Kung -Fu Interview

Sensei Canna offers insight into the real world of self defense!

Moderator: Van Canna

Postby hthom » Tue Jun 17, 2008 3:58 am

Laird2 wrote:I like Marcus am done with this thread, actually your forums as well. I've encouraged George on another thread to remove my posting abilities.


Laird,

Well, I think we should all take a few deep breaths and cool off a bit. It has been getting to be a bit much. I for one, really rather "discuss" in a calm and cool manner than in an adversarial way (not that you were), although quite often it's difficult to do one without getting into the other (try discussing anything with my teenage son is an example).

I certainly hope Marcus and you will let this rest a bit, and come back to the forum on other topics. We are all getting a little old (I may be assuming too much here) for bs and arguments. Chatting and discussing with a cup of coffee or tea is more my style now. May be we all ought to try the same.

And, thanks for buying my DVD. I sort of interpretted the kata movements a little different from most folks. Hope you'll like it. Please let me know what you think.

Henry
hthom
 
Posts: 429
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2000 6:01 am
Location: Bay Area, CA, USA

Postby Valkenar » Tue Jun 17, 2008 4:04 am

J.Iovinelli wrote:Laird2,

You forgot about "if you study Chinese Martial Arts you can not fight". It certainly got a good reception from the CMA forums.

You really should relax a bit, maybe some Tai Chi. It is good for health.


Darin never said that. This kind of miscommunication and game-of-telephone like chain of rumor is a good reason to not want to participate in forum discussions.

Laird:
I don't know what to say, man. I'm not upset by your insults and I'm not interested in fostering a constant antagonism between us. I was happy to have you back on the forums, but I just don't understand why after patching things up with George so that you could come back, that you would go back to the insults and antagonism that get you banned in the first place.

What's really worth getting worked up about? Why do you care if someone is claiming secret knowledge that you think is bs? Why do you care if some people doubt the validity of your Uechi-ryu? You seem to enjoy posting on Van's forum with your friends, so why not just focus on that and just laugh off the crap you don't like?

Anyway, if you really do leave, I wish you nothing but the best in life.
Valkenar
 
Posts: 1316
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2000 6:01 am
Location: Somerville, ma.

Postby mhosea » Tue Jun 17, 2008 4:09 am

Van Canna wrote:This was something that Fedele wrote, which would of course raise some question as it did….but it was cleared up.
[snip]
Well, what do we qualify this as…in relation to what Fedele wrote? Fedele is a senior, and he could well have interpreted what Darin wrote as aimed at him…or whom was Darin aiming at…and why was it necessary for him to ‘lash out’ at seniors?


Just a point of clarification. It was not Fedele, rather Fred who posted it.

Ironically, Darin actually did visit Fedele's dojo for our most recent shodan examination, and yes, he was kind enough to spar with the candidate, who was successful. We all felt that it was an honor.
Mike
User avatar
mhosea
 
Posts: 1141
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 9:52 pm
Location: Massachusetts

Postby Van Canna » Tue Jun 17, 2008 4:14 am

Just a point of clarification. It was not Fedele, rather Fred who posted it.


Right on...my mistake. But still i can't understand why it was necessary for Darin to insult the seniors... :?
Van
User avatar
Van Canna
 
Posts: 57245
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Postby Valkenar » Tue Jun 17, 2008 4:38 am

Van Canna wrote:Right on...my mistake. But still i can't understand why it was necessary for Darin to insult the seniors... :?


Well, I personally didn't read it that way.

He said: "I do not enter someone else’s dojo with my noise up in the air and demand to be waited on hand and foot. Respect is earned and goes both ways. Seniors being pompous and self-righteous only demonstrate poor Bushido or a lack of. We all know that’s happened a few times in the past. "

My reading of this is that it would be pompous and self-righteous to go into someone's dojo and demand respect, and as a senior he would be demonstrating poor bushido if he did that. I thought his whole first paragraph was just addressing the table-jumping story and his comment wasn't about anybody else's poor behavior, but about how poor his own behavior would be if he had done what he thought he was being accused of. I didn't think he was saying anything negative about seniors in general, or Fedele in particular there.

To paraphrase my understanding of what he said:
As a senior, I would never go into someone's dojo and jump over the table to spar a candidate, because that would be incredibly rude.

Does that make any sense? Maybe I'm crazy, but that's how I read it. And I was surprised that you read it as you did.

Also,I never read the table story as denigrating to Darin, but just a bit of hyperbole meant to express how eager and willing he was to help out, that's all. The story, or so I thought, was about what a good guy Darin is, but somehow the message got confused by the time it got to him.
Valkenar
 
Posts: 1316
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2000 6:01 am
Location: Somerville, ma.

Postby Stryke » Tue Jun 17, 2008 5:27 am

Hey Henry , agree on your veiw on Sanshou

Like the clip on youttube , and look forward to Lairds reveiw on your stuff , might have to go on my overly long list of to gets !!!

always prefer individual takes on things , something new true learning .
Stryke
 

Postby Van Canna » Tue Jun 17, 2008 1:31 pm

Darin
Seniors being pompous and self-righteous only demonstrate poor Bushido or a lack of. We all know that’s happened a few times in the past."


I am also surprised you missed this Justin.

Imagine seniors reading this and wondering whom he is refering to.

I bring this out ...because in the past...we have had complaints to George that what some of us were writing and alluding to was taken to mean 'them'...

And is Darin's habit to approach seniors or anyone within ear shot to talk incessantly of his world fighting exploits qualify as 'being pompus?"

Many have felt this way.
Van
User avatar
Van Canna
 
Posts: 57245
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Back to topic...

Postby gmattson » Tue Jun 17, 2008 1:53 pm

Darin's comment that Kungfu "originally" was created for health purposes has been twisted and distorted quite a bit. Since the interview is still on-line, I recommend that anyone believing he stated that Chinese martial art stinks, should listen to the interview again . . .

I posted a little personal history I experienced in HongKong and China regarding how the Chinese feel about the subject.

In this regard, lets look at how Kanbun Uechi viewed the subject:

From Scott Taylor's site. . .

We train in many different ways, associations, philosophies. What is important to Uechi-ryu are the five directions put forth directly by Kanbun Sensei:

1 - The purpose of karate training is to build and nourish a strong physique.

2 - The purpose of karate training is to develop the mental, spiritual, and human characteristics.

3 - The purpose of karate training is never to attack, but to defend only.

4 - The purpose of karate training is never to fight or harm others in any way by actions, words, or thoughts.

5 - The purpose of karate training is to develop stamina, endurance, and patience in order to calmly accept life’s responsibilities and overcome any difficult situation.

A straight forward guide for us all...
User avatar
gmattson
Site Admin
 
Posts: 6037
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 1998 6:01 am
Location: Mount Dora, Florida

Postby J.Iovinelli » Tue Jun 17, 2008 1:55 pm

Darin never said that.


Justin,

I believe his exact words were;

"Chinese Martial Artists would only fair well in a fight with an amateur."

To me that means because I study CMA I am not in the same class as a fighter like you guys? That really makes me want to be part of this Organization.
- joe
J.Iovinelli
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Sat May 26, 2007 1:47 pm

Postby Valkenar » Tue Jun 17, 2008 2:04 pm

Van Canna wrote:Darin
Seniors being pompous and self-righteous only demonstrate poor Bushido or a lack of. We all know that’s happened a few times in the past."


I am also surprised you missed this Justin.


Well I did see it, but it didn't really mean much to me. I took it as "and that's something that happens sometimes" Is it really a stretch to say that someone, sometime has been pompous? I would be surprised if there wasn't an example of self-righteousness anywhere to be found. People are fallible, even seniors.

Was Darin thinking of something in particular? I dunno, could be. Maybe there's some incident in the past I am not privy to, so his comments don't sound like they're directed at anyone in particular to me, while there is something that you remember that makes them seem personal somehow.

And is Darin's habit to approach seniors or anyone within ear shot to talk incessantly of his world fighting exploits qualify as 'being pompus?"

Many have felt this way.


Well maybe so, I don't know. But even if "many" feel he has pompous habits that doesn't show any maliciousness in his post. I don't really know his intent with his post, I was just sharing how it came across to me. Seemed to me he was annoyed but trying to express respect and a desire to be friendly with people.

J.Iovinelli wrote:
Darin never said that.

"Chinese Martial Artists would only fair well in a fight with an amateur."

To me that means because I study CMA I am not in the same class as a fighter like you guys? That really makes me want to be part of this Organization.


I just re-listened and it seems fairly clear he's talking about CMA as it's taught in China. He's also talking historically about how it originated and such.

Here's my ad-hoc transcription:

In response to the question "Could the chinese fight" at 5:00 in the clip.

Darin Yee:
"well possibly against inexperienced fighteers they'd do well probably scare the heck out of the other person. and being able to swing their fists and kick the way they do they'd probably do fairly well. But I feel that without sparring if you're going to fight an experienced fighter who has this timing, precision that you gain in sparring that you don't in just doing form then I don't think they would do well at all"

This may not be perfectly accurate but I tried to make it right.

This is about the training methodology, not the content of the style. Are things realists says about the importance of scenario training and such all that different? It's the basic concept "kata alone is not enough to learn to fight" Is that an insulting point of view?

Later in the interview (around 19:20) he says:
"There's no such thing as a superior type of fighting."
Valkenar
 
Posts: 1316
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2000 6:01 am
Location: Somerville, ma.

Postby J.Iovinelli » Tue Jun 17, 2008 2:49 pm

This is about the training methodology, not the content of the style. Are things realists says about the importance of scenario training and such all that different? It's the basic concept "kata alone is not enough to learn to fight" Is that an insulting point of view?


Absolutely not. What is a tad bit insulting is that anyone would lump all Chinese martial arts together and say they do not spar? So in turn they will only do well against inexperienced fighters.

I don't think anyone read my post at the beginning but...Just because someone studies Chines Martial Arts does not mean we sit around all day and do kata.

1) If you are talking about Mainland China. Yes it was under strict Communist government rule. If you even studied MA you were executed, this went on for many years. That is probably why back in '84 when the Chinese Master saw the fist lapel pin he probably thought he would be in big trouble if he even talked to people that fought.

2) Taiwan MA are a different story.

3) Sparring is a Drill/duel. There are many types. I am not going to rewrite everything I wrote before. If people do not want to read it that is fine. Chinese MA people do it tooooo.

Where do you think Kanbun Uechi got it from? pre Communist China.
- joe
J.Iovinelli
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Sat May 26, 2007 1:47 pm

Postby Van Canna » Tue Jun 17, 2008 4:34 pm

Well I did see it, but it didn't really mean much to me. I took it as "and that's something that happens sometimes"


I have not seen any of this behavior anywhere in IUKF seniors…but I suppose it can happen. Still no reason to make such a statement that serves no purpose. He could have left out the “We all know that’s happened a few times in the past.”


As we are all, seemingly ‘under fire’ for ‘taglining’ and phantom insults… what’s for the goose should also be good for the gander.

But no one brought this out.

Imagine a senior senior like Tomoyose sensei, attending camp, as he has in the past…reading something like this.

Would he feel slighted? Would he think…well does this apply to me or just American seniors?
Was Darin thinking of something in particular? I dunno, could be. Maybe there's some incident in the past I am not privy to, so his comments don't sound like they're directed at anyone in particular to me, while there is something that you remember that makes them seem personal somehow.


No. I remember exactly the opposite about our seniors…never once witnessed a senior ‘demanding’ respect.

The ‘personal aspect’ is what George has mentioned time and again…the perception of some senior people feeling taglined by what is written here now and then.

I agree that Darin was not being malicious…never implied that… he is a forum neophyte and needs some ‘boot camp’ to get in step with forum skirmishes. :)
Van
User avatar
Van Canna
 
Posts: 57245
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

A clarification from Darin

Postby gmattson » Tue Jun 17, 2008 5:45 pm

Okay, where to start:

I called Darin a few minutes ago and asked if he would consent to either addressing a couple of his troubling statements on the forum or permitting me to do a follow-up interview where I would be asking him these questions.

In this telephone conversation, we covered most of the questions and he felt that the more he attempts to clarify, what to him were fairly simple and personal statements, he would become entwined in an ever-deepening pit that he didn't have the time to play in.

Since we discussed most of a questions and he attempted to answer them all, I'll try to quote him as accurately as possible as he explained to me what he was trying to say:

1.
"Chinese Martial Artists would only fair well in a fight with an amateur."


Darin proudly acknowledges that he remains a student of Chinese martial arts and that his statement represented the fact (as he understands it- based on his training in the Chinese martial arts) that historically the Chinese did not create Kungfu for the purpose of fighting.

This doesn't mean that today, (or 500 years ago) some students or teachers of Chinese martial arts can't fight or don't have the ability to fight.

However, Darin's believes that even today most of the Kungfu systems are too complicated and flowery to be interpreted as fighting techniques. . . which is a throwback to the original statement that these methods were designed for health purposes initially and not for fighting.

At this point, I asked him why someone who was studying a complex art couldn't be combining that art with a more practical fighting method and/or taking instructions from someone who was a capable coach in fighting and therefore be no different than people today who are called mixed martial artist?

He replied that based on that set of circumstances, yes, there is no reason for there being any difference between a kung fu practitioner and a student of Uechi ryu, who practices the art while also practicing a competent method of fighting.

Interestingly, because on these forums there was so much controversy relating to individual interpretations and criticism of certain practices associated with the way I teach Uechi ryu, that I redefined the definition of my Uechi ryu: "Today, I feel more comfortable in defining Karate as an “empty handed” art that happens to use physical movements of self-defense techniques with emphasis on the performance of these movements using ancient mind - body - spirit cooperation and mastery". (taken from my "memories" book, to be published this Summer)

Darin writes fast and like most of us, thinks that everyone reading his words, will be seeing and feeling exactly what he felt as he was writing them. Obviously this is not the case.

I hope this clarification of one instance where, what Darin was thinking and feeling, didn't come across on the form pages, and will satisfy those people who felt that Darren had insulted them and Chinese martial arts in general.
GEM
"Do or do not. there is no try!"
User avatar
gmattson
Site Admin
 
Posts: 6037
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 1998 6:01 am
Location: Mount Dora, Florida

Postby Stryke » Wed Jun 18, 2008 5:16 am

now both Uechi and CMA arent effective as fighting arts by themselves ?

both CMA and Uechi contain everything that any other striking art do , most anything of most stand up grappling arts , but even i`ll admit you should cross train in some groundwork .

it`s a martial art


when will you guys understand its about how you train , it doesnt mean the art isnt , do we have to perpetrate the whole what your art isnt debate ?

the only thing youve clarified is that you think Uechi and CMA arent martial in intent , and respectfully I disagree . And I find it sad that seniors in the style cant see the effectiveness in it in comparison to anything , not the best , not better , just as it is effective for it`s purpose/strategy .

I could caare less how the majority train , but the majority arent always right historically or otherwise .

theres no need to keep diluting and loosing the undisputable truth , martial arts should have a martially practical focus to them .

IMHO you remove the conflict , the violence and the serach for effectiveness and you remove all traces of Budo , without the challenge the threat and the improvement of seeking real effectiveness , it may as well be just dance .

Of course I repect others choice to disagree . Everyones allowed to be wrong , if you want to debate we can start a thread , with sources etc .....

Maybe you should stop calling it a martial art . If it`s not martially focused , if thats not the intent , seems like false advertising :roll:

isnt this the Eastern arts MARTIAL arts forum
Stryke
 

Postby Rick Wilson » Wed Jun 18, 2008 6:33 am

Since we are back on the topic of the interview -- I disagree that the Chinese martial arts were originally exercises.

Even if the monks learned exercises first (which I do not accept either because they wanted to protect themselves on their travels but another time for that) this presupposes that the majority of Chinese martial artist were monks.

The truth is the Chinese military has always been the greatest population of martial artists and then bodyguards and then common folk along with bandits and thieves.

I was recently given a wonderful book as a gift: “Chinese Martial Arts Training Manuals: A Historical Survey” by Brian Kennedy and Elizabeth Guo.

Pages 16 and 17 shed some light on the topic of the original intent of Chinese martial arts (Quote):

The Goals of Chinese Martial Arts:

Prior to the end of the Qing Dynasty, Chinese martial arts had one goal, pure and simple: winning confrontations through intimidation, the use of weapons, or the use of one’s fists. Chinese martial arts were viewed much in the same way that being good with a gun was viewed in the American frontier – it was a survival skill. And like being good with a gun, Chinese martial arts were considered to be a physical skill, a manual skill; they were not linked to any esoteric philosophy, nor were they viewed as a form of character development, religious practice, or spiritual development.

Chinese martial arts still can, if properly taught, still be an outstanding form of self-defense. However, more the caveat “if properly taught’; I would strongly suspect that the vast majority of Chinese martial arts being taught in the world today is not being taught as self-defense and thus do not really have a lot of value for street confrontations. And that is not to disparage Chinese martial arts – the same thing is equally true for the bulk of martial arts, be they of Japanese, Korean, Okinawan, or any other origin. Modern martial arts practice, despite all the talk of self-dense; usually has little applicability to violent street confrontations. There are exceptions, but they are rare exceptions.

In modern times the goals of Chinese martial arts have broadened considerably beyond self-defense and fighting. In addition to being combat methods, Chinese martial arts can also be pursued for a number of other purposes – for example, they are an outstanding form of exercise and health maintenance. They are also enjoyable form of recreation; many people practice martial arts partially for the exercise benefits but also for the socializing that is part of group classes. And in modern times some people pursue Chinese martial arts as a form of spiritual development or as an exercise in character building. Many Chinese parents send their kids to martial arts class with the hope that such classes will build a sense of self discipline in the kid. May Western practice Chinese martial arts as an adjunct to their studies of Buddhism and Taoism.

If one is interested in competition, Chinese martial arts include a number of competitive sports. For example, there are Chinese wrestling tournaments as well as San Shou and San Da fighting, two forms of contact fighting, both with a punching and kicking emphasis. For people interested in the set routines that each Chinese martial arts system has, there are competitions where one performs a set routine and is given a score by the judges, with these scores then determining the winner much like gymnastics or figure skating.

Page 25: “in the past when combat skill was the sole goal of Chinese martial arts, sparring was a central part of training. Even in modern times, if self-defense or sport competition is one’s goal then considerable training time must be devoted to non-cooperative sparring.”

(END QUOTE.)

Remembering that the majority of Martial Artists were not monks but people in the military, body guards, or using them to protect themselves or for nefarious purposes we can see the fighting use was first and foremost.

That is my belief and it reflects all the other reading I have done.
Rick Wilson
 

PreviousNext

Return to Van Canna's Self Defense Realities

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests

cron