generating power

[jonp]

is there more than one way to generate power in wing chun?

ive recently been thinking about how to issue a decent amount of power in my wing chun brought up by contradicting comments made by a couple of friends of mine.

one stated that wing chun is not known for its 'single shot' power and its the follow up techniques and control that give a fighter the edge

the other - which was more in line with what i thought - stated that its the first powerful blow which should end the fight.

this made me examine my wing chun and think about how to generate power.

you have the obvious way - the power of local muscles in the punch - but this to me seems limited and doesnt stand up to the idea of the arm being the nail and the body the hammer.

then you have the WT/bruce lee dropstep where your bodyweight is literally behind the punch but this doesnt seem practical in all situations.

i read a lot of articles on the net that state you need to get the body behind the punch - and that you should 'hit with your body'

is this just through good structure? or is there some subtle movement? articulation of the spine? subtle twisting in the waist?

how do people generate their power?
just wonderin

thanks

[anerlich]

then you have the WT/bruce lee dropstep

Both of whom got it from Jack Dempsey.

There are many ways to develop power, There are ever more different opinions about which of them are and aren't WC.

Find a way to measure how hard you hit. Then find which way maximises that power.

As Geoff Thompson said the best way to defend yourself is to learn to "HIT F***ING HARD".

[t_niehoff]

anerlich wrote:

There are many ways to develop power, There are ever more different opinions about which of them are and aren't WC.

Find a way to measure how hard you hit. Then find which way maximises that power.
-------------------

I agree with you that the way to improvement is via measuring our performance, and in this case it's by "how hard you hit"; if someone doesn't have powerful strikes they are IMO obviously doing something wrong. IMHO power, other than localized muscular exertion, is rooted in body-structure and the four torso methods (sink, rise, swallow, spit) - all of which are (should) be a part of one's SNT/SLT. I think is the most direct path to power is by first directly testing these and developing them, then second learning how to link our bridges to our body (to transmit that power). So IMO the place to start is at the beginning, i.e., the punch from YJKYM. My advice to Jon is to initially develop your YJKYM so that you can receive and generate power (two sides of the same coin) from it; next learn how to link your punch to your body so that you can transmit that body-derived power through your punch. TN

I am concerned with the implication your suggestion of "then find which way maximises that power". As you correctly note "there are many ways to develop power", but not all of them - and IME a great many of them, for example boxing's - do not fit in with WCK's approach. I don't think it should be a case of "whatever you can make work" (and I don't know if that's what you are suggesting) but instead taking those mechanics that are part of WCK (they're in the forms) and finding how to make them truly functional. TN

Terence

[UltimateFighter]

There are many falsehoods about how stance 'structure' gives bodyweight behind a punch. I have even read long articles by some (shall remain nameless) wing chun 'masters' who rag on about how slight differences in 'stance' structure are what gives wing chun power. This type of talk is best to be ignored. In a real fight, you will not be in a rigid stance so claims that this is where wing chun gets power are totally ridiculous.

You can however rely on basic movements thatdo add bodyweight power. The 'falling step' is devastating if properly applyed. And full credit to this goes to boxer Jack Dempsy. Also, do not forget that you can turn your hip and torso into the punch. This adds reach as well as body weight and is found in the wooden dummy. Spine extension also adds power as does forward motion. Chainpunches delivered only using the arms as in SNT form are not maximul power as they do not utilise full body weight. However, advanced wing chun teaches the methods decribed to add to this basic line of attack.

[YungChun]

Originally posted by UltimateFighter
'stance' structure are what gives wing chun power. This type of talk is best to be ignored. In a real fight, you will not be in a rigid stance so claims that this is where wing chun gets power are totally ridiculous.

No - it's ridiculous to suggest that in Wing Chun structure is unimportant - if one follows this notion then the whole system goes out the window along with the fighter who gets tossed out of one.

Power is generated from the floor up through the body and out the hands - all of the body is used to generate this by using Wing Chun concepts like: sinking, body alignment, body unity and structure. Using a stance means being strongly connected to the ground and doesn't require one to be rigid.

If you can't keep your 'horse' in a real fight then I would suggest some remedial horse work. Do you use your 'stance' in Chi-Sao? Well if you don't then your techniques will have no root or power and you will be relying on local muscles which will be of little use against a rooted opponent.

[AndrewS]

UF,

IMHO, your line of reasoning is on the right track. Static tests of power and root are markers of understanding of optimal mechanics, but it is not realistic to assume one is going to be functioning under ideal circumstances. I've found working on hitting from off-balanced positions, learning to gain power from regaining balance, and working on achieving root, balance, and power under suboptimal conditions to be quite useful in translating static ideals into pressure/application.

Basically, all those nice static and cooperative things are there to show you what 'right' is, before you try to pull 'right' off under more difficult conditions. That being said- application with variability should follow technical and structural work, preferably on a timescale of hours, not years.

Later,

Andrew

[t_niehoff]

Andrew wrote:

Basically, all those nice static and cooperative things are there to show you what 'right' is, before you try to pull 'right' off under more difficult conditions. AS

Of course. BTW, these are not "static tests" ("Static tests of power and root are markers of understanding of optimal mechanics" AS) but rather stationary tests -- one can't develop power from being static but can develop a great deal of power even while stationary. TN

but it is not realistic to assume one is going to be functioning under ideal circumstances. AS

Body mechanics are body mechanics. TN

=============

"Yong Chun" wrote:

Power is generated from the floor up through the body and out the hands - all of the body is used to generate this by using Wing Chun concepts like: sinking, body alignment, body unity and structure. Using a stance means being strongly connected to the ground and doesn't require one to be rigid. YC

Good point. But I'd say that there is no "stance" in WCK. The horses (from our training) are there to show us the way to using the body (as you describe above) but are not techniques (stance #1, stance #2, etc.). Whether stationary or moving, we are connected to the ground, aligned, with body-unity, etc., and most importantly our body-structure is alive (adaptable, changing, etc.).

Terence

[Mckind13]

Terence had some very good points. Defiantly read his and Robert Chu’s articles on Rene Richie’s site www.wingchunkuen.com.

UltimateFighter, I would like to know witch articles you are referring to so that I can read them. Your referral to the drop step and body weight use doesn’t seem accurate enough for me. While we need to have our body weight behind the punch, the one real necessity in my mind is complete body unity and proper body mechanics (expressing power and body mass with good alignment).

I can think of numerous fights where it wasn’t the striking in and of itself that finished it but the body used correctly.

Terence also wrote: Good point. But I'd say that there is no "stance" in WCK. The horses (from our training) are there to show us the way to using the body (as you describe above) but are not techniques (stance #1, stance #2, etc.). Whether stationary or moving, we are connected to the ground, aligned, with body-unity, etc., and most importantly our body-structure is alive (adaptable, changing, etc.).

Terence – Maybe our method is the method of standing without standing. The Way of no MA :P
I completely agree with you that power can be received and issued from almost any position and does not require a formal stance to function, but I also think there are also certain points of alignment that will always have to happen and certain fixed points we will occupy when sending and receiving force.

For instance, I may receive power and create an alignment that allows me to stay in position. While my whole body is not static, certain parts have to be to receive that power and stay. Just as my structure isn’t always on, certain parts of my body (post contact) will always have to have active alignment and structure, while other parts can be active or inactive in other ways.

I think I need a better language to describe it. Maybe you should come to LA for a visit. We can talk it over and I can finally scratch my itchy knuckles.

[anerlich]

I am concerned with the implication your suggestion of "then find which way maximises that power". As you correctly note "there are many ways to develop power", but not all of them - and IME a great many of them, for example boxing's - do not fit in with WCK's approach. I don't think it should be a case of "whatever you can make work" (and I don't know if that's what you are suggesting) but instead taking those mechanics that are part of WCK (they're in the forms) and finding how to make them truly functional.

To address your concern, I guess you want to limit the possible methods of power generation to those which do not violate other WC principles, whatever they may be in your lineage. I agree that placing emphasis on power to the exclusion of other necessary attributes (balance, mobility, covering the gates, etc.) is not a plan likely to achieve success if effective self-defense is your goal.

I regard "hitting hard" as a WC principle, be it in the kuen kuit or not.

In the WC I was taught by Rick Spain, there is not the fundamental inconsistency between WC power generation and boxing power generation that you seem to espouse. I've discussed this with yuanfen a few times and we agreed to disagree. TWC power generation has more in common with the Dempsey approach than that of many other lineages. As I said, before, there may be (and appears to be) more than one valid approach.

[S.Teebas]

wing chun 'masters' who rag on about how slight differences in 'stance' structure are what gives wing chun power. This type of talk is best to be ignored. In a real fight, you will not be in a rigid stance so claims that this is where wing chun gets power are totally ridiculous.

Doesn’t Leung Ting advocate the use of structure? I was under the impression that he did. Anyway, I’ve seen guys who practice this meticulous structural alignment make guys twice their size, yes in a “real fight”, cry on ground begging for them to stop after being hit a few times (acting in self defence of course). Seems to work ok to me.


Spine extension also adds power as does forward motion.

I agree that inertia is good to have on your side, but what is spine extension?? As far as I know the spine should sit one vertebrae on-top of the next to allow force to travel through it. Alternatively, extending the spine activates supporting muscles (which are required to extend the spine) Thus causing tension, which can be used against you by someone who’s attacking your balance...looking for something to press on tense muscles are prefect; and if the tension is at your core you get rocked. UF can you explain your theory of spine extension?


Chainpunches delivered only using the arms as in SNT form are not maximul power as they do not utilise full body weight.

