Sticking Hands

[YungChun]

riiight....so your doing it already, but you cant see PB doing it ?

You think you understand ....to protect who's ego.... mine ..

That made no sense..

i get it, its not rocket science and anyone can SEE whats going on, so why does T call it fantasy fu

Because that's what he terms $hit that works best against other people doing the same thing...

you dont understand for a 100o posts, but NOW you do understand ...when was the epiphany ?

No epiphany, I understood long ago and more so when you sent me the video...then the stills..

The same reason you don't post more video...............

My ego left a long time ago matey....thats why I am here with the riff raff... My old sifu told me never to lower myself but here I am !!

That statement is proof of your ego.

A post you made a while back that got deleted even more so...

You don't care what people think but you post reams of text..making bombastic claims...that's really the issue..

[Graham H]

Have you ever tried reading what you read?

Yip Man would always be in contact with his students not hitting them, but he would control them... (kind of takes the zap out of your--we only ChiSao to strike 'idea'.)

If you think he controlled them by not being in contact with them then either you've lost even more brain matter or you simply don't know how the drill works...

Uh hum!!! Have you ever read what you write???? Utter ****1ing nonsense. You and Terence Niehoff must be the same person. Two people infecting the world with your WCKBS.

If you think your way is how VT is meant to function then I'm glad because it will keep you away from the good stuff!!!!

There are more stupid people in the world than there are windows and you my friend are a double glazed pr1ck!!!

I'm glad you write the things you do. I can print it off and show my students how bad VT has become and how not to do it.

You're the best!!!

GH

[k gledhill]

Ah, so in a drill where you are "attached" and remain that way as per how Yip played you control by "not being there" for an "attempted attachment"...

"Well I was about to play ChiSao with Sifu Yip, when suddenly he disappeared and someone told me he was in the teahouse and I just fell the f#ck over.."

Just f-ing brilliant.... Is there a neuron in the house?

tsk, tsk, you assume a lot, like you understand. now insults....

what you wrote about YM & the Tea House...good analogy. I may use it.

attempting to place incorrect force on arms in chi-sao doesnt have to be big 'visible' actions....if you try to use my arms to support your stance and I move them to mess you up , it can be seen as controlling your balance , sure, but only to improve yours .....not a fight, if you lose your balance I can show you the results WHILE doing the drill...BUT it doesnt mean the fight starts from that attached scenario ....drilling with a partner in a mutual exchange.
If you over turn I can control your mistake to show you the mistake....doesnt make it a 1:1 application.
A lot of chi-sao is redundant to actual VT fighting...words I know but you have seen PB and make sweeping statements that you see ...blah blah, so I am wasting time sadly ..but maybe somebody clicks...

BTW guys like GH understand the words that come out of my mouth...you don't, so I am neuron short of a synapse....sorry i am not so gifted to write it out clearly.

I deleted my own post because I realized it was a foolish thing to post. I never said I was Terence the perfect ; )

[Buddha_Fist]

The 17 pages of this thread remind me of this:

[YungChun]

attempting to place incorrect force on arms in chi-sao doesnt have to be big 'visible' actions....

No one said that is was...

if you try to use my arms to support your stance and I move them to mess you up , it can be seen as controlling your balance , sure, but only to improve yours .....not a fight

It is a fight--a fight for position with energy... For positional control and breaking their structure you need presence of your structure not absence as you suggested--which simply was a reach to try to justify your bass akward position on this stuff ..

BUT it doesnt mean the fight starts from that attached scenario....

No kidding...

The point is you need contact to break their structure not no contact..

There are many techniques in the art how many have you thrown away? Huh?

You know very well VT is not about chain punching--everything is a punch, this "we just keep punching" crap--that's the beginners method--there is much much more, there IS tactical control--a structure breaking core.. There are many moves that do this, the hands assist each other to do this there are leg moves that do this...all to assist our striking attacks, to make them possible.... The dummy is not a 108 chain punches....it might be if your way was the VT way...it's not..

BTW guys like GH understands..

LMAO.. He doesn't even "understand" that VT punches (are supposed to) break down their structure...... Do you? You better because your "special unknowable method" relies on it extra heavily..

Did you used to chase hands and to "wrist"? Did someone teach you to chase hands before PB?

Well they were wrong.. And not T or myself are advocating it either....

VT breaks them down so they can't fight back... We use the centerline AND forward energy issuing and the tools, etc, to do that...not JUST "cycling and displacing their "attacks" with elbow power punches".. Which isn't "wrong" (unless you retract the hand on contact) it's simply not the whole VT picture...

There is more to it, there is more in the forms, in the tools and tactics of the art.. You can't deny it you know it.. We all can see it in the forms in the drills...both in action and intent.

So, you are left with a conundrum, a puzzle, that you have been wrestling with here in post after post, attempting to justify a disembodied part of the whole as the whole VT package. But no matter how hard you try you know there is more (or should) and one day maybe you'll be ready to learn it, to use it..either way it is there......

[YungChun]

The 17 pages of this thread remind me of this:

Not to worry I am starting a new VT forum that will cover many different areas of the art of VT but will not allow any posting whatsoever.. I think this will cut down on much of what some folks seem to object to in this vein..

[Graham H]

No one said that is was...


It is a fight--a fight for position with energy... For positional control and breaking their structure you need presence of your structure not absence as you suggested--which simply was a reach to try to justify your bass akward position on this stuff ..


No kidding...

The point is you need contact to break their structure not no contact..

There are many techniques in the art how many have you thrown away? Huh?

You know very well VT is not about chain punching--everything is a punch, this "we just keep punching" crap--that's the beginners method--there is much much more, there IS tactical control--a structure breaking core.. There are many moves that do this, the hands assist each other to do this there are leg moves that do this...all to assist our striking attacks, to make them possible.... The dummy is not a 108 chain punches....it might be if your way was the VT way...it's not..



LMAO.. He doesn't even "understand" that VT punches (are supposed to) break down their structure...... Do you? You better because your "special unknowable method" relies on it extra heavily..

Did you used to chase hands and to "wrist"? Did someone teach you to chase hands before PB?

Well they were wrong.. And not T or myself are advocating it either....

VT breaks them down so they can't fight back... We use the centerline AND forward energy issuing and the tools, etc, to do that...not JUST "cycling and displacing their "attacks" with elbow power punches".. Which isn't "wrong" (unless you retract the hand on contact) it's simply not the whole VT picture...

There is more to it, there is more in the forms, in the tools and tactics of the art.. You can't deny it you know it.. We all can see it in the forms in the drills...both in action and intent.

So, you are left with a conundrum, a puzzle, that you have been wrestling with here in post after post, attempting to justify a disembodied part of the whole as the whole VT package. But no matter how hard you try you know there is more (or should) and one day maybe you'll be ready to learn it, to use it..either way it is there......

Yaaaayyyyyyy!!! More Terencesque BS from Jim Squalkins!!! Keep that sewage running Jim. LOL

[Graham H]

Not to worry I am starting a new VT forum that will cover many different areas of the art of VT but will not allow any posting whatsoever.. I think this will cut down on much of what some folks seem to object to in this vein..

A stupid forum that will only attract stupid people me thinks!!!!

GH

[Graham H]

The 17 pages of this thread remind me of this:

Ahhhhh thats what Terence looks like. Seems a bit skinny to me!! LOL

[k gledhill]

No one said that is was...


It is a fight--a fight for position with energy... For positional control and breaking their structure you need presence of your structure not absence as you suggested--which simply was a reach to try to justify your bass akward position on this stuff ..


No kidding...

The point is you need contact to break their structure not no contact..

There are many techniques in the art how many have you thrown away? Huh?

You know very well VT is not about chain punching--everything is a punch, this "we just keep punching" crap--that's the beginners method--there is much much more, there IS tactical control--a structure breaking core.. There are many moves that do this, the hands assist each other to do this there are leg moves that do this...all to assist our striking attacks, to make them possible.... The dummy is not a 108 chain punches....it might be if your way was the VT way...it's not..



LMAO.. He doesn't even "understand" that VT punches (are supposed to) break down their structure...... Do you? You better because your "special unknowable method" relies on it extra heavily..

Did you used to chase hands and to "wrist"? Did someone teach you to chase hands before PB?

Well they were wrong.. And not T or myself are advocating it either....

VT breaks them down so they can't fight back... We use the centerline AND forward energy issuing and the tools, etc, to do that...not JUST "cycling and displacing their "attacks" with elbow power punches".. Which isn't "wrong" (unless you retract the hand on contact) it's simply not the whole VT picture...

There is more to it, there is more in the forms, in the tools and tactics of the art.. You can't deny it you know it.. We all can see it in the forms in the drills...both in action and intent.

So, you are left with a conundrum, a puzzle, that you have been wrestling with here in post after post, attempting to justify a disembodied part of the whole as the whole VT package. But no matter how hard you try you know there is more (or should) and one day maybe you'll be ready to learn it, to use it..either way it is there......

I'm writing for guys who have an open mind Jim , reams of it ...repeating the idea...

VT is not an attached method. We dont dirty clinch guys maybe in bad chi-sao drilling


you still dont understand from your responses and ideas...

you still see chi-sao drilling as a fight thats the problem Jim.....therefore you also equate the chi-sao as 1:1 'application' ....as does Terence and his teacher etc...

I mention the following so you know my point of view to follow one guy in Menden Germany

Remember I have also been around doing seminars with my old sifu doing chi-sao with many schools around the USA/EUROPE, Ive had lunch with Augustine Fong, Dinner with Hawkins Cheung, Chris Chan , Kenneth Cheung, met students of Ben Der..... met WSL 6-7 times done chi-sao with many other WSL lineage teachers and students. Done chi-sao with YM 2 sons, WT in German schools defecting, seminars, in Italy Belgium, Holland....Ive chi-saoed with a few guys here on this forum too...I speak with a first hand knowledge Jim. 25 years of VT....not stuck in a hole in St. Lois or Westchester I actually was brought up in Westchester for 7 years..know it well.
Where is your school ?

YOU can try to see more in the system than anyone ...have more tools, use more shapes, turn and block with a tan as you punch while standing in front of guys ...
you can do double extended hands feeling guys arms and have all kinds of chi-sao games that work in chi-sao...even what I do with you in chi-sao wont give a good idea because we equalize and mutually exchange techniques...for fighting from no pre-contact later I wont let you make contact any longer than I can to hit you asap.



We use the by-products of the chi-sao training to enhance our fighting abilities. Sadly many use the chi-sao as the 'method' trying to use 2 hands to fight one in an attached controlling method that also sacrifices its upper body centerline for attachment....further, many also use the ends of their arms 'wrists' for the platform to transfer their controlling energy because they drilled the same in chi-sao...not hand chasing, but hand ATTACHMENT, force being transfered from the end of the 'lever' ...not a good way to make contact with a VT fighter.

[t_niehoff]

I'm writing for guys who have an open mind Jim , reams of it ...repeating the idea...

VT is not an attached method. We dont dirty clinch guys maybe in bad chi-sao drilling

you still dont understand from your responses and ideas...

No, we DO understand what you are saying. As I said, that is a part, one tactic of WCK,one that works under certain, specific conditions. It just isn't the whole enchilada; it doesn't and can't be used to solve most combative problems. WCK's method is to control while striking, not just to strike. The control aspect is not only our defense but it also sets up our offense. That is lien siu die da (link defense to bring in striking).

you still see chi-sao drilling as a fight thats the problem Jim.....therefore you also equate the chi-sao as 1:1 'application' ....as does Terence and his teacher etc...

And you keep ignoring that we say, again and again, that chi sao is NOT fighting. It is an unrealistic (since it isn't done under fighting conditions) exercise to teach you and let you practice WCK's method of controlling while striking. No one is saying it is application but YOU.

You mis-state our view and then argue against it!

And, interestingly, you also keep saying that you know what we are talking about because you used to do this too -- but then completely miss what we are saying! LOL! This only makes me wonder what it was you used to be doing.

I mention the following so you know my point of view to follow one guy in Menden Germany

Remember I have also been around doing seminars with my old sifu doing chi-sao with many schools around the USA/EUROPE, Ive had lunch with Augustine Fong, Dinner with Hawkins Cheung, Chris Chan , Kenneth Cheung, met students of Ben Der..... met WSL 6-7 times done chi-sao with many other WSL lineage teachers and students. Done chi-sao with YM 2 sons, WT in German schools defecting, seminars, in Italy Belgium, Holland....Ive chi-saoed with a few guys here on this forum too...I speak with a first hand knowledge Jim. 25 years of VT....not stuck in a hole in St. Lois or Westchester I actually was brought up in Westchester for 7 years..know it well.
Where is your school ?

Oh, you've had lunch with some WCK people! You've met some other WCK practitioners! My God that must mean you really do know what you are talking about! LOL!

YOU can try to see more in the system than anyone ...have more tools, use more shapes, turn and block with a tan as you punch while standing in front of guys ...
you can do double extended hands feeling guys arms and have all kinds of chi-sao games that work in chi-sao...even what I do with you in chi-sao wont give a good idea because we equalize and mutually exchange techniques...for fighting from no pre-contact later I wont let you make contact any longer than I can to hit you asap.

Yes, you can do all kinds of things in chi sao that you can't do in fighting -- this is because chi sao is an unrelalistic exercise as I keep saying.

You miss the point of WCK's method, which is to control by breaking your structure ON CONTACT and keeping it broken -- which is where the sticking aspect comes in. If I break your structure on contact, you won't be able to hit me or stop me from maintaining contact.

We use the by-products of the chi-sao training to enhance our fighting abilities. Sadly many use the chi-sao as the 'method' trying to use 2 hands to fight one in an attached controlling method that also sacrifices its upper body centerline for attachment....further, many also use the ends of their arms 'wrists' for the platform to transfer their controlling energy because they drilled the same in chi-sao...not hand chasing, but hand ATTACHMENT, force being transfered from the end of the 'lever' ...not a good way to make contact with a VT fighter.

Again, you completely misrepresent what we are saying. The attachment is to your center so that we can control you. It has nothing to do with "wrists" or "two hands to fight one" or any of the other nonsense you seem to think it is.

[Graham H]

No, we DO understand what you are saying. As I said, I think that is a part, one tactic of WCK,one that works under certain, specific conditions. I think it just isn't the whole enchilada; I beleive it doesn't and can't be used to solve most combative problems. I think WCK's method is to control while striking, not just to strike. We feel that The control aspect is not only our defense but it also sets up our offense. That is lien siu die da (link defense to bring in striking).



And you keep ignoring that we say, again and again, that chi sao is NOT fighting. In our lineage it is an unrealistic (since it isn't done under fighting conditions) exercise to teach you and let you practice WCK's method of controlling while striking. No one is saying it is application but YOU.

You mis-state our view and then argue against it!

And, interestingly, you also keep saying that you know what we are talking about because you used to do this too -- but then completely miss what we are saying! LOL! This only makes me wonder what it was you used to be doing.



Oh, you've had lunch with some WCK people! You've met some other WCK practitioners! My God that must mean you really do know what you are talking about! LOL! Whereas we have a different idea.



Yes, you can do all kinds of things in chi sao that you can't do in fighting -- this is because chi sao is an unrelalistic exercise as I keep saying. Thats what we think!!

You miss the point of WCK's method, which is to control by breaking your structure ON CONTACT and keeping it broken -- which is where the sticking aspect comes in. If I break your structure on contact, you won't be able to hit me or stop me from maintaining contact.



Again, you completely misrepresent what we are saying. The attachment is to your center so that we can control you. In our lineage It has nothing to do with "wrists" or "two hands to fight one" or any of the other nonsense you seem to think it is.

Re-written as it should be.

[m1k3]

And you keep ignoring that we say, again and again, that chi sao is NOT fighting. In our lineage it is an unrealistic (since it isn't done under fighting conditions) exercise to teach you and let you practice WCK's method of controlling while striking. No one is saying it is application but YOU.

Graham, I'm not sure what you are getting at here. Especially since it is you quoting a quote and making some changes.

So, is chi sao an unrealistic exercise or do you see it as a realistic fighting drill?

With all the name calling and such it's hard to determine what people are really saying.

Thanks.

[Ultimatewingchun]

It's realistic for those who have learned how to take what's in chi sao and apply it to fighting and competitive sparring.

And for those who can't do that - chi sao is forever either a worthless drill or something to somehow twist into their own little made-up fantasy of what wing chun is (ie.- it's part of the "wing chun is attached fighting" crap).

You can figure out who around here falls into what category.

[Graham H]

Graham, I'm not sure what you are getting at here. Especially since it is you quoting a quote and making some changes.

So, is chi sao an unrealistic exercise or do you see it as a realistic fighting drill?

With all the name calling and such it's hard to determine what people are really saying.

Thanks.

........what Ultimate said.

GH