Why Is WCK WCK? Will Not Be Deleted

[Wayfaring]

Just to clear this up for HW108 - this is the type of fighter HW thinks is highly skilled:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4CdIGfW9uA

This is the type of figher I think is highly skilled:

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fu...videoid=428823

[Hardwork108]

Not sure what this is - Sanda?

It is probably an open kung fu competition. So, it was probably full of kung fu people, including other Wing Chun exponents.

So over 3 continents, we can come up with 3 or 4 videos. Now I think Phil Redmond has other ones of his guys, and he has a site dedicated to WCK and fight / encounter videos.

It does not matter. If one so chooses he can train his kung fu for the sports tournament arena, as proven by the video clips. This does not however mean that those that don't, cannot fight and defend themselves!

But still, it's pretty weak. EVERYONE in local areas who train MMA and have taken fights have live evidence of fighting ability.

Many people in the TCMA, and the TMA world in general, are happy to keep the evidence of their abilities to themselves and not publish them on the World Wide Web.....

You missed this one - Milton Wallace. He studied HFY for a while at least:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzYGCK1oVYw

Look, I could also use the above clip as "evidence" of WC fighting, but I won't, as there I could not see any WC in that clip!

But still - the sheer numbers of it is overwhelming. Or lack of numbers on the WCK side.

Well, considering the fact that WC and other Traditional styles of Kung Fu were not designed as tournament sports, as well as the fact that many people who can use their kung fu do not enter competitions, then that is not too "bad".

[Hardwork108]

Just to clear this up for HW108 - this is the type of fighter HW thinks is highly skilled:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4CdIGfW9uA

Do you usually come to conclusion about martial artists that you don't know personally and who practice methodologies that you have no clue about?

I mean I don't know about that particular exponent, but if he has developed his virbrating power, then he could cause damage to anyone.

This is the type of figher I think is highly skilled:

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fu...videoid=428823

Yes, Ernesto Hoost is a great kickboxer, but we are in a kung fu forum, not a kickboxing one! LOL!

What are going to do now, post some clips of Mongolian Wrestling?

[Hardwork108]

Most people on this forum are familiar with Shawn Obasi. He doesn't post here but has relayed posts. He is one of the few outside of Alan Orr's guys who do fight and claim to be 'WCK fighters'. He's an exception to the norm.

Of interest is that Shawn also trains BJJ at American Top Team, I believe. Alan Orr's guys train BJJ with Leo Negao, a black belt BJJ competitor.

Now how you classify these guys as anything other than "MMAists" I have no idea, other than by your general head-injury-like avoidance of reality.

Shawn has a BJJ guard, although not a great one he was at least attacking from the bottom, and escaping.

His opponent had next to zero striking skills, but was a big guy who seems to have wrestled. He didn't have submission ground skills either, so once Shawn sprawled on him a few time and got some striking going it was all over. The wrestler couldn't even replace guard at the end when Shawn was GNP'ing him.

I wish Shawn all the best and hope he continues to prove his WCK base and advance in the ground game too - he should prove to have an interesting lower level show fight career, and hopefully more if he can prove himself.

I don't see the point you are trying to make. People are free to train and cross train as they wish. What they are not free to do is to constantly post in a KUNG FU forum to criticise TCMA methodologies that are way above their heads, and in which their genuine experience is very limited(and I am being kind here)!

[LoneTiger108]

WCK is basically dying right now. The sport fighting is killing it. So many areas have live competitions / fights 2X a month at least, and they are becoming more and more popular. How many sports fighter students do you have? How about anyone who teaches on this forum?

Hmm. One of the most intriguing comments made here. But who told you that WCK is dying? And because of SPORTS FIGHTING?

C'mon dude. Have you even bothered to visit any WCK schools outside your own area, or country? People that make these sorts of statements tend to think that they have completed WCK coz they've learnt all the forms and can do a bit of Chisau.

I believe Wing Chun is coming back into the mainstream. And yes, it has to be tougher because of the MMA trends, and it may even have to provide access to competitions for that purpose, BUT that is NOT what I believe Wing Chun is all about.

