-
HAND AND FOOT FORMS
Go to for pics http://www.geocities.com/wingchunbud...footforms.html
SUI LIN TAO
THE FIRST HAND FORM LEARNED IN THE FUT SAO SYSTEM IS CALLED SUI LIN TAO, WHICH TRANSLATES TO "THE WAY OF THE LITTLE TRANSMUTATION". THIS FORM CONTAINS THE ENTIRE ESSENCE OF THE SYSTEM IF YOU KNOW HOW TO INTERPRET IT. IT IS PERFORMED ALMOST ENTIRELY IN WHAT MAY APPEAR TO BE A UNUSUAL STANCE CALLED YEE JEE
KEEM YEUNG MA. THIS POSITION IS SIMILAR TO MANY CHI GONG POSTURES,BUT WITH THE ADDITIONAL BENEFIT OF CLOSING OFF THE LOWER GATE THROUGH PROPER BODY, LEG AND FOOT PLACEMENT. OUTWARDLY THIS FORM APPEARS SIMPLE AND EASY TO LEARN, YET WITH PROPER INSTRUCTION IT SETS A SOLID FOUNDATION FOR DEVELOPING: CORRECT BODY POSITIONING & ALINEMENT, A STRONG ROOT, HEAVY NEI GONG, AND BEGINS TO INITIATE INTERNAL/EXTERNAL TRANSMUTATION, WHILE OPENNING UP THE SMALL CIRCULATION.
SUI LIN TAO TWO MAN FORM
THE SUI LIN TAO TWO MAN FORM IS A PREARRANGED ATTACK/COUNTER ATTACK EXCHANGE. IT EMPHASIZES TECHNIQUES TAUGHT IN THE SUI LIN TAO LEVEL OF TRAINING AND IS PERFORMED IN A "LOOSE HAND"FASHION. IT DEVELOPES PROPER TECHNIQUE, FLUIDITY, RESPONSIVENESS, TIMING, ACCURACY, SENSITIVITY, AND ACCLIMATES YOU TO APPLYING TECHNIQUES WITH A LIVE PERSON WHO RESPONDS WITH YOUR MOVES.
CHAM KIU
THE SECOND FORM IS CALLED CHUM KIU AND IS TRANSLATED AS DEPRESSING BRIDGE, ALSO KNOWN AS RIDING THE HORSE. THIS FORM DEVELOPES MONKEY FOOTWORK, HORIZONTAL TORQUE, ANGLING, LOCKING GRAPPLING, SNAKE BODY, CRANE HAND, FOX DIRECTION, AND LIGHT SKILLS FOR MOI FA POLE. THIS FORM IS THE BASIS FOR THE FIGHTING CONCEPTS OF THE SYSTEM.
CHAM KIU TWO MAN FORM (ANGLING CHI NA)
THE CHUM KIU TWO MAN FORM IS THE SECOND TWO MAN FORM OF THE FUT SAO SYSTEM. THIS FORM NOT ONLY TEACHES TECHNIQUES TAUGHT AT THE CHUM KIU LEVEL OF TRAINING BUT EMPHASIZES GING POWER AND DIM MAK THEORY.
BUI GEE
THE THIRD FORM IS NAMED BUI GEE AND IS TRANSLATED AS THRUSTING OR DARTING FINGERS, IT IS ALSO KNOWN AS POISON SNAKE HAND. THIS ADVANCED FORM DEVELOPS INTERNAL GING, VERTICAL& HORIZONTAL TORQUE, YIN & YANG ENERGY:(EXPULSION/ABSORPTION, FLYING/EATING CHI), LOOSE HANDS, FA GING AND MUCH MORE.
BUI GEE TWO MAN FORM (DIM MAK POINTING)
THE TWO MAN BUI GEE FORM IS A LIVE FIGHTING FORM PERFORMED WITH A PARTNER. IT DEVELOPS GING POWER, LOOSE HANDS, REDIRECTION, SENSITIVITY, AND EMPHIZES FINGER TO FULL BODY TO ATTACK PRESSURE POINTS AND NERVE CAVITIES. A VERY ADVANCED FIGHTING FORM!
