Wing Chun? hard style. Wing Tsun? softer than Aikido. Flipside? practically limp.

[Tom Kagan]

... some movements are simplified thus becoming less effective.

So, by inference from the above statement, more complicated movements means more effective.

Gotcha.

[Flipside]

So, by inference from the above statement, more complicated movements means more effective.

Gotcha.

No, just different ways depending on the situation.

Oh so you were trying to say you have the real Bing Dun.

Nope

I don't know what a testosteron is but, if it makes you want to chun, I don't want any of it.

That's the most stupid reply I have ever heard.

[Kung-Fu Joe]

No, just different ways depending on the situation.

But that's not what you said. What you said was, "I meant that in the wing tsun of Keith Kernspecht some movements are simplified thus becoming less effective." Which asserts that the more complex movements are thereby more effective. This very well may be the case. Lord knows, if someone simplified a standard punch to the point where nothing but the elbow was providing the mechanism of the attack, it wouldn't be anywhere near as effective as a strike with good hip rotation and proper form.

However, overly complex maneuvers tend to be terribly ineffective. If your typical shoulder-lock requires eight steps when a similar or equivalent technique in another style requires only three, yours will obviously be the inferior in practical application. There's simply much more that can go wrong in those extra steps, given the unpredictability of a resisting fighter.

So, are you saying that Keith Kernspecht watered-down techniques which were already efficient, or are you saying that he culled some of the more grandiose maneuvers from his teaching?

--Joe

[Tom .C]

That's the most stupid replie I have ever heard.[/quote]

Just wait, we're just getting started!!!

[Flipside]

But that's not what you said. What you said was, "I meant that in the wing tsun of Keith Kernspecht some movements are simplified thus becoming less effective." Which asserts that the more complex movements are thereby more effective. This very well may be the case. Lord knows, if someone simplified a standard punch to the point where nothing but the elbow was providing the mechanism of the attack, it wouldn't be anywhere near as effective as a strike with good hip rotation and proper form.

However, overly complex maneuvers tend to be terribly ineffective. If your typical shoulder-lock requires eight steps when a similar or equivalent technique in another style requires only three, yours will obviously be the inferior in practical application. There's simply much more that can go wrong in those extra steps, given the unpredictability of a resisting fighter.

So, are you saying that Keith Kernspecht watered-down techniques which were already efficient, or are you saying that he culled some of the more grandiose maneuvers from his teaching?

--Joe

An example: in the second form, Kernspecht teaches a three times the same bong, while in that of Allan Fong (also a student of leung ting) we have a bong, a striking bong and a bong coming from below. Depending on the situation you can use the one that fits the most.

[Tom Kagan]

An example: in the second form, Kernspecht teaches a three times the same bong, while in that of Allan Fong (also a student of leung ting) we have a bong, a striking bong and a bong coming from below. Depending on the situation you can use the one that fits the most.

It's a fucking form, dude. It's called Choreography!

If you honestly think any of those bongs yer smokin' are specifically referring to an application, you are mistaken.

Forms don't point to application. Application points to form.

[Flipside]

It's a fucking form, dude. It's called Choeography!

If you honestly think any of those bongs yer smokin' are specifically referring to an application, you are mistaken.

Forms don't point to application. Application points to form.

That's what I tell you, in a certain situation you can refer to the one of three bongs of the forms. Isn't that aplication pointing to the choreography of the form?

[Tonuzaba]

Hello, Flipside.
Welcome to Bullshido.
So, do you consider joining the upcoming Dutch Bullshido Throwdown in February?

[Tom Kagan]

That's what I tell you, in a certain situation you can refer to the one of three bongs of the forms. Isn't that aplication pointing to the choreography of the form?

No, not specifically.

Regardless you just changed your position by flipping it over. You were previously implying you use the form to practice a specific movement you then try in application.

And, even if you disagree with my interpretation of what you said, I will point out that if your bong is any good or useful, there are A LOT more variations and nuances to BongSao than just three. Therefore, clearly the BongSao in a form is already an abstraction - unless you have a gazillion different BongSao in your form. (Don't bullshit me, I KNOW you don't.)

As long as ANY abstraction is left in the form you can interpret it any way you want. Your comment implying that something was made too simple because there is only one variation repeated three times instead of any number of variations each performed once is thus invalid.


This is getting into the nature of the forms purpose, but a rule of thumb for Chinese MA:

- Three repeats = Important in some way.
- Performed once = Not so much.

[Permalost]

Making a wing chun thread is like propping up a box with a stick with a string tied to it, and putting a copy of Atlas Shrugged under it as bait. Making a _un sucks thred is the real wing chun trapping.

[It is Fake]

That's the most stupid replie I have ever heard.

Apparently, you haven't read your posts in this and the other thread it was culled from.

Can you tell me what a replie is?

[Tonuzaba]

Rep Lee, the undefeatable scourge of the Internet...

[M1K3]

See, I told you he was an asshat.

[Cullion]

Yeah that's funny because the only evidence for wing chun is....well...there is no evidence.

Alan Orr's people do alright.

[syberia]

That's the most stupid reply I have ever heard.

Um... So you havent read the rest of the forum then? I'm just sayin, there are some stupids out there. Or in your house, either way.

Oh, and pick an opinion, Fencehugger.