Engaging the enemy

[Savi]

Can someone tell me, how do you engage your opponent? What things do you consider, if any, to determine how you engage?

What is your focus once you have to move? How did you develop that focus? What guided that focus which allows you to see what you have to do? This is more of a "why" question, which is separate from the first question.

[sauchi]

with my eyes open!

[dave mckinnon]

My opponent tells me how he wants to be hit!

Understanding timing distance and position

Using Jeet Fa!

Dave
\;)

[Savi]

Originally posted by sauchi
with my eyes open! Which "eye" Sibaakgung?

This one: ;)? Juuuust Kidding...

I took your reply in the context of Saam Mo Kiu... then it made me smile. After a couple of more seconds of pondering your reply with my eyes closed, it made me nod my head several times too in agreement.

[Savi]

Originally posted by dave mckinnon
My opponent tells me how he wants to be hit! In what way?
Originally posted by dave mckinnon
Understanding timing distance and position In what way? Understand "what" about those things?
Originally posted by dave mckinnon
Using Jeet Fa! What is "Jeet Fa"?

[dave mckinnon]

Happy Happy!

Hello Savi!

quote:

Originally posted by dave mckinnon
My opponent tells me how he wants to be hit!

In what way?

Dave - In what way what? My statement is simple
My Mun Sau is the question! My opponent responds. Then I beat him!

quote:

Originally posted by dave mckinnon
Understanding timing distance and position

In what way? Understand "what" about those things?

Dave - Proper timing is the timing of moving, acting, doing or non-doing in accordance with the situation.

Proper Distance is the ideal range for my doing or non-doing to happen or not!

Proper position is ideal reference to five-centerline theory and in accordance to th above two!
- In truth, there are six-centerline theories or only one but that can be a new thread!
- Also add proper speech, proper action, and proper thought

quote:

Originally posted by dave mckinnon
Using Jeet Fa!

What is "Jeet Fa"?

Dave - Besides understanding the truth about Jung Sien (Centerline) Wing Chun is not really Wing Chun without Jeet Fa!

Jeet Fa is the intercepting method.

I need to learn to use the quote function :o

Dave

[JamesHFYofAZ]

I was thinking David was connecting flowers instead of bridges.:D

[dave mckinnon]

,I'll admit I was up late :D

However!

Ceneterline theory and Intercepting are two big concepts that I use in Wing Chun Combatives.

When I face someone with my centerline ;)
It is really up to them how they get hit.

All I do is Mun Sao!

Dave

[dave mckinnon]

James

Flowers are good for bridges!

Especially when fighting with a lady:)!

Sometimes I do not Mun Sau, I just give flowers in case I did something wrong and didn't know it!

Dave

[JamesHFYofAZ]

So mun sau?
Is this just meaning you ask with the hands, you ask for the hands, or is this mun sau a technique to engauge with?

[Savi]

What is the intent behind your Muhn Sau?

What are the specific positions your elbow and wrist take to structure the Muhn Sau?

Does the Wu Sau have any role to the Muhn Sau when you "ask" for the bridge?

Why would you seek to bridge in the first place?

Why even use a Muhn Sau?

[dave mckinnon]

James Writes:
So mun sau?
Is this just meaning you ask with the hands, you ask for the hands, or is this mun sau a technique to engauge with?

James better to say Mun Fa – Inquiring method.
Now there are no techniques to argue over.
Can you inquire with Kung Fu?
Now there are no techniques to limit Kung Fu.
How many ways can you Inquire?


Savi Wrote
What is the intent behind your Muhn Sau?

Dave: Wing Chun by its nature is not limited in this way. Awareness is the key. If my opponent has intention I may add to it, take it away, change it, control it, break it, or do the opposite of the intention.

What are the specific positions your elbow and wrist take to structure the Muhn Sau?

Dave: It is not important. I can Mun Sao from any position and any body structure. Lets call it Mun Fa! Inquiring Method.

Does the Wu Sau have any role to the Muhn Sau when you "ask" for the bridge?
Dave: Answer your own question. If it is within your system to have a specific position for Mun Sao test it and make sure it works. However, for me, my technical Mun Sao does use Wu Sao.

Why would you seek to bridge in the first place?

Dave: Creating a bridge always occurs. Sao Fa (Bridging Method) is occurring right now

Why even use a Muhn Sau?
Dave: See above!

Dave

[Savi]

Oh, I see Dave. Very eloquent indeed...hmmm. I guess there simply isn't much to engaging an opponent, because at the heart of it all it begins with "self". Well, that's what I'm reading from your posts. It seems to me, from your input on this topic that there is much indecisiveness during the moments of engagement.

But assuming what you have written is exactly what you are saying -then based on what you have shared I can understand where you are coming from, but that doesn't mean I agree with you.

From your response, you didn't really answer my question so I'll have to rephrase it to be more specific. I know there is much more, deeper knowledge than what you have shared so far - at least there is from where I come from.

Thanks for sharing today Dave. I'll catch up later.

[sauchi]

speaking theory and performing actions are two different things.

We can talk blue in the nose of how things should be or could be but if we don't jump in the water we will never learn how to swim.

Yes!, in wing chun we let the hands do ALLL of the talking, but if you don't know how to speak then you are out of luck.

--------------

Hey David,

What is up? Haven't talked to you in along time.

Matt Kwan

[JamesHFYofAZ]

So dave quick replay:
david-your starting idea- (1)Understanding timing distance and position, Using Jeet Fa!
-Then you use an Inquiring method(2)My statement is simple
My Mun Sau/Mun Fa is the question! My opponent responds. Then I beat him!
-but then you use Sau Fa after(3)Sao Fa (Bridging Method)...

?but after each method you have hitting right? Is it all about that or what?

You gave a few methods in progression but are lacking the substance that lies beneath!

[dave mckinnon]

Savi Wrote

Hi Savi

Oh, I see Dave. Very eloquent indeed...hmmm. I guess there simply isn't much to engaging an opponent, because at the heart of it all it begins with "self".

Dave: At the heart of it, it begins with awareness and releasing the self! Then there is spontaneous and correct action.

Well, that's what I'm reading from your posts. It seems to me, from your input on this topic that there is much indecisiveness during the moments of engagement.

Dave: You read wrong then. Wing Chun is decisiveness.

But assuming what you have written is exactly what you are saying -then based on what you have shared I can understand where you are coming from, but that doesn't mean I agree with you.

Dave: Okay

From your response, you didn't really answer my question so I'll have to rephrase it to be more specific. I know there is much more, deeper knowledge than what you have shared so far - at least there is from where I come from.

Dave: Of course. But the deeper the understanding the more we realize we already have everything we need. The rest is letting go and being aware and in the moment. And hard training!

Thanks for sharing today Dave. I'll catch up later.

Dave: Any time

Matt Wrote:

speaking theory and performing actions are two different things.

Dave: Yes but even writing is performing. I practice Wing Chun with everything I do!

We can talk blue in the nose of how things should be or could be but if we don't jump in the water we will never learn how to swim.

Dave: Yes but there are many types of swimming. Want to swim? The water here is nice and we are warming up for spring.

Yes!, in wing chun we let the hands do ALLL of the talking, but if you don't know how to speak then you are out of luck.

Dave: My Mun Fa talks before my hands. Sometimes that is all I need in a conversation and the person I am speaking with never has anything else to say! Want to talk? :) There are lots of nice places to meet and speak.

Hey David,

What is up? Haven't talked to you in along time.

Dave: Heh heh. Not much, Training for a fight and studying for my Masters degree. These posts are all in good fun and a welcome occasional distraction.

James wrote:

So dave quick replay:
david-your starting idea- (1)Understanding timing distance and position, Using Jeet Fa!

Dave: Yes – These are important

-Then you use an Inquiring method(2)My statement is simple
My Mun Sau/Mun Fa is the question! My opponent responds. Then I beat him!

Dave: Yes 100 battles 100 victories. Sometimes there is conflict sometimes not.

-but then you use Sao Fa after(3)Sao Fa (Bridging Method)...

?but after each method you have hitting right? Is it all about that or what?

Dave: No! 1 - Is understanding relation and energy 2 - is understanding intention 3 - is understanding method.

Dave: Each one could involve physical contact or not. All involve a resolution.

You gave a few methods in progression but are lacking the substance that lies beneath!

Dave: The volumes it would take to clearly express everything so that everyone could understand and trolls could not pick at it is not worth my energy or my time. I could explain better over tea.

Dave

[duende]

David,

Jeet Fa? That's just a flowery rip-off/description of Jit Kiu and you know it, or at least I hope you do for your sake.

A remarkable/market-able composite of HFY and Chi Sim.

For every forward remark you make online, your teacher Robert Chu back tracks in phone calls.

How many timely apologies must he make before you find your center??



The true nature of Jit Kiu is dependant on the Five Energies. End of story.

This... written by your Sifu from his own interpretation of our Ng Jan Chiu Min Jeui Ying has NOTHING to do with the Five Energies!

Here's the quote...

Enter on Response Check: After an opponent has delivered a blow, there is often a momentary pause for him to scan the extent of his damage and check for an additional response. This is an excellent time to enter and counterattack.



From this link...
http://www.hanweionline.org/wingchun/fiveprinciples.php


This is not Jit Kiu nor Jeet Fa, or whatever you want to rename it.

This is only wandering.

Find your center David.

[dave mckinnon]

Duende wrote:

Dave: Lets keep it civil please

David,

Jeet Fa? That's just a flowery rip-off/description of Jit Kiu and you know it, or at least I hope you do for your sake.

Dave: Jeet Fa is Intercepting method. I am not sure what Jit Kiu is. Can you explain? Jeet Fa is one of the 20+ key word methods I use to describe my Kung Fu. It describes one of the methods I have available to me within the framework of Wing Chun.

A remarkable/market-able composite of HFY and Chi Sim.

Dave: I see what you are getting at here. However, as has been discussed before many Wing Chun Kung Fu systems like HFY and CS Weng Chun contain key words. Also, Yuen Kay San, Gu Lao and many more. If you were to take the time read all of them you would notice that where there are similarities in my Key Word methods, they resemble some of the 12 – 14 used by YKS and GL. The others are very much more conceptual and have little to do with preexisting Key words. The key words are conceptual models and not a stylistic or systemic interpretation of anything.

Dave: As a side note, when the same topic was brought up, I received an e-mail from Andreas Hoffman discussing the variation between the key word methods and his key words. There was no conflict and you should look them up and do a side by side comparison.

For every forward remark you make online, your teacher Robert Chu back tracks in phone calls.

Dave: Really?

How many timely apologies must he make before you find your center??

Dave: The center is already there, one must just become aware of it!

The true nature of Jit Kiu is dependant on the Five Energies. End of story.

Dave: You need to tell me what Jit Kiu and the Five energies are.

This... written by your Sifu from his own interpretation of our Ng Jan Chiu Min Jeui Ying has NOTHING to do with the Five Energies!

