So ive been watching Hendriks video's....

[GlennR]

Spent some time the other day watching a few of his recent videos and, if nothing else, i admire his passion for what he believes and is trying to get across.

Having said that, i personally feel that around 80-90% of the videos is wasted time and he appears to be over complicating the message he is trying to get across.

As an example of a video showing technique, principals etc here is a clip of an old school boxer called Charley Burley, one of the true past masters.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81non05aKX4

What i like about this video is the balance it achieves between theory, comparison, analogy and actual footage of fighting... boxing in this case... and in particular how it compares new to old.

Am i expecting Hendrik to do a video like this? No, but personally i find this 8 minute clip gives me a better understanding of the topic at hand than 5 of Hendriks 30 minute lecture's, and perhaps he should view this video and take on board how it conveys its ideas so well

Thoughts?

[KPM]

Spent some time the other day watching a few of his recent videos and, if nothing else, i admire his passion for what he believes and is trying to get across.

You Sir, are to be commended on your patience and perserverance! :)


Having said that, i personally feel that around 80-90% of the videos is wasted time and he appears to be over complicating the message he is trying to get across.

I will admit that as much as I have tried, I have had little time or patience to make it through Hendrik's videos. He could be much more concise and to the point. But at least he is putting his ideas out there! In the past he would not have done this. Hendrik has shown great progress in his willingness to share his thoughts and ideas over the years. In the past his frequent response to questions to explain his statements further was that one had to "bai shi" to a master to learn such secrets. ;)


As an example of a video showing technique, principals etc here is a clip of an old school boxer called Charley Burley, one of the true past masters.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81non05aKX4

Interesting clip! In reference to some recent threads, I will note that this boxing video talks about lines of attack and defense, major principles as the foundation of boxing, and included plenty of "armchairish" analysis from a "thinking man's" perspective.

Keith

[WC1277]

As an example of a video showing technique, principals etc here is a clip of an old school boxer called Charley Burley, one of the true past masters.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81non05aKX4

What i like about this video is the balance it achieves between theory, comparison, analogy and actual footage of fighting... boxing in this case... and in particular how it compares new to old.


Thanks for sharing that video. It's fantastic.

Fighting IS a series of rotations trying to land a target within whichever four gates are available and depending on how you use it can make a massive difference. One of the reasons I push the rotational understanding of good WC as much as I do. It's ridiculous to think otherwise IMO.

Thanks again.

[Hendrik]

Wcners often ask me why do I make things so complicated?

I told them this.

Say using turning the body to generate power . Ten people will tell you that, but everyone is getting a different result.

I define YKT drill 3 as a reference of how the joints handle in turning, define momentum dna, define kneeling stance, rack, and standing stake, define double helix Jin or force change type- action/reaction force, define body and force line type of power generation. Define the accurate 7 bows and the sequence for loose up. These seems to make things complicated. However, these are elements critical to define what is a turning the body to generate power.

With clear definition ten person follow it , all ten know clearly what it is. Eight might develop it, and five might be good at it. Since knowing it doesn't mean good at it . However, don't know it means one is totally out of the game of develop it.

We can see many people for decades talk about fajin like taiji, but everyone has their own definition and very rare to see anyone really develop fajin. Even though everyone loves to say " oh, I have it too." Disregards of whether one knows what is going on.

If Wck is so simple why is Wck inch power is extremely rare in today's world and people keep thinking the Bruce lee inch punch demo as Wck inch power? Where it is totally a feet punch pushing the body in feet ?

[k gledhill]

Thanks for sharing that video. It's fantastic.

Fighting IS a series of rotations trying to land a target within whichever four gates are available and depending on how you use it can make a massive difference. One of the reasons I push the rotational understanding of good WC as much as I do. It's ridiculous to think otherwise IMO.

Thanks again.

You really don't understand your own facing tactics. Rotations are considered errors with their own recovery drills.

[WC1277]

You really don't understand your own facing tactics. Rotations are considered errors with their own recovery drills.

I understand them fine, thank you.

What you don't seem to understand is the difference between developmental and application. 99% of WC is developmental. If you fight with developmental, you will lose more often than not.

[k gledhill]

I understand them fine, thank you.

What you don't seem to understand is the difference between developmental and application. 99% of WC is developmental. If you fight with developmental, you will lose more often than not.

No you don't. Sad really, Emmet seems to disagree with you too and he's your lineage. Trying to associate turning with good wc ? That's like drunk driving.

[GlennR]

Wcners often ask me why do I make things so complicated?

I told them this.

Say using turning the body to generate power . Ten people will tell you that, but everyone is getting a different result.

I define YKT drill 3 as a reference of how the joints handle in turning, define momentum dna, define kneeling stance, rack, and standing stake, define double helix Jin or force change type- action/reaction force, define body and force line type of power generation. Define the accurate 7 bows and the sequence for loose up. These seems to make things complicated. However, these are elements critical to define what is a turning the body to generate power.

With clear definition ten person follow it , all ten know clearly what it is. Eight might develop it, and five might be good at it. Since knowing it doesn't mean good at it . However, don't know it means one is totally out of the game of develop it.

We can see many people for decades talk about fajin like taiji, but everyone has their own definition and very rare to see anyone really develop fajin. Even though everyone loves to say " oh, I have it too." Disregards of whether one knows what is going on.

If Wck is so simple why is Wck inch power is extremely rare in today's world and people keep thinking the Bruce lee inch punch demo as Wck inch power? Where it is totally a feet punch pushing the body in feet ?

I rest my case

[WC1277]

No you don't. Sad really, Emmet seems to disagree with you too and he's your lineage.

You just never stop, do you? You ALWAYS have to say something. I'm not worried about Emmett and whether he agrees with me or not. He can do what he likes.

You, on the other hand, seem to never let anyone have a different viewpoint and insist superiority over all others by a mere "proof" that you had an epiphany when switching to your current system. Let alone, a system that has a reputation due to an exaltation of "teenager" fights. Forgive me if I'm not impressed. :rolleyes:

[k gledhill]

You just never stop, do you? You ALWAYS have to say something. I'm not worried about Emmett and whether he agrees with me or not. He can do what he likes.

You, on the other hand, seem to never let anyone have a different viewpoint and insist superiority over all others by a mere "proof" that you had an epiphany when switching to your current system. Let alone, a system that has a reputation due to an exaltation of "teenager" fights. Forgive me if I'm not impressed. :rolleyes:


Trying to associate turning with good wc ? That's like drunk driving.

[LFJ]

Trying to associate turning with good wc ? That's like drunk driving.

It's okay to swerve off the side of the road, as long as your next action is to swerve back into oncoming traffic.

[Hendrik]

Chum kiu and biu Jee have lots of turning.
Leunt jan final art , the Kulo pin San are expert at turning.

The following YouTube is classical Wck , turning is an element, start 0.3

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8V4KLReQ6o&feature=youtube_gdata




Wck is not bak mei, not spm, not boxing.
You can evolve your lineage but again, that doesn't represent the classical Wck.




Trying to associate turning with good wc ? That's like drunk driving.

[EternalSpring]

i admire his passion for what he believes and is trying to get across.

Having said that, i personally feel that around 80-90% of the videos is wasted time and he appears to be over complicating the message he is trying to get across.

As an example of a video showing technique, principals etc here is a clip of an old school boxer called Charley Burley, one of the true past masters.


I pretty much feel the same way. I wish nothing but success for the guy, but to talk so much and so in depth about a way which is supposedly superior or more complete in a sense, and then to show absolutely nothing to prove it...it's just too hard to believe.

Nearly in every other case on this forum we see any demonstration video responded to with constant requests of "why not post a real fight?" In this case however, it's at a point where even a solid example of YK snake engine or YK wing chun power generation on an inanimate object would suffice.

[LFJ]

The following YouTube is classical Wck , turning is an element, start 0.3

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8V4KLReQ6o&feature=youtube_gdata

Chiu-ying & jeui-ying have no meaning to these guys?

@0:38 That's a terrible position to be in and he's putting himself there? He's trapping himself at a bad angle and asking for the guy to run him over.

Same at the end with the guy @4:00. The opponent need only seung-ma and he's on his ass.

[Shads]

Spent some time the other day watching a few of his recent videos
Thoughts?

Suicidal, bored or just too much time on your hands? You need a hobby..............:D

[Shads]

Trying to associate turning with good wc ? That's like drunk driving.

WSL used turning and shifting all the time, maybe he was constantly ****ed:rolleyes:
Its what's wrong with WC today - all the senior practitioners are constantly wrecked:)

[LFJ]

WSL used turning and shifting all the time, maybe he was constantly ****ed:rolleyes:
Its what's wrong with WC today - all the senior practitioners are constantly wrecked:)

WSL allowed his opponents to physically turn him? That's what WC1277 has been talking about; allowing his opponent to turn him.

[WC1277]

WSL allowed his opponents to physically turn him? That's what WC1277 has been talking about; allowing his opponent to turn him.

God, I love how your bunch hinges on one thing and lose the entire context. I said, in so many words, not to fight the force and allow it to a point until the position to switch. I was explaining the balanced rotation from receiving to recover positioning and I also explained where it is initiated as well. They're the same!

You guys are unbelievable!

[LaRoux]

Spent some time the other day watching a few of his recent videos and, if nothing else, i admire his passion for what he believes and is trying to get across.

Having said that, i personally feel that around 80-90% of the videos is wasted time and he appears to be over complicating the message he is trying to get across.

As an example of a video showing technique, principals etc here is a clip of an old school boxer called Charley Burley, one of the true past masters.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81non05aKX4

What i like about this video is the balance it achieves between theory, comparison, analogy and actual footage of fighting... boxing in this case... and in particular how it compares new to old.

Am i expecting Hendrik to do a video like this? No, but personally i find this 8 minute clip gives me a better understanding of the topic at hand than 5 of Hendriks 30 minute lecture's, and perhaps he should view this video and take on board how it conveys its ideas so well

Thoughts?

More than likely, the guy who made that video has a good amount of fight experience under his belt and can make an informed analysis that is easily conveyed. That's the difference between that and those who do much of the pontificating and theorizing that goes on in this forum.

[GlennR]

More than likely, the guy who made that video has a good amount of fight experience under his belt and can make an informed analysis that is easily conveyed. That's the difference between that and those who do much of the pontificating and theorizing that goes on in this forum.

Yep, my point exactly.

As i said in my 1st post, its a nicely balnced clip beteeen theory and application. But youre right, the maker of the clip understands fighting (boxing in this case) and can explain the theories from a practical point of view.

Hendriks response showing "classical WC" turning too much shows, to me, an unrealistic understanding of fighting.

[GlennR]

I pretty much feel the same way. I wish nothing but success for the guy, but to talk so much and so in depth about a way which is supposedly superior or more complete in a sense, and then to show absolutely nothing to prove it...it's just too hard to believe.

Mate, im 100% with you. I guess what really gets me angry with him is that when people like myself ask for more practical explanations of what he is saying he just repeats himself with the inference we dont know "real" WC



Nearly in every other case on this forum we see any demonstration video responded to with constant requests of "why not post a real fight?" In this case however, it's at a point where even a solid example of YK snake engine or YK wing chun power generation on an inanimate object would suffice.

Totally agree again. Im not needing to see him fight but some work with some partners (he had people there recently) would suffice. But all there is is talk and maybe a slap of a dummy or similar.

Funny enough, his response to my post is the same asa ever..... talk talk talk with not a lot of substance.
Either he cant or wont speak at our crude level ;)

[sanjuro_ronin]

Spent some time the other day watching a few of his recent videos and, if nothing else, i admire his passion for what he believes and is trying to get across.

Having said that, i personally feel that around 80-90% of the videos is wasted time and he appears to be over complicating the message he is trying to get across.

As an example of a video showing technique, principals etc here is a clip of an old school boxer called Charley Burley, one of the true past masters.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81non05aKX4

What i like about this video is the balance it achieves between theory, comparison, analogy and actual footage of fighting... boxing in this case... and in particular how it compares new to old.

Am i expecting Hendrik to do a video like this? No, but personally i find this 8 minute clip gives me a better understanding of the topic at hand than 5 of Hendriks 30 minute lecture's, and perhaps he should view this video and take on board how it conveys its ideas so well

Thoughts?

That is a how videos ARE SUPPOSE to be done.
To borrow the DBMA mantra:
See it taught, See it fought.
You can NOT separate theory from practice.
If you can't show it fought, then it shouldn't be taught.

I have found that you don't need 10's of minutes to describe an MA "theory", not unless you are trying to over complicate it to make it seem more than it really is.

That video should be the template for all others.

[k gledhill]

WSL used turning and shifting all the time, maybe he was constantly ****ed:rolleyes:
Its what's wrong with WC today - all the senior practitioners are constantly wrecked:)

Of course WSL did turn, pivot, etc... but for a simple reason ; ) not for wc1277 reasons.

[Hendrik]

If One don't know the proper way of yjkym , one don't even know basic Wck. one must be joking to use Wck for fighting as some always claim.

My video address the basic common denominator of Wck , never get out of the boundary of Wck teaching. If one can't even do that forget about using Wck in fighting. One don't even know Wck basic .

Wck is not boxing with Wck technics.
How can one judge Wck fighting when one is clueless even on how to stand properly in yjkym?

Instead of posting boxing clip which got nothing to do with Wck . why don't you post your lineage Wck best instruction clip here and see is it fighting proper? Put you sifu, sigung clips up. Even better put your own clip up to show us your wck for fighting.
And let everyone here see and compare and see how realistic or applicable your clips for wck in fighting? Instead of playing back sit driver.

