Shape or Action?

[LFJ]

Well, everything fits into the system I train; the terminology, the methods, the theory, principles - essentially, how it works. All fits together.

Not so smoothly, me thinks. You even have to give some strange explanation of how the terminology you use means something for you other than what it actually means. I can't honestly expect a system that even confuses its terminology to get it right when it comes to what works in fighting. But I say that based on seeing what is actually in the system as well. Of course if you have not experienced a more consistent approach you will be satisfied with what you have been doing. Some people never become disillusioned.

[BPWT]

It doesn't make any sense to say that all of the many different and mutually contradictory approaches stemming from Yip Man are equally valid. YM wing chun is designed to work in one way. This precludes the comfortable option of saying it is all relative and each to their own. In the end this is why we argue.

But are they contradictory approaches, generally speaking?

At heart, the gist of what most of YM's students teach has numerous commonalities.
Taking out minor differences, perhaps some personal emphasis, accounting for 'when' they learned from YM (the stages of is own development), etc, the vast majority of YM's students do see the system working in one way.

When WSL was in the US (I think), giving seminars with HMK, they talked and lectured together and at no point did one of them say the other was wrong, or directly contradict the other. Mutual respect, both recognizing in each other a fellow student from YM, who had learned the system.

Prior to YM's death, many of the 'big names' were training together or at least within the same period. No big arguments occurred regarding one way being right, and all others being wrong - they all saw each other as students of YM. I think it is fair to say that they also saw the way they trained as being essentially the same.

Once YM died... well, things went pear-shaped. People jostling for space, I guess. Jealousy rearing its head. Now on internet forums, one way is correct and everyone else just 'misunderstood' or can't understand properly.

When I see Hawkins Cheung and Duncan Leung teaching, demo'ing, etc, I can see that there are some differences in what they do, compared to each other and also to what I learn. But the vast majority of what I see and hear fits with what I am taught.

Read an article from David Peterson the other month, and his explanations fit with LT's explanations. Watched once some seminar footage from WSL, and again much of what he said is exactly the same as what I've heard from Leung Ting. Met with someone from a non-YM lineage a few years ago, and again, essentially the same ideas within our two systems.

For sure, some people are better than others - some might have been training longer - some might have more experience fighting - some might deliberately stay out of the limelight.

The rest is just marketing. Or someone trying to validate what they learn. LFJ, for example, mention WSL being the 'King of Talking Hands'. No problem in that, he was... .

But how many people take WSL's accomplishments and use it as a way to validate the method they learn - regardless of whether they themselves can achieve what WSL achieved?

[BPWT]

Not so smoothly, me thinks.

I really don't know why you are so p*ssed off with world, LFJ.

You are the person who can't understand the terminology that I am using. Others don't seem to have a problem. I guess because in your WSL lineage you maybe use different terminology. That seems to irritate you, whereas I don't care if you use different terms. Use them all you like. So long as you explain them, it makes for discussion. If we disagree on something, okay... whatever.

We had a similar discussion before, I think. I believe Leung Ting's Cantonese and his knowledge of the language to be accurate - the man majored in Chinese literature, for Heaven's Sake.

But maybe your knowledge of the language is more comprehensive than his. Okay.

LTWT is a consistent system, with a consistent methodology. All the elements fit together nicely. If you think your system/method is more consistent.... Great!

Tell us more! Who do you learn from now? Can we see their teaching, method anywhere?

[LFJ]

The rest is just marketing. Or someone trying to validate what they learn. LFJ, for example, mention WSL being the 'King of Talking Hands'. No problem in that, he was... .

But how many people take WSL's accomplishments and use it as a way to validate the method they learn - regardless of whether they themselves can achieve what WSL achieved?

It's none of that and has nothing to do with me. Put into proper perspective. Someone earns the title King of Talking Hands and another King of SNT while others admit to training just for health benefits yet still get respect as great fighters because of their parental descent. That shows where people's focus is in their approach to their system. All I say about myself in relation to this is which mentality I take up. Validation is of course always down to the individual.

