what is soooo unsatisfactory about Classical WCK?

[planetwc]

Knowledge and training

Hendrik,

In some sense, it appears as though your benchmarks are based around the conceptual/theoretical “specifications” of the art to the exclusion of those specifications being able to be applied consistently over time.

I think the people who can deliver and APPLY those concepts are very very rare. It comes down to access to a teacher who has those skills to begin with, who pressure tested them in fighting and could then pass them on to a student who also pressure tested them in fighting. To develop that skill takes a lot of time to study on a weekly basis stretched out over years.

Most people now don’t have the time to do that in Wing Chun.
That can lead to the following situations:

1. Incomplete transmission of information - holes in the student’s knowledge.

2. Complete transmission of information - incomplete TRAINING and APPLICATION by the student. Not enough training time to develop skill and application of theoretical knowledge.

3. Incomplete transmission of information AND incomplete training and application.

From those three things come poor Wing Chun in it’s many forms.

That is the reality of the situation for almost all “classical” martial arts.

Here is a question for you to ponder.

Postulation: The end poiint of a martial arts system is to teach someone to how to fight with a given set of principles and techniques. Further the expectation is that one who trains will be able to fight and win, by development of skill and experience using the concepts and theories of their art.

What percentage of students of “classical” martial arts TODAY can fight and win against a skilled, resisting opponent using their training?

5%? 1%?

What percentage of students of modern martial arts (MMA:BJJ/Boxing/Muay Thai) TODAY can fight and win against a skilled, resisting opponent using their training?

50%? 75%?

What percentage of MMA trained students can fight and win against a classically trained student using their training?

70%? 90%?

I don’t know the percentages, but I think the rate of return for average students in each group would skew towards one getting a higher rate of return if you trained using an MMA approach.

That gets back to how people are actually TRAINED. The level of cardio, strength and endurance that is part of their daily workout. The amount of time they spend actually using their techniques against a resisting opponent. The amount of time they go to class and train.

---

Sooo…how many can bridge the gap between the concepts and being able to USE them under pressure. How many can take the theory and apply it consistently over time with success?

Those are the benchmarks that count. The other things are specifications.
Being able to do them in isolation of application is a demo of an interesting skill. Being able to do them in combat at the right time is where it is at.

[planetwc]

Originally posted by YongChun

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.

If we presume then that Boxing has a smaller curriculum than a “martial art” (ie less techniques, more rules)…

Then should we not find that there are MANY martial artists who can step into a boxing ring, glove up and knock out boxers using arm strikes?

Why haven’t martial artists gone where the money is and taken those pro belts and the money that comes with them?

How many “martial artists” actually CAN knock someone out?

If the number of martial artists that can do so is few and far between, then AGAIN, is the return on potential investment worth it?

It’s as if one is saying you have to be the equivalent of a Navy SEAL to the general population of the US Military in order to develop the skill.

That is not a high percentage bet.

[planetwc]

Originally posted by YongChun
[B]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?
[/B]

But the whole point IS to compare averages. Because most people are average. They are NOT the 1% of the population.

Where are these Taiji fighters? Where are they fighting? Who are they fighting?

Who are the teachers teaching Taiji for fighting?

How many students of any of the 4 tigers of Taiji are fighters?

How many Taiji guys from Taiwan have gone to Lumpini stadium and cleaned house on the Muay Thai boxers? How many Taiji guys from China or Taiwan are world or olympic ranked boxers? How many have fought in the UFC or Pride or Cage fights? How many in Sanda or Le Tai fights? How many in TKD tournaments?

There ARE people out there that like to fight. Why is it that none of the people who fight professionally chose Taiji as their core toolset?

Again, is it that if you want a higher rate of return of being able to dish out a beat down then receive one, you better cross train in BJJ/Boxing/Muay Thai.

Or you can hope that after twenty years you win the Wing Chun lottery.

[anerlich]

that is a single event according to Statistic

All events are single events (duh!).

Statistics, among other things attempts to predict likely outcomes based on large samples. The problem with statistical benchmarking of WC as a combat-effective method of fighting is that there is no statistically valid sample of reliable accounts of bouts, unlike with some other MAs which have at least some publicly vetted stats on which to base their claims for effectiveness.

For something to be “wrong” with classical WC, it has to have a defined purpose, and then fail to live up to the related goals.

The problem I see with classical is that its proponents claim it to be, among other things:

A fighting system
A system of physical culture and healing
A system of spiritual development
A cultural program
An art

By trying ot be all of these, IMO it ends up doing none of them particularly well.

[anerlich]

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

How so? Based on what information?

Since parts of Asia were colonised by Europeans, often by force, and significant expanses were regularly overrun by the Japanese, I’m not really sure that CMA as a whole proved very historically effective.

[Ultimatewingchun]

“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.”

On the contrary - what was known as the Boxer Rebellion in the early 1900’s against the British and other Westerners was a disaster for the Chinese “kung fu” fighters…

Where?..Hendrik gets his historical information is quite unfathamable.

Come to think of it - just about everything he says is quite unfathomable…either by design (ie. - if he confuses us enough maybe we’ll just get tired of trying to figure things out and just take his word for it)…or…as an attempt not to leave a trail that could be traced to a place of fact that contradicts what he wants us to believe.

To be blunt - I have to take just about everything he says as some sort of an attempt to make a case for himself as an “expert”…and for the martial arts he’s been involved with and/or has researched as THE best martial arts on the planet at any time…whether it be past, present, or future.

It’s a childish game…and I’m constantly amazed at how often people buy into it - or even respond to it.

[old_jong]

Since parts of Asia were colonised by Europeans, often by force, and significant expanses were regularly overrun by the Japanese, I’m not really sure that CMA as a whole proved very historically effective.

Guns!

On the contrary - what was known as the Boxer Rebellion in the early 1900’s against the British and other Westerners was a disaster for the Chinese “kung fu” fighters…

Guns again!..

I don’t think it is a good idea to gauge the value of CMAs on their lost under european’s firearms!..

About the Boxer rebellion: It is common knowledge that the chinese “boxers” were fooled into believing that certain talismans would protect them from bullets!..Superstition was the mistake,not Kung Fu!..

[Ernie]

About the Boxer rebellion: It is common knowledge that the Chinese “boxers” were fooled into believing that certain talismans would protect them from bullets!..Superstition was the mistake,not Kung Fu!..

— yep just like the superstitions of CHI power , or sending some on flying with a flick of a wrist , or how great the [[great fighters] of the past iron body Dim Mak and so on , allot of hype

but people associate with the under dog and believe in magic so hey the beat goes on

[yellowpikachu]

Originally posted by planetwc
[B]

In some sense, it appears as though your benchmarks are based around the conceptual/theoretical “specifications” of the art to the exclusion of those specifications being able to be applied consistently over time.

I think the people who can deliver and APPLY those concepts are very very rare. It comes down to access to a teacher who has those skills to begin with, who pressure tested them in fighting and could then pass them on to a student who also pressure tested them in fighting. To develop that skill takes a lot of time to study on a weekly basis stretched out over years…[/B]

Thanks for your view!

You know, in my limited view, in my understanding from my lineage, since Cho family is a martial art family where they open up martial art schools and accept challenge since mid 1800 to the cultural revolution period, doesnt mean I can do it, the process of a specific kung or technics such as power generation development has 4 level needed to be past.

1, preparation or conditioning the body to have a glims of the kung fu. say fajing.

2, Crystalized the specific kung or technics

3, Applied in daily life.

4, let go and make it a part of reflextion.

until then one is no consider mastering that specific kung or technics.

So, by my sigung or sifu’s definition. I know some WCK sets but I dont have the Kung because I didnt go through the 4 level process.

A familiar sentence always ring in my ears was : those who sell lamps oil in the chinese village in the old time can pour the oil into the narrow neck bottle without spill a drop. That is kung fu. without that precision and repeatable control. You dont have anything but brute force and raw courage, young man.

My sigung Cho On who at old age still knock younger people out with precision doing pressure point hit I can see what Kung fu Mean for him. I believe the old generation such as my sigung Cho On, GM IM, GM YKS… those have a very different standard on the art of WCK when they rely on them to live.

And, later when I got Mas Oyama’s teaching on if one doesnt do a kick 10,000 x , one doesnt know the kick. I see the similarity of the 4 level process. Lots of works. and the time of Kung Fu might be past and gone in this everything has to be fast to learn and fire arms era.

just some random thoughts.

[YongChun]

Originally posted by planetwc
[B]If we presume then that Boxing has a smaller curriculum than a “martial art” (ie less techniques, more rules)…

Then should we not find that there are MANY martial artists who can step into a boxing ring, glove up and knock out boxers using arm strikes?

[/B]

No I am saying that martial arts is like diluted boxing because they spend a lot less time to develop base skills than a boxer does. Look at Aikido with 3,000 techniques. How can you make that work with the time most people have available for martial art. It would be very rare that a maertial artist can step into a ring and knock out a good boxer or a good Thai boxer.

Ray

[SAAMAG]

Exactly Jong. Im not talking about effective against guns, Im talking about hand to hand.

The euro/anglo culture did not have fighing methods as as evolved as the chinese/japanese/korean etc, and so naturally HAND TO HAND combat would have put the asians in favor up until the latter part of this century when it started to catch on and spread to the masses. On a smaller scale think of how americans reacted when karate and judo first came over. Everyone was amazed at how the smaller asian guy could defeat bigger americans. Not trying to be too cliche mind you. Once the rest of the world started to catch on and become more integrated in the asian martial arts world…they became more knowledgeable themselves and found that it was the brains that defeated the braun, and technique over muscle.

Now today, to be effective it seems, one has to improve on many levels because everyone knows about martial arts just about.

[YongChun]

Originally posted by planetwc
[B]But the whole point IS to compare averages. Because most people are average. They are NOT the 1% of the population.

Where are these Taiji fighters? Where are they fighting? Who are they fighting?

There ARE people out there that like to fight. Why is it that none of the people who fight professionally chose Taiji as their core toolset?

Again, is it that if you want a higher rate of return of being able to dish out a beat down then receive one, you better cross train in BJJ/Boxing/Muay Thai.

Or you can hope that after twenty years you win the Wing Chun lottery. [/B]

I think the Tai Chi fighters are rare. Some of my points were based on looking at Tai Chi from a Wing Chun perspective and say “yes, I think I could make a small subset of that stuff work - but perhaps then it isn’t Tai Chi.” I base other comments on experiences from Kenneth Chung who I think is good at Wing Chun although the realists wouldn’t think so. But anyway, he seems to think some Tai Chi is good and he is a better judge than I since he has met the cream of the crop and his Wing Chun is much better than mine. My personal experience is that Wing Chun , even a years worth, can give a lot of trouble to Tai Chi people who have trained even 20 years.

If Wing Chun is not taught properly then you better cross train so that you can fight. We have to define what is meant by fight (fight who?). Personally I think Ken’s Wing Chun is very refined however I think it takes much longer and a bit of faith to believe it will eventually work as compared to say Emin Boztepe’s. Then again people would argue about what is really Wing Chun? Both individuals have been trashed here and there.

Ray

[anerlich]

The euro/anglo culture did not have fighing methods as as evolved as the chinese/japanese/korean etc, and so naturally HAND TO HAND combat would have put the asians in favor up until the latter part of this century when it started to catch on and spread to the masses..

On what evidence do you base this? why were anglo arts “unevolved”? Boxing? Wrestling? Savate? Fairbairn and Applegate’s stuff? You make a sweeping assertion with no factual basis.

Have the boxers, wrestlers karateka, MT guys that beat TMAers late (or early, for that matter) on CHANGED their styles to get by the “DEADLY” Asian arts? Nahh. Kickboxers had to get unadulterated western boxing into their arsenal so that cound beat boxers who were wiping their TCMA hand techs out in the ring.

You could say that BJJ destroyed everyone in the late 80’s early 90’s as well. but it had been going on since the early 20th century. Because Asians never saw BJJ, was their art still the ultimate?

On a smaller scale think of how americans reacted when karate and judo first came over. Everyone was amazed at how the smaller asian guy could defeat bigger americans.

The shock of the new and clever marketing. And the smaller ASian EXPERT beating ****y American *******es, perhaps. Still arguably apples and oranges.

[planetwc]

Why classical is ineffective–because the training is inefficient!

So then Hendrik,

Is there anyone from your lineage in the present generation, who does have the 4 levels you mention below?

If not…why not?

What is different about the current active generation of Cho Family stylists that renders them unable to represent their teacher’s art?

What are the inefficiencies of study and training?

It is something to consider, because as each family reduces the number of people who can “deliver the goods”, the chances of the style perservering is less and less, OR it turns into a shadow or caricature of itself.

So here is the central criticism of classical wing chun and/or classical martial arts in general.

It’s training methodology is inefficient.

It’s training methodology produces too FEW competant students.

It’s training methodology has not kept pace with modern information regarding fitness, exercise, strength training, kinesiology, cardio and conditioning.

It’s training methodology does not teach dealing with the current state of fighting as it exists in the modern world today. By that I mean dealing not with another Wing Chun guy and is po pai, but a boxer with jabs, hooks and uppercuts and footwork, a BJJ guy with submissions, a wrestler/judoka with takedowns, and a Muay Thai fighter with conditioning, powerfull leg attacks and elbow/punches.

Each one of those other arts by nature of their training regimen also probably produces better conditioned fighters (used to dealing with getting hit, being able to take it and having the stamina to dish it out).

In Classical systems, return on investment of time relative to development of fighting skill is lower than other modern fighting systems. By that I mean the yield rate at which someone can fight successfully is lower.

It is a low percentage approach for the average guy looking to learn to fight.

Please respond and discuss those points and how you would improve the situation or counter my suppositions.

Originally posted by yellowpikachu
[B]Thanks for your view!

You know, in my limited view, in my understanding from my lineage, since Cho family is a martial art family where they open up martial art schools and accept challenge since mid 1800 to the cultural revolution period, doesnt mean I can do it, the process of a specific kung or technics such as power generation development has 4 level needed to be past.

1, preparation or conditioning the body to have a glims of the kung fu. say fajing.

2, Crystalized the specific kung or technics

3, Applied in daily life.

4, let go and make it a part of reflextion.

until then one is no consider mastering that specific kung or technics.

So, by my sigung or sifu’s definition. I know some WCK sets but I dont have the Kung because I didnt go through the 4 level process.

A familiar sentence always ring in my ears was : those who sell lamps oil in the chinese village in the old time can pour the oil into the narrow neck bottle without spill a drop. That is kung fu. without that precision and repeatable control. You dont have anything but brute force and raw courage, young man.

My sigung Cho On who at old age still knock younger people out with precision doing pressure point hit I can see what Kung fu Mean for him. I believe the old generation such as my sigung Cho On, GM IM, GM YKS… those have a very different standard on the art of WCK when they rely on them to live.

And, later when I got Mas Oyama’s teaching on if one doesnt do a kick 10,000 x , one doesnt know the kick. I see the similarity of the 4 level process. Lots of works. and the time of Kung Fu might be past and gone in this everything has to be fast to learn and fire arms era.

just some random thoughts. [/B]

[Ernie]

PlWC

very good questions , this is were all the preconditioned responses come in and the BS meter goes way up :o

[Ernie]

use this:D

[YongChun]

Re: Why classical is ineffective–because the training is inefficient!

Originally posted by planetwc
[B]
So here is the central criticism of classical wing chun and/or classical martial arts in general.

It’s training methodology is inefficient.

It’s training methodology produces too FEW competant students.

It’s training methodology has not kept pace with modern information regarding fitness, exercise, strength training, kinesiology, cardio and conditioning.

It’s training methodology does not teach dealing with the current state of fighting as it exists in the modern world today. By that I mean dealing not with another Wing Chun guy and is po pai, but a boxer with jabs, hooks and uppercuts and footwork, a BJJ guy with submissions, a wrestler/judoka with takedowns, and a Muay Thai fighter with conditioning, powerfull leg attacks and elbow/punches.

Each one of those other arts by nature of their training regimen also probably produces better conditioned fighters (used to dealing with getting hit, being able to take it and having the stamina to dish it out).

In Classical systems, return on investment of time relative to development of fighting skill is lower than other modern fighting systems. By that I mean the yield rate at which someone can fight successfully is lower.

It is a low percentage approach for the average guy looking to learn to fight.

Please respond and discuss those points and how you would improve the situation or counter my suppositions. [/B]

I wonder how Kenneth Chung’s group is addressing all these issues since that is the criticism people have of his art also. The only thing I heard was that Carl was working on training some fighters to compete but haven’t heard much about that lately.

Ray

[yellowpikachu]

Is there anyone from your lineage in the present generation, who does have the 4 levels you mention below?

If not…why not?

What is different about the current active generation of Cho Family stylists that renders them unable to represent their teacher’s art?

What are the inefficiencies of study and training?

It is something to consider, because as each family reduces the number of people who can “deliver the goods”, the chances of the style perservering is less and less, OR it turns into a shadow or caricature of itself. -----

With the impact of Mao Tze-Dong’s Cultural Revolution to destory the core family in China.

With the society structure changes in the Asia. Teaching martial art to make a living is hard living.

so, naturally, when the older generation who view the art is thier live passing away, young people switch thier carrer and art is no longer the first priority in life.

For passed genertion, there were practitioner mistakenly cause serious injury and later death to other in Kong Sau, and become religious man upto today to repend his life.

for my generation, there were non-active-Cho practitioners in different location of the world today, range from professor in university, succefull software design engineer, stock brokers, to high tech CEO who own jet plane. so, they choose thier carrier well eventhough at one time they are good practitioners with great potential in martial art. They all make great living compare if they choose martial art is thier carreer.

So here is the central criticism of classical wing chun and/or classical martial arts in general.

It’s training methodology is inefficient.

It’s training methodology produces too FEW competant students.

It’s training methodology has not kept pace with modern information regarding fitness, exercise, strength training, kinesiology, cardio and conditioning.

It’s training methodology does not teach dealing with the current state of fighting as it exists in the modern world today. …

It is about society changes, and making the best good living one can.

Plenty of People in ASia today has passed the point of one has to rely on fighting to make a living and to live. Thus, martial art is no longer the first priority.

whatever not being focus on naturally decay that is the law of nature.

Above is my personal opinion.

[yellowpikachu]

Originally posted by Ernie
use this:D

looks like a Great meter.

lets try.

Mas Oyama is sloppy

but strange , how come Mas Oyama never lost a fight to challengers from different styles and produce great kyokushin fighters generation over generation.

It must be a real BS meter which dont know what is it measuring.

[Finny]

What do you mean by classical WCK Hendrick??

William Cheung’s TWC, Hung Fa Yi? Pan Nam? Pao Fa Lien? Chi Sim?

When asking a question you should always provide accurate definitions as to what you’re talking about.