Wing Chun and fighting-How to do it?

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Wing Chun
21

hunt1 wrote:

From what I have been reading the fighters dont think the talkers have anything worth sharing cause they dont fight so how can they know!

At the same time the fighters keep repeating the same thing over and over and over and over and over !

This is a wing chun discussion forum so I just think it would be nice for the fighters ,some of whom seem to know everything and if they dont know it its not worth knowing, share some specifics thats all.

**Can someone that never gets in the pool intelligently discuss swimming? IMO they can discuss certain aspects, but many other aspects are outside of their experience. The reason I, for one, keep referring back that issue is because much of the nonsense, much of the noise, many of the “questions”, all of the BS, etc. all stem from one thing – folks aren’t doing WCK, i.e., fighting with WCK’s method (tools). What they are doing are exercises, forms and drills like chi sao, to prepare to do WCK. But they haven’t even begun to practice WCK; practice involves use. And if they do “spar”, it is against mostly other unskilled folks that are trying to do WCK too. It’s pitiful. No one that fights, regardless of their method, would ever think this sort of training would lead to significant increases in fighting skill. But apparently, many believe that WCK has some magical process whereby folks can increase their fighting performance level without having to do what every other person in the world needs to do.

**Imagine if you went to a boxing forum and posted a question like - boxing and fighting, how to do it? LOL! Boxing is fighting. WCK is fighting. The very question is silly.

**Ernie made an interesting comment: "i don’t think in tan,bong,and fook etc anymore . . . sure those were great guides to get the feeling of connection and structure . . . but they are fixed moments. . . . " Exactly! That shows the difference between a fighter’s perspective and a theoreticians. A person will never realize that or get to that level without fighting. So they are left with arguing about what is the “correct” way to do a tan sao, etc. And since in “theory” all things are equal (can be argued), that leaves them to resorting to historical references to “prove” their claim (so-and-so did tan sao like this). It’s craziness.

22

Who is not a Theorician these days?

Labering, using one’s state as the TRUTH to make others fault,
No idea about what is the philosophy, theory, Processes, and training of a system but using one’s view to disprove what one doesnt have idea about is also a Theorician.

IMHHO, discussion of you are this I am that is not going to go anyway

OK,

Let ask anyone or tribe who claim to be a WCK fighter who think they are the MODEL of ALL WCK that others has to learn from because they know the TRUTH WCK. Let them describe his/her power generation process in details.

with a requirement description of how to handling momentum, how to accelerate, what/which part of the body to watch for , what is the uniqueness characteristics of this method of power generation, How is this be able to use in WCK, so that anyone who following the process can repeating this power generation.

Since power generation is the core of all fighting. what fighting to talk about without getting into how to generate, make use of power , and its flow?

It will be great that there are such person be able to enlightent all of us who is junior or dont know about WCK. But, if none of the So called Fighter can do the above. Then, isnt it either they are a theorician who doesnt aware of what they are talking about, or there is no WCK fighter here but ALL TALKER? or fighter from other style? in that case since they dont know WCK why are they here?

But, I certainly love to see the processes repeatable with ’ EEG wave logger, Acceleration record, heart beat logging data… etc
otherwise, it is similar to the OLD chinese saying " trust me, I know it all, I can do it, see I beat so and so sifus. I have Qi I have Jing. Just do it."

Sure, one can be the greatest in the universe, but if non of one’s practice can be repeat, measure, and monitor. what is the use to ordinary human being ?

Until some one showing clearly the process of power generation which is Unque for Wing Chun Kuen and repeatable within 15 mins of learning. I am sorry to say, who is not a Theorician?

The different is just some based on history, so based on My sifu Knows it all or I know it all or I learn the real Wing Chun Kuen. Same old Same old feeding EGO and trying to force the whole universe to bow to one’s ego deal. All Theory without Process. All Brute force without technology.

As the Chinese saying, " in composition of Essay, everyone will say they are number one. in martial art, no one is willing to be number two" same old same old Chinese backward patern even it is already 2004.

