Master David Cheung's new Wing Chun federation [Archive]

zuti car

11-12-2008, 02:00 AM

It is my great pleasure to announce that TWCKF federation of Serbia, since
5 .XI.2008 . is officialy associated with Master David Cheung .After ten days in Serbia , and five days seminar , TWCKF federation of Serbia made agreement with Master David Cheung , and he accepted responsibility of leading organization in the future . Now we officaly work David Cheung’s system
( unofficially we practiced this system for 30 years ) , and in the future we will use name “Shaolin Wing Chun” .

Master David visit the club in Pozarevac , and part of his demonstration on Budo Night in Veliko Gradiste , wich was organised in his honer
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=h0JAt7cyvMA
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=5abBxP7PH5Y

Couple of pictures - with mayor of Veliko Gradiste , and one groupe photo from seminar

kung fu fighter

11-12-2008, 12:25 PM

From what I understand William Cheung was forced to leave HK for Austrillia in a hurry as well as with Bruce Lee for States due to a gang related incident in HK . At that time he hadn't yet completed Yip Man's wing chun. So he kept bugging his brother David to come to Austrillia to show him the rest of the stuff, it was David Cheung who helped William Cheung to complete Yip Man's so called modified wing chun system.

anerlich

11-12-2008, 01:57 PM

From what I understand

Your understanding appears to be inaccurate.

Phil Redmond

11-12-2008, 02:04 PM

From what I understand William Cheung was forced to leave HK for Austrillia in a hurry as well as with Bruce Lee for States due to a gand related incident in HK . At that time he hadn't yet completed Yip Man's wing chun. So he kept bugging his brother David to come to Austrillia to show him the rest of the stuff, it was David Cheung who helped William Cheung to complete Yip Man's so called modified wing chun system.
You are so wrong. David learned from his older brother William Cheung. I know that for a fact. I was there when the subject came up in Toronto during Dim Sum with William Cheung's other brothers. There was also a discussion regarding how long Cheung Sifu lived in YM's home. Where do you get this crazy mis-information from???

Phil Redmond

11-12-2008, 02:11 PM

Food for thought. Why is David doing and teaching TWC in those clips if he taught William Cheung? :rolleyes:

sihing

11-12-2008, 02:15 PM

My first Sifu met and trained with David while there in Australia back in 86'. I understand that David trained in Wong Shun Leung system for some 10yrs, then was recruited by William to come teach at his Aussie Training center.

I think it's fair to say that W.Cheung taught David his TWC, but Navin was referring to the idea that maybe David taught William what he learned from the Wong line when he relocated to Australia.

From the vid's on Youtube it is amazing how much the too brothers move alike. In one vid, I thought it was William himself, but knew something was different about him. David seems to be smaller than William.

Zuti,

Is there any difference in what David is teaching you guys there, and what is being taught through William's organization?

James

sihing

11-12-2008, 02:19 PM

Food for thought. Why is David doing and teaching TWC in those clips if he taught William Cheung? :rolleyes:

From what I was told, William didn't treat David very well at the Aussie school. Ever time William used David as a demo partner he would beat the crap out of him, so maybe he got sick of it and decided to leave like he did.

Again, I don't think Navin meant that David taught William TWC, but rather the rest of the so called "modified" system. It's debateable as to whether Yip Man even taught William what is called TWC, or if William invented it himself, or he learned HFY WC and changed the name???

James

Ultimatewingchun

11-12-2008, 03:18 PM

zuti car

11-12-2008, 03:41 PM

Zuti,

Is there any difference in what David is teaching you guys there, and what is being taught through William's organization?

James

In the beginning they teached the same thing,i can say that now , William and David teach two different arts . The main difference is in approach to the art , what style should be , what to expect , what can be achived,also , David s method of passing knowledge is unique , and thing that i like most , there is no "close door ' studens , no "private classes" , no "secrets tecniques' - everything is open , and enyone who want to learn is welcome
One more thing that we are douing is special form of Chi Kung, wich can be practiced as part of style or totaly separately , but it is very important to achive high level of proficiency in the system .

Museumtech

11-12-2008, 04:24 PM

From what I was told, William didn't treat David very well at the Aussie school. Ever time William used David as a demo partner he would beat the crap out of him, so maybe he got sick of it and decided to leave like he did.

I was at the school in the early 80's and saw none of that. Whether it occurred later I can't say.

or he learned HFY WC and changed the name???

Funny I have heard this argument in reverse (and upside down and backwards). Perhaps the similarity between HFY, a non-Yip man linage, and TWC support the Leung Bik story. After all, if it were true then you would imagine that similarities should be found between TWC and non-Yip Man wing chun?

sihing

11-12-2008, 04:27 PM

In the beginning they teached the same thing,i can say that now , William and David teach two different arts . The main difference is in approach to the art , what style should be , what to expect , what can be achived,also , David s method of passing knowledge is unique , and thing that i like most , there is no "close door ' studens , no "private classes" , no "secrets tecniques' - everything is open , and enyone who want to learn is welcome
One more thing that we are douing is special form of Chi Kung, wich can be practiced as part of style or totaly separately , but it is very important to achive high level of proficiency in the system .

