WC chi sao history

[SavvySavage]

Does anyone here believe that chi Sao was really invented so that a smaller guy could train with a larger guy and not get trashed? In a sparring match the bigger guy has more advantages. Force two people to put their arms together and you take away his reach advantage and hitting power advantage because now you have to stick. The elders didn't want to look bad in front of students so they chi saoed for an advantage.


I think it's an interesting theory.

[YungChun]

Force two people to put their arms together and you take away his reach advantage and hitting power advantage because now you have to stick. The elders didn't want to look bad in front of students so they chi saoed for an advantage.


I think it's an interesting theory.

Not true IME..

Most shorter/weaker people in ChiSao have similar problems taking control of the larger longer limbed person.. Most stronger folks with longer arms will dominate in ChiSao and it's only when the smaller, weaker player has developed sufficient skill that these limitations no longer limit the smaller player.

[Graham H]

Does anyone here believe that chi Sao was really invented so that a smaller guy could train with a larger guy and not get trashed? In a sparring match the bigger guy has more advantages. Force two people to put their arms together and you take away his reach advantage and hitting power advantage because now you have to stick. The elders didn't want to look bad in front of students so they chi saoed for an advantage.


I think it's an interesting theory.

Chi Sau was developed so that 2 people can exchange force to develop the body to support the punch. Also to learn to fight in close and learn how to react with the correct action to aid the punch.

It has nothing to do with big or small guys or sticking to the arms.

GH

[LoneTiger108]

Does anyone here believe that chi Sao was really invented so that a smaller guy could train with a larger guy and not get trashed?

No.

It has developed continuously and Ip Man refined it further to aid his teaching. It's specifically a teaching tool and shouldn't be used to 'over power' anyone or anything! That's simply called 'bullying' here in London!

If you are truly interested in where it comes from, you should look into 'how to control horned cattle'. That's a more interesting starting point than thinking it was invented to save face :rolleyes:

[t_niehoff]

Does anyone here believe that chi Sao was really invented so that a smaller guy could train with a larger guy and not get trashed? In a sparring match the bigger guy has more advantages. Force two people to put their arms together and you take away his reach advantage and hitting power advantage because now you have to stick. The elders didn't want to look bad in front of students so they chi saoed for an advantage.


I think it's an interesting theory.

If you see WCK as a attached/contact fighting method, then I think the question of why chi sao was developed is easily understood -- it is an unrealistic (non-fighting) representation of the WCK "clinch" (sticking). The tools of WCK are mostly contact tools, so they need to be learned/practiced in contact, and once you start sticking (maintaining flexible contact) and chaining these contact tools, you get chi sao.

[bennyvt]

No man. Im 163 cms tall and 62 kilograms. I have to be massivly higher in skill then the big guy just to keep up. This is the normal crap. Think about it. If I can make every movement stronger, quicker etc then why shouldn't it be the same for a big guy.
It ****es me off. I have to get everything so precise or it doesn't work against anyone big, big guys use their strength etc and just "muscle" it through.

[MysteriousPower]

It is much easier to chi sao with someone than spar. It is safer. In all those Kung fu tournaments the chi crowd is never sparring. And then they get cheered for having good fighting skills. Down with the spinny hands!

[Knifefighter]

Does anyone here believe that chi Sao was really invented so that a smaller guy could train with a larger guy and not get trashed? In a sparring match the bigger guy has more advantages. Force two people to put their arms together and you take away his reach advantage and hitting power advantage because now you have to stick. The elders didn't want to look bad in front of students so they chi saoed for an advantage.


I think it's an interesting theory.

More than likely it came from people who were looking for a less than full contact way to train without beating each other up.

[SavvySavage]

More than likely it came from people who were looking for a less than full contact way to train without beating each other up.

I was thinking that as well. Like MP said it is easier to roll and strike than it is to spar. Sparring is way more unpredictable than chi Sao.

[YungChun]

More than likely it came from people who were looking for a less than full contact way to train without beating each other up.

More advanced ChiSao is often done with hard/full contact.. There also have been many cases in certain places and times where much blood was spilled doing this 'less than full contact way'.. Bottom line is that the level of contact varies, "light contact" is not a requisite part of the drill.

[jesper]

More advanced ChiSao is often done with hard/full contact.. There also have been many cases in certain places and times where much blood was spilled doing this 'less than full contact way'.. Bottom line is that the level of contact varies, "light contact" is not a requisite part of the drill.

no no no during chi sao we manage to have a cup of tea and talk about the latest reality show.
Dont try and fool anyone :)

[YungChun]

no no no during chi sao we manage to have a cup of tea and talk about the latest reality show.
Dont try and fool anyone :)

No, that's DanChiSao....:cool:

[Graham H]

If you see WCK as a attached/contact fighting method, then I think the question of why chi sao was developed is easily understood -- it is an unrealistic (non-fighting) representation of the WCK "clinch" (sticking). The tools of WCK are mostly contact tools, so they need to be learned/practiced in contact, and once you start sticking (maintaining flexible contact) and chaining these contact tools, you get chi sao.


If you see WC as an attached/contact fighting method then you are a fool!!!! The tools in VT teach you to be free in order to strike and NOT to be attached to the arms.

When my Teacher was asked in an interview about Chi Sau this was his reply....


.....To train and improve in Ving Tsun, we have a unique and versatile
training partner exericise which serves to train and correct many
attributes necessary for fighting...this exercise is called Chi Sau. Chi
Sau is a co-operation between mutual partners to exchange and reciprocate
something between themselves, if there is no co-operation...it's no
longer Chi Sau, which becomes un-productive. Chi Sau is a very good
exercise to help you to reach your goal and that's why we spend so much
time and effort usually up to 90% of our training time, but it is still
only a link or bridge between the forms and sparring which serves to
develop the Idea of Ving Tsun.


GH

[t_niehoff]

If you see WC as an attached/contact fighting method then you are a fool!!!! The tools in VT teach you to be free in order to strike and NOT to be attached to the arms.


Yes, brilliant! You believe that your art's signature drill/exercise is an attached one because you don't want to be attached but free to strike (I guess you haven't learned the WCK punch -- see that thread-- because your arm doesn't need to be "free" to strike). In other words, you practice doing one thing to do another.

Yes, do X to get better at Y. And I'm the fool. ;)



When my Teacher was asked in an interview about Chi Sau this was his reply....


But my sifu sez . . . so it must be true.

[Graham H]

But my sifu sez . . . so it must be true.

Its not really a matter of who is right and who is wrong T. Ving Tsun has evolved in many different directions.

The main point is what makes sense and what doesn't and I can't see any sense in your ideas as I have practiced Ving Tsun that way before. WSLPB's ideas are different and for me make more sense but obviously not to you. Thats ok.

