Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

XingYi on BJJ

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • WingChun Lawyer
    replied
    Originally posted by Matt W.
    WCL,

    He does praise their specialization, that's true. But I must disagree that the quote you referrenced summarizes his points. It was more of an aside.
    I am still not sure about this.

    Still, I mostly agree with your statements - I am certainly not naive enough to believe that any striking art holds the solution to all the problems you can encounter in a fight, chinese or not.

    What happens is that people, first of all, are not learning real Gong Fu, so they don't have the necessary technique to avoid being taken to the ground.
    Concepts work in any situation; they work standing or on the ground.
    I agree with you on disagreeing with this statement, Matt. Different ranges of fighting, different concepts.

    Listen, WCL, we get along. But I think you're being way too kind to this guy. And I hope I demonstrated I did read that page in detail. The guy's still full of it.

    Leave a comment:


  • chaosexmachina
    replied
    If there was a stance or technique in XingYi that could stop a takedown, it would be used in MMA competition, by at least a few fighters. And they'd probably make a big deal out of it. Unless they used it unknowingly, but in that case, it's not really XingYi...!

    Leave a comment:


  • HAPKO3
    replied
    Matt's right.

    This guy is full of it. And the fact that he throws in an occasional compliment to apcify BJJ people doesn't change any of that.

    Leave a comment:


  • Matt W.
    replied
    WCL,

    He does praise their specialization, that's true. But I must disagree that the quote you referrenced summarizes his points. It was more of an aside. On the page you linked to, his main point seemed to be trying to refute the following so-called myths...
    1 - All the fights begin standing and end up on the ground - there is nothing you can do about it.

    2 - If a BJJ fighter takes you to the ground, then it's all over.

    3 - If a BJJ fighters achieves the "mounted" position, it's all over.

    4 - You have to learn how to fight on the ground

    5 - Mixed martial arts are the best
    Now, with the exception of some hyperbole in 1 and 5, I basically think all those things are true. And even where there might be some room for intellegent disagreement, he fails to provide any, IMO. He says things like...

    What happens is that people, first of all, are not learning real Gong Fu, so they don't have the necessary technique to avoid being taken to the ground.
    This is either the old, lame "If your 'gong fu' is good enough you can't be taken to the ground" fallacy, the "kung fu has always had grappling in it" fallacy, or both! Either way, the truth is they don't have the necessary techniques to avoid getting taken to the ground, but it's not because they don't have the "real gong fu". It's because you have to know how to grapple in order to avoid takedowns.

    The Gong Fu style you practice should give you tools so you can deal with this techniques [takedowns].
    WRONG. Only grappling, including knowing how to execute those takedowns, gives you the tools you need to avoid them.

    People don't know real Xing Yi Quan.
    Blah, blah, blah. Those people got crushed, but only because they don't know the REAL _fill in the blank_! Blah, blah, blah. So who are these people who know the real XY??? Where are they? What have they been doing? Because they sure haven't been out there competing and fighting and winning. Or, could it be that even the "Real Xing Yi" does not satisfactorily address grappling? Hmmmm. Applying Occam's Razor, I find that last question to be the most reasonable.

    That's why myths like this spread so fast, because almost no one out there can prove they are only myths.
    Remove the "almost".

    Teachers train their student in the use of techniques that work for certain situations.
    Who says there's not people out there that still have no idea what aliveness is???

    Concepts work in any situation; they work standing or on the ground.
    This has already been ably addressed in this thread, so suffice it to say that this is total and utter crap, which is easily disproven.

    High levels of skill in any martial come only through specialization in a certain art.
    #1Plumber and Strong Machine will testify... Crappy grapplers and MMAers can routinely beat expert strikers. TMAers aren't getting beat by only grapplers with "high levels of skill". They get beat even by the mediocre ones.

    At the other hand, BJJ fighters spend hours and hours at BJJ schools learning... guess what? Yes, only BJJ.
    This guy knows nothing. First, he seems to be equating BJJ exclusively with fighting on the ground. Second, he obviously has missed the fact that EVERY BJJ SCHOOL I'VE EVER HEARD OF has Vale Tudo/MMA training. And third, many, many BJJers actually end up becoming MMAers and study boxing, Muay Thai, wrestling, etc.

    they decide that they have to divide their time between Gong Fu and BJJ or wrestling.
    Here, he has a point. They should do just the BJJ and wrestling.

