Do all HFY schools teach the same...

[Wayfaring]

You could try - but you wouldn't make it.

Because you HFY guys are the champions at this...(ie.- gaining other people's hostility).

Almost every single one of you who post here act like you've been brainwashed by some cult - and it is particularly annoying to many, many people.

Thread after thread after thread after thread.

No, you guys are the champs.

Victor,

Merry Christmas. Tom Kagan's got $20 for you.

WF

[Knifefighter]

Ok, I'll bite. What exactly does a MT/Boxing guy "look like" as opposed to a WC guy?

Actually, you are the WC guy... do you think that is representative of a guy who teaches/trains WC?

[Wayfaring]

Actually, you are the WC guy... do you think that is representative of a guy who teaches/trains WC?

That particular guy studied WC in the past, and also trains in MT/Boxing/JJ. I don't know who he trains MT/Boxing/JJ with. He "looks like" himself. He looks "representative of" himself. I've never met him or sparred or rolled with him, so beyond what that clip shows, I don't have a whole lot more to go on.

What do you think is "representative of" a WC guy?

[Tom Kagan]

Tom, you were baiting and stirring things up a little, which I tend to see you do more often than not when joining 'HFY' threads. I was just calling you on it. It is what it is. Batting your eyes now and trying to act innocent isn't helping..
But I did add to the conversation as well - it wasn't such a personal attack on you as you try to make it out to be. Get over it.

What are you talking about? I rarely post in any threads in this forum. When I do, my comments and questions are very specific to the pieces of conversation I find interesting and which I think can be discussed by reasonable people over the internet. When someone says something I think is amusing, I point it out. If they don't get it, I might start to poke fun at them. There is no difference whatsoever in the very few minority of HFY threads in which I've chosen to post. Go through my post history and you will see. And, if you can show me different, then I'm the one who should re-evaluate.

As I specifically mentioned originally, I was amused at the two initial responses essentially contradicting each other. If you think that's "stirring things", fine, but that's no different in any thread in which I choose to post. Still, if you re-read in this thread, you will notice I did not respond with such "stirring" amusement to you, Duende, or Savi. (Duende did throw out a red herring which I played with, but immediately ended that with "neither here nor there".)

Also, FWIW, if you also re-read, I specifically said you weren't really a part of the same ad-hominem as Savi. Your response just came across as someone who was having a less than ideal day, and I mostly ignored it in my response. For Savi, it appears if there's something else going on which has nothing to do with this thread. As for Duende, it seems to me he recognizes internet discussion for what it is. (I even commended him a long time ago for him cooling down and re-editing something he posted which he later regretted.)

The only way you can stop any of us from pointing the finger at you is by keeping the discussion technical without your ever desire to spin your sh!t regarding aspects of HFY. If you can control yourself that much, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Until then, I'm going to call your BS every time.

Your "question" is not specific to HFY, but Wing Chun in general because all Wing Chun share the same weapons.

What BS? The paradox of weapons late in the training cycle applies to the folklore which says the style is for military/insurgency. To say this discussion isn't about HFY is misleading. It is HFY history which strongly speaks of secret societies committed to overthrowing the Qing. There's only a scattering of anecdotes in other's "history", and, from my perspective, they are more of a comment on the time than anything for which the training may be undertaken. The rest of WC doesn't really share this to such veracity. (This is only one of many apparent paradoxes in the system, such as what is discussed below.) If you can't point out anything specific in history which would cause a drastic change in methodology during a time where people speak of its use for insurgency, fine, but stop being a pain about it. Take a cue from Duende and Wafaring and admit anything would only be speculation.

Saying that HFY chose to use "outdated" weapons is very subjective, misleading, and doesn't even address the fact that all Wing Chun uses the pole and the swords too. If you were trying to corner HFYWCK with your belittling statement, you were in fact doing it to all Wing Chun including your own. That being the case, you were really saying that all Wing Chun uses outdated weapons.

I and others have said it repeatedly over the years: The system uses impractical weapons. Even if you go back in history the long pole and the short swords were not great choices for the time period from a purely functional perspective. It is a simple fact - born out by the documented collective histories of armies throughout the world - even those without firearms. From a functional perspective, there are better choices than an 8 1/2 to 14 foot pole or two 14 inch blades, even at the time of the Red Boats. Even if they were "practical", there are quite a few glaring holes in such an arsenal if the goal is to be useful as weaponry.

