Anyone use Rattan Rings?

[JLQ]

Vajramusti,

you wrote:
((JLQ is directing it elsewhere-but FWIW English is my third language and there is more...))

I am sorry, I do not understand what you are trying to say? Directing? I was merely pointing out, that as English is not my native tongue and that I am not surrounded by English-speaking people such as you - consequently, I may not understand inflections of humor or sarcasm and hence my commenting on the general atmosphere of the discussion. If seems I wasn't too far of the mark with my initial assumption...

((Versus? Sic?)))

The language thing...

((Importing interpretaions form another field without sufficient nalysis of comparability))

Mr. Chaudhuri, I have the utmost respect for your accomplishment in the various academic fields, very impressive indeed and always enjoy your input on various discussions, however I believe motor learning and sports science isn't one of the fields of your expertise? I may of course be wrong, and will gladly stand corrected on this matter. If this is they case, I would really appreciate if you could provide a an analysis which lives up to the criteria you just established. Does your statement infer that wing chun is not a physical skill, and that it is not learned according to "rules" that every other physical discpline abides by, in essence saying that sport science isn't really applicable to sports?
Granted, my comparison is rather general, superficial and simplified but I don't think going into more detail would really be more beneficial in this forum...

((By proclamation??))

According to scientific research done in the fields of motor learning and sports science - if you are interested, I will be happy to direct you to reference material on this.

((Ip Man. leung Jan and others would have been shocked to learn this))

What are you trying to say with this? Are you also trying to use a little sarcasm to belittle my posts? If that is the case, I would be most disappointed - definately, you can do much better. If there is something in my posts that you disagree with or that offends you, then there are other ways of expressing this.
As for the skill transfer of the pole to unarmed, I suggest you read it again... I never said that the pole is useless, just that the body mechanics are different and the real benefit of training with the pole is the functional strength that it develops.

((I sincerely doubt that someone who lnows pole usage ata good level has taken you through pole usage and its development stages))

Of course you do...

Well, then please enlighten me... I would consider it a priviledge hearing your opinion on the usage of the pole and what makes the development stages so special.

((If the ring helps you float your boat- more power to you. I am NOT trying to be sarcastic BTW.Internet posting does not always do justice to nuances of conversations))))

Indeed

respectfully,
JLQ

[JLQ]

AmanuJRY


Yes and No.

- ok

To each their own, but it is my firm belief that charachteristics of the pole form and it's exercises develop the body's connection between the hip and the elbow - a major component in generating force from your stance/footwork - and this, to me, transfers to my chi sau ability.

- what is this belief based on? It would be interesting a more specific argument than mere belief - however bad A statement such as "hip connected to the elbow" is a mental image in the best of scenarios, how is this connection made? Which muscles are art work, what kind of force generation are we talking about, linear or angular momentum, etc., stuff like this...


And what is the 'target skill' and 'target context' that the ring addresses?

This?

Quote:
The same for the rattan ring, as it has nothing to do with chi-sau, there won't be any transfer to that area of skill. However. the tang huen develops "splitting" power, flexibility and strength, conditioning of kiu sau, all stuff that can improve you wing chun.

How is this not part of chi sau???

- yes, for example... they don't translate per se, i.e. such as they are trained with the rattan ring (although tan- sau- bong -sau, boon tan bong, etc. are used) but the attributes gained from the training will of course influence you chi-sau in terms of power, positions, and also in your fighting. The crux of the matter is that it is inderect - I understand you have difficulties seeing it, but it is similar to skipping rope in boxing, or lifting weights for judo, there is no direct transfer from the exercises you are using other than building up some general attributes such as conditioning and power, attributes that fuel and boost your technical performance so to speak. The concept shouldn't be so hard to understand...


...I was refering to them being used as chi sau tools or for developing 'splitting force/energy'.

- Splitting energy as I understand it is not something that is explicitly use in chi-sau...


But I know I can trust AndrewS's insight, at least, more so than others...


- Sure - your loss... ;D


I ask the same...


- of course!!! As reading between the lines is not one of my strong points in a foreign language, I can only do that...


If you read back, my sentiments concern all views expressed so far...chi sau, splitting force/energy...that's it so far right?

- I don't understand what you are trying to say? If it is something important, please elaborate....


That would depend on his view and personal strategy. Being 'raised' as a Thai boxer would give you a different fighting strategy than an WC pugilist. So, I could easily understand why he would say something like that and discount it as arrogance and count it as differing experience...

- haha... nicely put Let me rephrase my question, if a person only had 1 month of experience with wing chun and then told you that the wooden dummy, the pole, etc. is utter waste of time. What would you say that opinion is based on and how would your think of a validation based on a statement such as "well in my experienc" or "I believe"? (Bear in mind that the person only has had minimal exposure to the system).


But, hey, that's me and I'm an arrogant ba5tard.
(sorry, that was a bit sarchastic...)

- Sure, if used appropriately such as now, I can appreciate it


How about in this post of yours where you suggest Gert is sounding arrogant because he described his discontent with the video in terms of how it relates to his WC.

Was that because you didn't agree with his comment?


- I think voicing an opinion, good or bad, is perfectly alright - if it is supported by solid arguments. In that particular post of Gert, he did just that and I appreciate it - however I was - once again - pointing out that one should be a little more modest in ones way of critiquing thinks. Especially when one has no experience with it... Gert said in another post that he wouldn't want to trainin with weighted rings like Yip Man suppesedly did on the picture I mentioned. That position I can respect, although I don't agree with the reasons Gert provided, as he stated his opinion without any derogatory or condescending air...


Using terms like 'proper' and 'authentic' (if you knew this was a bad term, why did you use it?), leads me to think you are the one who comes across as arrogant.

- that was why I put the comment in about not knowing better words...


as for me, I'm not leaving out the Pole...


- well neither am I!!! It is a great tool for functional strength development, and I train with as often as possible myself

regards,
JLQ

[JLQ]

K Gledhill,

splitting' seems to be the word renee threw out there but never answered, and jsl uses the splitting bridge use by doing rings....so my question, what and how are you, when you split the bridge in this scenario you keep refering to ?

- I will oblige you, if you oblige me... ;D

regards,
JLQ

[Liddel]

Mr. Gledhill,
How does the poleform fit in with lin sil di da, or the elbows in position, that you advocate so adamantly?

Good question.
This i find an interesting point based on ones understanding of the purpose of elbow position.
The elbows are held 'in' with regard to hand forms for a few reasons.
One being support, another being seperate gates for close body protection.

However this changes with regard to the pole IMO. The connection point of where the hands meet the pole become the 'elbow point' with regard to the poles use as an extension of the body.

Ultimatly they are different senarios, but i would say the pole is a better (more direct) taining tool because you CAN use it to hit someone and defend yourself, where as i believe the rings are not intended to be used in this reagard.
This is like discussing apples and pears.

With regards to your opinion about pressure going the wrong way... sure, that is your opinion, but what is this opinion based on? Practical experience or correct learning, or perhaps something else?
regards,
JLQ

My "opinion" is based on practical experience with the rings, correct learning in a VT style and the 'something else' which is my own ability to think for myself and outside the square

I believe the rings to develope the bad habbit of having to much force at the wrist by making you bend the wrist / OR press the ring with the wrist, to maintain contact with the tool / to stop it from falling away.

When your training with the ring, you want the ring to stay, by applying a little force (however little it may be), or bending your wrist (which is the factor i have a problem with).
When i fight, i want the punch to GO ! by using gravity and having it fall away -
If i trained in the rings too much i could create a habbit action that would stop the gravity effect (or at least lesson it) holding forces and actions on my bridge instead of away from my body.

Some schools train to bend the wrist freehand with regard to certain actions (i.e Bong Sao) in which case this would be fine, but for me its a no no.

Training Splitting power seems reasonable - but i question what the rings can do that the dummy or Chi Sao / Gor Sao / Luk Sao cant - perhaps just isolatiing that trainning ???

JLQ - I think people want to hear your opinion on how to use it properly if you think others "dont have a clue" or "are on the wrong track" about the right way to use this tool.
I am one who wants to hear if your way - circumvents the points ive outlined, so far i cant see that it does, and although you make other compelling arguments it doesnt change my opinion (not that your trying).

Lets just make this a proactive discussion instead of arguing guys

[AmanuJRY]

But I know I can trust AndrewS's insight, at least, more so than others...


- Sure - your loss... ;D

This is because of familiarity...I am more familiar with AndrewS's understanding of anatomy and physiology. This is not meant as an insult to you or whoever else may have such an understanding, but theirs remains to be seen.

haha... nicely put Let me rephrase my question, if a person only had 1 month of experience with wing chun and then told you that the wooden dummy, the pole, etc. is utter waste of time. What would you say that opinion is based on and how would your think of a validation based on a statement such as "well in my experienc" or "I believe"? (Bear in mind that the person only has had minimal exposure to the system).

Are you suggesting that I or Gert have only one month of experience?

If not, I don't see the relevance in your analogy.

I think voicing an opinion, good or bad, is perfectly alright - if it is supported by solid arguments. In that particular post of Gert, he did just that and I appreciate it - however I was - once again - pointing out that one should be a little more modest in ones way of critiquing thinks. Especially when one has no experience with it... Gert said in another post that he wouldn't want to trainin with weighted rings like Yip Man suppesedly did on the picture I mentioned. That position I can respect, although I don't agree with the reasons Gert provided, as he stated his opinion without any derogatory or condescending air...

His statements were no more derogatory or condescending than your response. As I interpet it, they were observations regarding WC as Gert knows it (however long or well he has trained), not how you know it.

So the question is, what puts you in the position to judge wheather or not someone else's WC is...shall we say, correct?
And how do you juge or test this?

Using terms like 'proper' and 'authentic' (if you knew this was a bad term, why did you use it?), leads me to think you are the one who comes across as arrogant.

- that was why I put the comment in about not knowing better words...

That's because there are no other words...unless you're looking for a colorful euphamism to disguise it. Your statement speaks for itself. Saying that a person like me can't use my experience and reasoning to deduce that the rings aren't that practical and can't know the 'truth' about them unless I actually train them is like saying that I can't judge that crack or heroin is bad for me unless I try it myself.

They are both true, I can't know for sure.

I don't do crack or heroin, never have, this is because I have a sneaking hunch that it's bad for me and could destroy my life...does that mean if I tried it, it would destroy my life...it's a matter of percentages right?

I believe the same of the rings, they may improve certain attributes involved in WC, but other exercises and more desirable training tools (the dummy) are better and I will devote my time to those.

Here's what I'm seeing, you are suggesting we (who oppose ring use) are arrogant because you think we don't understand and refute it in ignorance.

Vs.

I (since I can't speak for others opposed to ring use) believe you appear ignorant because you seem to deny us our intelligence (IOW, you think we don't know what we are talking about).

So, no good-guys/bad-guys here, just serious differences in opinion I guess...

[JLQ]

Liddel,

thank you very much - that is the most sensible post in this thread yet. As it is getting late (or should I say earlier) at my part of the world, please forgive me for not giving you a more decent reply until tomorrow.




AmanuJRY,

This is because of familiarity...I am more familiar with AndrewS's understanding of anatomy and physiology. This is not meant as an insult to you or whoever else may have such an understanding, but theirs remains to be seen.

- as I said, fair enough, I didn't take it as an insult (I always try to think the best of people unless the wording leaves no doubt )


Are you suggesting that I or Gert have only one month of experience?
If not, I don't see the relevance in your analogy.

- in that case, my point is lost on you But as for relevant experience of training with the rattan ring, would it be unfair to assume that you don't have that much experience? Keep in mind I am not questioning your competency/experience in other matters - if you remember, I said that the tang huen is merely a supplementary training instrument and you can have great wing chun without it...

His statements were no more derogatory or condescending than your response. As I interpet it, they were observations regarding WC as Gert knows it (however long or well he has trained), not how you know it.

- how many times do I have to repeat myself? The issue is about HOW you present your idea - regardless of experience. I was pointing out that one should be careful in voicing strong opinions about something one doesn't really have so much knowledge about... But you don't seem to understand this...


So the question is, what puts you in the position to judge wheather or not someone else's WC is...shall we say, correct?
And how do you juge or test this?

- Again, please don't be too creative when interpreting my words - I never said anything about anyones wing chun being correct, I have seen too many good people of various lineages and been in the MA world far too long to be so arrogant as to make such a statement or something to that effect. What I said was that I found it arrogant to make bold statements about the merits and uses of a certain training implement, when one hasn't learned how to use it. As it isn't used in any HK lineages (afaik), what kind of experience do guys like Gert of Kevin Gledhill have? There hasn't really been any precise info forthcoming from neither of them about this... Other than this, they may have the best wing chun skills in the world - I'd say there is good basis of that, considering that they both are/were students of Phillip Bayer, who is probably one of the most impressive wing chun (Ving Tsun) guys in Europe. Although I haven't had any direct exposure to his skills as of yet, I have heard from many very reliable sources about his skill level - only good things

That's because there are no other words...unless you're looking for a colorful euphamism to disguise it. Your statement speaks for itself. Saying that a person like me can't use my experience and reasoning to deduce that the rings aren't that practical and can't know the 'truth' about them unless I actually train them is like saying that I can't judge that crack or heroin is bad for me unless I try it myself.

They are both true, I can't know for sure.

I don't do crack or heroin, never have, this is because I have a sneaking hunch that it's bad for me and could destroy my life...does that mean if I tried it, it would destroy my life...it's a matter of percentages right?

- do you really think this is an appropriate allegory? Is a person with one month of experience qualified to make decision as to whether or not chi-sau training or lap-sau training is relevant or not. Or competent to "change" things because his common sense tells him that punching with the elbow out (f.ex.) feels more more natural to him than the elbow in position?

I believe the same of the rings, they may improve certain attributes involved in WC, but other exercises and more desirable training tools (the dummy) are better and I will devote my time to those.

- I understand. And based on your views I can see why you would think so

Here's what I'm seeing, you are suggesting we (who oppose ring use) are arrogant because you think we don't understand and refute it in ignorance.

- no, not because you don't understand it - because in the manner you are refuting it, even dissing it (waste of time) etc. Compare the post of Liddel with those of others who don't think the rattan ring is a good training tool. A huge difference...

Vs.

I (since I can't speak for others opposed to ring use) believe you appear ignorant because you seem to deny us our intelligence (IOW, you think we don't know what we are talking about).

- From the perspective of how the rattan ring is used by the lineages that actually have it as a part of their curriculum apparently you don't. I am not denying your intelligence (otherwise you wouldn't do wing chun ), I am merely pointing out that you don't have the right information to make relevant connections - it has nothing to do with intelligence or lack of it. It is just that your premise is... different.

So, no good-guys/bad-guys here, just serious differences in opinion I guess...

- You are absolutely correct!!! No good or bad guys, that wasn't really the problem - the presentation was. Although K Gledhill's was terrible, I think he is a good guy, with a sense of humor I car relate to, after all ;D
And there is nothing wrong with differences in opinion, even serious ones - in fact, the more difference there is, the better for discussion and the greater the potential to actually learn something from it. ...as long as people are civil and respectful towards each other and their respective opinions, IMO of course

Peace
JLQ

[Vajramusti]

I am sorry, I do not understand what you are trying to say? Directing?

((Your remarks were in response to Gledhill or someone else.I am an infrequent participant on thread in this forum these days. Internet forums have their limits in serious discussions on serious subjects.))

I was merely pointing out, that as English is not my native tongue

((Where are you. Who are you. How much wing chun have you learned-from where and whom? Anonymous posting is quite a problem in serious discussions.
I dont post anonymously- there is always a tag on who I am and where I am))))

and that I am not surrounded by English-speaking people such as you -

((A quote from My fair Lady- in America they havent spoken English in years. But seriously in my part of the Southwest-the diversity is considerable- with the Vietnamese cashier at the grocery store- I spoke sign language. My neighbor speaks almost no English-goes back and forth across the Mexico border regularly. My tech friend speaks more Farsi than English. I speak with my sister in law almost daily in an American indian tribal langiage,. Have you seen the Acedemy Award movie Crash? One of the last lines..."Doesnt anyone speak American around here?"" There is ahuge debate on English only in many states))

consequently, I may not understand inflections of humor or sarcasm and hence my commenting on the general atmosphere of the discussion. If seems I wasn't too far of the mark with my initial assumption...

((I would not characterize most internet forums in martial arts as friemdly places-
generally they are a waste of time.. Though your point of view appears to be quite differnt from mine- I sense a combination of dogma and some curiosity- so I reply briefly addressinga point or two))



Mr. Chaudhuri, I have the utmost respect for your accomplishment

((On the net I ask not for respect but mutual civility))

Does your statement infer that wing chun is not a physical skill, and that it is not learned according to "rules" that every other physical discpline abides by, in essence saying that sport science isn't really applicable to sports?

((Wing chun is not reallya sport- it is not modern wushu. Sports "sciience" is an applied foeld and has done well in areas that it has attended to-many but not all Olympic sports. But it is still a ways away from improving wing chun asa martial art.
But of course opinions are dime a dozen on anything in forums))

Granted, my comparison is rather general, superficial and simplified
((Iy seems to be))
but I don't think going into more detail would really be more beneficial in this forum...
((Unfortunately many of the regulars will be asleep. Attention spans in forums are not known for their duration))


As for the skill transfer of the pole to unarmed, I suggest you read it again... I never said that the pole is useless, just that the body mechanics are different and the real benefit of training with the pole is the functional strength that it develops.

((I dont know - what you know about good body mechanics in wing chun or good pole usage. Before we go too much further, I would like to know you background in wing chun-specially Ip man wing chun and pole usage))

Well, then please enlighten me... I would consider it a priviledge hearing your opinion on the usage of the pole and what makes the development stages so special.

((That would be a dissertation-I would put forum members and porobably you to sleep. Efficient wing chun power is directed at points. Pole training when properly done teaches very focussed coordinated power delivery. Pole training is best done when certain stabilization(ygkym)and mobilization (Chor ma, biu ma etc) skills are well acquired- otherwise the pole contols the individual rather than the other way around. Biu kwan and biu gee skills have parallel development.))
jpy chaudhuri

[Edmund]

Are you suggesting that I or Gert have only one month of experience?

You never been taught what the ring is for or learnt any mainland WC style.
But you are happy to give your expert opinion.
You actually have zero experience not one month.

You even said earlier you understood the application of splitting energy that Rene mentioned then talked about poon sao being better for training it.

They don't go together. Wonder why Rene just gave up explaining?

The ring won't help your all important chi sao so just forget it.

The thing is not some miracle device (like the pole ). And no one is selling them for $99 each. It's honestly fine if you never touch it.

It trains a few specific applications that won't work in chi sao because you can't really do it standing square in front of your opponent with your hands joined left-on-right.

It's for any split move: One arm going one direction, other arm going opposite direction. You can't do that standing in front of the opponent.

It's not going to help for straight punches. You're meant to press outwards on the thing. That's why it's springy.

Hence HK WC can't use it . It just don't fit. It's against your rules.

[yylee]

a training video clip from some mainland WC people:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkaV8...ch=wing%20chun


the attached pages are from an old mainland MA magazine.


enjoy!

[AmanuJRY]

Are you suggesting that I or Gert have only one month of experience?
If not, I don't see the relevance in your analogy.

- in that case, my point is lost on you But as for relevant experience of training with the rattan ring, would it be unfair to assume that you don't have that much experience? Keep in mind I am not questioning your competency/experience in other matters - if you remember, I said that the tang huen is merely a supplementary training instrument and you can have great wing chun without it...

...how many times do I have to repeat myself? The issue is about HOW you present your idea - regardless of experience. I was pointing out that one should be careful in voicing strong opinions about something one doesn't really have so much knowledge about... But you don't seem to understand this

I may not have any experience with the rattan ring, but I do have a measurable amount of understanding and experience with the techs that are allegedly beeing developed.

I have never been 'trained' to use a Thighmaster, but I can understand it's function.

If you have an understanding of the goal of the instrument are you not able to impart the use of the instrument?

do you really think this is an appropriate allegory? Is a person with one month of experience qualified to make decision as to whether or not chi-sau training or lap-sau training is relevant or not. Or competent to "change" things because his common sense tells him that punching with the elbow out (f.ex.) feels more more natural to him than the elbow in position?

Again, I may not have any practical experience with the ring, but I do with the attributes it affects.

no, not because you don't understand it - because in the manner you are refuting it, even dissing it (waste of time) etc. Compare the post of Liddel with those of others who don't think the rattan ring is a good training tool. A huge difference...

Fair enough, so Liddel is better able to put it in words. My first comments were of that notion, just not so well put.

Training Splitting power seems reasonable - but i question what the rings can do that the dummy or Chi Sao / Gor Sao / Luk Sao cant - perhaps just isolatiing that trainning ???

JLQ - I think people want to hear your opinion on how to use it properly if you think others "dont have a clue" or "are on the wrong track" about the right way to use this tool.
I am one who wants to hear if your way - circumvents the points ive outlined, so far i cant see that it does, and although you make other compelling arguments it doesnt change my opinion (not that your trying).

I would also like to hear more. I'm not closed to your point of view, just, as Liddel stated, although you make compelling arguements I doubt it will change my opinion.

[tjwingchun]

It trains a few specific applications that won't work in chi sao because you can't really do it standing square in front of your opponent with your hands joined left-on-right.

It's for any split move: One arm going one direction, other arm going opposite direction. You can't do that standing in front of the opponent.

It's not going to help for straight punches. You're meant to press outwards on the thing. That's why it's springy.

Hence HK WC can't use it . It just don't fit. It's against your rules.

Stayed out of this thread for a while after putting the "The rings are cr&p" comment into the works, and the whole argument is going around in circles and getting personal which is fine as with any format of conflict, there is no real problem when both combatants have mutual agreement of the lines of battle!

However for me to find out that what I have been doing for over 15 years I don't do is a bit of a mystery (as I am from Sifu Kwok, Sigung Yip Chun, Di Sigung Yip Man and therefore HK so can't use it!), if it cannot be used in chi sau then it cannot be used in the reality of a fight, even when I am standing square with both arms in contact I constantly use opposite energies to distrupt and confuse the stance and structure of my opponent. These energies are fired not just from the arms but also the stance, creating lines of strength in person being faced then using lateral energies to confuse the balence while their brain is trying to analyse the situation, I am getting into a position to offload a destructive strike.

I normally fire these twitch energies at a rate of around three pairs of opposite/split energies in a second, to be a little more precise they are not actually done together but a 'split' second (not energy lol) apart to allow the energy to have its effect before the opposing energy is added into the equation.

I continually re-assess my understanding of the mechanics of 'collisions' the moment of impact of techniques, the process leading up to the point of contact, the relevant energies involved and which training tool is the of the most benefit in developing and perfecting its usage and where in the forms I can find a movement that I can use to visualise it in isolation, how I can get to that position in Chi Sau via an 'entry' technique to make the knowledge applicable in the reality of violent confrontations.

My only rule is one I have already indicated in this thread, "Teach me to understand, don't expect me to believe your words."

I think we have all got one thing from this thread so far, and it is what kept me out of the school scene for so many years, we all have personal views but some take the politics to extreme to belittle rather than than discuss rationally.

OK I may not seem totally rational at times but that is more to do with my wicked sense of humour (www.sphincterman.co.uk) , my outlook on Wing Chun is as a science not an art, art cannot be argued as it is totally personal choice, science is dictated by reason, sound argument and repeatable experimentation, there are many things from Mainland China that are best left there, unless you are partial to sucking on tigers testicles, or have a special place for a rhino horn!

My mind works with simplicity as it has to! the pole form has a great value in teaching a student to appreciate visualising energy outside the limits of their bodies, apart from weight training using the mechanics of punching and pulling, keep it simple and it has many uses, think of it as application and you will never use it, personal philosophy on all of the forms.

The forms are for concept and principle not strict application.

As far as the rings are concerned after all the deliberation that has gone on throughout this thread I must admit I have changed my mind on their use!

"THEY ARE REALLY CR&P" LOL

Take care and keep TJ

[Edmund]

I think we have all got one thing from this thread so far, and it is what kept me out of the school scene for so many years, we all have personal views but some take the politics to extreme to belittle rather than than discuss rationally.

LOL. That's the pot calling the kettle black.

You belittled with your first post. I simply put the shoe on the other foot to illustrate how pathetic 99% of the posts on this thread are. I wasn't serious.
Yip Chun is my sigung also. But I have also trained in a few mainland styles of WC.

The HK and Mainland styles of WC are different. Their applications and concepts are not all the same as each other and your "twitch energies" are not related to the applications that the rings train. If you want to twitch your arms out when your opponent is right in front of you, be my guest but that is NOT really one of the applications that the rings are for.

I explained the types of applications. (e.g. left side forward vs right side, left arm v. left, right v right. 2 arms opening type moves.) They are not done in HK WC because it's against the philosophies of HK WC. Hence I knew you would belittle them and the mainland styles of WC. It's your nature. The more I explain the more you will do so. You can't help it.

[tjwingchun]

LOL. That's the pot calling the kettle black.

I admit I can get as petty as the next guy, but generally speaking my tongue is firmly in my cheek!

You belittled with your first post. I simply put the shoe on the other foot to illustrate how pathetic 99% of the posts on this thread are. I wasn't serious.
Yip Chun is my sigung also. But I have also trained in a few mainland styles of WC.

Though I deny the belittling charge, "to consider or speak of as less valuable or important than it really is", I made comments relating to the rings and incompetant instructors, that "I think they are cr&p!" and have not heard any argument to give them any more value and incompetant instructors from whatever lineage will always have my disdain. Your comments throughout the thread have generally been personal attacks without substance. Is it pathetic to make people think while still trying to keep a some humour going, well then I am that black pot!

If you still have contact with Sigung ask him what he thinks of Trevor Jefferson's chi sau?

The HK and Mainland styles of WC are different. Their applications and concepts are not all the same as each other and your "twitch energies" are not related to the applications that the rings train. If you want to twitch your arms out when your opponent is right in front of you, be my guest but that is NOT really one of the applications that the rings are for.

Don't deny the differences, I have vcd's of the Foshan system and though I can see the similarities, I consider its Wing Chun to be a 'martial art', where I think of the way I teach Wing Chun as a 'martial science' and as such I have strict a rule to follow which I expounded earlier.

I have to be able to explain, define and justify everything that I teach with sound, straightforward, commonsense, related to the realistic application of personal body mechanics to violent confrontations. If not then I am putting my students at risk if they are faced with a life threatening situation, and the quicker I can give them the knowledge to be able to defend themselves the better, it has taken me 32 years to get to my level of understanding myself, I have been down a lot of blind alleys that my students don't have to waste time and effort going down.

These 'twitch energies' you 'belittle' through not knowing what I am referring to, are co-ordinated energies that are linked to the floor and are generated in the muscle groups operating through the heel, knee, hip, stomach/back, shoulder, elbow and wrist, so that when in place and aligned when I 'twitch' the whole of my body is working together generating energy into my opponent within a time frame that does not allow them to avoid the strike.

I explained the types of applications. (e.g. left side forward vs right side, left arm v. left, right v right. 2 arms opening type moves.) They are not done in HK WC because it's against the philosophies of HK WC. Hence I knew you would belittle them and the mainland styles of WC. It's your nature. The more I explain the more you will do so. You can't help it.

I must belittle myself here as I don't understand what you are saying
(e.g. left side forward vs right side, left arm v. left, right v right. 2 arms opening type moves.) what does this mean in English, what do they not do in HK WC understand using their arms independantly? I do, but then again I disagree with quite a few things that come out of Hong Kong, no apologies for having my own mind.

I don't belittle other Martial Arts only false claims, as I have already stated ARTS cannot be judged as the are subjective, when we talk about SCIENCE as it is objective it has to stand up to greater criticism and rely on definitive answers and explanations rather than well they have been doing it for centuries in mainland China, WHEN YOU EXPLAIN SOMETHING THEN WE CAN DISCUSS IT!

And you are right about one thing that I cannot help and that is when I am asked a question I give my opinion, you say I cannot help it, its my nature, yes it is in my nature not to suffer fools gladly.

[Edmund]

Your comments throughout the thread have generally been personal attacks without substance.

As I said before they weren't serious. Only mimicking the posts of others from the opposite perspective (if you read them properly).

AND I posted some actual info in them somewhere as well.

If you still have contact with Sigung ask him what he thinks of Trevor Jefferson's chi sau?

Not sure who that is but I guess whenever I'm back in HK I can ask.

These 'twitch energies' you 'belittle' through not knowing what I am referring to, are co-ordinated energies that are linked to the floor and are generated in the muscle groups operating through the heel, knee, hip, stomach/back, shoulder, elbow and wrist, so that when in place and aligned when I 'twitch' the whole of my body is working together generating energy into my opponent within a time frame that does not allow them to avoid the strike.

Nothing belittling from me concerning the twitch energies. I think it's a fine idea. I merely stated that it's not what the rings are generally used to train.

what does this mean in English, what do they not do in HK WC understand using their arms independantly?

No. I mean the left side of your body close to right side of opponent, left hand holding their left hand, right hand holding their right hand or any other variation with that side-on angle. You can be holding or not.

The point is your hands are going in opposite directions. It's more applicable when you are in that side by side position. You pull one way and push the other for instance.

[GungFuHillbilly]

JLQ,

I have listened to the thread go round and round ( no pun intended) and it seems to be stagnant.

People have addressed the ring and yet you seem to assume that many here do not understand its use because we haven’t been indoctrinated properly into its deeper training methodology.

Well body mechanics are the same for most people (unless you have some mutant third arm that you use in your training ) and a lot of people here have the tacit knowledge necessary to understand martial development. (This is not to say that development and attribute training is always the same and can’t vary considerably.)

However, I have still yet to hear you answer the question as to why ‘splitting’ energy is so important and why the training with the ring is a superior way to develop this.

Here are some major problems with the ring and why I see no (important) skill development that translates to martial application with the ring. And since you accuse other people of not reading your posts, please follow this next bit very carefully…

The ring needs to be suspended by your own force. This action, no matter how slight, is going to create the energy of chasing hands.

This is because the ring (unlike a dummy or a live partner/opponent) DOES NOT HAVE A CENTER MASS.

The ring is a suspended bridge – not connected to anything but your own mass.

In WC the bridge is important because it is a bridge TO something.

I want to affect someone’s center of gravity – whether that is through strikes, locks, or throws.

AmunuJRY (Justin) has already pointed this out and yet you still accuse him of not have relevant experience with the ring.

Also, in a previous post you stated

A statement such as "hip connected to the elbow" is a mental image in the best of scenarios, how is this connection made? Which muscles are art work, what kind of force generation are we talking about, linear or angular momentum, etc., stuff like this...

Anyone who has experience with good pole work will know what it means to have the upper and lower body ‘connected.’ Also, IF you have this experience you will know that it is much more than just muscles at work. Just some of the following (to name but a few):

*CNS coordination between core muscle groups of the hips, low back, and abdominals
*The use of inertia and timing to overcome the weight of pole and connect it to your structure
*Maximizing the transfer of force to the end of the pole without upsetting your COG

Beyond this it would take a text book to explain all of what is going on with the pole (or the dummy).

However in closing I might remind you that the cult of sports science has yet to develop a better form of yoga, taiji, gung fu, jujitsu, or kali/escrima/arnis.

All of these disciplines were created and developed by cultures without the benefit of western anatomical and physiological analysis. So the argument of the ‘profound insights of sports sciences’ and its need in understanding martial motion and development is greatly exaggerated and yet to be shown.

-GFH
(Stephen in Arkansas)