Dave: We have discussed this in the past and we will just have to agree to disagree. The five stages of a strike (the last of which you quote below), and the 5-centerline theory are different. Maybe you can explain this "our Ng Jan Chiu Min Jeui Ying has NOTHING to do with the Five Energies," so I can see where you are coming from.

Here's the quote...

Enter on Response Check: After an opponent has delivered a blow, there is often a momentary pause for him to scan the extent of his damage and check for an additional response. This is an excellent time to enter and counterattack.

Dave: Yes this is a good article.

From this link...
http://www.hanweionline.org/wingchun/fiveprinciples.php


This is not Jit Kiu nor Jeet Fa, or whatever you want to rename it.

Dave: It’s a shame you did not read my previous posts because I was not talking about Jit Kiu nor the Jeet Fa presented in the article.
I am talking about the awareness model of Jeet Fa.

This is only wandering.

Dave: Is this a Burn?

Find your center David.

Dave:
Suo la, suo la; Mi di li ye; Xi li, xi li; Mo pe li sheng jie la ye

[duende]

Dave...

You yourself said you use "Jeet fa" or "intercepting method" in your second post and go on to basically talk about Mun Sau /Wu Sau (which is actually a part of Bai Jong)

Now you are talking about a supposed awareness model of Jeet Fa.... and understanding of intentions.

On top of that, your Sifu describes his version of Jeet Fa as something totally different completely. More on that later...

There is no center here. No true identity.

AGAIN... I say this is only wandering.

As far as talking is a civil manner.... make up your mind. There is no response check. Do you want to swim, or do you want to be civil??

[Cang Long]

Dave you just said You need to tell me what Jit Kiu and the Five energies are. If you really don't know what the five energies are you truly are lost. Read the book.

[dave mckinnon]

Duende Wrote:

Dave...

You yourself said you use "Jeet fa" or "intercepting method" in your second post and go on to basically talk about Mun Sau /Wu Sau (which is actually a part of Bai Jong)

Dave: Actually, I was talking about Mun Sau and Jeet Fa but I did not mention Wu Sau in any detail. Of course I use Bai Jong. Bai Jong is part of Mun Sao as well. Don’t you see?

Now you are talking about a supposed awareness model of Jeet Fa.... and understanding of intentions.

Dave: Sure!

On top of that, your Sifu describes his version of Jeet Fa as something totally different completely. More on that later...

Dave: Do you think Sifu Chu shares everthing in his articles? Do you think understanding is static? Do you think such deep concepts can be explained out of context? That would be like learning Tai Chi from a video!

There is no center here. No true identity.

AGAIN... I say this is only wandering.

Dave:
Originally there is no tree of enlightenment,
Nor is there a stand with a clear mirror.
From the beginning not one thing exists;
Where, then, is a grain of dust to cling?

Where is the center? Where is the identity?


As far as talking is a civil manner.... make up your mind. There is no response check. Do you want to swim, or do you want to be civil?

Dave: I have civil discussions. There is nothing civil in fighting! So if you need to challenge me! If we are here to talk and share, be civil!

Can Long Wrote

Dave you just said

quote:

You need to tell me what Jit Kiu and the Five energies are.

If you really don't know what the five energies are you truly are lost. Read the book.

Dave: If I say do palm up block, what is this? Is it the same to you as me? Then Duende can explain Jit Kiu and Five Energies and we can discuss.

__________________
Anthony W. Jacobs "Tony"


Saam dim yat sin ding yun san.


Thanks for all the fun conversation guys.

Dave:
Suo la, suo la; Mi di li ye; Xi li, xi li; Mo pe li sheng jie la ye

[sauchi]

**Ahhh, something to contemplate!!!!

Dave:
Originally there is no tree of enlightenment,
Nor is there a stand with a clear mirror.
From the beginning not one thing exists;
Where, then, is a grain of dust to cling?

**In the beginning, if nothing existed except the cosmos, assuming that there is something we can call a cosmos, then can we assume that the first thing to move something else (we will call the second thing) brings us to something new called motion.

**So the cause or the prime mover - must be the ultimate thing - since having the ability to move itself from nothing.

**As to where the grain would cling to? That depends on when the grain of dust came into existance of the Universe. :D

[JamesHFYofAZ]

Whats up with all the challenges David, you got something to prove? In almost every post you have asked for a challenge from one all of us, but your the one being civil, right? If you really are that adamant about it, you seek me and we shall talk TEA!
On with the discussion!
My quote :Your starting idea - (1)Understanding timing distance and position, Using Jeet Fa!
Your response wasYes – These are important What is most important? What do timing, distance and position have to do with the Jeet Fa (changed from jeet kiu).:D You talk position distance and timing as if you were not engaged yet???
I asked- Then you use an Inquiring method(2)My statement is simple
You replied with yes and some mumbo jumbo!
- How do you inquire?-
my post-but then you use Sao Fa after(3)Sao Fa (Bridging Method)...?but after each method you have hitting right? Is it all about that or what?
your reply-No! 1 - Is understanding relation and energy 2 - is understanding intention 3 - is understanding method.Each one could involve physical contact or not. All involve a resolution. 1) How? 2)what intention and in what way/s? 3) What methods and were do these methods lay?

You say-The volumes it would take to clearly express everything so that everyone could understand and trolls could not pick at it is not worth my energy or my time
Then i ask you, why are you here if you don't want to discuss?

[sauchi]

David,

perhaps you could give james, canlong, duende straight answers instead of philosophical ones so that we all can be enlightened by your wealth of experience.

thus we can have a better solid understanding from your perspectives - examples would be very help.

this would really promote A productive, educational and civil conversation

[dave mckinnon]

Sau Chi wrote:
**Ahhh, something to contemplate!!!!

Dave: Is anything ever complete?

Dave:
Originally there is no tree of enlightenment,
Nor is there a stand with a clear mirror.
From the beginning not one thing exists;
Where, then, is a grain of dust to cling?

**In the beginning, if nothing existed except the cosmos, assuming that there is something we can call a cosmos, then can we assume that the first thing to move something else (we will call the second thing) brings us to something new called motion.

Dave: Maybe?

**So the cause or the prime mover - must be the ultimate thing - since having the ability to move itself from nothing.

Dave: That ultimate thing is not the mind, nor the ego. It lacks identity. Truth lacks identity!

**As to where the grain would cling to? That depends on when the grain of dust came into existance of the Universe.

Dave: Interesting! Can that grain of sand cling to the ultimate thing?

James Wrote

Whats up with all the challenges David, you got something to prove?

Dave: Not at all! Duende wrote “Do you want to swim, or do you want to be civil?” so I chose to be open and call him on what he was saying.

In almost every post you have asked for a challenge from one all of us, but your the one being civil, right?

Dave: Yes, I am being civil. Thanks.

If you really are that adamant about it, you seek me and we shall talk TEA!

Dave: I’ll keep that in mind.

On with the discussion!

Dave: Discuss Discuss!

My quote :
quote:

Your starting idea - (1)Understanding timing distance and position, Using Jeet Fa!


Your response was
quote:

Yes – These are important

What is most important? What do timing, distance and position have to do with the Jeet Fa (changed from jeet kiu). You talk position distance and timing as if you were not engaged yet???

Dave: Hello! Timing Distance and Positioning are vital. Jeet Fa cannot occur without them. Do I need to be engaged to use these? Mental or physical engagement.

Before contact, is there timing distance and positioning?
After contact what is added? – Structure method Chi, Mo and 4 energy (Spit Swallow Sink Float)

In between no contact and contact, what is here? Jeet Fa!

I asked-
quote:

Then you use an Inquiring method (2)My statement is simple


You replied with yes and some mumbo jumbo!
- How do you inquire?-

Dave: Are you sure you are asking the correct question?
If I hit you, then I am inquiring
If I advance, I am inquiring
If I get in my car and leave, this is an inquiry
If I type on an Internet forum I am inquiring
To inquire is to be inquisitive is to ask what happens next based on this stimulus.

my post
quote:

-but then you use Sao Fa after(3)Sao Fa (Bridging Method)...?but after each method you have hitting right? Is it all about that or what?


your reply-
quote:

No! 1 - Is understanding relation and energy 2 - is understanding intention 3 - is understanding method.Each one could involve physical contact or not. All involve a resolution.

1) How? 2)what intention and in what way/s? 3) What methods and were do these methods lay?

Dave:
1) Understanding relation to opponent and energy we share and do not share
2) Yes, what intention and in what ways. What is your intention and in what way do you intend to use it and in what way do I intend to do something with the energy.
3) Method supersedes style or system. Method and frame are Wing Chun: Kiu Sao, Chi Sao, Gor Sao are not important after this, as long as they fall within the conceptual model.

Think:
Integration of Concept
Integration of body
Integration of Concept with body
Tools will fall into place!

You say-
quote:

The volumes it would take to clearly express everything so that everyone could understand and trolls could not pick at it is not worth my energy or my time


Then i ask you, why are you here if you don't want to discuss?

Dave: Specifics are stylistic at best. How are your fingers shaped in Bong Sao? Concepts are at the root of functional Wing Chun. Not only having them but having an almost unconscious knowledge and awareness of them, and yet still be able to use them for strategy and formulation in examine the art. The Concepts become the diagnostic tools for the art. And in turn the art tests the diagnostic tools.

Dave

Suo la, suo la; Mi di li ye; Xi li, xi li; Mo pe li sheng jie la ye

[t_niehoff]

duende wrote:

Jeet Fa? That's just a flowery rip-off/description of Jit Kiu and you know it, or at least I hope you do for your sake.

A remarkable/market-able composite of HFY and Chi Sim.

--------

Believe it or not, the sun doesn't rise or set based on Garrett's HFY and Andreas' Chi Sim. "Jeet" is one of the keywords of YKS WCK and is part of the "method" (faat) of every branch of WCK. That concept has been well-known (though apparently still not well-understood) since before Garrett's HFY and Andreas' Chi Sim became "public" -- Bruce named his art "Jeet" Kune Do (did Bruce steal it from Garrett too?), many people in YMWCK talk about jeet (damn! everyone ripping-off Garrett!), etc. So this is not something that anyone "took" from Garrett's HFY or Andreas' CS. Similarly, concepts like kiu, bai jong, mun, etc. have been around long before Garrett's HFY or Andreas' CS went "public."

[duende]

Originally posted by dave mckinnon


Dave: I have civil discussions. There is nothing civil in fighting! So if you need to challenge me! If we are here to talk and share, be civil!


Dave: Not at all! Duende wrote “Do you want to swim, or do you want to be civil?” so I chose to be open and call him on what he was saying.




Dave,

You didn't call me on anything. You just finally caught up with the program.

Your sidebar challenges prevent any civility from taking place here whatsoever.

All are welcome here, but this kind of attitude is NOT.

You say you are expressing your WC. You say WC is decisiveness.

Well maybe now that it is all spelled out for you, you can finally make a decision.

Is this the nature of your JEET FA?

For us WC is not about decisions or decisiveness. It is not about premeditation or intentions.
And it definitely is not about lucky tricks and false hopes that your opponent is amateur enough to stop and see how you are doing after finally connecting a blow.