Even if PB was not doing things as they should be then I think his "incorrect" way is far far better than all the so say "correct" ways that I have practiced before. I'm happy with that. :D

GH

[YungChun]

Again the issue arises IMO because of the tendency of modern fighters not to hold the line.... Some arts, many arts especially CMA want to control the line, control the arms/body, but most of what is out there now does not. (strikers)

If someone is trying to control your arms you want to stop, avoid that and control theirs, either directly or indirectly so you can hit them.. If they don't and are not doing this then clearly the game changes..

The function of the strikes don't change however they still serve the same function which most agree on...to break them down.

There is still some question then about the ability to break structure.. Terence seems to see that they can but emphasizes more assisted control... No big deal so long as whatever way you go it works.. Either way breaking their structure is one of the key's of the art.. If your strikes don't do that you need to supplement them... Body power in the strikes is paramount however....

[MysteriousPower]

You guys know how there are reality shows on television that are not really reality? But all the drama is real enough to hypnotize us all. Chi sao is like a reality show of fight training. Not real but real enough to make you feel something.

Just skip chi sao and watch Jersey Shore.

[t_niehoff]

Its not really a matter of who is right and who is wrong T. Ving Tsun has evolved in many different directions.


WCK hasn't evolved in many directions -- WCK is WCK, and as the KK says, "the method of WCK comes from the ancestors." If you are not doing that (what the ancestors developed), you are not doing what has come down to us as WCK. You are then doing your own thing. And various people have gone off in many different directions, either intentionally or unintentionally, doing their own thing but call what they are teaching WCK.



The main point is what makes sense and what doesn't and I can't see any sense in your ideas as I have practiced Ving Tsun that way before. WSLPB's ideas are different and for me make more sense but obviously not to you. Thats ok.


No. The main point isn't about "what makes sense." When you talk about "ideas" and "what makes sense", you are talking from an entirely theoretical POV. Lots of things sound sensible to people inexperienced in fighting -- that's why people buy into all kinds of nonsense. And, of course, you can design your drills or demo's in such a way as to make the nonsense appear plausible to the inexperienced. But you can't tell what will work or not work in fighting by "what makes sense", you can ONLY tell by DOING it (or seeing it done).

And you've never practiced WCK "that way" before (you may have practiced WCK, but not what we're talking about).



Even if PB was not doing things as they should be then I think his "incorrect" way is far far better than all the so say "correct" ways that I have practiced before. I'm happy with that. :D

GH

If you are happy with what you are doing with Bayer, that's fine and dandy.

[t_niehoff]

There is still some question then about the ability to break structure.. Terence seems to see that they can but emphasizes more assisted control... No big deal so long as whatever way you go it works.. Either way breaking their structure is one of the key's of the art.. If your strikes don't do that you need to supplement them... Body power in the strikes is paramount however....

Let me elaborate a bit on my view. WCK's method is to control while striking. An illustrative analogy is WCK is like standing ground and pound. In GNP, you want to control your opponent on the ground and then pummel him with strikes, right? OK, so how much control do you need? Some people are happy to be standing in an open guard - which provides minimal control - and try to rain down strikes. Some want more control, maybe they are happy being in top in half-guard, while others don't start really punching until they pass the guard and work their way to the mount (a great deal of control). But it is all GNP, all about controlling while striking. The approach is the same, but how people individually execute it, how much control they are personally satisfied with, will depend on many factors, including what they find through practice -- doing it -- works best for them. The situation is also significant (do I think I need much control over this particular opponent, etc.) Control isn't black and white (you either have it or you don't) but a continuum.

But, if you don't go into your practice with the objective of wanting to control an opponent while striking him, you can't develop skill doing that. So in my training, I go for max control because my view is that you can always scale it down if you need or want to, but if you don't practice trying to get max control, you won't be able to.

[Knifefighter]

More advanced ChiSao is often done with hard/full contact.. There also have been many cases in certain places and times where much blood was spilled doing this 'less than full contact way'.. Bottom line is that the level of contact varies, "light contact" is not a requisite part of the drill.

Well, then, the only other explanation is that they decided to come up with an unrealistic training exercise in as misguided attempt to simulate what might happen in a fight.

[Xiao3 Meng4]

Good Chi Sao is Push-Hands + striking.

(waits expectantly for shouts of indignation)

[Knifefighter]

If you see WC as an attached/contact fighting method then you are a fool!!!! The tools in VT teach you to be free in order to strike and NOT to be attached to the arms.

When my Teacher was asked in an interview about Chi Sau this was his reply....


.....To train and improve in Ving Tsun, we have a unique and versatile
training partner exericise which serves to train and correct many
attributes necessary for fighting...this exercise is called Chi Sau. Chi
Sau is a co-operation between mutual partners to exchange and reciprocate
something between themselves, if there is no co-operation...it's no
longer Chi Sau, which becomes un-productive. Chi Sau is a very good
exercise to help you to reach your goal and that's why we spend so much
time and effort usually up to 90% of our training time, but it is still
only a link or bridge between the forms and sparring which serves to
develop the Idea of Ving Tsun.


GH


90% of your training time is spent in an attached drill, when the goal is to not be attached.

This would be the height of stupidity in terms of training concepts.

[YungChun]

Well, then, the only other explanation is that they decided to come up with an unrealistic training exercise in as misguided attempt to simulate what might happen in a fight.

Not really.. It's contact training that focuses on the tactics and tools of Chun...

Dale you have to remember that Southern Chinese Arts all do similar things, they want to control limbs and bodies, they have a variety of nasty attacks that exploit this contact, they also strike and they do all this with arm/body contact...

So a good deal of the moves in Chun no doubt had this in mind in their inception.

Some of those moves indeed will involve freeing one's hand (detaching) to strike...or controlling them so they aren't controlling your weapon.

[Knifefighter]

Good Chi Sao is Push-Hands + striking.

(waits expectantly for shouts of indignation)

And push hands is just as unrealistic a training method as is chi sao.

[Knifefighter]

Dale you have to remember that Southern Chinese Arts all do similar things, they want to control limbs and bodies, they have a variety of nasty attacks that exploit this contact, they also strike and they do all this with arm/body contact... .

They may "want" to do that, but the evidence points to the probability that they were rarely able to do it in actual application.

People who developed systems that have as the goal to physically control limbs and bodies, quickly determined that, if you train and test in a realistic manner, your system has to become one that is composed mainly of grappling.

[YungChun]

They may "want" to do that, but the evidence points to the probability that they were rarely able to do it in actual application.

People who developed systems that have as the goal to physically control limbs and bodies, quickly determined that, if you train and test in a realistic manner, your system has to become one that is composed mainly of grappling.

I think you overlook the social nature of fighting.. If you and I both want to control each other's arms/bodies and each have a certain idea of how we want to do that then we will..especially if that's all we know.

I once sparred with this SCMA guy.. All he wanted to do was to attach to my arms and control me.. (along with digging his nails into my arms which did bleed) My chun moves felt very much at home though with these kinds of attacks... Makes perfect sense since these styles are from the same hood.

