Hung Fa Yi Wing Chun

[canglong]

Answering a question with a question ok hendrik.
Did wayfaring just say he uses the formula in sparring?

[t_niehoff]

Answering a question with a question ok hendrik.
Did wayfaring just say he uses the formula in sparring?

You can use theory in sparring too (that's what theory is for, to help beginners in sparring). I said: if it is not a physical action in itself then it can't be a physical skill. So I ask you: is the "WCK formula" an action in itself?

[canglong]

So I ask you: is the "WCK formula" an action in itself?

ok the short answer, Yes

[t_niehoff]

ok the short answer, Yes

OK. But it seems other HFY people, like osprey3883, have differeing views (he wrote: "the WC formula is the underlying engineering that makes the HFY structures functional"). Engineering isn't a physical skill in my book. But perhaps you have a different understanding than he does.

[canglong]

Terence,
You miss understand the views because the formula drives HFY philosophy/theory, stategy and tactics and application/physical execution. The wing chun formula is HFY and when Hung Fa Yi was said to have been kept secret it was the Formula that is referred to as the what which was kept secret.

[t_niehoff]

Terence,
You miss understand the views because the formula drives HFY philosophy/theory, stategy and tactics and application/physical execution. The wing chun formula is HFY and when Hung Fa Yi was said to have been kept secret it was the Formula that is referred to as the what which was kept secret.

My friend, if you say it the "wing chun formula" is a physical skill, I can't argue with you; you obviously know more about the formula than I do. From what I understand the components of the formula are the centerline, the two-line defense, the three reference points, the five-line concept, the six gates and the five elemental battle arrays. This doesn't seem like a physical skill to me. It sounds remarkably like theory.

[canglong]

Putting the wing chun formula in action.
The wing chun formula postulates that if you make a fist thumb up and place your elbow one fist distance from your torso at just below the sternum on your ying line (nipple) that will be your strongest position for that shape and structure. Someone placing a hand over the made fist to begin pushing aginst that fist will react in certain predetermined ways if the elbow is inside the ying line then the incoming force will have the ability to take the structure in if the elbow is outside the ying line the structure can be taken out. When this shape and structure are kept on the ying line that arm is able to resist the incoming force of the push against the fist. The formula theorizes the strongest shape yes then it postulates how to move with these shapes and make them "dynamic" and then incoporates strategy/tactics and ultimately bundling all these traits in a manner that allows for them to be delivered in a way that espouses maximum efficiency.

[osprey3883]

I see where you are coming from now -- and I see where part of my trouble understanding you guys comes from. I don't see WCK as comprised of "structures" but of dynamic, adaptable actions (there are no "structures" involved in throwing a ball). BTW, this is precisely my problem with Robert's use of the term "body structure" (and I've told him this) although I know why he uses it.

Terrence,
IMO we are talking past each other. Understand that when I speak of structure I am not talking about a static posture. To go back to my car analogy, the engineering of a car is a number of structures designed to support each other, whether moving or stopped.

My friend, if you say it the "wing chun formula" is a physical skill, I can't argue with you; you obviously know more about the formula than I do. From what I understand the components of the formula are the centerline, the two-line defense, the three reference points, the five-line concept, the six gates and the five elemental battle arrays. This doesn't seem like a physical skill to me. It sounds remarkably like theory.

IMO the expression of HFY's WCF is absolutely a physical skill. Just like anything in combat, if it's just in your head you don't really have it.

Matt

[canglong]

The elbow position would be part of the "Sap Ming Dim" first you learn them through SNT then as Wayfaring was suggesting after you have the body karma/physical skill you should be able to express/apply the Sap Ming Dim or Formula in action while sparring and then ultimately when under pressure of a fight. Again these are things that are in the book also for more detail consult the entire chapter dedicated to the wing chun formula.

I guess the one thing I would take away from this conversation is to tell people that before you read the chapter realize that the formula is not static it is alive and dynamic as the term goes and that if you see it any other way while reading the chapter it is possible that you might misinterpret the chapter because you will only be reading it not seeing it the way you would in a class setting.

[t_niehoff]

Putting the wing chun formula in action.

Just your saying this tells me that the formula isn't a skill -- for example, you wouldn't say putting throwing a ball or riding a bike into action. It already is an action. You put theory into action.

The wing chun formula postulates

Theories postulate, skills don't.

that if you make a fist thumb up and place your elbow one fist distance from your torso at just below the sternum on your ying line (nipple) that will be your strongest position for that shape and structure. Someone placing a hand over the made fist to begin pushing aginst that fist will react in certain predetermined ways if the elbow is inside the ying line then the incoming force will have the ability to take the structure in if the elbow is outside the ying line the structure can be taken out. When this shape and structure are kept on the ying line that arm is able to resist the incoming force of the push against the fist. The formula theorizes the strongest shape yes then it postulates how to move with these shapes and make them "dynamic" and then incoporates strategy/tactics and ultimately bundling all these traits in a manner that allows for them to be delivered in a way that espouses maximum efficiency.

That's an interesting theory (really a theory built upon theories). And as you indicate, "the formula theorizes". So the "wing chun formula" is a theory and not a skill. Calling things by their proper name is important.

[t_niehoff]

Terrence,
IMO we are talking past each other. Understand that when I speak of structure I am not talking about a static posture. To go back to my car analogy, the engineering of a car is a number of structures designed to support each other, whether moving or stopped.

Yes, I now understand what you mean. Tony has even elaborated on it. But I don't think you understand what I mean -- WCK skills in my view aren't like the design of an auto. Skill is like throwing a ball: you can't break throwing a ball down into a series of strong structures that support each other moving or stopped. That's now what is going on: it is one continuous action of the whole body working together to produce a result. You don't learn or develop greater ability to run by breaking it into various structures, then stringing them together, etc.

IMO the expression of HFY's WCF is absolutely a physical skill. Just like anything in combat, if it's just in your head you don't really have it.

Matt

It is not a physical skill, it is a theory you in HFY use to guide your movements in what you believe (theorize) is an effective manner (will help you develop skill), and you further believe that if you practice "sticking" to this guide long enough, that it will become second nature (something else that isn't necessarily true).

[Wayfaring]

Skill is like throwing a ball: you can't break throwing a ball down into a series of strong structures that support each other moving or stopped. That's now what is going on: it is one continuous action of the whole body working together to produce a result. You don't learn or develop greater ability to run by breaking it into various structures, then stringing them together, etc.

Not sure I agree. I'm a Little League coach that's worked pitching with several minor league MLB pitchers and a MLB ace pitching system. The pitching motion has 3 specific positions in it I teach: balance, power, follow through. There are specific checkpoints in each of these positions that every MLB pitcher has similar I've been taught to look for.

I specifically use a drill called "30-30" where my pitchers daily do 30 repetitions stopping at each of the static positions and checking the specifics I stress at each position. Then they do 30 repetitions stringing them together in a complete motion.

Every one of the boys I've worked with gains substantial velocity as well as accuracy throughout the season. I consistently have either the top or near the top pitchers every year in the league.

So yes, I think you very much can break down a continuous action of the whole body into a series of strong support structures, then string them together to train them in a fluid motion. Moreover I'm not sure of another way you can train it to ensure bodies go through optimal position in motion.

[canglong]

Everything is theory until you put it into action.

originally posted by t_niehoff
I don't see WCK as comprised of "structures" but of dynamic, adaptable actions (there are no "structures" involved in throwing a ball).

Terence,
Have you ever tried to throw a football down field with your feet together instead of using the proper structure feet apart.

Theories postulate, skills don't.

Skill is a direct result of something that was necessary to postulate in order for skill to materialize. The 2 are inseperably linked. Your opinion in this particular case seems to be more semantics than anything else.

No need to keep rehashing the fact that YOU as an individual see things different than others a couple of post is fine we get it YOU see things the way you see things. To me your statements are no different than saying all the tables in my house are red therfore all tables are red. No one is trying to change your view of wing chun just explain their different point of view. You on the other hand seem to want to hold the thread hostage to your views knowing you disagree.

[anerlich]

In a free market society you either buy or don't buy not buy or bad mouth those you disagree with.

Really? You obviously haven't seen much political advertising. And mustn't have read the parts of MKF on internet historians and Popular Wing Chun for some time.

Robert attended one TWC seminar before he stated TWC "is like having cheap sex" .

TWC *is* like cheap sex, but even better. Us TWC guys and gals love every minute of it!

Do you have to pay big bucks to get laid or something? I could understand why.

Real fighters are anticipating a fight from the moment they wake up until the moment they go to sleep. They fight to protect their neighborhood their friends and family and their personal property..

Real fighters anticipate fights in their dreams as well, and in any case sleep is for theoreticiians.

They do it at work they do in parks they do it at school they do it in dark alley ways and they do it in silence.

Now I think it's YOU that's confusing WC and cheap sex.

As I said to Savi and Duende, do you guys ever listen to yourselves?

Terence you talk way too much to be a fighter

He does talk a lot and one sometimes wonders where he finds the time to fight. Unlike some, he has a basic understanding of punctuation.

If you're that interested in specifics of the HFY WC formula, buy the MKF book. It has a whole chapter dedicated to it. It has origins, explanations, details, and pictures. Chapter 5, p. 75-83.

This statement is correct. I wouldn't suggest that all will suddenly revealed. But as Savi said earlier, this book was, in part at least, an exercise in marketing and advertising.

[taltos]

No one else on the thread seems to have a problem with such courses of action. I just don't want to be part of anyone's family. Perhaps, to draw a long bow the way Savi did abbout GG and DVD's, you ARE acting without decorum toward me for assuming that I would want to be part of your family and insulting my will and right to be excluded?

Yes, I listen to myself and that sounds stupid. But I'm basically paraphrasing other posters.

LOL. Ain't semantics wonderful? But fair enough. by the definition I *think* you're operating under... I see where you're coming from.

In-Laws? Hmmm... maybe not... they can be even worse sometime.

-Levi