Tan.Bong,Fok & Wu Sao

[stonecrusher69]

[Vajramusti]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------


You know who: when I am doing tan, bong etc in the form- at my stage- the whole body is connected and there is coordinated micro motion.

stonecrusher: of course there are differences in details since I don't do fut sao wing chun.

[stonecrusher69]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------


You know who: when I am doing tan, bong etc in the form- at my stage- the whole body is connected and there is coordinated micro motion.

stonecrusher: of course there are differences in details since I don't do fut sao wing chun.

I'm glad your have whole body connected and able to make micro adjustments. You have been doing WC I think longer then me I would hope you can. If your inferring I can't I assure you I can very easily.

[LFJ]

I am curious about your thoughts on some who perform the SNT with movement, ie: shifting or stepping.
I am also curious about your thoughts regarding the reversal of movement of the Wu and Fook Sau in the SNT. In my lineage we withdraw the Fook and Extend the Wu rather the the traditional manner where they are reversed.

Shifting and stepping have their place in the forms. I don't do them yet in SNT, so I don't have an opinion. Different systems.

For me, the wu-sau and fuk-sau are not reversed. It would not make sense for me to do them in the opposite direction.

Wu-sau is not a knife-edge palm strike, but a guard hand, and fuk-sau is not a special hand shape to hook or pull with. The hand is just relaxed and formless while we focus on the elbow to train the fuk-concept striking. It would not make sense to train a punch by drawing it back.

[Sihing73]

Shifting and stepping have their place in the forms. I don't do them yet in SNT, so I don't have an opinion. Different systems.

For me, the wu-sau and fuk-sau are not reversed. It would not make sense for me to do them in the opposite direction.

Wu-sau is not a knife-edge palm strike, but a guard hand, and fuk-sau is not a special hand shape to hook or pull with. The hand is just relaxed and formless while we focus on the elbow to train the fuk-concept striking. It would not make sense to train a punch by drawing it back.

Okay, so if it does not make sense to reverse the movements can you explain why the Wu is extending in the CK form, for example?
Why the difference between how it is trained in SNT and CK?

So a Fook is a "punching concept"? Seems like I have heard that before.
So you must exert energy and force with your Fook to train it as a punch.
To me the Fook is a "listening hand" and rides the opponent. It may convert to something else, like a strike, but it is used to follow what the oppoent gives you. IMHO

[LFJ]

Okay, so if it does not make sense to reverse the movements can you explain why the Wu is extending in the CK form, for example?
Why the difference between how it is trained in SNT and CK?

In SNT we're focussing on the use of the elbow and forward intent even while drawing the guard hand back. In reality it will not have to come back but a few inches, as the body will do most of the work by shifting if necessary. In the first CK section it "rides the horse", so to speak, rather than extending. In CK, it's combined with bong-sau to make an uncompleted kwan-sau, that is bong + tan-concept punch, but it is uncompleted, not extended either. It's just in guard position ready for punching.

So a Fook is a "punching concept"? Seems like I have heard that before.
So you must exert energy and force with your Fook to train it as a punch.

"Fuk" is a striking concept, but fuk-sau is a training tool to develop the elbow behavior in that type of strike, not a fixed hand shape we apply literally in fighting. It's done slowly in SNT because as I wrote in the other thread:

"the reason it is done slowly is to focus and rewire neural connections to an unusual yet efficient behavior in combat. This way this behavior is not only voluntary, but becomes reflexive, which is later expanded on and developed under incrementally more realistic circumstances throughout the system."

By gwo-sau and sparring stages there is no more fuk-sau.

To me the Fook is a "listening hand" and rides the opponent. It may convert to something else, like a strike, but it is used to follow what the oppoent gives you. IMHO

Doesn't have to just be your opinion. If that's how you do it, that's how you do it. We have different systems with apparently entirely different ideas. I don't think riding and "listening" are realistic things that actual happen in fighting though, and that's not what is happening when I do chi-sau either. I like the thinking of the approach I subscribe to and it fits with my experience and observation of reality. If you can get yours to work for you though, cool. You're probably better than me.

[Vajramusti]

Okay, so if it does not make sense to reverse the movements can you explain why the Wu is extending in the CK form, for example?
Why the difference between how it is trained in SNT and CK?

So a Fook is a "punching concept"? Seems like I have heard that before.
So you must exert energy and force with your Fook to train it as a punch.
To me the Fook is a "listening hand" and rides the opponent. It may convert to something else, like a strike, but it is used to follow what the oppoent gives you. IMHO

------------------------------------------------------
Different planets. In slt I do wu and fook in the classical order and way with good reason


I also do not count breaths. Not in wing chun any way.

[Sihing73]

In SNT we're focussing on the use of the elbow and forward intent even while drawing the guard hand back. In reality it will not have to come back but a few inches, as the body will do most of the work by shifting if necessary. In the first CK section it "rides the horse", so to speak, rather than extending. In CK, it's combined with bong-sau to make an uncompleted kwan-sau, that is bong + tan-concept punch, but it is uncompleted, not extended either. It's just in guard position ready for punching.
.

------------------------------------------------------
Different planets. In slt I do wu and fook in the classical order and way with good reason
I also do not count breaths. Not in wing chun any way.

