And this is why it is so difficult to carry on any kind of real discussion when you are involved!Originally Posted by LFJ
Registered User
And this is why it is so difficult to carry on any kind of real discussion when you are involved!
Registered User
There isn't anything nasty in that comment. He's trying to help you I think. Personally I have lost interest.Really? Here is your very first post on this thread:
The sad thing? You've started similar threads years ago to have this explained to you by at least 5 people.
You didn't get it then, and still don't now.
If it bothers you that much and you are interested enough to keep coming back to this topic year after year, just go to a VT school already and find out about it!
Otherwise just give up.
You don't think that was personal and somewhat nasty???
Registered User
Show me one , one video of any twc practitoner who demonstrated bodystructure anywhere ? Power generation , is there any explaination for that , from GM , besides "it is coming from legs ? Now here is the differece between you and me . I left good part of my life practicing twc , I even learned "true" version of it from David Cheung and his art is extremly different from william;s approach ,but still no body structure , no power generation . You are talking about what I am doing bt you have no idea what is SCWC about ,what you see and what is actually done are completely different things and the style its self is very specific and veifferet from ll other styles a lot . About my instructors , when it comes to ethics and morality ...well ...that s another story , personal one and I will not say it here , but when we talk about their knowledge of TWC , they are far better that anyon else you can find today, even cheung;s closests students \followers\worshipers , whatever they are . The only thing i do not understand , whay are you even argue here , if you like what you do , if it is right thing for you , than just do it , as many hours daily as you can , stop wastng time on forums , .
Registered User
@zuti car
If it weren't true, lack of structure and power generation wouldn't be a common complaint all ex-TWC practitioners I know of share!
All of them thought like KPM does now, until they learned something else. You only know what you know, you know?
They are all upset about the time wasted on a very superficial system.
This is what happens when a level 10 instructor of TWC meets basic force exchange. Lacks all stability and crumbles easily.
Registered User
Show me one , one video of any twc practitoner who demonstrated bodystructure anywhere ?
---The problem is, it wouldn't matter what I showed, you would still say "that isn't good body structure." You asked me to describe ANY principle or body mechanic from the Chum Kil form. So I did that and not surprisingly you had nothing to say about it.
I even learned "true" version of it from David Cheung and his art is extremly different from william;s approach ,but still no body structure , no power generation .
---That's strange. If William Cheung created TWC, how could you have learned the "true" version of it from his brother (which was extremely different) but not from him??? Maybe that is the problem? I know nothing about David Cheung. But maybe he taught you a somewhat....shall we say...delinquent version of TWC?? That's how it is sounding anyway.
you have no idea what is SCWC about ,what you see and what is actually done are completely different things
---Ah! The same argument used by the WSLVT guys! What we all see Wayne Yung or Wong Shun Leung do on video is just a sham and not what they REALLY do!
but when we talk about their knowledge of TWC , they are far better that anyon else you can find today, even cheung;s closests students
---Since it was William Cheung who created TWC, how is what you say possible? You are saying they know the system even better than Cheung? Yet they didn't teach you the basic principles and biomechanics from the Chum Kil form that I briefly described? How is that possible?
The only thing i do not understand , whay are you even argue here , if you like what you do , if it is right thing for you , than just do it , as many hours daily as you can , stop wastng time on forums ,
----No Zuti. What isn't clear here is why you are choosing to post and try and bad-mouth TWC if you have gone beyond it and found something that you really like and that works for you. You haven't contributed to the discussions at all other than to tell us how you wasted your time on TWC and now hate everything about it. You never commented on whether or not what I was saying about the T step was accurate. All you have done is to post in an attempt to run down TWC. So if SCWC is the right thing for you, then just do it, as many hours daily as you can and stop wasting time bad-mouthing TWC on forums!
Registered User
How could you tell who was who? Just looked like 2 guys doing Chi Sau and one was a bit better at it than the other. Is that supposed to prove something? Maybe the TWC guy just wasn't as good at Chi Sau! After all, it seems that WSLVT schools do a LOT of Chi Sau! Just stands to reason they would be better at it! But Chi Sau isn't fighting. In contrast, I'm willing to be that the typical TWC school spends a lot more time gearing up and sparring!
Registered User
-Body structure is very simple thing , either you lower and upper body are connected or not and that is easy to see, there is no good or bad structure only there is a structure ir not , for those who know what is that all about it is easy to see whether someone have it or not . So , please , show me one TWC guy with any kind of structural connection , I'll accept tai chi , white crane , wck body structure , no matter , just show me one .Show me one , one video of any twc practitoner who demonstrated bodystructure anywhere ?
---The problem is, it wouldn't matter what I showed, you would still say "that isn't good body structure." You asked me to describe ANY principle or body mechanic from the Chum Kil form. So I did that and not surprisingly you had nothing to say about it.
I even learned "true" version of it from David Cheung and his art is extremly different from william;s approach ,but still no body structure , no power generation .
---That's strange. If William Cheung created TWC, how could you have learned the "true" version of it from his brother (which was extremely different) but not from him??? Maybe that is the problem? I know nothing about David Cheung. But maybe he taught you a somewhat....shall we say...delinquent version of TWC?? That's how it is sounding anyway.
you have no idea what is SCWC about ,what you see and what is actually done are completely different things
---Ah! The same argument used by the WSLVT guys! What we all see Wayne Yung or Wong Shun Leung do on video is just a sham and not what they REALLY do!
but when we talk about their knowledge of TWC , they are far better that anyon else you can find today, even cheung;s closests students
---Since it was William Cheung who created TWC, how is what you say possible? You are saying they know the system even better than Cheung? Yet they didn't teach you the basic principles and biomechanics from the Chum Kil form that I briefly described? How is that possible?
The only thing i do not understand , whay are you even argue here , if you like what you do , if it is right thing for you , than just do it , as many hours daily as you can , stop wastng time on forums ,
----No Zuti. What isn't clear here is why you are choosing to post and try and bad-mouth TWC if you have gone beyond it and found something that you really like and that works for you. You haven't contributed to the discussions at all other than to tell us how you wasted your time on TWC and now hate everything about it. You never commented on whether or not what I was saying about the T step was accurate. All you have done is to post in an attempt to run down TWC. So if SCWC is the right thing for you, then just do it, as many hours daily as you can and stop wasting time bad-mouthing TWC on forums!
- I didn't say anything about Chum Kiu form simply because I have no time to elaborate how wrong it is and how these "principles' are wrongly expressed through the movements of the form , I could write the whole book about it , but for you to understand , you should know at least one other wck style , no matter what lineage they all teach and do pretty much same things .Simply put , what you said and what is done in a form are not the same things .
- David knows only one , first version of TWC and that is what he teaches , he also spent 6 years in WSL's school in HK , I think at same time when Garry Lam was there . Anyway , David's TWC has many valid points , it is simple and not application based ( who would believe it ) .
-WSL guys are right , if you don't know something , how can you make any valid points on the matter ? I practiced TWC for a significant time period and I can comment on it , I simply know what is the style all about . You saw couple of scwc videos and you comment but you know nothing about the style , let's say the structure which is different from all other WCK style and it shares many common points with white crane structure ( which I also practice for 4 years). Or the method of power generation , or chi sao platforms we use or ...do you know anything about SCWC? Or you just don't like what you see because it is not visually pleasing , not attractive enough?
-I never said anyone knows TWC better than Cheung , that is what you said , I simply said my teachers spent 30 + years practicing the style learned from Cheung , they know the style , they know what they have learned directly from Cheung .
-I talk truth about TWC . I know many things about Cheung that are not publically known and his followers did and still doing things to me in order to discredit me on every possible level ( I even got death threats when I debunked his original "history" in my country ) , he is a cult leader and I want to warn people what they can expect if they get involved with that person.
Anyway , I am done , I said what I wanted and thank you for the opportunity .
Registered User
That is why TWC people do chi sao in front stance , because they have no concept of body structure and how to deal with an incoming force . This particular form of chi sao is used to reinforce structure and teach people how and what to do with the incoming force , if the structure if well traind it can be done on one leg and still keep the position
Registered User
lol
This shows just how little you understand any Wing Chun.
What you are unable to perceive is the effect of basic issuance of lower body force from one guy, and the other guy entirely unable to hold the pressure because he never trained proper body structure even though he's a level 10 instructor of TWC.
You talk about being "better" or "not as good" at chi-sau as if it's all about practicing techniques (which TWC is). What you are missing is that the exchange of force is BASIC and TWC simply can't hold up because it doesn't teach whole body integration.
Yes, this is not fighting, but you think the guy with no stability, no structure, no power, and no defense is going to do better in free sparring or fighting??
Again, this shows how little you know about any Wing Chun, or indeed martial arts or fighting in general.
Registered User
You have a video of one person, who again I know nothing about how good he is at Chi Sau or what his rank or background in TWC may be. Maybe he studied from the same guy as Zuti! But you think this proves something?
Registered User
Body structure is very simple thing , either you lower and upper body are connected or not and that is easy to see, there is no good or bad structure only there is a structure ir not , for those who know what is that all about it is easy to see whether someone have it or not . So , please , show me one TWC guy with any kind of structural connection , I'll accept tai chi , white crane , wck body structure , no matter , just show me one .
--- What isn't clear here is why you are choosing to post and try and bad-mouth TWC if you have gone beyond it and found something that you really like and that works for you. You haven't contributed to the discussions at all other than to tell us how you wasted your time on TWC and now hate everything about it. You never commented on whether or not what I was saying about the T step was accurate. All you have done is to post in an attempt to run down TWC. So if SCWC is the right thing for you, then just do it, as many hours daily as you can and stop wasting time bad-mouthing TWC on forums!
- I didn't say anything about Chum Kiu form simply because I have no time to elaborate how wrong it is and how these "principles' are wrongly expressed through the movements of the form , I could write the whole book about it , but for you to understand , you should know at least one other wck style , no matter what lineage they all teach and do pretty much same things .Simply put , what you said and what is done in a form are not the same things .
--Yeah, right!But you know me Zuti. You should remember I have studied Ip Man Wing Chun as well as Ku Lo Pin Sun Wing Chun in addition to TWC. And like I said before, I don't do my TWC exactly like Cheung. Drawing on my background in Pin Sun, I likely do use more body structure and wholistic power generation. But I don't find TWC to be completely lacking in those things as you do. But there is room for improvement, which I feel like I have made in my own practice.
- David knows only one , first version of TWC and that is what he teaches , he also spent 6 years in WSL's school in HK , I think at same time when Garry Lam was there . Anyway , David's TWC has many valid points , it is simple and not application based ( who would believe it ) .
---So you are saying David has changed is Wing Chun from what his brother taught him to make it "non-application" based? But wait...didn't you say that the TWC you wasted 7 years on was all "application-based" and horrible....and...that it came from David Cheung? You aren't making any sense!
-WSL guys are right , if you don't know something , how can you make any valid points on the matter ?
---Now wait a minute. That is what I said on the Bong Sau thread when LFJ didn't get what I was saying about the T step.
I practiced TWC for a significant time period and I can comment on it , I simply know what is the style all about . You saw couple of scwc videos and you comment but you know nothing about the style , let's say the structure which is different from all other WCK style and it shares many common points with white crane structure ( which I also practice for 4 years). Or the method of power generation , or chi sao platforms we use or ...do you know anything about SCWC? Or you just don't like what you see because it is not visually pleasing , not attractive enough?
---You are the one that started with the video critiques. I just followed along!
-I never said anyone knows TWC better than Cheung , that is what you said , I simply said my teachers spent 30 + years practicing the style learned from Cheung , they know the style , they know what they have learned directly from Cheung .
---Uh...you said they know it better than William Cheung's closest students. Since Cheung would have taught his closest students that have now been with him directly for 30 years everything he knows, the logical implication is that your guys know TWC better than Cheung himself!
-I talk truth about TWC . I know many things about Cheung that are not publically known and his followers did and still doing things to me in order to discredit me on every possible level
---I don't doubt that. But if you are spending lots of time going around bad-mouthing them on public forums, you might be bringing some of it upon yourself!
Anyway , I am done , I said what I wanted and thank you for the opportunity
---Have a good one Zuti! No hard feelings. Glad SCWC is working out well for you!
Last edited by KPM; 04-10-2017 at 03:38 AM.
Registered User
Sifu in William Cheung's system, level 10 instructor, as I said twice.
The other guy is an ex-TWC sifu as well, but obviously learned a thing or two since leaving.
It is a demonstration of what commonly happens to TWC guys who have no concept of body unity.
All ex-TWC guys I know of, including sifu level, have this same complaint about that system. Coincidence?
I know many people who have left previous systems, including TWC, and are very passionate MAists and indignant at having had years stolen from them.
It's not just that they have found something better and have moved on, but they feel they've been cheated.
People with such experiences tend to want to tell others about it. So?
You cannot hush people whose experience and views you don't like.
lol-WSL guys are right , if you don't know something , how can you make any valid points on the matter ?
---Now wait a minute. That is what I said on the Bong Sau thread when LFJ didn't get what I was saying about the T step.
I know what the T-step is. It's not like it's something so hard to understand.
You were just wrong, as you so often are.
Registered User
Sifu in William Cheung's system, level 10 instructor, as I said twice.
---But why should I take your word for it? You wouldn't believe Phil Redmond when he said he had successfully used the T step in competition. So...by extension....why should anyone believe what you say?
All ex-TWC guys I know of, including sifu level, have this same complaint about that system. Coincidence?
---Seems like most WSLVT guys I know are pretty full of themselves, pretty dogmatic, and rather difficult to have any conversation with. Most are convinced that they are right and everything else that differs must be wrong. They were the biggest part of the group of people that killed this forum back in 2014. Coincidence?
I know what the T-step is. It's not like it's something so hard to understand.
You were just wrong, as you so often are.
---I was wrong when I said that the T step is not a direct lateral step? I was wrong when I said that the T step is a flanking step to get an angle? I was wrong when I said the T step was a two-stage step that can vary the angle as desired? I was wrong when I said the T step does not give up distance from the opponent, but on the contrary is used to maintain distance? But you are such an expert on it, while having never actually studied the T step or TWC????
Registered User
It's also on the video description and stated by the other guy in the video, who uploaded it.
If you doubt it, you can simply contact them and find out.
Whereas, when I asked Phil for proof of his claim, he gave nothing and there's no way for me to investigate further.
You refusing to investigate doesn't put your skepticism on the same rational grounds as mine.
Maybe not. Go learn WSLVT and see what there is about it that has them strongly disliking other systems they were a part of.---Seems like most WSLVT guys I know are pretty full of themselves, pretty dogmatic, and rather difficult to have any conversation with. Most are convinced that they are right and everything else that differs must be wrong. They were the biggest part of the group of people that killed this forum back in 2014. Coincidence?
No. You were wrong in stating that Phil was doing any of the above.---I was wrong when I said that the T step is not a direct lateral step? I was wrong when I said that the T step is a flanking step to get an angle? I was wrong when I said the T step was a two-stage step that can vary the angle as desired? I was wrong when I said the T step does not give up distance from the opponent, but on the contrary is used to maintain distance?
Registered User
Interesting to see the skill improvements of the dude in the red tank top. If I recall correctly, this was the high ranking twc dude who threw in the towel and went to train under Bayer(?). Couple of years ago?
Posting Permissions