We deal with the energy for what it is. Just like I've done with you. Our WC nature takes over. Their are no decisions, only flow.

Their is much to the understanding of Jit Kiu. But one must earn it.

Therefore, there is nothing more to share at this time.

[duende]

Originally posted by t_niehoff
duende wrote:

Jeet Fa? That's just a flowery rip-off/description of Jit Kiu and you know it, or at least I hope you do for your sake.

A remarkable/market-able composite of HFY and Chi Sim.

--------

Believe it or not, the sun doesn't rise or set based on Garrett's HFY and Andreas' Chi Sim. "Jeet" is one of the keywords of YKS WCK and is part of the "method" (faat) of every branch of WCK. That concept has been well-known (though apparently still not well-understood) since before Garrett's HFY and Andreas' Chi Sim became "public" -- Bruce named his art "Jeet" Kune Do (did Bruce steal it from Garrett too?), many people in YMWCK talk about jeet (damn! everyone ripping-off Garrett!), etc. So this is not something that anyone "took" from Garrett's HFY or Andreas' CS. Similarly, concepts like kiu, bai jong, mun, etc. have been around long before Garrett's HFY or Andreas' CS went "public."

NO, you believe what you need to believe. I just call it like I see it. And it sounds like GM Hoffman called it as well.

Now you have the 5 center-lines. Ha! One can only guess what your interpretations of that concept will be.

[Cang Long]

Dave: If I say do palm up block, what is this? Is it the same to you as me? Then Duende can explain Jit Kiu and Five Energies and we can discuss.
The five energies are Wood Fire Metal Earth & Water The names of which are not subject to change so the question was if you knew what they were not if you knew how to apply them certainly you could not apply what you have no knowledge of.

David,
In Kung fu as in life there are those that know, those willing to admit they don't know and those that only think they know. First you post as if you know then you refute questions with questions (similiar to hendrik) if you don't know just admit it and life would be so much easier we are all here to learn your methods do not appear to be conducive to learning.

[Cang Long]

Terence,
Can you describe Jeef Fa in detail for us all.

[JamesHFYofAZ]

I see Jacks back!:rolleyes:
Dave, Stop arguing semantics and start producing answers. And yes you have ask for challenges: Savi, Alex, Tony, Matt, as well as myself. Your going to have alot on your door step, if you don't slow down!:D and stop contradicting yourself! ANYWAYS!
Dave: Hello! Timing Distance and Positioning are vital. Jeet Fa cannot occur without them. Do I need to be engaged to use these? Mental or physical engagement.
I asked, what is the most important? Hello? T,D, & P are vital in any time frame! don't ask me questions about your understanding because you will not get answers you like! Go ahead and explain!
After contact what is added? – Structure method Chi, Mo and 4 energy (Spit Swallow Sink Float) Care to explain? Funny how you lack the rest of the energies that can occur!
(Cheap shot) How many systems do you incorporate into your own style?:D
Dave: Are you sure you are asking the correct question? I would not of asked it other wise.
To inquire is to be inquisitive is to ask what happens next based on this stimulus. Are you combining the languages of energy and bridges in this little message? just say it, stop spitting out these foo foo lines like your some kind of philosopher!
David-1) Understanding relation to opponent and energy we share and do not shareYou cant share with out contact??????????
2) Yes, what intention and in what ways. What is your intention and in what way do you intend to use it and in what way do I intend to do something with the energy. bla bla. Why can't you give straight answers?
3) Method supersedes style or system. Method and frame are Wing Chun: Kiu Sao, Chi Sao, Gor Sao are not important after this, as long as they fall within the conceptual model. A) systems have the methods within!!!! B) Method and frame are Wing Chun! What?? and ALL are important this is why they are train!!!
Concepts are at the root of functional Wing Chun. Not only having them but having an almost unconscious knowledge and awareness of them, and yet still be able to use them for strategy and formulation in examine the art. The Concepts become the diagnostic tools for the art. And in turn the art tests the diagnostic tools. I thought we were talking methods?

[dave mckinnon]

Duende

For us WC is not about decisions or decisiveness. It is not about premeditation or intentions.

Dave: Okay, premeditate. Then you get hit!
Train for various scenarios. Fight with awareness and presence.

And it definitely is not about lucky tricks and false hopes that your opponent is amateur enough to stop and see how you are doing after finally connecting a blow.

Dave: Ha ha, shows how you do not understand response check or basic Yin and Yang. Maybe you should ask a better questions!

We deal with the energy for what it is. Just like I've done with you. Our WC nature takes over. Their are no decisions, only flow.

Dave: Dealt with me?

Their is much to the understanding of Jit Kiu. But one must earn it.

Dave: Okay, go earn it.

Therefore, there is nothing more to share at this time.

Dave: Actually, I do not believe you have ever shared anything. But you can always start.

Cang Long

quote:

Dave: If I say do palm up block, what is this? Is it the same to you as me? Then Duende can explain Jit Kiu and Five Energies and we can discuss.


The five energies are Wood Fire Metal Earth & Water The names of which are not subject to change so the question was if you knew what they were not if you knew how to apply them certainly you could not apply what you have no knowledge of.

Dave: Hiya! I know 5 element theory. I have never heard it used as 5 energy but that’s okay. Its all semantics to me. When using this theory do you use creation, destruction and insulting cycles or are they used singularly?

Dave: can you now explain Jit Kiu and Five Energies and we can discuss.


David,

In Kung fu as in life there are those that know, those willing to admit they don't know and those that only think they know.

Dave: Sure, and maybe those that are aware and centered and are past knowing.

First you post as if you know then you refute questions with questions (similiar to hendrik) if you don't know just admit it and life would be so much easier we are all here to learn your methods do not appear to be conducive to learning.

Dave: I was replying to questions with questions that were designed to cause people to think and foster conversation. Instead I get trolling!

Dave

Suo la, suo la; Mi di li ye; Xi li, xi li; Mo pe li sheng jie la ye

[Cang Long]

Dave: Sure, and maybe those that are aware and centered and are past knowing. As I stated earlier there are those that know those that admit they don't know and those that use the term maybe.

[dave mckinnon]

James Wrote:

I see Jacks back!
Dave, Stop arguing semantics and start producing answers.

Dave: Sure!

And yes you have ask for challenges: Savi, Tony, Matt, as well as myself. Your going to have alot on your door step, if you don't slow down!

Dave: I like visitors. Please come to my kwoon any time.
and stop contradicting yourself! ANYWAYS!
Dave: Anyway!
quote:

Dave: Hello! Timing Distance and Positioning are vital. Jeet Fa cannot occur without them. Do I need to be engaged to use these? Mental or physical engagement.


I asked, what is the most important? Hello? T,D, & P are vital in any time frame!

Dave: James, Wing Chun is more holistic then that. T,D & P are vital and used together. Timing could be a little more important but it can’t work by itself.

don't ask me questions about your understanding because you will not get answers you like! Go ahead and explain!

Dave: I am asking what you think! Can you intercept without Timing, Distance, and Positioning? Are the concepts used in Wing Chun mental or physical? Can you apply them in both.
quote:

After contact what is added? – Structure method Chi, Mo and 4 energy (Spit Swallow Sink Float)

Care to explain? Funny how you lack the rest of the energies that can occur!
(Cheap shot) How many systems do you incorporate into your own style?

Dave: Confucius stated that if a student was smart he could be shown a corner of a table and figure out the other four. Since we do not use the same language to describe our art, all I can do is explain small parts of it. I do not think it is possible for anyone to describe the totality of the art in an e-mail and so we pick parts to talk about. When people stop being clever and discuss these parts, then we could learn. Some stuff. As far as your question, no styles!

*** I train to apply the Wing Chun Method, I put the conceptual framework into application at the right time, place and distance. ***
quote:

Dave: Are you sure you are asking the correct question?

I would not of asked it other wise.
quote:

To inquire is to be inquisitive is to ask what happens next based on this stimulus.

Are you combining the languages of energy and bridges in this little message? just say it, stop spitting out these foo foo lines like your some kind of philosopher!

David-

Dave: Mun Sao – asking – asking gives information – information helps direct the art.
quote:

1) Understanding relation to opponent and energy we share and do not share




You cant share with out contact??????????

Dave: Yes you can!
quote:

2) Yes, what intention and in what ways. What is your intention and in what way do you intend to use it and in what way do I intend to do something with the energy.

bla bla. Why can't you give straight answers?

Dave: Sorry, I do not think you are getting my point here. We all have intention. You intended to get out of bed this morning. That is intention. If you have an intention toward me, I have an intention to not do something or to do something. If your intention is more then mine, then maybe your intention wins. If my intention is better mine prevails. But T,D & P plus structure can sometimes nullify intention.
quote:

3) Method supersedes style or system. Method and frame are Wing Chun: Kiu Sao, Chi Sao, Gor Sao are not important after this, as long as they fall within the conceptual model.

A) systems have the methods within!!!! B) Method and frame are Wing Chun What? and ALL are important this is why they are train!!!

Dave:
A) Sure systems contain methods but systems are training methods. Conceptual methods on the other hand supersede systems and training methods. But to be fair, you need Systems and training methods to transcend them.
B) Method/Concept & Frame/Body integrate and the tools fall into place.

Think:
Integration of Concept
Integration of body
Integration of Concept with body
Tools will fall into place!
quote:

Concepts are at the root of functional Wing Chun. Not only having them but having an almost unconscious knowledge and awareness of them, and yet still be able to use them for strategy and formulation in examine the art. The Concepts become the diagnostic tools for the art. And in turn the art tests the diagnostic tools.

I thought we were talking methods?

Dave: Conceptual methods not training methods! Concepts direct the art and are used to test the art.

Dave

[Cang Long]

Dave: I was replying to questions with questions that were designed to cause people to think and foster conversation. Instead I get trolling! Again the valid and proven methods of learning are questions and answers not questions and questions and what we receive is always equal to or even greater than what we offer Dave you are no different.

[duende]

More sidebar nonsense... :rolleyes:

I have offered some real insight into the nature of Jit Kiu. With every post, I've added a bit more knowledge of this nature.

It is your preoccupations with such sidebar foolishness that prevents you from seeing this and more.



So far all we've gotten out of your Jeet Fa is a need for lot's of decisions and lot's of questions.
:o

[t_niehoff]

Duende,

You can believe whatever you want, but "jeet" has been a part of WCK since before anyone ever heard of Garrett's HFY or Andreas' Chi Sim (it's even mentioned in articles and books that pre-date HFY/CS). Just like the 5 elementtheory (your "energies") have been a part of chinese cosmology and TCMAs, like XingYi, before anyone ever heard of Garrett's HFY or Andreas' Chi Sim. The mere fact that Garrett uses these things in teaching his WCK doesn't mean others took them from him; they were "out there" long before he was.

canglong,

I could, but it wouldn't help -- go visit Dave. He's invited you guys, it's a short trip and he'll be more than happy to show you jeet faat in action. Perhaps you can show him the error of his ways. ;)

[Savi]

This thread really turned out to be a waste.

Isn't this supposed to be the HFY discussion sub-forum??? Perhaps you guys should carry over your conversation to one of the other sub-forums instead.

[Cang Long]

Terence,
The one with the answers is the one sought after not one needlessly in pursuit of someone with only questions and no answers. Dave can keep his questions and his illusion that answers are derived from questions within questions. ;)

[duende]

Terence you've stated the obvious. However that in itself has nothing to do with my questioning of Dave's usage of the term.

Like Savi stated, this is the HFY sub-forum. With that in mind, I question Dave's presentation and interpretation of the term. I question Robert's understanding of the term Jeet, or at least what he presented in his article in the link I provided.

That would have all been fine however, as we all have our different understandings...

IF... it weren't for the amount of bad energy being presented by Dave as well.

You have both stated that you want to move on from past conflicts.

If it is true and you have decided to do this... then do it.

There is no response check. There is only the expression and following of one's nature.

[Savi]

Just curious, does anyone think that Loi Lau Hoi Sung plays any role in seeking a bridge? And if not, is there another concept you apply when engaging the enemy?

[t_niehoff]

Duende,

You were the one that brought my sifu into the discussion, and in a negative light -- now you try to say that it is me that should move on from past conflicts. I wouldn't even be posting here if you hadn't opened your mouth to say something negative about my sifu. So you are the one being a hypocrite. I'd expect that if I went over to KFO and began saying negative things about Garrett, how he is a thief or a charlatan, for example, certainly I would expect you to respond. Don't you have the common sense to see that? As I said before, leave him out of it. But if you want to play those games, I can play too.

Now, I'll let you all go back to discussing your theory.

[duende]

Terence,

Just like if I went to your school's forum sub-section and brought bad energy and made idle sidebar challenges. I'd expect you to respond.

Like I said before. Their are no decisions, only flow.

Sometimes that can come in the form of change.

[t_niehoff]

WTF happened to my post? Is this how it's going to be? Say trash about my sifu and then don't let me respond. Fine. I can go elsewhere and talk about these things -- maybe you should think about that before deleting my posts. So, put it back up or I'll just post it on KFO.

[Savi]

Defending your Sifu is one thing, and I have no issue with that. Posting for the sake of negativity is quite another.

Rephrase your post without the BS. How's that?

[Savi]

I believe this will answer some of the questions posed here:

Originally posted by William E:


As stated, there are 4 major catagory that make up the Hung Fa Yi identity each based on one or more underlying concepts. To answer your question specifically regarding San Da the Ng Jan Chi Min Jeui Ying we must first understand what this means so that we are speaking the same language.

San Da is one of the 4 major Hung Fa YI catagories. We equate San Da to free sparring against an opponent. The Term Ng Jan Chi Min Jeui Ying has it’s own unique identity within the Hung Fa Yi system. In other styles of WC, there is the concept of the five phases of combat which have specific meanings and are linear in nature moving from one stage to another. This is not Hung Fa Yi. We also have the “five elemental battle arrays for facing and persuit” each with very specific criteria.

Baai Jong – Facing your opponent with very specific reference points...
Jit Kiu – Intercepting Bridge.
Chum Kiu – Destroying the Bridge.
Jeui Ying – Chasing your opponent to obtain a superior position.
Wui Ma – Recover.

The interesting difference is that we also take into consideration the Five Elemental Energies (wood, fire, earth, metal, water) and how they relate to human nature. The deployment of a particular array is dependent on the energy that I experience and flow with. It DOES NOT mean that I am going to perform a set of pre-determined techniques (i.e. entry technique) that have nothing to do with the energy that I am receiving from my opponent. My ultimate goal is to maintain my centerline with forward energy. Based on my developed sensitivity and the elemental energy that I’m receiving I may move from one array to another in a random fashion which is exactly how energy is applied to nature – randomly.

To give an example, if I am going to engage my opponent from Baai Jong position who is throwing a straight punch to my upper gate a couple of things might happen. My opponent may have very weak energy which would allow me to do a tan da with a simultaneous attack and defense move which allows me to go from Baai Jong to Chum Kui without the need for Jit Kui. If my opponent however has some skill and performs his own pak we may then be in a Jit Kui timeframe. To include the energy aspect, if my opponent enters my space with some serious “wood” energy it would not allow me the opportunity to Tan never mind Da but would require me to either maintain a strong Jong Sau or worst force me into a defensive bong sau position.

[duende]

Originally posted by t_niehoff
WTF happened to my post? Is this how it's going to be? Say trash about my sifu and then don't let me respond. Fine. I can go elsewhere and talk about these things -- maybe you should think about that before deleting my posts. So, put it back up or I'll just post it on KFO.

Terence,

I don't know what posts you're talking about, but I'm sure it was done for a reason. Unlike the Wing Chun Mailing List, where you wrote many unwarranted slanderous attacks on my lineage. While at the same time your buddy Rene conveniantly neglected to allow me or my brothers to join and therefore respond.


No one said trash about your Sifu. I don't agree with his interpretation of the concept Jit Kiu.

The facts are, Robert wrongly took information without permission from our school.

As a consequence of this... you have Dave posting wandering notions of the concept of Jeet Kiu, mixing it up with Bai Jong, and throwing in alot of lucky punch/amateur fighting theory.

Don't blame us for your bad Karma. Your idle threats mean nothing to us.

[t_niehoff]

Here you go again with "Robert wrongly took info from your school" and "mixed it up" -- how can Robert steal something that is common to WCK? YKS, for example, has dap, jeet, chum, biu, chi as the keywords for describing the method. Did YKS steal it from Garrett too? In case you didn't know, bai jong is a part of dap -- you can't join without structure. Jeet, bai jong, etc. are also terms used in YM WCK. I guess Yip stole it from Garrett too?

To be quite frank, you guys are too big on yourselves -- no one that I know, including Robert, *wants* to steal your information. And for two very good reasons. First, while I don't expect you to understand, skill in WCK has nothing to do with the "information" you possess. Nonfighter/theoreticians always believe it is about knowledge when in reality, it's not. Particularly, it's not about the sort of knowledge that can be transmitted or stolen. Go ask a really good fighter in any fighting method -- someone that has fought top-notch fighters (and not just calls themselves master or grandmaster) -- if what makes them so good is secret knowledge or if its their "knowledge" that makes them so skilled. They'll look at you like you're crazy. Skill doesn't come from knowledge; knowledge - the kind that matters - comes from skill.

Second, if anyone was going to steal something, it would be something of value (who wants to steal something worthless?). And as I said above, while nonfighter/theoreticians may believe that their theory is priceless, others see it as empty. Our lineage motto is "let application be your sifu." We recognize that anything of value comes from application not from some blackboard.

[duende]

Using Jit or Jeet as in Jit Kiu. As in being a part of
Bai Jong, Jit Kiu, Chum Kiu, Juei Ying, Wu Ma...
is Ng Jan Chiu Min Juei Ying.... This is part of our HFY genetic code. No one else uses these terms together this way.

As far as the rest of your post... I couldn't disagree more.

Without knowledge and information. One is wandering. Finding and developing skill may come, but it takes a hell of a longtime, and never achieves true focus.

All fighting systems have their own system's concepts and knowledge that they employ when they train hard.

The only one that sees this as empty is you.

[t_niehoff]

There's no such thing as a "genetic code" for martial arts -- more theoretical nonsense. But if you want to believe that these things make you "special", then by all means, go on believing it.

I was quite certain that you would disagree. That's why I even said "while I don't expect you to understand". Developing skill doesn't take that long, if one is doing the right things. Doing the wrong things, it will never come. And there is only one way to know if you're doing the right or the wrong things. And theory ain't it, demo's ain't it, chi sao ain't it. :) But let's leave it at we have differences -- and I was pointing out those differences in how we view things solely to demonstrate why no one that I'm associated with would want to steal your "special" or "unique" theory.

[dmilner321]

Originally posted by t_niehoff
Developing skill doesn't take that long, if one is doing the right things.

That's a nice theory, Terence.

[t_niehoff]

No theory -- it's easy to prove. And in fact, how one tells that they are doing the right things is that there is significant progress in a short period of time. And how one tells they are not doing the right things is that there is not significant progress in a short period of time.

[Savi]

Terence's frame of reference is that if he does not understand something, then it doesn't exist. So I have to ask, why even discuss with him, when his conversation leaves no room for others to exist?

Perhaps he can prove me wrong, but the conversation so far is pointless.

[JamesHFYofAZ]

To be quite frank, you guys are too big on yourselves
This is not true in the least, we stand firm in what we know, and as you your self have agreed in the past, we should defend what we believe is real and works.
There's no such thing as a "genetic code" for martial arts -- more theoretical nonsense. But if you want to believe that these things make you "special", then by all means, go on believing it.
Let me get this straight, we should go ahead and believe what we understand but from your point of view it does not exist. This is why it's special to HFY members, because you do not posses the meaning. Kind of like the five elemental battle arrays for facing and pursuit that have, in the past, been lost in translation. This is my belief, that hung fa yi has the knowledge behind the true meanings in principle and concepts that have never been publicized. Then, others either adopt or better understand what is being presented to the open public. This is to be expected, but what is not is people finding out new understanding, incorporating them(loosing meaning), and not being respectful about it. Time goes on and thing progress, this is nature and nature bring thing to new beginnings.
So yes, It's easy to say that one is at a special moment in nature and in the Path that HFY has provided!

[Op108wc]

Originally posted by Terence
Here you go again with "Robert wrongly took info from your school" and "mixed it up" -- how can Robert steal something that is common to WCK? YKS, for example, has dap, jeet, chum, biu, chi as the keywords for describing the method.


The reputation of someone who knows what he has to do is honorable and inspires confidence, but to be considered a hypocrite is deceptive and arouse mistrust.


Originally posted by duende
Using Jit or Jeet as in Jit Kiu. As in being a part of
Bai Jong, Jit Kiu, Chum Kiu, Juei Ying, Wu Ma...
is Ng Jan Chiu Min Juei Ying.... This is part of our HFY genetic code. No one else uses these terms together this way.

You are correct.

And where did Robert get his "Bai Jong, Jit Kiu, Chum Kiu, Juei Ying, Wu Ma from" ?

Sauchi has something to say...!!!


Originally posted by Sauchi


Some things just **** ME OFF - “repackaged” and "relabeled", the company in these internet forums concedes they do not consider HFYWCK to be Wing Chun at all.

Let me say something about REPACKAGING and RELABELED and perhaps the Author of this note should run back to his SIFU and ask him about it.

Not to long ago a certain Master X from LA came to our school to visit Sifu Gee before completing his Wing Chun book. Master X happened to be the teacher of this POSTER.

I happened to be there that night. Master X had walked in with his HEIR of Arrogance stating that “Wing Chun is like THIS and Not THAT”. It’s no wonder his student turned out like the way his is. How misguided.

