PDA

View Full Version : Tan.Bong,Fok & Wu Sao



stonecrusher69
09-29-2014, 02:24 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KyWlAilFS0

Vajramusti
09-29-2014, 03:42 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KyWlAilFS0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------


You know who: when I am doing tan, bong etc in the form- at my stage- the whole body is connected and there is coordinated micro motion.

stonecrusher: of course there are differences in details since I don't do fut sao wing chun.

stonecrusher69
09-29-2014, 08:41 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------


You know who: when I am doing tan, bong etc in the form- at my stage- the whole body is connected and there is coordinated micro motion.

stonecrusher: of course there are differences in details since I don't do fut sao wing chun.


I'm glad your have whole body connected and able to make micro adjustments. You have been doing WC I think longer then me I would hope you can. If your inferring I can't I assure you I can very easily.

LFJ
09-30-2014, 01:36 AM
I am curious about your thoughts on some who perform the SNT with movement, ie: shifting or stepping.
I am also curious about your thoughts regarding the reversal of movement of the Wu and Fook Sau in the SNT. In my lineage we withdraw the Fook and Extend the Wu rather the the traditional manner where they are reversed.

Shifting and stepping have their place in the forms. I don't do them yet in SNT, so I don't have an opinion. Different systems.

For me, the wu-sau and fuk-sau are not reversed. It would not make sense for me to do them in the opposite direction.

Wu-sau is not a knife-edge palm strike, but a guard hand, and fuk-sau is not a special hand shape to hook or pull with. The hand is just relaxed and formless while we focus on the elbow to train the fuk-concept striking. It would not make sense to train a punch by drawing it back.

Sihing73
09-30-2014, 05:21 AM
Shifting and stepping have their place in the forms. I don't do them yet in SNT, so I don't have an opinion. Different systems.

For me, the wu-sau and fuk-sau are not reversed. It would not make sense for me to do them in the opposite direction.

Wu-sau is not a knife-edge palm strike, but a guard hand, and fuk-sau is not a special hand shape to hook or pull with. The hand is just relaxed and formless while we focus on the elbow to train the fuk-concept striking. It would not make sense to train a punch by drawing it back.

Okay, so if it does not make sense to reverse the movements can you explain why the Wu is extending in the CK form, for example?
Why the difference between how it is trained in SNT and CK?

So a Fook is a "punching concept"? Seems like I have heard that before.
So you must exert energy and force with your Fook to train it as a punch.
To me the Fook is a "listening hand" and rides the opponent. It may convert to something else, like a strike, but it is used to follow what the oppoent gives you. IMHO

LFJ
09-30-2014, 07:27 AM
Okay, so if it does not make sense to reverse the movements can you explain why the Wu is extending in the CK form, for example?
Why the difference between how it is trained in SNT and CK?

In SNT we're focussing on the use of the elbow and forward intent even while drawing the guard hand back. In reality it will not have to come back but a few inches, as the body will do most of the work by shifting if necessary. In the first CK section it "rides the horse", so to speak, rather than extending. In CK, it's combined with bong-sau to make an uncompleted kwan-sau, that is bong + tan-concept punch, but it is uncompleted, not extended either. It's just in guard position ready for punching.


So a Fook is a "punching concept"? Seems like I have heard that before.
So you must exert energy and force with your Fook to train it as a punch.

"Fuk" is a striking concept, but fuk-sau is a training tool to develop the elbow behavior in that type of strike, not a fixed hand shape we apply literally in fighting. It's done slowly in SNT because as I wrote in the other thread:

"the reason it is done slowly is to focus and rewire neural connections to an unusual yet efficient behavior in combat. This way this behavior is not only voluntary, but becomes reflexive, which is later expanded on and developed under incrementally more realistic circumstances throughout the system."

By gwo-sau and sparring stages there is no more fuk-sau.


To me the Fook is a "listening hand" and rides the opponent. It may convert to something else, like a strike, but it is used to follow what the oppoent gives you. IMHO

Doesn't have to just be your opinion. If that's how you do it, that's how you do it. We have different systems with apparently entirely different ideas. I don't think riding and "listening" are realistic things that actual happen in fighting though, and that's not what is happening when I do chi-sau either. I like the thinking of the approach I subscribe to and it fits with my experience and observation of reality. If you can get yours to work for you though, cool. You're probably better than me.

Vajramusti
09-30-2014, 07:33 AM
Okay, so if it does not make sense to reverse the movements can you explain why the Wu is extending in the CK form, for example?
Why the difference between how it is trained in SNT and CK?

So a Fook is a "punching concept"? Seems like I have heard that before.
So you must exert energy and force with your Fook to train it as a punch.
To me the Fook is a "listening hand" and rides the opponent. It may convert to something else, like a strike, but it is used to follow what the oppoent gives you. IMHO
------------------------------------------------------
Different planets. In slt I do wu and fook in the classical order and way with good reason


I also do not count breaths. Not in wing chun any way.

Sihing73
09-30-2014, 08:08 AM
In SNT we're focussing on the use of the elbow and forward intent even while drawing the guard hand back. In reality it will not have to come back but a few inches, as the body will do most of the work by shifting if necessary. In the first CK section it "rides the horse", so to speak, rather than extending. In CK, it's combined with bong-sau to make an uncompleted kwan-sau, that is bong + tan-concept punch, but it is uncompleted, not extended either. It's just in guard position ready for punching.
.


------------------------------------------------------
Different planets. In slt I do wu and fook in the classical order and way with good reason
I also do not count breaths. Not in wing chun any way.

I was taught the traditional method of doing Wu and Fook in the SNT and practiced it for many years. I do see the benefits of this approach.
My current Sifu does it inversely for reasons which to him, and I make sense. The main one being training the student application immediately.

As to the elbow training and forward intent being trained, that is correct. However, WU would not withdraw on its own but only as a result of force being applied to it. In the CK while paired with a Bong, a WU can and does extend on its own, only to "withdraw" when force greater than it can diffuse is applied.

With the thinking of elbow forward force always being trained which can lead to all things being a strike or punch; then a Taun Sau is also a punch but only defects or disperses if the force encountered is greater than the Taun can generate. Would that be in line with your approach?

LFJ, I am a poor practitioner who does not practice as much as he should. I also practice other arts. I will say that I have worked in Law Enforcement as both a Police Officer and a Correctional Officer and also taught defensive tactics to other LEO's. But that, in and of itself, does not mean I know anything. It is possible that GOD has watched over me and kept me safe throughout the years, it is said that HE and HIS Angels have a tendency to look after fools. ;)

LFJ
09-30-2014, 10:21 AM
With the thinking of elbow forward force always being trained which can lead to all things being a strike or punch; then a Taun Sau is also a punch but only defects or disperses if the force encountered is greater than the Taun can generate. Would that be in line with your approach?

In fighting, I don't use taan-sau, only the taan striking concept it develops in training. Same as fuk-sau and the fuk concept. The sau are only developmental tools. Applying the concepts, they are tactical striking methods enabling lin-siu-daai-da, simultaneous attack and defensive functions in one timing with a single limb.

Sihing73
09-30-2014, 10:25 AM
In fighting, I don't use taan-sau, only the taan striking concept it develops in training. Same as fuk-sau and the fuk concept. The sau are only developmental tools. Applying the concepts, they are tactical striking methods enabling lin-siu-daai-da, simultaneous attack and defensive functions in one timing with a single limb.

Okay, since most would agree that Taun, Fook and Bong are three seeds from which other things develop;
Perhaps you can explain the difference between the Concepts of each one. What is the difference between Taun and Fook in what they teach?
The Fook family seems to cover and listen, in my approach, so in your approach what makes Taun and Fook different?

Vajramusti
09-30-2014, 10:27 AM
Well we have 3 quite different lines of interpretation.

Sihing73
09-30-2014, 10:36 AM
Well we have 3 quite different lines of interpretation.

Joy,

Fair enough, so why not expand on what those different lines of interpretation are?

After all, one method to make the forum better would be to actually discuss and explore differences.

LFJ
09-30-2014, 11:54 AM
Okay, since most would agree that Taun, Fook and Bong are three seeds from which other things develop;
Perhaps you can explain the difference between the Concepts of each one. What is the difference between Taun and Fook in what they teach?
The Fook family seems to cover and listen, in my approach, so in your approach what makes Taun and Fook different?

They are both striking methods as I explained in my last post. They displace while attacking. Fuk elbow contracts and cuts using the inside of the arm. Taan elbow expands and displaces using the outside of the arm. These functions are first developed with partners in daan-chi-sau. Many lineages will use this exercise to stick, listen, etc.. For me, it's to learn how to displace while striking and recycle the striking arm.

