KPM wrote:
Rubbish? His methods may be frustrating, distracting, even annoying… but rubbish? Let’s see, what has Hendrik been trying to get across…
- That the “short” power or “inch” power is important to WCK, was part of the older WCK tradition, is a very important link or commonality to Fukien White Crane, and is missing from a lot of modern WCK. Rubbish? I don’t think so.
**I don’t think that’s rubbish either. I agree that historically this may be significant.
- That WCK shares much more in common with Fukien White Crane both from a historical and technical viewpoint than it does with Shaolin. Rubbish? I don’t think so.
**And that seems to be the key aspect of Hendrik’s claim – that Shaolin-derived methods don’t use short power. I don’t know if that is true or not. The problem is that there is so much cross-pollination over the years, with “outside” influences creeping in, that it is difficult to say. He may be onto something.
- That modern WCK can be informed by, inspired by, and enriched by knowing what has come before and how it is linked to the past. Rubbish? I don’t think so.
**Again, I agree with you.
- That the “traditional” approach still has value and should be respected. Rubbish? I don’t think so.
**Again, I agree with you. However, having value and being respected doesn’t mean, at least for me, that it is accepted as the best way, the only way, the defining way. Certainly it is the historical way but that doesn’t necessarily mean that it should be adopted as the “DNA”. There is a historical way jiujitsu was taught, done, etc. Same with boxing or any other fighting method. Those ‘ways’ don’t necessarily inform us of how we should do them today. What does inform us of how we, as individuals, should do things are our personal results.
So I don’t think there is a “nail” here, nor that it has been “hit on the head.” So to use that as a basis to call Hendrik “inherently dishonest” is pretty far off the mark. Just my opinion, but I think some people need to calm down a bit. If you don’t like what or how Hendrik writes, then just ignore it.
**I don’t agree with the “ignoring it” part. I think Hendrik challenges us, forces us to think, to be critical, to evaluate our own ideas – that’s all useful whether we agree with his perspective or not. Ignoring it, putting your head in the sand, is not useful or productive.
KPM wrote:
I said that the “inch” power is what WCK needs and was originally designed for. The WCK structure was designed for this…not the “shotputters” type of power.
KF responded:
And this is exactly why you only see “bad WC” when people actually have to use it to fight. Those “inch power” punches simply don’t work.
KPM then responded:
Have you even been reading this thread? The point was that few people in WCK know how to generate this “inch power” properly. It is part of the older teaching that is becoming somewhat of a “lost art.” I’ll ask again…you don’t even do WCK, so why do you care? Go criticize someone else.
**First, in my view, short power, inch power, whatever you call it, is a part, and an important part, of WCK, but it is not the whole enchilada (not what WCK was designed for). It is an element of the method. And just like any element, how much stress an individual puts on it in their expression (application) will be an individual matter.
**Second, KF, I think it is more accurate to say that you haven’t seen anyone that could make their short power work. That’s probably true – many can “do it” in drills or demos, but few of them actually develop it in fighting (so they can’t make it work). Short power is a significant part of “my game”, but I’ve found that it is only an element that can be used in certain situations.
**Third, Keith, I don’t think it is a “lost art” – I’ve seen many folks able to generate short power (at least in demo). I’ll agree with you that many have down-played the significance of that element in their expressions, but that is how things should be. It is like a bob-and-weave, short hook-type boxer (Joe Frazier) that doesn’t use jabs or crosses very much – sure they are an element of boxing, but how you fit them into your boxing will depend on you. They may play a very small role or a very large role. To say “historically they played a large role” may be accurate; but that doesn’t mean we must do it that way today.
**Finally, criticism is a good thing, a positive thing, it should be welcomed – criticism is not a personal attack but a means of growth.