what is soooo unsatisfactory about Classical WCK?

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Wing Chun
1

There are people who think the old WCK is not good.
There are people who think the Old WCK is not good for street fight.
There are people who think ancient WCK is obsolete..
all sort of thinking.

what is soooo unsatisfactory about Classical WCK?

How is all the people Bench Marking? or it is about personal believe ?

If in one way, one believe in Bruce Lee or others on his view claiming the old WCK is no good. But without Bench Marking. How is that different compare with believe in the Old WCK is the greatest iin the world without Bench marking.

there is no different between believing the modern is better then the old or the old is better then the modern. Just a believe. and believe without bench mark is just a personal opinion.

And Proving is not about this guy beat the other guy. that is a single event according to Statistic. Further more, there is a different between a great system and a great teacher.

and so what is that Classical Wing Chun Kuen is about? have any clue? otherwise, dont know about the classical, no bench marking, how is one draws a conclusion?
Believe in sifu? Believe in a certain fighter? Is it got to do with Wing Chun Kuen at all?

what is your view?

2

Hendrik–And Proving is not about this guy beat the other guy. that is a single event according to Statistic. Further more, there is a different between a great system and a great teacher.

that is about the weakest thing i have ever read – this is combat right ?

3

Not to mention the fact that Bruce Lee did in fact prove everything he would talk about. It doesn’t mean “Classical WCK” is no good, someone else might be able to make it work as effectively as Bruce used his JKD, but for Bruce the classical could be improved upon based on his experiences with modern fighters from different arenas.

One thing you have to remember, the asians had a large advantage a hundred or so years ago in hand to hand combat when the asian arts were new to westerners. You can’t combat (effectively) something you know nothing about. Many of the martial arts worked back then. Fast forward to present day. Everyone knows about the asian martial arts, and is at least familiar with the basics and generally what to expect. Do you think that the “classical mess” is as effective now as it was then? Evolution is necessary to survive in a changing environment. You adapt or you die. Plain and simple.

4

Yellowpikachu-

An art has to evolve-it will- just a matter of which direction.
If by classical wing chun one means fundamental principles of motion- classical wing chun is valid.

BL IMO did not understand Classical wing chun and evolved his own system. His preference.

But sticking to classical does NOT mean IMO mechanically repeating the techniques of Ip man or Leung Jan. Thus some early folks may not have to face short snappy hooks- but the sytem is larger than the person and one can find answers to hooks without violating the principles of wing chun motion.
Same for leg dives.

Buta KFO forum and some chat lists are hopelessly flawed
as far as having serious discussions- so we flail around and will continue to do so for the most part..
So I ignore most things, laugha lot and sometimes sigh. Life

5

Originally posted by Vajramusti
[B]Yellowpikachu-

An art has to evolve-it will- just a matter of which direction.
If by classical wing chun one means fundamental principles of motion- classical wing chun is valid.

BL IMO did not understand Classical wing chun and evolved his own system. His preference.

But sticking to classical does NOT mean IMO mechanically repeating the techniques of Ip man or Leung Jan. Thus some early folks may not have to face short snappy hooks- but the sytem is larger than the person and one can find answers to hooks without violating the principles of wing chun motion.
Same for leg dives.

Buta KFO forum and some chat lists are hopelessly flawed
as far as having serious discussions- so we flail around and will continue to do so for the most part..
So I ignore most things, laugha lot and sometimes sigh. Life [/B]

good post Joy

and may i steal this–Buta KFO forum and some chat lists are hopelessly flawed
as far as having serious discussions- so we flail around and will continue to do so for the most part..
So I ignore most things, laugha lot and sometimes sigh. Life

that’s how i feel about most wing chun conversations on here
people would rather talk about the translation of a word , the history of a word , or technique or shape ETC

instead of just putting in the work to test and refine the idea

helps me understand the mind state of many wing chun people
avoid contact at all cost :wink:

6

Hendrik,

So how do we go about ‘benchmarking’ WC?

or are you saying that it’s more about opinion than fact?

