Why did Boxing Survive to be the most popular fighting sport in the world despite mass deaths in World War 1 unlike other Western styles like Savate?

[Oily Dragon]

What are you smoking? I never wrote nor implied any such. If you're going to just make up **** and claim I said it, then we're going to have a hard time having any conversation.

You're the one posting and promoting a "plausible theory" and you keep repeating that it's "rock solid".

It's play-dough solid.

First lesson, don't assume you know what I have done or what my experience is, never mind assuming you know what I believe or think. For frack's sake you tried to use a source to prove I was wrong (or something) written by a friend of mine in which I was attributed as a source in the acknowledgements.

Ah, I see. Your ego is hurt.

No one in this discussion, including the articles author, Mr. Godwin, ever claimed the British created Wing Chun. The closest that anything has come is that the Mr. Godwin claims that the Chinese used English Boxing to create Wing Chun, partially as a way to fight the taller Europeans.

This is the silliest thing I've ever read on MT. The Chinese shorties had to learn boxing from the British to learn to fight taller British people.

You're making me laugh.

Are you trolling me or did you just not actually read the article?

No? Good.

No it isn't. Again, are you trolling or did you just not read the article? Yes, I'm 100% serious about this question.

No? Good.

Straw Man. No one made the claim that the British brought martial arts to china besides you.

You're all over the place. First Wing Chun was invented by the Chinese from British boxing to defend themselves from taller brits.

Now you're backpedaling, you never even posted that? It's in your first post in this thread.

That's nice. It's also 100% irrelevant and 100% Straw Man.

No it's not.

I grow weary of your misstating and misrepresenting the authors claims and statements. I grow weary of you misrepresenting my statements. I grow weary of you conflating my personal beliefs with what Mr. Godwin states merely because I brought his statements to your attention.

Go take a nap then. When you're rested, come back with actual "rock solid" arguments.

You've officially convinced me not to ever buy or read your book.

 

[Oily Dragon]

I don't like being misquoted and misattributed. If you want to argue against something I wrote, then do that. But don't make up something, attribute that to me, and then argue against that.

I also don't like other people being misquoted and misattributed. You did that too. I'm still waiting for you to show me where anyone suggested that "white people in Britain had to save Chinese boxing," or "the British created Wing Chun," or that the "article's main argument is that white people from ships brought martial art to China." All of these are straw statements which no one but you wrote.

Now, if you want to debate the points of the article, then do that. I laid them all out. I will happily either agree or disagree. But when you just make something up which wasn't there, it becomes impossible to have a reasoned discussion.

See this is your problem, bud. No matter how much I point out the flaws, you're going to triple down with a bunch of "No? Good." and passive aggression.

You posted the theory, dude. Your first post in the thread. The theory was that Wing Chun is special because it was actually brought to coastal China by British sailors. That's about as believable as Flat Earth theory.

I was ready to post a whole, deep-thought thread about this subject. But because you wrote a book once, and because your buddy wrote a terribly inaccurate Black Belt Magazine article almost 40 years ago that you tried to peddle off as informative, you're going to die on this hill.

 

[lklawson]

Forget it let's do it all here, since you like block quote gish galluping.


Ng Mui is a legendary figure, so what? There are hundreds of non-legendary figures.

The author's point was that there is no historically verifiable origin to Wing Chun, as illustrated by the myth of its creation by a "legendary figure." In the absence of a documentable creation, his thesis is that 19th C. boxing fits the bill as he will attempt to illustrate with his following points.

That's an opinion, "every master" is a giveaway. Again, the recorded history illustrates a webwork of Wing Chun expansion from interior southern China to the coast.

That's fine. Can you document it? Most people who claim to don't have anything other than oral histories which are not independently verifiable.

There's plenty of corroborating history. In books.

Based on oral histories, not contemporary to the alleged time. That's part of the problem. Maybe the oral history is 100% accurate. But without external corroborating sources, it cannot be verified.

It's not true, unless someone believes Wing Chun was made up outside of China. Wing chun sun toi? No oranges? Lion dance? Come on.

As I wrote, frankly, I don't know. There are a LOT of different Kung Fu systems and a comprehensive comparison would be challenging. Maybe this statement is true and maybe it isn't. I don't think we'll be able to say one way or another.

"little technical similarity"..."revolutionary"..."different from those other kung fu styles", all wrong. Wing Chun is a cousin system to the Five Family styles, Southern Dragon, Fujian Crane....and on and on.

Again, as I wrote, there are a LOT of other kung fu styles to compare against. At a certain level, fighting is fighting. I'm not sure that is the evidence that he's suggesting. OTOH, most of the most popular kung fu styles do have a markedly different appearance in general technique and strategy, so maybe...

The big difference between Shaolin Si, and Wing Chun, is hundreds of years of warfare and philosophical development. Keep in mind that by the time Ip Man learned Wing Chun, there might have been about 30 practitioners total left alive (Judkins).

Like I wrote, I reject the author's claim that the other forms of Kung Fu are "pacifist." Some kind of are. Others are clearly not.

No kung fu system is learned in a short amount of time. That includes boxing and Wing Chun. I know people who learn a little boxing often thing they're good at it, but we both know that's not true. Hence, all the Wing Chun people who can't fight. They haven't paid their dues.

And yet, one of the most commonly repeated claims to prospective students by Wing Chun teachers is that it is easy, efficient, and competency can be gained in a relatively short time. I have to ask, are they lying to get students to sign up? If so, they've been doing so for a very long time.

This is also totally untrue. Wing Chun is not a 100% empty handed art. None of them are. And arguing about when weapons were introduced "butterfly swords being introduced from another style" made me chuckle. The person writing this is basing his knowledge on his own class notes, or something. Hence no actual reference.

While I find the author's point here to be, frankly, irrelevant to his thesis, Do you have evidence to support the claim that there were weapons common to Wing Chun before the introduction of Butterfly Swords and Long Pole? Again, I don't think it makes arguments either for or against, but I am curious.

Wing Chun was not developed by the "Coastal Chinese".

I guess you'll have to argue that with Leung Ting (or at least his book).

And again, all of Wing Chun is contained in older Chinese styles (which include every "Western" boxing technique").

I wrote several times, "fighting is fighting."

That's not even a fact.

Whether or not you think that Wing Chun "is considered the quickest art to learn in terms of time" is has certainly been written and said many times by Wing Chun teachers. Whether or not this is actually true is kinda irrelevant to me, personally.

Also not a fact. This statement suggests a very shallow understanding of southern Chinese kung fu.

Well, as I wrote, it is very true that the most common stance of 19th Century pugilism from the London Prize Ring era is strikingly similar to the base Wing Chun stance. The 19th C. boxing's Lead-off, Straight Left and Straight Right are exceptionally similar to bread-and-butter techniques in Wing Chun. The footwork, however, is a bit more sophisticated than "shuffling." ...in both arts. So, as with some of his other statements, yes there does seem to be a correlation or similarity. On the other hand, as I've written, at a certain level, fighting is fighting and a case can be made for parallel evolution as easily as one can be made for a common ancestral source. But, yes, superficially anyway, the bread-and-butter stance/techniques look very close to each other.

"Aggressive system". Seriously, why do you think Wing Chun is more aggressive than other systems? It's not. There are throat ripping techniques in many CMA.

Seriously. I did not write that I think Wing Chun is "more aggressive" than other Kung Fu systems. The author wrote, " Wing chun and boxing possess may of the same strategies. Winch chun is known for being an aggressive system. In early boxing, it was believed that the best defense was a good offense. The wing chun principle of sil lin die dar (simultaneous attack and defense) is a common characteristic of boxing." And I wrote, "Wing Chun does promote itself as being an aggressive system on attack. Techniques like the "straight blast" are promoted as being both aggressive and highly effective. And 19th Century boxing was replete with both aggression and single-time counters such as the Cross-Counter. But single-time counters aren't particularly unique to boxing. They're quite common in Fencing, as an example. And fighting is fighting. Still if his primary point is that Wing Chun looks/acts remarkably similar to some common forms of London Prize Ring boxing, then, yes, it does. It may not be proof but it is an interesting correlation."