That’s not to say they are worthless. If you can generate a lot of power from stationary chain punching don’t you think if you add a step that power can only multiply?

[UltimateFighter]

Originally posted by S.Teebas


Doesn’t Leung Ting advocate the use of structure? I was under the impression that he did. Anyway, I’ve seen guys who practice this meticulous structural alignment make guys twice their size, yes in a “real fight”, cry on ground begging for them to stop after being hit a few times (acting in self defence of course). Seems to work ok to me.

My point was that those who see power as only deriving from a rigid stance are mistaken. The stances are there both as a training aid and to make sure we have our body aligned correctly. But a real fight involves constant movement and not perfect stance. Where stance helps you here is to enable you to hit from off balance positions but retain a good structure to hit with power. The SNT stance is not a fighing stance. If this has not been explained to you yet I recommend you understand this. It is a pre-fight stance only but aftre that movement and turning are the key.




I agree that inertia is good to have on your side, but what is spine extension?? As far as I know the spine should sit one vertebrae on-top of the next to allow force to travel through it. Alternatively, extending the spine activates supporting muscles (which are required to extend the spine) Thus causing tension, which can be used against you by someone who’s attacking your balance...looking for something to press on tense muscles are prefect; and if the tension is at your core you get rocked. UF can you explain your theory of spine extension?.

Spine extension occurs when you hit with a good structure. Think of raisng the chest and straightening the back (the spinal column is always slightly curved in humans). Hitting with a slouched position is very bad. I do not understand the 'tension at you core'. The wing chun/Tsun stance is an upright one at least in yip man lineage. I think the word 'tension' in this case is inappropriate.



That’s not to say they are worthless. If you can generate a lot of power from stationary chain punching don’t you think if you add a step that power can only multiply?

Who said anything was 'worthless'? They are a training tool and your point is in agreement with mine. Stepping is the forward motion I mentioned. Too many people however look to see how power is generated from the static SNT stance, but fail to realise that that is only the beginning, forward motion and turning power are added in later forms.

[kj]

Hello Ultimate.


Originally posted by UltimateFighter


My point was that those who see power as only deriving from a rigid stance are mistaken.


I don't recall anyone saying that here, though I may have overlooked it.



The stances are there both as a training aid and to make sure we have our body aligned correctly. But a real fight involves constant movement and not perfect stance. Where stance helps you here is to enable you to hit from off balance positions but retain a good structure to hit with power.


I hope you will explain your POV in more detail. How do you retain structure when in off balance positions? Furthermore, what do you mean when you use the term "structure"? There's a good chance we mean different things when we use the term.



The SNT stance is not a fighing stance.


Then our viewpoints differ here. The statement above does not universally represent the view of Wing Chun as taught by Ip Man to his students.

I agree that there are no "static" stances, and that we do not strike a pose of any sort and merely expect to hold it. However, in application, we (me and mine) do indeed transition through and with the very same stances we train.

I would like to understand your POV better, especially if you meant otherwise.

We may agree that training in the stances serves some less obvious purposes as well.

To my mind, Wing Chun is an extremely efficient system of training, with nothing wasted and nothing discarded. Inasmuch as our ability to retain Wing Chun in a fight will be challenged and ofttimes suffer, we at least try to maintain and hold to our training in Wing Chun as best we can, and improve on that over time. I cannot help but wonder if your view on this differs.



If this has not been explained to you yet I recommend you understand this.


Looks unnecessarily ad hominem and presumptuous, though perhaps you didn’t mean it that way. Being human, indeed, we all have things to understand better.

Regards,
- Kathy Jo

[t_niehoff]

"UF" wrote:

My point was that those who see power as only deriving from a rigid stance are mistaken. The stances are there both as a training aid and to make sure we have our body aligned correctly. But a real fight involves constant movement and not perfect stance. Where stance helps you here is to enable you to hit from off balance positions but retain a good structure to hit with power. UF

If a "stance" is rigid, then the only power one can generate or use is localized muscle (like the shoulders). The "horses" ("stance" is the english word we've, unfortunately IMO, adopted and one that implies posing; a "horse" - the chinese word - implies something alive that carries and supports us), IMO teach us how to use our body - how to generate force, how to receive force, how to move while doing both, how to coordinate our body with the hands, etc. When I perform a tan sao, for example, I'm not just using my arm but my whole body from head to arm to toe. If you are off-balance, then one's ability to generate and receive power with the body is compromised (if you are in contact with someone and they are resisting - pushing back into you - with force, your correct alignment will lead the incoming force into the ground, allowing you to maintain balance and stability; if you should compromise your alignment, your opponent's force will immediately upset your balance and position (more), making you succeptable to their attack; moreover you'll be confined to using localized muscle in anything you do). TN

Too many people however look to see how power is generated from the static SNT stance, but fail to realise that that is only the beginning, forward motion and turning power are added in later forms. UF

If you see the YJKYM ("the SNT stance") as static, then I can see why you fail to appreciate how it is the core aspect of WCK's approach to generating power: one can't generate or receive power with a static structure. What's interesting is that you mention "spine extension occurs when you hit with a good structure. Think of raisng the chest and straightening the back" -- if one's YJKYKM is dynamic and alive one will be able to use this method (rising, 1 of the 4 torso methods) while stationary or while moving. The significance in these methods to our (WCK's) approach toward fighting has to do with the extreme close-quarter nature of WCK -- we must be able to generate (and receive) enormous power very, very quickly with very, very small movement (btw, "siu" as in SNT denotes small, efficient, compact) since in extreme close-quarter fighting we can't always step or turn, especially without giving away our cog, and perhaps our intention. TN

Terence

[nvisblfist]

Power is generated from your mind intent. Trying to explain how it is generated is very difficult. You should find someone to show you. The end result is the acceleration of mass over a distance in a certain period of time. If the target is closer to you, then it will require a faster acceleration. This can be accomplished by connecting your entire body. SLT helps develop the foundation of your power. Chim Kui helps develop the body integration. You should find that the vast majority of your power starts in the ground and travels through the legs and is transmitted through waist, shoulders and hands if punching, or through the hips and legs if kicking. I'm no expert, but I do hit hard.

[t_niehoff]

"nvisblfist" wrote:

Power is generated from your mind intent. Trying to explain how it is generated is very difficult.

IMHO this is not helpful. Of course any conscious movement we make requires intent (of some sort). Body-structure requires proper "mind-intent". Bad WCK requires "mind-intent" too. ;) TN

You should find someone to show you.

Good idea. TN

The end result is the acceleration of mass over a distance in a certain period of time. If the target is closer to you, then it will require a faster acceleration. This can be accomplished by connecting your entire body.

Is this the old F=ma nonsense? It is like learning to throw a curveball in baseball. It doesn't help one lick to have the "physics" explained to you (particularly by folks that don't understand the physics); it helps to learn the mechanics of throwing the pitch (in this case we have it from the get-to, the punch from YJKYM) and then practicing, investigating, thinking, etc. all in an effort to fully develop it. TN

SLT helps develop the foundation of your power. Chim Kui helps develop the body integration.

SNT doesn't just develop the "foundation" for power but IMO shows us how to generate our own power or receive an opponent's power, whether stationary or moving. TN

You should find that the vast majority of your power starts in the ground and travels through the legs and is transmitted through waist, shoulders and hands if punching, or through the hips and legs if kicking. I'm no expert, but I do hit hard.

Lots of people hit hard, but that doesn't mean they are using good WCK mechanics. How hard can you hit from YJKYM (while stationary) against someone pressing forward (toward you as in trying to run over you) with an airshield or focus mitt on their chest? Can you stop his forward rush and knock him backward or do you fall over from the rebound or the forward rush? You cited a nice tai ji kuit (to explain how tai ji generate power) but in WCK we have a different kuit, "ging chong gwut gun faat, lik chong gerk jang sheng" (bone joints generate power, trained strength is rooted in the heels). TN

Terence

[OdderMensch]

one stated that wing chun is not known for its 'single shot' power and its the follow up techniques and control that give a fighter the edge

I tend to dislike the "one shot one kill" mentaliity when it comes to HTH combat. While it is possible for a single, devastating blow to fell an attacker, i don't see it as likely. Add to that, in the time it takes them to "go down" what are you doing, admiring your handywork?

IMHO wing chun fighters can, and should, strive to land multiple, damaging blow, or "cumulative truama" as my Sifu calls it.

UF said, in no paticular order

Who said anything was 'worthless'? They are a training tool and your point is in agreement with mine. Stepping is the forward motion I mentioned. Too many people however look to see how power is generated from the static SNT stance, but fail to realise that that is only the beginning, forward motion and turning power are added in later forms .

The stances are there both as a training aid and to make sure we have our body aligned correctly. But a real fight involves constant movement and not perfect stance. Where stance helps you here is to enable you to hit from off balance positions but retain a good structure to hit with power. The SNT stance is not a fighing stance.

There are many falsehoods about how stance 'structure' gives bodyweight behind a punch. I have even read long articles by some (shall remain nameless) wing chun 'masters' who rag on about how slight differences in 'stance' structure are what gives wing chun power. This type of talk is best to be ignored. In a real fight, you will not be in a rigid stance so claims that this is where wing chun gets power are totally ridiculous.

Let me see if i understand you.
In a real fight, you don't use your stance. you may use some of the agility/strength gained from training your stance, but not the actual stance of the SLT form, nor its progressions in CK.

And what do you consider slight as far a stance is concerned? I've had my sihing corect only a minor shift of my forward foot, and suddenly everything else clicks into place. Just a slight tucking of the hip can lock in the upperbody. there is little, but critical, difference between a limb that is straight and a joint that is locked.

