Rooting

[Hendrik]

I just did

You are an interesting person who keep critics for critics without positive contribution. That is the idea I got from your posts. What a waste.

[CFT]

What do you mean by "outdate"?

Do you mean to make the ideas of structure and rooting obsolete in WCK?
Replace them with what?

[Hendrik]

What do you mean by "outdate"?

Do you mean to make the ideas of structure and rooting obsolete in WCK?
Replace them with what?

Structure and rooting are fuzzy define concept. They mean many different things and infact most are for demo on special case only.

One needs to be specific. Otherwise, one has no handling.

[CFT]

When you reduce anything to a label it becomes "fuzzy".

Your tan sau is not my tan sau etc.

I agree with you about a need for definition, but don't expect it to be universal.
The best you could look to is that it is internally consistent within a school.

[Hendrik]

When you reduce anything to a label it becomes "fuzzy".

Your tan sau is not my tan sau etc.

I agree with you about a need for definition, but don't expect it to be universal.
The best you could look to is that it is internally consistent within a school.

IMHO, In internal tcma, per wing chun 1850 there are universal basic elements .

Btw, WCK tan sau is well define since it is Wing Chun technics. Although it could has different variation. Ie. WCK tan sau will not be side outward block. That is for sure.





Structure or 架 or frame is just an aid for training, not a realistic thing.

The goal of frame are develop .

1. JlNG。勁。jing path 勁路.
2.勢 momentum . 勢力 momentum depth.
3. 弓 bows, 弓位 bows alignment.
4. 氣 breathing. 脈 medirians flow.

The end result is suppose to be formless or taking any shape and still be able to handle the above four universal elements. It doesn't matter what style. Taiji or WCK or white crane ...ect. Different style might handle them differently, but these four universal elements need to be address and handle.

Btw. WCK chi sau is a dynamic structure it is much much mre then those hand tecnics play , it is For testing the above four. But then if one doesn't recognized it and going for different type of demo structure that is the issue.

Often I heard people tell me " I use my structure in sparring. " that just tell me they don't know what the heck they are talking about.

One can say I use the four elements above in sparring. But saying using my structure in sparring just means one is clueless.




Structure and rooting in today's demo sense are just show business doesnt develop much of anything. If one doesn't know the above 4. While doing frame. One really doesn't know what one is developing.


Rooting which is define as root like a tree in general is another Misleading, in fact a bad practice cause clumsiness.

[Hendrik]

This is an excellent example of developing the four elements above with structure training. One develop the four elements , but not mimicking the structure or doing demo.


http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLE54BBA71E3173F2D

[Hendrik]

Another good one on developing the four elements


http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...sg76J9ZFslD4-w

[Hendrik]

Different power type different structure but still has to based on the four universal elements.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...FhvzJo4AA4jh7g


Same here, always the four universal elements.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...hbJSZ-MdXdci2g

[Hendrik]

Same here

http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http...tX97YH_5bQ&s=1

[desertwingchun2]

You are an interesting person who keep critics for critics without positive contribution. That is the idea I got from your posts. What a waste.

Hahahahaha aint that the pot calling the kettle black.....

[desertwingchun2]

This is an excellent example of developing the four elements above with structure training. One develop the four elements , but not mimicking the structure or doing demo.


http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLE54BBA71E3173F2D

Why do you like videos with balls in them? Oh wait I know ..... Rhetorical question, what else is in the closet beside your yoga ball????

[JPinAZ]

Only thing fuzzy is Hendriks brain - this whole thread is pure trollbait.

What this clown is talking about is only in relation to some basic energy stuff he's taken from other arts and now calls 'wing chun'. Without some idea of root, you have no idea of self centerline. No centerline, no WC. Without structure, you have no idea of reference points in time and space and without both, no clear way to channel incoming energy per WC principle.
Bottom line - without root/structure, there is no WC engine - so again, no WC.

It's all theory and guessing for him anyway since he freely admits he doesn't spar, nor even admit to doing any partner training drills (except for punching big balloons in his romper room) - so he really has no idea what works/doesn't work in application.

Ask BalloonBoy how that no root/structure worked for him in the only confirmed instance of touching hands with another practitioner - when Weng Chun dumped him on his butt with him crying 'that's not wing chun! that's not wing chun'

[GlennR]

You are an interesting person who keep critics for critics without positive contribution. That is the idea I got from your posts. What a waste.

Its an Australian thing, its bred into us to rip into people that are bull$#!# artists.

Its funny, the very next post after your one above, you started with "in 1850 WC blah blah blah"....its the same rubbish over and over again

Its all about proving your point, you dispel anyone's ideas that dont agree with yours, and think dropping "1850" gives you some bizarre form of credibility.

You can rant all you like, and i do enjoy ripping you, but in all seriousness id hate to think someone wanted to try WC, read this forum, was convinced by your nonsense, and then wasted 10 years of their life doing it "your way'

So you rant, and ill rip

[desertwingchun2]

Its an Australian thing, its bred into us to rip into people that are bull$#!# artists.

Its funny, the very next post after your one above, you started with "in 1850 WC blah blah blah"....its the same rubbish over and over again

Its all about proving your point, you dispel anyone's ideas that dont agree with yours, and think dropping "1850" gives you some bizarre form of credibility.

You can rant all you like, and i do enjoy ripping you, but in all seriousness id hate to think someone wanted to try WC, read this forum, was convinced by your nonsense, and then wasted 10 years of their life doing it "your way'

So you rant, and ill rip

x2 except I'm not Australian.
But us Chicanos are pretty good at it too!!

[anerlich]

Structure and rooting outdated?

Not structure, lest you are trying to say Robert Chu's and others' extensive writings on the subject have somehow ceased to be relevant.

What I think is getting old is your relentless spamming of the forum with your "research"/fruitcakery.