# Wing Chun Reform



## macher (May 27, 2018)

Been watching this guys channel and it’s pretty interesting. He talks about WC reform. 

1000delight


----------



## KPM (May 27, 2018)

See my comment on the MMA thread.


----------



## Danny T (May 27, 2018)

He may be an excellent instructor...but... from everything I seen from him I only know this:
He uses an overabundance & superfluity of words giving very little substance.
He never shows or demonstrates his points.


----------



## macher (May 27, 2018)

Danny T said:


> He may be an excellent instructor...but... from everything I seen from him I only know this:
> He uses an overabundance & superfluity of words giving very little substance.
> He never shows or demonstrates his points.



He does some demonstration on the dummy and bag that he has.


----------



## DanT (May 27, 2018)

Hours of talk, no action, no students, no Kung Fu.


----------



## wckf92 (May 27, 2018)

macher said:


> Been watching this guys channel and it’s pretty interesting. He talks about WC reform.
> 
> 1000delight



God forbid someone makes a point or offers a counter to ANY of his dribble...his standard response is "be sure you know the facts before making argument or accusation etc"... pathetic. 
Like Danny said...he may be a decent dude...but he thinks the rest of us are mere specks of manure compared to him and his secret "ancient" stuff.


----------



## KPM (May 27, 2018)

macher said:


> He does some demonstration on the dummy and bag that he has.



You will hardly ever see him demo anything on a cooperative partner, let along a resisting partner!


----------



## lansao (May 27, 2018)

When I saw the title, I thought it was related to a collaborative effort. Didn’t realize it was a video by some self-proclaimed authority.

One thing I would love to see are our pre-movement principles (excluding analogies to specific movements like “snake coils the rabbit” lol) codified somewhere (e.g. simplicity of movement, don’t fight force against force, etc.).

I feel like the criteria and standard by which we judge our movement and study is an area most lineages generally agree on.

~ Alan


----------



## Martial D (May 27, 2018)

I am not one to listen to hours of talk when I can just take action myself. I am well into reforming my WC with sweat, hard work and bruises.


----------



## Bino TWT (May 27, 2018)

Dude is a dick. His social skills are very... unique. He actually has me blocked on FB lol. I will say this though: My Si-Hing has trained with him personally and said he's actually a nice guy in person, and he is incredibly skilled and humble. He's just very passionate about this art and his English and basic communication skills leave a lot to be lacked. Not to mention, he doesn't take criticism very well.


----------



## lansao (May 27, 2018)

Bino TWT said:


> Dude is a dick. His social skills are very... unique. He actually has me blocked on FB lol. I will say this though: My Si-Hing has trained with him personally and said he's actually a nice guy in person, and he is incredibly skilled and humble. He's just very passionate about this art and his English and basic communication skills leave a lot to be lacked. Not to mention, he doesn't take criticism very well.



That’s great context. Thank you!


----------



## KPM (May 27, 2018)

Bino TWT said:


> Dude is a dick. His social skills are very... unique. He actually has me blocked on FB lol. I will say this though: My Si-Hing has trained with him personally and said he's actually a nice guy in person, and he is incredibly skilled and humble. He's just very passionate about this art and his English and basic communication skills leave a lot to be lacked. Not to mention, he doesn't take criticism very well.



I've said more than once that Hendrik is in need of a good translator!  And not from Chinese to English....from "Hendrik-speak" to common sense!   He needs someone that understands what he rambles on about to interpret and translate into a 5 or 6 minute presentation that is understandable....with demonstration on a partner.  I thought early on that Robert Chu might be the one to do this.  But I don't think Hendrik's ego will allow anyone to speak for him!

And Bino is absolutely right that Hendrik does not take criticism or correction well at all!  He said some wrong things and had some false impressions of Ku Lo Wing Chun.  When I tried to...respectfully....point out where he was wrong, it did not go well!!!!


----------



## geezer (May 27, 2018)

Aside from being fed up with that guy's drawn out and boring discussions, devoid of demonstration, I also have an issue with his methodology. He bases a lot of his assertions on dubious research into the supposed earliest days of WC. I'm a lot more interested in the people that are making WC work better today, testing their theories against resisting partners. 

Guess I've kinda gone from being a "qualified" believer, to agnostic. and now to atheistic about the old time TCMA.


----------



## KPM (May 28, 2018)

^^^^^^People tend to think that, because it has "traditional" or "ancient" origins those ancestors had to have been really proficient and effective fighters.  But I'm with you Geezer!  I've concluded that, likely in a large number of cases, "traditional" arts were seldom ever really tested or really all that effective.  Or maybe the founder was a fighter and could make things work, but his followers lost it over time.  And fighting methods have evolved over time....people simply don't have the same ideas of what a "fight" should be compared to back then.   The evolution of western boxing is a good example.  In recent decades people have been working to "recreate" the "old school" boxing method from back in John L. Sullivan's day and even earlier.  I was one of those people!   But when you really start to examine what they did and work it, you discover that modern boxing is a lot better.....more mobile, more evasive, better punches, etc.   The sales pitch in the west has always been...."New and Improved!!!"  The sales pitch in the east is more like..."Original and Traditional!!!"   Both  are just sales pitches.  ;-)


----------



## Danny T (May 28, 2018)

geezer said:


> Aside from being fed up with that guy's drawn out and boring discussions, devoid of demonstration, I also have an issue with his methodology. He bases a lot of his assertions on dubious research into the supposed earliest days of WC. I'm a lot more interested in the people that are making WC work better today, testing their theories against resisting partners.
> 
> Guess I've kinda gone from being a "qualified" believer, to agnostic. and now to atheistic about the old time TCMA.





KPM said:


> ^^^^^^People tend to think that, because it has "traditional" or "ancient" origins those ancestors had to have been really proficient and effective fighters.  But I'm with you Geezer!  I've concluded that, likely in a large number of cases, "traditional" arts were seldom ever really tested or really all that effective.  Or maybe the founder was a fighter and could make things work, but his followers lost it over time.  And fighting methods have evolved over time....people simply don't have the same ideas of what a "fight" should be compared to back then.   The evolution of western boxing is a good example.  In recent decades people have been working to "recreate" the "old school" boxing method from back in John L. Sullivan's day and even earlier.  I was one of those people!   But when you really start to examine what they did and work it, you discover that modern boxing is a lot better.....more mobile, more evasive, better punches, etc.   The sales pitch in the west has always been...."New and Improved!!!"  The sales pitch in the east is more like..."Original and Traditional!!!"   Both  are just sales pitches.  ;-)


After all the discussion, research, argument, drilling, and practicing are over it comes down to what you can do; not what you say you can do, think you can do, or what someone else can or thinks they can do. It's about what 'you' can actually do.


----------



## Poppity (Jun 8, 2018)

KPM said:


> ^^^^^^People tend to think that, because it has "traditional" or "ancient" origins those ancestors had to have been really proficient and effective fighters.  But I'm with you Geezer!  I've concluded that, likely in a large number of cases, "traditional" arts were seldom ever really tested or really all that effective.  Or maybe the founder was a fighter and could make things work, but his followers lost it over time.  And fighting methods have evolved over time....people simply don't have the same ideas of what a "fight" should be compared to back then.   The evolution of western boxing is a good example.  In recent decades people have been working to "recreate" the "old school" boxing method from back in John L. Sullivan's day and even earlier.  I was one of those people!   But when you really start to examine what they did and work it, you discover that modern boxing is a lot better.....more mobile, more evasive, better punches, etc.   The sales pitch in the west has always been...."New and Improved!!!"  The sales pitch in the east is more like..."Original and Traditional!!!"   Both  are just sales pitches.  ;-)




This is an old sketch of old traditional football compared to contemporary football, from which analogies to wing chun could be drawn.

Association Football - Harry Enfield - Mr Cholmondley-Warner on Make a GIF


----------



## macher (Jun 8, 2018)

Snark said:


> This is an old sketch of old traditional football compared to contemporary football, from which analogies to wing chun could be drawn.
> 
> Association Football - Harry Enfield - Mr Cholmondley-Warner on Make a GIF



I believe what the guy in my OP post is trying to get across in his other videos is that pre 1840 or whatever the date is Wing Chun was a short strike art vs modern.


----------



## geezer (Jun 9, 2018)

macher said:


> I believe what the guy in my OP post is trying to get across in his other videos is that pre 1840 or whatever the date is Wing Chun was a short strike art vs modern.



Sorry, I don't know if it's Hedrick's logorrhea or my ADD. but either way, I simply can´t endure Hendrick´s endless lectures long enough to get that, or any other point he's trying to make, so I´ll just take your word for it. 

....So, anyway, how's what you stated above any different from the emphasis of WC/VT/WT today? It's still a close fighting art that emphasizes short strikes.


----------



## Poppity (Jun 9, 2018)

macher said:


> I believe what the guy in my OP post is trying to get across in his other videos is that pre 1840 or whatever the date is Wing Chun was a short strike art vs modern.



Santo has good form and a long history of inserting baseless claims to support his own agenda, if anyone remembers  for just one example the cho gar successor claims of santo that were refuted by the cho family members. Maybe he has some skill but there are sources with less murky depths.


----------



## Poppity (Jun 12, 2018)

Since the Kung Fu Magazine servers went down a lot of useful information on the internet has been lost... however, I found the facebook post of Stephen Cho/e who commented on Santo's claims regarding Cho Wing Chun.  This is a family member of the style Santo claimed to be a grandmaster and/or successor of.

Steve Fist

I think context is important when viewing a source and here is some of the context to the source of the OP. Other than that its for people to make up their own minds and more importantly do their own research.


----------

