Tiet Sin Kuen-Iron Wire. Why the difference?

Hi All,


I have a question about Tiet Sin Kuen. It's an interesting set yet ..I notice the stances are higher and narrower than the other HG pillar sets. Why is it that some moves seem identical..yet have different names? For instance..why is a move called "Forcing bridge" and yet 2 moves later, it's referred to as "Tsun Geng presents the scepter"? Yet again towards the end of the form, there is the exact same move again and it's now called "Wai Toh presents the staff?". It looks identical in every way. If I had to guess, maybe it has a different application? Can anyone explain this? Thanks.

LTN

Iron Wire is full of sounds, vibrational training as well as different intention at different parts of the form.

Others will chime in on this as well.

Have you asked your Shifu these questions as well.

You cannot learn this form from a book or dvd, fyi

everyone has a different theory and take on TSK. It is my personal belief, based upon my own experience that the stances introduced in TSK are in actuality the proper stance, meaning, that the large, leg locked, full chest bow stance is a training stance, which later becomes the sacrum tucked, rear leg un-locked, chest hollowed stance seen in Tai Ghik Kuen (Tai-Chi Ch'uan) and Fukien Siu-Lum systems. The horse is narrower as well, and if you look at most "internal," Northern, and Fukien systems, their horse is also narrower and more upright-hence, greater mobility.
(Again, this is just my personal findings, your mileage may vary.)
This is why Hung-Ga Sifus tell their students that their Gung-Fu changes after TSK.

The reasons for different names of the same movements or postures lies in application.
As you know, there are multiple applications for each movement. This distinguishes one from the other, hints at the application and codifies it.

Can anyone, please, trace the sounds x emotions x inner organs correspondence in TSK?

Thanks in advance!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dale Dugas

Iron Wire is full of sounds, vibrational training as well as different intention at different parts of the form.

Others will chime in on this as well.

---

And the sounds are different based on who is teaching the form. It is not as standardized as some believe.

Shrfu Dugas:

"You cannot learn this form from a book or dvd, fyi"

Indeed. I do not mean to suggest otherwiswe. I think that in the technological age we live in..and considering the plethora of martial arts videos one can buy on DVD...there is tendency to think one can learn something vis a vis this way. I think we would all agree that this is a mistake.

Sifu Kellerman,

Thanks for your input. You should know of course..

Sifu Tolson,

Your saying about being a recovering forms junkie has me cracking up laughing. Thank you!!

The best to you all..thank you!!

LTN

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LaterthanNever

Hi All,


Why is it that some moves seem identical..yet have different names? For instance..why is a move called "Forcing bridge" and yet 2 moves later, it's referred to as "Tsun Geng presents the scepter"? Yet again towards the end of the form, there is the exact same move again and it's now called "Wai Toh presents the staff?". It looks identical in every way. If I had to guess, maybe it has a different application? Can anyone explain this? Thanks.

LTN

---

LTN, you are correct in that the two moves seem identical. But they are not. It is not surprising to think that they are the same from the photos. However, if we look at it in action, one might realize that they have different intention.

"Tsun Geng presents the scepter" - Sink using our elbow and body weight to protect our mid gate.

"Wai Toh presents the staff" - Push up on the opponent's chin or elbow.


The breathing technique and sound used are also different. Hope my explanation helps.



KC
Hong Kong

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ee_BVaM85m8


At :37 and :40 has the same move as pictured in the LSW book and the moves mentioned above.

Notice the 1st one sinks and the 2nd pushes up.



I just read the comments my Thuglows top student Chris M - POPSJNR (who has his own forum created to air his grievances and post crappy articles on crappy MOVIES) on this video. Cannot hold in my laughter!!

Steve Lau, Southernkungfu, and everyone else,

Thanks for your replies! Much appreciated.

Southernkungfu:

Yes..I see what you mean. It's as if the moves are done in reverse of eachother..yet end up in the same place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TenTigers

everyone has a different theory and take on TSK. It is my personal belief, based upon my own experience that the stances introduced in TSK are in actuality the proper stance, meaning, that the large, leg locked, full chest bow stance is a training stance, which later becomes the sacrum tucked, rear leg un-locked, chest hollowed stance seen in Tai Ghik Kuen (Tai-Chi Ch'uan) and Fukien Siu-Lum systems. The horse is narrower as well, and if you look at most "internal," Northern, and Fukien systems, their horse is also narrower and more upright-hence, greater mobility.
(Again, this is just my personal findings, your mileage may vary.)
This is why Hung-Ga Sifus tell their students that their Gung-Fu changes after TSK.

The reasons for different names of the same movements or postures lies in application.
As you know, there are multiple applications for each movement. This distinguishes one from the other, hints at the application and codifies it.

---

To expand a bit upon what Rik said and base don my understanding:
Some teachers modified their TSK depending on the conditions that they were working on ( what physical attribute they were priortizing at the time) and depending on when a student was with said teacher, he learned THAT version.
Some teachers taught students the TSK in the way that best suited THAT student and that would lead to different ways of doing the TSK between the various students.
Not better or worse, just different.
Some times a teacher would have to modify the footwork because of space.
I heard that GM CHan's TSK has more stationary footwork because of the space issue withing his kwoon ( not sure how much truth there is to it).
The fact is that the TSK can be done in various ways depending one what the practioner is working on at the time.

To expand a bit upon what Rik said and base don my understanding:
Some teachers modified their TSK depending on the conditions that they were working on ( what physical attribute they were priortizing at the time) and depending on when a student was with said teacher, he learned THAT version.
Some teachers taught students the TSK in the way that best suited THAT student and that would lead to different ways of doing the TSK between the various students.
Not better or worse, just different.
Some times a teacher would have to modify the footwork because of space.
I heard that GM CHan's TSK has more stationary footwork because of the space issue withing his kwoon ( not sure how much truth there is to it).
The fact is that the TSK can be done in various ways depending one what the practioner is working on at the time. "

Yes. Interesting. Perhaps the narrower stances in TSK lend some validity to the idea that since the form was devised by Tid Kiu Sam..that the set had some roots in "Village" or "Old" Hung Kuen. This is not unlike what Sifu Arnold Buenviaje mentions in his history of Hung article where he states that Hung Kuen was originally known as "Water Based Hung Ga fist" from the Red Boat Junk Opera ..which then as conditions evolved(such as not having to crouch in a narrower stance on a boat perhaps?) the art changed to what he calls "Land Based Hung Ga fist" with it's wider stances...

He also mentions that the Red Boat/Red Junk operas Hung influence may have given rise to Yong Chun/Wing Chun later on(perhaps the water based Hung fist influencing the pigeon toed horse stances found in WC). I think this is quite possible. I've heard some express the idea that Choy Li Fut may have originally been a Hung Kuen based art..and I guess depending on how an art branches out..is it too "out there" to think that there may have been an influence on Wing Chun too?

Could it even be that Hung Ga may be the progenitor art to the top 2 other main southern systems? Hmm..:confused:

ok..enough theorizing! Thanks guys for your input..

LTN

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LaterthanNever

Could it even be that Hung Ga may be the progenitor art to the top 2 other main southern systems? Hmm..:confused:

ok..enough theorizing! Thanks guys for your input..

LTN

---

well, we don't like to step on other people's "Traditional Histories," so we just say that these systems came from Nam Siu-Lum.

up to a few generations ago, they all referred to their systems as simply Siu-Lum, or LoHon Kuen. or Fut Ga Lo Hon Kuen, etc. Branding came later.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TenTigers

well, we don't like to step on other people's "Traditional Histories," so we just say that these systems came from Nam Siu-Lum.

up to a few generations ago, they all referred to their systems as simply Siu-Lum, or LoHon Kuen. or Fut Ga Lo Hon Kuen, etc. Branding came later.

---

As I mentioned in another thread, I do believe that all southern systems have a "common ancestor".
I would NOT go as far to say as Hung Kuen was it though.
I think that this "common system" ( which was probably a village art) naturaly evolved to the various southern hand systems we have now over the many generations.