In response to T.D.O.

[WC1277]

I once read an article by chu shong tin taking about finding the spherical shapes of wc techniques, I've always thought it was this movement (motion) he meant. Any chance of starting this topic? please :)

It's a hard subject to broach through words alone. God knows I've tried! It's become somewhat obvious to me, with all the different "ideas" of WC floating around this forum, that a certain foundation is required to even grasp some of the concepts I try to express, the biggest being understanding on how the body, legs, abdomen, arms, are even interconnected. People, by nature, get tunnel vision and often don't ask why something is the way it is. Often people find something that works and focus on that. Often times that "thing" is a what I call a WC "trick". A manipulation founded in a knowledge or weakness, often predictable, in the practitioners system that they exploit. This doesn't make it true and more times than not becomes a "self-fulfilling prophecy" and added to the system as a result.

It is human nature to want to maximize ones potential in any given subject. The problem isn't in the desire but in the short cuts to get there quicker. How many here do you think actually work on the foundation? How many here do you think get bored following the principles because they can't make them work when they want them to? How many people do you think understand what is developmental(99% of the system) and application(1%, just the structure and the punch in all its forms)? The theory of WC is flawless. The principles are sound. The concepts are solid. But why is it so hard for people to make it work?

I offer a few things to think about.

Yes, your comment about TST is not too far off. The structural framework is a rotation of forces much more along the lines of a circle or spiral within the context of a triangle "base". There are MANY things going on there and the term 'go with the flow' is an understatement. Think of a balloon floating freely against a movable wall. The wall being your body as a whole. The balloon being your arms and abdomen. If you press dead center on that balloon surely it will compress and if the wall is dead center behind that ballon surely it will move back.

What good WC structure does is take this concept to another level. What happens when that balloon isn't pressed center? It rolls with the compression. What comes forward despite the compression? The balloon. What happens if the balloon is pressed off center but the wall rotates forward to the side of the force? It rolls while staying hinged to the wall due to opposing forces. i.e. facing. What comes forward towards the thing pressing it? The balloon.

This concept, in combination, is WC structure in motion. The post I made earlier about the spiraling you'll notice of the elbow, if done correctly, along with the ability to switch between active and passive facilitates this concept in the place of the balloon. The "bracing" footwork along with distance facilitates the place of the wall. The force coming in quite literally is showing you where to hit when your path is obstructed and naturally creates a structure where your body is balanced allowing you to deliver force to your structural limit.

This "positioning" is not made intentionally but is a response through adjustment. This positioning is the result of foundational work drilled over and over and over again.....and a good teacher.

Now I don't want anyone to think WC is as simple as that. It's not. There's many other elements involved such as asking hands, timing, kicks, footwork to and fro, multiple opponent footwork, etc. It's a complete system. But the core structure, the reason EVERYTHING else exists and why, is based upon allowing this structural concept to exist...

[SwanseaMike]

Thats really helpful. Thanks.

[Paddington]

There are some seminar videos (one with a runntime of 2hrs) where Chu Shong Tin focuses on finding and understanding 'circles' in wing chun. The best example of these videos is titled 'Wing Chun Course, Siu Nim Tao, October 1998, Chu Shong Tin'; it comes in two parts each around 190 MB.

For those more experienced with the seminar video cited above, I highly recommend giving this video on the 'viking round shield', http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=610_1370556449,
a watch. I found it very enlightening in terms of wing chun when one recalls what Chu Shong Tin says about circles.

[T.D.O]

WC1277 Much appreciated :D:D



Your analogies are madder than mine, still trying to figure it out lol



This "positioning" is not made intentionally but is a response through adjustment. This positioning is the result of foundational work drilled over and over and over again.....and a good teacher.

Had 2 good teachers, sadly 1 now. Structure work was how he started every class, from chi kung to wing chun and back again every class. Destroying structure was one of his favourites and one of mine :) which in turn, made me more interested in my own structure. So no need to worry, i've put a lot of thought and effort in to that ;)

No doubt i'll be back with questions, after a re-read and a think ;)


Thank you :)

[T.D.O]

There are some seminar videos (one with a runntime of 2hrs) where Chu Shong Tin focuses on finding and understanding 'circles' in wing chun. The best example of these videos is titled 'Wing Chun Course, Siu Nim Tao, October 1998, Chu Shong Tin'; it comes in two parts each around 190 MB.

For those more experienced with the seminar video cited above, I highly recommend giving this video on the 'viking round shield', http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=610_1370556449,
a watch. I found it very enlightening in terms of wing chun when one recalls what Chu Shong Tin says about circles.

I'll check it out ;) thanks

[WC1277]

For those more experienced with the seminar video cited above, I highly recommend giving this video on the 'viking round shield', http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=610_1370556449,
a watch. I found it very enlightening in terms of wing chun when one recalls what Chu Shong Tin says about circles.

That is an excellent video Paddington. If one watches the whole thing through to gain context, there are definitely correlations to some WC concepts and principles.

Thanks for sharing!

[WC1277]

FYI T.D.O

I've been watching some TST videos and I think it's safe to say that we have different ideas. It appears that TST focuses much more on rebounding force such as tai chi or the kind of stuff Hendrik tries to explain. While there may be microcosms of correlation, the concept I "tried" to explain above has to do with redirecting force in motion PAST our "shield"(no pun intended Paddinton;)). We're not interested in "receiving force" to return, only redirecting.

Watch that video Paddington posted. The way the shield "rotates" can give you an idea...

[Paddington]

That is an excellent video Paddington. If one watches the whole thing through to gain context, there are definitely correlations to some WC concepts and principles.

Thanks for sharing!

No problem, I am glad to share! I could link the other two videos but I think it not wise to do so on these boards.


FYI T.D.O
[...]
Watch that video Paddington posted. The way the shield rotates can give you an idea...

In the Chu Shong Tin seminar I cite CST uses a large cane circle to show structure and how an opponents energy can be dispersed and rolled away. With that prop CST makes it very easy to imagine a shield and how that has been used in a combat effective way historically; i.e. contact at the edge rather than on the face of the circle.

[WC1277]

In the Chu Shong Tin seminar I cite CST uses a large cane circle to show structure and how an opponents energy can be dispersed and rolled away. With that prop CST makes it very easy to imagine a shield and how that has been used in a combat effective way historically; i.e. contact at the edge rather than on the face of the circle.

He makes some interesting points but I take issue with more than I agree with. Such as not taking into consideration the attacking line, crossing over the line while losing facing, and no implementation of footwork to retain simultaneous "redirect" and "attack" balance. There's many ways to redirect force but we only have two arms and two legs. It's not physically possible to rotate one shoulder forward to redirect, while hitting with the other, as it's rotation is on the backside. If you're going to redirect a force with regards to fighting, it MUST create a balance where the hitting side is rotating forward

I do like that "viking shield" video very much however, and no disrespect intended, but find more correlations in there.

[KPM]

It's not physically possible to rotate one shoulder forward to redirect, while hitting with the other, as it's rotation is on the backside. If you're going to redirect a force with regards to fighting, it MUST create a balance where the hitting side is rotating forward

----Just a comment: I don't think that is an accurate statement. There is more than one way to power a strike. Rotational force is one way, but another way is translational force. So one could very well being rotating the leading shoulder forward to redirect (say..doing a Bong Sao), while stepping into the opponent to power a punch from the rear hand. I've seen Leung Ting demo this on video several times. Of course, I think the punch would be relatively weak. But it is possible. That would be the equivalent of our friend Roland defending with the edge of the shield by shoving it forward and across the centerline while striking from above downward just past the edge of the shield with the sword hand. I've seen him do that. ;)

BTW...I liked your beach ball analogy. :)

[k gledhill]

It's not physically possible to rotate one shoulder forward to redirect, while hitting with the other, as it's rotation is on the backside. If you're going to redirect a force with regards to fighting, it MUST create a balance where the hitting side is rotating forward

----Just a comment: I don't think that is an accurate statement. There is more than one way to power a strike. Rotational force is one way, but another way is translational force. So one could very well being rotating the leading shoulder forward to redirect (say..doing a Bong Sao), while stepping into the opponent to power a punch from the rear hand. I've seen Leung Ting demo this on video several times. Of course, I think the punch would be relatively weak. But it is possible. That would be the equivalent of our friend Roland defending with the edge of the shield by shoving it forward and across the centerline while striking from above downward just past the edge of the shield with the sword hand. I've seen him do that. ;)

BTW...I liked your beach ball analogy. :)

Wc1277 is confirming a basic but HUGE difference in thinking. Same with LT.
SLT teaches FACING for a reason, we have to utilize the structural facing alignment and legs to power the facing arms. Using similar forces we use in the pole, we use the physics ( sorry tc101 ) of kinetic transfer of energy exactly like Newons Cradle.
Speed of parrying actions creates more force, the alignment or discharge point, is the centerline. We can angle and move this facing idea so we don't lose force in one arm rotating to defend or strike at the shoulders. We also don't open gates to be hit back ( if following vt thinking ) so attack and defense ARE without making the same rotational errors of 'humans'. We only turn to FACE the opponent. The MYJ ( dummy ) develops ging lik, facing, lateral attacking to cut the way....

[Paddington]

[...] That would be the equivalent of our friend Roland defending with the edge of the shield by shoving it forward and across the centerline while striking from above downward just past the edge of the shield with the sword hand. I've seen him do that. ;)
[...]

I am very envious of you if it is the case you have seen those guys in person. There are lots of little gems in the viking shield segment; the 'tan sau' arm shape that utilizes the flat of the shield and disperses force to the ground for example.

[Hendrik]

Great clip, thanks and appreciate!



There are some seminar videos (one with a runntime of 2hrs) where Chu Shong Tin focuses on finding and understanding 'circles' in wing chun. The best example of these videos is titled 'Wing Chun Course, Siu Nim Tao, October 1998, Chu Shong Tin'; it comes in two parts each around 190 MB.

For those more experienced with the seminar video cited above, I highly recommend giving this video on the 'viking round shield', http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=610_1370556449,
a watch. I found it very enlightening in terms of wing chun when one recalls what Chu Shong Tin says about circles.

[WC1277]

Wc1277 is confirming a basic but HUGE difference in thinking. Same with LT.
SLT teaches FACING for a reason, we have to utilize the structural facing alignment and legs to power the facing arms. Using similar forces we use in the pole, we use the physics ( sorry tc101 ) of kinetic transfer of energy exactly like Newons Cradle.
Speed of parrying actions creates more force, the alignment or discharge point, is the centerline. We can angle and move this facing idea so we don't lose force in one arm rotating to defend or strike at the shoulders. We also don't open gates to be hit back ( if following vt thinking ) so attack and defense ARE without making the same rotational errors of 'humans'. We only turn to FACE the opponent. The MYJ ( dummy ) develops ging lik, facing, lateral attacking to cut the way....

Yeah, ok Kevin...

Even your guys rotate their shoulders. :rolleyes: Often against the principle. Not interested in arm power alone here...

[WC1277]

It's not physically possible to rotate one shoulder forward to redirect, while hitting with the other, as it's rotation is on the backside. If you're going to redirect a force with regards to fighting, it MUST create a balance where the hitting side is rotating forward

----Just a comment: I don't think that is an accurate statement. There is more than one way to power a strike. Rotational force is one way, but another way is translational force. So one could very well being rotating the leading shoulder forward to redirect (say..doing a Bong Sao), while stepping into the opponent to power a punch from the rear hand. I've seen Leung Ting demo this on video several times. Of course, I think the punch would be relatively weak. But it is possible. That would be the equivalent of our friend Roland defending with the edge of the shield by shoving it forward and across the centerline while striking from above downward just past the edge of the shield with the sword hand. I've seen him do that. ;)

BTW...I liked your beach ball analogy. :)

There are a few exceptions that are highly unlikely KPM such as the infamous both people punch at the same time to the center and the one on the inside wins.

I think you got your answer within your own response. The punch won't be powerful. "Relatively weak", your words.

BTW, when Roland does it with the shield, he has a sword...

Even a Pak punch has the rotation with the punching side coming forward.

[Hendrik]

Shape holding Structure is a transition a great intermediate step which is very important to learn, making shape structure as the core and ultimate becomes a hindrance.
The biu Jee set teaches one to abandon structure. Also, any trick for demo is not applicable in real life.

The control the body via mind is slower then the body response. Thus many of the demo power doesn't work in real time. Thus, structure carry too far become trying be a robot with mind or Central control. And we know, neuro is a distributive control, it is not a central control as most people who think their mind is the master central control which can control the structure or holding a structure.


Don't believe me?
Test out the best shape holding structure you have with a jujitsu or wrestle, see if you have a chance in close body range to handle his wrapping on you. Or just standing in a wrestling cushion mat with your best yjkym and see if that structure break apart when the cushion is rocking.

In the real of momentum, it is beyond any type of structure. It is a dynamic flow there hold no one shape .

[WC1277]

Shape holding Structure is a transition a great intermediate step which is very important to learn, making shape structure as the core and ultimate becomes a hindrance.
The biu Jee set teaches one to abandon structure. Also, any trick for demo is not applicable in real life.

The control the body via mind is slower then the body response. Thus many of the demo power doesn't work in real time. Thus, structure carry too far become trying be a robot with mind or Central control. And we know, neuro is a distributive control, it is not a central control as most people who think their mind is the master central control which can control the structure or holding a structure.


Don't believe me?
Test out the best shape holding structure you have with a jujitsu or wrestle, see if you have a chance in close body range to handle his wrapping on you. Or just standing in a wrestling cushion mat with your best yjkym and see if that structure break apart when the cushion is rocking.

In the real of momentum, it is beyond any type of structure. It is a dynamic flow there hold no one shape .

The response I gave you in the other thread also applies here...

"A logical fallacy.

What you don't seem to understand Hendrik is that WC has to be "taught" regardless of whatever description, true or untrue, you want to "define" it with..."

[WC1277]

Why did you remove your posts???

From the other thread:

This is you in a nutshell Hendrik.

