generating power

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Wing Chun
41

Responses to Terence in brackets:(my attempt to be clear on separating the response from the relevant original post)…

Joy wrote:

((The problem with that context is Terence- you are a lawyer

  • when was the last time you saw a real no rules public fight JC

You are missing my point. WCK is an approach toward fighting challenge fights, etc. were not for the most part street assaults. Yet our ancestors engaged in them IMO for the very reasons I’ve outlined above.

((Frankly, I was not impressed with the few recorded roof top fights that I have seen. That is not the reason I got into wing chun.Everyone has their own reasons))))

And while engaging is these “contests” doesn’t guarantee success in a street assault, what does?

((Your own best preparation))

To repeat: these “sport simulations” permit us to test our performance against a skilled, non-cooperative (resisting) opponent. I’m not suggesting that we all need to go compete in televised NHBs but we do need to do something.

((You are assuming that “something” is not done))

And not “sparring” with our classmates. We need to find persons with different approaches

((You are assuming that this is not done))

The dangerousness of these “sport simulations” is IMO overstated;

((danger? Not really my view. Not much danger in rolling around for 45 minutes then tapping out IMO. You are also assuming that from forum and lists posts one can get a reliable idea of who is testing what when and how. I am not being catty- but simply pointing out that there are worlds beyond forums and lists))))JC

42

Hi Joy,

Joy wrote:

((Frankly, I was not impressed with the few recorded roof top fights that I have seen. That is not the reason I got into wing chun.Everyone has their own reasons)))) JC

The idea is to use the “contests” to learn and grow in our skills and understanding. That they weren’t “impressive” supports my point. Those rooftop fighters, like Wong Sheung Leung, developed because - not in spite of - them. And I suppose there are many “reasons” people take up WCK. If they do it for reasons not having to do with developing fighting skills (and I’m not suggesting that of you) then I think they would be better served taking up something else. TN

And while engaging is these “contests” doesn’t guarantee success in a street assault, what does? TN

((Your own best preparation)) JC

Exactly. But by “your own best preparation” do we mean drills and forms alone? TN

I’m not suggesting that we all need to go compete in televised NHBs but we do need to do something. TN

((You are assuming that “something” is not done)) JC

I’m sure some folks do that “something”, but a great many IME do not. Also, it depends also on what that “something” is. TN

And not “sparring” with our classmates. We need to find persons with different approaches TN

((You are assuming that this is not done)) JC

I’m not assuming it is not done by some or that you don’t do it; I’m merely saying that it must be done to develop and hone our skills. If you do it or others do it, then we agree. :slight_smile: If someone doesn’t do it or thinks they can develop into a decent fighter without doing it, I’ve yet to hear a compelling argument for that position or meet anyone who has. TN

((danger? Not really my view. Not much danger in rolling around for 45 minutes then tapping out IMO. You are also assuming that from forum and lists posts one can get a reliable idea of who is testing what when and how.)))JC

I also don’t want to roll on the ground, and I don’t think it will help me develop the fighting approach that WCK trains. OTOH, I do need, for example, to face persons that will attempt to tackle (shoot) me to the ground to learn how to deal with that – and the better the person I face (the better skilled he is at his takedowns) the better I’ll get dealing with it. I’m not assuming anything about you or anyone personally. These are just my views of what anyone needs to do to develop skills as WCK fighters. If I say that we need a good instructor and that without a good instructor it may be impossible to truly reach a high level of skill, I’m not suggesting or assuming that you or anyone else doesn’t have a good instructor - rather I’m just stating my opinion of what’s needed. TN

Terence

43

so many issues to give opinions on, not enough time :frowning:

  • the SNT stance IS alive, period. one way to think about it is the same way we think about our bong sau in the SNT – it’s just sitting there, looking like a pretty bong sau. is it dead? if so, we’re not training it correctly. same with our legs and torso in the stance – if they’re not alive and feeling, they’re dead and lazy. the legs should be both strong and flexbile, ready to turn, step, kick or whatever with quickness and fluidity, not rigidity. same with the bong sau – if it’s not springy and relaxed, it becomes a tool of greater use to our opponent than for us. that’s just ONE way the stance is alive.

  • i think terence is right in that such competitions can be a good way to test skills. we shouldn’t need fatal strikes to defeat someone. rather, we should have them in our arsenal and be able to defeat someone with our more simple, less lethal techniques.

