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 northern_mantis on Fri Nov 13, 2015 4:51 am

I agree, we're largely saying the same thing albeit you have added the technical detail. I guess only they will know to what extent they were taking the piss if at all.

I probably shouldn't judge given that it wasn't that long ago I drove three hours to get to a grappling tournament, got choked out in less than 30 seconds of the first round then drove home again. I am better at motorway driving though as a result ;D
northern_mantis
Huajing
 
Posts: 398
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 11:55 am

Re: Wu v Chan 1954

Postby taiwandeutscher on Fri Nov 13, 2015 6:54 am

willywrong wrote:
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. ::)


Ha? I needed you to argue with an other German? Not to my knowledge. Your English is so strange to me, I hardly understand what you write. I find you rude and very unpolite on many occasions here on RSF, to call me names, because I didn't stick to your beloved ZMQ stuff? You want to see a vid, oh my, I have seen yours. You go on and feel great, be my guest!
hongdaozi
taiwandeutscher
Wuji
 
Posts: 1466
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 7:48 pm
Location: Qishan, Taiwan, R. o. C.

Re: Wu v Chan 1954

Postby willywrong on Fri Nov 13, 2015 10:21 pm

taiwandeutscher wrote:[
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. ::)


Ha? I needed you to argue with an other German? Not to my knowledge. Your English is so strange to me, I hardly understand what you write. I find you rude and very unpolite on many occasions here on RSF, to call me names, because I didn't stick to your beloved ZMQ stuff? You want to see a vid, oh my, I have seen yours. You go on and feel great, be my guest![/quote]

You can't be impolite to a tosser. :P
willywrong

 

Re: Wu v Chan 1954

Postby taiwandeutscher on Fri Nov 13, 2015 11:48 pm

Go scratch your belly!
hongdaozi
taiwandeutscher
Wuji
 
Posts: 1466
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 7:48 pm
Location: Qishan, Taiwan, R. o. C.

Re: Wu v Chan 1954

Postby klonk on Sat Nov 14, 2015 12:07 am

The verbal scuffles here are shaping up to be as entertaining as the original film--and in a similar way. :D @@@
User avatar
klonk
Great Old One
 
Posts: 6337
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 11:46 am

Re: Wu v Chan 1954

Postby Doc Stier on Sat Nov 14, 2015 8:29 am

Dammit! You kids should get along now. It's a troubled world we live in these days. All the arguing and mud slinging only contributes to the general bad vibe encountered nearly everywhere. Sheesh! :(
"First in the Mind and then in the Body."
User avatar
Doc Stier
Great Old One
 
Posts: 4856
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2008 8:04 pm
Location: Austin, TX

Re: Wu v Chan 1954

Postby willywrong on Sun Nov 15, 2015 4:39 am

Doc Stier wrote:Dammit! You kids should get along now. It's a troubled world we live in these days. All the arguing and mud slinging only contributes to the general bad vibe encountered nearly everywhere. Sheesh! :(

Sorry to disturb you Doc so please lighten up because Herman loves me because he knows I scratch my belly. :D :D
Last edited by willywrong on Sun Nov 15, 2015 4:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
willywrong

 

Re: Wu v Chan 1954

Postby Ba-men on Sun Nov 15, 2015 11:07 am

Steve James wrote:
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.


Sad but true... and Unfortunate..

And here (the poor prowess on display) is what you get when u focus to the extreme on specific skills sets such as push hands etc

And Yet..... It depends on how one looks at TJQ. Or IMA in general... for that matter all ICMA in general (I can't speak about White Crane for I know little about... skill wise... if the guy was considered a master... then the bar for mastery in Macao was quite low at the time. )

I've often stated here at RSF that IMA's (in particular TJQ's) Attaching, Adhering, Sticking, Warding etc etc... are misinterpreted by a large Non-martial population. I've stated IMO these are Macro broad based concepts that many martial skill sets fit neatly into.. (A macro example of what I'm referencing: attaching " one can attach to the angle of an attack by consistently moving to the outside of it... which is more realistic than actually thinking one can attach to an actual Jab..( without eating a cross ) like the mass TJQ population thinks someday they will be able to do if they keep doing push hands...

I just can't wrap my head around the staunch belief by most TJQ practitioners that these skills are somehow attainable. Somehow just within reach!

Back to my main point! Depends how you look at TJQ. To me its an art based right in the middle of wrestling and striking. Hence the Yin & Yang affiliation ( I know that came much later... but I can't help to think the popularity of attaching Yin and Yang to the art is because of the equilibrium of the four; i.e. striking, kicking wrestling and chin-na )

In my world... TJQ is totally doable if it acts like every other MA. (which runs counter to what the general population thinks. Every art has unique strategies and tactics... TJQ is no different.. but Physics is physics... kinetics are kinetics. As of now.. I never seen anyone do what "many" think TJQ is supposed to be, supposed to act like... in a competitive venue. And when I question this... the reply is (usually by the person who thinks they know... yet has never sparred or competed is.) "Just because you haven't seen it... doesn't mean it doesn't exist". I find that akin to an ostrich sticking its head in the sand.


