Hung Fa Yi

[t_niehoff]

Victor, I haven't written any books or produced any videos, so I am not making any assertions that I am an authority on WCK. Telling people they should look to proven authorities (people who can really do what they talk about) hardly requires me to provide evidence of anything.

Broken record? Yeah, in a sense you're right: asking for proof of what people claim does get to be a broken record in TMAs. That't the real shame of it all.

YongChun, I question everything. Requiring evidence or proof is the foundation of reason. And even if "the founders" had it right, that doesn't mean that what you do or what you say (or anyone for that matter) is the same as "the founders." If you can do what you say to do, whether following in the footsteps of the founders or not, then providing evidence should not be a problem. If you - or anyone - can't do it, what does it matter what anyone says?

What's so funny about this is how people have problems with the whole idea of providng proof, evidence, of claims -- including of how to apply WCK. In my book, that's very revealing.

[Ultimatewingchun]

I have a theory about this: He's just practicing his legal spin "skills"...

Lawyers regularly try to convince people to believe certain things that they represent as facts - which are not true at all.

For example, a lawyer for ABC corporation might say that their client broke no laws about XYZ. (Meanwhile, they're guilty as sin - and the lawyer knows it).

But these lawyers are hired to convince the judge and jury otherwise. So they bull5hit, spin things like a top, avoid pertinent facts that destroy their arguments, try to plant doubt where there was none before, (or where there shouldn't be any)...call into question the veracity of the testimony/experience of others, and repeat certain mantras (ie.- my client is innocent) over and over again - hoping that enough of it will stick.

THIS IS TERENCE ON THIS FORUM.

But the facts he tries to skew, avoid, or deny - and the bull he tries to convince us of - concerns wing chun kung fu.

HE'S PRACTICING HIS LAWYER SKILLS.

He's been trained to rebutt anything - whether it's true or false.

[YungChun]

HE'S PRACTICING HIS LAWYER SKILLS.

I agree. This occurred to me as well..

And Terence it's not about what I know or the founders knew, but about the fact that you espouse that all CMA are BS, or at least 90% of them so including WCK... So the question remains: Why would you align yourself with some antiquated BS CMA like this one? Why aren't you training in a real fighting art like MT and posting about how much better the training/fighting skills are?

[Ultimatewingchun]

Go to wingchunkuen.com and look up the article(s) he's written in the past about full body structure wing chun. This will give you a hint: to fully come out of the closet now and say that all wing chun is basically worthless would repudiate many years of his own life - and the "spin" he's put on his chosen lineage.

CONTRADICTIONS ALL OVER THE PLACE.

But hey...that's a lawyer for you. In the end...no matter what...they're always right.

(That's the spin they tell themselves, anyway ).

[byond1]

Yes Vic - and the differance between Lawyers and Entertainers, is very revealing.

Lets take musicians like Marilyn manson or Gwar - at the end of the night, they go home, take off the make up, and leave the act behind. In other words, they dont buy their own BS.

If what I see here is representational of typical Lawyer mentality, I must say, they even convince themselves of the BS and thats...well fanatical and making them closer to the likes of those that organize exoteric religion.


B

[Ultimatewingchun]

Well you know what, Brian...it could be argued that MONEY is the new GOD in our culture - the CORPORATE WORLD ETHIC is the new religion...

and CEO's and corporate LAWYERS are the new priests.


Jesus help us!!!

[duende]

. Apart from that, the theorical part was really informative, and helped me make a more profound analysis of my "Battlefield" and "Structure". The centerline, the two points of reference of distance, the three points of height, chambers.... the five yin and yang lines....anyway, all that helped me to visualize and contemplate my body and structure in a whole other way. It is sad, that the book wasn't profound in examples of all these lines and points...I found it a little jive at that... but apart from that ....Well it explained stuff in a way nobody ever did in my years of practice. It is good to know that some things I figured out myself in my studies goes accord with what the book teaches. So it was a nice experience. A book on drills for each part of the theories would be really good.... or a DVD heheheh Even if it is only an illusion.

Hey thanks for the review. As for examples of the structure, just take a look at any of the student pics in the book. For the most part they are pretty reprentative, although we did put some pics of beginners in the book too that are not as correct.

As for a book on drills.... let's see what the future holds. GM Gee has mentioned wanting to do something to that extent.

Best,

[Nick Forrer]

Yes Vic - and the differance between Lawyers and Entertainers, is very revealing.

Lets take musicians like Marilyn manson or Gwar - at the end of the night, they go home, take off the make up, and leave the act behind. In other words, they dont buy their own BS.

If what I see here is representational of typical Lawyer mentality, I must say, they even convince themselves of the BS and thats...well fanatical and making them closer to the likes of those that organize exoteric religion.


B

Pretty pathetic (thou not uncommon) to see this kind of sentiment. Lawyers come in all shapes and sizes - most ethical - a few not - those who are not - like corrupt cops, politicians etc. are usually found out and dealt with accordingly.

