[QUOTE=Hendrik;1270556]IMHO
-
No one has complete art
-
Fujian white crane 1800 has general 48 scenerio
Wck has 18[/QUOTE]
I understand your view in this sense.
[QUOTE=Hendrik;1270552]Throwing a new born baby into this type of sparring Vesus the experience will get hit by either move.[/QUOTE]
It’s very popular in US to let a new born baby to learn how to float. That baby may even learn how to swim like a dog (Chinese call that doggy style) without a teacher.
[QUOTE=YouKnowWho;1270560]It’s very popular in US to let a new born baby to learn how to float. That baby may even learn how to swim like a dog (Chinese call that doggy style) without a teacher.[/QUOTE]
We call it dog paddle, and yes, there are some things one does almost naturally, when they are also part of the overall method, it is good for the teacher to get out of the way and let nature teach. Some teachers don’t like not being the source for all things. I think it was Mengzi who said the problem with people is that they are too fond of acting as teacher. I may be mistaken on that.
[QUOTE=YouKnowWho;1270560]It’s very popular in US to let a new born baby to learn how to float. That baby may even learn how to swim like a dog (Chinese call that doggy style) without a teacher.[/QUOTE]
If you are geneous, it works, if not, better study a style to learn how to deal with the situation before take things on ones own.
That is the reason of education is needed
[QUOTE=KPM;1270508]For the record. I won’t argue with T in what you quoted either. Because for once he defined “sparring” as Sparring is nothing more than a process of taking your art whatever it is and practicing trying to use it against some one really fighting you back and from that developing better and better ability at using your art.
By that definition, the “progressive training” or “progressive sparring” I talked about elsewhere fits with what T is saying, whether either of you are willing to acknowledge it or not. This includes the scenario training I described from Krav Maga. But since you haven’t acknowledged anything I have had to say on the topic so far, I expect you will disagree with me. But I put it out there for anyone following along with any interest in the topic.[/QUOTE]
Does ‘acknowledge’ = ‘agree’ in your world? I didn’t realize I had to verbally ‘acknowledge’ everything you say when I read it, but Ok here ya go: I formally acknowledge what you said. 
Guess what, I still don’t agree that your definition and his are the same, and wonder if he would either. As a matter of fact he doesn’t and he stated as such. The important question is, are you doing what he’s talking about? No need to answer, I know you’ve already said you won’t answer it to me because I didn’t ask nicely enough for you. Maybe just ask/see if you’re being honest with yourself
Know what’s really funny in all of this? You talk about him more now that you have him on ‘ignore’ that you did to him before you started ‘ignoring’ him. Kinda defeats the purpose doesn’t it if you’re not really ignoring him at all? Actually, I think it’s worse because, while you won’t address his comments directly, now you just kinda talk behind his back about him without giving him the chance to reply…
[QUOTE=Faux Newbie;1270553]NUMBERS ADDED ABOVE FOR EASE OF REFERENCE.
Number 2 is impossible without knowing something about other fighting methods one encounters. To know the completeness of one’s system, one is examining how complete it is against other techniques that exist or have existed or could exist.
Fighting is the combination of more than one person with other people, martial method is seeking to understand it within a framework that allows one to impose on that combination for favorable results, it is not ignoring the other person. What you describe requires what you refer to as making life difficult to fulfill it.
Know yourself, know your enemy. This requires familiarity with other systems. One does not need to train all methods, but there is no merit in avoiding knowledge of them.
Much of kung fu has similar engines, but how those engines can be applied require knowledge of what an opponent may do. I am not familiar of a single system developed worth mention that was not developed by someone who clearly had familiarity with other systems. To mimic the system and not the founder is to rely on that which the founder themselves found only partially reliable in their day, else they would not have honed a new system. If they were alive today, they would likely have expanded on the system based on new information, just as they did in life.[/QUOTE]
A great post, as are the others you have made in this thread. Where have you been all my life?
[QUOTE=Paddington;1270565]A great post, as are the others you have made in this thread. Where have you been all my life?[/QUOTE]
Kansas. 
[QUOTE=YouKnowWho;1270554]Now you bring the word “style” into discussion. Why restrict yourself as “close range”? If you can use roundhouse kick and haymaker effectively, you have a long range kicking tool as well as a long range punching tool.
Some tools are just so easy to be integrated into your style. You don’t even need to learn
- MT to use roundhouse kick, or
- CLF to use haymaker.[/QUOTE]
Your train of thought only holds water if you ignore WC principles. For example, WC’s idea of maximum efficiency.
