Another Wing Chun Forum Thread Locked!!

[Steve]

Allow me to ask a simple question here.

If A puts up a clip online and B says it's a bad clip, should B put up a better clip to prove why he had said that A's clip is bad?

In other words, can you say something is bad if you can't prove that you will be able to do better?

I would say, "it depends." All things are relative, but my opinion is that a lot of the butthurt around here stems from a need to compare one thing to another, rather than taking the issue at hand on its own merits. And I often observe that where no comparison is explicitly stated, the butthurt individual will infer it and get upset anyway.

If A puts up a clip, and B says it's bad, the only thing B needs to do (IMO) is support his position. Take, for example, some anti-grappling videos. I've gone on record as saying that some of these are very bad. I'm not commenting on the entire art of WC. I am commenting on those specific videos. I try to articulate specifically why I think they're bad, but don't feel any obligation to post something better. That's a quick road to an X vs Y thread, which is what often takes the threads on a bad route.

 

[dudewingchun]

This does seem a bit biased and doesn't reflect the way you have interacted with me in private messages.

I know. But just over it. Nothing personal. Im just saying what I think about current forum events.

 

[geezer]

Hmm, two people X my post to "disagree" but don't bother explaining themselves.

Seems rather obnoxious and unproductive in a thread about trying to understand each other and get along...

People being unwilling to explain themselves and just being argumentative is a big part of the problem on this forum.

Not many straight talkers here.

Using words like "obnoxious" and suggesting that there are few "straight talkers" i.e. few honest people here makes a strong point for sure, but only hardens them in their positions. Did you watch the clip in post #19? ....At any rate, I found it very informative.

Funny thing is that unlike the statistical majority of people (according to the data presented) I find that I sometimes have a better chance of persuading people online than in person ...especially at my job. In person, my coworkers all have ego invested. Presenting convincing arguments contrary to their positions often threatens their status. So I just back off. Here, debating WC/VT/WT (an avocation that I love) I have nothing personal at stake.

When I do disagree with the opinions of others, I can try to politely persuade the other party and failing that, I just let it go. Besides, as pointed out in the clip above, although you may be able to persuade someone to consider your point of view, you will not "win" once it becomes a contentious argument even if you present conclusive evidence. Almost certainly all you will end up doing is galvanizing the other person's beliefs no matter how irrational they may seem to you. Look how that has happened time and again on this forum.

I'm of the opinion that those involved in these ongoing disputes have shown themselves to be intelligent and articulate. What they seem to lack is the self control necessary to conduct a civil discussion. Just like the humorous characters arguing in that video, you and they seem obsessed with being right. Of course, I may be totally wrong about this!

 

[guy b.]

Hmm, two people X my post to "disagree" but don't bother explaining themselves.

Seems rather obnoxious and unproductive in a thread about trying to understand each other and get along...

People being unwilling to explain themselves and just being argumentative is a big part of the problem on this forum.

Not many straight talkers here.

I would agree that people being unwilling to explain has caused problems on the forum.

 

[guy b.]

In other words, can you say something is bad if you can't prove that you will be able to do better? IMO, if you can't support what you want to say, you should not say it in the first place.

Well yes of course you can. If that wasn't the case then businesses would be run by the fastest and hardest working manual labourers rather than by the most creative and inspirational CEO's, sports coaches would all be the best players rather than the most strategic thinkers, armies would be led by the men on the ground best at killing people, rather than by the best generals. And so on.

It is perfectly fine to have a discussion about martial arts without resorting to video battles and challenge fights every few posts. In fact I think that if people realised we are here only to talk about VT rather than to do it, we would probably get on a lot better.

 

[dudewingchun]

Well yes of course you can. If that wasn't the case then businesses would be run by the fastest and hardest working manual labourers rather than by the most creative and inspirational CEO's, sports coaches would all be the best players rather than the most strategic thinkers, armies would be led by the men on the ground best at killing people, rather than by the best generals. And so on.

It is perfectly fine to have a discussion about martial arts without resorting to video battles and challenge fights every few posts. In fact I think that if people realised we are here only to talk about VT rather than to do it, we would probably get on a lot better.

You have a good point. But regarding the challenge " fight" Alan said if you dont think Peter is skilled then hes happy to come and spar with you so you have a proper evaluation. Saying you visited 8 years ago and asking for money to spar when you always imply that you are a good fighter and would be able to handle it no problem is odd to me, whats the problem? If you were sparring all the time then you would have the same mentality as me ( I presume) in which sparring is sparring and there is no ego really involved apart from testing skills . Are you expecting some sort of gang war or a full fledged fight to the death ? The only reason I could think of is you are scared or lazy, what happened to your Logical VT thinking that should be able to beat everything ?

Nothing personal. Typing in a forum makes it impossible to properly realise the intention of words, dont think im " mad" . I think you are a bit of a hypocrite to be honest though.

Obviously im with Alan and agree with what he has said . I didnt even know he was on this forum though.

 

[guy b.]

whats the problem?

The problem is that Alan was offended and angry. Instead of using words to deal with the problem he issued a challenge fight. That isn't how to win an argument.

It is an extreme version of the flawed argument being made above - i.e. you aren't allowed to comment on the (fully public) MMA record of fighter x unless you can beat him in a fight! It is just wrong. A bad argument.

You can claim that Alan only wanted egoless sparring as usual, but personally I would tend to avoid fighting when pride and temper is flared unless I was getting paid for it. The people I usually spar with are friends or at least acquaintances. I don't think there is much to be gained from sparring after an argument. Mutual benefit and all that.

If you were sparring all the time then you would have the same mentality as me ( I presume) in which sparring is sparring and there is no ego really involved apart from testing skills

Issuing a challenge on a forum is pretty much the definition of ego involvement. I think that Alan did it because he thought it was a trump card which would end the discussion. I don't think it did him any favours personally. It looks very weak in terms of argument content, and is an example of the fallacy outlined in the post above.

Please stop trying to slip in deductions about whether I am really sparring often and insinuating that I am not being truthful. This is just more of the same thing that got the other thread closed. My reasons for not accepting Alan's challenge are outlined above and, although I understand you are angry about it, I believe I dealt with it in the right way.

 

[dudewingchun]

The problem is that Alan was offended and angry. Instead of using words to deal with the problem he issued a challenge fight. That isn't how to win an argument.

You can call it sparring as usual, but personally I would tend to avoid fighting when pride and temper is flared unless I was getting paid for it. The people I usually spar with are friends or at least acquaintences.



Issuing a challenge on a forum is the almost the definition of ego involvement. Alan did it because he thought it was a trump card which would end the discussion. I don't think it did him any favors personally. It looks very weak in terms of argument content, and is an example of the fallacy outlined in the post above.

I straight up disagree with everything you just said. It seems like you saw his messages and created your own intention about what he said. Did Alan tell you he thought it was a trump card to end discussion ? or did you just come up with that based on what you thought the intention of his written words were ?

I do not think Alan was actually angry. He just does not take ******** from anyone. Do you need him to sugarcoat his words to make you happy ? You offended his good friend and belittled his skills when me and Alan both know that Pete is a very good fighter. Its not about winning an argument online. You say Peter is no good and you can handle it, which is only something that can be verified in REAL LIFE. How is that supposed to be proven through words ? Hes not going to come beat the **** out of you in some rage and not stop.

How about I pay you ? Whats your price ? Will you then ? because I genuinely would like to see your WSL Ving Tsun too. Just tap if things dont end up going your way. We live in a time where we can record anything on our phones. Actions speak louder then words.

If this was me in your situation, I would of already posted the video of me and him sparring.

I have zero personal malice towards you and LFJ but that doesn't stop me from saying what I think when I disagree.

 

[guy b.]

Did Alan tell you he thought it was a trump card to end discussion ? or did you just come up with that based on what you thought the intention of his written words were ?

That interpretation is giving Alan the benefit of the doubt. What is the alternative? That he routinely issues physical challenges to people that disagree with him using words? I think that Alan didn't want to keep talking about it, for whatever reason, and so said something silly. Since neither of us is inside Alan's head, I guess we will never really know.