[Knifefighter]

I think you overlook the social nature of fighting.. If you and I both want to control each other's arms/bodies and each have a certain idea of how we want to do that then we will..especially if that's all we know.

I once sparred with this SCMA guy.. All he wanted to do was to attach to my arms and control me.. (along with digging his nails into my arms which did bleed) My chun moves felt very much at home though with these kinds of attacks... Makes perfect sense since these styles are from the same hood.

OK, I'll buy that. That being said, in a full contact scenario, where real damage is being done, "control' will quickly switch to a more realistic, grappling and holding based scenario.

[Xiao3 Meng4]

And push hands is just as unrealistic a training method as is chi sao.

Oh, no question. It's a game you play at the beginning stages, first with rhythm and then with resistance, then trade in for a more complex game (say, Chi Sao,) which you then move past into something more complex again.

[Knifefighter]

Oh, no question. It's a game you play at the beginning stages, first with rhythm and then with resistance, then trade in for a more complex game (say, Chi Sao,) which you then move past into something more complex again.

Whenever you do it it's still ineffective because actual application looks nothing like the way most people learn push hands.

This is realistic push hands:
http://v.ku6.com/show/OjedUm000-PeN2K7.html

That is what chi sao would look like (with additional head and clothing grabbing) if the goal was to control the opponent limbs and body.

[Xiao3 Meng4]

This is realistic push hands:
http://v.ku6.com/show/OjedUm000-PeN2K7.html

Yes, I like that kind. The inclusion of trips and throws is where to progress to after figuring out the basic sumo-style stuff, ime.

Adding strikes to the kind of push-hands you linked to is what Sticking games should progress towards.

I guess for me it's a question of getting there. Basic push hands is meant to be played with a focus on control through the upper body and many people don't go beyond that. I see good Chi Sao progression as the addition of upper-limb strikes to the upper body control game.

The addition of lower body methods is a natural progression and can generally be introduced in intermediate push hands or as Chi Gerk.

[Graham H]

90% of your training time is spent in an attached drill, when the goal is to not be attached.

This would be the height of stupidity in terms of training concepts.

who said anything about being attached!!!! Chi Sau is not about being attached. It is about learning how to be free to punch and continue punching in amongst all the mess that happens in fighting.......see look!! You have no idea of what I'm on about do you?? The contact part is only a small part of Chi Sau and it is there to serve a certain purpose. NOT to stay stuck on arms!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

GH

[t_niehoff]

who said anything about being attached!!!! Chi Sau is not about being attached.


You ARE attached when you do chi sao. It's called sticking hands because your hands/arm "stick" -- that is maintain connection with or stay attached to -- your opponent.



It is about learning how to be free to punch and continue punching in amongst all the mess that happens in fighting.......see look!!


You don't need to practice chi sao to do that. Why would you do a drill where your hands/arms stay in contact with an opponent to learn how be free to punch -- you are already free to punch if you are not in contact! Just release contact and you are free to punch.

The other thing is that the WCK punch doesn't need to be free.



You have no idea of what I'm on about do you?? The contact part is only a small part of Chi Sau and it is there to serve a certain purpose. NOT to stay stuck on arms!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
GH

If you are not in contact, you are not doing chi sao.

[Knifefighter]

who said anything about being attached!!!! Chi Sau is not about being attached. It is about learning how to be free to punch and continue punching in amongst all the mess that happens in fighting.......see look!! You have no idea of what I'm on about do you?? The contact part is only a small part of Chi Sau and it is there to serve a certain purpose. NOT to stay stuck on arms!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

GH

It's not attached? OK. I have no idea what you are talking about. I'll buy that.

Please post a clip of this unattached chi sao of which you speak so I can be filled in and educated about it.

Of course, until you can do that, the probability is that you are simply talking out of your @ss.

[YungChun]

What he means is that while you start attached in ChiSao the goal during play is not attachment..

MoyYat taught that ChiSao is "A fight for the centerline"....

There are certainly controlling elements in this 'fight' and many of the techniques involve attachment, but the goal is not attachment it's control of the line...

So you start sharing the line.. Force that leaves the line is in error.. When they leave the line you then attack down that line without hesitation via the cultivation of the use of correct position (structure) and energy (forward spring energy) to do this automatically.. You can also help them leave the line, using that energy (CheungChi) to help control them as you hit, this is what the techniques do.

The drill normally starts sharing the line; Then taking the line, one can also 'move' the line (flank), etc to assist control of it, where control of the line means filling it with attack. The drill is complete when and if one person takes sufficient control of the line (and partner) so they may land multiple strikes (at least 2) while preventing the partner from doing the same...(fansao) or you can 'send them away' (launch them airborne, etc) or drop them...etc...

That said there is more than one way to play..

In any case the goal is control with striking...not attachment per se..

[Graham H]

It's not attached? OK. I have no idea what you are talking about. I'll buy that.

Please post a clip of this unattached chi sao of which you speak so I can be filled in and educated about it.

Of course, until you can do that, the probability is that you are simply talking out of your @ss.

.....T**t!!! So I guess you are saying that PB, WSL and YM are talking out there @ss too are you???? :D

I already posted a clip but if you think that the word sticky means to stick to arms then you carry on mate. If we are going to get bogged down by terminology again maybe I could say "sticky" means to stick to your opponent. Chase the center, where he goes you cut the way, lat jik chung and all that stuff. Who knows who's right???? Maybe you can do a ouija board and ask Yip Man himself...lmfao

Sticky Arms???? :D:rolleyes:

GH

[Graham H]

What he means is that while you start attached in ChiSao the goal during play is not attachment..

MoyYat taught that ChiSao is "A fight for the centerline"....



In any case the goal is control with striking...not attachment per se..

;).........Well put!!!!!

[theo]

chi sau is essentially a laboratory for one to experiment. to that end, it serves many purposes. we can use it to hone certain attributes or skills that we're working on, but it cannot be defined as just "chi sau is centerline, chi sau is about fighting". proper chi sau is many things.

read this, it may change your ideas about it:

http://www.w1ng.com/some-thoughts-on-chi-sau/

[t_niehoff]

.....T**t!!! So I guess you are saying that PB, WSL and YM are talking out there @ss too are you???? :D


No. Bayer isn't teaching what WSL and YM taught, only his interpretation-- or reworking -- of that.

If we really want to see what WSL and YM taught, you don't look at just one person -- particularly when that one person has "unique" ideas -- but to all the other persons they taught, to get a broad sample and from that see what they taught.

And, we can even look at a broader picture than that, and look at other nonYip lineages and see that this isn't what they do either.



I already posted a clip but if you think that the word sticky means to stick to arms then you carry on mate. If we are going to get bogged down by terminology again maybe I could say "sticky" means to stick to your opponent. Chase the center, where he goes you cut the way, lat jik chung and all that stuff. Who knows who's right???? Maybe you can do a ouija board and ask Yip Man himself...lmfao

Sticky Arms???? :D:rolleyes:

GH

Chi sao translates to sticking arms (chi means "to stick to" and the character represents two pieces of rice clinging together, sao means arm). That's what our ancestors named the drill. Do you think they named the drill to mislead people? They didn't call it sticking to the center (chi ng) or sticking to the opponent (chi jong) but chi sao because you are sticking with YOUR arms. The terminology is clear, and it is descriptive (you call something a hip throw because you are using your hip to throw, not because you aren't doing that).

[t_niehoff]

What he means is that while you start attached in ChiSao the goal during play is not attachment..

MoyYat taught that ChiSao is "A fight for the centerline"....

There are certainly controlling elements in this 'fight' and many of the techniques involve attachment, but the goal is not attachment it's control of the line...

So you start sharing the line.. Force that leaves the line is in error.. When they leave the line you then attack down that line without hesitation via the cultivation of the use of correct position (structure) and energy (forward spring energy) to do this automatically.. You can also help them leave the line, using that energy (CheungChi) to help control them as you hit, this is what the techniques do.

The drill normally starts sharing the line; Then taking the line, one can also 'move' the line (flank), etc to assist control of it, where control of the line means filling it with attack. The drill is complete when and if one person takes sufficient control of the line (and partner) so they may land multiple strikes (at least 2) while preventing the partner from doing the same...(fansao) or you can 'send them away' (launch them airborne, etc) or drop them...etc...

That said there is more than one way to play..

In any case the goal is control with striking...not attachment per se..

No one here is talking about the goal being "attachment per se". But you need that attachment to accomplish your goal. As you said, the goal or objective in chi sao is to practice using WCK movement/actions to control your opponent -- that involves controlling the centerline. But to do that, you NEED attachment. No attachment, no control. And the objective isn't just to control "a line" but the opponent (controlling ONLY a line won't accomplish anything as the opponent has all kinds of lines he can use).

If you simply "have the line" without contact, you have absolutely no control over an opponent (he can do whatever he wants to).

Sticking (chi) is a method of attachment that is flexible and adaptable (as opposed to say a solid hold), and it permits us to close his offense down, slow his action, connect to his center, manipulate him (via leverage and momentum), etc. Sticking is a skill that permits us to control our opponent. It is the basis of the WCK-style clinch and the very foundation of our method. There is a reason all lineages/branches of WCK have in some form chi sao.

[Graham H]

no. Bayer isn't teaching what wsl and ym taught.



Fairplay T you do make me laugh. Can you back up this claim in any way??? I'm looking forward to your reply. :)

[t_niehoff]

Fairplay T you do make me laugh. Can you back up this claim in any way??? I'm looking forward to your reply. :)

Bayer is teaching HIS OWN approach to WCK, based on what he learned from WSL. You are learning Bayer WCK, not WSL WCK.

But if you want to get an idea of what WSL taught, look at other people WSL trained, people like Gary Lam or Wan Kam Leung or David Peterson, and don't look at just one but ALL of them. For example, go to Gary's website and read about what he teaches (http://www.garylamwingchun.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&id=34&Itemid=113) and see how it sounds very little like what Bayer promotes. When you do, you will also see that WSL taught what other Yip Man students (Moy Yat, Hawkins Cheung, Ho Kam Ming, etc.) taught.

Bayer's own videos demonstrate he has limited chi sao skills. Compare what he does to Wan Kam Leung, for example, and you'll see it clearly.

[Graham H]

Bayer's own videos demonstrate he has limited chi sao skills. Compare what he does to Wan Kam Leung, for example, and you'll see it clearly.

yeah but i have seen both first hand so im in a better position to make that judgement bro!!! You haven't!!! Oh hang on........watching videos is surely a better way than actually being in the same room and seeing what they have to offer right????:D

[Graham H]

I suppose that if we use your idea then WSL changed what Yip man taught him. Philipp changed what WSL taught him. I'm going to change what Philipp is teaching me and so on and so on until its not even WCK anymore.......maybe we should change it now from Ving tsun to Ping Pong........result!!!! :D:p

[t_niehoff]

I suppose that if we use your idea then WSL changed what Yip man taught him. Philipp changed what WSL taught him. I'm going to change what Philipp is teaching me and so on and so on until its not even WCK anymore.......maybe we should change it now from Ving tsun to Ping Pong........result!!!! :D:p

This is the sort of unsound reasoning that people like Bayer use to validate what they do (instead of just showing that they can really do it). How often do we hear "I teach exactly what so-and-so taught"?

OK, let's use your own "reasoning" -- Yip Man also taught Moy Yat, Ho Kam Ming, Hawkins Cheung, and so on, right? So why doesn't everyone of his studetns do things exactly the same way? They all had the same teacher as WSL? Or do you think only WSL received the "true transmission"?

And Moy Yat, Ho Kam Ming, Hawkins Cheung, WSL, etc. all had many students? So why don't they all do things exactly the same way?

In fact. why doesn't every person in Yip Man's lineage do things exactly the same way since according to you no one is "changing" anything?

People aren't Xerox machines, and different people are taught differently and different things, some are better students than others, they all have different experiences (or lack of experiences), some are more talented, some work harder, in other words, there are all kinds of INDIVIDUAL factors involved in learning and developing our WCK. And that doesn't even take into account that when teaching, an individual may find that certain ways of teaching work better for them, that they use different ways of teaching X than their teacher, and so on.

WCK isn't simply what WSL said it was or what Bayer says it is or what Moy Yat, Ho Kam Ming, Hawkins, etc. says it is. These people are simply teachers, and all they can impart is THEIR OWN INDIVIDUAL take on the CURRICULUM of WCK. Bayer isn't teaching you EXACTLY what Yip taught, he is teaching his interpretation of what WSL taught, and what WSL taught was his own interpretation of what Yip taught.

And Yip wasn't a great fighter (name the great fighters he fouoght), neither was Wong (he had rooftop fights with poorly skilled kung fu fighters), and Bayer isn't even a fighter (although he likes to play one on youtube).

Instead of thinking that your sifu is God's gift to WCK and has inherited the "true" knowledge and "idea" of WCK that has passed down from Yip to WSL to him, look outside your little lineage and see the greater art that is WCK.

[sihing]

It is true that when one learns from a Sifu, and then goes on to teach it, they are teaching their interpretation of what they learned. In reality there is no "WSLVT" as WSL passed away in 1997. The only thing we have is what his students teach us now. None of them are the same, they all admit that, but what is the same is the core, the core drills, the core curriculum, the core idea of what WSL passed down, each teaching it according to their own interpretation of it. Now when I see PB in action on vid I see WSL, the core method of WSL is present in his movements. I also read it in his articles when he writes it, as it matches what other WSL students relate in their writtings. It's just like chef's, they can all make the same dishes but each adds to it their own seasoning based on their individuality and preferences.

For me, if I had the chance I would learn from PB, just to experience his way and skill personally, because without doing that all one can really do is speculate.

The beauty of WSL is not that he was or wasn't a good fighter, as one is only as good as their competition, but rather his genius in how he looked at the system, and how he didn't get complacent with it. He was always looking for a better way, refining his teaching and teaching it all to whomever was willing to learn from him.

James

[shawchemical]

Does anyone here believe that chi Sao was really invented so that a smaller guy could train with a larger guy and not get trashed? In a sparring match the bigger guy has more advantages. Force two people to put their arms together and you take away his reach advantage and hitting power advantage because now you have to stick. The elders didn't want to look bad in front of students so they chi saoed for an advantage.


I think it's an interesting theory.

If you think that, you don't understand the purpose of chi sao

[shawchemical]

If you see WCK as a attached/contact fighting method, then I think the question of why chi sao was developed is easily understood -- it is an unrealistic (non-fighting) representation of the WCK "clinch" (sticking). The tools of WCK are mostly contact tools, so they need to be learned/practiced in contact, and once you start sticking (maintaining flexible contact) and chaining these contact tools, you get chi sao.

You still misinterpret sticking.

[t_niehoff]

You still misinterpret sticking.

Oh, that's brilliant. No explanation, no reasons given, no evidence submitted, etc. to refute or even rebut my views. Yeah, pure genius.

[MysteriousPower]

This is the sort of unsound reasoning that people like Bayer use to validate what they do (instead of just showing that they can really do it). How often do we hear "I teach exactly what so-and-so taught"?

OK, let's use your own "reasoning" -- Yip Man also taught Moy Yat, Ho Kam Ming, Hawkins Cheung, and so on, right? So why doesn't everyone of his studetns do things exactly the same way? They all had the same teacher as WSL? Or do you think only WSL received the "true transmission"?

And Moy Yat, Ho Kam Ming, Hawkins Cheung, WSL, etc. all had many students? So why don't they all do things exactly the same way?

In fact. why doesn't every person in Yip Man's lineage do things exactly the same way since according to you no one is "changing" anything?

People aren't Xerox machines, and different people are taught differently and different things, some are better students than others, they all have different experiences (or lack of experiences), some are more talented, some work harder, in other words, there are all kinds of INDIVIDUAL factors involved in learning and developing our WCK. And that doesn't even take into account that when teaching, an individual may find that certain ways of teaching work better for them, that they use different ways of teaching X than their teacher, and so on.

WCK isn't simply what WSL said it was or what Bayer says it is or what Moy Yat, Ho Kam Ming, Hawkins, etc. says it is. These people are simply teachers, and all they can impart is THEIR OWN INDIVIDUAL take on the CURRICULUM of WCK. Bayer isn't teaching you EXACTLY what Yip taught, he is teaching his interpretation of what WSL taught, and what WSL taught was his own interpretation of what Yip taught.

And Yip wasn't a great fighter (name the great fighters he fouoght), neither was Wong (he had rooftop fights with poorly skilled kung fu fighters), and Bayer isn't even a fighter (although he likes to play one on youtube).

Instead of thinking that your sifu is God's gift to WCK and has inherited the "true" knowledge and "idea" of WCK that has passed down from Yip to WSL to him, look outside your little lineage and see the greater art that is WCK.

What was the point you were trying to make by saying all those guys were not great fighter? Your teacher falls into that category as well so whatever point you making also applies to him.

[shawchemical]

Oh, that's brilliant. No explanation, no reasons given, no evidence submitted, etc. to refute or even rebut my views. Yeah, pure genius.

The points have all been made before wan.ker. YOu just refuse to accept that anyone knows anything that contradicts the sh.it you think you know.

[t_niehoff]

What was the point you were trying to make by saying all those guys were not great fighter? Your teacher falls into that category as well so whatever point you making also applies to him.

Of course it does. There are two issues, the first is does your sifu know the core curriculum of WCK (which says nothing about his ability to use it) and the second pertains to his ability to use that curriculum.

My point was that we can only determine if our sifu - or anyone for that matter - has the core curriculum of WCK by looking at the art broadly, across lineages, branches, and various sifu.

But if someone like Bayer believes he has some unique approach, something "different" than the core curriculum, THEN the question becomes what makes him think what he does will work? And that means fighting.

[Wayfaring]

Of course it does. There are two issues, the first is does your sifu know the core curriculum of WCK (which says nothing about his ability to use it) and the second pertains to his ability to use that curriculum.

My point was that we can only determine if our sifu - or anyone for that matter - has the core curriculum of WCK by looking at the art broadly, across lineages, branches, and various sifu.

But if someone like Bayer believes he has some unique approach, something "different" than the core curriculum, THEN the question becomes what makes him think what he does will work? And that means fighting.

So now it is ONLY if what you are doing is DIFFERENT than your "core curriculum" you need to investigate whether or not it works in fighting?

Spare me the double standard.

[t_niehoff]

So now it is ONLY if what you are doing is DIFFERENT than your "core curriculum" you need to investigate whether or not it works in fighting?

Spare me the double standard.

It's not a double standard. But I can see why you might think I was suggesting that by my poor wording. Sorry.

I am pointing out that there is a distinction between the curriculum of WCK and application (using the tools from that curriculum in fighting). This is something that keeps getting blurred.

To know what the curriculum of WCK is (those elements) does not depend on anyone's fighting ability. WCK, the curriculum, comes down to us from our ancestors. We can see it by looking across legit lineages and seeing the commonality (those elements in common in YM, YKS, Gu Lao, Pan Nam, etc.). And, importantly, the curriculum of WCK provides a certain method, the tools for implementing that method, and various ways of learning/practicing that method and tools. All those aspects tie together.

However, when it comes down to discussions of application, that this is how you should use the curriculum (the tools), including this is better than that, then this can only be shown through fighting.

When someone says that they have found a "new" way of using the tools, a new approach to fighting with WCK, do you think it inappropriate to expect evidence that this is true?

To use an example for clarity: Let's say that so-and-so adopts a "WCK is a groundfighting method" view and begins teaching WCK from that POV. Can we both agree that this is not historically/classically WCK's approach? So, it that event, do we just say, "Great, you've found a new approach to WCK. Well done."? Or, would you take the position, as I would, that 1) that is not WCK's approach to fighting and that 2) that the new approach won't work since the tools of WCK aren't "designed" for groundfighting (they were designed for WCK's method). But, if someone could show me that they could do it, then I would reconsider my position.

[YungChun]

When someone says that they have found a "new" way of using the tools, a new approach to fighting with WCK, do you think it inappropriate to expect evidence that this is true?


Replace "New" with "Any" and same same.

[kung fu fighter]

Bayer is teaching HIS OWN approach to WCK, based on what he learned from WSL. You are learning Bayer WCK, not WSL WCK.

But if you want to get an idea of what WSL taught, look at other people WSL trained, people like Gary Lam or Wan Kam Leung or David Peterson, and don't look at just one but ALL of them. For example, go to Gary's website and read about what he teaches (http://www.garylamwingchun.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&id=34&Itemid=113) and see how it sounds very little like what Bayer promotes. When you do, you will also see that WSL taught what other Yip Man students (Moy Yat, Hawkins Cheung, Ho Kam Ming, etc.) taught.

