On why I think Hendrik is on to something.

[Paddington]

I have little time for debates as to what is the most probable historiography for the development and emergence of wing chun. It is indeed an interesting topic but I find it foolish to devote a great amount of emotional energy into such debates.

I met with my previous Sifu not too long ago and we talked about teaching method and at what point to introduce the idea of 'bows' or reference points for the various joints of the body. Contrary to popular belief those ideas are in Ip Man wing chun and something that I have heard and seen passed on by those good folks at the VTAA in HK, as well as through their representatives in the UK. I put it to him that one can accelerate very quickly the development of a given student by introducing the idea of 'bows' at an early stage, that is in lesson one.

His reply to me was "Paddington, it is just too complex and we prefer to teach about triangles. They are really simple so why confuse matters with introducing a 'high level concept'?". My reply was that the idea of a triangle is actually more abstract and requires a visual reference and often students can be seen distorting their shapes as they move about to 'see' triangles in their structures or indirectly, via the use of a mirror.

We both agreed that one of the hardest things for a beginner to come to terms with was relaxation, structure and alignment and I pointed out that by introducing the idea of the 'bows' first, one introduces focus for the mind when it comes to relaxation. It is one thing to tell someone to relax and another to point out where they need to relax.

I argued that the idea of the 'bows' is actually a lower order concept as it relies on sensation and feeling and discovering the body. One can focus or have intent at each of the 'bows' and attempt relaxation through each of them sequentially. What is more when one looks and experiments with the alignment of bows, inasmuch as achieving good structure, the mind's focus and intent is further refined to those muscle groupings responsible and it makes it easier for students to attain the required relaxation and body sensations, to achieve good structure and actually 'feel through their bones and joints', jin flow.

Having recently taken on a few students I experimented with delivering the basics as my previous Sifu had done with some of them and with the others, I used the idea of the bows and more meditative exercises to enhance relaxation and body sensation first. In my overly small and unrepresentative sample I found that those I took through the second path were able to progress more quickly.

I could continue to sing the merits of Hendrik's contributions from a pedagogical perspective or even prove to you mathematically and with physics using real data, why he is right on so many other points. However, I think I will save that for an article or a small book. I am not claiming to be a Sifu nor am I saying that Hendrik's way is the best way just that for me and a few of my students, it works.

I feel that people are giving Hendrik too much of a hard time and have not really experimented with what he suggests. Hendrik has spent a lot of time responding to my questions and even responded by making videos that directly addressed said questions. He even helped me overcome some injuries. He has never asked me for money nor asked anything of me in return but yet continued to give so freely, even when I disagreed with some of the decisions he has made. It is for these reasons that I find it hard to believe his sole intent is financial or malicious, despite the accusations of late.

Ciao.

[GlennR]

I have little time for debates as to what is the most probable historiography for the development and emergence of wing chun. It is indeed an interesting topic but I find it foolish to devote a great amount of emotional energy into such debates.

I met with my previous Sifu not too long ago and we talked about teaching method and at what point to introduce the idea of 'bows' or reference points for the various joints of the body. Contrary to popular belief those ideas are in Ip Man wing chun and something that I have heard and seen passed on by those good folks at the VTAA in HK, as well as through their representatives in the UK. I put it to him that one can accelerate very quickly the development of a given student by introducing the idea of 'bows' at an early stage, that is in lesson one.

His reply to me was "Paddington, it is just too complex and we prefer to teach about triangles. They are really simple so why confuse matters with introducing a 'high level concept'?". My reply was that the idea of a triangle is actually more abstract and requires a visual reference and often students can be seen distorting their shapes as they move about to 'see' triangles in their structures or indirectly, via the use of a mirror.

We both agreed that one of the hardest things for a beginner to come to terms with was relaxation, structure and alignment and I pointed out that by introducing the idea of the 'bows' first, one introduces focus for the mind when it comes to relaxation. It is one thing to tell someone to relax and another to point out where they need to relax.

I argued that the idea of the 'bows' is actually a lower order concept as it relies on sensation and feeling and discovering the body. One can focus or have intent at each of the 'bows' and attempt relaxation through each of them sequentially. What is more when one looks and experiments with the alignment of bows, inasmuch as achieving good structure, the mind's focus and intent is further refined to those muscle groupings responsible and it makes it easier for students to attain the required relaxation and body sensations, to achieve good structure and actually 'feel through their bones and joints', jin flow.

Having recently taken on a few students I experimented with delivering the basics as my previous Sifu had done with some of them and with the others, I used the idea of the bows and more meditative exercises to enhance relaxation and body sensation first. In my overly small and unrepresentative sample I found that those I took through the second path were able to progress more quickly.

I could continue to sing the merits of Hendrik's contributions from a pedagogical perspective or even prove to you mathematically and with physics using real data, why he is right on so many other points. However, I think I will save that for an article or a small book. I am not claiming to be a Sifu nor am I saying that Hendrik's way is the best way just that for me and a few of my students, it works.

I feel that people are giving Hendrik too much of a hard time and have not really experimented with what he suggests. Hendrik has spent a lot of time responding to my questions and even responded by making videos that directly addressed said questions. He even helped me overcome some injuries. He has never asked me for money nor asked anything of me in return but yet continued to give so freely, even when I disagreed with some of the decisions he has made. It is for these reasons that I find it hard to believe his sole intent is financial or malicious, despite the accusations of late.

Ciao.

Hi Paddington
No one on here, that i can recall, actually said that his ideas had no merit. In fact a lot of people agreed with him on things like 7 bows etc.

Why i think the majority of people here, me included, got our nose's of joint was his proclamation that he had discovered the "true-source-dna-lineage" of all WC.

Thats it.

Sure, we all make fun at his convoluted ideas and methods (the yoga ball was gold! lol), but thats not the issue............


Its his poorly researched "history", cherry picking of evidence, the use of WC "celebrities" to back his cause, and with a final flourish........... hey presto, WC history is sorted!!!!

If you cant see that you need to re read the 40000 pages of this as punishment ;)

[Paddington]

Hi Paddington
No one on here, that i can recall, actually said that his ideas had no merit. In fact a lot of people agreed with him on things like 7 bows etc.

Why i think the majority of people here, me included, got our nose's of joint was his proclamation that he had discovered the "true-source-dna-lineage" of all WC.

Thats it.

Sure, we all make fun at his convoluted ideas and methods (the yoga ball was gold! lol), but thats not the issue............


Its his poorly researched "history", cherry picking of evidence, the use of WC "celebrities" to back his cause, and with a final flourish........... hey presto, WC history is sorted!!!!

If you cant see that you need to re read the 40000 pages of this as punishment ;)

At no point has a pedagogical argument been made in the affirmative with respects to quickening the rate at which wing chun can be acquired, by a student new to the art.

[GlennR]

At no point has a pedagogical argument been made in the affirmative with respects to quickening the rate at which wing chun can be acquired, by a student new to the art.

Says who??

Because it isnt on the forum it doesnt exist???

Seriously, thats a pretty arrogant attitude

[zuti car]

I also think Hendrik is on something , what ,that will remain a mystery

[KPM]

Why i think the majority of people here, me included, got our nose's of joint was his proclamation that he had discovered the "true-source-dna-lineage" of all WC.

Thats it.

)

Well then Glenn, you just need to HARDEN THE FX@K UP! :cool:

[anerlich]

I don't believe Hendrik is after financial gain (though if it turned out to be possible and he didn't take advantage of it he would be an idiot) or operating from malice.

I do not accept that he is operating from a egoless, enlightened or saintly viewpoint. He wants and demands kudos and status, and recognition that his is the purest historical path.

He may be on to something, but I would challenge any assumption that the useful parts of it are unique and not derivative or that you couldn't get them from multiple other sources.

Good for you that your injuries healed because (or in spite) of Hendrik's advice, but he is not qualified in this area, and some of his advice in this area is contraindicated by evidence (weight training or cardio being bad for older practitioners, etc. etc.) and has on occasion been arguably dangerous. His giving of advice in this area has on occasion been irresponsible.

There are qualified teachers (e.g. with sports science or, if you want, TCMA, credentials from recognised institutions) out there who IMO are far better equipped to advise and coach the MA student. Some of them continue to practice themselves, unlike Hendrik, whose belief systems supposedly prevent him from doing so. Following a particular Buddhist path doesn't make you a better or wiser human being or better at TCMA, it just makes you a Buddhist, and at the root of it all Zen philosophy would probably agree.

He might be operating from a good place, but if he expects his bullsh!t to be swallowed uncritically he should peddle it elsewhere.

[Paddington]

Says who??

Because it isnt on the forum it doesnt exist???

Seriously, thats a pretty arrogant attitude

I would like to remind you that it was you that advised me to re-read all those threads because you thought that I had repeated something said before. I am sorry that I used words and terms that you might not be familiar with and I say that because your reply above indicates to me that you did not understand what I said. It was not my intent to be arrogant and I understand perfectly that when one uses terms unfamiliar to someone, that it can be interpreted as arrogance but in matter of fact is actually a defense mechanism against the charge of ignorance.


[...]
He may be on to something, but I would challenge any assumption that the useful parts of it are unique and not derivative or that you couldn't get them from multiple other sources.
[...]

At no point have I said Hendrik is 'egoless' nor have I condoned his drive for status. As I made clear from the outset, I leave all that baggage to the side and it is somewhat frustrating to read some of the points you make in your reply. The part of your post I cite above says to me that you have not read my opening post in full and / or have failed to understand what I wrote. To quote myself;


[...] Contrary to popular belief those ideas are in Ip Man wing chun and something that I have heard and seen passed on by those good folks at the VTAA in HK, as well as through their representatives in the UK. I put it to him that one can accelerate very quickly the development of a given student by introducing the idea of 'bows' at an early stage, that is in lesson one.[...]

Now, these misunderstandings have obviously antagonised some of you and it is perhaps my fault for using words and phrasing unfamiliar to you. For that I am sorry. I think as soon as people see the word 'Hendrik', a filter seems to appear over their eyes that obscures the content and major points that one is making.

[Paddington]

Well then Glenn, you just need to HARDEN THE FX@K UP! :cool:

Your PM box is full KPM.

[Paddington]

I also think Hendrik is on something , what ,that will remain a mystery

I am very much interested to read your thoughts on the argument I put forwards in my opening post.

[KPM]

Your PM box is full KPM.

Ok. Thinned it out some! I think the new forum format counts your "sent messages" against you as well as saved messages. I just got rid of all the "sent messages."

[tc101]

I have little time for debates as to what is the most probable historiography for the development and emergence of wing chun. It is indeed an interesting topic but I find it foolish to devote a great amount of emotional energy into such debates.

I met with my previous Sifu not too long ago and we talked about teaching method and at what point to introduce the idea of 'bows' or reference points for the various joints of the body. Contrary to popular belief those ideas are in Ip Man wing chun and something that I have heard and seen passed on by those good folks at the VTAA in HK, as well as through their representatives in the UK. I put it to him that one can accelerate very quickly the development of a given student by introducing the idea of 'bows' at an early stage, that is in lesson one.

His reply to me was "Paddington, it is just too complex and we prefer to teach about triangles. They are really simple so why confuse matters with introducing a 'high level concept'?". My reply was that the idea of a triangle is actually more abstract and requires a visual reference and often students can be seen distorting their shapes as they move about to 'see' triangles in their structures or indirectly, via the use of a mirror.

We both agreed that one of the hardest things for a beginner to come to terms with was relaxation, structure and alignment and I pointed out that by introducing the idea of the 'bows' first, one introduces focus for the mind when it comes to relaxation. It is one thing to tell someone to relax and another to point out where they need to relax.

I argued that the idea of the 'bows' is actually a lower order concept as it relies on sensation and feeling and discovering the body. One can focus or have intent at each of the 'bows' and attempt relaxation through each of them sequentially. What is more when one looks and experiments with the alignment of bows, inasmuch as achieving good structure, the mind's focus and intent is further refined to those muscle groupings responsible and it makes it easier for students to attain the required relaxation and body sensations, to achieve good structure and actually 'feel through their bones and joints', jin flow.

Having recently taken on a few students I experimented with delivering the basics as my previous Sifu had done with some of them and with the others, I used the idea of the bows and more meditative exercises to enhance relaxation and body sensation first. In my overly small and unrepresentative sample I found that those I took through the second path were able to progress more quickly.

I could continue to sing the merits of Hendrik's contributions from a pedagogical perspective or even prove to you mathematically and with physics using real data, why he is right on so many other points. However, I think I will save that for an article or a small book. I am not claiming to be a Sifu nor am I saying that Hendrik's way is the best way just that for me and a few of my students, it works.

I feel that people are giving Hendrik too much of a hard time and have not really experimented with what he suggests. Hendrik has spent a lot of time responding to my questions and even responded by making videos that directly addressed said questions. He even helped me overcome some injuries. He has never asked me for money nor asked anything of me in return but yet continued to give so freely, even when I disagreed with some of the decisions he has made. It is for these reasons that I find it hard to believe his sole intent is financial or malicious, despite the accusations of late.

Ciao.

I think that references to bows and triangles and chi and those sorts of concepts do not accelerate learning I think they do just the opposite and they do even worse in getting you to start thinking in the entirely wrong direction. All you need to do is look at good combat athletes and you see guys that have developed very very good skills relatively quickly without any bows or triangles or chi or such things then compare those guys with the academics that love their bows and triangles and do forth but can't do squat.

Relaxation is easy it comes with familiarity it's no big deal.

[Paddington]

I think that references to bows and triangles and chi and those sorts of concepts do not accelerate learning I think they do just the opposite and they do even worse in getting you to start thinking in the entirely wrong direction. All you need to do is look at good combat athletes and you see guys that have developed very very good skills relatively quickly without any bows or triangles or chi or such things then compare those guys with the academics that love their bows and triangles and do forth but can't do squat.

Relaxation is easy it comes with familiarity it's no big deal.

Thing is we are talking about wing chun and that art form. Further, I think you miss my argument as at no point do I talk about chi. I firmly root my argument in terms of body awareness and sensation and contrary to your assertion, in arts such as boxing people do struggle with relaxation. It takes time to become familiar, as you say, so my argument is very much relevant to your POV even if you do not acknowledge that.

I am not quite sure why you bother to contribute to this wing chun forum if you believe that other combat arts are better suited to whatever your goals might be, tc101.

[GlennR]

I would like to remind you that it was you that advised me to re-read all those threads because you thought that I had repeated something said before. I am sorry that I used words and terms that you might not be familiar with and I say that because your reply above indicates to me that you did not understand what I said. It was not my intent to be arrogant and I understand perfectly that when one uses terms unfamiliar to someone, that it can be interpreted as arrogance but in matter of fact is actually a defense mechanism against the charge of ignorance.



At no point have I said Hendrik is 'egoless' nor have I condoned his drive for status. As I made clear from the outset, I leave all that baggage to the side and it is somewhat frustrating to read some of the points you make in your reply. The part of your post I cite above says to me that you have not read my opening post in full and / or have failed to understand what I wrote. To quote myself;



Now, these misunderstandings have obviously antagonised some of you and it is perhaps my fault for using words and phrasing unfamiliar to you. For that I am sorry. I think as soon as people see the word 'Hendrik', a filter seems to appear over their eyes that obscures the content and major points that one is making.

You're right to a degree, I did skim over your initial thread starter so for someone that struggles to read your somewhat convoluted post....... What exactly is the point you are trying to make?

[tc101]

Thing is we are talking about wing chun and that art form. Further, I think you miss my argument as at no point do I talk about chi. I firmly root my argument in terms of body awareness and sensation and contrary to your assertion, in arts such as boxing people do struggle with relaxation. It takes time to become familiar, as you say, so my argument is very much relevant to your POV even if you do not acknowledge that.

I am not quite sure why you bother to contribute to this wing chun forum if you believe that other combat arts are better suited to whatever your goals might be, tc101.

I do not think of wing chun as an art form like ballet but as a combative art. Boxers do not struggle with relaxation and since I've been in boxing gyms for 20 years I think I'd know if they find lol. As I told you relaxation comes with familiarity.

[Paddington]

I do not think of wing chun as an art form like ballet but as a combative art. Boxers do not struggle with relaxation and since I've been in boxing gyms for 20 years I think I'd know if they find lol. As I told you relaxation comes with familiarity.

How long does that familiarity take tc101? What does familiarity entail tc101; getting the feel and body awareness for each technique? The above may be rhetorical questions but I still legitimately question the motives for your contributions to this forum. I even question why I spend the time to reply to you and run the risk of being drawn into your rhetorical tar pit traps. If you feel boxing provides you with what you need then perhaps you should spend you discursive time elsewhere.

[tc101]

How long does that familiarity take tc101? What does familiarity entail tc101; getting the feel and body awareness for each technique? The above may be rhetorical questions but I still legitimately question the motives for your contributions to this forum. I even question why I spend the time to reply to you and run the risk of being drawn into your rhetorical tar pit traps. If you feel boxing provides you with what you need then perhaps you should spend you discursive time elsewhere.

How long does familiarity take? That is individual. Look we see this in all aspects of life. When you first learn to drive you are tense but with practice comes familiarity and that leads to relaxation. So we can relax when we drive but put us on a race track where we are unfamiliar and we naturally get tense. Practice on the track and get used to driving there and you relax. It is the same in the ring. Relaxation comes through familiarity not through meditation lol.

This is a wing chun forum and I practice wing chun that is my motive for being here. I share my perspective.

I do not know what you mean by saying if boxing provides me with what I need. Why can't i do both?

There is a kune kuit from my lineage of wing chun which basically says crazy practices generate more crazy practices. I think it was formed with guys like Hendrik in mind.

[anerlich]

At no point have I said Hendrik is 'egoless' nor have I condoned his drive for status.

I never said you did. I thought the thread was about Hendrik, not your own, um, visionary insights.


As I made clear from the outset, I leave all that baggage to the side and it is somewhat frustrating to read some of the points you make in your reply. The part of your post I cite above says to me that you have not read my opening post in full and / or have failed to understand what I wrote. To quote myself;

"To quote myself:"? JMFC. You, my friend, need to get over yourself.

I read your post more than once. IMO any communication problem here is with the writer, not the reader. The part of your post I cite above says to me, "I think I am really really smart and you should hang on my every word but you don't and it's SO UNFAIR :( ".

[Paddington]

:)

I'll only respond to genuine questions and comments that take this thread forwards. I am not bothered if they are not forthcoming and people can judge for themselves what I have said and perhaps even google the terms that I have used, if they are unknown to you.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Only in TCMA do people over complicate the simplest of things with archaic terms and analogies, just to make themselves think they are doings something "special" or "unique".
You aren't.

[KPM]

How long does familiarity take? That is individual. Look we see this in all aspects of life. When you first learn to drive you are tense but with practice comes familiarity and that leads to relaxation. So we can relax when we drive but put us on a race track where we are unfamiliar and we naturally get tense. Practice on the track and get used to driving there and you relax. It is the same in the ring. Relaxation comes through familiarity not through meditation lol.

.

I think what Paddingon is talking about is not so much "relaxation" but where you hold tension. If someone was completely relaxed, he wouldn't be able to stand up! You have to use muscles, and therefore tension for any kind of movement or holding of posture. If the muscle was completely relaxed, it wouldn't be working at all. The challenge is to not hold excessive tension where you don't need it or don't want it. This is learned through doing and familiarty. By being able to point out common "problem spots" to a beginner right at the start one can speed the familiarity process up quite a bit. Some people aren't even aware they are holding excessive amounts of tension in some areas until it is pointed out to them. For example, some people have become conditioned to be tense WHENEVER they drive and regardless of the driving conditions. When this is pointed out to them so they are aware of it, then they can begin to relax. Otherwise they mey go on doing something they are "familiar with" for a long time and never realize why they always have a headache when they get home from their commute!

