I can only give testimony to my good friend David Peterson.
If you are thirsty for the Wong Shun Leung family of Ving Tsun. Then look no further.
I had the sincere privilege of training with Wong Shun Leung in Hong Kong. And to be totally honest the words that David conveys this great system are the same words that Wong Sifu used to speak.
While others have their own way to deliver the message. David is able to do it with out distortion and accuracy
I can only give testimony to my good friend David Peterson.
If you are thirsty for the Wong Shun Leung family of Ving Tsun. Then look no further.
I had the sincere privilege of training with Wong Shun Leung in Hong Kong. And to be totally honest the words that David conveys this great system are the same words that Wong Sifu used to speak.
While others have their own way to deliver the message. David is able to do it with out distortion and accuracy
Cheers
John Smith[/QUOTE]
Big Uncle John , get down with your bad self
[QUOTE=Lee Chiang Po;888642]Am not sure what the beef is with viewing Wing Chun DVD’s.
[/QUOTE]
My $0.02 –
There is nothing wrong with viewing WCK DVDs. But you need to appreciate that watching DVDs will never teach you WCK. It can’t. It can show you or teach you the curriculum of WCK: the forms, the drills. IOWs, the movements of WCK. But DVDs or even an instructor can’t teach you how to use/apply/fight with that curriculum – you can only work that out for yourself through doing it. Just as you can only learn to box by boxing, learn to swim by swimming, learn to ride a bike by riding a bike, etc.
While it is common for people to show so-called “applications” on DVDs, much of it is fantasy (and wouldnever work) and come from nonfighters. Application is just that – doing it in fighting (that is applying your WCK). Showing what you think you could do or should do in fighting isn’t application, it is theory, it is conjecture. Showing it in fighting is application. Application is fighting. With that in mind, how many show application?
And, fwiw, I think trying to teach “applications” from forms is going about it backwards, and is a really poor way to learn any physical skill. First application (learn the skill itself against an opponent), then dummy (practice the skill), then form (to memorialize it).
[QUOTE=t_niehoff;889336]
And, fwiw, I think trying to teach “applications” from forms is going about it backwards, and is a really poor way to learn any physical skill. First application (learn the skill itself against an opponent), then dummy (practice the skill), then form (to memorialize it).[/QUOTE]
As some of us agree, the ‘forms’ weren’t taught - or rather - weren’t even present. Things were drilled first with exercises and applications. The forms were the afterthought, if you will.
I personally call the forms homework. No point working on them for the whole time that you’ve got a partner there. Time to work on application when you’ve got the bodies present.