    If it is the " kick boxing " kind of Gong Fu, you will never feel safe anyway.
    That's the only kind worth knowing, IMO. Add some groundfighting and you're good to go.

    For this is only sport. Kick boxing is ok, but don't expect do beat a man like Rickson Gracie with that. You need a real martial art. You need Xing Yi Quan.
    Hah! He knows this how? Because he, or some other Xing Yi players have beaten Gracies? No, of course not! Backing up a claim like this never enters into his mind. It's all theory meant to keep people from realizing they've been training in stuff that doesn't work. Phaw!

    How about the famous Che Yi Zhai, Guo Yun Sheng, Wang Xiang Zhai ?
    Who?

    If you learn Xing Yi from a good teacher, you have all the conditions to defeat a grappler.
    Pure BULLSHIDO!

    Listen, WCL, we get along. But I think you're being way too kind to this guy. And I hope I demonstrated I did read that page in detail. The guy's still full of it.

    Regards,
    Matt
    Last edited by Matt W.; 3/08/2004 12:50pm, .

    Leave a comment:


  • Kidnemo
    replied
    I read (and hear) about TMA practitioners saying stuff about "how you don't need grappling", or "my technique (or style) is good enough that I don't need to worry about fighting on the ground" pretty regularly and it's kinda dissapointing.

    I would think these people would seek out a BBJ, or Muai Thai, or MMA practioner and test their style against it. You read stuff about when many of the TMA styles were being developed the masters at the time seeking out other styles/masters and pit their skills against them to see the strengths, and weaknesses of their own style.

    It would make sense to me that people would still want to do this today...

    Unfortunantly most people are just happy to do what their teachers tell them, not try to learn and grow on their own, and adhere more to ancient precepts, than to develop their style.

    Bottom line - if you say your style can take on said style, or is immue to such-and-such technique...prove it, then I'll start listening.

    (sorry about the rant all...I got a bit OT there, and I'm a TMA'er myself)

    Leave a comment:


  • chaosexmachina
    replied
    Ahhh....! I will now avoid both lawyers and TV.

    Leave a comment:


  • WingChun Lawyer
    replied
    Originally posted by chaosexmachina
    That means you're evil, right? Or do I watch too much television?
    Both.

    Leave a comment:


  • chaosexmachina
    replied
    Oh yeah, lawyer... That means you're evil, right? Or do I watch too much television?

    Leave a comment:


  • WingChun Lawyer
    replied
    Originally posted by chaosexmachina
    Kind of a jump there, I'll admit...
    Admit it - you are no match for my powers of pedantry! (plus, I am a lawyer)

    Leave a comment:


  • chaosexmachina
    replied
    What I meant when I said that he was representing BBJers is the 'myths' he stated are what most grapplers (the dumbasses who miZreprAsent) state when dealing with TMAers. Kind of a jump there, I'll admit...

    Leave a comment:


  • WingChun Lawyer
    replied
    I agree with Kidnemo and chaosexmachina on that.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kidnemo
    replied
    Originally posted by chaosexmachina
    Therefore, you need different 'concepts' for both actions. Just like you need different skill sets while fighting on the ground, clinching and striking. That's not to say there is no overlap in these concepts and skillsets, it's just that these overlaps are not great enough to save you from fighting in an area you have not trained in.
    Bolded for extra reading pleasure.

    I can't imagine how people can dissagree with this.

    Leave a comment:


  • WingChun Lawyer
    replied
    Originally posted by chaosexmachina
    If that was the point he was trying to make, it would have done so to just put up that paragraph, instead of contradicting himself, and make a bit of an ass of himself speaking on behalf of XingYi and BJJ.

    Leave a comment:


  • chaosexmachina
    replied
    He did not state that, but the attitude was there.

    Leave a comment:


  • chaosexmachina
    replied
    Originally posted by WingChun Lawyer
    I think this statement summarizes the point Tadzio wanted to make, even if he did put some phrases saying grappling is unnecessary on his article. I agree with the points he tries to make here.
    If that was the point he was trying to make, it would have done so to just put up that paragraph, instead of contradicting himself, and make a bit of an ass of himself speaking on behalf of XingYi and BJJ.

    Leave a comment:

Collapse

Edit this module to specify a template to display.

Working...
X