I reiterate: Do not attribute to me that which I did not say. I did not write, "more aggressive." Only that Wing Chun promotes itself as being an aggressive system, that LPR Boxing does have techniques and strategies which can be expressed as Wing Chun's "sil lin die dar (simultaneous attack and defense)" as the author suggests, and that the concept is not particularly unique to either Boxing or Wing Chun.

Don't put words in my mouth.

I sure do dispute it.

Maybe you should read that again. You dispute that Marshal Stillman wrote boxing books which include instructions on fighting bigger folks? Really?

https://ia803105.us.archive.org/19/items/boxingselfdefens00geer/boxingselfdefens00geer.pdf

"Incidentally, the course will help you mentally. It will give you confidence, courage, self reliance in "competition", not only in boxing, but in contact with big men. Everybody likes a man who is sure of him-self, and the ability to box—to hold your own with somebody bigger if necessary"

Past that, I also wrote, "so what if the Chinese developed Wing Chun to fight taller people? That doesn't man that Wing Chun was developed from Boxing. Frankly, I don't know why he included this point. Even if true, ti doesn't actually support his claim that Wing Chun was developed from 19th Century Boxing."

No.

Yes. Many of the facts he writes are facts. Such as Stillman's advice and the fact that there does appear to be a similarity between base stance and bread-and-butter techniques between LPR and WC. Also, as I wrote, it doesn't necessarily prove the author's thesis.

It's pretty open and shut.

No, it isn't.

It's not a plausible theory, according to historians.

Which you have, so far, omitted.

The entire article is BS.

Based on your claims without supporting evidence.

No, on a personal level, I honestly don't really care if WC was taken from LPR, if LPR had significant influence on a pre-existing art, or if they are 100% independent. I find it interesting on an intellectual level but it doesn't really matter to me outside of an academic interest. But argue the facts.

I also find it very interesting how some people react to it when the idea is presented to them.

 

[Oily Dragon]

The author's point was that there is no historically verifiable origin to Wing Chun, as illustrated by the myth of its creation by a "legendary figure." In the absence of a documentable creation, his thesis is that 19th C. boxing fits the bill as he will attempt to illustrate with his following points.

"19th C. boxing" by that you mean British boxing, right? that's just not right.

That's fine. Can you document it? Most people who claim to don't have anything other than oral histories which are not independently verifiable.

Yes. I've summarized the works of several historians so far. It's important to not rely on grandstudents of Ip Man in Wing Chun chronology, don't you agree?

Based on oral histories, not contemporary to the alleged time. That's part of the problem. Maybe the oral history is 100% accurate. But without external corroborating sources, it cannot be verified.

That's just the thing, there are external corroborating sources. Namely the styles that Wing Chun grew up around, prior to the 19th century.

Again, as I wrote, there are a LOT of other kung fu styles to compare against. At a certain level, fighting is fighting. I'm not sure that is the evidence that he's suggesting. OTOH, most of the most popular kung fu styles do have a markedly different appearance in general technique and strategy, so maybe...

Consider this: Wing Chun has the worst full contact competition record, compared to its cousin arts like Choy Li Fut, Hung Kuen, and Jow Ga. And all of them have the same weapons, the same bridging principles.

"markedly different appearance in general technique and strategy" what do you mean? Because from my POV that is entirely wrong, Wing Chun is just an expression of the Five Southern Shaolin animals, specifically three, plus a few other outside influences like the Yang military family staff.

And if British sailors every met that, there was certainly some magic made. But that shouldn't be retroactively applied to Chinese culture, as historians have pointed out, Chinese culture has been stolen for centuries, especially by certain colonizing powers.

