Is My Style the Best?

[Gerry Seymour]

That's one way of seeing it.

It could also mean that the method already has the tools to deal with a grappler, without becoming a grappler yourself.

I realize your method is a form of aikido, so it already is a grappling variant, in lose terms. But I don't think you need to play someone else's game in order to beat them. Play your own game, and beat them.

Ground work is just what you do when you're on the ground. Being able to deal with a grappler isn't the same as having groundwork. It may prevent some groundwork, but grappling takedowns aren't the only way to end up on the ground. NGA has a few tools for getting back up, but the traditional components aren't strong, so it's a weakness in the art...unless the art is trained to fill that gap.

So, the ground game isn't about beating a ground-grappler on the ground. My chances of staying off the ground are probably better than my chances of beating them while down there. But if I end up on the ground against anyone (off-balanced by a kick, for instance), tools to work from the ground until I get back up are useful. Now, I might decide I don't need them, but that doesn't change the fact that NGA has a weakness there - I'd have just decided it's not a significant weakness. A good example of what I consider a non-significant weakness is in high kicks. We don't train them much, as a whole. I also don't really see it as a problem, because I have enough tools that I don't really miss the high kicks I don't have. It's a weakness that doesn't bother me.

 

[Flying Crane]

Really? I see plenty of folks being critical of other systems, but that usually provokes defensive justifications from representatives of the systems being criticized, not self-doubt. I can't recall an instance of someone coming in believing that their art could do it all, but then changing their mind after being lectured by a proponent of a different tradition.

I do sometimes see people acknowledging what they see as limitations in their primary art, but as far as I can tell that comes from their own experience and observation, not from being yelled at on the forum by an evangelist of a different style.

I see a whole lot of people saying they need to cross train to fill the holes in their other training.

 

[Flying Crane]

Ground work is just what you do when you're on the ground. Being able to deal with a grappler isn't the same as having groundwork. It may prevent some groundwork, but grappling takedowns aren't the only way to end up on the ground. NGA has a few tools for getting back up, but the traditional components aren't strong, so it's a weakness in the art...unless the art is trained to fill that gap.

So, the ground game isn't about beating a ground-grappler on the ground. My chances of staying off the ground are probably better than my chances of beating them while down there. But if I end up on the ground against anyone (off-balanced by a kick, for instance), tools to work from the ground until I get back up are useful. Now, I might decide I don't need them, but that doesn't change the fact that NGA has a weakness there - I'd have just decided it's not a significant weakness. A good example of what I consider a non-significant weakness is in high kicks. We don't train them much, as a whole. I also don't really see it as a problem, because I have enough tools that I don't really miss the high kicks I don't have. It's a weakness that doesn't bother me.

Oh I am not claiming that every system has everything in it. No, of course not.

But if you understand your system well, it probably has more solutions that you might realize.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

I see a whole lot of people saying they need to cross train to fill the holes in their other training.

Sure, but that doesn't mean they were convinced of that idea by someone outside of their art shouting at them. In general it seems to be because their own experience of their own training leads them to believe those holes exist. Whether the holes are real or not, it's rarely lectures from others that convinces a practitioner of their existence.

 

[drop bear]

Sure, but that doesn't mean they were convinced of that idea by someone outside of their art shouting at them. In general it seems to be because their own experience of their own training leads them to believe those holes exist. Whether the holes are real or not, it's rarely lectures from others that convinces a practitioner of their existence.

Yet I think the greatest advances to styles progression has been through conflict.

I am not sure how well letting people figure it out on their own works either.

There has to be some catalyst that takes you from doing yellow bamboo to maybe something else.

I think there has to be a line drawn between making your own way and choosing easy.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Oh I am not claiming that every system has everything in it. No, of course not.

But if you understand your system well, it probably has more solutions that you might realize.

Okay, so here's another viewpoint for you. Each style only has "in it" what someone experiences in their training. So, in all my years in NGA, I never experienced really solid ground work. I could try to build it within what I know, but why? Cross-training is faster and more effective. If I can incorporate it into the art (and I do), then it can become that part of the art for the future.

Cross-training is not a bad thing, and not a sign of poor understanding of one's primary art.

 

[Flying Crane]

Sure, but that doesn't mean they were convinced of that idea by someone outside of their art shouting at them. In general it seems to be because their own experience of their own training leads them to believe those holes exist. Whether the holes are real or not, it's rarely lectures from others that convinces a practitioner of their existence.