7

Originally posted by AmanuJRY
[B]Hendrik,

So how do we go about ‘benchmarking’ WC?

or are you saying that it’s more about opinion than fact? [/B]

Bench Marking is IMHO such as.

IE:
Basic components in random, then one can go to momentum…etc

1, power generation for a strike.
understand the process of how the strike being power from two different styles.

compare how they use muscle. how they use the body. how they use the coordination. how many step from start to completion of the process.

What is the power generation dependent on? some might be the muscle of the arm. some might be speed. some might be… and what is the pro and cons

2, Body handling.
Understand the parts of the body train. how complete the are they? and how are these parts condition to sustain impact or acceleration.

IE if one just stand there and the other has a full body work out.

3, …

8

I think there is a lot of confusion going on. Wing Chun to me is some good ideas for fighting, which from a mathematical and physics standpoint are valid. More simply , most of the ideas are just good common sense. These for the most part have probably been extracted from other Chinese fighting systems and also have some validity based on that.

These ideas or principles can be taught to you by a fighter or by a theoretician who has never fought in his life. The shortest distance between two points is a straight line whether a fighter tells you that or a modern sports scientist who maybe doesn’t practice any sport. The idea of yielding against a stronger force can be told to you by a fighter or a non-fighter (sports scientist). It’s a universal concept. It’s just common sense. A horizontal cut to the stomach with a knife one thousand years ago is the same as a horizontal cut to the stomach today. There are only so many common angles of attack. We don’t need a modern method to deal with a number 1 angle stick strike (diagonal to the temple). Is it that the old time people didn’t know how to defend against that? Not likely. So a part of martial art is always the same no matter what the generation.

What is different is the training methods. Maybe they are not better or worse but different. We don’t know how gladiators trained but undoubtedly it was effective for fighting. If we are to believe history, those people fought for real. Who knows if modern or old training methods are better in a real life and death weapons fights? We can only compare methods that are well documented and practiced by current practitioners. Even comparing old time boxers with modern boxers is a speculative event. However from what we know, training methods in our short time history have evolved and have produced better, bigger, stronger, faster and smarter fighters as far as ring competition goes. A stabbing on the street however is likely to be almost the same as a stabbing on the street 100 years ago or 1000 years ago.

So Wing Chun is a textbook, like a textbook of physics or mathematics. A sports scientist can teach that to someone or a theoretician can teach that to someone in the same way as a team of sports scientists can improve the performance of the worlds best weightlifters based on computer analysis of bio mechanics. Even training methods can come from a team of sports scientists who never fight.

Beyond that you need tactics and strategy and experimental results that can only come from real fighters. There are too many variables in a real fight to be covered by a theoretical model. Theories evolve based on new fighting results. All models of real life are like that. A model cannot usually capture all the nuances of the real thing. Small things can mean big differences in the end result. A little thing can mean defeat or loss in a real fight. Real fighters validate the models of the theoreticians. Theory can only go so far. Boxers have sometimes ignored the advice from their corners to win the fight. A case in point is Mohammed’s trainer’s advice to dance against Foreman. Instead he stuck to the ropes. He used his own non-conforming strategy to succeed. He had to go with the situation and not with the general advice. Only he knew how the real situation felt.

In an ideal world, you should be taught by a team of sports scientists and by a team of fighters. The world’s strongest man has a team of 20 sports scientists watching his every movement. They are trying to maximize what his body can do. They have for the most part achieved that. People have lifted weights since antiquity. There have always been strong men around. But now we have new ways to analyze human motion, new knowledge about nutrition, new understanding about various types of muscle fibers, new computerized ways to analyze biomechanics, and so we can produce better results for sports. Perhaps no amount of training can enhance someone as much as a simple dose of steroids?

