What do you consider to be a bridge?
What percentage of lesson time do you spend on chi Sao?
- Thread starter SaulGoodman
- Start date
- Status
What do you consider to be a bridge?
You might want to re-write a bit more.
I can see why you might want details, you seem a bit unsure of what you mean.
CK teaches how to find and make attacking lines. Do you interpret it differently?
Hahaha, man this is good stuff!
Coming from a lineage that has Kiu Sau as a major part of our system, this is a completely wrong and uneducated definition (Kiu-sau does not mean forearm, ). It sounds like someone that is acting as if they know a lot about something they obviously don't.
Ok, so he really doesn't know, he just 'thinks'. Most people base their opinions on experience and facts vs. uneducated guesswork - yet he still seems to know enough to point out others flaws lol.
The only 'flaw' is on LFJ for not knowing or understanding a given subject in the first place yet still tries to define and judge it at the same time.
And there it is. So if he doesn't care and it's irrelevant, then why all the fuss? Only a troll would carry on about a subject he knows nothing about, goes on to give definitions for something he doesn't train and in the end feels is all irrelevant anyway. lol
Coming from a lineage that has Kiu Sau as a major part of our system, this is a completely wrong and uneducated definition (Kiu-sau does not mean forearm, ). It sounds like someone that is acting as if they know a lot about something they obviously don't.
Ok, so he really doesn't know, he just 'thinks'. Most people base their opinions on experience and facts vs. uneducated guesswork - yet he still seems to know enough to point out others flaws lol.
The only 'flaw' is on LFJ for not knowing or understanding a given subject in the first place yet still tries to define and judge it at the same time.
And there it is. So if he doesn't care and it's irrelevant, then why all the fuss? Only a troll would carry on about a subject he knows nothing about, goes on to give definitions for something he doesn't train and in the end feels is all irrelevant anyway. lol
Last edited:
OP
OP
SaulGoodman
Green Belt
Talk about flogging a dead horse!
@JPinAZ
KPM defined kiu-sau previously as basically the forearm, and kiu as connection.
I was using his own definitions, not guessing anything.
And other styles' terminologies are irrelevant when discussing my own in the sense that they don't affect the meaning of things in my system.
It was mentioned that my definition differs from other styles as if that should invalidate mine or something.
Otherwise I don't see why that would matter or even be relevant to my terminology within my system.
KPM defined kiu-sau previously as basically the forearm, and kiu as connection.
I was using his own definitions, not guessing anything.
And other styles' terminologies are irrelevant when discussing my own in the sense that they don't affect the meaning of things in my system.
It was mentioned that my definition differs from other styles as if that should invalidate mine or something.
Otherwise I don't see why that would matter or even be relevant to my terminology within my system.
Well folks, when you keep on about bridges and what did you think you would run into?
http://3008-presscdn-26-4.pagely.ne...dge-Three-Goats-Gruff-all-rights-reserved.jpg
http://3008-presscdn-26-4.pagely.ne...dge-Three-Goats-Gruff-all-rights-reserved.jpg
ha ha ha.. nice.
OP
OP
SaulGoodman
Green Belt
The implication is always that only the "VT" people truly understand Wing Chun. This is manifestly untrue...
Ok, but since his lineage does used this term nor do they train it per his words, he couldn't have been talking about his system at all.
Further, he did say this "I think kiu-sau comes from a flawed definition of kiu and leads to strategies based on arm-chasing from a VT perspective.". Since he has no experience with the technology, nor does it exist in his system, he could only be talking about other systems. And without any experience or first-hand knowledge, he has no legitimate anything.
I see more frequently a select few argue simply for the sake of arguing and disrupting, this IMO is a clear case and just wanted to make the distinction.
Rather than post just to cry about it and presume to know my experience, how about you explain your definition and strategy as I have done with mine?
Otherwise you are bringing no value to the discussion and you are the one being disruptive, posting for no other reason than to be negative.
Otherwise you are bringing no value to the discussion and you are the one being disruptive, posting for no other reason than to be negative.
If deep down you know there is something wrong with your VT then maybe you will feel this way. People who train coherent joined up systems actually like talking about them and don't feel threatened by different opinions.
I don't know what you mean by "always"; you have only been on the forum a few days, haven't you?
My lineage's usage of Kiu Sau is well documented on forums (here some, but more-so on KFO), articles, as well as our MKF book. If someone is genuinely interested, they will do some homework first. Then, if there any any questions I would be more than happy to discuss and share - as many who know me from the forums thru the years can testify.
But I'm not going to be baited into negative argumentative discussions by a couple of guys that show little interest in anything other than telling people how wrong they are.
But I'm not going to be baited into negative argumentative discussions by a couple of guys that show little interest in anything other than telling people how wrong they are.
If deep down you know there is something wrong with your VT then maybe you will feel this way.
---Absolutely wrong. People simply get tired of others coming across as if they know it all.
People who train coherent joined up systems actually like talking about them and don't feel threatened by different opinions.
---Ah! But "true believers" are those that can't see any value in any other opinion. A mark of a "true believer" is always feeling the need to disparage what someone else does and argue against what they see as "wrong" because it doesn't match what they do.
I don't know what you mean by "always"; you have only been on the forum a few days, haven't you?
----I got the impression that Saul was pretty familiar with you from several different forums!
---Absolutely wrong. People simply get tired of others coming across as if they know it all.
People who train coherent joined up systems actually like talking about them and don't feel threatened by different opinions.
---Ah! But "true believers" are those that can't see any value in any other opinion. A mark of a "true believer" is always feeling the need to disparage what someone else does and argue against what they see as "wrong" because it doesn't match what they do.
I don't know what you mean by "always"; you have only been on the forum a few days, haven't you?
----I got the impression that Saul was pretty familiar with you from several different forums!
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
Latest Discussions
-
重心 Zhòngxīn center of gravity- Latest: Kung Fu Wang
-
-
-
-
