I'd like to see . . .

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Wing Chun
21

Most present and ongoing arguments are that of position, however detached they may appear, rather than objective essays or comprehensive representations of viewpoint. Including my own of course.

The problem ultimately boils down to an issue of values, for which there is an evident lack of toleration in some quarters. Endless vituperation is unfortunate and unhelpful. Most arguments and “lines in the sand” here are ironic given that issues of ongoing debate are not essentially about martial arts but, again, debates on personal and sometimes even religious values (of which in this day and age, we dare not speak thanks to prevailing political correctness).

Exercises in logic (the domain of intelligence), while entertaining in and of themselves, won’t reach to the heart and soul of the matter. If one looks hard enough, there is always a bigger picture (the domain of wisdom). This is no less true in martial arts than in any other human endeavor.

What an odd lot, we humans. From my perspective, anyway.

Regards,

  • kj
22

Yeah…what kj said! Though you lost me with ‘vituperation’…that one I need to look up! :wink:

23

Many, if not most of us do. To Victor’s point, some of us have gotten the “spirit” of it for years. The other way around seems more problematic, and once again the virtual center of forum discussions.

Nicely reflective post, BTW.

Regards,

  • kj
24

Back at you, AZ.

  • kj
25

“The only way to know is to do WCK – fight – and see. Of course, the grandmasters and masters and most of the sifu don’t want to hear this because they can’t perform (fight) at any significant level. Who would want to learn a fighting method from someone that can’t fight well? So they avoid showing what they can, or more appropriately, cannot do, by instead doing demonstrations of their “skills” or by “touching hands” or by using other cooperative situations – anything except fighting skilled fighters and putting it out there for us to judge for ourselves what skills they really have or don’t have. The ricebowl and the egos will take quite the beating if folks begin to focus on performance instead of all the BS and marketing. But, if we in WCK don’t want to drown in a sea of BS – and we’re already swimming in one – we need to change direction and focus on performance instead of the BS.” (Terrance)

Well lets look at it from the persepctive of golfers. Look at any of the good coaches, take Tiger’s old coach Butch Harmon, did he need to play with the best of them to prove that he could coach or teach or that he knows the golf game?

Or do all of the regular golfers have to compete to prove that they are “really golfers”? And who will they compete with, at what level? So they golf 2-3 days a week and sure they cannot compete with the pros that golf everyday. Does that make them non golfers?

Who do you fight with someone that has the same exact time and intensity invested? Same age, same weight, same training? What standards will you use to scientificly judge who has it and who does not? Do really believe that every teacher you meet has to be challenged to determine if they have any skill?

(One of the thoughts that saved me from getting in many fights when I use to frequent bars was how fair can it be that I have thousands of hours of training and the drunk that wants to fight me may have 5 or 10 hours?)

There are many that love wing chun and its ideas but are not at the physical level of a 25 year old. So should they quit Wing Chun?

Regards,

Carl

26

Some believe that if your style doesn’t compete in UFC/NHB/Cage fights, etc., it’s no good for combat. I’ve heard people talk as if UFC fighters are invincible and can beat every style. The idea that MA are ONLY for fighting seems pretty western to me. What about Mo Duk and Bushido (not BS) Most traditional MAs taught respect, honor, self discipline, etc. as well as fighting. I watched a Demo for World Tai Chi day this past Sat. and the oldest student was a 92 year old woman. Regardless of whether a Tai Chi person can beat a UFC guy Tai Chi is still a MA. This woman was after the health aspects like many others. When the UFC guys get old will they continue to fight to prove themselves and risk injury, or will they just pass on their knowledge of fighting? Does that mean they’re not doing MA amymore? I believe in training to fight in order to fight but I don’t knock people who are in the arts for other reasons. Some people take piano lesson with no aspirations on being a concert pianist. They simply enjoy playing.

Terence, you practice Criminal Law which I’ll presume takes time and research right? Do you have the time to train and practice all out fighting like UFC people? If you don’t, wouldn’t that make you less skilled than them? If I’m right should you give up WC or try to be the best you can be personally? BTW, what do you call your teacher?
Phil

27

CarlD,

You’re using reduction to absurdity here.
By stating the extreme case (which can’t be true), you’re trying to prove the opposite which kind of leaves out the middle case.

A non-elite fighter can not compete with an elite fighter. That simply means they are not elite. They are still using fighting ability as a measure.

