I can hear and decode all the words you're saying but I have no idea what's going on. I suddenly realize how trivial my knowledge of Wing Chun's history is. And I am fascinated. Thank you for my new hyperfixation.
@@SifuSergioChannel I'll check it out! I can only imagine that it's as well sourced as your videos. The only other Wing Chun history that I can seem to find is either the mythical narrative, plausible but unsourced speculation, or one guy who has a lot of sources and a lot of agenda.
Thank You Sifu Sergio....I think the Burning of the Red Junk Wharf is the place most of the history points too as a shared nexus of our stories' beginning. Keep up the great work.
In the previous video, “oldest writings” is plural. If we take just that and interpret it like it is said, it doesn't claim it to be the oldest writing but one of the oldest writings. The name “1700’s/1800’s Wing Chun” can be interpreted as “1700’s Wing Chun/1800’s Wing Chun”. Good definitions don’t leave room for a misinterpretation so better would be something like “1700’s pre-Wing Chun/1800’s Wing Chun” or “1800’s Wing Chun & it’s 1700’s ancestor” - something that clearly separates Wing Chun from it’s earlier form that is not yet “Wing Chun” as it is defined. What comes to the definition of Wing Chun, standardization is the beginning of mutual understanding so industry needs standard definitions that are the same for all parties. Otherwise communication gets difficult if people are fighting over ownership of words. What truly matters in the end is the definition of a word, the principle, not the sequence of sounds we use to describe it. Like this grandmaster stuff: many want the title but the main idea is to be qualified to fluently play around with stuff. I would choose the latter if I had to choose between the two.
Not sure. But i practised one inch punches on a boxing bag all day, and for a good 2 days, anytime someone came close to me or behind, i automatically punched but stopped my self from landing the punch infront of their nose. This was automatic instinct from all the repeated punches
Once and for all, hendrik santo is a liar, taking credit from the work of others. Is there any original contribution from Hendrik santo? Maybe only translations from general Chi Ji Kwan.
Your commitment to historical accuracy is commendable 👏
Thank you appreciate it
I can hear and decode all the words you're saying but I have no idea what's going on.
I suddenly realize how trivial my knowledge of Wing Chun's history is. And I am fascinated. Thank you for my new hyperfixation.
If you are Fascinated by Wing Chun history you should read my book you will love it
@@SifuSergioChannel I'll check it out! I can only imagine that it's as well sourced as your videos.
The only other Wing Chun history that I can seem to find is either the mythical narrative, plausible but unsourced speculation, or one guy who has a lot of sources and a lot of agenda.
Thank You Sifu Sergio....I think the Burning of the Red Junk Wharf is the place most of the history points too as a shared nexus of our stories' beginning. Keep up the great work.
🙏 great to know all this information. Thank you for sharing with us Sifu ❤️
😊👍👊🏼
Looking forward to next week's video!
Great information thank you once again for sharing this with us!
👍👊🏼
Very difficult to order your English version book, the page just seems to end up with German language for me, Sifu Sergio.
If you use chrome there is a button for translating the webpage in the address bar.
Is there any step by step teaching video of Snake Crane Wing Chun?
Have you done a video on the different between wing chun in China and different countries?
Yes. He has. He gets into a lot of depth with it. 💯just so you know ahead of time. 🙏🙏🙏
In the previous video, “oldest writings” is plural. If we take just that and interpret it like it is said, it doesn't claim it to be the oldest writing but one of the oldest writings.
The name “1700’s/1800’s Wing Chun” can be interpreted as “1700’s Wing Chun/1800’s Wing Chun”. Good definitions don’t leave room for a misinterpretation so better would be something like “1700’s pre-Wing Chun/1800’s Wing Chun” or “1800’s Wing Chun & it’s 1700’s ancestor” - something that clearly separates Wing Chun from it’s earlier form that is not yet “Wing Chun” as it is defined.
What comes to the definition of Wing Chun, standardization is the beginning of mutual understanding so industry needs standard definitions that are the same for all parties. Otherwise communication gets difficult if people are fighting over ownership of words.
What truly matters in the end is the definition of a word, the principle, not the sequence of sounds we use to describe it. Like this grandmaster stuff: many want the title but the main idea is to be qualified to fluently play around with stuff. I would choose the latter if I had to choose between the two.
Some very good suggestions there, thank you will discuss it with the whole team
Thank you 🤙🏼
You are very welcome
I invite everybody to go to the yt channel of this "gentleman" to tell him he is a liar.
I have already done it.
Why? What information or corrections do you have to share? That would be more useful than calling people names.
@@VTSifuSteve did you see this video?
Is he talking about that guy that had some controversy a few years ago?
I guess we aren't mentioning names.
If someone practiced Relaxed horse stance for some years,will be be able to break bricks?
Not sure. But i practised one inch punches on a boxing bag all day, and for a good 2 days, anytime someone came close to me or behind, i automatically punched but stopped my self from landing the punch infront of their nose. This was automatic instinct from all the repeated punches
Once and for all, hendrik santo is a liar, taking credit from the work of others.
Is there any original contribution from Hendrik santo?
Maybe only translations from general Chi Ji Kwan.
He sure did some stuff too but yes his behaviour is unfortunate