Why Is WCK WCK? Will Not Be Deleted

[Wayfaring]

Here's a simple solution. This thread will not be deleted by me for any reason. That is a contract in the beginning.

Please continue your discussion that started in Hendrik's thread.

And Hendrik, I encourage you to please share your views on why WCK is WCK on this thread. As you've heard, some people have a concern because you have deleted what they have shared in the past. So to ensure this doesn't happen, please feel free to post on this thread.

[Wayfaring]

In fact, this is an open forum and the Question is why WCK WCK. Why dont you share with us your view? instead of get stuck on what you dont like, keep complaining and keeping get stuck, share with us what you like.

Show us your theory or your lineage and why it is WCK WCK? I am sure every one is open to understand you. I am open, convert me serious. Show us you clips and theories....etc so we could trace it and check it out and consider...etc.



and if you like to begin,
You can start with Tan Sau Ng, What type of Uniqueness Tan Sau Ng bring into WCK if you believe Tan Sau Ng create WCK. or Yat Chan or Which Shao Lin or Which secrete society. what is the uniqueness and where is the source of that DNA .....etc. how could it be traced? what component of this person or style bring could be seen across other WCK lineages?


After this post to encourage you to post your theory, philosophy, evidents, signature from your own observation or your lineage. to answer why WCK is WCK;
If you dont like to post and share, then I take it you just dont have anything to say.

You have chances as anyone of us but if you dont use it then that is your choice.


BTW. Why WCK is WCK it is not a philosophical question it is totally physical question to justify the value of martial art style.

Your post reflects your bias and your philosophy.

WCK is not theory, philosophy, evidence, or signatures. It lives and dies in the existence of fighting skills of those who practice it.

Who is Tan Sau Ng? A legendary figure from red boat WCK that appears in a couple of historical references. Nobody knows what he taught.

It is as unimportant to real WCK fighting skill to theorize who he was as it is to theorize what techniques Count Maeda taught Carlos Gracie at the start of BJJ.
Who cares? The proof is in the test. BJJ of today looks nothing like that.

Why is WCK WCK? WCK is only WCK today due to the collective fighting skills of those who practice it. So in other words, it's hurting bigtime. A lot of theory, a lot of philosophy, a lot of BS. Not a lot of fighting.

And - your post reflects your attachment to wanting to be SOMEONE's daddy. You lecture me, tell me I'm stuck, tell me I'm complaining. My view is negative to your view. That's not wrong, it's my view. I can start and stop anywhere I want in what I share, regardless of your attempt to dictate. You don't control my timeframe and sharing any more than you would if we were touching hands. Which is not at all.

Theory, evidence, signature is a waste of time. Trying to be relevant, but approaching it in the wrong way.

You want to be relevant? Test your skills.

[t_niehoff]

Your post reflects your bias and your philosophy.

WCK is not theory, philosophy, evidence, or signatures. It lives and dies in the existence of fighting skills of those who practice it.

Yes and no. Is WCK anything we want to do? Can I do anything and legitimately call it WCK? Not IMO.

I think WCK is an approach to fighting that has both a method and skill set (actions/movements/tactics) that come down to us from certain persons on the Red Boat and descend to us through certain lineages.

Like most TCMAs, the curriculum for that art is not the application of the art (unlike the functional, sport fighting methods). I think Hawkins' analogy of the curriculum is where you build your gun and but you learn to use that gun (application or fighting) through using the gun, i.e., practicing shooting or using it.

Hendriks' view - at least as I understand it - is that there are certain specific things that go into the building of that gun, i.e., the curriculum, that make it a WCK gun. Call those signatures if you like, or elements or aspects or whatever.

Who is Tan Sau Ng? A legendary figure from red boat WCK that appears in a couple of historical references. Nobody knows what he taught.

It is as unimportant to real WCK fighting skill to theorize who he was as it is to theorize what techniques Count Maeda taught Carlos Gracie at the start of BJJ.
Who cares? The proof is in the test. BJJ of today looks nothing like that.

History has its place.

It seems you are arguing that WCK has, like BJJ, evolved so that what our ancestors did and taught isn't important. I don't agree. WCK has not evolved, and certainly not like BJJ or boxing or wrestling. There have been relatively few genuine fighters in WCK to drive any evolution, and none of them really fought any high quality opposition (which helps to drive evolution). In fact, I think WCK has more devolved (gotten progressively worse over time) because you have the art being taught mostly by theoretical nonfighters who haven't even learned the core curriculum of WCK -- yet spread their own "take" (interpretation, additions, etc.) through misrepresenting history, giving themselves titles, and other things to sell their nonsense.

The simple fact is we can't get good at something if we don't know what it is we are trying to do. So, how can I know what I am being taught involves the core curriculum of WCK or not? Take the word of the guy taking my money? Who knows, I may be being intentionally or unintentionally misled? My view is that we look to and examine the older, legit branches of WCK to see their commonality.

As WCK is a specific approach toward fighting, it follows that we are trying to do X, that the art provides a strategic approach to getting X (the faat mun), the movements and actions that we need to carry out that strategic approach (the fundamental skills), an oral tradition to provide us guidance in putting it together to get X (the kuit), etc. IOWs, these are the essentials to putting the pieces of the puzzle (gun) together.

But does knowing this core curriculum mean we can use it? Of course not. But without the core curriculum of WCK, we won't be able to put it together at all. Then we are left with using only a few pieces (caveman wCK where we just charge in with the straight blast, for example) or trying to make things fit into a kickboxing structure.

Why is WCK WCK? WCK is only WCK today due to the collective fighting skills of those who practice it. So in other words, it's hurting bigtime. A lot of theory, a lot of philosophy, a lot of BS. Not a lot of fighting.

As I see it, WCK is a skill. The curriculum of WCK is to provide the pieces you need to develop that skill. But to test any skill, we need to first know what it is we are trying to do. WCK isn't beating up the other guy, but beating him up in a certain way, an organized way of fighting that uses specific actions, movements, tactics, etc. If we are not clear on that, we get practicing one thing to do another. IOWs what we do in fighting looks nothing like what he practice in our forms or drills or even talk about doing.

Theory, evidence, signature is a waste of time. Trying to be relevant, but approaching it in the wrong way.

You want to be relevant? Test your skills.

Tun (swallowing) is a tactic and a torso method of WCK. Does whether Hendrik can do it in fighting in anyway affect or change that? If someone says it isn't, they are wrong.

Curriculum and application (fighting) are two different things in the TCMAs.

[YungChun]

But without the core curriculum of WCK, we won't be able to put it together at all.

So with the core we are on our way.......?

The curriculum of WCK is to provide the pieces you need to develop that skill. But to test any skill, we need to first know what it is we are trying to do. WCK isn't beating up the other guy, but beating him up in a certain way, an organized way of fighting that uses specific actions, movements, tactics, etc.

And now we have our 'certain way' using specific actions and movements.

If we are not clear on that, we get practicing one thing to do another.

Lest we train one way to fight another way...yes?

IOWs what we do in fighting looks nothing like what he practice in our forms or drills or even talk about doing.

And yet from the above...that's exactly what it sounds like we are doing .........

Nothing like what we train? Which is it?

Learn the right core to apply it?

Lest we learn the wrong core only to fight another way?

Or learn the right core to apply something totally different?

Something is wrong somewhere--just ask Dale..

[t_niehoff]

So with the core we are on our way.......?

How far do you think you can get without the fundamentals?

And now we have our 'certain way' using specific actions and movements.

What do you think those fundamentals are -- a method/approach and the tools to implement it.

Lest we train one way to fight another way...yes?

Or rather we find that we cannot use most of our tools.

And yet from the above...that's exactly what it sounds like we are doing .........

Nothing like what we train? Which is it?

Learn the right core to apply it?

That's the problem with TCMA, that is separates curriculum from application. You learn the method (it's even reflected in our signature exercise, chi sao) and we learn the tools (movement/action) we need to employ that method, but because it is all done unrealistically (not under fighting conditions), we don't learn how to use it in fighting. You learn and develop your skill to use the method and tools in fighting by fighting.

Lest we learn the wrong core only to fight another way?

Or learn the right core to apply something totally different?

Something is wrong somewhere--just ask Dale..

The method tells us what we are trying to do, the tools provide the means to do it. That's the core. If you don't know what it is you are trying to do, you won't be able to do it. If you don't know that WCK is to control while striking, do you think you will develop skill doing that?

Sure something is wrong -- the whole TCMA way of teaching and training (separating curriculum from application). It is a really poor way of learning or developing skills. And that's why most people in TCMAs never develop any significant fighting skills. The ones that do have embraced the sport-model way of training/learning.

[YungChun]

Still.. You point out the import of having the right curriculum, the right training...but then state the application is totally different.. If indeed the application is totally different from the core training then there can be very little, if any, value to training the core, correctly or not.

Or is there more of the core that is used in application than you let on when trained 'correctly'?

Because, if not, then by any logical POV the core is virtually useless, or even counter productive--using this reasoning.. In that case the core should be removed or changed.

If all we need to know is the method(s) and the basic tools then why not just pass out a small booklet, learn the moves/tools on a Saturday and be done with it?

[Wayfaring]

Yes and no. Is WCK anything we want to do? Can I do anything and legitimately call it WCK? Not IMO.

I think WCK is an approach to fighting that has both a method and skill set (actions/movements/tactics) that come down to us from certain persons on the Red Boat and descend to us through certain lineages.

Yet the focus is on the wrong things. Whether my "motion" looks like a snake, slide in, or whether it looks like a crane. Yes there are fundamental tactics, structures, and energies unique to WCK.

Like most TCMAs, the curriculum for that art is not the application of the art (unlike the functional, sport fighting methods). I think Hawkins' analogy of the curriculum is where you build your gun and but you learn to use that gun (application or fighting) through using the gun, i.e., practicing shooting or using it.

Yes and no. The curriculum for most of WCK is the three forms, weapons, dummy, and chi sau. And very few have ever practiced realistic levels of application.

Hendriks' view - at least as I understand it - is that there are certain specific things that go into the building of that gun, i.e., the curriculum, that make it a WCK gun. Call those signatures if you like, or elements or aspects or whatever.

Hendriks view is confused. Like a man living in a small house, and yet he thinks it is the center of the universe. He theorizes about these certain signatures or elements, yet when he applies this "theory" to these forums, it seems that those people he likes or gets along with have the genuine signature and those he does not are missing it. A real lack of objectivity.

History has its place.

Yes. In the past.

It seems you are arguing that WCK has, like BJJ, evolved so that what our ancestors did and taught isn't important. I don't agree. WCK has not evolved, and certainly not like BJJ or boxing or wrestling. There have been relatively few genuine fighters in WCK to drive any evolution, and none of them really fought any high quality opposition (which helps to drive evolution). In fact, I think WCK has more devolved (gotten progressively worse over time) because you have the art being taught mostly by theoretical nonfighters who haven't even learned the core curriculum of WCK -- yet spread their own "take" (interpretation, additions, etc.) through misrepresenting history, giving themselves titles, and other things to sell their nonsense.

I am not arguing this. WCK has not evolved like BJJ or MMA. There's no pressure, so there's nothing that has caused it to adapt. Yes it's mostly full of nonsense. So any "core curriculum" is just another theory someone made up.

The simple fact is we can't get good at something if we don't know what it is we are trying to do. So, how can I know what I am being taught involves the core curriculum of WCK or not? Take the word of the guy taking my money? Who knows, I may be being intentionally or unintentionally misled? My view is that we look to and examine the older, legit branches of WCK to see their commonality.

When you get two or 3 generations removed from someone who as actually tried to use the "core curriculum" in any live environment there is no skill, only delusion. You only need to examine the older branches of WCK because that was the last generation that ever fought - the rooftop challenges.

