Wing Chun and The root

[sanjuro_ronin]

To go back to my original post, using calculus as the new baseline.

You learn it from a good teacher, but who did those equations the first time and who did he learn it from?

It always goes back to someone had to do it first. Someone had to look at the basics and add the next level.

To look at something and say, this can't be improved, is nothing more than a path to stagnation and eventually extinction.

Learn everything you can from everyone but follow your own path.

Everything can be improved and everything needs to evolve, even if it means taking a step back.

[t_niehoff]

To go back to my original post, using calculus as the new baseline.

You learn it from a good teacher, but who did those equations the first time and who did he learn it from?

It always goes back to someone had to do it first. Someone had to look at the basics and add the next level.

To look at something and say, this can't be improved, is nothing more than a path to stagnation and eventually extinction.

Learn everything you can from everyone but follow your own path.

Instead of calculus, take boxing. We can learn boxing from Dempsey's book. Does this mean that the ONLY RIGHT WAY to box is according to Dempsey? And that we judge our boxing by how closely we move while not acuaully boxing (fighting) according to what Dempsey says? Of course not.

This is part of the TCMAist's problem -- the book (or grandmaster) says so so that's not only the right way but the only way. They are more concerned with the book than performance. The book is AT BEST just a guide for you while you EARN YOUR OWN EXPERIENCE boxing. You have to find your own boxing, not parrot Jack Dempsey. (And even Jack couldn't do what he said to do in his book!).

You judge your boxing on your performance actually fighting (sparring/boxing) not by how closely you conform to the book.

Now the funny thing is that many TCMAists have books by people who couldn't box! And those books become their Bibles!

[sanjuro_ronin]

That is the crux of the matter- results.

If someone says they can increase you "KO" power with method A and you follow method A, how are you going to know if it worked?
Well, there is only one way, by KO'ing people.
Now, of course certain attributes are more easily measured and verified than others, but the Litmus test is the same, results.
You have to have clear cut goals though.

[t_niehoff]

That is the crux of the matter- results.

If someone says they can increase you "KO" power with method A and you follow method A, how are you going to know if it worked?
Well, there is only one way, by KO'ing people.
Now, of course certain attributes are more easily measured and verified than others, but the Litmus test is the same, results.
You have to have clear cut goals though.

If you see these things as PHYSICAL SKILLS, then you automatically think in terms of results since results is part of the definition of skill. Skill is defined by motor skill experts as your ability to successfully bring about a desired result with maximum certainty and minimum time and/oreffort.

[m1k3]

sanjuro_ronin and t_niehoff, I agree with both of you, of course.

What I was hoping to do is set up a mirror for those who claim or demand the real - traditional - deeper wing chun and show them it had to start some where and that wing chun's predecessor had to start some where and so on and so on.

Some one, some where, had to innovate, think and test to build wing chun.

Which implies that the innovation, thinking and testing is still going on. Because if it isn't then wing chun is a dead art.

[Yoshiyahu]

Can we leave the calculus analogy alone...We get so far away from fighting with Wing Chun...

Lets not make WC into a Philsophy, Religion or some form of thinking outside the box.

Lets make it about Combat!

[m1k3]

Can we leave the calculus analogy alone...We get so far away from fighting with Wing Chun...

Lets not make WC into a Philsophy, Religion or some form of thinking outside the box.

Lets make it about Combat!

See, this is something I have a problem with. I am a former Jarhead who served a long time ago. I was never in combat but I had some good friends who where.

Yoshi, whatever you are doing with your wing chun, it is NOT combat. Not even close. To be honest what most people do with their wing chun isn't even very close to fighting.

[Hendrik]

See, this is something I have a problem with. I am a former Jarhead who served a long time ago. I was never in combat but I had some good friends who where.

Yoshi, whatever you are doing with your wing chun, it is NOT combat. Not even close. To be honest what most people do with their wing chun isn't even very close to fighting.

I agree. and lets get into the WCK specific.


if one cant even answer to the following questions in a clear and definite way. One dont even do the basic of WCK. so, let's get to the very basic and specific. answer the following questions.


--------------------------




what is the criterion or the attainment for you to know your YJKYM is proper? or What kind of result you need to attain in the beginer level?


what kind of result or attainment for you to know your SLT/SNT is practice properly in the beginer level?




#2 and 3 are sure progressive and one can do it in a life time and still progress.
certainly, some could be real advance and some might just beginer's level.


Now, let's open the card, what needs to be attain for one to know one's YJKYM is proper and one's SLT/SNT is proper?

[m1k3]

SLT is about relaxation, correct use of energy and forward intent.

The goat stance is just a stance. Use it or not as you see fit.

[Hendrik]

SLT is about relaxation, correct use of energy and forward intent.

The goat stance is just a stance. Use it or not as you see fit.

IMHO, those are just open generization and even bias concept which in doesnt say much to track the proper and progression of the training. Thus, these type of instruction doesnt aid the training much at all.

This kind of stuffs doesnt contribute to the high standard of the ancient time, in fact, due to the fuzzyness and over generization, it degrades the level of WCK.

[sanjuro_ronin]

sanjuro_ronin and t_niehoff, I agree with both of you, of course.

What I was hoping to do is set up a mirror for those who claim or demand the real - traditional - deeper wing chun and show them it had to start some where and that wing chun's predecessor had to start some where and so on and so on.

Some one, some where, had to innovate, think and test to build wing chun.

Which implies that the innovation, thinking and testing is still going on. Because if it isn't then wing chun is a dead art.

Every system was developed from "scratch" at a certain point, typiclaly from other systems. We can keep going as far back as possible in the hopes of finding THE original one, but it is a waste of time because, as we know, systems change to suit the environment.
The WC of TODAY is not the WC of yesteryear, NOR shoudl it be.
WC fighters have different things to deal with today as oppossed to even 50 years ago.
As such WC must, if needed, change to deal with these things and yet maintain the core principles that make it WC.
And the only way to do it is to TEST it and the only test for a fightign system is fighting.

[m1k3]

IMHO, those are just open generization and even bias concept which in doesnt say much to track the proper and progression of the training. Thus, these type of instruction doesnt aid the training much at all.

This kind of stuffs doesnt contribute to the high standard of the ancient time, in fact, due to the fuzzyness and over generization, it degrades the level of WCK.

Thank you Sifu for passing on your wisdom. What form of Wing Chun was used in these "ancient times"? From what I was taught, Wing Chun became a separate style in the late 1600 or early 1700s. Hardly ancient times. I must have been taught wrong or incomplete information. Of course you have the "real" wing chun while I have nothing but glorified kickboxing knucklehead Wing Chun.

Please enlighten me about the "ancient" traditions and standards of Wing Chun oh mighty warrior scholar of the internets.

I wait humbly and patiently for your teachings Sifu of the true Wing Chun. My path must be wrong for the light of the TAO shines brightly on your words magnificent warrior of the true unsullied linage dating back to the dawn of time. I stand in awe of your wisdom and hope only to be able to partake of the crumbs of your feast of knowledge.

Old Ancient Wing Chun
Hendrick has bared your body
Sifu of the truth

[Hendrik]

The WC of TODAY is not the WC of yesteryear, NOR shoudl it be.
.

That is the biggest disaster.




as the chinese said,

make a Drawing of ghost is ease but make a drawing of human is difficult.

Why?

because

no one has seen ghost, so one can draw anything and call it ghost.

as for Human, everyone know how a human looks like, so people know if one is not drawing human.


WCK has become ghost for most, so, sure it is easy to draw as one likes it. One can draw it in a Hung gar way, a CLF way, a Taiji Way, a BJJ Way....
but is it human or it is ghost?


bottom line for WCK, if one cant evoke the Inch Jin or the fast accelerate Jin, there is no indepth WCK exist anymore.

[Hendrik]

Thank you Sifu for passing on your wisdom.

I am not sifu Just Hendrik

What form of Wing Chun was used in these "ancient times"? From what I was taught, Wing Chun became a separate style in the late 1600 or early 1700s.

until solid technical evident is shown, it is just a speculation.

I must have been taught wrong or incomplete information.

who knows?

Of course you have the "real" wing chun while I have nothing but glorified kickboxing knucklehead Wing Chun.

That is what you post. as you like it. nothing to do with me.

Please enlighten me about the "ancient" traditions and standards of Wing Chun oh mighty warrior scholar of the internets.

who do you speak to?

I wait humbly and patiently for your teachings Sifu of the true Wing Chun. My path must be wrong for the light of the TAO shines brightly on your words magnificent warrior of the true unsullied linage dating back to the dawn of time. I stand in awe of your wisdom and hope only to be able to partake of the crumbs of your feast of knowledge.

Great. Tell it to your sifu.





BTW:

it is just two simple questions, no Dao, no sifu, no Ancient, no Truth, no clever reasoning, no need critical thinking.........but just something similar to those appear in a cook book to instruct one to cook proper food.



what is the criterion or the attainment for you to know your YJKYM is proper? or What kind of result you need to attain in the beginer level?


what kind of result or attainment for you to know your SLT/SNT is practice properly in the beginer level?


Simple is it?

[bawang]

fist law not permanent
you can do whatever you want