In a fight do you strive to keep your knees bent? do you try to maintain addcution between the legs? do you keep your back straight and your head up? Do you duck and shuffle, bobbing weaveing away from danger, or do you boldly claim the centerline as your own?




The "horses" ("stance" is the english word we've, unfortunately IMO, adopted and one that implies posing; a "horse" - the chinese word - implies something alive that carries and supports us)

excelent point t_niehoff! I was taught to use "moveing stances" intead of "tranitional footwork" We are shown this as a difference from or 7* brothers, whom step and even jump from stance to stance with more traditional footwork. or as our Sifu has to say too often "thats good Mantis. terrible wing chun, but good mantis" :D

[EnterTheWhip]

Originally posted by kj
The statement above does not universally represent the view of Wing Chun as taught by Ip Man to his students. Indeed it does not! It appears that most of Ip Man's followers are stuck at the SLT level. i.e. stuck in the pigeon toe stance.

It would be difficult to realize the stance's limitations and its freedoms with a tunneled perspective.

[TjD]

IMO, the stance is always there in spirit and feeling, just not always in appearance

as to one shot kills, i think every strike should have the potential for it - and thats where the stance comes into play

[UltimateFighter]

Originally posted by OdderMensch


UF said ,
In a real fight, you don't use your stance. you may use some of the agility/strength gained from training your stance, but not the actual stance of the SLT form. In a fight do you strive to keep your knees bent? do you try to maintain addcution between the legs? do you keep your back straight and your head up? Do you duck and shuffle, bobbing weaveing away from danger, or do you boldly claim the centerline as your own?



It is you who has twisted my words somewhat. Firstly, I made no mention of the CK stance, which is entirely different. That is a stance that is used on stepping and is entirely applicable. The SNT stance is not a fighting stance in that in a fight, you do not stand rigidly in stance at an point (except pre-fight). Once a fight starts, you use stepping and turning, and you may make a transition to SNT stance for a few brief moments before moving again. Yes, we strive for adduction and rootedness in our movemtents, but if you think that rootedness can only be acieved by standing in SNT stance, your wing chun will be severely limited.
So when I say you do not use SNT stnace as a fighting stance, I mean you do not stand rigidly in any one position, akthough it may be a trasitional position coupled with movements from CK stance and stepping turning. If the fight goes to the ground, youcan still apply Wing Chun/Tsun, but not from the way it is trained in the forms or rigidly face to face in chi sau. Be more open minded in your thinking. This is a fighting art, the forms and chi sau are a means to an end. I think you have been seeing them too much as the end in themselves.

[TjD]

Originally posted by UltimateFighter


It is you who has twisted my words somewhat. Firstly, I made no mention of the CK stance, which is entirely different.

the only differences i see between the chum kiu stance and the siu lim tau stance are purely asthetitic, at best.

[t_niehoff]

"ETW" wrote:

Indeed it does not! It appears that most of Ip Man's followers are stuck at the SLT level. i.e. stuck in the pigeon toe stance. ETW

We who trace our lineage through Yip Man have the Siu Nim Tao (SNT), not the Siu Lien Tao (SLT) as does YKS/SN, Cho Ga, etc.; SNT and SLT are two different expressions. And I have no idea what "SLT (or more correctly SNT) level" refers to, although thinking of the YJKYM as "the pigeon toe stance" does indicate IME a very low-level of understanding of WCK (like thinking of tan sao as "palm-up block"). TN

It would be difficult to realize the stance's limitations and its freedoms with a tunneled perspective. ETW

Thinking of YJKYM as simply a "stance" already demonstrates a significant "tunneled perspective" (the perspective of WCK as a collection of "techniques" that we mix-and-match; YJKYM is more than a "technique"). TN

Terence

[yuanfen]

Forgive UF- like some novices he makes pronouncements without understanding much wing chun in depth, atleast in his posts. The "principles" of the yee gee kim yeung ma are built into every stance in wing chun....though to the casual or underinformed observer that may not seem to be the case. The ygkym is not a frozen stance- it is very much alive. But you dont stand like a frozen statute or a wooden horse and fight from it.

joy chaudhuri

[kj]

Originally posted by yuanfen
Forgive UF- like some novices he makes pronouncements without understanding much wing chun in depth, atleast in his posts. The "principles" of the yee gee kim yeung ma are built into every stance in wing chun....though to the casual or underinformed observer that may not seem to be the case. The ygkym is not a frozen stance- it is very much alive. But you dont stand like a frozen statute or a wooden horse and fight from it.

joy chaudhuri

Amen to that, Joy.
- kj

[yuanfen]

We who trace our lineage through Yip Man have the Siu Nim Tao (SNT), not the Siu Lien Tao (SLT) as does YKS/SN, Cho Ga, etc.; SNT and SLT are two different expressions. And I have no idea what "SLT (or more correctly SNT) level" refers to, although thinking of the YJKYM as "the pigeon toe stance" does indicate IME a very low-level of understanding of WCK (like thinking of tan sao as "palm-up block"). TN
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terence and list:
1. Cantonese sounds can be represented in several different ways. Using SNT is not necessarily more correct than SLT. Even pronounciations vary in sub language groups in South China amd Hong Kong.

2. In usage wing chun footwork becomes less and less pigeon toed- but many ygkym start out that way though there are variations and in TWC apparently there is no toe in -

3. old issue- tan sao to some means spreading palm. But there are Cantonese who dont bother with dictionary definitions and just call it palm up- preferring to personally show, teach and correct the tan sao rather than depending on dictionary meanings. There is a lot to a good tan sao- neither palm up or spreading palm sufficiently captures the actual motion IMO.

BTW- in the current IKF there is the second part of a two part interview with Chen Xiao Wang. As many know he is the standard bearer of the Chen(taiji) family- specially since Master Feng is less active these days. CXW knows the martial use of taiji extremely well.
In any case what he had to say about the three important steps
in learning taiji could apply to good kung fu including wc---a) the teacher shows the movement. b) the student performs the movement. c) the teacher corrects the students movement- over and over. The explanations and applications come later.
The cerebral and the physical are both important and interactive-
but first one must sufficiently shape the body or the motion.
Ip Man did not insist ona wide set of terms for every motion- just
corrections when he chose to....depending on who he wanted to seriously teach, what when and how.

joy chaudhuri

[t_niehoff]

Hi Joy,

Joy wrote:

Terence and list:
1. Cantonese sounds can be represented in several different ways. Using SNT is not necessarily more correct than SLT. Even pronounciations vary in sub language groups in South China amd Hong Kong. JC

Yip Man lineage uses the chinese character for 'nim' (using cantonese dialect) that means 'idea, concept' and not the character for 'lien' (as YKS, for example) that translates as 'training'. Apparently Foshanese dialect of Cantonese makes the 'nim' sound more like 'lum' but the word itself is still 'nim' (idea and not training); similarly one in the US may have a southern (colloquial) dialect but that doesn't change the "proper" pronunciation. And in writing, I think it important to keep SLT and SNT distinct as they represent distinct lineages. TN

2. In usage wing chun footwork becomes less and less pigeon toed- but many ygkym start out that way though there are variations and in TWC apparently there is no toe in - JC

OK. TN

3. old issue- tan sao to some means spreading palm. But there are Cantonese who dont bother with dictionary definitions and just call it palm up- preferring to personally show, teach and correct the tan sao rather than depending on dictionary meanings. There is a lot to a good tan sao- neither palm up or spreading palm sufficiently captures the actual motion IMO. JC

Joy, this issue I'm referring to isn't one of terminology (what you are apparently concerned with here) but rather in how some folks (and I don't mean you) have the limited perspective of tan sao being a "palm up block." As we both know, there is a great more to it than that. TN

BTW- in the current IKF there is the second part of a two part interview with Chen Xiao Wang. As many know he is the standard bearer of the Chen(taiji) family- specially since Master Feng is less active these days. CXW knows the martial use of taiji extremely well. JC

Really? Who has he fought to claim that distinction? TN

In any case what he had to say about the three important steps
in learning taiji could apply to good kung fu including wc---a) the teacher shows the movement. b) the student performs the movement. c) the teacher corrects the students movement- over and over. The explanations and applications come later.
The cerebral and the physical are both important and interactive-
but first one must sufficiently shape the body or the motion. JC

Maybe we should compare how a real fighter (i.e., someone who can and has actually used his stuff against large, non-cooperative opponents, like Rickson, for example) trains and teaches and how CXW trains and teaches. And perhaps look at their respective students' performance in actually being able to fight before drawing conclusions. I think it was Wang Xiangzhai, the founder of Yi Quan and a fighter btw, who said: "Most people always believe their ears instead of their eyes." TN

Ip Man did not insist ona wide set of terms for every motion- just
corrections when he chose to....depending on who he wanted to seriously teach, what when and how. JC

Actually, Yip told his students to "Go out and test it for yourself, I may be tricking you." Personally, I think that's much better advice that CXW's "methodology". IME one needs to know the idea/concept ("nim") and what one is trying to actually do (the objective) with any "movement" before or as they train that "movement" -- then they can be self-correcting and learn to make what they do functional (and don't need to keep going to the instructor). Imagine trying to learn a curve pitch in baseball *without knowing it was a curveball (the application)* by the coach just "showing the movement" and the student just "performing the movement" and then just being "corrected" over and over again by the coach (and still having no idea of what it was one was trying to do!). In no form of physical endeavor do we learn as CXW suggests. TN

Terence

[UltimateFighter]

Originally posted by yuanfen
The "principles" of the yee gee kim yeung ma are built into every stance in wing chun....though to the casual or underinformed observer that may not seem to be the case. The ygkym is not a frozen stance- it is very much alive. But you dont stand like a frozen statute or a wooden horse and fight from it.

joy chaudhuri

Forgive Yuenfan. Like many novices with zero fight experience, he makes the mistake of reading too much into stances and forms with little understanding of application. Footwork and movement are the key to making wing chun work in a fight.

