[QUOTE=sanjuro_ronin;1239046]No one can make that call.
WHat can be stated is what is good or bad WC.
How?
If you can beat a guy that is trying to rip your face off and skull hump you, then yes, you have good WC because you used it for what it was created for.
If you have been doing WC for years and get your butt kicked when you finally fight some guy that KNOWS how to fight, then no, your WC is not good.[/QUOTE]
and this is true for any combat system in the universe.
[QUOTE=Lucas;1239049]and this is true for any combat system in the universe.[/QUOTE]
Yep.
Anyone that states differently has turned their back on tradition !
And has dishonored the shaolin temple !
[QUOTE=Hendrik;1239045]You keep talk about solid short…etc. but face it, you don’t even know the different between a body type power generation which used by boxing and force line type which uses by Wck.
How can one uses a boxing type of power generation is doing Wck?
[/QUOTE]
I never said anything about using boxing mechanics in place of wing chun mechanics. This is your favorite ploy to divert attention anytime you cannot deal with something it is always you are not even doing wing chun.
You must hit with your body if not you are only using your arms or legs. The mechanics of wing chun and boxing are different and how they put the body into their shots is different but they are both putting the body into their shots since without that you have no power. This is the most basic thing and you do not understand it which only shows you have little skill or understanding of wing chun.
You cannot bamboozle me as you are trying to do. I can see right through you.
K Gledhill has post a post on lat sau jek choong, that shows he knows Wck. But you just a mma or boxing guy pretend to be wcner. You don’t have to believe me. But make my day, explains the lat sau jek choong to K Gledhill and see you know what are you talking about. Go ahead. Explain how to do lat sau Jee choong and K Gledhill be the judge on do you know what you are talking about solid short to center line of Wck, the lat sau jek choong.
I need to pass the Hendrik test? Another of your favorite ploys and no matter what answer you give all knowing Hendrik will tell you if your are right. You have no skill so you cannot judge any answer.
Here you go. There can be no lut sau jik cheung without lou lai hoi soong. Discuss. You do not understand this? It makes no sense to you? This only shows Hendrik does not know wing chun.
I think K Gledhill correctly understands that the basis of wing chun the fundamental skill is your ability to solidly hit with your body behind it and that tells me he has experience in using his wing chun since this is something you only gain from experience not from trying to decipher kune kuit.
I have no interest in proving myself to an unskilled poser like yourself. Why don’t you let those guys come visit you and video tape yourself sparring since you love putting up videos of yourself? Show the world the real Hendrik and what his level in wing chun really is.
[QUOTE=Paddington;1238976]I would second this motion but only if the official uniform consists of pink tutus and tiaras.[/QUOTE]
That would look silly. How about orange Karate gi’s with achievement patches like on General’s uniforms? 
Hahaha,
Explain that to K Gledhill what you know on lat sau Jee choong.
Got nothing to do with me .
Doesn’t matter if I have skill or not. Bottom line is you don’t have it. Even per K Gledhill standard.
Uptu now you are starting personal attack due to you can’t reason with technical. As usual one turn into personal when one doesn’t know. And sure you dont have to admit you dont know as the emperor new dress.
So, as Kpm says, thanks for the chat. Best luck!
[QUOTE=tc101;1239076]
I need to pass the Hendrik test? Another of your favorite ploys and no matter what answer you give all knowing Hendrik will tell you if your are right. You have no skill so you cannot judge any answer.
Here you go. There can be no lut sau jik cheung without lou lai hoi soong. Discuss. You do not understand this? It makes no sense to you? This only shows Hendrik does not know wing chun.
I think K Gledhill correctly understands that the basis of wing chun the fundamental skill is your ability to solidly hit with your body behind it and that tells me he has experience in using his wing chun since this is something you only gain from experience not from trying to decipher kune kuit.
I have no interest in proving myself to an unskilled poser like yourself. Why don’t you let those guys come visit you and video tape yourself sparring since you love putting up videos of yourself? Show the world the real Hendrik and what his level in wing chun really is.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Hendrik;1239127]Hahaha,
Explain that to K Gledhill what you know.
