Wu v Chan 1954

The following typical threads that plague martial arts sites will get moved here if not just deleted: 1 - My style is better than Your style" - 2 - "Internal & External" - 3 - Personal attacks - 4 - Threads that start well, but degenerate into a spiral of nonsense.

Re: Wu v Chan 1954

Postby wiesiek on Thu Nov 12, 2015 12:06 pm

point is - openly show the skillz if present -
me thinkin` ;)
no wormhole math...
joyful usefullnes of the effords
User avatar
wiesiek
Wuji
 
Posts: 3393
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 12:38 am
Location: krakow

Re: Wu v Chan 1954

Postby wayne hansen on Thu Nov 12, 2015 12:37 pm

Finny wrote:Hi Willy - yes, I remember having a similar discussion with you a while back

I'd imagine you wouldn't remember, but I had a motorcycle accident about 5years ago - I broke my pelvis in a few places, both forearms and shattered my right wrist. I stopped training unarmed MA at that time.

Around 7 or 8 months ago I cut my leg and severed my Achilles - I've been back training at walking/jogging pace for a few months, and have just started jogging/running in earnest. In short, I'm not in any condition to be doing any fighting.

I'm guessing you're unaware of the culture surrounding koryu - it's poor form to put footage online. Only the senior folks do that, and it can be readily found on YouTube. I'm not a senior in the grand scheme of things.

But first and foremost, as I said above, even were I fit, and had I footage of myself, no matter how awesome it made me seem... I wouldn't put it online.

And I'm sorry, but your expectations or opinion has absolutely no effect on my position on that topic. I don't owe you anything.



So is it good form in Koryu (I have no idea what that is )
To go on a forum dedicated to Chinese martial arts
Deride those who are now dead and refuse to showand then make excuses why you can't show yourself
You seen a bit like climate change sceptics who have no background in the subject but offer their opinion
The reason I ask for video evidence is to sort the wheat from the charf
Don't put power into the form let it naturally arise from the form
wayne hansen
Wuji
 
Posts: 2234
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2009 1:52 pm

Re: Wu v Chan 1954

Postby Steve James on Thu Nov 12, 2015 3:55 pm

Well, people have criticized Floyd Mayweather, who's alive and fighting, and it wouldn't make much sense for any of his critics to post a video. Fwiw, I'm pretty sure there are videos of me "fighting" at one of my first school's tournaments, but that was in the 70s. I wouldn't claim to look great in them, or even better than the people in the vid in question. I have great friends among the Tung/Dong and the Ng/Wu people, and great respect for them. All of that is beside the point. I've never criticized the people involved. I've criticized the "fight," specifically that it didn't prove or demonstrate anything.

Many critics, especially students of non-imas, have asked "is that what master level tcc looks like?" They don't ask that out of the blue; they ask because of the claims that many tcc people make about their art. Then, tcc practitioners, particularly those who argue that tcc is special, have to respond. So, for years, we hear more and more reasons why, in fact, the "fight" isn't representative of their art. If I'm wrong, then those who believe that it is should step up and explain --and I don't mean post links.

I agree that the people involved should not be derided, but not because they're untouchables. There's just no point in criticizing people who can't possibly answer back. However, analyzing the "fight" is something that must be done. It can be argued that it is unfortunate that it exists, as would a video of any martial arts master not doing as well as "WE" expect. We are never supposed to look as good or better than they do.

If there are positive things to take away from the video, those need to be put forth. If it has to be excused, then we know that something's wrong. Rather than speak ill of the dead, we might destroy all copies of the video or promise never to mention it. Though polite, I am sure that it will not improve the state of imas or ex-mas.

Oh, just wanted to add that, imo, not being a good ring fighter or not being great on a lei tai platform is no big deal. There are plenty of killers who've never had a bout. There are also trainers and teachers who were not successful in the ring.
"A man is rich when he has time and freewill. How he chooses to invest both will determine the return on his investment."
User avatar
Steve James
Great Old One
 
Posts: 15444
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 8:20 am

Re: Wu v Chan 1954

Postby Finny on Thu Nov 12, 2015 4:55 pm

wayne hansen wrote:
So is it good form in Koryu (I have no idea what that is )
To go on a forum dedicated to Chinese martial arts
Deride those who are now dead and refuse to showand then make excuses why you can't show yourself
You seen a bit like climate change sceptics who have no background in the subject but offer their opinion
The reason I ask for video evidence is to sort the wheat from the charf


Google is your friend Wayne - koryu are old school JMA, which were created pre meiji restoration (1868), as opposed to modern JMA such as Judo, Kendo, Aikido etc

FYI I have a background in CMA - I learned Buk Sing CLF for a year or so, before switching to Wong Shun Leung style WC, which I practiced for almost a decade.

I presume you mean 'sort the wheat from the chaff' - to repeat - this is not your forum, and whether I have video of me in the ring has no bearing on my ability to comment on the OP.

I make no excuses, only offer explanation - and note again that for someone so critical and demanding, you didn't answer my question - where's the footage of your fights?