Bayer's own videos demonstrate he has limited chi sao skills. Compare what he does to Wan Kam Leung, for example, and you'll see it clearly.


T, You shouldn't use Gary or Wan to support your argument because they are not pure WSL wck. Gary was heavily influenced by Hawkins Cheung and is doing his own thing. Wan Kam Leung learnt some mainland wing chun which he mixes in with what he learnt from WSL.

[t_niehoff]

T, You shouldn't use Gary or Wan to support your argument because they are not pure WSL wck. Gary was heavily influenced by Hawkins Cheung and is doing his own thing. Wan Kam Leung learnt some mainland wing chun which he mixes in with what he learnt from WSL.

Your point is unsound. There is no such thing as "pure WSL WCK." WSL WCK is only WSL's particular way of TEACHING WCK. It is a variety of Yip Man WCK. Which is a variety of Leung Jan WCK. LOL! The various lineages are only curriculum for teaching the SAME THING. WCK is WCK.

[Yoshiyahu]

Your point is unsound. There is no such thing as "pure WSL WCK." WSL WCK is only WSL's particular way of TEACHING WCK. It is a variety of Yip Man WCK. Which is a variety of Leung Jan WCK. LOL! The various lineages are only curriculum for teaching the SAME THING. WCK is WCK.

So i guess that means that Robert Lee McField Wing Chun is wing chun too then?

[t_niehoff]

So i guess that means that Robert Lee McField Wing Chun is wing chun too then?

Yes, he is teaching WCK (although he has mixed in some crap). He is just doing it really poorly. Not everyone teaches at the same level (some teach kindergarten WCK, some first grade, some high school, etc.). And you can only teach those aspects of the core curriculum that you know.

You can learn a sport from a scrub but that won't make you a good player. And, the more you try to adhere to the teachings of the scrub, the more difficult it will be for you to make progress. You need to continually seek out better and better people.

For example, my dad taught me to play chess but he was a really poor player. I learned what I could from him and moved on. I later found that much of what he taught me was not very good. I joined a chess club and got to play with good players, and I progressed. I became a chess master not because of my father but because of the work I did. It's the same with everything.

[Lee Chiang Po]

Does anyone here believe that chi Sao was really invented so that a smaller guy could train with a larger guy and not get trashed? In a sparring match the bigger guy has more advantages. Force two people to put their arms together and you take away his reach advantage and hitting power advantage because now you have to stick. The elders didn't want to look bad in front of students so they chi saoed for an advantage.


I think it's an interesting theory.



No!! It is not meant for that purpose. Chi Sao is not a sparring session, it is only designed to facilitate practice of your hand techniques. Two people can easily practice this way. First one then the other, back and forth. He attacks, you defend, you attack and he defends. Change up techiques and continue. Big or little, makes no difference, you are not sparring and if someone gets trashed doing Chi Sao, you are not doing Chi Sao. The name Chi Sao says it all. It is simply a two man drill and nothing more. It has turned into a game, sport, or more a childs game for some reason. It is the reason we get laughed at so much.

[Graham H]

Of course it does. There are two issues, the first is does your sifu know the core curriculum of WCK (which says nothing about his ability to use it) and the second pertains to his ability to use that curriculum.

My point was that we can only determine if our sifu - or anyone for that matter - has the core curriculum of WCK by looking at the art broadly, across lineages, branches, and various sifu.

But if someone like Bayer believes he has some unique approach, something "different" than the core curriculum, THEN the question becomes what makes him think what he does will work? And that means fighting.

....but Terence.....YOU don't know the WCK curriculum!!! If you don't then nor does your Teacher and your Teachers Teacher.

PB doesn't have a UNIQUE approach!!!! He has a more functional, systematic approach and can give his students the tools to improve. Your system is pants!!! Regardless of what you say and how you say it, it is still pants!!!!

Until you meet PB...........YOU will never know........simples. In the mean time I can just watch you make a fool of yourself........PERFECT!!!:D

Gary Lam is not teaching WSLVT as WSL or PB taught and teach it. Neither is it the method that I practice.......NOR is Hawkins Chung..FACT!!!!!

As usual these people have added other things that shouldn't be there (like you have). Certain others in the wsl lineage have not. Also a FACT!!!

Please will the jury rise to pass sentence..........Do you, the jury, find Terence Neihoff guilty of mass crimes against WCK??????............YES!!!! Your Honor!!!!.......send that mo' fo' to jail!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D:D:D:D:D

GH

[bennyvt]

About yip, wsl not being good fighter who only fought srubs. You preach what Chu teaches you, has he even had a fight, let alone against anyone good. You use Alan Orr as back up as to the fact that you know what you are talking about, the old "well alan said I was one of the only ones who knows what is right" ie, but my big brother says I can. So please tell me all the pro-fighters (you know names we would regognize that are good fighters) he has fought or he would be on the same line ie, hasn't fought anyone we would know so he isn't anything in VT. I wont bother with you as we all know you are a 40 year lawyer that except by being picked on by the cool kids at school only "fights" with his training partners in a secure safe gym.
My point is not to put down either of these people, Although I don't agree with the whole VT headlock or that it isn't jujitsu atleast he is doing what he says, training with good guys and getting his guys into comp etc. You apply standards to everyone except your onw people face it. Yip and WSL would have fought hundreds of more people then probably your entire lineage. Im not going to justify why they were fighters as you just ignore reality and try to pretent that because they didn't fight a UFC champion then they didn't fight anyone good.

[HumbleWCGuy]

Does anyone here believe that chi Sao was really invented so that a smaller guy could train with a larger guy and not get trashed? In a sparring match the bigger guy has more advantages. Force two people to put their arms together and you take away his reach advantage and hitting power advantage because now you have to stick. The elders didn't want to look bad in front of students so they chi saoed for an advantage.


I think it's an interesting theory.

I think that it is a way for instructors to avoid getting trashed by young, strong students. Chi sao has a use I suppose, but I think that it was and is overly emphasized as a way for the experienced players to lay down rules to a novice while the advanced player breaks them to look fabulous.

[t_niehoff]

About yip, wsl not being good fighter who only fought srubs.


What is your evidence that they were good fighters? Please, share it.



You preach what Chu teaches you, has he even had a fight, let alone against anyone good.


Look, Yip Man knew the curriculum of WCK. He could obviously teach it. So can Robert. So could WSL. But just because someone knows the curriculum (the forms, drills, kuit, etc.) doesn't mean they can use it.

It doesn't matter whether Yip or Robert or WSL were good or poor fighters -- that has nothing to do with you or me. We only develop OUR ability to use our WCK by using it (by fighting).



You use Alan Orr as back up as to the fact that you know what you are talking about, the old "well alan said I was one of the only ones who knows what is right" ie, but my big brother says I can.


