WC chi sao history

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Wing Chun
41

[QUOTE=Graham H;1051353]Fairplay T you do make me laugh. Can you back up this claim in any way??? I’m looking forward to your reply. :)[/QUOTE]

Bayer is teaching HIS OWN approach to WCK, based on what he learned from WSL. You are learning Bayer WCK, not WSL WCK.

But if you want to get an idea of what WSL taught, look at other people WSL trained, people like Gary Lam or Wan Kam Leung or David Peterson, and don’t look at just one but ALL of them. For example, go to Gary’s website and read about what he teaches (http://www.garylamwingchun.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&id=34&Itemid=113) and see how it sounds very little like what Bayer promotes. When you do, you will also see that WSL taught what other Yip Man students (Moy Yat, Hawkins Cheung, Ho Kam Ming, etc.) taught.

Bayer’s own videos demonstrate he has limited chi sao skills. Compare what he does to Wan Kam Leung, for example, and you’ll see it clearly.

42

[QUOTE=t_niehoff;1051355]

Bayer’s own videos demonstrate he has limited chi sao skills. Compare what he does to Wan Kam Leung, for example, and you’ll see it clearly.[/QUOTE]

yeah but i have seen both first hand so im in a better position to make that judgement bro!!! You haven’t!!! Oh hang on…watching videos is surely a better way than actually being in the same room and seeing what they have to offer right???:smiley:

43

I suppose that if we use your idea then WSL changed what Yip man taught him. Philipp changed what WSL taught him. I’m going to change what Philipp is teaching me and so on and so on until its not even WCK anymore…maybe we should change it now from Ving tsun to Ping Pong…result!!! :D:p

44

[QUOTE=Graham H;1051367]I suppose that if we use your idea then WSL changed what Yip man taught him. Philipp changed what WSL taught him. I’m going to change what Philipp is teaching me and so on and so on until its not even WCK anymore…maybe we should change it now from Ving tsun to Ping Pong…result!!! :D:p[/QUOTE]

This is the sort of unsound reasoning that people like Bayer use to validate what they do (instead of just showing that they can really do it). How often do we hear “I teach exactly what so-and-so taught”?

OK, let’s use your own “reasoning” – Yip Man also taught Moy Yat, Ho Kam Ming, Hawkins Cheung, and so on, right? So why doesn’t everyone of his studetns do things exactly the same way? They all had the same teacher as WSL? Or do you think only WSL received the “true transmission”?

And Moy Yat, Ho Kam Ming, Hawkins Cheung, WSL, etc. all had many students? So why don’t they all do things exactly the same way?

In fact. why doesn’t every person in Yip Man’s lineage do things exactly the same way since according to you no one is “changing” anything?

People aren’t Xerox machines, and different people are taught differently and different things, some are better students than others, they all have different experiences (or lack of experiences), some are more talented, some work harder, in other words, there are all kinds of INDIVIDUAL factors involved in learning and developing our WCK. And that doesn’t even take into account that when teaching, an individual may find that certain ways of teaching work better for them, that they use different ways of teaching X than their teacher, and so on.

WCK isn’t simply what WSL said it was or what Bayer says it is or what Moy Yat, Ho Kam Ming, Hawkins, etc. says it is. These people are simply teachers, and all they can impart is THEIR OWN INDIVIDUAL take on the CURRICULUM of WCK. Bayer isn’t teaching you EXACTLY what Yip taught, he is teaching his interpretation of what WSL taught, and what WSL taught was his own interpretation of what Yip taught.

And Yip wasn’t a great fighter (name the great fighters he fouoght), neither was Wong (he had rooftop fights with poorly skilled kung fu fighters), and Bayer isn’t even a fighter (although he likes to play one on youtube).

Instead of thinking that your sifu is God’s gift to WCK and has inherited the “true” knowledge and “idea” of WCK that has passed down from Yip to WSL to him, look outside your little lineage and see the greater art that is WCK.

45

It is true that when one learns from a Sifu, and then goes on to teach it, they are teaching their interpretation of what they learned. In reality there is no “WSLVT” as WSL passed away in 1997. The only thing we have is what his students teach us now. None of them are the same, they all admit that, but what is the same is the core, the core drills, the core curriculum, the core idea of what WSL passed down, each teaching it according to their own interpretation of it. Now when I see PB in action on vid I see WSL, the core method of WSL is present in his movements. I also read it in his articles when he writes it, as it matches what other WSL students relate in their writtings. It’s just like chef’s, they can all make the same dishes but each adds to it their own seasoning based on their individuality and preferences.

For me, if I had the chance I would learn from PB, just to experience his way and skill personally, because without doing that all one can really do is speculate.

The beauty of WSL is not that he was or wasn’t a good fighter, as one is only as good as their competition, but rather his genius in how he looked at the system, and how he didn’t get complacent with it. He was always looking for a better way, refining his teaching and teaching it all to whomever was willing to learn from him.

James

46

[QUOTE=SavvySavage;1050196]Does anyone here believe that chi Sao was really invented so that a smaller guy could train with a larger guy and not get trashed? In a sparring match the bigger guy has more advantages. Force two people to put their arms together and you take away his reach advantage and hitting power advantage because now you have to stick. The elders didn’t want to look bad in front of students so they chi saoed for an advantage.

I think it’s an interesting theory.[/QUOTE]

If you think that, you don’t understand the purpose of chi sao

47

[QUOTE=t_niehoff;1050276]If you see WCK as a attached/contact fighting method, then I think the question of why chi sao was developed is easily understood – it is an unrealistic (non-fighting) representation of the WCK “clinch” (sticking). The tools of WCK are mostly contact tools, so they need to be learned/practiced in contact, and once you start sticking (maintaining flexible contact) and chaining these contact tools, you get chi sao.[/QUOTE]

You still misinterpret sticking.

48

[QUOTE=shawchemical;1051950]You still misinterpret sticking.[/QUOTE]

Oh, that’s brilliant. No explanation, no reasons given, no evidence submitted, etc. to refute or even rebut my views. Yeah, pure genius.

49

[QUOTE=t_niehoff;1051848]This is the sort of unsound reasoning that people like Bayer use to validate what they do (instead of just showing that they can really do it). How often do we hear “I teach exactly what so-and-so taught”?

OK, let’s use your own “reasoning” – Yip Man also taught Moy Yat, Ho Kam Ming, Hawkins Cheung, and so on, right? So why doesn’t everyone of his studetns do things exactly the same way? They all had the same teacher as WSL? Or do you think only WSL received the “true transmission”?

And Moy Yat, Ho Kam Ming, Hawkins Cheung, WSL, etc. all had many students? So why don’t they all do things exactly the same way?

In fact. why doesn’t every person in Yip Man’s lineage do things exactly the same way since according to you no one is “changing” anything?

People aren’t Xerox machines, and different people are taught differently and different things, some are better students than others, they all have different experiences (or lack of experiences), some are more talented, some work harder, in other words, there are all kinds of INDIVIDUAL factors involved in learning and developing our WCK. And that doesn’t even take into account that when teaching, an individual may find that certain ways of teaching work better for them, that they use different ways of teaching X than their teacher, and so on.

WCK isn’t simply what WSL said it was or what Bayer says it is or what Moy Yat, Ho Kam Ming, Hawkins, etc. says it is. These people are simply teachers, and all they can impart is THEIR OWN INDIVIDUAL take on the CURRICULUM of WCK. Bayer isn’t teaching you EXACTLY what Yip taught, he is teaching his interpretation of what WSL taught, and what WSL taught was his own interpretation of what Yip taught.

And Yip wasn’t a great fighter (name the great fighters he fouoght), neither was Wong (he had rooftop fights with poorly skilled kung fu fighters), and Bayer isn’t even a fighter (although he likes to play one on youtube).

Instead of thinking that your sifu is God’s gift to WCK and has inherited the “true” knowledge and “idea” of WCK that has passed down from Yip to WSL to him, look outside your little lineage and see the greater art that is WCK.[/QUOTE]

What was the point you were trying to make by saying all those guys were not great fighter? Your teacher falls into that category as well so whatever point you making also applies to him.

50

[QUOTE=t_niehoff;1051990]Oh, that’s brilliant. No explanation, no reasons given, no evidence submitted, etc. to refute or even rebut my views. Yeah, pure genius.[/QUOTE]

The points have all been made before wan.ker. YOu just refuse to accept that anyone knows anything that contradicts the sh.it you think you know.

51

[QUOTE=MysteriousPower;1051991]What was the point you were trying to make by saying all those guys were not great fighter? Your teacher falls into that category as well so whatever point you making also applies to him.[/QUOTE]

Of course it does. There are two issues, the first is does your sifu know the core curriculum of WCK (which says nothing about his ability to use it) and the second pertains to his ability to use that curriculum.

My point was that we can only determine if our sifu - or anyone for that matter - has the core curriculum of WCK by looking at the art broadly, across lineages, branches, and various sifu.

But if someone like Bayer believes he has some unique approach, something “different” than the core curriculum, THEN the question becomes what makes him think what he does will work? And that means fighting.

52

[QUOTE=t_niehoff;1052032]Of course it does. There are two issues, the first is does your sifu know the core curriculum of WCK (which says nothing about his ability to use it) and the second pertains to his ability to use that curriculum.

My point was that we can only determine if our sifu - or anyone for that matter - has the core curriculum of WCK by looking at the art broadly, across lineages, branches, and various sifu.

But if someone like Bayer believes he has some unique approach, something “different” than the core curriculum, THEN the question becomes what makes him think what he does will work? And that means fighting.[/QUOTE]

So now it is ONLY if what you are doing is DIFFERENT than your “core curriculum” you need to investigate whether or not it works in fighting?

Spare me the double standard.

53

[QUOTE=Wayfaring;1052037]So now it is ONLY if what you are doing is DIFFERENT than your “core curriculum” you need to investigate whether or not it works in fighting?

Spare me the double standard.[/QUOTE]

It’s not a double standard. But I can see why you might think I was suggesting that by my poor wording. Sorry.

I am pointing out that there is a distinction between the curriculum of WCK and application (using the tools from that curriculum in fighting). This is something that keeps getting blurred.

To know what the curriculum of WCK is (those elements) does not depend on anyone’s fighting ability. WCK, the curriculum, comes down to us from our ancestors. We can see it by looking across legit lineages and seeing the commonality (those elements in common in YM, YKS, Gu Lao, Pan Nam, etc.). And, importantly, the curriculum of WCK provides a certain method, the tools for implementing that method, and various ways of learning/practicing that method and tools. All those aspects tie together.

However, when it comes down to discussions of application, that this is how you should use the curriculum (the tools), including this is better than that, then this can only be shown through fighting.

When someone says that they have found a “new” way of using the tools, a new approach to fighting with WCK, do you think it inappropriate to expect evidence that this is true?

To use an example for clarity: Let’s say that so-and-so adopts a “WCK is a groundfighting method” view and begins teaching WCK from that POV. Can we both agree that this is not historically/classically WCK’s approach? So, it that event, do we just say, “Great, you’ve found a new approach to WCK. Well done.”? Or, would you take the position, as I would, that 1) that is not WCK’s approach to fighting and that 2) that the new approach won’t work since the tools of WCK aren’t “designed” for groundfighting (they were designed for WCK’s method). But, if someone could show me that they could do it, then I would reconsider my position.

54

[QUOTE=t_niehoff;1052085]
When someone says that they have found a “new” way of using the tools, a new approach to fighting with WCK, do you think it inappropriate to expect evidence that this is true?
[/QUOTE]

Replace “New” with “Any” and same same.

55

[QUOTE=t_niehoff;1051355]Bayer is teaching HIS OWN approach to WCK, based on what he learned from WSL. You are learning Bayer WCK, not WSL WCK.

But if you want to get an idea of what WSL taught, look at other people WSL trained, people like Gary Lam or Wan Kam Leung or David Peterson, and don’t look at just one but ALL of them. For example, go to Gary’s website and read about what he teaches (http://www.garylamwingchun.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&id=34&Itemid=113) and see how it sounds very little like what Bayer promotes. When you do, you will also see that WSL taught what other Yip Man students (Moy Yat, Hawkins Cheung, Ho Kam Ming, etc.) taught.

Bayer’s own videos demonstrate he has limited chi sao skills. Compare what he does to Wan Kam Leung, for example, and you’ll see it clearly.[/QUOTE]

T, You shouldn’t use Gary or Wan to support your argument because they are not pure WSL wck. Gary was heavily influenced by Hawkins Cheung and is doing his own thing. Wan Kam Leung learnt some mainland wing chun which he mixes in with what he learnt from WSL.

56

[QUOTE=kung fu fighter;1063256]T, You shouldn’t use Gary or Wan to support your argument because they are not pure WSL wck. Gary was heavily influenced by Hawkins Cheung and is doing his own thing. Wan Kam Leung learnt some mainland wing chun which he mixes in with what he learnt from WSL.[/QUOTE]

Your point is unsound. There is no such thing as “pure WSL WCK.” WSL WCK is only WSL’s particular way of TEACHING WCK. It is a variety of Yip Man WCK. Which is a variety of Leung Jan WCK. LOL! The various lineages are only curriculum for teaching the SAME THING. WCK is WCK.

57

Sarcasm

[QUOTE=t_niehoff;1063285]Your point is unsound. There is no such thing as “pure WSL WCK.” WSL WCK is only WSL’s particular way of TEACHING WCK. It is a variety of Yip Man WCK. Which is a variety of Leung Jan WCK. LOL! The various lineages are only curriculum for teaching the SAME THING. WCK is WCK.[/QUOTE]

So i guess that means that Robert Lee McField Wing Chun is wing chun too then?

58

[QUOTE=Yoshiyahu;1063468]So i guess that means that Robert Lee McField Wing Chun is wing chun too then?[/QUOTE]

Yes, he is teaching WCK (although he has mixed in some crap). He is just doing it really poorly. Not everyone teaches at the same level (some teach kindergarten WCK, some first grade, some high school, etc.). And you can only teach those aspects of the core curriculum that you know.

You can learn a sport from a scrub but that won’t make you a good player. And, the more you try to adhere to the teachings of the scrub, the more difficult it will be for you to make progress. You need to continually seek out better and better people.

For example, my dad taught me to play chess but he was a really poor player. I learned what I could from him and moved on. I later found that much of what he taught me was not very good. I joined a chess club and got to play with good players, and I progressed. I became a chess master not because of my father but because of the work I did. It’s the same with everything.

59

[QUOTE=SavvySavage;1050196]Does anyone here believe that chi Sao was really invented so that a smaller guy could train with a larger guy and not get trashed? In a sparring match the bigger guy has more advantages. Force two people to put their arms together and you take away his reach advantage and hitting power advantage because now you have to stick. The elders didn’t want to look bad in front of students so they chi saoed for an advantage.

I think it’s an interesting theory.[/QUOTE]

No!! It is not meant for that purpose. Chi Sao is not a sparring session, it is only designed to facilitate practice of your hand techniques. Two people can easily practice this way. First one then the other, back and forth. He attacks, you defend, you attack and he defends. Change up techiques and continue. Big or little, makes no difference, you are not sparring and if someone gets trashed doing Chi Sao, you are not doing Chi Sao. The name Chi Sao says it all. It is simply a two man drill and nothing more. It has turned into a game, sport, or more a childs game for some reason. It is the reason we get laughed at so much.

60

[QUOTE=t_niehoff;1052032]Of course it does. There are two issues, the first is does your sifu know the core curriculum of WCK (which says nothing about his ability to use it) and the second pertains to his ability to use that curriculum.

My point was that we can only determine if our sifu - or anyone for that matter - has the core curriculum of WCK by looking at the art broadly, across lineages, branches, and various sifu.

But if someone like Bayer believes he has some unique approach, something “different” than the core curriculum, THEN the question becomes what makes him think what he does will work? And that means fighting.[/QUOTE]

…but Terence…YOU don’t know the WCK curriculum!!! If you don’t then nor does your Teacher and your Teachers Teacher.

PB doesn’t have a UNIQUE approach!!! He has a more functional, systematic approach and can give his students the tools to improve. Your system is pants!!! Regardless of what you say and how you say it, it is still pants!!!

Until you meet PB…YOU will never know…simples. In the mean time I can just watch you make a fool of yourself…PERFECT!!!:smiley:

Gary Lam is not teaching WSLVT as WSL or PB taught and teach it. Neither is it the method that I practice…NOR is Hawkins Chung..FACT!!!

As usual these people have added other things that shouldn’t be there (like you have). Certain others in the wsl lineage have not. Also a FACT!!!

Please will the jury rise to pass sentence…Do you, the jury, find Terence Neihoff guilty of mass crimes against WCK???..YES!!! Your Honor!!!..send that mo’ fo’ to jail!!! :D:D:D:D:D

GH