"Mastering Wing Chun" series review

[KPM]

Hi Guys!

I finally got around to putting up a review of the "Mastering Wing Chun" series on my website. No offense intended to Master Kwok. I just tell it like I see it. :)

Check it out here:

http://riograndewingchun.com/gpage.html

[RGVWingChun]

Well as Master Kwok's grandstudent and Sifu Tony Massengills student (Author and co-author respectively), I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with the review only because I think the reviewer had an expectation of the videos that it was not intended by the authors to give. The purpose was to standardize what was Ip Man's Wing Chun Method, particularly the forms. Even the "slouch" was something that Ip Man himself did and taught. There are numerous photos of the Great Grandmaster is such a "slouch" position. The videos were not meant to be exhaustive (can you imagine the size of the DVD library it would take to explore that!!! Holy SCHNIKEE's)

As per the many different versions of Ip Man's methods...you have to remember that only 4 people en toto completed the system under him, including his own son, Ip Ching. Many MANY MANY people - even the early students of foshan trained with him only for a while but did not finish. They say "well he taught me this" but Ip Chun has gone on record saying that his father did not teach different things to different people. According to Ip Chun, his oldest son, that would have made his father dishonest. According to his sons, Ip Man would teach a person the correct method...if they veered into error, he would correct them. If they persisted a third time, Ip Man would allow them to continue into error. He was a very stern teacher and somewhat of a perfectionist it seems (This is from Ip Chun's book "Wing Chun" with Danny Connor). From what I have been told, many of the "early" students didnt' finish the system. That is why their Chum Kiu's and Biu Jees and Mook Yan Jong forms, and the pole and especially the knives look COMPLETELY different!!! Ip Ching has told the history of Wing Chun before and related this exact story. Ip Ching lived and trained with his father for 10 straight years recieving intimate knowledge of his Father's own kung fu. Ip Ching lived with Ip Man night and day and according to Ip Ching "training till 3 in the morning" (1999 VTAA World Conference, after Biu Jee demonstration). The truth is out there, but there are many people who are using Ip Man's name to give credibility to things that Ip Man never taught!! There are people with kicks in their Siu Lim Tao form for crying out loud saying that that is what they learned from Ip Man "training with him night and day for 9 months before leaving to America"....come on!!!

The purpose of the videos was to standardize the forms that Ip Man taught. Those were the order of movements that he taught. That was even the purpose of attempting to get all of the forms on 8mm just before Ip Man passed away. At that time, people were already starting to branch away and say they learned from Ip Man. Funny how people's Siu Lim Tao or Chum Kiu doesn't look like Ip Man's? Could it be that even Ip Man isn't doing Ip Man Wing Chun?

As for the Chi sao explanations, there is a further video series on chi sao that was just filmed and will be released later this year as well as a two DVD (I believe its two) that will be on the Mook Yan Jong (according to Ip Man, Ip Ching has some slight differences that he introduced as well in the biu jee form which Master Kwok acknowledges in the Biu Gee DVD).

Master Kwok will be in TExas in October of this coming year for a seminar (2 days maybe!!), hopefully with Master Massengill as well. He can tell you himself that he has trained with some of the early students with the intentions to track down Ip Man's wing chun. That is his personal quest; to find the true Ip Man System. He's found that in BOTH of Ip Man's sons, Grandmasters Ip Chun and Ip Ching.

Respectfully submitted,

Moses Flores
Texas Representative
Traditional Ip Man Wing Chun Assocation, Samuel Kwok Wing Chun Martial Arts Assocation

[sanjuro_ronin]

Hi Guys!

I finally got around to putting up a review of the "Mastering Wing Chun" series on my website. No offense intended to Master Kwok. I just tell it like I see it. :)

Check it out here:

http://riograndewingchun.com/gpage.html

I have quite a few dvd''s series from various MA and I must say that, in terms of quality and instructional value, the vast majority of TCMA ones are far inferior to the other systems.
The exception being Wing Lam's stuff.
I don't know if it is on purpose or simple because they are more demos clips than instructionlas or maybe because they are "cheaper production value".
Whatever the reason I think that anyone deciding to make a video should remember one simple thing:
This video is what you and your MA will be judged on by many AND it may will be your "legacy".

[KPM]

Hi Moses!

Thanks for your feedback. As I said, no offense intended to Samuel Kwok or Tony Massengill. Maybe I did have the wrong expectations. But I stand by my assessment that the videos could have been done in a way to "spice them up" and make them more interesting. Alternate screen shot angles would have helped. Captioning for the terminology used would have helped. Simply organizing the material presented in a better way would have helped.

I also stand by my impression that Ip Man likely taught things a little differently at different stages of his career or to different people. Ip Man had a long teaching career. It just stands to reason that he adjusted and modified some things over the years. After all, Wong Shun Leung and Leung Sheung are considered by most to be two of Ip Man's top students. Yet their Wing Chun is somewhat different. A part of this may be their own personal interpretation and expression, but a part may also be how they were taught.

As far as the "Wing Chun slouch"....yes I have noted that pictures of Ip Man in his final years show him prominently in this posture. That doesn't change the fact that is it not the best biomechanics. You can read why I think this way on my website. Is it a Wing Chun "sin" to suggest that Ip Man himself could have done things better? :eek:

[RGVWingChun]

Hi Keith,

I certainly wouldn't say that it is a sin to say that Ip Man could have done things a little differently. After all, his son Ip Ching did change some the performance of some of the techniques in the forms for added power (eg. the Biu Punch as demonstrated in the 1999 VTAA world conference, as well as adding more Yiu Ma) as Ip Ching was taller (5'10" compared to Ip Man's 5'4" stature)and the uppercut punch did not suit him. According to him, he changed that with the approval of his father...I do know that Ip Man did remove the metaphysical language in wing chun including the 5 elements as he felt that it only confused the learning process (IP Ching has this documented in an article about Ip Man on the VTAA website). Ip Chun relates the same story in his book "Wing Chun". Also in that book, Danny Connor was able to interview some of the early Fosham students and their impression of the Hong Kong students saying that while they do not use the same language to describe the techniques, they still use the same techniques.

Its too bad that more of Ip Man's method was not documented before he passed away, but we at least have his Siu Lim Tao form and his Chum Kiu form and Mook Yan Jong (though the video most people see seems a bit disjointed at times). It would have been great to see his biu jee form (though the students that completed under him seem to be pretty uniform on that with the exception of the form order and the biu punch for Ip Ching), and his pole form and Baat Cham Do. Again, I would also have to point out that only 4 people completed all the way to the knives with him. BUT, he did pass on his knives to Ip Ching as well as some kung fu manuals and the 8mm film was given to Ip Ching's family. Master Kwok now has Ip Man's knives as well as other priceless wing chun material from Ip Man that were gifts from his teacher, Ip Ching (as seen in the Photo album section on the Mastering Wing Chun book).

I'll take a look at the article on the slouch sometime. God bless

Moses

[Sifu MASS]

Hi Guys,

I must agree with Keith on the production quality in some ways. I myself was a bit disappointed when I saw them. But Master Kwok had nothing to do with the production or layout. The editing was done by the producers of the DVD series, Empire Media.

As for the content. There are two more DVDs in production, one on Chi Sao and the other on the Jong. Please don't expect Slow Motion, Special Effects, Explosions, Car Chases or any thing like that. From my understanding, George Lucas still doesn't work for Empire Media. So if you have an interest in these DVDs, please purchase them for the Wing chun and not for the apparently expected dazzling video effects.

Master Kwok teaches the system as it has been passed to him through Ip Chun, Ip Ching and hours of training and research with other first generation students of Ip Man, including Wong Shun Leung.

I can personally attest to his mastery of the system, and have seen him cross hands with literally hundreds of people in Hong Kong and Foshan. His Wing Chun is first rate.

As for "The background of Ip Chun and Ip Ching" the questions of their depth of training is usually brought up by people who are trying to inflate their own prowess. I think it defies common sense to suggest that Ip Man wouldn't teach his sons. Ip Ching shared a home with his father for almost 10 years. He was present and used as a training partner during many of Ip Man's private sessions with other students. But, everyone needs to make up their own mind as to who to believe and follow in their search for Wing Chun.

As for me, I wish everyone success in their training, and hope that we can in some way help to at least clarify our way of doing the system.

God Bless

-Tony Massengill

[aelward]

RGV:

Do you not see the irony in some of your statements? You say that Sifu Kwok's purpose in creating these videos was to standardize the forms to be exactly the way that Yip Man did them. Yet, you also say that Ip Ching changed his Biu Jee uppercut to a punch and added more waist power-- all with his father's approval because he was taller. So will you teach your taller students the straight punch and shorter students the uppercut? Which one becomes "the standard"?

Further, Yip Man made changes to his own forms-- the early students were taught jum sao after tan sao in section 3 part 2 of Siu Lum Tao. After Wong's fight, some people changed it to Gang Sao with Yip Man's permission. Other students wondered if that tan sao should come out with the palm down or with the palm up -- Yip man said it didn't matter. These are both well-known stories.

So all these people who learned differently will stick to what they were taught. Does that make them wrong?

When Ip Chun may say that his father did not teach anyone differently-- but he was not even in Hong Kong for the first 12 years. And, all those senior students say that Yip Man emphasized different aspects based on body type and character. Doesn't that correspond with him approving of his son's change of the Biu Jee form based on his size?

My personal opinion is that a lot of practitioners and teachers who do forms and applications about 90% the same. That 10% difference can become dogmatic lines of division; but it also has the potential to be a diversity that enriches our own understanding, interpretation and application of Wing Chun.

[aelward]

Hi Guys,
As for "The background of Ip Chun and Ip Ching" the questions of their depth of training is usually brought up by people who are trying to inflate their own prowess. I think it defies common sense to suggest that Ip Man wouldn't teach his sons. Ip Ching shared a home with his father for almost 10 years. He was present and used as a training partner during many of Ip Man's private sessions with other students. But, everyone needs to make up their own mind as to who to believe and follow in their search for Wing Chun.


I would hazard to guess that a lot of the negativity toward the Ip brothers comes not from anything they have said or done; but is based on the actions of some of their students who continually promoted themselves up as the ONLY lineage teaching AUTHENTIC Ip Man Wing Chun. While the most blatant of these has passed on, the negativity he planted (and which has torn his own organization apart) did not sit well with a lot of Yip Man's students who did not realize that these issues stemmed from a student and not the brothers themselves.

They were probably thinking, "the brothers were not even here when we were learning, who are they to say what we know or don't know?" And that's how the stories start. It should be a valuable lesson in how we should not promote our art.

[hunt1]

The slouch - Using pictures of Yip Man to justify the slouch in and of itself doesn't make it correct. However the question is the position during contact not while at rest.

[Sifu MASS]

Hi Guys,

The question of more than one method of performing Ip Man Wing Chun is a good one. Even Ip Ching has made some modifications to the way he teaches Wing Chun. But the qualifier here is, he advises the student that his father taught "This way" and this method I am showing you is a modification I made due to, and then he states his reasons. He doesn't attribute "His" changes to some secret method his father taught him, but lets the student know that the change is his. He also teaches what his father taught in addition to his modification.

As to a standard. My school is near several military bases. So I often get students who have trained under other instructors. In several instances, and one that really stands out, I had a young man who had trained under a prominent Chinese instructor who had been a student of Ip Man. This young man called my school and inquired as to the lineage of our school. Needless to say, he was very happy to find a "Ip Man Wing Chun" school in which he could continue his training.

He stated that he had been training for 2 1/2 years and was finished with Chum Kiu and just beginning the training of Biu Gee. So he was excited to find a school that could pick up his training where he had left off.

When he came in and demonstrated his forms, they were no where near the forms as Ip Man had performed them on the 8MM film he did for his sons, which was the standard we use in the school. In this young mans Siu Lim Tao, he did the entire form with Dynamic Tension and the order and movements were not as I had been taught. His Bong Sao was more like a Karate High Block, There were movements which resembled parts of Biu Gee, mixed with some "Shaolin Long Fist" looking movements. Mid-way through the form he even stopped and did Stance Shifting.
Unfortunately his Chum Kiu followed the same pattern for not matching what we taught.

When I explained that what we taught was much different, he became upset and angry. When I explained that his forms were not the way Ip Man demonstrated he began to argue and stated "My teacher was a Chinese Master who trained directly with Ip Man. Who the hell are you, a white man, to say my forms are not in line with Ip Man." I asked the gentleman if he had ever seen Ip Man do the forms. He stated that he had not. So I showed him my copy of the footage. He was heartbroken and upset.

Minor changes are to be expected, but if one is doing what they are calling "Ip Man Wing Chun" it should have some resemblance to what Ip Man left behind on film. It was important enough to Ip Man to get out of what was essentially his death bed and put the forms on film. I believe he had a good reason for doing this.

-Tony

[jooerduo]

in the 8mm films of yip man doing his forms, it looked like he was "leaning back".

has anyone investigated why he did that? to say that he did it that way 'because' he was old and tired is not entirely correct in my opinion

[RGVWingChun]

I'm definitely going to agree with that assessment. Being that we cannot ask him personally, it would be an assumption on one's part to say "laziness" or "old age". It seems that Ip Man certainly taught the "slouch" as it straightens out the lower spine in alignment being that the sacrum(?) tend to protrude out naturally....

[KPM]

I'm definitely going to agree with that assessment. Being that we cannot ask him personally, it would be an assumption on one's part to say "laziness" or "old age".

---True statement. That may very well be an inaccurate assumption on my part. But we don't see the "slouch" in many of Yip Man's top students from his early years.

It seems that Ip Man certainly taught the "slouch" as it straightens out the lower spine in alignment being that the sacrum(?) tend to protrude out naturally....

---That is an inaccurate statement. The "slouch" flattens out the lower back at the expense of increasing the curve in the mid-back. It throws off the alignment of the spinal column. The sacrum does not protrude if your posture is good.

[k gledhill]

tan sao has nothing to do with the hand , thats why YM says it doesn't matter ;)
slouching is a by-product of keeping what in ..? elbows ..why ?

Yip Ching & Yip Chun are different in chi-sao as well...Yip Ching being more 'standard' Yip Chun being more a perimeter jump in jump out kind of thing :D...people forget and make mistakes ...we [ you and me ] suffer for the excuses they make.

It doesn't matter what your seeing on the surface of guys form work, if you understand whats being developed by the SYSTEM.

I can have my arms down up sideways ...as long as I know why before hand.
The height of the elbow is very critical in the early stages of training SLT ...but after the idea is learned you aren't a slave to it any more , you become a freefighter like a boxer , thai boxer, etc...simpl vying for your positions etc.. relative to theirs. No pre-set move, fighting arms that suddenly stop and freeze in the air while you do a few 'moves' ; )

Tan & jum are trained earlier in SLT than the later sections ..WHY ? there lies a simple truth if you don't know.

The main partnership of attacking along our line is as the tan elbow spreads off the line laterally while the same arm strikes directly forwards [ ballistic ging shock force in the elbow leaving the line , not a flying elbow out wedge] the forc e it meets as it leaves such an acute angle 'cuts ' away force as it strikes in, creating a poweful [ging again ; ) ] displacing lateral force in the direction of that arm's elbow either leaving the line [slt training is to keep elbow on] or staying on the line [ slt jum sao] endurance to KEEP THE SIMPLE ABILITY in SLT...ie right arm displacement right of our centerline, jum sao displacement inside the line laterally as it strikes forwards using the elbow in as the 'holding' line to our centers, tan or jum follow each other, lead or follow only depends what side you are controlling as you STRIKE IN ATTACKING in rotation, the rest of SLT is to hep if either is interrupted .The reason we do both tan & jum [jum aka side palm, sidepalm makes the elbow do what ? make it vertical then turn it horizontal and watch your elbow ; ) ] on the dummy is so we can touch with either one equally ..which one leads depends on the strike we deliver at that point in time along the flank...to test the facing , not as a two extended arm attack, that would contravene the primary attack idea.

the chi-sao forms etc...simply address the modulation of important sequences ..balance facing the idea , recovery of the idea ...weapons that give the idea is tactical ideas ...get it ? the rest is to help develop/nurture and help if intercepted.

redundancy in chi-sao is rampant when the process is understood .

simple genius I'm the one who screws it up :D so I keep training for perfection of a simple idea.


time spent training is no guarantee of understanding. The 'legacy' being left might not be a good one.

to make the whole arm thinking work one needs to move it around using chum kil ...to make the movment work you need the knives..

something MANY students never learned from Yip Man ...the tactical ideas stem from the knife...not standing like SLT in a basic stance, ready to be chopped up like iceberg lettuce for a salad.

2 weapons either capable of delivering arcing blows to you from either side ? what are your tactics ?
these carry over to the hands , for the same higher percentage % of survival...dont be in the center of someones charge firing your machine gun from left to right , righ to left. Even gunners know to put themselves on a side so the charging soldiers form a dominoe effect before them. Fighting one isolated 'dominoe' and so on the whole line of dominoes never being able to face you as one force, just a weak single piece unable to correct itself quick enough.


Ballistic displacement force while holding the line to target striking is from the pole...many dont do either, so how can they convey the fighting idea beyond a centerline strike & now lets do chi-sao and have sticky fun ?

[KPM]

tan sao has nothing to do with the hand , thats why YM says it doesn't matter ;)
slouching is a by-product of keeping what in ..? elbows ..why ?




Good points make in your post Kevin. But if it had something to do with the "slouch", then I didn't follow what you were getting at. :confused:

[LoneTiger108]

... This young man called my school and inquired as to the lineage of our school. Needless to say, he was very happy to find a "Ip Man Wing Chun" school in which he could continue his training.

He stated that he had been training for 2 1/2 years and was finished with Chum Kiu and just beginning the training of Biu Gee. So he was excited to find a school that could pick up his training where he had left off.

When he came in and demonstrated his forms, they were no where near the forms as Ip Man had performed them on the 8MM film he did for his sons, which was the standard we use in the school...

...I asked the gentleman if he had ever seen Ip Man do the forms. He stated that he had not. So I showed him my copy of the footage. He was heartbroken and upset.

Minor changes are to be expected, but if one is doing what they are calling "Ip Man Wing Chun" it should have some resemblance to what Ip Man left behind on film. It was important enough to Ip Man to get out of what was essentially his death bed and put the forms on film. I believe he had a good reason for doing this.

-Tony

A refreshing read Tony, and a change to what I've been viewing lately!

I only comment here in support of what you mention about Ip Mans 8mm footage. I also believe he had very good reasons for putting these 'images' on film as a 'standard'. He must've known that he had little time left as this had NEVER been done before.

I think the problems really surface when students advance so quickly within the style. As the man who visited you mentioned, he had 'finished' Chum Kiu in 2 1/2 years! :eek: I was still floating around Siu Lim Tao at that time and wasn't interested in Chum Kiu at all! His Teacher obviously had developed his own take on what certain sets were for, which is fine, but I do feel that the forms should be kept close to Ip Mans image at the beginning. I've always been taught this, and I'm from the Lee Shing Family who are themselves linked to Ip Man for this reason (We have our own salutations though!)

This 'lean' concept too I feel is misunderstood by many. Has nobody ever thought that this was a preferred position of Ip Man? From what little I know, by gaining familiarity with this position it will allow you to spring forwards without warning, especially if a person leans into you or follows your hands.

BTW The tape idea was thought of by other past Teachers too, they are a great way to preserve their original forms and exercises imho.

[k gledhill]

by trying to keep and developing this elbows on an imaginary centerline idea, we open our backs out , spread the lats and contract the pectoralis muscles/chest muscles..a personal trainers posture nightmare :D...
Elbows in corresponds to what muscle groups act to make this happen ie the shoulder girdle or thee whole upper shoulder muscle group . This includes the muscles in back on the sides and infront on top...all acting to allow a certain position and maintain it. The hands /wrists are not in the equation because like bullets they simply replace themselves in alternate lead strikes ...

the basic training starts with SLT to learn to do the elbow/line idea...not anything about chi-or tricks.

The basic line we draw before every form is double man/bil/strike sao-back to vu sao/recover /free hand to strike again...one can repeat this ...then later in the SLT we learn the 'shaving hand' this isnt down its forwards alternating the same first actions of the forms to strike and recover , strike and recover ..repeat...

while doing the basic levels in dan chi , we need to get the elbow along the centerline to 'develop' further this idea . While maintaining a distance that doesnt allow contact by mistake , simply to allow each partner to feel the force that is required to keep the elbow on the line while the hand points to the chin of the other for the next stage of 1 punch training ....alignmnet while covering the relative line to the target before firing...
the tan saoer trains 2 stage elbow in outside arm edge elbow leaves the line vertical palm goes to head...the partner doing jum goes with forward energy jum so it become 1 strike holding center ...to an inside force relative to that arm in a freefight...then the tan of same partner would fire after holding the ouside line as the spent jum retracted to vu or whatever to fire again not hand chase /stick redundantly etc...


bong sao deflects laterally off our centerline the arm that has xed over it , by moving the incoming force sideways with bong we only need that arm to clear the way for...the vusao by the bicep later , ergo the need to repeat this simple partner ship in chum kil...how to recover the bridge to the attack.
fook is simply a neutral elbow recovery to no line needed ie my arm just got lifted u by a force I keep my elbow low and centered to trap on the line , holding the elbow not energy at the wrist or the bong will defelct my force...the more force in the wrist the more you get displaced because you seek to put the energy somewhere..if they guy wont let you ?? your not just striking and taking care of business , your trying to make contact to what ? feel that they are stronger ; )

Yip Man was a small man ...so how come he tied people up in funny positions without hitting them ?
because he let them chase the hands to try and stop him and took the positions they gave as overturned elbows stances etc...off balance..all trying to put their force on him.

chi-sa adds the same concept of development on a more complex level of either side...randomly later in set pattersn of developmental check test add another part etc...

not just now feel the chi standing at the dan chi sao distances needing a step just to reach each other to hit..

the slouching will come from this daily drill done to develop the idea ..when we use wristing the elbows lose any relevance , wasting time because your fighting a guy with energy at the hands /chasing...not developing a 1 punch angling assaul followed by another etc... abcking up the primary idea ..

2 free hands attacking 1 , in rotation not together like a lop sao punch for everything :D

look beyond the basic stance and see a fighter who is highly mobile and using the arm structure to intercept anything coming at his/her head as they strike ...if one arm opens up or we lose the angles we also increase our ability to be hit back 'trading ' punches..our strength lies in our ability to fight while facing anyside the person tries to give ...we simply keep them turned to no allow them to face with 2 working hands .


the tan jumpunch drill looks like a tan sao blocking and the other arm strikes...misleading when the student is pivoting seemingly in the center facing the incoming blows ...its actually just a drill to recover the tan elbow , not to block laterally with it....exercise not application.


slouching isnt required to fight its just the results of guys not doing stretching to keep open chests ...Im sure a lot of us have a slouch


I stretch out the chest with pnf / proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation & or crac methods acronyms for contracting relaxing agonist muscles against our own counter pulling muscle etc... one naturally allows the extension of the other .


bad posture training is VT :D

[Phil Redmond]

. . . . As per the many different versions of Ip Man's methods...you have to remember that only 4 people en toto completed the system under him, including his own son, Ip Ching. Many MANY MANY people - even the early students of foshan trained with him only for a while but did not finish. . . . .
It's very naive to say who got what from Yip Man. No one can know for sure. We ALL rely on what we were told.
It's common among Chinese Sifus of all styles to protect their "rice bowl" with claims of superior knowledge of their system. Claims/status mean nothing to me. What matters is did they go out and fight to test what they learned? I personally would want to study with the WC Sifus who actually fought for real. I'd never learn swimming from someone who never swam.

[sanjuro_ronin]

It very naive to say who got what from Yip Man. No one can know for sure. We ALL rely on what we were told.
It's common among Chinese Sifus of all styles to protect their "rice bowl" with claims of superior knowledge of their system. Claims/status mean nothing to me. What matters is did they go out and fight to test what they learned? I personally would want to study with the WC Sifus who actually fought for real. I'd never learn swimming from someone who never swam.

And still swimming or able to swim too.

[Phil Redmond]

And still swimming or able to swim too.
Thinking on your feet again I see. ;)

[sanjuro_ronin]

Thinking on your feet again I see. ;)

Or in the water, as the case may be ;).

[KPM]

by trying to keep and developing this elbows on an imaginary centerline idea, we open our backs out , spread the lats and contract the pectoralis muscles/chest muscles..a personal trainers posture nightmare :D...

---I agree. That's why I don't practice or teach the idea that the elbow has to be exactly on the centerline. That's not good biomechanics.

the basic training starts with SLT to learn to do the elbow/line idea...not anything about chi-or tricks.

---Again I agree. And in the SLT one starts with the arms held at the sides. This forces one to come forward to engage the centerline from an angle. The elbows are not on the centerline. To me, the elbow line is not a straight line that goes out from the center of the body. Its an arcing motion as it goes forward.


while doing the basic levels in dan chi , we need to get the elbow along the centerline to 'develop' further this idea .

---I guess I look at it differently. I don't try to put the elbow on the centerline during Chi Sao. This would leave the outer gate open to a blow from the partner's Fook Sao hand.


the slouching will come from this daily drill done to develop the idea

---I think you are onto something here. Maybe the idea that the elbow has to be exactly on the centerline is a big contributor to the tendency to "slouch." But I see both as poor biomechanics and therefore a mistake.


slouching isnt required to fight its just the results of guys not doing stretching to keep open chests ...Im sure a lot of us have a slouch

---Yep! Tight pecs are certainly a contributing factor! Wing Chun players should be doing stretches to open the chest and prevent this. And IMHO they should be standing up straight and not slouching! :D

[couch]

slouching isnt required to fight its just the results of guys not doing stretching to keep open chests ...Im sure a lot of us have a slouch

---Yep! Tight pecs are certainly a contributing factor! Wing Chun players should be doing stretches to open the chest and prevent this. And IMHO they should be standing up straight and not slouching! :D

I see the SNT form showing me that I must balance everything. That's why there is a Lop Sau to chambering the fist IMO (causing us to use the back muscles and posterior deltoid). The punch comes from the heart/middle, meaning IMO that in life I should walk the middle way. Maybe this stuff was built into the system, maybe not...but I like it.

For my cardio sessions, I spend a lot of time with the stretchy tube performing the chambering motion/rowing so that I keep my posture from coming into my chest (pigeon chested).

[Phil Redmond]

by trying to keep and developing this elbows on an imaginary centerline idea, we open our backs out , spread the lats and contract the pectoralis muscles/chest muscles..a personal trainers posture nightmare :D...

---I agree. That's why I don't practice or teach the idea that the elbow has to be exactly on the centerline. That's not good biomechanics.

the basic training starts with SLT to learn to do the elbow/line idea...not anything about chi-or tricks.

---Again I agree. And in the SLT one starts with the arms held at the sides. This forces one to come forward to engage the centerline from an angle. The elbows are not on the centerline. To me, the elbow line is not a straight line that goes out from the center of the body. Its an arcing motion as it goes forward.


while doing the basic levels in dan chi , we need to get the elbow along the centerline to 'develop' further this idea .

---I guess I look at it differently. I don't try to put the elbow on the centerline during Chi Sao. This would leave the outer gate open to a blow from the partner's Fook Sao hand.


the slouching will come from this daily drill done to develop the idea

---I think you are onto something here. Maybe the idea that the elbow has to be exactly on the centerline is a big contributor to the tendency to "slouch." But I see both as poor biomechanics and therefore a mistake.


slouching isnt required to fight its just the results of guys not doing stretching to keep open chests ...Im sure a lot of us have a slouch

---Yep! Tight pecs are certainly a contributing factor! Wing Chun players should be doing stretches to open the chest and prevent this. And IMHO they should be standing up straight and not slouching! :D

I agree with you Keith. It's not the elbow that should be in the center but the forearm.

[k gledhill]

by trying to keep and developing this elbows on an imaginary centerline idea, we open our backs out , spread the lats and contract the pectoralis muscles/chest muscles..a personal trainers posture nightmare :D...

---I agree. That's why I don't practice or teach the idea that the elbow has to be exactly on the centerline. That's not good biomechanics.

the basic training starts with SLT to learn to do the elbow/line idea...not anything about chi-or tricks.

---Again I agree. And in the SLT one starts with the arms held at the sides. This forces one to come forward to engage the centerline from an angle. The elbows are not on the centerline. To me, the elbow line is not a straight line that goes out from the center of the body. Its an arcing motion as it goes forward.


while doing the basic levels in dan chi , we need to get the elbow along the centerline to 'develop' further this idea .

---I guess I look at it differently. I don't try to put the elbow on the centerline during Chi Sao. This would leave the outer gate open to a blow from the partner's Fook Sao hand.


the slouching will come from this daily drill done to develop the idea

---I think you are onto something here. Maybe the idea that the elbow has to be exactly on the centerline is a big contributor to the tendency to "slouch." But I see both as poor biomechanics and therefore a mistake.


slouching isnt required to fight its just the results of guys not doing stretching to keep open chests ...Im sure a lot of us have a slouch

---Yep! Tight pecs are certainly a contributing factor! Wing Chun players should be doing stretches to open the chest and prevent this. And IMHO they should be standing up straight and not slouching! :D


the fook sao outer gate idea is pure chi-sao ...not the idea, remember your partners, developing each other in 'live drills', his hitting you from the out-side gate is not tactically possible if you think free fighting with no 'pre-rolling' . A lot of redundant ideas are born in dan chi-/ chi-sao like the fook.

REMEMBER ..you will fight with one lead [man sao] one rear[ vu sao] not as chi-sao..in other words your attacking limb say has been xed at the wrist by said fook sao [ just to explain] your rear hand [vu] will recover the outside line to this fook strike if it strikes ..you dont care because the rear line your vu fires from sweeps the zone /line made as the start to the forms..iow your fears are redundant because your whole positions responses in the real fight wont be allowing a situation like a fook over my tan etc...just wrong thinking.

In other words keeping your elbow out just so you dont get hit by a fook ...wrong thinking....the fooker should be concentrating on their own positions drill ideas...
the arm doesn't start by the sides it starts when the wrist X the centerline, as the beginning of the forms ...we start by ?
X'ing the line with each wrist'upper forearm , and ?
striking along it..and ?
coming back again ? Xing the line at ...the wrists
were the wrists x is the line
the elbows try to touch the line for training and leave to strike and back to the line or we just fight elbows out :D

the idea breaks down if you dont adopt angling /cutting strikes across striking arms or under them as the case may be. You will try to make your idea function by standing in center , spinning on axis , doing tan to this etc...

Tan never leaves the centerline, neither does Jum ...why ?

stretching out after is fine ...the idea is to make force roll off the arms as they angle in , not allowing a wide 'wedging ' angle so many like to do.

chi-sao warriors : ) WSL would usually beat challengers WITHIN 3 moves . not one rolled with him prior to this : )


If you draw an triangle in front of your chest , the base points by each arm pit for reference, if you take your hands and make a X so the rear /base has each hand there...now extend from the arm pits to the apex point of the imaginary triangle in front of you ..by keeping the elbows in your angle /forearms are acute enough to 'slip' force off and make it go to your outside shoulders....this base position is the rear Vu sao held by the rear bicep as reference ...look at YM and hi Vu sao it goes to the bicep not the centerline ...WHY?

to reinforce the elbow idea ... you dont fight with elbows tied to the line , remember your not a slave to the line .

[sanjuro_ronin]

Tan never leaves the centerline,

Mmmmm, tan lines....

[couch]

Mmmmm, tan lines....

http://www.no-tan-lines.com

Isn't this all the rage now?

[k gledhill]

c'mon guys concentrate on the finger or you will miss all that heavenly breast Er!! I mean tan line's er oh forget it :D

[sanjuro_ronin]

http://www.no-tan-lines.com

Isn't this all the rage now?

I am old school, certain tan lines just say "its dinner time" :D

[sanjuro_ronin]

c'mon guys concentrate on the finger or you will miss all that heavenly breast Er!! I mean tan line's er oh forget it :D

If this heads in the direction of "sticky hands" I am out of here !

[k gledhill]

not touching that or that one :D

[KPM]

his hitting you from the out-side gate is not tactically possible if you think free fighting with no 'pre-rolling' .

----A nice hook or overhand strike will go right through the outside gate in a fighting situation



your rear hand [vu] will recover the outside line to this fook strike if it strikes ..

---Why use the rear hand (Vu) to defend if you can use the front? Unless of course the front hand is striking at same time! The front hand picks up the motion and defends to create an opening for the rear hand to strike through.



iow your fears are redundant because your whole positions responses in the real fight wont be allowing a situation like a fook over my tan etc...just wrong thinking.

---In my view its not wrong thinking. There are plenty of times when you get a reference point with his attack crossing your lead hand from the outside. Dan Chi Sao is a prelimary to Seung Chi Sao. The Bong to Tan transition in both teaches the student to "close the outside gate." The way I do it, the pressure or intention with the Tan should be forward and slightly outward. This neutralizes the partners forward and slightly inward pressure. If the elbow is on the center with no outward pressure his Fook hand can slip right across the top of it. Doing it with some outward pressure/intent teaches a desirable response in any fighting. If you roll from Bong to Tan and collapse the elbow you leave an opening. If you roll from Bong to Tan while using forward and outward pressure you collapse his structure/technique more effectively. If the opponent's attack is crossing your lead hand from the outside you better be ready to "close the gate."



In other words keeping your elbow out just so you dont get hit by a fook ...wrong thinking....

---The elbow isn't "out", its just not on the centerline. You mentioned the crossing-hands motion in the opening of the SNT form. Are the elbows on the centerline then?



the arm doesn't start by the sides it starts when the wrist X the centerline, as the beginning of the forms ...we start by ?

---The crossing-hands motion in the form defines the centerline for the student. The elbows aren't on it. All the actual techniques in the form start with the fists held at the sides.



the elbows try to touch the line for training and leave to strike and back to the line or we just fight elbows out :D

---The way I do and teach it, the intent or energy at the elbow is towards the opposite knee. This keeps the elbows down and the energy at the forearm going forward and slightly outward. In free technique my elbows are never out, and they are seldom exactly on the centerline, even when punching. The way I look at, Wing Chun structure borrows heavily on the triangle. A triangle in 3 dimensions forms a wedge. This wedge is expressed as a power-line that connects from the knees to the hips to the elbows and out with a strike or defense. If the elbow is pulled inward to be on the centerline then it is not aligned with the hip and knee. This is poor biomechanics.



Tan never leaves the centerline, neither does Jum ...why ?

---Tan does leave the centerline. Two things cannot occupy the same space at the same time, can they? If you are doing a Tan Da, the punch occupies the centerline and the Tan occupies a "mid-clavicular line." The punch is the attacking centerline and the Tan is the defending centerline. But the Tan has left the original line it started on in order to create the opening for the punch to go out on that original line.




If you draw an triangle in front of your chest , the base points by each arm pit for reference, if you take your hands and make a X so the rear /base has each hand there...now extend from the arm pits to the apex point of the imaginary triangle in front of you ..by keeping the elbows in your angle /forearms are acute enough to 'slip' force off and make it go to your outside shoulders

---And neither elbow is on the centerline...otherwise you would lose that triangular structure!




to reinforce the elbow idea ... you dont fight with elbows tied to the line , remember your not a slave to the line .

---I agree. But what the SNT teaches is to develop the elbow-line so that it is second nature. Using the elbow-line provides good offensive and defensive structure. But the elbow-line is not the same as the centerline.

[k gledhill]

In used to think like you...now I dont. good luck

tansao is the punch ...not 2 things occupying the same space...

the whole idea revolves around the elbows touching the line ...in training.

your seeing the system from a chi-saoers point of functionalism, "his fook will hit me if I dont block it by moving tan sao off the line and chase it...stick to it like its the fight your training for ..a chi-sao face off....the guy doing fook should be developing their jumming punch at you, not just trying to hit for hitting 's sake , if thats the case just 'fast slap' each other ;)

all the arms are trained individually , while one is withdrawn to the side ..when we fight we never do this side draw...our arms are trained along a line in front of us .

[Phil Redmond]

. . . .---The crossing-hands motion in the form defines the centerline for the student. The elbows aren't on it. All the actual techniques in the form start with the fists held at the sides. . . . . .
Not in all WC. In TWC the crossing of the arms define the central lines.
http://www.wingchunkwoon.com/theory.asp
In a round punch to the head the tan and the centerline could face the point of contact while the strike is along the central line.

[k gledhill]

wsl would do similar attack offside arm with a tan 'on the line' while striking like a fac sao off body.....

the idea added to the delivery is to not fight the guy with a lead leg facing the center as chi-sao...but rather as a face off similar to weapons approach...

[jooerduo]

I'm seeing different things to you guys...

You see yip man leaning backward,
I see him leaning forward by leaning backward

You disagree in the positions of the taan sau,
I don't think he cares about the specifics of the taan sau,
I think his focus is on his intentions during the slow movements

You see him measuring the centre line when doing cross hands at opening of the form,
I think, by doing the cross hands, he is telling his body something else


I think we can discover a lot more of the forms we are doing if we look at how and why other lineages are doing things, or even how and why other arts are doing things

[k gledhill]

Jooerduo, I see dead people ... just kidding ; )


Imagine the attacking line you take from a face off...the angles your after to work the system are so your shoulders align with the other guys but at an angle of , lets say 45 deg. just for the sake of description. The shapes of the triangle we mention should apex on the strike contact point so each arm can strike along the line that divides the triangle. The elbow leaving the line creates the outside edge of the triangle as it strikes across the arm , the line dividing the triangle has the elbow in strike while the previous arm retracts back to vu-sao...in that simple exchange the centerline isnt opened whil 2 of our strikes go in. Each strike controlling the line IF REQUIRED. In other words we reserve the chi-sao repsonse to contact by them , not by seeking it , we just hit in with no thinking other than hit the guy with 2 free arms and a clear mind.

tan strike elbow leaves the line while hitting forwards, the jum goes into the line with inner forearm while the spent tan retracts back to vu sao . This simple trained cycle of striking is the common chain punch only not with impact alone as the idea, but to use ither side of either arm as potential barriers to entry while we attack. Developed for this purpose in the dan chi--etc...

each arm learns to become a 2 hand action... the forearms act like a pak sao or a jut or simply slide force off and past our shoulders because of the acute angles they take to the target. they dont try to block by wedging ,they work their line , if the other guy uses lateral force [windshield wiper] we simply strike with the rear hand and retract the now spent strike,...still attacking.

IOW the attack line /tactical approach to the strike/cut isnt as the chi-sao drill starting point for the random exchanges to move from later in seung ma toi ma drills.
So the thinking of his fook over my tan or a punch going over my tan is redundant, why ?
because your whole positioning is wrong in the execution of the tactical delivery.
The opponent shows us how to attack them...how ? by delivering a line of force from one side of their body or the other, an arm a leg , a head down charge with a lead arm etc...
The chi-sao prepares us for accepting this offering and moving accordingly with the appropriate counter measures to deliver the ideas /concepts.
We use the knife as the guide in knowing that by isolating the fight to one side or the other , we minimize the chances of being overwhelmed facing center shoulder to shoulder. Rather , we want them to commit or attack by opening themselves up to stabs /chops etc... and deliver the cuts to the isolated side using our ADVANTAGE to best deliver a continous attacking 'intent' by freely striking with 2 arms in rotation attacking along an imaginary force line aka the centerline/and or central lines like twc.
By correct trainin of the strikes tan/jum , we create a seamless transfer of one hit to the other along the centerline , each strike takes over from the other to maintain the integrity of the defelection to the left or the right of our lines in rotation.
The seconfd level of this simple process is to deal with interuptions to it, by jut sao primarily, not lop sao, because jut keeps us in the line of fire , lop makes us grasp out of the air and chase , openeing us up and taking a striking arm out of the attack momentarily, something reserved for bil gee , home of lop sao.
So we have the tactic of flanking.
the arms trained to individually attack along the line that X the single arm of the opponent , either side is the same to us , so we can keep attacking the attempts to turn away from us and keep facing the offside shoulder to shoulder lines , only not as chisao in a basic stance doing roling with 2 arms extended worrying what to if that arm does this ? why because by isolating one side from the other it becomes redundant to fight it or reach for it to touch, why ? becuase youare trained to reach with 2 arms , one at a time across the isolated arm unable to reface to use the other arm against you...if it does you have all the ways in the system to perpetuate the attack without ever stopping to give them a gap to recover....striking /kicking/ attacking.
It requires that we use chi-sao not as a way to fight 2 arms equally but to establish a drill that allows us to angle/ strike and develop the punch/deflect idea in random responses to either side presented adding stepping in as a 'role' and our attacking entry, while the other role is that of counter striking entry along what side ? thats the thing we dont know and cant so we practice to make it instinctive, to the given Jab , X, front kick etc...
By maintaining a side on [ no lead legs until entry] stance shifting/ turning right or left so we can angle and attack the attempted entry.
Adopting lead legs early gives a low kick to a thai boxer and commits you already to in and forwards with a lead leg...adopting a turning stance only to gain entry by then facing the entry angles , like the dummy and also fighting the protractor perimiter before the fighter , we dont attack the dummy by stepping directly at it in a long line of force...this is what we want delivered to us.

Chi-sao can be misleading without the knife/pole explained and developed as the guide at all times. Many actions in chi-sao are redundant in fights .like using two arms extended equally , this is just to do a 'push me -pull you idea' and develop attrbutes of our thinking. not to worry about my tan needs to go out to touch the fook or it will hit me. Let it hit you! see if the guy even has a punch :D thats your part , to help your partner... when they punch over your tan elbow up, dont block, bil sao under it to show a trade off then ask them to stale mate and clear for the rear hand that will follow ..aka VU-SAO !! :D

The process connects the upper arm to the body so that the strength of your combined forceheel into ground/thigh extension/hip etcc[ the kneebone connected to the thigh bone song] all deliver the force required to ko the guy whil not lifting your elbows and hinging at the shoulder, while striking and not veering off the strike path....not to feel anyone .
Mistakes that one makes are opening up elbows whil striking , striking to close [no force] to far away [ no contact] open line allowing entry ...this is for closing the line down not for a chi-sao game ...

you are training to deliver the perfect attack. not a stop n clinch, stick to maloo my darling hand patty cake thing , been there done that !

make the tansao hand into a fist not an open palm and keep the elbow tight to the line then strike gently , the elbow will leave the centerline as tyour fist becomes vertical [ this is just training the idea we dont do a tan shae in the fight]
then do a jum with a fist and as you fininsh the tan punch do an inward elbow jum strike along the line the left tan strike and right jumstrike , shut down the left side of the guy, the other the right this idea is the shaving hands one out one in to recover the ability to keep firing...then facing at angles we fight them....it doesn't work head on, ergo the attempts to use a flying tan that we know doesn't work while in the center of an incoming attack ....we shouldnt be there in the first place.

PING ! hopefully

the system is devoted to this simple idea.

we dont fight like chi-sao facing with 2 arms extended, man sao/vusao exchange in perpetual attack, the idea is that we cant be stopped unless faced by ourselves doing the responses back...then it becomes quality control and we see who breaks down first at lightning speeds that dont stop for anything ...thats the guy I'm training with now ; )

[KPM]

In used to think like you...now I dont. good luck

---You mean you used to think in terms of good biomechanics, and now you don't? :) You've pretty much admitted that the "slumped shoulders slouch" is hard on the body and that trying to put the elbow exactly on the centerline contributes to this.



tansao is the punch ...not 2 things occupying the same space...

---I challenge you to do a Tan Da (Tan Sao with simultaneous punch) and end up with both the Tan and the punch on the same line.



your seeing the system from a chi-saoers point of functionalism,

---No. I'm seeing the system from the standpoint of practical biomechanics. Here is one way I sometimes demonstrate/illustrate what I have been saying to my students: Have a partner take a stick and hold it in one hand. Stand in front of him with your Bong in place. Now have him press against your Bong with the stick as if he is trying to touch the center of your chest with the tip. Now roll your Bong into the Tan position. If you collapse your Bong to Tan structure as you roll by pulling your elbow in too far, the stick is going to poke you in the chest. If you maintain good forward and outward pressure with your Tan you will "close the outside door" and the stick will be deflected. Using this kind of Bong to Tan transition with good forward pressure can actually collapse the opponent's technique and turn him. This breaks his structure/balance. This doesn't work well if you are slouching (because it eliminates some of your forward pressure) or if you are collapsing your Tan inward. The pivoting Lan Sao from the Chum Kiu can also be used to disrupt the opponent's structure/balance, but not if you are "slouching" as you pivot because it then would have no forward pressure/intent.




Not in all WC. In TWC the crossing of the arms define the central lines.
http://www.wingchunkwoon.com/theory.asp
In a round punch to the head the tan and the centerline could face the point of contact while the strike is along the central line.

Hey Phil!

---Here we are just talking semantics. The "defensive line" that I mentioned, you are calling the "central line". The "attack line" that I mentioned, you are calling the "centerline." Picture a straight punch coming in directly towards your center. You respond with Tan Da. The Tan Sao motion sweeps across the "original" centerline to deflect his punch and make the opening for your own punch to go out along that "original" centerline. But the Tan Sao has to go past the "original" centerline to deflect and make the opening. It ends up stopping on what I have called the "defensive line" and what you have called the "centerline." The punch goes out on what I have called the "attack line" and what you have called the "central line." But contrary to what Kevin seems to be saying, your Tan and your punch cannot occupy the same line at the same time. Two things can't be in the same place at the same time!

[Phil Redmond]

Hey Capt. Meyers, in TWC we defend the centerline and strike along the central line. I'll make a new thread with a clip so as not to hijack this one.

[KPM]

Hey Capt. Meyers, in TWC we defend the centerline and strike along the central line. I'll make a new thread with a clip so as not to hijack this one.

---Ok great! But I think we're still just talking about different semantics. :) Do you do things differently against the straight punch attack that I described above?

[KPM]

I'm seeing different things to you guys...

---Ok. That's allowed! :) But please elaborate because what you posted isn't very clear.


You see yip man leaning backward,
I see him leaning forward by leaning backward

---And just how does one "lean forward by leaning backward"?



You see him measuring the centre line when doing cross hands at opening of the form, I think, by doing the cross hands, he is telling his body something else

---What is that "something else"?


I think we can discover a lot more of the forms we are doing if we look at how and why other lineages are doing things, or even how and why other arts are doing things

---I agree. But I also think we should be examining them for what is good biomechanics and structure.....and what is not.

[KPM]

Imagine the attacking line you take from a face off...the angles your after to work the system are so your shoulders align with the other guys but at an angle of , lets say 45 deg. just for the sake of description. The shapes of the triangle we mention should apex on the strike contact point so each arm can strike along the line that divides the triangle. The elbow leaving the line creates the outside edge of the triangle as it strikes across the arm , the line dividing the triangle has the elbow in strike while the previous arm retracts back to vu-sao...in that simple exchange the centerline isnt opened whil 2 of our strikes go in. Each strike controlling the line IF REQUIRED. In other words we reserve the chi-sao repsonse to contact by them , not by seeking it , we just hit in with no thinking other than hit the guy with 2 free arms and a clear mind.

---Kevin: no offense intended, but it sounds to me that you are the one that is "seeing the system from a chi-saoers point of functionalism". I'm just trying to address what is good biomechanics and structure, whether within Chi Sao or within free-fighting/sparring.




simply slide force off and past our shoulders because of the acute angles they take to the target. they dont try to block by wedging ,they work their line

----I think we are saying similar things. You just aren't understanding what I mean by "wedging", and I haven't been able to explain it very well. I agree with the idea of the angle to target allowing force to slide off and past. But there is also an angle created by the defensive technique itself. That angle should also cause the force to slide off and past whether one has stepped or angled with the body in respect to the opponent or not. Pulling the elbow in too far loses that angle in Tan Sao. If someone can't stand dead center in front of an opponent and deflect a straight punch with a Tan Sao without pivoting or stepping to angle, then their structure is "off."



So the thinking of his fook over my tan or a punch going over my tan is redundant, why ? because your whole positioning is wrong in the execution of the tactical delivery. The opponent shows us how to attack them...how ? by delivering a line of force from one side of their body or the other, an arm a leg , a head down charge with a lead arm etc...

---I don't see how that is "redundant." Its all a matter of balancing energy and force. The fook sao hand in Chi Sao represents any force coming in through that outside gate. You have to deal with it as it comes or as you say "as the opponent shows us how to attack"...or defend in this case. Its the same whether it is a Tan Sao position in Chi Sao or a Man Sao position in free-fighting.



It requires that we use chi-sao not as a way to fight 2 arms equally but to establish a drill that allows us to angle/ strike and develop the punch/deflect idea in random responses to either side presented adding stepping in as a 'role' and our attacking entry, while the other role is that of counter striking entry along what side

---I think it also, and more importantly to me, teaches good structure and use of forward pressure. Watch those recent clips from Seni. If one opponent is unable to neutralize and stop the forward pressure from his partner, then he is in trouble! Rolling while dropping the Tan elbow too far towards the center is just inviting the partner to come right over the top and crush your structure! Aaron Baum did that on numerous occasions against his opponent.




PING ! hopefully

---PONG! :D



the system is devoted to this simple idea.

---Which one? The ideas you were describing didn't seem so simple.

[couch]

Hey Capt. Meyers, in TWC we defend the centerline and strike along the central line. I'll make a new thread with a clip so as not to hijack this one.

I'll make it for you! I want to talk about this stuff too.

[k gledhill]

oh well I tried :D

[KPM]

oh well I tried :D

---Well, thanks for the effort. :) I'm afraid I didn't always understand what you were driving at and we seemed to be talking past each other. Its another one of those things that is best discussed in person with demontrations. ;) Thanks for the chat.