The Wing Chun forms provide a mathematical kind of textbook or a framework for things to analyze. It’s a short summary of concepts that are useful for fighting. These ideas were good in the past and are still good now because they are based on simple logic. But you have to put these ideas into a modern training context and adapt the ideas to whatever type of fighter you are dealing with. It’s likely that Wong Shun Leung, Yip Man and such could not have handled the modern fighter or today’s Thai boxer. That says nothing about the art or the textbook but only about the training methods and physical attributes of those people.

To compete at the highest levels, to compete against professionals, is a whole different ball game that most of us cannot be concerned with as Wing Chun hobbyists. At lower levels it’s all shades of grey as to what is or isn’t useful.

For the most part we have two groups of people arguing with each other. One group is for intense training that approaches real combat while the other is trying to discuss the textbook portion of the art. The fighting group doesn’t like to listen to people who talk about the textbook aspects or to other people’s experiences because they are not their experiences. Within each group intelligent discussion can occur but between groups constructive discussion is difficult. Logically to be called a real fighter, you must fight. Both fighters and theoreticians should agree on that. If training a fighting art, then fighting results take precedence over theory but both are a part of one whole.

9

Originally posted by YongChun
[B]
For the most part we have two groups of people arguing with each other. One group is for intense training that approaches real combat while the other is trying to discuss the textbook portion of the art.

The fighting group doesn’t like to listen to people who talk about the textbook aspects or to other people’s experiences because they are not their experiences. Within each group intelligent discussion can occur but between groups constructive discussion is difficult. Logically to be called a real fighter, you must fight. Both fighters and theoreticians should agree on that. If training a fighting art, then fighting results take precedence over theory but both are a part of one whole. [/B]

I dont think there is two groups of people arguing. I think it is that as human , and only human, we as human lots of time stop to observe and think one knows it all and to be the most correct one. hehehehe. just human. :wink:

As for facts, what is the charateristics of power generation of Wing Chun Kuen? is it the same with TKD? TaiJi? Shao Lin? boxing? be it from any angle --fighter or text book.

if this is not clear what to talk about beside our own opinion?

Such as, very basic,
EVeryone can call everything Keng Geng and shock power, or inch power, and everyone does it differently. However, when a Grapper launch a take down where is all those Keng or Shock or inch? or it goes back to square one who has a bigger heavier body, stronger muscle?..

The question then is analogy to what is your power supply for your notebook computer, is it li-ion? CDium? wall adaptor or what ?before even talk about how fast the CPU can function.

why do I mention this basic stuffs which lots of people know better then me to Kick A$$ with their power because they are fighter. In my experience vesus pratictioners such as Kyokushin or Mauy Thai or Yee Chuan, boxing …etc. I am trying to find out what is the advantage of Wing Chun term by term. from power generation, stratergy, training, conditioning… and guess what I am aging and getting weaker physically. so is it Wing Chun is great or is it I am bad because my physical ?

it is similar to doing a business. so what is the advantage of your product? what is the unsatisfactory? the classic coca cola, the modern coca cola, the pepsi… bottom line a product has to serve the customers and WCners are customers.

Just some opinion and I might be wrong.

PS;

back to my AT (approximate type ) and IT (iterative type) model.

AT or IT has nothing todo with classical or modern.

AT is just approximate the reality based on a person, an era, a concept, and keep it that way.

IT is an iterative process that continously iterating — the external evironment/condition/chalenge grow; internal resorces/technoclogy/development, to arrive at the goal of intent.
and this is a continous process of evalution/evolving/grow…

Thus, there is no past or modern. it is just NOW and with all methods balancing the external, internal, and the goal at any point.

As for AT or the Approximate model, it is based on relying on a certain human, view, or concept… and called that the ultimate. However, that provide no clue on bringing the art to the next level because the core of the AT art system is an approximate based on somebody, some thing. some concept, and never get out from the box.

EVery a few years or so some one will come up with some great approximation of reality at that time. and people follow that. that then become an AT system. This system will last for a certain time and the system effectiveness drop because of the reality change with time. and when this art is dis-integrating. It by default goes into a market competition of Physical power and streght.

on the other hand, the IT system also will get into trouble when people taking an IT system and make it an AT without an understanding of what is what.

So, all this unsatisfied stuffs is about customer satisfaction. nothing to do with which CEO of the Inc is the biggest hot short or the riches or number one wizad of the technology.

10

Hendrik–Thus, there is no past or modern. it is just NOW and with all methods balancing the external, internal, and the goal at any point.

now your talking , when one has a goal they can take what is old run it through a filter and if it stands up then it is no longer old
if it doesn’t stand up then toss it aside and walk on

the study of power seems to interest you

but what is the goal that defines that power as functional

you could build the largest power plant in the world , but it will take time to warm up and get started it might not be very mobile

and so on

so for all the power you build you can not use it when needed [ for the set goal ]

so we need to look at more then just the building and training of power , but the use

then we can have progress in a set direction

if you are really goal oriented then you won’t care about were the training method comes from , what year , what person , what part of the world , you will only care for results and research and test towards those results

you will have no ego and try and label and name the family and point all fingers at the source , you will just be content with the results

and spreading that training method out to as many as possible to help you test and research

ah but as you said there is the human factor
the need to feel special :wink:

11

now your talking , when one has a goal they can take what is old run it through a filter and if it stands up then it is no longer old
if it doesn’t stand up then toss it aside and walk on -----

You still dont understand me.

GOAL is not the key of everything. In the real word, people compremise. and Goal changes based on external/internal condition.

There is no old or modern it is just is the technology appropriate. There is no filtering but beable to make use of everything.

the study of power seems to interest you. but what is the goal that defines that power as functional

Sure.

because in the real life I am one of those nuts in silicon valley in this era within the circle of creating and designing architecture of the power management system for the modern computer to handle devices.

and without the fast response, mega power capability, high efficientcy, adaptively inteligent, and fit into smaller and smaller size. Not much the computer can do not much the cell phone can do without power.. look at the speed of processing today vesus 1994 look at your cell phone?

there is no non functinal power.there is only how one uses it.

Who control the energy who control the out come. :wink:

you could build the largest power plant in the world , but it will take time to warm up and get started it might not be very mobile —

Inter CPu needs the capability of deliver 150 Amp of current in a micro second with 90% and above efficientcy and place in small volume.

Your cell phone comes with camera, PDA… everything.

and guess what? the power management team in this world happily delivered newer model every few months. :wink:

and so on
so for all the power you build you can not use it when needed [ for the set goal ] ------

That is your assumption.

You know, the design engineer who design the fastest CPU in the past decade until today never care much about how much power they need. they just design and ask the power management people take care of the power issue.

Power or energy per second is similar to a credit card. the more you have the more you can spend without has to wait untill next year of next month. so, one can buy what one wants NOW when it is needed. and one always can find a way to use the high limit credit card.

A reason of FEAR of survival is because when one is in scacity of power or energy or money or… and the demand is stepping in. that step loading cause FEAR. and the only way to get rid of that FEAR of have not enough to survive is be able to generate lots of power.

so we need to look at more then just the building and training of power , but the use
then we can have progress in a set direction -------

As I mention before. power supplying generally has two process. The generation process and the deliver process.

The generation process influence the delivery process and vice versal. Look at the high tower beside the high way where mega electrical power is carry. that high tower will have to use much bigger wire if the power generation is different.

Samething with the Computer. the trace of the CPU is broad instead of a tiny narrow one to accormodate for the high speed current transfer.