Good luck to you Zuti, I hope you get out of the training what you seek from it.

Just beware of things, like you mentioned "special chi kung". All a fighting system can do is make one's body more able to produce power and good body mechanics, timing and the such while in combat. Special breathing excersises have really nothing to do with it, as chi will not make you a better fighter. It can help one learn how to breath properly when under stressful situations, and for health purposes I totally believe in chi kung, but it has nothing to do with one's fighting effectiveness. Good body mechanics, fast, powerful strikes and good mobile footwork are some of the things that make one hard to deal with in combat.

James

kung fu fighter

11-12-2008, 06:11 PM

From what I was told, William didn't treat David very well at the Aussie school. Ever time William used David as a demo partner he would beat the crap out of him, so maybe he got sick of it and decided to leave like he did.

Again, I don't think Navin meant that David taught William TWC, but rather the rest of the so called "modified" system. It's debateable as to whether Yip Man even taught William what is called TWC, or if William invented it himself, or he learned HFY WC and changed the name???

James

Thanks James, that's exactly what i meant. no disrespect was intended to Phil or any other TWC practioners. Just sharing one of the the story that i heard about David Cheung.

Phil Redmond

11-12-2008, 07:47 PM

From what I was told, William didn't treat David very well at the Aussie school. Ever time William used David as a demo partner he would beat the crap out of him, so maybe he got sick of it and decided to leave like he did. . . . James
As early as last year David Cheung asked his brother William Cheung if he could come back to the school and teach.

Phil Redmond

11-12-2008, 07:52 PM

I was at the school in the early 80's and saw none of that. Whether it occurred later I can't say. . . . .
I also asked some of the older Aussie students and they concur with you. Rumors and stories run rampant in the martial arts community.

anerlich

11-12-2008, 07:52 PM

I do remember reading about David and William having some sort of a bust-up ... some time in the 1980's IIRC. David set up his own organisation shortly thereafter, not that I followed the story that closely or particularly cared.

William Cheung has had more than a few people leave his organisation, to the extent that the term "revolving door" might be appropriate, sometimes under fairly acrimonious circumstances, so having an argument with a sibling hardly seems out of character.

James' former instructor Brian Lewadny, and two of mine, David Crook and Rick Spain parted company with him, as did Marty Goldberg.

This is not to disrespect anyone who left or anyone who stayed, just a statement of fact.

It's this part that is unlikely IMO:

So he kept bugging his brother David to come to Austrillia to show him the rest of the stuff, it was David Cheung who helped William Cheung to complete Yip Man's so called modified wing chun system.

The usual story has it that Willam completely learned both "versions" from YM. WSL was also one of very few of his contemporaries that he kept up a good relationship with. Unless there were some issues of face or pride on WCheung's part, there's no reason that he couldn't have got whatever "secrets" WSL got directly from WSL.

It would be sensible (albeit uncommonly so in Wing Chun) for people like the Cheung brothers and WSL to share ideas. But to extrapolate that into the scenario quoted above is IMO absurd.

Phil Redmond

11-12-2008, 08:05 PM

zuti car

11-12-2008, 11:10 PM

Closed Door means you've become a family member to your Sifu. We have no secrets. You can watch our classes for free here:
http://www.streamingmartialarts.com/index.php

As Master David exsplaned to me , there is only one way to become member of the family , but i can not put that on the forum .

zuti car

11-12-2008, 11:19 PM

Good luck to you Zuti, I hope you get out of the training what you seek from it.

Just beware of things, like you mentioned "special chi kung". All a fighting system can do is make one's body more able to produce power and good body mechanics, timing and the such while in combat. Special breathing excersises have really nothing to do with it, as chi will not make you a better fighter. It can help one learn how to breath properly when under stressful situations, and for health purposes I totally believe in chi kung, but it has nothing to do with one's fighting effectiveness. Good body mechanics, fast, powerful strikes and good mobile footwork are some of the things that make one hard to deal with in combat.

James
I agree with what you said . I used word "special ' to make distinction in approach from others chi kuing systems , nothing else , i will try to expalne what we are douing when i have some free time .

bennyvt

11-13-2008, 03:08 AM

is it really different. Its all abdominal breathing, but it sounds better if you learn something no one else knows. You talk to a conditioning coach and they will show you exactly the same thing.