My point is that if you LISTEN, you will see that all the folks who train MMA, from Alan to Dave to Frost to M1K3 to etc., you will see that they all pretty much say the same things about training.



So please tell me all the pro-fighters (you know names we would regognize that are good fighters) he has fought or he would be on the same line ie, hasn't fought anyone we would know so he isn't anything in VT. I wont bother with you as we all know you are a 40 year lawyer that except by being picked on by the cool kids at school only "fights" with his training partners in a secure safe gym.
My point is not to put down either of these people,


Yeah, I only fight in the gym. And guess what, I only play golf on golf courses, tennis on tennis courts, etc. That's where these activities take place. Where do you think that people/fighters train to fight if not gyms?

Try to grasp this -- most advanced white-belt level people at MMA gyms would beat the snot out of most of the WCK people, including your masters. Why? Because they are training like fighters, theyput in loads of time doing realistic sparring, and most WCK people don't. Every good MMA school produces good, fighters, and some of them go on to amateur and pro competitions. If you go to a MMA school, you will train/spar with all levels of folks, from beginners to people who are really good. That takes place at every MMA school I've trained at and at every one I've visited. Go see for yourself.



Although I don't agree with the whole VT headlock or that it isn't jujitsu atleast he is doing what he says, training with good guys and getting his guys into comp etc. You apply standards to everyone except your onw people face it. Yip and WSL would have fought hundreds of more people then probably your entire lineage. Im not going to justify why they were fighters as you just ignore reality and try to pretent that because they didn't fight a UFC champion then they didn't fight anyone good.

If they fought someone good, tell me who it was. Look, you are just hero-worshipping. You want to believe in your heros. There is no doubt that WSL and others had fights. But they were fighting other kung fu guys, etc. When the WCK people went to fight the Thai's, they got their asses kicked. Look at the rooftop fights? Is that "good"?

The bottom line -- and all sport fighters recognize this -- is that you only develop fighting skill through quality sparring, and that you only get as good as the sparring partners you face.

[LoneTiger108]

When the WCK people went to fight the Thai's, they got their asses kicked. Look at the rooftop fights? Is that "good"?

And what do you know of such things T? Do you want to know a true story? About Muay Thai and Wing Chun in the UK?

Long story short, WCK practitioner challenged to take a muay thai kick to his shin as the MT fella thought he was indestructable. MT guy kicks full whack and his own leg is broken by the WCK guys shin. Y'know what the WCK guy said?

"I practise wooden man every day, what wood do you hit?"

Hearing stories of some set up ring matches has absolutely nothing to do with reality. There are good and bad practitioners in all Martial Arts, I just think you need to get out and meet more good Wing Chun people. These two became very close friends afterwards and a mutual respect grew between them, so stop slinging sh1t!

[t_niehoff]

And what do you know of such things T? Do you want to know a true story? About Muay Thai and Wing Chun in the UK?

Long story short, WCK practitioner challenged to take a muay thai kick to his shin as the MT fella thought he was indestructable. MT guy kicks full whack and his own leg is broken by the WCK guys shin. Y'know what the WCK guy said?

"I practise wooden man every day, what wood do you hit?"


That STORY is complete bullsh1t.

Have a look:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJAR1vjgJAU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WTZ3ptQDTE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PftoPTZn0E

Oh, and

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maQINqPI7S0



Hearing stories of some set up ring matches has absolutely nothing to do with reality. There are good and bad practitioners in all Martial Arts, I just think you need to get out and meet more good Wing Chun people. These two became very close friends afterwards and a mutual respect grew between them, so stop slinging sh1t!

Why don't you tell me the names of ANY WCK people who have ever beaten any MT boxers?

[LoneTiger108]

That STORY is complete bullsh1t.

You're so funny T! I tell you a true story that had many witnesses and you still have to fire back at me with your silly post!


Have a look:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJAR1vjgJAU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WTZ3ptQDTE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PftoPTZn0E

Oh, and

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maQINqPI7S0

First of all, I had a look and have to say 'what's so special there then?' Great! Muay Thai players can kick a banana tree.

That's a great drill for feeling the opponents thigh against your shin, but it doesn't emulate shin to shin. I think the MT guy in my 'story' learnt that very quickly. And he was very humble from what I understand.

We train our legwork on rosewood mainly, in a very similar way to the Thais (we're both snake & crane based if you know what I mean?) and just because you haven't done THAT sort of drilling you seem to think other Wing Chun practitioners don't either. And yes, I mean WITHIN their WCK, not from adding MT to the art.

[t_niehoff]

You're so funny T! I tell you a true story that had many witnesses and you still have to fire back at me with your silly post!


Bullsh1t. Please name ANY WCK person who has beaten a MT fighter. One? Hmmm?



First of all, I had a look and have to say 'what's so special there then?' Great! Muay Thai players can kick a banana tree.

That's a great drill for feeling the opponents thigh against your shin, but it doesn't emulate shin to shin. I think the MT guy in my 'story' learnt that very quickly. And he was very humble from what I understand.


If you believe that story, then you are really brainwashed. MT fighters have the most powerful kick, they train by kicking with their shins full-power on the bag, pads, banana trees, etc. In every training session they kick thousands of times. No other method puts as much work into developing their shins for taking punishment as MT.

And you think that doing the wooden dummy develops your shins? How? Are you kicking the wooden dummy with your shins? No.



We train our legwork on rosewood mainly, in a very similar way to the Thais (we're both snake & crane based if you know what I mean?)


No you don't. You don't do anything similar to the Thai's.



and just because you haven't done THAT sort of drilling you seem to think other Wing Chun practitioners don't either. And yes, I mean WITHIN their WCK, not from adding MT to the art.

No, that's not a part of WCK.

If you ever went and trained at a MT gym for 10 minutes, you wouldn't be saying this nonsense.

[LoneTiger108]

And you think that doing the wooden dummy develops your shins? How? Are you kicking the wooden dummy with your shins? No.

Er... Yes in fact I have. Our Plum Flower Wooden Man has an array of legwork, which fyi we all practised with bare feet or socks only.


No you don't. You don't do anything similar to the Thai's.

Er... Yes I do. There is a connection to the two you ignorant a$$!


No, that's not a part of WCK.

Er... yes it is.


If you ever went and trained at a MT gym for 10 minutes, you wouldn't be saying this nonsense.

And if you had actually learnt Wing Chun as I did, then neither would you be spewing your narrow minded opinions everywhere on this forum dude. I'm giving you a different method here, attempting to share what one of the eldest roots of Wing Chun in Europe has to offer and you dismiss it so easily.

Its a shame you're obviously better at typing than you are at Wing Chun.

[YungChun]

And if you had actually learnt Wing Chun as I did, then neither would you be spewing your narrow minded opinions everywhere on this forum dude. I'm giving you a different method here, attempting to share what one of the eldest roots of Wing Chun in Europe has to offer and you dismiss it so easily.


Okay, sounds great, but on the other side (the side of reason) can you show us any--ANY--ANY evidence at all--one single example anywhere--of this in actual fighting?

[t_niehoff]

Er... Yes in fact I have. Our Plum Flower Wooden Man has an array of legwork, which fyi we all practised with bare feet or socks only.


Your not kicking the posts with your shins as hard as you can.



Er... Yes I do. There is a connection to the two you ignorant a$$!


You misunderstood me. I am saying that YOU don't do anything similar to what MT trains. YOU.



Er... yes it is.


No.



And if you had actually learnt Wing Chun as I did, then neither would you be spewing your narrow minded opinions everywhere on this forum dude. I'm giving you a different method here, attempting to share what one of the eldest roots of Wing Chun in Europe has to offer and you dismiss it so easily.


I dismiss all kinds of nonsense easily.

WCK is WCK. Lineage is bullsh1t. All lineage is just someone's particular way of teaching WCK, the same art. Lee Shing WCK is nothing special. Neither is CSL WCK. Or WSL WCK. Or Gu Lao WCK. They are all just variations, different textbooks, for teaching the same subject matter. Different geometry textbooks. The book may be slightly different, with a slightly different focus, etc. but the geometry is the same.

You haven't learned WCK. You have only learned the Lee Shing curriculum. That's it. WCK is fighting -- it is riding the bike. Or, to be more accurate, it is fighting in a certain, specific way using certain specific tools. No fighting, no riding the bike, no WCK. The curriculum only teaches you things you need to ride the bike without ever really riding it. Until you are riding the bike, you can't say that you have learned to ride the bike.

[LoneTiger108]

Okay, sounds great, but on the other side (the side of reason) can you show us any--ANY--ANY evidence at all--one single example anywhere--of this in actual fighting?

Listen, if I'm the ONLY one that thinks like this, or has trained like this on the forum, then the only way you will believe is to come and see me in the UK and feel it for yourself! No point in trying to find a Youtube clip dude, as even anyone I know with any skill that could do this sort of thing with their eyes closed isn't interested in self promotion! Or fighting for that matter!

Conditioning the body and legs in this way is a long and arduous process, and quite dangerous really, especially if you want to take the skill into old age. It's not for everybody but I'm proud of how far I went, even though I admit it wasn't that far at all. It was far enough to not be afraid of a MT leg kick.

[LoneTiger108]

Your not kicking the posts with your shins as hard as you can.

I say it again. You're a funny guy T!


WCK is WCK. Lineage is bullsh1t.

Keep saying it and you will believe yourself, even if deep down you know you're wrong. Lineage is family. Family is EVERYTHING.


All lineage is just someone's particular way of teaching WCK, the same art. Lee Shing WCK is nothing special. Neither is CSL WCK. Or WSL WCK. Or Gu Lao WCK. They are all just variations, different textbooks, for teaching the same subject matter. Different geometry textbooks. The book may be slightly different, with a slightly different focus, etc. but the geometry is the same.

So who then has the original textbook that Ip Man possessed? And think about it, you may THINK that different approaches end up teaching the same stuff, but according to my experience of posting here that's just NOT true dude.

Different teaching produces different results. If NONE are wrong, what IS Wing Chun?


You haven't learned WCK. You have only learned the Lee Shing curriculum. That's it. WCK is fighting -- it is riding the bike.

Yawn!! So boring...

"The way to heaven is to benefit others and not injure. The way of the sage is to act but not compete." Lao-Tzu

[CFT]

Conditioning the body and legs in this way is a long and arduous process, and quite dangerous really, especially if you want to take the skill into old age. It's not for everybody but I'm proud of how far I went, even though I admit it wasn't that far at all. It was far enough to not be afraid of a MT leg kick.MT leg kick doesn't just have low targets. Anywhere between knee and hip is also fair game as far as leg targets are concerned. How do you 'condition' the thigh? It's a game of attrition.

[m1k3]

Er... Yes in fact I have. Our Plum Flower Wooden Man has an array of legwork, which fyi we all practised with bare feet or socks only.



What does that have to do with conditioning your shins? :confused:

[LoneTiger108]

MT leg kick doesn't just have low targets. Anywhere between knee and hip is also fair game as far as leg targets are concerned. How do you 'condition' the thigh? It's a game of attrition.

By having it whacked for long periods with sticks either at someone elses hands or your own dude! It's all part of Iron Shirt training which was general stuff for me as a kid and when I started Wing Chun. Its also something I believe Lee Shing specialized in and taught Austin Goh (& my Sifu of course!)

Squats also do a decent job, but if it's 'contact' your training to defend and take, you better train that contact in the first instance and be very careful in doing so. THIS is what a good Sifu is there for imho. To assess and monitor you so you don't get injured!!!

[LoneTiger108]

What does that have to do with conditioning your shins? :confused:

Well, I would advise that you can't drill a 'contact point' of the leg, like the shin, without exposing the WHOLE body which includes the feet. That would just be unwise and unbalanced imho.

Also, I should say at this point that my Sifus wooden man leg was/is very 'rounded'. It had no sharp edges or knee like I see mostly in use today. Specially built to order I think, by Lee Shing himself. And that thing could be kicked at full power if you dared, but it takes time and patience to build to that extreme.

Time and patience was exactly what we all had back in 1994.

[Tom Kagan]

No point in trying to find a Youtube clip dude, as even anyone I know with any skill that could do this sort of thing with their eyes closed isn't interested in self promotion! Or fighting for that matter!

So what is the explanation for the existence of these?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDQjyD9FB7k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOiiI_hgFCk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeGuespXcKs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFyq9vGg-6g

[LoneTiger108]

So what is the explanation for the existence of these?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDQjyD9FB7k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOiiI_hgFCk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeGuespXcKs

That would be my kung fu uncles 'showreels'. And he promotes himself how he chooses. Probably put up online by one of his many eager students. All filmed a few moons ago. He's now into healing more than fighting I think.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFyq9vGg-6g

Ah! THIS would be an experiment conducted by yours truly! Produced for a little gathering in the British Museum where we hosted an event to raise awareness about Lee Shing and his contribution to Chinese Martial Arts in the UK.

No 'self' promotion. No money made. No students gained! Just something I shared on Youtube as an experiment.

[k gledhill]

That would be my kung fu uncles 'showreels'. And he promotes himself how he chooses. Probably put up online by one of his many eager students. All filmed a few moons ago. He's now into healing more than fighting I think.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFyq9vGg-6g

Ah! THIS would be an experiment conducted by yours truly! Produced for a little gathering in the British Museum where we hosted an event to raise awareness about Lee Shing and his contribution to Chinese Martial Arts in the UK.

No 'self' promotion. No money made. No students gained! Just something I shared on Youtube as an experiment.

:D ring fights staff....

[LoneTiger108]

:D ring fights staff....

Find that funny? Until you've done it and understood it you will forever be blind my friend.