# Eddie Chong's Sil Lim Tao



## Marnetmar (Oct 12, 2014)

Wing Chun Sui Nim Tao In Details - YouTube


----------



## geezer (Oct 12, 2014)

Back in the 80s I new a guy through my Escrima training who had trained WC with Eddie Chong. He gave me a copy of Chong Sifu's long pole book (very different from the way we do it). Unfortunately, I never drew him out to much about Chong's WC. Back then I was fairly new to WC and knew way too much to ask questions from others.   More's the pity. 

Anyway, I'm short of time right now and haven't watched the whole clip. Does anybody know what the deal is with him withdrawing his SNT wu-sau up in front of his mouth with "the fingertips at the nose". That looks very odd, even dangerous to me. It not only puts the hand right in front of his face, but it also causes his elbow to bend sharply, eliminating the forward angle that gives the wu-sau structural strength.


----------



## Argus (Oct 12, 2014)

Watch out. I like to criticize forms, and think I know what I'm talking about.

His wu-sau looks strange to me too. He seems to be bending it at the elbow and just arcing it back towards his nose. That will just collapse into your face.

An interesting thing happens in the "tan-gan(/jam)-tan-hyun-low palm" section. He doesn't appear to be doing a gan-sau, so I can only guess that he is using jam-sau there, as some lineages do. But he's just pushing down with the hand, and not sinking with the elbow, so it doesn't look like a proper jam-sau either...

But hey, I've seen far worse! I visited a WC guy last week who's SNT was literally all over the place. I don't do my form quickly in the least, but he made such big movements that I had to wait at each section for him to catch up...


----------



## Marnetmar (Oct 12, 2014)

Argus said:


> But hey, I've seen far worse! I visited a WC guy last week who's SNT was literally all over the place. I don't do my form quickly in the least, but he made such big movements that I had to wait at each section for him to catch up...



Can you give an example? Usually when I see people are doing big crazy movements they're also going way too fast


----------



## Vajramusti (Oct 12, 2014)

Mostly agree with Argus on this.


----------



## Danny T (Oct 13, 2014)

Like Argus, I've seen worse. There are some probably feel that same when watching me. 

There are several movements and positions that are different from what we do. Argus has already posted some of them. He also brings his hand, or wrist, or elbow at times against his body. We never allow them to be closer than a fist distance from the body. In his Jum Sao it appears to be more of a downward chopping movement rather than a sinking of the elbow and arm into the center. When punching we also have more abduction of the wrist driving the lower knuckles forward.


----------



## Argus (Oct 14, 2014)

Marnetmar said:


> Can you give an example? Usually when I see people are doing big crazy movements they're also going way too fast



That's true. He actually went at a moderate pace though, which I was just matching.

It's just that he made very large movements with his hands rather than keeping them tight, economical, and on the center. For example, his wu-sau went all the way down to his waist (???), and in the tan-gan-tan section, his hands followed huge arcs rather than staying tight. Just a lot of things like that. There were also a number of little random added movements that made no sense, given his lineage.

I just don't get why people want to take a good form and make it all wonky.


----------



## Kwan Sau (Oct 14, 2014)

Argus said:


> For example, his wu-sau went all the way down to his waist (???), and in the tan-gan-tan section, his hands followed huge arcs rather than staying tight. There were also a number of little random added movements that made no sense, given his lineage. I just don't get why people want to take a good form and make it all wonky.



Well, without more background info its tough to say either way. 
However, keep in mind that some peoples' forms contain more / less / different shapes. Doesn't necessarily make them or their wing chun "wonky". 
Was this somebody you happened to meet up with to train / practice wing chun? What lineage is he? (Might help the conversation if we knew a bit more). Thx Argus.


----------



## Vajramusti (Oct 14, 2014)

When people don't have or stick with a good teacher and start importing stuff from here and there all
kinds of variations can occur. Contemporary wing chun seem to  contain all kinds of variations.

EC was a student of well known student of the late Leung Shun. Had a falling out with his teacher.
Then went to Pan Nam whose wing chun was a mishmash of hung ga and wc- then had a falling out with 
Pan Nam. So he has been around the block. So it goes.


----------



## Argus (Oct 14, 2014)

Kwan Sau said:


> Well, without more background info its tough to say either way.
> However, keep in mind that some peoples' forms contain more / less / different shapes. Doesn't necessarily make them or their wing chun "wonky".
> Was this somebody you happened to meet up with to train / practice wing chun? What lineage is he? (Might help the conversation if we knew a bit more). Thx Argus.



Well, that's the thing. I know his lineage, and I know what his forms are supposed to look like better than he does... I have seen more exotic movements in non-Yip Man lineages, but this was a Yip Man lineage - moreover, one I'm familiar with - and the additions did not look like anything I've seen even outside of YM lineages before. 

This is actually the second time I've met someone like this. The other guy claimed to be a student of one of Yip Chun's students, and his forms were nothing like Yip Chun's -- with sections completely changed and several movements even missing. Not to mention really sloppy and fast chisau.

I've come to be pretty discerning when it comes to people who proclaim to know and teach Wing Chun. In several cases now, I've found them no more -- or even less -- qualified to teach than myself, and that's saying a lot considering I've hardly been at this two years.