"Circular reasoning (also known as paradoxical thinking or circular logic), is a logical fallacy in which "the reasoner begins with what he or she is trying to end up with". The individual components of a circular argument will sometimes be logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true, and will not lack relevance. Circular logic cannot prove a conclusion because, if the conclusion is doubted, the premise which leads to it will also be doubted. "Begging the question" is a form of circular reasoning.

Example:

"Wellington is in New Zealand. Therefore, Wellington is in New Zealand."

He notes that, although the argument is deductively valid, it cannot prove that Wellington is in New Zealand because it contains no evidence that is distinct from the conclusion. The context – that of an argument – means that the proposition does not meet the requirement of proving the statement, thus it is a fallacy."

If you can't teach it, you can't define it beyond this type of reasoning that you so often resort to...

[GlennR]

Yeah, ok Kevin...

Even your guys rotate their shoulders. :rolleyes: Often against the principle. Not interested in arm power alone here...

Im actually with Kevin on this one (miracle), TST doesnt advocate a lot of turning either and, as Kevin does, turns to face more so than increase striking power

He hits like a mule without a turn

[KPM]

I think you got your answer within your own response. The punch won't be powerful. "Relatively weak", your words.

.

I didn't say it was a good thing! Just that it was possible! ;)

[KPM]

I am very envious of you if it is the case you have seen those guys in person. There are lots of little gems in the viking shield segment; the 'tan sau' arm shape that utilizes the flat of the shield and disperses force to the ground for example.

I wish I had worked with Roland in person! Unfortunately, I've had to settle for his instructional DVD. :) He does more with I.33 Sword & Buckler than he does with Viking Sword & Shield. And his buckler work is probably more pertinent to Wing Chun interpretations than his Viking Shield. I.33 Sword & Buckler has a lot in common with Wing Chun. Its also the oldest documented European martial art.

[WC1277]

Im actually with Kevin on this one (miracle), TST doesnt advocate a lot of turning either and, as Kevin does, turns to face more so than increase striking power

He hits like a mule without a turn

Fair enough but can you give me one example, in any other system of fighting anywhere, where there's a power punch that involves no rotation of shoulder side?

[KPM]

Wc1277 is confirming a basic but HUGE difference in thinking. Same with LT.
SLT teaches FACING for a reason, we have to utilize the structural facing alignment and legs to power the facing arms. Using similar forces we use in the pole, we use the physics ( sorry tc101 ) of kinetic transfer of energy exactly like Newons Cradle.
Speed of parrying actions creates more force, the alignment or discharge point, is the centerline. We can angle and move this facing idea so we don't lose force in one arm rotating to defend or strike at the shoulders. We also don't open gates to be hit back ( if following vt thinking ) so attack and defense ARE without making the same rotational errors of 'humans'. We only turn to FACE the opponent. The MYJ ( dummy ) develops ging lik, facing, lateral attacking to cut the way....

I'm not sure I agree with everything that Kevin says here, but I do agree with the idea that Wc1277 has illustrated a basic difference in Wing Chun "thinking" or "strategy." There is one way of thinking that uses a lot pivoting and rotational force to deflect and strike. You definitely see this in the Ho Kam Ming lineage. In contrast is another way of thinking that uses more "Bik Ma" footwork to drive in like a wedge and doesn't use as much pivoting or rotational force. Its more of a translational force...driving in. You definitely see this in Wong Shun Leung lineage. This is not to say that the first way of thinking does not "drive in" with translational force, or that the second way of thinking does not use pivoting and rotational force. Its more of a matter of emphasis or preference.

[KPM]

Fair enough but can you give me one example, in any other system of fighting anywhere, where there's a power punch that involves no rotation of shoulder side?

Southern Praying Mantis, Pak Mei, and most of the "Hakka" styles.

[WC1277]

Southern Praying Mantis, Pak Mei, and most of the "Hakka" styles.

There's absolutely no rotation of their upper body? Are these "upright" attacks?

[guy b.]

There's absolutely no rotation of their upper body? Are these "upright" attacks?

There is a brief clip of spm from 1.33 here. SPM, Bak Mei, Lung Ying and other hakka styles don't tend to use rotational force generation. It is push off back foot and like a wave through the back and out the front, hence bowed back shape practiced a lot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w09eDqchnxU

[GlennR]

Fair enough but can you give me one example, in any other system of fighting anywhere, where there's a power punch that involves no rotation of shoulder side?

Pak Mei for one

[GlennR]

There's absolutely no rotation of their upper body? Are these "upright" attacks?

Not one but

I studied Pak Mei for 6 odd months about 10 years ago, really good style, very aggressive and very powerful. And Guy puts the power generation quite well in his last post

[WC1277]

There is a brief clip of spm from 1.33 here. SPM, Bak Mei, Lung Ying and other hakka styles don't tend to use rotational force generation. It is push off back foot and like a wave through the back and out the front, hence bowed back shape practiced a lot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w09eDqchnxU

Sorry, I still see a rotation and it's even more pronounced when he's doing "sparring" demos with the other guy. The few times when he doesn't I'd suffice to say they're not very powerful attacks but I may be wrong.

I've never argued the point that you can't hit someone without rotation. You can. But if you're even remotely in an upright WC position, you're most likely using arm power and not your body to do it. People do it all the time in their chi sao experimentation, but it doesn't translate to actual force in hitting. Throw in on top of that the idea of simultaneous attack and defend and you're losing even more force generation if you're relying on arm power without rotation, let alone not actually redirecting the incoming force. Next time you're in front of your wall bag place a sturdy object next to you and press/pull on it in multiple directions without rotating while hitting with the other arm simultaneously. Then do it with rotation. You notice how there's obvious exchanges of force while not rotating that feel weak? Notice how with rotating you ALWAYS exert more force? Notice how with rotating you ALWAYS facilitate the pushing/pulling hand to a passive roll?

I think sometimes people think that because they can get a hit in, in chi sao or even sparring, that it means they could knock the guy out or cause significant damage. But we all know that isn't true. One should be training their punch to maximize potential, not impress fellow classmates.

What I tried to explain in my "mad analogy" is that it's the rotation that facilitates the seeking of the target. If you push off center on one side, the other side comes forward, and vice versa. There is a realistic approach and bio mechanical structure involved that allows this. Some have alluded to this structure not being able to maintain facing but if you really think about it and you understand the balance of forces, this structure seeks to maintain facing.

And I'll say it again. No one wants to recognize that there's not a single "developmental" attack in ANY of the open hand forms and dummy that don't retain this balance.

[GlennR]

Sorry, I still see a rotation and it's even more pronounced when he's doing "sparring" demos with the other guy. The few times when he doesn't I'd suffice to say they're not very powerful attacks but I may be wrong.


I can only go by the PM ive done and there wasnt turning to increase the power.


I've never argued the point that you can't hit someone without rotation. You can. But if you're even remotely in an upright WC position, you're most likely using arm power and not your body to do it.

No, youre just wrong.
TST guys hit with a lot of power without turning, Barry Lee (WSL senior) hits with astonishing power and a couple of the guys i did PM with also hit like mules.


People do it all the time in their chi sao experimentation, but it doesn't translate to actual force in hitting. Throw in on top of that the idea of simultaneous attack and defend and you're losing even more force generation if you're relying on arm power without rotation, let alone not actually redirecting the incoming force. Next time you're in front of your wall bag place a sturdy object next to you and press/pull on it in multiple directions without rotating while hitting with the other arm simultaneously. Then do it with rotation. You notice how there's obvious exchanges of force while not rotating that feel weak? Notice how with rotating you ALWAYS exert more force? Notice how with rotating you ALWAYS facilitate the pushing/pulling hand to a passive roll?

One of the earlier posters hit it on the head, there si WC folks that turn a lot and some that dont.


I think sometimes people think that because they can get a hit in, in chi sao or even sparring, that it means they could knock the guy out or cause significant damage. But we all know that isn't true. One should be training their punch to maximize potential, not impress fellow classmates.


Sure, but turning wont guarantee success either


What I tried to explain in my "mad analogy" is that it's the rotation that facilitates the seeking of the target. If you push off center on one side, the other side comes forward, and vice versa. There is a realistic approach and bio mechanical structure involved that allows this. Some have alluded to this structure not being able to maintain facing but if you really think about it and you understand the balance of forces, this structure seeks to maintain facing.

And I'll say it again. No one wants to recognize that there's not a single "developmental" attack in ANY of the open hand forms and dummy that don't retain this balance.

Different interpretations thats all

[Vajramusti]

I'm not sure I agree with everything that Kevin says here, but I do agree with the idea that Wc1277 has illustrated a basic difference in Wing Chun "thinking" or "strategy." There is one way of thinking that uses a lot pivoting and rotational force to deflect and strike. You definitely see this in the Ho Kam Ming lineage. In contrast is another way of thinking that uses more "Bik Ma" footwork to drive in like a wedge and doesn't use as much pivoting or rotational force. Its more of a translational force...driving in. You definitely see this in Wong Shun Leung lineage. This is not to say that the first way of thinking does not "drive in" with translational force, or that the second way of thinking does not use pivoting and rotational force. Its more of a matter of emphasis or preference.
------------------------------------------------------------------

I am not sure where we are- verbal descriptions are tricky. Bik ma is very important in HKM lineages. When the wing chun body is properly developed-deflection and bik ma are synthesized,

Also it is possible to do a bong and a punch together. Depends on who, what, when, where.

[WC1277]

No, youre just wrong.
TST guys hit with a lot of power without turning, Barry Lee (WSL senior) hits with astonishing power and a couple of the guys i did PM with also hit like mules.


We're still talking about simultaneous attack and defend here, right?

[GlennR]

We're still talking about simultaneous attack and defend here, right?

Well i thought the conversation had drifted to power, but sure, it all works together after all

[WC1277]

Well i thought the conversation had drifted to power, but sure, it all works together after all

No, not really, at least in relation to the opposing forces. Try that wall bag test out...

[GlennR]

No, not really, at least in relation to the opposing forces. Try that wall bag test out...

Wall bag to test power?

[WC1277]

GlennR: Wall bag to test power?




I've never argued the point that you can't hit someone without rotation. You can. But if you're even remotely in an upright WC position, you're most likely using arm power and not your body to do it. People do it all the time in their chi sao experimentation, but it doesn't translate to actual force in hitting. Throw in on top of that the idea of simultaneous attack and defend and you're losing even more force generation if you're relying on arm power without rotation, let alone not actually redirecting the incoming force. Next time you're in front of your wall bag place a sturdy object next to you and press/pull on it in multiple directions without rotating while hitting with the other arm simultaneously. Then do it with rotation. You notice how there's obvious exchanges of force while not rotating that feel weak? Notice how with rotating you ALWAYS exert more force? Notice how with rotating you ALWAYS facilitate the pushing/pulling hand to a passive roll?

I think sometimes people think that because they can get a hit in, in chi sao or even sparring, that it means they could knock the guy out or cause significant damage. But we all know that isn't true. One should be training their punch to maximize potential, not impress fellow classmates.

What I tried to explain in my "mad analogy" is that it's the rotation that facilitates the seeking of the target. If you push off center on one side, the other side comes forward, and vice versa. There is a realistic approach and bio mechanical structure involved that allows this. Some have alluded to this structure not being able to maintain facing but if you really think about it and you understand the balance of forces, this structure seeks to maintain facing.

And I'll say it again. No one wants to recognize that there's not a single "developmental" attack in ANY of the open hand forms and dummy that don't retain this balance.

[GlennR]

GlennR: Wall bag to test power?

Here's an experiment for you.

Stand in front of any of the non-turners i mentioned and let them hit you in the chest, youll find yourself in a world of hurt

[WC1277]

Here's an experiment for you.

Stand in front of any of the non-turners i mentioned and let them hit you in the chest, youll find yourself in a world of hurt

Dense as usual Glenn :rolleyes:

[GlennR]

Dense as usual Glenn :rolleyes:

Charming as usual.

So what i should do is tell Barry Lee, TST, Pak Mei people etc etc that they are doing it all wrong because you think otherwise?

I wasn't trying to be a smart ass, but i was highlighting that what you may think is correct is not necessarily the only, or best way.

The REAL proof in the pudding is;

- is the strike powerful
- Does it compromise your defense
- do i retain balance
- can i follow up easily with following strikes.

Im all for theory, but if many people can do something contrary to my thinking, rather than going "thats theoretically wrong" ill go "can you show me how you do that?"

FWIW, ive trained in TST and a mainland style that advocates a lot of turning so ive been exposed to both ways of thinking..... here's a tip, there's pro's and cons to both ways.

[WC1277]

Im all for theory, but if many people can do something contrary to my thinking, rather than going "thats theoretically wrong" ill go "can you show me how you do that?"


Hmm... strange contradiction there. You should try to follow your own advice.

I don't recall where I said someone was "theoretically wrong" in this thread. I pointed out inconsistencies and gave my "opinion" on logical fallacies such as Hendrik's ineptitude with words and Kevin saying they don't rotate. BTW Ving Tsun rotates.

We may have different names for the same things but you don't seem to grasp what the subject matter was even about. It's fine that all you care about is the things you listed or "The REAL proof is in the pudding". But, within the context of the subject matter, I happened to care about what is happening when you redirect force and deliver force at the same time and how that can be bio mechanically maximized within the WC structure. If you want to chalk it up to the "if it works" way of thinking then by all means but you're really no different from Hendrik then. A man struggling to define something that he can't teach.

[GlennR]

Hmm... strange contradiction there. You should try to follow your own advice.

I don't recall where I said someone was "theoretically wrong" in this thread. I pointed out inconsistencies and gave my "opinion" on logical fallacies such as Hendrik's ineptitude with words and Kevin saying they don't rotate. BTW Ving Tsun rotates.

We may have different names for the same things but you don't seem to grasp what the subject matter was even about. It's fine that all you care about is the things you listed or "The REAL proof is in the pudding". But, within the context of the subject matter, I happened to care about what is happening when you redirect force and deliver force at the same time and how that can be bio mechanically maximized within the WC structure. If you want to chalk it up to the "if it works" way of thinking then by all means but you're really no different from Hendrik then. A man struggling to define something that he can't teach.

