Of course! Wing Chun = bad. Bas Rutten = good.
Seriously though, I'm not being serious.
The tao of wing chun book has anyone read it?
- Thread starter SOD-WC
- Start date
Of course! Wing Chun = bad. Bas Rutten = good.
Seriously though, I'm not being serious.
- Thread Starter
- #22
could be that not many WC ppl look as bad *** as him? i wont want to mess with him he reminds me of master ken lol
Because "boxing" is not a system. It's a certain ruleset for ringsport. There are many styles of fighting under the ruleset. They are all called boxing because that's what they're doing, but they are not the same style. What joins them is that they are all equally restricted to functioning under the same ring rules.
Yip Man didn't teach a ruleset or multiple styles. So, there's no reason for dozens of contradictory methods to have derived from this one man.
Boxers, even coming from the same gym with the same coach or coaches, often adopt different personal styles. Why? ...Different body types, different abilities? A good coach recognizes this and works to help each fighter reach their optimum potential.
Many believe that Yip Man was a good coach and did the same.
Boxers, even coming from the same gym with the same coach or coaches, often adopt different personal styles. Why? ...Different body types, different abilities? A good coach recognizes this and works to help each fighter reach their optimum potential.
Many believe that Yip Man was a good coach and did the same.
Boxing coaches can do this because they aren't teaching a set curriculum. They can literally teach anything that is allowed under the ring rules of the sport.
YM was teaching a specific martial art he had learned, with a set curriculum.
It is beyond unrealistic that he would have taught dozens of contradictory interpretations of daan-chi-sau, for example, where he trained some to stick and follow and others to use the same method to specifically avoid or detrain exactly that.
That's how you see it, too, by acknowledging there is no one system of boxing.
You can buy that if you want, but I seriously doubt one man is going to teach dozens of contradictory understandings of the same material.
One intellectually curious man over the course of a lifetime will often explore many different, even apparently contradictory ideas. This is especially true of brilliant men and women. What their followers make of their legacy is often more limited and more contradictory, like the well known parable of the blind man and the elephant. They simply cannot see the bigger picture.
If you doubt this, just look at the religious wars that have raged since time immemorial. Especially in so called missionary religions like Christianity and Islam with each group, sect and sub-sect thinking they have the one true teaching. That's how you sound right now, LFJ!
Whatever. If they directly contradict one another, they can't all be right.
In regards to YMVT, it's just nonsensical that he'd teach one person to train this way to develop this thing, then teach another to train this same way to avoid developing that same thing. One of them will not work.
No, what you are saying is nonsense!
...In truth, it is highly probable, to the point of being almost a certainty that Yip Man taught and practiced VT differently at different stages of his life. Granted the span of his life and the circumstances he lived through, to think otherwise is illogical.So, even Yip Man's closest students differed in what they received and took away from their time with him. That's just natural variation. Offspring are not clones of their parents! If some of these "offspring" or students, and in turn their students, branched out even further, that again is in accordance with nature ...it is the only logical possibility. And that eventually some of these student's teachings would contradict each other, is inevitable.
That leave's you and KPM debating as to who is right. Well, we know that a mouse, a man, and a sperm whale are all mammals evolving from a common ancestor. Which of them is correct? Which is right? Which would win in a fight? ...The question is meaningless. A whale can't live in a mouse-hole, a mouse can't program a computer, and a man can't swim naked thousands of feet below the ocean and eat a giant squid!
Now regarding WC/VT, your premise that Yip Man taught one consistent version of the art for his entire life is unsupportable, so your process of deduction becomes meaningless as does your conclusion that WSL-VT is the true and correct version of Yip Man VT.
All that is left, and frankly all that matters anyway, is your claim that WSL-VT is the most effective version we have today. I am open to that possibility, but as KPM and others have pointed out, there needs to be persuasive evidence or proof. Not theoretical discussions about how it works as an integrated and complete system, but actual proof in repeated tests against qualified opponents, documented by videos and witnesses. Like boxing, and MMA. And sorry to say, you haven't provided the goods. So I remain agnostic and unconvinced.
