the rum soaked fist: internal martial arts forum

Posted: **Tue Nov 10, 2015 9:33 am**

wuwei wrote:True. People always want to focus on the negative things, how bad their performances were….Instead, we can look at it as a great valuable lesson to them, and how they improved their game afterwards. I also heard that the son of Wu Gong Yi, Wu Da Kui was a good fighter too. Presumably a happy ending to this embarrassing episode?

Great perspective. Punong Guro Denny often asks fighters before their first Gathering if they remember the first time they had sex. He then asks, "were you any good?" and "have you gotten better?" You get the point.

I know that the first time I fought in a Dog Brothers Gathering, I got smashed physically and egoically. After healing up, I realized that the experience was exactly what I needed - a reminder of the poison that is ego, and a lesson that explicitly highlighted the holes/ weak areas I needed to focus on and improve.

Bao wrote:
Greg J wrote: why does it look like they are slap boxing?

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.

They can't keep their guards up, so they probably both sucked as fighters (or maybe it was about looking bold and brave?) But still the reasons above explains why it looks a certain way and why they issue single strikes and why no one tries to just run the other one down.

Apparently Dong Yingye was furious after watching the match and told Wu that he was a disgrace and that he knew nothing about Taiji.

liokault wrote:, after this embarrassing face losing farce, they actually started sparring with gloves and force.

Again, it was a western boxing rules set. The boxing the Chinese knew about was older western boxing. The glove thing was not something they didn't consider because it hadn't caught up with them. To most people's knowledge western boxing meant a bare knuckle fight.

Ah Louis wrote:Oh what a joy, convincing people and yourself you know something when you don't. Must be tough to believe your own hype losing sight of reality and actually be delusional enough to take a fight. A fight that results in exposing you as a fraud to the world for ever.

It's an unfair comment regardless how bad you think about this match. Again, they were not allowed to use any style knowledge as throws, knees, elbows etc. If you are going to expose some one as fraud, you need to set him free and let him show what he can and allow him to use his skill set.

Good to know the context! You also have a very balanced view about the whole ordeal.

Bao wrote:A quite good detailed analysis... From Kungfu mag forum, 2003...

http://www.kungfumagazine.com/forum/sho ... post261824

Some very interesting material in here. Thanks for sharing!

Best,
Greg

Posted: **Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:10 pm**

If they were supposed to fight using a different style, then they were wasting their time; there was no point; and there wasn't even a winner. If there were different rules, it's not possible to say how good, effective they were at their chosen arts. They weren't very good using whatever rule set we see in the video. It really doesn't matter how good their students were or how good they became. There is also no indication there of how proficient the people who taught them were.

Posted: **Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:29 pm**

Plenty of mouth boxing here
I think it's funny how this film keeps getting recycled with everyone saying how bad they are
The reason might be to build up the ego of the writer
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

Posted: **Tue Nov 10, 2015 1:59 pm**

It isn't really personal, is it? Both people in the video are deceased, and there's no way to know how good they were. If Ronda Rousey were to say that they didn't look impressive, and showed videos of her match, would it make them look better or worse?

Agreed that there's no point in discussing the clip, or any clip really.

Posted: **Tue Nov 10, 2015 7:45 pm**

Bao wrote:
If you find anything worthy of note in this fight other than:

1. At least they had the balls to step up.

the present day IP masters tremble at the very mention of ring or a cage.

Posted: **Tue Nov 10, 2015 9:05 pm**

Ahhhh....

Posted: **Tue Nov 10, 2015 11:10 pm**

If they are hopeless and in the past just watch it once and move on
Why does it keep getting posted on blogs
It says more about those commenting on it than those in the films
They both had their place and respect in the Kung fu community at the time
If they were bums then it stands many of their cohort might have been also
We will never know
Those of you who are better please show us what the real thing is like

Posted: **Wed Nov 11, 2015 1:31 am**

wayne hansen wrote:If they are hopeless and in the past just watch it once and move on
Why does it keep getting posted on blogs
It says more about those commenting on it than those in the films
They both had their place and respect in the Kung fu community at the time
If they were bums then it stands many of their cohort might have been also
We will never know
Those of you who are better please show us what the real thing is like

Why does it matter to you Wayne - and who are you to tell people what to do?

It's obvious, it keeps getting posted because it's the classic example of untested, glorified 'masters' coming unstuck when shit gets real.

If you want to convince yourself, or try to convince others, that it is anything other than pathetic slap boxing - or justify it with whatever explanation you have, that's your business. But you're going to have a hard time;

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

- These two were supposedly the top dogs in these allegedly elite, high level arts

And their fight ended up looking like a couple of preschoolers slapping at each other.

That's all there is to it. I don't need to upload footage of me 'doing better' to justify my right to point that out.. it is self evident.

Posted: **Wed Nov 11, 2015 1:35 am**

Bao wrote:A quite good detailed analysis... From Kungfu mag forum, 2003...

http://www.kungfumagazine.com/forum/sho ... post261824

If you find anything worthy of note in this fight other than:

1. At least they had the balls to step up.

And

2. Here's how NOT to look,

You need a reality check.