If Lawyers didnt argue a clients case to the best of their ability they would be doing their clients, themselves and their profession a huge disfavour. The alternative is that they should make some kind of subjective value judgement on each case they are given and only argue the ones they feel they can win and/or which chime with their personal ethics (which obviously varies from person to person). In which case many would be left without legal representation - thus denying them a basic human right and contradicting the rule of law including the idea that every person is innocent until proven guilty.

If a bad judgement is made in a case dont blame the lawyer for doing their job well. Blame the Jury/Judge for doing their job poorly. They are the arbiters of fact - not lawyers.

Finally if you dont like what Terence says either address his arguments (with proof and/or reasoning) or ignore him - dont resort to personal attacks (about his profession or anything else) - its a sign you have lost the argument.

[Ultimatewingchun]

"As for a book on drills.... let's see what the future holds. GM Gee has mentioned wanting to do something to that extent." (duende)


***A BOOK ON DRILLS?

Don't you think that a video on drills (as a supplement to a book) would be extremely helpful? Since drills are dynamic. A series of still photos and written explanations can only take you so far with this - but a vid with simultaneous verbals would clearly take things to a higher level of comprehension. NO?

[Knifefighter]

I have a theory about this: He's just practicing his legal spin "skills"...

I also have a theory. I think Terrance gets under Victor's skin becuase Terrance completely kicks Victor's ass when in comes to the intellectual debates here. Terrence is the master of forum fu and rules the forum here and I'm sure that ticks Victor off no end. He knocks the fuk out of Victor and just about everyone else here with his verbal sparring skills.

He usually has at least three or four people ganging up on him at one time and he always manages to come out the winner. I can't even count the number of times I thought he was on the ropes from good points people had made, but he always manages to come back with well-thought and killing rebuttals. He almost never uses personal insults, while his enemies are almost always left with nothing but personal insults as their final ammunition.

[Matrix]

I can't even count the number of times I thought he was on the ropes from good points people had made, but he always manages to come back with well-thought and killing rebuttals.

That's your opinion, which has always been with Terence so it's probably somewhat less than objective. Of course, there is no such thing as an "unbiased opinion" and if there were it would certainly not be able to live in this environment.

If I were a lawyer, I would be using my legal "spin" skills as well. Why would I not use those skills? Besides, we all have some "spin" to put on our point of view. We all like to believe that we are objective in our opinion, but we're just fooling ourselves. You can easily become entrenched in your position to the point where you're no longer listening to the other people, but just thinking of how how to counter what they have said. It's a bit of a game. It's enjoyable at times, and just annoying at other times.

[t_niehoff]

I have a theory about this: He's just practicing his legal spin "skills"...

No, Victor, I'm using my critical thinking skills. They're quite useful in ferreting out BS, fuzzy thinking, poor logic, etc. I highly recommend them.

[t_niehoff]

Go to wingchunkuen.com and look up the article(s) he's written in the past about full body structure wing chun. This will give you a hint: to fully come out of the closet now and say that all wing chun is basically worthless would repudiate many years of his own life - and the "spin" he's put on his chosen lineage.

CONTRADICTIONS ALL OVER THE PLACE.

But hey...that's a lawyer for you. In the end...no matter what...they're always right.

(That's the spin they tell themselves, anyway ).

Actually, Victor, I think WCK can be a very good fighting method (I've never said it wasn't, btw). I still practice WCK. For me, my years in WCK have been a continual learning process, and learning is in my view never wasted. Even today, I continue to grow in the art.

Those articles that I wrote, I think still fairly represent my views, on body-structure, on the method, etc. If you are seeing my views now as some sort of repudiation of WCK (or Robert's teachings in particular), you couldn't be more wrong.

The problem with WCK isn't in the art itself. The problem is in the traditional mindset and all the BS that goes with it, the ineffective training methods, etc. And in the belief structure of so many of its "followers". Most people "following" WCK don't even practice it in my view; as I see it, if you are not fighting with it, you are not really practicing WCK.

There are some really good WCK teachers and fighters out there. They are just very, very rare. It takes real discernment -- which only comes from experience and critical thinking (there that is again!) -- to find them.

I present my views here on this forum just to provide a counter-balance to what I see as the "traditional" views in WCK (which is the overwhelming view in WCK). I understand why you don't like that -- because it directly opposes your traditional views, your "status", etc. I don't expect that TMAists will either endorse or enjoy my views. And I couldn't care less.

I'm not always right, and I know that. I'm open to new evidence and to solid reasoning. But until someone presents those, why should I think that I'm mistaken?

[Ultimatewingchun]

"Actually, Victor, I think WCK can be a very good fighting method (I've never said it wasn't, btw)."


Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!


Jesus, he must really think we're clueless to try and run that by us.

What a clown!

[Vajramusti]

Respect your right to your judgement.
Mine? I bought the book when it came out, read it and gave it away.

Regarded it as a marketing book with some fiction, fuzzy lineage history
and patronising towards "mainstream" wing chun.

Anerlich from Australia gave a fairly balanced review early on- but no good deed goes unrewarded as a later post from a HFY person showed.

The thread like most has veered off into other areas.

Back to practice.

joy chaudhuri