The cost of Ego, disrespect, and the failure of teachers and students.

[Gerry Seymour]

Then its not NGA, removing say you as head, say you died and left behind the curriclem and they didnt change it. The techniques wouldnt be taught in NGA, nor would you go into NGA to learn them if you wanted to.

This highlights your misunderstanding. See, I'm not the head. I teach a few students. Other NGA instructors (not all of them) also teach many of these techniques. They all - if they are teaching reasonably well - are teaching the principles that are necessary to work them. Students sometimes even "discover" them on their own before they are introduced, because they are within the basic framework of principles.

And, no, having some overlapping principles doesn't make two systems the same. Judo and NGA share a large number of grappling principles. Even ignoring our striking, anyone who knows grappling wouldn't mistake one system for the other if they visited multiple classes. But that would onlly apply to someone who has an understanding of grappling. Easier if they are familiar with one of those two styles, but I think a competent wrestler would pick up some of the differences. And the same is true in a different direction for NGA and Aikido - which are more visually similar in most of our core curriulum. What differentiates systems is the difference in the principles they focus on, although there will be overlapping principles at play.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Im not arguing over a specfic anaology but to be clear cut. You are telling me a physics textbook will contain biology and teach you biology. That is what i am interpriting you are telling me.


Im dropping this, there is clearly a mis understanding at some point here. and this is just going to go on repeat as its centred around a fundemental disagreement in defintion or mis understanding in it.

There is overlap between physics and biology (for instance, looking into the conservation of energy problems involved in transmitting neurological signals). So, yes, at times when you discuss biology, you can end up also talking about physics. And a physics textbook definitely contains information that applies to biology (pressure, leverage, etc.).

 

[JowGaWolf]

And, no, having some overlapping principles doesn't make two systems the same.

This would be like cars. They share overlapping principles but it doesn't make the cars the same. An electric car has overlapping principles of a gas car. But they aren't the same.

 

[Steve]

This would be like cars. They share overlapping principles but it doesn't make the cars the same. An electric car has overlapping principles of a gas car. But they aren't the same.

But they are both cars. Isn't this all relative? I mean, an electric car is more like an ICE car than is like an electric bike? At least, if you're looking at it relative to the wheelbase and number of folks it can carry, and other similar "car like" things. But if you're looking at it relative to the drivetrain maybe the electric car is more like a an electric bike.

Or are you saying that nothing is really the same as anything else? In which case, Wing Chun really isn't Wing Chun when taught by two different people.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

But they are both cars. Isn't this all relative? I mean, an electric car is more like an ICE car than is like an electric bike? At least, if you're looking at it relative to the wheelbase and number of folks it can carry, and other similar "car like" things. But if you're looking at it relative to the drivetrain maybe the electric car is more like a an electric bike.

Or are you saying that nothing is really the same as anything else? In which case, Wing Chun really isn't Wing Chun when taught by two different people.

True. And that's where a "grappling system" is like a "car" in the analogy. Grappling systems share more in common than a grappling system has in common with a striking system (a system that uses both has overlap with both, of course). And if you look at some core principle, you might find something analogous to that drive train example. So, maybe a striking system that uses more circular approaches has something in common with Aikido that it doesn't have in common with Shotokan (which is pretty angular, as I understand it).

 

[Steve]

True. And that's where a "grappling system" is like a "car" in the analogy. Grappling systems share more in common than a grappling system has in common with a striking system (a system that uses both has overlap with both, of course). And if you look at some core principle, you might find something analogous to that drive train example. So, maybe a striking system that uses more circular approaches has something in common with Aikido that it doesn't have in common with Shotokan (which is pretty angular, as I understand it).

Sure, but just to be clear, one may also say that judo has more in common with western boxing than aikido.

 

[Deleted member 39746]

This highlights your misunderstanding. See, I'm not the head. I teach a few students. Other NGA instructors (not all of them) also teach many of these techniques. They all - if they are teaching reasonably well - are teaching the principles that are necessary to work them. Students sometimes even "discover" them on their own before they are introduced, because they are within the basic framework of principles.

And, no, having some overlapping principles doesn't make two systems the same. Judo and NGA share a large number of grappling principles. Even ignoring our striking, anyone who knows grappling wouldn't mistake one system for the other if they visited multiple classes. But that would onlly apply to someone who has an understanding of grappling. Easier if they are familiar with one of those two styles, but I think a competent wrestler would pick up some of the differences. And the same is true in a different direction for NGA and Aikido - which are more visually similar in most of our core curriulum. What differentiates systems is the difference in the principles they focus on, although there will be overlapping principles at play.