  • (switching sides) i think that such competitions are a tool; they are a way of testing and improving, much the same other practice is. but these competitions are not required to be good at self defense. this doesn’t hold true for folks who frequent these events – as if you want to get better at a specific type of physical act, you do that act.

  • (generalizing) however, i don’t think that events are a good or bad thing. they are what you get out of them. if you frequent them, you will learn, but you may pick up some habits that won’t apply elsewhere. it’s like a writing style – writing for research and writing for a monthly magazine are both good skills, but the style for one will not be as effective as the style for another. two people may be fantastic writiers, but a JAMA (medicine, not martial) writer may get the message across in Time magazine, and the Time writer’s style will not have the requisite depth for JAMA.

  • joy and kj – ignore UF’s assertions. he’s spent a bit more than two years in wing tsun and thinks he’s the end-all be-all of the style. he ignores the words of more seasoned people in his own lineage, insults people who have left the wt family and found something else more to their liking, and disregards the opinions of anyone contrary to him as uninformed. guess that means kathy jo’s seven years and joy’s 26 in the art have little meaning. better start shaping up, you two. :wink:

44

Terence- we do have large areas of agreement. I didnt get into wc to improve my health- though the latter is not a bad side product.

Rubthebuddha- Thx. I dont take UF seriously as an authority
on anything. He might learn some wc yet if he develops the right amount of humility and listening ability ( to elders in his own lineage at least).

Happy New Year to WC forum members.

Joy Chaudhuri ((Downtown Tempe tonight is one of the places to be tonight— after the other Fiesta bowl parade etc- but I will just do another slt before midnight… Cheers))

…Ng Mui comes to me
Speaking words of wisdom
Let it be…let it be.

45

well rubthebuddha

since you didn’t tell me to ignore him, and I share in UFs lack of experiance (as i’ve only been at this three years now) here goes.

We do indeed differ greatly. I fear you are trying to over simplify your wing chun into generalised terms. Yes there are similaritites between the CK stance and SNT stance, but that said, they are still different stances. Seeing one as a ‘basically the same’ as the other is incorrect and will only add to your confusion.

UF, let me worry about my confusion, you just try to form a valid, logical arguement.

Bearing in mind that different branches train the stance differently (we in WT train a 99% weight on the back leg), the CK stance is different in both application and positioning. To see them as ‘both the same thing’ in your words only muddles the true uses of the stances does not help in your training.

Saying that you are right, therefore I am wrong does not constute proof, nor does it advance your arguements. Yes, I understand that you think the SLT stance is static, and that the stance in CK is not. However, since you have yet to disscus the “true uses” of either stance I cannot see what your point is, other than you are correct, and I am “muddled & confused” for not beliveing you.

Secondly, your statement that footwork and movement come ‘with and from the SNT training’ is total nonsense. Sorry to put it so bluntly but it is. SNT training contains no footwork or movement, it is all in CK. Though you may be trying to say that the basic stance is developed in SNT and hence it is a progression, that is still totally false.

I am also sorry you put it so bluntly, because that means I have no idea why you think either of your points, nor what benifit you seek to gain from them.

Footwork and turning can only be trained from the CK stance. I fail to see how you can logically say it derives from SNT stance when this has a static position with the legs. Do not forget that CK also containes the neutral stance, and only here does it show how to turn from one to the other .

ohh look, an arguement! So you agree that you turn from the neutral stance of SLT into the “chor ma” turned tance of CK. You see how both adduct, both retain proper bends in the knees, and both power the movements of the upper body in the same way. Yet you see no relation between the two of them, they’re apples and oranges right?

If you disagree with me, I suggest you read any of Yip Chuns books where he clearly describes how the Ck stance holds the beginning of stepping and turning in wing chun.

I do disagree with you, and I won’t be takeing your suggestion. What little i’ve read of Yip Chun’s books have not impressed me. My point is that a WC fighter steps, shifts, turns and move from, with and because of the training done from SLT. CK shows some of the progessions of this theory.

You from what I can make from your posts, see a WC fighter moveing from stance to stance. Have you ever seen a more “traditional” art such as mantis or hung gar move? thats movement from stance to stance. Look that up, then contrast the two.

if you wish to counter any of the arguments i made, please do so in a mannor other than “So do you agree i’m right, or are you an idiot?”