Last edited:
Yeah, as usual LFJ is full of it. Boxing is an rather open-ended system of fighting that allows for different styles to manifest. Obviously it can operate outside of any ruleset as a method of self-defense. It doesn't fall apart simply because there aren't any rules dictating what it is and isn't supposed to do! And I would challenge anyone to find an example of a competitive boxer...of any "style" of boxing....that wouldn't be recognized and labeled a "boxer" by anyone familiar with boxing!
Mike Tyson's "style" was very different from Muhammed Ali's, but I don't think anyone would have a problem identifying them BOTH as "boxers"! Western boxing is just as much a "system" as any martial art. And within that system there are different "styles" included. Same with Karate....the "system" of Karate is recognizable, even though the actual style might be Shotokan, or Gogu-Ryu, or Shito-Ryu, etc. Similarly with Wing Chun. The "system" of Wing Chun is recognizable, even though the actual style or "lineage" may be Ip Man, or Sum Nun, or Pin Sun, or Yuen Chai Wan, or Snake/Crane, etc.
No, not really. You seem to be putting me on the same footing with LFJ with your comment. Please don't forget that typically LFJ is asserting a very narrow claim in our arguments and I end up disputing his claim. That is not the same thing as me taking an opposite claim and then trying to fight over which "system" is the most "correct" or "true" or "right." I have NEVER asserted that any Wing Chun system I practice is the "real" thing and that everyone else's is somehow "broken" or "incorrect" or "gap filled." So please don't equate me to our resident religious zealot!
How did you determine this near certain probability?
Because his students taught different things, and you attribute that to YM changing his teachings and contradicting himself, rather than taking into account the students' time with him, their skill, intelligence, and fighting experience or lack thereof?
And you think this is logical, based on what?
We're not talking generations later. We're talking direct students of YM even from the same time period contradicting each other.
The question is meaningless not just because a whale can't live in a mouse hole, but because we're talking about 1st generation students.
It's more supportable than him contradicting himself and teaching what amounts to dozens of contradictory martial arts all through the same material.
"The" has never been my claim. I've been looking for others that are effective.
How do you define system vs style?
Obviously, different styles have different strategies and tactics, and different methods for developing them.
Those are distinct training systems.
No one said that, so long as it is cross-trained to deal with other types of opponents.
I would challenge anyone to find an example of a competitive boxer...of any "style" of boxing....that wouldn't be recognized and labeled a "boxer" by anyone familiar with boxing!
But, no one said the different styles aren't boxing.
Boxing is a literal name for what they are all doing. "Boxing" is just not one system or style, as you indicate between Tyson and Ali.
This is like saying "kung fu" is one system and all the thousands of styles are variations of this one system. That is ridiculous.
Boxing not a martial art system like wing chun dude!
Syatems organise nd take systematic approach to problem of fighting. That is why theyr systems!! Systems have some idea about how they want too deal with the mess of real fights. The system makes sense of confused mess, controls unknowns. All about control
Boxingyou can take any approach you like within limited ruleset comps. No ideas about the fight at all, only the comp so not a system. Since comp is very limited rules then creative ways get encourage within limited rule set to try and beat other guys. Only natural.
Ideas in real system often better than in pure sport because at least attemps to deal with real fight. Some system better than others tho!!
Trainin method in sport is good too build them reflexts and make u aware of what it really takes.
Best option is combine the 2 ways!!
Bino TWT
Green Belt
Some of my top books on the subject are:
Wing Tsun Kuen by Leung Ting
Complete Wing Chun by Robert Chu
The Tao of Gung Fu by Bruce Lee
On Single Combat by Kieth Kernspecht
I have many many books by many authors/Sifu's, but those are my top 4.
Wing Tsun Kuen by Leung Ting
Complete Wing Chun by Robert Chu
The Tao of Gung Fu by Bruce Lee
On Single Combat by Kieth Kernspecht
I have many many books by many authors/Sifu's, but those are my top 4.