Im not here to "educate" anybody.
Just here for a chat and on the odd occasion a laugh.

You basically said you cant hit with power without turning, i suggested otherwise and gave examples of real people that could deliver a powerful punch.

Thats basically my contribution, evidence to the contrary of your statement.

If you want to know how its done go by a book

[Hendrik]

Ask those who has visited me before you post is a better idea young man.



I happened to care about what is happening when you redirect force and deliver force at the same time ...



Simple stuffs can be done at contact point without big movement.
But one needs to get to the force flow level.
It is dynamic handling of the seven bows not about holding structure.


Btw, I describe. Not define . No need to go logic ....etc just describe what it is.



Hmm... strange contradiction there. You should try to follow your own advice.

I don't recall where I said someone was "theoretically wrong" in this thread. I pointed out inconsistencies and gave my "opinion" on logical fallacies such as Hendrik's ineptitude with words and Kevin saying they don't rotate. BTW Ving Tsun rotates.

We may have different names for the same things but you don't seem to grasp what the subject matter was even about. It's fine that all you care about is the things you listed or "The REAL proof is in the pudding". But, within the context of the subject matter, I happened to care about what is happening when you redirect force and deliver force at the same time and how that can be bio mechanically maximized within the WC structure. If you want to chalk it up to the "if it works" way of thinking then by all means but you're really no different from Hendrik then. A man struggling to define something that he can't teach.

[anerlich]

"Wellington is in New Zealand. Therefore, Wellington is in New Zealand."

Why pick on Wellington? It's cold and windy in winter, but not that bad a place.

[KPM]

Im not here to "educate" anybody.
Just here for a chat and on the odd occasion a laugh.

You basically said you cant hit with power without turning, i suggested otherwise and gave examples of real people that could deliver a powerful punch.

Thats basically my contribution, evidence to the contrary of your statement.

If you want to know how its done go by a book

That's how I saw it as well. The fact is, one CAN hit with power without rotation. WC12xx, you asked for any example of a martial art that does so. We gave you several. But you seemed to think we didn't know what we were talking about. Don't ask for examples if you are then going to disregard the examples given.

As far as attack and defense at the same time without rotation....think of it as a "wedge" rather than a "beach ball." If you drive the wedge in with translational force, things are going to be deflected to the sides. The hand forms like Tan Sao or Pak Sao are there to aid in that deflective force, not to produce it. Its like the "cattle catcher" on the front of an old-fashion steam locomotive. Anything on the tracks in front of the train is going to get deflect off to the side as the train speeds forward.

Like I said before, two different strategies or ways of thinking. One is not necessarily better than the other. Just different.

[KPM]

There's absolutely no rotation of their upper body? Are these "upright" attacks?

I'm studying Jook Lum Mantis now. Right from the beginning I was taught a stance that is less upright than WCK, but not a low horse like Hung Ga. The body is "square on" to the opponent with the shoulders rounded forward and the mid-back slightly "hunched.". Power is generated with the step, not rotation. The steps are very "ballistic" in the beginning, not a smooth glide like WCK. The punch lands as the rear foot snaps forward almost as a "stomp." As one gets better, the power generated by the stance is transmitted up the spine and out the arm somewhat like a "wave" of force. Its like "snapping a towel" rather than "swinging a towel." And yes, it IS powerful without rotational force.

[guy b.]

Sorry, I still see a rotation and it's even more pronounced when he's doing "sparring" demos with the other guy. The few times when he doesn't I'd suffice to say they're not very powerful attacks but I may be wrong.

I've never argued the point that you can't hit someone without rotation. You can. But if you're even remotely in an upright WC position, you're most likely using arm power and not your body to do it.

SPM is not wing chun. The main body mechanic is up back out front and there isn't rotation around any vertical central axis. It is more like pushing with legs, centre is a rotating ball, and force is whipped out through the c shaped back. One side or the other might lead but it isn't used as part of the force generation.

[k gledhill]

VT uses the heel to engage the line of force wherever we face. This can be forward angles, back at angles, sideways and any combination to make force and or face.
Wc1277 is simply confirming this two arm chi sao approach requires rotation to reach to block to pivot energy away incorrectly using loss of facing. In sparring with someone who stays facing, we have techniques for fighting rotating , weird coincidence ?
It requires good hand coordination and ambidextrous techniques to fight " human rotators ". ; ) anyone can swing shoulders, slt is addressing this issue.why we wait until this is taught before adding chum kil, otherwise with movement of chum kil and rotating shoulders we will be doing another style ; ).

[tc101]

This discussion is another case of refusing to recognize that there are valid ways of doing things besides how you do them.

There are wing chun people who have great power without rotating and there are wing chun people who use rotation in almost everything they do and develop power that way/ There are people in wing chun that use deflection and there are people who don't who instead wedge or even stop the opponent. There are people who are weighted on their heels and people weighted on their toes. People who like Wellington and people who don't.

I think trying to talk about how to optimize things as some have mentioned is impossible because you have to optimize those things that work best for you and what works best for one person may not work best for another.

[WC1277]

To everyone:

I'm not trying to be stubborn. In regards to the people who hit without rotation I even stated that I may be wrong. If you need to hear it again then I guess "I was wrong".

In regards to the rotation I was trying to discuss. First off, we don't "turn", as some here like to term it, as much as you think. The hand isn't to go past the shoulder of the opponent on either side if they're even facing us at all. It's a very narrow range, and more often than not, the "balancing foot" is more of a slight step to literally "brace" the rotation. As far as I understand it, to maintain facing, you can only "step" a specific direction to balance an upper body rotation. And as far as I understand, that is true in anything the human body does. All WC, including Ving Tsun, includes rotation. I agree with Keith that there are elements of both however. Where it leans to the opposite ways of thinking has to do with once force is applied. We still "wedge" when closing the gap and/or true center contact. You have to. However, the way I understand it, you can only "wedge" without muscle when facing true center. But if the force coming in attempts to turn us off center, only then do we "chisel". Which is what I was trying to discuss. And because we don't change the distance once we're in range and don't angle out, if anything, this allows you to wedge over and over and over again with each return to true center without having to "re-rotate" the body as others do.

I'm trying to look at the big picture. If you train to have a natural human balanced structure, all the time, it can be translated regardless of surroundings or position of original facing. Kevin wants to say that it's the human folly to rotate but I disagree. It can be an incredible strength if conditioned and IMO a more realistic approach. It's obvious that people's "forced" structures are the first to go in a real altercation.

My two cents...

BTW I still don't understand why no one sees this balanced rotation in the forms.

[Vajramusti]

To everyone:

BTW I still don't understand why no one sees this balanced rotation in the forms.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Listening- without agreeing or disagreeing is a lost art... specially on net forums.

[Hendrik]

As far as I understand it, to maintain facing, you can only "step" a specific direction to balance an upper body rotation.

And as far as I understand, that is true in anything the human body does. All WC, including Ving Tsun, includes rotation.


This is an issue from thinking this is it.

There are different ways of turning
and power generation itself has the body type and force line type.
Turn in a body type and turn in a force line type are different.

Turning a body to generate power and issue a spiral force vector are different things.....

This is exactly the issue of what I mean by, stuck in the structure level.
One needs to go deeper details level then this to see more.


To everyone:

I'm not trying to be stubborn. In regards to the people who hit without rotation I even stated that I may be wrong. If you need to hear it again then I guess "I was wrong".

In regards to the rotation I was trying to discuss. First off, we don't "turn", as some here like to term it, as much as you think. The hand isn't to go past the shoulder of the opponent on either side if they're even facing us at all. It's a very narrow range, and more often than not, the "balancing foot" is more of a slight step to literally "brace" the rotation. As far as I understand it, to maintain facing, you can only "step" a specific direction to balance an upper body rotation. And as far as I understand, that is true in anything the human body does. All WC, including Ving Tsun, includes rotation. I agree with Keith that there are elements of both however. Where it leans to the opposite ways of thinking has to do with once force is applied. We still "wedge" when closing the gap and/or true center contact. You have to. However, the way I understand it, you can only "wedge" without muscle when facing true center. But if the force coming in attempts to turn us off center, only then do we "chisel". Which is what I was trying to discuss. And because we don't change the distance once we're in range and don't angle out, if anything, this allows you to wedge over and over and over again with each return to true center without having to "re-rotate" the body as others do.

I'm trying to look at the big picture. If you train to have a natural human balanced structure, all the time, it can be translated regardless of surroundings or position of original facing. Kevin wants to say that it's the human folly to rotate but I disagree. It can be an incredible strength if conditioned and IMO a more realistic approach. It's obvious that people's "forced" structures are the first to go in a real altercation.

My two cents...

BTW I still don't understand why no one sees this balanced rotation in the forms.

[Vajramusti]

[B]



Turning a body to generate power and issue a spiral force vector are different things.....

This is exactly the issue of what I mean by, stuck in the structure level.
One needs to go deeper details level then this to see more.
----------------------------------------------------------
I think you are repeating yourself without being any clearer. Structure is important but forcing oneself to hold a structure is not the only possibility. Sure other principles including multi directional balance are also important.

[tc101]

As far as I understand it, to maintain facing, you can only "step" a specific direction to balance an upper body rotation.

And as far as I understand, that is true in anything the human body does. All WC, including Ving Tsun, includes rotation.


This is an issue from thinking this is it.

There are different ways of turning
and power generation itself has the body type and force line type.
Turn in a body type and turn in a force line type are different.

Turning a body to generate power and issue a spiral force vector are different things.....

This is exactly the issue of what I mean by, stuck in the structure level.
One needs to go deeper details level then this to see more.

If your point is that structure is not mechanics then I will agree. If you are saying you can use similar or even the same structures with different mechanics I also agree. This is true in wing chun and boxing also.

Even the same movement or action can use different mechanics.

I think that it is helpful to think in terms of general classes of structures, mechanics and so forth and see that wing chun gives us those and does not restrict us to only highly specific structures, mechanics and so forth. That is why we see a wide range of structures, mechanics and so forth that have similarities so they are in the same class of structures, mechanics so forth yet are very different in specific details. For example many ways of performing a tan sau. That is why when people argue there is only one right way to do something I think they do not see the bigger picture.

[KPM]

As far as I understand it, to maintain facing, you can only "step" a specific direction to balance an upper body rotation.

And as far as I understand, that is true in anything the human body does. All WC, including Ving Tsun, includes rotation.

This is true. However, as I noted before, I think there are two "schools of thought" here. This applies to the rotation/pivoting in Chum Kiu as well. To make it easier to write I will refer to the 1st school of thought I mentioned before.....rotating to deflect and generate power...as "rotators." And I will refer to the 2nd school of thought...driving in a wedge shape to deflect and generate power...as "wedgers." No derogatory meanings are intended!

"Wedgers" most certainly use rotation. But they use it a bit differently than "rotators" do. Picture standing in a ready stance with the hands out in front. The front hand or "Man Sao" hand is like the front site on a gun. It is used to aim directly at the opponent's center of mass. The "front site" also stays on the center directly in front of the person doing it aligned at a 90 angle with the shoulders. Any rotation used by a "wedger" is primary to align the "sites of the gun"....like pivoting the turret of a tank to bring the cannon barrel in line with the target. So once the "wedger" has placed his sites "on target" by rotating his stance or stepping, he drives the wedge in with footwork generating translational force in his punch. If he meets an attack, he will "wedge in" to deflect as he moves into the opponent. He uses defensive hand forms like Tan Sao as part of the "wedge" to deflect as he goes in.

A "rotator" approaches it a bit differently. The "sites of the gun" do not stay directly out in front aligned 90 degrees with the shoulders. The alignment of the arms are allowed to swing a little off the 90 degree line in either direction. When he pivots, rather than the "sites of the gun" staying on the 90 line and moving with the pivot, the "sites" may actually stay in the same place as the rest of the body moves. So now, the "front site" or Man Sao hand is going to go forward as the person pivots rather than swinging around like the turret of a tank. So rather than "wedging in" with a translational force, he will pivot to drive a punch in with rotational force. If he meets an attack, he will pivot so that the shoulder moving back deflects with a defensive hand form like Tan Sao while the other shoulder moves forward with the strike.

So you see, both approaches use plenty of pivoting or rotating. But they apply it a little differently. And as I said before, what I described would not be exclusive to either school of thought. "Wedgers" will still use the pivot to deflect defensively at times, and "rotators" will still drive in like a wedge at times. Its a matter of preference or emphasis.

I hope all that makes at least a little bit of sense! ;)

[Hendrik]

For example many ways of performing a tan sau. That is why when people argue there is only one right way to do something I think they do not see the bigger picture.

There are many ways of performing tan sau , but Wck tan sau never goes side ward.
If you violate that you are not practicing Wck.

[Hendrik]

IMHO,

The issue is there are two class of power generation , the body type and the force line type.

The assumption wc1277 made is he thinks it is only body type exist. And within body type only a certain way exist.





As far as I understand it, to maintain facing, you can only "step" a specific direction to balance an upper body rotation.

And as far as I understand, that is true in anything the human body does. All WC, including Ving Tsun, includes rotation.

This is true. However, as I noted before, I think there are two "schools of thought" here. This applies to the rotation/pivoting in Chum Kiu as well. To make it easier to write I will refer to the 1st school of thought I mentioned before.....rotating to deflect and generate power...as "rotators." And I will refer to the 2nd school of thought...driving in a wedge shape to deflect and generate power...as "wedgers." No derogatory meanings are intended!

