On why I think Hendrik is on to something.

[tc101]

Of course they are! Tc101 latest contribution continues the self contradiction amongst this group.

Sanjuro's brings what I can only call a non typical wing chunners perspective to these discussions.

Honestly a huge problem here and you and KPM are examples while Hendrik is the downright leader of that group is that you think your intellectual grasp of wing chun and the associated trivia and theory makes you some authority and you get peeved when some one who comes from a different perspective says all your intellectual rumblings are more or less hot meaningless air. I learned that what is important is what you can do. Do. Not talk about doing but really do. It's funny that KPM was arguing how wing chun works with Alan Orr. That sums it all up really. You got someone who can't make their art work arguing with some one fighting pro level fighters and producing students who can do it.

[KPM]

Sanjuro's brings what I can only call a non typical wing chunners perspective to these discussions.

Honestly a huge problem here and you and KPM are examples while Hendrik is the downright leader of that group is that you think your intellectual grasp of wing chun and the associated trivia and theory makes you some authority and you get peeved when some one who comes from a different perspective says all your intellectual rumblings are more or less hot meaningless air. I learned that what is important is what you can do. Do. Not talk about doing but really do. It's funny that KPM was arguing how wing chun works with Alan Orr. That sums it all up really. You got someone who can't make their art work arguing with some one fighting pro level fighters and producing students who can do it.

I will say.....again....this is a discussion forum. We come here to d..i..s...c...u...s...s things....with words. This is not youtube. You keep repeating your mantra on multiple threads, saying everyone else's problem is that we look at Wing Chun from an intellectual perspective and that we don't know how to actually "do" it, when you yourself have never posted any video showing how you "do" Wing Chun. So all YOU do is "talk about doing" as well! But you don't seem to see that. AGAIN....this is a discussion forum. We come here to discuss things....with language....with words....from an intellectual perspective. If you don't like what is talked about and how it is talked about, then go to the MMA forum. But I think you will find that they are also discussing things....with words.

[KPM]

Gee Keith, sorry i asked him to clarify his position

How **** unreasonable of me!!!!!

But thats ok, you seem to enjoy the emotional gratification from trying to prove someone elses unverified point

Who's whining now Glenn? Or is it "whinging"?

[Paddington]

Sanjuro's brings what I can only call a non typical wing chunners perspective to these discussions.

Honestly a huge problem here and you and KPM are examples while Hendrik is the downright leader of that group is that you think your intellectual grasp of wing chun and the associated trivia and theory makes you some authority and you get peeved when some one who comes from a different perspective says all your intellectual rumblings are more or less hot meaningless air. I learned that what is important is what you can do. Do. Not talk about doing but really do. It's funny that KPM was arguing how wing chun works with Alan Orr. That sums it all up really. You got someone who can't make their art work arguing with some one fighting pro level fighters and producing students who can do it.

Nah, quite a few of the replies in this thread do not even address what I said and that includes SJ. I don't even think you know what I was asking and the point I was making, despite my repeating it several times. I don't position myself as an authority, in fact I do the opposite. It is all there in 'black and white'. It is more the case of people coming to this thread and jumping on points they feel are easy to attack rather than addressing the substantive topic at hand. It is unfortunate that you do not see or understand this.

[tc101]

I will say.....again....this is a discussion forum. We come here to d..i..s...c...u...s...s things....with words. This is not youtube. You keep repeating your mantra on multiple threads, saying everyone else's problem is that we look at Wing Chun from an intellectual perspective and that we don't know how to actually "do" it, when you yourself have never posted any video showing how you "do" Wing Chun. So all YOU do is "talk about doing" as well! But you don't seem to see that. AGAIN....this is a discussion forum. We come here to discuss things....with language....with words....from an intellectual perspective. If you don't like what is talked about and how it is talked about, then go to the MMA forum. But I think you will find that they are also discussing things....with words.

I understand I really do it is a discussion forum. Right. We are here to discuss things. I get that. What you don't seem to get is just because it is a discussion forum that this means that everyone knows what they are talking about or that all opinions have merit. Just because it is a discussion forum does not mean we should talk about things we really have knowledge of.

You think knowledge in wing chun is intellectual speculation or repeating what you have heard or read. My perspective is knowledge in wing chun is what you can do and what you are doing. If you are doing it then you know if you are not and cannot do it you don't really know. If you are doing it then you can talk about it. Do you think if a wing chun guy can't do chi sau he can intelligently talk about it on a forum? Tell others how they should be doing it?

In the same way How can some one not sparring or fighting with their wing chun talk about application? What do they really know about application?

How can some one who is not landing solid punches in sparring talk about power generation? What do they really know about generating functional power that is power that works in application?

Mma and boxing and other arts have forums also and what you see there are guys talking about what they do not how they think things should be done.

[tc101]

Nah, quite a few of the replies in this thread do not even address what I said and that includes SJ. I don't even think you know what I was asking and the point I was making, despite my repeating it several times. I don't position myself as an authority, in fact I do the opposite. It is all there in 'black and white'. It is more the case of people coming to this thread and jumping on points they feel are easy to attack rather than addressing the substantive topic at hand. It is unfortunate that you do not see or understand this.

The substantive issue is that Hendrik's stuff is mostly intellectual gibberish from some one who cannot do what he talks about. What else is there to discuss?

[sanjuro_ronin]

FYI:
We have a zero tolerance for accusations of slander, racism, plagiarism, basically any accusation that is serious enough to warrant legal action.
The individual in question that shot out those accusations has been banned, as he was before when he did similar things and "snuck" back in with a different IP address.
We can discuss and argue and debate MA as much as we want and it can get as heated as it can UP TO THE POINT where anyone making slanderous accusations will be banned.
It is just the simple.

If you have an argument and you feel it has merit then make your point and leave it be, if it has merit and can stand on its own, great, if not then that is OK too.
What is 100% NOT acceptable is slanderous accusations ( like saying someone is plagiarizing an article) or insinuating that someone is a racist.

Hope that is understood by all.

Carry on.

[Paddington]

Thread successfully subverted and destroyed and a member banned for, in essence, pointing that out and then being led by you to the edge of the cliff, eh boys? Shameful.

No, I will keep posting here because I am not going to be bullied of site by your antics. In the future I will take people's advice and just ignore the antagonistic replies.

[KPM]

I understand I really do it is a discussion forum. Right. We are here to discuss things. I get that.

No. Apparently you don't! As evidenced by the rest of your reply!

What you don't seem to get is just because it is a discussion forum that this means that everyone knows what they are talking about or that all opinions have merit. Just because it is a discussion forum does not mean we should talk about things we really have knowledge of.

I never assumed that everyone knows what they are talking about. And how in the heck are we going to know whether or not the person we are talking to "really has knowledge"??? That's just a ridiculous statement, which again just shows that you really don't get it. Everyone here has an equal voice. No one has to "prove" that they "really" have knowledge. A beginner should feel welcome to post questions and give their own comments and feedback. Should everyone provide a resume for your inspection before participating in a discussion? Should everyone post a video showing them fighting full contact with their Wing Chun to gain membership here and be allowed to participate in a discussion?

You think knowledge in wing chun is intellectual speculation or repeating what you have heard or read.

And also what is gained through experience and training. But all we can do is TALK about that experience and training....with words....as a discussion.


My perspective is knowledge in wing chun is what you can do and what you are doing. If you are doing it then you know if you are not and cannot do it you don't really know. If you are doing it then you can talk about it. Do you think if a wing chun guy can't do chi sau he can intelligently talk about it on a forum? Tell others how they should be doing it?

You can have no idea of the skill level of the person you are talking to unless you have meet and trained with them personally. Since that isn't the case for 95% of the people here, then you just have to go by what they have to say....with words....in this discussion forum. To continue to repeat your mantra on multiple threads is kind of pointless.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Kevin, you mentioned that discussion thing before and fair enough, this is a discussion forum.
That said people post videos all the time.
Some of them are instructional, some are demos and some are actual fights.
I don't think that it is unwarranted to ask a person that has post videos before, to post one showing the practical applications of their theories, no?

[tc101]

I understand I really do it is a discussion forum. Right. We are here to discuss things. I get that.

No. Apparently you don't! As evidenced by the rest of your reply!

What you don't seem to get is just because it is a discussion forum that this means that everyone knows what they are talking about or that all opinions have merit. Just because it is a discussion forum does not mean we should talk about things we really have knowledge of.

I never assumed that everyone knows what they are talking about. And how in the heck are we going to know whether or not the person we are talking to "really has knowledge"??? That's just a ridiculous statement, which again just shows that you really don't get it. Everyone here has an equal voice. No one has to "prove" that they "really" have knowledge. A beginner should feel welcome to post questions and give their own comments and feedback. Should everyone provide a resume for your inspection before participating in a discussion? Should everyone post a video showing them fighting full contact with their Wing Chun to gain membership here and be allowed to participate in a discussion?

You think knowledge in wing chun is intellectual speculation or repeating what you have heard or read.

And also what is gained through experience and training. But all we can do is TALK about that experience and training....with words....as a discussion.

Yes yes it is a discussion forum and everyone has an equal opportunity to voice their opinions and perspective and also everyone can question those people voicing their opinions.

You ask how can we tell who has knowledge? Well one thing we can do is ask are you doing it? If some one says they think we should be controlling an opponents balance in fighting ask them if they are doing it or if they know anyone doing it or is it something they just think would be a nice thing to be able to do.

Your tag like is Vulcan wing chun but I think you should change it to idle speculation wing chun because that is what so much of your discussion involves.

My perspective is knowledge in wing chun is what you can do and what you are doing. If you are doing it then you know if you are not and cannot do it you don't really know. If you are doing it then you can talk about it. Do you think if a wing chun guy can't do chi sau he can intelligently talk about it on a forum? Tell others how they should be doing it?

You can have no idea of the skill level of the person you are talking to unless you have meet and trained with them personally. Since that isn't the case for 95% of the people here, then you just have to go by what they have to say....with words....in this discussion forum. To continue to repeat your mantra on multiple threads is kind of pointless.

You don't get it do you? On mma or boxing forums I do not know the skill level of the people either but you can tell by the discussions that they are talking about what they are really doing. An example from here when I first joined was a discussion about how to deal with boxers. It was all idle speculation except for Wayfaring who reported on what worked for him what didn't work and so forth when he actually sparred with a boxer.

Yes my mantra is how do you know? When I hear people talk I ask how do you know. Do you know because you are doing it or is it just armchair idle speculation? I ask that because I want to know whether what a person is saying has any substance or not. That is how I evaluate what people say.
Let's use an example how does Hendrik pass my mantra test? Is this something he is doing? Or is it idle armchair speculation?

[JPinAZ]

. At no point had I said that Hendrik had discovered something new. He does not even claim that himself. The point I made and what I offered up for debate were the merits and disadvantages of introducing the 6 or 7 seven reference points from day one. I also argued that they were simple concepts to introduce. It is not me that is in a bubble here.

Actually, you didn't claim that, but yes Hendrik does. Many times he's implies that most lineages do not have this very simple & common information (as you agree) if they do not come from his Emei+Crane=wing chun style. As he often claims this information comes from those to 'mother arts', which we all know is not true because most all wing chun has this simple idea of connecting joints for power generation/absorption & WC structural usage.

A good point is, if they are such common and simple ideas, why has Hendrik been making such a big deal on his recent discoveries of these things? Are we to believe he is just now learning about having to connect the major joints of the body after 20+ years of researching and studying wing chun?

And maybe I have it wrong, but it does sound like this is what you are saying.

[Paddington]

Actually, you didn't claim that, but yes Hendrik does. Many times he's implies that most lineages do not have this very simple & common information (as you agree) if they do not come from his Emei+Crane=wing chun style. As he often claims this information comes from those to 'mother arts', which we all know is not true because most all wing chun has this simple idea of connecting joints for power generation/absorption & WC structural usage.

A good point is, if they are such common and simple ideas, why has Hendrik been making such a big deal on his recent discoveries of these things? Are we to believe he is just now learning about having to connect the major joints of the body after 20+ years of researching and studying wing chun?

And maybe I have it wrong, but it does sound like this is what you are saying.

No, I was making a teaching point and arguing for the introduction of those reference points early on in a new students wing chun journey, possibly in lesson 1. This is actually something Hendrik suggests (introducing them early on) and that was what I was focusing on. I also questioned why some Sifu's choose not to talk about such reference points even amongst their senior students. The reason why I suggested that is because I believe it speeds up a given person's acquisition of skill in wing chun.

EDIT: I chose to ask this question and raise this teaching point, despite all the controversy surrounding Hendrik of late, because I feel that if one focuses on the content of his suggestions and leaves to the side debates over origins, people can benefit particularly those new to wing chun. I also felt that the accusations that Hendrik was just in it for the money were false and that he genuinely believes that he just wants to help people. I don't agree with everything he says but I do think he is onto something, by suggesting those reference points are introduced early on.

EDIT2 By reference points I mean the 6 or 7 'bows', 'joints' or whatever you want to call them.

[JPinAZ]

ok Paddigton, after reading you last post and then rereading your fist post, all you are really saying is that the idea of connecting the main 6 joints of the body is something a beginner should have no issue being introduced to. I fully agree. 100%

I've studied 2 lineages of wing chun. Yip Man line thru moy yat, and non-Red Boat lineage HFY. In both, the general idea of ankle/knee/hip-wrist/elbow/shoulder connection for generating power, recieving force and using structure were introduced to very early on. While I disagree with Hendrik's '7th bow' that he added in later on (I argue the spine is WAY more important that the foot in connecting these 6 main joints), it's seems to be a common enough idea in a lot of lineages - at the surface level anyway.

So, I ask again, why the big deal about this, the yik kam Emei+Crane=wc mother arts connection, snake engines and the maybe 100+ threads+videos on the subject? Wouldn't just one suffice? Also, I'm still baffled how this appears to be a new discovery to both Hendrik and Sergio, only after years of research and having to go to non-wing chun systems to get it... Sure, maybe they just weren't shared this knowledge by all of their collective teachers & reasearhc, but really??

[Paddington]

ok Paddigton, after reading you last post and then rereading your fist post, all you are really saying is that the idea of connecting the main 6 joints of the body is something a beginner should have no issue being introduced to. I fully agree. 100%

I've studied 2 lineages of wing chun. Yip Man line thru moy yat, and non-Red Boat lineage HFY. In both, the general idea of ankle/knee/hip-wrist/elbow/shoulder connection for generating power, recieving force and using structure were introduced to very early on. While I disagree with Hendrik's '7th bow' that he added in later on (I argue the spine is WAY more important that the foot in connecting these 6 main joints), it's seems to be a common enough idea in a lot of lineages - at the surface level anyway.

So, I ask again, why the big deal about this, the yik kam Emei+Crane=wc mother arts connection, snake engines and the maybe 100+ threads+videos on the subject? Wouldn't just one suffice? Also, I'm still baffled how this appears to be a new discovery to both Hendrik and Sergio, only after years of research and having to go to non-wing chun systems to get it... Sure, maybe they just weren't shared this knowledge by all of their collective teachers & reasearhc, but really??

None of those threads focused on the teaching point I made. I am a bit old fashioned when it comes to using forums in that I like to have threads that stay on topic and don't bounce around through the introduction of different topics or points in a single thread.

You make a good point asking why some are not introduced to those reference points even when the given lineage has that body of knowledge. Indeed, it is a question I ask too and the answers, I imagine, are quite varied but my cynical mind inclines me towards the thought that some Sifu's don't want their students to develop 'too fast'. Is it too cynical to suggest that some Sifu's drip feed their students intentionally?