Yes, wherever it comes from, people make their own decisions about what they are going to trust. And there, again, is my point.

I'm not trying to dictate to anyone what they ought to do or how they ought to train. I get the feeling that is what people are misunderstanding here.

 

[Flying Crane]

Okay, so here's another viewpoint for you. Each style only has "in it" what someone experiences in their training. So, in all my years in NGA, I never experienced really solid ground work. I could try to build it within what I know, but why? Cross-training is faster and more effective. If I can incorporate it into the art (and I do), then it can become that part of the art for the future.

Cross-training is not a bad thing, and not a sign of poor understanding of one's primary art.

And this circles back to my point. People can make their own decisions about how they want to train. I never tried to say otherwise.

 

[Martial D]

nope, you still miss the point. That's ok.

Well, I can only extrapolate meaning from the words you type. If you 'really mean' something other than you are actually saying, that's on you.

 

[Martial D]

Sure, but that doesn't mean they were convinced of that idea by someone outside of their art shouting at them. In general it seems to be because their own experience of their own training leads them to believe those holes exist. Whether the holes are real or not, it's rarely lectures from others that convinces a practitioner of their existence.

That's my story. After some years of Wing Chun, I was a believer in not only the technique, but the method. I didn't train an old man's Wing Chun either, my sifu was all about SD and sparring, real world application. Our chi sau involved striking hard enough to sting and leave bruises when you left openings. I got very good at WC fundamentals.

Then, as a believer in my system(this was 1998 or 99), having moved towns and unable to find a WC sifu in the city, I walked into a local gym called 'the world kickboxing academy' intent on learning Mui Thai or BJJ(the term mma wasn't a thing yet). I signed up for both.

First was mt. Man, the training was intense! I learned a lot that first class. But, me as a 20 year old WC purist was maybe a little arrogant, so at the end when we all broke off for drills Dylan(the MT instructor, later became a good friend) put me against one of his intermediate students for some 'light sparring'(not before signing a rather ominous sounding waiver of course)

We padded up, gloves. Squared off, full out wing Chun stance..circled a bit, slapped away a couple jabs looking for my chance to bridge and...

...then I woke up. They told me it was a round kick.

Months followed and I learned more about my WC on a practical level than I had doing WC with my sifu for the previous year.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Ok. simplified version.

We are wrong but lets not argue. That is passive agressive.

You can't be conciliatory and still hold your position is correct. It is effectively an oxymoron. It is a cheaper and more childish stunt than just using argument. Because you are trying to engage in emotional blackmail.

You will notice I didnt take pot shots at you. But you still feel justified in taking them at me.

Nice use of color, come up with that all by yourself did you

You have no idea do you....you keep swinging but you keep missing

I was explaining in detail how your post fits the description of passive aggressive.

When you come up with a contrary position you have allready engaged in an argument. I dont know why for you that is so weird. I fully expect people to have their own opinions.

And of course you are wrong but lets not argue.
you also, like you buddy steve, simply trying to force an argument, which I have no intention of giving you....

But you are wrong, you are applying a term to a situation improperly and I have told you and steve this before but you both continue to harass me on this issue, (might want to familiarize yourself with TOS 9.5) and taking a word and giving it your own definition does not make it right. And continually telling someone they passive aggressive, when by the excepted definition they are not is not taking a pot shot at a person in your opinion then... also the simplified version...interesting..... what is even more interesting is your simplified version adds words and makes assumptions that you have no proof for to back up you already flawed argument as to what passive aggressive actually means.

Also, you may not be aware of web etiquette but the use of color, particularly red can be seen as yelling much like the use of bold. Also based on your above response I feel you have a issue with truth in posting as well... And you may not have noticed, or hoped that I didn't notice, but it really does not matter what I say, you will either tell me I am passive aggressive or you will tell me I'm mean. So no matter how I respond you will take a contrary position. That is unless I agreed with you 100% which will not happen since in most cases I do believe you are just plain incorrect and acting in a particular way to produce the response you desire to fulfill your need to argue incessantly.

I frankly do not understand you need to argue when discussion is so much more productive..... now you apparently want an argument...aha you want room 12A, next door.

Now I am through allowing you to waste my time, and that is exactly what you want to do...so..bye

From the book - Zen in the Martial Arts by Joe Hyams

Chapter Title “Do Not Disturb”

This is from a conversation between Joe Hyams, Sterling Silliphant and Bruce Lee

On one such occasion we talked about the difference between wasting time and spending time. Bruce was the first to speak.

