5/10/2009 10:52am, #11I think you missed the point. Did you read my post?
5/10/2009 10:59am, #12
- Join Date
- May 2002
Someday the chunners will realize that there is no more shame in their style having no answer to boxing hands, than there is in boxing having no answer to Thai kicks. Their problem stems from their self-concept as the CMA streetfighting art. Even if this is true on the streets of Cowloon, that doesn't make it so in Dublin. Western streetfighting is IMO a different animal all together.
IIF, you have made many interesting posts about the similarities between Hsing-I and boxing. Do you feel than WC would have the same intrinsic problems dealing with that art assuming both fighters were not completly "dead" in the training?
Disclaimer: I know many posters here will say its the training methodology, and not the style, but c'mon, many if not most styles are limited by their tactics, techniques, and strategies even when trained non-compliant. If they start to really change as a result of more realistic training, this kind of begs the question, as the context (and the style) will have shifted.Now darkness comes; you don't know if the whales are coming. - Royce Gracie
KosherKickboxer has t3h r34l chi sao
In De Janerio, in blackest night,
Luta Livre flees the fight,
Behold Maeda's sacred tights;
Beware my power... Blue Lantern's light!
5/10/2009 11:15am, #13
Now, what do you do to compensate with those arts? You add a striking art. You don't invent **** you add to it.
Wing chun was supposedly a quick to learn Self Defense art. Hit quick deflect escape. Quick trips, quick sweeps, and get the **** out. No take downs, no submissions, no grabs, no throws. Somewhere, it became a primary fighting style that does everything and that is where the failure occurs IMO.
I mean we have people running around saying certain moves are jabs, chokes, throws, and submissions. **** that never existed before is suddenly coded in the form. How about you just work the art the way it was intended. When you find a hole go train somewhere else?
That's what all the bios of all the CMA masters did. Funny how they could learn 3,5,7 etc styles but only they can combine it correctly.
The failure in CMA IMO in the last 50-60 years is that cross-training became a bad thing.
Hell, the supposed basics of the chun was a quick to learn art for Self defense. If you look at it closely a ton of it is stop and run tactics IMO.
Somewhere along the line it became a primary art and stopped evloving.
5/10/2009 11:45am, #14
5/10/2009 1:15pm, #15
- Join Date
- Nov 2008
YouTube - "Hard School" Wing Chun Bong Kiu.
claims in one of his instructionals, that WC originally was not a seperate school at all, but instead a forms-subset of Hung-Gar, which complemented the other, more wide-ranged sets.
Dunno how legit he is though...
5/10/2009 2:17pm, #16
- Join Date
- May 2008
All you have to do is look at the opponent instead of the practitioner.
Even Aikido looks impressive until you realize that everyone just throws themselves at the demonstrator. It's pretty much the same thing here. The sensei looks impressive with all his spiffy moves, but in the end it's just another demonstration made to look like an actual fight.
I'm sorry you got wailed on, op. We've just seen too much bullshit to be very tolerant of it.
Last edited by hornyhobo; 5/10/2009 2:28pm at .
5/10/2009 3:23pm, #17
Knee? That's a slipping.
Front kick? Whoops! Flat on the ground.
Secret banana peels: the __un advantage.
In all seriousness, any sparring or competition vids from this guy? No?
A demo is supposed to be impressive. It is propaganda, an idealized version of what it wants to be.
5/10/2009 3:45pm, #18
Besides the fact that these videos were BS, here's my problem with "Modified" styles. Why must you take ouside tecniques and relable them so that you can say that the original style was effective, when it was clearly not? Why not just drop the crap? Why not give credit where it is due. Wouldnt it be stupid if they incorporate the omoplata(for instance) calling it some 3 letter chinese word and say "LOOK AT OUR GREAT STYLE".
It reminds me again of Eddie Bravo and all of his BS.
Last edited by Siniq; 5/10/2009 3:48pm at .Originally Posted by MrBadGuy
5/10/2009 4:13pm, #19
Xingyi is a CMA striking art that is it.
You want throws? Go do some fucking Judo.
You want submissions? Go do some fucking BJJ.
If it is your own personal style, that you fight or compete with, I'm cool.
If you are going to teach a mixed style, get respectable rank and call it what it is BJJ, Judo, and Xingyi.
5/11/2009 12:42am, #20
- Join Date
- Nov 2008
On the other hand, the "traditional" MA styles have never been frozen for such a long time before. They where allways in constant evolution. I mean, take a look at the differences in Hung-Gar for example. Just try and compare the pre/non Wong-Fei-Hung lineages with those who have him in their pedigree... that was a massive wave of addons.
Especially the chinese schools absorbed more or less whatever they found useful. Sometimes even the whole curriculum of another school.
So why should they stop developing now, just because they are traditional styles/schools?
I am all with the criticism on improper naming, or on schools trying to pretend that they allways "had" what clearly was not there a few weeks ago.
But, to stay with an example given before, if a kung-fu style was to implement the omoplata (accompanied by general groundfighting taken from BJJ) and would properly name it such, with a proper referral to its origin, would that be such a bad thing?
Are they only allowed to cannibalize on other chinese arts? If so, why? And why now, when they clearly did not have that restriction in the past?
How about a "28 divine hands of Helios Gracie crushing the mountains" form? :biggrin: