Saying that one’s own art is one of ‘men of substance’ and not one of ‘thugs, gangsters and stupid people’ is a type of pseudo-intellectual, passive-aggressive snobbery. It’s not unlike more than a century ago, when so-called internal systems became popular among scholars, some of whom used their ability to write and publish books to hype their systems’ supposed superiority. It’s another tired way of saying, ‘My art is better than yours, nyah nyah nyah.’ I have no issue with Robert Chu as a MAist, as he’s clearly very good at what he does. But even very good MAists can make very uninformed statements.
Not an art of thugs, gangsters and stupid people?!? Wasn’t Wing Chun one of the arts favored among HK gangs, who also reportedly used melon knives or choppers in places of butterfly knives? Seriously, what MA hasn’t required critical thinking at some points in the learning process? And what art, including WC, doesn’t include ‘stupid’ people within its ranks? Every MA requires a certain level of intelligence to learn, but it’s not rocket science. As previously mentioned, too much intellectual analysis beyond a certain point becomes a hindrance.
Did you know that actors and performers in China’s past were looked down upon, put into a similar category with prostitutes? Whether or not they were intelligent.
Many excellent CMA were practiced among farmers. Yes, in many, maybe even most cases a day of labor may have left little time/energy for training. But there were clearly very big exceptions to that.
[QUOTE=KPM;1243441]What makes you think that “battlefield fighters” or “revolutionaries” weren’t “thinking men”??? [/QUOTE]
Ummm, possibly the fact that “battlefield fighters” in the 1850’s like today probably used long range weapons rather than close hand to hand fighting where WCK would come into play?
If the “WCK battlefield fighters” today can’t put that together, why should I believe those in 1850 could?
In other words, those with mental images of being open hand close combat “battlefield” fighters have quite their own mental delusion going on. Which kind of precludes being a “thinking man”.
[QUOTE=Jimbo;1243342]Saying that one’s own art is one of ‘men of substance’ and not one of ‘thugs, gangsters and stupid people’ is a type of pseudo-intellectual, passive-aggressive snobbery.[/QUOTE]
Is calling someone a “man of substance” a nice way of saying he’s fat? Is he saying WCK is for fat men that are pseudo intellectuals? :D:D:D
[QUOTE=Wayfaring;1243505]Is calling someone a “man of substance” a nice way of saying he’s fat? Is he saying WCK is for fat men that are pseudo intellectuals? :D:D:D[/QUOTE]
Certainly this system has had, and continues to have, people that could lose a few pounds around the stomach! :eek:
[QUOTE=anerlich;1243235]So, Wing Chun is not a battlefield art as claimed by some, a revolutionary art as claimed by others …
But instead, the martial art of the Bourgeoisie. No wonder those MFers went up against the wall during the Cultural Revolution.
Uh … OK. Good to know.[/QUOTE]
Andrew:
This post certainly implies that you think that being a “thinking man” or part of the “bourgeoise” is separate from being a “battlefield fighter” or “revoluntionary.” You said Wing Chun “is not…, but instead…” That’s two different things. Maybe you need to use a little more critical thinking when you post!
[QUOTE=Happy Tiger;1243453]One of the biggest problems of VT is it’s over thunked[/QUOTE]
I agree that there has to be a balance. Some do spend way too much theorizing and not enough time applying. I’m sure that is not what either Robert Chu or Wong Shun Leung intended. After all, WSL was a “no-nonsense” type of guy with a big emphasis on realistic training. But he also saw a danger in students that didn’t try to understand the underlying concepts and wanted only to fight with a limited number of techniques. I posted this thread in response to some recent threads with discussions that denied that Wing Chun has a conceptual basis. I’ve been very surprised by the number of negative responses it has received. I have to wonder when people deny that being able to understand the principles and concepts that Wing Chun expresses is an important element in learning Wing Chun. What Wing Chun are they learning???
I also think back to more than one account that stated that Yip Man didn’t have much patience with “dull” students that didn’t learn very quickly. This leads me to believe that he would disagree with a number of the responses on this thread.
[QUOTE=KPM;1243546]I also think back to more than one account that stated that Yip Man didn’t have much patience with “dull” students that didn’t learn very quickly. This leads me to believe that he would disagree with a number of the responses on this thread.[/QUOTE]
A student being quick or dull isn’t always about someone being in a certain social status; this especially true in MA. ANY MA requires a degree of intelligence to fully grasp. My objection was the wording that doctors, actors, etc., make better MAists because their social status means they are more intelligent than ‘simple farmers’. Success in MA also requires intelligence for MA, consistency, motivation, hard work and ‘guts’. It also helps to have a degree of natural aptitude, something not confined to upper classes. I’ve known of medical professionals, educators, and other highly educated people who are quite dumb and lack critical thinking in certain other areas of life. That was my original objection to what was stated.
The ability to understand principles and concepts is important in all MA. In this regard, WC is not unique. You seem to imply that anyone who disagrees with Robert Chu’s statement, or you. must somehow be slow.
