At least you guys are consistent in your delusions, gotta respect that.
At least you guys are consistent in your delusions, gotta respect that.
Psalms 144:1
Praise be my Lord my Rock,
He trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle !
That’s OK, because those who speak the loudest always have something to hide, and in his case; “if you fail, then try and try again”. Boy, do I feel his pain.
Take care,
This post made perfect sense to me. I'm not sure why there was so much confusion over this. The general idea is, there is no need to mystify things - if you understand things at the mechanics level, then you should be able to teach it in simple terms and ideas that beginners understand without all the tacked-on mumbo jumbo nonsense. Simple
On a side note, the 7 bows thing is not really that high level or difficult. It's really just simple WC mechanics with a bunch of new fancy terms and a shiny new his-story to go with it. If connecting the joints (ankle/knee/hip, wrist/elbow/shoulder) aren't already in someone's WC after the first year, then something is seriously missing from their WC.
IMO, Henrik's newly added 7th bow is flat out wrong anyway - he's talking about feet and missing the much bigger part of connecting the 6 joints, which is the spine. Also funny, he used to only talk about 6 bows for the longest time, until he started reading more books from other arts and decided to throw feet into the mix. Which tells me he didn't get his from his sifu, but is making it up as he goes by adding stuff together as he collects it from other arts, books, videos, old scrolls, weird online bai sis, stealing, whatever. All the while still missing what really makes everything work together, and that's the spine. But then, he doesn't do any actual physical partner training, and if you look how horribly he stands, maybe he doesn't even have a spine
So IMO none of his 'new discoveries' really means anything if he hasn't tested it first for himself. And this constant adding to his theories only proved that his his-story is just that. If it helps someone else, that's great! But IMO it's a lot of attention on something that's not really that big of a deal in the first place. I'm sure this thread will go on another 20 pages regardless because that's what WC'rs do, so carry on!
Last edited by JPinAZ; 06-03-2014 at 09:51 AM.
What chi sau is, or isn't, or is, or wait, what is it..: http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/foru...2&postcount=90
Let me spell it out in as simple of terms as I can for you guys that are being so narrow-minded about something that is really quite straight-forward:
1. Using an analogy like a "bow" is not esoteric and not exclusive to CMA. It is a useful tool to convey concepts and ideas to beginning students.
2. Trying to talk in terms of biomechanics and kinesiology to that beginning student is not simpler and less complicated than using an analogy of a "bow" to explain tensioning across joints.
3. From the very beginning Paddington made it clear that he was talking about one concept that Hendrik mentioned....using an analogy of a bow when talking about how to use the stance properly. He also made it clear that he was proposing how best to teach this concept to a beginner and when to introduce it.
4. Using a simple analogy like a "bow" is NOT mystifying anything. It is applying an understanding of biomechanics to explain things to a student who may not be as familiar with biomechanical concepts and terms as the teacher.
The only ones that didn't get it dude are the ones that spend all their time SAYING and THINKING and very little actually DOING.
The sad part is that I still love WC, I still use quite a bit of it and it served me well when I transitioned over to SPM.
And I am not alone on this.
WC is an excellent system, it is simple, concise and effective.
Because it is heavily specialized the "secret" to making it work ( IE: you can fight ANYONE with it, not just other WC people) is that you must cross-test it VS other systems that do NOT have the same body-movement patterns.
Doing WC VS VC will make you good at, *gasp*, fighting WC.
The carryover VS other systems is harder compared to say MT or Hung Kuen for example, is that those two have a more "natural" way of fighting while WC, as I have mentioned before, is more specialized.
It's not just WC by the way, SPM, Dragons fist, Pak Mei, most of the southern "hands" have that "problem".
Of course that problem is also it's biggest advantage because since the southern hand fighter is bringing something different to the fight, he MAY have the advantage.
ANYONE that has done more than ONE MA knows how much even dissimilar systems have in common at their core.
The body moves the way the body moves and, baring some minor adjustments, it isn't really that complicated.
I will say this to anyone though:
The proof of ANY MA is in fighting, period.
Not co-operative fighting, not "student fighting teacher mode", no, fighting someone that wants to knock your block off.
You can express to your students in whatever way you feel tickles your fancy and you can believe that is the best way for them to learn, BUT the only way to know IF they have learned and how well is to see them fight.
The most effective systems of unarmed combat ( in terms of not only producing fighters but proving themselves) has shown that there is NO NEED for any gibberish in teaching.
And to make clear a point that seems to be getting confused over and over:
You do NOT use bio-mechanical terms ( though terms like leverage and such are common place), you use your understanding of bio-mechanics and such to explain things SIMPLY.
No one is saying that you can't use analogies like a "bow" or "bullet" or "whip" ( a common one also), I am saying there there is no need for overly exotic silliness.
Last edited by sanjuro_ronin; 06-03-2014 at 10:12 AM.
Psalms 144:1
Praise be my Lord my Rock,
He trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle !
From what I've seen, all he has 'unveiled' lately is just old information from other non-wing chun arts that he hasn't even physically trained under any sifu (except maybe for some weird online bai si that lasted a few months with little-to-no actual training). Has very little to do with wing chun development.
Haha, I find it all rather silly
What chi sau is, or isn't, or is, or wait, what is it..: http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/foru...2&postcount=90
JP, I'm glad you pointed this out. I confess that I often tend to space out a bit when I try to read Hedrick's stuff, so I just kinda assumed that his seven bows were the ankles, knees, hip, spine, shoulder, elbow, and wrist -- since this is what I get when I count up from the foot to the fist. Of course my body might be different than Hendrick's. :P
Considering that without the spine there is NOTHING, well...
Psalms 144:1
Praise be my Lord my Rock,
He trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle !
An example of what I mean:
http://www.expertboxing.com/boxing-t...punching-power
http://www.expertboxing.com/boxing-t...snapping-punch
Last edited by sanjuro_ronin; 06-03-2014 at 10:44 AM.
Psalms 144:1
Praise be my Lord my Rock,
He trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle !
Stop right there. I will not address anything else you said until you can do it with a bit of respect.
First, stop grouping me with other people. Every time there's a discussion, you have some weird attachment to grouping a bunch of people together. Why is that? I remind you once again, I speak for myself alone and for no one else. While I do belong to a particular lineage, I only share my views based on my OWN experiences.
Next, you can drop the condescending & passive aggressive attitude. Because I don't agree with someone doesn't make 'narrow-minded'. Actually just the opposite, as having an open mind gives me critical thinking and the ability to analyze things from different angles before I form my opinions.
Lastly, for someone that complained so loudly about the state of the forums lately, you aren't setting a very good example. Some might say that's being a hypocrite.
Now, please try it again, or I have nothing more to say to you.
What chi sau is, or isn't, or is, or wait, what is it..: http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/foru...2&postcount=90
You said this in reply to "Please explain to us in biomechanical and kinesiological terms in "English" what Paddington is talking about."
Didn't he JUST do this a few posts ago?
Sounds like he did just do it. Since you haven't added anything to the discussion except to ignore people's posts and continue to badger for evidence already given, couldn't this be called trolling?
Last edited by JPinAZ; 06-03-2014 at 11:01 AM.
What chi sau is, or isn't, or is, or wait, what is it..: http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/foru...2&postcount=90