Shape or Action?

[KPM]

I thought I'd throw this one out for some discussion as well. Things like this come up within other threads and people not following those thread never get to see them. So I thought I'd start a new one.

When we talk about a Bong Sao or Taan Sao or any other Wing Chun hand form/technique, what are we really talking about? Is it a shape/form? Or is it an action/movement?

I say it is both! We get caught up in the idea that it is a shape...a thing. That's because it is most convenient to talk about it in this way. We see pictures with things labeled as a "Bong" or a "Taan" and think that this is it! But really that is only an ending position. As beginners we were told to do a "Bong" or a "Taan" and then our positioning was corrected to make it right. We were taught how to do these things "right" in the forms. All of this reinforces in our mind that the Bong or Taan are static positions. But really, what we are thinking about is only the end point of a dynamic motion. Its more than a position, though positioning is still important.

So it is also an action. Probably more importantly an action! A "Bong" or "Taan" or any other named technique is a movement, not a static position. That movement is in reference to what the opponent is sending at us, so our Bong or Taan must adapt to that. They are not static "blocks" that we throw up in the air to guard ourselves with. They are dynamic motions that intercept and redirect an opponent's energy. So the real "essence" of a Bong, Taan or any other technique is the energy behind the movement, not the resulting static position. We sometimes forget that.

But position is important! After all, a movement or action is simply many moments in time strung together concurrently. At each moment, there is a position. So we can talk about there being a "wrong" or "right" position. We do that all the time when teaching the techniques. There is a "wrong" and "right" position to end up in when doing all of the techniques in the forms. During a dynamic exchange a student may be getting hit frequently because he is not positioning his Bong Sao high enough to deflect properly. The action can be stopped, the student's Bong Sao positioned correctly so he gets the right idea, and the action commenced.

So it truly is both. Therefore IMHO, it is just as wrong to say that "Bong Sao is not a position" as it is to say "Bong Sao is a technique that has to look exactly like this..." Bong Sao is a dynamic action that at any moment in time has a position that may be optimal....or not. The same applies to all techniques in WCK.

[PalmStriker]

You are correct. Bong and Taan are Crane wingform weapons, not static form. That is why SLT taan is moving forward Yang speed and not static. :) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4O6WoWuJ4U

[YouKnowWho]

To me,

- Tan Shou is "sawing",
- Fu Shou is "pulling",
- Bong Shou is "bouncing".

[PalmStriker]

For me, Taan and Bong are about deflecting, but that is just my limited preference. :)

[YouKnowWho]

For me, Taan and Bong are about deflecting, but that is just my limited preference. :)

All 3 hand moves can be use for deflecting. By adding your force vector, you can change your opponent's force vector depending on your "angle" and "amount of force".

I like to call Tan Shou as a "sawing" motion. That was exactly my opponent had used it on me and got me interested in the WC system.

[PalmStriker]

Snake Engine :) Chi Sao base. I think practitioners who first train in TCMA Wingchun will adopt that usage, propensity to use form technique as intended. *quote: All 3 hand moves can be use for deflecting. By adding your force vector, you can change your opponent's force vector depending on your "angle" and "amount of force". :) Instead of simply deflecting, great strategy, would have to be very quick to make use of this mindset.

[YouKnowWho]

Shape or Action?

I don't like the term "shape" because it does not describe the "moving path". The "horse stance" is a "shape". The "hip throw" is an "action".

If you know how to

- do "hip throw", you will know how to stand in "horse stance".
- stand in "horse stance", it doesn't mean that you know how to do "hip throw".

Why do you want to train "horse stance" if you know how to train "hip throw"? Will you get better result by doing 200 hip throws than 10 minutes horse stance.

[YouKnowWho]

I was taught years ago the Wing Chun maxim "Bong sao must not remain" or "bong is never fixed or still".

So. Why not tan is never still? Or fook must not remain?

Bong has risk such as "wrong Bong", you use right Bong to meet with your opponent's right punch. Even if you may move in lighting speed, if your opponent can predict your intention ahead of the time, he can take advantage on it. A "remain" and "still" Bong can be much worse.

Even your "right Bong" may still have risk. If you use your right Bong to block your opponent's left straight punch. His left elbow can still drop under your right Bong (by using the right arm to lift up your right Bong even higher) if you don't try to seal that gap quickly.

Your Tan and Fu don't have the same issue as your Bong has because your elbow is down. There is no "wrong Tan" and there is no "wrong Fu".

[KPM]

I was taught years ago the Wing Chun maxim "Bong sao must not remain" or "bong is never fixed or still".

So. Why not tan is never still? Or fook must not remain?

Because Bong Sao places you momentarily in a vulnerable position with your elbow up. So you should only spend as much time there as necessary to get the job done. Don't let it remain or the opponent will take advantage of your vulnerability. Also Bong Sao is purely defensive in nature whereas the other techniques also have an offensive quality. Taan and Fook both convert easily into a punch. But all of this still does not mean that the Bong has no position. Only that the position should be very brief!

[KPM]

You use them as hand shapes that convert into punches?

Of course. But that's not the only way I use them.

[sihing]

In the beginning one can say they are learning "shapes", just to get the references in regards to where the "tan" should be in relation to their bodies, height/width/length, etc.. its not only about the end of the shape but the getting there too. With tan, one is also learning how to let the elbow lead the movement, and to bring it close as possible to centerline (elbows in habits..). Same goes for the rest of the "shapes".

Then one makes it into actions, primarily concerning tan-spreading strike when contact is outside forearm, fok-cutting strike when contact inside forearm, bong-upper arm deflection to permit secondary hitting action, and so forth...

One is a learners way of looking at it, once that stage is done, they become doers, from noun to verb...

J

[KPM]

In the beginning one can say they are learning "shapes", just to get the references in regards to where the "tan" should be in relation to their bodies, height/width/length, etc.. its not only about the end of the shape but the getting there too. With tan, one is also learning how to let the elbow lead the movement, and to bring it close as possible to centerline (elbows in habits..). Same goes for the rest of the "shapes".

Then one makes it into actions, primarily concerning tan-spreading strike when contact is outside forearm, fok-cutting strike when contact inside forearm, bong-upper arm deflection to permit secondary hitting action, and so forth...

One is a learners way of looking at it, once that stage is done, they become doers, from noun to verb...

J

Good post James. Sounds like we're on the same sheet of music. :)

[Graham H]

Then one makes it into actions, primarily concerning tan-spreading strike when contact is outside forearm, fok-cutting strike when contact inside forearm, bong-upper arm deflection to permit secondary hitting action, and so forth...


We must stress that contact is only made should there be an obstacle and we don't look to go to the arm to make some sort of bridge like most people think. If there are no limbs blocking the path of the punch we still strike in the same way regardless.

[BPWT]

...and "Bong Sau" means wing arm block.

"膀"

Nothing to do with 'wings'. ;)


Edit: For that matter... Tan, Bong, Fook.... nothing to do with 'blocking' either ;)

[Graham H]

"膀"

Nothing to do with 'wings'. ;)


Edit: For that matter... Tan, Bong, Fook.... nothing to do with 'blocking' either ;)

I agree for a change :)

[Sihing73]

Bong sao is ............................a mistake ;)

Must be why it appears so many times in the forms, like CK for example, not to mention on the dummy.

Nothing like repeating ones mistakes over and over again. ;)

[EternalSpring]

Tan/Bong/Fook/etc are concepts taught through shapes and expressed in action.

[sihing]

We must stress that contact is only made should there be an obstacle and we don't look to go to the arm to make some sort of bridge like most people think. If there are no limbs blocking the path of the punch we still strike in the same way regardless.

Yes totally agreed. The worst case scenario is that contact is made as this is more to "deal" with compared to no bridge contact and a clear path...

We prepare for bridge contact, but don't look for it and seek it, unless we want to. For me the primary habit to learn is too just hit (with accuracy, proper distance, connected power, ability to recover and hit again from whatever line, etc..), and let the reflexes take over is there is bridge contact. Then when that is mastered, you can take the "contact" reflexes you have gained as a side benefit of chi sau practice and use it if you want to, but this is secondary and not the primary thing learned in the beginning at least IMO..

I figure, why ignore the secondary skill set gained from the practice, might as well keep it in my back pocket and use it when I need to. In my line of work, I can't always just "hit" first, I need to try to control and subdue at times, if that doesn't work I will hit to end it..

J

[KPM]

Tan sao develops the elbow for the VT punch
Fook sao develops the elbow for the VT punch.

Bong sao is ............................a mistake ;)

Ok. I'll bite! :) Why is Bong Sao a mistake? Please explain!

[KPM]

We prepare for bridge contact, but don't look for it and seek it, unless we want to........this is secondary and not the primary thing learned in the beginning at least IMO..

J

I agree James! We don't look for bridge contact, but we certainly expect it and are prepared for it! If someone is wide open, just hit them! Who wouldn't do that? ;) Unfortunately that doesn't happen often. And unless you stop them with the first blow, as long as they aren't a complete idiot they are going to throw up an obstacle. THEN bridging happens and we seek to control and off-balance the opponent so we can continue to hit them at will. What WCK doesn't do, is back off from contact because the opponent HAS put up an obstacle...like boxers might do. Once we have established a bridge we aren't going to abandon it and have to form another one. At least that's how I see my WCK. :)

[Graham H]

I agree James! We don't look for bridge contact, but we certainly expect it and are prepared for it! If someone is wide open, just hit them! Who wouldn't do that? ;) Unfortunately that doesn't happen often. And unless you stop them with the first blow, as long as they aren't a complete idiot they are going to throw up an obstacle.

Correct!


THEN bridging happens and we seek to control and off-balance the opponent so we can continue to hit them at will.

Incorrect! How are you going to seek and control an opponent who might be a lot bigger than you or a wiry little f**ker that is throwing everything but the kitchen sink at you? To think in any context that you can "hit somebody at will" is BS!!



What WCK doesn't do, is back off from contact because the opponent HAS put up an obstacle...like boxers might do. Once we have established a bridge we aren't going to abandon it and have to form another one. At least that's how I see my WCK. :)

Jesus! What is all this "form a bridge" rubbish? Backing off from contact? :eek: Abandoning bridges and forming new ones? :eek:

Can I ask you a question Keith? Have you ever had a proper vicious street encounter? It certainly doesn't sound like it.

I would guess that if you came up against somebody who was quite handy with their fists it would not be your day.

[BPWT]

For me, understanding bridge work and how we use it is vital. I think it is essential to WC/VT/WT. We are either working Lei Kiu or Chi Kiu, and this system specializes in the latter. ;)

Various students of Yip Man talked about how he could disrupt their balance at will, move them around, walk them out the door... basically play with them. :D And Yip Man was, what, 5''3'', and very slight.

The majority of his students where probably taller and almost certainly heavier than him. Yet he had no problem controlling them. IMO, this had to be control via contact.

[Graham H]

Various students of Yip Man talked about how he could disrupt their balance at will, move them around, walk them out the door... basically play with them. :D And Yip Man was, what, 5''3'', and very slight.

The majority of his students where probably taller and almost certainly heavier than him. Yet he had no problem controlling them. IMO, this had to be control via contact.

Yes of course but you are not seeing the big picture are you?

These things are possible during the chi sau practice where contact is used for development purposes. I can move all the people I teach/train with around and unbalance them in Chi Sau because I have developed better structure and more power over the years. This has come via the correct training. In sparring it is a different story. There is no prolonged contact so I must use skill and LSJC to off balance them and this doesn't come via arm contact. In fact where their arm go I do not because the correct way is to position yourself out of their direct firing line. Everybody who trains with me especially if they come from a system of "sticky arm" Wing Chun soon realizes that this idea is nonsense. I'm sure that Neil with his previous idea on Wing Chun will vouch for that. Now he is making the change because bridge based Wing Chun is useless.

You have to ask yourself a question. How many of Yip Man's students actually sparred with him? Nobody on this forum knows what Yip man did. You can only speculate and more often than not interpret what is written about him in your own way.

There are many things you can do in chi sau that don't relate to actual fights. It all looks very good and to the untrained person they feel helpless against it all but this is not the correct way of applying Ving Tsun and why most of the time it falls flat on its a$$ unless you are fighting VT vs VT within the confines of chi sau.

[Graham H]

I have posted this article before written by my friend Ernie Barrios. He makes some valid points here. His ideas come from tried and tested situations.

http://www.abmvt.com/folio/chi-sau-misconception.pdf

[BPWT]

It's true that none of us here ever met Yip Man. My point is that of all the 'names' who did, they all stress the importance of bridge work and controlling. The one possible exception is WSL... but even this is debatable, as some of his students (e.g. DP) also talk about using bridging to control.

Your branch of VT pretty much rejects these ideas, as you explained. And that's cool. But with all due respect to PB, he (like you and I) never met Yip Man either.

Ernie's article has some very valid points, though I would argue that the recovery system he speaks about (allowing us to keep hitting) is actually part and parcel of the art's bridging and controlling methods.

But he's right in saying CS is not fighting, of course.

For me, the bigger picture is how do I strike without being struck. How do I keep attacking center without exposing my own. How do I do this without relying purely on visual cues, which are limited at the range we want to control. How does Chi Sau and Lat Sau give me the tools and skillset required to do all of this.

For me the answers are in understanding and effectively using Chi Kiu. This idea isn't just unique to people who learned from Yip Man - it's found in other Wing Chun lineages too.

For what it's worth, Neil's experiences are similar to my own, including how he used to do Dan Chi Sau and why it was, let's say, problematic.

[Graham H]

It's true that none of us here ever met Yip Man. My point is that of all the 'names' who did, they all stress the importance of bridge work and controlling. The one possible exception is WSL... but even this is debatable, as some of his students (e.g. DP) also talk about using bridging to control.

I think if you met both guys and moved around with them a little you would see within seconds which methods work and which methods do not. You should stop thinking that just because somebody was taught by WSL that they are all going to be the same. They are not! It's very easy to repeat what somebody else has said and show things through a drill or whatever but getting stuck in and sparring with hand, foot, pole and knives takes things to a new level. This test your knowledge on Ving Tsun and also reveals what you can apply and what you can't! Playing chi sau all day everyday is futile without the rest.


Your branch of VT pretty much rejects these ideas, as you explained. And that's cool. But with all due respect to PB, he (like you and I) never met Yip Man either.

Yes and my opinion is that through hard work and training with many people from all over the place has shown PB what can work and what cannot.


Ernie's article has some very valid points, though I would argue that the recovery system he speaks about (allowing us to keep hitting) is actually part and parcel of the art's bridging and controlling methods.

He would disagree with you point blank and has done a lot of research with other trained fighters.


But he's right in saying CS is not fighting, of course.

.....but many think it is.


For me, the bigger picture is how do I strike without being struck. How do I keep attacking center without exposing my own. How do I do this without relying purely on visual cues, which are limited at the range we want to control. How does Chi Sau and Lat Sau give me the tools and skillset required to do all of this.

Becoming sensitive to what an opponent is or isn't doing is got from years of reactive chi sau - gor sau and sparring practice. It is not made from touching arm methods. This is the main reason why so many people are ditching their old lineages. They can't all be wrong mate! That would not make sense.


For me the answers are in understanding and effectively using Chi Kiu. This idea isn't just unique to people who learned from Yip Man - it's found in other Wing Chun lineages too.

Chi Kiu? "sticking bridges" ? :eek::eek::eek::eek:


For what it's worth, Neil's experiences are similar to my own, including how he used to do Dan Chi Sau and why it was, let's say, problematic.

Had Neil not exposed himself in person to our way he would still be none the wiser today. How do you think he would feel if I told him via text that his ideas on Wing Chun (that stem from a son of Yip Man) are flawed? He would react the same way most of you lot do. Of course he would. Fortunately for Neil he discovered his own short comings first and that has led him down a better path.

[KPM]

I am not going to let Graham draw me into another prolonged *****-fest because he has already proven that he cannot carry on a civil discussion with anyone who may have ideas different from his own without resorting to insults. But I did want to make two comments:


There is no prolonged contact so I must use skill and LSJC to off balance them and this doesn't come via arm contact.

You aren't going to off balance anyone without contacting them, unless you are an expert at I Chuan! ;)

In fact where their arm go I do not because the correct way is to position yourself out of their direct firing line.

Nobody said the contact or "bridge" had to be the arm. In fact, contact should quickly move up from the arm to contact and control the torso/head.

[BPWT]

I think if you met both guys and moved around with them a little you would see within seconds which methods work and which methods do not. You should stop thinking that just because somebody was taught by WSL that they are all going to be the same. They are not! It's very easy to repeat what somebody else has said and show things through a drill or whatever but getting stuck in and sparring with hand, foot, pole and knives takes things to a new level. This test your knowledge on Ving Tsun and also reveals what you can apply and what you can't! Playing chi sau all day everyday is futile without the rest.

Well, I agree with you. It's only when you test things outside of Chi Sau that you see whether you can 'transfer' what you got from Chi Sau training into, say, sparring.

I have no doubt that PB would hand me my arse. Maybe DP would too, but from what I've seen and heard, I am willing to concede that PB would hand it to me quicker. :D

But is this really just about their understanding of the methods, or due to natural ability? DP knows the system to some depth, it seems to me. But PB may well be the better fighter.

If you were to meet Chris Collins or Maday Norbert, and they proved capable of beating you in sparring, would you say that the LTWT method was therefore better than the PBVT method? I think you would simply say that these two guys were, personally, better than you.

So I agree that things need to be tested outside of Chi Sau in order to establish what skill a person really has... but even then it just shows 'who' is better, not necessarily 'what' is better/more effective, etc.



Yes and my opinion is that through hard work and training with many people from all over the place has shown PB what can work and what cannot.

For sure, the man has put in years and years of hard training. And has drawn his conclusions. For him, he's reached an understanding based on this. I'm not arguing that the man has it all wrong, I am just saying that my Sifu too has put in years of hard work, and met many people from many MAs, and he has reached different conclusions.



He would disagree with you point blank and has done a lot of research with other trained fighters.

That's okay with me. Ernie seems like a nice guy, and he is passionate about how he trains (and what he trains). He can disagree with me if he likes. ;)


Becoming sensitive to what an opponent is or isn't doing is got from years of reactive chi sau - gor sau and sparring practice.

I agree.


It is not made from touching arm methods.

I disagree. :D Reactive Chi Sau, Gor Sau and Sparring practice should include Kiu Sau - which encompasses WT's concepts, methods and strategies. IMO.



This is the main reason why so many people are ditching their old lineages. They can't all be wrong mate! That would not make sense.

Well, the numbers game is a tricky thing to play. Like I was saying in other threads, I can see and understand why some people might leave their group/organization to train with PB.

Recently I read something by Keith Kernspecht where he stated that 2013 was an amazing year for the EWTO, as it now has more members than ever before in its 40-odd year history. As you know, I am no big fan of what the EWTO teaches today... I positively dislike it :eek:... and so I wouldn't want to apply your statement, regarding numbers, of "they can't all be wrong." There are far more people studying in the EWTO than with PB, sometimes personal choices just don't make sense - at least to some people.


Chi Kiu? "sticking bridges" ? :eek::eek::eek::eek:

It is a term used in the art. But I would add that this is not/should not be taken to mean prolonged stick, like a fly stuck on fly paper. :) It is referring to bridge contact. It lasts only as long as it needs to last.

In an exchange you've either made contact or haven't. Two ranges. Lei Kiu and Chi Kiu.


Had Neil not exposed himself in person to our way he would still be none the wiser today. How do you think he would feel if I told him via text that his ideas on Wing Chun (that stem from a son of Yip Man) are flawed? He would react the same way most of you lot do. Of course he would. Fortunately for Neil he discovered his own short comings first and that has led him down a better path.

Been there myself, so I feel his pain. :) But I've seen how the training I do now can be used - and not just by my Sifu, but by numerous people within our lineage. Some more talented than others, but all of them training the methods.

But this type of training in the art is not easy to apply - it takes lots of work. People say Wing Chun should be simple, efficient, effective.

I agree, but simple, efficient and effective in its use - in application. Sometimes the training to get there is not so simple - and certainly not easy. Lots of hard work, sweat, bruised ego and bruised bodies.

I walk to work each day and walk through a park where there are a ton of guys doing bodyweight exercises on bars and posts. They make it look really simple. It isn't, I've tried - much to their amusement. When you've developed skill in something, doing it always looks simple.

[Graham H]

If you were to meet Chris Collins or Maday Norbert, and they proved capable of beating you in sparring, would you say that the LTWT method was therefore better than the PBVT method? I think you would simply say that these two guys were, personally, better than you.

No because I'm interested in how the system can improve and develop my own Ving Tsun. Wing Tsun makes no sense and there is a good reason why Leung Ting has a bad reputation in many VT/WC circles.


For sure, the man has put in years and years of hard training. And has drawn his conclusions. For him, he's reached an understanding based on this. I'm not arguing that the man has it all wrong, I am just saying that my Sifu too has put in years of hard work, and met many people from many MAs, and he has reached different conclusions.

Like I said before some people can make any sh1t work for them. Without being in the same room as these guys (which will never happen) nobody will ever know who will come out on top.



I disagree. :D Reactive Chi Sau, Gor Sau and Sparring practice should include Kiu Sau - which encompasses WT's concepts, methods and strategies. IMO.

................im not interested in WT



Recently I read something by Keith Kernspecht where he stated that 2013 was an amazing year for the EWTO, as it now has more members than ever before in its 40-odd year history. As you know, I am no big fan of what the EWTO teaches today... I positively dislike it :eek:... and so I wouldn't want to apply your statement, regarding numbers, of "they can't all be wrong." There are far more people studying in the EWTO than with PB, sometimes personal choices just don't make sense - at least to some people.

Yes! There are more stupid people in the world than there are windows



I walk to work each day and walk through a park where there are a ton of guys doing bodyweight exercises on bars and posts. They make it look really simple. It isn't, I've tried - much to their amusement. When you've developed skill in something, doing it always looks simple.

Agree

[BPWT]

No because I'm interested in how the system can improve and develop my own Ving Tsun. Wing Tsun makes no sense and there is a good reason why Leung Ting has a bad reputation in many VT/WC circles.

Well, I think we all study with the aim that the system's methods improve what we do. LT's reputation, for those who have a problem with him, gets a real battering... but this is really more a personal thing. LT can rub people the wrong way.



Like I said before some people can make any sh1t work for them. Without being in the same room as these guys (which will never happen) nobody will ever know who will come out on top.

For sure. Maybe PB's skill is based on innate ability too. Who in his group can match his skills?

[Graham H]

For sure. Maybe PB's skill is based on innate ability too. Who in his group can match his skills?

Innate ability? I think so. For a guy to do what he has done with the obstacles that have been put in front of him it doesn't fall short of impressive.

[BPWT]

Innate ability? I think so. For a guy to do what he has done with the obstacles that have been put in front of him it doesn't fall short of impressive.

Indeed. I get the impression he has a "never say never" attitude. :)

But what I was meaning is that he must have some long-term students, people who have been with him since he started teaching in the 80s.

If we say the system itself can help people get great results, are there long-termers from PB who can live with him during Chi Sau, Sparring, etc?

In most of the clips of him, he is way above the skill level of those he is teaching. Are there any clips available of him working with his more senior people?

[KPM]

Here they are just doing some light sparring, a normal work out. They aren't fighting. But notice how Alan tries to maintain contact (a bridge) with his opponent by keeping a hand on him to help control the opponent's balance. He's not throwing a few punches, stepping back to assay his work, and then closing to throw some more punches like a boxer might. This is what I was talking about before.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hT8pOjrtXXU

[Mutant]

If it were just action without adhering to sound WC geometric principles (or i suppose you could say 'shape' but that sounds so static) then it would be ineffective slop, but if it were just a shape without action powering it, would be dead. Needs both those elements plus the timing, energy and correct utility...

If you were analyze how you run and take a high speed snap shot of the 'shape' that you're foot and leg make at various points, and work to optimize your running 'form' that might be analogous looking at shapes as example in trying to teach someone wc. Most ppl can run and think they're a decent runner if they can run say a 10k race, but there's a huge difference between your average jogger and elite runners, not just due to conditioning but also due to technique. Same's probably true with Wing Chun.

If too static and robotic its missing the point, but sometimes you do need points of reference to work with just to illustrate the dynamic geometry. Notice that the more complex arm shapes in wc it's common that peeps get caught in holding the position instead of smoking thru into a strike or another transition? Maybe because too much emphasis on the shape and inadvertently transferred as more of a static shape-holding concept which is a dead end.

[KPM]

If you were analyze how you run and take a high speed snap shot of the 'shape' that you're foot and leg make at various points, and work to optimize your running 'form' that might be analogous looking at shapes as example in trying to teach someone wc. Most ppl can run and think they're a decent runner if they can run say a 10k race, but there's a huge difference between your average jogger and elite runners, not just due to conditioning but also due to technique. Same's probably true with Wing Chun.



Yeah. Good analogy! :)

[Neil-Y]

Any particular reason why my comments were mederated and taken off?

[KPM]

Any particular reason why my comments were mederated and taken off?

I think Dave has been making an active attempt to head off some of the nastiness that has taken place on threads recently. He has deleted some of my posts as well, which is OK because it was a good reminder to me not to be reactive to taunts and jabs. So if your posts seemed somewhat insulting or disrespectful that may be why they got deleted. So try re-posting the same thing, but in a more respectful tone.

[Neil-Y]

I think Dave has been making an active attempt to head off some of the nastiness that has taken place on threads recently. He has deleted some of my posts as well, which is OK because it was a good reminder to me not to be reactive to taunts and jabs. So if your posts seemed somewhat insulting or disrespectful that may be why they got deleted. So try re-posting the same thing, but in a more respectful tone.

Ok thanks. It's wasn't insulting or disrespectful at all. I merely highlighted my personal experiences of the changes between my previous lineage and my current one.

[BPWT]

Ok thanks. It's wasn't insulting or disrespectful at all. I merely highlighted my personal experiences of the changes between my previous lineage and my current one.

Just post it again, beginning with "In my humble opinion, and I say this with no desire to offend anyone..."

:D

[Graham H]

Any particular reason why my comments were mederated and taken off?

I wouldn't worry about it Neil. There was nothing in your posts that was derogatory in any way. They probably just didn't like the fact that your idea on Wing Chun has changed and what you USED to think is what they STILL think.

I think it's bang out of order that some posts that contain some good information get deleted why others with poor ideas on Wing Chun are allowed to delete things or allow theirs to remain. :mad:

This one will probably be in the bin as well. C***s!

[GlennR]

I think it's bang out of order that some posts that contain some good information get deleted why others with poor ideas on Wing Chun are allowed to delete things or allow theirs to remain. :mad:


Its a crime Garham, a crime....... mine get deleted all the time and are full of useful information!!

[Wayfaring]

Chi Kiu? "sticking bridges" ? :eek::eek::eek::eek:


Actually, HFY's chi sau platform includes kiu sau and chi kiu. This is quite different than the Yip Man approach.

Apparently this is a new term for you, which also means PB doesn't teach it.

[Graham H]

Its a crime Garham, a crime....... mine get deleted all the time and are full of useful information!!

Yeah I have a lot deleted that contain secrets from Yip Man himself! :D

[Graham H]

Actually, HFY's chi sau platform includes kiu sau and chi kiu. This is quite different than the Yip Man approach.

Apparently this is a new term for you, which also means PB doesn't teach it.

Well if its different from the Yip Man approach then why has Leung Ting got it in his system. After all Leung Ting claims to have been a closed door student of Yip Man (which is complete nonsense BTW)

If its not in the Yip Man approach it probably means its useless.

Leung Ting is probably just making more rubbish up and is watching the $ roll in! ;)

[Mutant]

If its not in the Yip Man approach it probably means its useless.

Yip Man was awesome but there's some other great stuff outside the scope of his approach.

[Neil-Y]

Yeah I have a lot deleted that contain secrets from Yip Man himself! :D

Including the 4th empty hand form which I learnt last night.

[Wayfaring]

Well if its different from the Yip Man approach then why has Leung Ting got it in his system. After all Leung Ting claims to have been a closed door student of Yip Man (which is complete nonsense BTW)

If its not in the Yip Man approach it probably means its useless.

Leung Ting is probably just making more rubbish up and is watching the $ roll in! ;)

No idea. LT is nowhere associated to anything I do. I have no knowledge of the guy beyond general talk.

Regarding your Yip Man approach comment I would just have to say it's obvious you've never met Garrett Gee. When you do you might come away with a different perspective.

[BPWT]

Well if its different from the Yip Man approach then why has Leung Ting got it in his system. After all Leung Ting claims to have been a closed door student of Yip Man (which is complete nonsense BTW)

If its not in the Yip Man approach it probably means its useless.

Leung Ting is probably just making more rubbish up and is watching the $ roll in! ;)

Chi Kiu is a term used in the art. You find it used by most lineages outside of YM. It simply refers to bridge work (hence the name). In Wayfaring's lineage I think they have a specific part of their curriculum based around it. LT does not, however - it's simply a blanket term for contact via the bridge.

So no extra $ associated with it. A basic term heard in any HK lesson someone might attend. Nothing new, either - LT mentions it in books first published in the 70s. A Chinese term, found in a Chinese art, and LT is Chinese. :)

LT took private lessons with YM after YM had officially retired from teaching. Thus, 'closed door student'. Not sure why you think that is "nonsense", Graham. The whole YM Wing Chun community was aware of it at the time of it happening. YM even stated it publicly.

Why so hostile?

[LFJ]

Chi Kiu is a term used in the art. You find it used by most lineages outside of YM. It simply refers to bridge work (hence the name). In Wayfaring's lineage I think they have a specific part of their curriculum based around it. LT does not, however - it's simply a blanket term for contact via the bridge.

Putting aside the absurdity of the definition you use for 'bridge' this time, apparently Wayfaring is saying in HFY they have this term in some part of their chi-sai training. But you're saying in LTWT this is a blanket term for "contact via the bridge" in fighting, outside of chi-sau?

So you even call it "sticking to the bridge". As if calling it a bridge weren't misleading enough, now you have a special term talking specifically about sticking to it. If this is not your actual method (sticking to the bridge), your terminology is just all kinds of f-ed up!

[KPM]

Putting aside the absurdity of the definition you use for 'bridge' this time, apparently Wayfaring is saying in HFY they have this term in some part of their chi-sai training. But you're saying in LTWT this is a blanket term for "contact via the bridge" in fighting, outside of chi-sau?

So you even call it "sticking to the bridge". As if calling it a bridge weren't misleading enough, now you have a special term talking specifically about sticking to it. If this is not your actual method (sticking to the bridge), your terminology is just all kinds of f-ed up!

LFJ, I think your definition of "sticking" may be a bit too rigid. "Chi" or "sticking" simply means to make contact and use that contact to sense the opponent's reaction or intention. The actual "stick" or contact may be very brief.

Have you ever worked with the Pole? There is "Chi Kwun" or "sticky pole" methods as well. Do you really think that means you are going to stick to and follow the opponent's pole all around? No. It refers to making contact with the opponent's pole briefly, and working from that.

And I don't know what your hang-up about the term "bridge" might be, but this this is a common term in southern gung fu systems. Including Wing Chun! And most systems use the term "bridge" to refer to use of the forearm.

There is nothing wrong with BPWT's terminology. You just need to broaden your base of knowledge a bit. ;-)

[LFJ]

LFJ, I think your definition of "sticking" may be a bit too rigid. "Chi" or "sticking" simply means to make contact and use that contact to sense the opponent's reaction or intention. The actual "stick" or contact may be very brief.

Yeah? Not in VT anyway, or as Neil-Y said, not outside of chi-sau drilling.

[guy b.]

Actually, HFY's chi sau platform includes kiu sau and chi kiu. This is quite different than the Yip Man approach.

Apparently this is a new term for you, which also means PB doesn't teach it.

It is new to me. What does it involve?

[guy b.]

Chi Kiu is a term used in the art. You find it used by most lineages outside of YM. It simply refers to bridge work (hence the name). In Wayfaring's lineage I think they have a specific part of their curriculum based around it. LT does not, however - it's simply a blanket term for contact via the bridge

What does your bridge work involve? By "contact via the bridge" I assume you mean arm to arm contact?

[Wayfaring]

It is new to me. What does it involve?

Most southern CMA arts have kiu sau of some kind HFY kiu sau is seen in SNT, and involves things like intercepting a blind side attack. kiu sau is learned in HFY before any chi sau. Most other southern arts flow from kiu sau to kam na. Chi kiu flows from a jong structure based kiu sau to the sticking of chi sau, but with an emphasis on control points without grabbing.

[BPWT]

LFJ,

As Keith was saying. 'Stick' is one of those unfortunate words in English, as it conjures up an image of something not letting go (I said in an earlier post to Graham that this makes people think of something like a fly stuck to fly paper), but this NOT what the term means in this system. It is referring to contact - and it is rarely prolonged contact. It can be, literally, 'touch and go'.

If you don't agree with the term 'bridge', fair enough. But the definition as I (and others) are using it is found in various (most) Wing Chun lineages, and other Southern CMA too. We had a huge thread on this a while ago, and the end result was that many people from WSL lineage disagreed as they/you define it as something different. :) No skin off my nose.

But Chi Kiu, because it is talking about contact with a bridge, can be seen in Chi Sau, or in a fight. Things are either Chi Kiu or Lei Kiu.


What does your bridge work involve? By "contact via the bridge" I assume you mean arm to arm contact?

For the most part, yes, Kiu being used to describe hand to the elbow.

What does the bridge work involve?

That's a short question with a potentially huge answer. :D

Lots of WT's concepts and principles apply to bridge work, as you want to hit the opponent and control the situation so you can keep hitting. There's bridging whenever it's needed to aid the above, sometimes it happens when things go wrong, sometimes the opponent makes the bridge, etc, etc.

But in brief, LTWT's Chi Sau sections include most of the bridging ideas, and so too does the Lat Sau training (because this is connected to lessons learned in the Chi Sau sections). To explain in more detail would mean breaking down all of the Chi Sau sections, all of the Lat Sau work, etc.

[BPWT]

To add, if someone's particular lineage defines 'Kiu' in a different way, then it seems reasonable that terminology like 'Kiu Sau' and 'Chi Kiu' will either have a different meaning too, or perhaps no meaning at all (in relation to their VT).

Again, no problem for me.

[LFJ]

As Keith was saying. 'Stick' is one of those unfortunate words in English, as it conjures up an image of something not letting go (I said in an earlier post to Graham that this makes people think of something like a fly stuck to fly paper), but this NOT what the term means in this system. It is referring to contact - and it is rarely prolonged contact. It can be, literally, 'touch and go'.

It's an equally unfortunate word in Cantonese because it doesn't mean what you think it means.

It has the possible meanings of 'to stick'; 'sticky'; 'wood-glue'; 'birdlime'. None of those mean "touch and go".

Chi-kiu means 'to stick to the bridge'. In either language it means to remain attached by adhesion.

If you're not actually doing this in your system you should reconsider your terminology. If you want to say 'to touch' or 'to make contact with' the bridge you should say something like chuk-kiu. But even then, people would tend to want to specifically train to seek contact with the opponent's arms, taking chuk-kiu as some sort of method leading to only another kind of mistake.

[BPWT]

It's an equally unfortunate word in Cantonese because it doesn't mean what you think it means. It has the possible meanings of 'to stick'; 'sticky'; 'wood-glue'; 'birdlime'. None of those mean "touch and go". Chi-kiu means 'to stick to the bridge'. In either language it means to remain attached by adhesion.

If you're not actually doing this in your system you should reconsider your terminology. If you want to say 'to touch' or 'to make contact with' the bridge you should say something like chuk-kiu. But even then, people would tend to want to specifically train to seek contact with the opponent's arms, taking chuk-kiu as some sort of method leading to only another kind of mistake.

Well, I wasn't the person who created the word :) But defining a word for what it is, and then defining the process of how it is implemented in use, are surely different, even if connected by the original term(s). For example, the word 'engine' implies mechanical motion, but doesn't necessarily imply 'travel', though the engine in a car, when used, usually results in travel and most people when thinking of the word 'engine' would assume travel.

Either way, someone could rename Chi Sau if they wanted, I guess. My point is that when you learn Chi Sau, you are not taught to remained glued/stuck to your partner's arms at all times - even though you start with stick in Poon Sau, and use stick/contact to your advantage when attacking, counter-attacking, etc. If people are uncomfortable with the word 'stick', as a result, then don't use the word.

Perhaps it is a good word to use and a bad word too. Bad for the reasons stated, good because I would argue that forward force and momentum does create adhesion if your attack and that of your opponent's meet on the same line. When you yield to greater force, do you want to always break out and then break back in?

In WT, you stick/connect when it is needed, or when certain circumstances make it happen. If you do things differently in your WSLVT, fair enough.

But regarding Kiu Sau, Chi Kiu, Lei Kiu, etc, these are terms that fit within the method I train, and are terms found within the art (though if you say this is not true of WSLVT, then I'll take your word for it - and say again, fair enough). :)

[Vajramusti]

[QUOTE=KPM;1250587] When we talk about a Bong Sao or Taan Sao or any other Wing Chun hand form/technique, what are we really talking about? Is it a shape/form? Or is it an action/movement?

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

Sao is a verb and not a noun. Of course a good sao has some requirements for good action.

[Grumblegeezer]

...regarding Kiu Sau, Chi Kiu, Lei Kiu, etc, these are terms that fit within the method I train, and are terms found within the art (though if you say this is not true of WSLVT, then I'll take your word for it - and say again, fair enough). :)

BPWT, you are clearly missing the point. You seem to think that it is possible for different groups to use terms differently. That's like saying that different WC/VT/WT groups may train differently but each is still doing a legitimate form of Wing Chun. Absurd!

Since you've been on this forum for a while now, at the very least you must have learned that there is only one right way to do things and all other perspectives are terribly wrong. Unfortunately, like you I come from a village of idiots and heretics. So I can't help. Try Kevin.

[Vajramusti]

[QUOTE= So I can't help. Try Kevin.[/QUOTE]
--------------------------------------
Kevin who?
Another long useless thread- for the most part.

[BPWT]

@Grumblegeezer :D

Shanxi Xingyi (+Song-family), Hebei Xingyi, Henan too... no single one is the "correct" method - just variants of the same art, some with considerably different engines.

Somehow I can't imagine Yip Man telling the guys at Dai Duk Lan that they were doing things incorrectly (as he was exchanging with them and, in all likelihood, learning from them).

Too many absolutes in Wing Chun these days :D

[guy b.]

Most southern CMA arts have kiu sau of some kind HFY kiu sau is seen in SNT, and involves things like intercepting a blind side attack. kiu sau is learned in HFY before any chi sau. Most other southern arts flow from kiu sau to kam na. Chi kiu flows from a jong structure based kiu sau to the sticking of chi sau, but with an emphasis on control points without grabbing.

Can you post a clip of HFY SNT? I would be interested to see it. If possible can you highlight the relevant parts?

[KPM]

Yeah? Not in VT anyway, or as Neil-Y said, not outside of chi-sau drilling.

Well, like I said....it sounds like you need to broaden your base of knowledge a bit. VT is not the only form of Wing Chun after all! ;)

[LFJ]

Well, like I said....it sounds like you need to broaden your base of knowledge a bit. VT is not the only form of Wing Chun after all! ;)

I have no interest in things that don't work.

[BPWT]

I have no interest in things that don't work.

So why post about things that don't interest you?

[LFJ]

I'm interested in Wing Chun. I can post about things people say and do in Wing Chun that are upside down and backward without having interest in being upside down and backward myself, such as having to argue against my own terminology for it to make sense.

[LFJ]

Either way, someone could rename Chi Sau if they wanted, I guess.

There isn't a problem with this term because it is descriptive of the outward appearance of the drill. Some people misunderstand the point of the drill, for lack of instruction or whatever, and make up some ideas of 'sticking to bridges' and whatnot as fighting strategies. That's where the problem starts.


Perhaps it is a good word to use and a bad word too. Bad for the reasons stated, good because I would argue that forward force and momentum does create adhesion if your attack and that of your opponent's meet on the same line. When you yield to greater force, do you want to always break out and then break back in?

I generally need not yield to a greater force because I don't meet it head on. That is a mistake made from too much focus on basic chi-sau practice and trying to fight the same way. Chi-sau type of sticking doesn't happen in fighting and is not even the point of the drill.


In WT, you stick/connect when it is needed, or when certain circumstances make it happen.

... in chi-sau practice.

[BPWT]

There isn't a problem with this term because it is descriptive of the outward appearance of the drill. Some people misunderstand the point of the drill, for lack of instruction or whatever, and make up some ideas of 'sticking to bridges' and whatnot as fighting strategies. That's where the problem starts.

You're entitled to your opinion. But all of YM's students, those who studied with him, have very similar understanding. The possible exception would be WSL, but based on what David Peterson and Barry Lee learned from WSL, there is some similar thinking there too. Logically, if 9 people agree and 1 disagrees, the odds are more in favor of those who agree. But to each their own. If you train in a different way, good.


I generally need not yield to a greater force because I don't meet it head on. That is a mistake made from too much focus on basic chi-sau practice and trying to fight the same way. Chi-sau type of sticking doesn't happen in fighting and is not even the point of the drill.

The skill set should be transferable, IMO.


... in chi-sau practice.

Not only in Chi Sau, IMO. The skill set from Chi Sau should be transferable. Like I said, if your approach is different, that's okay with me. I'm just saying your approach is different to that seen from Leung Ting, Hawkins Cheung, Lo Man Kam, TST, Duncan Leung, etc. If you think all of these guys who learned directly from YM are wrong... okay.

[LFJ]

At the school I went to as a kid I saw many students come and go over the years. Certainly some were better than others, and they had varying lengths of study and experience in learning directly from the head master. I'm sure if they all opened their own schools, they would put out different types of students with different understandings.

As for the skill set developed in chi-sau being transferrable, of course. But since 'sticky hands' is merely descriptive of the drill's outward appearance, and not what is happening on the inside, 'sticking to the bridge' is not something we try to develop and transfer to fighting because as anyone who has been in a fight will know, it won't work the way it does in your chi-sau drill with your likeminded partner.

As WSL said, "in martial art, the only judgement is whether or not it works". So yeah, I don't mind going against the majority that has never been in a fight. 'King of SNT' or 'King of Talking Hands'... I know which title I would rather earn.

[KPM]

I'm interested in Wing Chun. I can post about things people say and do in Wing Chun that are upside down and backward without having interest in being upside down and backward myself, such as having to argue against my own terminology for it to make sense.

No, you are saying you feel entitled to post and criticize any idea in Wing Chun that disagrees with your own. That's not a good reason to post. You should be here to learn and expand your knowledge base, not to try and drag someone else down. That's the action and attitude of a real a$$h@le. Even if you just listened to what other people were saying and filed it away as "ah, that's what the LTWT guys think! Glad I'm not part of their lineage!" You don't have to go into attack mode every time someone posts something that doesn't agree with your lineage! You might ask questions and discuss to clarify what they think and how it differs from your own understanding. But to just dismiss what someone says out of hand and criticize it is pretty short-sighted. Ok. Off my soap box. Please let's not derail this thread any further with such noise.

[BPWT]

At the school I went to as a kid I saw many students come and go over the years. Certainly some were better than others, and they had varying lengths of study and experience in learning directly from the head master. I'm sure if they all opened their own schools, they would put out different types of students with different understandings.

Sure. People are people. This is why Wing Chun looks a little different, has a different emphasis, etc, group to group. Duncan Leung once said that his Wing Chun was more about emphasizing the shoulder, while the Leung Ting WT he saw looked like it emphasized more the elbow. But the general approach to each method has similarities - more than the differences, IMO.


As for the skill set developed in chi-sau being transferrable, of course. But since 'sticky hands' is merely descriptive of the drill's outward appearance, and not what is happening on the inside, 'sticking to the bridge' is not something we try to develop and transfer to fighting because as anyone who has been in a fight will know, it won't work the way it does in your chi-sau drill with your likeminded partner.

Okay, so again, your approach is different. If you think that bridging (the definition I use and others use), controlling via contact (brief or otherwise), etc, doesn't work then for sure keep training the way you train and don't work on this area.

No one here is trying to convert you to another method. I just can't understand how you can say other methods wrong, when they are obviously taught for a reason (from YM to all of his students, from Yuen Kay San to his, from those learning Mai Gai Wong Wing Chun, from those learning with Wang Zhi Peng, or those studying Fung Chun's method, etc).



As WSL said, "in martial art, the only judgement is whether or not it works". So yeah, I don't mind going against the majority that has never been in a fight. 'King of SNT' or 'King of Talking Hands'... I know which title I would rather earn.

WSL's achievement were many. But with all due respect, they were his, not yours.

If you want to earn the title of 'King of Talking Hands', go for it! Fight and prove that your system works for you, against all of those you fight against. Then you can say that the WSL method really does works for you. And you can tell us who you fought, and who you beat, and tell us how it went down. Maybe there will be some interesting info there, which all of us could learn from/benefit from.

But until you do that, you are training a particular method of VT, one which worked well for WSL. There's nothing wrong in being proud of your lineage and what you learn from its method, but WSL's achievements are his, and his only.

[LFJ]

Never claimed WSL's accomplishments as my own. I was illustrating a difference in approach among different lineages. Some attach more importance to what actually works in fighting, while others prefer to write theses on the forms, and others like to do it just for health benefits. Unfortunately the latter two categories are the most popular in the Wing Chun world yet they think they belong to the first category. I just don't understand how you can have even such upside down and backward terminology that you have to argue against to make sense of, and still not realize something is odd about your system. If you were really in the first category I'm sure you'd do like Neil-Y and test your stuff outside of the environment of likeminded individuals and realize what is realistic and what is not. But if you are comfortable with everything down to your own terminology not really making sense, so be it. But don't get all mad at others when they point it out (to KPM).

[guy b.]

It doesn't make any sense to say that all of the many different and mutually contradictory approaches stemming from Yip Man are equally valid.

YM wing chun is designed to work in one way. This precludes the comfortable option of saying it is all relative and each to their own. In the end this is why we argue.

[BPWT]

Well, everything fits into the system I train; the terminology, the methods, the theory, principles - essentially, how it works. All fits together.

So for me there's no confusion regarding bridging methods and use of contact to control. That fits into Chi Sau, which fits into Lat Sau, which fits and relates to sparring.

If your method defines things differently, doesn't use some of what we use, has emphasis placed elsewhere, etc, then I can understand how our methods might not fit into yours.

But that doesn't mean the methods I use are wrong. They just don't fit your model. Keep training your method - I am glad you found something you like.

I train with people in our system and with people outside of it. If I wasn't happy with the results, I wouldn't keep training it.

[LFJ]

Well, everything fits into the system I train; the terminology, the methods, the theory, principles - essentially, how it works. All fits together.

Not so smoothly, me thinks. You even have to give some strange explanation of how the terminology you use means something for you other than what it actually means. I can't honestly expect a system that even confuses its terminology to get it right when it comes to what works in fighting. But I say that based on seeing what is actually in the system as well. Of course if you have not experienced a more consistent approach you will be satisfied with what you have been doing. Some people never become disillusioned.

[BPWT]

It doesn't make any sense to say that all of the many different and mutually contradictory approaches stemming from Yip Man are equally valid. YM wing chun is designed to work in one way. This precludes the comfortable option of saying it is all relative and each to their own. In the end this is why we argue.

But are they contradictory approaches, generally speaking?

At heart, the gist of what most of YM's students teach has numerous commonalities.
Taking out minor differences, perhaps some personal emphasis, accounting for 'when' they learned from YM (the stages of is own development), etc, the vast majority of YM's students do see the system working in one way.

When WSL was in the US (I think), giving seminars with HMK, they talked and lectured together and at no point did one of them say the other was wrong, or directly contradict the other. Mutual respect, both recognizing in each other a fellow student from YM, who had learned the system.

Prior to YM's death, many of the 'big names' were training together or at least within the same period. No big arguments occurred regarding one way being right, and all others being wrong - they all saw each other as students of YM. I think it is fair to say that they also saw the way they trained as being essentially the same.

Once YM died... well, things went pear-shaped. People jostling for space, I guess. Jealousy rearing its head. Now on internet forums, one way is correct and everyone else just 'misunderstood' or can't understand properly. ;)

When I see Hawkins Cheung and Duncan Leung teaching, demo'ing, etc, I can see that there are some differences in what they do, compared to each other and also to what I learn. But the vast majority of what I see and hear fits with what I am taught.

Read an article from David Peterson the other month, and his explanations fit with LT's explanations. Watched once some seminar footage from WSL, and again much of what he said is exactly the same as what I've heard from Leung Ting. Met with someone from a non-YM lineage a few years ago, and again, essentially the same ideas within our two systems.

For sure, some people are better than others - some might have been training longer - some might have more experience fighting - some might deliberately stay out of the limelight.

The rest is just marketing. Or someone trying to validate what they learn. LFJ, for example, mention WSL being the 'King of Talking Hands'. No problem in that, he was... :D.

But how many people take WSL's accomplishments and use it as a way to validate the method they learn - regardless of whether they themselves can achieve what WSL achieved?

[BPWT]

Not so smoothly, me thinks.

I really don't know why you are so p*ssed off with world, LFJ. :confused:

You are the person who can't understand the terminology that I am using. Others don't seem to have a problem. I guess because in your WSL lineage you maybe use different terminology. That seems to irritate you, whereas I don't care if you use different terms. Use them all you like. So long as you explain them, it makes for discussion. If we disagree on something, okay... whatever.

We had a similar discussion before, I think. I believe Leung Ting's Cantonese and his knowledge of the language to be accurate - the man majored in Chinese literature, for Heaven's Sake. :)

But maybe your knowledge of the language is more comprehensive than his. Okay.

LTWT is a consistent system, with a consistent methodology. All the elements fit together nicely. If you think your system/method is more consistent.... Great!

Tell us more! Who do you learn from now? Can we see their teaching, method anywhere?

[LFJ]

The rest is just marketing. Or someone trying to validate what they learn. LFJ, for example, mention WSL being the 'King of Talking Hands'. No problem in that, he was... :D.

But how many people take WSL's accomplishments and use it as a way to validate the method they learn - regardless of whether they themselves can achieve what WSL achieved?

It's none of that and has nothing to do with me. Put into proper perspective. Someone earns the title King of Talking Hands and another King of SNT while others admit to training just for health benefits yet still get respect as great fighters because of their parental descent. That shows where people's focus is in their approach to their system. All I say about myself in relation to this is which mentality I take up. Validation is of course always down to the individual.

[LFJ]

You are the person who can't understand the terminology that I am using. Others don't seem to have a problem. I guess because in your WSL lineage you maybe use different terminology. That seems to irritate you, whereas I don't care if you use different terms. Use them all you like. So long as you explain them, it makes for discussion. If we disagree on something, okay... whatever.

I guess ultimately it doesn't matter to me what you do, but it is indeed frustrating to know someone accepts something so obviously messed up. I can't wrap my mind around the voluntary ignorance or how people convince themselves of such things.


We had a similar discussion before, I think. I believe Leung Ting's Cantonese and his knowledge of the language to be accurate - the man majored in Chinese literature, for Heaven's Sake. :)

...and he thinks 'to stick' or 'sticky' means to 'touch and go'? Since he's a native Cantonese speaker, I'll have to conclude that he just doesn't know what he's talking about in Wing Chun.

[BPWT]

All I say about myself in relation to this is which mentality I take up.

Well, you also seem to be saying that you are right, and I am wrong.

I'd be happy for you to simply talk about what you do, and why, without listening to how lineages outside of WSL are wrong.


I guess ultimately it doesn't matter to me what you do, but it is indeed frustrating to know someone accepts something so obviously messed up. I can't wrap my mind around the voluntary ignorance or how people convince themselves of such things.

Voluntary ignorance? C'mon... it is simply about you thinking that you have the best way, and you want to somehow try and prove this. Even though I have no idea what your way is, as you never say who you learn from, and where you train (which would help build up a better picture).



...and he thinks 'to stick' or 'sticky' means to 'touch and go'? Since he's a native Cantonese speaker, I'll have to conclude that he just doesn't know what he's talking about in Wing Chun.

Did I ever say that he said that? No. I said contact can be brief, sometimes touch and go. The point was that contact is held only for as long as it need be. Not held forever, under whatever circumstances.

But okay, if it makes you happy.... Leung Ting doesn't know what he's talking about in Wing Chun. Feeling validated now? :)

But if you think your Cantonese is better than LT's, write him a letter (in his language), explaining why you think this. I am sure he'd welcome that input.

[LFJ]

Well, you also seem to be saying that you are right, and I am wrong.

I'd be happy for you to simply talk about what you do, and why, without listening to how lineages outside of WSL are wrong.

That has been tried and it goes over your head due to the limits of your exposure. Hence, we are left with only one way to explain it to you, by explaining the faults we see with your system. Nothing personal.


Voluntary ignorance? C'mon... it is simply about you thinking that you have the best way, and you want to somehow try and prove this.

I was talking specifically about your interpretation of chi-kiu and that it doesn't mean what you think it means yet you believe it makes sense in some odd way. I have no such way.


Did I ever say that he said that?

So he does talk about and teach some fighting method of 'sticking to the bridge'?

[Sihing73]

So he does talk about and teach some fighting method of 'sticking to the bridge'?

Are you implying that using bridging is an incorrect method?

So how do you interpret the following Maxim?

Create a bridge if the opponent's bridge is not present; nullify the bridge according to how it is presented.

Curious as to how you view the idea of using a bridge and whether or not it is something you try to achieve-using a bridge.

[Wayfaring]

Can you post a clip of HFY SNT? I would be interested to see it. If possible can you highlight the relevant parts?

SNT:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnKJDv43CjA&feature=channel&list=UL

Move catalog:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVCLQ318N9E&list=ULxnKJDv43CjA

Look for "kiu sau" in the move description.

You can also see two bong sau's - hok bong sau, ying bong sau - in the 3rd section.

[BPWT]

@LFJ

Okay, so if Chi Kiu doesn't mean what I am saying it means, tell me what you think it means.

[LFJ]

Are you implying that using bridging is an incorrect method?

So how do you interpret the following Maxim?

Create a bridge if the opponent's bridge is not present; nullify the bridge according to how it is presented.

Curious as to how you view the idea of using a bridge and whether or not it is something you try to achieve-using a bridge.

Firstly, the way people define 'bridge' as a forearm or some type of physical connection with the opponent doesn't make sense because it can't directly be crossed. It has to first be dealt with in some way, as you would deal with an 'obstruction', not a bridge. A bridge you just cross. A bridge is an open attack line. It is silly to take the analogy to mean you should build a literal bridge by creating physical contact with your opponent which you then have to do something with to make useful. 'Seeking a bridge' like this in fighting is arm-chasing and a good way to get put to sleep.

Secondly, there is no such thing as "bridging". It is only a noun in Chinese, and that is a terrible misinterpretation of the phrase which actually says nothing like that!

It goes; 'Kiu loi kiu seung gwo. Mou kiu ji jou kiu.'

Kiu loi kiu seung gwo = When a bridge appears, cross it.
Mou kiu ji jou kiu = If there is no bridge, create it yourself.

I broke down what this phrase and others actually mean and how they relate to our fighting system in this post, if you want to know my understanding and approach to VT in a nutshell:
http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1246467&postcount=442

[LFJ]

@LFJ

Okay, so if Chi Kiu doesn't mean what I am saying it means, tell me what you think it means.

It means someone peeked through the window to learn chi-sau and got 'attached to' the word 'sticky' and got themselves into a whole sticky situation when they tried to become a teacher...

Seriously, it has no meaning to me because I don't play sticky hands. Literally, chi means 'to stick', 'sticky', 'wood-glue', or 'birdlime'. Kiu means 'bridge', which if you say refers to the forearm, then chi-kiu means 'to stick to the forearm', or if it just means contact, then it's saying to 'stick to the contact'.

Either way it means to remain attached by adhesion to whatever you call a bridge, and if you are looking to do that for any amount of time, to me, that is arm-chasing and a big mistake that will not work in fighting.

[BPWT]

It means someone peeked through the window to learn chi-sau and got 'attached to' the word 'sticky' and got themselves into a whole sticky situation when they tried to become a teacher...

Seriously, it has no meaning to me because I don't play sticky hands. Literally, chi means 'to stick', 'sticky', 'wood-glue', or 'birdlime'. Kiu means 'bridge', which if you say refers to the forearm, then chi-kiu means 'to stick to the forearm', or if it just means contact, then it's saying to 'stick to the contact'.

Either way it means to remain attached by adhesion to whatever you call a bridge, and if you are looking to do that for any amount of time, to me, that is arm-chasing and a big mistake that will not work in fighting.

Okay, so private, one-to-one lessons with Yip Man means looking through a window. :rolleyes:

Your other interpretations don't tally with what I learn either. Not sure who you learn from, but they do things differently, clearly, and don't use definitions common to this art and other CMAs from the South.

But you are pretty close to being The King of Talking Fingers. :D

Again, it's good you train something you believe in.

[Sihing73]

Firstly, the way people define 'bridge' as a forearm or some type of physical connection with the opponent doesn't make sense because it can't directly be crossed. It has to first be dealt with in some way, as you would deal with an 'obstruction', not a bridge. A bridge you just cross. A bridge is an open attack line. It is silly to take the analogy to mean you should build a literal bridge by creating physical contact with your opponent which you then have to do something with to make useful. 'Seeking a bridge' like this in fighting is arm-chasing and a good way to get put to sleep.

Secondly, there is no such thing as "bridging". It is only a noun in Chinese, and that is a terrible misinterpretation of the phrase which actually says nothing like that!

It goes; 'Kiu loi kiu seung gwo. Mou kiu ji jou kiu.'

Kiu loi kiu seung gwo = When a bridge appears, cross it.
Mou kiu ji jou kiu = If there is no bridge, create it yourself.

I broke down what this phrase and others actually mean and how they relate to our fighting system in this post, if you want to know my understanding and approach to VT in a nutshell:
https://scontent-b-lga.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/1377295_10152286583219966_873763823_n.jpg

So then, if I am understanding what you are saying, a bridge does not involve physical contact, is this correct??

For now I will leave it with the question above.

[KPM]

if you want to know my understanding and approach to VT in a nutshell:
https://scontent-b-lga.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/1377295_10152286583219966_873763823_n.jpg

Really LFJ? That explains alot!!!! ;)

[BPWT]

Some might have us believe the system is so very simple. No bridging, just punch! Contact and redirect, you say? No. Just punch! :D

To each their own. At least, for the moment, all the name calling seems to have quietened down.

:)

[Minghequan]

Tan & Bong: They are techniques. Apply them or not but don't get all hung up on them. Use them where needed ... it's not meant to be that hard or technical!

[Vajramusti]

Tan & Bong: They are techniques. Apply them or not but don't get all hung up on them. Use them where needed ... it's not meant to be that hard or technical!
============================================

Are you teaching wing chun these days?

[guy b.]

SNT:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnKJDv43CjA&feature=channel&list=UL

Move catalog:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVCLQ318N9E&list=ULxnKJDv43CjA

Look for "kiu sau" in the move description.

You can also see two bong sau's - hok bong sau, ying bong sau - in the 3rd section.

Thanks for posting

[Ozzy Dave]

Tan & Bong: They are techniques. Apply them or not but don't get all hung up on them. Use them where needed ... it's not meant to be that hard or technical!

That's like saying swallow and float are straight techniques in White Crane...

Dave

[LFJ]

Okay, so private, one-to-one lessons with Yip Man means looking through a window. :rolleyes:

That means having a good cover story. :rolleyes:

[LFJ]

So then, if I am understanding what you are saying, a bridge does not involve physical contact, is this correct??

For now I will leave it with the question above.

As I explained, it is silly to take the analogy literally and try to construct a physical 'bridge' with your opponent. It refers simply to the function of a bridge which is to facilitate crossing to the other side. You don't redirect a bridge, you cross it. It is an open path to be taken; in fighting, an attack line. Physical contact is having crossed the bridge, i.e. hit the target.

Of course physical contact with the opponent's arms will be inevitable in fighting, but we employ tactical footwork and angling to 'cut off' the opponent's line while creating a superior one ourselves. That's the principle of 'lin siu dai da', explained below.

By the way, this is the link I meant to send: http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1246467&postcount=442

[LFJ]

Really LFJ? That explains alot!!!! ;)

Holy sh!t, that's fncking hilarious! :D I had copied that to mess with a friend on Facebook and still had the link loaded. I wasn't trying to be an idiot...

This is the link I meant to post: http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1246467&postcount=442

[KPM]

Holy sh!t, that's fncking hilarious! :D I had copied that to mess with a friend on Facebook and still had the link loaded. I wasn't trying to be an idiot...

This is the link I meant to post: http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1246467&postcount=442

Ok. That makes better sense! :)

[guy b.]

As I explained, it is silly to take the analogy literally and try to construct a physical 'bridge' with your opponent. It refers simply to the function of a bridge which is to facilitate crossing to the other side. You don't redirect a bridge, you cross it. It is an open path to be taken; in fighting, an attack line. Physical contact is having crossed the bridge, i.e. hit the target.

Really not sure how people do wing chun without this understanding :confused: