Master David Cheung's new Wing Chun federation

[LSWCTN1]

How do you know there are "branches" of WCK that have yet to present themselves?



There is no compelling evidence that Leung Bik practiced WCK or taught Yip Man other than the story that was developed by Lee Man as a marketing ploy.



WCK is not a system of knowledge and is not knowledge-based; it is, like any martial art or sport, a skill, and is skill-based. As such, our abilitiy to do it doesn't depend on intellectual knowledge (any more than our ability to play basketball depends on knowledge). You simply need to learn the few skills that you need to do the activity (the fundamentals).



The different branches or "families" (what a silly term) are just different ways that different people have TRIED to teach the same thing. They are curriculums; they are not WCK. The curriculum is not the subject matter.



Your analogy of a college professor teaching an academic, intellectual, knowledge-based course is poorly conceived. WCK is not an intellectual pursuit. WCK is a fighting method, and like boxing or wrestling is an open skill. Are there secrets in boxing or wrestling? No. It's not a matter of being able to "fully absorb and comprehend a lecture by a college professor." In fact, sports and fighting methods and physical skills can't be learned or developed that way.

whilst i also agree with you for the majority of this post, there are some things which i feel slightly different to yourself about:

i thought that there was a banner outside Ip Man's school declaring him a student of Leung Bik, therefore this must have been either
1. True
2. Ip mans personal marketing ploy?
Although i do know that Chu Chong Man recognised Leung Bik as a student of Leung Jan according to one of his articles in New Martial Hero.

'WCK is not a system of knowledge and is not knowledge-based; it is, like any martial art or sport, a skill, and is skill-based. As such, our abilitiy to do it doesn't depend on intellectual knowledge (any more than our ability to play basketball depends on knowledge). You simply need to learn the few skills that you need to do the activity (the fundamentals). '

i only agree with this to a certain extent, but if you imagine,say, the best boxers of the times throughout history many of them where head and shoulders above their competitors in terms of intellect too - Roy Jones Jr springs to mind, and of course Mohammed Ali.

regards

david

[CFT]

In my view, the 'branches" aren't important -- the "root" is. The "branches" are just differing ways of getting to the root. When you get stuck on a branch, you never get to the root.

Haha, you are right of course, but you're changing the argument Terence.

[duende]

How do you know there are "branches" of WCK that have yet to present themselves?



There is no compelling evidence that Leung Bik practiced WCK or taught Yip Man other than the story that was developed by Lee Man as a marketing ploy.

Marketing ploy?? Ahhh... so instead of admitting you don't have all the facts and that there exists information beyond your understanding, you choose to criticize and offer insults.

Where'd you learn this behavior in kindergaten or law school?

WCK is not a system of knowledge and is not knowledge-based; it is, like any martial art or sport, a skill, and is skill-based. As such, our abilitiy to do it doesn't depend on intellectual knowledge (any more than our ability to play basketball depends on knowledge). You simply need to learn the few skills that you need to do the activity (the fundamentals).

So skills have nothing to do with knowledge?? Come on Terence... you are arguing just for arguments sake.

Btw... who taught you all the WC techniques... and why does your Sifu post articles and share his knowledge in them??

The different branches or "families" (what a silly term) are just different ways that different people have TRIED to teach the same thing. They are curriculums; they are not WCK. The curriculum is not the subject matter.

So once again you lower the bar Terence with your gross generalizations.

Have you studied every branch of WC? I think not.

Despite what you may believe, your own WC may quite possibly employ many different applications and knowledge absorbed from a variety of WC branches. Good thing too.

One day, Terence you will learn... that when walking into a room full of people... the intelligent person is the one who does not immediately assume that they are the smartest person in the room.

Your analogy of a college professor teaching an academic, intellectual, knowledge-based course is poorly conceived. WCK is not an intellectual pursuit. WCK is a fighting method, and like boxing or wrestling is an open skill. Are there secrets in boxing or wrestling? No. It's not a matter of being able to "fully absorb and comprehend a lecture by a college professor." In fact, sports and fighting methods and physical skills can't be learned or developed that way.

NO.... YOUR reappropriation of my analogy is poor. By YOUR analogy... any high school wrestler could walk onto a college wrestling mat and hold their own.

Fighting skill depends unlitmately on three things. Physical aptitude, mental prowess, and a determination of will. Better known as Mind, Body, and Spirit.

In short... upon confrontation.... Without physical aptitude, fighter will essentially be fighting themselves. Without mental prowess a fighter will not know when to fight, or how to learn from their loses (or wins for that matter). And without fighting spirit... a fighter will never have the courage to take on the fight, or see it to the end.

All three require development through hard work over time.

The mind understands, The body knows.

But enough of this side-track.

Good training to all.

[canglong]

Originally Posted by t_niehoff
WCK is not a system of knowledge and is not knowledge-based; it is, like any martial art or sport, a skill, and is skill-based. As such, our abilitiy to do it doesn't depend on intellectual knowledge (any more than our ability to play basketball depends on knowledge). You simply need to learn the few skills that you need to do the activity (the fundamentals).

Just curious t what statistical data are you using to prove your point that most athletes are ignorant and perform based on mimicry and not knolwedge. 1. you need to play a few more sports and 2. you need to stop using sports analogies.

Btw... who taught you all the WC techniques... and why does your Sifu post articles and share his knowledge in them??

Even more to the point your sifu likes to present the apprearance that he has superior knowledge.

[t_niehoff]

Marketing ploy?? Ahhh... so instead of admitting you don't have all the facts and that there exists information beyond your understanding, you choose to criticize and offer insults.

Where'd you learn this behavior in kindergaten or law school?

I said marketing ploy because that is precisely what several of Yip Man's students, like Wang Kiu, said it was (this has been hashed and rehashed many times on the WCML and KFO). We have Yip Man's own written account of his lineage and there is no mention of Leung Bik (are you calling Yip Man a liar?).

If you have some facts, then present them to support your view.

BTW, why do you try to turn this into a persona attack (re my behavior)?

So skills have nothing to do with knowledge?? Come on Terence... you are arguing just for arguments sake.

Skill has very little to do with intellectual knowledge. Is riding a bike knowledge-based? Certainly you need to learn skills, but you learn skills by doing skills, not by intellectualizing them. Do you think a really good athlete is better than the average Joe because he has some knowledge the average guy doesn't? Of course not.

Btw... who taught you all the WC techniques... and why does your Sifu post articles and share his knowledge in them??

Your instructor teaches you skills. He may help you develop those skills. But those skills are physical skills. You need someone to teach you to play basketball too -- to dribble, shoot, do a lay-up, etc. But these are not intellecutal things. They are skills. You learn and develop skills by doing them. What makes a good basketball player is not his "knowledge" or his "understanding."

So once again you lower the bar Terence with your gross generalizations.

Have you studied every branch of WC? I think not.

If you come to recognize the root, you don't need to investigate all the branches.

Despite what you may believe, your own WC may quite possibly employ many different applications and knowledge absorbed from a variety of WC branches. Good thing too.

The branches are only curriculums not the subject matter. The branches can't teach you to use/do WCK, only your opponent can.

One day, Terence you will learn... that when walking into a room full of people... the intelligent person is the one who does not immediately assume that they are the smartest person in the room.

Again, more personal attacks.

NO.... YOUR reappropriation of my analogy is poor. By YOUR analogy... any high school wrestler could walk onto a college wrestling mat and hold their own.

You mis-state and misunderstand what I am saying. If you go into a a high school and a college wrestling gym you will see the same things, the same fundamentals being practiced. The difference is that the college group is probably doing them better. And that's because the college selects kids who are better wreslters, who are more talented, who take it more seriously, who practice more, etc. The difference in skill isn't dependent on intellectual knowledge.

Fighting skill depends unlitmately on three things. Physical aptitude, mental prowess, and a determination of will. Better known as Mind, Body, and Spirit.

In short... upon confrontation.... Without physical aptitude, fighter will essentially be fighting themselves. Without mental prowess a fighter will not know when to fight, or how to learn from their loses (or wins for that matter). And without fighting spirit... a fighter will never have the courage to take on the fight, or see it to the end.

