Movement analysis in chum kiu

[SAAMAG]

Hey guys,

I was practicing CK the other night, and the way I originally learned it...in the beginning(ish) of the form, after the 3 vertical palms, when you turn the 180 into lan sao/sao kuen combination -the wu sau hand raises in a vertical fist "resting" on the forearm just prior to shifting into the bong wu sau facing the front again.

Some of you know that recently I started studying the LT/EBMAS lineage and now I see the form done wherein after the turn/lan sau/sao kuen movement the wu sau hand then meets the man sau hand forming an "x" like you would see in the beginning of the form (high gate), and then shifts into bong/wu sao to the front....

So I was curious...and then looked at the Moy yat system, after the 180 turn, into the lan sau/sao kuen...the wu sau hand comes up into the middle as if you were going to rest the dorsal side of the hand on the forearm (but not touching), and then goes into the bong/wu to the front.



**So noting the slight differences, can anyone tell me what this really signifies, if anything? I know that forms are subjective and veeery open to interpretation, so Im interested to see what you all have to say...I myself, at first thought of it as simply teaching me to have the rear hand ready to punch while performing lan sau, but then seeing the variations now...I'm starting to wonder about the real significance of it...seeing as how that one piece differs in almost every lineage I've seen. I don't think I've seen it done the same way twice.

Any thoughts fellas?

[Ultimatewingchun]

Did the Moy Yat version many times...don't see much difference between the two sections of the form as you describe them.

If you think those differences are significant...the William Cheung TWC version of CK is VERY different - from top to bottom.

And there is no lan sao at all in his version.

Go figure.

The horizontal lan sao in the Moy Yat version is replaced with a lop sao in the TWC version (after the bong sao).

But here's the key:

It's the ENERGY associated with lan (and with the lop ) that is what is being developed.

Both have to do with holding the opponent's forward momentum (pressure) into your space at bay - and in fact - reversing the situation by pushing back into his space.

[dej2]

When I was taught, we didn't use the "X" either, but I can see that if you do drop your arms into the "X" your bong sau seems to have much more torque after completing the turn. (good observation).

Over all I could see both points... more power by droping your arm "X" version, versus being able to applying a bong sau without dropping your arm, (most of the power would be generated by shifting your stance.) Which one used... would depend on the situation which you are applying to.

[KPM]

I think that this reflects the idea that you have to transition from a Lan with the fist held at the side to a Bong/Wu sau. Your Wu sau hand has to get there from its position at your side. This is a rather artificial set-up that doesn't typically show up in application. So you have to "pre-position" your Wu sau hand prior to pivoting into the Bong/Wu position. Some lineages just do this a little differently than others. I don't think there is anything special about it.

Keith

[kj]

FWIW, we practice it both ways. Initially students are taught to drop and fold the elbow from the lan to the bei sau ("ready" hands, or cross hands as noted) then proceed to bong and wu with the turn. At more advanced stages, the practitioner may move directly from lan to bong with the turn.

Regards,
- kj

[Tom Kagan]

Originally posted by Vankuen
So I was curious...and then looked at the Moy yat system, after the 180 turn, into the lan sau/sao kuen...the wu sau hand comes up into the middle as if you were going to rest the dorsal side of the hand on the forearm (but not touching), and then goes into the bong/wu to the front.



To add anything to the analysis already posted by others here would be redundant. I agree with them; They've answered it.

So, I'll just share a little food for thought (for both you and me ;) ): Many of my SiHings don't do it that way. I don't, and neither did Moy Yat - at least at the moment where he taught me ChumKiu. :)

Sonny Tang does do that, however - along with more than a few other SiHings. Since I believe your source is a book by one of Sonny's students, I can understand where you found this interesting flair in the movement.

[old jong]

Since an image is worth a thousand words!....Let's go to the movies!... (http://www.vingtsun.ca/vingtsun/forms/index.html) (the Sunny tang forms by one of his students)

[Vajramusti]

An anecdote on a supposedly real interaction between two distnguished nuclear physicists. One of them may have been Fermi- I forget.
a to b: "I believe that I have figured out the key to a grand theory- the rest are details".