Like I wrote, I reject the author's claim that the other forms of Kung Fu are "pacifist." Some kind of are. Others are clearly not.

From a Taoist/Buddhist POV, pacifism was something that slowly invaded Chinese militarism over the course of 1500 years, starting with the Flower Sermon and ending with..nevermind, it still hasn't. But for some, Chan Buddhism can, and certainly has, overcome violent urges. Wing Chun can't be Shaolin unless this is also true.

And yet, one of the most commonly repeated claims to prospective students by Wing Chun teachers is that it is easy, efficient, and competency can be gained in a relatively short time. I have to ask, are they lying to get students to sign up? If so, they've been doing so for a very long time.

Probably, but this is also true of many commercial MA today, but the time part has been replaced by cash.

While I find the author's point here to be, frankly, irrelevant to his thesis, Do you have evidence to support the claim that there were weapons common to Wing Chun before the introduction of Butterfly Swords and Long Pole? Again, I don't think it makes arguments either for or against, but I am curious.

I'll dig through Judkins again but generally, weapons are common all the CMA. Even Tai Chi has sword, staff, and spear, and it predates Wing Chun by 10 generations.

I guess you'll have to argue that with Leung Ting (or at least his book).

I'll leave that to historians, and when it comes to martial arts book, most are kindling.

Whether or not you think that Wing Chun "is considered the quickest art to learn in terms of time" is has certainly been written and said many times by Wing Chun teachers. Whether or not this is actually true is kinda irrelevant to me, personally.

There is no "quickest art in terms of time".

Well, as I wrote, it is very true that the most common stance of 19th Century pugilism from the London Prize Ring era is strikingly similar to the base Wing Chun stance. The 19th C. boxing's Lead-off, Straight Left and Straight Right are exceptionally similar to bread-and-butter techniques in Wing Chun. The footwork, however, is a bit more sophisticated than "shuffling." ...in both arts. So, as with some of his other statements, yes there does seem to be a correlation or similarity. On the other hand, as I've written, at a certain level, fighting is fighting and a case can be made for parallel evolution as easily as one can be made for a common ancestral source. But, yes, superficially anyway, the bread-and-butter stance/techniques look very close to each other.

There's a reason they look similar, but this isn't limited to Wing Chun. It's common. Unless the martial art is totally made up and fake, which isn't many.

Seriously. I did not write that I think Wing Chun is "more aggressive" than other Kung Fu systems. The author wrote, " Wing chun and boxing possess may of the same strategies. Winch chun is known for being an aggressive system. In early boxing, it was believed that the best defense was a good offense. The wing chun principle of sil lin die dar (simultaneous attack and defense) is a common characteristic of boxing." And I wrote, "Wing Chun does promote itself as being an aggressive system on attack. Techniques like the "straight blast" are promoted as being both aggressive and highly effective. And 19th Century boxing was replete with both aggression and single-time counters such as the Cross-Counter. But single-time counters aren't particularly unique to boxing. They're quite common in Fencing, as an example. And fighting is fighting. Still if his primary point is that Wing Chun looks/acts remarkably similar to some common forms of London Prize Ring boxing, then, yes, it does. It may not be proof but it is an interesting correlation."

"Known for being an aggressive system" applies to all martial arts, boxing included.

Don't put words in my mouth.

You told me to go outside, so the gloves are oof now.

You dispute that Marshal Stillman wrote boxing books which include instructions on fighting bigger folks? Really?

https://ia803105.us.archive.org/19/items/boxingselfdefens00geer/boxingselfdefens00geer.pdf

"Incidentally, the course will help you mentally. It will give you confidence, courage, self reliance in "competition", not only in boxing, but in contact with big men. Everybody likes a man who is sure of him-self, and the ability to box—to hold your own with somebody bigger if necessary"

Yeah I think his comments are racist and bigoted if they're tied to Wing Chun, a decidedly Chinese system of boxing (decided by scholars).