Anyways after Sifu Gee let Master X spew out his opinion of what Wing Chun is, Sifu Gee told him that that is the Master X’s own Wing Chun but it is not the way we understand Wing Chun because we follow a set of concept and principle as opposed a the collection of moves in a certain manner.

Sifu Gee explained a little to Master X about some of the concepts of Wing Chun. Suddenly the ****y Master X tried humbling his attitude. After talking to Sifu Gee, Master X ask Sifu Gee if Master X could be Sifu personal student.

During he course of the night Master X turned to my Sihing John Murphy and asked him if could have a piece of paper (out of all of us in the room about 20, Master X ignored everybody and only spoke to Sifu Gee and John Murphy) and proceed to copy every thing he could find.

That night Sifu Gee had Ng Jan Chiu Min Jeui Ying (Baai Jong, jit Kiu, Chum Kiu, Jeui Ying and Wiu Ma) on the board.

The next thing we know some time shortly after Master X left our school, Master X quickly posted his notes oF “Ng Jan Chiu Min Jeui Ying” from his visit with Sifu Gee on a website as articles and also had “Ng Jan Chiu Min Jeui Ying” printed in a Martial arts Magazine as his teaching and knowledge without paying any respect to Sifu Gee or our Wing Chun Family which is where he learned it from.

The funny thing is that Master X didn’t know what was the correct meaning behind the words – Just because a person knows Chinese doesn’t mean a person knows the correct translation from the original Chinese Characters. Master X tried to decipher his brief notes and came up with his own interpretation without thinking that there could be more to know than what he copied. What a JoKE.!

Now LET’S Talk about REPACKAGING!! The Student who posted this Should really know who is “repackaging” and who is BrainWashed!!! He should ask his MASTER who did his master learn this from.

This person should WAKE UP and smell the coffee OR turn around and LOOK IN THE MIRROR ask himself "Am I learning the real deal or something else?"


SAUCHI

In every trial, let understanding fight for you. Many do not know that they do not know, and many think they know when they know nothing.

[t_niehoff]

Savi, certainly "theory" and "belief" exists, just as "illusion" and "delusion" exists.

James, it's more accurate to say that you "stand firm in what you *believe*." Belief without evidence is faith. Faith is the staple of the realm of religion, sects, and cults, not fighting arts. You guys always talk about knowledge, belief, understanding, etc.; skill exists outside of these things. Your whole SMK is based on accumulating "knowledge" or "understanding"; that will never lead one to skill. WCK is a physical endeavor like any other. The same "rules" apply to it as they do to any physical endeavor (sports, athletics, other fighting methods, etc.). But you believe you're "special" or "unique", that these "rules" don't apply to you -- this is magical thinking.

Op108WC,

As I've said, those "terms" are not unique to HFY; they were in use long before Garrett started teaching his WCK -- perhaps Garrett took them from others? I mean, you can't prove Garrett didn't get them from others, can you? ;)

But I do want to address this part of the post you cite: "He should ask his MASTER who did his master learn this from." This reveals exactly what I was saying above -- you beleive it is about "getting it" from someone else. It's not. Who did Dan Gable learn to wrestle from? Who did Mohammed Ali learn to box from? Who taught Andre Agassi how to play tennis? And where did their teachers get their info from? The answer: who cares! Do you think their skill came from knowledge imparted? LOL! Nor does anyone in wrestling or boxing or tennis think they "own" some information. The info you are so concerned about is "superficial". Skill doesn't come from your sifu or from this information, and no one "owns" that information. The important "knowledge" comes from the doing of the activity itself, not from others. Anyone fighting with WCK would "know" that.

[JamesHFYofAZ]

-James, it's more accurate to say that you "stand firm in what you *believe*." Belief without evidence is faith.
****To say ther is no endevor is as ignorant as your arument!
-You guys always talk about knowledge, belief, understanding, etc.; skill exists outside of these things.
**** If you don't understand what you're doing how can you relate to your opponent?
-Your whole SMK is based on accumulating "knowledge" or "understanding"; that will never lead one to skill.
**** This shows that you don't understand SMK. Do you understand how to taan, bong, fuk? Do you understand how to kick? This is SMK, not just sitting back pondering thing, this is allussion.:rolleyes: you must have both to acqire knowledge, not one or the other, both yin and yang must apply in life.
-But you believe you're "special" or "unique", that these "rules" don't apply to you -- this is magical thinking.
****this is your openion, not reality! All rule of sience apply, this is a unique system, and I do feel special to be were I am. Tough if you don't understand or agree, that is your flau not mine! :D
-As I've said, those "terms" are not unique to HFY
**** The term may have simularities but they do not carry the same meaning. We all have faat, Jeet, other WORDS, but they do not carry the same meaning as they do in HFY.
-He should ask his MASTER who did his master learn this from."
Now it doesn't matter!?!?!!?!?
And I'm sure thier coaches did'nt go around to other boxing, tenis, wrestiling.. and adapt knowledge for personal gain, They gained it through personal experience and training. please your arguing like a lawer with no case, o wait!!! you are! :rolleyes:

[Op108wc]

Originally posted by t_niehoff
And where did their teachers get their info from? The answer: who cares!

Master X and his "Bai Jong, Jeet Kiu, Chum Kiu, Juei Ying, Wui Ma".

Terry and his spoon!

Does the spoon taste the soup? A fool may learn all his kung fu in the company of Master X and still miss the way.

Originally posted by James
And I'm sure thier coaches did'nt go around to other boxing, tenis, wrestiling.. and adapt knowledge for personal gain, They gained it through personal experience and training. please your arguing like a lawer with no case, o wait!!! you are!

Whatever Master X learns from other coaches, it only makes him more (X?X?X?). Knowledge cleaves his head.

[Jonathan_AZ]

Originally posted by t_niehoff
No theory -- it's easy to prove. And in fact, how one tells that they are doing the right things is that there is significant progress in a short period of time. And how one tells they are not doing the right things is that there is not significant progress in a short period of time.

Terence,

This statement sounds to me like trial and error if you have no 'theory', 'understanding', etc.
WHAT tells someone they are making significant progress?
With what do you measure ones progress against? Is it some 'magical' means that you say 'hey I think that worked?
Sounds like you are speaking 'theory' to me.

Do you believe that when learning HFY everyone sits on the floor and discusses 'theory' for a few hours and goes home? You said "Your whole SMK is based on accumulating "knowledge" or "understanding"; that will never lead one to skill".
Maybe you think again this 'accumulating knowledge or understanding' is done by sitting around and chatting for hours on end with no touching of hands? Maybe you think our skills are all theoretical?
Perhaps you do not understand SMK?

Jonathan

[Jonathan_AZ]

-

[t_niehoff]

Jonathan wrote:

This statement sounds to me like trial and error if you have no 'theory', 'understanding', etc.

**Not at all, I just approach WCK like it is any physical endeavor. How do folks get really good at basketball or tennis? They learn the fundamentals, drill the fundamentals, and get out on the court and do it a lot. That's how boxers, wrestlers, MT, BJJ, etc. -- real fighters, train too. "Theory" or "understanding" or "knowledge" is the focus of theoreticians.

WHAT tells someone they are making significant progress?

**Results.

With what do you measure ones progress against?

**Other skilled fighters. How does one tell they are progressing in BJJ? They are able to "hold their own" against better BJJ practitioners. How does one measure their progress in boxing? They are able to hold their own against better boxers. There is no other way to measure progress.

Is it some 'magical' means that you say 'hey I think that worked?
Sounds like you are speaking 'theory' to me.

**By "magical", I mean magical thinking. WCK is a physical endeavor and how one will develop skill in it will be the same as any other physical endeavor. To believe differently is magical thinking -- that somehow, magically, the "rules" that apply to every other physical endeavor don't apply to WCK.

Do you believe that when learning HFY everyone sits on the floor and discusses 'theory' for a few hours and goes home? You said "Your whole SMK is based on accumulating "knowledge" or "understanding"; that will never lead one to skill".
Maybe you think again this 'accumulating knowledge or understanding' is done by sitting around and chatting for hours on end with no touching of hands? Maybe you think our skills are all theoretical?
Perhaps you do not understand SMK?

**What I do know, is how all good fighters -- the one's we can see actually fight -- train. And I know how they talk and think; because when you train the way they do, you gain a certain perspective. That perspective is easy to recognize, and all good fighters have it. When folks don't train that way, they get all kinds of different perspectives. Then you know they are not really training to be fighters.

[Jonathan_AZ]

Terence,

I guess, before I comment to your responces, I would really like to know, in your fighting wisdom, where do you think I 'fall' in my training? Am I simply a theoreotician? Do I have 'skills' if I have not gotten them 'your way' - which seems to be the ONLY way in your view? Do you believe I don't train the way you speak?
Being a HFY practitioner, what perspectives do you believe I have?
I feel these are important to the conversation so I can understand exactly your perspective before I comment.

Jonathan

[t_niehoff]

Jonathan wrote:

I guess, before I comment to your responces, I would really like to know, in your fighting wisdom,

**It's not "my" fighting wisdom -- I'm talking about what all fighters do, simply stating the obvious.

where do you think I 'fall' in my training? Am I simply a theoreotician? Do I have 'skills' if I have not gotten them 'your way' - which seems to be the ONLY way in your view? Do you believe I don't train the way you speak?
Being a HFY practitioner, what perspectives do you believe I have?

**I don't know anything about you personally. But there is only one way to get significant fighting (including WCK) skill -- and it isn't *my* way because I certainly didn't invent it. It's what all good fighters do; it's what anyone who gets good at a physical endeavor, sport, activity, etc. does. It's not rocket science. Do I believe HFY folks train like this? Let's just say from the things I hear (including on this forum), I don't think so. If these folks were training like fighters, they wouldn't say the things they do, they wouldn't have the perspective they do.

[duende]

Jonathon,

For Someone who "trains" so much. Terence spends more time on these boards than most.

He also has yet to provide any proof of his own gaining this "fighting perspective" skill in realitiy whatsoever.

Yet he always wants from others what he is unwilling to provide himself.

Same old story.
:o


With that said, I do agree that training is priority #1.

But if you don't know how to do a fook sau... or are taught to do it in such a way that your options are severly limited (like this Biu Gee student from Europe who came to our school last night) then it's going to take you alot longer to refine your tools.

All his fook sau had was the option to chum sau. But even then, in order for him to express it, it gave an opening.

Our Fook gives us the option to chum sau, gum sau, and huen sau. With no openings and full control.

Do the math. Four years and still no fully useable fook is a lot of wasted time.



Yes we all talk theory on these boards. EVERYONE does. Why?? Because that's all the medium pretty much allows. But often, as we in HFY our constantly saying... the time comes when only hand to hand communication will do. No pictures, no books, no forums.

[t_niehoff]

duende wrote:

Jonathon,

For Someone who "trains" so much. Terence spends more time on these boards than most.

**Yeah, this is what you do, Jonathan, when you can't really respond intelligently to someone -- you start making cracks about them. This basically signals that you have nothing really to offer to refute their position, but you just don't like it and feel the need, perhaps out of frustration, to respond.

