Drunken Monkey

style? so your 'style' is to copy and paste instead of providing a simple link. great....

once again. if you are going to copy someone else's words, please acknowledge it. https://www.dolfzine.com/page655.htm https://www.burrese.com/ Products/Streetfighting_Essentials_Reviews2.html

are we talking about the same films? infernal affairs. there's big posters of the hk flick all over the underground subways (well, around tottenham court road....) well, if they do get around to re-making them, you'll know where you heard it first.

actually he still karts. his home in germany isn't far from the track he used to race on. i hear that he and his bro still go there..... incidentally, nigel mansell was also a karate black belt. or was that nick faldo. really can't remember. it was in the sun a very long time ago.

how'd you guess?

y'know, i've been thinking about this.... it isn't that chinese styles don't have ways of getting of getting you on the floor, it's just that they assume that they can do it without going the floor in the process. too often they assume that once the opponent is on the floor, the fight is over because at that point you step in and really 'finish' it. the point is how often do we really need to go that far? it has been said elsewhere on this forum that effective 200 hundred years ago does not neccessarily mean effective now. looking at it differently, i would say that appropriate 200 years ago also does not mean that it is appropriate now. part of my training involves being able to take your balance to get you onto the floor (as well as joint locks, arm controls etc that 'force' you to the floor). at this point, it is assumed that i can do anything to you. BUT i have never been to a pure kung fu class that mentions that your opponent might take you down with him. reason? because the original use of these arts was to kill (with a weapon) and so, on the floor=dead. it should also be noted that as a general rule, ground fighting does not feature highly in chinese styles. following this, the chinese styles never needed to develop this area. this is an inherent weakness and to say that it doesn't exist is a foolish assumption/claim. but i still stand by my belief that if you really are goos enough, you should be able to i) prevent yourself from going to the floor (or else be able to recover and get up v. quickly) ii) be able to apply your principles on the floor to attack/defend (which admittedly is still far from ground fighting). as i have said before, i don't believe that any one way of fighting is superior to any other. you have all said that you need to be proficient in all aspects. the chinese arts tend to focus on one aspect and i have always seen the styles as being different aspects. i have my punching style. i have my kicking style. i have my joint lock/control/throw style. all just happen to be chinese. the chinese styles never really say that they are complete, only that they have ways of dealing with things (usually in theory.... ) which is not the same thing. what you have to realise that while they say they can deal with some things, it doesn't mean that they can do them things.

from what i have seen, the norm here is that you pay a small upfront fee for 'membership', usually about £40-60 that is to cover insurance costs and clerical stuff. classes are then paid on a per lesson basis, with non members paying a little more than members. another way i have seen is that you pay a monthly rate, again about £30-45 and then you turn up to as many classes as you want to.

ok, i'm a bit confused here. what do you gus call high school? i mean, what year groups is it? i keep thinking that it's yr7 to yr11 or is it yr12+13?

we are kinda going in circles here. all i am trying to point out is that i believe that at the end of the day, the person will determine who wins, not the style (all within reason of course...) um, are you refereing to bil gee as in the move or biu gee as in the form or bil gee as in the concept? should point out, that if a 'wing chun' guy tells you of bil gee only in the sense of of the 'thrusting fingers attack' then he either doesn't know much about bil gee or he is not telling you everything. more than anything, bil gee is a concept/set of theories/tactics that cover what to do when you are beyond your normal 'comfort zone' i.e you have been forced into a compromisable position or forced off centre. AND the actual bil gee move itself is more intercept than attack. anyway. i'll address some of the points now. i was under the impression that the side kick does exsist in muay thai and is in fact one of their major weapons (but it just doesn't feature much in ring fights). anyway, i was just trying to point out that the san shou, although it is a chinese development as you point out, it still is a long way from a totally free fighting forum. about the tactics change. i also believe that you should be able to change your tactics to suit the situation. after all, more than any other martial arts group, the traditional chinese arts emphasise CONTROL. back to wing chun cos i know it best. well, i'm going to have to say that it does indeed need bil gee (in it's entirety) not to be successful but to win (which is not the same as defending yourself) because that is the nature of wing chun. unlike many of the older styles, it doesn't really focus on 'control' rather it aims to win and in order to win and usually that involves going way beyond any line drawn in a competition fight. whereas some of the older traditional styles say give mercy, wing chun was always about kill the bugger. if you like, that is a weakness, especially in today's society and the competition environment. it is an extremely short sighted style but the things it does focus on it does very well (at least it used to...) i know we don't train in anyway like they used to do and we sure as hell do not have to rely on what we train to survive like they used to, we no longer really know if what we train works (for us) or not. again, that just points to a flaw in training, not the style. hmm, maybe i should read what i just typed... well, you get the idea i hope. anyway. yes, these types of events are for testing yourself. i have said before that i believe that all types of training and all types of sparring are good parts of training and that includes these mma events. what i was pointing out though is that many people do indeed base their judgement of a style totally on these events. that is what i do not agree with. like i have said before, these things are really not comparable. the perfect stand up guy will prevent you from taking it to the floor. the perfect ground fighter will take you to the floor. i am not saying that ground fighting is not neccessary because if you are going to participate in a mma event then you are definitely going to want to be able in that area. my question is, do you really need it outside of that arena? i know, better to have and not need.... but still, i have so much to learn already. i think i rather be thoroughly versed in my wing chun before i take the big leap and start a new style. i'll end here with what i've been trying to get an answer to. just because my style does not win events does that mean it is not effective? i ask because that is what everyone seems to be trying to say.

hehe, glad to know some peopleknow what a 288 is...

finally, someone mentions something that is outside the confines of style..... position is what counts. specifically, where you can use your moves and where your opponent cannot. as we seem to agree on, the success of the grapplers was because once on the ground their opponent was just not prepared for it. like i said, forget the eye gouges. it is accepted, by the rational at least, that what ever you can do, so can your opponent. conversely, what you are not allowed to do, you opponent is not allowed either. i don't like the style vs style argument because i believe that at the end of the day, the style is rather minor compared to the other factors that determine who wins. put it this way. put two absolute equal fighters in a ring. same style, same weight, same training, same school, same school, same everything. who wins? the better fighter. it will always be the better fighter. well, unless the lucky fighter also takes part....

...but then you don't just sidestep without doing anything else now would you...?

hmm, i've only seen one or two san shou matches and they strike me as being kickboxing with a different bag of rules. from what i've seen here in the uk, mma fights are better cos you have more freedom than in san shou. * * * like you say, there are rules and certain types of strikes that are not allowed in a sport fight. unfortunately, some styles rely on these to get their 'win' (and no, i am not talking about eyes gouges and throat strikes) i don't like that 'lethal moves' argument because i also believe that you should be able to apply the principles, which should be more important than actual moves, in ANY situation to gain you the advantage. BUT if you remove some of the basic effective strikes (elbow to back of head/neck/spine, knee kicks etc etc) you are moving the fight that little bit away from street type defence that a lot of traditional arts concerntrate on, which is one of the reasons i don't like to use these events as a judege against what works and what doesn't. i see it like this. in a mma/ufc event, the traditional guy has more things taken away from him than the ground fighting/grappling guy. for the traditional guy to cover what has been taken away, he has to learn new skills that he would otherwise not need. some of these things will fit with his base style. some will not. add to this that if he never intended to participate in a mma fight, he would a) have spent most of his time learning lots of things that he will not use in the ring b) not gain as much fight experience due to time learning c) be entering an unfamiliar environment with almost unfamiliar (compared to his base style) moves. the mma guy. all of his training life has been geared towards that particular type of fight anyway, whether or not he participates in another matter. he hasn't trained in things that he will not need and so his training has been quicker and he has more experience. the ground fighting/grappling guy. the nature of his style means that he has a built in advantage; he has an extra range of fighting that most traditional styles cannot handle. even though he also loses the same moves that everyone else loses, his proficiency on the ground makes up for it. basically, the traditional guy has more work to do if he wants to fight in a mma/ufc fight. again, the point here is training..... like i said chinese styles especially lack in ground work. there is probably only one or two (right now i'm too lazy to look...) that have anything even vaguely similar. this is down to the old chinese sytems being highly specialised. some scholls were famous for the hand work. some were famous for their kicking. some were famous for their locks. some were famous for their controls. you would be hard pressed to find a school that is extensive in all aspects. again i ask, just because i can't win a mma event, does that automatically mean my style is not good?

whoooa, y'know, i DO look up when i enter a building!

i don't know... i think i'd be quite pleased if i walked out of a dojo feeling like i've just bought a 288gto. anyway, i'm a little confused. are they asking you to pay the whole lot in one go?

i'm not sure where i stand on that list. i punch and i kick. i have been taught when i can apply locks and manipulations during an encounter. i can take you to the ground, keeping you close and controlled or i can 'throw/trip' you away from me. i guess if i were to look at the thing that i train the most, i have to say that the striking aspect is the main thing i do. the one thing i am defnitely not, is a ground fighter.

something has been lost in the translation of the title 'grand master' from chinese to english. in chinese grand master simply means the teacher of your teacher. in the case of yip man, he was called grandmaster because most people taught in the u.s were, in the 70's, students of his students. now, those new students have students making yip man's students 'grand-masters'. the title of grandmaster did not relate to his position within the wing chun family. however, today, it seems that the grandmaster title is used to say someone is the 'grand' master of a particular style. not the same.

y'know the thing that really bothers me is how people always end up sounding like what they are saying is 'chinese kung fu doesn't work'..... anyway. i agree. ground fighting is probably the weakest aspect of the chinese arts. but then that is mainly because the majority of chinese arts were created for a purpose/situation where ground fighting was not favourable. there is always the argument that the chinese arts by their nature (of inception) were simply not suited to be used in a competition in a ring environment (yes, that old cherry again...). but it IS true. it may be because of how some styles work. it may be because of how some styles train now (or not train as the case may be) but i think the biggest reason is that the chinese styles were not designed to handle ground fighting which, from what i hear, is what you see the most in today's mma events. i go back to my wing chun. it was designed to fight guys who knew the older more classical shaolin styles (which may or may not include stand-up grappling and SOME ground-fighting). it was never intended to go to the ground against a grappler. that is the grappling styles' ADVANTAGE; it can work in a situation where wing chun cannot. stick a pure wng chun in a ring against a grappler and chances are, he will lose. on a one on one situation on neutral ground, the grappler will always have advantage of an extra range of fighting (on the ground). my question is, does that mean that wing chun is a weak/crap/useless/ineffective style? after all, ANY pure stand up style against a grappler will have a disadvantage not being able to apply himself on the ground so why specifically pick on chinese arts. this ground fighting vs chinese styles is almost as round-about as the punch vs kick debate. i say they are both different enough and complete enough by themselves to be incomparable to each other. you don't need stand up skills to defend yourself. you don't need grappling skills to defend yourself. if your grappling is good enough, you can get the other guy on the floor and submit him easily. if your stand up is good enough, you can knock the other guy out without him geting you onto the floor. (again, i say it all boils down to your own skill, not the style) however, you need to be competent in what you do and obviously, the more you know, the better. in short, you need to competent in all aspects to be successfull in a competition event such as the ufc because i) the possible number of different styles you will face ii) the number of mma guys (who exist because of the different styles that exist). but then being able to defend yourself and being able to win a mma event are two totally different things. my first wing chun sifu (who is also trained in some kind of jiujitsu) works doors in london. he isn't big, he isn't that strong but he has more than enough scars and stories to prove his abilities. doesn't mean he can win a mma event. and like i have said before, i can train ten years in a mma and it still doesn't mean that i can win a mma event nor does it mean that i will easily defend myself. however, it should arm me with more ways of doing so but then so does training in any martial art.

as some of you might know, i was in hong kong last week taking care of some 'white business'. while i was there i picked up about 50 odd films and cartoons, some new, some old. just watched, back to back, the three 'infernal affairs' films. well, all i wanna say is go seek these out and watch them. from what i hear the hollywood guys want to remake them. go find the original and let me know what you think. cheers.

i wasn't talking about the old hk films he's dpne. i was refereing to the films that were made before he was born. by technique in films i mean 'real' moves. not stuff tht looks good but would have no real 'impact'. if the film is going to have lots of flapping around then i rather watch the old stuff. at least the forms look good and i can have fun trying to think of what the movement REALLY means. i mean, if you've seen one jump in the air, swirling leg thing, you've seen them all.... back to fist of legend. i really would like to know how much of it was down to jet li and how much of was down to yuen wo ping and his crew? you guys have to remember, most of the fights scenes in the hk (in fact nearly all) flicks are basically dances set up by a choreographer. all the actor has to do is learn the sequence. if a fight scene looks good, much of the credit should go to the choreographer.

if you don't feel good, your body is usually trying to tell you something...

my sifu says, if your knuckles beeld too much, your punching is sloppy. but i can understand how it happens. hitting a spinning bag is a sure-fire way to remove skin from knuckles. if your aim is to toughen up the skin, punch the bag slowly, aiming to hit with as much of the fist face as possible. however, any toughening up of the skin is purely temporary as after a month or so or not punching the bag, the skin kinda starts to peel. i've noticed that excessive sun on your knuckles (think driving/steering wheel grip) speeds this up.

but i have to admit. i have a thing against schools with mixed names.... i just don't get it. if you're going to give your new creation a name, at least make that little extra effort and make sure the name is 'correct'. the ones that really annoys me is 'kung fu karate' and 'shaolin do'...

hmm, i'm not sure if the sports comparisons are that valid. after all, the guys who are part of the events mentioned (olympics+superbowl) are already highly trained in their specific fields. again, it only seems to serve in pointing out that it is your training and not the style that determines whether or not you are good. and yes, the 'stylistic' limitations (or limited perception of style) is one thing that can hinder a lot of people no matter what art they do. a bjj guy can get too much into the ground-fighting part cos it works in comps. the traditional guy can put too much faith in their stand-up. that sounded a bit wrong.... anyway. like i have said many many times before. not much new is being said here. and i would say that it isn't myth and mystic that keeps schools open. i think it is blind faith: open mind as opposed to rational mind. i have said somewhere here on another thread that i believe that the styles we have today work. the only factor that affects their effectiveness is how we train in them. how many of us traditional guys really can say that we train like how they did in the old days? how many of us test ourselves in the same way as they did in the old days? my point was that we don't need to, so we don't. as a result, our martial ability has declined. for me i see it as i) a scapegoat for guys who get beat up (my style wasn't as good) ii) something for others to beat on (your style is not good).

from what i gather the martial arts of the areas (different countires) that surround the old silk road are all very very similar... hmm, not sure why i felt i had to share that. sorry.