Chum Kiu [Archive] - Kung Fu Magazine Forums

wingchunIan

02-03-2012, 05:57 AM

What does chum kiu mean to you? Not the literal translation although there seem to be many variations of that, or the sequence of techniques, but what do people deem is the purpose (s) of the form?
I thought I'd throw this out there for general discussion as I'm genuinely interested in how much variety there is across the different lineages / schools. If this has been done before then apologies to the veterans but I couldn't see it anywhere.

For me the form is about getting safely into range and finding the safe route to the opponent's jic seen whilst also introducing concepts that build on SNT such as, disconnection of upper and lower body for power, range of motion and ability to go "sung", as well as introducing recovery from mistakes / sub-optimal positions.
As the opinions vary so much on SNT, the basic shapes, chi su and just about everything else I'm sure that there'll be plenty of views, and it would be good to hear them.

trubblman

02-03-2012, 07:29 AM

To me Chum Kiu provides examples of how to use the feet, legs, waist, hands and arms as a unit. It's a power form that shows how power is generated not by muscles but by turning. What Chum Kiu shows are foundational, in other words the techniques are more instructive than authoritative.

Phil Redmond

02-03-2012, 08:09 AM

To simply, it trains what to do once a bridge in made. ;)

WingChunABQ

02-03-2012, 08:39 AM

1. Putting techniques into "operational mode". Two handed techniques combined with motion.

2. Body unity - developing a moveable base to apply the power out of the YJKYM, linking hand techniques with footwork.

3. Footwork- stepping, turning, twisting, kicking.

4. Range work - a study in linking wrist range and elbow range and back out again.

LoneTiger108

02-03-2012, 11:31 AM

It's a power form.

That's the simplest way to look at it fme.

It's about 'taming the tiger', which is another way of saying that it is designed to restrict the opponents upper and lower body, so as further techniques can be launched.

It's specific sets of 'methods' and should be trained thoroughly.

Eric_H

02-03-2012, 07:40 PM

When the opponent can be dealt with without moving - you use Siu Nim Tao technology.

When the opponent forces you to move, you use Chum Kiu technology.

Phil Redmond

02-03-2012, 08:41 PM

I should've added that it depend on what WC lineage you do. Chum and mean sink and it can mean search depending on the Cantonese tone you use. Some say sinking bridge, some say searching bridge.

Vajramusti

02-04-2012, 04:17 AM

LoneTiger108

02-04-2012, 10:01 AM

I should've added that it depend on what WC lineage you do. Chum and mean sink and it can mean search depending on the Cantonese tone you use. Some say sinking bridge, some say searching bridge.

Pretty silly really wouldn't you say? What is the character? How many variables does that throw up?? What is the form for exactly?

There is only one character for Chum, and I was always taught seeking or searching.

http://translate.google.com/#zh-CN|en|%E5%B0%8B%0A

wingchunIan

02-04-2012, 01:41 PM

I should've added that it depend on what WC lineage you do. Chum and mean sink and it can mean search depending on the Cantonese tone you use. Some say sinking bridge, some say searching bridge.

I was trying to avoid just debating the literal meaning and was hoping to tease out some of the differences in theory. So far eveyone seems to concur about the introduction of movement and the generation of power but I'd love to hear from some of the "sinking the bridge" schools and some of those who are critical of using a bridge.

Lee Chiang Po

02-04-2012, 05:37 PM

It is hard to be specific when using chinese symbals. It leads to interpretations in theory, which is nothing more than unproven possibilities. Use a more simple and explicit language like english and you can be far more precise.
Some of the explanations I have read here says no one knows what they are talking about. It is no wonder WC has so many different lineages. And spellings. A very good example of this is a few posts back. Sil Lim technology for when you stand still to fight and chum kil when you are forced to move. These are purely training methods where you take it in steps or stages. You can't learn it all at once and you need to do it in phases. step 1 step 2 step 3 , and so on. There is nothing hidden within the forms. Nothing at all. It is all right there and it has no mysterious meanings. And you can more accurately teach it or explain it if you forget all the chinese and symbols.

trubblman

02-04-2012, 06:59 PM

Sil Lim technology for when you stand still to fight and chum kil when you are forced to move. .

Absolutely not.

Grumblegeezer

02-04-2012, 07:07 PM

It is hard to be specific when using chinese symbals. It leads to interpretations in theory, which is nothing more than unproven possibilities.... you can more accurately teach it or explain it if you forget all the chinese and symbols.

An interesting perspective coming from a Chinese speaker. My old Sifu, also Chinese said the same thing. Yet we, his English speaking students, find ourselves intrigued by this ancient language that we don't understand, or only understand poorly... and look to it hoping to find secret answers, when maybe hard training and practical experience is what we really need. But where's the fun in that? LOL

Vajramusti

02-04-2012, 07:26 PM

For me I try to find out the truth in concepts or motions. I neither dogmatically accept or reject
language. Texts point to a subject- they are not themselves subjects.

joy chaudhuri

Phil Redmond

02-05-2012, 12:04 AM

Pretty silly really wouldn't you say? What is the character? How many variables does that throw up?? What is the form for exactly?

There is only one character for Chum, and I was always taught seeking or searching.

http://translate.google.com/#zh-CN|en|%E5%B0%8B%0A

Not silly at all my Wing Chun brother. I studied Cantonese at a University in NYC. We uses the Yale University Romanization which is in most people's opinion the best one for people who use the Roman alphabet. Anyway, though some say there are 8 tones Yale teaches that there are 7 "musical" tones in Cantonese unlike the 4 used in Mandarin. Mandarin is a lot easier for non-Chinese to learn. For an example of the 7 tones I'll use the Cantonese word Hai. Now in Yale there would be an accent mark either rising or falling to determine the pitch of the word. If you know music then you'll know there is Treble and Bass Clef. So the letter H is use to show a low tone. Hai is going to be a higher pitch that Haih. But since I don't know how to add accent marks here I'll just use Hai. So let's say there are 7 different musical tones to say Hai. Hai can mean shoe, the verb 'to be', crab, a point in space, vagina, etc. They may all sound the same to a non-native speaker but they are very different. There's a story about Bruce Lee having an English boy over to eat and they were serving crab but the boy unknowingly said please pass the vagina. Chum is the same way. The two Chums I mentioned would be different characters just like the different Hai. In the pole form there is a Diu Mah (hanging horse), stance. Diu can also mean fornicate and Mah can mean mother. Get my point? Mah can also mean Marijuana. Some English speakers think the Tao is SLT means Do (Path/Way). But it literally mean head. To summarize, Cantonese word a word can sound the same to the untrained ear but have 7 different meanings and 7 different characters.

Phil Redmond

02-05-2012, 12:10 AM

If you look at page 131 in the glossary of the Complete Wing Chun book you'll see the two different characters for Chum along with their two different meanings. Try this is you want to use Romanized Cantonese words: http://www.cantonese.sheik.co.uk/dictionary/

Phil Redmond

02-05-2012, 12:14 AM

Let me add that I learned both methods of CK from different Sifus. They both have their value depending on the circumstance.

Vajramusti

02-05-2012, 05:43 AM

Additionally I look at the dynamics of a well done form to understand it's meanings.

Spencer IMO puts greater faith on the character alone and what he says his sifu told him.

Different tones for chum gives you different meanings. I don't know what character Ip Man
(Not Ip Chun and others) used himself. He did not write much. He taught by verbal instruction, correction etc not by writing for the most part.

There is more to the form than "searching for the bridge"

Spoken instruction pre dates the written in traditional wing chun transmission, IMO

joy chaudhuri

LoneTiger108

02-05-2012, 08:52 AM

Let me add that I learned both methods of CK from different Sifus. They both have their value depending on the circumstance.

It gets more interesting and the holes get bigger and deeper my friend.

Please share the differences of both methods, because I am sure this is what Ian is interested in. I am too to be honest, as I remeber many things about Chum Kiu that referred to sinking, just not the name of the form ;)

LoneTiger108

02-05-2012, 08:58 AM

Spencer IMO puts greater faith on the character alone and what he says his sifu told him.

You are right on many levels Joy, but wrong too. I was only responding to Phils post, but that's fine.

Different tones for chum gives you different meanings. I don't know what character Ip Man (Not Ip Chun and others) used himself. He did not write much. He taught by verbal instruction, correction etc not by writing for the most part.

Yes he did teach verbally to the many students who passed through him in HK. But some were taught the language of Wing Chun itself too, especially if they were 'representing' him abroad and learning 'how to teach'.

But that's just what my Sifu says and I have never tried to find out anything more, or research things for myself :rolleyes:

CFT

02-07-2012, 05:52 AM

wingchunIan

02-07-2012, 07:09 AM

however you right it, say it, paint it or pronounce it, what do you do it for? what do you get out of practising it?

Yoshiyahu

02-07-2012, 09:25 AM

I was trying to avoid just debating the literal meaning and was hoping to tease out some of the differences in theory. So far eveyone seems to concur about the introduction of movement and the generation of power but I'd love to hear from some of the "sinking the bridge" schools and some of those who are critical of using a bridge.

There are drills I do to close the gap. Once the gap is closed and your with in range to bridge...Seeking the bridge is evident. When you seek the bridge you dont do so like you would with Chi Sau. You do so defensively while attacking. Some of techniques in chum kiu can be used to uproot or distabilize your opponent structure as you bridge the gap. Once the bridge is established you control your opponents centre.

Many techniques of chum kiu are utilize as others have already listed on page one...

I agree with these things people have said.

1.Waist Power - turning and shifting
2.Power through your sturcture as you use your footwork

Chum Kiu links some of the basic techniques of the san sik that deals with those two ways of issuing power. It is a form the links the drills so to speak.

But all three forms deal with so much more than underline techniques people list!!!

Eric H said:
When the opponent can be dealt with without moving - you use Siu Nim Tao technology.

When the opponent forces you to move, you use Chum Kiu technology.

I agree in short...just not the wording...It can be because your opponent is in motion or still or it could because you have advantage in one of the two areas. Using your structure and stepping into a stationary opponent with power can give you more for your buck. When an opponent retreats you can use Chum Kiu to retain contact and maintain a bridge. There are various techniques in chum kiu that can be adapted to entry techniques.

But just is just small synopsis on what I feel about chum kiu and what I meditate on when I practice it!

My Opinion: SLT teaches you how to face opponent in YGKYM and deal with his force. Where as Chum Kiu teaches you how to deal with an opponent force in a side stance. For instance it expounds on the footwork to generate power with the following techniques. Cho Mah(shifting), Biu Ma(darting or shooting) and Toh Ma(advancing or chasing). It links the stances into the form in addition to introducing a few kicks. In addition from the techniques that expand on Sil Lim Tao. Bil Gee Introduces Huen Ma or Circle step. Each Forms builds off the other and adds attributes. I believe the forms are like glossaries that can be dissected and adapted into drills that can develop your WC more. Of course as a westerner myself I do not have the time to fully develop such skills but the knowledge to do is there.

Video I like of Chum Kiu!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLYRtGfPx4M&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL

My Conclusion: As joy said there is more to chum kiu than seeking the bridge. But When i practice it thats what i focus on among other things. I do not know about the sinking bridge analogy. I would love to hear how people apply or train or drill sinking the bridge. i can merely speculate on sinking the bridge as it concides with Chum Kiu since I didnt learn this way. Please share!

LoneTiger108

02-07-2012, 10:23 AM

Sorry Spencer. There are many characters with the same sound and tone as Chum. Here are the ones for 'search' and 'sink':

Search: 尋 http://humanum.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/Lexis/lexi-can/search.php?q=%B4M
Sink:
沉 http://humanum.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/Lexis/lexi-can/search.php?q=%A8I
沈 http://humanum.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/Lexis/lexi-can/search.php?q=%A8H

Thanks for the info Chee, but if you know the character you know the character and the correct one (according to my transmition!) is 尋

I've already said why I practise the form, so it's good to see others views. As a brief example, I have demonstrated this form twice for my Sifu. Once at the Hackney Empire in front of about 300 people, and the second time was in a small sound stage.

Messed up the first one a bit, but it was epic if I may say so myself! The second time I was asked later to do it again because most didn't see it (because of the speed) and looking at this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLYRt..._order&list=UL I just can't take it seriously.

I'm sorry, but there are just too many things wrong in this specific version, which is also the same as Pan Nam and Cheung Bo lineage from my research. Except they had more control over their power lines than the YKS example in the clip imho.

Erratic, unconcentrated speed will not give you the power signature of a good Chum Kiu form imo and it will play havoc with your joints later in life lol! Looked like a typical CK that had no SLT base... (sorry Yoshiyahu!)

CFT

02-07-2012, 10:35 AM

Vajramusti

02-07-2012, 12:39 PM

That's fine Spencer. Just that it is a bit misleading to say there is only one character for Chum in general. Other lineages do use the 'sink' character. I'm not bothered by that per se. Just that the right characteristics are cultivated in the training.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

True. Dogmatic dependence on a character can miss many things.
Spencers link has a malformed video!! No matter- I have little interest in Pan Nam.

joy

LoneTiger108

02-07-2012, 01:32 PM

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

True. Dogmatic dependence on a character can miss many things.
Spencers link has a malformed video!! No matter- I have little interest in Pan Nam.

joy

It's okay I don't have a dogmatic dependence on the character at all, just sharing what I know as I have never seen the other characters used by anyone yet. I do love the language as this was how I was taught, but that's just me. I don't expect everyone to share the same interest.

The link was actually Yoshiyahu's one of a YKS version http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLYRtGfPx4M&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL

LoneTiger108

02-08-2012, 03:05 AM

Yes I am going to say it...

Nice post Kev! :)

(NOTE: Well, it was before you removed it! Strange...)

Treznor

02-08-2012, 03:30 AM

There are drills I do to close the gap. Once the gap is closed and your with in range to bridge...Seeking the bridge is evident. When you seek the bridge you dont do so like you would with Chi Sau. You do so defensively while attacking. Some of techniques in chum kiu can be used to uproot or distabilize your opponent structure as you bridge the gap. Once the bridge is established you control your opponents centre.

Many techniques of chum kiu are utilize as others have already listed on page one...

I agree with these things people have said.

1.Waist Power - turning and shifting
2.Power through your sturcture as you use your footwork

Chum Kiu links some of the basic techniques of the san sik that deals with those two ways of issuing power. It is a form the links the drills so to speak.

But all three forms deal with so much more than underline techniques people list!!!

Eric H said:

I agree in short...just not the wording...It can be because your opponent is in motion or still or it could because you have advantage in one of the two areas. Using your structure and stepping into a stationary opponent with power can give you more for your buck. When an opponent retreats you can use Chum Kiu to retain contact and maintain a bridge. There are various techniques in chum kiu that can be adapted to entry techniques.

But just is just small synopsis on what I feel about chum kiu and what I meditate on when I practice it!

My Opinion: SLT teaches you how to face opponent in YGKYM and deal with his force. Where as Chum Kiu teaches you how to deal with an opponent force in a side stance. For instance it expounds on the footwork to generate power with the following techniques. Cho Mah(shifting), Biu Ma(darting or shooting) and Toh Ma(advancing or chasing). It links the stances into the form in addition to introducing a few kicks. In addition from the techniques that expand on Sil Lim Tao. Bil Gee Introduces Huen Ma or Circle step. Each Forms builds off the other and adds attributes. I believe the forms are like glossaries that can be dissected and adapted into drills that can develop your WC more. Of course as a westerner myself I do not have the time to fully develop such skills but the knowledge to do is there.

Video I like of Chum Kiu!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLYRtGfPx4M&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL

My Conclusion: As joy said there is more to chum kiu than seeking the bridge. But When i practice it thats what i focus on among other things. I do not know about the sinking bridge analogy. I would love to hear how people apply or train or drill sinking the bridge. i can merely speculate on sinking the bridge as it concides with Chum Kiu since I didnt learn this way. Please share!

Whilst I was reading through this, I had one of those sudden flashes of inspiration (although it COULD be complete bobbins).

SLT, as we all know, is done in the basic YGKYM stance and doesn't shift from this... CK on the other hand involves movement, mainly at 90 degrees to the centreline established with YGKYM.

Bearing this in mind, is it fair to say that SLT is establishing techniques for inside gate whereas CK introduces techniques for the outside gate?

Looking forward to the responses on this :D

Mat

Vajramusti

02-08-2012, 06:51 AM

Whilst I was reading through this, I had one of those sudden flashes of inspiration (although it COULD be complete bobbins).

SLT, as we all know, is done in the basic YGKYM stance and doesn't shift from this... CK on the other hand involves movement, mainly at 90 degrees to the centreline established with YGKYM.

Bearing this in mind, is it fair to say that SLT is establishing techniques for inside gate whereas CK introduces techniques for the outside gate?

Looking forward to the responses on this :D

Mat
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Hi Treznor- IMO of course, hopefully without bobbins(?). While techniques emerge from slt and ck...
they are both about control and master coordinated motions of the entire body in different directions.

Chum kiu is not just about inside gates..it applies to all gates and directions. After understanding the body structure and hand structire in slt, chum kiu footwork is rich with subtleties.

joy chaudhuri

Treznor

02-08-2012, 07:13 AM

Yeah, I wasn't thinking in terms of SLT being exclusively inside gate and CK being exclusively outside gate... More that they introduce techniques / lend themselves to inside / outside gates.

