The Pole

[canglong]

Lonetiger108
Some additional info...

The HFY headquarters has received numerous request from both the general public
and our members for both detail writings on and workshops for HFY weapons.
Though there are currently no scheduled workshops should the request continue
to increase it is possible that our Grandmaster may find the time in his busy
schedule to include some weapons .

For now here is just a brief overview of the Hung Fa Yi Wing Chun Pole and it's
training progressions.

Today's HFY understanding of the pole can be traced back to
early 1800's and the Hung Gun Boxer society.

The wooden pole in HFY called the Hung Mun Saat Gwan primarily has 3
training progressions.

1. Single end
2. Double end
3. Pole dummy training

Along with these progressions there are 2 forms
Hung Mun Saat Gwan 1 and Hung Mun Saat Gwan 2
They focus on the 6 and 1/2 point and 3 and 1/2 point pole
theory and principle applications.

For more information please continue to follow this forum and continue to
support the HFY headquarters and all its future workshops.


Bruce Stanberry
HFY secretary
http://www.hfy108.com/forums/showthr...?t=2737&page=5

Often times even outside of wing chun you may have heard of the pole name referred to as the 6 and 1/2 point pole. This is not the case in Hung Fa Yi the pole name as duende gave you already is Hung Mun Saat Kwan and 6 and 1/2 point is actually one of the concepts used in the training progressions of the hung mun saat kwan.

[k gledhill]

The point is that you don't know what you are tallking about. You only have a very superficial grasp of WCK and the pole. I haven't missed that.

f-a-rt on ....; )

[t_niehoff]

f-a-rt on ....; )

Releasing more hot air, are we?

[YungChun]

If there are any two here that should work out together it's you two guys..

Kev and T..

Exact polar opposite and extreme views of the system IMO. Neither can see the POV of the other, or give an inch... The intercepting displacement only vs. the you must always have control/attachment first, opposites... LMAO..!

How one ensures control first with the pole is another question... (stun gun?)

I see both of you as correct and both incorrect.. Neither have a unique take on the system (while some may believe otherwise) other than perhaps to see 'true' WCK as the (exclusion?) of the other POV, that's what's so extreme...

IMO there is a time and place where each is correct and useful...

While I favor Kev's position in terms of simplicity and core WCK (economy, combined tool actions/uses) (which I know I really don't understand Kev) as Robert said in WCK less is more... True that.. But there is certainly merit to T's WCK controlling perspective under certain conditions as well and we see both aspects used and taught in the system, or at least I do..

[t_niehoff]

If there are any two here that should work out together it's you two guys..

Kev and T..

Exact polar opposite and extreme views of the system IMO. Neither can see the POV of the other, or give an inch...

Yes, my views are very different from his -- but I can see his POV. Hell, at one time I thought very much like him.

The intercepting displacement only vs. the you must always have control/attachment first, opposites... LMAO..!

It's not a question of "intercepting displacement" first or not -- there is no such thing as "intercepting displacement", at least not in fighting.

Even if you buy into the "intercepting displacement" stuff, the next question is WHY, for what purpose, are you intercepting and displacing? If it is just to hit, then when you fight you will find yourself in trouble.

How one ensures control first with the pole is another question... (stun gun?)

The method with the pole is not the same as with empty hands.

The point is how people who have absolutely no experience actually USING (fighting with) the pole want to tell others how it should be done. Blind leading the blind. All I can say is that from my experience sparring with the pole (and nonWCK people) that much of the "conventional wisdom" in WCK circles is simply wrong. Like the pole being mainly a thrusting weapon.

I see both of you as correct and both incorrect.. Neither have a unique take on the system (while some may believe otherwise) other than perhaps to see 'true' WCK as the (exclusion?) of the other POV, that's what's so extreme...

IMO there is a time and place where each is correct and useful...

Relativistic twaddle. I certainly don't have a unique view of "the system" -- whatever the f#ck the "system" is. My view of WCK is founded on the traditional, classical faat (method).

While I favor Kev's position in terms of simplicity and core WCK (economy, combined tool actions/uses) (which I know I really don't understand Kev) as Robert said in WCK less is more... True that.. But there is certainly merit to T's WCK controlling perspective under certain conditions as well and we see both aspects used and taught in the system, or at least I do..

You either see WCK as a close range, attached fighting method or you don't. If it is not an attached fighting method, then it is a form of kickboxing (unattached fighting). And I've yet to see anyone who can make WCK's tools consistently work at noncontact fighting. There is a reason WCK's defining drill/exercise is an attached drill/exercise.

If you see WCK as an attached fighting method (and the kuit tells us it is: Duen Kiu, Tib Sen, Che Lun Ma - Short Bridge, Close Body, Carriage Wheels), then you find that when on the inside and close if you don't have control, you will be in real trouble. Your opponent will have the freedom to do anything, including get control over you. That is the reality of it; that's what happens when you fight in a phone-booth. This is why the WCK faat, which comes from our ancestors tells us the first thing to do is dap (join, ride) with our opponent, then to jeet (cut off his offense, not intercept and displace), followed by chum (breaking his structure) -- and if we are good, to do all three in one action (Sam Jiu Yat Chai Dao - Three moves arrive together.)

[k gledhill]

The only real way to understand what WSL showed Philipp Bayer is direct ....the names are the same , tan, jum, jut ....but the way they are developed uses the whole system.
Many adopt a fragmented idea, imo it can come from overindulgence in the chi-sao. One begins to seek answers in the drill, rather than develop a greater idea 'using ' it ...not to be the slave of the 'system as WSL put it. Meaning dont enslave your thinking to the process of becoming an efficient fighter.
This enslavement shows itself as you think to control water ....ask yourself why VT isnt in the UFC ? simple its been adulterated beyond recognition. Many wouldnt even know VT if it walked up and punched them in the head, simply becasue of what 1/2 knowledge develops....
Like trying to put a hobby model together with some missing pieces and no plans...iow how do you know its complete with all the parts if your instructor never fought with it, developed thinking based on fighting , not drilling with others.

Terence you dont have a clue what Im doing thats ok Im trying to write it..very hard to write energy ....same with pole ideas. its hard to stick to a pole that is 'displacing' you several feet each time...then holding the line to strike....Philipp walked into my gym a few years back and watched guys working out in various methods, upon seeing a guy doing a twirling stick action he mentioned that 'he would never do this if he knew vt" meaning he would have been hit as he did so.... straight lines are direct , cicles arent. moving the lines is the idea.

VT is simple ...

[t_niehoff]

The only real way to understand what WSL showed Philipp Bayer is direct ....

Who gives a sh1t what WSL "showed" Phillip Bayer?

The fundamentals of WCK are the fundamentals of WCK. All anyone can show anyone is the fundamentals. YOU apparently don't have them. If you do learn the fundamentals, then it is up to YOU to put them to work (put them into fighting), and by so doing, WORK OUT FOR YOURSELF how to make things work.

It doesn't matter what Ali showed someone about boxing. You learn to box by and through boxing.

the names are the same , tan, jum, jut ....but the way they are developed uses the whole system.
Many adopt a fragmented idea, imo it can come from overindulgence in the chi-sao. One begins to seek answers in the drill, rather than develop a greater idea 'using ' it ...not to be the slave of the 'system as WSL put it. Meaning dont enslave your thinking to the process of becoming an efficient fighter.
This enslavement shows itself as you think to control water ....

Fantasy.

ask yourself why VT isnt in the UFC ? simple its been adulterated beyond recognition. Many wouldnt even know VT if it walked up and punched them in the head, simply becasue of what 1/2 knowledge develops....

It's not in the UFC or MMA because the vast majority of WCK people are like you, bound in dogma, believing they have the "knowledge" and "understanding" of WCK which was given to them from their teacher who, of course, had the "real wing chun."

Like trying to put a hobby model together with some missing pieces and no plans...iow how do you know its complete with all the parts if your instructor never fought with it, developed thinking based on fighting , not drilling with others.

Who gives a rat's ass about what your instructor did? All your instructor can give you is the fundamentals. That's it. And, you don't even have the faat -- which is the organizing factor of WCK (what it is you are trying to do).

Tell me, WHO did WSL fight? Oh, I know he fought some scrubs, but tell me some names of good fighters that he fought? What? Can't name any? Hmmm.

You talk about not being a slave to WCK, but you are a slave to the memory of WSL!

