I’ve not had any first hand experience with Boztepe to be honest, so I can’t make that call based on limited knowledge of videos (though the one with Cheung was horrid).

As to your point of not getting good while training within your own camp…I beg to disagree. In terms of training…everyone works with people from their own camp. Muay thai fighters do it, BJJ guys do it, Karate guys do it, and it doesn’t hinder them in the least. They get better at their chosen system, and the same could be true with WC. They get good at what they do against others in the same skillset. Now they TEST themselves with others from other camps in the form of fights, competitions, and so forth…but that’s not the same as as the standard training. Then again I could be splitting hairs here because I agree that diversity in training is better than not and understand what you’re getting at.

Styles are labels…they label one’s strategic method for the chosen techniques. The techniques themselves are not much different than one another because there are only so many ways for someone to move. True each style might do things slightly different, but because the human anatomy doesn’t change, the techniques can only be so much different.

For example, a round kick is a round kick. Some do it with a snap of the knee, some do with with the leg relatively straight, some do it upwards and snap it over at the end, some swing wide from the side and some angle it. Some hit with the top of the foot, some the ball of the foot, and some the shin. But all in all, a round kick is such that the hip is turned so that the leg can strike from a sideward angle.

I’m just making the point that the methods to me are more important. I’ve been able to takeaway useful things from every style that I learned through the years, even the “bad ones”. It was their training methods that needed help…because many of the students couldn’t “apply” what they learned even after years went by.

33

[QUOTE=Vankuen;989780]Given all the pee-pee measuring discussions that seem to have proliferated on this forum, how do you think that effects those “newcomers” who wish to learn about the art of wing chun?[/QUOTE]

I still have trouble posting about the Wing Chun I practise and I’ve been here for a few years now. :o I seem to always be shot down with one insult or another!

I wish the newbies good luck, but would just say that if you wanted to learn about Wing Chun your best starting point to to visit people and talk face-to-face.

34

I don’t know what a newcomer would think, but I would advise them to hang in and wade through the junk. To mine an ounce of gold you might might have to go through a ton of mud, but that’s one think that makes it valuable.

They should know that Wing Chun is not one big happy family. Unfortunately, this is the truth. Too much political noise, but filter it out so that you can look, think and evaluate ideas and concepts that may be in direct conflict with what you are being taught, or totally new to your current cirriculum. Either way, your current view of the WC needs to be able to withstand these challenges or they are not worth anything. We have an unlimited capacity for self-delusion. A reality check may be just what the doctor order.

Peace,
Bill

35

They should know that Wing Chun is not one big happy family.

That’s true, but IMO most of the angst of the 80’s and 90’s has died down. There have been more recent web feuds due to marketing practices, but they were never going to go anywhere physical, not that they did much in the old days either.

When was the last TWC/WT argument on the forum?

The lineage wars and related mouth boxing are pretty pointless in an environment where there are easily available opportunities to test skills - in the ring - and plenty of people prepared to have a go.

Plus people cross-train. Many/most of us were doing what T browbeats us about in one form or another long before he started doing it himself. I’m currently training BJJ alongside one of Jim Fung’s top guys, Dave O’Donnell. We’d never have spoken if we’d stuck to our WC guns. Obviously neither of us think, or need to defend, our WC lineage as the greatest or most complete MA on the planet.

The arguments here are much more to do with individual personalities and egos IMO.

36

[QUOTE=Vankuen;990121]I agree that you have to train with good fighters, but just because Boztepe isn’t as great as some might think, it doesn’t mean that someone learning that wing Tsun system couldn’t make it work for them. Additionally, the individual sifu’s can also learn and expand of their own accord, and I wouldn’t doubt that the guy I learned from wasn’t a better fighter than Boztepe seemed to be…but I’ve not had any first hand experience with Boztepe to be honest, so I can’t make that call based on limited knowledge of videos (though the one with Cheung was horrid).
[/QUOTE]

Well, you can learn something from someone who is not well-skilled, if you go in recognizing that he is not well-skilled and take everything he says with a huge grain of salt. But, as we know, this is not the TCMA way!

As to your point of not getting good while training within your own camp…I beg to disagree. In terms of training…everyone works with people from their own camp. Muay thai fighters do it, BJJ guys do it, Karate guys do it, and it doesn’t hinder them in the least. They get better at their chosen system, and the same could be true with WC. They get good at what they do against others in the same skillset. Now they TEST themselves with others from other camps in the form of fights, competitions, and so forth…but that’s not the same as as the standard training. Then again I could be splitting hairs here because I agree that diversity in training is better than not and understand what you’re getting at.