Now, if you're of the opinion that TJQ is an art that based right in the middle of striking and wrestling... with no specific focus on unattainable skills sets..with a strategy of moving in close and having the tactics that facilitate this... Then TJQ is more than doable.. (didn't see anything special to highlight that in the infamous Macao vid... but I did see some ok "parry, deflect punches... ala... Ban, Lan Chui.

My opinion of the fight... it showed some doable TJQ... nothing to write home about ...but doable none the less..
User avatar
Ba-men
Wuji
 
Posts: 849
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 7:29 am
Location: Michigan (Metro Detroit)

Re: Wu v Chan 1954

Postby wayne hansen on Sun Nov 15, 2015 3:53 pm

I agree with all you say
Pushing is just one stage of learning even though it should be practiced thru your whole training life
It is not meant to be used in the manner it is practiced in real life
Ta Lu San shou and free fighting are all part of the mix
Basics are basics and are there for a reason
Don't throw the baby out with the bath water
Don't put power into the form let it naturally arise from the form
wayne hansen
Wuji
 
Posts: 2552
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2009 1:52 pm

Re: Wu v Chan 1954

Postby Greg J on Mon Nov 16, 2015 11:47 am

Doc Stier wrote: All the arguing and mud slinging only contributes to the general bad vibe encountered nearly everywhere. Sheesh! :(


Agreed.

Anyone who resorts to name calling and provoking just because someone disagrees with him (or just because...) needs to check his head. And perhaps an admin can remind him of the basic expectations of this forum.

In the meantime, off topic but perhaps useful...



Best,
Greg
Greg J
Anjing
 
Posts: 229
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2013 12:59 pm

Re: Wu v Chan 1954

Postby Bao on Mon Nov 16, 2015 12:13 pm

Greg J wrote:Anyone who resorts to name calling and provoking just because someone disagrees with him (or just because...) needs to check his head.


I don't agree with you. You are ignorant and stupid. >:(

-woot- ;D
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: 5586
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 12:46 pm
Location: High up north

Re: Wu v Chan 1954

Postby Greg J on Mon Nov 16, 2015 12:22 pm

Bao wrote:
I don't agree with you. You are ignorant and stupid. >:(

-woot- ;D


Ha, ha! Good one! ;D

Best,
Greg
Greg J
Anjing
 
Posts: 229
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2013 12:59 pm

Re: Wu v Chan 1954

Postby willywrong on Mon Nov 16, 2015 5:11 pm

Greg J wrote:
Doc Stier wrote: All the arguing and mud slinging only contributes to the general bad vibe encountered nearly everywhere. Sheesh! :(


Agreed.

Anyone who resorts to name calling and provoking just because someone disagrees with him (or just because...) needs to check his head. And perhaps an admin can remind him of the basic expectations of this forum.

In the meantime, off topic but perhaps useful...



Best,
Greg


Don't you just love the Dali Lama when he giggles. ;)
willywrong

 

Re: Wu v Chan 1954

Postby Ah Louis on Tue Nov 17, 2015 6:44 am

The last of an extinct species is what this clip is. I can't find any other clip of internal skill used in a public contest. The clip shows a rare (if not only) major event at a huge public venue it is used as proof internal skills has fighting value. Those supporting the clip as a testimonial are in the minority because one stand alone fight decades ago isn't enough to prove anything, other than religious like fanaticism of supporters.


Those who don't support the clip as anything more than a farce are the majority. What a disaster for either Wu or Chan if either fought a pro boxer of that time, as either Wu or Chan lacked any fighting experience in the ring.


If the supporters of the clip what to prove internal skills work in the ring, toe-to-toe. they have to find a more convincing and up to date clip. One that is of a modern public venue drawing a good sized crowd. Not a clip of two guys in their backyard fighting.
Ah Louis

 

Re: Wu v Chan 1954

Postby JoeWood on Tue Nov 17, 2015 8:27 am

Ah Louis wrote:The last of an extinct species is what this clip is. I can't find any other clip of internal skill used in a public contest. The clip shows a rare (if not only) major event at a huge public venue it is used as proof internal skills has fighting value. Those supporting the clip as a testimonial are in the minority because one stand alone fight decades ago isn't enough to prove anything, other than religious like fanaticism of supporters.


Those who don't support the clip as anything more than a farce are the majority. What a disaster for either Wu or Chan if either fought a pro boxer of that time, as either Wu or Chan lacked any fighting experience in the ring.


If the supporters of the clip what to prove internal skills work in the ring, toe-to-toe. they have to find a more convincing and up to date clip. One that is of a modern public venue drawing a good sized crowd. Not a clip of two guys in their backyard fighting.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNhsCfuSHU4

These dudes lack basic technique & strategy but I'd still be impressed if an "internal" practitioner could handle this degree of competition.
JoeWood
Anjing
 
Posts: 119
Joined: Tue May 27, 2014 10:31 am
Location: Lenexa - Kansas

PreviousNext

Return to Been There Done That

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest