Structure test

[old wang]

Hi everybody, i'm new here and i would like to hear opinions or suggests around the structure test described by Sifu Robert Chu in his web site, i mean the palm pressure on chest during Yee Jee Kim Yeung Ma.

I practice wong shun leung wing chun, i learned the importance of structure, but i must admit that i fail that test, no matter how i try to straight the spinal column, using the pelvic tilt, lowering the stance ecc... i can stand very well the pressure on my hands, i know how redirect the energy but i can't dissipate it standing in yjkym during a pression on my chest. Your suggests are welcome. Apologize me for my english, i'm not native speaker. Regards

[Robinhood]

Hi everybody, i'm new here and i would like to hear opinions or suggests around the structure test described by Sifu Robert Chu in his web site, i mean the palm pressure on chest during Yee Jee Kim Yeung Ma.

I practice wong shun leung wing chun, i learned the importance of structure, but i must admit that i fail that test, no matter how i try to straight the spinal column, using the pelvic tilt, lowering the stance ecc... i can stand very well the pressure on my hands, i know how redirect the energy but i can't dissipate it standing in yjkym during a pression on my chest. Your suggests are welcome. Apologize me for my english, i'm not native speaker. Regards

I would not worry to much about it, because their are many variables to any kind of push . From the pictures it is misleading.

It depends who is pushing and how good their push is and then you can do many different things to keep from being pushed.

But you should eventually be able to neutralize and return a well aimed push if your skill is improving .

[Vajramusti]

Hi everybody, i'm new here and i would like to hear opinions or suggests around the structure test described by Sifu Robert Chu in his web site, i mean the palm pressure on chest during Yee Jee Kim Yeung Ma.

I practice wong shun leung wing chun, i learned the importance of structure, but i must admit that i fail that test, no matter how i try to straight the spinal column, using the pelvic tilt, lowering the stance ecc... i can stand very well the pressure on my hands, i know how redirect the energy but i can't dissipate it standing in yjkym during a pression on my chest. Your suggests are welcome. Apologize me for my english, i'm not native speaker. Regards
-------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know who your sifu is. Good structure that is both strong and flexible is important in good wing chun.
Get a sifu who knows how to test structure to help you.

[old wang]

-------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know who your sifu is. Good structure that is both strong and flexible is important in good wing chun.
Get a sifu who knows how to test structure to help you.

Well, he is a very good one and showed me this test many times but as i said before i can't pass it. I just like to have some suggest from somebody able to resist this kind of pressure on the chest to understand how improve it.

[wingchunIan]

My advice would be to try to feel the direction of the push. In my experience if the push is straight back or slightly down you can dissipate by adjusting the angle of your upper body and the position of the hips relative to your feet. If the push is upwards you can't dissipate it, you can oppose it by sinking and forwarding or you can yield by rotating but you can't dissipate it.

[old wang]

My advice would be to try to feel the direction of the push. In my experience if the push is straight back or slightly down you can dissipate by adjusting the angle of your upper body and the position of the hips relative to your feet. If the push is upwards you can't dissipate it, you can oppose it by sinking and forwarding or you can yield by rotating but you can't dissipate it.

Thank you very much for the advice.

[Robinhood]

Thank you very much for the advice.

Your instructor should be able to correct you and tell you why you can't do what he wants.

If you don't have guidance ,you will not improve, a lot of teachers don't or can't teach, or don't have anything to teach, for many different reasons.

[Ali. R]

It’s all stemming from; your stance structural integrity, while being honest to yourself before you even starts to test your stance. If your stance’s structure doesn’t support the idea of rerouting forward vector force, then no matter how many times you test it, it will never work.

If some reason your stance structure doesn’t support forward vector force; try this one instead (http://detroitwingchun.com/kenart1.htm). Not saying it’s the say all be all stance. But it really reroutes forward vector force to the floor.

NOTE: about 75% of this is trained mentally


The main keys are bolded *

Step.1
When being pushed in the chest, *focus on being relaxed. This will take time because I’m not there to help you. *Make your ‘body truck’ very long by bringing your keens about a fist apart; this will truly help you separate your upper and lower extremities by keeping the thighs very relaxed. And it would help develop a very strong heavy base within the lower extremities, while maintaining the idea of staying bottom heavy which helps supplement and develops very soft upper extremities.

Step. 2
When you feel oncoming force applied to your mother line, *try not to fight it right off, but separate your upper and lower extremities mentally to reroute energy by keeping the thighs relaxed and try not to let the chin move upward and only tilt it down when you feel the integrity of the mother line failing (but only to a level position), and make sure the elbows stays dipped (completely downward) and shoulders completely rounded. It’s a lot more that I could tell you, but this is really all you need to get started with.

[Vajramusti]

Well, he is a very good one and showed me this test many times but as i said before i can't pass it. I just like to have some suggest from somebody able to resist this kind of pressure on the chest to understand how improve it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Puzzled. If your instructor is good he should be able to adjust you.

[Robinhood]

I would not try to over complicate it with many triangles and new laws of physics ,its not that complicated if understood correctly.

[Ali. R]

There is nothing complicated at all about what I'd wrote, all based on 5th through 8th grade math, and nothing more, try not to look at the triangles and arrows if you’re having problems with the math.

I understand what you’re saying ‘Joy’, and it is puzzling, but it’s obvious he needs help or he wouldn’t asks? I don’t think he’s trolling; it just doesn’t come off that way, not insinuating that you think he is ether (trolling).

To me, it wouldn’t make a difference if he has a teacher or not. It is tradition that a warrior who understands himself and the way of combat would prefer only to help then hurt.

I’m not trying to take anything away from you at all. you know your stuff.

[Vajramusti]

Ali- I know that he is not trolling.

Just that on the net there is likely to be a lot of conflicting and confusing opinions.

A simple process that by trial and error can get him there is to have a friend or partner
gently push him with a hand at chest level from the front, back and two sides while he is in
yee gee kim yeung ma- and have him feel the force and adjust-pelvis slight tuck, back straight,
head up, chun in, knees in a comfortable wedge not too in,quads not tight, tummy not tight.not leaning backward or forward,

[Ali. R]

True, and I also think that the stance structural integrity plays a major roll as well, giving plenty of room for adjustment as one is only fighting against himself in rerouting energy to the floor, when ones original structural arrangement clearly will not allow it. (fu*ked from the start).

Take care,

[Ali. R]

If one has to make drastic changes to their stance to reroute energy to the floor, then their normal stance/structure is not suitable for combat (Wing Chun).

[Ali. R]

The key is to do this without any muscular resistance; reroute energy and not force energy.

[k gledhill]

Hi everybody, i'm new here and i would like to hear opinions or suggests around the structure test described by Sifu Robert Chu in his web site, i mean the palm pressure on chest during Yee Jee Kim Yeung Ma.

I practice wong shun leung wing chun, i learned the importance of structure, but i must admit that i fail that test, no matter how i try to straight the spinal column, using the pelvic tilt, lowering the stance ecc... i can stand very well the pressure on my hands, i know how redirect the energy but i can't dissipate it standing in yjkym during a pression on my chest. Your suggests are welcome. Apologize me for my english, i'm not native speaker. Regards

There are limits to all techniques, including a basic stance, knowing when to change is not about resistance to change but knowing the time to execute..in balance, with force to strike at all times.

[anerlich]

I don't think the test is a bad thing, and I try to use some of Robert and Alan Orr's structural ideas in my own WC training, but IMO some basic standup wrestling training will instill basic structural ideas far quicker than many other things.

Do people regularly come up to you in the street and push your chest with one hand? If no, don't agonise over it.

[EternalSpring]

Do people regularly come up to you in the street and push your chest with one hand? If no, don't agonise over it.

This.

I mean, having a good stance is important, but I wouldn't let this whole "test" get to my head. If anything, worry about why anyone fighting you would be able to place their entire palm on your chest in the first place.

IMHO, if you spar with decent resistance from your opponents and you dont fall over, I'd say that's a good sign.

[Ali. R]

I understand what you’re saying, but if one can reroute energy from pointblank on the mother line, by understanding how to separate their upper and lower extremities mentally, and receiving energy with softness and to reroute it with firm but springy support of the torso and upper extremities. Then, it will travel to the bottom of one’s solid foundation of a stance.

Then one would find it very easy to dissipate forward vector force through the limbs, while channeling energy to the bottom of their stance with a block, strike –or –even ‘Da’.

[wingchunIan]

There are limits to all techniques, including a basic stance, knowing when to change is not about resistance to change but knowing the time to execute..in balance, with force to strike at all times.

Agree completely and actually much prefer to yield / redirect and being able to choose and knowing your limits is essential

[wingchunIan]

I don't think the test is a bad thing, and I try to use some of Robert and Alan Orr's structural ideas in my own WC training, but IMO some basic standup wrestling training will instill basic structural ideas far quicker than many other things.

Do people regularly come up to you in the street and push your chest with one hand? If no, don't agonise over it.

The hand on chest thing is only to give a surface to push on, I actually prefer to use the arm as a contact point as in reality this is where contact is more likely to be made. If a powerful shot is intercepted by your arms its useless if it takes your balance away

[old wang]

The hand on chest thing is only to give a surface to push on, I actually prefer to use the arm as a contact point as in reality this is where contact is more likely to be made. If a powerful shot is intercepted by your arms its useless if it takes your balance away

I agree with you that is very important or most important to focus on contact point or bridges (chum).

[old wang]

It’s all stemming from; your stance structural integrity, while being honest to yourself before you even starts to test your stance. If your stance’s structure doesn’t support the idea of rerouting forward vector force, then no matter how many times you test it, it will never work.

If some reason your stance structure doesn’t support forward vector force; try this one instead (http://detroitwingchun.com/kenart1.htm). Not saying it’s the say all be all stance. But it really reroutes forward vector force to the floor.

NOTE: about 75% of this is trained mentally


The main keys are bolded *

Step.1
When being pushed in the chest, *focus on being relaxed. This will take time because I’m not there to help you. *Make your ‘body truck’ very long by bringing your keens about a fist apart; this will truly help you separate your upper and lower extremities by keeping the thighs very relaxed. And it would help develop a very strong heavy base within the lower extremities, while maintaining the idea of staying bottom heavy which helps supplement and develops very soft upper extremities.

Step. 2
When you feel oncoming force applied to your mother line, *try not to fight it right off, but separate your upper and lower extremities mentally to reroute energy by keeping the thighs relaxed and try not to let the chin move upward and only tilt it down when you feel the integrity of the mother line failing (but only to a level position), and make sure the elbows stays dipped (completely downward) and shoulders completely rounded. It’s a lot more that I could tell you, but this is really all you need to get started with.

A lot of tips! thank you mate.

[Phil Redmond]

Hi everybody, i'm new here and i would like to hear opinions or suggests around the structure test described by Sifu Robert Chu in his web site, i mean the palm pressure on chest during Yee Jee Kim Yeung Ma.

I practice wong shun leung wing chun, i learned the importance of structure, but i must admit that i fail that test, no matter how i try to straight the spinal column, using the pelvic tilt, lowering the stance ecc... i can stand very well the pressure on my hands, i know how redirect the energy but i can't dissipate it standing in yjkym during a pression on my chest. Your suggests are welcome. Apologize me for my english, i'm not native speaker. Regards
Didn't WSL do Yip Man Wing Chun?

[old wang]

Didn't WSL do Yip Man Wing Chun?

I'd say he was one of 4 or 5 students that really learned completely from him, it seems a strange question from somebody who knows the answer my friend...

[Paddington]

try this one instead (http://detroitwingchun.com/kenart1.htm).

Thanks for posting this link Ali, it is an interesting read!

Cheers mate!

[JPinAZ]

I'd say he was one of 4 or 5 students that really learned completely from him, it seems a strange question from somebody who knows the answer my friend...

I won't assume why Phil asked, but his question does make me think:
If WSL was "one of 4 or 5 students that really learned completely" from Ip Man as you say (and not saying he was/wasn't), why isn't it just called Ip Man wing chun? Same question for any of the other 4-5 guys you are referring too.

I would think they would all be teaching the same core wing chun if they all completely learned the same WC from the same man. Of course they may have different approaches, but if they are all doing things so differently as to have their own systems named after them, that seems to say either they didn't really get the complete system from Ip Man, or they changed what they learned. If the latter, do they feel they knew better than their own teacher? :)

I ask this out of genuine curiosity and this is something I have always wondered about. From my experience in the WC I train - if you learned the system 'completely', you should be able to pass it along intact and without change to the understanding of core concepts & principles of the system (teaching methods and approaches aside - those aren't the system).

[old wang]

I won't assume why Phil asked, but his question does make me think:
If WSL was "one of 4 or 5 students that really learned completely" from Ip Man as you say (and not saying he was/wasn't), why isn't it just called Ip Man wing chun? Same question for any of the other 4-5 guys you are referring too.

I would think they would all be teaching the same core wing chun if they all completely learned the same WC from the same man. Of course they may have different approaches, but if they are all doing things so differently as to have their own systems named after them, that seems to say either they didn't really get the complete system from Ip Man, or they changed what they learned. If the latter, do they feel they knew better than their own teacher? :)

I ask this out of genuine curiosity and this is something I have always wondered about. From my experience in the WC I train - if you learned the system 'completely', you should be able to pass it along intact and without change to the understanding of core concepts & principles of the system (teaching methods and approaches aside - those aren't the system).

It's a very interesting point! anyway (in my opinion), the reason of lineage name is that Yip Man did not choose a descendant.

Honestly i think that the first students (leung sheung, wong shun leung, moy yat, lok yiu, tsui shun tin) pratically learned the same things but everyone is different and you know, wing chun is based on other aspects like principles rather than repetitive technics or pre-created drills; so them all teach (or teached) similar things but focusing on different aspects. If we talk about, third or fourth generation students (Leung Ting for example...) the difference is very undeniable... IMHO

[Vajramusti]

[QUOTE=old wang;1209145]It's a very interesting point! anyway (in my opinion), the reason of lineage name is that Yip Man did not choose a descendant.

((More to it. Traditional kung fu culture--who is your sifu, sigung etc))

Honestly i think that the first students (leung sheung, wong shun leung, moy yat, lok yiu, tsui shun tin) pratically learned the same things

((Variations in depth and details- depending on details pf contact time, extent and duration.
Moy Yat was not in the first list. ))

[wingchunIan]

It's a very interesting point! anyway (in my opinion), the reason of lineage name is that Yip Man did not choose a descendant.

Honestly i think that the first students (leung sheung, wong shun leung, moy yat, lok yiu, tsui shun tin) pratically learned the same things but everyone is different and you know, wing chun is based on other aspects like principles rather than repetitive technics or pre-created drills; so them all teach (or teached) similar things but focusing on different aspects. If we talk about, third or fourth generation students (Leung Ting for example...) the difference is very undeniable... IMHO

The lineages of the men you listed are very very different and there is no greater or lesser diversity between any generations of IP man students. Wing chun is about self discovery and each of lineage holders has imo pursued their own path moving further from what they were taught over time. Some of the movement will be deliberate as a result of personal refinement and some will be as a result of lack of input from their sifu and peers as time has past.

[Paddington]

Wing chun is about self discovery and each of lineage holders has imo pursued their own path moving further from what they were taught over time.

Both a good and bad thing, no? I am lucky, personally, in that my Sifu, like those before him, has a core set of principals that he teaches. There is also a 'standard' way that he likes to teach the forms and a standard way in which they should be interpreted, initially.

However, as I advanced to senior levels my Sifu showed me how I could take these forms and change them to drill specific movements; to correct flaws specific to myself and to tailor wing chun to my body type. So, sometimes in our class one might see four people on the dummy and each of them working it slightly differently, to work on whatever flaws and weaknesses they have.

I feel that imparting martial tools so that one can spot one's own weaknesses and train them out by one's self, is something that has been under appreciated and under represented in wing chun. IMO one of the key roles of a Sifu is to develop a student to the extent that they no longer have to rely on him/her, to develop their wing chun further; they can do it themselves.

[Grumblegeezer]

I would think they would all be teaching the same core wing chun if they all completely learned the same WC from the same man. Of course they may have different approaches, but if they are all doing things so differently as to have their own systems named after them, that seems to say either they didn't really get the complete system from Ip Man, or they changed what they learned. If the latter, do they feel they knew better than their own teacher? :)

Yes, I think many of the top students (of any system) come to think that their way is better than that of their teachers. In some cases it is pure egotism, and in other cases, they may be right.

However, even if certain well known practitioners do think they have surpassed their teachers, they are reluctant to say so outright. In a culture so heavily influenced by Confucian thought with it's respect for elders and tradition, it's easier to justify your own inovations by claiming that they actually represent the "secret teachings", the "original" form, the "true intent", or perhaps the "final stage" of their sifu's art.

In Western culture, where newer is often seen as "better", innovators like Bruce Lee did not feel compelled to resort to such pretense. But either way, each successive generation has altered their art. It's the same going back to the time of Yip Man, and before, to Chan Wah Shun, to Leung Jan and so forth. After all, even the legendary figure of Ng Mui created a new form of martial art, supposedly more practical than the Shao-lin that preceded it.

So the real question is why are we, in the modern world, so obsessed with whose WC is most "authentic" rather than just being concerned with what works?

Now getting back to the OP and this "stance test" I submit that there are different valid ways to deal with pressure. One is to be so well rooted that you can take a lot of pressure, while at the same time being sensitive enough to the pressure you receive to absorb and re-direct it and maintain your stability. I met a student of Eric H. who was making real progress at this before I lost touch with him.

Another approach favored by my lineage is to be so flexible and springy that you yeild and give way before even very light pressure, bending, turning, or stepping to deflect and dissolve the force ...again maintaining your stability.

I see validity of both approaches. Both allow you to maintain stability, and both express aspects of the concepts that make WC great. The one thing that won't work is being rigid and opposing force with force.

[Wayfaring]

what's the big deal with the structure test? if your hips are forward over the balls of your feet you'll naturally pass it. if they are backward over your heels you'll fail it.

not too complicated.

[Robinhood]

what's the big deal with the structure test? if your hips are forward over the balls of your feet you'll naturally pass it. if they are backward over your heels you'll fail it.

not too complicated.

I think we are talking about a different meaning of the word than you think, the post before was pretty good by "Grumbleweezer".

There are many components that need to be correct at the same time to have a good structure, including the mind.

[Wayfaring]

I think we are talking about a different meaning of the word than you think, the post before was pretty good by "Grumbleweezer".

There are many components that need to be correct at the same time to have a good structure, including the mind.

No we are not talking about a different meaning of the word structure. I am only commenting on the first post on the thread where someone was looking to pass Robert Chu's structure test. And I was surprised people were finding it that hard. As I'm sure sifu Chu has found the same surprise over the years as well as Alan Orr who uses his structure. Their yjkym stance has the hips forward over the balls of the feet compared to most lineages who have the hips over the heels. This allows for the transfer of pressure on the bridge down to the ground. This is also why some complain Alan is leaning into people. He's not. His base stance has his hips forward more than you guys do. And that puts pressure on the opponent's bridge and shuts some things down.

It's amazing how even when you explain people's parlor tricks or little details on stuff that people still won't get it.

[Grumblegeezer]

@Wayfaring --to be honest, I don't know exactly how Robert tests structure in YGKYM aside from the descriptions on this thread. And, of course verbal descriptions can be misleading. I have watched Alan Orr describe how he uses his hips to maintain forward pressure on his opponent, and his explanation sounds very practical to me. However, in my lineage we are taught to be more yielding. And I've seen some people make that work too.

Personally, when the pressure is really on, I recognise the practicality of what Alan does, but that's not the way I was taught. I guess, unlike some folks around here, I believe you have to think for yourself, and use what works for you, regardless of how well somebody else can do it differently.

[BPWT]

Another approach favored by my lineage is to be so flexible and springy that you yeild and give way before even very light pressure, bending, turning, or stepping to deflect and dissolve the force ...again maintaining your stability.

Hi Grumblegeezer. We are from the same lineage, I think (Leung Ting). I highlighted part of your quote because it differs a little from my understanding (and my understanding could quite easily be wrong :D).

I was taught to yield to greater pressure, rather than to give way to very light pressure. E.g. If I meet a punch with wu sau and the pressure from the punch is off (the punch is weak or the direction of its force is off target/off center), then I wouldn't yield but would go forward with an attack.

But if I met the said punch with wu sau and the punch was strong and it's force directing towards my center, then I would yield by stepping or turning to off-load the force (dissolve it).

Essentially, I shouldn't yield to very light force as it is... very light. :) E.g. my opponent's force makes me turn. If he isn't very forceful, how can it turn me? :D

Are you meaning the same thing?

[Robinhood]

No we are not talking about a different meaning of the word structure. I am only commenting on the first post on the thread where someone was looking to pass Robert Chu's structure test. And I was surprised people were finding it that hard. As I'm sure sifu Chu has found the same surprise over the years as well as Alan Orr who uses his structure. Their yjkym stance has the hips forward over the balls of the feet compared to most lineages who have the hips over the heels. This allows for the transfer of pressure on the bridge down to the ground. This is also why some complain Alan is leaning into people. He's not. His base stance has his hips forward more than you guys do. And that puts pressure on the opponent's bridge and shuts some things down.

It's amazing how even when you explain people's parlor tricks or little details on stuff that people still won't get it.


Well I am talking about something else, because it is not dependent on one thing like where you put your hips, that might work for some things, but is not what most people are looking for in a structure.

[Grumblegeezer]

I was taught to yield to greater pressure, rather than to give way to very light pressure. :D

Are you meaning the same thing?

Yes, I fully agree with the way you stated this. I guess what I was trying to say is that rather than emphasize heavy forward pressure to the point of appearing to lean onto an opponent, our lineage teaches responding to heavy force by yeilding and using that greater pressure to our advantage.

I've just seen too many posts and videos of people who are so proud of their immovable stance, their "unbendable" tan sau, their strong, lifting bong sau... all of which is totally contrary to the concepts of "springy energy" and yielding or tuning aside "like a bullfighter before a charging bull" which define WT and it's offshoots, as well as some other lineages coming from Ip Man.

[BPWT]

Good, good, Grumbegeezer - we are on the same page (literally LOL) and there is hope for me yet! :)

[Alan Orr]

No we are not talking about a different meaning of the word structure. I am only commenting on the first post on the thread where someone was looking to pass Robert Chu's structure test. And I was surprised people were finding it that hard. As I'm sure sifu Chu has found the same surprise over the years as well as Alan Orr who uses his structure. Their yjkym stance has the hips forward over the balls of the feet compared to most lineages who have the hips over the heels. This allows for the transfer of pressure on the bridge down to the ground. This is also why some complain Alan is leaning into people. He's not. His base stance has his hips forward more than you guys do. And that puts pressure on the opponent's bridge and shuts some things down.

It's amazing how even when you explain people's parlor tricks or little details on stuff that people still won't get it.

Yes you are correct. It's funny you get it and the guys who don't get think that moving out of the way is the answer. No that is called failing the the base key skill of Chinese Martial Arts - to have root.

Of course you can do many over things, but the first level of skill is to be able to take control of your own position when it is tested.

[Alan Orr]

Hi everybody, i'm new here and i would like to hear opinions or suggests around the structure test described by Sifu Robert Chu in his web site, i mean the palm pressure on chest during Yee Jee Kim Yeung Ma.

I practice wong shun leung wing chun, i learned the importance of structure, but i must admit that i fail that test, no matter how i try to straight the spinal column, using the pelvic tilt, lowering the stance ecc... i can stand very well the pressure on my hands, i know how redirect the energy but i can't dissipate it standing in yjkym during a pression on my chest. Your suggests are welcome. Apologize me for my english, i'm not native speaker. Regards

The reason you can not pass this base test is because the WSL style does not use rooting in the stance in the way that we do. The WSL style does not teach this and the stance they use can not transfer the same amount of power into the ground. So they will need to move or it will have a problem with broken positioning or balance. If you think that is the way or not is down to what you think is of value and what you think is tested to work under fight pressure.

You may see that as a problem or not. As I said is down to the way you see fighting and what is important to you.

[Alan Orr]

Yes, I fully agree with the way you stated this. I guess what I was trying to say is that rather than emphasize heavy forward pressure to the point of appearing to lean onto an opponent, our lineage teaches responding to heavy force by yeilding and using that greater pressure to our advantage.

I've just seen too many posts and videos of people who are so proud of their immovable stance, their "unbendable" tan sau, their strong, lifting bong sau... all of which is totally contrary to the concepts of "springy energy" and yielding or tuning aside "like a bullfighter before a charging bull" which define WT and it's offshoots, as well as some other lineages coming from Ip Man.

Just to clear up the direction of view point on the test in our system. It is a very very basic test. One 100's that can used. Also it does not mean we only hold stance and nothing else. Of course we use redirection, loading, etc etc but you can't do any of these things if you can not control the basic pressure given first. If you try to yield with not control then the opponent can then just delink. Our stance is like a spring, but we can root link or delink.

[GlennR]

Yes you are correct. It's funny you get it and the guys who don't get think that moving out of the way is the answer. No that is called failing the the base key skill of Chinese Martial Arts - to have root.

Of course you can do many over things, but the first level of skill is to be able to take control of your own position when it is tested.

TST lineage do much the same thing

[Grumblegeezer]

...Of course we use redirection, loading, etc etc but you can't do any of these things if you can not control the basic pressure given first. If you try to yield with not control then the opponent can then just delink...

Yeah, I went back and watched a couple of your videos again and this one seemed to relate. Especially the parts from about 2:20 - 3:00. I was taught to yield easily while turning. Slip aside like a bullfighter and all that. Really beautiful theory. But what you say about keeping the pressure on, controlling and turning your opponent rather than yourself, makes a lot of sense. Especially when I hang out with my eskrima brothers who like to play a little harder.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fdiO9WudLM

Oh and this one was helpful too:

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

[LaRoux]

Hi everybody, i'm new here and i would like to hear opinions or suggests around the structure test described by Sifu Robert Chu in his web site, i mean the palm pressure on chest during Yee Jee Kim Yeung Ma.

I practice wong shun leung wing chun, i learned the importance of structure, but i must admit that i fail that test, no matter how i try to straight the spinal column, using the pelvic tilt, lowering the stance ecc... i can stand very well the pressure on my hands, i know how redirect the energy but i can't dissipate it standing in yjkym during a pression on my chest. Your suggests are welcome. Apologize me for my english, i'm not native speaker. Regards

Train in some stand up grappling (something like Greco-Roman or simply takedowns and defense in freestyle wrestling) for a while. You won't have any trouble with "structure" tests after that. You won't find any better structure development than that type of training.

[Robinhood]

No we are not talking about a different meaning of the word structure. I am only commenting on the first post on the thread where someone was looking to pass Robert Chu's structure test. And I was surprised people were finding it that hard. As I'm sure sifu Chu has found the same surprise over the years as well as Alan Orr who uses his structure. Their yjkym stance has the hips forward over the balls of the feet compared to most lineages who have the hips over the heels. This allows for the transfer of pressure on the bridge down to the ground. This is also why some complain Alan is leaning into people. He's not. His base stance has his hips forward more than you guys do. And that puts pressure on the opponent's bridge and shuts some things down.

It's amazing how even when you explain people's parlor tricks or little details on stuff that people still won't get it.


I am not sure how you get your hips forward without curving your lower back in, but curving the back in will lower your CG point, but will put pressure on your lower back and not transfer force to the floor, only make force miss high.

[anerlich]

Train in some stand up grappling (something like Greco-Roman or simply takedowns and defense in freestyle wrestling) for a while. You won't have any trouble with "structure" tests after that. You won't find any better structure development than that type of training.

I agree. While they may or may not regard it as crucial to "passing the test", IMO the fact that Alan and his guys and Robert Chu crosstrain in grappling is noteworthy.

[anerlich]

I am not sure how you get your hips forward without curving your lower back in, but curving the back in will lower your CG point, but will put pressure on your lower back and not transfer force to the floor, only make force miss high.

The distance the hips need to move to make the difference is not as great as you imply above. While I don't train with Alan or Robert, IMO its more a matter of ensuring the body is aligned correctly at the hips to form a unit, and, since you raised a "mental" component, thinking of "driving forward from the hips".

If the force was coming in lower, e.g. for a leg shoot, driving the hips forward and down and the midsection onto the back of the guys head and arching the back would be an excellent counter. Grapplers call it sprawling, and it's another form of good structure.

[GlennR]

I am not sure how you get your hips forward without curving your lower back in, but curving the back in will lower your CG point, but will put pressure on your lower back and not transfer force to the floor, only make force miss high.

It's the combined angle of the ankle and knee that brings the hip forward, trying bringing your knee over your toes whilst keep your torso upright

[Alan Orr]

Train in some stand up grappling (something like Greco-Roman or simply takedowns and defense in freestyle wrestling) for a while. You won't have any trouble with "structure" tests after that. You won't find any better structure development than that type of training.

This is true. The difference would be Wing Chun should be able to do that very close range and also in Clinch striking range as well. So Wing Chun 'should' have an advance control in the clinch.

[Alan Orr]

TST lineage do much the same thing


At the form level they do but they do not have the same at the second form level. As they turn the stance away from the pressure which is not what we do.

[Alan Orr]

Yeah, I went back and watched a couple of your videos again and this one seemed to relate. Especially the parts from about 2:20 - 3:00. I was taught to yield easily while turning. Slip aside like a bullfighter and all that. Really beautiful theory. But what you say about keeping the pressure on, controlling and turning your opponent rather than yourself, makes a lot of sense. Especially when I hang out with my eskrima brothers who like to play a little harder.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fdiO9WudLM

Oh and this one was helpful too:

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

Cool. Happy it helped and good to see people are thinking about different ideas.

[Alan Orr]

The distance the hips need to move to make the difference is not as great as you imply above. While I don't train with Alan or Robert, IMO its more a matter of ensuring the body is aligned correctly at the hips to form a unit, and, since you raised a "mental" component, thinking of "driving forward from the hips".

If the force was coming in lower, e.g. for a leg shoot, driving the hips forward and down and the midsection onto the back of the guys head and arching the back would be an excellent counter. Grapplers call it sprawling, and it's another form of good structure.

Yes nice post

[GlennR]

At the form level they do but they do not have the same at the second form level. As they turn the stance away from the pressure which is not what we do.

What part of the form ?

[Alan Orr]

What part of the form ?

Turning

they turn side to side transferring weight

We turn with our weight in the middle. Staying 50/50 so neutral balance. As balance changes in application when you have pressure.

[GlennR]

Turning

they turn side to side transferring weight

We turn with our weight in the middle. Staying 50/50 so neutral balance. As balance changes in application when you have pressure.

No, we do it the same way, theres no loading the back leg.

There is no yielding in the turns in TST line

[Alan Orr]

Turning

they turn side to side transferring weight

We turn with our weight in the middle. Staying 50/50 so neutral balance. As balance changes in application when you have pressure.

I think the style is good. Just saying the positioning is different. I have looked at the forms and rolled with guys from it and they turn off, maybe changes with different schools or with different ideas on pressures

[Happy Tiger]

No, we do it the same way, theres no loading the back leg.

There is no yielding in the turns in TST lineDefinatly !TST is the most steadfast method I have trained in so far.

[GlennR]

I think the style is good. Just saying the positioning is different. I have looked at the forms and rolled with guys from it and they turn off, maybe changes with different schools or with different ideas on pressures

It's the old interpretation issues all over again, different students have a different take on things.

IMO TST, taught properly, is all about structure and pressure testing, in fact I'd go as far to say its his specialty

[Alan Orr]

It's the old interpretation issues all over again, different students have a different take on things.

IMO TST, taught properly, is all about structure and pressure testing, in fact I'd go as far to say its his specialty

Its not an interpretation issue at all. I have watched him do the forms and my teacher met him first hand.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6aUkY-EqVQ

Turning, weight, angles are all different to what I do. So no big deal, it's just not the same structure that we use in second form at all. In the first form we have some things in common. But even then only at a basic level. Then direction of ideas change.

The turning is different and the application focus is different - to what I do.

The first form structure has many elements in common. But again not all the same.

The thread was asking about the structure test from my teacher. So that is why I was talking about what we do.

I have over 25 years trained and met a lot of different styles of wing chun so I know what the differences are very well.

I am not taking away anything from TST or his style. He was one of the true masters of Wing Chun unlike many that promote themselves as masters today.

TST had the real deal power base of Wing Chun for sure.

The only point I am making is it is not the same as what we are doing, but the style has some areas I agree with very much and a few others not so much.

The system I teach is based of structure as we understand it, but also very much on the modern feedback we have from competitions and cross training experiences.

[Hendrik]

My view on the WCK engine, it is more then a structure when it has to go In motion and dynamic. It is about handling the seven major joints or bows , Jin path or force change path, and Jin flow or force change flow instead of holding a structure or any geometry shape.

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

Since
momentum = mass x velocity
Force = momentum / time
Force = mass x acceleration

Momentum or shi , force or lik, change of force or jin, acceleration, are the four elements needs to play in dynamic. Structure is a stationary static frame.

Unless one can handle the four Elements , one cannot play in dynamic. So, structure is great for starionary but one needs to proceed into dynamic momentum play. No to mention holding to a structure is causing self obstruct in dynamic. So, it is not something fixed.

[Robinhood]

My view on the WCK engine, it is more then a structure when it has to go In motion and dynamic. It is about handling the seven major joints or bows , Jin path or force change path, and Jin flow or force change flow instead of holding a structure or any geometry shape.

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

Since
momentum = mass x velocity
Force = momentum / time
Force = mass x acceleration

Momentum or shi , force or lik, change of force or jin, acceleration, are the four elements needs to play in dynamic. Structure is a stationary static frame.

Unless one can handle the four Elements , one cannot play in dynamic. So, structure is great for starionary but one needs to proceed into dynamic momentum play. No to mention holding to a structure is causing self obstruct in dynamic. So, it is not something fixed.

Good video Henrick, same jing in tai chi but a lot harder to develop using those big movements makes it real complicated, wing chun was probably developed because no one could find it using big movements, so they just cut to the chase and striped it down to the key points first,..... wrist, elbow, shoulder, hips , knee and concentrated on developing them first, because without those key joints connected to the ground through what you call jing, without that you are just literally fighting with power and strength,so yes ....first set wc makes it simpler to connect those key paths.

[Vajramusti]

[QUOTE=Hendrik;1210429]My view on the WCK engine, it is more then a structure when it has to go In motion and dynamic. It is about handling the seven major joints or bows , Jin path or force change path, and Jin flow or force change flow instead of holding a structure or any geometry shape.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hendrik- of course there is much more to wing chun besides structure.

[Wayfaring]

I have looked at the forms and rolled with guys from it and they turn off ...

Are you saying when the weight balance shifts from side to side there is a point where you feel the forward intent pressure on the bridge shut down and you could press forward with little resistance?

[Hendrik]

Good video Henrick, same jing in tai chi but a lot harder to develop using those big movements makes it real complicated, wing chun was probably developed because no one could find it using big movements, so they just cut to the chase and striped it down to the key points first,..... wrist, elbow, shoulder, hips , knee and concentrated on developing them first, because without those key joints connected to the ground through what you call jing, without that you are just literally fighting with power and strength,so yes ....first set wc makes it simpler to connect those key paths.

What I have present is just what was describe in the kuen kuit teaching of the red boat era 1850.
http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1210030&postcount=1


So, from the practice the set, to develop the engine and jin with the set, to application, to chi sau testing and further develop the stick, recieve, issue ; The three basic functions of the art are all a systemic piece .

One needs those engine to support the function, and this has different characteristic from taiji, wing Chun has its uniqueness. Using today language as in my utube, it is just momentum, force, force change, acceleration play. Nothing mysterious.

As I try to show, unless one can has the joints , force change path, or force change flow handle. One cannot play in dynamic phisical world. The red boat era WCK address these clearly . It is not just structure or triangle holding. Things has to making sense in a physical world.


Btw,
Jin or Jing just the change of force. There is no mysterious of this term. And there is no ambiguity in the physical world.

Also, I would not link or relate taiji with WCK. These are two different type of art based from very different philosophy.

The force change , momentum, accereation of WCK engine is based from the fujian white crane inch Jin joints power fusion with the emei 12 zhuang snake slide worm move method of smoothly handling each joints. WCK doesn't use the Dan dien rotation stuffs or hip movement as taiji.

As one can see these WCK characteristics in the siu Lin tau set. Slt simply doesnt do the movement what taiji do with hip. Also, in real combat WCK philosphy need WCK type of handling instead of the taiji type.

[Alan Orr]

Are you saying when the weight balance shifts from side to side there is a point where you feel the forward intent pressure on the bridge shut down and you could press forward with little resistance?

Sorry not 100% sure what you mean. You mean what I pressure the roll?

[Wayfaring]

I think the style is good. Just saying the positioning is different. I have looked at the forms and rolled with guys from it and they turn off, maybe changes with different schools or with different ideas on pressures

Alan I was asking about this statement. Specifically more about what you meant by "and they turn off". Is that more clear?

[GlennR]

Alan I was asking about this statement. Specifically more about what you meant by "and they turn off". Is that more clear?

I was going to ask the same thing

[GlennR]

Its not an interpretation issue at all. I have watched him do the forms and my teacher met him first hand.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6aUkY-EqVQ

Turning, weight, angles are all different to what I do. So no big deal, it's just not the same structure that we use in second form at all. In the first form we have some things in common. But even then only at a basic level. Then direction of ideas change.

The turning is different and the application focus is different - to what I do.

The first form structure has many elements in common. But again not all the same.

The thread was asking about the structure test from my teacher. So that is why I was talking about what we do.

I have over 25 years trained and met a lot of different styles of wing chun so I know what the differences are very well.

I am not taking away anything from TST or his style. He was one of the true masters of Wing Chun unlike many that promote themselves as masters today.

TST had the real deal power base of Wing Chun for sure.

The only point I am making is it is not the same as what we are doing, but the style has some areas I agree with very much and a few others not so much.

The system I teach is based of structure as we understand it, but also very much on the modern feedback we have from competitions and cross training experiences.

I wasn't saying you guys were the same, I'd say from observation that ou have a similar "flavor" if you get my drift.

And looking forward to you description as per wayfarings question

[Alan Orr]

Alan I was asking about this statement. Specifically more about what you meant by "and they turn off". Is that more clear?

Okay right got it. Yes once they where under pressure they looked to turn but turned themselves when I would be in favour turning the opponent. That needs a spring based structure. I could see they had a degree of structure but it was not alive and dynamic as such. I can see why in the second form the turning does not twist into the ground in the way I would like to see. Also the angles are different in the second section to the form in relation to what I see as functional structure. That of course just my opinion compared to the way I see it.

[Alan Orr]

I wasn't saying you guys were the same, I'd say from observation that ou have a similar "flavor" if you get my drift.

And looking forward to you description as per wayfarings question

Yes that's fair, we have respect for that branch.

[GlennR]

Okay right got it. Yes once they where under pressure they looked to turn but turned themselves when I would be in favour turning the opponent. That needs a spring based structure. I could see they had a degree of structure but it was not alive and dynamic as such. I can see why in the second form the turning does not twist into the ground in the way I would like to see. Also the angles are different in the second section to the form in relation to what I see as functional structure. That of course just my opinion compared to the way I see it.

Thanks Alan
My WC instructor would advocate much the same as you, as would I, in fact I'm trying to even picture him turning ..... He rarely does it and ends up turning his opponent all the time.

I'm interested in your ideas about twisting into the ground, you have a clip?

[Robinhood]

What I have present is just what was describe in the kuen kuit teaching of the red boat era 1850.
http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1210030&postcount=1


So, from the practice the set, to develop the engine and jin with the set, to application, to chi sau testing and further develop the stick, recieve, issue ; The three basic functions of the art are all a systemic piece .

One needs those engine to support the function, and this has different characteristic from taiji, wing Chun has its uniqueness. Using today language as in my utube, it is just momentum, force, force change, acceleration play. Nothing mysterious.

As I try to show, unless one can has the joints , force change path, or force change flow handle. One cannot play in dynamic phisical world. The red boat era WCK address these clearly . It is not just structure or triangle holding. Things has to making sense in a physical world.


Btw,
Jin or Jing just the change of force. There is no mysterious of this term. And there is no ambiguity in the physical world.

Also, I would not link or relate taiji with WCK. These are two different type of art based from very different philosophy.

The force change , momentum, accereation of WCK engine is based from the fujian white crane inch Jin joints power fusion with the emei 12 zhuang snake slide worm move method of smoothly handling each joints. WCK doesn't use the Dan dien rotation stuffs or hip movement as taiji.

As one can see these WCK characteristics in the siu Lin tau set. Slt simply doesnt do the movement what taiji do with hip. Also, in real combat WCK philosphy need WCK type of handling instead of the taiji type.

I know wc is not tai chi , but it is a good intro to tai chi, I would say tai chi goes beyond the limits of wc, or call it advanced training.

[Hendrik]

I know wc is not tai chi , but it is a good intro to tai chi, I would say tai chi goes beyond the limits of wc, or call it advanced training.


Nope, WCK is not an intro to taiji ,

Infact , WCK is based on emei 12 zhuang a eight hundred year old giant and four hundred year old white crane of fujian. So, it is an art based on a very different system compare with taiji.

WCK using center guarding center momentum is its uniqueness where taiji doesnt do this.

We brought the red boat 1850 era wck kuit out to show this un arguable evidence.

WCK is advance in internal art and realistic fighting, not second class of taiji. That is a reality.

If taiji is represent by spining yin yang fish or ball, WCK represent capture the center of the yin yang directly to disable it.

[Vajramusti]

Nope, WCK is not an intro to taiji ,

Infact , WCK is based on emei 12 zhuang a eight hundred year old giant and four hundred year old white crane of fujian. So, it is an art based on a very different system compare with taiji.

WCK using center guarding center momentum is its uniqueness where taiji doesnt do this.

We brought the red boat 1850 era wck kuit out to show this un arguable evidence.

WCK is advance in internal art and realistic fighting, not second class of taiji. That is a reality.

If taiji is represent by spining yin yang fish or ball, WCK represent capture the center of the yin yang directly to disable it.
---------------------------------------------------------------

Good response Hendrik.

[Ozzy Dave]

If taiji is represent by spining yin yang fish or ball, WCK represent capture the center of the yin yang directly to disable it.

Tai Ji Quan is not just represented by circular movement but by the blending and balance of yin and yang.

I've had this discussion before with Fujian Bai He practitioners who complain that Tai Ji folks move their dantian around just for the sake of it and are thus easy to take advantage of in a contact situation i.e. you steal their centre - good Tai Ji Quan does not do this.

Having said that, I agree that Wing Chun is not some form of second rate Tai Ji Quan in theory or application.

Dave

[Vajramusti]

Wing chun and taiji/taichi are quite different from each other, though both in their own way
try to address universal issues- such as working with gravity...efficiently.

But both arts have lots of folks who wave their limbs around without knowing what they are doing.

[Ozzy Dave]

Wing chun and taiji/taichi are quite different from each other, though both in their own way
try to address universal issues- such as working with gravity...efficiently.

But both arts have lots of folks who wave their limbs around without knowing what they are doing.

Agree with that, one of the prices of popularity I suppose.

Dave

[Robinhood]

Nope, WCK is not an intro to taiji ,

Infact , WCK is based on emei 12 zhuang a eight hundred year old giant and four hundred year old white crane of fujian. So, it is an art based on a very different system compare with taiji.

WCK using center guarding center momentum is its uniqueness where taiji doesnt do this.

We brought the red boat 1850 era wck kuit out to show this un arguable evidence.

WCK is advance in internal art and realistic fighting, not second class of taiji. That is a reality.

If taiji is represent by spining yin yang fish or ball, WCK represent capture the center of the yin yang directly to disable it.


Is that why they call Tai Chi "Grand Ultimate Fist", I think it is more like tai chi takes the center and builds from it out, you have to have a center to do circles.

I don't know of any WC guys guarding the royal family or having any great stories about them.

Where is the WC guy who showed Yang Lu Chan what was the real art.

Where was the WC guy that showed Wang(yi quan guy) in the early 1900's what was the real art.

WC is good, but your really reaching trying to say it is everything.

[Hendrik]

Is that why they call Tai Chi "Grand Ultimate Fist", I think it is more like tai chi takes the center and builds from it out, you have to have a center to do circles.

I don't know of any WC guys guarding the royal family or having any great stories about them.

Where is the WC guy who showed Yang Lu Chan what was the real art.

Where was the WC guy that showed Wang(yi quan guy) in the early 1900's what was the real art.

WC is good, but your really reaching trying to say it is everything.



1. WCK is a real art used in 1850 red boat era uprising battlefield in canton china by the red boat opera actors in real life, That is traceable history fact. Ten of thousands died .

2. WCK writting of 1850 cover indepth internal art elements based on the two mother art, the emei and white crane of fujian. White crane of fujian is the art of fighting the Qing army 1600. And continous underground for decades.

3. As far as yang Lu chan, Wang Xiang zai...ect lots of stories from the northen china. Never in battle field in the history of china for real life .

4. I speak about WCK with evidence, infact , even hsing yi has difficulties facing WCK center line capture momentum

Take a look at this sparing started 6.3. If this is real fight the Xing yi guy is knock out many time already, why? Because WCK guy constantly had dominate his center line.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fqwNGUq60I

So, sure, ima has big name, but when it comes to real deal, who capture the center line who win. It is a momentum capture deal. Jin and all kind of internal practice is useless without knowing momentum. So, ima is just half of the equation, the other half, is not shown in the general ima.

So, instead of get the big name as yang Lu chan or wang Xiang chai, look at the above real life spaing to see what is real.

5.
And ofcorse I am bias because I am a wcner , I don't buy the new grandmaster movie which rate WCK lower then the norther Ima art, it is just because wong ga wai doesn't know about WCK history.

[GlennR]

Is that why they call Tai Chi "Grand Ultimate Fist", I think it is more like tai chi takes the center and builds from it out, you have to have a center to do circles.

I don't know of any WC guys guarding the royal family or having any great stories about them.

Where is the WC guy who showed Yang Lu Chan what was the real art.

Where was the WC guy that showed Wang(yi quan guy) in the early 1900's what was the real art.

WC is good, but your really reaching trying to say it is everything.

Yeh, but WC has nuns.......... Nuns!!!!!

[GlennR]

1. WCK is a real art used in 1850 red boat era uprising battlefield in canton china by the red boat opera actors in real life, That is traceable history fact. Ten of thousands died .

2. WCK writting of 1850 cover indepth internal art elements based on the two mother art, the emei and white crane of fujian. White crane of fujian is the art of fighting the Qing army 1600. And continous underground for decades.

3. As far as yang Lu chan, Wang Xiang zai...ect lots of stories from the northen china. Never in battle field in the history of china for real life .

4. I speak about WCK with evidence, infact , even hsing yi has difficulties facing WCK center line capture momentum

Take a look at this sparing started 6.3. If this is real fight the Xing yi guy is knock out many time already, why? Because WCK guy constantly had dominate his center line.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fqwNGUq60I

So, sure, ima has big name, but when it comes to real deal, who capture the center line who win. It is a momentum capture deal. Jin and all kind of internal practice is useless without knowing momentum. So, ima is just half of the equation, the other half, is not shown in the general ima.

So, instead of get the big name as yang Lu chan or wang Xiang chai, look at the above real life spaing to see what is real.

5.
And ofcorse I am bias because I am a wcner , I don't buy the new grandmaster movie which rate WCK lower then the norther Ima art, it is just because wong ga wai doesn't know about WCK history.

Nothing like living in the past is there

[Robinhood]

1. WCK is a real art used in 1850 red boat era uprising battlefield in canton china by the red boat opera actors in real life, That is traceable history fact. Ten of thousands died .

2. WCK writting of 1850 cover indepth internal art elements based on the two mother art, the emei and white crane of fujian. White crane of fujian is the art of fighting the Qing army 1600. And continous underground for decades.

3. As far as yang Lu chan, Wang Xiang zai...ect lots of stories from the northen china. Never in battle field in the history of china for real life .

4. I speak about WCK with evidence, infact , even hsing yi has difficulties facing WCK center line capture momentum

Take a look at this sparing started 6.3. If this is real fight the Xing yi guy is knock out many time already, why? Because WCK guy constantly had dominate his center line.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fqwNGUq60I

So, sure, ima has big name, but when it comes to real deal, who capture the center line who win. It is a momentum capture deal. Jin and all kind of internal practice is useless without knowing momentum. So, ima is just half of the equation, the other half, is not shown in the general ima.

So, instead of get the big name as yang Lu chan or wang Xiang chai, look at the above real life spaing to see what is real.

5.
And ofcorse I am bias because I am a wcner , I don't buy the new grandmaster movie which rate WCK lower then the norther Ima art, it is just because wong ga wai doesn't know about WCK history.


You need to get out more, if you stick your arm out against a good Tai Chi guy, it won't come back , it is like sticking it into a meat grinder. No slap hands poking in and out patty cake stuff.

[Hendrik]

You need to get out more, if you stick your arm out against a good Tai Chi guy, it won't come back , it is like sticking it into a meat grinder. No slap hands poking in and out patty cake stuff.


I don't buy name brand, I identify momentum.

[k gledhill]

I don't buy name brand, I identify momentum.

If your clips are momentum I am frost :D

[wingchunIan]

You need to get out more, if you stick your arm out against a good Tai Chi guy, it won't come back , it is like sticking it into a meat grinder.

Never mind the arguments for and against Wing Chun this is one truely dellusional statement.:o

[k gledhill]

Wing chun and taiji/taichi are quite different from each other, though both in their own way
try to address universal issues- such as working with gravity...efficiently.

But both arts have lots of folks who wave their limbs around without knowing what they are doing.




But both arts have lots of folks who wave their limbs around without knowing what they are doing.
Pot meet kettle : ).

[Robinhood]

I don't buy name brand, I identify momentum.

Well it seems like you are stuck on 1850 brand.

What happens when momentum is used against you ?

What happens when momentum runs into momentum ?

[Hendrik]

Well it seems like you are stuck on 1850 brand.

What happens when momentum is used against you ?

What happens when momentum runs into momentum ?

I am not stuck on 1850 brand, I am describing 1850 momentum types.


When momentum runs into momentum wcner capture the center line. So, what is a taiji guy do?

[k gledhill]

I am not stuck on 1850 brand, I am describing 1850 momentum types.


When momentum runs into momentum wcner capture the center line. So, what is a taiji guy do?

Can you make a clip of that exchange ?

[Robinhood]

I am not stuck on 1850 brand, I am describing 1850 momentum types.


When momentum runs into momentum wcner capture the center line. So, what is a taiji guy do?

I would say TC guy suck in momentum like tornado.

What happens when you can't find center line. ?

[Hendrik]

I would say TC guy suck in momentum like tornado.

What happens when you can't find center line. ?


WCK is train in direct, roundabout, and recover of capture the center line momentum. They do this even in their sleeping. They do just one thing, capture the center in any condition.

Tc guy I am not sure what they do , some claim tornado, some claim water....but those are just practice sets. Some claim they hua Jin, fajin, but those are just demoing. So, what does a tcguy do in combat? What type of momentum they are master of? Upto now, I say it is unclear.

WCK is a momentum art. Why taiji is lots of philosphy.

[YouKnowWho]

if you stick your arm out against a good Tai Chi guy, it won't come back.

If a "Taiji" guy sticks his arm out against a good "..." guy, it won't come back.

I don't know any purpose to make a general statement like this.

Old Chinese saying said, "If you can't get your opponent into a head lock, you are not a good Chinese wrestler." Old Chinese saying also said, "If your opponent can get you into a head lock, you are not a good Chinese wrestler." So which one is right and which one is wrong? It's all relative and not absolute.

[Robinhood]

If a "Taiji" guy sticks his arm out against a good "..." guy, it won't come back.

I don't know any purpose to make a general statement like this.

Old Chinese saying said, "If you can't get your opponent into a head lock, you are not a good Chinese wrestler." Old Chinese saying also said, "If your opponent can get you into a head lock, you are not a good Chinese wrestler." So which one is right and which one is wrong? It's all relative and not absolute.

Who wants to wrestle ?, maybe with some of those sword hotties I would change my mind.

Besides maybe something else besides martial art in motive.....

http://www.chacha.com/question/what-is-the-percentage-of-gay-wrestlers

[trubblman]

Hi everybody, i'm new here and i would like to hear opinions or suggests around the structure test described by Sifu Robert Chu in his web site, i mean the palm pressure on chest during Yee Jee Kim Yeung Ma.

I practice wong shun leung wing chun, i learned the importance of structure, but i must admit that i fail that test, no matter how i try to straight the spinal column, using the pelvic tilt, lowering the stance ecc... i can stand very well the pressure on my hands, i know how redirect the energy but i can't dissipate it standing in yjkym during a pression on my chest. Your suggests are welcome. Apologize me for my english, i'm not native speaker. Regards

Relax your body. In other words make your body feel like u are slouching and then straighten the body using only enough strength to maintain the position. Also try and feel that your anus is aligned with the base of your skull. Push pelvis out but dont exagerate; you only want the tail bone to be vertical - thats all. Relax the shoulders.

[Vajramusti]

WCK is train in direct, roundabout, and recover of capture the center line momentum. They do this even in their sleeping. They do just one thing, capture the center in any condition.

Tc guy I am not sure what they do , some claim tornado, some claim water....but those are just practice sets. Some claim they hua Jin, fajin, but those are just demoing. So, what does a tcguy do in combat? What type of momentum they are master of? Upto now, I say it is unclear.

WCK is a momentum art. Why taiji is lots of philosphy.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Correct on wing chun and the center. Not accurate on taiji. Like bad wing chun there is a lot of bad taiji out there.