Bong-sau clears the line for striking.

Vajramusti
09-30-2014, 11:55 AM
Joy,

Fair enough, so why not expand on what those different lines of interpretation are?

After all, one method to make the forum better would be to actually discuss and explore differences.
--------------------------------------------------------
OK Dave.
1. The SLT and the other forms are for development---they are first principles. Applications are derived from them.


2. Each motion in the forms are not primarily techniques.

3. The relationship of form motion to applications are 0ne- many not one to one. Punching in slt .. my whole arm is extended.
In application it will be bent.

4 Applications are developed through drills and all kinds of chi sao and lop sao including footwork. And gor sao attacks/defense.

5 The wu in chum kiu's wu/ bong. ..the wu does not extend- it adjusts to cover the center with chor ma- the turning stance.

6. In slt there is no chor ma- you are developing the stability of the upper and lower body connection, structure and stability
while developing the structure of the hand motions. A good teacher shows the function of each motion. The wu develops the protective hand-it can be used for attacking and first you learn the protection of the body. Bringing the wu slowly back strengthens the spring of the all important elbow.
Moving the wu forward does not do that.(Of course you can do it any way you want to)

7 I don't learn from videos.

8 I have been doing wing chun every day since 1976.Good regular instruction from my sifu with reinforcement from my sigung.
My informed bias is that top level Ip man wing chun is still the gold standard of wing chun.

9. Wing chun does not need taichi, bjj or other supplements- if practiced right and well. Have I tried things out- you betchum.

10 Of course I have discovered many applications along the way- but I don't or try not to mess up on the forms.

11. I don't cherry pick through TCMA styles and make a stew. But I sense something is worthwhile-I check and se whether it's compatible
with wing chun structure and dynamics.A creative trainer ever so often introduces something from the outside to enrich the line-
but not destroy it.

Ergo- I differ from you on the path of the wu in slt and I distinguish between development and application... 3 paths in the recent discussion.
No sarcasms or put downs. Just different roads.

YouKnowWho
09-30-2014, 12:42 PM
If we look at the following:

- XingYi has Pi, Zhun, Beng, Pao, Heng.
- boxing has jab, cross, uppercut, hook,
- TKD has front kick, side kick, roundhouse kick, hook kick,
- Judo has hip throw, leg twist, leg lift, leg block.
- WC has Tan, Bong, Fu, Wu.

Why does WC use "defense tools" instead "offense tools" to represent itself?

LFJ
09-30-2014, 12:53 PM
Why does WC use "defense tools" instead "offense tools" to represent itself?

Clearly there is more than one "WC" and not all of them share the same concepts regarding these. From my point of view, your question is entirely a strawman.

YouKnowWho
09-30-2014, 12:55 PM
Clearly there is more than one "WC" and not all of them share the same concepts regarding these. From my point of view, your question is entirely a strawman.

So by comparing to the XingYi Pi, Zhun, Beng, Pao, Heng, what should WC have in parallel?

Vajramusti
09-30-2014, 02:34 PM
If we look at the following:

- XingYi has Pi, Zhun, Beng, Pao, Heng.
- boxing has jab, cross, uppercut, hook,
- TKD has front kick, side kick, roundhouse kick, hook kick,
- Judo has hip throw, leg twist, leg lift, leg block.
- WC has Tan, Bong, Fu, Wu.

Why does WC use "defense tools" instead "offense tools" to represent itself?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

??? still cherry picking throuh styles.
Good wing chun has offensive and defensive tools.

Sihing73
09-30-2014, 04:52 PM
In fighting, I don't use taan-sau, only the taan striking concept it develops in training. Same as fuk-sau and the fuk concept. The sau are only developmental tools. .

Please elaborate further.

I was always taught that Sau referred to arm, but as Chinese is not my tongue I will defer to one who speaks that language.
If my understanding of the definition of Sau is correct, then it seems you are saying that the arms are only development tools. Surely I must be mistaken. ;)

So, please explain the different "striking concept" which is developed by Taun/Taan and then Fook/Fuk. If both are for training striking how is it that they differ?
Why do they differ?

If you do not use Taun or Fook in application then why are the shapes taught and why would they be considered part of the seeds of Wing Chun?

I admit to playing Devil's advocate a bit here, but it seems so many claim to utilize the concepts and not the shapes, yet are unable to explain how this works in application....................or at least how it works in any amount of detail.

