Lan Sao--does it violate the WC law of economy of motion?

[k gledhill]

My babes are hotter

Oh yeah ! Well take this !

[KPM]

Now stop trying to distract and divert with pretty girls!

I'm still waiting for anyone in the PB lineage to explain to us all here how my description of the Lan Sau application in the Chum Kiu form is "way off the mark", in Graham's words.

Anyone? Anyone?

a.) The applications I remember in Chum Kiu are to transition from arm out straight(ie: Biu Ji?) to a right angle over the top of the opponents arm.

--Not exactly how I would describe it. Section One of the form has a transition motion from Bong to Lan with a pivot. The idea I learned was that this represents how to deflect and dissipate force applied to your bridge/forearm. If your arm is out in front and someone is applying force, if the force is more towards your wrist you pivot with Bong to deflect...if the force is more towards your elbow you pivot with Lan to deflect. In this case Bong and Lan are equivalent techniques, just applied in different directions. While there may be a bit of an arc in the motion because you are pivoting, the force is traveling in a straight line as it is deflected away from you. The Lan can also simply represent having your arm in a lower position when an attack comes at you from the side. You have to quickly pivot and lift up and forward with the Bong to "make a bridge" with the incoming attack to deflect it. Again, there is a bit of an arc due to the fact that you are pivoting. But the line of force is still a straight line. Likewise, the Bong could represent having your hands up when at attack suddenly comes from a low position at your side. So you have to quickly pivot and drop your arm down and outward with a Lan to stop it. Same comments apply.

---Section Two of the form starts with a pivot to the side as you thrust the Lan outward. This is most certainly a straight line with no arc at all. It represents pushing someone in close contact away from you to "make space" so you can deliver a follow on strike...in the case of the form it is a kick.

Well..my understanding in my training is that circular movements(ie: roundhouse punch? uppercut?) are not valued due to the fact that circles or semi circles take longer to transmit.

---I think the guiding concept you are referring to is "economy of motion." But this does not say that there are no arcing or circle motions in Wing Chun. After all, a Huen Sau is a circular motion, is it not? If there is an obstacle stopping you, there are two options. You can force yourself past the obstacle using a straight line path. If the resistance you meet is not that great this will work. If not, you are meeting force with force and violating another Wing Chun concept. Your other option is to simply go around the obstacle using an arcing or circular motion. So which is more economical...to blast through using force and a straight line, or to go around using an arc? In the absence of an obstacle, the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. So most things in Wing Chun will travel on that straight line to follow the concept of economy of motion. Even then, there are a few exceptions.


c.)I've seen a "wan lan sau" in GM Ip Chuns' writings whereby the lan sau is done with both arms. Therefore, it seems as iif there are two traveling yet superimposed arcs with the arms(one on top of the other).

---In Section One the pivoting action back and forth with the arms out in front in a Lan Sau position is typically considered elbow strikes as well as a way to practice a full pivot to each side and train balance. As more of a "secondary application" one could see each arm being independently applied much like the "pressing" Lan already mentioned.

---Hope that helps!

[wtxs]

I could for example, find someone from another VT lineage who could defeat me in a fight... And I could then give him a better understanding and he would be able to kick my arse much more effectively! . You see?

In this "example", your WC really sucks?

[anerlich]

Don't be the last guy in la la land ; )

Can't see la la land emptying any time soon. If anything, the population is increasing.

Somewhere in Germany, they tell me

[Graham H]

Section One of the form has a transition motion from Bong to Lan with a pivot. The idea I learned was that this represents how to deflect and dissipate force applied to your bridge/forearm.

The idea I learned was that this action is for developing timing and syncronicity between the pivot, wu sau, bong sau in one action and the pivot and jut sau in the next. There is no pivoting or stepping in SLT so CK introduces the ideas of using the waist for added power and also how to cut your opponents way. It also defines your "next hit position" after jut sau has been performed and the correct positioning of Bong with your next hit position from Wu Sau. These two action together are Kwan Sau. The common idea of this action is that when somebody presses your forearm you dissipate the "energy" but anybody who has been in a fight knows that that is a ludicrous idea. Assuming any prolonged contact will be made to a certain part of the arm in a real fight is nonsense. Only works WC vs WC. There should be no application attached to this action. Only for improving the mechanics and concept of what Chum Kiu is teaching you. The main concept is to learn how to fight using the simplest means and using the most efficient a direct line of attack.

If your arm is out in front and someone is applying force,

Nonsense

if the force is more towards your wrist you pivot with Bong to deflect...if the force is more towards your elbow you pivot with Lan to deflect.

Nonsense although there is a drill where this is used but it is to exclude our natural behaviour of lifting the forearm instead of rotating from the elbow. Maybe somebody peeped through the window at somebody practicing this drill and because of the arm glue misinterpretation in Wing Chun they thought it must be a fighting application.

In this case Bong and Lan are equivalent techniques,

Nonsense

just applied in different directions. While there may be a bit of an arc in the motion because you are pivoting, the force is traveling in a straight line as it is deflected away from you.

there may be a bit of an arc? Nonsense.

The Lan can also simply represent having your arm in a lower position when an attack comes at you from the side.

So you would block an attack with a Lan Sau?

You have to quickly pivot and lift up and forward with the Bong to "make a bridge" with the incoming attack to deflect it.

How quick is quick enough? Somebody is attacking you maybe even with a weapon and you want to make bridges with them?????? Nonsense.

Again, there is a bit of an arc due to the fact that you are pivoting.

A bit of an arc?

I gave up responding to the rest especially when "The Grandmaster" Ip Chun was mentioned. All in all a very poor representation of Chum Kiu ideas.

BTW I hope that I have made myself sound like a complete trolling w$nker just to satisfy number 73

[BPWT]

Lan Sau means barring arm and so from the name itself, it indicates contact/bridging. (close range bridging, in this case) Many uses. But you're controlling and pressing position.

Here's a clip that illustrates some of the controlling aspects.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1l1u...layer_embedded

Alternatively.... it is just a punching concept from Germany

[KPM]

Well, thanks for the reply Graham. Seems like you think everything is "nonsense." I won't say what you describe is "nonsense" because I am willing to acknowledge that there is more than one way to interpret things. Too bad you aren't so open-minded, because as I have said before, you guys make PB approach to WCK sound very one-dimensional. I think that one of the cool things about WCK is that there ARE different ways to apply the same motion. It makes things very versatile. But when someone can only see ONE and only ONE interpretation as the truth and the light, then he has missed out on some diversity. But anyway.....


The idea I learned was that this action is for developing timing and syncronicity between the pivot, wu sau, bong sau in one action and the pivot and jut sau in the next.

I would agree. But that doesn't rule out or exclude directly applying the technique with the pivot as I described. And where is the Jut Sau? I was referring to section one pivoting between Bong/Wu and Lan/Hand drawn back. That's how most everyone does the form.

There is no pivoting or stepping in SLT so CK introduces the ideas of using the waist for added power and also how to cut your opponents way.

How are you "cutting your opponent away" if you are not actually applying your Bong or your Lan with the pivot??

It also defines your "next hit position"

Again, I don't disagree. But this still does not exclude the idea of actually applying the Bong and the Lan. In application I pivot into Lan to deflect and immediately punch into the opening with the other hand. Or likewise I pivot into Bong to deflect and immediately punch into the opening with the other hand.


The common idea of this action is that when somebody presses your forearm you dissipate the "energy" but anybody who has been in a fight knows that that is a ludicrous idea. Assuming any prolonged contact will be made to a certain part of the arm in a real fight is nonsense.

It doesn't take prolonged contact. It happens in a moment. And the pivot may actually be very small. That's how Bong works. In this application you don't Bong Sau unless the opponent makes you Bong Sau. How does he make you Bong Sau other than applying pressure across your bridge? If you aren't actually using or applying the Bong Sau in your interpretation, they why are you even doing it? You could pivot into the Wu position to set up your strike without even doing the Bong Sau. When I see your videos of PB in action, he is making plenty of contact with his Bong Sau. It isn't just out "flapping in the breeze."



Nonsense although there is a drill where this is used but it is to exclude our natural behaviour of lifting the forearm instead of rotating from the elbow. Maybe somebody peeped through the window at somebody practicing this drill and because of the arm glue misinterpretation in Wing Chun they thought it must be a fighting application.

And maybe someone, in their zest to reinterpret things, forgot about some pretty obvious applications of some moves!


there may be a bit of an arc? Nonsense.

The pivot itself is an arcing motion. Basic physics.


So you would block an attack with a Lan Sau?

If attacked on the mid-level suddenly from the side and I had to pivot and respond quickly, yes. That's no different than a boxer dropping his elbow down to his side to absorb a punch to the ribs.


How quick is quick enough? Somebody is attacking you maybe even with a weapon and you want to make bridges with them?????? Nonsense.

If you intercept their motion to block or deflect and you establish contact between your arm and theirs, that is a "bridge." Don't you know basic WCK terminology?



I gave up responding to the rest especially when "The Grandmaster" Ip Chun was mentioned. All in all a very poor representation of Chum Kiu ideas.

I'm not the one that said anything about Ip Chun. You think my description is a "poor respresentation of Chum Kiu ideas"?? Sorry but yours doesn't sound any better, it does not rule out the applications I have already described, it does not adequately explain why some motions are in the form at all, and it misses out on some obvious applications. Andsince what you do describe is not excluded from how I interpreted the form at all, I dare say you are not justified in saying that I was "way off the mark." But thanks for at least finally making the effort to justify your statement. Even if it was a rather poor justification.

[Graham H]

Ok conversation over. You think that there are many ways of interpreting the actions in the forms then that's fine. You must think that Yip Man had many different versions of Wing Chun that he taught to many different people then. That doesn't sound logical to me but people just making things up through lack of knowledge would create 1000's of different methods. It has hasn't it?

[guy b.]

Sure, but that does not change my opinion.

Like I have said before, no one lineage or approach has the "secret" ingredient or the one and only real, true Wing Chun. Every lineage has someone who can make that approach work for them.

Most wing chun doesn't work at all. Some lineages work to some extent, most do not.

Wing Chun is, or can be, a highly personal journey offering something for each person.
Those who espouse their way as the only way either are, IMHO, deluded or have separated themselves from reality. If there was a single "one way" which was superior than those doing that "one way" would be so superior that they could silence all others. However, that is not the case.

Wing chun is not relative and personal. It is a designed system and it only works in one way. Having a working system does not automatically mean that a practitioner will trounce all others but it certainly increases the chances, especially against people with a flawed interpretation of the same system. Wing chun does not have competitions though so you really need to go and see teachers if you are interested in their approach. Or listen to forum posts without a defensive mindset.

I think it is great to be proud of ones lineage and certainly one should respect and honor their Sifu. However, when one disparages all who disagree with their approach then one shows themselves to be somewhat shortsighted as well as a fool.

There is nothing wrong in disparaging foolish approaches to wing chun

[BPWT]

Again back to "applications". I have, yet to see anyone able to actually apply their applications against a non compliant opponent......

Why do you guys train the Bong in your Bong/Lap partner drill so much, if Bong cannot be applied?

[Graham H]

It must be hard for Keith especially if he has that niggly little feeling that what he practices/teaches falls right into that category of misinterpreted misinformed Wing Chun.

[BPWT]

I didn't say it cannot be applied.

KPM said:

Or likewise I pivot into Bong to deflect and immediately punch into the opening with the other hand.

And you replied by saying:

Again back to "applications". I have, yet to see anyone able to actually apply their applications against a non compliant opponent

If I misunderstood, are you saying that Bong can be applied to deflect and then you punch into the opening?

It makes sense, as in the PB video clips he often does this (uses Bong to clear a line). I ask as most WC/VT/WT lineages do the same thing. The only difference I see is that in the PB clips he is not forming Bong due to pressure on the arm, but usually forming it himself to shunt a punch off its line of attack (which is a way of deflecting).

[KPM]

Ok conversation over. You think that there are many ways of interpreting the actions in the forms then that's fine. You must think that Yip Man had many different versions of Wing Chun that he taught to many different people then. That doesn't sound logical to me but people just making things up through lack of knowledge would create 1000's of different methods. It has hasn't it?

WCK 101....Wing Chun is a conceptually based system. Movements can have more than one application. Take the punch for example. You throw a straight punch with the elbow down. Was that a strike to the face? Or was that an "excluding punch" that deflected the opponent's punch by cutting over it...essentially a Jum motion? You throw a punch that rises from a lower position inside to outside. Was that a punch thrown at a moving opponent? Or was that an excluding punch that intercepted a strike coming at you in your outside zone...essentially a Biu motion?

You get a little challenge to your ideas and you want to end the conversation? Maybe you still need to expand your own understanding of WCK a bit. Don't get me wrong. I was perfectly willing and ready to read about an alternative explanation for those moves in Chum Kiu that I hadn't thought about. I didn't get that from you. What I got was a dismissal as "nonsense" of things that are pretty standard WCK, and an alternative explanation that was rather incomplete and not that different that what I already knew.

Bottomline.....I think you "jumped the gun" a bit and exaggerated to a large extent with your "way off the mark" comment and you aren't willing to admit it. But that's Ok.

[BPWT]

What I am saying is, taking movements from the forms as specific "applications" and trying to apply those "applications" is BS.
Of course Ving Tsun has bong sao and it is used in fighting, but not as an "application" from the forms. We don't train "applications" from the forms in WSLPBVT.

I don't think people are suggesting that something in a form has a specific (that is to say, singular) application.

But if you have Bong Sau with a pivot in a form, and you use Bong Sau with a pivot in a fight - you are applying the motion you learnt from the form.

Even if the "application" has differences to the form-specific version - maybe its the body method you apply, maybe it's the idea of the angling, maybe it's the strategy behind the motion.

[KPM]

BPWT, I predict that we are about to see a lot of "double talk" to explain away inconsistencies in their comments to avoid being seen as having "foot in mouth" disease, just as we have seen on prior threads.

KPM said:

Or likewise I pivot into Bong to deflect and immediately punch into the opening with the other hand.

And you replied by saying:

Again back to "applications". I have, yet to see anyone able to actually apply their applications against a non compliant opponent

If I misunderstood, are you saying that Bong can be applied to deflect and then you punch into the opening?

It makes sense, as in the PB video clips he often does this (uses Bong to clear a line). I ask as most WC/VT/WT lineages do the same thing. The only difference I see is that in the PB clips he is not forming Bong due to pressure on the arm, but usually forming it himself to shunt a punch off its line of attack (which is a way of deflecting).