[LFJ]

You are the person who can't understand the terminology that I am using. Others don't seem to have a problem. I guess because in your WSL lineage you maybe use different terminology. That seems to irritate you, whereas I don't care if you use different terms. Use them all you like. So long as you explain them, it makes for discussion. If we disagree on something, okay... whatever.

I guess ultimately it doesn't matter to me what you do, but it is indeed frustrating to know someone accepts something so obviously messed up. I can't wrap my mind around the voluntary ignorance or how people convince themselves of such things.

We had a similar discussion before, I think. I believe Leung Ting's Cantonese and his knowledge of the language to be accurate - the man majored in Chinese literature, for Heaven's Sake.

...and he thinks 'to stick' or 'sticky' means to 'touch and go'? Since he's a native Cantonese speaker, I'll have to conclude that he just doesn't know what he's talking about in Wing Chun.

[BPWT]

All I say about myself in relation to this is which mentality I take up.

Well, you also seem to be saying that you are right, and I am wrong.

I'd be happy for you to simply talk about what you do, and why, without listening to how lineages outside of WSL are wrong.

I guess ultimately it doesn't matter to me what you do, but it is indeed frustrating to know someone accepts something so obviously messed up. I can't wrap my mind around the voluntary ignorance or how people convince themselves of such things.

Voluntary ignorance? C'mon... it is simply about you thinking that you have the best way, and you want to somehow try and prove this. Even though I have no idea what your way is, as you never say who you learn from, and where you train (which would help build up a better picture).

...and he thinks 'to stick' or 'sticky' means to 'touch and go'? Since he's a native Cantonese speaker, I'll have to conclude that he just doesn't know what he's talking about in Wing Chun.

Did I ever say that he said that? No. I said contact can be brief, sometimes touch and go. The point was that contact is held only for as long as it need be. Not held forever, under whatever circumstances.

But okay, if it makes you happy.... Leung Ting doesn't know what he's talking about in Wing Chun. Feeling validated now?

But if you think your Cantonese is better than LT's, write him a letter (in his language), explaining why you think this. I am sure he'd welcome that input.

[LFJ]

Well, you also seem to be saying that you are right, and I am wrong.

I'd be happy for you to simply talk about what you do, and why, without listening to how lineages outside of WSL are wrong.

That has been tried and it goes over your head due to the limits of your exposure. Hence, we are left with only one way to explain it to you, by explaining the faults we see with your system. Nothing personal.

Voluntary ignorance? C'mon... it is simply about you thinking that you have the best way, and you want to somehow try and prove this.

I was talking specifically about your interpretation of chi-kiu and that it doesn't mean what you think it means yet you believe it makes sense in some odd way. I have no such way.

Did I ever say that he said that?

So he does talk about and teach some fighting method of 'sticking to the bridge'?

[Sihing73]

So he does talk about and teach some fighting method of 'sticking to the bridge'?

Are you implying that using bridging is an incorrect method?

So how do you interpret the following Maxim?

Create a bridge if the opponent's bridge is not present; nullify the bridge according to how it is presented.

Curious as to how you view the idea of using a bridge and whether or not it is something you try to achieve-using a bridge.

[Wayfaring]

Can you post a clip of HFY SNT? I would be interested to see it. If possible can you highlight the relevant parts?

SNT:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnKJD...hannel&list=UL

Move catalog:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVCLQ...=ULxnKJDv43CjA

Look for "kiu sau" in the move description.

You can also see two bong sau's - hok bong sau, ying bong sau - in the 3rd section.

[BPWT]

@LFJ

Okay, so if Chi Kiu doesn't mean what I am saying it means, tell me what you think it means.

[LFJ]

Are you implying that using bridging is an incorrect method?

So how do you interpret the following Maxim?

Create a bridge if the opponent's bridge is not present; nullify the bridge according to how it is presented.

Curious as to how you view the idea of using a bridge and whether or not it is something you try to achieve-using a bridge.

Firstly, the way people define 'bridge' as a forearm or some type of physical connection with the opponent doesn't make sense because it can't directly be crossed. It has to first be dealt with in some way, as you would deal with an 'obstruction', not a bridge. A bridge you just cross. A bridge is an open attack line. It is silly to take the analogy to mean you should build a literal bridge by creating physical contact with your opponent which you then have to do something with to make useful. 'Seeking a bridge' like this in fighting is arm-chasing and a good way to get put to sleep.

Secondly, there is no such thing as "bridging". It is only a noun in Chinese, and that is a terrible misinterpretation of the phrase which actually says nothing like that!

It goes; 'Kiu loi kiu seung gwo. Mou kiu ji jou kiu.'

Kiu loi kiu seung gwo = When a bridge appears, cross it.
Mou kiu ji jou kiu = If there is no bridge, create it yourself.

I broke down what this phrase and others actually mean and how they relate to our fighting system in this post, if you want to know my understanding and approach to VT in a nutshell:
http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/foru...&postcount=442

[LFJ]

@LFJ

Okay, so if Chi Kiu doesn't mean what I am saying it means, tell me what you think it means.

It means someone peeked through the window to learn chi-sau and got 'attached to' the word 'sticky' and got themselves into a whole sticky situation when they tried to become a teacher...

Seriously, it has no meaning to me because I don't play sticky hands. Literally, chi means 'to stick', 'sticky', 'wood-glue', or 'birdlime'. Kiu means 'bridge', which if you say refers to the forearm, then chi-kiu means 'to stick to the forearm', or if it just means contact, then it's saying to 'stick to the contact'.

Either way it means to remain attached by adhesion to whatever you call a bridge, and if you are looking to do that for any amount of time, to me, that is arm-chasing and a big mistake that will not work in fighting.

[BPWT]

It means someone peeked through the window to learn chi-sau and got 'attached to' the word 'sticky' and got themselves into a whole sticky situation when they tried to become a teacher...

Seriously, it has no meaning to me because I don't play sticky hands. Literally, chi means 'to stick', 'sticky', 'wood-glue', or 'birdlime'. Kiu means 'bridge', which if you say refers to the forearm, then chi-kiu means 'to stick to the forearm', or if it just means contact, then it's saying to 'stick to the contact'.

Either way it means to remain attached by adhesion to whatever you call a bridge, and if you are looking to do that for any amount of time, to me, that is arm-chasing and a big mistake that will not work in fighting.

Okay, so private, one-to-one lessons with Yip Man means looking through a window.

Your other interpretations don't tally with what I learn either. Not sure who you learn from, but they do things differently, clearly, and don't use definitions common to this art and other CMAs from the South.

But you are pretty close to being The King of Talking Fingers.

Again, it's good you train something you believe in.

[Sihing73]

Firstly, the way people define 'bridge' as a forearm or some type of physical connection with the opponent doesn't make sense because it can't directly be crossed. It has to first be dealt with in some way, as you would deal with an 'obstruction', not a bridge. A bridge you just cross. A bridge is an open attack line. It is silly to take the analogy to mean you should build a literal bridge by creating physical contact with your opponent which you then have to do something with to make useful. 'Seeking a bridge' like this in fighting is arm-chasing and a good way to get put to sleep.

Secondly, there is no such thing as "bridging". It is only a noun in Chinese, and that is a terrible misinterpretation of the phrase which actually says nothing like that!

It goes; 'Kiu loi kiu seung gwo. Mou kiu ji jou kiu.'

Kiu loi kiu seung gwo = When a bridge appears, cross it.
Mou kiu ji jou kiu = If there is no bridge, create it yourself.

I broke down what this phrase and others actually mean and how they relate to our fighting system in this post, if you want to know my understanding and approach to VT in a nutshell:
https://scontent-b-lga.xx.fbcdn.net/...73763823_n.jpg

So then, if I am understanding what you are saying, a bridge does not involve physical contact, is this correct??

For now I will leave it with the question above.

[KPM]

if you want to know my understanding and approach to VT in a nutshell:
https://scontent-b-lga.xx.fbcdn.net/...73763823_n.jpg

Really LFJ? That explains alot!!!!