jesse glover's depressing article on wing chun

[captain]

Hello All,ive just read a depressing article on wing chun by jesse glover.one time Bruce Lee student.glover said that he agreed with wong shun leung who said."wing chun is a good horse that few can ride"or words to that affect.and that wing chun really only teaches you to fight other wing chun attackers.
for me tht goes against everything i have read about wing chun.i wa told it was quicker to learn than most martial arts,and because it was principal based,it was along with bjj,one of the few street effective styles available.
and if glover is correct,what of all the woman and smaller people trining in what they hope will one day save/help them out.any and all ideas about this depresing article much appreciated.

[yuanfen]

Anyone can have opinions- why is Jesse Glover's opinion more important than many others. I doubt that WSL said that wc is good only for wc.

[quiet man]

Originally posted by yuanfen
I doubt that WSL said that wc is good only for wc.

Of course he never said that - he wasn't stupid.

But mr. Glover's logic is infallable :D . It leads me to conclusion that people who are training tennis or some other sport can only play against people who are also experienced tennis players, and not against beginners or laymen

:confused: :rolleyes:

[t_niehoff]

"captain" wrote:

Hello All,ive just read a depressing article on wing chun by jesse glover.one time Bruce Lee student.glover said that he agreed with wong shun leung who said."wing chun is a good horse that few can ride"or words to that affect.
-----------------

Personally, I agree with Wong (which explains, in part, why WCK isn't dominating NHBs ;)) although I think a more accurate metaphor may be driving an automobile: almost anyone can learn to drive, and some are better drivers than others, but few ever attain the ability to drive at Indy (be world-class drivers). I don't think there is anything to be "depressed" about -- unless you think you can become a world-class driver without innate talent, good coaching, lots of hard training, etc. TN

-------------------

and that wing chun really only teaches you to fight other wing chun attackers. "captain"

-------------------

I have my reservations about the accuracy of the above statement. I'd be interested to see (and I've read all opf Jesse's books and don't recall that opinion) where you came up with it. TN

Terence

[aelward]

captain writes:
> glover said that he agreed with wong shun leung who
> said."wing chun is a good horse that few can ride"or words to
> that affect.

The same might be said about Jeet Kune Do, or any martial art for that matter. What percentage of martial art students out there really know their stuff, AND can use it?

> and that wing chun really only teaches you to fight other wing
> chun attackers.

I can't imagine that WSL would say that, especially considering that he used WC to defeat a lot of non-WC people. Though I have heard from another lineage that chi sao is only for fighting other WC people :P Personally, I didn't think chi sao was for fighting, much less against other WC people, but this guy was not about to let his beliefs get challenged :P

[Grendel]

Originally posted by aelward
captain writes:
> glover said that he agreed with wong shun leung who
> said."wing chun is a good horse that few can ride"or words to
> that affect.


LOL! Probably what he said was, "few in Wing Chun have a good enough horse." :D

I would agree with that. :cool: :p

WSL was probably talking about Jesse Glover. :D

[OdderMensch]

I agree with Grendel, but don't know if WSL was talking generaly or not.

I can't think of anything a student of Bruce Lee could write that would depress me.

[captain]

he guys.on yahoo uk,i typed in the name jesse glover.one of the finds was an article by jesse glover called."bruce lee and wing chun".
jesse glover said he had sparred with many wc guys and that the sticking hands rarely worked.he agreed with the wsl quote,but the bit about wc only working against wc had nothing to do with wsl.it was glover's lone.perhaps i didnt make myself clear enough.it as glover who maintained that opinion.
the depressing bit works like this.i do judo,but love the look of wc,im on the edge of giing it a good try.but the article WAS depressing because it seemed to devalue what ive com to larn about wing chun.quick to learn,effective on the street,good for smaller folk,and women.[im a guy by the way.]do you see what i mean here.
omeone tell me he was wrong!!!

[captain]

for your consideration,here i that article by jesse glover.


http://www.alphalink.com.au/~bundles/JesseGlover.htm

[black and blue]

Well, it's an interesting read, and it's clear the man was in awe of Bruce Lee's abilities.

Whether it bruised anyone's egos or not, it would have been a
better read if he'd named some of the Wing Chun men he's Chi Sau'd with.

It sounds to me as though his talk of pressure sticking is what most of us would just call sticking.

[wingchunner]

... is that if Bruce Lee was Jesse Glover's teacher then Mr. Glover doesn't know much about Wing Chun except some basic things. Bruce Lee never completed his training in Wing Chun. In addition, When I have looked at his Jeet Kune Do materials many things do not follow Wing Chun concepts, though some do. I believe this is because he was not able to finish his training in Wing Chun. Therefore, he took concepts and techniques from other styles in order to compensate for his lack of understanding or skill in Wing Chun.

This is my theory.

So, in my opinion, Mr. Glover is speaking from ignorance [I have not read the article so I am only going by what has been previously posted].

Marty

[captain]

Rene,any thoughts on this.

[yuanfen]

Captain- I wouldnt be deterred from learning wing chun well by Glover's remarks and i dont understand why you would be depressed by them. Glover is a good fighter- but lots of people in different styles are. He developed very well what he learned from Lee. Some of his remarks are correct- to wit- that it is better to do something very well than learn a lot of things that are not done well by the individual. And that there are wing chun people who cant apply what they claim to have learnt. But beyond that his comments on wing chun are not particularly important IMO.

[captain]

i see,so as a teacher of wing chun you can vouch for the style being of some use for self defence,and not a s obscure as glover points out.i have heart no doubt,and we have some good [im told] wc classes about,i just wish to know im spending my time in a worthy way.if you see?

[yuanfen]

Captain- the foundations for Lee's fast hands and feet
started with wing chun.
Of course I have confidence in the effectiveness of wing chun.
But your own devotion to correct practice- no one can do that for you. Good luck.

[fa_jing]

What's so depressing about the article? Seemed pretty positive to me w/respect to Wing Chun. Some of you are buying the "most deadly art" thing and the "teach woman to beat up skilled attacker twice her size" thing too seriously.

[reneritchie]

I haven't read Glover sifu's article, so cannot comment on his proposal(s), but, in terms of what this thread has addressed, my thoughts are twofold:

1) Wing Chun Kuen is a progressive system for improving fighting skill, but it is not a magic little pill. It can make a good fighter great, and with time a bad fighter competant, but it cannot make a scrub into a world champ over night. So, while I think WSL's line is apt, I think Terence's quote (from Hawkins Cheung?) is even more apt.

2) Wing Chun Kuen seems to me to be designed to fight other arts, not WCK, but I do think many modern teachers have (miss)focused it, in some cases making it into a hippie-Tai-Chee like excerise of slow forms and exclusive Chi Sao (no balance, and no San Sao), while others just stay in the kwoon and seldom think about what goes on outside its walls.

IMHO, WCK, well trained, is among the best stand up fighting arts yet devised, and with proper overall consideration, very applicable to personal self defense.

RR

[Grendel]

Re: Jesse Glover article (http://www.alphalink.com.au/~bundles/JesseGlover.htm)

If this is a recent article, it's surprising that Jesse Glover would express such ignorance of Wing Chun after all these years. He expresses fundamental misunderstanding on the concept and principle driven art with his reference to sticking hand techniques counters ad infinitem, and the contention that Wing Chun can only react in one certain way.

Glover's use of the word "pressure" suggests that he mistakes forward energy for forward intent. It is also obvious that he hasn't met any good Wing Chun hands since Bruce Lee. He is right that to be effective, Wing Chun needs to be able to deal with forward pressure.

It isn't surprising that in an Australian website, he cites Wong Shun Leung, who was probably the best Wing Chun teacher to visit and teach there.

All in all, not much there there in this article.

Regards,

[PaulH]

I do not know Jesse Glover personally, but I would say that Jesse commands formidable WC skills. My first WC instructor (WSL) told me that Jesse has a unmovable tan that one cannot pak it at all regardless how strong you are. How many people can do this? Other well-known WC instructors whom I will not mention here also have a good opinion of Jesse's WC ability though they may disagree with his training methods. It is hard to appreciate the greatness of the man until you meet him face to face and see what he offers first.

Regards,

[planetwc]

I think it would be more apt to say Jesse has formidable FIGHTING skills as opposed to classical Wing Chun skills.

His approach to training poon sau is much more strength and power based, at least based on the videos I've seen of him. And his backfist is NOT something one would want to be on the receiving end of.

They are all about VERY strong forward pressure to the point of leaning and really applying a lot of power. I think if someone does not have good structure or sensitivity they will be in a lot of trouble against him and his guys.

And to top it off Jesse has a true streetfighters mindset.
That is a powerful attribute to have.

I think Jesse has a low opinion of many WC instructors because he has not seen very good ones--given those are hard to find, anyone who didn't train with the right base and attitude would I think be steamrolled by him and his crew.


Originally posted by PaulH
I do not know Jesse Glover personally, but I would say that Jesse commands formidable WC skills. My first WC instructor (WSL) told me that Jesse has a unmovable tan that one cannot pak it at all regardless how strong you are. How many people can do this? Other well-known WC instructors whom I will not mention here also have a good opinion of Jesse's WC ability though they may disagree with his training methods. It is hard to appreciate the greatness of the man until you meet him face to face and see what he offers first.

Regards,

[PaulH]

It is as you said. Thank you for the clarification.

Regards,

[David Peterson]

Please let us put things into perspective....first of all, the article in question is NOT a new one, but was written quite some years ago, and secondly....what is all the fuss about anyway? Jesse is NOT saying anything that is not at all accurate in terms of the majority of WC practitioners, not just those whom he has met. I know Jesse very well, was invited by him to give seminars in the WSL Method in Seattle, and have trained with he and his students. Jesse Glover is a formidable fighter whose techniques are both powerful and precise. Sure, his training methods are very different from what many of you might have experienced, and perhaps you may not agree with them, or with some of the techniques/concepts he employs, but the bottom line is that they work, and he produces students with excellent skills. What Jesse is saying about WC is entirely accurate when taken in the context of which it was written. On top of this, his quote from my late Sifu is absolutley accurate as I have heard Sifu make this remark on several occasions. WC is like the finest car, or the most delicate scientific instrument. It is perfect science in every respect, but how many of you would put a young inexperienced driver in that car or place the scientific instrument in the hands of a child and expect good results from your actions? There is much in the WC system that most of us will NEVER fully understand, and even more (in terms of techniques and/or concepts) that we will NEVER have either a need or an opportunity to apply. Most of us will NEVER live a life that requires us to put our skills on the line on a regular, even semi-regular basis....in fact, how many of you can honestly say that you have faced a life-and-death situation and survived it purely based on your WC skills? Lets get real about the whole WC experience. In reality, most of those pursuing the art have NOT been in such a situation, and most of those involved have NOT really experienced what I would refer to as "reality-type" training, whereby on a regular basis, you pit yourself and your students against full-on, aggressive and UNREHEARSED attacks from practitioners of other systems, with the intention to hurt them if they get it wrong. Instead, from what I have observed (and Jesse is speaking of the same reality), what is normally practised in the majority of WC schools are pre-arranged drills with WC techniques being pitted against WC techniques, usually without the "venom" and the psychological pressure (to elicit the necessary "adrenaline dump" that real combat creates), thus giving the students a very false sense of security as to how effective their "skills" will be in the actual "Pavement Arena." The safety net that the four walls of the training area offer is the main culprit for the escalation of ineffective WC that is being taught around the world today. People are trapped in their theories and concepts, bound up by this sequence and that, and have failed to look beyond the "fixed ideas" to discover how WC is meant to offer a guide to self-discovery whereby one "...becomes the MASTER of Wing Chun, and NOT its SLAVE"....look at how Wong Shun Leung reached his level of expertise and understanding, a level that virtually all on this forum have expressed a respect and admiration for. He tested himself UNDER PRESSURE in the real world, not once or twice but DOZENS of times. He didn't spend endless hours in Chi Sau practise, developing endless responses to artificially created and over-analyzed sequences, ...he took the concepts, tested them, refined them down to the most simple alternatives and USED his WC as an effective TOOL to get a job done. When Jesse says that Chi Sau doesn't work in a fight, he's RIGHT, because the way in which most WC practitioners apply it means that it can't be effective. You don't fight your opponent with Chi Sau, ...you USE the skills, reflexes and flexibilty that Chi Sau is meant to develop in order to HIT the other guy, not to "stick" with him or "chase" his hands. Chi Sau, like all the drills, techniques, concepts and forms in WC are a means to an end, NOT the end itself. If Jesse's article makes you depressed, then get off your butt and start training for reality. If you are sitting there complacently, expecting that no matter what happens, "It's okay, my Wing Chun will save the day", then get a grip on reality. Don't take me out of context either, ...I'm not advocating that we throw the baby out with the bath water....you won't find a more loyal devotee of WC than me. The WC system IS a great system of personal combat, but there are lots of other great systems of personal combat out there and chances are that you'll end up fighting them, not one of your own. Don't get blinded by the theory and the forms, UNDERSTAND the message that they are giving you and learn to be flexible and adaptable in applying this knowledge. The reality is that much of what is in the system IS NOT APPLIED EXACTLY AS IT IS TRAINED, any more so than reading a book about swimming can teach you how to swim....you have to jump in the pol and get wet, APPLY the theories to the reality, not just expect them to work like it says in the book. This was the message of my Sifu, this is what Jesse is trying to say....stop attacking the messenger and read the message. If I've offended anyone, no offence was intended and I apologise, but if you have understood what I'm trying to convey, then all the power to you and just watch your WC improve in all the best possible ways. Best Wishes to All.
DMP