You can’t put WCK people in the same category as MT or BJJ since those arts already have very good fighters, so even if you only train with a particular MT or BJJ school, you are training with good fighters. That’s not the case with WCK. WCK has very, very, very, very few good fighters. Since we are only as good as our training/sparring partners, why would anyone want to mainly train with poorly skilled people?

Styles are labels…they label one’s strategic method for the chosen techniques. The techniques themselves are not much different than one another because there are only so many ways for someone to move. True each style might do things slightly different, but because the human anatomy doesn’t change, the techniques can only be so much different.

So, you think MT is pretty much like BJJ? Or that boxing is very much like wrestling? After all, it is all labels?

For example, a round kick is a round kick. Some do it with a snap of the knee, some do with with the leg relatively straight, some do it upwards and snap it over at the end, some swing wide from the side and some angle it. Some hit with the top of the foot, some the ball of the foot, and some the shin. But all in all, a round kick is such that the hip is turned so that the leg can strike from a sideward angle.

There are many varieties of hammer,and they all share some properties, but some hammers are better at certain jobs than other hammers. Of course, we can take the position that they are all hammers, and the different varieties are simply labels.

I’m just making the point that the methods to me are more important. I’ve been able to takeaway useful things from every style that I learned through the years, even the “bad ones”. It was their training methods that needed help…because many of the students couldn’t “apply” what they learned even after years went by.

The method and the SPECIFIC tools for implementing the method go hand-in-hand, and you NEED both.

37

[QUOTE=t_niehoff;990162]Well, you can learn something from someone who is not well-skilled, if you go in recognizing that he is not well-skilled and take everything he says with a huge grain of salt. But, as we know, this is not the TCMA way!

You can’t put WCK people in the same category as MT or BJJ since those arts already have very good fighters, so even if you only train with a particular MT or BJJ school, you are training with good fighters. That’s not the case with WCK. WCK has very, very, very, very few good fighters. Since we are only as good as our training/sparring partners, why would anyone want to mainly train with poorly skilled people?

So, you think MT is pretty much like BJJ? Or that boxing is very much like wrestling? After all, it is all labels?

There are many varieties of hammer,and they all share some properties, but some hammers are better at certain jobs than other hammers. Of course, we can take the position that they are all hammers, and the different varieties are simply labels.

The method and the SPECIFIC tools for implementing the method go hand-in-hand, and you NEED both.[/QUOTE]

True that there are a lot of TCMA’s that still go about things where the blind lead the blind but today the world is much smaller and people are not as niave IMO. For those that are, well, all in due time. There will always be those that want to go about believing what they want to as truth but don’t worry…they’ll eventually learn the universal truth of things.

In terms of training, there are good fighters and bad fighters in all styles. Just because you train in Muay Thai doesn’t mean that everyone in your school is a champion fighter. Just because you train in BJJ doesn’t mean you’re going to have a pro MMA fighter in there. Some gyms have just average people, some don’t. There are tons of boxing gyms that I wouldn’t set foot in because of the laughable training that goes on…same goes for MMA gyms here locally. More to my point though, is that an individual training in wing chun can practice with other people who also train in wing chun…doing so helps to increase skill using wing chun against wing chun. Just as in any school…there is always a relative gap between new students and more senior ones, so there is always room for improvement from that respect. Know what I mean?

I’m not sure why you don’t understand the labels thing. I sometimes think you just like process of debating or arguing. The name of the style means nothing. A rear naked choke is a rear naked choke no matter whether you learned it in Judo, BJJ, MMA, or in a military combatives course. It is what it is. The techniques in general are the same minus a few nuances. So a muay thai round kick and a Kyokushin round kick are both round kicks. You cannot say which are more effective because each has its strengths and weaknesses and both are used for fighting. So while yes there are hammers to do specific jobs, each hammer is just that…a hammer.

As far as BJJ being the same as MT or boxing the same as wrestling…you know what I mean on that. Stop being such an antagonist for a moment and step back from the keyboard. I said that styles are labels of what strategies and tactics are used for the chosen techniques. Does that mean I’m saying that muay thai and BJJ are the same? No. Obviously not. How you determined that from my past posts is beyond me. I’m again saying that a punch is a punch and a kick is a kick. A choke is a choke and a throw is a throw. For two styles that are specific to a range of combat, there will be little in terms of major differences, unless of course people grow another limb or a tail or something.