----------



## Marnetmar (Oct 14, 2014)

Vajramusti said:


> When people don't have or stick with a good teacher and start importing stuff from here and there all
> kinds of variations can occur. Contemporary wing chun seem to  contain all kinds of variations.
> 
> EC was a student of well known student of the late Leung Shun. *Had a falling out with his teacher.*
> ...



No he didn't.


----------



## ST1Doppelganger (Oct 14, 2014)

Eddie chong also has pak mei sets so that might carry over and  influence his personal WC but what he does teach is Pan Nam WC.


----------



## Kwan Sau (Oct 14, 2014)

Argus said:


> The other guy claimed to be a student of one of Yip Chun's students, and his forms were nothing like Yip Chun's -- with sections completely changed and several movements even missing. Not to mention really sloppy and fast chisau.



For an interesting diversion,  look at yip chun and yip ching forms. Even between them, there are differences. (Go figure) hahahah


----------



## ST1Doppelganger (Oct 14, 2014)

P.S. The WC guy htat i have met that was a student of Eddie chong seemed to understand WC concepts pretty well so Eddie Chong had to be a pretty good instructor  and much better of an instructor then anybody that studied WC for two years.


----------



## geezer (Oct 15, 2014)

ST1Doppelganger said:


> Eddie chong also has *pak mei *sets so that might carry over and  influence his personal WC but what he does teach is Pan Nam WC.



Yes, you may well be right about that. Here's the bio from his website: About | Chong's Wing Chun & Bak Mei Kung Fu Association About|

Now about odd movements in the forms. I'd never dismiss them them until I'd heard the rationale behind them. "Right" and "wrong"  often depends on context.


----------



## ST1Doppelganger (Oct 15, 2014)

geezer said:


> Yes, you may well be right about that. Here's the bio from his website: [URL="http://Now about odd movements in the forms. I'd never dismiss them them until I'd heard the rationale behind them. "Right" and "wrong"  often depends on context.




I commend you on being open minded enough to wonder why he does the technique the way he does with out ignoring it. 

From my personal exp in Wng Chun ive found that a high percent of the WC practitioners don't put too much thought or value on why different style of Kung fu use their methods of mechanics to generate power or even why a  different style of WC does his individual technique the way he does it. 

I've had the opportunity to take a bit of WSL WC, Meet up with the Pan Nam WC practitioner that is around my residence and also attend a WC school that contained a mixed up WC style and sadly the only one of those WC practitioner that was open minded was the mixed up WC style instructors. 

I probably would still be at the WC School if it wasn't for the fact that I know that WC practitioners are pretty caught up on lineage (like all martial styles) and that if I dedicated many years to training with this group it would not be respected since it didn't come from a true traditional lineage of WC. 

The perks of the school was they did allot of Chi Sau and were open minded when it came to WC but the negatives of the forms being a mix of two different instructors lineage would make any WC practitioner go what style is that and then the criticizing would begin.

Sorry about my rambling on about this subject but I just wish the WC culture was a bit different then it is now because it is a very effective method of Kung Fu.


----------



## Cephalopod (Oct 15, 2014)

geezer said:


> Now about odd movements in the forms. I'd never dismiss them them until I'd heard the rationale behind them. "Right" and "wrong"  often depends on context.



Well put.

Looking at the SLT of another lineage and criticizing the movements and angles can be a fools game (sorry, Argus ;-), especially when dealing with a practitioner who might have very deep and broad experience. At various times I have found myself thinking that the movements of a martial artist looked really bogus, only to eat my words when I actually touched hands with him.

The real special sauce of SLT isn't even the external elements of angles and such, but rather in the internal elements of tension, intention and the like.
These things are much harder to see and judge in person, let alone from a youtube video.

I don't know anything about Eddie Chong and his style, and yeah, that high wu sao sure looks goofy. But I wouldn't say that to his face until I touched his hands


----------



## Cephalopod (Oct 15, 2014)

ST1Doppelganger said:


> I probably would still be at the WC School if it wasn't for the fact that I know that WC practitioners are pretty caught up on lineage (like all martial styles) and that if I dedicated many years to training with this group it would not be respected since it didn't come from a true traditional lineage of WC.
> 
> The perks of the school was they did allot of Chi Sau and were open minded when it came to WC but the negatives of the forms being a mix of two different instructors lineage would make any WC practitioner go what style is that and then the criticizing would begin.



Has it really come to that??
I'm not sure whose respect you're looking for but I would hope that it would be earned based entirely on your skills and abilities not on the picture of you standing behind your seated sifu that you hang on the wall.

There is a lot of young sifus out there who have excellent lineage cred, but only learned for a short time with the esteemed grand master and have tried to fill in the holes of their knowledge with other stuff that they have learned along the way, or worse, with stuff that they make up.

The best way to really tell where your chosen school is at, skill wise, is to take every opportunity to roll with students from other schools and judge for yourself.


