HFY History

[KPM]

Please don't take this as a "trigger" for a knee-jerk defensive response! That is not my intent! I hesitated to start this thread, but decided to do it in the spirit of trying to be "fair and reasonable" as I mentioned on the prior thread. On that prior thread I posted something that Rene Ritchie said back in 2003:

If WCK was really an art trained by a large number of people in the secret societies (as opposed to a small fringe group on the Red Junks), then it likely would still have spread prior to and beyond the Red Junks within the Societies and today be found in Taiwan and overseas much as Hung fist and other Society arts are.

Look at one of the most popular WCK origin myths - that it was created to defeat the more common arts leaked to the Manchu so that soldiers could be trained better/faster and overthrow the Qing.

Yet they don't spread it, they don't train the militias, and they don't overthrow the Qing? Either that wasn't what WCK was created for, or the implementation was ineffective to the point of, well, not being the work of the brightest minds out there.

We know the Red Junk had WCK aboard in the 1850s. We've thus far not found WCK stemming from anywhere else, any earlier. It may have, maybe it even did, but there's nothing to indicate it yet, much less support it. We have a reasonably good idea what WCK looked like back to that point, what shapes it used and how it generated power (which are often considered the mapping points of an MA), and we know what other arts were around at that point in that area.

I followed it with this statement:

And here we are over 10 years later and NO ONE else has emerged teaching HFY or having any knowledge of HFY other than Garrett Gee and his students.

But in all fairness, this jogged my memory and I went back looking in some of the stuff I have archived. A few years back a fellow named Lee Chiang Po was a member of this forum. At one point he posted this:

The lineage of which my own wing chun comes from is called Hung Fa, and is said to be descended from Hung Gun. My dad always just called it Hung Fa Wing Chun. I had no idea that there were so many different lineages of Wing Chun in the world until I found this forum while looking at the Kung Fu magazine site some time back. I thought that mine was of the only lineage.

If I remember correctly, My dad was born in 1880. He was old when I came along. In 1965 he died from diabetes at 85 years old. He was a Boxer in 1900 and barely missed the headsman. Later he fled the Canton area and went to Hong Kong in 49 to escape the Communists. From there he came to the states. He told me that he learned Hung Fa from ex-soldiers. They were working members of a tong gang. The stuff I related might or might not have been true, but it does make sense to me at least. These things he told me. Now I am old. Or getting old.

Now, what I have been trying to do is keep from making statements of fact. I don't have the facts. Too much myth to really know. What I have said is that what it was called by my dad was Hung Fa. He also called it Hung fa wing chun. He never really called it Hung Fa Yi. I have heard it called by other names as well. I know that he was born in 1880. Some time after 1890 he started learning what he called Hung Fa wing chun. He learned it from ex military men. Soldiers of the Imperial Army. Later in his life he learned from other men when he joined with a secret society. A tong gang is you will. He did not come to the states until 1950. He was an old man. He never did tell me anything concerning lineage or so forth. So I have no idea. Now, I know that what he was teaching me was at least that old. I am guessing that it goes way back more than that. When we see family trees with the last person being enhereter I have to wonder. I was not told this in so many words, but it was indicated that there were hundreds if not thousands of people running around China that were Wing chun boxers.

When I said that it looks the same to me it is because it looks the same to me. Wing chun is built on concepts and basic principals. You can watch 5 people that are trained by different sifu and you will see differences in their style. However, in most all cases you are going to see that they do adhere to these principals even if it looks a bit different. When you abandon these principals you are not doing wing chun in my opinion. Also, if you are the last living person of a single lineage then you can enheret. But you can not enheret the entire system as such.
I have watched Bill Cheung do wing chun and must say that I do my wing chun pretty much like he does. I am sure by Victors written article that I felt familiar with every concept of what he wrote. If my wing chun was different I would have immediately noticed differences. As for the HFY of Garret Gee, I have no idea as I have never seen him do much except on a few short video clips. It looked exactly like what Bill Cheung does.

I do not believe the story of Ng Mui or Yimm Wing Chun. It would make the lineage far too narrow to have had hundreds if not thousands of followers in China. Look at the number of lineages today. It could not account for only a half dozen generations.
I don't think I have ever made a posting on the 101 forum spoken of earlier. I am not a member and would not be able to. I have only been there a couple of times and gave up trying to navigate that forum. That was something posted on this forum.

I can speak of only my own, which I do call Lee Chiang Po Wing Chun Kung Fu. There are only 12 true Sao's in this system. Anything else is going to be variations of these, which do not bare naming. All these are purely defensive, and yet each and every one can have an entire fighting system built up around it. It is the Conceptual part of Wing Chun.
When we practice our Sil Lim, we practice each and every one of these concepts, but we only occasionally apply a palm strike or whatever, but you can add and take from that as you see fit in order to develop these to your best ability to perform. Thus the " Use a little imagination" thing. That is all you have to do. Keeping Sil Lim as traditional from one student to the next is nothing more than an attempt at that very thing. Sil Lim, Chum Kil, and of course, Bil Gee, are all designed to be altered at your own descresion to meet your own needs.
If you keep it simple, you can learn the system very quickly. However, you will not learn it in most modern day kwoons or gyms that teach Wing Chun. You need to be started from absolute scratch from day one and taught properly. Most will start you in an intermediate class and you start learning somewhere in the middle. You usually give up from frustration. They will have you sparring day one before you even know how to punch or defend.

I am wondering if anyone from the HFY school ever looked up Lee Chiang Po to compare his system to HFY?

The historical problem for HFY is the fact that over the decade since it became public knowledge no one that teaches it or knows anything about it has emerged other than Garrett Gee and his students. As Rene Ritchie asked way back in 2003, if this was truly the fighting method used by the Hung societies for training revolutionary militias....and was taught to hundreds of people, why do we not see more surviving lineages today? Other styles associated with the secret societies can be found. The number of people trained on the Red Boats would have been very small compared to the number training as part of revolutionary militias. We can find multiple lineages tracing back to the Red Boats but none claiming connection to the Hung societies other than Garrett Gee. This is a real historical problem for HFY. Again....please no knee-jerk reaction attacks! This is a simple statement of fact. No agenda here. No political motivation here. Just an interest in WCK history!

But......if what Lee Chiang Po has written is true, this could very well be something that would buttress and support HFY history. If his "Hung Fa WCK" is more similar to HFY than it is to the Red Boat lineage systems, then what Garrett Gee has taught about HFY's background would get some validation and go a long ways towards making people like me eat my words!!!! :) Prove me wrong! Please! I would love to see some validation of the HFY history! It would make the world of WCK even more interesting! ;)

So. Does anyone know Lee Chiang Po? Has anyone paid him a visit?

[zuti car]

Problem with Wing Chun history in general is that there isn't any scientific research on the subject . What we have are stories from pulp fiction novels which was very popular in 1920s ans 1930s and old people stories largely influenced with same pulp fiction stories . There aren't any physical evidence , written documents , nothing to support any of the Wing Chun origin stories . Some people did some research , fine , but question remains , are thous people qualified to do historical research? Again , what we have are old people's stories , nothing else . There is no scientific approach in their research, no systematic data collecting , no validation of the collected material of any kind . There are some "documents " , but these "documents" did't pass any validation test , without that how can we know these documents are real and how we can we prove their genuinity . So , question is , what do we really know about wing chun history ?

[GlennR]

So. Does anyone know Lee Chiang Po? Has anyone paid him a visit?


To answer your question, no from what i understand.

LCP seems to have vanished but was here for quite a while and certainly made some big claims regarding his fighting skills (undefeated, worked doors eetc)
But he did have some interesting history regarding his training and lineage, as per your above post.

Pity we never found out, he was either a great troll or someone that had something to offer

[Eric_H]

I am wondering if anyone from the HFY school ever looked up Lee Chiang Po to compare his system to HFY?*

The historical problem for HFY is the fact that over the decade since it became public knowledge no one that teaches it or knows anything about it has emerged other than Garrett Gee and his students. As Rene Ritchie asked way back in 2003, if this was truly the fighting method used by the Hung societies for training revolutionary militias....and was taught to hundreds of people, why do we not see more surviving lineages today? Other styles associated with the secret societies can be found. The number of people trained on the Red Boats would have been very small compared to the number training as part of revolutionary militias. We can find multiple lineages tracing back to the Red Boats but none claiming connection to the Hung societies other than Garrett Gee. This is a real historical problem for HFY. Again....please no knee-jerk reaction attacks! This is a simple statement of fact. No agenda here. No political motivation here. Just an interest in WCK history!

But......if what Lee Chiang Po has written is true, this could very well be something that would buttress and support HFY history. If his "Hung Fa WCK" is more similar to HFY than it is to the Red Boat lineage systems, then what Garrett Gee has taught about HFY's background would get some validation and go a long ways towards making people like me eat my words!!!!**Prove me wrong! Please! I would love to see some validation of the HFY history! It would make the world of WCK even more interesting!*

So. Does anyone know Lee Chiang Po? Has anyone paid him a visit?


Hello Keith,

As previously explained on this forum, we believe that wing chun has a single source of origin, and later was split among at least two societies – the opera society and the boxer society. Inside the boxer society Wing Chun was taught to the majority of the members with focus on fighting application vs Wing Chun system – this was known as Hung Fa Boxing. It is very similar to how Leung Jan taught in San Sik form in Gu Lo village as opposed to the formal SNT/Chum Kiu/Biu Gee of the WC system. From that standpoint, a tie to what Lee Chiang Po has put forth as his history is certainly plausible. Additionally, we've had a few more people come up in LA, NYC and different parts of the world claiming to know HFY from different sources. We're working through analyzing the veracity of each claim and if we can make contact as they come up.

Also, we've had some additional confirmation of our history in more recent generations but we typically don't talk about it in the public. For example but there are a few people in Chinatown here who have said they knew my Sigung. Though I have not met her personally, some of our more senior members here in San Francisco have met a Sijie to my Sifu who learned buddhism chi gung from Sigung. I believe Sifu Billy Lau may have been one of them, but I'm not 100% positive.

As I'm sure you know, it is very difficult to get reliable historical information past the timeframe of the Cultural Revolution. The people still with us who lived through that period of Chinese history don't say much. Now that you bring him up, I am reminded of what happened with Sum Nung and Rene Ritchie wherein Sum Nung was not happy with Rene writing his book on YKS Wing Chun. I believe the comment Sum Nung made was that if he wanted a book written, he would have written it himself. Sum Nung was a survivor of that revolution, and like most people from those days he was notoriously tight lipped – people had to be that way because their lives often depended on it.

There are lots of things about kung fu that stayed hidden for good reason – one example is the Snake and Crane wing chun guys that have been such a hot topic of discussion here on the forum lately. Even as little as 10 years ago, nobody had heard of them – why is that? It's likely because the people from that system still kept things close to the vest as a byproduct of the cultural revolution. Even recently when they had some character come to Baisi to them to take their information, the Snake and Crane people didn't give away too much. Coming from the cultural revolution background, the pervasive attitude is “you don't trust anyone you don't know” so for them (and us) to hold things back makes perfect sense.

FWIW, there is going to be more forthcoming on HFY history and system soon, our Sifu is working on a book project here in San Francisco which we expect to be completed in the next few years.

[Paddington]

Problem with Wing Chun history in general is that there isn't any scientific research on the subject [...]

This is why in academia we refer to history as a 'humanities' subject distinct from the 'scientific' disciplines such as physics, chemistry or biochemistry for that matter. Half the bloody problem in wing chun is the use of this term 'scientific', which is used more as a rhetorical device to lend authority to the speaker. Sarah Palin and politicians will do the same type of thing, albeit using phrases such as 'speaking as a mother'. It does not have to be words that are used, just look at Sam Kwok dressing up in his Ip Man pantomime costume to attempt authenticity and credibility. I would go as far to say that I have yet to hear and read an explanation of wing chun or experience a way that it is taught, that meets with my criteria of what being 'scientific' actually is.

[KPM]

FWIW, there is going to be more forthcoming on HFY history and system soon, our Sifu is working on a book project here in San Francisco which we expect to be completed in the next few years.

Thanks for the feedback Eric. Good points about the whole culture of secrecy. This has popped up here recently in regards to Cho Ga WCK as well. I certainly look forward to seeing whatever collaborating info has been turned up over the years. And I would buy a book by Gee Sifu without hesitation! :)

[zuti car]

This is why in academia we refer to history as a 'humanities' subject distinct from the 'scientific' disciplines such as physics, chemistry or biochemistry for that matter. Half the bloody problem in wing chun is the use of this term 'scientific', which is used more as a rhetorical device to lend authority to the speaker. Sarah Palin and politicians will do the same type of thing, albeit using phrases such as 'speaking as a mother'. It does not have to be words that are used, just look at Sam Kwok dressing up in his Ip Man pantomime costume to attempt authenticity and credibility. I would go as far to say that I have yet to hear and read an explanation of wing chun or experience a way that it is taught, that meets with my criteria of what being 'scientific' actually is.

