Gulao Wing Chun Videos

[judge88]

Hi All

I reason came across these clips on You Tube:

http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=TIMES11111

Regards

judge88

[t_niehoff]

Jim Roselando already discussed these on Rene's forum -- apparently this is poor Gu Lao WCK.

We never see the "good stuff". It really does exist (I'm told), just it is never shown to outsiders. But we can take it on faith that it does exist.

[judge88]

Hi Ti_niehoff,

Im curious now ... Why is this poor Gulao WCK?

Regards

Judge88

[Jim Roselando]

Hello,


Poor WC?

He happens to be an extremely talented sifu. What he is showing are his Solo sets and some of his Circling Hands fun. He calls is:

Fung Keung's Soft Wing Chun


Its some off his Pin Sun Wing Chun blended with Tai Gik sort of theory etc..

He has a school in Hong Kong and on the Mainland. If your in Hong Kong you can visit. Everyone who feels him knows he has the goods.

[t_niehoff]

Hi Ti_niehoff,

Im curious now ... Why is this poor Gulao WCK?

Regards

Judge88

As I said, this was Jim Roselando's view (Jim has studied with the Fungs). Go to Rene's site (wingchunkuen.com) and visit the forum, look at the "Asian Videos" thread and read Jim's comments for yourself.

My view is that this sort of demo doesn't and can't really tell us anything about a person's *martial* skill -- it is essentially folk dancing.

[judge88]

Hi T Niehoff

Ive just read Jim's comments on Rene's site - I dont think he's saying its poor GLWCK ... just somewhat different to what he's doing.

But this is hardly surprising - just because someone graduated from the same school doesnt mean he will be exactly the same as his teacher or his fellow students! One only needs to look at Yip Man's students - for eg Wong Shun Leung's WC is considerably different to Tsui Sheung Tin's Wing Chun tho' both learnt from the same master.

As to Jim's comments about Tai Chi theory and WC theory - my view (for what its worth) is that they are consistent with one another. In fact I think WC has alot more to learn from Tai Chi than the other way around.

Regards

Judge 88

[t_niehoff]

Hi T Niehoff

Ive just read Jim's comments on Rene's site - I dont think he's saying its poor GLWCK ... just somewhat different to what he's doing.

OK if that's how you interpret it.

But this is hardly surprising - just because someone graduated from the same school doesnt mean he will be exactly the same as his teacher or his fellow students! One only needs to look at Yip Man's students - for eg Wong Shun Leung's WC is considerably different to Tsui Sheung Tin's Wing Chun tho' both learnt from the same master.

My view is that fighting is an individual activity, so good fighting methods develop individuals -- not clones.

As to Jim's comments about Tai Chi theory and WC theory - my view (for what its worth) is that they are consistent with one another. In fact I think WC has alot more to learn from Tai Chi than the other way around.

Regards

Judge 88

In my view, unless a person has a great deal of fighting experience with a martial art, they cannot have much in the way of an intelligent opinion about that method's "theory" or what does/does not work (they are merely speculating without fully appreciating the combative problems they will actually encounter). Most (a good 90% of) TCMA theory I believe was developed by nonfighting practitioners of those arts -- so 90% of it is nonsense. Training and trying to implement nonsense won't get good results (it's actually counter-productive).

[judge88]

Hi T Niehoff

By TCMA I take it that you mean Tai Chi?

If thats the case, Im surprised that you are of the view that its a martial art primarily (in your words a good 90%) developed by non fighting practitioners!

Where do you get this info from?

[Tom Kagan]

As to Jim's comments about Tai Chi theory and WC theory - my view (for what its worth) is that they are consistent with one another. In fact I think WC has alot more to learn from Tai Chi than the other way around.

Let me guess: You do Tai Chi.

(Did I win anything?)

"What do you call 10,000 books written about Ving Tsun? Tai Chi. Maybe I'm too cheap to buy 10,000 books. Maybe I'm too stupid to read 10,000 books. Maybe I'm too lazy to write 10,000 books. But, Tai Chi is a great art - what the f@ck are you doing with Ving Tsun if what you want is Tai Chi?" -- Moy Yat (in one of his more cantankerous moods)

[judge88]

Actually I DONT DO Tai Chi tho' I would like to!

[couch]

Actually I DONT DO Tai Chi tho' I would like to!

Just my 2 cents regarding one of my teachers at Chinese Medicine school who has been practicing Tai Chi for 20 years:

I have discussed the concepts of both martial arts with him and although we find common ground, his ideas and theory differ from mine.

At all times, I have my centreline facing his centre. He moves his centreline away from mine to "protect" it...while doing this, he tries to swallow my energy...often times he exposes his elbow...

When I try to trap the elbow with any passitivity, he will again, redirect and swallow the energy by moving his centre away from my target.

I have to be bang-on, quick, repsonsive and never too over committed if under-sure or else his "soft" hands redirect in an instant.

With these simple ideas, it differs a lot from where I'm going. Also, everytime he punches, there is a spiralling energy from his waist that comes out of the punch. I don't generate (in my family) any waist spiralling energy whatsoever. I generate my waist power with shifting, moving and sinking (and maybe personally from hunching the shoulders a bit like Bak Mei).

Nothing wrong with the Tai Chi. Plus, he does his push-hands and I do Chi Sau and we get along perfectly.

All the best,
Kenton Sefcik

[Yanjin]

Can you call Tai Chi martial arts? At the very least it is a form of exercise and the most a spiritual training program, and not a combative art.

[t_niehoff]

Hi T Niehoff

By TCMA I take it that you mean Tai Chi?

If thats the case, Im surprised that you are of the view that its a martial art primarily (in your words a good 90%) developed by non fighting practitioners!

Where do you get this info from?

I'm saying that most traditional chinese martial arts (TCMA) including tai ji are mostly nonsense (especially the theory) and most of these methods were developed (I'm not saying founded) by clueless nonfighters.

Where are the these tai ji fighters?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1KQefb7UnU

Where did I get this info from? From seeing what good fighters do and comparing it to what these people expound!

[Knifefighter]

I'm saying that most traditional chinese martial arts (TCMA) including tai ji are mostly nonsense (especially the theory) and most of these methods were developed (I'm not saying founded) by clueless nonfighters.

Where are the these tai ji fighters?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1KQefb7UnU

Where did I get this info from? From seeing what good fighters do and comparing it to what these people expound!

A perfect example of what happens when two theoretical non-fighters mix it up.

Why do I think Hendrick would fight something like that?

[planetwc]

Here is a representative example of Chen Taiji

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAicu-IPjMw

This will probably be wasted on you as well:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxxebP0u31g

I'm saying that most traditional chinese martial arts (TCMA) including tai ji are mostly nonsense (especially the theory) and most of these methods were developed (I'm not saying founded) by clueless nonfighters.

Where are the these tai ji fighters?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1KQefb7UnU

Where did I get this info from? From seeing what good fighters do and comparing it to what these people expound!