“So when we’re working on both sides, that means, it can come from either side. And, you realize, after a while, that you cannot, with your mind, control both sides at the same time. You have to at some point rely on reflexes. You have to turn off thinking, turn off being overly analytical and just react. So what this is helping you to do is to promote just a reaction, promote just a reflex, turn off the thinking, turn off the analytical mind that can’t really adequately follow what’s happening from either side. So if you do an action — I will learn how to react back without thinking.”
Sifu Greg LeBlanc
“The way in which knowledge progresses, and especially our scientific knowledge, is by unjustified (and unjustifiable) anticipations, by guesses, by tentative solutions … These (guesses) are controlled by criticism; that is, by attempted refutations …Criticism of our conjectures is of decisive importance: by bringing out our mistakes it makes us understand the difficulties of the problem which we are trying to solve. This is how we become better acquainted with our problem, and able to propose more mature solutions: the very refutation of a theory–that is, of any serious tentative solution to our problem–is always a step forward that takes us nearer to the truth. And this is how we can learn from our mistakes.”
Karl Popper, Conjectures and Refutations
This quote is from a book of scientific philosophy and basically I take it to mean that science can only progress by welcoming criticism. “Criticism”, as he says, “is of decisive importance.” We must put all out hypotheses to the test. Will it work in real life? And while I welcome the UFC and other sports arenas as partial laboratories, the ring isn’t the street and so we can’t make apple to apple comparisons. We have to use our brains and make conjectures and inferences and hypotheses and then test them.
Wing Chun is the science of in-fighting. We need to approach it scientifically. Can I really deploy this action fast enough to work when my opponent is fast and aggressive and possibly armed? This is true times 100 if they are actually armed. Is the action you are using in your school a fantasy? Put on some gear and creep a little closer to the line, as close as you can get. To me, this is not squared up at a distance but standing face to face as in an argument in a bar or in the doorway of your house. If some young, strong, fast opponent suddenly swung on you, what would work?
We can easily fool ourselves. Sometimes, we get an unpleasant wake-up call in a beat down. Lets test our hypotheses in the Kwoon, not on the street.
““I aim to fire off very short bursts of repeated shots – such as a palm strike or punch – assess – then do it again, or switch to another shot if the target changes for any reason and keep going until the threat no-longer exists.”
Re-post of a discussion with Mick Coup, a former UK soldier and doorman now teaching people to fight. I like these no-nonsense “blokes,” a breed of tough dudes the UK produces. Reminds me of Geoff Thompson, Vinnie Jones, and every Guy Richie hero and villain.
The thing they all have in common is no-nonsense no-bullshit approach to fighting. It’s said that you start with simplicity, travel through complexity, and arrive back at simplicity again with more clarity. The “a punch is just a punch” idea. The Wong Shun Leung version of Wing Chun has this perspective. Its the perspective of experience. Street fights will clear your head of BS! Wing Chun, in its essence, is a no-BS system. While we may not often find it practiced in this way, the ideas at its core are (as we say ad infinitum) simple, direct, and efficient. Not fancy! Many of his ideas could have come straight from the Wing Chun playbook (aka Wung Chun Kuen)
Some more good stuff below.