Sihing73
09-30-2014, 05:08 PM
--------------------------------------------------------
OK Dave.
Ergo- I differ from you on the path of the wu in slt and I distinguish between development and application... 3 paths in the recent discussion.
No sarcasms or put downs. Just different roads.

Joy,

While we may not always agree, I do respect your view and experience, along with others here as well.

My interest years ago was on learning Wing Chun to the best of my ability. I have been blessed to have been able to train with some very good teachers.
Some, at least one for a length of time (Roy Undem), in the same line as yourself. My original plan was to train under Leung Ting, William Cheung and Augustine Fong.

I have explored other arts, not necessarily because of any lacking in Wing Chun, I tend to agree that if one truly learns and understands the concepts then our art can provide answers to many situations encountered. My reason for exploring other arts is because I like them and enjoy them. Started with Pekiti Tirsia as I did not like Latosa Escrima which was taught with WT. Nothing against Latosa Escrima, just not my cup of tea. Now I have integrated things from the other arts I studied, and am still studying, which fit my personal needs and approach. Thus ,my Wing Chun, if you wish to still call it that, differs from that of my Sifu and others in my lineage. However, it fits my needs and has proven to be effective. At least for my needs.

Having said that, I do agree with my Sifu and his decision to reverse the Fook and Wu Sau. I do not know if there would have been any difference in my development if I had not practiced for many years the traditional method. But, I do see many of his students who seem to be able to apply things much better at an earlier point in their training.

I have had the opportunity of meeting some who were much better than I in terms of forms and structure. But sucked at application. Usually for not learning something simple. Makes me no better, just more fortunate to have been shown that "simpler" thing that made it work, at least for me.

I remember many years ago doing a seminar with my Pekiti Tirsia Guru. I showed some participants a different way of kicking. The agreed it was more economical and direct and worked great.....but they stated they would not train it as it was not how they did it. I remember thinking to myself; why attend a seminar if you were unwilling to take anything from it? Sometimes one limits themselves because they are too rigid to recognize another way.

To sum up; while I believe that Wing Chun is an excellent system and has answers to many questions, I also believe it is somewhat presumptuous to think any single system is complete and has the answers to every situation. The system is the cornerstone upon which to build and sometimes one may need to change the stones being used to build.

FongSung
09-30-2014, 10:32 PM
Clearly there is more than one "WC" and not all of them share the same concepts regarding these. From my point of view, your question is entirely a strawman.

Yes, Taan Fook Bong (I have been taught) are all offensive concepts otherwise they would not be in WC. If some adapt them to be solely defensive that is another thing.

As others say above the seeds of WC are not the "sau" (hand position) but the concepts.

Siheng:

Reversing the Wu & Fuk is a mental idea. I would imagine to LFJ it is still the same:
1. The Wu Sao (shape) going out is still Fuk to him as the difference is the hand shape the arm/elbow is doing the same action.
2. The Fuk Sao (Shape) coming in is still Wu (as above)

In this so called "Sam Bai Fut" section the arm goes out so much return. If want to go out with a Keun, Jeurng, Fuk etc hand shape it doesn't matter and same returning. Just two different energies. IMHO.

???

LFJ
09-30-2014, 11:27 PM
I was always taught that Sau referred to arm, but as Chinese is not my tongue I will defer to one who speaks that language.
If my understanding of the definition of Sau is correct, then it seems you are saying that the arms are only development tools. Surely I must be mistaken. ;)

Sure, I could have used "arm" there, but I was referring specifically to the taan-sau and fuk-sau, which are only development tools used in training. Their concepts, taan (to spread) and fuk (to ambush), are what I'll actually use.


So, please explain the different "striking concept" which is developed by Taun/Taan and then Fook/Fuk. If both are for training striking how is it that they differ?
Why do they differ?

I thought I just did in my last post. Did you miss it?

"They displace while attacking. Fuk elbow contracts and cuts using the inside of the arm. Taan elbow expands and displaces using the outside of the arm. These functions are first developed with partners in daan-chi-sau. Many lineages will use this exercise to stick, listen, etc.. For me, it's to learn how to displace while striking and recycle the striking arm."


If you do not use Taun or Fook in application then why are the shapes taught and why would they be considered part of the seeds of Wing Chun?

They are training tools to develop a kind of elbow behavior which extends to different types of strikes. For example, the fuk-concept striking can be a contracting-elbow punch or a horizontal palm. The taan-concept striking can be an expanding-elbow punch or a vertical palm.

So you see, as FongSung just restated; the seeds are not the hand shapes, but the concepts. For the sake of exchanging force with a partner in development of these concepts, the training shapes are used. Only their concepts go into fighting. To take these shapes into fighting would be too literal and an entire misunderstanding of the system, the system I do, that is.

LFJ
09-30-2014, 11:55 PM
Reversing the Wu & Fuk is a mental idea. I would imagine to LFJ it is still the same:
1. The Wu Sao (shape) going out is still Fuk to him as the difference is the hand shape the arm/elbow is doing the same action.
2. The Fuk Sao (Shape) coming in is still Wu (as above)

No, fuk and wu elbows are different. It doesn't make sense to me for fuk-sau to draw in.

FongSung
10-01-2014, 02:16 AM
No, fuk and wu elbows are different. It doesn't make sense to me for fuk-sau to draw in.

Agreed, goes to show how easy it is to get the wrong idea over on a forum, LOL. Touch hands for 1 min all sorted ha ha.

1. The Wu "Sao" (hand shape) going out is still Fuk to him (LFJ) as the difference is only in the hand shape BUT the arm/elbow is STILL doing the FUK action.
2. The Fuk "Sao" (hand shape) coming in is still Wu to him (LFJ) [/B]as the difference is in the hand shape BUT the arm/elbow is STILL doing the WU returning action.

As you also said the Fuk (forward action) can be a palm or punch (i.e. different hand shape from a Fuk "Sao")

"Just two different ELBOW energies."

LFJ
10-01-2014, 02:33 AM
Edit: I'm confused. Don't know who you're addressing or referring to, but what you describe doesn't make sense to me and is not something I agree with.

EternalSpring
10-01-2014, 09:34 AM
So by comparing to the XingYi Pi, Zhun, Beng, Pao, Heng, what should WC have in parallel?

Like others mentioned, Tan, bong, and fook (and Wu, Huen, Etc) are not necessarily defensive techniques. The "8 methods/Baat Faat (sp?)" in general are more like "energies" rather than "attacks" or "blocks."

But I cross train Xing Yi (primarily Shanxi) and your question is something I thought about often when I started. Personally, I feel like the 5 elements incorporate various Ving Tsun energies in each motion. This makes sense, considering that most Xing Yi people seem to agree that the 5 elements are just different methods of using energy themselves and applications of even a single element can looks quite different superficially.

(Ignore that I only know the names of the Xing YI moves in Mandaring while the VT names are in Cantonese lol)

Pi Chuan -> Tan concept punch (including twisting, similar to a method of thrusting with the long pole with both hands twisting in) followed or coupled with jum energy (which is down and forwards)

Zuan Chuan -> Lop + Chum Kiu's "uppercut punch to center"

Beng Chuan -> A straight punch incorporating a greater degree of upper body shifting (I find that the faster a Xing Yi guy cycles beng chuan, the more it looks like chong choi)

Pao Chuan -> I dont remember the exact name for this movement in Ving Tsun, but this is like the closing moving after the Bong-Wu combo in the second part of chum kiu, but the punch can be like "bong + punch"

Heng Chuan -> Tan + Punching energy using a greater degree of sideways displacement.

of course, all these moves are not just isolated upper body moves. The similarity is more clear with footwork and lower and middle body/dan tian movement

Of course, I dont consider these perfect answers to what you asked and there is the fact that there are still clear stylistic differences, such as Xing Yi's side body vs Ving Tsun's primary square facing.

and just to clarify: I'm aware that Ving Tsun is NOT Xing Yi and vice versa. But one can look at different systems and contemplate how he/she would use similar/same energies according to their art

stonecrusher69
10-05-2014, 07:54 PM
Like others mentioned, Tan, bong, and fook (and Wu, Huen, Etc) are not necessarily defensive techniques. The "8 methods/Baat Faat (sp?)" in general are more like "energies" rather than "attacks" or "blocks."

But I cross train Xing Yi (primarily Shanxi) and your question is something I thought about often when I started. Personally, I feel like the 5 elements incorporate various Ving Tsun energies in each motion. This makes sense, considering that most Xing Yi people seem to agree that the 5 elements are just different methods of using energy themselves and applications of even a single element can looks quite different superficially.

