Feet dynamic on seven bows force flow handling doesn't have to step out, and it doesn't mean stand still. There are x y z axis and straight or spiral handling action and reaction force dynamic as in the attach photo.
At close body short strike art, one stick into the opponent body, without those micro feet movement dynamic how is a short strike art suppose to work without force flow axis develop?
If one doesn't develop the seven bows, force flow, and the dynamic axis, what does one develop in snt?
Just moving arm around in a limited range in that lock up stance which break ones body into two parts?
Last edited by Hendrik; 04-22-2014 at 10:31 AM.
[QUOTE=kung fu fighter;1265892] However I feel turning away from the facing principle, not in side body but completely away, and having two of my hands and even entire body committed to one of the opponent's arm to be far from applying wing chun principles.
------------------------------------------------------
Navin our understanding and perceptions are different on this point and that is ok with me.. The two hands are committed to controlling the other person not just one arm.
[QUOTE=Vajramusti;1265928]Agreed Joy! but that's the great thing in a discussion forum
The question is would sifu Fong attempt such a technique in a real life or death situation, I highly doubt that, I think he was just playing around to make the footage more flashy and interesting. The problem I see with such techniques is that it would take way to long to recover if the opponent counter's it, you would end up in a bad position, and won't be able to recover in time before being hit. The principles of wing chun are there to protect us by keeping our movements simple direct and economical when followed. Of course there are always exceptional individuals who can pull things off that most of us can't such as a Muhammed Ali or Bruce Lee, perhaps sifu Fong is such an individual.
Last edited by JPinAZ; 04-22-2014 at 01:27 PM.
What chi sau is, or isn't, or is, or wait, what is it..: http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/foru...2&postcount=90
It's not only guesswork and conjecture, Hendrik has done his homework. Before even meeting Hendrik i knew in YKSWC Tan sau is also a chest horizontal forward with spiral movement. same in Kulo side body boxing, Same in Yik Kam wing chun and snake crane wing chun. I suspect the same in PFLWC. do you see a pattern here lol.
When tan sau is done above chest level without the spiral horizontal forward movement, it does not function the same way.
Last edited by kung fu fighter; 04-22-2014 at 01:47 PM.
There was a visitor to HFY headquarters years back that tried telling our practitioners that the high tan sau in our form was incorrect and that it wouldn't pass this his supposed 'structure tests'. Needless to say, he couldn't budge our high 'straight' tan sau when put to his 'test'
That said, the usage of a tool is dictated by WC principle and concept - contact point on the kiu, position and leverage, etc - not because it's done a certain way in a form. In our lineage we have 5 total tan sau - 3 'tan sau's (1 center-line and 2 5-line) and also 2 'tan kiu's, and yes, one has more of a spiralling/twisting nature than the other.But, the energetic and position is based upon the things I mentioned above once contact is made. You can do both spiral and non-spiral tan sau to the high reference. While we do both to our upper/high reference in our forms, I also know they work at this position from training them in application against live partners. Having someone like Henrdik, who never trains this way, come and say something can't work is utter nonsense.
Which is why any discussion that is to be had on low vs. hi tan in application (spiral or otherwise) simply can't be had with Hendrik - as he does not train partner applications and admittedly doesn't spar. Which, BTW, are the only ways to know what is right/wrong or works/doesn't work in any MA system. So no, he hasn't done his homework
Last edited by JPinAZ; 04-24-2014 at 12:26 PM.
What chi sau is, or isn't, or is, or wait, what is it..: http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/foru...2&postcount=90
It's called sarcasm. If Hendrik can understand that SNT is to develop specific skills and we don't actually fight in that stance with one arm out, then why doesn't he understand that chi-sau is to develop specific skills and we don't actually fight in that stance with both arms equally extended? It's like all he has ever learned is SNT.
Last edited by YouKnowWho; 04-24-2014 at 10:27 AM.
http://johnswang.com
More opinion -> more argument
Less opinion -> less argument
No opinion -> no argument