SIU BAAT GWA
THE SUI BAAT GWA TRANSLATED MEANS THE LITTLE OCTAGON. THIS EIGHT DIRECTIONAL CHI PALM CHANGE AND INVISIBILITY SET CONTAINS ANGLING, CIRCLING, SPINNING, STEALTH, AND WALKING IN CIRCLE. THIS IS AN EVASIVE INVISIBILITY SET WHICH PUTS ONE IN AN ADVANTAGEOUS POSITION FOR AN IMMEDIATE COUNTER STRIKE.
SIU BAAT GWA TWO MAN FORM (CIRCLING STEALTH INVISABILITY)
THE SIU BAAT GWA TWO MAN FORM IS THE FOURTH TWO MAN FORM OF THE FUT SAO SYSTEM. IT INCORPORATES TECHIQUES FROM ALL THE PREVIOUS LEVELS OF TRAINING AND COMBINES THEM WITH ADVANCED FOOTWORK. THE MOVEMENT PATTERNS APPLIED IN THIS FORM ALLOWS A PRACTITIONER THE ABILITY TO QUICKLY PLACE THEMSELF IN A POSITION WHERE THEIR OPPONENT IS STRUCTURELY WEAK AND CANNOT RESPOND AS EFFECTIVELY, GIVING THE PRACTITIONER A FORMIDABLE ADVANTAGE.
-
Ah . . . gee, thanks . . . I guess.
Terence (still pondering what Sam's last post has to do with any of the questions posed)
-
Hi "wujidude",
You wrote:
Sorry if this repeats anything you've already seen. It's information from the Fut Sao Wing Chun website at http://www.geocities.com/wingchunbuddhahand/index.html
-------------------
Did you read Joy's or my questions (the previous posts)? The cite of these website contents, by you and Sam, only restate the information we were asking questions about. TN
Terence
-
Er... Yip Man learned WCK in his native Foshan, which, unless there's been recent undocumented volcanic activity of massive scale, IS mainland China.
People can (and do!) say anything. I write an article saying there was, once upon a time, Three Flavor, Inverse, Ox-Cart, and Circus systems of WCK. Unless something compelling is presented, and unless there is some form of cross-checking available, its impossible to differentiate a single-sourced sincere account (which most, unfortunately, aren't) from the truckload of c0ckamamy BS foisted off on us by raging egoists. (Who still might have excellent kung-fu but shouldn't be leading any historical discussion groups).
RR
-
If you read what I wrote Renne you would see that I believe that Yip Man learned the art but may have taught it differently to different people which is according to his own students. No one is claiming to be an historian other than yourself and as far as ego's one should check ones own self before commenting on others. It funny that you state "Who still might have excellent Kung Fu....." Shouldn't that always be the criterior. I am only repeating what my Sifu was told. All the supposed history that you have spouted is still only hearsey because most of the history was oral tadition and even what was documented is questionable. Henry Leung was one of the first to publically teach since 1970 and James Cama wrote one of the first articles in 1987 Inside Kung Fu http://www.geocities.com/wingchunbud.../ARTICLE1.html
-
Who is Rene Ritchie?
Sam Wrote:
No one is claiming to be an historian other than yourself and as far as ego's one should check ones own self before commenting on others. It funny that you state "Who still might have excellent Kung Fu....." Shouldn't that always be the criterior.
---------------------------------------------------------
Sam,
Well said.
Notice how you connect with the world through your eyes, ears, lips and hands.
Humm...
-
What is Nei Gong? How is it practiced and what are the benifits?
-
Sam wrote (responding to Rene):
All the supposed history that you have spouted is still only hearsey because most of the history was oral tadition and even what was documented is questionable.
-----------------
From my perspective, I think Rene has done an excellent job compiling, comparing, and researching the "history" of WCK. While you're correct that much of it comes in the form of oral tradition, those can still be cross-checked, form choreography can be compared and contrasted, terminology examined, and these linked with how innovations are spread, etc. to get a very good idea of what was really going on. And as far as oral tradition goes (the same with any witness reports), credibility matters. The truth doesn't change; so when persons give several accounts or keep modifying what they've said before, it doesn't establish them as particularly reliable as a source of information.
In any event, as I said on another post on a related subject, historically things get murky after just a few generations ago (before the Red Boat era). But since that time many things are fairly clear -- and some are crystal clear.
My suggestion is that if you go to public forums to spread information on your lineage of WCK (which btw I think is fine to do), IMHO it is best not to do it by "contrasting" it to other lineages (as you did with the Yip Man lineage) - either technically or historically/philosophically - unless you are prepared for the consequences (why not just say "we do this" instead of "we do this and no one else does it"? Are you an expert of both lineages?).
Perhaps if we would all just be a little more sensitive about other folks' mousetraps and not invested in proving our mousetrap is the best, that we'd all stop stubbing our toes.
Terence
-
Hey Sam,
You took what I wrote personally, and that was not my intent. Sometimes brevity leads to confusion, so I apologize for that. My comments were and are in general, and were addressed beyond you, and not specifically to your lineage. For some reason, some people take martial arts more personally than even religion, so I try to be very careful in that regard. Please read the following in that light:
> If you read what I wrote Renne you would see that I believe that Yip Man learned the art but may have taught it differently to different people which is according to his own students.
Yip Man learned WCK which is broadly consistent with what other branches have preserved from the Red Junks. Of course, he will have his own interpretation like anyone, (people aren't digital copying machines), but IMHO its as much mistake to think he took stuff out as to assume others didn't add things in. Personally, I think it better to just talk about your own art (if that's what you're doing) as your own art, and not compared to anyone else (if you notice, I never make comparisons with other branches, and often do not even mention them, in my articles on YKS/SN).
> No one is claiming to be an historian other than yourself
I realize you felt slighted and are lashing out, but I never claimed that (and I do enough on my own you can lash out at me for without putting words in my mouth ;)
> and as far as ego's one should check ones own self before commenting on others.
Ego is part of the psyche and not a bad thing, egotism on the other hand, and egocentricity, can be problematic. Since I practice neither Yip Man nor Fut Sao WCK, in any case, I have not attachment to it other than to offer my opinion. If you want to call that ego, it's a free country.
> It funny that you state "Who still might have excellent Kung Fu....." Shouldn't that always be the criterior.
Yup! Unfortunately, some spread stories along with their excellent kung fu, and the stories cause problems. So, I agree with you, and in fact wish it was that way.
> I am only repeating what my Sifu was told. All the supposed history that you have spouted is still only hearsey because most of the history was oral tadition and even what was documented is questionable.
Sure, but there are degrees of reliability to heresay, and exceptions to it (that was for Terence, though not a dying declaration ;). You can debate, for example, Washington's motivations during the War of Independance, but claiming he was a space alien is a more difficult case to make.
> Henry Leung was one of the first to publically teach since 1970 and James Cama wrote one of the first articles in 1987 Inside Kung Fu http://www.geocities.com/wingchunbu...d/ARTICLE1.html
First to publically teach what? And the first articles on what? WCK has been publically taught and written about since the early 1900s, and arguably before that even.
RR
-
Hello everyone. I wasn't offended and did not mean to offend anyone. My intention was not to compare my lineage to anyone else. I only repeated what has been debated for many years within the Yip Man lineage. I personally feel that any Wing Chun is only as good as it's practitioners. I dislike politics and my Sifu James Cama has been underground for over two decades. When I was speaking about Cama Sifu's article I was referring to the bringing out of an alternate origin of non Yip Man Wing Chun. Cama Sifu has always been open to converse or meet with anyone who is truly interested in Fut Sao Wing Chun. JCama108@aol.com 718 692-2281. My belief is that Fut Sao Wing Chun under James Cama Sifu is a very complete and formidable system. I have no need to search out other instructors, styles, or lineage's.
