Combining Wing Chun With Choy Lay Fut

[hulkout]

My first martial art for many years has been wing chun. During the past year, I've started choy lay fut in order to branch out a bit. But I'm having some problems combining them. In wing chun, the centerline theory has always been drilled into my head over and over again. We're taught to keep a tight structure and to not open up. I've also studied western boxing, so before I started choy lay fut, I was doing more of a jeet kune do approach. I used the footwork and punches of boxing along with wing chun. But boxing blends well with wing chun and can maintain the centerline. With choy lay fut however, a lot of the stances and techniques are very wide and seem to go against centerline theory. For example, one technique we practice is going into a unicorn stance (twist stance) with a straight punch and then stepping forward into a bow stance with a gwa-sow combination. It's very powerful and effective, but combining it with wing chun is proving a bit difficult. Should I shorten the techniques a bit to make it tighter and more compatible? I know the techniques of choy lay fut can be used long or short. Or should I just practice them as 2 entirely different and separate arts?

[Satori Science]

I'd say you don't have the back-round in CLF to combine them,
the foundation of the system is learning to generating whipping power thru the whole body (amongst many other things)

often the movemnets are big at first, so you can learn the "big circle"

but we fight on the centerline, no doubt.

[hskwarrior]

yeah i agree. spend more time in dissecting your CLF and you will see just how much in common it does have with many martial arts. it also relies on the skill or knowledge of your sifu.

to the outsider, clf is all wide and outside. to the seasoned clf player...no we're not. we see it and accept that others may not.

but the two are and can be pretty good together.

[Phil Redmond]

My first martial art for many years has been wing chun. During the past year, I've started choy lay fut in order to branch out a bit. But I'm having some problems combining them. In wing chun, the centerline theory has always been drilled into my head over and over again. We're taught to keep a tight structure and to not open up. I've also studied western boxing, so before I started choy lay fut, I was doing more of a jeet kune do approach. I used the footwork and punches of boxing along with wing chun. But boxing blends well with wing chun and can maintain the centerline. With choy lay fut however, a lot of the stances and techniques are very wide and seem to go against centerline theory. For example, one technique we practice is going into a unicorn stance (twist stance) with a straight punch and then stepping forward into a bow stance with a gwa-sow combination. It's very powerful and effective, but combining it with wing chun is proving a bit difficult. Should I shorten the techniques a bit to make it tighter and more compatible? I know the techniques of choy lay fut can be used long or short. Or should I just practice them as 2 entirely different and separate arts?
Not all WC is centerline. Some are "central line"

[Steeeve]

Phil

Thats a Theory of TCWC.....Whats the centerline and whats central line for U?

Steeeve

[Phil Redmond]

Phil

Thats a Theory of TCWC.....Whats the centerline and whats central line for U?

Steeeve
The central line is like a fan shaped area emanating from the centerline. The center line is constant as it divides the body down the middle front of the body.
The central line can be anywhere within the confines of the "fan" shape. In the WC first form the central line is defined at the lower and upper aspects by the crossing of the arms.
http://www.wingchunkwoon.com/theory.asp

[kung fu fighter]

I'd say you don't have the back-round in CLF to combine them,
the foundation of the system is learning to generating whipping power thru the whole body (amongst many other things)

often the movemnets are big at first, so you can learn the "big circle"

but we fight on the centerline, no doubt.

What's the bio-mechanics involved in CLF whipping power?

Do you have any excercises to train whipping power in CLF?

[hulkout]

When I first started choy lay fut, I learned the stance and waist exercises. You put your hands on your waist with your shoulders rolled forward. You then run through the different stances combining them with maximum rotation of the upper body. Eventually, you add punches to these movements. This is the foundation level training to train your waist and whipping power. I was told that no matter how advanced I get eventually, I should always do these exercises.

[kung fu fighter]

When I first started choy lay fut, I learned the stance and waist exercises. You put your hands on your waist with your shoulders rolled forward. You then run through the different stances combining them with maximum rotation of the upper body. Eventually, you add punches to these movements. This is the foundation level training to train your waist and whipping power. I was told that no matter how advanced I get eventually, I should always do these exercises.

Are there any clips on youtube of CLF waist and stance training?

When you rotate in CLF, do you initiate the movement from the hip like in western boxing or the waist?

[Steeeve]

Phil

If I understood the central line is not in reference from the opponent ...I mean a plan who connnect the centerline of the opponent with my centerline ...

the fan could be a box since the opening have two point in the lower and two point and the upper when we do the cross arms....low and hight.....thats could definite the 4 gates.....

Steeve

[hulkout]

Are there any clips on youtube of CLF waist and stance training?

When you rotate in CLF, do you initiate the movement from the hip like in western boxing or the waist?

If you look up "Ng Lun Ma", that is the form that we learned right away to train the waist. But as you progress and learn more techniques, I've found that it's a good idea to practice all movements in this manner before adding punches and kicks. It will make them faster, more powerful, and effective. The power is sort of generated from your feet all the way up to the top, kind of like links of a chain. Actually, it's the same way in western boxing as well. Like when you throw a left hook, your lead foot pivots and then your rear foot hits the ground as you make contact putting all your weight behind it. As I said earlier, I've only been learning choy lay fut for just over a year, so I'm sure others may be able to give some more insight. But there is something to be said for universal movement. After all, we all have only 2 arms and 2 legs. The power generation and weight shifting I learned in western boxing can also be applied in choy lay fut. The mechanics of a hook can also be used for sow choy.

[JGTevo]

Phil

If I understood the central line is not in reference from the opponent ...I mean a plan who connnect the centerline of the opponent with my centerline ...

the fan could be a box since the opening have two point in the lower and two point and the upper when we do the cross arms....low and hight.....thats could definite the 4 gates.....

Steeve

From what I understand the central line and center line is just a concept for understanding the proper execution of wing chun techniques and strikes.

Not so much something you can combine with Choy Lay Fut, it's like a method for understanding Wing Chun, and your opponent in relation to Wing chun, specifically. You could potentially use the concepts to change existing choy lay fut techniques, but to stay strictly within those lines for your fighting, would limit yourself.

But Phil may have something to say about that. I haven't been in a TWC school for a long time.



a lot of the stances and techniques are very wide and seem to go against centerline theory.

See, thats an issue if you want to combine styles. Every style has their own interpretation of what is the most effective way of fighting. The key is to pick up the principles and theories, and understand what works for yourself. If you see an opening on an opponent to attack their center line, go for it. The Center line theory can help you train for it. If you're in a position to attack an opponent's central line, go for it. The central line theory will help you train for it. These theories can be trained and understood and work, without conflicting, as long as you understand when and how they should be applied. TWC practictioners try to stay attacking the central line, most WC guys tend to go straight for the center line. Neither is more correct, simply different ways to engage an opponent. But what happens when the opponent understands the center line better than you, and you've only trained center line? Sort've like an outboxer who goes up against a better outboxer... boxing has shown it's good to be well rounded, engage your opponent's weakness. If you're good at outboxing and infighting, and your opponent is a stellar outboxer with longer arms than you, then it may be better to go on the inside...

Not that you're probably ever going to run into an opponent who has any idea what center or central line means or can properly defend it..... but personally I enjoy training for the best possible opponent I could ever go up against. Not because I'll ever go up against them, just because I want to have as complete a knowledge of fighting as possible.

[Satori Science]

Not so much something you can combine with Choy Lay Fut, it's like a method for understanding Wing Chun, and your opponent in relation to Wing chun, specifically. You could potentially use the concepts to change existing choy lay fut techniques, but to stay strictly within those lines for your fighting, would limit yourself.

On this point I disagree, we also use the "central line" concept as the core of our fighting theory and I am sure the Brothers from Chan Yon Fa in San Diego & Sifu Frank from SF will agree in their own way. More like a method for understanding striking/kicking and the proximal relationship to the opponent.




Not that you're probably ever going to run into an opponent who has any idea what center or central line means or can properly defend it..... but personally I enjoy training for the best possible opponent I could ever go up against. Not because I'll ever go up against them, just because I want to have as complete a knowledge of fighting as possible.

On this I completely agree, couldn't have said it better.

[JGTevo]

More like a method for understanding striking/kicking and the proximal relationship to the opponent.

I guess I should've been more specific about it, but what you said above is part of what I was taught in TWC. The Central line theory factors into the footwork, the striking, the techniques, and the application versus an opponent.

[Phil Redmond]

Phil

If I understood the central line is not in reference from the opponent ...I mean a plan who connnect the centerline of the opponent with my centerline ...

the fan could be a box since the opening have two point in the lower and two point and the upper when we do the cross arms....low and hight.....thats could definite the 4 gates.....

Steeve
I'll upload a video clip to youtube to explain. It'll be a lot easier.

[Infrazael]

I don't use much of the "center/central line theory" but more of a general gate theory approach I think. Open/Close/Inside/Outside kinda deal. Nothing too fancy but helps me get the jist of things.

Stuff like continuous chop choys, chuen ahn choys, yum chop, etc can all play to your "centerline" approach. Some CLF guys heavily favor throwing chop choys over the other stuff. Buk Sing guys tend to favor the side-body stance more than Hung Sing guys. My Sifu seems to favor Gwa-Sau-Kup over continuous Chop Choys.

At the end of the day it's all about YOUR personal interpretation. Everybody has their own preferences.

[Phil Redmond]

I up loaded a clip explaining our central line. I even showed "one" defense against a Pek Choy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdOmnxmnfv8

[Steeeve]

Thank Phil

Really good explainaition ....Now i know whats you mean about the centerline and the central line

thats could be a theory with triangle (2 triangle one with the base are our shoulders and the apex the centerline(when we punch in the centerline )....the other one is reverse triangle thats the central line we punch at the 2 point of the base of the triangle....the apex of the triangle is our centerline...

Sorry my english is not very good ....

thats the theory of relativity Einstein ....all depends of the reference....:)centerline closed triangle or the central line or the fan of the open triangle


Steeeve

[Charn Fu Gerk]

The thought of combining the two styles together is ridiculous and somewhat offensive if you ask me. They are both completely different in all aspects. Not to mention the fact that historically there's never been much good blood between differing practitioners of the two styles.

And Sifu Redmond's demonstration of how to block against a "Choy Lay Fut diagonal strike" is laughable at best... Maybe if the strike was moving extremely slow and weightless that Tahn Sao might just do the trick.
But I can safely say that if swung properly a strong Sao Choi would easily destroy a block like that... No question!

And any CLF guy throwing sao choi's the way that Sifu Redmond explained deserve's to get knocked out.

[Phil Redmond]

The thought of combining the two styles together is ridiculous and somewhat offensive if you ask me. They are both completely different in all aspects. Not to mention the fact that historically there's never been much good blood between differing practitioners of the two styles.

And Sifu Redmond's demonstration of how to block against a "Choy Lay Fut diagonal strike" is laughable at best... Maybe if the strike was moving extremely slow and weightless that Tahn Sao might just do the trick.
But I can safely say that if swung properly a strong Sao Choi would easily destroy a block like that... No question!