----------



## KPM (Oct 15, 2014)

"Mixing and matching" can be good or bad, depending on who is doing it, what experience they have, and how good they are.  Eddie Chong has been around for a long time, produced good students, and has received good feedback through the years from various people.  So even though I've never met or trained with him personally, I'd feel comfortable recommending him to someone looking for a teacher.   After all, new lineages have arisen in the past in China when someone combined things from different teachers and declared themselves "grandmaster."  I seriously doubt Chan Wah Shun's son was teaching exactly what he learned from his father.   Look at all the variations in the "Weng Chun" lineages from some mixing with Hung family arts.  So why is it any different when the guy doing the mixing or combining happens to live in the USA?   Eddie Chong has been around long enough that he could now legitimately declare himself "Grandmaster" of "Chong Wing Chun."  Others have done it!


----------



## ST1Doppelganger (Oct 15, 2014)

Cephalopod said:


> Has it really come to that??
> I'm not sure whose respect you're looking for but I would hope that it would be earned based entirely on your skills and abilities not on the picture of you standing behind your seated sifu that you hang on the wall.



I could care less about respect from others because like you said my abilities would show if I understood WC and unfortunately the picture of that hang in your school along with the lineage matters greatly when it comes to making a successful school. 

What I do understand is the fact that if I was a more skilled WC practitioner that wanted to start teaching WC the school most likely not do as well as a less skilled Sifu from a more respected WC lineage in the same town. 

Its the political and business aspect that makes lineage so important and as somebody that would like to make a small martial arts club when I retire I have to choose wisely on which Style/Lineage to dedicate my time to. 

Unfortunately this is what the politics and business aspect has turned MA in to for example every MA forum has a ton of thread that involve WC lineage or sifu bashing.


----------



## geezer (Oct 15, 2014)

ST1Doppelganger said:


> ...every *OTHER* MA forum has a ton of thread that involve WC lineage or sifu bashing.



There, fixed that!


----------



## Marnetmar (Oct 15, 2014)

Cephalopod said:


> I don't know anything about Eddie Chong and his style, and yeah, that high wu sao sure looks goofy. But I wouldn't say that to his face until I touched his hands



Tbh I think he added a few things in/left a few things out so that people wouldn't try to learn Wing Chun just from watching a DVD. I train with one of his students and we don't put our wu sau that high and from what I understand Eddie was pretty particular about keeping your hands at least a fist's distance from your body, which you don't see in this video.


----------



## Vajramusti (Oct 15, 2014)

Sifu Eddie Chong&#39;s Wing Chun Hammer Strike - YouTube


----------



## ST1Doppelganger (Oct 16, 2014)

geezer said:


> There, fixed that!



LMAO Geezer now only if you could fix the political issue so easily? 

Only if the WC community could all just along LOL but there's much worst political nonsense between other styles.


----------



## zuti car (Oct 16, 2014)

ST1Doppelganger said:


> LMAO Geezer now only if you could fix the political issue so easily?
> 
> Only if the WC community could all just along LOL but there's much worst political nonsense between other styles.


Why , politics is a good thing, like a filter , every time when someone says something like my style/lineage is better than others or my way of doing things is the only correct  , that is a clear sign I should avoid that person


----------



## Argus (Oct 17, 2014)

Cephalopod said:


> Well put.
> 
> Looking at the SLT of another lineage and criticizing the movements and angles can be a fools game (sorry, Argus ;-), especially when dealing with a practitioner who might have very deep and broad experience. At various times I have found myself thinking that the movements of a martial artist looked really bogus, only to eat my words when I actually touched hands with him.
> 
> ...




Well, I partially agree.

Everyone's Wing Chun is different for sure. But I also feel that we can come to a pragmatic understanding of the art. It is, after all, based on certain concepts, principles, and physical structures. I've never bought the "just because a lineage does it's form this way means it's right" argument. 

Far too many learn the forms without ever understanding them, I feel. I routinely cross reference the following student's forms and pick over them in minute details: Ip Man, Ip Ching, Wong Shun Leung, Tsui Shung Tin, Moy Yat. You'll learn a lot if you do this. If you watch their forms, you can discern their take on Wing Chun. Watch them do Chi-sau, and you'll notice the differences you noted in the forms come out.

Take my lineage, for example. One thing that tends to strike me about Ip Ching's forms is that he tends to be much more extended. You can see this in his forms as well as his Chisau. He has very good fa-jing, places greater emphasis on yiu-ma, and is overall more extended in many of his motions. This is reflected in his chisau, where you'll find a lot of lap-sau and fak-sau actions due to his extended nature. And this is reflected in his students as well -- in my teacher, and in myself, because that's how I was taught. 

Now, by contrast, go look at WSL practicing his forms. His movements tend to be tighter, more compact, more square, and more structurally sound. Watch them practicing their Chisau, and you'll find the same thing: they tend to move their whole body in when they attack - to the point that they're reaching their opponent with a bent arm, and have very good control. You'll also see very good lat-sau-jik-chung. Their chisau tends to be simpler, more straight forward, and more geared towards combative application. Overall, they don't seem as soft as Ip Ching guys, though. Of course, this depends entirely on the instructor as well -- Gary Lam, for example, also has a Tai Chi background, and tends to have a softer and more varied approach.

I frequently questioned my instructor on why we do things as we do in our forms. I also frequently look at forms of other lineages, and listen to lectures given on them by Ip Ching, Wong Shun Leung, Tsui Shong Tin, Moy Yat, and the like. This is because I want a deep and broad understanding of the forms -- I don't just want one interpretation of them, because I believe that everyone's understanding is a little bit incomplete. Even among Ip Man's original students, each one carried away a bit of a different understanding, and each one missed out on certain knowledge -- things that they just picked up, but never really questioned or examined until later in life. And each one refined their Wing Chun, or innovated, in different ways, and with different approaches. There's almost always an angle to it, though -- no matter how good, individuals tend to emphasize certain things that "suit them" more than others, and this leads in a wide variety of approaches in Wing Chun. This does, however, mean that every teacher's WC tends to be a bit slanted, and a bit "incomplete." It's almost as if each teacher, and each lineage, has certain pieces of the puzzle that some others miss; yet they themselves also miss some pieces. That's why I seek a broader understanding. And, it's also why I think that forms are not always correct: a lot of teachers change their forms to suit their limited interpretation of a movement or concept. As we know, concepts in Wing Chun can be broadly applied, and sometimes, people take too specific an interpretation on something, and change it to suit that specific context without considering the whole picture. And sometimes, they never understood it, or just misinterpreted it from the get-go. Even the most experienced of us have some holes in our knowledge -- some things we just "picked up" but never fully understood.

So, I'll continue to be very discerning of forms. Being discerning, or even critical, doesn't mean that you can't keep an open mind, though. I just tend to keep my doubts until given a suitable explanation. But to be honest, most of the time I question someone on a wonky movement in a wonky form, I get a wonky answer that seems to miss the point and/or overlook the big picture.


----------



## LFJ (Oct 19, 2014)

Argus said:


> If you watch their forms, you can discern their take on Wing Chun.



I would not be so presumptuous! Not everyone's approach is so application oriented, like Chong's video here where it's all direct application, although many are indeed. 

WSL's forms, and especially the SNT, are entirely abstract. Nothing in his SNT is even functional without CK. What could one possibly discern about his take on Ving Tsun from watching his forms without prior knowledge? Absolutely nothing.


----------



## Vajramusti (Oct 19, 2014)

Actually a lot.


----------



## LFJ (Oct 19, 2014)

Vajramusti said:


> Actually a lot.



An example? Without knowledge of the abstract, one will look at each action he performs and interpret it either literally or in another way incorrectly.

The last three actions before the final punches, Chong shows them as a wrist grab escape. It has nothing to do with that in WSL's approach. I've seen a certain well-known student of his offer three alternative interpretations and not a single one of them hit on the abstract and primary function. So I wonder what one outside of the lineage could discern by merely viewing the form...


----------



## Vajramusti (Oct 19, 2014)

I was not commenting on Chong. I don't follow WSL though I have met him and briefly done chi sao with him twice.
WSL's slt tells me a lot about his structure which showed up in chi sao. No sense in arguing perception.


----------



## LFJ (Oct 19, 2014)

Well, sure, SNT introduces basic structure. That's common to all lineages. But the statement was made that one can discern various masters' "take on Wing Chun" by viewing their forms. That's a much broader statement than just an obvious observation of structure. WSL's forms are entirely abstract, so I don't see how one can discern his take on Ving Tsun by viewing his forms.


----------



## Vajramusti (Oct 19, 2014)

Its ok to have different views and we do have different views.
I see lots of differences in "basic" structure among lineages.
Out of respect for Ip Man's best students, I will not compare them here.


----------



## LFJ (Oct 19, 2014)

Maybe I'm reading too much into this "take on Wing Chun". To me, that seems to mean their overall method; their strategy and tactics for free fighting. I don't think one can discern such things from viewing the forms and even _chi-sau _in the WSLVT lineage, since the forms are abstract and the _chi-sau_ redundant in free fighting. Other lineages' forms contain literal applications and their _chi-sau_ is a fighting method using sticking concepts.


----------



## KPM (Oct 19, 2014)

Wow LFJ!  5 posts in this forum and you've already found something to argue about!   Welcome......I think???


----------



## Vajramusti (Oct 19, 2014)

So it goes!


----------



## LFJ (Oct 19, 2014)

I'm just taking part in the discussion on this discussion forum, not "arguing". Read something that jumped out to me and decided to comment. Do we all just agree to agree with each other over here? I admit I haven't read the forum rules.


----------



## Argus (Oct 19, 2014)

LFJ said:


> Maybe I'm reading too much into this "take on Wing Chun". To me, that seems to mean their overall method; their strategy and tactics for free fighting. I don't think one can discern such things from viewing the forms and even _chi-sau _in the WSLVT lineage, since the forms are abstract and the _chi-sau_ redundant in free fighting. Other lineages' forms contain literal applications and their _chi-sau_ is a fighting method using sticking concepts.



For someone who is ignorant of Wing Chun in the first place, sure. But as a Wing Chun practitioner, there's a lot that can be discerned from someone's forms and chisau. You get a sense of that person's "values," for lack of a better word. The concepts and principles practiced in forms and chisau, be they abstract or not, relate the practitioner's values and philosophy. If they don't, you'd better reevaluate your training.

Of course SLT and CK are abstract. But they tell us a lot about a practitioner. When I look at WSL's forms, I see Wing Chun's concepts being adhered to more closely than perhaps any other lineage. There's a lot of information, both specific, and conceptual contained within the forms, and WSL's interpretations and refinements are very pragmatic and adherent to the system.

In my opinion, WSL's strength was focusing on those "abstract" principles, and actually ingraining and applying them in a pragmatic and uncompromising manner. His refinements to the forms reflect that perfectly.

As for Chisau... Sure, chisau isn't fighting. Again, it's abstract. But just by looking at someone's chisau, you can get a sense of someone's values and skills. A lot of people like to chase hands, for example. Others like to train lots of complicated sequences for chisau. WSL practitioners tend to do neither; they're very direct, very simple, very efficient, and apply the principle of lat-sau-jik-chung very well. You can see this clear as day in their chisau, and I'd say it says a lot about their take on Wing Chun.


----------



## Kwan Sau (Oct 19, 2014)

LFJ said:


> WSL's forms are entirely abstract


 
Care to share an example so we can discuss/compare/contrast?


----------



## Argus (Oct 19, 2014)

Kwan Sau said:


> Care to share an example so we can discuss/compare/contrast?



They're no more abstract than any other lineage. I don't really get LFJ's point here.










I've also seen David Peterson's seminars on the forms, which go very indepth. By and large, WSL's interpretation of the forms is not so different from most other Ip Man lineages. He does have a deeper and broader understanding of the forms where many of his contemporaries sometimes take a more superficial interpretation, and he did add his own refinements from place to place, but they serve the same purpose and are understood in more or less the same way as most other lineages -- or, at least mine, anyway.


----------



## Kwan Sau (Oct 19, 2014)

Argus said:


> They're no more abstract than any other lineage. I don't really get LFJ's point here..



I hear ya, but was hoping lfj might care to offer an example for discussion sake. 
For example, I'm sure wsl has a punch in his forms...what is lfj's take on the abstract-ness of a punch?


----------



## Marnetmar (Oct 19, 2014)

I'm confused as to what you guys mean by abstract. Abstract as in more of of a "principles of movement that have multiple applications in different scenarios" rather than a simple "this is a block, this is a punch, etc that only works if opponent, by some divine luck, does X" approach?

Because in that case I don't really see why you would _not_ teach WC forms in an abstract manner.


----------



## KPM (Oct 19, 2014)

Kwan Sau said:


> I hear ya, but was hoping lfj might care to offer an example for discussion sake.
> For example, I'm sure wsl has a punch in his forms...what is lfj's take on the abstract-ness of a punch?



Just ask him what he thinks about "applications"!  ;-)   Just kiddin ya LFJ!


----------



## Argus (Oct 19, 2014)

Marnetmar said:


> I'm confused as to what you guys mean by abstract. Abstract as in more of of a "principles of movement that have multiple applications in different scenarios" rather than a simple "this is a block, this is a punch, etc that only works if opponent, by some divine luck, does X" approach?
> 
> Because in that case I don't really see why you would _not_ teach WC forms in an abstract manner.



Exactly my point...


----------



## Vajramusti (Oct 19, 2014)

I did not use the term "abstract" as a label for movements in forms. Even though I have seen many of LFJ's posts, I really don't know him 
and I don't recall seeing his name, name of his sifu and a sense of the depth and duration of his training though he has assertively argued a lot elsewhere. Abstract was his term.

As someone (kwan sao?) suggested there is nothing "abstract" about the basic wing chun punch  in the sil lim tao. It is the fundamental punch for 
DEVELOPMENT purposes. All other types of wing chun punches are derived from the mother punches  and varies in their paths to targets and the 
distance to be travelled. The motions in the forms provide the foundations from which multiple motions and  "APPLICATIONS" are derived. Thus there is wing chun uppercut  suggested by the chum kiu section after the  bong/followed  by the two handed rolling motion- turns into a punch.
Nothing abstract in any of this. Conceptual- yes. Abstract-no-me thinks.


----------



## Marnetmar (Oct 19, 2014)

Ah okay, so we're on the same page after all; it's just that what I define as abstract is what you define as conceptual, and what you define as abstract is what I define as avant-garde!


----------



## LFJ (Oct 20, 2014)

Saying such and such is a principle of movement and has several applications is still dealing in 1:1 applications, just several instead of one. Abstract is merely an idea, not a physical existence taken literally into fighting. WSL's forms are abstract.

You will see footage of WSL teaching more mainstream ideas to give people a basic picture. It's very difficult to teach in a couple hours to people of various backgrounds things which need to be trained and reinforced over a long period of time. For that same reason, some of his now internationally "famous" students also only received this kind of thinking, because they were seminar attendees and/or irregular visitors to his school. He taught them simple ideas to take back in their practice. They also came with previous knowledge and didn't have the time to rebuild their understanding of the system properly. 

