Terence
Here's the problem: you have an idea of how you think WCK should work or should look in fighting/application. That's your theory. And that's all it is since you've never seen anyone who could do it against anyone with decent fighting skills. But it persists nonetheless. You see Alan fight and contrast what he did with your theory, and since he didn't meet your "standard" by your theory, he had poor WCK.
Wow....I actually agree with Terence!
I think this is one of the best and most important things mentioned on this board in awhile. Stepping aside from the discussion of actual fighting for a moment, I see this happen in Wing Chun quite often. How many times have I heard someone say that a certain individual or school does chi sau differently from the next and are told that it bad Wing Chun. All because it appears slightly different from their own theories, maybe they feel it isn't tight enough, too stiff, too relaxed, not enough forward pressure, etc. These statements are based upon one's own ideas, which each group feel are their "standard" ways and anything else is just wrong or not (Good)Wing Chun.
Now back to fighting, these same things are said about Alan Orr and his group. People don't seem to see the Wing Chun because of appearance (IMHO) though I can see the concepts within their methods. Of course it may not appear to be Wing Chun in appearance, but to me, Wing Chun comes from the inside.....not the shape or look or the methods used (or easily seen from the outside).
In short, I feel great Wing Chun isn't seen as much as it is felt!
John Widener
'Understand your limits, but never limit your understanding'.
" I may disapprove of what you say,
but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
Voltaire
www.wing-chun.us