[Atleastimnotyou]

You should warn the english professors of the world before you make them read such a thing. Structure!

[Grendel]

Originally posted by Atleastimnotyou
You should warn the english professors of the world before you make them read such a thing. Structure!

I find David Petersen's comments very apt, well-said, and a worthwhile read indeed. I'm curious though, about Glover's statement that Wing Chun's Chi Sao is technique-based with a set response for every technique. Where'd he come up with that notion?

Regards,

[yuanfen]

Good posts David W. and David P.
AIMNY- David
P's thesis was quite clear and clearly expressed. This aint a lit class.

David P's thesis wasa bit hard on chi sao- but then probably applicable to a lot of chi sao. You dont roll or stick in a real fight
but good chi sao teaches very important timing skills for damage control. David P's remarks apply more IMO to mechanical chi sao.
And, beimo in the US today could lead to jail time.

joy chaudhuri

[Redd]

What matters jail time when honor is at stake. ;)

[black and blue]

Thanks for your contribution... that was one of the best posts I've read on this forum. A post I've cut'n'pasted to use as a little reminder every now and then.

Duncan

[captain]

Perhaps i did not make myself clear enough.ive been in fights before,ive been punched,kicked,scratched,pushed,spat on,the whole deal.even been a pub fight where the fear factor was higher than
you can imagine.so what do i do,retreat,nope i look about for something that in the future gives me a good chance.
from the fights ive been in, two looked like they could have helped,wing chun and bjj.i liked waht i heard about wing chun and i m on the edge of trying it out.then boom,i read the glover article.it depessed me because the art i thought was going to be wothwhile me putting in some hours,seemed to have major holes in it.AND the guy trained with bruce lee.so in otheword the rug as pulled from under me.it seemed to say in a very clever way,that a,hes never seen a wc guy who could make it work,and b,it only useful against its own style.so yes,that as semi depessing,cn you see my point at all?
so all i anted was for some wc person to say,"no actually,train hard,get a good tacher,and the next time some loser starts trouble youll give as good as you get".
i have a lot of heart guys,but just dont want to wate my time
and maybe get hurt one day,you see?

[yuanfen]

Redd asks:What matters jail time when honor is at stake.

<VBG> Honor you say?
Our local sheriff whose hospitality I have avoided thus far has
notorious "vistors" quarters even before conviction which is known as
"tent city"-really has people on uncomfortable cots in open tents even in winter- gives gruel in the morning and a bologna sandwich for lunch- has the people wearing pink underwear and then takes them out for "organized" litter/garbage pick up patrols. His isolation wards melts alot of tough guy's honor. There is more.(Supposedly an accident- taping client lawyer coversations). You can write a book- he has written one.

Occasionally the county settles lawsuits... specially on one case where the victim of his correctional system died choking and there were cattle prod marks on his body.Unfortunately, for the county- the victim was the son of a prominent person.

He is one of the most popular politicians in the state. All kinds of candidates for office seek his endorsements. Go figure the public mind.

Wing chun was and is a very serious art. Even the roof top fights
devolved from the real life and death stuff of earlier periods.
Chi sao is not essentially pit pat though it often is. Like any instruments the conditions are the key- you can test for root, mobility, speed, timing, pressure, attacking, defending, ...you name it-
if you know what you are doing in the test:conditions make the difference in testing. You can gor sao with control and test against different styles with control..

So- I agree in part and disagree in part with David P's post.(I agree with him by the way that doing wing chun only for health- misses the art). But-

You dont drop an atom bomb every day to see if it works.

