Page 2 of 12 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 180

Thread: Would SLT be of any use if it was all you ever got to learn?

  1. #16
    Just to offer a different perspective. I know that today there is an established sequence that most people use because that is how most were taught of snt then ck then dummy then bj and that you learn form first then drills then application. But I wonder if this is really how things were done always. I have heard that teaching was usually much more piecemeal and unstructured where you learned movements or techniques first for example stepping with punching and only later learned forms. This is how I was taught. So my perspective is not that the snt is the first form since we learn that form first first but because that form is concerned with dominating the centerline which is plan a or what we try to do first. The ck is the second form not because of the learning sequence but because it is concerned with changing and breaking the centerline which is plan b or what we do if we cannot dominate it. The bj is third because that is plan c of what we do when we cannot dominate or change or break the centerline.

  2. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by GlennR View Post
    Ummmmmmmm........ no
    Yes I agree. No.

  3. #18
    So what do you think will work in an actual fight from SLT then peeps? That question is open to everyone.

    This should be good.

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Baltimore, MD
    Posts
    284
    Someone wrote that ( I paraphrase ) SLT plus footwork can be effective even if u dont learn CK or BJ. What does that mean? Chum kiu and biu gee contain the footwork. What footwork would one be learning if not chum kiu or biu gee? So to me the answer is no. Its not VT without CK or BG. Maybe u would be learning to fight but it would be a wholly different style from VT.

  5. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by trubblman View Post
    Someone wrote that ( I paraphrase ) SLT plus footwork can be effective even if u dont learn CK or BJ. What does that mean? Chum kiu and biu gee contain the footwork. What footwork would one be learning if not chum kiu or biu gee? So to me the answer is no. Its not VT without CK or BG. Maybe u would be learning to fight but it would be a wholly different style from VT.
    I agree on the whole but what footwork are you referring to in BG?

    There is no footwork in SLT only the exercise. In fact SLT with footwork is CK

    Basic VT footwork is learnt in CK and the MYJ. In BG the thinking is different.

    Care to explain further?

  6. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by KungFubar View Post
    what is YGKYM?
    Yee-Gee-Kim-Yeung-Ma, (Character "two" adduction stance.)

    Kind of a high, pigeon toed horse stance.
    Quote Originally Posted by YouKnowWho View Post
    This is 100% TCMA principle. It may be used in non-TCMA also. Since I did learn it from TCMA, I have to say it's TCMA principle.
    Quote Originally Posted by YouKnowWho View Post
    We should not use "TCMA is more than combat" as excuse for not "evolving".

    You can have Kung Fu in cooking, it really has nothing to do with fighting!

  7. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by trubblman View Post
    Someone wrote that ( I paraphrase ) SLT plus footwork can be effective even if u dont learn CK or BJ. What does that mean?
    Why wouldn't it be possible to learn footwork drills outside the forms?
    Quote Originally Posted by YouKnowWho View Post
    This is 100% TCMA principle. It may be used in non-TCMA also. Since I did learn it from TCMA, I have to say it's TCMA principle.
    Quote Originally Posted by YouKnowWho View Post
    We should not use "TCMA is more than combat" as excuse for not "evolving".

    You can have Kung Fu in cooking, it really has nothing to do with fighting!

  8. #23
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    151
    Quote Originally Posted by Kellen Bassette View Post
    Yee-Gee-Kim-Yeung-Ma, (Character "two" adduction stance.)

    Kind of a high, pigeon toed horse stance.
    is it the same as goat stance?

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Baltimore, MD
    Posts
    284
    Quote Originally Posted by Kellen Bassette View Post
    Why wouldn't it be possible to learn footwork drills outside the forms?
    By forms I am assuming u meant just SLT plus footwork drills. SLT plus footwork may be some martial art but it most assuredly is not Yip Man Wing Chun.

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Baltimore, MD
    Posts
    284
    Quote Originally Posted by Graham H View Post
    I agree on the whole but what footwork are you referring to in BG?

    There is no footwork in SLT only the exercise. In fact SLT with footwork is CK

    Basic VT footwork is learnt in CK and the MYJ. In BG the thinking is different.

    Care to explain further?

    Footwork in my opinion includes stepping and using body mechanics to infuse the techniques with power.

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    North London, England
    Posts
    3,003
    Quote Originally Posted by trubblman View Post
    Someone wrote that ( I paraphrase ) SLT plus footwork can be effective even if u dont learn CK or BJ. What does that mean? Chum kiu and biu gee contain the footwork. What footwork would one be learning if not chum kiu or biu gee? So to me the answer is no. Its not VT without CK or BG...
    ...SLT plus footwork may be some martial art but it most assuredly is not Yip Man Wing Chun.
    Oh dear

    I can see that this debate may just go on forever if your view on Wing Chun, and dare I say even Ip Mans style, is as narrow minded as this.
    Ti Fei
    詠春國術

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Baltimore, MD
    Posts
    284
    Quote Originally Posted by LoneTiger108 View Post
    Oh dear

    I can see that this debate may just go on forever if your view on Wing Chun, and dare I say even Ip Mans style, is as narrow minded as this.
    Only if u misapprehend what I say. My point is only to say that there is no Wing Chun without Chum Kiu and Biu Gee - Its all a whole. Even if u do footwork drills and SLT thats not Yip Man Wing Chun without CK and BG. Its a wholly different martial art. I dont think that VT prescribes any particular footwork but I do think it consists of all three forms chi sao and the dummy. I dont know how this is a narrow minded POV. But I ll be happy to hear about Wing Chun practitioners who only learned SLT and did footwork drills.
    Last edited by trubblman; 06-21-2013 at 07:49 AM.

  13. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by trubblman View Post
    By forms I am assuming u meant just SLT plus footwork drills.
    That is correct.
    Quote Originally Posted by YouKnowWho View Post
    This is 100% TCMA principle. It may be used in non-TCMA also. Since I did learn it from TCMA, I have to say it's TCMA principle.
    Quote Originally Posted by YouKnowWho View Post
    We should not use "TCMA is more than combat" as excuse for not "evolving".

    You can have Kung Fu in cooking, it really has nothing to do with fighting!

  14. #29
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    151
    so if SLT is useless by itself, if someone were uber dedicated, how long would it take before anything he learned in WC would be useful or practical for self defense?

  15. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by trubblman View Post
    Only if u misapprehend what I say. My point is only to say that there is no Wing Chun without Chum Kiu and Biu Gee - Its all a whole.
    FYI
    I believe this is

    "BY IP MAN HONG KONG FIRST STUDENT MASTER LEUNG SIONG:
    SLT, Cham Kui, Bill Jee these three forms original is from one 108 SLT form, the reason of separate it to three different forms is for more easier on teaching syllabus purpose."

    See attachment.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •