WSL Ving Tsun - Sifu Cliff Au Yeung - Blindfold Gor Sau Training

[Graham H]

Yip Man is not alive. Words can be minced as I have seen time and time again in Wing Chun. My own Sigung is long gone as well so I have trust my head coach to relay the message. What Yip Man did and said is in a lot of cases pure speculation and it annoys me when people try and hang of his legacy.

We all know there was a lot of cloak and dagger stuff going on. Yip Man said things to lead people up the garden path so why take an interview written by somebody else as gospel?

1000's of schools around the world claim to be teaching Yip Man Wing Chun and yet most differ from one to the next.

Better to take things with a pinch of salt.

[BPWT]

Yip Man is not alive. Words can be minced as I have seen time and time again in Wing Chun. My own Sigung is long gone as well so I have trust my head coach to relay the message. What Yip Man did and said is in a lot of cases pure speculation and it annoys me when people try and hang of his legacy.

We all know there was a lot of cloak and dagger stuff going on. Yip Man said things to lead people up the garden path so why take an interview written by somebody else as gospel?

1000's of schools around the world claim to be teaching Yip Man Wing Chun and yet most differ from one to the next.

Better to take things with a pinch of salt.

Sure, Yip Man is no longer alive. And you can read the interview and choose not to accept what he was saying. Totally up to you.

But just because something he said in an interview doesn't tally with what you learn, it is a mistake (in my opinion) for you to dismiss it as wrong (or to simply say it might be YM leading someone up the garden path).

In this very thread you said how blind-folded CS was useless, but then you sought clarification and PB told you it had a purpose (in particular circumstances) in training.

I would also argue that what YM said in an interview is not really speculation. He said it.

If I told you a story of my teacher interpreting something he was told YM had allegedly said to someone, that would be speculation.

YM said many interesting things in that interview - there's not really much to speculate on.

[LFJ]

@Graham

I agree, but you are interpreting LSJC as constant forward energy in moving your whole structure as one. But that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the opponent's arms.

"Lat-sau" literally refers to the opponent's arm being removed. That sau is the opponent's arm. So LSJC is dependent upon the opponent's arm being there as an obstruction and what should happen once it's removed.

Why would simply attacking forward with the whole body, which has nothing to do with an opponent's arm, be named something like LSJC which starts off talking about the opponent's arm?

What I understand you to be talking about is actually LLHS.

Do you have another interpretation for LLHS then?

[wingchunIan]

I know what you mean when others only focus on this "springy energy" effect once contact is made, and even seek to make contact so they can use it as some sort of sensitivity trick but neglect constant forward energy as a general principle. They are misguided, but from my viewpoint you're confusing LSJC with LLHS. What I mean:

The way I understand the LLHS-LSJC phrase is interaction between the opponent and yourself, how to act in relation to the opponent;

-When the opponent "advances" (loi) you "remain" (lau), i.e. make use of angling and such to keep the pressure forward but don't retreat taking pressure away.
-When the opponent "retreats" (heui) you "see them off" (sung), i.e. you advance keeping the pressure on them.
-When the opponent's "arm is removed" (lat-sau) you "rush straight" (jik-chung), i.e. you strike forward to their center.

LLHS is all about that constant forward energy.
LSJC is an effect of that energy when met with and once breaking obstruction.

I see you interpreting LSJC as LLHS, i.e. constant forward energy moving the whole structure as one unit. As a result, you replace LSJC with LLHS and deny the "springy energy" effect.

Well, what happens when contact is made with that sort of forward energy and is then suddenly lost, either by means of you removing the obstacle or the opponent taking their arm away? Do you not automatically "thrust forward without hesitation"? That is the LSJC part. If you aren't getting that effect, then something is wrong with your LLHS/forward energy. That's why it appears first in the phrase.

excellent post,

[Graham H]

YM said many interesting things in that interview - there's not really much to speculate on.

..........that could be interpreted differently from person to person just like all the other stuff in Wing Chun.

I read your ideas on LLHSLSJC. I disagree. I have different ideas but the title is still LLHSLSJC isn't it?

It's easy to misinterpret things. Wing Chun is a big nasty pot of misinterpretation, miscommunication, politics, infighting and mud slinging.

If you believe what you read are told about Yip Man then you must also have a Unicorn tied up outside. You know why? Because you weren't in the same room and cannot possible judge the context of anything that was said or possibly know anything about the mans personality and humour.

Leave it there eh?

[Paddington]

Why don't you just explain your understanding of what LSJC is [...]

Hmm, perhaps others could me advise me as to the status of my sanity, for I believe I already gave Graham and example of my thoughts?

[Paddington]

[...] from my viewpoint you're confusing LSJC with LLHS. What I mean:

The way I understand the LLHS-LSJC phrase is interaction between the opponent and yourself, how to act in relation to the opponent;

-When the opponent "advances" (loi) you "remain" (lau), i.e. make use of angling and such to keep the pressure forward but don't retreat taking pressure away.
-When the opponent "retreats" (heui) you "see them off" (sung), i.e. you advance keeping the pressure on them.
-When the opponent's "arm is removed" (lat-sau) you "rush straight" (jik-chung), i.e. you strike forward to their center.

LLHS is all about that constant forward energy.
LSJC is an effect of that energy when met with and once breaking obstruction.

Thanks for these thoughts and distinctions, I found them really helpful.

[Graham H]

Hmm, perhaps others could me advise me as to the status of my sanity, for I believe I already gave Graham and example of my thoughts?

Yes and I don't agree with you.

[Graham H]

So LSJC is dependent upon the opponent's arm being there as an obstruction and what should happen once it's removed.

Really? ok

game over

Toodle pip

[BPWT]

If you believe what you read are told about Yip Man then you must also have a Unicorn tied up outside. You know why? Because you weren't in the same room and cannot possible judge the context of anything that was said or possibly know anything about the mans personality and humour. Leave it there eh?

Yes, this would be true if we were talking about second or third-hand stories about Yip Man. But we're not. He gave an interview - the talk about rattan cane-like force is what he said.

"Therefore when the opponent comes, it’s like hitting on a rattan cane and so my defense is like when rattan gets pressure and bends. But when the opponent’s attack has a hole or gap, we use extremely fast speed to rush in with our move. Just like a compressed rattan when it’s released, the speed is fast , the move very powerful."

I don't think anyone could interpret this as not being about LLHS-LSJC. Given that, it is strange he would 1) use an analogy he didn't think was true, 2) use the idea of pressure, bending, compressing and releasing, if that too was not what he meant.

So I think it is a weak argument to say to suggest that maybe this was humor, that he gave an interview and laced it with false information as, what, some kind of joke? Considering he rarely gave interviews, it would be strange for him to give one and then fill it with unicorns.

Like I said before, if someone denies this concept of compression and releasing, then it is a bitter pill to swallow when YM specifically refers to it.

That's not to say that the normal pill you usually take is ineffective (PB looks, to me, to be extremely good, very fast, possessing great - really great - timing, and he looks as strong as an ox).

But it does show there's more than one way to skin a cat, so it is silly to talk about "common misconceptions" from other lineages outside of your own. In LLHS-LSJC discussions you are arguing against the words of Yip Man.

[Paddington]

Yes and I don't agree with you.

That's fine, man. I am just here to learn and I am not asking anyone to take on what I am saying. I am not a Sifu and don't claim to be. TBH I would rather come out and say how I view things and then be corrected by someone should I be in error, than to not have said anything at all.

So, Graham, I am happy to read, in your own words, how you view these themes. How would you teach them? I always find that question helps me get the concepts.

[LFJ]

So LSJC is dependent upon the opponent's arm being there as an obstruction and what should happen once it's removed.

Really? ok

game over

Toodle pip

Literally, yes. That's what LSJC means. Of course not the concept you're describing, because that is not "LSJC", even though you call it that.

I get the feeling PB doesn't speak Chinese? Maybe there was some misinterpretation on his part. You're calling something by a name that doesn't fit it at all... If it has nothing to do with the opponent's arm, why is the opponent's arm in its name?

What you describe is LLHS, but you never mention that half of the phrase. I wonder if you have a different interpretation of what it means too?

[Graham H]

I get the feeling PB doesn't speak Chinese? Maybe there was some misinterpretation on his part.

OMFG!

[BPWT]

OMFG!

LOL Graham. Yes, someone has just questioned if, perhaps, PB might have misinterpreted something.

Take a deep breath. In your mind go to a happy place.

[Graham H]

If it has nothing to do with the opponent's arm, why is the opponent's arm in its name?

Why do some people refer to Bong Sau as wing arm block and other refer to the bone between the shoulder and the elbow?

Why do some people translate Fook Sau as controlling or subduing hand and other say its a punch?

Why do some people say tan sau means spreading palm block?

Why do some people translate Chum Kiu as searching for the arm bridge and others relate the bridge to be the line to your opponent?

Why do some people say Loi lau means make arm contact and other say its about intercepting an attack with your own?

Why do some people say that Bij Jee is about developing finger jabs?

Why do some people think the weapons are only in the system for traditional purposes?

Some people say "sau" means hand. Others say arm. Some say both.

Why o why o why?

You see anything in Wing Chun can mean anything depending on who is saying it so your literal translations are BS.

Being able to speak Chinese means nothing.

David Peterson is fluent in Mandarin and can speak Cantonese yet he and my Sifu have different understandings of WSLVT. Why do you think that is LFJ? You think PB has misinterpreted it because he cannot speak the lingo?

WSL and PB understood each other perfectly mate. In fact the understanding between PB and WSL was one of the best. Not my words either.