[t_niehoff]

Hi David (nice to see someone actually using their real name!),

David Peterson wrote:

When Jesse says that Chi Sau doesn't work in a fight, he's RIGHT, because the way in which most WC practitioners apply it means that it can't be effective. You don't fight your opponent with Chi Sau, ...you USE the skills, reflexes and flexibilty that Chi Sau is meant to develop in order to HIT the other guy, not to "stick" with him or "chase" his hands. Chi Sau, like all the drills, techniques, concepts and forms in WC are a means to an end, NOT the end itself. DP

I agree wiht you that one doesn't do chi sao - which is a *drill* (and there are no "combat ready" drills -- if there were, they'd be combat! ;) ) - in a fight and I also agree with you that what we really derive from those drills are certain specific skills that we use to fight. However to expand on your point, I also think that those skills aren't limited to, nor is their object to, merely "HIT the other guy". Rather, I think our goal is to seek to control the fight (via controlling the opponent) and end it expeditiously (whether the means is a strike or some other tool). And I think "sticking" is a method that does have its place, and an important one, in fighting (otherwise we wouldn't need to learn it) but just that we need to understand the 'when and where'. TN

Terence

[TjD]

Originally posted by captain
AND the guy trained with bruce lee

ugh, comments like that just make me sad. it's like bruce lee was end-all-know-all of wing chun. he didnt even learn the entire system, he modified and built on the little WC he knew. what does training with bruce lee have to do at all with knowing wing chun?

[TjD]

siu lim tau + chum kiu + chi sau/gerk gets your weapon to have contact with your opponent, with a good line up.

biu jee + wooden dummy shows you how to destroy them once you have your hand there.

you can't hit an opponent (using wing chun) without training chi sau properly. you can't knock them out without training the dummy and biu jee properly.

what's training chi sau properly? making sure you have a good lineup, making sure you take the centerline, make sure you arent chasing hands. HIT!

[Spectre]

Originally posted by TjD


ugh, comments like that just make me sad. it's like bruce lee was end-all-know-all of wing chun. he didnt even learn the entire system, he modified and built on the little WC he knew. what does training with bruce lee have to do at all with knowing wing chun?


Must be a coincidence because comments like yours make me sad also.

Bruce Lee certainly was not the 'end-all-know-all' of Wing Chun, but can you say without a doubt that you actually know somebody who is?

And perhaps Bruce Lee did not learn the whole system. Doesn't anyone ever get tired of using this to excuse someone's question or opinion. If you had read the article that Jesse Glover wrote, he was making the point that sometimes it is better to be outstanding in some of the aspects than to know the whole system and live in mediocrity.

What does training with Bruce Lee have to do with knowing Wing Chun? Jesse felt that Bruce Lee was an outstanding individual who knew his stuff and was without a doubt skilled and talented. Why do you train with your sifu? Is it perhaps for the same reasons? How do you know that training with your sifu will help you to KNOW Wing Chun?

Take the time to listen to what is being said. Don't dismiss the message just because you saw the name Bruce Lee in it. The mention of his name is not an automatic disqualifier.

Just my 2 cents....anyone got change? :D

Kevin

[TjD]

i didnt dismiss the message, i just think that people tie bruce lee too close to wing chun, sure he was a good fighter, and a popular celebrity, but of the years he studied martial arts, many many more were spent developing his own style, than in training wing chun.


it's like someone holding me up as an authority on kickboxing if i did kickboxing for 3 years, then switched to wing chun for the next ten. could i fight? i'd sure **** well hope so. would i be a kick boxer? no, i'd be a wing chun man


as to why i train with my sifu, i've seen my ability rapidly increase since the day i started training with him, and i have nothing but respect for that and his skills. however, i'm not going to a kickboxer to learn about wing chun, i'm going to a man whose studied wing chun for many more years than i have

[Spectre]

I respect that TjD...

But allowing some respect for Jesse Glover, he worked with Bruce while Bruce was still in his Wing Chun phase. I feel that if he gauged Bruce's skill against other Wing Chun practitioners, he could with some accuracy see the gaps. It would be as if anyone of us were to 'roll' with another Wing Chun practitioner. We may not be perfect at Chi Sao, but we can still feel differences.

To my knowledge, Jesse never bought into the Jun Fan or JKD. He decided to stay with the path originally put before him which was predominantly Wing Chun.

And again, I respect the reason why you train with your sifu. But your explanations are the exact same reason people who have trained with Bruce use him as a reference point. As for others who did not train with him but lend him creedence to arguments...that is no different than a Wing Chun Kuen practitioner using Yip Man as a focal point - even if they never met him or learned from him.

But as to the original topic, I think that David Peterson was right on the money.

Kevin

[TjD]

i agree, david peterson did make some good points, however i'd like to just add one thing to that.

its extremely difficult for a person from a certain lineage to evaluate other schools of wing chun based on their chi sau. you need to know how it fits into the rest of their system. the different schools of wing chun out there can look extremely different - so you dont know nessecarily what their chi sau is for. some other drill or form or something may be in there to make up for what you think is missing. even in my own kwoon, none of us chi sau the same even with the same teacher- compare us to other schools and you may think our chi sau is horrible, however it fits perfectly into our system.

for an example, my sifu just recieved a homevideo of the ip man tong from our sibak (my sifu couldnt make it all the way to china for financial and other reasons). watching the demonstrations, some of the examples of chi sau, we thought to be horrible, while others we thought were rather good. same goes for forms, etc. to other schools it may have been the other way around - who is right?


i guess the only real way to judge is to either know the other system (which could take a lifetime!) or put your money where your mouth is and fight (which most of the time is not possible). i guess this leaves us in a bad spot

[straight blast]

Pressure adds a whole new element to the game. It allows you to develop the central nervous system in ways that cannot be done otherwise. With the use of pressure and a heck of a lot of practice your arms and body can learn how to offset your opponents actions before you cognitive brain is alerted

Umm...I thought that this was how one used forward force in chisao? :confused: Indeed, the whole purpose of chisao. I've never trained anything without the essential element of "pressure". Is he saying that WC people don't understand pressure? :confused:

[captain]

tjd,i used the bruce lee comment as a reference point,thinking like most, that he is respected,and therefore someone learning from him has some authority on which to speak.and still no one has yet to answer my core question about the usefulness of wc.dont forget,some people live in areas where its not.if i need self defence,but when.