Past that, I also wrote, "so what if the Chinese developed Wing Chun to fight taller people? That doesn't man that Wing Chun was developed from Boxing. Frankly, I don't know why he included this point. Even if true, ti doesn't actually support his claim that Wing Chun was developed from 19th Century Boxing."

That was where you lost me, first promoting the theory, then stepping away form it. Maybe you should just say "the theory is wack" and we can move on. IF not, I'll be here.

Yes. Many of the facts he writes are facts. Such as Stillman's advice and the fact that there does appear to be a similarity between base stance and bread-and-butter techniques between LPR and WC. Also, as I wrote, it doesn't necessarily prove the author's thesis.

I don't think any evidence supports the author.

No, it isn't.

It sure it.

Which you have, so far, omitted.

No I haven't.

Based on your claims without supporting evidence.

Your "evidence" is a Black Belt magazine article your Wing Chun friend wrote. Mine is based on academic research, combined with personal experience and common sense.

No, on a personal level, I honestly don't really care if WC was taken from LPR, if LPR had significant influence on a pre-existing art, or if they are 100% independent. I find it interesting on an intellectual level but it doesn't really matter to me outside of an academic interest. But argue the facts.

They are 100% independent, with maybe the exception of a tiny influence in places like Hong Kong that the British tried, and ultimately failed, to colonize for their dwindling empire.

I also find it very interesting how some people react to it when the idea is presented to them.

Indeed. You went full tilt on this one.

 

[lklawson]

You just wrote an essay in response to my pledge to start a thread to discuss this topic with you.

Now you're being nasty.

Nope. You wrote that you can't think of a more untrustworthy periodical than Black Belt Magazine. I can. Everyone can. If you can't then you need to get out more.

Of course it is, otherwise I wouldn't have brought it up.

That you brought it up doesn't mean it's relevant. You wrote, "The only thing worse is trusting people claiming decades and decades of experience with a particular martial art, only to find that they really haven't even broken the surface surrounding its true ecosystem. That's what a lot of Wing Chun students suffer from. They could have 100 years of "experience", still be 100% wrong. (E.g. Ng Mui, a system for women, whatever)." and that is simply not relevant to the author's thesis that Wing Chun is essentially LPR with a Chinese spin on it. It doesn't matter that so-n-so has "decades of experience," that someone else could have "100 years of experience," or the rest. Those are not relevant to the author's claim.

NO he didn't. Leung Ting is wrong too.

You cannot have both. Either the author is factually accurate when he writes that Leung Ting writes that Wing Chun was developed in coastal southeast China OR Leung Ting was wrong when he wrote it. Both cannot be true. Now, because the author is quoting from Leung Ting as an authoritative source that makes his statement factually accurate. Leung Ting did write that.

No it's not.

Of course it is irrelevant. You claim that the author is "a student of Wing Chun trying to differentiate Wing Chun from the rest of CMA." That may be true or it may not be true. In neither case does it either validate nor invalidate the author's thesis. It is the definition of irrelevant.

I read that article, and I've probably studied Wing Chun more deeply than you have.

How much either of us have studied Wing Chun is irrelevant to your claim that "[t]he author isn't a scholar or historian, he's a Wing Chun apologist trying to align with sport boxing for cred" The author is clearly NOT trying to "align with sport boxing for cred." He's trying to advance a theory of the origin of Wing Chun. You just don't happen to like it. Hell, "sport boxing" isn't even the same as LPR boxing. Hence, I questioned if you'd actually read the article.

Yes it is.

No, it's not relevant. You're claim that "there are practically zero references to British influence," is part of the issue that the author is claiming to address, that his claim is there is not independently corroborated history of WC and then he promotes his theory. Why on earth would there be particular references to British influence? They weren't exactly fans of the Brits so even if there was a British origin, then there would be social pressure to never admit it.

I think you need to research more, and read Black Belt Magazine less.