In the DVDs previously mentioned it's all application-based and is not the correct thinking. In that DVD on SNT, three alternative interpretations are given for the last three actions before the final punches, all literal, sometimes ambiguous and make very little sense as an explanation of the action, and not a single one of them touch upon the abstract. The action really has to do with the elbows, _man-sau_ and _wu-sau_, and x-ing lines.

WSL was once teaching a seminar showing these kinds of application ideas at another famous master's school. His seminar assistant said this is not what you teach me. WSL said he couldn't embarrass his friend, but later came back and told the assistant that he could teach it. The assistant began sharing the abstract thinking with the students, and the next day a group of them came and asked WSL and him to teach them.


----------



## LFJ (Oct 20, 2014)

Another example of the abstract would be the whole _taan_, _wu_, _fuk_ section. Both _taan-sau_ and _fuk-sau_ are only training tools used to develop the punch, rather than literal shapes taken into fighting. Beyond _chi-sau_ training they become redundant, and _wu-sau_ in SNT is only on the center and retracting in order to train another _fuk-sau_. Other lineages will use these shapes for various application purposes in fighting, and while WSL has shown similar ideas on video, these are not the primary functions. One can't understand the system by watching a few application ideas on video.


----------



## Kwan Sau (Oct 20, 2014)

Vajramusti said:


> As someone (kwan sao?) suggested there is nothing "abstract" about the basic wing chun punch  in the sil lim tao. It is the fundamental punch for DEVELOPMENT purposes. All other types of wing chun punches are derived from the mother punches  and varies in their paths to targets and the distance to be travelled. *The motions in the forms provide the foundations* from which multiple motions and  "APPLICATIONS" are derived.



Well said Vajramusti!


----------



## KPM (Oct 20, 2014)

LFJ said:


> Another example of the abstract would be the whole _taan_, _wu_, _fuk_ section. Both _taan-sau_ and _fuk-sau_ are only training tools used to develop the punch, rather than literal shapes taken into fighting. .



I've always followed and understood your input up to a certain point LFJ.  But its around here that things just get weird.  Because it sounds like you are saying a Tan Sau or Wu Sau would never show up or be used in a real encounter, which just seems odd.


----------



## LFJ (Oct 20, 2014)

KPM said:


> I've always followed and understood your input up to a certain point LFJ.  But its around here that things just get weird.  Because it sounds like you are saying a Tan Sau or Wu Sau would never show up or be used in a real encounter, which just seems odd.



_Taan-sau_ no, because it's just a training tool. In reality, its concept is used as a punch which mindlessly clears the line for the next attack as it strikes. _Wu-sau_ is important in fighting as the next hitting position, but not as it appears in SNT. The idea is to be able to sustain continued attacking while mindlessly clearing obstructions, so one doesn't have to think where to go with what hand, causing hesitation and inevitable danger.


----------



## yak sao (Oct 20, 2014)

LFJ said:


> _Taan-sau_ no, because it's just a training tool. In reality, its concept is used as a punch which mindlessly clears the line for the next attack as it strikes. _Wu-sau_ is important in fighting as the next hitting position, but not as it appears in SNT. The idea is to be able to sustain continued attacking while mindlessly clearing obstructions, so one doesn't have to think where to go with what hand, causing hesitation and inevitable danger.



This is the way I was taught. Tan, bong, wu etc. do not really exist as entities. They are momentary disruptions/deformations of an attack.
We train these structures in our forms not for application but to teach our limbs muscle memory and to teach us to relax in these positions so that they are allowed to form as various forces are placed on the arms. In the forms, these structures are performed with an open hand to promote relaxation. In application, they can just as easily, in fact, possibly are most likely to be fists.  
Other parts of the forms are there to develop other aspects: fook sau to develop elbow force, huen sau  to develop flexibility and strength in the wrist to reinforce our punches, and so on.


----------



## LFJ (Oct 20, 2014)

yak sao said:


> This is the way I was taught. Tan, bong, wu etc. do not really exist as entities. They are momentary disruptions/deformations of an attack.



In WSLVT, _bong-sau_ and _wu-sau_ are used in fighting. They are just not functional the way they are performed in SNT.

_Bong-sau_ doesn't require contact to be done as a response to force placed on the arm to stick and redirect while shifting, as in other lineages. If our attacking arm is covered from above, even without contact, _bong-sau_ can be used like a _paak-sau_ with the elbow to displace the opponent's limb and clear the line for the _wu-sau_ hand to hit. This way the opponent is turned while we remain facing, rather than shifting and turning ourselves. We only shift to face our target. 

This ability is what is first developed in _daan-chi-sau_ training, rather than sticking, feeling, and redirecting energy, since at real speed there will be no time for such things. The way some lineages perform _bong-sau_ though makes this impossible as it is done more passively. They then often have to shift and _laap_ the arm out of the way before they can hit again. Too slow and indirect.


----------



## yak sao (Oct 20, 2014)

LFJ said:


> _Bong-sau_ doesn't require contact to be done as a response to force placed on the arm to stick and redirect while shifting, as in other lineages. If our attacking arm is covered from above, even without contact, _bong-sau_ can be used like a _paak-sau_ with the elbow to displace the opponent's limb and clear the line for the _wu-sau_ hand to hit.



This is what we refer to as biu bong. While we do use bong sau as I described above, it is also used as a way to clear the opponent off the center.


----------



## yak sao (Oct 20, 2014)

LFJ said:


> The way some lineages perform _bong-sau_ though makes this impossible as it is done more passively. They then often have to shift and _laap_ the arm out of the way before they can hit again. Too slow and indirect.



We understand the "wing arm " portion of bong sau to be half of the movement. When the arm is pressed it bends to form what is commonly thought of as bong sau. But the complete motion is the springing out into a fak sau as the arm is released.

Think of a tree branch being pushed out of the way and then released...this is bong sau.


----------



## Argus (Oct 20, 2014)

LFJ said:


> Saying such and such is a principle of movement and has several applications is still dealing in 1:1 applications, just several instead of one. Abstract is merely an idea, not a physical existence taken literally into fighting. WSL's forms are abstract.
> 
> You will see footage of WSL teaching more mainstream ideas to give people a basic picture. It's very difficult to teach in a couple hours to people of various backgrounds things which need to be trained and reinforced over a long period of time. For that same reason, some of his now internationally "famous" students also only received this kind of thinking, because they were seminar attendees and/or irregular visitors to his school. He taught them simple ideas to take back in their practice. They also came with previous knowledge and didn't have the time to rebuild their understanding of the system properly.
> 
> ...



I get really skeptical when someone starts talking about secret knowledge only passed down to a few students.

That skepticism turns into down right disbelief when applied to someone like WSL, who was famously straight forward and forthcoming with his knowledge, and disdained that sort of thing.

4:10
[video=youtube_share;1r5eISF-hwY]http://youtu.be/1r5eISF-hwY?t=4m11s[/video]
4:00





Now, I guess you can claim that David and others didn't learn the real deal, and that someone else has the "secrets," but if that's the kind of claims your instructor is making, I'd be skeptical of his claims before anyone else's.


----------



## LFJ (Oct 20, 2014)

yak sao said:


> This is what we refer to as biu bong. While we do use bong sau as I described above, it is also used as a way to clear the opponent off the center.



Is there any place your _biu-bong_ can be seen online? I looked but couldn't find any video. I think it's a far more realistic expression of _bong-sau_.


----------



## KPM (Oct 20, 2014)

LFJ said:


> _Bong-sau_ doesn't require contact to be done as a response to force placed on the arm to stick and redirect while shifting, as in other lineages. If our attacking arm is covered from above, even without contact, _bong-sau_ can be used like a _paak-sau_ with the elbow to displace the opponent's limb and clear the line for the _wu-sau_ hand to hit. This way the opponent is turned while we remain facing, rather than shifting and turning ourselves..



In Pin Sun we have a "Got Bong" or "cutting Bong" that can be used in this way.   For you guys that actually watched my video series, this is also very similar in idea to the old school boxing "elbow roll."


----------



## KPM (Oct 20, 2014)

*Now, I guess you can claim that David and others didn't learn the real deal, and that someone else has the "secrets,"

*Several in the PB lineage have said exactly this!  But I don't recall LFJ ever saying this.


----------



## yak sao (Oct 20, 2014)

LFJ said:


> Is there any place your _biu-bong_ can be seen online? I looked but couldn't find any video. I think it's a far more realistic expression of _bong-sau_.



Nothing that I'm aware of...I don't watch a lot of youtube. The biu bong is found in Chum Kiu after the first kick where you are stepping with bong-wu. It is also found throughout the wooden dummy form.


----------



## LFJ (Oct 20, 2014)

Argus said:


> I get really skeptical when someone starts talking about secret knowledge only passed down to a few students.



That was not the claim at all. Nothing secret about it. Simply that it's something that needs to be developed and reinforced over a long period of time through specific training methods, and WSL had many visiting students who simply didn't have the time with him to rework their entire understanding of the system. Simple as that.

All of his regular longterm students share this similar thinking. Seminar attendees and irregular visitors are different. They have fast track application ideas. Nothing against DP, he comes off kind and humble and a fine instructor, but he's always saying "my sifu, my sifu" but then he's all application-based. I have not seen him teaching or demonstrating the primary ideas other longterm students share. There is so much missing from his explanation on the forms.


----------



## LFJ (Oct 20, 2014)

yak sao said:


> Nothing that I'm aware of...I don't watch a lot of youtube. The biu bong is found in Chum Kiu after the first kick where you are stepping with bong-wu. It is also found throughout the wooden dummy form.



Okay, that section is called _paau-bong_ (throwing _bong_), but it is not different from the other sections. There is only one _bong-sao_ concept as an elbow rotation. In the 2nd CK section it is coupled with _wu-sau_ to form _kwan-sau_, which is the _bong_ and punch together, although not completed. It is trained this way for simultaneity of the step, elbow, and punch to improve speed, timing, and full body power.


----------



## LFJ (Oct 20, 2014)

@Argus

To illustrate my point, at this section of CK we're discussing, DP says it represents having your hands down when suddenly attacked and that your elbow has a shorter distance to travel than your hand and is more likely to save you. Fine idea if you're lucky, but this is the only interpretation he gives and he also says in reality it will be done stepping backward or laterally, but it is done stepping forward in the form to train you on the idea of always advancing. That seems quite odd to practice such a technique with the wrong footwork, don't you think? It's not a satisfactory explanation and leaves you desiring. Turns out there is a more abstract idea behind it. It is the same case with almost every movement of the forms he shows.


----------



## Argus (Oct 20, 2014)

LFJ said:


> @Argus
> 
> To illustrate my point, at this section of CK we're discussing, DP says it represents having your hands down when suddenly attacked and that your elbow has a shorter distance to travel than your hand and is more likely to save you. Fine idea if you're lucky, but this is the only interpretation he gives and he also says in reality it will be done stepping backward or laterally, but it is done stepping forward in the form to train you on the idea of always advancing. That seems quite odd to practice such a technique with the wrong footwork, don't you think? It's not a satisfactory explanation and leaves you desiring. Turns out there is a more abstract idea behind it. It is the same case with almost every movement of the forms he shows.



It makes sense to me, but what is your more abstract explanation of paau bong?


----------



## geezer (Oct 20, 2014)

So _LFJ,_ can you elaborate about that "abstract idea"?


Otherwise, regarding bong sau, in our lineage we generally use it in response to opposing force. Contact with heavy force bends our arm into bong, as Yak described, much like a flexible piece of rattan or bamboo.

This is an example of what my old sifu called "objective" versus "subjective" technique. "subjective" technique requires no contact with the opponent's limbs to initiate. you perceive an opening or a threat and you move of your own accord to respond. Since the response is initiated by you, "the subject" it's "subjective".


An "objective" reponse is one that occurs in response to an outside or objective force. In our WC we seek to be as "objective" as possible so that ideally our opponent's energies directly initiate our responses. His punch literally creates our tan or bong by bending and pushing our arms into that position. Such an objective response is desirable for several reasons: 

First, it uses the opponent's energy and doesn't crash force. Borrowing the force this way conserves energy and makes it possible to effectively handle powerful opponents.  

Second, as the opponent initiates our response by physically pushing or bending our arm into position, the response is very fast. Since our response occurs as a result of a direct mechanical linkage, there is no "reaction time" lag while your nervous system processes stimuli received.  

Finally, if you are responding "objectively" to the energy that you receive rather than to visual cues, you are not succeptible to visual fakes.

Now all _this_ may sound a bit abstract, but it is just our understanding of: 'Loi lau hoi sung, lat sau jik chung."


----------



## LFJ (Oct 21, 2014)

Argus said:


> It makes sense to me, but what is your more abstract explanation of paau bong?



It makes sense to you to practice a technique with wrong footwork 1k times in training which would make it dangerous if you reacted this way in reality? Not to me! Deliberately training wrong footwork is a "wonky" idea, to borrow your term from earlier.

The action, as I explained, is not an application. It's an incomplete action done to train the simultaneity of the step, elbow rotation, and the punch to develop speed, timing, and full body power. It also trains _bong_ and the punch to always be a couple and includes tactical ideas of _wu _placement and _taan_-concept punching. 

None of these ideas are taught by DP. He only had training time to receive fast track application ideas, as evidenced by what he teaches. As he said in that clip you posted, WSL didn't keep secrets but taught individuals based on what he thought they could absorb at the time. Someone who steps into his school for 5 mins once a year is not going to be able to absorb abstract training methods for fighting strategy and tactics which need constant development and refinement throughout the system. It's not just a "when they do that, you do this" sort of thing. WSL's early and longterm students didn't teach that way either. But visiting students needed something to take home. Some of the ideas may not be "wrong", but they are at best secondary or even last line of defense options.


----------



## LFJ (Oct 21, 2014)

@geezer

Yip Man is quoted as saying something along the lines of it being the opponent who shows you how to hit them. I don't understand this in a passive way though. Fakes and such are not a problem because we fight the person and not the arms. The type of attacking we use makes it possible to unthinkingly clear obstructions as we strike and recycle, should there be obstructions, affect the opponent's facing and disrupt their balance so that we fight their flanks and take away their ability to counter effectively. As they react to reface or defend, it "shows us how to hit them". The idea is to sustain an unbroken cycle of attack striking and clearing the way for the next strike simultaneously. We don't have passive/defensive reactions but we also don't meet force with force.


----------



## geezer (Oct 21, 2014)

LFJ said:


> @geezer
> 
> Yip Man is quoted as saying something along the lines of it being the opponent who shows you how to hit them. I don't understand this in a passive way though. Fakes and such are not a problem because we fight the person and not the arms. The type of attacking we use makes it possible to unthinkingly clear obstructions as we strike and recycle, should there be obstructions, affect the opponent's facing and disrupt their balance so that we fight their flanks and take away their ability to counter effectively. As they react to reface or defend, it "shows us how to hit them". The idea is to sustain an unbroken cycle of attack striking and clearing the way for the next strike simultaneously. We don't have passive/defensive reactions but we also don't meet force with force.



Nice. I find this a pretty good description of quality WC across lineages. In my example of the yielding bong-sau, the WC practitioner maintains not only forward pressure, but a strong forward intent and offensive mind set. A spring will only bend if there is forward pressure.


----------