B sent a picture frame to a witha note: "This is a framework for a great painting as well-the rest are details".

A little chum here and a little kiu there-pretty soon you have chum kiu everywhere. try it against a resisting opponent-presto- you get the picture!

[SAAMAG]

For you Moy yat folks...my source was the wing chun compendium, pretty much what old jong found. Wayne B...I guess is one of Sunny's students?

So others in the moy yat method don't do it with the open palm...

I generally don't nit-pick in this fashion, but It was just something I stumbled upon and was just curious. My wing chun is based on overall energy of the movements, and it seems that you all seem to have the same idea, and I think that KPM hit the nail on the head, and I've always wondered about that movement as well...the chambering of the hand...something you would see in a traditional karate or TKD class...not really in wing chun ever (in application anyway).

I do like the way the Bei sao ("x" hands) feels before going into the bong/wu, but since the form to my understanding, is generally teaching proper movement and use of the stance to generate power (vs the hands alone) I can see the value of doing it both ways...I was doing it without the X, but now with LT/EBMAS will be doing it both ways I guess.

Something else...and you Fong guys can probably help with this one....how about the ending sequence? Fong uses two wang gurk side kicks (directly behind and then to the original front) before going to the two gam sau-tai kuen punches - then into the triple gam sau sequence, and then the three (L-R-L) chair kuens...

In the method I see now (EBMAS), it seems to be a full turn on heel into a jing gurk directly behind, and then shifting into the two gam sao-chung kuens, triple gam sao's, and then triple chung kuen, and If I remember right...there was no heel shifting.

The Sunny tang method, I see a rear side kick, and then pretty much the same thing with the three gams and then the three punches (no gam-da's).

I know that generally, lineages are just going to do things a bit differently depending on how it was passed down or changed midstream....and for the most part, they are the same...

But is it that one system added things? Or one simply took away?

[old jong]

IMO,the sequence of movements are not very important compared to developemental value of the motions.Chum Kiu should focus on bringing SLT's attributes in motion.It is not (as all Wing Chun forms) a technical or applications dictionary.

The trick is to detect and throw away the meaningless moves and other idiosyncracies (spelling?) that sometimes creep into a lineage forms.

[Jeff Bussey]

I haven't seen the clip yet that Old Jong posted but I'm sure it's how we do our Chum Kiu seeing as Sunny Tang (Dunn Wah) is my Sigung.

I'm more of a visual person so when I see descriptions of forms I get kinda lost.
The lan sau as I see it, is about the energy, claiming your space and building your balance. From Lan sau to the bong / wu sau and back is about the different energies required for different things. Not the application of those movements, but again my understanding is still shallow and I'm only looking at the surface. :)

J

[Tom Kagan]

Originally posted by old jong
The trick is to detect and throw away the meaningless moves and other idiosyncracies (spelling?) that sometimes creep into a lineage forms.

The ultimate reduction is the realization that any form, in and of itself, is a bunch of meaningless moves and other idiosyncrasies. :)

There are three reasons for a movement in a form:

1. for the system.
2. for the form.
3. for yourself.

Assuming you've figured out what's what, there is nothing wrong with playing around with choreography and flair (#2 and #3).

Just because a person places a slightly greater emphasis on GowGupSao (Vankuen's second question) by adding a 2nd variation or slightly lessens it by taking the 2nd variation out, doesn't change a thing. ChumKiu is still ChumKiu. Nothing was added to nor was anything taken away from the nature of ChumKiu (in this particular instance and in my opinion).

My personal preference (#3) is to make it cleaner, though. But, who knows? Maybe in 3 years I might feel differently. ;)

By the way, in my response to Vankuen's first question, I never said I made a fist. I don't at the point in question. That was his misunderstanding. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. To be more succinct: The movements before and after are #1. Moving the hand up is #2. The specific starting point leans to #3. Palm up or down, open or closed at the starting point is #3.

[old jong]

You are right Tom. Idiosyncrasies (cies) ;) are not that bad unless they affect the core principles of the form.It is somehow funny though to see how some minor things like that can be perpetuated by generations of students and considered as vital parts of the forms.
I have a feeling that everybody has his own little idiosyncra(...)s.I know I have mine!...;) :D