So, ALL is one, one is ALL. Can’t just decide on one thing and dont care of the rest. In the old time, when the speed is not an issue, when computer is just a toy. there is no issue. But today, every fraction of an inch of the power supply trace counts.

if you are really goal oriented then you won’t care about were the training method comes from , what year , what person , what part of the world , you will only care for results and research and test towards those results -----

The only way for a doctor to know what is going on clearly with the patient’s sickness of healing development is to look into all his living record, what, when, how he eat, sleep, work,…

you will have no ego and try and label and name the family and point all fingers at the source , you will just be content with the results -----

I never content with result.
I like the continous iteration technology grow.

thus, at every second, I need to know all what happen with the power supply around the world with its history which supplying the Yahoo or the hotmail servers. and watch out hotmail just increase thier storing capacity from 2 Meg to 250 Meg. That needs an increase of power supplied.

mixing a TaiJi to Wing Chun is not going to get very far while fight with a TaiJi expert. Such as two computer brand name which using the same Taiwan OEM is not going to out perform each others.

and spreading that training method out to as many as possible to help you test and research -----

sure.

both AT and IT model can be used. But it has to be clearly understood.

ah but as you said there is the human factor
the need to feel special :wink: ------

That is not going to go away but one always can embrase and go a step further to look at things in a broader Systemic view. instead of Stuck at any old or modern AT system;)

12

hendrik-As I mention before. power supplying generally has two process. The generation process and the deliver process

B-I-N-G-O

both must work together towards a common goal

or else there will be no balance and they will not match

sure each standing on it’s own can reach a very high non functional level

but only with a purpose will there be a plan , and when a plan is applied will there be results

so when you can have a higher knock out rate [ just as a example] against people trying to knock you out then you have proven your results :smiley:

if there is no direction engineers will go crazy and make useless objects , just becasue they can , if there is no checks and balances anything is possible , if there is no time limit then sure study every old piece of information you want might as well go to egypt and stare at the pyrimids :rolleyes:

13

Originally posted by Ernie
[B]plan is applied will there be results

so when you can have a higher knock out rate [ just as a example] against people trying to knock you out then you have proven your results :smiley:

[/B]

nope, disagree.

using a boxing jab can knock people down.
using a Taiji jing can knock people down.
get a 4x3 can knock people down.
born with a big body has advantage.
go to gym everyday has advantage… and the list goes on.

cant call it a result of martial art , hiding somewhere with the 4x3 and knock the heck out of others. :smiley:

But,

can the process empower a general group of weaker person who is not be able to knock others out with very little dependentcy of thier physical to be able to do knock out.

see, no one needs to be able to scream loud to talk to some one in Europe with a cell phone. That is what a real power in my mind is about.

14

Originally posted by yellowpikachu
[B]nope, dis agree.

using a boxing jab can knock people down.
using a Taiji jing can knock people down.
get a 4x3 can knock people down.
born with a big body has advantage.
go to gym everyday has advantage… and the list goes on.

cant call it a result of martial art hiding somewhere with the 4x3 and knock the heck out of others. :smiley:

But,

can the process empower a general group of weaker person who is not be able to knock one out with very little dependentcy of thier physical to be able to knock out. [/B]

the are more people knocked out around the world by a boxing power type punch then anything else

:smiley:

the time it takes for a tai chi type person to develop there power and the amount that get and can use it against a skilled fighter is like next to none in respect to the boxing example

so there you go stop wasting time and learn to box the results are in :wink:

15

Originally posted by Ernie
[B]the are more people knocked out around the world by a boxing power type punch then anything else

:smiley:

the time it takes for a tai chi type person to develop there power and the amount that get and can use it against a skilled fighter is like next to none in respect to the boxing example

so there you go stop wasting time and learn to box the results are in :wink: [/B]

This is where we are different. as i said, I love iterative continous technological grow not just a results or any brand name or technology.

if you like Boxing. then do boxing. nothing wrong with it.

As for Taiji, do you know TaiJi ? if not so why commenting about it?

16

Originally posted by yellowpikachu
[B]This is where we are different. as i said, I love iterative continous technological grow not just a results.

if you like Boxing. then do boxing. nothing wrong with it.

