[QUOTE=m1k3;1066297]
I have to disagree here. At the strategic level there has to be commonality but not necessarily at the tactical level. For example the BJJ strategy is quite simple. Close the distance, achieve the clinch, takedown to nullify his strengths, get the dominate position, finish the fight.[/QUOTE]
You’re disagreeing with the semantics..
VT can’t be VT without the core and the core is what I refer to.
[QUOTE=anerlich;1066415]The awful truth:
http://youarenotsosmart.com/2010/05/19/fanboyism-and-brand-loyalty/[/QUOTE]
Quite true, as well as this:
Since we’re on a roll:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor
“Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity”
and also:
http://searchlores.org/realicra/basiclawsofhumanstupidity.htm
For example the BJJ strategy is quite simple. Close the distance, achieve the clinch, takedown to nullify his strengths, get the dominate position, finish the fight.
Except for the takedown (which is optional and not used that often) the WC strategy isn’t that different IMO:
Close the distance, achieve a bridge/attachment/whatever, achieve control of the opp (possibly via a takedown), finish the fight.
[QUOTE=Vajramusti;1066367] . . . . .Best to do your own wing chun if that is what interests you and forget the addictions to this list.
joy chaudhuri[/QUOTE]
I hear you brother. Good idea.
[QUOTE=anerlich;1066465]
Close the distance, achieve a bridge/attachment/whatever, achieve control of the opp (possibly via a takedown), finish the fight.[/QUOTE]
Rubbish!!! The idea of Ving Tsun is to interrupt your opponents attack with your own attack and finish the fight by maintaining striking even if your strikes meet an obstruction!!! or…you lose the fight!!!
No making a bridge. No achieving control!!! This idea of WCK is utter nonsense!!! :mad:…NO ATTACHMENT!!!
GH
[QUOTE=YungChun;1066460]You’re disagreeing with the semantics..
VT can’t be VT without the core and the core is what I refer to.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=t_neihoff;1066460]For me, WCK is WCK. It’s not a specific lineage that is WCK, and no lineage in itself embodies “correct” WCK. The lineages are just some person’s attempt to teach the larger “package.” Gu Lao, Yip Man, YKS, Yik Kam, Pan Nam, etc. all share the same root, the core curriculum. Some add to it, some focus more on different aspects, etc. but that core is the same.[/QUOTE]
You mention this core curriculum all the time. But tell me, what is the core exactly? What are you referring to, exactly? What curriculum?
And more importantly, do you think everyone on here has learnt it? If not, why not if it’s the ‘core’??
[QUOTE=Graham H;1066530]Rubbish!!! The idea of Ving Tsun is to interrupt your opponents attack with your own attack and finish the fight by maintaining striking even if your strikes meet an obstruction!!! or…you lose the fight!!!
No making a bridge. No achieving control!!! This idea of WCK is utter nonsense!!! :mad:…NO ATTACHMENT!!!
GH[/QUOTE]
The WCK kuen kuit – which comes from our ancestors and is a part of the curriculum of the legit branches of WCK – tells you Mo Kiu Jee Jouu Kiu - If there is no bridge, erect one.
[QUOTE=LoneTiger108;1066549]You mention this core curriculum all the time. But tell me, what is the core exactly? What are you referring to, exactly? What curriculum?
And more importantly, do you think everyone on here has learnt it? If not, why not if it’s the ‘core’??[/QUOTE]
The WCK core curriculum are those aspects that are common to all the older, legit branches of WCK. Sort of like if you compared four different textbooks, there may be some differences, but as they were all covering the same subject matter, there would be a commonality. And that commonality would illustrate those things you NEED to learn the subject.
For example, tan sao is part of the core. Can you learn WCK without it? So is chi sao (regardless of the particular platform), and chi gerk (nor the drill but the elements). So is the faat mun (the method), the kuit, etc.
Not everyone has learned the core curriculum (although everyone has parts of it), though some have. Why haven’t they learned it? Generally because their teachers didn’t learn it.
[QUOTE=t_niehoff;1066555]Not everyone has learned the core curriculum (although everyone has parts of it), though some have. Why haven’t they learned it? Generally because their teachers didn’t learn it.[/QUOTE]
Yes I agree here (if the core is faat mun and kuit!) and would also like to point out that there were very very few HK based instructors that learnt any kuit or faat mun from Ip Man, so practically the whole western WCK community have never learned it. So on reflection, this should not be considered the core, no?
For me personally, the core is represented by the 5 elements of Wing Chun. It’s construct, as I’ve discussed on another thread. All parts have equal importance and require balanced training. And all areas of the construct are found in all Wing Chun families, even if the terms I use are not common, the practises are fme.
If you practise Form, Equipment, Interaction, Weaponry and Literature then you have a ‘whole cake’. Most western schools I have seen practise everything except literature, and this is where my original question is answered.
The core of anything is the language used to teach.
This is why Hendrik has a hard time from others who do not know Mo Duk. You wouldn’t know it if you have never learnt from a source that has ‘literature’. And I do believe that Ip Man created his own Mo Duk, so even westerners should have SOMETHING written down!! IF they learnt from a ‘legit’ source as you mention?
And here’s where the internet is a great resource… because here it is…
http://www.kwokwingchun.co.uk/2009/3/12/ip-man-code-of-conduct
THIS should be in ALL OF US. THIS should be our common objective and goal.
Forget the faat mun & kuit, THIS is how we unite together.
IMHO of course…
[QUOTE=Graham H;1066530]Rubbish!!! The idea of Ving Tsun is to interrupt your opponents attack with your own attack and finish the fight by maintaining striking even if your strikes meet an obstruction!!! or…you lose the fight!!!
No making a bridge. No achieving control!!! This idea of WCK is utter nonsense!!! :mad:…NO ATTACHMENT!!!
GH[/QUOTE]
And I think you’re idea is total rubbish! You are describing WCK as a weapon that is all or nothing. Your only option is destruction of the opponent. How do you deal with drunk uncle Joe on New Year’s day who wants to see what if your “kung fu is strong!”? So he launches a drunken attack at you. Are you going to punch uncle Joe’s lights out? I don’t know about your WCK, but my WCK allows a lot of leeway to gauge the level of response acccording to the situation. How is that possible you may ask?..by achieving CONTROL of the opponent without necessarily having to punch him out!
[QUOTE=Graham H;1066530]Rubbish!!! The idea of Ving Tsun is to interrupt your opponents attack with your own attack and finish the fight by maintaining striking even if your strikes meet an obstruction!!! or…you lose the fight!!!
No making a bridge. No achieving control!!! This idea of WCK is utter nonsense!!! :mad:…NO ATTACHMENT!!!
GH[/QUOTE]
My prediction…
Graham hits an adrenaline dump at about 1:30 in to the engagement. And doesn’t make it out of the first round.
[QUOTE=LoneTiger108;1066562]This is why Hendrik has a hard time from others who do not know Mo Duk.[/QUOTE]
Mo Duk is as Mo Duk does.
[QUOTE=Wayfaring;1066578]Mo Duk is as Mo Duk does.
Life is like a box of Mo Duk.
So in the spirit of this thread topic
…I’ve decided to clean up Graham’s post to the following (ie.- without all the hoopla):
“The idea of Ving Tsun is to interrupt your opponent’s attack with your own attack and finish the fight by maintaining striking even if your strikes meet an obstruction. Or you lose the fight. No making a bridge. No achieving control. No attachment.”
…
***OVERLY simplistic, don’t you think, Graham? For example, if your strikes meet an obstruction, how easy is it to continue your striking without some sort of bridge? How often would this be possible against a decent fighter? That you could just change the line of engagement and continue striking without having to deal with (and have at least some control over) his arms? And perhaps his balance as well?
Caveat 1: I think the word “attachment” is the issue here for many people. Don’t think “attachment”. Think striking with some bridge domination. Control over his structure and balance will follow, as your strikes begin to have an effect.
Caveat 2: This fight could easily go to clinch fighting when you operate in this zone. There are too many variables to assume otherwise. And then the “attachment” is, imo, no longer about wing chun principles, strategies, and techniques - it’s starting to be about something else, ie.- fighting moves from other arts.
You guys have just shown why you WC guys keep turkish oil checking each other.
Graham made a view that WC is this, disagreeing with another poster, so know a few other disgaree with HIS view of WC and you ALL miss the crucial point:
YOUR WC is whatever it NEEDS to be to work.
If that means attacked fighting, great.
If it means non-attached, great.
If it means whipping copious amounts of jing at people, well…not so great but whatever floats your boat I guess.
The point is that you guys need to stop trying to make other people’s WC like yours and just perfect what works for you.
*****ES !!
[QUOTE=sanjuro_ronin;1066604]You guys have just shown why you WC guys keep turkish oil checking each other.
Graham made a view that WC is this, disagreeing with another poster, so know a few other disgaree with HIS view of WC and you ALL miss the crucial point:
YOUR WC is whatever it NEEDS to be to work.
If that means attacked fighting, great.
If it means non-attached, great.
If it means whipping copious amounts of jing at people, well…not so great but whatever floats your boat I guess.
The point is that you guys need to stop trying to make other people’s WC like yours and just perfect what works for you.
*****ES !![/QUOTE]
You are trying to make sense out of stupidity again.
I suggest you put up some photos of Grace Park in lingerie and divert WCK people’s attention elsewhere. 
Or form a Fight League and see what works for you. 
Sanjuro could be the official referee. 
[QUOTE=chusauli;1066606]You are trying to make sense out of stupidity again.
I suggest you put up some photos of Grace Park in lingerie and divert WCK people’s attention elsewhere. :)[/QUOTE]
Vagabond !!
[QUOTE=sanjuro_ronin;1066611]Vagabond !!
[/QUOTE]
Quoted for truth!