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 Bao on Wed Nov 11, 2015 6:20 am

GrahamB wrote: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....


... Why must there be a vid? ???

I believe that you have already made up your mind and won't accept any other answer than your own conclusion... That inevitable conclusion...

... whatever that migh be.... :P
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: 6608
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 12:46 pm
Location: High up north

Re: Wu v Chan 1954

Postby Strange on Wed Nov 11, 2015 6:29 am

Bao wrote:
GrahamB wrote: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....


... Why must there be a vid? ???

I believe that you have already made up your mind and won't accept any other answer than your own conclusion... That inevitable conclusion...

... whatever that migh be.... :P


;D
天官指星 单对月 风摆荷叶 影成双

岳武穆王以枪为拳, 六合形意李门世根, 形意拳五行为先, 论身法六合为首,少揽闲事心田静, 多读拳谱武艺精 - 李洛能 (形意拳谱)
User avatar
Strange
Great Old One
 
Posts: 4894
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 1:33 am

Re: Wu v Chan 1954

Postby Ah Louis on Wed Nov 11, 2015 9:36 am

Did anyone really pay close attention to the start of the video from 0:01-4:25? Or really focused on 0:30-1:30 and then at 3:09 - 3:15? Has anyone really paid attention to the slow motion sections of the video?

The sections I highlighted are the most critical and the most telling of what really is happening is the fight a joke or as the wise Lao Tzu basically said that great mastery looks clumsy. Well.... it should be pretty clear. It happens to allot in these esoteric martial arts when it gets real, it falls apart. That is exactly what happened.

The two "masters" spent more time in their ivory towers then in the field. Neither of them where trained fighters with actual experience. All their skill in the academic labs worked just fine, but when field tested it all fell apart.

Each "master" in the fight shows some semblance of what they teach, but at the level one would expected from students sparing for the first time. They make a lot of rookie moves. There is the lose of balance from uncontrolled swinging and kicking because of unstable footwork. Wildly fired off punches lacking any real power. Having some recognizable form the kick and punches could have generated real damage if applied as taught ....well....taught in theory that is.

There are points in the video the "masters" demonstrate recognizable fighting style form to their style, but as I said it falls apart being incomplete. There is so little being applied in their techniques they try and execute. Even that bright spot is trashed by the lack of understanding fight dynamics of the fighters committing so many rookie errors.

This is the first time they where in a ring fight and it showed. It was an amateur fight, between two martial arts academics fighting for the first time in the real world.

The most telling question that has to be answered is this was in 1954, only 61 years ago. Did either of these "masters" fight again in the ring? Did they become notable fighters or renown champions. If they drew that large of a crowd the first time, and that much hype they could have done it again. What was the post fight results?
Ah Louis

 

Re: Wu v Chan 1954

Postby wayne hansen on Wed Nov 11, 2015 12:58 pm

Finny I am not telling anyone what to do just expressing my opinion
I have no dog in this fight
Yes I knew chan as an older man and he was a nice guy with good students
I just think it is funny the biggest critics either show sub standard clips if themselves or nothing at all
Why critique theses guys and say little about the crap on the flying back thread
If you see the full film the real interesting demo is lau fat mun of eagle claw and tung yin Chen of dong style tai chi
So finny where is the film of you fighting
Don't put power into the form let it naturally arise from the form
wayne hansen
Wuji
 
Posts: 3243
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2009 1:52 pm

Re: Wu v Chan 1954

Postby Finny on Wed Nov 11, 2015 5:05 pm

Exactly my point Wayne - the whole 'unless you can show yourself doing better you can't/shouldn't comment' argument is weak sauce

in fact it's not an argument at all

I doubt I'll ever put a video of myself online, doing anything. But if I did put up a clip of me sparring, despite several chronic injuries, I like to think I'd look a little better than those cats..