Talk is cheap.




Yep, my point exactly.

As i said in my 1st post, its a nicely balnced clip beteeen theory and application. But youre right, the maker of the clip understands fighting (boxing in this case) and can explain the theories from a practical point of view.

Hendriks response showing "classical WC" turning too much shows, to me, an unrealistic understanding of fighting.

[k gledhill]

God, I love how your bunch hinges on one thing and lose the entire context. I said, in so many words, not to fight the force and allow it to a point until the position to switch. I was explaining the balanced rotation from receiving to recover positioning and I also explained where it is initiated as well. They're the same!

You guys are unbelievable!

You're the dubious one : / the more I refute your thinking the more I will enlighten you, so enjoy your turning delusions.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Talk is cheap.


Oh the irony of it all !!:D

[Frost]

Oh the irony of it all !!:D

just when you think this forum has hit rock bottom it finds new depths doesn't it :)

[Hendrik]

One issue of this forum is

Some likes to give their five cents but they don't even practice Wck.


just when you think this forum has hit rock bottom it finds new depths doesn't it :)

[Frost]

One issue of this forum is

Some likes to give their five cents but they don't even practice Wck.
Two issues actually people getting their facts wrong and pontificating endlessly when they couldn't fight their way out of a paper bag :)

oh and my wing chun comes from yip man lineage and vietnam

[Hendrik]

Show your YouTube to make your point,
Otherwise, we are not different as what we say , isn't it? Hahaha


Two issues actually people getting their facts wrong and pontificating endlessly when they couldn't fight their way out of a paper bag :)

oh and my wing chun comes from yip man lineage and vietnam

[k gledhill]

Show your YouTube to make your point,
Otherwise, we are not different as what we say , isn't it? Hahaha

I believe we just had an Internet challenge via YouTube clips ; )

[Hendrik]

You think this utube is realistic Wck fighting? Not just talk talk talk ,
and not cause even more danger to the girl here in real life when face an attacker?
You guys know boxing, what is that chance the guy can handle a punch that way?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5NZ64kkdQM&feature=youtube_gdata -





Mate, im 100% with you. I guess what really gets me angry with him is that when people like myself ask for more practical explanations of what he is saying he just repeats himself with the inference we dont know "real" WC




Totally agree again. Im not needing to see him fight but some work with some partners (he had people there recently) would suffice. But all there is is talk and maybe a slap of a dummy or similar.

Funny enough, his response to my post is the same asa ever..... talk talk talk with not a lot of substance.
Either he cant or wont speak at our crude level ;)

[Hendrik]

It is communication.

If you don't post your utube to clarify things, how the heck others will know what one you are talking about.


I believe we just had an Internet challenge via YouTube clips ; )

[k gledhill]

It is communication.

If you don't post your utube to clarify things, how the heck others will know what one you are talking about.

Ok champ ! Easy there killer ; )

[EternalSpring]

It is communication.

If you don't post your utube to clarify things, how the heck others will know what one you are talking about.

fair enough. But if all you do in youtube vids is talk, then what exactly makes it so different from just writing a post when it comes to "clarifying things?"

[tc101]

Why does anyone take Hendrik seriously in the first place?

[Hendrik]

That is not the case for me.





fair enough. But if all you do in youtube vids is talk, then what exactly makes it so different from just writing a post when it comes to "clarifying things?"

[Hendrik]

Because good or bad , what you see from me is what you get.
No pretending and hiding and play back sit driver like you. :D


Why does anyone take Hendrik seriously in the first place?

[tc101]

Because good or bad , what you see from me is what you get.
No pretending and hiding and play back sit driver like you. :D

Was it Mark Twain who said better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it and dispel all doubt?

[LaRoux]

Because good or bad , what you see from me is what you get.
No pretending and hiding and play back sit driver like you. :D

Making video clips and pontificating without any evidence of actually doing full contact fighting is the epitome of back seat driving.

[tc101]

Making video clips and pontificating without any evidence of actually doing full contact fighting is the epitome of back seat driving.

He will never understand this.

[Hendrik]

If you are color blind and can see red. That is your problem.



Making video clips and pontificating without any evidence of actually doing full contact fighting is the epitome of back seat driving.

[Hendrik]

Why should one take color blind advise on color?


You can't even stand a proper yjkym, so forget about playing expert in Wck critics.

Well, you can prove me wrong to post a photo of you or YouTube of your yjkym. Until then, what can you say? I am always can admit I am wrong about you, however, you need to show your evidence.


He will never understand this.

[Frost]

Show your YouTube to make your point,
Otherwise, we are not different as what we say , isn't it? Hahaha

mmm ive posted clips of myself in grappling matches and also sparring at my MMA gym, so i can atleast throw my way out of a paper bag if not punch my way out

:):) your turn how about an actual clip of you with a real live opponent punching you and not just a stability ball:)

[Frost]

It is communication.

If you don't post your utube to clarify things, how the heck others will know what one you are talking about.

you actually think you clips CLARIFY things???:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

[sanjuro_ronin]

I recall Hendrick saying that the fighting aspect of WCk i not important to him, that it isn't even really what WCK is about and since he has no interest in that aspect I don't think it's fair to ask him to post fighting clips.
Just like you won't ask a fighter to post of clip of him pontificating about needlepoint.

[Hendrik]

Good for you. But is that Wck?

I present what It is as the title of my clip. a part of Wck, related to Wck. It is a Wck forum here. Not mma grappling .


mmm ive posted clips of myself in grappling matches and also sparring at my MMA gym, so i can atleast throw my way out of a paper bag if not punch my way out

:):) your turn how about an actual clip of you with a real live opponent punching you and not just a stability ball:)

[Hendrik]

Do you do Wck?
If yes, is your yjkym a kneeling stance, a rack, and stake?

If you can't clarify it. Put a YouTube out on your yjkym while you are practicing snt, I am sure many in this forum will be able to help you clarify what are you practicing.



you actually think you clips CLARIFY things???:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

[Hendrik]

Everyone has their different interest, you like to post fighting it is fine with me. I don't go around and demanding you to post your biu Jee set even though this is a Wck forum. Thus, you walk your path I walk mine.



I recall Hendrick saying that the fighting aspect of WCk i not important to him, that it isn't even really what WCK is about and since he has no interest in that aspect I don't think it's fair to ask him to post fighting clips.
Just like you won't ask a fighter to post of clip of him pontificating about needlepoint.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Everyone has their different interest, you like to post fighting it is fine with me. I don't go around and demanding you to post your biu Jee set even though this is a Wck forum. Thus, you walk your path I walk mine.

And that is my point exactly.

[YouKnowWho]

I don't go around and demanding you to post your biu Jee set even though this is a Wck forum.

Just find an old clip on my 标指(Biao Zhi) form to prove that I did cross trained WC when I was young.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpncgmwkCFg&feature=youtu.be

[Hendrik]

John,


Great!
Good old clip!




Just find an old clip on this to prove that I did cross trained WC when I was young.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpncgmwkCFg&feature=youtu.be

[tc101]

Why should one take color blind advise on color?


But what you do to understand is YOU are the one who is color blind. You have blinders on. The only thing that will help you is to get them knocked off by doing some hard sparring and seeing for yourself that all you willow power and thoughts on the yjkym and so on are meaningless because they are all arm chair musings. Deep in your heart you fear seeing this and so you will avoid it at all costs.

What you do not understand and everyone keeps trying to tell you is that increased fighting performance is the goal of wing chun training and so the proof of your ideas is though showing increased fighting performance. You can't and never will show that and neither will your followers. That is why you try to talk physics and pseudo science and o forth because for emphasis YOU CANNOT SHOW INCREASED FIGHTING PERFORMANCE. You will try to pass the buck with your try it or yourself and see tactic but this again is YOU dodging it. It also shows you are talking about something you do not know and cannot do.



You can't even stand a proper yjkym, so forget about playing expert in Wck critics.

Well, you can prove me wrong to post a photo of you or YouTube of your yjkym. Until then, what can you say? I am always can admit I am wrong about you, however, you need to show your evidence.

This is just more of your dodging tactics. It doesn't matter if anyone posts because anytime a person does not do it YOUR way it is wrong or not even wing chun. This is how you always deal with critics. Who are YOU to pass judgement anyway? Show me your wing chun. Everything I see you do is wrong. Did you even learn from a proper wing chun sifu? I do not think so.

The other thing you do is try to shift attention when people ask to see you do what you say to do. Of course you can't so you always say show me instead. Sorry Mr Armchair but you are the guy making the claims and pretending to be an authority so you are the one who needs to show that your ideas are not the horse manure we ll think they are.

I know you have no skill and are not teaching what you can do but instead teaching how you think things should work. Until you get out of the arm chair thing cannot change.

[Wayfaring]

Why should one take color blind advise on color?


Because a little color, even that selected by a color blind person, could possibly provide enough variety to prevent someone from falling asleep while watching your videos?

[Hendrik]

Sorry not interested to waste my time with you.




But what you do to understand is YOU are the one who is color blind. You have blinders on. The only thing that will help you is to get them knocked off by doing some hard sparring and seeing for yourself that all you willow power and thoughts on the yjkym and so on are meaningless because they are all arm chair musings. Deep in your heart you fear seeing this and so you will avoid it at all costs.

What you do not understand and everyone keeps trying to tell you is that increased fighting performance is the goal of wing chun training and so the proof of your ideas is though showing increased fighting performance. You can't and never will show that and neither will your followers. That is why you try to talk physics and pseudo science and o forth because for emphasis YOU CANNOT SHOW INCREASED FIGHTING PERFORMANCE. You will try to pass the buck with your try it or yourself and see tactic but this again is YOU dodging it. It also shows you are talking about something you do not know and cannot do.



This is just more of your dodging tactics. It doesn't matter if anyone posts because anytime a person does not do it YOUR way it is wrong or not even wing chun. This is how you always deal with critics. Who are YOU to pass judgement anyway? Show me your wing chun. Everything I see you do is wrong. Did you even learn from a proper wing chun sifu? I do not think so.

The other thing you do is try to shift attention when people ask to see you do what you say to do. Of course you can't so you always say show me instead. Sorry Mr Armchair but you are the guy making the claims and pretending to be an authority so you are the one who needs to show that your ideas are not the horse manure we ll think they are.

I know you have no skill and are not teaching what you can do but instead teaching how you think things should work. Until you get out of the arm chair thing cannot change.

[tc101]

Sorry not interested to waste my time with you.

Yes as I expected because I know you and you can't fool me and I will not fall for your dodges. You really represent what is wrong in wing chun.

[GlennR]

Dear oh dear Hendrik..... somone has got a bit upset havent they.
Let me re address a few things....


Spent some time the other day watching a few of his recent videos and, if nothing else, i admire his passion for what he believes and is trying to get across.


Ive actually given you a bit of credit here if you hadnt noticed


Having said that, i personally feel that around 80-90% of the videos is wasted time and he appears to be over complicating the message he is trying to get across.

I think everyone here on the forum is in agreement with this. Its called constructive criticism.
Your choice to take it on board i guess


As an example of a video showing technique, principals etc here is a clip of an old school boxer called Charley Burley, one of the true past masters.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81non05aKX4

What i like about this video is the balance it achieves between theory, comparison, analogy and actual footage of fighting... boxing in this case... and in particular how it compares new to old.

Seriously, did you watch it? You havent made a single comment about it except to go of in a tangent about people who dont know WC
I put the clip up for the way its put together, not its content, though i am a boxer and fan of the man.


Am i expecting Hendrik to do a video like this? No, but personally i find this 8 minute clip gives me a better understanding of the topic at hand than 5 of Hendriks 30 minute lecture's, and perhaps he should view this video and take on board how it conveys its ideas so well

The clip gets its message across clearly......... you think yours do a better job?

[guy b.]

Instead of posting boxing clip which got nothing to do with Wck . why don't you post your lineage Wck best instruction clip here and see is it fighting proper? Put you sifu, sigung clips up. Even better put your own clip up to show us your wck for fighting.
And let everyone here see and compare and see how realistic or applicable your clips for wck in fighting? Instead of playing back sit driver.

Talk is cheap.

Whatever you might think about his own clips, Hendrik does have a point here. There are zero wing chun clips posted from his critics

[guy b.]

mmm ive posted clips of myself in grappling matches and also sparring at my MMA gym, so i can atleast throw my way out of a paper bag if not punch my way out

Why is this relevant to discussion of wing chun?

[GlennR]

Whatever you might think about his own clips, Hendrik does have a point here. There are zero wing chun clips posted from his critics

To be honest, i dont see many i like and i think the one i posted is a high standard in both content and structure..... something Hendriks lack

Im fine with Hendrik putting up his clip which i say at the start of this thread, my problem is his attitude.

Quite simply, if you are going to get on a forum of WCers, tell them your way is the way... in fact it can even transform you.... then putting in some decent content to back up your claims is hardly asking too much.

As i said, he had folks over recently training, why wouldnt you video it to show the "transformation"?

[LFJ]

Do you do Wck?
If yes, is your yjkym a kneeling stance, a rack, and stake?

If you can't clarify it. Put a YouTube out on your yjkym while you are practicing snt, I am sure many in this forum will be able to help you clarify what are you practicing.

lol

Do any non-armchair fighters really give a hoot? If you learned it properly and it's functional, that's all you need to know.

[GlennR]

lol

Do any non-armchair fighters really give a hoot? If you learned it properly and it's functional, that's all you need to know.