46

Originally posted by yuanfen
[B]

UF- Failed to respond?- if you dont know how the SLT is “alive” ( or not) ask your teacher. Draw any inference you wish to from the answers.

yuenfan [/B]

No, I am asking what your use of the term ‘alive’ is in this context, as you were happy to put down what I said about the SNT stance not utilising full body weight as it is static, yet you failed to give any evidence to the contrary.

I highlighted spine extension, forward motion and the falling step as adding bodyweight to a punch. You said "the SNT stance is ‘alive’, yet have been unable to explain what you mean by thios or indeed how it contradicts what I was saying on adding to a punches power. My feeling is that this is becasue you do not know.

Secondly, I do not know how many years you claim to have studied WC but it is irrelevent. If your are wrong about something I will tell you. If I am persuaded otherwise by argument, then that is fine. But your knowledge level as percieved by your posts here appears to be of quite a junior level.

I also have a background in Judo for many years as well as WT. Total fighting is a concept I am not sure you are used to. But please do not try to confuse knwledge of fighting with knowledge of WC or WT, as they are NOT the same. Many of these arguments transcend those of a single style, and hence having knowledge of other arts and application is of benefit.

Oddermensch,

Good to see you are so quick to disregard the knowledge of the son of Yip Man as ‘not impressive’. Maybe a lesson in humility would be useful?

47

why?

is there a genetic link to WC?

I wasn’t commenting on Yip Chun’s skill or knowledge, just his publishing, and your pathetic apeal to authority.

48

Just my 2 cents!

WC can be a lot of things for a lot of people. I have no doubt that WC’s reputation for developing simple effective fighting methods is what helped us decide to learn this art but just because we are training a fighting art it does not mean we all have to strive to be the greatest fighter in the world.

Testing our methods against other arts is a lot of fun and the one thing it most certainly teaches us is what works and what doesnt work. The simple reason is because other martial artist will not be as willing to accept your response as some of your classmates will be. I have met up with people from Southern Mantis, Wado Ryu Karate, Jiu Jitsu and other cool arts and all have been a learning experience for me. No doubt anytime I try my hand against a stranger it helps develop me but fighting skilled martial artists is not the same as fighting a “street thug” that will just go wild trying to tear your face off. They do not have the trained reactions of a martial artist and I find training against thugs, or thug situations, helps me a bit more for reality. Besides, outside the UFC/Pride etc. when was the last time you witnessed two martial artists get into a street fight? Yet, it (fighting other MA) does hone your fighting skill, it doesn’t entirely prepare you for the street but it does help. Usually at an early level the fighting is what drives us but as many mature I find them just enjoying the art for arts sake and the fighting is just part of the fun!

A few years back I liked to spar pretty hard and got kind of bloody with some friends on a number of occassions but now I just enjoy training the art I love a few days per week and playing a lot of San Sik. Working on the subtle aspects and seeing personal growth is a great feeling for me. I believe WC can be a lot of things and it all depends what we want out of it. For some being the best is great and for others being good enough to defend themselves is great. The main point is we all love this art and its up to us to get what we want out of it. I can say that even though the self defense we recieve from this training is superb I enjoy what a powerfull friend making tool this art is just as much!

Happy New Years!

49

Hi Jim,

Jim Roselando wrote:

WC can be a lot of things for a lot of people. JR

That’s the essence of the problem, IMHO. TN

I have no doubt that WC’s reputation for developing simple effective fighting methods is what helped us decide to learn this art but just because we are training a fighting art it does not mean we all have to strive to be the greatest fighter in the world. JR

IMO it’s not a matter of “striving to be the greatest fighter in the world” but rather of striving to be a fighter and increasing our performance (skill) as a fighter. It seems to me that many people think that by “learning WCK” they will be somehow (magically) endowed with fighting ability by doing drills and forms and “sparring” with their classmates. TN

No doubt anytime I try my hand against a stranger it helps develop me but fighting skilled martial artists is not the same as fighting a “street thug” that will just go wild trying to tear your face off. They do not have the trained reactions of a martial artist and I find training against thugs, or thug situations, helps me a bit more for reality. Besides, outside the UFC/Pride etc. when was the last time you witnessed two martial artists get into a street fight? Yet, it (fighting other MA) does hone your fighting skill, it doesn’t entirely prepare you for the street but it does help. JR

Preparing for “self-defense” or “streetfighting” is a philosophic dead end because we can never test our skills (we’ll never know if we are “prepared” or how “prepared” we are), measure our performance, see what works and what doesn’t, etc. We can’t truly judge our skill fighting against some drunk in bar, who is out of shape, smokes two packs a day, can’t run a half-mile, etc. – that’s no real test. What we can do is fight with skilled, athletic, resisting opponents that are trying to take our head off (not “patty-cake”-type sparring) to increase our performance in the actual thing we are trying to develop. The “thug” won’t have the speed, power, technique, endurance, mental toughness, etc. of the trained fighter. For example, do you (the general “you”) think that being able to make something as simple as your pak da work in san sik or “sparring” with your classmates means you can make it work? Then take that simple pak da and try it against a good western boxer – someone that can throw a good punch – that is trying to really “put it in”. Most of the “techniques” that I see WCK people demonstrate won’t IMO work against skilled, resisting opponents. TN

BTW, as a side point, it is important IMO to realize that being able to “make our stuff work” is not objective (as some have said) but is subjective: it works based on the relationship to the skill and attributes of the opposition. Hence, it isn’t a matter of “knowing” the correct way to pak da and thinking (assuming) it will always work, but understanding our pak da will work if our skill (pak da) is at the level or better than the level of our opponent’s (punch). – TN

Working on the subtle aspects and seeing personal growth is a great feeling for me. I believe WC can be a lot of things and it all depends what we want out of it. For some being the best is great and for others being good enough to defend themselves is great. The main point is we all love this art and its up to us to get what we want out of it. I can say that even though the self defense we recieve from this training is superb I enjoy what a powerfull friend making tool this art is just as much! JR

WCK is a kuen faat, not some new-age platform for “personal growth.” We don’t measure our growth as fighters by doing san sik or drills (those are certainly necessary, but a boxer doesn’t measure his growth as a boxer by how well he hits the speed bag or jumps rope but how well he actually boxes); the only way to measure our growth as fighters is by actually testing that ability we are trying to train. Or to put it another way, it is not what we know but what we can do that matters – and there is only one sure way to test what we know (if you can’t do it, you don’t know it). WCK may provide all kinds of incidental side benefits – social, fitness, etc. – but focusing on those aspects leads IMO to losing sight of what it is for: to train one to fight well (not to “do WCK”). TN

Terence

50

Terence- In your last post you quote James R… yet in attribution you put in JC a couple of times rather than JR.

jc

51

Thanks, Joy. :slight_smile: I’ve corrected the attributions. Sorry for any inconvenience it caused.

Terence

52

Hey Terence,

Its good to see your developing yourself in a way you feel is best for your Kung Fu/WCK. I have no doubt that without fighting against other arts, strangers, unwilling opponents, etc. all help develop ones ability but it all depends on what we want for ourselves from this art!

A few years ago I was training very hard and met up with the middle weight Brazilain Wado Ryu champion on a number of occassion to test our skills, the local Doce Pares representative who fought full contact in the Philipines to test our skills, a local BJJ instructor to work on the take down defense, and a number of not so willing boxers etc.. Its all great and it does good things for your personal development. The one thing I am saying is that if you want to be the greatest fighter you have to do this but if you dont want to be the greatest you do not have to train as seriously. I agree with your statement about doing “drills will not prepare you for the street” and you need to progressively build up your training to be more realistic but like anything it part of the package.

I know a person who had only one day per week of free time and during that day he decided to fill the time with WCK. He enjoyed it and everytime he came he felt good. One day he was confronted and with only a few months training he dropped the guy with two sun punches. WCK worked for him and he is a happy person because of the little time he devoted to the art worked for him when he needed it. While I feel your message is “most people are not prepared for reality” I would say perhaps you are correct but it all depends on what you want out of it. The guy with one day per week of training defended himself in the street but many who train very hard in the kwoon cant say that! So, what is good for you may not be exactly good for everyone. We are doing a fighting art and one should train hard enough to be able to use what they are learning (if you are doing it just for health you should go do Chi Kung or join a gym) but its all personal IMO.

Many of the greats (like Yip Man) had a few scraps in their day but never went out to fight with strangers yet attained a huge reputation in the Kung Fu world as fighters. All those reading this please do not take this as a poke at YM but as an example! Some of my past instructors have had numerous fights “using” their WCK and I found their real fighting experience makes a big difference when they train you. My sigung would wait at a park in Canton to test his skills yet his sifu would not go out to test his stuff unless someone approached him and is also very happy with his WCK. Its all about the individual but I will say it again; I agree with you that just doing drills and chi sao will not prepare you for the street.

Training to fight is very important and requires a lot of work. If someone chooses to focus on that then that is great and if they choose to train a different way then that is great to.

Have a good one!

Regards,

53

Hi Jim,

Good talking with you, as always! :slight_smile:

Jim Roselando wrote:

I have no doubt that without fighting against other arts, strangers, unwilling opponents, etc. all help develop ones ability but it all depends on what we want for ourselves from this art! JR

This just must be a point of disagreement between us. I simply can’t see why someone would take up a fighting method (kuen faat) if they didn’t want to train to actually fight. Why, for example, take up bjj (a grappling art) if you don’t want to grapple? Grappling on the mat is essential to developing skill at bjj. Why take up boxing if you don’t want to box? Boxing in the ring is essential to developing boxing skill. You are correct IMO that “it all depends on what we want for ourselves” – if we want to truly develop fighting skills then we need to fight; if we aren’t concerned with developing fighting skills, then I wonder why someone would take up a kuen faat in the first place. TN

I know a person who had only one day per week of free time and during that day he decided to fill the time with WCK. He enjoyed it and everytime he came he felt good. One day he was confronted and with only a few months training he dropped the guy with two sun punches. WCK worked for him and he is a happy person because of the little time he devoted to the art worked for him when he needed it. JR

Why did it work for him? Was he just lucky? Did he just happen to be better skilled, even if his skills were marginal, than the other guy (perhaps that guy was a schmuck)? Was it surprise? Would he have won the fight without his WCK training? We don’t know – and that’s the point. Such encounters don’t measure our skill or performance as there are too many variables involved. And if we can’t measure our performance, we aren’t as able to increase our performance – this is true of any endeavor. Now let’s change the scenario: suppose he lost his fight (as could happen). What would it tell him? Maybe it wasn’t that his WCK sucked, but that his opponent unknowingly happened to be Rickson Gracie! Or his opponent got lucky. Or -fill in the blank - . Again too many variables to truly measure one’s performance. TN

We are doing a fighting art and one should train hard enough to be able to use what they are learning (if you are doing it just for health you should go do Chi Kung or join a gym) but its all personal IMO. JR

But the point is: how do we know from our training, however “hard” it is, that we truly can use our skills? The only way IMO is by using those skills against good (i.e., skilled), resisting (i.e., trying to defeat us) opponents. I may get lucky, or my opponent may be unskilled, and be able to stop someone’s shoot on the street but that tells me nothing; but if I’ve worked against collegiate wrestlers and developed my skills to the point that I can routinely meet their attempts to shoot, then I have a good idea of my skill level. If I can’t, it also gives me a good idea of my skill level. In WCK/fighting it isn’t what you know but your ability to use your skills that matter. TN

Many of the greats (like Yip Man) had a few scraps in their day but never went out to fight with strangers yet attained a huge reputation in the Kung Fu world as fighters. JR

Who really knows how many fights “the greats” really had? We do know that Yip fought and defeated Leung Sheung, Wong Sheung Leung, and had a few others in Hong Kong (from reports by Duncan Leung, William Cheung, etc.). He obviously wasn’t reticent about being challenged by skilled, much larger men (Leung Sheung, who was teaching CLF) or scrappy fighters (like Wong, who had knocked out his boxing coach!), and was ready and willing to meet others. We do know that Yip told his students to “go out and test it for yourself, I may be tricking you” and that some of his students did just that (how WCK got its reputation in Hing Kong in the first place). We know that other “greats” like YKS, LJ, SN, FSC, etc. fought regularly. We know that YKS in training Sum sought out fights for him as part of his training. What we also know is that there are no “greats”, or IMHO even folks that can call themselves good WCK practitioners, that never fought. TN

Terence

54

Hiya Terence,

This just must be a point of disagreement between us. I simply can’t see why someone would take up a fighting method (kuen faat) if they didn’t want to train to actually fight. Why, for example, take up bjj (a grappling art) if you don’t want to grapple? Grappling on the mat is essential to developing skill at bjj. Why take up boxing if you don’t want to box? Boxing in the ring is essential to developing boxing skill. You are correct IMO that “it all depends on what we want for ourselves” – if we want to truly develop fighting skills then we need to fight; if we aren’t concerned with developing fighting skills, then I wonder why someone would take up a kuen faat in the first place. TN

I understand your point, and agree with it, but it just depends to what degree we all choose to train our methods.

Why did it work for him? Was he just lucky? Did he just happen to be better skilled, even if his skills were marginal, than the other guy (perhaps that guy was a schmuck)? Was it surprise? Would he have won the fight without his WCK training? We don’t know – and that’s the point. Such encounters don’t measure our skill or performance as there are too many variables involved. And if we can’t measure our performance, we aren’t as able to increase our performance – this is true of any endeavor. Now let’s change the scenario: suppose he lost his fight (as could happen). What would it tell him? Maybe it wasn’t that his WCK sucked, but that his opponent unknowingly happened to be Rickson Gracie! Or his opponent got lucky. Or -fill in the blank - . Again too many variables to truly measure one’s performance. TN

The point of the story is that sometimes even a little bit of knowledge can go a long way. I can tell you more stories like this about people we train with and including myself. Maybe its luck, maybe the guy wasnt skilled, it may be a lot of things but the one thing that was for sure is that the art worked when it had to. You can train your ass off and lose or maybe be lower on the skill scale and still defend yourself. I prefer to train with bigger and stronger people than me to help my development but there will always be someone out there that can kick our ass no matter how much WC we know. So, we should train as best we can and go from there.

But the point is: how do we know from our training, however “hard” it is, that we truly can use our skills? The only way IMO is by using those skills against good (i.e., skilled), resisting (i.e., trying to defeat us) opponents. I may get lucky, or my opponent may be unskilled, and be able to stop someone’s shoot on the street but that tells me nothing; but if I’ve worked against collegiate wrestlers and developed my skills to the point that I can routinely meet their attempts to shoot, then I have a good idea of my skill level. If I can’t, it also gives me a good idea of my skill level. In WCK/fighting it isn’t what you know but your ability to use your skills that matter. TN

Train hard and have better results. Terence! What you are preaching is nothing new to the MA world or any venture in life. Anyone who has achieved any great skill has mixed it up with a variety of different people. Some people may not train as hard as others and some train very hard. If the not so hard training people defend themselves in an aggressive situation then thats great. Would they have been better prepared if they had more time training against others? Sure, but Kung Fu for some does not play such an important role in their normal lives as perhaps other things do.

Who really knows how many fights “the greats” really had? We do know that Yip fought and defeated Leung Sheung, Wong Sheung Leung, and had a few others in Hong Kong (from reports by Duncan Leung, William Cheung, etc.). He obviously wasn’t reticent about being challenged by skilled, much larger men (Leung Sheung, who was teaching CLF) or scrappy fighters (like Wong, who had knocked out his boxing coach!), and was ready and willing to meet others. We do know that Yip told his students to “go out and test it for yourself, I may be tricking you” and that some of his students did just that (how WCK got its reputation in Hing Kong in the first place). We know that other “greats” like YKS, LJ, SN, FSC, etc. fought regularly. We know that YKS in training Sum sought out fights for him as part of his training. What we also know is that there are no “greats”, or IMHO even folks that can call themselves good WCK practitioners, that never fought. TN

Who did they fight in HK? How do we know if they were skilled or not? Watching some of the footage from back then it didnt look good at all. WSL told a friend of mine at a seminar in the UK that when he beat most of the people he challenged it was mainly with Western Boxing. I am sure his WC came out but I think the fighting experience we all praise so much was nothing more than a bunch of high school kids (teenagers) chain punching etc.. Do you think any of those guys could have beaten a Rickson? I am playing devils advocate here a bit. I respect what those guys (and other elders) did back then, and we should all learn from it, but lets not forget that it is just up to each individual to decide how far they want to take the art.

Can you please relay to all of us what some of your fighting experiences have been with other MA styles? Also, have you been in a street aggressive situation that allowed you to use your WCK? Details would be appreciated as it is obviously very important to you and I would like to know some of your experiences if possible!

Regards,