My view of the Chan-Wu fight is the common view.. that's why it's so commonly posted and criticised. That one of them became an acquaintance of yours is all well and good, and I make no comment on the people involved, other than regarding their performance in that (public) match.

The vast majority of people on this forum have not made public footage of them fighting - in fact of the thousands of eF/RSF members I can only remember seeing two (Troy and Matt)

For you to attempt to censor the discussion on that basis is wrong. You are free to offer your own opinion (having not made public footage of yourself doing a Chuck Norris) - even have a go at me, but you are wrong to attempt to moderate or censor the discussion, based on your personal feelings or expectations. That's the only point I wanted to make.
User avatar
Finny
Great Old One
 
Posts: 1193
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:16 pm

Re: Wu v Chan 1954

Postby wayne hansen on Thu Nov 12, 2015 6:47 pm

I am not trying to moderate or censor anything
All my fighting was done where I did not want cameras around or before video
I fought in the TST tournaments in Taiwan which there may be film of but I do not have it
The difference is I am not saying others can't fight without showing that I can
I have fought many old style karate people in the past but none measured up to those I met on the street
I am not a great fighter never was
I just notice the greatest critics are those that show the least
Don't put power into the form let it naturally arise from the form
wayne hansen
Wuji
 
Posts: 2234
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2009 1:52 pm

Re: Wu v Chan 1954

Postby Finny on Thu Nov 12, 2015 7:00 pm

wayne hansen wrote:I am not trying to moderate or censor anything
All my fighting was done where I did not want cameras around or before video
I fought in the TST tournaments in Taiwan which there may be film of but I do not have it
The difference is I am not saying others can't fight without showing that I can
I have fought many old style karate people in the past but none measured up to those I met on the street
I am not a great fighter never was
I just notice the greatest critics are those that show the least


How exactly are you 'showing that you can'?

You've simply said 'take my word for it'

But you demand that anyone commenting here show video of them doing better?

In fact, there is absolutely NO difference Wayne - you're discussing the content here, with no video of yourself available. As am I, as is everyone else on this thread.

Which is the whole point - this is a discussion forum, with no rule stating that you must provide footage before being entitled to comment.

Your comments are judged on their merits. There are some who have shown footage of them doing demonstrations, training, and fighting - and that's laudable. But not everyone has, and not everyone will.

You said

wayne hansen wrote:Everyone here who has said how bad it is should now post a clip of themselves doing better
If not leave the past in the past


That is absolutely trying to moderate the discussion - you're telling people not to comment unless they can 'now post a clip of themselves doing better'

And again - I think the standard shown in the Wu/Chan fight is self evident.

It was a public, filmed fight. People are entitled to comment on a public spectacle.

You have commented before on other people's work - how would you feel if you were told not to, unless you can 'now post a clip of you doing better'?

I don't really care how good a fighter you are or were - to be honest, these days I don't really care that much how good a fighter I am or was. It has nothing to do with this.

I'm out
User avatar
Finny
Great Old One
 
Posts: 1193
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:16 pm

Re: Wu v Chan 1954

Postby willywrong on Thu Nov 12, 2015 7:02 pm

taiwandeutscher wrote:
Finny wrote:.....But first and foremost, as I said above, even were I fit, and had I footage of myself, no matter how awesome it made me seem... I wouldn't put it online.

And I'm sorry, but your expectations or opinion has absolutely no effect on my position on that topic. I don't owe you anything.



+1200


Still no vid from you. Many years ago you contacted me on another forum and tried to enlist me in your argument with a fellow German.
My opinion of you was set then and hasn't changed. Your a tosser. ::)
willywrong

 

Re: Wu v Chan 1954

Postby willywrong on Thu Nov 12, 2015 7:16 pm

Finny wrote:
willywrong wrote:
Finny wrote:[

Regardless of rulesets, the CMA these guys represented should have been capable of being demonstrated in a boxing format


Arts that were not designed for a boxing format don't work in that arena and you think they should so that's strange. Oh it was represented but didn't work very well, right. So how does that make them bums? ???


1. I never called them bums


Its implied in your posts.

2. Pak hok pai and taiji are not designed for bareknuckle boxing/kicking? Really? What are they designed for? Horesback warfare?


Definitely not for that environment or the ring.


3. Why would anyone accept a public challenge in a format in which they could not demonstrate their abilities?



This really should have been the question for the OP.

Oh you seem to be somewhat accident prone. :o
willywrong

 

Re: Wu v Chan 1954

Postby Finny on Thu Nov 12, 2015 7:27 pm

If not a bareknuckle boxing/kicking match, then what? What does a ring matter - is it so diffierent from a lei tai?

That's two accidents willy - but yes, I would agree with you, I've had a pretty rough and tumble life, broken plenty of bones and been sewn up more times than I can count. Literally. I tried to count how many stitches I've had over the years and gave up around 140

Edit - no, there's nothing implied in my posts. What I expressly say is that they look like pre school kids slapping at each other. That's simply a comment on the fight, and their performance in it. That's all - if you think that makes them 'bums' then that's on you.

If you have a different opinion of the fight, that's fine too - like I said this is a discussion board, that's what we're here for.

Just don't tell me I have to satisfy some personal expectation of yours before I can comment
Last edited by Finny on Thu Nov 12, 2015 7:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Finny
Great Old One
 
Posts: 1193
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:16 pm

Re: Wu v Chan 1954

Postby willywrong on Thu Nov 12, 2015 10:11 pm

Finny wrote:If not a bareknuckle boxing/kicking match, then what? What does a ring matter - is it so diffierent from a lei tai?

That's two accidents willy - but yes, I would agree with you, I've had a pretty rough and tumble life, broken plenty of bones and been sewn up more times than I can count. Literally. I tried to count how many stitches I've had over the years and gave up around 140

Edit - no, there's nothing implied in my posts. What I expressly say is that they look like pre school kids slapping at each other. That's simply a comment on the fight, and their performance in it. That's all - if you think that makes them 'bums' then that's on you.

If you have a different opinion of the fight, that's fine too - like I said this is a discussion board, that's what we're here for.

Thanks for your permission. ;)

Just don't tell me I have to satisfy some personal expectation of yours before I can comment


I don't have any personal expectations of you Finny my man. ;D
willywrong

 

Re: Wu v Chan 1954

Postby Finny on Fri Nov 13, 2015 12:35 am

Wunderbar ;D

Then all is well in the world, and we may return to our regularly scheduled programming
User avatar
Finny
Great Old One
 
Posts: 1193
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:16 pm

Re: Wu v Chan 1954

Postby northern_mantis on Fri Nov 13, 2015 2:21 am

Came to this a little late but surely the video can only be a parody, that can't be real! You could literally teach somebody better ringcraft than that in a couple of hours and have them step up with either of those two.

Don't know any context behind this but from viewing alone that cannot be a serious fight!
northern_mantis
Huajing
 
Posts: 379
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 11:55 am

Re: Wu v Chan 1954

Postby Bao on Fri Nov 13, 2015 2:41 am

northern_mantis wrote:Don't know any context behind this but from viewing alone that cannot be a serious fight!


.... So you didn't bother reading the thread then ... :-\
Thoughts on Tai Chi (My Tai Chi blog)
- Storms make oaks take deeper root. -George Herbert
- To affect the quality of the day, is the highest of all arts! -Walden Thoreau
Bao
Great Old One
 
Posts: 5319
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 12:46 pm
Location: High up north

Re: Wu v Chan 1954

Postby northern_mantis on Fri Nov 13, 2015 2:55 am

Bao wrote:
northern_mantis wrote:Don't know any context behind this but from viewing alone that cannot be a serious fight!


.... So you didn't bother reading the thread then ... :-\


Fair enough, I should clarify. Having read the rest of the thread in which there isn't much agreement on the context, from the visuals alone I can only assume it is an elaborate hoax. In all seriousness you could get somebody up to a better standard of covering up and striking within a matter of hours. Maybe it is a parody of western boxing?
northern_mantis
Huajing
 
Posts: 379
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 11:55 am

Re: Wu v Chan 1954

Postby Bao on Fri Nov 13, 2015 3:48 am

northern_mantis wrote: there isn't much agreement on the context, from the visuals alone I can only assume it is an elaborate hoax. ... Maybe it is a parody of western boxing?


In a sort of way, you are correct.

I can only quote myself:

Restricted rules set. Western boxing was an "in" thing. The audience wanted a boxing match. Only western boxing rules, nothing else allowed. Even the kicks you see was prohibited.

The people who arranged it wanted a match for 6 rounds. They were told they must last. Also consider that Wu was about 60 years old and Chan in his 30s, so Chan must take it easy.

The arrangers, and as said, the police, had interests from betting. This was also a reason they wanted a long match. But the match was stopped after two rounds, due to one of them hurting his arm.


Again, the reasons above explains some of it, why it looks a certain way. It does not explain why they don't keep their guards up, but it explain why they issue single strikes and why no one tries to just run the other one down.

They were limited in a way they never practiced for, restrictive in what they could, for both technique and strategy. I have no idea if they could do better in any another environment, but I know I would probably suck as well under those conditions and look like a joke. I can imagine that you really must be a person who has boxing routine and feel comfortable in this limited environment and with the rules. Maybe technically you could teach these guys or any other to do better in just a couple of hours. But still they would not have the routine and experience to back them up to do a good fight. Just IMHO. My 0,002 cents are probably worth nothing in this context, but I wouldn't be so easy to judge them. Again, I wouldn't do much better. Maybe I wouldn't even keep up my guard much more. What would be the point? You are supposed to get a few hits for the sake of the show, right?
Last edited by Bao on Fri Nov 13, 2015 3:49 am, edited 2 times in total.
Thoughts on Tai Chi (My Tai Chi blog)
- Storms make oaks take deeper root. -George Herbert
- To affect the quality of the day, is the highest of all arts! -Walden Thoreau
Bao
Great Old One
 
Posts: 5319
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 12:46 pm
Location: High up north

PreviousNext

Return to Been There Done That

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest