From: the_dojang-owner@hpwsrt.cup.hp.com To: the_dojang-digest@hpwsrt.cup.hp.com Subject: The_Dojang-Digest V7 #409 Reply-To: the_dojang@hpwsrt.cup.hp.com Errors-To: the_dojang-owner@hpwsrt.cup.hp.com Precedence: The_Dojang-Digest Fri, 16 June 2000 Vol 07 : Num 409 In this issue: the_dojang: Wing Chun, Kicks, and "Playing Hands" the_dojang: Re: Wing Chun kicks vs. TKD the_dojang: Re: The_Dojang-Digest V7 #394 the_dojang: Carl W: Choi had his own MA mid-50's?? - NOT the_dojang: sa dan bub in the_dojang: more titles the_dojang: . ========================================================================= The_Dojang, serving the Internet since June 1994. 930 members strong! Copyright 1994-2000: Ray Terry and Martial Arts Resource Replying to this message will NOT unsubscribe you. To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe the_dojang-digest" (no quotes) in the body (top line, left justified) of a plain text e-mail addressed to majordomo@hpwsrt.cup.hp.com. To send e-mail to this list use the_dojang@hpwsrt.cup.hp.com See the Korean Martial Arts (KMA) FAQ and online search the last five years worth of digest issues at http://www.MartialArtsResource.com Pil Seung! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Christopher Spiller" Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 18:44:27 GMT Subject: the_dojang: Wing Chun, Kicks, and "Playing Hands" >I think that Sifu Leung Ting's statements come out of a widespread >feeling from within the Wing Chun community that their art is far >superior to Taekwondo. I know that in the Kwan which I studied at, our >Sifu would even put on tapes of challenge matches where him and his >students would seemingly knock the tar out of Taekwondoin who >supposedly >had between ten and fifteen years of experience. This was >always followed >by a short discussion on how Taekwondo, and every >other art for that >matter, was inferior to Wing Chun, and how we were >learning the most >effective martial art on the planet. I considered >this to be ridiculous >and a primary reason I left that Kwan was >because of the arrogance of the >Sifu and several of the Big Brothers >who were instructing. Yes, the attitude in many Chinese Martial Arts seems to be "My style is the best, then the other Chinese arts, then everyone else." While this may seem ludicrous to many people there is a similar mindset behind every martial art there is today. If someone didn't think they could come up with a better way of doing things they wouldn't have formed their own style. >As far as kicking techniques go however, you can't really compare the >two >styles. In Wing Chun, for the most part ( this is not an absolute >rule), >one counters an opponents upper body techniques with upper body >techniques, and the legs are used to defend against an opponents legs. >And, kicking is NOT a primary offensive weapon in Wing Chun. In Wing >Chun, there are a few simple kicks which can be effective under the >right >circumstances. Also, the legs are often used to check the kicks >of an >opponent, which is a really effective technique and one which I >wish they >had more of in Taekwondo. However, Wing Chun has no where >near the >repertoire of kicks that Taekwondo has, and the ones they do >have are not >nearly as developed. No Wing Chun kicks have anything >close to the power >which a seasoned Taekwondoin can have in a well >developed Axe or Back >kick. The idea of "hand versus hand and leg versus leg" is a popular one in many Chinese arts. I think it's a good one, too, provided that you are skilled enough to use your legs for defense. Since they're slower on the average than your arms blocking with a kick requires A LOT of practice. It's funny, when I took Kung Fu they talked a lot about how you should "never kick high, like in Taekwon-Do." But a lot of the patterns have you kicking to the head and jumping kicks as well. Like the Butterfly Kick is more realistic than a jumping reverse hooking kick? Go figure. By the way, if you're interested in kicks as defenses practice using inner and outer cresent kicks as well as the front checking (using the bottom of the foot to stop an opponent from closing by kicking him as he comes in and resting the weight on him momentarily) and side checking kicks (use the foot to check the opponent's kick as he prepares for it or to check his step forward, delivered as a kind of arcing downward sidekick). Use them in one-step sparring or self defense for practice. Also remember that when defending kicks with kicks the Kung Fu men are usually talking about LOW LEVEL kicks vs. low level kicks. I've seen plently of arms vs. kicks when they're coming at you head ;-). >I know that right now, the Wing Chun community is very fragmented, with >several prominent Grandmasters claiming Yip Man's legacy. Each does >all >he can to prove his own superiority and put his competitors down. >I have >a feeling that the article in Taekwondo Times is related to >this effort. >And who knows, maybe the Sifu is looking for a challenge >match for his >senior student, Emin Boztepe. That wouldn't surprise >me. This may sound >like it comes from the plot of a 1970's Hong Kong >martial arts flick, but >trust me folks, this stuff goes on today. >Cheers, Daniel Sad to say, that's true. For some reason the Chinese Martial Arts seem to preserve the tradition of "Playing Hands," that is the ever popular challenge match. This may be prevalent in arts from other cultures as well but I have yet to see it. Seeing a real life martial arts fight might sound like it'd be cool but then you realive that one of the points of martial arts is to NOT fight. Sigh, kind of a bummer ;-). Taekwon, Chris "Every experience of beauty points to infinity." Hans Urs von Balthasar ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ From: IMATC@aol.com Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 14:51:26 EDT Subject: the_dojang: Re: Wing Chun kicks vs. TKD In a message dated 06/16/00 12:48:15 PM Eastern Daylight Time, the_dojang-owner@hpwsrt.cup.hp.com writes: > This was always > followed by a short discussion on how Taekwondo, and every other art for > that matter, was inferior to Wing Chun, and how we were learning the most > effective martial art on the planet. I considered this to be ridiculous > and a primary reason I left that Kwan was because of the arrogance of the > Sifu and several of the Big Brothers who were instructing. Good for you. We don't need this narrow mindedness. > > As far as kicking techniques go however, you can't really compare the two > styles. In Wing Chun, there are a few simple kicks which can be effective under the right circumstances. I believe that is true in TKD as well don't you think? I mean, are we really using cresent kicks to block punches much? What are the percentages of different kicks and what usually scores? Also, the legs are often used to check the kicks of an > opponent, which is a really effective technique and one which I wish they > had more of in Taekwondo. Just a question, how many TKD instructors actually practice or teach kicking the legs? I don't mean tell their students it is a good self defense for the street, actually practice it for power, balance, etc. However, Wing Chun has no where near the > repertoire of kicks that Taekwondo has, Daniel, does the number of kicks a style has determine the effectiveness of any one particular kick? Is a TKD reverse punch better than a western boxing cross because we also have a ridge hand in our repertoire and they don't? No Wing Chun kicks have anything close to the power > which a seasoned Taekwondoin can have in a well developed Axe or Back > kick. daniel, I am not picking sides, but what I think Leung Ting was saying was the balance of Wing Chun kicks are more appropriate than TKD. How many tournaments have you been to that most TaeKwonDoin would fall during or right after their kicking technique(I mean both players). > And who knows, maybe the Sifu is looking for a challenge match for his > senior student, Emin Boztepe. That wouldn't surprise me. This may sound > like it comes from the plot of a 1970's Hong Kong martial arts flick, but > trust me folks, this stuff goes on today. Hey to get attention, we do live in the WWF ruled audience for challenges and responses. Thanks Daniel. ------------------------------ From: Cplr50@aol.com Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 15:10:09 EDT Subject: the_dojang: Re: The_Dojang-Digest V7 #394 In a message dated 06/11/2000 11:42:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time, the_dojang-owner@hpwsrt.cup.hp.com writes: > Making hay > > > If someone tries to hit me with a hay maker, how should I block it, and > how > > should I follow it up? > > Various ways. Two that I like are (1) step back and the side or back kick, > or (2) step in blocking with both forearms and then make appropriate use of > your elbows. > > Ray Terry I sort of like stepping in to the diagnol and leading the attack using nagi's inertia to do nasty things...maybe a throw.. or a lock or redirecting to solid objects.. Steve Stone ------------------------------ From: Anders Torvill Bjorvand Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 23:17:39 +0200 Subject: the_dojang: Carl W: Choi had his own MA mid-50's?? - NOT I corresponded some points of view to Carl W. the other day. I thought it might be interesting to share them with you as well: After having read LOTS of different perspectives, it is my perception that Choi had a fair background in martial arts in the 50's but he was far from being a master technically. He had a heart for MA and was in the position to pull strings. He started his own Kwan in the military and through Nam Tae Hi he started cooperating with Chung Do Kwan. It is important to understand that the Oh Do Kwan was not a style - it was an organizational structure to systemize the introduction of MA education in the military. GM West of the dojang digest has given us an eye-witness account that anybody studying MA in the military were Oh Do Kwan (in his case it was mostly hapkidoists). In the late 50's and early 60s (after being disaffiliated with the Chung Do Kwan), Choi systemized and put into system what was being practiced in the Oh Do Kwan. This was assisted by, among others, Nam Tae Hi and Han Cha Kyo. However: nobody denies that Choi was the architect behind this effort - it seems nearly undisputed. When it comes to him having a fully developed art of his own in the mid-50's even most ITF-historians won't go to such a stretch. However - the 5 basic Kwans HAD this. The Chang Huns were architected by Choi personally, but the details were done by his associates. Hwa Rang was for example made 100% by Han Cha Kyo. So it is fair to say that Choi is some kind of founder of the art that is today trained by the ITF. However: this art was systemized after the Oh Do Kwan effort which was not a "style" but an organization. So the TKD name standardization was introduced before Choi could claim any legitimate founder/grandmaster status of his own style. That's why his claims of being more original or having more of a right to use the TKD name is indeed far fetched. Sincerely, Anders Torvill Bjorvand ------------------------------ From: "Anthony or Clare Boyd" Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 09:16:29 +0900 Subject: the_dojang: sa dan bub in The Korean 'term' - sa dan bub in - is not the name of a school it is an adjunct word used for business purposes like we use Limited, Unlimited, Incorporated, etc. What it basically means is that the social group in question has become a recognized entity under the law for tax and other legal purposes. It does not mean, in the case of a martial art for example, that the government recognizes or endorses the art in any way. It does, however, seem to be important to have this level of legal standing. Anthony Boyd http://victorian.fortunecity.com/operatic/739 ------------------------------ From: Ray Terry Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 19:27:34 PDT Subject: the_dojang: more titles Given the recent discussion on titles I present the following story provided by John Bear, Ph.D. Some rather interesting parallels with the history of martial arts, especially Korean MAs. "About 800 year ago, in the mid 12th century, outstanding scholars at the University of Bologna and the University of Paris began to be called either "Doctor" or "Professor," the first recorded academic use of the term. "The first American use came in the late 17th century, under, as the story has it, rather amusing circumstances. There had long been a tradition (and, to a large extent, there still is) that "it takes a Doctor to make a Doctor." In other words, only a person with a Doctorate can confer a Doctorate on someone else. "But in all of America, no one had a Doctorate, least of all Harvard's president, Increase Mather, who, as a Dissenter, was ineligible for a Doctorate from any English university, all of which were controlled by the Church. "Still, Harvard was eager to get into the Doctorate business, so their entire faculty (that is to say, a Mr. Leverett and a Mr. Brattle) got together and unanimously agreed to award an honorary Doctorate to Mr. Mather, whereupon Mather was then able to confer Doctorates upon his faculty who, subsequently, were able to doctor their students. "This, in essence, was the start of graduate education in America, and there are those who say things have gone downhill ever since. FWIW :) Ray Terry raymail@hpwsrt.cup.hp.com ------------------------------ From: Ray Terry Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 19:30:07 PDT Subject: the_dojang: . ------------------------------ End of The_Dojang-Digest V7 #409 ******************************** It's a great day for Taekwondo! Support the USTU by joining today. US Taekwondo Union, 1 Olympic Plaza, Ste 405, Colorado Spgs, CO 80909 719-578-4632 FAX 719-578-4642 ustutkd1@aol.com http://www.ustu.com To unsubscribe from the_dojang-digest send the command: unsubscribe the_dojang-digest -or- unsubscribe the_dojang-digest your.old@address in the BODY of an email (top line, left justified) addressed to majordomo@hpwsrt.cup.hp.com. Old digest issues are available via ftp://ftp.martialartsresource.com. Copyright 1994-2000: Ray Terry and Martial Arts Resource Standard disclaimers apply.