Look at the hi tech, with the proven Process people has already build MP3 or Ipod getting smaller and smaller in size every months. So, Process that is important instead of following that Chinese old patern-- theory and fighing…etc . isnt it all are Theory without technology process?

just some thoughts. Ignore my post if you dont like my
post.

23

Originally posted by t_niehoff
**Ernie made an interesting comment: "i don’t think in tan,bong,and fook etc anymore . . . sure those were great guides to get the feeling of connection and structure . . . but they are fixed moments. . . . " Exactly! That shows the difference between a fighter’s perspective and a theoreticians. A person will never realize that or get to that level without fighting.

I 100% agree with Ernie on that point. I too have a very hard time of conceiving of my performance in terms of “techinques.” I just don’t operate that way. Obviously then, I am fighter, LOL.

It’s craziness.

I’ve yet to meet a person who is fully sane. :slight_smile:

Regards,

  • kj
24

Originally posted by kj
[B]I 100% agree with Ernie on that point. I too have a very hard time of conceiving of my performance in terms of “techinques.” I just don’t operate that way. Obviously then, I am fighter, LOL.
Regards,

  • kj [/B]

KJ in the next K1 !

i’ll work your corner :smiley:

UM KJ I never claimed to be a fighter , i just don’t have put much stock in non proven stories of how some non educated farmers beat each other up in china 1,000,000 years ago and then some greedy kung fu marketing masters jumped on the band wagon and made up more non proven stories of the secret to supreme skill

but like you said people are crazy :smiley: what ever silly blue print they want to follow , yet they can not duplicate the skill[ the non proven story skill ] , but will still follow the blueprint that yields no results after 20,30,40 years

and then try and convince others that it’s ther way to go ! haha

yep crazy people out there

but it would make for a great shaw brothers movie !:cool:

thank god we are in a put up or shut up society :smiley:

but please ignore my post and happy holidays :stuck_out_tongue:

25

KJ sez:
I’ve yet to meet a person who is fully sane.

((<g> I have. Wonder of wonders. I pass by a house every day where a man possibly around 50 lives by himself. Neither fat or thin. Apparently physically healthy. Does not seem to go to work.
Occasionally brings home groceries from convenience stores and hasa cip of coffe in a coffee shop- with an occasional Hamletian speech.
Always has a smile on his face. Does not seem to be interested in maintaining eyecontact for very long.
He works around his house, driveway and yard. Old Jong does perched not have to wrestle him down.
He changes his scenery regularly around his house. On the back of his pickup truck-he has currently painted “Brinks”. On his dirt driveway he hasa sign- no skating allowed. Ona tree trunk he has a sign- his advice to the world…“work it out”. He has a screen door witha flyswatter leaning against a bush- with an arrow and the letters"nowhere".On some rainy days he has has a bathtub with a shower head balanced on the roof next to the chimney. He sometimes jogs with a colorful jogging outfit in the bicycle path- sometimes witha sign “Watch out for pedestians”.
When he walks on the street sometimes he hasa ceramic parrot on his shoulder to whom he explains the weather and the need for watching out for cars.

Apparently a perfectly sane man in an insane world.

I hope that an insane person does not hurt him, arrest him, put him in a hospital or urge him to follow some dogmatic path.
Thus far appears to be a free man- at least comparatively.

26

KJ sez:
I’ve yet to meet a person who is fully sane.

there is a great chinese saying: " the half kati laught at the eight once ( a chinese kati has 16 once) ". How wise was the ancient Chinese speaking the TRUTH about the So-called Theorician and Fighter :smiley:

What a wonderful world! EGO Never changes.

27

"Your thought differentiates between pragmatist and idealist, between the part and the whole, between the mystic and materialist.
Mine realizes that life is one and its weights, measures and tables do not coincide with your weights, measures and tables. He whom you suppose an idealist may be a practical man.

You have your thought and I have mine.- K.G."