As WCK is a specific approach toward fighting, it follows that we are trying to do X, that the art provides a strategic approach to getting X (the faat mun), the movements and actions that we need to carry out that strategic approach (the fundamental skills), an oral tradition to provide us guidance in putting it together to get X (the kuit), etc. IOWs, these are the essentials to putting the pieces of the puzzle (gun) together.

No argument there. However, I have seen different faat, different kuit, and different elements.

So what you are talking about is a bunch of good old boys who have similar non-fighting movements getting together over tea and arguing about fighting. And they came up with a "core curriculum".

But does knowing this core curriculum mean we can use it? Of course not. But without the core curriculum of WCK, we won't be able to put it together at all. Then we are left with using only a few pieces (caveman wCK where we just charge in with the straight blast, for example) or trying to make things fit into a kickboxing structure.

Yes, evidence from the real world pretty much shows that knowing the "core curriculum" doesn't translate to fighting skill.

As I see it, WCK is a skill. The curriculum of WCK is to provide the pieces you need to develop that skill. But to test any skill, we need to first know what it is we are trying to do. WCK isn't beating up the other guy, but beating him up in a certain way, an organized way of fighting that uses specific actions, movements, tactics, etc. If we are not clear on that, we get practicing one thing to do another. IOWs what we do in fighting looks nothing like what he practice in our forms or drills or even talk about doing.

As I see it, WCK around here is a skill. And that skill is centered on a whole bunch of theory. And that theory is non-applicable to fighting. It delusionally thinks that fighing needs to be in an organized way using specific "WCK" movements. That's why the only fighting done is chi sau, and the closest they get to fighting is arguing over chi sau "matches". And that is why you see the main evidence of WCK in a live environment being someone trying to use the YJYKM stance being back weighted with a man sao wu sau and getting plowed over, taken down and GNP'd out. And why you have Bullshido videos ridiculing it.

Tun (swallowing) is a tactic and a torso method of WCK. Does whether Hendrik can do it in fighting in anyway affect or change that? If someone says it isn't, they are wrong.

Yes, yes it does change that. Because Hendrik represents the lineage of some WCK family. If he can't do it, then nobody he teaches will ever do it. And it's just more theory. But he's the one that decides what this nebulous "core curriculum" is and who has it and who doesn't, and what the "genuine signatures" of WCK are from Emei and Crane. PFFFFFFFFTTTTTTT.

Curriculum and application (fighting) are two different things in the TCMAs.

Yes - "curriculum" is something designed to keep rice in the bowl, and "fighting" is something that is trained for "real combat" not this sport stuff with rules, and thus never practiced.

[jesper]

When you get two or 3 generations removed from someone who as actually tried to use the "core curriculum" in any live environment there is no skill, only delusion. You only need to examine the older branches of WCK because that was the last generation that ever fought - the rooftop challenges.

Nonsense

Plenty of fighting going on today. maybe not where you live though but then again its a big world

[Violent Designs]

There's plenty of fighting MMA, Thai boxing, San Da, Shootboxing and other combat sports.

In pure WCK, I don't see much.

[Vajramusti]

"That's why the only fighting done is chi sau, and the closest they get to fighting is arguing over chi sau "matches". And that is why you see the main evidence of WCK in a live environment being someone trying to use the YJYKM stance being back weighted with a man sao wu sau and getting plowed over, taken down and GNP'd out"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not all of wing chun training systems are back weighted.

Standard problem- generalizing about wing chun.

joy chaudhuri

[Wayfaring]

[QUOTE=Vajramusti;1048508Not all of wing chun training systems are back weighted.

Standard problem- generalizing about wing chun.

joy chaudhuri[/QUOTE]

Of course they are not. I am talking about evidence.

Evidence meaning fights where at least one of the proponents are listed as some form of WCK competitor and are available on the Internet.

Here's one example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDLRX1P0bEg

[Wayfaring]

Nonsense

Plenty of fighting going on today. maybe not where you live though but then again its a big world

If you are talking about WCK schools that have active even amateur fighters in it, the world is very small. Miniscule as a matter of fact.

If this is nonsense, please list all the schools in this big world. Maybe we can find video of their fights.

[Hardwork108]

Yes and no. The curriculum for most of WCK is the three forms, weapons, dummy, and chi sau. And very few have ever practiced realistic levels of application.

I would humbly said that very few have understood the forms and the principles behind them. That would be a first step before going on to applications.

Hendriks view is confused. Like a man living in a small house, and yet he thinks it is the center of the universe. He theorizes about these certain signatures or elements, yet when he applies this "theory" to these forums, it seems that those people he likes or gets along with have the genuine signature and those he does not are missing it. A real lack of objectivity.

I would say that Hendrik knows what he is talking about. Everything else is everybody elses problem!

I am not arguing this. WCK has not evolved like BJJ or MMA. There's no pressure, so there's nothing that has caused it to adapt. Yes it's mostly full of nonsense. So any "core curriculum" is just another theory someone made up.

Oh please don't tell us that you have the super dooper "improved" Wing Chun....

Oh no, that is what the world needed, another modern kung fu style founder....LOL!

When you get two or 3 generations removed from someone who as actually tried to use the "core curriculum" in any live environment there is no skill, only delusion. You only need to examine the older branches of WCK because that was the last generation that ever fought - the rooftop challenges.

I happen to know people who have used Wing Chun for fighting in this generation.

No argument there. However, I have seen different faat, different kuit, and different elements.

Welcome to the world of Mcdojos....LOL

So what you are talking about is a bunch of good old boys who have similar non-fighting movements getting together over tea and arguing about fighting. And they came up with a "core curriculum".

"Me no understand concepts and principles, my head hurts, but problem no with me"....LOL!

Yes, evidence from the real world pretty much shows that knowing the "core curriculum" doesn't translate to fighting skill.

Evidence from the real world pretty much shows that NOT knowing the core curriculum never stopped anybody making clueless comments about any given kung fu style!

As I see it, WCK around here is a skill. And that skill is centered on a whole bunch of theory. And that theory is non-applicable to fighting.

And the above is more EVIDENCE!

It delusionally thinks that fighing needs to be in an organized way using specific "WCK" movements. That's why the only fighting done is chi sau, and the closest they get to fighting is arguing over chi sau "matches". And that is why you see the main evidence of WCK in a live environment being someone trying to use the YJYKM stance being back weighted with a man sao wu sau and getting plowed over, taken down and GNP'd out. And why you have Bullshido videos ridiculing it.

Why do people who have not trained TCMAs anywhere outside of a Mcdojo, keep making clueless comments about these arts?

Yes, yes it does change that. Because Hendrik represents the lineage of some WCK family. If he can't do it, then nobody he teaches will ever do it. And it's just more theory. But he's the one that decides what this nebulous "core curriculum" is and who has it and who doesn't, and what the "genuine signatures" of WCK are from Emei and Crane. PFFFFFFFFTTTTTTT.

Hendrik can speak his mind, and he is qualified because he actually PRACTICES wing chun!

Yes - "curriculum" is something designed to keep rice in the bowl, and "fighting" is something that is trained for "real combat" not this sport stuff with rules, and thus never practiced.

Any discipline has a curriculum. The more complicated the discipline, then the more complicated and profound their curriculum will be........

[Hardwork108]

Not all of wing chun training systems are back weighted.

Standard problem- generalizing about wing chun.

joy chaudhuri

I agree 100%.

I would go further and say that the sad fact is that most of the generalizations are coming from people from people who have never really practiced Wing Chun.

[Hardwork108]

Of course they are not. I am talking about evidence.

Evidence meaning fights where at least one of the proponents are listed as some form of WCK competitor and are available on the Internet.

Here's one example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDLRX1P0bEg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2Nt2YSTNNA


But of course, this is sports fighting..........