Scientific is often used the way you said . On the other hand , when we talk about history research there is a scientific method than includes data collecting , validation of the sources , analysis of data and many other things . Research has to be conducted by professional archeologists , historians and some times other experts are included in the process like linguist , chemists , medical doctors , depends of the situation . We do not have any of this in Wing Chun , we have some people who went to China or HK and collected old people's stories and they call them self researchers what they are certainly not .

[BPWT..]

Good to hear that some more information/details from HFY will be released in the near future. But for me, now, I would settle for some more video footage so I can see how the system looks. :)

Is there a reason why the only footage shown tends to be the HFY SNT form? As we've seen in other threads, there's a growing amount of footage being shared from lesser known WCK lineages - it's fascinating stuff.

HFY is taught publicly, so do you think there might be some footage shot and publicly shared?

[Eric_H]

Good to hear that some more information/details from HFY will be released in the near future. But for me, now, I would settle for some more video footage so I can see how the system looks. :)

Is there a reason why the only footage shown tends to be the HFY SNT form? As we've seen in other threads, there's a growing amount of footage being shared from lesser known WCK lineages - it's fascinating stuff.

HFY is taught publicly, so do you think there might be some footage shot and publicly shared?

Hey BWPT,

We're looking forward to sharing some footage as soon. Right now we're in process of learning 4-gate chi sao from our Sifu, and that's one of the subjects we'd like to put on video.

EDIT:
My mistake, after looking in to it, apparently our Facebook page isn't being updated currently (of which I was unaware).

The photos I was referencing have already been shared in the thread of one of the last workshops:
http://www.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?67289-Hung-Fa-Yi-Wing-Chun-Chi-Sao-Public-Workshop-Feb-22-Tempe-AZ

[BPWT..]

Hi Eric,

Is that the Hung Fa Yi FB group, or an open FB page?

[Savi]

Hi Eric,

Is that the Hung Fa Yi FB group, or an open FB page?

If I may, it is also here on this forum

http://www.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?67289-Hung-Fa-Yi-Wing-Chun-Chi-Sao-Public-Workshop-Feb-22-Tempe-AZ

[KPM]

HFY is taught publicly, so do you think there might be some footage shot and publicly shared?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwyLzKHwWV4#t=276

Best footage I've seen of something other than the SLT form.

[BPWT..]

Thanks for the links, Eric, Savi, KPM.

I'd love to see more clips, so fingers-crossed. The terminology is very involved, though from the clip KPM posted of the training (in that particular clip) the HFY material in action looks kinda like most WCK, IMO.

So maybe I'm missing something. Some Chi Sao clips might be more illuminating, so I hope the HFY practitioners can record and upload some for us.

[KPM]

I'd love to see more clips, so fingers-crossed. The terminology is very involved, though from the clip KPM posted of the training (in that particular clip) the HFY material in action looks kinda like most WCK, IMO.

.

Yeah. It sure looked a whole lot like TWC to me! ;) But let's not go there!

[zuti car]

Yeah. It sure looked a whole lot like TWC to me! ;) But let's not go there!

Without a title I would think this is a training session i some of the TWC clubs in Serbia , besides the form everything else I did when I was still involved in TWC , footwork ,drills , "techniques " ...

[Grumblegeezer]

"...when I was still involved in TWC" ...

Zuti, I didn't realize that you weren't in TWC anymore. What is your affiliation these days?

[Eric_H]

Without a title I would think this is a training session i some of the TWC clubs in Serbia , besides the form everything else I did when I was still involved in TWC , footwork ,drills , "techniques " ...

Hello zuti_car,

I'm sure as more of our system is shared on video that you as a former TWC guy will be able to see what we are doing differently relatively clearly. It's unfortunate for the people who are genuinely interested in seeing what we are doing that we as an org choose not share more, but we've had a number of instances that I think make us as an organization reluctant to share. A few of them just off the top of my head:

1) Someone from turkey downloading and using our photos and claiming to be a master of the "HFY Free International Organization"
2) Another guy claiming a Sifu from LA (who after some basic investigation couldn't be proven to even exist) who supposedly learned from my Sigung
3) Another character who came to our school, and took our information to write articles on it as if it were his own stuff.
4) Some other lineages taking and using our bowing, form structure and theory mixed with other styles to manufacture something new.

When every time you put something out there, somebody takes it as their own, it makes you less likely to want to put things out.

[tc101]

When every time you put something out there, somebody takes it as their own, it makes you less likely to want to put things out.

Why would someone feel like that? It's not what you put out there that matters it's what you can do that matters.

[JPinAZ]

Why would someone feel like that? It's not what you put out there that matters it's what you can do that matters.

Besides Eric already having given 4 quick examples to support HFY's reluctance to share, your second sentence pretty supports the argument of not needing to put out videos at all yeah? :)

[tc101]

Besides Eric already having given 4 quick examples to support HFY's reluctance to share, your second sentence pretty supports the argument of not needing to put out videos at all yeah? :)

Those examples are meaningless. So what if people take information? Everything there is to know about wrestling or boxing or whatever is out there right? Sum Nung said he would show you his entire system. It's your training and how hard you work at it that gives any of it meaning or importance. If you did not train like Sum did you would not get results like Sum did. Just like anyone can get all the info on boxing.

[Firehawk4]

Is it Possible that Hung Fah Yi was used in the Boxer Rebellion like Southern mantis was Iron Ox Southern Mantis was used in it a guy name Iron Ox Choi taught his system to the Boxers maybe Hung Fa Yi was taught to the Boxers maybe thats why we dont see much of the Hung Fa versions of Wing Chun . I am going to look into the Arts that was used into the Boxer Rebellion arts in Canton China during the Boxer Rebellion .

[KPM]

Those examples are meaningless. So what if people take information? Everything there is to know about wrestling or boxing or whatever is out there right? Sum Nung said he would show you his entire system. It's your training and how hard you work at it that gives any of it meaning or importance. If you did not train like Sum did you would not get results like Sum did. Just like anyone can get all the info on boxing.

I understand what Eric is saying. He is talking about putting out information that is then exploited by someone else for personal gain with no credit being given or "honesty" in marketing. That is an unfortunate problem for a group like HFY that does indeed have a "brand" to protect.

[Savi]

Firehawk4,

There were many Tongs in the Boxer Uprising. Our ancestor Hung Gun Biu and his group were from the Hung Gun Wui Jung Yi Tong. During his service with the Hung Gun Boxer Society, he trained his fighters via his kung fu which he referred to it as "Hung Fa Boxing".

The type of combat training he provided with Hung Fa Boxing was not the system (SNT/CK/BJ - theory, principle, strategy, tactics) format to them. It was strictly the combat survival format.

Though this was Saan Sau training, it still maintained 2 key elements from core system/DNA: the Ng Ying Sau Concept and the 3 Centerline Concept. These two signatures were maintained in Hung Gun Biu's Saan Sau teachings to them, and are still maintained in our Saan Sau teachings today.

It wasn't until after 1874, the zenith of the Hung Gun Boxer Society's battles, did HGB return to private life and actually teach in the real sense of teaching the San Sau AND system format privately.

Today we maintain both Saan Sau and system teachings.

[zuti car]

Zuti, I didn't realize that you weren't in TWC anymore. What is your affiliation these days?

Mainly Chen Tai Chi and Bajiquan , for some reason these styles helped me a lot to recover after a car accident , although i still can not control completely my right side of the body I can feel things are slowly going better. I still practice Wing Chun with one of the local instructors in here Tainan , and occasionally with one of my wife's distant relatives who is working in Guangazhou but i will not talk about it because TWC people from Serbia stalking me for a long time and caused me a lot of trouble in the past when i talked openly about people i work with .

[zuti car]

Hello zuti_car,

I'm sure as more of our system is shared on video that you as a former TWC guy will be able to see what we are doing differently relatively clearly. It's unfortunate for the people who are genuinely interested in seeing what we are doing that we as an org choose not share more, but we've had a number of instances that I think make us as an organization reluctant to share. A few of them just off the top of my head:

1) Someone from turkey downloading and using our photos and claiming to be a master of the "HFY Free International Organization"
2) Another guy claiming a Sifu from LA (who after some basic investigation couldn't be proven to even exist) who supposedly learned from my Sigung
3) Another character who came to our school, and took our information to write articles on it as if it were his own stuff.
4) Some other lineages taking and using our bowing, form structure and theory mixed with other styles to manufacture something new.

When every time you put something out there, somebody takes it as their own, it makes you less likely to want to put things out.

Don't get me wrong , I do not know whether guys on that video practice HFY or not , what I see in the "techniques", stances , footwork , hand positions are things I have done before . And the video has been titled as HFY . About your reluctance to share I think you are wrong . You cannot prevent the people to do and think whatever they want , what you can do is to be completely clear and open about your work , that way people will have a chance to get information and decide who and what they will trust . Of course , that will not stop people to think the opposite of what you say and it will not stop people trying to capitalize on HFY , but there will be chance , with open and honest approach to have much more people on your side .

[BPWT..]

You cannot prevent the people to and think whatever they want , what you can do is to be completely clear and open about your work , that way people will have a chance to get information and decide who and what they will trust . Of course , that will not stop people to think the opposite of what you say and it will not stop people trying to capitalize on HFY , but there will be chance , with open and honest approach to have much more people on your side .

Agreed. The only way you can ever stop someone from stealing is by not teaching at all :) Any of the HFY students/instructors today could, if they wanted to, leave the organisation and set up on their own and then teach what they've learned. Anyone from another lineage attending a HFY open seminar can take material away from it.

There will always be people who then teach and don't reveal where they learned their material from. But it's better, IMO, for the HFY people to openly share and let the world know that Master GG is the main source of HFY today, and the authority on the art.

[BPWT..]

Regarding video footage from HFY, what I would like to see (to try and improve my own understanding) is something that demos/highlights (say, in Chi Sao), how HFY practitioners utilise their ideas/concepts/methods. E.g. three connecting bridges, the time, space, energy formula, four gates reaction method, etc.

From the thread about the HFY seminar in Arizona, it was written:

HFY’s Saam Mo Kiu (红花義天人地三摩橋©) - Three Connecting Bridges philosophy describes to us that in the process of developing structure, there will be variances in one’s presentations of structure. Honing one’s body alignments to be in accordance with the HFY Time Space Energy Formula is progressive in nature (wandering to focus state). Ultimately, HFY Structural Energy is the only instrument specifically designed to work with the HFY Time Space Energy Formula. It is important to realize HFY structure cannot be removed from its spatial constructs without creating more distortions in the process. The HFY Time Space Energy Formula is the representation of this relationship. It is here where we begin to learn and understand how to stick in Chi Sao through HFY Structural Energy (above and beyond the attribute of sensitivity) and use for Sparring, which we learn through intimate knowledge of the HFY Advanced Siu Nim Tao form.

The purpose of using Four Gates Theory in Chi Sao (the Four Gates Reaction Method (紅花義四門應樁法©)) is to enable the person’s ability to stand his/her ground to meet and neutralize direct-force attacks by using HFY structural energy. This facilitates one's ability to displace any residual energy away from the Centerline (Loi Lau Hoi Sung) and into the gates. As a result, the person can maintain the original position at the onset, obey the boundaries of Time and Space, and capitalize on advantages. The alternative would be to step away from where he/she originally starts to dissipate/redirect what energy may still remain from an attack. However, moving away from one’s original position equates to a loss of any potential advantages that could have been gained otherwise.

So for me, this is quite complex language (compared to how most WCK guys describe their art and its training), so I wonder if this is a) just describing what others do too, but just using different terminology, or b) what HFY teaches is indeed something quite different to, say, the Leung Ting Wing Tsun that I learn.

From the short video clip KPM linked to, things didn't look too different to WCK from other lineages - though at first glance things like more like TWC as zuti car noted.

So it would be great to see some video footage that really highlights the differences if there are differences. Hoping your plans to share work out :)

[BPWT..]

Not sure if this is off topic or not, but maybe some of the HFY guys here would know the answer. I think I remember hearing that Mark Hobbs, a Wing Chun instructor in the UK had visited a HFY school to take a look at the system. Hobbs was a long-term student of Lun Gai in Foshan.

When Hobbs described Lun Gai's Wing Chun in an interview with Alan Orr (http://en.mkfa.org/articles/mai) he used terminology that I hadn't heard from anyone else who had met and learned from Lun Gai. Hobbs said of the system he was learning:

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

Mark: Next we need a Wing Chun bridge referencing method, for three dimensional placement of our fighting tools, for correct understanding of height and width, to do this we use ( Luk Mun) six gate theory, and ( Chang Dyun Kil Sau) Long-short bridge hands to understand structured depth. This creates an understanding of how to zone our body using an imaginary grid or matrix, so we know instinctively where the points of structure are for our tools, which in turn give us our understanding of ( Ying) shapes.

Shapes are expressions of ( Jiu Sic) structure so this is about how to understand our structure before trying to influence our opponent's structure - we are still the realm of the "Mass."

This “Jong Faat” structure method isabout occupying or maintaining space and by aligning your arms to avoid the collapsing or folding of your bridges. This is considered as solid energy ( Gong Lik). This layer is important for the ( Bi Jong) set up, ( Deui Ying) facing theory which leads us to ( Jit Kil) bridge interception.

Alan: Now you can take the pressure?

Mark: Yes. However, when an opponent releases power that is more than we can handle then we need to have the ability to absorb. Therefore the concept of absorb and release ( Tun Tao) or the famous Wing Chun saying of ( Loi Lau hoi sun - Lat sau Jik Chung) comes into play. This means to remain and receive the energy, to escort the energy and then thrust your attack when your hand is free. This is the fighting method of the spear; a lot of systems are created from the concept of the spear, Xingyiquan being one of them. This is to swallow the impact and thrust at the centre. This means we have attained spring energy, by understanding how to separate and utilise all the joints and centres of the body.

The other part of bridge work is ( Sei Lik) redirection or ( Chaam Kil) sinking. You attain this by taking new lines to displace the opponent strength by manipulating his elbow position which allows you to eat up the space to the opponent's centre.

Alan: What about dissipation of energy?

Mark: The other way is to ( Fa Lik) dissipate the energy. This method requires what is known as ( Teng Lik) listening or sensitivity. This is considered ( Yuen Lik) soft energy, and ties in with the moment when an opponent tries to move a shape off centre. To hold the shape now requires the use of excessive muscle, and so to try to hold this bridge requires effort which means it is no longer structure, it is strength as there’s no spine or centre alignment for pressure. So if your Structure is broken you need to ( Fa) Dissipate, fold ( Faan Lik), Separate (Fan Lik), Circle ( Huen), Elbow pull (Jarn Lik), Snake (Se Lik) plus lots of other energies. Dissipation ( Fa Lik) is not considered a structure but transitional, therefore it is energetic based.

Alan: Often it’s thought that if you use structure then you can’t then be mobile. This is incorrect, how do you see movement with structure?

Mark: Once you attain the above information you can now start to use apply the concepts.

The information above is all part of (Siu Nim Tao) Wing Chun’s first form which teaches you about body and bridge method, this is why the form is static in terms of footwork. As it allows you to concentrate on structural hand and body positioning and also provide you with transitional energies between the structures, allowing you to be able to start understanding bridge angulations, providing you with the information on how to maintain your bridges while influencing an opponent’s bridge, using a myriad of different ways.

All the ways we use in a facing position are contained by the space Wing Chun operates in which is a semi- circle in front of you, from shoulder to shoulder. This is then split into a box within the two shoulders, plus two wings from the shoulder line to the side line. When in application with an opponent this information transforms to the three body facings which are front body, angled body left, or angled right side body.

To make sure that when utilising the angled body tactic we stay within the realms of Wing Chun concept of simultaneous attack and defence we have to align certain parts of our body to that of our opponent's. This information is not exclusive to Wing Chun. All methods of Kung Fu should utilise this understanding as it is a common ( Kil Sau, Chi Sau) tactic. What makes Wing Chun different is that it can only use tools that reflect the concept of efficiency within this space. As Wing Chun employs fewer tools it needs to employ concepts, strategy and tactics to fill up this area instead.

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

Really interesting interview, but (and I mean no disrespect to Lun Gai) this language and terminology for describing LG's Wing Chun doesn't really sound like anything else I've heard or read when hearing other LG students talk about the art they learn. The way Hobbs talks about energy, structure and space, etc... is he using HFY definitions to describe what he learned from LG?

I should add, I've never met Mark Hobbs but I have a friend who has and he told me that Hobbs was a nice guy, friendly and open with his knowledge and when my friend Chi Sao'd with him, he said Hobbs was really very good.

So I'm not posting any of this to attack the man, just want to understand better his use of language, concepts etc, and to cross reference this (if possible) with the language and ideas that come from HFY people.

:)

[tc101]

Agreed. The only way you can ever stop someone from stealing is by not teaching at all :) Any of the HFY students/instructors today could, if they wanted to, leave the organisation and set up on their own and then teach what they've learned. Anyone from another lineage attending a HFY open seminar can take material away from it.

There will always be people who then teach and don't reveal where they learned their material from. But it's better, IMO, for the HFY people to openly share and let the world know that Master GG is the main source of HFY today, and the authority on the art.

Who cares if someone steals and doesn't give credit? So what? Some people care so much that they are offended and won't share for fear of this? Really? This attitude makes absolutely no sense to me. No one can steal what is important. That stuff can only be earned through your own hard work.

[BPWT..]

No one can steal what is important. That stuff can only be earned through your own hard work.

I hear what you're saying, but tell that to Apple when they see Samsung phones :D

To be sure, hard work and constant training is what yields results in any martial art - but people can certainly take and incorporate others methods, and those methods are what you train and put hard work into.

But I don't disagree with you - these days if people teach openly (publicly) they shouldn't be worried about sharing with video, online posts, offering open seminars, etc. If someone really is that protective then they shouldn't be teaching publicly, just train in secret with family (and hope they have no black sheep in the family). ;)

[tc101]

I hear what you're saying, but tell that to Apple when they see Samsung phones :D

To be sure, hard work and constant training is what yields results in any martial art - but people can certainly take and incorporate others methods, and those methods are what you train and put hard work into.

But I don't disagree with you - these days if people teach openly (publicly) they shouldn't be worried about sharing with video, online posts, offering open seminars, etc. If someone really is that protective then they shouldn't be teaching publicly, just train in secret with family (and hope they have no black sheep in the family). ;)

The analogy of different phones or operating systems or formulas is an example of the wrong thinking that keeps the information myth alive. The information is form not substance. I see wing chun like boxing as a learned skill. Skill is the substance. The skill itself cannot be transmitted but only learned through practice just like conditioning can't be transmitted but you develop through your efforts. Information is just a way of helping to direct your efforts to develop skill. Most of the information is nonessential. To use the old zen metaphor information is the finger and skill/conditioning is the moon.

[Wayfaring]

But I don't disagree with you - these days if people teach openly (publicly) they shouldn't be worried about sharing with video, online posts, offering open seminars, etc. If someone really is that protective then they shouldn't be teaching publicly, just train in secret with family (and hope they have no black sheep in the family). ;)

Or you have like this case, where a sifu who learned his family arts in secret growing up starts to teach in public then sets a new tradition over time for how information is released to the public.

Of course everyone can have an opinion on that. As opinions don't really cost you anything.

[JPinAZ]

Regarding video footage from HFY, what I would like to see (to try and improve my own understanding) is something that demos/highlights (say, in Chi Sao), how HFY practitioners utilise their ideas/concepts/methods. E.g. three connecting bridges, the time, space, energy formula, four gates reaction method, etc.

I agree and I think some application videos may be coming out at some point in the not-too-distant future to show HFY in motion. But that is different than actual 'instructional' videos which I am pretty sure won't be released at any point :)
(I mentioned instructional because even in an application demo, it's hard to convey the ideas you list above without in-depth explanations)


So for me, this is quite complex language (compared to how most WCK guys describe their art and its training), so I wonder if this is a) just describing what others do too, but just using different terminology, or b) what HFY teaches is indeed something quite different to, say, the Leung Ting Wing Tsun that I learn.

I do agree, without direct experience some of the HFY terms/concepts might not have a lot of meaning to an 'outsider' and may sound 'complex'. I know they did to me before I really got into the system training. From my POV, the terms are used simply because they makes the most sense to our members. And, as well all know, direct translations typically don't do the older terms justice. But that doesn't always help someone outside our lineage in some cases, which is why we as a family try be open and answer questions to the best of our ability on this forum and elsewhere.

To your second point, I would say it's more of 'b' in most cases. Please remember, most of our senior members already had many years experience & rich backgrounds in other WC lineages before training in HFY, and they all attest that differences are easy to identify once you have direct experience in the system (and that it's not just different words for the same concepts). To look at something or read about it only gets you so far. I agree, videos do help give a better idea, but in the end, nothing trumps hands-on interaction (no, not trying to sell anything either - it's just the nature of ANY conceptual martial art system! :))


From the short video clip KPM linked to, things didn't look too different to WCK from other lineages - though at first glance things like more like TWC as zuti car noted.

So it would be great to see some video footage that really highlights the differences if there are differences. Hoping your plans to share work out :)

haha, me too :)
-------------
As for Sifu Hobbs, I had the pleasure of meeting him when he came to the states to train with my first Sifu Richard Lowenhagen here in Arizona. And, I also was able to meet up with him when several of our members visited London during a bigger Europe trip some years back. He seemed pretty knowledgeable in wing chun & martial arts in general - as well as being a nice enough guy. Not having any experience in Lun Gai's Wing Chun myself I can't really speak for what Mark has learned or from whom, but I do agree that some of what he talks about in that interview does sound a lot like HFY concepts. Not really sure that helps any..

[Firehawk4]

Does Hung Fa Yi have anything to do with the Heaven and Earth Society at this website
http://www.imperialchina.org/Qing_Dynasty.html#taiping

[anerlich]

I've been training in TWC since 1989, and had the pleasure of meeting and comparing styles (briefly) with HFY student duende from this forum some years ago.

There are some similarities between the two systems, but the differences way outnumber them. If you are a TWC guy and think differently I suggest you reserve judgement until you actually meet an HFY practitioner, because you are unlikely to know what you are on about.

Most of the angst about HFY on this forum and elsewhere was the fault of Benny Meng IMO.

Now, back to watching ADCC ...

[Savi]

I've been training in TWC since 1989, and had the pleasure of meeting and comparing styles (briefly) with HFY student duende from this forum some years ago.

There are some similarities between the two systems, but the differences way outnumber them. If you are a TWC guy and think differently I suggest you reserve judgement until you actually meet an HFY practitioner, because you are unlikely to know what you are on about.

Most of the angst about HFY on this forum and elsewhere was the fault of Benny Meng IMO.

Now, back to watching ADCC ...Absolutely Andrew and thank you for sharing your experience.

Some branches of Wing Chun have more in common with other branches, and less in common to others. No one is really arguing against that point. There is no doubt that similarities can be identified throughout the branches of Wing Chun, but direct experience is the required key to see the differences. Third party observations are valid but can often become invalid the deeper one goes into given subject matter. Surface knowledge versus intimate knowledge. As you have shared from your direct in-person interaction, the differences far outweigh the similarities. I concur as well for the amount of similarities to me is quite superficial and minimal from an insider’s POV.

From my experience, there is as much in common with what I train to TWC as there is respectively to other Opera Society Wing Chun branches. Sifu Billy Lau stated it quite clearly here (http://www.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?67313-Latest-WCI-and-WCK-history&p=1264258#post1264258) regarding the relationships of different WC branches, that the time of the 1850’s is when Wing Chun was already divided, primarily looking at Wing Chun from within the two main groups being the Opera Society and the Boxers Societies. Prior to the 1850’s, if we went a few generations further back in time Wing Chun would have had to have looked and functioned in much more similar fashion than in the 1850’s and with less groups ultimately going back to the first generation and only one Wing Chun. Obviously, the theory is that with each passing generation the more each branches’ WC art changes and adapts to each audience.

I concur with Sifu Billy Lau’s sentiments in that I too do not see much in similarities with my Wing Chun to any other branch even on a “more or less” scale. Why? It takes one to know one.

[Savi]

If we were to look at some technical comparisons of the art, as Sifu Lau also posted here (http://www.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?67313-Latest-WCI-and-WCK-history&p=1264440#post1264440), all Wing Chun has Bong Sau. Here are the two paragraphs from his post (emphasis/formatting added):


”1. In the HFY system we primarily have 3 Bong Sao's within the 3 timezones in Time and Space. From my perspective the TWC Bong Sao uses a straight wrist, and if you compare it to the HFY Ying Bong Sao it looks similar in terms of looks in nature of shape. So if you say we look similar yes we do look similar in this way, but I also can see a big big difference when I apply the 3 timezones of time and space interaction.

2. From the other Wing Chun systems they consist of a Bong Sao with a bent wrist and if you compare it to the HFY Crane (Hok) Bong Sao it also looks similar in terms of looks in nature of shape, but again I see a big big difference after learning HFY Wing Chun's Time Space and Energey in the 3 timezones interaction. So in a way, we also look like the other Wing Chun Systems in the HFY Crane (Hok) Bong Sao in terms of so called similarities, but at the same time there are major varying differences that I see.

3. However, in the HFY system we also have a Lan Bong Sao (which is different than Lan Sao).

When a different lineage Wing Chun System doesn't matter if it's TWC or all other WCK system, some do the bong sao "this way", or do it "that way", but in HFY we do not look at the technical standpoint of how to do the bong sao, but instead we must identify which time zone in time and space before we apply the 3 different Bong Sao's.

The nature of the application and execution in the HFY 3 timezones is very different. In the past posts, you only mention the similarities when you see TWC and HFY, but based on my personal experience interacting with TWC people, YM Wing Chun and all other lineages I basically can identify not only the similarities, but I can also see the big big "differences" after studying the HFY System in 3 timezone approach.”

Essentially, we use the straight wrist Bong Sao, bent wrist Bong Sao, and Lan Bong Sao – each one having a different purpose and nature yet all three maintaining technological consistency in relation to HFY’s 3 Connecting Bridges, Heaven Human Earth, and Time Space Energy formulaic parameters. The focus goes beyond the shapes of techniques to understand why the differences outweigh superficial similarities.

Beyond the reality of this forum, many martial artists have agreed with this reasoning after genuine exchanges of kung fu that the “meat and potatoes” is really where the truth of the matters exist. One Sifu from Chu Shon Tin lineage recognized this truth and sought to learn Hung Fa Yi Wing Chun Kuen instead. Dale Vits of TWC now studies Hung Fa Yi Wing Chun as well. My first Wing Chun Sifu was a certified Senior Level Instructor of the VTAA and came to HFY. There are many more martial artists with prior kung fu backgrounds that come to learn HFY and testify to the art. There are a LOT more differences to be understood and more importantly why there are differences – which can be explained, experienced, and validated, on a technical level.

[Savi]

Platform Differences…

In the mid 1800’s era, two ancestral groups of Wing Chun can be identified: those from the Opera Society and those from the Boxer Societies (plural). Through public information it is said that Leung Yi Tai of the Opera Society brought the Luk Dim Bun Gwan onto the Red Boats and it is conjectured that he brought it from Chi Sim Weng Chun.

In the Hung Gun (Red Bandanna) Boxer Society, Hung Gun Biu of the Jung Yi Tong Boxers taught the long pole (Luk Dim Bun Gwan) but also the short pole (Hung Fa Yi Lung Fu Hung Mun Saat Gwan: aka Dragon Tiger Pole) too. The long pole focuses on the use of one end while the short pole uses both ends for combat. Video of the HFY Dragon Tiger Pole: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=UtBksxxEW6Y

As an additional contrast, Pao Fa Lien Wing Chun’s Dai Dung Fung from the Boxer Societies also has a multitude of weaponry incorporated into this system beyond the Double Butterfly Knives and Long Pole.

Regarding having SNT/CK/BJ, now we see from the Snake Crane Wing Chun Mun that they also have the three SNT/CK/BJ forms too rather than one long form. One thing to note about Boxer Society Wing Chun is that both Pao Fa Lien Wing Chun and Hung Fa Yi Wing Chun similarly contain THREE open hand forms of SNT/CK/BJ – again not one long form.

One unique parallel within the Boxer Society Wing Chun is that not only are there the Wooden Man Dummy, Double Butterfly Swords, and Pole(s), but there is also the Weapons + Wooden Dummy forms. The weapons assortment within the Boxer Society Wing Chun is not the same assortment as in (the more widely spread) Opera Society Wing Chun.

There are not any other Wing Chun lineages professing Qigong connections to Omei except Yik Kam. The thing is, Omei Qigong is not designed for combat. Combat Qigong is very different than Health Qigong. Omei Qigong is purposed for health. This would make sense though that if Leung Yi Tai also learned Omei Qigong it would have been to enhance his health and ability to sing the female role in the Opera Troupe.


From the thread about the HFY seminar in Arizona, it was written:

HFY’s Saam Mo Kiu (红花義天人地三摩橋©) - Three Connecting Bridges philosophy describes to us that in the process of developing structure, there will be variances in one’s presentations of structure. Honing one’s body alignments to be in accordance with the HFY Time Space Energy Formula is progressive in nature (wandering to focus state). Ultimately, HFY Structural Energy is the only instrument specifically designed to work with the HFY Time Space Energy Formula. It is important to realize HFY structure cannot be removed from its spatial constructs without creating more distortions in the process. The HFY Time Space Energy Formula is the representation of this relationship. It is here where we begin to learn and understand how to stick in Chi Sao through HFY Structural Energy (above and beyond the attribute of sensitivity) and use for Sparring, which we learn through intimate knowledge of the HFY Advanced Siu Nim Tao form.

The purpose of using Four Gates Theory in Chi Sao (the Four Gates Reaction Method (紅花義四門應樁法©)) is to enable the person’s ability to stand his/her ground to meet and neutralize direct-force attacks by using HFY structural energy. This facilitates one's ability to displace any residual energy away from the Centerline (Loi Lau Hoi Sung) and into the gates. As a result, the person can maintain the original position at the onset, obey the boundaries of Time and Space, and capitalize on advantages. The alternative would be to step away from where he/she originally starts to dissipate/redirect what energy may still remain from an attack. However, moving away from one’s original position equates to a loss of any potential advantages that could have been gained otherwise.

So for me, this is quite complex language (compared to how most WCK guys describe their art and its training), so I wonder if this is a) just describing what others do too, but just using different terminology, or b) what HFY teaches is indeed something quite different to, say, the Leung Ting Wing Tsun that I learn.

I can tell you unequivocally that the way Chi Sao operates in HFYWCK is absolutely different too. I don’t mean that it is just a different way to do the “same thing” as others. It can be an entire system unto itself! The write up I did which you can read here (http://www.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?67289-Hung-Fa-Yi-Wing-Chun-Chi-Sao-Public-Workshop-Feb-22-Tempe-AZ) is a basic overview on the first layer of the first mainframe/tier of just the Four Gates Tan Bong Fuk Chi Sao category. My write up does not explain the processes of other Wing Chun’s Chi Sao methods at all (again, not a different way to do the “same things”). It is extensive in breadth and depth and contains many technologies unique unto itself that stem from the weapons used in the system.

Our Hung Fa Yi Wing Chun language of Time Space and Energy is genetically rooted in our weapons technology. The Hung Gun Wui Jung Yi Tong Boxer's Wing Chun technology - including HFY Chi Sao - are extensions from HFY's weapons technology of the HFY Seong Wup Dip Dao (Double Butterfly Swords), HFY Luk Dim Bun Gwan (Six Half Point Pole), and the HFY Lung Fu Hung Mun Saat Gwan (Dragon Tiger Pole). The language of Time Space and Energy is the gateway into understanding the technology of HFY.

[BPWT..]

I can tell you unequivocally that the way Chi Sao operates in HFYWCK is absolutely different too. I don’t mean that it is just a different way to do the “same thing” as others. It can be an entire system unto itself! ...My write up does not explain the processes of other Wing Chun’s Chi Sao methods at all (again, not a different way to do the “same things”). It is extensive in breadth and depth and contains many technologies unique unto itself that stem from the weapons used in the system.

Our Hung Fa Yi Wing Chun language of Time Space and Energy is genetically rooted in our weapons technology. The Hung Gun Wui Jung Yi Tong Boxer's Wing Chun technology - including HFY Chi Sao - are extensions from HFY's weapons technology of the HFY Seong Wup Dip Dao (Double Butterfly Swords), HFY Luk Dim Bun Gwan (Six Half Point Pole), and the HFY Lung Fu Hung Mun Saat Gwan (Dragon Tiger Pole). The language of Time Space and Energy is the gateway into understanding the technology of HFY.

Thanks for the post, Savi - and for linking to the pole form. :)

Could you maybe write a post explaining the actual training methods (or just one or two of them) for HFY Chi Sau?

Maybe - in relation to the thread that Alan Orr started where I ask about HFY Kiu Sau - explain how you approach Kiu Sau in your system. I mean, specifically what some of the Kiu Sau work is and how you train it with a partner, what attributes that gives and how that relates to usage against an opponent.

I'm trying to get a better picture. Wayfaring said that your Kiu Sau is part of a three component platform, but didn't go any further than that in explaining it in relation to what I am asking above.

[Savi]

Thanks for the post, Savi - and for linking to the pole form. :)

Could you maybe write a post explaining the actual training methods (or just one or two of them) for HFY Chi Sau?

Maybe - in relation to the thread that Alan Orr started where I ask about HFY Kiu Sau - explain how you approach Kiu Sau in your system. I mean, specifically what some of the Kiu Sau work is and how you train it with a partner, what attributes that gives and how that relates to usage against an opponent.

I'm trying to get a better picture. Wayfaring said that your Kiu Sau is part of a three component platform, but didn't go any further than that in explaining it in relation to what I am asking above.

Hello BPWT and thank you for your questions. When I look at your questions they seem simple at first but to answer them can become quite extensive and lengthy in explanation. I’m not objecting to answering them but it requires a LOT on my part to do your questions justice simply because there is just an enormous amount of information in HFY on this topic. Some of your questions are specific to Kiu Sao and/or Chi Sao while what you ask about those topics can be applied across the board too.

I can most certainly explain to you how I train and teach my todai on a personal level, but a lot of context is required upfront to have the right understanding and perspective. On top of that, the topic is not as straight forward as you might think… I think some additional questions should be addressed before discussing the end result or how to get there. It would be helpful to discuss the language of this technical conversation first. Chi Sao in Hung Fa Yi Wing Chun Kuen is “partitioned” into three mainframes as Wayfaring mentioned to you. Also you have read before in my HFY Four Gates Tan Bong Fook Chi Sao write up, those three categories are:

1) Hung Fa Yi Tan Bong Fook Chi Sao (紅花義攤膀伏粘手法©)
2) Hung Fa Yi Kiu Sao Chi Sao (紅花義橋手粘手法©)
3) Hung Fa Yi Chi Kiu Chi Sao (紅花義粘橋粘手法©)

All three categories are a part of the Chi Sao system in HFY. Kiu Sao is a part of Chi Sao. Chi Kiu is a part of Chi Sao. However, the referencing of Kiu Sao, Chi Kiu, and/or Chi Sao is not loosely applied and is not abstract in nature either.

Do you distinguish (Kiu Sao) from (Chi Kiu) from (Chi Sao)?
If so, to what degree are they different from one another?
What is Kiu Sao and the nature of Kiu Sao?
What is Chi Kiu and the nature of Chi Kiu?
What is Chi Sao and the nature of Chi Sao?

In HFY, each one represents different timeframes of combat, different toolsets and tactical applications, and yet each category is independent (though can be circumstantially interdependent) as self-containing sub systems within the Chi Sao umbrella. From a “syllabus” point of view, there are literally dozens of layers of problem solving drills designed to test and challenge every move in each category.

As an analogy, think of Mathematics and how within the body of Mathematics there is also algebra, geometry, calculus, trigonometry, etc… HFY’s “Kiu Sao” is very much like that. There are different forms of Kiu Sao in HFY, and each form or “subject” has its own layers and sub layers to understand. The same parallel applies to HFY Chi Kiu and HFY Tan Bong Fook Chi Sao. The consistency within all three is they are all governed by the foundation and core of HFYWCK. The core is the context whilst the various technologies serve as the content.

Therefore, Hung Fa Yi’s Kiu Sao/Chi Kiu/Chi Sao are not general terms describing “pairs of actions or energies” as in animal-style based kung fu would describe Kiu Sao. Nor are they inter-changable terms. Rather, what is being referenced with Kiu Sao/Chi Kiu/Chi Sao is an array of complex technologies intended to address a multitude of challenges for long/mid/short ranges of combat.

Hopefully you don't find this confusing. One of the questions you asked is how HFY Kiu Sao training is approached. I can address this question from a Saan Sao point of view and a system point of view. Just as I mentioned a couple of posts prior that our HFY ancestor Hung Gun Biu also used the Saan Sao method and the System method...

