Integrative Wing Chun

[old jong]

What do you think about the modifications in SLT this Wing Chun school brings?
-Retracting fook sau
-outgoing wu sau
-more frontal fak sau
-stance
-Article (http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/ezine/article.php?article=249)

[Redd]

What do you think?

[old jong]

I asked first!:D

[burnsypoo]

That matrix was nice. I think that if you make changes, good for you. If you're proud, put it out there. But I don't really get the need to have to put down "the old way" in order to substantiate the new innovations. If they're good, they should stand on their own.

[old jong]

I want to experiment with that pulling fook sau before commenting.It must feel strange I presume.

[Hendrik]

Originally posted by old jong
What do you think about the modifications in SLT this Wing Chun school brings?
-Retracting fook sau
-outgoing wu sau
-more frontal fak sau
-stance
-Article (http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/ezine/article.php?article=249)




Reverse the medirians.
Using the White Crane San Chin.


Yan Kok Yau Chee. Everyone has one's own path....

[yuanfen]

Read the article. See no point in arguing. I dont see it as
an improvement. people get all kinds of ideas. So what.

[yylee]

I'm the old fashion stubborn like bull type, I still prefer the horizontal fok sau going forward.... easier to focus forward energy.... for me.

Fat Sau, hmmm.... I feel that it is a way to use a "big" movement to help us find a "small" sensation - the energy transfer from joint to joint, from shoulder to fingers, well... that's just me of cource :o

[S.Teebas]

I think we've had this discussions before but anyway, to be kind id say do what what you like if it works.

To be honest i say he's not understanding a few things judging by a few comments in the article. Im sure this guy knows how to fight, but some of the power generation ideas are lacking (if you want to juice the form for all its worth).

Just my 2 cents

[anerlich]

I thought the article was pretty good all up. Resisted the temptation to put other lineages down and gave a good explanation. The "comparison" thing is always a mistake IMO, there have been articles from other lineages which did the same thing which have caused big problems - William Chueng's "Traditional/Modified" being probably the worst, the HFY "system/style" thing less so.

FWIW, TWC has ALWAYS brought the Dai Jeung hand up to tan sao before bringing it back. We don't end our heun sao is a horizontal fist either. We do our SLT fak sao at 90 like most others, but in CK and BJ it's more like 45, along the central line.

Actually, the footwork reminds me more of Sanchin than anything else. Nothing wrong with that.

All up, I think Chung Sifu is correct in thinking that there is room for continuous improvement in Wing Chun and the way it is taught. And in thinking for oneself rather than following dogma.

[teazer]

All up, I think Chung Sifu is correct in thinking that there is room for continuous improvement in Wing Chun and the way it is taught. And in thinking for oneself rather than following dogma. [/B]

I agree. I just don't think this is it. His reasons for giving up the 'traditional' methods aren't justified IMO.
The only one that I agreed with was introducing the SKM stepping early.
Nice chart. Shame about the contents.

I concur with:
<<Sometimes the study of another art may be utilized to open ones eyes to what is found deeper in one’s own system. >>

My view is however - Until I have people writing legends about my abilities, chances are any defects are in me, not the system.

BTW, anyone have an accurate translation of 'fook'? I hadn't heard the 'stalking' version before. Last I heard, people had settled on 'covering/controlling'

[old jong]

Traditionnaly,fook moves forward and equalize the other guy's tan (witch is also a forward motion.
I just wonder how the fook is going to react if suddenly the tan is withdraw or the line gets clear for an attack.
I have'nt tried it yet but seems to me that a fook moving this way would have to first stop his incoming motion before transforming itself into a punch.

[reneritchie]

I think we discussed this here with Dave several times before. Anyway, my thinking remains:

1) We already have both extending and retracting bridges in WCK, (eg. the retracting Wu in SLT and the extending Wu in Chum Kiu.
2) Therefor, changing it is really only changing the order of introduction of one variation vs. another
3) Unless the other one (eg. extending in Chum Kiu) is left the same
4) Then, one conceptual point/movement has been eliminated
5) And as all conceptual points/movements are important
6) That's not a great thing.
7) So, in the end, if you have both anyway, regardless of order, it's not a big change
8) But if you don't, why not?

RR

[kj]

Originally posted by teazer
My view is however - Until I have people writing legends about my abilities, chances are any defects are in me, not the system.

This one strikes a deep chord in me.

I rarely make judgmental comment on someone else's art, whether differences, changes, or whatever, and I will make no exception now. Save reasonable consideration of advantages and disadvantages, what would qualify me as ultimate judge anyway. Or any of the rest of you for that matter.

This much of my thought I will offer. The beauty, integrity, and potential of Wing Chun as I have begun to see it leaves me virtually breathless. It is difficult for me to imagine any individual who can improve upon it without imbalance. I cannot argue the notion of evolutionary improvement, yet cannot imagine myself to change anything until I have explored every depth of what is already here. And as teazer suggested, till legends are written, LOL.

Wing Chun is so simple, but she is so deep. Whose lifetime is enough to fully know her? Maybe someone's, but doubtful mine.

I suppose anyone with a strong sense of stewardship probably ponders such things, and ought to, whether their conclusion in the end is to change or not to change.


BTW, anyone have an accurate translation of 'fook'? I hadn't heard the 'stalking' version before. Last I heard, people had settled on 'covering/controlling'

Connotations vs. denotations are difficult enough in one language, let alone in translation between languages ... and such vastly different ones. Sometimes a "definition" is not nearly enough.

Having said that, "subduing" has some connotations I rather like for fook sau.

FWIW, regarding Sifu Chow. To the best of my knowledge, he is and has been completely open and honest about his art of "Integrative Wing Chun" - what it is, where it came from, and why he's doing it. This to me is the crux of the matter, and I have every respect for that.

Last I looked at his website, he also credits the many people from different arts and lineages from whom he has gained knowledge and insight. To me, gratitude is a virtue. I have a hard time thinking of anyone who has worked harder to investigate, research, and become more broadly familiar with the many perspectives and variations on Wing Chun, not to mention other arts. Of all the things in this world to be faulted, a sincere curiosity and love of learning are not among them. I have nothing but respect for Sifu Chow in all these things. Not only that, but I also consider him to be extremely intelligent, astute, charismatic, not to mention a super nice guy. I believe and trust he is fully enjoying his path, and I couldn't be happier for him in that.

Just some musings.

Regards,
- Kathy Jo

[old jong]

Originally posted by old jong
Traditionnaly,fook moves forward and equalize the other guy's tan (witch is also a forward motion.
I just wonder how the fook is going to react if suddenly the tan is withdraw or the line gets clear for an attack.
I have'nt tried it yet but seems to me that a fook moving this way would have to first stop his incoming motion before transforming itself into a punch.

It seems to me like a legitimate question.I just wonder how could that fook be applied in chi sau for the reasons above.

[old jong]

Is there a problem in discussing on this topic?
It fells like a no-no for some reason even if the changes proposed in that article are ,I could say,significative.
Anyway,I will experiment on this.

[kj]

Originally posted by old jong
Is there a problem in discussing on this topic?
It fells like a no-no for some reason even if the changes proposed in that article are ,I could say,significative.
Anyway,I will experiment on this.

For my part, I don't think there should ever be problems discussing the merits of technical issues. The perennial caveat, IMHO, is that they should stay technical and non-personal. I realize that doesn't always happen, of course, and sometimes it's even a bit challenging to achieve, or at least without misperception. Fortunately, and for the most part it looks to me like folks here are inclined to take the higher road. Knock on wood. ;)

Even in such things, MMV.

Regards,
- Kathy Jo

[old jong]

Originally posted by kj


For my part, I don't think there should ever be problems discussing the merits of technical issues. The perennial caveat, IMHO, is that they should stay technical and non-personal.

I am aware that Dave is involved in this and I like Dave as much as anybody else here.It is a technical question and if in the end I think this approach is wrong,well,everybody,even Dave can be wrong sometimes on a technical matter.That does'nt make him a jerk for that.
In fact,there are not many jerks on this forum and it is not because I fell that The Wing Chun theoric side should be as simple as it's practical one that I consider people who like to ''cut hairs in halves'' ;) as jerks! Get my idea?...So,nothing personnal in this thread .If ever I get this way,I will make it very clear in the beginning.

As Dave like to say...Peace!;)

[kj]

Old Jong, I gotcha.

Sorry if it looked like I was addressing you in my earlier post. I promise I wasn't ... didn't have you or anyone in particular in mind, so please don't take it that way. Just sharing very general thoughts, in case it's of interest or connects in some way with one or two who happen to be reading. If it doesn't, and wasted words to the ether, sokay by me ... writing is a form of therapy. ;)

Peace back at ya.

Regards,
- Kathy Jo

[old jong]

Just for you Kathy Jo! (http://www.rosesacrossamerica.com/images/t29-1sm.jpg)
Nothing for you guys!:p

[yuanfen]

Brief technical comments. Nothing personal re Dave or his sifu(I am sure Dave checks in or knows what is going on). An important function of the slt is the proper developing of the elbows.
Development and direct application are not the same things.
Sometimes you develop by complimentary strengthening. For good top of the thighs quads work you need balanced hamstrings. On application the wu is often forward- but it can be used ina springy way to deal with great incoming force without collapsing. The punches can develop good springy forward motions. CONTROLLED
moving of the wu backward helps develop more complimentary and complete elbow insurance against collapsing wu-s. The fully developed springy non collapsing wu can save you at very close quarters even when someone is pouncing on you or falling on you. Give a bit with the hand without collapsing the elbow.
When someone is a full arm length away you dont wu them,
you punch them.

[teazer]

Originally posted by yuanfen
CONTROLLED moving of the wu backward helps develop more complimentary and complete elbow insurance against collapsing wu-s. The fully developed springy non collapsing wu can save you at very close quarters even when someone is pouncing on you or falling on you. Give a bit with the hand without collapsing the elbow.

Or it could always be a jut sau!

[kj]

Originally posted by wujidude
kj, sometimes you sound like a Unitarian minister I've heard preach before. Please don't ask me to explain that.



LOL. No need to explain. I am not a Unitarian preacher, though I do play one on TV. :D

Regards,
- Kathy Jo

[yuanfen]

What's wrong with being a polytarian?
If Mother Mary isnt around- Athena can help.
Or Echo or Kali or Durga (right now its Durga time),
or Tara or Kwan Yin( she is compassionate to non Chinese as well!)

[Matrix]

Originally posted by burnsypoo
That matrix was nice. Did someone call my name?? ;)

But seriously, I get the sense that someone is attempting to be "innovative" for it's own sake, rather than really attempting to add any value to the art. Wing Chun has been refined to this current state of the art through several generations. It has all been laid out for us to use.

Having said this, everyone has the right to offer their opinions and observations. That's why we're all here. I'm certainly open to new theories, but I just don't see any value in what has been put forward in this article.

Matrix

[Grendel]

Having said this, everyone has the right to offer their opinions and observations.

While I don't agree with all the contentions and conclusions of the article, it stands out in recent posts for being very clear and understandable, and not merely a faith-filled exercise in marketing. Dave and his sifu present their differences for all to see and naturally, are subject to critical consideration.

It clearly shows what was lacking in the voluminous empty threads touting all the newly "discovered" Wing Chun lineages.

Bravo, Dave and Sifu Chow.

Regards,

[yuanfen]

True. Good balanced critique Grendel
Joy

[Hendrik]

Dogma, inovative, following Ancestors.....


IMHO, there are principle behind the SLT set.


One has to follow the principle.
Without understand the pinciple one can be the direct student of the greatest master and still miss the points.

Without the principle as foundation, how can one be inovative?

Sometimes, alots of time, Legend or myth over passed the principle.



One time, I told a friend (atleast I take him
sincerely as a friend)
that his version of Tan Sau (the way how he or his sifu choose to do that way) is too high and that might cause high blood pressure ( no good for high blood pressure people ).
In stead later he continous of marketing his version is oldest.....
and others' is modified.


Sometimes ago, one old sifu once told me, " In the west, I can't even talk about principle.
Everyone wants objective,
Everyone wants freedom of opinion,
Everyone wants to do things his/her own way.....
No one seems to care about what is the proper way.


I think there are some truth with what he said.


Then, there is Chi Kung in WCK.....
Well, sorry, Chi Kung is a rather new term for the Chinese......
SLT itself is internal training...

Who suffer? those enthusiast students.

LOL. may be I gone nuts and you can take me as I am nuts.
But then what if I am not crazy?

[Hendrik]

"Actually, the footwork reminds me more of Sanchin than anything else. Nothing wrong with that."

IMHO, as I mention somewhere before, the reason behind SLT can fit well with San Chin is that SLT's hand technics is White Crane Weng Chun related.



Using the SanChin stance as the platform, the SLT will transform closer to White Crane.
That still have great power even it is different type of power.
Try it, do you SLT with Sanchin stance. you can feel the power.

But then, that is no longer SLT.

[yuanfen]

Agreed in principle. But the search for principle isnt easy and
the ability to do so varies.
joy

[kj]

Originally posted by yuanfen
Agreed in principle. But the search for principle isnt easy and
the ability to do so varies.
joy

Amen to that.

Regards,
- kj

[kj]

Originally posted by yuanfen
What's wrong with being a polytarian?
If Mother Mary isnt around- Athena can help.
Or Echo or Kali or Durga (right now its Durga time),
or Tara or Kwan Yin( she is compassionate to non Chinese as well!)

I agree, wisdom everywhere, the sole purview of none. Faith a different and more personal matter.

Regards,
- kj

[Hendrik]

Originally posted by yuanfen
Agreed in principle. But the search for principle isnt easy and
the ability to do so varies.
joy


Agreed!

That is the main reason of searching into the Mother of SLT decades ago..... Wrong mom will cause trouble.

Truely, not about the "oldest and the original"......That is nice but it is the past. And the past will never return.
How useful is that when the principle had lost?

Got the mother and one can see the "key."

Hopefully, somedays, the principle will be similar to all high school physic books ---- common and free for everyone.

Then, the evolution can continous even better for everyone.

[YungChun]

Originally posted by old jong
Traditionnaly,fook moves forward and equalize the other guy's tan (witch is also a forward motion.
I just wonder how the fook is going to react if suddenly the tan is withdraw or the line gets clear for an attack.
I have'nt tried it yet but seems to me that a fook moving this way would have to first stop his incoming motion before transforming itself into a punch.

Agree.
Regarding 'Wu Sao':

Wu Sao is a static position a ‘protecting hand’ what is going on in this part of the form is not static but dynamic, with many transitions.

The Fook uses forward energy as does the Tan - both penetrate and both move forward in the form - as they should. IMO the retraction that is described as Wu-Sao - where a Huen Sau is followed by a retraction is not Wu Sao in this dynamic until it comes to a stop just in front of the body at about solar plexus height. What is it? IMO what's called Huen Sao to Wu Sao even after the Tan is actually a Jut Sao or at least results in Jut.

Even in the first cycle when Tan is extended the roll briefly changes the Tan into a Fook before the hand rolls all the way up to 'Wu.' This rolling up of the hand also results in a 'dropping' of the wrist (at least in my SLT), this dropping of the wrist is a Jut Sao - it then retracts just as a Jut Sao would to receive the energy and open the line.

It is more clearly seen when Fook is extended and the rolls up to 'Wu' again when the hand rolls up to Wu the wrist is dropping or doing a Jut Sao (Jerking Hand). The Jut Sao retracts and then goes forward again with a Fook leading with the wrist as in a strike. So the dynamic to me is a Fook (forward) that Juts, absorbs energy in (retraction) opens the line and then goes forward again with the Fook, leading with the wrist to attack or occupy the line again. These movements are consistent IMO with the basics of the system and used in Dan Chi Sao as well as elsewhere.

One must fully understand the system and the movements hidden within the movements before changing it. IMO the authors of the article don't have a master's level understanding of the form.

[kj]

Originally posted by YungChun
Regarding 'Wu Sao':

Wu Sao is a static position a ‘protecting hand’ what is going on in this part of the form is not static but dynamic, with many transitions.

Why do you think wu sau is supposed to be "static"? What is your concept of a wu sau and how does it work?

If the huen sau to wu sau transition(s) is not itself a wu sau, what purpose do you feel it serves?

Do you have other techniques or positions that are static in your practice?

Hoping to understand your assertion a little better, and hope you don't mind my asking; it is often the best way to help me understand others' POVs. Thanks in advance.

Regards,
- Kathy Jo

[YungChun]

Originally posted by kj


Why do you think wu sau is supposed to be "static"? What is your concept of a wu sau and how does it work?

If the huen sau to wu sau transition(s) is not itself a wu sau, what purpose do you feel it serves?

Do you have other techniques or positions that are static in your practice?

Hoping to understand your assertion a little better, and hope you don't mind my asking; it is often the best way to help me understand others' POVs. Thanks in advance.

Regards,
- Kathy Jo

>>Why do you think wu sau is supposed to be "static"?

A Wu Sao (protecting hand) is as I understand the term and the position a guard. As a guard it simply stays in the Centerline close to the body until needed. When needed it would change into whatever tool was required at the time. What do you think it is?

>>If the huen sau to wu sau transition(s) is not itself a wu sau, what purpose do you feel it serves?

This is precisely what I (thought) I explained in my last post.

The retraction of 'Wu Sao' was questioned by the writers’ of the article. The main thrust of my last post above was that the roll up to 'Wu' from say Fook is not a backward moving Wu Sau but a redirecting Jut Sao. When the 'Wu' Rolls up from the Fook the wrist drops – this wrist drop is a Jut Sao, which when absorbing energy retracts as it clears the line. Once the line is cleared we go forward again - this is exactly as it is in the form (SLT).

[urban tea]

The article was well written and it didnt bash any other styles.

Interesting thing he said that he changed a few things to make wing chun easier to learn.

I've studied other styles and based on coordination, wing chun movements are far more simpler to perform than other styles such as choy lay fut , northern shaolin (especially northern shaolin) and such.

Each wing chun move is simple to do, but what makes wing chun effective is all that hard work that is poured into it.

Sifu Chow is a cool guy though so if he likes to do what he likes to do then so be it. I wouldn't dare say the energy level on a certain movement is "poor or fair' becuase, IMHO, that just shows your lack of understanding on that move. NO DISRESPECT TO SIFU CHOW.

The topic asked an honest question and I'd like to post an honest answer.

[kj]

Hello Yung Chun,


Originally posted by YungChun


>>Why do you think wu sau is supposed to be "static"?

A Wu Sao (protecting hand) is as I understand the term and the position a guard. As a guard it simply stays in the Centerline close to the body until needed. When needed it would change into whatever tool was required at the time. What do you think it is?


Thanks for your explanation. I do consider the movement from huen to wu in the first set to possess wu sau also.



>>If the huen sau to wu sau transition(s) is not itself a wu sau, what purpose do you feel it serves?

This is precisely what I (thought) I explained in my last post.

The retraction of 'Wu Sao' was questioned by the writers’ of the article. The main thrust of my last post above was that the roll up to 'Wu' from say Fook is not a backward moving Wu Sau but a redirecting Jut Sao. When the 'Wu' Rolls up from the Fook the wrist drops – this wrist drop is a Jut Sao, which when absorbing energy retracts as it clears the line. Once the line is cleared we go forward again - this is exactly as it is in the form (SLT).

Thank you again for explaining your practice. I was being intentionally specific in an effort to ensure against misunderstanding.

For comparison and context, we practice the first set very slowly. I realize that many practice fast and differently relative to us (I used to do so myself). While there is no "rule" on time, our set typically takes a minimum of 15 minutes to complete properly, 20 minutes or more is not unusual. I would say that it typically takes me about 30 seconds to move from the fook/huen/wu (your jut) transition to the next wu/fook transition, though this tends to occur naturally and without counting.

If you don't mind my asking, how does this compare to your duration or speed? This may also help me to better understand the context of the jut sau you describe.

Regards,
- Kathy Jo

[YungChun]

Originally posted by kj

If you don't mind my asking, how does this compare to your duration or speed? This may also help me to better understand the context of the jut sau you describe.



Duration is comparable. The SLT time is generally thought of as the longer the better. The first third of the set is often played slower than the 2/3rd and 3/3rd of the set. Advanced students doing the set will try to make it last for perhaps 30 to 60 minutes - don't know the longest time. We used to note that if you did it 'long enough' that a puddle of sweat would form below your horse.

In any case slow or slower the roll up to what has been discussed here as Wu involves a wrist drop the way we roll up to 'Wu' - do you perceive this wrist drop in the roll in your SLT and if so does it resemble your Jut Sao as used in Chi-Sao?

The author(s) mention that a backward moving Wu Sao, or does he mean Pak Sao - doesn't make sense. I read the first third of the set, and perhaps more, as virtually a Chi-Sao primer manual discussing the correct application of tools and energy.

The first third of the first set (SLT) is arguably going to contain the most fundamental concepts and tools - Tan - Fook - Jut - Pak- Bong. It has been said that order of appearance of tools/ideas in forms is significant.

Of all the tools - the fact that Tan is first in the set would seem to read 'Tan is favored - very powerful - indispensable – vital’ – is it not? Its energy is indicated as moving ever forward on the Centerline.

The 'roll' to Wu/Jut is next and this would also seem to indicate great importance - so much so - that it comes before the Fook. Is just Wu important enough to take second move status in the form - does Wu pair with Fook? Again a Wu is simply a guarding hand - the dynamic of what happens in the roll is an energy release and major position change of the tool, including the elbow change in most versions I've seen - much more than a simple Wu happening here IMO - the Wu is incidental - or is that a Pak? The hand rolls up and the wrist drops, the elbow alignment changes and the hand retracts - all in tight sequence. This feels and reads, like - 'Jut is indispensable and uses retraction to receive/redirect energy.' Is this not how we use Jut in Chi-Sao?

Third is Fook - the form tells us that Fook is also very important and uses forward energy for attack as does Tan, but note that it always follows the Jut - not once, but three times. This repetition to me reads, 'HEY YOU THERE – SEE - THESE TWO MOVES GO TOGETHER!!! Also indicated as very high importance and balance as in Jut balancing Fook, Jut - Fook - Jut - Fook - Jut - which also reads penetrate - clear - penetrate - clear.... - make sense?

[kj]

Originally posted by YungChun


Duration is comparable. The SLT time is generally thought of as the longer the better. The first third of the set is often played slower than the 2/3rd and 3/3rd of the set. Advanced students doing the set will try to make it last for perhaps 30 to 60 minutes - don't know the longest time. We used to note that if you did it 'long enough' that a puddle of sweat would form below your horse.


I know that puddle, LOL. Thanks for the context.



In any case slow or slower the roll up to what has been discussed here as Wu involves a wrist drop the way we roll up to 'Wu' - do you perceive this wrist drop in the roll in your SLT and if so does it resemble your Jut Sao as used in Chi-Sao?


I perceive the seeds of many things in many places, and often find it counterproductive to debate against the existence of a thing too strenuously.

Having said that, I will qualify and contrast a little with my own practice. I do not have heavy emphasis on sinking wrist in this part; wrist and forearm maintain roughly the same elevation throughout the huen sau, with wrist and forearm rotation in favor of sinking forearm here. My returning hand distinctly possesses qualities of wu sau (including notions of "protection" and forward intent, as well as positioning). This of course allows for my interpretation that wu sau can be dynamic.

