for Terence...

[LSWCTN1]

do you read and/or speak cantonese?

[t_niehoff]

do you read and/or speak cantonese?

No, I use a dictionary (just like I do for english when I don't know what a word means) and ask one of the guys I train with who does.

[LSWCTN1]

wasnt a loaded question, honest!

i just wanted to know as you seem to have little room for manoeuvre in your interpretation of the kuit.

i wanted to know whether this was your interpretation, an interpretation that was given to you, or something else.

also, dont forget that many lineages have differing kuit, sometimes radically and sometimes based on semantics

[t_niehoff]

wasnt a loaded question, honest!

i just wanted to know as you seem to have little room for manoeuvre in your interpretation of the kuit.

i wanted to know whether this was your interpretation, an interpretation that was given to you, or something else.

also, dont forget that many lineages have differing kuit, sometimes radically and sometimes based on semantics

I understand. Look, I don't take anyone's word for anything, I check and recheck as many sources as possible, etc. I am VERY critical in all things.

There is a core WCK kuit that you find across lineage (just like there are core WCK movements that you find across lineage).

A huge problem with WCK is that loads and loads of bullsh1t has been piled onto that core, obfuscating it. Most people can't find that core through all the bullsh1t.

[LSWCTN1]

I understand. Look, I don't take anyone's word for anything, I check and recheck as many sources as possible, etc. I am VERY critical in all things.

There is a core WCK kuit that you find across lineage (just like there are core WCK movements that you find across lineage).

A huge problem with WCK is that loads and loads of bullsh1t has been piled onto that core, obfuscating it. Most people can't find that core through all the bullsh1t.

granted and agreed with.

i asked the point years ago, if two people have the same teacher and one has been there 1 year and one 10 years. and the 10 year student performs his drills much better and his knowledge is much higher, but the 1 year student beats him in sparring every time; who is better at wing chun?

do you have a link to the kuit that you relate to?

[t_niehoff]

granted and agreed with.

i asked the point years ago, if two people have the same teacher and one has been there 1 year and one 10 years. and the 10 year student performs his drills much better and his knowledge is much higher, but the 1 year student beats him in sparring every time; who is better at wing chun?


There is actually a kuit that says Hoc Mo Mo Gong Sien Hou, Tat Jie Wai Sien - Don't speak of who is senior or junior; the one who attains the skill first is the senior.

WCK is no different than any other sport or athletic activity in that regard. How LONG you've been golfing or playing tennis is meaningless in determining your skill level -- there are people who play their whole lives and are forever duffers, and others who get really good in a very short period of time.



do you have a link to the kuit that you relate to?

No. The core kuit (the commonality between the Yip, YKS, Gu Lao, etc. kuit) isn't posted on the 'net.

[LSWCTN1]

thanks for your responses :)

[CFT]

There is actually a kuit that says Hoc Mo Mo Gong Sien Hou, Tat Jie Wai Sien - Don't speak of who is senior or junior; the one who attains the skill first is the senior.More of a classical saying than a kuen kuit.

學無(講)先後、達者為先

[t_niehoff]

More of a classical saying than a kuen kuit.

學無(講)先後、達者為先

Very true. Some of the kuit are widely used classical sayings, for example Kuen Yau Sum Faat - "The fist comes from the heart" is in xing yi and many other arts. Some kuit are specific to WCK's method.

As I see them, the kuit just provide a direction for your practice, but it is the practice that is primary.

[CFT]

The old "Loy lau hui sung, lat sao zik chung" is a good one but it can be interpreted incorrectly in the absence of guidance, i.e. what "zik chung" refers to (hand or whole body).

I asked some questions ages ago about:

有形打形、無形打影、無影破中
"Yau ying4 da ying4, mo ying4 da ying2, mo ying2 por jung"
(Have shape hit shape, no shape hit shadow, no shadow break centre)

I never did get a satisfactory answer.

[LoneTiger108]

I asked some questions ages ago about:

有形打形、無形打影、無影破中
"Yau ying4 da ying4, mo ying4 da ying2, mo ying2 por jung"
(Have shape hit shape, no shape hit shadow, no shadow break centre)

I never did get a satisfactory answer.

What is it you wanted exactly? This again, is just another classical saying isn't it?

[chusauli]

The old "Loy lau hui sung, lat sao zik chung" is a good one but it can be interpreted incorrectly in the absence of guidance, i.e. what "zik chung" refers to (hand or whole body).

I asked some questions ages ago about:

有形打形、無形打影、無影破中
"Yau ying4 da ying4, mo ying4 da ying2, mo ying2 por jung"
(Have shape hit shape, no shape hit shadow, no shadow break centre)

I never did get a satisfactory answer.

CFT,

Basically it refers to:

1) Yau ying da ying 有形打形 - If you see a shape, hit it. That is obvious. The target is in front of you - just hit it!

2) mo ying da ying 無形打影 - If no form, hit the shadow. This refers to the moving target. The action is too fast for your eyes to see, so strike at what you glimmer. Its like shooting a moving target - you shoot at where the target will be.

3) mo ying por jung 無影破中 - No Shadow, break center. This means the target is in front of you, break his center of gravity, control him, strike him at will. This is the WCK core objective. You need to push, pull or wedge and perpetually keep your opponent in a state of unbalance so you can strike him at will - breaking his COG (in Chinese, this is 破中) constantly to control him. Every strike has an unbalancing and resistance factor or a force setting up the next blow.

Of course, this supposes one has the correct training to do so. If no structure, you can't 破中 - your localized arm power is inadequate to do the job.

Hope this helps.

[CFT]

Thank you very much Chu sifu. It's just that the kuit seems to me to be on a continuum of "most preferred" to "last resort". But from your explanation there doesn't seem to be any correlation between the 3 "phases", except from yau ying da ying to mou ying da ying.

-----

Spencer, this one is not a classical saying. Definitely a kungfu thing, if not WCK specific.

[YungChun]

The old "Loy lau hui sung, lat sao zik chung" is a good one but it can be interpreted incorrectly in the absence of guidance, i.e. what "zik chung" refers to (hand or whole body).


VT does not bring one or the other of these, it always brings BOTH....

[CFT]

If you just "zik chung" with the hand you're just arm punching; if with the body then that brings the hands (IMO). I think body has to move in order to maintain the optimum elbow-body (1-fist) distance.

[YungChun]

If you just "zik chung" with the hand you're just arm punching; if with the body then that brings the hands (IMO). I think body has to move in order to maintain the optimum elbow-body (1-fist) distance.

You have to move the body to reach the opponent. You have to use the body to hammer the nail.. What does any of this have to do with a "fist distance" for the elbow???:confused:

[LoneTiger108]

Spencer, this one is not a classical saying. Definitely a kungfu thing, if not WCK specific.

Ok. Maybe a 'classical' martial saying but I wouldn't go as far as to say Wing Chun specific. Maybe Hung Kuen IMO as they refer a lot to shadows/shadowless form fme.

As for interpretation I think Robert has done a good job there except for the 3rd 'phase', which I believe to mean something else.

From what I understand, if an opponent is said to have mo ying (no shadow) it is because they're eratic and unpredictable and very, very fast. When confronted with such an agressor just plough through his centre, break it, as the body will always cast a shadow and be destructable (unlike the arms/legs)

Hence: Mo Ying Por Jung ;)

[YungChun]

From what I understand, if an opponent is said to have mo ying (no shadow) it is because they're eratic and unpredictable and very, very fast. When confronted with such an agressor just plough through his centre, break it, as the body will always cast a shadow and be destructable (unlike the arms/legs)

Hence: Mo Ying Por Jung ;)

If he is that fast you'll never even see his center, let alone "plough" through it..

[t_niehoff]

CFT,

Basically it refers to:

1) Yau ying da ying 有形打形 - If you see a shape, hit it. That is obvious. The target is in front of you - just hit it!

2) mo ying da ying 無形打影 - If no form, hit the shadow. This refers to the moving target. The action is too fast for your eyes to see, so strike at what you glimmer. Its like shooting a moving target - you shoot at where the target will be.

3) mo ying por jung 無影破中 - No Shadow, break center. This means the target is in front of you, break his center of gravity, control him, strike him at will. This is the WCK core objective. You need to push, pull or wedge and perpetually keep your opponent in a state of unbalance so you can strike him at will - breaking his COG (in Chinese, this is 破中) constantly to control him. Every strike has an unbalancing and resistance factor or a force setting up the next blow.

Of course, this supposes one has the correct training to do so. If no structure, you can't 破中 - your localized arm power is inadequate to do the job.

Hope this helps.

I would only elaborate what Robert already said: that in WCK he don't just hit to hit or to cause damage like boxers/kickboxers -- our objective when striking is first and foremost to destroy our opponent's body structure. So when Robert says "the target in front of you -- just hit it", what he means by "target" is the opponent's structure. "Shape" provides you with direct access to his structure (with "shape" you know where he is structurally weak).

And, as far as hitting the shadow, this refers also to hitting his movement itself thereby using momentum to break his structure.

[LSWCTN1]

If you just "zik chung" with the hand you're just arm punching; if with the body then that brings the hands (IMO). I think body has to move in order to maintain the optimum elbow-body (1-fist) distance.

i believe this to be correct, but only at the point of impact. just after impact your arm then surely extends too?

[t_niehoff]

You have to move the body to reach the opponent. You have to use the body to hammer the nail.. What does any of this have to do with a "fist distance" for the elbow???:confused:

This is correct.

You don't hit with the arm -- you hit with the body (with body structure). Hammer (body) - nail (arm).

The "one fist distance" or "fixed elbow" guideline pertains to structure on the inside.

[chusauli]

Thank you very much Chu sifu. It's just that the kuit seems to me to be on a continuum of "most preferred" to "last resort". But from your explanation there doesn't seem to be any correlation between the 3 "phases", except from yau ying da ying to mou ying da ying.

-----



Chee,

Since I am in the clinic, I don't have much time to write.

I want to say that all three sayings are related to time and positioning.

Yau ying da ying 有形打形 is on the same centerline, in the one beat.

mo ying da ying 無形打影 is when the opponent tries to change centerline and runs away, dodges, does lateral movement, you are doing Jui Ying (Chasing)

mo ying por jung 無影破中 is when you have adjusted your centerline because of his trying to escape and you are controlling the opponent - he has no shape or form, nor shadow, because the centerline and center of gravity are broken and you are pounding him at will because you use structure to set up multiple continuous chained strikes.

I hope this makes it clearer.

[chusauli]

i believe this to be correct, but only at the point of impact. just after impact your arm then surely extends too?

Jik Chung is the body rushing in at the opponent, not just the hand. You want to bowl your opponent over.

[chusauli]

Ok. Maybe a 'classical' martial saying but I wouldn't go as far as to say Wing Chun specific. Maybe Hung Kuen IMO as they refer a lot to shadows/shadowless form fme.

As for interpretation I think Robert has done a good job there except for the 3rd 'phase', which I believe to mean something else.

From what I understand, if an opponent is said to have mo ying (no shadow) it is because they're eratic and unpredictable and very, very fast. When confronted with such an agressor just plough through his centre, break it, as the body will always cast a shadow and be destructable (unlike the arms/legs)

Hence: Mo Ying Por Jung ;)

Very interesting interpretation.

I must say this: if your opponent is controlled by your structure, he is not fast at all, that is why you Por Jung him.

[CFT]

Thanks Chu sifu, that was very helpful. Sometimes I think the kuen kuit are more hindrance than help but it does get one thinking.

[t_niehoff]

Thanks Chu sifu, that was very helpful. Sometimes I think the kuen kuit are more hindrance than help but it does get one thinking.

That YOU are thinking about these things is very much to your credit.

[chusauli]

Chee,

Kuen Kuit make you think...apply logic, reasoning. Its a clue. Also not for outsiders.

[duende]

Interesting discussion,

In HFY we employ the Kuen Kuit of Mo Ying Da Yeng, as a point of reference and understanding of a certain area/range by way of bridging tools (Kiu Sau) and body mechanics.

If you face straight ahead. The shadow occurs where your eyes go blurry on the sides... as this where you loose the ability to track properly with both of your eyes.

From a bridging perspective, we refer to this shadow area as Fau Kiu, or Wandering Bridge. As the space has to be swept to initiate contact/control, due to the lack of there being a clear direct target.

The strategy here that we employ is to go "from nowhere to somewhere". Meaning how do you apply strong bridging on the shadow. How do you cover this space, how do you then create better facing conditions.

The beauty of strong structure and proper body mechanics, is that a bridge can be a block or a strike at the same time... depending on range, energy and positioning.

Mo Ying Da Yeng teaches how to bridge the shadow.

[t_niehoff]

Interesting discussion,

In HFY we employ the Kuen Kuit of Mo Ying Da Yeng, as a point of reference and understanding of a certain area/range by way of bridging tools (Kiu Sau) and body mechanics.

If you face straight ahead. The shadow occurs where your eyes go blurry on the sides... as this where you loose the ability to track properly with both of your eyes.

From a bridging perspective, we refer to this shadow area as Fau Kiu, or Wandering Bridge. As the space has to be swept to initiate contact/control, due to the lack of there being a clear direct target.

The strategy here that we employ is to go "from nowhere to somewhere". Meaning how do you apply strong bridging on the shadow. How do you cover this space, how do you then create better facing conditions.

The beauty of strong structure and proper body mechanics, is that a bridge can be a block or a strike at the same time... depending on range, energy and positioning.

Mo Ying Da Yeng teaches how to bridge the shadow.

No. This kuit does not pertain to establishing a bridge. Sweeping to make contact is a really, really bad tactic (akin to reaching for punches) and leaves you very exposed and committed. Moreover, you can't possibly break structure on contact (a main objective) by sweeping. That's just a really poor idea.

You may want to consider the following kuit: Choang chee cheong goang seen chee sun - Fast charging and thrusting are well suited for closing the gap.

[duende]

No. This kuit does not pertain to establishing a bridge. Sweeping to make contact is a really, really bad tactic and leaves you very exposed and committed. Moreover, you can't possibly break structure on contact (a main objective) by sweeping. That's just a really poor idea.

You may want to consider the following kuit: Choang chee cheong goang seen chee sun - Fast charging and thrusting are well suited for closing the gap.

Covering space is an effective means of "sweeping" as long as it as strong structure and control/direction of outgoing energy.

What you are describing is a basic no no... And does not apply to what I'm talking about.

[t_niehoff]

Covering space is an effective means of "sweeping" as long as it as strong structure and control/direction of outgoing energy.

What you are describing is a basic no no... And does not apply to what I'm talking about.

No. To effectively establish a WCK bridge, we need to be able to project our structure into our opponent upon contact (this is what destroys his structure). "Sweeping" to join won't permit that. Sweeping is a very bad idea.

[duende]

No. To effectively establish a WCK bridge, we need to be able to project our structure into our opponent upon contact (this is what destroys his structure). "Sweeping" to join won't permit that. Sweeping is a very bad idea.

Covering space is projecting one's structure.

Read my post again....

The beauty of strong structure and proper body mechanics, is that a bridge can be a block or a strike at the same time... depending on range, energy and positioning.

[t_niehoff]

Covering space is projecting one's structure.

Read my post again....

The beauty of strong structure and proper body mechanics, is that a bridge can be a block or a strike at the same time... depending on range, energy and positioning.

"Covering space" is nonsense. Whenever you hand/arm leaves your body (moves outward), you are exposed. Sweeping only exposes you. And, you don't need to sweep or "cover space", nor is it WCK's method of joining. WCK's method is to join by striking (striking is projecting one's structure).

[duende]

"Covering space" is nonsense. Whenever you hand/arm leaves your body (moves outward), you are exposed. Sweeping only exposes you. And, you don't need to sweep or "cover space", nor is it WCK's method of joining. WCK's method is to join by striking (striking is projecting one's structure).

"sweeping", in the manner you are talking about, is stretching out your limbs, becoming open/exposed, essentially chasing hands. This is basic knowledge...

HOWEVER... That is NOT what I'm talking about. Why do you always have to get so fixated.

Don't forget, we are discussing Mo Ying, Da Yeng. Not simply bridging upon contact.

And btw, we have multiple ways of bridging the shadow. Some include partial contact, some are pre contact, and some are fully-committed contact.


Covering space is OCCUPYING/DOMMINATING space with strong structure. Mo Ying Da Yeng teaches us how to do this effectively without leaving ourselves exposed, without over-committing our energy, and without chasing hands.

Again... with proper body mechanics... a strike is a bridge is a block... depending on the range and positioning.

[t_niehoff]

"sweeping", in the manner you are talking about, is stretching out your limbs, becoming open/exposed, essentially chasing hands. This is basic knowledge...

HOWEVER... That is NOT what I'm talking about. Why do you always have to get so fixated.

Don't forget, we are discussing Mo Ying, Da Yeng. Not simply bridging upon contact.

And btw, we have multiple ways of bridging the shadow. Some include partial contact, some are pre contact, and some are fully-committed contact.


I'm sorry, but you are talking nonsense ("bridging the shadow", "bridging upon contact").

The kuit in question simply doesn't pertain to what you think it does. The "shadow" isn't "where your eyes go blurry on the sides... as this where you loose [sic] the ability to track properly with both of your eyes." (as you posted). That's crazy.



Covering space is OCCUPYING/DOMMINATING space with strong structure.


More nonsense. You don't dominate "space". And as for "occupying space with strong structure", this is silly.



Mo Ying Da Yeng teaches us how to do this effectively without leaving ourselves exposed, without over-committing our energy, and without chasing hands.

Again... with proper body mechanics... a strike is a bridge is a block... depending on the range and positioning.

The kuit -- any kuit -- doesn't teach you how to do anything effectively. The kuit only points you in the right direction for your practice. It is only through your practice that you learn how to do anything effectively.

This particular kuit doesn't pertain to getting an attachment. If someone told you that, they misled you.

[duende]

I'm sorry, but you are talking nonsense ("bridging the shadow", "bridging upon contact").

The kuit in question simply doesn't pertain to what you think it does. The "shadow" isn't "where your eyes go blurry on the sides... as this where you loose [sic] the ability to track properly with both of your eyes." (as you posted). That's crazy.


Actually the Kuen Kuit pertains EXACTLY to what I'm talking about. And in the spirit of conversation and WC comradery you just received some good info to absorb. Info that we've discussed online at HFY108 for years now. Unfortunately, you are just waaaay too defensive to realize it.

But let's look at Robert's explanation...

If the shadow is a "Glimmer" like Robert says.... 2) mo ying da ying 無形打影 - If no form, hit the shadow. This refers to the moving target. The action is too fast for your eyes to see, so strike at what you glimmer. Its like shooting a moving target - you shoot at where the target will be.


Then by this logic, your interpretation of Mo Ying Da Yeng means that you should shoot at a fist! Because by YOUR definition, it's an action that's too fast for eyes to see!! ;)

Our shadow reference is actually a true visual shadow... due to lack of focusing capabilities on the side when looking straight forward. YOUR shadow definition could be a fake, it could be fast jab, it could be many moving fast objects. Trying to hit any "glimmer" is pretty vague, by anyone's account. You'll not only be chasing hands... you'll be chasing flies! haha :D





More nonsense. You don't dominate "space". And as for "occupying space with strong structure", this is silly.


Yes you do and you know it! This is one aspect of control. You would just rather argue than admit it. Funny how your recent posts about control and bridging echo concepts and strategies that we've been writing here online for years! But of course now it's the "original Wing Chun Faat"!




The kuit -- any kuit -- doesn't teach you how to do anything effectively. The kuit only points you in the right direction for your practice. It is only through your practice that you learn how to do anything effectively.

This particular kuit doesn't pertain to getting an attachment. If someone told you that, they misled you.

No $hit! It's just a vague phrase, but in that phrase holds much to one's understanding if they understand certain meanings and references in WC.

As far as being mislead. Have you read your posts lately?

[Matrix]

And in the spirit of conversation and WC comradery you just received some good info to absorb. I believe that this is an excellent statement that more of us (including myself) should consider as a general rule.

The problem with being a critical thinker is that there is a tendency to totally focused on being critical and completely dismissing an opposing point of view out of hand.

[Wayfaring]

This particular kuit doesn't pertain to getting an attachment. If someone told you that, they misled you.

I wasn't aware that you had actually read the HFY kuit. Have you? If not, how exactly is it that you are able to more precisely understand its interpretation over someone who has trained it for many years?

[Pacman]

...how exactly is it that you are able to more precisely understand its interpretation over someone who has trained it for many years?

Because he's Terrence Niehoff.

[LSWCTN1]

by sweeping he may mean 'cleave to centre' or one tan sau sweeps and so does the basic punch

[t_niehoff]

Actually the Kuen Kuit pertains EXACTLY to what I'm talking about. And in the spirit of conversation and WC comradery you just received some good info to absorb. Info that we've discussed online at HFY108 for years now. Unfortunately, you are just waaaay too defensive to realize it.


No, I just received nonsense, and I am experienced enough to know it. Go try "sweeping" against some good boxers then come back and tell me how that worked for you.



But let's look at Robert's explanation...

If the shadow is a "Glimmer" like Robert says.... 2) mo ying da ying 無形打影 - If no form, hit the shadow. This refers to the moving target. The action is too fast for your eyes to see, so strike at what you glimmer. Its like shooting a moving target - you shoot at where the target will be.


Then by this logic, your interpretation of Mo Ying Da Yeng means that you should shoot at a fist! Because by YOUR definition, it's an action that's too fast for eyes to see!! ;)


No. The "shadow" has nothing to do with your vision. It refers to your opponent's physical movement itself. Perhaps you can explain to me how reacting to and trying to hit something you can't even see clearly is a good idea?



Our shadow reference is actually a true visual shadow... due to lack of focusing capabilities on the side when looking straight forward. YOUR shadow definition could be a fake, it could be fast jab, it could be many moving fast objects. Trying to hit any "glimmer" is pretty vague, by anyone's account. You'll not only be chasing hands... you'll be chasing flies! haha :D


This is all nonsense. Why are you talking about dealing with fakes and jabs? I'm not going to try and chase either. Either I'm out of range or I'm in range -- and if I'm in range, I'm already in the process of clinching. If I get caught coming in, then I cover (the only sane thing to do). This kuit isn't about dealing with your opponent's punches.



Yes you do and you know it! This is one aspect of control. You would just rather argue than admit it. Funny how your recent posts about control and bridging echo concepts and strategies that we've been writing here online for years! But of course now it's the "original Wing Chun Faat"!


I don't try to dominate space (which is nonsensical), I try to directly control my opponent via direct physical contact (by pushing, pulling, wedging, etc.). If you don't have direct physical contact, you can't have any control. "Space" has nothing to do with it.



No $hit! It's just a vague phrase, but in that phrase holds much to one's understanding if they understand certain meanings and references in WC.

As far as being mislead. Have you read your posts lately?

First you say the kuit "teaches us how to do this effectively without leaving ourselves exposed, without over-committing our energy, and without chasing hands" and now you seem to agree with me that it doesn't - and can't - do that!

As I said, the kuit only gives direction to your practice, but you only learn via your practice.

[t_niehoff]

I wasn't aware that you had actually read the HFY kuit. Have you? If not, how exactly is it that you are able to more precisely understand its interpretation over someone who has trained it for many years?

The kuit in question is a WCK kuit. HFY is just Garrett's curriculum for teaching WCK. Is this Garrett's "interpretation" of the kuit in question?

[t_niehoff]

I believe that this is an excellent statement that more of us (including myself) should consider as a general rule.

The problem with being a critical thinker is that there is a tendency to totally focused on being critical and completely dismissing an opposing point of view out of hand.

Critical thinking is our only defense against nonsense, bullsh1t, etc.

In the martial arts, not only do we need critical thinking, but we also need lots and lots of solid fighting experience (with good people) to develop discernment. That's why so many are led astray by "theory" and the people who espouse it -- they just don't have the requisite experience to know better. Then add dogmatic programming to the mix . . . .

[k gledhill]

Your dirty clinch is so wrong dude....all that 'faat' and you end up with 'dirty clinch' :D keep walking you may encounter otherwise...your assuming what you know is all there is to know about VT ...so wrong...:D

[CFT]

Thanks duende. I'm always interested in lots of viewpoints. Commonality and differences are good points of discussion. You either learn something new, see something in a different light or the discussion degenerates a bit (or a lot - never mind)!

The "occupying space" term does make me question what it means because it *sounds* so "fixed in space", like you're putting up a wall. It must be more dynamic - in response to something - than that though? You not simply putting a limb out (no matter how well supported) to occupy the space?

So my understanding so far is that:

1) Yau ying da ying is just to hit what is in front of you because you have facing (dui ying)

2) Mou ying da yeng, is when you lose facing because of a mobile opponent. You will have to re-face (jui ying - chase shape/body) and hit in the same motion. I guess this is addressed in the Chum Kiu form.

3) Mou yeng por jung. You have achieved facing again so in effect "do (1) again". Up to now, I always thought that "mou yeng" was not even being able to "catch the shadow", so I couldn't really see how you could break the centre.

[LoneTiger108]

An interesting mix of comments and ideas (for once!)

Still no closer to an agreement?! :rolleyes:

And it all started by asking T if he knew cantonese!!!:confused::eek::confused:

[Wayfaring]

The kuit in question is a WCK kuit. HFY is just Garrett's curriculum for teaching WCK. Is this Garrett's "interpretation" of the kuit in question?

Now I'm not an expert in kuit by any means. But I do remember in my WCK training experiencing some of Moy Yat's kuit sayings, and HFY's. And they certainly are distinctly different. I believe sifu Gee's kuit was an oral one passed down in training. There may be portions of it that are the same as other WCK. But there certainly is quite a different meaning. I don't think it's an interpretation.

And with this particular topic, the shape and shadow in HFY pertain to dealing with dealing with attacks coming in that you pick up in your peripheral vision, or in other words dealing with a sucker punch or kick. There's another aspect that deals simply with your facing related to your opponent in a bridge situation and specific hip, elbow, and bridge alignment. It's just to get an advantage in a bridge situation leading to better facing and alignment than your opponent has.

So with all of the back and forth, one thing just to keep in mind in discussing some of this is that HFY is not Yip Man WCK or descended from that line, so concepts or things you hear may not be the same as what you hear from the Yip Man line. And just to head off the same old argument there, yes we know that public records haven't been shown of this or definitive proof. But it is different. Kind of like you accept that gu lao is different.

[LSWCTN1]

Thanks duende. I'm always interested in lots of viewpoints. Commonality and differences are good points of discussion. You either learn something new, see something in a different light or the discussion degenerates a bit (or a lot - never mind)!

The "occupying space" term does make me question what it means because it *sounds* so "fixed in space", like you're putting up a wall. It must be more dynamic - in response to something - than that though? You not simply putting a limb out (no matter how well supported) to occupy the space?

So my understanding so far is that:

1) Yau ying da ying is just to hit what is in front of you because you have facing (dui ying)

2) Mou ying da yeng, is when you lose facing because of a mobile opponent. You will have to re-face (jui ying) and hit in the same motion. I guess this is addressed in the Chum Kiu form.

3) Mou yeng por jung. You have achieved facing again so in effect "do (1) again". Up to now, I always thought that "mou yeng" was not even being able to "catch the shadow", so I couldn't really see how you could break the centre.

i think that occupying space will be a similar concept to covering, as seen in a basic tan sau and the basic puch. more in depth analysis could be in Duncan Leungs lineage, although i am just guesstimating here

[CFT]

How is basic tan sau and punch (chung choi) considered covering? A different convering to Western boxing?

[CFT]

An interesting mix of comments and ideas (for once!)

And it all started by asking T if he knew cantonese!!!:confused::eek::confused:That's the power of language! A subject close to your heart eh?

[LSWCTN1]

How is basic tan sau and punch (chung choi) considered covering? A different convering to Western boxing?

sort of...

think of chung choi. it doesnt take the shortest path at all
first it comes to your centre
second it goes straight forward

the idea behind it is that it occupies the space from your shoulder to your centre. that way, if you leave early, you catch their strike, if you leave late you catch their strike and if you leave on time you catch their strike

not a standard tan though, its the palm down from side, comes out as a wu and occupies the space. therefore if you leave early, you catch their strike, if you leave late you catch their strike and if you leave on time you catch their strike

i have seen a Duncan Leung SNT dvd and he uses the bong to tan section of snt as a dropping tan which covers space too - similar principle, although we dont train that specific trait

[duende]

No, I just received nonsense, and I am experienced enough to know it. Go try "sweeping" against some good boxers then come back and tell me how that worked for you.


No $hit! This is basic knowledge. We've already gone through this point multiple times. You just keep bringing it up, because the entire premise of your argument is based on this simple understanding, and the fact that you don't know what covering space truly is.

Remember the saying... Know yourself and know your opponent. Right now, you have no clue about your opponent.




No. The "shadow" has nothing to do with your vision. It refers to your opponent's physical movement itself. Perhaps you can explain to me how reacting to and trying to hit something you can't even see clearly is a good idea?



If there is a threat oncoming at the peripherals of your vision... you must engage. End of Story. Mo Ying Da YENG defines the importance of this.

And btw, we engage while protecting our heaven, human, and earth gates... AND again... we have body mechanic tools for pre contact, partial contact, and fully-committed contact.




This is all nonsense. Why are you talking about dealing with fakes and jabs? I'm not going to try and chase either. Either I'm out of range or I'm in range -- and if I'm in range, I'm already in the process of clinching. If I get caught coming in, then I cover (the only sane thing to do). This kuit isn't about dealing with your opponent's punches.


Because they all create "Glimmers" in vision due to there speed. By your logic, you should be attacking them. This is Robert's stated interpretation of the Kuit.





I don't try to dominate space (which is nonsensical), I try to directly control my opponent via direct physical contact (by pushing, pulling, wedging, etc.). If you don't have direct physical contact, you can't have any control. "Space" has nothing to do with it.


It has everything it do with it. If you don't Jam up his space, he will have effective range and leverage to strike. If you don't have proper space, you yourself may be jammed up... or create weak positioning that leaves yourself vulnerable to other attacks. It's all about controlling the space.



First you say the kuit "teaches us how to do this effectively without leaving ourselves exposed, without over-committing our energy, and without chasing hands" and now you seem to agree with me that it doesn't - and can't - do that!

As I said, the kuit only gives direction to your practice, but you only learn via your practice.

You can try and read into it whatever you like. Obviously there are intelligent people here that have no problem understanding what I'm saying.

AND BTW...


The Kuen Kuit is Mo Ying DA YENG. Not Mo Ying JEUI YING!! and Not Mo Ying Da YING either!! I think our ancestors would know the difference being that they created these concepts!

It's shadow! Not Shape! Two different Chinese characters. Which have VERY different meanings with their own reference points.... as I clearly pointed out.


You and Robert keep spelling it wrong here. Maybe it's not on purpose, but one has to wonder sometimes.

[CFT]

There is no spelling mistake. In Cantonese, shadow (ying2) and shape (ying4) would be transliterated with the same Roman characters with a different numeral for tonal differences.

Mandarin would be different though: ying3 (shadow), xing2 (shape).

[duende]

There is no spelling mistake. In Cantonese, shadow (ying2) and shape (ying4) would be transliterated with the same Roman characters with a different numeral for tonal differences.

Mandarin would be different though: ying3 (shadow), xing2 (shape).

Ok cool. Thanks for the info.

However, my point still stands. Shadow and shape are two very different concepts in WC. And when discussing them, it is important to be clear despite the Cantonese to English translation obstacle.

[t_niehoff]

Now I'm not an expert in kuit by any means. But I do remember in my WCK training experiencing some of Moy Yat's kuit sayings, and HFY's. And they certainly are distinctly different. I believe sifu Gee's kuit was an oral one passed down in training. There may be portions of it that are the same as other WCK. But there certainly is quite a different meaning. I don't think it's an interpretation.


WCK is WCK -- there is no such thing as "other WCK" (it's, like saying "other boxing"; there is just boxing). HFY is just Garrett's curriculum. If someone taught that tan sao was really an eye poke, I'd tell them that they were wrong. I don't care that so-and-so teaches it that way. It's wrong.



And with this particular topic, the shape and shadow in HFY pertain to dealing with dealing with attacks coming in that you pick up in your peripheral vision, or in other words dealing with a sucker punch or kick. There's another aspect that deals simply with your facing related to your opponent in a bridge situation and specific hip, elbow, and bridge alignment. It's just to get an advantage in a bridge situation leading to better facing and alignment than your opponent has.


The "shadow" in the kuit doesn't refer to "dealing with attacks coming in that you pick up in your peripheral vision" or even dealing with attacks. FWIW, when you do pick up a strike coming in your peripheral vision you cover, not sweep or try and hit it (those things won't work).

Nor does the kuit say anything about facing. Where in it does it mention facing?