But if I were to just respond by directly answering you without providing the genetic context that surrounds and permeates the technical side of things I actually think it would be pretty irresponsible for me to ignore such things. Generally, I am a firm believer that when exploring a particular matter it is logical to know as best as possible what I am really looking at and what it is I am about to give my time and energy towards. I find it best to remove any potential mis/pre-conceptions prior to getting into serious subject matter.

Also, I am pretty well-versed in Moy Yat Ving Tsun Kuen Faat as that is what I studied, practiced, and taught for several years prior to cross training in Hung Fa Yi Wing Chun Kuen. As it was taught to me, the learning of Chi Sao followed this roadmap:


Moy Yat Ving Tsun Chi Sao stages of development method:
• Dan Chi Sao; a single arm rolling pattern involving Fuk/Tan Sao, Dim Jeong/Jut Sao, Punch/Bong Sau.

• Puhn Sau; drilling the basic double arm rolling mechanics of the Tan, Bong, and Fuk Sao.

• Luk Sao; develop the ability to deliver equal energy and reaction in both arms on every roll. Detect inequalities in the bridges

• Jow/Jip Sao/Daan Da; training to track center, learn to connect and disconnect bridges, apply single and double hand strikes

• Tsui Mah; comprehensively learn how to apply proper footwork for superior angulations with applications of Chi Sao to create openings and inequalities in the bridges and facing

This roadmap is pretty linear/straightforward in formulating the engine and dynamics of Chi Sao in the Moy Yat method. Is this in any way similar to how you learned Chi Sao? There is not much in common at all with this to HFY methodology, content or otherwise, aside from having Tan Bong and Fook.

[zuti car]

Platform Differences…

In the mid 1800’s era, two ancestral groups of Wing Chun can be identified: those from the Opera Society and those from the Boxer Societies (plural). Through public information it is said that Leung Yi Tai of the Opera Society brought the Luk Dim Bun Gwan onto the Red Boats and it is conjectured that he brought it from Chi Sim Weng Chun.

In the Hung Gun (Red Bandanna) Boxer Society, Hung Gun Biu of the Jung Yi Tong Boxers taught the long pole (Luk Dim Bun Gwan) but also the short pole (Hung Fa Yi Lung Fu Hung Mun Saat Gwan: aka Dragon Tiger Pole) too. The long pole focuses on the use of one end while the short pole uses both ends for combat. Video of the HFY Dragon Tiger Pole: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=UtBksxxEW6Y

As an additional contrast, Pao Fa Lien Wing Chun’s Dai Dung Fung from the Boxer Societies also has a multitude of weaponry incorporated into this system beyond the Double Butterfly Knives and Long Pole.


One unique parallel within the Boxer Society Wing Chun is that not only are there the Wooden Man Dummy, Double Butterfly Swords, and Pole(s), but there is also the Weapons + Wooden Dummy forms. The weapons assortment within the Boxer Society Wing Chun is not the same assortment as in (the more widely spread) Opera Society Wing Chun.

There are not any other Wing Chun lineages professing Qigong connections to Omei except Yik Kam. The thing is, Omei Qigong is not designed for combat. Combat Qigong is very different than Health Qigong. Omei Qigong is purposed for health. This would make sense though that if Leung Yi Tai also learned Omei Qigong it would have been to enhance his health and ability to sing the female role in the Opera Troupe.


Can you offer any references , sources , referent institution who conducted research or this is just "style history"

[BPWT..]

Thanks for taking the time to write a detailed reply, Savi.

And I agree that often topics like this are broad – and so not easily answered in a quick or even simple way. So yes, things are not often ‘straight forward.’

You asked a few questions, but I’m not sure if you’re asking them of me (from a Wing Tsun perspective), or if you were asking them of yourself – to better explain what you said next. I’ll answer them too, as maybe it helps.

Do you distinguish (Kiu Sao) from (Chi Kiu) from (Chi Sao)? If so, to what degree are they different from one another?

Yes and no, LOL. We give them separate names (of course), but they are inter-connected and overlap. For example, Chi Sau for us is also an umbrella term, and Kiu Sau falls under that. Could you have Kiu Sau outside of Chi Sau – yes (depending on how you’re defining Chi Sau or what specifically you’re working at the time).

You can have Chi Kiu outside of the training platform of Chi Sau (e.g. in sparring), but maybe it is fair to say you can’t have Chi Sau without Chi Kiu (in our lineage’s training methods).

And so on… the more a person thinks about it, the more confusing it can sometimes be. ☺ Maybe, for my own benefit, I should create a chart that shows the overlaps, etc.

But regarding Chi Sau, for example, for us that would include Dan Chi Sau, Lap Sao work (the cycle itself, but inserted attacks), training from Poon Sau in a set manner (sections), Gor Sau (training from Poon Sau but then not in a set manner). There is also a crossover between our Lat Sau work and Chi Sau too.

What is Kiu Sao and the nature of Kiu Sao?

The basic definition for us would be ‘bridge arm’, usually meaning from the hand to the elbow (but sometimes also including up to the shoulder). The nature of Kiu Sau in our system, however, would be how we use this to control – either the opponent’s bridge, or their body (via their bridge or independent of it), rather like was seen in the Alan Orr video that was posted https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iM3V4P-5nN0&feature=youtube_gdata

In the latter, we would maybe just talk about Kiu methods, though how you get to them would be via Kiu Sau (ummm.. does that make sense?) I mean you might control someone’s center via their bridge, or you might not do so via their bridge arm but instead via their body (perhaps more like in Hendrik’s recent video on the dummy, where he has body contact).

But from a WT perspective, this is where things get tricky. And it is why I asked the CSL WC people (Alan and Chris), and yourself and Wayfaring from HFY, about the Kiu Sau methods in your respective systems, and how you use them.

I say tricky, because in the Wing Tsun system there are Kiu Sau methods, but they are not formalized in an obvious sense. Wayfaring said, “I mean its no skin off my nose if you don't want to explain Leung Ting's Kiu sau methods. I don't know anywhere else there's a writeup on them either, do you?”

Well, I’m happy to talk about them, but I can say he won’t find a write-up on them elsewhere – because like I say they are not listed directly.

There is no list of Kiu Methods of Key Words within the curriculum. So no syllabus that directly references things like press, swallow, slice, etc,... or lead, leak, float, etc,... or fold, sheer, pull, etc.

The Kiu Sau methods in Leung Ting’s Wing Tsun system are found within the Chi Sau sections, and then also trained in the Hong Kong Lat Sau teachings (following the progression of forms, Chi Sau, Lat Sau, Sparring).

There are many ways of training and looking at the Wing Tsun Chi Sau sections (and the various cycles that make up each individual section), but from a Kiu Sau perspective I would describe it in the following way:

All of the sections start with Poon Sau (rolling with Bong, Tan and Fook), and their ‘starting’ bridge positioning is different depending on the particular section you train (e.g. via Bong, Tan and Fook, I either have my arms, or an arm, in inside or outside bridge positions, and with an ‘on top’ or ‘under bridge position’).

From these various positions, depending on what you’ve given from your training partner (e.g. the type of attack that comes in, its direction, its pressure/amount of force, its range in relation to how far in the other person moved or how you have moved), there will different bridging responses.

The responses are typically looking off load force, or redirect, or jam, or free up, etc.

These responses are not necessarily set in stone (there’s more than one way to skin a cat), but certain some methods work better than others in certain circumstances. The key, for us, is that the positioning you have and the force you receive, the angle of the attack that comes, and the distancing involved, etc, will determine your response.

You could say it determines your ‘Kiu Sau’ response. The response might be, to borrow terms from other lineages, to press, swallow, slice; or lead, leak, float; or fold, sheer, pull, and so on.

You can mix up the various cycles within the Chi Sau sections to make things a bit more free flowing and to challenge how you deal with the bridge work, and then you can train Gor Sau to be totally free – but in either case you’ll be using the above methods (or you should be). The same applies to the Lat Sau work – you should be taking and using these key lessons learned.

If you learn the sections you can see/find the Kiu Sau Methods and Key words that over lineages use. The question people might ask is why did Leung Ting not list them directly within his syllabus? I don’t know, but maybe he thought it was easier to create the Chi Sections that have these things embedded in them. The more I study and train, the more I find embedded within the system’s forms, drills, etc.

In HFY do you have a similar way of teaching Chi Sau, Kiu Sau, etc (sections or programs) or do you have, like Robert Chu, a list of the various methods? Or both? ☺


What is Chi Kiu and the nature of Chi Kiu?

For us, Chi Kiu is contact with the opponent's bridge, as opposed to Lei Kiu, which would mean no contact with the bridge). Wing Tsun wants to utilize Chi Kiu rather than Lei Kiu, as it is safer (or as Alan Orr said in the clip above, you want to strike the opponent while reducing his chance to strike you). So the nature of Chi Kiu often involves Kiu Sau.

[Hendrik]

Can you offer any references , sources , referent institution who conducted research or this is just "style history"

Zuti,


The speculation on yik kam is totally off mark by facts.

Please read the following

http://www.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?67519-A-Data-point-From-emei-12-zhuang-the-mother-art-of-yik-kam-SLT-1848

[zuti car]

Zuti,


The speculation on yik kam is totally off mark by facts.

Please read the following

http://www.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?67519-A-Data-point-From-emei-12-zhuang-the-mother-art-of-yik-kam-SLT-1848

Facts? Where ? Who , when and where did the research , what are sources of evidence , what scientific institution verified the data , what method of research was used ..? A lot of people present "original" histories supported with "facts" ... and anyone with more than a basic level of education can see that thous stories are nothing more than a fairy tales . I believe in science , hard evidence collected trough specific methods of research which passed the verification in relevant institutions and can be checked at any time. That is how history as a science works . You , HFY guys , TWC guys and anyone else can believe in anything you want , but it is fair separate believes from science .
About your "fact" , the photo you attached is written is simplified Chinese .It is commonly known that simplified Chinese exist since 1956 . So this document of yours could not be older than that time ( i seriously doubt that it is older more than couple of years because it is obvious that it was printed on the printer , not even on the type writer) . Next , what are the sources of this document how can we verify it. Was this piece of paper suppose to represent some kind of historical evidence ? If yes , how ?

[Hendrik]

Zuti,

The document I present is by Zhou chien Chuan, the gate keeper of emei 12 zhuang. He wrote the book i took photo to decode the ancient emei 12 zhuang kuit in 1950s. This is a very famous classical book in the Chinese internal training in 1950 era.

The original documents of emei 12 zhuang is now kept in Beijing museum china.
You can go there to do carbon test if you like.



In fact there are many wcners already begin to resale and study the emei 12 zhuang in ASia and USA.
It is only a matter of time, as close as next few months, the emei 12 zhuang Practitioners will perform the section of 1848 ykslt to compare with how ykslt is practiced today.





Attached is the cover of the book by Zhou which I qoute above.

The orginal documents of emei 12 zhuang is kept in Beijing museum


http://www.emeiqigong.us/lineage/lineage/bai-yun.html

[hskwarrior]

8351
...............................

[Wayfaring]

BPWT,

Thanks for the writeup on your LT kiu sau methods and terminology. I'm getting a little better picture of how it's trained. I will say I have not heard the same terms as an umbrella over chi sau that includes kiu sau and chi kiu in other lineages terminology. Here's another case where the terms sound a little similar to HFY terms, but the meaning is different.

How do we train kiu sau? There are several distinctive HFY kiu sau movements in the first form SNT. These are isolated from the form, and we do drills and challenge tests to ensure the movement contains the right structure and energy for that movement. This training involves things like intercepting a blind side attack, sweeping and controlling space, and other specific training items tied directly to the different kiu sau movements in SNT. This method of training is training by drills, or what we refer to as "saan sau" training or also "Siu Lim Tau" training. To me kiu sau training taught me structure in movement, control of space. It is more blunt of an instrument than chi sau or chi kiu but it involves a strong jong structure that if you are solid on it protects you from getting hit.

[zuti car]

Zuti,

The document I present is by Zhou chien Chuan, the gate keeper of emei 12 zhuang. He wrote the book i took photo to decode the ancient emei 12 zhuang kuit in 1950s. This is a very famous classical book in the Chinese internal training in 1950 era.

The original documents of emei 12 zhuang is now kept in Beijing museum china.
You can go there to do carbon test if you like.



In fact there are many wcners already begin to resale and study the emei 12 zhuang in ASia and USA.
It is only a matter of time, as close as next few months, the emei 12 zhuang Practitioners will perform the section of 1848 ykslt to compare with how ykslt is practiced today.





Attached is the cover of the book by Zhou which I qoute above.

The orginal documents of emei 12 zhuang is kept in Beijing museum


http://www.emeiqigong.us/lineage/lineage/bai-yun.html

Now we are getting somewhere . So , the book is from 1950's , not from 1840's . About the "original" document of Emei snake or whatever , have you seen it , what is the content of that document , is it possible to find a copy that document in some historical studies ? If yes , please be so kind and give the titles of thous books so I can check the content. About original document , how old is that document , is it written on paper or some other material . Anyway , I will check if such a document is listed in that Beijing museum catalog . Now , go back to that gate keeper . I do not know what kind of book he wrote , is that historical book or some other kind but we have to be aware of some facts here. Being published in the 1950's in China during the ban of martial arts means that the author was very well connected with communists regime , probably had high rank in communist party ( I have some experience living in communist country so I know very well how the things are working).No matter what , the content of the book , not only that one , but every book published at that time should on the first place to fit agenda of the communist regime , after that , there is some room for real facts . My point is , if you publish a book in China in times when you can loose your head even if someone suspect that you are thinking wrongly , about the stuff banned by the government , well ,that is saying enough about the author and the content of the book . At the same time Yip Man wrote "history" of his Wing Chun in Hong Kong , we know today that he actually invented that story to give some "face" and prestige to his style , and that is a common practice among the kung fu practitioners . We have to be aware of some other thing , it is a common practice that people give credit for changes in style curriculum to famous ancestors in order to give them credibility , remember Yip Man , Leung Bik story . Anyway , until I check that document from Beijing museum I cannot tell more. What I can tell is that complete history of kung fu styles today was invented in republican period , the golden age of kung fu pracitce and kung fu books in particular. A lot of "facts" today are nothing more than pulp fiction stories published at that time .For example, Shaolin and Bodhidharma was invented between 1904 and 1915 . For the first time story about Bodhidharma and Shaolin was published in the popular novel "Travels of Lao Can" in 1904 . Second book that popularized Shaolin -Bodhidharma myth was "Secrets of Shaolin Boxing" published in 1915 . There is no indication, not even one evidence that this story existed before this time and there are a lot of written and material evidence about Shaolin .
Hendrik , please , do not misunderstand me , I don't have anything against you , but your evidence are not really that . Your method of research is far from serious scientific research and you base your claims on unverified , carefully selected sources that fit your point of view . You can believe i whatever you want , but you , just like HFY guys , TWC guys and all other , do not have the right to present your believes as facts . I know you will not agree with me , you and all others , but that does not change the fact that there is not even one real evidence to support any of the "wing chun creation stories" . I mean , there is much more historical evidence to prove King Arthur's existence than evidence for any of the Wing Chun ancestors , my question is , if you don't believe in King Arthur , how can you believe in Hung Gan Biu , Leung Yee Tai and others .

[Wayfaring]

Now we are getting somewhere . So , the book is from 1950's , not from 1840's . About the "original" document of Emei snake or whatever , have you seen it , what is the content of that document , is it possible to find a copy that document in some historical studies ? If yes , please be so kind and give the titles of thous books so I can check the content. About original document , how old is that document , is it written on paper or some other material . Anyway , I will check if such a document is listed in that Beijing museum catalog . Now , go back to that gate keeper . I do not know what kind of book he wrote , is that historical book or some other kind but we have to be aware of some facts here. Being published in the 1950's in China during the ban of martial arts means that the author was very well connected with communists regime , probably had high rank in communist party ( I have some experience living in communist country so I know very well how the things are working).No matter what , the content of the book , not only that one , but every book published at that time should on the first place to fit agenda of the communist regime , after that , there is some room for real facts . My point is , if you publish a book in China in times when you can loose your head even if someone suspect that you are thinking wrongly , about the stuff banned by the government , well ,that is saying enough about the author and the content of the book . At the same time Yip Man wrote "history" of his Wing Chun in Hong Kong , we know today that he actually invented that story to give some "face" and prestige to his style , and that is a common practice among the kung fu practitioners . We have to be aware of some other thing , it is a common practice that people give credit for changes in style curriculum to famous ancestors in order to give them credibility , remember Yip Man , Leung Bik story . Anyway , until I check that document from Beijing museum I cannot tell more. What I can tell is that complete history of kung fu styles today was invented in republican period , the golden age of kung fu pracitce and kung fu books in particular. A lot of "facts" today are nothing more than pulp fiction stories published at that time .For example, Shaolin and Bodhidharma was invented between 1904 and 1915 . For the first time story about Bodhidharma and Shaolin was published in the popular novel "Travels of Lao Can" in 1904 . Second book that popularized Shaolin -Bodhidharma myth was "Secrets of Shaolin Boxing" published in 1915 . There is no indication, not even one evidence that this story existed before this time and there are a lot of written and material evidence about Shaolin .
Hendrik , please , do not misunderstand me , I don't have anything against you , but your evidence are not really that . Your method of research is far from serious scientific research and you base your claims on unverified , carefully selected sources that fit your point of view . You can believe i whatever you want , but you , just like HFY guys , TWC guys and all other , do not have the right to present your believes as facts . I know you will not agree with me , you and all others , but that does not change the fact that there is not even one real evidence to support any of the "wing chun creation stories" . I mean , there is much more historical evidence to prove King Arthur's existence than evidence for any of the Wing Chun ancestors , my question is , if you don't believe in King Arthur , how can you believe in Hung Gan Biu , Leung Yee Tai and others .

zuti makes good points. All stories I'm aware of are oral tradition plus artifacts. Trying to "prove" these as fact is pretty difficult.

[Hendrik]

1.

This is the document you can check

The Emei Treasured Lotus Canon. This book is currently held in a Beijing museum.

http://www.emeiqigong.us/lineage/lineage/bai-yun.html


2.

This is the gate keeper Zhou, a very well known expert in china at his era.
http://www.emeiqigong.us/lineage/lineage/zhou-qian-chuan.html


Zhou the gate keeper was put in Jail by the communist even before the culture revolution.
Read the following if you read Chinese

周潜川在“文革”前就陷入冤狱，倍遭迫害，是河北保定市委书记王觉民冤案的同案受害者，1971年逝于狱中 。党的十一届三中全会以后，才得彻底平反。卫生部中医局局长吕炳奎在1985年曾说：周潜川是我国气功的一 代代表人物，他的冤狱不能不说是我国气功发展史中的－个损失。

Zhou bio , and publication of Zhou is listed here and the above book i post the cover is in the list

http://baike.baidu.com/view/1230368.htm





3.

Gm Fu the current gate keeper


Attached is the Gm Fu with Jim Rosalendo a few years ago.
I have heard , Gm Fu will run a seminal on emei art soon in the USA for wcners.


Many wcners from different lineages are doing research currently on emei connection both in Asia and USA ,
and have confirmed the 1848 version of YKSLT indeed is a off spring of emei art because there are tcma DNA signatures the emei practioners recognized. And be able to increase the performance of the 1848 version YKSLT many time once the emei practice is followed.



4. Tcma DNA doesn't lie. That simple , what is likely or not likely can be spot.
I present related and matching facts from unrelated multiple sources in Chinese history .

You sure can have your own view.



Finally,
can you proof you are your great great grandfather( who live in 1800) decendent?
And proof your great great grand father really exist?
May be you can show your great great grandfather birth certificate and even better get a carbon test?

Please don't get me wrong. I have nothing against you.
I just like to see how you can do it scientifically.












Now we are getting somewhere . So , the book is from 1950's , not from 1840's . About the "original" document of Emei snake or whatever , have you seen it , what is the content of that document , is it possible to find a copy that document in some historical studies ? If yes , please be so kind and give the titles of thous books so I can check the content. About original document , how old is that document , is it written on paper or some other material . Anyway , I will check if such a document is listed in that Beijing museum catalog . Now , go back to that gate keeper . I do not know what kind of book he wrote , is that historical book or some other kind but we have to be aware of some facts here. Being published in the 1950's in China during the ban of martial arts means that the author was very well connected with communists regime , probably had high rank in communist party ( I have some experience living in communist country so I know very well how the things are working).No matter what , the content of the book , not only that one , but every book published at that time should on the first place to fit agenda of the communist regime , after that , there is some room for real facts .


My point is , if you publish a book in China in times when you can loose your head even if someone suspect that you are thinking wrongly , about the stuff banned by the government , well ,that is saying enough about the author and the content of the book .




At the same time Yip Man wrote "history" of his Wing Chun in Hong Kong , we know today that he actually invented that story to give some "face" and prestige to his style , and that is a common practice among the kung fu practitioners . We have to be aware of some other thing , it is a common practice that people give credit for changes in style curriculum to famous ancestors in order to give them credibility , remember Yip Man , Leung Bik story . Anyway , until I check that document from Beijing museum I cannot tell more. What I can tell is that complete history of kung fu styles today was invented in republican period , the golden age of kung fu pracitce and kung fu books in particular. A lot of "facts" today are nothing more than pulp fiction stories published at that time .For example, Shaolin and Bodhidharma was invented between 1904 and 1915 . For the first time story about Bodhidharma and Shaolin was published in the popular novel "Travels of Lao Can" in 1904 . Second book that popularized Shaolin -Bodhidharma myth was "Secrets of Shaolin Boxing" published in 1915 . There is no indication, not even one evidence that this story existed before this time and there are a lot of written and material evidence about Shaolin .


Hendrik , please , do not misunderstand me , I don't have anything against you , but your evidence are not really that . Your method of research is far from serious scientific research and you base your claims on unverified , carefully selected sources that fit your point of view . You can believe i whatever you want , but you , just like HFY guys , TWC guys and all other , do not have the right to present your believes as facts . I know you will not agree with me , you and all others , but that does not change the fact that there is not even one real evidence to support any of the "wing chun creation stories" . I mean , there is much more historical evidence to prove King Arthur's existence than evidence for any of the Wing Chun ancestors , my question is , if you don't believe in King Arthur , how can you believe in Hung Gan Biu , Leung Yee Tai and others .

[JPinAZ]

Hendrik, since you already have many threads you can share this information, please take your discussion there as this really doesn't have much to do with Hung Fa Yi history.

[Hendrik]

Hendrik, since you already have many threads you can share this information, please take your discussion there as this really doesn't have much to do with Hung Fa Yi history.


I have no interest in HFY history.
but I will clarify any un true stories made and present on yik kam and emei .

[zuti car]

1.

This is the document you can check

The Emei Treasured Lotus Canon. This book is currently held in a Beijing museum.

http://www.emeiqigong.us/lineage/lineage/bai-yun.html


2.

This is the gate keeper Zhou, a very well known expert in china at his era.
http://www.emeiqigong.us/lineage/lineage/zhou-qian-chuan.html


Zhou the gate keeper was put in Jail by the communist even before the culture revolution.
Read the following if you read Chinese

周潜川在“文革”前就陷入冤狱，倍遭迫害，是河北保定市委书记王觉民冤案的同案受害者，1971年逝于狱中 。党的十一届三中全会以后，才得彻底平反。卫生部中医局局长吕炳奎在1985年曾说：周潜川是我国气功的一 代代表人物，他的冤狱不能不说是我国气功发展史中的－个损失。

Zhou bio , and publication of Zhou is listed here and the above book i post the cover is in the list

http://baike.baidu.com/view/1230368.htm





3.

You can contact the present gate keeper Gm Fu to get the information you like
http://www.emeiqigong.us/lineage/lineage/fu-wei-zhong.html.


Attached is the Gm Fu with Jim Rosalendo a few years ago.
I have heard , Gm Fu will run a seminal on emei art soon in the USA for wcners.


Many wcners from different lineages are doing research currently on emei connection in Asia and USA ,
and have confirmed the YKSLT indeed is a off spring of emei art because there are tcma DNA signatures the emei practioners recognized.



4. Tcma DNA doesn't lie. That simple , what is likely or not likely can be spot.
I present related and matching facts from unrelated multiple sources in Chinese history .

You sure can have your own view.



Finally,
can you proof you are your great great grandfather( who live in 1800) decendent?
And proof your great great grand father really exist?
May be you can show your great great grandfather birth certificate and even better get a carbon test?

Please don't get me wrong. I have nothing against you.
I just like to see how you can do it scientifically.

Are you serious ? Really ? This is your source of information ? Man, this more funny than Marvel's comic book . Ok , here I see a web site where people are trying to sell their product . Story about that founder from 13th Century is just that , a story similar to Chang San Feng story , Yue Fei ect . There is no sources of information, no referent institution , literature ,researcher's name, nothing , just a story .And he united no less 3600 school of thoughts , really? No less than 3600? How many philosophical schools existed in China altogether during the whole history of China? It would be good to use some common sense from time to time. About a book , can you give me the location of that museum because it is totally unclear which museum they is in the possession of the book , they only say :" This book is currently held in a Beijing museum." So which one , I can write and ask does the museum posses such a book . This is a classical bull**** which can be found on 99% kung fu sites , some legends presented as a history in order to prove originality and superiority of particular style /system . This is a site for believers , not place where someone would search historical data . About my ancestors , you chose a wrong guy for that . I can prove my lineage form my father's side 600 years in thee past and form my mother's side form 1180, ad. Now , to show you how you search for evidence , all research about my family ( and only my family but all the families in my country ) are conducted by Ethnological Museum in Belgrade , there , you can find all the documents ( like birth certificates preserved by Serbian Orthodox Church , tax payers list , documented grave sites as direct and most important sources of data) . It is very easy to go there , and check ( of course you would need a translator unless you speak french , because a lot of these researches are published on French language) . You can find names of research team , the most important was.Dr. Milisav Lutovac(1901–1988) ,professor of Anthropogeography and ethnology who earned his academic titles on Sorbonne University in Paris . About my great grand father , he was born 1867 , he was an officer in Serbian army during the end of 19th Century , killed by Turks in 1911 ,beside his official documents and army archive his grave site is still in his home town and if you are interested you can go to check , I will give you the location , or you want to exhume his body to do a DNA check? So , as you can see it is easy to prove that someone or something existed in 1800s or even before , if he or it really existed , especially in country like Chine where you can find a tons of written documents about everything . I will not return to this mater again , nor I will argue with you again. I hope you can realize where you are wrong , but if you do not , that is also ok . Anyway I will continue to separate actual facts from believes .

[BPWT..]

BPWT,

Thanks for the writeup on your LT kiu sau methods and terminology. I'm getting a little better picture of how it's trained. I will say I have not heard the same terms as an umbrella over chi sau that includes kiu sau and chi kiu in other lineages terminology. Here's another case where the terms sound a little similar to HFY terms, but the meaning is different.

How do we train kiu sau? There are several distinctive HFY kiu sau movements in the first form SNT. These are isolated from the form, and we do drills and challenge tests to ensure the movement contains the right structure and energy for that movement. This training involves things like intercepting a blind side attack, sweeping and controlling space, and other specific training items tied directly to the different kiu sau movements in SNT. This method of training is training by drills, or what we refer to as "saan sau" training or also "Siu Lim Tau" training. To me kiu sau training taught me structure in movement, control of space. It is more blunt of an instrument than chi sau or chi kiu but it involves a strong jong structure that if you are solid on it protects you from getting hit.

You're welcome. :) I think it is possible that the drills you train for Kiu Sau methods have a similar goal to ours, only in my line we train them in our Chi Sau sections and then in Lat Sau training. So using your definitions, I would say that our Chi Sau sections/Lat Sau work is also about training structure in movement and controlling space.

But for sure, it sounds as though HFY has a more clearly laid out approach. I have met people from our line who approach the LTWT Chi Sau sections very differently to how I've been shown to approach them. We might be doing pretty much the same sections, but have a different idea of why we're doing them :D. Perhaps Leung Ting, in trying to create a teaching platform that would make things clear, somehow made things... murkier.

[Hendrik]

Attached is the grand student of Yik kam, a senior in lineage who my late sifu study with in mid 1900.

Yik kam exist , yik kam teaching exist can be verify from his different off spring lineages which exist today, yik kam link to 1848 heaven and earth association uprising exist, re boat uprising exist in Chinese history, yik kam SLT link to Emei exist, emei exist in Chinese history , tcma , amd buddhism. Emei tcma DNA exist .
From multiple independent sources the above exist , match, and verify each other's .



Seriously , using the so called political correct term,
even under microscope, by facts, yik kam and his Wck and Wck connection is very likely exist.

As for your great great grandfather, in this stage , it is not sure. You have to do better if you want to proof your great great grand father is a facts not a believe. Where is your carbon test of his birth certificate and scientific proven DNA as you expect from others?

Since you want to be a critic, I expect you to be atleast parr in your evidence. Walk your talk. Instead of using the making other wrong tactic to gain control but really an empty shelf within.

Isn't it always easy to critic and deny others facts with clever words but can not present what one demand on others?





I sign off from this thread now. Open a new thread if anyone likes to discuss with facts.







Btw, just please do not give me this

So , as you can see it is easy to prove that someone or something existed in 1800s or even before , if he or it really existed , especially in country like Chine where you can find a tons of written documents about everything .*


At one point you talk about how difficult it is to published a book in china like a pro,

now using the above reason trying to proof your great great grandfather exist.

Which is doesn't make much sense at all, any real Chinese historian researchers know, massive destruction happen to Chinese ancients documents and even grave in the culture resolution era.


In fact the emei 12 zhuang documents has to be send out to hide for protected against destruction .

Story even says , They have to hide one book written by Zhou ( a book which is decode the ancient pressure points strike document which Zhou ) in a sleeping pillow or something . And only after decades they have luckily protect it , they published it.


So, where is the tons of written documents which you use as a convernient alibi where real Chinese martial art researchers find not the facts?







About my great grand father , he was born 1867 , he was an officer in Serbian army during the end of 19th Century , killed by Turks in 1911 ,beside his official documents and army archive his grave site is still in his home town and if you are interested you can go to check , I will give you the location , or you want to exhume his body to do a DNA check?

So , as you can see it is easy to prove that someone or something existed in 1800s or even before , if he or it really existed , especially in country like Chine where you can find a tons of written documents about everything .

I will not return to this mater again , nor I will argue with you again. I hope you can realize where you are wrong , but if you do not , that is also ok . Anyway I will continue to separate actual facts from believes .

[JPinAZ]

You're welcome. :) I think it is possible that the drills you train for Kiu Sau methods have a similar goal to ours, only in my line we train them in our Chi Sau sections and then in Lat Sau training. So using your definitions, I would say that our Chi Sau sections/Lat Sau work is also about training structure in movement and controlling space.


Hi there. I agree that ALL chi sau focuses on training structure in movement and controlling space. While I only have a minute, I just wanted to clarify one distinction in case there was any confusion - HFY's Kiu Sau methods are not terms to describe what is going on in Taan/Bong/Fook chi sau. What I mean is, our kiu sau is not a method for describing terms for the actions that occur withing T/B/F chi sau, as some other arts that have kiu sau broken into action like spit/swallow, wink rise, etc as I've seen in say, Chi Sim. HFY's bridging applications of Kiu Sau and T/B/F chi sau are 2 separate platforms in our overall Chi Sau 'umbrella'. While they both do deal with a 'bridge', they are two very different applications of 'chi sau' bridging for 2 distinct timeframes with very little overlap, if any.

For example, commonly seen tan/bong/fook chi sau works from either a single hand engagement (dan chi) or 2 hands engaged (what you may call lok sau/lat sau?) - but they both work from squared-up, 'inside-the-shoulders' connected position (inside the box). HFY's Kiu Sau training on the other hand, typically starts from a no contact position focusing on single arm engagement outside-the-box working to the edge of the box and sometimes getting into 2 arm contact. But they are 2 different focuses on mechanics, contact points, leverage, position and range, not to mention the separate Heaven/Human/Earth concepts and strategies/tactics that apply to one or the other (sure, some of these concepts do overlap).
As has been pointed out earlier, without direct sharing in person, words only go so far, but hopefully this helps in drawing a distinction between HFY's T/B/F Chi Sau and HFY's Kiu Sau! :)

[KPM]

HFY's Kiu Sau training on the other hand, typically starts from a no contact position focusing on single arm engagement outside-the-box working to the edge of the box and sometimes getting into 2 arm contact.


I'm sure they are different, but I'll point out that this sounds a bit like TWC's "cross arm Chi Sao."

[zuti car]

I'm sure they are different, but I'll point out that this sounds a bit like TWC's "cross arm Chi Sao."

My thought exactly

[JPinAZ]

I'm sure they are different, but I'll point out that this sounds a bit like TWC's "cross arm Chi Sao."

You're right, they are different :)
Unless someone is extremely biased and/or has a set agenda (not say this applies to you), I don't see how that's possible given the vast differences in concepts, theory, principles, strategies, applications, etc that even the written word shows us that they are not alike. And the fact there are no HFY application videos for those without experience to compare things to to make a comparison regarding any similarity the might see.
From my POV of training HFY since 2002, listening to everything shared by TWC people over the years, as well my direct experiences training along side a TWC Sifu that now studies and teaches HFY, I confidently say that I know that HFY Kiu Sau and TWC "Cross arm Chi Sao" are 2 very different things operating under completely different ideas & understanding of strategies, tactics, concepts & principles.

As has been pointed out several times already, there are many others that have also had the experiences I've had, and even after only a few hours, they all come away knowing the same thing I and others are saying.
LOL, heck, don't take my word for it:


I've been training in TWC since 1989, and had the pleasure of meeting and comparing styles (briefly) with HFY student duende from this forum some years ago.

There are some similarities between the two systems, but the differences way outnumber them. If you are a TWC guy and think differently I suggest you reserve judgement until you actually meet an HFY practitioner, because you are unlikely to know what you are on about.

And this is only after briefly comparing both for only a few hours! While everyone is surely entitled to their view, and no offence intended, 'anerlich's input carries a lot more weight vs. what others think they 'see' without real experience in both systems ;)

[KPM]

Unless someone is extremely biased and/or has a set agenda (not say this applies to you :)), I don't see how that's possible


Don't get me wrong JP! I have no idea what the Kiu Sau you wrote about looks like or how it works. That's why I said I as pretty sure they were different. I was only commenting that the description of being one arm to one arm and starting on the outside sounded a bit like cross arm Chi Sao. That's all. No nefarious plots intended! ;)

[BPWT..]

Hi there. I agree that ALL chi sau focuses on training structure in movement and controlling space. While I only have a minute, I just wanted to clarify one distinction in case there was any confusion - HFY's Kiu Sau methods are not terms to describe what is going on in Taan/Bong/Fook chi sau. What I mean is, our kiu sau is not a method for describing terms for the actions that occur withing T/B/F chi sau, as some other arts that have kiu sau broken into action like spit/swallow, wink rise, etc as I've seen in say, Chi Sim. HFY's bridging applications of Kiu Sau and T/B/F chi sau are 2 separate platforms in our overall Chi Sau 'umbrella'. While they both do deal with a 'bridge', they are two very different applications of 'chi sau' bridging for 2 distinct timeframes with very little overlap, if any.

For example, commonly seen tan/bong/fook chi sau works from either a single hand engagement (dan chi) or 2 hands engaged (what you may call lok sau/lat sau?) - but they both work from squared-up, 'inside-the-shoulders' connected position (inside the box). HFY's Kiu Sau training on the other hand, typically starts from a no contact position focusing on single arm engagement outside-the-box working to the edge of the box and sometimes getting into 2 arm contact. But they are 2 different focuses on mechanics, contact points, leverage, position and range, not to mention the separate Heaven/Human/Earth concepts and strategies/tactics that apply to one or the other (sure, some of these concepts do overlap).
As has been pointed out earlier, without direct sharing in person, words only go so far, but hopefully this helps in drawing a distinction between HFY's T/B/F Chi Sau and HFY's Kiu Sau! :)

Thanks for sharing further :) I think I get what you're saying. To add some clarification from my end too:

When I say T/B/F Chi Sau, I refer to the rolling action with forward pressure (we call this Poon Sau in LTWT). The Kiu Sau element doesn't happen in the roll (I think you know that but I explain it just to be clear). It is what happens when we initiate attacks from Poon Sau.

For example, the first attack sequence in the first Chi Sau section, from the roll, is a Com Na Sau method (in this case one hand pulling and the other hand pushing your partner's arms). This use of two forces momentarily locks up their shoulder, aiding the attack that you then issue - a palm strike. So a simple jamming method. When you issue the palm strike your other hand utilises the 'locked up shoulder' by sealing. Your partner defends against the sealing with a Lan Sau or Kau Sau (depending ;)) which is a way of leading, and deals with the palm strike by using a Jum Sau, which sinks but most importantly moves forward to the other person's centre. So it is intercepting/cutting. This opening movement's attack and defence is simple and quick, and utilises (from both people) forward pressure and stick/contact. But even in these simple motions you are learning Kiu Sau methods of jamming, sealing, leading and intercepting/cutting.

