Registered User
Haha...Originally Posted by t_niehoff
Well yeah... If you take some of the posts regarding WC and "feminine energy" you so often find on this forum, and put them into the historical context in which WC was created...
I know it sounds absurd... That's my whole point.
Anyways... Don't mean to sidetrack your thread.
Laters.
Last edited by duende; 04-25-2010 at 12:18 PM.
Banned
Much of what you hear on this forum is absurd!
We don't know the historical context in which WCK was created, because we don't know when, where, how, etc. it was created.
FWIW, my personal view is that it simply evolved from the fighting of various persons on the Red Boats (which fits in with Hendrik's find that wing chun kuen was opera performer's fist), and that's why it contains elements of white crane, hakka, etc. And I think this was organized differently by different people on the Boats.
In the end, WCK is just a boat to take you across the river. It really doesn't matter who made the boat.
Registered User
Terrence, you are truly a study in mental illness.
Banned
Thank you, Dr. Delusional, for your diagnosis.
Registered User
Terrence, you are truly a study in mental illness. how many times are you going to ignore us ?
Registered User
LOL... spoken by the one of the guys who are most out of touch with reality.
Registered User
And there's the other one.Terrence, you are truly a study in mental illness. how many times are you going to ignore us ?
Registered User
out of touch yeah..im the crazy one. terence is right on the mark with his WCK obsession
this forum should be called ,"Welcome to my obsession" featuring Terence and his monotonous mantra...
its degenerated into " you know who's " obsessive mantra is hijacking any thread, it gets tedious.
Last edited by k gledhill; 04-25-2010 at 06:16 PM.
Registered User
I can see the love growing between you and Terrence daily.
humungous the barbarian
dude your decrepid and troll forums all day you really think you should point fingers?
I am pork boy, the breakfast monkey.
left leg: mild bruising. right leg: charley horse
handsomerest member of KFM forum hands down
Registered User
It's a pity this thread has degenerated into petty name calling. T has raised issues that I think should be seriously discussed.
I've trained on and off in Wing Chun for a dozen years or so . One of my great reservations about the system has always been that when you are out of contact you are very vulnerable to a mobile and proficient striker, especially if a superior reach is involved.
In such a situation I've always felt safer in a western boxing stance.
In 90% of my Wing Chun drill/chi sao training I have been in some kind of arm to arm contact. I think given this emphasis it is likely that Wing Chun was always intended to operate at this range - to strike, contol or remove an obstruction, strike, jam or smother a strike, strike, be in someone's face but without trying to directly out muscle them etc. Simply because that is where you generally trainyour Wing Chun. Form follows function.
I've never really been happy that the training I've done had little or no emphasis on actually getting into this close and attached range. However, I had an experience recently that is pertinent to this problem and I will be happy to relate it if anyone is interested.
Mark
Registered User
IMO there is not a lot that needs to be discussed. If that is your training experience then I suggest that you seek to alter it. Phil Redmond has a million clips on youtube of he and his students training out of movement. I strongly suggest that you begin training your WC using that model. As far as the stance, there is nothing wrong with using a boxing stance in my opinion. That is how my lineage trains most of the time.
Attain Master of Silence
Do you think this is unusual? Everyone has seen this "contact" being trained in a myriad of ways since forever...
The question or part of it being discussed is what "contact" means and if it means clinching/"attached"... Something most people do NOT see the former meaning.
Last edited by YungChun; 04-26-2010 at 01:13 AM.
Jim Hawkins
M Y V T K F
"You should have kicked him in the ball_..."—Sifu
Attain Master of Silence
Yes, of course it is....
To most, "Clinching" refers to "The Clinch" which most take to mean locking up with your opponent in a clinch... VT does not trap its own hands..... PERIOD!
VT does not lock up, nor does it clinch in the conventional sense of the term....
VT does remove obstructions, it can jam it can grab but no not clinch in the conventional sense.. All one needs to do to see that is look at the tools and moves in the forms.. VT is about CHANGE and changing momentary controls that are linked.. Change is VT!
It's easy to confuse terms in print.. What one person thinks "attach" means, what one person thinks "clinch" means may not be what others think..
Here's what VT is not:
VT is about landing powerful strikes to destroy and disrupt.. Extended, yet momentary "contact" is used when needed, e.g. IF they are in (or come back into) our space preventing the former.. When they are not in that space then reaching for a limb is not what VT is about.. Reaching for a limb that is leaving the line is a major "faux pas" in this art no matter what you call it. Yes, VT controls but how it controls and which tools are used are dependent on what the opponent does and in no case does any of it involve "the clinch".
The Faat also does not refer to VT "clinching" either.. If you think it does, then your interpretation of the faat is, well, odd.. There is no clear intent in the faat of VT "Clinching"....
VT's Preferred range is the range at which you can strike your opponent with both arms and legs without taking a step...
T you fail to address any specifics of how you apply your method and you refuse to post any video of your supposed "unique" interpretation... IMO this is simply because you know that if seen no one would be buying any of it...as VT.. Or, maybe you are using the art just as some here advocate, but, we'll never know because you won't show, or tell..
Last edited by YungChun; 04-26-2010 at 02:14 AM.
Jim Hawkins
M Y V T K F
"You should have kicked him in the ball_..."—Sifu
Banned
Mark, boxers fight unattached and so what they do -- and they are the best doing it -- reflects that. Their stance gives them cover, permits them to move in ways to avoid strikes yet strike effectively, etc. And while that is great for what they do, it isn't great for other things, like when you are attached or grappling. It is body structure appprpriate to their task, not ours in WCK.
Exactly. Look, why have as our signature drills/exercise one that is attached (in contact) to then not fight in contact? That doesn't make good sense. Doesn't it make sense that you want to practice in contact so that you can fight in contact? And, in fact, everything in WCK points that way -- if you open your eyes to it.In 90% of my Wing Chun drill/chi sao training I have been in some kind of arm to arm contact. I think given this emphasis it is likely that Wing Chun was always intended to operate at this range - to strike, contol or remove an obstruction, strike, jam or smother a strike, strike, be in someone's face but without trying to directly out muscle them etc. Simply because that is where you generally trainyour Wing Chun. Form follows function.
Most people practicing WCK,including the grandmasters, only have some of the pieces to the puzzle (which they take as the whole enchilada) and so fill out the missing elements with their own nonsense. It's mixing the wheat with the chaffe. For example, people without the WCK faat (method) -- the WCK game -- often use a kickboxing method/game since that's the only game they know.I've never really been happy that the training I've done had little or no emphasis on actually getting into this close and attached range. However, I had an experience recently that is pertinent to this problem and I will be happy to relate it if anyone is interested.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