Poles meant to hurt, maim, and kill are either shorter or end bladed, or used in drastically different scenarios requiring drastically different training (e.g.: Phalanx). The bladed weapons are either longer or shorter, save for the Machete - but there is no link to this weapon in history or functionality, and you don't wield two of them.

The fact that there is you find such statements controversial now is surprising to me. I've mentioned it in previous threads without you or anyone else taking offense. It doesn't belittle anyone. Chinese culture doesn't have any problem with similar apparent paradoxes.

In a system which purports to train "attributes", it's hardly "having a go" (as JPinAZ accused) to state that a weapon choice may have nothing to do with the weapon's practicality as a weapon. Sheesh, the U.S. Army uses heavily altered pugil sticks in a manner having nothing to do with the practicality of stabbing people with a bayonet - pointing out such apparent paradoxes don't seem to bother them.

There's no "cornering". There is an apparent paradox there. I'm hardly the first to notice this particular paradox, and other ones. I asked in this thread on HFY differences something specific in HFY history which had a chance to shed some light on it.

I'd have to say with a comment like that, you do not have a deep enough understanding of the weaponry behind Wing Chun. You do not have an understanding of the relationship behind the hand to hand science and the weapons. You do not have a deep enough understanding of the culture and times of the development of HFY to make such an obscure statement about it.

You think you can stop someone from pointing out something coming from you they may call "questionable" or "unreasonable"? Don't think so. How you react determines how convincing your story may be.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, regardless of the ad-hominem in it. As I said before, I'm cool with making this thread instead about me. Additionally, what you say may very well be the case - I have no qualms contemplating it. (Can you do the same and entertain obviously contradictory thoughts with what you know to be "true" for yourself?)

Notwithstanding, the relationship between the "hand to hand science and the weapons" is immaterial. It does not turn functionally obsolete and ill suited weapons into a practical arsenal to be used as weapons when there are better options available. (It does point to the reasons for their choice, however.)

[Tom Kagan]

Hey Tom,
Take a hike to San Jose! or atleast get your pending message here..
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=dzac5jqIF1I

Do you speak for the person in the video? Perhaps, because you post from the UK, you might be one of the people I went out of my way to expose as white supremacists jerking him around and fanning the flames by fraudulently pretending to be him online? Regardless, I think it is safe to say your comment has nothing to do with this thread.

[Tom Kagan]

Victor,

Merry Christmas. Tom Kagan's got $20 for you.

WF

Funny.

There are cheaper options in Brooklyn, so I'm only willing to chip in $10 for Victor.

[Wayfaring]

I and others have said it repeatedly over the years: The system uses impractical weapons. Even if you go back in history the long pole and the short swords were not great choices for the time period from a purely functional perspective. It is a simple fact - born out by the documented collective histories of armies throughout the world - even those without firearms. From a functional perspective, there are better choices than an 8 1/2 to 14 foot pole or two 14 inch blades, even at the time of the Red Boats. Even if they were "practical", there are quite a few glaring holes in such an arsenal if the goal is to be useful as weaponry.

I suppose the entire Shaolin approach was impractical weapons - that's probably why all of the temples were destroyed by cannon's from 150m.

I thought the choice of weapons were influenced by the law and martial rule at the time. A traveling monk or opera person with a robe concealing 14 inch blades and a walking stick might get by without being arrested. Someone with more effective military weaponry would probably be killed by traveling military troops.

Sheesh, didn't you watch your episodes of "Kung Fu" with David Carradine?

So impractical is dependent upon circumstances. Expertise with weapons usually is preceded by martial law dictating what weapons could legally be accessible. That's why you have all the threshing implements as weapons in Okinawan systems.

[Phil Redmond]

Base on the comments and questions by Tom K. and Knifefighter, seem like they do not have any fighting experience. They think fighting has a particular looks to it call the Wing Chun style.

I don't know about Tom K. but I have a video with highlights of some of Knifefighter's fights. Some are bareknuckle cage fights.

[sanjuro_ronin]

We gone over this a few time, what does someone using WC look like when they fight?
And why is it important?
Well, typically, we all know Muay Thai fighters and TKD fighters and and Boxers by how they look when they fight, so what makes WC any different?
IF we see WC looking a certain way in Demos and training, shouldn't it look the same in fighting?
All the other arts I mention look the same in training and in fighting and we can add to those:
MMA
Kyokushin
Judo
BJJ
Ethiopian Sumo

[TAYLOR1]

Sanjuro_ronin,

In my opinion, techniques may look the same. A certain style may be based on a set of techniques. My understanding of wing chun is that it is based on principles and concepts.

What does a concept look like? All buildings are based on certain basic concepts of structure, but not all buildings look a like. I would say all wing chun share some the same concepts but their expression may look different from each other.

Not all wing chun lineages share all of the same concepts. Because of that, the expressions (techniques ) may look different. Each lineage should be preserved and respected as such.

[t_niehoff]

We gone over this a few time, what does someone using WC look like when they fight?
And why is it important?
Well, typically, we all know Muay Thai fighters and TKD fighters and and Boxers by how they look when they fight, so what makes WC any different?
IF we see WC looking a certain way in Demos and training, shouldn't it look the same in fighting?
All the other arts I mention look the same in training and in fighting and we can add to those:
MMA
Kyokushin
Judo
BJJ
Ethiopian Sumo

You are correct.

All MAs have at their core, various ways of moving (ways that they have found over time to be effective ways of moving to deal with certain combative problems). Those ways of moving are that art's/method's techniques, mechanics, "concepts", etc. all rolled up into one. (Which is why you can't see WCK "concepts" without seeing WCK movement). If you move one way in "training" and another way in application (fighting), then your training has been unproductive (because you are practicing what you don't do).

The reason most people in WCK don't and can't move like they do in "training" is because they aren't starting with the fight, with application -- which is what WCK really is: fighting -- (and then practicing that), but instead starting from theory (how they believe things should work).

[sanjuro_ronin]

Sanjuro_ronin,

In my opinion, techniques may look the same. A certain style may be based on a set of techniques. My understanding of wing chun is that it is based on principles and concepts.

What does a concept look like? All buildings are based on certain basic concepts of structure, but not all buildings look a like. I would say all wing chun share some the same concepts but their expression may look different from each other.

Not all wing chun lineages share all of the same concepts. Because of that, the expressions (techniques ) may look different. Each lineage should be preserved and respected as such.

That doesn't make any sense.
Your body moves a certain way when you do certain things, if you train to move in a specific way when doing specific things, then it should be constant.

[golgo]

Sanjuro_ronin,

In my opinion, techniques may look the same. A certain style may be based on a set of techniques. My understanding of wing chun is that it is based on principles and concepts.

What does a concept look like? All buildings are based on certain basic concepts of structure, but not all buildings look a like. I would say all wing chun share some the same concepts but their expression may look different from each other.

Not all wing chun lineages share all of the same concepts. Because of that, the expressions (techniques ) may look different. Each lineage should be preserved and respected as such.

I have been taught essentially the same thing at my kwoon. Even within TWC or our Kwoon, our expressions of the art my look different.

[Wayfaring]

concepts are find. Do you know what a tan sao, vt punch, bong sao looks like. There are moves that should be easily seen in a fight. The roof top fight with wu chun lam didnt look like kickboxing it looked like vt. It doesnt look like chi sao but it should be recognisable. I have seen my seniors and me in fights and while not technically perfect (especially me) it looked like vt. Straight verticle punches etc. I find when people join in a thread just to defend there training partners and style with ****ty threats (why dont you try hfy unless your sacred etc) you make you your style and your fellow students look like idiots that cant stand up for themselves. Also the old well you haven't been in a fight is really lam

bennyvt,

Tan sao, Bong sau are from a close range with a bridge. If you fight a boxer who dances in and out of jab range with no bridge you won't see those techniques. If there is no bridge you don't need to collapse it. There are different problems to solve. Short range punches with hip and elbow connected and wing chun power you will see. Looking at it from a technique only perspective is a shallow understanding. That's why I keep asking what does wing chun "look like"?

As far as hfy people responding, what would you do if people called your seniors and you "dodgy" like you did?

[Knifefighter]

So, Knifefighter what is WC fighting to you?

Since I believe there shouldn't be a disconnect between training and fighting, I'd say the movements should be similar to these:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=qaP1X-lEtgc

http://video.google.com/videosearch?...revision&cd=3#

Those are the types of movements you guys train, right?