Mixing Wing Chun with a grappling style?

[t_niehoff]

Is that also not an insult?

Or are you going to cowardly back-track out of that one too?

HFY is a cult.

As for theoretical nonsense.

Tell me then, why did your Sifu Robert Chu use our HFY terminology for his article on Bai Jong, Jit Kiu, Chum Kiu, and Wu Ma??? Because he knew real information when he saw it!

It might surprise you to learn that some of "HFY terminology" isn't original -- that is was taken, like its forms, from other sources. So your terminology isn't exclusive to HFY. Bai jong, chum kiu wu ma, etc. were terms I knew 25 years ago, before I met Robert. Interestingly, I also learned the HFY forms (TWC forms) long ago too.

Why did he release articles that for all intents and purposes echo previously released articles by us? Articles on the Wing Chun Punch, and on Wing Chun Footwork.

What articles did HFY release that pre-dated his articles? Oh, BTW, Benny's punch article -- funny that, considering that Benny took a private lesson from Robert prior to writing that article and joining HFY, and he learned one point in Gu Lao, the punch.

Because regardless of whether or not he knew about the HFY articles, he views these WC topics similarly.

Guess our non-sense must be your non-sense too!

What you fail to point out is all the other piles of rubbish heaped onto the few things from legitimate WCK, your WCK formula, the gates, time/space/energy, saam mor kiu, and the list goes on and on.

FWIW, Robert's motto is "let application be your sifu" -- that is a rejection of theory. Theory doesn't teach you to apply your WCK. Experience fighting does.

Fighting isn't -- and CAN'T be -- that complicated. And that's why when you look at functional martial arts, you see they keep theory to a minimum.

Now here in this thread you talk about Chi Sau being a form of stand-up grappling that can be used for fighting at a clinch range.

This is what I've been saying for frickin years! That Chi Sau is for fighting at a certain time-frame. When for years upon years YOU said it was only a training drill.

Well, you've been wrong for years, because we're not saying the same things at all. And you don't understand what I've been saying. Chi sao isn't "a form of stand-up grappling." It is a artifical, unrealistic exercise that can be used to teach and practice some elements of WCK's method of fighting, which is a combination of striking and grappling.

Chi sao isn't for fighting and won't develop fighting skills. Nor does it have anything to do with a "certain time-frame." If you fought as part of your training, you'd see that.

So Terence, if I'm a cult member, then you are a wannabe cult-member kissing my a$$ so that you can join.

I'm done with this thread. Keep on strokin' yourself. I've got better things to do.

LOL! Dude, I recognized Benny and Garrett for what they were the minute I laid eyes on them back in '99. Two peas in a pod.

[duende]

HFY is a cult.

The opinion of a back-peddling hypocritical a$$. Keep on editing your posts btw...

It might surprise you to learn that some of "HFY terminology" isn't original -- that is was taken, like its forms, from other sources. So your terminology isn't exclusive to HFY. Bai jong, chum kiu wu ma, etc. were terms I knew 25 years ago, before I met Robert. Interestingly, I also learned the HFY forms (TWC forms) long ago too.

The context and the usage of the term in the manner that I'm referring to WAS at the time unique to HFY. As for anything you learned in 1993?? Big fricken deal. I have Sihings who learned HFY from my Sifu all the way back to 1977. Before TWC was even known in the USA.

and you're on crack if you think you learned our forms.

What articles did HFY release that pre-dated his articles? Oh, BTW, Benny's punch article -- funny that, considering that Benny took a private lesson from Robert prior to writing that article and joining HFY, and he learned one point in Gu Lao, the punch.

Gu Lao punch?? Really??? Now that is funny.

Go look a true Gu Lao punch. And then feel free to come back here and re-edit your post. Because this is silliest thing you've written yet.

What you fail to point out is all the other piles of rubbish heaped onto the few things from legitimate WCK, your WCK formula, the gates, time/space/energy, saam mor kiu, and the list goes on and on.

Sad for you that you consider this a pile of rubbish. Truly shows what an ignorant fool you are.

FWIW, Robert's motto is "let application be your sifu" -- that is a rejection of theory. Theory doesn't teach you to apply your WCK. Experience fighting does.

Yes, we've heard you say this a million times. Appears it is the ONLY thing you learned from Robert which is too bad.

Fighting isn't -- and CAN'T be -- that complicated. And that's why when you look at functional martial arts, you see they keep theory to a minimum.

more so-called wisdom from a poser.

Well, you've been wrong for years, because we're not saying the same things at all. And you don't understand what I've been saying. Chi sao isn't "a form of stand-up grappling." It is a artifical, unrealistic exercise that can be used to teach and practice some elements of WCK's method of fighting, which is a combination of striking and grappling.

Chi sao isn't for fighting and won't develop fighting skills. Nor does it have anything to do with a "certain time-frame." If you fought as part of your training, you'd see that.

More hypocracy and back-peddling. I'm sure you'll re-edit your prior posts to conform to this last paragraph too.

LOL! Dude, I recognized Benny and Garrett for what they were the minute I laid eyes on them back in '99. Two peas in a pod.

What other great wisdom did you learn from sitting on the sidelines and not will touching anyone's hand??

Truly sorry for re-joining this thread. Will leave if Terence is done talking smack.

[TAYLOR1]

Terrence,

Who are you? Your nobody. You don’t know HFY. You sit in your little chair hiding behind your keyboard.

You want to test your skill? Come test it in Phoenix, you arrogant little sh1t!

Btw, why do you constantly edit your posts? You can’t keep your nutty thoughts straight? Or do you constantly change your mind because you don’t know what your talking about? The truth doesn’t change but your words do!

[t_niehoff]

Terrence,

Who are you? Your nobody. You don’t know HFY. You sit in your little chair hiding behind your keyboard.

You want to test your skill? Come test it in Phoenix, you arrogant little sh1t!

Btw, why do you constantly edit your posts? You can’t keep your nutty thoughts straight? Or do you constantly change your mind because you don’t know what your talking about? The truth doesn’t change but your words do!

Yes, I don't know HFY. Just like I don't know Yellow Bamboo. Just like I don't know all kinds of silly things. You don't need to know something to recognize it is nonsense.

Oh, another deadly internet challenge. I guess that proves you're tough or that I'm somehow afraid to take the time,spend the money, etc.to travel thousands of miles to . . . .

Why do I keep editing my posts? Mainly to correct typing mistakes. I type fast and then send them off, and after rereading them notice that Ijoinedseveral words togeter (example). What do you care if I edit them?

You're right -- the truth doesn't change. But fantasy sure does,

Now, if you want to continue responding to me and have me continue to tell you why HFY is silly and nonsense, and how it is not legitimate WCK, etc. please, do go on. I'm more than happy to oblige.

[t_niehoff]

The context and the usage of the term in the manner that I'm referring to WAS at the time unique to HFY. As for anything you learned in 1993?? Big fricken deal. I have Sihings who learned HFY from my Sifu all the way back to 1977. Before TWC was even known in the USA.

People can claim anything. Too bad there isn't any evidence.

and you're on crack if you think you learned our forms.

I saw the HFY SNT at the VTM and I already knew it. When Garrett askedme what I thought of HFY I told him then that it looked like TWC with more theory.

Gu Lao punch?? Really??? Now that is funny.

Go look a true Gu Lao punch. And then feel free to come back here and re-edit your post. Because this is silliest thing you've written yet.

Well, Benny goes and studies with Robert, and learns the punch. He later writes an article talking about the "HFY punch". You say that the stuff in the article shows Robert took from HFY. I'm showing that it was the other way round -- Benny took it from Robert.

Sad for you that you consider this a pile of rubbish. Truly shows what an ignorant fool you are.

I'm sure the Scientologists feel the same way.

Yes, we've heard you say this a million times. Appears it is the ONLY thing you learned from Robert which is too bad.

That's not the only thing, but it may be the most important. But I can see why you don't like it: it is the bullsh1t filter.

more so-called wisdom from a poser.

You see, that's a personal attack. And I'm surprised you don't like wisdom from posers -- that seems to be all you listen to.

More hypocracy and back-peddling. I'm sure you'll re-edit your prior posts to conform to this last paragraph too.

No need to -- I'm sorry that your mind is so confused with theoretical nonsense that you can't follow simple reasoning.

What other great wisdom did you learn from sitting on the sidelines and not will touching anyone's hand??

Oh, this is an allusion to when I was at the VTM seminar. FWIW, I did participate in those parts that interested me (like Rene's and Marty's parts of the seminar). The one I opted out of was Benny teaching chi sao. There is nothing Benny could teach me.

Asfar as touching hands gfoes, I did chi sao with loads of people there (Jeglum, Rene, Dave, Dzu, etc.). In fact, Dave, Dzu, and I wereout of ont floor of the VTM until 2am training when wecaught Benny and his minions sneaking out to have a private lesson from Garrett. It was after that incident that I wouldn't play with Benny's guys anymore.

Truly sorry for re-joining this thread. Will leave if Terence is done talking smack.

Good. Then maybe next time you think twice.

[JPinAZ]

Disclaimer: this is not a reply directed toward T, so he doesn't need to apply.

Last post:

Chi sao isn't "a form of stand-up grappling." It is a artifical, unrealistic exercise that can be used to teach and practice some elements of WCK's method of fighting, which is a combination of striking and grappling.

Previous post:

WCK is to control the opponent while striking him. To control an opponent requires "grappling". Chi sao is "grappling". Lop sao is "grappling". Those drills teach you how to mix grappling (controlling) and striking.

Another previous one:

Chi sao is grappling with striking. Sustained contact is grappling.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Last post:

Chi sao isn't for fighting and won't develop fighting skills. Nor does it have anything to do with a "certain time-frame." If you fought as part of your training, you'd see that.

Again:

Chi sao is grappling with striking. Sustained contact is grappling.

Sounds like fighting to me...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
But then:

Chi sao isn't a "moment", it is an artificial, unrealistic exercise.

But wait, that's not right either:

Grappling is being in contact and trying to physically manipulate your opponent to reach your objective. That's what wrestlers do, that's what judoka do, that's what sumo wrestlers do,and that's what we do in WCK -- except we add strikesto the mix. Chi sao is similar to a wreslter's handfighting.

and lastly again:

Chi sao isn't "a form of stand-up grappling."

Which is it, is it grappling and striking (fighting), or is it an excersize? Is it wrestler's handfighting or is it a useless unrealistic excersize?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
oh wait, one more time:

Chi sao is grappling with striking. Sustained contact is grappling.

and
Previous post:

Chi sao is "grappling". Lop sao is "grappling". Those drills teach you how to mix grappling (controlling) and striking.

Or, was it

...it is an artificial, unrealistic exercise.

Is it an excersize that teaches useful fighting skills or unrealistic excersize?
Is it grappling or isn't it?
Is it for fighting or isn't it?
No wonder there's confusion...

[vingtsunplaya]

Ok, I'm going to say it one more time, but this time I'll say it DIRECTLY to the person to whom it applies: Hendrick, please don't waste space/time here with your posts unless you actually have something a) coherent b) on topic and finally c) in proper English. It really pi$$es us all off when we have to wade through your sh1t postings. Van Helsing? Really? Dracula, werewolves? Come on bro. We are talking about reality here. By the way, shall we start a thread about fighting while flying throught the air (like in Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon)?!?! That would apply to this conversation about as much as all that other sh1t.

As far as Terrance goes, I don't really know you bro, but you are really off base with what you are talking about. There are alot of people out there who respect Sifu Garrett Gee as being one of the true practitioners of Wing Chun in the world. There are many in China who respect the man more than their own Sifus. On the other hand, your Sifu doesn't exactly have the best "street cred" if you know what I mean. I say this as a bystander, but one who has seen a few things. I know a blow hard when I see one. You sir, are the hardest blower I have seen in some time (not to mention all of your hypocracy). But hey, if you want to keep spouting insults from the yellow brick road with the rest of the munchkins, go right ahead. It's not my a$$. Best of luck to you bro...

