I must apologize for the for the time it took to get this next video out. I injured my knee quite severely and simply had to wait until I could move better. Well without further ado…

Thank you to everyone that has sent me their support. Both via kind words and suggestions and with donations. Knowing how well this is recieved gives me inspiration to continue this project.Here is the 1st of our 12 loose techniques. The centerline punch. If you have any questions, you can leave them in the comments sections.Enjoy.

http://www.dorthkeep.com/ykssn-wing-chun-12-t-echniques-centerline-punch/

And so it begins! As promised, I’ve started upload of my YKS/SN Wing Chun system. I hope you enjoy the process with me. I’ve spoken to others concerning various ideas on where to take this like podcast Q/A and what not. We’ll see what the future holds but in the meantime:

http://www.dorthkeep.com/ykssn-wing-chun-opening-sequence/

There has been some debate recently in the Wing Chun community about the nature of history and anthropology, in relation to the ongoing “quest” for our roots. I’d like to share my feelings (er… rant…) on the matter. As background, I received my Associates Degree from John Abbott College with a focus on history and anthropology (and went on to do my B.Sc. in geology from McGill University).

There is a reason why cultural anthropology, history and the like are typically (at least here in North America) in the arts and not the sciences field. This is due, in no small part, to the opinionated, biased and empirically lax or immeasurable instances of supposed data.

That being said, I do not look at arts being better than science nor vice versa, simply that both areas are subject to differing allowances of critical information relevant to a topic. Although I agree with that a reference point can, for example, be very useful to track similarities and evolution of a set choreography (such as Siu Lien Tao), this would only provide a “feel” for its evolution. As correct as any conclusion from that may be, that is not science for the critical reason that you cannot “recreate” results based on feel alone. That is why it is imperative for researchers of history, cultural anthropology and others to welcome a large gambit of opinions and points of view so as to come to a “fuzzy” idea of what may have occurred.

Now, I’m aware some countries, institutions, and/or individuals may in fact deem history or cultural anthropology a science, yet those that do would have a hard time explaining to me how the study of a cultural or spiritual ceremony for example can be equated as being as undisputable in certainty as the biological make up of one’s DNA. No contest, in my opinion.

What is sad is that people equate science as being great and arts as substandard. Nonsense. They differ by necessity and not because of inequality.

That’s my rant and I am outta here.

It is an unfortunate reality that wing chun has often been plagued by “badmouthing” individuals.
Why?

Is it done because of jealousy, greed, an actual love for the presentation the truth/untruth?

Who knows?

What I do know is that if it is really for the presentation of the truth, many would/should do it with a lot more tact. If its for the other, more petty reasons, then its simply out of malice. So what can be done? What should be done, if anything at all?

These are difficult questions to answer and the answers are all dependent on the perceptions of the people directly involved (or in some cases indirectly involved.) On the one hand, the people directly involved would most likely want their respective sides heard on the matter and for their side to be believed. On the other hand you have the relatives, friends and students of those involved who can be swept up by the whole ordeal and misrepresent those who are directly involved leading to inflammations of the issue(s). I suppose the best way to deal with this, whether you are directly or indirectly involved, is to consider the source of the badmouthing. Are they a person of known character across many “political” boundaries or are they little known and secluded in thought? With these obvious extremes, the answer is very easy to realize. Unfortunately, things are seldom in the extreme and it’s almost never this easy. What if one of the persons involved had previous political issues of badmouthing and/or confrontation with another person/organization? Are they more or less believable in this sort of situation? In my (most headstrong) opinion, I would say if trouble follows you around, you are a troublemaker. Now that’s not necessarily a bad thing, but someone who purposely slanders another person in public is attempting to gain benefit in some manner. A very tactless behavior in any light.

A great Wing Chun practitioner said, “if wing chun is all you do, you have to protect your reputation so that nobody has any question of your ability.” I take this statement to heart even if it’s not “all that you do.” The reason is that your reputation speaks for you and you never have to badmouth anyone in order to make yourself look better. It gives you credence and does not carry the negative connotations that badmouthing others would bring. Lets be honest, even if you ARE the all time best wing chun’ner in the world, how good do you look when you badmouth others? Pretty silly huh? Well, pretty silly to those not encompassed by your influence, the idolizers would dismiss this behavior in the way that idolizers do.

One aspect of letting your abilities speak for themselves is that it is obviously no easy task. In many cases, loudmouths may, in fact, be that way because they can back it up. Their insecurities may not be a function of their wing chun but simply of their character. Nonetheless they have something to prove. Giving in to such obvious “flames” can add fuel to the fire or in the least, give the badmouthing individual an ear, forum or reason to propagate the slander. Although a laissez faire attitude may be appropriate, when it comes to the martial arts, the proof is in the pudding. Instead of making verbal claims of “he said/she said,” I am of the mind that making a personal inquest on the matter is the best route to “solve” an issue. Let badmouthing individuals make their claims. Visit them and visit the people whom they are speaking of. Make up your own minds. Getting information right from the source and making your own decision on the matter is the only real freedom we have. If the attack is upon me or a wing chun sibling, I would certainly be open minded enough to hear it out. If I am wrong, show me don’t tell me. Seeing is believing. My wing chun speaks for itself. Ask yourself if yours does too.

That’s my rave and I am outta here.

Intent. This simple expression can mean the difference between a good fighter and an exceptional fighter. It can inspire you while simultaneously instilling doubt in your opponent. It can push you to a higher standard in your abilities and make you want to strive for more. And it all starts with the eyes. What is intent? For this article, I will define intent as the generation of presence and focus in the mind, as if dealing with a stressful, real life situation. It is a psychological state of mind that must be developed so that it becomes second nature when under stressful situations. Why is that important? Going through the motions when training will never prepare you for a real life encounter. Even in friendly “tests of skill”, intent can train you to bring out your best rather than to settle for less.

What does it have to do with the eyes? Well this is primarily from whence your outward expression of intent will emanate.
For me, it all started when I used to be part of the tournament scene and I would train for fights. I was a timid, shy person by nature and even though I liked martial arts, I used to feel intimidated by fights. It wasn’t because I didn’t think I was good, but because I would get scared of the older teens. They would stare at me with such ferocity that I would panic. I could not understand what made them “hate” me so much that they could stare at me with such angry expressions. After one such encounter with a person, I realized that they didn’t hate me at all. They simply had trained themselves to outwardly express their intent towards me. I realized that I too needed to train intent. Not just to outwardly express it, but to feel it on the inside as well.

I started by staring at myself in the mirror, furrowing my eyebrows trying to “intimidate” myself. It was funny at first, but with time, it became comfortable. I started to train with the same look I developed in the mirror and I found myself pushing harder and performing better. Finally, I started fighting with that “look” of intent and I began to notice my opponents became unsteady and nervous. I could actually see their facial expression become fearful at times. I didn’t feel any real anger towards anyone, nor hate, nor an uncontrollable want to hurt. I just felt more confidence in my ability. I also felt that even if my ability was less than that of my opponent, I had the intent to push myself to higher standards.

Intent distinguishes you from the rest of the pack. Once developed, people can actually “see” your intent and be effected by it psychologically. Try it out for a week. Look in a mirror and, in your mind, place yourself in a stressful situation. Watch your facial expression change. That “look” that you see will be your “face of intent.” Train with it, fight with it, and write us back to let us know if you feel any benefits. I guarantee that if given a chance, you’ll feel a change for the better in yourself, and a change in the expressions of your opponents.

That’s my rave and I am outta here.

What’s wrong with repeating ideas my sifu told me in class the other night?”

Nothing.

“Why is it that people are making fun of my sifu when I tell them what his/her ideas are?”

They aren’t.

“Why are so and so’s ideas soooo much more different than my sifu’s?”

They probably aren’t that different. It’s most likely your misunderstanding of your sifu’s ideas that cause people to seemingly “jump on you” whenever you regurgitate what your sifu’s says without actually understanding what he/she said.

Oh man, have there been times that I wish I could have responded that way in real life to people I perceive as knuckleheads. But alas I am a slave to my common sense (most of the time and yes I can hear the snickering). When it comes to conversing with someone who holds sifu as “god”, it becomes tedious to try and make him or her understand that anything you say to counter his/her ideas in not an insult to his/her sifu.

I think the crux of the matter is nobody likes when someone opens their mouth and refuses (read can’t) back up what they say with simply direct discussion or require “backup” to explain what is meant. In my opinion, if you can’t do it on your own, you shouldn’t be championing the cause. Ignorance can only lead to half-truths and misunderstandings. I know had I been more vocal at the beginning of my WCK training, many would have found me stubborn and a bit of a sifu idolizer as well. Luckily, I had yet to meet other wing Chun practitioners outside of my own line before I had a chance to open my mouth and speak before I actually understood what sifu said. I finally realized that I was the one to make up my own mind on what he said and what others said. He taught me to have a critical eye, yet be open to other and potentially “better” ideologies.

Just a general word of advice however. Anytime we decide to speak for someone on an issue, any mistakes or misinterpretations you make reflect poorly on the person you are speaking for (i.e. sifu). So unless you are willing to hear “poor” comments about the person you are speaking for due to those misinterpretations, simply don’t speak for them. Speak for yourself. What do you think?

That’s my rant and I am outta here.

Which is better in a confrontational situation? Reacting to a fight with ingrained (i.e. learned) responses or having a strategic “plan” of action dictate your defenses? Obviously the answer is both. But are these two ideas separate entities? I claim that these two ideologies walk hand in hand and in order to be adept at one, you need the other.

Having a significant other in my life that studies in the field of psychology allows me to be privy to modern thoughts and ideas on human behavior. A recent discussion we both had dealt with a psychological study on high performance athletes vs. amateur athletes of various sports. This study claimed that the main difference between amateurs and professionals was that when under duress or under other stressful situations (i.e. competition) the high performance athletes tend to perform better than expected, and the amateurs tend to perform poorer than expected. According to the study, the reason for the greater than expected results by the high-performance athletes was due to the amount of time practicing their various sports (e.g. a footballer practicing his maneuvers and ball handling skills hours on end).

Amateurs typically had much less practice time and therefore less time to have fundamental movements ingrained to become second nature. Although the amateur may know what to do in a given situation (pass the ball or outrun a defender) his ability to due so is diminished due to a lack of training and having a lack of an automated response. That is, his brain wants to do something, but his body can’t do it. The high performance athletes on the other hand, could apply their strategies seamlessly and adeptly. Additionally, if their choices for strategy happened to be offset by an unexpected variable (someone tackling the ball from behind for example) they had a greater ability to rethink strategy and perform a desired response. This obviously applies to our WCK training as well. Persons who have trained key positions and principles to the point of becoming second nature will not only be able to think strategy, but will also be able to apply it under stressful situations. Someone who only “knows” the position or principle but has less practice time under their belt will performs less adequately under similar circumstances. I suppose my point in this is that I don’t think strategy and automated responses are separate things. They need to work together to achieve a desired response and persons adept at both would be the better performers. So what it comes down to is that no matter how tactically adept you may be, it won’t amount to much until you can perform those strategies with ingrained responses. What do you think?

That’s my rant and I am outta here..