"Old School" WC and "New School" WC...

[Grumblegeezer]

This is really an attempt to look at the rancorous debates on another thread from a more neutral perspective. Basically, I'm seeing what I call "Old School" and "New School" arguing right past each other. In fact, comparing old school WC to new school is to compare apples and oranges.

Let me begin by explaining my terms. I'm using the phrase "old school" regardless of lineage to refer to folks that like WC that looks and feels old-style, like what they presume was practiced and even used in fights back in the fifties and before. "Old schoolers" tend to train with self defense in mind and may or may not choose to spar and "pressure-test" their art against other kinds of fighters. "New School" would be a way to describe those who are unconcerned with the outward "look" of their WC and put primary emphasis on it's functionality as proven in the modern competitive arena.

Since several authorities on this forum have described WC as "Chinese Boxing", perhaps an analogy to Western Boxing could be useful. I believe I can approach this best visually:

"Old School" Western Boxing

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e6/John_L._Sullivan_1898.jpg

Contemporary Western Boxing

http://blog.vtheaterboxoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/a_wmanny_1116.jpg

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/files/2011/02/evander-holyfield-.jpg


"Old School WC"

http://www.wingchun.si/images/thumbs/yipman10.jpg

"New School" WC

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_PCR8wo0AfvI/TPQJ8jCR9OI/AAAAAAAABMY/KP6v4tJNoUI/s1600/10th%2BLegion%2BVI%2B%252857%2Bof%2B146%2529.jpg

http://www.alanorr.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/AlanOrr.jpg


OK, now assuming the links I posted work, everyone will get a pretty clear picture of what I mean by "old" and "new". My real point is that late 19th Century Western boxing and Chinese boxing obviously had a lot in common. Western boxing has changed over more than a century. It shouldn't surprise anybody that Chinese boxing would similarly evolve. Especially in a competitive sporting environment where it is subject to a rule set not unlike what Western boxing came to use.

There are some today who still claim that "Old School Western boxing" was very effective in a bare knuckle environment and the rule set of the times. Actually I hear there are people who still train that way. Perhaps "Old School and New School" WC each have their place too. Maybe, if we can view all WC as one extended family, we can learn something from each other? I've primarily trained the "Old School" WC, and I'm too old now to ever want to go whole hog against some of these new guys. But I am certainly interested in what they can do! If I can learn from the "New" approach, I'm willing. On the other hand, I'd sure like to see a fighter emerge who could win using a bit more of the old style in his mix. Or maybe that's not practical. Maybe I should be satisfied that they are still using a lot of the same concepts, and just accept that it doesn't matter how it looks when used under pressure. Opinions?

[deejaye72]

This is really an attempt to look at the rancorous debates on another thread from a more neutral perspective. Basically, I'm seeing what I call "Old School" and "New School" arguing right past each other. In fact, comparing old school WC to new school is to compare apples and oranges.

Let me begin by explaining my terms. I'm using the phrase "old school" regardless of lineage to refer to folks that like WC that looks and feels old-style, like what they presume was practiced and even used in fights back in the fifties and before. "Old schoolers" tend to train with self defense in mind and may or may not choose to spar and "pressure-test" their art against other kinds of fighters. "New School" would be a way to describe those who are unconcerned with the outward "look" of their WC and put primary emphasis on it's functionality as proven in the modern competitive arena.

Since several authorities on this forum have described WC as "Chinese Boxing", perhaps an analogy to Western Boxing could be useful. I believe I can approach this best visually:

"Old School" Western Boxing

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e6/John_L._Sullivan_1898.jpg

Contemporary Western Boxing

http://blog.vtheaterboxoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/a_wmanny_1116.jpg

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/files/2011/02/evander-holyfield-.jpg


"Old School WC"

http://www.wingchun.si/images/thumbs/yipman10.jpg

"New School" WC

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_PCR8wo0AfvI/TPQJ8jCR9OI/AAAAAAAABMY/KP6v4tJNoUI/s1600/10th%2BLegion%2BVI%2B%252857%2Bof%2B146%2529.jpg

http://www.alanorr.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/AlanOrr.jpg


OK, now assuming the links I posted work, everyone will get a pretty clear picture of what I mean by "old" and "new". My real point is that late 19th Century Western boxing and Chinese boxing obviously had a lot in common. Western boxing has changed over more than a century. It shouldn't surprise anybody that Chinese boxing would similarly evolve. Especially in a competitive sporting environment where it is subject to a rule set not unlike what Western boxing came to use.

There are some today who still claim that "Old School Western boxing" was very effective in a bare knuckle environment and the rule set of the times. Actually I hear there are people who still train that way. Perhaps "Old School and New School" WC each have their place too. Maybe, if we can view all WC as one extended family, we can learn something from each other? I've primarily trained the "Old School" WC, and I'm too old now to ever want to go whole hog against some of these new guys. But I am certainly interested in what they can do! If I can learn from the "New" approach, I'm willing. On the other hand, I'd sure like to see a fighter emerge who could win using a bit more of the old style in his mix. Or maybe that's not practical. Maybe I should be satisfied that they are still using a lot of the same concepts, and just accept that it doesn't matter how it looks when used under pressure. Opinions?

i think it's great they are using wing chun in a mma setting. it can only improve. everything evolves. look at cars; they go 100k before they need a tune up now. we shouldn't forget where we came from but, i'd rather look at a model t in a museum then drive one down the highway.

[BPWT..]

Maybe, in some ways, the Old School was kinda New School at the same time. Maybe it was all just "school." :)

Here's a post I found from this forum years back. From a poster called Liddel (who it seems was based in NZ), so maybe even he still trains and perhaps Alan might even know him. The topic of YM and sparring came up, it seems. Liddel wrote:

"My Teacher was the assistant to Lok Yiu for many years and got lots of one on one training with Ip. He's recalled many occasions exchanging punches with 'the old man'... no head shots but all out sparring similar to that of karate kumate. Not bad for a 60(ish) year old. Most couldnt touch him and if you did it was while you were getting your leg stomped or a heavier action as your glanced him lol. Most of the time you were trying hard and he was slapping your chest, good control huh.

Fairly common between teacher and students in anything.

Back in those days Gor Sau was controlled full contact sparring albeit with no head shots and believe it or not you had to have three fights under your belt to move on at levels of the system, oh how the standards have changed

People love stories, but most dont know someone who has first hand experience cause they are not around. There are stories from witnesses about Ip kicking a guy at a football match for standing on his clothes and starting S h i t, another where a thief tried to steal a pen... my teacher was present for an altercation between a taxi driver and Ip.

The guy was not a god, but he wasnt a nambie pambie expert in chi sau slap hands either, he was a Wu shu man whos probably rolling in his grave at the state of Guilo VT today. According to my teacher who knew him he was upset at loosing control of his school even when he was alive, quite sad really."

I wonder who is alive today who might remember Yip Man training in such ways. It would be interesting to know what it was like to watch it. Did what he did look like Wing Chun - could you see the system and its concepts and methods in his application? I wonder....

[KPM]

Good topic and good questions Steve!

Let me point out one interesting thing. On a recent thread where we were talking about the different Chi Sao platforms, Hendrik referred to the circling "Huen Sao" platform used by Pin Sun, Yik Kam and other southern CMAs as "ancient" and the Yip Man Bong/Tan/Fook" Chi Sao as "modern." One of the distinctions he made was that "modern" throws up the forearms as a barrier and more less remains at that distance. So Hendrik sees "modern" as Wing Chun that is done at roughly arm's length. In contrast "ancient" worked into closer range and used body contact much more. He sees the "ancient" or "old school" Wing Chun as operating more in a elbow strike range (at which you can still punch) and "modern" as operating more in an extended punch range like western boxing. Now, the ironic thing here is that he showed a clip of Alan Orr doing Chi Sao as an example of "ancient" because Alan was talking about closing in past the punch and controlling the opponent's center and breaking his structure. Interesting, yes? :)

So maybe we need an "ancient", "old school", and "modern" designation! ;)

Anyway.....from an historical standpoint, boxing changed from "old school" to "modern" due to changes in the rules. The Marquis of Queensbury rules did not allow grappling and began to require the use of gloves. It started out as the rules for amateur competitions, while professional competitions still used the old rules. "Old school" boxing included limited grappling. A round ended only when one man hit the ground, whether by being knocked down or thrown down. If you got too close to your opponent you could get thrown down and lose the round. Hence the upright stance and extended centerline guard to keep the other man away. They kept a longer distance and did more lunging punches much like fencing. No gloves or very light gloves were worn. Parries with the forearms were used as much as covers because of the distance the fight was done at. With the MoQ rules no grappling was allowed and rounds were timed. So fighters could close in without worrying about getting thrown. If you are getting closer, then the punches can get shorter and look much less like a fencing lunge. The rules required the use of gloves that got larger and larger. At such a close distance punches would come in too fast to try and parry each one, so covering and hiding behind the gloves became more prominent. So if you are getting closer and not worrying about being grappled and you are wearing gloves that makes covers much more efficient, then your stance is just going to naturally go to the modern boxing stance leaning forward with the gloves up in front of your face.

Are we seeing a similar kind of evolution in Wing Chun? Is taking Wing Chun into the competition arena forcing a change? Maybe. I certainly think that putting on big fluffy boxing gloves in training makes a difference. Big gloves make a lot of Wing Chun hand techniques harder to do and covering with the gloves much easier to do. So if someone is spending a lot of their sparring time in big gloves, its going to have an impact....figuratively speaking! ;)

Personally, I don't think of Wing Chun as "Chinese boxing." At least not if this is supposed to mean standing at arm's length and exchanging punches, which is what most people think of when they say "boxing." Maybe its because I practice one of the "ancient" or "old school" methods, but I like Hendrik's distinction of classifying it by distance. I agree with him that the "older" versions of Wing Chun seem to have been meant for use at very close range, and not at "boxing range." I don't thing they were meant for standing in front of someone and exchanging blows. I think they were meant for getting past the opponent's punch into "elbow and short punch" range so that you can control the opponent and break his structure. I like Glenn's description of Wing Chun as an "ambush" style.

So.....is turning "modern" Wing Chun into a "Chinese boxing" style an evolution? Is it a good thing? If you want to win competitions it is! Like you Steve, I think there is room for both "old school" and "modern" ,and I think some people like Alan Orr and his guys are able to do both quite well and quite effectively. But Alan may very well disagree with us and say that they are not two versions of Wing Chun, but rather the same thing.

Alan took exception to my suggestion that what we were seeing in those clips was Wing Chun "adapted" for MMA. I meant no disrespect then and I mean no disrespect now. When I say "adapted", I am saying that "old school" Wing Chun has been converted to "modern" Wing Chun to use the terminology of this thread. "Adapted", "evolved", "modified"....however you want to describe it. Isn't that what you are saying Steve?

As far as whether "old school" can win competitions. I think it can! Those two recent sparring clips from Sean and from Wing Chun Blast showed some good sparring that still looked rather "old school." But then I got in trouble last time for talking about what things "looked like", so I better shut up now!!!! :eek:

[zuti car]

It is only natural that things evolve over time , or maybe change would be a better word . I would not define any wing chun approach as new or old , because old wing chun was new once . Accumulation of the knowledge and experience over time ( or the lack of it) will cause changes in the approach of training , way of applying techniques , resolution for certain fighting situation and problems , ect . My view of things is , you have to learn "old way" first ,which would be basic foundation of the style ( structure , how to generate force, basic principles and tactics , footwork ...) and than build upon that according your experience . Each generation's experience will change the foundation a bit and that is how old becomes new .

[deejaye72]

Good topic and good questions Steve!

Let me point out one interesting thing. On a recent thread where we were talking about the different Chi Sao platforms, Hendrik referred to the circling "Huen Sao" platform used by Pin Sun, Yik Kam and other southern CMAs as "ancient" and the Yip Man Bong/Tan/Fook" Chi Sao as "modern." One of the distinctions he made was that "modern" throws up the forearms as a barrier and more less remains at that distance. So Hendrik sees "modern" as Wing Chun that is done at roughly arm's length. In contrast "ancient" worked into closer range and used body contact much more. He sees the "ancient" or "old school" Wing Chun as operating more in a elbow strike range (at which you can still punch) and "modern" as operating more in an extended punch range like western boxing. Now, the ironic thing here is that he showed a clip of Alan Orr doing Chi Sao as an example of "ancient" because Alan was talking about closing in past the punch and controlling the opponent's center and breaking his structure. Interesting, yes? :)

So maybe we need an "ancient", "old school", and "modern" designation! ;)

Anyway.....from an historical standpoint, boxing changed from "old school" to "modern" due to changes in the rules. The Marquis of Queensbury rules did not allow grappling and began to require the use of gloves. It started out as the rules for amateur competitions, while professional competitions still used the old rules. "Old school" boxing included limited grappling. A round ended only when one man hit the ground, whether by being knocked down or thrown down. If you got too close to your opponent you could get thrown down and lose the round. Hence the upright stance and extended centerline guard to keep the other man away. They kept a longer distance and did more lunging punches much like fencing. No gloves or very light gloves were worn. Parries with the forearms were used as much as covers because of the distance the fight was done at. With the MoQ rules no grappling was allowed and rounds were timed. So fighters could close in without worrying about getting thrown. If you are getting closer, then the punches can get shorter and look much less like a fencing lunge. The rules required the use of gloves that got larger and larger. At such a close distance punches would come in too fast to try and parry each one, so covering and hiding behind the gloves became more prominent. So if you are getting closer and not worrying about being grappled and you are wearing gloves that makes covers much more efficient, then your stance is just going to naturally go to the modern boxing stance leaning forward with the gloves up in front of your face.

Are we seeing a similar kind of evolution in Wing Chun? Is taking Wing Chun into the competition arena forcing a change? Maybe. I certainly think that putting on big fluffy boxing gloves in training makes a difference. Big gloves make a lot of Wing Chun hand techniques harder to do and covering with the gloves much easier to do. So if someone is spending a lot of their sparring time in big gloves, its going to have an impact....figuratively speaking! ;)

Personally, I don't think of Wing Chun as "Chinese boxing." At least not if this is supposed to mean standing at arm's length and exchanging punches, which is what most people think of when they say "boxing." Maybe its because I practice one of the "ancient" or "old school" methods, but I like Hendrik's distinction of classifying it by distance. I agree with him that the "older" versions of Wing Chun seem to have been meant for use at very close range, and not at "boxing range." I don't thing they were meant for standing in front of someone and exchanging blows. I think they were meant for getting past the opponent's punch into "elbow and short punch" range so that you can control the opponent and break his structure. I like Glenn's description of Wing Chun as an "ambush" style.

So.....is turning "modern" Wing Chun into a "Chinese boxing" style an evolution? Is it a good thing? If you want to win competitions it is! Like you Steve, I think there is room for both "old school" and "modern" ,and I think some people like Alan Orr and his guys are able to do both quite well and quite effectively. But Alan may very well disagree with us and say that they are not two versions of Wing Chun, but rather the same thing.

Alan took exception to my suggestion that what we were seeing in those clips was Wing Chun "adapted" for MMA. I meant no disrespect then and I mean no disrespect now. When I say "adapted", I am saying that "old school" Wing Chun has been converted to "modern" Wing Chun to use the terminology of this thread. "Adapted", "evolved", "modified"....however you want to describe it. Isn't that what you are saying Steve?

As far as whether "old school" can win competitions. I think it can! Those two recent sparring clips from Sean and from Wing Chun Blast showed some good sparring that still looked rather "old school." But then I got in trouble last time for talking about what things "looked like", so I better shut up now!!!! :eek:

keith i love your treatis on the evolution of the boxing stance and tactics. i enjoy studying the old school boxing matches on youtube. i dont want to hijack the tread, but there is one good old school, new school boxing comparsion vidoe i like. if anyone is intereseted i can post the link

[kung fu fighter]

everything evolves. look at cars; they go 100k before they need a tune up now. we shouldn't forget where we came from but, i'd rather look at a model t in a museum then drive one down the highway.

It's not as simple as that, I think in WCK we need to get a better picture of how the origional system was designed to function with all it's components in tact, before trying to modify, improve or evolve anything. For argument sake let's imagine you've never seen a car before in operation or have a very limited understanding of how it supposed to operate. Now you try to improve upon the design of the car with that very limited knowledge and all you had to work with was the other shell without the engine or operating manual.

Rather than choosing to follow either the "old school" or "new school" approach. I think a better approach would be if wing chun people first do the research to understand how the system was designed to work with all the components in tact by cross referencing various wing chun linages, and once they had a good understanding of how wing chun was designed to work by the anscestors, then they may choose to cross train, spar and "pressure-test" their art against other kinds of fighters in order to refine the art further in the modern competitive arena like MMA.

Just my opinion!

[deejaye72]

It's not as simple as that, I think in WCK we need to get a better picture of how the origional system was designed to function with all it's components in tact, before trying to modify, improve or evolve anything. For argument sake let's imagine you've never seen a car before in operation or have a very limited understanding of how it supposed to operate. Now you try to improve upon the design of the car with that very limited knowledge and all you had to work with was the other shell without the engine or operating manual.

Rather than choosing to follow either the "old school" or "new school" approach. I think a better approach would be if wing chun people first do the research to understand how the system was designed to work with all the components in tact by cross referencing various wing chun linages, and once they had a good understanding of how wing chun was designed to work by the anscestors, then they may choose to cross train, spar and "pressure-test" their art against other kinds of fighters in order to refine the art further in the modern competitive arena like MMA.

Just my opinion!

i see your point of view. what would you consider "modern" hong kong wing chun, or mma cross training? i'm just trying to understand where your coming from.

[PalmStriker]

Old School TCMA= Up until the Last Days of the Qing Dynasty. New School CMA= from that date until present. Transition period of 25 years. :) I'm sure all this orthodox WingChun training isn't just to overthrow all the Chinese take-out restaurants in your area? https://www.google.com/search?q=chinese+food&client=firefox-a&hs=kMJ&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=sb&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=D8xdU5jAGcnj2wWhhoHwBQ&ved=0CN0BELAE&biw=1440&bih=807

[kung fu fighter]

i see your point of view. what would you consider "modern" hong kong wing chun, or mma cross training? i'm just trying to understand where your coming from.

I consider "modern" hong kong wing chun to be an evolution of the origional WCK system, even though there are still traces of the origional wck system, many things have been evolved out such as many of the the origional snake and crane signatures, as well as short power generation, certain footwork knowledge, and chin-na.

I think mma cross training is great to improve your skills, however if you lack the knowledge of the origional wck system to draw upon or revert back to, if faced with adversity, you won't be able to find the answers within your WCK system. you'll be forced to look outside the WCK system and end up doing MMA with wing chun elements as with Alan Orr's fighters. I like this quote, "MMA is the ultimate martial art, wing chun is it's counter" I think if a wing chun guy can handle an MMA fighter, he won't be easily suprised by any other fighter.

[JPinAZ]

Wing Chun is a principle based art. These principles don't change, just like laws of physics don't change.
So IMO, there is no 'old school' or 'new school', just varying degrees of understanding or misunderstanding of Wing Chun concept/principle - which can be easily seen in the vast amount of differences we have today in application.

[kung fu fighter]

Hendrik sees "modern" as Wing Chun that is done at roughly arm's length. In contrast "ancient" worked into closer range and used body contact much more. He sees the "ancient" or "old school" Wing Chun as operating more in a elbow strike range

What's the link to where Hendrik said this?

[Alan Orr]

Wing Chun is a principle based art. These principles don't change, just like laws of physics don't change.
So IMO, there is no 'old school' or 'new school', just varying degrees of understanding or misunderstanding of Wing Chun concept/principle - which can be easily seen in the vast amount of differences we have today in application.

I would agree. Old school / new school - you only have good wing chun and bad wing chun.

Wing Chun is based on principles and they are always the same. The conceptual part of wing chun is the forever changing part - dealing with the problem of the dart or at the time.

Mma really opens up the problem within some wing chun styles of not training - with enough pressure, understanding of structure, understanding of applying the skills with a tough opponent, dealing with takedowns, not being conditioned, using applications that have only been demo tested etc etc

In CSL Wing Chun we have a very traditional system - forms, Qi going, chi sao, dummy, footwork, drills - beginners to advance, then also sparring and pressure testing

[Alan Orr]

I consider "modern" hong kong wing chun to be an evolution of the origional WCK system, even though there are still traces of the origional wck system, many things have been evolved out such as many of the the origional snake and crane signatures, as well as short power generation, certain footwork knowledge, and chin-na.

I think mma cross training is great to improve your skills, however if you lack the knowledge of the origional wck system to draw upon or revert back to, if faced with adversity, you won't be able to find the answers within your WCK system. you'll be forced to look outside the WCK system and end up doing MMA with wing chun elements as with Alan Orr's fighters. I like this quote, "MMA is the ultimate martial art, wing chun is it's counter" I think if a wing chun guy can handle an MMA fighter, he won't be easily suprised by any other fighter.

We have a complete wing Chun system. We are not forced to look outside our wing chun. We have a system strong enough to with within mma.

Show you clips of your wing chun working in mma so we can see a style of original wc in action

[KPM]

What's the link to where Hendrik said this?

http://www.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?67520-Is-the-modern-Wck-structure-and-chi-sau-a-problem-in-reality

[tc101]

keith i love your treatis on the evolution of the boxing stance and tactics. i enjoy studying the old school boxing matches on youtube. i dont want to hijack the tread, but there is one good old school, new school boxing comparsion vidoe i like. if anyone is intereseted i can post the link

Yes yes it is always lol funny to hear guys who don't box and have never trained as a boxer tell us about boxing.

[tc101]

Wing Chun is a principle based art. These principles don't change, just like laws of physics don't change.
So IMO, there is no 'old school' or 'new school', just varying degrees of understanding or misunderstanding of Wing Chun concept/principle - which can be easily seen in the vast amount of differences we have today in application.

Principles are not like the laws of physics. Wing chun is a skill just like boxing or bjj or mt or most fighting arts and the principles are there to help you develop that skill not rules or laws that must be obeyed.

Skill does not depend on knowledge or understanding but performance. I think that real knowledge and understanding only comes after skill. What most people mean by knowledge and understanding is their knowledge and understanding of the model. My ability to land solid shots with my body behind them isn't something you get through knowledge or understanding but comes from PRACTICE. You could say wing chun is a practice based art. You get better through practice.

The simplest way to see this is you get the so called master of knowledge and understanding who can talk at length about the model and put them in the ring and see how they can't make anything work.

[deejaye72]

Yes yes it is always lol funny to hear guys who don't box and have never trained as a boxer tell us about boxing.

i dont know if he boxed, i have. i had to, my modern wing chun is missing elements. i lost the instructions so, i had to learn from real people. what he said was still real interesting.

[tc101]

i dont know if he boxed, i have. i had to, my modern wing chun is missing elements. i lost the instructions so, i had to learn from real people. what he said was still real interesting.

I hear I have boxed from many people. What does that mean? Did you train with a fight trainer? Box in golden gloves? Or do a little boxing at done school where no one really trained or fought? Because what I mean by boxed is trained as a fighter at a boxing gym.

[deejaye72]

[QUOTE]I consider "modern" hong kong wing chun to be an evolution of the origional WCK system, even though there are still traces of the origional wck system, many things have been evolved out such as many of the the origional snake and crane signatures, as well as short power generation, certain footwork knowledge, and chin-na.


i went to a seminar twenty years ago and witnessed a hong kong wing chun trained individual, throwing people around like ragdolls. big guys, little guys it didnt matter. when he took a break. i went over to him and asked him to show me. he threw me around the room like a ragdoll. his arms were soft, no strength. i was either on my heels or my toes. he was bridging and uprooting people. he looked liked he was doing internal martial arts, like bagua zhang or something...with all the uprooting. i asked him when the seminar was over where it came from, he said " it came from yip man. yip man taught it. modern wing wing chun has the structure, the internal and everything else.
i dont know where this "my style is older so it has everything in it and your info is lost" came from.

i can tell you the sifu's name and who he learned from but, i dont want to be accused from the resident soup nazi of name dropping.

[deejaye72]

I hear I have boxed from many people. What does that mean? Did you train with a fight trainer? Box in golden gloves? Or do a little boxing at done school where no one really trained or fought? Because what I mean by boxed is trained as a fighter at a boxing gym.

yeah i have! i kick boxed full contact when i was a teenager. i also took lessons from a guy who trained at gleasons gym. how about you?
i never won gold medals who cares. i learned how to protect my self. i still dont know why i have to justify what i know to you. we can still have a discussion even if i didnt know anything.

[KPM]

Yes yes it is always lol funny to hear guys who don't box and have never trained as a boxer tell us about boxing.

You never change do you Twen? I have to be a seasoned ring boxer to comment on history? :rolleyes: Is every boxing commentator and ring announcer a seasoned ring boxer?

[deejaye72]

You never change do you Twen? I have to be a seasoned ring boxer to comment on history? :rolleyes: Is every boxing commentator and ring announcer a seasoned ring boxer?

exactly right keith! how many boxing trainers can get in the ring with there fighters and mix it up?

[BPWT..]

[QUOTE=deejaye72;1266475]

Cool story dude! Good to hear a YMWC story. Too bad you can't drop the name though... :(

Yes, please drop the name it would be interesting to hear.

Besides, everything else gets dropped on this forum (principles and concepts: dropped; the ball: dropped; the tone dropped; countless references to tennis: drop shot) :D:D:D

[deejaye72]

[QUOTE=HybridWarrior;1266485]

Yes, please drop the name it would be interesting to hear.

Besides, everything else gets dropped on this forum (principles and concepts: dropped; the ball: dropped; the tone dropped; countless references to tennis: drop shot) :D:D:D

yeah what the hell! i've been married 22 years. there is nothing you guys dish out i cant take!

sifu miguel hernandez from moy yat ving tsun. not only one of the most skilled martial artist i've ever met, but also one of the most humble.

[Vajramusti]

[QUOTE=kung fu fighter;1266449]

i went to a seminar twenty years ago and witnessed a hong kong wing chun trained individual, throwing people around like ragdolls. big guys, little guys it didnt matter. when he took a break. i went over to him and asked him to show me. he threw me around the room like a ragdoll. his arms were soft, no strength. i was either on my heels or my toes. he was bridging and uprooting people. he looked liked he was doing internal martial arts, like bagua zhang or something...with all the uprooting. i asked him when the seminar was over where it came from, he said " it came from yip man. yip man taught it. modern wing wing chun has the structure, the internal and everything else.
i dont know where this "my style is older so it has everything in it and your info is lost" came from.

i can tell you the sifu's name and who he learned from but, i dont want to be accused from the resident soup nazi of name dropping.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can understand that. When one is thoroughly exposed to Ip Man's wing chun-throwing, kicking and other things besides punching becomes part of the repertoire
imo. A problem is that many of Ip man's students worked with him only a little bit and went off on their own. If one is well rounded in their wing chun training, they can apply their skills(does not have to be techniques) to other activities. A friend's girl friends father had Ip Man to come to his house for private lessons.
One day there were visitors who were martial artists- they dared Ip man to deal with their powerful kicks..Ip man started throwing them all over the place.
The girl who saw Ip man's throws, lived in Phoenix for a while but now has gone back to Asia.

[Hendrik]

With the seven bows and six core elements,

One can read the signature of ones art and know what it is to at least the first order.

So, one can read the signature from the old photos, old video.... Even old description to see is it a facts.





Many have not develop the Wck skill to read and keep thinking " look like taiji , look like...." Those are just some ones opinion which not based on facts.


For example,

The taiji of Chen man Ching and CC Chen is a long fist art, how is thar got to do with seven bows and six core elements of Wck which is a short strike art?

The Bagua is a circular momentum art, how is that got to do with Wck capture to center line momentum?





Often many just link taiji and Bagua or hung gar iron wire or western boxing to Wck via creativity and imagination as in the plot of Kung fu movie , That too shows one really doesn't know what one is talking about. Look at the Wck sets, does it designed to do yang taiji long jing? Bagua circular momentum? Hung gar dynamic tension? Western Boxing long fist art mobility?


Get a utube, a photo , just analyze the seven bows trajectory, one can see the signature.
Today, One can simple bring the utube of the certain individual to see what is the facts.
That simple.
There is no secret, the facts are naked in front of ones eyes, if one knows how to read seven bows trajectory. And there is no need of over imflated using oneself as the standard reference type of truth.

As I point out above, if one doesn't even know the different between a long fist art and short strike art, how is he suppose to know what is taiji what is Wck? How boxing different then Wck? What type of engine is used to support Wck?




As for old school and new school,
IMHO,
The so called old school describe is a Hong Kong evolution of Wck of past 50 years.

And we can see, it is the Hong Kong era which evolve Wck into western boxing type.

[Hendrik]

The Reality of Wck in the past five decades , when its short strike art evolve into long fist art And used against a long fist art.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AKFNCIJdvA&feature=youtube_gdat

[deejaye72]

[QUOTE=Hendrik;1266493]With the seven bows and six core elements,

One can read the signature of ones art and know what it is to at least the first order.

So, one can read the signature from the old photos, old video.... Even old description to see is it a facts.





Many have not develop the Wck skill to read and keep thinking " look like taiji , look like...." Those are just some ones opinion which not based on facts.


For example,

The taiji of Chen man Ching and CC Chen is a long fist art, how is thar got to do with seven bows and six core elements of Wck which is a short strike art?

The Bagua is a circular momentum art, how is that got to do with Wck capture to center line momentum?





Often many just link taiji and Bagua or hung gar iron wire or western boxing to Wck via creativity and imagination as in the plot of Kung fu movie , That too shows one really doesn't know what one is talking about. Look at the Wck sets, does it designed to do yang taiji long jing? Bagua circular momentum? Hung gar dynamic tension? Western Boxing long fist art mobility?


Get a utube, a photo , just analyze the seven bows trajectory, one can see the signature. That simple[/QUOte

can you post videos of you or your students dynamically uprooting people? i didnt know what it was at the time, but i experienced it with my eyes and felt it. what makes you think you know everything. my point was modern wing chun has everything, you just have to look for it. i was wront to argue with you. lets just discuss the issues.

[Hendrik]

[QUOTE=Hendrik;1266493]

can you post videos of you or your students dynamically uprooting people? i didnt know what it was at the time, but i experienced it with my eyes and felt it.


what makes you think you know everything.

my point was modern wing chun has everything, you just have to look for it. i was wront to argue with you. lets just discuss the issues.


Why don't you post your video of uproot? And those who you consider to have the top skill according to you?

I don't think I know everything. I present what it is .

[sanjuro_ronin]

While it is vital to understand where we come from, we can never lose sight of TODAY and what is needed NOW.
In MA we never have an accurate history of our MA, we have bits and pieces and folklore and so much more "baggage".
It is crucial to understand that MA are learned by DOING, not reading.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't know our history, it simply means that history of the art takes a step back to that actual DOING of the art.
No one will ever become proficient in any system without doing the one thing that ALL founders of MA systems have ALWAYS done and that is:
FIGHT WITH IT.

[deejaye72]

[QUOTE=deejaye72;1266495]


Why don't you post your video of uproot? And those who you consider to have the top skill according to you?

I don't think I know everything. I present what it is .

you need to show it, your the one who has the problem with someone else having the same knowledge.

[deejaye72]

yip man had it, yip man taught! the people that were close to him got it!

i'm name dropping again.. oooh the soup nazi's gonna be mad:D

[JPinAZ]

Principles are not like the laws of physics.

My point obviously went way over your head, as well as the topic of this thread.


Wing chun is a skill just like boxing or bjj or mt or most fighting arts and the principles are there to help you develop that skill not rules or laws that must be obeyed.

Skill does not depend on knowledge or understanding but performance. I think that real knowledge and understanding only comes after skill. What most people mean by knowledge and understanding is their knowledge and understanding of the model. My ability to land solid shots with my body behind them isn't something you get through knowledge or understanding but comes from PRACTICE. You could say wing chun is a practice based art. You get better through practice.

The simplest way to see this is you get the so called master of knowledge and understanding who can talk at length about the model and put them in the ring and see how they can't make anything work.

Your skill argument has nothing to do with what I said, and sounds suspiciously just like the silly non-topic, skipping record statements that came from another 't' here a while back. I think you need to change it up a bit, it's becoming a little too obvious. ;)

[kung fu fighter]

We have a complete wing Chun system. We are not forced to look outside our wing chun. We have a system strong enough to with within mma.

Show you clips of your wing chun working in mma so we can see a style of original wc in action

Hey Alan,
This wasn't a shot at you or your guys, you guys do what you do and are well respected for it. In no way was I implying that your knowledge of CSL Wing Chun is incomplete, however CSL Wing Chun is a modern creation of your sifu Robert Chu using the yip Man wck structure that he learnt form Hawkins Cheung as his base. In one of your earlier post you mentioned yourself that you guys mix your wing chun with other styles such as BJJ, catch wrestling so that you can compete in MMA, just stating the obvious! also just because you have success in an MMA ring does not mean that translate well in an all out street survival fight.

[deejaye72]

what would be the results of a wing chun man uprooting someone, or a tai chi man, or a bagua guy? if they uprooted you at the top of a flight of stairs, would you fall down the stairs differently?

what would be the results of a muay thai guy smashing you in the side of the head with a elbow strike, or a karate man, or a street fighter, or a wing chun man? would your face hurt differently?:D

you know the answer? the wing chun man would look better, cause he was on the centerline when he did it.. haha:D

[kung fu fighter]

what would you consider "modern" hong kong wing chun
It is a well known fact that Yip Man simplified his Hong Kong wck art that he taught publicly, to quote another wck sifu "He simpified the art alright, he took all the good sh!t out" lol

[deejaye72]

It is a well known fact that Yip Man simplified his Hong Kong wck art that he taught publicly, to quote another wck sifu "He simpified the art alright, he took all the good sh!t out" lol

thats that same mentality "my older art has more then your newer art" bs. the people that were close to him got it. my thumb is pointed up, and yours is pointed down, so i cant punch you in the face. yeah right!

[kung fu fighter]

http://www.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?67520-Is-the-modern-Wck-structure-and-chi-sau-a-problem-in-reality

Can you give the exact quote of the entire post where Hendrik said , "WCK operating more in a elbow strike range" I went through the entire thread and couldn't find it.

[Hendrik]

Can you give the exact quote of the entire post where Hendrik said , "WCK operating more in a elbow strike range" I went through the entire thread and couldn't find it.



I said it is a short strike art
Which emphasis on the play in the range between the inner arm or between elbow and body.

[kung fu fighter]

I said it is a short strike art
Which emphasis on the play in the range between the inner arm or between elbow and body.

Ok, thanks Hendrik, I do remember seeing you said "wck operates in elbow striking range", but then I couldn't find it again when i looked through the thread. Can you give the exact link where you said this?

[Hendrik]

Ok, thanks Hendrik, I do remember seeing it before, but then I couldn't find it again when i looked through the thread.

In the video

[kung fu fighter]

In the video

Ok, that makes sense now lol

[Hendrik]

Ok, that makes sense now lol

Jim made very clear here on the different Jin type of Wck, taiji, and yichuan. After he studies with different sifus or different styles. Also with the SPM.

Also the seven bows or joints handling of Wck is mentioned in the clip above.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5SVdSR9_vs



One just cannot make claim Ipman has it all in the same time Chen man ching, CC Chen taiji has it all , the same with Wck. Taiji uproot.....

One needs to know what one is talking about otherwise it is a ridiculous expert wanna be.


Btw. Have you ever ever ever see taiji of internal art uproot magic in mma or kyokushin ? Never sorry, those taiji uproot stuffs are just demo.

[deejaye72]

Btw. Have you ever ever ever see taiji of internal art uproot magic in mma or kyokushin ? Never sorry, those taiji uproot stuffs are just demo.[/QUOTE]
where are all your students doing it?

[deejaye72]

yeah i decided twenty years ago, when i got thrown around a room like a ragdoll, and then through a door that led to the outside parking lot, by a guy that had a touch like a feather, that i was gonna keep my martial art the same! your the only one that can do it? i doubt that very much. your just jealous cause you spent 40 years kissing someone's butt to get it and yip man freely gave it out to people that were nice and loyal to him.

[deejaye72]

how dare you cross train in other martial arts! blasphemy!!....oh sorry founders of wing chun.

[deejaye72]

One just cannot make claim Ipman has it all in the same time Chen man ching, CC Chen taiji has it all , the same with Wck. Taiji uproot.....

One needs to know what one is talking about otherwise it is a ridiculous expert wanna be.



i cant make that claim? my father is my sifu, i've was literally trained in the martial arts from the time i could walk. i've been around martial artist and exposed to various forms of martial arts my entire life. what have you been exposed too? a hidden martial art that no one has seen so its makes you an expert on every art in existense?

[Hendrik]

yeah i decided twenty years ago, when i got thrown around a room like a ragdoll, and then through a door that led to the outside parking lot, by a guy that had a touch like a feather, that i was gonna keep my martial art the same!

your the only one that can do it? i doubt that very much. your just jealous cause you spent 40 years kissing someone's butt to get it and yip man freely gave it out to people that were nice and loyal to him.


1. You are not the standard reference of Wck.

2. You are a rag doll that is you.

3. You can't even differential between talking specific technical elements and all the ego speaking based on nonsense.

4. Who care your taiji push hand , wcners fight in the short strike range nothing to do taiji push hand drill which you take as the ultimate God art.

[Hendrik]

Does Ipman lineage has the short strike art ?

Sure ,

Sifu Robert Chu and me compare notes on what my late sifu Cho hung choy of cho gar yik kam Wck told me.

And Robert told me,

Hawkins was teaching Robert, Wck is 後臂手 back of forearm hand, on the hand of between the elbow and body.


IMHO

Wck is Wck once upon the time Wck is Wck.

Wck is not about ignorance of what is Wck and then import taiji and western boxing and claim to know it all.
The bottom line is, if one cannot make the three sets work . One doesn't really has it.


Thus, one better be specific to talk about technical. No one has it all. But common denominator exist is different lineages.


Lineage = evolution

Common denominator exist in different Wck lineages and the mother arts emei and fujian white crane = Wck DNA



Sorry , no taiji, no need to. One needs to know what one is talking about specifically.

[deejaye72]

1. You are not the standard reference of Wck.

2. You are a rag doll that is you.

3. You can't even differential between talking specific technical elements and all the ego speaking based on nonsense.

4. Who care your taiji push hand , wcners fight in the short strike range nothing to do taiji push hand drill which you take as the ultimate God art.

1. you are definatly not the standard.
2. my kung fu changes daily.
3. in marketing its important to have your own terminology to create your own brand name! i dont understand your mumbo jumbo..
ex. horizontally lock wild bulls legs? triangle theory! do you have students that pay you?
4.i never said tai chi was the ultimate art. in your opinion its useless. did a big bad tai chi guy beat you up once? is that why you dont like it. it has strengths and weaknesses as any art. any art!

[Hendrik]

i cant make that claim? my father is my sifu, i've was literally trained in the martial arts from the time i could walk. i've been around martial artist and exposed to various forms of martial arts my entire life. what have you been exposed too? a hidden martial art that no one has seen so its makes you an expert on every art in existense?


Kung fu is from knowing the proper process and work hard to develop the specific skill.

Got nothing to do with who is ones father, ones sifu.

And

The common denominator or DNA is the facts. No one no name droping can replace it.
Even ridiculus is to bring up Cheng man Ching or CC Cheng who got zero to do with Wck to validate Wck.

[deejaye72]

Lineage = evolution

lineage = de-evolution


Common denominator exist in different Wck lineages and the mother arts emei and fujian white crane = Wck DNA



cross training!!!

[deejaye72]

[the next time you mention your sifu or yik kam, i'm busting you for name dropping!! whats good for the goose is good for the gander there hot shot!
what arts have you been exposed too? hiding something under a rock for 160 years doenst mean it gets better!

[deejaye72]

[

Sifu Robert Chu and me compare notes on what my late sifu Cho hung choy of cho gar yik kam Wck told me.

And Robert told me,

Hawkins was teaching Robert, Wck is 後臂手 back of forearm hand, on the hand of between the elbow and body.

name drop!!

[Hendrik]

[

Sifu Robert Chu and me compare notes on what my late sifu Cho hung choy of cho gar yik kam Wck told me.

And Robert told me,

Hawkins was teaching Robert, Wck is 後臂手 back of forearm hand, on the hand of between the elbow and body.

name drop!!



You can't even differentiate between describing a facts with witness who is traced able

And

Name droping.

[deejaye72]

The common denominator or DNA? what the heck is that biology? i smell marketing! arrgh it stinks

[deejaye72]

Sifu Robert Chu and me compare notes! i compared notes; i got cracked in the mouth three times by sifu hernandez's students when i trained there. maybe i should have had a cup of tea with them instead. do you want some more names?

[deejaye72]

why cant we just have a discussion? why do you have to keep bringing up my skill level? nobody on here cares. quit it already your driving me crazy.

[tc101]

You never change do you Twen? I have to be a seasoned ring boxer to comment on history? :rolleyes: Is every boxing commentator and ring announcer a seasoned ring boxer?

You can comment on anything you like but what do you know of boxing? You don't box and never trained as a boxer and so have no real understanding of what goes into boxing why it works or how things work to even begin to have a valid idea of why things have changed. You may have read some books or articles that you have no background to really assess and seen some boxing on tv once in a while. Do you think that background gives you insight into boxing and it's evolution?

I am sorry but anyone can have an opinion. I am just saying you do not have an educated or informed opinion.

You know so much about boxing in fact you ask if every ring announcer needs to be a seasoned boxer! Do you know what a ring announcer does? He only introduces the fighters. That is so very very funny.

[tc101]

My point obviously went way over your head, as well as the topic of this thread.

Your skill argument has nothing to do with what I said, and sounds suspiciously just like the silly non-topic, skipping record statements that came from another 't' here a while back. I think you need to change it up a bit, it's becoming a little too obvious. ;)

I got your point that you think the principles don't change so they are to you written in stone I guess and you compare them to the laws of physics.

I do not agree with you that's all. I do not see wing chun as dependent at all on principles or concepts, these are just helpful ideas to aid us in developing the skill. It's the skill we are after right?

I am sorry you do not see that skill does not depend on concepts or principles.

[deejaye72]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=es13X4cIimI&list=UURex0fFs_Ln2o769H3mFfZg

i was about to give up with this reject until i saw this. at .55 in the video sifu sergio demonstrates a tai chi dead palm! something my father taught to me from cheng man ching tai chi! at 1:14 in the video he does a shoulder rolling exercise again taught to me by my father from cheng man ching tai chi! then at 2:51 he demonstrates wing chun structure test! no man alive can push you back if you are under his elbows!!! hendrik did you teach this man this?? i almost fell out of my chair you my friend are a charlatan! you should be ashamed of your self for lying to people! i hope everyone dis owns for this! lmfao

[deejaye72]

8377

whats the matter cats got your tongue? *******

[KPM]

You can comment on anything you like but what do you know of boxing? You don't box and never trained as a boxer and so have no real understanding of what goes into boxing why it works or how things work to even begin to have a valid idea of why things have changed. You may have read some books or articles that you have no background to really assess and seen some boxing on tv once in a while. Do you think that background gives you insight into boxing and it's evolution?

I am sorry but anyone can have an opinion. I am just saying you do not have an educated or informed opinion.

You know so much about boxing in fact you ask if every ring announcer needs to be a seasoned boxer! Do you know what a ring announcer does? He only introduces the fighters. That is so very very funny.

Twen, you are SO full of yourself! :rolleyes: You trot out the same old mantra every time. How do you know how much I know about boxing? I've studied and practiced the "old school" boxing. Have you? I've read the histories and studied the old time manuals. Have you? I was commenting on the HISTORY. How much do you actually know about history?

You're right though. Anyone can have an opinion. And anyone can prove themselves to be a complete d!ck by criticising someone else just for expressing their opinion.

[zuti car]

The only thing that is better old than new is brandy , everything else , well , put it this way , what is better , 20 years old girl or 80 years old "girl", Ford model T or new BMW , AK 47 or old bolt action one bullet rifle , fresh bread or one week old bread , would you like to be treated by the doctor with a knowledge of 19th Century or someone who is practicing modern medicine , ect . Like I said , things evolve over time , adapt and become better or die out , that is law of nature .

[zuti car]

The answers will vary greatly depending on the weirdo the question is posed to. There's a lot of strange ducks out there that are into some depraved sh!t. :eek:

Since English is not my first language I am not sure are you saying I am deprived weirdo or you are talking about someone else , Please be clear about that so I can give you a proper answer .

[JPinAZ]

I got your point that you think the principles don't change so they are to you written in stone I guess and you compare them to the laws of physics.

I do not agree with you that's all. I do not see wing chun as dependent at all on principles or concepts, these are just helpful ideas to aid us in developing the skill. It's the skill we are after right?

I am sorry you do not see that skill does not depend on concepts or principles.

Whatever 'T'. Nice twisting of words and putting words in my mouth. Your baseless conclusions only make you sound as silly as the 'T' in my signature. You should read the post in my sig. The similarities to how you and that 'T' argue, the broken record repeating of the same mantras, as well as the inconsistent logic and word twisting lawyer speak is all very inTEREsting ;)

BTW, skill can be gained from, and should be the focus of, any art. It's the concepts/principles that make the wing chun system what it is, regardless the 'skill' of the practitioner. They are the very foundation that drives what we do in application, not just some guidelines to help you train.

[BPWT..]

There's a lot of strange ducks out there that are into some depraved sh!t. :eek:

Sh!t, so some of you do know who I am! :D

[JPinAZ]

The only thing that is better old than new is brandy , everything else , well , put it this way , what is better , 20 years old girl or 80 years old "girl", Ford model T or new BMW , AK 47 or old bolt action one bullet rifle , fresh bread or one week old bread , would you like to be treated by the doctor with a knowledge of 19th Century or someone who is practicing modern medicine , ect . Like I said , things evolve over time , adapt and become better or die out , that is law of nature .

New or evolved isn't always better. When talking MA's, many times people strip things out, add things, etc (or didn't have it all to begin with) and call it 'new' or 'evolved', when in reality it's original nature is lost and it can be devolved & watered down from what it once was. So not always do thing evolve and 'become better' - sometimes just the opposite.

[zuti car]

New or evolved isn't always better. When talking MA's, many times people strip things out, add things, etc (or didn't have it all to begin with) and call it 'new' or 'evolved', when in reality it's original nature is lost and it can be devolved & watered down from what it once was. So not always do thing evolve and 'become better' - sometimes just the opposite.

Evolution means progress in a positive way . There is of course a reverse process , devolution where things are progressing in a wrong direction and instead to become better , they become worst . In this case , in nature and analogy can used in any biological or social , technical ect process , devolved things will eventually die out , that is how selection works , only the most adapted ones , with best results will survive. One more thing , simplification is not necessarily bad thing , actually , simple things have less chance to go wrong . For example , why is AK 47 ( and other versions) the most used weapon on the world ? Because it is the simplest one ,and not only in the matter of mechanics , where it is extremely simple and easy to maintain . It is easy to use , you can teach someone how to use and maintain AK 47 in 15 minutes. Also it covers most of the tactical requirements for an assault rifle and it is adaptable for large numbers of situation, climate conditions and terrains , simply works everywhere without problems and it has enough stopping power . Simple is often equal to reliable .

[tc101]

Whatever 'T'. Nice twisting of words and putting words in my mouth. Your baseless conclusions only make you sound as silly as the 'T' in my signature. You should read the post in my sig. The similarities to how you and that 'T' argue, the broken record repeating of the same mantras, as well as the inconsistent logic and word twisting lawyer speak is all very inTEREsting ;)

BTW, skill can be gained from, and should be the focus of, any art. It's the concepts/principles that make the wing chun system what it is, regardless the 'skill' of the practitioner. They are the very foundation that drives what we do in application, not just some guidelines to help you train.

Again I am sorry you asked if if I got your point so I was saying what I thought your point was. If I was wrong you could explain how.

I am glad we agree that skill is the goal. Why do you think concepts are the foundation? Why do you think the concepts make wing chun what it is?

I could say whatever Kev. K would say how he had the right thinking about wing chun isn't that just another way of talking about concepts and principles? To put it another way isn't that just saying you know how wing chun should be done even when you cannot do it? K could never tell me why then so many with the wrong thinking could soundly beat him and why the the guys with the right thinking weren't beating everyone. To me this just shows that there are many different ways to think about or do wing chun not one right way.

In boxing it is what you can do that matters not your thinking about it. That's where I come from Kev lol.

[JPinAZ]

Again I am sorry you asked if if I got your point so I was saying what I thought your point was. If I was wrong you could explain how.

I am glad we agree that skill is the goal. Why do you think concepts are the foundation? Why do you think the concepts make wing chun what it is?

I could say whatever Kev. K would say how he had the right thinking about wing chun isn't that just another way of talking about concepts and principles? To put it another way isn't that just saying you know how wing chun should be done even when you cannot do it? K could never tell me why then so many with the wrong thinking could soundly beat him and why the the guys with the right thinking weren't beating everyone. To me this just shows that there are many different ways to think about or do wing chun not one right way.

In boxing it is what you can do that matters not your thinking about it. That's where I come from Kev lol.

See, that's a much better job 't'! You don't sound nearly as similar as the other now-banned 'T' in this post as you've been sounding lately in a lot of your other more-recent mantra-repeating, broken record playing, skill-based, lawyer speak posts - good job! Although there are several on here that aren't buying the act, at least you're getting a little better at it in this post. ;) Keep up the bad work!

And you can call me whatever you want, but my actual name is Jonathan and is why I use my initials in my sig (JP) and yes, I'm from Arizona (AZ). I have nothing to hide. BTW, what's your name and where are you from again?

[PalmStriker]

WING CHUN as Product: :) http://chinesemartialstudies.com/2014/05/01/bruce-lee-globalization-and-the-case-of-wing-chun-why-do-some-chinese-martial-arts-grow-2/