I wouldn't train fighters because that's not what interests me. I, like many other people I know, would only consider training people that have the right attitude and behaviour. That takes time to even assess! Respect goes a long way in the traditions of WCK, and if you have little respect for other families and the elder generations, then you may as well not bother IMHO.

It's a big wide world. There are many families of WCK. Not just one who trace down through Hendrik.

I don't think Hendrik is saying that anything traces 'through him'. Hendrik is a researcher and likes to point people in the right direction (according to HIS knowledge) as does everyone on here at some point.

Being linked to the Red Boats should be a part of everybodies WCK DNA, especially via the Ip Family root. It has been heavily researched too, and not only by Hendrik. I'm very aware of the differences but this should be a standard link for us all.

It's funny too that I was only talking to my Sifu last night and he mentioned that he wants to put out his basic foundation 'Induction' curriculum as he has had very positive response from his Facebook clips. The funny thing is he also mentioned that the entire induction doesn't even touch the forms. Nobody has ever even seen his forms except for his closest students, and they do not look exacly like Ip Mans or Lee Shings either(his lineage).

So, if you look at him as an example, he has taught WCK since 1978 and nobody has ever seen his forms publically. He trains everybody in foundation methods first, which I would argue originate from the Red Boats as their concentration was also in the overall development and performance of the students/players.

That isn't WCK dying. That is WCK being hidden and preserved for the right people and the right time.

[t_niehoff]

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.

I think part of the problem here lies in the term "application". Application to me is fighting, it is what I am doing -- not hope to do, not believe I will do, etc. -- but actually doing in fighting. So, if you are not fighting, you are not doing application.

You perform the lop da drill, right? Do you think that you are learning application, how the lop dad will be used in fighting? No. You are learning how to perform a lop da, the movement, the connection, the coordination, the variations of the action, etc. But since you aren't doing that under fighting condition, you aren't learning how to use it (when, where, why, how, etc.) in fighting.

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

The core are the essentials, the fundamentals of the art. How can there be more?

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.

No, you don't seem to understand. Look, traditional Japanese jiujitsu has the same core elements as judo (Kano took those elements) but what makes judo superior to TJJ is that Kano discarded the traditional way of training and adopted the sport model of training -- same core but trained in two different ways.

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?

It is not just a matter of KNOWING. If you didn't know how to play basketball, I could teach you the rudiments in a very short time. But how well could you play the game?

Most WCK people -- and I know because I did it to -- waste their time stuck at the beginner level, forever practicing the curriculum which they already know. Once you can comfortably ride the bike with the training wheels on (play chi sao reasonable well), it is time to take them off and begin learning to really ride the bike.

[t_niehoff]

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.

Yes, and these are the core curriculum of WCK. Yet, not everyone has them.

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 think there is more to the curriculum, including other drills/exercises and the oral tradition (kuit).

But I agree that few ever practice application (fighting). This is because many people don't appreciate that the curriculum is not WCK, that it only teaches you WCK, and that WCK is fighting. They mistakenly believe that in learning the curriculum that they are learning to fight.

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.

As I see it, Hendrik is looking at WCK from the perspective of these-are-the-core-aspects-of-WCK, and uses that as a point from which to examine what anyone is doing (in their curriculum).

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 "core curriculum" is simply my term for those elements that go into what makes WCK. In a nutshell, it is the method and the tools (the movement/actions and tactics) of WCK. And quite simply, you can't implement the method without those specific tools, and you can't really use those specific tools (to any significant degree) without using the method. The method and tools go hand-in-hand. That's why when you see WCK kickboxing (not the WCK method), you don't see the WCK tools in action.

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 agree with much of what you say. The curriculum can be "preserved" without ever developing any significant skill (ability to fight). The problem is when people who have little to no real skill add on to the curriculum, change the curriculum, etc. -- impose their "understanding".

You can be a complete duffer and teach someone how to play basketball because you know the curriculum of the game.

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".

You can express the same things differently. That's actually one of the advantages to examining different legit lineages of WCK -- you see the same things from a slightly different perspective.

The core curriculum is just what these lineages share, their commonality. Look, don't we all have tan, bong, fook? If someone was practicing/teaching something they called WCK but it didn't have tan, bong, fook how could it be WCK? These are "the three seeds" or "three poison hands" of WCK, depending on the branch of WCK (express the same things differently). they are in all legit lineages of WCK, they are in the forms, the drills, etc. So the core curriculum is the movement/actions all the branches share. But it also has the same core tactics (how to use those actions). Don't we all have mun (asking) or jou (running) or etc.?

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

Of course not. Does knowing the fundamentals of golf translate into being a good golfer? No. That is merely the first step. First, learn the curriculum. Second, learn how to use it.

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.

Yes, WCK is a skill. A curriculum isn't a skill, but a means of teaching you those things you will need in developing your skill. The only way to develop skill in WCK is by and through quality fighting/sparring. And, your skill level will be directly related to the amount of quality sparring you do (same as with any fighting art). Theory is mostly a waste of time -- and it comes from the theoretical nonfighters.

The reason most people can't use their WCK is that they don't put in the hard work necessary to develop the skill.

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.

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.

We need to appreciate that WCK is a TCMA, and as such, its curriculum is separate from application. You don't need a skilled athlete to teach you the fundamentals of a sport, but you do need to appreciate that there is a limit to how far a teacher can take you in your development. Anyone who knows the game (the core curriculum) can teach you to play golf or tennis or whatever, but they can't take you very far in terms of your development -- that work will need to be done by yourself. This is how it has always been. Rene asked Sum Nung what the main difference between the "masters" of the past and the people of today. Sum told him that in the past, they fought more. They learned the curriculum and the ones who went out and fought got better at fighting. What a surprise.

[jesper]

I
Most WCK people -- and I know because I did it to -- waste their time stuck at the beginner level, forever practicing the curriculum which they already know. Once you can comfortably ride the bike with the training wheels on (play chi sao reasonable well), it is time to take them off and begin learning to really ride the bike.

So because you did it everyone else has done the same. Wow talking about being center of universe

[JPinAZ]

The core curriculum is just what these lineages share, their commonality. Look, don't we all have tan, bong, fook? If someone was practicing/teaching something they called WCK but it didn't have tan, bong, fook how could it be WCK? These are "the three seeds" or "three poison hands" of WCK, depending on the branch of WCK (express the same things differently). they are in all legit lineages of WCK, they are in the forms, the drills, etc. So the core curriculum is the movement/actions all the branches share. But it also has the same core tactics (how to use those actions).

Yes, I'd agree, all WCK has the techniques of tan, bong, fook, but just because someone is using those shapes doesn't mean they are using wing chun. Wing chun isn't about the techniques. That's looking at only the surface level - the shape.

I would disagree when you say that "the core curriculum" is the same across all branches because the techniques or seeds may look the same. Just because they might have similar 'looking' techniques doesn't mean they have the same "core tactics (how to use those actions)" as you put it. Far from it.

From my experience, while not having personally studied Yip Man WC, a lot of my sihings and past teachers have many many years experience in it. And, I can tell you for sure, as can they, that the understanding of what you call the "core tactics (how to use those actions)" are much different in that lineage that what I learn now.
What's more important to me is understanding what drives those shapes and actions, not that we all use some similar looking tools.

Example, in the past, some individuals have argued that you don't use a high taan sau, that it "won't work that way" (and some still might). But when asked to test the high taan sau that "wouldn't work", there was no argument that it was indeed working, and couldn't be challenged as hoped.
My point is, sure, we all have some of the same techniques, but the understanding and principles behind how they function, when and why are very different. IMO, that's what the 'core curriculum' to me teaches. So, no, they aren't all the same.

Don't we all have mun (asking) or jou (running) or etc.?

Actually, no, we don't all have mun sau. In HFY, we do have Bai Jong sau, which has nothing to do with asking hand mun sau. This is the difference between looking at techniques/saying everyone has the same thing or 'core curriculm' and knowing more about what's actually driving the shapes/actions (which I think you are also saying (?) I'm just not agreeing they are all the same). So yeah, the techniques do look similar, the the principles/ideas behind them are really much different.