“To spend time is to pass it in a specific manner” he said. “We are spending it during lessons just as we are spending it now in conversation. To waste time is to expend it thoughtlessly or carelessly. We all have time to either spend or waste and it is our decision what to do with it. But once passed, it is gone forever.

“It is the most precious commodity we have, “agreed Sterling. “I always view my time as divided into infinite moments or transactions or contacts. Anyone who steals my time is stealing my life because they are taking my existence from me. As I get older, I realize that time is the only thing I have left. So when someone comes to me with a project, I estimate the time it will take me to do it and then ask myself, ‘Do I want to spend weeks or months of what little time I have on this project? Is it worth it or is it wasting my time?’ If I consider the project time-worthy I do it.

“I apply this same yardstick to my social relations. I will not permit people to steal my time. I have limited my friends to those people with whom time passes happily. There are moments in my life - necessary moments - when I don’t do anything but what is my choice. The choice of how I spend my time is mine, and it is not dictated by social convention”

After Sterling finished talking, Bruce looked into space for a few moments. When he finally spoke, it was to ask if he could make a telephone call.

When he came back, Bruce was smiling. “I just cancelled an appointment.” he said. “It was with someone who wanted to waste my time and not help me spend it”

 

[Flying Crane]

That's my story. After some years of Wing Chun, I was a believer in not only the technique, but the method. I didn't train an old man's Wing Chun either, my sifu was all about SD and sparring, real world application. Our chi sau involved striking hard enough to sting and leave bruises when you left openings. I got very good at WC fundamentals.

Then, as a believer in my system(this was 1998 or 99), having moved towns and unable to find a WC sifu in the city, I walked into a local gym called 'the world kickboxing academy' intent on learning Mui Thai or BJJ(the term mma wasn't a thing yet). I signed up for both.

First was mt. Man, the training was intense! I learned a lot that first class. But, me as a 20 year old WC purist was maybe a little arrogant, so at the end when we all broke off for drills Dylan(the MT instructor, later became a good friend) put me against one of his intermediate students for some 'light sparring'(not before signing a rather ominous sounding waiver of course)

We padded up, gloves. Squared off, full out wing Chun stance..circled a bit, slapped away a couple jabs looking for my chance to bridge and...

...then I woke up. They told me it was a round kick.

Months followed and I learned more about my WC on a practical level than I had doing WC with my sifu for the previous year.

Well now this is interesting. I'll share a story as well.

My Wing Chun sifu related this story to me some years ago. When he was a younger man, his sifu cajoled him into taking part in a full contact competition between their school and a Muay Thai school. I don't remember if they went to Hong Kong for it, or if it was held in the US. At any rate, he knocked out his opponent.

Now in the spirit of full disclosure, the other members of his school did not do so well. But he won with a knockout. He was also very annoyed by it, didn't really want to do it, found the whole experience unpleasant and pointless, but he did it because his sifu wanted him to.

So your story helps illustrate my point, and I thank you for that.

After your experience, you decided you would not find answers within Wing Chun. And for you, you were right.

For my sifu, he found answers within Wing Chun, and he remained dedicated to his training until he passed away. And for him, he was right.

And that is my point. If you decide you can't, you are right. And if you decide you can, you are right.

 

[Xue Sheng]

I knew I heard this somewhere before

"Whether you think you can, or you think you can't--you're right.” - Henry Ford

Or a more modern version

 

[Xue Sheng]

Sorry, double post...just move along... nothing to see here

 

[Martial D]

Well now this is interesting. I'll share a story as well.

My Wing Chun sifu related this story to me some years ago. When he was a younger man, his sifu cajoled him into taking part in a full contact competition between their school and a Muay Thai school. I don't remember if they went to Hong Kong for it, or if it was held in the US. At any rate, he knocked out his opponent.

Now in the spirit of full disclosure, the other members of his school did not do so well. But he won with a knockout. He was also very annoyed by it, didn't really want to do it, found the whole experience unpleasant and pointless, but he did it because his sifu wanted him to.

So your story helps illustrate my point, and I thank you for that.

After your experience, you decided you would not find answers within Wing Chun. And for you, you were right.

For my sifu, he found answers within Wing Chun, and he remained dedicated to his training until he passed away. And for him, he was right.

And that is my point. If you decide you can't, you are right. And if you decide you can, you are right.

Yet, I had decided I could, yet reality didn't care what I believed. I get you, I just think it's a platitude.

 

[Flying Crane]

Yet, I had decided I could, yet reality didn't care what I believed. I get you, I just think it's a platitude.

Maybe if you had stuck with it and dug deeper and learned from the experience, you might have found a way with wing chun. Im not suggesting that anything will be handed over on a silver platter. There are failures and successes and that is how growth happens.


The fact that you did not, is a perfectly reasonable choice to make too. Going in a different direction when you find something that might be better for you, makes sense. I'm not trying to judge you on it.

 

[Martial D]

Maybe if you had stuck with it and dug deeper and learned from the experience, you might have found a way with wing chun. Im not suggesting that anything will be handed over on a silver platter. There are failures and successes and that is how growth happens.


The fact that you did not, is a perfectly reasonable choice to make too. Going in a different direction when you find something that might be better for you, makes sense. I'm not trying to judge you on it.

So you are saying that no matter how impractical or unrealistic a style is, if you believe hard enough it will still be effective?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Maybe if you had stuck with it and dug deeper and learned from the experience, you might have found a way with wing chun. Im not suggesting that anything will be handed over on a silver platter. There are failures and successes and that is how growth happens.


The fact that you did not, is a perfectly reasonable choice to make too. Going in a different direction when you find something that might be better for you, makes sense. I'm not trying to judge you on it.

One issue with trying to generalize this idea is that there's a lot of variation within an art. Some folks define an art as what they learned in that art. Some folks will accept anything into an art that they like. (And many variations between those.) If I only ever experienced NGA, and defined it as the 50 Classical Techniques and a few support techniques (plus strikes), as some do, then I'd be talking about a very different art than the NGA I teach. My NGA isn't the same as my instructor's, so my students' view of the art will be different than his. That begs the question of whether we're both teaching NGA. Or am I teaching NGA plus some add-ons?

That all depends upon your view. I think a lot of folks go cross-training to fill gaps in their toolset, regardless of how they view their primary art. In cross-training there are two viewpoints I've seen folks take: 1) they will add a second art (start with Judo, now add Karate - they now practice Judo and Karate), or 2) they study different arts and integrate into their "primary" art (start with Judo, now explore Karate and BJJ and maybe some FMA, and integrate some key pieces that fit well with their Judo - they now have something they still call "Judo", which has more tools in it than what they originally learned). They're both doing much the same thing, but in one case they see it as adding an art, while the other is just expanding what they do within their art.

 

[Xue Sheng]

One issue with trying to generalize this idea is that there's a lot of variation within an art. Some folks define an art as what they learned in that art. Some folks will accept anything into an art that they like. (And many variations between those.) If I only ever experienced NGA, and defined it as the 50 Classical Techniques and a few support techniques (plus strikes), as some do, then I'd be talking about a very different art than the NGA I teach. My NGA isn't the same as my instructor's, so my students' view of the art will be different than his. That begs the question of whether we're both teaching NGA. Or am I teaching NGA plus some add-ons?

Not sure but there may be a cultural issue happening here with this that on this point may be causing some confusion. Most Chinese styles I have trained accept the fact that no two people are alike so anything they learn from their teacher is not necessarily exactly what their teacher does, but it is close therefore in the same style. Now take that and add other things that were never part of the style (example add a lot of Shuaijiao to Wing Chun) or change the basics of a style...then you have a different style

That all depends upon your view. I think a lot of folks go cross-training to fill gaps in their toolset, regardless of how they view their primary art. In cross-training there are two viewpoints I've seen folks take: 1) they will add a second art (start with Judo, now add Karate - they now practice Judo and Karate), or 2) they study different arts and integrate into their "primary" art (start with Judo, now explore Karate and BJJ and maybe some FMA, and integrate some key pieces that fit well with their Judo - they now have something they still call "Judo", which has more tools in it than what they originally learned). They're both doing much the same thing, but in one case they see it as adding an art, while the other is just expanding what they do within their art.

on point one, I have said for many years take Wing Chun and add Judo (or Shuaijiao) and you got a fairly well rounded marital artist

on point two: Jeet Kune Do and sanda/sanshou

 

[Flying Crane]

So you are saying that no matter how impractical or unrealistic a style is, if you believe hard enough it will still be effective?

Nope. See, you missed it again.

It wasn't impractical for my sifu. He knocked out a Muay Thai guy in a competition.