This.

Posted: **Wed Nov 11, 2015 1:47 am**

If you want to convince yourself, or try to convince others, that it is anything other than pathetic slap boxing - or justify it with whatever explanation you have, that's your business. But you're going to have a hard time;

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

- These two were supposedly the top dogs in these allegedly elite, high level arts

And their fight ended up looking like a couple of preschoolers slapping at each other.

That's all there is to it. I don't need to upload footage of me 'doing better' to justify my right to point that out.. it is self evident.

Well said.

The rule set argument always makes me chuckle. Are we saying that having a rule set nullifies someones trained body skill and movement capability? Where did the basics go? Sure they cant poke eyes or kick, but should they resort to haymakers and shitty movement??? It makes no sense. If you have trained, and ingrained good movement, if you are a reported master of fighting, the rule set could be anything and the 'qualities' would remain self evident.

I see two guys who are extraordinarily uncomfortable with the real pressure of an opponent intent on getting them. IMO There are plenty of people on this board who would most likely end up acting exactly the same in this situation, despite their best intentions not too.

cheers
Chris

Posted: **Wed Nov 11, 2015 3:06 am**

I've asked the Internet for this from day one, but is there any video anywhere of somebody actually using decent/good/accepted IP skills (or whatever you want to call it - 6 harmonies movement, internal, etc) against somebody genuinely attacking them in a non-cooperative way?

Whenever there's a video of Tai Chi people fighting sanda it gets called 'kick/punch boxing' or whatever. I'm not intersted in limited rule-set push hands videos either. Just an actual fight/spar with resistance.

Contrast this to people fighting with, say, Karate, Tae Kwon do, Judo, BJJ, Wing Chun - there definitely are videos of them actually fighting people in a recognisable way.

Yet there are no videos accepted by the majority that are representative of XingYi Bagua or Taiji.

Why is this?

Is it because it doesn't exist? Or is it that it does exist but it looks like normal fighting (at which point we loop back to 'that's just kick/punch')

Somebody will post a video and somebody else will say 'that's not taiji', etc...

Posted: **Wed Nov 11, 2015 4:28 am**

Greg J wrote:Many of you may have already seen this video, which claims was between Chan Hak Fu (陳克夫) from White Crane style (Pak Hok Pai) and Wu Gongyi ( 吳公儀) from Wu Tai Chi Ch'uan. Given that these two masters were (I'm assuming) highly trained in their respective arts, why does it look like they are slap boxing?

Best,
Greg

I think it was a good fight for the time

Posted: **Wed Nov 11, 2015 5:34 am**

middleway wrote:I see two guys who are extraordinarily uncomfortable with the real pressure of an opponent intent on getting them. IMO There are plenty of people on this board who would most likely end up acting exactly the same in this situation, despite their best intentions not too.

Most people would. And probably even looking a whole lot worse than that. :-X

GrahamB wrote:Yet there are no videos accepted by the majority that are representative of XingYi Bagua or Taiji.

Why is this?

Is it because it doesn't exist? Or is it that it does exist but it looks like normal fighting (at which point we loop back to 'that's just kick/...

I think you are desperately trying to get this thread thrown into BTDT.

What is this majority that can not accept any vids? A form and qi-hugging majority with no fighting experience?

And wher are the vids that are not accepted? What vids?

... Otoh, I am not sure that tai chi should look anything like tai chi form or push hands practice. Take a look at the small frame/fast Yang forms out there, maybe that's a better hint about what happens when tai chi is taken to combat. Those performers also know traditional slow/large/medium frame, but their fast small frame looks more or less like another style.

Posted: **Wed Nov 11, 2015 5:52 am**

I don't want more forms, or 'hints' of what it should look like - that's broken thinking. My question is simply, why isn't there one video somewhere that shows "it"... the lack of that video is slowly leading to the inevitable conclusion....

Posted: **Wed Nov 11, 2015 6:05 am**

wayne hansen wrote:If they are hopeless and in the past just watch it once and move on
Why does it keep getting posted on blogs
It says more about those commenting on it than those in the films
They both had their place and respect in the Kung fu community at the time
If they were bums then it stands many of their cohort might have been also
We will never know
Those of you who are better please show us what the real thing is like

but you might wanna be careful with that
cos some ppl think we are not really internal and the the guy in red was pushing himself back against the mat (OBVIOUSLY! heh snort)

the rum soaked fist: internal martial arts forum

Wu v Chan 1954

Re: Wu v Chan 1954

Re: Wu v Chan 1954

Re: Wu v Chan 1954

Re: Wu v Chan 1954

Re: Wu v Chan 1954

Re: Wu v Chan 1954

Re: Wu v Chan 1954

Re: Wu v Chan 1954

Re: Wu v Chan 1954

Re: Wu v Chan 1954

Re: Wu v Chan 1954

Re: Wu v Chan 1954

Re: Wu v Chan 1954

Re: Wu v Chan 1954

Re: Wu v Chan 1954