mantis.style

ooh... That's another thing I don't understand. To me Wing Chun isn't complex at all. In fact, everything is pretty simple and straight forward. The difficult bit is getting it right because at times, the structure has to be near perfect or else it collapses. That's why it bothers me when people try to make it out to be some amazingly life changing thing that only if you're lucky and a blue moon falls on the fifth month and a special teacher appears to you that you will get to learn. Well, actually no, it's supposed to be a simple thing that anyone can learn and anyone can get good if they practice properly. Of course, it doesn't help that there are things in wing chun that are only understandable in the context of the culture and perhaps that is where I have benefitted, being Chinese and understanding the reasons for some things more than most can explain to a western guy.

That might not have been the best way to say it as it doesn't fit 100% to what I meant but here goes. Well..... The Theory of wing chun is that you don't end up on the ground. The assumption is that if your wing chun is good, you won't end up on the ground. In this respect, the training is very specific and it doesn't a) teach you how to get to the ground b) recover from the ground c) grapple. If you try to incorporate into wing chun those elements, I can see it only corrupting the wing chun. That isn't to say that it isn't a good idea to learn something for the ground game, far from it; just that I don't believe it is possible to simply mix something into it and keep it "pure" as it were. It's for the same reason why you can't simply mix TKD into it. If you're kicking TKD style, it isn't wing chun. If you are going to the ground, it isn't wing chun. In the context of this discussion, what you end up doing isn't a mix of tkd, wing chun, and aikijujutsu as a whole. It is wing chun then tkd then aikijujtsu. Not sure if that is the best explaination of what I mean. It could also be my misunderstanding of what was meant originally by "mix three styles".

It only affects you if you let it. And let's be honest here, there are only maybe 3 schools that bicker between themselves. When's the last time you heard a proper Yuen Kay Shan student, or a Pan Nam student, or a Gee Shim student or even Jiu Wan or Lee Shing or Wong Shun Leung student take part in any of that? More often than not, it's the students that are the worst offenders. Admittedly, if th school doesn't push a certain "belief" it won't happen but still, I know some guys from one of the bickering schools that are pretty much "pfft, who cares" type of person.

The point that not everyone has been in a situation where they had to test the difference between what they say and what they do, is also valid.

Nope. Not all wing chun comes from Yip Man. I have learnt from 3 schools, one of which was a branch off before Yip Man and one that was a contemporary of Yip Man as well as the more usual Yip Man line schools.

I'm not offended. If anything, to me, the less people know about wing chun, the better for me. I have to say though that I find this all a bit fascinating. As someone who has spent more than a few years in this, I would say that Wing Chun will not work with TKD - too many structural differences. I would also say that Wing Chun doesn't need Aikijujutsu. Chin-Na can be used freely from most aspects of wing chun, especially at secondary trapping stages and the way Wing Chun works, you don't need to go to the ground. Of course, it is always good to cover more bases but you only mention locks and throws which wing chun has enough of its own, even without taking specialised Chin-Na classes.

I've never shuffled from style to style. When I started, it was in some non-school generic longfist style that wasn't what I was looking for. Somewhere along the line I was introduced to a wing chun guy and I've been hooked ever since. Since then I've moved on to other styles but even then I've stuck to styles that are related to wing chun in some way, if anything to learn more about wing chun itself.

I'm not sure I'm happy with the fact that you only mention fast hands with wing chun. I'm also confused by the choice of "traditional" TKD. After all, isn't traditional tkd, shotokan?

I think this age debate is pretty irrelevent to this initial discussion. Training is training. The further you are, the more things you have to practice in less time. Naturally, your training will be different as you progress and learn more and get better at some things. An imaginary threshold like a belt rank doesn't have any bearing on how you train other than suggest the amount of things you should know.

Nightowl: I'm not sure how to respond to your post. On the one hand, I am aware that Tai Chi that is seen in the public eye is mostly of the amr waving, "live for a hundred years" type, I also know that in practice, Tai Chi is very similar to things like White Crane, Mantis, Wing Chun and even Hung kuen. You might have noticed that I have mentioned before that I have trained mainly in Wing Chun but have also had some in depth experience (2+ years) in White Crane, some cross training with old southern Dragon style, Tai Chi and most recently, Southern Mantis. My choice of styles is purely because they are of similar origins, in the same locality and of roughly the same time period. Tai Chi stands alone but even then, the application of it is not that different to how some Wing Chun is applied and it is very similar to some White Crane. The thing with Tai Chi is that the forms are still very old school. If I were to show you my main training form, you'd be hard pressed to see what might be a block because a lot of the form is to do with how to move instead of what to do. The most basic type of block is a simple outward/inward sweeping motion that is pretty much the same as a low bong sau or a crossing gate tan sau that opens to biu sau. It's not as flowery or as complicated as you might think. You are also right though, to say that most of Tai Chi that is taught today is probably the 32(?) step Modern Wushu form. Search out something like traditional Wudang, Yang or Chen and you'll find something very different. You've got to be careful when you say "chang quen" because it is at the same time, a name of an actual style (Long Fist) as well as a name to describe a type of style. Typically Long Fist is taught as a general basic form and training would include other forms considered basic training like 12 Road (4 door) Tan Tui and Chin-Na and other training exercises like small plum blossom. Long Fist does have one fault though. At the beginning, you are taught to do things exactly as you do it in the form. If you block with a you will follow with b etc etc. Naturally, as you learn more, you will have more things that you can follow with but this type of training isn't very intuitive and can sometimes leave you without an answer with something until you learn a new form. It isn't as "modular" as Wing Chun, Mantis, White Crane or even Tai Chi where even the most basic things can be enough. Of course, this is based on my limited (not quite a year) of training.