38

[QUOTE=Vankuen;990190]True that there are a lot of TCMA’s that still go about things where the blind lead the blind but today the world is much smaller and people are not as niave IMO. For those that are, well, all in due time. There will always be those that want to go about believing what they want to as truth but don’t worry…they’ll eventually learn the universal truth of things.

In terms of training, there are good fighters and bad fighters in all styles. Just because you train in Muay Thai doesn’t mean that everyone in your school is a champion fighter. Just because you train in BJJ doesn’t mean you’re going to have a pro MMA fighter in there. Some gyms have just average people, some don’t. There are tons of boxing gyms that I wouldn’t set foot in because of the laughable training that goes on…same goes for MMA gyms here locally. More to my point though, is that an individual training in wing chun can practice with other people who also train in wing chun…doing so helps to increase skill using wing chun against wing chun. Just as in any school…there is always a relative gap between new students and more senior ones, so there is always room for improvement from that respect. Know what I mean?
[/QUOTE]

The whole there-are-good-and-bad-gym-in-everything misses the point. Of course there are. But we are not talking about specific, individual cases but how different arts AS A WHOLE teach and train, the METHODOLOGY itself, not how some specific gym implements it. There is a marked difference between how traditinoal arts teach and train, and the modern sport-oriented arts teach and train. That differencejust isn’t in degree but in kind.

The way WCK is traditionally taught and trained doesn’t develop skill in WCK (which is skill in fighting with your WCK). Nor does it make any sense that you can develop skill against WCK people and not other people – skill is skill. Boxers don’t just develop skill for dealing with other boxers, BJJ people don’t develop skill only against BJJ people.

I’m not sure why you don’t understand the labels thing. I sometimes think you just like process of debating or arguing.

No, I like the process of thinking things through clearly, and our words express our thoughts.

The name of the style means nothing. A rear naked choke is a rear naked choke no matter whether you learned it in Judo, BJJ, MMA, or in a military combatives course. It is what it is. The techniques in general are the same minus a few nuances. So a muay thai round kick and a Kyokushin round kick are both round kicks. You cannot say which are more effective because each has its strengths and weaknesses and both are used for fighting. So while yes there are hammers to do specific jobs, each hammer is just that…a hammer.

Of course the names themselves are arbitrary (you can change the names but the thing itself doesn’t change),but the thing itself isn’t arbitrary. You seem to take the position that it’s-all-good since various arts are doing similar things. But it is not all good, and doing something similar doesn’t mean it is as good. Any old round kick isn’t a thai kick. If this were the case then everyone in every art would be getting similar results-- and they are obviously not.

As far as BJJ being the same as MT or boxing the same as wrestling…you know what I mean on that. Stop being such an antagonist for a moment and step back from the keyboard. I said that styles are labels of what strategies and tactics are used for the chosen techniques. Does that mean I’m saying that muay thai and BJJ are the same? No. Obviously not. How you determined that from my past posts is beyond me.

It shows that not all styles are the same or do the same things. And, even styles that do similar things, don’t necessarily do them the same way, have the same effectiveness, train them the same way, etc.

I’m again saying that a punch is a punch and a kick is a kick. A choke is a choke and a throw is a throw. For two styles that are specific to a range of combat, there will be little in terms of major differences, unless of course people grow another limb or a tail or something.

I know you are saying that and you are wrong. If that were the case, then all punching styles would be as good as boxing, and they’re not. All grappling styles would be as good as BJJ, and they’re not. There are better and worse ways of using your body, and better and worse tactics, strategies, etc. The evidence for this is overwhelming.

39

[QUOTE=Vankuen;990002]That last bit says it all…just go and do your work. BTW…are you the same Robert Chu who’s book I have in my bookcase?[/QUOTE]

Yes, guilty as charged…

40

[QUOTE=sihing;990005]Does making it work in this generation mean the average joe has to go out and compete against someone in MMA? Many have said on here that their training has worked well for them when they needed it, only to have someone else say that is meaningless? Who’s to say what is meaningless or not in regards to another’s accomplishments? Only those with an huge ego, and limited POV.

One has to find out why they are training in the Martial Arts, and be honest with it and go from there. If they want to test themselves then do just that, bring the level up a notch and see what happens, if that’s not for you then fine as well. No one here is making claims of superiority, and if you are then you better be ready to prove it.

James[/QUOTE]

Hi James,

No, that is unique to how far an individual wants to take it. Competition is not everything.

Heck, many beautiful women never become models, actresses, or beauty contestants.