Phil Redmond

11-13-2008, 05:43 AM

As Master David exsplaned to me , there is only one way to become member of the family , but i can not put that on the forum .
Not exactly. Bi Si is common in the Chinese arts. Here's an example using my former kung fu brother. http://www.uskungfu.com/pedro_cepero%20Yee.htm
He even adopted his Sifu's last name.
http://www.yeeshungga.com/clifton/sifu.html

LSWCTN1

11-13-2008, 06:23 AM

i have heard (read) stories that say one taught the other and vice versa

some by a student of one that became a student of the other - this person said that his more recent instructor challenged the whole room at a seminar - including his brother

in all fairness, the reason there are arguments around this (i guess) is because both these teachers have managed to win the hearts and minds of their students, almost certainly through their individual fantastic ability and ability to pass on their respective knowledge.

if i was a student of either i would find it an honour, as i do with my present instructor, and wouldnt care who taught who what. is the object of teaching not to let your students surpass your level?

anerlich

11-13-2008, 01:44 PM

in all fairness, the reason there are arguments around this (i guess) is because both these teachers have managed to win the hearts and minds of their students, almost certainly through their individual fantastic ability and ability to pass on their respective knowledge.

Also in all fairness, IMO a lot of it has to do with the fact that neither are exactly backward in talking up their own abilities and accomplishments and belittling those of their contemporaries, including each other. I can respect the persons but still shake my head at some of their behaviour.

some by a student of one that became a student of the other - this person said that his more recent instructor challenged the whole room at a seminar - including his brother

LOL. This is why many regard TCMA as a joke. They should have all jumped him at once.

It sounds like the student chose the flakier of the two then, doesn't it? Time to reconsider, perhaps.

Rick Spain and David Crook both fell out with William Cheung after immature behaviour at seminars. There was the 1986 Cologne incident, and now this challenge to/from a sibling. I'd be giving up on seminars with this sort of track record.

Extremely egotistical and stupid to challenge someone under such circumstances. What about the hapless people who pay good money to become part of such an exhibition of human folly without an opportunity to choose?

The students pays me or my brother money, so I'm going to challenge them? Time for that Big Yellow Taxi.

As Master David exsplaned to me , there is only one way to become member of the family , but i can not put that on the forum .

I already have a nice family and don't need another. Don't you?

if i was a student of either i would find it an honour, as i do with my present instructor

Hopefully your guy doesn't throw out challenges at seminars.

zuti car

11-15-2008, 11:44 PM

Some more clips from seminar

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=FqGYiXZLWG8
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=3zxmQabJx1s
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=mlcT0la_dmE
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=k7RawsaDdpI

martyg

11-16-2008, 08:32 PM

Since my name was thrown in to this thread, I'll add a comment -

OMFG, does this garbage ever end? Who cares if William and David want to duke it out over who has what, or some of their students want to debate it. Just doesn't matter, and its been going on for a quite a long time, and I've heard so many different versions of who said what when, etc. Some of David's students I was friends with online back in early 90's even stated David left because he got fed up with William "watering down" stuff publicly starting in the mid 80's, which is when the bad treatment between the two started, and appointing Dana to run things in his and David's absences was supposedly the last straw. You know what though, its William's school and William's art, and if David didn't like things, there's the door. Just as William was shown the door by students that didn't like his behavior at seminars. And in the end it doesn't matter, it doesn't directly involve any of you, and it's just gossip. If you're going to gossip, at least do it while getting your nails and hair done like the professional gossipers. ;)

Museumtech

11-17-2008, 12:00 AM

Since my name was thrown in to this thread, I'll add a comment -

OMFG, does this garbage ever end?

No more to add. However if anyone want's to continue with the garbage, read this thread first. http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?t=52516

Peter

duende

11-17-2008, 12:47 AM

It's debateable as to whether Yip Man even taught William what is called TWC, or if William invented it himself, or he learned HFY WC and changed the name???

James

For a HFY perspective on the matter please read this link entitled One Wing Chun tree, many Wing Chun branches

http://www.hfy108.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2510

In truth, tracing the genealogy of WC is far from complete. As there still exists "branches" of WC that have yet to present themselves to the public at large. As well as others that may have tragically become lost arts to the passage of time.

Who knows what information may still exist out there regarding the relationship between Leung Bik and Yip Man.

On another note, I would like to address this "secrets" issue....

There are no secrets! Like it or not, there is simply just knowledge that some have that other's don't because they have put the time and hard work in to educate themselves.

But instead of simply taking the time to learn and truly appreciate these differences amongst our WC families.... Some here would rather deem these differences as secrets and therefore attempt to cast a negative light on some members of our WC family.

Put it this way...

Does a college professor hold secrets from a grade school student? No, but until the grade school student puts some time in and finishes elementary, and high school or there equivalents... they will not be able to fully absorb and comprehend a lecture by the college professor.

This is the nature of learning.

And btw... refusing to post video's is not a form of keeping secrets. It's a form of quality control.

:cool:

Museumtech

11-17-2008, 12:57 AM

BTW, good luck Zuti Car. I always enjoy your clips when they are posted.

Train hard,

Peter

t_niehoff

11-17-2008, 06:04 AM

In truth, tracing the genealogy of WC is far from complete. As there still exists "branches" of WC that have yet to present themselves to the public at large. As well as others that may have tragically become lost arts to the passage of time.

How do you know there are "branches" of WCK that have yet to present themselves?

Who knows what information may still exist out there regarding the relationship between Leung Bik and Yip Man.

There is no compelling evidence that Leung Bik practiced WCK or taught Yip Man other than the story that was developed by Lee Man as a marketing ploy.

On another note, I would like to address this "secrets" issue....

There are no secrets! Like it or not, there is simply just knowledge that some have that other's don't because they have put the time and hard work in to educate themselves.

WCK is not a system of knowledge and is not knowledge-based; it is, like any martial art or sport, a skill, and is skill-based. As such, our abilitiy to do it doesn't depend on intellectual knowledge (any more than our ability to play basketball depends on knowledge). You simply need to learn the few skills that you need to do the activity (the fundamentals).

But instead of simply taking the time to learn and truly appreciate these differences amongst our WC families.... Some here would rather deem these differences as secrets and therefore attempt to cast a negative light on some members of our WC family.

The different branches or "families" (what a silly term) are just different ways that different people have TRIED to teach the same thing. They are curriculums; they are not WCK. The curriculum is not the subject matter.

Put it this way...

Does a college professor hold secrets from a grade school student? No, but until the grade school student puts some time in and finishes elementary, and high school or there equivalents... they will not be able to fully absorb and comprehend a lecture by the college professor.

This is the nature of learning.

And btw... refusing to post video's is not a form of keeping secrets. It's a form of quality control.

:cool:

Your analogy of a college professor teaching an academic, intellectual, knowledge-based course is poorly conceived. WCK is not an intellectual pursuit. WCK is a fighting method, and like boxing or wrestling is an open skill. Are there secrets in boxing or wrestling? No. It's not a matter of being able to "fully absorb and comprehend a lecture by a college professor." In fact, sports and fighting methods and physical skills can't be learned or developed that way.

CFT

11-17-2008, 07:27 AM

How do you know there are "branches" of WCK that have yet to present themselves?There are "branches" in mainland China and presumably SE Asia which are not well known to those of us in the West. Presumably there are those which are known about but do not advertise nor teach openly. You know ... those ones that are still fighting the Qing ;)

The different branches or "families" (what a silly term) are just different ways that different people have TRIED to teach the same thing. They are curriculums; they are not WCK. The curriculum is not the subject matter.I don't know Terence. I kind of think "you are what you train". Personally (without getting into details) the way I used to train would have produced different actions to the way I train now.

I agree about the difference in academic learning. The knowledge is generally freely available and you really are only limited by your intelligence and aptitude for learning/thinking. That is why you have 15yr olds getting university degrees in maths, physics, etc. No teachers keeping the knowledge to a select group of acolytes, or sharing knowledge 20yrs later when the student thought they had all there was to learn.

t_niehoff

11-17-2008, 07:43 AM

There are "branches" in mainland China and presumably SE Asia which are not well known to those of us in the West. Presumably there are those which are known about but do not advertise nor teach openly. You know ... those ones that are still fighting the Qing ;)

In my view, the 'branches" aren't important -- the "root" is. The "branches" are just differing ways of getting to the root. When you get stuck on a branch, you never get to the root.

I don't know Terence. I kind of think "you are what you train". Personally (without getting into details) the way I used to train would have produced different actions to the way I train now.

Don't all the branches have bong, tan, fook, etc.? Don't they all have chi sao, lop sao, turning punch drills?

You may say, "yes they all have those things but how they practice them differs" -- but my reply would be that those different ways are different examples but are not meant to be definative or prohibitive (in that you can't do them in other ways). That would be getting stuck on the branch and not getting to the root. When you really take those things and fight with them, over time, you'll find your own way of making them work, your own WCK.

LSWCTN1

11-17-2008, 08:34 AM

How do you know there are "branches" of WCK that have yet to present themselves?

There is no compelling evidence that Leung Bik practiced WCK or taught Yip Man other than the story that was developed by Lee Man as a marketing ploy.

WCK is not a system of knowledge and is not knowledge-based; it is, like any martial art or sport, a skill, and is skill-based. As such, our abilitiy to do it doesn't depend on intellectual knowledge (any more than our ability to play basketball depends on knowledge). You simply need to learn the few skills that you need to do the activity (the fundamentals).

The different branches or "families" (what a silly term) are just different ways that different people have TRIED to teach the same thing. They are curriculums; they are not WCK. The curriculum is not the subject matter.

Your analogy of a college professor teaching an academic, intellectual, knowledge-based course is poorly conceived. WCK is not an intellectual pursuit. WCK is a fighting method, and like boxing or wrestling is an open skill. Are there secrets in boxing or wrestling? No. It's not a matter of being able to "fully absorb and comprehend a lecture by a college professor." In fact, sports and fighting methods and physical skills can't be learned or developed that way.

whilst i also agree with you for the majority of this post, there are some things which i feel slightly different to yourself about:

i thought that there was a banner outside Ip Man's school declaring him a student of Leung Bik, therefore this must have been either
1. True
2. Ip mans personal marketing ploy?
Although i do know that Chu Chong Man recognised Leung Bik as a student of Leung Jan according to one of his articles in New Martial Hero.