Perhaps the biggest problem that exists in Chinese Martial Arts training is that the training is mostly ignorant of other martial arts. A wing chun student will pretty much train with and against other wing chun people. Put them against a boxer/karateka/kickboxer who moves, hits and takes hits differently and things begin to become unstuck.

Some modern schools have adopted a sort of grading, usually using the forms as a reference, which is more or less how your progress was traditionally marked. The old chinese school system has no rank as such, instead everyone is referenced by a family title depending on your entry to the school and how other people are "related" to you via your SiFu. Generally, speaking the forms are organised to be taught in a successive way and do not actually have a rank attached to them. "seniority" in a school is determined by your age in the school which isn't always an indicator of how good you are. By the same token, knowing more doesn't always mean you are the better fighter either. Admittedly, I was slightly shy with the total truth. I've recently started training at a club where they do have an adopted ranking system. In the one that I have trained with continuously the longest, they didn't.

Block with the fist?

Not sure about that. Traditionally, the Chinese styles do not have belts, tests or rankings. Even now, After what is coming up to 14 years, I do not have a belt, a rank and have never tested.

What kind of sparring are you talking about?

The real issue here is practicing martial arts does not mean you don't have to be strong. Unfortunately, too many modern martial arts schools seem to present the idea that simply practicing (their) martial art will make you a fighting god.

Don't all jump on me but what's the problem here? If he doesn't see a point in it, then why shouldn't he just stop? Our reasons for doing the things we do are ours and personal to us. Even if he agrees with them and takes some on as his own, they will still only be what we have said and what he is repeating. Some things he needs to "find" for himself for them to be truely personal to him.

Short version. Usually, the host nation gets to add an event if they so choose. Normally, stage one is to get it added as a demonstration event as mentioned above but because of too many issues regarding the sport of wushu as well as China's dubious behaviour ijnpolitical areas, it was decided that they well, didn't deserve it. There's a complete decision on IOC website that I read a few years back.

but that would be you altering the training you do; it doesn't change what TKD has or doesn't have in its training. Bear in mind that when we talk about TKD we should really be talking in reference to what General Choi devised, not what it's adopted since then.

The way most lineages of chinese martial arts has been taught and the relatively recent introduction of them to the western world, it shouldn't be the hardest thing for someone legitimate to name who taught him and who taught that person. It follows from this that because of the relatively tight community that goes with it, it shouldn't be hard to verify any name given. For example, I can pretty much draw a link between the three men who have taught me up through the related "head" of school. The style in question also plays a part in how easy this is but as in other martial arts, if they can't answer what should be simple questions; you should know something isn't 100%.

Not Japanese or Karate but I speak Chinese (two dialects) fluently and for the most part, my martial arts training has been conducted in mainly Cantonese, it being the language from where they originate/developed. In the UK however, I can't see what difference it makes teaching the students here purely in English as the Chinese terms and principles don't tend to translate fully beyond the literal meaning. Often, it takes a five miuntes to fully explain something from the Chinese to the English because you have to also explain the cultural/historical reference. In my experience, it doesn't add anything and can potentially take something away from the learning because the student who doesn't have a full grasp of the language and culture from where the language comes from will only really be learning the names of things. Using a karate example, how easy is it to really explain osae fully? Even if you can explain it, is it really going to have the full meaning that the term has in Japanese?

The flaw here is that you incorrectly assume that a boxer knows neither. I would go as far as to say that the average off the street weekend and thursdays when it's free at the company gym boxer has a technically better punch than the average twice a week 2hours a day "martial artist" and better timing.

There are many forms of McDojo. Some Scam you for money. Some give bad teaching. The worst kind do both. The one over-riding thing is that somehow, they manage to brain-wash their students into thinking that their teacher is an amazing one of a kind super master.

Pre-emptive striking is still self defence. Defence and victim are not mutually exclusive. The thing to remember is what constitutes self defence according to the law, is more important than any other definition you want to give it. If you don't take the legal definition into account, then you aren't looking at the question of self defence and are just arguing over the semantics of the terms.

So who are these 80 year old masters who win fights and have you seen any of them? A punch is a punch. A structurally correct punch is better than an incorrect one. By your rational that a guy who uses "Chi" is going to better, that suggests that "chi" is better than simple muscle strength. To me, that sounds like one of the McKwoon excuses of not having muscle working training.