I think this at least partially explains our differing POVs.



The author(s) mention that a backward moving Wu Sao, or does he mean Pak Sao - doesn't make sense.

I didn't think he meant pak sau, but it wouldn't be first time I was mistaken about something. It isn't pak sau for me, but again, seeds are everywhere.



Of all the tools - the fact that Tan is first in the set would seem to read 'Tan is favored - very powerful - indispensable – vital’ – is it not? Its energy is indicated as moving ever forward on the Centerline.


Could be. Could be that doing fook sau and wu sau 3 times (or many times) indicates higher importance. Depends what you look at.



The 'roll' to Wu/Jut is next and this would also seem to indicate great importance - so much so - that it comes before the Fook.


Or maybe placing it there is more due to optimization of the set, or even optimization within range of all the sets. Or maybe for some other reason we didn't think of yet. For all I know, it could have been unwitting artistic genius. (I tend not to assume a lot, yet try to balance this with strong opinions - LOL at myself.)



Is just Wu important enough to take second move status in the form - does Wu pair with Fook? Again a Wu is simply a guarding hand - the dynamic of what happens in the roll is an energy release and major position change of the tool, including the elbow change in most versions I've seen - much more than a simple Wu happening here IMO - the Wu is incidental - or is that a Pak? The hand rolls up and the wrist drops, the elbow alignment changes and the hand retracts - all in tight sequence. This feels and reads, like - 'Jut is indispensable and uses retraction to receive/redirect energy.' Is this not how we use Jut in Chi-Sao?


I do follow your logic. Thank you for taking the time to explain your POV.



Third is Fook - the form tells us that Fook is also very important and uses forward energy for attack as does Tan, but note that it always follows the Jut - not once, but three times. This repetition to me reads, 'HEY YOU THERE – SEE - THESE TWO MOVES GO TOGETHER!!!


Again, I follow your reasoning. IMHO, and at risk commensurate to generalization, many if not most of the movements fit together. Admittedly, I tend to think in terms of concepts and movement more strongly than in terms of choreography and technique (though I do not underestimate value in these). Again, this may contribute to differences in POV.



Also indicated as very high importance and balance as in Jut balancing Fook, Jut - Fook - Jut - Fook - Jut - which also reads penetrate - clear - penetrate - clear.... - make sense?

Yes, gotcha loud and clear.

Thanks again for helping me to understand your assertions and perspective. It is rare to find those with such patience for detail, especially in written dialog.

Regards,
- Kathy Jo

[Tom Kagan]

The article makes the point that the changes made are so a student can grasp some concepts of application in fighting quicker than they would if the changes were not made. I think that is a reasonable goal for such experimentation.

However, the logical and final conclusion of trying to modify Siu Nim Tao so a beginner can more quickly understand specific concepts in relation to application is to discard the form entirely. This is what Dr. Leung Jan attempted to do in GuLao.

Perhaps it would be better to work with two person exercises. If a teacher wants to convey a specific concept and its relation to application, I feel it would be even more productive to stick a beginner in a controlled situation which is carefully designed to coax it out.

If the teacher still feels the need to give a beginner more "homework" on a specific concept, I feel it would be better to break out only a specific portion of any of the forms and/or create specific choreography. This would allow the teacher to carefully tailor a beginner's home practice to more closely match an individual student's abilities and deficiencies.

Hmm ...

After a number of years of teaching in this fashion, a teacher and his or her decendants would begin to recognize that a large majority of students require the same work on specific concepts. Logically, it would make sense to take these individually customized routines and begin to standardize them and work out a reasonable flow from one movement to the next. While this is being worked out, it would also make sense to start naming some of these movements and groups of movements to make it simplier when discussing them.

If I might be so forward, I suggest the following six names for a student's "homework": Siu Nim Tao, Chum Kiu, Biu Je, Moy Fah Jong, Luk Dim Poon Kwan, Baat Jom Dao.

:)