I think you need to better read what is being written instead of apparently glancing over it and assigning some stuff that wasn't written.

It is, you're promoting a wacky theory form Black Belt magazine about Wing Chun being British boxing.

Don't put words in my mouth. I'm not promoting it. I'm presenting what someone else is promoting.

Yes you did, when you said there's a theory that Wing Chun is just rebranded boxing. You meant Canterbury boxing, don't deny it!

No. Even if your statement here is true (which it isn't), that IN NO WAY supports your claim that I wrote "white people in Britain had to save Chinese boxing" Frankly that doesn't even count as sloppy thinking. Even IF Wing Chun is rebranded boxing, that STILL doesn't equate to "white people in Britain had to save Chinese boxing." Even if true that Wing Chun is a derivative of LPR boxing, that doesn't make it any more " white people in Britain had to save Chinese boxing" than admitting that Judo is integral to Sambo or BJJ means that "yellow people in Japan had to save Russian/Brazilian wrestling." That claim is the most bizarre and idiotic thing I've seen all day.

And no, I don't mean "Canterbury boxing." I'm going to guess here that you actually wanted to write "Queensberry boxing" but couldn't get the name right or be bothered to google it. But even then the Marquess of Queensberry rules/style are 100% NOT what is being referred to here, either by me or the author. The time period and references to Sullivan put it squarely in London Prize Ring rules era, as I referenced several times. These rules made a markedly different style than the Queensberry rules.

 

[lklawson]

You're the one posting and promoting a "plausible theory" and you keep repeating that it's "rock solid".

It's play-dough solid.

You seem to conflate "proven" and "plausible."

Ah, I see. Your ego is hurt.

Weak. No, it's not my ego, it's yours. You assume and attribute falsities to me for no apparent reason other than to bolster your own weak arguments.

This is the silliest thing I've ever read on MT. The Chinese shorties had to learn boxing from the British to learn to fight taller British people.

You're making me laugh.

Well, it's certainly better than when you falsely claimed that Mr. Godwin claims that the British created Wing Chun.

No? Good.

No? Good.

Then why do you keep throwing Straw Men?

You're all over the place. First Wing Chun was invented by the Chinese from British boxing to defend themselves from taller brits.

Now you're backpedaling, you never even posted that? It's in your first post in this thread.

No. I posted, to quote, "There's even a theory that Wing Chun is just English Boxing rebranded by the Chinese." There is a significant difference between saying there is a theory and claiming that theory as proven. Either you have a shitty memory and couldn't be bothered to scroll back the thread to see what I wrote, or you were too busy to try to prove the mean man is wrong. In any case, no, I didn't write "Wing Chun was invented by the Chinese from British boxing to defend themselves from taller brits." But I agree, that is pretty close to what Mr. Godwin wrote. Not me; him.

No it's not.

Go take a nap then. When you're rested, come back with actual "rock solid" arguments.

Or I could just stop arguing with someone who isn't interested in discussing the merits of thesis, prefers to misattribute and misquote, and builds Straw Men like he's on the set of the Wizard of Oz and it's "set the scarecrow on fire day"

That sounds like a better plan.

You've officially convinced me not to ever buy or read your book.

OK. You don't need it and the book isn't about making money for me. So I'm OK with that.

 

[lklawson]

That was where you lost me, first promoting the theory, then stepping away form it. Maybe you should just say "the theory is wack" and we can move on. IF not, I'll be here.

That you can't tell the difference between an academic discussion of a theory and a full scale acceptance of it is part of the problem. But only part there's also your attributing to me and the author things we never said, accusations of racism, and repeated Straw Men.

And with that you can have the last word.

Here, use this space:


___________________________________________________________________________

 

[Oily Dragon]

You seem to conflate "proven" and "plausible."

You used the word "plausible". It's not plausible.

Weak. No, it's not my ego, it's yours. You assume and attribute falsities to me for no apparent reason other than to bolster your own weak arguments.

You posted the theory bub, not me. And you just can't support it, so you're struggling.