I was taught the traditional method of doing Wu and Fook in the SNT and practiced it for many years. I do see the benefits of this approach.
My current Sifu does it inversely for reasons which to him, and I make sense. The main one being training the student application immediately.

As to the elbow training and forward intent being trained, that is correct. However, WU would not withdraw on its own but only as a result of force being applied to it. In the CK while paired with a Bong, a WU can and does extend on its own, only to "withdraw" when force greater than it can diffuse is applied.

With the thinking of elbow forward force always being trained which can lead to all things being a strike or punch; then a Taun Sau is also a punch but only defects or disperses if the force encountered is greater than the Taun can generate. Would that be in line with your approach?

LFJ, I am a poor practitioner who does not practice as much as he should. I also practice other arts. I will say that I have worked in Law Enforcement as both a Police Officer and a Correctional Officer and also taught defensive tactics to other LEO's. But that, in and of itself, does not mean I know anything. It is possible that GOD has watched over me and kept me safe throughout the years, it is said that HE and HIS Angels have a tendency to look after fools.

[LFJ]

With the thinking of elbow forward force always being trained which can lead to all things being a strike or punch; then a Taun Sau is also a punch but only defects or disperses if the force encountered is greater than the Taun can generate. Would that be in line with your approach?

In fighting, I don't use taan-sau, only the taan striking concept it develops in training. Same as fuk-sau and the fuk concept. The sau are only developmental tools. Applying the concepts, they are tactical striking methods enabling lin-siu-daai-da, simultaneous attack and defensive functions in one timing with a single limb.

[Sihing73]

In fighting, I don't use taan-sau, only the taan striking concept it develops in training. Same as fuk-sau and the fuk concept. The sau are only developmental tools. Applying the concepts, they are tactical striking methods enabling lin-siu-daai-da, simultaneous attack and defensive functions in one timing with a single limb.

Okay, since most would agree that Taun, Fook and Bong are three seeds from which other things develop;
Perhaps you can explain the difference between the Concepts of each one. What is the difference between Taun and Fook in what they teach?
The Fook family seems to cover and listen, in my approach, so in your approach what makes Taun and Fook different?

[Vajramusti]

Well we have 3 quite different lines of interpretation.

[Sihing73]

Well we have 3 quite different lines of interpretation.

Joy,

Fair enough, so why not expand on what those different lines of interpretation are?

After all, one method to make the forum better would be to actually discuss and explore differences.

[LFJ]

Okay, since most would agree that Taun, Fook and Bong are three seeds from which other things develop;
Perhaps you can explain the difference between the Concepts of each one. What is the difference between Taun and Fook in what they teach?
The Fook family seems to cover and listen, in my approach, so in your approach what makes Taun and Fook different?

They are both striking methods as I explained in my last post. They displace while attacking. Fuk elbow contracts and cuts using the inside of the arm. Taan elbow expands and displaces using the outside of the arm. These functions are first developed with partners in daan-chi-sau. Many lineages will use this exercise to stick, listen, etc.. For me, it's to learn how to displace while striking and recycle the striking arm.

Bong-sau clears the line for striking.

[Vajramusti]

Joy,

Fair enough, so why not expand on what those different lines of interpretation are?

After all, one method to make the forum better would be to actually discuss and explore differences.

--------------------------------------------------------
OK Dave.
1. The SLT and the other forms are for development---they are first principles. Applications are derived from them.


2. Each motion in the forms are not primarily techniques.

3. The relationship of form motion to applications are 0ne- many not one to one. Punching in slt .. my whole arm is extended.
In application it will be bent.

4 Applications are developed through drills and all kinds of chi sao and lop sao including footwork. And gor sao attacks/defense.

5 The wu in chum kiu's wu/ bong. ..the wu does not extend- it adjusts to cover the center with chor ma- the turning stance.

6. In slt there is no chor ma- you are developing the stability of the upper and lower body connection, structure and stability
while developing the structure of the hand motions. A good teacher shows the function of each motion. The wu develops the protective hand-it can be used for attacking and first you learn the protection of the body. Bringing the wu slowly back strengthens the spring of the all important elbow.
Moving the wu forward does not do that.(Of course you can do it any way you want to)

7 I don't learn from videos.

8 I have been doing wing chun every day since 1976.Good regular instruction from my sifu with reinforcement from my sigung.
My informed bias is that top level Ip man wing chun is still the gold standard of wing chun.

9. Wing chun does not need taichi, bjj or other supplements- if practiced right and well. Have I tried things out- you betchum.

10 Of course I have discovered many applications along the way- but I don't or try not to mess up on the forms.

11. I don't cherry pick through TCMA styles and make a stew. But I sense something is worthwhile-I check and se whether it's compatible
with wing chun structure and dynamics.A creative trainer ever so often introduces something from the outside to enrich the line-
but not destroy it.

Ergo- I differ from you on the path of the wu in slt and I distinguish between development and application... 3 paths in the recent discussion.
No sarcasms or put downs. Just different roads.

[YouKnowWho]

If we look at the following:

- XingYi has Pi, Zhun, Beng, Pao, Heng.
- boxing has jab, cross, uppercut, hook,
- TKD has front kick, side kick, roundhouse kick, hook kick,
- Judo has hip throw, leg twist, leg lift, leg block.
- WC has Tan, Bong, Fu, Wu.

Why does WC use "defense tools" instead "offense tools" to represent itself?