A person can us any technique they want. And given the POV, most any technique can be labeled as ‘effective’. But, if you are fighting with WC’s maximum efficiency/effectiveness & economy of motion concepts to drive what you do, then the answer is clear. Rarely do I see a roundhouse kick, spinning back fist or haymaker type of attack that fits these ideals, nor do they really fit within wing chun’s centerline principle for starters.
Again, people can do whatever they want, but there comes a point where if you aren’t even following even the most basic principles of wing chun, then most likely you are not really ‘doing wing chun’ (haha, let the flames begin on that last statement)
[QUOTE=Paddington;1270565]A great post, as are the others you have made in this thread.[/QUOTE]
Agreed. I’m enjoy reading Faux Newbie’s posts and am glad he’s here sharing
[QUOTE=JPinAZ;1270568] fit within wing chun’s centerline principle ..[/QUOTE]
A + B > A
My teacher was a Chinese wrestling master.
- Onetime he got into a fight in an office, he used his “elbow” to knock his opponents down one by one.
- In another bus station fight, he grabbed a “chair”, stood next to the stair, and knock his opponents down one by one when they came down that stair to get him.
In both fights, he did not apply any of his Chinese wrestling principle. Instead, he used “elbow” and “chair”.
You fight the way that can help you to get the best result which should not be limited by your “style”. If any BJJ guy has to depend on his ground skill in all his fight, he may be killed in his first fight when dealing with multiple opponents.
Again, all sorts of things work. I see your point, but it’s not really relevant to what I’m talking about.
[QUOTE=JPinAZ;1270578]Again, all sorts of things work. I see your point, but it’s not really relevant to what I’m talking about.[/QUOTE]
After you have developed your solid foundation from one system, you should set yourself free and expand from there. If I have stayed all my training in the
- long fist system, I won’t be able to learn any grappling skill.
- SC system, I won’t be able to learn any striking skill.
Why do I have to restrict myself like that?
In the following clip, you can see the WC
- double Tan Shou principle,
- protect your center from inside out principle.
Is it WC, or is it not WC? If it works, do you care?
[QUOTE=Hendrik;1270520]A martial art is a technology which based on a concept, platform, and building block similar to an iphone.
It is designed to do what it suppose to do.
Otherwise,
It is like trying to race a car without knowing is it a truck, a bicycle, a ponny cart…etc
it is a superticious believe.
A sparring based on a superticious believe is just a random spray based on blind faith.[/QUOTE]
That is all wrong. I do not think you know the first thing about real martial art. You always talk analogies or metaphors never about reality because you can’t.
How many videos and how many hours of video have you made? In all those hours upon hours how much time showing you using wing chun? Zero. To me that says it all. You don’t show because you can’t. It is all talk all iPhone race car silliness. You are the ultimate wing chun arm chair idle speculation guy.
JPinAZ said he would visit you and tape where all this information has taken you. Why don’t you meet up and do a bit of sparring and show the world how you can handle momentum and other such things that only your original Yik Kam SLT has? How about it? If he is far from you I bet we can take up a collection for his travel. I know I’d contribute. So what do you say? Will you show everyone you are not the fraud we all think you are?
Here I reply you once for all.
[B]That is all wrong. I do not think you know the first thing about real martial art. You always talk analogies or metaphors never about reality because you can’t.
How many videos and how many hours of video have you made? In all those hours upon hours how much time showing you using wing chun? Zero. To me that says it all. You don’t show because you can’t. It is all talk all iPhone race car silliness. You are the ultimate wing chun arm chair idle speculation guy. [/B]
You are always free to have your view.
JPinAZ said he would visit you and tape where all this information has taken you. Why don’t you meet up and do a bit of sparring and show the world how you can handle momentum and other such things that only your original Yik Kam SLT has? How about it? If he is far from you I bet we can take up a collection for his travel. I know I’d contribute. So what do you say? Will you show everyone you are not the fraud we all think you are?
I have been working in depth in realistic martial art with sifu Robert Chu the founder of CSLWCK and many other Wck sifus including Kung fu fighter who starts this threat , since the past decade.
So, thanks but no thanks for your offer. I have no interest.
[QUOTE=kung fu fighter;1270336] to get away from bashing one another and get back to some real productive discussion on training aspects of the wck system.[/QUOTE]
I believe the OP has no interest in personal argument/attack in this thread. Can we stay that way?
[QUOTE=YouKnowWho;1270581]After you have developed your solid foundation from one system, you should set yourself free and expand from there.
If I have stayed all my training in the
- long fist system, I won’t be able to learn any grappling skill.
- SC system, I won’t be able to learn any striking skill.
Why do I have to restrict myself like that?[/QUOTE]
I assume when you say ‘you should’ you are referring to yourself. Besides a more-rounded ground game that involves submissions (of which I’m not totally interested at the moment), I have no issue/restrictions with what I’ve been training. But that’s for sharing your experience. For me, WC has everything I need for a stand up art, with some concepts that translate to the ground.
So we are on the same page and I understand your view more, maybe you could define what Wing Chun means to you?
[QUOTE=YouKnowWho;1270581]In the following clip, you can see the WC
- double Tan Shou principle,
- protect your center from inside out principle.
Is it WC, or is it not WC? If it works, do you care?[/QUOTE]
Is it fair to assume they wouldn’t really fight like this (I hope not) and are just demoing an idea? On occasion I’ve demoed something similar for new students as a way of showing WC triangular theory. I’ve even had them drill it for 5 or 10 minutes to get the idea, and then I move on. But I surely wouldn’t suggest they fight like that.
Just to share my POV, what I see is someone with both arms equally extended and hands locked together - not good from a wc perspective, or any fighting perspective for that matter (imo). From a WC perspective, I there’s too much wrong - no 2-line offense/defense, or simultaneous offense/defense, no gate thoery, etc. I personally wouldn’t even call that tan sau principle as I understand it. But everyone has a different opinion of things and if this is wing chun to you, I’m not going to argue.
Again, all sorts of things ‘work’. But just because it works doesn’t necessarily make it WC, even if you use a ‘wing chun technique’. And no, I don’t really care if it’s WC or works or not. If they like it, cool. It’s just not something I would do.
[QUOTE=JPinAZ;1270594] maybe you could define what Wing Chun means to you?
Is it fair to assume they wouldn’t really fight like this (I hope not) and are just demoing an idea? [/QUOTE]
To me, WC are:
- protect center from inside out.
- block and strike at the same time.
- centerline chain punches.
but I don’t want to be restricted by the WC principles only. I want to apply principles from other styles too (such as to protect my center from outside in).
I train my guy to fight exactly like this. The “rhino” strategy will change into “octopus” strategy during their opponent’s punches.
[QUOTE=YouKnowWho;1270597]To me, WC are:
- protect center from inside out.
- block and strike at the same time.
- centerline chain punches.
but I don’t want to be restricted by the WC principles only. I want to apply principles from other styles too (such as to protect my center from outside in).
I train my guy to fight exactly like this. The “rhino” strategy will change into “octopus” strategy during their opponent’s punches.
//youtu.be/1rPcIIRoBWo
[/QUOTE]
Great fusion!
Good job!
[QUOTE=YouKnowWho;1270597]To me, WC are:
- protect center from inside out.
- block and strike at the same time.
- centerline chain punches.[/QUOTE]
Thanks for your view. I see we have very different levels of understanding, which is, well , understandable being that WC has been my focus for over 11 years and you have mentioned you haven’t studied it very long. So I can see why you may think the way you do.
[QUOTE=YouKnowWho;1270597]but I don’t want to be restricted by the WC principles only. I want to apply principles from other styles too (such as to protect my center from outside in).[/QUOTE]
WC has many tools, strategies and tactics for engagement from the out side in (at least mine does). We call defending out-to-in ‘going nowhere to somewhere’. WC has methods for when you get surprised when your hands are down to your side as well. I guess it’s all in the time you spend in the system.
[QUOTE=YouKnowWho;1270597]I train my guy to fight exactly like this. The “rhino” strategy will change into “octopus” strategy during their opponent’s punches.
//youtu.be/1rPcIIRoBWo
[/QUOTE]
Cool. I wouldn’t call this call this wing chun at all, but it looks very usable.
[QUOTE=JPinAZ;1270606]I see we have very different levels of understanding, which is, well , understandable being that WC has been my focus for over 11 years and you have mentioned you haven’t studied it very long. So I can see why you may think the way you do.[/QUOTE]
You are right! WC is your primary art. You had developed your foundation from WC. I had my foundation developed from the long fist system. WC is only one of my cross training arts. We have different feeling about WC, that’s understandable.