The point is if style x is based on throwing, style y is based on locking and style z is based on kicking. Wouldn't it be fair to say that style d which is based on throwing be similar to style x? Now if we determine that style x & style d share 75% of their principles, concepts & theory, couldn't we presume that they are related and most likely of shared ancestry. If during the course of their evolution the fundamental technology is not changed only the aesthetics is it any different than it's relative. Take the example of a compound bow. One is plain with no adornments, is red and uses target arrows, it is also used exclusively for target practice. The other is decked out in camouflage, has silencers, a sight and uses hunting arrows. Are they fundamentally different? No, they are both compound bows, they are simply used differently. It is not a comparison of hunting rifle to hunting bow. Though used for the same purpose, the technology used is not the same. So we cannot use the generalization that all boxing styles are the same, we must look at their technological make up to determine its classification.
Martial Art or Theory?
- Thread starter dlcox
- Start date
Vajramusti
Master Black Belt
Vajramusti
Master Black Belt
In the examples provided- the principles are actually different IMO. Although the same principles can also have different applications.
zuti car
Blue Belt
Principals are the same , applications are different, I am practicing both arts and explanation why is something done are pretty much the same. How it is done is what is different
Last edited:
Vajramusti
Master Black Belt
-------------------------
Ok for you if you say so
zuti car
Blue Belt
I am interested in one thing , on what bases you build your opinion and knowledge about White Crane, specifically Zonghe quan , which is quite specific and different from other Crane styles . Did you spent any time practicing it , so you have first hand experience and knowledge gained from a legitimate teacher or your knowledge \opinion is based on something else ?
Zuti, maybe it's just a matter of perspective. Some people have a more narrow definition of what is WC than others. For example there are plenty of people from some branches of the Yip man lineage don't even recognize other branches of the same lineage as worthy of being called WC. As far as I'm concerned, I see WC qualities in many other arts, some historically linked to ours, others totally unrelated. And I really don't care what people call it. A rose by any other name, if you catch my drift.
Now could you explain a bit more about how Zonghe Quan expresses WC concepts. I'm fascinated.
zuti car
Blue Belt
This is the same for Zonghe , the difference is , Zonghe structure allows that practitioner does not have to face the opponent all the time . In a situation where opponent is on , let use TWC terminology on our blind side and have a bridge , in wing chun practitioner has to recover his center ad regain a control of the space . In Zonghe, structure allows to break opponents structure without facing him and eventually come to the position where center will be regained and controlled by diagonal moving and force projection . I will continue after lunch
Good point IMO. It's good to discuss things with open minded individuals even though opinions may differ. There will always be value in the kind of discussion that makes one re-evaluate & think even if the original view doesn't change.
Kwan Sau
Purple Belt
zuti car
Blue Belt
Sorry , I don't understand, neither does WC what ?
Kwan Sau
Purple Belt
Oops...sorry Zuti. Let me explain more.
Your comment about facing is what I meant. You seem to be saying that WC must face 100% of the time...or did I misunderstand you?
Anyway, I was just commenting that WC does not always have to face, hence the myriad footwork found in the system.
Thanks Z!
zuti car
Blue Belt
My apologies to , I was not completely accurate . You have to face the opponent in the moment of exchange . I was talking about this situation . Crane structure allows to direct full power diagonally through the hand that was controlled into the center of the opponent and brake the control , also various punches can follow .No footwork , or any recovery technique is needed Also , even without punches or pushes simple step diagonally toward opponent;s center will brake his control and force him to retreat .
If you find your self in this situation , what will you do ?
Last edited:
Kwan Sau
Purple Belt
Thx Z...
Danny T
Senior Master
What is the left hand of Chung doing? Holding, pressing, pulling? Is he punching with body structure or is he stepping forward and pressuring with his body as well? Is he redirecting yet yeilding due to the pressure applied by Oram? All will change how one will respond?
If you find your self in this situation , what will you do ?
The point is if style x is based on throwing, style y is based on locking and style z is based on kicking. Wouldn't it be fair to say that style d which is based on throwing be similar to style x? Now if we determine that style x & style d share 75% of their principles, concepts & theory, couldn't we presume that they are related and most likely of shared ancestry.
---Not necessarily! Take for example Savate & Tae Kwon Do. Savate evolved in Europe due to an environment where it was illegal and highly penalized to strike with a fist. So they learned to strike with a foot. Then it evolves to what it is today due to use in sport. Contrast to TKD, which started as Karate blended with an indigenous kicking style in Korea and evolved to what it is today due to use in sport. So Savate & TKD will seem very similar and share similar principles and even techniques, but not because of shared ancestry.
So we cannot use the generalization that all boxing styles are the same, we must look at their technological make up to determine its classification.
---I agree. Looking at historical connections is interesting. But in the end, what is really gained?
---Not necessarily! Take for example Savate & Tae Kwon Do. Savate evolved in Europe due to an environment where it was illegal and highly penalized to strike with a fist. So they learned to strike with a foot. Then it evolves to what it is today due to use in sport. Contrast to TKD, which started as Karate blended with an indigenous kicking style in Korea and evolved to what it is today due to use in sport. So Savate & TKD will seem very similar and share similar principles and even techniques, but not because of shared ancestry.
So we cannot use the generalization that all boxing styles are the same, we must look at their technological make up to determine its classification.
---I agree. Looking at historical connections is interesting. But in the end, what is really gained?
Both Savate & Zapote have versions of their histories that state the art was brought back from Asia by French sailors. This is just me being nitpicky but I think you can see where I'm going with this. Tae Kwan Do is based on Tae Kyeon, it's not impossible that Tae Kyeon was practiced by Manchu soldiers. Archeologists & Anthropologist have proven that many ancient cultures were not as isolated as once thought. Circumpolar Shamanism is one such prominent theory. Yes I agree that things evolve, but nothing exist in a vacuum. There is always the possibility of a legitimate connection. Maybe sometimes it is just wishful thinking for a connection and it is just coincidence, sometimes it is not. We will never know if we don't try to figure out origins. One of man's greatest questions is "Where did we come from?", this question can be applied to many different areas.
Vajramusti
Master Black Belt
Vajramusti
Master Black Belt
On TKD-a Korean general (Choi??) went to japan and brought Karate to Korea, changed some things including turning on the ball of the foot for kicking and presto TKD was born, it seems.
Some overlapping in threads:
BTW- Ip Man did not repeatedly tell a Leung Bik story- a magazine interview, and a .few chit chats with top students. His legitimacy was in his skills.
He didn't "forget" to list Leung Bik in his history outline. Traditionally(Confucian influence) the first sifu remains the sifu- Chan Wa Shun.
Some overlapping in threads:
BTW- Ip Man did not repeatedly tell a Leung Bik story- a magazine interview, and a .few chit chats with top students. His legitimacy was in his skills.
He didn't "forget" to list Leung Bik in his history outline. Traditionally(Confucian influence) the first sifu remains the sifu- Chan Wa Shun.
zuti car
Blue Belt
Yes, TKD didn't exist prior to WWII . Now , Korean historians are trying to give TKD pure Korean and very old historical background , but they are trying to do that with a lot of things, for example they claim Sun Tzu was Korean as well as almost any important figure from Chinese history ,also they claim they invented writing and a lot of other things .
