So ive been watching Hendriks video's....

[Hendrik]

What significant do you have compare with Hawkin and WSL?

Wsl or Hawkin's Wck teaching I put on extremely high regards,
yours, no way. Sorry.

Good! They can keep it!

[GlennR]

Sorry to tell you.

Wsl and Hawkin way fit in the 1850 red boat era Wck DNA more then TST.
It is a fact.
TST can evolve his own Wck as he likes that is perfectly fine.

So, why should I care what you say? I don't I go by book .


Btw. If you can't take the facts. Ignore my post. I don't have time to insult anyone.

Well seeing as you add things after you posted.......

Why does the YGKM look like TST's much more than WSL's in the clips you put up?

Particularly as you are trying to link WSL and your 1850 stuff?

Are you trying to get "WSL street cred"?????

[Hendrik]

How can you comment on Wck when you don't know Wck and not practice Wck?

How can you comment on ancient Wck when you don't have experience on ancient cultivation?

Be it from me or late Gm Ipman, Wck don't do side outward block like white crane or spm. Snt define its one power zone, Wck taking an angle in momentum in a unique way. Any one violate that is not practicing Wck. See Wck is not as anyone love to define. Doesn't matter if it is yks, kulo, Ipman , scwc or yik kam Wck. It has to follow that. Because it is Wck common denominator DNA since 1850.

I've just read the entire thread .... Wow! Let me clarify first up that I'm not a Wing Chun stylist. I have hasd some exposure to the art on a personal level with others from the WSL way and the Jim Fung way but not enough to really matter!

A couple of things stand out to me if I may ...

1/. Wing Chun is Wing Chun ... be it this or that lineage, be it in the modern or 1800 sense but the one basic truth of all Chinese Martial Arts is that they must change, evolve to survive within the societies in which they are present! If they don't they stagnate and eventually die.

2/. Hendriks way look only to the past ... in many ways he is in search of the "Wing Chun Holy Grail" .... I've been there, done that with White Crane ..... trust me, it doesn't exist!!!

3/. It's great to look at the past but only so we can enact the art in the present ... otherwise you will be come nothing more than a "historical re-enactor" in much the same way as those who re-enact the knights of old. Great to watch but not even representative of real life-protection. This is something I think Hendrik needs to perhaps come to terms with.

4/. It's not all against Hendrik. If he chooses not to use "His" Wing Chun in such a way then thats just great. More power to him ... but here is the operative thing, it's "His" Wing Chun not everyone else's view. Like it or not I can't see him changing his view in the near or distant future!!!

5/. Hendrik you do ned to seek a little more charity in the way you deal with others! Telling them outright that they don't do Wing Chun or don't understand real Wing Chun (Whatever that may be!) is not going to win friends and influence people and lets be totally honest, you write here, you present your vids here because you are trying to "turn on" people to your point of view rather than accept that others also have their own points of view which just may not concur with your own!

6/. Ancient texts, like those of the Wu Bei Zhi as mentioned by Dlcox are used as reference points from which to build upon not enshrine in concrete! Secondly all History is based on Interpretation. Even the person that writes it down as it is happening will influence that which they write! Sadly when looking at such texts as the so-called "Bubishi (Wu Bei Zhi) all we are truly left with is someone elses "Interpretation" which we then re-interpret to make it suit our own understanding of that written or shared. It is the same with learning a MArt. Weeach make it our own often without knowing! To fight over it all is just plain silly!

7/. Wing Chun is Wing Chun no matter how you spread it or present it!

8/. All Martial arts ... YES ALL Martial Arts were created by man (or women) as an expression of themselves for creative, personal, practical or otherwise meanings. Then came the whole ranking mess ... who awarded the first rank in Wing Chun (who cares!). The truth is that Wing Chun arose from a "McDojo" as did White Crane, Karate, Taekwondo whatever! Someone had to make it all up!!! This is the most important historical truth of ALL Martial Arts! So why fight over it!!! When looked upon from this perspective all the arguments seem pretty silly perhaps null and void?

Relax, enjoy it, do it for yourself and smile .... don't take it all so seriously!

[Hendrik]

Sorry, I don't have time to waste on your creative argument.

Well seeing as you add things after you posted.......

Why does the YGKM look like TST's much more than WSL's in the clips you put up?

Particularly as you are trying to link WSL and your 1850 stuff?

Are you trying to get "WSL street cred"?????

[GlennR]

Sorry, I don't have time to waste on your creative argument.

Creative?

Nonsense. Your stance looks nothing like WSL's and much more like TST's.

Fact.

[Minghequan]

Why should I care what other think when they don't understand what I am presenting and they are not serious wcners with indepth Wck knowledge ?

Honestly Hendrick your a good guy but comments like that above:

they are not serious wcners with indepth Wck knowledge

Really don't do you or your promotion of Wing chun all that much good.

Are such statements really necessary?

maybe step back a bit, relax and then post but please Hendrik leave the insults alone .... They only serve to lower you and to lower the art of Wing Chun you love so much!

[Minghequan]

How can you comment on Wck when you don't know Wck and not practice Wck?

How can you comment on ancient Wck when you don't have experience on ancient cultivation?

Be it from me or late Gm Ipman, Wck don't do side outward block like white crane or spm. Snt define its one power zone, Wck taking an angle in momentum in a unique way. Any one violate that is not practicing Wck. See Wck is not as anyone love to define. Doesn't matter if it is yks, kulo, Ipman , scwc or yik kam Wck. It has to follow that. Because it is Wck common denominator DNA since 1850.

Hendrick, are you aiming the above at me??? I ask because you included my post in a quote?

[Hendrik]

I just ask a simple question on who are you.
You seem to not willing to share who you are as you are.

Hello Hendrik,

My info is on my profile page. To answer your question, yes I study WC. My lineage is of no concern, it's like judging someone because of their ancestry.

I've had many teachers, so if you want to write me off as a mutt so be it. I can tell by your tone you wish to supress my views, fine whatever your entitled to your opinions, I support that.

But if you want to discredit my ability to comprehend and utilize the theories and techniques of WC based on your tunneled views, you'd be sadly mistaken. Unlike you, my theories on the use of WC have been forged in the fires of combat. So if you think that I don't understand or can't use WC because I don't whole heartedly support your point of view, maybe then you ought to tell that to all my troopers.

You see they have applied my WC on the Afghan & Iraqi battlefields not YouTube. So until you you get some practical experience...Quit preaching your self serving bullish!t.

[guy b.]

My lineage is of no concern

Hell of a lot of mystery lineage guys around the forums lately

[trubblman]

Spent some time the other day watching a few of his recent videos and, if nothing else, i admire his passion for what he believes and is trying to get across.

Having said that, i personally feel that around 80-90% of the videos is wasted time and he appears to be over complicating the message he is trying to get across.

As an example of a video showing technique, principals etc here is a clip of an old school boxer called Charley Burley, one of the true past masters.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81non05aKX4

What i like about this video is the balance it achieves between theory, comparison, analogy and actual footage of fighting... boxing in this case... and in particular how it compares new to old.

Am i expecting Hendrik to do a video like this? No, but personally i find this 8 minute clip gives me a better understanding of the topic at hand than 5 of Hendriks 30 minute lecture's, and perhaps he should view this video and take on board how it conveys its ideas so well

Thoughts?

I dont think Hendrik's videos and this video are about the same things. Hendrik's videos to me seem to be theoretical. This video is about fighting tactics.

In my opinion 30 minutes is not a long time. Nowadays most people have short attention spans and expect answers tout de suite.

[anerlich]

In my opinion 30 minutes is not a long time

It is when the subject material of the video could be easily covered in one third of the time.

[GlennR]

I dont think Hendrik's videos and this video are about the same things. Hendrik's videos to me seem to be theoretical. This video is about fighting tactics.

Yes, but theoretical about what?

Look, its an effin Martial art we (WC that is), and if you ae going to get all "theoretical" ,as does his highness, then you have to on occasion actually back it up with proof.

The video i put up showed a boxer with a wonderful record, breaking down his stance in a clear concise way, to show you how it was utilised effectively and the THEORY behind it.

Hendrik doesn't do this

In my opinion 30 minutes is not a long time. Nowadays most people have short attention spans and expect answers tout de suite

So the video i put up should have been longer then?

[trubblman]

Yes, but theoretical about what?

Look, its an effin Martial art we (WC that is), and if you ae going to get all "theoretical" ,as does his highness, then you have to on occasion actually back it up with proof.

The video i put up showed a boxer with a wonderful record, breaking down his stance in a clear concise way, to show you how it was utilised effectively and the THEORY behind it.

Hendrik doesn't do this



So the video i put up should have been longer then?

I understand that some may not like Hendrik's videos but it's not Festivus so please no more with the airing of grievances. If you don't them dont watch them. Its that easy and simple. I for one dont mind them. They are the few substantive things in a forum full of people who are fond of whining jumping off the handle and kvetching.

[YouKnowWho]

I understand that some may not like Hendrik's videos but it's not Festivus so please no more with the airing of grievances.

I like this clip (in Chinese), In 57 seconds, the instructor kept repeating, "Watch where your opponent may land his leading foot". Even if you may not understand Chinese, you can still get his explanation from his body performance. He demonstrated his technique 7 times in 57 seconds. IMO, that's good clip.

http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XNDkyMTIzMDE2.html

[GlennR]

I understand that some may not like Hendrik's videos but it's not Festivus so please no more with the airing of grievances. If you don't them dont watch them. Its that easy and simple. I for one dont mind them. They are the few substantive things in a forum full of people who are fond of whining jumping off the handle and kvetching.

Youve missed my point.

The point i was making is that the way he puts them together, the repetition, the length (anerlich is right, you could do most of them in a 3rd of the time) is not conducive to getting his point across.

And guess what, its a forum and if he wants to post them here anybody can, and will, comment on them.

If he wants to show them to "those that are interested" only, then he can keep it on his own private facebook page which i believe he has