In WC, you may see people who have little fighting ability praised for their demonstrations, their lineage, their theories or their marketing. In the end, that has little value.

If the WC world turned it’s priorities around and said, “Let’s start measuring our fighting ability”, wouldn’t that be a good thing?

In terms of values, surely that is more important than lineage, demos, marketing, history, etc. I am all for people having different values, but some things I think are inherently of lesser value.

28

Like no one else ever did that on this forum.

29

Of lesser value to you.

30

Of lesser value to you.

31

Now you’re the arbiter of what is art, too? :wink:

By your standard, since both Ali and Rickson are no longer fighting, does that mean they are no longer martial artists? What were Ali and Rickson between fights? What were they before their first fights?

What about any of the people who lost to Ali or Rickson? They obviously cannot successfully express their fighting skill. They took your fighting test, and failed. By your standard, are they or are they not martial artists?

There is a great deal of art in the process - probably more than in a successful result.

You know, becoming the adjudicator of what is and is not Ving Tsun Paai for the entire community of this sub[n] culture is not exactly increasing your fighting ability, either. But regardless of the value of such a role for someone to play, I would never suggest that someone who actively seeks out such a role, such as yourself, is not a martial artist.

Using the title of “martial artist” to bestow on the chosen few that uphold your personal fantasy standard of what a martial artist “should be” is just another form of what you portend to decry. Is the recognition of this for what it is - what I’m sure is the unintended hypocrisy of your argument - the real difference of consequence between you and I? :slight_smile:

32

CarlD wrote:

Well lets look at it from the persepctive of golfers. Look at any of the good coaches, take Tiger’s old coach Butch Harmon, did he need to play with the best of them to prove that he could coach or teach or that he knows the golf game?

**All golf pros can, or at least could at some time, play the game well – they can actually get out on the links and have a decent score. Because they can play the game, they can coach the game. If someone in WCK can’t “play the game” well, i.e., fight decently, how in the hell are they going to coach anyone?

Or do all of the regular golfers have to compete to prove that they are “really golfers”? And who will they compete with, at what level? So they golf 2-3 days a week and sure they cannot compete with the pros that golf everyday. Does that make them non golfers?

**The difference is that golfers actually play golf: go out on the links, hit the ball, etc. WCK practitioners don’t, for the most part, ever practice WCK – fighting with WCK tools. They do prep work: forms, drills (including chi sao), etc. If you go to a boxing gym, you box; if you go to a BJJ school, you’ll roll/spar; it’s the same for any genuine martial art. It’s doing the activity itself, fighting, that makes them martial artists and gives them skills. If these guys only did the prep work (like WCK people), they’d never get any good either.

Who do you fight with someone that has the same exact time and intensity invested? Same age, same weight, same training? What standards will you use to scientificly judge who has it and who does not? Do really believe that every teacher you meet has to be challenged to determine if they have any skill?

**Go to any good boxing gym or a MMA gym or a BJJ school or a MT school or kyokushinkai school and you’ll see all ages, both genders, all sizes represented. But they all get out there and fight (spar realistically). Performance level can only be determined from performance.

(One of the thoughts that saved me from getting in many fights when I use to frequent bars was how fair can it be that I have thousands of hours of training and the drunk that wants to fight me may have 5 or 10 hours?)

**I’m not interested in punching out drunk, unskilled people – that’s no challenge and certainly doesn’t demonstrate much in the way of skill. Fighting is a physical performance like any other physical performance.

There are many that love wing chun and its ideas but are not at the physical level of a 25 year old. So should they quit Wing Chun?

**I’m not suggesting they quit WCK – I’m suggesting just the opposite: that they actually begin practicing WCK. Forms, drills, including chi sao, etc. is not “playing the game”, it’s not getting out on the golf course. It’s like hitting the heavy bag, skipping rope, hitting the focus mitts – that’s the prep work, that’s not boxing. Boxing is getting in the ring and fighting. That’s the objective of the training. In WCK, the objective of the training is to fight with our tools.

**Imagine learning to box or learning BJJ from someone that has never developed any decent level of skill in boxing or BJJ, someone that has never fought (boxed or rolled) with anyone skilled. What are they going to teach you?