And any CLF guy throwing sao choi's the way that Sifu Redmond explained deserve's to get knocked out.
Guys like you crack me up. Though I speak Chinese I'm not. I'm an American and I could care less who hated who back in Hong Kong. I use what works regardless of where it comes from. You're living in the past if you're Chinese. If you're not then you're simply delusional. I will continue to share with my CLF friends and martial artists of other styles to better our fighting skills. My demo didn't show all the aspects such as a grab to Pek Choi etc. It was primarily to explain the Central Line. I know from personal experience the power of CLF strikes.
My intent is not to offend anyone. And btw, I've fought CLF people in the streets of Chinatown NY on a few occasions. I'm not only a WC person. I practically lived in Chinatown and have trained with VERY competent CLF and other stylists for 38 years. I've had guys come at me with powerful Pek choi, make contact with my arms and the fight was over because of my forearm training. I have much respect for CLF. It's a a very good fighting style. That's why it's the preferred style in most Chinatowns in North America. Do you happen to live in or near NYC/NJ/Philly? I'm always open to meeting other Chinese stylists.
p.s. That was a Biu Sao, not a Tan Sao and it doesn't just stay there. ;)

[hulkout]

The thought of combining the two styles together is ridiculous and somewhat offensive if you ask me. They are both completely different in all aspects. Not to mention the fact that historically there's never been much good blood between differing practitioners of the two styles.

And Sifu Redmond's demonstration of how to block against a "Choy Lay Fut diagonal strike" is laughable at best... Maybe if the strike was moving extremely slow and weightless that Tahn Sao might just do the trick.
But I can safely say that if swung properly a strong Sao Choi would easily destroy a block like that... No question!

And any CLF guy throwing sao choi's the way that Sifu Redmond explained deserve's to get knocked out.
So let me get this straight. You think it's ridiculous to combine 2 styles together because they're different and it's offensive because of the bad blood between them in the past. What the hell relevance does that have nowadays? And as far as combining styles, you do realize that every style out there in existence is a combination of something, don't you? Choy Lay Fut itself is a combination of several different arts. So don't tell me about the purity of Choy Lay Fut when
it was never "pure" to begin with. Every martial art is open to interpretation from the student and every decent instructor will encourage this. And lastly, Vince Lacey who runs the BukSing Choy Lay Fut school in Fremont himself does both Choy Lay Fut and Wing Chun. And so does Shane Lacey. But I suppose you're more qualified to speak on behalf of Choy Lay Fut than they are. Take your close minded attitude and blow it out your ass!

[JGTevo]

The thought of combining the two styles together is ridiculous and somewhat offensive if you ask me.

It'd be a good idea if you contemplate the meaning of "Martial Artist". What is an "Artist"? Someone who expresses oneself. If someone was taught how to paint like Van Gogh, and he painted only what Van Gogh painted, that would not be self-expression. If he painted his own paintings only in the way Van Gogh painted, only the idea of what to paint would be self-expression. If he took the techniques he used and expanded upon them, that would be complete self-expression.

Don't be afraid to express yourself. Even if the result comes out to be "less than", it will still be honest, and you will grow as a martial artist because you at least tried.

[Steeeve]

Well

the used of biu sau for blocking the sau choi or the hook punch is good ...
the tansau could be good if you use the dropping tansau (like in the bong sau to tan sau in the form)

but the most important is to used this parry or block for jamming the roundhouse orhook punch I mean intercept at the point zero ....not at is maximum

and to block it between the elbow and the shoulder ....if you go for the elbow to the wrist its too late ...better is to evade the strike with footwork ,duking or wave in wave out ...like a boxer

The chuin nau of CLF is very good for block the sau choi ....you intercept and cover the arm ...beetween the elbow and shoulder....

biu sau is the same in WC

next the sau choi of CLF is a punch used like a finishing technique in a combo....thats very hard to block it ...thats a K.o punch.... for finishing ...

like a jab right cross follow by a hook

you dont use the sau choi like a attack you use it at the end of a combo gwa choi ,chaap choi ,sau choi... the steak is already tender you finish him


Steeve

[chasincharpchui]

So let me get this straight. You think it's ridiculous to combine 2 styles together because they're different and it's offensive because of the bad blood between them in the past. What the hell relevance does that have nowadays? And as far as combining styles, you do realize that every style out there in existence is a combination of something, don't you? Choy Lay Fut itself is a combination of several different arts. So don't tell me about the purity of Choy Lay Fut when
it was never "pure" to begin with. Every martial art is open to interpretation from the student and every decent instructor will encourage this. And lastly, Vince Lacey who runs the BukSing Choy Lay Fut school in Fremont himself does both Choy Lay Fut and Wing Chun. And so does Shane Lacey. But I suppose you're more qualified to speak on behalf of Choy Lay Fut than they are. Take your close minded attitude and blow it out your ass!

GM Vince Lacey has said in the past that he teaches clf and wc as 2 seperate styles. he doesnt teach them combined. so don't start making up crap.

yes pretty much every style is a combination of a few styles, but it took certain ppl of certain skill, to blend them together to become one, and unique.
clf is a combination of choy, li and fut gar. but we look nothing like the original 3 families. CLF and WC are 2 very contradicting styles

so stick ur bruce lee wannab mma bs up ur mma a$$.

Till this day, wing chun hong kong schools that ive visited, and witnessed with my own eyes, till this fkn day are still trying to teach defesne against charp choi and sao choi.

my ancestors loved to fight wing chun practioners. my elders loved it also. so for us to show no gratitude, and respect and go out to learn wing chun is like turning around and spitting on their face. that is the relevance nowadays. i would neva spit on my family, or my history


the passion for fighting wing chun practioners flows through all of our bloods.

so the thought of combining clf and wc also absolutely disgusts me.

[hulkout]

GM Vince Lacey has said in the past that he teaches clf and wc as 2 seperate styles. he doesnt teach them combined. so don't start making up crap.


so stick ur bruce lee wannab mma bs up ur mma a$$.

Of course he would teach it that way because they are 2 separate classes at his school. But he himself practices both styles so obviously their will be some blending of the 2 in the way that he practices it. Shane Lacey, who has also studied Wing Chun and Muay Thai among other things, has also gone on record as saying that there will always be some blending of the arts whenever you practice more than one discipline. I was in Fremont a couple of years ago and I had the chance to briefly meet Vince Lacey. He is a very kind man and the complete opposite of you and your close minded attitude. My father, who is a Wing Chun practitioner and also my first teacher, spoke to him and found out that they both went to St Francis Xavier College in Hong Kong and had a few good laughs. This nonsense about how learning the other art is like spitting on the face of your ancestors doesn't seem to bother them, but it does seem to give you a hard time. I think maybe someone hasn't been laid in a while. Martial arts is an individual thing and should be developed as such. And by the way, I just love internet tough guys like your last comment there. I would just love to see you say that crap to my face! Why is it that whenever someone attempts to post a thread to try to encourage intellectual discussion, it degrades into this with idiots like you?

[chasincharpchui]

Of course he would teach it that way because they are 2 separate classes at his school. But he himself practices both styles so obviously their will be some blending of the 2 in the way that he practices it. Shane Lacey, who has also studied Wing Chun and Muay Thai among other things, has also gone on record as saying that there will always be some blending of the arts whenever you practice more than one discipline. I was in Fremont a couple of years ago and I had the chance to briefly meet Vince Lacey. He is a very kind man and the complete opposite of you and your close minded attitude. My father, who is a Wing Chun practitioner and also my first teacher, spoke to him and found out that they both went to St Francis Xavier College in Hong Kong and had a few good laughs. This nonsense about how learning the other art is like spitting on the face of your ancestors doesn't seem to bother them, but it does seem to give you a hard time. I think maybe someone hasn't been laid in a while. Martial arts is an individual thing and should be developed as such. And by the way, I just love internet tough guys like your last comment there. I would just love to see you say that crap to my face! Why is it that whenever someone attempts to post a thread to try to encourage intellectual discussion, it degrades into this with idiots like you?

i have friends that do wc. do we get along? yes. but id still show them no mercy if they wanted to prove they were superior to me.

it still disgusts me the thought of combining the 2 styles.

hulkout= internet tough guy. love your last comment aswell.

[Eddie]

I have no issue with what the WC guys said and about cross training etc, but I do think that perhaps some of the people involved in the topic, assumed a little to much about, or should I say generalise to much. I practice both CLF and Pek Gwar, and with both styles, forearm conditioning is one of the most important things.

Sure there are probably allot of defences against pek choy, but in the end it all boils down to the practitioner. I know some people who can throw a pek choy with such speed and power that even if you do manage to block it, you would be in for some serious arm damage. I suppose there are probably allot of WC guys who can chain punch you into a wall or something. No doubt about that.

Re the CLF / WC rivalry, personally I don’t care about such things. However, some people choose to take it seriously, so I guess its their own choice. Its very much like religion…. It works for some and doesn’t for others.

I’ve heard allot about these deadly China Town fights. I suppose there aren’t allot of videos out with some clips of some fights?

[Phil Redmond]

I have no issue with what the WC guys said and about cross training etc, but I do think that perhaps some of the people involved in the topic, assumed a little to much about, or should I say generalise to much. I practice both CLF and Pek Gwar, and with both styles, forearm conditioning is one of the most important things.

Sure there are probably allot of defences against pek choy, but in the end it all boils down to the practitioner. I know some people who can throw a pek choy with such speed and power that even if you do manage to block it, you would be in for some serious arm damage. I suppose there are probably allot of WC guys who can chain punch you into a wall or something. No doubt about that.

Re the CLF / WC rivalry, personally I don’t care about such things. However, some people choose to take it seriously, so I guess its their own choice. Its very much like religion…. It works for some and doesn’t for others.

I’ve heard allot about these deadly China Town fights. I suppose there aren’t allot of videos out with some clips of some fights?
I agree with you that most people would get their arms broken trying to stop a CLF attack. That's why my CLF friends helped me with forearm training and my WC training teaches me not to absorb the force. I'm 60 years old. It was years ago when I was in Hung Mun (yeah there were a couple of black guys in Hung Mun and Hung Ching). Video cameras were a bulky and large novelty back then. So either you'll believe me or you won't. BTW, I have much respect for CLF because I've seen it in real fights.

[JGTevo]

the passion for fighting wing chun practioners flows through all of our bloods.

so the thought of combining clf and wc also absolutely disgusts me.


You are straight out of a kung fu movie.
Being a martial artist has absolutely nothing to do with this. This is just your own personal limitations you're setting for yourself. Your argument is bordering on the lines of ridiculousness only seen by the conflict in Israel and Palestine.

[jo]

My first martial art for many years has been wing chun. During the past year, I've started choy lay fut in order to branch out a bit. But I'm having some problems combining them. In wing chun, the centerline theory has always been drilled into my head over and over again. We're taught to keep a tight structure and to not open up. I've also studied western boxing, so before I started choy lay fut, I was doing more of a jeet kune do approach. I used the footwork and punches of boxing along with wing chun. But boxing blends well with wing chun and can maintain the centerline. With choy lay fut however, a lot of the stances and techniques are very wide and seem to go against centerline theory. For example, one technique we practice is going into a unicorn stance (twist stance) with a straight punch and then stepping forward into a bow stance with a gwa-sow combination. It's very powerful and effective, but combining it with wing chun is proving a bit difficult. Should I shorten the techniques a bit to make it tighter and more compatible? I know the techniques of choy lay fut can be used long or short. Or should I just practice them as 2 entirely different and separate arts?

Da Brucesta said; "Punch when you need to punch, kick when you need to kick."

What's wrong with utilizing EVERYTHING you have learned, rather than relying upon just a part of the whole, all in the name of "style"?

In a real fight, there is no room for "style"...its hit or be hit.

- jo

[Eddie]

I agree with you that most people would get their arms broken trying to stop a CLF attack. That's why my CLKF friends helped me with forearm training and my WC training teaches me not to absorb the force. I'm 60 years old. It was years ago when I was in Hung Mun (yeah there were a couple of black guys in Hung Mun and Hung Ching). Video cameras were a bulky and large novelty back then. So either you'll believe me or you won't. BTW, I have much respect for CLF because I've seen it in real fights.


You are 60 years old??!! I saw your video and thought you were in your late 30's. Respect!!!
I did not mean to disrespect you.
Re the china town fights, I am not questioning whether or not what you are saying is the truth, I was just curious as to exactly how these fights happened.

[Charn Fu Gerk]

I still stand by my opinions 100% :)

Fair enough if you learn the 2 styles and you feel like exploring how they can work together, but that's not my thing and I've stated my thoughts on it already.

Sifu Redmond. I understand your points and can see where you're coming from. My intent was not to cause a flame war, just to express my opinion.
My comment came about because the demonstration you gave of the Biu Sao against the Pek Cho didn't really convince me it was capable of what you said. If you had posted a video where the attacker put some power into the strike and you did the same with the block I would've seen what you're saying instead of just assuming that it works.

As for being dillusional... Not at all. Just passionate about what I do. I don't expect others to understand, or agree.

Hulkout... I don't claim to be of any high authority to speak on anything.
As ChasinCharpChui said Grandmaster Vince Lacey teaches CLF and WC seperately.
Who knows if he mixes them in his own time? That's his business.
I think it'd be a huge waste of time trying to blend the 2 styles... I don't see the point in it. But go right ahead if you want, just don't expect 'idiots' like me to like it.


JGTevo... WTF has Van Gogh got to do with CLF and WC and fighting. I think you're a tad more "Art" than "Martial" huh? Go smoke a doobie and go to the museum, do some finger painting or something!

[Phil Redmond]

You are 60 years old??!! I saw your video and thought you were in your late 30's. Respect!!!
I did not mean to disrespect you.
Re the china town fights, I am not questioning whether or not what you are saying is the truth, I was just curious as to exactly how these fights happened.
Thanks, you've made a friend. . .:) No one believes I'm 60. My first tour in Vietnam was in 1966. I was 18 then. If you go to the photo gallery on my website http://www.wingchunkwoon.com you'll see a few pics of me in 'Nam. There was tension between different Chinese groups even to the point of shootings in NY's Chinatown. I just happened to be a member of one of those groups.

[Phil Redmond]

I still stand by my opinions 100% :)

Fair enough if you learn the 2 styles and you feel like exploring how they can work together, but that's not my thing and I've stated my thoughts on it already.

Sifu Redmond. I understand your points and can see where you're coming from. My intent was not to cause a flame war, just to express my opinion.
My comment came about because the demonstration you gave of the Biu Sao against the Pek Cho didn't really convince me it was capable of what you said. If you had posted a video where the attacker put some power into the strike and you did the same with the block I would've seen what you're saying instead of just assuming that it works.

As for being dillusional... Not at all. Just passionate about what I do. I don't expect others to understand, or agree.
Cool, I apologize for the "dillusional". Passionate works for me.



. . . . . . . . I think it'd be a huge waste of time trying to blend the 2 styles... I don't see the point in it. . . . . .
Actually I'm not mixing the two styles. I guess it's more of how would CLF do this or that and how would WC do this or that. Then I compare notes to work out defenses/attacks. I don't do the "popular" version of WC. The forms are different and the theory is different. What I do is called Traditional Wing Chun under Sifu William Cheung. He had lots of fights with CLF people in Hong Kong. In fact WC Sifu Chan Chee Man was a CLF practitioner until he had a fight with William Cheung. After losing twice he asked William Cheung to take him to Yip Man. He left CLF and became a WC student. I have the interview where he tells the story but here's a little info:
http://www.everythingwingchun.com/chan-chee-man-wing-chun-videos-dvd-ip-man-ving-tsun-s/123.htm

[uki]

wingfoot(fut)... greek messenger of the gods... hermes.

[JGTevo]

JGTevo... WTF has Van Gogh got to do with CLF and WC and fighting. I think you're a tad more "Art" than "Martial" huh? Go smoke a doobie and go to the museum, do some finger painting or something!

The Art in Martial Art is equal to Martial. It's representative of what martial arts are about. Everyone does martial arts differently, there are thousands of different styles out there - Why? These styles are thousands of peoples unique expression of their body and mind. Their "Martial Art" was a combination of intelligence, personal preference, personal body mechanics and expression of their fighting spirit.

So whatever you consider martial arts to be, whether it's not about the "Art" part, or whatnot, you're heavily outnumbered by what it IS.

Just take a look at Wing Chun - You have how many disciples of Yip Man? And how many different views and opinions, how many different ways of teaching? That is because everybody who achieves an understanding of martial arts BEYOND the technical, derives their own interpretation of their style or styles. If you REMOVE personal expression, the "Art" portion which you quickly discount, you have drones who all fight the same, all do the same thing. If someone throws a punch, everybody reacts the same for that punch. But no, in reality, some people prefer to be defensive, some aggressive, some people change opening techniques to work for them or their body types better. This is the heart of a martial art. I used to believe in solely what I called "Combat Science" and completely discounted the art portion. But the bottom line is, in MMA, in Boxing, in Kung Fu, in Karate, there is an equal portion of "Art". Self-expression leads to personal development and understanding.

But ya know, I guess you could just be a drone, screw the self-expression, just do the techniques over and over and don't really think about anything but that. Don't ever question your teacher, just do what he tells you and don't ever think any thoughts that might be considered "Disrespectful" to your "Ancestors."

Dr. Yang Jwing Ming wrote about this in his book on White Crane - If I remember correctly he said Kung Fu teachers of old would send their students away for a certain amount of time after they achieve a certain level of proficiency... When they came back, if they were at that point still doing everything they were taught, just as they were taught, the teacher would send them away again, and again until the student made the teachings his own, until the student derived their own interpretation of what they learned.

That's the "Art" portion. And it's just as important as the "martial" portion. Even professional fighters exercise the "Art" portion, even without understanding it. That is why everyone fights differently. That's self-expression, or the expression of the human body.

