Hi Terence,
I am not Rene, our HFY champion, nor do I play one on the internet. But I had a couple things bouncing around. I am not sure if the dummy is a good thing to look at. Many arts not at all connected to wing chun, all of which retain their traditional forms and such, incorrporate the hangging dummy. Several Bak Mei schools have it. I have seen Hung Gar schools that also have it. The thing is such an elegant training device that I can see everyone incorrporating it. LOL.
This isn't the correct post to ask this, I don't want to run the risk of being put in ignore jail by our champion, so I'll just ask outloud. I don't recall any part of the Pan Nam dummy really affected by the cross slats. There is one part where you reach around and do a neck pull to a vital spot, differnt than the Yip Man dummy. Some dummies have slots in different places that can make this move a little difficult, but that is just the specifica dummy. We must be able to flow as our opponents wont be 100% alike. The only real issue is that the Yip Man dummy is too short. Pan Nam had one that was in the ground I beleive, or atleast it touched the ground. There is a section were you step on the base of the dummy, which you cannot do with the Yip Man dummy. But your point being that the techniques would fit the type of dummy used would make sense.
My question, to get this back on track, is related to Shaolin. When we look at shaolin arts, arts like Hung Kuen that claim and are recognized as shaolin, why don't we see the typical patterns? I can look at Choy Li Fut, Bak Siu Lam, and Chan Chuan and still see the similarities. All are very different, but have the same core. Art attacks that utilize larger circles, being powered with the shoulder. Large stances such as the front bow being fundamental to power generation. Power generation by torquing the hips and waist. Solid reverse punches. Etc. Why don't we find much in common between Hung Gar and wing chun? I have only seen a small amount of HFY, and I myself do not see the similarity really. Why wouldn't the same theories, or atleast similar ones be found in Hung Gar? Hung Hay Gun was supposed to be very close with Gee Shim and trained with him for a long time. Luk Ah Choy also trained with him. But we don't find the Chan principles nor do we find any of these theories that are spoken about. We also don't see Hung Gar theories talked about in HFY. I do understand that the arts changed and maybe Gee Shim would have taught one group something that he left out of another. But would he have taught both such a distinctly different art?
May be that leads to the question if Gee Shim taught both. Maybe Hung Gar is NOT connected to Gee Shim in reality. In that case, we probably can not say that wing chun and Hung Gar are connected to those that think it is. As we "solve" one puzze, we get another. But it don't make sense. The answers kind of sounds like the pre copernican solution for Venus's orbit, or was it Mars?
Tom
Tom
The best investment is in the tools of one's own trade - B Franklin
Mirrors should reflect a little before throwing back images. -J Cocteau
The mechanic that would perfect his work must first sharpen his tools. -Confuscius
Do Not become a slave to your model. -V Van Gogh
It is a capitol mistake to theorize before one has data -A Conan Doyle
Get youfacts first, then you can distort them as much as you please - M Twain
Don't Be greedy, Don't be afraid -K Chung
Rene, Victor
Victor