He also has yet to provide any proof of his own gaining this "fighting perspective" skill in realitiy whatsoever.

Yet he always wants from others what he is unwilling to provide himself.

Same old story.

**I can tell you what you need to do to become a good boxer or a good wreslter too -- do you need to see me box or wrestle? Of course not. It is the same old story: start personal attacks when you can't defend your position. Why don't you start making fun of my name like Savi did? I guess your "mo duk handbook" that you always cite to everyone else doesn't cover ad hominem attacks. ;)

With that said, I do agree that training is priority #1.

**It's not just training, but training properly -- for results.

But if you don't know how to do a fook sau... or are taught to do it in such a way that your options are severly limited (like this Biu Gee student from Europe who came to our school last night) then it's going to take you alot longer to refine your tools.

**I said that a person needs the fundamentals. You can't become a good boxer or a good WCK fighter without the fundamentals. But those are relatively easy to impart.

All his fook sau had was the option to chum sau. But even then, in order for him to express it, it gave an opening.

Our Fook gives us the option to chum sau, gum sau, and huen sau. With no openings and full control.

Do the math. Four years and still no fully useable fook is a lot of wasted time.

**That's great -- now go see how that fook sao works in a NHB match. Then tell me about "wasted time".

Yes we all talk theory on these boards. EVERYONE does. Why?? Because that's all the medium pretty much allows. But often, as we in HFY our constantly saying... the time comes when only hand to hand communication will do. No pictures, no books, no forums.

**Couldn't agree more. That's why I suggested you visit Dave to see what he was talking about -- you're in the same state.

[duende]

Terence,

I knew you were going to bring up the NHB. Again, same old story. BTW what's your record there??


Let me ask you this Terence.... Why do you think we at HFY always talk about Kiu Sau?? Why do you think we don't take part in the slew of backlash KFO MMA threads???

It's because we know the importance of training against other styles! We know that at certain ranges (Chi Sau for example) time is not on your side and you won't have the space/time, or the energy/leverage to be able to stop a good deal of take downs.

As to the Fook Sau example... With a good Fook Sau comes good striking point control. With good striking point control comes the proper leverage to defete grabs and wrists locks.

Do I expect you to understand this??? No.

Do I care to visit Dave in SD?? No.

That would NOT be efficient use of my time.

I have much more knowledgeable training partners from other styles up here.

[Jonathan_AZ]

Originally posted by t_niehoff
Jonathan wrote:

I guess, before I comment to your responces, I would really like to know, in your fighting wisdom,

**It's not "my" fighting wisdom -- I'm talking about what all fighters do, simply stating the obvious.

where do you think I 'fall' in my training? Am I simply a theoreotician? Do I have 'skills' if I have not gotten them 'your way' - which seems to be the ONLY way in your view? Do you believe I don't train the way you speak?
Being a HFY practitioner, what perspectives do you believe I have?

**I don't know anything about you personally. But there is only one way to get significant fighting (including WCK) skill -- and it isn't *my* way because I certainly didn't invent it. It's what all good fighters do; it's what anyone who gets good at a physical endeavor, sport, activity, etc. does. It's not rocket science. Do I believe HFY folks train like this? Let's just say from the things I hear (including on this forum), I don't think so. If these folks were training like fighters, they wouldn't say the things they do, they wouldn't have the perspective they do.

The reason I say YOUR wisdom is because for the last year I have been reading here and elsewhere, I have heard countless times how you have the best, fastest, more real way to "true fighting skills". So, I am assuming you yourself are wise in this knowledge from past experience - unless you are just passing on someone elses wisdom? I would hope you practice what you adamantly preach. Unless you do not really belive what you are saying?

You say you know the only way to GET significant fighting skills. I would think that fighting is TESTING your fighting skills (and to what degree you possess them). But from my understanding of what you have been saying, you seem to think this is the only way to DEVELOP the skills you speak of. In my opinion, ONLY devoloping your skills WHILE you are testing them still sounds like a whole lot of serious trial and error. Would you agree with me?

Thank you for reading between the lines and being honest when saying "Do I believe HFY folks train like this? Let's just say from the things I hear (including on this forum), I don't think so"
That is where I was going next. Time saved.

*** "Theory" or "understanding" or "knowledge" is the focus of theoreticians.
Let me ask you then - from your point of view, how would someone prove a 'fighting theory' or concept? (even if you don't see a need for it) I am curious in your responce.

And yes, I agree, training is very important. I give you that - and I think no-one here will argue that. But I strongly believe training just techniques over and over until you are better at them is a LONG road to developing 'skill'.

again, I ask this question: Do you believe that when learning HFY everyone sits on the floor and discusses 'theory' for a few hours and goes home? (I don't seem to be able to find a direct answer to it)
remember, you did say You said "Your whole SMK is based on accumulating "knowledge" or "understanding"; that will never lead one to skill".
Don't you have to "understand" what it is you are training? I am curious, do you believe that all it takes is putting in the hours sparring and the rest will come?
This does not sound like the fastest way to develop "good fighting skills" to me...

I guess I would also ask for clarification: Would you please give me your best definition for "training like real fighters"? in detail, please explain it to me so I understand you better.

Lastly, I guess my biggest question is: Honestly, what is it you hope to gain from visiting these forums? It seems to me that if you don't believe our concepts, stratagies, tactics, SMK, etc can develop and real fighting skills, and it seems that is what you are truely after AND since you already know how to get what you are looking for, again - what is it you really intend to get out of visiting and contributing to the conversations here? Or what it is you have gained from the conversations here?

(and I'm not trying to say "you are not welcome here" or stuff like that, I really am curious from all I read from you, why you spend so much time here?)

Jonathan

[t_niehoff]

Duende,

That's great that you "train" against other styles. If you are getting results from your training, that's all that matters.

You mention "knowledgeable" training -- again, you seem to think it has to do with knowledge. Let me ask you, do you think it's some knowledge that makes a boxer have a great jab or cross? That he understands the jabor cross better? That he knows the theory or concept of the jab or cross better than the next guy?

---------------

Jonathan wrote:

The reason I say YOUR wisdom is because for the last year I have been reading here and elsewhere, I have heard countless times how you have the best, fastest, more real way to "true fighting skills". So, I am assuming you yourself are wise in this knowledge from past experience - unless you are just passing on someone elses wisdom? I would hope you practice what you adamantly preach. Unless you do not really belive what you are saying?

**Maybe you should read more closely or bone-up on your reading comprehension skills. I'm saying that fighters -- regardless of their system or method or style -- all train with the same model and if you're not using that model, you won't produce good results. I can point to any good fighter and you'll see they use that model. You can't point to anyone that doesn't use that model who is a good fighter. What does that tell you?

You say you know the only way to GET significant fighting skills. I would think that fighting is TESTING your fighting skills (and to what degree you possess them). But from my understanding of what you have been saying, you seem to think this is the only way to DEVELOP the skills you speak of. In my opinion, ONLY devoloping your skills WHILE you are testing them still sounds like a whole lot of serious trial and error. Would you agree with me?

**You develop your boxing skills in the ring (sparring), you develop your BJJ skills on the mat (rolling). No sparring, no rolling equals no real skills.

Let me ask you then - from your point of view, how would someone prove a 'fighting theory' or concept? (even if you don't see a need for it) I am curious in your responce.

**Theories and concepts are ideas. Ideas don't fight, people do. You can only test people, skills.

And yes, I agree, training is very important. I give you that - and I think no-one here will argue that. But I strongly believe training just techniques over and over until you are better at them is a LONG road to developing 'skill'.

**How do basketball players, boxers, tennis players, golfers, wreslters, etc. all get good, and often in a very short period of time?

Don't you have to "understand" what it is you are training? I am curious, do you believe that all it takes is putting in the hours sparring and the rest will come?
This does not sound like the fastest way to develop "good fighting skills" to me...

**Do you think it's a boxer's "understanding" of the jab that he is training that makes him better than another boxer? Do you think a basketball players understanding of a fade-away is what makes his shot better than the other guy's?

I guess I would also ask for clarification: Would you please give me your best definition for "training like real fighters"? in detail, please explain it to me so I understand you better.

**Learn the fundamentals, drill the fundamentals until you are comfortable with them, fight with the fundamentals. Take what you learn from the fighting, go back and drill with that info, then fight some more. Take what you learn from fighting, etc. Just what people do in boxing, BJJ, basketball, tennis, etc.

Lastly, I guess my biggest question is: Honestly, what is it you hope to gain from visiting these forums?

**The only reason I posted was because some knucklehead started talking trash about my sifu.

It seems to me that if you don't believe our concepts, stratagies, tactics, SMK, etc can develop and real fighting skills, and it seems that is what you are truely after AND since you already know how to get what you are looking for, again - what is it you really intend to get out of visiting and contributing to the conversations here? Or what it is you have gained from the conversations here?

**I'm just putting forward a different perspective. What do I gain by doing it? We all grow from conflict.

(and I'm not trying to say "you are not welcome here" or stuff like that, I really am curious from all I read from you, why you spend so much time here

**I don't spend much time here -- just every once in a while, particularly when someone decides to "invite" me by badmouthing my sifu. Let me ask you a question: what do you care?

[JamesHFYofAZ]

Saam Mo Kiu
Fau Kiu- lack of understanding of
-Time, space, and energies with in as one or two, they see it as three seperate words with little meaning
-concepts and priceples
-others existence in nature
ones prime focus would be learning body machanics drilling (striking, kicking) or techneque drilling(taan, bong, fuk, ect...)
Saan Kiu- awarness of
-time, space, or energy but has little understanding of all three and their nature
one prime awarness, understanding SMK and how it relates to training by drilling. Another would be, understanding consepts and how they relate to training by drilling.
Were does one lay in Saam Mo Kiu?
If one is to disagreeing- this is fau kiu and there awerness of others is not real and this can cause agretion (it's like a little child try to reach for the candy but your holding it to high, so they try to cheap shot you in the nuts) IMO, Poeple argue what they don't understand, this lies in the fau kiu bringing.
With discussion, they tend to grow through the season of the physical aspects thus giving them an experience to understand (results, both physical and mental). This can be preformed by Hou Chuen San Sau.
The priciples are their, even terry (not you man) agrees with the principles! But personal opinion is always up to debate.:)

[duende]

Terence,

The act of conveying actual personal experience is not talking trash.

Talking trash would be the act of repeating second-hand derogatory information.

At least that has been my experience.

[Jonathan_AZ]

Wow Terrance. I asked so many DIRECT questions. You avoided answering most of them. You either came back with a question of your own or avoided them with talk that skirted the real issues.
I was looking to share a dialog with you, to see your understanding of things, that is why I asked direct questions.
I ask questions realting to YOUR views and you never back them up or admit to them. You always point to "other fighters" and the way "OTHERS do things" over and over. I was a bit curious to know who TERENCE is. I am guessing you don't really know..

I remember a post a few pages back in this thread
"So I have to ask, why even discuss with him, when his conversation leaves no room for others to exist?

Perhaps he can prove me wrong, but the conversation so far is pointless."

I agree. I gave it a shot.

Jonathan

[sihing]

After reading and staying in the background, and also after having a few disagreements with Terence myself, I find it so funny that even when there is a hint of agreement he comes back to you with a question like, "Oh yeah you may be training but are you training correctly?" or "You may be sparring or fighting(whatever you want to call it) but what is the quality of skill you are sparring against?", like good ole St. Louis has the monopoly on world champion NHB fighters, Martial Artist and boxers, lol.

Once and for all, I think all of us agree that sooner or later you have to TEST, and that is what it is, unless you are fighting to the death on the street, your abilities and skills in your choice of MA. Many of us have students in our respective kwoons that have previous MA training and experience in other MA systems besides WC. When I ask someone in the class with skills such as this to attack me with everything they have, they will do it. If I fail to defend myself then that is my fault. So, how is this different or less realistic than going out to challenge another fighter from another club? The problem with going out to other clubs is the ego factor, and most of them have plenty of that. Therefore it can become more than just a testing of one's skills, but more like a real confrontation leading to someone possibly getting seriously injured and/or the other participant facing charges of some sort. Are you really that insecure to have to do things like that?

Also , after reading allot of what Terence has to say, it seems to me that he almost has a personal stake in the methodology he promotes and is trying to sell others on forum's like this. He keeps on stating that "Only real fighter use methods such as this"? You mean NHB fighters, Boxers? Since when are they the only real fighters out there in this vast world. Do you realize that there are people out there that know one knows about, that have high quality skills? How many other "Bruce Lee's" were there in the world while he was still alive that never made movies or became famous? Probably lots, since the world population is in the billions that is a fair assessment. Today there are even more effective fighters that are unknowns, just due to the ease of information availability in today's technological world. My own Sifu was a total unknown, living in a place virtually in the middle of know where, training 12 to 14 hours a day, for years upon years. And yes he did at times have to use his skills, once against a notorious Motorcycle gang from Northern Ontario back in the day, in defense of himself and friends of his, so yes his skills are real. But for Terence that is not real because none of the gang members fought in NHB tournaments, lol, so they obviously had no skill, so it was a cake walk for Sifu, right Terence?

IMO the best thing to do is not to challenge one another, but to actually get together and find out how one another do things. When I meet other MA and they want to know why I think WC is the most effective I do this. I ask them to show me how they would defend common attacks. I then show them mine, and ask which method is easier to learn? Not all Martial Arts movement are equal when it comes to efficency and simplicity so it's fair to say that not all movements are as easy to learn. Then I ask which method is easier to apply in a real situation? Again, some less efficient MA require more of everything to use the methods they promote. Lastly I then ask which one is more effective in application (meaning getting the job done while at the same time keeping the practitioner safe). If his method is superior to mine for questions #1, #2 & #3 then it is fair to say that his method is more effective and practical overall. Visa versa if my method is shown to be superior for the questions asked. No ego's bruised, no noses broken. Of course sooner or later you have to put the human equation in here somewhere, but that is the difference I find in how some look at things as compared to others. I don't look at individuals and there unique abilities. Since Bruce Lee's death, know one from the JKD camp has shown similar or superior skills (Vunak has many times stated that he is not superior to Inosanto and Bruce wiped the floor with him, and still would if he was alive today). So it is fair to say that Bruce's success with JKD concepts is because of his unique qualities and abilities, not his JKD concepts and what they can do for someone. Wing Chun, at least the Wing Chun I know, is different as it transcends limitations (meaning it can be applied and learned by everyone equally, instead of what each individual is capable of) and can work for everyone equally (as long as they put the require effort into learning it and understanding it under the guidance of someone qualified, just like they would have to do in learning any other MA.)


James

[t_niehoff]

duende wrote:

The act of conveying actual personal experience is not talking trash.

Talking trash would be the act of repeating second-hand derogatory information.

At least that has been my experience.

**Oh, really? OK, I've seen Garrett firsthand, in-person and he didn't appear very skilled, talked a lot of nonsense that just wasn't practical in real fighting, seemed like just another of the theoretican/nonfighters that have taken WCK to the low ground, etc. Still think that "the act of conveying actual personal experience is not talking trash"? Or do you think that even though that is my personal opinion based on personal experience, that it is talking trash? Now that I made my point, I'll withdraw my statement and say that it was just to make a point. As I said in my post that was deleted: my uderstanding is that we had a "truce", that everyone would refrain from making personal attacks on Garrett and Robert. I'm willing to abide by that "truce" but you appear to think you can violate it but cry "foul" if anyone else does. Well, it doesn't work that way -- so if you want a "truce", abide by the "truce". Or, don't expect others to.

---------------

Jonathan,

I'm sorry that you don't see what I'm trying to say -- I did give you direct answers to your questions. Part of the answer is to open your eyes to how genuine fighters train, and follow their example. We know their training model produces excellent results. But you seem to have focused on me personally -- how do I train. Well, I follow that model, the same model boxers, BJJsits, MMAists, tennis players, basketball players, etc. follow. How "good" I personally am doesn't prove or disprove that model; what proves the model is the success of *all* good fighters. Every good fighter (who can hold their own against other good fighters) follows that model. There isn't one good fighter that doesn't. No one. If you disagree, provide the evidence. So, if you don't follow that model, you can't become well-skilled. Period. Simply following that model won't make you skilled, however, but it is the only way that can make you skilled.

----------------

sihing,

I've no "personal stake" and couldn't care less how most people train; in fact, I'm happy that they train ineffectively (it only makes it easier for me should we ever meet). I'm merely trying to deflate the overinflated egos of the theoretician/nonfighters, like you, who believe all kinds of nonsense, who make all kinds of claims as to what they can do or their sifu can do (you always ask for proof, but I'm not the one making personal claims), who believe history or "history" validates what they do, who believes the lame-*** marketing that sold them in the first place, etc. In other words, I'm simply tired of the same old **** that everyone spews -- and I'm calling them on it. And the easiest way to do that is to say "show me the results." Since they can't produce any results (other than stories) and can't refute the logic behind my position (of show me the results), they always come back with well-if-you're-so-good-show-me-your-results. In other words, lacking any results, they try to turn it around. But like I said, it doesn't matter if my training produces results for me or not -- the question is whether your's does for you (it's a personal question -- like "are you happy with your job?" It doesn't matter if I'm happy; it doesn't affect *your* answer).

[Cang Long]

**Oh, really? OK, I've seen Garrett firsthand, in-person and he didn't appear very skilled, talked a lot of nonsense that just wasn't practical in real fighting, seemed like just another of the theoretican/nonfighters that have taken WCK to the low ground, etc. Still think that "the act of conveying actual personal experience is not talking trash"? Or do you think that even though that is my personal opinion based on personal experience, that it is talking trash? Now that I made my point, I'll withdraw my statement and say that it was just to make a point. Everyone has and is entitled to their opinion just so long as they don't confuse them with the facts. Your Sifu Robert Chu as well as yourself are quick to call out the skill of others but are also quick to have selecvtive memory loss when it comes to the proof of your low level skill. Now you have your opinion on record why don't we just weigh them against the facts.

Which are:
1. "Against genuine resistance from somewhat skilled fighters, it won't "look" anything like that. In fact, I see lots of poor fighting habits demonstrated in those clips (because I know from fighting those sorts of things just won't work)." Your Derogatory remarks toward GM Hoffmann's posted video should be quickly nullified by the Fact that Grand Master Hoffman rather easily placed Robert Chu in a submission hold at one of their meetings. Safe to say Grand Master Hoffman has proven his skill, you haven't nor has Robert Chu.

2. Everyone knows about the Facts of Robert Chu disrupting a TWC Seminar and tried to prove a point to Grand Master Cheung and then was subsequently hit by GM Cheung and afterwards it was said of Robert by some of the participants he had some of the slowest hands some people had ever seen. parlati Sifu, was also instructed to keep an eye on that trouble maker meaning Robert Chu. Safe to say Grand Master Cheug has demonstrated his skill and again you nor Robert Chu have not.

3. Fact 10 of Robert Chu Students when defeated in Chi Sau by Students of my Sigung Master Meng, were told by Robert that they all needed to be "executed". Yet Robert would not demonstrate any of his skill or lack there of against Master Meng to even try to show he himself did indeed posses the skill his students were lacking. Once again Master Meng in the demonstrated superiority of his students has shown his ability to pass on skill. Safe to say you nor Robert Chu have not demonstrated your own skill let alone some of your students.

4. Long time and well respected martial artist from L.A. Brad Michaels had a friend a TWC Sifu who personally trained with Robert Chu and said he did handle Robert Chu very easily and after witnessing Robert using the pole he was not impressed with Robert's pole fighting skill at all. Brad is also known to be on record as saying that he knew Robert Chu as the guy that went around collecting information from other schools and taking credit for it as his own. A Repeated pattern.

5. Robert Chu claims his lineage background is that of Yip Man because his former teachers disassociated themselves from him. Another repeated pattern.

6. Last but not least my own personal experience with the Robert Chu's family was watching theory become reality across the face of Dave Mc Kinnon at the Ohio seminar a few years back when Dave acting like Robert tried to Chi Sau in the middle of a kiu sau demonstration. I and Dave can both attest to Grand Master Gee's skill.

So Terence, I have my opinions about you and Robert Chu and your Kung Fu family but I'll keep those to myself and defer to the facts! I have seen pictures of Grandmaster Gee in action and with numerous respected martial artist posted for the world to see on his website. I go to Robert Chu 's website and all there is to see is his theory on which herb's are best for an upset stomach.

[sihing]

Originally posted by t_niehoff
sihing,
I've no "personal stake" and couldn't care less how most people train; in fact, I'm happy that they train ineffectively (it only makes it easier for me should we ever meet). I'm merely trying to deflate the overinflated egos of the theoretician/nonfighters, like you, who believe all kinds of nonsense, who make all kinds of claims as to what they can do or their sifu can do (you always ask for proof, but I'm not the one making personal claims), who believe history or "history" validates what they do, who believes the lame-*** marketing that sold them in the first place, etc. In other words, I'm simply tired of the same old **** that everyone spews -- and I'm calling them on it. And the easiest way to do that is to say "show me the results." Since they can't produce any results (other than stories) and can't refute the logic behind my position (of show me the results), they always come back with well-if-you're-so-good-show-me-your-results. In other words, lacking any results, they try to turn it around. But like I said, it doesn't matter if my training produces results for me or not -- the question is whether your's does for you (it's a personal question -- like "are you happy with your job?" It doesn't matter if I'm happy; it doesn't affect *your* answer).