Fair enough, i thought you were the head/had significant say in the day to day of the style. If anyone who was head said they deemed X part of their system but didnt have it in there, i would question it.


The diffrence is in applciation, of principles, so techniques. You still follow the same few principles to achive something. The number of principles i do not know, but the exact number doesnt matter, its finite. The perfect straight punch is the stepping punch you learn in TKD and karate(for the sake of argument it is), is that valid for actual fighting and can you pull that off in actual fighting? very limited. This is just where my deviation shows, i draw systems on technique as opposed to principles, they should be following one of the valid principles to devolope their techniques.

Unless we ID and designated a few principles that are for the same thing i dont think we can really have the argument proper, because we need to ID if they all use the same, or which principle they use. Where as you can get another list of finite techniques off of one principle.

I dont disagree, im just drawing my definition off technique as opposed to principle, principle comes before technique. At least how i use both and have defined. (i think i defined principle)

As far as i understand the martial arts model for how its normally used, there is a principle, you then show one or two techniques for how to apply said principle, the issue people have ID'ed is you stop at just learning the technique as opposed to the principle. So instead of learning the principle you memorise the techniques, but thats not bad if its technique based, its within the context of what you are aiming for.

You could maybe build a system off of pure principles, but i think very few are so its a exeption to the rule as opposed to the rule. The user just needs to know enough to apply it for their task, if you wish to teach you need to know enough to explain the context and reasoning to better teach it.


Both technique and principle are ill defined for martial arts to say the least, thats why these agruments still happen. Wasnt there a phase of technique vs principle based learning argumentation one time on the internet? I feel like it was a phase.

There is overlap between physics and biology (for instance, looking into the conservation of energy problems involved in transmitting neurological signals). So, yes, at times when you discuss biology, you can end up also talking about physics. And a physics textbook definitely contains information that applies to biology (pressure, leverage, etc.).

See, i knew this was coming. the other two sciences are technically applications of physics, but i am not getting into the science purity nonsense, lest a mathematician appear.

But, inter displinary subjects are considered that, their own thing. If they are grouped into one, its which ever is dominant or which ever science takes contol of it. I belive bio chem is in biology as opposed to chemistry. I could be wrong i havent looked that one up in a while.
You woud still learn physics and physics theory in physics, you wont learn the theory of biology in physics or chemistry, nor would you learn any of the others in any of the others unless you go into one of the inter displinary subjects.* Which should be their own thing. Somone who specilises in bio chem doesnt say "they are a biologist or chemist" they normally say they specilise in bio chem. Or call themselves a bio chemist. At least as far as i know, they would use bio chemist as their name.

this is kind of a flawed point as you normally do combined science and learn them all together, your sort of isolating things that are and should be taught together, kind of like striking and grappling.

*You may use the theories of physics and biology etc outside their subjects, but you shouldnt be taught it/only be taught the applied version for your subject. I slightly misread your point so i overlooked you stating the theories of physics used in biology. Still a cheap move subject to choose as physics is technically literally everything science wise.

At least this is how i recall me being taught science, they were still all distinctly their own subject, like you wernt taught maths in science, you were taught the principles that requires maths to do and forumula, but not addition, subtraction etc. So, in other words, applied maths in science, but not how to actually do maths. They may remind you/tell you if you forget, but thats because they are a teacher in school, not because its part of the subject.

(above pciture is a joke, but its a funny joke and illitrates my point, and yes people do joke about this and argue about purity in science)

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Sure, but just to be clear, one may also say that judo has more in common with western boxing than aikido.

Agreed.

 

[JowGaWolf]

But they are both cars. Isn't this all relative? I mean, an electric car is more like an ICE car than is like an electric bike? At least, if you're looking at it relative to the wheelbase and number of folks it can carry, and other similar "car like" things. But if you're looking at it relative to the drivetrain maybe the electric car is more like a an electric bike.

Or are you saying that nothing is really the same as anything else? In which case, Wing Chun really isn't Wing Chun when taught by two different people.

I'm saying both. Wing chun is Relative to who is teaching it. The core principles and theory define the system. Car Make binds. Car Models are variations of the same system. Some teachers like truck, Some like cars. But all teachers fall under the same Maker. What type of variation you get depends on what the teacher feels as most important.