When will you guys realize that those guys, WSL, Cheung, etc. weren't very good fighters? Sure they had fights. Fightslike this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTXtQogCNh4

Terence you dont have a clue what Im doing thats ok Im trying to write it..very hard to write energy ....same with pole ideas. its hard to stick to a pole that is 'displacing' you several feet each time...then holding the line to strike....Philipp walked into my gym a few years back and watched guys working out in various methods, upon seeing a guy doing a twirling stick action he mentioned that 'he would never do this if he knew vt" meaning he would have been hit as he did so.... straight lines are direct , cicles arent. moving the lines is the idea.

VT is simple ...

Your VT is a fantasy and is based on theory ("straight lines are direct , cicles arent. moving the lines is the idea"). And your theory is simply wrong. If you fought, you'd see that.

[LoneTiger108]

That is interesting. Maybe someday we can meet up to discuss. I know my Sifu is considering going to the UK sometime this year. If that happens, I'll let you know. Maybe we could arrange to meet.

You would be welcome if you travel to London. Email mail me closer to the time.

Does Hung Gun Biu play a role in your lineage's history as well? Forgive my ignorance, I'm not that familiar with Lee Shing WC beyond it's YM connections.

All I know is that who we trace the pole form to seems to differ from the conventional history. There has been mention of Hung Hei Gwoon, but it may only be speculation as we can't prove anything really. Research still needs to be completed.

Often times even outside of wing chun you may have heard of the pole name referred to as the 6 and 1/2 point pole. This is not the case in Hung Fa Yi the pole name as duende gave you already is Hung Mun Saat Kwan and 6 and 1/2 point is actually one of the concepts used in the training progressions of the hung mun saat kwan.

Thanks for the extra info on HFY.

Obviously, I'm familiar with saat kwan as each point can be drilled to kill (if that's what you mean by saat?) VERY hard to do! And dangerous to practise IMO. Still, it is another similarity we share.

As I've also mentioned before we translate to six point and half pole as I relate the number six to a traditional concept called 'six harmonies' which we sometimes called 'six joint force.' The half pole would be similar to your double ended ideas I think, like using a quarter staff, and its base theory comes from the yum yeurng (yin yang).

[k gledhill]

Who gives a sh1t what WSL "showed" Phillip Bayer?

The fundamentals of WCK are the fundamentals of WCK. All anyone can show anyone is the fundamentals. YOU apparently don't have them. If you do learn the fundamentals, then it is up to YOU to put them to work (put them into fighting), and by so doing, WORK OUT FOR YOURSELF how to make things work.

It doesn't matter what Ali showed someone about boxing. You learn to box by and through boxing.



Fantasy.



It's not in the UFC or MMA because the vast majority of WCK people are like you, bound in dogma, believing they have the "knowledge" and "understanding" of WCK which was given to them from their teacher who, of course, had the "real wing chun."



Who gives a rat's ass about what your instructor did? All your instructor can give you is the fundamentals. That's it. And, you don't even have the faat -- which is the organizing factor of WCK (what it is you are trying to do).

Tell me, WHO did WSL fight? Oh, I know he fought some scrubs, but tell me some names of good fighters that he fought? What? Can't name any? Hmmm.

You talk about not being a slave to WCK, but you are a slave to the memory of WSL!

When will you guys realize that those guys, WSL, Cheung, etc. weren't very good fighters? Sure they had fights. Fightslike this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTXtQogCNh4



Your VT is a fantasy and is based on theory ("straight lines are direct , cicles arent. moving the lines is the idea"). And your theory is simply wrong. If you fought, you'd see that.

I give up your delusional....your beginning to believe your own mantra.....I searched a long time in other 'ways of vt or wck as you like to put it...one day terence one day...I wish i could hear you say the words others from wck sifu have also said.......

but I certainly dont give a sh&t about whether you find it or not either

eject !! boooinnnnnggg

[t_niehoff]

I give up your delusional....your beginning to believe your own mantra.....I searched a long time in other 'ways of vt or wck as you like to put it...one day terence one day...I wish i could hear you say the words others from wck sifu have also said.......

but I certainly dont give a sh&t about whether you find it or not either

eject !! boooinnnnnggg

http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/10/how...-ourselves.php

[k gledhill]

your projecting ....keep walking son, the truth is out there....ask your teacher.

if your ever in NYC dont drop by, 'cause your going to have to walk on to Germany yourself

[YungChun]

Yes, my views are very different from his -- but I can see his POV. Hell, at one time I thought very much like him.

But then what happened? Assuming you do see his POV which I am not entirely sure you do.

Taking what "you think" he means, having failed to make it work and then dismissing what you *think* he means based on your own experience applying what you think he means is a bit off the mark of science.

What do you think Kev means by moving the line?

If you met Kev and just for the sake of argument he defeated you with his version of WCK would this prove anything or would you find other reasons to dismiss it?

It's not a question of "intercepting displacement" first or not -- there is no such thing as "intercepting displacement", at least not in fighting.

Sure it does.. The core of centerline theory is what this is about here, two objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time... This is the basis for JKD as well, to place the counter inside the path of the opponent's displacing it while countering. Bruce demo'd this concept at the Open event that was filmed in California in the 60's.....

Even if you buy into the "intercepting displacement" stuff, the next question is WHY, for what purpose, are you intercepting and displacing? If it is just to hit, then when you fight you will find yourself in trouble.

WCK's goal is to do damage..... You do that damage in WCK with strikes... Everything else in the system is intended to ASSIST the former.

There are cases when you need to actively control and issue energy/power specifically to do that, there are cases when you do not need to do that actively.

Also (and this is where you are off) structure of the opponent can be broken by WCK striking with WCK structure.... To not see that is to miss the most basic and core concepts/ideas/methods of WCK and WCK striking and structure, footwork, etc.

To wit..

From the 'master of functionality' himself...

In fact, I would say that the WCK straight punch is the essence of WCK. If you could just master that, most of real WCK is embodied in that. – Robert Chu.

Hmmm, no mention of control first....sounds like he needs a lecture on control vs kickboxing there T...

The method with the pole is not the same as with empty hands.

All the parts of the art have a common thread, the centerline for one, runs through all expressions of what is WCK, with or without weapons..

I certainly don't have a unique view of "the system" -- whatever the f#ck the "system" is.

I don't know about you Terence.. Get over this semantic minutia..

You have a major problem with the word 'system'? Then take it up with your bloody Sifu.

“Wing Chun is a system, not a style. A system is a training method; a style is personal expression.” – Robert Chu.

You say you don't have a unique take on the system but you do.. Robert has made that quite clear.. His version of WCK is different because it's the only "functional" version, oh that's all... LOL

You could say my WCK is the functional version of WCK. – Robert Chu.

So I guess Robert has fought lots and lots of good fighters eh?

My view of WCK is founded on the traditional, classical faat (method).

Based on your interpretation of this theory that is not without it's bumps and fudges..

Upon loss of contact regain that contact is not the Kuit nor the idea of WCK, THAT is in fact what WCK is NOT.

You either see WCK as a close range, attached fighting method or you don't. If it is not an attached fighting method, then it is a form of kickboxing (unattached fighting).

And I've yet to see anyone who can make WCK's tools consistently work at noncontact fighting.

You're logic circuits need an additional layer of heuristics.... You can't seem to understand problems that have non linear solution sets...

WCK is a simple idea of fighting... Robert has also stated this and he is right. The most simple expression of WCK is simply a single strike KO...

If you land your strike on your opponent and KO him in a single action did you use WCK or does it need to be more complicated in order to qualify as WCK?

Do you see the folly? At what level does it qualify?

Let's see

Again from the 'master of functionality'...

In fact, I would say that the WCK straight punch is the essence of WCK. If you could just master that, most of real WCK is embodied in that. – Robert Chu.

Wow sounds like it did qualify as 'real WCK' after all even without all the other stuff..

If you see WCK as an attached fighting method (and the kuit tells us it is: Duen Kiu, Tib Sen, Che Lun Ma - Short Bridge, Close Body, Carriage Wheels), then you find that when on the inside and close if you don't have control, you will be in real trouble. Your opponent will have the freedom to do anything, including get control over you. That is the reality of it; that's what happens when you fight in a phone-booth. This is why the WCK faat, which comes from our ancestors tells us the first thing to do is dap (join, ride) with our opponent, then to jeet (cut off his offense, not intercept and displace), followed by chum (breaking his structure) -- and if we are good, to do all three in one action (Sam Jiu Yat Chai Dao - Three moves arrive together.)

There is a reason WCK's defining drill/exercise is an attached drill/exercise.

Sure... Lots of reasons..

But it's not an either, or, it's a case of whatever is needed... You may have all kinds of tools in your box but if you need a screwdriver and not a hammer today shall I say you are not a mechanic because you didn't use most of your tools today, this week?

The bottom line is that there are those fighters who will play the line and those that don't.. In the old days of WCK who were you going to fight?

BJJ? Nope.
Western Boxer? Nope.
Wrestler? Nope.

Who then?

The answer tells the tale.. You would most likely be fighting folks who totally played the line, wanted to connect bridges, and used similar tactics as WCK...

A totally different ball game...

and if we are good, to do all three in one action (Sam Jiu Yat Chai Dao - Three moves arrive together.)

Oh how so? You clearly make the point you can't reach for their attack.. No simultaneous parry/strikes... But you are going to attack or they are...

Is your lead going to be a strike? Well no "control" there you say...hmmmm...

How do you do these three things at once if no reaching? If you keep a guard?

Seems contradictory..

Unless all these three are and can be expressed in a single simple action, BANG! Yup that has all three in there.

Yes, the 'attacking hand defends', NOT, 'The controlling hand defends'..

But....

Do you really think that WCK EXPRESSION is going to be the same when fighting a Western Boxer as when fighting a Baak Mei proponent? I mean really.....

If they don't play the line, and don't want to bridge then the WCK method is NOT going to emphasize the same elements PERIOD. Simple common sense.

Bottom line is you have YOUR interpretation of WCK.. I will tell you it does not match up with the majority of the most basic and agreed on core of what WCK is known for, in terms of your theory... You don't even seem to use the line, listening to you speak... WCK is about an unbroken line of force.. first, and the rest of the store is there to assist that line of force(keeping it unbroken).. THAT is WCK.

Making a thing "work or not" for you does not validate or invalidate anyone else's method or interpretation.. Less is more when fighting good fighters, not more is more THAT is not WCK's idea...

The faat you speak of and how you employ it is your interpretation and in some cases I agree and in some cases it's clear you are just off the mark..

Wouldn't be the first time you were wrong would it? You have changed up your stuff several times looking over your writings and who knows it may well change again..

Simplicity is the goal of WCK..... The rest of the stuff is there in case... The core training is about core concepts (simple) and core attributes that are at home no matter what the level of complexity is the expression...

Strike when you can, control when you need to....

We don't chase hands we chase Santa.. – Gary Lam

[k gledhill]

good reply.... I have asked t for answers before with no reply...except load of cr&p or I know not what I know , er yeah I learned from a direct student of YM, that still doesnt mean I know what I'm talking about .... if you study the system long enough the questions we all want answered will be reached....there is a line of vt fighting out there with answers...up to you to figure out YOUR answers....if your happy in your 'routine' so be it....I thought I was doing a legitimate version of VT until I found a source nearer the er source ...without bells & whistles attached...."Fists of Fury" lives in Menden Germany I could care less if Terence cares no respect. even if he found the source it would tell him to bugg%r off

[Phil Redmond]

But then what happened? Assuming you do see his POV which I am not entirely sure you do.

Taking what "you think" he means, having failed to make it work and then dismissing what you *think* he means based on your own experience applying what you think he means is a bit off the mark of science.

What do you think Kev means by moving the line?

If you met Kev and just for the sake of argument he defeated you with his version of WCK would this prove anything or would you find other reasons to dismiss it?



Sure it does.. The core of centerline theory is what this is about here, two objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time... This is the basis for JKD as well, to place the counter inside the path of the opponent's displacing it while countering. Bruce demo'd this concept at the Open event that was filmed in California in the 60's.....



WCK's goal is to do damage..... You do that damage in WCK with strikes... Everything else in the system is intended to ASSIST the former.

There are cases when you need to actively control and issue energy/power specifically to do that, there are cases when you do not need to do that actively.

Also (and this is where you are off) structure of the opponent can be broken by WCK striking with WCK structure.... To not see that is to miss the most basic and core concepts/ideas/methods of WCK and WCK striking and structure, footwork, etc.

To wit..

From the 'master of functionality' himself...



Hmmm, no mention of control first....sounds like he needs a lecture on control vs kickboxing there T...



All the parts of the art have a common thread, the centerline for one, runs through all expressions of what is WCK, with or without weapons..


I don't know about you Terence.. Get over this semantic minutia..

You have a major problem with the word 'system'? Then take it up with your bloody Sifu.



You say you don't have a unique take on the system but you do.. Robert has made that quite clear.. His version of WCK is different because it's the only "functional" version, oh that's all... LOL



So I guess Robert has fought lots and lots of good fighters eh?

Based on your interpretation of this theory that is not without it's bumps and fudges..

Upon loss of contact regain that contact is not the Kuit nor the idea of WCK, THAT is in fact what WCK is NOT.



You're logic circuits need an additional layer of heuristics.... You can't seem to understand problems that have non linear solution sets...

WCK is a simple idea of fighting... Robert has also stated this and he is right. The most simple expression of WCK is simply a single strike KO...

If you land your strike on your opponent and KO him in a single action did you use WCK or does it need to be more complicated in order to qualify as WCK?

Do you see the folly? At what level does it qualify?

Let's see

Again from the 'master of functionality'...



Wow sounds like it did qualify as 'real WCK' after all even without all the other stuff..



Sure... Lots of reasons..

But it's not an either, or, it's a case of whatever is needed... You may have all kinds of tools in your box but if you need a screwdriver and not a hammer today shall I say you are not a mechanic because you didn't use most of your tools today, this week?

The bottom line is that there are those fighters who will play the line and those that don't.. In the old days of WCK who were you going to fight?

BJJ? Nope.
Western Boxer? Nope.
Wrestler? Nope.

Who then?

The answer tells the tale.. You would most likely be fighting folks who totally played the line, wanted to connect bridges, and used similar tactics as WCK...

A totally different ball game...



Oh how so? You clearly make the point you can't reach for their attack.. No simultaneous parry/strikes... But you are going to attack or they are...

Is your lead going to be a strike? Well no "control" there you say...hmmmm...

How do you do these three things at once if no reaching? If you keep a guard?

Seems contradictory..

Unless all these three are and can be expressed in a single simple action, BANG! Yup that has all three in there.

Yes, the 'attacking hand defends', NOT, 'The controlling hand defends'..

But....

Do you really think that WCK EXPRESSION is going to be the same when fighting a Western Boxer as when fighting a Baak Mei proponent? I mean really.....

If they don't play the line, and don't want to bridge then the WCK method is NOT going to emphasize the same elements PERIOD. Simple common sense.

Bottom line is you have YOUR interpretation of WCK.. I will tell you it does not match up with the majority of the most basic and agreed on core of what WCK is known for, in terms of your theory... You don't even seem to use the line, listening to you speak... WCK is about an unbroken line of force.. first, and the rest of the store is there to assist that line of force(keeping it unbroken).. THAT is WCK.

Making a thing "work or not" for you does not validate or invalidate anyone else's method or interpretation.. Less is more when fighting good fighters, not more is more THAT is not WCK's idea...

The faat you speak of and how you employ it is your interpretation and in some cases I agree and in some cases it's clear you are just off the mark..

Wouldn't be the first time you were wrong would it? You have changed up your stuff several times looking over your writings and who knows it may well change again..

Simplicity is the goal of WCK..... The rest of the stuff is there in case... The core training is about core concepts (simple) and core attributes that are at home no matter what the level of complexity is the expression...

Strike when you can, control when you need to....

Without using the verbatim dogma from one particular branch you've expressed what I've learned from different lineages through the years.

[t_niehoff]

But then what happened? Assuming you do see his POV which I am not entirely sure you do.

I opened my eyes.

Taking what "you think" he means, having failed to make it work and then dismissing what you *think* he means based on your own experience applying what you think he means is a bit off the mark of science.

What do you think Kev means by moving the line?

WCK and fighting has nothing to do with lines or moving them.

Sure it does.. The core of centerline theory is what this is about here, two objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time... This is the basis for JKD as well, to place the counter inside the path of the opponent's displacing it while countering. Bruce demo'd this concept at the Open event that was filmed in California in the 60's.....

That's theoretical twaddle. What is this nonsense about no-two-objects-can-occupy-the-sam-space-at-the-same-time? So what? That's NOT the centerline, that's just physical reality, and explains why I can't walk through walls. Nor is the centerline about the-shortest-distance-between-two-points-is-a-straight-line? Where do people get this stuff from? Do they think boxers or wrestlers don't know two objects can't occupy the same space or that aline isn't the shortest distance?

The centerline refers to the corridor between us, and to enter -- to move my body in close to your's in order to control you -- my body must move through this corridor.

WCK's goal is to do damage..... You do that damage in WCK with strikes... Everything else in the system is intended to ASSIST the former.

The objective of every fighting method is to "do damage" -- WCK provides us a method, an organized way of approaching fighitng to do that.

Also (and this is where you are off) structure of the opponent can be broken by WCK striking with WCK structure.... To not see that is to miss the most basic and core concepts/ideas/methods of WCK and WCK striking and structure, footwork, etc.

Yes, I know. But breaking structure isn't control, just an element that assists in getting control. Unless your opponent is a complete scrub, you won't keep his structure broken by striking alone.

From the 'master of functionality' himself... (the WCK straight punch is the essence of WCK. If you could just master that, most of real WCK is embodied in that - Robert Chu)

I don't agree with Robert's statement, but I know what he means (having trained with him).

For him, the punch demonstrates the essence of WCK -- not the punch in itself but because of what it represents. As I understand Robert, the WCK punch is notlike a boxer's punch, for example, because we use that tool to dodifferent things than a boxer. For examle, the punch permits us to project our body structure into an opponent (off-setting him), to join, to break structure, to clear the way for our body to move in, etc.

Hmmm, no mention of control first....sounds like he needs a lecture on control vs kickboxing there T...

Robert knows the method: I learned it from him. He teaches that WCK is about controlling while striking. I often tell people that I learned mainly three BIG lessons from Robert (and lots of little things), and that was one.

All the parts of the art have a common thread, the centerline for one, runs through all expressions of what is WCK, with or without weapons..

The centerline doesn't really exist -- it is an IDEA, and one that varies greatly among various practitioners. So, how can something that varies so considerably be "a common thread"?

My view is that terms/concepts like the centerline only remove us a step or two from reality -- there is no need to talk about a centerline, talk instead about what is really going on. When you remove things a step or two from reality, it leads only to confusion. When you talk about what is really doing on, it only clarifies.

I don't know about you Terence.. Get over this semantic minutia..

You have a major problem with the word 'system'? Then take it up with your bloody Sifu.

Why not just say WCK instead of "the system" if you are talking about WCK? There is no "system". Do boxers or wrestlers talk about "the system"? This is just another example of taking a step back from what is really going on.

And why do you keep bringing up Robert? Yes, he helped me make my WCK functional, and I think he is a very good WCK instructor who has the core curriculum of WCK (which many, many, many in WCK don't), but his views are not necessarily my views.

Application is my sifu, not Robert.

You say you don't have a unique take on the system but you do.. Robert has made that quite clear.. His version of WCK is different because it's the only "functional" version, oh that's all... LOL

Robert doesn't have a "version" of WCK -- there is no such thing. WCK is WCK. Lineage, branches, etc. aren't different ways of "doing" WCK but different ways of teaching WCK, different ways of presenting a curriculum.

A person can only make their WCK functional in the same way they make their boxing, wrestling or BJJ functional -- by and through working it out in sparring with quality opponents. You don't get that from your instructor; you get that from your sparring partners.

So I guess Robert has fought lots and lots of good fighters eh?

As I told Kevin, it doesn't matter what your teacher does or doesn't do -- that won't help you. All a WCK instructor can give you, assuming he has it, is the core curriculum, the fundamentals of WCK. That's it. Then it is up to you to do the work.

My experience is that most people in WCK don't have the core curriculum. For example, most people don't have the faat, the method. I didn't when I went to train with Robert. I had the forms, the drills, some of the kuit, etc. Those are the pieces to the puzzle, but the faat is the map to putting the pieces together.