There's even a theory that Wing Chun is just English Boxing rebranded by the Chinese.

Weak. No, it's not my ego, it's yours. You assume and attribute falsities to me for no apparent reason other than to bolster your own weak arguments.

I'm not the one defending my friend's article. You posted that. And when I began to poke holes in it, you really got triggered.

Well, it's certainly better than when you falsely claimed that Mr. Godwin claims that the British created Wing Chun.

Uh, your first post in the thread.

You posted the theory bub, not me. What does "rebranded" mean?

There's even a theory that Wing Chun is just English Boxing rebranded by the Chinese.

Then why do you keep throwing Straw Men?

You're missing the point, you're the one who has to defend this theory, and so far, it's nothing but hot air. Far from "rock solid" facts and points. What you call "Straw men" are actually references to legitimate academic research. By that measure, Godwin's entire article is one big straw elephant.

No. I posted, to quote, "There's even a theory that Wing Chun is just English Boxing rebranded by the Chinese." There is a significant difference between saying there is a theory and claiming that theory as proven. Either you have a shitty memory and couldn't be bothered to scroll back the thread to see what I wrote, or you were too busy to try to prove the mean man is wrong. In any case, no, I didn't write "Wing Chun was invented by the Chinese from British boxing to defend themselves from taller brits." But I agree, that is pretty close to what Mr. Godwin wrote. Not me; him.

Dude, you're here defending this theory, using Black Belt as your supporting source, and avoiding actual scholarly research.

I get that you're projecting criticism of this "theory" onto yourself, but you shouldn't. But I can't help it, it's a thing among martial arts authors, they often think of themselves as authoritative. So I don't blame you.

Or I could just stop arguing with someone who isn't interested in discussing the merits of thesis, prefers to misattribute and misquote, and builds Straw Men like he's on the set of the Wizard of Oz and it's "set the scarecrow on fire day"

You're not arguing effectively, because you haven't really studied the subject matter, and you're relying on a relatively ancient pulp periodical, written by your friend, who has some wacky theories on Wing Chun.

OK. You don't need it and the book isn't about making money for me. So I'm OK with that.

Then what is it for, anchoring yourself as an authority on MA? Sorry man, you might know a thing or two about MA but you and your friend who wrote that article are errant in so many ways.

A little advice, if you want to be taken seriously as a scholar of martial arts, avoid the hyperbolic language. You've been attacking me all afternoon and as usual, I can not only take it but correct you until the moon comes out.

 

[Oily Dragon]

That you can't tell the difference between an academic discussion of a theory and a full scale acceptance of it is part of the problem. But only part there's also your attributing to me and the author things we never said, accusations of racism, and repeated Straw Men.

And with that you can have the last word.

That's just the problem. My sources are academics, yours are not. Black Belt Magazine, come on dude.

Kirk, your feelings are hurt because you tried to be an authority on Western boxing yet again, and posted a fringe theory about Wing Chun written by your friend, and can't defend it. The passive aggression is strong, buddy. Let it go.

 

[Oily Dragon]

Nope. You wrote that you can't think of a more untrustworthy periodical than Black Belt Magazine. I can. Everyone can. If you can't then you need to get out more.

So now you speak for "Everyone", and I still need to "get out more". Good grief, you're worse than Radford Davis.

That you brought it up doesn't mean it's relevant. You wrote, "The only thing worse is trusting people claiming decades and decades of experience with a particular martial art, only to find that they really haven't even broken the surface surrounding its true ecosystem. That's what a lot of Wing Chun students suffer from. They could have 100 years of "experience", still be 100% wrong. (E.g. Ng Mui, a system for women, whatever)." and that is simply not relevant to the author's thesis that Wing Chun is essentially LPR with a Chinese spin on it. It doesn't matter that so-n-so has "decades of experience," that someone else could have "100 years of experience," or the rest. Those are not relevant to the author's claim.

It's definitely relevant. You're not the judge of relevance.