Of course there is stepping and shifting happening to.

When I say we use Kiu Sau methods in Lat Sau, I'm not meaning Luk Sau. Our Lat Sau starts with no contact - typically both people stand with Wu Sau and Man Sau, and then the distance is closed as one person enters and attacks. So just like you were describing, this starts as a no contact position and then typically moves into a single arm engagement and sometimes, in fact often, then leads to 2 arm contact. I say 'often', as we are usually looking to strike and control and while it is preferable to do this with a single arm, often two are required.

We don't talk, in LTWT, about Heaven/Human/Earth but we do divided the body up in a standard (well, I think it is standard), way - levels and gates, etc. Like in this pic.

[Savi]

BPWT, I follow and relate to your explanations, as it has much in common with my education and practice in Moy Yat VT. As you describe Kiu methods like “shear, pull, slice, swallow, etc…” that type of language goes more towards the qualities of using techniques (or describing the actions of those) to create opportunities against your opponent, and are as descriptive as Shaolin 18 Kiu Sao, and I get it. This is where thing diverge with how things work in HFY, because that communication language is not compatible to HFY technology which means it doesn't describe what or how our technology functions. Language comes with its own baggage, and things can get too “grayscale” when describing things.

I mentioned earlier that HFY Chi Sao does not follow the roadmap I shared. HFY essentially has a different “operating system” whilst having common ground on emphasizing Centerline and structure. Over the years we have talked about HFY Heaven Human Earth (Tien Yan Dei), HFY Time Space Energy formula, Reference Point system, 3 Bridges Philosophy... why? Square one. That is where you start if you are really interested to learn about HFY.

Looking at your diagram, and thank you for sharing that, it appears that in your WT there are 4 zones with 3 levels? Am I looking at that correctly? Two high zones and two low zones while the high zone is divided into 4 levels, or are your 3 levels 3 "gates" with a left and right side? Or do you count them as 6? How is it interpreted?

In HFYWCK, our structures and spatial concepts are driven by two idioms:
“Three Point One Line, Establish Original Nature” and “Five Ways and Six Gates, Influence the Universe”

Our designations of space and structure are different than your diagram, though may look the same at first glance!

[Savi]

HFY’s Siu Nim Tau opening movements illustrate how we center both wrists onto the Centerline at three key points (head, chest, waistline) up and down the centerline. Not only is this an extension of HFY Heaven Human Earth theory and HFY Reference Point theory, but it details the acknowledgement of the high middle and low gates of the body. In Non-HFYWCK branches you won’t typically find the arms going above the shoulders when doing the opening of the form. With all due respect, TWC does raise the hands above the shoulders when the arms cross which is similar to HFY, although in videos you can see there are structural and theoretical differences. Structurally, TWC crosses the forearms like an X-shape through the centerline, and does this to express their Central Line theory (which does not exist in HFY).

Though the “pattern” of crossing the arms (wrists or forearms) through the centerline is generally common in WC, the reasons in each branch can vary greatly. In HFY, we cross the arms at the wrists forming more of a triangular “V” shape at each of the 3 bounds of the Centerline. This illustrates how we set up our foundational Jong Sao structure for the purpose of HFY’s Occupying Space concept and TYD theory (Structure concept married to Time and Space concept) to the Center Line. To occupy space is to not chase or address the opponent’s hands, but to address specific areas of space for interception; places of defined height/width/depth for structural placement, for more advantageous positioning of hands and elbows as defined by our concepts. This also comes from the military’s influence of the art: battle formation. Or you can use the analogy of playing zone defense instead of “one on one” in basketball. It’s tactical.

In the opening sequence of the HFY SNT form, you will see both wrists stay tracked to the centerline up from the head down to the waistline. How we Chi Sao is driven by this purpose for how we engage in combative form forces the opponent to earn the Chi Sao – presenting a foundationally structured Jong Sao to the High Gate, as opposed to using/offering Tan Bong Fook to the opponent to bridge. This very idea is central to determining whether you Spar or Chi Sao when the distance/gap closes. Our Tan Sao Bong Sao Fook Sao are not based on sensitivity training; rather, are given rise through the HFY Time Space Energy formula and within that the Reference Point theory to Occupy Space first.

[Savi]

How we approach Kiu Sao in HFY is no different than any other subject in the art, but the foundation is where we begin (HFY’s Tien Yan Dei, Time Space Energy formula, Reference Point theory, Saam Mo Kiu) developing kung fu. Depending on the subject to be trained, the history and background of the technology is typically taught first, the strategy tactic and nature of the technology, and how we go about training follows our HFY Saam Mo Kiu (3 Connecting Bridges) philosophy in translating “drill skill” into “combat skill”.

In HFY, I can point to more than half a dozen different “subjects” within the body of our Kiu Sau subsystem for long and short range combat. Again, not the same language or method as Shaolin 18 Kiu Sao. While Kiu Sao has its own “rolling arms” platform, it is dynamically different from Tan Bong Fook Chi Sao. Different mechanics, different toolsets, different usage of range and space. One example for the difference between Kiu Sao and Chi Sao is that Kiu Sao technology does not utilize the Fook Sao tool, which in HFY, is a close/short range tool. Fook Sao is not appropriate for the realm of Kiu Sao Faat.

Also, I don’t find much common ground at all between HFY methodology and the video you posted of Alan’s work. Our Kiu Sao doesn’t mesh into his ideology or how he works with ranges. HFY structures, mechanics, energies, and usage of space are all vastly different. That’s pretty much what I can tell you about that.

[Savi]

On some interesting historical notes, one of our member’s uncle has been a longtime disciple of the late GM Wai Yan of Chi Sim Weng Chun. Chuck’s uncle spent more than 30 years with his Sifu Wai Yan and reported to us during one of our Kung Fu Tong research trips that GM Wai Yan did in fact know Leung Bik and frequently had dim sum on Hong Kong island with him. GM Wai Yan described to him Leung Bik’s Wing Chun as well, stating that Leung Bik used a lot of kicks, even high kicks, and his hands were solid, strong, and fast. To me, I can agree from the description it sounds more like TWC from what I have seen from them. Since TWC gives credit to Yip Man and YM to Leung Bik and Leung Bik up to Wong Wah Bo, then Leung Bik is a part of the legacy of the Opera Society Wing Chun’s history and heritage.

Earlier this year, Sifu Billy Lau shared his recent experiences over on FB, about his training with our Sifu. He met a man who knew our Sifu back during the 1970’s and both he and Billy got to exchange some kung fu!


“I first would like to give thanks to Sifu Grandmaster Garrett Gee for a wonderful training session on Wednesday morning August 28th, 2013 this past week as we trained rigorously for several hours at the St. Mary’s Square park near San Francisco Chinatown in California. I am personally extremely grateful and appreciate the dedication coming from an authentic Grandmaster offering this type of personalized old Kung Fu tradition of Hou Cheun Sun Sou passing on the art of Hung Fa Yi Wing Chun Kuen.

While we continued to train, I had the fortunate opportunity to have met Richard Ng who was just walking through the park and happens to be an old timer acquaintance of Sifu Gee. Richard Ng had practiced nearly 30+ years in the art of Choy Lay Fut Kung Fu and has known Sifu Gee back in the 1970’s when Sifu Gee first taught in the Chinatown location. Richard Ng ended up sparring with me while we were practicing and even though he was much taller than I with better physique, I was able to utilize the Hung Fa Yi Wing Chun Kung Fu Jeet Kiu and Sam Ton Dai Gai on three range interceptions against his Choy Lay Fut Kung Fu.

So suddenly I realized the beauty once again of the Hung Fa Yi Wing Chun Kung Fu System of how clear it is that no matter what type of martial arts people learn for extended periods of time, once they utilize outside the box concepts in combat, they violate the true harmony of nature’s Time Space and Energy existence and fall into the category of power, muscle and speed training maneuvering in and out trying to land a lucky punch or strike against me. The advantages we uphold with the unique Hung Fa Yi Wing Chun Kung Fu structure, Sup Ming Dim, Bai Jong, Jeet Kiu and Sam Ton Dai Gai including 3 range execution of Jun Ging and Ton Ging was enough for me to mitigate all incoming blows while kicking him once in the knee knocking him unstable and pushing him back several times with Ng Mui Ying Jong Faat.

Richard was a good sport and even though he has trained more than 30+ years ago and has met Sifu Gee back in the 1970‘s, he never had the opportunity to experience Hung Fa Yi Wing Chun Kung Fu in the past. It is his “Fate”, that after he experienced the sparring match today and personally seeing how Sifu Gee trains me privately, he strongly identifies the uniqueness of the Hung Fa Yi Wing Chun Kung Fu System and even though he has 30 something years experience under his belt from another Kung Fu Style, he requested to train with Sifu Gee and I every Wednesdays and learn the Hung Fa Yi Wing Chun Kung Fu System.”

Sifu Billy also was very fortunate enough to come across another particular person from the San Francisco community during that afternoon.


“After lunch, all three of us ended up passing by an art gallery. While exploring the paintings, Sifu Gee bumped into yet another old timer acquaintance by the name of Gary Lau, a renowned artist in Chinese Caligraphy Art along with Wu Mo who was the Art Gallery owner. We had an on the spot gathering which Gary Lau, Sifu Gee along with Richard Ng shared some remarkable historical events with me, that happened at this same art gallery location back in the 1980’s as they all witnessed one of the artists called Nancy Song who was also Sifu Gee’s Si Jea passed on a message to Sifu Gee from our SiGung Dr. Wang Ming telling Sifu Gee about his Naturalization and moving situation. I had the luxury to witness also many accounts of Sifu Gee in real street fighting combat in the earlier days while teaching in the Chinatown Circuit.

In the early days from 1975 thru the 1980’s it was not that simple being a Kung Fu Instructor. There were constant challenges whether on the street or in the studio or Kwoon. Richard Ng started sharing of actual events involving Sifu Garrett Gee. One such event was personally witnessed by Richard Ng himself in front of the parking lot of Lion’s restaurant by which Sifu Gee along with only one other student single-handedly took on 10 guys as self defense and defeated all 10 guys to the ground.

On another incident, it was also told that Sifu Gee to have defeated one of the Martial Arts Leading Instructor’s in front of a clan of about 30 Martial Artists and practitioners when Sifu Gee was being challenged to Chi Sao. The important highlight of this afternoon isn’t about hearing how Sifu Gee defeated all the following individuals in such incidents, or defeating this individual Martial Arts Leading Instructor, but rather how during the time Sifu Gee knocked him backwards and was about to fall on the floor, Sifu Gee grabbed him and pulled him back as to not allow this instructor to lose face in front of all his students and through great Kung Fu Honor and Compassion to develop the kind of respect for a Kung Fu Man.

Many stories were told and collaborated as I heard one story at a time of real life street combat situations recollected from actual people and events that really occurred. From one event or story to the next I had a much clearer understanding of the character and person that Sifu Grandmaster Garrett Gee was. He is truly a very compassionate person and that being a Kung Fu Sifu isn’t a simple matter in those days and must require you to be ready for combat in any given moment of time.”

[Vajramusti]

[QUOTE=Savi;1265957]On some interesting historical notes, one of our member’s uncle has been a longtime disciple of the late GM Wai Yan of Chi Sim Weng Chun. Chuck’s uncle spent more than 30 years with his Sifu Wai Yan and reported to us during one of our Kung Fu Tong research trips that GM Wai Yan did in fact know Leung Bik and frequently had dim sum on Hong Kong island with him. GM Wai Yan described to him Leung Bik’s Wing Chun as well, stating that Leung Bik used a lot of kicks, even high kicks, and his hands were solid, strong, and fast. To me, I can agree from the description it sounds more like TWC from what I have seen from them. Since TWC gives credit to Yip Man and YM to Leung Bik and Leung Bik up to Wong Wah Bo, then Leung Bik is a part of the legacy of the Opera Society Wing Chun’s history and heritage.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ip Man identifies Leung Bik as his post Chan wah Son teacher. That does not exclusively refer to TWC.

[BPWT..]

Thanks, Savi, JP.

Yes, I am sure there are many differences between our systems and their approaches - and thanks for sharing, it's helped quite a bit. Really hoping to add to that when you've recorded the video footage you talked about.

The pic I posted is fairly old, from Leung Ting's Wing Tsun Kuen book published in 1978. It is okay for what it is, but doesn't show 'depth' for the viewer, so doesn't show how in, for example, a Man Sau + Wu Sau, we'd also define two ranges (in Man Sau: hand to elbow; and in Wu Sau: hand to shoulder). But it gives a general idea. ;)