"Wedgers" most certainly use rotation. But they use it a bit differently than "rotators" do. Picture standing in a ready stance with the hands out in front. The front hand or "Man Sao" hand is like the front site on a gun. It is used to aim directly at the opponent's center of mass. The "front site" also stays on the center directly in front of the person doing it aligned at a 90 angle with the shoulders. Any rotation used by a "wedger" is primary to align the "sites of the gun"....like pivoting the turret of a tank to bring the cannon barrel in line with the target. So once the "wedger" has placed his sites "on target" by rotating his stance or stepping, he drives the wedge in with footwork generating translational force in his punch. If he meets an attack, he will "wedge in" to deflect as he moves into the opponent. He uses defensive hand forms like Tan Sao as part of the "wedge" to deflect as he goes in.

A "rotator" approaches it a bit differently. The "sites of the gun" do not stay directly out in front aligned 90 degrees with the shoulders. The alignment of the arms are allowed to swing a little off the 90 degree line in either direction. When he pivots, rather than the "sites of the gun" staying on the 90 line and moving with the pivot, the "sites" may actually stay in the same place as the rest of the body moves. So now, the "front site" or Man Sao hand is going to go forward as the person pivots rather than swinging around like the turret of a tank. So rather than "wedging in" with a translational force, he will pivot to drive a punch in with rotational force. If he meets an attack, he will pivot so that the shoulder moving back deflects with a defensive hand form like Tan Sao while the other shoulder moves forward with the strike.

So you see, both approaches use plenty of pivoting or rotating. But they apply it a little differently. And as I said before, what I described would not be exclusive to either school of thought. "Wedgers" will still use the pivot to deflect defensively at times, and "rotators" will still drive in like a wedge at times. Its a matter of preference or emphasis.

I hope all that makes at least a little bit of sense! ;)

[tc101]

There are many ways of performing tan sau , but Wck tan sau never goes side ward.
If you violate that you are not practicing Wck.

Yes yes yes I know do it as Hendrik says or it is not wing chun. I am sure this makes you feel very important in your own mind to define what is and is not wing chun but really I do not care how you say to do things I care about making my wing chun work for me.

[Hendrik]

You can do anything you like.

As for what is wck tan sao, it is not only what I says, Gm Ipman says it too in the following classical interview. Beside the snt set has define it.



Yes yes yes I know do it as Hendrik says or it is not wing chun. I am sure this makes you feel very important in your own mind to define what is and is not wing chun but really I do not care how you say to do things I care about making my wing chun work for me.

[tc101]

You can do anything you like.

As for what is wck tan sao, it is not only what I says, Gm Ipman says it too in the following classical interview. Beside the snt set has define it.

If my bong sau change to a tan sau my tan sau rotates outward or sideward and if I turn as I do it the outward or side ward action is even greater. If you practiced wing chun you would understand.

[Hendrik]

You are just telling the world you are just moving limbs and called that your Wck, but have no idea what is Wck and its force flow.


You description is exactly where it is screw up , this is not Wck per Gm Ipman definition in his interview above.



If my bong sau change to a tan sau my tan sau rotates outward or sideward and if I turn as I do it the outward or side ward action is even greater. If you practiced wing chun you would understand.

[tc101]

You are just telling the world you are just moving limbs and called that your Wck, but have no idea what is Wck and its force flow.


You description is exactly where it is screw up , this is not Wck per Gm Ipman definition in his interview above.

You are right I have no idea what force flow is because I deal with the real world and do not make up terms and things that do not exist to try to make myself sound knowledgeable like you do. Force flow. Good grief man.

I cannot read Chinese so I have no idea what the article you posted said and I don't care since I do not need Yip Man to tell me what is wing chun and I don't need Mike Tyson to tell me what is boxing since anyone can see that easily for themselves.

You evidently have a very low level understanding of wing chun to think you need others to tell you things like this. I see why you always just talk in your videos and do not show any skill.

[guy b.]

If my bong sau change to a tan sau my tan sau rotates outward or sideward and if I turn as I do it the outward or side ward action is even greater. If you practiced wing chun you would understand.

What would you use this sideward moving tan for?

[guy b.]

You are right I have no idea what force flow is because I deal with the real world and do not make up terms and things that do not exist to try to make myself sound knowledgeable like you do. Force flow. Good grief man..

Refer back to thread where you do not understand ground reaction force

[Hendrik]

As always, when you are clueless, to save your ego you attack me in person.



You are right I have no idea what force flow is because I deal with the real world and do not make up terms and things that do not exist to try to make myself sound knowledgeable like you do. Force flow. Good grief man.

I cannot read Chinese so I have no idea what the article you posted said and I don't care since I do not need Yip Man to tell me what is wing chun and I don't need Mike Tyson to tell me what is boxing since anyone can see that easily for themselves.

You evidently have a very low level understanding of wing chun to think you need others to tell you things like this. I see why you always just talk in your videos and do not show any skill.

[Hendrik]

This is where tc101 shows clearly he is not a wcner.



What would you use this sideward moving tan for?

[tc101]

What would you use this sideward moving tan for?

Do you do dan chi sau drill? Then you are using it too. Bong sau to tan sau what do you use it for?

[tc101]

Refer back to thread where you do not understand ground reaction force

Yes very true and I still think it is useless. Go ask Mike Tyson, Baukaw or any good combat athlete to tell you about ground reaction force and see the puzzled look you get. Why is it do you think that all the guys without your marvelous concept hit hard and fight well and the guys with your marvelous concept like Hendrik don't?

[tc101]

As always, when you are clueless, to save your ego you attack me in person.

Another of your common verbal tactics. Yes anyone who disagrees with you is clueless and does't even practice wing chun but if they say that about you then it is a personal attack to save their ego. Classic example of pot calling kettle black.

[Hendrik]

You are just a non wcner trolling in Wck forum.

Hahaha, believe anything you love.


Yes very true and I still think it is useless. Go ask Mike Tyson, Baukaw or any good combat athlete to tell you about ground reaction force and see the puzzled look you get. Why is it do you think that all the guys without your marvelous concept hit hard and fight well and the guys with your marvelous concept like Hendrik don't?

[KPM]

If my bong sau change to a tan sau my tan sau rotates outward or sideward and if I turn as I do it the outward or side ward action is even greater. If you practiced wing chun you would understand.

Actually, it should drop straight down as it is moving slightly forward. This gives a kind of "spiraling" or "drilling" action to the Tan Sao. If you are moving to the side, then something is wrong. What Hendrik is referring to is what SPM would call a "Choc Sao." It looks like a Tan Sao, but circles outward and slightly back to "hook" the incoming strike off of the centerline. Two very different "force lines", as Hendrik says, though outwardly the hand form looks almost the same.

[KPM]

Yes very true and I still think it is useless. Go ask Mike Tyson, Baukaw or any good combat athlete to tell you about ground reaction force and see the puzzled look you get. Why is it do you think that all the guys without your marvelous concept hit hard and fight well and the guys with your marvelous concept like Hendrik don't?

Guy and I understand this concept. Why do you assume neither of us can hit hard or fight well? :confused:

[guy b.]

Yes very true and I still think it is useless. Go ask Mike Tyson, Baukaw or any good combat athlete to tell you about ground reaction force and see the puzzled look you get.

Boxers and MT guys use a different force generation mechanic. It can be very effective but it is not wing chun. Is this how you generate force in your wing chun?


Why is it do you think that all the guys without your marvelous concept hit hard and fight well and the guys with your marvelous concept like Hendrik don't?

Are you saying you have never met a person in wing chun that could hit hard? Most wing chun people use the ground reaction force, it being a basic element of the system.

[guy b.]

Another of your common verbal tactics. Yes anyone who disagrees with you is clueless and does't even practice wing chun but if they say that about you then it is a personal attack to save their ego. Classic example of pot calling kettle black.

You are disagreeing with a basic element of the system here. This is not something controversial that Hendrik is suggesting. It is in all good wing chun

[tc101]

Actually, it should drop straight down as it is moving slightly forward. This gives a kind of "spiraling" or "drilling" action to the Tan Sao. If you are moving to the side, then something is wrong. What Hendrik is referring to is what SPM would call a "Choc Sao." It looks like a Tan Sao, but circles outward and slightly back to "hook" the incoming strike off of the centerline. Two very different "force lines", as Hendrik says, though outwardly the hand form looks almost the same.

Yes when from bong sau you drop elbow down and move forward with your tan sau it also moves outward from your centerline.

[tc101]

Guy and I understand this concept. Why do you assume neither of us can hit hard or fight well? :confused:

I say that all these very highest level combat sport fighters have no idea of your concept yet get to that level. Think how important that concept is then.

[KPM]

Yes when from bong sau you drop elbow down and move forward with your tan sau it also moves outward from your centerline.

Then you agree that it does NOT move sideward as Hendrik has stated?

[guy b.]

Do you do dan chi sau drill? Then you are using it too. Bong sau to tan sau what do you use it for?

Bong to tan is incidental, training nothing. It is the link between turns to strike. Dan chi sau is learning how to hit with outside or inside energy, depending on which position you take. It is the hitting that is being trained in this drill.

[guy b.]

I say that all these very highest level combat sport fighters have no idea of your concept yet get to that level. Think how important that concept is then.

They are using a completely different concept. In wing chun we are usually interested in using wing chun concepts, not boxing concepts.

[tc101]

Boxers and MT guys use a different force generation mechanic. It can be very effective but it is not wing chun. Is this how you generate force in your wing chun?


That ground reaction force is not unique to wing chun but as Dr KPM showed it is in all movement using the ground to push from right? So boxers and mt people would be doing it also since they push off ground too right?



Are you saying you have never met a person in wing chun that could hit hard? Most wing chun people use the ground reaction force, it being a basic element of the system.

No I am saying these types of profound concepts that you cherish are things you tell yourself are important so that you can believe that you understand wing chun but in reality is nothing but smoke and mirrors with no substance and the guys without them perform better because they are not distracted by the noise.

[tc101]

Then you agree that it does NOT move sideward as Hendrik has stated?

Outward means forward and sideways at the same time. I think a good rule of thumb is that if Hendrik believes it then it is wrong.

[tc101]

Bong to tan is incidental, training nothing. It is the link between turns to strike. Dan chi sau is learning how to hit with outside or inside energy, depending on which position you take. It is the hitting that is being trained in this drill.

Regardless of what you believe you still perform the tan sau and bong sau right?

[tc101]

They are using a completely different concept. In wing chun we are usually interested in using wing chun concepts, not boxing concepts.

I try not to use concepts at all. Last time I looked I could not hit anyone with a concept.

[guy b.]

Do you do dan chi sau drill? Then you are using it too. Bong sau to tan sau what do you use it for?

Think about this. What is bong? When would you use it?

What is tan? When would you use it?

Why would you go from contacted bong to contacted tan ever in a fight (remember you have 2 hands)?

Lol

[guy b.]

That ground reaction force is not unique to wing chun but as Dr KPM showed it is in all movement using the ground to push from right? So boxers and mt people would be doing it also since they push off ground too right?

No, the movement of a boxer does not exploit grf in the same way as a wing chun person.



No I am saying these types of profound concepts that you cherish are things you tell yourself are important so that you can believe that you understand wing chun but in reality is nothing but smoke and mirrors with no substance and the guys without them perform better because they are not distracted by the noise.

Show me a good wing chun person that doesn't understand ground reaction force and the forward momentum and timing of the wing chun punch

[guy b.]

Outward means forward and sideways at the same time. I think a good rule of thumb is that if Hendrik believes it then it is wrong.

Hendrik is correct, you are wrong

[guy b.]

I try not to use concepts at all. Last time I looked I could not hit anyone with a concept.

Concepts and principles are important in a principle based system. How else would you understand what you are supposed to be doing?

You seem to have made quite a lot of total errors on this thread for example, leading in completely the wrong direction in terms of understanding wing chun. You can't do wing chun if you don't understand it.

This doesn't preclude you from hitting hard or being effective in fighting, it just means you won't be doing wing chun.

[guy b.]

Regardless of what you believe you still perform the tan sau and bong sau right?

Bong sau to tan sau is a meaningless action. The important bits of the drill are the bits that go forward, since it is training striking, not ****ing around with some kind of inferior wrestling. The tan palm goes forwards, not sideways

[tc101]

Concepts and principles are important in a principle based system. How else would you understand what you are supposed to be doing?

You seem to have made quite a lot of total errors on this thread for example, leading in completely the wrong direction in terms of understanding wing chun. You can't do wing chun if you don't understand it.

This doesn't preclude you from hitting hard or being effective in fighting, it just means you won't be doing wing chun.

You and perhaps others see wing chun as principle based. I do it see it that way. It is not wing chun which is principle based it is your perspective that is principle based. Because you think in terms of principles you also naturally think understanding is key, where understanding means agreement with your view. This of course then leads to if you do not share my views now you are to even doing wing chun since only people who understand wing chun which means agrees with me is doing wing chun. Can you see the circularity of this perspective or should I be more clear?

I see wing chun as skill based where a few important concepts exist to help us develop skill. Here is what you do, here are some ways to do it, now go practice. People like making simple things complicated.

[guy b.]

You and perhaps others see wing chun as principle based. I do it see it that way. It is not wing chun which is principle based it is your perspective that is principle based. Because you think in terms of principles you also naturally think understanding is key, where understanding means agreement with your view. This of course then leads to if you do not share my views now you are to even doing wing chun since only people who understand wing chun which means agrees with me is doing wing chun. Can you see the circularity of this perspective or should I be more clear?

Lolol, they aren't my principles. How about the dan chi sau?


I see wing chun as skill based where a few important concepts exist to help us develop skill. Here is what you do, here are some ways to do it, now go practice. People like making simple things complicated.

This is also how I see wing chun. Unfortunately you do not seem to understand the concepts/principles

[guy b.]

Just to avoid confusion, and tc101 worming out, to me concept = principle. Same thing.

[GlennR]

This is also how I see wing chun. Unfortunately you do not seem to understand the concepts/principles

Id agree with you both here, skills based adhering to a view principles, having said that i do see TC's point regarding over analysing everything................... but

Those principles are still there and pulling up people like Tyson to say you dont need to have studied is a nonsense. Tyson was a student without peer when it came to boxing. Im sure he could tell you every detail in how to throw a punch, as could buakaw throwing a kick.

[guy b.]

pulling up people like Tyson to say you dont need to have studied is a nonsense. Tyson was a student without peer when it came to boxing. Im sure he could tell you every detail in how to throw a punch, as could buakaw throwing a kick.

Not a wing chun punch. Not a wing chun kick.

[GlennR]

Not a wing chun punch. Not a wing chun kick.

Never said it was, just highlighting the fact that there is as much "knowledge" required in a boxing punch or a MT kick as there is a WC kick or punch.

The same process for teaching and learning applies regardless of pursuit if you want to achieve high levels

[guy b.]

Id agree with you both here, skills based adhering to a view principles, having said that i do see TC's point regarding over analysing everything................... but

How can you agree that what he is arguing against is "over analysing" when your next paragraph contradicts tc101's point completely?

[GlennR]

How can you agree that what he is arguing against is "over analysing" when your next paragraph contradicts tc101's point completely?

What??
Im saying to TC that some people over analayse everything (Hendrick) and some seem to disregard the academic approach if i can use that term (TC it appears).

What im getting at is that there is a balanace at the top level, understanding how and why things work obviously complimented with the physical training, i used those two guys as "balanced" trainers who were/are the best.

Clear enough?

[guy b.]

there is as much "knowledge" required in a boxing punch or a MT kick as there is a WC kick or punch.

Maybe, maybe not. Depends very much on the coach in these sports and whether he has made a particular effort to systematise the required information. Boxing and MT are not principle based and the rules of the sporting competition function as the principles in most cases.


The same process for teaching and learning applies regardless of pursuit if you want to achieve high levels

Mostly not. Wing chun's principle based approach gives anyone a decent chance to learn a functional method. Boxing generally functions on a survival of the fittest method. Naturally poor boxers don't get much help.

[GlennR]

Maybe, maybe not. Depends very much on the coach in these sports and whether he has made a particular effort to systematise the required information.

Same could be said for a WC sifu


Boxing and MT are not principle based and the rules of the sporting competition function as the principles in most cases.


Doesnt change the fact that undestanding how/why things work helps the student


The same process for teaching and learning applies regardless of pursuit if you want to achieve high levels

Mostly not. Wing chun's principle based approach gives anyone a decent chance to learn a functional method. Boxing generally functions on a survival of the fittest method. Naturally ****ty boxers don't get much help.

It does not. Thats an absurd thing to say

[guy b.]

Im saying to TC that some people over analayse everything (Hendrick) and some seem to disregard the academic approach if i can use that term (TC it appears).

There is no way to tell if tc has functional wing chun on this forum. I would guess he isn't really doing wing chun based on his lack of understanding of the basics. This is not to say he isn't a good fighter. I have no idea.

Hendrik is unquestionably correct in this particular argument based on the wing chun principles. It doesn't matter if he is a great fighter, he is still correct about wing chun in this case.

[guy b.]

It does not. Thats an absurd thing to say

This opinion is based on actual experience in decent boxing and MT gyms. Why on earth would a coach in a competitive gym dedicate much time to strugglers? They don't. They just get ignored until they give up.

The only place this level of support might be true is in a 'white collar' gym. But then you are getting a diluted version anyway. After all where is the urgency?

[KPM]

There is no way to tell if tc has functional wing chun on this forum. I would guess he isn't really doing wing chun based on his lack of understanding of the basics. This is not to say he isn't a good fighter. I have no idea.

Hendrik is unquestionably correct in this particular argument based on the wing chun principles. It doesn't matter if he is a great fighter, he is still correct about wing chun in this case.

I have to agree with this statement.

[KPM]

That ground reaction force is not unique to wing chun but as Dr KPM showed it is in all movement using the ground to push from right? So boxers and mt people would be doing it also since they push off ground too right?

This is true. Everyone is subject to gravity when they contact the ground and so make use of ground reaction force. Boxers and MT people just do it differently than Wing Chun.



No I am saying these types of profound concepts that you cherish are things you tell yourself are important so that you can believe that you understand wing chun but in reality is nothing but smoke and mirrors with no substance and the guys without them perform better because they are not distracted by the noise.

Now that statement is total BS! :rolleyes: It seems you feel a bit threatened by people that have a little deeper knowledge of things than you. That's OK. This is a forum. We talk. We can't demo what we do face to face. So the more we can communicate about our understanding of Wing Chun the better. If you can't hang with that, that's OK. But don't try and belittle those of us who do.

[KPM]

I say that all these very highest level combat sport fighters have no idea of your concept yet get to that level. Think how important that concept is then.

Anyone at a high level will intuitively understand this concept. They will know how to generate power from the ground up. Then those with an open mind will hear the idea of ground reaction force described and say..."Well of course! I've been making use of that all along!" I think anyone truly interested in advancing and developing would be interested in the explanation and not scoff at it.

[k gledhill]

Plyometrics are a good example of using a "solid surface" to develop power. Skipping or stance shifts can be utilized similarly. http://www.acefitness.org/acefit/healthy_living_fit_facts_content.aspx?itemid=73

[YouKnowWho]

If you ask your opponent to hold on your waist and lift both of your feet up in the air, you then try to punch on your heavy bag. You can quickly tell how much power that you can truly generate on the heavy bag without rooting on the ground.

[GlennR]

This opinion is based on actual experience in decent boxing and MT gyms. Why on earth would a coach in a competitive gym dedicate much time to strugglers? They don't. They just get ignored until they give up.

The only place this level of support might be true is in a 'white collar' gym. But then you are getting a diluted version anyway. After all where is the urgency?

And so's mine, how many years of boxing/MT have you done on top of your WC training?

So there's only two types of gyms???
Hard core and White Collar??

You do like sweeping generalisations dont you.

Not sure how it works over your way, but the majority of gyms over here offer pad classes (white collar) progressing through to competition if you so choose.

Plenty of good fighters have started down the white collar path and ended up good fighters.

And diluted? Why would a trainer who can teach to pro level dilute the mechanics of a punch to a white collar guy?
Keeping the super stuff secret is he???

FWIW, a guy called Johnny Lewis is now involved in a white collar boxing gym in Sydney.
He trained a couple of guys called Kostya Tzu and Jeff Fenech (amongst many others)..... do you really think he is going to "dilute" what he teaches?

[guy b.]

And diluted? Why would a trainer who can teach to pro level dilute the mechanics of a punch to a white collar guy?

Most good coaches here teach serious (young) amateurs and pros. The people teaching white collar boxing are more usually personal trainers in gym chains.

[tc101]

There is no way to tell if tc has functional wing chun on this forum. I would guess he isn't really doing wing chun based on his lack of understanding of the basics. This is not to say he isn't a good fighter. I have no idea.

Hendrik is unquestionably correct in this particular argument based on the wing chun principles. It doesn't matter if he is a great fighter, he is still correct about wing chun in this case.

Here is the problem with your view no matter the level that I could fight using my wing chun you would just say it wasn't wing chun since I don't do things as you think they should be done. While you or Hendrik may not be able to use your wing chun at all or at a very low level and still say your are doing it right lol.

My question then is what makes it right?

I agree that there are conventional or standard ways of doing things but that does not mean that non standard or non conventional ways do not work or may not work better for some people or that to use them means you no longer are even doing wing chun. I do not do something because I am supposed to I do it because I have found from doing it that this works well for me.

I understand the basics of wing chun just my understanding is different than yours.

The quality of your wing chun is in your performance in the level you can make the system work for you. Everyone has functional wing chun, the question is not can he make it function the question is at what level can he make it function.

You think wing chun is based on understanding and I think it is based on performance.

In your way of thinking if your understanding is off you are not even doing wing chun. So let us hope you are not presently misunderstanding something since then you and Hendrik will not even be doing wing chun. In my way of thinking we are all doing wing chun the only question is how well or what level I can do it at. You see a tan sau that doesn't agree with your rules of how it must be done and you dismiss it as non wing chun. I see the same thing and ask myself how well can that work. Your wing chun is about sticking to fixed rules and my wing chun is about finding how to make the best use of the wing chun tools.

[tc101]

Id agree with you both here, skills based adhering to a view principles, having said that i do see TC's point regarding over analysing everything................... but

Those principles are still there and pulling up people like Tyson to say you dont need to have studied is a nonsense. Tyson was a student without peer when it came to boxing. Im sure he could tell you every detail in how to throw a punch, as could buakaw throwing a kick.

We do not develop skills by adhering to principles we develop skills through practicing those skills. We can learn and develop those skills without knowing any principles or concepts. People do that all the time in everything.

The principles do not really exist like skills do but are ideas we can use to help us develop and use our skills. The usefulness of a concept or principle is in how useful it is in helping us learn and develop skill. Once you have the skill the concept or principle is unimportant.

Yes Tyson and Baukaw could teach us the skills of boxing and mt because they have those skills.

[Vajramusti]

[QUOTE=tc101;1240509]Here is the problem with your view no matter the level that I could fight using my wing chun you would just say it wasn't wing chun since I don't do things as you think they should be done. While you or Hendrik may not be able to use your wing chun at all or at a very low level and still say your are doing it right lol.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

A question- who did you learn wing chun from and how long did you learn wing chun on a regular basis.
Wung chun is not the only way to fight. But wing chun has it;s own development process.
Your description of your tan sao does not sound like of one of the fundamental tools of wing chun.
Once the tool is understood and developed- it can be used/applied in a variety of ways.

[Hendrik]

Wing chun is a specific tool. Such as a hammer or an axe, and hammer is not an axe.


It is in accurate to keep saying " I can do my job using my axe " but knowing not one is using a hammer and knowing not what is an axe.



[QUOTE=tc101;1240509]Here is the problem with your view no matter the level that I could fight using my wing chun you would just say it wasn't wing chun since I don't do things as you think they should be done. While you or Hendrik may not be able to use your wing chun at all or at a very low level and still say your are doing it right lol.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

A question- who did you learn wing chun from and how long did you learn wing chun on a regular basis.
Wung chun is not the only way to fight. But wing chun has it;s own development process.
Your description of your tan sao does not sound like of one of the fundamental tools of wing chun.
Once the tool is understood and developed- it can be used/applied in a variety of ways.

[guy b.]

My question then is what makes it right?

It needs to be recognisable according to the stated principles of wing chun. Wing chun is not defined according to what works best in combat sport venue x. Defining wing chun in this way substitutes the rules of sport x for the wing chun principles.

I don't agree with Hendrik or Kevin or Joy or whoever on everything, but there is some commonality of basics that at least allows us to discuss wing chun in common terms. We might take different sides in an argument about interpretation of the principles, but at lest we all recognise these principles and don't ignore then when we find them inconvenient. You don't appear to share this basic understanding of the system.

[KPM]

Here is the problem with your view no matter the level that I could fight using my wing chun you would just say it wasn't wing chun since I don't do things as you think they should be done. While you or Hendrik may not be able to use your wing chun at all or at a very low level and still say your are doing it right lol.

This is true, but only to a very limited degree. What you are doing does not suddenly become "not Wing Chun" just because you are doing your Tan Sao wrong. You might have everything else right! It only means that you don't understand the Tan Sao. But on the other hand, you might discover you can fight using your Wing Chun because you have let a lot of boxing creep in....like rolling the shoulders and hips with a punch, adding a jab, etc. There comes a point when you have modified things enough in the spirit of "making it work for me" that it is no longer Wing Chun. So none of us can really say that you, TC101, are not doing Wing Chun until we see what you are actually doing!


My question then is what makes it right?

Wing Chun is a concept driven system. This means that you don't memorize "move X in order to counter attack Y" as in some systems of martial art. This also means that you don't have just a handful of techniques that you use for every situation, like boxing or Muay Thai. Being a concept driven system means that once you understand the concepts behind what you are doing, you can apply them in multiple ways. You can use them to adapt to any situation. So what makes it right is sticking to those concepts that make it Wing Chun. You could easily turn Wing Chun into a boxing system where you didn't worry about the concepts expressed in the forms and all you did was spar using the basic straight punches, a Bong Sao, Tan Sao, and Pak Sao for every defense. You could spar every day and get really good at using Wing Chun in that context. But your Wing Chun would be very limited.


I agree that there are conventional or standard ways of doing things but that does not mean that non standard or non conventional ways do not work or may not work better for some people or that to use them means you no longer are even doing wing chun. I do not do something because I am supposed to I do it because I have found from doing it that this works well for me.

What if you discovered that bobbing & weaving rather than using the Tan Sao worked better for you? What if you discovered that keeping the opponent away with a jab worked better for you than using Man Sao? What if you discovered that throwing a roundhouse kick to the head worked better for you than an oblique kick to the knee (since kickboxing rules wouldn't allow that)? Would you still consider that Wing Chun? I wouldn't. Most people here wouldn't. There is some lee-way in how one applies the tools of Wing Chun. Those applications are guided by understanding the concepts behind the tools. If you don't understand those concepts, then just altering things in the spirit of "well, it works for me!" can lead you away from what is good Wing Chun. Just take Bruce Lee as an example. His basis was Wing Chun. But he started to look at other things that worked for him and changed his martial art. He didn't continue to call it Wing Chun. Even though Jeet Kune Do still has a lot of commonalities with Wing Chun, no one considers it to be just another lineage of Wing Chun.


Your wing chun is about sticking to fixed rules and my wing chun is about finding how to make the best use of the wing chun tools.

Those two things are not mutually exclusive. The concepts that define Wing Chun were created by people who were using Wing Chun regularly in real fights on the battlefield or back allies, not the boxing ring. They determined how to best use the Wing Chun tools in combat and then passed that down to us. So if we are going to go changing around what they taught, we better have a darn good reason for doing it! On the other hand, today we face self-defense situations and "styles" of fighting that they never encountered. So we have to adapt to modern times. But we do so by examining Wing Chun's concepts and determining how they apply. Not by randomly changing or adding things in the spirit of "well, it works for me!"


The usefulness of a concept or principle is in how useful it is in helping us learn and develop skill. Once you have the skill the concept or principle is unimportant.

That's where you are very wrong. The concepts or principles never become unimportant. The concept or principle continues to guide your application and allows you to see new layers of complexity as you develop. Believing they become unimportant is just a sign that you have not developed very far. These concepts and principles are what allows you to teach Wing Chun to someone else. How are you ever going to teach someone else and help them develop to a high level if you have forgotten the guiding concepts?

No offense intended here, but the more you post in these threads and try to tell everyone else how it is, the more you reveal how much you really don't know about Wing Chun.

[tc101]

It needs to be recognisable according to the stated principles of wing chun. Wing chun is not defined according to what works best in combat sport venue x. Defining wing chun in this way substitutes the rules of sport x for the wing chun principles.


No it doesn't. You don't recognize principles you recognize actions since you can see action and not see ideas. Everyone can recognize a pak sau or a vertical punch. The principles are to help you use your tools like your pak sau and vertical punch.

When you fight and it does not matter if it is sport or street or gym it is your skills that you rely on.



I don't agree with Hendrik or Kevin or Joy or whoever on everything, but there is some commonality of basics that at least allows us to discuss wing chun in common terms. We might take different sides in an argument about interpretation of the principles, but at lest we all recognise these principles and don't ignore then when we find them inconvenient. You don't appear to share this basic understanding of the system.

What you do is share the same terms but give different meanings to those terms so you each have a different understanding so there is no commonality of understanding. The commonality to use your words is in the tools we share the tan sau, pak sau, bong sau, vertical punch and so forth.

Why do you think non wing chun people can by just looking see if someone is doing wing chun? From their actions of course.

I do not ignore principles because I find them inconvenient. As I said they are there to help us learn and develop our skills. The skill is the objective not the principle.

[guy b.]

Everyone can recognize a pak sau or a vertical punch.

Wing chun is not defined by pak sau or vertical punch shapes.



The commonality is in the tools we share the tan sau, pak sau, bong sau, vertical punch and so forth.

Why do you think non wing chun people can by just looking see if someone is doing wing chun? From their actions of course.

The combination of tan, pak, bong and vertical punch is not unique to wing chun. How these shapes are used, and the body method, is unique to wing chun, and this is dictated by the principles.

[WC1277]

No it doesn't. You don't recognize principles you recognize actions since you can see action and not see ideas. Everyone can recognize a pak sau or a vertical punch. The principles are to help you use your tools like your pak sau and vertical punch.

When you fight and it does not matter if it is sport or street or gym it is your skills that you rely on.



What you do is share the same terms but give different meanings to those terms so you each have a different understanding so there is no commonality of understanding. The commonality to use your words is in the tools we share the tan sau, pak sau, bong sau, vertical punch and so forth.

Why do you think non wing chun people can by just looking see if someone is doing wing chun? From their actions of course.

I do not ignore principles because I find them inconvenient. As I said they are there to help us learn and develop our skills. The skill is the objective not the principle.

So.... What do you want to talk about then?......because I can talk about how an AR-15 is different mechanically from an MP-5 but if you just want to talk about how you pull the trigger and it goes boom....well, then that's just boring...or is it you want talk about the distance, caliber of bullet, fire rate, you know those characteristic attributes....no, wait, you don't want to talk about that either, well, maybe, if it's in very general terms such as "high caliber" it will be ok....hmmm. I imagine your dream conversation going like this, with you in a southern accent:

- Is that Wing Chun?

- Yep

- Looks like he just dominated that other guy, don't it?

- Yep

- How do you think he just did that?

- I don't know

- Want a beer?

- Is it Budweiser?

[GlennR]

So.... What do you want to talk about then?......because I can talk about how an AR-15 is different mechanically from an MP-5 but if you just want to talk about how you pull the trigger and it goes boom....well, then that's just boring...or is it you want talk about the distance, caliber of bullet, fire rate, you know those characteristic attributes....no, wait, you don't want to talk about that either, well, maybe, if it's in very general terms such as "high caliber" it will be ok....hmmm. I imagine your dream conversation going like this, with you in a southern accent:

- Is that Wing Chun?

- Yep

- Looks like he just dominated that other guy, don't it?

- Yep

- How do you think he just did that?

- I don't know

- Want a beer?

- Is it Budweiser?

Bwahahahah..... very good, but make mine an Australian beer ;)

[guy b.]

Bwahahahah..... very good, but make mine an Australian beer ;)

US and Australia, 2 worst countries for beer on earth. Only joking! (but make mine a European beer)

[guy b.]

Lol at the prospect of continued discussions with tc. I feel it will be quite limited

[GlennR]

US and Australia, 2 worst countries for beer on earth. Only joking! (but make mine a European beer)

I must admit, my wifes Belgian............. best beer in the world!

[Vajramusti]

I must admit, my wifes Belgian............. best beer in the world!
--------------------------------------------------------------------

I try not to touch the stuff these days-but TsingTao,Singha, Kirin, Negho Modelo are much better than most American beers.

[GlennR]

--------------------------------------------------------------------

I try not to touch the stuff these days-but TsingTao,Singha, Kirin, Negho Modelo are much better than most American beers.

Good choices Joy.... love a Tsing Tao at my loo cal chinese TA

[Vajramusti]

Good choices Joy.... love a Tsing Tao at my loo cal chinese TA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Coors, Bud, like McDonalds put more money into advertisement that their products.

[Vajramusti]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Coors, Bud, like McDonalds put more money into advertisement that their products.
-----------------------------
Glenn =did you see the Kazak/Kprean Golovkin ko Macklin with a left to the liver?
Some are comparing Golovkin to Kotsya the Oz Mongol in his prime. I was ringside in Phx when Kotsya
fought the aging Chavez Sr. Kotsya used to use a kind of dit da jow to toughen his handsto prevent rears and breaks. He came up fast but then faded out apparently?

[GlennR]

-----------------------------
Glenn =did you see the Kazak/Kprean Golovkin ko Macklin with a left to the liver?
Some are comparing Golovkin to Kotsya the Oz Mongol in his prime. I was ringside in Phx when Kotsya
fought the aging Chavez Sr. Kotsya used to use a kind of dit da jow to toughen his handsto prevent rears and breaks. He came up fast but then faded out apparently?

I sure did see it Joy, i think GGG (Golovkin) is going to be something special, that was a beautifully set up shot and you could just see the relaxed fluid nature of that KO punch.
Funny enough, he will probably fight Daniel Geale (our Australian boxer that holds the IBF belt) next year to unify.... should be a great fight..

Yes, he's a lot like Kostya, big hitters with fantastic boxing pedigree along with nicer than pie smiles but they are both killers.

And you were ringside for the fight with Chavez? Very jealous now Joy. KT was at his absolute prime there and Chavez had little to no chance but went down like the champ he was.
I dont think its fair to say he came up fast and faded quickly, he just wasnt on the
american stage (like GGG) early on but sure made an impact when he got there. Pity he never fought an up and coming Floyd.

There was stories of him learning some punching techniques of Lawrence Lee, a Sydney based WC-KF teacher who passed away last year. I never met him but he had a reputation as a fairly tough old school teacher, maybe thats where the dit da jow story came from.

Nice chatting as usual Joy

[guy b.]

I sure did see it Joy, i think GGG (Golovkin) is going to be something special, that was a beautifully set up shot and you could just see the relaxed fluid nature of that KO punch.
Funny enough, he will probably fight Daniel Geale (our Australian boxer that holds the IBF belt) next year to unify.... should be a great fight..

Yes, he's a lot like Kostya, big hitters with fantastic boxing pedigree along with nicer than pie smiles but they are both killers.

And you were ringside for the fight with Chavez? Very jealous now Joy. KT was at his absolute prime there and Chavez had little to no chance but went down like the champ he was.
I dont think its fair to say he came up fast and faded quickly, he just wasnt on the
american stage (like GGG) early on but sure made an impact when he got there. Pity he never fought an up and coming Floyd.

There was stories of him learning some punching techniques of Lawrence Lee, a Sydney based WC-KF teacher who passed away last year. I never met him but he had a reputation as a fairly tough old school teacher, maybe thats where the dit da jow story came from.

Nice chatting as usual Joy

Tszyu often used to hint at some kind of kung fu connection, not sure how much of it was just PR though. What lineage was Lawrence Lee?

[GlennR]

Tszyu often used to hint at some kind of kung fu connection, not sure how much of it was just PR though. What lineage was Lawrence Lee?

Not too sure about Lawrence, I guess he would claim ip man association. I'll ask around and see what I find out

[tc101]

So.... What do you want to talk about then?......


Do you think the only thing to talk about is ground reaction force and DNA? Wayfaring recently had a great post about his experience let me repeat that experience one more time experience actually trying to use his wing chun against a real boxer not armchair stuff.



because I can talk about how an AR-15 is different mechanically from an MP-5 but if you just want to talk about how you pull the trigger and it goes boom....well, then that's just boring...or is it you want talk about the distance, caliber of bullet, fire rate, you know those characteristic attributes....no, wait, you don't want to talk about that either, well, maybe, if it's in very general terms such as "high caliber" it will be ok....hmmm.


Ok let me explain what I see going on here is armchair versus reality or the world of ideas versus the real world of experience. Most of the posts here boil down to my idea is better than your idea and for me this is silly. No you say we are talking about concepts and principles but those are nothing but ideas so just replace the words concept and principle with idea and you will start to see it. Wing chun is idea based and if you are not using these/my ideas then you are not using wing chun lol!

One of the common things I keep hearing is anyone can fight that doesn't prove anything. To put it another way performance doesn't matter. That is armchair stuff. In the real world performance is all that does matter. Sorry but no not anyone can get in the ring and do well or anyone can hit hard. It is performance that shows if your ideas are working for you otherwise it is all armchair. You can't measure ideas but you can performance.

The next thing I hear is then you will just do whatever you like and call it wing chun. No. Wing chun has a technical repertoire and we all learn it. If you train to learn and use that repertoire and can use it at higher levels of performance who can say you are wrong? Some guy who can't use it as well as you sitting in his armchair tellking you that you have the wrong idea? Do you not see how comical that is?

Yes there are standard models or conventional ways of teaching things but we take those things and adapt them to ourselves, we take the standard and conventional and modify it to suit us. That is what practitioners in all combatives do because you have to that is just the reality of it. The armchair guys believe the standard or conventional model is the only way it should be done and if you are not using their standard you are wrong and more than that you are not even doing wing chun. This is why armchair guys are concerned with purity and great levels of detail and so forth. They live in the world of ideas not in the world of experience.

Hendrik is the poster boy for the armchair guys. He makes videos where he talks and shares his ideas and you never see him perform. What more do you need to realize what he is? When you live in the world of ideas you keep coming up with more and more ideas things like DNA or ground reaction force and so forth to build more elaborate and complex labrynths of ideas.



I imagine your dream conversation going like this, with you in a southern accent:


Hey!



- Is that Wing Chun?

- Yep

- Looks like he just dominated that other guy, don't it?

- Yep

- How do you think he just did that?

- I don't know


You pegged me pretty well. I really am not interested in listening to the speculation of armchair guys talk about why they think one guy beat another because I realize from experience they do not really know and it would at least be honest to say so.



- Want a beer?

- Is it Budweiser?

There you missed. I would never ask since any beer would be fine with me. :)

[k gledhill]

Do you think the only thing to talk about is ground reaction force and DNA? Wayfaring recently had a great post about his experience let me repeat that experience one more time experience actually trying to use his wing chun against a real boxer not armchair stuff.



Ok let me explain what I see going on here is armchair versus reality or the world of ideas versus the real world of experience. Most of the posts here boil down to my idea is better than your idea and for me this is silly. No you say we are talking about concepts and principles but those are nothing but ideas so just replace the words concept and principle with idea and you will start to see it. Wing chun is idea based and if you are not using these/my ideas then you are not using wing chun lol!

One of the common things I keep hearing is anyone can fight that doesn't prove anything. To put it another way performance doesn't matter. That is armchair stuff. In the real world performance is all that does matter. Sorry but no not anyone can get in the ring and do well or anyone can hit hard. It is performance that shows if your ideas are working for you otherwise it is all armchair. You can't measure ideas but you can performance.

The next thing I hear is then you will just do whatever you like and call it wing chun. No. Wing chun has a technical repertoire and we all learn it. If you train to learn and use that repertoire and can use it at higher levels of performance who can say you are wrong? Some guy who can't use it as well as you sitting in his armchair tellking you that you have the wrong idea? Do you not see how comical that is?

Yes there are standard models or conventional ways of teaching things but we take those things and adapt them to ourselves, we take the standard and conventional and modify it to suit us. That is what practitioners in all combatives do because you have to that is just the reality of it. The armchair guys believe the standard or conventional model is the only way it should be done and if you are not using their standard you are wrong and more than that you are not even doing wing chun. This is why armchair guys are concerned with purity and great levels of detail and so forth. They live in the world of ideas not in the world of experience.

Hendrik is the poster boy for the armchair guys. He makes videos where he talks and shares his ideas and you never see him perform. What more do you need to realize what he is? When you live in the world of ideas you keep coming up with more and more ideas things like DNA or ground reaction force and so forth to build more elaborate and complex labrynths of ideas.



Hey!



You pegged me pretty well. I really am not interested in listening to the speculation of armchair guys talk about why they think one guy beat another because I realize from experience they do not really know and it would at least be honest to say so.



There you missed. I would never ask since any beer would be fine with me. :)


Not all deal with arm chairs ( bar stools to heads, yes ; ) ). Experience of actual combat is the most important thing, this was in my signature, from WSL. If you don't see how a boxer moves and deal with dead jabs and punches not trying to ko you, one gets complacent. If you have never ko'd several people to gain experience, how can you teach it ? Like learning war maneuvers but never seeing live action. Sparring is maneuvers , combat is reality.
The most important thing in combat is the gun to a soldier. Without a way to ko the enemy it is pointless, might as well not fight.

[KPM]

Ok let me explain what I see going on here is armchair versus reality or the world of ideas versus the real world of experience. Most of the posts here boil down to my idea is better than your idea and for me this is silly.

A little reality check here! This is a DISCUSSION forum. Words are used. Words are tools to convey IDEAS. When you start posting a video for everything you discuss here in the forum, THEN you can talk! ;) I find it rather ironic that you find it silly that the forum involves "my idea is better than your idea" when all of your arguments and posts have centered around that very thing! You keep posting that our ideas of ground reaction force and describing things in terms of biomechanics are worthless compared to using "real-world" analogies like hitting a baseball. This is just substituting one idea for another. Don't you see the irony????


One of the common things I keep hearing is anyone can fight that doesn't prove anything. To put it another way performance doesn't matter.

Where do you think you keep hearing that? Because I haven't heard that in the various recent discussions! Who has said performance doesn't matter???? It sounds like you are either reading into things something that isn't there, or jumping to some pretty big conclusions.



The next thing I hear is then you will just do whatever you like and call it wing chun. No. Wing chun has a technical repertoire and we all learn it.

So tell me, can you describe the three classes of Wing Chun technique...Bong, Tan, and Fook? Those labels refer to more than just three specific techniques. Sure there is a technical repertoire. But it isn't JUST a collection of techniques. You can sit back and call us "armchair" Wing Chunners. But you have no idea because you've never seen any of us move or use our Wing Chun. So you really don't know. But a forum is a media of discussion of IDEAS and understanding. By what you write here and how you respond we can easily tell how well you actually understand Wing Chun, which doesn't appear to be very well. Maybe you can fight! We don't know because we haven't seen you. But even if you can fight in a boxing ring, your depth of understanding of Wing Chun doesn't appear to be very good...going by what you have written. So personally, I think it is better to have people wonder just how well I can perform my Wing Chun, given that they haven't seen me....than to be posting here and display to everyone that I really don't know what the heck I'm talking about!!!! ;)


I really am not interested in listening to the speculation of armchair guys talk about why they think one guy beat another because I realize from experience they do not really know and it would at least be honest to say so.

Then why do you continue to participate in those particular discussion??? :confused:

[KPM]

Not all deal with arm chairs ( bar stools to heads, yes ; ) ). Experience of actual combat is the most important thing, this was in my signature, from WSL. If you don't see how a boxer moves and deal with dead jabs and punches not trying to ko you, one gets complacent. If you have never ko'd several people to gain experience, how can you teach it ? Like learning war maneuvers but never seeing live action. Sparring is maneuvers , combat is reality.
The most important thing in combat is the gun to a soldier. Without a way to ko the enemy it is pointless, might as well not fight.

Yes. That's the "old rub" for any kind of combatives training, isn't it? Sparring is not combat. Fighting in the ring with rules is not the same as fighting in the back alley for your life. So we try to simulate as close as we can. Very few of us have used Wing Chun "for real", and most never will. But you don't have to in order to be good at Wing Chun or teach it to others. How many people teaching knife combatives have been in a real knife fight? How many people teaching combat handgun skills have been in a real gunfight. So nearly all of us are "armchair" practitioners to some extent.

[tc101]

Ok let me explain what I see going on here is armchair versus reality or the world of ideas versus the real world of experience. Most of the posts here boil down to my idea is better than your idea and for me this is silly.

A little reality check here! This is a DISCUSSION forum. Words are used. Words are tools to convey IDEAS. When you start posting a video for everything you discuss here in the forum, THEN you can talk! ;) I find it rather ironic that you find it silly that the forum involves "my idea is better than your idea" when all of your arguments and posts have centered around that very thing! You keep posting that our ideas of ground reaction force and describing things in terms of biomechanics are worthless compared to using "real-world" analogies like hitting a baseball. This is just substituting one idea for another. Don't you see the irony????


I am not trying to substitute one idea for another I am trying to show with real world examples that ideas are not what is important about learning skills. As I said no one uses ground reaction forces to learn or become champion boxers.

Some of you guys have gone down the rabbit hole with your ideas.



One of the common things I keep hearing is anyone can fight that doesn't prove anything. To put it another way performance doesn't matter.

Where do you think you keep hearing that? Because I haven't heard that in the various recent discussions! Who has said performance doesn't matter???? It sounds like you are either reading into things something that isn't there, or jumping to some pretty big conclusions.


Go back and read it. This has been told to me in one way or another by several people. Even you said anyone can learn to hit hard that doesn't prove you are blah blah blah.



The next thing I hear is then you will just do whatever you like and call it wing chun. No. Wing chun has a technical repertoire and we all learn it.

So tell me, can you describe the three classes of Wing Chun technique...Bong, Tan, and Fook?


Oh you mean the three seeds or three poison hands from the kuit or the three famililies according to Augustine Fong which I do not agree with by the way?



Those labels refer to more than just three specific techniques. Sure there is a technical repertoire. But it isn't JUST a collection of techniques.


I did not say it was just a collection of techniques, I said technical repertoire. A person does not need to know Fong's classification system to know wing chun or be good at wing chun. If you want to argue why his classification is good that to me is armchair stuff it has nothing whatever to do with practicing wing chun.



You can sit back and call us "armchair" Wing Chunners. But you have no idea because you've never seen any of us move or use our Wing Chun. So you really don't know.


It is actually pretty easy to tell who is discussing things from the world of ideas and who is discussing things from the real world of experience. Wayfaring talking about his experience trying to use his wing chun against a boxer versus how you use ground reaction force to blah blah blah.



But a forum is a media of discussion of IDEAS and understanding. By what you write here and how you respond we can easily tell how well you actually understand Wing Chun, which doesn't appear to be very well.


You are so so funny back to understanding wing chun lol. I know wing chun is all about ideas to you and how your idea is right and I am someone who does not agree with your ideas and so must not understand wing chun. Someone who wasn't an armchair guy would not even think like that because what matters is not your idea but how well you can perform. See how easy it is to tell the armchair guys?



Maybe you can fight! We don't know because we haven't seen you. But even if you can fight in a boxing ring, your depth of understanding of Wing Chun doesn't appear to be very good...going by what you have written.


There you go again lol. Try to wrap your head around this it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with understanding or your level of understanding it has to do with what you can do and the level you can do it at. You keep wanting to make wing chun about ideas instead of skills.



So personally, I think it is better to have people wonder just how well I can perform my Wing Chun, given that they haven't seen me....than to be posting here and display to everyone that I really don't know what the heck I'm talking about!!!! ;)


Yes yes I do not know what I am talking about because armchair guys do not agree with me. Do you think that is something I really care about?



I really am not interested in listening to the speculation of armchair guys talk about why they think one guy beat another because I realize from experience they do not really know and it would at least be honest to say so.

Then why do you continue to participate in those particular discussion??? :confused:

We are here to discuss wing chun. You can have your point of view and I can have mine. If I were on a boxing forum and some guy was telling me my jab was wrong because it did not conform to how he thinks people should jab, he is free to share that and I am free to share that the proof of how good my jab is is in the ring that it is through performance that we judge these things.

[tc101]

Yes. That's the "old rub" for any kind of combatives training, isn't it? Sparring is not combat. Fighting in the ring with rules is not the same as fighting in the back alley for your life. So we try to simulate as close as we can.


There is no rub. Sparring is not a simulation. You are making a classic armchair mistake by focusing on where you use your skills the old the street is not the ring instead of focusing on the skills themselves and that is a really bad way to think of it. Sparring is where we develop our ability to use our technical repertoire against a real opponent. Developing that ability which is our skills is what is important. Without that ability you cannot use it anywhere and with that ability you can with modification use it anywhere.



Very few of us have used Wing Chun "for real", and most never will. But you don't have to in order to be good at Wing Chun or teach it to others.


If you use wing chun in sparring you are using it for real. If you mean you don't need to have had a life or death encounter that is true.



How many people teaching knife combatives have been in a real knife fight? How many people teaching combat handgun skills have been in a real gunfight. So nearly all of us are "armchair" practitioners to some extent.

Most of what is taught with knives and combat handgun is nonsense taught by armchair guys to armchair guys.

Look you do not need to be a pro fighter to not be an armchair guy. An armchair guy lives in the world of ideas and how they think things should work and people who are not in their armchair live in the world of experience and talk about what they are doing.

[WC1277]

....or the three famililies according to Augustine Fong which I do not agree with by the way?



I did not say it was just a collection of techniques, I said technical repertoire. A person does not need to know Fong's classification system to know wing chun or be good at wing chun. If you want to argue why his classification is good that to me is armchair stuff it has nothing whatever to do with practicing wing chun.

If you even remotely knew what the three families were even about, you probably wouldn't be using it as an argumentive point. In a nutshell, since you obviously don't know, it's the concept that positions "aren't" specific but fall into families and can be applied in multiple ways, for instance, you can use a lan sao but in tan sao concept. Almost all the "techniques" can be applied interchangeably with these three families.

Tan family - rotation from inside line to outside line

Fok family - rotation from outside line to inside line

Bong family - rotation from inside line to opposite outside line

Not as specific as you thought, huh?

[k gledhill]

Yes. That's the "old rub" for any kind of combatives training, isn't it? Sparring is not combat. Fighting in the ring with rules is not the same as fighting in the back alley for your life. So we try to simulate as close as we can. Very few of us have used Wing Chun "for real", and most never will. But you don't have to in order to be good at Wing Chun or teach it to others. How many people teaching knife combatives have been in a real knife fight? How many people teaching combat handgun skills have been in a real gunfight. So nearly all of us are "armchair" practitioners to some extent.

Good questions. Yes if I ask my teacher, coach, if they ever really had a fight and used it and they say never and then asked them " how do you know it works ? " .... What would be acceptable as an answer ?
Just do it
Well the generation before me did ok
I almost used it once during a parking issue.
I had over x amount of REAL fights personally and used it.
I used it in the ring sparring a lot one on one with rules

?

[Hendrik]

This is using ground reaction force and Wck dna

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GI0vfeHu8Hs&feature=youtube_gdata

If you know it , it is every where in your Wck.

If you don't, then I doubt you study Wck.

[tc101]

If you even remotely knew what the three families were even about, you probably wouldn't be using it as an argumentive point. In a nutshell, since you obviously don't know, it's the concept that positions "aren't" specific but fall into families and can be applied in multiple ways, for instance, you can use a lan sao but in tan sao concept. Almost all the "techniques" can be applied interchangeably with these three families.

Tan family - rotation from inside line to outside line

Fok family - rotation from outside line to inside line

Bong family - rotation from inside line to opposite outside line

Not as specific as you thought, huh?

Thank you for a perfect example of armchair posting.

[WC1277]

Thank you for a perfect example of armchair posting.

You are truly hopeless! :rolleyes: I just gave you an example of a non-specific set of motions the same as there's hooks, jabs, crosses, and uppercuts in boxing. It nullifies your argument against the three families in relation to your point!

[guy b.]

Ok let me explain what I see going on here is armchair versus reality or the world of ideas versus the real world of experience. Most of the posts here boil down to my idea is better than your idea and for me this is silly. No you say we are talking about concepts and principles but those are nothing but ideas so just replace the words concept and principle with idea and you will start to see it. Wing chun is idea based and if you are not using these/my ideas then you are not using wing chun lol!

Wing chun is an ideas based system. It isn't defined by the hand shapes bong, pak, tan etc as you seem to think, since these are also used in other systems. Are these systems also wing chun?


One of the common things I keep hearing is anyone can fight that doesn't prove anything. To put it another way performance doesn't matter. That is armchair stuff. In the real world performance is all that does matter. Sorry but no not anyone can get in the ring and do well or anyone can hit hard. It is performance that shows if your ideas are working for you otherwise it is all armchair. You can't measure ideas but you can performance.

You haven't shown any performance. And you have shown unfamiliarity with the ideas that make wing chun what it is. Where does this leave you?


The next thing I hear is then you will just do whatever you like and call it wing chun. No. Wing chun has a technical repertoire and we all learn it. If you train to learn and use that repertoire and can use it at higher levels of performance who can say you are wrong?

What is the technical repertoire that defines wing chun?


You pegged me pretty well. I really am not interested in listening to the speculation of armchair guys talk about why they think one guy beat another because I realize from experience they do not really know and it would at least be honest to say so.

You think anecdote is any more convincing than discussion of ideas? Ideas at least can be discussed and shown to be flawed using logic. Anecdote is the forum equivalent of taking your c0ck out and waving it around. Nice one tough guy.

[guy b.]

Lol at Mr Experience even being on a discussion forum. WTF is there for him to discuss?

[tc101]

You are truly hopeless! :rolleyes: I just gave you an example of a non-specific set of motions the same as there's hooks, jabs, crosses, and uppercuts in boxing. It nullifies your argument against the three families in relation to your point!

It is the same as saying we can classify punches into straight punches, hooks, swings, uppercuts, and so forth. So what?

Here is something to consider tan bong fook are not shapes or positions but actions or movements that you are doing AND that action is doing a certain something to the opponent.

Linking or combining movements or actions together has nothing to do with your three families.

[tc101]

Wing chun is an ideas based system. It isn't defined by the hand shapes bong, pak, tan etc as you seem to think, since these are also used in other systems. Are these systems also wing chun?


Yes some other systems have some of those things but it is the mixture and how it is put together that is unique.



You haven't shown any performance. And you have shown unfamiliarity with the ideas that make wing chun what it is. Where does this leave you?


What idea in wing chun have I shown unfamiliarity with? Because I do not agree with your ideas does not mean I am unfamiliar with them.



What is the technical repertoire that defines wing chun?


Those in the forms, drills, and so forth. The actions and movements we practice.

Think about this how is it people who do not practice wing chun can by just looking at a person move tell they are a wing chun practitioner? Are they seeing their ideas? No they are seeing the technical repertoire being used.

Yes there are ideas and strategies and tactics that help us use the technical repertoire but ideas without technique are useless.



You think anecdote is any more convincing than discussion of ideas? Ideas at least can be discussed and shown to be flawed using logic. Anecdote is the forum equivalent of taking your c0ck out and waving it around. Nice one tough guy.

Experience is much much more than anecdote.

Armchair guys will tell you that wing chun will work on the ground. Why? Do you think it is because they are going to mma schools and experiencing that for themselves? They will argue and put up a good defense based on ideas why they think it will work right? Experience will put that to rest very quickly.

It is the same with most everything. People have ideas of how things should work like the guys who think their wing chun will work on the ground have ideas also. They are all sure in their ideas. Imagine two guys discussing how they will use their wing chun on the ground and arguing over which idea is better. Then someone chiming in that they are not using their force lines or improper vectors. Seriously?

Wing chun is very simple. We all have the technical repertoire. We all have the basic concepts of centerline and so forth. I learned in wing chun not to use flowerly techniques in chi sao. That is a kune kuit. I think we should also not use flowerly ideas in our wing chun.

[WC1277]

It is the same as saying we can classify punches into straight punches, hooks, swings, uppercuts, and so forth. So what?

Here is something to consider tan bong fook are not shapes or positions but actions or movements that you are doing AND that action is doing a certain something to the opponent....

Are you mentally challenged or something?

Let me say it again...

"If you even remotely knew what the three families were even about, you probably wouldn't be using it as an argumentive point. In a nutshell, since you obviously don't know, it's the concept that positions "aren't" specific but fall into families and can be applied in multiple ways, for instance, you can use a lan sao but in tan sao concept. Almost all the "techniques" can be applied interchangeably with these three families.

Tan family - rotation from inside line to outside line

Fok family - rotation from outside line to inside line

Bong family - rotation from inside line to opposite outside line"

How is that NOT "actions or movements that you are doing AND that action is doing a certain something to the opponent...." to use YOUR words?:rolleyes:

[tc101]

Are you mentally challenged or something?

Let me say it again...

"If you even remotely knew what the three families were even about, you probably wouldn't be using it as an argumentive point. In a nutshell, since you obviously don't know, it's the concept that positions "aren't" specific but fall into families and can be applied in multiple ways, for instance, you can use a lan sao but in tan sao concept. Almost all the "techniques" can be applied interchangeably with these three families.

Tan family - rotation from inside line to outside line

Fok family - rotation from outside line to inside line

Bong family - rotation from inside line to opposite outside line"

How is that NOT "actions or movements that you are doing AND that action is doing a certain something to the opponent...." to use YOUR words?:rolleyes:

If by mentally challenged you mean challenged by mental patients well then I maybe don't know.

You missed the part about doing something to your opponent with the action and I do not mean changing the line. For example fook is a controlling action. Sorry I didn't make that more clear but I thought anyone would oh well never mind my mistake.

[guy b.]

Yes some other systems have some of those things but it is the mixture and how it is put together that is unique.

Other systems have the mixture. What do you mean by "how it is put together"?



What idea in wing chun have I shown unfamiliarity with? Because I do not agree with your ideas does not mean I am unfamiliar with them.

You are unfamiliar with the ideas of wing chun body mechanics for power generation. And also (amusingly) the idea behind dan chi sau. And tan sau for that matter.



Those in the forms, drills, and so forth. The actions and movements we practice.

Think about this how is it people who do not practice wing chun can by just looking at a person move tell they are a wing chun practitioner? Are they seeing their ideas? No they are seeing the technical repertoire being used.

Yes there are ideas and strategies and tactics that help us use the technical repertoire but ideas without technique are useless.

Randomly throwing wing chun arm shapes does not look like wing chun



Experience is much much more than anecdote.

Any tale from an individual life is anecdote on a public forum


Armchair guys will tell you that wing chun will work on the ground. Why? Do you think it is because they are going to mma schools and experiencing that for themselves? They will argue and put up a good defense based on ideas why they think it will work right? Experience will put that to rest very quickly.

Never heard anyone say this. Simple logic will put it to rest, no need to even try it really is there?


It is the same with most everything. People have ideas of how things should work like the guys who think their wing chun will work on the ground have ideas also. They are all sure in their ideas. Imagine two guys discussing how they will use their wing chun on the ground and arguing over which idea is better. Then someone chiming in that they are not using their force lines or improper vectors. Seriously?

Then lets imagine some @rse enters the conversation with an anecdotal account of his experiences in the military, law enforcement using wing chun for real, real sparring, real hard contact, he's done it all, for real. Or maybe real just bullsh1t, who knows? He sounds like a right to$$er anyway. Strange that such a real guy that judges everything based on reality won't post any real videos of his real training or tell anyone who he really trains with.


Wing chun is very simple. We all have the technical repertoire. We all have the basic concepts of centerline and so forth. I learned in wing chun not to use flowerly techniques in chi sao. That is a kune kuit. I think we should also not use flowerly ideas in our wing chun.


Lol, a kuen kuit? What would those be now? Begins with P

[guy b.]

For example fook is a controlling action. Sorry I didn't make that more clear but I thought anyone would oh well never mind my mistake.

Sounds like the painful birth of a malformed and premature principle from your tight puckered mouth

[WC1277]

Anyone know if it is possible to block someone? This tc101 guy is a joke

[anerlich]

Anyone know if it is possible to block someone?

There's a thing called the ignore list.

guy b. is already on mine, and you and tc101 are about to make the grade as well as well. Can you three get a room and conduct your b!tchfest there?

[GlennR]

We do not develop skills by adhering to principles we develop skills through practicing those skills. We can learn and develop those skills without knowing any principles or concepts. People do that all the time in everything.


Sure, i learnt how to walk without being taught the principles, i even learnt to run, then ran in low level competition...... but as soon as i got to a hogher competitive level i was shown HOW and WHY to change my running technique.

See what you are doing, you are saying just by doing something you will get better, but its proven time and time again that showing how and why will improve performance

YOU SIMPLY CANNOT ARGUE WITH THAT.



The principles do not really exist like skills do but are ideas we can use to help us develop and use our skills.

THATS WHAT EVERYONE IS SAYING!!!!!!


The usefulness of a concept or principle is in how useful it is in helping us learn and develop skill. Once you have the skill the concept or principle is unimportant.

Nonsense, the principle is what made the skill applicable, you cant just take it away


Yes Tyson and Baukaw could teach us the skills of boxing and mt because they have those skills.

AND because they understand the how and whys!

[WC1277]

To anerlich: I was going to qoute you and reply to thank you for letting me know about the ignore list. Unfortunately, since I put you on it I can't do that anymore. But thanks anyway!;)

[KPM]

Go back and read it. This has been told to me in one way or another by several people. Even you said anyone can learn to hit hard that doesn't prove you are blah blah blah.

No. People have been telling you that putting on gloves and banging in the ring is not the be all and end all of Wing Chun. There is a depth of understanding. But you refuse to see that. No one said performance doesn't matter. But you can take someone with some natural talent and athleticism, teach him some very rudimentary Wing Chun, and he is likely to do pretty well in a sparring context. Does that suddenly make him a "Wing Chun expert"??


Oh you mean the three seeds or three poison hands from the kuit or the three famililies according to Augustine Fong which I do not agree with by the way?

Oh? Why do you not agree with them? You see, that might be a good discussion. Because after all, we are here to discuss. Aren't we? Discuss IDEAS.......


If you want to argue why his classification is good that to me is armchair stuff it has nothing whatever to do with practicing wing chun.

Like I pointed out before. This is a discussion forum. All we can do here is discuss ideas. We can't reach through the screen and do virtual Chi Sao (but wouldn't that be cool!?). Why are you here if you think that discussing ideas is so terrible? Because I can't recall having read any stories of your many experiences using your Wing Chun, or watching any videos of you demonstrating your Wing Chun skills.


It is actually pretty easy to tell who is discussing things from the world of ideas and who is discussing things from the real world of experience. Wayfaring talking about his experience trying to use his wing chun against a boxer versus how you use ground reaction force to blah blah blah.

You just don't get it, do you? Why do you see those two things as mutually exclusive? Why are you so threatened by the idea that someone can actually talk about Wing Chun from a technical standpoint? No one has said that Wayfaring (or anyone else) talking about his experience trying to use Wing Chun is a bad thing or an undesirable thing. Yet you think that talking about understanding of the principles and concepts of Wing Chun is a bad thing.


You are so so funny back to understanding wing chun lol. I know wing chun is all about ideas to you and how your idea is right and I am someone who does not agree with your ideas and so must not understand wing chun. Someone who wasn't an armchair guy would not even think like that because what matters is not your idea but how well you can perform. See how easy it is to tell the armchair guys?

Again, you just don't get it!!!!! They aren't mutually exclusive! Just because someone is knowledgeable enough to talk about the principles and concepts of Wing Chun does not automatically mean they can't perform! Why would you even make that leap of logic? I would be willing to bet that Philip Bayer talked about Wing Chun concepts plenty at his recent NY seminar. I would bet he talked about as well as demonstrated the use and positioning of the elbow. Now he could have ONLY showed or demo'ed what he wanted people to do. But I bet he got faster and better results by also EXPLAINING the concept behind what he wanted them to do.


There you go again lol. Try to wrap your head around this it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with understanding or your level of understanding it has to do with what you can do and the level you can do it at. You keep wanting to make wing chun about ideas instead of skills.

No I don't! Its about BOTH!!!!! You keep wanting to deny that Wing Chun is a concept based system and that a certain depth of understanding is important. You think you can just be a "Wing Chun robot" and that being good at Wing Chun "has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with understanding"!!!!!! :rolleyes: It takes understanding AND skill! One without the other won't get you very far!


If I were on a boxing forum and some guy was telling me my jab was wrong because it did not conform to how he thinks people should jab, he is free to share that and I am free to share that the proof of how good my jab is is in the ring that it is through performance that we judge these things.

Ok. Bear with me now, because here comes another idea. ;) What if you were one of those guys that saw a jab as a hard lead shot and ended up with a slow sloppy jab and kept dropping it after throwing it so that you left yourself open to a counter. But when it landed it was solid and really rocked the opponent...when it landed. So you saw your performance as satisfactory. Then what if a coach came along that had a different IDEA about the jab. What if he explained to you the concept that the jab is not a hard lead shot, but a range-finder and a barrier. What if he showed you how to throw a nice crisp jab to keep the opponent from closing the distance, showed you how it could help you stay close enough to tag him while keeping him just far enough away at the same time. Wouldn't that make a difference? Now you could argue that all of that is just technique. But I would say that there is a conceptual base behind it, and the more you understand that concept, the more you will be able to use it effectively. Maybe you see that. Maybe you don't. But once again, I'm done with you!!!!!

[tc101]

Sure, i learnt how to walk without being taught the principles, i even learnt to run, then ran in low level competition...... but as soon as i got to a hogher competitive level i was shown HOW and WHY to change my running technique.

See what you are doing, you are saying just by doing something you will get better, but its proven time and time again that showing how and why will improve performance


Yes that is true but how is it that you know the how and why is correct? It comes back to performance right?

Perhaps I am not explaining myself well but here the focus is on ideas and not performance. The question I think is does that idea help you perform better or not? The idea is not useful in itself but only as far as it helps you. People seem to ignore the performance and exist only in the world of ideas.



YOU SIMPLY CANNOT ARGUE WITH THAT.


I am not arguing with that but I am saying that most of these ideas are armchair ideas and not ideas that come from experience actually doing it.




THATS WHAT EVERYONE IS SAYING!!!!!!


I think many are saying the ideas or what they call principles or concepts are what is most important and I am saying no it is performance that is most important. You have an idea and I have a different one. We can argue about who has the better idea. I am saying this type of argument or even thinking in terms of who has the right or better idea is silly. What matters is how well you can perform. There are people here who think they have the right idea but will be pounded senseless by guys with the so called wrong idea. This shows it isn't the idea that is important.

Some even go so far as to say that even if I am using all wing chun techniques but not using them according to their idea of how thing are supposed to be used then I am not doing wing chun regardless of how well I perform. So what is most important to these people ideas or performance?



Nonsense, the principle is what made the skill applicable, you cant just take it away


You can develop skill without reference to any principles or concepts. Wing chun people are fed a constant diet of principle this and concept that so much that they can't see beyond it. They are also fed a constant diet of our idea is right and best and everyone elses idea is bad poor or not even wing chun. Wing chun is no more principle based than boxing or wrestling or mt or judo or anything else they only tell themselves they are and look at things from that perspective.



AND because they understand the how and whys!

Yes they know the how's and whys from experience. They are not good because they know these things they know them because they are good. From practicing they develop skill and from that practice they learn the how's and whys.

[wingchunIan]

You can develop skill without reference to any principles or concepts. Wing chun people are fed a constant diet of principle this and concept that so much that they can't see beyond it. They are also fed a constant diet of our idea is right and best and everyone elses idea is bad poor or not even wing chun. Wing chun is no more principle based than boxing or wrestling or mt or judo or anything else they only tell themselves they are and look at things from that perspective.



Yes they know the how's and whys from experience. They are not good because they know these things they know them because they are good. From practicing they develop skill and from that practice they learn the how's and whys.

How to put this... you are just quite simply wrong. Re your first point above, failure to understand principles driving success means there will always be a glass ceiling beyond which you can't progress and your learning will be governed by the rate at which you can be spoon fed.
Re your second point (i'm ignoring the nonsense about what is right and what is best as that only applies to a limited few), people do not learn the how's and whys from experience. Anyone whose actually been in a fight will tell you that it is very difficult to recall exactly what happened when after the event a truth that I can testify to as I'm sure can others. Knowing that you managed to hit someone hard does not give you any information as to how to make your punch harder in future and unless you understand the mechanics and principles of the power generation of your chosen punching method (be that WC, boxing or any other) your best effort at improvement will be trial and error. Understanding principles and concepts allows you to get the maximum benefit out of every training session and every drill, in turn helping you to become the best fighter that you can be

[guy b.]

I can't fathom why anyone would want to waste the time learning everything from experience. This is why fighting methods exist, so that you don't waste time learning the lessons of generations by yourself. There aren't enough years in a life