[yuanfen]

captain- two important elements... your attentiveness, practice and courage-the other is the quality of the teaching. Make sure you have a good teacher. If you have one stick with him/her.If you dont have a good wing chun teacher but can find a top flight teacher in choy li fut- take that....or get good boxing and wrestling
lessons and learn a few key kicks as well- and work out with others for timing etc---you seem to be primarily interested in short run basic self defense. Bruce Lee cant help you- ultimately you have to help yourself. Honest.
joy chaudhuri

[black and blue]

I'm in the UK too. Where are you based and what WC organisations are near you?

Duncan

[captain]

ok that does it.im off now to see about some wing chun lessons.i will not post back on here untill i have had atleast a few classes
and can speak with some semi clue as to what its all "really about".im also going to try bjj.so i shall let you know about that too.Guys,just before i go,one last favour to ask.give me some hints about what to ask the teacher,and what i should be looking for,what a good wc place will be like,and bad place etc.sound good.im off ill be back to let you know how it all goes,and untill then sorry about the glover incident.salut!
merry christmas,
r

[t_niehoff]

Someone calling themselves "TjD" wrote:

it's like bruce lee was end-all-know-all of wing chun. he didnt even learn the entire system, he modified and built on the little WC he knew.

--------------------

I'm responding to this post since I think represents an attitude and opinion that I've seen before. First, let's not downplay the importance of Bruce Lee w/r/t WCK. Without him, most of us would not be doing WCK. In fact, WCK would probably only be as popular as CLF or Hung Ga or other kuen faats. Second, as someone who has "learned the entire system" I can tell you that it is what you can do, not what you know that matters. BL could, even without the "entire system", make what he did work at a fairly high level. He had studied with Yip Man and then WSL (good instructors), trained with William Cheung and Hawkins Cheung (good training partners), fought on the rooftops (good expereince), and at the time he left Hong Kong to come to the US he was reportedly one of the "better" practitioners in HK. In the US, he sought out Yeung Fook, a master of Hung Suen (the Gu Lao lineage) WCK, to continue his training; and returned several times to HK to meet with Wong and Yip. The heavyweight boxing champoin of the US Air Force became his student after being thrown around by BL; BL defeated a black-belt karate practitioner from Japan in a challenge fight in seconds; BL exchanged with most of the well-known karate, kung fu, and martial art pracitioners in the US (many of whom sought out his instruction); etc. Moreover, I think BL knew a great deal of the system (he taught the SNT, CK and part of the BJ along with the drills in Seattle). I'd like to know if you or your sifu have these qualifications. ;) TN

And while I agree that BL "went his own way" after a certain point, I submit that's beside the point. TN

Terence

[Mr Punch]

'Without him, most of us would not be doing WCK.'

nonsense. check up on samuel kwok, or robert yeung and tell me if they had any influence from BL. you're talking from a purely american perspective.

and no offense... i've never trained with mr glover, but a friend of mine who has tells me the main thing he's got from wc is a very strong centreline punch...

this thread is, as so many others from the blessed wc forum... is pish.

[t_niehoff]

"Mat" wrote:

'Without him, most of us would not be doing WCK.' TN

nonsense. check up on samuel kwok, or robert yeung and tell me if they had any influence from BL. you're talking from a purely american perspective. (Mat)
-----------------

Certainly there are folks - including me! - that didn't begin practicing WCK because of BL, but there is no denying that his fame (and skill) led to the world-wide explosion of WCK. TN
------------------

and no offense... i've never trained with mr glover, but a friend of mine who has tells me the main thing he's got from wc is a very strong centreline punch... (Mat)

So? TN
------------------

this thread is, as so many others from the blessed wc forum... is pish. (Mat)

And thank you for all that you've contributed to it. ;) Isn't it amusing that it is always the folks that have contributed nothing of substance that complain most loudly about how others contribute so little. TN

Terence

[reneritchie]

nonsense. check up on samuel kwok, or robert yeung and tell me if they had any influence from BL. you're talking from a purely american perspective.

Due to Bruce Lee's fame, both in Hong Kong and later in the US, it created ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY for many, many (primarily Yip Man lineage since they could claim a connection) WCK people. Without him and the 'Kung Fu Craze' he started (for many Chinese arts, not just WCK), regardless of whether or not they or individual students joined because of BL, more would probably have ended up doing other things to make a living.

RR

[Phil Redmond]

TjD wrote:
>>its extremely difficult for a person from a certain lineage to evaluate other schools of wing chun based on their chi sau. you need to know how it fits into the rest of their system. the different schools of wing chun out there can look extremely different - so you dont know nessecarily what their chi sau is for. some other drill or form or something may be in there to make up for what you think is missing. even in my own kwoon, none of us chi sau the same even with the same teacher- compare us to other schools and you may think our chi sau is horrible, however it fits perfectly into our system.<<

I have studied different versions of WCK. I found that chi sao principles varied with each.

Terrence. You learned the entire system? It's sad to hear you say that. I've been training for over 30 years and I'm still learning.
Phil

[reneritchie]

Phil,

If *you* haven't learned the whole system, actually several versions by now, there's something *terribly* wrong. They used to say in old WCK articles (Chinese) that WCK was so small you could learn it in a few days, but so profound it could take a lifetime to master.

If it takes you longer than 7 or so years of serious study, IMHO you're either being stalled or probably learning variation, no longer the system. Just look back at history. Yip Man never spent more than a few years with any of his sifu and he seems to have done spectacularly well. And he was hardly the exception (many sifu were old and died after a few years teachng, especially their latter students like Leung Jan, Fung Siu-Ching, etc. if they'd taken their sweet time, there might not be a "system" today.)

