Originally posted by t_niehoff
[B]There is another issue – that “streetfighting”, or what I call assaults, don’t really measure your performance. First, lots of people win streetfights/assaults but that doesn’t mean they are using WCK or skilled WCK. Second, there is no way to determine the quality of the opposition: you may win, but it was against a chump. And third, there is no reasonable way (unless we are the jerk Andrew Nerlich describes) to get the significant experience that we need to develop. TN
I think it is obvious that we need fighting experience – it is the only way to learn to fight (people who don’t fight, can’t fight). And I think it is obvious that “on the street” doesn’t offer this experience. The only way to get it is IMO, and this also appears to be the opinion of the Gracies, etc., is by challenge fights – which, btw, aren’t about ego but are concerned with learning and developing skills. And interestingly, this is exactly the route taken by our esteemed ancestors. (The ones we don’t esteem, didn’t go that route). TN
Terence [/B]
Very well stated (as usual), and on large I must agree.
My only caveat would be that such “fighting” as you refer to is not as much a black and white thing, as a very fine line with degrees of “not fighting” and “streetfighting” on the hairy edges of either side. I wouldn’t write off anyone approaching (in the derivative sense) that razor’s edge from either side too off-handedly. In this universe, absolutes are elusive.
As I see it, there are different kinds of stewards who keep each other in check, and however unintentionally serve together to preserve the art and its essence. One kind of steward excels at preserving the fighting aspects and application of Wing Chun, including the ability to demonstrate extreme prowess; the primary end of the art, so to speak, though not the sole end inasumch as individual ends will vary. Another type of steward excels at preserving Wing Chun as a system and methodology with [at least some] consistency over time, including the ability to effectively relay the conceptual and technical nuances and details to others; preservers of the path and framework of learning if you will. There are other types of stewards as well, but I don’t want to digress too much. People don’t tend to be one type of steward or another; rather we are each a unique and individual blend of types in differing proportions.
Without the “fighters,” the fighting balance and primary end of the art would be obfuscated or lost. With fighters alone, the framework of learning, as well as secondary benefits of the art, would be lost in favor of the immediate “win,” and ultimately the art as we know it supplanted by something else that serves for fighting. What we measure impacts outcome; if our focus of evaluation is only on one of the essential aspects, the system on whole will become out of balance and ultimately deteriorate.
In an “ideal world,” every person would excel at all aspects of understanding, actualization and stewardship. In my experience it is rare for individuals to have extraordinary competence ranging the gamut of personal actualization to excellence in interpersonal communication, and all the tangential but relevant things in between. So it is my feeling that Wing Chun is rarely if ever preserved through individuals alone, or at least not to fullest benefit, not even by famous “masters.” Rather it is best preserved through committed communities, however large or small those communities may be. Like any community, there will be those who specialize in different areas, and ultimately complement each other for the continuance and betterment of that community or its ends. This then, to TwoManSaw’s question about valuing different types of exponents, and the value different types of individuals may bring to the art on whole.
More succinctly, there are two kinds of people in the world: those who divide the world into two kinds of people, and those who don’t, LOL. As always, just some thoughts.
Regards,
