What is your conception of Wing Chun Kuen?

[kj]

Something on the "mainland w.c. chi sau platforms" thread that I thought was legitimately interesting and fodder for discussion. I've transferred it to this new thread lest I interfere with ensuing dialog there.


Originally posted by t_niehoff
... WCK is fighting, or more precisely, fighting with a certain approach. No fighting, no WCK. So if you're not fighting, I don't know what you are doing -- though I could come up with a few terms for it if you'd like -- but it isn't WCK. At best, you're doing the prep work to begin practicing WCK.

This premise underscores that there are differing conceptions of what Wing Chun Kuen actually is. There are probably as many different conceptions of Wing Chun as there are people practicing it; even as individuals, our conceptions are likely to change over time. Some of these may be largely in agreement with one another, some may be fundamentally at odds.

Our notions of Wing Chun Kuen also serve as fundamental premises for many of the endless debates and inquiries on all manner of things from training methods, to the benefits (or not) of forms and chi sau, to who is or is not a real martial artist, the merits of cross-training, and on ad infinitum.

Given that, I am interested to learn - from the widest variety of you as possible - what is your conception of Wing Chun Kuen?

By way of example, in my conception Wing Chun is a training system in conjunction with a tightly integrated suite of concepts the primary purpose of which is to increase the probability of success when and if applied in a violent physical encounter, and which is encapsulated, practiced and transmitted in the form of an art.

I'll defer further elaboration as I am far more interested to hear your conceptions of what Wing Chun Kuen is. Lateral thinking warmly welcomed. :) Terence and I have already logged in on this; as a divergent kind of exploration, the more and varied perspectives the rest of you can share the better, with special encouragement to our less loquacious fellow members.

Regards,
- Kathy Jo

[t_niehoff]

Our method is called wing chun *kuen* - the "kuen" is of course short for kuen faat, fist or fighting method. BJJ, boxing, wrestling, muay thai, etc. all are different examples of fighting methods. Each is a different approach toward fighting, with different tools to implement that particular approach, and each comes with a means to learn and develop those tools. But one is not "doing" any of those unless one is fighting with it -- you're not boxing unless you are in the ring, you're not wrestling unless you are on the mat, you are not doing BJJ unless you are rolling, etc. The "doing" is putting the tools to work as they were meant to be used -- in a fighting environment. Everything else is the prep work. The "art" is in the performance of the activity (fighting) itself, in the final product. No fighting, then you are not "doing" WCK (you are preparing to do WCK), and there can be no art.

[Nick Forrer]

I agree with Terence despite the straw man arguments and crude swimming analogies

[reneritchie]

It attracts a lot of disfunctional communicators.

[Vajramusti]

dysfunctional too.

[Tom Kagan]

Ving Tsun Paai Kung Fu has a method.

Ving Tsun Paai Kung Fu has a result.

The phrase: "Kung Fu" has a method - Hard Work - and a result - Husband to Mother Nature (marriage to life).

If you ask someone what is their conception of Ving Tsun, you are really asking them what they want to be. Children and those still in the "beautiful springtime" of their life are never defined by what they do. Who they are is what they want to be, not what they do.

While fighting is a part of life, if your life is fighting, then if you use the Ving Tsun method, everything is fighting. You put yourself into the system, and you "become" fighting.


If what you want to be is the righteous imposing dualities and judging what is and is not Ving Tsun, then if you use the Ving Tsun method, everything is a judgment. You put yourself into the system, and you become the arbiter. :rolleyes:

[Knifefighter]

Originally posted by kj
Given that, I am interested to learn - from the widest variety of you as possible - what is your conception of Wing Chun Kuen? I think it is a theoretical concept of how fighting "should" be. Unfortunately, I think it was developed with too much theory and not enough testing- lots of great theory that doesn't hold up by the average practitioner in the real world.

[PaulH]

WC means "Praise the Spring!". What could be more refreshing than the exciting promise of Springtime? It is what you think it is. The WC long-lasting appeals are the fruits of joy, peace and a sense of liberation to each practitioner.

[ZIM]

Its about leveraging armshare, networking with emergent punches, promoting diversity in the fight-space, and thinking outside of the box. :p

[yellowpikachu]

Wing Chun Kuen ofcouse capable of function in fighting. Otherwise, it is not name as Kuen or Punch or combative art.



However, Thus I have heard, the concept of Wing Chun Kuen or Wing Chun figthing is -------- Reel/bind in , shock/vibrate/shoot out, Intercept/jamming/interupt on half way, and piecing/leaking through into any place it is non seal.


And it comes with tools: as light silk as the long sleves of the opera actor to reel. As powerfull as Tsunami inch power to shock. As fast as radio wave to intercep. and as aware as water to leak into every hole.




Like a tsunami for the shock, like a surf reel on the wave---- Wing Chun Kuen. I am not fighting, I am doing reel, shock, intercept, piecing.

[yellowpikachu]

Originally posted by t_niehoff
Our method is called wing chun *kuen* - the "kuen" is of course short for kuen faat, fist or fighting method. .................. The "art" is in the performance of the activity (fighting) itself, in the final product. No fighting, then you are not "doing" WCK (you are preparing to do WCK), and there can be no art.


Terrence,

You mention about figthing which is similar to "moving".

So,
but what is your "faat" or vehicle of "moving"?

moving itself is just moving keep moving doesnt equal with flying with an aircraft.

[Vajramusti]

Yellowpiikachu sez:

Wing Chun Kuen ofcouse capable of function in fighting. Otherwise, it is not name as Kuen or Punch or combative art.

((Of course))



However, Thus I have heard, the concept of Wing Chun Kuen or Wing Chun figthing is -------- Reel/bind in , shock/vibrate/shoot out, Intercept/jamming/interupt on half way, and piecing/leaking through into any place it is non seal.

((Good overview- the devil again is in the details))


And it comes with tools: as light silk as the long sleves of the opera actor to reel. As powerfull as Tsunami inch power to shock. As fast as radio wave to intercep. and as aware as water to leak into every hole.

((Good ideal-and your laborious work is admirable and helpful
and very informative- but the mma crowd is going a different route and some attention spans are brief and listening abilities slight and postings repetitive..
Kudos to you in persisting inspite of all the name calling.
Hendrik- One can't take KFO's Alice in Wonderland setting seriously as a place for dialogue.))))

[t_niehoff]

Hendrik,

For me WCK is an approach toward fighting that involves a certain strategy (method) and tools (using the body, including the limbs) for implementing that approach. The forms or sets give us those tools. A person cannot develop great power with the punch from YJKYM except by doing it correctly (for them). The test isn't that it matches how you believe it should be done but rather that one has the power. As I told a visitor just the other night, "How can I say you are doing it wrong if you can make it work; and how can you say you are doing it right if you can't make it work?"