**IMO most of the folks “teaching” WCK aren’t teaching WCK (beyond a very superficial level), and most who call themselves WCK practitioners have never practiced WCK. They are a bunch of folks that have never gotten into water trying to teach others how to swim and calling themselves swimmers. It’s a joke. They can’t have skill in WCK (fighting skill) without every practicing WCK. Then they respond by saying they have different “values” other than swimming and that it’s nasty to point out that they can’t swim.

33

I agree with Gangsterfist on all of his points here. Fighting is but one aspect of WC training and IMO from my experience at this point in my WC training it is the by product of everything I have put into it. I do not claim to be a great “Fighter” because fighting to me means Ego, plain and simple. If someone challenges me to fight and I accept it, that is my Ego expressing it self. Part of WC training is to control and or subdue the Ego, not stroke it. My belief is that if you have high quality skills in WC you will have the ability to defend your self in a self defense situation where physical violence is used against you. Funny thing is that lots on this forum believe that WC teaches no self defense skills and if that is your only concern the best thing to do is read a book or buy a gun or mace, lol. Wing Chun has taught me lots about all the things that happen before physical contact takes place between you and someone attacking you, but more importantly it has given me the ability to NOT worry about it, which reflects in the way people perceive me. For example, when walking in a room and staring down all the men in that room as compared to walking in a room and being aware of the men that are there but not really recognizing them for their existence extracts different responses from them. One will make you a target and the other won’t. I have friends and fellow students that do this all the time and get into trouble for that, and others that don’t and avoid trouble although both types frequent the same types of places in society.

Simply put IMO if fighting is your primary concern in WC training then you are still at the basic/primary level of understanding, when it comes to MA and what you really get out of it. Yes, fighting effectiveness is important and I wouldn’t be doing WC today if it was not as effective as it is, as that is one of the things that appeals to me, but it is not the only thing that I appreciate about the art.

James

34

sihing

Well said!

35

“The ricebowl and the egos will take quite the beating if folks begin to focus on performance instead of all the BS and marketing. But, if we in WCK don’t want to drown in a sea of BS – and we’re already swimming in one – we need to change direction and focus on performance instead of the BS.” (Terence)

…

"In WC, you may see people who have little fighting ability praised for their demonstrations, their lineage, their theories or their marketing. In the end, that has little value.

If the WC world turned it’s priorities around and said, “Let’s start measuring our fighting ability”, wouldn’t that be a good thing?

In terms of values, surely that is more important than lineage, demos, marketing, history, etc. I am all for people having different values, but some things I think are inherently of lesser value." (Edmund)

…

These two posts by Terence and Edmund go right to the heart of the matter - and as I stated on the A MODEL TO CONSIDER thread, an ongoing and institutionalized Wing Chun Sparring Tournament scene would go A LONG WAY toward addressing the issues that are at hand.

Because if done well, and fairly, and actual fighting/sparring ability is the ONLY MEASURE that is used to decide who wins and who loses each match…then we will begin to have at least one OBJECTIVE standard method to judge one’s knowledge and ability within Wing Chun…(not the only way, as I’ve been saying)…but a VERY IMPORTANT standard of measure it will be…put in place for all to see, and to judge on their own.

Without marketing, and overblown egos and wild unsubstantiated claims - because PERFORMANCE will be the final arbiter.

And if someone’s rice bowl can’t handle performance - that’s their problem.

36

I guess by that rationale then if being able to fight is your objective in boxing or BJJ or whatever, you’reat some basic level of understanding. Developing skill – increased fighitng performance – is the objective of any martial art; otherwise, we don’t need to practice any martial art. Performance can only be measured and increased by performance. No performance means no way to measure and no significant increase in performance. The forms, drills, etc. will not by themselves incease your ability to fight (using WCK’s tools); those need to be coupled with fighting itself.

Of course, I understand that folks that can’t fight will try to rationalize their inability and lack of skill by focusing on “other values” – the “WCK is about more than fighting.” Perhaps it is about more than fighting. But fighting still remains a significant aspect of any fighting method. How can anyone say they have skill in WCK if they can’t use it skillfully?

There are two WCKs IMO. There is the WCK, which like tai ji, has become a pseudo-martial art, that focuses on nonfighting: drills, forms, cooperative play (chi sao or push hands). You can do that forever and never develop any significant fighting skill. Then there is the WCK that is a martial art, and it needs to be trained like a martial art. How do martial artists train? Look at anyone with significant fighting skills and you see they follow, with some variation, the same training model: forms (not necessarily linked set but forms nonetheless), drills, supplementary exercises, and fighting. What model you follow will tell you which WCK you practice.

