On why I think Hendrik is on to something.

[Paddington]

Personally speaking, I've always been at least a bit interested in the whole "historical/dna analysis" that hendrik talks about, and I do think that it's possible that he's onto unveiling or revealing some sort of new interesting information. What I think is silly is that he has a rather closed view on Ving Tsun as if our art is a product of the past alone and that the "real Ving Tsun" requires that we do things exactly as they were done in the past by the oldest famous practitioners. It's a whole mentality based pretty much on stories where the older the lineage is, the better its methods are simply because it represents what the legendary practitioners of the past did, and since there are so few people who prove their kung fu in the present, the legends of the past are all that many people have to bank their faith in since they dont spar or fight themselves. And so the cycle continues...

I think your raise some very valid points. There have been many developments that have been positive and useful. However, sometimes I feel modern developments are sometimes reinventing the wheel.

As I said the idea of these 7 reference points are in Ip Man wing chun but for some reason are very rarely taught and often students are introduced to them a lot later on. I know seniors and instructors who have yet to be introduced to them despite that knowledge being within their lineage.

The argument that I was making was that they should be introduced very early on and I would love to hear people such as Ip Chun, Mr Ho and others at the VTAA, tell me why they are not. I am not going to hold my breath mind.

On a final note, I do agree about pressure testing but feel it us up to a given individual to do that should they feel the need; I felt the need and did it.