[yellowpikachu]

Originally posted by Vajramusti


((Good ideal-and your laborious work is admirable and helpful- but the mma crowd is going a different route.
Kudos tp you in persisting inspite of all the name calling.
Can't take KFO seriously as a place for dialogue.))))


we will always find others who has different and opposite oppinions.

and the only way we can win them over is, we tell the truth, let them to be free thinker, and let them see that there is benifit and merit offered to them in the truth.

[yellowpikachu]

Originally posted by t_niehoff


A person cannot develop great power with the punch from YJKYM except by doing it correctly (for them).

The test isn't that it matches how you believe it should be done but rather that one has the power.



so, just said power and CORRECT are not good enough.
peole can do modified thier YJKYM to a wide horse stance and still claim it is Wing Chun a like.
people can do a san chin stance and claim it is YJKYM in action......
one can do boxing punch....

All can generate great power and correct.

But is that WCK?



So,


first one has to define what is a YJKYM.. such as 1 to 1.25 shoulder wide distance between to legs. ect.....

second, what kind of power is that --- the characteristics, the momentum.... potential... kinectic....intensity......

third, one has to explain the process of the particular type of power generation and its momentum.

fourth, one has to be able to link that power to all motions
naturally....


so, just fighting without clear definition/proccess... is not going be WCK.

Just giving a clove to a student to punch the heavy bag to test power doesnt mean WCK.


The test is both about how much power can be generated AND is it according to the WCK methodology and process.

otherwise, boxing can be WCK because it creates great power. Hung Gar can be WCK because it creates great power. Dragon Style can be WCK . Taiji Can be WCK. Hsing Yee Can be WCK. because it creastes great power.... and list goes on and on.....

but is that WCK?


if we dont know our own process and methodology and we punch like a Bjj or TKD or Boxing then are we doing WCK? No wonder we got take down. because we are not doing WCK all the time. we are just doing something which give us great power and is that fit into WCK? Who knows?

if we have no track, no idea on what we are doing, and we are doing the same will others (whatever that the same means) what are we doing? how can we even knows our pro and cons ? how can we improve or eliminate the good or the bad....? we are flying blind technically.

Then, when our stuffs doesnt work, our reaction is "the ancestors" is not advance enough, the world has grow more advance today. and that can be true. but it can be true too that we have never do our homework and never listern to what the ancestors teach. or we also creat myth stories that hiding our ego in it like smoking opium and keep argue the myth is the truth, it is just others dont smoke the same opium, otherwise they will see that truth too.

just some thoughts.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Kathy Jo:

I would just add three words to your definition - which I will now capitalize - and the rest is all yours.


"Wing Chun is a FIGHTING METHOD AND training system in conjunction with a tightly integrated suite of concepts the primary purpose of which is to increase the probability of success when and if applied in a violent physical encounter, and which is encapsulated, practiced and transmitted in the form of an art."

[yellowpikachu]

Originally posted by Ultimatewingchun

"Wing Chun is a FIGHTING METHOD AND training system in conjunction with a tightly integrated suite of concepts the primary purpose of which is to increase the probability of success when and if applied in a violent physical encounter, and which is encapsulated, practiced and transmitted in the form of an art."


imHHHHO,
but that can be any fighting methods.
such as a personal computer can be IBM PC, Apple,.....

[Stevo]

Originally posted by t_niehoff
...you're not boxing unless you are in the ring, you're not wrestling unless you are on the mat...

By that definition, you can't box or wrestle on the street. :D

[kj]

Originally posted by reneritchie
It attracts a lot of disfunctional communicators.


Originally posted by Vajramusti
dysfunctional too.

Touche'.

In an effort to do what little we can to remedy that and model the way through continuous improvement

a) help me to understand how my post may have been dis/dysfunctional, and

b) offer some insight into your own conception of Wing Chun Kuen?

I'm not so foolish as to request something comprehensive, but a sliver of your present thoughts would be bully. The margins are wide and there are lot's of different angles to take. I enjoy chewing on the keen insights and fresh thinking you both have a keen knack for, and I know others enjoy them as well even if the opportunity to say so is often missed.

Regards,
- kj

[kj]

Originally posted by Tom Kagan
Ving Tsun Paai Kung Fu has a method.

Ving Tsun Paai Kung Fu has a result.

The phrase: "Kung Fu" has a method - Hard Work - and a result - Husband to Mother Nature (marriage to life).

If you ask someone what is their conception of Ving Tsun, you are really asking them what they want to be. Children and those still in the "beautiful springtime" of their life are never defined by what they do. Who they are is what they want to be, not what they do.

While fighting is a part of life, if your life is fighting, then if you use the Ving Tsun method, everything is fighting. You put yourself into the system, and you "become" fighting.


If what you want to be is the righteous imposing dualities and judging what is and is not Ving Tsun, then if you use the Ving Tsun method, everything is a judgment. You put yourself into the system, and you become the arbiter. :rolleyes:

Tom, I gotta hand it to you. You have a real knack for inspiring critical introspection. Nicely done. :)

Regards,
- kj

[kj]

Originally posted by Knifefighter
I think it is a theoretical concept of how fighting "should" be. Unfortunately, I think it was developed with too much theory and not enough testing- lots of great theory that doesn't hold up by the average practitioner in the real world.

That's an interesting take, and something I'll continue to think about. I agree that envisioning how fights "should" be is a trap.

I don't think I fully agree about the cause and effect relationship of a theoretical system resulting in lower levels of demonstrated performance. I think there are other and possibly more relevant factors, such as that most of us simply don't put what we need to into our training in order to be more experienced, skillful and effective. We (the general "we," not everyone) don't fully "realize" even what little we do understand. I just don't think the "theory" is at fault, it's us - our failure to fully understand the theories and internalize them through experience. I don't presume this is precisely what you're getting at, though maybe it's close and I'm just being too semantical.

In any event, I do think we would be better served by being better learners and harder workers; of course this applies to everyone, even those ahead in the developmental curve. There will perpetually be debates on the "best" or "right" way to accomplish higher results, but hopefully many of us can agree at least on this much.

FWIW, my teacher often reminds us "Smart people tend not to work hard. Don't rely on smartness." Maybe that's what you're really getting at.

Regards,
- Kathy Jo

[t_niehoff]

What knifefighter is getting at, I believe, relates to how folks believe WCK "should be" -- which for most is a purely theoretical view. For example, how can someone judge whether some person, including themselves, has "good WCK"?

[kj]

Originally posted by t_niehoff
What knifefighter is getting at, I believe, relates to how folks believe WCK "should be" -- which for most is a purely theoretical view. For example, how can someone judge whether some person, including themselves, has "good WCK"?

Hi Terence, and thanks. Certainly we all have some overlaps in viewpoint.

I've little doubt that Dale shares a deep interest and concern about validating one's skills, and no doubt fighting skills in particular, as you are.

I presume Dale holds a unique combination of his own ideas too, as we all do. Who knows, maybe he does have some particular interest in validating Wing Chun also, though I don't assume it. I and I'm sure some others would still be interested to understand his perspective on things from his viewpoint a little more clearly if he's inclined to it. Naturally I don't always hold his same perspective, but he has certainly earned his viewpoint and I respect it.

Regards,
- Kathy Jo

[Vajramusti]

KJ- Taking your thread starting post more seriously...

1. There are lots of good fighting systems.WC is not the only way to fight. Better to get a first class boxing or grappling instructor than a bad wc instructor.

2. For me wing chun is a very effective fighting system. I came to wing chun after doing some of what today would be called some mma...I found wing chun to provide a solid comprehensive foundation.

3. Wing chun is not a collection of techniques. Many of the things that we do- forms, drills, chi sao etc are for good development.
Without the development lots of things wont work-- and if we engage only in primitive induction and inferences from what is very loosely called fighting we would do a very generalized form of fighting without developing long run skills.

4. Development should lead to testing. Its upto each person to figure out depending on country, region, laws etc how they will test whether what they know works. Controlled testing of various kinds are possible. We dont detsroya country to know whther an advanced nuclear device works. A real fight is a real fight- where your life maybe at stake. The rest is simulation of one kind or another. Clear headed judgements are important and wing chun training helps- why chase hands- if someone wants to rob me of 5 dollars- I give it to them. If they attck my niece or mother its a differnt thing. Wing chun calibrates the appropriate response.

5. Wing chun is for self defense. Unfortunately again IMO only, many folks have a narrow view of what "self" means. Sensing trouble brewing involves heightened awareness. Knowing the weaknesses of structures is a form of self defense. You can destroy an unbalanced person more easily than a balanced one.

5. Protection of the body, the mind and one's spirit- energy are all part of self defense. Great MA should develop all parts of the body
for self defense- ina coordinated way. Wing chun to me does that- it is not just for striking and not just for fists.

6. Once the concept of the developed self in wing chun self defense is understood one can adapt to different situations and even import and transform things into the wing chun way. Thus the pole came from the outside but was adapted for wing chun dynamics.We use it differntly from hung gar.
Double knives were imported but their usage transformed in the wing chun way not the hung gar way.. Once you enter the wing chun gate all of nature is there to be explored. You dont want to be stuck ata beginners level going and knocking from gate to gate, ofcourse IMO.

7. Wing chun can be used for stopping or winninga fight even before it begins. Its not just san sou. People can play wing chun at various levels.

8. I find the distinction between a theorist and a fighter somewhat arbitrary. In boxing... Cus D'Amato was (in his time) botha fighter and a theorist. If you learn only inductively you could be like a friend of mine who fought Floyd Patterson twice -
learned only by fighting- and ended up a punch drunk sorry figure
without much judgement. But a friend nevertheless.One must balance things.

PS. A fight is a fight- you dont stop and ask if its the 21st century.
The dynamics dont completely change with the lowering of the ball in Times Square on New Year's eve.. My own perspective- not imposed on anyone else- comes both from fighting and beinga book worm....
and not being other directed-self defense uber alles. Watch out for everything!

[taltos]

Originally posted by Vajramusti
Clear headed judgements are important and wing chun training helps- why chase hands- if someone wants to rob me of 5 dollars- I give it to them. If they attck my niece or mother its a differnt thing. Wing chun calibrates the appropriate response.

A while back a group of students and I went to a restaraunt after class. We ate and visited and had a good time. As we were leaving, a pretty drunk customer stumbled into me. He turned around and started yelling at me to watch where I was going. I apologized.

Outside, one of the newest students asked "Why did you apologize? It was his fault, and you have Wing Chun and he was drunk."

My response? "Wing Chun is about efficiency. What's more efficient that not having to lift a finger?"

-Levi Melton

[t_niehoff]

Joy wrote:

KJ- Taking your thread starting post more seriously...

1. There are lots of good fighting systems.WC is not the only way to fight. Better to get a first class boxing or grappling instructor than a bad wc instructor.

**It has more to do with the sort of training one does than anything else, including the "level" of instruction.

2. For me wing chun is a very effective fighting system. I came to wing chun after doing some of what today would be called some mma...I found wing chun to provide a solid comprehensive foundation.

**If you don't fight, how can you say it provides anything? WCK is an approach, it "provides" nothing; it is the person that needs the solid foundation of *skills.*

3. Wing chun is not a collection of techniques. Many of the things that we do- forms, drills, chi sao etc are for good development.
Without the development lots of things wont work-- and if we engage only in primitive induction and inferences from what is very loosely called fighting we would do a very generalized form of fighting without developing long run skills.

**And you can't tell that you have "long run skills" unless you fight. Otherwise, all you have is some sort of theoretical inference of skills.

4. Development should lead to testing. Its upto each person to figure out depending on country, region, laws etc how they will test whether what they know works. Controlled testing of various kinds are possible.

**Controlled testing? If you are trying to become a better fighter, you need to test what you are doing in a fight. No other way.

We dont detsroya country to know whther an advanced nuclear device works. A real fight is a real fight- where your life maybe at stake. The rest is simulation of one kind or another.

**This is theoretical nonsense. I've been in "real fight", streetfights, whatever you want to call them. Lots of people have. Rarely if ever will someone ever fight to the death. Please. The idea is to develop greater fighting skills, skills you can use whatever the venue, whatever the situation. And you do that by practicing those skills -- practicing as you'll really do them, against the same sort of resistance you'll really face, with the same level of intensity you'll really face, etc. If you don't do that, you have nothing.

Clear headed judgements are important and wing chun training helps- why chase hands- if someone wants to rob me of 5 dollars- I give it to them. If they attck my niece or mother its a differnt thing. Wing chun calibrates the appropriate response.

**That's not WCK, that's just good common sense. Stop trying to make WCK into all these things it's not.

5. Wing chun is for self defense. Unfortunately again IMO only, many folks have a narrow view of what "self" means. Sensing trouble brewing involves heightened awareness. Knowing the weaknesses of structures is a form of self defense. You can destroy an unbalanced person more easily than a balanced one.

**Wing chun is a kuen faat (fighting method) -- not a "self-defense" "system". You're projecting you're own philosophical leap. But theoreticians can claim it is anything, even a vehicle for spiritual growth.

