Gulao Wing Chun Videos

[judge88]

Hi All

I reason came across these clips on You Tube:

http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=TIMES11111

Regards

judge88

[t_niehoff]

Jim Roselando already discussed these on Rene's forum -- apparently this is poor Gu Lao WCK.

We never see the "good stuff". It really does exist (I'm told), just it is never shown to outsiders. But we can take it on faith that it does exist.

[judge88]

Hi Ti_niehoff,

Im curious now ... Why is this poor Gulao WCK?

Regards

Judge88

[Jim Roselando]

Hello,


Poor WC?

He happens to be an extremely talented sifu. What he is showing are his Solo sets and some of his Circling Hands fun. He calls is:

Fung Keung's Soft Wing Chun


Its some off his Pin Sun Wing Chun blended with Tai Gik sort of theory etc..

He has a school in Hong Kong and on the Mainland. If your in Hong Kong you can visit. Everyone who feels him knows he has the goods.

[t_niehoff]

Hi Ti_niehoff,

Im curious now ... Why is this poor Gulao WCK?

Regards

Judge88

As I said, this was Jim Roselando's view (Jim has studied with the Fungs). Go to Rene's site (wingchunkuen.com) and visit the forum, look at the "Asian Videos" thread and read Jim's comments for yourself.

My view is that this sort of demo doesn't and can't really tell us anything about a person's *martial* skill -- it is essentially folk dancing.

[judge88]

Hi T Niehoff

Ive just read Jim's comments on Rene's site - I dont think he's saying its poor GLWCK ... just somewhat different to what he's doing.

But this is hardly surprising - just because someone graduated from the same school doesnt mean he will be exactly the same as his teacher or his fellow students! One only needs to look at Yip Man's students - for eg Wong Shun Leung's WC is considerably different to Tsui Sheung Tin's Wing Chun tho' both learnt from the same master.

As to Jim's comments about Tai Chi theory and WC theory - my view (for what its worth) is that they are consistent with one another. In fact I think WC has alot more to learn from Tai Chi than the other way around.

Regards

Judge 88

[t_niehoff]

Hi T Niehoff

Ive just read Jim's comments on Rene's site - I dont think he's saying its poor GLWCK ... just somewhat different to what he's doing.


OK if that's how you interpret it.



But this is hardly surprising - just because someone graduated from the same school doesnt mean he will be exactly the same as his teacher or his fellow students! One only needs to look at Yip Man's students - for eg Wong Shun Leung's WC is considerably different to Tsui Sheung Tin's Wing Chun tho' both learnt from the same master.


My view is that fighting is an individual activity, so good fighting methods develop individuals -- not clones.



As to Jim's comments about Tai Chi theory and WC theory - my view (for what its worth) is that they are consistent with one another. In fact I think WC has alot more to learn from Tai Chi than the other way around.

Regards

Judge 88

In my view, unless a person has a great deal of fighting experience with a martial art, they cannot have much in the way of an intelligent opinion about that method's "theory" or what does/does not work (they are merely speculating without fully appreciating the combative problems they will actually encounter). Most (a good 90% of) TCMA theory I believe was developed by nonfighting practitioners of those arts -- so 90% of it is nonsense. Training and trying to implement nonsense won't get good results (it's actually counter-productive).

[judge88]

Hi T Niehoff

By TCMA I take it that you mean Tai Chi?

If thats the case, Im surprised that you are of the view that its a martial art primarily (in your words a good 90%) developed by non fighting practitioners!

Where do you get this info from?

[Tom Kagan]

As to Jim's comments about Tai Chi theory and WC theory - my view (for what its worth) is that they are consistent with one another. In fact I think WC has alot more to learn from Tai Chi than the other way around.

Let me guess: You do Tai Chi.

(Did I win anything?)

:)



"What do you call 10,000 books written about Ving Tsun? Tai Chi. Maybe I'm too cheap to buy 10,000 books. Maybe I'm too stupid to read 10,000 books. Maybe I'm too lazy to write 10,000 books. But, Tai Chi is a great art - what the f@ck are you doing with Ving Tsun if what you want is Tai Chi?" -- Moy Yat (in one of his more cantankerous moods)

[judge88]

Actually I DONT DO Tai Chi tho' I would like to!

[couch]

Actually I DONT DO Tai Chi tho' I would like to!

Just my 2 cents regarding one of my teachers at Chinese Medicine school who has been practicing Tai Chi for 20 years:

I have discussed the concepts of both martial arts with him and although we find common ground, his ideas and theory differ from mine.

At all times, I have my centreline facing his centre. He moves his centreline away from mine to "protect" it...while doing this, he tries to swallow my energy...often times he exposes his elbow...

When I try to trap the elbow with any passitivity, he will again, redirect and swallow the energy by moving his centre away from my target.

I have to be bang-on, quick, repsonsive and never too over committed if under-sure or else his "soft" hands redirect in an instant.

With these simple ideas, it differs a lot from where I'm going. Also, everytime he punches, there is a spiralling energy from his waist that comes out of the punch. I don't generate (in my family) any waist spiralling energy whatsoever. I generate my waist power with shifting, moving and sinking (and maybe personally from hunching the shoulders a bit like Bak Mei).

Nothing wrong with the Tai Chi. Plus, he does his push-hands and I do Chi Sau and we get along perfectly.

All the best,
Kenton Sefcik

[Yanjin]

Can you call Tai Chi martial arts? At the very least it is a form of exercise and the most a spiritual training program, and not a combative art.

[t_niehoff]

Hi T Niehoff

By TCMA I take it that you mean Tai Chi?

If thats the case, Im surprised that you are of the view that its a martial art primarily (in your words a good 90%) developed by non fighting practitioners!

Where do you get this info from?

I'm saying that most traditional chinese martial arts (TCMA) including tai ji are mostly nonsense (especially the theory) and most of these methods were developed (I'm not saying founded) by clueless nonfighters.

Where are the these tai ji fighters?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1KQefb7UnU

Where did I get this info from? From seeing what good fighters do and comparing it to what these people expound!

[Knifefighter]

I'm saying that most traditional chinese martial arts (TCMA) including tai ji are mostly nonsense (especially the theory) and most of these methods were developed (I'm not saying founded) by clueless nonfighters.

Where are the these tai ji fighters?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1KQefb7UnU

Where did I get this info from? From seeing what good fighters do and comparing it to what these people expound!

A perfect example of what happens when two theoretical non-fighters mix it up.

Why do I think Hendrick would fight something like that?

[planetwc]

Here is a representative example of Chen Taiji

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAicu-IPjMw

This will probably be wasted on you as well:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxxebP0u31g



I'm saying that most traditional chinese martial arts (TCMA) including tai ji are mostly nonsense (especially the theory) and most of these methods were developed (I'm not saying founded) by clueless nonfighters.

Where are the these tai ji fighters?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1KQefb7UnU

Where did I get this info from? From seeing what good fighters do and comparing it to what these people expound!

[planetwc]

Here is some more Taiji

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Y_GULVhJmM&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mH0nZGnl5zQ&mode=related&search=

[t_niehoff]

Here is a representative example of Chen Taiji

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAicu-IPjMw

This will probably be wasted on you as well:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxxebP0u31g

All that's "great", David, but they are not *fighting*. Push hands, fa jing demos, forms, ect. are all noncombative (and in push hands, in a sense cooperative) in nature. It's like the karate guys breaking bricks: that won't necessarily transfer into fighting. Sure, if you practice doing these things enough you will get very good at doing *those things* in that nonfighting environment. But when the conditions change, when the opponent is really fighting back, those sorts of things won't work -- at least not in the way they think.

People without much experience fighting (with good people) look at these sorts of things and seeing their "skill" in noncombative situations believe those "skills" will transfer into fighting (the magical thinking that people can develop fighting skills without fighting); people who have experience fighting know better.

Tai ji or WCK can be martial arts. But, as I told Hendrik on another thread, they won't be martial arts unless the people practicing them do the work. That work is getting out and using your WCK to fight/spar with decent people. A person can practice WCK or tai ji for their entire life and never move beyond beginner unless they do the work. That work is the real gung fu; that work is what makes what we do a martial art.

Now what happens is that people like CXW, who is not a fighter and has never fought anyone good -- although I'm sure he and others believes he "understands" tai ji -- goes around teaching tai ji, telling people how things "should" be done, etc. The same happens in all TCMAs, including WCK. But CXW does not "understand" fighting and has no significant fighting skills -- he can't. Because those things only come from fighting experience. And if someone doesn't have that fighting experience, they can't even begin to figure out how to use their art to fight.

This is the bottom line: A person's fighting skill, regardless of the martial art, is directly related to the amount of time they have spent in quality sparring. Anything else is just prep work. How much time has CXW spent in quality sparring? Little to none. So guess what his fighting skill level is? And that's true regardless of what he can demo.

[leejunfan]

Terrence,

I don't mean to be rude but..... have you noticed you keep argueing the same point over and over and over again?

I am reminded of the words of Einstein, who said: “A sure sign of madness is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.”

You're not going to convince ANYONE of anything they don't want to be convinced of. I know I know...... you said in the past that even a little means something..... but in the case of internet forums..... it amounts to nothing. Just keep doing the other half of your campaign...... face to face encounters. THAT is where the proving ground is. It's like me and my partner always say.... Truth is truth when it comes face to face.

On a side note Terrence: Because you have to repeat the same message over and over again.... why not save time and just cut and paste your old posts? ;)

Peace :)

[t_niehoff]

Anthony, yes, and I know that I often address the same few, related ideas and I know that can be tiresome (want to guess how tiresome it is for me to hear the same nonsense repeated for the past 25 years?). Yet, when I see the same silly nonsense repeated over and over as though it is gospel, when people continue to fall into magical thinking, when people who don't practice WCK as a martial art argue about application or how to train, etc. what should be the response? I suppose I could do what Yip Man did and say, "Yeah, that's great -- you're a genius". ;)

I know that I won''t -- and no one can -- convince someone of anything on a forum. If you've read my posts, I've even said as much. In fact, I said no one should believe anything said on a forum!

So why do I come back from time to time to point these things out? Because there are newbies, both to WCK and to the forums, and if they only hear from the theoretical nonfighters, from the people who practice WCK as a nonmartial art, from the people on the magical mystery tours, from the role-players, etc. they may believe those people represent and speak for WCK -- after all, they do make up the overwhelming majority of WCK practitioners. Maybe they'll actually think (a real rarity for WCK practitioners; it has been put forth that
WCK seems to destroy the faculty for rational thought) about what I say and actually investigate for themselves some of the things talked about.

Another reason is that, in my view, if we don't stand up and call BS when we see it, then we are complicit in it. All the nonsense only continues to exist because people let it. They even have a term for that: mo duk! Sure some people don't know any better -- but those of us that do know better have a responsibility IMO to say something. WCK is going to go the way of traditional JJ -- to disappear as a viable martial art, and instead be relegated to some archaic relic similar to folk dancing or embraced by the tree-huggers as some path to "enlightenment" if things don't change. It's already headed that way with chi sao contests, form competitions, etc.

And, I continue to bring up these same few related ideas because they are at the root of so many problems and questions pertaining to the martial arts and WCK. WCK is application. So you can't talk about WCK without talking about application. And you can't talk about application unless you actually know application. And you can't actually know application unless you are doing it. And you aren't doing it unless you are fighting. So quite frankly, I don't see how anyone can talk about much without talking about these things! Unless, of course, they want to speculate from a theoretical, nonfighting perspective. :)

[Knifefighter]

Here is a representative example of Chen Taiji

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAicu-IPjMw


Switching gears and suddendly working an offensive technique against someone who is basically flowing and cooperating shows absolutely nothing in terms of being workable nor not.

One thing those videos do substantiate is that the methods of training of tai chi are basically inferior to those of the more combative grappling arts. As you can see, tai chi "has" many of the same types of throws as do the combative "sportive" styles. However, the sportive practioners usually dominate tai chi players in a competitive grappling environment because of the difference in training methodologies.

[AndrewS]

Chen push-hands competition.


<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5RLWYQbNuI>

Andrew

[t_niehoff]

Chen push-hands competition.


<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5RLWYQbNuI>

Andrew

Mario Napoli, an American from NYC and Cheng Man Ching TJQ practitioner, won the Chen Village Push Hands Tournament a few years ago. He came back and made a lot of people in tai ji angry by saying that tai ji was nothing special and that it just used the same "principles" as judo -- the "internal guys" went haywire saying he just didn't "get it." Never mind that he went to their tournament, played by their rules, beat them with their techniques: *he* didn't "get it"! He got it all right, he just didn't buy into the BS that has come to surround TJQ.

[AndrewS]

Hey Terence,

there are worse things to be said about an art than that it shares principles with judo; judo is something quite special.

If you haven't seen this, it will amuse you.

<http://youtube.com/watch?v=_aYtgIkJ5UE>

I don't believe the hype on taiji, I also don't believe the slams. I've gone and seen it, trained, and met some people who are quite good at it. Almost anything you can say about the horrid state of Wing Chun today, goes double and more for the state of taiji. There's something useful at heart of it; use it if you like.

Andrew

P.S. Let's catch up when you make it out next year.

[t_niehoff]

Hey Terence,

there are worse things to be said about an art than that it shares principles with judo; judo is something quite special.


I agree. But when you're stuck trying to use your yi to move your chi . . . it seems to stop your brain from functioning rationally. ;)



If you haven't seen this, it will amuse you.

<http://youtube.com/watch?v=_aYtgIkJ5UE>


Sad. CXW is the "standard bearer" of Chen TJQ.



I don't believe the hype on taiji, I also don't believe the slams. I've gone and seen it, trained, and met some people who are quite good at it. Almost anything you can say about the horrid state of Wing Chun today, goes double and more for the state of taiji. There's something useful at heart of it; use it if you like.

Andrew


I think TJQ and WCK are in the same place as traditional Japanese JJ was before Kano -- technically (mostly) sound but lacking in a few aspects, particularly in its training methods (and associated aspects), complicated by the addition of loads of nonsense (for example, theory) from the nonfighters over the generations.



P.S. Let's catch up when you make it out next year.

I'm looking forward to that! :)

[drleungjohn]

He's a friend of mine-fellow Sicilian-and a short,little fireplug of a guy-he dumped a lot of Chen Villagers on their asses