37

“The ricebowl and the egos will take quite the beating if folks begin to focus on performance instead of all the BS and marketing. But, if we in WCK don’t want to drown in a sea of BS – and we’re already swimming in one – we need to change direction and focus on performance instead of the BS.” (Terence)

…

"In WC, you may see people who have little fighting ability praised for their demonstrations, their lineage, their theories or their marketing. In the end, that has little value.

If the WC world turned it’s priorities around and said, “Let’s start measuring our fighting ability”, wouldn’t that be a good thing?

In terms of values, surely that is more important than lineage, demos, marketing, history, etc. I am all for people having different values, but some things I think are inherently of lesser value." (Edmund)

…

These two posts by Terence and Edmund go right to the heart of the matter - and as I stated on the A MODEL TO CONSIDER thread, an ongoing and institutionalized Wing Chun Sparring Tournament scene would go A LONG WAY toward addressing the issues that are at hand.

Because if done well, and fairly, and actual fighting/sparring ability is the ONLY MEASURE that is used to decide who wins and who loses each match…then we will begin to have at least one OBJECTIVE standard method to judge one’s knowledge and ability within Wing Chun…(not the only way, as I’ve been saying)…but a VERY IMPORTANT standard of measure it will be…put in place for all to see, and to judge on their own.

Without marketing, and overblown egos and wild unsubstantiated claims - because PERFORMANCE will be the final arbiter.

And if someone’s rice bowl can’t handle performance - that’s their problem.

And if some people aren’t interested in such tournaments, that doesn’t mean that they should quit wing chun…they can do what they want. And when someone is too old to continue in such a venue, or has some other situation that precludes them getting involved (or staying involved) in tournaments…that’s fine. And they shouldn’t be judged negatively because of it.

But at least the venue will be there for those who are interested in an objective standard of measure for one’s wing chun fighting ability.

38

It’s quite simple – “skill in WCK” is our performance level in fighting with our WCK tools/method. WCK is fighting. No fighting, no WCK. It’s not how our forms look, how well we can play chi sao, or how we can spout theory. Nor is it about what our lineage is, whether we are an inner-disciple, and associated nonsense. WCK is a fighting method and our skill in a fighting method is how well we can use that method to fight. If you can’t fight well, then you have little skill. Period. You can add things on to it if you want to, but the core is about fighting.

Some folks want to think that “skill” in forms or skill in drills or skill in chi sao will translate into skill in fighting. But the evidence is overwhelming that to get good at any activity requires we actually perform that activity. All good fighters – the proven ones and not the hypothetical ones – fight as part of their training. What make Wong Sheung Leung, Sum Nung, Leung Jan, etc. as good as they were? They fought. In the old days, they couldn’t fight like we can today (with protective equipment, etc.) so they did it the old-fashioned way. Today, we can improve on their training methods. We can fight much more, use better training methods, etc.

The bottom line is this: one’s WCK (fighting) skill is directly related to how much fighting they’ve done and the level of competition they’ve been exposed to. If someone never fought, they can’t have developed much in the way of WCK (fighting) skill.

39

I have been reading this forum for some time now and will have to say T. Nieoff is on the money. In order to improve ones skill you must fight (Iron sharpens iron like man sharpens man) I have been involved in martial arts for at least 10 years now and the karate school I belonged to you had a choice to fight or just learn the art but were highly encouraged to fight. I have had a chance to spar with some wing chun guys in the states and in Germany the ones here in the states for the most part could not fight at all, they were high rank students but lacked hands on experience this is do to the teahers, they were out of shape and afraid to get hit. When in Germany it was a different story they were some tough sob’s in order to rank in their system you had to spar so many hours and also full contact, their instructors were very tough and hardened more like military training.
Many handed my arse to me sparring. The Wing Chun here for the most part is very soft ( can’t speak for all just the ones I saw) Why study a fighting art and not fight is silly those people that do so just want to say I’m a black sash in Wing Chun
with no evidence. T. Neoff keep lighting the fire and it will get hotter.

40

Well Madison, all I said was he speaks the truth Lawyer or not, I do not study wing chun but like the principles I wrestled for 6 years and now study TKD and I get good workouts so If it don’t apply let it fly did not come on to argue.