5. Protection of the body, the mind and one's spirit- energy are all part of self defense. Great MA should develop all parts of the body
for self defense- ina coordinated way. Wing chun to me does that- it is not just for striking and not just for fists.

**More grandiose, theoretical claims. But then, if you don't have the fists, it has to be about something. If you have the fists, then it doesn't need to be about anything else.

6. Once the concept of the developed self in wing chun self defense is understood one can adapt to different situations and even import and transform things into the wing chun way. Thus the pole came from the outside but was adapted for wing chun dynamics.We use it differntly from hung gar.
Double knives were imported but their usage transformed in the wing chun way not the hung gar way.. Once you enter the wing chun gate all of nature is there to be explored. You dont want to be stuck ata beginners level going and knocking from gate to gate, ofcourse IMO.

**More speculation based on "history" -- we don't *know* where the knives, pole, or fists came from. Or which came first, or even if one did come first. To think of WCK as "self-defense" is a dead end, a philosophical dead end. WCK is an approach toward fighting and a means to train that. Nothing more. Of course, folks can project what they like, they can believe that they are modern day warrior monks too. In the end, it comes down to do you have good fighting skills or not. And there is only one way to tell. If you don't have the skill, then you are wrong, your idea is wrong, your concept is wrong, everything is wrong. If you do have skill, then you are right, your idea is right, your concept is right, everything is right. How right or how wrong? That depends on the level of skill you can fight at.

7. Wing chun can be used for stopping or winninga fight even before it begins. Its not just san sou. People can play wing chun at various levels.

**Oh, boy.

8. I find the distinction between a theorist and a fighter somewhat arbitrary. In boxing... Cus D'Amato was (in his time) botha fighter and a theorist. If you learn only inductively you could be like a friend of mine who fought Floyd Patterson twice -
learned only by fighting- and ended up a punch drunk sorry figure
without much judgement. But a friend nevertheless.One must balance things.

**It's fine to be a theorist *****IF****** one is a fighter. Theory without true application (fighting) is intellectual m@sturbation.

PS. A fight is a fight- you dont stop and ask if its the 21st century.
The dynamics dont completely change with the lowering of the ball in Times Square on New Year's eve.. My own perspective- not imposed on anyone else- comes both from fighting and beinga book worm....
and not being other directed-self defense uber alles. Watch out for everything

**What fighters do you fight with, Joy?

[Jeff Bussey]

Taltos,
good post.
It's good to know that you're level headed.

J

:)

[KPM]

KJ asked an honest and simple question.....what is YOUR conception of Wing Chun. Joy stated his in an honest way. If your conception of Wing Chun differs from Joy's or anyone else's then fine....state your own conception of WCK and leave it at that, you don't have to launch an attack on what someone else thinks. But along comes Terence to once again to beat into the ground the same old refrain....."fight!fight!fight! or your Wing Chun is worthless!" KPM


2. For me wing chun is a very effective fighting system. I came to wing chun after doing some of what today would be called some mma...I found wing chun to provide a solid comprehensive foundation.

**If you don't fight, how can you say it provides anything? WCK is an approach, it "provides" nothing; it is the person that needs the solid foundation of *skills.*

Joy stated that WCK provides a "solid comprehensive foundation". I think that's a pretty good assessment. What "comprehensive foundation" do you start from to develop all your fighting skills Terence? Did you just jump right into a Saturday night tussle without knowing anything at all? KPM

3. Wing chun is not a collection of techniques. Many of the things that we do- forms, drills, chi sao etc are for good development.
Without the development lots of things wont work-- and if we engage only in primitive induction and inferences from what is very loosely called fighting we would do a very generalized form of fighting without developing long run skills.

**And you can't tell that you have "long run skills" unless you fight. Otherwise, all you have is some sort of theoretical inference of skills.

And you also won't develop any long run skills without a solid comprehensive foundation to build from, so your logic is a bit disjointed. KPM

4. Development should lead to testing. Its upto each person to figure out depending on country, region, laws etc how they will test whether what they know works. Controlled testing of various kinds are possible.

**Controlled testing? If you are trying to become a better fighter, you need to test what you are doing in a fight. No other way.

Once again "fight!fight!fight!" How about some honesty in your statements Terence? This is really getting old. Its clear now that you aren't talking about routinely going out on a Saturday night to the local nightclub parking lot to look for fights in order to practice your WCK. You are talking about progressive sparring drills, and this IS part of "controlled testing." When you do your regular "fighting" in the training hall don't you often do it with the understanding that your opponent isn't going to pull out a knife on you? That is part of "controlled testing." KPM

5. Wing chun is for self defense. Unfortunately again IMO only, many folks have a narrow view of what "self" means. Sensing trouble brewing involves heightened awareness. Knowing the weaknesses of structures is a form of self defense. You can destroy an unbalanced person more easily than a balanced one.

**Wing chun is a kuen faat (fighting method) -- not a "self-defense" "system". You're projecting you're own philosophical leap. But theoreticians can claim it is anything, even a vehicle for spiritual growth.

So Terence....you don't think WCK helps one develop "common sense"?....you don't think WCK is any good for "self-defense" situations?......you don't think WCK can be a vehicle of "spiritual growth".....you don't think WCK has any value other than to teach someone how to "kick butt"? It seems you have a pretty narrow conception of what WCK is or can be. But that's OK. You are entitled to hold your own conception. But why attack someone elses? KPM

5. Protection of the body, the mind and one's spirit- energy are all part of self defense. Great MA should develop all parts of the body
for self defense- ina coordinated way. Wing chun to me does that- it is not just for striking and not just for fists.

**More grandiose, theoretical claims. But then, if you don't have the fists, it has to be about something. If you have the fists, then it doesn't need to be about anything else.

If you are a person that regularly has to put themselves in situations of grave bodily danger that you need to prepare for, or if you are just a violent-minded person in general and all you want to do is "fight!fight!fight!" then maybe it doesn't need to be about anything else. But many of us have a broader view of what WCK can be. Sorry your outlook is so limited, but again, you are entitled to your own conception. KPM


**What fighters do you fight with, Joy?

What fighters do you fight with, Terence? And where are the video clips of those fights? You've already been asked to "put up or shut up." Where is the evidence that your approach produces such superior results? Where is the evidence that you actually "practice what you preach"? Where is the video footage showing you going "all out" doing WCK against a skilled, determined boxer or grappler? Like I've said before, until you show us that, everything you write in this forum is just as much being a "theoretician" as everyone else. Until then all we can do here is talk....talk theory.....you included. KPM

Keith

[Redd]

Some are holistically minded. Others are narrow minded.

[Vajramusti]

No worries. I became immune to Terence's same old fight fight
THEORY posts some time ago. Terence like many folks have some good points- but by mechanical repetition in posts- run their points to the ground.

Then there are non wc trolls who want to be convinced of something or the other.

We usually miss important opportunities for sharing relevant information. The way wing chun has come down---and with varying teaching methods and learning time of students---
gems of wing chun are there in many different lineages. If trolls and chest beating can be ignored- a point that Ray made some time ago---folks can learn a lot by cross referencing how different schools and
lineages of wing chun approach some common problems and then judge and try out for oneself.

So- in answering

"**What fighters do you fight with, Joy?"...

I fight ignorance every day- it takes on different forms, sometimes as myself sometimes as others .

[t_niehoff]

PART1

KPM wrote:

**Apparently, we can share our opinions but not question those opinions. God forbid we challenge anyone to support their views.

But along comes Terence to once again to beat into the ground the same old refrain....."fight!fight!fight! or your Wing Chun is worthless!" KPM

**And look at Keith's very next line . . .

2. For me wing chun is a very effective fighting system.

**LOL! WCK is *not* a "very effective fighting system", and even if it were, that is beside the point if *you* can't make it work -- then it is nothing but a liability. It is *we* that make it effective or not; not the "system", and that's a really poor choice of words (one that theoretican's love btw), it doesn't exist outside of our own individual skill. And if you are not fighting, then you have no fighting skill, and your WCK is not a "very effective fighting system." Then it's just a "theory", i.e., in theory it should be effective. And fwiw, where is the evidence that it is a "very effective fighting system"? Where are all the effective fighters it has produced? You?

I came to wing chun after doing some of what today would be called some mma...I found wing chun to provide a solid comprehensive foundation.

**It's not the art, it is how we train that matters more.

Joy stated that WCK provides a "solid comprehensive foundation". I think that's a pretty good assessment. What "comprehensive foundation" do you start from to develop all your fighting skills Terence? Did you just jump right into a Saturday night tussle without knowing anything at all? KPM

**WCK doesn't "provide" anything other than information, information that we can put to use; the "foundation" (of skills) comes from our training -- what it is we actually *do*. Whether a person has a "good foundation" or not can only be determined by testing that individual, by fighting. You are then testing the individual, not testing WCK.

3. Wing chun is not a collection of techniques. Many of the things that we do- forms, drills, chi sao etc are for good development.

**In a sense WCK is a collection of techniques, it has tools such as tan, bong, fook, punch, etc. The forms and/or sets provide us with those ways of using our body. I agree that we need those, and we need drills as part of oour development. But forms and drills won't -- and no one has ever shown otherwise -- develop significantly better fighting skills. Only fighting as part of our training does that. What theoreticans don't seen to grasp is that by fighting, I don't mean just mixing it up doing anything at all, but fighting while trying to use your method. A wrestler or BJJist goes out onto the mat and fights, not just using "anything at all" but trying to use the strategies and tools of their respective methods. That's what we should do to. That's how all fighters develop greater skills. Do you know some good WCK fighter that has done it differently?

And you also won't develop any long run skills without a solid comprehensive foundation to build from, so your logic is a bit disjointed. KPM

**I've said over and over again that there are three steps - 1) learn the tool, 2) drill the tool, and 3) put that into fighting practice - with this actually being a developmental loop. This is how all good fighters train. Do you know any good WCK fighters that train differently? You?

Once again "fight!fight!fight!" How about some honesty in your statements Terence? This is really getting old. Its clear now that you aren't talking about routinely going out on a Saturday night to the local nightclub parking lot to look for fights in order to practice your WCK. You are talking about progressive sparring drills, and this IS part of "controlled testing."

**I have no idea what you mean by "progressive sparring". I mean putting these things under the same conditions that you intend to use them, against full power, full intensity, where your opponent is really trying to pound you, really trying to resist you, etc. And with skilled opposition.

When you do your regular "fighting" in the training hall don't you often do it with the understanding that your opponent isn't going to pull out a knife on you? That is part of "controlled testing." KPM

**When boxers get in the ring and box, wrestlers go out on the mat and wrestle, muay thai fighters get in the ring, BJJist roll on the mats, they are fighting -- it is a "sport" because, as you say, no one is going to pull a knife and you can tap -- but the training is as intense, with the resisitance, etc. as they will meet.

So Terence....you don't think WCK helps one develop "common sense"?....

**Not necessarily. I'd say the prevalence of folks that think they can develop greater fighting skills without fighting proves that it doesn't! ;)

you don't think WCK is any good for "self-defense" situations?......

**It depends. If one uses WCK to develop greater fighting skills and one need to fight as part of "self-defense" (90% of self-defense IMO doesn't involve fighting), then it can help you. But it won't help you in many fighting situations: it won't help you on the ground, in a body-to-body clinch, etc. If it's self-defense you're after, your time will be better spent IMO taking a really good self-defense course; there is no point spending the time and doing the hard work necessary to develop really good fighting skills. Why put in the training to become a really good boxer or BJJ black belt for "self-defense"? You don't need that level of training.

[t_niehoff]

Part 2

KPM wrote:

you don't think WCK can be a vehicle of "spiritual growth".....

**Anything can be a vehicle for spiritual growth. As I told the HFY guys on their list, if you want spiritual growth, volunteer at an aids hospice or a home for battered children -- you'll get more spiritual growth in a day than WCK will give them in years. If you want to role play that you are a modern day shaolin monk, fine -- but that won't lead you to spiritual growth. Moreover, any spiritual growth you do get from WCK comes in the trenches -- from the fighting, from putting your @ss on the line.

you don't think WCK has any value other than to teach someone how to "kick butt"? It seems you have a pretty narrow conception of what WCK is or can be.

**You can ask the same question of BJJ -- has it value besides developing good groundfighting? Sure, it can. You can make friends, get into good shape, live an athletic lifestyle, come to appreciate its wider implications, etc. But developing good groundfighting skills is the first and foremost priority -- everything else stems from that. Could someone not practice BJJ "combatively" and still get those things? Not IMO.

But that's OK. You are entitled to hold your own conception. But why attack someone elses? KPM

**It's not an "attack" but a challenge -- people can spew nonsense, that's their right; similarly, I have the right to challenge them on it. You, for example, might hold that all one has to do is the forms to become highly skilled (this is just an example). You can properly hold that view. You can express it. I can tell you that you are wrong. And ask you if you have ever tested that notion, have you ever seen anyone with that view that did have those skills, etc. Your retort would seem to be -- show me a video of yourself in action to prove that doing drills actually helps your development. My response: do the drills yourself and see if there is a difference in your development.

If you are a person that regularly has to put themselves in situations of grave bodily danger that you need to prepare for, or if you are just a violent-minded person in general and all you want to do is "fight!fight!fight!" then maybe it doesn't need to be about anything else. But many of us have a broader view of what WCK can be. Sorry your outlook is so limited, but again, you are entitled to your own conception. KPM

**It's not that you have broader views, it's that you want WCK to be everything but what it is -- a fighting method. Why? Because you're not fighting, you're not developing fighting skills. So WCK has to be something "broader."

What fighters do you fight with, Terence? And where are the video clips of those fights? You've already been asked to "put up or shut up." Where is the evidence that your approach produces such superior results? Where is the evidence that you actually "practice what you preach"? Where is the video footage showing you going "all out" doing WCK against a skilled, determined boxer or grappler?

**Come to Cleveland and bring your cup and mouthpiece (well, maybe leave the cup at home since you're probably one of those that believes your "knees in" adequately protects your groin! ;) ) and we can mix it up person-to-person. Video proves nothing. Nothing. People see what they want to see; they project what they want to believe. If you saw clips of me, just like when you saw clips of those Estonian WCK practitioners I posted, all you would say is "that's poor WCK", etc. These things aren't objective -- where you can look and judge it based on some objective criteria determine if it is good or bad -- they are subjective (I look good against someone less skilled and bad against someone better skilled). In person, when you put your @ss on the line, then there can be no question. And whatever my skill level is, it has nothing to do with *your* skill level -- what you can do. If you believe that you have superior fighting skills, then you should be willing to put yourself to the test to see. Not by videotaping yourself, but putting your @ss on the line to see for yourself -- that's my point. I've seen for myself; I know what I can and cannot do -- I know my skill level.

Like I've said before, until you show us that, everything you write in this forum is just as much being a "theoretician" as everyone else. Until then all we can do here is talk....talk theory.....you included. KPM

**You miss the whole point of what theory is -- my personal abilities has no relevance to you, or it least it shouldn't. If you are doing it because I say so or because I can do it, then it is still theory to *you*. It's not "theory" when *you* do it. If you believe what you do is developing greater fighting skills, that is theory unless you *know* from *your* having fought skilled fighters (otherwise how do you kow? So it is just theory.). If you want to look at evidence, you don't need to look to me -- look to how any really good fighters train and compare those to how most TCMAists, including WCK people, train. It's right before your eyes. If you think your way of training produces good results, test those results by fighting skilled fighters and see for yourself. My challenge is to put *yourself* to the test, to see for yourself, to stop believing in theory (history, hearsay, myths).

[Zhuge Liang]

Hi Terence

"Anything can be a vehicle for spiritual growth. "

True enough

"As I told the HFY guys on their list, if you want spiritual growth, volunteer at an aids hospice or a home for battered children -- you'll get more spiritual growth in a day than WCK will give them in years. "

For you, under what your conception of spiritual growth is. Volunteer work is certainly work worthy of praise, but it is up to the individual to determine what the best vehicle for spiritual growth is to him or her. What is and isn't spiritual is a a very personal and individual thing. As a "modern American" who values control over his own destiny and doesn't allow other people to tell him what to do or how to think, I'm sure you'll appreciate this point.

"If you want to role play that you are a modern day shaolin monk, fine -- but that won't lead you to spiritual growth. "

Not for you, under what your conception of spiritual growth is.

"Moreover, any spiritual growth you do get from WCK comes in the trenches -- from the fighting, from putting your @ss on the line."

For you, under what your conception of spiritual growth is.

Or do you presume, just as you do with WCK, that you know the one true definition for "spiritual growth", and that it should be the same for everyone? If not, how can you presume to know what the "best way" it is to attain it? But if you really do presume to know, then I suppose I just wasted a bunch of time typing. :)

Regards,
Alan

[KPM]

Terence wrote:
**Apparently, we can share our opinions but not question those opinions. God forbid we challenge anyone to support their views.

You are not a very good reader Terence. As I was pointing out before, Joy shared his "conception" of WCK, as KJ requested. You are perfectly free to share your "conception" of WCK as well. But there is no need to attack what Joy has to say in order to do it. KPM

**And look at Keith's very next line . . .

2. For me wing chun is a very effective fighting system.

Once again Terence, you are not reading very closely. I didn't write that, Joy did. KPM


Joy stated that WCK provides a "solid comprehensive foundation". I think that's a pretty good assessment. What "comprehensive foundation" do you start from to develop all your fighting skills Terence? Did you just jump right into a Saturday night tussle without knowing anything at all? KPM

**WCK doesn't "provide" anything other than information, information that we can put to use; the "foundation" (of skills) comes from our training -- what it is we actually *do*. Whether a person has a "good foundation" or not can only be determined by testing that individual, by fighting. You are then testing the individual, not testing WCK.

So I'll ask the question again, that you so conveniently skipped over. Did you just jump right into a Saturday night tussle without knowing anything at all? Did you know any technique?...have a foundation in any kind of reactive response?...have any structure to work from? It must not have been from WCK, since you deny that it provides any kind of foundation to work from. KPM


And you also won't develop any long run skills without a solid comprehensive foundation to build from, so your logic is a bit disjointed. KPM

**I've said over and over again that there are three steps - 1) learn the tool, 2) drill the tool, and 3) put that into fighting practice - with this actually being a developmental loop. This is how all good fighters train. Do you know any good WCK fighters that train differently? You?

OK. I still think your logic is disjointed. Just where do these tools that you are learning and drilling come from? Sounds like that they aren't coming from WCK, since you deny that it provides any kind of "foundation." You must be developing them from a vacuum. Do you know any good WCK fighters that aren't using the WCK that was taught to them as a foundation to start from? You? KPM


**I have no idea what you mean by "progressive sparring". I mean putting these things under the same conditions that you intend to use them, against full power, full intensity, where your opponent is really trying to pound you, really trying to resist you, etc. And with skilled opposition.

You know very well what it means. You are still skirting the issues and the points simply to keep saying that same old thing. You totally skipped over the "controlled" aspect that Joy originally mentioned and that I supported. Go ahead Terence, just ignore whatever anyone tries to point out to you and keep saying the same old thing. KPM

When you do your regular "fighting" in the training hall don't you often do it with the understanding that your opponent isn't going to pull out a knife on you? That is part of "controlled testing." KPM

**When boxers get in the ring and box, wrestlers go out on the mat and wrestle, muay thai fighters get in the ring, BJJist roll on the mats, they are fighting -- it is a "sport" because, as you say, no one is going to pull a knife and you can tap -- but the training is as intense, with the resisitance, etc. as they will meet.

And it is still in a "controlled" setting. In routine training the boxer assumes that his opponent isn't going to kick him in the groin....the grappler assumes that his opponent isn't going to gouge out his eyes or fish-hook him.....the Thai boxer assumes that his opponent isn't going to shoot in for a takedown. They also don't go at 100% intensity 100% at the time. The boxer may do light sparring with his partner and switch the roles back and forth between who is the aggressor while wearing headgear. This might progress to higher intensity sparring, but still with headgear. This might progress to an actual match without headgear, etc. This is PROGRESSIVE sparring. I'm sure grapplers do something similar. So don't be so obtuse. You know very well what we have been talking about. You just don't want to acknowledge it. KPM

Keith

[KPM]

Terence continues with Part 2:


**Anything can be a vehicle for spiritual growth.

Glad to see you acknowledge that much. KPM

Moreover, any spiritual growth you do get from WCK comes in the trenches -- from the fighting, from putting your @ss on the line.

Once again, sorry you have such a limited conception of what WCK is or can be. KPM

**It's not that you have broader views, it's that you want WCK to be everything but what it is -- a fighting method. Why? Because you're not fighting, you're not developing fighting skills. So WCK has to be something "broader."

How do you know what I am doing? I've stated that I use progressive sparring drills in my practice, and try to put in as much realism as possible. I go beyond just doing forms and chi sau. But that has never been good enough for you. I don't go out on saturday night to the local nightclub parking lot looking for trouble. Do you? Why do you feel that looking at WCK as a fighting system as well as a method of self-actualization are mutually exclusive? Again, I'm sorry you have such a narrow view of what WCK is or can be. KPM


**Come to Cleveland and bring your cup and mouthpiece (well, maybe leave the cup at home since you're probably one of those that believes your "knees in" adequately protects your groin! ;) ) and we can mix it up person-to-person. Video proves nothing.

Its a start. And many here happen to believe that you can tell a lot from video. Why are you so resistant to the idea? KPM


Keith

[Jim Roselando]

Hello T & Kieth,


Video proves nothing. Nothing.

They "prove" nothing but certainly can show someones body and since WCK uses the body then indeed one can see whats going on from a little clip. One can tell if their tense! One can tell if they use long power. One can tell if they telegraph. One can tell if they bounce. One can tell all kinds of things from watching someone move! Can they use it? Thats what the video does not prove unless they tape themselves against someone is fighting them with good credentials! I agree with that comment! JR

People see what they want to see; they project what they want to believe. If you saw clips of me, just like when you saw clips of those Estonian WCK practitioners I posted, all you would say is "that's poor WCK", etc.

Why do you say that? No doubt that after 20 + years of WCK you would not look like those guys! Dont be shy T! hehehe Even if people did say "thats poor WCK" what difference would it make since you know you can use it? Right? BTW! I did not know that they were doing WCK? sheeesh! I just thought it was some odd ball stuff. JR

These things aren't objective -- where you can look and judge it based on some objective criteria determine if it is good or bad -- they are subjective (I look good against someone less skilled and bad against someone better skilled).

True but once again one can show his WCK and tell if they are all over the place or have good quality body control going on IMO. Just like when you said: I can issue Inch force from a wide horse, small horse, kneeling and on one foot. I say! Thats cool! A clip would show that! Have someone hold a focus mitt and bang them from all 4 ways while someone tapes it.

See, we have to figure out a way to use the net to help promote more learning from each others experience etc.. Clips can be one way!! You can show how the body generated the power to issue from Wide, Narrow, Single and Kneeling. Ernie is very cool about sharing stuff and I can indeed say I have learned some cool things from it. JR

In person, when you put your @ss on the line, then there can be no question. And whatever my skill level is, it has nothing to do with *your* skill level -- what you can do. If you believe that you have superior fighting skills, then you should be willing to put yourself to the test to see. Not by videotaping yourself, but putting your @ss on the line to see for yourself -- that's my point. I've seen for myself; I know what I can and cannot do -- I know my skill level.

See, what I get out of this is that you are trying to get people to go out and develop their WCK by full contact "sparring" with others and this is great! Nobody is disagreeing with you and the validity of what you write but where do we go from there now that this has been said? Do we just keep repeating it or do we take from that experience and use it for growth/chat! I know I know! You cant learn from others but from yourself doing it right? Well, no doubt we can all learn from each other and doing it! Someone who has "spar" more with grapplers can relay more info. to us on that versus someone who spar more with boxers etc etc... If we do not do this then nothing positive will come out of all this IMO. JR


Regards,

[old jong]

Ernie is very cool about sharing stuff and I can indeed say I have learned some cool things from it. JR

All I can say about him and his clips is that even if he enjoy talking like a JKD freak ;) ...He really reflects....O.K Ernie I won't tell anything more!...:)

[Jim Roselando]

Hey Jong!


Yeah! Big Ern got the JKD vibe going on but he's ok! Its comes with living in the LA area! hehehe But! He is willing to put himself out there for us wolves to verbally chew up!


Gotta walk,

[Ernie]

Jim[Ernie is very cool about sharing stuff and I can indeed say I have learned some cool things from it.]

hey man very cool :)

my take on video
simple

if you have good body mechanics , balance ,timing , etc
this can easily be seen of film

just like when you spar some one you can read them visually
see there weighting , if there relaxed , and so on

any good coach can see what there fighter/student/client needs by how they move and relate

like any athlete you can see the harmony of there body motion and how they relate to what ever game they might be playing


so the skill you see is speed , timing .coordination , things of that nature

what you don't see is the stuff inside there spirit , will, intent and so on

now in a fight [ sparring/sport match ] not a street fight were things get much more real and chaotic , lets say unpredictable .

any miss match of skill can cause many different visual effects , a bum with awkward timing can make a pro look like dirt
2 guys with similar skill levels could get sloppy , since there is such a thin line between what really separates skilled fighters on any given day one can win or lose

it's a very subjective thing

but not every one looks good on film , even worse if you don't have good mechanics ,

so you can see skill to a degree on film you just don't know how that skill will relate in a live environment , since people have high's and low's

the best you can hope for a dialing in your attributes , and some luck

back to fight fight vs wing chun sucks vs chi sau can walk on water conversation :D


ps now what would be nice if instead of caring on like the clamptons or what every those fueding hillbilly's called themselves

would would get into the training methods that bridge the two worlds

but what do i know as soon as i do this i'm a jkd freak :cool:

hey jong pssss my secret keep it hush

[Ernie]

Originally posted by Jim Roselando
Hey Jong!


Yeah! Big Ern got the JKD vibe going on but he's ok! Its comes with living in the LA area! hehehe But! He is willing to put himself out there for us wolves to verbally chew up!


Gotta walk,


were is the love :D

hahaha man it comes down to being effective , who cares what people think

there not going to fight for you !

[old jong]

Originally posted by Ernie


hey jong pssss my secret keep it hush

I almost oppened my big mouth.Your secret came very close of being uncovered!...;)

[Ernie]

Originally posted by old jong
I almost oppened my big mouth.It was close!...;)

got to keep them on there toes errr in this case flat footed

big guy :)

[old jong]

I tried in my bathtub but my incredible grounding and sinking...;)Power kept me glued to the bottom!...:p

[canglong]

look to how any really good fighters train Terence ,
You predicated your argument on your own theory of what constitutes a "really good fighter". The subjective nature of your argument will not allow for everyone to agree with you no matter how many times you say it. To continue to argue your point you must first prove your definition of a really good fighter is congruent with that of the people you are conversing with.

[Matrix]

Originally posted by canglong
You predicated your argument on your own theory of what constitutes a "really good fighter". Funny how that works, eh! Good call Tony.

[AmanuJRY]

Good question, kj.

My conception of WC is that it's a doctrine of martial study based on effectivness and efficiency. It's not the *only* or the *best* martial art doctrine, just the one I like the best.

[t_niehoff]

canglong,

"Really good fighter" isn't subjective -- that's actually the great part about martial arts, we can determine that fairly simply. It's like saying "really good swimmer" or really good tennis player or really good basketball player or really good at any physical activity. Boxers can determine who is a good boxer by getting in the ring, BJJist can determine skill levels predicitably and reliably (their belts are performance-based), etc. It just can't be determined if someone is a good swimmer if they never get in the water, or if they are a good basketball player if they never play basketball, or if they are a good tennis player but never play tennis! Of course, I'd say that the fact they never do those activities would preclude the possibility of their being good. ;) But we can look at any physical activitiy and see performance levels. Randy Couture is a really good fighter -- he's proven that by fighting, and by fighting highly skilled fighters. So have many others. If it were an entirely subjective standard as you suggest, then we could never determine skill levels.

Fighting skill is performance-based, and can only be determined in relation to an opponent (to perform against). So we test our skill level by the level of our opposition. But this is what we do in all competitive activities.

[old jong]

Originally posted by crimsonking
IMO - It is not a *fighting system* in that it has fixed, formulaic, applications - it is a training system that teaches one how to fight intuitively. Step in the ring, you are no longer doing wing chun. You may however express what wing chun has taught you. It is a conceptual system, with no fixed boundaries or limits. Health and correct use of the body are critical factors in how and why we do what we do.

I like that!...;)

[Roy D. Anthony]

Hi Everyone, Longtime no see. Sorry been away from the forum for a while.

What Wing Chun means to me. Well let's see.

I hate the slowness of the footwork. I hate the energy it takes to shift when it is much easier to step. I hate the stances, I hate the guardhands I hate the techniques. all of this makes no sense since it is hard to use in a real fight.

When I fight, I have no set footwork, I have no shift, no stance and no guard and even no techniques. but the Wing Chun is easily seen by ther Wing Chun artists(maybe).

Then I luv the fotwork, I luv the shifting or stepping, I luv he stances, I luv the guardhans, I luv the techniques. Al of his makes sense now.

Wing Chun is a training method to reach the natural fighter stage, A means to an end result. remember Bruce Lee?, No stance No guard No Set footwork, this defines the natural fighter. Yoou should not be able to distinguish a wing chun fighter from any other fighter.

Just my Opinion,
Hope this Helps

Roy

[Matrix]

Originally posted by Roy D. Anthony
Hi Everyone, Longtime no see. Sorry been away from the forum for a while. Hey Roy,
It has been a while. Welcome back.

[t_niehoff]

Roy D. Anthony wrote:

Wing Chun is a training method to reach the natural fighter stage, A means to an end result.

**From my perspective, there is no need to "reach" the natural fighter stage -- we should begin there and stay there throughout our training. WCK should just take what we already do, and make it better. IMO the artificiality that is present in most WCK we see today is because the theoreticians have taken it over.

[Jim Roselando]

T,


**From my perspective, there is no need to "reach" the natural fighter stage -- we should begin there and stay there throughout our training.

How can we begin there if we have not developed the natural methods? What is the natural methods in your opinion?

WCK should just take what we already do, and make it better.

What all of us already do is have years and years and years of bad posture, breathing patterns, tension from all the activities we have done over the years, nervous brain patterns, etc.. What WCK should do is take us back to the natural setting and allow us to fight with it using WCK. The art will cultivate our natural abilities and then we have to go out and use it. This means it takes our body thru the process of disolving the tension, relaxing the mind, cultivating the natural spine, returning the breath to the way it was when we were born, open the joints, etc etc. etc.. As human beings we begin in a natural setting but as we age we do all sorts of things that create all sorts of muscles, habits, ideas, this or that. Learning the art of WCK is designed to bring us back to the natural setting as does many other martial art.

IMO the artificiality that is present in most WCK we see today is because the theoreticians have taken it over.

Actually its the reverse IMHHHO. Its the eclectic everything is everything that has reversed the natural methods. But, you may not agree with that since thats the category you fall into. Especially since the rest of us fall into your theoretician category. :p


Regards,

[KPM]

Terence wrote:
**From my perspective, there is no need to "reach" the natural fighter stage -- we should begin there and stay there throughout our training.

---Then why train at all? KPM

IMO the artificiality that is present in most WCK we see today is because the theoreticians have taken it over.

---Ooooh! Are you working on a nice conspiracy "theory" now too? :-) KPM


Keith

[Roy D. Anthony]

We cannot arrive to a place we never left.LOL

But I understand your dilemma.
Actors have a similar problem. Acting is a way of developing a character for a role in a play or film. Now the character is usually based on the individual playing the role but more as an expansion of the self. So, why take acting classes if all it is is being yourself??? Because it is natural that people get nervous in front of other people or a camera. Therefore taking classes eases their nervousness or teaches them how to use that nervousness and act anyway.

Hope this Helps!*s*


Hi Bill. Hope things are well.

Roy

[Ultimatewingchun]

What does wing chun mean to me? What is my conception of it?
What does karate mean to it's practitoners?
What does boxing mean to boxers?
What does bjj mean to it's practitioners?

And on and on.

This question is equally valid to all of the above.

And what is the common denominator?

They are all MARTIAL ARTS.

They are all concerned with fighting.

So again....

Kathy Jo:

I would just add three words to your definition - which I will now capitalize - and the rest is all yours.


"Wing Chun is a FIGHTING METHOD AND training system in conjunction with a tightly integrated suite of concepts the primary purpose of which is to increase the probability of success when and if applied in a violent physical encounter, and which is encapsulated, practiced and transmitted in the form of an art."