Why Is WCK WCK? Will Not Be Deleted

[Wayfaring]

Here's a simple solution. This thread will not be deleted by me for any reason. That is a contract in the beginning.

Please continue your discussion that started in Hendrik's thread.

And Hendrik, I encourage you to please share your views on why WCK is WCK on this thread. As you've heard, some people have a concern because you have deleted what they have shared in the past. So to ensure this doesn't happen, please feel free to post on this thread.

[Wayfaring]

In fact, this is an open forum and the Question is why WCK WCK. Why dont you share with us your view? instead of get stuck on what you dont like, keep complaining and keeping get stuck, share with us what you like.

Show us your theory or your lineage and why it is WCK WCK? I am sure every one is open to understand you. I am open, convert me serious. Show us you clips and theories....etc so we could trace it and check it out and consider...etc.



and if you like to begin,
You can start with Tan Sau Ng, What type of Uniqueness Tan Sau Ng bring into WCK if you believe Tan Sau Ng create WCK. or Yat Chan or Which Shao Lin or Which secrete society. what is the uniqueness and where is the source of that DNA .....etc. how could it be traced? what component of this person or style bring could be seen across other WCK lineages?


After this post to encourage you to post your theory, philosophy, evidents, signature from your own observation or your lineage. to answer why WCK is WCK;
If you dont like to post and share, then I take it you just dont have anything to say.

You have chances as anyone of us but if you dont use it then that is your choice.


BTW. Why WCK is WCK it is not a philosophical question it is totally physical question to justify the value of martial art style.


Your post reflects your bias and your philosophy.

WCK is not theory, philosophy, evidence, or signatures. It lives and dies in the existence of fighting skills of those who practice it.

Who is Tan Sau Ng? A legendary figure from red boat WCK that appears in a couple of historical references. Nobody knows what he taught.

It is as unimportant to real WCK fighting skill to theorize who he was as it is to theorize what techniques Count Maeda taught Carlos Gracie at the start of BJJ.
Who cares? The proof is in the test. BJJ of today looks nothing like that.

Why is WCK WCK? WCK is only WCK today due to the collective fighting skills of those who practice it. So in other words, it's hurting bigtime. A lot of theory, a lot of philosophy, a lot of BS. Not a lot of fighting.

And - your post reflects your attachment to wanting to be SOMEONE's daddy. You lecture me, tell me I'm stuck, tell me I'm complaining. My view is negative to your view. That's not wrong, it's my view. I can start and stop anywhere I want in what I share, regardless of your attempt to dictate. You don't control my timeframe and sharing any more than you would if we were touching hands. Which is not at all.

Theory, evidence, signature is a waste of time. Trying to be relevant, but approaching it in the wrong way.

You want to be relevant? Test your skills.

[t_niehoff]

Your post reflects your bias and your philosophy.

WCK is not theory, philosophy, evidence, or signatures. It lives and dies in the existence of fighting skills of those who practice it.


Yes and no. Is WCK anything we want to do? Can I do anything and legitimately call it WCK? Not IMO.

I think WCK is an approach to fighting that has both a method and skill set (actions/movements/tactics) that come down to us from certain persons on the Red Boat and descend to us through certain lineages.

Like most TCMAs, the curriculum for that art is not the application of the art (unlike the functional, sport fighting methods). I think Hawkins' analogy of the curriculum is where you build your gun and but you learn to use that gun (application or fighting) through using the gun, i.e., practicing shooting or using it.

Hendriks' view - at least as I understand it - is that there are certain specific things that go into the building of that gun, i.e., the curriculum, that make it a WCK gun. Call those signatures if you like, or elements or aspects or whatever.



Who is Tan Sau Ng? A legendary figure from red boat WCK that appears in a couple of historical references. Nobody knows what he taught.

It is as unimportant to real WCK fighting skill to theorize who he was as it is to theorize what techniques Count Maeda taught Carlos Gracie at the start of BJJ.
Who cares? The proof is in the test. BJJ of today looks nothing like that.


History has its place.

It seems you are arguing that WCK has, like BJJ, evolved so that what our ancestors did and taught isn't important. I don't agree. WCK has not evolved, and certainly not like BJJ or boxing or wrestling. There have been relatively few genuine fighters in WCK to drive any evolution, and none of them really fought any high quality opposition (which helps to drive evolution). In fact, I think WCK has more devolved (gotten progressively worse over time) because you have the art being taught mostly by theoretical nonfighters who haven't even learned the core curriculum of WCK -- yet spread their own "take" (interpretation, additions, etc.) through misrepresenting history, giving themselves titles, and other things to sell their nonsense.

The simple fact is we can't get good at something if we don't know what it is we are trying to do. So, how can I know what I am being taught involves the core curriculum of WCK or not? Take the word of the guy taking my money? ;) Who knows, I may be being intentionally or unintentionally misled? My view is that we look to and examine the older, legit branches of WCK to see their commonality.

As WCK is a specific approach toward fighting, it follows that we are trying to do X, that the art provides a strategic approach to getting X (the faat mun), the movements and actions that we need to carry out that strategic approach (the fundamental skills), an oral tradition to provide us guidance in putting it together to get X (the kuit), etc. IOWs, these are the essentials to putting the pieces of the puzzle (gun) together.

But does knowing this core curriculum mean we can use it? Of course not. But without the core curriculum of WCK, we won't be able to put it together at all. Then we are left with using only a few pieces (caveman wCK where we just charge in with the straight blast, for example) or trying to make things fit into a kickboxing structure.



Why is WCK WCK? WCK is only WCK today due to the collective fighting skills of those who practice it. So in other words, it's hurting bigtime. A lot of theory, a lot of philosophy, a lot of BS. Not a lot of fighting.


As I see it, WCK is a skill. The curriculum of WCK is to provide the pieces you need to develop that skill. But to test any skill, we need to first know what it is we are trying to do. WCK isn't beating up the other guy, but beating him up in a certain way, an organized way of fighting that uses specific actions, movements, tactics, etc. If we are not clear on that, we get practicing one thing to do another. IOWs what we do in fighting looks nothing like what he practice in our forms or drills or even talk about doing.



Theory, evidence, signature is a waste of time. Trying to be relevant, but approaching it in the wrong way.

You want to be relevant? Test your skills.

Tun (swallowing) is a tactic and a torso method of WCK. Does whether Hendrik can do it in fighting in anyway affect or change that? If someone says it isn't, they are wrong.

Curriculum and application (fighting) are two different things in the TCMAs.

[YungChun]

But without the core curriculum of WCK, we won't be able to put it together at all.


So with the core we are on our way.......?



The curriculum of WCK is to provide the pieces you need to develop that skill. But to test any skill, we need to first know what it is we are trying to do. WCK isn't beating up the other guy, but beating him up in a certain way, an organized way of fighting that uses specific actions, movements, tactics, etc.


And now we have our 'certain way' using specific actions and movements.



If we are not clear on that, we get practicing one thing to do another.


Lest we train one way to fight another way...yes?



IOWs what we do in fighting looks nothing like what he practice in our forms or drills or even talk about doing.


And yet from the above...that's exactly what it sounds like we are doing .........

Nothing like what we train? Which is it?

Learn the right core to apply it?

Lest we learn the wrong core only to fight another way?

Or learn the right core to apply something totally different?

Something is wrong somewhere--just ask Dale.. :eek::rolleyes::D

[t_niehoff]

So with the core we are on our way.......?


How far do you think you can get without the fundamentals?



And now we have our 'certain way' using specific actions and movements.


What do you think those fundamentals are -- a method/approach and the tools to implement it.



Lest we train one way to fight another way...yes?


Or rather we find that we cannot use most of our tools.



And yet from the above...that's exactly what it sounds like we are doing .........

Nothing like what we train? Which is it?

Learn the right core to apply it?


That's the problem with TCMA, that is separates curriculum from application. You learn the method (it's even reflected in our signature exercise, chi sao) and we learn the tools (movement/action) we need to employ that method, but because it is all done unrealistically (not under fighting conditions), we don't learn how to use it in fighting. You learn and develop your skill to use the method and tools in fighting by fighting.



Lest we learn the wrong core only to fight another way?

Or learn the right core to apply something totally different?

Something is wrong somewhere--just ask Dale.. :eek::rolleyes::D

The method tells us what we are trying to do, the tools provide the means to do it. That's the core. If you don't know what it is you are trying to do, you won't be able to do it. If you don't know that WCK is to control while striking, do you think you will develop skill doing that?

Sure something is wrong -- the whole TCMA way of teaching and training (separating curriculum from application). It is a really poor way of learning or developing skills. And that's why most people in TCMAs never develop any significant fighting skills. The ones that do have embraced the sport-model way of training/learning.

[YungChun]

Still.. You point out the import of having the right curriculum, the right training...but then state the application is totally different.. If indeed the application is totally different from the core training then there can be very little, if any, value to training the core, correctly or not.

Or is there more of the core that is used in application than you let on when trained 'correctly'?

Because, if not, then by any logical POV the core is virtually useless, or even counter productive--using this reasoning.. In that case the core should be removed or changed.

If all we need to know is the method(s) and the basic tools then why not just pass out a small booklet, learn the moves/tools on a Saturday and be done with it?

[Wayfaring]

Yes and no. Is WCK anything we want to do? Can I do anything and legitimately call it WCK? Not IMO.

I think WCK is an approach to fighting that has both a method and skill set (actions/movements/tactics) that come down to us from certain persons on the Red Boat and descend to us through certain lineages.

Yet the focus is on the wrong things. Whether my "motion" looks like a snake, slide in, or whether it looks like a crane. Yes there are fundamental tactics, structures, and energies unique to WCK.


Like most TCMAs, the curriculum for that art is not the application of the art (unlike the functional, sport fighting methods). I think Hawkins' analogy of the curriculum is where you build your gun and but you learn to use that gun (application or fighting) through using the gun, i.e., practicing shooting or using it.

Yes and no. The curriculum for most of WCK is the three forms, weapons, dummy, and chi sau. And very few have ever practiced realistic levels of application.



Hendriks' view - at least as I understand it - is that there are certain specific things that go into the building of that gun, i.e., the curriculum, that make it a WCK gun. Call those signatures if you like, or elements or aspects or whatever.

Hendriks view is confused. Like a man living in a small house, and yet he thinks it is the center of the universe. He theorizes about these certain signatures or elements, yet when he applies this "theory" to these forums, it seems that those people he likes or gets along with have the genuine signature and those he does not are missing it. A real lack of objectivity.



History has its place.

Yes. In the past.


It seems you are arguing that WCK has, like BJJ, evolved so that what our ancestors did and taught isn't important. I don't agree. WCK has not evolved, and certainly not like BJJ or boxing or wrestling. There have been relatively few genuine fighters in WCK to drive any evolution, and none of them really fought any high quality opposition (which helps to drive evolution). In fact, I think WCK has more devolved (gotten progressively worse over time) because you have the art being taught mostly by theoretical nonfighters who haven't even learned the core curriculum of WCK -- yet spread their own "take" (interpretation, additions, etc.) through misrepresenting history, giving themselves titles, and other things to sell their nonsense.

I am not arguing this. WCK has not evolved like BJJ or MMA. There's no pressure, so there's nothing that has caused it to adapt. Yes it's mostly full of nonsense. So any "core curriculum" is just another theory someone made up.



The simple fact is we can't get good at something if we don't know what it is we are trying to do. So, how can I know what I am being taught involves the core curriculum of WCK or not? Take the word of the guy taking my money? ;) Who knows, I may be being intentionally or unintentionally misled? My view is that we look to and examine the older, legit branches of WCK to see their commonality.

When you get two or 3 generations removed from someone who as actually tried to use the "core curriculum" in any live environment there is no skill, only delusion. You only need to examine the older branches of WCK because that was the last generation that ever fought - the rooftop challenges.



As WCK is a specific approach toward fighting, it follows that we are trying to do X, that the art provides a strategic approach to getting X (the faat mun), the movements and actions that we need to carry out that strategic approach (the fundamental skills), an oral tradition to provide us guidance in putting it together to get X (the kuit), etc. IOWs, these are the essentials to putting the pieces of the puzzle (gun) together.

No argument there. However, I have seen different faat, different kuit, and different elements.

So what you are talking about is a bunch of good old boys who have similar non-fighting movements getting together over tea and arguing about fighting. And they came up with a "core curriculum".



But does knowing this core curriculum mean we can use it? Of course not. But without the core curriculum of WCK, we won't be able to put it together at all. Then we are left with using only a few pieces (caveman wCK where we just charge in with the straight blast, for example) or trying to make things fit into a kickboxing structure.

Yes, evidence from the real world pretty much shows that knowing the "core curriculum" doesn't translate to fighting skill.



As I see it, WCK is a skill. The curriculum of WCK is to provide the pieces you need to develop that skill. But to test any skill, we need to first know what it is we are trying to do. WCK isn't beating up the other guy, but beating him up in a certain way, an organized way of fighting that uses specific actions, movements, tactics, etc. If we are not clear on that, we get practicing one thing to do another. IOWs what we do in fighting looks nothing like what he practice in our forms or drills or even talk about doing.

As I see it, WCK around here is a skill. And that skill is centered on a whole bunch of theory. And that theory is non-applicable to fighting. It delusionally thinks that fighing needs to be in an organized way using specific "WCK" movements. That's why the only fighting done is chi sau, and the closest they get to fighting is arguing over chi sau "matches". And that is why you see the main evidence of WCK in a live environment being someone trying to use the YJYKM stance being back weighted with a man sao wu sau and getting plowed over, taken down and GNP'd out. And why you have Bullshido videos ridiculing it.



Tun (swallowing) is a tactic and a torso method of WCK. Does whether Hendrik can do it in fighting in anyway affect or change that? If someone says it isn't, they are wrong.

Yes, yes it does change that. Because Hendrik represents the lineage of some WCK family. If he can't do it, then nobody he teaches will ever do it. And it's just more theory. But he's the one that decides what this nebulous "core curriculum" is and who has it and who doesn't, and what the "genuine signatures" of WCK are from Emei and Crane. PFFFFFFFFTTTTTTT.



Curriculum and application (fighting) are two different things in the TCMAs.
Yes - "curriculum" is something designed to keep rice in the bowl, and "fighting" is something that is trained for "real combat" not this sport stuff with rules, and thus never practiced.

[jesper]

When you get two or 3 generations removed from someone who as actually tried to use the "core curriculum" in any live environment there is no skill, only delusion. You only need to examine the older branches of WCK because that was the last generation that ever fought - the rooftop challenges.



Nonsense

Plenty of fighting going on today. maybe not where you live though but then again its a big world

[Violent Designs]

There's plenty of fighting MMA, Thai boxing, San Da, Shootboxing and other combat sports.

In pure WCK, I don't see much.

[Vajramusti]

"That's why the only fighting done is chi sau, and the closest they get to fighting is arguing over chi sau "matches". And that is why you see the main evidence of WCK in a live environment being someone trying to use the YJYKM stance being back weighted with a man sao wu sau and getting plowed over, taken down and GNP'd out"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not all of wing chun training systems are back weighted.

Standard problem- generalizing about wing chun.

joy chaudhuri

[Wayfaring]

[QUOTE=Vajramusti;1048508Not all of wing chun training systems are back weighted.

Standard problem- generalizing about wing chun.

joy chaudhuri[/QUOTE]

Of course they are not. I am talking about evidence.

Evidence meaning fights where at least one of the proponents are listed as some form of WCK competitor and are available on the Internet.

Here's one example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDLRX1P0bEg

[Wayfaring]

Nonsense

Plenty of fighting going on today. maybe not where you live though but then again its a big world

If you are talking about WCK schools that have active even amateur fighters in it, the world is very small. Miniscule as a matter of fact.

If this is nonsense, please list all the schools in this big world. Maybe we can find video of their fights.

[Hardwork108]

Yes and no. The curriculum for most of WCK is the three forms, weapons, dummy, and chi sau. And very few have ever practiced realistic levels of application.

I would humbly said that very few have understood the forms and the principles behind them. That would be a first step before going on to applications.