'WCK is not a system of knowledge and is not knowledge-based; it is, like any martial art or sport, a skill, and is skill-based. As such, our abilitiy to do it doesn't depend on intellectual knowledge (any more than our ability to play basketball depends on knowledge). You simply need to learn the few skills that you need to do the activity (the fundamentals). '

i only agree with this to a certain extent, but if you imagine,say, the best boxers of the times throughout history many of them where head and shoulders above their competitors in terms of intellect too - Roy Jones Jr springs to mind, and of course Mohammed Ali.

regards

david

CFT

11-17-2008, 09:24 AM

In my view, the 'branches" aren't important -- the "root" is. The "branches" are just differing ways of getting to the root. When you get stuck on a branch, you never get to the root.Haha, you are right of course, but you're changing the argument Terence.

duende

11-17-2008, 10:22 AM

How do you know there are "branches" of WCK that have yet to present themselves?

There is no compelling evidence that Leung Bik practiced WCK or taught Yip Man other than the story that was developed by Lee Man as a marketing ploy.

Marketing ploy?? Ahhh... so instead of admitting you don't have all the facts and that there exists information beyond your understanding, you choose to criticize and offer insults.

Where'd you learn this behavior in kindergaten or law school? :eek:

WCK is not a system of knowledge and is not knowledge-based; it is, like any martial art or sport, a skill, and is skill-based. As such, our abilitiy to do it doesn't depend on intellectual knowledge (any more than our ability to play basketball depends on knowledge). You simply need to learn the few skills that you need to do the activity (the fundamentals).

So skills have nothing to do with knowledge?? Come on Terence... you are arguing just for arguments sake.

Btw... who taught you all the WC techniques... and why does your Sifu post articles and share his knowledge in them??

The different branches or "families" (what a silly term) are just different ways that different people have TRIED to teach the same thing. They are curriculums; they are not WCK. The curriculum is not the subject matter.

So once again you lower the bar Terence with your gross generalizations.

Have you studied every branch of WC? I think not.

Despite what you may believe, your own WC may quite possibly employ many different applications and knowledge absorbed from a variety of WC branches. Good thing too.

One day, Terence you will learn... that when walking into a room full of people... the intelligent person is the one who does not immediately assume that they are the smartest person in the room.

Your analogy of a college professor teaching an academic, intellectual, knowledge-based course is poorly conceived. WCK is not an intellectual pursuit. WCK is a fighting method, and like boxing or wrestling is an open skill. Are there secrets in boxing or wrestling? No. It's not a matter of being able to "fully absorb and comprehend a lecture by a college professor." In fact, sports and fighting methods and physical skills can't be learned or developed that way.

NO.... YOUR reappropriation of my analogy is poor. By YOUR analogy... any high school wrestler could walk onto a college wrestling mat and hold their own.

Fighting skill depends unlitmately on three things. Physical aptitude, mental prowess, and a determination of will. Better known as Mind, Body, and Spirit.

In short... upon confrontation.... Without physical aptitude, fighter will essentially be fighting themselves. Without mental prowess a fighter will not know when to fight, or how to learn from their loses (or wins for that matter). And without fighting spirit... a fighter will never have the courage to take on the fight, or see it to the end.

All three require development through hard work over time.

The mind understands, The body knows.

But enough of this side-track.

Good training to all.

canglong

11-17-2008, 01:01 PM

Originally Posted by t_niehoff
WCK is not a system of knowledge and is not knowledge-based; it is, like any martial art or sport, a skill, and is skill-based. As such, our abilitiy to do it doesn't depend on intellectual knowledge (any more than our ability to play basketball depends on knowledge). You simply need to learn the few skills that you need to do the activity (the fundamentals).
Just curious t what statistical data are you using to prove your point that most athletes are ignorant and perform based on mimicry and not knolwedge. 1. you need to play a few more sports and 2. you need to stop using sports analogies.

Btw... who taught you all the WC techniques... and why does your Sifu post articles and share his knowledge in them??
Even more to the point your sifu likes to present the apprearance that he has superior knowledge.

t_niehoff

11-17-2008, 01:11 PM

Marketing ploy?? Ahhh... so instead of admitting you don't have all the facts and that there exists information beyond your understanding, you choose to criticize and offer insults.

Where'd you learn this behavior in kindergaten or law school? :eek:

I said marketing ploy because that is precisely what several of Yip Man's students, like Wang Kiu, said it was (this has been hashed and rehashed many times on the WCML and KFO). We have Yip Man's own written account of his lineage and there is no mention of Leung Bik (are you calling Yip Man a liar?).

If you have some facts, then present them to support your view.

BTW, why do you try to turn this into a persona attack (re my behavior)?

So skills have nothing to do with knowledge?? Come on Terence... you are arguing just for arguments sake.

Skill has very little to do with intellectual knowledge. Is riding a bike knowledge-based? Certainly you need to learn skills, but you learn skills by doing skills, not by intellectualizing them. Do you think a really good athlete is better than the average Joe because he has some knowledge the average guy doesn't? Of course not.

Btw... who taught you all the WC techniques... and why does your Sifu post articles and share his knowledge in them??

Your instructor teaches you skills. He may help you develop those skills. But those skills are physical skills. You need someone to teach you to play basketball too -- to dribble, shoot, do a lay-up, etc. But these are not intellecutal things. They are skills. You learn and develop skills by doing them. What makes a good basketball player is not his "knowledge" or his "understanding."

So once again you lower the bar Terence with your gross generalizations.

Have you studied every branch of WC? I think not.

If you come to recognize the root, you don't need to investigate all the branches.

Despite what you may believe, your own WC may quite possibly employ many different applications and knowledge absorbed from a variety of WC branches. Good thing too.

The branches are only curriculums not the subject matter. The branches can't teach you to use/do WCK, only your opponent can.

One day, Terence you will learn... that when walking into a room full of people... the intelligent person is the one who does not immediately assume that they are the smartest person in the room.

Again, more personal attacks.

NO.... YOUR reappropriation of my analogy is poor. By YOUR analogy... any high school wrestler could walk onto a college wrestling mat and hold their own.

You mis-state and misunderstand what I am saying. If you go into a a high school and a college wrestling gym you will see the same things, the same fundamentals being practiced. The difference is that the college group is probably doing them better. And that's because the college selects kids who are better wreslters, who are more talented, who take it more seriously, who practice more, etc. The difference in skill isn't dependent on intellectual knowledge.

Fighting skill depends unlitmately on three things. Physical aptitude, mental prowess, and a determination of will. Better known as Mind, Body, and Spirit.

In short... upon confrontation.... Without physical aptitude, fighter will essentially be fighting themselves. Without mental prowess a fighter will not know when to fight, or how to learn from their loses (or wins for that matter). And without fighting spirit... a fighter will never have the courage to take on the fight, or see it to the end.

All three require development through hard work over time.

The mind understands, The body knows.

What a lovely theory.

t_niehoff

11-17-2008, 01:18 PM

Just curious t what statistical data are you using to prove your point that most athletes are ignorant and perform based on mimicry and not knolwedge. 1. you need to play a few more sports and 2. you need to stop using sports analogies.

No, I don't need to stop using sports analogies since sports are open skill athletic activities, just like WCK. Confusion arises when we start looking at WCK as something different in kind than sports.

Even more to the point your sifu likes to present the apprearance that he has superior knowledge.

Again, why the personal attacks?

sanjuro_ronin

11-17-2008, 02:19 PM

While I tend to agree with most of what T said, I do think that you can NOT count out the mind or the "spirit".
They are, however, intangiables that can't be trained.
Either someone has "it", or they don't.
Certainly there are "smart fighters" and ther eare those with great "spirit".
Again, these things can't be trained or measured or taught.

Ned

11-17-2008, 02:34 PM

anerlich

11-17-2008, 03:38 PM

Even more to the point your sifu likes to present the apprearance that he has superior knowledge.

If so he's hardly Robinson Crusoe, is he?

How about:

The Cheungs, Leung Ting, the authors of MKF, ...

duende

11-17-2008, 03:48 PM

Skill has very little to do with intellectual knowledge. Is riding a bike knowledge-based? Certainly you need to learn skills, but you learn skills by doing skills, not by intellectualizing them. Do you think a really good athlete is better than the average Joe because he has some knowledge the average guy doesn't? Of course not.

Actually when you race bikes there are many strategies and team-based tactics that go beyond just sheer pedaling cadence and balance. These strategies and tactics vary depending on the environment and terrain. As different methods are required for mountain regions vs. flatlands. For time trials vs. regular open stages. Different gearing and equipment changes also come into play. In the old days, you also had to know how to repair your own bike (as there were no sag wagons to provide assistance or replacement parts).... which is definitely not easy. Ever try and repair a Sturmey-Archer hub? I think not... try reading all the manuals on that one... not a light read I tell you.

Your instructor teaches you skills. He may help you develop those skills. But those skills are physical skills. You need someone to teach you to play basketball too -- to dribble, shoot, do a lay-up, etc. But these are not intellecutal things. They are skills. You learn and develop skills by doing them. What makes a good basketball player is not his "knowledge" or his "understanding."

I guess college basketball coaches don't know much then and are waaay overpaid! :confused: Lute Olsen, has nothing on you. :rolleyes: And players no nothing more than mere dribbling, lay-ups etc..

If you come to recognize the root, you don't need to investigate all the branches.

If this is true, then what are you doing here? And who are you rooting for?? :D

The branches are only curriculums not the subject matter. The branches can't teach you to use/do WCK, only your opponent can.

The branches are only curriculums?? Sorry, no this is completely idealistic view at best... If this were true, then there wouldn't be such a thing as CSL structure that is so often mentioned from your camp. No... we would all be doing the same techniques and expressing the same body karma.

