Mixing Wing Chun with a grappling style?

[Hendrik]

Very true, since I am not concerned with killing the undead, I don't need the weapons like yin/yang, chi,internal power, etc. to kill them.

even if you concern there is nothing you can do about it and it is best to let you blind on the weapon. hahahaha

[t_niehoff]

even if you concern there is nothing you can do about it and it is best to let you blind on the weapon. hahahaha

Well, in any event, it's nice to know that if I ever do need to fight the undead or any other fantasy creature, that you have the fantasy weapons that I'll need.

[JPinAZ]

I'm sorry I ever mentioned Hedrik's in this thread... Now we have the extreme pleasure of reading his incoherant ramblings about lord knows what on yet another thread.

WTF is he even talking about??

[m1k3]

I'm sorry I ever mentioned Hedrik's in this thread... Now we have the extreme pleasure of reading his incoherant ramblings about lord knows what on yet another thread.

WTF is he even talking about??

Hendrick has be quoting his favorite movie, "Kung Fu Panda". It's one of my favorites also. The only problem is that he believes it.

"There is no secret ingredient." Po, the dragon warrior.

[Hendrik]

Hendrick has be quoting his favorite movie, "Kung Fu Panda". It's one of my favorites also. The only problem is that he believes it.

"There is no secret ingredient." Po, the dragon warrior.

have some gut and have some real kung fu instead of all the talk and could even defend SLT from Terence post.

[Hendrik]

I'm sorry I ever mentioned Hedrik's in this thread... Now we have the extreme pleasure of reading his incoherant ramblings about lord knows what on yet another thread.

WTF is he even talking about??

Ok to not have a F*()King clue with an air head.

[duende]

I PM'ed you my cell number, call me when you get into town. I'll be more than happy to SHOW you why HFY is nonsense.

I'm not making this thread personal. I didn't say anything personal about YOU. I am saying it about your views (the HFY view). Do you understand the difference? Saying that your views are theoretical nonsense and not to be taken seriously isn't a personal attack; suggesting that I am a coward IS a personal attack.

But, we'll sort this out when we meet.

What a load of back-tracking horse Sh1t! You most certainly did make this thread personal. Seriously... do you honestly expect people to buy that load of crap you just wrote?

Talk about theoretical nonsense! That sh1t might fly in the courtroom, but try telling that to someone on the street who's about to kick your ass.


Terence: I wasn't talking about you or insulting you, I was just saying it about your views.

Yeah... that'll go over real well.

Believe it or not Terence, You are not the only one in the whole WC community that questions things. You are not the only person who challenges what he is taught. And you most certainly are not the only person who test's what he's learned with real resisting opponents.

I know you find that hard to believe, but get over yourself.

[t_niehoff]

What a load of back-tracking horse Sh1t! You most certainly did make this thread personal. Seriously... do you honestly expect people to buy that load of crap you just wrote?

Talk about theoretical nonsense! That sh1t might fly in the courtroom, but try telling that to someone on the street who's about to kick your ass.


Terence: I wasn't talking about you or insulting you, I was just saying it about your views.

Yeah... that'll go over real well.

Personal is to call you an idiot. To say that what you believe is silly is not personal. You can understand that?

But, let me be as clear as I can be since you seem to want to continue the coversation. I think HFY is silly, it is piles of theoretical sh1t set onto TWC and topped with a history right out of a comic book. It amazes me that anyone falls for it. But then again, PT Barnum knew what he was talking about.

So, I don't take the HFY perspective seriously, it is a joke.

I'm not going to seek out HFY people and if you leave me alone and don't try to enter into conversations I'm having, particularly by quoting me, to offer a HFY perspective, then you won't hearfrom me about HFY. BUT, realize that anytime you bring me into a converstaion (likeby quoting me), then I'll respond, and my response will be to say that I don't take HFY seriously, that it is a joke.

Don't want to hear that? Then stay away from me.

Believe it or not Terence, You are not the only one in the whole WC community that questions things. You are not the only person who challenges what he is taught. And you most certainly are not the only person who test's what he's learned with real resisting opponents.

I know you find that hard to believe, but get over yourself.

I know that I'm not the only one. There are some on this forum. On the other hand, every cultmember in the world believes he's not a cultmember. Every woo believes he has questioned things through. Don't try and suggest that HFY practitioners are critical thinkers who get out and regularly spar with competent fighters. If you guys were, you wouldn't be spewing the nutty stuff that you do.

[duende]

Then I'll be real clear too Terence,

You don't have the slightest idea of what is a joke and what is not a joke in the real world.

And for that I almost feel sorry for you.

Keep on posting your trash talk. When you want to experience life, you know where to find me.

[t_niehoff]

Then I'll be real clear too Terence,

You don't have the slightest idea of what is a joke and what is not a joke in the real world.

And for that I almost feel sorry for you.

Keep on posting your trash talk. When you want to experience life, you know where to find me.

Spoken like a true cultmember.

[duende]

Spoken like a true cultmember.

Is that also not an insult?

Or are you going to cowardly back-track out of that one too?

As for theoretical nonsense.

Tell me then, why did your Sifu Robert Chu use our HFY terminology for his article on Bai Jong, Jit Kiu, Chum Kiu, and Wu Ma??? Because he knew real information when he saw it!

Why did he release articles that for all intents and purposes echo previously released articles by us? Articles on the Wing Chun Punch, and on Wing Chun Footwork.

Because regardless of whether or not he knew about the HFY articles, he views these WC topics similarly.

Guess our non-sense must be your non-sense too!


Now here in this thread you talk about Chi Sau being a form of stand-up grappling that can be used for fighting at a clinch range.

This is what I've been saying for frickin years! That Chi Sau is for fighting at a certain time-frame. When for years upon years YOU said it was only a training drill.

So Terence, if I'm a cult member, then you are a wannabe cult-member kissing my a$$ so that you can join.

I'm done with this thread. Keep on strokin' yourself. I've got better things to do.

[t_niehoff]

Is that also not an insult?

Or are you going to cowardly back-track out of that one too?

HFY is a cult.

As for theoretical nonsense.

Tell me then, why did your Sifu Robert Chu use our HFY terminology for his article on Bai Jong, Jit Kiu, Chum Kiu, and Wu Ma??? Because he knew real information when he saw it!

It might surprise you to learn that some of "HFY terminology" isn't original -- that is was taken, like its forms, from other sources. So your terminology isn't exclusive to HFY. Bai jong, chum kiu wu ma, etc. were terms I knew 25 years ago, before I met Robert. Interestingly, I also learned the HFY forms (TWC forms) long ago too.

Why did he release articles that for all intents and purposes echo previously released articles by us? Articles on the Wing Chun Punch, and on Wing Chun Footwork.

What articles did HFY release that pre-dated his articles? Oh, BTW, Benny's punch article -- funny that, considering that Benny took a private lesson from Robert prior to writing that article and joining HFY, and he learned one point in Gu Lao, the punch.

Because regardless of whether or not he knew about the HFY articles, he views these WC topics similarly.

Guess our non-sense must be your non-sense too!

What you fail to point out is all the other piles of rubbish heaped onto the few things from legitimate WCK, your WCK formula, the gates, time/space/energy, saam mor kiu, and the list goes on and on.

FWIW, Robert's motto is "let application be your sifu" -- that is a rejection of theory. Theory doesn't teach you to apply your WCK. Experience fighting does.

Fighting isn't -- and CAN'T be -- that complicated. And that's why when you look at functional martial arts, you see they keep theory to a minimum.

Now here in this thread you talk about Chi Sau being a form of stand-up grappling that can be used for fighting at a clinch range.

This is what I've been saying for frickin years! That Chi Sau is for fighting at a certain time-frame. When for years upon years YOU said it was only a training drill.

Well, you've been wrong for years, because we're not saying the same things at all. And you don't understand what I've been saying. Chi sao isn't "a form of stand-up grappling." It is a artifical, unrealistic exercise that can be used to teach and practice some elements of WCK's method of fighting, which is a combination of striking and grappling.

Chi sao isn't for fighting and won't develop fighting skills. Nor does it have anything to do with a "certain time-frame." If you fought as part of your training, you'd see that.

So Terence, if I'm a cult member, then you are a wannabe cult-member kissing my a$$ so that you can join.

I'm done with this thread. Keep on strokin' yourself. I've got better things to do.

LOL! Dude, I recognized Benny and Garrett for what they were the minute I laid eyes on them back in '99. Two peas in a pod.

[duende]

HFY is a cult.

The opinion of a back-peddling hypocritical a$$. Keep on editing your posts btw...

It might surprise you to learn that some of "HFY terminology" isn't original -- that is was taken, like its forms, from other sources. So your terminology isn't exclusive to HFY. Bai jong, chum kiu wu ma, etc. were terms I knew 25 years ago, before I met Robert. Interestingly, I also learned the HFY forms (TWC forms) long ago too.

The context and the usage of the term in the manner that I'm referring to WAS at the time unique to HFY. As for anything you learned in 1993?? Big fricken deal. I have Sihings who learned HFY from my Sifu all the way back to 1977. Before TWC was even known in the USA.

and you're on crack if you think you learned our forms.

What articles did HFY release that pre-dated his articles? Oh, BTW, Benny's punch article -- funny that, considering that Benny took a private lesson from Robert prior to writing that article and joining HFY, and he learned one point in Gu Lao, the punch.

Gu Lao punch?? Really??? Now that is funny.

Go look a true Gu Lao punch. And then feel free to come back here and re-edit your post. Because this is silliest thing you've written yet.

What you fail to point out is all the other piles of rubbish heaped onto the few things from legitimate WCK, your WCK formula, the gates, time/space/energy, saam mor kiu, and the list goes on and on.

Sad for you that you consider this a pile of rubbish. Truly shows what an ignorant fool you are.

FWIW, Robert's motto is "let application be your sifu" -- that is a rejection of theory. Theory doesn't teach you to apply your WCK. Experience fighting does.

Yes, we've heard you say this a million times. Appears it is the ONLY thing you learned from Robert which is too bad.

Fighting isn't -- and CAN'T be -- that complicated. And that's why when you look at functional martial arts, you see they keep theory to a minimum.

more so-called wisdom from a poser.

Well, you've been wrong for years, because we're not saying the same things at all. And you don't understand what I've been saying. Chi sao isn't "a form of stand-up grappling." It is a artifical, unrealistic exercise that can be used to teach and practice some elements of WCK's method of fighting, which is a combination of striking and grappling.

Chi sao isn't for fighting and won't develop fighting skills. Nor does it have anything to do with a "certain time-frame." If you fought as part of your training, you'd see that.

More hypocracy and back-peddling. I'm sure you'll re-edit your prior posts to conform to this last paragraph too.

LOL! Dude, I recognized Benny and Garrett for what they were the minute I laid eyes on them back in '99. Two peas in a pod.

What other great wisdom did you learn from sitting on the sidelines and not will touching anyone's hand??

Truly sorry for re-joining this thread. Will leave if Terence is done talking smack.

[TAYLOR1]

Terrence,

Who are you? Your nobody. You don’t know HFY. You sit in your little chair hiding behind your keyboard.

You want to test your skill? Come test it in Phoenix, you arrogant little sh1t!

Btw, why do you constantly edit your posts? You can’t keep your nutty thoughts straight? Or do you constantly change your mind because you don’t know what your talking about? The truth doesn’t change but your words do!

[JPinAZ]

Disclaimer: this is not a reply directed toward T, so he doesn't need to apply.

Last post:

Chi sao isn't "a form of stand-up grappling." It is a artifical, unrealistic exercise that can be used to teach and practice some elements of WCK's method of fighting, which is a combination of striking and grappling.

Previous post:

WCK is to control the opponent while striking him. To control an opponent requires "grappling". Chi sao is "grappling". Lop sao is "grappling". Those drills teach you how to mix grappling (controlling) and striking.

Another previous one:

Chi sao is grappling with striking. Sustained contact is grappling.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Last post:

Chi sao isn't for fighting and won't develop fighting skills. Nor does it have anything to do with a "certain time-frame." If you fought as part of your training, you'd see that.

Again:

Chi sao is grappling with striking. Sustained contact is grappling.

Sounds like fighting to me...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
But then:

Chi sao isn't a "moment", it is an artificial, unrealistic exercise.

But wait, that's not right either:

Grappling is being in contact and trying to physically manipulate your opponent to reach your objective. That's what wrestlers do, that's what judoka do, that's what sumo wrestlers do,and that's what we do in WCK -- except we add strikesto the mix. Chi sao is similar to a wreslter's handfighting.

and lastly again:

Chi sao isn't "a form of stand-up grappling."

Which is it, is it grappling and striking (fighting), or is it an excersize? Is it wrestler's handfighting or is it a useless unrealistic excersize?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
oh wait, one more time:

Chi sao is grappling with striking. Sustained contact is grappling.

and
Previous post:

Chi sao is "grappling". Lop sao is "grappling". Those drills teach you how to mix grappling (controlling) and striking.

Or, was it

...it is an artificial, unrealistic exercise.

Is it an excersize that teaches useful fighting skills or unrealistic excersize?
Is it grappling or isn't it?
Is it for fighting or isn't it?
No wonder there's confusion...