Fantasy Martial Arts

[drop bear]

Self-defense, not fighting:
This is just silly. A pressure testing is what is essential. Self defense or fighting can be both the same or not. Self defense is a lot more than fighting. What does it mean to the art? Nothing if the student is taught in the same way no matter what.

This is a big red flag actually. Self defence in that the end point of your training is nobody ever has to use it. Or does use it in some metaphysical way.

So I can train Self defence for 20 years and if I am no good at it nobody cares. I may never have gotten in a fight in that time.

If I box and can't box. I will get my head punched in.

There is even the argument that self defence training is validated by never having to use it. But people mostly don't fight. I could validate 20 years of owning a cat that way.

 

[drop bear]

Personally, I don't see any reason why someone should be concerned with what someone else puts up on the internet in a blog like this. Decide for yourself if your training meets your needs. Lots of people seem to have a Life Mission to try and discredit anything that anyone else does if it does not conform to their own narrowly defined ideals.

I ignore articles like this one. I have ignored this article too. It's not worth the time it takes to read it.

If you think Wing Chun has something wrong with it, then do something else. Don't worry your pretty little head about what other people are doing. Ain't your business.

There are two ways to look at this problem. You can do your own style and watch people suffer shysters and failures so that you lower the skills of the people around you. The idea is you let them fail so that you can succeed.

Or you can be concerned about the success of other people in the hope that their increase in success provides the material for your own.

For me I don't think your stance is either the moral one or the practical one.

 

[anerlich]

I have ignored this article too.

Other than posting about how you ignored it, and telling other people not to worry their pretty little heads about it, yes.

Don't worry your pretty little head about what other people are doing.

You mean, like, worry about what the other people discussing this article are doing?

C'mon. It's just a discussion point KPM raised. That's why we're here. It's like being at a bar, not a philosophy summit.

 

[anerlich]

I could validate 20 years of owning a cat that way.

I've owned cats for about 33 years. So my cat owning opinions are more valid than yours.

 

[Flying Crane]

Other than posting about how you ignored it, and telling other people not to worry their pretty little heads about it, yes.



You mean, like, worry about what the other people discussing this article are doing?

C'mon. It's just a discussion point KPM raised. That's why we're here. It's like being at a bar, not a philosophy summit.

Well no, I ignored it. I didn't click on the link, I didn't open it up, I didn't read so much as a single word of it. I ignored it.

I did, however, suggest in the discussion about said article, that it's worth ignoring.

 

[anerlich]

You probably shouldn't get upset if people ignore your advice about the article, then. At least I paid you the courtesy of not doing that.

 

[drop bear]

I've owned cats for about 33 years. So my cat owning opinions are more valid than yours.

Yeah but how many street fights has owning a cat enabled you to avoid?

 

[drop bear]

You probably shouldn't get upset if people ignore your advice about the article, then. At least I paid you the courtesy of not doing that.

We get a few who do that. I don't think they realise what they are actually doing.

 

[Flying Crane]

You probably shouldn't get upset if people ignore your advice about the article, then. At least I paid you the courtesy of not doing that.

Why would I get upset?

 

[anerlich]

Yeah but how many street fights has owning a cat enabled you to avoid?

I guess I've spent time at home with my cats or at the vet that I could have otherwise spent getting into street fights. So I may have avoided a few. OTOH I may have missed out on some of the essential street fighting experience that is required to post on this forum.

 

[KPM]

I did neither.

Just noticed that when people disagreed with you, you said they "obviously didn't read the whole article".

And when they confirmed they had, you said it "must hit a little too close to home", iow "you must be fantasy martial artists."

I just think it's funny how you react to people disagreeing with you. Either deflect or insult.

Well, let's see. I posted that after 3 people had commented. You admitted you didn't read the whole article, Headhunter said that Rackemann had taken only a couple of karate classes, so it sure seemed like he hadn't read the article. That leaves Jobo. So, Ok.....Jobo I apologize for assuming you hadn't read the article!

 

[drop bear]

I read the whole article but did so in a silly Indian accent.

 

[KPM]

Personally, I don't see any reason why someone should be concerned with what someone else puts up on the internet in a blog like this.

---Like it or hate it, it provides some good points for discussion.

Decide for yourself if your training meets your needs. Lots of people seem to have a Life Mission to try and discredit anything that anyone else does if it does not conform to their own narrowly defined ideals.

---Good advice.

I ignore articles like this one. I have ignored this article too. It's not worth the time it takes to read it.

---How do you know? You didn't read it! Even if you disagreed with what Rackemann said, it would make you think about WHY you disagreed. You might even end up realizing that at some level there is some truth to what he says, even if he does take his points a bit too far at times. That's the reason for posting topics for discussion. If everyone agreed, then there would be nothing to discuss. But if you won't even consider the topic, how can you discuss it?

 

[KPM]

Ok. Here is what I thought of the article:

1. Forms Practice. I still practice my Wing Chun forms and find them valuable. But if all someone did in their Wing Chun training was forms and Chi Sau, then they would have a very false sense of their own abilities in a real exchange and if they mistakenly thought that their forms and Chi Sau training qualified them as a "fighter" they would likely be doing "Fantasy Fu."

2. Belief valued over evidence. Absolutely! Everyone wants to believe their marital art is the best thing ever! But they often lack evidence of its fighting effectiveness in a modern scenario. But they instructor often doesn't want them to go out and actually test it against others because it may shake their belief in it! Why else do you think there are so many stories about fighters in by-gone eras?

3. Self-defense not fighting. How many times have we heard this? Admit it! Plenty of Wing Chun people use the old line "We don't spar because our techniques are too dangerous. We train for self-defense only!" ???? Phobius said it right when the talked about pressure testing. I doubt Rackemann would disagree with his points. But many times people with this "self-defense" orientation DON'T pressure test. That is the problem!

4. Complicated terminology and tactics. He is talking as much about involved technique combinations as anything. I've pointed this out in the past as well. Some teachers have this involved "Lat Sau" program in teaching Chi Sau that is just completely unrealistic. If you are teaching combinations of movements that go beyond 3 counts, then it is very likely that what you are teaching is not going to work in a real situation. Especially against a non-Wing Chun person! Thinking that since you are such a wiz at completing all of these complicated Lat Sau progressions that you must be a bad MF (martial fan) fighter means you are likely practicing "Fantasy Fu"!

5. Pseudoscience isn't science. He makes a relatively weak point here. He is basically saying if people aren't pressure testing what they are doing to make sure it works, then talking about how their method is based on biomechanics, efficiency, etc. is a moot point. I don't entirely go along with him on this one.

6. Secret moves. I think this one is becoming a thing of the past with so many styles on video now. Sucking in students by promising the "ultimate fighting secrets" doesn't work as well as it used to!

7. Hierarchical System. I don't go along with him on this one either. Martial arts have a set curriculum. Working through and being able to teach that curriculum to others in a progressive fashion is hierarchical. I don't have a problem with that. There is value to having the "seasoned elders" in a system that have deep knowledge. Should the young studs with physical talent and good conditioning that could beat that senior or elder in a free fight have a higher rank? I don't think so.

8. The awesome Sifu. This is certainly a problem. We've all seen it....the instructor that wants to create this aura of the superior fighter about himself and won't let anyone seem to challenge or disrepect him. Ego is can be a bad thing and can even leave to abuse at times.

9. Past Glory. I don't think anyone in Wing Chun holds Donnie Yen up as the "poster boy" for effective Wing Chun fighting! But their is a problem with TCMAs holding up the reputations of past instructors as their sole claim to effectiveness, when modern practitioners aren't getting out there and showing that the style is still relevant. Relying on the stories of Wong Fei Hung, or Chen Man Ching, or Leung Jan, or Ip Man to say your martial art is effective rather than proving it for yourself is in the realm of "Fantasy Fu."

10. Origin stories. Yeah, this one seems irrelevant. Every fighting art has a history, whether actual or made up. What's the point?

He then goes on to blast all kinds of systems, both traditional and modern. Many with justification, but many probably without good justification. So I agree with 5 of his 10 points. Still thought it was a pretty good article that provides food for thought! And worth reading, if for no other reason that to make you examine these points in your own martial art and decide that they are not true....or that they are!

 

[JowGaWolf]

How can it be fantasy martial arts if a person never wanted to learn how to fight by using Martial arts?

 

[Rich Parsons]

What Martial D said above. I also disagree with the part about rejecting forms practice. But I thought the rest of the article where he talks about lack of competitive sparring, trying to save "face" and the rest were pretty "on the money." He describes most of the problems with "traditional" martial arts today. He also speaks to some of the points brought up on the other thread in this forum about "What is Wrong with Wing Chun." He describes a lot of what is wrong with Wing Chun! So yeah. I thought it was a pretty good article. But maybe it hits a little "too close to home" for some in this forum???

One can make those points.
I just thought it was overly long which is one of the points the article says to avoid.
I found that some of the points were argued around and not directly head on - which is another point the article said to avoid.
So if you followed half the article one would not read the article at all
The hypocrisy and inconsistencies made me frustrated and thinking it was poorly written.

As to needing to test your techniques or pressure test I agree.
As to needing to work with those outside your circle to do that to see different angles and techniques and perspectives then yes.

Yet, there was a lot of fluff to say what I said in two lines.

 

[Jenna]

I read the whole article but did so in a silly Indian accent.

Native American "indian" or subcontinent India indian? I tried reading it wearing a beret. Made no difference.

 

[KPM]

How can it be fantasy martial arts if a person never wanted to learn how to fight by using Martial arts?

True. Not everyone studies martial arts to learn how to fight. Some take a Tai Chi class for health. Some take a Tae Kwon Do class just for exercise and maybe sport. And some take a "traditional" martial art just for the sake of participating in and preserving a "tradition." But there are plenty out there that do have a false sense of being able to take care of themselves against a street attack. And there are some out there that think they would have no problem in a modern free fight scenario. And there are plenty of instructors that encourage those ideas in their students even though they don't "pressure test" or train very realistically. But they might get a surprise if they ever had to put those ideas to the test!

 

[KPM]

I just thought it was overly long which is one of the points the article says to avoid.
I found that some of the points were argued around and not directly head on - which is another point the article said to avoid.
So if you followed half the article one would not read the article at all

That conclusion seems odd to me. He was talking about the study of martial arts when he made those points, not the writing of articles on a blogsite. And it seems odd to disregard an article based upon the composer's writing abilities rather than his actual points.

 

[JowGaWolf]

True. Not everyone studies martial arts to learn how to fight. Some take a Tai Chi class for health. Some take a Tae Kwon Do class just for exercise and maybe sport. And some take a "traditional" martial art just for the sake of participating in and preserving a "tradition." But there are plenty out there that do have a false sense of being able to take care of themselves against a street attack. And there are some out there that think they would have no problem in a modern free fight scenario. And there are plenty of instructors that encourage those ideas in their students even though they don't "pressure test" or train very realistically. But they might get a surprise if they ever had to put those ideas to the test!

Maybe the guy in the article should have used a better word than "fantasy" to me fantasy would be something that has false application. A teacher can know the techniques and know the application of the techniques, but has no clue how to apply the techniques in a fight. If this is the case then the system isn't a fantasy martial arts, it just means that the teaching is incomplete.

From what I picked up when reading the article, the author is talking more about incomplete teaching in the context of being able to fight using martial arts. In my mind this is not the same thing as fantasy martial arts. To me fantasy martial arts = kids playing pretend martial arts
There's no martial application of this stuff.

But it looks good when the effects come in

Incomplete teaching to me is when a teacher doesn't know all aspects of a system. They either know the fighting aspects but not the healing aspects or they know the health aspects but not the fighting aspects. Lacking in either one doesn't make it a fantasy system. If someone wants to learn how to fight using a martial arts system then they should ask the teacher if they can help the student reach that. Then the student has to make the effort to use the techniques to fight. A teacher alone cannot teach a student how to fight, he/ she can only get the student half way there. The rest is up to the student. The reason I say this is because, I have taught student who wanted to learn how to fight using Jow Ga kung fu, but for whatever reason, they never tried to use the techniques in free sparring exercises. They can't learn to fight with kung fu if they don't try to fight with kung fu. So if you see them fight and they can't use Jow Ga kung fu, does that make the system fantasy?