So with all of the back and forth, one thing just to keep in mind in discussing some of this is that HFY is not Yip Man WCK or descended from that line, so concepts or things you hear may not be the same as what you hear from the Yip Man line. And just to head off the same old argument there, yes we know that public records haven't been shown of this or definitive proof. But it is different. Kind of like you accept that gu lao is different.

No, WCK is WCK, just as boxing is boxing or riding a bike is riding a bike. The various "lineages" or branches are just various persons' curriculums for teaching WCK (or how to ride a bike). Gu Lao is different than Yip Man WCK in how the WCK is taught (the curriculum), but it is the same WCK. The problem is many people don't appreciate the distinction between the curriculum and the subject matter.

[t_niehoff]

No $hit! This is basic knowledge. We've already gone through this point multiple times. You just keep bringing it up, because the entire premise of your argument is based on this simple understanding, and the fact that you don't know what covering space truly is.

Remember the saying... Know yourself and know your opponent. Right now, you have no clue about your opponent.


"Covering space" is nonsense.



If there is a threat oncoming at the peripherals of your vision... you must engage. End of Story. Mo Ying Da YENG defines the importance of this.


If you catch something oncoming in your peripheral vision (and you can't therefore know what it is) it means you are well behind the timing -- so you don't have time to do anything except cover.



And btw, we engage while protecting our heaven, human, and earth gates... AND again... we have body mechanic tools for pre contact, partial contact, and fully-committed contact.


Pure bullsh1t.



Because they all create "Glimmers" in vision due to there speed. By your logic, you should be attacking them. This is Robert's stated interpretation of the Kuit.


No.



It has everything it do with it. If you don't Jam up his space, he will have effective range and leverage to strike. If you don't have proper space, you yourself may be jammed up... or create weak positioning that leaves yourself vulnerable to other attacks. It's all about controlling the space.


No.



You can try and read into it whatever you like. Obviously there are intelligent people here that have no problem understanding what I'm saying.


Appeals to popularity.



AND BTW...

The Kuen Kuit is Mo Ying DA YENG. Not Mo Ying JEUI YING!! and Not Mo Ying Da YING either!! I think our ancestors would know the difference being that they created these concepts!

It's shadow! Not Shape! Two different Chinese characters. Which have VERY different meanings with their own reference points.... as I clearly pointed out.


The kuit are not "concepts".



You and Robert keep spelling it wrong here. Maybe it's not on purpose, but one has to wonder sometimes.


I'm sorry but I am using the kuit that pertains to WCK and that you find in known legitimate (Yip, YKS, etc.) WCK branches, not Garrett's kuit.

[duende]

"Covering space" is nonsense.


Is that all you got?? Really?? :p

Can't dispute the logic or physics of employing a stronger structure in space thereby protecting yourself and dominating the space at the same time. Shows how much you know.



If you catch something oncoming in your peripheral vision (and you can't therefore know what it is) it means you are well behind the timing -- so you don't have time to do anything except cover.


This obviously stems from a "sparring" only mindset.

Have you ever been mugged? You don't get the luxury of facing off with an opponent like you do in sparring.

Sometimes time is not on your side, and you need to do your best to recapture the timing, facing, and protecting of your space.





Appeals to popularity.


No... it shines light on ignorance. :)




Pure bullsh1t.


Really? Guess you don't know as much about Thai boxing as you claim. Because they cover the space in a very similar manner, with their footwork etc..




No.



No.



Haha... nothing to dispute.. just arguing for arguments sake.





The kuit are not "concepts".


Obviously not for you.




I'm sorry but I am using the kuit that pertains to WCK and that you find in known legitimate (Yip, YKS, etc.) WCK branches, not Garrett's kuit.


Let's check back here in couple years, and see what your definition of Mo Ying Da Yeng is then.

But of course... when you write your "new" paraphrasing of what I'm sharing here.... it'll be legitimate. ;) :p

[duende]

The "shadow" in the kuit doesn't refer to "dealing with attacks coming in that you pick up in your peripheral vision" or even dealing with attacks. FWIW, when you do pick up a strike coming in your peripheral vision you cover, not sweep or try and hit it (those things won't work).



OH $HIT!!!!

We didn't even have to wait a couple of years for you to assimilate and paraphrase what I shared!!!:eek:

Terence is already at it! :D

Notice how he tries to portray his "made-up argument" as being what I wrote... and then he writes the small bit of his understanding (in what I wrote) as his own.

Come on now!

[Wayfaring]

WCK is WCK -- there is no such thing as "other WCK" (it's, like saying "other boxing"; there is just boxing). HFY is just Garrett's curriculum. If someone taught that tan sao was really an eye poke, I'd tell them that they were wrong. I don't care that so-and-so teaches it that way. It's wrong.

You say that like you are some kind of authority on WCK and overall lineages and like you telling someone that what they are doing is "wrong" actually carries some weight. It doesn't. But thanks for sharing your opinion.



The "shadow" in the kuit doesn't refer to "dealing with attacks coming in that you pick up in your peripheral vision" or even dealing with attacks. FWIW, when you do pick up a strike coming in your peripheral vision you cover, not sweep or try and hit it (those things won't work).

In Garret Gee's teaching application of it, it does. Denying that fact is what you term "intellectually dishonest". But your description of "covering" actually is closer to what is actually taught by the term "sweeping space" than chasing hands is.



Nor does the kuit say anything about facing. Where in it does it mention facing?

We are discussing the exact phrase. The kuit again is general. The unlocked meaning is in the application of it, and the kuit holds the keys to this. In what we are taught in HFY, the application of this kuit term certainly has aspects of facing involved. Your facing is towards shape or shadow, and there are precise measurable meanings of that in a bridging situation. If that doesn't exist in other teachings of WCK, then it doesnt' exist in other lineages of WCK. In other words it's different. Not "the kuit doesn't say anything about it".



No, WCK is WCK, just as boxing is boxing or riding a bike is riding a bike. The various "lineages" or branches are just various persons' curriculums for teaching WCK (or how to ride a bike). Gu Lao is different than Yip Man WCK in how the WCK is taught (the curriculum), but it is the same WCK. The problem is many people don't appreciate the distinction between the curriculum and the subject matter.
To a semi-blind man, all sources of light are the sun.

[Wayfaring]

"Covering space" is nonsense.

Hold this thought.



If you catch something oncoming in your peripheral vision (and you can't therefore know what it is) it means you are well behind the timing -- so you don't have time to do anything except cover.

But you just said covering is what? "Nonsense"?



The kuit are not "concepts".

Well they are not specific technical application. And they are more general terms. So if not "concepts", then what in your own terms are they?



I'm sorry but I am using the kuit that pertains to WCK and that you find in known legitimate (Yip, YKS, etc.) WCK branches, not Garrett's kuit.
Yes, it's quite obvious you are talking about Yip kuit and interpretations. We are not. We are talking about sifu Gee's kuit, and an application that comes from a different lineage and interpretation of a phrase that is common in both.

Please explain your legitimacy statement. You're kind of all over the place with that - usually that argument you bring up in the context of known people associated with the lineage, not whether or not a fighting application of the kuit is sound.

If you mean by legitimacy the proven soundness of application in a fighting scenario, I'd love to see your evidence of Yip Man lineages having that where HFY people do not.

Since we're striving to be intellectually honest.

[t_niehoff]

Hold this thought.

But you just said covering is what? "Nonsense"?


"Covering SPACE" is nonsense(covering emptiness); covering your HEAD is a good idea.



Well they are not specific technical application. And they are more general terms. So if not "concepts", then what in your own terms are they?


Ah, let's see. . . . they are what they are . . . kuit.



Yes, it's quite obvious you are talking about Yip kuit and interpretations. We are not. We are talking about sifu Gee's kuit, and an application that comes from a different lineage and interpretation of a phrase that is common in both.


No, we're talking about a WCK kuit and apparently Garrett's weird "interpretation" of it. WCK is WCK.



Please explain your legitimacy statement. You're kind of all over the place with that - usually that argument you bring up in the context of known people associated with the lineage, not whether or not a fighting application of the kuit is sound.


A legitimate branch, and I emphasize branch, of WCK (which, btw, says nothing about how "good" it is or its practitioners are -- that's a separate issue) has IMO proved historical roots -- we know where it came from, who it came from, etc.



If you mean by legitimacy the proven soundness of application in a fighting scenario, I'd love to see your evidence of Yip Man lineages having that where HFY people do not.

Since we're striving to be intellectually honest.

That's not what I was talking about, but certainly there have been some in the Yip lineage, notably WSL, most recently Alan and his guys, that have had documented success in challenge and MMA fights, respectively.

[Wayfaring]

"Covering SPACE" is nonsense(covering emptiness); covering your HEAD is a good idea.

So it sounds like here you just don't understand what is meant by the word space in the context we are talking. Your head exists in a certain space for example. I'm certain you've heard the term "personal space". But here you're just being argumentative and refusing to get it despite logical arguments.



Ah, let's see. . . . they are what they are . . . kuit.

That's a cop-out answer. Come up with a better synonym since you're being critical of the one that's being used..



No, we're talking about a WCK kuit and apparently Garrett's weird "interpretation" of it. WCK is WCK.

I don't know what the h3ll it is exactly that you're talking about. You seem to think there's some universal WCK "kuit" like the Holy Grail that exists out in the stratosphere, and that somehow all people teaching WCK from the 1800's have made a pilgramage to see it and copy it down for all their students. That's delusional.

Yip Man had a written kuit, his students hence inherited it. Other WCK branches not Yip Man have their own written and oral kuits from their lineages and family teachings. These, by the way, are not unique to WCK. Many other arts have them as well. Other lineages not being from Yip Man wouldn't have his kuit. Even on this forum for example, Hendrik has posted things from his family's kuit, which is not Yip Man.

Sifu Gee's oral kuit has phrases in it that don't exist in other WCK lineages. This is not some super secret thing, but you can read some of these phrases in his book "Mastering Kung Fu", which is published, has an ISBN, etc. Different phrases, different application. This is not rocket science, but yet somehow, possibly due to some of your attachments with arguing with HFY people, you just don't want to get it.



A legitimate branch, and I emphasize branch, of WCK (which, btw, says nothing about how "good" it is or its practitioners are -- that's a separate issue) has IMO proved historical roots -- we know where it came from, who it came from, etc.

At least here you were intellectually honest enough to include the words IMO. Great. Thanks for your opinion. But, I disagree. WCK is not like BJJ, in that everyone can trace back to Helio Gracie, or Carlos Gracie Jr. In HFY people's opinion, this is a matter of Wong Wa Boh vs. Hung Gun Biu as being who people trace through.



That's not what I was talking about, but certainly there have been some in the Yip lineage, notably WSL, most recently Alan and his guys, that have had documented success in challenge and MMA fights, respectively.
Yes, Alan has taken Sifu Chu's teachings, cross-trained in BJJ, and has a decent small show fight team with 2 or 3 pros and a number of amateurs. While that seems like a huge accomplishment for WCK people, it's not all that remarkable in the overall context. There are 2 or 3 MMA schools in almost every major city in the US that do the same thing, as well as many other countries. Even in medium sized cities. I'm saying this so you don't get all worked up and start swinging from the man's nuts again. It's embarassing. Why don't you put together your own team?

[JPinAZ]

Yes, Alan has taken Sifu Chu's teachings, cross-trained in BJJ, and has a decent small show fight team with 2 or 3 pros and a number of amateurs. While that seems like a huge accomplishment for WCK people, it's not all that remarkable in the overall context. There are 2 or 3 MMA schools in almost every major city in the US that do the same thing, as well as many other countries. Even in medium sized cities. I'm saying this so you don't get all worked up and start swinging from the man's nuts again. It's embarassing. Why don't you put together your own team?

Ouch! :eek::D:cool:

[Ultimatewingchun]

Forget the team. Would you settle for a thirty second youtube video :confused:

What's that, Terence? :rolleyes:

Oh, forget it Wayfaring...Niehoff has said that there will never be any videos or teams coming from his part of the woods. Ever. :(

But he is planning about another 10,000 posts to explain what it is that he does. And why what the rest of us are doing is all wrong. Bet you can't wait for that !!! :eek:

[LSWCTN1]

"Covering SPACE" is nonsense(covering emptiness); covering your HEAD is a good idea.



why does chung choi come to the centre then out then?

fwiw, i dont think you can cover your head (without gloves) without covering the space. a static hand is too small and the forearm cover COMPLETELY violates the wck principles

[LoneTiger108]

I don't know what the h3ll it is exactly that you're talking about. You seem to think there's some universal WCK "kuit" like the Holy Grail that exists out in the stratosphere, and that somehow all people teaching WCK from the 1800's have made a pilgramage to see it and copy it down for all their students. That's delusional.

:D I have noticed that the chatter about kuit has got progressively wierd. Especially since I've always felt that the kuit being 'shared' here is mostly not what Ip Man would have taught. Just too 'traditional' IMHO.


Yip Man had a written kuit, his students hence inherited it. Other WCK branches not Yip Man have their own written and oral kuits from their lineages and family teachings. These, by the way, are not unique to WCK. Many other arts have them as well. Other lineages not being from Yip Man wouldn't have his kuit. Even on this forum for example, Hendrik has posted things from his family's kuit, which is not Yip Man.

My point exactly! (I think?!) ;) And that is IF Ip Man even had a kuit, let alone teach with it. Most of his more well known students wouldn't even know what it was IMHO.


Sifu Gee's oral kuit has phrases in it that don't exist in other WCK lineages. This is not some super secret thing, but you can read some of these phrases in his book "Mastering Kung Fu", which is published, has an ISBN, etc. Different phrases, different application. This is not rocket science, but yet somehow, possibly due to some of your attachments with arguing with HFY people, you just don't want to get it.

Aren't you just highlighting that Sifu Gee is no different than any other 'non-Ip Man' descendent who teaches kuit that are generally not from Ip Man nor related to Wing Chun exactly? Maybe he too has just had access to some older, more Shaolin based literature?

[t_niehoff]

So it sounds like here you just don't understand what is meant by the word space in the context we are talking. Your head exists in a certain space for example. I'm certain you've heard the term "personal space". But here you're just being argumentative and refusing to get it despite logical arguments.


Look,when you cover your head, you're not covering "space" where your head happens to be but your head -- why TRY to make it anything more than it is?



That's a cop-out answer. Come up with a better synonym since you're being critical of the one that's being used..


It's not a cop-out, it is what it is. But when everything is a "concept" to you . . . .



I don't know what the h3ll it is exactly that you're talking about. You seem to think there's some universal WCK "kuit" like the Holy Grail that exists out in the stratosphere, and that somehow all people teaching WCK from the 1800's have made a pilgramage to see it and copy it down for all their students. That's delusional.


WCK is an approach to fighting and a means of training that approach. It comes from one source, right? We may not know for certain what that source is, but all these lineages and branches didn't all just coincidentally develop the same forms, kuit, drills, etc. By looking across LEGITIMATE lineages in a historical context, and seeing the commonality, we can see that certain movements, certain kuit, certain drills, etc. are "universal" with regard to the WCK curriculum. Those are the things the ancestors/founders left us.

WCK is WCK, and the various lineages/branches are just various peoples ways of teaching the same subject.



Yip Man had a written kuit, his students hence inherited it. Other WCK branches not Yip Man have their own written and oral kuits from their lineages and family teachings. These, by the way, are not unique to WCK. Many other arts have them as well. Other lineages not being from Yip Man wouldn't have his kuit. Even on this forum for example, Hendrik has posted things from his family's kuit, which is not Yip Man.


All the kuit were oral, it's just that Yip wrote them down (since he was literate, unlike most other people in China). Yes, many of the kuit are "generic" -- that's not a big surprise since much of fighting is "generic".

And, yes, various lineages have adopted other kuit -- and other things, including forms, drills,etc. -- into their WCK curriculums. However, there is a commonality (things in common) that make up a core curriculum of WCK. For example, YJKYM is part of that core curriculum. So is lai lao hoi soong.



Sifu Gee's oral kuit has phrases in it that don't exist in other WCK lineages. This is not some super secret thing, but you can read some of these phrases in his book "Mastering Kung Fu", which is published, has an ISBN, etc. Different phrases, different application. This is not rocket science, but yet somehow, possibly due to some of your attachments with arguing with HFY people, you just don't want to get it.


I know that Garrett has added all kinds of things to his curriculum. That doesn't change what I'm talking about. The core curriculum of WCK is the core curriculum.



At least here you were intellectually honest enough to include the words IMO. Great. Thanks for your opinion. But, I disagree. WCK is not like BJJ, in that everyone can trace back to Helio Gracie, or Carlos Gracie Jr. In HFY people's opinion, this is a matter of Wong Wa Boh vs. Hung Gun Biu as being who people trace through.


We can reliably trace LEGITIMATE lineages back to the Red Boats (where it is likely that WCK originated). Yes, I know the HFY "opinion" but as I have said before, as you can't prove HFY existed prior to Garrett, that opinion is merely fantasy/wishful thinking.



Yes, Alan has taken Sifu Chu's teachings, cross-trained in BJJ, and has a decent small show fight team with 2 or 3 pros and a number of amateurs. While that seems like a huge accomplishment for WCK people, it's not all that remarkable in the overall context. There are 2 or 3 MMA schools in almost every major city in the US that do the same thing, as well as many other countries. Even in medium sized cities. I'm saying this so you don't get all worked up and start swinging from the man's nuts again. It's embarassing. Why don't you put together your own team?

Don't criticize me for bringing him up when you asked: "If you mean by legitimacy the proven soundness of application in a fighting scenario, I'd love to see your evidence of Yip Man lineages having that where HFY people do not." I also brought up WSL (I guess I'm nuthugging Alan but not Wong?). I was pointing out that there were people in the YM lineage who did have accomplishments that HFY did not.

But I do agree with you that it is not a major accomplishment -- except within the WCK community where people do not train like fighters for the most part.

[t_niehoff]

why does chung choi come to the centre then out then?


The jik chung choi comes from the center because we are striking with our body structure (hitting his center with our center). It has nothing to do with covering space. The punch doesn't cover anything unless it is in contact with it (like a bridge).



fwiw, i dont think you can cover your head (without gloves) without covering the space. a static hand is too small and the forearm cover COMPLETELY violates the wck principles

There are no WCK "principles" except in people's imaginations -- and that's why they can be just about anything people want them to be.

You can cover your head without gloves. If you get caught and it's between taking an overhand or covering with your forearm and violating your imaginary principles, what will you do? My bet is that after taking a couple, you'll begin covering. In fighting, you do what you NEED to do.

[duende]

Enough!!

The so called Wing Chun experts are just butt sore because they didn't have a real understandng of Mo Ying Da Yeng. Surprise surpise.. They don't know everything they claim to! On this thread ub particular, they don't know what shadow refers to in WC.

Therfore, they had to make up some personal interpretation that effectively turned the Kuen Kuit Mo Ying Da Yeng into Mo Ying Jeui Ying. Which is WRONG!

Again... Our ancestors would know the difference. Despite what Robert or Terence would have people believe.

The Shadow is a real concept in WC. With legitimate reference points, bridging tools, and engagment strategy. All of which I've not only offered here to my fellow WC pratitioners, but explained in detail.

Unfortunately the problem with so called experts is that sometimes their egos can't handle others knowing more than them. So they result to insults and questions of legitimacy.

Sad... You'd think after a decade of this foolishness, they'd give it a rest.

[m1k3]

You know, if you lost the esoteric terms translated (poorly) from Chinese and explain it using simple English this might go better.

Boxing has kuit also. Things like "Keep your effing hands up" and "Don't just stand there move!" or "When in doubt, jab".

You notice, no shadows, no cryptic talk just good advice.

[duende]

And btw..

Covering space is effectively covering an entire gate by way of occupying space with a stronger structure. We cover our upper gate instead of just covering our head... As this is safer and has both defensive and offensive strategy uses. It is part of the part of the WC principle of simultaneous attack and defence.

Covering only your head functions defensively, but offers NO offensive purpose or strategy. And in effect leads to looping or continuing an exchange needlessly.

The problem here is that Terence's western mindset has torn the concept of covering into little pieces and doesn't see the bigger picture, or in this case the over-all strategy.

In WC we think in terms of the whole... It's a system with coherent logic flow from top to down. Not a collection of techniques that are tbrown together in some hodgpodge manner.

[t_niehoff]

Enough!!

The so called Wing Chun experts are just butt sore because they didn't have a real understandng of Mo Ying Da Yeng. Surprise surpise.. They don't know everything they claim to! On this thread ub particular, they don't know what shadow refers to in WC.


Yes, I agree with you -- this is why it is very helpful to not accept what anyone -- including your sifu or grandmaster says -- blindly as true. Cross-checking across lineages will show you what historically is part of the WCK core curriculum.



Therfore, they had to make up some personal interpretation that effectively turned the Kuen Kuit Mo Ying Da Yeng into Mo Ying Jeui Ying. Which is WRONG!


No, we're all talking about mo ying da yieng (no form strike shadow). Ym and YKS lineages both have the kuit, both lineages can be reliably traced back - with different people - to the Red Boats, and they have the same kuit. But they are wrong! OK.



Again... Our ancestors would know the difference. Despite what Robert or Terence would have people believe.


The YM/YKS kuit does come from the ancestors -- and we can reliably trace it back to the Red Boats.



hTe Shadow is a real concept in WC. With legitimate reference points, bridging tools, and engagment strategy. All of which I've not only offered here to my fellow WC pratitioners, but explained in detail.


Yes, you've explained it and I've told you things won't work that way -- you won't have the time when you just catch glimpses via peripheral vision to react like you're saying, and even if you did,it would be a poor way to react.



Unfortunately the problem with so called experts is that sometimes their egos can't handle others knowing more than them. So they result to insults and questions of legitimacy.

Sad... You'd think after a decade of this foolishness, they'd give it a rest.

Isn't it ironic -- you claim to REALLY know the truth, that you were told by some so-called expert, and don't like being told you are wrong . . . .

I'm not insulting anyone. If you can prove HFY existed prior to Garret, provide the evidence. We'd all love to see it. The truth is that you can't. And the truth isn't an insult. If we want to examine these things from a historical POV, you need to first establish with a fair degree of certainty what should be considered, and it's not sound to consider sources that haven't been established as reliable.

[m1k3]

The problem here is that Terence's western mindset has torn the concept of covering into little pieces and doesn't see the bigger picture, or in this case the over-all strategy.

In WC we think in terms of the whole... It's a system with coherent logic flow from top to down. Not a collection of techniques that are tbrown together in some hodgpodge manner.

So, boxing, wrestling, fencing, MMA and BJJ are nothing more than a collection of techniques that are thrown together in a hodgepodge manner? No bigger picture, no over-all strategy. Simple minded brute force.




Wow, what have you been smoking?

[duende]

So, boxing, wrestling, fencing, MMA and BJJ are nothing more than a collection of techniques that are thrown together in a hodgepodge manner? No bigger picture, no over-all strategy. Simple minded brute force.

Wow, what have you been smoking?

WTF?

We are talking about WC Mo Ying Da Yeng are we not???

Don't take comments out of context and try to put words in my mouth. All these MA have their own strategies and with their own expression. Your arguing with no one here but yourself.

[m1k3]

Sorry, I may have misunderstood you but it seemed to me that the "Western Mindset" comment and the collection of hodgepodge techniques could be taken as a blanket criticism of western martial arts, also developed with said western mindset.

[sanjuro_ronin]

You know, if you lost the esoteric terms translated (poorly) from Chinese and explain it using simple English this might go better.

Boxing has kuit also. Things like "Keep your effing hands up" and "Don't just stand there move!" or "When in doubt, jab".

You notice, no shadows, no cryptic talk just good advice.

Crazy talk !!
:D

[duende]

Yes, I agree with you -- this is why it is very helpful to not accept what anyone -- including your sifu or grandmaster says -- blindly as true. Cross-checking across lineages will show you what historically is part of the WCK core curriculum.



If you agree with me, then try opening your mind to new information. Especially when it is offered so kindly.

I don't blindly follow anyone. On the contrary, I appreciate what everyone has to offer. Including Robert, and I've told him so.




No, we're all talking about mo ying da yieng (no form strike shadow). Ym and YKS lineages both have the kuit, both lineages can be reliably traced back - with different people - to the Red Boats, and they have the same kuit. But they are wrong! OK.



Now you are being intellectually dishonest. No one is denying that YM or YKS has the Kuen Kuit in question. We are arguing over different interpretations of the Kuit, and you know it.

The problem with your interpretation of the Kuen Kuit Mo Ying Da Yeng, is that it doesn't take into consideration all the other WC Kuen kuits too. Again.. you are looking at a part and not the whole.

If we understand that their is no random hitting in WC. Which we both agree is another WC Kuen Kuit. Then why would we randomly hit the shadow? It doesn't make sense if you follow the logic flow.

No instead... the Shadow is a real reference point. AND hitting or strike in Mo Ying Da Yeng ... the Da part.. by function, already has the implied meaning by way of other WC Kuen Kuits of establishing facing, engaging, and then hitting when the bridge is safe to cross.

Again.. you need to consider the bigger picture.






The YM/YKS kuit does come from the ancestors -- and we can reliably trace it back to the Red Boats.



Great... but this offers no support to the subject matter of this thread. It is in fact only a side track of yours since you have no valid argument.



Yes, you've explained it and I've told you things won't work that way -- you won't have the time when you just catch glimpses via peripheral vision to react like you're saying, and even if you did,it would be a poor way to react.


And I've told you this is part of the whole strategy... to recapture your timing, space, facing.

You don't have the physical experience of what I'm saying, so your are making leaps just to argue.

Again.. not all confrontations will be in a ring with your opponent squarely in front of you.




Isn't it ironic -- you claim to REALLY know the truth, that you were told by some so-called expert, and don't like being told you are wrong . . . .



Your interpretation of turning Mo Ying Da Yeng into Mo Ying Jeui Ying, is wrong. It has nothing to do with me or you or HFY, or CSL.

Did the ancestors write Mo Ying Jeui Ying??? NO. There's no disputing it.



I'm not insulting anyone. If you can prove HFY existed prior to Garret, provide the evidence. We'd all love to see it. The truth is that you can't. And the truth isn't an insult. If we want to examine these things from a historical POV, you need to first establish with a fair degree of certainty what should be considered, and it's not sound to consider sources that haven't been established as reliable.

The truth is we already have. You just don't want to accept it, because it would mean that you don't know everything you claim to in WC... that the world is a bigger place than your silly WC mailing list group of WC experts... that there exists much out there that we both do not know.

[duende]

Sorry, I may have misunderstood you but it seemed to me that the "Western Mindset" comment and the collection of hodgepodge techniques could be taken as a blanket criticism of western martial arts, also developed with said western mindset.

no worries... It's all good. I was only referring to Terences lack of analysation skills in regards to WC. Wasn't refferring to the MA's you mentioned in any way.

Best

[CFT]

So in HFYWCK the strategy around "mo ying da yeng" is to "hit the shadow" without trying to re-face initially? Sorry, not gone back to re-read what you posted previously.

[duende]

So in HFYWCK the strategy around "mo ying da yeng" is to "hit the shadow" without trying to re-face initially? Sorry, not gone back to re-read what you posted previously.

Noooo... Haha. Read my post again. You must re-establish facing upon engagement.

[CFT]

"Chasing shape" (jeui ying) is part of "mo ying da yeng"? So why do you have a problem with what Robert Chu wrote about this bit?

[LoneTiger108]

Enough!!

The so called Wing Chun experts are just butt sore because they didn't have a real understandng of Mo Ying Da Yeng. Surprise surpise.. They don't know everything they claim to! On this thread ub particular, they don't know what shadow refers to in WC.

Therfore, they had to make up some personal interpretation that effectively turned the Kuen Kuit Mo Ying Da Yeng into Mo Ying Jeui Ying. Which is WRONG!

Again... Our ancestors would know the difference. Despite what Robert or Terence would have people believe.

The Shadow is a real concept in WC. With legitimate reference points, bridging tools, and engagment strategy. All of which I've not only offered here to my fellow WC pratitioners, but explained in detail.

Unfortunately the problem with so called experts is that sometimes their egos can't handle others knowing more than them. So they result to insults and questions of legitimacy.

Sad... You'd think after a decade of this foolishness, they'd give it a rest.

A very interesting statement from someone who obviously has their own fixed opinions too.

Truthfully, I've had enough of this thread as it's just going round in circles...

Hmm must be a kuit for that! :D

[Ultimatewingchun]

What I have a problem with, CFT, duende, and others...

is the cryptic language and Chinese phrases. Like charity, they cover a multitude of sins. I'm starting to feel like we're back to 5-6-7 years ago when the whole board seemed to revolve around a HFY vs. the rest of us mentality.

Not that you guys are engaging in that right now - but without speaking in plain English...or dare I say, regardless of the censorship ban that Garrett Gee obviously imposed some years ago:

show us a vid or two of what you're talking about.

Or am I just chasing shadows with such a request? ;) :cool:

[CFT]

Well, if people use the English translation I certainly don't mind. As long as the translation reflects the original Chinese phrase.

As usual these things are best shown in person, but the world is a big place, money and time is tight, so in all probability I'm never going to meet anyone here face to face. Words, in the absence of video, is all we've got. Of course there will be a lot of disgreement since we all come from different "schools". Just take what is useful for personal development and ignore the carp (sic).

[t_niehoff]

If you agree with me, then try opening your mind to new information. Especially when it is offered so kindly.

I don't blindly follow anyone. On the contrary, I appreciate what everyone has to offer. Including Robert, and I've told him so.


I will open my mind to new "information" -- when that information is reliable.



Now you are being intellectually dishonest. No one is denying that YM or YKS has the Kuen Kuit in question. We are arguing over different interpretations of the Kuit, and you know it.


I brought up YM and YKS to illustrate that this kuit is part of the WCK core curriculum. Yes, we are talking about what the kuit refers to (what you call interpretation). And, as I've told you, your view isn't realistic.



The problem with your interpretation of the Kuen Kuit Mo Ying Da Yeng, is that it doesn't take into consideration all the other WC Kuen kuits too. Again.. you are looking at a part and not the whole.


No, just the opposite, I already explained how it fits into the whole.



If we understand that their is no random hitting in WC. Which we both agree is another WC Kuen Kuit. Then why would we randomly hit the shadow? It doesn't make sense if you follow the logic flow.


What the hell are you talking about? We hit to break the opponent's structure. There are essentially two ways to break an opponent's structure by striking -- to hit the opponent's body structure directly (hit him on his weak line, for instance) or to strike his body movement (when I can't hit his weak line because it is moving, I hit that movement). The latter is striking the shadow.



No instead... the Shadow is a real reference point. AND hitting or strike in Mo Ying Da Yeng ... the Da part.. by function, already has the implied meaning by way of other WC Kuen Kuits of establishing facing, engaging, and then hitting when the bridge is safe to cross.


What you don't seem to grasp is that you won't have TIME to face or establish a bridge when you catch a glimpse of some shot coming in. And you won't have TIME to move your arms to hit the incoming arm (which is a very bad idea even if you could). When you are catch a glimpse with your peripheral vision of something coming in, all you can do is "duck and cover". Nor is it a good idea to reach or extend your arms away from your body to deal with his punches. Your whole premise of what is the "shadow" is wrong.



Great... but this offers no support to the subject matter of this thread. It is in fact only a side track of yours since you have no valid argument.


It's pertinent to the extent it establishes that the kuit is part of the WCK core curriculum.



And I've told you this is part of the whole strategy... to recapture your timing, space, facing.


Which won't work.



You don't have the physical experience of what I'm saying, so your are making leaps just to argue.

Again.. not all confrontations will be in a ring with your opponent squarely in front of you.


Even when they are in front of you, you won't have the TIME to react as you are saying when you only catch a glimpse of some movement with your peripheral vision.

It takes us -- on a synaptic level - 0.20 of a second to react to something. If he's already punching and it on its way to hit you, you won't be able to face, move your arms to intercept, etc. It won't happen. The best you will be able to do -- if you are in position -- is maybe duck and cover. And by cover, I mean put your arm ON your head to protect it.



Your interpretation of turning Mo Ying Da Yeng into Mo Ying Jeui Ying, is wrong. It has nothing to do with me or you or HFY, or CSL.


The kuit are clues, clues to putting the puzzle together. Like everything else, application tells us if we are right or wrong. What you are talking about simply won't work.



The truth is we already have. You just don't want to accept it, because it would mean that you don't know everything you claim to in WC... that the world is a bigger place than your silly WC mailing list group of WC experts... that there exists much out there that we both do not know.

I don't accept what you say because I KNOW it won't work. I've been in that situation, I've seen top level fighters in that situation (where they catch a glimpse of an incoming shot). No one will be able to do what you are talking about. So your interpretation is wrong.

[Wayfaring]

:D I have noticed that the chatter about kuit has got progressively wierd. Especially since I've always felt that the kuit being 'shared' here is mostly not what Ip Man would have taught. Just too 'traditional' IMHO.

My point exactly! (I think?!) ;) And that is IF Ip Man even had a kuit, let alone teach with it. Most of his more well known students wouldn't even know what it was IMHO.

I agree.



Aren't you just highlighting that Sifu Gee is no different than any other 'non-Ip Man' descendent who teaches kuit that are generally not from Ip Man nor related to Wing Chun exactly? Maybe he too has just had access to some older, more Shaolin based literature?
I think it's pretty obvious that Sifu Gee's art is both 1) WCK and 2) Not Ip Man based. So I would say yes, he teaches kuit generally not from Ip Man, but no, I think it still is related to WCK. I do see where you might get the picture it's not related to WCK, as kiu sau concepts are found in many other southern Chinese arts. But it is WCK kiu sau as opposed to Hung Gar, Mantis, etc.

Answering honestly, I doubt Sifu Gee has had access to older, more Shaolin based literature. I believe he learned an oral kuit and an art. Certain things in HFY are attributed to Hung Gun Biu specifically. Beyond that it's just legend, IMO.

[Wayfaring]

What I have a problem with, CFT, duende, and others...

is the cryptic language and Chinese phrases. Like charity, they cover a multitude of sins.

I agree at least that HFY has cryptic Chinese phrases and language. Without the drills alongside and hands-on, I couldn't make sense of it.

[Ultimatewingchun]

I agree at least that HFY has cryptic Chinese phrases and language. Without the drills alongside and hands-on, I couldn't make sense of it.

***SO show us some drills, Wayfaring. :)

[t_niehoff]

:D I have noticed that the chatter about kuit has got progressively wierd. Especially since I've always felt that the kuit being 'shared' here is mostly not what Ip Man would have taught. Just too 'traditional' IMHO.


We know what kuit Yip Man taught - from his students. Moy Yat even put them in a book. You see the same kuit among many of his students.

One problem is, however, that not everyone of Yip's students (for various reasons) learned everything. And it could be argued that not one of his students learned the whole WCK curriculum from Yip.

So, if you didn't learn it, then it must not be important, right?

BTW, a few years ago, some WCK (I think from Singapore) guy visited us, and one of our guys mentioned something about the kuit. The visitor said, "Oh, that's all made up stuff from the internet."

[Wayfaring]

***SO show us some drills, Wayfaring. :)

I have 2 reasons for not doing so:

1) I'm not a good HFY example as I'm too blended MMA wise.
2) I wish to respect Sifu Gee's wishes of teaching it hou chun san sau or hands on, not by video.

[Phil Redmond]

. . . The punch doesn't cover anything unless it is in contact with it (like a bridge). . . .
Physics isn't your forte for sure. :rolleyes:

[Phil Redmond]

You know, if you lost the esoteric terms translated (poorly) from Chinese and explain it using simple English this might go better.

Boxing has kuit also. Things like "Keep your effing hands up" and "Don't just stand there move!" or "When in doubt, jab".

You notice, no shadows, no cryptic talk just good advice.
That is so on point. Even street fighters have kuit. ;)

[t_niehoff]

Physics isn't your forte for sure. :rolleyes:

I earned a bachelors in physics at university. What are your physics credentials?

What does an arm sticking out in the air cover? Nothing. Boxers know that punching is what exposes you as your arms, by extending away from your body, leave you exposed. Their guard (like Tyson's peek-a-boo) is what keeps them covered.

Listen to Tyson at 0:28 seconds in(what are you trying to do?):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5myL5x-qmd8&playnext_from=TL&videos=DPAXxr8l7io

[Wayfaring]

I also brought up WSL (I guess I'm nuthugging Alan but not Wong?). I was pointing out that there were people in the YM lineage who did have accomplishments that HFY did not.

As WSL died in 1997 his nuts are dust, so it's impossible for someone to swing from them and maintain their own weight. :D:D:D (incorporating some physics for you).


But I do agree with you that it is not a major accomplishment -- except within the WCK community where people do not train like fighters for the most part.
Yes, I'd like to see more of that type of training in the WCK community.

[LoneTiger108]

I think it's pretty obvious that Sifu Gee's art is both 1) WCK and 2) Not Ip Man based. So I would say yes, he teaches kuit generally not from Ip Man, but no, I think it still is related to WCK. I do see where you might get the picture it's not related to WCK, as kiu sau concepts are found in many other southern Chinese arts. But it is WCK kiu sau as opposed to Hung Gar, Mantis, etc.

Agreed. Although I'm not referring to kiu sau specifically, as this too is a very common expression to me albeit I have a different viewpoint (again!)


Answering honestly, I doubt Sifu Gee has had access to older, more Shaolin based literature. I believe he learned an oral kuit and an art. Certain things in HFY are attributed to Hung Gun Biu specifically. Beyond that it's just legend, IMO.

In all respects we all learn oral kuit (what I've previously referred to as hao kuit) and it's our own decision to either write down only the English translations or actually learn to write/read the original Chinese. What I'm interested in really is who has actually been handed their kuit directly from their Sifu with the accompanying physical/mental transmission?


We know what kuit Yip Man taught - from his students. Moy Yat even put them in a book. You see the same kuit among many of his students.

This is part of the problem IMO. Even the book/chops contains ancestors sayings which Ip Man may not have used himself with every student. I was of the understanding that he passed the kuit to Moy Yat as his artistry was very unique. It became his lifes mission and it is something to be treasured IMHHHO. Yet, I can not remember seeing any 'core curriculum' within the chops, but I could be mistaken.


One problem is, however, that not everyone of Yip's students (for various reasons) learned everything. And it could be argued that not one of his students learned the whole WCK curriculum from Yip.

So, if you didn't learn it, then it must not be important, right?

Or maybe most just didn't 'deserve' it? Or didn't see it's relevance when standing toe to toe! I have to admit, all this interpretation doesn't help either and I can see why very few actually want to put the effort into learning Wing Chun with kuit attached at all. That is a big mistake IMHO! Almost as big a mistake as learning it all from a book/internet and not receiving it directly from you Sifu.


BTW, a few years ago, some WCK (I think from Singapore) guy visited us, and one of our guys mentioned something about the kuit. The visitor said, "Oh, that's all made up stuff from the internet."

Again, I can't say if he was right or wrong. But what I do know is that a few books and chops get published and we have started a mass exodus of common sense and logic! :o

[duende]

I will open my mind to new "information" -- when that information is reliable.


And a closed mind when it serves your ego.




I brought up YM and YKS to illustrate that this kuit is part of the WCK core curriculum. Yes, we are talking about what the kuit refers to (what you call interpretation). And, as I've told you, your view isn't realistic.


You only refer to YM and YKS because they are the only WCK that you understand beyond a surface superficial level. And even that is being disputed by mulitple members here.




No, just the opposite, I already explained how it fits into the whole.


No you didn't. I did.



What the hell are you talking about? We hit to break the opponent's structure. There are essentially two ways to break an opponent's structure by striking -- to hit the opponent's body structure directly (hit him on his weak line, for instance) or to strike his body movement (when I can't hit his weak line because it is moving, I hit that movement). The latter is striking the shadow.


For someone with so much education, you either are intentionally misreading my posts, or simply not as smart as you think you are.



What you don't seem to grasp is that you won't have TIME to face or establish a bridge when you catch a glimpse of some shot coming in. And you won't have TIME to move your arms to hit the incoming arm (which is a very bad idea even if you could). When you are catch a glimpse with your peripheral vision of something coming in, all you can do is "duck and cover". Nor is it a good idea to reach or extend your arms away from your body to deal with his punches. Your whole premise of what is the "shadow" is wrong.


This coming from a man who's interpretation of the Kuit is to chase glimmers!

Now you are saying "duck and cover". Which can basically attributed to your finally beginning to understand what I've been saying all along. We don't duck, and cover... we COVER SPACE, which is engaging with a strong structure.

This structure is essentially a bridge from nowhere to somewhere. If you know how to implement a proper Kiu Sau bridge with proper body mechanics, then the bridge itself becomes a strike, or challenge to an opponents structure, while protecting your gates and strategically re-positioning one's footwork. This is the nature of Kiu Sau.




It's pertinent to the extent it establishes that the kuit is part of the WCK core curriculum.


Pertinent, but not restricted to!

I suggest you put your own lineages interpretation of the Kuit to such scrutiny!



Which won't work.



Based on your little understanding... of course it won't work. But with true understanding of Covering space with Tin Yan Dei body mechanics it certainly does work. And is not all that difficult to understand.. given hands on experience.



Even when they are in front of you, you won't have the TIME to react as you are saying when you only catch a glimpse of some movement with your peripheral vision.

It takes us -- on a synaptic level - 0.20 of a second to react to something. If he's already punching and it on its way to hit you, you won't be able to face, move your arms to intercept, etc. It won't happen. The best you will be able to do -- if you are in position -- is maybe duck and cover. And by cover, I mean put your arm ON your head to protect it.


Intercepting, and covering space are not always the same thing. One is concerned primarily with re-establishing facing, structural guard and positioning. The other is for when facing has already been established. But like I said... nothing is fixed. A bridge can be many things depending on the Time, space, and energy.



The kuit are clues, clues to putting the puzzle together. Like everything else, application tells us if we are right or wrong. What you are talking about simply won't work.


Piano playing advice, from an accordion hack.




I don't accept what you say because I KNOW it won't work. I've been in that situation, I've seen top level fighters in that situation (where they catch a glimpse of an incoming shot). No one will be able to do what you are talking about. So your interpretation is wrong.

You think you know what I'm talking about, but you don't.

Go on chasing shadows, if it suits you.


Let's just agree to disagree. This looping is not worth either of our's time.

[JPinAZ]

T,

Why not prove you know what is going on so there can be no misunderstanding?

Since you are so sure you understand exactly what Duende is talking about, and so sure it won't work, then you must have some inside knowledge and experience with HFY specifically. Since you've only attended one workshop (even if you just sat on the side and watched instead of touching hands like your other brothers), was this the subject covered at the workshop?
What was the subject of that workshop?

[Ultimatewingchun]

What was that? At the Garrett Gee HFY Friendship Seminar waaaay back (had to be at least 8-9 years ago)...Terence just sat on the side and watched? He wouldn't participate in any hands-on ???

Why am I not shocked at this?! :rolleyes:

[duende]

Hey guys...

Let's not drudge up the past. It's wasted energy. Instead let's move forward and learn from our mistakes.

Good training to all.

[Wayfaring]

Yeah, I agree with Alex. No profit in dredging up and dwelling on all the stuff from years ago. All I was seeking to do is to be able to discuss the WCK written and oral kuits and interpretation from more than one perspective. Even if people see things differently. To me that's the value of this type of forum.

I just get tired of being told "you're wrong" all the time from a very narrow perspective. The value in collaboration is from a wide perspective, many lineages and families and presenting varying viewpoints. I don't mind being challenged on my viewpoints either. But I'm just looking for the balance in the community.

[LoneTiger108]

... The value in collaboration is from a wide perspective, many lineages and families and presenting varying viewpoints. I don't mind being challenged on my viewpoints either. But I'm just looking for the balance in the community.

Being an outsider myself (a UK born practitioner!) I have also found it frustrating on this forum as my own views tend to be swept aside so others can continually bicker and argue over the craziest sh!t! :mad:

Then come the personal attacks, which IMO isn't going to help anyone here. It seems the HFY stance against other families (or perhaps even just one guy!) is a fundamental problem that is far greater than I thought.

I don't think we have issues like this in the UK...

[t_niehoff]

T,

Why not prove you know what is going on so there can be no misunderstanding?


Go to a good MMA gym and see if you know what's going on.



Since you are so sure you understand exactly what Duende is talking about, and so sure it won't work, then you must have some inside knowledge and experience with HFY specifically. Since you've only attended one workshop (even if you just sat on the side and watched instead of touching hands like your other brothers), was this the subject covered at the workshop?
What was the subject of that workshop?

It's not about HFY, it is about what is possible in fighting. What Duende's talking about won't work (fotr the reasons I gave). I don't give a rat's ass about HFY's theory or what it is or any theory. What I'm saying is that what HE (Duende) is saying, won't work.

I never attended any HFY "workshop". I was at the Friendship Seminar at the VTM when Garrett appeared and gave a presentation on HFY. EVERYONE sat there and watched, and no one "touched hands"with Garrett. While Benny's guys did have a "workshop" that was kept secret from the non-Meng attendees IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT (which, was discovered by me, Dave, and Dzu who were TRAINING at 2 am in Benny's school when they walked in on us), we were not invited. And, to be frank, after seeing Garrett's presentation, I wasn't really interested in learning anything to do with HFY.

[Wayfaring]

And, to be frank, after seeing Garrett's presentation, I wasn't really interested in learning anything to do with HFY.

So out of curiousity, outside of the VTM dynamics, what was it about the presentation that caused you to form that opinion?

[duende]

Being an outsider myself (a UK born practitioner!) I have also found it frustrating on this forum as my own views tend to be swept aside so others can continually bicker and argue over the craziest sh!t! :mad:

Then come the personal attacks, which IMO isn't going to help anyone here. It seems the HFY stance against other families (or perhaps even just one guy!) is a fundamental problem that is far greater than I thought.

I don't think we have issues like this in the UK...

There is no HFY stance aginst other families. On the contrary we welcome and embrace all WC.

The issue here is this...

In his in-experienced opinion regarding Mo Ying Da Yeng, Terence thinks that covering ones gates engage the shadow, repositioning your footwork, and thereby re-establishing facing is wrong.

And instead one should just "duck and cover".

Notice that this opinion of his is FAR different than his original one, and is sounding progressively more and more like our HFY strategy.

his original opinion was that one should "chase the shadow."

Basically, he's arguing only for the sake of arguing.

He immediately says we are wrong without taking the time to truly understand what we are saying.

Therefore, I returned his energy right back to him and told him his "chasing shadow's" interpretation was wrong too.

Honestly, I don't have a problem with other intepretations at all. I welcome everyone view.

But like Wayfaring said... I just get tired of such blatant ignorance, and knuckle-head brute force mentality. There's no discussion here... Only you are WRONG.

It's silly, lame, and a waste of time.

[Wayfaring]

Being an outsider myself (a UK born practitioner!) I have also found it frustrating on this forum as my own views tend to be swept aside so others can continually bicker and argue over the craziest sh!t! :mad:

Then come the personal attacks, which IMO isn't going to help anyone here. It seems the HFY stance against other families (or perhaps even just one guy!) is a fundamental problem that is far greater than I thought.

I don't think we have issues like this in the UK...

This forum is more free speech as opposed to heavily moderated, so things tend to flare up at times. Also, the sense of humor level here on the WC forum is lower than even other forums at KFO. And I will admit that T and several HFY people have a history of shall we say "spirited" discussions, which I will own up to my part of. To defend myself I will say if someone is standing in the center of a ring issuing loud challenges, I feel somewhat of a moral obligation to step up and accept, just for general purposes. Sorry if that has closed you off from the conversation.

As far as not having issues like that in the UK, I'm not so sure. Maybe not in the WC area, but cruise on over to www.mixedmartialarts.com and look at the UG forum. There you have UK MMA practitioners swinging from Michael Bisping's nuts like a high trapeze act, and ensuing hilarity.

[t_niehoff]

There is no HFY stance aginst other families. On the contrary we welcome and embrace all WC.

The issue here is this...

In his in-experienced opinion regarding Mo Ying Da Yeng, Terence thinks that covering ones gates engage the shadow, repositioning your footwork, and thereby re-establishing facing is wrong.


I'm saying that you can't do it under realistic conditions.

By the way, you keep changing your terminology. Now it's "engage the shadow" -- "da" doesn't translate to "engage" but "strike". The kuit says no form strike shadow.



And instead one should just "duck and cover".


I'm saying that when you just catch a glimpse of some shot coming it, you won't have TIME to do anything else -- you won't be able to do any "bridging" or "strike" anything. All you will be able to do is cover what is being struck. Not cover the gate (gates are more nonsense), not cover the "space" (still more nonsense) but cover the target. This is what all fighters do.



Notice that this opinion of his is FAR different than his original one, and is sounding progressively more and more like our HFY strategy.

his original opinion was that one should "chase the shadow."


NO. I never said anything of the kind. Do you just make this sh1t up?

I said that the "shadow" or impression (another valid translation) doesn't refer to his arm or leg movement but the movement of his body. The kuit refers to how to strike to break an opponent's structure.



Basically, he's arguing only for the sake of arguing.

He immediately says we are wrong without taking the time to truly understand what we are saying.


I do understand what you are saying, and I'm telling you that you won't be able to do it. So that tells you that your interpretation of the kuit is wrong.



Therefore, I returned his energy right back to him and told him his "chasing shadow's" interpretation was wrong too.


Point to where I ever talked about "chasing the shadow" or admit that you're just making it up.



Honestly, I don't have a problem with other intepretations at all. I welcome everyone view.


You can have all kinds of interpretations, that doesn't make them valid. I don't welcome nonsense.



But like Wayfaring said... I just get tired of such blatant ignorance, and knuckle-head brute force mentality. There's no discussion here... Only you are WRONG.

It's silly, lame, and a waste of time.

Yes, because you seem to think that any and all interpretations of the kuit are worthwhile -- I don't. Application (fighting) tells you whether or not your interpretation is valid.

If you want to point me to some evidence that what you are talking about actually works consistently in fighting, I would reconsider my view. But since I know from experience -- mine and from all the fights I've ever seen -- that you can't do what you're talking about, I think you're simply wrong.

[k gledhill]

Terence your tedious argument is invalid. Based on 'attachment'.

Ever wonder why we develop and use ballistic force in our actions ?

pak is a sudden stopping SLAP to the line not across it coupled with a simultaneously thrown attacking hand ...sudden energy transmission to an object, What happens to that object after I transmit energy to it in this fashion ?

jut, a sudden sharp explosive jerk that displaces the arm enough for a simultaneously thrown attacking hand, sudden short sharp energy transmission but we dont keep grabbing the arm , WHY ?

Bong a sudden sharp lateral slapping action with the raised forearm, same as pak energy , laterally displacing energy into an arm...we train thei on the dummy , against an immovable arm, a sudden lateral energy ....what happens ? the bong ALONE will displace arms for a rear ? wu attacking hand..

tan a strike that uses the ballistic expansion of the elbow AWAY from the centerline as the fist/vertical palm strikes forwards.

jum a strike that use ballistic contraction of the elbow INWARDS to the centerline as the fist/horizontal pam strike forwards


you dont get this ballistic force in attachment....hands move into ? space, air, no cantact to ......SUDDEN IMPACT ...

Its like facing a fighter who throws short explosive action at you coupled with relentless attacking explosidng in efficiently controlled bursts...

energy designed to 'displace attachment' attempts by the opponent. IOW I create gaps in contact by the opponent by using sudden explosive parries with simultaneously thrown strikes AND 'structure momentum' to harness the whole explosive moment and utilize my body weight in motion as a backup energy source, controlled through countless ours of drilling in chi-sao.

If we as VT fighters can make the 'gap' to strike in or explode in naturally from drilling , lat sao chit chung we take the SPACE available. We dont seek contact for feeling things and controlling them. We strive to turn our opponents from facing us so WE DONT HAVE TO DO ALL THE CONTROLLING you talk about like a broken moronic record.



one of the reasons VT swaps man sao and wu sao is to be able to fight this ballistic energy...the lead hand may be displaced , stopped, etc...but I and you will always have a rear hand undisrupted, to fire a direct shot. If thats ballistically displaced we replace with another attacking action...and so on..:D

[YungChun]

No Kev.. You don't understand the choking method.....(twitch)... ;)

[t_niehoff]

Terence your tedious argument is invalid. Based on 'attachment'.

Ever wonder why we develop and use ballistic force in our actions ?


WCK's power isn't "ballistic" (like a bullet) -- it is like a hammer-nail. When we strike, we hit with our center to their center, thereby destroying their structure. That's why what we do -- including strike -- isn't like boxing or kickboxing, which does use ballistic striking.



pak is a sudden stopping SLAP to the line not across it coupled with a simultaneously thrown attacking hand ...sudden energy transmission to an object, What happens to that object after I transmit energy to it in this fashion ?


Pak (slap) is to destroy an opponent's structure, by projecting our center (mass) into our opponent (typically their arm). You can combine it with another action,like a punch, or not depending on the circumstances. The power doesn't come from the "suddenness" of the action but rather the projection of our structure.



jut, a sudden sharp explosive jerk that displaces the arm enough for a simultaneously thrown attacking hand, sudden short sharp energy transmission but we dont keep grabbing the arm , WHY ?


Jut, or choke, is a tactic of using short, jerking power to destroy an opponent's structure (much like the snap down in wrestling). How you follow it up depends on the circumstances.



Bong a sudden sharp lateral slapping action with the raised forearm, same as pak energy , laterally displacing energy into an arm...we train thei on the dummy , against an immovable arm, a sudden lateral energy ....what happens ? the bong ALONE will displace arms for a rear ? wu attacking hand..


The bong sao has many uses, and all of them are for destroying an opponent's structure.




tan a strike that uses the ballistic expansion of the elbow AWAY from the centerline as the fist/vertical palm strikes forwards.

jum a strike that use ballistic contraction of the elbow INWARDS to the centerline as the fist/horizontal pam strike forwards


The bridge hands in WCK are tools to fight for control of the clinch, and provide a connection to the opponent's body structure so that we can break it.



you dont get this ballistic force in attachment....hands move into ? space, air, no cantact to ......SUDDEN IMPACT ...

Its like facing a fighter who throws short explosive action at you coupled with relentless attacking explosidng in efficiently controlled bursts...

energy designed to 'displace attachment' attempts by the opponent. IOW I create gaps in contact by the opponent by using sudden explosive parries with simultaneously thrown strikes AND 'structure momentum' to harness the whole explosive moment and utilize my body weight in motion as a backup energy source, controlled through countless ours of drilling in chi-sao.

If we as VT fighters can make the 'gap' to strike in or explode in naturally from drilling , lat sao chit chung we take the SPACE available. We dont seek contact for feeling things and controlling them. We strive to turn our opponents from facing us so WE DONT HAVE TO DO ALL THE CONTROLLING you talk about like a broken moronic record.


You are not going to "turn our opponents from facing us" without controlling them.

Everything you wrote is pure, theoretical nonsense.



one of the reasons VT swaps man sao and wu sao is to be able to fight this ballistic energy...the lead hand may be displaced , stopped, etc...but I and you will always have a rear hand undisrupted, to fire a direct shot. If thats ballistically displaced we replace with another attacking action...and so on..:D

It's a lovely theory.

[k gledhill]

the 'theory' is what WSL used to fight...
I follow yip man - wsl fighting with experience .handed down to us...
what P Bayer isn't clinching : ) we do enough redundant work in chi-sao so we DONT Have to over trap, over control

your mixed up even after 29 years ! stop deluding yourself !

[YungChun]

He doesn't acknowledge the line...clearing the line, maintaining the unbroken line of power, force projection and attack...where structure is also attacked..

It breaks structure...<twitch> is all he's got... Attach!!!

It's a lop sided view of VT.. (no pun intended) :)

[LoneTiger108]

This forum is more free speech as opposed to heavily moderated, so things tend to flare up at times. Also, the sense of humor level here on the WC forum is lower than even other forums at KFO. And I will admit that T and several HFY people have a history of shall we say "spirited" discussions, which I will own up to my part of. To defend myself I will say if someone is standing in the center of a ring issuing loud challenges, I feel somewhat of a moral obligation to step up and accept, just for general purposes. Sorry if that has closed you off from the conversation.

All is okay here as I'm used to talking to myself! :( Thanks for trying to explain the bitterness though, spirited or not!


As far as not having issues like that in the UK, I'm not so sure. Maybe not in the WC area, but cruise on over to www.mixedmartialarts.com and look at the UG forum. There you have UK MMA practitioners swinging from Michael Bisping's nuts like a high trapeze act, and ensuing hilarity.

What MMA guys yap about really doesn't concern me too much to be honest, but like you, I can sometimes get over defensive too when they set their sights on attacking Wing Chun, especially on a forum that can be so much more.

[Ultimatewingchun]

...that was a good one, Kevin.

And I'm sure it went way over Niehoff's head.

[t_niehoff]

the 'theory' is what WSL used to fight...
I follow yip man - wsl fighting with experience .handed down to us...
what P Bayer isn't clinching : ) we do enough redundant work in chi-sao so we DONT Have to over trap, over control

your mixed up even after 29 years ! stop deluding yourself !

Really? Did you see WSL fight? Have you seen any videos of him sparring? So this is just your theory of how he fought.

I know Bayer isn't using attached fighting. He's not fighting at all. :)

And, interestingly, other people who, unlike you, actually trained with WSL himself, Peterson, Lam, etc., don't seem to share your "theory".

For example, http://www.garylamwingchun.com/index.php?view=article&catid=34%3Aarticles&id=68%3Agary-lam-wing-chun-an-introduction-by-gregory-e-leblanc&option=com_content&Itemid=113

Hmmm, let's see, his WSL branches of study are: 1. Crossing hand - Striking techniques, 2. Closing - Standing grappling, 3. Footwork - Kicking and leg destruction, 4. Pushing - One and two handed projections, 5. Pulling - Outside, inside and turning projections. I wonder where you'd use standing grappling, leg destructions, pushing and pulling in a fight? I guess when you are unattached?

[t_niehoff]

...that was a good one, Kevin.

And I'm sure it went way over Niehoff's head.

Thank you, Victor. Not surprising coming from a guy who sees WCK as poor kickboxing.

[k gledhill]

Really? Did you see WSL fight? Have you seen any videos of him sparring? So this is just your theory of how he fought.

I know Bayer isn't using attached fighting. He's not fighting at all. :)

And, interestingly, other people who, unlike you, actually trained with WSL himself, Peterson, Lam, etc., don't seem to share your "theory".

For example, http://www.garylamwingchun.com/index.php?view=article&catid=34%3Aarticles&id=68%3Agary-lam-wing-chun-an-introduction-by-gregory-e-leblanc&option=com_content&Itemid=113

Hmmm, let's see, his WSL branches of study are: 1. Crossing hand - Striking techniques, 2. Closing - Standing grappling, 3. Footwork - Kicking and leg destruction, 4. Pushing - One and two handed projections, 5. Pulling - Outside, inside and turning projections. I wonder where you'd use standing grappling, leg destructions, pushing and pulling in a fight? I guess when you are unattached?


You dont have a clue do you ? :D

I could care less who's curriculum you post it wont change what I wrote.
Read it again.

ballistic force...

whats the dummy for ? sticking to it and playing 'Im attached to you' ? :D


I have met and had dinner with WSL many times, he bear hugged me once and told me to "TRAIN HARD", strong guy !:D Philipp Bayer trained with him from '83. I trained with V Kan from '84...what Philipp developed is something completely different from what you think attached is....only one way to find that out lawyer ;)

[t_niehoff]

You dont have a clue do you ? :D

I could care less who's curriculum you post it wont change what I wrote.
Read it again.


I know nothing will change your mind -- your lost in your theoretical bubble.

Lam trained directly from Wong. What is in his curriculum? Standing grappling, pushing and pulling, etc. You can see that he understands that WCK is controlling the opponent while striking him.

I don't provide this to change your mind, just to show others reading this that you don't know what you are talking about.



I have met and had dinner with WSL many times, he bear hugged me once and told me to "TRAIN HARD", strong guy !:D Philipp Bayer trained with him from '83. I trained with V Kan from '84...what Philipp developed is something completely different from what you think attached is....only one way to find that out lawyer ;)

I am certain it is "something completely different", just like what Victor does is "something completely different." People can do all kinds of nonsense and call it WCK.

[YungChun]

whats the dummy for ? sticking to it and playing 'Im attached to you' ? :D


I hear Terence is very attached to his dummy... I imagine it would be similar to how your dog gets "attached" to your girl friend's leg when she comes over.. :rolleyes: :D


In the end the dummy should be all anyone needs to see.. One does not seek to crazy glue himself to the dummy and remain attached... The movements are what they are...flow and change from one move to the next.. Any fool can see that many moves are to *unattach* in order to strike...to free the hands in order to project real power and force into their center...

[duende]

I'm saying that you can't do it under realistic conditions.

By the way, you keep changing your terminology. Now it's "engage the shadow" -- "da" doesn't translate to "engage" but "strike". The kuit says no form strike shadow.


Not changing... just trying to help you understand what I'm saying. If you look at this Kuen Kuit holistically along with other WC Kuen Kuits.. then by shear continuation of logic, the term "strike" means engage with a strong bridge. Otherwise, you'd be striking at a "wrong" timeframe.

Don't simply look at one Kuen Kuit without considering the rest.




I'm saying that when you just catch a glimpse of some shot coming it, you won't have TIME to do anything else -- you won't be able to do any "bridging" or "strike" anything. All you will be able to do is cover what is being struck. Not cover the gate (gates are more nonsense), not cover the "space" (still more nonsense) but cover the target. This is what all fighters do.


Get it through your head. Covering space is bridging. But it is bridging with proper structure and understanding the need to sometimes create space via footwork. This is inherent to our Tin Yan Dei Kiu Sau body mechanics.

You can try and apply your own interpretation to what I'm saying as much as you want, but you don't get it.




NO. I never said anything of the kind. Do you just make this sh1t up?



The CSL interpretation to Mo Ying Da Yeng, is Chase the Glimmer at least according to Robert.. who is the founder the last I heard.

If you disagree with him fine. Frankly your "duck and cover" interpretation sounds closer to our HFY strategy anyways.



I said that the "shadow" or impression (another valid translation) doesn't refer to his arm or leg movement but the movement of his body. The kuit refers to how to strike to break an opponent's structure.


No you didn't... Robert said Glimmer, you said nothing about breaking structure in regard to Mo Ying Da Yeng. Now you're changing your argument entirely.



I do understand what you are saying, and I'm telling you that you won't be able to do it. So that tells you that your interpretation of the kuit is wrong.


Sure you do. :rolleyes: I actually think if you truly did understand what I'm saying... you wouldn't be arguing with me.



Point to where I ever talked about "chasing the shadow" or admit that you're just making it up.



Not making up anything... If you don't share the same opinion as Robert, that's fine with me. I actually don't care either way. I just don't like being told I'm wrong from a point of ignorance.




You can have all kinds of interpretations, that doesn't make them valid. I don't welcome nonsense.


Whatever... :rolleyes: Yada yada... it's silly how much pointless arguing you can do.



Yes, because you seem to think that any and all interpretations of the kuit are worthwhile -- I don't. Application (fighting) tells you whether or not your interpretation is valid.

If you want to point me to some evidence that what you are talking about actually works consistently in fighting, I would reconsider my view. But since I know from experience -- mine and from all the fights I've ever seen -- that you can't do what you're talking about, I think you're simply wrong.

Fine... you've made your point. You think you know what I'm talking about, even though you've never witnessed, or experienced anything I'm referring to.

You must always feel you are the smartest guy in whatever room you walk into too!

Nice conversing with you. Again.. let's just agree to disagree.

[k gledhill]

I know nothing will change your mind -- your lost in your theoretical bubble.

Lam trained directly from Wong. What is in his curriculum? Standing grappling, pushing and pulling, etc. You can see that he understands that WCK is controlling the opponent while striking him.

I don't provide this to change your mind, just to show others reading this that you don't know what you are talking about.



I am certain it is "something completely different", just like what Victor does is "something completely different." People can do all kinds of nonsense and call it WCK.


ballistic force ...you dont have a clue , wonder why ? :D figure it out T. then let us all know.

[YungChun]

IMO VT uses both connected striking and ballistic striking... Both are forms of impacting..and what VT does (changes) depends largely on how they resist... IOW what they do with the force we "give" them...

[t_niehoff]

IMO VT uses both connected striking and ballistic striking... Both are forms of impacting..and what VT does (changes) depends largely on how they resist... IOW what they do with the force we "give" them...

The mechanics for ballistic striking is very different than the mechanics WCK uses (in the forms, drills, etc.).

There is an old saying that you can tell the level of someone's WCK just from their punch.

There is a reason we learn the mechanics of punch as we do in the forms (from YJKYM, fist into the center of our chest, thrusts outward directly, with no hip rotation, etc.) and why we practice it that way in our drills (lop sao, chi sao,etc.). Hint: and it's not so we can do it differently when we fight.

There is a reason the ancestors told us kuen yau sum faat (the fist comes form our center).

[k gledhill]

the ballistic force is a dual action WITH striking simultaneously ...you still dont get it.

strikes that use ballistic lateral force as the strike goes forwards....2 energies in one punch, the arm never leaves the centerline either, wonder how we develop this ?

we strike from the center and do what with the line ? for a fundamental reason, every form starts with this thinking...Hint : its for attacking with little idea .

why do you think we x the line at the wrists out and back along the centerline at the beginning of each form and punch with each arm following the same path, the only similarities of all 3 forms ? to establish what ?

[Matrix]

There is a reason the ancestors told us kuen yau sum faat (the fist comes form our center). I thought the expression is "the punch comes from the heart".


There is a reason we learn the mechanics of punch as we do in the forms (from YJKYM, fist into the center of our chest, thrusts outward directly, with no hip rotation, etc.) and why we practice it that way in our drills (lop sao, chi sao,etc.). Hint: and it's not so we can do it differently when we fight. What you're describing here is the beginning idea. There is a progression in the training process that moves beyond the static position. Standing to shifting and/or hip, and then stepping which includes hip action as well. The 2nd form should be bringing these elements into the training, and that attribute should be incorporated into all drills including chi sao. If not, there is a serious problem IMO.

[Pacman]

I thought the expression is "the punch comes from the heart".


the character is the one that you use for the literal heart of the body, but it is also used synonymously for "center" too

[t_niehoff]

I thought the expression is "the punch comes from the heart".


Same kuit, slightly different translation. The heart is (more or less) in the center of your chest.



What you're describing here is the beginning idea. There is a progression in the training process that moves beyond the static position. Standing to shifting and/or hip, and then stepping which includes hip action as well.


No. The WCK punch (striking) doesn't use rotation for power transfer. If you know the mechanics of the WCK punch (strike), then you know what you are doing is hitting with your center into his center to destroy it. A good analogy is like what the joisting knight's lance does when it hits his opponent -- it drives into him, knocking him off his horse. You can't get that mechanic via rotation (which is why the knight doesn't rotate). This is what hammer-nail refers to. Hawkins, for example, talks about imagining a knife poking out from the center of your chest and you are trying to drive that into your opponent's center (for explaining the mechanic).

Rotation is used for pulling or wedging or aligning but not for striking. Sometimes, however, the turn and punch is linked so quickly that you can miss that it is align then hit.



The 2nd form should be bringing these elements into the training, and that attribute should be incorporated into all drills including chi sao. If not, there is a serious problem IMO.

Where in the second form are you using rotational power to power strikes? You don't (unless you've altered your forms). All the strikes involve you first squarely aligning then striking.

[k gledhill]

Same kuit, slightly different translation. The heart is (more or less) in the center of your chest.



No. The WCK punch (striking) doesn't use rotation for power transfer. If you know the mechanics of the WCK punch (strike), then you know what you are doing is hitting with your center into his center to destroy it. A good analogy is like what the joisting knight's lance does when it hits his opponent -- it drives into him, knocking him off his horse. You can't get that mechanic via rotation (which is why the knight doesn't rotate). This is what hammer-nail refers to. Hawkins, for example, talks about imagining a knife poking out from the center of your chest and you are trying to drive that into your opponent's center (for explaining the mechanic).

Rotation is used for pulling or wedging or aligning but not for striking. Sometimes, however, the turn and punch is linked so quickly that you can miss that it is align then hit.



Where in the second form are you using rotational power to power strikes? You don't (unless you've altered your forms). All the strikes involve you first squarely aligning then striking.


Jousting is a good way to describe VT

jousting requires angling offline to the opponent to avoid the same line of force ...so they never face squarely to an incoming horse...sound familiar. what side the opponent leads or holds the lance on iow what side is he coming at us , left , or right leading lance, will make us change what side we choose to engage them....this is for us a fast intuitive shifting ability using highly mobile shifting and facing with CK.

they use the 'horse' as the power source as they maintain alignment . this can be turning to face, but it is primarily to align the lance/s , we fight with 2 short cycling lances....if the lead is deflected we replace immediately with the following aligned lance/strike...it shows a simple idea.

Depending on the angles they come at us, the lance they point at us and its positions ,relative to us , make us decide how we should intercept the incoming lance.


we can achieve this in no thinking responses at close quarters by chi-sao drills....the lance is tan sao or jum sao ...depending on what relationship each arm is in at the time makes us respond from drilling...you enter with tan inside/outside, or under/over, the alignment of my strike line will come from drilling for 1000's of rep's...no feeling thinking but distances and angles and arm alignment relationships...



We can use the acute elbow-forearm/lance angles to simply make the incoming lance/strike force 'slide' past us harmlessly.....if the force they aim at us 'requires' it...or we simply spear into the gap they have made...we use this same idea in tan and jum elbow use in early stages of dan chi-sao...iow we dont try to feel the lances force, we try to deflect it and lance in the same timing as their attacks...

chi-sao training makes our lances and 'horses' connect so we arent thrown from the saddle easily like beginning riders, bouncing in the saddles....we keep upright making us 'sit' in the saddle as we gallop full force [yes I used to ride horses too :D]

the integrity of the structure and our arms becomes solidly aligned from contact drills for exchanging force...notdevelop feeling things...feeling is a BY-PRODUCT OF THE DRILLS, yet capable of simply relinquishing the lost leading lance point for another in a nano second if required...most opponents will use the tip of the klance to bloack ...good for us.

using minimal energy to maintain the 'butt end'/elbow of the arm/lance to fend off the force, without over moving the 'lance handle/elbow' and losing the alignment point on the target.


the lance is man sao the shield is wu sao...but for us the shield becomes the next lance and so on.....



Jousting horses where chosen for their ability to maintain a steady force allowing control of the alignment...


good choice of analogy T ...


short sharp exchange in little time makes for a short fight. no lance to stop me and your skewered.


if you take this to a micro version and have two lances one leading and facing ,depending on what side the opponents coming at you...the rear lance as the follow up...to displacement...we want to spear the guy at least 3 times ! for effect...
If they have the same ability then the tactics are obvious , try to turn them from getting alignment with either lance...

face offs are from side stances to allow shifts to the opponents 'lance' side entry left or right , back , forwards, angling right , left, ducking ....

aka line of force entry angles...., so if they they come at us with for example.... leading left grabbing hand to throw a big right...what side would you want to cut across to shut down the big right or if they come with ...a leading jab, right cross. front left kick , left upper cut, right upper cut. reverse punch right or left.

[YungChun]

good choice of analogy T ...



Yeah, he walked right into that one didn't he? LOL

And in taking/occupying the most direct path with his lance--he prevents his opponent from doing the same--such that the attacking lance defends.. :D

He argues best when he argues your point.. :cool::D

[k gledhill]

thats why tan and jum are elbow control energies to allow the corresponding side we need to be there for either arm/lance...all we do is face and cycle spearing ....the point of the spear never leaves the line...we just make the horse turn to keep pressur eon or recover a starting jousting attack again...if we fall off the horse we start waving axes ..cool huh ?

because most ma systems use the arm alone for blocks or wrists/hands to chase our leading entry our wu spearing follow up becomes a new leading lance attack...

the rear hand always comes across our centerline so it naturally 'sweeps' the line of any incoming lance force that can kill us in the samer entry...tut sao is this lance swapping...like swapping lances from one side to the other, we only use this once to reclaim the angles....

the beginning of each form starts with this centerline sweeping with each wrist ...elbows in then back to double wu sao...

impenetrable attack line allows non thinking assaults.

[k gledhill]

Yeah, he walked right into that one didn't he? LOL

And in taking/occupying the most direct path with his lance--he prevents his opponent from doing the same--such that the attacking lance defends.. :D

He argues best when he argues your point.. :cool::D

he just doesnt know why ...;) :D:D

[t_niehoff]

Yeah, he walked right into that one didn't he? LOL

And in taking/occupying the most direct path with his lance--he prevents his opponent from doing the same--such that the attacking lance defends.. :D

He argues best when he argues your point.. :cool::D

You guys are seriously, scarily deluded -- to the point of being unintentionally funny..

Look, my joisting analogy was used ONLY to illustrate how power transfer takes place (center to center connection to break structure) -- I could just as easily used the stiff-arm in American football to make my point -- and NOT as how we "intercept" or take an angle or any other of your nonsensical theory. Empty hand fighting doesn't correspond with what goes on in joisting. Oh, Lord! I have trouble believing anyone -- and certainly not anyone with any fighting experience -- would think so. It's so patently silly. People who fight you aren't going to throw straight, WCK-type sissy punches that you can deflect ("the rear hand always comes across our centerline so it naturally 'sweeps' the line of any incoming lance force that can kill us in the samer entry"), where you can shift to "get an angle" for your lance, etc.

Please, do yourselves a favor, and get out and spar. Go see what fighting is really like.

[Matrix]

No. The WCK punch (striking) doesn't use rotation for power transfer. If you know the mechanics of the WCK punch (strike), then you know what you are doing is hitting with your center into his center to destroy it. A good analogy is like what the joisting knight's lance does when it hits his opponent -- it drives into him, knocking him off his horse. You can't get that mechanic via rotation (which is why the knight doesn't rotate).. I did not say "rotation". I referred to using "hip action", which is not the same as rotation.

The horse analogy is both good and bad. If you are using a galloping horse (I'm referring to the animal here) then you have that power to drive the opponent off their horse. So the knight does not need to generate any power from his hips since the animal is doing that for him. Also, in the joust, the knights are on 2 different lines, they must angle off to ensure that the lance is on-target. If they remained perfectly square to their line of approach they would just run past each other. Not exactly the expected result.

However, our horse must drive the punch from the ground up. I mentioned shifting and stepping too, since I interpreted your previous post as saying we stand in a YJKYM stance all the time including drill and chi sao. Since the opponent may move :eek: then we must be able to respond to that. Or, I may want to take a new line, depending on the situation - this may require a shift or footwork. I was not talking specifically about the punch. So that's my fault if I went off on a bit of a tangent.

[SAAMAG]

Originally Posted by t_niehoff
No. The WCK punch (striking) doesn't use rotation for power transfer. If you know the mechanics of the WCK punch (strike), then you know what you are doing is hitting with your center into his center to destroy it. A good analogy is like what the joisting knight's lance does when it hits his opponent -- it drives into him, knocking him off his horse. You can't get that mechanic via rotation (which is why the knight doesn't rotate)..

Hmmm...the joust analogy is a good one for the punch. Hitting center with center. Good verbiage. I think I'll steal it when I teach! lol.

[YungChun]

Empty hand fighting doesn't correspond with what goes on in joisting. Oh, Lord! I have trouble believing anyone -- and certainly not anyone with any fighting experience -- would think so. It's so patently silly. People who fight you aren't going to throw straight, WCK-type sissy punches that you can deflect


VT is based on centerline theory among other things..

I know you don't understand what this means or how VT uses the line, or what the significance of the centerline is.. You've made that clear..and that's probably why you find it of no use..

VT occupies the line--the shortest/fastest path from our center to theirs via attack in order to release a flow of power and force--an unbroken line of force in order to break structure and do damage while preventing the opponent from using (or stopping) this line of connected power via the tools and changes we see in the forms, plus some..

There are certainly similarities that can be found in many places including a joust or fencing.. No, not exactly the same, that's because these other things are not the same, just similar in some respects re the use of the line.

You can mutter "attach" and "the faat" (twitch) all day but it doesn't change the fact that VT is based on and uses the centerline in conjunction with forward energy to create an unbroken line of force.. without the centerline you have no VT because its use is at the heart of all VT's tactics.

I know to you it's "the controlling hand defends.." and VT to you is like Lobster Kung-Fu--all control and attachment.. Yet where is the term "Control and attach" in the kuit?

[k gledhill]

You guys are seriously, scarily deluded -- to the point of being unintentionally funny..

Look, my joisting analogy was used ONLY to illustrate how power transfer takes place (center to center connection to break structure) -- I could just as easily used the stiff-arm in American football to make my point -- and NOT as how we "intercept" or take an angle or any other of your nonsensical theory. Empty hand fighting doesn't correspond with what goes on in joisting. Oh, Lord! I have trouble believing anyone -- and certainly not anyone with any fighting experience -- would think so. It's so patently silly. People who fight you aren't going to throw straight, WCK-type sissy punches that you can deflect ("the rear hand always comes across our centerline so it naturally 'sweeps' the line of any incoming lance force that can kill us in the samer entry"), where you can shift to "get an angle" for your lance, etc.

Please, do yourselves a favor, and get out and spar. Go see what fighting is really like.


You still dont get it....:D

[t_niehoff]

I did not say "rotation". I referred to using "hip action", which is not the same as rotation.

The horse analogy is both good and bad. If you are using a galloping horse (I'm referring to the animal here) then you have that power to drive the opponent off their horse. So the knight does not need to generate any power from his hips since the animal is doing that for him. Also, in the joust, the knights are on 2 different lines, they must angle off to ensure that the lance is on-target. If they remained perfectly square to their line of approach they would just run past each other. Not exactly the expected result.


But we DO have a horse (ma=horse).

You are taking the analogy beyond -- with angles, etc. -- what I was using it to illustrate (power).

When we hit, we hit with our center (think of it as a solid vertical beam or column of mass in our bodies), so that we strike, we actually are hitting with that beam/column into the opponent's vertical beam with our arm simply acting a a conduit (like the lance in the jousting analogy or the stiff-arm in football). It's not the arm that powers it, and hip rotation doesn't strike with your center but rotates around it. If you grasp this way of striking, you see why functionally we punch in the center, why the punch is straight (nothing to do with the shortest distance crap),why the elbow is down, why the fist is vertical, etc. And, you'll see why it's nothing like what a boxer or kickboxer does.



However, our horse must drive the punch from the ground up. I mentioned shifting and stepping too, since I interpreted your previous post as saying we stand in a YJKYM stance all the time including drill and chi sao. Since the opponent may move :eek: then we must be able to respond to that. Or, I may want to take a new line, depending on the situation - this may require a shift or footwork. I was not talking specifically about the punch. So that's my fault if I went off on a bit of a tangent.

Yes, the hip is involved but the power doesn't come from the hip but from our center driving into our opponent (we can't move without involving the hip). The body (our center) is the hammer and our arm the nail.

From my perspective, YJKYM isn't a "stance" but a horse, a way of using our body. You can step, turn, etc. and still use YJKYM. YJKYM is the hammer.

[k gledhill]

I did not say "rotation". I referred to using "hip action", which is not the same as rotation.

The horse analogy is both good and bad. If you are using a galloping horse (I'm referring to the animal here) then you have that power to drive the opponent off their horse. So the knight does not need to generate any power from his hips since the animal is doing that for him. Also, in the joust, the knights are on 2 different lines, they must angle off to ensure that the lance is on-target. If they remained perfectly square to their line of approach they would just run past each other. Not exactly the expected result.

However, our horse must drive the punch from the ground up. I mentioned shifting and stepping too, since I interpreted your previous post as saying we stand in a YJKYM stance all the time including drill and chi sao. Since the opponent may move :eek: then we must be able to respond to that. Or, I may want to take a new line, depending on the situation - this may require a shift or footwork. I was not talking specifically about the punch. So that's my fault if I went off on a bit of a tangent.


your bang on correct..hip action. major part of the system. the horse analogy is good and bad yes ; ) but conveys the point....we should say quarter horse that can cut out individuals from the herd...turn on a dime etc... galloping in one direction is a harder line of force to stop and re-direct...
something we try to avoid obviously.

what terence doesnt grasp is the subtlety of the arm actions in close quarters working this idea at full speed, attacking someone, not trying to 'control' them... you can explain it but its easier hands on to understand what your going through when its doen to you....over pretty quick.


and as for the hip and elbow connection in chum kil this for power generation from nothing..to sudden explosive energy bursts that are matched through form repetition...not elbow then hip or vice versa..together. Add arm actions and you harness this. hard to do in the drills takes focused trial and error.
Momentum is largely focused on as well...by being static we lose momentum and any efficient use of parry and strike in simultaneous actions...

Terence cant see this because hes following a different line of thought. Just because he cant see it doesnt mean it doesnt exist...: )

[t_niehoff]

You still dont get it....:D

Oh, I know what you are talking about -- but it's complete and utter nonsense.

[k gledhill]

Oh, I know what you are talking about -- but it's complete and utter nonsense.


you mean doing vt for years and ending up in a dirty clinch makes sense to you ?


I rest my case, terence is delusional.

[YungChun]

you mean doing vt for years and ending up in a dirty clinch makes sense to you ?


I rest my case, terence is delusional.

Well considering his sex addiction T constantly finding himself in a "dirty clinch" actually makes a lot of sense.. :cool::D

You are what you eat after all.. LOL

[Matrix]

But we DO have a horse (ma=horse).T. I know we have a horse. C'mon give me a break. I was just saying that in your analogy the horse is a separate entity from the rider. But the analogy is valid none the less.


You are taking the analogy beyond -- with angles, etc. -- what I was using it to illustrate (power). I could be. The problem with an anology is that it is only analgous to a point, after which it can go astray. Sorry about that.


When we hit, we hit with our center (think of it as a solid vertical beam or column of mass in our bodies), so that we strike, we actually are hitting with that beam/column into the opponent's vertical beam with our arm simply acting a a conduit (like the lance in the jousting analogy or the stiff-arm in football). It's not the arm that powers it, and hip rotation doesn't strike with your center but rotates around it. If you grasp this way of striking, you see why functionally we punch in the center, why the punch is straight (nothing to do with the shortest distance crap),why the elbow is down, why the fist is vertical, etc. And, you'll see why it's nothing like what a boxer or kickboxer does.
Yes, the center-of mass. But since we are moving around this center of mass, it is the hip that transfers the power to the strike from the COM.

I'm increasingly getting the sense that we're saying pretty much the same thing, but we're each emphasizing different parts of the mechanics. For me the center of mass is there, and we move around the COM. I think of the hip to bring the whole body into the strike, but that's me. I'm a little crazy that way.


Yes, the hip is involved but the power doesn't come from the hip but from our center driving into our opponent (we can't move without involving the hip). The body (our center) is the hammer and our arm the nail.You cannot move without moving the hip, of course. The key is, WHEN to move it, or end that movement, relative the strike. So it's a timing issue. I would say our whole body is the hammer, using your terminology. If you're stepping, or using hip action, then it must be timed so the whole body arrives in concert with the strike landing on the opponent.



From my perspective, YJKYM isn't a "stance" but a horse, a way of using our body. You can step, turn, etc. and still use YJKYM. YJKYM is the hammer. OK. If you're making that distinction I'm following you. I've always thought of YJKYM is a stance and fairly static. Once you move it's a variation of YJKYM, but I just see it as a different thing. If you asked someone to show you YJKYM, there is a high probablity that they will go into that stance. But then again, that shouldn't limit an individual's point of view.

[t_niehoff]

T. I know we have a horse. C'mon give me a break. I was just saying that in your analogy the horse is a separate entity from the rider. But the analogy is valid none the less.

I could be. The problem with an anology is that it is only analgous to a point, after which it can go astray. Sorry about that.


No problem.



Yes, the center-of mass. But since we are moving around this center of mass, it is the hip that transfers the power to the strike from the COM.


I'm not sure I follow you. We are not moving around this center of mass, we are moving this center of mass itself, projecting it into our opponent.

It's not the hip that transfers power, it is our entire body. The hip is no more involved than our big toe (which is also involved).



I'm increasingly getting the sense that we're saying pretty much the same thing, but we're each emphasizing different parts of the mechanics. For me the center of mass is there, and we move around the COM. I think of the hip to bring the whole body into the strike, but that's me. I'm a little crazy that way.


I don't move "around" the center, I move the center -- that (the center) is what hits you (as a unit). The hip plays a role but no more that the legs, the feet, our buttocks, our waist, our etc.



You cannot move without moving the hip, of course. The key is, WHEN to move it, or end that movement, relative the strike. So it's a timing issue. I would say our whole body is the hammer, using your terminology. If you're stepping, or using hip action, then it must be timed so the whole body arrives in concert with the strike landing on the opponent.


To change analogies, consider when you throw a ball (as fast and as far as you can). Is it your hip that throws the ball? Or just your arm? Or, your legs? Or, your waist? Or what? It's the whole package, your whole body acting in unison, that throws the ball.

The other thing is that as I see it, it's not my whole body arrives in concert with the strike but rather my whole body is DOING the striking. For example, imagine doing a body slam into your opponent (with your chest/torso -- the hammer). That's the WCK punch -- only you have extended an arm (the nail). You punch WITH the body, not the arm.



OK. If you're making that distinction I'm following you. I've always thought of YJKYM is a stance and fairly static. Once you move it's a variation of YJKYM, but I just see it as a different thing. If you asked someone to show you YJKYM, there is a high probablity that they will go into that stance. But then again, that shouldn't limit an individual's point of view.

It's not a variation of YJKYM, it IS YJKYM. YJKYM is using your body in a certain way. You can do it stationary or while moving. You're right that most people would drop into a poor stance. That only illustrates their level. Same with ask someone to show you a tan sao and most will show you a shape and not an action.

[k gledhill]

Your analogy is so general, try tennis something your say your good at....remember, balls dont hit back ;)

we have specific areas we concentrate on when doing stance drills ...for me to say " we use the whole body" is a blanket generalism that leaves the student in the same place , like using his whole body to walk to class, to go to the store, wck is that simple ...:D

Terence is still confused....after how long ? twitch twitch ,, the faat, twitch...:D

theres more to a VT punch than meets the eyes...thats why he cant explain what he cant see.


read what he isnt saying....when guys generalize, its because ?

Ive seen the same in other schools, a guy will take a student to the dummy show a move then walk away saying "feel the chi"!

[t_niehoff]

Your analogy is so general, try tennis something your say your good at....remember, balls dont hit back ;)

we have specific areas we concentrate on when doing stance drills ...for me to say " we use the whole body" is a blanket generalism that leaves the student in the same place , like using his whole body to walk to class, to go to the store, wck is that simple ...:D


I've explained what I mean through several posts -- what don't you get? WKC's mechanic is to hit with our center into his center, like a hammer-nail, to break his structure. The whole body is a hammer, the arm is the nail.

Stance drills! LOL! There are no stances in WCK. The WCK horses are various ways of using our body to DO very specific things. You train the horses by doing those things.



Terence is still confused....after how long ? twitch twitch ,, the faat, twitch...:D

theres more to a VT punch than meets the eyes...thats why he cant explain what he cant see.

read what he isnt saying....when guys generalize, its because ?

Ive seen the same in other schools, a guy will take a student to the dummy show a move then walk away saying "feel the chi"!

I'm not generalizing, I'm saying WCK has a very SPECIFIC way of using our body to strike -- and it has nothing to do with how boxers or kickboxers use their body or the nonsense you talk about. I've described it. I've given several analogies to explain it. I've shown how that fits into the faat, how it is described in the kuit, how it is reflected in the forms and drills.

[k gledhill]

I've explained what I mean through several posts -- what don't you get? WKC's mechanic is to hit with our center into his center, like a hammer-nail, to break his structure. The whole body is a hammer, the arm is the nail.

Stance drills! LOL! There are no stances in WCK. The WCK horses are various ways of using our body to DO very specific things. You train the horses by doing those things.



I'm not generalizing, I'm saying WCK has a very SPECIFIC way of using our body to strike -- and it has nothing to do with how boxers or kickboxers use their body or the nonsense you talk about. I've described it. I've given several analogies to explain it. I've shown how that fits into the faat, how it is described in the kuit, how it is reflected in the forms and drills.

hammer and nail got it ....: )
wow that's so awesome...and you just move you ygkym ...ooooh double awesome..

over analogizing is also a sign....its called missing the small details.

your missing the small details....

[t_niehoff]

hammer and nail got it ....: )
wow that's so awesome...and you just move you ygkym ...ooooh double awesome..

over analogizing is also a sign....its called missing the small details.

your missing the small details....

And you're missing the big picture. :)

[Matrix]

I'm not sure I follow you. We are not moving around this center of mass, we are moving this center of mass itself, projecting it into our opponent.Well, as I see it, it's both. You are moving the COM and moving your about it. In other words, the body is not a static object like a solid vertical beam, it more a system of component parts that must be made to work together. As my COM is moving to the opponent, I am also incorporating hip action into the process. I agree that legs, feet etc are all incorporated. For me, I think hip, everything else is attached, oddly enough. Maybe it's wrong to say hip action, but it works for me.


It's not the hip that transfers power, it is our entire body. The hip is no more involved than our big toe (which is also involved). Yes, the big toe is involved, but that's a topic for another thread. ;)
I have to say the hip action is more important than the big toe, but I'm partial to hip action.


The other thing is that as I see it, it's not my whole body arrives in concert with the strike but rather my whole body is DOING the striking. For example, imagine doing a body slam into your opponent (with your chest/torso -- the hammer). That's the WCK punch -- only you have extended an arm (the nail). You punch WITH the body, not the arm.Yes. I absolutely agree. The question (already dealt with) is how do you get the full potential power of your whole body to Do the striking. Easier to say, than to actually do.


It's not a variation of YJKYM, it IS YJKYM. YJKYM is using your body in a certain way. You can do it stationary or while moving. You're right that most people would drop into a poor stance. That only illustrates their level. Same with ask someone to show you a tan sao and most will show you a shape and not an action.Like I said the last time, I have no problem with looking at it this way, I just tend to think of it slightly differently. If we are having an online discussion and we use the term YJKYM, then do I have to ask "Is that stationary or moving?" If someone says Huen Ma, or Bik Ma I have a good idea what they're saying. In any case, I see what you're saying and don't have a problem with it.

[t_niehoff]

Well, as I see it, it's both. You are moving the COM and moving your about it. In other words, the body is not a static object like a solid vertical beam, it more a system of component parts that must be made to work together. As my COM is moving to the opponent, I am also incorporating hip action into the process. I agree that legs, feet etc are all incorporated. For me, I think hip, everything else is attached, oddly enough. Maybe it's wrong to say hip action, but it works for me.


You are focusing WAY too much on the hip. The hip plays no more of a role than anything else.



Yes, the big toe is involved, but that's a topic for another thread. ;)
I have to say the hip action is more important than the big toe, but I'm partial to hip action.


Actually, the big toe perhaps plays a greater role than the hip. Do you use your hips when you run? Sure. Do you use your big toes when you run? Sure. Which is more important? As I see it, you can't run without both.

WCK striking isn't hitting with or from your hips. It's hitting with your body structure. And that structure begins with your toes (if you aren't on the balls of your feet, you don't have good WCK structure).



Yes. I absolutely agree. The question (already dealt with) is how do you get the full potential power of your whole body to Do the striking. Easier to say, than to actually do.


You need to have someone who can do that skill teach it to youl, and then you practice doing that skill. It's no more difficult to learn than the mechanics of a boxer's hook.



Like I said the last time, I have no problem with looking at it this way, I just tend to think of it slightly differently. If we are having an online discussion and we use the term YJKYM, then do I have to ask "Is that stationary or moving?" If someone says Huen Ma, or Bik Ma I have a good idea what they're saying. In any case, I see what you're saying and don't have a problem with it.

I think we may be further apart than you believe.

[Matrix]

I think we may be further apart than you believe. After reading your last response, I've determined you're right. What the heck was I thinking?

[Ultimatewingchun]

Was waiting for that one, Bill...

You didn't disappoint! :)

[k gledhill]

And you're missing the big picture. :)

yeah I'm missing YOUR big picture ;) the nail and hammer , I will meditate on its depth, be back in a moment............................................ .................................:confused:
nope cant see it :D

have fun with your crayons, twitch twitch...

[Matrix]

Was waiting for that one, Bill...

You didn't disappoint! :)Victor,
I'm not quite sure what you're getting at, but I can say that I am disappointed.
I know there's a lot of anger being directed at Terence in this forum, but I don't buy into that. I think he makes some good points but I am often left wondering what the goal is here.
NOTE: These are rehtorical questions. No response is required.

Peace,
Bill

[Sihing73]

Victor,
I'm not quite sure what you're getting at, but I can say that I am disappointed.
I know there's a lot of anger being directed at Terence in this forum, but I don't buy into that. I think he makes some good points but I am often left wondering what the goal is here.
NOTE: These are rehtorical questions. No response is required.

Peace,
Bill

Hello,

I would say that lately, T is presenting some very good points worthy of discussion.

Wait a moment........................did I actually say something in support of Terence :eek: Surely a sign that the end times are upon us :D

[Yoshiyahu]

Well really interesting.

I have been reading T's post. Much of what he says reminds me of my lineage. We too use the balls of our feet. But I like to share a few things.

With the Wing Chun punch, its alot different than Choy Li Fut, Chang Quan(Long Fist) or a Boxers punch. I like the whole Nail and Hammer thing. Although Terrence I think you have gotten the nail and hammer backwards or mixed up. I always thought of the nail being the Fist and the hammer is the power behind the fist driving the nail into the wood or body driving the fist into your opponents body. But any way its all good! I get your points and wouldn't dream of taking away from them. Infact I agree on all fronts. I believe some people are arguing with you on the basis of past greviances. But anyway great analogy. I found myself intriqued by what you had to say. From my own studies of WC power generation with the punches I have found various ways to manifest the power or increase output. Now asside from the obivious building of external and internal power from practice which means 100 to 1000 push ups daily, 1000 punches in the air,Punches on the wall bag, functional weight training and stamina training. You have several mechanics with in the WC to boost your power. Needless to say 100lbs vegetarian weakling will not be able to stand up 100 or more push a day heavy bag hitting meat eater. If both use the same mechanics and theory of course the one who does 100 or more push ups a day will hit harder with WC mechanics. Because the velocity is going to be greater. Im not going to go into the whole inch power discussion I will save that for another time.

But basically ways to generate WC Punch power with the body.

First of all the Center, some call it the Root others call it Internal Force or Chi. I call it the Body. Using your body to generate force. Now in YKS we curl and release upon impact which gives us greater retraction force. There is also the ability to increase leverage with the punch by shifting your horse(stance). This will add power. Now if you utilize the breath and snap at end of your punch, this will give you even more power. Now imagine doing all this and at the same time stepping forward. And their are additional ways to add power. Some call it Jing/Geng. I will not go indepth about this. I will let those who feel they know more about subject discuss it greater clarity. But in either case. Let me give you the List.

1.Whole body (Curl and Torso Expansion)
2.Breathe out - With snap at end of the fist
3.Twist Hips (Turning Horse)
4.Stepping Horse(Advancing horse)
5.Jing/Geng

***In my lineage "Stepping Rotating Side Punch" or "Moving Single Dragon Punch" would be the equivelent of utilizing most and or all of the above ways to generate power in your punch.

http://www.wingchunkuen.com/sumnung/articles/article_ritchie02_01.jpg

Now if you combined them all together when you punch you will have a devasting blow driving into their center. It will be like having a spear and driving into someones sternum or heart. The force use to impale them will be devasting. WC punches are like impalment in a way. Your driving the force directly in. Where as Choy Li fut uses swinging motions to generate power. WC uses forward or advancing energy.

Now of course the power is manifested from the ground up. In other words the force you generate starts with your toes and feet,goes up your legs to your hips and Waist, up your spine and through your shoulders to your elbow and wrist and out your knuckles. Think of your Joints as conduits for your power. If this talking is too high sounding and too philospical for you. Let me make it simple for you.

Find an opponent who is hundred or more pounds Heavier than you. Try to move him with a punch. If you find yourself moving back or feel your legs buckle under pressure or you feel a strenous sensation in your knees or feet to where you loose your footing then you will understand you have a weakness there that needs to be worked out. To do so you can hit an heavy bag or a tree with extremely padded gloves or hit a sand wall bag on a cement wall. When you punch the Wall Bag or Tree with out loosing your stance then you will have the understanding you need. Of course with a leather heavy bag you may not need gloves. But a canvas bag you will need training gloves to advoid scaring your knuckles.

When you can hit the Wall Bag and not loose your stance, Hit the heavy bag and not be moved or Punched a tree with severly gloved hands an not loose your footing then you will have acheived whole body force. After that other elements can be added to improve,increase, and excel your power. But with out whole body force where your entire body moves as a unit you will never have the Hammer. A nail with out a hammer is useless. Just try driving a nail in some wood with a pillow and tell me how that works for you. So your body needs to be train to become a hammer too. Just knowing the theory of something aint good for shyt(Shlt). You need practicality behind your talk. In other words it needs to be practiced, tested,experimented with and proven. Once you able to control your horse under pressure. Now its time to try it out by drilling with a bigger partner. Once your able to affect his structure with out loosing yours then you can Test and Prove it against a real, aggressive resisting opponent!

Well thats it for now. I pray you guys don't critque my writing to badly. Anyway I pray this helps someone out there!

- A weak body must start with strength improvement.

- Internally develop the chi; externally train the tendons, bones and muscles.

- Power is generated from the joints. Strength originates from the heels.

- In uniting the waist with the stance, power can be generated.

- Coordinate the hands and feet. Movement is together.

- To maintain good balance of strength, grip the ground with the toes.

- The knees lead the stance. The waist links the body. Where the mind goes, the eyes go, and the hands and feet follow.

- Feet and hands work together, and the threat comes to an end.

[SAAMAG]

Thanks for the info Yoshi!

[Yoshiyahu]

Thanks for the info Yoshi!

Your welcome Vankuen