HFY History

[tc101]

I hear what you're saying, but tell that to Apple when they see Samsung phones

To be sure, hard work and constant training is what yields results in any martial art - but people can certainly take and incorporate others methods, and those methods are what you train and put hard work into.

But I don't disagree with you - these days if people teach openly (publicly) they shouldn't be worried about sharing with video, online posts, offering open seminars, etc. If someone really is that protective then they shouldn't be teaching publicly, just train in secret with family (and hope they have no black sheep in the family).

The analogy of different phones or operating systems or formulas is an example of the wrong thinking that keeps the information myth alive. The information is form not substance. I see wing chun like boxing as a learned skill. Skill is the substance. The skill itself cannot be transmitted but only learned through practice just like conditioning can't be transmitted but you develop through your efforts. Information is just a way of helping to direct your efforts to develop skill. Most of the information is nonessential. To use the old zen metaphor information is the finger and skill/conditioning is the moon.

[Wayfaring]

But I don't disagree with you - these days if people teach openly (publicly) they shouldn't be worried about sharing with video, online posts, offering open seminars, etc. If someone really is that protective then they shouldn't be teaching publicly, just train in secret with family (and hope they have no black sheep in the family).

Or you have like this case, where a sifu who learned his family arts in secret growing up starts to teach in public then sets a new tradition over time for how information is released to the public.

Of course everyone can have an opinion on that. As opinions don't really cost you anything.

[JPinAZ]

Regarding video footage from HFY, what I would like to see (to try and improve my own understanding) is something that demos/highlights (say, in Chi Sao), how HFY practitioners utilise their ideas/concepts/methods. E.g. three connecting bridges, the time, space, energy formula, four gates reaction method, etc.

I agree and I think some application videos may be coming out at some point in the not-too-distant future to show HFY in motion. But that is different than actual 'instructional' videos which I am pretty sure won't be released at any point
(I mentioned instructional because even in an application demo, it's hard to convey the ideas you list above without in-depth explanations)

So for me, this is quite complex language (compared to how most WCK guys describe their art and its training), so I wonder if this is a) just describing what others do too, but just using different terminology, or b) what HFY teaches is indeed something quite different to, say, the Leung Ting Wing Tsun that I learn.

I do agree, without direct experience some of the HFY terms/concepts might not have a lot of meaning to an 'outsider' and may sound 'complex'. I know they did to me before I really got into the system training. From my POV, the terms are used simply because they makes the most sense to our members. And, as well all know, direct translations typically don't do the older terms justice. But that doesn't always help someone outside our lineage in some cases, which is why we as a family try be open and answer questions to the best of our ability on this forum and elsewhere.

To your second point, I would say it's more of 'b' in most cases. Please remember, most of our senior members already had many years experience & rich backgrounds in other WC lineages before training in HFY, and they all attest that differences are easy to identify once you have direct experience in the system (and that it's not just different words for the same concepts). To look at something or read about it only gets you so far. I agree, videos do help give a better idea, but in the end, nothing trumps hands-on interaction (no, not trying to sell anything either - it's just the nature of ANY conceptual martial art system! )

From the short video clip KPM linked to, things didn't look too different to WCK from other lineages - though at first glance things like more like TWC as zuti car noted.

So it would be great to see some video footage that really highlights the differences if there are differences. Hoping your plans to share work out

haha, me too
-------------
As for Sifu Hobbs, I had the pleasure of meeting him when he came to the states to train with my first Sifu Richard Lowenhagen here in Arizona. And, I also was able to meet up with him when several of our members visited London during a bigger Europe trip some years back. He seemed pretty knowledgeable in wing chun & martial arts in general - as well as being a nice enough guy. Not having any experience in Lun Gai's Wing Chun myself I can't really speak for what Mark has learned or from whom, but I do agree that some of what he talks about in that interview does sound a lot like HFY concepts. Not really sure that helps any..

[Firehawk4]

Does Hung Fa Yi have anything to do with the Heaven and Earth Society at this website
http://www.imperialchina.org/Qing_Dynasty.html#taiping

[anerlich]

I've been training in TWC since 1989, and had the pleasure of meeting and comparing styles (briefly) with HFY student duende from this forum some years ago.

There are some similarities between the two systems, but the differences way outnumber them. If you are a TWC guy and think differently I suggest you reserve judgement until you actually meet an HFY practitioner, because you are unlikely to know what you are on about.

Most of the angst about HFY on this forum and elsewhere was the fault of Benny Meng IMO.

Now, back to watching ADCC ...

[Savi]

I've been training in TWC since 1989, and had the pleasure of meeting and comparing styles (briefly) with HFY student duende from this forum some years ago.

There are some similarities between the two systems, but the differences way outnumber them. If you are a TWC guy and think differently I suggest you reserve judgement until you actually meet an HFY practitioner, because you are unlikely to know what you are on about.

Most of the angst about HFY on this forum and elsewhere was the fault of Benny Meng IMO.

Now, back to watching ADCC ...

Absolutely Andrew and thank you for sharing your experience.

Some branches of Wing Chun have more in common with other branches, and less in common to others. No one is really arguing against that point. There is no doubt that similarities can be identified throughout the branches of Wing Chun, but direct experience is the required key to see the differences. Third party observations are valid but can often become invalid the deeper one goes into given subject matter. Surface knowledge versus intimate knowledge. As you have shared from your direct in-person interaction, the differences far outweigh the similarities. I concur as well for the amount of similarities to me is quite superficial and minimal from an insider’s POV.

From my experience, there is as much in common with what I train to TWC as there is respectively to other Opera Society Wing Chun branches. Sifu Billy Lau stated it quite clearly here regarding the relationships of different WC branches, that the time of the 1850’s is when Wing Chun was already divided, primarily looking at Wing Chun from within the two main groups being the Opera Society and the Boxers Societies. Prior to the 1850’s, if we went a few generations further back in time Wing Chun would have had to have looked and functioned in much more similar fashion than in the 1850’s and with less groups ultimately going back to the first generation and only one Wing Chun. Obviously, the theory is that with each passing generation the more each branches’ WC art changes and adapts to each audience.

I concur with Sifu Billy Lau’s sentiments in that I too do not see much in similarities with my Wing Chun to any other branch even on a “more or less” scale. Why? It takes one to know one.

[Savi]

If we were to look at some technical comparisons of the art, as Sifu Lau also posted here, all Wing Chun has Bong Sau. Here are the two paragraphs from his post (emphasis/formatting added):

”1. In the HFY system we primarily have 3 Bong Sao's within the 3 timezones in Time and Space. From my perspective the TWC Bong Sao uses a straight wrist, and if you compare it to the HFY Ying Bong Sao it looks similar in terms of looks in nature of shape. So if you say we look similar yes we do look similar in this way, but I also can see a big big difference when I apply the 3 timezones of time and space interaction.

2. From the other Wing Chun systems they consist of a Bong Sao with a bent wrist and if you compare it to the HFY Crane (Hok) Bong Sao it also looks similar in terms of looks in nature of shape, but again I see a big big difference after learning HFY Wing Chun's Time Space and Energey in the 3 timezones interaction. So in a way, we also look like the other Wing Chun Systems in the HFY Crane (Hok) Bong Sao in terms of so called similarities, but at the same time there are major varying differences that I see.

3. However, in the HFY system we also have a Lan Bong Sao (which is different than Lan Sao).

When a different lineage Wing Chun System doesn't matter if it's TWC or all other WCK system, some do the bong sao "this way", or do it "that way", but in HFY we do not look at the technical standpoint of how to do the bong sao, but instead we must identify which time zone in time and space before we apply the 3 different Bong Sao's.

The nature of the application and execution in the HFY 3 timezones is very different. In the past posts, you only mention the similarities when you see TWC and HFY, but based on my personal experience interacting with TWC people, YM Wing Chun and all other lineages I basically can identify not only the similarities, but I can also see the big big "differences" after studying the HFY System in 3 timezone approach.”

Essentially, we use the straight wrist Bong Sao, bent wrist Bong Sao, and Lan Bong Sao – each one having a different purpose and nature yet all three maintaining technological consistency in relation to HFY’s 3 Connecting Bridges, Heaven Human Earth, and Time Space Energy formulaic parameters. The focus goes beyond the shapes of techniques to understand why the differences outweigh superficial similarities.

Beyond the reality of this forum, many martial artists have agreed with this reasoning after genuine exchanges of kung fu that the “meat and potatoes” is really where the truth of the matters exist. One Sifu from Chu Shon Tin lineage recognized this truth and sought to learn Hung Fa Yi Wing Chun Kuen instead. Dale Vits of TWC now studies Hung Fa Yi Wing Chun as well. My first Wing Chun Sifu was a certified Senior Level Instructor of the VTAA and came to HFY. There are many more martial artists with prior kung fu backgrounds that come to learn HFY and testify to the art. There are a LOT more differences to be understood and more importantly why there are differences – which can be explained, experienced, and validated, on a technical level.

[Savi]

Platform Differences…

In the mid 1800’s era, two ancestral groups of Wing Chun can be identified: those from the Opera Society and those from the Boxer Societies (plural). Through public information it is said that Leung Yi Tai of the Opera Society brought the Luk Dim Bun Gwan onto the Red Boats and it is conjectured that he brought it from Chi Sim Weng Chun.

In the Hung Gun (Red Bandanna) Boxer Society, Hung Gun Biu of the Jung Yi Tong Boxers taught the long pole (Luk Dim Bun Gwan) but also the short pole (Hung Fa Yi Lung Fu Hung Mun Saat Gwan: aka Dragon Tiger Pole) too. The long pole focuses on the use of one end while the short pole uses both ends for combat. Video of the HFY Dragon Tiger Pole: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=UtBksxxEW6Y

As an additional contrast, Pao Fa Lien Wing Chun’s Dai Dung Fung from the Boxer Societies also has a multitude of weaponry incorporated into this system beyond the Double Butterfly Knives and Long Pole.

Regarding having SNT/CK/BJ, now we see from the Snake Crane Wing Chun Mun that they also have the three SNT/CK/BJ forms too rather than one long form. One thing to note about Boxer Society Wing Chun is that both Pao Fa Lien Wing Chun and Hung Fa Yi Wing Chun similarly contain THREE open hand forms of SNT/CK/BJ – again not one long form.

One unique parallel within the Boxer Society Wing Chun is that not only are there the Wooden Man Dummy, Double Butterfly Swords, and Pole(s), but there is also the Weapons + Wooden Dummy forms. The weapons assortment within the Boxer Society Wing Chun is not the same assortment as in (the more widely spread) Opera Society Wing Chun.

There are not any other Wing Chun lineages professing Qigong connections to Omei except Yik Kam. The thing is, Omei Qigong is not designed for combat. Combat Qigong is very different than Health Qigong. Omei Qigong is purposed for health. This would make sense though that if Leung Yi Tai also learned Omei Qigong it would have been to enhance his health and ability to sing the female role in the Opera Troupe.

From the thread about the HFY seminar in Arizona, it was written:

HFY’s Saam Mo Kiu (红花義天人地三摩橋©) - Three Connecting Bridges philosophy describes to us that in the process of developing structure, there will be variances in one’s presentations of structure. Honing one’s body alignments to be in accordance with the HFY Time Space Energy Formula is progressive in nature (wandering to focus state). Ultimately, HFY Structural Energy is the only instrument specifically designed to work with the HFY Time Space Energy Formula. It is important to realize HFY structure cannot be removed from its spatial constructs without creating more distortions in the process. The HFY Time Space Energy Formula is the representation of this relationship. It is here where we begin to learn and understand how to stick in Chi Sao through HFY Structural Energy (above and beyond the attribute of sensitivity) and use for Sparring, which we learn through intimate knowledge of the HFY Advanced Siu Nim Tao form.

The purpose of using Four Gates Theory in Chi Sao (the Four Gates Reaction Method (紅花義四門應樁法©)) is to enable the person’s ability to stand his/her ground to meet and neutralize direct-force attacks by using HFY structural energy. This facilitates one's ability to displace any residual energy away from the Centerline (Loi Lau Hoi Sung) and into the gates. As a result, the person can maintain the original position at the onset, obey the boundaries of Time and Space, and capitalize on advantages. The alternative would be to step away from where he/she originally starts to dissipate/redirect what energy may still remain from an attack. However, moving away from one’s original position equates to a loss of any potential advantages that could have been gained otherwise.

So for me, this is quite complex language (compared to how most WCK guys describe their art and its training), so I wonder if this is a) just describing what others do too, but just using different terminology, or b) what HFY teaches is indeed something quite different to, say, the Leung Ting Wing Tsun that I learn.

I can tell you unequivocally that the way Chi Sao operates in HFYWCK is absolutely different too. I don’t mean that it is just a different way to do the “same thing” as others. It can be an entire system unto itself! The write up I did which you can read here is a basic overview on the first layer of the first mainframe/tier of just the Four Gates Tan Bong Fuk Chi Sao category. My write up does not explain the processes of other Wing Chun’s Chi Sao methods at all (again, not a different way to do the “same things”). It is extensive in breadth and depth and contains many technologies unique unto itself that stem from the weapons used in the system.

Our Hung Fa Yi Wing Chun language of Time Space and Energy is genetically rooted in our weapons technology. The Hung Gun Wui Jung Yi Tong Boxer's Wing Chun technology - including HFY Chi Sao - are extensions from HFY's weapons technology of the HFY Seong Wup Dip Dao (Double Butterfly Swords), HFY Luk Dim Bun Gwan (Six Half Point Pole), and the HFY Lung Fu Hung Mun Saat Gwan (Dragon Tiger Pole). The language of Time Space and Energy is the gateway into understanding the technology of HFY.

[BPWT..]

I can tell you unequivocally that the way Chi Sao operates in HFYWCK is absolutely different too. I don’t mean that it is just a different way to do the “same thing” as others. It can be an entire system unto itself! ...My write up does not explain the processes of other Wing Chun’s Chi Sao methods at all (again, not a different way to do the “same things”). It is extensive in breadth and depth and contains many technologies unique unto itself that stem from the weapons used in the system.

Our Hung Fa Yi Wing Chun language of Time Space and Energy is genetically rooted in our weapons technology. The Hung Gun Wui Jung Yi Tong Boxer's Wing Chun technology - including HFY Chi Sao - are extensions from HFY's weapons technology of the HFY Seong Wup Dip Dao (Double Butterfly Swords), HFY Luk Dim Bun Gwan (Six Half Point Pole), and the HFY Lung Fu Hung Mun Saat Gwan (Dragon Tiger Pole). The language of Time Space and Energy is the gateway into understanding the technology of HFY.

Thanks for the post, Savi - and for linking to the pole form.

Could you maybe write a post explaining the actual training methods (or just one or two of them) for HFY Chi Sau?

Maybe - in relation to the thread that Alan Orr started where I ask about HFY Kiu Sau - explain how you approach Kiu Sau in your system. I mean, specifically what some of the Kiu Sau work is and how you train it with a partner, what attributes that gives and how that relates to usage against an opponent.

I'm trying to get a better picture. Wayfaring said that your Kiu Sau is part of a three component platform, but didn't go any further than that in explaining it in relation to what I am asking above.

[Savi]

Thanks for the post, Savi - and for linking to the pole form.

Could you maybe write a post explaining the actual training methods (or just one or two of them) for HFY Chi Sau?

Maybe - in relation to the thread that Alan Orr started where I ask about HFY Kiu Sau - explain how you approach Kiu Sau in your system. I mean, specifically what some of the Kiu Sau work is and how you train it with a partner, what attributes that gives and how that relates to usage against an opponent.

I'm trying to get a better picture. Wayfaring said that your Kiu Sau is part of a three component platform, but didn't go any further than that in explaining it in relation to what I am asking above.

Hello BPWT and thank you for your questions. When I look at your questions they seem simple at first but to answer them can become quite extensive and lengthy in explanation. I’m not objecting to answering them but it requires a LOT on my part to do your questions justice simply because there is just an enormous amount of information in HFY on this topic. Some of your questions are specific to Kiu Sao and/or Chi Sao while what you ask about those topics can be applied across the board too.

I can most certainly explain to you how I train and teach my todai on a personal level, but a lot of context is required upfront to have the right understanding and perspective. On top of that, the topic is not as straight forward as you might think… I think some additional questions should be addressed before discussing the end result or how to get there. It would be helpful to discuss the language of this technical conversation first. Chi Sao in Hung Fa Yi Wing Chun Kuen is “partitioned” into three mainframes as Wayfaring mentioned to you. Also you have read before in my HFY Four Gates Tan Bong Fook Chi Sao write up, those three categories are:

1) Hung Fa Yi Tan Bong Fook Chi Sao (紅花義攤膀伏粘手法©)
2) Hung Fa Yi Kiu Sao Chi Sao (紅花義橋手粘手法©)
3) Hung Fa Yi Chi Kiu Chi Sao (紅花義粘橋粘手法©)

All three categories are a part of the Chi Sao system in HFY. Kiu Sao is a part of Chi Sao. Chi Kiu is a part of Chi Sao. However, the referencing of Kiu Sao, Chi Kiu, and/or Chi Sao is not loosely applied and is not abstract in nature either.

Do you distinguish (Kiu Sao) from (Chi Kiu) from (Chi Sao)?
If so, to what degree are they different from one another?
What is Kiu Sao and the nature of Kiu Sao?
What is Chi Kiu and the nature of Chi Kiu?
What is Chi Sao and the nature of Chi Sao?

In HFY, each one represents different timeframes of combat, different toolsets and tactical applications, and yet each category is independent (though can be circumstantially interdependent) as self-containing sub systems within the Chi Sao umbrella. From a “syllabus” point of view, there are literally dozens of layers of problem solving drills designed to test and challenge every move in each category.

As an analogy, think of Mathematics and how within the body of Mathematics there is also algebra, geometry, calculus, trigonometry, etc… HFY’s “Kiu Sao” is very much like that. There are different forms of Kiu Sao in HFY, and each form or “subject” has its own layers and sub layers to understand. The same parallel applies to HFY Chi Kiu and HFY Tan Bong Fook Chi Sao. The consistency within all three is they are all governed by the foundation and core of HFYWCK. The core is the context whilst the various technologies serve as the content.

Therefore, Hung Fa Yi’s Kiu Sao/Chi Kiu/Chi Sao are not general terms describing “pairs of actions or energies” as in animal-style based kung fu would describe Kiu Sao. Nor are they inter-changable terms. Rather, what is being referenced with Kiu Sao/Chi Kiu/Chi Sao is an array of complex technologies intended to address a multitude of challenges for long/mid/short ranges of combat.

Hopefully you don't find this confusing. One of the questions you asked is how HFY Kiu Sao training is approached. I can address this question from a Saan Sao point of view and a system point of view. Just as I mentioned a couple of posts prior that our HFY ancestor Hung Gun Biu also used the Saan Sao method and the System method...

But if I were to just respond by directly answering you without providing the genetic context that surrounds and permeates the technical side of things I actually think it would be pretty irresponsible for me to ignore such things. Generally, I am a firm believer that when exploring a particular matter it is logical to know as best as possible what I am really looking at and what it is I am about to give my time and energy towards. I find it best to remove any potential mis/pre-conceptions prior to getting into serious subject matter.

Also, I am pretty well-versed in Moy Yat Ving Tsun Kuen Faat as that is what I studied, practiced, and taught for several years prior to cross training in Hung Fa Yi Wing Chun Kuen. As it was taught to me, the learning of Chi Sao followed this roadmap:

Moy Yat Ving Tsun Chi Sao stages of development method:
• Dan Chi Sao; a single arm rolling pattern involving Fuk/Tan Sao, Dim Jeong/Jut Sao, Punch/Bong Sau.

• Puhn Sau; drilling the basic double arm rolling mechanics of the Tan, Bong, and Fuk Sao.

• Luk Sao; develop the ability to deliver equal energy and reaction in both arms on every roll. Detect inequalities in the bridges

• Jow/Jip Sao/Daan Da; training to track center, learn to connect and disconnect bridges, apply single and double hand strikes

• Tsui Mah; comprehensively learn how to apply proper footwork for superior angulations with applications of Chi Sao to create openings and inequalities in the bridges and facing

This roadmap is pretty linear/straightforward in formulating the engine and dynamics of Chi Sao in the Moy Yat method. Is this in any way similar to how you learned Chi Sao? There is not much in common at all with this to HFY methodology, content or otherwise, aside from having Tan Bong and Fook.

[zuti car]

Platform Differences…

In the mid 1800’s era, two ancestral groups of Wing Chun can be identified: those from the Opera Society and those from the Boxer Societies (plural). Through public information it is said that Leung Yi Tai of the Opera Society brought the Luk Dim Bun Gwan onto the Red Boats and it is conjectured that he brought it from Chi Sim Weng Chun.

In the Hung Gun (Red Bandanna) Boxer Society, Hung Gun Biu of the Jung Yi Tong Boxers taught the long pole (Luk Dim Bun Gwan) but also the short pole (Hung Fa Yi Lung Fu Hung Mun Saat Gwan: aka Dragon Tiger Pole) too. The long pole focuses on the use of one end while the short pole uses both ends for combat. Video of the HFY Dragon Tiger Pole: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=UtBksxxEW6Y

As an additional contrast, Pao Fa Lien Wing Chun’s Dai Dung Fung from the Boxer Societies also has a multitude of weaponry incorporated into this system beyond the Double Butterfly Knives and Long Pole.


One unique parallel within the Boxer Society Wing Chun is that not only are there the Wooden Man Dummy, Double Butterfly Swords, and Pole(s), but there is also the Weapons + Wooden Dummy forms. The weapons assortment within the Boxer Society Wing Chun is not the same assortment as in (the more widely spread) Opera Society Wing Chun.

There are not any other Wing Chun lineages professing Qigong connections to Omei except Yik Kam. The thing is, Omei Qigong is not designed for combat. Combat Qigong is very different than Health Qigong. Omei Qigong is purposed for health. This would make sense though that if Leung Yi Tai also learned Omei Qigong it would have been to enhance his health and ability to sing the female role in the Opera Troupe.

Can you offer any references , sources , referent institution who conducted research or this is just "style history"

[BPWT..]

Thanks for taking the time to write a detailed reply, Savi.

And I agree that often topics like this are broad – and so not easily answered in a quick or even simple way. So yes, things are not often ‘straight forward.’

You asked a few questions, but I’m not sure if you’re asking them of me (from a Wing Tsun perspective), or if you were asking them of yourself – to better explain what you said next. I’ll answer them too, as maybe it helps.

Do you distinguish (Kiu Sao) from (Chi Kiu) from (Chi Sao)? If so, to what degree are they different from one another?

Yes and no, LOL. We give them separate names (of course), but they are inter-connected and overlap. For example, Chi Sau for us is also an umbrella term, and Kiu Sau falls under that. Could you have Kiu Sau outside of Chi Sau – yes (depending on how you’re defining Chi Sau or what specifically you’re working at the time).

You can have Chi Kiu outside of the training platform of Chi Sau (e.g. in sparring), but maybe it is fair to say you can’t have Chi Sau without Chi Kiu (in our lineage’s training methods).

And so on… the more a person thinks about it, the more confusing it can sometimes be. ☺ Maybe, for my own benefit, I should create a chart that shows the overlaps, etc.

But regarding Chi Sau, for example, for us that would include Dan Chi Sau, Lap Sao work (the cycle itself, but inserted attacks), training from Poon Sau in a set manner (sections), Gor Sau (training from Poon Sau but then not in a set manner). There is also a crossover between our Lat Sau work and Chi Sau too.

What is Kiu Sao and the nature of Kiu Sao?

The basic definition for us would be ‘bridge arm’, usually meaning from the hand to the elbow (but sometimes also including up to the shoulder). The nature of Kiu Sau in our system, however, would be how we use this to control – either the opponent’s bridge, or their body (via their bridge or independent of it), rather like was seen in the Alan Orr video that was posted https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iM3V...=youtube_gdata

In the latter, we would maybe just talk about Kiu methods, though how you get to them would be via Kiu Sau (ummm.. does that make sense?) I mean you might control someone’s center via their bridge, or you might not do so via their bridge arm but instead via their body (perhaps more like in Hendrik’s recent video on the dummy, where he has body contact).

But from a WT perspective, this is where things get tricky. And it is why I asked the CSL WC people (Alan and Chris), and yourself and Wayfaring from HFY, about the Kiu Sau methods in your respective systems, and how you use them.

I say tricky, because in the Wing Tsun system there are Kiu Sau methods, but they are not formalized in an obvious sense. Wayfaring said, “I mean its no skin off my nose if you don't want to explain Leung Ting's Kiu sau methods. I don't know anywhere else there's a writeup on them either, do you?”

Well, I’m happy to talk about them, but I can say he won’t find a write-up on them elsewhere – because like I say they are not listed directly.

There is no list of Kiu Methods of Key Words within the curriculum. So no syllabus that directly references things like press, swallow, slice, etc,... or lead, leak, float, etc,... or fold, sheer, pull, etc.

The Kiu Sau methods in Leung Ting’s Wing Tsun system are found within the Chi Sau sections, and then also trained in the Hong Kong Lat Sau teachings (following the progression of forms, Chi Sau, Lat Sau, Sparring).

There are many ways of training and looking at the Wing Tsun Chi Sau sections (and the various cycles that make up each individual section), but from a Kiu Sau perspective I would describe it in the following way:

All of the sections start with Poon Sau (rolling with Bong, Tan and Fook), and their ‘starting’ bridge positioning is different depending on the particular section you train (e.g. via Bong, Tan and Fook, I either have my arms, or an arm, in inside or outside bridge positions, and with an ‘on top’ or ‘under bridge position’).

From these various positions, depending on what you’ve given from your training partner (e.g. the type of attack that comes in, its direction, its pressure/amount of force, its range in relation to how far in the other person moved or how you have moved), there will different bridging responses.

The responses are typically looking off load force, or redirect, or jam, or free up, etc.

These responses are not necessarily set in stone (there’s more than one way to skin a cat), but certain some methods work better than others in certain circumstances. The key, for us, is that the positioning you have and the force you receive, the angle of the attack that comes, and the distancing involved, etc, will determine your response.

You could say it determines your ‘Kiu Sau’ response. The response might be, to borrow terms from other lineages, to press, swallow, slice; or lead, leak, float; or fold, sheer, pull, and so on.

You can mix up the various cycles within the Chi Sau sections to make things a bit more free flowing and to challenge how you deal with the bridge work, and then you can train Gor Sau to be totally free – but in either case you’ll be using the above methods (or you should be). The same applies to the Lat Sau work – you should be taking and using these key lessons learned.

If you learn the sections you can see/find the Kiu Sau Methods and Key words that over lineages use. The question people might ask is why did Leung Ting not list them directly within his syllabus? I don’t know, but maybe he thought it was easier to create the Chi Sections that have these things embedded in them. The more I study and train, the more I find embedded within the system’s forms, drills, etc.

In HFY do you have a similar way of teaching Chi Sau, Kiu Sau, etc (sections or programs) or do you have, like Robert Chu, a list of the various methods? Or both? ☺


What is Chi Kiu and the nature of Chi Kiu?

For us, Chi Kiu is contact with the opponent's bridge, as opposed to Lei Kiu, which would mean no contact with the bridge). Wing Tsun wants to utilize Chi Kiu rather than Lei Kiu, as it is safer (or as Alan Orr said in the clip above, you want to strike the opponent while reducing his chance to strike you). So the nature of Chi Kiu often involves Kiu Sau.

[Hendrik]

Can you offer any references , sources , referent institution who conducted research or this is just "style history"

Zuti,


The speculation on yik kam is totally off mark by facts.

Please read the following

http://www.kungfumagazine.com/forum/...k-kam-SLT-1848

[zuti car]

Zuti,


The speculation on yik kam is totally off mark by facts.

Please read the following

http://www.kungfumagazine.com/forum/...k-kam-SLT-1848

Facts? Where ? Who , when and where did the research , what are sources of evidence , what scientific institution verified the data , what method of research was used ..? A lot of people present "original" histories supported with "facts" ... and anyone with more than a basic level of education can see that thous stories are nothing more than a fairy tales . I believe in science , hard evidence collected trough specific methods of research which passed the verification in relevant institutions and can be checked at any time. That is how history as a science works . You , HFY guys , TWC guys and anyone else can believe in anything you want , but it is fair separate believes from science .
About your "fact" , the photo you attached is written is simplified Chinese .It is commonly known that simplified Chinese exist since 1956 . So this document of yours could not be older than that time ( i seriously doubt that it is older more than couple of years because it is obvious that it was printed on the printer , not even on the type writer) . Next , what are the sources of this document how can we verify it. Was this piece of paper suppose to represent some kind of historical evidence ? If yes , how ?

[Hendrik]

Zuti,

The document I present is by Zhou chien Chuan, the gate keeper of emei 12 zhuang. He wrote the book i took photo to decode the ancient emei 12 zhuang kuit in 1950s. This is a very famous classical book in the Chinese internal training in 1950 era.

The original documents of emei 12 zhuang is now kept in Beijing museum china.
You can go there to do carbon test if you like.



In fact there are many wcners already begin to resale and study the emei 12 zhuang in ASia and USA.
It is only a matter of time, as close as next few months, the emei 12 zhuang Practitioners will perform the section of 1848 ykslt to compare with how ykslt is practiced today.





Attached is the cover of the book by Zhou which I qoute above.

The orginal documents of emei 12 zhuang is kept in Beijing museum


http://www.emeiqigong.us/lineage/lineage/bai-yun.html