[t_niehoff]

So because you did it everyone else has done the same. Wow talking about being center of universe

Look around. I did what MOST -- not everyone but MOST -- people do when they learn/practice WCK: they keep repeating the curriculum. That's why MOST -- not everyone but MOST -- people can't use it. I'm not saying that I am the center of the universe, just that I did what everyone else did or does.

[t_niehoff]

Yes, I'd agree, all WCK has the techniques of tan, bong, fook, but just because someone is using those shapes doesn't mean they are using wing chun. Wing chun isn't about the techniques. That's looking at only the surface level - the shape.

Do you mean as you are doing? Because tan, bong, fook aren't shapes, but actions (you are doing something).

I would disagree when you say that "the core curriculum" is the same across all branches because the techniques or seeds may look the same. Just because they might have similar 'looking' techniques doesn't mean they have the same "core tactics (how to use those actions)" as you put it. Far from it.

If we don't share a commonality, then we aren't doing the same art at all. Then you are doing one thing, I am doing something else, a third person is doing something altogether different, so then there is no common art.

From my experience, while not having personally studied Yip Man WC, a lot of my sihings and past teachers have many many years experience in it. And, I can tell you for sure, as can they, that the understanding of what you call the "core tactics (how to use those actions)" are much different in that lineage that what I learn now.
What's more important to me is understanding what drives those shapes and actions, not that we all use some similar looking tools.

The core curriculum is the same, it is just that people "understand" it differently based on their (lack of) experience. For example, we all have YJKYM. Our "understanding" of it is related to our skill -- our ability to use it in fighting, and our understanding comes from fighting. But what theoretical nonfighters do is try to substitute theory, conjecture from unrealistic practice, as "understanding".

What is important to me is not "understanding" what drives the tools, but actually doing it. "understanding" means you are looking at things from an intellectual (theoretical nonfighters) perspective. You don't come to "understand" how to box, you learn to box by boxing. It's what you can DO, not what you "understand" that matters.

Example, in the past, some individuals have argued that you don't use a high taan sau, that it "won't work that way" (and some still might). But when asked to test the high taan sau that "wouldn't work", there was no argument that it was indeed working, and couldn't be challenged as hoped.
My point is, sure, we all have some of the same techniques, but the understanding and principles behind how they function, when and why are very different. IMO, that's what the 'core curriculum' to me teaches. So, no, they aren't all the same.

You are continuing to mistake the curriculum with application. We all have the tan sao -- it's in all our curriculum. How we use it (in fighting) -- application -- is another matter. All boxers have the jab. but they don't all use it the same way.

If boxing were taught and trained like WCK, hardly anyone would be able to box to any significant degree, and people would form all kinds of "theories" on how to use their tools.

But the bottom line is boxing is boxing, just like WCK is WCK.

Actually, no, we don't all have mun sau. In HFY, we do have Bai Jong sau, which has nothing to do with asking hand mun sau. This is the difference between looking at techniques/saying everyone has the same thing or 'core curriculm' and knowing more about what's actually driving the shapes/actions (which I think you are also saying (?) I'm just not agreeing they are all the same). So yeah, the techniques do look similar, the the principles/ideas behind them are really much different.

The principles/ideas are NONSENSE. They don't matter. They are what is used to sell the curriculum of WCK to theoretical nonfighters.

What matters is the DOING. If you do X to get a response, they you are using the mun sao tactic, whether you call it that or not. It's part of the core curriculum. If you don't have it, you won't be able to do chi sao. You will be DOING mun sao whether you call it by that name or not if you do chi sao. It's built into the very drill.

[JPinAZ]

Do you mean as you are doing? Because tan, bong, fook aren't shapes, but actions (you are doing something).

Sure, they could be called actions. But then, other southern systems have these same 'actions' too, and they are used differently. Even within different WCK lineages they are used differently, so where is the commonality in that except by technique name alone? (as I already said- you're talking technique)

Remember, it was you that said "The core curriculum is just what these lineages share, their commonality" and described them as actions/tools/techniques/whatever of taan bong fook. You even said they used them differently. So, they aren't even common in the different lineages curriclums except by technique name alone. I disagree that the core curriculum is the common accross all lineages unless you are only talking technique/shape level, and even then I still don't 100% agree

If we don't share a commonality, then we aren't doing the same art at all. Then you are doing one thing, I am doing something else, a third person is doing something altogether different, so then there is no common art.

Sure, we're all doing the "art" of WCK, but who, besides you, said we are all doing it the same? We ARE all doing it differently - so our art is different! Both in application, in the forms and in the training methods! Yeah, we have similar named concepts, and similar named techniques, and some of the drills are the same in appearance, and we all call it "Wing Chun", but you even said yourself they are done differently. I don't understand what it is you are saying, we do it the same or we do it different?

The core curriculum is the same, it is just that people "understand" it differently based on their (lack of) experience. For example, we all have YJKYM. Our "understanding" of it is related to our skill -- our ability to use it in fighting, and our understanding comes from fighting. But what theoretical nonfighters do is try to substitute theory, conjecture from unrealistic practice, as "understanding".

What is important to me is not "understanding" what drives the tools, but actually doing it. "understanding" means you are looking at things from an intellectual (theoretical nonfighters) perspective. You don't come to "understand" how to box, you learn to box by boxing. It's what you can DO, not what you "understand" that matters.

So is 'understanding' important or not? In the first quote, you are saying that people's understanding is based on their 'experience' (or lack of) and is a factor and directly related to our skill. Then in the next it's not important to you (experience or skill). Which side of the moon are you coming from? If the skill and experience ("understanding") isn't important, then you are the biggest theoretical non-fighter here

Look, if you don't understand how to do long division, you can't really just 'do it' - the action of doing long division. There's a saying, Mind understands, body knows. Even a robot first has to have a program to do an action. Understanding means I know what the hell I'm doing. Maybe you don't need that, but I think it's pretty dam important! Unless you are saying boxers don't need to think or have a mind to fight?

You are continuing to mistake the curriculum with application.

You're entitled to your unfounded opinion

We all have the tan sao -- it's in all our curriculum. How we use it (in fighting) -- application -- is another matter. All boxers have the jab. but they don't all use it the same way.

Ok, then where's the commonality beyond technique name alone? If application is so different, then we don't have the commonality in usage, just in the name - just like I've been saying! Now your just talking in circles. Are you a lawyer or something?

If boxing were taught and trained like WCK, hardly anyone would be able to box to any significant degree, and people would form all kinds of "theories" on how to use their tools.

But the bottom line is boxing is boxing, just like WCK is WCK.

Yeah, but not all boxing is the same, and neither is all WCK the same. But who cares about boxing being boxing and WCK being WCK anyway?? What does that have to do with your orignal point - that all WCK has the same common core curriculum?

The principles/ideas are NONSENSE. They don't matter. They are what is used to sell the curriculum of WCK to theoretical nonfighters.

What matters is the DOING. If you do X to get a response, they you are using the mun sao tactic, whether you call it that or not. It's part of the core curriculum. If you don't have it, you won't be able to do chi sao. You will be DOING mun sao whether you call it by that name or not if you do chi sao. It's built into the very drill.

An again, mun sau is NOT part of everyone's curriculum, no matter how many times you repeat it.
And what is this mun sau 'tactic' you speak of anyway? To me, it sounds like you are obviously talking more than just the 'technique'. Since you can't 'do' a tactic, it sounds like an 'idea' to me. That's just nonsense!
Is centerline a silly 'idea' too? Since you can't 'do' centerline, I guess you probably need to throw that our of the common "core curriculum" huh?

And what does mun sau have to do with chi sau anyway??

[t_niehoff]

Sure, they could be called actions. But then, other southern systems have these same 'actions' too, and they are used differently. Even within different WCK lineages they are used differently, so where is the commonality in that except by technique name alone? (as I already said- you're talking technique)

They can't just be called action, they ARE actions. They are verbs (tan sao = spreading arm/hand).

Technique is a part of WCK, the actions/movement of WCK are part of the toolbox. How can you PHYSICALLY PERFORM WCK or any martial art for that matter without movement?

Remember, it was you that said "The core curriculum is just what these lineages share, their commonality" and described them as actions/tools/techniques/whatever of taan bong fook. You even said they used them differently. So, they aren't even common in the different lineages curriclums except by technique name alone. I disagree that the core curriculum is the common accross all lineages unless you are only talking technique/shape level, and even then I still don't 100% agree

You are still confusing the curriculum with the application. We all have the same movement/actions in our toolbox (the curriculum gives you a toolbox of actions and tactics), but how we use those tools will vary based on a number of things (it's an individual thing).

Boxers all have the same toolbox, but how they use the tools differ.

Sure, we're all doing the "art" of WCK, but who, besides you, said we are all doing it the same? We ARE all doing it differently - so our art is different! Both in application, in the forms and in the training methods! Yeah, we have similar named concepts, and similar named techniques, and some of the drills are the same in appearance, and we all call it "Wing Chun", but you even said yourself they are done differently. I don't understand what it is you are saying, we do it the same or we do it different?

You still don't get it. We (at least those from legit lineages) in WCK all have the same toolbox (movement/actions + tactics). These we learn via the core curriculum. But how we use those tools (fight) -- how we DO WCK -- will vary.

Just like how all boxers have the same toolbox but how they each use them is an individual matter.

Now, the problem comes in when people who don't use them, try to tell others how they should be used.

So is 'understanding' important or not? In the first quote, you are saying that people's understanding is based on their 'experience' (or lack of) and is a factor and directly related to our skill. Then in the next it's not important to you (experience or skill). Which side of the moon are you coming from? If the skill and experience ("understanding") isn't important, then you are the biggest theoretical non-fighter here

The point is that "understanding" isn't what is important. Our "understanding" grows with our skill but it is the SKILL that is important. And skill doesn't come from understanding; skill comes from practice.

Look, if you don't understand how to do long division, you can't really just 'do it' - the action of doing long division. There's a saying, Mind understands, body knows. Even a robot first has to have a program to do an action. Understanding means I know what the hell I'm doing. Maybe you don't need that, but I think it's pretty dam important! Unless you are saying boxers don't need to think or have a mind to fight?

I am saying that to learn a SKILL you need to be shown the skill (PHYSICALLY how to DO something -- but it isn't an intellectual chore like long division) and then practice PHYSICALLY doing it. Do you need to "understand" dribbling in basketball or how to pass the guard? No. You are shown how to do it, then you practice doing it. How do you get better? By practicing it more. Do you think NBA players are better because they have some special "understanding" of the game? No, they have better attributes and skill.

You're entitled to your unfounded opinion

You keep mixing them up.

Ok, then where's the commonality beyond technique name alone? If application is so different, then we don't have the commonality in usage, just in the name - just like I've been saying! Now your just talking in circles. Are you a lawyer or something?

The toolbox is the commonality. There is a commonality of movement/actions and tactics. I am not saying that everything in all branches are the same -- certainly not. Because most of the branches have more than just the core curriculum, and that is to be expected. They have the core curriculum plus additional material.

Yeah, but not all boxing is the same, and neither is all WCK the same. But who cares about boxing being boxing and WCK being WCK anyway?? What does that have to do with your orignal point - that all WCK has the same common core curriculum?

Because I am using the analogy to try to help you understand. The toolbox of boxing IS the same -- the same type of punches, the same footwork, the same evasions, the same tactics, etc. Boxing is boxing, just like WCK is WCK or BJJ is BJJ.

An again, mun sau is NOT part of everyone's curriculum, no matter how many times you repeat it.
And what is this mun sau 'tactic' you speak of anyway? To me, it sounds like you are obviously talking more than just the 'technique'. Since you can't 'do' a tactic, it sounds like an 'idea' to me. That's just nonsense!

Mun sao, asking hand, is a set up: I make an action to get a response so that I have something to work off of.

The WCK toolbox has both actions and tactics. And you can't perform one without the other. A tactic is how you are using the tool. A punch can be a mun sao, for example: I am using my punch to get a reaction from my opponent to set him up.

Is centerline a silly 'idea' too? Since you can't 'do' centerline, I guess you probably need to throw that our of the common "core curriculum" huh?

The centerline isn't a theory, it is the fastest line of entry.

And what does mun sau have to do with chi sau anyway??

Mun sao is a tactic that is used in contact.

[Wayfaring]

The principles/ideas are NONSENSE. They don't matter. They are what is used to sell the curriculum of WCK to theoretical nonfighters.

What matters is the DOING. If you do X to get a response, they you are using the mun sao tactic, whether you call it that or not. It's part of the core curriculum. If you don't have it, you won't be able to do chi sao. You will be DOING mun sao whether you call it by that name or not if you do chi sao. It's built into the very drill.

If the principles and ideas on one side are NONSENSE, then they are NONSENSE across the board. If they are not, then they are not.

You just flipped sides changing from "you have to realize the curriculum is TCMA", to now that there is a curriculum that is TCMA that's not what Hendrik proposes, it's about the movement.

Ridiculous display of convenient logic.

If the movement is what is important, than how MT fighters and boxers apply spit swallow are not any different.

Or you could just wake up to reality and realize you can't generalize all of WCK any more than you can generalize all of Hung Gar or Mantis in southern TCMA across different families.

It is totally hilarious how you can make another pass through your WCK and now be a main proponent for TCMA traditional training, yet only within your little "clique". Anything outside of that you call marketing or other stuff, yet you've never taken the time to investigate what power engines and structures are developed.

[JPinAZ]

You are still confusing the curriculum with the application.

No, I'm not confusing anything. Your inability to comprehend what I am saying is where the confusion lies.

We all have the same movement/actions in our toolbox (the curriculum gives you a toolbox of actions and tactics), but how we use those tools will vary based on a number of things (it's an individual thing).

No, WE don't. Are you saying the video of hendrik's student standing around petting invisible dogs, is that also in your toolbox? Is that krap in your 'core curriculum'?
It's not in mine.
And some of the tools I've seen in your own 'legit group's' SNT, those tools aren't in my WCK.

You still don't get it. We (at least those from legit lineages) in WCK all have the same toolbox (movement/actions + tactics). These we learn via the core curriculum. But how we use those tools (fight) -- how we DO WCK -- will vary.

Nice - there's that 'legit lineage' garbage again. So much for being civil. Funny how you finally got so 'legit' after only 100 hours of training with someone. You're a friggin miracle of nature!

I am saying that to learn a SKILL you need to be shown the skill (PHYSICALLY how to DO something -- but it isn't an intellectual chore like long division) and then practice PHYSICALLY doing it. Do you need to "understand" dribbling in basketball or how to pass the guard? No. You are shown how to do it, then you practice doing it. How do you get better? By practicing it more. Do you think NBA players are better because they have some special "understanding" of the game? No, they have better attributes and skill.

Haha, you've really go no clue do you? So by that 'logic', I'm guess all the batting and pitching coaches in MLB are all out of jobs then! What could they possibly teach a major league player after they've hit their first ball or thrown their first pitch! If it's all on the player after they are shown the basics, all they need is practice. rriiiiggghhhttt....

Let me ask you this, why, after 17 YEARS after being shown WCK, did you STILL have to go find a new Sifu to help you get it right and become all too-legit-to-quit?? Because, by your logic, after those 17+ years, it should've all be on you - you don't need anyone to show it to you again, all you need to do is practice... ahhh, maybe there's the problem!

Boxing is boxing, just like WCK is WCK or BJJ is BJJ.

wow. amazing... you should write a book

Mun sao, asking hand, is a set up: I make an action to get a response so that I have something to work off of.

The WCK toolbox has both actions and tactics. And you can't perform one without the other. A tactic is how you are using the tool. A punch can be a mun sao, for example: I am using my punch to get a reaction from my opponent to set him up.

Wow, that's really wonderful, you should make that one of the chapters. And, what does that have to do with Bai Jong again? Yup, nothing.

The centerline isn't a theory, it is the fastest line of entry.

Here's the real crux of the issue. If that's all centerline is to you, I think I finally understand why you are so confused and all over the yard when talking WCK.
Think it's time for another 100 hours of super-duper oh-so-legit lessons there.

Have a nice day and good luck with the book!