28

Originally posted by Ernie
[B]KJ in the next K1 !

i’ll work your corner :smiley: [/b]

I’m counting on it, Ernie! :slight_smile:

UM KJ I never claimed to be a fighter ,

It wouldn’t be me trying to categorize you Ernie. To the contrary, my point was that there are inevitable risks in attempting to definitively or neatly categorize people. Like most of us, you’re [obviously] much more interesting and complex than we [the general “we”] often allow ourselves to acknowledge or give each other credit for.

A wise person I once knew summed it up this way: “If you absolutely must label someone, label them only by their name.”

but please ignore my post …

Not at all. We all have things to say, experiences or perspective to share, and things to get off our chests. Somewhere out there exists a wisdom far greater than any wisdom we alone possess. I’m not implying it’s the “communal” wisdom though, LOL.

and happy holidays :stuck_out_tongue:

And to you and yours. :slight_smile:

Regards,

  • kj
29

Originally posted by Vajramusti
Apparently a perfectly sane man in an insane world.

He could indeed be the one, Joy. :cool:

Still, I am reminded of a quote that recently happened across my desk: “Everyone seems normal. Until you get to know them.” On this count, please forgive me a hint of healthy skepticism. ;):smiley:

Regards,

  • kj
30

kj wrote:

I too have a very hard time of conceiving of my performance in terms of “techinques.”

**Tell me, in your “performance” of what – forms or drills?

31

Originally posted by t_niehoff
[B]kj wrote:

I too have a very hard time of conceiving of my performance in terms of “techinques.”

**Tell me, in your “performance” of what – forms or drills? [/B]

Terence, if I thought for a moment this question was posed in good faith and at face value rather than the usual setup for round-and-round, I’d oblige.

With due respect to forum readers and all concerned, I see no need for any of us to waste time going in further circles. I couldn’t begin to count the number of times we have found ourselves at this same juncture. Here is a way to save eveyone time and aggravation: simply do what you are compelled to do - label me, categorize me, publish an essay on how I have zero basis for opinion or comment, skip Go and collect $200. Then complete the task by doing likewise post-haste for all the other members of the forum so we can finally move along to more interesting and potentially constructive topics. Lump as many as possible of us together as if we are all exactly the same, and the task will go that much quicker.

When all is said and done at least there may be some sub-factions left willing to entertain discussion and dialog with one another. Just be sure to tell us which list we’re on so we can know unequivocally who we’re allowed to converse with and who we’ve no right to address. Alternatively, if most folks simply abandon attempts at dialog altogether (a considerable possibility given the history of internet forums) then even more effective.

Back to your question, and in case it simplifies matters in getting everyone labeled correctly and playing on the right “teams”: being as I am a “non fighter” (a self-confessed one no less … the horror of it!!!) of course I couldn’t possibly think or operate in non-technique-oriented ways. What could I possibly have been thinking to write that I don’t think or operate in a technique-oriented way … [shakes own head at self].

<sigh>

[and apologies to the readership for my apparent lapse and rant]

Ironically enough, I can understand the majority of your points and even agree with many if not most of them; it’s the persistent extremism that perennially baffles me. Yet in another way it doesn’t baffle me. When thinking clearly, I am well aware that while it appears we are writing about Wing Chun (or topic du jour), what we are really expressing is more about ourselves. So after all that, I reckon you’ll keep writing about you, I’ll keep writing about me, and everyone else about themselves, LOL.

Regards,

  • kj
32

Point to Kathy for using solid WC written technique to interrupt an attack by going for the center. :wink:

I wonder if Terrance really does not understand that at a certian point many of us no longer see a specific technique only as the start and end point. Rather as you gain experience it becomes more about being in the centered state and moving appropriatly given the current situation.

33

It’s too early to tell the outcome of the trial, but I do think the prosecuting attorney need to act more aggressively to downplay the brilliant defense that we just see so far. I sense the jury is very impatient and that could be very bad if the prosecutor star keep nagging the simple facts indefinitely… Stay tuned for more exciting news from your local independent forum. =)

34

KJ wrote:

Terence, if I thought for a moment this question was posed in good faith and at face value rather than the usual setup for round-and-round, I’d oblige.

**No set up intended, just making a point. Some questions are rhetorical. You do realize that? :wink:

With due respect to forum readers and all concerned, I see no need for any of us to waste time going in further circles. I couldn’t begin to count the number of times we have found ourselves at this same juncture. Here is a way to save eveyone time and aggravation: simply do what you are compelled to do - label me, categorize me, publish an essay on how I have zero basis for opinion or comment, skip Go and collect $200.

**You voluntarily joined in a discussion entitled “WC fighitng - How to do it” – I guess you don’t see the irony? (Hint: rhetorical question).

Then complete the task by doing likewise post-haste for all the other members of the forum so we can finally move along to more interesting and potentially constructive topics. Lump as many as possible of us together as if we are all exactly the same, and the task will go that much quicker.

**Hey, I’m sure everyone that stands along side the pool doing their landswimming is an individual! I’m not saying they’re not individuals, nor am I saying they are not nice people – but when some of these individuals begin to give us opinions on swimming, don’t be surprised that someone points out that as nonswimmers, they don’t know what they are talking about. Did I just lump a bunch of people that don’t swim into the category of nonswimmer – oh, my God! How beastly. On what possible basis could I do that? (Hint: rhetorical question).

When all is said and done at least there may be some sub-factions left willing to entertain discussion and dialog with one another.

**I’m sure there are.

Just be sure to tell us which list we’re on so we can know unequivocally who we’re allowed to converse with and who we’ve no right to address. Alternatively, if most folks simply abandon attempts at dialog altogether (a considerable possibility given the history of internet forums) then even more effective.

**Which list? The WCK list. You know, those folks that actually do WCK.

Back to your question, and in case it simplifies matters in getting everyone labeled correctly and playing on the right “teams”: being as I am a “non fighter” (a self-confessed one no less … the horror of it!!!) of course I couldn’t possibly think or operate in non-technique-oriented ways. What could I possibly have been thinking to write that I don’t think or operate in a technique-oriented way … [shakes own head at self].

**You can’t possibly operate in “nontechnique oriented ways” because you’re not operating in the first place – this is a nonswimmer saying they operate in “nontechnique oriented ways”! You can’t “operate” without getting in the pool. What “operating” do you think you’re doing? Do you really think that someone that never gets in the pool can in any conceivable way transcend swimming technique?

Ironically enough, I can understand the majority of your points and even agree with many if not most of them;

**I don’t think you do understand them – if you did understand that perspective, you wouldn’t say some of the things you do. You know, things like how you operate in “nontechnique oridented ways.”

it’s the persistent extremism that perennially baffles me. Yet in another way it doesn’t baffle me.

**My perspective isn’t extreme – its the same perspective of anyone that genuinely trains to increase their fighting skills. Would you consider it extreme for someone on the swimming forum to keep pointing out that folks weren’t swimming? What an extremist – thinking that unless folks get in the water they don’t know anything about swimming.

When thinking clearly, I am well aware that while it appears we are writing about Wing Chun (or topic du jour), what we are really expressing is more about ourselves. So after all that, I reckon you’ll keep writing about you, I’ll keep writing about me, and everyone else about themselves, LOL.

**Rationalize however you want.

35

**My perspective isn’t extreme – its the same perspective of anyone that genuinely trains to increase their fighting skills.

False appeal to authority, 5 yard penalty.

36

=): It appears that the prosecuting team has gathered enough steam on its latest round of frontal assault. Tell me, =(, whether you think that the prosecutor can make the label of dryland swimmer stick?

=(: Well, I don’t know, =), I saw juror # 12 was very hostile to the prosecuting presentation of their latest discriminating “evidences” exhibited. Didn’t you notice?

=): I understand that the case has be nagged on just a little more than 6 months…

=(: Well, the due process of law practice must have its full run. Please remember to vote for me on your next ballot.

=): And that’s all, folks! Stay tuned!

37

Originally posted by t_niehoff
**My perspective isn’t extreme – its the same perspective of anyone that genuinely trains to increase their fighting skills.
Sorry, T, but I’ve got to disagree with you on this one.
I’m extreme and you are more extreme than I am. :slight_smile:

As far as a non-fighting theoretician being able to transcend technique, I think one can. Chi sao is not fighting, but it is a kind of game that includes techniques. If one gets good enough at chi sao, he or she can transcend the techniques.

38

Originally posted by t_niehoff
[B]KJ wrote:

Terence, if I thought for a moment this question was posed in good faith and at face value rather than the usual setup for round-and-round, I’d oblige.

**No set up intended, just making a point. Some questions are rhetorical. You do realize that? :wink:
[/b]

Yes, ignorant as a hillbilly but still I get it. Go figure. If I didn’t, I’d be trying to post a lot more often, LOL.

Or maybe I just “think” I get it … hmmm …

[b]With due respect to forum readers and all concerned, I see no need for any of us to waste time going in further circles. I couldn’t begin to count the number of times we have found ourselves at this same juncture. Here is a way to save eveyone time and aggravation: simply do what you are compelled to do - label me, categorize me, publish an essay on how I have zero basis for opinion or comment, skip Go and collect $200.

**You voluntarily joined in a discussion entitled “WC fighitng - How to do it” – I guess you don’t see the irony? (Hint: rhetorical question).

[/b]

And here I thought I was posting to a “discussion” list, where things like, uhm, “discussion” take place. Don’t that beat all, how perspectives differ!

[b]Then complete the task by doing likewise post-haste for all the other members of the forum so we can finally move along to more interesting and potentially constructive topics. Lump as many as possible of us together as if we are all exactly the same, and the task will go that much quicker.

**Hey, I’m sure everyone that stands along side the pool doing their landswimming is an individual! I’m not saying they’re not individuals, nor am I saying they are not nice people – but when some of these individuals begin to give us opinions on swimming, don’t be surprised that someone points out that as nonswimmers, they don’t know what they are talking about. Did I just lump a bunch of people that don’t swim into the category of nonswimmer – oh, my God! How beastly. On what possible basis could I do that? (Hint: rhetorical question).[/b]

It would go farther if I a) bought it as a sound use of analogy and b) if all models, pushed to limits, didn’t break down.

Hmmmm … there I go not understanding rhetoric again. Dang; snagged agin.

[b]
When all is said and done at least there may be some sub-factions left willing to entertain discussion and dialog with one another.

**I’m sure there are.

Just be sure to tell us which list we’re on so we can know unequivocally who we’re allowed to converse with and who we’ve no right to address. Alternatively, if most folks simply abandon attempts at dialog altogether (a considerable possibility given the history of internet forums) then even more effective.

**Which list? The WCK list. You know, those folks that actually do WCK. [/b]

Ouch! That one really smarts! :smiley:

[BTW, if you alienate enough people, it could grow to get mighty lonely … just a bumpkin hunch on that.]

[b]Back to your question, and in case it simplifies matters in getting everyone labeled correctly and playing on the right “teams”: being as I am a “non fighter” (a self-confessed one no less … the horror of it!!!) of course I couldn’t possibly think or operate in non-technique-oriented ways. What could I possibly have been thinking to write that I don’t think or operate in a technique-oriented way … [shakes own head at self].

**You can’t possibly operate in “nontechnique oriented ways” because you’re not operating in the first place – this is a nonswimmer saying they operate in “nontechnique oriented ways”! You can’t “operate” without getting in the pool. What “operating” do you think you’re doing? Do you really think that someone that never gets in the pool can in any conceivable way transcend swimming technique?
[/b]

Finally! (and as requested) we cut to the chase. Thank the Lord.

Okay, I’m the first one on the non-fighter list. (Translation of the more common “non-swimmer”* terminology for general convenience and those who didn’t get that part.) I love to lead, especially when there’s no one to follow, LOL. So, who’s next? Let’s stop pussyfooting around, and get those lists down now, once and for all. You’re either a fighter or non-fighter, and you either practice WCK or you don’t dagnabbit.

