Being brutally honest...

[geezer]

Reading some of the recent posts on this forum I was struck by one of the things I appreciate about some of the regulars here. They aren't afraid to be brutally honest about their limitations and the limits of their style, and they never underestimate what a good opponent from another style can do. That's why I bet their WC/VT/WT is pretty good. They aren't living in a dream world. You gotta test your art and know your limits or you're living in "la-la land". Too many people are like that... spouting "theory" while living in a fantasy, and it's really hurt our reputation. Any thoughts?

 

[Sukerkin]

Other than the fact that my Lau Gar had some Wing Chun elements in it, I don't really know enough about the subject to hold an opinion. But I am much impressed by the attitude implied by your own post above, Geezer.

Well said, good sir :applause:.

 

[mook jong man]

If you train hard enough with your own students you'll take a hit every now and again , and anyone who says they don't are full of **** or not training hard enough.

So if your own students can get the odd lucky one through , what makes you think no one else could?

 

[K-man]

The main reason for being for the martial arts was to develop personal protection against untrained assailants. Pitted against seasoned (forgive the pun) street fighting thugs we would hope to have sufficient skills to defend ourselves and escape safely from the situation.
Against a professional MMA then the position is a lot more dire because here you have an opponent who trains full time and fights for a living. Just goes to show that you should heed all warning signs and avoid any conflict at all possible. Unless you can identify a potential opponent (most aren't labelled) it's a bit like a firearm. Regard all guns as loaded and regard all potential opponents as trained. :asian:

 

[mograph]

Isn't it said that the fight is not decided by the martial art, but by the martial artist?

... and I don't think that "all things being equal" really applies, as the existence of two equally well-trained martial artists ... of two different styles ... who meet in combat ... is probably rather theoretical. So assuming that the other guy is a well-trained fighter may be rather prudent.

 

[seasoned]

Forgive me if I take the thread in the wrong direction, it can be fixed, within the next post.
While a young white belt I asked my sensei who would win in a fight, the boxer or the karate person. His answer, the one fighting for righteousness. These words stuck with me for many years. I took it to mean that the mind set had to be right, the purpose had to be right, and the technique had to be right. I will tell you right now, and with all honesty, if "theory" is your main technique, you're going to get your a_ _ handed to ya. Now on to the next post.

 

[jks9199]

The main reason for being for the martial arts was to develop personal protection against untrained assailants. Pitted against seasoned (forgive the pun) street fighting thugs we would hope to have sufficient skills to defend ourselves and escape safely from the situation.
Against a professional MMA then the position is a lot more dire because here you have an opponent who trains full time and fights for a living. Just goes to show that you should heed all warning signs and avoid any conflict at all possible. Unless you can identify a potential opponent (most aren't labelled) it's a bit like a firearm. Regard all guns as loaded and regard all potential opponents as trained. :asian:

No -- and I'm sick of this sort of line.

"Martial Arts" is a huge category. Some were indeed developed to defend against generally untrained attackers. Some were developed for the battlefield. Some for dueling. Others really were developed by bodyguards... or temple guardians. Or whatever else...

A martial art is developed to codify and preserve a systemic approach at answering the simple questions of survival. The degree of systemization and the complexity varies. Even the rule set and definition of survival can change; they weren't all developed to kill the opponent. Fencing is as much a martial art as iado or kendo... They preserve the killing techniques, in some fashion, but "survival" there is winning the match, not killing your opponent.

 

[KamonGuy2]

I think different styles develop different attributes within a martial artist and you can only gain more experience from everything you learn

Ive seen people come and go who would make ridiculous claims about their style, and then a year later be saying the exact opposite

I love Kamon, because it deals with reality. It builds your confidence while making you realise that you arent going to block every shot. It just gets you a little bit more learned for practical use

I got attacked several times a few years ago (ironically on the way to class), and it does make you realise what works and what doesnt.Its nice training statically (ie straight punches coming in from a compliant opponent) when you first start as a beginner in a martial art, but then you have to progress to adapt to the multitude of styles and systems out there

When wing chun was first developed, it was to take on the other shaolin systems around at the time. There was no BJJ or karate etc to train against. Therefore it was a new art training against specific attackers. Over the years, a lot of chunners have tried to keep the traditions going in wing chun, but have failed massively. The reality is, you have to look at your art and think where the holes are

I have never seen a wing chun 'purist' fair well against pressure (Cheung / Bosteppi is a great example), and there is always someone better out there

 

[Vajramusti]

-----------------------------------------------------
An honest but different POV--I have seen and/or know of some wing chun purists fair well against pressure from non wc folks..
We comment on what we have seen. So- I am not being sarcastic.
Wing Chun- good Ip man wing chun is not intended to work only against some selected styles.It's full self defense system is based on an understanding of human physiology, the geometry of dynamic shapes-lines, circles, angles etc, and lessons from nature-things that we would call today things like gravitational forces.

Against other styles a good wing chun person should play their own best game rather than being a pseudo-boxer or pseudo grappler.

But both you and Steve are correct in the sense- there is always someone better that you might run into and it pays to be both humble and yet alert and not to underestimate others..

joy chaudhuri

 

[yak sao]

The guys I teach are constantly hearing me say "you fight how you train".

WT/WC/VT is an exeptional MA, but if all you do is dwell on a whole lot of theory, then, yes, you are going to get your butt kicked, I don't care how good your chi sao is.You have to train against reality. Start out nice and easy and slowly turn up the intensity. If you go full out too soon, then all it is is a slug fest. But eventually, you need to get to the point where it is pretty much going full out, obviously not all the time, people have to go to work the next day, but we need to know what it's like so we're not like a deer in the headlights when reality comes our way.

 

[K-man]

No -- and I'm sick of this sort of line.

"Martial Arts" is a huge category. Some were indeed developed to defend against generally untrained attackers. Some were developed for the battlefield. Some for dueling. Others really were developed by bodyguards... or temple guardians. Or whatever else...

A martial art is developed to codify and preserve a systemic approach at answering the simple questions of survival. The degree of systemization and the complexity varies. Even the rule set and definition of survival can change; they weren't all developed to kill the opponent. Fencing is as much a martial art as iado or kendo... They preserve the killing techniques, in some fashion, but "survival" there is winning the match, not killing your opponent.

Ouch!! (feels the boot up the backside)

You're quite right. I didn't qualify my use of martial art which I should have done. I was thinking of the original forms of kung fu, karate etc rather than any of the martial arts involving weapons or the more modern development of the arts like Systema or even Krav Maga. :asian:

 

[KamonGuy2]

-----------------------------------------------------
An honest but different POV--I have seen and/or know of some wing chun purists fair well against pressure from non wc folks..
We comment on what we have seen. So- I am not being sarcastic.
Wing Chun- good Ip man wing chun is not intended to work only against some selected styles.It's full self defense system is based on an understanding of human physiology, the geometry of dynamic shapes-lines, circles, angles etc, and lessons from nature-things that we would call today things like gravitational forces.

Against other styles a good wing chun person should play their own best game rather than being a pseudo-boxer or pseudo grappler.

joy chaudhuri

Against a good fighter, one style will not work. Even the BJJ guys who entered the first UFCs learnt basic techniques from other styles to assist them. Nowadays, there are very few 'pure' fighters in the more realistic arenas.

Don’t get me wrong - wing chun is a great art to learn and if you are in a close quarters situation (argument stage) then wing chun is extremely useful and practical, and one of the best styles out there for practical defence

However, if you are grabbed, dragged to the floor or hit with power from long distance, traditional wing chun moves do not cut it

The basic fact that if ‘pure’ wing chun worked brilliantly against practitioners from other styles, it would be all over youtube.

You have to make your wing chun adaptable, sure, but you also have to understand the nature of other styles, as well as train that which wing chun does not give you -ground defence, clinch defence, and long range techniques

This is true of all styles. I would never take any ‘purist’ seriously who claimed they did not need to cover groundwork/clinchwork/sparring etc

 

[Vajramusti]

Against a good fighter, one style will not work. Even the BJJ guys who entered the first UFCs learnt basic techniques from other styles to assist them. Nowadays, there are very few 'pure' fighters in the more realistic arenas.
((We have different POVs- which is ok.Realistic arenas?The current cages?A form of sport))

Don’t get me wrong - wing chun is a great art to learn and if you are in a close quarters situation (argument stage) then wing chun is extremely useful and practical, and one of the best styles out there for practical defence
((A well trained wc person is very aware of distance- close or far))

However, if you are grabbed, dragged to the floor or hit with power from long distance, traditional wing chun moves do not cut it
((Depends on whose wing chun and what kind of wing chun and the person involved))

The basic fact that if ‘pure’ wing chun worked brilliantly against practitioners from other styles, it would be all over youtube.
((So you tube is the new reality???))

You have to make your wing chun adaptable, sure, but you also have to understand the nature of other styles, as well as train that which wing chun does not give you -ground defence, clinch defence, and long range techniques
(Again depends on your wing chun.I am familiar with opinions like yours.Good luck with your wing chun mix))


This is true of all styles. I would never take any ‘purist’ seriously who claimed they did not need to cover groundwork/clinchwork/sparring etc

(9By good wing chun-- I do not exclude the above contexts))

joy chaudhuri

 

[jks9199]

Ouch!! (feels the boot up the backside)

You're quite right. I didn't qualify my use of martial art which I should have done. I was thinking of the original forms of kung fu, karate etc rather than any of the martial arts involving weapons or the more modern development of the arts like Systema or even Krav Maga. :asian:

Even they weren't all developed for defending against the untrained opponent. For example, lots of the "monks" in some of the temples were generals and soldiers who were on the political outs... You don't think they traded battlefield techniques in what came to be called Chinese martial arts? Others were developed to protect the treasures of the temples against rampaging hordes, like the Mongols... I think they were prepping to fight trained warriors, huh?

 

[Yoshin9]

I think the honesty is just a matter of respect. Some WC students may have fought outside of their school with either other WC styles or other MA styles and can talk of comparisons; but yet still others have never trained in anything but their own WC style but that does not mean that they go bashing other styles or think that their style is perfect, even though they may know nothing but their own style they are still respectful of other ways to do WC or other ways to do other MA styles.

It is also the nature of this forum. We are Martial "Talk" and not Martial Bash, like another MA forum who's entire focus is pointing out the frauds and bullsh*t do of styles that most of the posters have not trained in (the odd thing with that kind of focus is that you tend not to point out the bull in the style you train in cause your ***** doesn't stink). In Martial Talk we can talk about where our weaknesses are just as much as our strengths.

If you want to be a good fighter, know your strengths and work on them (or know your talents and hone them); if you want to be an excellent fighter, know your weaknesses and work on eliminating them.

 

[Vajramusti]

If you want to be a good fighter, know your strengths and work on them (or know your talents and hone them); if you want to be an excellent fighter, know your weaknesses and work on eliminating them.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
True. Simply always bashing other posts and posters is counter productive.Being aware of one's strengths and limitations and being civil in expressing opinions specially when there are different points of view-helps every one.

joy chaudhuri