Oh, and 'bobbins' basically means rubbish (at least in this context) :)

Mat

WingChunABQ

02-08-2012, 08:30 AM

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Hi Treznor- IMO of course, hopefully without bobbins(?). While techniques emerge from slt and ck...
they are both about control and master coordinated motions of the entire body in different directions.

Chum kiu is not just about inside gates..it applies to all gates and directions. After understanding the body structure and hand structire in slt, chum kiu footwork is rich with subtleties.

joy chaudhuri

In what ways would you say that SLT body structure/power generation related to those of Chum Kiu?

Yoshiyahu

02-08-2012, 02:33 PM

Whilst I was reading through this, I had one of those sudden flashes of inspiration (although it COULD be complete bobbins).

SLT, as we all know, is done in the basic YGKYM stance and doesn't shift from this... CK on the other hand involves movement, mainly at 90 degrees to the centreline established with YGKYM.

Bearing this in mind, is it fair to say that SLT is establishing techniques for inside gate whereas CK introduces techniques for the outside gate?

Looking forward to the responses on this :D

Mat

Yes thats a good way to put it...In my opinion i see it that way too but more so...Chum Kiu is what you do to create a bridge or when you lost connection and need to re-establish a bridge. An chi sau and slt is what you do once the bridge is made! When your bridging utilize chi sau and slt...when you have no bridge utilize chum kiu to create one!

But both forms have other elements with in them besides those two focal ideas!

anerlich

02-08-2012, 08:19 PM

Whilst I was reading through this, I had one of those sudden flashes of inspiration (although it COULD be complete bobbins).

SLT, as we all know, is done in the basic YGKYM stance and doesn't shift from this... CK on the other hand involves movement, mainly at 90 degrees to the centreline established with YGKYM.

Bearing this in mind, is it fair to say that SLT is establishing techniques for inside gate whereas CK introduces techniques for the outside gate?

I think you are on to something there.

However, I train a variation of SLT with footwork and (mostly) without YGKYM ... and in that context I believe SLT involves predominantly outer gate deflections and CK inner gate deflections.

Also, while the movement might be 90 degrees to the centreline in CK, I see a lot of the energy/intent approximately on the 45's (or from a TWC point of view, along the central line)(s).

imperialtaichi

02-08-2012, 11:54 PM

In my opinion, while SLT is great in building up structure, habit and power, it alone is not great for being the aggressor and getting into range. Try sparring with someone who is mobile (e.g. Boxers, MT etc) and see how well you do just using standard SLT and reactive Chi Sau techniques.

Chum Kiu, on the other hand, is great for being the "aggressor", actively moving in, "seeking the bridge", intercepting, jamming, chasing and pressing the opponent.

Of course, part of dominating the opponent is through "sinking bridge" to almost lock him in and take away his mobility. Almost like a "clinch" but not really at the same time.

In a fight, it is necessary to be the "dominator", be active instead of reactive. Make the opponent deal with you, instead of you dealing with the opponent.

wingchunIan

02-09-2012, 02:01 AM

Treznor

02-09-2012, 02:36 AM

As it happens we worked through the first couple of sections of CK in training last night...

In addition to everything else that's been mentioned here, there also seems to be a lot of emphasis on the elbows connection to the hip and, when that connection is lost, how to regain it.

Mat

LoneTiger108

02-09-2012, 04:52 AM

As it happens we worked through the first couple of sections of CK in training last night...

Just out of curiosity Mat, how long did you say you had been training? From what I remember you were very very young (5 months?) so is it normal to learn Chum Kiu so early?

This for me is a major problem with commercial teaching/learning.

Treznor

02-09-2012, 05:02 AM

I started last August so 6 months now.

Basically, until the beginning of this year, there was only myself and 1 other guy training at the club since it has only just been setup.

Our sifu has only just started teaching but it was HIS sifu who oversaw the grading last November and decided that we were progressing well (a combination of 2 on 1 tuition and working with the other guy so we get to train at dinner times as well).

Mat

LoneTiger108

02-09-2012, 05:24 AM

So are you saying you have put in more than 20hrs a week during your time there?? And have you previous experience of martial arts?

Maybe I'm just too old fashioned! :eek:

imperialtaichi

02-09-2012, 05:26 AM

As you're the first to mention sinking bridge, could you perhaps provide some insight as to how this aspect is trained through the form?

Hello WCI,

I don't have any clips of Chum Kiu, but a while back I posted a "Sinking Bridge" method using the Kulo 22 "Stack Palms".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMzKYtg_Mrc&feature=g-upl&context=G23dc76bAUAAAAAAAGAA

The principles can be applied in, for example, the "Lan Sau" in Chum Kiu.

LoneTiger108

02-09-2012, 05:32 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMzKYtg_Mrc&feature=g-upl&context=G23dc76bAUAAAAAAAGAA

The principles can be applied in, for example, the "Lan Sau" in Chum Kiu.

Interesting to see you say this because the posturing and stance you use in the clip is quite far removed from the single lansau of a standard Chum Kiu set. Totally diferent purpose and mechanics. Good gongfu but not linked at all imho.

I presume you have not learnt Chum Kiu through the Kulo WCK but from elsewhere?

Vajramusti

02-09-2012, 05:51 AM

Hello WCI,

I don't have any clips of Chum Kiu, but a while back I posted a "Sinking Bridge" method using the Kulo 22 "Stack Palms".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMzKYtg_Mrc&feature=g-upl&context=G23dc76bAUAAAAAAAGAA

The principles can be applied in, for example, the "Lan Sau" in Chum Kiu.
---------------------------------

Good demo of a lan usage.

loy

Treznor

02-09-2012, 06:05 AM

So are you saying you have put in more than 20hrs a week during your time there?? And have you previous experience of martial arts?

Maybe I'm just too old fashioned! :eek:

Definitely not 20hrs + a week (or anywhere close to that)... We have a 2 hour training session, occasional practice at lunch times and then practicing forms at home.

I used to do Shorinji Kempo way back when I was at school but nothing more recently

Mat

imperialtaichi

02-09-2012, 06:53 AM

Interesting to see you say this because the posturing and stance you use in the clip is quite far removed from the seung lansau of a standard Chum Kiu set. Totally diferent purpose and mechanics. Good gongfu but not linked at all imho.

I presume you have not learnt Chum Kiu through the Kulo WCK but from elsewhere?

Ah, on the contrary, while the posture might be different, the principal is the same. I don't have any clips on the lan sau, but I can substitute using the chum kiu stance just the same.

I started WC in 1987 on the TST line. Then got some influence from WSL line as well. Kulo came much later.

Yoshiyahu

02-09-2012, 09:11 AM

Good point about being the aggressor. being on the offensive WC your Sparring is focus of WC...If your not attacking your not doing WC. The bridge is actually sparring. Yes SLT and chi sau will not give you the strategy you need to chase or be aggressive with your opponent. But neither will chum kiu alone. One needs to train separately bridging the gap, chasing the opponent, Using entry techniques and attacking their opponent relentless...One needs to drill these concepts in order for it to become apart of him. Just practicing chum kiu alone wont bring you there...an of course actually sparring with intent develops these concepts.

I see the forms as glossaries of techniques one can isolate an utilize to develop various skill sets. But i believe one should already be practicing bridging and entry techniques long before he starts learning chum kiu...If he practices being the aggressor long before that...then he will understand how to utilize CK when he starts training it...

Chi Sau can be reactive as well as proactive...it depends on your intent. If your intent is to learn how to open doors to strike you will be proactive. if your intent is to learn how defend against various attacks your approach will be reactive.

So my question is can one be aggressive with SLT...Can you utilize the techniques of SLT while in motion. When i started learning WC at 16 we started with Ma form and SLT. Both are stationary forms. We also train various punches such as stepping punch and stepping side punch that rotates using the waist and body for more power. We also did mobile chi sau as well as stationary. An of course me an my buddy would spar every day in school and out of school and with various people we went to school with. That was just with SLT and Chi Sau, footwork and various drills we utilize.

So my question is can one be aggressive and dominant with just STL if he uses footwork, stepping attacks and other entry and closing the gaps drills?

In my opinion, while SLT is great in building up structure, habit and power, it alone is not great for being the aggressor and getting into range. Try sparring with someone who is mobile (e.g. Boxers, MT etc) and see how well you do just using standard SLT and reactive Chi Sau techniques.

Chum Kiu, on the other hand, is great for being the "aggressor", actively moving in, "seeking the bridge", intercepting, jamming, chasing and pressing the opponent.

Of course, part of dominating the opponent is through "sinking bridge" to almost lock him in and take away his mobility. Almost like a "clinch" but not really at the same time.

In a fight, it is necessary to be the "dominator", be active instead of reactive. Make the opponent deal with you, instead of you dealing with the opponent.

LoneTiger108

02-09-2012, 09:52 AM

Ah, on the contrary, while the posture might be different, the principal is the same. I don't have any clips on the lan sau, but I can substitute using the chum kiu stance just the same.

Ok Let's look at the specifics here. What stance are you using in the clip? Looks like a Gung Ji Bo of sorts, but not related to YJKYM or CK Ma as I know it so that's why I'm saying it is different mechanics.

Then lets look at your 'single handed' lansau (left), of which from the looks of it you are pressing inwards with a Quansau posture. Within Chum Kiu, every single handed lansau is actually turning in the 'other' direction entirely! And for the language types out there, pressing is not to be confused with barring imho!

I understand that you are very well versed in different families approach to WCK, so please don't take offence to my input. It is after all only an opinion!!

imperialtaichi

02-09-2012, 02:19 PM

Ok Let's look at the specifics here. What stance are you using in the clip? Looks like a Gung Ji Bo of sorts, but not related to YJKYM or CK Ma as I know it so that's why I'm saying it is different mechanics.

Then lets look at your 'single handed' lansau (left), of which from the looks of it you are pressing inwards with a Quansau posture. Within Chum Kiu, every single handed lansau is actually turning in the 'other' direction entirely! And for the language types out there, pressing is not to be confused with barring imho!

I understand that you are very well versed in different families approach to WCK, so please don't take offence to my input. It is after all only an opinion!!

None taken :) It is a discussion.

I don't care much about what the stance looks like, but the YJKYM is always there; the signature squeezing of the knees and straightening of the spine and opening of the shoulder blades are always there. I let my feet take me to where it is advantages.

May be one day I should do a clip on lan sau. I love lan sau. I love YJKYM even more:cool:

GlennR

02-09-2012, 02:30 PM

None taken :) It is a discussion.

I don't care much about what the stance looks like, but the YJKYM is always there; the signature squeezing of the knees and straightening of the spine and opening of the shoulder blades are always there. I let my feet take me to where it is advantages.

May be one day I should do a clip on lan sau. I love lan sau. I love YJKYM even more:cool:

Hi John
Yes, good point about YJKYM always being there. When i said in an old post that you always fight from that stance i got rained on, but i think they took it too literally.

FWIW i use it a lot in my boxing/MT, its just not that obvious. Id suggest the Alan Orr boys are similar.

When we catching up?!?!?! ;)

imperialtaichi

02-09-2012, 07:35 PM

Hi John
Yes, good point about YJKYM always being there. When i said in an old post that you always fight from that stance i got rained on, but i think they took it too literally.

FWIW i use it a lot in my boxing/MT, its just not that obvious. Id suggest the Alan Orr boys are similar.

When we catching up?!?!?! ;)

Hey Glenn, I suppose it is easy to misunderstand; there are stances that looks like YJKYM but not really, then there are ones that didn't but are absolutely.

I'm going up the coast for 2wks, let's catch up when I'm back.

wingchunIan

02-10-2012, 02:06 AM

LoneTiger108

02-10-2012, 03:40 AM

... I'm not saying it isn't the case (although clearly I have been raised in the seeking school of thought) and believe that there is room for both but as much as I enquire and question about the sinking aspect of chum kiu nothing is ever forthcoming

Hi Ian. I can share with you a little of what I have learnt about sinking and it's relationship to Chum Kiu.

While I was learning the sets, we discussed the concept of chum jang (sinking elbow). This was explained as being different from the name of the form and sansau variations were shown that literally involved smothering the oppponents bridge with forward and downward pressure using the elbow positions and forearms. Then, with a little torque in the waist you could turn (literally screw!) yourself into the floor and this would cause the opponent to be dragged downwards to the ground. And using the forms sets to understand which way to turn is fundamental and this is what I feel John was NOT doing.

The pairing of the elbow and knee joints was key (unlike some who pair the elbow and hip) as were the hip and shoulder, and ankle and wrist. This is why I think the term 'sinking' came from because back when this was first taught early on in a students game it was probably confused with the name of the form. So, I do understand people who use this method because it IS something Chum Kiu concentrates on.

I used to compare it to 'drowning', meaning that the opponent feels smothered, has very restricted movement and unltimately does not feel like they can stand upright/get to the surface and if they do try, every effort is smothered again until they give up and go down! This is all done without even hitting them ;)

I have also experienced this same feeling when a good Muay Thai man grabbed my neck, sunk his elbows into my chest and started to pull me around the ring! Happy days!! :D

CFT

02-10-2012, 04:07 AM

Spencer, funny you should mention drowning. You may know this already given your love of the language, but the same 'sink' character (chum) has an alternate pronunciation 'zum' which colloquially means drowning/dunking.

Anyway, I thought lan sau was about turning the opponent away from you when you reach their flank?

LoneTiger108

02-10-2012, 04:26 AM

You see Chee I knew you might see what I mean! In the end ;)

Yes you're right about the 'single' lansau as each time it's presented it is turning the opponent away (and down!) but I thought that was made clear in my example?

I do love Chum Kiu :)

In this recent clip my Sifu presents the idea of 'sinking elbow' originating from the Wing Chun opening salutation (cross arms) prior to launching his chain strikes... same concept, without using the torque/turning. Enjoy!

http://www.facebook.com/#!/photo.php?v=2899892330575&set=vb.1058417759&type=2&theater

kung fu fighter

02-10-2012, 06:45 AM

sinking can also mean to distroy the opponent's body structure by sinking his bridge so that you can enter his bountry.

k gledhill

02-10-2012, 06:54 AM

The irony is that CK isnt about 'Creating Bridges', but how to get rid of attempts to bridge or touch us, and finish the fight aqap by moving and hitting parrying in one motion.

sinking a bridge means what ? you cant cross over to me anymore.

The same irony applies to a drill called 'sticky hands', also has no attempt to control arms by pressure....
I know, crazy talk.

Ballistic displacing force. LDBK pole

When we practice together the idea that we dont retract arms from the initiation point of force, doesnt allow our partner to LSJC us....we are developing ballistic force to simultaneously displace arms from our path to strike, not touch and over control arms perpetually.

If you seek to make a bridge to me , sorry I wont let you. I wont seek out your arms either , just your head, throat, center.

The SKILL we develop is to do this energy to displace without losing our stability and ability to strike with balanced force as we move to attack in all directions.

Vajramusti

02-10-2012, 07:26 AM

Thanks for posting John. It's really interesting to me that there seems to be a whole school of thought following Chum Kiu as sinking the bridge but no one is ever able / willing to illustrate the concept. I wasn't necessarily after a vid so thanks for posting. Aside from the Lan sau and possibly the dai bong sau, I can't see enough sinking in chum kiu to explain why the form would be named after the concept. I'm not saying it isn't the case (although clearly I have been raised in the seeking school of thought) and believe that there is room for both but as much as I enquire and question about the sinking aspect of chum kiu nothing is ever forthcoming
----------------------------------------------------------------------Hi Ian

Chum Kiu is full of chumkiu- sinking the bridge led by the elbow. Biu jong sao and sink into lan.
Bong and sink into lan, While moving- wu/bong and sink with elbow and kiu- with Kwan. Double dai bolg then sink kiu with tan at the side Etc. There is a lot to chum as sinking.

Wing chun is not tte only way to fight--but if wing chun is the art of one's choice-it's full of sinkinng.

joy chaudhuri

LoneTiger108

02-10-2012, 07:47 AM

The irony is that CK isnt about 'Creating Bridges', but how to get rid of attempts to bridge or touch us, and finish the fight aqap by moving and hitting parrying in one motion.

sinking a bridge means what ? you cant cross over to me anymore.

I think I covered that in my post?

"I used to compare it to 'drowning', meaning that the opponent feels smothered, has very restricted movement and unltimately does not feel like they can stand upright/get to the surface and if they do try, every effort is smothered again until they give up and go down! This is all done without even hitting them"

If you seek to make a bridge to me , sorry I wont let you. I wont seek out your arms either , just your head, throat, center.

I'm definitely not chasing hamds either. IOW I am not seeking 'a' bridge I 'am' the seeking bridge. Does that make sense to you? :)

Yoshiyahu

02-10-2012, 09:01 AM

im really enjoying those who share the concepts of sinking the bridge!

trubblman

02-10-2012, 09:50 AM

I dont know Chinese but it seems that chinese syntax would often translate to something like CHUM KIU which transliterated into English would be Sink Bridge.
I would probably interpret it as Sinking and Bridging. You can sink or you can bridge or you can sink while bridging. At least thats the way my sifu teaches. Sinking imparts power to movement. Bridging means once you have contact, you dont let go. When I say contact it could be actual physical contact or constructive contact, where if you wanted to have contact with the opponent you could. But once in the contact range you dont want to leave or let your opponent leave.

Phil Redmond

02-10-2012, 10:40 AM

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

Good demo of a lan usage.

loy
I use a horizontal lan to pin the arm at 2:33 here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLAg7b4VkyA

Yoshiyahu

02-11-2012, 12:37 AM

I use a horizontal lan to pin the arm at 2:33 here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLAg7b4VkyA

Very Interesting...I like the idea behind what your doing. We do the something simliar in basics...not in chum kiu though..

LoneTiger108

02-11-2012, 04:25 AM

I use a horizontal lan to pin the arm at 2:33 here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLAg7b4VkyA

I think my time here is coming to an end. I can not believe what I am seeing to be honest. After everything I have tried to say and explain, Phil (one of the more experienced and elder members of this little community!) shows us this.

Now I'm not saying that what he is doing is not related to some part of Chum Kiu, because it is. But single lansau??? Have I not already highlighted that 'pinning' is not 'barring'?? It is almost identical to what John was showing! And that idea imho is simply confused...

I am wondering if anyone else here can feel my pain?! :confused:

LoneTiger108

02-11-2012, 04:35 AM

I really do not like using others to highlight my point, but this is one of the better pictures I could find to help explain what I am saying and it happens to be of a good martial colleague of mine, Sifu McKenzie

http://www.thewingchunschool.com/images/CK4.jpg

THIS is the exact single handed posture where you can issue maximium force with minimum effort, and it partly relies on a torquing of the waist (in this case, twisting to the right)

How are any of the clips from Phil or John showing THIS posture and method in ACTION?

FWIW and IMHO they are not. Simple. And these guys claim to know the second form and what it is for?? Or are they just playing with all of us? It's almost like what the guys are showing is the bongsau that comes next? (thaks to Sifu Kwok!)

http://www.kwokwingchun.co.uk/assets/2010/2/16/bong-sau.JPG

LoneTiger108

02-11-2012, 05:16 AM

Well, after looking through some clips I think I can see why Phil has a different view of Chum Kiu's Lansau set, because it looks like he is practising & teaching something that has had 'massive' changes by his Sifu.

I didn't realize that Master Cheung had changed so much of the original Ip Man version, and I struggled to see a comprehensive Lansau in this set

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7glkJuiJR20

Do you still practise/teach the 'basic' version Phil?

Vajramusti

02-11-2012, 07:32 AM

JPinAZ

02-11-2012, 08:34 AM

But I "do do" wing chun.

joy

Well, at least you finally admit it! ;):p

LoneTiger108

02-11-2012, 08:38 AM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spencer- nowadays there are all kinds of wing chun. FWIW- my lan is not like McKenxiw's and n my bong is not like Kwok's. But I do do wing chun.

joy

I understand the variations Joy, but being a senior student of someone who has represented Ip Man for so many years I would have thought Phil (and yourself) would have similar form and understanding.

Obviously I was far off the mark and that is quite depressing to be honest...

Especially when your Sifu IS doing exactly what I have discussed (first Lansau at 18sec) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmLciBA5ILw

I must be seeing things, but it wouldn't be the first time!! :D

Vajramusti

02-11-2012, 11:03 AM

I understand the variations Joy, but being a senior student of someone who has represented Ip Man for so many years I would have thought Phil (and yourself) would have similar form and understanding.

Obviously I was far off the mark and that is quite depressing to be honest...

Especially when your Sifu IS doing exactly what I have discussed (first Lansau at 18sec) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmLciBA5ILw

I must be seeing things, but it wouldn't be the first time!! :D
------------------------------------------------------------------

Spencer-

Phil does TWC and it works for him. I don' do TWC. Apart from that I don't quite know what you mean?

joy

LoneTiger108

02-11-2012, 12:09 PM

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

Spencer-

Phil does TWC and it works for him. I don' do TWC. Apart from that I don't quite know what you mean?

joy

TWC?? Or whatever! Sifu Cheung learnt from Ip man, as did Sifu Ho Kam Ming. I would have thought that the forms would be the one true connection to all of us because there really is no room for adjustments or additions. No room for misinterpretations and such, unlike training methods and sparring ideas.

I have already tried to explain in the previous posts and the pics were just an example of good posture of lansau and bongsau from the specific Chum Kiu set I have referred to. And in the clip of Sifu Fong he has the exact same positions in his Chum Kiu which I am referring to. Exactly the same as I learnt myself (almost!) BUT what both John and Phil have shared in their clips does not show the application of this Lansau I'm talking about!

So what do you not understand?

WC1277

02-11-2012, 02:00 PM

TWC?? Or whatever! Sifu Cheung learnt from Ip man, as did Sifu Ho Kam Ming. I would have thought that the forms would be the one true connection to all of us because there really is no room for adjustments or additions. No room for misinterpretations and such, unlike training methods and sparring ideas.

I have already tried to explain in the previous posts and the pics were just an example of good posture of lansau and bongsau from the specific Chum Kiu set I have referred to. And in the clip of Sifu Fong he has the exact same positions in his Chum Kiu which I am referring to. Exactly the same as I learnt myself (almost!) BUT what both John and Phil have shared in their clips does not show the application of this Lansau I'm talking about!

So what do you not understand?

Spencer,

Of course there are some major differences between systems. While the Sifu is responsible for creating the textbook, the student is responsible for digesting it. It's really as simple as that... Unfortunately there's going to be things lost or changed. I'm sure even Ip Man had a slightly different or altered version of whom he learned from too. Really, at the end of the day, even Sifu's whom learned the system pure are still going to have refinements and additions to the system as their own understanding grows. This can be for better or worse, usually it is for worse. But for a select few it's for the better. Fong Sifu has refined the system significantly and is well respected for it, not because he did, but because his refinement stayed universally true to the core of the system.

There are others who did the same but are not as well respected beyond their association to Ip Man, because their understanding didn't stay true to the universal truth of the system.

There is no magic to wing chun, just "common sense" as Fong Sifu says....

trubblman

02-11-2012, 03:42 PM

TWC?? good posture of lansau and bongsau from the specific Chum Kiu set I have referred to.

So what do you not understand?

What's good posture in lan sau or bong sau? Lan sau or bong sau is not a posture. They are hand movements. It is not the beginning or end that's important, It is the movement. What your saying sounds to me like you have frozen VT into static responses.

wingchunIan

02-11-2012, 04:04 PM

I think my time here is coming to an end. I can not believe what I am seeing to be honest. After everything I have tried to say and explain, Phil (one of the more experienced and elder members of this little community!) shows us this.

Now I'm not saying that what he is doing is not related to some part of Chum Kiu, because it is. But single lansau??? Have I not already highlighted that 'pinning' is not 'barring'?? It is almost identical to what John was showing! And that idea imho is simply confused...

I am wondering if anyone else here can feel my pain?! :confused:

Spencer, do you not do the double lan sau at the start of the form? The action that Phil is demonstrating in his clip is enshrined in exactly that movement, surely you don't expect someone to do double lan sau in application? and if not why do you think the other arm is there if not to use lan sau from teh trailing arm of the turn?
The double lan sau according to the way I was taught is there to allow you to do lan sau with either arm whilst retaining structure and balance. Lan sau with the trailing arm of the turn has many, many applications including the one demoed by Phil

Phil Redmond

02-11-2012, 04:11 PM

Spencer, do you not do the double lan sau at the start of the form? The action that Phil is demonstrating in his clip is enshrined in exactly that movement, surely you don't expect someone to do double lan sau in application? and if not why do you think the other arm is there if not to use lan sau from teh trailing arm of the turn?
The double lan sau according to the way I was taught is there to allow you to do lan sau with either arm whilst retaining structure and balance. Lan sau with the trailing arm of the turn has many, many applications including the one demoed by Phil

Exactly . . :)

Phil Redmond

02-11-2012, 04:14 PM

Phil Redmond

02-11-2012, 04:23 PM

anerlich

02-11-2012, 04:30 PM

Yoshiyahu

02-12-2012, 01:52 AM

We don't do a Lan in our Chum Kiu. We have a vertical Lan in Biu Jee though. The La that i did in the clip was from SLT and it can't be perfect like the still picture you posted. There was a real human being in front of me.

Good Point...in this video of yours you show part of SLT opening...but instead of having your arms cross at the wrist you cross at forearms...

The wrist are not strong enough to cut off force...So you demostrate the application oppose to literal form...at time stamp 0.01

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-upAD5F85Kc

also starting at time stamp 0.37 and beyond you contrast the difference between center line and central line...In most systems the term central line is not there...although the idea is still practiced. The application you illustrate i would think most would agree is what they also do dependant on opponent. I believe most people will not understand what your talking about unless they also utilize these applications...Those who have not fought people outside of a martial arts gym will most undoubtably not understand the purpose behind your applications.

i also enjoy this video of yours?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdOmnxmnfv8&feature=related

and this one too

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBPmlvAB8jA&feature=related

Phil Redmond

02-12-2012, 05:35 AM

Phil Redmond

02-12-2012, 06:36 AM

Phil Redmond

02-12-2012, 06:40 AM

Good Point...in this video of yours you show part of SLT opening...but instead of having your arms cross at the wrist you cross at forearms...

The wrist are not strong enough to cut off force...So you demostrate the application oppose to literal form...at time stamp 0.01

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-upAD5F85Kc

also starting at time stamp 0.37 and beyond you contrast the difference between center line and central line...In most systems the term central line is not there...although the idea is still practiced. The application you illustrate i would think most would agree is what they also do dependant on opponent. I believe most people will not understand what your talking about unless they also utilize these applications...Those who have not fought people outside of a martial arts gym will most undoubtably not understand the purpose behind your applications.

i also enjoy this video of yours?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdOmnxmnfv8&feature=related

and this one too

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBPmlvAB8jA&feature=related
Thanks, and I'm still learning.

LoneTiger108

02-12-2012, 09:09 AM

How it makes me smile to see the amount of response I'm getting from my posts! :D Maybe I should be more controversial because you guys seem to love it!

All negative, all discarding what previous posts I have written, and all simply written to 'make your points'.

Let me share something with all of you for the last time.

Both Phil and John did not show the use of the single lansau that is within Ip Mans Chum Kiu. In fact even others here seem to have misunderstood what I was looking for. I was never talking of the seung lansau (double barring arm) I have always been talking of the single arm, which has a different purpose than what was shown by both in their clips.
John http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMzKYtg_Mrc&feature=g-upl&context=G23dc76bAUAAAAAAAGAA
Phil http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLAg7b4VkyA

Then I have an attack on my character implying that I have no respect, whereas my respect for the elder generations has always been sincere. It's just that I can not continue pretending that everything they do is correct imho, and neither should evryone else here.

And after all of that it is confirmed by Phil himself that he doesn't have any Lansau in his Chum Kiu form, so I now ask him directly, why did you show a clip of you suppoesedly using a 'horiziontal' Lansau on a Chum Kiu thread that was asking for examples of Chum Kiu??? It's worse than Johns 'stacking palm' idea from Kulo!! Why can't anyone explain and demonstrate the simple nature of our second form as it is??

I am and will never be an 'authority' on anyone elses Wing Chun here. I don't want to be, no matter what anyone else says here!! BUT neither is anyone else who posts here, even though it looks like some really do want to be!

I am forever still learning myself too, and am happy to take on ideas that make sense to me and the way I have trained, but when you see what I have seen and then read some of the sh!t thats posted here it only makes me wonder what Ip Man would think about all the inconsistency and individual interpretations?

Wing Chun is, was and forever will be far bigger than any one man or woman...

anerlich

02-12-2012, 01:43 PM

Then I have an attack on my character implying that I have no respect, whereas my respect for the elder generations has always been sincere.

Oh, poor Spencer. Get over yourself. You were attacking Phil. People in glass houses and all ...

GlennR

02-12-2012, 02:08 PM

How it makes me smile to see the amount of response I'm getting from my posts! :D Maybe I should be more controversial because you guys seem to love it!

Well you didnt mention Lee Shing for once so thats a start ;)

Then I have an attack on my character implying that I have no respect, whereas my respect for the elder generations has always been sincere. It's just that I can not continue pretending that everything they do is correct imho, and neither should evryone else here.

Finally, youre getting somewhere

And after all of that it is confirmed by Phil himself that he doesn't have any Lansau in his Chum Kiu form, so I now ask him directly, why did you show a clip of you suppoesedly using a 'horiziontal' Lansau on a Chum Kiu thread that was asking for examples of Chum Kiu??? It's worse than Johns 'stacking palm' idea from Kulo!! Why can't anyone explain and demonstrate the simple nature of our second form as it is??

Why dont you??????????

I am and will never be an 'authority' on anyone elses Wing Chun here. I don't want to be, no matter what anyone else says here!! BUT neither is anyone else who posts here, even though it looks like some really do want to be!

Ill take note from the guys that spar/use it a lot.... i dont think how it looks is relevant to effectiveness

I am forever still learning myself too, and am happy to take on ideas that make sense to me and the way I have trained, but when you see what I have seen and then read some of the sh!t thats posted here it only makes me wonder what Ip Man would think about all the inconsistency and individual interpretations?

Honesty, who cares what he would think. That kind of mantra solidly entrenches you in the past with no looking forward

Wing Chun is, was and forever will be far bigger than any one man or woman...

Why?

anerlich

02-12-2012, 07:22 PM

Maybe I should be more controversial because you guys seem to love it!

You're not being controversial, you're being prissy and a pompous a$$.

It's just that I can not continue pretending that everything they do is correct imho, and neither should evryone else here.

You can stop the continuing pretence if you want, but you can also do it quietly.

I am forever still learning myself too, and am happy to take on ideas that make sense to me and the way I have trained, but when you see what I have seen and then read some of the sh!t thats posted here it only makes me wonder what Ip Man would think about all the inconsistency and individual interpretations?

Seeing as he's been dead for nearly 40 years, he wouldn't think very much at all.

I am and will never be an 'authority' on anyone elses Wing Chun here.

You're not being much a representative for your own WC on this thread. And yes, you are operating from a base of ignorance on what others do.

Honestly, you appointing yourself as some sort of WC gatekeeper is laughable.

Yoshiyahu

02-12-2012, 07:33 PM

Wow such a humble guy...with so much wealth of knowledge and experience...you have my utmost respect...

Thanks, and I'm still learning.

Phil Redmond

02-12-2012, 08:23 PM

. . . . . .Then I have an attack on my character implying that I have no respect, whereas my respect for the elder generations has always been sincere. ...
So when you said "After everything I have tried to say and explain, Phil (one of the more experienced and elder members of this little community!) shows us this."
That wasn't an attack om my character?

And after all of that it is confirmed by Phil himself that he doesn't have any Lansau in his Chum Kiu form, so I now ask him directly, why did you show a clip of you suppoesedly using a 'horiziontal' Lansau on a Chum Kiu thread that was asking for examples of Chum Kiu??? It's worse than Johns 'stacking palm' idea from Kulo!! Why can't anyone explain and demonstrate the simple nature of our second form as it is??...
Because the subject of a lan came up. Also, why are you attacking John in your statement?

I am and will never be an 'authority' on anyone elses Wing Chun here. .
That's a given . . . ;)

Ozzy Dave

02-12-2012, 10:00 PM

I am and will never be an 'authority' on anyone elses Wing Chun here. I don't want to be, no matter what anyone else says here!! BUT neither is anyone else who posts here, even though it looks like some really do want to be!

I am forever still learning myself too, and am happy to take on ideas that make sense to me and the way I have trained, but when you see what I have seen and then read some of the sh!t thats posted here it only makes me wonder what Ip Man would think about all the inconsistency and individual interpretations?

I've studied a few styles of TCMA and one thing that I have found consistent is that there is no real consistency in how each generation interprets the teaching of the last.

I know all the talk of "true transmission", etc. but in my experience even in those cases changes are made. In the end I think Ip Man was a mature teacher and would realise that changes would occur.

The only thing we need to be is be open minded enough to learn from others if what they do achieves results.

Dave

Runlikehell

02-12-2012, 10:58 PM

I've studied a few styles of TCMA and one thing that I have found consistent is that there is no real consistency in how each generation interprets the teaching of the last.

I know all the talk of "true transmission", etc. but in my experience even in those cases changes are made. In the end I think Ip Man was a mature teacher and would realise that changes would occur.

The only thing we need to be is be open minded enough to learn from others if what they do achieves results.

Dave

Dave,

You've raised some very good viewpoints. In my opinion, that's how we should view these matters.

LoneTiger108

02-13-2012, 03:18 AM

So when you said "After everything I have tried to say and explain, Phil (one of the more experienced and elder members of this little community!) shows us this."
That wasn't an attack om my character?

No not your character at all Phil. I don't know you from Adam.

I was simply highlighting that what you showed on your clip was not what I was talking about. And later you even agree with me, so don't make this out as if I'm attacking your character.

If anything I'm attacking peoples gullible nature here when it comes to blindly following whatever anyone with a bit of experience says or shows.

Because the subject of a lan came up. Also, why are you attacking John in your statement?

Again. No attacking, and I made that clear to John.

Can't you understand what I wrote? Why IMHHHHO your idea of a single handed lansau, which you both demonstrated, is not what I was talking about? It is not how I would show that particular Lansau because that just IS NOT the method shared in Chum Kiu.

Banging my head against a wall of ignorance, yet I am the one being ignorant??

That's a given . . . ;)

LoneTiger108

02-13-2012, 03:25 AM

I've studied a few styles of TCMA and one thing that I have found consistent is that there is no real consistency in how each generation interprets the teaching of the last.

That would be true Dave if you learn 'by ear' and memory, and if your Sifu learnt 'by ear' etc

I have always tried to make it clear that I did not learn 'by ear', we used a unique method of Hao Kuit that originates from the page, therefore the page itself is transmitted and your understanding can not go far off the mark.

Ozzy Dave

02-13-2012, 04:26 AM

That would be true Dave if you learn 'by ear' and memory, and if your Sifu learnt 'by ear' etc

Actually, beyond the basics I've always learn't the most from "touching hands" with my teachers, it is after all a physical skill.

Dave

LoneTiger108

02-13-2012, 04:53 AM

Actually, beyond the basics I've always learn't the most from "touching hands" with my teachers, it is after all a physical skill.

Dave

I'm not questioning your own experiences dude, just sharing mine.

But for conversations sake, if what you have is a physical memory of touching hands with your Sifu, and you in turn pass that on to your students, at what point do you write down your curriculum? What is it that holds all these physical memories together??

The same can be said for Chum Kiu. It is a standard form with a standard concept and method of practise. It is not 'up for interpretation' because it is part of our basic curriculum set down by Ip Man, and it should be taught in such a way imho.

If you believe you 'find gold' or something within the form and then add to it or change it to suit your idea that is fine too. But do you teach a beginner these new ideas (which could be wrong!) or give them the simple form first?

Ozzy Dave

02-13-2012, 05:42 AM

I'm not questioning your own experiences dude, just sharing mine.

But for conversations sake, if what you have is a physical memory of touching hands with your Sifu, and you in turn pass that on to your students, at what point do you write down your curriculum? What is it that holds all these physical memories together??

The same can be said for Chum Kiu. It is a standard form with a standard concept and method of practise. It is not 'up for interpretation' because it is part of our basic curriculum set down by Ip Man, and it should be taught in such a way imho.

If you believe you 'find gold' or something within the form and then add to it or change it to suit your idea that is fine too. But do you teach a beginner these new ideas (which could be wrong!) or give them the simple form first?

There is a template however slight variation generation to generation is part of the rich tapestry if you will.

The richness is in making it live for yourself and your students, it's not memory as its only as relevant as your last training session, words are only pointers.

The thing that holds it all together is the practise itself, as one of my favourite sayings goes "Sifu gives you one corner of the table you have to find the other three".

If you don't constantly strive for this the art dies, it's a feedback loop and IMO one of the great insights of TCMA - it gives birth to itself each generation anew.

Dave

LoneTiger108

02-13-2012, 06:01 AM

Agreed Dave. You talk a lot of sense.

Self discovery is what Martial Arts is all about, if you are on a lifetime journey. But you need good foundations, as in life, and this is what I mean by receiving a curriculum of sorts that should in effect be pretty similar to all Wing Chun families that originate from Ip Man.

I am still searching for the others with such a curriculum :)

k gledhill

02-13-2012, 08:43 AM

We use lan sao as in 1:40 & 3:50examples (http://youtu.be/5rnqbHlBbt8) ...part of an attack, not an isolated chi-sao fight to immobilize and control equally extended arms/hands, this usually comes from pressure seekers combating in a drill...not conducive to mutual development.

The irony of controlling hands, like misunderstanding 'sticking hands', is that you immobilize yourself too. Knowing when to release and strike with free hands aka LSJC is part of the drilling or we tend to look for the arm to touch repeatedly....

Create the gaps or use stillness to allow motion to present the gaps 'yee ching jai dong'.

WingChunABQ

02-13-2012, 09:01 AM

The irony of controlling hands, like misunderstanding 'sticking hands', is that you immobilize yourself too. Knowing when to release and strike with free hands aka LSJC is part of the drilling or we tend to look for the arm to touch repeatedly....

Create the gaps or use stillness to allow motion to present the gaps 'yee ching jai dong'.

Good point.

LoneTiger108

02-13-2012, 09:12 AM

We use lan sao as in 1:40 & 3:50examples (http://youtu.be/5rnqbHlBbt8)

Okay. Yes I can see what you're saying here because you are almost showing the same example as Phil and John BUT that is not the Lansau movement I am talking about (again!) :eek: Your guy also uses it to 'push' his partner away too, which for me is no longer Lansau ;) Lansau bars an incoming force and turns if the force is too large to handle. It doesn't reach out or push away anything fme.

If I can explain: The single Lansau to Bongsau is the set in CK which follows the double Lansau turns, Faansau and looksau rotations. This specific single Lansau is done twisting the hip the OTHER WAY to the clips you have all put up!!

Not to worry Kev it looks like I will have to do a clip myself...

Actually, just found this clip of Lee Man Hung where he is 'closer' to what I'm talking about (even though he too sometimes pushes out with it!) but at least he is explaining the turn

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqMCdqoCSbk

WC1277

02-13-2012, 11:35 AM

Okay. Yes I can see what you're saying here because you are almost showing the same example as Phil and John BUT that is not the Lansau movement I am talking about (again!) :eek: Your guy also uses it to 'push' his partner away too, which for me is no longer Lansau ;) Lansau bars an incoming force and turns if the force is too large to handle. It doesn't reach out or push away anything fme.

If I can explain: The single Lansau to Bongsau is the set in CK which follows the double Lansau turns, Faansau and looksau rotations. This specific single Lansau is done twisting the hip the OTHER WAY to the clips you have all put up!!

Not to worry Kev it looks like I will have to do a clip myself...

Actually, just found this clip of Lee Man Hung where he is 'closer' to what I'm talking about (even though he too sometimes pushes out with it!) but at least he is explaining the turn

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqMCdqoCSbk

FWIW Spencer, I basically agree with you about lan sau function. It should always be a passive movement, which basically means it's just held in position with natural tension and the "body" moves it. And yes it almost always goes from inside to outside. There are a few times when it stays inside though. A good example would be when doing punch/palm exercise out of chi sao. When punching, your whole triangle should move together. This basically means your bong elbow will drop a little into lan sau as you're punching. Other than certain positions like that, yes, lan is the opposite of biu, biu usually is an 'active' motion going forward and lan is a 'passive' motion giving the illusion of going back with the movement of the body while the opposite 'active' hand is taking over the space....

JPinAZ

02-13-2012, 12:02 PM

Your guy also uses it to 'push' his partner away too, which for me is no longer Lansau ;) Lansau bars an incoming force and turns if the force is too large to handle. It doesn't reach out or push away anything fme.

I agree 100% with the above!

In HFY, laan sau is a part of our Ng Ying Sau training. This is about training 5 hand tools (pak, laan, chum, gum and wu) for protecting 'the box' at very close range and squared up facing. All 5 tools focus on wrist energy since the attack is too close to use utilize elbow or full body movement/leverage, being that the box is 'generally' described as space within a 90 degree bent arm laan sau shape in front of the body.

With that said, Laan sau is used to bar access into our 'box'. And, if the energy is too strong, laan turns the energy instead of allow our box to collaps and also because we never fight force with force in WCK.
If the energy can be barred and the box stabalized, the laan would have to change to something else if I want to move fwd and enter my opponent's space. Pushing him away only starts the fight back to step one.

Yoshiyahu

02-13-2012, 12:19 PM

For you guys sharing your view points of Lan Sau and disagreeing with Phils intrepretation of Lan Sau let me asked?

In english what does the word Bar mean?

Since Lan Sau means Barring hand. What does the word Bar actually mean?

JPinAZ

02-13-2012, 12:37 PM

Do you have any thoughts yourself on that?

anerlich

02-13-2012, 02:18 PM

The same can be said for Chum Kiu. It is a standard form with a standard concept and method of practise. It is not 'up for interpretation' because it is part of our basic curriculum set down by Ip Man, and it should be taught in such a way imho.

I disagree. Yip Man himself allegedly changed things around and taught different things to different people. The HK YMWC differs from Kulo, etc. as well as from itself.

The forms are frameworks, for exploration. They are not dogma or sacred dance steps.

I totally disagree with the "transmission" model of learning a skill. In every other field of practical endeavour, advances come from people going beyond what they were taught and introducing concepts from other fields or imagination.

The only exceptions seem to be fundamentalist religions, which appear indistinguishable from some people's approach to Oriental MA.

The goal is not learning a WC curriculum written down in Chinese. The goal is to learn to fight effectively, and that requires the ability to adapt and work things out for yourself, and an attitude of constantly seeking better and more effective ways to train and perform.

k gledhill

02-13-2012, 02:20 PM

hi gled
you always use words we... We do this, we do that...
Where are you? Are you copying someone or what? Why dont you use i?
No offence, i just noticed that... ;)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

great thread on chum kiu, i enjoy it...

Jox, :)

ym>wsl>pb>me = "we"

Sean66

02-13-2012, 03:15 PM

They are not dogma or sacred dance steps

Well said anerlich!

Yoshiyahu

02-13-2012, 04:56 PM

Do you have any thoughts yourself on that?

by all means please share....i have only the merriam webster definition!!!

JPinAZ

02-13-2012, 06:21 PM

by all means please share....i have only the merriam webster definition!!!

The only way you can define laan sau/barring hand is with an english dictionary?
Do you really train WCK? (serious question)

I'm sure you'll take this as condescending as well, but I'm serious. You honestly can't give an answer for what laan/barring means with regards to WC in your own words? you need to use a dictionary?

Yoshiyahu

02-13-2012, 06:26 PM

The only way you can define laan sau/barring hand is with an english dictionary?
Do you really train WCK? (serious question)

I'm sure you'll take this as condescending as well, but I'm serious. You honestly can't give an answer for what laan/barring means with regards to WC in your own words? you need to use a dictionary?

barring is an english term...i can spectulate on what the cantonese/mandarid means but i am fluent in chinese...so it would be mere conjecture...i will allow phil or hendrix to translate the chinese...

Im simply saying the meaning of barring...what does it mean since its an english word!

JPinAZ

02-13-2012, 07:19 PM

barring is an english term...i can spectulate on what the cantonese/mandarid means but i am fluent in chinese...so it would be mere conjecture...i will allow phil or hendrix to translate the chinese...

Im simply saying the meaning of barring...what does it mean since its an english word!

I'm thinking you meant you are NOT fluent in chinese...

Anyway, I still don't understand your question, are you being serious with this question? Or just trying to be silly again.

If I understand correctly, you are asking someone to look it up for you and give you the english definition for barring, meaning 'to bar'. You said you have a dictionary, why the he11 couldn't you just look yourself? Do you do ANY thinking for yourself?? (again, very serious question)

Barring is an english translation for Laan. Do you not know what it means to bar entry to something? That's why I asked if you even practice WC, your sifu should have been able to answer this simple question long ago. Have you thought to ask him, or do you not trust his answer?

Yoshiyahu

02-13-2012, 08:14 PM

ne Way buddy you still just answer questions and condescend...thanks but no thanks buddy!

I'm thinking you meant you are NOT fluent in chinese...

Anyway, I still don't understand your question, are you being serious with this question? Or just trying to be silly again.

If I understand correctly, you are asking someone to look it up for you and give you the english definition for barring, meaning 'to bar'. You said you have a dictionary, why the he11 couldn't you just look yourself? Do you do ANY thinking for yourself?? (again, very serious question)

Barring is an english translation for Laan. Do you not know what it means to bar entry to something? That's why I asked if you even practice WC, your sifu should have been able to answer this simple question long ago. Have you thought to ask him, or do you not trust his answer?

LoneTiger108

02-14-2012, 07:54 AM

With that said, Laan sau is used to bar access into our 'box'. And, if the energy is too strong, laan turns the energy instead of allow our box to collaps and also because we never fight force with force in WCK.
If the energy can be barred and the box stabalized, the laan would have to change to something else if I want to move fwd and enter my opponent's space. Pushing him away only starts the fight back to step one.

Agree with you here except that 'sometimes' you can not help using force against force, due to the random nature of fighting, and so you should be drilled accordingly to be able to do so (at your minimum at least) which is what my wooden man is for.

I disagree. Yip Man himself allegedly changed things around and taught different things to different people. The HK YMWC differs from Kulo, etc. as well as from itself.

You say it yourself, 'allegedly'.

But imho of course he made changes, but he KNEW EXACTLY what he was doing dude ;) and had been in the Wing Chun Pai since childhood (13 yrs old?) so he wasn't just passing through or learnt for a few years before he started teaching! The common 108 is his own contribution. In fact EVERYTHING we inherited in the West from his initial promotions are his own personal contribution. HIS images. But it is the knowledge behind such things that interests me. And this is what we are seeing a rise of nowadays. Other Wing Chun that never went through Ip Man. So if you have issues with peoples differences in the Ip family, man, you have missed the point of Wing Chun and Ip Mans contribution!

The forms are frameworks, for exploration. They are not dogma or sacred dance steps.

Agree to disagree. They are not for exploration. They are very specific. Yes you will naturally explore SLT, granted, but from what map are you referring to exactly?? A collection of images or actual written explanations? Are you still practising the same form in the same way after 30 years? Or have you added ideas from other systems or practises? Either way, there is a format to it for a reason and it all needs guidance.

I totally disagree with the "transmission" model of learning a skill. In every other field of practical endeavour, advances come from people going beyond what they were taught and introducing concepts from other fields or imagination...

... The goal is not learning a WC curriculum written down in Chinese. The goal is to learn to fight effectively, and that requires the ability to adapt and work things out for yourself, and an attitude of constantly seeking better and more effective ways to train and perform.

I agree with you here to a point. And actually, imho, what you describe is exactly what Ip Man (and others) have done. Created a way of training to fight. Training students as fighters, not teachers. Only few can ever claim to have been taught to teach by Ip Man imho and they will have his original 1970's curriculum (in Chinese!) ;)

And don't get me wrong, I do not believe you have to learn/know Chinese to learn basic Wing Chun. Or even to learn to fight! I am only sharing my experience and that is I would not have been taught to teach 'without' learning Chinese. That's just the way my Sifu rolled (and is still doing so) and I am grateful for his time spent with me hammering this point home, so to speak! And this has never meant I can hold conversation in Chinese either!! But I know my curriculums like the back of my hand.

IMHO Even if you do 'go beyond' what you were taught (as I have too) you must still recognize your own journey and know how you got to this 'free' personalised destination. You must have still had a basic progressive curriculum of Wing Chun at the beginning? And if not, I personally would question why not??

FWIW Without being prepared to research into the language of our arts origins, especially in these changing times, I can see why even this thread was started!! If we can't even see the differences of sinking than seeking, barring and pushing... well I would recommed just giving up Wing Chun for an English course, let alone a basic Chinese one! :eek:

JPinAZ

02-14-2012, 08:16 AM

ne Way buddy you still just answer questions and condescend...thanks but no thanks buddy!

Dam you're a touchy, sensitive little guy aren't you? I was being dead serious in my questions (and I'm not your buddy).

Look, 3 days now you're asking for someone to explain it to you - what did your sifu tell you? Have you bothered to ask your sifu to explain laan sau for you? Have you never learned laan sau in WCK? (I don't know, maybe you haven't, that's why I ask)

That's why I asked if you really practice WCK. And I'm not here to answer your every question - that's also why I asked if you can do anything for yourself. Not condescending, just honest questions. Heck, maybe you don't have a sifu to ask or maybe you never heard of laan sau until this thread. what's wrong with asking? (you do it all the time!)

I think for a guy that supposedly studies MA's and spars hard, you wouldn't be so touchy when someone asks YOU a few questions... :rolleyes:

JPinAZ

02-14-2012, 08:24 AM

Agree with you here except that 'sometimes' you can not help using force against force, due to the random nature of fighting, and so you should be drilled accordingly to be able to do so (at your minimum at least) which is what my wooden man is for.

I agree, energies are going to crash at times (force on force), and we should train for that - no doubt! This is why why I agreed that sometimes the energy will be too strong (crashing) and we'll have to act accordingly by turning it. If I feel the energies crash on center, I'm not going to fight for center by pushing, I'm going to accept what comes and turn it off line.

And yeah, sometimes the laan sau itself will simply crash for whatever reason - timing is off or we didn't read our opponent correctly.. But IMO, pushing and crashing are too different things. Pushing is a secondary action once we've stabalized the box with laan. And I guess there may be rare times where I might want to get my opponent away from me by pushing, but imo, I'd rather keep him right in the perfect range where he's at so I can effect his COG and hit with both hands equally since he's already there vs. pushing him away just to have to reengage him all over again. :)

k gledhill

02-14-2012, 08:31 AM

Lan sao like po pai, we use to recover striking distances in a attack. Not for feel me feel you games in chi sao. Iow we develop the skill to put you where we want you to hit you, not just shove you away and come back again.
Lan is an energy like pak, bong, etc....ballistic, not to perpetuate over trapping, pressure chasing.

Yoshiyahu

02-14-2012, 09:29 AM

Simply answer....

Lan Sau is to obstruct your attack while i strike you. Lan Sau will disrupt also your structure by barring your opponents movement temporarily. In short I cut off your force prematurely causing you to loose your centre, balance or posture.

When I utilize Lan san its to prevent your movement or obstruct your ability to react to me for a moment. The energy is different than gum sau. The pressure is more static in my opinion. i use my structure to bar you while I dont really utilize arm strength but lock it in a static posistion with my body behind it. Like a Bars on a door preventing entry or forbidding admittance.

But this is how I utilize lan sau...you may disagree!

Dam you're a touchy, sensitive little guy aren't you? I was being dead serious in my questions (and I'm not your buddy).

Look, 3 days now you're asking for someone to explain it to you - what did your sifu tell you? Have you bothered to ask your sifu to explain laan sau for you? Have you never learned laan sau in WCK? (I don't know, maybe you haven't, that's why I ask)

That's why I asked if you really practice WCK. And I'm not here to answer your every question - that's also why I asked if you can do anything for yourself. Not condescending, just honest questions. Heck, maybe you don't have a sifu to ask or maybe you never heard of laan sau until this thread. what's wrong with asking? (you do it all the time!)

I think for a guy that supposedly studies MA's and spars hard, you wouldn't be so touchy when someone asks YOU a few questions... :rolleyes:

LoneTiger108

02-14-2012, 09:32 AM

... imo, I'd rather keep him right in the perfect range where he's at so I can effect his COG and hit with both hands equally since he's already there vs. pushing him away just to have to reengage him all over again. :)

... iow we develop the skill to put you where we want you to hit you, not just shove you away and come back again.

Two solid posts that I have to agree with!

NOW we are covering what I was originally posting about :D

Yoshiyahu

02-14-2012, 09:40 AM

Two solid posts that I have to agree with!

NOW we are covering what I was originally posting about :D

So do you feel that phils video was pushing the opponent away?

LoneTiger108

02-14-2012, 09:57 AM

So do you feel that phils video was pushing the opponent away?

In a nutshell, yes, and Johns for that matter (and even a few times in Lee Man Hungs clip!)

But that wasn't the big issue. It was that I was referring to a specific set of Chum Kiu and they put up clips of something else.

Can YOU understand how this thread has panned out?? Because it sounds like you are having communication issues too :eek:

JPinAZ

02-14-2012, 10:49 AM

Simply answer....

Lan Sau is to obstruct your attack while i strike you. Lan Sau will disrupt also your structure by barring your opponents movement temporarily. In short I cut off your force prematurely causing you to loose your centre, balance or posture.

When I utilize Lan san its to prevent your movement or obstruct your ability to react to me for a moment. The energy is different than gum sau. The pressure is more static in my opinion. i use my structure to bar you while I dont really utilize arm strength but lock it in a static posistion with my body behind it. Like a Bars on a door preventing entry or forbidding admittance.

But this is how I utilize lan sau...you may disagree!

See, that wasnt too hard was it?
If you want people to answer your questions (and you do have a ton of them), it helps if you also attempt to give your understanding and view on things as well when asked. Both to encourage mutal exchange and discussion, as well as to give people a better idea of where you're coming from.

Now, I have your view on laan sau, and I already gave you have mine. Are we cool?

anerlich

02-14-2012, 03:01 PM

So if you have issues with peoples differences in the Ip family, man, you have missed the point of Wing Chun and Ip Mans contribution!

You're the one with issues with differences between YM's students who got all uptight about this ... man ... and I keep asking you to lay off this "family" sh*t with me.

But imho of course he made changes, but he KNEW EXACTLY what he was doing dude and had been in the Wing Chun Pai since childhood (13 yrs old?) so he wasn't just passing through or learnt for a few years before he started teaching!

Are you saying my instructor and I, Phil, and anyone else who disagrees with you are just passing through or just learned for a few years before they started teaching? Dude? That's pretty stupid sh*t for a relative newcomer to the system to start spouting.

Agree to disagree. They are not for exploration. They are very specific. Yes you will naturally explore SLT, granted, but from what map are you referring to exactly?? A collection of images or actual written explanations? Are you still practising the same form in the same way after 30 years? Or have you added ideas from other systems or practises? Either way, there is a format to it for a reason and it all needs guidance.

Agree you can think whatever you like, as it is a matter of opinion.

I don't do the forms the same way. Neither does my instructor. I do them the same way he does. Added nothing from other systems and practices. I practice multiple arts but do not blend them as such.

Besides this hissy fit of impotent rage on an internet forum, what are you going to do about it?

As for the rest, jeez, what is this, a frigging interrogation?

I agree with you here to a point.

Not something that concerns me greatly either way.

Only few can ever claim to have been taught to teach by Ip Man imho and they will have his original 1970's curriculum (in Chinese!)

Evidence has it that Yip Man was not a particularly gifted teacher, demonstrably poor at basic administrative stuff like succession, and less than exemplary in some aspects of his personal life. He was a flawed human being like most of us, not some uberbeing whose shadow we are unfit to walk in.

Also, coaching methods have improved leaps and bounds since 1973. If you are still teaching the way even the best instructors taught back then, you are a loooooong way behind best practice.

A teach how to teach credential from Yip Man would be something that personally I'd be reluctant to advertise.

well I would recommed just giving up Wing Chun for an English course, let alone a basic Chinese one!

English? Learn to spell recommend.

I'd suggest you seek out a course in logic and perhaps some help to stay calm.

shaolin_allan

02-14-2012, 04:28 PM

When the opponent can be dealt with without moving - you use Siu Nim Tao technology.

When the opponent forces you to move, you use Chum Kiu technology.

Hey Eric who did the HFY Blog site? It looks great.

Yoshiyahu

02-14-2012, 09:53 PM

See, that wasnt too hard was it?
If you want people to answer your questions (and you do have a ton of them), it helps if you also attempt to give your understanding and view on things as well when asked. Both to encourage mutal exchange and discussion, as well as to give people a better idea of where you're coming from.

Now, I have your view on laan sau, and I already gave you have mine. Are we cool?

what number post was your view...let go back and re-read it?

LoneTiger108

02-15-2012, 03:04 AM

Are you saying my instructor and I, Phil, and anyone else who disagrees with you are just passing through or just learned for a few years before they started teaching?

No not at all. You see how you always misinterpret what I'm saying.

I'm saying Ip Man knew EXACTLY what he was doing because he had been a Wing Chun student since his teenage years.

Yourself, Phil and how many other western Sifus have that sort of history to justify any changes they have made? Very few, if any imho.

I don't do the forms the same way. Neither does my instructor. I do them the same way he does. Added nothing from other systems and practices. I practice multiple arts but do not blend them as such.

This says a lot. I like the 'as such' comment :D

Evidence has it that Yip Man was not a particularly gifted teacher, demonstrably poor at basic administrative stuff like succession...

Totally wrong. In my misguided opinion of course.

Being a Wing Chun student and having discussed these sorts of things with my own Sifu and others it is clear that Ip Man was the 'only' great teacher of his times. The 'first' to do what he done if you will.

The 'evidence' suggests that it's never the teachers fault alone, he had bad students too ;)

JPinAZ

02-15-2012, 08:42 AM

what number post was your view...let go back and re-read it?

You can't you find it on your own? Shouldn't be too difficult since there are only 9 pages to this thread.
Ah heck, since sometimes I think you don't like to put in the work yourself, I'll make it reeeeaaaaallll easy for you and provide the link
(yes, a little condescension in that. Now before you get all worked up, since I had to go find it for you, I think you can take a little krap for my troubles, no? ;) )

Post #100 - you posted directly after it.
http://www.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1157897&postcount=100

Let me know if something doesn't make sense

Yoshiyahu

02-15-2012, 08:48 AM

okay thanks for sharing again...i appreactiate it...

Can't you find it on your own? Shouldn't be too difficult since there are only 9 pages to this thread.
ah heck, since sometimes I think you don't like to put in the work yourself, I'll make it reeeeaaaaallll easy for you and provide the link
(yes, a little condescension in that. Now before you get all worked up, since I have to go find it for you, I think you might deserve it just a little bit ;) )

Post #100 - you posted directly after it.
http://www.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1157897&postcount=100

Let me know if something doesn't make sense

JPinAZ

02-15-2012, 08:53 AM

okay thanks for sharing again...i appreactiate it...

It's cool. An thoughts on what I said regarding laan sau?
Maybe now you see why I didn't understand you spending over 2 days asking for my explanation on something I had already given..

jesper

02-15-2012, 12:35 PM

I disagree. Yip Man himself allegedly changed things around and taught different things to different people. The HK YMWC differs from Kulo, etc. as well as from itself.

The forms are frameworks, for exploration. They are not dogma or sacred dance steps.

I totally disagree with the "transmission" model of learning a skill. In every other field of practical endeavour, advances come from people going beyond what they were taught and introducing concepts from other fields or imagination.

The only exceptions seem to be fundamentalist religions, which appear indistinguishable from some people's approach to Oriental MA.

The goal is not learning a WC curriculum written down in Chinese. The goal is to learn to fight effectively, and that requires the ability to adapt and work things out for yourself, and an attitude of constantly seeking better and more effective ways to train and perform.

How dare you suggest the purpose of learning wing chun is to learn to fight :mad:

sanjuro_ronin

02-15-2012, 12:43 PM

Fight? Wing Chun?
WTF ????
:D

anerlich

02-15-2012, 01:38 PM

You see how you always misinterpret what I'm saying.

Maybe if you took your foot out of your mouth first.

Who exactly were you referring to when you said "so he wasn't just passing through or learnt for a few years before he started teaching!"? Name names or STFU.

This says a lot. I like the 'as such' comment

Care to elaborate, smarta$$? Just so I make sure I don't "misinterpret what [you were] saying" again?

In my misguided opinion of course.

Of course.

The 'evidence' suggests that it's never the teachers fault alone, he had bad students too

And in Yip Man's case, who would the bad students be, Spencer? Name names or STFU, all these "subtle hints" are the resort of the coward.

Mr Miyagi said "there is no such thing as poor student, only poor teacher". I mention him only because you seem to regard Yip Man the same way impressionable kids regard Miyagi-san. Your Yip Man sounds like another fictional character.

GlennR

02-15-2012, 02:12 PM

I'm saying Ip Man knew EXACTLY what he was doing because he had been a Wing Chun student since his teenage years.

Yourself, Phil and how many other western Sifus have that sort of history to justify any changes they have made? Very few, if any imho.

Being a Wing Chun student and having discussed these sorts of things with my own Sifu and others it is clear that Ip Man was the 'only' great teacher of his times. The 'first' to do what he done if you will.

The 'evidence' suggests that it's never the teachers fault alone, he had bad students too ;)

I dont get this kind of thinking Spencer, and i dont see what benefit that thinking can bring.

The way you portray IM makes out that WC peaked around the 1960's somewhere in China, and will never be matched regardless of race, colour or creed.

So everyone doing WC is practicing a dying art that's only ever going to be a shadow of its once glorious past???

Yoshiyahu

02-15-2012, 03:50 PM

It's cool. An thoughts on what I said regarding laan sau?
Maybe now you see why I didn't understand you spending over 2 days asking for my explanation on something I had already given..

realistically i cant argue against what you posted...in fact i agree with most of it...its just the way you word things is different than How i would but it seems to be right on point...

LoneTiger108

02-16-2012, 03:25 AM

Maybe if you took your foot out of your mouth first.

I can't get it in my mouth dude, my Yoga days are over!

Who exactly were you referring to when you said "so he wasn't just passing through or learnt for a few years before he started teaching!"? Name names or STFU.

C'mon! You know the names already because you are so well researched. I would say ANYONE who teaches Wing Chun after less than 5 years training. Hows that?

Care to elaborate, smarta$$? Just so I make sure I don't "misinterpret what [you were] saying" again?

No point. You know what I'm saying MMA boy ;)

LoneTiger108

02-16-2012, 03:44 AM

The way you portray IM makes out that WC peaked around the 1960's somewhere in China, and will never be matched regardless of race, colour or creed.

Kind of, yes that is what I am saying. But it didn't peak in China, it peaked with every generation that was sent overseas during the 60's! FWIW I think China has 'lost' it to the western world.

My own Sifu started in the 1960's and in those days the curriculum was not as it is today. That only happend in the early seventies and was further promoted by Ip Chun afterwards. And there is the key. Do you have this curriculum on paper? After all, what connects us all??

Three empty hand forms, interactive drills, wooden man and weaponry. This is all Ip Mans curriculum suggests. It isn't much, but the devil is in the details of how it is taught imo.

So everyone doing WC is practicing a dying art that's only ever going to be a shadow of its once glorious past???

Correct! :o

But I will add this, it's only dying if you are a copy machine. If you are recreating dead peoples forms and hanging onto them without trying to understand why they are there and what they are doing exactly. Or dare I say, if you have to discover what it is yourself, with no guidance, where is your Sifu?? Why didn't he/she show you? Or even worse, do they even know??!

This was never Ip Mans intention when he made his infamous tapes. It was all supposed to be followed up, developed and sustained by the elder generations. But look what happened. Greedy minds wanting everything for nothing. Wanting quick results with no effort. Stealing a dead mans image to make money. Pathetic.

Unfortunately, this is now happening on a much larger scale in mainland China. And again, this is the result of a single movie star!

anerlich

02-16-2012, 02:13 PM

I can't get it in my mouth dude

Don't sell yourself short, You've demonstrated you can talk out of your a$$, suck on the teat of your instructors' fables and fantasies, and still put your foot in your mouth.

You know what I'm saying MMA boy

MMA boy? Wow, I'm cut to the quick with your devastating talent for insults.

Hows that?

The sort of cop out I expected. A behaviour learned from your Sifu, or all your own work?

After all, what connects us all??

Mutual hatred?

Phil Redmond

02-16-2012, 06:38 PM

. . .Being a Wing Chun student and having discussed these sorts of things with my own Sifu and others it is clear that Ip Man was the 'only' great teacher of his times. The 'first' to do what he done if you will. . .
You need to do more research and stop "worshiping" a man. It's common knowledge amongst older HK WC people that Yip Man would hang out at the Dai Dak Lan and exchange ideas with other Wing Chun Sifus. He wasn't the "purist" you make him out to be.

Vajramusti

02-16-2012, 09:48 PM

The thread began with Ian asking what Chum Kiu means to them. But as threads often do, the thread has morphed into different directions.
Yoshiyahu says what he says endlessly. And Spencer is a one man advocate for Lee Shing repeatedly.
A passing comment on Phil's last post.
Ip man did visit the Dai Duk Lan which had good martial artists- including the founder Wai Yan, the great pole artist Tang Yick and the great Chu Chong Man. Ip Man had friends in other styles. Chu Chong Man was a relative and friend. Ip man basically visited with him and he came to Ip man's birthday party. But the dai duk lan masters were mostly weng chun folks and Ip Man has pointed out that his wing chun is a different art from weng chun. The fundamental stances of an art tells you a lot about the art and the fundamental weng chun stances are different from Ip Man's.
And, Ip Man's wing chun ygkym is also different from Hendrik's Yik Kam stance as well.And Ip Man's pole work is different from that of Lee Shing, Austin Goh, Tang Yick or Hung Gar polework.

Going back to the original thread: I pointed out that in spoken language that there are different meanings for "chum".. when one actually looks at Ip Man's chum kiu--- the sinking bridge function appears to be primary and fairly specific and repeated often in the form. In a general way in motion we are always looking for contact....the bridge.. and where there is no bridge making one.
Not specific enough to be the correct "chum".
I respect what others do-but our thread IMO has been getting muddled.

joy chaudhuri

LoneTiger108

02-17-2012, 05:01 AM

FWIW That's a good post Joy imho. Highlighting again Ip Mans massive contribution to Wing Chun, that should stand on it's own and be recognized.

I know I have caused a bit of a diversion and, again, I do appologise for that. So let's try and get back on subject.

http://www.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1157409&postcount=52

With regards to the Chum/Sinking interpretation, did my earlier post (above) not make sense to you? Where I explain Chum Jarng (which is what I feel you're mentioning above) being heavily present in the form but that I was taught the name of the form is the 'Seeking' character because 'you yourself' ARE the bridge and every posture/method in this form is created for that specific purpose.

I was often told that this form will help me develop my 'launch pad', as it is giving precise information about where everything from SLT can be used.

Phil Redmond

02-17-2012, 09:28 AM

trubblman

02-17-2012, 09:49 AM

IMO, the bridge is just a tool, an approach - it's not always necessary to bridge, it is extremely helpful but not always necessary. I think you see a lot of bridging in grappling and throwing arts but almost none in arts like boxing or TKD( I dont know so much about TKD so there may be) But to me VT seems to be a hybrid, not quite grappling/clinching but not as hit and run as boxing, kickboxing. In VT one stays and fights, rather than hit and run. Not that one stands still and fight, big difference. Bridging, according to my sifu, is very helpful versus those who use hit and run tactics. What he looks to do if the opponent retreats, jam the hell out of him by hitting the person using arm or leg. In short bridging is an approach but by no means is it the only approach.

In addition bridging can work both ways - if one person bridges, either person can cross the bridge.

k gledhill

02-17-2012, 12:55 PM

To us, its trying to end the fight asap, by getting from A-B without eating a punch on the way, bridging the gap and ballistic removal of any obstructions, interceptions, or attempts to bridge. Making sharp ballistic counter angles, facing rotations, balanced, with striking force.

The form is a module of dynamics, not a kata.

Yoshiyahu

02-17-2012, 05:39 PM

Very good post i agree. very good analogy of bridging.

IMO, the bridge is just a tool, an approach - it's not always necessary to bridge, it is extremely helpful but not always necessary. I think you see a lot of bridging in grappling and throwing arts but almost none in arts like boxing or TKD( I dont know so much about TKD so there may be) But to me VT seems to be a hybrid, not quite grappling/clinching but not as hit and run as boxing, kickboxing. In VT one stays and fights, rather than hit and run. Not that one stands still and fight, big difference. Bridging, according to my sifu, is very helpful versus those who use hit and run tactics. What he looks to do if the opponent retreats, jam the hell out of him by hitting the person using arm or leg. In short bridging is an approach but by no means is it the only approach.

In addition bridging can work both ways - if one person bridges, either person can cross the bridge.

Very good Kevin. I haave to say i look at bridging the same way...only with out the ideaolgy of attempting to bridge. I dont believe in attempting to bridge. I think bridging comes about when you get too close to your opponent.

To us, its trying to end the fight asap, by getting from A-B without eating a punch on the way, bridging the gap and ballistic removal of any obstructions, interceptions, or attempts to bridge. Making sharp ballistic counter angles, facing rotations, balanced, with striking force.

The form is a module of dynamics, not a kata.

k gledhill

02-17-2012, 06:35 PM

Very good post i agree. very good analogy of bridging.

Very good Kevin. I haave to say i look at bridging the same way...only with out the ideaolgy of attempting to bridge. I dont believe in attempting to bridge. I think bridging comes about when you get too close to your opponent.

We dont build bridges. Bridges are levers, a way to a persons axis, ours included.
Bridging is what we would refer to as a defensive gesture to stop us hitting the opponent. So immediate removal serves our goals better than leaving it there to aid there goal.

Yoshiyahu

02-17-2012, 09:01 PM

We dont build bridges. Bridges are levers, a way to a persons axis, ours included.
Bridging is what we would refer to as a defensive gesture to stop us hitting the opponent. So immediate removal serves our goals better than leaving it there to aid there goal.

Well for us. Bridging allows us to control our opponents ability to launch attacks while it serves as way for us to attack easily with out getting hit. For instance once in punching range bridges arise...kinda of like a one way shield that allows attacks to go out but not come in. In other words if you control your opponents bridge you control his centerline. Thus allowing you to control his structure. Once you control all three you protect your centerline and your structure allowing you to attack with out retailiation.

Bridging is something you seek as you close the gap. Seeking the bridige is done simultaneously while striking...

This Video Shows the concept of bridging click this clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJRwQuwNH2E&feature=related)

This video shows the principle of sticking with non-wing chun fighter click this clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJA85eeVNvs&feature=related)

Video 3 shows bridging the gap, controlling your opponents structure and sticking (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6kFAef8xlU&feature=related)

k gledhill

02-17-2012, 09:27 PM

Well for us. Bridging allows us to control our opponents ability to launch attacks while it serves as way for us to attack easily with out getting hit. For instance once in punching range bridges arise...kinda of like a one way shield that allows attacks to go out but not come in. In other words if you control your opponents bridge you control his centerline. Thus allowing you to control his structure. Once you control all three you protect your centerline and your structure allowing you to attack with out retailiation.

Bridging is something you seek as you close the gap. Seeking the bridige is done simultaneously while striking...

This Video Shows the concept of bridging click this clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJRwQuwNH2E&feature=related)

This video shows the principle of sticking with non-wing chun fighter click this clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJA85eeVNvs&feature=related)

Video 3 shows bridging the gap, controlling your opponents structure and sticking (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6kFAef8xlU&feature=related)

We remove bridges, pak them out of the way, jut them out of the way, bong them...no attempt to slow down and hang out on an arm for a chat....:D

Try to stick to this...You will be chasing air to build false bridges.... Lightning (http://youtu.be/D8gi8gRgxFg)

Hands can say in a few seconds what typing cant, ever.

trubblman

02-17-2012, 10:04 PM

We remove bridges, pak them out of the way, jut them out of the way, bong them...no attempt to slow down and hang out on an arm for a chat....:D

Try to stick to this...You will be chasing air to build false bridges.... Lightning (http://youtu.be/D8gi8gRgxFg)

Hands can say in a few seconds what typing cant, ever.

You have actually proved what Yoshi was saying. When you jut and punch at same time. The Jut is the bridge - when you punch, you crossed the bridge created by the jut.

When you bong sau, a bridge is also created. It matters not how long the bridge is there. A nanosecond will do. That's the bridge. If you bong lop and punch at same time. Same thing. The bong lop is the bridge and if you punch at same time that you do a bong lop, you have crossed the bridge that you yourself created.

Yoshiyahu

02-17-2012, 10:50 PM

k gledhill

02-18-2012, 07:26 AM

You have actually proved what Yoshi was saying. When you jut and punch at same time. The Jut is the bridge - when you punch, you crossed the bridge created by the jut.

When you bong sau, a bridge is also created. It matters not how long the bridge is there. A nanosecond will do. That's the bridge. If you bong lop and punch at same time. Same thing. The bong lop is the bridge and if you punch at same time that you do a bong lop, you have crossed the bridge that you yourself created.

One word 'Ballistics'

I repeat we dont build bridges or seek to contact arms for controlling pressure or bridging. Its subtle and easily shown first hand.
Its hard for you to understand simply because you 'may' not have been exposed to any other way than sticking hands for pressure on arms in drills for years.
This chi-sao pressure idea of yours will lead you to think that you are going to try and replicate the same game with chum kil when fighting. You will try to use ck to seek and arm to "bridge" for control and pressure before attacking.

k gledhill

02-18-2012, 07:35 AM

The problem i see...is Philip bayer is using the bridge to stick and control his opponent...thats flaw in your argument...he keeps the bridge but disrupts his opponent structure and posture...

The flaw is that you and trubblman, and trying to make a 1:1 correlation of how YOU see action in relation to YOUR sticking hands mindset. You both see chi-sao as a sticking arm drill a place to feel energy and follow it so you dont get hit and then you turn chi-sao into a war zone.
So you equate that idea to Chum Kil as a place to search for arms/bridges to build and enter into a controlling arm game to peoples 'centers' .
That is a common commercial misconception, born from lack of understanding certain concepts and principles.
We dont want to search for or stick to arms. CK isnt searching for a bridge/arm. even for a nano second.
Its subtle and hard to see from a sticking hand driller who views the actions as a place to exert pressure and control to disrupt peoples centers through bridges.

We are strikers not feelers.

trubblman

02-18-2012, 08:20 AM

The flaw is that you and trubblman, and trying to make a 1:1 correlation of how YOU see action in relation to YOUR sticking hands mindset. You both see chi-sao as a sticking arm drill a place to feel energy and follow it so you dont get hit and then you turn chi-sao into a war zone.
So you equate that idea to Chum Kil as a place to search for arms/bridges to build and enter into a controlling arm game to peoples 'centers' .
That is a common commercial misconception, born from lack of understanding certain concepts and principles.
We dont want to search for or stick to arms. CK isnt searching for a bridge/arm. even for a nano second.
Its subtle and hard to see from a sticking hand driller who views the actions as a place to exert pressure and control to disrupt peoples centers through bridges.

We are strikers not feelers.

I never mentioned chi sao or sticky hands. The idea of bridging and feeling inheres in kung fu and IMO in other asian martial arts.

If wing chun martial artists were strikers and nothing but strikers then wing chun would be like boxing. There would be no need to have a lop sao, a jut sao, a tan sao or bong sao, pak sao or bil sao if wing chun was nothing but striking. Maybe that's how you understand Wing Chun, nothing but kicking and hand strikes, but it is clear that is not the majority POV.

To make it clearer - when you pak sao, there is a bridge, or a connection, if you will between you and an opponent. You yourself said you pak sao. So when you pak sao you have created the bridge. When you pak sao and punch or pak da as some call it. The pak sao is the bridge, the punch is your crossing the bridge. In you mind you are not saying let me create the bridge and cross over it. The bridge is simply a concept or rule of thumb.

There's no need to have a bridge at all if for example you are boxing which is pure striking. All you have to do is look in this forum with the 2 Alan Orr students. Its all striking, no pak sao, etc. It is still fighting but it is not Wing Chun.

k gledhill

02-18-2012, 08:38 AM

I never mentioned chi sao or sticky hands. The idea of bridging and feeling inheres in kung fu and IMO in other asian martial arts.

If wing chun martial artists were strikers and nothing but strikers then wing chun would be like boxing. There would be no need to have a lop sao, a jut sao, a tan sao or bong sao, pak sao or bil sao if wing chun was nothing but striking. Maybe that's how you understand Wing Chun, nothing but kicking and hand strikes, but it is clear that is not the majority POV.

To make it clearer - when you pak sao, there is a bridge, or a connection, if you will between you and an opponent. You yourself said you pak sao. So when you pak sao you have created the bridge. When you pak sao and punch or pak da as some call it. The pak sao is the bridge, the punch is your crossing the bridge. In you mind you are not saying let me create the bridge and cross over it. The bridge is simply a concept or rule of thumb.

There's no need to have a bridge at all if for example you are boxing which is pure striking. All you have to do is look in this forum with the 2 Alan Orr students. Its all striking, no pak sao, etc. It is still fighting but it is not Wing Chun.

Pak sao does not make a bridge.....I dont want to stay holding an arm with pak sao....can you understand why?
I know your thinking is a more commercial mainstream sticky hand approach that requires excess trapping and controlling bridges because you lack certain fundamental ideas.
We don't x our own arms in VT.

trubblman

02-18-2012, 08:41 AM

Pak sao does not make a bridge.....I dont want to stay holding an arm with pak sao....can you understand why?
I know your thinking is a more commercial mainstream sticky hand approach that requires excess trapping and controlling bridges because you lack certain fundamental ideas.
We don't x our own arms in VT.

Allow me to please repeat. I never said you stay and hold the arm. or try to control the bridge. The bridge is created at the moment of contact, even if you touch the arm for a millisecond. That's the bridge.

k gledhill

02-18-2012, 08:48 AM

Allow me to please repeat. I never said you stay and hold the arm. or try to control the bridge. The bridge is created at the moment of contact, even if you touch the arm for a millisecond. That's the bridge.

um no, subtle but as long as you insist on "building a bridge" even for a nano second. This thinking alone will blind you to a more sophisticated approach.

trubblman

02-18-2012, 08:55 AM

um no, subtle but as long as you insist on "building a bridge" even for a nano second. This thinking alone will blind you to a more sophisticated approach.

Not at all, I have seen your sifus videos and he clearly is doing what I am describing. Moreover, Gary Lam, not my sifu but I am a fan of his, also uses the concept of a bridge. Apparently he was an instructor of WSL. It seems to me that WSL school of Wing Chun does explicitly recognize the principle.

k gledhill

02-18-2012, 09:06 AM

Not at all, I have seen your sifus videos and he clearly is doing what I am describing. Moreover, Gary Lam, not my sifu but I am a fan of his, also uses the concept of a bridge. Apparently he was an instructor of WSL. It seems to me that WSL school of Wing Chun does explicitly recognize the principle.

Have you spoken to him ? or are you trying to see what you understand as his thinking ?

I have felt and experienced several of your lineage first hand and its not the same at all.

trubblman

02-18-2012, 12:24 PM

Have you spoken to him ? or are you trying to see what you understand as his thinking ?

I have felt and experienced several of your lineage first hand and its not the same at all.

I have never spoken to Gary Lam personally and I am not of the WSL tree. In Lam's videos he clearly uses the word bridge to develop some concepts. I am not saying his concept that his ideas on bridging and mine are identical. I am saying that he specifically uses the word bridging and develops the idea so it is clear that in his interpretation it is there. And it is unconverted that he was the head instructor of the WSL school in HK for a number of years - to me that speaks volumes.

k gledhill

02-18-2012, 01:13 PM

I have never spoken to Gary Lam personally and I am not of the WSL tree. In Lam's videos he clearly uses the word bridge to develop some concepts. I am not saying his concept that his ideas on bridging and mine are identical. I am saying that he specifically uses the word bridging and develops the idea so it is clear that in his interpretation it is there. And it is unconverted that he was the head instructor of the WSL school in HK for a number of years - to me that speaks volumes.

Look, if you want to look for an arm, go ahead, if you want to put pressure on an arm with bong sao, go ahead, have fun...

trubblman

02-18-2012, 01:15 PM

Look, if you want to look for an arm, go ahead, if you want to put pressure on an arm with bong sao, go ahead, have fun...

I never said I did. I think you believe that's what I am saying and you are trying to refute your conception of what you believe I am saying. ( holy syntax)

k gledhill

02-18-2012, 01:22 PM

I never said I did. I think you believe that's what I am saying.

I think its "whatever" time....

WC1277

02-18-2012, 01:25 PM

Look, if you want to look for an arm, go ahead, if you want to put pressure on an arm with bong sao, go ahead, have fun...

You're a total hypocrite Kevin! You know how you guys bounce back your entire body when someone pushes in on you. Most often seen during your lop sau demos. It looks like you're hopping. That's because you are putting pressure back with your bong sau or whatever arm position you're in and totally wrong IMO. And don't even try to argue me on that because it's straight physics 101!

trubblman

02-18-2012, 01:31 PM

I think its "whatever" time....

Whatever? This is a forum. A forum is where people come to discuss things. Can't people have a conversation without it devolving into whatever? If not then this should not be called a forum which in the Roman days was where people met for discussions.

k gledhill

02-18-2012, 01:33 PM

You're a total hypocrite Kevin! You know how you guys bounce back your entire body when someone pushes in on you. Most often seen during your lop sau demos. It looks like you're hopping. That's because you are putting pressure back with your bong sau or whatever arm position you're in and totally wrong IMO. And don't even try to argue me on that because it's straight physics 101!

You're confused , whatever dude. May your arms always find pressure they seek.

WC1277

02-18-2012, 01:38 PM

You're confused , whatever dude. May your arms always find pressure they seek.

Ok, fine, even if what you were referring to was when someone puts pressure on your bong sau, you guys still do it also in the way that I described with the bunny hop thing...

k gledhill

02-18-2012, 01:51 PM

Ok, fine, even if what you were referring to was when someone puts pressure on your bong sau, you guys still do it also in the way that I described with the bunny hop thing...

May the pressure be with you.

WC1277

02-18-2012, 01:57 PM

May the pressure be with you.

Ok........ not sure what you're referring to but I should of known better than to converse with you again...

Yoshiyahu

02-18-2012, 04:16 PM

See the problem is this...Your confusing Chi Sau with gor sau or actually sparring. Chum Kiu is simply a form which gives you techniques to practice in the air that can be broken down into drills against compliant partner until your muscle memory becomes natural and your ready to intergrate it into freestyle sparring where anything goes not just WC...

Chi Sau is a compliant drill that your partner does with you to teach you how to use certain elements of WC when you have a bridge,sticking to your opponent are attempting to take the centerline or control his structure. it teaches you how to control his structure, centerline, and bridge. Thats what chi sau builds. it allows you to learn to relax when your toe to toe and get use to sliding through some ones defenses and manipulating their structure to your advantage...Chi Sau is simply a drill...A Bridge to real sparring...

Only in sparring can you truly realize the truth...

But before we get their your Video you post are not real sparring...they are compliant drills where two people are vibing for the center and trying occupy the same space ie both are bridging or trying to bridge. Only the dominant one controls the bridge nullfying the others bridge. You want to prevent your opponent from sticking to you. But at the same time you woant to stick to him so you can control his centre.

Your clip is your teacher actually taking his opponents centre and controlling his structure. All the while he does so while maintaining a constant bridge by Faan Sau.

Wing Chun Not bridging or Sticking Clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TH0cjMNVbfs)

Wing Chun Bridging and Sticking Clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k--1xtAUF5M)

Can you understand the difference?

When I punch an you throw your arms up I am going to gain contact with your arms ie bridge. if you strike an i intercept or cut off your punch with a bil sau i have a bridge. But as I bridge im striking you back at the same time right? Everytime you get in striking range I bridge. Everytime I get in striking range I bridge. Sticking is simply staying close to your opponent the way a Bee does or the way an aggressive street fighter does.

I strike while bridging...if there is no bridge to obstruct my strike i strike anyway...if you attack i bridge and strike. If you drop your hands i leak in an strike. The main thing is I want to keep any potential attacks nullify so as I gain entry i pak da or lop da to stop or immobilize your lead hand from striking me and also to disrupt you for a nano second. Allowing me to be ready for your power hand!

One word 'Ballistics'

I repeat we dont build bridges or seek to contact arms for controlling pressure or bridging. Its subtle and easily shown first hand.
Its hard for you to understand simply because you 'may' not have been exposed to any other way than sticking hands for pressure on arms in drills for years.
This chi-sao pressure idea of yours will lead you to think that you are going to try and replicate the same game with chum kil when fighting. You will try to use ck to seek and arm to "bridge" for control and pressure before attacking.

The flaw is that you and trubblman, and trying to make a 1:1 correlation of how YOU see action in relation to YOUR sticking hands mindset. You both see chi-sao as a sticking arm drill a place to feel energy and follow it so you dont get hit and then you turn chi-sao into a war zone.
So you equate that idea to Chum Kil as a place to search for arms/bridges to build and enter into a controlling arm game to peoples 'centers' .
That is a common commercial misconception, born from lack of understanding certain concepts and principles.
We dont want to search for or stick to arms. CK isnt searching for a bridge/arm. even for a nano second.
Its subtle and hard to see from a sticking hand driller who views the actions as a place to exert pressure and control to disrupt peoples centers through bridges.

We are strikers not feelers.

k gledhill

02-18-2012, 05:19 PM

See the problem is this...Your confusing Chi Sau with gor sau or actually sparring. Chum Kiu is simply a form which gives you techniques to practice in the air that can be broken down into drills against compliant partner until your muscle memory becomes natural and your ready to intergrate it into freestyle sparring where anything goes not just WC...

Chi Sau is a compliant drill that your partner does with you to teach you how to use certain elements of WC when you have a bridge,sticking to your opponent are attempting to take the centerline or control his structure. it teaches you how to control his structure, centerline, and bridge. Thats what chi sau builds. it allows you to learn to relax when your toe to toe and get use to sliding through some ones defenses and manipulating their structure to your advantage...Chi Sau is simply a drill...A Bridge to real sparring...

Only in sparring can you truly realize the truth...

But before we get their your Video you post are not real sparring...they are compliant drills where two people are vibing for the center and trying occupy the same space ie both are bridging or trying to bridge. Only the dominant one controls the bridge nullfying the others bridge. You want to prevent your opponent from sticking to you. But at the same time you woant to stick to him so you can control his centre.

Your clip is your teacher actually taking his opponents centre and controlling his structure. All the while he does so while maintaining a constant bridge by Faan Sau.

Wing Chun Not bridging or Sticking Clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TH0cjMNVbfs)

Wing Chun Bridging and Sticking Clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k--1xtAUF5M)

Can you understand the difference?

When I punch an you throw your arms up I am going to gain contact with your arms ie bridge. if you strike an i intercept or cut off your punch with a bil sau i have a bridge. But as I bridge im striking you back at the same time right? Everytime you get in striking range I bridge. Everytime I get in striking range I bridge. Sticking is simply staying close to your opponent the way a Bee does or the way an aggressive street fighter does.

I strike while bridging...if there is no bridge to obstruct my strike i strike anyway...if you attack i bridge and strike. If you drop your hands i leak in an strike. The main thing is I want to keep any potential attacks nullify so as I gain entry i pak da or lop da to stop or immobilize your lead hand from striking me and also to disrupt you for a nano second. Allowing me to be ready for your power hand!

You really are confused Yoshiyahu... nothing to do with sticking, controlling, common misguided ideas, based of 'feel me follow you' chi-sao arm pressure chasers.

Until you have a lesson from a coach who knows the 'fighting' goals of VT, your views of chi-sao will ruin you.....

dont chase arms or seek bridges.

We dont fight with two extended arms either, I know ! crazy talk ; )

Phil Redmond

02-18-2012, 07:18 PM

Pak sao does not make a bridge.....I dont want to stay holding an arm with pak sao....can you understand why?
I know your thinking is a more commercial mainstream sticky hand approach that requires excess trapping and controlling bridges because you lack certain fundamental ideas.
We don't x our own arms in VT.
In Southern Gung Fu styles of which Wing Chun is one. a bridge is created when any contact with a limb is made regardless of how long.

k gledhill

02-18-2012, 07:32 PM

In Southern Gung Fu styles of which Wing Chun is one. a bridge is created when any contact with a limb is made regardless of how long.

We don't seek to make bridges...subtle.

trubblman

02-18-2012, 07:38 PM

We don't seek to make bridges...subtle.

Nobody is saying THAT, Kevin. What you are reading and what I am saying and some others have said is that, whether seek to do so or not, the bridge is created. You dont have to consciously try and make the bridge, the bridge is made. I think your mistake is the word seeking. I have not used the word seeking or searching. The point is the bridge is made unless all you are doing is striking. If you are performing a pak sao, a jum sao, a bil sao and so on and so on you are making a bridge.

k gledhill

02-18-2012, 08:18 PM

In Southern Gung Fu styles of which Wing Chun is one. a bridge is created when any contact with a limb is made regardless of how long.

Nobody is saying THAT, Kevin. What you are reading and what I am saying and some others have said is that, whether seek to do so or not, the bridge is created. You dont have to consciously try and make the bridge, the bridge is made. I think your mistake is the word seeking. I have not used the word seeking or searching. The point is the bridge is made unless all you are doing is striking. If you are performing a pak sao, a jum sao, a bil sao and so on and so on you are making a bridge.

If do a pak sao it is to prevent a bridge, a jum sao......a bong.
I am trying to just strike.
On another level I simply strike through attempts to bridge.

Subtle but profound change in fighting.

Trubblman your mind is fixed on bridging

Phil Redmond

02-18-2012, 08:19 PM

You really are confused Yoshiyahu... nothing to do with sticking, controlling, common misguided ideas, based of 'feel me follow you' chi-sao arm pressure chasers.

Until you have a lesson from a coach who knows the 'fighting' goals of VT, your views of chi-sao will ruin you.....

dont chase arms or seek bridges.

We dont fight with two extended arms either, I know ! crazy talk ; )
I fight with two extended arms to make to opponent have to travel a longer distance to strike me. It's worked well for me against skilled opponents who were trying to knock me out. I'm not referring to bar fights or street fights but fights against famous full contact fighters in NYC back in the day. If you don't extend your arms then you're at the mercy of a boxer. In fact I was just in a pro boxing gym in Pennsauken, NJ talking about this same subject. One of the Pro boxers is Sifu Keith Mazza's Wing Chun student.

trubblman

02-18-2012, 08:22 PM

If do a pak sao it is to prevent a bridge, a jum sao......a bong.
I am trying to just strike.
On another level I simply strike through attempts to bridge.

Subtle but profound change in fighting.

Trubblman your mind is fixed on bridging

But when you have pak sao you have just created a bridge.

Phil Redmond

02-18-2012, 08:28 PM

We don't seek to make bridges...subtle.
Once you touch the arm you have a path to the face or body. Creating a bridge allows you to control the arm which controls the balance. So I guess you only go for strikes without checking the arms which I find to be VERY bad in a fight.

k gledhill

02-18-2012, 08:30 PM

But when you have pak sao you have just created a bridge.

You have not me, our methods are ballistic to displace not hold hands.

Phil Redmond

02-18-2012, 08:31 PM

The concept of creating a bridge isn't exclusive to Wing Chun. It's just common sense. Well, at least to people who fight. Theory can go anywhere. Fighting is the here and now.

k gledhill

02-18-2012, 08:32 PM

I fight with two extended arms to make to opponent have to travel a longer distance to strike me. It's worked well for me against skilled opponents who were trying to knock me out. I'm not referring to bar fights or street fights but fights against famous full contact fighters in NYC back in the day. If you don't extend your arms then you're at the mercy of a boxer. In fact I was just in a pro boxing gym in Pennsauken, NJ talking about this same subject. One of the Pro boxers is Sifu Keith Mazza's Wing Chun student.

I have boxers as students, from gleasons....I don't use two arms extended.

k gledhill

02-18-2012, 08:33 PM

trubblman

02-18-2012, 08:33 PM

Once you touch the arm you have a path to the face or body. Creating a bridge allows you to control the arm which controls the balance. So I guess you only go for strikes without checking the arms which I find to be VERY bad in a fight.

Agreed. Unless you and your opponent are out of range of one another but then you are not fighting until the gap is closed. Boxers dont have to worry about bridging because they utilize feints, bobs and weaves and angles and being able to take the punch.

k gledhill

02-18-2012, 08:35 PM

Agreed. Unless you and your opponent are out of range of one another but then you are not fighting until the gap is closed. Boxers dont have to worry about bridging because they utilize feints, bobs and weaves and angles and being able to take the punch.

Kick boxers they don't like it. we have a longer leg than a jab, nearer the closest target with the closest weapon, use it often to stop kick harass, low kick.

Phil Redmond

02-18-2012, 08:44 PM

I have had many fights.....
Kevin, are you referring to street fights and fights in clubs? If so, you don't need martial arts for those. As a former bouncer like you were I know that. I was referring to fighting against another martial artist who is trained and conditioned to fight. I don't count the fights I had in clubs against some guy who had a few too many since i had back up bouncers. I'm not diminishing the damage that a street fighter can do but for them I just pick up a stick, bottle, ash tray, keys to the eye or whatever. Have you ever fought '"skilled" fighters from other arts on a regular basis?

k gledhill

02-18-2012, 08:44 PM

The idea of bridges, stems from misinformed interpretations. Guessing and thinkng sticky hands applies to chum kil.

Phil Redmond

02-18-2012, 08:49 PM

The idea of bridges, stems from misinformed interpretations. Guessing and thinkng sticky hands applies to chum kil.
So all of the Wing Chun Sifus who taught me what Chum Kiu means in Cantonese were wrong? Go figure . . .:)

k gledhill

02-18-2012, 08:49 PM

Kevin, are you referring to street fights and fights in clubs? If so, you don't need martial arts for those. As a former bouncer like you were I know that. I was referring to fighting against another martial artist who is trained and conditioned to fight. I don't count the fights I had in clubs against some guy who had a few too many since i had back up bouncers. I'm not diminishing the damage that a street fighter can do but for them I just pick up a stick, bottle, ash tray, keys to the eye or whatever. Have you ever fought '"skilled" fighters from other arts on a regular basis?

Yeah 28 years, one meets all manner of fighters, muay thai, bjj, boxers, judoka,
Multiple attackers, more often in bar club brawls. 40+ I can remember.....street fights.
I also sparred for 15-18 years regularly in classes 4-6 times a week as Victor Kans chief instructor, back in the day....

k gledhill

02-18-2012, 08:53 PM

So all of the Wing Chun Sifus who taught me what Chum Kiu means in Cantonese were wrong? Go figure . . .:)

You are just finding out like me, many have a...subtlety missing....you're not alone, the guys i meet from other established 'sifu' all say what you just did.

Phil Redmond

02-18-2012, 08:53 PM

Yeah 28 years, one meets all manner of fighters, muay thai, bjj, boxers, judoka,
Multiple attackers, more often in bar club brawls. 40+ I can remember.....street fights.
I also sparred for 15-18 years regularly in classes 4-6 times a week as Victor Kans chief instructor, back in the day....
You're the man Kevin.

k gledhill

02-18-2012, 08:54 PM

Esoteric circles might have been the reason or 2-3 rd generation passing on ambiguous ideas...easy to see how 'sticking hands' would be misinterpreted....AND Chum Kil too.

I was searching some old Dan Inosanto clips, he mentioned an interesting insight he got from Bruce Lee, that 1st Generation Yip Man students were fighters, second Gen. technicians and 3rd Gen., lived off the reputations of the 1st ....

k gledhill

02-18-2012, 08:56 PM

You're the man Kevin.

Not by any stretch, I am a devout coward who only throws his hands out to defend himself as those who get too close fall down, your honor ; )

Phil Redmond

02-18-2012, 09:09 PM

Not by any stretch, I am a devout coward who only throws his hands out to defend himself as those who get too close fall down, your honor ; )
Well trained in the security business I see. ;)

wingchunIan

02-20-2012, 02:36 AM

I normally try to be restrained in my posts and avoid offending others but the number of people on here living in la la land is scary. Claims of training against style x and style y then showing total ignorance of the styles in question seems order of the day. An uppercut is a specific tool used when circumstances dictate that it is the right tool to use. "a kali uppercut comes up teh middle and is designed to work against a Wing Chun defence" LOL behave yourself. If your elbows are in a good punching position and your posture is correct no uppercut is going to land period, unless the opponent has telescopic arms.
If however you allow your arms to become extended or flared and / or you lean forward or bend the waist / duck the head then you become vulnerable to an uppercut. It is the opponents job to get you to commit / make a mistake and it is your job not to. A trained fighter only looks for an uppercut when the opening is there whether it is a manufactured opening (through a combo / exploiting of a reaction) or one that is presented freely. The upper cut is one of the easiest techniques in the book to defend against but it is also one of the most devastating when it lands. the upper cut itself is not something that you should worry about defending, it is the ability to retain posture, shape and distance when under pressure from real offense that you need so that you minimise the openings that you present.

Yoshiyahu

02-20-2012, 05:12 AM

Kick boxers they don't like it. we have a longer leg than a jab, nearer the closest target with the closest weapon, use it often to stop kick harass, low kick.

Kevin using his check kick on kick boxer in the clip below?

Clip 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TH0cjMNVbfs)

If your not going to use the tools of WC such as Pak Sau, Lop Sau, Bong Sau, Bil Sau, Tan Sau, Gan Sau, Jut Sau and others why even do WC...if all your going to do is drive forward chain punching and throw a low level kick when you think your opponent might kick why not take of kick boxing?

If you dont utilize the techniques of WC when your fighting your just doing Kick Boxing.

k gledhill

02-20-2012, 06:45 AM

Kevin using his check kick on kick boxer in the clip below?

Clip 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TH0cjMNVbfs)

If your not going to use the tools of WC such as Pak Sau, Lop Sau, Bong Sau, Bil Sau, Tan Sau, Gan Sau, Jut Sau and others why even do WC...if all your going to do is drive forward chain punching and throw a low level kick when you think your opponent might kick why not take of kick boxing?

If you dont utilize the techniques of WC when your fighting your just doing Kick Boxing.

:confused: you are more than confused....your assumptions and armchair theory are amusing.

EternalSpring

02-20-2012, 10:33 AM

Kevin using his check kick on kick boxer in the clip below?

Clip 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TH0cjMNVbfs)

If your not going to use the tools of WC such as Pak Sau, Lop Sau, Bong Sau, Bil Sau, Tan Sau, Gan Sau, Jut Sau and others why even do WC...if all your going to do is drive forward chain punching and throw a low level kick when you think your opponent might kick why not take of kick boxing?

If you dont utilize the techniques of WC when your fighting your just doing Kick Boxing.

Wait, what.

You dont think that Chain punching and utilizing low kicks to harass would be considered utilizing techniques of Ving Tsun?

And technically, and I know not everyone will agree on this, but at least in my understanding I'd say that the chong choi/cycle punch can still use other energies within it. Ex: Jut

LoneTiger108

02-20-2012, 01:32 PM

I also sparred for 15-18 years regularly in classes 4-6 times a week as Victor Kans chief instructor, back in the day....

Interesting.

So, if I was to 'ask Jack' he would know who you are? :cool:

LoneTiger108

02-20-2012, 01:52 PM

Cool.

I never doubted you for a second Kev :)

And yes, I agree that Jack is one cool cat. He knows my Wing Chun bro quite well, they were of the same generation and all that jazz. And I love the site, just didn't realize he had gone back to teaching!

k gledhill

02-20-2012, 01:55 PM

Cool.

I never doubted you for a second Kev :)

And yes, I agree that Jack is one cool cat. He knows my Wing Chun bro quite well, they were of the same generation and all that jazz.

You...doubter ! ;):D

LoneTiger108

02-20-2012, 02:00 PM

You...doubter ! ;):D

You see. I always knew we had more in common that you would like to admit :D ;)

k gledhill

02-20-2012, 02:02 PM

Vajramusti

02-20-2012, 02:48 PM

Jack Kontou, He combined bodybuilding and VT , he won his weight class for bodybuilding...he walked up to me as I was eating one night at Wong Ki and I didnt recognize him he had cut down so much....:D
He worked hard to look like the photo....
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I don't think that he is holding the bot jam do correctly for practice. If actually used he would get a thumb cut off.

joy chaudhuri

k gledhill

02-20-2012, 02:58 PM

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I don't think that he is holding the bot jam do correctly for practice. If actually used he would get a thumb cut off.

joy chaudhuri

No you're right, he was just 'posing' as muscle men do and flipping them in other shots.

LoneTiger108

02-21-2012, 04:38 AM

Jack Kontou, He combined bodybuilding and VT , he won his weight class for bodybuilding...he walked up to me as I was eating one night at Wong Ki and I didnt recognize him he had cut down so much....:D
He worked hard to look like the photo....

As did many of Sifu Kans earlier generations didn't they? They were a very tight unit.

And as for the blade 'flipping' comments by both of you, I really thought we would have all passed that stick in the mud by now... some lineages connected to Ip Man do turn the blades as his sons do so look at the photo as being 'in transition', so his thumbs are not in harms way at all...

Vajramusti

02-21-2012, 06:12 AM

As did many of Sifu Kans earlier generations didn't they? They were a very tight unit.

And as for the blade 'flipping' comments by both of you, I really thought we would have all passed that stick in the mud by now... some lineages connected to Ip Man do turn the blades as his sons do so look at the photo as being 'in transition', so his thumbs are not in harms way at all...-------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Both of you"(sic?)Lone Tiger? I made no commnet on flipping thoigh I don't flip.
Good body building shot- not a good wc shot.Kev was clear.

joy

LoneTiger108

02-21-2012, 07:03 AM

-------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Both of you"(sic?)Lone Tiger?

Ah! See your point Joy. Sorry for the ambush, but I'm having a testing day!!

k gledhill

02-21-2012, 07:12 AM

As did many of Sifu Kans earlier generations didn't they? They were a very tight unit.

And as for the blade 'flipping' comments by both of you, I really thought we would have all passed that stick in the mud by now... some lineages connected to Ip Man do turn the blades as his sons do so look at the photo as being 'in transition', so his thumbs are not in harms way at all...

To us, flipping is a show thing, the cross guard/quillon, cant be too long or you will 'bind' them easily and often as you rotate them to parry.
Ironically if you do use long guard/quillon knives, they will force you to open up the unbroken line you are seeking to create in some movements.

LoneTiger108

02-21-2012, 08:36 AM

To us, flipping is a show thing, the cross guard/quillon, cant be too long or you will 'bind' them easily and often as you rotate them to parry.

Not from my experience, but I see your point and obviously you are of the PB view so your 'ear' of the knife is very minimal isn't it? Did I see a picture once here?

FWIW I never use the term 'flip' because it reminds me of juggling or something. I rotate the blade to my forearm when in close quarters, especially against a long pole where strong barring is needed. When done correctly you never point the tip to yourself unless you have a death wish!

And here we are again, somehow connecting to the thread.

Lansau as a method IS used with sleeve knife ;)

CFT

02-21-2012, 08:42 AM

No sinking elbow with reversed knife hopefully. Ouch!

k gledhill

02-21-2012, 09:00 AM

The distances we gain from NOT flipping are in our favor. Why go to arm length when you have just doubled your reach.
Knives are long range hit and run.

LoneTiger108

02-21-2012, 09:23 AM

Knives are long range hit and run.

Woah! You interpret our knives as a long range weapon??? Now we're on opposite sides of the universe :eek:

No sinking elbow with reversed knife hopefully. Ouch!

Actually, yes. There 'should' be virtually nothing you do with your empty hand that does not have a similar method with the knife. Slight distance adjustments are needed of course but chum jarng is no different.

Y'know it's as if you guys think a trained knife man will be sloppy, innaccurate or clueless! Our knives are a speciality of the whole system. The cream on the cake and all that. Something treasured. Don't you agree?

Yoshiyahu

02-21-2012, 09:27 AM

Wait, what.

You dont think that Chain punching and utilizing low kicks to harass would be considered utilizing techniques of Ving Tsun?

And technically, and I know not everyone will agree on this, but at least in my understanding I'd say that the chong choi/cycle punch can still use other energies within it. Ex: Jut

Yes I do agree with you...but Chain punching and low level front kick is not the be all to end all of WC. Im simply pointing out some people do not utilize the other techniques of WC and complain about having gloves on. If you have mma gloves or kempo gloves you can very well do a pak da, jut da, bong sau and even gan sau and kwun sau.

The key is to practice the techniques with gloves on and with gloves off. An do them in sparring with gloves on and gloves off. So you can get used to the difference of energy.

Case In Point: If your main stand up art is WC and you getting ready for a MMA or Cage Fight. When you spar or train WC drills why can't you practice them with the gloves on.
The energy is different. But you can still do the same techniques. You need to adapt.

Let me digress. I totally agree with you when it comes to Chain Punching and Stop Kicks. But Those two techniques are not even 1/100th of the system. Its a very small part to entire art. Why not atleast 10% to 25% of the techniques in WC let alone 50% of hand to hand defense techniques?

In my opinion I think if people actually practiced with the gloves on sometime and sparred with gloves on and sparred with more than just kicking and punching their WC would be more adaptable.

:confused: you are more than confused....your assumptions and armchair theory are amusing.

lol thank you very much kev.

CFT

02-21-2012, 09:34 AM

Something to be treasured I can agree with. The Lun Gai Foshan Wing Chun had knife flipping but I was not convinced by the demo one of my instructors gave vs. the pole. i.e. a flip in mid-engagement whilst the other knife detained the pole.

How do you use the knives Spencer? What dictates the use of the reversed knife other than your opponent getting too close? Why can't you just punch with the knife guard if that happens?

Wayfaring

02-21-2012, 09:40 AM

Case In Point: If your main stand up art is WC and you getting ready for a MMA or Cage Fight. When you spar or train WC drills why can't you practice them with the gloves on.
The energy is different. But you can still do the same techniques. You need to adapt.

People who seldom or never have worked against resisting opponents in an unrestricted movement setting tend to develop viewpoints about gloves such that they think they change the game, no longer a realistic fight, it messes up their WC, etc. They are deluded.

Gloves are there so you can learn to hit harder and learn to fight while being hit harder. If you can't ko someone or hit hard enough to end a fight with gloves there is nothing magical that is going to make you be able to do it without gloves in a street scenario.

But people basically slap box and/or compliant chi sau with little to no strikes and think that will adequately prepare them for a real fight. Hint. It won't. If you are in a real fight against someone who has prepared for it by hitting hard and being hit hard, then you're not going to be prepared.

k gledhill

02-21-2012, 10:04 AM

People who seldom or never have worked against resisting opponents in an unrestricted movement setting tend to develop viewpoints about gloves such that they think they change the game, no longer a realistic fight, it messes up their WC, etc. They are deluded.

Gloves are there so you can learn to hit harder and learn to fight while being hit harder. If you can't ko someone or hit hard enough to end a fight with gloves there is nothing magical that is going to make you be able to do it without gloves in a street scenario.

But people basically slap box and/or compliant chi sau with little to no strikes and think that will adequately prepare them for a real fight. Hint. It won't. If you are in a real fight against someone who has prepared for it by hitting hard and being hit hard, then you're not going to be prepared.

I have experience fighting with and without gloves, Wayfaring what do you think, fighting without gloves ? whats your option for a guy with his head down coming at you..use a fist on his head ?
Curious as you have all this experience ?
Do you punch/strike without gloves/wraps on heavy bags ?
What, from your experience, is a common result of early bare knuckle conditioning on bags ?

How many guys have you ko'ed without gloves, compared with gloves ?

How should I hold my hand when striking to avoid injuries from bare knuckles, fighting ? Why ?

k gledhill

02-21-2012, 10:35 AM

Woah! You interpret our knives as a long range weapon??? Now we're on opposite sides of the universe :eek:

Actually, yes. There 'should' be virtually nothing you do with your empty hand that does not have a similar method with the knife. Slight distance adjustments are needed of course but chum jarng is no different.

Y'know it's as if you guys think a trained knife man will be sloppy, innaccurate or clueless! Our knives are a speciality of the whole system. The cream on the cake and all that. Something treasured. Don't you agree?

We adopt different footwork and longer distances for a reason....

Wayfaring

02-21-2012, 11:34 AM

I have experience fighting with and without gloves, Wayfaring what do you think, fighting without gloves ? whats your option for a guy with his head down coming at you..use a fist on his head ?

Depends. How fast coming at me? Striking or takedown attempt? In general no don't punch people's foreheads you'll hurt your hands. Stand them up then hit the chin or temple. Takedown attempts are different. You have to stuff it then I usually work ground or gnp.

Curious as you have all this experience ?
Do you punch/strike without gloves/wraps on heavy bags ?

Generally I don't. I develop power with my hands protected.

What, from your experience, is a common result of early bare knuckle conditioning on bags ?

Split skin, calcium buildup on knuckles, long-term arthritis of joints.

How many guys have you ko'ed without gloves, compared with gloves ?

Well, I haven't KO'd you yet ;)

How should I hold my hand when striking to avoid injuries from bare knuckles, fighting ? Why ?
With the way you guys like to hold each others hands out there in St. Louis, you're unlikely to injure your knuckles.

Now why don't you give it a whirl answering your own 20 questions?

k gledhill

02-21-2012, 12:44 PM

Depends. How fast coming at me? Striking or takedown attempt? In general no don't punch people's foreheads you'll hurt your hands. Stand them up then hit the chin or temple. Takedown attempts are different. You have to stuff it then I usually work ground or gnp.

Generally I don't. I develop power with my hands protected.

Split skin, calcium buildup on knuckles, long-term arthritis of joints.

Well, I haven't KO'd you yet ;)

With the way you guys like to hold each others hands out there in St. Louis, you're unlikely to injure your knuckles.

Now why don't you give it a whirl answering your own 20 questions?

Lets just leave it there.... I think we can read between the lines.

Eric_H

02-21-2012, 03:23 PM

JPinAZ

02-21-2012, 04:40 PM

Lets just leave it there.... I think we can read between the lines.

Kev, your value just dropped a whole lot of points here if Dave/Wayfaring takes the time to answer all of your questions honestly and you can't do the same in return except for this cr@p comment. Pretty sad bro..

Wayfaring

02-21-2012, 05:00 PM

Lets just leave it there.... I think we can read between the lines.

Why don't you spell it out? Are you slamming me here? Yoshiyahu? Or just being a general douche?

Wayfaring

02-21-2012, 05:16 PM

In regard to the last few posts on if gloves are evil or necessary or whatever,

In my experience hand wrapping and boxing gloves rob you of the ability to perform most Kiu Sao techniques as well as Chi Sao Techniques. Personally, I wouldn't use them to train WC.

I think gloves or hand wrappings changes the energy involved a little in that things are a little more "bouncy" on bridge contact (IF contact is made with wrist contact and energy - the forearm bridge doesn't seem a whole lot different to me).

However, I don't agree with the "rob you of the ability to perform..." statement. It's a modification and adaptation to make those work, not a complete negation of the ability to do kiu sau / chi sau.

The benefit you experience is practice in actually hitting someone harder and in being hit harder. Consistent harder contact helps you adjust to a fight scenario where you are getting hit so that you don't experience the flinch mechanism and the extreme adrenaline dump like the first time you do that kind of thing.

But YMMV. I wouldn't wear gloves outside of free motion sparring, unless for conditioning work. I wouldn't wear them doing forms or restricted motion drills.

Smaller MMA-style gloves can be somewhat limiting on how you express your wrist energy but allow a lot more expression with the forearms (assuming the hands aren't also wrapped). This can be beneficial in reducing injuries in certain training situations.

Hmmm. Hand wraps shouldn't interfere with forearm contact at all, unless you are wrapping them incorrectly. Should pad wrist contact a little. The 4 oz gloves allow for everything open hand does expect for the knuckle joint injuries. I can even grab cloth for using it in submissions.

Wing Chun is a bare-knuckle fighting system, arthritis and excessive calcification are possible outcomes. I know of more than one senior member of our org that had to have bone spurs removed because of iron body conditioning. This is part of the price for that type of skill - up to the individual if they want to accept the risk/reward. There are ways to reduce the risk found in Chinese medicine and western nutrition, but nothing is a guarantee.
I have a different viewpoint. I view Wing Chun as principles and body mechanics for the control of time, space, and energy. Saying it's only useful in a bare-knuckle scenario negates that those principles work universally in all fighting scenarios. If the mechanics and fundamentals work without gloves, they will work with gloves also, with minor modifications.

For myself, as a personal health choice, I prefer to avoid the calcification and bone spurs route.

Eric_H

02-21-2012, 05:41 PM

I think gloves or hand wrappings changes the energy involved a little in that things are a little more "bouncy" on bridge contact (IF contact is made with wrist contact and energy - the forearm bridge doesn't seem a whole lot different to me).

However, I don't agree with the "rob you of the ability to perform..." statement. It's a modification and adaptation to make those work, not a complete negation of the ability to do kiu sau / chi sau.

The benefit you experience is practice in actually hitting someone harder and in being hit harder. Consistent harder contact helps you adjust to a fight scenario where you are getting hit so that you don't experience the flinch mechanism and the extreme adrenaline dump like the first time you do that kind of thing.

But YMMV. I wouldn't wear gloves outside of free motion sparring, unless for conditioning work. I wouldn't wear them doing forms or restricted motion drills.

Hey Dave,

No argument on gloves allowing for more contact with less chance of injury. People argue if it's necessary or not, I personally sought it out outside of Wing Chun and found it beneficial to my overall fighting ability. Arguments will always ensue as to how much of your training should consist of this, I'll leave that up to the peanut gallery.

Kiu sao requires a balance of energy between wrist and forearm, I find that having your hand wrapped into a fist makes Kiu Sao techniques less effective because you can't express the wrist energy right. That's why I say that they interfere. Wrist wrapping is great to protect the wrist for striking practice (heavy bag) I just find it a hindrance during bridging. I disagree and think Tahn/Bong/Fook style chi sao is out the window completely with boxing gloves.

Saying it's only useful in a bare-knuckle scenario negates that those principles work universally in all fighting scenarios. If the mechanics and fundamentals work without gloves, they will work with gloves also, with minor modifications.

I did not say bare-knuckle is the only scenario it is useful, those words are yours. FWIW, I agree with you in reference to the mechanics - in our lineage modifications you make moves it over to Hung Fa Boxing as opposed to Hung Fa Yi Wing Chun. It is still an expression of pieces of the system, just not a complete picture.

I was left with arthritis after some supplemental training we used to do back in the day (remember 5 star blocking?) Iron Body training has not made it worse yet. I will let you know how it goes, perhaps you will be laughing at me in another 10 years ;)

Wayfaring

02-21-2012, 11:35 PM

Hey Dave,

No argument on gloves allowing for more contact with less chance of injury. People argue if it's necessary or not, I personally sought it out outside of Wing Chun and found it beneficial to my overall fighting ability. Arguments will always ensue as to how much of your training should consist of this, I'll leave that up to the peanut gallery.

Cool - I know you've done this and think it rounds out your training. I think the balance is up to an individual and the coach they work with.

Kiu sao requires a balance of energy between wrist and forearm, I find that having your hand wrapped into a fist makes Kiu Sao techniques less effective because you can't express the wrist energy right. That's why I say that they interfere. Wrist wrapping is great to protect the wrist for striking practice (heavy bag) I just find it a hindrance during bridging.

I guess the actual fight wrappings with guaze that conform your hand to a fist might affect that. I don't know that I've found normal hand wraps which leave you able to make a fist or a flat knifehand hinder you much. But you'll have to show me about the wrist energy sometime.

I disagree and think Tahn/Bong/Fook style chi sao is out the window completely with boxing gloves.

You are probably right there. You can do it with 4oz gloves though.

I did not say bare-knuckle is the only scenario it is useful, those words are yours. FWIW, I agree with you in reference to the mechanics - in our lineage modifications you make moves it over to Hung Fa Boxing as opposed to Hung Fa Yi Wing Chun. It is still an expression of pieces of the system, just not a complete picture.

You said it was a bare-knuckle art. Maybe it is. I feel the structure, range and box training transfers to a boxing glove environment. I'm sure that expressing pieces of the system is exactly what I do.

I was left with arthritis after some supplemental training we used to do back in the day (remember 5 star blocking?) Iron Body training has not made it worse yet. I will let you know how it goes, perhaps you will be laughing at me in another 10 years ;)
;)

Yoshiyahu

02-22-2012, 12:26 PM

I have to agree with you. I think the common factor is practice. The more you practice something the better it gets. Its like saying A boxer can't rock you to sleep with out boxing gloves on.

Mike Tyson had fights both in the ring and in the streets where no gloves were profided. I gurantee you a boxer punch is more lethal with out the gloves. I find people make excuses for thier own short comings. There are two parts to martial arts fighting...1.Finishing your opponent quickly, 2.Trading Techniques to increase your skill,ability,knowledge and experience.

I think its good to do some light sparring aka slap boxing where you utilize strickly WC principles and WC Techniques. But I also think its a good idea to put the gloves on an get some real energy thrown at you with out the damage an unpadded fist can do to you.

I gurantee you with some MMA gloves or Kempo Gloves you can still utilize the WC Techniques. The energy might need to be modified but its still WC. Actually sparring will look different than chi sau. Because you are not always with in bridging range, nor does your opponent comply with your sticky hand exercise. They move in and out, Move around, Circle, Feint and blah blah blah.

Besides that I find putting some gloves on an mixing it up a little to be quite fun!

People who seldom or never have worked against resisting opponents in an unrestricted movement setting tend to develop viewpoints about gloves such that they think they change the game, no longer a realistic fight, it messes up their WC, etc. They are deluded.

Gloves are there so you can learn to hit harder and learn to fight while being hit harder. If you can't ko someone or hit hard enough to end a fight with gloves there is nothing magical that is going to make you be able to do it without gloves in a street scenario.

But people basically slap box and/or compliant chi sau with little to no strikes and think that will adequately prepare them for a real fight. Hint. It won't. If you are in a real fight against someone who has prepared for it by hitting hard and being hit hard, then you're not going to be prepared.

Why don't you spell it out? Are you slamming me here? Yoshiyahu? Or just being a general douche?

How did my name get mixxed up here...what is going on...Please share with me?