[Mr Punch]

Ok, ... Best of luck to you bro...

Great Playa, bro. Another munchkin to tell us how it is. What were you saying about on topic?

[Hendrik]

You dont have to read my post right? ignore it if my music is not fitting you. Thanks

Ok, I'm going to say it one more time, but this time I'll say it DIRECTLY to the person to whom it applies: Hendrick, please don't waste space/time here with your posts unless you actually have something a) coherent b) on topic and finally c) in proper English. It really pi$$es us all off when we have to wade through your sh1t postings. Van Helsing? Really? Dracula, werewolves? Come on bro. We are talking about reality here. By the way, shall we start a thread about fighting while flying throught the air (like in Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon)?!?! That would apply to this conversation about as much as all that other sh1t.

As far as Terrance goes, I don't really know you bro, but you are really off base with what you are talking about. There are alot of people out there who respect Sifu Garrett Gee as being one of the true practitioners of Wing Chun in the world. There are many in China who respect the man more than their own Sifus. On the other hand, your Sifu doesn't exactly have the best "street cred" if you know what I mean. I say this as a bystander, but one who has seen a few things. I know a blow hard when I see one. You sir, are the hardest blower I have seen in some time (not to mention all of your hypocracy). But hey, if you want to keep spouting insults from the yellow brick road with the rest of the munchkins, go right ahead. It's not my a$$. Best of luck to you bro...

[t_niehoff]

As far as Terrance goes, I don't really know you bro, but you are really off base with what you are talking about. There are alot of people out there who respect Sifu Garrett Gee as being one of the true practitioners of Wing Chun in the world. There are many in China who respect the man more than their own Sifus. On the other hand, your Sifu doesn't exactly have the best "street cred" if you know what I mean. I say this as a bystander, but one who has seen a few things. I know a blow hard when I see one. You sir, are the hardest blower I have seen in some time (not to mention all of your hypocracy). But hey, if you want to keep spouting insults from the yellow brick road with the rest of the munchkins, go right ahead. It's not my a$$. Best of luck to you bro...

I tell you what, why don't you prove that HFY existed prior to Garrett Gee. Show me a single HFY practitioner, show me Wang Ming, show me anyone that even knew of or heard of HFY prior to Garrett Gee. I'm waiting.

You can't do it. No one can. Because HFY didn't exist prior to Garrett Gee. He made it up.

Dude, I don't care about "reputations" among TCMAists. That proves diddly-squat. Most TCMA is fantasy fu. How did these people earn their reputations? Certainly not by fighting, not using their martial arts. Not by producing fighters. No, we have people like you who believe without any real, solid evidence the nonsense they hear.

[Wayfaring]

Sheesh. I leave a thread for a few days and look what you guys do to it. There's some interesting things to talk about here like the live/dead hands grappling stuff, and a whole lot other more related to a train wreck.

With the stand-up grappling topics we were discussing, the aim of stand up grappling is to restrict an opponent's movement in some fashion while not restricting your movement so you can move to a position of advantage, execute a technique like a takedown/submission, or strike. We can talk about "fully committed" attempts at this and "partially committed", live / dead hands but when it gets to the fighting application part of it the skill involved is still in isolating a particular part of your opponent's movement for the exact period of time necessary for you to move to a position of advantage, execute a technique, or strike. This involves technique, timing, range.

In BJJ and Judo they call this "grip fighting", maybe wrestling too. There are different approaches in Greco and freestyle as well. Muy Thai has a unique approach to this too. When you add in striking scenarios the hardest skill to develop is where to do the grappling so as to leave you striking options or a grappling position advantage or submission that removes your opponents striking options.

From what I've observed this is one area of the overall fight game where WC could contribute greatly. I mean couldn't we look at from one viewpoint the exercise of "chi sau" as training for one system of grip fighting?

These are the interesting things to me out of this thread to continue to discuss.

[Wayfaring]

You can't do it. No one can. Because HFY didn't exist prior to Garrett Gee. He made it up.

T,

One thing is for sure. HFY wasn't taught in the US prior to Garrett Gee teaching it. But just from logical rational thought, you don't develop that kind of high level of wing chun skill in application by making something up. Seminars are one thing and you don't like Benny Meng - sure.

I mean I think you can even ask your own wing chun teacher Robert what his perception of Sifu Gee's skills are if you don't want to have personal contact yourself. And Robert's learned from more than one source.

And on a side note, I think you'll have a good time interacting with JP. You'll find outside of arguing on the Internet he's a pretty level guy. No Moonie or anything. If you have any of your group sparring guys meeting maybe you could invite him. Or just spar a little or something no death matches.

Threads like this escalate and raise stakes in personal interaction so they don't occur. Or get blown out of proportion. All that is kind of silly.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Want to weigh in on two things, here.

First, yes there are some elements of grappling in chi sao - but to simply call chi sao a form of grappling (with striking thrown in) is just plain foolish. The object of wing chun is to hit your opponent. And while it is true that chi sao teaches more than just how and when to hit, that doesn't change the fact that hitting is the goal.

Secondly, I have long believed that both William Cheung and Garrett Gee learned from the same unidentified source - one referring to it as Traditional Wing Chun (TWC) and the other calling it Hung Fa Yi (HFY).

The fact that both systems look so amazingly alike and yet both men have always been so reticent to bad mouth the other (or accuse the other of stealing)...

says volumes.

BUT THIS IS AN OLD, DEAD HORSE....or at least it should be.

[Wayfaring]

First, yes there are some elements of grappling in chi sao - but to simply call chi sao a form of grappling (with striking thrown in) is just plain foolish. The object of wing chun is to hit your opponent. And while it is true that chi sao teaches more than justl how and when to hit, that doesn't change the fact that hitting is the goal.

If you look at it only in absolutes it is foolish. And granted openings in chi sau are responded to mostly with punches. (Although I have been neck clinched / snapped down from a chi sau opening and offbalanced by someone stepping on my foot).

But bear with me. A bridge is grappling in a very broad sense. It represents restricted movement. Books like Renzo Gracie's talking about fight ranges speak of free movement, restricted movement, and ground. Now you can say that the object of chi sau is to strike your opponent. But if you develop skill in control of the bridge, and what presents itself is a takedown, will you take it or not? The kicks in wing chun are kind of designed to remove the supporting balance and take someone to the ground.

So what exactly would you say the difference is in grip fighting in an MMA environment and the bridge in wing chun?

Secondly, I have long believed that both William Cheung and Garrett Gee learned from the same unidentified source - one referring to it as Traditional Wing Chun (TWC) and the other calling it Hung Fa Yi (HFY).

The distant cousin theory that may make sense but will never be substantiated. They are different now. You're right that's a dead horse. But two distinct points of reference kind of negate the made up thing.

[duende]

Secondly, I have long believed that both William Cheung and Garrett Gee learned from the same unidentified source - one referring to it as Traditional Wing Chun (TWC) and the other calling it Hung Fa Yi (HFY).

All Wing Chun comes from the same source. And as both TWC and HFY have history that ties them to this original source, being able to relate to expressions found in both systems could mean that you are in fact seeing expressions from the original source.

Not trying to start a debate here, but if you think about the commonalities amongst all our systems... then one can possible boil everything down to the unifying original thread.

Therefore, it is not fair for either system to be writtten off simply as the same thing, or worse... as a copy of eachother like what Terence is doing. This casts off both our systems as merely just a few rudimentery techniques.


I find that highly insulting and ignorant. Despite all his back-peddling and self-affirmation.

Yes.. we do share some things like our high elbow/straight wrist Ying Bong Sau, but did you know that HFY also has a bent wrist/low elbow Hok Bong Sau? One is meant for the big wheel Body mechanics and Jeui Ying, while the other is meant for the little wheel body and deui ying facing.

I've also seen some TWC kicks and hand techniques that are not present in HFY.

So there are some similarities, but there are also some differences.

Anyways Victor, I know GM Gee has been traveling more frequently to NY these days. In the pursuit of good will, I could try and set-up some time for you to meet with him. PM me if you are interested.

Best,

Alex