Hendriks view is confused. Like a man living in a small house, and yet he thinks it is the center of the universe. He theorizes about these certain signatures or elements, yet when he applies this "theory" to these forums, it seems that those people he likes or gets along with have the genuine signature and those he does not are missing it. A real lack of objectivity.
I would say that Hendrik knows what he is talking about. Everything else is everybody elses problem!;)




I am not arguing this. WCK has not evolved like BJJ or MMA. There's no pressure, so there's nothing that has caused it to adapt. Yes it's mostly full of nonsense. So any "core curriculum" is just another theory someone made up.

Oh please don't tell us that you have the super dooper "improved" Wing Chun....:D

Oh no, that is what the world needed, another modern kung fu style founder....LOL!



When you get two or 3 generations removed from someone who as actually tried to use the "core curriculum" in any live environment there is no skill, only delusion. You only need to examine the older branches of WCK because that was the last generation that ever fought - the rooftop challenges.
I happen to know people who have used Wing Chun for fighting in this generation.;)



No argument there. However, I have seen different faat, different kuit, and different elements.

Welcome to the world of Mcdojos....LOL


So what you are talking about is a bunch of good old boys who have similar non-fighting movements getting together over tea and arguing about fighting. And they came up with a "core curriculum".
"Me no understand concepts and principles, my head hurts, but problem no with me"....LOL!



Yes, evidence from the real world pretty much shows that knowing the "core curriculum" doesn't translate to fighting skill.
Evidence from the real world pretty much shows that NOT knowing the core curriculum never stopped anybody making clueless comments about any given kung fu style!



As I see it, WCK around here is a skill. And that skill is centered on a whole bunch of theory. And that theory is non-applicable to fighting.

And the above is more EVIDENCE!




It delusionally thinks that fighing needs to be in an organized way using specific "WCK" movements. That's why the only fighting done is chi sau, and the closest they get to fighting is arguing over chi sau "matches". And that is why you see the main evidence of WCK in a live environment being someone trying to use the YJYKM stance being back weighted with a man sao wu sau and getting plowed over, taken down and GNP'd out. And why you have Bullshido videos ridiculing it.
Why do people who have not trained TCMAs anywhere outside of a Mcdojo, keep making clueless comments about these arts?:confused::mad:



Yes, yes it does change that. Because Hendrik represents the lineage of some WCK family. If he can't do it, then nobody he teaches will ever do it. And it's just more theory. But he's the one that decides what this nebulous "core curriculum" is and who has it and who doesn't, and what the "genuine signatures" of WCK are from Emei and Crane. PFFFFFFFFTTTTTTT.
Hendrik can speak his mind, and he is qualified because he actually PRACTICES wing chun!



Yes - "curriculum" is something designed to keep rice in the bowl, and "fighting" is something that is trained for "real combat" not this sport stuff with rules, and thus never practiced.

Any discipline has a curriculum. The more complicated the discipline, then the more complicated and profound their curriculum will be........

[Hardwork108]

Not all of wing chun training systems are back weighted.

Standard problem- generalizing about wing chun.

joy chaudhuri

I agree 100%.

I would go further and say that the sad fact is that most of the generalizations are coming from people from people who have never really practiced Wing Chun.

[Hardwork108]

Of course they are not. I am talking about evidence.

Evidence meaning fights where at least one of the proponents are listed as some form of WCK competitor and are available on the Internet.

Here's one example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDLRX1P0bEg



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2Nt2YSTNNA


But of course, this is sports fighting..........

[Wayfaring]

I would humbly said that very few have understood the forms and the principles behind them. That would be a first step before going on to applications.

I would say that Hendrik knows what he is talking about. Everything else is everybody elses problem!;)

You and humble are not in the same universe. If you like Hendrik, then join his club. You guys can tell each other how beautiful your 'core fundamentals' are.



Oh please don't tell us that you have the super dooper "improved" Wing Chun....:D

Oh no, that is what the world needed, another modern kung fu style founder....LOL!

No I don't. I have no intention on founding anything or starting any school. I'll leave that to all the 'sifus' out there.



I happen to know people who have used Wing Chun for fighting in this generation.;)

Yes I know. And you personally know the tooth fairy. Please, introduce us.



Evidence from the real world pretty much shows that NOT knowing the core curriculum never stopped anybody making clueless comments about any given kung fu style!

Which is why you post here a lot.



Hendrik can speak his mind, and he is qualified because he actually PRACTICES wing chun!

Hendrik can speak his mind. I can speak mine as well.



Any discipline has a curriculum. The more complicated the discipline, then the more complicated and profound their curriculum will be........

Because that's what we're after in training a martial art. A "complicated, profound curriculum". It couldn't have anything to do with hand to hand fighting skills.

[Hardwork108]

You and humble are not in the same universe.
Oh yes we are, that is why I humbly practice TCMAs and humbly post in a TCMA forum.;)



If you like Hendrik, then join his club. You guys can tell each other how beautiful your 'core fundamentals' are.
I would rather join his club, which is a Wing Chun Kung fu club than your "MMA is Best" club, and then come here and post cluelessly in a TCMA forum and end up drowning in discussions that are way above my head. ;)



No I don't. I have no intention on founding anything or starting any school.

Well that is a relief, for a minute I thought that you were going to go into partnership with Dave Ross.....LOL!



I'll leave that to all the 'sifus' out there.
And so you should, after all the real sifus are the ones who actually practice kung fu, unlike certain people, cough, cough....!


Yes I know. And you personally know the tooth fairy. Please, introduce us.
Sometimes I get the feeling that I will meet the tooth fairy way before I meet an intelligent MMA-ist....LOL!



Which is why you post here a lot.
I post here because I practice the TCMAs and hence I can provide some information and personal perspective, while at the same time learn new things from genuine TCMA posters such as Hendrik, EarthDragon, Vajamuntri and a few others.

Why are you here?



Hendrik can speak his mind.
Of course he can. He is a TCMA practitioner and he is posting in a Kung Fu/TCMA forum. Hendrik is also a researcher and a scholar.

So, my question to you, Mr "MMA Best", AGAIN, is what are you doing here?


I can speak mine as well.
I believe that even Western scientisits agree that to speak one's mind, one must first have a mind........;)



Because that's what we're after in training a martial art. A "complicated, profound curriculum". It couldn't have anything to do with hand to hand fighting skills.

Yes it does, but it will take relatively longer, but the benefits far outweight the time sacrificed.;)

[Hardwork108]

More Wing Chun sparring, this time against the MMA-ists' beloved Kickboxing....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cV4Jq6H9pEQ&feature=related




.

[Hardwork108]

More Wing chun fighting:

Vs Karate

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZ3-Hi-kMNo&feature=related

Vs.

Northern Shaolin Kung fu


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gv2FULpeTto









.

[jesper]

If you are talking about WCK schools that have active even amateur fighters in it, the world is very small. Miniscule as a matter of fact.

If this is nonsense, please list all the schools in this big world. Maybe we can find video of their fights.

So only sportsfighting counts in your world. Ok you win

[Vajramusti]

Of course they are not. I am talking about evidence.

Evidence meaning fights where at least one of the proponents are listed as some form of WCK competitor and are available on the Internet.

Here's one example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDLRX1P0bEg
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Have fun with your strawman arguments and subjective definitions and opinions. Your previous post referred to back weighted wing chun. I pointed out that not alll of wing chun is not back weighted. "Some form of wing chun" is hardly a good characterization of wing chun.But anyone can have opinions- and ideas on indicators of quality such as "internet availability"-good luck with yours and your thread..

joy chaudhuri

[Wayfaring]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Have fun with your strawman arguments and subjective definitions and opinions. Your previous post referred to back weighted wing chun. I pointed out that not alll of wing chun is not back weighted. "Some form of wing chun" is hardly a good characterization of wing chun.But anyone can have opinions- and ideas on indicators of quality such as "internet availability"-good luck with yours and your thread..

joy chaudhuri

Joy,

My previous post referred to the bulk of WCK that is shown in a fighting scenario and available. Both you and I know that I do not believe all WCK is back weighted. What you practice is not, and what HFY practices is not. Neither is TWC. Robert Chu's method is not, as the body methods he teaches and structure tests would not work back weighted.

Perhaps "internet availability" of evidence is a stretch. However, besides that, what do you propose you use to examine that which is in existence?

Friendship seminars? Chi sau tournaments? Legend? Family stories about how sigung took out 20 street punks while going to tea? You have to use something. It may not be the best indicator of quality. And yet, WCK people basically don't fight. But they "can", right?

WCK is basically dying right now. The sport fighting is killing it. So many areas have live competitions / fights 2X a month at least, and they are becoming more and more popular. How many sports fighter students do you have? How about anyone who teaches on this forum?

As far as "my" thread, it's not. I only am keeping it up for evidence in case Hendrik gets mad like he did the last time we had this discussion and deletes the other thread. That's one way of censoring any opposition. You see, all of the posts that indicated dissent to his position, they are nowhere to be found. Now, 2-3 years later, he can recycle it, and keep control over threads they are in, and never promise to not delete them. You saw I asked him to do this on his thread, and he will not respond to that.

This way, he can make sweeping statements like his club is world wide, and those world wide share his views.

No, there is a large contingent of WCK practitioners who completely contrast WCK energies to any TCMA southern animal styles. There is another large contingent who trace their WCK to crane and tiger, as opposed to crane and snake.

There are many families of WCK that can trace common phrases in the kuen kuit to what they train. However, they are different. There are different implementations of the kuit.

There are other families close to WCK - like weng chun who have similar tin yan dei energies but are not WCK. They use other forms like Flower Fist and 3 Bows to Buddha to cultivate their energies.

It's a big wide world. There are many families of WCK. Not just one who trace down through Hendrik.

[Wayfaring]

Originally Posted by Hendrik
1, YJKYM is based on Nature post of human. In that post every part of the body could be loosen up.

Thus, in the begining of training, the proper way is to stand high stance instead of low stance where one becomes tense. Often one even has to go into laying flat to sense the loose up. Thus, it is not a brute force training but a tuning training where one keep tuning the body until it resonance with the nature.


3, One cannot connect the Ren and Du using lower abdorment breathing by force. That is consider mis practiced.

The true practice is when the mind is quiet, the body is loose, with natural breathing one first open the Ren and store Zhen Qi in the Dan Dien, and then once the Dan Dien's Zhen Qi accumulation is strong, it will be able flow into the Du and up to the top and comes down back to the Dan dien.

However, none of the above could be done via a slight forcefull. one needs a sifu who has experience to coach one with this. Even if just cultivate to open the Ren and capable to Store Zhen Qi into Dan Dien without open up the Du, one will feel the different in health obviously.

So, without Baisi to some one who has that kung fu attainment, one will not be able to attain the state.


4, Kua, hip and feets and spine are not easy to be loosen up and handle. Each of these area has a different key to handle. so it cannot be brute force. also, when one is breathing the spine is also sync with the breathing, so nothing is hold fix but everything is sync and align within a range. that is the key.


5, according to the Yik Kam SLT kuen kuit, after the above is attained when one do the SLT the flow of Qi in the medirians will surface. IE: biu jee will cause the 3 ying hands medirians to flow, lap sao will cause the 3 yang hands medirians to flow. fook sau will cause the 3 ying medirians to flow, wu sau will cause the 3 yang medirians to flow.


In other families of WCK, is the purpose of SLT to connect the Ren and Du points in meridians? Or does it have some other primary purpose?

Why would you use a martial art form to open up meridians that usually is done through meditiation and a guide?

If you don't bai si (have a formal discipleship arrangement with) to someone that uses SLT to connect Ren and Du through SLT, do you not have WCK?

Just opening discussion to other viewpoints.

[Wayfaring]

Do you have anything to share on Why WCK is WCK compare with other Southern TCMA ?

Sure. I alluded to this on the other thread. One of the most basic ways WCK is WCK as opposed to all the other Southern TCMA like:

Lohan
Northern Longfist
5 Animals
Snake
Crane
Tiger
Monkey
Dragon
Hung Gar
Mantis
etc.

is that it is NOT based upon animal forms and energies, but upon human structure of a person on two feet with two eyes, ears, arms, feet, fists.

Although some of the shapes may LOOK SIMILAR, and the energies may be VAGUELY SIMILAR, WCK is based upon efficiency for a HUMAN.

Even the legend of Yim Wing Chun shows you that if you have eyes and ears open to listen to it.

A small woman developing a system that can beat a larger and more athletic opponent. How can this happen? Through EFFICIENCY.

Can a smaller snake eat a bigger snake? Can a smaller crane overcome a larger crane? NO. In all of the animal kingdom, the larger rules the smaller. Throughout the food chain.

How can you break this cycle? Through EFFICIENCY - be more compact, be in the right place at the right time with the right energies FOR YOUR STRUCTURE - A HUMAN.

That's where centerline and sticking come in. By being INSIDE the POWER GENERATION dynamics of the larger wheels. By controlling your opponent from a bridge. Birds and reptiles do not move like that.

Geez. Snakes and Cranes. Bird goes in the fryer for my dinner. Snakes get killed by a rock from 10 feet away and become my wallet. You want to fight like one of those - slide step and slither away !!!!!!

:eek::eek::eek:

Just preserving this so you-know-who cannot get "artistic" with the Delete key.

[Hardwork108]

Can a smaller snake eat a bigger snake? Can a smaller crane overcome a larger crane? NO. In all of the animal kingdom, the larger rules the smaller. Throughout the food chain.

How can you break this cycle? Through EFFICIENCY - be more compact, be in the right place at the right time with the right energies FOR YOUR STRUCTURE - A HUMAN.
And what happens when a Wing Chun Efficient human meets a larger and more powerful Wing Chun efficient human?

His goose is cooked, that is what happens! So that is no different from your animal kingdom.


That's where centerline and sticking come in. By being INSIDE the POWER GENERATION dynamics of the larger wheels. By controlling your opponent from a bridge.

Other kung fu styles do that too, including some of the animal ones!

Look, eventhough I love Wing Chun and I was fortunate enough to study a very rich Mainland Chinese lineage, and that if practiced correctly, it can even qualify as an high level style, but I don't think that it is intelligent for you to imply that WC is the best style of kung fu around, or at least better than all of the animal styles, because it just isn't!

[Vajramusti]

[QUOTE=Wayfaring;1048798]Joy,

My previous post referred to the bulk of WCK that is shown in a fighting scenario and available. Both you and I know that I do not believe all WCK is back weighted. What you practice is not, and what HFY practices is not. Neither is TWC. Robert Chu's method is not, as the body methods he teaches and structure tests would not work back weighted.

((This is more clarfication than was in the earlier post I commented on. Good and thanks))

Perhaps "internet availability" of evidence is a stretch. However, besides that, what do you propose you use to examine that which is in existence?

((I don't propose or preach. Self defense involves individual judgement on what is suitable .Wing Chun is not the only fighting art. After careful examination, judgement, practice, experimentation and application- I happen to think that well taught wing chun is a superb fighting art. A judgement call- as far as I can tell much of wing chun is not well taught, understood or practiced. Many folks would be better off learning some other art from a good teacher in that art))

And yet, WCK people basically don't fight.

(( An overgeneralization. There are quite a few people I know who have fought and some still do fight-but have zero interest in videotaping and putting it on U tube. Some owe it to themselves to know whether their stuff works but they dont necessarily owe an audience anything.))

WCK is basically dying right now.

((It has never been an art for the masses. From that standpoint it is still alive))

So many areas have live competitions / fights 2X a month at least, and they are becoming more and more popular.
((So what?))

How many sports fighter students do you have?((Relevance of the question? No need for chest beating here!!))

How about anyone who teaches on this forum?

((Somebody "teaches" on this forum??))


I only am keeping it up for evidence in case Hendrik gets mad like he did the last time we had this discussion and deletes the other thread.

((I have my disagreemensts and agreements with Hendrik -no big deal))


There are many families of WCK that can trace common phrases in the kuen kuit to what they train. However, they are different. There are different implementations of the kuit.

(Uniformed opinions and noise on practically anything abounds on the internet- so what??))

Cheers-no time for proofreading-so typos remain.

joy chaudhuri

[Wayfaring]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2Nt2YSTNNA


But of course, this is sports fighting..........

Most people on this forum are familiar with Shawn Obasi. He doesn't post here but has relayed posts. He is one of the few outside of Alan Orr's guys who do fight and claim to be 'WCK fighters'. He's an exception to the norm.

Of interest is that Shawn also trains BJJ at American Top Team, I believe. Alan Orr's guys train BJJ with Leo Negao, a black belt BJJ competitor.

Now how you classify these guys as anything other than "MMAists" I have no idea, other than by your general head-injury-like avoidance of reality.

Shawn has a BJJ guard, although not a great one he was at least attacking from the bottom, and escaping.

His opponent had next to zero striking skills, but was a big guy who seems to have wrestled. He didn't have submission ground skills either, so once Shawn sprawled on him a few time and got some striking going it was all over. The wrestler couldn't even replace guard at the end when Shawn was GNP'ing him.

I wish Shawn all the best and hope he continues to prove his WCK base and advance in the ground game too - he should prove to have an interesting lower level show fight career, and hopefully more if he can prove himself.

[Wayfaring]

More Wing Chun sparring, this time against the MMA-ists' beloved Kickboxing....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cV4Jq6H9pEQ&feature=related




.

This is back-weighted WCK too - oh the horror. The kickboxer seemed pretty low level. But that's what WCK people are supposed to do - own the centerline.

Sparring like this is what should happen regularly in every class. Except instead of like a fencing match, where you have one advance and then they stop and walk around for 30 seconds before re-engaging, set a timer for a 3-5 min round.

This video has the flavor of the kickboxer running his mouth and the WCK guy having something to prove. It's all good - glad he could do something with it.

[Wayfaring]

So only sportsfighting counts in your world. Ok you win

Just something that has some kind of verifiable evidence. I suppose killing someone in a street fight would be verifiable evidence too. So those videos or accounts with at least 2 witnesses are in as well.

What else do you propose as evidence?

[Wayfaring]

More Wing chun fighting:

Vs Karate

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZ3-Hi-kMNo&feature=related


Well this is actually in a ring. So yes it's a fight. This again is what WCK is supposed to do - own the centerline, have forward pressure.

The opponent has zero ability to make him pay for overextending himself though.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gv2FULpeTto


Not sure what this is - Sanda?

So over 3 continents, we can come up with 3 or 4 videos. Now I think Phil Redmond has other ones of his guys, and he has a site dedicated to WCK and fight / encounter videos.

But still, it's pretty weak. EVERYONE in local areas who train MMA and have taken fights have live evidence of fighting ability.

You missed this one - Milton Wallace. He studied HFY for a while at least:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzYGCK1oVYw

But still - the sheer numbers of it is overwhelming. Or lack of numbers on the WCK side.

[Wayfaring]

Just to clear this up for HW108 - this is the type of fighter HW thinks is highly skilled:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4CdIGfW9uA

This is the type of figher I think is highly skilled:

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=428823

[Hardwork108]

Not sure what this is - Sanda?
It is probably an open kung fu competition. So, it was probably full of kung fu people, including other Wing Chun exponents.



So over 3 continents, we can come up with 3 or 4 videos. Now I think Phil Redmond has other ones of his guys, and he has a site dedicated to WCK and fight / encounter videos.
It does not matter. If one so chooses he can train his kung fu for the sports tournament arena, as proven by the video clips. This does not however mean that those that don't, cannot fight and defend themselves!



But still, it's pretty weak. EVERYONE in local areas who train MMA and have taken fights have live evidence of fighting ability.
Many people in the TCMA, and the TMA world in general, are happy to keep the evidence of their abilities to themselves and not publish them on the World Wide Web.....



You missed this one - Milton Wallace. He studied HFY for a while at least:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzYGCK1oVYw

Look, I could also use the above clip as "evidence" of WC fighting, but I won't, as there I could not see any WC in that clip!



But still - the sheer numbers of it is overwhelming. Or lack of numbers on the WCK side.

Well, considering the fact that WC and other Traditional styles of Kung Fu were not designed as tournament sports, as well as the fact that many people who can use their kung fu do not enter competitions, then that is not too "bad".

[Hardwork108]

Just to clear this up for HW108 - this is the type of fighter HW thinks is highly skilled:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4CdIGfW9uA


Do you usually come to conclusion about martial artists that you don't know personally and who practice methodologies that you have no clue about?

I mean I don't know about that particular exponent, but if he has developed his virbrating power, then he could cause damage to anyone.


This is the type of figher I think is highly skilled:

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=428823

Yes, Ernesto Hoost is a great kickboxer, but we are in a kung fu forum, not a kickboxing one! LOL!

What are going to do now, post some clips of Mongolian Wrestling?:rolleyes:

[Hardwork108]

Most people on this forum are familiar with Shawn Obasi. He doesn't post here but has relayed posts. He is one of the few outside of Alan Orr's guys who do fight and claim to be 'WCK fighters'. He's an exception to the norm.

Of interest is that Shawn also trains BJJ at American Top Team, I believe. Alan Orr's guys train BJJ with Leo Negao, a black belt BJJ competitor.

Now how you classify these guys as anything other than "MMAists" I have no idea, other than by your general head-injury-like avoidance of reality.

Shawn has a BJJ guard, although not a great one he was at least attacking from the bottom, and escaping.

His opponent had next to zero striking skills, but was a big guy who seems to have wrestled. He didn't have submission ground skills either, so once Shawn sprawled on him a few time and got some striking going it was all over. The wrestler couldn't even replace guard at the end when Shawn was GNP'ing him.

I wish Shawn all the best and hope he continues to prove his WCK base and advance in the ground game too - he should prove to have an interesting lower level show fight career, and hopefully more if he can prove himself.

I don't see the point you are trying to make. People are free to train and cross train as they wish. What they are not free to do is to constantly post in a KUNG FU forum to criticise TCMA methodologies that are way above their heads, and in which their genuine experience is very limited(and I am being kind here)!

[LoneTiger108]

WCK is basically dying right now. The sport fighting is killing it. So many areas have live competitions / fights 2X a month at least, and they are becoming more and more popular. How many sports fighter students do you have? How about anyone who teaches on this forum?

Hmm. One of the most intriguing comments made here. :cool: But who told you that WCK is dying? And because of SPORTS FIGHTING? :rolleyes:

C'mon dude. Have you even bothered to visit any WCK schools outside your own area, or country? People that make these sorts of statements tend to think that they have completed WCK coz they've learnt all the forms and can do a bit of Chisau.

I believe Wing Chun is coming back into the mainstream. And yes, it has to be tougher because of the MMA trends, and it may even have to provide access to competitions for that purpose, BUT that is NOT what I believe Wing Chun is all about.

I wouldn't train fighters because that's not what interests me. I, like many other people I know, would only consider training people that have the right attitude and behaviour. That takes time to even assess! Respect goes a long way in the traditions of WCK, and if you have little respect for other families and the elder generations, then you may as well not bother IMHO.


It's a big wide world. There are many families of WCK. Not just one who trace down through Hendrik.

I don't think Hendrik is saying that anything traces 'through him'. Hendrik is a researcher and likes to point people in the right direction (according to HIS knowledge) as does everyone on here at some point.

Being linked to the Red Boats should be a part of everybodies WCK DNA, especially via the Ip Family root. It has been heavily researched too, and not only by Hendrik. I'm very aware of the differences but this should be a standard link for us all.

It's funny too that I was only talking to my Sifu last night and he mentioned that he wants to put out his basic foundation 'Induction' curriculum as he has had very positive response from his Facebook clips. The funny thing is he also mentioned that the entire induction doesn't even touch the forms. Nobody has ever even seen his forms except for his closest students, and they do not look exacly like Ip Mans or Lee Shings either(his lineage).

So, if you look at him as an example, he has taught WCK since 1978 and nobody has ever seen his forms publically. He trains everybody in foundation methods first, which I would argue originate from the Red Boats as their concentration was also in the overall development and performance of the students/players.

That isn't WCK dying. That is WCK being hidden and preserved for the right people and the right time. ;)

[t_niehoff]

Still.. You point out the import of having the right curriculum, the right training...but then state the application is totally different.. If indeed the application is totally different from the core training then there can be very little, if any, value to training the core, correctly or not.


I think part of the problem here lies in the term "application". Application to me is fighting, it is what I am doing -- not hope to do, not believe I will do, etc. -- but actually doing in fighting. So, if you are not fighting, you are not doing application.

You perform the lop da drill, right? Do you think that you are learning application, how the lop dad will be used in fighting? No. You are learning how to perform a lop da, the movement, the connection, the coordination, the variations of the action, etc. But since you aren't doing that under fighting condition, you aren't learning how to use it (when, where, why, how, etc.) in fighting.



Or is there more of the core that is used in application than you let on when trained 'correctly'?


The core are the essentials, the fundamentals of the art. How can there be more?



Because, if not, then by any logical POV the core is virtually useless, or even counter productive--using this reasoning.. In that case the core should be removed or changed.


No, you don't seem to understand. Look, traditional Japanese jiujitsu has the same core elements as judo (Kano took those elements) but what makes judo superior to TJJ is that Kano discarded the traditional way of training and adopted the sport model of training -- same core but trained in two different ways.



If all we need to know is the method(s) and the basic tools then why not just pass out a small booklet, learn the moves/tools on a Saturday and be done with it?

It is not just a matter of KNOWING. If you didn't know how to play basketball, I could teach you the rudiments in a very short time. But how well could you play the game?

Most WCK people -- and I know because I did it to -- waste their time stuck at the beginner level, forever practicing the curriculum which they already know. Once you can comfortably ride the bike with the training wheels on (play chi sao reasonable well), it is time to take them off and begin learning to really ride the bike.

[t_niehoff]

Yet the focus is on the wrong things. Whether my "motion" looks like a snake, slide in, or whether it looks like a crane. Yes there are fundamental tactics, structures, and energies unique to WCK.


Yes, and these are the core curriculum of WCK. Yet, not everyone has them.



Yes and no. The curriculum for most of WCK is the three forms, weapons, dummy, and chi sau. And very few have ever practiced realistic levels of application.


I think there is more to the curriculum, including other drills/exercises and the oral tradition (kuit).

But I agree that few ever practice application (fighting). This is because many people don't appreciate that the curriculum is not WCK, that it only teaches you WCK, and that WCK is fighting. They mistakenly believe that in learning the curriculum that they are learning to fight.



Hendriks view is confused. Like a man living in a small house, and yet he thinks it is the center of the universe. He theorizes about these certain signatures or elements, yet when he applies this "theory" to these forums, it seems that those people he likes or gets along with have the genuine signature and those he does not are missing it. A real lack of objectivity.



As I see it, Hendrik is looking at WCK from the perspective of these-are-the-core-aspects-of-WCK, and uses that as a point from which to examine what anyone is doing (in their curriculum).



I am not arguing this. WCK has not evolved like BJJ or MMA. There's no pressure, so there's nothing that has caused it to adapt. Yes it's mostly full of nonsense. So any "core curriculum" is just another theory someone made up.


The "core curriculum" is simply my term for those elements that go into what makes WCK. In a nutshell, it is the method and the tools (the movement/actions and tactics) of WCK. And quite simply, you can't implement the method without those specific tools, and you can't really use those specific tools (to any significant degree) without using the method. The method and tools go hand-in-hand. That's why when you see WCK kickboxing (not the WCK method), you don't see the WCK tools in action.



When you get two or 3 generations removed from someone who as actually tried to use the "core curriculum" in any live environment there is no skill, only delusion. You only need to examine the older branches of WCK because that was the last generation that ever fought - the rooftop challenges.


I agree with much of what you say. The curriculum can be "preserved" without ever developing any significant skill (ability to fight). The problem is when people who have little to no real skill add on to the curriculum, change the curriculum, etc. -- impose their "understanding".

You can be a complete duffer and teach someone how to play basketball because you know the curriculum of the game.



No argument there. However, I have seen different faat, different kuit, and different elements.

So what you are talking about is a bunch of good old boys who have similar non-fighting movements getting together over tea and arguing about fighting. And they came up with a "core curriculum".


You can express the same things differently. That's actually one of the advantages to examining different legit lineages of WCK -- you see the same things from a slightly different perspective.

The core curriculum is just what these lineages share, their commonality. Look, don't we all have tan, bong, fook? If someone was practicing/teaching something they called WCK but it didn't have tan, bong, fook how could it be WCK? These are "the three seeds" or "three poison hands" of WCK, depending on the branch of WCK (express the same things differently). they are in all legit lineages of WCK, they are in the forms, the drills, etc. So the core curriculum is the movement/actions all the branches share. But it also has the same core tactics (how to use those actions). Don't we all have mun (asking) or jou (running) or etc.?



Yes, evidence from the real world pretty much shows that knowing the "core curriculum" doesn't translate to fighting skill.


Of course not. Does knowing the fundamentals of golf translate into being a good golfer? No. That is merely the first step. First, learn the curriculum. Second, learn how to use it.



As I see it, WCK around here is a skill. And that skill is centered on a whole bunch of theory. And that theory is non-applicable to fighting. It delusionally thinks that fighing needs to be in an organized way using specific "WCK" movements. That's why the only fighting done is chi sau, and the closest they get to fighting is arguing over chi sau "matches". And that is why you see the main evidence of WCK in a live environment being someone trying to use the YJYKM stance being back weighted with a man sao wu sau and getting plowed over, taken down and GNP'd out. And why you have Bullshido videos ridiculing it.


Yes, WCK is a skill. A curriculum isn't a skill, but a means of teaching you those things you will need in developing your skill. The only way to develop skill in WCK is by and through quality fighting/sparring. And, your skill level will be directly related to the amount of quality sparring you do (same as with any fighting art). Theory is mostly a waste of time -- and it comes from the theoretical nonfighters.

The reason most people can't use their WCK is that they don't put in the hard work necessary to develop the skill.



Yes, yes it does change that. Because Hendrik represents the lineage of some WCK family. If he can't do it, then nobody he teaches will ever do it. And it's just more theory. But he's the one that decides what this nebulous "core curriculum" is and who has it and who doesn't, and what the "genuine signatures" of WCK are from Emei and Crane. PFFFFFFFFTTTTTTT.

Yes - "curriculum" is something designed to keep rice in the bowl, and "fighting" is something that is trained for "real combat" not this sport stuff with rules, and thus never practiced.

We need to appreciate that WCK is a TCMA, and as such, its curriculum is separate from application. You don't need a skilled athlete to teach you the fundamentals of a sport, but you do need to appreciate that there is a limit to how far a teacher can take you in your development. Anyone who knows the game (the core curriculum) can teach you to play golf or tennis or whatever, but they can't take you very far in terms of your development -- that work will need to be done by yourself. This is how it has always been. Rene asked Sum Nung what the main difference between the "masters" of the past and the people of today. Sum told him that in the past, they fought more. They learned the curriculum and the ones who went out and fought got better at fighting. What a surprise.

[jesper]

I
Most WCK people -- and I know because I did it to -- waste their time stuck at the beginner level, forever practicing the curriculum which they already know. Once you can comfortably ride the bike with the training wheels on (play chi sao reasonable well), it is time to take them off and begin learning to really ride the bike.

So because you did it everyone else has done the same. Wow talking about being center of universe

[JPinAZ]

The core curriculum is just what these lineages share, their commonality. Look, don't we all have tan, bong, fook? If someone was practicing/teaching something they called WCK but it didn't have tan, bong, fook how could it be WCK? These are "the three seeds" or "three poison hands" of WCK, depending on the branch of WCK (express the same things differently). they are in all legit lineages of WCK, they are in the forms, the drills, etc. So the core curriculum is the movement/actions all the branches share. But it also has the same core tactics (how to use those actions).

Yes, I'd agree, all WCK has the techniques of tan, bong, fook, but just because someone is using those shapes doesn't mean they are using wing chun. Wing chun isn't about the techniques. That's looking at only the surface level - the shape.

I would disagree when you say that "the core curriculum" is the same across all branches because the techniques or seeds may look the same. Just because they might have similar 'looking' techniques doesn't mean they have the same "core tactics (how to use those actions)" as you put it. Far from it.

From my experience, while not having personally studied Yip Man WC, a lot of my sihings and past teachers have many many years experience in it. And, I can tell you for sure, as can they, that the understanding of what you call the "core tactics (how to use those actions)" are much different in that lineage that what I learn now.
What's more important to me is understanding what drives those shapes and actions, not that we all use some similar looking tools.

Example, in the past, some individuals have argued that you don't use a high taan sau, that it "won't work that way" (and some still might). But when asked to test the high taan sau that "wouldn't work", there was no argument that it was indeed working, and couldn't be challenged as hoped.
My point is, sure, we all have some of the same techniques, but the understanding and principles behind how they function, when and why are very different. IMO, that's what the 'core curriculum' to me teaches. So, no, they aren't all the same.


Don't we all have mun (asking) or jou (running) or etc.?

Actually, no, we don't all have mun sau. In HFY, we do have Bai Jong sau, which has nothing to do with asking hand mun sau. This is the difference between looking at techniques/saying everyone has the same thing or 'core curriculm' and knowing more about what's actually driving the shapes/actions (which I think you are also saying (?) I'm just not agreeing they are all the same). So yeah, the techniques do look similar, the the principles/ideas behind them are really much different.

[t_niehoff]

So because you did it everyone else has done the same. Wow talking about being center of universe

Look around. I did what MOST -- not everyone but MOST -- people do when they learn/practice WCK: they keep repeating the curriculum. That's why MOST -- not everyone but MOST -- people can't use it. I'm not saying that I am the center of the universe, just that I did what everyone else did or does.

[t_niehoff]

Yes, I'd agree, all WCK has the techniques of tan, bong, fook, but just because someone is using those shapes doesn't mean they are using wing chun. Wing chun isn't about the techniques. That's looking at only the surface level - the shape.


Do you mean as you are doing? Because tan, bong, fook aren't shapes, but actions (you are doing something).



I would disagree when you say that "the core curriculum" is the same across all branches because the techniques or seeds may look the same. Just because they might have similar 'looking' techniques doesn't mean they have the same "core tactics (how to use those actions)" as you put it. Far from it.


If we don't share a commonality, then we aren't doing the same art at all. Then you are doing one thing, I am doing something else, a third person is doing something altogether different, so then there is no common art.



From my experience, while not having personally studied Yip Man WC, a lot of my sihings and past teachers have many many years experience in it. And, I can tell you for sure, as can they, that the understanding of what you call the "core tactics (how to use those actions)" are much different in that lineage that what I learn now.
What's more important to me is understanding what drives those shapes and actions, not that we all use some similar looking tools.


The core curriculum is the same, it is just that people "understand" it differently based on their (lack of) experience. For example, we all have YJKYM. Our "understanding" of it is related to our skill -- our ability to use it in fighting, and our understanding comes from fighting. But what theoretical nonfighters do is try to substitute theory, conjecture from unrealistic practice, as "understanding".

What is important to me is not "understanding" what drives the tools, but actually doing it. "understanding" means you are looking at things from an intellectual (theoretical nonfighters) perspective. You don't come to "understand" how to box, you learn to box by boxing. It's what you can DO, not what you "understand" that matters.



Example, in the past, some individuals have argued that you don't use a high taan sau, that it "won't work that way" (and some still might). But when asked to test the high taan sau that "wouldn't work", there was no argument that it was indeed working, and couldn't be challenged as hoped.
My point is, sure, we all have some of the same techniques, but the understanding and principles behind how they function, when and why are very different. IMO, that's what the 'core curriculum' to me teaches. So, no, they aren't all the same.


You are continuing to mistake the curriculum with application. We all have the tan sao -- it's in all our curriculum. How we use it (in fighting) -- application -- is another matter. All boxers have the jab. but they don't all use it the same way.

If boxing were taught and trained like WCK, hardly anyone would be able to box to any significant degree, and people would form all kinds of "theories" on how to use their tools.

But the bottom line is boxing is boxing, just like WCK is WCK.



Actually, no, we don't all have mun sau. In HFY, we do have Bai Jong sau, which has nothing to do with asking hand mun sau. This is the difference between looking at techniques/saying everyone has the same thing or 'core curriculm' and knowing more about what's actually driving the shapes/actions (which I think you are also saying (?) I'm just not agreeing they are all the same). So yeah, the techniques do look similar, the the principles/ideas behind them are really much different.

The principles/ideas are NONSENSE. They don't matter. They are what is used to sell the curriculum of WCK to theoretical nonfighters.

What matters is the DOING. If you do X to get a response, they you are using the mun sao tactic, whether you call it that or not. It's part of the core curriculum. If you don't have it, you won't be able to do chi sao. You will be DOING mun sao whether you call it by that name or not if you do chi sao. It's built into the very drill.

[JPinAZ]

Do you mean as you are doing? Because tan, bong, fook aren't shapes, but actions (you are doing something).

Sure, they could be called actions. But then, other southern systems have these same 'actions' too, and they are used differently. Even within different WCK lineages they are used differently, so where is the commonality in that except by technique name alone? (as I already said- you're talking technique)

Remember, it was you that said "The core curriculum is just what these lineages share, their commonality" and described them as actions/tools/techniques/whatever of taan bong fook. You even said they used them differently. So, they aren't even common in the different lineages curriclums except by technique name alone. I disagree that the core curriculum is the common accross all lineages unless you are only talking technique/shape level, and even then I still don't 100% agree


If we don't share a commonality, then we aren't doing the same art at all. Then you are doing one thing, I am doing something else, a third person is doing something altogether different, so then there is no common art.

Sure, we're all doing the "art" of WCK, but who, besides you, said we are all doing it the same? We ARE all doing it differently - so our art is different! Both in application, in the forms and in the training methods! Yeah, we have similar named concepts, and similar named techniques, and some of the drills are the same in appearance, and we all call it "Wing Chun", but you even said yourself they are done differently. I don't understand what it is you are saying, we do it the same or we do it different?


The core curriculum is the same, it is just that people "understand" it differently based on their (lack of) experience. For example, we all have YJKYM. Our "understanding" of it is related to our skill -- our ability to use it in fighting, and our understanding comes from fighting. But what theoretical nonfighters do is try to substitute theory, conjecture from unrealistic practice, as "understanding".


What is important to me is not "understanding" what drives the tools, but actually doing it. "understanding" means you are looking at things from an intellectual (theoretical nonfighters) perspective. You don't come to "understand" how to box, you learn to box by boxing. It's what you can DO, not what you "understand" that matters.

So is 'understanding' important or not? In the first quote, you are saying that people's understanding is based on their 'experience' (or lack of) and is a factor and directly related to our skill. Then in the next it's not important to you (experience or skill). Which side of the moon are you coming from? If the skill and experience ("understanding") isn't important, then you are the biggest theoretical non-fighter here :)

Look, if you don't understand how to do long division, you can't really just 'do it' - the action of doing long division. There's a saying, Mind understands, body knows. Even a robot first has to have a program to do an action. Understanding means I know what the hell I'm doing. Maybe you don't need that, but I think it's pretty dam important! Unless you are saying boxers don't need to think or have a mind to fight?


You are continuing to mistake the curriculum with application.

You're entitled to your unfounded opinion


We all have the tan sao -- it's in all our curriculum. How we use it (in fighting) -- application -- is another matter. All boxers have the jab. but they don't all use it the same way.

Ok, then where's the commonality beyond technique name alone? If application is so different, then we don't have the commonality in usage, just in the name - just like I've been saying! Now your just talking in circles. Are you a lawyer or something?


If boxing were taught and trained like WCK, hardly anyone would be able to box to any significant degree, and people would form all kinds of "theories" on how to use their tools.

But the bottom line is boxing is boxing, just like WCK is WCK.

Yeah, but not all boxing is the same, and neither is all WCK the same. But who cares about boxing being boxing and WCK being WCK anyway?? What does that have to do with your orignal point - that all WCK has the same common core curriculum?


The principles/ideas are NONSENSE. They don't matter. They are what is used to sell the curriculum of WCK to theoretical nonfighters.

What matters is the DOING. If you do X to get a response, they you are using the mun sao tactic, whether you call it that or not. It's part of the core curriculum. If you don't have it, you won't be able to do chi sao. You will be DOING mun sao whether you call it by that name or not if you do chi sao. It's built into the very drill.

An again, mun sau is NOT part of everyone's curriculum, no matter how many times you repeat it.
And what is this mun sau 'tactic' you speak of anyway? To me, it sounds like you are obviously talking more than just the 'technique'. Since you can't 'do' a tactic, it sounds like an 'idea' to me. That's just nonsense! ;)
Is centerline a silly 'idea' too? Since you can't 'do' centerline, I guess you probably need to throw that our of the common "core curriculum" huh?

And what does mun sau have to do with chi sau anyway??

[t_niehoff]

Sure, they could be called actions. But then, other southern systems have these same 'actions' too, and they are used differently. Even within different WCK lineages they are used differently, so where is the commonality in that except by technique name alone? (as I already said- you're talking technique)


They can't just be called action, they ARE actions. They are verbs (tan sao = spreading arm/hand).

Technique is a part of WCK, the actions/movement of WCK are part of the toolbox. How can you PHYSICALLY PERFORM WCK or any martial art for that matter without movement?



Remember, it was you that said "The core curriculum is just what these lineages share, their commonality" and described them as actions/tools/techniques/whatever of taan bong fook. You even said they used them differently. So, they aren't even common in the different lineages curriclums except by technique name alone. I disagree that the core curriculum is the common accross all lineages unless you are only talking technique/shape level, and even then I still don't 100% agree


You are still confusing the curriculum with the application. We all have the same movement/actions in our toolbox (the curriculum gives you a toolbox of actions and tactics), but how we use those tools will vary based on a number of things (it's an individual thing).

Boxers all have the same toolbox, but how they use the tools differ.



Sure, we're all doing the "art" of WCK, but who, besides you, said we are all doing it the same? We ARE all doing it differently - so our art is different! Both in application, in the forms and in the training methods! Yeah, we have similar named concepts, and similar named techniques, and some of the drills are the same in appearance, and we all call it "Wing Chun", but you even said yourself they are done differently. I don't understand what it is you are saying, we do it the same or we do it different?


You still don't get it. We (at least those from legit lineages) in WCK all have the same toolbox (movement/actions + tactics). These we learn via the core curriculum. But how we use those tools (fight) -- how we DO WCK -- will vary.

Just like how all boxers have the same toolbox but how they each use them is an individual matter.

Now, the problem comes in when people who don't use them, try to tell others how they should be used.



So is 'understanding' important or not? In the first quote, you are saying that people's understanding is based on their 'experience' (or lack of) and is a factor and directly related to our skill. Then in the next it's not important to you (experience or skill). Which side of the moon are you coming from? If the skill and experience ("understanding") isn't important, then you are the biggest theoretical non-fighter here :)


The point is that "understanding" isn't what is important. Our "understanding" grows with our skill but it is the SKILL that is important. And skill doesn't come from understanding; skill comes from practice.



Look, if you don't understand how to do long division, you can't really just 'do it' - the action of doing long division. There's a saying, Mind understands, body knows. Even a robot first has to have a program to do an action. Understanding means I know what the hell I'm doing. Maybe you don't need that, but I think it's pretty dam important! Unless you are saying boxers don't need to think or have a mind to fight?


I am saying that to learn a SKILL you need to be shown the skill (PHYSICALLY how to DO something -- but it isn't an intellectual chore like long division) and then practice PHYSICALLY doing it. Do you need to "understand" dribbling in basketball or how to pass the guard? No. You are shown how to do it, then you practice doing it. How do you get better? By practicing it more. Do you think NBA players are better because they have some special "understanding" of the game? No, they have better attributes and skill.



You're entitled to your unfounded opinion


You keep mixing them up.



Ok, then where's the commonality beyond technique name alone? If application is so different, then we don't have the commonality in usage, just in the name - just like I've been saying! Now your just talking in circles. Are you a lawyer or something?


The toolbox is the commonality. There is a commonality of movement/actions and tactics. I am not saying that everything in all branches are the same -- certainly not. Because most of the branches have more than just the core curriculum, and that is to be expected. They have the core curriculum plus additional material.



Yeah, but not all boxing is the same, and neither is all WCK the same. But who cares about boxing being boxing and WCK being WCK anyway?? What does that have to do with your orignal point - that all WCK has the same common core curriculum?


Because I am using the analogy to try to help you understand. The toolbox of boxing IS the same -- the same type of punches, the same footwork, the same evasions, the same tactics, etc. Boxing is boxing, just like WCK is WCK or BJJ is BJJ.



An again, mun sau is NOT part of everyone's curriculum, no matter how many times you repeat it.
And what is this mun sau 'tactic' you speak of anyway? To me, it sounds like you are obviously talking more than just the 'technique'. Since you can't 'do' a tactic, it sounds like an 'idea' to me. That's just nonsense! ;)


Mun sao, asking hand, is a set up: I make an action to get a response so that I have something to work off of.

The WCK toolbox has both actions and tactics. And you can't perform one without the other. A tactic is how you are using the tool. A punch can be a mun sao, for example: I am using my punch to get a reaction from my opponent to set him up.



Is centerline a silly 'idea' too? Since you can't 'do' centerline, I guess you probably need to throw that our of the common "core curriculum" huh?


The centerline isn't a theory, it is the fastest line of entry.



And what does mun sau have to do with chi sau anyway??

Mun sao is a tactic that is used in contact.

[Wayfaring]

The principles/ideas are NONSENSE. They don't matter. They are what is used to sell the curriculum of WCK to theoretical nonfighters.

What matters is the DOING. If you do X to get a response, they you are using the mun sao tactic, whether you call it that or not. It's part of the core curriculum. If you don't have it, you won't be able to do chi sao. You will be DOING mun sao whether you call it by that name or not if you do chi sao. It's built into the very drill.

If the principles and ideas on one side are NONSENSE, then they are NONSENSE across the board. If they are not, then they are not.

You just flipped sides changing from "you have to realize the curriculum is TCMA", to now that there is a curriculum that is TCMA that's not what Hendrik proposes, it's about the movement.

Ridiculous display of convenient logic.

If the movement is what is important, than how MT fighters and boxers apply spit swallow are not any different.

Or you could just wake up to reality and realize you can't generalize all of WCK any more than you can generalize all of Hung Gar or Mantis in southern TCMA across different families.

It is totally hilarious how you can make another pass through your WCK and now be a main proponent for TCMA traditional training, yet only within your little "clique". Anything outside of that you call marketing or other stuff, yet you've never taken the time to investigate what power engines and structures are developed.

[JPinAZ]

You are still confusing the curriculum with the application.

No, I'm not confusing anything. Your inability to comprehend what I am saying is where the confusion lies.


We all have the same movement/actions in our toolbox (the curriculum gives you a toolbox of actions and tactics), but how we use those tools will vary based on a number of things (it's an individual thing).

No, WE don't. Are you saying the video of hendrik's student standing around petting invisible dogs, is that also in your toolbox? Is that krap in your 'core curriculum'?
It's not in mine.
And some of the tools I've seen in your own 'legit group's' SNT, those tools aren't in my WCK.


You still don't get it. We (at least those from legit lineages) in WCK all have the same toolbox (movement/actions + tactics). These we learn via the core curriculum. But how we use those tools (fight) -- how we DO WCK -- will vary.

Nice - there's that 'legit lineage' garbage again. So much for being civil. Funny how you finally got so 'legit' after only 100 hours of training with someone. You're a friggin miracle of nature!


I am saying that to learn a SKILL you need to be shown the skill (PHYSICALLY how to DO something -- but it isn't an intellectual chore like long division) and then practice PHYSICALLY doing it. Do you need to "understand" dribbling in basketball or how to pass the guard? No. You are shown how to do it, then you practice doing it. How do you get better? By practicing it more. Do you think NBA players are better because they have some special "understanding" of the game? No, they have better attributes and skill.

Haha, you've really go no clue do you? So by that 'logic', I'm guess all the batting and pitching coaches in MLB are all out of jobs then! What could they possibly teach a major league player after they've hit their first ball or thrown their first pitch! If it's all on the player after they are shown the basics, all they need is practice. rriiiiggghhhttt....

Let me ask you this, why, after 17 YEARS after being shown WCK, did you STILL have to go find a new Sifu to help you get it right and become all too-legit-to-quit?? Because, by your logic, after those 17+ years, it should've all be on you - you don't need anyone to show it to you again, all you need to do is practice... ahhh, maybe there's the problem!


Boxing is boxing, just like WCK is WCK or BJJ is BJJ.

wow. amazing... you should write a book


Mun sao, asking hand, is a set up: I make an action to get a response so that I have something to work off of.

The WCK toolbox has both actions and tactics. And you can't perform one without the other. A tactic is how you are using the tool. A punch can be a mun sao, for example: I am using my punch to get a reaction from my opponent to set him up.

Wow, that's really wonderful, you should make that one of the chapters. And, what does that have to do with Bai Jong again? Yup, nothing.


The centerline isn't a theory, it is the fastest line of entry.

Here's the real crux of the issue. If that's all centerline is to you, I think I finally understand why you are so confused and all over the yard when talking WCK.
Think it's time for another 100 hours of super-duper oh-so-legit lessons there.

Have a nice day and good luck with the book!

[YungChun]

I think part of the problem here lies in the term "application". Application to me is fighting, it is what I am doing -- not hope to do, not believe I will do, etc. -- but actually doing in fighting. So, if you are not fighting, you are not doing application.


No, I totally get what you mean by the term...

When I started I came from sport karate.. The sport karate model was carried with you at all times--the sparring equipment...

I specifically came to Chun because I wanted to improve my sparring.. When I gleefully landed in the kwoon for my first lesson I was looking for things I could use right from the start... I found that compared to what I was exposed to before that there was just tons of "stuff" that looked like it might be useful..

So in my case I was working on application in parallel with the standard curriculum... An imperfect approach perhaps but that's what I came for and my sparring partners from college (I was in school then) were my guinea pigs...



You perform the lop da drill, right? Do you think that you are learning application, how the lop dad will be used in fighting? No. You are learning how to perform a lop da, the movement, the connection, the coordination, the variations of the action, etc. But since you aren't doing that under fighting condition, you aren't learning how to use it (when, where, why, how, etc.) in fighting.


Yes and no.. The action is the action... The when and the why (which I could call theory) is what it is... I always tried to make my actions as much like they would be in application given the limits of the drill.. The basic LopSao drill is an inherently dead drill (no resistance, little variability)...Still to me a lop is a lop..later a lop amid resistance is just that.



No, you don't seem to understand. Look, traditional Japanese jiujitsu has the same core elements as judo (Kano took those elements) but what makes judo superior to TJJ is that Kano discarded the traditional way of training and adopted the sport model of training -- same core but trained in two different ways.


No, I do understand.. What I am getting at is how can the training be made more realistic? How can the core training be made more effective?

What's a better way--a more realistic way--to teach the tools and the tactics? The tools/actions have many different uses so if you were going to take the Kano approach with Chun how would you do it and still cover all the basics, actions but more efficiently and with the correct energy? Doesn't Kano's version have kata--drills?



Most WCK people -- and I know because I did it to -- waste their time stuck at the beginner level, forever practicing the curriculum which they already know. Once you can comfortably ride the bike with the training wheels on (play chi sao reasonable well), it is time to take them off and begin learning to really ride the bike.

This is true in many cases.. However, the curriculum does call for sparring, does it not? Also there are many aspects to the training that can take quite a while to develop.. Many students or even 'big shot sifus' never even seem to develop what you term "decent ChiSao" which in itself is a very broad drill that can be played many ways and has tons-o-stuff in it--not to mention the ChiGerk, weapons, etc..

But, I speak specifically to moves that involve two handed simultaneous--yet different actions involving fine motor coordination and use of the horse with it amid resistance.. Most students/teachers don't get to this higher level of performance or ability even in the core drill..

Now, if you are sparring all along the way here, then I see no problem in continuing to refine these more difficult aspects.. Moreover there may come a time when you become too old to fight or you lose interest or the ability to fight/spar hard and then also I see nothing wrong with just doing this training.. You know as well as I do that Wan Kam's skill in these "basics" doesn't come to most quickly, or even ever in many cases..

Moreover, we all have these basics, the core, yet why is it that when folks start sparring/fighting (normally long before all the material is mastered at the drill level) you don't see them or much of that core? Same core, same training, yet where is the "correct expression" and if what is expressed is not correct--as you have often said--then where is it? Where/how did the Chun get lost on its way from the core to the floor? Assuming it did that is...

[t_niehoff]

If the principles and ideas on one side are NONSENSE, then they are NONSENSE across the board. If they are not, then they are not.


And your point is?



You just flipped sides changing from "you have to realize the curriculum is TCMA", to now that there is a curriculum that is TCMA that's not what Hendrik proposes, it's about the movement.

Ridiculous display of convenient logic.


What I am saying is that the various WCK lineages are just various persons' way of teaching WCK -- that they are different textbooks as it were for the same subject matter. A math book isn't math but endeavors to teach you math. While the books can vary, they all retain a similar core curriculum, i.e., the things you need to learn to DO math. In terms of WCK, the core curriculum is the method and the toolbox, which is comprised of movement/actions and tactics. I don't see how this is in conflict with Hendrik's basic premise.



If the movement is what is important, than how MT fighters and boxers apply spit swallow are not any different.


You are confusing several things.

Spit and swallow are tactics, ways of using movement/actions. Moreover, you are confusing the generic with the specific.



Or you could just wake up to reality and realize you can't generalize all of WCK any more than you can generalize all of Hung Gar or Mantis in southern TCMA across different families.


It's not a generalization, it is the realization that there is a common core -- and that there HAS to be (otherwise, we are not doing the same art) -- to our art. Just like there is a common core to boxing or to BJJ or wrestling or etc.

People don't see that because 1) they want to believe themselves and what they do unique or special and 2) because they confuse the curriculum with application. For example, I commonly hear people say things like "we don't use our tan sao the same as . . . " My point is that they aren't using it at all! They are not talking application: this is what I am doing successfully in sparring with the boxers, for instance -- they are talking THEORY, this is how my teacher says to use a tan sao. The latter is bunk. Either you are DOING it or it is bullsh1t.



It is totally hilarious how you can make another pass through your WCK and now be a main proponent for TCMA traditional training, yet only within your little "clique". Anything outside of that you call marketing or other stuff, yet you've never taken the time to investigate what power engines and structures are developed.

I call all THEORY marketing because that is what it is. It is used to sell what is portrayed as "the inner workings" of WCK when the person teaching it isn't making their WCK work! Sort of like, this is how you pass the guard by someone who never rolls. What would you call that but bullsh1t? There are only people who are busy doing it, rolling and passing the guard, and those who say they have the theory.

The core curriculum of WCK is nothing special, it is just those elements/aspects that are common to the various legit branches of WCK. WCK is WCK.

[t_niehoff]

What's a better way--a more realistic way--to teach the tools and the tactics? The tools/actions have many different uses so if you were going to take the Kano approach with Chun how would you do it and still cover all the basics, actions but more efficiently and with the correct energy? Doesn't Kano's version have kata--drills?


The best way of learning and developing fighting (or any athletic) skill is via the sport model/approach. Kano took TJJ and using the sport approach vastly improved upon the results of the traditional training. Yes, he retained kata as something you do at the end of your training (and many people never really bother). Sort of reminds me of something Fook Yeung said about learning in the old days, "First application, then dummy, then form."



This is true in many cases.. However, the curriculum does call for sparring, does it not?


Traditionally, no. Unless you call going out and fighting "sparring."

What I am talking about is making sparring the core or center of your training, like boxers or MT or BJJ or etc. do. It is the thing around which everything else they do revolves.



Also there are many aspects to the training that can take quite a while to develop.. Many students or even 'big shot sifus' never even seem to develop what you term "decent ChiSao" which in itself is a very broad drill that can be played many ways and has tons-o-stuff in it--not to mention the ChiGerk, weapons, etc..


All those things aren't really necessary if you adopt a realistic, functional, sport-model approach.



But, I speak specifically to moves that involve two handed simultaneous--yet different actions involving fine motor coordination and use of the horse with it amid resistance.. Most students/teachers don't get to this higher level of performance or ability even in the core drill..


If it is fine-motor skill it will go out the window when you fight.



Now, if you are sparring all along the way here, then I see no problem in continuing to refine these more difficult aspects.. Moreover there may come a time when you become too old to fight or you lose interest or the ability to fight/spar hard and then also I see nothing wrong with just doing this training.. You know as well as I do that Wan Kam's skill in these "basics" doesn't come to most quickly, or even ever in many cases..


The point is that "just doing that training" doesn't develop any skill, it is just to learn the tools. Once you have learned the tools, you don't need it anymore.

Wan Kam isn't displaying any skill -- he is displaying that he is using the drill/exercise chi sao to learn/teach the "proper" things (controlling while striking).



Moreover, we all have these basics, the core, yet why is it that when folks start sparring/fighting (normally long before all the material is mastered at the drill level) you don't see them or much of that core? Same core, same training, yet where is the "correct expression" and if what is expressed is not correct--as you have often said--then where is it? Where/how did the Chun get lost on its way from the core to the floor? Assuming it did that is...

A HUGE problem is that people are listening to folks who have little to no real skill tell them what to do -- so guess what? They too can't do it.

The core curriculum will only teach you the method and give you the tools, it won't put it together for you. What puts it together -- the ONLY thing -- is how much quality sparring you put in.

This is what I mean by sparring:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f97513HQoEk

Get in contact and go, trying to control your opponent while striking him using your toolbox. How much time have you (the generic you) put in doing that? Then you take the feedback you get from that (your results plus tips from your coach/training partners) and digest it, then do it again. Because that will determine how good you are at doing it.

[LoneTiger108]

This is what I mean by sparring:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f97513HQoEk

Now I know you're having a laugh! :D:eek:

Seriously think about what you're saying here T. The clip may as well have been from a Sanshou/Sansau competition as the 'token' 3 rolls is just ridiculous and, if I'm honest, completely disrespectful of any WCK interactive knowledge. That's not what I would call Gorsau or Sansau. That's a bungled mess! :o

Other than that, the points made and conversation here isn't too bad at all imo...


A HUGE problem is that people are listening to folks who have little to no real skill tell them what to do -- so guess what? They too can't do it.

I would never have guessed that.

[t_niehoff]

No, I'm not confusing anything. Your inability to comprehend what I am saying is where the confusion lies.


I understand what you are saying.



No, WE don't. Are you saying the video of hendrik's student standing around petting invisible dogs, is that also in your toolbox? Is that krap in your 'core curriculum'?
It's not in mine.
And some of the tools I've seen in your own 'legit group's' SNT, those tools aren't in my WCK.


Once again, you miss the point. Reread what I wrote (now with emphasis):

The toolbox is the commonality. There is a commonality of movement/actions and tactics. I am not saying that everything in all branches are the same -- certainly not. Because most of the branches have more than just the core curriculum, and that is to be expected. They have the core curriculum plus additional material.



Nice - there's that 'legit lineage' garbage again. So much for being civil. Funny how you finally got so 'legit' after only 100 hours of training with someone. You're a friggin miracle of nature!


I say legit lineage because if we are doing to compare things from the past, we need to make certain that they are indeed from the past.

And here you go with the insults. As we both know, I had already spent 17 years practicing WCK before I went to train with Robert. One of the things Robert showed me, btw, is how I already had much of the core curriculum, and that this same core is found in Gu Lao, in YKS, in Pan Nam, etc.



Haha, you've really go no clue do you? So by that 'logic', I'm guess all the batting and pitching coaches in MLB are all out of jobs then! What could they possibly teach a major league player after they've hit their first ball or thrown their first pitch! If it's all on the player after they are shown the basics, all they need is practice. rriiiiggghhhttt....


Again you miss the point. The major league players already are performing at an extremely high level -- they are DOING it, and already have the skills (can perform the basics at a high level). The coaches are not teaching them (they already have the skills), they are COACHING them, helping them to find the best way of using their skills to get the best performance.



Let me ask you this, why, after 17 YEARS after being shown WCK, did you STILL have to go find a new Sifu to help you get it right and become all too-legit-to-quit?? Because, by your logic, after those 17+ years, it should've all be on you - you don't need anyone to show it to you again, all you need to do is practice... ahhh, maybe there's the problem!


It doesn't matter how much you practice if you don't have the core curriculum, and even after 17 years I was missing some elements of it. For example, I didn't have the faat mun, the method. Robert taught me that (among other things). Looking back, I can see that it was there implicit in the YM WCK curriculum, but I didn't see it -- in part because I was listening to "the masters" and their nonsense only confused things.

That's one of the great things about looking at other lineages, some branches make things more explicit than others, some have a way of teaching something that might click better with you than what you are presently learning, etc.



Wow, that's really wonderful, you should make that one of the chapters. And, what does that have to do with Bai Jong again? Yup, nothing.


Bai jong means to assume structure, specifically it means to assume the appropriate structure for the task at hand. It's not a pre-fighting posture. We are always bai jong, assuming structure. The other side of the coin is that I don't want my opponent to bai jong -- that's why I break his structure.



Here's the real crux of the issue. If that's all centerline is to you, I think I finally understand why you are so confused and all over the yard when talking WCK.
Think it's time for another 100 hours of super-duper oh-so-legit lessons there.


People can take terms like the jung sien and surround it with all kinds of theoretical nonsense. But all it refers to is the "line" or corridor between our two centers. If I want to move toward you, this corridor is the shortest way. And since I want to get inside, I need to move through that corridor (hence I need to control it). As the kuit says, Yun Hang Gung, Wo Hang Yin - He walks the bow, I walk the string. To walk that string, Jung Sien Dui Ying - I face the centerline squarely, and Sao Lou Jung Sien - My hands remain on that Centerline.

[t_niehoff]

Now I know you're having a laugh! :D:eek:

Seriously think about what you're saying here T. The clip may as well have been from a Sanshou/Sansau competition as the 'token' 3 rolls is just ridiculous and, if I'm honest, completely disrespectful of any WCK interactive knowledge. That's not what I would call Gorsau or Sansau. That's a bungled mess! :o

Other than that, the points made and conversation here isn't too bad at all imo...


THAT is what fighting on the inside is going to "look" like -- a mess. They weren't skilled in WCK, but at least they had the range, the facing, and the intensity correct. If YOU are not doing that, you won't be able to deal with THAT.

To develop skill, you need to do loads of THAT trying to work out how to make your WCK work.

WCK "knowledge" is nonsense. It is mostly theoretical nonsense by people who don't fight. Go FIGHT on the inside, go put in a significant amount of time, then tell me that's not what it is going to be like.




I would never have guessed that.

I've put in between 1500-2000 hours of THAT sort of sparring in the past 10 years working out how to control my opponent while striking him using WCK tools. How much time have you put in doing that?

[LoneTiger108]

THAT is what fighting on the inside is going to "look" like -- a mess. They weren't skilled in WCK, but at least they had the range, the facing, and the intensity correct. If YOU are not doing that, you won't be able to deal with THAT.

To develop skill, you need to do loads of THAT trying to work out how to make your WCK work.

WCK "knowledge" is nonsense. It is mostly theoretical nonsense by people who don't fight. Go FIGHT on the inside, go put in a significant amount of time, then tell me that's not what it is going to be like.

That's your opinion right there T. All your Kuit (which I would consider 'knowledge') must also be nonsense! So why waste all our time throwing odd lines out here and there? It actually helps nobody :rolleyes:


I've put in between 1500-2000 hours of THAT sort of sparring in the past 10 years working out how to control my opponent while striking him using WCK tools. How much time have you put in doing that?

Wow! 2000hrs of that stuff. Over ten years? Not much time really then? I put more time into boxing when I was eighteen over a 2 year period!

Have you never heard of the saying 'less is more'? If you want to spend so much time lashing about like someone that doesn't know how to even hold his Wing Chun form, testing out if you can take the pressure of someone firing all out on adrenaline only, then that's up to you dude.

I prefer the more measured approach. A skillful exchange between two WCK practitioners actually looks nothing like a sansau match.

[t_niehoff]

That's your opinion right there T. All your Kuit (which I would consider 'knowledge') must also be nonsense! So why waste all our time throwing odd lines out here and there? It actually helps nobody :rolleyes:


The kuit isn't knowledge -- it is direction for your practice.

When you look at a basketball player or a tennis player, do you talk about how so-and-so has great basketball knowledge or great tennis knowledge? No, it is about how WELL they PLAY, how skilled they are. That skill isn't based in knowledge (Shaq is better because he knows more than Kobe).



Wow! 2000hrs of that stuff. Over ten years? Not much time really then? I put more time into boxing when I was eighteen over a 2 year period!


No you didn't.

I put in about 3-4 hours a week of WCK sparring, and have done that for the past 10 years (that's 1500-2000 hours).

You've not done any of that. If you had, you wouldn't have said what you did about that clip as you would have known that is what fighting on the inside is like.



Have you never heard of the saying 'less is more'? If you want to spend so much time lashing about like someone that doesn't know how to even hold his Wing Chun form, testing out if you can take the pressure of someone firing all out on adrenaline only, then that's up to you dude.


Have you heard the saying "theoretical nonfighter"? To become a better surfer, you need to surf. If you want to become a better WCK fighter, you need to fight. How good you become will be directly proportional to how much quality sparring you do. Do little to none and that will be your skill level.



I prefer the more measured approach. A skillful exchange between two WCK practitioners actually looks nothing like a sansau match.

Your "skillful exchange" is playing around, and doesn't develop fighting skill. Fighting skill are those things that YOU can consistently and successfully perform under fighting conditions, not while playing around with other theoretical nonfighters. Go put yourself in that sort (like the clip) situation and see how much of what you do in your "skillful exchanges" work. Then ask yourself what you are preparing for if not that.

[LoneTiger108]

The kuit isn't knowledge -- it is direction for your practice.

I agree. Knowledge that belongs to coaches/sifus and NOT fighters/players. See where you are now?


No you didn't.

I put in about 3-4 hours a week of WCK sparring, and have done that for the past 10 years (that's 1500-2000 hours).

You've not done any of that. If you had, you wouldn't have said what you did about that clip as you would have known that is what fighting on the inside is like.

Listen. You're sounding like you know my boxing history? NOT. All I was saying is that I done more hours than that in 2 years. 3-4 hrs per week?? I would never put in so little! :eek:

Nevermind, coz your insults just keep on coming...


Have you heard the saying "theoretical nonfighter"? To become a better surfer, you need to surf. If you want to become a better WCK fighter, you need to fight. How good you become will be directly proportional to how much quality sparring you do. Do little to none and that will be your skill level.

This is my point T. I DON'T want to fight anyone let alone become a better competitive fighter! Sparring like the clip will only make you better at sparring like the clip. Your WCK will improve very little indeed imho, but your stamina may improve. ;)


Your "skillful exchange" is playing around, and doesn't develop fighting skill. Fighting skill are those things that YOU can consistently and successfully perform under fighting conditions, not while playing around with other theoretical nonfighters. Go put yourself in that sort (like the clip) situation and see how much of what you do in your "skillful exchanges" work. Then ask yourself what you are preparing for if not that.

We're back to those insults again T and I do see others trying to suggest to you that what you're dribbling on about, although relevant to competitive fighting, it has little to do with actual fighting or skillful exchange.

Basically, do as you say or we will not improve!

Tell me. Have you done what I have done? Trained how I have? I know the answer is no. So if this is the case, why should I listen to you when you haven't even given my methods a try?

If you think that clip is a good promotion for WCK, then you are mistaken imho. In fact, it was worse than Alan's comp, but I don't want to go over all that stuff again! Just too boring...

[t_niehoff]

I agree. Knowledge that belongs to coaches/sifus and NOT fighters/players. See where you are now?


"Knowledge and understanding" is the domain of theoretical nonfighters. It is all intellectual, academic.

Skill isn't based in knowledge or understanding. Skill is based on performance.



Listen. You're sounding like you know my boxing history? NOT. All I was saying is that I done more hours than that in 2 years. 3-4 hrs per week?? I would never put in so little! :eek:

Nevermind, coz your insults just keep on coming...


No you didn't. Look, if you are sparring at intensity (and not just playing around) your body will take a beating, and not just from your opponent but from the demands placed on it, the exertion, etc. You're just talking out your ass.



This is my point T. I DON'T want to fight anyone let alone become a better competitive fighter! Sparring like the clip will only make you better at sparring like the clip. Your WCK will improve very little indeed imho, but your stamina may improve. ;)


WCK is fighting. If you are not fighting, you are not DOING WCK. You may be practicing the curriculum but the curriculum isn't the art. Or you may just be training to fail. WCK is controlling your opponent while striking him (using the WCK toolbox). How do you develop skill doing that except BY doing that?

Yes, you get better fighting on the inside by fighting on the inside. And, you don't get any better fighting on the inside by not fighting on the inside.



We're back to those insults again T and I do see others trying to suggest to you that what you're dribbling on about, although relevant to competitive fighting, it has little to do with actual fighting or skillful exchange.


It doesn't matter whether you "compete" or not -- the point is that you only develop fighting skill by and through fighting. This is true if you want to be a competitive fighter or just want to learn to handle yourself.



Basically, do as you say or we will not improve!


No, I'm saying to look to what the proven, good fighters and fight trainers have to say about what you need to do -- the sort of training needed -- to develop good, solid, competent fighting skills. Yes, that is what I have done, and I am only repeating what I have learned but you can find this out on your own: just go train with some good fighters.



Tell me. Have you done what I have done? Trained how I have? I know the answer is no. So if this is the case, why should I listen to you when you haven't even given my methods a try?


Why would I want to do all kinds of silly things? It is well-established both by science and by results (from sport for example), what we need to do to develop fighting skill, regardless of the art. And that is you develop fighting skills by and through practicing fighting, i.e, sparring. That's it. You only get good at what you practice doing. Don't practice it, and you can't get good at it.



If you think that clip is a good promotion for WCK, then you are mistaken imho. In fact, it was worse than Alan's comp, but I don't want to go over all that stuff again! Just too boring...

Read what I fXcking wrote. I didn't say it was "good WCK", I said THAT is what a fight on the inside is going to look like, that is the situation/environment where you are going to need to be able to make your WCK work. THAT is what you need to prepare for. Those guys at least -- unlike most other WCK clips I see -- have the range, facing, and intensity level right. But they have a lot of work to do.

They would run over 99%of the WCK practitioners out there. The only ones they wouldn't run over are the ones who already are dealing with that.

[YungChun]

Wan Kam isn't displaying any skill -- he is displaying that he is using the drill/exercise chi sao to learn/teach the "proper" things (controlling while striking).


Can't agree here.. He certainly is displaying skill in ChiSao at the very least.. You mentioned that one should get "decent" at ChiSao before going to the application phase so since that clearly takes time, since clearly many Sifu can't even do what Wan Kam is doing, and it takes time and work to get there clearly there is skill in all of this....


Also you're too black and white in your thinking.. You have contradicted yourself more than once about what things are supposed to look like..as done by all fighters of all skill levels of all fighting styles.. Two scrubs trying to control each other in close range is not what all inside fighting looks like... There are many variables..

3 hours per week sparring? That amounts to 90 two minute rounds per week... or if you train every day 12 rounds of full contact per day... Hmmmmm.

You fight how you train... Whatever limits you place on yourself--what you think is possible/not possible--and you limit what will be possible..



A HUGE problem is that people are listening to folks who have little to no real skill tell them what to do -- so guess what? They too can't do it.


So, the disconnect in 'core to the floor' as seen in virtually all families ever shown fighting with Chun by your standards is a lack of correct information because they all lack experience? Even though the core may be correct? Even though the core is nothing like application, even though there are no examples of this correct application where we can clearly see the seeds?



The point is that "just doing that training" doesn't develop any skill, it is just to learn the tools. Once you have learned the tools, you don't need it anymore.


So how much is enough? What is the correct amount? As I said many Sifu can't even do much of the moves in ChiSao.. So those moves are not needed? Which ones are? What is it that must be learned in the training? What is it that is not needed?

I see a lot of blurry and unclear assertions.. Sifus can't do X,Y,Z in ChiSao which (according to you) doesn't require any skill, yet (according to you) that's not needed for application which only requires (according to you) some lesser amount of non-skill core training...and on and on.... Is that what Yip taught?

You once said, if they can't do it in a drill then they have no chance of doing it in application... But apparently this only applies to X but not Y and Z, all of which don't require skill because it's just the basic training... :confused:

Sorry, but it sounds like a haphazard theory riddled with inconsistencies, or at best an incomplete theory about what is and what is not skill, what is and what is not needed in the core "non-skillset" and why there is this universal problem of non transfer to the floor....(application) IOW your position isn't going anywhere..Other than, the generic 'sparring is essential' thing...

At best all this just muddies the waters..and doesn't by any stretch put together a coherent idea of what Chun is supposed to be, how it should be trained and why--be it in the "gun form" or in application.

[LoneTiger108]

No you didn't. Look, if you are sparring at intensity (and not just playing around) your body will take a beating, and not just from your opponent but from the demands placed on it, the exertion, etc. You're just talking out your ass.

I'll say it again for you as you seem to have trouble understanding me. You do not know how or what I have trained T. I'm tryiung to tell you that what you talk about has validity AND that I have trained like that for longer than you have, but you just refuse to hear it.

Your problemo bro, not mine...


WCK is fighting. If you are not fighting, you are not DOING WCK. You may be practicing the curriculum but the curriculum isn't the art.

I've never read as much bullsh!t in my life T. You repeat this mantra all the time and I will share with you this: WCK is the specific study of the knife and pole. Whatever 'empty-hand' skills you learn, are from the knife and the pole. So IN REALITY the only way your empty hand form can develop skill is through practising the knife and the pole. How mlong have you trained interactively with these weapons?

That's why we have the curriculum we have in WCK and it seems you do not...


Yes, you get better fighting on the inside by fighting on the inside. And, you don't get any better fighting on the inside by not fighting on the inside.

Taking the neck, as you're clip shows, is a valid 'inside' aim, but c'mon T. That's only 1 tech from the 108! AND although I agree that the inside game is a speciality of WCK, we cover all gates, all possibilities, and ultimately specialize in what we feel we are best at. One size fits all is just not what WCK is about imho and that is what you are always talking about.


It doesn't matter whether you "compete" or not -- the point is that you only develop fighting skill by and through fighting. This is true if you want to be a competitive fighter or just want to learn to handle yourself.

Yes it does matter. Competing isn't fighting. Why can't you see that?

As an example, I drill my legwork to attack the knee joint. It works. Now if I compete I have to re-drill the legwork to maybe hit the outside of the shin (the strongest part of the lower leg!) or the outside of the thigh (another strong part of the leg!)

Tell me, honestly, how is that helping my WCK? It may help with my stamina, as I've said, but my applyable technique has now been compromised for competition. It's okay if you understand you're doing that, but I'm telling you now, train for a long time in hitting areas that are strong will not help you on the street in a real fight! Fighting is dirty and dangerous mate, and so is WCK as I know it.


They (in the clip) would run over 99%of the WCK practitioners out there. The only ones they wouldn't run over are the ones who already are dealing with that.

And we learn to 'deal with that' at a very early stage. I'm not saying everyone does, but how I learnt definitely puts me in a positive place imo. But of course you will only rubbish my heritage now and compare me to others that are not me...

We specialize in 'defending our centreline' so these amateurs/beginners may never get the chance to pull off a neck grab or push through your rotations in the first place! :D

[LoneTiger108]

So, the disconnect in 'core to the floor' as seen in virtually all families ever shown fighting with Chun by your standards (t_neihoffs)is a lack of correct information because they all lack experience? Even though the core may be correct? Even though the core is nothing like application, even though there are no examples of this correct application where we can clearly see the seeds?

http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/video/video.php?v=1455280216175

I have mentioned before that my Sifu is currently using Facebook to upload various clips of himself teaching and I think you may find this one usefull if you want to understand core differences of looksau and chisau, and how to apply the three seed as an interactive exercise.

This is how I trained back in 1995, filmed a month or so ago with his current students.

[t_niehoff]

I'll say it again for you as you seem to have trouble understanding me. You do not know how or what I have trained T. I'm tryiung to tell you that what you talk about has validity AND that I have trained like that for longer than you have, but you just refuse to hear it.

Your problemo bro, not mine...


What are you talking about? I see how pro MMA fighters, MT fighters, etc. train and they don't do 2000 hours of sparring in two years as you claimed -- it would be physically impossible. The boxers at my gym only spar 30 minutes in a 2 1/2 hour workout, and that's pretty standard.



I've never read as much bullsh!t in my life T. You repeat this mantra all the time and I will share with you this: WCK is the specific study of the knife and pole. Whatever 'empty-hand' skills you learn, are from the knife and the pole. So IN REALITY the only way your empty hand form can develop skill is through practising the knife and the pole. How mlong have you trained interactively with these weapons?


You can't learn or develop empty hand from the knife and pole -- the body mechanics, the movement/action, the problems, the solutions, etc., just about everything is different in each of those domains (empty hand, pole, knife).



That's why we have the curriculum we have in WCK and it seems you do not...


Another example of someone doing X to develop Y. That is the definition of poor training.



Taking the neck, as you're clip shows, is a valid 'inside' aim, but c'mon T. That's only 1 tech from the 108! AND although I agree that the inside game is a speciality of WCK, we cover all gates, all possibilities, and ultimately specialize in what we feel we are best at. One size fits all is just not what WCK is about imho and that is what you are always talking about.


What are you talking about? One technique from 108? WCK doesn't cover everything. But, it is really easy to see if your theory holds water, just go down to the closest MMA gym and have a go with the beginners.



Yes it does matter. Competing isn't fighting. Why can't you see that?


When you compete, what are you doing? Fighting. You are using your fighting skill (but in a competition, you are presumably facing a conditioned, skilled, opponent) to defeat an opponent. When you defend yourself on the str33t, what are you doing? You are using your fighting skill to defeat an opponent.

Yes, defending yourself isn't the same as a sport competition, but they BOTH require that you have fighting skills and that you use them successfully.



As an example, I drill my legwork to attack the knee joint. It works. Now if I compete I have to re-drill the legwork to maybe hit the outside of the shin (the strongest part of the lower leg!) or the outside of the thigh (another strong part of the leg!)


When I spar, I don't try to kick my opponent in the groin. For some reason, they don't like that. I may use a kick to the inside thigh or knee -- which is useful in its own way. Does this mean I can't kick to the groin if I am attacked on the street? That my training somehow will prevent me from doing that? If you develop your kicking skills -- and that includes being able to hit various targets -- can't you use your kicking skills in the gym, in a ring, in a cage, on the str33t, etc.?



Tell me, honestly, how is that helping my WCK? It may help with my stamina, as I've said, but my applyable technique has now been compromised for competition. It's okay if you understand you're doing that, but I'm telling you now, train for a long time in hitting areas that are strong will not help you on the street in a real fight! Fighting is dirty and dangerous mate, and so is WCK as I know it.


Your problem is that you haven't trained with any good sport fighters but have a (silly) theory about how sport training will "lock in" less-that-deadly technique.

The point of sport training is that you actually DO, realistically, under fighting conditions, those things that you want to train to do. So you actually get to practice doing X in fighting. In that way, you develop high levels of skill doing X in fighting. They understand that if you can't practice doing X in fighting, then you can't develop much in the way of skill doing X in fighting. It is only realistic training that develops realistic skill.

Using your kicking-the-knee example, if you can't do that realistically in sparring, you can't develop skill to do it in fighting. So the first time you ever get to try to do it for real is during the fight.

So which is better, A) a technique that you have done hundreds, perhaps thousands of times in fighting, something you have seen work, been able to tweak from that experience, etc. or B) something you have never done in fighting but believe should work (although you've never seen it work), that you have no real experience doing, etc.?



And we learn to 'deal with that' at a very early stage. I'm not saying everyone does, but how I learnt definitely puts me in a positive place imo. But of course you will only rubbish my heritage now and compare me to others that are not me...

We specialize in 'defending our centreline' so these amateurs/beginners may never get the chance to pull off a neck grab or push through your rotations in the first place! :D

The ONLY way to learn to deal with that is BY dealing with that -- otherwise, all you are learning and developing is a theory, a way that you hope will deal with that.

[Violent Designs]

terrance.

don't waste your energy mate.

[t_niehoff]

Can't agree here.. He certainly is displaying skill in ChiSao at the very least.. You mentioned that one should get "decent" at ChiSao before going to the application phase so since that clearly takes time, since clearly many Sifu can't even do what Wan Kam is doing, and it takes time and work to get there clearly there is skill in all of this....


I don't think we NEED chi sao -- we can develop using a sparring platform, for example. But I do think that if you are going to use chi sao as a teaching/learning platform, then you should be able to perform the exercise well.



Also you're too black and white in your thinking.. You have contradicted yourself more than once about what things are supposed to look like..as done by all fighters of all skill levels of all fighting styles.. Two scrubs trying to control each other in close range is not what all inside fighting looks like... There are many variables..


It's an easy thing to see for yourself, get a partner, gear up, start in contact and fight, trying to maintain the inside.



3 hours per week sparring? That amounts to 90 two minute rounds per week... or if you train every day 12 rounds of full contact per day... Hmmmmm.


Yup, 2-3 times a week, an hour to 90 minutes of sparring each session, week-in and week-out. What else can you do to train WCK when you don't do forms, chi sao, etc.?



You fight how you train... Whatever limits you place on yourself--what you think is possible/not possible--and you limit what will be possible..


Your fighting is your training.



So, the disconnect in 'core to the floor' as seen in virtually all families ever shown fighting with Chun by your standards is a lack of correct information because they all lack experience? Even though the core may be correct? Even though the core is nothing like application, even though there are no examples of this correct application where we can clearly see the seeds?

Your questions makes no sense. The core CURRICULUM of WCK is to impart the method, the movement/actions you need in implementing the method, and the tactics.

Application is fighting. It is not a demo of this-is-what-I-think-you-can-do-in-fighting. That is theory -- even though many people call it "application". Application is this-is-what-I-consistently-pull-off-in-fighting. Tell me, who is showing that?



So how much is enough? What is the correct amount? As I said many Sifu can't even do much of the moves in ChiSao.. So those moves are not needed? Which ones are? What is it that must be learned in the training? What is it that is not needed?


Once you can ride the bike with the training wheels on, how long should you continue to practice that before taking the training wheels off?

I agree with you that if you can't ride the bike with training wheels on, then you aren't ready to take the training wheels off -- and certainly you shouldn't be trying to teach others to ride.

But, once you can ride comfortably with the training wheels, to improve any further, you need to take off the training wheels and begin trying to ride the bike. The point isn't to become the best rider of the bike with training wheels but to ride without the training wheels.



I see a lot of blurry and unclear assertions.. Sifus can't do X,Y,Z in ChiSao which (according to you) doesn't require any skill, yet (according to you) that's not needed for application which only requires (according to you) some lesser amount of non-skill core training...and on and on.... Is that what Yip taught?


Your question makes no sense.

Chi sao is an exercise to learn and practice the tools (and to some degree, the method) of WCK. But learning the tools and practicing them to the point where you can comfortably and successfully use them freely in chi sao does not make them SKILLS (unless you want to call them chi sao skills) -- because a SKILL from my perspective is a fighting skill, it is your ability to use a WCK tool consistently and successfully in fighting. Chi sao won't develop that ability, that skill. That skill or ability only comes from taking the tools that you have learned and practiced in chi sao and putting them into fighting.

Wan Kam obviously has developed to the point that he can use the tools of WCK freely in chi sao (and can control his opponent while striking him). That's great (and more than what many, many others have achieved). But, that doesn't mean he could fight worth squat. He may very well have very little real (fighting) skill. His ability to fight using his WCK will depend on how much quality sparring time he has put in trying to use his WCK tools.



You once said, if they can't do it in a drill then they have no chance of doing it in application... But apparently this only applies to X but not Y and Z, all of which don't require skill because it's just the basic training... :confused:


I don't know where you are getting this from. See above.



Sorry, but it sounds like a haphazard theory riddled with inconsistencies, or at best an incomplete theory about what is and what is not skill, what is and what is not needed in the core "non-skillset" and why there is this universal problem of non transfer to the floor....(application) IOW your position isn't going anywhere..Other than, the generic 'sparring is essential' thing...

At best all this just muddies the waters..and doesn't by any stretch put together a coherent idea of what Chun is supposed to be, how it should be trained and why--be it in the "gun form" or in application.

It's simple, WCK is a method of fighting (it has a strategic approach to fighting) and tools (movement/actions and tactics) to implement that method. Traditionally, this is taught through a TCMA curriculum, of forms (a catalog of the movement/actions, etc. performed in the air), unrealistic exercises (like chi sao, lop sao, etc. to teach those movement/actions/tactics in contact), with an oral tradition (keywords, kuit, etc. to provide direction for your practice). That curriculum imparts the things you need to fight with WCK but doesn't develop much skill in actually doing that (as fighting skill comes from fighting).

So to develop skill using these things we have learned, we need to go practice using them in fighting. In the old days, that was done on rooftops, in challenge matches, etc. As Sum Nung told Rene, the main difference between the old guys and the later generation was that in the old days they fought a lot.

Today, going out and fighting in the street isn't an option. Even back in Yip's days in Hong Kong, Hawkins didn't want to fight in the street (since it was illegal) and joined a karate school so that he could get people to spar with. Today we fight in gyms. And, we can pick good, skilled people to fight with thereby vastly speeding up the learning/development process. After all, you are only as good as your training/sparring partners.

The next step, I think, is to do away with the classical approach to training altogether and adopt a sport-model of training.

[LoneTiger108]

terrance.

don't waste your energy mate.

That's funny :D This is exactly what he is doing...

[t_niehoff]

That's funny :D This is exactly what he is doing...

It's never a waste of time or energy to express the truth.

[LoneTiger108]

What are you talking about? I see how pro MMA fighters, MT fighters, etc. train and they don't do 2000 hours of sparring in two years as you claimed -- it would be physically impossible. The boxers at my gym only spar 30 minutes in a 2 1/2 hour workout, and that's pretty standard.

Really? But in another post you say this...


Yup, 2-3 times a week, an hour to 90 minutes of sparring each session, week-in and week-out. What else can you do to train WCK when you don't do forms, chi sao, etc.?

Who are we to believe here? I presume that one is you and the other is 'standard' for your gyms boxers.

When I was younger I sparred at the club and with friends all the time, just for a laugh! I was crazy ;) Maybe you can't calculate 3-4hrs per day, seven days per week for 2 years but it's more than you done in 10 years and actually didn't do me much good either! Pretty bad shoulder, wrists and elbow problems arose!

What it did instil is the mentality to not to worry about getting hit or having my nose busted, which comes in handy when so-called 'big men' stand in your face and hit you realizing that you have a head made of iron!! :eek:

Of course, the intensity of the sparring varied, but basically I sparred all the time as much as possible just to hit and get hit.


You can't learn or develop empty hand from the knife and pole -- the body mechanics, the movement/action, the problems, the solutions, etc., just about everything is different in each of those domains (empty hand, pole, knife).

No wonder we will never be on the same page. After this comment there can be no more discussion T. You're obviously not a weaponry man...

[free2flow]

You can't learn or develop empty hand from the knife and pole -- the body mechanics, the movement/action, the problems, the solutions, etc., just about everything is different in each of those domains (empty hand, pole, knife).


My knowledge in Wing Chun is limited, but based on my experience in Filipino Martial Arts (FMA) that specializes on bladed and blunt weapons, I don't think this statement is true. Once you have developed skill in knife, either using it or defending against it, empty hands is a very natural progression.

[jesper]

My knowledge in Wing Chun is limited, but based on my experience in Filipino Martial Arts (FMA) that specializes on bladed and blunt weapons, I don't think this statement is true. Once you have developed skill in knife, either using it or defending against it, empty hands is a very natural progression.

In many of the older martial arts you would actually learn to fight with weapons first and then later go unarmed.

Today its ofcourse the other way around since not many people carry swords etc around. well not in the western part of the world at least

[t_niehoff]

My knowledge in Wing Chun is limited, but based on my experience in Filipino Martial Arts (FMA) that specializes on bladed and blunt weapons, I don't think this statement is true. Once you have developed skill in knife, either using it or defending against it, empty hands is a very natural progression.

Yeah, that's a common view held by people who don't fight. And some people do try to build off of their "knife-movement" in trying to develop an empty-hand game. But it doesn't take them very long to see that it doesn't work-- that empty-hand and knife are night and day. Perhaps Dale/knifefighter, a Dog Brother who posts of this forum, will chime in.

BTW, I too trained in a FMA -- pekiti tersia and Inosanto blend, practiced pantukan, dumog, the whole gamut -- for a long time (10 years or so). And most FMA, like most other TMAs, is brimming with fantasy.

[Knifefighter]

My knowledge in Wing Chun is limited, but based on my experience in Filipino Martial Arts (FMA) that specializes on bladed and blunt weapons, I don't think this statement is true. Once you have developed skill in knife, either using it or defending against it, empty hands is a very natural progression.

No it isn't a natural progression. They are totally different skill sets.

That is one of the fallacies of the FMA's... that learning the weapons will teach you the empty hands. Nothing could be further from the truth.

[Knifefighter]

And most FMA, like most other TMAs, is brimming with fantasy.

Yes it is.

[t_niehoff]

Really? But in another post you say this...

Who are we to believe here? I presume that one is you and the other is 'standard' for your gyms boxers.


When I talk about my sparring (WCK), I am not referring to boxing. You said you sparred 2000 hours in 2 years with boxing, and I said that wasn't possible. The standard - for boxing - is what I have have seen at several gyms, including boxing gyms that have produced world champs (the Spinks). And, this is in line with what an internet search provided.



When I was younger I sparred at the club and with friends all the time, just for a laugh! I was crazy ;) Maybe you can't calculate 3-4hrs per day, seven days per week for 2 years but it's more than you done in 10 years and actually didn't do me much good either! Pretty bad shoulder, wrists and elbow problems arose!


No you didn't.



What it did instil is the mentality to not to worry about getting hit or having my nose busted, which comes in handy when so-called 'big men' stand in your face and hit you realizing that you have a head made of iron!! :eek:


I can see that you consider yourself a little man and have a little man complex.

I don't know who you think you are fooling, but you won't fool anyone who has trained boxing (and I have).



Of course, the intensity of the sparring varied, but basically I sparred all the time as much as possible just to hit and get hit.


Sure you did. From the guy who wouldn't step in a MMA gym to save his life.



No wonder we will never be on the same page. After this comment there can be no more discussion T. You're obviously not a weaponry man...

No, I'm not a fantasy role player.

[free2flow]

Today its ofcourse the other way around since not many people carry swords etc around. well not in the western part of the world at least
Of course, though I can say here in US people carry small utility knife so we don't know if the person you're fighting might have a weapon. So I always presume he has one. Me I just carry a metal pen all the time.

Anyway just want to point out that same body mechanics, footwork, strategy, sense of timing using and defending weapons (once understood and skill is developed) could be used in purely empty-hand fights. Just presenting a different view, from a Filipino Martials Artist's standpoint.

Though personally, I would never fight somebody empty-handed. There can be improvised weapons you can find anywhere.

Thanks!

[Knifefighter]

Anyway just want to point out that same body mechanics, footwork, strategy, sense of timing using and defending weapons (once understood and skill is developed) could be used in purely empty-hand fights. Just presenting a different view, from a Filipino Martials Artist's standpoint.

Yeah, they COULD be used, but not very effectively.

The mechanics, power development, timing, etc are completely different. You can't do with empty hands what you can do with a blade.

Methinks, like a lot of FMA practitioners, you have been sold a bill of goods by your instructor, who was sold a bill of goods by his also.

Just presenting a different point of view from another FMA practitioner who figured out he was sold a bill of goods in the past.

But, don't believe me just because I say it. Go out and do what I did. Seek out some profiecient empty hand fighters to try out your assumptions.

[t_niehoff]

Of course, though I can say here in US people carry small utility knife so we don't know if the person you're fighting might have a weapon. So I always presume he has one. Me I just carry a metal pen all the time.


If you are concerned with dealing with a weapon, let me point out that in the US people won't be carrying knives, they will be carrying handguns -- and your metal pen won't be much help.



Anyway just want to point out that same body mechanics, footwork, strategy, sense of timing using and defending weapons (once understood and skill is developed) could be used in purely empty-hand fights. Just presenting a different view, from a Filipino Martials Artist's standpoint.


No, they are NOTHING alike. This is theoretical (since we never see this in action) nonsense used to sell FMAs to the gullible -- and some people buy into it and then come to adopt it as their POV. But it isn't true. As I said, all you need to do is fight to see this.



Though personally, I would never fight somebody empty-handed. There can be improvised weapons you can find anywhere.

Thanks!

If by fight you mean defend yourself from an attack on the street, let's just hope your attacker warns you and gives you the time to find one and pick it up, and also hope that you won't be prosecuted since under most US laws - certainly in Missouri - you can only use the same level of force as your attacker (which means if he is empty handed and you pick up a weapon, then self-defense goes out the window as a legal defense).

[LoneTiger108]

In many of the older martial arts you would actually learn to fight with weapons first and then later go unarmed.

I agree. Just as Karate is a development of the katana and bo, for training during the peaceful times.


When I talk about my sparring (WCK), I am not referring to boxing. You said you sparred 2000 hours in 2 years with boxing, and I said that wasn't possible. The standard - for boxing - is what I have have seen at several gyms, including boxing gyms that have produced world champs (the Spinks). And, this is in line with what an internet search provided.

Like I said, I was crazy! And I took that personality into my WCK too, which my Sifu helped to calm down.

I can't argue with your internet research though. My earlier years must have been a dream.


No you didn't. (in reference to my hours sparring at my boxing club)

Again! You know more about me than I do. I must be dreaming again. That's what us fantasy fu-pllayers do all day isn't it? Dream?



I can see that you consider yourself a little man and have a little man complex.

Actually, no I don't. That's the normal term around my area for the little 'wannabe gansta' types.


I don't know who you think you are fooling, but you won't fool anyone who has trained boxing (and I have).

No you haven't. :D


No, I'm not a fantasy role player.

Hmmm?

[t_niehoff]

My earlier years must have been a dream.


No, just a fantasy.



Again! You know more about me than I do. I must be dreaming again. That's what us fantasy fu-pllayers do all day isn't it? Dream?


I really couldn't say what you guys do.

But I do know what you don't do. ;)

[LoneTiger108]

I really couldn't say what you guys do.

But I do know what you don't do. ;)

That's my point T! You're ALWAYS trying to tell me what I'm doing :rolleyes: so that quote right there is another all-out lie!

I also know what you CAN'T do :p

[Knifefighter]

Seriously think about what you're saying here T. The clip may as well have been from a Sanshou/Sansau competition as the 'token' 3 rolls is just ridiculous and, if I'm honest, completely disrespectful of any WCK interactive knowledge. That's not what I would call Gorsau or Sansau. That's a bungled mess!.

What ever else it is, one thing it is for sure is a perfect demonstration that chi sao is good for nothing except learning to chi sao and that anyone who has done chi sao and subsequently developed some halfway decent fighting application skills has done so in spite of, rather than because of, doing chi sao.

[LoneTiger108]

What ever else it is, one thing it is for sure is a perfect demonstration that chi sao is good for nothing except learning to chi sao

There was no chisau in the clip dude.

Chisau is a teaching tool. That's all. What and where you decide to take your further training depends on the quality of instruction in the first place. So, on reflection, the guys in the clips were both crap at chisau and crap at WCK sansau.


... and that anyone who has done chi sao and subsequently developed some halfway decent fighting application skills has done so in spite of, rather than because of, doing chi sao.

I agree 100% ;)

It's just a pity that the fighting skills that get developed do not contain the essence of WCK. Just bad habit after bad habit imho...

[Knifefighter]

Chisau is a teaching tool. That's all. What and where you decide to take your further training depends on the quality of instruction in the first place. So, on reflection, the guys in the clips were both crap at chisau and crap at WCK sansau..

Teaching someone the basics of how to fight by learning chi soa is like teaching someone to hit a baseball by teaching him how to bowl... with the occasional baseball hitting instruction randomly thrown into his bowling instruction.

[Knifefighter]

There was no chisau in the clip dude..

What was in the clip was the "starting in the steering wheel position" of chi sao. All that did was emphasize the obvious of how little it has to do with fighting application.

[LoneTiger108]

Teaching someone the basics of how to fight by learning chi soa is like teaching someone to hit a baseball by teaching him how to bowl... with the occasional baseball hitting instruction randomly thrown into his bowling instruction.

Again. I have to agree.

Basics of fighting are best kept in the ring with a good boxing coach. But what about the more advanced aspects of fighting? Learning to deal with the touch of an opponent? The various positioning, angling and power generations? In fist to face contact range?

Then boxing just doesn't do it for me. Interactive training does, like chisau.

[Knifefighter]

Again. I have to agree.

Basics of fighting are best kept in the ring with a good boxing coach. But what about the more advanced aspects of fighting? Learning to deal with the touch of an opponent? The various positioning, angling and power generations? In fist to face contact range?

Then boxing just doesn't do it for me. Interactive training does, like chisau.

I wasn't talking about boxing. I was talking about unarmed, hand to hand fighting.

Chi sao is nothing like hand to fist contact fighting or having hands on contact... and that is exactly the problem.

[LoneTiger108]

Chi sao is nothing like hand to fist contact fighting or having hands on contact... and that is exactly the problem.

Then we have differing views on chisau.

Your problem originates from limited teaching or understanding of WCK imho. If I was to use an old expression for Wing Chun fighters like "once our hands touch, you will not be able to move" as an ultimate goal, how far did you go in training WCK?

How many interactive drills withing WCK, other than chisau, did you train?

[Knifefighter]

Then we have differing views on chisau.

Your problem originates from limited teaching or understanding of WCK imho. If I was to use an old expression for Wing Chun fighters like "once our hands touch, you will not be able to move" as an ultimate goal, how far did you go in training WCK?

How many interactive drills withing WCK, other than chisau, did you train?

Yes, we obviously have differing opinions on chi sao. My opinion is based on something called specificity. This means I believe the movements you train should be as close to the movement done in the actual application as possible.

Chi sao has none of this.

Maybe my problem does originate form limited teaching and understanding. I am willing to entertain that idea as soon as someone can supply a shred of evidence of actual fighting application looking anything like what is done in chi sao.

[LoneTiger108]

Maybe my problem does originate form limited teaching and understanding. I am willing to entertain that idea as soon as someone can supply a shred of evidence of actual fighting application looking anything like what is done in chi sao.

I hope you find a skilled practitioner who shares :D;)

Chisau is, imho, a launching mechanism for sansau. Without the right understanding you just wouldn't be in the right place at the right time to launch anything worth launching!

Now if it's all about touch (at the beginning) and my aim is NOT to touch, how I move against anything relies on what exactly? Perception? Or simple courage and determination?

[Knifefighter]

I hope you find a skilled practitioner who shares :D;)

Chisau is, imho, a launching mechanism for sansau. Without the right understanding you just wouldn't be in the right place at the right time to launch anything worth launching!

Now if it's all about touch (at the beginning) and my aim is NOT to touch, how I move against anything relies on what exactly? Perception? Or simple courage and determination?

If you want to train a more realistic application of chi sao, simply start with the way real confrontations start... both people close together with out touching, one person grabbing another one one manner or another, one person attempting to hit the other, etc.

Then, from there, try to chi sao with each person trying to hit, hold onto, or take down the other and keep going. What you will have is something that much more resembles what you saw the guys doing in the clip than any "rolling steering wheel" chi sao drill you will ever do.

[LoneTiger108]

If you want to train a more realistic application of chi sao, simply start with the way real confrontations start... both people close together with out touching, one person grabbing another one one manner or another, one person attempting to hit the other, etc.

Then I wouldn't be practising chisau imo. ;) I'd be be entering into gorsau. Different practise. Different skill.


Then, from there, try to chi sao with each person trying to hit, hold onto, or take down the other and keep going. What you will have is something that much more resembles what you saw the guys doing in the clip than any "rolling steering wheel" chi sao drill you will ever do.

I can see your point here. But can you see mine?

BTW This rolling steering wheel would be more like looksau and not chisau. Again, another interactive practise for another purpose.

[Knifefighter]

I hope you find a skilled practitioner who shares :D;)

I think I have a few times over the years.

[YungChun]

I don't think we NEED chi sao -- we can develop using a sparring platform, for example. But I do think that if you are going to use chi sao as a teaching/learning platform, then you should be able to perform the exercise well.

The ChiSao platform (when used correctly) offers an opportunity to focus on many different contact--connected elements that IMO either wouldn't happen in sparring or wouldn't happen enough in sparring... ChiSao offers a highly variable, yet focused platform. You can break things down, go slow, put it back together, go fast, go light, go hard, all while refining certain subtle use of position and force (with many different tools) highly focused on these subtle elements.. Good ToiMa, for example, (depending on what one means by that) is IMO absolutely invaluable core training. The list is actually quite long, and you can break it down, you can learn through prolonged contact with someone who has skills, etc... I couldn't disagree more on this one.

I do agree that teachers should have the ability to perform well in ChiSao and as we can see that is often not the case, in fact, many can't even punch correctly. :)



It's an easy thing to see for yourself, get a partner, gear up, start in contact and fight, trying to maintain the inside.

I have...(don't say it) but sparring with different kinds of fighters will yield different results..

For example: using Chun and fighting a boxer vs fighting a BJJ guy vs fighting a MT guy simply won't be the same animal and those are only three generic variables...

Not everyone fights the same, uses the same method, the same tools, has the same level of skill... Etc.. With all those differing variables of course different = different not different = the same...



Yup, 2-3 times a week, an hour to 90 minutes of sparring each session, week-in and week-out. What else can you do to train WCK when you don't do forms, chi sao, etc.?

So you do 12 rounds of full contact every day? For the love of God you must be kidding? That would leave even the average young, in shape pro athlete with more injuries than could be managed and possibly hospitalized... Pro Boxers don't even do that or anything close.

The body has limits, suggesting this level of full contact work is beyond anything I have ever heard of anywhere and honestly sounds hyperbolic especially for someone middle-aged.. I mean look at TUF and we can see injuries taking candidates out left and right even from relatively light and short sparring sessions.



Your fighting is your training.

Sure but it's not all or the only training and nevertheless intention comes from the mind.. A limited mind (I can't do that--that can't be done) will limit performance potential.

And before you re-write the--we can see what works--thing, if you use what most Chun fighters are doing as a guide then you'd be limited to Chain Punching ad infinitum..



Your questions makes no sense. The core CURRICULUM of WCK is to impart the method, the movement/actions you need in implementing the method, and the tactics.


The point I was getting at is that you say 'a certain level' should be attained with the core training but it's unclear how much or what parts... The training wheel example is good but oversimplified.. So, if you are going to say "decent at ChiSao" then you need to define what parts/actions/techniques must be learned and what parts need not be learned.

IMO if folks can't do the more difficult moves in ChiSao and you move past that to application leaving the training wheels in the closet then something will be missing.. And btw this is commonplace among many modern Sifu who can't do these things (even) in ChiSao.



Application is fighting. It is not a demo of this-is-what-I-think-you-can-do-in-fighting. That is theory -- even though many people call it "application". Application is this-is-what-I-consistently-pull-off-in-fighting. Tell me, who is showing that?


Who is showing what? You mean who is showing full contact demos?

But I agree most of what is shown by Sifu as "application" is often complete BS and when you spar you can see that..



Once you can ride the bike with the training wheels on, how long should you continue to practice that before taking the training wheels off?

See my above question about How Much or what is enough...

[t_niehoff]

The ChiSao platform (when used correctly) offers an opportunity to focus on many different contact--connected elements that IMO either wouldn't happen in sparring or wouldn't happen enough in sparring... ChiSao offers a highly variable, yet focused platform. You can break things down, go slow, put it back together, go fast, go light, go hard, all while refining certain subtle use of position and force (with many different tools) highly focused on these subtle elements.. Good ToiMa, for example, (depending on what one means by that) is IMO absolutely invaluable core training. The list is actually quite long, and you can break it down, you can learn through prolonged contact with someone who has skills, etc... I couldn't disagree more on this one.


Yes, I know we disagree. My view is that fighting skills can be taught and developed directly from a sparring platform -- this is what all the functional, combative sports do.



I have...(don't say it) but sparring with different kinds of fighters will yield different results..

For example: using Chun and fighting a boxer vs fighting a BJJ guy vs fighting a MT guy simply won't be the same animal and those are only three generic variables...

Not everyone fights the same, uses the same method, the same tools, has the same level of skill... Etc.. With all those differing variables of course different = different not different = the same...


Yes, of course. But my point is that when you fight on the inside you will see the same "elements" because those are the things what "work" -- or that people commonly do -- on the inside. Different arts/fighters will stress those aspects differently, but stand-up is stand-up, clinch is clinch, ground is ground.



So you do 12 rounds of full contact every day? For the love of God you must be kidding? That would leave even the average young, in shape pro athlete with more injuries than could be managed and possibly hospitalized... Pro Boxers don't even do that or anything close.

The body has limits, suggesting this level of full contact work is beyond anything I have ever heard of anywhere and honestly sounds hyperbolic especially for someone middle-aged.. I mean look at TUF and we can see injuries taking candidates out left and right even from relatively light and short sparring sessions.


No, believe me, what I do is nothing special. I train WCK 2-3 times a week and do about an hour to an hour and a half of sparring each time I train. I am not trading punches during that time (that's what I want to avoid), I am trying to use my WCK, to keep my opponent under control, keep his offense closed off, smother his strikes, etc. It is exhausting and punishing (when I finish I am covered in sweat, I'm always sore, I've been accidentally injured -- from small stuff to a detached retina to a dislocated knee). But, it is a lot of fun and challenging. I could be playing rugby. :)



Sure but it's not all or the only training and nevertheless intention comes from the mind.. A limited mind (I can't do that--that can't be done) will limit performance potential.

And before you re-write the--we can see what works--thing, if you use what most Chun fighters are doing as a guide then you'd be limited to Chain Punching ad infinitum..


I see your POV.



The point I was getting at is that you say 'a certain level' should be attained with the core training but it's unclear how much or what parts... The training wheel example is good but oversimplified.. So, if you are going to say "decent at ChiSao" then you need to define what parts/actions/techniques must be learned and what parts need not be learned.

IMO if folks can't do the more difficult moves in ChiSao and you move past that to application leaving the training wheels in the closet then something will be missing.. And btw this is commonplace among many modern Sifu who can't do these things (even) in ChiSao.


OK, I think that I see what you are asking.

As I see it, chi sao is an exercise -- if done "properly" -- to teach a trainee how to control an opponent while striking him using the tools of WCK. So how can I tell when a trainee has learned that? By when he can and is doing that successfully consistently. But there is no fixed number of techniques to it. When the trainee can do it, then he has enough. Then he has a foundation (method and tools) to put into sparring.

[free2flow]

Yeah, that's a common view held by people who don't fight. And some people do try to build off of their "knife-movement" in trying to develop an empty-hand game. But it doesn't take them very long to see that it doesn't work-- that empty-hand and knife are night and day. Perhaps Dale/knifefighter, a Dog Brother who posts of this forum, will chime in.

BTW, I too trained in a FMA -- pekiti tersia and Inosanto blend, practiced pantukan, dumog, the whole gamut -- for a long time (10 years or so). And most FMA, like most other TMAs, is brimming with fantasy.


We both have different experiences with our FMA training resulting in different views. No point on arguing online, in a WC forum. Let’s just agree to disagree.

Cool, it’s nice to know somebody here that knows Pekiti, Inosanto Blend, panuntukan and dumog. That’s my first style and did for quite sometime before I moved on to Balintawak. Who’s your teacher in Pekiti, Guro Nate or Stan? Do you also used to train at Ron Smith’s Muay Thai gym and what year? I may have met you already there :).

[free2flow]

Yes it is.

Keyword is "most".

[t_niehoff]

We both have different experiences with our FMA training resulting in different views. No point on arguing online, in a WC forum. Let’s just agree to disagree.

Cool, it’s nice to know somebody here that knows Pekiti, Inosanto Blend, panuntukan and dumog. That’s my first style and did for quite sometime before I moved on to Balintawak. Who’s your teacher in Pekiti, Guro Nate or Stan? Do you also used to train at Ron Smith’s Muay Thai gym and what year? I may have met you already there :).

Ah, you must be an old CMAA guy, huh? I used to go there to work out with my training partner back in the day (when Ron Smith was teaching MT there).

I learned Pekiti from Leo and Tom (seminars) and mainly Ron Harris, and Inosanto blend, panatukan/dumog from Dan and Vu.

The good old days when I was young and stupid. :) And no wise cracks anyone. ;)

[Knifefighter]

Keyword is "most".

By your own admission, you don't fight without a weapon, yet "think" you could.

I'd say this makes you part of the "most" crowd.

I'll tell you who's not in the "most" crowd in the FMA community. Those few that are actually going out and doing it, who quickly (sometimes not so quickly) figure out that that fighting with weapons and fighting empty handed are two different skill sets.

You are like the fencer who thinks fencing will apply to empty-hand fighting. The difference is that most fencers aren't that deluded.

[free2flow]

By your own admission, you don't fight without a weapon, yet "think" you could.

I'd say this makes you part of the "most" crowd.

I'll tell you who's not in the "most" crowd in the FMA community. Those few that are actually going out and doing it, who quickly (sometimes not so quickly) figure out that that fighting with weapons and fighting empty handed are two different skill sets.

You are like the fencer who thinks fencing will apply to empty-hand fighting. The difference is that most fencers aren't that deluded.

Not sure if I am deluded or not. Maybe I am :). I trained in Muay Thai and now learning Wing Chun. I just think if I have something sharp or hard in my hand, it will make my jab, cross, wing chun punches more effective. I really don’t mind boxing somebody when I have something sharp in my hand. I will still box and move around using my footwork, I could still do a teep or round kick the guy. Once my wing chun gets better, I can’t wait to incorporate a knife in there. I think it’s all on the mindset, to use whatever tool to have the advantage. Why fight fair, if your life (I got one only :) ) is in danger. Just my 2 cents.

[free2flow]

Ah, you must be an old CMAA guy, huh? I used to go there to work out with my training partner back in the day (when Ron Smith was teaching MT there).

I learned Pekiti from Leo and Tom (seminars) and mainly Ron Harris, and Inosanto blend, panatukan/dumog from Dan and Vu.

The good old days when I was young and stupid. :) And no wise cracks anyone. ;)

I'm pretty sure you're older than me :). But as they say, wisdom comes with age.

[Knifefighter]

Not sure if I am deluded or not. Maybe I am :). I trained in Muay Thai and now learning Wing Chun. I just think if I have something sharp or hard in my hand, it will make my jab, cross, wing chun punches more effective. I really don’t mind boxing somebody when I have something sharp in my hand. I will still box and move around using my footwork, I could still do a teep or round kick the guy..

That is flawed logic. Do you think you could put a sharp object in your hand and box successfully against someone who was using actual knife techs with their own knife?

Same thing applies with empty hand vs. empty hand.

[chusauli]

Ah, you must be an old CMAA guy, huh? I used to go there to work out with my training partner back in the day (when Ron Smith was teaching MT there).

I learned Pekiti from Leo and Tom (seminars) and mainly Ron Harris, and Inosanto blend, panatukan/dumog from Dan and Vu.

The good old days when I was young and stupid. :) And no wise cracks anyone. ;)

Actually all of that stuff is not bad. It depends how much you train and if you like it.

[free2flow]

That is flawed logic. Do you think you could put a sharp object in your hand and box successfully against someone who was using actual knife techs with their own knife?

Same thing applies with empty hand vs. empty hand.

How about if we just agree to disagree here. We’ll just each continue looking (training, sparring, etc.) and let our personal experiences guide as and help us answer this question. I don’t think we necessarily have to come up with same conclusion. What works best for each one is the right answer for him.

Thanks for your sharing your inputs. I'll definitely keep that in mind.