Exactly, but he wont agree with that

[guy b.]

To be honest, i dont see many i like and i think the one i posted is a high standard in both content and structure..... something Hendriks lack

Im fine with Hendrik putting up his clip which i say at the start of this thread, my problem is his attitude.

Quite simply, if you are going to get on a forum of WCers, tell them your way is the way... in fact it can even transform you.... then putting in some decent content to back up your claims is hardly asking too much.

As i said, he had folks over recently training, why wouldnt you video it to show the "transformation"?

Your point is a but different in that you are criticizing Hendrik's teaching method and content of his clips. I think this is fair enough and to be honest I have done this myself. I find his clips quite difficult to get through.

I think Hendrik has a valid point against critics like tc101, la roux and frost who want to criticize his wing chun while being incredibly cagey about their own wing chun (to the point that it is difficult to believe they do wing chun)

[GlennR]

Your point is a but different in that you are criticizing Hendrik's teaching method and content of his clips. I think this is fair enough and to be honest I have done this myself. I find his clips quite difficult to get through.

I concur.... good word concur


I think Hendrik has a valid point against critics like tc101, la roux and frost who want to criticize his wing chun while being incredibly cagey about their own wing chun (to the point that it is difficult to believe they do wing chun)

Not so sure about laroux and TC, but Frost has been pretty open about his training.
But having said that, do you need to do WC to criticise his attitude?

[guy b.]

Not so sure about laroux and TC, but Frost has been pretty open about his training.
But having said that, do you need to do WC to criticise his attitude?

They are criticising Hendrik's wing chun from a position of complete anonymity, not commenting on the way he delivers his videos. All of the things they compare with hendrik's wing chun are sports MA like boxing or MMA. They are completely unwilling to show anything of their own wing chun or even a clip of wing chun they like. This makes their criticism very weak and I think Hendrik has a point.

If their point is that WC is cr@p compared to boxing or MMA then, ok, don't do wing chun. But why keep labouring the point on what is a wing chun forum?

[GlennR]

They are criticising Hendrik's wing chun from a position of complete anonymity, not commenting on the way he delivers his videos. All of the things they compare with hendrik's wing chun are sports MA like boxing or MMA. They are completely unwilling to show anything of their own wing chun or even a clip of wing chun they like. This makes their criticism very weak and I think Hendrik has a point.

Maybe he has a point to a degree, but, he amongst doesnt discriminate against those that disagree with him, his fall back is always "you dont know WC" to ANYONE that doesnt agree with him. TC, Frost and so on just like to ride him and, IMO, he asks for it all the time.

Look at his response to this thread. Its no secret we dont like eachother but i thought id give an objective criticism of his videos by comparing to one that i think is done very well.
I didnt ask for WC death matches or anything like that from him, just suggested that the clip posted got the message across a lot clearer in the fraction of the time his does by use of videos of fights, comparisons etc.

His only response that i can see is the old "you dont do WC' response that is inevitably in all the threads he participates in.

To be honest, i bet he hasnt even watched the whole clip


If their point is that WC is cr@p compared to boxing or MMA then, ok, don't do wing chun. But why keep labouring the point on what is a wing chun forum?

I do agree with you here but define "doing WC"?
I know Frost as, an example, still uses some WC in his sparring and so on, so do i, so should he and i get of the forum as we arent pure?

When we are out there sparring non-wc guys, using wc, and then told we dont do wc ,do you not see how insulting that is?

[guy b.]

Maybe he has a point to a degree, but, he amongst doesnt discriminate against those that disagree with him, his fall back is always "you dont know WC" to ANYONE that doesnt agree with him. TC, Frost and so on just like to ride him and, IMO, he asks for it all the time.

Trolling Hendrik is a pointless waste of time. Better to ignore and talk about wing chun if you don't like it. People constantly baiting him is more tedious than watching some of his clips


Look at his response to this thread. Its no secret we dont like eachother but i thought id give an objective criticism of his videos by comparing to one that i think is done very well.
I didnt ask for WC death matches or anything like that from him, just suggested that the clip posted got the message across a lot clearer in the fraction of the time his does by use of videos of fights, comparisons etc.

I thought your post was fair and constructive


His only response that i can see is the old "you dont do WC' response that is inevitably in all the threads he participates in.

To be honest, i bet he hasnt even watched the whole clip

Maybe you've just had too many arguments with him? I hope he goes back and reads it because I think his clips are hard to watch and the lack of physical demonstration against anything (let alone an opponent) makes it very hard to get anything from them.


I do agree with you here but define "doing WC"?
I know Frost as, an example, still uses some WC in his sparring and so on, so do i, so should he and i get of the forum as we arent pure?

When we are out there sparring non-wc guys, using wc, and then told we dont do wc ,do you not see how insulting that is?

I've no issue with anyone posting here but please, FFS, talk about wing chun and don't just ride the nuts of MMA or boxing or whatever. You mostly talk about wing chun or wing chun in comparison to other things. I have no problem with this

[tc101]

I think Hendrik has a valid point against critics like tc101, la roux and frost who want to criticize his wing chun while being incredibly cagey about their own wing chun (to the point that it is difficult to believe they do wing chun)

Lol I am not being cagey I am expressing the basic idea that I do not believe there is any single one right or best way to do things in wing chun and anyone who thinks there is needs to step up and prove it. The whole idea of a single one right or best way is armchair and not based on experience sparring or fighting.

I do not care if Hendrik said this is how they train their wing chun in Yik Kam that would be interesting and informative. I do object when he says that if you are not using his willow power you are not even doing wing chun or doing it all wrong when a little girl would likely wipe the floor with him.

[guy b.]

I do object when he says that if you are not using his willow power you are not even doing wing chun or doing it all wrong when a little girl would likely wipe the floor with him.

Maybe he objects when you claim that without gloved sparring like a boxer you can't be training wing chun correctly. Maybe he objects when you idolise sports like MMA and boxing on a wing chun forum. Just saying.

And you are being cagey with the fake name, no training info, and inability to post a single clip of wing chun that you actually like

[Frost]

Why is this relevant to discussion of wing chun?

are you saying what he posts is relevant to a discussion on wing chun???

seriously i have yet to see more than 3 people agree with anything he says about wing chun his ideas are so out of sinc with most on this forum is it any more relevant than my statement?

[Frost]

Your point is a but different in that you are criticizing Hendrik's teaching method and content of his clips. I think this is fair enough and to be honest I have done this myself. I find his clips quite difficult to get through.

I think Hendrik has a valid point against critics like tc101, la roux and frost who want to criticize his wing chun while being incredibly cagey about their own wing chun (to the point that it is difficult to believe they do wing chun)

who is cagey about his wing chun lineage? i started training it 11 years ago with my current sifu, (his teaches were Vietnamese and also from hong kong yip man lineage no big names as far as i know but i dont really care, his teaches could fight with it and so can he) thats what i cared about
I trained it for a few years seriously: learned the three empty hand forms, the pole, and knifes (alongside CLF) before moving onto hakka arts which he also taught. we still practise it on occasion (more in partner drills and sparring than the forms although i can still do them if you put a gun to my head lol)

I find some use for it in the clinch and close range (and also funnily enough on the ground), but honestly i find it limiting and useful in a very specific range, and the reason i dont post clips of what i think are good wing chun in action because i honestly dont see much of it, i like alan orrs stuff for example but thats about it

i mostly post on clips relating to grappling, MMA and sparring, things i know about, oh and also to mock kevin and graham but thats another thread :)

[Hendrik]

If that is the case, then you are not practice Wck either.

How is one snt function properly without having proper yjkym? Don't know it is a kneeling stance, a rack stance or a stake stance? How doesn't one Wck function properly without a poper snt?


Is this a mma boxing forum I mistakenly post in?



lol

Do any non-armchair fighters really give a hoot? If you learned it properly and it's functional, that's all you need to know.

[Hendrik]

I don't talk Wck lineage but wck common denominator.
Does one follow those common denominators? Does one really practice Wck ? Or just mimic sets?
If one doesnt know Wck how can one know it is good Wck?

And, Whether one can fight or not is a totally different issue.







who is cagey about his wing chun lineage? i started training it 11 years ago with my current sifu, (his teaches were Vietnamese and also from hong kong yip man lineage no big names as far as i know but i dont really care, his teaches could fight with it and so can he) thats what i cared about


I trained it for a few years seriously: learned the three empty hand forms, the pole, and knifes (alongside CLF) before moving onto hakka arts which he also taught. we still practise it on occasion (more in partner drills and sparring than the forms although i can still do them if you put a gun to my head lol)



I find some use for it in the clinch and close range (and also funnily enough on the ground), but honestly i find it limiting and useful in a very specific range, and the reason i dont post clips of what i think are good wing chun in action because i honestly dont see much of it, i like alan orrs stuff for example but thats about it

i mostly post on clips relating to grappling, MMA and sparring, things i know about, oh and also to mock kevin and graham but thats another thread :)

[Hendrik]

So, acording to you, are the following clips get thier message across , realistic in momentum handling ,and realistic in fighting?



http://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtube_gdata&v=t5NZ64kkdQM&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Dt5NZ64kkdQM%26feature%3 Dyoutube_gdata

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=czC3XdVNzgo&feature=relmfu





The clip gets its message across clearly......... you think yours do a better job?

[YouKnowWho]

There are zero wing chun clips posted from his critics

Zero is not the correct number.


Just find an old clip on my 标指(Biao Zhi) form to prove that I did cross trained WC when I was young.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpncgmwkCFg&feature=youtu.be

[Hendrik]

I don't think. It means you.


Zero is not the correct number.

[GlennR]

If that is the case, then you are not practice Wck either.

How is one snt function properly without having proper yjkym? Don't know it is a kneeling stance, a rack stance or a stake stance? How doesn't one Wck function properly without a poper snt?


Who made you the judge?



Is this a mma boxing forum I mistakenly post in?

So its ok for you to refer to Johns style, SC, but we cant refer to mma or boxing?

Ahhhh, that because its Chinese?
And ofcourse youre Chinese as well................... your subtle racism is noted

[GlennR]

So, acording to you, are the following clips get thier message across , realistic in momentum handling ,and realistic in fighting?



http://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtube_gdata&v=t5NZ64kkdQM&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Dt5NZ64kkdQM%26feature%3 Dyoutube_gdata

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=czC3XdVNzgo&feature=relmfu

Before i watch the clips, oh and i know what youre doing.... its TST lineage (Jim Fung to be exact) and you want me to say its a good clip...... its not

But once again, you miss the point you imbocile.

The clip wasnt about the content (boxing) it was about how well put together, which yours arent.

But you dont understand that, you are obsessed with jamming your ideas down everyones throats.

Ok, ive tried....... game on boofhead

[LaRoux]

So, acording to you, are the following clips get thier message across , realistic in momentum handling ,and realistic in fighting?



http://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtube_gdata&v=t5NZ64kkdQM&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Dt5NZ64kkdQM%26feature%3 Dyoutube_gdata

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=czC3XdVNzgo&feature=relmfu

No, not realistic in fighting in the least.

[Hendrik]

You missed the point on my video. And in that case you don't even know what I am presenting. How can you judge when you don't know what it is. For example as simple as momentum dna of Wck in my video, I doubt you know what, why, how it is which has presented precise and concise in the video.

As an example in my video , Don't one need to have a good understanding on momentum, force change, body development of a style such as Wck, to handle the basic realistic combat handling the Wck way? If you can't even comprehend that you don't know Wck.



Btw, Chinese martial art Wck is not boxing. Chinese way of logic in the art doesn't go in western way. As when I am studying engineering I don't complain how western subject doesn't present in a traitional Chinese way.

Also, No one ask you to view my YouTube. I careless if you watch.




I welcome critics but I don't believe all critics are proper and applied. If you really think I am not effective in presenting. Can you do the standing stake as I describe in my YouTube clearly where many wcner cn do now? If not it is your problem of not being able to undestand Not mine. As in advance math class, some students will always complain how confusing and complex is the subject, but in fact they are either jump steps or unable to appreciate the subject.

Saying that doesn't mean I don't change and improve present things. However, like all customer feedback. There are valid and invalid feedback. Who says customers always right?

Just take a look, how many wcners do even know the different between kneeling stance, rack stance, and standing stake characteristics . Do you know? Can you do them all? If not you don't even comprehend or understand the significant of what I am presenting , how can you appreciate what they are ? You sure can keep doing your boxing and expect Wck as boxing, but it is not going to happen.






Before i watch the clips, oh and i know what youre doing.... its TST lineage (Jim Fung to be exact) and you want me to say its a good clip...... its not

But once again, you miss the point you imbocile.

The clip wasnt about the content (boxing) it was about how well put together, which yours arent.

But you dont understand that, you are obsessed with jamming your ideas down everyones throats.

Ok, ive tried....... game on boofhead

[GlennR]

You missed the point on my video. And in that case you don't even know what I am presenting. How can you judge when you don't know what it is.


Sorry to tell you, but this thread was started by me and a clip i put up... not you.
I think youll find i dont post videos on your threads


Btw, Chinese martial art Wck is not boxing. Chinese way of logic in the art doesn't go in western way. As when I am learning engineering I don't complain how western subject doesn't present in a traitional Chinese way.


Rubbish, thats your out all the time.

Is this the same as when you said that chinese builders didnt understand geometry??
How the hell did they build the great wall then??
Just lucky?


No one ask you to view my YouTube. I careless if you watch.