Funny thing is friend, go look up Eddie Bravo - He actually IS a pothead. And he gets the "Art" part of Martial art. And he accomplished more in the martial arts in a few years, than you probably ever will in your entire life.

By the way, how old are you?
Based on your posts I'd put you at around 18 or 19. And that's being generous. You're not a kung fu action hero dude, you don't need to protect the honor of your teacher or style. The post you made where you said you'd have no mercy on your Wing Chun buddies who think they're better than you is laughable. I'd love to take you all to an MMA or Boxing gym of actual active fighters and watch you all get worked.

[chasincharpchui]

By the way, how old are you?
Based on your posts I'd put you at around 18 or 19. And that's being generous. You're not a kung fu action hero dude, you don't need to protect the honor of your teacher or style. The post you made where you said you'd have no mercy on your Wing Chun buddies who think they're better than you is laughable. I'd love to take you all to an MMA or Boxing gym of actual active fighters and watch you all get worked.

actually that was me that posted

there is more to kung fu than just going to class, doin your session and paying your fees to your sifu. but than again its clear you don't understand any of it.

mma? boxing? kung fu is not a sport.

[Eddie]

Thanks, you've made a friend. . .:) No one believes I'm 60. My first tour in Vietnam was in 1966. I was 18 then. If you go to the photo gallery on my website http://www.wingchunkwoon.com you'll see a few pics of me in 'Nam. There was tension between different Chinese groups even to the point of shootings in NY's Chinatown. I just happened to be a member of one of those groups.

I went trough your site just now. Very nice. I saw you menioned Wong shun leung. I once saw a WC video made by him, and was pretty impressed. the opening of the video had two guys fighting, it was pretty cool.

[Lee Chiang Po]

Thanks, you've made a friend. . . No one believes I'm 60. My first tour in Vietnam was in 1966. I was 18 then. If you go to the photo gallery on my website http://www.wingchunkwoon.com you'll see a few pics of me in 'Nam. There was tension between different Chinese groups even to the point of shootings in NY's Chinatown. I just happened to be a member of one of those groups.
---------------------------

I certainly would not have guessed that you were 60 years old. I have only seen you in a couple of recent video flicks, but you look like a kid. People tell me that I do not look 63, but they are lying to me.
Being chinese I also grew up in the Asian parts of the cities I lived in. I have seen a lot of different fighting styles, but have not been drawn to any of them because they seemed to require a greater physical ability that I possessed. Would take me way too long to learn and become proficient at.
Besides, CLF guys made up the larger portion of my diet.

[JGTevo]

actually that was me that posted

there is more to kung fu than just going to class, doin your session and paying your fees to your sifu. but than again its clear you don't understand any of it.

mma? boxing? kung fu is not a sport.

:|
Looks like you completely missed the point. Boxing is not just a sport. It's also a martial art. MMA is not just a sport - But the reason I referenced them is because they are the only popular venues where a fighter is tested. Where they win, lose, change and grow.

I'm not going to reexplain everything I just said in my first post, go back and read it if you didn't understand how it correlates to my argument of art, I'll just say this -

Watch boxing - It's a relatively basic martial art which consists of jab, cross, hook, uppercut, weave, slip, block. - Yet even still, each boxer is different, each boxer fights differently, they develop their techniques differently - A "Jab" can have several variations. Not everyone jabs the same. Not everyone fights the same - Thats the "Art", the self-expression. They don't just fight differently because their trainer told them to, they developed their techniques on their own, through hours of hard work, training what worked for them, adapting new techniques, new strategies, new combinations. That's art.

Sport? That has nothing to do with the art. The reason why self-expression is so prevalent in MMA and Boxing is because Fighters are tested to their limits where they HAVE to give everything they have, their heart, their soul, everything. They express themselves honestly, not limiting themselves by only what they've been taught.

You train in a single martial arts school never fighting anyone or being tested like that, never thinking outside of what your instructor tells you - You're just a drone. The point of martial arts has been entirely lost on you. You may be a decent enough fighter to defend yourself, but you've lost the artistic aspect and you're limiting yourself to simply being an inferior copy of your instructor.



there is more to kung fu than just going to class, doin your session and paying your fees to your sifu. but than again its clear you don't understand any of it.

Riiiight, which is why I've written a multiple-paragraph explanation on my interpretation of martial arts, citing references such as Dr. Yang Jwing Ming, Yip Man's students and Eddie Bravo(who was one of the first people to popularize no-gi jujitsu), and you've written... well lets see, absolutely nothing of any value whatsoever. Your interpretation of what martial arts means, seems to be some egotistical notion that you need to protect the honor of your "Ancestors".

It's ridiculous. Your lack of response to any of the points I've made only goes further to show that you only consider this discussion a symbolic ****ing contest.

I would absolutely love for you to actually respond to my post, instead of refuting the entire post with your ignorance of boxing and MMA being as much martial arts as choy lay fut.

[TenTigers]

well, let's play "Devil's advocate"so we can have a mature discussion, and exchange information-which is what this forum was intended for, and look at it this way:
(btw-if my ststements fall short of the mark, it is because although I have studied some CLF, I am in no way an authority on it, so if you can, fill in the gaps so we can have a better exchange)

-CLF is basically a long arm, non-sticking system.
Many people have said that you can shorten up the punches and have closer range, but was that the intention of CLF? Is that the way it was meant to be played? Does CLF have the short bridge? (which, if it did not, would in no way make it innadequate (sp?)I also realise that long arm does not equal long range, and can be played body to body striking with the arms rather than the end of the fist.

As a long arm/non-sticking style, my goal is to strike. If you try to stick, I will shift, withdraw my hand and shoot the other one out. My strikes are punishing. If you try to stick, I will strike your arms. etc. I will come at you with a barrage of unstoppable fury. I will rain on you.

As a short bridge system, I cannot afford to step back. I cannot afford for you to get off. I MUST shut you down before you can unleash your powerful blows. I will intercept your intent, and will choke off your attack, and continue the attack until you are subdued. I will come at you with a barrage of unstoppable fury. I will rain on you.



Both great strategies, but both still leave that window open.

CLF and WC have always been rivals-but this is due to this complete contrast in technique and strategy. (less filling! Tastes Great!)

So, does CLF have a short bridging group of techniques within the system, or do some peole feel that they need to go outside in order to provide this.

[monji112000]

My first martial art for many years has been wing chun. During the past year, I've started choy lay fut in order to branch out a bit. But I'm having some problems combining them. In wing chun, the centerline theory has always been drilled into my head over and over again. We're taught to keep a tight structure and to not open up. I've also studied western boxing, so before I started choy lay fut, I was doing more of a jeet kune do approach. I used the footwork and punches of boxing along with wing chun. But boxing blends well with wing chun and can maintain the centerline. With choy lay fut however, a lot of the stances and techniques are very wide and seem to go against centerline theory. For example, one technique we practice is going into a unicorn stance (twist stance) with a straight punch and then stepping forward into a bow stance with a gwa-sow combination. It's very powerful and effective, but combining it with wing chun is proving a bit difficult. Should I shorten the techniques a bit to make it tighter and more compatible? I know the techniques of choy lay fut can be used long or short. Or should I just practice them as 2 entirely different and separate arts?

I have always thought people over complicate simple ideas, and try to make things into unflexable mortal rules. They both have similarities and differences.
maybe you don't really understand both arts enough to combine them? tighter or shortening doesn't make it more compatible or less.
these techniques here seem to me similar to clf in some ways. Maybe you could build off of the similarities. Stratagies ect...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7hbittGBwo
again maybe your understanding of both arts isn't enough... you should maybe seek a better teacher or get more experience.



-CLF is basically a long arm, non-sticking system.

As a long arm/non-sticking style, my goal is to strike. If you try to stick, I will shift, withdraw my hand and shoot the other one out. My strikes are punishing. If you try to stick, I will strike your arms. etc. I will come at you with a barrage of unstoppable fury. I will rain on you.

As a short bridge system, I cannot afford to step back. I cannot afford for you to get off. I MUST shut you down before you can unleash your powerful blows. I will intercept your intent, and will choke off your attack, and continue the attack until you are subdued. I will come at you with a barrage of unstoppable fury. I will rain on you.


sticking is for chi sao, fighting isn't chi sao. At some instances you can "stick", but again we are talking about fighting right? You are talking about only one strategy in WC, a very simple and limited strategy. A few times of a good sparring session will show you that this strategy doesn't have a place in every situation. Thats why WC has many fighting strategies as does most striking arts. instead of focusing in the most extreme, and incompatible ideas ...why not focus on the similarities?

[TenTigers]

sticking is not simply interpeted as chi-sao type sticky hands. Controlling the bridge, is probably the better term, but for argument's sake, I used the word sticking. Controlling the bridge,whether it be sticking, trapping, crossing,crowding,pressing,immobilizing,etc is all part of it. Controlling the bridge is also controlling the body, leg, structure.

[TenTigers]

if we focus on the similarities, then we are not on the topic.
Although, that does make for an interesting discussion as well.
Perhaps you would like to start a thread?

[Steeeve]

sticking is not simply interpeted as chi-sao type sticky hands. Controlling the bridge, is probably the better term, but for argument's sake, I used the word sticking. Controlling the bridge,whether it be sticking, trapping, crossing,crowding,pressing,immobilizing,etc is all part of it. Controlling the bridge is also controlling the body, leg, structure.

THATS A VERY GOOD POINT

control of the bridge ,control of the centerline,...control of the spine..control the structure.... in striking or throwing or joint locking or ground fighting thats the goal......

Steeve

[Infrazael]

well, let's play "Devil's advocate"so we can have a mature discussion, and exchange information-which is what this forum was intended for, and look at it this way:
(btw-if my ststements fall short of the mark, it is because although I have studied some CLF, I am in no way an authority on it, so if you can, fill in the gaps so we can have a better exchange)

-CLF is basically a long arm, non-sticking system.
Many people have said that you can shorten up the punches and have closer range, but was that the intention of CLF? Is that the way it was meant to be played? Does CLF have the short bridge? (which, if it did not, would in no way make it innadequate (sp?)I also realise that long arm does not equal long range, and can be played body to body striking with the arms rather than the end of the fist.

As a long arm/non-sticking style, my goal is to strike. If you try to stick, I will shift, withdraw my hand and shoot the other one out. My strikes are punishing. If you try to stick, I will strike your arms. etc. I will come at you with a barrage of unstoppable fury. I will rain on you.

As a short bridge system, I cannot afford to step back. I cannot afford for you to get off. I MUST shut you down before you can unleash your powerful blows. I will intercept your intent, and will choke off your attack, and continue the attack until you are subdued. I will come at you with a barrage of unstoppable fury. I will rain on you.



Both great strategies, but both still leave that window open.

CLF and WC have always been rivals-but this is due to this complete contrast in technique and strategy. (less filling! Tastes Great!)

So, does CLF have a short bridging group of techniques within the system, or do some peole feel that they need to go outside in order to provide this.

My personal (which means I am not speaking for every single CLF guy in existence so please, FFS, don't get offended) interpretation of this is that CLF guys, myself anyways view our strikes as sliding or riding over any established bridges. You're absolutely right, if you attempt to bridge, or are even successful at it, I will want to instantly break - disconnect. I'll slip and pull, the push back, doesn't matter which hand I use or what technique - as long as I'm following the general principle of trying to short circuit the bridges.

So the way you described it is quite accurate, IMHO. So who wins? Both sides are trying to smother each other, no?

I guess the answer is whoever trains harder, fights more, has more innate talent/skill, has more learned skill, as well as experience amongst other things.

Just my 2 cents.

[monji112000]

sticking is not simply interpeted as chi-sao type sticky hands. Controlling the bridge, is probably the better term, but for argument's sake, I used the word sticking. Controlling the bridge,whether it be sticking, trapping, crossing,crowding,pressing,immobilizing,etc is all part of it. Controlling the bridge is also controlling the body, leg, structure.

sticking in the "wc" sense is chi sao for majority of the idea. You can use the word controlling the bridge... it means the same thing. Your working with a "bridge". this isn't the case in a large about of a confrontation. In some cases YES and in most cases NO. SO again that idea is very limited in a large scale to CHI SAO. You live under the impression that every just gives you a static bridge to work with. Again fighting isn't chi sao, and WC isn't fighting that looks like chi sao. I love chi sao, and I am not saying anything negative about it. I'm simply putting reality into the topic.


if we focus on the similarities, then we are not on the topic.
Although, that does make for an interesting discussion as well.
Perhaps you would like to start a thread?
I'm sorry if I got off topic.. I honestly thought the tittle of the topic was...

"Combining Wing Chun With Choy Lay Fut".. and I was under the impression the first post was "But I'm having some problems combining them. In wing chun, the centerline theory has always been drilled into my head over and over again. We're taught to keep a tight structure and to not open up. I've also studied western boxing, so before I started choy lay fut, I was doing more of a jeet kune do approach. I used the footwork and punches of boxing along with wing chun. But boxing blends well with wing chun and can maintain the centerline. With choy lay fut however, a lot of the stances and techniques are very wide and seem to go against centerline theory. For example, one technique we practice is going into a unicorn stance (twist stance) with a straight punch and then stepping forward into a bow stance with a gwa-sow combination. It's very powerful and effective, but combining it with wing chun is proving a bit difficult. Should I shorten the techniques a bit to make it tighter and more compatible? I know the techniques of choy lay fut can be used long or short. Or should I just practice them as 2 entirely different and separate arts?"

so if I'm not wrong I'm on topic 100%.
I posted a video showing more "circular" techniques, that are in some ways familiar to a CLF person. Although they are not the same. The idea being that both styles have at some times a similar element. The first step into combining them would be to look at those elements. See how they are used differently. If they are..
To just say shorten a CLF technique is silly, because it in essence is just superficially looking at what CLF is and what WC is. You have not gotten to the heart or the soul of the styles. thats like saying I'm combining boxing with wrestling by wrestling with boxing gloves. You would need to look at body mechanics, timing, ring strategy, footwork ect...

[TenTigers]

ok point well taken.
I stand corrected.
I agree that when combining two different styles, it is good to first see where they have similarities which may fit in with your present system.
I tell students from other systems when they come to my school,
"you need to look at the systems like two gears. Don't look where they clash and lock up, rather seek the areas where they fit in with each other." (I should follow my own advice-once again, I am humbled:o)

I also realize that although chi-sao may be a large part of WC (and other short bridge systems) training, it is but one split second during a confrontation, and sometimes not even that.
But that one moment may decide victory or defeat.

In Hung-Kuen, we seek to bridge. If there is a bridge, cross it. Where there is no bridge, build it. Bridging occurs in many different ways. Sure, nobody leaves their hand out for you, which is why we bridge with different parts of our bodies, not simply the forearms.
You can bridge a jab, by "following it home" and attacking the upper limb,shoulder, etc.
Or crashing it head on and taking it.
The same applies when their hands are in tight, like a boxer's cover. Better for me. Crash their arms, and take their structure.

There are of course exceptions to the rule-Hung Kuen, like WC and SPM, goes in to strike.
Nobody goes in to trap,
just like nobody goes in to stick.
You go in to strike,
but if there is opposition, then you can stick, trap, run, or whathaveyou.
If the line is clear, then you take it.
BTW-this is considered a type of bridge in Hung Kuen as well, as I am bridging with your body, mind, and heart.

[monji112000]

ok point well taken.
In Hung-Kuen, we seek to bridge. If there is a bridge, cross it. Where there is no bridge, build it. Bridging occurs in many different ways. Sure, nobody leaves their hand out for you, which is why we bridge with different parts of our bodies, not simply the forearms.
You can bridge a jab, by "following it home" and attacking the upper limb,shoulder, etc.
Or crashing it head on and taking it.
The same applies when their hands are in tight, like a boxer's cover. Better for me. Crash their arms, and take their structure.

There are of course exceptions to the rule-Hung Kuen, like WC and SPM, goes in to strike.
Nobody goes in to trap,
just like nobody goes in to stick.
You go in to strike,
but if there is opposition, then you can stick, trap, run, or whathaveyou.
If the line is clear, then you take it.
BTW-this is considered a type of bridge in Hung Kuen as well, as I am bridging with your body, mind, and heart.

ofcourse I'm not saying this isn't a perfect time to take advantage, its just that this situation is less and less with a trained fighter. You must be away of this and be able to adapt. People that just think about bridging, to me often come off predictable and have little intention in that initial strike. The way I look at is that, when I'm striking I look to knock your head off. Each striking has torque, and intent.. if for some reason you for example you post a hand , then I can bridge and knee for example.

I'm actually trying to think about judo throws in my clinch. I'm not really at the level to add them in sparring but its my intention.

[TenTigers]

TenTigers wrote:
"There are of course exceptions to the rule-Hung Kuen, like WC and SPM, goes in to strike.
Nobody goes in to trap,
just like nobody goes in to stick.
You go in to strike,
but if there is opposition, then you can stick, trap, run, or whathaveyou.
If the line is clear, then you take it."

Monji12000 wrote:
" People that just think about bridging, to me often come off predictable and have little intention in that initial strike. The way I look at is that, when I'm striking I look to knock your head off. Each striking has torque, and intent.. if for some reason you for example you post a hand , then I can bridge and knee for example."

I think we are on the same page here.

[Steeeve]

The Yi or I is very important

Steeve