This post certainly implies that you think that being a “thinking man” or part of the “bourgeoise” is separate from being a “battlefield fighter” or “revoluntionary.” You said Wing Chun “is not…, but instead…” That’s two different things.
Actually I was interpreting what others had said, or to be more precise, taking a bunch of fatuous statements made by others to their (il)logical conclusion. These are not MY opinions. God forbid.
Benny Meng et al: WC is a battlefield art.
Many people: WC was developed by Ming revolutionaries to over throw the Qing (and didn’t THAT work out so BRILLIANTLY) until all involved got flattened by the Japanese and the Communists.
Robert Chu: WC was developed by “people of substance”, doctors, show people and merchants, viz. the bourgeouisie rather than the proletariat.
IMO all involved are probably talking out of their *$$es.
And, learn to count. I talked about THREE different things, not two.
And JMFC, I’m not really trying to be all that serious :rolleyes:
Maybe you need to use a little more critical thinking when you post!
Thanks for your concern. However, I think you have significant issues of your own in that regard you should probably sort out before worrying about l’il ol’ me.
Anyway, make up your own mind about what I said. You can tell yourself you won if you want to.
I have to wonder when people deny that being able to understand the principles and concepts that Wing Chun expresses is an important element in learning Wing Chun. What Wing Chun are they learning???
Robert’s quote had **** all to do with that.
Few people on this thread said any of that.
You seem to be arguing with people who aren’t actually posting on the thread.
I also think back to more than one account that stated that Yip Man didn’t have much patience with “dull” students that didn’t learn very quickly. This leads me to believe that he would disagree with a number of the responses on this thread.
You didn’t have your basic farmers learning Wing Chun, you had people with more substance (learning it at that time). We should conduct the art in that matter, because it’s progressing in that matter. I think there is a great improvement of Wing Chun, because it passes onto intelligent people. Not just thugs, gangsters, or stupid people.
I think I would prefer that the art I am learning to be one that was used by a bunch of thugs and gangsters who had to really use it to survive and not by a bunch of intellectuals who only “think” about fighting and “think” that they know what would work in a violent situation.
A phrase that I have heard applied to arts that “think” too much is “paralysis by analysis”. They put too much stock on the theory of their art and not enough hands on give and go with their art.
[QUOTE=anerlich;1243552]Robert Chu: WC was developed by “people of substance”, doctors, show people and merchants, viz. the bourgeouisie rather than the proletariat.
[/quote]
If he means like rich people who could afford private lessons from Yip Man and the other known teachers of the day, he may have a point.
Do you think Yip was above taking their money, showing them a few things, and allowing them to believe they were bad@sses? I don’t. In fact that would explain a whole lot of his teaching different things to different people.
I’m sure nothing like that goes on today. :rolleyes:
[QUOTE=Kevin73;1243575]I think I would prefer that the art I am learning to be one that was used by a bunch of thugs and gangsters who had to really use it to survive and not by a bunch of intellectuals who only “think” about fighting and “think” that they know what would work in a violent situation.
[/QUOTE]
That would probably be boxing. The sweet science of the proletariat.
[QUOTE=Jimbo;1243548] My objection was the wording that doctors, actors, etc., make better MAists because their social status means they are more intelligent than ‘simple farmers’. .[/QUOTE]
That was NOT the message or intent of this thread. Why do people here feel the need to “nit-pick” things to death? Are you just looking for a fight??? :mad:
Thanks for your concern. However, I think you have significant issues of your own in that regard you should probably sort out before worrying about l’il ol’ me.
You brought that up first Andrew. Don’t throw stones if you aren’t ready to catch the bounce back. Evidently I’m not the only one with issues.
Isn’t it amazing that a simple friendly conversation is nearly an impossibility in this forum?
OK. I realize that Robert could have stated things in a little more politically correct way. But the central message was that a little bit of intelligence and understanding of the concepts behind Wing Chun are important. I reinforced this idea with the quotes from Wong Shun Leung. So why does everyone seem to want to nit-pick what Robert Chu said rather than talking about developing Wing Chun? Why does nearly everything here have to turn into an argument rather than a simple conversation?
[QUOTE=Lee Chiang Po;1241753]If you worked from daylight to dark every day it might effect the time you might have to study or practice.[/QUOTE]
In order to study CMA, you have to have:
money,
free time.
Since poor kids won’t have money and free time, only rich kids can afford to train CMA. Since rich kids will become CMA guys and poor kids will become scholars, the poor kids will become more intelligent than the rich kids in the long run. It ends up those who doesn’t train CMA are smarter than those who does.
This will apply to all TCMA styles and not just WC.
[QUOTE=KPM;1243687]That was NOT the message or intent of this thread. Why do people here feel the need to “nit-pick” things to death? Are you just looking for a fight??? :mad:[/QUOTE]
It’s what was implied. But since I’m talking to a wall…