You cannot have both. Either the author is factually accurate when he writes that Leung Ting writes that Wing Chun was developed in coastal southeast China OR Leung Ting was wrong when he wrote it. Both cannot be true. Now, because the author is quoting from Leung Ting as an authoritative source that makes his statement factually accurate. Leung Ting did write that.

Wing Chun has a documented history far from the coast. That's a fact, according to historians.

Of course it is irrelevant. You claim that the author is "a student of Wing Chun trying to differentiate Wing Chun from the rest of CMA." That may be true or it may not be true. In neither case does it either validate nor invalidate the author's thesis. It is the definition of irrelevant.

It's definitely relevant. As I said earlier, he's displaying ignorance of Southern CMA while trying to create theories about Wing Chun. He's errant, and so are you for trying to defend his arguments. Cups full of...something something.

How much either of us have studied Wing Chun is irrelevant to your claim that "[t]he author isn't a scholar or historian, he's a Wing Chun apologist trying to align with sport boxing for cred" The author is clearly NOT trying to "align with sport boxing for cred." He's trying to advance a theory of the origin of Wing Chun. You just don't happen to like it. Hell, "sport boxing" isn't even the same as LPR boxing. Hence, I questioned if you'd actually read the article.

His theory has no supporting evidence in the historical or anthropological record of China.

And you keep claiming I haven't read the article. Not only did I read it, I've been dissecting it in detail. Apparently, you're upset by this.

No, it's not relevant. You're claim that "there are practically zero references to British influence," is part of the issue that the author is claiming to address, that his claim is there is not independently corroborated history of WC and then he promotes his theory. Why on earth would there be particular references to British influence? They weren't exactly fans of the Brits so even if there was a British origin, then there would be social pressure to never admit it.

So much for the theory then, if even the British won't back it up.

I think you need to better read what is being written instead of apparently glancing over it and assigning some stuff that wasn't written.

You're not doing a great job of following this conversation.

Don't put words in my mouth. I'm not promoting it. I'm presenting what someone else is promoting.

You're sure putting a lot of effort into not promoting it.

No. Even if your statement here is true (which it isn't), that IN NO WAY supports your claim that I wrote "white people in Britain had to save Chinese boxing" Frankly that doesn't even count as sloppy thinking. Even IF Wing Chun is rebranded boxing, that STILL doesn't equate to "white people in Britain had to save Chinese boxing." Even if true that Wing Chun is a derivative of LPR boxing, that doesn't make it any more " white people in Britain had to save Chinese boxing" than admitting that Judo is integral to Sambo or BJJ means that "yellow people in Japan had to save Russian/Brazilian wrestling." That claim is the most bizarre and idiotic thing I've seen all day.

You're promoting a ret conn theory about Wing Chun, written by your associate, that tries to rewrite Chinese history.

Did you just call me an idiot? Wow, maybe MartialTalk is too civil a place for you.

And no, I don't mean "Canterbury boxing." I'm going to guess here that you actually wanted to write "Queensberry boxing" but couldn't get the name right or be bothered to google it. But even then the Marquess of Queensberry rules/style are 100% NOT what is being referred to here, either by me or the author. The time period and references to Sullivan put it squarely in London Prize Ring rules era, as I referenced several times. These rules made a markedly different style than the Queensberry rules.

You didn't get the Easter joke I guess. You're so angry trying to defend a vapid theory about Wing Chun, you can't even relax.

Have you ever even trained Wing Chun?

 

[lklawson]

That's just the problem. My sources are academics, yours are not. Black Belt Magazine, come on dude.

Kirk, your feelings are hurt because you tried to be an authority on Western boxing yet again, and posted a fringe theory about Wing Chun written by your friend, and can't defend it. The passive aggression is strong, buddy. Let it go.

You're an idiot. I don't even know the guy.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Thread locked pending staff review.

________________
Gerry Seymour
MartialTalk Moderator
@Gerry Seymour