and where are all the clips of your fights?
User avatar
Finny
Great Old One
 
Posts: 1300
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:16 pm

Re: Wu v Chan 1954

Postby nicklinjm on Wed Nov 11, 2015 6:36 pm

@ Ah Louis, I can only speak about Wu Gongyi, as I have had some contact with Wu style tcc. To my knowledge he did not get in the ring again in his career (this was a charity bout IIRC). AFAIK he was not known for producing fighters - but the strange thing is that his eldest son (Wu Dakui) was known for his practical fighting skills and produced many sifus who could and did teach taichi combat skills such as Chan Cheung Lap, Chan Pui Wah, Yip Sue Leong, etc. Some of this generation are still around in HK, think it would be better to ask these people their opinion of the fight.
nicklinjm
Wuji
 
Posts: 505
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 2:22 pm
Location: Hong Kong

Re: Wu v Chan 1954

Postby Finny on Wed Nov 11, 2015 6:40 pm

And to further clarify my point - if I did put up a clip of myself fighting, and in it I was amazing, would that make my views on the OP any different?

If I were wheelchair bound, would that make my opinion on the OP invalid?
User avatar
Finny
Great Old One
 
Posts: 1300
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:16 pm

Re: Wu v Chan 1954

Postby willywrong on Wed Nov 11, 2015 10:02 pm

Finny wrote:And to further clarify my point - if I did put up a clip of myself fighting, and in it I was amazing, would that make my views on the OP any different?

If I were wheelchair bound, would that make my opinion on the OP invalid?


Hey come on now, how about anything of you on vid. ;D
willywrong

 

Re: Wu v Chan 1954

Postby willywrong on Wed Nov 11, 2015 10:14 pm

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? ???
willywrong

 

Re: Wu v Chan 1954

Postby Finny on Wed Nov 11, 2015 10:20 pm

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.
User avatar
Finny
Great Old One
 
Posts: 1300
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:16 pm

Re: Wu v Chan 1954

Postby Finny on Wed Nov 11, 2015 10:23 pm

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

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

3. Why would anyone accept a public challenge in a format in which they could not demonstrate their abilities?
User avatar
Finny
Great Old One
 
Posts: 1300
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:16 pm

Re: Wu v Chan 1954

Postby Ah Louis on Wed Nov 11, 2015 10:28 pm

nicklinjm wrote:@ Ah Louis, I can only speak about Wu Gongyi, as I have had some contact with Wu style tcc. To my knowledge he did not get in the ring again in his career (this was a charity bout IIRC). AFAIK he was not known for producing fighters - but the strange thing is that his eldest son (Wu Dakui) was known for his practical fighting skills and produced many sifus who could and did teach taichi combat skills such as Chan Cheung Lap, Chan Pui Wah, Yip Sue Leong, etc. Some of this generation are still around in HK, think it would be better to ask these people their opinion of the fight.


Good info.

I wonder if there is proof of their fighting skills somewhere in English. Or recorded fights or verifiable fight records we the public can get. I really hate Chinese whispered info. I am so worn on the stories every master has about being on the mean back alley or roof top fights of Hong Kong. All the stories are so cookie cutter and transparent. I did like to know how to contact them any help is appreciated. Then do they speak English, cause I don't speak Chinese.

It is simple. Teaching what is labeled as combat skills in principle is like saying you can teach NASCAR driving and have produced great pro drivers. But you have never been in a NASCAR or every raced in a pro race. Nor never seeing those pro drivers race. Being in a simulator, getting classroom instruction is one thing. Being a pro on the track in the heat of a pro race is another. I see those who do confuse the two is playing to get the hype. Don't hijack to be something your not. You need to stay real. Right?
Last edited by Ah Louis on Wed Nov 11, 2015 10:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Ah Louis

 

Re: Wu v Chan 1954

Postby taiwandeutscher on Thu Nov 12, 2015 2:14 am

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
hongdaozi
taiwandeutscher
Wuji
 
Posts: 1523
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 7:48 pm
Location: Qishan, Taiwan, R. o. C.

Re: Wu v Chan 1954

Postby liokault on Thu Nov 12, 2015 5:01 am

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.
.



+1200



Which makes you both part of the problem that is the CMA's.
liokault
Great Old One
 
Posts: 1062
Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2010 8:00 am

Re: Wu v Chan 1954

Postby Finny on Thu Nov 12, 2015 5:25 am

How and why is that chief? What exactly do I have to do with the CMA?
User avatar
Finny
Great Old One
 
Posts: 1300
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:16 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Been There Done That

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest