biu jee

[bennyvt]

i agree its not about finger strikes. And i don't like the vital points stuff. I was mainly wondering why in chun kiu you block with the inside me the arm with the elbow out (more like a fuk sao with the hand turned) and in biu jee you turn the hand as you bring yous elbow in which means you block with the ulna bone and looks more like a tan when finished. The hand being turned down in chun kiu and facing up in biu jee, which changes the blocking surface. I know this is more to teach you the fastest way of bringing your hand back but was wondering about why its slightly different. And hey if you want to complain even when terrence gives good answers then stop complainin when he doesn't.

[t_niehoff]

i agree its not about finger strikes. And i don't like the vital points stuff. I was mainly wondering why in chun kiu you block with the inside me the arm with the elbow out (more like a fuk sao with the hand turned) and in biu jee you turn the hand as you bring yous elbow in which means you block with the ulna bone and looks more like a tan when finished. The hand being turned down in chun kiu and facing up in biu jee, which changes the blocking surface. I know this is more to teach you the fastest way of bringing your hand back but was wondering about why its slightly different. And hey if you want to complain even when terrence gives good answers then stop complainin when he doesn't.

You should stop thinking in terms of blocking and blocking surfaces. In CK, you are performing a fook sao (which represents a controlling action) and in BJ you are performing a chum sao (which represents a recovery action). They are not blocks. If you use those tools as blocks, they won't work effectively.

[t_niehoff]

He can talk the classical stuff with the best of them.. But then he turns around and says it's BS... "Structure doesn't exist," he said somewhere..

No, I didn't. You are LYING, certainly to others and probably to yourself. This is so typical of you delusional guys -- you make up what you want to be true and proclaim it as though it is. If you say I said it, FIND IT.

So on the one hand he buys into all the classical stuff but then on the other says it's BS.

On the one hand says anyone can teach the system, then turns right around and disrespects all of the last generation Sifu.

I really can't help it that you guys can't put aside yoru false preconceptions and think past the superficial. Try to follow this.

1) In TCMAs there is the curriculum --the forms, dummy, drill, kuit, etc. -- which teaches you the various tools (physical actions, tactics, etc.) of a particular method. As an analogy, it is like learning how to play chess (how the pieces move, the rules of the game, etc.)

2) But the curriculum doesn't -- and can't -- teach you to use (fight with) those tools. You can only learn to use them by and through using them. In other words, you learn to box by boxing. You don't learn to box by not boxing, by doing other things besides boxing. Or, to go back to the analogy, learning how the pieces move doesn't teach you how to play the game well -- to move your pieces to defeat your opponent. You learn that my playing lots of chess games.

3) If someone knows the curriculum (they know how the chess pieces move), they can teach it. Anyone can teach what they know. But just because they can teach you the curriculum (how the pieces move) doesn't mean they can teach you how to be a good chessplayer.

4) If someone can't do something, then they don't really know it. And so, they can't teach it. If they can't do it and you listen to them tell you how to do it, you are being misled.

To get good at fighting (or chess) takes lots of practice actually doing it (fighting) -- hundreds of hours of hard, grueling sparring against skilled people. This is true of any sport, athletic activity,etc. Do you want to tell me which WCK master or grandmaster has put in that work? If they haven't, they can't have learned to use their WCK beyond a superficial level. So, if you listen to them tell you how to make it work, you arebeingmisled.

5) The people who brought WCK to the West weren't skillful fighters, they were guys who had learned the curriculum. That's what they brought us. But, it is up to us -- through our work (sparring) -- to learn to make it work.

See, it's only valid if it has his special sauce... And he won't or can't show that.

I've told you how to develop skill in WCK, it's the same way you develop skill in boxing or BJJ: go do hundreds of hours of sparring with the best people you can find, constantly trying to make your WCK work. That's it. Simple. It's not a matter of me showing it to you, it's a matter of YOU DOING IT. Whether I or anyone else has done it won't help you in the least.

But you don't want to do that work but at the same time you want to believe you really "know". Well, it doesn't work that way.

[bennyvt]

I dont think you totally understand. In the old days fighting was just part of the learning experience. When you say the people that brought it to the west. You dont know who you are talking about. From my school, Barry was one of WSL top fighters, had heaps of challenage matches (against the best that was in hong kong or arrived), street fights etc. Many that learnt off WSL just learnt the moves and know what wong says. Barry used the challenage matches to try out different things, like he fought a judo guy and wanted to know if he could get him off him after he had a ahold of him. He waited to the guy grabbed him (bad vt) just to test it out. On a side note he actually completly busted his back when it happened but still won. He now has major spine nerve damage.

[YungChun]

No, I didn't. You are LYING, certainly to others and probably to yourself. This is so typical of you delusional guys -- you make up what you want to be true and proclaim it as though it is. If you say I said it, FIND IT.

Easy tiger...

Okay I stand corrected...

It's just so hard to tell what you think is nonsense and what isn't.. You are so wrapped up in the minutia of semantics.. Folks may mean exactly what you do but if you find a word that doesn't resonate with you, bam, you go off on your rant. It's hard to tell what you think IS and what you think is NOT valid within WCK.

1) In TCMAs there is the curriculum --the forms, dummy, drill, kuit, etc. -- which teaches you the various tools (physical actions, tactics, etc.) of a particular method. As an analogy, it is like learning how to play chess (how the pieces move, the rules of the game, etc.)

And I see all kinds of differing interpretations of same.

If someone knows the curriculum (they know how the chess pieces move), they can teach it. Anyone can teach what they know. But just because they can teach you the curriculum (how the pieces move) doesn't mean they can teach you how to be a good chessplayer.

But "they" are teaching more than how the pieces move and the rules. WCK is more than that... It's how, why, when, tactics, general strategy, etc, and how to implement...

If someone can't do something, then they don't really know it. And so, they can't teach it. If they can't do it and you listen to them tell you how to do it, you are being misled.

So here we see the dichotomy.. WCK is not chess.. Sifu teach more than the rules of the game.

On the one hand you say anyone can teach but on the other hand they can't if they can't do it, where IT is whatever you find valid...

And again we only know what you DON'T see as valid and you don't show us what IS valid in WCK...with vague exceptions.

Another vague area is how you speak of applying WCK.. On the one hand you are adamant that control must always be used (2 hands?), yet, not to reach for hands, implying striking, but then you go back to it's not WCK if you just strike.. (I assume this can mean at anytime in any single action or many)..

"The freed hand shoots the line" NOT "The freed hand seeks control.."

No Jeet Kune in WCK? Back that up...

To get good at fighting (or chess) takes lots of practice actually doing it (fighting) -- hundreds of hours of hard, grueling sparring against skilled people. This is true of any sport, athletic activity,etc.

You see only black and white..

Yes you have a valid point here, but you also ignore all the levels of experience between the never fought guy, to the security guy who uses his skill nightly to the LEO who uses his stuff to survive, the occasional fighter to the world champion full contact fighter. . etc, etc... We can learn something from everyone, really, even if it's what not to do..

The people who brought WCK to the West weren't skillful fighters, they were guys who had learned the curriculum. That's what they brought us. But, it is up to us -- through our work (sparring) -- to learn to make it work.

So none, not one had any fighting experience...? None had any real skill? None?

Then according to your own logic they had no business teaching...

Yet they brought over something you have dedicated so much of your time to.. Even now you dedicate much time to it.

I assume it is of some value to you, even though it came from, in your way of thinking, know nothing non fighters who couldn't really do anything, never having been real fighters...etc..

Still you claim the art has merit, although you can't say how that might manifest.

Look.. Either these guys brought over something you value or not.. Stop the schizophrenic duality crap..

Just to teach the system you have to have many attributes, to cultivate the same attributes in the students.. Those attributes do equate to skill.. Maybe not the end of the road but certainly the first few miles.

Clearly you see value in WCK.. So clearly these folks DID have some knowledge AND SKILL of worth, some may still have more value to add.. After all if there was anything there of any value then, one never knows what else could be useful...

Yet, you go out of your way to be rude, mock, insult and belittle these same people, who had/have no skill, no real knowledge according to you, who, you say, "couldn't fight there way out of a wet paper bag," yet some how they reshaped your life..

No, your straight as an arrow.. (note delusional guy eye roll)

[bennyvt]

I tend to call anything that is not striking a block. A tan is a block until it is turned into a strike etc. Both moves are a way to bring the arm back by the quickest way, as you move the elbow instead of the wrist. Its just strange that one doesn't turn the hand when coming in which means that when the incoming punch is "intercepted" it hits on the muscle were as in biu jee because the hand is turned the ulna is the surface that "intercepts" the incoming attack. I was told when learning chum kiu that the palm is facing down as due to the musculature involved the surface is more padded. I have not learnt biu jee so I was wondering if anyone knew why the hand is turned while doing the movement. I was thinking possibily it had to do with the fact that alot of biu jee would be done from more of a pole facing, ie more like a boxer. I was thinking it may cover more surface area or something. I dont want to get into a whole no block thing, just wondering why the difference.

[YungChun]

T already said it..

Occupying or controlling vs taking back the line having lost it (recovery) if I understand his meaning...

The jum TAKES back the line...the ulna and the elbow placement facilitate this.. BJ is mainly about recovery from a lost center--reclaiming correct position.

Not a block..

[t_niehoff]

I tend to call anything that is not striking a block. A tan is a block until it is turned into a strike etc. Both moves are a way to bring the arm back by the quickest way, as you move the elbow instead of the wrist. Its just strange that one doesn't turn the hand when coming in which means that when the incoming punch is "intercepted" it hits on the muscle were as in biu jee because the hand is turned the ulna is the surface that "intercepts" the incoming attack. I was told when learning chum kiu that the palm is facing down as due to the musculature involved the surface is more padded. I have not learnt biu jee so I was wondering if anyone knew why the hand is turned while doing the movement. I was thinking possibily it had to do with the fact that alot of biu jee would be done from more of a pole facing, ie more like a boxer. I was thinking it may cover more surface area or something. I dont want to get into a whole no block thing, just wondering why the difference.

These things (tan,bong, fook) are not blocks -- you are thinking in terms of blocking and striking. As long as you look at WCK that way, you will be lost. Instead, look at WCK from the perspective of first getting contact and then controlling him so set up striking. These (tan, bong, fook, etc.) are part of that second stage, and are "grappling" type movements, actions done when you are already in contact to seek to control your opponent.

[t_niehoff]

Easy tiger...

Okay I stand corrected...

It's just so hard to tell what you think is nonsense and what isn't.. You are so wrapped up in the minutia of semantics.. Folks may mean exactly what you do but if you find a word that doesn't resonate with you, bam, you go off on your rant. It's hard to tell what you think IS and what you think is NOT valid within WCK.

The whole "semantics" thing is bullsh1t.

And I see all kinds of differing interpretations of same.

Yes, you can use different textbooks to teach the same subject.

But "they" are teaching more than how the pieces move and the rules. WCK is more than that... It's how, why, when, tactics, general strategy, etc, and how to implement...

Exactly -- EXACTLY -- and that's the problem. WCK is more than the curriculm, just as chess is more than how the pieces move. When a poor chessplayer tries to teach other people how to play the game well, and that becomes dogma (the way), what happens?

So here we see the dichotomy.. WCK is not chess.. Sifu teach more than the rules of the game.

WCK is not different than any other sport, athletic activity or competitive acitivity in terms of how we learn and develop skill (the same process is involved in all). You are right, sifu do try to teach more than the curriculum -- but they are, for the most part, not competent to teach more. So what you get is the blind leading the blind.

The way you get better at chess is by learning the fundamentals and then playing lots of games against good players. The way you get better at BJJ is by learning the fundamentals and then rolling (playing the game) a lot against skillful grapplers, The way you get better at boxing is by learning the fundamentals and then sparring (playing the game) a lot against good boxers. Do you see a pattern?

How you get good at WCK is by learning the fundamentals and then fighting (using WCK movement) a lot against skillful fighters.

On the one hand you say anyone can teach but on the other hand they can't if they can't do it, where IT is whatever you find valid...

Anyone who knows them can teach you the fundamentals of boxing, but they can't teach you how to box (play the game). You learn that by boxing.

And again we only know what you DON'T see as valid and you don't show us what IS valid in WCK...with vague exceptions.

Do you see how you keep talking about someone SHOWING you? That's part of the whole TMA mindset. It's not about being shown, it is about DOING IT YOURSELF. YOU don't learn to box by being shown how to box; YOU learn to box by DOING IT YOURSELF.

Another vague area is how you speak of applying WCK.. On the one hand you are adamant that control must always be used (2 hands?), yet, not to reach for hands, implying striking, but then you go back to it's not WCK if you just strike.. (I assume this can mean at anytime in any single action or many)..

It's vague to you because you are not doing it. WCK's method is to control while striking. It is impossible to control someone with one arm. So, I typically want to have both my arms/hands in contactwith my opponent. That can take various forms, from one hand holding/pressing/pulling/etc. and the other hitting (two hands in contact with opponent), to both hands holding/pressing/pulling/etc. and striking with the leg, and so on. We are taught in WCK to face squarely so that we can use both hands equally and at the same time, right?

"The freed hand shoots the line" NOT "The freed hand seeks control.."

The kuit you refer to is lut sao jik chung - "when arm is free, charge forward". This refers not to shooting out with the hand, but charging in with your body to control when his arms which obstruct you from moving in are removed, clearing the way for your body.

No Jeet Kune in WCK? Back that up...

Jeet kuen is not a "stop hit". Jeet ( literally "to cut off") kuen (literally, "fist" or "his ability to fight", so jeet kuen refers to cutting off his ability to fight, and that is accomplished by controlling him.

You see only black and white..

Yes you have a valid point here, but you also ignore all the levels of experience between the never fought guy, to the security guy who uses his skill nightly to the LEO who uses his stuff to survive, the occasional fighter to the world champion full contact fighter. . etc, etc... We can learn something from everyone, really, even if it's what not to do..

If I say you only develop skill at swimming by swimming, am I seeing only in black and white?

So none, not one had any fighting experience...? None had any real skill? None?

Sure, some had expereince fighting. Sum Nung, for example, fought all the time.

But, why don't you tell me -- who were the WCK guys who put in hundreds of hours sparring with good fighters? Name them.

Because, you see, if they didn't do that work themselves, they can't have developed significant skills. So, if you can't name one guy who did that work, you can't name one that had good skill.

Then according to your own logic they had no business teaching...

I never said that. I said they were qualified to teach the curriculum, which is what they knew.

Look, I learned to play chess from my father. He was a terrible player. Terrible. But he taught me the game. He didn't teach me to play well. He didn't make me a chessmaster. I learned to play well by playing lots and lots of games against good players. I became a chessmaster through that work. My father didn't make me a chessmaster, and if I had listened to him tell me how to play well, I would never have developed. The same process is involved in athletics.

Yet they brought over something you have dedicated so much of your time to.. Even now you dedicate much time to it.

I assume it is of some value to you, even though it came from, in your way of thinking, know nothing non fighters who couldn't really do anything, never having been real fighters...etc..

Still you claim the art has merit, although you can't say how that might manifest.

Your difficulty is that you don't see the distinction between curriculum (here are the things you need to play the game) and playing the game itself.

Look.. Either these guys brought over something you value or not.. Stop the schizophrenic duality crap..

They did bring over something of value -- the curriculum of WCK. But let's not atribute things to them (great fighting skill) which they didn't have.

Just to teach the system you have to have many attributes, to cultivate the same attributes in the students.. Those attributes do equate to skill.. Maybe not the end of the road but certainly the first few miles.

The attributes you get from learning and practicing the curriculm (forms, dummy, drills, etc.) are superficial. To develop those things, including attributes, into fighitng skills and attributes, you need to fight.

Clearly you see value in WCK.. So clearly these folks DID have some knowledge AND SKILL of worth, some may still have more value to add.. After all if there was anything there of any value then, one never knows what else could be useful...

They had knowledge of the curriculum.

Yet, you go out of your way to be rude, mock, insult and belittle these same people, who had/have no skill, no real knowledge according to you, who, you say, "couldn't fight there way out of a wet paper bag," yet some how they reshaped your life..

I don't put these guys on pedestals. Yes, they brought us the curriculum of WCK. I am thankful for that. I've never said I wasn't. But they didn't have highly or even moderately developed (fighting skill). Most had little to none. Many of them, either intentionally or unintentionally, provided misleading or false information. Some were scoundrels. Some were thieves. Some are frauds. Let's not romanticze them, let's see them and call them what they are.

[k gledhill]

in the section, man sao to the side and then bring the elbow back. I have noticed this is the same move as chun kiu but the elbow is brought in when doing biu jee but is out when doing chun kiu. Just wondering on your thoughts as why bring the elbow in. Hoping to talk vt in the forum for the first time in months.

It starts in SLT doing jum sao...jum sao is an energy , it is the same as pak sao, the inner arm from elbow to hand has displacing energy as it moves to the line , contracting inwards from the elbow...not as a static blocking , rigid action but a fluid connection of a strikikng forwards energy and inwards elbow/arm energy [ergo elbows in during slt training] the idea is to start from the elbows centered to strike from...during a drill we do off body actions to emulate supporting the pole , slashing with a knife ...we cant leave the arm out there can we ? so we train to do as the SLT trains ...recover the fighting arm positions, then we place the wu sao in the elbow area, to ingrain the position for striking from the rear hands....by placing the wu in the crook of the elbow of the lead, we intersect the line as each exchanges its positions...= tut sao in slt is this exchange ...one lead becomes the wu ...repeat for effect....

this idea is in all the forms..regardless of which off body action you do...you bring back the arms to recover your striking positions.

Once you understand the idea of striking from inwards elbows you will answer all your questions .

a simple way of teaching the correct elbow idea was done by WSL can be revealing to those who think they know how to use the centerline idea...

the bg is showing how to recover the grabbed wrist , or trapped elbow or do the tut sao under the arms...if the strike is lifted..

in bg the inside of the arm bone [ulna] is used as a chopping cut with focused on combining rotation speed and stopping at the line as recovery of elbows but attacking / chopping an extended arm /weapon....

[YungChun]

The whole "semantics" thing is bullsh1t.

Yes it is... You should try harder to understand what folks mean and not demean folks for their choice of words..

Yes, you can use different textbooks to teach the same subject.

Right..

But in this case some WCK math texts are saying 2+2=5, the SQR(4)=1, etc... Must be the new WCK math..

WCK is not different than any other sport, athletic activity or competitive acitivity in terms of how we learn and develop skill (the same process is involved in all). You are right, sifu do try to teach more than the curriculum -- but they are, for the most part, not competent to teach more. So what you get is the blind leading the blind.

So we're back to the same dichotomy.. They are/are not qualified to teach... Whatever..

Anyone who knows them can teach you the fundamentals of boxing, but they can't teach you how to box (play the game). You learn that by boxing.

You also learn all kinds of things in the regular training.. Lots of attributes, among other things.. And all students will be limited by the alive skills of the Sifu.. There are a myriad of skills used by the teacher passed onto the student via contact and contact alone.. Only a skilled teacher can do it...and many can't....not even the classical stuff.

Do you see how you keep talking about someone SHOWING you?

You are missing the point and your needle is stuck...

I (we) want to see what YOU do.... Get it?

I (we) already know what (we) do..

It's vague to you because you are not doing it.

No... It's vague because you won't show or even tell what YOU do... That I am afraid is what the intense interest is here... And you have no one to blame but yourself..

After all you are the darling of the forum...

WCK's method is to control while striking.

The kuit you refer to is lut sao jik chung - "when arm is free, charge forward". This refers not to shooting out with the hand, but charging in with your body to control

No time to go into great detail here and there would be no point..

Suffice it to say.. I think you guys have placed too much emphasis on the control aspect.

You seem to be saying the above means, "Upon loss of contact, reestablish contact..."

Doesn't that seem rather goofy? Hand chasey and severely lack economy?

You already had contact..

Range was closed, now the path is clear and you want to do what with it? Recontact? No.

He leaves the line I take the line.. Take the line means FIRE my weapons POWERED by my horse!!! WCK is about an unbroken line of power... Can you fathom that?

The compressed spring, now having nothing to hold it back can do only one thing---release its power.

The WCK I know is about simplicity being the highest level or goal... Jeet kune.. means intercepting fist, or foot, or whatever.. Bruce's concept was to defend with attack, not defend with control, not even close.

JKD seeks to displace the incoming with their counter.. Or to intercept at different stages in different ways but always with attack. This is also seen to some extent in boxing, etc..

There are numerous times in the Kuit where striking is mentioned or implied I can't recall control being mentioned even once. Now, I am all for a good horse, unbalancing, stealing, control whatever you want to call it.. Yes we train it...

However, to suggest that control must happen "first" when we have a clear path to land with full power (in the moment) is just plain bass akwards..

The attacking hand defends, by blasting/attacking not by reaching for control first. In all the stuff I have read from Hawkins I have never seen this emphasis on control first, rather he talks more about attack...

In my own experience attacking directly when the path is clear is how I was taught, how I trained and how I fought. Never felt wrong, but felt very right..

My hand/fist is going to land on them if the path is clear not reach for control first.. Then if I am obstructed, well then that's a new ball game. My fighting style never involved blocks/strikes but rather an attacking mentality.. Still the WCK man must get in range.. Most folks see the long bridge or entry tools, but you don't ever mention them.. From your POV everything starts from some kind of clinch, we have no idea how you got there, and some wonder why you'd clinch.. I think you are grappling and have that in your head over and above the WCK. Perhaps, in a real sense, to you, WCK is grappling.

Jeet kuen is not a "stop hit".

No, it's what I wrote above.. It is an intercepting counter attack of varying kinds..

Calling Robert.. Are you telling me you guys don't see jeet kune as part of WCK?

If I say you only develop skill at swimming by swimming, am I seeing only in black and white?

Yes.. Because there are all levels of swimming.. The backyard swimmer, the beach swimmer, the competitive swimmer, the swimmers who cross the English Channel..etc... You seem to only see one level not many like there are in all things. Not everyone is going to cross the channel or even try.. Yes all swimmers swim but not all waters are calm, nor are all waters life threatening.

I don't put these guys on pedestals.

You don't even give them a chance... You're just rude and nasty.. And you appear to judge some based on pure hearsay...

Although, I bet in person you'd be much more polite. And if so then you should really make an effort to be so here as well..

[k gledhill]

the main idea of the system is to strike when the hands are free....not seek the arms.

chi-sao drills prepare you for possible contact...

chi-sao is based on striking the gaps while maintaining the integrity of the elbows/arms/structure...many insist on ego fighting during chi-sao so lose their own development for feeling superior....

...if I let you hit me and ask you to move me several feet without blocking you ...could you every time with enough force to hurt me AND stop me from hurting you ie trade punches ? ...

.....if I take my arm away suddenly while chi-saoing , do you hesitate to hit me ..chase my arm as it moves away...? part of chi-sao is to create a gap on purpose for your fellow training partner....make them strike you directly rather than fight pressure as untrained would....chest pads are required for impact training on partners who grasp this short force