So Yenfan, would you care to explain in depth what you believe makes your SNT 'alive', rather than mumbling miscomprehensions to hide behind a lack of knowledge?

[OdderMensch]

It is you who has twisted my words somewhat.

of course I did, thank you for responding in kind. you made statments a, b, and c. I said if you belive this, then that means you belive conclusion d, right? since you have responded that you do not belive conclusion d, and why, we can now expand and continue the thread.


Firstly, I made no mention of the CK stance, which is entirely different. That is a stance that is used on stepping and is entirely applicable.

ok now we see where we differ. I see the CK stance as a progression of the SLT stance, varying slightly the tension between the knees, weight distrubution and angle of the feet. but it is still he same thing, imo. of course you could never stand in a static point in space and fight! I dont think either of us, nor anyone on this board would advocate that position.

Once a fight starts, you use stepping and turning, and you may make a transition to SNT stance for a few brief moments before moving again. Yes, we strive for adduction and rootedness in our movemtents, but if you think that rootedness can only be acieved by standing in SNT stance, your wing chun will be severely limited.
so long as i'm limited to doing WC thats fine. I learn to step and turn with the YKM, to use what I learned from SLT in order to move in the very precise mannor that IMHO WC demands. Rootedness can be done in many ways other than the SLT stance, but WC makes sole use of that stance, given that all other stances in WC are based in that form. (which is something you do not seem to belive.)


This is a fighting art, the forms and chi sau are a means to an end. I think you have been seeing them too much as the end in themselves.
of course its a fighting art, I alway advocate that. However the art, as learned, does not radicly alter itself in order to fight.
(I've made the mistake before of useing a food analogy when hungry but here goes another one.)

think of the SLT stance as a carrot. you spend time to grow this carrot. then in later forms you learn to chop the carrot this way and that way, you learn to add butter, or salt, you learn some ways to pepare your carrot for eating. but when you eat it, its still a carrot, it doesn't suddenly become a potato!

edited to respond to UF latest post.

Footwork and movement are the key to making wing chun work in a fight.

and footwork, and movement come with, and from the SLT stance training. as i try to explain above.

[yuanfen]

UF sez:Forgive Yuenfan. Like many novices with zero fight experience,
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Really? And you know this from reading forum posts? <g>
Yuanfen.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terence-
1. We who use the SLT designation use it to refer to the little idea. The important thing is less the label but more on what the substance behind the label is.

2. By no means in using the palm up reference do I assume that
merely having the palm up means doing a good tan sao. Accepting the spreading translation wont give a good tan sao either.

3. On CXW- I know that he can take care of himself. I was present once when a big burly athletic guy took an unannouced swing at him while moving in- the big guy was put face down on the floor quickly. CXW has very good timing and reactions and power.
But there is no question in my mind that wing chun is a superior fighting art- all things taken into account- such as the same number of years in wing chun versus taiji. The average wc guy can take care of himself better than the average taiji guy.

JC

[Grendel]

Hi Joy,

I'm late to the thread. Mostly, because generating power is the least of my worries right now.


Originally posted by yuanfen
UF sez:Forgive Yuenfan. Like many novices with zero fight experience,
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Really? And you know this from reading forum posts? <g>
Yuanfen.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, if you haven't fought anyone on the forum, then it doesn't count. :p All the best Wing Chun fighters are represented here. :rolleyes:


Terence-
1. We who use the SLT designation use it to refer to the little idea. The important thing is less the label but more on what the substance behind the label is.

My Hong Kong born and educated sifu pronounces and writes the first set as Sil Nim Tao, meaning as Joy indicated. So, when I write SNT, you'll know what I mean if I forget to spell it out. :D


2. By no means in using the palm up reference do I assume that
merely having the palm up means doing a good tan sao. Accepting the spreading translation wont give a good tan sao either.

Constant practice and correction as Joy has said is the key to understanding and good technique.

Regarding our Taiji brethern, Feng Zhiqiang has left the Chen fold, and teaches his own style now, emphasing more the health aspects of Taijiquan. For example, I understand he no longer teaches the awesomely powerful kicks for which, among other reasons, he is famous.


But there is no question in my mind that wing chun is a superior fighting art- all things taken into account- such as the same number of years in wing chun versus taiji. The average wc guy can take care of himself better than the average taiji guy.

I agree that Wing Chun is better for us humans. Masters Feng Zhiqiang and Chen Xiao Wang are obviously another matter. :D

Regards,

[t_niehoff]

Joy writes: We who use the SLT designation use it to refer to the little idea. The important thing is less the label but more on what the substance behind the label is.

"Grendel" writes: My Hong Kong born and educated sifu pronounces and writes the first set as Sil Lim Tao, meaning as Joy indicated. So, when I write SLT, you'll know what I mean if I forget to spell it out.

That's all well and good -- but IMO the label (word) should help us to understand the substance of what someone is trying to say. When someone writes SLT my first thought is that they practice, and have the perspective of, a non-YM lineage (since Yip Man came up with Siu Nim Tao). But I suppose if clarity isn't an issue . . . :) TN

Joy (again) wrote: On CXW- I know that he can take care of himself. I was present once when a big burly athletic guy took an unannouced swing at him while moving in- the big guy was put face down on the floor quickly. CXW has very good timing and reactions and power. JC

I've personally seen CXW too, and I've no question that he has some skills. My only question is the level of those skills. TN

But there is no question in my mind that wing chun is a superior fighting art- all things taken into account- such as the same number of years in wing chun versus taiji. The average wc guy can take care of himself better than the average taiji guy. JC

I agree with you that "the average wc guy can take care of himself better than the average taiji guy" but only because the tai ji folks are even more constipated by their "training" than the WCK practitioner. I think "the average wc guy" would have the stuffing beaten out of them by "the average bjj guy" or the "the average amatuer boxer guy" or whatever. TN

Terence

[Grendel]

Originally posted by t_niehoff
"Grendel" writes: My Hong Kong born and educated sifu pronounces and writes the first set as Sil Lim Tao, meaning as Joy indicated. So, when I write SLT, you'll know what I mean if I forget to spell it out.

Hi Terence,

Actually, if I understood correctly, I was agreeing with you regarding SNT/SLT. My fat fingers typed SLT instead of SNT. Oddly, I had edited my mistake before your post.


That's all well and good -- but IMO the label (word) should help us to understand the substance of what someone is trying to say. When someone writes SLT my first thought is that they practice, and have the perspective of, a non-YM lineage (since Yip Man came up with Siu Nim Tao). But I suppose if clarity isn't an issue . . . :) TN

It is correct to say SNT in Yip Man lineage. It's Ok to say SLT too if people understand the points you've made. Henceforth, I will try to write SNT, but if I slip up, please understand that I am referring to Yip Man lineage first set.


I've personally seen CXW too, and I've no question that he has some skills. My only question is the level of those skills. TN

That's an interesting take on things. I don't doubt Chen's skill level. In the anecdote related by Joy, Chen could probably have killed the guy he dropped, or equally easily have crippled him. It is a measure of skill to be able to control an opponent easily without hurting him. You must know this, so you must be assessing Chen's skill level differently than I. I'm interested in what you see as his deficiency.


But there is no question in my mind that wing chun is a superior fighting art- all things taken into account- such as the same number of years in wing chun versus taiji. The average wc guy can take care of himself better than the average taiji guy. JC

I agree with you that "the average wc guy can take care of himself better than the average taiji guy" but only because the tai ji folks are even more constipated by their "training" than the WCK practitioner. I think "the average wc guy" would have the stuffing beaten out of them by "the average bjj guy" or the "the average amatuer boxer guy" or whatever. TN

I don't know whether to agree or not. :p If you're saying that most Wing Chun training is inadequate, I agree. If you're saying that BJJ or boxing, or MMA is inherently better, then you're wrong. But since you study Wing Chun, I'm sure you have a high regard for the art, and therefore I interpret what you say as an observation of the proliferation of Wing Chun in-name-only schools.

Regards,

[t_niehoff]

Hi,

Grendel wrote:

That's an interesting take on things. I don't doubt Chen's skill level. In the anecdote related by Joy, Chen could probably have killed the guy he dropped, or equally easily have crippled him. It is a measure of skill to be able to control an opponent easily without hurting him. You must know this, so you must be assessing Chen's skill level differently than I. I'm interested in what you see as his deficiency. G

First, and I can't say this is the case, but it is not uncommon -- I've seen it myself -- to have "ringers", usually large, athletic-looking blokes, at certain seminars. The scenario is that the "ringer" attacks the "master" who dispatches him with ease, thereby solidifying his reputation and also forestalling any such genuine attempts by other attendees (it is a variation of a con-game). In any case, I am skeptical of these "performances." Having said that, I repeat what I said before: CXW has some skills. But who has he met in a fighting situation that is highly or even moderately skilled? Rickson, as a point of comparison, rolls to submission with *everyone*, regardless of their level, who attends his seminars prior to beginning the seminar! And if you want to step it up to a challenge fight, he'll be more than happy to oblige. That's not something we see at CXW or any WCK seminars. But then Rickson is a fighter and is training fighters. (FWIW, I don't train bjj; I'm just using Rickson as an example). TN

I don't know whether to agree or not. If you're saying that most Wing Chun training is inadequate, I agree. If you're saying that BJJ or boxing, or MMA is inherently better, then you're wrong. But since you study Wing Chun, I'm sure you have a high regard for the art, and therefore I interpret what you say as an observation of the proliferation of Wing Chun in-name-only schools. G

My point is that WCK is not a "superior art" in that *it* is inherently better than other MAs. In fact, I'd rate most of the practitioners of the art as having less ability to fight than persons equally trained in many other methods. And if anyone doubts me, find out for yourself; go - and if you are a teacher, take your students - to the local bjj school, muay thai gym, boxing gym, etc. and ask to spar, or better yet challenge fight, with someone that has been practicing their art as long as you have. But that has to do with our personal training and cultivation, not the WCK method IMO. As Wang Xiangzhai so pointedly observed: "If one always considers oneself a top boxer behind closed doors, that is not worth a penny." I feel the same way about those who practice "superior arts". TN

Terence

[yuanfen]

That's all well and good -- but IMO the label (word) should help us to understand the substance of what someone is trying to say. When someone writes SLT my first thought is that they practice, and have the perspective of, a non-YM lineage (since Yip Man came up with Siu Nim Tao). But I suppose if clarity isn't an issue . . . TN

Joy (again) wrote: On CXW- I know that he can take care of himself. I was present once when a big burly athletic guy took an unannouced swing at him while moving in- the big guy was put face down on the floor quickly. CXW has very good timing and reactions and power. JC

I've personally seen CXW too, and I've no question that he has some skills. My only question is the level of those skills. TN

But there is no question in my mind that wing chun is a superior fighting art- all things taken into account- such as the same number of years in wing chun versus taiji. The average wc guy can take care of himself better than the average taiji guy. JC

I agree with you that "the average wc guy can take care of himself better than the average taiji guy" but only because the tai ji folks are even more constipated by their "training" than the WCK practitioner. I think "the average wc guy" would have the stuffing beaten out of them by "the average bjj guy" or the "the average amatuer boxer guy" or whatever. TN

Terence
---------------------------------------
Terence- Agreed that IM used the little idea notion-and that's the meaning I use- it doesnt matter whether in English its represented by a N or a T. If someone uses a N for my T and there is a little confusion clearing it up shouldnt take long. A little anarchy is not a bad thing.

On CXW again- he was impressive in his control in taking the guy down. I have little doubt about the level of his skill- he doesnt have to enter the UFC to prove it. Again, I think that once past the real top guys- many taiji guys are not impressive.

I dont know what your point on average bjj etc is about...again the top bjj guys are superb - they have their not so good folks too. Boxers are great folks but their peaks are far too brief. Sadly,
lots of young folks can take Ali now. Many top flight amteurs end up in the pros these days too and end up in the meatgrinder...

JC

[Grendel]

Originally posted by t_niehoff

First, and I can't say this is the case, but it is not uncommon -- I've seen it myself -- to have "ringers", usually large, athletic-looking blokes, at certain seminars. The scenario is that the "ringer" attacks the "master" who dispatches him with ease, thereby solidifying his reputation and also forestalling any such genuine attempts by other attendees (it is a variation of a con-game). In any case, I am skeptical of these "performances."

LOL! I doubt Chen's need to set up a con. :)


Having said that, I repeat what I said before: CXW has some skills. But who has he met in a fighting situation that is highly or even moderately skilled? Rickson, as a point of comparison, rolls to submission with *everyone*, regardless of their level, who attends his seminars prior to beginning the seminar! And if you want to step it up to a challenge fight, he'll be more than happy to oblige. That's not something we see at CXW or any WCK seminars. But then Rickson is a fighter and is training fighters. (FWIW, I don't train bjj; I'm just using Rickson as an example).

It is to Rickson's credit if plays with his seminar attendees.
There are many Wing Chun and Taijiquan teachers who do the same. I see no great lesson or proof of method in seminar training. It's not fighting; it's only demonstration. Not to say that I doubt Rickson's abilities, but it's neither here nor there.


I don't know whether to agree or not. If you're saying that most Wing Chun training is inadequate, I agree. If you're saying that BJJ or boxing, or MMA is inherently better, then you're wrong. But since you study Wing Chun, I'm sure you have a high regard for the art, and therefore I interpret what you say as an observation of the proliferation of Wing Chun in-name-only schools. G

My point is that WCK is not a "superior art" in that *it* is inherently better than other MAs. In fact, I'd rate most of the practitioners of the art as having less ability to fight than persons equally trained in many other methods.
Dang! There's that word most again. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. :p


And if anyone doubts me, find out for yourself; go - and if you are a teacher, take your students - to the local bjj school, muay thai gym, boxing gym, etc. and ask to spar, or better yet challenge fight, with someone that has been practicing their art as long as you have.

My thinking is that successful fighters usually have street experience and natural ability. That doesn't negate all the martial art positives that the study of good Wing Chun can provide to small, non-muscular, nonathletic folk. Most people, including most Wing Chun practitioners IMO, do not go out seeking street combat. Pretty much, we are satisfied to know (or imagine) we can deal when the time comes. I recommend beimo only be enjoyed by someone with a wish to make money in competition. It's too dangerous and irresponsible for most of the rest of us.


But that has to do with our personal training and cultivation, not the WCK method IMO. As Wang Xiangzhai so pointedly observed: "If one always considers oneself a top boxer behind closed doors, that is not worth a penny." I feel the same way about those who practice "superior arts". TN

Well, don't look for me to change your mind. I'm too old and too ambivalent to care about my fighting reputation. That said, I make it a point to confidently walk the streets of any city in the U.S. of A. Please don't retort with, "Yeah, but what about (name your world city)." There are certain places an American should only go armed and shielded behind armor. :D

[yuanfen]

First, and I can't say this is the case, but it is not uncommon -- I've seen it myself -- to have "ringers", usually large, athletic-looking blokes, at certain seminars.

((This was not at a seminar organized by CXW or his people.
A ringer was very unlikely. Joy))

My point is that WCK is not a "superior art" in that *it* is inherently better than other MAs.

((Then we basically have differences in POVs. If I knew of a better art, I would be burning miles. time and money to learn it))Joy

And if anyone doubts me, find out for yourself; go - and if you are a teacher, take your students - to the local bjj school, muay thai gym, boxing gym, etc. and ask to spar, or better yet challenge fight, with someone that has been practicing their art as long as you have.

((The problem with that context is Terence- you are a lawyer
- when was the last time you saw a real no rules public fight without legal implications and consequences... the rest is various forms of sports simulation albeit dangerous ones. A wing chun person
wouldnt last long ina NFL game either- I am missing your point.
What is it?))
Joy

[EnterTheWhip]

A laudable attempt at giving me my own medicine.

[UltimateFighter]

Originally posted by OdderMensch


ok now we see where we differ. I see the CK stance as a progression of the SLT stance, varying slightly the tension between the knees, weight distrubution and angle of the feet. but it is still he same thing, imo. of course you could never stand in a static point in space and fight! I dont think either of us, nor anyone on this board would advocate that position.


and footwork, and movement come with and from the SNT training as i try to explain above.


We do indeed differ greatly. I fear you are trying to over simplify your wing chun into generalised terms. Yes there are similaritites between the CK stance and SNT stance, but that said, they are still different stances. Seeing one as a 'basically the same' as the other is incorrect and will only add to your confusion. Bearing in mind that different branches train the stance differently (we in WT train a 99% weight on the back leg), the CK stance is different in both application and positioning. To see them as 'both the same thing' in your words only muddles the true uses of the stances does not help in your training.

Secondly, your statement that footwork and movement come 'with and from the SNT training' is total nonsense. Sorry to put it so bluntly but it is. SNT training contains no footwork or movement, it is all in CK. Though you may be trying to say that the basic stance is developed in SNT and hence it is a progression, that is still totally false. Footwork and turning can only be trained from the CK stance. I fail to see how you can logically say it derives from SNT stance when this has a static position with the legs. Do not forget that CK also containes the neutral stance, and only here does it show how to turn from one to the other. If you disagree with me, I suggest you read any of Yip Chuns books where he clearly describes how the Ck stance holds the beginning of stepping and turning in wing chun.


To Yuenfan,

as you have failed to respond to my question I can only assume that you indeed are hiding behind incorrect jargon to cover a lack of knowledge.

[kj]

UF,

I admire your penchant for sharing your understanding. I am at the same time astounded by your last post (beyond the usual rudeness). I've no doubt many others are too.

Do you truly see zero relationship between the YJKYM and other stances and footwork of Wing Chun? Doesn't your chum kiu also contain YJKYM, as you say?

Lest you be entirely misunderstood, perhaps you could help by describing the essential elements of your YJKYM, including any critical elements beyond legs and feet positioning.

Regards and TIA,
- Kathy Jo

[t_niehoff]

Grendel wrote:

My thinking is that successful fighters usually have street experience and natural ability. That doesn't negate all the martial art positives that the study of good Wing Chun can provide to small, non-muscular, nonathletic folk. Most people, including most Wing Chun practitioners IMO, do not go out seeking street combat. Pretty much, we are satisfied to know (or imagine) we can deal when the time comes. I recommend beimo only be enjoyed by someone with a wish to make money in competition. It's too dangerous and irresponsible for most of the rest of us.

Our accomplishment in any activity depends upon - among other things - our experience and natural talent, so it is not surprising that fighting (or WCK) works that way too. What is surprising, however, is that WCK is a fighting method and presumably we are learning WCK to increase our ability to fight -- and not just for the sake of learning WCK. Yet, most WCK people don't fight. I believe, and this is also apparently the opinion of our esteemed ancestors, that fighting is a necessary part of any training concerned with fighting. How, Grendel, do you measure your performance in WCK? Is it by how well you do drills or forms, or by how well you can do the activity these drills and forms are preparing you for? I agree with you that many folks "think" they can "deal when the time comes". But IMHO such thinking is deluded and it's dangerous. Biemo, challenge fights, etc. are not "too dangerous and irresponsible". In fact, most effective MAs - hence why they are effective - routinely practice fighting in some way; only those arts that "think" they are superior routinely don't. ;) If someone isn't willing to pay the price by actually fighting - and that's part of the price of becoming better skilled - then they are significantly limiting their growth. TN

Joy wrote:

((The problem with that context is Terence- you are a lawyer
- when was the last time you saw a real no rules public fight JC

You are missing my point. WCK is an approach toward fighting and a means to train that approach. The only way to measure our performance -- in genuinely applying our WCK, i.e., fighting -- is to fight. But it doesn't need to be a "no rules public fight" (although it could be) or street assault. I understand that NHBs, kyokushin sparring, etc. all have limitations. So what? Our goal is - or should be - to increase our fighting skills. These fights or "contests" allow us to gauge our performance against skilled, resisting opponents, to see how our skills work, to see where we're lacking, to see what works, to see what doesn't work, etc. Just because they are not street assaults doesn't mean they are not useful in that regard. The rooftop fights, our ancestors' challenge fights, etc. were not for the most part street assaults. Yet our ancestors engaged in them IMO for the very reasons I've outlined above. And while engaging is these "contests" doesn't guarantee success in a street assault, what does? At least by having engaged in these "contests" we will have used and honed our fighting skills against resisting opponents much more skilled than those of the likely street thug. TN

without legal implications and consequences... the rest is various forms of sports simulation albeit dangerous ones. A wing chun person
wouldnt last long ina NFL game either- I am missing your point.
What is it?)) JC

To repeat: these "sport simulations" permit us to test our performance against a skilled, non-cooperative (resisting) opponent. I'm not suggesting that we all need to go compete in televised NHBs but we do need to do something. And not "sparring" with our classmates. We need to find persons with different approaches (how do you learn to deal with "the shoot" or tackle? Not IMO by having persons - like our WCK classmates - unskilled in "shooting" pretending to be wrestlers and doing their best "shoot" but by facing persons actually skilled in those things), that are skilled, that are non-cooperative, that are intent on defeating us, etc. From these "contests" we can grow as a fighter; without them all we're doing is stuff "about swimming" without actually "getting into the water." The dangerousness of these "sport simulations" is IMO overstated; but there is no alternative. If a person truly wants to learn to fight (what WCK "allegedly" is for) there is no other way. TN

Terence

[yuanfen]

UF with his usual level of grace and understanding asks:
To Yuenfan,

as you have failed to respond to my question I can only assume that you indeed are hiding behind incorrect jargon to cover a lack of knowledge.

((Apparently- this was the question))


So Yenfan, would you care to explain in depth what you believe makes your SNT 'alive', rather than mumbling miscomprehensions to hide behind a lack of knowledge?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
UF- I am not known to "hide" much. Failed to respond?
First you need to learn how to phrase a real question rather than one with a built in set of accusations.

Second- if you dont know how the SLT is "alive" ( or not) ask your teacher. Draw any inference you wish to from the answers.

yuenfan

[yuanfen]

Responses to Terence in brackets:(my attempt to be clear on separating the response from the relevant original post)...

Joy wrote:

((The problem with that context is Terence- you are a lawyer
- when was the last time you saw a real no rules public fight JC

You are missing my point. WCK is an approach toward fighting challenge fights, etc. were not for the most part street assaults. Yet our ancestors engaged in them IMO for the very reasons I've outlined above.

((Frankly, I was not impressed with the few recorded roof top fights that I have seen. That is not the reason I got into wing chun.Everyone has their own reasons))))

And while engaging is these "contests" doesn't guarantee success in a street assault, what does?

((Your own best preparation))


To repeat: these "sport simulations" permit us to test our performance against a skilled, non-cooperative (resisting) opponent. I'm not suggesting that we all need to go compete in televised NHBs but we do need to do something.

((You are assuming that "something" is not done))

And not "sparring" with our classmates. We need to find persons with different approaches

((You are assuming that this is not done))

The dangerousness of these "sport simulations" is IMO overstated;

((danger? Not really my view. Not much danger in rolling around for 45 minutes then tapping out IMO. You are also assuming that from forum and lists posts one can get a reliable idea of who is testing what when and how. I am not being catty- but simply pointing out that there are worlds beyond forums and lists))))JC

[t_niehoff]

Hi Joy,

Joy wrote:

((Frankly, I was not impressed with the few recorded roof top fights that I have seen. That is not the reason I got into wing chun.Everyone has their own reasons)))) JC

The idea is to use the "contests" to learn and grow in our skills and understanding. That they weren't "impressive" supports my point. Those rooftop fighters, like Wong Sheung Leung, developed because - not in spite of - them. And I suppose there are many "reasons" people take up WCK. If they do it for reasons not having to do with developing fighting skills (and I'm not suggesting that of you) then I think they would be better served taking up something else. TN

----------------
And while engaging is these "contests" doesn't guarantee success in a street assault, what does? TN

((Your own best preparation)) JC

Exactly. But by "your own **best** preparation" do we mean drills and forms alone? TN
----------------

I'm not suggesting that we all need to go compete in televised NHBs but we do need to do something. TN

((You are assuming that "something" is not done)) JC

I'm sure some folks do that "something", but a great many IME do not. Also, it depends also on what that "something" is. TN

----------------
And not "sparring" with our classmates. We need to find persons with different approaches TN

((You are assuming that this is not done)) JC

I'm not assuming it is not done by some or that you don't do it; I'm merely saying that it must be done to develop and hone our skills. If you do it or others do it, then we agree. :) If someone doesn't do it or thinks they can develop into a decent fighter without doing it, I've yet to hear a compelling argument for that position or meet anyone who has. TN

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

((danger? Not really my view. Not much danger in rolling around for 45 minutes then tapping out IMO. You are also assuming that from forum and lists posts one can get a reliable idea of who is testing what when and how.)))JC

I also don't want to roll on the ground, and I don't think it will help me develop the fighting approach that WCK trains. OTOH, I do need, for example, to face persons that will attempt to tackle (shoot) me to the ground to learn how to deal with that -- and the better the person I face (the better skilled he is at his takedowns) the better I'll get dealing with it. I'm not assuming anything about you or anyone personally. These are just my views of what anyone needs to do to develop skills as WCK fighters. If I say that we need a good instructor and that without a good instructor it may be impossible to truly reach a high level of skill, I'm not suggesting or assuming that you or anyone else doesn't have a good instructor - rather I'm just stating my opinion of what's needed. TN

Terence

[rubthebuddha]

so many issues to give opinions on, not enough time :(

- the SNT stance IS alive, period. one way to think about it is the same way we think about our bong sau in the SNT -- it's just sitting there, looking like a pretty bong sau. is it dead? if so, we're not training it correctly. same with our legs and torso in the stance -- if they're not alive and feeling, they're dead and lazy. the legs should be both strong and flexbile, ready to turn, step, kick or whatever with quickness and fluidity, not rigidity. same with the bong sau -- if it's not springy and relaxed, it becomes a tool of greater use to our opponent than for us. that's just ONE way the stance is alive.

- i think terence is right in that such competitions can be a good way to test skills. we shouldn't need fatal strikes to defeat someone. rather, we should have them in our arsenal and be able to defeat someone with our more simple, less lethal techniques.

- (switching sides) i think that such competitions are a tool; they are a way of testing and improving, much the same other practice is. but these competitions are not required to be good at self defense. this doesn't hold true for folks who frequent these events -- as if you want to get better at a specific type of physical act, you do that act.

- (generalizing) however, i don't think that events are a good or bad thing. they are what you get out of them. if you frequent them, you will learn, but you may pick up some habits that won't apply elsewhere. it's like a writing style -- writing for research and writing for a monthly magazine are both good skills, but the style for one will not be as effective as the style for another. two people may be fantastic writiers, but a JAMA (medicine, not martial) writer may get the message across in Time magazine, and the Time writer's style will not have the requisite depth for JAMA.

- joy and kj -- ignore UF's assertions. he's spent a bit more than two years in wing tsun and thinks he's the end-all be-all of the style. he ignores the words of more seasoned people in his own lineage, insults people who have left the wt family and found something else more to their liking, and disregards the opinions of anyone contrary to him as uninformed. guess that means kathy jo's seven years and joy's 26 in the art have little meaning. better start shaping up, you two. ;)

[yuanfen]

Terence- we do have large areas of agreement. I didnt get into wc to improve my health- though the latter is not a bad side product.

Rubthebuddha- Thx. I dont take UF seriously as an authority
on anything. He might learn some wc yet if he develops the right amount of humility and listening ability ( to elders in his own lineage at least).


Happy New Year to WC forum members.

Joy Chaudhuri ((Downtown Tempe tonight is one of the places to be tonight--- after the other Fiesta bowl parade etc- but I will just do another slt before midnight... Cheers))

......Ng Mui comes to me
Speaking words of wisdom
Let it be...let it be.

[OdderMensch]

since you didn't tell me to ignore him, and I share in UFs lack of experiance (as i've only been at this three years now) here goes.


We do indeed differ greatly. I fear you are trying to over simplify your wing chun into generalised terms. Yes there are similaritites between the CK stance and SNT stance, but that said, they are still different stances. Seeing one as a 'basically the same' as the other is incorrect and will only add to your confusion.

UF, let me worry about my confusion, you just try to form a valid, logical arguement.


Bearing in mind that different branches train the stance differently (we in WT train a 99% weight on the back leg), the CK stance is different in both application and positioning. To see them as 'both the same thing' in your words only muddles the true uses of the stances does not help in your training.

Saying that you are right, therefore I am wrong does not constute proof, nor does it advance your arguements. Yes, I understand that you think the SLT stance is static, and that the stance in CK is not. However, since you have yet to disscus the "true uses" of either stance I cannot see what your point is, other than you are correct, and I am "muddled & confused" for not beliveing you.


Secondly, your statement that footwork and movement come 'with and from the SNT training' is total nonsense. Sorry to put it so bluntly but it is. SNT training contains no footwork or movement, it is all in CK. Though you may be trying to say that the basic stance is developed in SNT and hence it is a progression, that is still totally false.

I am also sorry you put it so bluntly, because that means I have no idea why you think either of your points, nor what benifit you seek to gain from them.


Footwork and turning can only be trained from the CK stance. I fail to see how you can logically say it derives from SNT stance when this has a static position with the legs. Do not forget that CK also containes the neutral stance, and only here does it show how to turn from one to the other .

ohh look, an arguement! So you agree that you turn from the neutral stance of SLT into the "chor ma" turned tance of CK. You see how both adduct, both retain proper bends in the knees, and both power the movements of the upper body in the same way. Yet you see no relation between the two of them, they're apples and oranges right?


If you disagree with me, I suggest you read any of Yip Chuns books where he clearly describes how the Ck stance holds the beginning of stepping and turning in wing chun.

I do disagree with you, and I won't be takeing your suggestion. What little i've read of Yip Chun's books have not impressed me. My point is that a WC fighter steps, shifts, turns and move from, with and because of the training done from SLT. CK shows some of the progessions of this theory.

You from what I can make from your posts, see a WC fighter moveing from stance to stance. Have you ever seen a more "traditional" art such as mantis or hung gar move? thats movement from stance to stance. Look that up, then contrast the two.

if you wish to counter any of the arguments i made, please do so in a mannor other than "So do you agree i'm right, or are you an idiot?"

[UltimateFighter]

Originally posted by yuanfen

-----------------------------------------------------------------
UF- Failed to respond?- if you dont know how the SLT is "alive" ( or not) ask your teacher. Draw any inference you wish to from the answers.

yuenfan

No, I am asking what your use of the term 'alive' is in this context, as you were happy to put down what I said about the SNT stance not utilising full body weight as it is static, yet you failed to give any evidence to the contrary.

I highlighted spine extension, forward motion and the falling step as adding bodyweight to a punch. You said "the SNT stance is 'alive', yet have been unable to explain what you mean by thios or indeed how it contradicts what I was saying on adding to a punches power. My feeling is that this is becasue you do not know.

Secondly, I do not know how many years you claim to have studied WC but it is irrelevent. If your are wrong about something I will tell you. If I am persuaded otherwise by argument, then that is fine. But your knowledge level as percieved by your posts here appears to be of quite a junior level.

I also have a background in Judo for many years as well as WT. Total fighting is a concept I am not sure you are used to. But please do not try to confuse knwledge of fighting with knowledge of WC or WT, as they are NOT the same. Many of these arguments transcend those of a single style, and hence having knowledge of other arts and application is of benefit.


Oddermensch,

Good to see you are so quick to disregard the knowledge of the son of Yip Man as 'not impressive'. Maybe a lesson in humility would be useful?

[OdderMensch]

is there a genetic link to WC?

I wasn't commenting on Yip Chun's skill or knowledge, just his publishing, and your pathetic apeal to authority.

[Jim Roselando]

Just my 2 cents!


WC can be a lot of things for a lot of people. I have no doubt that WC's reputation for developing simple effective fighting methods is what helped us decide to learn this art but just because we are training a fighting art it does not mean we all have to strive to be the greatest fighter in the world.

Testing our methods against other arts is a lot of fun and the one thing it most certainly teaches us is what works and what doesnt work. The simple reason is because other martial artist will not be as willing to accept your response as some of your classmates will be. I have met up with people from Southern Mantis, Wado Ryu Karate, Jiu Jitsu and other cool arts and all have been a learning experience for me. No doubt anytime I try my hand against a stranger it helps develop me but fighting skilled martial artists is not the same as fighting a "street thug" that will just go wild trying to tear your face off. They do not have the trained reactions of a martial artist and I find training against thugs, or thug situations, helps me a bit more for reality. Besides, outside the UFC/Pride etc. when was the last time you witnessed two martial artists get into a street fight? Yet, it (fighting other MA) does hone your fighting skill, it doesn't entirely prepare you for the street but it does help. Usually at an early level the fighting is what drives us but as many mature I find them just enjoying the art for arts sake and the fighting is just part of the fun!


A few years back I liked to spar pretty hard and got kind of bloody with some friends on a number of occassions but now I just enjoy training the art I love a few days per week and playing a lot of San Sik. Working on the subtle aspects and seeing personal growth is a great feeling for me. I believe WC can be a lot of things and it all depends what we want out of it. For some being the best is great and for others being good enough to defend themselves is great. The main point is we all love this art and its up to us to get what we want out of it. I can say that even though the self defense we recieve from this training is superb I enjoy what a powerfull friend making tool this art is just as much!


Happy New Years!

[t_niehoff]

Hi Jim,

Jim Roselando wrote:

WC can be a lot of things for a lot of people. JR

That's the essence of the problem, IMHO. TN

I have no doubt that WC's reputation for developing simple effective fighting methods is what helped us decide to learn this art but just because we are training a fighting art it does not mean we all have to strive to be the greatest fighter in the world. JR

IMO it's not a matter of "striving to be the greatest fighter in the world" but rather of striving to be a fighter and increasing our performance (skill) as a fighter. It seems to me that many people think that by "learning WCK" they will be somehow (magically) endowed with fighting ability by doing drills and forms and "sparring" with their classmates. TN

No doubt anytime I try my hand against a stranger it helps develop me but fighting skilled martial artists is not the same as fighting a "street thug" that will just go wild trying to tear your face off. They do not have the trained reactions of a martial artist and I find training against thugs, or thug situations, helps me a bit more for reality. Besides, outside the UFC/Pride etc. when was the last time you witnessed two martial artists get into a street fight? Yet, it (fighting other MA) does hone your fighting skill, it doesn't entirely prepare you for the street but it does help. JR

Preparing for "self-defense" or "streetfighting" is a philosophic dead end because we can never *test* our skills (we'll never *know* if we are "prepared" or how "prepared" we are), measure our performance, see what works and what doesn't, etc. We can't truly judge our skill fighting against some drunk in bar, who is out of shape, smokes two packs a day, can't run a half-mile, etc. -- that's no real test. What we can do is fight with skilled, athletic, resisting opponents that are trying to take our head off (not "patty-cake"-type sparring) to increase our performance in the actual thing we are trying to develop. The "thug" won't have the speed, power, technique, endurance, mental toughness, etc. of the trained fighter. For example, do you (the general "you") think that being able to make something as simple as your pak da work in san sik or "sparring" with your classmates means you can make it work? Then take that simple pak da and try it against a good western boxer -- someone that can throw a good punch -- that is trying to really "put it in". Most of the "techniques" that I see WCK people demonstrate won't IMO work against skilled, resisting opponents. TN

BTW, as a side point, it is important IMO to realize that being able to "make our stuff work" is not objective (as some have said) but is subjective: it works based on the relationship to the skill and attributes of the opposition. Hence, it isn't a matter of "knowing" the correct way to pak da and thinking (assuming) it will always work, but understanding our pak da will work if our skill (pak da) is at the level or better than the level of our opponent's (punch). -- TN

Working on the subtle aspects and seeing personal growth is a great feeling for me. I believe WC can be a lot of things and it all depends what we want out of it. For some being the best is great and for others being good enough to defend themselves is great. The main point is we all love this art and its up to us to get what we want out of it. I can say that even though the self defense we recieve from this training is superb I enjoy what a powerfull friend making tool this art is just as much! JR

WCK is a kuen faat, not some new-age platform for "personal growth." We don't measure our growth as fighters by doing san sik or drills (those are certainly necessary, but a boxer doesn't measure his growth as a boxer by how well he hits the speed bag or jumps rope but how well he actually boxes); the only way to measure our growth as fighters is by actually testing that ability we are trying to train. Or to put it another way, it is not what we know but what we can do that matters -- and there is only one sure way to test what we know (if you can't do it, you don't know it). WCK may provide all kinds of incidental side benefits -- social, fitness, etc. -- but focusing on those aspects leads IMO to losing sight of what it is for: to train one to fight well (not to "do WCK"). TN

Terence

[yuanfen]

Terence- In your last post you quote James R... yet in attribution you put in JC a couple of times rather than JR.

jc

[t_niehoff]

Thanks, Joy. :) I've corrected the attributions. Sorry for any inconvenience it caused.

Terence

[Jim Roselando]

Hey Terence,


Its good to see your developing yourself in a way you feel is best for your Kung Fu/WCK. I have no doubt that without fighting against other arts, strangers, unwilling opponents, etc. all help develop ones ability but it all depends on what we want for ourselves from this art!

A few years ago I was training very hard and met up with the middle weight Brazilain Wado Ryu champion on a number of occassion to test our skills, the local Doce Pares representative who fought full contact in the Philipines to test our skills, a local BJJ instructor to work on the take down defense, and a number of not so willing boxers etc.. Its all great and it does good things for your personal development. The one thing I am saying is that if you want to be the greatest fighter you have to do this but if you dont want to be the greatest you do not have to train as seriously. I agree with your statement about doing "drills will not prepare you for the street" and you need to progressively build up your training to be more realistic but like anything it part of the package.

I know a person who had only one day per week of free time and during that day he decided to fill the time with WCK. He enjoyed it and everytime he came he felt good. One day he was confronted and with only a few months training he dropped the guy with two sun punches. WCK worked for him and he is a happy person because of the little time he devoted to the art worked for him when he needed it. While I feel your message is "most people are not prepared for reality" I would say perhaps you are correct but it all depends on what you want out of it. The guy with one day per week of training defended himself in the street but many who train very hard in the kwoon cant say that! So, what is good for you may not be exactly good for everyone. We are doing a fighting art and one should train hard enough to be able to use what they are learning (if you are doing it just for health you should go do Chi Kung or join a gym) but its all personal IMO.

Many of the greats (like Yip Man) had a few scraps in their day but never went out to fight with strangers yet attained a huge reputation in the Kung Fu world as fighters. All those reading this please do not take this as a poke at YM but as an example! Some of my past instructors have had numerous fights "using" their WCK and I found their real fighting experience makes a big difference when they train you. My sigung would wait at a park in Canton to test his skills yet his sifu would not go out to test his stuff unless someone approached him and is also very happy with his WCK. Its all about the individual but I will say it again; I agree with you that just doing drills and chi sao will not prepare you for the street.

Training to fight is very important and requires a lot of work. If someone chooses to focus on that then that is great and if they choose to train a different way then that is great to.


Have a good one!


Regards,

[t_niehoff]

Hi Jim,

Good talking with you, as always! :)

Jim Roselando wrote:

I have no doubt that without fighting against other arts, strangers, unwilling opponents, etc. all help develop ones ability but it all depends on what we want for ourselves from this art! JR

This just must be a point of disagreement between us. I simply can't see why someone would take up a fighting method (kuen faat) if they didn't want to train to actually fight. Why, for example, take up bjj (a grappling art) if you don't want to grapple? Grappling on the mat is essential to developing skill at bjj. Why take up boxing if you don't want to box? Boxing in the ring is essential to developing boxing skill. You are correct IMO that "it all depends on what we want for ourselves" -- if we want to truly develop fighting skills then we need to fight; if we aren't concerned with developing fighting skills, then I wonder why someone would take up a kuen faat in the first place. TN

I know a person who had only one day per week of free time and during that day he decided to fill the time with WCK. He enjoyed it and everytime he came he felt good. One day he was confronted and with only a few months training he dropped the guy with two sun punches. WCK worked for him and he is a happy person because of the little time he devoted to the art worked for him when he needed it. JR

Why did it work for him? Was he just lucky? Did he just happen to be better skilled, even if his skills were marginal, than the other guy (perhaps that guy was a schmuck)? Was it surprise? Would he have won the fight without his WCK training? We don't know -- and that's the point. Such encounters don't measure our skill or performance as there are too many variables involved. And if we can't measure our performance, we aren't as able to increase our performance -- this is true of any endeavor. Now let's change the scenario: suppose he lost his fight (as could happen). What would it tell him? Maybe it wasn't that his WCK sucked, but that his opponent unknowingly happened to be Rickson Gracie! Or his opponent got lucky. Or -fill in the blank - . Again too many variables to truly measure one's performance. TN

We are doing a fighting art and one should train hard enough to be able to use what they are learning (if you are doing it just for health you should go do Chi Kung or join a gym) but its all personal IMO. JR

But the point is: how do we *know* from our training, however "hard" it is, that we truly can use our skills? The only way IMO is by using those skills against good (i.e., skilled), resisting (i.e., trying to defeat us) opponents. I may get lucky, or my opponent may be unskilled, and be able to stop someone's shoot on the street but that tells me nothing; but if I've worked against collegiate wrestlers and developed my skills to the point that I can routinely meet their attempts to shoot, then I have a good idea of my skill level. If I can't, it also gives me a good idea of my skill level. In WCK/fighting it isn't what you know but your ability to use your skills that matter. TN

Many of the greats (like Yip Man) had a few scraps in their day but never went out to fight with strangers yet attained a huge reputation in the Kung Fu world as fighters. JR

Who really knows how many fights "the greats" really had? We do know that Yip fought and defeated Leung Sheung, Wong Sheung Leung, and had a few others in Hong Kong (from reports by Duncan Leung, William Cheung, etc.). He obviously wasn't reticent about being challenged by skilled, much larger men (Leung Sheung, who was teaching CLF) or scrappy fighters (like Wong, who had knocked out his boxing coach!), and was ready and willing to meet others. We do know that Yip told his students to "go out and test it for yourself, I may be tricking you" and that some of his students did just that (how WCK got its reputation in Hing Kong in the first place). We know that other "greats" like YKS, LJ, SN, FSC, etc. fought regularly. We know that YKS in training Sum sought out fights for him as part of his training. What we also know is that there are no "greats", or IMHO even folks that can call themselves good WCK practitioners, that never fought. TN

Terence

[Jim Roselando]

Hiya Terence,


This just must be a point of disagreement between us. I simply can't see why someone would take up a fighting method (kuen faat) if they didn't want to train to actually fight. Why, for example, take up bjj (a grappling art) if you don't want to grapple? Grappling on the mat is essential to developing skill at bjj. Why take up boxing if you don't want to box? Boxing in the ring is essential to developing boxing skill. You are correct IMO that "it all depends on what we want for ourselves" -- if we want to truly develop fighting skills then we need to fight; if we aren't concerned with developing fighting skills, then I wonder why someone would take up a kuen faat in the first place. TN

I understand your point, and agree with it, but it just depends to what degree we all choose to train our methods.


Why did it work for him? Was he just lucky? Did he just happen to be better skilled, even if his skills were marginal, than the other guy (perhaps that guy was a schmuck)? Was it surprise? Would he have won the fight without his WCK training? We don't know -- and that's the point. Such encounters don't measure our skill or performance as there are too many variables involved. And if we can't measure our performance, we aren't as able to increase our performance -- this is true of any endeavor. Now let's change the scenario: suppose he lost his fight (as could happen). What would it tell him? Maybe it wasn't that his WCK sucked, but that his opponent unknowingly happened to be Rickson Gracie! Or his opponent got lucky. Or -fill in the blank - . Again too many variables to truly measure one's performance. TN

The point of the story is that sometimes even a little bit of knowledge can go a long way. I can tell you more stories like this about people we train with and including myself. Maybe its luck, maybe the guy wasnt skilled, it may be a lot of things but the one thing that was for sure is that the art worked when it had to. You can train your ass off and lose or maybe be lower on the skill scale and still defend yourself. I prefer to train with bigger and stronger people than me to help my development but there will always be someone out there that can kick our ass no matter how much WC we know. So, we should train as best we can and go from there.

But the point is: how do we *know* from our training, however "hard" it is, that we truly can use our skills? The only way IMO is by using those skills against good (i.e., skilled), resisting (i.e., trying to defeat us) opponents. I may get lucky, or my opponent may be unskilled, and be able to stop someone's shoot on the street but that tells me nothing; but if I've worked against collegiate wrestlers and developed my skills to the point that I can routinely meet their attempts to shoot, then I have a good idea of my skill level. If I can't, it also gives me a good idea of my skill level. In WCK/fighting it isn't what you know but your ability to use your skills that matter. TN

Train hard and have better results. Terence! What you are preaching is nothing new to the MA world or any venture in life. Anyone who has achieved any great skill has mixed it up with a variety of different people. Some people may not train as hard as others and some train very hard. If the not so hard training people defend themselves in an aggressive situation then thats great. Would they have been better prepared if they had more time training against others? Sure, but Kung Fu for some does not play such an important role in their normal lives as perhaps other things do.


Who really knows how many fights "the greats" really had? We do know that Yip fought and defeated Leung Sheung, Wong Sheung Leung, and had a few others in Hong Kong (from reports by Duncan Leung, William Cheung, etc.). He obviously wasn't reticent about being challenged by skilled, much larger men (Leung Sheung, who was teaching CLF) or scrappy fighters (like Wong, who had knocked out his boxing coach!), and was ready and willing to meet others. We do know that Yip told his students to "go out and test it for yourself, I may be tricking you" and that some of his students did just that (how WCK got its reputation in Hing Kong in the first place). We know that other "greats" like YKS, LJ, SN, FSC, etc. fought regularly. We know that YKS in training Sum sought out fights for him as part of his training. What we also know is that there are no "greats", or IMHO even folks that can call themselves good WCK practitioners, that never fought. TN

Who did they fight in HK? How do we know if they were skilled or not? Watching some of the footage from back then it didnt look good at all. WSL told a friend of mine at a seminar in the UK that when he beat most of the people he challenged it was mainly with Western Boxing. I am sure his WC came out but I think the fighting experience we all praise so much was nothing more than a bunch of high school kids (teenagers) chain punching etc.. Do you think any of those guys could have beaten a Rickson? I am playing devils advocate here a bit. I respect what those guys (and other elders) did back then, and we should all learn from it, but lets not forget that it is just up to each individual to decide how far they want to take the art.

Can you please relay to all of us what some of your fighting experiences have been with other MA styles? Also, have you been in a street aggressive situation that allowed you to use your WCK? Details would be appreciated as it is obviously very important to you and I would like to know some of your experiences if possible!


Regards,