All three require development through hard work over time.

The mind understands, The body knows.

What a lovely theory.

[t_niehoff]

Just curious t what statistical data are you using to prove your point that most athletes are ignorant and perform based on mimicry and not knolwedge. 1. you need to play a few more sports and 2. you need to stop using sports analogies.

No, I don't need to stop using sports analogies since sports are open skill athletic activities, just like WCK. Confusion arises when we start looking at WCK as something different in kind than sports.

Even more to the point your sifu likes to present the apprearance that he has superior knowledge.

Again, why the personal attacks?

[sanjuro_ronin]

While I tend to agree with most of what T said, I do think that you can NOT count out the mind or the "spirit".
They are, however, intangiables that can't be trained.
Either someone has "it", or they don't.
Certainly there are "smart fighters" and ther eare those with great "spirit".
Again, these things can't be trained or measured or taught.

[Ned]

Skill has very little to do with intellectual knowledge. Is riding a bike knowledge-based? Certainly you need to learn skills, but you learn skills by doing skills, not by intellectualizing them. Do you think a really good athlete is better than the average Joe because he has some knowledge the average guy doesn't? Of course not.

Your instructor teaches you skills. He may help you develop those skills. But those skills are physical skills. You need someone to teach you to play basketball too -- to dribble, shoot, do a lay-up, etc. But these are not intellecutal things. They are skills. You learn and develop skills by doing them. What makes a good basketball player is not his "knowledge" or his "understanding."


What a lovely theory.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kRb06w_XPo

[anerlich]

Even more to the point your sifu likes to present the apprearance that he has superior knowledge.

If so he's hardly Robinson Crusoe, is he?

How about:

The Cheungs, Leung Ting, the authors of MKF, ...

[duende]

Skill has very little to do with intellectual knowledge. Is riding a bike knowledge-based? Certainly you need to learn skills, but you learn skills by doing skills, not by intellectualizing them. Do you think a really good athlete is better than the average Joe because he has some knowledge the average guy doesn't? Of course not.

Actually when you race bikes there are many strategies and team-based tactics that go beyond just sheer pedaling cadence and balance. These strategies and tactics vary depending on the environment and terrain. As different methods are required for mountain regions vs. flatlands. For time trials vs. regular open stages. Different gearing and equipment changes also come into play. In the old days, you also had to know how to repair your own bike (as there were no sag wagons to provide assistance or replacement parts).... which is definitely not easy. Ever try and repair a Sturmey-Archer hub? I think not... try reading all the manuals on that one... not a light read I tell you.

Your instructor teaches you skills. He may help you develop those skills. But those skills are physical skills. You need someone to teach you to play basketball too -- to dribble, shoot, do a lay-up, etc. But these are not intellecutal things. They are skills. You learn and develop skills by doing them. What makes a good basketball player is not his "knowledge" or his "understanding."

I guess college basketball coaches don't know much then and are waaay overpaid! Lute Olsen, has nothing on you. And players no nothing more than mere dribbling, lay-ups etc..

If you come to recognize the root, you don't need to investigate all the branches.

If this is true, then what are you doing here? And who are you rooting for??

The branches are only curriculums not the subject matter. The branches can't teach you to use/do WCK, only your opponent can.

The branches are only curriculums?? Sorry, no this is completely idealistic view at best... If this were true, then there wouldn't be such a thing as CSL structure that is so often mentioned from your camp. No... we would all be doing the same techniques and expressing the same body karma.

Learning from opponents is absolutely necessary and vital... but how do you learn Terrence? By analyzing your mistakes. Oops... but analyzing mistakes is just a skill too right???

You mis-state and misunderstand what I am saying. If you go into a a high school and a college wrestling gym you will see the same things, the same fundamentals being practiced. The difference is that the college group is probably doing them better. And that's because the college selects kids who are better wreslters, who are more talented, who take it more seriously, who practice more, etc. The difference in skill isn't dependent on intellectual knowledge.

College student do them better because they have greater focus, physical aptitude, and commitment. I don't see why you have a problem admitting that the brain serves a function in these processes. Be it sports, or real combat.

FWIW.... I just saw Red Belt and watched all the out takes on DVD. What was very interesting to me, is that here you have a film made by a David Mamet a Jiu Jitsu Martial Artist, along with the cooperation and help of many famous MMA fighters. And one of the central themes of the movie is that sport fighting and real combat are not the same thing. The MMA's in the out takes had a real appreciation for this understanding.

What a lovely theory.

So I take it you don't think spirit and sheer determination of will has anyplace in fighting either...

As for the personal attackss... well you probably had them coming. But I'll play nice now.

[sanjuro_ronin]

FWIW.... I just saw Red Belt and watched all the out takes on DVD. What was very interesting to me, is that here you have a film made by a David Mamet a Jiu Jitsu Martial Artist, along with the cooperation and help of many famous MMA fighters. And one of the central themes of the movie is that sport fighting and real combat are not the same thing. The MMA's in the out takes had a real appreciation for this understanding.

Every single MA I know, knows the difference, they appreciate the difference, all you ever have to do is work as a bouncer for a few months to understand the difference.
And the difference is not in the training, nor the techniques we use, but in the intent.
And understanding is the first step of intent.
And any MA that has ever done full contact understands.
But, there are exceptions, typically noobs but sometimes even very experienced people that, for some reason, don't get it.

[duende]

Every single MA I know, knows the difference, they appreciate the difference, all you ever have to do is work as a bouncer for a few months to understand the difference.
And the difference is not in the training, nor the techniques we use, but in the intent.
And understanding is the first step of intent.
And any MA that has ever done full contact understands.
But, there are exceptions, typically noobs but sometimes even very experienced people that, for some reason, don't get it.

Agreed. I would only add that to be a good bouncer, you also have to have street smarts. You need to know who is a punk and who is a real player. Otherwise, your gonna get your ass shot.


However street smarts are not important according to T. As they are not a repetitive motion developed skill. May I present exhibit A:

No, I don't need to stop using sports analogies since sports are open skill athletic activities, just like WCK. Confusion arises when we start looking at WCK as something different in kind than sports.

[Phil Redmond]

Actually when you race bikes there are many strategies and team-based tactics that go beyond just sheer pedaling cadence and balance. These strategies and tactics vary depending on the environment and terrain. As different methods are required for mountain regions vs. flatlands. For time trials vs. regular open stages. Different gearing and equipment changes also come into play. In the old days, you also had to know how to repair your own bike (as there were no sag wagons to provide assistance or replacement parts).... which is definitely not easy. Ever try and repair a Sturmey-Archer hub? I think not... try reading all the manuals on that one... not a light read I tell you. . . . .

Yes, there are tactics used in bike racing. I used to race at Kissena Cycling club in Queens when I was a messenger in the City. http://www.kissena.info/
They had an asphalt? Velodrome back then. You're right about strategy in bicycle racing. One of my favorite races was the Madison. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madison_(cycling).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCtm1WTFFNw
Two men teams racing like i the race where they pass the baton except you would grab your team member by the arm or shirt and propel him as you **** by. After he does a lap he would do the same to you.


But I also liked the Match Sprint http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Match_sprint where you have so many laps to do and when you get near the end you want to be behind your opponent so that you can draft him. So you might end up doing a long track stand http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Track_stand
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcEF2GyBR_Q
behind your opponent so that he would have to take the lead and you would be able to draft and get the jump on him to win. Technique is important in all physical activities. BTW, I'm Campy all the way.

[duende]

BTW, I'm Campy all the way.

Hell's yeah!! I raced Super Record all through the 80's. All I have left now is a Nuovo Record on an old Columbus SL frame.

My favorite thing was the criteriums and sprinting for the primes! Racing was much different back then.

[canglong]

originally posted by t_niehoff
No, I don't need to stop using sports analogies since sports are open skill athletic activities, just like WCK. Confusion arises when we start looking at WCK as something different in kind than sports.

That's your data, thanks.

Again, why the personal attacks?

That is not a personal attack it's a fact of life no students would gravitate towards a teacher they thought had inferior or less knowledge than themselves surely not even you would disagree with that.