You offended his good friend and belittled his skills when me and Alan both know that Pete is a very good fighter.

This is a very strange interpretation of what I posted on the forum. There is no shame in identifying the level of a fighter from his record. Records are public. It doesn't belittle anyone. It is quite possible to be a 'very good fighter' and a low to mid level MMA fighter. It is all a matter of perspective.

hich is only something that can be verified in REAL LIFE

I was talking about Peter's MMA record, his level in the sport, not launching a personal attack against him.

Whats your price ? Will you then ? because I genuinely would like to see your WSL Ving Tsun too. Just tap if things dont end up going your way. We live in a time where we can record anything on our phones. Actions speak louder then words.

You want to fly me to NZ so that you can fight me, and you wish to record the encounter on your phone?

 

[dudewingchun]

That interpretation is giving Alan the benefit of the doubt. What is the alternative? That he routinely issues physical challenges to people that disagree with him using words? I think that Alan didn't want to keep talking about it, for whatever reason, and so said something silly. Since neither of us is inside Alan's head, I guess we will never really know.



This is a very strange interpretation of what I posted on the forum. There is no shame in identifying the level of a fighter from his record. Records are public. It doesn't belittle anyone. It is quite possible to be a 'very good fighter' and a low to mid level MMA fighter. It is all a matter of perspective.



I was talking about Peter's MMA record, his level in the sport, not launching a personal attack against him.



You want to fly me to NZ so that you can fight me, and you wish to record the encounter on your phone?

Not going to reply because this could go on forever.

But no I meant pay for you to spar Pete since that was your condition. If I was a millionaire I would be buying your ticket right now but im not.

Lets just agree to disagree on this and leave it at that.

 

[Tames D]

I wonder if the ban hammer is gonna come down on Mr. Orr and dudewingchun? I understand challenges are an automatic ban.

 

[LFJ]

few "straight talkers" i.e. few honest people

I just meant direct and plain speaking.

There is a lot of tap dancing done when some people are pressed on simple things.

Not that they are trying to be dishonest, just vague and evasive when faced with difficult questions.

you and they seem obsessed with being right.

Well, I don't do the tap dancing. I welcome logical critiques of my method. Might learn something from an outside perspective.

The thing is, though, when an argument is brought upon me and I explain what I do in detail, people end up accepting that it makes sense even if they do something different.

Like my interpretation of "bridge" in my lineage's fighting strategy. Or I'm asked for a clip of sparring, show a bit, and it is pretty well-received.

It's when I give a logical argument against other ideas, that they just tell me I'm "wrong" without explaining exactly how or simply X my post.

So, I say there aren't many straight talkers here.

 

[geezer]

It's when I give a logical argument against other ideas, that they just tell me I'm "wrong" without explaining exactly how or simply X my post. ...So, I say there aren't many straight talkers here.

Did you actually watch the video Xue posted on the previous page? It doesn't matter that your arguments seem logical and convincing to you. They probably won't be seen that way by others once you've developed an antagonistic relationship with them on the forum. Really, why not just accept that?

And when you say that there aren't many straight talkers, consider that that's exactly how you and Guy come off to a lot of people.

 

[dudewingchun]

I wonder if the ban hammer is gonna come down on Mr. Orr and dudewingchun? I understand challenges are an automatic ban.

Really ? I didn't realise. Its not a challenge though anyway. We are on a martial arts forum and the people in the forum cant handle doing martial arts in real life ? boggles my mind.

 

[LFJ]

Did you actually watch the video Xue posted on the previous page? It doesn't matter that your arguments seem logical and convincing to you. They probably won't be seen that way by others once you've developed an antagonistic relationship with them on the forum. Really, why not just accept that?

Yeah, must be the "caveman effect". People get frustrated when pressed on difficult questions, but rather than rationally consider why the question is causing them difficulty, or just defend their positions with facts and details, they get angry and argumentative.

It has happened to me before, in many areas, that I've been faced with a more rational argument. My first and natural reaction was to try and logically defend my current beliefs. But when it came to the point that my mistakes were obvious, I didn't get angry. I accepted the facts and adjusted my beliefs accordingly.

If other people aren't able to do that, I can only assume they don't care whether their beliefs are true, logic sound, or fighting strategies really applicable.

One poster even admitted they don't care whether or not their system actually works in a fight. I wish more people were as straight as that. There's no shame as long as you don't pretend to care when you really don't.

And when you say that there aren't many straight talkers, consider that that's exactly how you and Guy come off to a lot of people.

As straight talkers? I've probably clearly explained my system in more detail than anyone else on this forum, and have been welcoming to criticism. I don't get angry at criticism. I just give more explanations if I think it is misplaced.

There have been a number of posters saying they now feel they understand the system I train more and can see where I'm coming from.

Unfortunately, I can't say that about too many others. Most of the time, I have no clue what their idea of Wing Chun is, even after pages of discussion. Because all we get is a big tap dance and vague responses.

 

[Phobius]

LFJ, I sadly think you assume people being vague is a matter of intention. Not a language barrier.

You are maybe not always understood, and if you are then you might not properly understand others text. One personal opinion about your discussion tactics is that you seem to want to fill in the blanks rather than ask if you understood things correctly and as such you turn a discussion to argumentation.
When you fill in blanks you make assumptions for others on how or why they do something, and if incorrect it leads to people being upset with you for troll-like behaviour.

I can understand that this is not your intention, and if you do not like my observation then I am sorry to have given it to you.

Now as for me? I am guessing my problem is getting a point out correctly. Reason being that I tend to sometimes focus on a certain area of a question or comment and miss to convey the whole picture. This is of course just an assumption on a flaw of mine.

So where is now the bonfire and guitar when spilling our guts here?

 

[LFJ]

One personal opinion about your discussion tactics is that you seem to want to fill in the blanks rather than ask if you understood things correctly and as such you turn a discussion to argumentation.
When you fill in blanks you make assumptions for others on how or why they do something, and if incorrect it leads to people being upset with you for troll-like behaviour.

I realize this, because there are a lot of blanks.

I often end up chasing people around the blanks if I don't make pointed questions.

If their answers are always vague, and if I don't fill in a blank with a possibility to drive the conversation, it just dies and we get nowhere.

Rather than get upset at my assumptions and argue about how terrible that is, I wish they'd just be direct and leave no room for assumptions!

If people aren't enthusiastic about openly discussing their systems, I gotta wonder why they visit a discussion forum.

 

[wckf92]

I've always said that the root of all the issues and perceived tension in a online discussion forum is a difference in how things are defined. If we all have varying ideas on the definition of say...'hand chasing'...(and throw in the fact that we all drink our own particular blend of lineage-flavored Kool Aid).... we'll never get anywhere when discussing WC/VT/WT.

 

[Danny T]

Another Wow!
This thread has become a very productive exchange.

Food for thought.
There are 3 primary modes that humans use to process thoughts; visual, auditory, kinesthetic. Both use emotion and physical feelings. Understanding these modes can help to develop rapport and a connection with others.

Some may have people have an easy time describing their thoughts and ideas. Writing them not so much. Some people are very vocal and can speak their thoughts but putting them in a written form can be difficult and then there are those who can do or show but then verbalization or writing can be hard for them.

I for one have a very difficult time putting my thoughts on paper. My mind switches channels very quickly and the ability to sit and type out a thought is rather time consuming for me. In the time it takes me to type a sentence my mind will have covered 6, 7, 8 other thoughts or ways to describe what I am wanting to convey and of course I then have to rewrite my ever changing thoughts. I am a kinesthetic person. To have to sit and listen or to read instructions and do what is described is not simple. I have to physically do. For me to sit and write out describing what I am physically doing, the physical feelings, my mental thoughts is not simple and does not take just a few minutes.

To understand others and how to communicate differing ideas and opinions we must understand how they think, how they communicate, and how they absorb information.

 

[Marnetmar]

Leaves for a day or so

Comes back and checks the thread

NOPE

Leaves again