Learning from opponents is absolutely necessary and vital... but how do you learn Terrence? By analyzing your mistakes. Oops... but analyzing mistakes is just a skill too right??? :rolleyes:

You mis-state and misunderstand what I am saying. If you go into a a high school and a college wrestling gym you will see the same things, the same fundamentals being practiced. The difference is that the college group is probably doing them better. And that's because the college selects kids who are better wreslters, who are more talented, who take it more seriously, who practice more, etc. The difference in skill isn't dependent on intellectual knowledge.

College student do them better because they have greater focus, physical aptitude, and commitment. I don't see why you have a problem admitting that the brain serves a function in these processes. Be it sports, or real combat.

FWIW.... I just saw Red Belt and watched all the out takes on DVD. What was very interesting to me, is that here you have a film made by a David Mamet a Jiu Jitsu Martial Artist, along with the cooperation and help of many famous MMA fighters. And one of the central themes of the movie is that sport fighting and real combat are not the same thing. The MMA's in the out takes had a real appreciation for this understanding.

What a lovely theory.

So I take it you don't think spirit and sheer determination of will has anyplace in fighting either...

As for the personal attackss... well you probably had them coming. But I'll play nice now. :)

sanjuro_ronin

11-18-2008, 05:40 AM

FWIW.... I just saw Red Belt and watched all the out takes on DVD. What was very interesting to me, is that here you have a film made by a David Mamet a Jiu Jitsu Martial Artist, along with the cooperation and help of many famous MMA fighters. And one of the central themes of the movie is that sport fighting and real combat are not the same thing. The MMA's in the out takes had a real appreciation for this understanding.

Every single MA I know, knows the difference, they appreciate the difference, all you ever have to do is work as a bouncer for a few months to understand the difference.
And the difference is not in the training, nor the techniques we use, but in the intent.
And understanding is the first step of intent.
And any MA that has ever done full contact understands.
But, there are exceptions, typically noobs but sometimes even very experienced people that, for some reason, don't get it.

duende

11-18-2008, 06:43 AM

Every single MA I know, knows the difference, they appreciate the difference, all you ever have to do is work as a bouncer for a few months to understand the difference.
And the difference is not in the training, nor the techniques we use, but in the intent.
And understanding is the first step of intent.
And any MA that has ever done full contact understands.
But, there are exceptions, typically noobs but sometimes even very experienced people that, for some reason, don't get it.

Agreed. I would only add that to be a good bouncer, you also have to have street smarts. You need to know who is a punk and who is a real player. Otherwise, your gonna get your ass shot.

However street smarts are not important according to T. As they are not a repetitive motion developed skill. May I present exhibit A:

No, I don't need to stop using sports analogies since sports are open skill athletic activities, just like WCK. Confusion arises when we start looking at WCK as something different in kind than sports.

Phil Redmond

11-18-2008, 07:47 AM

Actually when you race bikes there are many strategies and team-based tactics that go beyond just sheer pedaling cadence and balance. These strategies and tactics vary depending on the environment and terrain. As different methods are required for mountain regions vs. flatlands. For time trials vs. regular open stages. Different gearing and equipment changes also come into play. In the old days, you also had to know how to repair your own bike (as there were no sag wagons to provide assistance or replacement parts).... which is definitely not easy. Ever try and repair a Sturmey-Archer hub? I think not... try reading all the manuals on that one... not a light read I tell you. . . . .
Yes, there are tactics used in bike racing. I used to race at Kissena Cycling club in Queens when I was a messenger in the City. http://www.kissena.info/
They had an asphalt? Velodrome back then. You're right about strategy in bicycle racing. One of my favorite races was the Madison. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madison_(cycling).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCtm1WTFFNw
Two men teams racing like i the race where they pass the baton except you would grab your team member by the arm or shirt and propel him as you **** by. After he does a lap he would do the same to you.

But I also liked the Match Sprint http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Match_sprint where you have so many laps to do and when you get near the end you want to be behind your opponent so that you can draft him. So you might end up doing a long track stand http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Track_stand
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcEF2GyBR_Q
behind your opponent so that he would have to take the lead and you would be able to draft and get the jump on him to win. Technique is important in all physical activities. BTW, I'm Campy all the way. ;)

duende

11-18-2008, 12:23 PM

BTW, I'm Campy all the way. ;)

Hell's yeah!! I raced Super Record all through the 80's. All I have left now is a Nuovo Record on an old Columbus SL frame.

My favorite thing was the criteriums and sprinting for the primes! Racing was much different back then.

canglong

11-18-2008, 02:19 PM

originally posted by t_niehoff
No, I don't need to stop using sports analogies since sports are open skill athletic activities, just like WCK. Confusion arises when we start looking at WCK as something different in kind than sports.
That's your data, thanks.

Again, why the personal attacks?
That is not a personal attack it's a fact of life no students would gravitate towards a teacher they thought had inferior or less knowledge than themselves surely not even you would disagree with that.

canglong

11-18-2008, 02:25 PM

If so he's hardly Robinson Crusoe, is he?
LOL so true but you knew Terence would take it the wrong way so I couldn't resist.

Vajramusti

11-18-2008, 02:50 PM

Folks ona couple of lists have gone round and round on this relationship and very little that is new can be added. I do not regard Wang Kiu as an authority on this issue.

Ip Man acknowledged his debt to Leung Bik in conversations with quite a few people including
his sons and several of his close students. It was customary to list your first teacher in your art in Ip man's time as your sifu-only one symbolic father in an art. You could learn from others but your first teacher remains honored as the sifu.

I dont care to comment on the rest of the usual merry go round stuff.

Joy Chaudhuri

anerlich

11-18-2008, 02:57 PM

LOL so true but you knew Terence would take it the wrong way so I couldn't resist.

What was the RIGHT way to take it, then?

I do not regard Wang Kiu as an authority on this issue.

IIRC, Wang Kiu used to write tall stories about Yip Man and others for magazines etc. So that would be sound advice.

Phil Redmond

11-18-2008, 06:14 PM

Hell's yeah!! I raced Super Record all through the 80's. All I have left now is a Nuovo Record on an old Columbus SL frame.

My favorite thing was the criteriums and sprinting for the primes! Racing was much different back then.
I never did road racing only track races. I'll PM you so that we don't derail this thread.

zuti car

11-19-2008, 02:57 PM

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ThPyVfUHWPk
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=lgAb4fSORmc
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=z2c6icIhRQc
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=VMMdW4vy0Mc

zuti car

11-28-2008, 02:15 AM

More clips from seminar

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Kl7Rzy3-Fbc
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=wnodmbVZeoY
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=pe-LQzQu2ac
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=-c6_7v2Qz0g
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=m9UxwV2_OOE

zuti car

11-30-2008, 01:18 PM

Some clips from Budo Night in Veliko Gradiste , wich was organised in Master David s honer

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=CV_3f35tLcE

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=4_29b0JGyyc

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=p-aJC5AaXDs

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=-GTDGZU_UpU

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=_7i3zNM9MEc

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=zLuEXL1O2zA

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=aNKX8eae7wE

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=UDOdPhC3Nt4

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ee888tCb8I

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=gUohQe1hqEw

zuti car

12-07-2008, 02:47 AM

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=wbfiumGBdbE

zuti car

12-22-2008, 02:05 AM

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=5qNdED-vPFo
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=nmAQ4gHPjBs

Knifefighter

12-22-2008, 09:01 AM

FWIW.... I just saw Red Belt and watched all the out takes on DVD. What was very interesting to me, is that here you have a film made by a David Mamet a Jiu Jitsu Martial Artist, along with the cooperation and help of many famous MMA fighters. And one of the central themes of the movie is that sport fighting and real combat are not the same thing. The MMA's in the out takes had a real appreciation for this understanding.

They also understand that to train for the street, you need to mimic the situation as closely as possible... unlike the people who are being brainwashed into believing junk like this is somehow training for the street
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=-GTDGZU_UpU

Phil Redmond

12-22-2008, 11:06 PM

They also understand that to train for the street, you need to mimic the situation as closely as possible... unlike the people who are being brainwashed into believing junk like this is somehow training for the street
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=-GTDGZU_UpU
People who have fought against trained opponents bent on crushing you can discern BS. The people who never have can't.

bakxierboxer

12-23-2008, 12:10 AM

People who have fought against trained opponents bent on crushing you can discern BS. The people who never have can't.

Judging from the video he linked, he seems to think that most TMA are taught in a manner that produces results that someone's 5 or 6 year-old little sister could massacre at will. While I admit that there are schools "like that" "out there", I don't believe that the majority are "that bad".... even now.

(ok, I haven't been looking around much for the last couple of decades, so I could be wrong about that...)

zuti car

04-01-2009, 01:20 PM

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

zuti car

04-06-2009, 02:22 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGtQkiMd6aw

zuti car

04-17-2009, 02:50 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdRctIcbIpw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anq-fdGKzWE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3M3cDy8RiY0

bennyvt

04-17-2009, 04:50 AM

my teacher talked to gwok fu and he actually went through the differences that yip man taught him. It looked really interesting. Akpn the taking out and putting back in of garn sao as leung bil taught jum sao and wah taught garn as wah was a bigger man.. This would add more credance to the story but noone really knows

t_niehoff

04-17-2009, 06:04 AM

t_niehoff

04-17-2009, 06:12 AM

That's your data, thanks.

That is not a personal attack it's a fact of life no students would gravitate towards a teacher they thought had inferior or less knowledge than themselves surely not even you would disagree with that.

Your remark shows that you see martial arts as being knowledge-based (as students would only seek instructors who had more "knowledge"). This is the standard TMA mindset and I think this view is fundamentally wrong. I don't seek instructors who have more knowledge, I seek instructors who have more SKILL. SKILL. More knowledge isn't what makes a better athlete, including a better fighter -- it is having greater skill. In a fighting art, this is FIGHTING SKILL (using your art in fighting).