Got nothing to do with me .
Doesn’t matter if I have skill or not. Bottom line is you don’t have it. Even per K Gledhill standard.
Uptu now you are starting personal attack due to you can’t reason with technical. As usual one turn into personal when one doesn’t know. So, as Kpm says, thanks for the chat. Best luck![/QUOTE]
You are too too funny. I cannot get technical with you because you have no skill in wing chun so it would be all over your head. You do not practice wing chun. You want to talk talk talk about things you really know nothing about. We could not have a discussion since you are ignorant of the subject. You did not even know the first most important skill in wing chun.
You have it seems tricked some good people here into believing that you in your words have it. I know better and know you are a fraud. Others will start to see that soon. So now is the time to go make more talking videos to try and make yourself sound like an expert.
You can’t get it isn’t it?
Hahaha, you know Wck or not , got nothing todo with if I have skill or not, you are free to have as much your opinion as you love on me. I am ok.
As I told you, go explain to K Gledhill on lat sau chek choong as k has post a post yesterday on it.
[QUOTE=tc101;1239128]You are too too funny. I cannot get technical with you because you have no skill in wing chun so it would be all over your head. You do not practice wing chun. You want to talk talk talk about things you really know nothing about. We could not have a discussion since you are ignorant of the subject. You did not even know the first most important skill in wing chun.
You have it seems tricked some good people here into believing that you in your words have it. I know better and know you are a fraud. Others will start to see that soon. So now is the time to go make more talking videos to try and make yourself sound like an expert.[/QUOTE]
K Gledhill was right the real question is not is it or is it not wing chun but is it good or bad wing chun.
Yes. This is a good point. I agree.
[QUOTE=GlennR;1238899]No, you just pulled aside a curtain to reveal you standing there on your soap box pushing YOUR theories[/QUOTE]
And yoga balls
[QUOTE=Grumblegeezer;1238838]Honestly, the way some here carry on about WC “DNA” it almost reminds me of a racial purity thing! Purebred or mutt, I’ll take what works. Like I said if you think your WC is better (Hi Kevin!) good for you. If you adapt your WC for sport fighting in the ring, OK. That’s your right. And however it turns out, if you still call it WC, I may critique it, but you can call it WC/WT/VT or whatever the heck you want.
–Any thoughts?[/QUOTE]
Yes… I have a few questions for you all.
If what we are all pracising is and the vast majority claim a connection to Ip Man, and what he taught was then…
Where is Ip Mans curriculum???
Regardless of the way you spell in English it’s still in Chinese so I would rather see all families/lineages/roots unite and produce a standardized curriculum that everybody can understand and have confidence in. BUT I do not think this will ever happen unfortunately.
I am very aware that many of Ip Mans students have already put their own stamp or (in Hendriks words!) DNA on their teachings and this isn’t a problem if the core of the system is still in tact, but later down the heritage line younger Sifus have also put their own stamp on things too and in some misdirected cases this will actually be detrimental to the preservation of as a complete Martial Art system.
So, where is this simple outline Ip Man taught in HK? What about his Fatshan teachings too? Was the curriculum the same? What was Chan Wah Shuns curriculum?? Which of Ip Mans students actually had access to that and continued to teach it too, like with his permission? And why, and the end of the day, did he employ such a ‘freedom’ in his teaching if the original curriculum was really what held the core of the older system? Was it all simply for dentifying his own influences a hundred years on? Or did he literally discard everything he felt was useless in a Modern World, like the more cultural, language and artistic aspects of the Art itself? And finally, and with the utmost respect, was Ip Man actually equipped to teach the teacher himself?
As far as ‘rights’ are concenred, I think because this information was never organized in the beginning, and even his Sons are now withdrawing to HK and not planning any more world wide visits because of their age, has been abondoned and left for interpretation by the masses.
Like any young trees that only have loose roots, some will still manage to grow with a little support but most will be blown away by the wind!
So I guess the OPs question should really be, where is the support for Wing Chun teachers and students? Because surely this is one of the main reasons to have governing bodies in the first place right??
What is it with Wing Chun guys that they’re so obsessed with what’s real or original Wing Chun? Who the hell cares?! If you understand the basic principles and if it works for you, then so what? In boxing you could almost say that Jack Dempsey is an equivalent to Yip Man. I mean he came up with a lot of techniques like the falling step. He had a definite style and many people followed him and his influence is still present in modern fighters. But you don’t see boxers carrying on about lineage and other nonsense. Is what you’re doing true Dempsey boxing or Frazier boxing or Ali boxing? Who has the right to change it? How dare you? You’re disrespecting the masters? Just think about how stupid that all sounds. Yet so many Wing Chun guys do exactly that.
I’ve tried many times before on this forum to have an intelligent discussion about training methods and ideas, hopefully to share ideas and maybe learn something. And almost every time, I see this same nonsense. I simply don’t understand it. It’s all so incredibly stupid. There are a handful of good people on this forum, but there are a lot more guys who seem obsessed with things of no importance.
This post should be stickied at the top of the forum so that everyone will read it. Very good.
[QUOTE=hulkout;1239256]What is it with Wing Chun guys that they’re so obsessed with what’s real or original Wing Chun? Who the hell cares?! If you understand the basic principles and if it works for you, then so what? In boxing you could almost say that Jack Dempsey is an equivalent to Yip Man. I mean he came up with a lot of techniques like the falling step. He had a definite style and many people followed him and his influence is still present in modern fighters. But you don’t see boxers carrying on about lineage and other nonsense. Is what you’re doing true Dempsey boxing or Frazier boxing or Ali boxing? Who has the right to change it? How dare you? You’re disrespecting the masters? Just think about how stupid that all sounds. Yet so many Wing Chun guys do exactly that.
I’ve tried many times before on this forum to have an intelligent discussion about training methods and ideas, hopefully to share ideas and maybe learn something. And almost every time, I see this same nonsense. I simply don’t understand it. It’s all so incredibly stupid. There are a handful of good people on this forum, but there are a lot more guys who seem obsessed with things of no importance.[/QUOTE]
Nice post… and with all due respect… Dempsey, Ali, Frazier?? Who did they TEACH? Your argument sort of falls flat on its face right there.
I would say that you don’t understand this lineage thing because you may never have been actively involved in a singular Wing Chun group maybe? Perhaps you have, I don’t know, but if you don’t understand the issue being discussed and simpy don’t care why post here or read the topic?
You definitely do not see the same things I see in relation to a Sifus personal expression or ‘Style’ of teaching, to a ‘System’ that existed before said Sifu was in existence and this I find is a common issue and misunderstanding out there today.
FWIW I see far too many people today who shout about principles and like to quote one or two lines of Kuit to make them sound cool and knowledgeable, but if people find that interesting then you should be asking ‘where these lines come from’? You should be seriously looking into the language and culture of the Art itself and find a Sifu that can support you in your research and learning too. THAT I have found is all too rare so good luck with that!
[QUOTE=tc101;1239259]This post should be stickied at the top of the forum so that everyone will read it. Very good.[/QUOTE]
Being a non practitioner of Wing Chun I can only presume you mean post #49
Long tiger 108,
A very serious issue on is it or not Wck, is whether one can make the core of wck or yjkym and snt set work. A proper key will not turn on the engine fully. But a wrong key will not.
Take a look at the world, how many really develop something as the karate or white crane develop from their San chin Set?
And we know today, because the ygkym snt doesn’t work, thus, people turn to bigger stance, dynamic tension, taiji, hung gar…white crane ..spm … BM .. Different ways trying to make their snt work. But still not working.
So, it is an objective thing. The yjkym and snt train today doesn’t work for most. That is the say from the reality that who has the say what isn’t Wck.
But most of us not admit the fact it doesn’t work due to our ego that I have the real Wck. And rather pointing finger at the issue or those who report the issue as ego.
So, now Wck has a mal function core, most people has abandon it, and make ygkym or snt a religious ritual practice rather then anything useful. In general, some westenize wck lineages, The boxing guy the mma guy who do a little wck will claim they do Wck but will not admit they can’t make the ygkym and snt work. But implicitly abandon them by the reason of it is not for fighting . Thus it is useless.
So, the question is, do any one wants to know what is Wck? Or in order to protect our ego that we blind ourself like a dodo bird? Because our stuffs cannot face sun.
[QUOTE=tc101;1239259]This post should be stickied at the top of the forum so that everyone will read it. Very good.[/QUOTE]
Everyone has the “right” to say whatever they like, as you yourself do about the wing chun you personally dislike.
It isn’t any skin off anyone’s nose if the argument being presented is bull****. And if it is true then they have only gained (should they choose to listen). How can it possibly be bad to have everyone saying whatever they like?
[QUOTE=hulkout;1239256]What is it with Wing Chun guys that they’re so obsessed with what’s real or original Wing Chun? Who the hell cares?! If you understand the basic principles and if it works for you, then so what? In boxing you could almost say that Jack Dempsey is an equivalent to Yip Man. I mean he came up with a lot of techniques like the falling step. He had a definite style and many people followed him and his influence is still present in modern fighters. But you don’t see boxers carrying on about lineage and other nonsense. Is what you’re doing true Dempsey boxing or Frazier boxing or Ali boxing? Who has the right to change it? How dare you? You’re disrespecting the masters? Just think about how stupid that all sounds. Yet so many Wing Chun guys do exactly that.
I’ve tried many times before on this forum to have an intelligent discussion about training methods and ideas, hopefully to share ideas and maybe learn something. And almost every time, I see this same nonsense. I simply don’t understand it. It’s all so incredibly stupid. There are a handful of good people on this forum, but there are a lot more guys who seem obsessed with things of no importance.[/QUOTE]
You will see boxing coaches watch out for a good jab, hook etc… Iow I can see a good boxer and a bad boxer. Once inside the ring " fighting " you don’t stand in basic poses making your BASICS predictable. You add mocking, daring people to hit you with mental games. You are playing a sport with rounds to test responses, see reactions , etc… That aspect is why we get variety and no complaints. In hiding the intent to deliver basics by moving and being unpredictable, we express ourselves as individuals. But we hit with basics, like a solid jab that is a jab. A straight right that is taught as a basic to everyone. How you combine it in reality is the game. You have various boxing expressions of interaction out of basic interactions all boxers and coaches take. Like chi sao drills all make us same but we aren’t going to express it the same in fighting with an equally random recipient. BUT there are awesome vt basics, like An awesome jab. There are specific vt technical ideas that are visibly missing to me as a vt coach. If you make a visible error to a good boxing coach while working a heavy bag he will stop you and show you a basic jab. How you use it in the ring adds use that will change the execution of it and make it " yours " but everyone can see if you have a crap jab or awesome. Sure it’s a jab but … ; )
Fighting with vt one will see certain errors that only awesome coaches will pick up, bad coaches won’t know why there is an error even less so the students all making the same errors , so they don’t know how to take advantage of the vt ideas. Like boxing you strike to end fights ASAP with a painful strike to the solar plexus, jaw strike from a uppercut / hook combo… VT also has power punching tests and focus to utilize heavy bags for force balance work. Not much different in goals but no kicking or variety of hand techniques.
Personal expression of basics is going to make you use them out of fixed " all look the same " but you will need good footwork, food balanced counter attacking angles. Punches that will take a guys head off their shoulders ( if required )
Sadly many " cashing in " on vt use it as a chi sao emporium of no contact hand chasing yip man wannabes unknowingly making ll kinds of ideas and hiding behind the subjective license of " art " : /. Like a guy doing a weird jab on a bag and a coach says that’s not a good jab and the wannabe boxer ignores a awesome coach and throws a wet noodle jab instead of a lightening bolt from hell. Sure YOU can say its a secret wet noodle jab but everyone who knows the fighting aspect of force to face, fastest, hardest wins, will just grin. : )
[QUOTE=k gledhill;1239281]You will see boxing coaches watch out for a good jab, hook etc… Iow I can see a good boxer and a bad boxer. Once inside the ring " fighting " you don’t stand in basic poses making your BASICS predictable. You add mocking, daring people to hit you with mental games. You are playing a sport with rounds to test responses, see reactions , etc… That aspect is why we get variety and no complaints. In hiding the intent to deliver basics by moving and being unpredictable, we express ourselves as individuals. But we hit with basics, like a solid jab that is a jab. A straight right that is taught as a basic to everyone. How you combine it in reality is the game. You have various boxing expressions of interaction out of basic interactions all boxers and coaches take. Like chi sao drills all make us same but we aren’t going to express it the same in fighting with an equally random recipient. BUT there are awesome vt basics, like An awesome jab. There are specific vt technical ideas that are visibly missing to me as a vt coach. If you make a visible error to a good boxing coach while working a heavy bag he will stop you and show you a basic jab. How you use it in the ring adds use that will change the execution of it and make it " yours " but everyone can see if you have a crap jab or awesome. Sure it’s a jab but … ; )
Fighting with vt one will see certain errors that only awesome coaches will pick up, bad coaches won’t know why there is an error even less so the students all making the same errors , so they don’t know how to take advantage of the vt ideas. Like boxing you strike to end fights ASAP with a painful strike to the solar plexus, jaw strike from a uppercut / hook combo… VT also has power punching tests and focus to utilize heavy bags for force balance work. Not much different in goals but no kicking or variety of hand techniques.
Personal expression of basics is going to make you use them out of fixed " all look the same " but you will need good footwork, food balanced counter attacking angles. Punches that will take a guys head off their shoulders ( if required )
Sadly many " cashing in " on vt use it as a chi sao emporium of no contact hand chasing yip man wannabes unknowingly making ll kinds of ideas and hiding behind the subjective license of " art " : /. Like a guy doing a weird jab on a bag and a coach says that’s not a good jab and the wannabe boxer ignores a awesome coach and throws a wet noodle jab instead of a lightening bolt from hell. Sure YOU can say its a secret wet noodle jab but everyone who knows the fighting aspect of force to face, fastest, hardest wins, will just grin. : )[/QUOTE]
Not sure about this analogy.
A jab is a basic technique in boxing. The details of that basic mainly involve how to throw it with power, how to throw it quickly, safely, moving, in combination with other basics. The differences in boxing are tactical, attribute based, strategic but a jab is pretty much a jab at basic level.
The differences in wing chun run much deeper than that and include everything from the very basics to the whole aim of the game at every level. It isn’t as easy to pick out what is “correct” in wing chun because there is very little testing between the different approaches and there is almost no overall coherence (everyone contradicts everyone else). For someone coming into wing chun with no experience it is a complete lottery.
[QUOTE=guy b.;1239287]Not sure about this analogy.
A jab is a basic technique in boxing. The details of that basic mainly involve how to throw it with power, how to throw it quickly, safely, moving, in combination with other basics. The differences in boxing are tactical, attribute based, strategic but a jab is pretty much a jab at basic level.
The differences in wing chun run much deeper than that and include everything from the very basics to the whole aim of the game at every level. It isn’t as easy to pick out what is “correct” in wing chun because there is very little testing between the different approaches and there is almost no overall coherence (everyone contradicts everyone else). For someone coming into wing chun with no experience it is a complete lottery.[/QUOTE]
Experience, like an awesome boxing coach is not so easy to find or judge in vt. There is so much " subjective " confusion and little " testing " besides compliant " simulated " fighting. A lot of vt students are left with little to choose from beyond locality and available times to train , never mind good or bad .
[QUOTE=k gledhill;1239297]Experience, like an awesome boxing coach is not so easy to find or judge in vt. There is so much " subjective " confusion and little " testing " besides compliant " simulated " fighting. A lot of vt students are left with little to choose from beyond locality and available times to train , never mind good or bad .[/QUOTE]
Any boxing coach can teach you at least something about throwing a jab. Some wing chun teaching is actually counter productive