Overinflated Ego's? I've stated many times that I am no fighter, just one that has quality self defense skills when needed. And as for calling people on claims, who's making claims. I believe that in general WC is the most effective Martial Art system for the average person out there today. Not all WC is created equal, I will make that claim. As for results, that has already been proven, and just because you are not aware of those results does not mean they are not valid, and how many times does one have to prove it, when ever one walks into the kwoon and wants to find out? If someone accepts every challenge personally from every challenger then I think they have ego problems, constantly having to prove one's skills to every Tom, **** and Harry that walks through there door's.

Gotta go...more later..

James

[BennyMeng]

Terance,

Put the shoe on the other foot:


**I've seen Robert firsthand, in-person and he didn't appear very skilled, talked a lot of nonsense that just wasn't practical in real fighting, seemed like just another of the theoretican/nonfighters that have taken WCK to the low ground, etc. Still think that "the act of conveying actual personal experience is not talking trash"? Or do you think that even though that is my personal opinion based on personal experience, that it is talking trash? Now that I made my point, I'll withdraw my statement and say that it was just to make a point.


Next time you want to use an example, how about using your own Sifu's name instead? Then we know you're being objective and honest rather than just posting to stir up negative energy.

It doesn't matter how you justify yourself, your comments were disrespectful.

[t_niehoff]

canglong wrote:

Everyone has and is entitled to their opinion just so long as they don't confuse them with the facts.

**What I saw was a fact. You seem to post quite a few "opinions" below as facts. ;)

Your Sifu Robert Chu as well as yourself are quick to call out the skill of others but are also quick to have selecvtive memory loss when it comes to the proof of your low level skill.

**Where is the proof of my "poor skill level"?

Now you have your opinion on record why don't we just weigh them against the facts.

Which are:
1. "Against genuine resistance from somewhat skilled fighters, it won't "look" anything like that. In fact, I see lots of poor fighting habits demonstrated in those clips (because I know from fighting those sorts of things just won't work)." Your Derogatory remarks toward GM Hoffmann's posted video should be quickly nullified by the Fact that Grand Master Hoffman rather easily placed Robert Chu in a submission hold at one of their meetings. Safe to say Grand Master Hoffman has proven his skill, you haven't nor has Robert Chu.

**I never made derogatory remarks about Andreas, just the clip he posted a link to -- which didn't include Andreas. Sure, Andreas put Robert in a hold. This was playing around -- were they fighitng? You guys take yourselves much too seriously, and you think these demos and exercises and things prove something. They don't.

2. Everyone knows about the Facts of Robert Chu disrupting a TWC Seminar and tried to prove a point to Grand Master Cheung and then was subsequently hit by GM Cheung and afterwards it was said of Robert by some of the participants he had some of the slowest hands some people had ever seen. parlati Sifu, was also instructed to keep an eye on that trouble maker meaning Robert Chu. Safe to say Grand Master Cheug has demonstrated his skill and again you nor Robert Chu have not.

**What you are referring to (and you weren't there so it's just hearsay to you) occurred over 20 years ago. And your details aren't even accurate.

3. Fact 10 of Robert Chu Students when defeated in Chi Sau by Students of my Sigung Master Meng, were told by Robert that they all needed to be "executed". Yet Robert would not demonstrate any of his skill or lack there of against Master Meng to even try to show he himself did indeed posses the skill his students were lacking. Once again Master Meng in the demonstrated superiority of his students has shown his ability to pass on skill. Safe to say you nor Robert Chu have not demonstrated your own skill let alone some of your students.

**The mere fact that you think people can be "defeated" in chi sao indicates you are clueless about WCK and the purpose of chi sao. Who were these students? Beginners? I recall one of John Crescione's students giving Benny a bloody lip in chi sao. Does that prove anything? And let me ask you, did you observe this spectacle yourself? Maybe some time you can ask Benny to do chi sao with Dzu or Dave or me and show us this marvelous skill. We can even tape it and put it up one the web.

4. Long time and well respected martial artist from L.A. Brad Michaels had a friend a TWC Sifu who personally trained with Robert Chu and said he did handle Robert Chu very easily and after witnessing Robert using the pole he was not impressed with Robert's pole fighting skill at all. Brad is also known to be on record as saying that he knew Robert Chu as the guy that went around collecting information from other schools and taking credit for it as his own. A Repeated pattern.

**Anyone can say anything. What I keep hearing from you is hearsay, opinions, stories from the past -- look, go pay Robert a visit yourself, go pay Dave a visit, come see me and then spout off about skill levels.

5. Robert Chu claims his lineage background is that of Yip Man because his former teachers disassociated themselves from him. Another repeated pattern.

**Robert is of the Yip Man lineage; his sifu is Hawkins Cheung. Don't beleive me? Go ask Hawkins. Simple enough.

6. Last but not least my own personal experience with the Robert Chu's family was watching theory become reality across the face of Dave Mc Kinnon at the Ohio seminar a few years back when Dave acting like Robert tried to Chi Sau in the middle of a kiu sau demonstration. I and Dave can both attest to Grand Master Gee's skill.

**Skill at what? Kiu sao or chi sao? Do you really think Dave is going to go to a seminar that he was invited to and try to smash Garrett? You don't do that at seminars. I've been to seminars and let the instructor do his stuff to me -- that's expected, dude. While I may let Yip Chun do something to me in chi sao, do you think that means he was a better fighter? LOL!

So Terence, I have my opinions about you and Robert Chu and your Kung Fu family but I'll keep those to myself and defer to the facts! I have seen pictures of Grandmaster Gee in action and with numerous respected martial artist posted for the world to see on his website. I go to Robert Chu 's website and all there is to see is his theory on which herb's are best for an upset stomach.

**"In action" -- OK, I'll bite -- who has Garrett ever fought? Grandmaster who never fought. Anyone can take pictures of themselves with others. BFD. Since he likes putting up pictures of himself "in action", why doesn't he post some videos of his fights?

[dave mckinnon]

Ha Ha!

6. Last but not least my own personal experience with the Robert Chu's family was watching theory become reality across the face of Dave Mc Kinnon at the Ohio seminar a few years back when Dave acting like Robert tried to Chi Sau in the middle of a kiu sau demonstration. I and Dave can both attest to Grand Master Gee's skill.

**Skill at what? Kiu sao or chi sao? Do you really think Dave is going to go to a seminar that he was invited to and try to smash Garrett? You don't do that at seminars. I've been to seminars and let the instructor do his stuff to me -- that's expected, dude. While I may let Yip Chun do something to me in chi sao, do you think that means he was a better fighter? LOL!

Dave Writes: This is funny! We Chi Sau'd for all of 5 seconds. It sort of surprised me cause he just walked up and touched hands. There was very little intention from either of us. I was a guest of Benny because **** L. said anyone could visit him to see HFY first hand. Instead of inviting me to his school, he and Benny asked me as a guest to visit the seminar. I have no comment on G.Gee's skill because he did not demonstrate it to me. There was little time. Why didn't anyone else Chi Sao with me? I was hoping Matt was their because on the occasions we have met we have Chi Sau's and enjoyed open friendly exchange. Too bad no one else stood up to Chi Sau with me at the break.

Dave

[JamesHFYofAZ]

Jack, were you one of the ten that "should be exicuted"?
Dave, you when around trying to chi sau everybody, Is this how you behieve in all semenars? Sound kinda disrespectful to me. And you let sifu's hit you, kung fu should be rectional not a presaposed idea!:eek: I have touched hands with other sifus, Some hit me others couldn't! You are a sifu correct? If I were to go to your seminars i wouldn't LET you hit me? If you did hit me it would be because of my own misunderstanding of time, space, and energy!:( either that or you sucker punched me from behind!:rolleyes:

[t_niehoff]

James,

I've only seen Benny one time, and that was at the Friendship Seminar at his school. Benny has never done chi sao with me.

You do understand that chi sao is a drill, right? That it's not a guage of fighting skill. If you think so, do some chi sao with Randy Couture and then fight him.

[sauchi]

____________________

Why didn't anyone else Chi Sao with me? I was hoping Matt was their because on the occasions we have met we have Chi Sau's and enjoyed open friendly exchange. Too bad no one else stood up to Chi Sau with me at the break.

Dave

____________________


Hi Dave,

thank you for the kind words. Had I been there I would have enjoyed the exchange as well. Perhaps in the future when time permits. Where do you live and how often do you visit SF, maybe we can Chi Sao then?

Matt

[Cang Long]

Terence,
You don't deny the facts you just put your spin on them.

Dave says nobody will chi sau with me then you come back and say Chi sau is a waste of time. **The mere fact that you think people can be "defeated" in chi sao indicates you are clueless about WCK and the purpose of chi sao. Obviously Robert doesn't agree with you.
**Anyone can say anything. What I keep hearing from you is hearsay, opinions, stories from the past -- look, go pay Robert a visit yourself, go pay Dave a visit, come see me and then spout off about skill levels. Terence, you were the one that started down this road and you're the one spouting off with this tit for tat crap because you have no tit and even less of a tat around here unless I say so you don't like it stay over at KFO or start your own damn forum but telling me what to do won't get you anywhere!

[Savi]

Terence has made it clear that his Chi Sau has absolutely nothing to do with fighting. That's not so hard to understand...

What is hard to believe is that he thinks that everyone in the world does Chi Sau the same way he does, and that Chi Sau is standardized around the world, and that it is just an exercise with no combative origin. If that is true, then WHAT THE HECK IS IT DOING IN A COMBAT SYSTEM? Unless, he didn't learn the combative aspect of Wing Chun...

This would make sense why he is so bent on MMA and NHB. He lacks the real meat behind Wing Chun.

[JamesHFYofAZ]

I've only seen Benny one time, and that was at the Friendship Seminar at his school. Benny has never done chi sao with me. You show disrespect to others but demand respect your self and to your robert chu, talk about being a mans pit bull. Robert chu has access to this site and has already signed up so let him post his points himself, since "you're your own person (ei. form of disassociation)". After all, my Sigung expressed himself honestly! You " expressed " I don't want to get involved in interpreting what went on between Robert and Benny". Jack, you gotta earn respect! And after your behavior, I'd be surprised if he claimed you as a student! O' wait! Thats right, a student doesn't have a direct influence a sifu's reputation! But wait, your not a direct in influence on any one but yourself! Bark! Sorry! Dam dog!
This all sounds like lack of tradition and honor! This tends to gain a lack of respect the dishonor actions shown stay known throughout the WC community!
O, and, Chi sau is not just a drill, that is just one aspect of it, kinda like your training(ones view)! Besides that, If its just a DRILL( ei.. A way of acquiring SKILL or familiarizing one with procedure.) Then why is it in many WC families and some other systems as well?????? Idiots! All of them! Lets take Jack's route and be ignorant of truth, and lets just argue semantics and leave the rest to mixed awareness of WC and how it's a SYSTEM!!! MR. "I don't want to get involved in interpreting what went on between Robert and Benny because, for one thing, I wasn't there....", try sticking to the topics on engaging the enemy! Or should we learn to drool them with nonconstructive criticisms and meaningless debate?

[t_niehoff]

Savi wrote:

Terence has made it clear that his Chi Sau has absolutely nothing to do with fighting. That's not so hard to underst