True, but plenty of people say your videos are overly long and complicated.
It was constructive criticism which you would prefer to turn into an argument.

No problem, im more than happy to argue with you

[Hendrik]

Don't tell that to GlennR, he will hate you. :D



No, not realistic in fighting in the least.

[Hendrik]

True, but plenty of people say your videos are overly long and complicated.

It was constructive criticism which you would prefer to turn into an argument.



Sure, every one can has their opinion.

Not all my video is long. And details is needed to clearly explain , what, why, how. If you are not interested don't watch.

I am not turning into an argument, it is a fact that you are using a stereo typing to critic before you even know what it is.

I take Many others critics because they provide constructive communication reason, and they willing to communicate. I understand your point on your boxing clip example. However, not everything is that simple.

Take the kneeling stance, rack stance, and standing stake video. It is critical to really know what it is. The power of willow video, it tells one what is the critical body handling and sequence, and the content in snt core training . If you just want to punch out some guys, don't watch them. But if you studying Wck snt. One needs to repeat many time until one is clear on what is going on to make snt work. Is it I make it complex? No. It is as it is. That is snt design. I give the full story because without the full story it simply doesn't work in real life. But if one cannot appreciate that I am ok.

[Hendrik]

To be direct, it is a very difficult task to open the classical information to the west, there are content issues , depth of content issues, paradigm shift issues, communication issues and personal communication style issues.....etc.

It is a complex balancing game which needs continuous improvement but not in the expense of the contents and content depth. Many will not appreciate it because it is a different paradigm.

But the fact is always, if one missed one step, one will never get it develop. And these days, many will say, I know it already but in fact one don't know. That is just a part of the modern society.

I sure could take a simple exit making life easy for myself. Which is not saying anything. But then, how many wcner doesn't know Wck tan sau is not side outer block? And thinking yjkym is a southern fist kneeling stance but in fact it is not? Wck doesn't move in as spm but always angle even when it is called jing sun?


I welcome constructive criticism , but not all critic are valid because real life is much complex.
People like to talk about combat, but how is combat realistic if momentum of a style, body development of the practioner are not consider? I focus on momentum and body because that is the basic building block. Often people think Wck is direct attack to center line, well, tell me how realistic is that given different body size, momentum handling experience, not to even mention your opponent is not a wooden dummy standing there and do you know how deep is their momentum penetration they can deliver? Is realistic combat simple? Not at all. IMHO.

I am not know it all. And always improving , because it is a continuous improvement journey.

[GlennR]

Don't tell that to GlennR, he will hate you. :D

Its not and i agree with him, missed that one boof head

[GlennR]

Sure, every one can has their opinion.

Yep, like your vidoes are your opinion


Not all my video is long. And details is needed to clearly explain , what, why, how. If you are not interested don't watch.

So ive watched your videos, given a single critique which many of the people here agree with and you say "dont watch it"

You basically only want people that agree with you to watch it.... all 2% of them


I am not turning into an argument, it is a fact that you are using a stereo typing to critic before you even know what it is.

No. Listen clearly... again
Ive watched them and i find the way they are put together poor. You communicate poorly, meander on points and have little or no objectivity in your clips.

Its just you waffling on basically


I take Many others critics because they provide constructive communication reason, and they willing to communicate.

Thats exactly what i did yet you want to get personal... fine by me


I understand your point on your boxing clip example. However, not everything is that simple.

So what was my point? I dont think you did get it


Take the kneeling stance, rack stance, and standing stake video. It is critical to really know what it is. The power of willow video, it tells one what is the critical body handling and sequence, and the content in snt core training . If you just want to punch out some guys, don't watch them. But if you studying Wck snt. One needs to repeat many time until one is clear on what is going on to make snt work. Is it I make it complex? No. It is as it is. That is snt design. I give the full story because without the full story it simply doesn't work in real life. But if one cannot appreciate that I am ok.

See what ive highlighted? Tells one.

Youre giving a lecture. You are convinced you are right before you even start the videos. But the thing is its not right, fact or whatever...... its your opinion.

Listen again.............. your opinion

Thats all it is.

And you waffling on for hours and hours doesnt "make it so". Youve had a million oportunities to explain/show in a more practical way yet you fall back on your terms..... Whats the latest?

Rack stance, kneeling stance..... lets not forget 1850, ermei, snake engine, YK transform blah blah blah

And the best you can offer is a yoga ball on a wall.... you truly are a bandwidth bandit

[GlennR]

To be direct, it is a very difficult task to open the classical information to the west, there are content issues , depth of content issues, paradigm shift issues, communication issues and personal communication style issues.....etc.


Is that why Chinese builders dont understand geometry??


It is a complex balancing game which needs continuous improvement but not in the expense of the contents and content depth. Many will not appreciate it because it is a different paradigm.


Trying to get a bit elite now?



I sure could take a simple exit making life easy for myself. Which is not saying anything. But then, how many wcner doesn't know Wck tan sau is not side outer block? And thinking yjkym is a southern fist kneeling stance but in fact it is not? Wck doesn't move in as spm but always angle even when it is called jing sun?

So what you are saying is you know WC better than most people?



I welcome constructive criticism , but not all critic are valid because real life is much complex.
People like to talk about combat, but how is combat realistic if momentum of a style, body development of the practioner are not consider? I focus on momentum and body because that is the basic building block. Often people think Wck is direct attack to center line, well, tell me how realistic is that given different body size, momentum handling experience, not to even mention your opponent is not a wooden dummy standing there and do you know how deep is their momentum penetration they can deliver? Is realistic combat simple? Not at all. IMHO.


How do you know?
You dont fight, havent for years and have no students that do.

So how do you know?


I am not know it all. And always improving , because it is a continuous improvement journey.

What makes you think you are improving?

[tc101]

So what you are saying is you know WC better than most people?

How do you know?
You dont fight, havent for years and have no students that do.

So how do you know?


What makes you think you are improving?

Yes you have pointed out the classic error in arm chair thinking. It is always the case of they think their ideas will or does make them better but this view does not come by the way of experience. It is a case of this is how you go about beating boxers. Are you doing that and beating boxers? Well no but and fill in the various excuses and dodges of why they think they know best.

In this case will doing things Hendrik's way make you a better fighter. He says so but do you think that is because he is fighting?

The arm chair guys do not see because they cannot see from their armchair. You need to get out of the arm chair and when you do your perspective changes. Your question of how do you know? has only one acceptable answer but you can't get it from the arm chair.

[guy b.]

Yes you have pointed out the classic error in arm chair thinking. It is always the case of they think their ideas will or does make them better but this view does not come by the way of experience.

I think Hendrik has full contact experience. Do you?

Do you think the concepts upon which wing chun is based come from people with no fighting experience? If so why train in wing chun?

[Hendrik]

See what ive highlighted? Tells one.

Youre giving a lecture. You are convinced you are right before you even start the videos. But the thing is its not right, fact or whatever...... its your opinion.

Listen again.............. your opinion

Thats all it is.


This is exactly your issue.

I am presenting what has been practiced in traditional tcma. Practitioners attain the state or in the western language get the specific result from these.

You are just a mma or boxing guy, sure you have no clue what is going on in tcma development. But thinking you are an expert. Thus, you think everything is an opinion.





And you waffling on for hours and hours doesnt "make it so". Youve had a million oportunities to explain/show in a more practical way yet you fall back on your terms..... Whats the latest?


you could not even differentiate between a knee stance, a rack, or a standing stake. But fill with a mind with you know it all and thinking you are the center of the universe.

There is no accident you post as you post.





Rack stance, kneeling stance..... lets not forget 1850, ermei, snake engine, YK transform blah blah blah


This is expected from you who thinking you are the center of the universe but clueless on what is the basic of Wck.

[guy b.]

Zero is not the correct number.

No, not you

[Frost]

I don't talk Wck lineage but wck common denominator.
Does one follow those common denominators? Does one really practice Wck ? Or just mimic sets?
If one doesnt know Wck how can one know it is good Wck?

And, Whether one can fight or not is a totally different issue.

edited because well your last line says it all really so theres no point talking about it

[Hendrik]

edited because well your last line says it all really so theres no point talking about it


Fair enough.

[Hendrik]

Wck is not our freelance thinking. Either you learn it , practice it , apply it, or you don't.
I have never ever ever say there is a Hendrik way. But Wck common denominator.


In any case, your previous posts in this forum show you are not a wcner but may be some mma or boxing guy who study a few Wck hand technics. You are just trying to use ambiguous fighting ideas to cover yourself up on your ignorance in Wck .


My Wck youtube is presenting Wck common denominator, what are they, why are they, and how are they. It migh be long but I give and share in details on what I know without reserved. Not to say I know it all or I am perfect, but what you see is what you get.


You just want to make yourself as upper hand but can not provide a sign of you are wcner by fact. Put me down or be little me doesn't cover you ignorance in Wck basic. Side track to fighting also doesn't make you know Wck.



Yes you have pointed out the classic error in arm chair thinking. It is always the case of they think their ideas will or does make them better but this view does not come by the way of experience. It is a case of this is how you go about beating boxers. Are you doing that and beating boxers? Well no but and fill in the various excuses and dodges of why they think they know best.

In this case will doing things Hendrik's way make you a better fighter. He says so but do you think that is because he is fighting?

The arm chair guys do not see because they cannot see from their armchair. You need to get out of the arm chair and when you do your perspective changes. Your question of how do you know? has only one acceptable answer but you can't get it from the arm chair.

[tc101]

Wck is not our freelance thinking. Either you learn it , practice it , apply it, or you don't.
I have never ever ever say there is a Hendrik way. But Wck common denominator.


In any case, your previous posts in this forum show you are not a wcner but may be some mma or boxing guy who study a few Wck hand technics. You are just trying to use ambiguous fighting ideas to cover yourself up on your ignorance in Wck .


My Wck youtube is presenting Wck common denominator, what are they, why are they, and how are they. It migh be long but I give and share what I know without reserved. Not to say I know it all or I am perfect, but what you see is what you get.


You just want to make yourself as upper hand but can not provide a sign of you are wcner by fact. Put me down or be little me doesn't cover you ignorance in Wck basic. Side track to fighting also doesn't make you know Wck.

Wing chun is not a thought straight jacket. Wing chun is for fighting is it not?

I do not care if you want to share your ideas. I think that is fine. I like seeing and hearing other ideas. My objection is when you and others start talking about how your ideas are the only right way and anyone doing things differently is wrong and not doing wing chun. That view is laughable and comes from not sparring or in the case of some not sparring with people outside your little group. That view will quickly be pounded out of you.

It is also laughable that you of all people talk about others having ambiguous fighting ideas. Tell me how can you have ideas about fighting when you do not fight? If you do not fight your ideas about fighting are not worth a can of beans.

If you want to say this is how people in the 1850s did their forms or whatever then do that but leave any thoughts about fighting and using your wing chun in fighting to those that do it.

[guy b.]

It is also laughable that you of all people talk about others having ambiguous fighting ideas. Tell me how can you have ideas about fighting when you do not fight? If you do not fight your ideas about fighting are not worth a can of beans.

I think Hendrik has fought. Have you?

Training in the wing chun system is a statement of belief about the fighting ideas of the people that created the system and the people you have learned from personally. This is a shortcut method to proficiency and is what TCMA systems generally do. Fighting is testing, not reformulation of ideas. People that don't believe the system works generally leave it before long.

Why are you still here?

[GlennR]

See what ive highlighted? Tells one.

Youre giving a lecture. You are convinced you are right before you even start the videos. But the thing is its not right, fact or whatever...... its your opinion.

Listen again.............. your opinion

Thats all it is.


This is exactly your issue.

I am presenting what has been practiced in traditional tcma. Practitioners attain the state or in the western language get the specific result from these.

You are just a mma or boxing guy, sure you have no clue what is going on in tcma development. But thinking you are an expert. Thus, you think everything is an opinion.



Just a mma or boxer guy hey?
You do like looking down your nose dont you.

And you are just some chinese guy who thinks that by dropping chinese terms, mentioning TCMA every 5 minutes, seeking lines of support from other styles etc gives you some type of authority over what WC is and isnt.

It doesnt............ you are just like me.......... just another guy

Once again, you have NO record of succesfully proving you theories work and NO students that prove the same.

Id suggest that when Frost is sparring at his club in England, and he applies some WC succesfully, he does more for the spreading of the art in that moment than you in a lifetime.


And you waffling on for hours and hours doesnt "make it so". Youve had a million oportunities to explain/show in a more practical way yet you fall back on your terms..... Whats the latest?


you could not even differentiate between a knee stance, a rack, or a standing stake. But fill with a mind with you know it all and thinking you are the center of the universe.

There is no accident you post as you post.

Terms you like to introduce to make you sound clever. Honestly, every month or two you bring in new ones.
Been reading New Martial Hero have you?



Rack stance, kneeling stance..... lets not forget 1850, ermei, snake engine, YK transform blah blah blah


This is expected from you who thinking you are the center of the universe but clueless on what is the basic of Wck.


Im not saying im right and youre wrong.... im just saying you arent Mr WC who knows it all and can (and does) lecture to the forum.

[GlennR]

I don't talk Wck lineage but wck common denominator.
Does one follow those common denominators? Does one really practice Wck ? Or just mimic sets?
If one doesnt know Wck how can one know it is good Wck?

And, Whether one can fight or not is a totally different issue.

So let me get this right Hendrik.

Lets just say you and i have a friendly testing of skills in front of all the forum folks.

Using only WC skills, as confirmed by the audience, i give you a firm beating.

Can you then turn to the audience and say "he wasnt doing his WC correctly"??

[Hendrik]

Wing chun or not got nothing to do with you or me.
Wing chun has common denominator DNA across the lineages.

You don't get it don't you?



So let me get this right Hendrik.

Lets just say you and i have a friendly testing of skills in front of all the forum folks.

Using only WC skills, as confirmed by the audience, i give you a firm beating.

Can you then turn to the audience and say "he wasnt doing his WC correctly"??

[guy b.]

So let me get this right Hendrik.

Lets just say you and i have a friendly testing of skills in front of all the forum folks.

Using only WC skills, as confirmed by the audience, i give you a firm beating.

Can you then turn to the audience and say "he wasnt doing his WC correctly"??

Cus d'Amato vs Tyson in his prime

Old Yip Man vs young Bruce Lee

Both of the above coaches would lose a physical fight against their student. You think that this makes their opinion about the quality of boxing/wing chun being done by the student invalid?

[GlennR]

Wing chun or not got nothing to do with you or me.
Wing chun has common denominator DNA across the lineages.

You don't get it don't you?

No, you dont get it.
YOU are saying the DNA thing, no one else is spending hundreds of hours pushing this

The DNA you speak of is your definition, no one elses.

[GlennR]

Cus d'Amato vs Tyson in his prime

Old Yip Man vs young Bruce Lee

Both of the above coaches would lose a physical fight against their student. You think that this makes their opinion about the quality of boxing/wing chun being done by the student invalid?

Youre missing my point.

Hendrik has gone down this path of his "1850 WC" with a very precise definition of what it is.
Myself and many other WC have different definitions, so if we had a contest, and we were the same size and age just to make it even and he loses, is his WC still as valid as mine?

Its, as you say, a principle driven style.... so if we both adhere to these principles, i win, does that make mine the "real WC"?

[Hendrik]

Why so difficult? With all the if ?

State your case on your Wck , tell us your lineage, your definition of Wck, your DNA of Wck. Let the world judge it.

I am perfectly happy to see your presentation , even I could be wrong on mine.
But if you are wrong can you take it?



Youre missing my point.

Hendrik has gone down this path of his "1850 WC" with a very precise definition of what it is.
Myself and many other WC have different definitions, so if we had a contest, and we were the same size and age just to make it even and he loses, is his WC still as valid as mine?

Its, as you say, a principle driven style.... so if we both adhere to these principles, i win, does that make mine the "real WC"?

[Hendrik]

There is no pushing to you. You read my post at your own will.


Sorry, the wck common denominator DNA is from Yks, Ipman , snake crane, kulo, yik kam , chan wah lineage. With name to be track.


Tell us your sifu, your lineage and your DNA if you disagree, that simple .






No, you dont get it.
YOU are saying the DNA thing, no one else is spending hundreds of hours pushing this

The DNA you speak of is your definition, no one elses.

[GlennR]

Why so difficult? With all the if ?

State your case on your Wck , tell us your lineage, your definition of Wck, your DNA of Wck. Let the world judge it.

I am perfectly happy to see your presentation , even I could be wrong on mine.
But if you are wrong can you take it?


What the hell will a presentation prove????

God youre lost.

You are so obsessed with your theory you are blind to what WC is for.......... fighting

[GlennR]

There is no pushing to you. You read my post at your own will.


Sorry, the wck common denominator DNA is from Yks, Ipman , snake crane, kulo, yik kam , chan wah lineage. With name to be track.


Tell us your sifu, your lineage and your DNA if you disagree, that simple .

Who came up with the definition of DNA for lineages?

[Hendrik]

Every lineages practice the common denominator DNA.

If you are not wcner from proper school then you will not identify them.



Who came up with the definition of DNA for lineages?

[Hendrik]

I never care if I am Lost or win.

Wck historian in the future will give my position a verdict . And I accept that fully.



What the hell will a presentation prove????

God youre lost.

You are so obsessed with your theory you are blind to what WC is for.......... fighting

[GlennR]

Every lineages practice the common denominator DNA.

If you are not wcner from proper school then you will not identify them.

No no no.......... who came up with the "DNA description"?

[PalmStriker]

I never care if I am Lost or win.

Wck historian in the future will give my position a verdict . And I accept that fully. No you won't. :D

[PalmStriker]

No no no.......... who came up with the "DNA description"?
I think it was the same person that came up with snake engine: Empty hand
小念頭 Siu Nim Tao (小念頭;xiǎo niàn tóu; Yale Cantonese: síu nihm tàuh; “little idea” or “little imagination”) or Siu Lim Tao (小練頭; xiǎo liàn tóu; Yale Cantonese: síu lihn tàuh; “little practice”). The first, and most important form in Wing Chun, Siu Lim Tao is the foundation or “seed” of the art from which all succeeding forms and techniques depend. Fundamental rules of balance and body structure are developed here. Using a car analogy: for some branches this would provide the chassis, for others this is the engine. It serves basically as the alphabet for the system. Some branches view the symmetrical stance as the fundamental fighting stance, while others see it as more a training stance used in developing technique.

尋橋 Chum Kiu (尋橋; pinyin: xún qiáo; Yale Cantonese: cham4 kiu4; “seeking the bridge”. Alternately “sinking bridge” pinyin: chen qiáo;Yale Cantonese: sám kìuh;) The second form, Chum Kiu, focuses on coordinated movement of bodymass and entry techniques to “bridge the gap” between practitioner and opponent and move in to disrupt their structure and balance. Close-range attacks using the elbows and knees are also developed here. It also teaches methods of recovering position and centerline when in a compromised position where Siu Nim Tao structure has been lost. For some branches bodyweight in striking is a central theme, whether it be from pivoting (rotational) or stepping (translational). Likewise for some branches, this form provides the engine to the car. For branches who use the “sinking bridge” interpretation, the form takes on more emphasis of an “uprooting” context adding multi-dimensional movement and spiraling to the already developed engine.
鏢指 Biu Tze (鏢指; pinyin: biāo zhǐ; Yale Cantonese: bìu jí; “darting fingers”) The third form, Biu Jee, is composed of extreme short-range and extreme long-range techniques, low kicks and sweeps, and “emergency techniques” to counter-attack when structure and centerline have been seriously compromised, such as when the practitioner is seriously injured. As well as pivoting and stepping, developed in Chum Kiu, a third degree of freedom involving more upper body and stretching is developed for more power. Such movements include very close range elbow strikes and finger thrusts to the throat. For some branches this is the turbo-charger of the car. For others it can be seen as a “pit stop” kit that should never come in to play, recovering your “engine” when it has been lost. Still other branches view this form as imparting deadly “killing” and maiming techniques that should never be used if you can help it. A common wing chun saying is “Biu Jee doesn’t go out the door.” Some interpret this to mean the form should be kept secret, others interpret it as meaning it should never be used if you can help it.

[GlennR]

No you won't. :D

The hysterical thing about that is that anyone who judges him poorly will cop "you dont know WC"

Its a win win for Hendrik!

[PalmStriker]

Yes. History will be kind to Hendrik. :) Wox on, (trapping hands) Wox off (sticking hands), Wox on... Wox off.... you get the idea.

[PalmStriker]

No no no.......... who came up with the "DNA description"? I think YouKnowWho started it. http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1244959#post1244959

[YouKnowWho]

I think Hendrik's definition of DNA is just Shenfa (body method). Each and every TCMA styles will all have it's unique "body method". You will develop it if a system is your primary style. You won't develop it if it's your cross training style.

I have seen many long fist guys had cross trained the praying mantis system. All their life, they were doing the praying mantis the long fist way.

[Hendrik]

John,

Sure,
Xiang yi cannot be Bagua.
Taiji cannot be SC.


Tan Tui cannot be tae Kwan do.



I think Hendrik's definition of DNA is just Shenfa (body method). Each and every TCMA styles will all have it's unique "body method". You will develop it if a system is your primary style. You won't develop it if it's your cross training style.

I have seen many long fist guys had cross trained the praying mantis system. All their life, they were doing the praying mantis the long fist way.

[Frost]

The hysterical thing about that is that anyone who judges him poorly will cop "you dont know WC"

Its a win win for Hendrik!

The really hysterical thing is he starts these threads and says we don’t have to read them, then when no one does and no one responds he responds to himself pushing the thread back to the top in a desperate bid to get someone to bite, as he did with the standing stake thread last night lol

[tc101]

The hysterical thing about that is that anyone who judges him poorly will cop "you dont know WC"

Its a win win for Hendrik!

Exactly right. This is the same for all the arm chair guys. I have the right best original idea if you agree you have good wing chun if you do not agree you have bad wing chun or worse do not even do wing chun since anyone who does right wing chun will agree with me. It is a circular argument that begins with the premise that my way is the only right best way.

It is also bullet proof since arm chair guys do not care about performance. My perspective is that ideas need to be shown through performance to be right not just accepted because it makes sense to me since I may not fully appreciate things. Performance shows me if my idea is a better way or not. This you see is the problem the Hendrik's of the world will keep running into. My way is the best right way yet there are people with other ideas who beat me. So does that make their idea of how to do things better? No they are doing it all wrong they just beat me who is doing it right. Then why do it right to get beaten? Because it is a superior way in my arm chair understanding of how things should work. Yes but the real world shows other ways can work just as well and sometimes better.

[tc101]

I think Hendrik's definition of DNA is just Shenfa (body method). Each and every TCMA styles will all have it's unique "body method". You will develop it if a system is your primary style. You won't develop it if it's your cross training style.

I have seen many long fist guys had cross trained the praying mantis system. All their life, they were doing the praying mantis the long fist way.

People like to break things into parts for discussion when in reality you cannot really break them into parts. For example body method. You see it is not separate apart from everything else. What I m getting at is the tools or techniques involve using the body as well as the arms and legs. You cannot just replace one set of mechanics with another and make the techniques work since the technique is not just a hand technique for example but always involves your whole body. In boxing the mechanics for each strike is different there is no one body method or one way to generate power.

Since the way you use your body is integral with your techniques of course one art will be different than another since the techniques are different between arts. You can try to box using karate mechanics and I've seen that too but it doesn't work. Performance forces you to find proper mechanics.

[YouKnowWho]

What I m getting at is the tools or techniques involve using the body as well as the arms and legs. ...
You can try to box using karate mechanics and I've seen that too but it doesn't work. Performance forces you to find proper mechanics.
Now we are talking about how to use our body parts such as arms and leg. It's good discussion. At least the discussion doesn't have "style boundary".

Trying to box with Karate mechanics is good. At least you have tried it. Trying to avoid boxing because it's not your style is very very conservative attitude IMO.

Something just contradict to each other here in the WC thread.

Whenever someone mentioned thing like

- spin your body,
- move yourself out of your opponent's striking path, and
- strike back with a "haymaker",

people will say, "This is not WC principle".

Now you have just said, "performance force you to find proper mechanics". To me, it means, "If you spar long enough, you will find the right way."

You (general YOU) can't have conservative view such as , "We don't do this. This is not WC" and liberal view such as "performance force you to find proper mechanics" at the same time.

[Hendrik]

John,


Wck is an art with 200 years of history in china , it has a track and definition of what it is. Some here just thinking they can define Wck by sparring enough.


It is like I who might pick up a few sc move from late Gm Chang grand students and start to argue with you what is sc, how is Gm Chang sc....etc and telling you sc is keep practice. Everyone is valid to define sc.



Something just contradict to each other here in the WC thread.

Whenever someone mentioned thing like

- spin your body,
- move yourself out of your opponent's striking path, and
- strike back with a "haymaker",

people will say, "This is not WC principle".

Now you have just said, "performance force you to find proper mechanics". To me, it means, "If you spar long enough, you will find the right way."

You (general YOU) can't have conservative view such as , "We don't do this. This is not WC" and liberal view such as "performance force you to find proper mechanics" at the same time.

[guy b.]

Youre missing my point.

Hendrik has gone down this path of his "1850 WC" with a very precise definition of what it is.
Myself and many other WC have different definitions, so if we had a contest, and we were the same size and age just to make it even and he loses, is his WC still as valid as mine?

Its, as you say, a principle driven style.... so if we both adhere to these principles, i win, does that make mine the "real WC"?

I guess you would both need to be equally excellent in your different approaches, equally strong, equally fast, equally intelligent, equal stamina. You would really need to be fighting yourself in order to test an approach to wing chun in this way

[bawang]

I feel sad for American wing chun. its not even Chinese martial arts now, its in its own category, its own little world.

wingchun should be renamed wingdong. forever winter.

[Hendrik]

May be that is true for some,

But with the release of 1850 Wing chun information , there will be art lovers in the west where they will investigate , preserve, further evolve and grow wing chun to another new era.


When an art is growing it always will divert into different branches. The critical job now is to release as much information on classical Wck common denominator DNA and platform so that wcners can decide for themself their own direction.



I feel sad for American wing chun. its not even Chinese martial arts now, its in its own category, its own little world.

wingchun should be renamed wingdong. forever winter.

[Wayfaring]

But with the release of 1850 Wing chun information , there will be art lovers in the west where they will investigate , preserve, further evolve and grow wing chun to another new era.


A new era of relaxation standing up for hours in one place, not getting tired because your 7th bow is flexed.

[tc101]

Now we are talking about how to use our body parts such as arms and leg. It's good discussion. At least the discussion doesn't have "style boundary".

Trying to box with Karate mechanics is good. At least you have tried it. Trying to avoid boxing because it's not your style is very very conservative attitude IMO.

Something just contradict to each other here in the WC thread.

Whenever someone mentioned thing like

- spin your body,
- move yourself out of your opponent's striking path, and
- strike back with a "haymaker",

people will say, "This is not WC principle".

Now you have just said, "performance force you to find proper mechanics". To me, it means, "If you spar long enough, you will find the right way."

You (general YOU) can't have conservative view such as , "We don't do this. This is not WC" and liberal view such as "performance force you to find proper mechanics" at the same time.

I think we understand each other. But I do not mean only spar for performance but do whatever it is you are trying to do really do it. The mechanics of the technique was not just chosen arbitrarily but chosen because it makes the technique work. I do not use the mechanics or the technique because I am supposed to do it that way but because doing it that way is what accomplishes what I am trying to do. Why do you use the mechanics you do for a hip throw? How do you know if the mechanics are good or not? I am betting the answer has performance in it.

[tc101]

John,


Wck is an art with 200 years of history in china , it has a track and definition of what it is. Some here just thinking they can define Wck by sparring enough.


It is like I who might pick up a few sc move from late Gm Chang grand students and start to argue with you what is sc, how is Gm Chang sc....etc and telling you sc is keep practice. Everyone is valid to define sc.

You do not understand and never will because you are poster boy for arm chair martial art.

What tells you what is proper mechanics for a hip throw in sc?

How I you know if it is or if it isn't?

You only know by doing the hip throw. Performance that dirty little thing you never do.

If you can make the techniques of sc work for you who can say you are doing sc wrong?

Yes he can throw me at will but his sc is all wrong and only I have the right idea!

[YouKnowWho]

I think we understand each other. But I do not mean only spar for performance but do whatever it is you are trying to do really do it. The mechanics of the technique was not just chosen arbitrarily but chosen because it makes the technique work. I do not use the mechanics or the technique because I am supposed to do it that way but because doing it that way is what accomplishes what I am trying to do. Why do you use the mechanics you do for a hip throw? How do you know if the mechanics are good or not? I am betting the answer has performance in it.

Since you are talking about "hip throw". It's a good example to be used here.

The traditional "hip throw" is to use your hip to bounce your opponent's body off the ground. Since that kind of ability is hard to develop, some people like to take the short cut. The modern way is to lift your opponent's body off the ground from a low horse stance into a high horse stance. The name of "hip throw" should then be changed into "waist lift" instead.

Since both "hip throw" and "waist lift" can achieve the same result (take your opponent down), nobody care about which way that you use as long as it works. The guy who uses the

- traditional "hip throw" will envy those who has developed the modern "waist lift".
- modern "waist lift" still shows respect to those who can make the traditional "hip throw" work.

Both methods can co-exist at the same time.

I do wish our WC community can have open mind as the "hip throw" vs. "waist lift" issue. The ancient "hip throw" DNA is worthwhile to be "preserved". The modern "waist life" is also worthwhile to be "evolved" and "encouraged".

[Hendrik]

Good idea.
I totally agree with this.

clear with is it a hip throw or a waist lift is important, they have different mechanic and handling, Not just go sparing and called everything hip throw, knowing not what is really going on For precise attack execution or counter .

There is a different between hip throw and waist lift in speed, timing, and movement. When you talk sc, I listern to learn from you. It is those fine points make one real expert. Not just go sparing and one knows sc. Because not all waist lift works as hip throw.




The ancient "hip throw" DNA is worthwhile to be "preserved". The modern "waist life" is also worthwhile to be "evolved" and "encouraged".

[tc101]

Since you are talking about "hip throw". It's a good example to be used here.

The traditional "hip throw" is to use your hip to bounce your opponent's body off the ground. Since that kind of ability is hard to develop, some people like to take the short cut. The modern way is to lift your opponent's body off the ground from a low horse stance into a high horse stance. The name of "hip throw" should then be changed into "waist lift" instead.

Since both "hip throw" and "waist lift" can achieve the same result (take your opponent down), nobody care about which way that you use as long as it works. The guy who uses the

- traditional "hip throw" will envy those who has developed the modern "waist lift".
- modern "waist lift" still shows respect to those who can make the traditional "hip throw" work.

Both methods can co-exist at the same time.

I do wish our WC community can have open mind as the "hip throw" vs. "waist lift" issue. The ancient "hip throw" DNA is worthwhile to be "preserved". The modern "waist life" is also worthwhile to be "evolved" and "encouraged".

Please let me be clear I am open to how things were done in the 1850s or how P Bayer teaches his wing chun. It is all good. My objection is when people try to say there is only one right way my way and everyone else is wrong, they have bad wing chun or not even wing chun. This is especially true when the people saying hip throw is the only one right best original way but then cannot pull off a hip throw!

As I try to tell Mr Armchair wing chun was not defined in 1850. Wing chun like boxing or bjj or sc it seems changes over time and is not fixed in time.

[Hendrik]

You still can't take it even in sc there is a hip throw DNA define in the past. If you can't do that, then you obviously doesn't know it.

Read your previous posts, you just deny ancient Wck but not able to present Wck characteristics.
Not be able to provide your real name, lineage , and who you learn Wck from, but keeping addressing as soon as one sparring one knows Wck.


Sorry, ancient sc hip throw DNA is a set deal, clearly define.
You have no say just because you are sparing.


Please let me be clear I am open to how things were done in the 1850s or how P Bayer teaches his wing chun. It is all good.

My objection is when people try to say there is only one right way my way and everyone else is wrong, they have bad wing chun or not even wing chun.

This is especially true when the people saying hip throw is the only one right best original way but then cannot pull off a hip throw!

As I try to tell Mr Armchair wing chun was not defined in 1850. Wing chun like boxing or bjj or sc it seems changes over time and is not fixed in time.

[GlennR]

May be that is true for some,

But with the release of 1850 Wing chun information , there will be art lovers in the west where they will investigate , preserve, further evolve and grow wing chun to another new era.

Who is releasing this information?

What well respected people in official capacities have verified this information?




When an art is growing it always will divert into different branches. The critical job now is to release as much information on classical Wck common denominator DNA and platform so that wcners can decide for themself their own direction


Why? People have already mad their decision and followed the many lines.

If 1850 is so good and pure , and just plain wonderful, then why did anyone diverge from it in the 1st place???

[tc101]

You still can't take it even in sc there is a hip throw DNA define in the past. If you can't do that, then you obviously doesn't know it.

Read your previous posts, you just deny ancient Wck but not able to present Wck characteristics.
Not be able to provide your real name, lineage , and who you learn Wck from, but keeping addressing as soon as one sparring one knows Wck.


Sorry, ancient sc hip throw DNA is a set deal, clearly define.
You have no say just because you are sparing.

Try to understand this Mr Armchair. There is so such thing as DNA that is something you made up. The hip throw has a particular mechanics for a particular technique not a mechanics for all sc. Even when you learn it as taught you may do it differently than taught since through performance which is something you do not understand you may modify or change things to make them work for yourself. Just because something is taught a certain way does not mean you must or even can do it that way. You can only learn this through performance. You can only come to see this by performance. The mechanics as taught is just a starting point it is not the end point.

I do not deny ancient wing chun and I do not deny ancient boxing either. I am saying that how an art was created or done in the past does not define it as you keep saying. The art is what it was then and what it is now and in between.

I gave my real name. My lineage and teacher is none of your business. Who the XXXX are you? You do not practice wing chun you only talk talk talk about it. What makes you think you know wing chun? That you can talk?

[bawang]

May be that is true for some,

But with the release of 1850 Wing chun information , there will be art lovers in the west where they will investigate , preserve, further evolve and grow wing chun to another new era.


When an art is growing it always will divert into different branches. The critical job now is to release as much information on classical Wck common denominator DNA and platform so that wcners can decide for themself their own direction.

u need to lift weights. the day u start lifting weights, u will find the real wing chun.

[anerlich]

Sorry, ancient sc hip throw DNA is a set deal, clearly define.

I doubt it. I think people were doing hip throws way before any discipline started being called sc. And not just in the East.

Guys I'm working on a video about 1,000,000 BC "walking". You have to go back to the source or you know nothing. You can't call yourself a walker if you deny ancient walking.

A bit later, I'm going to release a vid on 360,000,000 BC vertebrate breathing. Don't dare to call yourself a breather or vertebrate unless you agree with everything I say on that vid!

[bawang]

have u guys started lifting weits yet

[bawang]

hendrik, you have not replied to me recently. It is important to lift weights and get giant pulsating muscles, mu son. that is the essence of wing chun. only then will you unlock the secrets of the snake engine.

I AM SALTY BETTING

BETTING ALL THE SALT

[Minghequan]

Dlcox wrote:

Hello Hendrik,

I'm new to the forum so I'll try to be gentle, if you have some lubricant handy please get it now.

I hate to burst your bubble but there is no such thing as ancient WC. No one is still alive from the 1850's and the art has changed and evolved drastically with each succeeding generation. Every branch has contributed to it's evolution and de-evolution. There are no ancient, secret or original manuscripts. The closest we have are the Bubishi and the Shaolin Bronze Man Book. No one line can claim "Originality" other than "Originality" for their line. It's no secret that Cho family WC is influenced by Cailifo and Hongjia, Yip Man streamlined his version, Chan family added element of Nan Shaolin Quan, etc....There is a common DNA and principles between all the lines, they just choose to emphasize what suits them, their needs and philosophies as applied to combat. What works for one may not work for another, what one comprehends another may interpret differently. WC is like Christianity, one source, many different interpretations and factions. This whole Emei snake thing is interesting even plausible, but no more so than say WC stemming from Tibetan white Crane or Huzun Quan. Everyone has a so called theory, none can be difinitivley proved just hypothecized.

Each "Master" adds to the method their own understanding. Some preach it as truth, some follow it as gospel.

To argue "Correct" or "Incorrect" is moot. Ultimately it all lies in understanding the principles and getting them to "Work".

If two carpenters are building a table and one uses a handsaw and a plane the other a circular saw and a sander, does it really matter, if the end result is a finely crafted piece of furniture? The tools did the same type of work built upon the same principles. It's just that one was slow and deliberate the other swift and agressive.

Truth doesn't change, our perception of it does.

Find the "Truth" of your WC in practice not some "Ancient" manual.

I've just read the entire thread .... Wow! Let me clarify first up that I'm not a Wing Chun stylist. I have hasd some exposure to the art on a personal level with others from the WSL way and the Jim Fung way but not enough to really matter!

A couple of things stand out to me if I may ...

1/. Wing Chun is Wing Chun ... be it this or that lineage, be it in the modern or 1800 sense but the one basic truth of all Chinese Martial Arts is that they must change, evolve to survive within the societies in which they are present! If they don't they stagnate and eventually die.

2/. Hendriks way look only to the past ... in many ways he is in search of the "Wing Chun Holy Grail" .... I've been there, done that with White Crane ..... trust me, it doesn't exist!!!

3/. It's great to look at the past but only so we can enact the art in the present ... otherwise you will be come nothing more than a "historical re-enactor" in much the same way as those who re-enact the knights of old. Great to watch but not even representative of real life-protection. This is something I think Hendrik needs to perhaps come to terms with.

4/. It's not all against Hendrik. If he chooses not to use "His" Wing Chun in such a way then thats just great. More power to him ... but here is the operative thing, it's "His" Wing Chun not everyone else's view. Like it or not I can't see him changing his view in the near or distant future!!!

5/. Hendrik you do ned to seek a little more charity in the way you deal with others! Telling them outright that they don't do Wing Chun or don't understand real Wing Chun (Whatever that may be!) is not going to win friends and influence people and lets be totally honest, you write here, you present your vids here because you are trying to "turn on" people to your point of view rather than accept that others also have their own points of view which just may not concur with your own!

6/. Ancient texts, like those of the Wu Bei Zhi as mentioned by Dlcox are used as reference points from which to build upon not enshrine in concrete! Secondly all History is based on Interpretation. Even the person that writes it down as it is happening will influence that which they write! Sadly when looking at such texts as the so-called "Bubishi (Wu Bei Zhi) all we are truly left with is someone elses "Interpretation" which we then re-interpret to make it suit our own understanding of that written or shared. It is the same with learning a MArt. Weeach make it our own often without knowing! To fight over it all is just plain silly!

7/. Wing Chun is Wing Chun no matter how you spread it or present it!

8/. All Martial arts ... YES ALL Martial Arts were created by man (or women) as an expression of themselves for creative, personal, practical or otherwise meanings. Then came the whole ranking mess ... who awarded the first rank in Wing Chun (who cares!). The truth is that Wing Chun arose from a "McDojo" as did White Crane, Karate, Taekwondo whatever! Someone had to make it all up!!! This is the most important historical truth of ALL Martial Arts! So why fight over it!!! When looked upon from this perspective all the arguments seem pretty silly perhaps null and void?

Relax, enjoy it, do it for yourself and smile .... don't take it all so seriously!;)

[GlennR]

Allright Ron simmer down. I think Hendrik means well, he's just passionate about his art. My only gripe is that this whole Emei snake thing and ancient documents only benefits him and Cho Family WC. It only stands to validate their "mythology".

Exactly. If he put it forward as his idea, lineage or theory id be happy with that. Being told i "dont do WC" because i dont agree with him is a lame reply


Hendrick if you want to impress everyone produce a manuscript penned by Wong Wah Bo, Leung Yee Tai or another like generation individual. Have the document verified as legitiment. Then and only then will you have the attention of the masses and the right to proclaim the original essence and purpose of all WC branches. Until then producing so called documents from the Cho family only benefits the Cho family and not the WC family as a whole. Also, you may want to research the whole Emei thing a little more. You see the "Snake" aspect of the 12 Posts is actually very similar to Kundalini Yoga and has more in common with Buddhist Mizong tantric practices than martial arts. If you study the oral legends and read the Wu Bei Zhi you will come to find that the original structure of WC were loose techniques, anything else beyond this was a later addition. "Original" WC was nothing more than a "Skill Set" created in a time of necessity. All the philosophical and religious aspects were added on as the "Method" became more solidified. Simple innovations and interpretations of the basic structural principles set forth by the "Founder".


And that would be your theory.

[guy b.]

Hello Hendrik,

I'm new to the forum so I'll try to be gentle, if you have some lubricant handy please get it now.

Are you the guy from the kung fu tea blog (or whatever it is called)?

[YouKnowWho]

I think Hendrik means well, ...

The only comment that I like to make is, "Why should Hendrik care?"

If you suggest something but nobody care about it, do you care? Of course not. You won't lose anything. It's other's lose if your opinion has true value in it.

For example, for older people, I think "single leg balance" training will give elder more benefit that the "Chi Kung" training. If people don't agree with me, I'll still do my "single leg balance" training. It won't affect me at all. I suggest something for other's health. If they don't care, it's their health that might be affected, not mine.

To me, it's much more fun to discuss how to solve a certain problem than to argue whether or not my WC is purer than your WC.

[Paddington]

Exactly. If he put it forward as his idea, lineage or theory id be happy with that[...]

I hate to say it but there is also the problem that they are not his ideas nor solely the ideas of his teachers. Having spent some time performing Hendrik's exercises and having asked him questions privately I must say that yes, I do see benefit there in performing them.

The thing is many of these exercises and also the ideas behind them, are already practiced within certain Ip Chun and Ip Ching lines (and others), as a part of 'warm up or 'preparatory' routines before forms, chi sau etc.

Saying "try it and experience that I am right" only relates to whether there is any felt benefit and NOT the validity of the 'history, 'authenticity' and proof in the form of untested documentation.

[GlennR]

I hate to say it but there is also the problem that they are not his ideas nor solely the ideas of his teachers. Having spent some time performing Hendrik's exercises and having asked him questions privately I must say that yes, I do see benefit there in performing them.

The thing is many of these exercises and also the ideas behind them, are already practiced within certain Ip Chun and Ip Ching lines (and others), as a part of 'warm up or 'preparatory' routines before forms, chi sau etc.

Saying "try it and experience that I am right" only relates to whether there is any felt benefit and NOT the validity of the 'history, 'authenticity' and proof in the form of untested documentation.

Well glad to see you have found some benefits with his ideas.

I agree totaly in regards to seeing a lot of his stuff in other lineages, for instance, if he said he was copying a lot of TST id believe him having seen some of his videos

[Minghequan]

Allright Ron simmer down. I think Hendrik means well, he's just passionate about his art. My only gripe is that this whole Emei snake thing and ancient documents only benefits him and Cho Family WC. It only stands to validate their "mythology".

Huh? :confused: I am cool ... ice cream cool!:)

Actually my posts are more towards Hendrick than against ... I just wish he would state from his view rather than trying bto use other references to validate his views. Also telling people they don't do or know Wing Chun simply because they hold true to a differing viewpoint is not the way forward for anybody.

[Hendrik]

John,


You are right.

Why should I care what other think when they don't understand what I am presenting and they are not serious wcners with indepth Wck knowledge ?

Everyone are free to have their views , I am ok with it. Those who follow my presentation on the wck common denominator dna will tun on their engine of their sets , it is a fact . Doesn't matter one believe on it or not. Wing chun 1850 details exist and it works. We know what it is today.




The only comment that I like to make is, "Why should Hendrik care?"

If you suggest something but nobody care about it, do you care? Of course not. You won't lose anything. It's other's lose if your opinion has true value in it.

For example, for older people, I think "single leg balance" training will give elder more benefit that the "Chi Kung" training. If people don't agree with me, I'll still do my "single leg balance" training. It won't affect me at all. I suggest something for other's health. If they don't care, it's their health that might be affected, not mine.

To me, it's much more fun to discuss how to solve a certain problem than to argue whether or not my WC is purer than your WC.

[GlennR]

John,


You are right.

Why should I care what other think when they don't understand what I am presenting and they are not serious wcners with indepth Wck knowledge ?

Everyone are free to have their views , I am ok with it. Those who follow my presentation on the wck dna will tun on their engine of their sets , it is a fact . Doesn't matter one believe on it or not.
Wing chun 1850 details exist and it works.

Hilarious
You say to John you don't care but put out a cheap insult at the end for those that disagree with you.

Go watch some TST videos and learn something

[Hendrik]

It is Wck common denominator across Wck lineage since 1850. That simple and clear.




I hate to say it but there is also the problem that they are not his ideas nor solely the ideas of his teachers. Having spent some time performing Hendrik's exercises and having asked him questions privately I must say that yes, I do see benefit there in performing them.

The thing is many of these exercises and also the ideas behind them, are already practiced within certain Ip Chun and Ip Ching lines (and others), as a part of 'warm up or 'preparatory' routines before forms, chi sau etc.

Saying "try it and experience that I am right" only relates to whether there is any felt benefit and NOT the validity of the 'history, 'authenticity' and proof in the form of untested documentation.

[Hendrik]

Sorry to tell you.

Wsl and Hawkin way fit in the 1850 red boat era Wck DNA more then TST.
It is a fact.
TST can evolve his own Wck as he likes that is perfectly fine.

So, why should I care what you say? I don't I go by book .


Btw. If you can't take the facts. Ignore my post. I don't have time to insult anyone.



Hilarious
You say to John you don't care but put out a cheap insult at the end for those that disagree with you.

Go watch some TST videos and learn something

[GlennR]

Sorry to tell you.

Wsl and Hawkin way fit in the 1850 red boat era Wck DNA more then TST.
It is a fact.

So, why should I care what you say? I don't I go by book .

Good! They can keep it!

[Hendrik]

Care to present who are you? From which Wck lineage. Who do you study Wck from?




Hello Hendrik,

I'm new to the forum so I'll try to be gentle, if you have some lubricant handy please get it now.

I hate to burst your bubble but there is no such thing as ancient WC. No one is still alive from the 1850's and the art has changed and evolved drastically with each succeeding generation. Every branch has contributed to it's evolution and de-evolution. There are no ancient, secret or original manuscripts. The closest we have are the Bubishi and the Shaolin Bronze Man Book. No one line can claim "Originality" other than "Originality" for their line. It's no secret that Cho family WC is influenced by Cailifo and Hongjia, Yip Man streamlined his version, Chan family added element of Nan Shaolin Quan, etc....There is a common DNA and principles between all the lines, they just choose to emphasize what suits them, their needs and philosophies as applied to combat. What works for one may not work for another, what one comprehends another may interpret differently. WC is like Christianity, one source, many different interpretations and factions. This whole Emei snake thing is interesting even plausible, but no more so than say WC stemming from Tibetan white Crane or Huzun Quan. Everyone has a so called theory, none can be difinitivley proved just hypothecized.

Each "Master" adds to the method their own understanding. Some preach it as truth, some follow it as gospel.

To argue "Correct" or "Incorrect" is moot. Ultimately it all lies in understanding the principles and getting them to "Work".

If two carpenters are building a table and one uses a handsaw and a plane the other a circular saw and a sander, does it really matter, if the end result is a finely crafted piece of furniture? The tools did the same type of work built upon the same principles. It's just that one was slow and deliberate the other swift and agressive.

Truth doesn't change, our perception of it does.

Find the "Truth" of your WC in practice not some "Ancient" manual.

[Hendrik]

What significant do you have compare with Hawkin and WSL?

Wsl or Hawkin's Wck teaching I put on extremely high regards,
yours, no way. Sorry.


Good! They can keep it!

[GlennR]

Sorry to tell you.

Wsl and Hawkin way fit in the 1850 red boat era Wck DNA more then TST.
It is a fact.
TST can evolve his own Wck as he likes that is perfectly fine.

So, why should I care what you say? I don't I go by book .


Btw. If you can't take the facts. Ignore my post. I don't have time to insult anyone.

Well seeing as you add things after you posted.......

Why does the YGKM look like TST's much more than WSL's in the clips you put up?

Particularly as you are trying to link WSL and your 1850 stuff?

Are you trying to get "WSL street cred"?????

[Hendrik]

How can you comment on Wck when you don't know Wck and not practice Wck?

How can you comment on ancient Wck when you don't have experience on ancient cultivation?

Be it from me or late Gm Ipman, Wck don't do side outward block like white crane or spm. Snt define its one power zone, Wck taking an angle in momentum in a unique way. Any one violate that is not practicing Wck. See Wck is not as anyone love to define. Doesn't matter if it is yks, kulo, Ipman , scwc or yik kam Wck. It has to follow that. Because it is Wck common denominator DNA since 1850.





I've just read the entire thread .... Wow! Let me clarify first up that I'm not a Wing Chun stylist. I have hasd some exposure to the art on a personal level with others from the WSL way and the Jim Fung way but not enough to really matter!

A couple of things stand out to me if I may ...

1/. Wing Chun is Wing Chun ... be it this or that lineage, be it in the modern or 1800 sense but the one basic truth of all Chinese Martial Arts is that they must change, evolve to survive within the societies in which they are present! If they don't they stagnate and eventually die.

2/. Hendriks way look only to the past ... in many ways he is in search of the "Wing Chun Holy Grail" .... I've been there, done that with White Crane ..... trust me, it doesn't exist!!!

3/. It's great to look at the past but only so we can enact the art in the present ... otherwise you will be come nothing more than a "historical re-enactor" in much the same way as those who re-enact the knights of old. Great to watch but not even representative of real life-protection. This is something I think Hendrik needs to perhaps come to terms with.

4/. It's not all against Hendrik. If he chooses not to use "His" Wing Chun in such a way then thats just great. More power to him ... but here is the operative thing, it's "His" Wing Chun not everyone else's view. Like it or not I can't see him changing his view in the near or distant future!!!

5/. Hendrik you do ned to seek a little more charity in the way you deal with others! Telling them outright that they don't do Wing Chun or don't understand real Wing Chun (Whatever that may be!) is not going to win friends and influence people and lets be totally honest, you write here, you present your vids here because you are trying to "turn on" people to your point of view rather than accept that others also have their own points of view which just may not concur with your own!

6/. Ancient texts, like those of the Wu Bei Zhi as mentioned by Dlcox are used as reference points from which to build upon not enshrine in concrete! Secondly all History is based on Interpretation. Even the person that writes it down as it is happening will influence that which they write! Sadly when looking at such texts as the so-called "Bubishi (Wu Bei Zhi) all we are truly left with is someone elses "Interpretation" which we then re-interpret to make it suit our own understanding of that written or shared. It is the same with learning a MArt. Weeach make it our own often without knowing! To fight over it all is just plain silly!

7/. Wing Chun is Wing Chun no matter how you spread it or present it!

8/. All Martial arts ... YES ALL Martial Arts were created by man (or women) as an expression of themselves for creative, personal, practical or otherwise meanings. Then came the whole ranking mess ... who awarded the first rank in Wing Chun (who cares!). The truth is that Wing Chun arose from a "McDojo" as did White Crane, Karate, Taekwondo whatever! Someone had to make it all up!!! This is the most important historical truth of ALL Martial Arts! So why fight over it!!! When looked upon from this perspective all the arguments seem pretty silly perhaps null and void?

Relax, enjoy it, do it for yourself and smile .... don't take it all so seriously!;)

[Hendrik]

Sorry, I don't have time to waste on your creative argument.


Well seeing as you add things after you posted.......

Why does the YGKM look like TST's much more than WSL's in the clips you put up?

Particularly as you are trying to link WSL and your 1850 stuff?

Are you trying to get "WSL street cred"?????

[GlennR]

Sorry, I don't have time to waste on your creative argument.

Creative?

Nonsense. Your stance looks nothing like WSL's and much more like TST's.

Fact.

[Minghequan]

Why should I care what other think when they don't understand what I am presenting and they are not serious wcners with indepth Wck knowledge ?

Honestly Hendrick your a good guy but comments like that above:


they are not serious wcners with indepth Wck knowledge

Really don't do you or your promotion of Wing chun all that much good.

Are such statements really necessary?

maybe step back a bit, relax and then post but please Hendrik leave the insults alone .... They only serve to lower you and to lower the art of Wing Chun you love so much!

[Minghequan]

How can you comment on Wck when you don't know Wck and not practice Wck?

How can you comment on ancient Wck when you don't have experience on ancient cultivation?

Be it from me or late Gm Ipman, Wck don't do side outward block like white crane or spm. Snt define its one power zone, Wck taking an angle in momentum in a unique way. Any one violate that is not practicing Wck. See Wck is not as anyone love to define. Doesn't matter if it is yks, kulo, Ipman , scwc or yik kam Wck. It has to follow that. Because it is Wck common denominator DNA since 1850.

Hendrick, are you aiming the above at me??? I ask because you included my post in a quote?

[Hendrik]

I just ask a simple question on who are you.
You seem to not willing to share who you are as you are.




Hello Hendrik,

My info is on my profile page. To answer your question, yes I study WC. My lineage is of no concern, it's like judging someone because of their ancestry.

I've had many teachers, so if you want to write me off as a mutt so be it. I can tell by your tone you wish to supress my views, fine whatever your entitled to your opinions, I support that.

But if you want to discredit my ability to comprehend and utilize the theories and techniques of WC based on your tunneled views, you'd be sadly mistaken. Unlike you, my theories on the use of WC have been forged in the fires of combat. So if you think that I don't understand or can't use WC because I don't whole heartedly support your point of view, maybe then you ought to tell that to all my troopers.

You see they have applied my WC on the Afghan & Iraqi battlefields not YouTube. So until you you get some practical experience...Quit preaching your self serving bullish!t.

[guy b.]

My lineage is of no concern

Hell of a lot of mystery lineage guys around the forums lately

[trubblman]

Spent some time the other day watching a few of his recent videos and, if nothing else, i admire his passion for what he believes and is trying to get across.

Having said that, i personally feel that around 80-90% of the videos is wasted time and he appears to be over complicating the message he is trying to get across.

As an example of a video showing technique, principals etc here is a clip of an old school boxer called Charley Burley, one of the true past masters.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81non05aKX4

What i like about this video is the balance it achieves between theory, comparison, analogy and actual footage of fighting... boxing in this case... and in particular how it compares new to old.

Am i expecting Hendrik to do a video like this? No, but personally i find this 8 minute clip gives me a better understanding of the topic at hand than 5 of Hendriks 30 minute lecture's, and perhaps he should view this video and take on board how it conveys its ideas so well

Thoughts?

I dont think Hendrik's videos and this video are about the same things. Hendrik's videos to me seem to be theoretical. This video is about fighting tactics.

In my opinion 30 minutes is not a long time. Nowadays most people have short attention spans and expect answers tout de suite.

[anerlich]

In my opinion 30 minutes is not a long time

It is when the subject material of the video could be easily covered in one third of the time.

[GlennR]

I dont think Hendrik's videos and this video are about the same things. Hendrik's videos to me seem to be theoretical. This video is about fighting tactics.


Yes, but theoretical about what?

Look, its an effin Martial art we (WC that is), and if you ae going to get all "theoretical" ,as does his highness, then you have to on occasion actually back it up with proof.

The video i put up showed a boxer with a wonderful record, breaking down his stance in a clear concise way, to show you how it was utilised effectively and the THEORY behind it.

Hendrik doesn't do this


In my opinion 30 minutes is not a long time. Nowadays most people have short attention spans and expect answers tout de suite

So the video i put up should have been longer then?

[trubblman]

Yes, but theoretical about what?

Look, its an effin Martial art we (WC that is), and if you ae going to get all "theoretical" ,as does his highness, then you have to on occasion actually back it up with proof.

The video i put up showed a boxer with a wonderful record, breaking down his stance in a clear concise way, to show you how it was utilised effectively and the THEORY behind it.

Hendrik doesn't do this



So the video i put up should have been longer then?

I understand that some may not like Hendrik's videos but it's not Festivus so please no more with the airing of grievances. If you don't them dont watch them. Its that easy and simple. I for one dont mind them. They are the few substantive things in a forum full of people who are fond of whining jumping off the handle and kvetching.

[YouKnowWho]

I understand that some may not like Hendrik's videos but it's not Festivus so please no more with the airing of grievances.
I like this clip (in Chinese), In 57 seconds, the instructor kept repeating, "Watch where your opponent may land his leading foot". Even if you may not understand Chinese, you can still get his explanation from his body performance. He demonstrated his technique 7 times in 57 seconds. IMO, that's good clip.

http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XNDkyMTIzMDE2.html

[GlennR]

I understand that some may not like Hendrik's videos but it's not Festivus so please no more with the airing of grievances. If you don't them dont watch them. Its that easy and simple. I for one dont mind them. They are the few substantive things in a forum full of people who are fond of whining jumping off the handle and kvetching.

Youve missed my point.

The point i was making is that the way he puts them together, the repetition, the length (anerlich is right, you could do most of them in a 3rd of the time) is not conducive to getting his point across.

And guess what, its a forum and if he wants to post them here anybody can, and will, comment on them.

If he wants to show them to "those that are interested" only, then he can keep it on his own private facebook page which i believe he has

[GlennR]

My instructors come from the Yip Man, Ho Kam Ming, Fong Chi Wing and the Nguyen Te Cong, Nguyen Duy Hai lines respectfully. No one of any notoriety and individuals that I don't want to bring into a conversation that has nothing to do with them. If this doesn't sit well with anyone then too bad. My instructors are not responsible for my words or actions, I am and as such will bear the consequence, whatever that may be. Everyone is so hung up on Lineage as if they descend from royalty. Just because someone has a famous teacher or comes from a lineage known for fighting, forms, etc. Doesn't mean that those who studied under said famous teacher are worth a sh!t. It all comes down to the individual and their skill and understanding. I don't mean to come across as off-putting, standoffish or mysterious. If it has come across this way I apologize. I'm just an average Joe with average skill. I am opinionated and at times a bit righteous. It just seems to me that when some people get trumped by something posted on the forums their first reaction is "Well your not from a legitimate lineage, so you don't know what your talking about" I don't want to get into that quagmire I just want intelligent conversation, debate and further insight. Is this the place for that? Or do people come here strictly to compare pen!s sizes and stroke their own ego?

Too much coffee this morning??

[guy b.]

Too much coffee this morning??

Too much cocaine maybe

[Minghequan]

My instructors come from the Yip Man, Ho Kam Ming, Fong Chi Wing and the Nguyen Te Cong, Nguyen Duy Hai lines respectfully. No one of any notoriety and individuals that I don't want to bring into a conversation that has nothing to do with them. If this doesn't sit well with anyone then too bad. My instructors are not responsible for my words or actions, I am and as such will bear the consequence, whatever that may be. Everyone is so hung up on Lineage as if they descend from royalty. Just because someone has a famous teacher or comes from a lineage known for fighting, forms, etc. Doesn't mean that those who studied under said famous teacher are worth a sh!t. It all comes down to the individual and their skill and understanding. I don't mean to come across as off-putting, standoffish or mysterious. If it has come across this way I apologize. I'm just an average Joe with average skill. I am opinionated and at times a bit righteous. It just seems to me that when some people get trumped by something posted on the forums their first reaction is "Well your not from a legitimate lineage, so you don't know what your talking about" I don't want to get into that quagmire I just want intelligent conversation, debate and further insight. Is this the place for that? Or do people come here strictly to compare pen!s sizes and stroke their own ego?


In a word .......... "Perfect!"

Great response and one that I totally, totally agree with!!!

Thank you!

[Minghequan]

David, Nothing wrong with coffee ............. love it!;)

[Hendrik]

Your issue is you read what I am not writing. And not comprehend what I wrote.



Hendrik,

I'm more than willing to share. Who am I......My name is Dave Cox, a nobody from the nobody branch of nobody teachers. I don't have a pedigree don't care for one eigther. I'm more interested in effectiveness not trumped up lineage. Now, just to clarify things I enjoy reading your posts that present a historical aspect to the art.


My problem is when you rant about supposed long lost manuscripts and how Cho family WC is the most original while at the same time putting everyone else down.


Maybe you don't mean to come off as a pushy Jehovah's Witness who won't get off the porch, but that is how you come across. I get it your passionate, but so are others. Maybe you'd have more admirers if you asked questions once in a while and listened to others instead of just forcing your will upon them and providing all the answers. I'm done with this p!ssing contest. Best of luck in your endeavors.

[wtxs]

My instructors come from the Yip Man, Ho Kam Ming, Fong Chi Wing and the Nguyen Te Cong, Nguyen Duy Hai lines respectfully. No one of any notoriety and individuals that I don't want to bring into a conversation that has nothing to do with them. If this doesn't sit well with anyone then too bad. My instructors are not responsible for my words or actions, I am and as such will bear the consequence, whatever that may be. Everyone is so hung up on Lineage as if they descend from royalty. Just because someone has a famous teacher or comes from a lineage known for fighting, forms, etc. Doesn't mean that those who studied under said famous teacher are worth a sh!t. It all comes down to the individual and their skill and understanding. I don't mean to come across as off-putting, standoffish or mysterious. If it has come across this way I apologize. I'm just an average Joe with average skill. I am opinionated and at times a bit righteous. It just seems to me that when some people get trumped by something posted on the forums their first reaction is "Well your not from a legitimate lineage, so you don't know what your talking about" I don't want to get into that quagmire I just want intelligent conversation, debate and further insight. Is this the place for that? Or do people come here strictly to compare pen!s sizes and stroke their own ego?


There are some here think they ARE the "Big Dogs", and not liking that you are p$ssssing on their turf. Good to see you're having non of that.

This forum had been in needed infusion of new blood, hope you would stay for awhile and keep stirring the pot.

[Minghequan]

There are some here think they ARE the "Big Dogs", and not liking that you are p$ssssing on their turf. Good to see you're having non of that.

This forum had been in needed infusion of new blood, hope you would stay for awhile and keep stirring the pot.

:);):) Love it!!! Have to agree!!! ;)

[GlennR]

Too much cocaine maybe

Never enough!

[GlennR]

There are some here think they ARE the "Big Dogs", and not liking that you are p$ssssing on their turf. Good to see you're having non of that.

This forum had been in needed infusion of new blood, hope you would stay for awhile and keep stirring the pot.

Woof woof!!

[guy b.]

Woof woof!!

*lifts one leg and urinates on this thread*

[rett]

Ya'll asked I gave. But yah definitely too much coffee, I'll tone it down :)

Dude don't tone it down, that was awesome.

[Kellen Bassette]

I guess this question is for Hendrik since he is the one that pushes 1850 Wing Chun, but I actually am curious...

Why the importance placed on the date 1850? Isn't WCK believed to be older than that? (I could be mistaken, I was under the impression it had been around a fair while longer.)

Was there a major change in the system at this time, to bring about the art as it is known today? If not, why the focus on 1850 instead of an earlier date, or attempting to go back to White Crane, Emei, or whatever the root may have been. Is this due to lack of information, or was the style drastically different then, or just no proof WCK is really much older than 1850?

I apologize if all this has already been discussed, (at great length and with much personal defamation, :rolleyes:) just curious.....

[Hendrik]

I guess this question is for Hendrik since he is the one that pushes 1850 Wing Chun, but I actually am curious...

I share the infor, It is up to one to take it or leave it. I don't push anyone.


Why the importance placed on the date 1850? Isn't WCK believed to be older than that? (I could be mistaken, I was under the impression it had been around a fair while longer.)

It is important because that is the red boat era known by all red boat Wck off spring lineages as the source before spreading. And we can find evidence of Wck data converge with Chinese official history, uprising history, and Chinese martial art DNA.

And knowing what happen in this period of time, knows what, why, how, who were involve in Wck. As the history pre 1850, we only know about legend, and art dna, but no history solid evidence found yet.




For the details please read my new thread --- why Wck 1850 -- I post today.

[Kellen Bassette]

For the details please read my new thread --- why Wck 1850 -- I post today.

I did it read it, that is admittedly, quite a bit of work on the WCK history....

So what I gathered was, WCK, at least as we know it today, began about that time...so you kind of see that date as the approximate beginning of what we now know as Wing Chun?

[Hendrik]

Yes, we might not know 100% but we do know what might be extremely likely to happen and the core of Wck at that era.

We are confident with these information because the Chinese official history, the uprising record, and the tcma DNA available at that era actually converge . So it cannot be accident when things converges from three isolated different direction and multiple Wck lineages informations.

The date and story line is also fit what late Gm Fung Chun of kulo shared. Since kulo Leung family are the beginning of Wck in the red boat. It is Leung LAN Kwai brought the art to the red boat and Leung was madam wing chun god son. Only after that Wck spread in red boat.

Wck pre red boat era is gulao village related.

WWB and yik kam only come after Leung LAN Kwai bring Wck into red boat. And as Late Danny our belove friend in kfo told me, WWB Lj do pratice one long set, prio to the three sets.


Thus, the presentation I share is not about me. But the information from the past generations from different Wck lineages. We need to keep it as much as possible, otherwise with their generation or my generation like late Dany passing. We will lost it.

Wck is sure going to evolve further. But the ancient piece could be preserved and known clearly. It is just a part of the art. With the modern Chinese and Asia is not interested to preserve them. The west are full of wcners who appreciate different culture, these information can always find a new home. And it will not be surprise that decades later the east has to come to the west to learn their ancient culture such as the Chinese has to go to Japan to learn the part of Buddhism they have lost.

But if we don't organize and store it now. We could lost these forever.



I did it read it, that is admittedly, quite a bit of work on the WCK history....

So what I gathered was, WCK, at least as we know it today, began about that time...so you kind of see that date as the approximate beginning of what we now know as Wing Chun?

[wtxs]

Woof woof!!


*lifts one leg and urinates on this thread*

SIIIT!!! BAAAAAAD dog!!! SIIIT!

[GlennR]

SIIIT!!! BAAAAAAD dog!!! SIIIT!

*jumps up, runs over to hendrik and humps his leg*

[wtxs]

*jumps up, runs over to hendrik and humps his leg*

Now that's funny ...

[WC1277]

....maybe then you ought to tell that to all my troopers. You see they have applied my WC on the Afghan & Iraqi battlefields not YouTube. So until you you get some practical experience...Quit preaching your self serving bullish!t.

You're so full of it with this statement. :rolleyes:

[anerlich]

Or do people come here strictly to compare pen!s sizes and stroke their own ego?

Personally, I go to other forums for that. YMMV.