As for Taiji, you dont know TaiJi so why commenting about it? [/B]

i have sparred tai chi guys
my trainingpartner for the last 5 years is a long time tai chi guy
two guys i’m training have 10-15 years in tai chi
the list is long
the results the same

that’s what i mean , no testing anything is possible , when tested things change

i do know how to box from before wing chun :smiley:

have to run to work but i get it you like to imagine things
i like to see them work it’s just a different filter man no worries
room for everyone

with out the dreamers we would never grow;)

17

Originally posted by Ernie
[B]i have sparred tai chi guys
my trainingpartner for the last 5 years is a long time tai chi guy
two guys i’m training have 10-15 years in tai chi
the list is long
the results the same

that’s what i mean , no testing anything is possible , when tested things change

i do know how to box from before wing chun :smiley:

have to run to work but i get it you like to imagine things
i like to see them work it’s just a different filter man no worries
room for everyone

with out the dreamers we would never grow;) [/B]

Taiji is famous for health . have you test against those under Chen Xiao Wang from the Chen village? :wink:

I work with the industy to power your computer and cellphone with imagination.

And, so far so good. the computer get faster, the cellphone get more functions. and sure you never notice. :wink:

18

Originally posted by yellowpikachu
Taiji is famous for health . have you test against those under Chen Xiao Wang from the Chen village? :wink:

no but i would :slight_smile:

one man does not define a system , perhaps he is just a great fighter and no matter what he trained he would be great , just has great attributes

but since i am a average wing chun guy , when i spar the average tai chi guy and walk through him like a piece of paper

and this has been the same experience over and over again

got to go by that :wink:

hendrik-And, so far so good. the computer get faster, the cellphone get more functions

phones don’t hit back:eek:

19

Originally posted by Ernie
[B]no but i would :slight_smile:

one man does not define a system , perhaps he is just a great fighter and no matter what he trained he would be great , just has great attributes

: [/B]

you know,

this topic is about What is sooo unsatisfactory about classical WCK?
not who is the greatest man :wink:

lets others post about the topic.:wink:

20

I find a lot of people comment on Tai Chi but have never met a real Tai Chi fighter, have never touched a Tai Chi master. It’s all assumption based on watching people who do Tai Chi for exercise. The average Tai Chi guy is not a fighter, maybe the average Wing Chun guy is a fighter. You can’t compare averages.

Tai Chi for fighting can be learned as quickly as Wing Chun for fighting. Tai Chi is marketed for health and not for fighting so you find few fighters there now. Few people can teach that for fighting. But if someone cares to look in Taiwan or China then they can find them. But Wing Chun and boxing is more accessible, that’s certainly true so why waste time with Tai Chi?

For Tai Chi, you have to ask what is Tai Chi? Is it waving your arms around like David Carradine in his TV Kung Fu series. Good Tai Chi is also very simple. In a fight, the reactions of a Tai Chi fighter might be hard to distinguish from those of a Wing Chun fighter. They also can do a Pak sau combined with punch. Those people who couldn’t handle Wing Chun had something wrong. Here we have a good Tai Chi master and the Wing Chun people have a lot of trouble with him. So nothing wrong with the art.

Tai Chi is a broader art and hence to really train the complete thing, it takes more time. If you just need to train jab, uppercut, hook, then that takes less time. If you add kicking to that the time goes up. If you add joint locking and counterlocking then the time goes up more. If you want to blend those together then more time. The Tai Chi idea is to overcome a larger force with a smaller one. Lot’s of arts have that idea but implement the idea in different ways.

At a low level, I don’t think there is really much significant difference between the ways people generate power to punch. There are hundreds of styles of boxing all claiming to have unique power delivery methods but all are based on sending a signal to the tricep muscles to extend the arm. All can further enhance that by turning the body or by stepping to enhance that strike. All of them can knock you out. I think it is how the whole art ties together that defines the art, the same way as how the whole computer runs and not by how the chip does adding.