(Ignore that I only know the names of the Xing YI moves in Mandaring while the VT names are in Cantonese lol)

Pi Chuan -> Tan concept punch (including twisting, similar to a method of thrusting with the long pole with both hands twisting in) followed or coupled with jum energy (which is down and forwards)

Zuan Chuan -> Lop + Chum Kiu's "uppercut punch to center"

Beng Chuan -> A straight punch incorporating a greater degree of upper body shifting (I find that the faster a Xing Yi guy cycles beng chuan, the more it looks like chong choi)

Pao Chuan -> I dont remember the exact name for this movement in Ving Tsun, but this is like the closing moving after the Bong-Wu combo in the second part of chum kiu, but the punch can be like "bong + punch"

Heng Chuan -> Tan + Punching energy using a greater degree of sideways displacement.

of course, all these moves are not just isolated upper body moves. The similarity is more clear with footwork and lower and middle body/dan tian movement

Of course, I dont consider these perfect answers to what you asked and there is the fact that there are still clear stylistic differences, such as Xing Yi's side body vs Ving Tsun's primary square facing.

and just to clarify: I'm aware that Ving Tsun is NOT Xing Yi and vice versa. But one can look at different systems and contemplate how he/she would use similar/same energies according to their art


Food for thought I read an old article in Inside kung Fu Magazine by Ip Chun. He said when his father learnt Wing Chun originally used terms like 5 elements theory,and Yin Yang if I can remember correctly. But Ip Man thought that was to old fashion took it out and used modern terms when he passed it on to his students.

LFJ
10-06-2014, 02:43 AM
Food for thought I read an old article in Inside kung Fu Magazine by Ip Chun. He said when his father learnt Wing Chun originally used terms like 5 elements theory,and Yin Yang if I can remember correctly. But Ip Man thought that was to old fashion took it out and used modern terms when he passed it on to his students.

Not just old fashioned, but superstitious, which Yip Man didn't believe in, perhaps due to receiving a western education and having developed a healthy skepticism. He didn't just change terms but cleaned his system of a lot of that sort of mainland theory and just taught practical fighting skills.

EternalSpring
10-06-2014, 11:12 AM
Food for thought I read an old article in Inside kung Fu Magazine by Ip Chun. He said when his father learnt Wing Chun originally used terms like 5 elements theory,and Yin Yang if I can remember correctly. But Ip Man thought that was to old fashion took it out and used modern terms when he passed it on to his students.

I wouldn't doubt it. Though as far as I understood, things like 5 Element theory and Yin Yang are applicable and within all CMA (at the least) whether they're mentioned or not by the Sifu (that's just my view though of course). I remember reading Cheng Man Ching's treatise on Tai Chi, he mentioned that the 5 elements can be seen in the direction of movement (Fire -forward, Water -back/retreat, center - earth, etc)

YouKnowWho
10-06-2014, 11:22 AM
Not just old fashioned, but superstitious, which Yip Man didn't believe in, perhaps due to receiving a western education and having developed a healthy skepticism. He didn't just change terms but cleaned his system of a lot of that sort of mainland theory and just taught practical fighting skills.

But the 5 elements is the practical fighting strategies. I have use the 5 elements strategies successful in sparring:

1. metal - use hard block (or elbow and knee) to meet with your opponent's limbs.
2. wood - use long range kicks and punches.
3. water - defense fight, only respond to opponent's attack.
4. fire - move around fast, avoid contact.
5. earth - move in inch by inch with solid defense.

anerlich
10-06-2014, 05:25 PM
FWIW, my teachers' SLT has three types of tan sao:

spreading outside
pressing forward
pressing inside

In basic structured chi sao only the spreading outside one is used.

Just saying, not saying it's better or worse, enlightened or misguided. Not interested in arguing about it, it works well enough for me.

The Xingyi I learned was strongly based on 5 elements. In my experience, trying to fit them to anything else in MA is a fool's errand.

People seem too often to alter the concordances willy-nilly to fit whatever 5-sided conceptual epiphany they thought they had while relaxing in the bathtub, and then proclaim themselves as revelatory saviours.

LFJ
10-06-2014, 10:07 PM
But the 5 elements is the practical fighting strategies.

I'm referring to the mystical energy theories people cling to, things like qi and yinyang concepts, which the 5 elements are often attached to. Popular on the mainland, but Yip Man didn't teach that sort of thing in Hong Kong.