Obsolete and out-moded?

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Wing Chun
21

Hey RR,

As an aside, what really impressed me was their teacher. He was 74 fricken years old, and he rolled quasi-steady for 60 min., and was pretty dang fiesty the whole time, going for Jujigatame, Udegarami, and other typical JJJ holds.

In the Jiu Jistu type world this guy is the odd ball. Most are physically damaged and have pain regulary. Probally he was in better shape because he did not have much grappling time in as grappling is brutal on your body.

If I can still go like that at 74, I will be incredibly happy.

Well, my friend! Then you will need a lot of Yoga and sports therapy to counter the effect it has on your body. In the time you have been involved with grappling how many injuries have you had??

Everyone gets injured grappling! Its part of it. If someone has not been injured grappling then they have never grappled! I only did it for a little while but in that time period I twisted my ankle twice, pulled a back muscle, injured a rib and not to mention the lovely feeling of the Swollen (Col. Flow Ears)! Oh are they are the best! Even a pillow made me cry when the ears touched it!

I wish that on nobody!

Most honest reality guys will tell you for the street all you need is a year or so with ground stuff. For those times when you end up there or have no choice. If you want to be a competitive grappler then thats a different story.

Have a good one!

22

(Man, I must be going soft or something. Normally, I’d let someone not getting the obtuseness of my answers slide.)

“Show them you can make it work” does not “seem to be a great answer” from my point of view - it’s just one answer. Even by narrowing the scope of a discussion to the context of a Ving Tsun conversation, aren’t there more interesting things to discuss than an ego driven attempt to validate and/or refute a Ving Tsun existence by proving its greatness and/or mediocrity?

I’d like to think that most “well-respected MMA/NHB trainers/fighters” don’t go around trying to prove anything and are just interested in developing relationships based on mutual respect and exchanging ideas. I’d also like to think that the most important lesson any well respected Ving Tsun teacher could impart on a student would be no different.

If ten people enter a tournament and all of them have only one goal - to win - then nine will be disappointed.

If ten people enter a competition with the idea that they are there to seek together, then all ten will benefit: All ten will win.

To seek your limits with the help of your competitor is the key. (Think about the Latin root of the word: “competere”.)

Training and competition can be its own reward and can be enjoyed fully without expectation of future achievement. To have the enthusiasm without the glory of an image validated by “proof” would let all ages and ranges of ability to have fun, participate, and exchange ideas enthusiastically regardless of disparity of skill.

[Interested in etymology? Enthusiasm: “entheos”]

23

Suits me. If I get into a fight in a pub, I’m guessing I’m not gonna be in the same bar as Crocop, and if I am, I think I’d recognize him.

I’m big enough, trained enough, and dirty enough to just be able to enjoy my training for its own sake… so that should in turn relax me enough for some reasonable advances in that training.

24

Good ol’ Ernie just pm’d me about something - and part of his words went like this:

“If they can work off a jab, cross, hook and handle a shoot, thigh kick
and get back on their feet… then their worth a conversation and investigation
the rest I leave for the label makers.”

HE WAS TALKING about Wing Chun people…if they can deal with the above - then they’re worth an investigation.

Really thought that those ideas belong on this thread - as he definitely put his finger on something - in terms of Wing Chun being outdated and obsolete.

You’ve got to be able to make your Wing Chun work against all of the above moves, imo, or you ARE obsolete…because those kinds of fighting moves (and the training methodologies that go into them)…are today’s state-of-the-art, so to speak.

Deal with them - and you’re keeping pace.

Can’t deal with them - buy a rocking chair.

25

Like I mentioned in a previous thread, when I visited my Sigung in Guanzhou in '99, he had been tweaking a movement in Chum Kiu to shoot in on western boxers. He was 75 or so at the time, and understood the risks of stagnation and value of constant expert refinement as well as his ancestors.

26

So he’s 75 and still doesn’t need a rocking chair…good for him!

27

My sigung passed away November 2002.

28

Sorry to hear that.

R.I.P.

29

Sorry, Tom, that I missed your “obtuseness.” :wink: I posed the question because I wanted to underscore the pointlessness of theoretical argument (no one can by argument prove WCK is valid). For example, you don’t “prove” your swordfighting method – modern or from times past – will work via theory, you do it by fencing with good fencers: the results prove it.

Hendrik,

Sure there were lots of writings and lots of theories from ancient China – that doesn’t tell us whether they could make them work today, against today’s fighters (my original point). Today’s fighters aren’t just the “strong defeating the weak” – didn’t Royce Gracie (at 180 lbs., and there is no evidence he’s doing performance enhancing drugs – he’s looked and weighed the same for a decade) defeat Akebono, the ex-sumo grand champion, who weighed 3 times as much via submission (grappling)? That’s an excellent example (real evidence) of the weaker overcoming the stronger. While many TCMAist’s make those claims, how come we don’t see any of them actually able to do it? The only weaker folks overcoming the stronger publically at least are MMAists. This is what my MMA firends say – between tai ji and WCK, there are millions more practitioners than BJJ, and many of the TJ and WCK people have trained longer than the BJJ people, yet the BJJ people are going and and fighting and winning. The TJ and WCK people are not. What’s the answer to that? We could if we wanted to, but we don’t? It only works on the street?

30

"Today’s fighters aren’t just the “strong defeating the weak” – didn’t Royce Gracie, at 180 lbs…defeat Akebono, the ex-sumo grand champion, who weighed 3 times as much via submission (grappling)? That’s an excellent example (real evidence) of the weaker overcoming the stronger. While many TCMAist’s make those claims, how come we don’t see any of them actually able to do it?

The only weaker folks overcoming the stronger publically at least are MMAists. This is what my MMA friends say – between tai ji and WCK, there are millions more practitioners than BJJ, and many of the TJ and WCK people have trained longer than the BJJ people, yet the BJJ people are going and and fighting and winning. The TJ and WCK people are not.

What’s the answer to that?
We could if we wanted to, but we don’t?
It only works on the street?"

THE ABOVE QUOTE by Terence goes right to the heart of the matter.

There are several reasons, imo, why MMA people who do Muay Thai and BJJ…or some form of Kickboxing mixed with BJJ…are doing these things and TJ and WCK people are not…

and “it only works on the street” is not one of those reasons.

While it’s true that wearing gloves and having to take off your shoes does limit the Wing Chun game a bit - THAT IS STILL not a valid excuse - because adjustments can be made - if one really wanted to.

Did I just say want to?

It would seem that a VERY big part of the Wing Chun population have no real desire to train seriously enough to go into a NHB event; but more significant, imo, is the fact that neither do they want to train realistically behind closed doors…

preferring instead to make a game or a hobby out of their Wing Chun experience…which is okay…as long as no great claims about the fighting efficiency of THEIR wing chun is attached to the equation…and neither should such people make such statements like…“Well maybe not me - but my sifu can do it”…or “sigung could do it”…or “the great WCK folks from previous generations could do it”…and on and on. That’s a HUGE COPOUT.

And training seriously enough HAS to include, at the very least, realistic and consistent hard sparring against skilled partners/opponents.

And imo - it also has to include some crosstraining - in terms of footwork and grappling skills.

Forms, chi sao, wooden dummy, drills, and the “occasional” light sparring against a classmate who’s using wing chun, or doing some half-assed version of boxing, Thai-boxng, kickboxing, or grappling takedowns…

doesn’t cut it.

31

Isn’t it the fighter that becomes outdated and not the art? I’ve always gone on the philosiphy that the particular art is only as good as the person applying it on that particular day, in that particular moment in time.

32

No, fighting methods, training methods, and associated aspects, like any systems of knowledge, grow and evolve over time. Boxing, for instance, has changed a great deal in the past 125 years; BJJ has evolved a immensly in 50 years. Of course, some people believe that Shaolin monks and/or Chen villagers had perfect knowledge and fighting skills hundreds of years ago. :wink:

33

Your last statement seems to contradict your orignial question of if WCK is outdated or obsolete. Or you are making WCK the exception to this scenario.

If we both agree that fighting and training methods grow and evolve over time, which I do, then I would say no to WCK being outdated and “traditional.”

I still think that the quality of the art is dependent on the effort put forth by the individual studying/practising it. Hence what I meant by the fighter becoming outdated. :slight_smile:

34

wingtsunmonk wrote:

Your last statement seems to contradict your orignial question of if WCK is outdated or obsolete. Or you are making WCK the exception to this scenario.

**What does the evidence tell us?

If we both agree that fighting and training methods grow and evolve over time, which I do, then I would say no to WCK being outdated and “traditional.”

**OK, then where are the results?

I still think that the quality of the art is dependent on the effort put forth by the individual studying/practising it. Hence what I meant by the fighter becoming outdated.

**Certainly a large part of the equation is the talent/effort of the trainee; but another significant aspect is the fighting method and training method. A limitation in either aspect can limit our overall potential. For example, even the best athlete putting in the max effort will not achieve what they could doing a second-rate art. How do we know what is not – including WCK – a second-rate art (one that’s obsolete or outmoded)? By theory (it sounds great)? By faith (I just know)? By stories of past exploits (the Shaolin monks or Leung Jan were good!)? By the fact that you were able to survive a streetfight (so did the ninjutsu and shotokan practitioners)? Or, by results? Let me pose the question another way: how do we know BJJ or boxing or muay thai aren’t second-rate arts?

35

who’s to say WC has not evolved?

i know what and how i practice is very different from that which i originally taught, i would have thought a system conceived to defeat the fighting systems of the day would demand continual assessment and adjustment.

i can remember Terence arguing with me at length about the purity of wc and that all that one would need was already contained in the system. so some things do change, or at least points of view do.

i would agree whole heartedly with Terence’s premise, if and only if wc was technique based, but from my understanding it is concept and principle based, this means that many adaptations, augmentations can be made. So ideas can be tested and developed under stressful non-compliant conditions, those ideas stimulated if one wishes to confront and defeat the fighting systems of the day.

regards andrew williams

36

Hey Andrew!

Good to hear from you – it’s like back in the day!

You wrote:

who’s to say WC has not evolved?

**LOL! There are some that say it has remain unchanged for hundreds of years. :wink:

i know what and how i practice is very different from that which i originally taught, i would have thought a system conceived to defeat the fighting systems of the day would demand continual assessment and adjustment.

**Yes, so it would seem.

i can remember Terence arguing with me at length about the purity of wc and that all that one would need was already contained in the system. so some things do change, or at least points of view do.

**Growth involves change. :slight_smile: But I want to make it clear that I’m acting as devil’s advocate here . . .

i would agree whole heartedly with Terence’s premise, if and only if wc was technique based, but from my understanding it is concept and principle based, this means that many adaptations, augmentations can be made.

**I hear “concept and principle based” (folks often use that as “proof” WCK is an advanced art), and I don’t buy into it. IMO the whole “concept-based” and “technique-based” dichotomy is nonsense; it’s always the interplay between the two. Sure WCK has “principles and concepts”, but so does any fighting art. I think WCK becomes “concept and principle based” for theoreticians since that’s all they really have! Technical aspects evolve too (BJJ and boxing are good examples of it).

So ideas can be tested and developed under stressful non-compliant conditions, those ideas stimulated if one wishes to confront and defeat the fighting systems of the day.

**I agree as far as this goes – what about when WCK does not provide the technical basis for dealing with something?

37

Hi Terence

**Growth involves change. But I want to make it clear that I’m acting as devil’s advocate here . . .
—so some things do not change. :slight_smile:

**I hear “concept and principle based” (folks often use that as “proof” WCK is an advanced art), and I don’t buy into it.
—I would think this being dependant their intelligence, experience and willingness to take a risk.

** IMO the whole “concept-based” and “technique-based” dichotomy is nonsense; it’s always the interplay between the two.
—what do you think “concept based” means?

** Sure WCK has “principles and concepts”, but so does any fighting art.
—of course, all part of a multilateral base, am thinking that some drill techniques tried and tested without considering alternate ideas.

** I think WCK becomes “concept and principle based” for theoreticians since that’s all they really have!
—yes, I have met many theoreticians who have not fought and many have no right teaching a fighting art if that is what they are selling (imho), equally I know one or two who make great combat teachers. LOL I know instructors who, as fighters are supreme, but as teachers leave much to be desired.

** Technical aspects evolve too (BJJ and boxing are good examples of it).
—technical advances based on mechanical principles, tactical concepts???

**I agree as far as this goes – what about when WCK does not provide the technical basis for dealing with something?
—fun question, like what?

Regards Andrew

38

Hi Andrew,

AndrewW wrote:

—what do you think “concept based” means?

I don’t know what it means to the folks that use it – for me, the notion is not useful. IMO lots of these sorts of terms are used by theoreticians (to describe their theoretical POV) but are essentially meaningless. For examples, boxers, BJJers, MMAists, etc., i.e., folks that really fight, don’t “talk” like that – because they don’t think like that. It’s just not important to them.

—of course, all part of a multilateral base, am thinking that some drill techniques tried and tested without considering alternate ideas.

My experience is that fighters (boxers, BJJists, MMAists, etc. - persons actually using their method) are always looking for better ways of doing things; it’s the “conceptual theoreticians” that aren’t.

—yes, I have met many theoreticians who have not fought and many have no right teaching a fighting art if that is what they are selling (imho), equally I know one or two who make great combat teachers. LOL I know instructors who, as fighters are supreme, but as teachers leave much to be desired.

True, in both cases it comes down to results. We judge whether someone is a good teacher by the success of their students (their results teaching); we judge whether someone is a good practitioner by their results doing it (fighting). Good results at one doesn’t mean good results at the other.

—technical advances based on mechanical principles, tactical concepts???

Actually, I think more of these advances are based on experience (performance) – encountering a problem and trying to figure out a way to solve it, stumbling on something you hadn’t considered, etc. Many people think the principle or concept precedes the application; IME it’s just the opposite. It’s from the application that we come to realize the concept.

**I agree as far as this goes – what about when WCK does not provide the technical basis for dealing with something?
—fun question, like what?

This too comes from experience. For one example, WCK won’t provide the technical basis for fighting on the ground.

39

WCK won’t provide the technical basis for fighting on the ground.

((That’s Terence’s opinion and he is entitled to it. There are other opinions.
Situations and people vary. Depends on who what when where and how.

Hi Andrew- good to see your posts. The net hasnt changed much. Same old. Same old tea party. How is Rolf’s book coming?I remebered your comment on Kotsya’s fitness recently when I saw Kotsya again in Phoenix in his last fight. His fitmess, training and recovery from his injuries is amazing. He apparently has discussed some things with Russel Crowe who will be boxing in his new movie
on Braddock- the Cinderella man.Braddock was knocked out by Louis but was an interesting individual- should be a great story. Joy))

en passim-to no one in particular: Hillary Swank did a great job indeed as a person and a female boxer in Eastwood’s Million Dollar Baby. I saw it the day before the awards. There are nice little snips and lines from training rooms in the movie. Little things like the importance of the feet even in punching the bags.

40

Yes, Joy, that’s my opinion. And it’s based on evidence. I’m still waiting for those WCK practitioners who have opinions to the contrary to provide evidence to support their view. It seems a fairly simple thing to do – if one can really do it. But we never hear from these folks with WCK groundfighting skills actually being willing to demonstrate them against some good groundfighters. Of course, there are people out there that believe they can repel folks with their chi too . . . .