IMHO, the system is just the beginning, like the undergraduate degree. Once you have the system (and you need it, and you need to get it efficiently), you turn it on and spend the rest of your life benifiting and growing better from it.

RR

[t_niehoff]

Phil Redmond wrote:

Terrence. You learned the entire system? It's sad to hear you say that. I've been training for over 30 years and I'm still learning. Phil

In my experience the two are not mutually exclusive. ;) BTW, Phil, how long did William Cheung study with Yip Man? TN

----------------------

Rene Ritchie wrote:

IMHO, the system is just the beginning, like the undergraduate degree. Once you have the system (and you need it, and you need to get it efficiently), you turn it on and spend the rest of your life benifiting and growing better from it. RR

Exactly -- well said. TN

Terence

[yuanfen]

I think that there are some definitional issues involved here-
the meaning of learning. meaning of a system etc. There are other muddling issues, such as---differences in deliberately drawing out of tuition paying time versus legitimate journey of
discovery or quality time spent with a master craftsman or teacher. Without getting into lineage flames-duration of quality time spent in a teaching/learning relationship can be often seen by discerning eyes in the results.
joy chaudhuri

[t_niehoff]

Hi Joy,

As an educator, I'm certain you realize that it is not simply how long a student studies or how much effort s/he put forth (though both are important factors) but also it is his/her innate talent, intelligence, attitude, experience, etc. that determine whether s/he is an A student or a C student or whatever. In any endeavor, we've all seen those persons who rarely come to class but excel and those persons that never miss a class and barely pass the course. In the student-teacher relationship both sides bring much to the party. :) TN

Also, IMHO the WCK "system" (and your teacher) should endow one with the ability to be both self-correcting and the ability to continue to grow/learn while unsupervised (teaching one to fish vs. taking one fishing according to the proverb) -- otherwise, one will forever be dependent upon their sifu. How long this takes a person to achieve depends IMO upon the individual student and the teacher (see above). TN

Terence

[Phil Redmond]

>>IMHO, the system is just the beginning, like the undergraduate degree. Once you have the system (and you need it, and you need to get it efficiently), you turn it on and spend the rest of your life benifiting and growing better from it.
RR<<

Learning????? More to know??? My point exactly.
Does knowing a few forms and techniques mean you've "completely" mastered something. I 've played Trumpet since I was 8 years old. I still learn though. Even though I've played professionaly. The same goes for my WC. I've used it MANY time in fights, and ALWAYS won. But I still learn.
Once you think you've mastered something your learning curve has stopped. I've heard Chinese say that WC is an open end system many times.
Phil

[Geezer]

La La La

[Geezer]

Someone calling themselves t_niehoff Wrote In Response To Yuanfen>

Hi Joy
Someone calling themselves t_niehoff Wrote>

Someone calling themselves "TjD" wrote
Someone calling themselves t_niehoff Wrote>

Hi David (nice to see someone actually using their real name!),
Someone calling themselves t_niehoff Wrote>

wingchunalex wrote:
Someone calling themselves t_niehoff Wrote>

"captain" wrote:
Someone calling themselves t_niehoff Wrote>

"Scuba Steve" wrote
Someone calling themselves t_niehoff Wrote>

Sheldon,
Using the pseudonym "Geezer" wrote:
Someone calling themselves t_niehoff Wrote>

"Bortacus" wrote
Someone calling themselves t_niehoff Wrote>

Someone calling themselves "Rolling Hand" wrote:
Someone calling themselves t_niehoff Wrote>

Hi "wujidude",
Someone calling themselves t_niehoff Wrote>

Sharky wrote
Someone calling themselves t_niehoff Wrote>

Someone calling themselves "Geezer" wrote:

So if you're not in agreement with the person, you write "someone calling themsleves wrote":confused:

I bet you tell kids Santa isn't real don't you:confused:

Someone calling themselves "Geezer Wrote This":D

[joy chaudhuri]

Terence- Time in study does not denote excellence. True. But the reverse is also true- Not spending time on study does not denote
excellence. There are people who dont come to class who do fail.

Growth in an art can take time specially those arts that combine
physical skills, mental acuteness and sustained energy.

Of course in the human condition- ego can lead a person to think that with some knowledge that they can do the rest.

There are really Mozarts who have gone far with little tutoring- but that is extremely rare. George Harrison on the sitar with a few lessons from Ravi Shankar is still George Harrison on the sitar(may he rest in peace).Conversely. Ravi Shankar's daughter depite the length of father daughter time- is no genius. Yip Man was a rarity. It does not mean that those who were with him briefly are certified geniuses. And staying witha teacher for a long time is not necessarily robotic either. Case by case variance can exist..
The whole boat can rise too. Interactive learning. Teaching can be a form of learning. IMO- Ip Man didnt quit learning after reaching Macao and Hong Kong.
The probabilities (not the certainties) are still high that those who spent little time learning an art in a master craftsman relationship have gaps in their skills with the art....though they can pound some people.
joy

[PQS]

Can anyone tell me how long it would take to "complete" the WT system, as in Europe you don't see the weapons in 7 years, it would proberbly take 7 years to get to 2nd technigtion grade .
regards
Peter

[yuanfen]

PQS asks_:
Can anyone tell me how long it would take to "complete" the WT system,
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You should ask folks at WT headquarters.
Perhaps a WT person or ex-WT person can answer on the forum.
The WT time in grade sequence is a mystery to me- but not all mysteries are intriguing. Varies with the individual.

[reneritchie]

If you have a reasonably good memory you could remember all the sequences over the matter of a few days, maybe a week or so tops. We're not talking some CLF or JG here with 300+ sets of choreography. However, you would likely not be able to use any of it, so its arguably not worth learning.

IMHO, weighing in reasonable time for digestion, exploration, etc., and for things like demonstrating resolve and character, 6-8 years just to learn and get corrected on the material seems reasonable (with a lifetime of training for personal cultivation to follow, of course).

In a way, it's like encyclopedia of the month. It may take you 26 months to get the whole alphabetic set, but it would take a long, long time to absorb all the knowledge and potential contained therein, but still, its good to have the complete set around for reference when you need it.

Terence & Joy are both corrects, facets of the same jewel. Sheldon, it would be nice to hear your views on the actual thread as well.

RR

[[Censored]]

Learning????? More to know??? My point exactly.
Does knowing a few forms and techniques mean you've "completely" mastered something. I 've played Trumpet since I was 8 years old. I still learn though. Even though I've played professionaly.

What if your teacher refused to teach you the D note until your C# was "perfected"? LOL, there would be no music in the world today if everyone was so stubborn. :)

[TjD]

and sometimes learning the D note helps perfect your C# :)

[t_niehoff]

Hi Rene,

Rene Ritchie wrote:

Sheldon, it would be nice to hear your views on the actual thread as well.

------------------

Rene, don't feed the trolls. :)

Terence

[Geezer]

Someone Calling Themselves t_niehoff Wrote>

Rene, don't feed the trolls


Don't you mean "TROLL" Singular not Plural;)

Once Again Someone Calling Themselves "Geezer" Wrote This:D


Sheldon

[Mr Punch]

Originally posted by t_niehoff


'Without him, most of us would not be doing WCK.' TN
-----------------
...Certainly there are folks - including me! - that didn't begin practicing WCK because of BL, but there is no denying that his fame (and skill) led to the world-wide explosion of WCK. TN


I wasn't denying that. But that's not what you were saying with the first statement. I think I'm fairly safe in saying that none of my teachers were influenced more than the slightest amount by BL. Nor have I been. And nor, it seems, were you.



and no offense... i've never trained with mr glover, but a friend of mine who has tells me the main thing he's got from wc is a very strong centreline punch... (Mat)

So? TN
------------------

So that can very effective. Doesn't mean I'm going to take second-hand reported advice from/about him about the whole system without having met/trained with the guy.


this thread is, as so many others from the blessed wc forum... is pish. (Mat)

And thank you for all that you've contributed to it. ;) Isn't it amusing that it is always the folks that have contributed nothing of substance that complain most loudly about how others contribute so little. TN

Terence

I don't think that was loudly. Check my posting history on this forum, and see how few statements I've made about other peoples' lineage, teachers I don't know and have never met, or general speculative bull****. Then came back with patronising comments. BTW, I usually like your posts, even if I don't agree with them: you don't know me, and haven't seen me post here for a while, because it's mostly garbage and I choose not to waste my time with it. So don't make assumptions. If I want to talk trash, I'll do it on the main forum.

I knew it was a mistake to quit lurking on this forum.

(Much) later, amigos.

Rant over.

[Redd]

Why shutting down and shooting down contributors so soon Terence? Except for the noise its getting quiet.

[JaRmEz]

Yeah its an opinion my Sifu (gary Payne) always teaches us the reality aspect of wing chun he nevers misses any techs out but always points out the weak side of them aswell as this when we do team techs we always defend again punches are kicks which are in my opinion always used in street fights so how could anyoen even think that wing chun cant be used on non wing chun attacks i cant be too sure since im a first form student but that sounds pretty silly to me

[Big Vern]

i have experienced numerous wing chun users who can fight street/ring, adapt to all attackers and generally be the bees f'ing knees!
i live in the UK, and their are some very competant players who cross train, but still keep wc as their core. plus their fight skills are awesome. i.e. james sinclair, milan prosenica (euro-full fight champ, heavyweight 5 yrs), nick smart, tom lamont ( world vale tudo champ ex-wt), kevin chan, + various unknown full-contact comp entrants who train with most of all the UK wing chun community.
we the above feel jesse needs to show us his belt and his trophy, rather than trying to lead with his mouth full of his arse.

[Grendel]

Originally posted by yuanfen
I think that there are some definitional issues involved here-
the meaning of learning. meaning of a system etc. There are other muddling issues, such as---differences in deliberately drawing out of tuition paying time versus legitimate journey of
discovery or quality time spent with a master craftsman or teacher. Without getting into lineage flames-duration of quality time spent in a teaching/learning relationship can be often seen by discerning eyes in the results.
joy chaudhuri

Hi Joy,

You make good points. I admit to being confused when someone says they "learned the whole system." A beginner's tan sau doesn't compare to a five year student, who in turn, doesn't compare to the same student's hands in 20 years. What is learning? What is the system? Others who assert their time frames need to proffer or provide the definition so we can attempt to fathom their points of view.

If someone tells me that they have finished their lineage's system, and their hands still are no good, then what is to blame: the individual, his teacher, or the system? There is too much that passes as Wing Chun in the world for this lack of clear definition to be presented as communication and not merely argument.

As is often pointed out (by me) :D, even bad or incomplete Wing Chun is better than no Wing Chun, so the claimed ability to fight successfully against some other fighters is not a consistent criteria for measurement.

Regards,

[Grendel]

Originally posted by Big Vern
we the above feel jesse needs to show us his belt and his trophy, rather than trying to lead with his mouth full of his arse.

The Jesse Glover article was old, and as David Petersen pointed out, it is unfair and wrong to get overly critical of the messenger. Glover made some good points and after all, it's just his opinion.

Regards,

[Grendel]

Originally posted by Big Vern
we the above feel jesse needs to show us his belt and his trophy, rather than trying to lead with his mouth full of his arse.

The Jesse Glover article was old, and as David Petersen pointed out, it is unfair and wrong to get overly critical of the messenger. Glover made some good points and after all, it's just his opinion.

Regards,

[YungChun]

For whatever it's worth some may find this interesting:

I wrote these guys an email:

------------------

With all due respect to Mr. Glover and his organization, I and others find this article to be presumptuous and wholly inappropriate. I believe that this article's content is flawed and insulting to the Wing Chun community at large. It speaks as if Mr. Glover via Bruce had/has a uniquely qualified and accurate understanding of the system, which of course implies that the rest of the WCK community has been lacking all through the years. Ironic when you consider that Bruce was a very, very junior student in the system. While it may be true that some WCK schools are lacking, the notion that Glover, via Bruce alone 'get it' while everyone else doesn't is absurd and offensive.

In the article Mr.Glover states that Wing Chun techniques are designed to deal with Wing Chun techniques. This is patently false. Wing Chun concepts are designed to deal with zones and energy - the kinds of energy that exists in combat - not for a particular attack. This is common knowledge among educated Wing Chun people and thus makes one question the understanding Mr. Glover has for the topic on which he wrote. To make such a statement is to insult the intelligence of the system and it's followers. Glover goes on to say or imply that Bruce came up with the idea of forward energy in Chi-Sao and that this added dimension, revealed by him and Glover can bring the system to life - how arrogant. The dimensions he speaks of is Wing Chun. While I appreciate Mr. Glover addressing the importance of forward energy it is absolutely ludicrous to assert that he/they evolved the idea. IMO this should be withdrawn. Masters of the system who came to this country in the 60s and 70s have been teaching the importance of using forward spring energy along with accurate transmission of the whole system for more than 30 years in this country. This article insults this legacy and the people who made it happen. Many of these people include Bruce's sifu, si hing, si dai, etc so I have to wonder what Bruce would say if he saw this article.

I must ask: What is the purpose of writing such an article and posting it on the web? If I didn't know better I would say it is a marketing tactic designed to make prospective students think that Mr. Glover has the corner on WCK concepts, which again is not the case. I would suggest that posting more accurate and palatable content would yield greater respect and less animosity toward Mr. Glover's group.

--------------------------------


Chris responded:

I havn't read the article you describe as Jesse having written, BUT I would like to say both he and I are sensitive to your perceptions. I have a lot of friends in and out
of Wing-Chun, whom I like very much..BUT what we do is drastically different than
Wing-Chun that I have come across, in a wide variety of ways. This is a little like my Ju-Jitsu friends, who, after working out with me for several years, asked what I thought of their art. I told them that they seemed to me to have about half a dozen underlying principles, and they ought to take those things and work them against the very different types of individuals available, hand to hand, adding the problem of force. My reason for the "force" statement was that, when have you ever seen a real conflict that didn't involve force? If that is so, why "practice" without it? Now, there
are very few of Jesse's students who have enough of the foundation he offers to come to that conclusion, BUT they all practice hand to hand, with force. Force puts a practitioner "on"...establishing structure, etc., along with complete "relationship" to the opponent. "Sensing arts", those more involved internally than punch and kick arts, are all about relationship. What I told my Ju-Jitsu friends is that after those few
VERY effective techniques, everything was a counter to a counter, etc., and so on...
similar to what Jesse has apparently said. In other words, as you said, they are only really meant to work against a prior move from the same style. I hope you can appreciate the truth in this...and aren't offended, as I have no intent to offend people...I like people a lot. Let it roll around in your mind for a bit, and see what your inner eye tells you, about truth...and stop by and train with me and my students sometime, if you get up this way...you are always welcome.
best of training,

chris sutton

--------------------------

Confused I wrote back:


Hello and thanks for responding.

I don't know if we are understanding each other or not.

On issue one -

Are you really asserting that the use of force or energy is new in WC? In Wing Chun we take the line if we can and if not we change.

In sparring or in advanced Chi-Sao there is plenty of 'force' to go around. Wing Chun concepts aside if you are talking about working with uncooperative partners using lots of energy to stop you or using tons of energy to attack you then I can assure you that there is no shortage of this kind of 'force' in the system that I studied and this has not changed since when my Sifu came to this country in the early 70s.

On issue two -

Are you really asserting that WC techniques only apply against WC?

Yes, a given technique in the system can counter another Wing Chun technique. But this does not mean that a given Wing Chun technique ONLY works against another Wing Chun technique. Wing Chun techniques are, as I am sure you are aware, concept driven. WC techniques close universal lines or zones and deal with various kinds of energy or FORCE. I am sure you are aware that given the human body and physics any attack can be defined in terms of its energy, direction and angle, etc. If WC techniques only worked against WC techniques then I wouldn't have naturally used them against people from other systems with no WC, and I seriously doubt the system's founders would have seen fit to include them in the system.


-----------------------

His last reply:


I have worked out hand to hand with a wide variety of Wing-Chun and the like arts, including several of Bruce Lee's old students, and the systems are quite different. We go to jointlocks, throws of various sorts, do a lot of letting force go, and utilizing force in ways I know you havn't seen. That's why I was thoughtful enough to invite you up. I include some of the very best Wing-Chun like arts when I say this. I am only saying that what we do is quite different, in many ways. I am happy to hear that someone actually utilizes force, in the classical context. I havn't seen that anywhere, but don't doubt it. Let me give you an idea how different this can be; Jesse's brother Mike invented a two man set, similar to chi-sau, out of the forms...never seen anywhere else. He also ran 20-30 miles per day,. could do endless dips, bench pressed over 500, so I am not saying this is his only reason for success...just that he is quite different than anything you have seen. He surpassed Bruce Lee in ways, and can be seen in Jesse's second book, along with Wong Shun Leong. Of course he is a fanatic, and I don't reccomend that approach.
best of training,

chris sutton
www.brucelee-nonclassical.com

[[Censored]]

So he offered to personally demonstrate the virtue of his training method, presumably in a friendly manner...what more could you possibly ask for?

"You have offended my family, and you have offended the Shaolin Temple..." Now who is the Bruce Lee wannabe? ;)