 

[Steve]

I'm saying both. Wing chun is Relative to who is teaching it. The core principles and theory define the system. Car Make binds. Car Models are variations of the same system. Some teachers like truck, Some like cars. But all teachers fall under the same Maker. What type of variation you get depends on what the teacher feels as most important.

Got it, and I agree.

I think if folks really internalized the profound impact of the individual instructor on the system, we'd cut through a lot of the self defense garbage that goes on around here. The system plays a role, but the instructor plays a significant role, too. And to try and draw the direct line, I think few systems are able to overcome an inexperienced instructor or an ineffective training model. I can't think of any. And yet, we see it all the time in self defense.

 

[jayoliver00]

He might be respected in he's own circle, but unfortunately this is what many people will know him for. He showed he's scrappy and gets emotional when confronted. However, I'm not seeing where he showed he's a skilled Martial Artists that can apply his training in a live situation.

That's not what people are criticizing him for. It's that he's spent many years training in a martial art and trains other in said martial art but shows zero ability to apply his training in a live situation.

Far be it from me to praise Wang Chung, but I have ran into WC cats who can bang and this WC is one of them cats.

I just rewatched the video. WC went hard on the first hook (after Waldo's head push/slight head butt), but then WC lighten it up with some medium powered shot. Look at how he punched the body a lot and not just the head (had he really wanted to sleep JKD Waldo). It was more like, a Pimp slapping a 'ho and telling her to get out of the crib; not necessarily trying to damage the merchandise.

And you can see some decent ground control; so homey trained some BJJ probably. The striking was still controlled at a medium power level. He could've done a lot of damage with knees & elbows in those positions, but didn't.

 

[jayoliver00]

When people see that video they will think, "He can fight, but he can't fight with WC."


This doesn't mean anything. Just because a Boxer wants to learn Wing Chun doesn't mean that the Wing Chun teacher can beat the Boxer. The Boxer is a title holder. The Wing Chun Instructor is not. My guess would be that he probably isn't known for being a fighter either.

I'm just basing this on most of the Kung Fu Sifu's I know. I may know of 2 or 3 living ones who are known as fighters. Pick any TMA system and the majority of the teachers aren't known for their fighting ability. This is especially true with Kung Fu systems.

The same can't be said about boxing coaches or MMA coaches.

After rewatching this video to respond to you, I would say that the WC wasn't really trying to hurt the kid. The 1st hook was hard, but most everything after that was just medium powered hits, aimed at the body. Why the body when he clearly had easy head shots for the KTFO; knees to the head even? He was just roughing up Waldo & not necessarily trying to sleep him; justifiable force.

You can say that he couldn't use his WC effectively, but all I saw was a homey slapping a 'ho. He was just showing his dominance over some turd w/o risking jail time nor lawsuits. And he exhibited some ground control skills as everybody cross trains nowadays. He clearly has Boxing skills in a bag video I saw him post.

Yeah he didn't really break out the full Wang Chung treatment on Waldo, but again, it wasn't defcon 5 for him, esp. with his whole crew in the yard....he was pissed, but maybe just defcon 2. This is exhibiting control. Not the greatest of control, but decently enough. Just showing a 'ho the door; b/c 'ho's rarely leave when you just tell them too.

 

[JowGaWolf]

I would say that the WC wasn't really trying to hurt the kid. The 1st hook was hard, but most everything after that was just medium powered hits, aimed at the body. Why the body when he clearly had easy head shots for the KTFO; knees to the head even? He was just roughing up Waldo & not necessarily trying to sleep him; justifiable force.

That's a possibility but I don't buy it. A lot of people here have seen me spar using Jow Ga kung fu. If I wanted to just rough someone up without hurting them then that's the speed I would have used to rough someone up. To hear that someone didn't use WC because they didn't want to hurt someone is like me saying. I don't use Jow Ga because I didn't want to hurt someone To me, statements like that is close to the mentality of " My kung fu is too dangerous and I didn't want to hurt him, I just want to rough them up." People get roughed up in sparring so a "WC teacher" should have the skills to use WC to "rough up a guy like Waldo." As a matter of fact, technically it should be easier to use Wing Chun at that point.

I won't give the WC teacher that excuse even if that's what he really thought in his mind. If that comes out of his mouth, I would personally tell him, that he didn't use WC because he didn't know how to apply it in that situation. Like I've always said "Style A vs Style A" in martial arts is not a good thing, because most people who train like that, are lost when it's no longer "Style A vs Style A".

You can say that he couldn't use his WC effectively, but all I saw was a homey slapping a 'ho. He was just showing his dominance over some turd w/o risking jail time nor lawsuits.

I'm not buying that. When People fight they use what they are most comfortable with and it's not always the martial art that they train. They will claim that they are good in martial arts but when it's "Style A vs Style B" they abandon their martial arts. Which is why the WC teacher tries to explain the Kung Fu that he claimed he did in the scuffle.

There are many ways to show dominance over some "turd" w/o risking jail time nor lawsuits. The only reason that WC teacher didn't get into legal issues is because of the video. Without the video it would be, one guy's story against another guy's story.

Yeah he didn't really break out the full Wang Chung treatment on Waldo, but again, it wasn't defcon 5 for him, esp. with his whole crew in the yard....he was pissed, but maybe just defcon 2. This is exhibiting control.

His whole crew is there is perfect reason to use Wing Chun. If he was good at applying it then he could have showed that skill set which would have enlightened not only his students but demonstrate Wing Chun mastery through application. If it was me, then I would be lucky to have a "Waldo" that I could use Jow Ga against without having much concern that he gets hit in the face or in his gut. I would throw a low kick just to see if "waldo" could back up that claim. But life has it, that I don't have people coming up to me telling me to my face saying that what I teach doesn't work. I may get it on the Internet but not in person. That alone probably says more about me and how I conduct myself in class. The most I've ever gotten were questions of "If someone does this..., what would you do."

I just truly think that if he had the ability to fight using WC, that he would have just easily applied those skill sets in a dominate way and in a manner that just rough him up.

When BJJ pratitioners rough someone up they do so with the skills they train. Kung Fu unfortunately cannot make that claim unless it's about story of some kung fu guy or teacher that lived 200 years or more ago. Ip Man is probably the closest story of such a claim.

 

[Cynik75]

.... When BJJ pratitioners rough someone up they do so with the skills they train. Kung Fu unfortunately cannot make that claim unless it's about story of some kung fu guy or teacher that lived 200 years or more ago. Ip Man is probably the closest story of such a claim.

What about beimo fights from 1950's and 60'? Chunners like to indicate them as evidence of WC effectiveness (even with some logical fallacy - beimo fight had rules and WC is "for da streetz" ).

 

[Anarax]

After rewatching this video to respond to you, I would say that the WC wasn't really trying to hurt the kid. The 1st hook was hard, but most everything after that was just medium powered hits, aimed at the body. Why the body when he clearly had easy head shots for the KTFO; knees to the head even? He was just roughing up Waldo & not necessarily trying to sleep him; justifiable force.

You can say that he couldn't use his WC effectively, but all I saw was a homey slapping a 'ho. He was just showing his dominance over some turd w/o risking jail time nor lawsuits. And he exhibited some ground control skills as everybody cross trains nowadays. He clearly has Boxing skills in a bag video I saw him post.

Yeah he didn't really break out the full Wang Chung treatment on Waldo, but again, it wasn't defcon 5 for him, esp. with his whole crew in the yard....he was pissed, but maybe just defcon 2. This is exhibiting control. Not the greatest of control, but decently enough. Just showing a 'ho the door; b/c 'ho's rarely leave when you just tell them too.

I'm not seeing the same thing you're seeing in the video. Rashun looked like any other untrained average Joe on the street. He flails his arms, upper body stiff/rigid and overall awkward body mechanics.

Just because Rashun momentarily got on top of the other guy doesn't make it ground control. You can tell Rashun doesn't have a good standup nor ground game in the video.

You can speculate that Rashun is a high level practitioner and he's the most BA martial artist in the world. However, he displayed zero skill nor training in this video.

Rashun was trying to hurt the guy, he just lacked the skill set and training to do so effectively. I wonder if Rashun would've behaved the same way if Waldo was 6 foot 5 and weighed a solid 250

 

[jayoliver00]

That's a possibility but I don't buy it. A lot of people here have seen me spar using Jow Ga kung fu. If I wanted to just rough someone up without hurting them then that's the speed I would have used to rough someone up. To hear that someone didn't use WC because they didn't want to hurt someone is like me saying. I don't use Jow Ga because I didn't want to hurt someone To me, statements like that is close to the mentality of " My kung fu is too dangerous and I didn't want to hurt him, I just want to rough them up." People get roughed up in sparring so a "WC teacher" should have the skills to use WC to "rough up a guy like Waldo." As a matter of fact, technically it should be easier to use Wing Chun at that point.

What kind of Wing Chun techniques did you want to see while he was standing over, on top of Waldo who's on the his back?

There are many ways to show dominance over some "turd" w/o risking jail time nor lawsuits. The only reason that WC teacher didn't get into legal issues is because of the video. Without the video it would be, one guy's story against another guy's story.

Well obviously, that's why he went there b/c he knew there was video evidence.

His whole crew is there is perfect reason to use Wing Chun. If he was good at applying it then he could have showed that skill set which would have enlightened not only his students but demonstrate Wing Chun mastery through application. If it was me, then I would be lucky to have a "Waldo" that I could use Jow Ga against without having much concern that he gets hit in the face or in his gut. I would throw a low kick just to see if "waldo" could back up that claim. But life has it, that I don't have people coming up to me telling me to my face saying that what I teach doesn't work. I may get it on the Internet but not in person. That alone probably says more about me and how I conduct myself in class. The most I've ever gotten were questions of "If someone does this..., what would you do."

I just truly think that if he had the ability to fight using WC, that he would have just easily applied those skill sets in a dominate way and in a manner that just rough him up.

Well I already know that WC isn't very good, but he was just playing with him with the strikes.

 

[jayoliver00]

I'm not seeing the same thing you're seeing in the video. Rashun looked like any other untrained average Joe on the street. He flails his arms, upper body stiff/rigid and overall awkward body mechanics.

Because he's just roughing him up by swatting like punches. They weren't serious punches. Most of them were to the body, when his head was completely open.

Just because Rashun momentarily got on top of the other guy doesn't make it ground control. You can tell Rashun doesn't have a good standup nor ground game in the video.

What belt are you in BJJ?

You can speculate that Rashun is a high level practitioner and he's the most BA martial artist in the world. However, he displayed zero skill nor training in this video.

Rashun was trying to hurt the guy, he just lacked the skill set and training to do so effectively. I wonder if Rashun would've behaved the same way if Waldo was 6 foot 5 and weighed a solid 250

"Zero skill nor training in this video"?

I've trained enough people with zero skill nor training to know that you're wrong. And I can also tell when someone's not really going full out.

And what's the point of the last comment about the 250lb guy?

 

[drop bear]

I'm saying both. Wing chun is Relative to who is teaching it. The core principles and theory define the system. Car Make binds. Car Models are variations of the same system. Some teachers like truck, Some like cars. But all teachers fall under the same Maker. What type of variation you get depends on what the teacher feels as most important.

Sort of. If you want to make the core principles define a system that is cool.

Someone else might not.

Jujitsu leg locks for example changed some of the core principles. But nobody cares because you can snap off a guys ankle.

As they say in the matrix. "The trick isn't bending the spoon. The trick is realising there is no spoon"

 

[JowGaWolf]

What kind of Wing Chun techniques did you want to see while he was standing over, on top of Waldo who's on the his back?

The fight didn't start in that position. It also didn't end in that position. To pick a specific point in the fight and to ask that question as if that's the only thing that happened is not an honest analysis of what went on. I've seen enough people actually use Wing Chun to know that what he was doing lacked Wing Chun techniques.

Sort of. If you want to make the core principles define a system that is cool.

This is how it works with most things. The core principles of a car is what makes a car. The core principles of a bicycle is what makes it a bicycle and not a motorcycle, or moped., or scooter.

You cannot take the core principles of BJJ and say that you are doing Kung Fu. I cannot do Jow Ga Kung Fu without the core principles of Jow Ga.

Jujitsu leg locks for example changed some of the core principles. But nobody cares because you can snap off a guys ankle.

You cannot define core principles by one technique. That would be like defining a what is a dog and what's not a dog by the shape of it's tail. Lips and teeth do not make a human. Nor do lips and teeth define the core principle of what makes a human a human.
This is the same with martial arts and fighting systems.

 

[JowGaWolf]

As they say in the matrix. "The trick isn't bending the spoon. The trick is realising there is no spoon"

Doing a back flip on a bike, a skateboard, or on the ground are not the same same nor do they have the same core principle used for accomplishing the backflip. The trick is to understand which one you are doing so that you understand how that system does the back flip.