(Youtube) Variations in Siu Lum Tao, what gives?

[Bon Sau]

Just curious why the differences in Siu Lum Tao? For example this version taught by an original Yip Man student, Duncan Leung: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8_ni3fblbc

Then there is this version of SLT which is very different:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2yHyjALoKY

Is the second version from a different branch or style of WC? Or did Yip Man teach different versions to different students?

[AndrewS]

Second clip is Pan Nam SNT.

Andrew

[Steeeve]

the second SNT is not Pan nam ....Its michael Wong SNT almost a goju ryu wing chun forms:D

Steevie

[AndrewS]

Steevie,

looks like the Pan Nam form I saw some folks who learned from Eddie Chong doing, though they did YMWCK and Pao Lin Fa, too, so I could be confusing things. I only vaguely remember the SNT I saw from someone from Oz whose teacher trained with Pan Nam direct.

And now that I look in 'Roots and Branches of Wing Chun' the sequence and the moves are the same as the ones this old dude with a birthmark on his face does on pages 309-316, but his name is Pang Nam. Must be someone else.

;-)

Andrew

P.S. I've seen some decent goju and uechi-ryu, and that ain't goju. No slam on Michael Wong, or Goju.

Here's some goju

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGBdkOYQGoE>

[AndrewS]

And some more tasty goju of a more mature Higoanna

< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjddaBWugLs&mode=related&search=>

Andrew

[Steeeve]

Andrew the goju ryu WC is a joke:) the guy look soo stiff and perform the form like a Karate guy....

what He do in the SNT seem some Yip man some YKS and some pan nam WC a blending ..... of wing chun



I saw the Pan Nam WC stuff from Eddie Chong not same stance and no centerline ...

Steevie

[Edmund]

Andrew is correct and he has good memory.

The sequence is the same as Pan Nam's.

[Mr Punch]

Just saw Higaonna in a demo over here. He's now 69 and I still wouldn't mess with him! Excellent power generation, very smooth, and beautiful movements, and a thoroughly nice guy to boot.

I have a friend who's godan in gojuryu, and since they use a lot of the same range and have some similar movements (on the surface) I'm really looking forward to playing around with him. I haven't sparred a gojuryu guy since I first started out in MA about 17 years ago. Their 'ju' is our 'go' though! Their tool training alone is scary!

[AndrewS]

Edmund writes:


Andrew is correct and he has good memory.

The sequence is the same as Pan Nam's.

Ed Yuen? Is that you?

If so, it's been a while.

Andrew

[Edmund]

Sure is! How's it going?

[AndrewS]

Doing well, man. I got married last year, went back into medical training and am halfway through my nephrology fellowship. Still training, though not quite as much as I'm picking up a medical subspecialty.

What's up with you?

Gonna make it back through LA soon?

Andrew


P.S. Check your PM's for my e-mail in case you lost it.

For the crowd- Ed's the gent from Oz who showed me some Pan Nam stuff.

[Hendrik]

IMHO,

There are only two major type of SLT/SNT disregard of the motion or technics.


The two type are

1, using the intention to move the body direct.

The uniqueness of this type is "tensing" the part of the body when one intent to move it.
The move of this type is discrete direct and linear.



2, using the intention to lead the Qi and using the Qi to transport the body.

The Uniqueness of this type is " relaxing" the part of the body when one intent to move it.
The move of this type is resonance eventhough explicitly might look broken.


See, type 1 might look soft or slow or grace however the part of the body is tense up while one is intent to move it.


as for type 2, it might look soft or fast or .... however the whole body is relaxing while one is intent to move it.



These two type of training will yield two different type of result.
The type 1 training is catagorized as an external training, why type 2 is catagorized as internal training for the CMA.

just some thoughts to share.

[Tom Kagan]

IMHO,
as for type 2, it might look soft or fast or .... however the whole body is relaxing while one is intent to move it.



These two type of training will yield two different type of result.
The type 1 training is catagorized as an external training, why type 2 is catagorized as internal training for the CMA.

just some thoughts to share.


It loathes me to agree with Hendrick just out of principle and I don't agree with his choice of vague 'Qi' or internal/external terminology, plus I can't say I'm in agreement with the implications of his conclusion. ;) But ...

... I observed pretty much the same thing between the two videos also.

To be fair, the first one was a walk through of the sequence by two students for the purposes of making a video explanation. The second was almost the opposite of that.

Regardless, setting aside all superficial differences in stylistic flairs of choreography, intended filming purpose, and level of practitioner, I'd say there really is no significant difference between the two clips.

Every teacher make decisions what the want to emphasize and fiddle with to make something 'their own'. The peculiar thing about Yip Man was his choice to greatly accelerate what he thought was a 'clean up' of each form's purpose. It's one of the reasons why, as he taught more, certain movements (such as the recovery movement of GinSao) were removed from SiuNimTao because they pop up again in later foms where he felt the nature of the form better matched the nature of the movement.

This fiddling is also the root of the reason why you'll find GahnSao in Yip Man's early teachings and disappearing when he moved to Hong Kong, only to see it reappear later after further experimentation - but stripped of what he thought was the 'excess baggage' of extra choreography. (Yes, I know some people call it a GwatSao in the first form instead.) You can observe a cross section of Yip Man's students and predict when they trained pretty much based on this one 'flair' alone.

[anerlich]

Check around some more - you'll proably find other SLT/SNT's which are different again. I've seen at least 3 versions just in my own lineage, and not just minor tweaks either.

Another Higaonna story - he visited Canberra back in the 70's when I lived there and did an impressive kata and bunkai demo. He had planned to do some breaking, but the materials he needed didn't, er, materialise. So he went outside the hall, taking the group with him, found an empty steel 44 gallon drum, and promptly front-kicked a hole through it with his bare foot.

[Liddel]

the second SNT is not Pan nam ....Its michael Wong SNT almost a goju ryu wing chun forms:D
Steevie

I have the entire video that this clip is taken from, which lucky for me came free with WSL's "Science of in fighting" from Amazon.

The guy is a bandit. He looked uncomfortable/awkward showing pre arranged demos....

His explanations of "his" style did not justify the application he was teaching IMHO. :rolleyes:

[Tom Kagan]

Check around some more - you'll proably find other SLT/SNT's which are different again. I've seen at least 3 versions just in my own lineage, and not just minor tweaks either.

You may think that they are different as apples and oranges, but all I see are fruit. :)

If I wish to create dualities where I feel none exist, then yes, I'd agree with you. However, as of yet, the differences to me are superficial differences in flair, choreography, sequencing, level of practitioner, and choice of emphasis.

In other words, I see the 'differences' as inconsequential. Interestingly to me, that includes the differences between TWC SNT and everyone else they insist are 'modified'. (Boy, if that doesn't get Victor going, I'll have to give him big Kudos for figuring out how to relax once in a while. :D )

Truth be told, without substantial and consistent documented evidence of a significant result difference between one approach and the other using independently verifiable and objective criteria, it's all the same.


Heck, most of the time, I don't care to make distinctions between "good" Muay Thai's approach and "good" Ving Tsun's. (!) So, why would I make the effort for a few "OMG they are totally different therefore they suck ass" family squabbles? ;)

[Li Ma-Keh]

Right Tom, I've seen many different versions of Siu Lum Dao/Sil Lim do,..( I learned a version of it from asst. Coach Jimmy Yee in Chicagos' Chinatown at their 'Athletic Club'. That school was a shoot-off of Master A, Fongs' school in New York, but the form is different?),...just like All of the 'fiddleing' with the 'Mook Yan Jong' form! Either the 108-step, or the 116-step or Completely different variations,...all in all', most of them are viable' and valuable, no matter how 'different' or non-traditional in someones' view they might be,...lol'. It is ALWAYS up to the teacher' as to what he or she passes on to the students,...and , of course over the centuries, it has become the Many styles and cross-styles of martial-movement. Li Ma-Keh

[Vajramusti]

,..( I learned a version of it from asst. Coach Jimmy Yee in Chicagos' Chinatown at their 'Athletic Club'. That school was a shoot-off of Master A, Fongs' school in New York, but the form is different?),...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The only school Augustine Fong has -is in Tucson Arizona. For wing chun instructors affiliated with him see the list at:

http://www.fongswingchun.com/school.php


No criticism of your slt- which I havent seen , is intended.

with good wishes for your wing chun.

joy chaudhuri

[Li Ma-Keh]

That's what I was told',..and I thought it was weird that the form was different than Master Fongs'. This was in 1978 when I had learned it. They didn't advertise their Wing-Chun style as Master Fongs',..I was told that one of the instructors had originally taken lessons from him,...? So, thanks for the input. Li Ma-Keh.

[Wu Wei Wu]

re: differences in SLT.

we all speak the same language. however, subtle differences arise because of accents, tones and inflections.

it is far more important to ensure that we are effective communicators than examining subtle differences between us.

to test our effectiveness we must convey messages in the most efficient manner, to those who speak different languages.


`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master -- that's all.'

[anerlich]

You may think that they are different as apples and oranges, but all I see are fruit.

I didn't say they were so different they couldn't be put in the same class. But they have different amounts of footwork, different "sizes" of movements, and different emphases. Most people would see differences ... and an overall similarity. Like the way an apple is like and not like an orange.


If I wish to create dualities where I feel none exist, then yes, I'd agree with you. However, as of yet, the differences to me are superficial differences in flair, choreography, sequencing, level of practitioner, and choice of emphasis.

One of the finest martial artists I have ever met told me that one of the attributes of understanding what you are doing in an MA is the ability to appreciate fine distinctions.

But yes, also to notice the similarities and how one thing is related to another.


In other words, I see the 'differences' as inconsequential.

More power to ya. I disagree, but that's OK with me if it is with you.


Interestingly to me, that includes the differences between TWC SNT and everyone else they insist are 'modified'. (Boy, if that doesn't get Victor going, I'll have to give him big Kudos for figuring out how to relax once in a while. )

I personally don't see differences anywhere near as fundamental as those touted by 70s/80s TWC marketing. I hope your post had more to it than just trying to push other people's buttons. I took TWC because I had easy access to a good instructor of it ... I might just as easily have ended up doing CLF or something totally different. I didn't take it because it was marketed as the most bada$$ style on the planet. All WC is modified ... it began with the inclusion of the pole, and arguably before that.


Truth be told, without substantial and consistent documented evidence of a significant result difference between one approach and the other using independently verifiable and objective criteria, it's all the same.

I think an uneducated person could see the differences I am talking about in my versions of SLT, all three of which you are unlikely to have seen (maybe you would have seen two of them), without any prompting.

Their relevance in a larger sphere is probably close to zero, but then that's probably true of this forum as a whole as well.


Heck, most of the time, I don't care to make distinctions between "good" Muay Thai's approach and "good" Ving Tsun's. (!) So, why would I make the effort for a few "OMG they are totally different therefore they suck ass" family squabbles?

I agree with you, though I'd be worried if you didn't think it was worth distinguishing good MA from bad MA.

I never brought up family squabbles, I'm talking about form differences within my own "family" (a term I dislike in relation to MA). Internicine WC squabbles faded into irrelevance with the resergence of sportfighting in the 90s IMO. Which is not to say that arguing about them isn't good for a laugh every now and then, if they have little other merit.

[Tom Kagan]

I agree with you, though I'd be worried if you didn't think it was worth distinguishing good MA from bad MA.

LOL!

Did you know I am a moderator of the investigations sub-forum at Bullshido and also one of the harshest critics against many of the __ng __un practitioners who seem to want to post over there? The dearth of self-exploration, cross checking, and critical thinking combined with poorly thought out arguments, unsubstantiated claims, and logical fallacies in regards to what that 'chunner' is supposedly learning and shares/defends/ingratiates over there never ceases to impress me.

[couch]

LOL!

Did you know I am a moderator of the investigations sub-forum at Bullshido and also one of the harshest critics against many of the __ng __un practitioners who seem to want to post over there? The dearth of self-exploration, cross checking, and critical thinking combined with poorly thought out arguments, unsubstantiated claims, and logical fallacies in regards to what that 'chunner' is supposedly learning and shares/defends/ingratiates over there never ceases to impress me.

With this new background information on you Tom, your posts make more sense to me! *laugh*

All the best,
Kenton Sefcik

[anerlich]

Did you know I am a moderator of the investigations sub-forum at Bullshido

A MODERATOR? Of ... the investigations SUB-forum? Wow, I didn't know that. :rolleyes:

Do they give you a badge or a gi patch or something?

You aren't trying on an appeal to your own authority now, are you Tom? That'd be pretty lame.

Anyhow, I'll take a peek over there some time - you may even impress me ;)

[Ultimatewingchun]

"In other words, I see the 'differences' as inconsequential. Interestingly to me, that includes the differences between TWC SNT and everyone else they insist are 'modified'. (Boy, if that doesn't get Victor going, I'll have to give him big Kudos for figuring out how to relax once in a while. )" (Tom Kagan)


***ACTUALLY, Tom...these days I prefer to look upon non-TWC Yip Man lineage wing chun as COM wing chun. (Center Of Mass...as in...the main stratgey is to always attack the opponent's center of mass).

But if you prefer to still go with "modified" - then go ahead. :) :rolleyes:

There are NUMEROUS differences in the TWC SLT when compared to COM SLT....many of which are much more than "superficial".

Here, try this one on for size: the three fuk saos come out on 3 different "centerlines" within the TWC SLT (see the "Lost Footage" video, Andrew, if you don't already know what I mean - although I suspect you do).

The first corresponds to the middle-of-the-body vertical centerline....the second corresponds to the chest/pectoral area....the third to the shoulder/armpit area.

The explanation for which....I'll let you figure out, Tom.:D

[Liddel]

EDIT.... the differences to me are superficial differences in flair, choreography, sequencing, level of practitioner, and choice of emphasis.
In other words, I see the 'differences' as inconsequential.

Tom, ive come across many forms of other schools that i think would fall into this category of differences.
However IME the majority of other forms ive seen are more often than not, so different to my own VT (or parts thereof) that the most important part is completely different..... the USE.

As long as an individual is happy and content in the way in which he/she has been taught to apply the actions from the forms, said individual should not care about others 'differnces', which is how i feel. If they do - they are not confident with what they have IMO.

The line between the differences for me, lies between form and function :rolleyes:

[Tom Kagan]

A MODERATOR? Of ... the investigations SUB-forum? Wow, I didn't know that. :rolleyes:

Do they give you a badge or a gi patch or something?

You aren't trying on an appeal to your own authority now, are you Tom? That'd be pretty lame.

Anyhow, I'll take a peek over there some time - you may even impress me ;)

Ah... I'm not sure if I was clear: 'sub' as in 'subordinate', not 'submissions' (Any other aspects of me, real or perceived, aren't really relevant here. ;) )


I certainly wouldn't put it past me to be lame, especially in the name of self-deprecating humor. But, I'm not pulling an 'authority appeal' (at least, in this case :) ). I said my piece, you gave a rebuttal. These mutual exchanges of dialogue/argument are what appeal to me. I just thought you might be amused, given your last thoughts, by not only what I support, but actively contribute my time to.

Bullshido is a rip roaring place, for sure. It's a thoroughly obnoxious, locker room "snap fest" of a place. Overall, it is not very reassuring - no hugs, no tea, very little 'attaboy' mutual butt-scratching, and a rather low signal to noise ratio. You need a thick hide to enjoy it there. But, for those who prefer their MA through the dark lens - the murky, creepy, sink or swim one - that place is absolute bliss. For those who want the rose colored lens, there are other places - like right here. (I'm here, too :) ).

I was drafted by the staff over there specifically to cull out more of the "LOL! Kung Fu" nutriders which poop all over in the middle of serious 'surgical dissections' of possible scam-artists and other martial silliness. There are other 'rip-to-shreds' comedy sub-forums for people to post in over there... sometimes on the exact same targets (and I'm ripping away with glee right in the muck of that, also :) ).

I feel if anyone ever went through my posts here all the way back throughout my posting history, it would be clear I actually like to examine differences even if for no other reason to do so is to present from an alternate point of view than most. It gets my creative juices going. And, I'd like to think (delude myself) a little bit of how I choose to discuss issues gets other peoples' creative juices going on here too.

BTW, no patches for me. I like'em crisp and clear. I don't even like subtle logos. (I cut them out of almost all my clothes.) If you venture into the 'pimp my gi' gallery over there, you'll come across a few of my own contributions I found of that kind of "F1 driver/billboard/this space for rent" style of martial silliness. :)

[Li Ma-Keh]

'please help',...I was wondering if Master Fong or any of his students did any seminars in New York during the 70s'? I would hate to think that Si-Fu Yee was 'making-up' stuff',...but, I know things like that happen,..lol'. I've been on youtube.com the last 24hrs.',(on & off,..lol), trying to find a connection , or closer version of SLD to the one I was taught, and I've found several that are close,..some are in a slightly different order, some leave out/add different hand positions, I even found one version that opens it's stance beginning like a Choy-Lay-Fut/Hung-Gar,(double standing-sweep), instead of the 'common' heel-toe shift-step. My wife and I were in Chicago about six yrs. ago,..I was going to show her the up-stairs school where we trained,..and of-course , the whole row of buildings had been torn down since the 70s' and replaced with a 'modern' Asian MALL kinda' complex,..LOL'! Thanks,Li Ma-Keh

[Ultimatewingchun]

Is this another case of "I see the differences as inconsequential"?

I'm waiting, Tom...

and yes, I'm waiting patiently.

[Vajramusti]

Mr. Chaudhuri,...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

'please help',...I was wondering if Master Fong or any of his students did any seminars in New York during the 70s'? I would hate to think that Si-Fu Yee was 'making-up' stuff',...but, I know things like that happen,..lol'. I've been on youtube.com the last 24hrs.',(on & off,..lol), trying to find a connection , or closer version of SLD to the one I was taught, and I've found several that are close,..some are in a slightly different order, some leave out/add different hand positions, I even found one version that opens it's stance beginning like a Choy-Lay-Fut/Hung-Gar,(double standing-sweep), instead of the 'common' heel-toe shift-step. My wife and I were in Chicago about six yrs. ago,..I was going to show her the up-stairs school where we trained,..and of-course , the whole row of buildings had been torn down since the 70s' and replaced with a 'modern' Asian MALL kinda' complex,..LOL'! Thanks,Li Ma-Keh
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Mr.Li mah-Keh- I can try. I am not much into posting these days... but I re-logged to anwer your post. In learning a style or a form- the devil is in the details as they say. I dont think I know Mr.Yee. Ed de la Cruz of Windy City Wing chun who is probably freezing in Chicago is also with the Fong Federation and perhaps can help you if you are in Chicago.
Master Fong did doa seminar in NYC-I forget whether it was in the late 70s or early 80s.But to my knowledge he has only two people in NY who is associated with him(see his website)...New York
Chun Hay Liu
Jose Constanzo .
Per his own statement on his website- Master Fong does not automatically regard
seminar attendance as sufficient for studentship. I cannot comment on what you learned without seeing it in person or atleast in a video.
I am trying to be as helpful as I know how under the circumstances, in responding to your question.
Regards, Joy Chaudhuri

[Tom Kagan]

Is this another case of "I see the differences as inconsequential"?

I'm waiting, Tom...

and yes, I'm waiting patiently.


???

If you are referring to something in my last post, I do not understand exactly what you are asking me to respond to. Or, is it possible you are asking me for a counter-rebuttal of your rebuttal?

Since I'm a little dense, could you clarify what it is you are asking me?

[Li Ma-Keh]

Mr. Chaudhuri, Thank you,.and I agree! Taking a 'seminar' doesn't qualify anyone,(in my opinion), to teach that material,..unless it is stated by certificate , and was a five-day , four-hrs. everyday type of learning condition!,(which 'most' of them aren't,..lol'.). Maybe Si-Fu Yee was just 'name-dropping',...because as I mentioned, when I finally got to see a video of Master Fong doing Siu Lum Dao,...it wasn't the same as the one he taught. So,..I'm just trying to search-out the possible lineage. Thanks again, Li Ma-Keh.

[Ultimatewingchun]

I'm talking about this:

"There are NUMEROUS differences in the TWC SLT when compared to COM SLT....many of which are much more than "superficial".

Here, try this one on for size: the three fuk saos come out on 3 different "centerlines" within the TWC SLT (see the "Lost Footage" video, Andrew, if you don't already know what I mean - although I suspect you do).

The first corresponds to the middle-of-the-body vertical centerline....the second corresponds to the chest/pectoral area....the third to the shoulder/armpit area."


AND THIS:

"Is this another case of "I see the differences as inconsequential"?

.................................

What is your take on the first section of TWC SLT - as I described it?

Is this just another case of inconsequential differences, Tom?

Or what?

[Tom Kagan]

LOL, I thought you were making a joke as to my clarification of 'sub'.

As I said before:


Truth be told, without substantial and consistent documented evidence of a significant result difference between one approach and the other using independently verifiable and objective criteria, it's all the same.

So, I think a better question is not what I think may or may not be inconsequential, but what proof do you have to suggest there is a difference which has meaning?

Whether you explicitly emphasize three separate 'center lines' in your teachings or just leave such things implied, how does 20-40 minutes of standing meditation to become aware of how much dust is collecting on your body change the nature of of the form? Assuming you believe it does, what criteria did you use to objectively measure the obvious difference in shape as they relate to real, actual differences in result?

[Matrix]

Whether you explicitly emphasize three separate 'center lines' in your teachings or just leave such things implied,.....Tom,
Sorry, but I would think that this difference in concepts cannot just be "implied". It would affect everything you do, since the centerline theory is one of first things taught. Therefore it would have to be explicitly stated, IMO.

It would have nothing to do with shapes, but more to how and where energy is being directed or received at any point in time. If you see a static image of someone doing SLT, or even watch someone doing it you cannot necessarily tell where their intent is at any point in time. Is it at the hand, wrist, forearm, elbow.... ? The shape may look the same, but the "results" would be different in each case, or do you disagree? The results would become obvious once you actually touch hands with that person.

[Tom Kagan]

Tom,
Sorry, but I would think that this difference in concepts cannot just be "implied". It would affect everything you do, since the centerline theory is one of first things taught. Therefore it would have to be explicitly stated, IMO.

It would have nothing to do with shapes, but more to how and where energy is being directed or received at any point in time. If you see a static image of someone doing SLT, or even watch someone doing it you cannot necessarily tell where their intent is at any point in time. Is it at the hand, wrist, forearm, elbow.... ? The shape may look the same, but the "results" would be different in each case, or do you disagree? The results would become obvious once you actually touch hands with that person.


Fair enough.

However, consider this: You have nearly all these "concepts" simply because you happen to speak the same verbal language as whomever you learned from.

Are they still there and can you learn them if circumstance were different and you couldn't communicate with a given teacher on a verbal level, but only physical? If so, then yes, the "concepts" are implied - regardless of whether you were "spoiled" by speaking the same verbal language as your teacher. :)

Anyway, my point isn't on the line of what you are speaking. Sure, for the sake of argument, the "results" of which you speak may very well be substantively different. But, in the absence of the ability to not only demonstrate different results, but show they are qualitatively unequal, my conundrum I outlined still remains unsolved. Just because you touch hands with a person and experience a different feeling than with someone else does not constitute "proof."


To use example outside our style to better illustrate my point:

Archie Moore's "Dracula style" peek-a-boo methodology obviously has a very different look than Cus D'Amato's. Not only that, but there is significant actual documentation that the results of either approach are effective in a relatively controlled level playing field and the advantages and disadvantages of each approach have been pretty clearly mapped out over the years. Yet, are they substantially different? Not really. The factors controlling one vs. the other come down to flair, preferences and personal expression.

In western boxing, there is only one peek-a-boo - with people merely at different starting points from which to approach the problem. A duality - when viewed from the perspective of results - simply does not exist because the difference expressed in shape are not the actual nature of what it does.

[Matrix]

However, consider this: You have nearly all these "concepts" simply because you happen to speak the same verbal language as whomever you learned from.Tom,

Actually that is something I've been aware of for some time. Words and phrases offer a level of abstraction that is not necessarily universal in our system. Even though we often tend think of them as such, we can see on this forum that we use common words to enable our discussion, but under examination we seem to have different understandings of their meaning. For example, chi sao; just look on youtube and you will find several different perspectives on what people are doing as "chi sao". In fact you could probably do that with just about any wing chun term you might want to examine.


Are they still there and can you learn them if circumstance were different and you couldn't communicate with a given teacher on a verbal level, but only physical? If so, then yes, the "concepts" are implied - regardless of whether you were "spoiled" by speaking the same verbal language as your teacher. :). I absolutely agree. That's why words often fail us. We get hung up on the lexicon and fail to understand the complete meaning. If this training we are all doing is nothing more than a lesson in vocabulary, most of us would have "mastered" the system a long time ago. ;)


Just because you touch hands with a person and experience a different feeling than with someone else does not constitute "proof." It's not just a different feeling, although the feeling will be different. It will be clear in that person's ability to control you and dominate the situation at will.


In western boxing, there is only one peek-a-boo - with people merely at different starting points from which to approach the problem. A duality - when viewed from the perspective of results - simply does not exist because the difference expressed in shape are not the actual nature of what it does.This concept would just as easily apply within our style. Using chi sao again, different people at different stages of development/understanding have a more limited or more advanced ability to apply the attributes that are developed through this exercise. This would be true assuming that they all have the same broad understanding of the chi sao concept. However, if we have different views of what we believe chi sao is - even though we claim to use the same term - we should see very different results based on a very real duality.

The shape of things tends to be a big distraction for many people. I myself am trying to get better at looking beyond the superficial and focus on what is substantial.

[Tom Kagan]

The shape of things tends to be a big distraction for many people. I myself am trying to get better at looking beyond the superficial and focus on what is substantial.


Bingo! Now you see why I took this position. :)


Still, I will point out that "feeling" you are suggesting is far from substantial and consistent documented evidence of a significant result difference between one approach and the other using independently verifiable and objective criteria. To go back to Victor's example, hitting three separate and explicit "center line" points vs. someone else explicitly choosing one with the other two implied, or some other variation, cannot be equated to a substantive difference in result - unless you can measure such transference objectively.

[Matrix]

Bingo! Now you see why I took this position. :)
OK, so we're in violent agreement. ;)


Still, I will point out that "feeling" you are suggesting is far from substantial and consistent documented evidence of a significant result difference between one approach and the other using independently verifiable and objective criteria. To go back to Victor's example, hitting three separate and explicit "center line" points vs. someone else explicitly choosing one with the other two implied, or some other variation, cannot be equated to a substantive difference in result - unless you can measure such transference objectively.What are you looking for? Some peer-reviewed paper published in the New England Journal of Martial Arts? ;) You've obviously devoted a lot of time and effort to your training. Why? What "substantial and consistent documented evidence " do you have that what you are doing has produced any positive result?

As for Victor's example, my point on that issue was that if you are going to teach 3 centre lines ( or central lines or whatever) versus one center line, then you have to do so explicitly. It cannot just be implied. I thought we'd already concluded that one.

[Tom Kagan]

What are you looking for? Some peer-reviewed paper published in the New England Journal of Martial Arts? ;) You've obviously devoted a lot of time and effort to your training. Why? What "substantial and consistent documented evidence " do you have that what you are doing has produced any positive result?

Good question. ;)


As for Victor's example, my point on that issue was that if you are going to teach 3 centre lines ( or central lines or whatever) versus one center line, then you have to do so explicitly. It cannot just be implied. I thought we'd already concluded that one.

I don't disagree, but that was not my point. My point was: to develop a theory (one vs. three, implicit vs. explicit, etc.) there is difference beyond an an inconsequential one, such a theory also demands a method to actually show a demonstrably different result when in practice - if, indeed, such a difference were, in reality, substantive. As I've pointed out before on this forum, the difference between theory and practice is larger in practice than in theory. :)

There is a a decent body of evidence to show meditation - a contemplative, solitary practice of increasing self awareness - will show, over time, a demonstrable increase in skill regardless of whether there is any tangible "cause vs. effect" direct ties between its practice and its result. However, there is very little evidence to suggest that one form of meditation is any better or worse than any other form.

[BTW, you may find it interesting that I have always looked at the forms as, first and foremost, methods of standing meditation. SNT would be an expression of "stillness". CK would be an expression of "movement". And, BG would be an expression of "dynamics" (intersection of of movement with stillness and other external forces).]

[Matrix]

My point was: to develop a theory (one vs. three, implicit vs. explicit, etc.) there is difference beyond an an inconsequential one, such a theory also demands a method to actually show a demonstrably different result when in practice - if, indeed, such a difference were, in reality, substantive. As I've pointed out before on this forum, the difference between theory and practice is larger in practice than in theory. True, otherwise you have a difference that may exist solely for the purpose of making it different. Having said that, the 3 center lines issue is Victor's thing, so I'll leave that to him to explain.


[There is a a decent body of evidence to show meditation - a contemplative, solitary practice of increasing self awareness - will show, over time, a demonstrable increase in skill regardless of whether there is any tangible "cause vs. effect" direct ties between its practice and its result. However, there is very little evidence to suggest that one form of meditation is any better or worse than any other form. Implied dust-collection not withstanding, I think that meditation has some real benefits. One form of meditation may be better or worse to the degree that the person involved enjoys the practice. In the same way that the best form of exercise for any individual may be the one that they will enjoy doing, and therefore keep doing on a regular basis. I can't think of many things in life in which there is a one-size-fits-all solution.


[BTW, you may find it interesting that I have always looked at the forms as, first and foremost, methods of standing meditation. SNT would be an expression of "stillness". CK would be an expression of "movement". And, BG would be an expression of "dynamics" (intersection of of movement with stillness and other external forces).]That's pretty much how I see it too, but since we are both from the same lineage, I'm not surprised one bit.

[Ultimatewingchun]

"As for Victor's example, my point on that issue was that if you are going to teach 3 centre lines ( or central lines or whatever) versus one center line, then you have to do so explicitly. It cannot just be implied. I thought we'd already concluded that one." (Bill/Matrix)


***AS you may have guessed already, Bill...in TWC it's more than implied. The 3 centerlines are taught as part of the overall Central Line Concept. And regardless of whether or not one agrees with or sees the efficiency in such a concept - it must (or should) be acknowledged that this DOES make for a difference that's more than "inconsequential"...

an acknowledgement which our good friend Tom is dancing all around of.

But hey...what else is new? :D

(I've heard through the grapevine that Tom won a few cha-cha contests in his day).

[Tom Kagan]

Victor,


I'm not dancing at all. I am skeptical of your claim it's consequential. I have laid out a some ideas as to how you could put such a claim to a test and prove it is, indeed, a consequential difference. If you have an alternate methodology you propose to prove it is anything more than a superficial difference in flair, choreography, sequencing, level of practitioner, and choice of emphasis, then let's hear it.

Is there a shortage of new threads for you to basically repeat "Cheung style is the best" or what? ;) Regardless, If you wish to troll me on the subject further, Bullshido's "Your Martial Art Sucks" forum is a perfect venue for your attempts to bring these arguments towards ad hominem. This forum really isn't meant for that. If you'd prefer, I can put up the first post over there for you to get things off to a rip-roaring start. :)


[For the record: I have never entered nor won a Cha Cha contest. For a very brief time in my youth, however, I danced ballet professionally.]

[Ultimatewingchun]

No one is repeating the "Cheung's style is the best" mantra, Tom...

and therein lies your error. You're responding to yesterday's news. Read my posts on THIS thread carefully, Tom.

[Tom Kagan]

No one is repeating the "Cheung's style is the best" mantra, Tom...

and therein lies your error. You're responding to yesterday's news. Read my posts on THIS thread carefully, Tom.

You mean read where you insist that what you do is substantively different (i.e. unequal in value to the other methodology), right? I have already acknowledged twice now the "difference in flair, choreography, sequencing, level of practitioner, and choice of emphasis". Matrix said pretty much the same thing with: "I can't think of many things in life in which there is a one-size-fits-all solution."

Right here, this is the crux of what you are saying: "There are NUMEROUS differences in the TWC SLT when compared to COM SLT....many of which are much more than "superficial"."


Okay, so you think it's not only different, but there is a qualitative difference. Well, unless you were trying to suggest your method was worse than another, what is it that you are saying?

What exactly is it you are trying to get out of me - other than, in your words, I hadn't yet acknowledged your approach has a difference beyond what I already acknowledged? [Victor quote: "it must (or should) be acknowledged that this DOES make for a difference that's more than "inconsequential"..."]

I can't do that because I don't agree with you. I am skeptical. (And don't get the wrong idea by jumping to conclusions I think the opposite, either, because I don't). If you want me to acknowledge your claim, I already explained to you some ideas you might need to try and convince me. I even asked you for alternative ideas as to how you see you might prove it objectively.

So, what's your problem, other than I good natured and lightheartedly tweaked you in the mistaken assumption you could take it?

[t_niehoff]

Just to interject . . . what if forms (linked sets) are essentially pointless and meaningless in terms of developing skill in WCK (or any martial art for that matter)? What if - in terms of fighting skill development - it really doesn't matter how one performs their forms, what the choreography, etc.?

[Ultimatewingchun]

I don't have a problem, Tom...

but I do find it amusing that you PURPOSELY goaded me onto this thread by using my name and by trying to erroneously imply that there aren't significant differences in the TWC SLT...

and then when I responded WITH SUBSTANCE you accuse me of the same ol' "Cheung's style is the best" routine.

Cute, Tom...and very hypocritical.

Have a nice day - and a nice thread.:rolleyes:

[Tom Kagan]

I don't have a problem, Tom...

but I do find it amusing that you PURPOSELY goaded me onto this thread by using my name and by trying to erroneously imply that there aren't significant differences in the TWC SLT...

and then when I responded WITH SUBSTANCE you accuse me of the same ol' "Cheung's style is the best" routine.

Cute, Tom...and very hypocritical.

Have a nice day...and a nice thread.:rolleyes:

You call me tweaking you goading, and I'll accept that. However, I look at it as a way to get you involved in a thread you would have otherwise passed on. The reason I did that was specifically to discuss this issue. I would have found another way if I hadn't thought you were thicker skinned than you are now exhibiting.

But still... sheesh! You were just in a thread here (http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?t=45016) where I laid into someone else for avoiding what you were saying/asking and instead, choosing to attack you because you hit upon a few key 'hot button' words (without any light hearted good nature attitude on your part, I might add). Is there another reason why you won't address the content of what I am saying and instead prefer to play the same game as those who chose to attack you? Because this is the impression I perceive from you. If you are getting at something else and I'm wrong, then I'm sorry. Try to explain it so I can see it better.


But setting aside that and to address the 'substance' of your posts and avoid ad hominem attacks on your 'tone': Your claim of a difference in 'substance' of the methodology is not substantial. It is merely your opinion. You have yet to lay out any way of showing the result of teaching an 'explicit 3 centers' comes out any different over all than any other method's result.

Heck, there are arts which can show effective result of methodology which not do not explicitly define any centerline within a solitary form performance at all. They subscribe to a methodology closer to what t_niehoff is asking about in his question. Given this observation, why would it be hard for someone to at least understand where my skepticism comes from on an opinion of a 'substantial difference' without corresponding evidence?

You think it is more than an 'inconsequential' difference. Fine. From my point of view, this means one of three things:


Your thoughts on the definition of 'what is consequential' do not concur with mine. (This means you and I have yet to come to an understanding of how you define it vs. the way I do.)
You think the methodology is worse than another.
You think the methodology is better than another (or 'best' when compared to more than one other).


I doubt you meant #2 with regard to the methods of which you speak. So which is it?

[anerlich]

Jeez ...

the OP asked why various people's forms on youTube looked different ... which they do. We've morphed into a highly intellectual but probably practically pointless discussion of whether the differences are actually differences somewhere on some ill-defined continuum of philosophical depth ... and then trying to goad someone into a philosophical corner about his claim re differences between ways of doing something ... presumably because of his "betraying" his inquisitor's lineage to take up with another GM (which I only mention because other possible motives make even less sense, so I have have to settle for the least ridiculous one).

The OP's question has been answered ... the rest is intellectual m@sturbation.

There are a good number of excellent martial artists who think forms are a complete waste of time ... this discussion is certainly providing good grounds for that POV.


Your thoughts on the definition of 'what is consequential' do not concur with mine.

Nor yours with mine, apparently!

[Tom Kagan]

... and then trying to goad someone into a philosophical corner about his claim re differences between ways of doing something ... presumably because of his "betraying" his inquisitor's lineage to take up with another GM (which I only mention because other possible motives make even less sense, so I have have to settle for the least ridiculous one).

The OP's question has been answered ... the rest is intellectual m@sturbation.

No, your last observation is the least ridiculous, actually. Who the hell isn't here practicing a form of what you call "mental m@sturbation"? :)

The previous one is absurd. In no way shape or form do I consider anything whatsoever Victor has done in the past nor now even remotely close to what you insinuate with your turn at ad hominem against me. I believe I have clearly expressed my sentiment regarding Victor on this matter many times in this very forum. And if you feel I haven't, then consider this paragraph exactly that.



So, what were you expecting out of this thread, anyway? A list of people going "Uh, yup! It's different" without anyone attempting to answer the OP's question of "what gives?" perhaps? ;)

You expressed your POV as a rebuttal to mine. I accepted it. There was no need or further questions in my mind because I, at least, understand where your point of view is coming from. If you have follow up questions for me, I will try to answer them as best I can.

On the other hand, Victor has yet to reply to my inquires to my follow up questions other than by suggesting I'm a pretty good dancer and hypocritical. If he feels I haven't answered a question of his, then I'm more than willing to try again if he could make his question to me clearer.