[b]Ironically enough, I can understand the majority of your points and even agree with many if not most of them;

**I don’t think you do understand them – if you did understand that perspective, you wouldn’t say some of the things you do. You know, things like how you operate in “nontechnique oridented ways.”
[/b]

Clarification. I only claim to understand the majority of your points as written, and agree with many if not most of them. I never meant to imply that I understand you or your experience. I do, however, appreciate how intimately familiar you are with my and others’ life experiences. :stuck_out_tongue:

[b]
it’s the persistent extremism that perennially baffles me. Yet in another way it doesn’t baffle me.

**My perspective isn’t extreme [/b]

Oh, okay then. :D:D:D

– its the same perspective of anyone that genuinely trains to increase their fighting skills.

Maybe, maybe not; I’ll know for sure when I’m omniscient. (Okay, okay, I’ll say it just this once: … “like you.” Don’t blame me … the crowd urged me on!!! :D)

FWIW, I don’t see others who either a) do or b) claim to “genuinely” train to increase their fighting skills behaving toward others in the manner you do, or press points to the extreme as you do. Not even our other pro-active fighting protagonists on the forum. I don’t see anyone trying to draw a “line in the sand” between people as vigorously as you.

Would you consider it extreme for someone on the swimming forum to keep pointing out that folks weren’t swimming? What an extremist – thinking that unless folks get in the water they don’t know anything about swimming.

That’s one o’ them thar rhetorical questions, ain’t it? :smiley:

[b]

When thinking clearly, I am well aware that while it appears we are writing about Wing Chun (or topic du jour), what we are really expressing is more about ourselves. So after all that, I reckon you’ll keep writing about you, I’ll keep writing about me, and everyone else about themselves, LOL.

**Rationalize however you want. [/B]

Dawgonnit, I’ll shore try!

I’m not so arrogant or self-delusional as to think I have the ability or energy to hold my own with a tenured prosecutor and criminal defense attorney. Near half a century old and I just heard about a thing called “debate club” for the first time last year, LOL. I realize this means you’ll have to put some more hurt on me now and I’ll just have to take my lumps. Well, at least maybe we’ve broken the old patterns and some of the forum “tensions” just a little, even if just for a little while. Who knows, maybe even enough to lighten things up on the KFO a mere tad and get folks feeling a little more comfortable and inspired to offer up some new and interesting things to jaw on about awhile. Even us non-Wing Chun types can enjoy some good or interesting dialog. At least we fancy we can. ;):smiley:

[My apologies to our fellow readers. I’m apparently just feeling a bit “Weilandish” today. I’ll get over it quick enough, LOL. Thanks for your toleration.]

Now, what was that question uppatop there … something about what has fighting taught the fighters about Wing Chun or sump’n like that?

Regards,

  • kj
  • Correction. Make that “dry-land swimmer.” Yeesh, you’d think I’d have that one down by now!
39

Kathy Jo, you’re a real peach! You crack me up! And you’re right on IMHO!

Terrence, I’ll ask again as I have many times recently…where’s the balance? You like labels, I think a good one for you is “extremist” as the above posts suggest. :slight_smile:

Keith

40

Hello,

I started a thread that was about all of us sharing some video clips of ourselves. Out of all the people (and that includes the KFO fighters/non fighters) who chat on this board only 2 or 3 or us were or are willing. How sad! Well, lets change that and say: Only 2 or 3 or us even replied to that scary idea. Why? The camera will be rolling for everyone to see you!

Maybe some of the experienced fighters like Terence and others would like to send in some clips of themselves so we can all share and learn from each others experience (be it fighting or training to fight or building the structure etc etc.) versus debate the same stuff over and over again? Those with more experience can help us by looking back on their experience (or recording some for us to view) so this is where the Fighters can really make a difference versus just repeating their (our) mantras about what we believe WCK is or isnt.

Hopefully, more people will be up for this idea as we can all learn from each others comments/views of our performances. AND please do not say:

I have no access to a digital camera!

All of us know someone who has one and there is a site that will post it up for free so we do not even have to build a special site!

Come on Fighters and non Fighters!

Show us your stuff!

Regards,