[Paddington]

Only in TCMA do people over complicate the simplest of things with archaic terms and analogies, just to make themselves think they are doings something "special" or "unique".
You aren't.

That is the thing, the idea of the 'bows' or those reference points are very, very simple. Indeed, my entire argument is based upon speeding up and simplifying the learning process. My use of more technical terminology is drawn from the theories of learning as is taught when you train to become a teacher or when you write about learning in academia (as I have done). Of course, you don't go spouting learning theories at people when you are teaching them. Those technical terms are used amongst those that teach to assess the 'better ways' to teach. You are confusing the two.


I think what Paddingon is talking about is not so much "relaxation" but where you hold tension. If someone was completely relaxed, he wouldn't be able to stand up! You have to use muscles, and therefore tension for any kind of movement or holding of posture. If the muscle was completely relaxed, it wouldn't be working at all. The challenge is to not hold excessive tension where you don't need it or don't want it. This is learned through doing and familiarty. By being able to point out common "problem spots" to a beginner right at the start one can speed the familiarity process up quite a bit. Some people aren't even aware they are holding excessive amounts of tension in some areas until it is pointed out to them. For example, some people have become conditioned to be tense WHENEVER they drive and regardless of the driving conditions. When this is pointed out to them so they are aware of it, then they can begin to relax. Otherwise they mey go on doing something they are "familiar with" for a long time and never realize why they always have a headache when they get home from their commute!

Yes KPM, you sum it up well. Thanks.

[sanjuro_ronin]

That is the thing, the idea of the 'bows' or those reference points are very, very simple. Indeed, my entire argument is based upon speeding up and simplifying the learning process. My use of more technical terminology is drawn from the theories of learning as is taught when you train to become a teacher or when you write about learning in academia (as I have done). Of course, you don't go spouting learning theories at people when you are teaching them. Those technical terms are used amongst those that teach to assess the 'better ways' to teach. You are confusing the two.



Nope, not really.
IF you know about bio-mechanics and kinesology and know how to express what the human body does in "English" then you don't need "bows" or "snake engine" or any of that nonsense.
Cultural ambiguity aside ( and some people just love the cultural trappings in TCMA), there is no need for then and that can become a determent to correct learning.
In short, they are not needed so don't teach that way.
For everything that is explained with some exotic and esoteric "mumbo-jumbo" there is a simple and basic explanation from bio-mechanics and whatnot.
As a wise man once said:
If you can't explain it simply, you don't know it well enough.

Or you are just trying to pass yourself off as "smarter" or in possession of "the real *insert token TCMA here*.

[tc101]

Nope, not really.
IF you know about bio-mechanics and kinesology and know how to express what the human body does in "English" then you don't need "bows" or "snake engine" or any of that nonsense.
Cultural ambiguity aside ( and some people just love the cultural trappings in TCMA), there is no need for then and that can become a determent to correct learning.
In short, they are not needed so don't teach that way.
For everything that is explained with some exotic and esoteric "mumbo-jumbo" there is a simple and basic explanation from bio-mechanics and whatnot.
As a wise man once said:
If you can't explain it simply, you don't know it well enough.

Or you are just trying to pass yourself off as "smarter" or in possession of "the real *insert token TCMA here*.

Much very good stuff here.

[Grumblegeezer]

Nope, not really.
IF you know about bio-mechanics and kinesology and know how to express what the human body does in "English" then you don't need "bows" or "snake engine" or any of that nonsense.
Cultural ambiguity aside ( and some people just love the cultural trappings in TCMA), there is no need for then and that can become a determent to correct learning.
In short, they are not needed so don't teach that way.
For everything that is explained with some exotic and esoteric "mumbo-jumbo" there is a simple and basic explanation from bio-mechanics and whatnot.
As a wise man once said:
If you can't explain it simply, you don't know it well enough.

Or you are just trying to pass yourself off as "smarter" or in possession of "the real *insert token TCMA here*.

http://img.pandawhale.com/5458-einstein-simply-ekY1.jpeg

I'd like to remind Paddington that the apotheosis of an efficacious pedagogical paradigm is to resist the temptation to resort to an excessively sesquipedalian vocabulary and conversely to do as as TC and SR have so persuasively advocated: i.e. Keep It Simple, Stupid! LOL

Honestly though, if explaining WC through discussing "seven bows" really simplifies things and helps Paddington's students learn faster, then more power to him. Personally, I already tend to talk too much and over-explain. My current instructor's advice runs more along the line of "Mo gung kau, gung chi sau".

[GlennR]

:)

I'll only respond to genuine questions and comments that take this thread forwards. I am not bothered if they are not forthcoming and people can judge for themselves what I have said and perhaps even google the terms that I have used, if they are unknown to you.

Scratch my initial serious reply to this thread then as it was obviously waaaaaayyyy over your head.... in fact try googling it if you didn't get it

Oh,and as Andrew said, get over yourself

[Paddington]

Nope, not really.
IF you know about bio-mechanics and kinesology and know how to express what the human body does in "English" then you don't need "bows" or "snake engine" or any of that nonsense.
Cultural ambiguity aside ( and some people just love the cultural trappings in TCMA), there is no need for then and that can become a determent to correct learning.
In short, they are not needed so don't teach that way.
For everything that is explained with some exotic and esoteric "mumbo-jumbo" there is a simple and basic explanation from bio-mechanics and whatnot.
As a wise man once said:
If you can't explain it simply, you don't know it well enough.

Or you are just trying to pass yourself off as "smarter" or in possession of "the real *insert token TCMA here*.

A bit ad hominem, non?

Personally, I think it easier and more simple to explain the seven joint reference points than to give an exposition of 'kinesology' (sic) and bio-mechanics to someone new to wing chun. If you want to insist on the latter are you not in danger of contradicting yourself then? Some of the maths in such topics, which is key to understanding them, can be very complex if someone has little knowledge and skill in mathematics and physics.

Besides, those 7 reference points I mention are covered within the scope of those sciences of the anatomy of human motion. I would also like to point out that I did not talk about 'snake' engine nor the 'mumbo jumbo' that you claim in your post.

On a wider note, I do think it important to acknowledge the culture and beliefs that surround Chinese martial arts. I think it respectful to do so and disrespectful to point of evidencing a cultural prejudice, when not showing due respect. That is just my opinion.

[Paddington]

[...]

I'd like to remind Paddington that the apotheosis of an efficacious pedagogical paradigm is to resist the temptation to resort to an excessively sesquipedalian vocabulary and conversely to do as as TC and SR have so persuasively advocated
[...]


What beautiful poetry you write!

+1

In all seriousness, talking about the 7 joints or bows is not complicating matters. Indeed, the paradigm I suggest has no convoluted terms but the argument as to why that is the case, on why explaining the 7 bows is simplicity itself, is a pedagogical argument that entails technical terms. The criticism levied at me is, by these terms of reference, ironic.

I make no apologies for talking as I do, it is how I think and I have already said that the pedagogical argument I make is not what is told to students new to wing chun. If people really want to counter what I say and prove me wrong, have a go at teaching a new set of students one way and another the other way. If I am shown to be wrong then yes, I will revise my opinion and acknowledge error.

[Paddington]

Scratch my initial serious reply to this thread then as it was obviously waaaaaayyyy over your head.... in fact try googling it if you didn't get it

Oh,and as Andrew said, get over yourself

Perhaps my comment was not directed at you? Either way, I have contradicted myself now! You bas****!

[KPM]

Scratch my initial serious reply to this thread then as it was obviously waaaaaayyyy over your head.... in fact try googling it if you didn't get it

Oh,and as Andrew said, get over yourself

Excellent job Glenn! You have effectively applied "The Way Forward" Guideline #4:


4. If someone dares to pursue a topic with a little conviction or passion, just tell them they are being "hysterical" and to "get over yourself!"

[KPM]

IF you know about bio-mechanics and kinesology and know how to express what the human body does in "English" then you don't need "bows" or "snake engine" or any of that nonsense.
*.

Please explain to us in biomechanical and kinesiological terms in "English" what Paddington is talking about. And....nothing has been said about a "snake engine" in this thread.

[EternalSpring]

Personally speaking, I've always been at least a bit interested in the whole "historical/dna analysis" that hendrik talks about, and I do think that it's possible that he's onto unveiling or revealing some sort of new interesting information. What I think is silly is that he has a rather closed view on Ving Tsun as if our art is a product of the past alone and that the "real Ving Tsun" requires that we do things exactly as they were done in the past by the oldest famous practitioners. It's a whole mentality based pretty much on stories where the older the lineage is, the better its methods are simply because it represents what the legendary practitioners of the past did, and since there are so few people who prove their kung fu in the present, the legends of the past are all that many people have to bank their faith in since they dont spar or fight themselves. And so the cycle continues...

[Paddington]

Personally speaking, I've always been at least a bit interested in the whole "historical/dna analysis" that hendrik talks about, and I do think that it's possible that he's onto unveiling or revealing some sort of new interesting information. What I think is silly is that he has a rather closed view on Ving Tsun as if our art is a product of the past alone and that the "real Ving Tsun" requires that we do things exactly as they were done in the past by the oldest famous practitioners. It's a whole mentality based pretty much on stories where the older the lineage is, the better its methods are simply because it represents what the legendary practitioners of the past did, and since there are so few people who prove their kung fu in the present, the legends of the past are all that many people have to bank their faith in since they dont spar or fight themselves. And so the cycle continues...

I think your raise some very valid points. There have been many developments that have been positive and useful. However, sometimes I feel modern developments are sometimes reinventing the wheel.

As I said the idea of these 7 reference points are in Ip Man wing chun but for some reason are very rarely taught and often students are introduced to them a lot later on. I know seniors and instructors who have yet to be introduced to them despite that knowledge being within their lineage.

The argument that I was making was that they should be introduced very early on and I would love to hear people such as Ip Chun, Mr Ho and others at the VTAA, tell me why they are not. I am not going to hold my breath mind.

On a final note, I do agree about pressure testing but feel it us up to a given individual to do that should they feel the need; I felt the need and did it.

[Ali. R]

LMAO


IF you know about bio-mechanics and kinesology and know how to express what the human body does in "English" then you don't need "bows" or "snake engine" or any of that nonsense.
*..


Please explain to us in biomechanical and kinesiological terms in "English" what Paddington is talking about. And....nothing has been said about a "snake engine" in this thread.

Yeah, what he said.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Please explain to us in biomechanical and kinesiological terms in "English" what Paddington is talking about. And....nothing has been said about a "snake engine" in this thread.

Title of this thread:
"On why I think Hendrick is one to something", right?
How many times has Hendrick said that without a "snake engine" there is no "true" WC?

Typical that the point of my post was, as usual, on some here.

READ AND understand what I wrote:

IF you know about bio-mechanics and kinesology and know how to express what the human body does in "English" then you don't need "bows" or "snake engine" or any of that nonsense.

IE: If you have a an understanding of how the human body works ( and as a MA teacher you SHOULD), you can explain things in common words WITHOUT resorting to esoteric terms.

Do you disagree with that?

[Ali. R]

Please explain to us in biomechanical and kinesiological terms in "English" what Paddington is talking about.


Did I miss something:rolleyes:

[Vajramusti]

[QUOTE=Paddington;1269739]I think your raise some very valid points. There have been many developments that have been positive and useful. However, sometimes I feel modern developments are sometimes reinventing the wheel.

As I said the idea of these 7 reference points are in Ip Man wing chun but for some reason are very rarely taught and often students are introduced to them a lot later on. I know seniors and instructors who have yet to be introduced to them despite that knowledge being within their lineage.

The argument that I was making was that they should be introduced very early on and I would love to hear people such as Ip Chun, Mr Ho and others at the VTAA, tell me why they are not. I am not going to hold my breath mind.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hendrik's points are irrelevant to me- since Fong sifu and Ho Kam Ming sifu and their good students well understand the importance of the springs in the joints.
Hendrik just uses his own phraseology.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Did I miss something:rolleyes:

Yes, you did.

[Paddington]

[QUOTE=Paddington;1269739]I think your raise some very valid points. There have been many developments that have been positive and useful. However, sometimes I feel modern developments are sometimes reinventing the wheel.

As I said the idea of these 7 reference points are in Ip Man wing chun but for some reason are very rarely taught and often students are introduced to them a lot later on. I know seniors and instructors who have yet to be introduced to them despite that knowledge being within their lineage.

The argument that I was making was that they should be introduced very early on and I would love to hear people such as Ip Chun, Mr Ho and others at the VTAA, tell me why they are not. I am not going to hold my breath mind.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hendrik's points are irrelevant to me- since Fong sifu and Ho Kam Ming sifu and their good students well understand the importance of the springs in the joints.
Hendrik just uses his own phraseology.


Hi Joy. At what joint are the importance of the springs in the joints taught? Do you see any advantages in showing a new student the 6 major ones at an early stage?

[Ali. R]

Yes, you did.

Man, someone must delete it by accident, so give it one more shot.

Thanks in advance,

Here yah go.


Please explain to us in biomechanical and kinesiological terms in "English" what Paddington is talking about.

Take care,

[Paddington]

Title of this thread:
"On why I think Hendrick is one to something", right?
How many times has Hendrick said that without a "snake engine" there is no "true" WC?

Typical that the point of my post was, as usual, on some here.

READ AND understand what I wrote:

IF you know about bio-mechanics and kinesology and know how to express what the human body does in "English" then you don't need "bows" or "snake engine" or any of that nonsense.

IE: If you have a an understanding of how the human body works ( and as a MA teacher you SHOULD), you can explain things in common words WITHOUT resorting to esoteric terms.

Do you disagree with that?

I clearly qualified what that something was in my opening post. It is the case of your mind filtering and reading into it what you want. Also, I want to put you out of your misery and say to you that kinesology is actually spelt kinesiology, so you come across a little silly by posturing about using such a term and claiming to know what it means and the subject matter involved. Again, it was you that offered up that body of research as something that is more simple than talking about those 6 or 7 reference points or 'springs of the joints' to use Joy's phrasing.

[Ali. R]

Or maybe he had a moment of dejavu when he wrote this:


people over complicate the simplest of things with archaic terms and analogies, just to make themselves think they are doings something "special" or "unique".
You aren't.

Take care,

[Wayfaring]

What I really want to know is can I put a snake engine in my car? If I did, how would it run? My dad had a Mazda RX-7 which had a Wankel engine in it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wankel_engine. I always thought that one was different and kind of cool.

[sanjuro_ronin]

The WC forum at it's finest, LMAO !

[Paddington]

Or maybe he had a moment of dejavu when he wrote this:



Take care,

Sorry to gate crash Ali! It was cringe worthy and I 'could'ne take it ne more captain'!

[sanjuro_ronin]

At least you guys are consistent in your delusions, gotta respect that.

[Ali. R]

Sorry to gate crash Ali! It was cringe worthy and I 'could'ne take it ne more captain'!

That’s OK, because those who speak the loudest always have something to hide, and in his case; “if you fail, then try and try again”. Boy, do I feel his pain (http://youtu.be/86RVA6gkUDY).


Take care,

[JPinAZ]

Nope, not really.
IF you know about bio-mechanics and kinesology and know how to express what the human body does in "English" then you don't need "bows" or "snake engine" or any of that nonsense.
Cultural ambiguity aside ( and some people just love the cultural trappings in TCMA), there is no need for then and that can become a determent to correct learning.
In short, they are not needed so don't teach that way.
For everything that is explained with some exotic and esoteric "mumbo-jumbo" there is a simple and basic explanation from bio-mechanics and whatnot.
As a wise man once said:
If you can't explain it simply, you don't know it well enough.

Or you are just trying to pass yourself off as "smarter" or in possession of "the real *insert token TCMA here*.

This post made perfect sense to me. I'm not sure why there was so much confusion over this. The general idea is, there is no need to mystify things - if you understand things at the mechanics level, then you should be able to teach it in simple terms and ideas that beginners understand without all the tacked-on mumbo jumbo nonsense. Simple

On a side note, the 7 bows thing is not really that high level or difficult. It's really just simple WC mechanics with a bunch of new fancy terms and a shiny new his-story to go with it. If connecting the joints (ankle/knee/hip, wrist/elbow/shoulder) aren't already in someone's WC after the first year, then something is seriously missing from their WC.
IMO, Henrik's newly added 7th bow is flat out wrong anyway - he's talking about feet and missing the much bigger part of connecting the 6 joints, which is the spine. Also funny, he used to only talk about 6 bows for the longest time, until he started reading more books from other arts and decided to throw feet into the mix. Which tells me he didn't get his from his sifu, but is making it up as he goes by adding stuff together as he collects it from other arts, books, videos, old scrolls, weird online bai sis, stealing, whatever. All the while still missing what really makes everything work together, and that's the spine. But then, he doesn't do any actual physical partner training, and if you look how horribly he stands, maybe he doesn't even have a spine :eek:
So IMO none of his 'new discoveries' really means anything if he hasn't tested it first for himself. And this constant adding to his theories only proved that his his-story is just that. If it helps someone else, that's great! But IMO it's a lot of attention on something that's not really that big of a deal in the first place. I'm sure this thread will go on another 20 pages regardless because that's what WC'rs do, so carry on! :D

[KPM]

The WC forum at it's finest, LMAO !

Yes! And you don't even recognize that YOU are one of the biggest problems! LMAO!!!

[KPM]

This post made perfect sense to me. I'm not sure why there was so much confusion over this. The general idea is, there is no need to mystify things - if you understand things at the mechanics level, then you should be able to teach it in simple terms and ideas that beginners understand without all the tacked-on mumbo jumbo nonsense. Simple

\

Let me spell it out in as simple of terms as I can for you guys that are being so narrow-minded about something that is really quite straight-forward:

1. Using an analogy like a "bow" is not esoteric and not exclusive to CMA. It is a useful tool to convey concepts and ideas to beginning students.
2. Trying to talk in terms of biomechanics and kinesiology to that beginning student is not simpler and less complicated than using an analogy of a "bow" to explain tensioning across joints.
3. From the very beginning Paddington made it clear that he was talking about one concept that Hendrik mentioned....using an analogy of a bow when talking about how to use the stance properly. He also made it clear that he was proposing how best to teach this concept to a beginner and when to introduce it.
4. Using a simple analogy like a "bow" is NOT mystifying anything. It is applying an understanding of biomechanics to explain things to a student who may not be as familiar with biomechanical concepts and terms as the teacher.

[sanjuro_ronin]

This post made perfect sense to me. I'm not sure why there was so much confusion over this. The general idea is, there is no need to mystify things - if you understand things at the mechanics level, then you should be able to teach it in simple terms and ideas that beginners understand without all the tacked-on mumbo jumbo nonsense. Simple

On a side note, the 7 bows thing is not really that high level or difficult. It's really just simple WC mechanics with a bunch of new fancy terms and a shiny new his-story to go with it. If connecting the joints (ankle/knee/hip, wrist/elbow/shoulder) aren't already in someone's WC after the first year, then something is seriously missing from their WC.
IMO, Henrik's newly added 7th bow is flat out wrong anyway - he's talking about feet and missing the much bigger part of connecting the 6 joints, which is the spine. Also funny, he used to only talk about 6 bows for the longest time, until he started reading more books from other arts and decided to throw feet into the mix. Which tells me he didn't get his from his sifu, but is making it up as he goes by adding stuff together as he collects it from other arts, books, videos, old scrolls, weird online bai sis, stealing, whatever. All the while still missing what really makes everything work together, and that's the spine. But then, he doesn't do any actual physical partner training, and if you look how horribly he stands, maybe he doesn't even have a spine :eek:
So IMO none of his 'new discoveries' really means anything if he hasn't tested it first for himself. And this constant adding to his theories only proved that his his-story is just that. If it helps someone else, that's great! But IMO it's a lot of attention on something that's not really that big of a deal in the first place. I'm sure this thread will go on another 20 pages regardless because that's what WC'rs do, so carry on! :D

The only ones that didn't get it dude are the ones that spend all their time SAYING and THINKING and very little actually DOING.
The sad part is that I still love WC, I still use quite a bit of it and it served me well when I transitioned over to SPM.
And I am not alone on this.
WC is an excellent system, it is simple, concise and effective.
Because it is heavily specialized the "secret" to making it work ( IE: you can fight ANYONE with it, not just other WC people) is that you must cross-test it VS other systems that do NOT have the same body-movement patterns.
Doing WC VS VC will make you good at, *gasp*, fighting WC.
The carryover VS other systems is harder compared to say MT or Hung Kuen for example, is that those two have a more "natural" way of fighting while WC, as I have mentioned before, is more specialized.
It's not just WC by the way, SPM, Dragons fist, Pak Mei, most of the southern "hands" have that "problem".
Of course that problem is also it's biggest advantage because since the southern hand fighter is bringing something different to the fight, he MAY have the advantage.

ANYONE that has done more than ONE MA knows how much even dissimilar systems have in common at their core.

The body moves the way the body moves and, baring some minor adjustments, it isn't really that complicated.

I will say this to anyone though:
The proof of ANY MA is in fighting, period.
Not co-operative fighting, not "student fighting teacher mode", no, fighting someone that wants to knock your block off.

You can express to your students in whatever way you feel tickles your fancy and you can believe that is the best way for them to learn, BUT the only way to know IF they have learned and how well is to see them fight.

The most effective systems of unarmed combat ( in terms of not only producing fighters but proving themselves) has shown that there is NO NEED for any gibberish in teaching.

And to make clear a point that seems to be getting confused over and over:
You do NOT use bio-mechanical terms ( though terms like leverage and such are common place), you use your understanding of bio-mechanics and such to explain things SIMPLY.
No one is saying that you can't use analogies like a "bow" or "bullet" or "whip" ( a common one also), I am saying there there is no need for overly exotic silliness.

[JPinAZ]

Personally speaking, I've always been at least a bit interested in the whole "historical/dna analysis" that hendrik talks about, and I do think that it's possible that he's onto unveiling or revealing some sort of new interesting information.

From what I've seen, all he has 'unveiled' lately is just old information from other non-wing chun arts that he hasn't even physically trained under any sifu (except maybe for some weird online bai si that lasted a few months with little-to-no actual training). Has very little to do with wing chun development.


What I think is silly is that he has a rather closed view on Ving Tsun as if our art is a product of the past alone and that the "real Ving Tsun" requires that we do things exactly as they were done in the past by the oldest famous practitioners. It's a whole mentality based pretty much on stories where the older the lineage is, the better its methods are simply because it represents what the legendary practitioners of the past did, and since there are so few people who prove their kung fu in the present, the legends of the past are all that many people have to bank their faith in since they dont spar or fight themselves. And so the cycle continues...

Haha, I find it all rather silly

[Grumblegeezer]

...the 7 bows thing is not really that high level or difficult. It's really just simple WC mechanics with a bunch of new fancy terms and a shiny new his-story to go with it. If connecting the joints (ankle/knee/hip, wrist/elbow/shoulder) aren't already in someone's WC after the first year, then something is seriously missing from their WC.
IMO, Henrik's newly added 7th bow is flat out wrong anyway - he's talking about feet and missing the much bigger part of connecting the 6 joints, which is the spine. Also funny, he used to only talk about 6 bows for the longest time, until he started reading more books from other arts and decided to throw feet into the mix...

JP, I'm glad you pointed this out. I confess that I often tend to space out a bit when I try to read Hedrick's stuff, so I just kinda assumed that his seven bows were the ankles, knees, hip, spine, shoulder, elbow, and wrist -- since this is what I get when I count up from the foot to the fist. Of course my body might be different than Hendrick's. :P

[Ali. R]

The only ones that didn't get it dude are the ones that spend all their time SAYING and THINKING and very little actually DOING.

Ok. Then do this.


Please explain to us in biomechanical and kinesiological terms in "English" what Paddington is talking about.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Considering that without the spine there is NOTHING, well...

[sanjuro_ronin]

Ok. Then do this.

Are you really that dense dude? seriously ?
WTF !

[sanjuro_ronin]

An example of what I mean:
http://www.expertboxing.com/boxing-techniques/body-movement/joint-strength-and-punching-power


http://www.expertboxing.com/boxing-techniques/punch-techniques/how-to-throw-a-snapping-punch

[Ali. R]

Considering that without the spine there is NOTHING, well...

Then show us your spine dealing with this.


Please explain to us in biomechanical and kinesiological terms in "English" what Paddington is talking about.

[JPinAZ]

Let me spell it out in as simple of terms as I can for you guys that are being so narrow-minded..

Stop right there. I will not address anything else you said until you can do it with a bit of respect.

First, stop grouping me with other people. Every time there's a discussion, you have some weird attachment to grouping a bunch of people together. Why is that? I remind you once again, I speak for myself alone and for no one else. While I do belong to a particular lineage, I only share my views based on my OWN experiences.
Next, you can drop the condescending & passive aggressive attitude. Because I don't agree with someone doesn't make 'narrow-minded'. Actually just the opposite, as having an open mind gives me critical thinking and the ability to analyze things from different angles before I form my opinions.
Lastly, for someone that complained so loudly about the state of the forums lately, you aren't setting a very good example. Some might say that's being a hypocrite.

Now, please try it again, or I have nothing more to say to you.

[JPinAZ]

Ok. Then do this.

You said this in reply to "Please explain to us in biomechanical and kinesiological terms in "English" what Paddington is talking about."

Didn't he JUST do this a few posts ago?


And to make clear a point that seems to be getting confused over and over:
You do NOT use bio-mechanical terms ( though terms like leverage and such are common place), you use your understanding of bio-mechanics and such to explain things SIMPLY. No one is saying that you can't use analogies like a "bow" or "bullet" or "whip" ( a common one also), I am saying there there is no need for overly exotic silliness.

Sounds like he did just do it. Since you haven't added anything to the discussion except to ignore people's posts and continue to badger for evidence already given, couldn't this be called trolling?

[Ali. R]

An example of what I mean:
http://www.expertboxing.com/boxing-techniques/body-movement/joint-strength-and-punching-power

Fu*k example, and why use plagiarism. Lost for words, huh. And you seem to get a big kick out of who might be a fraud (or not)....


Check yourself,

[JPinAZ]

JP, I'm glad you pointed this out. I confess that I often tend to space out a bit when I try to read Hedrick's stuff, so I just kinda assumed that his seven bows were the ankles, knees, hip, spine, shoulder, elbow, and wrist -- since this is what I get when I count up from the foot to the fist. Of course my body might be different than Hendrick's. :P

Haha, try watching one of his videos if you really want to space out ;)

And yeah, that's what I initially assumed as well. Until I pried my eyes open and waded thru his posts and found out that the 'foot' is the 7th bow - in Henrik's understanding anyway. It's not even a major joint (if you can count it as one at all. I guess the toes have joints..). While all the parts of the body are important, there really there isn't a whole lot of function it has after the ankle in regards to joint power and receiving/expelling force except for something to balance on and connect with the floor. By ignoring the spine, one is ignoring WC's first idea of centerline and this is self centerline and gravity. All the bows in the world won't do anyone any good if there is no precise way to connect them or if you can't stand up straight, and this is where the spine is so important. To completely disregard this is, IMO, proof that someone isn't doing the actual physical work to back up their theories.

[Ali. R]

You said this in reply to "Please explain to us in biomechanical and kinesiological terms in "English" what Paddington is talking about."
Didn't he JUST do this a few posts ago?


No one would agree on that statement but you, because you hate everything about me. The way I look, the way I post, the way I present my wing chun etc……….
He did not deal with the question at hand and everyone here knows that to be true, but you.

[Paddington]

This post made perfect sense to me. I'm not sure why there was so much confusion over this. The general idea is, there is no need to mystify things - [...] On a side note, the 7 bows thing is not really that high level or difficult. It's really just simple WC mechanics [...]

Thank you for agreeing with me. It does not matter if we call them joints, springs or bows. Personally, I refer to them as 'joints' when talking to students. Again, the point of my opening post was to suggest that introducing that idea early on, the 6 or 7 joints or whatever you want to call them, is a good idea and helps speeds things up. I never said they were some high level concept, in fact I said the opposite. Indeed, you said you agree with sanjuro_ronin but you actually argue a point counter to him!

Many of the replies to me in this thread are classic examples of opposition, and false opposition at that, for opposition sake. It is funny and ironic watching all these missteps as you attempt to just bully people and shout them down, rather than ask questions for clarification. I am not accusing you specifically, JPinAZ, just making a general comment.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Fu*k example, and why use plagiarism. Lost for words, huh. And you seem to get a big kick out of who might be a fraud (or not)....


Check yourself,

Plagiarism ?
When I post a link to a public source and acknowledge the source?
OK Ali, I wanna make this perfectly clear because, I know, that you don't always comprehend things very well.
Are you accusing me of plagiarizing by linking to public website?

[sanjuro_ronin]

No one would agree on that statement but you, because you hate everything about me. The way I look, the way I post, the way I present my wing chun etc……….
He did not deal with the question at hand and everyone here knows that to be true, but you.

And in regards to this post, I know have my moderator hat on by the way, what exactly are you saying here when you state that "you hate everything about me. The way I look..."

Please be very clear because you seem to be implying something very, VERY serious.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Thank you for agreeing with me. It does not matter if we call them joints, springs or bows. Personally, I refer to them as 'joints' when talking to students. Again, the point of my opening post was to suggest that introducing that idea early on, the 6 or 7 joints or whatever you want to call them, is a good idea and helps speeds things up. I never said they were some high level concept, in fact I said the opposite. Indeed, you said you agree with SR but you actually argue a point counter to him!

Many of the replies to me in this thread are classic examples of opposition, and false opposition at that, for opposition sake. It is funny and ironic watching all these missteps as you attempt to just bully people and shout them down, rather than ask questions for clarification. I am not accusing you specifically, JPinAZ, just making a general comment.

Lets try to be clear then:
My point is simply this -
We do NOT need to use exotic or esoteric terms like Hendrick does ( since his posts ARE the subject title of this thread) and can explain the physical attributed and principles of WC ( or any other MA for that matter) with common words as long as we have a solid grasp of bio-mechanics and Kinesiology, of how the body works.
Do you agree or disagree?

[Paddington]

Lets try to be clear then:
My point is simply this -
We do NOT need to use exotic or esoteric terms like Hendrick does ( since his posts ARE the subject title of this thread) and can explain the physical attributed and principles of WC ( or any other MA for that matter) with common words as long as we have a solid grasp of bio-mechanics and Kinesiology, of how the body works.
Do you agree or disagree?

They are not esoteric terms. Again the point of this thread was to talk about the merits and disadvantages of talking about the 6 or 7 that many people, including those in the body of literature you cite, talk about in the beginning stages of a student's journey through wing chun. What is more simple than labeling them 1, 2, 3, 4... etc.? Seriously, you and a few others are really making fools of yourselves and I am sorry if you feel it has been some form of entrapment; that was not my intent.

[sanjuro_ronin]

They are not esoteric terms. Again the point of this thread was to talk about the merits and disadvantages of talking about the 6 or 7 that many people, including those in the body of literature you cite, talk about in the beginning stages of a student's journey through wing chun. What is more simple than labeling them 1, 2, 3, 4... etc.? Seriously, you and a few others are really making fools of yourselves and I am sorry if you feel it has been some form of entrapment; that was not my intent.

Entrapment?
Dude, quite simply I pointed out there is no need to use the terms Hendrick does to typically explain things that are common in most MA.
Why start off a student on that path?
If you or Hendrick chooses that way, that is your problem.
My point was simply that there is no need for that and that, far too many times, it happens because a teacher is trying to sound more "exotic" and different and having the "real/true WC".

[Ali. R]

And in regards to this post, I know have my moderator hat on by the way....


And you’re the biggest clown that I’ve ever seen in my life.

Now, put that on and see if it fits,

[JPinAZ]

No one would agree on that statement but you, because you hate everything about me. The way I look, the way I post, the way I present my wing chun etc……….
He did not deal with the question at hand and everyone here knows that to be true, but you.

Whoaw.. Besides always playing the self-imposed the poor-me victim here, it's clear there may be something seriously wrong with you.
I hate you? I hate your wing chun? I hate the way you LOOK?!? Really ali, I really don't give 2 sh!ts about you one way or the other. Except now I can see you are paranoid, delusional and a bit F'd in the head to be frank. But what you are implying here speaks volumes for your low level character.

Instead of beating around the bush, why don't you say EXACTLY what you mean by me hating you because of your 'looks'

[Paddington]

Entrapment?
Dude, quite simply I pointed out there is no need to use the terms Hendrick does to typically explain things that are common in most MA.
Why start off a student on that path?
If you or Hendrick chooses that way, that is your problem.
My point was simply that there is no need for that and that, far too many times, it happens because a teacher is trying to sound more "exotic" and different and having the "real/true WC".

You are missing the point and it is perhaps because you are letting your emotions run away with you given the les faux pas that you and others have made in this thread.

When you review Hendrik's material one of the things he does is to introduce those 6 or 7 reference points really early on for beginners. What they are called or how they should be referred to is not the point I am making. Rather, I focus on Hendrik's suggestion that they should be introduced early on. It has nothing to do with wanting to be exotic. Look, we can continue going in circles but with each iteration you actually spiral further into embarrassment.

I've already appologised for using technical terms from theories of learning to argue that the 6 or 7 reference points are 'simple' ideas and JP agrees with me on this. Just let it go and acknowledge that you missed the point and are in error. If you can't do that then just leave this thread alone.

[Paddington]

Whoaw.. Besides always playing the self-imposed the poor-me victim here, it's clear there may be something seriously wrong with you.
I hate you? I hate your wing chun? I hate the way you LOOK?!? Really ali, I really don't give 2 sh!ts about you one way or the other. Except now I can see you are paranoid, delusional and a bit F'd in the head to be frank. But what you are implying here speaks volumes for your low level character.

Instead of beating around the bush, why don't you say EXACTLY what you mean by me hating you because of your 'looks'

And because I disarmed you, you choose another target that you feel easier to vent your frustrations on? Look, Ali sees, as I do (sorry for making this assumption Ali), the idiocy of some of the replies in this thread which are nothing more than poor attempts to bully and be oppositional for oppositions sake. Such posts are a good example of the type of character that some of you have and it 'aint a positive one. For a very long time such people have been bringing down these forums and driving contributors away. That is how I see it.

[Ali. R]

Instead of beating around the bush, why don't you say EXACTLY what you mean by me hating you because of your 'looks'

I don’t like the way ‘Biz Markie (http://youtu.be/nFlcYPbVtec)’ looks, or Mick Jagger's lips. But I don’t hate everything about those guys, like you with me.

[Ali. R]

And because I disarmed you, you choose another target that you feel easier to vent your frustrations on? Look, Ali sees, as I do (sorry for making this assumption Ali), the idiocy of some of the replies in this thread which are nothing more than poor attempts to bully and be oppositional for oppositions sake. Such posts are a good example of the type of character that some of you have and it 'aint a positive one. For a very long time such people have been bringing down these forums and driving contributors away. That is how I see it.

I see it the same way and that's why I'm so disgusted.

[JPinAZ]

Thank you for agreeing with me. It does not matter if we call them joints, springs or bows. Personally, I refer to them as 'joints' when talking to students. Again, the point of my opening post was to suggest that introducing that idea early on, the 6 or 7 joints or whatever you want to call them, is a good idea and helps speeds things up. I never said they were some high level concept, in fact I said the opposite. Indeed, you said you agree with sanjuro_ronin but you actually argue a point counter to him!

Many of the replies to me in this thread are classic examples of opposition, and false opposition at that, for opposition sake. It is funny and ironic watching all these missteps as you attempt to just bully people and shout them down, rather than ask questions for clarification. I am not accusing you specifically, JPinAZ, just making a general comment.

Are there planets in alignment today or solar flares or something? Because after reading this thread and the way people are acting/reacting to stuff that's not even going on, it is starting to come off as some bizarre Twilight Zone episode.

Really, I have no idea what you're making such a fuss about, as I don't remember saying I agreed or disagreed with you at all on this thread. I just couldn't understand why people were having a hard time understanding what Sanjuro wrote, as it made pretty simple sense to me - as does what you're saying in this post. Actually, it seems you are both saying the sorta the same thing on this point, so not really sure the confusion. :confused:

But now I'm bullying and shutting people down? you got all of that from my posts? Yeah, I didn't appreciate getting lumped together by Keith as usual and called close minded and I have no idea what trip Ali's on... but now I'm at fault here for just sharing an opinion? I think everyone really needs to take a deep breath and relax a bit. Or maybe take a break and come back at it tomorrow because this thread is really taking a weird turn for the strange and unusually more-unusual than this forum normally is..

[JPinAZ]

I don’t like the way ‘Biz Markie (http://youtu.be/nFlcYPbVtec)’ looks, or Mick Jagger's lips. But I don’t hate everything about those guys, like you with me.

You couldn't say it could you?
Your continued accusations toward me are ignorant and if I cared, insulting. I'm done with your negative, paranoid and delusional behavior.

[Paddington]

Are there planets in alignment today or solar flares or something? Because after reading this thread and the way people are acting/reacting to stuff that's not even going on, it is starting to come off as some bizarre Twilight Zone episode.

Really, I have no idea what you're making such a fuss about, as I don't remember saying I agreed or disagreed with you at all on this thread. I just couldn't understand why people were having a hard time understanding what Sanjuro wrote, as it made pretty simple sense to me - as does what you're saying in this post. Actually, it seems you are both saying the sorta the same thing on this point, so not really sure the confusion. :confused:

But now I'm bullying and shutting people down? you got all of that from my posts? Yeah, I didn't appreciate getting lumped together by Keith as usual and called close minded and I have no idea what trip Ali's on... but now I'm at fault here for just sharing an opinion? I think everyone really needs to take a deep breath and relax a bit. Or maybe take a break and come back at it tomorrow because this thread is really taking a weird turn for the strange and unusually more-unusual than this forum normally is..

I say this in a totally open handed way and invite you to read over some of the posts I've made in reply to you and the citations of you I've made. I would also invite you to re-read my opening post and follow the clarifications I make in subsequent posts. No hard feelings here.

[sanjuro_ronin]

And you’re the biggest clown that I’ve ever seen in my life.

Now, put that on and see if it fits,

Nice knowing you.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Paddington,
You attempts are some sort of intellectual superiority are rather sad.
None of what you wrote is above anyone heads, we simply disagree with you and Hendrick's pontification.
Period.
None of that matters as much as the silliness that Ali has brought into this thread with his veiled accusations of racism and his incredibly erroneous accusation of plagiarisms.
That will be dealt with ASAP.
Done with this thread.

[Paddington]

Nice knowing you.

Stop jumping to other targets that you perceive are easier to verbally fight with. There are a number of counter points I've made to yours and a number of observations I've made that place you in a poor light. I am the correct target for your verbal assault, not Ali R.

[Ali. R]

Plagiarism ?
When I post a link to a public source and acknowledge the source?
OK Ali, I wanna make this perfectly clear because, I know, that you don't always comprehend things very well.
Are you accusing me of plagiarizing by linking to public website?

Yes, by using someone else's words, which drew you even further from the original premise because you couldn't come up with your own, which is sad and very weak. But, if it hadn't thrown you off the point/premise, then I've might have giving you a little credit, but you're simply worthless.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Stop jumping to other targets that you perceive are easier to verbally fight with. There are a number of counter points I've made to yours and a number of observations I've made that place you in a poor light. I am the correct target for your verbal assault, not Ali R.

Ali made false accusations and implied racism, that is far moire important that any WC silliness right now.
We have a zero tolerance for that crap, even in the WC forum.

[Ali. R]

You couldn't say it could you?
Your continued accusations toward me are ignorant and if I cared, insulting. I'm done with your negative, paranoid and delusional behavior.

I couldn't say what? I'd meant what I've wrote, and what do you want me to say?

[KPM]

Stop right there. I will not address anything else you said until you can do it with a bit of respect.

First, stop grouping me with other people. Every time there's a discussion, you have some weird attachment to grouping a bunch of people together. Why is that?

I was not disrepectful at all. And recall, you said this:

This post made perfect sense to me. I'm not sure why there was so much confusion over this. The general idea is, there is no need to mystify things - if you understand things at the mechanics level, then you should be able to teach it in simple terms and ideas that beginners understand without all the tacked-on mumbo jumbo nonsense. Simple

It seemed to me that you were saying that Paddington was "mystifying" things and referred to what he was saying as "mumbo jumbo nonsense." You certainly didn't understand what he was trying to convey, and certainly missed his point. You definitely belonged in the "group" I was addressing. So you can stop generalizing about me and address me with a bit more respect yourself. And besides, it sounds like you need to HARDEN THE FXCK UP! to quote a recent recommendation.

[Ali. R]

Ali made false accusations and implied racism, that is far moire important that any WC silliness right now.
We have a zero tolerance for that crap, even in the WC forum.

This is how you run away from subjects and you only see racism because you want to see it. I've been called uppity and all kinds of foul things here on this forum, where were you then?

[tc101]

The only ones that didn't get it dude are the ones that spend all their time SAYING and THINKING and very little actually DOING.
The sad part is that I still love WC, I still use quite a bit of it and it served me well when I transitioned over to SPM.
And I am not alone on this.
WC is an excellent system, it is simple, concise and effective.
Because it is heavily specialized the "secret" to making it work ( IE: you can fight ANYONE with it, not just other WC people) is that you must cross-test it VS other systems that do NOT have the same body-movement patterns.
Doing WC VS VC will make you good at, *gasp*, fighting WC.
The carryover VS other systems is harder compared to say MT or Hung Kuen for example, is that those two have a more "natural" way of fighting while WC, as I have mentioned before, is more specialized.
It's not just WC by the way, SPM, Dragons fist, Pak Mei, most of the southern "hands" have that "problem".
Of course that problem is also it's biggest advantage because since the southern hand fighter is bringing something different to the fight, he MAY have the advantage.

ANYONE that has done more than ONE MA knows how much even dissimilar systems have in common at their core.

The body moves the way the body moves and, baring some minor adjustments, it isn't really that complicated.

I will say this to anyone though:
The proof of ANY MA is in fighting, period.
Not co-operative fighting, not "student fighting teacher mode", no, fighting someone that wants to knock your block off.

You can express to your students in whatever way you feel tickles your fancy and you can believe that is the best way for them to learn, BUT the only way to know IF they have learned and how well is to see them fight.

The most effective systems of unarmed combat ( in terms of not only producing fighters but proving themselves) has shown that there is NO NEED for any gibberish in teaching.

And to make clear a point that seems to be getting confused over and over:
You do NOT use bio-mechanical terms ( though terms like leverage and such are common place), you use your understanding of bio-mechanics and such to explain things SIMPLY.
No one is saying that you can't use analogies like a "bow" or "bullet" or "whip" ( a common one also), I am saying there there is no need for overly exotic silliness.

Thank you for talking sense. You are of course 100% right on the money. Its always the guys who can't do it but want to tell you how it should be done that use the gibberish. Its really simple, you show some one how to do it then have them practice doing it. No explanation needed. Of course if you can't do it and so can't teach them how to do it then you talk gibberish about bows and the spine and chi and the rest.

[JPinAZ]

Stop right there. I will not address anything else you said until you can do it with a bit of respect.

First, stop grouping me with other people. Every time there's a discussion, you have some weird attachment to grouping a bunch of people together. Why is that?

I was not disrepectful at all. And recall, you said this:

What do you call it when you lump me in with other 'narrow minded people' you feel you need to talk down to in simple terms so we all get it?
We've gone thru this a few times in the past, some of which you've apologized for, yet you continue to do it. Yes, I find that a lack of respect. I don't group you with anyone because, even if I disagree with you, I still see you as an intelligent person that is fully capable of speaking for yourself. That is respect. I just ask the same from you in return.

*Edit* As for the rest, if someone wants to comment on something I've said regarding the OP's subject or 6/7 bows, I'm all for it but I'm done with the back and forth he-said she-said personal stuff, it's not worth the hassle.

[Ali. R]

You’re so far off the subject it’s not even funny anymore, and I believe that you’re doing it on purpose.

[David Jamieson]

Let's keep it civil in here please and thank you.

[Paddington]

You’re so far off the subject it’s not even funny anymore, and I believe that you’re doing it on purpose.

Of course they are! Tc101 latest contribution continues the self contradiction amongst this group.


Let's keep it civil in here please and thank you.

David, they have been at it like this for a very long time and they are even contradicting themselves just to derail the thread. They cannot even manage continuity amongst themselves. It is the same people at it all the time and this forum, which does feed into your business, is suffering because of them. It is not just the case of a free speech issue in their favour. Their behaviour has actually curtailed the speech of many over the years by the constant harrying, straw man arguments and pack like behaviour. For each person they see off from these boards you loose another potential subscriber to your mag. Indeed, people will judge your magazine by what these very forums are like.

[JPinAZ]

Of course they are! Tc101 latest contribution continues the self contradiction amongst this group.

David, they have been at it like this for a very long time and they are even contradicting themselves just to derail the thread. They cannot even manage continuity amongst themselves. It is the same people at it all the time and this forum, which does feed into your business, is suffering because of them. It is not just the case of a free speech issue in their favour. Their behaviour has actually curtailed the speech of many over the years by the constant harrying, straw man arguments and pack like behaviour. For each person they see off from these boards you loose another potential subscriber to your mag. Indeed, people will judge your magazine by what these very forums are like.

Really? So much for taking David's advice/warning.

I for one think this forum would be done a great justice if this entire thread simply disappeared.

[KPM]

the idiocy of some of the replies in this thread which are nothing more than poor attempts to bully and be oppositional for oppositions sake. Such posts are a good example of the type of character that some of you have and it 'aint a positive one. For a very long time such people have been bringing down these forums and driving contributors away. That is how I see it.

I see it plain and clear and agree with you.

[Paddington]

Really? Just can't help yourself eh? So much for taking David's advice/warning.

I for one think this forum would be done a great justice if this entire thread simply disappeared. You know, to save Gene from losing further customers and stop this notorious gang that is looking to silence people and take money out of his pocket :rolleyes:

I was perfectly civil. Using a collective pronoun is not to be uncivil. If this thread goes I will just post up what I wrote again as there is nothing wrong with my opening post. As others have suggested, it is the case of certain people intentionally derailing threads and then calling for locks and deletion. Your behaviour does fit this pattern and is uncivil.

[GlennR]

David, they have been at it like this for a very long time and they are even contradicting themselves just to derail the thread. They cannot even manage continuity amongst themselves. It is the same people at it all the time and this forum, which does feed into your business, is suffering because of them. It is not just the case of a free speech issue in their favour. Their behaviour has actually curtailed the speech of many over the years by the constant harrying, straw man arguments and pack like behaviour. For each person they see off from these boards you loose another potential subscriber to your mag. Indeed, people will judge your magazine by what these very forums are like.

Seriously P.... i mean seriously, get over yourself
I was the first to reply to this thread saying....

Hi Paddington
No one on here, that i can recall, actually said that his ideas had no merit. In fact a lot of people agreed with him on things like 7 bows etc.

See the word ageed?

Plenty of the folk here saw some merit in his ideas, even when they are just recycled from others, but merit nonetheless.
Two or three replies in and you start with pseudo-intellectual claptrap trying to stand on the "higher ground" and you wonder why people get their nose out of joint with you now!!

Honestly, did you learn to devolve all social skills while training with Hendrik?

Mate, lets try again

You said


I argued that the idea of the 'bows' is actually a lower order concept as it relies on sensation and feeling and discovering the body. One can focus or have intent at each of the 'bows' and attempt relaxation through each of them sequentially. What is more when one looks and experiments with the alignment of bows, inasmuch as achieving good structure, the mind's focus and intent is further refined to those muscle groupings responsible and it makes it easier for students to attain the required relaxation and body sensations, to achieve good structure and actually 'feel through their bones and joints', jin flow.

Having recently taken on a few students I experimented with delivering the basics as my previous Sifu had done with some of them and with the others, I used the idea of the bows and more meditative exercises to enhance relaxation and body sensation first. In my overly small and unrepresentative sample I found that those I took through the second path were able to progress more quickly.

Now, not using the term "bows" im a TST guy and he basically does the same thing, and im sure he's not alone in this way of teaching.
Get it?????

Hendrik has NOT found anything new, its all out there already, and if you want to keep your eyes blinkered and follow Hendriks ideas like some cult member then off you go.

Now back to your bubble and say hi to Hendrik for me

[JPinAZ]

I was perfectly civil. Using a collective pronoun is not to be uncivil. If this thread goes I will just post up what I wrote again as there is nothing wrong with my opening post. As others have suggested, it is the case of certain people intentionally derailing threads and then calling for locks and deletion. Your behaviour does fit this pattern and is uncivil.

Sure, and if you bat your eyes, does that make you appear even more innocent? Because you're not above any of the criticism you are giving everyone else.

Look, you can turn and twist things however you want. But I've added my viewpoint on more than a couple posts on this thread in an attempt to stay on-topic and forward the discussion - regardless of the side-noise going on. See posts 48, 62 and 76 for quick examples. Yes, there are parts where I don't agree with you or Hendrik, but that's my right. If you can't handle disagreements, then maybe you should stop making posts about subjects like this. But there were several people that agreed with my views even if you didn't. Get over it. Heck, in one of my posts I even pointed that it appeared that me, you and Sanjuro were in semi-agreement on some things! So I don't see your problem, unless you're just trying to create one to meet some agenda..

Now, what did you really expect when you create a thread on what is an obviously controversial subject & person as of late on this forum? That everyone was just going to join hands, all agree in unison and then have a big group hug around the camp fire? And, you are conveniently ignoring the fact that there was another person here with the sole intention to disrupt and make such personal, ugly and derogatory insinuations that they unfortunately got banned. Where was your condescending & chastising post for them?

[KPM]

Hendrik has NOT found anything new, its all out there already, and if you want to keep your eyes blinkered and follow Hendriks ideas like some cult member then off you go.

Now back to your bubble and say hi to Hendrik for me

Honestly Glenn? You must not be reading very closely. Paddington said in that very first post:

Contrary to popular belief those ideas are in Ip Man wing chun and something that I have heard and seen passed on by those good folks at the VTAA in HK, as well as through their representatives in the UK.

[GlennR]

Honestly Glenn? You must not be reading very closely. Paddington said in that very first post:

Contrary to popular belief those ideas are in Ip Man wing chun and something that I have heard and seen passed on by those good folks at the VTAA in HK, as well as through their representatives in the UK.

And when i asked him..........

You're right to a degree, I did skim over your initial thread starter so for someone that struggles to read your somewhat convoluted post....... What exactly is the point you are trying to make?

He ignored me.

Selective reading from you too Keith??

[KPM]

And when i asked him..........

You're right to a degree, I did skim over your initial thread starter so for someone that struggles to read your somewhat convoluted post....... What exactly is the point you are trying to make?

He ignored me.

Selective reading from you too Keith??

No. Not at all. I assumed, as Paddington must have, that you are perfectly capable of going back and rereading rather than skimming his initial post. But obviously, you didn't bother.

[GlennR]

No. Not at all. I assumed, as Paddington must have, that you are perfectly capable of going back and rereading rather than skimming his initial post. But obviously, you didn't bother.

I did, and it still appears to me that he thinks Hendrik is onto something new........ isnt that what the threads about?

So when i ask him to clarify it he ignores me as you just have.

But hey, that was always Hendriks way as well

[KPM]

I did, and it still appears to me that he thinks Hendrik is onto something new........ isnt that what the threads about?

So when i ask him to clarify it he ignores me as you just have.

But hey, that was always Hendriks way as well

Contrary to popular belief those ideas are in Ip Man wing chun and something that I have heard and seen passed on by those good folks at the VTAA in HK, as well as through their representatives in the UK.

When I respond to someone multiple times I am accused of being somewhat "hysterical." When I don't I am accused of "ignoring." Guess I can't win for losing around here. :rolleyes: I also can't help you with your reading comprehension skills. Sorry about that!

[GlennR]

Contrary to popular belief those ideas are in Ip Man wing chun and something that I have heard and seen passed on by those good folks at the VTAA in HK, as well as through their representatives in the UK.

When I respond to someone multiple times I am accused of being somewhat "hysterical." When I don't I am accused of "ignoring." Guess I can't win for losing around here. :rolleyes: I also can't help you with your reading comprehension skills. Sorry about that!

Gee Keith, sorry i asked him to clarify his position

How **** unreasonable of me!!!!!

But thats ok, you seem to enjoy the emotional gratification from trying to prove someone elses unverified point

[Paddington]

[...]
Now, not using the term "bows" im a TST guy and he basically does the same thing, and im sure he's not alone in this way of teaching.
Get it?????

Hendrik has NOT found anything new, its all out there already, and if you want to keep your eyes blinkered and follow Hendriks ideas like some cult member then off you go.

Now back to your bubble and say hi to Hendrik for me

GlennR, you are still missing the point. At no point had I said that Hendrik had discovered something new. He does not even claim that himself. The point I made and what I offered up for debate were the merits and disadvantages of introducing the 6 or 7 seven reference points from day one. I also argued that they were simple concepts to introduce. It is not me that is in a bubble here.


I did, and it still appears to me that he thinks Hendrik is onto something new........ isnt that what the threads about?

So when i ask him to clarify it he ignores me as you just have.

But hey, that was always Hendriks way as well

I will quote myself because it shows that you have not read what I have previously written to clarify;


[...] When you review Hendrik's material one of the things he does is to introduce those 6 or 7 reference points really early on for beginners. What they are called or how they should be referred to is not the point I am making. Rather, I focus on Hendrik's suggestion that they should be introduced early on [...]


Nearly every charge you have levied at me I have shown to be wrong.

[Minghequan]

Paddington

Are you in any way connected to Hendrik? Are you in communication with him?

[Paddington]

Paddington

Are you in any way connected to Hendrik? Are you in communication with him?

I've spoken to Hendrik in the past via emails such as when I asked him to clarify points on linking breathing and movement. I also asked him via email, if I remember correctly, to clarify the details of the foot's coupling with the ground and in which order he thought it best to relax each of the joints or 'bows'. With regards to the latter question he posted up a video to respond. I don't think I was the only one asking those questions.

Ron, I don't take anyone's word for it and prefer to try it out for myself and all I said was that introducing these 6 or 7 reference points from day one, really helps people new to wing chun to improve.

EDIT: As you know the PM system on these boards has a word limit and if I asked Hendrik questions via making threads on these boards, said threads would just be disrupted by a lot of negativity.

EDIT2: Just to clarify my relationship with Hendrik, it is no different from my relationship to you in that I met him via these boards, PMed him a few times and engaged in email conversations with him.

[tc101]

Of course they are! Tc101 latest contribution continues the self contradiction amongst this group.


Sanjuro's brings what I can only call a non typical wing chunners perspective to these discussions.

Honestly a huge problem here and you and KPM are examples while Hendrik is the downright leader of that group is that you think your intellectual grasp of wing chun and the associated trivia and theory makes you some authority and you get peeved when some one who comes from a different perspective says all your intellectual rumblings are more or less hot meaningless air. I learned that what is important is what you can do. Do. Not talk about doing but really do. It's funny that KPM was arguing how wing chun works with Alan Orr. That sums it all up really. You got someone who can't make their art work arguing with some one fighting pro level fighters and producing students who can do it.

[KPM]

Sanjuro's brings what I can only call a non typical wing chunners perspective to these discussions.

Honestly a huge problem here and you and KPM are examples while Hendrik is the downright leader of that group is that you think your intellectual grasp of wing chun and the associated trivia and theory makes you some authority and you get peeved when some one who comes from a different perspective says all your intellectual rumblings are more or less hot meaningless air. I learned that what is important is what you can do. Do. Not talk about doing but really do. It's funny that KPM was arguing how wing chun works with Alan Orr. That sums it all up really. You got someone who can't make their art work arguing with some one fighting pro level fighters and producing students who can do it.

I will say.....again....this is a discussion forum. We come here to d..i..s...c...u...s...s things....with words. This is not youtube. You keep repeating your mantra on multiple threads, saying everyone else's problem is that we look at Wing Chun from an intellectual perspective and that we don't know how to actually "do" it, when you yourself have never posted any video showing how you "do" Wing Chun. So all YOU do is "talk about doing" as well! But you don't seem to see that. AGAIN....this is a discussion forum. We come here to discuss things....with language....with words....from an intellectual perspective. If you don't like what is talked about and how it is talked about, then go to the MMA forum. But I think you will find that they are also discussing things....with words. :rolleyes:

[KPM]

Gee Keith, sorry i asked him to clarify his position

How **** unreasonable of me!!!!!

But thats ok, you seem to enjoy the emotional gratification from trying to prove someone elses unverified point

Who's whining now Glenn? :rolleyes: Or is it "whinging"?

[Paddington]

Sanjuro's brings what I can only call a non typical wing chunners perspective to these discussions.

Honestly a huge problem here and you and KPM are examples while Hendrik is the downright leader of that group is that you think your intellectual grasp of wing chun and the associated trivia and theory makes you some authority and you get peeved when some one who comes from a different perspective says all your intellectual rumblings are more or less hot meaningless air. I learned that what is important is what you can do. Do. Not talk about doing but really do. It's funny that KPM was arguing how wing chun works with Alan Orr. That sums it all up really. You got someone who can't make their art work arguing with some one fighting pro level fighters and producing students who can do it.

Nah, quite a few of the replies in this thread do not even address what I said and that includes SJ. I don't even think you know what I was asking and the point I was making, despite my repeating it several times. I don't position myself as an authority, in fact I do the opposite. It is all there in 'black and white'. It is more the case of people coming to this thread and jumping on points they feel are easy to attack rather than addressing the substantive topic at hand. It is unfortunate that you do not see or understand this.

[tc101]

I will say.....again....this is a discussion forum. We come here to d..i..s...c...u...s...s things....with words. This is not youtube. You keep repeating your mantra on multiple threads, saying everyone else's problem is that we look at Wing Chun from an intellectual perspective and that we don't know how to actually "do" it, when you yourself have never posted any video showing how you "do" Wing Chun. So all YOU do is "talk about doing" as well! But you don't seem to see that. AGAIN....this is a discussion forum. We come here to discuss things....with language....with words....from an intellectual perspective. If you don't like what is talked about and how it is talked about, then go to the MMA forum. But I think you will find that they are also discussing things....with words. :rolleyes:

I understand I really do it is a discussion forum. Right. We are here to discuss things. I get that. What you don't seem to get is just because it is a discussion forum that this means that everyone knows what they are talking about or that all opinions have merit. Just because it is a discussion forum does not mean we should talk about things we really have knowledge of.

You think knowledge in wing chun is intellectual speculation or repeating what you have heard or read. My perspective is knowledge in wing chun is what you can do and what you are doing. If you are doing it then you know if you are not and cannot do it you don't really know. If you are doing it then you can talk about it. Do you think if a wing chun guy can't do chi sau he can intelligently talk about it on a forum? Tell others how they should be doing it?

In the same way How can some one not sparring or fighting with their wing chun talk about application? What do they really know about application?

How can some one who is not landing solid punches in sparring talk about power generation? What do they really know about generating functional power that is power that works in application?

Mma and boxing and other arts have forums also and what you see there are guys talking about what they do not how they think things should be done.

[tc101]

Nah, quite a few of the replies in this thread do not even address what I said and that includes SJ. I don't even think you know what I was asking and the point I was making, despite my repeating it several times. I don't position myself as an authority, in fact I do the opposite. It is all there in 'black and white'. It is more the case of people coming to this thread and jumping on points they feel are easy to attack rather than addressing the substantive topic at hand. It is unfortunate that you do not see or understand this.

The substantive issue is that Hendrik's stuff is mostly intellectual gibberish from some one who cannot do what he talks about. What else is there to discuss?

[sanjuro_ronin]

FYI:
We have a zero tolerance for accusations of slander, racism, plagiarism, basically any accusation that is serious enough to warrant legal action.
The individual in question that shot out those accusations has been banned, as he was before when he did similar things and "snuck" back in with a different IP address.
We can discuss and argue and debate MA as much as we want and it can get as heated as it can UP TO THE POINT where anyone making slanderous accusations will be banned.
It is just the simple.

If you have an argument and you feel it has merit then make your point and leave it be, if it has merit and can stand on its own, great, if not then that is OK too.
What is 100% NOT acceptable is slanderous accusations ( like saying someone is plagiarizing an article) or insinuating that someone is a racist.

Hope that is understood by all.

Carry on.

[Paddington]

Thread successfully subverted and destroyed and a member banned for, in essence, pointing that out and then being led by you to the edge of the cliff, eh boys? Shameful.

No, I will keep posting here because I am not going to be bullied of site by your antics. In the future I will take people's advice and just ignore the antagonistic replies.

[KPM]

I understand I really do it is a discussion forum. Right. We are here to discuss things. I get that.

No. Apparently you don't! As evidenced by the rest of your reply!

What you don't seem to get is just because it is a discussion forum that this means that everyone knows what they are talking about or that all opinions have merit. Just because it is a discussion forum does not mean we should talk about things we really have knowledge of.

I never assumed that everyone knows what they are talking about. And how in the heck are we going to know whether or not the person we are talking to "really has knowledge"??? That's just a ridiculous statement, which again just shows that you really don't get it. Everyone here has an equal voice. No one has to "prove" that they "really" have knowledge. A beginner should feel welcome to post questions and give their own comments and feedback. Should everyone provide a resume for your inspection before participating in a discussion? Should everyone post a video showing them fighting full contact with their Wing Chun to gain membership here and be allowed to participate in a discussion?

You think knowledge in wing chun is intellectual speculation or repeating what you have heard or read.

And also what is gained through experience and training. But all we can do is TALK about that experience and training....with words....as a discussion.


My perspective is knowledge in wing chun is what you can do and what you are doing. If you are doing it then you know if you are not and cannot do it you don't really know. If you are doing it then you can talk about it. Do you think if a wing chun guy can't do chi sau he can intelligently talk about it on a forum? Tell others how they should be doing it?

You can have no idea of the skill level of the person you are talking to unless you have meet and trained with them personally. Since that isn't the case for 95% of the people here, then you just have to go by what they have to say....with words....in this discussion forum. To continue to repeat your mantra on multiple threads is kind of pointless.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Kevin, you mentioned that discussion thing before and fair enough, this is a discussion forum.
That said people post videos all the time.
Some of them are instructional, some are demos and some are actual fights.
I don't think that it is unwarranted to ask a person that has post videos before, to post one showing the practical applications of their theories, no?

[tc101]

I understand I really do it is a discussion forum. Right. We are here to discuss things. I get that.

No. Apparently you don't! As evidenced by the rest of your reply!

What you don't seem to get is just because it is a discussion forum that this means that everyone knows what they are talking about or that all opinions have merit. Just because it is a discussion forum does not mean we should talk about things we really have knowledge of.

I never assumed that everyone knows what they are talking about. And how in the heck are we going to know whether or not the person we are talking to "really has knowledge"??? That's just a ridiculous statement, which again just shows that you really don't get it. Everyone here has an equal voice. No one has to "prove" that they "really" have knowledge. A beginner should feel welcome to post questions and give their own comments and feedback. Should everyone provide a resume for your inspection before participating in a discussion? Should everyone post a video showing them fighting full contact with their Wing Chun to gain membership here and be allowed to participate in a discussion?

You think knowledge in wing chun is intellectual speculation or repeating what you have heard or read.

And also what is gained through experience and training. But all we can do is TALK about that experience and training....with words....as a discussion.


Yes yes it is a discussion forum and everyone has an equal opportunity to voice their opinions and perspective and also everyone can question those people voicing their opinions.

You ask how can we tell who has knowledge? Well one thing we can do is ask are you doing it? If some one says they think we should be controlling an opponents balance in fighting ask them if they are doing it or if they know anyone doing it or is it something they just think would be a nice thing to be able to do.

Your tag like is Vulcan wing chun but I think you should change it to idle speculation wing chun because that is what so much of your discussion involves.



My perspective is knowledge in wing chun is what you can do and what you are doing. If you are doing it then you know if you are not and cannot do it you don't really know. If you are doing it then you can talk about it. Do you think if a wing chun guy can't do chi sau he can intelligently talk about it on a forum? Tell others how they should be doing it?

You can have no idea of the skill level of the person you are talking to unless you have meet and trained with them personally. Since that isn't the case for 95% of the people here, then you just have to go by what they have to say....with words....in this discussion forum. To continue to repeat your mantra on multiple threads is kind of pointless.

You don't get it do you? On mma or boxing forums I do not know the skill level of the people either but you can tell by the discussions that they are talking about what they are really doing. An example from here when I first joined was a discussion about how to deal with boxers. It was all idle speculation except for Wayfaring who reported on what worked for him what didn't work and so forth when he actually sparred with a boxer.

Yes my mantra is how do you know? When I hear people talk I ask how do you know. Do you know because you are doing it or is it just armchair idle speculation? I ask that because I want to know whether what a person is saying has any substance or not. That is how I evaluate what people say.
Let's use an example how does Hendrik pass my mantra test? Is this something he is doing? Or is it idle armchair speculation?

[JPinAZ]

. At no point had I said that Hendrik had discovered something new. He does not even claim that himself. The point I made and what I offered up for debate were the merits and disadvantages of introducing the 6 or 7 seven reference points from day one. I also argued that they were simple concepts to introduce. It is not me that is in a bubble here.

Actually, you didn't claim that, but yes Hendrik does. Many times he's implies that most lineages do not have this very simple & common information (as you agree) if they do not come from his Emei+Crane=wing chun style. As he often claims this information comes from those to 'mother arts', which we all know is not true because most all wing chun has this simple idea of connecting joints for power generation/absorption & WC structural usage.

A good point is, if they are such common and simple ideas, why has Hendrik been making such a big deal on his recent discoveries of these things? Are we to believe he is just now learning about having to connect the major joints of the body after 20+ years of researching and studying wing chun?

And maybe I have it wrong, but it does sound like this is what you are saying.

[Paddington]

Actually, you didn't claim that, but yes Hendrik does. Many times he's implies that most lineages do not have this very simple & common information (as you agree) if they do not come from his Emei+Crane=wing chun style. As he often claims this information comes from those to 'mother arts', which we all know is not true because most all wing chun has this simple idea of connecting joints for power generation/absorption & WC structural usage.

A good point is, if they are such common and simple ideas, why has Hendrik been making such a big deal on his recent discoveries of these things? Are we to believe he is just now learning about having to connect the major joints of the body after 20+ years of researching and studying wing chun?

And maybe I have it wrong, but it does sound like this is what you are saying.

No, I was making a teaching point and arguing for the introduction of those reference points early on in a new students wing chun journey, possibly in lesson 1. This is actually something Hendrik suggests (introducing them early on) and that was what I was focusing on. I also questioned why some Sifu's choose not to talk about such reference points even amongst their senior students. The reason why I suggested that is because I believe it speeds up a given person's acquisition of skill in wing chun.

EDIT: I chose to ask this question and raise this teaching point, despite all the controversy surrounding Hendrik of late, because I feel that if one focuses on the content of his suggestions and leaves to the side debates over origins, people can benefit particularly those new to wing chun. I also felt that the accusations that Hendrik was just in it for the money were false and that he genuinely believes that he just wants to help people. I don't agree with everything he says but I do think he is onto something, by suggesting those reference points are introduced early on.

EDIT2 By reference points I mean the 6 or 7 'bows', 'joints' or whatever you want to call them.

[JPinAZ]

ok Paddigton, after reading you last post and then rereading your fist post, all you are really saying is that the idea of connecting the main 6 joints of the body is something a beginner should have no issue being introduced to. I fully agree. 100%

I've studied 2 lineages of wing chun. Yip Man line thru moy yat, and non-Red Boat lineage HFY. In both, the general idea of ankle/knee/hip-wrist/elbow/shoulder connection for generating power, recieving force and using structure were introduced to very early on. While I disagree with Hendrik's '7th bow' that he added in later on (I argue the spine is WAY more important that the foot in connecting these 6 main joints), it's seems to be a common enough idea in a lot of lineages - at the surface level anyway.

So, I ask again, why the big deal about this, the yik kam Emei+Crane=wc mother arts connection, snake engines and the maybe 100+ threads+videos on the subject? Wouldn't just one suffice? Also, I'm still baffled how this appears to be a new discovery to both Hendrik and Sergio, only after years of research and having to go to non-wing chun systems to get it... Sure, maybe they just weren't shared this knowledge by all of their collective teachers & reasearhc, but really??

[Paddington]

ok Paddigton, after reading you last post and then rereading your fist post, all you are really saying is that the idea of connecting the main 6 joints of the body is something a beginner should have no issue being introduced to. I fully agree. 100%

I've studied 2 lineages of wing chun. Yip Man line thru moy yat, and non-Red Boat lineage HFY. In both, the general idea of ankle/knee/hip-wrist/elbow/shoulder connection for generating power, recieving force and using structure were introduced to very early on. While I disagree with Hendrik's '7th bow' that he added in later on (I argue the spine is WAY more important that the foot in connecting these 6 main joints), it's seems to be a common enough idea in a lot of lineages - at the surface level anyway.

So, I ask again, why the big deal about this, the yik kam Emei+Crane=wc mother arts connection, snake engines and the maybe 100+ threads+videos on the subject? Wouldn't just one suffice? Also, I'm still baffled how this appears to be a new discovery to both Hendrik and Sergio, only after years of research and having to go to non-wing chun systems to get it... Sure, maybe they just weren't shared this knowledge by all of their collective teachers & reasearhc, but really??

None of those threads focused on the teaching point I made. I am a bit old fashioned when it comes to using forums in that I like to have threads that stay on topic and don't bounce around through the introduction of different topics or points in a single thread.

You make a good point asking why some are not introduced to those reference points even when the given lineage has that body of knowledge. Indeed, it is a question I ask too and the answers, I imagine, are quite varied but my cynical mind inclines me towards the thought that some Sifu's don't want their students to develop 'too fast'. Is it too cynical to suggest that some Sifu's drip feed their students intentionally?

[JPinAZ]

None of those threads focused on the teaching point I made. I am a bit old fashioned when it comes to using forums in that I like to have threads that stay on topic and don't bounce around through the introduction of different topics or points in a single thread.

Maybe you are right, they didn't focus on the teaching aspects, which is also quite surprising given the amount of time and effort he's devoted to promoting this new discovery of his.
I wasn't trying to 'bounce around' or go off topic, I just figured the actual technology and how Hendrik came by it was relevent since his name is in the title. I was interested in hearing your opinion on where/when/how Henrdik came by this information and it may be a clue as to why he's never commented on how/when to teach it. If it's a new discovery for him from another art that wasn't originally in his WC, then that would maybe make sense why.


You make a good point asking why some are not introduced to those reference points even when the given lineage has that body of knowledge. Indeed, it is a question I ask too and the answers, I imagine, are quite varied but my cynical mind inclines me towards the thought that some Sifu's don't want their students to develop 'too fast'. Is it too cynical to suggest that some Sifu's drip feed their students intentionally?

No idea. I haven't experienced that type of hold back of information from either of my sifus or lineages so can't comment. Maybe I was just lucky or something?

[GlennR]

None of those threads focused on the teaching point I made. I am a bit old fashioned when it comes to using forums in that I like to have threads that stay on topic and don't bounce around through the introduction of different topics or points in a single thread.

You make a good point asking why some are not introduced to those reference points even when the given lineage has that body of knowledge. Indeed, it is a question I ask too and the answers, I imagine, are quite varied but my cynical mind inclines me towards the thought that some Sifu's don't want their students to develop 'too fast'. Is it too cynical to suggest that some Sifu's drip feed their students intentionally?

Is it too cynical of me to suggest that some Sifus dont see merit in introducing these concepts till later?

[GlennR]

Maybe you are right, they didn't focus on the teaching aspects, which is also quite surprising given the amount of time and effort he's devoted to promoting this new discovery of his.
I wasn't trying to 'bounce around' or go off topic, I just figured the actual technology and how Hendrik came by it was relevent since his name is in the title. I was interested in hearing your opinion on where/when/how Henrdik came by this information and it may be a clue as to why he's never commented on how/when to teach it. If it's a new discovery for him from another art that wasn't originally in his WC, then that would maybe make sense why.


Apparently the title of the thread doesnt count


No idea. I haven't experienced that type of hold back of information from either of my sifus or lineages so can't comment. Maybe I was just lucky or something?


Same

[Paddington]

Apparently the title of the thread doesnt count
[...]

It is very difficult to encapsulate the entirety of a point, particularly when it is a compound point, in a thread title. I do, however, qualify that title in my posts.

[GlennR]

It is very difficult to encapsulate the entirety of a point, particularly when it is a compound point, in a thread title. I do, however, qualify that title in my posts.

Then take on board when someone asks for you to clarify your post, having viewed the post in the context of the heading, that a polite, simple answer would go a long way

[Paddington]

Then take on board when someone asks for you to clarify your post, having viewed the post in the context of the heading, that a polite, simple answer would go a long way

I did. As some acknowledged, they didn't even bother fully reading what I first wrote and but skimmed over it. Just stop with these straw man arguments and this constant harrying please. Now that you appear to understand what I meant there is no need for your quips. Thank you.

[KPM]

Kevin, you mentioned that discussion thing before and fair enough, this is a discussion forum.
That said people post videos all the time.
Some of them are instructional, some are demos and some are actual fights.
I don't think that it is unwarranted to ask a person that has post videos before, to post one showing the practical applications of their theories, no?

tc101 repeats his mantra ad nauseum on multiple threads and has never once posted a video of himself showing that HE can actually DO anything he talks about. Sure, videos are welcome and interesting. But no one should feel that are required to post a video in order to participate in a discussion on any topic. No one has to prove anything to anyone here. If someone is trying to explain a technique or tactic that just isn't coming across well in the discussion, then sure it is reasonable to ask that person (nicely) if they can provide a video illustrating what they are saying. But no one should feel obligated to "prove" what they are saying just because someone else doesn't agree with it. Don't you agree? tc101 is of the opinion that hardly anyone here has anything of value to say because, according to him, none of us train "realistically" and because we don't actually know how to "do" anything. So why he continues to come here is a mystery. But I, for one, have grown quite tired of hearing his same mantra over and over.

[KPM]

You ask how can we tell who has knowledge? Well one thing we can do is ask are you doing it? If some one says they think we should be controlling an opponents balance in fighting ask them if they are doing it or if they know anyone doing it or is it something they just think would be a nice thing to be able to do.

Your tag like is Vulcan wing chun but I think you should change it to idle speculation wing chun because that is what so much of your discussion involves.

That, is just patently wrong. In the thread you reference, not only did I say I WAS doing it, but I provided you examples and videos of OTHERS doing it....including Alan Orr. But that wasn't good enough for you because you were already convinced that I was wrong. You can ask someone if they are actually "doing it" and they might very tell you anything they think you want to hear. You have no idea whether they are telling you the truth or not. Again, this is a DISCUSSION FORUM, you STILL don't seem to get that. If you want "proof" that someone is knowledgeable and can "do" what they are saying, you're going to have to meet them face to face to find out. Otherwise, we are here to d..I...s....c.....u....s......s. If you think that all anyone does here is just idle speculation, then go spend your time in the MMA forum.

[sanjuro_ronin]

tc101 repeats his mantra ad nauseum on multiple threads and has never once posted a video of himself showing that HE can actually DO anything he talks about. Sure, videos are welcome and interesting. But no one should feel that are required to post a video in order to participate in a discussion on any topic. No one has to prove anything to anyone here. If someone is trying to explain a technique or tactic that just isn't coming across well in the discussion, then sure it is reasonable to ask that person (nicely) if they can provide a video illustrating what they are saying. But no one should feel obligated to "prove" what they are saying just because someone else doesn't agree with it. Don't you agree? tc101 is of the opinion that hardly anyone here has anything of value to say because, according to him, none of us train "realistically" and because we don't actually know how to "do" anything. So why he continues to come here is a mystery. But I, for one, have grown quite tired of hearing his same mantra over and over.

Read what I said Kevin:
IF ( big if) some is willing to post videos of themselves or their students doing compliant demos and training, then there should be no reason to NOT post clips of them actually applying that stuff for real.
You say no one has to prove anything to anyone but I disagree IF ( big if again) they are trying to actually PROVE something like the "correct" way to do something or how WC is suppose to look or be done, etc.
I think you agree that if someone is willing to post a video of them TALKING about a physical MA, about something that CAN and SHOULD be seen, that they can also posy a video DOING it.
No?

[Frost]

Read what I said Kevin:
IF ( big if) some is willing to post videos of themselves or their students doing compliant demos and training, then there should be no reason to NOT post clips of them actually applying that stuff for real.
You say no one has to prove anything to anyone but I disagree IF ( big if again) they are trying to actually PROVE something like the "correct" way to do something or how WC is suppose to look or be done, etc.
I think you agree that if someone is willing to post a video of them TALKING about a physical MA, about something that CAN and SHOULD be seen, that they can also posy a video DOING it.
No?

How many times have you and I, and others pointed out this dichotomy on this forum??

Its one thing for a style which wishes to remain secret and in the family and for teaches who don’t want publicity to not post clips, but for a style where every other sifu has a youtube and facebook account showing countless videos of forms, chi sao and applications to claim people don’t want to post clips because it might show others their secrets or because they don’t have access to videos is silly. What happens do all the videos and phones stop working once the chisao stops and the gloves come out??

Likewise if a person wants to remain private and secret then there is no need or call for them to post clips, but if they spend countless hours making posts about how a style should look, about how others are doing things wrong then whats stopping them actually posting what they are talking about, I mean if they care enough to make endless comments about others videos, to even make videos talking for what seems like hours about different aspects of their training, why not make a quick clip of actual GASP their art in action?

[sanjuro_ronin]

And that is the point.
What is wrong with asking someone that is ALREADY posting vids for a video of them actually doing what they are saying?

[Wayfaring]

If you think that all anyone does here is just idle speculation, then go spend your time in the MMA forum.

It's not all anyone does. They also spend time figuring out how many dots to put between each letter of their favorite vocabulary word.

Oh and BTW just to head off controversy, if you are going to respond and accuse ME of idle speculation, I will have you know that I absolutely would never be caught dead idly speculating and if you think I'm wrong then #pics-or-gtfo

[Wayfaring]

And that is the point.
What is wrong with asking someone that is ALREADY posting vids for a video of them actually doing what they are saying?

I would have to go with what is wrong being the length of time I need to listen to them drone on and on about it and argue and cajole and debate whether the other person deserves it and debate this and that.

In other forums it's like #VideoOrDidntHappen end of discussion.

[KPM]

Read what I said Kevin:
IF ( big if) some is willing to post videos of themselves or their students doing compliant demos and training, then there should be no reason to NOT post clips of them actually applying that stuff for real.
You say no one has to prove anything to anyone but I disagree IF ( big if again) they are trying to actually PROVE something like the "correct" way to do something or how WC is suppose to look or be done, etc.
I think you agree that if someone is willing to post a video of them TALKING about a physical MA, about something that CAN and SHOULD be seen, that they can also posy a video DOING it.
No?

I have no problem with those points at all. The big qualifier here is "if someone is willing." No one should feel obligated. If anyone here is free to call others names, to taunt them, and essentially harass them and bait them, then why should ANYONE feel obligated to anyone else to prove anything? Its obviously open season here, and no one is anyone else's friend. This is just an open forum, remember? Speaking in very general terms...if you don't like what I have to say, fine. You don't have to believe me. If I choose to post a video to help you understand what I am trying to say, then I will. If you are an a$$hole and just arguing for arguments sake and aren't even trying to see what I am saying, then I don't owe you anything or have to prove anything. Again...speaking in general, not specific to anything we have been talking about here. And I AM NOT talking about Hendrik, as you seem to be insinuating above. Forget Hendrik. I am speaking in general terms. And in regards to tc101, to have someone essentially say "prove it" in so many words in every discussion topic is a bit tiresome. Don't you think?

[sanjuro_ronin]

I have no problem with those points at all. The big qualifier here is "if someone is willing." No one should feel obligated. If someone is free to call others names, to taunt them, and essentially harass them and bait them, then why should ANYONE feel obligated to anyone else to prove anything? Speaking in general terms...if you don't like what I have to say, fine. You don't have to believe me. If I choose to post a video to help you understand what I am trying to say, then I will. If you are an a$$hole and just arguing for arguments sake and aren't even trying to see what I am saying, then I don't owe you anything or have to prove anything. Again...speaking in general, not specific to anything we have been talking about here. And I AM NOT talking about Hendrik here, as you seem to be insinuating above. Forget Hendrik. I am speaking in general terms. And to have someone essentially say "prove it" in some many words in every discussion topic is a bit tiresome. Don't you think?

Yes. I agree it is tiresome BUT is it not also tiresome to continually here how A or B is NOT the "real WC" and yet so no evidence from the naysayers as to what the real WC yes?
Or to have someone pontificate how they have the secret ( lost or otherwise) of WC and then not show one practical example even though they post videos all the time? ( Yes that applied to Hendrick, but others as well).
See, I have no problem with someone not being able to post a video BUT can show examples of other people or other videos, ex:
I once posted a clip of Tyson showing how he has much of the same attributes as a good Hung Kuen fighter.
I posted that because I couldn't find one of a HK fighter and did not have any videos of me fighting.
That is ok too, although I was called out on the fact that I posted a boxer not a HK man and that is a fair call out IMO.

The point being that as tiresome as it is to read people asking over and over for a visual example, it is just as tiring hearing over and over the theoretical pontifications with ZERO evidence to back them up.

We do a FIGHTING art is it to mach to ask to see it being used in a fight to prove a point?

[seeyasoon]

I would like to remind you that it was you that advised me to re-read all those threads because you thought that I had repeated something said before. I am sorry that I used words and terms that you might not be familiar with and I say that because your reply above indicates to me that you did not understand what I said. It was not my intent to be arrogant and I understand perfectly that when one uses terms unfamiliar to someone, that it can be interpreted as arrogance but in matter of fact is actually a defense mechanism against the charge of ignorance.



At no point have I said Hendrik is 'egoless' nor have I condoned his drive for status. As I made clear from the outset, I leave all that baggage to the side and it is somewhat frustrating to read some of the points you make in your reply. The part of your post I cite above says to me that you have not read my opening post in full and / or have failed to understand what I wrote. To quote myself;



Now, these misunderstandings have obviously antagonised some of you and it is perhaps my fault for using words and phrasing unfamiliar to you. For that I am sorry. I think as soon as people see the word 'Hendrik', a filter seems to appear over their eyes that obscures the content and major points that one is making.



I had a friend who was highly intelligent used big words, however he couldn't adapt to the different people he was dealing with in life. He one day asked me to help him figure out how to install a battery in a clock. :eek: I was 12 years old, he was 38 so how smart was he really? :p

[KPM]

It's not all anyone does. They also spend time figuring out how many dots to put between each letter of their favorite vocabulary word.



Get's tiresome doesn't it? Kind of like someone responding with the SAME mantra on almost every thread. But I think you missed that point, as so many others seem to be missing points here lately. It so much easier to just take swipes at what someone says and pick at them rather than try to see and understand what they are actually saying.

[KPM]

Yes. I agree it is tiresome BUT is it not also tiresome to continually here how A or B is NOT the "real WC" and yet so no evidence from the naysayers as to what the real WC yes? Or to have someone pontificate how they have the secret ( lost or otherwise) of WC and then not show one practical example even though they post videos all the time? ( Yes that applied to Hendrick, but others as well).

Ah! But at least THAT can be entertaining! ;):)


The point being that as tiresome as it is to read people asking over and over for a visual example, it is just as tiring hearing over and over the theoretical pontifications with ZERO evidence to back them up.

Well, it shouldn't be. It should be expected. Because this is a discussion forum, not a video sharing site, not youtube, and not facebook. And I think people are largely reluctant to go to the effort to provide video because of the way it is more or less "demanded" rather than requested politely...,kind of an "oh yeah! Well prove it!" attitude rather than one of genuinely wanting to know how someone else does something. The other huge factor here is how critical forumites can be. Heck, I've got multiple people taking pot shots at what I post on more than one thread who aren't really even participating in the discussion itself. You really think I would want to put up a video for them to tear apart? If I can't expect to be treated respectfully and politely in a discussion, why in the heck would I put myself in the positon to have my performance openly criticized by these same people? I could be showing the best Wing Chun in the world, but I certainly would not trust any of them to give me accurate feedback or an honest opinion. I might have something I want to show to, say...Paddington, but then I know the bozos would jump in and tear it to shreds. So why would I? THAT, IMHO, is why you don't see people posting videos very often.

[Paddington]

I had a friend who was highly intelligent used big words, however he couldn't adapt to the different people he was dealing with in life. He one day asked me to help him figure out how to install a battery in a clock. :eek: I was 12 years old, he was 38 so how smart was he really? :p

152

I take your point though.

[JPinAZ]

And I think people are largely reluctant to go to the effort to provide video because of the way it is more or less "demanded" rather than requested politely...

The long post:
To butt in on this and give another view point - I hear this point, but IMO this type of excuse is probably a cop out in most of cases (maybe not all). For example, guys like Alan Orr have never had a problem with this. People ask him a question, say what he's doing isn't wing chun, badger him, whatever - and he puts up a clip showing how he trains and his methods. He's proven time and again, he does what he says he does and when called out, puts up a clip - even if people don't agree with his methods. I for one am one of those that don't fully agree with his methods/application, but give 100% credit that he makes zero excuses and backs it up with videos of him training hard, sparring, etc. And he does it showing little concern about what others think or how they ask - It's easy for him to do because he is actually doing what he says he is. Which I think is the point.

Basically, who gives a sh!t how someone asks? In most cases, ot probably wouldn't matter if a video request was sent via formal invitation with a nice ribbon & bow attached - if the people are full of sh!t (no one specific here, general statement), they'll always have some excuse to not put up a video of them actually DOING what they talk about or against - even if they regularly post videos of them doing all sort of other things (forms, drills, standing around talking), in which case the 'I don't have a way to make videos' excuse won't fly.
IMO, people don't post up application clips when asked, even if they have already posted up all sorts of other clips, because then they may be exposed for being full of hot air. If they make an excuse 'oh I film everything else, but just not my sparring' or 'well, since you didn't ask nicely I won't do it', then people won't be able to call them on the fact that they probably don't train to the level of skill building needed to make a video showing the results of their training methods against skilled, resisting opponents. Skill which most likely just doesn't exist.

Not to 'pick on Hendrik', but he's a great example of this. Always going on about how he's discovered the key to the connection of the lost wing chun information most of the rest of the WC community doesn't have (his words). KLots of claims and bold statements from his end. And he's made hours and hours of videos droning on about all sorts of similar stuff. He even has a few of those clips with another person present, but not even one drill, let alone application. The reason is pretty obvious why that is, and it has nothing to do with whether or not some asked for it with a 'pretty please, with sugar on top' - for all his talk, no one has been able to show one shred of evidence that anything he's 'selling' improves wing chun skill at all.

Now to be fair, I can't talk about others without pointing the mirror back at myself. I simply don't post videos. I may in the future, but when I'm in training, it's not what I focus on - I focus on skill building. I only have to prove what I do to myself and my students. But then, you'll be hard pressed to see me making any claims of most-correct or most-original anything. I only speak from what I've learned from my own understanding based on personal experience. One thing to note, I have no problem touching hands or demonstrating what I know in person, and I've traveled to different states at times to do just that and made some great friends in the process. .......Ok, bit of a tangent there.
Point is, my choice to not make any videos at all is my personal preference - I just don't make the time or feel enough need. If I did though, I wouldn't use a cop out of 'because you begged, I won't show you' - specially if I was tearing someone else's method down.

Ok, the short post (haha): I agree that, if someone regularly posts clips of then 'training', doing forms, chi sau drills and no sparring/application against good, resisting opponents, but still talks a lot of 'yang', maybe like saying how this way is the 'wrong way', or their way is the more right way, or even 'that's not wing chun' then they should have no problem backing it up by posting a clip of them doing it the 'right way' they promote without excuse and regardless how it's asked of them.
That is unless, they don't really do what they say and are afraid of being exposed ;)

[KPM]

Now to be fair, I can't talk about others without pointing the mirror back at myself. I simply don't post videos. I may in the future, but when I'm in training, it's not what I focus on - I focus on skill building. I only have to prove what I do to myself and my students. But then, you'll be hard pressed to see me making any claims of most-correct or most-original anything. I only speak from what I've learned from my own understanding based on personal experience. One thing to note, I have no problem touching hands or demonstrating what I know in person, and I've traveled to different states at times to do just that and made some great friends in the process. .......Ok, bit of a tangent there.
Point is, my choice to not make any videos at all is my personal preference - I just don't make the time or feel enough need. If I did though, I wouldn't use a cop out of 'because you begged, I won't show you' - specially if I was tearing someone else's method down.

I'm pretty much in the same place JP. Only difference is, I wouldn't consider it a cop out if someone is taunting me and being an a$$ and essentially saying..."yeah, well prove it"! I'm going to tell them they can kiss my a$$ and I'm not going to prove anything. Wouldn't you? Now if I was on the side being an a$$ and trying to tear someone else down, then yeah, I should be able to back it up. But I try not to be on that side. ;)

And for the record, since this has been trotted out more than once here recently (not saying you specifically now JP).....when I commented on Alan Orr's guys fighting I complimented them and said "strong work." Then I simply expressed the opinion that to me, it didn't look a lot like Wing Chun. I was NOT tearing down anyone else's method and I was NOT saying "hey I can do that better." It was a simple observation that brought down a whole rash of sh!t that people are still using to take pot shots at me. But that's all I'm going to say on the matter, so please don't anyone here feel the need to turn this into another whole cr@p shoot!

[JPinAZ]

[B]I'm pretty much in the same place JP. Only difference is, I wouldn't consider it a cop out if someone is taunting me and being an a$$ and essentially saying..."yeah, well prove it"! I'm going to tell them they can kiss my a$$ and I'm not going to prove anything. Wouldn't you?

Don't know since I don't make clips. But if someone was calling me out and demanding something of me, I may just tell them to pound sand. But then, if (hypothetically) I WAS the type that was 'being an a55' and telling someone they were incorrect/doing it wrong, their WC was garbage, and if I WAS doing it based on my views on years of experience and I already made videos on a regular basis, then yeah, I probably would make a video showing how myself doing it the right way to shut them up!

But then, I'm not that guy (well for the most part lol), so it's all hypothetical. But if I was the loud squeeky wheel and someone called me out, most would say - put up or shut up. And I'd agree 100%


Now if I was on the side being an a$$ and trying to tear someone else down, then yeah, I should be able to back it up. But I try not to be on that side. ;)

And then there's some people that excel at it without even trying ;)

[sanjuro_ronin]

Yes. I agree it is tiresome BUT is it not also tiresome to continually here how A or B is NOT the "real WC" and yet so no evidence from the naysayers as to what the real WC yes? Or to have someone pontificate how they have the secret ( lost or otherwise) of WC and then not show one practical example even though they post videos all the time? ( Yes that applied to Hendrick, but others as well).

Ah! But at least THAT can be entertaining! ;):)


The point being that as tiresome as it is to read people asking over and over for a visual example, it is just as tiring hearing over and over the theoretical pontifications with ZERO evidence to back them up.

Well, it shouldn't be. It should be expected. Because this is a discussion forum, not a video sharing site, not youtube, and not facebook. And I think people are largely reluctant to go to the effort to provide video because of the way it is more or less "demanded" rather than requested politely...,kind of an "oh yeah! Well prove it!" attitude rather than one of genuinely wanting to know how someone else does something. The other huge factor here is how critical forumites can be. Heck, I've got multiple people taking pot shots at what I post on more than one thread who aren't really even participating in the discussion itself. You really think I would want to put up a video for them to tear apart? If I can't expect to be treated respectfully and politely in a discussion, why in the heck would I put myself in the positon to have my performance openly criticized by these same people? I could be showing the best Wing Chun in the world, but I certainly would not trust any of them to give me accurate feedback or an honest opinion. I might have something I want to show to, say...Paddington, but then I know the bozos would jump in and tear it to shreds. So why would I? THAT, IMHO, is why you don't see people posting videos very often.

I agree that you probably won't be treated with respect if you show a video that, according to some, is NOT WC, since I have seen it happen over and over here, again and again.
Of course, now I MAY be mistaken, but haven't YOU done that as well?
I am asking a sincere question mind you, I am asking have YOU gonna ahead a "teared to shreds" a WC video that someone else has posted?
If so, well...

[KPM]

I agree that you probably won't be treated with respect if you show a video that, according to some, is NOT WC, since I have seen it happen over and over here, again and again.
Of course, now I MAY be mistaken, but haven't YOU done that as well?
I am asking a sincere question mind you, I am asking have YOU gonna ahead a "teared to shreds" a WC video that someone else has posted?
If so, well...

No. Absolutely not. I stated already recently that when I responded to Alan Orr I said "congrats" and "great job" and I simply expressed the opinion that it didn't look a lot like Wing Chun to me. I did not tear anything down. I did not say "you are doing it wrong and I can do it better." And I tried to remain as respectful as possible through-out that discussion despite the fact that the responses I received tended to not be very respectful and I was called numerous not so nice names. So no, I have never torn anyone's videos to shreds. Asking politely for explanations and clarification is not the same thing.

[sanjuro_ronin]

No. Absolutely not. I stated already recently that when I responded to Alan Orr I said "congrats" and "great job" and I simply expressed the opinion that it didn't look a lot like Wing Chun to me. I did not tear anything down. I did not say "you are doing it wrong and I can do it better." And I tried to remain as respectful as possible through-out that discussion despite the fact that the responses I received tended to not be very respectful and I was called numerous not so nice names. So no, I have never torn anyone's videos to shreds. Asking politely for explanations and clarification is not the same thing.

Good to hear that dude, seriously, because you know we have a major issue with that here.

[tc101]

No. Absolutely not. I stated already recently that when I responded to Alan Orr I said "congrats" and "great job" and I simply expressed the opinion that it didn't look a lot like Wing Chun to me.

Yes and that is called a backhand compliment which is an insult. Do you not understand that?

My question is what makes you think you know what wing chun looks like in fighting? Idle speculation. Do you get it! You are not fighting so you don't know. You can't point to anyone who does it like you think it should be done in fighting either. Armchair idle speculation insulting some one who is doing it. Can you understand why Orr and his group might be offended by that?

[sanjuro_ronin]

One day it would be nice to see the "real WC".
Or at least what it is suppose to look like.

[tc101]

One day it would be nice to see the "real WC".
Or at least what it is suppose to look like.

To see it is not difficult. Just get in the ring. If you don't get in the ring you can't see it. What you do there is the real wing chun for you. How well you can do it is another question.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I guess the question begs to be asked:
IF ( big if of course) WC is concept based system or principle based system, then as long as you are adhering to those concepts and principles, are you not doing WC?
Regardless of what it may look like when you do it?

[KPM]

One day it would be nice to see the "real WC".
Or at least what it is suppose to look like.

There is no such thing as "real WC", only versions of WC.

[KPM]

I guess the question begs to be asked:
IF ( big if of course) WC is concept based system or principle based system, then as long as you are adhering to those concepts and principles, are you not doing WC?
Regardless of what it may look like when you do it?

Something can be concept or principle based but still physically defined. Wing Chun's priniciples and concepts aren't unique. Other TCMAs use them as well. Southern Mantis shares a lot of them. JKD uses almost all of them. Now granted, which specific concepts that are brought together may make Wing Chun unique and different from other TCMAs like Southern Mantis. But in the end it is how those concepts are physically expressed that truly defines which martial art you are doing.

[Paddington]

Good to hear that dude, seriously, because you know we have a major issue with that here.

I you referring to the idea of slander here?


There is no such thing as "real WC", only versions of WC.

I agree. I tend to feel that other terms such as 'true', 'pure' and even 'traditional' are used more for marketing purposes. However, I think it different if someone were to say 'we train in a more traditional fashion'.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Something can be concept or principle based but still physically defined. Wing Chun's priniciples and concepts aren't unique. Other TCMAs use them as well. Southern Mantis shares a lot of them. JKD uses almost all of them. Now granted, which specific concepts that are brought together may make Wing Chun unique and different from other TCMAs like Southern Mantis. But in the end it is how those concepts are physically expressed that truly defines which martial art you are doing.

An excellent point.
I have found much in common with WC in the SPM I studied and the Dragon Shape boxing I am currently studying.
I recall in the beginning my SPM Shifu had to remind me every so often that "this is not WC" because I found myself flowing into it because the situation called for it, know what I mean?
He could tell that the "look" wasn't just right BUT that had to do with (according to him) not WHAT I was doing but how it was flowing.

[JPinAZ]

Yes and that is called a backhand compliment which is an insult. Do you not understand that?

My question is what makes you think you know what wing chun looks like in fighting? Idle speculation. Do you get it! You are not fighting so you don't know. You can't point to anyone who does it like you think it should be done in fighting either. Armchair idle speculation insulting some one who is doing it. Can you understand why Orr and his group might be offended by that?

I haven't been in an active 'fight' in years but I've been in plenty in the past and have been training WC steadily day in and day out out since 2003, and I still have somewhat the same opinion KPM does.
From my POV, what Alan & his guys do violates some specific WC range principles as I understand them. But if they don't violate CSL principles and Alan can show 'hey this is how we do it per my understanding and method' and he does it consistently, that's all that matters. At that point no one can fairly say 'he's not doing wing chun', which I don't believe Keith or anyone else has said. It's not a slam against Alan or his guys to have a differing view than him (even though often enough it is taken that way). Alan is pretty vocal when he feels people aren't demonstrating WC structure correctly per his standards. It's all fair and they are only opinion. I think the rub here is, people tend to read into things too much and make it into someone is saying 'Alan (or anyone else) isn't doing wing chun' when in fact they are not saying that at all.

On a side note, even if I was actively fighting (not just training/sparring), it doesn't mean I would immediatly conform to Alan's methods. I pressure test what I do often enough, and don't see a reason to stop what I am doing because Alan's guys do it a certain way in the ring - which does seem to be what you are implying here.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Alan's WC looks the way it look sin the MMA ring because that is what HIS version of WC is trained to do in the ring.
It's not that ALL WC will look that way in the MMA ring, it is that HIS looks that way ( and by extension, that of his students of course).
I have seen Alan's guys and have his dvd series and they are quite excellent and the way they train their WC principles is quite clear in how they actually fight.
In the case of Alan and his fighters: see it taught, see it fought, is spot on.

[JPinAZ]

Alan's WC looks the way it look sin the MMA ring because that is what HIS version of WC is trained to do in the ring.
It's not that ALL WC will look that way in the MMA ring, it is that HIS looks that way ( and by extension, that of his students of course).
I have seen Alan's guys and have his dvd series and they are quite excellent and the way they train their WC principles is quite clear in how they actually fight.
In the case of Alan and his fighters: see it taught, see it fought, is spot on.

Agreed. Haha, I think that is what I was trying to say as well, except I was adding in that even if you say it this way, people will often misinterpret this (purposely or not) as saying something else like Alan isn't doing Wing Chun.

[tc101]

I haven't been in an active 'fight' in years but I've been in plenty in the past and have been training WC steadily day in and day out out since 2003, and I still have somewhat the same opinion KPM does.
From my POV, what Alan & his guys do violates some specific WC range principles as I understand them. But if they don't violate CSL principles and Alan can show 'hey this is how we do it per my understanding and method' and he does it consistently, that's all that matters. At that point no one can fairly say 'he's not doing wing chun', which I don't believe Keith or anyone else has said. It's not a slam against Alan or his guys to have a differing view than him (even though often enough it is taken that way). Alan is pretty vocal when he feels people aren't demonstrating WC structure correctly per his standards. It's all fair and they are only opinion. I think the rub here is, people tend to read into things too much and make it into someone is saying 'Alan (or anyone else) isn't doing wing chun' when in fact they are not saying that at all.

On a side note, even if I was actively fighting (not just training/sparring), it doesn't mean I would immediatly conform to Alan's methods. I pressure test what I do often enough, and don't see a reason to stop what I am doing because Alan's guys do it a certain way in the ring - which does seem to be what you are implying here.

I have a different perspective on this. I do not think there is such a thing as violating wing chun principles. I do not think there is a wing chun rule book that you have to follow. I do not think people do any fighting art or sport or whatever based on principles or on so called understanding. That way of looking at things seems to me to be pretty much an academic armchair view. The easiest way to see the folly of that view is to spar with people who do not share your rule book and get repeatedly beaten silly. Then you see it has nothing to do with understanding principles or having the right way of thinking or whatever else but has everything to do with who can perform better. I am not trying to say that principles and concepts arent useful or helpful since they sure are only they are not the basis of performance and the fight is all about performance. If you think your principles make you perform better than someone else then ask yourself how did this guy with the wrong understanding just beat the snot out of me!

I am not saying Orr's way is THE right way. Just like in boxing there is no one right way. There are many many many right ways and many many many wrong ways. Any fighting art to be viable has to be very very adaptable to the individual. You can look at fighters from all kinds of different arts and see that for yourself. I am saying that Orr and his group train like fighters and so they produce fighters. Other people in wing chun train like fighters also guys like Rick Spain's or Obasi and I am sure there are others. I'm not saying do it like any of them. I am saying that if you go through the process of training like a fighter you will do what all fighters do and that is find your own way, the way that works best for you and that if you do not go through that process then your opinion is a purely academic armchair one about what works or doesn't work.

[KPM]

An excellent point.
I have found much in common with WC in the SPM I studied and the Dragon Shape boxing I am currently studying.
I recall in the beginning my SPM Shifu had to remind me every so often that "this is not WC" because I found myself flowing into it because the situation called for it, know what I mean?
He could tell that the "look" wasn't just right BUT that had to do with (according to him) not WHAT I was doing but how it was flowing.

I know exactly what you mean. A given martial art has its own biomechanic or "engine", regardless of how people dislike that word. It is part of the physical expression and drives how one generates power and flows from technique to technique. Your Shifu obviously recognized your Wing Chun "biomechanic". I'll bet as you got better at SPM that biomechanic or "engine" changed in subtle ways that you didn't really realize were different until later. So the concepts you are using may be the same, like the concept of defending the centerline, but the physical expression may be different.

That ability to make use of the "engine" and flow easily between various techniques is important. That is why I don't feel that sparring is the "be all and end all" that some make it out to be. I DO believe that sparring is an important part of a training program and everyone should take part at times. But, like Chi Sau, I also think sparring can be over-done and over-emphasized. Some important aspects of Wing Chun just aren't going to come out in a sparring scenario. So if someone is over-emphasizing sparring and not really training their Wing Chun as it was designed to be trained, then they are going to be missing a lot of elements.

Now I know some are thinking and getting ready to type "What works in sparring is important and what counts! If it doesn't show up in sparring then its not worth training anyway!" But I don't believe that. What works in sparring is kickboxing. Its has been my experience that the more emphasis and time spent on sparring the more and more the people doing it start to look like kickboxing. This is because basic kickboxing is what works! So people begin to naturally adapt what they are doing to be more and more like kickboxing...whether they are doing it consciously or not. Their structure and technique starts to change if they are not really working to train their Wing Chun and retain it. Heck, just look at just about any classic martial art that puts on the gloves and steps into the ring. Where are all the cool techniques from their forms? Why is it you can't tell the Hung Ga guy from the TKD guy? Its because they all resort to some adaptation of kickboxing. Because THAT is what works in THAT scenario!

How many joint locks and leverage takedowns and such are going to show up in sparring? Very little! I still say that controlling and disrupting the opponent's center of balance is an important part of Wing Chun, but it typically doesn't play a large part in sparring. Does that mean these things are unimportant? No! They are very important in a self-defense situation. I've stated before and I'll say it again....realistic training is not limited to just sparring. Sparring is a relatively narrow expression of any martial art (except kickboxing!), including Wing Chun.

So, for me, whether or not something works in sparring with my buddies is NOT the gold standard. Sparring is a limited aspect of overall training, just as Chi Sau is a limited aspect of overall training. Sparring is one form of realistic training, but not the only form. Important aspects of a martial art may work very well in a self-defense scenario and never show up at all when sparring with your buddies. And I know this will sound cliché and has been said as a cop out by many before me, but there are just some aspects of what we can do that are too brutal to use on your buddies when sparring because someone would get hurt. Just an example....a foot-trap to a leverage takedown is designed to rip apart the opponent's ankle or knee. That's not something you want to do to a friend, and if your timing is not just right you are going to hurt them if you try it in sparring. You're thinking "Wing chun doesn't do foot-traps or leverage takedowns!" Well, mine does! ;)

[JPinAZ]

How many joint locks and leverage takedowns and such are going to show up in sparring? Very little! I still say that controlling and disrupting the opponent's center of balance is an important part of Wing Chun, but it typically doesn't play a large part in sparring. Does that mean these things are unimportant? No! They are very important in a self-defense situation. I've stated before and I'll say it again....realistic training is not limited to just sparring. Sparring is a relatively narrow expression of any martial art (except kickboxing!), including Wing Chun.

While I don't really fully agree with "T's" (tc101) line of thinking in his last post regarding principle based fighting, I think some of what he says does accurately apply here. .

My thoughts are, if you can't make things work in sparring, then why would you assume they are somehow magically going to work in a live encounter as a 'self-defense' situation against a full on attacker? Do you think they will be going at you less-hard than in sparring? You 'say' these things like disrupting the opponent's center of balance are an important part of wing chun (and I'm not disagreeing with you), but also say you can't make important things work very reliably in sparring - are you just guessing they are still important? How do you prove it if you can't in sparring, in slower lesser energy drills?

And I'm not saying they are/aren't important, but to me, it sounds like you are forming your opinion on hopes and wishfull thinking and not because you've proven it to yourself. When people say things like "I can't make it work very well in sparring, but when I really need them in an encounter they will' tells me they need for further work. What I'm reading is, for the most part you've only proven your assumptions to be false. Again, I tend to agree with you on their importance, but only because I've proven these things to work, not because 'they are supposed to work, but most times when I pressure test them in sparring they don't'.


Sparring is one form of realistic training, but not the only form. Important aspects of a martial art may work very well in a self-defense scenario and never show up at all when sparring with your buddies.

Maybe this is why I'm having a hard time following your logic, what is the difference between sparring and a 'self-defense scenario'? How do the two differ and why do you think things work in the latter when they don't work in the former?

[KPM]

While I don't really fully agree with "T's" (tc101) line of thinking in his last post regarding principle based fighting, I think some of what he says does accurately apply here.

Weill, I don't know what T's line of thinking on the matter is, because I have him on "ignore." But I can guess. And I'll guess its the same thing he always says. :rolleyes:

My thoughts are, if you can't make things work in sparring, then why would you assume they are somehow magically going to work in a live encounter as a 'self-defense' situation against a full on attacker?

Because those scenarios are NOT the same thing as a sparring match. In those scenarios things often start "up close and personal" and you aren't squared off in front of an opponent in a fighting stance, each waiting to see what the other will do. Its the difference between a martial art that is "combatives" oriented, such as Krav Maga, and one that is sparring oriented, such as TKD. And in a "full on" encounter I'm not going to be worrying about whether I'm going to blow out my opponent's knee or break his ankle. How much of a martial art like Krav Maga is tested in sparring with buddies? Very little. But they DO still have realistic training methods. You can set up and practice a scenario response with your attacker in gear with gradual ramping up the intensity until you are going "full on" within the confines of what you can do without permanently injuring them. The JKD guys call this "progressive training" or "progressive sparring." It is not the same thing as having a friendly go with your buddies.


Do you think they will be going at you less-hard than in sparring? You 'say' these things like disrupting the opponent's center of balance are an important part of wing chun (and I'm not disagreeing with you), but also say you can't make important things work very reliably in sparring - are you just guessing they are still important? How do you prove it if you can't in sparring, in slower lesser energy drills?

Because you practice them progressively, gradually ramping up the intensity to something that is close to the "real deal". This does involve the partner cooperating to some extent in order to set up the scenario. And then providing increase levels of resistence so that you are "pressure testing" your technique. This just doesn't happen in free-sparring very reliably. So how are you going to learn to apply and pressure test some of the more subtle or sophisticated things if the opportunity to do them occurs so rarely in a free sparring scenario?


And I'm not saying they are/aren't important, but to me, it sounds like you are forming your opinion on hopes and wishfull thinking and not because you've proven it to yourself.

No. You do prove it to yourself. I'm saying that free sparring with your buddies is not always the best place to do that and it is NOT the only form of realistic training. Again, take Krav Maga as an example. They work to train a smaller weaker woman (compared to a big guy) how to counter an attacker when caught by surprise trying to unlock the door to her car in a parking lot. They can put that attacker in full riot gear so she can wail away on him as hard as she wants. They can have that attacker provide various levels of resistance so that she gets better at reacting to the unexpected as she defends herself. But are they going to throw her in the ring with gloves and a mouthpiece and make her spar with the same techniques?



When people say things like "I can't make it work very well in sparring, but when I really need them in an encounter they will' tells me they need for further work. What I'm reading is, for the most part you've only proven your assumptions to be false.

No. You're reading into it things that I didn't say. Does every technique that you train in your HFY forms show up in a friendly free sparring scenario with your classmates? I will guess they don't, but I will also guess there are also ways that you train them that convinces you that they will work.


Maybe this is why I'm having a hard time following your logic, what is the difference between sparring and a 'self-defense scenario'? How do the two differ and why do you think things work in the latter when they don't work in the former?

How many free sparring sessions start out with the opponents in a seated position? Yet you may very well be attacked while sitting at a bus stop and have to use your Wing Chun from there. So how are you going to convince yourself that you can make it work? Hopefully the difference I'm talking about is a little clearer in what I said above. I try to look at my Wing Chun more as a combatives system than a sparring system, although one certainly can and should do both.

[PalmStriker]

:) Good post, excellanto!

[KPM]

JP:

I thought of another thread where we had a similar discussion about sparring vs. other kinds of "realistic" training. Don't know whether you saw it originally or not. But maybe it will help make my viewpoint a little clearer:

http://www.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?67357-Functional-Training&highlight=realistic+training

[tc101]

Because those scenarios are NOT the same thing as a sparring match. In those scenarios things often start "up close and personal" and you aren't squared off in front of an opponent in a fighting stance, each waiting to see what the other will do. Its the difference between a martial art that is "combatives" oriented, such as Krav Maga, and one that is sparring oriented, such as TKD. And in a "full on" encounter I'm not going to be worrying about whether I'm going to blow out my opponent's knee or break his ankle. How much of a martial art like Krav Maga is tested in sparring with buddies? Very little. But they DO still have realistic training methods. You can set up and practice a scenario response with your attacker in gear with gradual ramping up the intensity until you are going "full on" within the confines of what you can do without permanently injuring them. The JKD guys call this "progressive training" or "progressive sparring." It is not the same thing as having a friendly go with your buddies.


I think your reasoning here is a bit off. Yes there will be differences between sparring and self defense situations but focusing on the differences misses the bigger picture. Sparring is a process not just a throw you in the deep end of the pool but a progressive process where you develop your fighting skills by dealing with some one fighting you back. It's where you learn how to make your art work for you against people fighting you.

The skills and conditioning you develop you can use outside of sparring and you can use them in any situation where someone is fighting you back. A boxer can use his boxing skills outside of the ring. A bjj black belt can use his skills outside of the mat. You see just because you spar in a certain way in the gym does not mean you are stuck in that mode in a street fight. You bring the skills and conditioning to the fight and adapt it to the situation you are in.

You call sparring having a friendly go with your buddies but that's not what is happening. It is training to fight with your art with training partners. This has seemed to work for the best fighters in the world right?

You bring up Krav Maga as an example of good training. I have no problem with realistic scenario training. But are you doing that? No. So all you are saying is here is a different way of training realistic skills that I don't do but think works better. That's called academic arm chair idle speculation.

If that scenario training works so well why can't they use the skills they develop in the ring? Why is it the ring guys can use their skills anywhere but the scenario guys can't?

I will give you the answer as someone who has done both types of training. Scenario training is not very useful for good skill development but useful training once you have the skills in place. Scenario training teaches and develops tactics not skills.

[JPinAZ]

I think your reasoning here is a bit off. Yes there will be differences between sparring and self defense situations but focusing on the differences misses the bigger picture. Sparring is a process not just a throw you in the deep end of the pool but a progressive process where you develop your fighting skills by dealing with some one fighting you back. It's where you learn how to make your art work for you against people fighting you.

The skills and conditioning you develop you can use outside of sparring and you can use them in any situation where someone is fighting you back. A boxer can use his boxing skills outside of the ring. A bjj black belt can use his skills outside of the mat. You see just because you spar in a certain way in the gym does not mean you are stuck in that mode in a street fight. You bring the skills and conditioning to the fight and adapt it to the situation you are in.

You call sparring having a friendly go with your buddies but that's not what is happening. It is training to fight with your art with training partners. This has seemed to work for the best fighters in the world right?

You bring up Krav Maga as an example of good training. I have no problem with realistic scenario training. But are you doing that? No. So all you are saying is here is a different way of training realistic skills that I don't do but think works better. That's called academic arm chair idle speculation.

If that scenario training works so well why can't they use the skills they develop in the ring? Why is it the ring guys can use their skills anywhere but the scenario guys can't?

I will give you the answer as someone who has done both types of training. Scenario training is not very useful for good skill development but useful training once you have the skills in place. Scenario training teaches and develops tactics not skills.

KPM, since you have T on ignore I quoted this for you as it will save me a lot of typing time. I think you may have a very narrow & misunderstood view of what 'sparring' really is and one could assume this is because you haven't trained much or at all outside the kwoon with people that make 'sparring' a regular part of their training? I've noticed those that do, tend to see things much differently in regards to what it is and it's usefulness in skill development that translates into ALL aspects of fighting (ring, self defense, etc).

[KPM]

KPM, since you have T on ignore I quoted this for you as it will save me a lot of typing time. I think you may have a very narrow & misunderstood view of what 'sparring' really is and one could assume this is because you haven't trained much or at all outside the kwoon with people that make 'sparring' a regular part of their training? I've noticed those that do, tend to see things much differently in regards to what it is and it's usefulness in skill development that translates into ALL aspects of fighting (ring, self defense, etc).

JP I gave you a perspective from the other end of the scale from what T usually spouts from his mantra. He is always focused on "sparring, sparring, sparring!" and says the same thing in almost every thread he participates in. I talked about having an over-emphasis on sparring, not ignoring sparring. Yet you tell me I have a "very narrow and misunderstood view." But you've never told T that his sparring mantra was "very narrow and misunderstood." And here you, just like T, go assuming things about me and my training when you have no idea at all of what I actually do. So exactly who is "idling speculating" here? Sounds like you and T are best buds and you are both "idling speculating" about me. And note that I NEVER denied that sparring was valuable and had transferable skills. What I spoke out against was an over-emphasis on sparring and using it as the gold standard for everything. And weren't you the one that accused me of "cherry-picking" in another thread? Yet you ignore the points I made and to "save me a lot of typing time" simple quote the mantra man.

I find it rather insulting that I take the time to provide my own viewpoint and you and T essentially turn around and call me a liar by saying I don't actually train the way I'm talking about.

[JPinAZ]

KPM, man you must really enjoy just arguing. I'm sure you will take insult by this too, but I'm really tired of tippy toeing around for you - the points you are making have nothing to do with what I think or what I've said. Your constant lumping of people together, unfounded assumptions and over reacting on things that weren't even said seems to be a constant theme with you. I'll try, a final time, to point out what I'm talking about. And if it doesn't work, nothing I can do further.


JP I gave you a perspective from the other end of the scale from what T usually spouts from his mantra. He is always focused on "sparring, sparring, sparring!" and says the same thing in almost every thread he participates in.

Actually, that isn't his mantra as far as I can read. While I don't agree with his method of delivery,the repetition, or everything he says, it's clear you continue to mis his message, no matter how many times he repeats it for you.


I talked about having an over-emphasis on sparring, not ignoring sparring. Yet you tell me I have a "very narrow and misunderstood view."

Again, people say one thing and you cherry pick their comment as saying something else. I specifically said you MAY have a very narrow view and I qualified it with an example based on what you say and how you say them and you go off the deep end. As I don't know you personally or how you train I can't say for certain what you do. But when sum up sparring by saying as "having a friendly go with your buddies.", then yes it is a fair assumption to make. I could be wrong and will appologize if proven so, but I rarely speak in absolutes, no matter how many times you try to twist it as such.


But you've never told T that his sparring mantra was "very narrow and misunderstood."

Why would I? I don't get the same impression from him by what he says as I sometimes do of you.


And here you, just like T, go assuming things about me and my training when you have no idea at all of what I actually do.

Ok, so we can clear the air, how often do you spar (no train self defense scenarios) with people outside your school? Because that was the point I was making based on the things you've said and how IMO they aren't the same types of things people that train against live resisting opponents on a regular basis would say.


So exactly who is "idling speculating" here? Sounds like you and T are best buds and you are both "idling speculating" about me. And note that I NEVER denied that sparring was valuable and had transferable skills. What I spoke out against was an over-emphasis on sparring and using it as the gold standard for everything. And weren't you the one that accused me of "cherry-picking" in another thread? Yet you ignore the points I made and to "save me a lot of typing time" simple quote the mantra man.

I find it rather insulting that I take the time to provide my own viewpoint and you and T essentially turn around and call me a liar by saying I don't actually train the way I'm talking about.

I never said you don't train like you claim. How could I? And I never called you a liar. I don't think you've ever listing all the ways you train, so again I really wouldn't know. Again, more baseless assumption. I go only by what people write. Which is why I am curious why you say the things you do (is it based on experience or speculation). Again, WAAYYYY over reacting and putting words in my mouth. You do it every time and really, it's getting old and boring.

Now, if you can stop being an a55 for a second (my opinion only) with your constant assumptions, I read all of your points in your posts. I simply don't always agree with you. Get over yourself already, it's just a forum.
If you haven't noticed, I typically quote the entire point the person I am responding to wrote when replying to them to show that I repsectfully took the time to read their whole point and reply accordingly. When you take small chunks out of context, then reply in broad brush strokes grouping people together and reply based on out of context assumptions, yes you're cherry picking. Like I pointed out at the beginning of this post. And you seem to repeat this behavior often around here. Have you noticed how many times you end up in these types of disucussions? (something to think about)

Look, I really tried to better understand your points, and I don't agree with them. If you take that as me calling you a liar, ignoring what you say, etc, well I can't help ya there man. Again, if you can't reply to what I actually write or stop putting me into groups and making broad assumptions about me, you have the option of just not replying. Or while I don't agree with this method, putting me on ignore if that's your solution, Really up to you. If you want to continue the discussion, feel free to explain how I was wrong in assuming you don't spar with people outside your school that do make sparring a regular part of their skill building and we can go from there?

[KPM]

KPM, man you must really enjoy just arguing.

I laid out my thoughts in a respectful and straight-forward manner. You replied by quoting the mantra man and yourself simply said: "you may have a narrow and misunderstood view" without actually saying why. You didn't bother to address my points and say why you disagreed with any of them. You simply said "one could assume this is because you haven't trained much or at all outside the kwoon with people that make 'sparring' a regular part of their training." So you tell me who is just being argumentative here and not trying to see the other side's viewpoint.


Your constant lumping of people together, unfounded assumptions and over reacting on things that weren't even said seems to be a constant theme with you.


Excuse me, but you lumped yourself with the mantra man when you quoted him in order to "save me a lot of typing time."

, it's clear you continue to mis his message, no matter how many times he repeats it for you.

You're wrong and assuming things again.



Again, people say one thing and you cherry pick their comment as saying something else.


So what exactly did I say you said, that you didn't actually say? Did you not say, in a rather off-handed manner, that you didn't think I actually trained? Did you not ignore every single point I made about the distinction between more of a "combatives" approach and a "sparring" approach?


I specifically said you MAY have a very narrow view

Ah! Well, excuse me counselor. In a forum like this one this is a good as calling someone a wanker! :rolleyes:


But when sum up sparring by saying as "having a friendly go with your buddies.", then yes it is a fair assumption to make.

And I told you I was giving you the opposite end of the spectrum compared to T, did I not? I was purposefully down-playing the role of sparring, to contrast his constant over-emphasis on it. I guess you didn't get that. So again, just who is being argumentative here?



I could be wrong and will appologize if proven so, but I rarely speak in absolutes, no matter how many times you try to twist it as such.

I've been accused of being "passive-aggressive" myself at times and maybe its true. When you say things to people with qualifiers like "one could assume" and "may have" that comes across as just as "passive-aggressive" as anyone else and certainly sounds like you believe them to be true. No twisting here. That's just the nature of communication.



Why would I? I don't get the same impression from him by what he says as I sometimes do of you.

Where has he given the impression that he does anything other than spar with his classmates all the time?

Look JP, with your last post you've proven that it is just a fruitless to try and have a reasonable conversation with you as it is with T. I laid out my thoughts in a respectful way, gave examples, referenced other threads, and took time to try and be as clear as possible. I don't expect you to agree with everything I said, but I at least expect you to take it into consideration. But your last post certainly doesn't seem to show that you did. So I'm done wasting time with you.

[JPinAZ]

So I'm done wasting time with you.

Good, then I expect you to no longer reply to my posts and it'll save everyone here the hassle of having to read thru all of this dribble time and again.

Interesting though, you dodged my question about whether you train/spar with anyone outside the kwoon that do make sparring a major part of skill development twice now. And you wonder where I based my assumptions from... Don't worry, you don't have to answer as I no longer care. Feel free to have the last word, or 10. Bye bye

[Wayfaring]

How many joint locks and leverage takedowns and such are going to show up in sparring? Very little! I still say that controlling and disrupting the opponent's center of balance is an important part of Wing Chun, but it typically doesn't play a large part in sparring. Does that mean these things are unimportant? No! They are very important in a self-defense situation. I've stated before and I'll say it again....realistic training is not limited to just sparring. Sparring is a relatively narrow expression of any martial art (except kickboxing!), including Wing Chun.


Dunno man my definition of sparring seems to be quite a bit different from yours. Why not joint locks and takedowns? To me that's the simple difference between a live mma round sparring and a live hands round sparring. You either work hands / hands and feet, or you go to the tap in the round then reset whether the tap happens due to strikes or a submission. Disruption of balance happens a whole lot in mma rounds and not as much in striking/hands rounds.

If you are sparring that way I don't think self-defense scenarios are going to be a problem from a realistic fighting perspective but self defense is a much broader topic. I mean I know a top pro boxer who nobody could touch in a street fight with their hands get shanked in a bar in mexico - he didn't die. Again self defense is a different topic.

[KPM]

Good, then I expect you to no longer reply to my posts and it'll save everyone here the hassle of having to read thru all of this dribble time and again.

Interesting though, you dodged my question about whether you train/spar with anyone outside the kwoon that do make sparring a major part of skill development twice now. And you wonder where I based my assumptions from... Don't worry, you don't have to answer as I no longer care. Feel free to have the last word, or 10. Bye bye

I didn't "dodge" anything. I didn't answer because I have lost all respect for any opinion you may have and won't dignify your rather insulting tone and questions with an answer. Go dribble on yourself and have fun with your buddy T.

[tc101]

I didn't "dodge" anything. I didn't answer because I have lost all respect for any opinion you may have and won't dignify your rather insulting tone and questions with an answer. Go dribble on yourself and have fun with your buddy T.

Why don't you just be honest and say you don't spar?

Then be honest with yourself and look at why you don't want to.

[JPinAZ]

Why don't you just be honest and say you don't spar?

Then be honest with yourself and look at why you don't want to.

He has you on ignore, so he won't see your posts.
One would think it would have been easier to just answer the question and give a baseline of where his POV comes from. Instead, he chose an easy cop out and blamed me for avoiding the question. typical. The fact that he voided the question twice says a lot.

[KPM]

From post #12 on the "ranges of sparring" thread:

And not all of us see our Wing Chun as primarily intended for that environment. And those that do, should not look down their noses at those of us that don't and call us "idle speculators." I spar. But I don't not see my Wing Chun as primarily a "sparring art." Nor is my particular Wing Chun well-adapted to being a "sparring art" for that reason. Nor do I feel the need to adapt it to that environment.


So again JP, its obvious that you aren't even trying to follow what I've been saying.

[JPinAZ]

Always the same stupid games with you. I have to S P E L L E V E R Y T H I N G O U T as if I'm talking to a child.

ONE MORE TIME: I didn't ask you 'do you spar', that would be silly because as you know, I already don't agree your definition of sparring as 'having a go with your buddies' you gave at the time. So.. I specifically asked twice about the type of sparring you do per T's definition which was the point at the time, as well as if you do it with people outside the style and safety of the kwoon against people that make sparring a strong part of their skill development process. Both times you ignored the question and then conveniently blamed me for your refusal to answer. Saying "I spar" did not answer any of that.

* edit - Oh never mind

[KPM]

I owe you nothing. I don't have to prove anything. You can demand anything you want, that doesn't produce results. You are not friend, and aren't even "friendly" towards me. So why would I answer any question from you? I posted very openly and honestly here and you did not respond in kind. No "stupid games" from me. Most people would consider it rules of polite discourse. But I guess that doesn't apply here, does it? You carry on a conversation here that is nothing like what would happen in person. Your responses to my posts are a perfect example. I know you'll deny it. You'll just repeat your own "stupid games" that you play here without admitting it. So go ahead. But I've got you on the "ignore status" now as well. Because, like T, you proven to be someone that is not worth trying to have a reasonable discussion with.

[tc101]

From post #12 on the "ranges of sparring" thread:

And not all of us see our Wing Chun as primarily intended for that environment. And those that do, should not look down their noses at those of us that don't and call us "idle speculators." I spar. But I don't not see my Wing Chun as primarily a "sparring art." Nor is my particular Wing Chun well-adapted to being a "sparring art" for that reason. Nor do I feel the need to adapt it to that environment.


So again JP, its obvious that you aren't even trying to follow what I've been saying.

I know KPM won't see this but I will respond to his posts since he continues to make the same misstatements.

There is nothing wrong with doing wing chun for reasons besides developing fighting skills. You can use it for health or to preserve a cultural heritage or whatever. But when you talk about things you do not really do how is that not idle speculation. If some one talks about chi sau but doesn't do chi sau and hasn't trained chi sau what do they know about chi sau. It is the same with fighting or applying wing chun.

What KPM is saying by his wing chun is not a sparring art is he doesn't really spar and he would not fare well in sparring yet he thinks while he can't make his wing chun work in practice with some one fighting him back he will be able to when it isn't practice.

If you are not able to make your wing chun work against some one fighting you back that so called environment what do you know about making your wing chun work in fighting. That logic escapes me. Perhaps some one can explain it to me.

[JPinAZ]

I know KPM won't see this but I will respond to his posts since he continues to make the same misstatements.

There is nothing wrong with doing wing chun for reasons besides developing fighting skills. You can use it for health or to preserve a cultural heritage or whatever. But when you talk about things you do not really do how is that not idle speculation. If some one talks about chi sau but doesn't do chi sau and hasn't trained chi sau what do they know about chi sau. It is the same with fighting or applying wing chun.

What KPM is saying by his wing chun is not a sparring art is he doesn't really spar and he would not fare well in sparring yet he thinks while he can't make his wing chun work in practice with some one fighting him back he will be able to when it isn't practice.

If you are not able to make your wing chun work against some one fighting you back that so called environment what do you know about making your wing chun work in fighting. That logic escapes me. Perhaps some one can explain it to me.

As long as he's happy with what he's doing, more power to him I say. But I would agree if someone says that he does seem to be quite a bit disillusioned about the reality of things. I really think he's a little emotionally unstable the way he hit's the big Ignore button when people simply don't agree with him. Ah well, he'll get no complaints from me if he doesn't reply to my posts any more!

[anerlich]

I do not think there is such a thing as violating wing chun principles. I do not think there is a wing chun rule book that you have to follow.

I basically agree with this. Though if someone sparred with me and did lots of hooks, swinging punches, and roundhouse kicks I probably wouldn't peg him as a WC guy.

I can't think of a specific example in WC, but I remember when 50/50 guard first became popular in BJJ I though it "violated BJJ principles" as I understood them. BJJ 101 as I understood it being, "move from an inferior position of control to a better one, repeat, and then apply a submission hold," whereas 50/50 seemed to be "get my opponent in the exact same position as me then hope I'm better at working from there than he is".

I'm still not a great fan of 50/50 for that reason, but I still work it occasionally and have a couple of counters and escapes. Can't let those young whippersnappers bamboozle you with technology.

[PalmStriker]

As long as he's happy with what he's doing, more power to him I say. But I would agree if someone says that he does seem to be quite a bit disillusioned about the reality of things. I really think he's a little emotionally unstable the way he hit's the big Ignore button when people simply don't agree with him. Ah well, he'll get no complaints from me if he doesn't reply to my posts any more!
:D So, how's it feel not to exist?

[JPinAZ]

:D So, how's it feel not to exist?

lol, bah, I exist whether KPM sees me or not :)
It was funny, he put T on ignore and then continued to talk about him and reply to what he said for 4 or 5 posts! He's like a kid that sticks his fingers in his ears crying 'Naaa Naa na Naaa Naaa - I can't hear you, I can't hear you' and then follows after you when you walk away still crying "I can't hear you! Did you hear me?? I said, I can't hear you!"

[Wayfaring]

lol, bah, I exist whether KPM sees me or not :)
It was funny, he put T on ignore and then continued to talk about him and reply to what he said for 4 or 5 posts! He's like a kid that sticks his fingers in his ears crying 'Naaa Naa na Naaa Naaa - I can't hear you, I can't hear you' and then follows after you when you walk away still crying "I can't hear you! Did you hear me?? I said, I can't hear you!"

Now that's a pretty funny description of the "Ignore" function in the forum if I've ever heard one :D

Regarding that, I have a question. Is someone a drama queen if they use the "Ignore" function in the forum? Or just if they post about using it in the forum itself?

Thoughts?

[KPM]

Regarding that, I have a question. Is someone a drama queen if they use the "Ignore" function in the forum? Or just if they post about using it in the forum itself?

Thoughts?

I look at this way WF. If someone has demonstrated that they are not interested in what I have to say, they don't have anything particularly interesting to say themselves, and have proven to be rude and impolite in multiple discussion threads.....why would I want to continue to engage with them at all? I've been told to not "take the bait." The best way to not "take the bait" is to not see it in the first place. So I can avoid pointless discussions that degenerate to "drama queen" status with people who are just here to argue by not engaging with them. But I find it hard to resist the urge to do that, hence..."ignore." Isn't that why the function exists in the forum to begin with?

[JPinAZ]

Now that's a pretty funny description of the "Ignore" function in the forum if I've ever heard one :D

Regarding that, I have a question. Is someone a drama queen if they use the "Ignore" function in the forum? Or just if they post about using it in the forum itself?

Thoughts?

Lol, I actually laughed out loud when I typed it - sometimes I even amuse myself :)

Meh, I think in some cases, ignore can be a good thing. I think I have a few people on ignore, but I can't really say if they post any more because 1, I don't see their post anymore, and 2, once I put them on ignore, I forgot about them. But to go on post after post talking about how you are going to, or did, ignore someone and then continue to go on talking about that person is a LOT of Drama Queenery IMO. And doesn't sound like you're ignoring anything at that point!

Example: I've been told to not "take the bait." The best way to not "take the bait" is to not see it in the first place. So I can avoid pointless discussions that degenerate to "drama queen" status with people who are just here to argue by not engaging with them. But I find it hard to resist the urge to do that, hence..."ignore."

To me, this sounds like someone with very little self control (immaturity?) that 'just can't help themselves' so they trick themselves by sticking their head in the sand and hoping the issue jsut goes away. Kinda like someone with a weight problem having to cover their eyes when after they bake a cake or they'll end up eating the whole thing. Could just not buy the ingredients in the first place. ** ok, maybe that doesn't make as much sense as it did in my head)

Me personally, if I don't like something someone says, I simply ignore it. Or, if I feel there is a valid point to make, I'll address it (and in a lot of cases opens a bigger can of worms). But either way, it's all on me - no one made me hit the reply buttom. To blame someone else for one's own actions and lack of disciple/self-control is pretty lame IMO. Isn't that a big part of what MA's is supposed to teach us?

[Wayfaring]

I look at this way WF. If someone has demonstrated that they are not interested in what I have to say, they don't have anything particularly interesting to say themselves, and have proven to be rude and impolite in multiple discussion threads.....why would I want to continue to engage with them at all? I've been told to not "take the bait." The best way to not "take the bait" is to not see it in the first place. So I can avoid pointless discussions that degenerate to "drama queen" status with people who are just here to argue by not engaging with them. But I find it hard to resist the urge to do that, hence..."ignore." Isn't that why the function exists in the forum to begin with?

Don't know that I could actually answer what the thinking behind designing that feature in bulletin board software was. They try out all sorts of new and cool features that are a combination of software and a social experiment and retain what seems to be popular. Like some software has "freeze" capability rather than "bans" or in addition to "bans". Some have "vote up" and "vote down" capabilities for posts, some have temporary bans tied to too many vote downs, etc. etc. etc.

Regardless of why a feature exists or the thinking behind it's original design, with all technology there also comes inherently the ethical responsibility to use that technology in a moral way, as well as use technology in a way that increases the quality of your life.

So those are the measurements that I use when evaluating technology. To apply that to this specific case, if "ignore" helps a poster calm down and not react to other inflammatory posts, or helps a poster from getting worked up and emotional and cyber-stalking someone or issuing internet gong sau challenges (speaking in general not talking about you) then I would say that is probably a good use of the technology. If on the other hand, it creates an artificial world for someone where they only have to interact with others who think like they do, then I would say that is a very short-sighted use of the technology.

My .02 (in case there was anyone around that might mistake this for fact rather than opinion).

[KPM]

So those are the measurements that I use when evaluating technology. To apply that to this specific case, if "ignore" helps a poster calm down and not react to other inflammatory posts, or helps a poster from getting worked up and emotional and cyber-stalking someone or issuing internet gong sau challenges (speaking in general not talking about you) then I would say that is probably a good use of the technology. If on the other hand, it creates an artificial world for someone where they only have to interact with others who think like they do, then I would say that is a very short-sighted use of the technology.

.

I think that's a good assessment WF. If someone is going to be real d!ck and make all kinds of judgements and assessments about people they really know nothing about, then I'd rather not see it at all. But likewise if someone were to put every person they ever had a disagreement with on "ignore" status, that woud be a bit over the top! This is the first time I've ever used it, and I will use it very sparringly. But I invite you or anyone to just take a look at what JP has been posting and I think you'll understand why I chose to "ignore" him.

[JPinAZ]

I think that's a good assessment WF. If someone is going to be real d!ck and make all kinds of judgements and assessments about people they really know nothing about, then I'd rather not see it at all. But likewise if someone were to put every person they ever had a disagreement with on "ignore" status, that woud be a bit over the top! This is the first time I've ever used it, and I will use it very sparringly. But I invite you or anyone to just take a look at what JP has been posting and I think you'll understand why I chose to "ignore" him.

LOL, man do I feel special - not only does someone think sooo much about me that they put me on their awesome Ignore list, they go the extra mile by continuing to think of me and include me repeatedly in their posts after the fact!

But name calling me a 'd!ck' after the fact is about a pathetic as it gets. Doesn't have the ba11s to talk to me directly but then says all sorts of things about me 'behind my back'. Sad.
Maybe someone can quote this so KPM can 'ignore me' some more :p

[Wayfaring]

LOL, man do I feel special - not only does someone think sooo much about me that they put me on their awesome Ignore list, they go the extra mile by continuing to think of me and include me repeatedly in their posts after the fact!

But name calling me a 'd!ck' after the fact is about a pathetic as it gets. Doesn't have the ba11s to talk to me directly but then says all sorts of things about me 'behind my back'. Sad.
Maybe someone can quote this so KPM can 'ignore me' some more :p

You are special. Don't let anyone convince you otherwise. :D:D:D

[tc101]

I think that's a good assessment WF. If someone is going to be real d!ck and make all kinds of judgements and assessments about people they really know nothing about, then I'd rather not see it at all. But likewise if someone were to put every person they ever had a disagreement with on "ignore" status, that woud be a bit over the top! This is the first time I've ever used it, and I will use it very sparringly. But I invite you or anyone to just take a look at what JP has been posting and I think you'll understand why I chose to "ignore" him.

I think the ignore function is to help those people with cognitive dissonance so they do not be confronted by the realities they want to avoid.

[Faux Newbie]

PMs are handy ways to relay messages that no one else on the rest of the planet could possibly care about.

[JPinAZ]

PMs are handy ways to relay messages that no one else on the rest of the planet could possibly care about.

I don't want to assume, so what/who is this in reference too? Or just a random general statement?

[Faux Newbie]

I don't want to assume, so what/who is this in reference too? Or just a random general statement?

Not aimed at you. We disagree on some things, life goes on.